========================================================================
  TRACTS
  by John H. Newman
========================================================================

Newman's Tracts for the Times, the influential series of theological papers from
the Oxford Movement presenting principles regarding church constitution,
ministry, sacraments, and the recovery of catholic theology within Anglicanism.

  Chapters: 54

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 000 - Advertisement
    2. 0000 - Introduction
    3. 01 - THOUGHTS ON THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION
    4. 02 - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
    5. 03 - THOUGHTS RESPECTFULL ADDRESSED TO THE CLERGY
    6. 04 - ADHERENCE TO THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE SAFEST COURSE.
    7. 05 - A Short Address to His Brethren on the Nature and Constitution of the Church of Christ
    8. 06 - THE PRESENT OBLIGATION OF PRIMITIVE PRACTICE.
    9. 07 - THE EPISCOPAL CHUCH APOSTOLICAL.
   10. 08 - THE GOSPEL A LAW OF LIBERTY.
   11. 09 - ON SHORTENING THE CHURCH SERVICE.
   12. 10 - HEADS OF A WEEK-DAY LECTURE,
   13. 11 - THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
   14. 12 - RICHARD NELSON.
   15. 13 - THE PRINCIPLE OF SELECTION.
   16. 14 - THE EMBER DAYS.
   17. 15 - ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH.
   18. 16 - ADVENT.
   19. 17 - THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION.
   20. 18 - THOUGHTS ON THE BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM OF FASTING, ENJOINED BY OUR CHURCH.
   21. 19 - ON ARGUING CONCERNING THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
   22. 20 - THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
   23. 21 - MORTIFICATION OF THE FLESH A SCRIPTURE DUTY.
   24. 22 - RICHARD NELSON.
   25. 23 - THE FAITH AND OBEDIENCE OF CHURCHMEN, THE STRENGTH OF THE CHURCH.
   26. 24 - THE SCRIPTURE VIEW OF THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION.
   27. 25 - THE GREAT NECESSITY AND ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC PRAYER.
   28. 26 - THE NECESSITY AND ADVANTAGE OF FREQUENT COMMUNION.
   29. 27 - THE HISTORY OF POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION;
   30. 28 - THE HISTORY OF POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION; CONT
   31. 29 - CHRISTIAN LIBERTY; OR, WHY SHOULD WE BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?
   32. 30 - CHRISTIAN LIBERTY; OR, WHY SHOULD WE BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND? CONT
   33. 31 - THE REFORMED CHURCH.
   34. 32 - THE STANDING ORDINANCES OF RELIGION.
   35. 33 - PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY.
   36. 34 - RITES AND CUSTOMS OF THE CHURCH.
   37. 35 - THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST IN THEIR MINISTER'S COMMISSION.
   38. 36 - ACCOUNT OF RELIGIOUS SECTS AT PRESENT EXISTING IN ENGLAND.
   39. 37 - BISHOP WILSON'S FORM OF EXCOMMUNICATION.
   40. 38 - VIA MEDIA.
   41. 39 - BISHOP WILSON'S FORM OF RECEIVING PENITENTS.
   42. 40 - RICHARD NELSON.  BAPTISM
   43. 43 - RICHARD NELSON. LENGTH OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
   44. 44 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
   45. 45 - THE GROUNDS OF OUR FAITH.
   46. 46 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
   47. 48 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEIDTATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
   48. 49 - THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
   49. 50 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
   50. 51 - ON DISSENT WITHOUT REASON IN CONSCIENCE.
   51. 52 - SERMONS FOR SAINTS' DAYS AND HOLIDAYS.
   52. 53 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
   53. 54 - SERMONS FOR SAINTS' DAYS AND HOLIDAYS.
   54. 55 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 000 - ADVERTISEMENT
========================================================================

Tracts for the Times

ADVERTISEMENT by John Henry Newman

THE following Tracts were published with the object of contributing something
towards the practical revival of doctrines, which, although held by the great
divines of our Church, at present have become obsolete with the majority of her
members, and are withdrawn from public view even by the more learned and
orthodox few who still adhere to them. The Apostolic succession, the Holy
Catholic Church, were principles of action in the minds of our predecessors of
the 17th century; but, in proportion as the maintenance of the Church has been
secured by law, her ministers have been under the temptation of leaning on an
arm of flesh instead of her own divinely-provided discipline, a temptation
increased by political events and arrangements which need not here be more than
alluded to. A lamentable increase of sectarianism has followed; being occasioned
(in addition to other more obvious causes,) first, by the cold aspect which the
new Church doctrines have presented to the religious sensibilities of the mind,
next to their meagreness in suggesting motives to restrain it from seeking out a
more influential discipline. Doubtless obedience to the law of the land, and the
careful maintenance of "decency and order," (the topics in usage among us,) are
plain duties of the Gospel, and a reasonable ground for keeping in communion
with the Established Church; yet, if Providence has graciously provided for our
weakness more interesting and constraining motives, it is a sin thanklessly to
neglect them; just as it would be a mistake to rest the duties of temperance or
justice on the mere law of natural religion, when they are mercifully sanctioned
in the Gospel by the more winning authority of our Saviour Christ. Experience
has shown the inefficacy of the mere injunctions of Church order, however
scripturally enforced, in restraining from schism the awakened and anxious
sinner; who goes to a dissenting preacher "because (as he expresses it) he gets
good from him:" and though he does not stand excused in God’s sight for yielding
to the temptation, surely the Ministers of the Church are not blameless if, by
keeping back the more gracious and consoling truths provided for the little ones
of Christ, they indirectly lead him into it. Had he been taught as a child, that
the Sacraments, not preaching, are the sources of Divine Grace; that the
Apostolical ministry had a virtue in it which went out over the whole Church,
when sought by the prayer of faith; that fellowship with it was a gift and
privilege, as well as a duty, we could not have had so many wanderers from our
fold, nor so many cold hearts within it. This instance may suggest many others
of the superior influence of an apostolical over a mere secular method of
teaching. The awakened mind knows its wants, but cannot provide for them; and in
its hunger will feed upon ashes, if it cannot obtain the pure milk of the word.
Methodism and Popery are in different ways the refuge of those whom the Church
stints of the gifts of grace; they are the foster-mothers of abandoned children.
The neglect of the daily service, the desecration of festivals, the Eucharist
scantily administered, insubordination permitted in all ranks of the Church,
orders and offices imperfectly developed, the want of Societies for particular
religious objects, and the like deficiencies, lead the feverish mind, desirous
of a vent to its feelings, and a stricter rule of life, to the smaller religious
Communities, to prayer and bible meetings, and ill-advised institutions and
societies, on the one hand,—on the other, to the solemn and captivating services
by which Popery gains its proselytes. Moreover, the multitude of men cannot
teach or guide themselves; and an injunction given them to depend on their
private judgment, cruel in itself, is doubly hurtful, as throwing them on such
teachers as speak daringly and promise largely, and not only aid but supersede
individual exertion.

These remarks may serve as a clue, for those who care to pursue it, to the views
which have led to the publication of the following Tracts. The Church of Christ
was intended to cope with human nature in all its forms, and surely the gifts
vouchsafed it are adequate for that gracious purpose. There are zealous sons and
servants of her English branch, who see with sorrow that she is defrauded of her
full usefulness by particular theories and principles of the present age, which
interfere with the execution of one portion of her commission; and while they
consider that the revival of this portion of truth is especially adapted to
break up existing parties in the Church, and to form instead a bond of union
among all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, they believe that nothing
but these neglected doctrines, faithfully preached, will repress that extension
of Popery, for which the ever multiplying divisions of the religious world are
too clearly preparing the way.

OXFORD, The Feast of All Saints, 1834.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 0000 - INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

Introduction to the American Editions of theTracts for the Times (New-York:
Charles Henry, Publishers. 1839-40).

AMONG the "Tracts for the Times," there are several pieces which perhaps, in the
opinion of some, might as well have been left out in this republication—either
as relating exclusively to the condition of the Established Church of England,
or as not possessing any special intrinsic importance. These pieces are,
however, so few in comparison with the whole, that their admission will not
affect the price of this edition; and it has been thought that the majority of
readers would be better pleased to have a complete collection of writings which,
taken in themselves and in the influence they are exerting, are certainly to be
ranked among the most remarkable publications of the age. It has therefore been
determined to make this edition an exact reprint of the whole series. The
present republication will also include the "Plain Sermons by Contributors to
the Tracts for the Times," together with such other writings connected with the
Oxford Theology as in the judgment of the Editor are of the greatest interest
and value. The Editor wishes it to be distinctly understood that these latter
works will consist ofentire treatisesprecisely as they have been published by
their respective authors. He is averse to extracts and selections generally; but
in the present case he would especially shrink from the responsibility of doing
anything which might be liable to the suspicion of presenting a partial or
unfair exhibition of the principles and views of men whose writings have
produced such a remarkable movement in the public mind, and who would ask for
nothing so earnestly as to be accurately and thoroughly comprehended on both
hands, but those who condemn and those who approve them. This republication has
been commenced from the conviction that these writings are even more important
for this country than for that in which they first appeared. For while in the
bosom of the Episcopal Church of this country, from influence derived from
thenon-juringperiod of English Church History, and from our Church have no
connection with the State, it has resulted that some of the leading doctrines of
the Oxford divines, relating to the constitution of the Church, and to the
Ministry, have been better preserved than in the English Establishment,—yet on
the other hand, from a variety of causes, loose and vague views in regard to the
value of antiquity, the authority of the Church, the doctrine of the Sacraments,
etc., are widely prevalent, it is apprehended, even in the Episcopal body, and
still more in the religious community at large; and for these evils the
corrective influence of these writings is perhaps more needful than in England.

One observation more the editor thinks it important to make. An adequate
judgment of the scope and character of the "Tracts for the Times" can scarcely
be formed but from the whole series—at least a very imperfect impression of
their value and excellence, as a whole, will be given from the earlier numbers
of the series. But the reader may be confidently assured that, as he proceeds he
will find his interest in them continuously increasing,—that questions of the
highest moment that can possibly engage a rational being are treated in a spirit
of deep and reverential piety, by men who have come to their work with minds
stored with the best fruits of solid learning and profound meditation. That the
Divine blessing may be upon the present enterprise, is the devout prayer of the
AMERICAN EDITOR.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 01 - THOUGHTS ON THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION
========================================================================

THOUGHTS ON THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION RESPECTFULLY ADDRESSED TO THE CLERGY.

[Number 1, J. H. Newman]

IAMbut one of yourselves,—a Presbyter; and therefore I conceal my name, lest I
should take too much on myself by speaking in my own person. Yet speak I must;
for the times are very evil, yet no one speaks against them. Is this not so? Do
not we "look one upon another," yet perform nothing? Do we not all confess the
peril into which the Church is come, yet sit still each in his own retirement,
as if mountains and seas cut off brother from brother? Therefore suffer me,
while I try to draw you forth from those pleasant retreats, which it has been
our blessedness hitherto to enjoy, to contemplate the condition and prospects of
our Holy Mother in a practical way; so that one and all may unlearn that idle
habit, which has grown upon us, of owning the state of things to be bad, yet
doing nothing to remedy it.

Consider a moment. Is it fair, is it dutiful, to suffer our Bishops to stand the
brunt of the battle without doing our part to support them? Upon them comes "the
care of all the Churches." This cannot be helped: indeed it is their glory. Not
one of us would wish in the least to deprive them of the duties, the toils, the
responsibilities of their high Office. And, black event as it would be fore the
country, yet, (as far as they are concerned,) we could not wish them a more
blessed termination of their course, that the spoiling of their goods, and
martyrdom. To them then we willingly and affectionately relinquish their high
privileges and honours; we encroach not upon the rights of theSUCCESSORS OF THE
APOSTLES; we touch not their sword and crosier. Yet surely we may be their
shield-bearers in the battle without offence; and by our voice and deeds be to
them what Luke and Timothy were to St. Paul.

Now then let me come at once to the subject which leads me to address you.
Should the Government and Country so far forget their GODas to cast off the
Church, to deprive it of its temporal honours and substance, on what will you
rest the claim of respect and attention which you make upon your flocks?
Hitherto you have been upheld by your birth, your education, your wealth, your
connexions; should these secular advantages cease, on what must CHRIST’S
Ministers depend? Is not this a serious practical question? We know how
miserable is the state of religious bodies not supported by the State. Look at
the Dissenters on all sides of you, and you will see at once that their
Ministers, depending simply upon the people, become the creatures of the people.
Are you content that this should be your case? Alas! can a greater evil befall
Christians, than for their teachers to be guided by them, instead of guiding?
How can we "hold fast the form of sound words," and "keep that which is
committed to our trust," if our influence is to depend simply on our popularity?
Is it not our very office to oppose the world? can we then allow ourselves to
court it? to preach smooth things and prophesy deceits? to make the way of life
easy to the rich and indolent, and to bribe the humbler classes by excitements
and strong intoxicating doctrine? Surely it must not be so;—and the question
recurs, on what are we to rest our authority, when the State deserts us?

CHRIST has not left His Church without claim of its own upon the attention of
men. Surely not. Hard Master He cannot be, to bid us oppose the world, yet give
us no credentials for so doing. There are some who rest their divine mission on
their own unsupported assertion; others, who rest it upon their popularity;
others, on their success; and others, who rest it upon their temporal
distinctions. This last case has, perhaps, been too much our own; I fear we have
neglected the real ground on which our authority is built,—OUR APOSTOLICAL
DESCENT.

We have been born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of GOD. The LORD JESUS CHRIST gave His SPIRIT to His Apostles; they
in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them; and these again on
others; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present Bishops, who
have appointed us as their assistants, and in some sense representatives.

Now every one of us believes this. I know that some will at first deny they do;
still they do believe it. Only, it is not sufficiently practically impressed on
their minds. Theydobelieve it; for it is the doctrine of the Ordination Service,
which they have recognised as truth in the most solemn season of their lives. In
order, then, not to prove, but to remind and impress, I entreat your attention
to the words used when you were made Ministers of CHRIST’SChurch. The office of
Deacon was thus committed to you: "Take thou authority to execute the office of
Deacon in the Church of GODcommitted unto thee: In the name," &c. And the
priesthood thus:

"Receive the HOLY GHOST, for the office and work of a Priest, in the Church of
GOD, now committed unto 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: In the name," &c.

These, I say, were words spoken to us, and received by us, when we were brought
nearer to GODthan at any other time of our lives. I know the grace of ordination
is contained in the laying on of hands, not in any form of words;—yet in our own
case, (as has ever been usual in the Church,) words of blessing have accompanied
the act. Thus we have confessed before GOD our belief, that through the Bishop
who ordained us, we received the HOLYGHOST, the power to bind and to loose, to
administer the Sacraments, and to preach. Nowhowis he able to give these great
gifts?Whenceis his right? Are these words idle, (which would be taking GOD’Sname
in vain,) or do they express merely a wish, (which surely is very far below
their meaning,) or do they not rather indicate that the Speaker is conveying a
gift? Surely they can mean nothing short of this. But whence, I ask, his right
to do so? Has he any right, except as having received the power from those who
consecrated him to be a Bishop? He could not give what he had never received. It
is plain then that he buttransmits; and that the Christian Ministry is
asuccession. And if we trace back the power of ordination from hand to hand, of
course we shall come to the Apostles at last. We know we do, as a plain
historical fact; and therefore all we, who have been ordained Clergy, in the
very form of our ordination acknowledged the doctrine of theAPOSTOLICAL
SUCCESSION. And for the same reason, we must necessarily consider none to
bereallyordained who have not thus been ordained. For if ordination is a divine
ordinance, it must be necessary; and if it is not a divine ordinance, how dare
we use it? Therefore all who use it, all ofus, must consider it necessary. As
well might we pretend the Sacraments are not necessary to Salvation, while we
make use of the offices of the Liturgy; for when GODappoints means of grace,
they arethemeans.

I do not see how any one can escape from this plain view of the subject, except,
(as I have already hinted,) by declaring, that the words do not mean all that
they say. But only reflect what a most unseemly time for random words is that,
in which Ministers are set apart for their office. Do we not adopt a Liturgy, in
order to hinder inconsiderate idle language, and shall we, in the most sacred of
all services, write down, subscribe, and use again and again forms of speech,
which have not been weighed, and cannot be taken strictly?

Therefore, my dear Brethren, act up to your professions. Let it not be said that
you have neglected a gift; for if you have the Spirit of the Apostles on you,
surely this is a great gift. "Stir up the gift of GOD which is in you." Make
much of it. Show your value of it. Keep it before your minds as an honourable
badge, far higher than that secular respectability, or cultivation, or polish,
or learning, or rank, which gives you a hearing with the many. Tell them of your
gift. The times will soon drive you to do this, if you mean to be still any
thing. But wait not for the times. Do not be compelled, by the world’s forsaking
you, to recur as if unwillingly to the high source of your authority. Speak out
now, before you are forced, both as glorying in your privilege, and to ensure
your rightful honour from your people. A notion has gone abroad, that they can
take away your power. They think they have given and can take it away. They
think it lies in the Church property, and they know that they have politically
the power to confiscate that property. They have been deluded into a notion that
present palpable usefulness, produceable results, acceptableness to your flocks,
that these and such like are the test of your Divine commission. Enlighten them
in this matter. Exalt our Holy Fathers, the Bishops, as the Representatives of
the Apostles, and the Angels of the Churches; and magnify your office, as being
ordained by them to take part in their Ministry.

But, if you will not adopt my view of the subject, which I offer to you, not
doubtingly, yet (I hope) respectfully, at all events, CHOOSE YOUR SIDE. To
remain neuter much longer will be itself to take a part. Choose your side; since
side you shortly must, with one or other party, even though you do nothing. Fear
to be of those, whose line is decided for them by chance circumstances, and who
may perchance find themselves with the enemies of CHRIST, while they think but
to remove themselves from worldly politics. Such abstinence is impossible in
troublous times. HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME, IS AGAINST ME, AND HE THAT GATHERETH
NOT WITH ME SCATTERETH ABROAD.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 02 - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
========================================================================

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

[Number 2, J. H. Newman]

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall
rise against thee in judgment THOU SHALT CONDEMN.

It is sometimes said, that the Clergy should abstain from politics; and that, if
a Minister of CHRIST is political, he is not a follower of him who said, "My
kingdom is not of this world." Now there is a sense in which this is true, but,
as it is commonly taken, it is very false.

It is true that the mere affairs of this world should not engage a Clergyman;
but it is absurd to say that the affairs of this world should not at all engage
his attention. If so, this world is not a preparation for another. Are we to
speak when individuals sin, and not when a nation, which is but a collection of
individuals? Must we speak to the poor, but not to the rich and powerful? In
vain does St. James warn us against having the faith of our LORD JESUS CHRIST
with respect of persons. In vain does the Prophet declare to us the word of the
LORD, that if the watchmen of Israel "speak not to warn the wicked from his
way," "his blood will be required at the watchman’s hand."

Complete our LORD’Sdeclaration concerning the nature of His kingdom, and you
will see it is not at all inconsistent with the duty of our active and zealous
interference in matters of this world. "If My kingdom were of this world," He
says, "then would My servants fight."—Here he has vouchsafed so to explain
Himself, that there is no room for misunderstanding His meaning. No one contends
that His ministers ought to use the weapons of a carnal warfare; but surely to
protest, to warn, to threaten, to excommunicate, are not such weapons. Let us
not be scared from a plain duty, by the mere force of a misapplied text. There
is an unexceptionable sense in which a clergyman may, nay, must bepolitical. And
above all, when the Nation interferes with the rights and possessions of the
Church, it can with even less grace complain of the Church interfering with the
Nation. With this introduction let me call your attention to what seems a most
dangerous infringement on our rights, on the part of the State. The Legislature
has lately taken upon itself to remodel the dioceses of Ireland; a proceeding
which involves the appointment of certain Bishops over certain Clergy, and of
certain clergy under certain Bishops, without the Church being consulted in the
matter. I do not say whether or not harm will follow from this particular act
with reference to Ireland; but consider whether it be not in itself an
interference with things spiritual. Are we content to be accounted the mere
creation of the State, as schoolmasters and teachers may be, or soldiers, or
magistrates, or other public officers? Did the State make us? can it unmake us?
can it send out missionaries? can it arrange dioceses? Surely all these are
spiritual functions; and Laymen may as well set about preaching, and
consecrating the LORD’SSupper, as assume these. I do not say the guilt is equal;
but that, if the latter is guilt, the former is. Would St. Paul, with his good
will, have suffered the Roman power to appoint Timothy, Bishop of Miletus, as
well as of Ephesus? Would Timothy at such a bidding have undertaken the charge?
Is not the notion of such an order, such an obedience, absurd? Yet has it not
been realized in what has lately happened? For in what is the English state at
present different from the Roman formerly? Neither can be accounted members of
the Church of CHRIST. No one can say the British Legislature is in our
communion, or that its members are necessarily even Christians. What pretence
then has it for not merely advising, but superseding the Ecclesiastical power?

Bear with me, while I express my fear, that we do not, as much as we ought,
consider the force of that article of our Belief, "The One Catholic and
Apostolic Church." This is a tenet so important as to have been in the Creed
from the beginning. It is mentioned there as afact, and a fact to be believed,
and therefore practical. Now what do we conceive is meant by it? As people
vaguely take it in the present day, it seems only an assertion that there is a
number of sincere Christians scattered through the world. But is not this a
truism? who doubt it? who can deny that there are people in various places who
are sincere believers? what comes of this? how is it important? why should it be
placed as an article of faith, after the belief in the HOLY GHOST? Doubtless the
only true and satisfactory meaning is that which our Divines have ever taken,
that there is on earth an existing Society, Apostolic as founded by the
Apostles, Catholic because it spreads its branches in every place; i.e. the
Church Visible with its Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. And this surely is a most
important doctrine; for what can be better news to the bulk of mankind than to
be told that CHRIST when He ascended, did not leave us orphans, but appointed
representatives of Himself to the end of time?

"The necessity of believing the Holy Catholic Church," says Bishop Pearson in
this Exposition of the Creed, "appeareth first in this, that CHRIST hath
appointed it as the only way to eternal life.... CHRIST never appointed two ways
to heaven, nor did He build a Church to save some, and make another institution
for other men’s salvation. There is none other name under heaven given among men
whereby we must be saved, but the name of JESUS; and that name is no otherwise
given under heaven than in the Church." "This is the congregation of those
persons here on earth which shall hereafter meet in heaven.... There is a
necessity of believing the Catholic Church, because except a man be of that he
can be of none. Whatsoever Church pretendeth to a new beginning, pretendeth at
the same time to a new Churchdom, and whatsoever is so new is none." This indeed
is the unanimous opinion of our divines, that, as the Sacraments, so Communion
with the Church, is "generally necessary to salvation," in the case of those who
can obtain it.

If then we express our belief in the existence of One Church on earth from
CHRIST’S coming to the end of all things, if there is a promise it shall
continue, and if it is our duty to do our part in our generation towards it
continuance, how can we with a safe conscience countenance the interference of
the Nation in its concerns? Does not such interference tend to destroy it? Would
it not destroy it, if consistently followed up? Now, may we sit still and keep
silence, when efforts are making to break up, or at least materially to weaken
that Ecclesiastical Body which we know is intended to last while the world
endures, and the safely of which is committed to our keeping in our day? How
shall we answer for it, if we transmit that Ordinance of GOD less entire than
when it came to us?

Now what am I calling on you to do? You cannot help what has been done in
Ireland; but you may protest against it. You may as a duty protest against it in
public and private; you may keep a jealous watch on the proceedings of the
Nation, lest a second act of the same kind be attempted. You may keep it before
you as a desirable object that the Irish Church should at some future day meet
in Synod and protest herself against what has been done; and then proceed to
establish or rescind the State injunction, as may be thought expedient.

I know it is too much the fashion of the times to think any earnestness for
ecclesiastical rights unseasonable and absurd, as if it were the feeling of
those who live among books and not in the world. But it is our duty to live
among books, especially to live by ONE BOOK, and a very old one; and therein we
are enjoined to "keep that good thing which is committed unto us," to "neglect
not our gift." And when men talk, as they sometime do, as if in opposing them we
were standing on technical difficulties instead of welcoming great and extensive
benefits which would be the result of their measures, I would ask the, (letting
alone the question of their beneficial nature, which is a question,) whether
this is not being wise above that is written, whether it is not doing evil that
good may come. We cannot know the effects which will follow certain alterations;
but we can decide that the means by which it is proposed to attain them are
unprecedented and disrespectful to the Church. And when men say, "the day is
past for stickling about ecclesiastical rights," let them see to it, lest they
use substantially the same arguments to maintain their position as those who
say, "The day is past for being a Christian."

Lastly, is it not plain that by showing a bold front and defending the rights of
the Church, we are taking the only course which can make us respected? Yielding
will not persuade our enemies to desist from their efforts to destroy us root
and branch. We cannot hope by giving something to keep the rest. Of this surely
we have had of late years sufficient experience. But by resisting strenuously,
and contemplating and providing against the worst, we may actually prevent the
very evils we fear. To prepare for persecution may be the best way to avert it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 03 - THOUGHTS RESPECTFULL ADDRESSED TO THE CLERGY
========================================================================

THOUGHTS RESPECTFULL ADDRESSED TO THE CLERGY ON ALTERATIONS IN THE LITURGY.

[Number 3]

ATTEMPTS are making to get the Liturgy altered. My dear Brethren, I beseech you,
consider with me, whether you ought not to resist the alteration of even one jot
or tittle of it. Though you would in your own private judgments wish to have
this or that phrase or arrangement amended, is this a time to concede one
tittle?

Why do I say this? because, though most of you would wish some immaterial points
altered, yet not many of you agree in those points, and not many of you agree
what is and what is not immaterial. If all your respective emendations are
taken, the alterations in the Services will be extensive; and though each will
gain something he wishes, he will lose more from those alterations which he did
not wish. Tell me, are the present imperfections (as they seem to each) of such
a nature, and so many, that their removal will compensate for the recasting of
much which each thinks to be no imperfection, or rather an excellence?

There are persons who wish the Marriage Service emended; there are others who
would be indignant at the changes proposed. There are some who wish the
Consecration Prayer in the Holy Sacrament to be what it was in King Edward’s
first book; there are others who think this would be an approach to Popery.
There are some who wish the imprecatory Psalms omitted; there are others who
would lament this omission as savouring of the shallow and detestable liberalism
of the day. There are some who wish the Services shortened; there are others who
think we should have far more Services, and more frequent attendance at public
worship than we have.

How few would be pleased by any given alterations; and how many pained! But once
begin altering, and there will be no reason or justice in stopping, till the
criticisms of all parties are satisfied. Thus, will not the Liturgy be in the
evil case described in the well-known story, of the picture subjected by the
artist to the observations of passers-by? And, even to speak at present of
comparatively immaterial alterations, I mean such as do not infringe upon the
doctrines of the Prayer Book, will not it even with these be a changed book, and
will not that new book be for certain an inconsistent one, the alterations being
made, not on principle, but upon chance objections urged from various quarters?
But this is not all. A taste for criticism grows upon the mind. When we begin to
examine and take to pieces, our judgment becomes perplexed, and our feelings
unsettled. I do not know whether others feel this to the same extent, but for
myself, I confess there are few parts of the Service that I could not disturb
myself about, and feel fastidious at, if I allowed my mind in this abuse of
reason. First, e.g. I might object to the opening sentences; "they are not
evangelical enough; CHRIST is not mentioned in them; they are principally from
the Old Testament." Then I should criticise the exhortation, as having too many
words, and as antiquated in style. I might find it hard to speak against the
Confession; but "the Absolution," it might be said, "is not strong enough; it is
a mere declaration, not an announcement of pardon to those who have confessed."
And so on.

Now I think this unsettling of the mind a frightful thing; both to ourselves,
and more so to our flocks. They have long regarded the Prayer Book with
reverence as the say of their faith and devotion. The weaker sort it will make
sceptical; the better it will offend and pain. Take, e.g. an alteration which
some have offered in the Creed, to omit or otherwise word the clause, "He
descended into hell." Is it no comfort for mourners to be told that CHRIST
Himself has been in that unseen state, or Paradise, which is the alloted place
of sojourn for departed spirits? Is it not very easy to explain the ambiguous
word, is it any great harm if it is misunderstood, and is it not very difficult
to find any substitute for it in harmony with the composition of the Creed? I
suspect we should find the best men in the number of those who would retain it
as it is. On the other hand, will not the unstable learn from us the habit of
criticising what they should never think of but as a divine voice supplied by
the Church for their need? But as regards ourselves, the Clergy, what will be
the effect of this temper of innovation in us? We have the power to bring about
changes in the Liturgy; shall we not exert it? Have we any security, if we once
begin, that we shall ever end? Shall not we pass from non-essentials to
essentials? And then, on looking back after the mischief is done, what excuse
shall we be able to make for ourselves for having encouraged such proceedings at
first? Were there grievous errors in the Prayer Book, something might be said
for beginning, but who can point out any? cannot we very well bear things as
they are? does any part of it seriously disquiet us? no—we have before now
freely given our testimony to its accordance with Scripture. But it may be said
that "we must conciliate an outcry which is made; that some alteration is
demanded." By whom? no one can tell who cries, or who can be conciliated. some
of the laity, I suppose. Now consider this carefully. Who are these lay persons?
Are they serious men, and are their consciences involuntarily hurt by the things
they wish altered? Are they not rather the men you meet in company, worldly men,
with little personal religion, of lax conversation and lax professed principles,
who sometimes perhaps come to Church, and then are wearied and disgusted? Is it
not so? You have been dining, perhaps, with a wealthy neighbour, or fall in with
this great Statesman, or that noble Landholder, who considers the Church two
centuries behind the world, and expresses to you wonder that its enlightened
members do nothing to improve it. And then you get ashamed, and are betrayed
into admissions which sober reason disapproves. You consider, too, that it is a
great pity so estimable or so influential a man should be disaffected to the
Church; and you go away with a vague notion that something must be done to
conciliate such persons. Is this to bear about you the solemn office of a GUIDE
and TEACHER in Israel, or to follow a lead? But consider what are the
concessions which would conciliate such men. Would immaterial alterations? Do
you really think they care one jot about the verbal or other changes which some
recommend, and others are disposed to grant? whether "the unseen state" is
substituted for "hell," "condemnation" for "damnation," or the order of Sunday
Lessons is remodelled? No;--they dislike the doctrine of the Liturgy. These men
of the world do not like the anathemas of the Athanasian Creed, and other such
peculiarities of our Services. But even were the alterations, which would please
them, small, are they the persons whom it is of use, whom it is becoming to
conciliate by going out of our way?

I need not go on to speak against doctrinal alterations, because most thinking
men are sufficiently averse to them. But, I earnestly beg you to consider
whether we must not come to them if we once begin. For by altering immaterials,
we merely raise without gratifying the desire of correcting; we excite the
craving, but withhold the food. And it should be observed, that the changes
called immaterial often contain in themselves the germ of some principle, of
which they are thus the introduction:-- e.g. If we were to leave out the
imprecatory Psalms, we certainly countenance the notion of the day, that love
and love only is in the Gospel the character of ALMIGHTY GOD and the duty of
regenerate man; whereas the Gospel, rightly understood, shows His Infinite
Holiness and Justice as well as His Infinite Love; and it enjoins on men the
duties of zeal towards Him, hatred of sin, and separation from sinners, as well
as that of kindness and charity. To the above observations it may be answered,
that changes have formerly been made in the Services without leading to the
issue I am predicting now; and therefore they may be safely made again. But,
waving all other remarks in answer to this argument, is not this enough, viz.
that there is peril? No one will deny that the rage of the day is for
concession. Have we not already granted (political) points, without stopping the
course of innovation? This is a fact. Now, is it worth while even to risk
fearful changes merely to gain petty improvements, allowing those which are
proposed to be such?

We know not what is to come upon us; but the writer for one will try so to
acquit himself now, that if any irremediable calamity befalls the Church, he may
not have to vex himself with the recollections of silence on his part and
indifference, when he might have been up and alive. There was a time when he, as
well as others, might feel the wish, or rather the temptation, of steering a
middle course between parties; but if so, a more close attention to passing
events has cured his infirmity. In a day like this there are but two sides, zeal
and persecution, the Church and the world; and those who attempt to occupy the
ground between them, at best will lose their labour, but probably will be drawn
back to the latter. Be practical, I respectfully urge you; do not attempt
impossibilities; sail not as if in pleasure boats upon a troubled sea. Not a
word falls to the ground, in a time like this. Speculations about ecclesiastical
improvements which might be innocent at other times, have a strength of mischief
now. They are realized before he who utters them understands that he has
committed himself. Be prepared then for petitioning against any alterations in
the Prayer Book which may be proposed. And, should you see that our Fathers the
Bishops seem to countenance them, petition still. Petition them. They will thank
you for such a proceeding. They do not wish these alterations; but how can they
resist them without the support of their Clergy? They consent to them, (if they
do,) partly from the notion that they are thus pleasing you. Undeceive them.
They will be rejoiced to hear that you are as unwilling to receive them as they
are. However, if after all there be persons determined to allow some
alterations, then let them quickly make up their minds *how far* they will go.
They think it easier to draw the line elsewhere, than as things now exist. Let
them point out the limit of their concessions now; and let them keep to it then;
and, (if they can do this,) I will say that, though they are not as wise as they
might have been, they are at least firm, and have at last come right. THE BURIAL
SERVICE

We hear many complaints about the Burial Service, as unsuitable for the use for
which it was intended. It expresses a hope, that the person departed, over whom
it is read, will be saved; and this is said to be dangerous when expressed about
all who are called Christians, as leading the laity to low views of the
spiritual attainments necessary for salvation; and distressing the Clergy who
have to read it.

Now I do not deny, I frankly own, it is sometimes distressing to use the
Service; but this it must ever be in the nature of things; wherever you draw the
line. Do you pretend you can discriminate the wheat from the tares? of course
not.

It is often distressing to use this Service, because it is often distressing to
think of the dead at all; not that you are without hope, but because you have
fear also.

How many are there whom you know well enough to dare to give any judgment about?
Is a Clergyman only to express a hope where he has grounds for having it? Are
not the feelings of relatives to be considered? And may there not be a
difference of judgments? I may hope more, another less. If each is to use the
precise words which suit his own judgment, then we can have no words at all. But
it may be said, "every thing of a personal nature may be left out from the
service." And do you really wish this? Is this the way in which your flock will
wish their lost friends to be treated? a cold "edification," but no affectionate
valediction to the departed? Why not pursue this course of (supposed)
improvement, and advocate the omission of the Service altogether? Are we to have
no kind and religious thoughts over the good, lest we should include the bad?
But it will be said, that, at least we ought not to read the Service over the
flagrantly wicked; over those who are a scandal to religion. but this is a very
different position. I agree with it entirely. Of course we should not do so, and
truly the Church never meant we should. She never wished we should profess our
hope of the salvation of habitual drunkards and swearers, open sinners,
blasphemers, and the like; not as daring to despair of their salvation, but
thinking it unseemly to honour their memory. Though the Church is not endowed
with a power of absolute judgment upon individuals, yet she is directed to
decide according to external indications, in order to hold up the rules of GOD’S
governance, and afford a type of it, and an assistance towards the realizing it.
As she denies to the scandalously wicked the LORD’S Supper, so does she deprive
them of her other privileges. The Church, I say, does not bid us read the
Service over open sinners. Hear her own words introducing the Service. "The
office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate,
or have laid violent hands upon themselves." There is no room to doubt whom she
meant to be excommunicated, open sinners. Those therefore who are pained at the
general use of the Service, should rather strive to restore the practice of
excommunication, than to alter the words used in the Service. Surely, if we do
not this, we are clearly defrauding the religious, for the sake of keeping close
to the wicked.

Here we see the common course of things in the world. We omit a duty. In
consequence our services become inconsistent. Instead of retracing our steps we
alter the Service. What is this but, as it were, to sin upon principle? While we
keep to our principles, our sins are inconsistencies; at length, sensitive of
the absurdity which inconsistency involves, we accommodate our professions to
our practice. This is ever the way of the world; but it should not be the way of
the Church.

I will join heart and hand with any who will struggle for a restoration of that
"godly discipline," the resotration of which our Church publicly professes she
considers desirable; but GOD forbid any one should so depart from her spirit, as
to mould her formularies to fit the case of deliberate sinners! And is not this
what we are plainly doing, if we alter the Burial Service as proposed? we are
recognizing the right of men to receive Christian Burial, about whom we do not
like to express a hope. Why should they have Christian burial at all?

It will be said that the restoration of the practice of Excommunication is
impracticable; and that therefore the other alternative must be taken, as the
only one open to us. Of course it is impossible, if no one attempts to restore
it; but if all willed it, how would it be impossible; and if no one stirs
because he thinks no one else will, he is arguing in a circle.

But, after all, what have we to do with probabilities and prospects in matters
of plain duty? Were a man the only member of the Church who felt it a duty to
return to the Ancient Discipline, yet a duty is a duty, though he be alone. It
is one of the great sins of our times to look to consequences in matters of
plain duty. Is not this such a case? If not, prove that it is not; but do not
argue from consequences. In the mean while I offer the following texts in
evidence of the duty. Matthew 18:15-17. Romans 16:17. 1 Corinthians 5:7-13. 2
Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. 2 Timothy 3:5. Tit. 10,11. 2 John
1:10-11. THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY.

Testimony of St. Clement, the associate of St. Paul, (Php 4:3) to the
Apostolical Succession. The Apostles knew, through our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that
strife would arise for the Episcopate. Wherefore having received an accurate
foreknowledge, they appointed the men I before mentioned, and have given an
orderly succession, that on their death other approved men might receive in turn
their office. Ep. i. 44.

Testimony of St. Ignatius, the friend of St. Peter, to the Episcopacy. Your
celebrated Presbytery, worthy of GOD, is closely knit to the Bishop, as the
strings to a harp, and so by means of your unanimity and concordant love JESUS
CHRIST is sung. Eph. 4. There are those who profess to acknowledge a Bishop, but
do every thing without him. Such men appear to lack a clear conscience. Magn. 4.
He for whom I am bound is my witness that I have not learned this doctrine from
mortal men. The Spirit proclaimed to me these words: "Without the Bishop do
nothing." Phil. 7. With these and other such strong passages in the Apostolical
Fathers, how can we permit ourselves in our present practical disregard of the
Episcopal Authority? Are not we apt to obey only so far as the law obliges us?
Do we support the Bishop, and strive to move all together with him as our bond
of union and head; or is not our everyday conduct as if, except with respect to
certain periodical forms and customs, we were each independent in his own
parish?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 04 - ADHERENCE TO THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE SAFEST COURSE.
========================================================================

ADHERENCE TO THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE SAFEST COURSE.

[Number 4]

WE who believe the Nicene Creed, must acknowledge it a high privilege, that we
belong to the Apostolic Church. How is it that so many of us are, almost
avowedly, so cold and indifferent in our thoughts of this privilege? Is it
because the very idea is in itself overstrained and fanciful, apt perhaps to lay
strong hold on a few ardent minds, but little in accordance with the general
feelings of mankind ? Surely not. The notion of a propagated commission is as
simple and intelligible in itself, as can well be, is acted on daily in civil
matters (the administration of trust property, for example), and has found a
most ready, sometimes an enthusiastic, acceptance, in those many nations of the
world, which have submitted, and are submitting themselves to sacerdotal castes,
elective or hereditary. " Priests self-elected, or appointed by the State," is
rather the idea which startles ordinary thinkers, not "Priests commissioned,
successively, from heaven." Or is our languor rather to be accounted for by the
want of express scriptural encouragement to the notion of a divine ministerial
commission? Nay, Scripture, at first sight, is express, whether we take the
analogy of the Old Testament, the words of our LORD, or the practice of His
Apostles. The primitive Christians read it accordingly, and cherished, with all
affectionate reverence, the privilege which they thought they found there. Why
are we so unlike them?

I fear it must be owned, that much of the evil is owing to the comparatively low
ground which we ourselves, the Ministers of GOD, have chosen to OCCUPY in
defence of our commission. For many years, we have been much in the habit of
resting our claim on the general duties of submission to authority, of decency
and order, of respecting precedents long established, instead of appealing to
that warrant which marks us, exclusively, for GOD’S AMBASSADORS. We have spoken
much in the same tone, as we might, had we been mere Laymen, acting for
ecclesiastical purposes by a commission under the Great Seal. Waving the
question, "Was this wise? Was it right, in higher respects?" I ask, was it not
obviously certain, in some degree, to damp and deaden the interest, with which
men of devout minds would naturally regard the Christian Ministry? Would not
more than half the reverential feeling, with which we look on a Church or
Cathedral, be gone, if we ceased to contemplate it as the house of GOD, and
learned to esteem it merely as a place set apart by the State for moral and
religious instruction?

It would be going too deep into history, were one now to enter on any statement
of the causes which have led, silently and insensibly, almost to the abandonment
of the high ground, which our Fathers of the Primitive Church, i. e., the
Bishops and Presbyters of the first five centuries, invariably took, in
preferring their claim to canonical obedience. For the present, it is rather
wished to urge, on plain positive considerations, the wisdom and duty of keeping
in view the simple principle on which they relied. Their principle, in short,
was this: That the Holy Feast on our SAVIOUR’S sacrifice, which all confess to
be "generally necessary to salvation," was intended by Him to be constantly
conveyed through the hands of commissioned persons. Except therefore we can show
such a warrant, we cannot be sure that our hands convey the sacrifice; we cannot
be sure that souls worthily prepared, receiving the bread which we break, and
the cup of blessing which we bless, are partakers of the Body and Blood of
CHRIST. Piety, then, and Christian Reverence, and sincere devout Love of our
Redeemer, nay, and Charity to the souls of our brethren, not good order and
expediency only, willed prompt us, at all earthly risks, to preserve and
transmit the seal and warrant of CHRIST.

If the rules of Christian conduct were founded merely on visible expediency, the
zeal with which those holy men were used to maintain the Apostolical Succession,
might appear a strange unaccountable thing. Not so, if our duties to our SAVIOUR
be like our duties to a parent or a brother, the unalterable result of certain
known relations, previous to all consideration of consequences.[1] Reflect on
this, and you will presently feel what a difference it makes in a pious mind,
whether ministerial prerogatives be traced to our LORD’S own institution, or to
mere voluntary ecclesiastical arrangement. Let two plans of Government, as far
as we can see, be equally good and expedient in themselves, yet if there be but
a fair probability of the one rather than the other proceeding from our Blessed
LORD Himself, those who love Him in sincerity will know at once which to prefer.
They will not demand that every point be made out by inevitable demonstration or
promulgated in form, like a State decree. According to the beautiful expression
of the Psalmist, they will consent to be "guided by our LORD’S eye" the
indications of His pleasure will be enough for them. They will state the matter
thus to themselves: "JESUS CHRIST’S own commission is the best external security
I can have, that in receiving this bread and wine, I verily receive His Body and
Blood. Either the Bishops have that commission, or there is no such thing in the
world. For at least Bishops have it with as much evidence, as Presbyters without
them. In proportion, then, to my Christian anxiety for keeping as near my
SAVIOUR as I can, I shall, of course, be very unwilling to separate myself from
Episcopal communion. And in proportion to my charitable care for others, will be
my industry to preserve and extend the like consolation and security to them."

Consider the analogy of an absent parent, or dear friend in another hemisphere.
Would not such an one naturally reckon it one sign of sincere attachment, if,
when he returned home, he found that in all family questions respect had been
shown especially to those in whom he was known to have had most confidence?
Would he not be pleased, when it appeared that people had not been nice for
inquiring what express words of command he had given, where they had good reason
to think that such and such a course would be approved by him? If his children
and dependents had searched diligently, where, and with whom, he had left
commissions, and having fair cause to think they had found such, had
scrupulously conformed themselves, as far as they could, to the proceedings of
those so trusted by him, would he not think this a better sign, than if they had
been dexterous in devising exceptions, in explaining away the words of trust,
and limiting the prerogatives he had conferred?

Now certainly the Gospel has many indications, that our best Friend in His
absence is likely to be well pleased by those who do their best in sincerity to
keep as near to His apostles as they can. It is studiously recorded, for
example, by the Evangelists, in the account of our LORD’S two miraculous Feasts,
that all passed through His Disciples’ hands: (His twelve Disciples; as is in
one instance plainly implied in the twelve baskets full of fragments.) I know
that minute circumstances like this, in a Parable or symbolical act, must be
reasoned on with great caution. Still, when one considers that our Blessed LORD
took occasion from this event to deliver more expressly than at any other time
the doctrine of communion with Him, it seems no unnatural conjecture, that the
details of the miracle were so ordered, as to throw light on that doctrine.

But, not to dwell on what many will question, (although on docile and
affectionate minds I cannot but think it must have its weight,) what shall we
say to the remarkable promise addressed to the Twelve at the Paschal Supper? "Ye
are they which have continued with Me in My temptation: and I appoint unto you a
Kingdom, as My FATHER hath appointed unto Me; that ye may eat and drink at My
table in My Kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Thus much nobody will hesitate to allow, concerning this Apostolical Charter:
that it bound all Christians whatever to be loyal and obedient to CHRIST’S
Apostles, at least as long as they were living. And do not the same words
equally bind us, and all believers to the world’s end, so far as the mind of the
Apostle can yet be ascertained ? Is not the spirit of the enactment such, as
renders it incumbent on every one to prefer among claimants to Church authority
those who can make out the best title to a warrant and commission from the
Apostles?

I pass over those portions of the Gospel, which are oftenest quoted in this
controversy; they will occur of themselves to all men; and it is the object of
these lines rather to exemplify the occasional indications of our LORD’S Will,
than to cite distinct and palpable enactments. On one place, however, the
passage in the Acts, which records, in honour of the first converts, that "they
continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship," one question
must be asked. Is it really credible, that the privilege so emphatically
mentioned, of being in communion with the Apostles, ceased when the last Apostle
died ? If not, who among living Christians have so fair a chance of enjoying
that privilege, as those, who, besides Purity of Doctrine, are careful to
maintain that Apostolical Succession, preserved to them hitherto by a gracious
and special Providence? I should not much fear to risk the whole controversy on
the answer which a simple unprejudiced mind would naturally make to these two
questions.

Observe, too, how often these principles, which are usually called, in scorn,
High-Churchmanship, drop as it were incidentally from the pens of the sacred
writers, professedly employed on other subjects. " How shall they preach, except
they be sent ? Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of CHRIST, and
Stewards of the mysteries of GOD." "No man taketh this honour to himself, but he
that is called of GOD, as was Aaron." I do not think it possible for any one to
read such places as these with a fair and clear mind, and not to perceive that
it is better and more scriptural to have, than to want, CHRIST’S special
commission for conveying His word to the people, and consecrating and
distributing the pledges of His holy Sacrifice, if such commission be any how
attainable, better and more scriptural, if we cannot remove all doubt, at least
to prefer that communion which can make out the best probable title, provided
always, that nothing heretical, or otherwise immoral, be inserted in the terms
of communion.

Why then should any man here in Britain, fear or hesitate boldly to assert the
authority of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, on grounds strictly
evangelical and spiritual; as bringing men nearest to CHRIST our SAVIOUR, and
confirming them most exactly to His mind, indicated both by His own conduct and
by the words of His SPIRIT in the Apostolic writings? Why should we talk so much
of an establishment, and so little of an APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION ? Why should we
not seriously endeavour to impress our people with this plain truth;-that by
separating themselves from our communion, they separate themselves not only from
a decent, orderly, useful society, but from THE ONLY CHURCH IN THIS REALM WHICH
HAS A RIGHT TO BE QUITE SURE THAT SHE HAS THE LORD’S BODY TO GIVE TO HIS PEOPLE?
Nor need any man be perplexed by the question, sure to be presently and
confidently asked, "Do you then unchurch all the Presbyterians, all Christians
who have no Bishops? Are they shut out of the Covenant, for all the fruits of
Christian piety which seem to have sprung up not scantily among them?" Nay, we
are not judging others, but deciding on our own conduct. We in England cannot
communicate with Presbyterians, as neither can we with Roman Catholics, but we
do not therefore exclude either from salvation. "Necessary to Salvation," and
"necessary to Church Communion" are not to be used as convertible terms. Neither
do we desire to pass sentence on other persons of other countries; but we are
not to shrink from our deliberate views of truth and duty, because difficulties
may be raised about the case of such persons, anymore than we should fear to
maintain the paramount necessity of Christian belief, because similar
difficulties may be raised about virtuous Heathens, Jews, or Mahometans. To us
such questions are abstract, not practical; and whether we can answer them or
no, it is our business to keep fast hold of the Church Apostolical, whereof we
are actual members, not merely on civil or ecclesiastical grounds, but from real
personal love and reverence, affectionate reverence to our LORD and only
SAVIOUR. And let men seriously bear in mind, that it is one thing to slight and
disparage this holy Succession where it may be had, and another thing to
acquiesce in the want of it, where it is (if it be any where), really
unattainable.

I readily allow, that this view of our calling has something in it too high and
mysterious to be fully understood by unlearned Christians. But the learned,
surely, are just as unequal to it. It is part of that ineffable mystery, called
in our Creed, The Communion of Saints, and with all other Christian mysteries,
is above the understanding of all alike, yet practically alike within reach of
all, who are willing to embrace it by true Faith. Experience shows, at any rate,
that it is far from being ill adapted to the minds and feeling of ordinary
people. On this point evidence might be brought from times, at first glance the
most unpromising, from the early part of the 17th century. The hold which the
propagandists of the " Holy Discipline" obtained on the fancies and affections
of the people, of whatever rank, age, and sex, depended very much on their
incessant appeals to their fancied Apostolical succession. They found persons
willing and eager to suffer or rebel, as the case might be, in their system;
because they had possessed them with the notion, that it was the system handed
down from the Apostles, " a divine Episcopate," so Beza called it. Why should we
despair of obtaining, in time, an influence, far more legitimate and less
dangerously exciting, but equally searching and extensive, by the diligent
inculcation of our true and scriptural claim ? For it is obvious that, among
other results of the primitive doctrine of the Apostolical Succession,
thoroughly considered and followed up, it would make the relation of Pastor and
Parishioner far more engaging, as well as more awful, than it is usually
considered at present. Look on your pastor as acting by man’s commission, and
you may respect the authority by which he acts, you may venerate and love his
personal character, but it can hardly be called a religious veneration; there is
nothing, properly, sacred about him. But once learn to regard him as " the
Deputy of CHRIST, for reducing man to the obedience of GOD," and everything
about him becomes changed, everything stands in a new light. In public and in
private, in church and at home, in consolation and in censure, and above all, in
the administration of the Holy Sacraments, a faithful man naturally considers, "
By this His messenger CHRIST is speaking to me; by his very being and place in
the world, he is a perpetual witness to the truths of the sacred history, a
perpetual earnest of Communion with our LORD to those who come duly prepared to
His Table." In short it must make just all the difference in every part of a
Clergyman’s duty, whether he do it, and be known to do it, in that Faith of his
commission from CHRIST, or no.

How far the analogy of the Aaronical priesthood will carry us, and to what
extent we must acknowledge the reserve imputed to the formularies of our Church
on this whole subject of the Hierarchy, and how such reserve, if real, may be
accounted for;-these are questions worthy of distinct consideration! For the
present let the whole matter be brought to this short issue. May it not be said
both to Clergy and Laity, "Put yourselves in your children’s place, in the place
of the next generation of believers. Consider in what way they will desire you
to have acted, supposing them to value aright (as you must wish them), the means
of communion with CHRIST, and as they will then wish you to have acted now, so
act in all matters affecting that inestimable privilege." ON ALTERATIONS IN THE
PRAYER-BOOK. THE 36th Canon provides that "no person shall hereafter be received
into the Ministry except he shall first subscribe" certain " three articles."
The second of these is as follows.

"That the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may
lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in the said Book
prescribed, in public prayer, and administration of the sacraments, and none
other."

NOW here is certainly a grave question to all who have subscribed this Article.
We need not of course say, it precludes them from acquiescing in any changes,
that are lawfully made in the Common Prayer, but surely it makes it most
incumbent on them to inquire carefully whether the Parties altering it have a
right to do so. E. g. should any foreign Power or Legislature, or any private
Nobleman or Statesman at home, pretend to reform the Prayer Book, of course we
should all call it an usurpation, and refuse to obey it; or rather, we should
consider the above subscription to be a religious obstacle to our obeying it. So
far is clear. The question follows: Where is the competent authority for making
alterations ? Is it not also clear, that it does not lie in the British
Legislature, which we know to be composed not only of believers, but also of
infidels, heretics, and schismatics; and which for what we know may soon cease
to be a Christian body even in formal profession? Can even a Committee of it,
ever so carefully selected, absolve us from our subscriptions? Whence do the
Laity derive their power over the Clergy? Can even the Crown absolve us? or a
commission from the Crown? If then some measure of tyranny be ever practised
against us as regards the Prayer Book, HOW ARE WE TO ACT?

OXFORD, Sept. 21, 1833.

1. Butler’s Analogy, part ii. c. 1


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 05 - A SHORT ADDRESS TO HIS BRETHREN ON THE NATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
========================================================================

A SHORT ADDRESS TO HIS BRETHREN ON THE NATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OF
CHRIST, AND OF THE BRANCH OF IT ESTABLISHED IN ENGLAND. BY A LAYMAN.

[Number 5]

I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church. NIC. CREED.

THERE are many persons who have the happiness of being members of that pure and
Apostolical branch of Christ’s holy Church, which, as it is established in this
our country, we call " the Church of England;" persons who attend with
regularity and devotion to her services, and have participated in the benefits
of her Sacraments; who may yet have no very clear idea either of the nature of
that body which we call " the Church" in general, or of the peculiar
circumstances and events which have led to the present position and constitution
of that portion of it to which we belong. To such persons it may not be
unacceptable if we present them in these pages with a short account of "the
Church;" of that institution which, previous to His return to the regions of His
heavenly glory, our Lord bequeathed to the world, to be cherished and enjoyed as
a precious legacy, until His coming again; of that body which He framed for the
reception of the first gifts of His Almighty Spirit, and for the transmission of
those precious gifts from age to age, to the end of time. Such an account will
naturally lead to a brief statement of the manner in which it has pleased
Providence to bless us, in this our own island, with a branch of that holy
institution; and thus to have established, and to continue among us, a body of
men bearing a commission direct from Himself, to admit us into His fold by the
waters of Baptism, and to nourish us in the same, not only with the pure word of
His doctrine, but with the spiritual nourishment of His most blessed Body and
Blood.

It would have been in vain that the two Sacraments had been instituted, had no
persons, no set of men, been appointed to ad minister them. You cannot suppose
that you or I, (for he who thus addresses you is a layman like yourselves, that
is, has never received the ordination of a clergyman,) you cannot, I say,
suppose that any one of us might, with no other authority than his own good
pleasure, proceed to baptize, or to administer the bread and wine in the Lord’s
Supper. Such a proceeding would, it is evident, involve the highest degree of
arrogance and impiety, and would be nothing short of a mockery of that great and
awful Being, of whose gifts these sacred ordinances are alike the appointed
means and pledges. And if, as men, simple members of Christ’s Church, we have
not this power, the next question to ask is, Who could give us this authority?
If admitted into the great Christian Congregation, if the promise, confirmed to
us in Baptism, of the assistance of Christ’s Holy Spirit, cannot give it, is it
to be supposed that any act emanating from men, from sinful creatures like
ourselves, should be of force to convey it? Clearly not; no command of an
earthly king, no ordinance of an earthly legislature, could invest us with power
over the gifts of the Holy Ghost; for such may we well term the power duly to
administer the Sacraments which Christ has ordained. No Act of Parliament,
however binding the provisions of such Acts may be with regard to the temporal
affairs of the nation, could make any one of us a Priest, or clothe us with one
jot or one tittle of power over the things of the unseen world. As little,
surely, could popular election invest us with this power from on high. Men may
express their readiness to receive the gifts of Heaven at our hands; but is it
not absurd that those who are to be the receivers from us of any boon
whatsoever, should themselves be the persons to supply us with the means of
bestowing it? It cannot be, then, that those to whom we are to administer the
sacraments should themselves confer upon us the power of their ministration. To
cut this inquiry short, He alone is evidently entitled to confer the power of
conveying, by the appointed means, the gifts of His Spirit, who Himself gave, in
the first instance, that Spirit to His Church. It is to Him that such commission
must be traced in the case of every individual who would establish his right to
this holy office.

He appointed in the first place, as is well known to every reader of the
Scriptures, the Apostles; to whom He at different periods entrusted all such
powers as were necessary to the formation and continued protection of His
Church, which they, under His Spirit, were to establish. He gave them the power
of admitting members into it: and He put into their hands that power of
expulsion from it, which it was necessary, for the well being of the society,
should be vested somewhere: assuring them, at the same time, that their decrees
in this respect should be ratified on high; that what they "bound on earth,
should be bound in heaven." To them it was that he entrusted the power of
baptizing all nations; and still more emphatically the power of celebrating the
sacred rite which commemorates His passion. They undertook the sacred trust,
preached to all, and at first baptized all converts; though, when the number of
these increased, when the Church could reckon its three thousand and its five
thousand members, and when thus, to borrow the prophetic language of Daniel, the
stone began to swell which was destined in time to become a great mountain, and
to fill the whole world, it was plainly impossible that the small band of
Apostles, employed as they were in the business of teaching the word, should
suffice themselves to baptize all who should accept their offers of salvation.
For this, among other purposes, the formation of a class of ministers, distinct
from, and subordinate to, themselves, became necessary; a class, of thc first
establishment of which we read in the 6th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
The members of this new class were called " Deacons:" they were at first only
seven in number: they were chosen, at the suggestion of the Apostles, by the
believers in general, or, in the language of the Church, by the laity; but they
were ordained to the office by the Apostles themselves, by the laying of their
hands on them, accompanied by prayer. A principal part of their office, when
they were first appointed, was the distribution of the charitable gifts of the
more wealthy believers among their poorer brethren: but that the power of
administering baptism was a part of their commission is evident from the history
of Philip the Deacon, contained in Acts 8:1-40. There were thus two classes of
guides and teachers to the Church of Christ, Apostles and Deacons; the first
bearing authority over the general flock by the direct word of Christ Himself;
the second by commission from those thus directly authorized; a commission given
by them when the Holy Spirit was most abundantly poured out upon them, and
solemnly ratified by that Holy Spirit Himself in the miraculous powers and
graces vouchsafed to Stephen and his colleagues. But as the limits of the Church
began to extend, and the believers, instead of dwelling in one body in the city
of Jerusalem, began to spread over the adjoining regions, the want was felt of
another class, to superintend the scattered divisions of Christ’s flock, to act
in some measure as the substitutes of the Apostles in their absence, and as
their deputies and subordinate officers in their presence. This class, of higher
rank in the Church than the Deacons, and forming a connecting link between them
and the Apostles, in Scripture the name of "Elders" or "Bishops," and is, by one
or other of these names, the subject of frequent mention in the later books of
the New Testament. The constitution of the Church was then, for the time being,
complete. The Apostles, as, in the exercise of their high office, they founded
congregations from city to city, ordained (always by the laying on of hands)
Elders and Deacons; in whom each congregation recognised the ministers set over
them by their Lord and Master in heaven: from whom they received the blessings
conveyed in His Sacraments; and to whom they looked for guidance and example in
the holy course on which they had entered, the Christian warfare which they had
undertaken. The Apostle himself, however, who had planted each of these
congregations, continued to exercise over it a general superintending authority,
and to interfere, where the case required it, in the most solemn and decided
manner. The nature and extent of the power thus assumed over each local Church,
in virtue of his heavenly commission, by its Apostolic head, will be manifest
from a study of the two Epistles written by St. Paul to the Church of the
Corinthians; and from a comparison of the second of these Epistles with the
first, it will be seen how fully this authority was recognised, and the
directions thus sanctioned were obeyed, by the primitive believers.

It may not be amiss here to point out a circumstance from which we may most
decidedly infer it to have been the will of the Holy Spirit that ordination, or
the solemn ceremony above mentioned, of the laying on of hands, should be the
only mode of admission to the ministration of His gifts in the Church. Were
there any one person who might, from the very peculiar circumstances of his call
and conversion, have grounds for conceiving himself entitled to dispense with
this ceremony, that person was undoubtedly St. Paul; yet we find that, favoured
as he had been, when it was seen meet to send him as an Apostle to the Gentiles,
the Holy Ghost deigned to give express directions that he should be separated
for the purpose; ordained, that is to say, to such ministry; and that in
compliance with those directions, the heads of the Church at Antioch, when they
had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, sent him and Barnabas away.
The Church, under the government of its Apostles, Elders, and Deacons, was, as
we have already stated, for the time being, complete. One thing, however, was
still wanting to give perpetuity to its constitution, and that was, a provision
for the supply of ordained ministers to distribute the gifts of the Spirit to
the generations who should live when the Apostles themselves, and those who had
received ordination from their hands, should have alike passed away from the
scene of their labours. It was necessary that the Apostles should appoint
successors to themselves; persons to be armed with at least all that portion of
their authority which did not depend on their miraculous powers, or
extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; with neither of which was the power of
ordination to any rank of the ministry necessarily connected. They felt this
necessity, and they did appoint such persons; but from the altered condition of
the Church, and the number of converts in each particular place, it became
expedient, instead of giving to each person so appointed that species of general
commission with which the Apostles themselves had commenced their labours, to
fix the residence of each in some particular city, and to give him the peculiar
superintendence of the Church therein, and in the districts adjoining. It was
thus that St. Paul appointed Timothy to preside, as (what we now call) Bishop,
over the Church at Ephesus; and Titus over that of Crete: and the Holy Spirit,
by dictating to the Apostle those directions to them for the discharge of the
duties of these offices which form the Epistles bearing their names, gave the
fullest and most solemn ratification, not only to their individual appointment,
but also to the establishment in perpetuity of the episcopal order in the
Church.

Though this event in the history of the Church has been narrated as occurring
subsequently to the appointment of the lower classes of ecclesiastical
ministers, it must not be supposed that it was as after thought, or that the
Apostles were not from the first aware that their office was to be perpetuated
by succession. Our Lord ended the sentence in which He endued them with power to
baptize, with the promise of His assistance in the discharge of their functions
through all time: " Go," said He, "baptize all nations: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world:" a phrase which, as addressed to mortal
men, must clearly have been understood as a promise of continual assistance to
them and to their successors. We find, accordingly, that so far were they from
understanding this gracious promise as applying solely to the individuals to
whom the words were spoken, that one of their very first joint acts, when
deprived of the presence of their Lord, was to select a person to be associated
with themselves in the apostolic office, that the number originally named to the
office by our Saviour might be complete. They did not, it is true, ordain him,
in the manner afterwards adopted by the laying on of hands; for they referred
the act of ordination to Almighty God by casting lots "whether of the twain" He
would choose; and in the pouring out of the gifts of Pentecost upon the head of
Matthias, as well as upon those of the eleven, the Spirit bore a testimony,
which could hardly be misunderstood, to the will of the Almighty that the
Apostles should from time to time, as it became necessary, nominate such
associates in their general Apostolic toils and powers as they might select;
associates on whom, as they themselves were gradually withdrawn from the world,
the whole government of the Church, and the whole care of providing for its
further continuance, must ultimately devolve. The miraculous gifts and graces,
which God in the first instance showered upon his Church, answered their purpose
in giving it its first footing in the world; and, when no longer necessary for
that purpose, were consequently withdrawn; but it should never be forgotten,
that these, wonderful and striking as they must have been, were but secondary
and subsidiary to those invisible spiritual gifts, which are the real fulfilment
of God’s promise of constant aid to his Church. With regard to these latter, it
was indeed necessary that they should be her portion through all ages; but the
others derived in truth their chief value from the evidence which they bore to
the evidence of these more precious boons; an evidence which, though immediately
addressed to converts in the first ages, was intended to convince, not them
alone, but all those to whom their report of these miraculous gifts should come,
of the reality of God’s promises with regard to those gifts which were not
palpable to earthly senses; of the truth of Christ’s saying, already quoted,
that He would be with His Church even unto the end of the world; and of His
declaration that the Comforter, whom He would send; would abide with that Church
for ever.

What name was originally applied to the office borne by Timothy and Titus, of
destined successors to the Apostles, is not very clear. There was perhaps at
first no one name especially used to designate it. They may have sometimes been
called Evangelists (see 2 Timothy 4:5.); sometimes, from their bearing in some
measure the character of heavenly messengers to mankind, the Angels of their
respective Churches By this name, at least, the heads of the different Churches
of Asia are addressed in Revelation 2:1-29 and Revelation 3:1-22. Consecrated as
they were by different Apostles in different parts of the world, some little
time would necessarily elapse, before one general name would be applied by the
whole Christian Church to the associates and successors of its first inspired
governors. Of the powers entrusted to these persons, a good idea may be formed
from the study of the Epistles address to two of them. Timothy, it appears, had
Apostolic authority to superintend and arrange the celebration of divine
service, to prescribe the nature of prayers to be used therein, and to give
general directions for the decent and orderly behaviour of the congregation.
(See 1 Timothy 2:1-15.) copious instructions were given him as to the persons
whom he should choose to ordain as Bishops (or Elder ) and Deacons, (1 Timothy
3:1-16.) He had power to select among the Elders such as should rule, (1 Timothy
5:17.) probably over different portions of his congregation; and to hear and
decide upon any accusations brought against them in the discharge of their
office, (1 Timothy 5:19.) He was reminded by St. Paul to stir up the gift that
was in him by the putting on of his hands, (2 Timothy 1:6.) and of the hands of
the Presbytery; (1 Timothy 4:14 ;) to ordain no man suddenly, (1 Timothy 5:22.)
or without due examination into his character, but to commit the doctrine which
he had learnt of St. Paul to faithful men, who should be able to teach others
also. (1 Timothy 2:2.)

Titus was left in Crete that he might set in order the things that were wanting,
and ordain elders in every city, as St. Paul had appointed him. (Titus 1:5.) He
was taught what sort of characters befitted those whom he should make Bishops;
he was to exhort and rebuke with all authority, and let no man despise him.
(Titus 2:15.) He was to be the general instructor of his flock, and to have the
power of expelling thence obstinate heretics. (Titus 3:10.) But it is
unsatisfactory to quote particular passages: the whole of these three epistles
should be seriously studied by those who wish to form a good general idea of the
powers with which the Apostles, or rather the Holy Ghost, by their means,
invested those who were to bear rule in the Church in times when they themselves
should have gone to their reward.

Those times came.-St. John, the last of the glorious company of the Apostles,
entered into his rest, and the Church found itself committed, under Heaven,
entirely to the charge of the three established orders of its ministers. To each
of these a specific title was now ascribed, and applied with greater exactness
than before. The title "Bishop," which had at first been used indifferently with
"Elder," became the exclusive property of the highest class of functionaries,
the colleagues of Timothy and Titus. The word "Elder" served to designate the
second, and from its Greek equivalent, "Presbuteros," we have formed our English
word "Priest," by which "Elder" is now, in common use, superseded. The third
class preserved its original and appropriate name of " Deacons."

Such, then, was the constitution of which the Church, when first deprived of
outward supernatural aid, found herself possessed; the machinery at her disposal
for the dispensation to mankind of those glorious gifts and privileges, which it
was hers, and hers alone, to confer. As Priests or Deacons were required for the
ministration of the Word and Sacraments to the different portions of her flock,
the Bishops, in exercise of the heavenly gift confided to them, laid hands upon
such individuals as they deemed suited to the charge, and as vacancies occurred
among the Angels of the churches, the successors of the Apostles themselves, or
as additions were required to their number, the existing members of the sacred
band, consecrated new individuals to the participation of their privileges, or
the candidates for the office being presented to the laity for their approval,
or fit and proper persons being selected by themselves. The gift conferred by
their ordination was now no longer confirmed by outward ocular demonstration;
but, while they reverently complied with all the particulars and forms of these
holy rites, as established under the guidance of inspiration by their
predecessors, they would have held it a most guilty instance of want of faith
had they presumed to doubt the continued fulfilment of the Redeemer’s promise,
or the continued abiding, with the Church which he had framed, of the Almighty
Comforter.

Since the Apostolic age seventeen centuries have rolled away: exactly eighteen
hundred years have elapsed since the delivery of Christ’s recorded promise; and,
blessed be God, the Church is with us still. Amid all the political storms and
vicissitudes, amid all the religious errors and corruptions which have
chequered, during that long period, the world’s eventful history, a regular
unbroken succession has preserved among us Ministers of God, whose authority to
confer the gifts of His Spirit is derived originally from the laying on of the
hands of the Apostles themselves. Many intermediate possessors of that authority
have, it is true, intervened between them and these, their hallowed
predecessors, but "the gifts of God are without repentance;" the same Spirit
rules over the Church now who presided at the consecration of St. Paul, and the
eighteen centuries that are past can have had no power to invalidate the promise
of our God. Nor, even though we may admit that many of those who formed the
connecting links of this holy chain were themselves unworthy of the high charge
reposed in them, can this furnish us with any solid ground for doubting or
denying their power to exercise that legitimate authority with which they were
duly invested, of transmitting the sacred gift to worthier followers.

Ordination, or, as it is called in the case of Bishops, Consecration, though it
does not precisely come within our definition of a sacrament, is nevertheless a
rite partaking, in a high degree, of the sacramental character, and it is by
reference to the proper sacraments that its nature can be most satisfactorily
illustrated. And with respect to these, it would lead us into endless
difficulties were we to admit that, when administered by a minister duly
authorised according to the outward forms of the Church, either Baptism or the
Lord’s Supper depended for its validity either on the moral and spiritual
attainments of that minister, or on the frame of mind in which he might have
received, at his ordination, the outward and visible sign of his authority. Did
the Sacraments indeed rest on such circumstances as these for their efficacy in
each case of their ministration, who would there be of us, or of any Christian
congregation, who could possibly say whether he had been baptized or not; or
what preparation or self-examination could give to a penitent the: confidence
that he had duly partaken of the Body and Blood of Christ were the reality of
that partaking to depend upon something of which he had no knowledge, and over
which he could exercise no control; upon the spiritual state not only of the
officiating minister himself, but of every individual Bishop through whom that
minister had received his authority, through the long lapse of eighteen hundred
years? He who receives unworthily, or in an improper state of mind, either
ordination or consecration, may probably receive to his own soul no saving
health from the hallowed rite; but while we adr4itj as we do, the validity of
sacraments administered by a Priest thus unworthily ordained, we can not
consistently deny that of ordination, in any of its grades, when bestowed by a
Bishop as unworthily consecrated. The very question of worth indeed, with
relation to such matters, is absurd. Who is worthy? Who is a fit and meet
dispenser of the gifts of the Holy Spirit? What are, after all, the petty
differences between sinner and sinner, when viewed in relation to Him whose eyes
are too pure to behold iniquity, and who charges His very angels with folly? And
be it remembered that the Apostolic powers, if not transmitted through these, in
some instances corrupt, channels, had not been transmitted to our times at all.
Unless then we acknowledge the reality of, such transmission, we must admit that
the Church which Christ founded is no longer to be found upon the earth, and
that the promise of His protection, so far from being available to the end of
the world, is forgotten and out of date already. The unworthiness of man, then,
cannot prevent the goodness of God from flowing in those channels in which He
has destined it to flow; and the Christian congregations of the present day, who
sit at the feet of Ministers duly ordained, have the same reason for reverencing
in them the successors of the Apostles, as the primitive Churches of Ephesus and
of Crete had for honouring in Timothy and in Titus the Apostolical authority of
him who had appointed them. A branch of this holy Catholic (or universal) Church
has been, through God’s blessing, established for ages in our island; a branch
which, as already stated, we denominate the Church of England. Its officiating
ministers are divided into the original orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
and no other. In the exercise of that authority which is inherent in every
society, of making salutary laws and regulations for its own guidance, it has
been found expedient to vest in two of the principal members of the episcopal
order in England a certain authority over the rest, and to style them
Archbishops, but this not by any means to be understood as constituting them
another order in the Church. They are but, in strictness of language, the first
and leading Bishops of our land. The Priests and Deacons, whom we usually class
together under the common name of Clergymen,) who officiate in the Churches and
Chapels of our Establishment, have each received ordination to the discharge of
their holy office by the laying on of hands of a Bishop, assisted, in the case
of Priests, by members already admitted into the presbytery or priesthood, as
St. Paul was assisted in the ordination of Timothy. (iv. 14.) And each Bishop of
our Church has, at the hands of another Bishop, (himself similarly called to the
office,) received in the most solemn manner the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that
Apostolical power over the Church, for the support of which the Redeemer pledged
Himself that His assistance should never be wanting to the end of time.

Wonderful indeed is the providence of God, which has so long preserved the
unbroken line, and thus ordained that our Bishops should, even at this distance
of time, stand before their flocks as the authorized successors of the
Apostles;-as armed with their power to confer spiritual gifts in the Church,
and, in cases of necessity, to wield their awful weapon of rejection from the
fold of Christ;-as commissioned, like Titus, to bid, on heavenly authority, no
man despise them, and to point to those who, as a class, as Bishops of the
Church, do despise them, the solemn words, "He that despiseth you, despiseth Me;
and he that "despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." The mode in which new
candidates for the episcopal station have been presented to existing Bishops for
consecration; has differed in different ages and countries. They have sometimes
been chosen by the laity, sometimes selected by other Bishops, and sometimes by
civil magistrates. In our own country the latter mode has for some centuries
prevailed, and the King of England has presented to the Prelates of its Church
persons for their approval and consecration. As the King and Legislature were
the pledged defenders of the purity and integrity of that Church, this was
perhaps a mode as unobjectionable as any which could have been substituted for
it, and it possessed the advantage of being free from the turmoil and party
feeling which have always been generated by proceedings in the way of popular
election. The mode, however, in which this presentation is made is, after all,
of minor importance, it being understood that it is upon the responsibility of
the Bishop himself that the solemn rite at last takes place. No earthly
authority can compel him to lay his hands upon what he may conceive an unworthy
head, or can presume to dispense with his concurrence, and arrogantly assume to
itself the power to confer the Holy Ghost. The solemn words in which the offices
of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, are respectively conferred, are annexed to these
pages, and from their perusal it will be seen how impious it would be, in any
one but the deputed minister of Heaven, to utter them over a fellow-mortal, or
to conceive that he, whatever his earthly rank or station, could bestow, or even
aid in bestowing, the gifts imparted thereby.

Many ages ago the civil rulers of our country recognised the principle that a
Christian nation should, as such, consider itself a branch of the Apostolical
Church of Christ; they therefore acknowledged, and gave temporal dignity, and a
voice in the general councils of the state to her ministers; privileges which
they to the present day enjoy. And the Church, on her part, the above principle
having been adopted by the State, acknowledged the head of that State, the.
King, to be her temporal head; investing him with that general supremacy in
ecclesiastical affairs, which he already possessed in civil. But we are not
thence to infer that she gave, or that she could give, to an earthly monarch, or
to his temporal legislature, the right to interfere with things spiritual, with
her Doctrines, with her Liturgy, with the ministration of her Sacraments, or
with the positions, relative to each other, of her Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons. When corruptions, prevalent among the professedly Christian world,
render it necessary for her to state the substance of her faith in articles, (as
was done in A.D. 1562,) or when circumstances appear to require any change or
variation either in the forms of her Liturgy, or in her general internal
government, the King has the constitutional power of summoning the houses of
convocation, a sort of ecclesiastical parliament composed of Bishops or Clergy,
from which alone such changes can fitly or legally emanate.

Such are the circumstances under which a branch of Christ’s Church is domiciled
among us, and claims over us, while acting according to His Spirit, the
delegated authority of her Founder. She makes no pretensions to that immediate
inspiration of the Spirit which, by positively securing her ministers from
error, would clothe her decisions with absolute infallibility. She puts the
Bible into the hand of every member of her communion, and calls upon him to
believe nothing as necessary to salvation which shall not appear, upon mature
examination, to be set down therein, or at least to be capable of being proved
thereby; but showing, at the same time, her authority as its appointed
interpreter, she cautions him not rashly, or without having fully weighed the
subject, to dissent from her expositions, the results of the accumulated
learning and labour of centuries. She warns him not, without cause, to run the
risk of incurring the fearful sin of schism, or unnecessary separation from, and
violation of the unity of Christ’s fold; a sin of which, surely, none can think
lightly, who remembers the Saviour’s affecting and repeated prayer, (see John
17:1-26.) that His followers might be one, even as He and His Almighty Father
were one. She bids him in that Bible itself read her credentials; she there
exhibits, in the recorded indications of her Lord and Master’s will, the rock on
which she is built; the foundation which, whatever changes may convulse the
globe around it, is to abide, unmoved and immoveable, till time shall be no
more. The duties which our knowledge of these things, Brethren of the Laity,
makes incumbent upon us, are almost too clear to need recapitulation. Filial
love and affectionate reverence toward the collective Church, and toward those,
her Pastors and Masters, who are set in spiritual authority over us; a zeal for’
the inculcation of her pure doctrine and the extension of her heavenly fold; a
determination in evil report and in good report to stand by her, and to approve
ourselves her faithful members and children; these, and such feelings as these,
are, by our bond of communion with her, peremptorily required of us; these let
us make it the business of our lives to cultivate and comply with; and if
tempted, as any one of us may be, hastily and needlessly to forsake her hallowed
pale, let us reply to the temptation by addressing her in words somewhat similar
to those of Peter to his Divine Master, "To whom shall we go? Thou hast the
words of eternal "life; and we believe and are sure that Thou art the" Minister
and Representative of "Christ, the Son of the living God."

APPENDIX. THE following are the words addressed respectively to Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons, when their offices are conferred upon them by the laying
on of hands. TO A BISHOP.

"Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of
God, now committed unto Thee by the Imposition of our hands; in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And remember that thou stir
up the grace of God which is given thee by this Imposition of our hands; for God
hath not given us a Spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness." TO A
PRIEST.

"Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of
God, now committed unto 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; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen." TO A DEACON.

"Take thou the authority to execute the Office of a Deacon in the Church of God
committed unto thee; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 06 - THE PRESENT OBLIGATION OF PRIMITIVE PRACTICE.
========================================================================

THE PRESENT OBLIGATION OF PRIMITIVE PRACTICE.

[Number 6]

When we look around upon the present state of the Christian Church, and then
turning to ecclesiastical history acquaint ourselves with its primitive form and
condition, the difference between them so strongly acts upon the imagination,
that we are tempted to think, that to vase our conduct now on the principle
acknowledged then, is but theoretical and idle. We seem to perceive, as clear as
day, that as a Primitive Church had its own particular discipline and political
character, so have we ours: and that to attempt to revive what is past, is as
absurd as to seek to raise what is literally dead. Perhaps we even go on to
maintain, that the constitution of the Church, as well as its actual course of
acting, is different from what it was; that Episcopacy now is in no sense what
it used to be; that our Bishops are the same as the Primitive Bishops only in
name; and that the notion of an Apostolical Succession is "a fond thing." I do
not wish to undervalue the temptation, which leads to this view of Church
matters; it is the temptation of sight to overcome faith, and of course not a
slight one. But the following reflection on the history of the Jewish Church may
perhaps be considered to throw light upon our present duties.

1. Consider how exact are the injunctions of Moses to his people. He ends them
thus: "These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to
make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which
He made with them in Horeb.....Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do
them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.....Neither with you only do I make
this covenant and this oath; but with him that standeth here this day before the
LORD our GOD, and also with him that is not here with us this day." Deuteronomy
29:1-29.

2. Next, survey the history of the chosen people for the several first centuries
after taking possession of Canaan. The exactness of Moses was unavailing. Can a
greater contrast be conceived than the commands and promises of the Pentateuch,
and the history of the Judges? "Every man did that which was right in his own
eyes." Judges 17:6.

Samuel attempts a reformation on the basis of the Mosaic Law; but the effort
ultimately fails, as being apparently against the stream of opinion and feeling
then prevalent. The times do not allow of it. Again, contrast the opulent and
luxurious age of Solomon, though the covenant was then openly acknowledged and
outwardly accepted more fully than at any other time, with the vision of simple
piety and plain straightforward obedience, which is the scope of the Mosaic Law.
Lastly, contemplate the state of the Jews after their return from the captivity;
when their external political relations were so new, the internal principle of
their government so secular, GOD’S arm apparently so far removed. This state of
things went on for centuries. Who would suppose that the Jewish Law was binding
in all its primitive strictness at the age when CHRIST appeared? Who would not
say that length of time had destroyed the obligation of a projected system,
which had as yet never been realized?

Consider too the impossible nature (so to say) of some of its injunctions. An
infidel historian somewhere asks scoffingly, whether "the ruinous law which
require all the males of chosen people to go up to Jerusalem three times a-year,
was every observed in its strictness." The same question may be asked concerning
the observance of the Sabbatical year;-to which but a faint allusion, if that,
is made in the books of Scripture subsequent to the Pentateuch.

3. And now, with these thoughts before us, reflect upon our SAVIOUR’S conduct.
He set about to fulfill the Law in its strictness, just as if He had lived in
the generation next to Moses. The practice of others, the course of the world,
was nothing to Him; He received and He obeyed. It is not necessary to draw out
the evidence of this in detail. Consider merely His emphatic words in the
beginning of Matthew 23:1-39 concerning those, whom as individuals He was
fearfully condemning. "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; all
therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do."-Again reflect
upon the praise bestowed upon Zacharias and his wife, that "they were both
righteous before GOD, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD
blameless."-And upon the conduct of the Apostles.

Surely these remarkable facts impress upon us the necessity of going to the
Apostles, and not to the teachers and oracles of the present world, for the
knowledge of our duty, as individuals and as members of the Christian Church. It
is no argument against a practice being right, that it is neglected; rather, we
are warned against going the broad way of the multitude of men. Nor is there any
doubt in our minds, as to the feelings of the Primitive Church regarding the
doctrine of the Apostolical Succession? Did not the Apostles observe, even in an
age of miracles, the ceremony of the Imposition of Hands? And are not we bound,
not merely to acquiesce in, but zealously to maintain and inculcate the
discipline which they established? The only objection, which can be made to this
view of our duty is, that the injunction to obey strictly is not precisely given
to us, as it was in the instance of the Mosaic Law. But is not the real state of
the case merely this; that the Gospel appeals rather to our love and faith, our
divinely illumined reason, and the free principle of obedience, than to the mere
letter of its injunctions? And does not the conduct of the Jews just prove to us
that, though the commands of CHRIST were put before us ever so precisely, yet
there would not be found in any extended course of history a more exact
attention to them, than there is now; that the difficulty of resisting the
influence, which the world’s actual proceedings exert upon our imagination,
would be just as great as we find it at present? A SIN OF THE CHURCH.

Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works; or
else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his
place, except thou repent. The following extract is from Bingham, Antiq. xv. 9.
In the primitive ages, it was both the rule and practice of all in general, both
Clergy and Laity, to receive the Communion every Lord’s day...... As often as
they had met together for Divine Service on the Lord’s day, they were obliged to
receive the Eucharist under pain of Excommunication.....And if we run over the
whole history of the three first ages, we shall find this to have been the
Church’s constant practice....We are assured farther, that in some places they
received the communion every day. Is there any one who will deny, that the
Primitive Church is the best expounder of our SAVIOUR’S will as conveyed through
his Apostles? Can a learned Church, such as the English, plead ignorance of His
will this ascertained? Do we fulfil it? Is not the regret and concern of pious
and learned writers among us, such as Bingham, at our neglect of it, upon
record? And is it not written, "THAT SERVANT WHICH KNEW HIS LORD’S WILL, AND
PREPARED NOT HIMSELF, NEITHER DID ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, SHALL BE BEATEN WITH
MANY STRIPES?"

And, putting aside this disobedience, can we wonder, that faith and love wax
cold, when we so seldom partake of the MEANS, mercifully vouchsafed us, of
communion with our LORD and SAVIOUR?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 07 - THE EPISCOPAL CHUCH APOSTOLICAL.
========================================================================

THE EPISCOPAL CHUCH APOSTOLICAL.

[Number 7]

There are many persons at the present day, who, from not having turned their
minds to the subject, think they are Churchmen in the sense in which the early
Christians were, merely because they are Episcopalians. The extent of their
Churchmanship is, to consider that Episcopacy is the best form of Ecclesiastical
Polity; and again, that it originated with the Apostles. I am far from implying,
that to go thus far is nothing; or is not an evidence (for it is,) of a reverent
and sober temper of mind; still the view is defective. It is defective, because
the expediency of a system, though a very cogent, is not the highest line of
argument that may be taken it its defence: and because an opponent may deny the
Apostolicity of Episcopacy, and so involve its maintainer in an argument.
Doubtless the more clear and simple principle for a Churchman to hold, is that
of a Ministerial Succession; which is undeniable as a fact, while it is most
reasonable as a doctrine, and sufficiently countenanced in Scripture for its
practical reception. Of this, Episcopacy, i. e. Superintendence, is but an
accident; though, for the sake of conciseness, it is often spoken of by us as
synonymous with it. It shall be the object of the following Tract to insist upon
this higher characteristic of our Church. My position then is this;-that the
Apostles appointed successors to their ministerial office, and the latter in
turn appointed others, and so on to the present day;-and further, that the
Apostles and their Successors have in every age committed portions of their
power and authority to others, who thus become their delegates, and in a measure
their representatives, and are called Priests and Deacons. The result is an
Episcopal system, because of the practice of delegation; but we may conceive
their keeping their powers altogether to themselves, and in the same proportion
in which this was done would the Church polity cease to be Episcopalian. We may
conceive of the Order of Apostolic Vicars (so to call it,) increased, till one
of them was placed in every village, and took the office of parish Priest. I do
not say such a measure would be justifiable or pious;-doubtless it would be a
departure from the rule of antiquity-but it is conceivable; and it is useful to
conceive it, in order to form a clear notion of the Essence of the Church
System, and the defective state of the Christian Societies which are separate
from the Church Catholic. It is a common answer made to those who are called
High Churchmen, to say, that "if GOD had intended the form of Church Government
to be a great consequence, He would have worded His will in this matter more
clearly in Scripture." Now enough has already been said to show the irrelevancy
of such a remark. We need not deny to the Church the abstract right, (however we
may question the propriety,) of altering its own constitution. It is not merely
because Episcopacy is a better or more scriptural form than Presbyterianism,
(true as this may be in itself,) that Episcopalians are right, and Presbyterians
are wrong; but because the Presbyterian Ministers have assumed a power, which
was never intrusted to them. They have presumed to exercise the power of
ordination, and to perpetuate a succession of ministers, without having received
a commission to do so. This is the plain fact that condemns them; and is a
standing condemnation from which they cannot escape, except by artifices of
argument which will serve equally to protect the self-authorized teacher of
religion. If they may ordain without being set to do so, others may teach and
preach without being sent. They hold a middle position, which is untenable as
destroying itself; for if Christians do without Bishops (i. e. Commissioned
Ordainers), they may do without Commissioned Ministers (i. e. the Priests and
Deacons). If an imposition of hands is necessary to convey our gift, why should
it not be to convey another?

1. As to the fact of the Apostolical Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops
are the heirs and representatives of the Apostles by successive transmission of
the prerogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof. Every link
in the chain is known from St. Peter to our present Metropolitans. Here then I
only ask, looking at this plain fact by itself, is there not something of a
divine providence in it? can we conceive that this Succession has been
preserved, all over the world, amid many revolutions, through many centuries,
for nothing? Is it wise or pious to despise or neglect a gift thus transmitted
to us in matter of fact, even if Scripture did not touch upon the subject?

2. Next, consider how natural is the doctrine of a Succession. When an
individual comes to me, claiming to speak in the name of the Most High, it is
natural to ask him for his authority. If he replies, that we are all bound to
instruct each other, thus reply is intelligible, but in the very form of it
excludes the notion of a ministerial order, i. e. a class of persons set apart
from others for religious offices. If he appeals to some miraculous gift, this
too is intelligible, and only unsatisfactory when the alleged gift is proved to
be a fiction. No other answer can be given, except a reference to some person,
who has given him license to exercise ministerial functions; then follows the
question, how that individual gained his authority to do so. In the case of the
Catholic Church, the person referred to, i. e. the Bishop, has received it from
a predecessor, and he from another, and so on, till we arrive at the Apostles
themselves, and then our LORD and SAVIOUR. It is superfluous to dwell on so
plain a principle, which in matters of this world we act upon daily.

3. Lastly, the argument from Scripture is surely quite clear to those, who
honestly wish direction for practice. CHRIST promised He would be with His
Apostles always, as ministers of His religion, even unto the end of the world.
In one sense the Apostles were to be alive, till He came again; but they all
died at the natural time. Does it not follow, that there are those now alive who
represent them? Now who were the most probable representatives of them in the
generation next their death? They surely, whom they have ordained to succeed
them in the ministerial work. If any persons could be said to have CHRIST’S
power and presence and the gifts of ruling and ordaining, of teaching, of
binding and loosing, (and comparing together the various Scriptures on the
subject, all these seem included in His promise to be with the Church always,)
surely those, on whom the Apostles laid their hands, were they. And so in the
next age, if any were representatives of the first representatives, they must be
the next generation of Bishops, and so on. Nor does it materially alter the
argument, though we suppose the blessing upon Ministerial Offices made, not to
the Apostles, but to the whole body of Disciples; i. e. the Church. For, even if
it be the Church that has the power of ordination committed to it, still it
exercises it through the Bishops as its organs; and the question recurs, how has
the Presbytery in this or that country obtained the power? The Church certainly
has from the first committed it to the Bishops, and has never resumed it; and
the Bishops have no where committed it to the Presbytery, who therefore cannot
be in possession of it.

However, it is merely for argument sake that I make this allowance, as to the
meaning of the text in Matthew 28:1-20; for our LORD’S promise of His presence
"unto the end of the world," was made to the Apostles, by themselves. At the
same time, let it be observed what force is added to the argument for the
Apostolical Succession, by the acknowledged existence in Scripture of the
doctrine of the standing Church, or permanent Body Corporate for spiritual
purposes. For, if Scripture has formed all Christian into one continuous
community through all ages, (which I do not here prove,) it is but according to
the same analogy, that the Ministerial Office should be vested in an order,
propagated from age to age, on a principle of Succession. And, if we proceed to
considerations of utility and expedience, it is plain, that, according to our
notions, it is more necessary that a Minister should be perpetuated by a fixed
law, than that the community of Christians should be, which can scarcely be
considered to be vested with any powers, such as to require the visible
authority which a Succession supplies.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 08 - THE GOSPEL A LAW OF LIBERTY.
========================================================================

THE GOSPEL A LAW OF LIBERTY.

[Number 8]

It is a matter of surprise to some persons, that the ecclesiastical system under
which we find ourselves, is so faintly enjoined on us in Scripture. One very
sufficient explanation of the fact will be found in considering that the Bible
is not intended to teach us matters of disciple so much as matters of faith; i.
e. those doctrines, the reception of which are necessary to salvation. But
another reason may be suggested, which is well worth our attentive
consideration. The Gospel is a Law of Liberty. We are treated as sons, not as
servants; not subjected to a code of formal commands, but addressed as those who
love GOD, and wish to please Him. When a man gives orders to those whom he
thinks will mistake him, or are perverse, he speaks pointedly and explicitly;
but when he gives directions to friends, he will trust much to their knowledge
of his feelings and wishes, he leaves much to their discretion, and tells them
not so much what he would have done in detail, as what are the objects he would
have accomplished. Now this is the way CHRIST has spoken to us under the New
Covenant; and apparently with this reason, to try us, whether or not we really
love Him as our LORD and SAVIOUR.

Accordingly, there is no part, perhaps, of the ecclesiastical system, which is
not faintly traced in Scripture, and no part which is much more than faintly
traced. The question which a reverend and affectionate faith will ask, is "what
is most likely to please CHRIST?" And this is just the question that obtains and
answer in Scripture; which contains just so much as intimations of what is most
likely to please Him. Of course different minds will differ as to the degree of
clearness with which this or that practice is enjoined, yet I think no one will
consider the state of the case, as I have put it, exaggerated on the whole.

Many duties are intimated to us by example, not by precept-many are implied
merely-others can only be inferred from a comparison of passages-and others
perhaps are contained only in the Jewish Law. I will mention some specimens to
assist the reflection of the reader. The early Christians were remarkable for
keeping to the Apostles’ fellowship. Who are more likely to stand in the
Apostles’ place since their death, that that line of Bishops which they
themselves began? for that the Apostles were in some sense or other to remain on
earth to the end of all things, is plain from the text, "Lo, I am with you
alway," &c.

St. Paul set Timothy over the Church at Ephesus, and Titus over the Churches at
Crete; i. e. as Bishops; therefore it is safer to have Bishops now, it is more
likely to be pleasing to Him who has loved us, and bids us in turn love Him with
the heart, not with formal service. Our LORD committed the Administration of the
LORD’S SUPPER to His Apostles; DO THIS in remembrance of Me;"-therefore the
Church has ever continued it in the hands of their Successors, and the delegates
of these. From CHRIST’S words, "Suffer the little children," &c. and from His
blessing them, we infer His desire that children should be brought near to Him
in baptism;-as we do also from St. Paul’s conduct on several occasions. Acts
16:15, Acts 16:33. 1 Corinthians 1:16. So also we continue the practice of
Confirmation, from a desire to keep as near the Apostles’ rule as possible.

Again, what little is there of express command in the New Testament for our
meeting together in public worship, in large congregations! Yet we see what the
custom of the Apostolic Church was from the book of Acts, 1 Cor. &c. and we
follow it. In like manner, the words in Genesis ii and the practice of the
Apostles in Acts, are quite warrant enough for the Sanctification of the LORD’S
Day, even though the fourth Commandment were not binding on us. For the same
reason we continue the Patriarchal and Jewish rule of paying tithe to the
Church. Some portion of our goods is evidently due to GOD;-and the ancient
Divine Command is a direction to us, which the law of the land has made
obligatory, in a case where reason and conscience have no means of determining.

These may be taken as illustrations of a general principle. And at this day it
is most needful to keep it in view, since a cold spirit has crept into the
Church of demanding rigid demonstration for every religious practice and
observance. It is the fashion now to speak of those who maintain the ancient
rules of the ecclesiastical system, not as zealous servants of CHRIST, not as
wise and practical expounders of His will, but as inconclusive reasoners, and
fanciful theorists, merely because, instead of standing still and arguing, they
have a heart to obey. Are there not numbers in this day, who think themselves
enlightened believers, yet who are but acting the part of the husbandman’s son
in the Gospel, who said, "I go, sir,"-AND WENT NOT.

CHURCH REFORM.

Surely, before the blessing of a Millennium were vouchsafed to us, if it be to
come, the whole Christian world has much to confess in its several branches.
Rome has to confess her Papal corruptions, and her cruelty toward those who
refuse to accept them. The Christian communities of Holland, Scotland, and other
countries, their neglect of the Apostolical Order of Ministers. The Greek Church
has to confess its saint-worship, its formal fasts, and its want of zeal. The
Churches of Asia their heresy. All parts of Christendom have much to confess and
reform. We have our sins as well as the rest. Oh that we would take the lead in
the renovation of the Church Catholic on Scripture principles! Our greatest sin
perhaps is the disuse of a godly discipline." Let the reader consider,

1. The command.

"Put away from yourselves the wicked person." "A man that is a heretic, after
the first and second admonition, reject." "Mark them which cause divisions and
offenses, .... and avoid them."

2. The example, viz. in the Primitive Church.

"The Persons or Objects of Ecclesiastical Censure were all such delinquents, as
fell into great and scandalous crimes after baptism, whether men or women,
priest or people, rich or poor, princes or subjects." Bing. Antiq. xvi. 3.

3. The warning.

"Whosoever.... shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men
so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 09 - ON SHORTENING THE CHURCH SERVICE.
========================================================================

ON SHORTENING THE CHURCH SERVICE.

[Number 9]

There is a growing feeling that the Services of the Church are too long; and
many persons think it a sound feeling, merely because it is a growing one. Let
such as have not made up their minds on the subject, suffer themselves, before
going into the arguments against our Services, to be arrested by the following
considerations. The Services of our Church, as they now stand, are but a very
small part of the ancient Christian worship; and, though people now-a-days think
them too long, there can be no doubt that the primitive believers would have
thought them too short. Now I am far from considering this as a conclusive
argument in the question; as if the primitive believers were right, and people
now-a-days wrong; but surely others may fairly be called upon not to assume the
reverse. On such points it is safest to assume nothing, but to take facts as we
find them; and the facts are these. In ancient times Christians understood very
literally all that the Bible says about prayer. David had said, "Seven time a
day do I praise thee;" and St. Paul had said, "Pray always." These texts they
did not feel at liberty to explain away, but complying with them to the letter,
praised God seven times a day, besides their morning and evening prayer. Their
hours or devotion were, in the day time, 6, 9, 12, and 3, which we called the
Horae Canonicae; in the night, 9, 12, and 3, which were called the Nocturns; and
besides these the hour of day-break and retiring to bed; not that they set apart
these hours in the first instance for public worship,-this was impossible; but
they seem to have aimed at praying with one accord, and at one time, even when
they could not do so in one place. "The Universal Church," says Bishop Patrick,
"anciently observed certain set hours of prayer, that all Christians throughout
the world might at the same time join together to glorify God; and some of them
were of opinion, that the Angelical Host, being acquainted with those hours,
took that time to join their prayers and praises with those of the Church." The
Hymns and Psalms appropriated to these hours were in the first instance intended
only for private meditation; but afterwards, when Religious Societies were
formed, and persons who had withdrawn from secular business lived together for
purposes of devotion, chanting was introduced, and they were arranged for
congregational worship. Throughout the Churches which used the Latin tongue, the
same Services were adopted with very little variation: and in Roman Catholic
countries they continue in use, with only a few modern interpolations, even to
this day. The length of these Services will be in some degree understood from
the fact, that in the course of every week they go through the whole book of
Psalms. The writer has been told by a distinguished person, who was once a Roman
Catholic Priest, that the time required for their performance averages three
hours a day throughout the year. The process of transition from this primitive
mode of worship to that now used in the Church of England, was gradual. Long
before the abolition of the Latin Service, the ancient hours of worship had
fallen into disuse; in religious Societies the daily and nightly Services had
been arranged in groups under the names of Matins and Vespers; and those who
prayed in private were allows to suit their hours of prayer to their
convenience, provided only that they went through the whole Services each day.
Neither is it to be supposed that this modified demand was as all generally
complied with. Thus in the course of time, the views and feelings, with which
prayer had been regarded by the early Christians, became antiquated; the forms
remained, but stripped of their original meaning; Services were compressed into
one, which had been originally distinct; the idea of united worship with a view
to which identity of time and language had been maintained in different nations,
was forgotten; the identity of time had been abandoned, and the identity of
language was not thought worth preserving. Conscious of the incongruity of
primitive forms and modern feelings, our Reformers undertook to construct a
Service more in accordance with the spirit of their age. They adopted the
English language; they curtailed the already compressed ritual of the early
Christians, so arranging it that the Psalms should be gone through monthly,
instead of weekly; and, carrying the spirit of compression still further, they
added to the Matin Service what had hitherto been wholly distinct from it, the
Mass Service or Communion.

Since the Reformation, the same gradual change in the prevailing notions of
prayer has worked its way silently but generally. The Services, as they were
left by the Reformers, were, as they had been from the first ages, daily
Services; they are now weekly Services. Are they not in a fair way to become
monthly?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 10 - HEADS OF A WEEK-DAY LECTURE,
========================================================================

HEADS OF A WEEK-DAY LECTURE,
DELIVERED TO A COUNTRY CONGREGATION IN --------SHIRE.

[Number 10]

BEFORE we meet again, we shall have celebrated the feast of St. Simon and St.
Jude, the Apostles. You will be at your daily work, and will not have the
opportunity to attend the Service in Church. For that reason, it may be as well,
you should lay up some good thoughts against that day; and such, by GOD’S
blessing, I will now attempt to give you. As you well know, there were twelve
Apostles; St. Simon and St. Jude were two of them. They preached the Gospel of
CHRIST; and they were like CHRIST, as far as sinful man may be accounted like
the Blessed SON of GOD. They were like CHRIST in their deeds and in their
sufferings. The Gospel for the festival shows us this. They were like CHRIST in
theirworks, because CHRIST was a witness of the FATHER, and they were witnesses
of CHRIST. CHRIST came in the name of GOD the Father Almighty; He "came "and
spoke," and "did works which none other man did." In like manner, the Apostles
were sent to bear witness of CHRIST, to declare His power, His great mercy, His
sufferings on the cross for the sins of all men, His willingness to save all who
come to Him. But again, they were like CHRIST in theirsufferings. If the "world
hate you," He says to them, "you know that it hated Me, before it hated you. If
ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of
the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth
you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his
lord. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have
kept My saying, they will keep yours also."

Thus, they were like CHRIST in office. I do not speak of their holiness, their
faith, and all their other high excellencies, which GOD the Holy Ghost gave them
I speak now, not of their personal graces, but of their office, of preaching, of
witnessing CHRIST, of suffering for being His servants. Men ought to have
listened to them, and honoured them; some did; but the many, the world did
not,—they hatedthem; they hated them, for their office-sake; not because they
were Paul, and Peter, and Simon, and Jude, but because they bore witness to the
SON of GOD, and were chosen to be His Ministers.

Here is a useful lesson for us at this day. The Apostles indeed are dead; yet it
is quite as possible for men still to hate their preaching and to persecute
them, as when they were alive. For in one sense they are still alive; I mean,
they did not leave the world without appointing persons to take their place; and
these persons represent them, and may be considered with reference to us, as if
they were the Apostles. When a man dies, his son takes his property, and
represents him; that is, in a manner he still lives in the person of his son.
Well, this explains how the Apostles may be said to be still among us; they did
not indeed leave their sons to succeed them as Apostles, but they
leftspiritualsons; they did not leave this life, without first solemnly laying
their hands on the heads of certain of their brethren, and these took their
place, and represented them after their death. But it may be asked, are these
spiritual sons of the Apostles still alive? no;—all this took place many hundred
years ago. These sons and heirs of the Apostles died long since. But then they
in turn did not leave the world without committing their sacred office to a
fresh set of Ministers, and they in turn to another, and so on even to this day.
Thus the Apostles had, first, spiritual sons; then spiritual grandsons; then
great grandsons; and so on, from one age to another, down to the present time.

Again, it many be asked, who are at this time the successors and spiritual
descendants of the Apostles ? I shall surprise some people by the answer I shall
give, though it is very clear, and there is no doubt about it; THE BISHOPS. They
stand in the place of the Apostles, as far as the office of ruling is concerned;
and, whatever we ought to do, had we lived when the Apostles were alive, the
same ought we to do for the Bishops. He that despiseth them, despiseth the
Apostles. It is our duty to reverence them for their office-sake; they are the
shepherds of CHRIST’S flock. If we knew them well, we should love them for the
many excellent graces they possess, for their piety, loving-kindness, and other
virtues. But we do not know them; yet still, for all this, we may honour them as
the Ministers of CHRIST, without going so far as to consider their private
worth; and we may keep to their "fellowship," as we should to that of the
Apostles. I say, we may all thus honour them even without knowing them in
private, because of their high office; for they have the marks of CHRIST’S
presence upon them, in that theywitness for CHRIST, and suffer for Him, as the
Apostles did. I will explain to you how this is.

There is a temptation which comes on many men to honour no one, except such as
they themselves know, such as have done favour or kindness to them personally.
Thus sometimes people speak against those who are put over them in this world’s
matters, as the King. They say, "What is the King to me? he never did me any
good." Now, I answer, whether he did or not, is nothing to the purpose. We are
bound, for CHRIST’S sake, to honour him, because he is King, though he lives far
from us; and this all well-disposed right-minded people do. And so, in just the
same way, though for much higher reasons, we must honour the Bishop, because he
is the Bishop ;—for his office-sake;—because he is CHRIST’S Minister, stands in
the place of the Apostles, is the Shepherd of our souls on earth, while CHRIST
is away. This is FAITH, to look at things not as seen, but as unseen; to be as
sure that the Bishop is CHRIST’S appointed Representative, as if we actually saw
him work miracles as St. Peter and St. Paul did, as you may read in the book of
the Acts of the Apostles. But you will say, how do we know this, since we do not
see it? I repeat, the Bishops are Apostles to us, from theirwitnessingCHRIST,
andsufferingfor Him.

1. They witness our LORD in their very name, for He is the true Bishop of our
souls, as St. Peter says, and they are Bishops. They witness CHRIST in their
station;—there is but One LORD to save us, and there is but one Bishop in each
place. The meetingers have no head, they are all of them mixed together in a
confused way; but we of CHRIST’S Holy Church (blessed be God!) have one Bishop
over us, and our Bishop is the Bishop of ————. Many of you have seen him lately,
when he confirmed in our Church. That very confirmation is another ordinance, in
which the Bishop witnesses CHRIST. Our LORD and SAVIOUR confirms us with the
SPIRIT in all goodness; the Bishop is His figure and likeness, when he lays his
hands on the heads of children. Then CHRIST, (as we trust,) comes to them, so
confirm in them the grace of Baptism. Moreover, the Bishop rules the whole
Church here below, as CHRIST, the true and eternal Sovereign, rules it above;
and here again the Bishop is a figure or witness of our LORD. And further, it is
the Bishop who is commissioned to make us Clergymen GOD’S Ministers. He is
CHRIST’S instrument; and he visibly chooses those whom CHRIST vouchsafes to
choose invisibly, to serve in the Word and Sacraments of the Church. And thus,
in one sense, it is from the Bishop that the news of redemption and the means of
grace have come to all men; this again is a witnessing CHRIST. I, who speak to
you concerning CHRIST, was ordained to do so by the Bishop; he speaks in me,—as
CHRIST wrought in him, and as GOD sent CHRIST. Thus the whole plan of salvation
hangs together.—CHRIST the True Mediator above; His servant, the Bishop, His
earthly likeness; mankind the subjects of His teaching; GOD the Author of
Salvation.

2. But I must now mention the more painful part of the subject, i. e. the
sufferings of the Bishops, which is the second mark of their being our living
Apostles. I may say, Bishops have undergone this trial in every age. As the
first Apostles were hated and op posed by the world, so have they ever been. I
do not say they have been always opposed in the same way. In these latter times,
they have experienced the lesser sufferings of bearing slander, reproach,
threats, vexations, and thwartings in their efforts to do good. Time was, when
they were even persecuted, cruelly slain by fire and sword. That time, (though
GOD avert it!) may come again. But, whether or not Satan is permitted so openly
to rage, certainly some kinds of persecution are to be expected in our day; nay,
such have begun. It is not so very long since the great men of the earth told
them to prepare for persecution; it is not so very long since the mad people
answered the summons, and furiously attacked them, and seemed bent on destroying
them, in all parts of the country.

Yes! the day may come, even in this generation, when the Representatives of
CHRIST are spoiled of their sacred possessions, and degraded from their civil
dignities. The day may come, when each of us inferior Ministers—when I myself,
whom you know—may have to give up our Churches, and be among you, in no better
temporal circumstances than yourselves; with no larger dwelling, no finer
clothing, no other fare, with nothing different beyond those gifts, which I
trust we received from the All-gracious GOD when we were made Ministers; and
those again, which have been vouchsafed to us before and after that time, for
the due fulfilment of our Ministry. Then you will look at us, not as gentlemen,
as now; not as your superiors in worldly station; but still, nay, more
strikingly so than now, still as messengers from Him, who seeth and worketh in
secret, and who judgeth not by outward appearance. Then you will honour us, with
a purer honour than many men do now, namely, as those (if I may say so) who are
intrusted with the keys of heaven and hell, as the heralds of mercy, as the
denouncers of woe to wicked men, as intrusted with the awful and mysterious
privilege of dispensing CHRIST’S Body and Blood, as far greater than the most
powerful and the wealthiest of men in our unseen strength and our heavenly
riches. This may all come in our day; we must do our duty; go straight forward,
looking neither to the right hand nor the left, " in patience possessing our
souls," watching and praying, and so preparing for the evil day. And after all,
if GOD’S loving kindness spares both us and you the trial, still it will have
been useful to have steadily thought about it beforehand, and to have prepared
our hearts to meet it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 11 - THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
========================================================================

THE VISIBLE CHURCH.

(In Letters to a Friend.)

[Number 11]

LETTER I.

You wish to have my opinion on the doctrine of "the Holy Catholic Church," as
contained in Scripture, and taught in the Creed. So I send you the following
lines, which perhaps may serve, through GOD’S blessing, to assist you in your
search after the truth in this matter, even though they do no more; indeed no
remarks, however just, can be much more than an assistance to you. You must
search for yourself, and GOD must teach you.

I think I partly enter into your present perplexity. You argue, that true
doctrine is the important matter for which we must contend, and a right state of
the affections is the test of vital religion in the heart: and you ask, " Why
may I not be satisfied if my Creed is correct, and my affections spiritual? Have
I not in that case enough to evidence a renewed mind, and to constitute a basis
of union with others like minded? The love of CHRIST is surely the one and only
requisite for Christian communion here, and the joys of heaven hereafter." Again
you say, that——and——are constant in their prayers for the teaching of the HOLY
SPIRIT; so that if it be true, that every one who asketh receiveth, surely they
must receive, and are in a safe state.

Believe me, I do not think lightly of these arguments. They are very subtle
ones; powerfully influencing the imagination, and difficult to answer. Still I
believe them to be mere fallacies. Let me try them in a parallel case. You know
the preacher at———, and have heard of his flagrantly immoral life; yet it is
notorious that he can and does speak in a moving way of the love of CHRIST, &c.
It is very shocking to witness such a case, which (we will hope) is rare; but it
has its use. Do you not think him in peril, in spite of his impressive and
persuasive language? Why?—You will say, his life is bad. True; it seems then
that more is requisite for salvation than an orthodox creed, and keen
sensibility; viz. consistent conduct.—Very well then, we have come to an
additional test of true faith, obedience to GOD’S word, and plainly a scriptural
test, according to St. John’s canon, "He who doeth righteousness is righteous."
Do not you see then your argument is already proved to be unsound? It seems that
true doctrine and warm feelings are not enough. How am I to know what is enough?
you ask. I reply, by searching Scripture. It was your original fault that,
instead of inquiring what GOD has told you is necessary for being a true
Christian, you chose out of your own head to argue on the subject;—e. g. "I can
never believe that to be such and such is not enough for salvation," &c. Now
this is worldly wisdom.

Let us join issue then on this plain ground, whether or not the doctrine of "the
Church," and the duty of obeying it, be laid downin Scripture. If so, it is no
matter as regards our practice, whether the doctrine is primary or secondary,
whether the duty is much or little insisted on. A Christian mind will aim at
obeying thewholecounsel and will of GOD; on the other hand, to those who are
tempted arbitrarily to classify and select their duties, it is written,
"Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." And here first, that you
may clearly understand the ground I am taking, pray observe that I am not
attempting to controvert any one of those high evangelical points, on which
perhaps we do not altogether agree with each other. Perhaps you attribute less
efficacy to the Sacrament of Baptism than I do; bring out into greater system
and prominence the history of an individual’s war fare with his spiritual
enemies; fix more precisely and abruptly the date of his actual conversion from
darkness to light; and consider that Divine Grace acts more arbitrarily against
the corrupt human will, than I think is revealed in Scripture. Still, in spite
of this difference of opinion, I see no reason why you should not accept
heartily the Scripture doctrine of " the Church." And this is the point I wish
to press, not asking you at present to abandon your own opinions, but toadd to
thema practical belief in a tenet which the Creed teaches and Scripture has
consecrated. And this surely is quite possible. The excellent Mr. ——, of ——,who
has lately left ———, was both a Calvinist, and a strenuous High-Churchman.

You are in the practice of distinguishing between the Visible and Invisible
Church. Of course I have no wish to maintain, that those who shall be saved
hereafter are exactly the same company that are under the means of grace here;
still I must insist on it, that Scripture makes the existence of a Visible
Church a condition of the existence of the Invisible. I mean, theSacramentsare
evidently in the hands of the Church Visible; and these, we know, are generally
necessary to salvation, as the Catechism says. Thus it is an undeniable fact, as
true as that souls will be saved, that a Visible Church must exist as a means
towards that end. The Sacraments are in the hands of the Clergy; this few will
deny, or that their efficacy is independent of the personal character of the
administrator. What then shall be thought of any attempts to weaken or
exterminate that Community? or that Ministry, which is an appointed condition of
the salvation of the elect? But every one, who makes or encourages a
schism,mustweaken it. Thus it is plain, schism must be wrong in itself, even if
Scripture did not in express terms forbid it, as it does. But further than this;
it is plain this Visible Church is astandingbody. Every one who is baptized, is
baptizedintoan existing community. Our Service expresses this when it speaks of
baptized infants beingincorporatedinto GOD’S holy Church. Thus the Visible
Church is not a voluntary association of the day, but a continuation of one
which existed in the age before us, and then again in the age before that; and
so back till we come to the age of the Apostles. In the same sense, in which
Corporations of the State’s creating, are perpetual, is this which CHRIST has
founded. This is a matter of fact hitherto; and it necessarily will be so
always, for is not the notion absurd of an unbaptized person baptizing others?
which is the only way in which the Christian community can have a new beginning.

Moreover Scripture directly insists upon the doctrine of the Visible Church as
being of importance. E. g. St. Paul says;— "There is one body, and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one LORD, one faith, one
baptism, one GOD and Father of all." Ephesians 4:5-6. Thus, as far as the
Apostle’s words go, it is as false and unchristian, (I do not mean in degree of
guilt, but in its intrinsic sinfulness,) to make more bodies than one, as to
have many Lords, many Gods, many Creeds. Now, I wish to know, how it is possible
for any one to fall into this sin, if Dissenters are clear of it? What is the
sin, if separation from the Existing Church is not it?

I have shown that there is a divinely instituted Visible Church, and that it has
been one and the same by successive incorporation of members from the beginning.
Now I observe further, that the word Church, as used in Scripture, ordinarily
means this actually existing visible body. The possible exception to this rule,
out of about 100 places in the New Testament, where the word occurs, are four
passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians; two in the Colossians; and one in the
Hebrews. (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 3:10.Colossians 1:18, Colossians 1:24.
Hebrews 12:23.) And in some of these exceptions the sense is at most but
doubtful. Further, our SAVIOUR uses the word twice, and in both times of the
Visible Church. They are remarkable passages, and may here be introduced, in
continuation of my argument.

Matthew 16:18. "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it." Now I am certain, any unprejudiced mind, who knew
nothing of controversy, considering the Greek word [ekklesia] means simply an
assembly, would have no doubt at all that it meant in this passage a visible
body. What right have we to disturb the plain sense? why do we impose a meaning,
arising from some system of our own? And this view is altogether confirmed by
the other occasion of our LORD’S using it, where it can only denote the Visible
Church. Matthew 18:17. "If he (thy brother) shall neglect to hear them, tell it
unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a
heathen man and a publican."

Observe then what we gain by these two passages;—the grant of power to the
Church; and the promise of permanence. Now look at the fact. The body then begun
has continued; and has always claimed and exercised the power of a corporation
or society. Consider merely the article in the Creed, " The Holy Catholic
Church;" which embodies this notion. Do not Scripture and History illustrate
each other?

I end this first draught of my argument, with the text in 1 Tim. iii. 15, in
which St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth,"—which can
refer to nothing but a Visible Body; else martyrs may be invisible, and
preachers, and teachers, and the whole order of the Ministry. My paper is
exhausted. If you allow me, I will send you soon a second Letter; meanwhile I
sum up what I have been proving from Scripture thus; that ALMIGHTY GOD might
have left Christianity as a sort of sacred literature, as contained in the
Bible, which each person was to take and use by himself; just as we read the
works of any human philosopher or historian, from which we gain practical
instruction, but the knowledge of which does not bind us to be Newtonians, or
Aristotelians, &c., or to go out of our line of life in consequence of it. This,
I say, He might have done; but, in matter of fact, He has ordained otherwise. He
has actually set up a Society, which exists even this day all over the world,
and which (as a general rule) Christians are bound to join; so that to believe
in CHRIST is not a mere opinion or a secret conviction, but a social or even a
political principle, forcing one into what is often stigmatized as party strife,
and quite inconsistent with the supercilious mood of those professed Christians
of the day, who stand aloof, and designate their indifference as philosophy.

LETTER II.

I AM sometimes struck with the inconsistency of those, who do not allow us to
express the gratitude due to the Church, while they do not hesitate to declare
their obligation to individuals who have benefited them. To a vow that they owe
their views of religion and their present hopes of salvation to this or that
distinguished preacher, appears to them as harmless, as it may be in itself true
and becoming; but if a person ascribes his faith and knowledge to the Church, he
is thought to forget his peculiar and unspeakable debt to that SAVIOUR who died
for him. Surely, if our LORD makes man His instrument of good to man, and if it
is possible to be grateful to man without forgetting the Source of all grace and
power, there is nothing wonderful in His having appointed a company of men as
the especial medium of His instruction and spiritual gifts, and in consequence,
of His having laid upon us the duty of gratitude to it. Now this is all I wish
to maintain, what is most clearly (as I think) revealed in Scripture, that the
blessings of redemption come to us through the Visible Church; so that, as we
betake ourselves to a Dispensary for medicine, without attributing praise or
intrinsic worth to the building or the immediate managers of its stores, in
something of the like manner we are to come to that One Society, to which CHRIST
has entrusted the office of stewardship in the distribution of gifts, of which
He alone is the Author and real Dispenser. In the letter I sent you the other
day, I made some general remarks on this doctrine; now let me continue the
subject.

First, the Sacraments, which are the ordinary means of grace, are clearly in
possession of the Church. Baptism is an incorporation into a body; and invests
with spiritual blessings, because it is the introduction into a body so
invested. In 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 we are taught first, the SPIRIT’S indwelling
in the Visible Church or body; I do not sayin every member of it, but
generallyinit;—next, we are told that the SPIRIT baptizes individualsintothat
body. Again, the LORD’S Supper carries evidence of its social nature even in its
name: it is not a solitary individual act, it is a joint communion. Surely
nothing is more alien to Christianity than the spirit of Independence; the
peculiar Christian blessing, i. e. the presence of CHRIST, is
upontwoorthreegathered together, not on mere individuals. But this is not all.
The Sacraments are committed, not into the hands of the Church Visible assembled
together, (though even this would be no unimportant doctrine practically,) but
into certain definite persons, who are selected from their brethren for that
trust. I will not here determine who these are in each successive age, but will
only point out how far this principle itself will carry us. The doctrine is
implied in the original institution of the LORD’S Supper, where CHRIST says to
His Apostles, "Do this." Further, take that remarkable passage in Matthew
24:45-51. Luke 12:42-46, "Who then is that faithful and wise Steward, whom his
Lord shall make ruler over His household, to give them their portion of meat in
due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord,when He cometh, shall find so
doing!" &c. Now I do not inquirewhoin every age are the stewards spoken of,
(though in my own mind I cannot doubt the line of Bishops is that Ministry, and
consider the concluding verses fearfully prophetic of the Papal misuse of the
gift;—by the bye, at least it shows this, that bad men may nevertheless be the
channels of grace to GOD’S "household,") I do not ask who are the stewards, but
surely the words,when He cometh, imply that they are to continue till the end of
the world. This reference is abundantly confirmed by our LORD’S parting words to
the eleven; in which, after giving them the baptismal commission, He adds, "Lo!
I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." If then He was with the
Apostles in a way in which He was not present with teachers who were strangers
to their "fellowship," (Acts 2:42.) which all will admit, so, in like manner, it
cannot be a matter of indifference inanyage, what teachers and fellowship a
Christian selects; there must be those with whom CHRIST is present, who are His
" Stewards," and whom it is our duty to obey. As I have mentioned the question
of faithfulness and unfaithfulness in Ministers, I may refer to the passage in 1
Corinthians 4:1-21 where St. Paul, after speaking of himself and others as
"Stewardsof the mysteries of God," and noticing that "it is required of
Stewards, that a man be found faithful," adds, "With me it is a very small thing
that I should be judged of you or of man’s judgment .... thereforejudge nothing
before the time." To proceed, consider the following passage: "Obey them that
have rule over you, and submit yourselves." Hebrews 13:17. Again, I do not ask
who these are; but whether this is not a duty, however it is to be fulfilled,
which multitudesin no sensefulfil. Consider the number of people, professing and
doubtless in a manner really actuated by Christian principle, who yet wander
about from church to church, or from church to meeting, as sheep without a
shepherd, or who choose a preacher merely because he pleases their taste, and
whose first movement towards any clergyman they meet, is to examine and
criticize his doctrine: what conceivable meaning do they put upon these words of
the Apostle? Does any onerule overthem? do they in any waysubmit themselves? Can
these persons excuse their conduct, except on the deplorably profane plea,
(which yet I believe is in their hearts at the bottom of their disobedience,)
that it matters little to keep CHRIST’S "least commandments," so that we embrace
the peculiar doctrines of His gospel?

Some time ago I drew up a sketch of the Scripture proof of the doctrine of the
Visible Church; which with your leave I will here transcribe. You will observe,
I am not arguing for this or that form of Polity, or for the Apostolical
Succession, but simply the duties of order, union, ecclesiastical gifts, and
ecclesiastical obedience; I limit myself to these points, as being persuaded
that, when they are granted, the others will eventually follow.

I. That there was a Visible Church in the Apostles’ day.

1. General texts. Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17. 1 Timothy 3:15. Acts passim, &c.

2. Organization of the Church.

(1.) Diversity of ranks. 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. Ephesians 4:4-12. Romans 12:4-8.
1 Peter 4:10-11.

(2.) Governors. Matthew 28:19. Mark 16:15-16. John 20:22-23. Luke 22:19-20.
Galatians 2:9, &c.

(3.) Gifts. Luke 12:42-43. John 20:22-23. Matthew 18:18.

(4.) Order. Acts 8:5-6, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:14-15, Acts 8:17, Acts 11:22-23, Acts
11:2, Acts 11:4Acts 9:27, Acts 15:2Acts 15:4, Acts 15:25; Acts 16:4; Acts 18:22;
Acts 21:17-19. conf. Galatians 1:1, Galatians 1:12. 1 Corinthians 14:40. 1
Thessalonians 5:14.

(5.) Ordination. Acts 6:6. 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:22. 2 Timothy 1:6. Titus
1:5. Acts 13:3. conf. Galatians 1:1, (6.) Ecclesiastical obedience. 1
Thessalonians 5:12-13. Hebrews 13:17. 1 Timothy 5:17.

(7.) Rules and discipline. Matthew 28:19. Matthew 18:17. 1 Corinthians 5:4-7.
Galatians 5:12, &c. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. 1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Corinthians
11:16, &c.

(8.) Unity. Romans 16:17. 1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Corinthians
14:26. Colossians 2:5. 1 Thessalonians 5:14. 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

II. That the Visible Church, thus instituted by the Apostles, was intended to
continue.

1. Why should it not? The onus probandi lies with those who deny this position.
If the doctrines and precepts already cited are obsolete at this day, why should
not the following texts? e. g. 1 Peter 2:13, or e. g. Matthew 7:14. John 3:3.

2. Is it likely so elaborate a system should be framed, yet with no purpose of
its continuing?

3. The objects to be obtained by it are as necessary now as then. (1.)
Preservation of the faith. (2.) Purity of doctrine. (3.) Edification of
Christians. (4.) Unity of operation. Vid. Epists. to Tim. & Tit. passim.

4. If system were necessary in a time of miracles, much more is it now.

5. 2 Timothy 2:2. Matthew 28:20, &c.

Take these remarks, as they are meant, as mere suggestions for your private
consideration.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 12 - RICHARD NELSON.
========================================================================

RICHARD NELSON.

I.

BISHOPS, PRIESTS, AND DEACONS.

[Number 12]

"It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient
authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of Ministers
in CHRIST’S Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

Pref. to the Ordination Service. IN the course of this last summer of 1833, I
had the pleasure of a visit from an old and valued friend, one of the most
respectable merchants in the city of Bristol (and this, in my opinion, is no
small praise).

We were discussing one day the subject of National Schools, their merits and
demerits. He was pleading strenuously for them; and to confirm his arguments, "I
will mention," said he, "a circumstance which happened to me when I was in this
part of the world about eleven or twelve years ago I was travelling on a coach
somewhere between Sheffield and Leeds, when we took up a lad of fourteen or
fifteen years of age; a rough country-looking boy, but well mannered, and of an
intelligent countenance.

"I found, upon conversation with him, that he belonged to a National School in
the neighbourhood which he was, he said, on the point of leaving. This gave me
occasion to ask him various questions, which he answered with so much readiness
and vivacity, yet without any self-conceit in his manner, that when the coach
stopped (I think it was at Barnsley) for a short time, I took him with me into a
bookseller’s shop, and desired him to select some book which I might give him as
a testimony of my approbation. After looking at a few which the bookseller
recommended, he fixed on a ‘Selection from Bishop Wilson’s Works,’ whose name,
he said, he had often heard. He begged me to write his name in it, which I did,
and we parted with mutual expressions of good-will; and I will be bold to
prophesy that that boy (or young man as he must now be, if he is still alive) is
giving, by his conduct, stronger testimony in favour of the National School
System, than a thousand of your speculating philosophers can bring against it."

"Well," said I, "you are apt to be sanguine in your views, but, as I must
confess they are very often right, so I will hope you may not have been deceived
in this instance."

It so happened, that two or three days after this conversation, we were taking a
walk together, and discussing various topics, such as the present state of
things might well suggest, when we met a young man, a neighbour of mine, a
mason, who detained us two or three minutes, while he asked my directions about
some work he was doing for me.

After he was out of hearing, "that," said I, "is one of the most respectable
young men I know. Soon after I came here, more than four years ago, he married a
young woman of a disposition similar to his own, and they live in that cottage
that you see there, to the right of that row of beeches."

"I see it, I believe," said he, hardly looking the way I pointed, and not
altogether seeming pleased at having our conversation thus interrupted.

"He has two or three little children, and I believe sometimes it goes hard with
them, as in the winter work is short hereabouts, and he does not like beating
about far from home I sometimes tell him he ought to look farther, but he is so
fond of his home, his wife, and children, that I verily think he would rather
live on potatoes seven days in the week with them, than have meat and beer by
himself. And besides, I know he does not relish the companions he must work with
at the town. However, on the whole, they do tolerably well, as they have a
garden of a fair size, and he never spends an unnecessary penny."

"I am glad to hear it," said he; "but we were talking; about the value of an
apostolical succession in the ministry, were we not? and of the great ignorance
and neglect now prevailing on the subject."

"We were," said I; "but to tell you the truth, though I have bestowed
considerable attention on the subject, and examined the various opinions which
have been put forth on it, yet I have scarcely learned so much hereon from the
works of learned theologians, as I have from repeated conversations with that
very young man we just now met."

"You surprise me," said he.

"You may be surprised, but it is, however, true, and, if you have no objection,
I will tell you how it was."

"By all means," he answered.

"When I first came to the parish, I looked about for some person to take charge
of the Sunday School, as the master was old, and so deaf as to be unequal to the
work. I was recommended to apply to Richard Nelson; (that is the man’s
name)"—Here my friend interrupted me, saying, "Richard Nelson ? why, now I
remember, that was the very name of the boy I travelled with." "Indeed !" said
I, " then doubtless it is the same person: for his age will agree with your
account very well, and I know he was bred at———National School."——"Well," said
he, "I am quite delighted to find myself a true prophet in this instance."
"Perhaps," said I, "you will be still more pleased when you have heard all I
have to tell you: you will find that your little present was by no means thrown
away."——"Go on," said he, "I am all attention."

"I was telling you, I believe, that I requested Nelson to be come master of the
Sunday School. After some little hesitation, he declined my offer, under the
plea that he could not give constant and regular attendance; though he was
willing to attend occasionally, and render what assistance he could. So it was
arranged that the old master should still remain; and I afterwards discovered
that an unwillingness to deprive him of the little emolument was Nelson’s real
reason for declining my offer. As the Sunday School is nearly three-quarters of
a mile from my house, in a direction beyond Nelson’s, along the Beech Walk, as
we call it, it frequently happened that we joined in company as we went to and
fro. We generally talked over such subjects as had reference to the School, or
to the state of religion in general; and, amongst other topics, that on which
you and I are conversing, the authority of Christian ministers. I remember it
was on the following occasion that the subject was started between us: I thought
that I had observed one Sunday that he was making the boys of his class, (our
school professes to be on the Bell System,) that he was, I say, making his boys
read the nineteenth and some other of the Thirty-nine Articles relating to the
ministerial office, and that afterwards he was explaining and illustrating them,
after his usual manner, by referring them to suitable parts of Scripture. On our
walk homewards, I enquired if I was right in my conjecture. He said, Yes; and
that in the present state of things he could not help thinking it quite a duty
to direct the minds of young persons to such subjects. And on this, and many
subsequent occasions, he set forth his opinions on the matter, which I will
state to you, as far as I can remember, in his own words.

"My good mother," he said, "not long before her death, which happened about half
a year before I came to live here, said to me very earnestly one day, as I was
sitting by her bed side, ‘My dear Richard, observe my words, never dare to
trifle with GOD ALMIGHTY.’ By this I understood her to mean, that in all
religious actions we ought to be very awful, and to seek nothing but what is
right and true. And I knew that she had always disapproved of people’s saying,
as they commonly do, ‘that it little matters what a man’s religion is, if he is
but sincere;’ and ‘that one opinion or one place of worship is as good as
another.’ To say, or think, or act so, she used to call ‘Trifling with GOD’S
truth;’ and do you not think, sir, (addressing himself to me,) that she was
right?"

"Indeed I do," said I.

"And," he said, "I was much confirmed in these opinions by constantly reading a
very wise, and, as I may say to you, precious book, which a gentleman gave me
some years ago, whom I met by chance, when I was going to see my father in the
infirmary. It is called a ‘Selection from Bishop Wilson’s Works,’ and there are
many places in it which show what his opinions were on this subject; and, I
suppose, Sir, there can be no doubt that Bishop Wilson was a man of
extraordinary judgment and piety."

"He has ever been considered so," I answered.

"I could not think much of any one’s judgment or piety either, who should say
otherwise," he replied; "and what Bishop Wilson says is this, or to this effect:
‘That to reject the government of Bishops, is to reject an ordinance of GOD."

"That ‘our salvation depends under GOD, upon the ministry of those whom JESUS
CHRIST and the HOLY GHOST have appointed to reconcile men to GOD.’

"That ‘the personal failings of ministers do not make void their commission.’

‘That ‘if the Unity of the Church is once made a light master, and he who is the
centre of Unity, and in CHRIST’S stead, shall come to be despised, and his
authority set at nought, then will error and infidelity get ground; JESUS CHRIST
and his Gospel will be despised, and the kingdom of Satan set up again here as
well as in other nation.’ With many other expressions like these.

"And yet, Sir," he continued, "the gentleman who lives over there, (pointing to
a great house in sight four or five miles on down the valley,) who is said to be
a person of much learning, and who does a great deal of good, he does not take
the matter in the same light. For he told a man of—— , whom I was working with,
that if a person preached what was right and good, that was the best sign of his
being ordained a minister, without the ceremony of laying on a Bishop’s hands
upon his head. And the man that told me very much admired the opinion, in regard
(he said) of its being so very liberal, or some such word. Though I confess I
could not exactly see what there was so much to admire. Because; if the opinion
were true, it was good, and if it were false, it was bad, equally as much (to my
thinking) whether it were called liberal or bigoted."

"Doubtless you were right," said I. "And," he proceeded, "it seemed to me, (and
I told the man so,) like going round and round in a wheel, to say, if he is
GOD’S minister, he preaches what is good; and if he preaches what is good, he is
GOD’S minister. For still the question will be, what is right and good? and some
would say one thing and some another; and some would say there is nothing right
nor good at all in itself, but only as seems most expedient to every person for
the time being. So for my own satisfaction, and hoping for GOD’S blessing on my
endeavour, I resolved to search the matter out for myself as well as I could. My
plan was this. First to see what was said on the subject in the Church Prayer
Book, and then to compare this with the Scriptures; and if, after all, I could
not satisfy myself, I should have taken the liberty of consulting you, Sir, if I
had been here, or Mr. —— who was the minister at ——, where I came from."

"Yours was a good plan" I said; "but I suppose you had forgotten that the chief
part of the Church Services which relate to these subjects, is not contained in
the Prayer Books which we commonly use."

"I was aware of that," he answered, "but my wife’s father had been clerk of ———
parish, and it so happened that the; churchwarden had given him a large Prayer
Book in which all the Ordination Services were quite perfect, though the book
was ancient and in some parts very ragged. This book my wife brought with her
when we came here, and indeed she values it very highly on account of her poor
father having used it for so many years. Thus you see, Sir, with the Bible and
Prayer Book, and, (as I hoped,) GOD’S blessing on my labours, I was not, as you
may say, unfurnished for the work."

"Indeed, Richard, you were not," I replied.

"Well then," he proceeded, "I first observed, that the Church is very particular
in not allowing any administration of the Sacraments, or any public service of
ALMIGHTY GOD to take place, except when there is one of her ministers to guide
and take the lead in the solemnity. Thus not only in the administration of
Baptism, and of the LORD’S Supper, but in the daily Morning and Evening Prayers,
in the public Catechizing of Children, in the Solemnization of Marriage, in the
Visitation of the Sick, and in the Burial of the Dead;—in all these cases the
Christian congregation is never supposed complete, nor the service perfect,
unless there be also present a minister authorized to lead the devotions of the
people. And yet I also observed that neither minister nor people, not even with
the leave of the Bishop himself, had power or authority given them to alter or
vary from the Rules set down in the Prayer Book. And often have I thought how
well it would be if Ministers and people too would be more careful to keep to
the rules."

"Yes," said I, "it is too true; we are all to blame."

"But," he proceeded, taking a small Prayer Book out of his pocket, "the question
I had next to ask was,—who are meant by these ministers so often referred to in
the Church Service. To this question I found a general answer in the
Twenty-third, Twenty-sixth, and Thirty-sixth Articles; where the judgment of the
Church is thus plainly given."

"1st. ‘That it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public
preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be
lawfully called and sent to execute the same.’

"2ndly. ‘That those are lawfully called and sent, who are chosen and called to
the work by men who have public authority given them in the Congregation to call
and send Ministers into the LORD’S vineyard.’

"3rdly. ‘That though sometimes evil men may have chief authority in the
Ministration of the Word and Sacraments; yet, forasmuch, as they do not the same
in their own name but in CHRIST’S, and do minister by His commission and
authority, we may use their ministry with full hope of GOD’S blessing.’

"4thly. ‘That whosoever are consecrated and ordained according to the Rites
there prescribed, are rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordained.’

"But here, Sir, I will take occasion to ask you whether it would not have been
better, instead of calling the second order of Ministers Priests, to have used
the word which is frequently found in the New Testament applied to them,
"Elders," or "Presbyters."

"Why," I said, "I have no doubt the wise and good men who framed the Prayer Book
had a good reason for retaining the title of Priests. But in truth it is one of
the very words you mentioned, only somewhat shortened by our forefathers in
their pronunciation of it—Presbyter was made Prester, and that by degrees became
Prest or Priest."

"That," said he "is very remarkable, and proves that we ought to enquire before
we find fault. But to go on with what I was saying—I next proceeded to read
over, and I assure you, Sir, I did it with great care, the three Services in our
great Prayer Book—namely, for Consecration of Bishops, Ordaining of Priests, and
Making of Deacons. And I must confess to you that I could not but greatly admire
them; and at the same time feel much astonishment at two considerations which
they brought to my mind."

"What were they, Richard?" I enquired.

"The one was," he said, "to think that after such a solemn dedication to the
ministry, there should be such a thing as a care less or a wicked Clergyman. And
yet, Sir, is it not also astonishing, that after such a solemn dedication of
ourselves as we all make to GOD in Baptism, there should be such a thing as a
careless or a wicked Christian?"

"So it is," I said, "when we judge others we condemn ourselves. But what was the
other ground of your surprise?"

"Why it was this; that there should be any doubt what the opinion of the Church
is respecting the Christian Ministry. Comparing the Ordination Service with the
liturgy and Articles, it seems to me quite clear, that in the judgment of the
Church, none can show themselves duly authorized Ministers of CHRIST, who do not
belong to one or other of the three orders, of Bishops, Priests, or Deacons.

"But, said I to myself, other Churches have erred, why may not this then be the
misfortune of the Church of England also? and this very opinion may be one of
her errors. You see then, Sir, the next thing I had to do was to consult the
Scriptures on the subject, and (if it be not too bold in such a one as I to say
so) to try the Prayer Book by the Bible."

"Your method was the best possible," I said. "But, if you please do not use the
expression, the Churchof England, but the Church in England."

"Why indeed, Sir," said he, "in the present state of things perhaps it would be
more proper. But to proceed with my enquiry. I first observed that in the
history of the Jews, as contained in the Old Testament, as well as in that of
Christians in the New, the ALMIGHTY seems almost or, quite always to have
communicated His will to mankind through some chosen Minister; some one, whether
it were angel or man, who could give suitable evidence of the authority by which
he spoke or acted. But there seemed to me to be this great difference between
Jews and Christians, in this as in other eases; that in the Jews’ religion, all
the rules and regulations were set down so plainly and distinctly, that no one
could mistake their meaning; for instance, in the Levitical laws concerning the
priesthood; of what family and tribe the Priest and High Priest should be, what
their respective duties, and what their dress, &c. Whereas in the Christian
religion, the rules and regulations, however important, and even necessary, are
yet not so exactly set down. And I remember hearing a very good and wise
clergyman say in a sermon at —— Church, that this is probably what St. James
means, when he calls the Gospel ‘a Law of Liberty;’ namely, that its rules and
directions are not so plainly set down,—on purpose that Christians might have
freer space, (I remember that was his expression,) and opportunity to exercise
their faith and love for their Redeemer. And I have sometimes thought myself,
that what St. Paul says about the difference between walking by faith and by
sight, seems to suit the different cases of Jews and Christians. They walked by
sight, we must walk by faith; and faith in this world we are told, can see but
as through a glass darkly."

"It seems so," I said.

He proceeded.

"With this view I went on to examine the New Testament, expecting to find
therein some generalinstruction respecting the institution and authority of
Ministers in the Christian Church. But I did not expect that these rules should
be as particular and distinct as those on the same subject in the Old Testament,
any more than I should expect to find a command to Christians to observe the
LORD’S Day set down as distinctly as the command to observe the; Sabbath was set
down for the Jews. And yet, Sir, I suppose all will agree, that no one who
wilfully neglects the LORD’S Day can be a true Christian."

"There are strange opinions now afloat," said I: "and if many despise the LORD’S
Ministers, it is no wonder if many also despise the LORD’S Day?

"Indeed, Sir," said he, "it is not to be wondered at. But to go on with my
statement. On carefully perusing the New Testament history, I remarked that our
LORD did not grant ministerial authority to His disciples in general, but first
to twelve, and then to seventy; that of those twelve, one was among the
wickedest of mankind, and that our LORD knew (John 6:64. John 13:18) his
character when he appointed him; and possibly some of those seventy also might
be unworthy persons; that our LORD, just before His departure, gave what may be
called a fresh commission to His apostles, which they should act upon after His
ascension; that after that event the twelve Apostles were the leading persons in
the Christian Church, having under them two orders or degrees, viz. Bishops
(sometimes called Elders) and Deacons; that this threefold division of Ministers
in the Church lasted as far as the New Testament history reaches, the Apostles
having set men over different Churches with Apostolical authority, to preside
during their absence, and co succeed them after their decease. This sufficiently
appears from places in St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy and Titus."

"Do you remember any of the passages?" I asked him.

"I cannot," he said, "call to mind chapter and verse. But I have with me a
little paper of memorandums which I use at the school, and which, if it be not
too much trouble, I will thank you to look at." The paper was as follows:—for I
thought it well to copy what he had written into my pocket memorandum-book.

It appears that Timothy had authority at Ephesus to check false or unedifying
Teachers. 1 Timothy 1:3-4;—to select persons proper to be ordained Bishops, 1
Timothy 3:1-7;—and also Deacons, 1 Timothy 3:8-13. That he should have
particular regard to the Elders who rule well, 1 Timothy 5:17. That he should be
cautious of receiving accusations against Elders. 1 Timothy 5:19. That if any
[Elders] were convicted, it washisduty to reprimand them publicly. . 1 Timothy
5:20. That in his decisions he should be strictly impartial. 1 Timothy 5:21.
That he should be very cautious on whom he laid his hands. 1 Timothy 5:22. That
Timothy was in a station which even the rich and great might respect, 1 Timothy
1:17. That Timothy had been ordained by St. Paul himself, once, if not twice, 2
Timothy 1:6. That at his ordination or consecration there was something
remarkable in theSermon. 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 1:18. That he was to commit
what he had heard from St. Paul to faithful men, who should be able to pass it
on to others. 2 Timothy 2:2. That Titus had authority to set in order what was
wanting in the Cretan Church; Titus 1:5; and to ordain Bishops in every city;
Titus 1:5, Titus 1:7. That he was to be cautious whom he selected for this
office. Titus 1:6-9. That he should rebuke false teachers sharply. Titus 1:13.
That if Titushimselfwas a pattern of good works and a teacher of truth,the whole
Churchwould gain Credit. Titus 2:7-8. That he should rebuke with all authority.
Titus 2:15. That he should suffer no man to despise him. Titus 2:15. That after
one or two admonitions he should reject heretical persons. Titus 3:10.

"Now, Sir, it seems to me evident, from these and other similar passages, that
there were certainly in the Church, as far as the Testament History reaches,
three different ranks or orders Ministers one above the other."

"It is plainly so," I said.

"But," said he, "there was one point which rather perplexed me, and I was some
time before I could make out such an explanation of it as was satisfactory to
myself."

"What was that," I asked.

"Why," said he, "it was this. I considered that any person to whom the Apostles
granted Apostolical authority, (Timothy, for instance,) was from that time
higher than a Presbyter or Bishop, and yet could not properly be called an
Apostle. What then could he be called? I at last remembered a place in Bishop
Wilson’s little book, which led me to reflect, that surely as there were Angels,
(whether it might mean guardians, or heavenly messengers, or missionary bishops,
as we might say,) of the seven Churches in Asia, so Timothy might have been
called the Angel of the Ephesian Church; and Titus, of the Church of Crete; and
the same in other cases. And it came into my thoughts, that, perhaps, after St.
John’s decease, whether out of humility, or because (the Churches being
settled,) the Ministers need no longer be missionaries, the title of Apostles or
Angels was laid aside, and that of Bishops limited to the highest of the three
orders.

"Thus I seemed to myself every where to have traced the threefold order, down
from the beginning of the Gospel; the authority and distinction peculiar to each
being preserved, a difference in name only taking place.

"Thus at first they were . . . . . . Apostles, Elders, Deacons. [sic]

"After the decease of some of the Apostles, or at least, while St John was yet
living .........Angels, Bishops, Deacons, [sic] "At some period after St. John’s
decease ........................Bishops, Priests, Deacons." [sic] " I do not see
how what you have said can be contradicted," I replied.

"But," he proceeded, "there is one thing I must, Sir, confess to you, and it is
this;—that I have often said to myself, what a comfort it would be, if it had
pleased GOD to preserve to us some few writings of the good men who lived close
after the Apostles, that so we might have known their opinion on matters of this
kind and we might have known, too, by what names they distinguished the
different orders of Ministers, one from another. For, surely, what they would
think most proper in such cases must be safest of all rules for us to follow;
unless, (which is a thing not to be supposed,) their rules should be contrary to
those of the Apostles, as set down in Scripture. So, Sir, I have often thought,
if any such writings could be found, what a precious treasure they would be."

"What!" said I, "Richard, did you never hear of those who are called the
Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius?"

"I believe I have heard of them," he answered; "but I observed that you, Sir,
and other Clergymen, scarcely ever notice them in your sermons: and the man I
mentioned just now told me that Mr. Cartwright, who is the minister of the
Independent chapel at the town, and who is reckoned to be a very learned man and
an admired preacher, that he should say in a sermon, that the works of the
Fathers were very imperfect, and their opinion not much to be trusted to."

"But," said I, "Richard, if a person, whose word you could take, were to show
you an old book written by persons who had seen our SAVIOUR; who had heard St.
John and St. Paul preach, and had been well acquainted with them; should you not
value such a book, and wish to know whether there was any thing in it which
could throw light on the history of those early times of the Church, and
especially with reference to the subjects you and I have been now conversing
on?"

"Indeed, Sir, I should," he said.

"But if what Mr. Cartwright said is true, it is too much to expect that any such
treasure should be found by us."

"No, Richard," I said, "it is not too much. The kind Providence of GOD has
permitted some of the writings of those good men to be preserved to this day.
And there is no more doubt that they are their genuine writings, than that
Bishop Ken wrote the Evening Hymn, or Bishop Wilson that little book you like so
much."

"If this is indeed as you say," he replied, "we have great reason to be thankful
for such a proof of GOD’S care for His Church. But I beg you, Sir, to tell me,
whether there is any thing in these writings you speak of, which confirms what I
have been venturing to state to you as my opinion gathered from Scripture,
concerning the threefold distinction of Christian ministers."

"Next Sunday," said I, "you shall see and judge for yourself." As we came home
from church in the afternoon of the following Sunday, he reminded me of my
promise, and I gave him a written paper, containing a few extracts, which I had
translated from the works of the Apostolical Fathers, telling him that I might
possibly have made a mistake here and there in the rendering, but that he might
depend on such being the general force and meaning of the passages. The extracts
I gave him were the following:

"Clement, with other my fellow labourers."—Php 4:3.

"Ignatius and the holy Polycarp, the Bishop of the Smyrnaeans, had formerly been
disciples of the holy apostle John."—Martyrdom of St. Ignatius.

"The Apostles, preaching throughout countries and cities, used to appoint their
first fruits, after they had proved them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and
Deacons of those who should hereafter believe."—St. Clement to the Cor.

"The Apostles knew that there will be dispute about the name of Bishoprick or
Episcopacy, wherefore they appointed the aforementioned, and gave them authority
beforehand, in order that if themselves should fall asleep, other approved men
might succeed to their ministerial office."—The same.

"All of you follow the Bishop as JESUS CHRIST followed the FATHER; and the
Presbytery as the Apostles; and reverence the Deacons as GOD’S ordinance. Let no
man do any of those things which pertain to the Church without the Bishop. He
that honoureth the Bishop, is honoured of GOD; he that doeth any thing without
the privity of the Bishop, doeth service to the Devil."— S. Ignat. to the Smyrn.

"Have regard to the Bishop, that GOD also may regard you. My soul for theirs who
are subject to the Bishops, Elders, and Deacons: and may it be my lot to have a
portion with them in GOD."—S. Ignat to Polycarp.

"The Bishops who were appointed in the farthest regions are according to the
will of JESUS CHRIST; whence it becometh you to go along with the will of the
Bishop."—S. Ignat to the Ephes. That ye may obey the Bishop and the Presbytery,
having your mind without distraction, breaking one bread."—The same.

"Some indeed talk of the Bishop, yet do every thing without him: but such
persons do not appear to me conscientious; on account of their congregations not
being assembled strictly according to the commandment."—S. Ignat. to the Magnes.

"I exhort you to be zealous to do all things in divine concord: the Bishop
presiding in the place of GOD, and the Presbyters in the place of the council of
Apostles, and the Deacons, (in whom I most delight,) intrusted with the service
of JESUS CHRIST."—The same.

" For as many as are GOD’S and JESUS CHRIST’S, these are with the Bishop." —S.
Ignat. to the Philadelph.

"Be ye earnest to keep one Eucharist, for the flesh of our LORD JESUS CHRIST is
one, and there is one cup in the unity of His blood, one altar, as one Bishop,
together with the Presbytery, and Deacons, my fellow-servants."—The same.

"Hold to the Bishops and to the Presbytery, and Deacons. Without the Bishop do
nothing."—The same.

"When you are subject to the Bishop as to JESUS CHRIST, ye appear to me as
living not according to man’s rule, but according to JESUS CHRIST."—S. Ignat. to
the Trall.

"He that without the Bishop, and Presbytery, and Deacon, doeth ought, that
person is not pure in his conscience."—The same.

"Polycarp, and the Presbyters who are with him, to the Church of GOD, sojourning
at Philippi."—S. Polyc. to the Philipp.

"Being subject to the Presbyters. Deacons, as to GOD and CHRIST."—The same.

Two or three weeks afterwards, as we were walking homewards after Evening
Service, he gave me back the paper, with expressions of great satisfaction and
thankfulness; and added, that he blessed GOD for having led him to make the
inquiry, and that he was sure, if many religiously-disposed persons, who now
think little of such matters, would turn their minds to them without partiality,
they would fear to separate from a Church like ours, which, whatever may be its
imperfections, is substantially pure in its doctrine, and in the apostolical
succession of its ministry.

"Sir," said he, "I am a poor, hard-working man, as you know; but the interests
of my soul, and of those dear to me, are of as great importance in the sight of
Almighty GOD, and ought to be to me also, as if my lot had been cast in a higher
station. It is to me, therefore, no matter of indifference, (as many have told
me it should be,) what is the truth on these great subjects; but I am more and
more sure that it is a Christian duty first to enquire into them, and, when we
have found the truth, to act up to it humbly but resolutely.

"The times are bad, I confess: but yet, young though I am, I do not expect, as
the world now goes, to see them much better.

"What our LORD said about iniquity abounding, and love growing cold, seems to be
but too suitable to our present state. I have often thought it and said it,
though I have seldom met with anyone who would agree with me in the opinion. The
Church of England, I can plainly see, more plainly perhaps than a person in a
higher station, is in a manner gone. The Church in England? GOD be thanked,
however afflicted, remains, and ever will, I trust, whether the world smiles or
frowns upon her.

"I have therefore determined, Sir, by GOD’S grace, to look to myself, my wife,
and children, and not to trust the world to do us any good, either in time, or
in eternity.

"And if by following THE TRUTH now, we shall all be together hereafter in the
society of Prophets, Apostles, Saints, and Martyrs, you know then, Sir, we shall
have nothing more to wish for, nothing more to fear; every doubt will be
satisfied, every difficulty removed. And I assure you, Sir, it is the very
comfort of my life to spend a portion of every Sunday in looking forward to that
happy time."

"God bless you, Richard," said I, as we parted at his garden gate; and, when I
came home, I could not but fall on my knees and thank GOD for having given me
such a parishioner.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 13 - THE PRINCIPLE OF SELECTION.
========================================================================

THE PRINCIPLE OF SELECTION.

[Number 13]

AMONG projected alterations in the Liturgy, not the least popular seems to be a
very considerable change in the selection of the Sunday Lessons. People do not
see, first of all, why such and such chapters are chosen out of the Old
Testament, in preference to others which they think more edifying. Secondly they
see no reason why the Church should not assign Proper Lessons to every Sunday
from the New Testament as well as from the Old.

One who hopes that he should not be found froward, were a change to be made by
competent Spiritual Authority, begs leave, nevertheless, to submit to all
considerate lovers of the Prayer Book, the following remarks on the two points
specified above.

I. Before people find fault with the selection of particular chapters, they
ought to be tolerably certain that they understand the principle, on which the
Lessons in general were selected. It is to be regretted, that we have remaining
little, if any, historical evidence touching the views of the Compilers of the
Liturgy, in that portion of their task. What we do know, amounts to this:— In
King Edward’s Prayer-Books no distinction was made, as to appointing lessons,
between Sundays and -other days of the week. The chapter of the Old Testament
set down for the day of the month was read in course for the Sunday Lesson; as
is the case still in regard of the New Testament. With a view to this, probably
the well-known notice was prepared, which now stands prefixed to the Second Book
of Homilies, but in Strype’s opinion belongs rather to the First Book. "Where,
(i. e. whereas it may so chance, some one or other chapter of the Old Testament
to fall in order to be read upon the Sundays or Holidays, which were better to
be changed with some other of the New Testament for more edification, it shall
be well done to spend your time to consider well of such chapters before-hand."
This came out first, as it seems, in 1560; and about the same time a Commission
was given to Archbishop Parker, Bishop Grindal, and others; " to peruse the
order of the Lessons, throughout the whole year, and to cause new calenders to
be printed." In pursuance of which the present Table of Sunday Lessons was
prepared, and came out the same year. We may then consider it as Archbishop
Parker’s; and surely not one among the Reformers might be more thoroughly
depended on for a sound practical view of things. Farther than this, we have no
direct information. We must be guided there fore, entirely by the internal
evidence of the Lessons themselves. The series begins from Septuagesima Sunday,
because it was the custom of the early Church to read the Book of Genesis in
Lent. Let us examine them in their order, ending with the 6th Sunday after
Epiphany in the following year. We shall find, if I mistake not, that the
selection may be accounted for on this supposition, viz. That the arrangers
desired to exhibit GOD’S former dealings with His chosen peoplecollectivelyand
the return made by them to GOD, in such manner as might best illustrate His
dealing with eachindividual, chosen now to be in His Church, and the snares and
temptations most apt to beset us as Christians.

Certainly, there does exist a very wonderful analogy between these two cases,
that of the Jewish nation delineated in the Bible, and that of a baptized
Christian, as known by daily experience: an analogy most striking in itself,
most clearly pointed out more than once in the New Testament, and very
serviceable, if rightly understood in many great points of faith and practice.
This analogy arises out of the fact, that Christians severally are, what the
Jews collectively-were, partakers of an especial Covenant.

It is to be supposed, that the Great Enemy has his peculiar way of dealing with
souls placed in such a relation, as with parents, children, subjects, and
others, according to their several relations. To exhibit such his purpose and
proceedings, and to exemplify also the counteracting methods of providence,
seems to be one especial purpose of the historical portions of the Old
Testament: in which the prophetical are here included. To give an instance of
what is here meant. One of the most prevailing temptations to unbelief and
careless practice is the daily experience we have, of Christians behaving so
very differently from what one should expect,ý priori, in GOD’S elect. It does
not seem as if, left to ourselves, we should have any adequate idea of the kind
of hypocrisy described by Bishop Butler, in his Sermon on Self-deceit, and
elsewhere; I mean the temper which leads men to act towards GOD ALMIGHTY, (whom,
in theory and understanding? they own,) as if it were in their power to deceive
Him. To explain this for the benefit of those most in danger, seems one great
purpose of the Old Testament: to explain it I say, for the benefit of unworthy
Christians, who may discern themselves, by anticipation, in the faithless
demeanour of the Jews.

It is conceivable that a series of extracts might be made, to illustrate this
matter more particularly, i. e. on a principle of admonition. Would not such a
series coincide, very nearly, with the Sunday Lessons?

Thus, Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis 2:1-25, represent man as at first placed in
covenant with his Maker; Genesis 3:1-24, Genesis 6:1-18 and Genesis 9:1-29
represent his fall, and the wonderful mixture of judgment and mercy which
prepared him for the recovery, which GOD had in store for him, by virtue of a
New Covenant. Then, (Genesis 12:1-20) follows the first definite step towards
the establishment of that New Covenant: the call of Abraham to be the select
pattern and spiritual progenitor of all who shall ever be saved by it. And here
again judgment is shown mingled with mercy, and thorough probation accompanying
both, by the two selected chapters of Abraham’s history; the fall of Sodom, and
the sacrifice of Isaac. Then begins the account of Jacob and his family, the
other great section of the Patriarchal History; displaying on the one hand, the
great danger of taking liberties with moral duty, under the notion of being
favourites with GOD; (for the subsequent misfortunes of Jacob’s family are
clearly traceable to that first want of faith;) on the other hand, the
mysterious ways of Providence, turning those misfortunes and errors into means
for the great purpose of preparing a covenanted nation to take the place of the
covenanted family. With Exodus begins the history of that nation, which may
perhaps not improperly be styled the appropriate type of
eachbackslidingChristian, as Abraham we know was the type of thefaithful. The
chapters selected shew, first, GOD preparing the way for their election; then
their reluctant acceptance of the favour; next, the actual process of their
deliverance; the whole being so arranged, that this latter shall correspond with
the season of Easter; which is indeed (so to speak) thepoint of sightof the
whole Christian Calendar, as the passover is of the Jewish. But to proceed:—the
Lessons from Easter to Whit-Sunday (taking into account the great days of
Easter-week and Ascension,) are so many specimens of the transgressions of the
elect people, and of the methods taken to chastise or reclaim them. The case of
Balaam, most evidently needs not to be excepted from this account; for never was
a clearer analogy than between him and the Jewish people: they murmuring and
rebelling with the Shechinah before their eyes; he coveting the reward of
iniquity, perhaps plotting seduction in his heart, while he heard the words of
GOD, and saw the vision of the ALMIGHTY. NO analogy can be more exact; except it
be that between the same miserable man, and a Christian baptised, sinning
against faith and knowledge. The Lessons for Trinity-Sunday as was natural,
interrupt for one week the progress of the history, for the purpose of reviewing
the whole course. The mind is carried back, first, to GOD’S original intent in
creating man after his own image; next, to the appointed condition or mean, by
which that image is to be regained; viz. the imitation of Abraham’s faith. In
effect, they rehearse to us both Covenants; that of Paradise, and that of the
Gospel.

Resuming our view of the covenantedpeople, we contemplate them first victorious,
peaceful and comparatively innocent, renewing their engagements with their Maker
in the days of Joshua in the days of the Judges backsliding and factious, but
not yet deliberately unbelieving; next, trained by Eli’s sons to irreverence for
holy things; and, not ill-prepared to apostatize, by choosing a king on
principles of accommodation and worldly policy. The gradual degeneracy and
downfal of that unhappy king (the emblem of the Jews of his time, as Balaam had
been of a former generation,) and the substitution of one of better mind, are
continued through a chain of Lessons, to the excision, long after his death, of
almost all that remained of his family.

But, in the mean. time, a new source of sin and misery had arisen in the family
of David himself. His personal sins, indeed, were fast followed by sincere
repentance, and therefore obtained speedy pardon; butbecausethey were the sins
of one with whom peculiar covenant had been made, they drew down the severest
temporal judgments; the sword never departed from his house; and, by the
dissensions which arose in his time a way was prepared for the schism and
two-fold apostacy, first heretical and afterwards infidel, of the greater part
of the chosen people. These, with GOD’S endeavours to reclaim them by the
warnings of Elijah and Elisha, and by the sword of Jehu are traced in the
chapters taken from the Books of Kings, from the first curse of Jeroboam’s
schismatical altar, till the final reprobation and captivity of the ten tribes.
In the course of which history, especial emphasis is laid, first on the
misfortunes incurred by the nameless prophet from Judah, by king Jehoshaphat and
others, for their licentious communication with the heretical and idolatrous
tribes, secondly, on the extension of GOD’S favour to the Gentiles, in two
instances for ever memorable; which extension, we may believe, was virtually a
signal warning to his then elect people. At length we arrive at the last sad
scene of the history; the downfal of the Church of Judah also. We behold a
temporary amendment in the days of Hezekiah, occasioned by the combination of
miraculous mercy to herself, with judgment on Samaria in her sight. But we
presently read of her thorough relapse; of her resistance to the example and
efforts of good Josiah; of her sensuality? and oppression her neglect and
contempt of warnings, all accompanied with high pretences to civilization, and a
certain kind of orthodoxy. All these,her dealings withGOD, are delineated at
large by Jeremiah. In the Lessons from Ezekiel we have revealed more of
GOD’Sdealings with her. He peremptorily orders his message to be delivered,
whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear, He denounces the false
prophets, preaching peace where there was no peace; and discovers their secret
and vulgar artifices. He answers pretences from feigned conformity, from
reliance on the remnant of good in the land; and again, from an affected
perplexity at the supposed inequality of his proceedings. He recapitulates, by
special message, all their past conduct, as His chosen people: a summary,
answering with marvellous exactness to the sad experience of the Christian
world. When all these had failed, He utters, in two fearful parables, a final
sentence of direct reprobation. All this we have set before us from Ezekiel. The
Lessons from Daniel serve to show that the chosen people were not yet abandoned;
they keep alive hope, and exemplify faith, triumphing in the worst of times;
which is also the drift of the prophecy selected from Joel. Then Micah is
introduced, like Samuel and Ezekiel, recapitulating the whole course of the
probation of the elect; and Habakkuk, extending the judgment to their
oppressors, and reasserting the condition required on their part to make their
election not a curse but a blessing. "The just by his faith shall live."
Finally, the readings from the Proverbs of Solomon bring the warning home, so to
speak, to every man’s own door. Taken in connexion with all that had gone
before, they turn GOD’S miraculous proceeding, with the Jews into an available
sanction of righteousness, for the meanest man’s use on the slightest occasion.
And now, the year drawing to a close, and the mysterious time of Christmas
approaching, our Mother, with true parental anxiety, takes up, as it were, the
thread of her instructions anew at that point of the fortunes of Israel, to
which the circumstance of civilized and Christian Europe, especially those of
our own country, during the comparatively few years which have passed since the
arrangement of the Prayer-Book, may reasonably be thought to correspond most
nearly, the Church reverts to the time of Hezekiah, and selects the prophecy of
Isaiah as the fittest to prepare the minds for CHRIST’S two Advents. By the
confession of some who are most apt to find fault, her selection here has been
most appropriate. Witness the sins reproved in the Jews; their formality, pride,
oppression, drunkenness, presumption, sophistical self-deceit; their impatience
of primitive truth, and reliance upon mere worldly expedients. Witness again the
wonderful mixture of triumph and desolation, judgments and merciesforetold; such
as might seem impossible to be accomplished together, at one and the same time,
among one and the same people. Yet we seem to behold both accomplished; the one
is thetendenciesof the Gospel, and what it performs for the faithful privately;
the other, in men’s ordinary way of receiving it, and what may be called its
public failure. The very denunciations against idolatry by some, perhaps,
accounted an outward sin, how well do they apply to the various apostasies,
which men contrive for themselves now, and say, to one after another, Deliver
me, for thou art my GOD! The summaries of pastnationalmercies, how truly do they
represent what is now done for each redeemed and sanctified soul! And as to the
anticipation of mercies and judgmentto come, they do not onlycorrespondto the
revelations of the New Testament, but we have the express authority of our LORD
and St. Paul for believing, that, of both, language was purposely used, (in the
purpose, I mean, of the HOLY SPIRIT,) whichliterally refersto the life and death
everlasting, the sanctions of GOD’S covenant with every Christian singly. This
hasty and brief sketch may serve to point out the thread of warning, which, it
is conceived, runs through the Sunday Lessons, and renders it very improper to
deal with them as if they had been taken at random, or might fitly be changed at
will, for others supposed in themselves more edifying.

Whether Archbishop Parker and his coadjutors had this connexion in view, as it
is not, perhaps, possible to ascertain, so neither is it very material. Perhaps
the fact of its spontaneous evolution (if such an expression may be allowed,)
would make it appear so much the more delicate, and tampering with it so much
the more perilous. For, on that supposition, it must be more than humanly
interwoven with the very staple of the Scripture History. But, supposing it
designed, it may have been suggested by the tenour of the Invitatory Psalm,
commonly called, Venite exultemus; which Psalm had been used daily in the Church
quite down from primitive times. Many persons, probably, have asked themselves,
why that Psalm in particular should be preferred above the many of the same
general tenour, for unremitting use in the Church daily. The answer probably may
be found in the grave monitory warnings at the end: which, by the case of the
Jews in the wilderness, describe so forcibly the position and peculiar danger of
a chosen people. That one Psalm may, on reflection, give the key to the
arrangement of the Lessons; allowing, of course, for the interruption sometimes
caused by the special matter of some great Christian Festival. In general,
however, the course of the Lessons will be found adapting itself, with exquisite
felicity, to the course of the Festivals also.

Occasionally, the Archbishop’s choice may have been influenced, (in
subordination, however, to the great principle,) by the connexion of the portion
of history with some offence which required warning, but, from the weakness of
human nature, was very likely to pass unnoticed. The thirty-fourth of Genesis,
and the fifth of Jeremiah, are instances. When men shrink from reading those
chapters, they bear witness instinctively to the wisdom and kindness of the
Church in ordering them to be read.

Whatever may be one’s private opinion, it is not necessary here to maintain,
that the general principle suggested above was the very best on which selection
might proceed, or that the very aptest chapters of all have been selected in
each instance. But clearly, if such a principle be at all recognised, it ought
to be most carefully kept in view, whatever insertions or omissions are
proposed. Many persons seem to think, that questions of this sort are settled,
if on merely comparing the present Lesson with the proposed substitute, it
appear that the one, taken singly, is more edifying than the other. But this
will not hold, if it be a mistake altogether to take any one singly and apart.
The quantity of edification may be greater on the whole by completing the
proposed narrative or argument, though on this or that particular day the
impression made may be less. To neglect this consideration partakes of the same
error, as if renounced, or other chapters must be found, completing his idea as
accurately as these do: which latter, it is imagined, would prove a difficult
task.

2. The other matter proposed for enquiry is less important, and may be dismissed
in a few words. Why, it is asked, should there not be Lessons from the New
Testament proper for every Sunday in the year, as well as for a few great days?
In answer to which it may be observed, first, that there are, generally, two
such Lessons, always one, read in the Communion Service. Only that which is
called The Second Lesson, varies with the day of the month. Of the reasons
which, in point of fact, led to the continuance of this latter arrangement, I am
not aware that any record remains. But it appears to be accompanied with two
incidental advantages, which some may think considerable enough to render
alteration unadvisable, without very clear proof of greater benefit likely to
arise from it.

One of these advantages is, the standing memorial thus afforded to the people,
that there was once such a thing as a Daily Service; that such is the system and
wish of our Church, and the theory on which the Prayer-Book is constructed. It
is an intelligible hint, that a Churchman’s devotion was not meant to be all
narrowed into the Sunday. The Services of that holy day were but to be a
continuance and an expansion of those due on the other days; not a totally
distinct thing. This we are weekly reminded of, by the very place in the
Calendar, where we must look for the Second Sunday Lesson. The value of the hint
people of course will estimate more or less highly, according to their sense of
aDaily Service, and of the responsibility which Churchmen have incurred by
letting it drop so very quietly in almost every parish of the kingdom. The other
advantage of these varying Second Lessons, (and it will be found in practice a
very considerable one,) is this; that it presents the Old and New Scriptures in
endless variety of mutual combinations, the more striking because they are
unforeseen, and in a certain sense casual. The thought is happily expressed by
Herbert, thus addressing Holy Scripture:—

"O that I knew how all thy lights combine, And the configurations of their
glory; Seeing not only how each verse doth shine, But all the constellations of
the story!"

Very much help, both for pastors and people, both for giving and receiving
instruction, may be gathered, (if the writer deceive himself not concerning the
results of his own experience,) by attending to this hint yearly, as the varying
Psalms and Second Lessons come successively into conjunction with theunvarying
First Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels. To note and collect the scattered lights
will be found in itself a most engaging and interesting task, and it will serve
in no slight degree to impress considerate minds, from time to time, more deeply
with the fulness, the harmony, the condescension, of the Word of Life.

These reasons are respectfully addressed to those, who, in their anxiety for
immediate visible edification, appear somehow to over look the fact, that "the
Church Lessons area seriesarranged according to certain general principles.
Scruples, and feelings of different kinds, occurring to this or that person as
to the use ofparticularpassages, must be met, of course, on their own grounds;
except so far as they ought to be silenced by the overpowering advantage, which
may appear to arise by adhering to the general principle of selection. At any
rate, it is much to be wished, thatvery free talking, andvery cheap publishing,
in behalf of such changes, were carefully avoided. Is there not something
evencruel, in raising scruples and niceties, and unpleasant associations of
various kinds, among those who as yet happily have never dreamed of criticising
the Bible? If change is wanted, let proper reasons be
quietlysubmittedtocompetentauthorities. But let us not appeal lightly, and at
random, to the sense of an irreverent presumptuous age, on one of the most
sacred of all subjects.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 14 - THE EMBER DAYS.
========================================================================

THE EMBER DAYS.

[Number 14]

IN reading the Epistles of St. Paul we cannot but observe how earnestly he
presses upon those to whom he was writing, the duty of praying for a blessing on
himself and his ministry. We not only find his request contained in general
terms (1 Thessalonians 5:25.), "Brethren, pray for us;" but when he feels he
stands in need of any particular support, he mentions it as an especial subject
of prayer for the Churches. For instance, in writing to the Romans, at a time
when he was looking forward to trouble from Jewish unbelievers, he says to them,
(Romans 15:30) "Strive together with me in your prayers to GOD for me, that I
may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea;" and in Php 1:19 he
expresses a confidence that the very opposition he was meeting with would,
through the intercession of the Saints, be turned into a good to himself. "I
know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer." It is the same
when he has any object at heart, which he desires to see accomplished. He longs
much for the spread of the Gospel, and therefore, in 2 Thessalonians 3:1 he
says, "Finally, Brethren, pray for us, that the word of GOD may have free course
and be glorified." And feeling his own weakness to discharge the sacred trust
committed to him, he asks the Ephesians (Ephesians 6:15-19) to make supplication
in his behalf, "that utterance might be given unto him, that he might open his
mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the Gospel." I shall mention but one
passage more, that in 2 Corinthians 1:11; for here not only the duty of praying
for their Apostle is pressed upon the people, but they are bidden to do so for
the express purpose that they might also join in expressing thanks that their
prayer had been graciously heard. "Ye also helping together by prayer for us,
that, for the gift bestowed on us by the means of many persons, thanks may be
given by many on our behalf" (Compare Colossians 2:4. Hebrews 13:19. Philemon
1:22.)

These texts show clearly, that it is the Christian’s duty to pray at all times
for the Ministers of the Gospel. There are other texts which teach that
supplication ought particularly to be made for them at the time of their
Ordination. We find, that, when our LORD was about to send forth His twelve
Apostles to preach His kingdom, "He went out into a mountain to pray, and
continued all night in prayer to GOD." (Luke 6:12) And when one of those
Apostles had by transgression fallen from his Ministry, the whole Church united
in supplication to GOD, that He would shew whom He had chosen to succeed him.
(Acts 1:24-25) The same is observable in the Ordination of the first Deacons,
where it is said, (Acts 6:6) the multitude set them before the Apostles, and
"when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." Again, when Paul and
Barnabas are sent forth on their special mission, "the Church fasted and prayed"
for them. (Acts 13:3) And St. Paul in turn observed the same practice, when he
ordained Elders in the Churches where he had preached. "They prayed with
fasting, and commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts 14:23. In
conformity to this Apostolical custom, the Church of England views with peculiar
solemnity the times at which her Ministers are ordained; and invites all her
members to join, at these sacred seasons, in prayer and fasting in their behalf.
It is the object of these pages to bring this subject especially before the
reader’s notice; for the observance of this ordinance of the Church has fallen
so generally into disuse, that few comparatively feel the value of it; and some
perhaps are not even aware of its existence. To those who may be in this case, I
would say briefly that the Ordination Sundays occur four times a year, and that
the days of fasting, or Ember Days, (as they are called,) are in the week
immediately before those respective Sundays. These days are as follows; the
Wednesday, Friday and Saturday after the first Sunday in Lent; after the Feast
of Pentecost; after Sept. 14; after Dec. 13; as may be seen by referring to the
Prayer-Book. And particular prayers are ordered during the whole of the weeks,
in which these days occur; that the Bishops may make a wise and faithful choice,
and that those who are to be called to the Ministry, may especially be blessed
with GOD’S grace and heavenly benediction. That such a practice is good and
right in itself, and could not fail to produce a large benefit, cannot be
doubted by those, who believe that prayer is the appointed channel whereby GOD
is pleased to send mercies on mankind. He that feels the truth of "Ask, and it
shall be given you," cannot deny, that he is losing a great privilege, whenever
he neglects this duty. And if there is any Order of men who more especially need
the help of others’ supplications, it is that of those, who are called to the
high office of ministering the Word of Life to their fellow-creatures, and of
being labourers together with their Divine Master in bringing men to salvation.
I would go further than this, and say, that if there is any time when the
Ministers of the Gospel more particularly call for the prayers of the Church, it
is at these seasons of Ordination. Whether we consider the solemn office which
the Bishops are performing, or the solemn vows which the Priests and Deacons are
taking on themselves, we must allow that it is an occasion of the greatest
importance. Here are a number of men going forth for the great work of winning
back to CHRIST souls which have gone astray from the right path, and of fighting
in the first ranks against the world, the flesh, and the devil; and in most
cases going forth young and inexperienced in their work, not knowing (for who
can know till he has tried?) the dangers and difficulties which beset them.
Surely it is the duty of every Christian to give them what help he can, and send
them forth strengthened for the labours of their journey.

I doubt not that there are many in this kingdom, who are in the habit of making
supplication to GOD for their Ministers; many who join heartily in the several
prayers of the Church services, where mention is made of them, as well as
remember them in their private devotions. And some of these may ask, of what
advantage it is to appoint particular days for such intercession. They may say,
"we pray daily for the Clergy, and not unfrequently for those who are just
entering their Ministerial life, Why should one day be fixed upon as better than
another for this purpose? Let each do as he finds opportunity." I would answer,
first, that as it was the custom of the Apostles to set apart the times of
Ordination for especial prayer, as well as the regulation of our own Church, it
is no longer a matter of indifference to us whether we adopt this method or not.
The example of the one, and the injunction of the other, mark plainly for us
what we ought to do. But, secondly, there will be advantages to ourselves in
taking the course so recommended; I would mention one or two which appear to be
of importance.

1. When men have been at all careless and indifferent about any duty, (and how
few are there who can say that they have not been careless in this matter?) it
is very useful to have some settled way for beginning it aright. What has long
been put off from time to time is seldom properly attended to, if we leave the
performance of it to any chance opportunity that may be offered. The convenient
season will seldom come, or at least will not come to us in so profitable a way.
For setting apart a particular occasion for solemn prayer, brings with it more
seriousness and attention, and makes us think far more of the value of the
blessing for which we ask.

2. And, secondly, I would remind all those who value the promises of the Bible,
that there is an especial blessing promised tounitedprayer. Our LORD says,
(Matthew 13:19) "If two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing they
shall ask, it shall be done for them of MY FATHER which is in Heaven." And when
a good is sought for all, all ought to be seeking for it, and "striving
together," that it may be obtained. Now this could not be done, except days were
appointed, which all may know of as a standing Ordinance; and to be able to join
together in spirit, however far apart they are in body. We might thus not only
in all parts of this kingdom, but in distant lands, wherever our brethren are
residing, unite in sending up supplications, which our common FATHER would not
fail to hear and answer abundantly. And when engaged in prayer we should have
the great comfort and support of knowing that we are not single, but that others
are perhaps mentioning what we are leaving out; and that others have more
earnestness and devotion than we feel in ourselves. Should this paper fall into
the hands of any who have never before heard or thought seriously of this
Institution, it may be useful to offer a few hints for its better observance.
Let each consecrate the days as much as possible to prayer and holy meditation,
adding to them religious Fasting, if health permit. The true end of fasting is
beautifully expressed in the Collect for the first Sunday in Lent; "using such
abstinence, that our Flesh being subdued to the Spirit, we may ever obey our
LORD’S godly motions in righteousness and true holiness." It is to give the mind
liberty and ability to consider and reflect while it is actually engaged in
Divine service, or preparing for some solemn part of it; to humble ourselves
before GOD under a sense of our sins, and the misery to which they expose us; to
deprecate his anger, and to supplicate His mercy and favour. [1] We must use it
in the same spirit in which Daniel did, when he set himself to pray for pardon
for his own and his brethren’s sins, and sought "the LORD GOD with prayer and
supplication, and fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes." Daniel 9:3. The subjects
for Prayer on the Ember days will be the Church of GOD of which we are members;
especially those who are called to bear office in the same; and of these, more
particularly those who are either ordaining or being ordained. But our Petitions
need not stop with these. These are seasons, in which every Minister should be
remembered before the throne of grace, in which every Bishop, Priest, and
Deacon, claims the prayers of the People. We may ask for them, that their
doctrine may be sound and pure, and may come to the hearts of their hearers;
that they may diligently labour in their several spheres of action, for the
glory of GOD and the good of mankind; above all, that they may themselves lead
holy lives, such as are consistent with their high profession. And, because we
are so much more earnest in prayer when we are asking for particular things, and
those which we feel to need ourselves, we may make especial mention of our own
Clergyman, and our own Bishop, praying that the light, which shines on them, may
be reflected on our own neighbourhood. For the same reason, if we happen to know
of any trouble or trial, to which the Sacred Ministry near us is exposed, we may
mention this also. Additional subjects of meditation will arise according to the
particular Ember days which we are celebrating. In those in Lent we shall have
more particularly before us our LORD’S example of prayer and fasting, and ask
for His Ministers, that they may be like Him, in retiring from the world, and
overcoming worldly snares and temptations. In those in Whitsun-week, we shall
remember our SAVIOUR’S words, that His disciples would fast when He was taken
from them, think much of the HOLY SP1RIT, which is vouchsafed to them to supply
His absence, and implore GOD that on us in our day this precious Blessing may be
given abundantly. And again in those in Advent, we shall reflect on the near
approach of the anniversary of our LORD’S birth, reflect on His forerunner, the
self-denying Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Ghost from His mother’s womb,
and pray that the "ministers and stewards of His mysteries may like him prepare
the way for CHRIST’S second coming. The times in which we live will furnish
additional ground for supplication. We cannot but see, that there is a great
struggle going on between good and evil; and that, while we trust true Religion
is increasing, it cannot be denied that Infidelity and Opposition to lawful
authority, whether of GOD or man, is in creasing likewise. And, especially, as
regards our own Church, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that she has many
and powerful enemies, both visible and invisible, and that wicked spirits and
wicked men are seeking to undermine and overthrow her. The thought of these
evils on all sides will naturally lead us to Him, who alone can protect us from
them.

These remarks are written, in the hope that those who read will ask themselves
honestly, whether they have not been guilty of neglecting the proper observance
of the Ember days; and whether the revival of the primitive custom of keeping
them might not be attended with a great national blessing; whether it might not
be a means under God of averting the dangers which surround us. Many are now
lamenting that we have in some respects lost sight of that "godly discipline,"
which the Church orders for the good of her members. But ought we not to seek a
restoration of what is lost, as well as lament for it; and seriously set
ourselves to the most effectual way of gaining what we need? And again, many are
crying out against the faults of the Church; but have any a right to do so, till
they themselves have tried every means in their power of amending what they feel
to be an evil? And can we say, that we have tried every means, as long as an
Institution like that of which I have been speaking, so edifying, and so likely
to gain a blessing, is so generally neglected?

FOOTNOTE [l] Nelson’s Festivals and Fasts, p. 358.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 15 - ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH.
========================================================================

ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

[Number 15]

WHEN Churchmen in England maintain the Apostolical Commission of their
Ministers, they are sometimes met with the objection, that they cannot prove it
without tracing their orders back to the Church of Rome; a position, indeed,
which in a certain sense is true. And hence it is argued, that they are reduced
to the dilemma, either of acknowledging they had no right to separate from the
Pope, or, on the other hand, of giving up the Ministerial Succession altogether,
and resting the claims of their pastors on some other ground; in other words,
that they are inconsistent in reprobating Popery, while they draw a line between
their Ministers and those of Dissenting Communions.

It is intended in the pages that follow, to reply to this supposed difficulty;
but first, a few words shall be said, by way of preface, on the doctrine itself,
which we Churchmen advocate. The Christian Church is a body consisting of Clergy
and Laity; this is generally agreed upon, and may here be assumed. Now, what we
say is, that these two classes are distinguished from each other, and united to
each other, by the commandment of GOD Himself; that the Clergy have a commission
from GOD ALMIGHTY through regular succession from the Apostles, to preach the
gospel, administer the Sacraments, and guide the Church; and, again, that in
consequence the people are bound to hear them with attention, receive the
Sacraments from their hands, and pay them all dutiful obedience. I shall not
prove this at length, for it has been done by others, and indeed the common
sense and understanding of men, if left to themselves, would be quite sufficient
in this case. I do but lay before the reader the following considerations.

1. We hold, with the Church in all ages, that, when our LORD, after His
resurrection, breathed on His Apostles, and said, "Receive ye the HOLY GHOST,—as
My FATHER hath sent Me, so send I you;" He gave them the power of sending others
with a divine commission, who in like manner should have the power of sending
others, and so on even unto the end; and that our LORD promised His continual
assistance to these successors of the Apostles in this and all other respects,
when He said, "Lo I am with you," (that is, with you, and those who shall
represent and succeed you,) "alway, even unto the end of the world."

And, if it is plain that the Apostles left successors after them, it is equally
plain that the Bishops are these Successors. For it is only the Bishops who have
ever been called by the title of Successors; and there has been actually a
perpetual succession of these Bishops in the Church, who alone were always
esteemed to have the power of sending other Ministers to preach and administer
the Sacraments. So that the proof of the doctrine seems to lie in a very small
space.

2. But, perhaps, it may be as well to look at it in another point of view. I
suppose no man of common sense thinks himself entitled to set about teaching
religion, administering Baptism, and the LORD’S Supper, and taking care of the
souls of other people, unless he has in some way been called to undertake the
office. Now, as religion is a business between every man’s own conscience and
GOD ALMIGHTY, no one can have any right to interfere in the religious concerns
of another with the authority of a teacher, unless he is able to show, that it
is GOD that has in some way called and sent him to do so. It is true, that men
may as friends encourage and instruct each other with consent of both parties;
but this is something very different from the office of a Minister of religion,
who is entitled and called to "exhort, rebuke, and" "rule," "with all
authority," as well as love and humility.

You may observe that our LORD Himself did not teach the Gospel, without proving
most plainly that His FATHER had sent Him. He and His Apostles proved their
divine commission by miracles. As miracles, however, have long ago come to an
end, there must be some other way for a man to prove his right to be a Minister
of religion. And what other way can there possibly be, except a regular call and
ordination by those who have succeeded to the Apostles?

3. Further, you will observe, that all sects think it necessary that their
Ministers should be ordained by other Ministers. Now, if this be the case, then
the validity of ordination, even with them, rests on asuccession; and is it not
plain that they ought to trace that succession to the Apostles? Else, why are
they ordained at all? And, any how, if their Ministers have a commission, who
derive it from private men, much more do the Ministers of our Church, who
actually do derive it from the Apostles. Surely those who dissent from the
Church have invented an ordinance, as they themselves must allow; whereas
Churchmen, whether rightly or wrongly, still maintain their succession not to be
all invention, but to be GOD’S ordinance. If Dissenters say, that order requires
there should be some such succession, this is true, indeed, but still it is only
a testimony to the mercy of CHRIST, in having, as Churchmen maintain, given us
such a succession. And this is all it shows; it does nothing for them; for,
their succession, not professing to come from GOD, has no power to restrain any
fanatic from setting up to preach of his own will, and a people with itching
ears choosing for themselves a teacher. It does but witness to a need, without
supplying it.

4. I have now given some slight suggestions by way of evidence for the doctrine
of the Apostolical Succession, from Scripture, the nature of the case, and the
conduct of Dissenters. Let me add a word on the usage of the Primitive Church.
We know that the succession of Bishops, and ordination from them, was the
invariable doctrine and rule of the early Christians. Is it not utterly
inconceivable, that this rule should have prevailed from the first age,
everywhere, and without exception, had it not been given them by the Apostles?
But here we are met by the objection, on which I propose to make a few remarks,
that, though it is true there was a continual Succession of pastors and teachers
in the early Church who had a divine commission, yet that no Protestants can
have it; that we gave it up, when our communion ceased with Rome, in which
Church it still remains; or, at least, that no Protestant can plead it without
condemning the Reformation itself, for that our own predecessors then revolted
and separated from those spiritual pastors, who, according to our principles,
then had the commission of JESUS CHRIST. Our reply to this is a flat denial of
the alleged facts on which it rests. The English Church didnotrevolt from those
who in that day had authority by succession from the Apostles. On the contrary,
it is certain that the Bishops and Clergy in England and Ireland remained the
same as before the separation, and that it was these, with the aid of the civil
power, who delivered the Church of those kingdoms from the yoke of Papal tyranny
and usurpation, while at the same time they gradually removed from the minds of
the people various superstitious opinions and practices which had grown up
during the middle ages, and which, though never formally received by the
judgment of the whole Church, were yet very prevalent. I do not say the case
might never arise; when it might become the duty of private individuals to take
upon themselves the office of protesting against and abjuring the heresies of a
corrupt Church. But such an extreme case it is unpleasant and unhealthy to
contemplate. All I say here is, that this was not the state of things at the
time of the Reformation. The Church then by its proper rulers and officers
reformed itself. There was no new Church founded among us, but the rights and
the true doctrines of the Ancient existing Church were asserted and established.
In proof of this we need only look to the history of the times. In the year
1534, the Bishops and Clergy of England assembled in their respective
convocations of Canterbury and York, and signed a declaration that the Pope or
Bishop of Rome had no more jurisdiction in this country by the word of GOD, than
any other foreign Bishops; and they also agreed to those acts of the civil
government, which put an end to it among us. The people of England, then, in
casting off the Pope, but obeyed and concurred in the acts of their own
spiritual Superiors, and committed no schism. Queen Mary, it is true, drove out
after many years the orthodox Bishops, and reduced our Church again under the
Bishop of Rome, but this submission was only exacted by force, and in itself
null and void; and, moreover, in matter of fact it lasted but a little while,
for on the succession of Queen Elizabeth, the true Successors of the Apostles in
the English Church were reinstated in their ancient rights. So, I repeat, there
was no revolt, in any part of these transactions, against those who had a
commission from God; for it was the Bishops and Clergy themselves, who
maintained the just rights of their Church.

But, it seems, the Pope has ever said, that our Bishops were bound by the laws
of GOD and the Church to obey him; that they were subject to him; and that they
had no right to separate from him, and were guilty in doing so, and that
accordingly they have involved the people of England in their guilt; and, at all
events, that they cannot complain of their flock disobeying and deserting them,
when they have revolted from the Pope. Let us consider this point.

Now that there is not a word inScriptureabout our duty to obey the Pope, is
quite clear. The Papists indeed say, that he is the Successor of St. Peter; and
that therefore he is Head of all Bishops, because St. Peter bore rule over the
other Apostles. But though the Bishops of Rome were often called the Successors
of St. Peter in the early Church, yet every other Bishop had thesametitle. And
though it be true, that St. Peter was theforemostof the apostles, that does not
prove he had anydominionover them. The eldest brother in a family has certain
privileges and a precedence, but he has no powers over the younger branches of
it. And so Rome has ever had what is called theprimacyof the Christian Churches;
but it has not therefore any right to interfere in their internal
administration; not more of a right, than an elder brother has to meddle with
his younger brother’s household. And this is plainly the state of matters
between us and Rome,in the judgment of the ancient Churchalso, to which the
Papists are fond of appealing, and by which we are quite ready to stand or fall.
In early times, as is well known, all Christians thought substantially alike,
and formed one great body all over the world, called the Church Catholic, or
Universal. This great body, consisting of a vast number of separate Churches,
with each of them its own Bishop at its head, was divided into a number of
portions called Patriarchates; these again into others called Provinces, and
these were made up of the separate Dioceses or Bishopricks. We have among
ourselves an instance of this last division in the Provinces of Canterbury and
York, which constitute the English Church, each of them consisting of a number
of distinct Bishopricks or Churches. The head of a Province was called
Archbishop, as in the case of Canterbury and York; the Bishops of those two sees
being, we know, not only Bishops with Dioceses of their own, but having, over
and above this, the place of precedence among the Bishops in the same Province.
In like manner, the bishop at the head of a Patriarchate was called the
Patriarch, and had the place of honour and certain privileges over all other
Bishops within his own Patriarchate. Now, in the early Christian Church, there
were four or five Patriarchates; e. g. one in the East, the Head of which was
the Bishop of Antioch; one in Egypt, the Head of which was the Bishop of
Alexandria; and, again, one in the West, the Head of which was the Bishop of
Rome. These Patriarchs, I say, were the primates or Head Bishops of their
respective Patriarchates; and they had an order of precedence among themselves,
Rome being the first of them all. Thus the Bishop of Rome, being the first of
the Patriarchs in dignity, might be called the honorary Primate of all
Christendom.

However, as time went on, the Bishop of Rome, not satisfied with the honours
which were readily conceded to him, attempted to gain power over the whole
Church. He seems to have been allowed the privilege of arbitrating in case of
appeal from other Patriarchates. If, e. g. Alexandria and Antioch had a dispute,
he was a proper referee; or if the Bishops of those Churches were at any time
unjustly deprived of their sees, he was a fit person to interfere and defend
them. But, I say, he became ambitious, and attempted to lord it over GOD’S
heritage. He interfered in the internal management of other Patriarchates; he
appointed Bishops to sees, and Clergy to parishes which were contained within
them, and imposed on them various religious and ecclesiastical usages illegally.
And in doing so, surely he became a remarkable contrast to the Holy Apostle,
who, though inspired, and an universal Bishop, yet suffered not himself to
control the proceedings even of the Churches he founded; saying to the
Corinthians, "not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of
your joy; for by faith ye stand." 2 Corinthians 1:24. This impressive
declaration, which seems to be intended almost as a prophetic warning against
the times of which we speak, was neglected by the Pope, who, among other
tyrannical proceedings, took upon him the control of the Churches in Britain,
and forbade us to reform our doctrine and usages, which he had no right at all
to do. He had no pretence for so doing, because we were altogether independent
of him; the English and Irish Churches, though in the West, being exterior to
his Patriarchate. Here again, however, some explanation is necessary.

You must know, then, that from the first there were portions of the Christian
world, which were not included in any Patriarchate, but were governed by
themselves. Such were the Churches of Cyprus, and such were the British
Churches. This need not here be proved; even Papists have before now confessed
it. Now, it so happened, in the beginning of the 5th century, the Patriarch of
Antioch, who was in the neighbourhood of Cyprus, attempted against the Cyprian
Churches what the Pope has since attempted against us; viz. took measures to
reduce them under his dominion. And, as a sign of his authority over them, he
claimed to consecrate their Bishops. Upon which the Great Council of the whole
Christian world assembled at Ephesus, A.D. 431, made the following decree, which
you will find is a defence of England and Ireland against the Papacy, as well as
of Cyprus against Antioch.

"An innovation upon the Rule of the Church and the Canons of the Holy Fathers,
such as to affect the general liberties of Christendom, has been reported to us
by our venerable brother Rheginus, and his fellow Bishops of Cyprus, Zeno, and
Evagrius. Wherefore, since public disorders call for extraordinary remedies, as
being more perilous, and whereas it is against ancient usage, that the Bishop of
Antioch should ordain in Cyprus, as has been proved to us in this Council both
in words and writing, by most orthodox men, We therefore decree, that the
Prelates of the Cyprian Churches shall be suffered without let or hindrance to
consecrate Bishops by themselves; and moreover, that the same rule shall be
observed also in other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that no Bishop
shall interfere in another province, which has not from the very first been
under himself and his predecessors; and further, that, if any one has so
encroached and tyrannized, he must relinquish his claim, that the Canons of the
Fathers be not infringed, nor the Priesthood be made an occasion and pretence
for the pride of worldly power, nor the least portion of that freedom unawares
be lost to us, which our LORD JESUS CHRIST, who bought the world’s freedom,
vouchsafed to us, when He shed His own blood. Wherefore it has seemed good to
this Holy Ecumenical Council, that the rights of every province should be
preserved pure and inviolate, which have always belonged to it, according to the
usage which has ever obtained, each Metropolitan having full liberty to take a
copy of the acts for his own security. And, should any rule be adduced repugnant
to this decree, it is hereby repealed."

Here we have a remarkable parallel to the dispute between Rome and us; and we
see what was the decision of the General Church upon it. It will be observed,
the decree is past for all provinces in all future times, as well as for the
immediate exigency. Now this is a plain refutation of the Romanists on their own
principles. They profess to hold the Canons of the Primitive Church: the very
line they take, is to declare the Church to be one and the same in all ages.
Here then they witness against themselves. The Pope has encroached on the rights
of other Churches, and violated the Canon above cited. Herein is the difference
between his relation to us, and that of any civil Ruler, whose power was in its
origin illegally acquired. Doubtless we are bound to obey the Monarch under whom
we are born, even though his ancestor were an usurper. Time legitimises a
conquest. But this is not the case in spiritual matters. The Church goes by
fixed laws; and this usurpation has all along been counter to one of her
acknowledged standing ordinances, founded on reasons of universal application.

After the Canon above cited, it is almost superfluous to refer to the celebrated
rule of the First Nicene Council, A. D. 325, which, in defending the rights of
the Patriarchates, expresses the same principle in all its simple force and
majesty.

"Let the ancient usages prevail, which are received in Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis, relative to the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria; as they are
observed in the case of the Bishop of Rome. And so in Antioch too, and other
provinces, let the prerogatives of the Churches be preserved." On this head of
the subject, I will but notice, that, as the Council of Ephesus controlled the
ambition of Antioch, so in like manner did St. Austin rebuke Rome itself for an
encroachment of another kind on the liberties of the African Church.

Bingham says,

"When Pope Zosimus and Celestine took upon them to receive Appellants from the
African Churches, and absolve those whom they had condemned, St. Austin and all
the African Churches sharply remonstrated against this, as an irregular
practice, violating the laws of unity, and the settled rules of ecclesiastical
commerce; which required, that no delinquent excommunicated in one Church should
be absolved in another, without giving satisfaction to his own church that
censured him. And therefore, to put a stop to this practice and check the
exorbitant power which Roman Bishops assumed to themselves, they first made a
Law in the Council of Milevis, That no African Clerk should appeal to any Church
beyond sea, under pain of being excluded from communion in all the African
Churches. And then, afterwards, meeting in a general Synod, they dispatched
letters to the Bishop of Rome, to remind him how contrary this practice was to
the Canons of Nice, which ordered, That all controversies should be ended in the
places where they arose, before a Council and the Metropolitan"

Thus I have shown, that our Bishops, at the time of the Reformation, did but
vindicate their ancient rights; were but acting as grateful, and therefore
jealous champions of the honour of the old Fathers, and the sanctity of their
institutions. Our duty surely in such matters lies in neither encroaching nor
conceding to encroachment; in taking our rights as we find them, and using them;
or rather in regarding them altogether as trusts, the responsibility of which we
cannot avoid. As the same Apostle says, "Let every man abide in the same
calling, wherein he is called." And, if England and Ireland had a plea for
asserting their freedom under any circumstances, much more so, when the
corruptions imposed on them by Rome even made it a duty to do so.

I shall answer briefly one or two objections, and so bring these remarks to an
end.

1. First, it may be said, that Rome has withdrawn our orders, and excommunicated
us; therefore we cannot plead any longer our Apostolical descent. Now I will not
altogether deny, that a Ministerial Body might become so plainly apostate, as to
lose its privilege of ordination. But, however this may be, it is a little too
hard to assume, as such an objection does, the very point in dispute. When we
are proved to be heretical in doctrine, then will be the time to begin to
consider, whether our heresy is of so grievous a character as to invalidate our
orders; but, till then, we may fairly and fearlessly maintain, that our Bishops
are still invested with the power of ordination.

2. But it may be said on the other hand, that if we do not admit ourselves to be
heretic, we necessarily must accuse the Romanists of being such; and that
therefore, on our own ground, we have really no valid orders, as having received
them from an heretical Church. True, Rome may be so considered now; but she was
not heretical in the primitive ages. If she has apostatized, it was at the time
of the Council of Trent. Then, if at any time, surely not before, did the Roman
Communion bind itself in covenant to the cause of Antichrist. [1] But before
that time, grievous as might be the corruptions in the Church, no individual
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, was bound by oath to the maintenance of them. [2]
Extensively as they were spread, no Clergyman was shackled with obligations
which prevented his resisting them; he could but suffer persecution for so
doing. He did not commit himself in one breath to two vows, to serve faithfully
in the Ministry, and yet to receive the superstitions and profanities which man
had, in course of ages, introduced into the most gracious and holiest of God’s
gifts. On the contrary, we may say with the learned Dr. Field, " that none of
those points of false doctrine and error which Romanists now maintain, and we
condemn, were the doctrines of the Church before the Reformation constantly
delivered or generally received by all them that were of it, but doubtfully
broached, and devised without all certain resolution, or factiously defended by
some certain only, who as a dangerous faction adulterated the sincerity of the
Christian verity, and brought the Church into miserable bondage." [3]
Accordingly, acknowledging and deploring all the errors of the middle ages, yet
we need not fear to maintain, that after all they were but the errors of
individuals, though of large numbers of Christians; and we may safely maintain,
that they no more interfere with the validity of the ordination received by our
Bishops from those who lived before the Reformation, than errors of faith and
conduct in a priest interfere with the grace of the Sacraments received at his
hands.

3. It may be said, that we throw blame on Luther, and others of the foreign
Reformers, who did act without the authority of their Bishops. But we reply,
that it has been always agreeable to the principles of the Church, that, if a
bishop taught and up held what was contrary to the orthodox faith, the Clergy
and people were not bound to submit, but were obliged to maintain the true
religion; and if excommunicated by such Bishops, they were never accounted to be
cut off from the Church. Luther and his associates upheld in the main the true
doctrine; and though it is not necessary to defend every act of fallible men
like them, yet we are fully justified in maintaining, that the conduct of those
who defended the truth against the Romish party, even in opposition to their
spiritual rulers, was worthy of great praise. At the same time it is impossible
not to lament, that they did not take the first opportunity to place themselves
under orthodox Bishops of the Apostolical Succession. Nothing, as far as we can
judge, was more likely to have preserved them from that great decline of
religion, which has taken place on the Continent.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The following is from the Life of Bernard Gilpin, vid. Wordsworth’s
Ecclesiastical Biography, vol. iv. p. 94. "Mr. Gilpin would often say that the
Churches of the Protestants were not able to give any firme and solid reason of
their separation besides this, to wit, that the Pope is Antichrist.... The
Church of Rome kept the rule of faith intire, until that rule was changed and
altered by the Council of Trent, and from that time it seemed to him a matter of
necessitie to come out of the Church of Rome, that so that Church which is true
and called out from thence might follow the word of God.. But he did not these
things violently, but by degrees."

[2] The Creed of Pope Pius IV., in which every Roman Priest professes and
promises to maintain all the errors of Popery, was only imposed after the
Council of Trent.

[3] See Field on the Church, Appendix to book iii. where he proves all this. See
also Birkbeck’s Protestant’s Evidence.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 16 - ADVENT.
========================================================================

ADVENT.

[Number 16]

THEname Advent, which means Coming, is given to the four Sundays immediately
before Christmas-day, the feast which celebrates our LORD’Scoming in the flesh
to suffer for us. This season, then, is set apart by the Church, in accordance
with ancient and venerable usage, in the first place, to prepare the minds of
her children, by holy meditation, for welcoming, with more devout and heartfelt
joy, that great day, the day of CHRIST’SNativity. But her services at this
solemn time are also directed to another object, very closely connected with the
former: viz. to lead our thoughts onward to that second coming of our LORDand
Master "in His glorious Majesty to judge the quick and the dead," which the
Church is still expecting and anxiously looking for. These two subjects are very
closely blended in the services of this season, as indeed there is much
naturally to unit them in our thoughts and feelings; for the promise of
CHRIST’Ssecondcoming tous, what the hope of Hisfirstcoming was tothe Jews. And
therefore, while we go back in our thoughts to the time when CHRISTappeared in
the flesh, and to the state of the Jewish Church at that time, we must apply all
to the searching out of our own spirits, whether we are like holy Simeon and
Anna, and the faithful few who "waited for redemption in Jerusalem," or rather
like the great mass of the people, who thought only of worldly and temporal
things, and so rejected their King when he appeared among them. Let us here
examine, what help the Church will give us in comparing our own privileges and
condition with those of GOD’Sancient people. The Collects for the Sundays in
Advent, those at least for the first three Sundays, are very much formed upon
the language of the Epistles, with more or less reference to the Gospels. It
will be right, then, to look first to the Epistles, and from them try to learn,
how, as members of the Christian Church, we are to prepare for the second awful
coming of our Lord and Master.

We are awakened, then, in the Services of the first Sunday, by the warning voice
of an Apostle, that "now it is high time to awake out of sleep;" that "the night
is far spent, the day is at hand;" that we must therefore without delay, "cast
off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light." Just so the Jewish
Church was awakened by one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the
LORD;" the message of John the Baptist was the same as the Apostles to
us—"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." He was to "turn the heart
of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just;"
he was to be the Elias who was "to restore all things;" and accordingly the
prophecy in which his mission was foretold, after vehement rebukes and warnings
to the Jewish people, concluded with a solemn exhortation to them to "remember
the law of" GOD’S "servant Moses, which he commanded in Horeb for all Israel,
with the statutes and the judgments." (Malachi 4:1-6) In like manner St. Paul
urges upon us the solemn Law which has been given to the Christian Church, the
"new commandment," by which we shall be tried, when the messenger of the
Covenant comes again to His Temple. The Apostle has been giving many precepts of
Christian practice, (ch. xii, xiii.), but it seems as if he heard his Master’s
voice, "Behold, I come quickly," and so the more anxiously sounded in our ear
the simple commandment which He left us, to "love one another." "He that loveth
another hath fulfilled the Law—Love is the fulfilling of the Law. And that,
knowing the time; the day is at hand; let us therefore walk honestly as in the
day, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the LORD JESUSCHRIST." And now,
having seen and felt what CHRIST will seek for, when He comes into his temple,
we may profit duly by the awful lesson which we learn in the Gospel. The Jews
had long been looking impatiently for the promised Deliverer; (Malachi 2:17.
Malachi 3:1) and when they saw Him riding into Jerusalem, as the Prophet had
foretold, they cried, saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the LORD; Hosanna in the highest!" Meanwhile, what were
the thoughts of the "meek and lowly" King? His forerunner had been despised, the
Law of Moses had not been "remembered," the hearts of the fathers were not
turned to the children, nor the hearts of the children to the fathers;—and He
was now coming to "smite with a curse." (Matthew 4:6) And when he came near, He
beheld the city and wept over it. He went into the temple and cast out the
buyers and the sellers and the money-changers, as a type and signal of that
still more fearful clearing of His Temple, when He laid Jerusalem even with the
ground, and her children within her, and gave the privileges of His chosen to
the Gentile world. Such fearful vengeance was taken of those who "refused Him
that spake on earth;" how then "shall we escape if we turn away from Him that
speaketh from heaven?"—we, who have "received the kingdom which cannot be
moved;" who are come not to Horeb, but unto Mount Sion, "unto the city of the
living GOD, the heavenly Jerusalem." Surely it becomes us to listen to the
affectionate warnings of the Church, as she awakens us from our slumber, and
recounts our high duties and our inestimable privileges.

2. In the services of the Second Sunday we ha e the first great privilege of the
Church brought before us, viz. that in the Church we have preserved to us those
Holy Scriptures, in which is set before us "the blessed hope of everlasting
life." "The promises made to the fathers" have now been fulfilled; and as they
"through patience and comfort of the Scriptures" had "hope" of CHRIST’S first
coming, and through Him of life and immortality, so we, having the same sure
word of prophecy, may look onward to the day of the Church’s final redemption,
and, anticipating that coming of CHRIST’S kingdom for which we daily pray, and
that " life everlasting," in which we daily profess our belief, may " abound in
hope through the power of the HOLY GHOST." Meanwhile the influence which Holy
Scripture is intended to have upon the Christian Church, is strikingly put
before us in the context of the Epistle. St. Paul has been enforcing the duty of
mutual forbearance by the argument of CHRIST’S example; "for even CHRIST pleased
not Himself....Now the GOD of patience and consolation grant you to be
like-minded one towards another, according to CHRIST JESUS; that ye may with one
mind and one mouth glorify GOD, even the Father of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Wherefore receive ye one another, as CHRIST also received us, to the glory of
GOD." The faith of the Holy Catholic Church, grounded upon GOD’S "Holy Word," is
the bond of unity; a link which so binds together the congregation of the
faithful every where, that there is but "one body and one spirit." And in that
Christian Temple the worshippers so speak "as one, to make one sound to be heard
in praising and thanking the LORD"—the "Holy, Holy, Holy LORD GOD of
Sabaoth"—that "the house is filled with a cloud," the special presence of the
Great Author of Peace and Lover of Concord, "the Father of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace." And when we think of the deep
and earnest tones of CHRIST’S last solemn prayer before He suffered, that the
Church might be one in itself and in Him through the faith which He had given
it; and then again remember, that the sentence of His judgment-seat, when He
shall come the second time in His glory, will be grounded on the relation
between Himself as the Head of the Church, and His brethren as its members,—a
relation so close, that what has been done unto them, He considers as done unto
Him, and what has been denied to them, as denied to Him; (Matthew 25:1-46) we
shall surely return with a feeling of deeper humiliation to the Church’s Advent
Prayer; that we may have "grace to cast off the works of darkness, and to put on
the armour of light;" that so, when "He shall come again in His glorious Majesty
to judge the quick and the dead," those Holy Scriptures, which were given to His
Church for our learning, may not rise up in judgment against us for our neglect
of that new and great commandment, the observance of which was to be the
distinctive characteristic of His disciples.

3. But fresh privileges and responsibilities are brought before us in the
services of the Third Sunday in Advent. For we have in the Church not merely
"Holy Scriptures written for our learning," but "Ministers of CHRIST and
Stewards of the mysteries of GOD," sent to prepare and make ready the way for
His second coming, that we may then be found an acceptable people in His sight.
We might have been left to derive from Scripture by our own unaided efforts its
rich and glorious contents "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness;" but our merciful FATHER has dealt otherwise with
His Church under each dispensation. For the Baptist, who heralded CHRIST at His
coming, though "more than a prophet," was but the successor of a "goodly
company," whom GOD had raised up from time to time to vindicate the Law and to
foreshow the Gospel. "But he that is least in the kingdom of GOD is greater than
he." The prophet of the ancient Church had for his main office to enforce the
Law, to show GOD’S people their transgression and their sin; if he spoke of the
Gospel, it was in prospect only, and seen afar off. The Messengers sent to us
are a "Ministry of reconciliation," Ministers and Stewards of the mysteries of
redemption, with power and commandment, as ambassadors of CHRIST, to declare and
pronounce to GOD’S people, being penitent, the blessed tidings of forgiveness,
and in the preaching of His word and the distribution of His sacraments to
convey and apply its benefits to each individual member of CHRIST’S Body. And
does not this great blessing entail upon us a heavy responsibility? Let us learn
from the Church how such a gift should be received; she instructs us in the
words of St. Paul’s admonition to the proud and schismatical Church of Corinth.
The Apostle bids them look upon himself and his fellow-labourers as Ministers of
CHRIST, responsible to their own Master, and to be judged by Him alone; as men
who thought it a very small thing that even their own consciences acquitted
them, or that in man’s judgment they were preferred and made the head of a
party; who were stewards, and therefore required to be faithful to Him who gave
them their commission; and who sought to have "praise" not of men but "of GOD,"
in that solemn day of His appearing, when He should " bring to light the hidden
things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the heart." And if we had
imbibed more deeply St. Paul’s spirit, we should less resemble than (it is to be
feared) we sometimes do, the contentious Corinthians, or the multitudes who
flocked to the wilderness to the Baptist’s preaching, as if it had been some
spectacle for idle curiosity. (Matt. xi.) Wisdom would be justified of all her
children, even in our judgment; we should see them all to be Ministers and
Ambassadors of GOD, and our commendations and censures would be turned into
prayers on their behalf, such as the Church has taught us, that like the Baptist
they ‘may likewise so prepare and make ready CHRIST’S way, by turning the hearts
of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at His second coming to judge
the world, we may be found an acceptable people in His sight.’ And in this way
too, as well as in giving greater heed to His holy Word, we should better fulfil
CHRIST’S commandment of love; for it was for this purpose that He commissioned
the Ministers and Stewards of His word and sacraments. St. Paul tells us, "He
gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors
and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of CHRIST; till we all come in the unity of faith
and of the knowledge of the SON of GODunto a perfect man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fulness of CHRIST; that we henceforth be no more children
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, but speaking
the truth inlove, may grow up unto Him in all things which is the Head, even
CHRIST; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that
which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure
of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself

4. And now, having reviewed the privileges with which we are favoured in
CHRIST’S Holy Church until His coming again, we are solemnly warned in the
Epistle of the fourth Sunday, as before first of His near approach: "The LORD is
at hand." And if we indeed lived answerably to our privileges as members of
CHRIST’S Church and household, we should be able to await the fulfilment of the
promise in the spirit of calm confidence and joy, which St. Paul describes in
the verses that follow; "the peace of GOD which passeth all understanding,"
keeping our hearts and minds by CHRIST JESUS. The passage which is chosen for
the Gospel, places us at the point of time when CHRIST was on the eve of
appearing as "the Lamb of GOD which taketh away the sin of the world." He had
been baptized, and was now turning from the wilderness; for it was "the next
day," we read, that the Baptist pointed Him out to the notice of His disciples.
He was already standing among them, though they knew Him not, ready to baptize
them with the HOLY GHOST and with fire. And so now, in these latter days, the
Heralds of CHRIST’S second coming are warning the people that He is at hand, and
like the Baptist, referring to the Scripture for a proof that they are duly
commissioned to prepare His way before Him. Like him, they tell the Church of a
"salvation ready to be revealed," of "times of refreshing" to come "from the
presence of the LORD," of "times of the restitution of all things," and of the
more glorious establishment of CHRIST’S kingdom; and, in earnest looking for the
promise, they offer up the prayer of the Church that GOD would be pleased to
raise up His power and come among us, and with great might succour us. But,
while we hope for thepromise, we must not forget the threatening. The Baptist
spoke of CHRIST’S coming with His fan in His hand, and of the separation which
He would make between the chaff and the wheat; (comp. Malachi 4:1-6.) but what
were the days of vengeance upon the Jewish Church, compared with those which we
must expect, when the time is at length come that judgment must begin at the
house of GOD, and the heavenly Reaper thrusts in His sharp sickle and reaps the
earth? "The LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple; behold He
shall come, saith the LORD of HOSTS; but who may abide the day of His coming,
and who shall stand when He appeareth?" We find that when JESUS was coming nigh
to Jerusalem, on the day of His triumphant entry, because they thought that the
kingdom of GOD should immediately appear, He added and spake a parable; it was
the parable of talents. (Luke 19:1-48) And so, when we are disposed to indulge
in bright anticipations of coming glory to the Church, let us rather turn our
thoughts inward to our own individual privileges and individual responsibility,
remembering that the kingdom of GOD is within us, and that to whomsoever much is
given, of him will much be required. And especially let us remember, that among
the gifts given to us, for which we must give account, are, the New Commandment
of love, the Inspired Words of GOD written for our learning, and His duly
appointed Ministers sent before Him to prepare us for his coming.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 17 - THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION.
========================================================================

THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. A TRUST FROM CHRIST FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS PEOPLE.

[Number 17]

IT will be acknowledged by all who have followed the Jewish Church through her
days of suffering, and who have learnt the deep feeling of our own impressive
Litany, that the main strength of the Church of GOD, in her times of trial and
danger, is in the lowliness of her humiliation before her heavenly guardian for
her many imperfections and sins. But there is another element of her strength,
which, it is to be feared, is sometimes forgotten, though not less essential to
her character; I mean, her firm and unshaken reliance upon the promises of GOD
made to her. We find in Daniel’s prayer the most heart-broken confessions of sin
in the name of his Church and people; but, at the same time, there is throughout
a stedfast hope of GOD’S mercy, as pledged to His holy city and temple. "O LORD,
righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion of face, as at this
day; to our kinds, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned
against Thee." "O LORD, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, let
Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy
mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem
and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us. O LORD, hear: O
LORD, forgive; O LORD, hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, O my GOD:
for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy Name." It can scarcely be
necessary to remind the members of our own Church, how beautifully the close of
her Litany breaches the spirit of Daniel’s prayer: how, in the midst of
reiterated supplications for GOD’S forgiveness and mercy, now addressed more
especially to the SON, now to the FATHER, now to every person of the Blessed and
Holy Trinity, now in the prevailing words which CHRIST Himself has taught
us-supplications so deeply expressive of "the sighing of a contrite heart, the
desire of such as be sorrowful,"-there still breaks in a gleam of faith and hope
in the memory of the noble works which we have heard with our ears, and our
fathers have declared unto us, a strong yet humble confidence, that GOD will yet
again arise and help us, and deliver us for His Name’s sake, and for His Honour.

Now this is a point which it is of great importance to have strongly impressed
upon our minds; because it is to be feared, that there are many of our brethren,
in the present day, who allow the thoughts of present and past transgressions,
of our own sins, and those of our fathers, to banish entirely the remembrance of
the glorious promises and privileges which belong to us. They see so much
neglected, and so much to be done, that they think it were better for us each to
work apart in lonely humiliation, "in fear and in much trembling," than to
endeavour to magnify our office and cheer one another with the songs of Zion.
now, I would ask, if this notion exist in any of our brethren, whether, under
the semblance of good, it does not argue something of mistaken feeling, and that
in more than one essential point.

1. Does not this opinion seem to imply the supposition that the dignity
conferred on the Ministerial Office, is something given for the exaltation of
the Clergy, and not for the benefit of the people? as if there were a different
interest in the two orders, and, in maintaining their Divine appointment, the
Clergy would make themselves "lords over GOD’S heritage?" I do not now enter
upon the point, that to magnify the office is not necessarily to exalt the
individual who bears it; nay, that the thought which will most deeply humble the
individual, most oppress him with the overwhelming sense of his own sufficiency,
is the consciousness "into how high a dignity, and to how weight an office and
charge" he has been called; an office "of such excellency, and of so great
difficulty." I would now rather ask, for whose benefit this high and sacred
Office has been instituted. For the Clergy, or for the people? The Apostle will
decide this point: "He gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some,
Evangelists; and some, Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the saints,
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of CHRIST."
(Ephesians 4:11-12) " All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or
Cephas." (1 Corinthians 3:21) And this, it should be well observed, the Apostle
says on purpose to put an end to that exaltation of individuals, which the
Church of Corinth had fallen into from forgetting that their pastors and
teachers were all "Ministers of CHRIST," Ministers by whom they believed "even
as the LORD gave to every man." And so again to the same Church, and in
reference to the same subject, St. Paul says, "All things are for YOUR sakes,
that the abundant grace might, through the thanksgiving of many, redound to the
glory of GOD." (2 Corinthians 4:15) Scripture then is express upon this point,
that whatever power and grace CHRIST has given to His Ministers, He has given
them for the good of His people, and the glory of His heavenly FATHER. And do
not our own understandings and consciences bear witness to the same truth? For
what is our commission? Is it not a "Ministry of reconciliation?"-"to wit, that
GOD was in CHRIST, reconciling the world unto Himself;" and hath committed to us
the proclamation of the pardon? Let us put the case on which the Apostle’s
language is founded; the case, I mean, of a people in rebellion against their
Sovereign, visited with the news that their king is willing, nay, even anxiously
desirous to grant them forgiveness and favour. In such a case, would not the
first question be, what authority does this report go upon? who are the persons
who bring it? is it merely a matter of their individual belief, or are they duly
authorized and commissioned from the Court; are they come as volunteers, or have
they been sent by their Master? "Now then WE are Ambassadors for CHRIST;" we are
sent to "bring good tidings and to publish peace," "to preach deliverance to the
captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" and if we allow
our commission to be questioned, nay, if we do not most unequivocally and
prominently assert it, whom are we robbing? not ourselves of honour, but the
people, to whom we are sent, of the blessedness and joy of knowing, that GOD
"desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his
wickedness and live;" and that, in token of this desire, He "hath given power
and commandment to His Ministers to declare and pronounce to His people, being
penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." We are sent to preach
good tidings unto the meek, to bind up the broken-hearted, to comfort all that
mourn; and it is the meek, and the broken-hearted, and the mourners, that will
feel the loss, if our blessed Office be set at nought, or disregarded. Let us
well consider this point. There is a humble and fearful member of CHRIST’S
flock, who desires to strengthen and refresh his soul by the Body and Blood of
CHRIST; but he cannot quiet his own conscience; he requires further comfort and
counsel. Surely it is to his comfort, that there is a duly commissioned Minister
of GOD’S Word at hand; to whom he may come and open his grief, and receive the
benefit of the sentence of GOD’S pardon, and so prepare himself to approach the
holy Table "with a full trust in GOD’S mercy, and with a quiet conscience;" and
thus draw near with faith, and take that holy Sacrament to his comfort. And then
again when he lieth sick upon his bed, does not his SAVIOUR "make all his bed in
his sickness," when his Minister comes to him, to receive the confession of his
sins, and to relieve his conscience of the "weighty" things which press it down:
and then, ("if he humbly and heartily desire it,") by virtue of CHRIST’S
authority committed to him, assures him of the pardon of all his sins, that so,
as his sufferings abound, his consolation also may abound through CHRIST; and as
his outward man perisheth, the inward man may be renewed day by day. How then
ought we to look upon the power which has been given us by CHRIST, but as a
sacred treasure, of which we are Ministers and Stewards; and which it is our
duty to guard for the sake of those little ones, for whose edification (2
Corinthians 13:10) it was that our LORD left power with His Church. And if we
suffer it to be lost to our Christian brethren, how shall we answer it, not only
to those that might now rejoice is its holy comfort, but to those also who are
to come after us? "For the promise is unto you and to your children, and unto
all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our GOD shall call."

2. But if we are thus bound by our duty to the Christian flock, are we not also
still more solemnly bound by our obligation to its Chief Shepherd, and Bishop?
For we are "Ministers of CHRIST and Stewards of the mysteries of GOD;" and "in
Stewards it is required that a man be found faithful." It becomes us, therefore
well to consider and know, what is the full amount of the riches which have been
committed to our care; what is the height and depth of the Mysteries which have
been entrusted to our keeping; for we serve a Master who will strictly require
at our hands every talent that He has left with us, and rigorously examine
whether we have been afraid and hid it in a napkin, or have diligently put it
out to usury and turned it to full account. Let us turn our thoughts again to
the representation, which St. Paul gives us, of our character and calling, "We
are Ambassadors for CHRIST." Now what should we think of the Ambassador of an
earthly king, who when he came among the people to whom he was sent, should seem
to regard it as a matter of slight importance, whether he were indeed
commissioned or not, or appear willing to conceal the full powers with which he
was vested, and speak only as an individual? Would this be to be faithful to him
that appointed him? would his Master own him as a "good and faithful servant?"
And if we are Ambassadors for CHRIST, His "deputies for the reducing of man to
the obedience of GOD," we must follow the example which our Master has set us,
and, as He was, so must we be in this world. For He has Himself declared to us,
"as My FATHER hath sent me, even so send I you." How then did CHRIST fulfil the
office which His FATHER had committed to Him? Let us look to His discourses as
recorded in St. John’s Gospel, and to the solemn prayer with which He concluded
His earthly Ministry. We there find Him again and again proclaiming that He had
been sent from the FATHER; it was for this end that He prayed so earnestly for
the unity and holiness of His Church, that the world might believe that the
FATHER had sent Him; it was because His chosen disciples had believed that the
FATHER had sent Him, that He poured forth such fervent thanksgivings on their
behalf. "I am not come of Myself, but He sent Me." " I have not spoken of
Myself, but the FATHER which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should
say and what I should speak." They have known that all things are of Thee; they
have known that I came out from Thee; they have believed that Thou didst send
Me." Thus did CHRIST stand in the midst of His generation as an Apostle, as one
sent from GOD; and so must His deputies likewise stand among their brethren; as
men sent to a rebellious house, whether they will hear or whether they will
forbear, speaking with authority-"as though GOD did beseech you by us, we pray
you in CHRIST’S stead, be ye reconciled unto GOD." And if we are asked by what
authority we speak, and who gave us this authority, we have our credentials at
hand; "whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosesoever sins ye
retain, they are retained." "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven." "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you,
despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me." (Vid. John
20:1-31. Matthew 18:1-35. Luke 10:1-42.)

If ever, then, we are tempted to be ashamed of CHRIST and o His words, or to
allow His high and heavenly mission to be thought lightly of in the person of
His Deputies and Ministers, let us re member, that it is no matter of personal
consideration, that two sacred interests are involved, the glory of GOD, and the
edifying of His people. Let us remember that, as CHRIST received of the FATHER
"a commandment," so we too have received a commandment from Him, the
"commandment" as well as the "power" to declare to His people the message of
forgiveness; that CHRIST has commanded us to teach all nations to observe
whatsoever He has commanded us, and then He will be with us alway, even to the
end of the world. And above all, let us not be silenced by the sense of past
unworthiness and neglect, whether is ourselves individually, or in the Church at
large; this would be but to add sin to sin. Rather, seeing we have this
Ministry, this glorious ministration of righteousness (2 Corinthians 4:1 comp. 2
Corinthians 3:1-18.), let us not faint; but strive how we may show ourselves
"dutiful and thankful to that LORD who hath placed us in so high a dignity." The
world would fain silence our glorying, and would have CHRIST rebuke his
disciples, but let us not be ashamed of the good confession; for with such
powers and graces, given to us by CHRIST Himself, as Ambassadors for Him, and
Workers together with GOD, if we should hold our peace, the very stones would
immediately cry out.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 18 - THOUGHTS ON THE BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM OF FASTING, ENJOINED BY OUR CHURCH.
========================================================================

THOUGHTS ON THE BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM OF FASTING, ENJOINED BY OUR CHURCH.

[Number 18]

To a person but little accustomed to observe any stated Fasts, the directions
given by our Church on this subject, would probably occasion two very opposite
feelings. On the one hand, he would bee struck by the practical character and
thoughtfulness evinced by some of the regulations; on the other, he would
probably feel repelled by the number of days, and the variety of occasions,
which the Church has appointed to be hallowed. Most Christians, who really loved
their SAVIOUR, (unless prevented by the habits of early education,) would
probably see something appropriate and affectionate in the selection of the
Friday, for a weekly commemoration of their SAVIOUR’S sufferings, and of
humiliation for their own sins which caused them; or, at all events, they would
feel that there was some thoughtfulness in the direction annexed, that this
weekly Fast should not interfere with the Christian joyousness brought back by
the Festival of their LORD’S Nativity when these should in the cycle of years
coincide. Again, if they should fail to appreciate the wisdom of appointing
certain days to be kept sacred in memory of the holy men who left all to follow
CHRIST, and consequently should be rather deterred than attracted, by observing
that many of these days were ushered in by a preceding Fast; still they would
hardly fail to be struck by the provision, that this previous fast should not
interfere with the Christian’s weekly Festival of his LORD’S Resurrection, but
that "if any of these Feast-days should fall upon a Monday, then the Fast-day
should be kept on the Saturday, not upon the Sunday next before it." Again, he
must observe, that during certain periods of the Church’s year, which are times
of especial joy to the faithful Christian, those, namely, which follow the
Nativity and the Resurrection, these preparatory Fasts are altogether omitted.
Some or other of these regulations would probably strike most thoughtful minds,
as instances of consideration and reflection in those who framed them. The
clergy, more especially, would appreciate, abstractedly at least, the imitation
of the Apostolic practice of Fasting, when any are to be ordained to any holy
function in the Church; and some probably will feel mournfully, that if the
Church were now more uniformly to observe those acts of Fasting and Prayer,
which were thought needful, before even Paul and Barnabas were separated for
GOD’S work, we should have more reasonable grounds to hope, that many of our
Clergy would be filled with the spirit of Barnabas and Paul. On the other hand,
it is naturally to be expected, that one not accustomed to any outward restraint
in this matter, would feel indisposed to ordinances so detailed; that although
he could reconcile to himself the one or the other of these observances, which
most recommended themselves to his Christian feelings, he would think the whole
a burdensome and minute ceremonial, perhaps unbefitting a spiritual worship, and
interfering with the liberty wherewith CHRIST has made him free. This is very
natural; for we are by nature averse to restraint, and the abuse of some maxims
of Protestantism, such as the "right of private judgment," has made us yet more
so: we are reluctant to yield to an unreasoning authority, and to submit our
wills, where our reason has not first been convinced; and the prevailing maxims
of the day have strengthened this reluctance; we have been accustomed to do,
"every one that which was right in his own eyes," and are jealous of any
authority, except that of the direct injunctions of the Bible: in extolling also
the spirituality of our religion, we have, I fear, intended covertly to
panegyrise our own, and so, almost wilfully withdraw our sight from those more
humbling provisions, which are adapted to us, as being yet in the flesh: in our
zeal for the blessed truths of the cross of CHRIST, and of our sanctification by
the HOLY SPIRIT, we have begin insensibly to disparage other truths, which bring
us less immediately into intercourse with GOD, to neglect the means and
ordinances, which touch not upon the very centre of our faith. The practical
system of the Church is altogether at variance with that which even pious
Christians in these days have permitted themselves to adopt; much which she has
recommended or enjoined would now be looked upon as formalism, or outward
service: in our just fear of a lifeless formalism, we have forgotten that
wherever there is regularity, there must be forms; that every Christian feeling
must have its appropriate vehicle of expression; that the most exalted act of
Christian devotion, that our closest union with our SAVIOUR, is dependent upon
certain forms; that the existence of forms does not constitute formalism; that
where the Spirit of CHRIST is, there the existence of forms serves only to give
regularity to the expression, to chasten what there might yet remain of too
individual feeling, to consolidate the yet divided members "in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the SON of GOD unto a perfect man, unto the
measure of the stature of the fulness of CHRIST."

Yet, as in every case in which the current of prevailing opinions, either in
faith or practice, has for some time set in one direction, there have not been
wanting indications, that Christians have felt their system incomplete; that
there was something in the tranquil piety of former days, which they would
gladly incorporate into the zealous excitement of the present; that although
religion is in one sense strictly individual, yet in the means by which it is
kept alive it is essentially expansive and social; that the only error here to
be avoided, is a reliance upon forms; that the forms themselves, as soon as they
are employed to realize things eternal, and to cherish man’s communion with his
SAVIOUR, become again spiritual and edifying.

It is accordingly remarkable, in how many cases individuals have of late been
led back by their own Christian experience to observances, in some respect
similar to those which the Church had before suggested and provided for them. In
the more advanced stages of their Christian course, or when, by a period of
sickness or distress, GOD has granted them a respite from the unceasing circle
of active duty, they have seen the value of those rites, the scrupulous
adherence to which they once regarded as signs of lifelessness. In either case
they would willingly own, that the union provided by the Church is not only more
ordered, and less liable to exception, than one which individuals could frame;
but also, that, as being more comprehensive, it would more effectually realize
their objects.

It is granted, then, that the proportion of the Fast Days enjoined by the Church
will, to persons unaccustomed to observe them, appear over-large, and the
variety of the occasions for which they are adapted, over-minute and arbitrary.
The question, however, occurs, whether we ought to be influenced by such
considerations to reject the entire system, or whether, we ought not rather to
be moved by the indications of a practical character evinced in some
regulations, to make the trial of those, whose benefit we do not at present
discern. Now it would seem plain that, in a practical matter, he who from the
traces of wisdom or thoughtfulness in one regulation should infer the probable
wisdom and reasonableness of others emanating from the same source, would act
more wisely than one, who, on account of the apparent unreasonableness and
superfluity of some provisions, should proceed to condemn the whole. For in
practical matters, the great test of the expediency of any habit, for which we
have not direct divine authority, is experience: they only who have tried a line
of conduct, or narrowly watched its effects upon others, can speak with
certainty as to its result. Of all the lesser courses of action, which tend so
powerfully to form our moral habits, it would be impossible probably, for one
who had not tried their effect, to predict certainly what that effect would be:
or if we could guess the nature of the effect, certainly we should be able to
foresee its degree and amount. With the exception of gross and flagrant sins,
whose character and wages we know from authority, there is probably no one line
of action, with regard to which we might not before hand prove very plausibly to
ourselves, that it would not have the effects, to which it is in fact tending,
and which we afterwards perceive to have been its natural results. Yet such
abstract reasonings about the possibilities or tendencies of things would not be
listened to in any other case. When sick, men easily listen to the means,
however improbable, by which any disease, resembling their own, was removed. Be
it a poison, which they are bidden to take, yet if it be proved satisfactorily
that, in cases like their own, that poison has been the messenger of health,
they would not hesitate. They would listen to no abstract reasonings, that it
was improbable that what had been an instrument of death could be their life;
they would look to those, whom it had restored to health, and would do the like.
The sight of one person, undeniably raised from a state of death to life, would
affect men more than any a priori demonstration that the medicine was pernicious
or deadly. Much more then, since this medicine bas been recommended to us by the
great Physician of our souls; since it has been beneficial, wherever it has not
been substituted for all other means of restoring or maintaining our spiritual
health. The only question open to us, is,—not whether Fasting be in itself
beneficial, this has been determined for us by GOD Himself, but—whether certain
regulations concerning it tend to promote or to diminish its efficacy; and in
this case, the testimony of those who have proved their value, is manifestly of
primary importance; the pre-conceived opinions of such as have not tried them,
are but mere presumptions. When then, in the regulations preserved in our
Church, we find instances of thought which imply that the framers of these rules
formed them upon their own experience, or again, when in the histories of these
holy men, we see that they habitually practised what they inculcated, we have
evidence of the value of their advice, which we may not, without peril of injury
to our souls, neglect.

It was in part, by some such process as the preceding, that the writer of these
pages was led to consider what people have come habitually to regard as the less
solemn Fasts of the Church, and now ordinarily pay less regard to; for the first
day of Lent, and the annual commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings, are, I
suppose, still very commonly observed. As the history of every mind is, under
some modifications, the mirror of many others, it may to some be useful to see
by what course of reflection or experience an individual was brought to feel the
value of the regulations of the Church in this respect.

It will perhaps to some seem strange to find placed among the foremost of these
advantages, theProtectionthereby afforded—protection against one’s self;
protection against the habits and customs of the world, which sorely let and
hinder one in systematically pursuing what one imagines might be beneficial. I
speak not, of course, of any known duty; in that case the opinion or practice or
invitations of the world were nothing: but with regard to those in definite
duties or disciplines, which one thinks may be performed as well at one period
as at another, and which on that very account are frequently not performed at
all, or at best occasionally only, and superficially. No thoughtful Christian
will doubt of the propriety and duty of fasting, whatever he may understand by
the term. "The bridegroom is taken away from us, and so we must fast in these
days:" the Apostles were "in fastings often:" in fastings, as well as in
sufferings for the Gospel, or by pureness, by knowledge, by all the graces which
the HOLY GHOST imparted, they approved themselves the Ministers of GOD. Our
blessed SAVIOUR has given us instructionshowwe ought to fast, and therefore
implied that His disciples would fast: He has promised that His Father, in the
sight of all the Holy Angels, shall reward the right performance of this
exercise: how then should it not be a duty? "Our LORD and SAVOUR," says Hooker,
"would not teach the manner of doing, much less propose a reward for doing, that
which were not both holy and acceptable in GOD’S sight." And yet, after all the
allowances which can be made for that fasting which is known to our FATHER only
who seeth in secret, one cannot conceal from one’s self that this duty is in
these days very inadequately practised. It is, in fact, a truth almost
proverbial, that a duty which may be performed at any time, is in great risk of
being neglected at all times. The early Christians felt this, and appointed the
days of our Blessed SAVIOUR’S betrayal and crucifixion, the Wednesday and Friday
of each week, to be days of fasting and especial humiliation. Those days, in
which especially the bridegroom was taken away, the days, namely, in which He
was crucified and lay in the grave, were, besides, early consecrated as Fasts by
the widowed Church. Nor was it because they were in perils, which we are spared;
because they were in deaths oft, that they practised or needed this discipline.
Quite the reverse. Their whole life was a Fast, a death to this world, a
realizing of things invisible. It was when dangers began to mitigate, when
Christianity became (as far as the world was concerned) an easy profession, it
was then that the peril increased, lest their first simplicity should he
corrupted, their first love grow cold! Then those who had spiritual authority in
the Church increased the stated Fasts, in order to recall that holy earnestness
of life, which the recentness of their redemption, and the constant sense of
their SAVIOUR’S presence, had before inspired. Fasts were not merely the
voluntary discipline of men, whose conversation was in heaven; they were adopted
and enlarged in periods of ease, of temptation, of luxury, of self-satisfaction,
of growing corruption. To urge that Fasts were abused by the later Romish
Church, is but to assert that they are a means of grace committed to men; that
they would subsequently be unduly neglected, was but to be expected by any one,
who knows the violent vacillations of human impetuosity. It was then among the
instances of calm judgment in the Reformers of our Prayer-Book that, cutting off
the abuses which before prevailed, the vain distinctions of meats, the luxurious
abstinences, the lucrative dispensations, they still prescribed, Fasting "to
discipline the flesh, to free the spirit, and render it more earnest and fervent
to prayer, and as a testimony and witness with us before GOD of our humble
submission to His high Majesty, when we confess our sins unto Him, and are
inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, bewailing the same in the
affliction of our bodies ." Our Reformers omitted that, which might be a snare
to men’s consciences; they left it to every man’s Christian prudence and
experience,howhe would fast; but they prescribed the days upon which he should
fast, both in order to obtain an unity of feeling and devotion in the members of
CHRIST’S body, and to preclude the temptation to the neglect of the duty
altogether. Nor is the interference in this matter any thing insulated in our
system, or one which good men would object to, had not our unhappy neglect of it
now made it seem strange and foreign to our habits. In some things we are
accustomed to perform a duty, which is such independently of the authority of
the Church, in the way in which the Church has prescribed, and because she has
so appointed. We assemble ourselves together on the LORD’S day, because GOD has
directed us by His Apostle not to forsake such assemblies; but we assemble
ourselves twice upon that day rather than once, not upon any reason of the
abstract fitness of so doing, but because the Church has prescribed it. And yet
we should rightly think, that it argued great profaneness of mind and a culpable
carelessness of our privileges, if we were habitually to neglect this ordinance,
one the ground that GOD has not in His Word directly enjoined it, And probably,
at an early period of our lives, (perhaps even later, when indisposition or
indolence or any prevailing temptation has beset us,) there are few amongst us
who have not owed their regular perseverance in public worship to this ordinance
of the Church: there is no one assuredly who having broken this ordinance, has
afterwards by GOD’S mercy been brought back to join more uniformly in the public
worship of his GOD and SAYIOUR, who has not been thankful for this restriction.
This then is protection.

Again, to search the Scriptures is a duty expressly enjoined by OUR SAVIOUR. The
Church has stepped in to direct this study, and prescribed that nearly the whole
of the O. T. should be read in each year, the N. T. thrice in the same period,
the Psalms once every month. Since our Daily Service has been nearly lost, many
pious individuals, it is well known, have habitually read just that portion
which the Church has allotted. Now, laying aside certain cases in which this
duty will be lifelessly performed, (for such there will be under any system,)
can any one doubt, that those who have from childhood been trained to follow
this direction of the Church, have read their Bible more regularly and more
fully than others? and has not the Word of GOD often exerted its power even when
it has been read simply as an act of duty, and when but for this direction it
would not have been read at all? The like has undoubtedly taken place even in
the celebration of the Supper of our LORD. Individuals have been induced to
join, and that beneficially to themselves, in the Communion even of their
SAVIOUR’S Body and Blood, just so often in the year as their Church has
prescribed to them. This is not so unusual a case as it might seem. One cannot
doubt, that in many cased, where the Holy Communion is celebrated but three
times in the year, this is so done, because such is the smallest number, of
which the Church admits, and the Minister supposes that his flock would not join
with him more frequently. Had the Church made no such regulation, many probably,
who now partake three times a year, might not have joined even thus often; yet
it would not be true to say that such persons in all cases partook without real
devotion, or any love to their SAVIOUR. Again, where there are opportunities of
a monthly Communion, there may be some, who would not have desired the
privilege, unless the provision had been made for them, and they had been
invited by the Church so to do; yet will it not of necessity follow, that they
partake coldly or unacceptably. A warmer love would indeed lead the one to a
more frequent, the other to a more glad Communion; nor have such persons well
understood the principles of their Church; still, GOD forbid that we should
judge that they had not partaken worthily and devotionally.

Here again then is protection: in each case, we have a command of GOD, obeyed in
such wise as is prescribed by the Ministers, whom He has made the Stewards of
His Word and Sacraments; and since in these cases we admit their regulation, why
should we think it strange or incongruous, that they have given us their pious
admonitions in another ordinance of God? Nor is it to the undecided, or the
timid, or the hesitating, or the notice only, that this protection is
beneficial; although no reflecting Christian will speak lightly of the value of
any means, which tend to strengthen the bruised reed or to kindle anew the
smouldering flax. The comparison of our own times with those of the Reformers
were proof enough of the benefit of authoritative interposition in these
matters. Is human nature changed? or have we discovered some more royal road, by
which to arrive at the subjugation of the body, the spiritualizing of the
affections? or have we even from without fewer temptations to luxury and
self-indulgence? or will not even the more pious and decided Christians among us
confess, upon reflection, that they had probably been more chastened and lowly,
more single in following hall they in this point adhered to the Ancient
Discipline of the Church? Our Reformers kept and enjoined one hundred and eight
days in each year, either entirely or in part, this manner sanctified:
two-sevenths of each year they wished to be in some way separated by acts of
self-denial and humiliation. Let any one consider what proportion of each year
he has himself so consecrated, and whether, had he followed the ordinances of
the Church, his spirit would not probably have been more chastened and lowly,
more single in following even what he deems his duty, whether self would not
have been more restrained, whether he would not have walked more humbly with his
GOD.

Yet authority is a valuable support against the world, even to minds which yet
are not inclined to compromise with the world unlawfully. There are many
situations in life, in which it were almost impossible to continue, without
observation, a system of habitual and regular Fasting, certainly not one,
attended with those accompaniments, which the Fathers of our Church thought it
desirable to unite with it. It is true, that every Fast may be made a Feast, and
every Feast a Fast, that as far as self-denial is concerned, if there be a
stedfast purpose, the object may perhaps be as well accomplished in the midst of
plenty and luxury, as by the purposed spareness of a private board; it is
possible also, that the acts might be in some measure concealed; still there are
very many minds, and those such as one would be the most anxious to protect, to
whom the very suspicion that they might be observed, would be a matter of pain
and a species of profanation; they would shrink from any thing which might be
construed into Pharisaic abstinence, or which would seem to pretend to more than
ordinary measures of Christian prudence. To such mild and unobtrusive spirits,
the recommendation or direction of the Church is an invaluable support: they may
now adopt the line of conduct which they love, unimpeded by any scruple, lest
their good should be evil spoken of; they are acting under authority; they
pretend to do nothing more than the Founders of their Church have deemed
expedient for every one; their conduct involves no lofty pretensions; they
follow in simplicity and faithfulness an old and trodden track, which has been
marked out for them as plain and safe. The first advantage then which may result
from the authoritative interposition of the Church in regulating this duty, is
the securing of greater regularity and more uniform perseverance in its
performance; not undoubtedly as in itself an end, but as leading to great and
important ends; for as those pious men, who laid so much stress thereon,
themselves say, "when it respecteth a good end, it is a good work; but the end
being evil, the work is also evil." "Fasting is not to be commended as a duty,
but as an instrument; and, in that sense, no man can reprove it, or undervalue
it, but he that knows neither spiritual acts, not spiritual necessities." But
further, it is not even true, that all the purposes of Fasting can be attained
by mere self-denial in the midst of luxury. For this acquisition of the habit of
self-denial, although an important object, is by no means the sole end of
Fasting. The great purpose, in connexion with which it is chiefly mentioned in
Holy Scripture, is prayer. The influences of Society, rightly chosen,maydispose
the mind to more fervent (possibly only more excited) prayer; it is solitude
generally, or communion with a single friend, which brings us to a humble,
contrite, lowly intercourse with our GOD. In the present day, the first
paramount evil which destroys its tens of thousands, is probably
self-indulgence; the second which hinders thousands in their progress
heavenwards, is the being "busy and careful about many things," whether temporal
or spiritual. "We have kept the vineyards of our mother’s children; but our own
vineyards we have not kept." The tendency of the age is to activity, and we have
caught its spirit; if we be but active about our Master’s calling, we deem
ourselves secure; we think not, until we are precluded from active exertion,
"how much activity belongs to some (ages and some) natures, and that this nature
is often mistaken for grace." Meanwhile an activity which leads us not inwards,
has taken place of that tranquil retiring meditation on the things of the unseen
world which formed the deep, absorbing, contemplative, piety of our forefathers;
even the conception of the joys of heaven, which very many of us form, is but a
glorified transcript of our life here; we look, when through GOD’S mercy in
CHRIST we shall be delivered from the burthen of the flesh, to be like the
"Ministers of His who do His pleasure;" but we look not, comparatively at least,
to that which our Fathers longed for, to be with CHRIST, and to see Him as He
is. Our age is in general too busy, too active, for deep and continued
self-observation, or for thoughtful communion with our GOD. It would not be too
broad or invidious a statement to say, that for real insight into the recesses
of our nature, or for deep aspirations after GOD, we must for the most part turn
to holy men of other days: our own furnish us chiefly with that which they have
mainly cherished, ageneralabhorrence of sin; they guide us not to trace it out
in the lurking corners of your own hearts: they teach us to
acknowledgegenerallythe corruption of our nature, the necessity of a Redeemer,
and the love we should feel towards Him; but they lead us not to that individual
and detailed knowledge of our own personal sinfulness, whence the real love of
our Redeemer can alone flow. A religious repose and a thoughtful contemplation
would be a second advantage of complying in this respect with the instructions
of our Church.

Braced and strung by retirement into ourselves, and tranquil meditation upon
GOD, we should return to our active duties with so much more efficiency, as we
ourselves had become holier, humbler, calmer, more abstracted from self, more
habituated to refer all things to GOD. Were human activity alone engaged on both
sides, then might we the rather justify the prevailing notions of the day, that
energy is to be met by counter-energy alone: but now, since " we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against principalities, I against powers, against
the rulers of the darkness of this world," it especially behoves us too look
wherein our great strength lies, and to take heed that "the weapons of our
warfare be not carnal." It is tempting to adopt into the service of GOD the
weapons or the mode of warfare, which in the hands of His enemies we see to be
efficacious; but the faithful soldier of CHRIST must not go forth with weapons
which he has not proved; the Christian’s armoury, as the Apostle goes on to
describe it, is mainly defensive; and when he has urged his brethren to assume
it, he exhorts them to add that whereby alone it becomes effectual—a duty in
which again we appear to ourselves to be inactive—"praying always with all
prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all
perseverance and supplication for all saints." Fasting, retirement, and prayer,
as they severally and unitedly tend to wean us from ourselves and cast us upon
God, will tend to promote singleness of purpose, to refine our busy and
over-heated restlessness into a calm and subdued confidence in Him, in whose
strength we go forth. Nor shall we, until the day of Judgment, know how much of
the victory was granted to those, who in man’s sight took no share in the
conflict; how far the "unseen strength" of Fasting, humiliation, prayer, put
forth by those of whom the world took no account, was allowed by God to prevail.
The world saw only that the Apostle whom they had imprisoned, escaped their
power; they knew not that the prayer of the Church had baffled their design. In
the present conflict throughout the world, in which the pride of human and
Satanic strength seems put forth to the utmost humility and a chastened
dependent spirit would seem to have an especial efficacy. On these, as the
graces most opposed to the world’s main sin, we might look the more cheerfully
for GOD’S blessing; thus shall we at least be saved from augmenting the evil we
would oppose. "Fasting directly advances towards chastity, and by consequence
and indirect powers to patience, humility, and indifference. But then it is not
the fast of a day that can do this; it is not an act, but a state of fasting,
that operates to mortification." A third benefit, which might be hoped to result
from the more assiduous practice of this duty, would be a more self-denying
extensive charity. "Fasting without mercy, is but an image of famine; Fasting
without works of piety, is only an occasion of covetousness:" and an Apostolic
Father gives us this excellent instruction, "A true Fast is not merely keep
under the body, but to give to the widow, or the poor, the amount of that which
thou wouldest have expended upon thyself; that so he who receives it may pray to
GOD for thee."

It may perhaps seem strange to some that the present age should be thought
wanting in self-denying charity. And yet let men but consider with themselves
not what they give only, but what they retain; let them inquire a little
further, not only what wants are relieved, but what remediable misery remains
unabated; or let them but observe generally the glaring contrasts of extremest
luxury and softness, and pinching want and penury; between their own ceiled
houses, and the houses of GOD which lie waste; or let them only trace out one
single item in the mass of human wretchedness, disease, insanity, religious
ignorance, and picture to themselves what a Christian people might do, what the
primitive Christians would have done, to relieve it,—and then turn to what is
done, to what themselves do, and say whether means to promote self-denying
charity can well be spared. A further important object of the stated and
frequent recurrence of the prescribed Fasts of our Church, is the public
recognition of the reality of things spiritual. Here also very many have felt,
(and it is a feeling whose strength is daily increasing,) that some public
protest is needed against the modes of acting, tolerated (would one must not
say, reigning!) in our nominally Christian land: that the Church, or the body of
believers, ought to have some recognized modes of distinguishing themselves from
those, who manifest by their deeds, that although "amongst us, they are not of
us;" and who, on the principles of our Church, ought to have gone out or to have
been removed from us. It has been with a right view of what the ideal of the
Christian Church should be, its holiness, and its purity, although not, I must
think, with a just conception of the nature of the Church, that mean jealous for
the honour of their God and their REDEEMER, have in some measure formed Churches
within the Church. The plan has, I think been defective, sacred and praiseworthy
as was the object contemplated. It is true, that the mere union in the
celebration of the weekly festival of our LORD’S Resurrection does not, as
things now are, furnish a sufficient condemnation of the maxims and offences of
the World; that the Church and the World are too much amalgamated; that while
the light of the Church has in part penetrated the gross darkness of the World,
there is yet danger, lest that light itself should be obscured. Yet the remedy
for this, under GOD’S blessing, is not to be sought in rescuing or concentrating
some scattered rays of that Church, while the Church herself is abandoned to the
World. Her own Ordinances afford the means of her restoration. Not to speak of
those ulterior and fearful powers committed to her, (and which other Communions
exercise,) of ejecting from her bosom "the wicked person," the observance of her
own other institutions would virtually eject them. Not indeed at once, (as
indeed GOD Himself has thought fit to allow even His own Blessed Spirit but
gradually to leaven our corrupted mass,) not at once, (for at present, long
continuance in opposed habits would prevent many from receiving the Ordinances
of the Church,) but yet, one should trust, steadily and increasingly; the mists
which now encircle the Church, would disperse, and its glorious elevation on
Zion’s hill would more effectually be seen. Those, whom the easy Service of the
LORD’S Day repels not, who would fain serve GOD on the seventh day, and Mammon
on the remaining six, would by these severer or more continuous services, be
brought to some test of what spirit they were; more frequent Communions, more
constant Worship, more regular fasting, would show men, whether they belonged to
the Church or to the World: and if the Church, like Him, who is its Head, and
because joined to that Head, becomes a stone of stumbling, if some shall more
openly fall back unto perdition, still it will have performed its office; many,
one may be sure, (for our assurance rests on GOD’S Word,) would also be awakened
from their lethargy of death; and if it be to some a "savour of death," it will,
by GOD’S mercy, be to many more a "savour of life, unto life." Yet the result of
any system, sanctioned by GOD’S Word, belongs to us. Were the consequences of
more Apostolic practice a great apparent defection and desolation, we dare not
hesitate. "It must be made manifest that they are not all of us." Meanwhile a
beacon will be held out by those, who would wish to see their path: the Church
would, in example, as well as in her theory and directions, hold up a higher
standard of performance: she, in theory the most perfect, would no longer be in
proportion the least influential; the pleas, that every show of religion, which
the world tolerates not, is the mere excess and badge of a party, could no
longer be held: those who shrink from what might seem a voluntary or
ostentatious forwardness, would no longer be deterred from uniting in
observances, which, if authorized, they would love: and there might again be no
separation but between those who serve GOD, and those who serve Him not. The
world has seen that its own principles are leading to its own destruction; it
acknowledges that its increased laxity has fearfully increased its corruption;
offences, which even it abhors, are multiplied; vices, which disturb even its
peace, stalk more openly; yet while it reaps the bitter fruits of its own ways,
it dares not strike the root. The Fasts, appointed by our Church, appear
eminently calculated, not in truth as a panacea of all evil, but asonedecided
protest against the "corruption which is in the world by lust," asonetestimony
to the conviction of men of the reality of things eternal.

Men may "fast for strife and to smite with the fist of wickedness," as they may
also "for pretence make long prayers:" yet men will not, in general, submit to
inconvenience and privation,—except for a real and substantial object: the world
has easier paths for its followers; he, who suffers hardship for an unseen
reward, at least gives evidence to the world of the sincerity and rootedness of
his own conviction; he attests that he is a pilgrim journeying to a better
country, and however men may for a while neglect his testimony, yet if it be
consistent and persevering, it cannot be silenced.

Such are some of the advantages, which a recurrence to the system of our Church
in respect of Fasting might, in dependence upon GOD’S blessing, tend to realize:
a more uniform, namely, and regular observance of an injunction of our Blessed
SAVIOUR; a deeper humiliation, and a more chastened spirit in carrying on His
will; a more thorough insight into ourselves, and a closer communion with our
GOD; a more resolute and consistent practice of self-denying charity; a more
lively realizing of things spiritual; a warning to the world of GOD’S truth and
its own peril. I have spoken with reference to prevailing habits and general
character only, partly because they are these habits which the regulations of a
Church must mainly contemplate; in part also, because, in whatever degree, they
will probably form a portion of our own. The evil or defective character of any
period is not formed by, nor will it exist in those only who are evil; it
encompasses us, is within us: we also contribute in our degree to foster and
promote it; nay, it is from us probably that it receives its main countenance
and support. Our own standard is insensibly lowered by the evil with which we
are environed. A self-indulgent age is not a favourable atmosphere for the
growth of self-denial; nor an age of busy and self-dependent activity for that
of a calm and abiding practical recognition, that every thing is in GOD’S hands;
nor a period absorbed in the things of sense for thoughtful meditation on things
eternal. The predominant evils will indeed appear in the Christian faith in a
subdued form; yet whether the temptation be to an unconscious compliance with
them, or unwittingly to oppose evil with evil, the danger lies nearer here than
in any other part of duty. And if the salt in any wise lose its savour,
wherewith shall the self-corrupting world be preserved? wherewith the salt
itself be salted? The benefits above names are such as depend on the increased
degree of Fasting, exercised in compliance with the directions of the Church,
independently of the consideration of the days or seasons selected for the
purpose. The results to be anticipated from a more general adherence to these
rules appear, however, to be heightened by that selection. The general objects
of the Church were, 1. to impress upon the mind and life the memory of her
SAVIOUR’S sufferings; 2. to prepare the mind for different solemn occasions,
which recur in her yearly service. The first, or the Friday Fast, as above
stated, was universally adopted in the early Church, and in all probability was
coeval with the Apostles; it was continue uninterruptedly, alike in the Eastern
and the Western Church, and preserved in our own, through the respect which she
bore to primitive antiquity, and the experience of the elder Church. It was
perhaps at the first adopted, as the natural expression of sorrow for the loss
of their LORD and for His bitter sufferings. With this would soon connect
itself, almost to the exclusion of the former, sorrow for the sins, which caused
those sufferings. "We do not fast," says Chrysostom, "for the Passion or the
Cross, but for our sins; —the Passion is not the occasion for fasting or
mourning, but of joy and exultation.--We mourn not for that, GOD forbid, but for
our sins, and therefore we fast." As then the LORD’S day was the weekly festival
of their SAVIOUR’S resurrection a weekly memorial of our rising again, in Him
and through Him, to a new and real life; so was the Friday’s Fast a weekly
memorial of the death to sin, which all Christians had in their SAVIOUR died,
and which, if they would live with Him, they must continually die. Thus each
revolving week was a sort of representation of that great week, in which man’s
redemption was completed: the Church never lost sight of her SAVIOUR’S
sufferings; each week was hallowed by a return of the "Good Friday." One need
scarcely insist upon the tendency of such a system, deeply to impress on men’s
hearts the doctrine of the Atonement, by thus incorporating it into their
ordinary lives, and making them by their actions confess the truth, In the early
Church its efficacy was without doubt increased by the accession of the Fast of
Wednesday, or fourth day of the week; so that no portion of the week was without
some memorial of the SAVIOUR of the Church. There is however another object,
which, although not originally contemplated, was in fact attained by this
institution, the holier celebration, namely, of our most solemn day, that our
SAVIOUR’S death. Most Christians, probably, who have endeavoured to realize to
themselves the events of that day, have been painfully disappointed in so doing;
instead of Touching the heart with softer power For comfort than an angel’s
mirth it has been to them an oppressive day: its tremendous truths overwhelmed
rather than consoled; it was so unlike all other days, that the mind was
confounded by its very greatness: it seem unnatural to do any thing, which one
would do even on any other holy day, and the heart was equally unsatisfied with
what it did or did not do. Something of this kind has taken place in very many
minds; and the reason probably was, that the solemnity of that day was too
insulated; that (if one may use the expression) it was out of keeping with the
religious habits of the rest of the year. This then the weekly Fast and solemn
recollection recommended by the Church are calculated to remedy; as indeed, had
they been observed, these feelings would never have found place. In whatever
degree its advice is adhered to, Good Friday becomes a day of more chastened,
and yet of intenser feeling; it is connected with a train of the like emotions,
affections, and resolves; insulated no longer, but the holiest only among the
holy. "Neither in moral or religious, more than in physical and civil matters,"
says a very acute observer of human nature, "do people willingly do any thing
suddenly or upon the instant; they need a succession of the like actions,
whereby a habit may be formed; the things which they are to love, or to perform,
they cannot conceive as insulated and detached; whatever we are to repeat with
satisfaction, must not have become foreign to us." The principle is of important
application in the whole range of our duties; nor cold it be too often repeated,
in warning, "that what is not practised frequently, can never be performed with
delight." We are sensible of the value of habits in moral action, and are not
surprised that one who make only desultory efforts should never succeed in
acquiring any habit; we feel it in some degree in our public worship of GOD, and
think it natural that one who does not diligently avail himself of all his
opportunities of attending it, should join in it but coldly and lifelessly; it
is strange to him, and therefore at best a stiff and austere service; and yet,
in other matters, we act in defiance of this maxim; we have allowed our Fasts to
become rare, and therefore it has come to pass, that so many never fast at all:
our holy days have passed for the most part into neglect, and therefore the few
that remain excite but little comparative feeling; our daily service is well
nigh disused, and therefore our weekly is so much neglected; we have diminished
the frequency of our communions, and therefore so many are stranger to the
LORD’S Table, so many formal partakers. Not so the Apostles, nor the Primitive
Church, nor our own in its Principles, or in its most Apostolic days: they knew
human nature better; or, rather, acting from their own experience and
self-knowledge, they ordained what was healthful for men of like nature with
themselves; what was a duty an any period of the year, must needs be performed
throughout; each portion had its Festivals and its Fasts, and the varying circle
formed one harmonious whole of Christian humiliation and Christian joy. The
Church was in those days consistent; its ministers derived their commission not
of man, but of GOD, who called them inwardly by His Spirit, and outwardly
through those to whom, though His Apostles, He had delegated this high office.
The admission into Holy Orders was no mere outward consecration or ceremony, but
an imparting of GOD’S Spirit to those who were separated to this work, through
the prayers of the congregation, and the delegated authority of the Bishop.
Christian edification was not left to each man’s private judgment, but each was
taught by those who had authority and experience, what was good and expedient
for his soul’s health. We also have been in these days becoming consistent; if
we fast, we fast for ourselves; if we keep a holy day, or select a portion of
the weekly service, it is because we of our own minds deem it convenient; we
have become in all things the judges of the Church, instead of reverently
obeying what has been recommended to us; we judge beforehand what will be useful
to us, instead of ascertaining by experience whether the system recommended by
elder Christians be not so.

Yet I would fain hope that there will not long be this variance between our
principles and our practice; but that, instead of examining what is the present
practice of any portion of our Church, and inquiring how this may be amended,
men would first investigate, in the Canons and the Rubrics, what the real mind
of the Church is, and see whether adherence to these would not remove this
regretted fact.

One only objection can, I think, be raised by any earnest-minded Christian to
this weekly fast, namely, that the means employed, mere self-denial in so slight
a matter as one’s food, is so petty and trifling a thing, that it were degrading
the doctrine of the Cross to make such an observance in any way bear upon it.
One respects the feelings of such a person and his love for the Cross; but the
objection probably proceeds from inexperience in the habit of Fasting. For let
any one consider, from his childhood upwards, by what the greater part of his
habits have been formed, and by what they are continued: not by any great acts
or great sacrifices, (as far as any thing might be relatively great,) but by a
succession of petty actions, whose effect he could not at any time foresee, or
thought too minute to leave any trace behind them, and which have in fact,
whether for good or for evil, made him what he is. Practice will universally
show, that the motive ennobles the action, not that the action dishonours the
motive. "True it is," says Bishop Taylor, "that religion snatches even at little
things; and as it teaches us to observe all the great commandments and
significations of duty, so it is not willing to pretermit any thing, which,
although by its greatness it cannot of itself be considerable, yet by its
smallness it may become a testimony of the greatness of the affection, which
would not omit the least minutes of love and duty." He who pronounced a blessing
upon the gift of a cup of cold water to a disciple in His name, will also bless
any act of sincere self-denial practised in memory of Him. Only let us not mock
GOD, let us deny ourselves in something which is to us really self-denial; let
us, in whatever degree we may be able to bear it without diminishing our own
usefulness, put ourselves to some inconvenience, in sorrow and shame for those
sins, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life,"
which made our SAVIOUR a man of sorrows, and exposed Him to shame, and we shall
not afterwards think the practice degrading to Him, or without meaning. The Fast
of the early Christians during Lent was an entire abstinence until evening, on
the Wednesday and Friday, until three o’clock: unused as we for the most part
are to any such discipline, many of us would at the first not be well able to
endure it; the difference also of climate might render that degree of abstinence
oppressive top us, which in more southern altitude would recruit only and
refresh the spirit: the weak and sickly again have always been exempt from those
more rigid abstinences: they might not beneficially be able to deprive
themselves of an early or an entire meal: yet doubtless many of them will have
been enabled to trace in themselves the evils of even a necessary softness and
indulgence of the body; and the mind which shall have become alive to these,
will no be slow in discovering some mode of "keeping under the body, and
bringing it into subjection." The early Church, besides its more rigid Fasts,
admitted also of the substitution of less palatable and diminished nourishment;
and our own has, in insulated directions accompanying her occasional Fasts,
recognized the same principle: in general, she has left the mode of observing
her Fasts free to the conscience of each; only let them consist in real
self-denial, and be accompanied by charity, retirement, and prayer. The early
Church acted, as it supposed, upon our Blessed SAVIOUR’S own authority, in
connecting these acts of bodily abstinence with the memory of His death. The
Bridegroom was taken away! Yet if anyone should find in himself any abiding
repugnance to associate matters, necessarily humiliating, with the doctrine of
the Cross, let him not endeavour to force his feelings: the Church wished to lay
no yoke upon her members; let him perform the acts in mere compliance with the
advice of the Church, and the experience of elder Christians: when we shall have
attained the habit of self-denial and self-humiliation, the doctrine of the
Cross will, without effort, connect itself with each such performance. The other
Fasts of the Church require the less to be dwelt upon, either because, as in
Lent, her authority is yet in some degree recognized, although it be very
imperfectly and capriciously obeyed; or, as in the case of the Ember Weeks, the
practice has direct scriptural authority; or in that of the other Festivals,
because when we shall again value the privilege of having the blessed examples
of Martyrs and Saints set before us, to —————Remind us, how our darksome clay
May keep the ethereal warmth our new Creator brought, we shall feel also the
advantage of ushering in each such day by actions which may impress upon us how
they entered into their glory, by taking up their SAVIOUR’S cross and following
Him.

Only with regard to the Ember Weeks, it may be permitted to observe, how this
institution yet more fully embraces the objects which some good men are
endeavouring, by voluntary association, to attain. For the solemn period of the
four Ember Weeks is obvious calculated for prayer, not for those only who are to
be ordained to any holy function, but for all who shall have been so called,
that GOD "would so replenish them with the truth of His doctrine, and endue them
with innocency of life, that they may faithfully serve Him;" and thus, not only
some few individuals, more nearly known to each other, but all the Ministers and
all the people of CHRIST should, with one mind and one mouth, implore a blessing
upon the Ministry which He has appointed. And this also is an especial privilege
of the whole system of regular Fasting prescribed by our Church, beyond the
voluntary discipline adopted by individuals, that it presents the whole Church
unitedly before GOD, humbling themselves for their past sins, and imploring Him
not to give His heritage to reproach. The value of this united prayer and
humiliation only GOD knoweth; yet since He hath promised to be present where two
or three are gathered together in His name, how much more when His Church shall
again unite before Him "in weeping, fasting, and praying;" how much more shall
He spare, though we deserve punishment, and in His wrath think upon mercy. He
who spared the Ninevites, how much more may we trust that He will spare us, for
whom He has given his well-beloved SON.

"LET us, therefore, dearly beloved, seeing there are many more causes of fasting
and mourning in these our days, than hath been of many years heretofore in one
age, endeavour ourselves both inwardly in our hearts, and also outwardly with
our bodies, diligently to exercise this godly exercise of fasting, in such sort
and manner, as the holy prophets, the apostles, and divers other devout persons
for their time used the same. GOD is now the same GOD as He was then; GOD that
loveth righteousness, and that hateth iniquity; GOD which willeth not the death
of a sinner, but rather that he turn from his wickedness and live; GOD that hath
promised to turn to us, if we refuse not to turn to Him: yea, if we turn our
evil works from before His eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek to do
right, relieve the oppressed, be a right judge to the fatherless, defend the
widow, break our bread to the hungry, bring the poor that wander into our house,
clothe the naked, and despise not our brother which is our own flesh: Then shalt
thou call, saith the prophet, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and He
shall say, Here am I: yea, GOD, which heard Ahab, and the Ninevites, and spared
them, will also hear our prayers, and spare us, so that we, after their example,
will unfeignedly turn unto Him: yea, He will bless us with His heavenly
benedictions, the time that we have to tarry in this world, and, after the race
of this mortal life, He will bring us to .His heavenly kingdom, where we shall
reign in everlasting blessedness with our SAVIOUR CHRIST, to whom with the
FATHER and the HOLY GHOST be all honour and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."
Homily on Fasting, part 2.

"LORD, have mercy upon us, and give us grace, that while we live in this
miserable world, we may through thy help bring forth this and such other fruits
of the SPIRIT, commended and commanded in thy holy word, to the glory of thy
name, and to our comforts, that after the race of this wretched life, we may
live everlastingly with thee in thy heavenly kingdom, not for the merits and
worthiness of our works, but for thy mercies’ sake, and the merits of thy dear
Son, JESUS CHRIST, to whom, with thee and the HOLY GHOST, be all laud, honour,
and glory, for ever and ever. men." Homily on Fasting, part 1.

POSTSCRIPT. IN the preceding remarks, the observance of the Fasts enjoined by
the Church has been recommended on the ground of the practical wisdom and
spiritual experience of the Holy Men, by whose advice they were adopted, rather
than on that of the direct authority of the Church. And this has been done, not
because the writer doubted of the validity of that authority in this instance,
but because it involved a question, which would to many appear distant and
abstract; whether, namely, the Church’s Laws on this subject were by long disuse
virtually abrogated. For I am persuaded that many excellent men, who would
shrink from contravening a distinct command of their Church, do in fact neglect
these, from some notion that the Church herself has tacitly abandoned them. This
notion does indeed appear to me to rest on a wrong supposition.

For, 1st. Since the Church has not annexed any censures to the neglect of this
Ordinance, (which may correspond to the penal provisions of a civil law,) the
mere silence of the Church, or of her Spiritual Authorities, is no proof of her
acquiescence in the breach of her directions.

2. It would be admitted in any other case, that the mere multitude of those who
broke any law did not alone abrogate that law; that the intrinsic sanctity of
the law cannot depend upon the obedience which men may yield to it; that the
laxity or remiss ness of men, at one period, cannot annihilate the authority by
which that remissness was to be controlled. The disobedience of others, be they
many or few, nay, though they should be even the majority, can have no force in
absolving us from the law by which we are in common bound. It is true that
observances, which the Church has at one time on her own authority ordained, she
may at another abrogate; yet, until she do this, it is to be presumed that she
wishes them to be retained in force. And it has already happened, that
ordinances have for a time fallen into disuse, which yet were never allowed to
be abrogated, and which afterwards have been very beneficially revived. It is
within the memory of man, that the yearly Commemoration of our Blessed SAVIOUR’S
death was in country congregations very generally omitted. This solemn day is
now, I trust, almost universally observed; nor is there any apparent reason, why
this other ordinance of the Church, whereby we humble ourselves for the sins
which caused that Death, should not, if men once came seriously to consider it,
be promptly, and with very wholesome results, restored. I doubt not that if the
question were formally proposed to the Spiritual Authorities of our Church,
whether they would think it advisable that our stated Fasts should be abolished,
they would earnestly deprecate it. Their silence therefore on this subject is
rather to be ascribed to the supposed hopelessness of at tempting to bend our
modern manners to Ancient Discipline, than to any disparagement of the
institutions themselves. Our institutions in many cases sleep, but are not dead;
nay, one has reason to hope that, although the many neglect them, a faithful few
have ever been found, who have experienced and could testify the value of those
which the world seems most entirely to neglect.

One might refer, in proof, to the practice of a daughter Church, the Episcopal
Church of the United States. Sprung from our Church and supplied by her with
Ministers, until the State was separated from us, they carried with them her
principles, as they had been modified by the habits and feelings and practice of
the period which had elapsed since her Reformation. She may be regarded then as
representing the then state of opinions amongst us. Yet formerly re-considering
the subject of the Church’s Fasts, they omitted only the Vigils; while they
retained the weekly Friday Fast, those of Lent, the Ember and Rogation days, as
days "on which the Church requires such a measure of abstinence, as is more
especially suited to extraordinary acts and exercises of Devotion."

Yet, although these grounds of Church authority appear to myself perfectly
valid, and I doubt not that many others will feel their weight, as soon as they
shall reflect upon them, the other argument, drawn from the practical wisdom and
experience of the enactors of these regulations, seems to lie nearer to men’s
consciences. The argument lies in a narrow compass. Regular and stated Fasts
formed a part of the Discipline by which, during almost the whole period since
the Christian Church has been founded, all her real sons, in every climate,
nation, and language, have subdued the flesh to the spirit, and brought both
body and mind into a willing obedience to the Law of GOD. They thought this
Discipline necessary as an expression and instrument of repentance, as a
memorial of their SAVIOUR, to "refrain their souls and keep them low," to teach
them to "trust in the LORD," and seek communion with Him. To this system our own
Church during all her happier times adhered. The value of this remedy for sin
has come to us attested by the experience, and sealed by the blood, of Martyrs;
who having learnt thus to endure hardships, like good soldiers of CHRIST, at
last resisted to the blood, striving against sin. Shall we, untried, pronounce
that to be needless for our selves, which the Glorious Company of the Apostles,
the Goodly Fellowship of Prophets, the noble army of Martyrs, the Holy Church
throughout the world, found needful?

I can hardly anticipate other than one answer. Only let not any one be deterred
by the irksomeness, or perplexities, or harassing doubts, which every one must
find in resuming a neglected portion of duty. It were scarcely a discipline, if
its practice brought with it an immediate reward; and we have besides to pay the
penalty of our sloth and diseased habits. "Patiently to lack what flesh and
blood doth desire, and by virtue to forbear what by nature we covet, this no man
attaineth unto, but with labour and long practice." And if it be that blessed
instrument of holiness, which they who have tried it assure us, it will not be
without some struggle with our spiritual enemy, that we shall recover the ground
which we have lost. Only let us persevere, not elated with the first petty
victories over ourselves, which may be perhaps conceded to us in order to
produce over-confidence and carelessness; nor dejected by the obstacles which a
luxurious and scoffing age may oppose; nor by the yet greater difficulties from
within, in acquiring any uniform or consistent habit. Men, aided by GOD, have
done the like; and for us also, His grace will be sufficient.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Thomas.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 19 - ON ARGUING CONCERNING THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
========================================================================

ON ARGUING CONCERNING THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

[Number 19]

Men are sometimes disappointed with the proofs offered in behalf of some
important doctrines of our religion; such especially as the necessity of
Episcopal Ordination, in order to constitute a Minister of Christ. They consider
these proofs to be not so strong as they expected, or as they think desirable.
Now such persons should be asked, whether these arguments they speak of are in
their estimation weak as a guide to their own practice, or weak in controversy
with hardheaded and subtle disputants. Surely, as Bishop Butler has convincingly
shown, the faintest probabilities are strong enough to determine our conduct in
a matter of duty. If there be but a reasonable likelihood of our pleasing Christ
more by keeping than by not keeping to the fellowship of the Apostolic Ministry,
this of course ought to be enough to lead those, who think themselves moved to
undertake the Sacred Office, to seek for a license to do so from it.

It is necessary to keep this truth distinctly in view, because of the great
temptation, that exists among us, to put it out of sight. I do not mean the
temptation, which results from pride,-hardness of heart,-a profane disregard of
the details and lesser commandments of the Divine Law,--and other such like bad
principles of our nature, which are in the way of our honestly confessing it.
Besides these, there is a still more subtle temptation to slight it, which will
bear insisting on here, arising from an over-desire to convince others, or, in
other words a desire to out-argue others, a fear of seeming inconclusive and
confused in our own nations and arguments. Nothing, certainly, is more natural,
when we hold a truth strongly, than to wish to persuade others to embrace it
also. Nay, without reference to persuasion, nothing is more natural than to be
dissatisfied in all cases with our own convictions of a principle or opinion,
nay suspicious of it, till we are able to set it down clearly in words. We know,
that, in all matters of thought, to write down our meaning is one important
means of clearing our minds. Till we do so, we often do not know what we really
hold and what we do not hold. And a cautious and accurate reasoner, when he has
succeeded in bringing the truth of any subject home to his mind, next begins to
look round about the view he has adopted, to consider what others will say to
it, and to try to make it unexceptionable. At least we are led thus to fortify
our opinion, when it is actually attacked; and if we find we cannot recommend it
to the judgment of the assailant, at any rate we endeavour to make him feel that
it is to be respected. It is painful to be thought a weak reasoner, even though
we are sure in our minds that we are not such.

Now, observe how these feelings will affect us, as regards such arguments as
were alluded to above; viz. such as are open to exception, though they are
sufficiently strong to determine our conduct. A Friend, who differs from us asks
for our reasons for our own view. We state them, and he sifts them. He observes,
that our conclusions do not necessarily flow from our premises. E. g. to take
the argument for the Apostolical Succession derived from the ordination of St.
Paul and St. Barnabas (Acts 13:2-3), he will argue, that their ordination might
have been an accidental rite, intended merely to commission them for their
Missionary journey, which followed it, in Asia Minor; again, that St. Paul’s
direction to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:22), to "lay hands suddenly on no man," may
refer to confirmation, not ordination.

We should reply, (and most reasonably, too,) that, considering the undeniable
fact that ordination has ever been thought necessary in the Church for the
Ministerial Commission, our interpretation is the most probably one, and
therefore the safest to act upon; on which our friend will think awhile, then
shake his head, and say, that "at all events this is an unsatisfactory mode of
reasoning, that it does not convince him, that he is desirous of clearer light,"
&c.

Now what is the consequence of such a discussion as this on ourselves? not to
make us give up the doctrine, but to make us afraid of urging it. We grow
lukewarm about it; and with an appearance of judgment and caution, (as the world
will call it,) confess that "to rest the claims of our Clergy on an Apostolical
Descent is an unsafe and inexpedient line of argument; that it will not convince
men, the evidence not being sufficient; that it is not a practical way of acting
to insist upon it," &c-whereas the utmost that need be admitted is, that it is
out of place to make it the subject of a speculative dispute, and to argue about
it on that abstract logical platform which virtually excludes a reference to
conduct and duty. And indeed, it would be no unwise caution to bear about us,
wherever we go, that our first business, as Christians, is to address men as
responsible servants of CHRIST, not as antagonists; and that it is but a
secondary duty (though a duty) to "refute the gainsayers."

And, as on the one hand it continually happens, that those who are most skilled
in debate are deficient in sound practical piety, so on the other it may be
profitable to us to reflect, that doctrine, which we believe to be most true,
and which are received as such by the most profound and enlarged intellects, and
which rest upon the most irrefragable proofs, yet may be above our disputative
powers, and can be treated by us only with reference to our conduct. And in this
way, as in others, is fulfilled the saying of the Apostle, that "the preaching
of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved, it
is the power of GOD... Where is the wise:? where is the scribe? where is the
disputer of this world? hath not GOD made foolish the wisdom of this world?...
The foolishness of GOD is wise than men; and the weakness of GOD is stronger
than men." ON RELUCTANCE TO CONFESS THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

If a Clergyman is quite convinced that the Apostolical Succession is lost, then
of course he is at liberty to turn his mind from the subject. But if he is not
quite sure of this, it surely is his duty seriously to examine the question, and
to make up his mind carefully and deliberately. For if there be a chance of its
being preserved to us, there is a chance of his having had a momentous talent
committed to him, which he is burying in the earth.

It cannot be supposed that any serious man would treat the subject scoffingly.
If any one is tempted to do so, let him remember the tearful words of the
Apostle: "Esau, a profane person, who for one morsel of meat sold his
birthright."

If any are afraid, that to insist on their commission will bring upon them
ridicule, and diminish their usefulness, let them ask themselves, whether it be
not cowardice to refuse top leave the event to GOD. It was the reproach of the
men of Ephraim that, though they were "harnessed and carried bows," they "turned
themselves back in the day of battle." And if any there be, who take upon them
to contrast one doctrine of the Gospel with another, and preach those only which
they consider more essential, let them consider our SAVIOUR’S words, "These
things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 20 - THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
========================================================================

THE VISIBLE CHURCH. LETTERS TO A FRIEND. No. III.

[Number 20]

YOU have some misgivings, it seems, lest the doctrine I have been advocating
"should lead to Popery." I will not, by way of answer, say, that the question is
not, whether it will lead to Popery, but whether it is in the Bible; because it
would bring the Bible and Popery into one sentence, and seem to imply the
possibility of a "communion" between "light and darkness." No; it is the very
enmity I feel against he Papistical corruptions of the Gospel, which leads me to
press upon you a doctrine of Scripture, which we are sinfully surrendering, and
the Church of Rome has faithfully retained.

How comes it that a system, so unscriptural as the Popish, makes converts?
because it has in it an element of truth and comfort amid its falsehoods. And
the true way of opposing it, is, not to give up to them that element, which
GOD’S providence has preserved to us also, thus basely surrendering "the
inheritance of our Fathers," but to claim it as our own, and to make use of it
for the purposes for which GOD has given it to us. I will explain what I mean.

Before CHRIST came, Divine Truth was, as it were, a pilgrim in the world. The
Jews excepted, men who had portions of the SPIRIT of GOD, knew not their
privilege. The whole force and current of the external world was against them,
acting powerfully on their imagination, and tempting them to set sight against
faith, to trust the many witnesses who prophesied falsehood (as if) in the name
of the LORD, rather than the still small voice which spoke within them. Who can
undervalue the power of this fascination, who has had experience of the world
ever so little? Who can go at this day into mixed society, who can engage in
politics or other active business, and not find himself gradually drifting off
from the true Rock on which his faith is built, till he begins in despair to
fancy, that solitude is the only safe place for the Christian, or, (with a baser
judgment,) that strict obedience will not be required at the last day of those
who have been engaged in active life? If such is now the power of the world’s
enchantments, surely much greater was it before our SAVIOUR came.

Now what did He do for us, in order to meet this evil? His merciful Providence
chose means which might act as a counter influence on the imagination. The
visible power of the world enthralled men to a lie: He set up a Visible Church,
to witness the other way, to witness for Him, to be a matter of fact, as
undeniable as the shining of the sun, that there was such a principle as
conscience in the world, as faith, as fear of GOD; that there were men who
considered themselves bound to live as His servants. The common answer which we
hear made every day to persons who engage in any novel undertaking, is, "You
will get no one to join you; nothing can come of it; you are singular in your
opinion; you do not take practical views, but are smit with a fancy, with a
dream of former times," &c. How cheering it is to a person so circumstanced, to
be able to point to others elsewhere, who actually hold the same opinions as
himself, and exert themselves for the same objects! Why? because it is an appeal
to a fact, which no one can deny; it is an evidence that the view which
influences him is something external to his own mind, and not a dream. What two
persons see, cannot be an ideal apparition. men are governed by such facts, much
more than by argumentative proof. These act upon the imagination. let a person
be told ten times over than an opinion is true, the fact of its being said
becomes an argument for the truth of it; i.e. it is so with most men. We see
from time to time the operation of this principle of our nature in political
matters. Our American colonies revolt; France feels the sympathy of the event,
and is revolutionized. Again, in the same colonies, the Episcopal Church
flourishes; we Churchmen at home ail it as an omen of the Church’s permanence
among ourselves. On the other hand, what can be more dispiriting than to find a
cause, which we advocate, sinking in some other country or neighbourhood, though
there be no reason for concluding, that, because it has fallen elsewhere,
therefore it will among ourselves? In order then to supply this need of our
minds, to satisfy the imagination, and so to help our faith, for this among
other reasons, CHRIST set up a visible Society, His Church, to be as a light
upon a hill, to all the ends of the earth, while time endures. It is a witness
of the unseen world; a pledge of it; and a prefiguration of what will hereafter
take place. It prefigures the ultimate separation of good and bad, holds up the
great laws of GOD’S Moral Governance, and preaches the blessed truths of the
Gospel. It pledges to us the promises of the next world, for it is something (so
to say) in hand; CHRIST has done one work as the earnest of another. and it
witnesses the truth to the whole world; awing sinners, while it inspires the
fainting believer. And in all these ways it helps forward the world to come; and
further, as the keeper of the Sacraments, it is an essential means of the
realizing it at present in our fallen race. Nor is it much to the purpose, as
regards our duty towards it, what are the feelings and spiritual state of the
individuals who are its officers. True it is, were the Church to teach a
heretical doctrine, it might become incumbent upon us (a miserable obligation!)
to separate from it. But, while it teaches substantially the Truth, we ought to
look upon it as one whole, one ordinance of GOD, not as composed of individuals,
but as a House of GOD’S building;—as an instrument in His hand, to be used and
reverenced for the sake of its Maker.

Now the Papists have retained it; and so they have the advantage of possessing
an instrument, which is, in the first place, suited to the needs of human
nature; and next, is a special gift of CHRIST, and so has a blessing with it.
Accordingly we see that in its measure success follows their zealous use of it.
They act with great force upon the imaginations of men. The vaunted antiquity,
the universality, the unanimity of their Church puts them above the varying
fashions of the world, and the religious novelties of the day. And truly when
one surveys the grandeur of their system, a sigh arises in the thoughtful mind,
to think that we should be separate from them; Cum talis sis, utinam noster
esses!—But, alas, AN UNION IS IMPOSSIBLE. Their communion is infected with
heterodoxy; we are bound to flee it, as a pestilence. They have established a
lie in the place of GOD’S truth; and, by their claim of immutability in
doctrine, cannot undo the sin they have committed. They cannot repent. Popery
must be destroyed; it cannot be reformed.

Now then what is the Christian to do? Is he forced back upon that cheerless
atheism (for so it practically must be considered) which prevailed in the world
before CHRIST’S coming, poorly alleviated, as it was, by the received
polytheisms of the heathen? Can we conceive a greater calamity to have occurred
at the time of our Reformation, one which the Enemy of man would have been more
set on effecting, than to have entangled the whole of the Church Catholic in the
guilt of heterodoxy, and so have forced every one who worshipped in spirit and
in truth, to flee out of doors into the bleak world, in order to save his soul?
I do not think that Satan could have desired any event more eagerly, than such
an alternative; viz. to have forced Christians, either to remain in communion
with error, or to join themselves in some such spontaneous union among
themselves, as is dissolved as easily as it is formed. Blessed be GOD! his
malice has been thwarted. I do believe it to be one most conspicuous mark of
GOD’S adorable Providence over us, as great as if we saw a miracle, that
Christians in England escaped in the evil day from either extreme, neither
corrupted doctrinally, nor secularized ecclesiastically. Thus in every quarter
of the world, from North America, to New South Wales, a Zoar has been provided
for those who would fain escape Sodom, yet dread to be without shelter. I hail
it as an omen amid our present perils, that our Church will not be destroyed. He
hath been mindful of us; He will bless us. He has wonderfully preserved our
Church as a true branch of the Church Universal, yet withal preserved it free
from doctrinal error. It is Catholic and Apostolic, yet not Papistical. With
this reflection before us, doe sit not seem to be utter ingratitude to an
astonishing Providence of GOD’S mercy, to be neglectful, as many Churchmen now
are, of the gift? to attempt unions with those who have separated from the
Church, to break down the partition walls, and to argue as if religion were
altogether and only a matter of each man’s private concern, and that the State
and Nation were not bound to prefer the Apostolic Church to all self-originated
forms of Christianity? But this is a point beside my purpose. Take the matter
merely in the light of human expedience. Shall we be so far less wise in our
generation than the children of this world, as to relinquish the support which
the Truth receives from the influence of a Visible Church upon the imagination,
from the energy of operation which a well-disciplined Body ensures? Shall we not
foil the Papists, not with their own weapons, but with weapons which are ours as
well as theirs? or, on the other hand, shall we with a melancholy infatuation
give them up to them? Depend upon it, to insist on the doctrine of the Visible
Church is not to favour the Papists, it is to do them the most serious injury.
It is to deprive them of their only strength. But if we neglect to do so, what
will be the consequence? Break down the Divine Authority of our Apostolical
Church, and you are plainly preparing the way for Popery in our land. Human
nature cannot remain without visible guides; it chooses them for itself, if it
is not provided for them. If the Aristocracy and the Church fall, Popery steps
in. Political events are beyond our power, and perhaps out of our sphere; but
ecclesiastical matters are in the hands of all Churchmen.

OXFORD, Dec. 24, 1833.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: 21 - MORTIFICATION OF THE FLESH A SCRIPTURE DUTY.
========================================================================

MORTIFICATION OF THE FLESH A SCRIPTURE DUTY.

[Number 21]

If we take the example of the Holy men of Scripture as our guide, certain bodily
privation and chastisement area very essential duty to all who wish to serve
GOD, and prepare themselves for his presence.

1. First we have the example of Moses. His recorded Fasts were miraculous; still
they were Fasts, and the ordinance was to the notice of all believers
afterwards, by the honour put upon it. "I abode in the mount forty days and
nights; I neither did eat bread nor drink water." Again; "I fell down before the
LORD, as at the first, forty days and forty nights; I did neither eat bread nor
drink water, because of all your sins." Deut. ix. 9. 18. Fasting is in the
former instance subservient to divine contemplation, in the latter to
humiliation and intercession for sinners.

Elijah. "He said unto him, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you,
and told you these words? And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt
with a girdle of lather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the
Tishbite." 2 Kings 1:7-8. It is indeed needless to show the ascetic character of
him who was in fact the chief and type of those who "wandered about in
sheepskins and goatskins," "in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves
of the earth." He too fasted by the power of GOD for forty days and nights; "He
arose and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days
and forty nights, unto Horeb the mount of GOD." 1 Kings 19:8.

Daniel. "I set my face unto the LORD GOD, to seek by prayer and supplications,
with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes; and I unto the LORD my GOD, and made my
confession." Daniel 9:3-4. It must be observed, that Daniel was not bound by any
vow, as Samson and Samuel. Moreover it would appear the gift of prophecy was
given him in reward for his self-chastisements, as the following passage shows.
"In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks; I ate no pleasant bread,
neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth; neither did I anoint myself at all,
till three whole weeks were fulfilled…… And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man
greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright;
for unto thee am I now sent .… Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that
thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy GOD,
thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words." Daniel 10:2-33, Daniel
10:11-12. Vide also Luke 2:37. Acts 10:30.

2. Now here it will be objected, perhaps, that these instances are taken from
the Old Testament, and belong to the Law of Moses, which is not binding on
Christians.

I answer;

(1.) That in the above passages Fasting is connected with moral acts,
humiliation, prayer, meditation, which are equally binding on us as on the Jews.
Man is now what he was then; and if affliction of the flesh was good then, it is
now.

(2.) In matter of fact, private Fasting, such as instanced in the passages above
quoted, was no special duty of the Mosaic Law. Public Fasting, indeed, was on
one occasion enjoined by Moses himself, and on others by subsequent Rulers; but
this was in part a ceremonial act, not a moral discipline, and was doubtless
abolished with the other rites of the Law.

"Of Fasts," says Lewis, "there was no more than one appointed by the Law of
Moses, called the Fast of Expiation.….. The great day of Expiation was a most
severe Fast, kept every year upon the tenth day of the month Tizri, which
answers to our September. . . . . . This solemnity was observed with fasting and
abstinence, not only from all meat and drink, but from all other pleasure
whatsoever; insomuch that they did not wash their faces, much less anoint their
heads, nor wear their shoes, …… nor, (if their Doctors say true,) read any
portion of the law which would give them delight. They refrained likewise not
only from pleasure, but from labour, nothing being to be done upon this day, but
confessing of sins and repentance."

Nay, it may rather be said, that the Jewish Law, as such, was rather opposed
than otherwise to austerities. The Nazarites and Rechabites, being exceptions to
the rule, are evidence of it. Vide, on the other band, Deuteronomy 12:1-32.
Ecclesiastes 5:18.

Such then being the character of the Law in its formal letter, it tells just the
contrary way to that which superficial reasoners might expect. For it is most
remarkable, first, that the greatest prophets under it, such as Elijah and
Daniel, were without express command singularly austere and self-afflicting men,
in the midst of a people, who from the first went lusting after "the fish which
they eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the
onions, and the garlick, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?" Next there
is something of a very startling and admonitory nature in the miraculous fasts
of Moses and Elijah, under this same imperfect dispensation. The miracle
evidently was for some purpose; yet it did not sanction, in any direct way, any
injunction of the Law. Was it not an admonition to the Israelites, that there
was a more excellent way of obedience that which ALMIGHTY GOD as yet thought fit
to promulgate by solemn enactment? Is it not an intimation serviceable for
Christian practice, as much as Moses announcement of the destined "Prophet like
unto him" is intended for the comfort of Christian faith?

Surely the duty of bodily discipline might be rested on the answer to this plain
question, Why did Daniel use austerities not enjoined by the Law?

3. Now turn to the New Testament, and observe what clear light is therein thrown
upon the duty already recommended to us by the Old Testament Saints.

First, there is the instance of St. John the Baptist. "John came neither eating
nor drinking," Matthew 11:18 : and his disciples fasted, Matthew 9:14. OUR
SAVIOUR did not statedly fast; but here also the exception proves the rule. He
who did not fast statedly was the only one born of woman who was untainted by
sinful flesh; which seems to imply, that all who are natural descendants of
guilty Adam ought to fast.

He bade His disciples to fast Consider his implied precept, is an express
command to those who obey the Law of Liberty. "When thou fastest, anoint thy
head, and wash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast." Matthew
6:17-18.

Consider, moreover, thegeneral austere characterof Christian obedience, as
enjoined by our LORD;—a circumstance much to be on in an age like this, when
what is really self-indulgence is thought to be a mere moderate and innocent use
of this world’s goods. I will but refer to a few, out of many texts, which I am
persuaded are now forgotten by numbers of educated and amiable men who are fond
of extolling what they call the mild, tolerant, enlightened spirit of the
Gospel. Matthew 5:29-30. Matthew 7:13-14. Matthew 10:37-39. Mark 9:43-50. Mark
10:25. Luke 14:12. Luke 14:26-33. And reflect, too, whether the spirit of texts
such as the following will not move every true member of the Church Militant.
"The ark, and Israel, and Judah abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the
servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine
house, to eat and to drink?. . . . . as thou liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I
will not do this thing. 2 Samuel 11:11.

Now take the example of the Apostles. St. Peter was fasting, when he had the
vision which sent him to Cornelius : Acts 10:10. The prophets and teachers at
Antioch were fasting, when the HOLY GHOST revealed to them His purpose about
Saul and Barnabas: Acts 3:2-3. Vide also Acts 14:23. 2 Corinthians 6:5. 2
Corinthians 11:27.

Weigh well the following text, which I am persuaded many men would deny to be
St. Paul’s writing, had not a gracious Providence preserved to us the epistle
containing it. "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by
any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away." 1
Corinthians 9:27.

4. Lastly, Consider the practice of the Primitive Christians. The following
account of the early Christian Fasts, is from Bingham, Antiq. lib. xxi. THE
QUADRAGESIMAL OR LENT FAST.—"The Quadragesimal Fast before Easter," says
Sozomen, "some observe six weeks, as the Illyrian and Western Churches, and all
Libya, Egypt, and Palestine; others make it seven weeks, as the
Constantinopolitans and neighbouring nations as far as Phœnicia; others fast
three only of those six or seven weeks, by intervals; others the three weeks
next immediately before Easter." The manner of observing Lent among those that
were piously disposed to observe it, was to abstain from all food till evening.
For anciently a change of diet Was not reckoned a fast; but it consisted in
perfect abstinence from all sustenance for the whole day till evening. THE FASTS
OF THE FOUR SEASONS.—The next Anniversary fasting days were those which were
calledJejunia quatuor temporum, the Fasts of the Four Seasons of the Year
.......These were at first designed to beg a blessing of God upon the several
seasons of the year, or to return thanks for the benefits received in each of
them, or to exercise and purify both body and soul in a more particular manner,
at the return of these certain terms of stricter discipline and more
extraordinary devotion. [These afterwards became the Ember Fasts.]

MONTHLY FASTS.—In some places they had also Monthly Fasts throughout the year
excepting in the two months of July and August ….. because of the sickness of
the season.

WEEKLY FASTS.—Besides these they had their weekly Fasts on Wednesday and Friday,
called the Stationary Days, and Half-Fasts, or Fasts of the Fourth and Sixth
Days of the Week …….. These Fasts being of continual use every week throughout
the Year, except in the Fifty Days between Easter and Pentecost, were not kept
with that rigour and strictness which was observed in the time of Lent [but]
ordinarily held no longer than 9 o’clock, i. e. 3 in the afternoon.

OXFORD. The Feast of the Circumcision.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: 22 - RICHARD NELSON.
========================================================================

RICHARD NELSON.

II. THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

[Number 22]

I LOOK back with much pleasure to the visit I had from my friend Mr. Woodnott,
the Bristol Merchant I before spoke of.

He stayed with me some days, and we had many agreeable rambles and discussions
together, which were to me peculiarly interesting, from the wide experience he
had had of men and things, and of places too, as he had been often abroad, in
Switzerland, in Turkey, and on different parts of the American Continent, where
he had spent some years.

Two or three days after our meeting with Richard Nelson, as stated before, we
took our walk (it being a pleasant evening to wards the end of August,) along
the side of a little stream, which we traced for a mile or two down the valley,
returning by a kind of natural terrace, which terminated in my favourite
beech-walk. The sun was low when we got here; and we stood still, (it was not
far from Nelson’s garden hedge,) to admire its rich glow on the opposite side of
the valley. I was pointing out to my friend a bold and almost mountainous
outline of hills rising in the distance, far to the west in Lancashire,
Pendle-hill, as I fancied, and other lofty tracts in the neighbourhood of
Clitheroe; and we were speculating on the distance they might be from us.

"Sir," said a voice, which startled me, from my not observing that any one was
near, "Pendle-hill must be full fifty miles off; what you see is most likely
some of the high ground beyond Halifax."

"Why, Richard," said I, "what are you doing down there?" for I could scarcely
see more than his head—"you seem to be making a strong entrenchment round your
castle."

"I dare say, Sir," he answered, "you may wonder what I am about; but at this
time of year, when the springs are low, I generally spend an hour, when I have
leisure in an evening, in repairing the garden-mound, that it may be fit to
stand against the assaults of what I call my two winter enemies."

"What can they be?" I asked; "I did not know that you had any enemies."

"Yes, Sir, I have," he replied; "at least my garden had two, land-floods, and
Scotch ponies. Almost every winter, once, if not twice, there is a violent
land-flood from the high-ground behind the house; and if this ditch were not
kept clear, to take the water off immediately, the garden would not recover the
damage all the next year. To be sure, this kind of flood does not commonly last
many hours; but that is long enough, you know, Sir, to spoil the labour of weeks
and months."

"That I can understand," I answered; "but how you can be in any alarm about
Highland ponies, I cannot imagine."

"Why," said he, "you know, Sir, that there is a fair at the town every year,
early in the Spring, where a great many of these ponies are bought and sold; and
for many years past, Mr. Saveall, the owner of this field, has let it for one
day and night to the horsedealer, (a well known man out of Lincolnshire,) to
turn those ponies into, as well as other horses he may have purchased at the
fair. The first year I was here, I was not aware of this custom, and had taken
no precaution against it; so these little mountaineers got in at a weak place in
the hedge during the night, and trod the garden, as one may say, to a mummy. So,
to protect myself for the future against such mischievous visitors, I put this
fence along, which I was now repairing. And if you will please to look at it, I
think you, Sir, will allow that it was not badly contrived, though I say it, who
should not say it."

All along the whole length of the garden, (which might be perhaps nearly one
hundred yards,) on that side which was next the foot-path, he had fixed very
neatly, about half way up the slope of the ditch on the opposite side, a double
indented line of sharp strong stakes, pointing upwards, presenting a sort
ofchevaux de frise; an impenetrable barrier, which no pony, highland or lowland,
could possibly get through or over.

We said something in commendation of his skill and pre caution: on which he
observed; "I am glad, Sir, you approve of what I have done; for it has cost me a
good deal of labour. And my neighbour, Farmer Yawn, who has been standing by me
for the last three quarters of an hour, and went away just as you came up, he
says, I am taking a deal of trouble, and very likely for nothing; how can I be
sure there will be a land flood, or that the man well turn in the ponies? and
besides, (says he,) neither land flood nor ponies would stay twelve hours. But I
know better, Sir, than to take Mr. Yawn’s advice; for if my bit of garden should
be ruined for a twelvemonth, it would be no comfort afterwards to think, that
perhaps it might not have happened, or that the mischief was quickly done, or
that with timely caution it might have been prevented."

After a few more words we wished him a good evening, and walked on for some
little way in silence, which my companion put an end to by saying, "It must be
confessed that our friend Nelson is a sensible man; and not the less so, (added
he, with a smile,) because I am sure he will agree with me in opinion." For in
the course of our walk we had been discussing rather earnestly the subject of
the Athanasian Creed; the question between us not being as to the doctrines
contained in it, but as to the expediency of retaining it in the Liturgy,
supposing any changes should take place in that also, as in every thing else.
Not that there was any real difference of opinion between us on that point
either; but wishing to know his views on the subject, I had been urging the
various objections, such of them at least as are more plausible, and had been
gratified with observing how little weight he attached to them; and my
satisfaction was the greater, because, from his education and profession, as a
layman and a merchant, he could not be accused of what have been scornfully
designated as "academical and clerical prejudices." In the course of our
conversation he had expressed himself most earnestly in favour of the Athanasian
Creed; alleging, for this his opinion, various reasons, and among others the
following; "that he regarded this Creed in the light of a fence or bulwark, set
up to protect the Truth against all innovations and encroachments; and that to
take it away, particularly in times when popular opinion, or rather feeling, was
against it, would be almost high treason against GOD: (that was his word:) would
be, so far as in us lies, wilfully to expose the Truth to be trodden down by its
enemies."

"Now," said he, "whilst you were talking to our friend Nelson, it struck me that
his care about his garden very aptly expresses our duty in respect of this very
subject. For why is this Creed so obnoxious? simply because it is so strongly
and sharply worded; because it leaves no opening for a semi-socinian or a five
quarter latitudinarian to creep in at; because it presents a insurmountable
obstacle to every intruder who would trample under foot the LORD’S vineyard.

"And even if the aspect of things were more favourable, even if there were no
sign of danger at hand, I should much rather advise that, like Nelson, we should
look forward to probable or possible inroads, than venture to neglect, much less
to remove, our fences.

"But," he continued, " in the present condition of what is by courtesy, (or one
might almost say, facetiously,) called the Christian world, it were in my
judgment little less than madness to yield so strong a position,—one too which,
if once lost, call never be recovered." And then he referred to what he had
before been insisting on, the great mistake made by the American Church in
rejecting the Athanasian Creed from her Liturgy; and how, from personal
observation during his residence, first at New York, and afterwards at
Charleston, he was sure the time would come when its loss would be felt and
acknowledged by thc true sons of that Church. "And I wish," added he, as we
concluded our walk and our discussion together, you would endeavour to ascertain
what are the sentiments of our friend Nelson on this subject, for I have no
doubt he has turned it over in his mind; and his opinion must certainly be of
value, because happily for himself he has not been, I suppose, in the way of
hearing, the profane absurdities that are daily written and spoken against this
inestimable Creed."

"Yes," said I, "whatever his opinions are, I doubt not they will be found
candid, and free from unreasonable prejudice; and I will take an early
opportunity of ascertaining them.

Soon after this my friend left me, and I promised to communicate to him the
result of my inquiries. The Sunday following, it being a serene autumnal
morning, according to the description of the Divine Poet—"most calm, most
bright"—I proceeded earlier than usual towards the school. When I came up to
Richard’s cottage, he was standing at the gate, with his infant child in his
arms, looking as if he could envy no man; as if Sunday were to him what it
should be to us all, "the couch of time, care’s balm and bay."

"You are rather earlier, Sir, than usual," he said.

"Yes," I answered, "the morning is so lovely, so Sunday-like, I could not endure
to stay any longer within doors."

After some few observations had passed between us,—in which he expressed with an
unaffected solemnity of manner peculiar to himself, his sense of the value of
each returning LORD’S day, calling it (and I think he used, though
unconsciously, Isaac Walton’s very words,) a step towards a blessed eternity,"—I
asked him if he would have any objection to take two or three turns with me in
the beech-walk, as it still wanted a considerable time to school.

He answered that he would gladly accompany me, especially as it might be better
for the child to be taken under the shade of the trees.

"Richard," said I, "my friend Mr. Woodnot, and I may call him your friend too,
was much amused with your plan for keeping off the enemies of your garden. He
commended it highly, and thinks you therein set a good example to all true
Churchmen, and especially to us of the Clergy."

"In what respect, Sir?" he asked. "Why," I replied, "in keeping your fences
strong and sharp, and contrived in the best possible way to serve the purpose of
fences; namely, to preserve one’s property from injury. For we understood you to
say, that, were it not for a little observation and foresight, however well all
might be for three hundred and sixty-four days in the year, in one twenty-four
hours all might be laid waste, either by the torrent from the high ground above
you, or by the cattle from your neighbour’s field."

"Indeed, Sir," he answered, "that is no more than the truth. But I confess I do
not exactly see how, in acting thus, I have set any particularly good example.
No person of common sense could do otherwise."

"As to that," I replied, "perhaps what some witty man said of common honesty, he
might too have said of common sense, that it is a very uncommon thing. But be
that as it may, it certainly would appear to me to be no mark of sense nor of
honesty either, if we Christians who are ‘put in trust (as St. Paul speaks) with
the Gospel,’ were to draw back from our strong advanced positions, in the vain
hope that the Enemy would be content with this success, and encroach no
further."

"May I ask, Sir," he said, "What is it you refer to?"

"Why, Richard," I replied, "of course you have heard that a great many people
think the Church Prayer Book ought to be altered; and that first and foremost
the Athanasian Creed ought to be put out of it."

"Sir, said he, "I have heard more than one person make this observation, but I
never took much account of it till about a year or eighteen months ago, when a
brother-in-law of mine, who is fond of poring over the newspapers, told me he
had been reading extracts from the works of a famous preacher, one Dr. Hoadley,
which I am sorry to say he was inclined to admire. For in these extracts there
were objections made to other parts of the Church Service, and particularly to
the Athanasian Creed, which (the Dr. said) was a great blot in the Prayer Book,
and that he wished we were well rid of it, with other such disrespectful
expressions. Now, Sir, it seemed to me such a thing, for a Clergyman who had
signed the Articles and the Prayer Book, and had his maintenance from the
Church, and had taken an oath before GOD and man to teach the truth to his
flock, according to the Prayer Book; that a Church Minister should take upon him
to omit so remarkable a portion of the Church Service; nay more, should speak so
slightingly of what he had solemnly assented to, and was even sworn to; this
seemed to me to be astonishing, and, I must confess to you, even shocking. And,
Sir, I thought of what my mother had said to me in her last illness, about the
danger of trifling with GOD ALMIGHTY. I thought too, if there should be many
such clergymen as this Dr. Hoadley, what confusion and perplexity they would
throw people’s minds into, driving some perhaps into downright infidelity. And
then I went on to reflect, what ifmy poor children should hereafter fall into
the way of some such false teachers, and learn to deny the LORD that bought
them, and to despise the SPIRIT of Grace.

"This thought I could not endure; so I resolved, that with GOD’S gracious help,
I would search the matter out for myself; for surely, Sir, it is a matter in
which not the clergy only, but we all are deeply interested."

"You say right," I replied; "the knowledge of GOD’S truth must be the greatest
earthly treasure to us all. It unquestionably concerns the Laity full as much as
it does the Clergy, to ascertain the truth and to keep it; also to hand it on,
pure and uncorrupted, to their children after them."

He proceeded; "My plan was this; first to endeavour to make out what was the
intention of the Church in appointing this and the other two Creeds to be
occasionally used; and then to try this Athanasian Creed by Scripture rules; and
if I could not reconcile it to them, why then certainly, however unwillingly, I
should have joined in opinion with those who wish to have it left out of the
Prayer Book."

"A very good plan," said I, "but you must recollect that the enemies of this
Creed would ask, what possible reason you could have for being unwilling to part
with it, especially when you know that great numbers of people have so vehement
a dislike to it."

"Sir," said he, "I have long made up my mind, that on questions of this kind
relating to GOD and Eternity, people’s likings and dislikings are not much in
the scale either way. But I think, Sir, I can offer one or two good excuses for
my being unwilling to have this Creed laid aside. In the first place, it would
give me pain to have any great alterations made in such a book as the Prayer
Book; which I have been used to from my infancy; which as a child I was always
taught to reverence; and which, (I am not ashamed to say,) I do reverence from
my heart more and more the older I grow. In the next place, I am sure all must
allow that some parts of the Athanasian Creed are very noble and beautiful to
hear, especially when they are well read or repeated. And again, even a child
may see that if this Creed be put away, great encouragement will be given, not
only to professed infidels, but also to many wild thoughtless persons, who would
fain believe that Religion, like every thing else, needs to be radically
reformed."

"But, Richard," I said, "you are not, I suppose, so vain as to imagine that our
Church Reformers will be willing to keep the Prayer Book just as it is, merely
because you and I and a few more admire some of the clauses in this Creed?"

" Sir," said he, "you may be sure I never imagined such a thing. I was not
presuming to give an opinion, whether or not the Prayer Book is likely to be
improved by any alterations which may be made in it. I was only excusing myself
for being loath to part with the Athanasian Creed."

"But," said I, "will you now tell me what conclusion you came to in your inquiry
into the intention of the Church in appointing this and the other two Creeds to
be used?"

"I remembered," he said, "that I had heard you, Sir, or some one whose opinion I
could take on these subjects, make an observation, that the three Creeds were
not written all at the same time, but at three different periods. That the
Apostles’ Creed was made first, either in the time of the Apostles, or very soon
after. That the Nicene Creed came next, after an interval of two hundred years
or more. And that then again, after another considerable space, I think I
understood more than a century, followed the Creed of St. Athanasius, as it is
called.

"So it came into my thoughts that the Church seemed to act like a tender mother
very anxious for her children, from the very first; but growing still more and
more anxious as they grow older, are more exposed to dangers, and yet less and
less willing to yield themselves to her control.

"Thus it may seem, that in the most ancient, the Apostles’ Creed, a plain simple
rule of faith is given.

"In the next, the Nicene Creed, the same rule is laid down, but more at length,
and in a tone of anxiety and caution as if the enemy were at hand.

"But in the last, the Athanasian Creed, where still the very same rule of faith
is laid down, the alarm is loudly sounded, there is throughout an expression of
urgent warning, as needful for persons in the very midst of foes, some open, and
more secret foes, who would rob GOD of His honour, and man of the everlasting
inheritance, purchased for him by his SAVIOUR’S Blood."

"Indeed," said I, "it is fearful to think to what lengths the pride of human
reason will draw those who yield to it. But before you proceed with your
statement, I should wish to know what opinion you have come to respecting what
are so falsely, not to say profanely, called the ‘damnatory clauses’ in the
Athanasian Creed. You are doubtless aware that many good sort of persons, who
profess not to disapprove of the other parts of the Creed, are, (or at least
fancy themselves,) much offended and hurt in their feeling by these clauses.

"Observe, I am not now exactly referring to persons who speak harshly or
disrespectfully of this Creed, but rather to persons of piety and learning, who
with all reverence for it as an ancient and true confession of faith, have yet
thought that some of the expressions in it are unnecessarily strong, and what
they cannot endure to repeat or to hear."

"Sir," he replied, "if it is not presumptuous in me to pass my opinion on the
conduct of such persons as you represent, I should say to them, if you can
endure to believe these things, you may also endure to acknowledge such your
belief, and to hear it con firmed by the voice of the Church.

"The parent who cannot endure to correct his child, will doubt less live to
repent his mistaken tenderness, as we are taught in Scripture.

"And if the Church or her Ministers through like false pity should no longer
endure to hold out to our consciences the terrors of the LORD, we of the people
shall no doubt have cause to lament their mistaken tenderness; even though now,
like over-indulged children, we may many of us be impatient of strict restraint
or of warnings seemingly severe: yet, if the Church will be but firm to her
sacred trust, many souls will doubtless in the end bless GOD for these very
warnings and threatenings; which now they fancy to be almost intolerable.

"But as to persons who scruple not to speak scornfully and reproachfully of this
Creed, or any part of it, I must think such language of theirs shows rashness,
and ignorance too, very unbecoming a Christian. Or, it may well be asked, is a
mother to be blamed who, seeing her child in imminent danger, warns him of it in
language the most powerful her tongue can give utterance to?

"If the Gospel of CHRIST be indeed our only hope, is not the Church a true
friend to us, in telling us so; in making us confess it, as one may almost say,
whether we choose or no?

"If the Gospel of the LORD JESUS be our only hope; is not this kind?"

"Indeed," said I, "your argument is most just; it is the truest kindness to warn
people of their danger. But as it is too often a thankless office, so it is in
the present instance. For, as you know, these, which may fitly be called ‘The
Warning Clauses,’ or ‘The Monitory Clauses,’ are especially reviled; as, in
fact, the tendency of the whole Creed is accounted to be unscriptural and
uncharitable, even by some who think themselves, and desire to be thought by
others, very serious Christians."

"Sir," said he, "to any Christian who was disposed to think so ill of it, I
should like just to mention a conversation I had some time last year with a man
of our parish, Edmund Plush, the man that has set up the new beer-house. You
know, Sir, I dare say, that he was once a gentleman’s servant?"

"I have heard so," I answered; "but as I see some of the boys coming, it is time
for me to leave you, and make the best of my way to the school."

"And I," said he, "will take the child back, and be after you in a quarter of an
hour; but in the evening I shall hope, Sir, to have some further conversation
with you."

"I hope so too," I answered. But, as it happened, I was called to go after the
Evening Service to visit a sick person in a distant part of the parish; and a
week or two passed away before we again met. He then happened to come to my
house one evening to settle an account; I desired he might come to me into my
Study; and when we had concluded our business, I told him I wished he would stay
half an hour, that we might finish the conversation which we had broken off so
abruptly before.

He said, if I were disengaged he would be glad to stay; and not without some
difficulty I prevailed on him to sit down.

"Richard," said I, "if you recollect, you were going to tell me of a
conversation you had with Edmund Plush."

"Yes, Sir," he replied; "I had two or three days’ work, pointing his garden
wall; (for Edmund is very curious about his fruit, especially about some
favourite Orleans plums;) and one day, as he was standing by me, and running on
with his talk about alterations and reforms, he said, among other observations
not very moderate, that the Church Prayer Book wanted to be altered and reformed
as much as any thing.

"To this I replied, that alteration was one thing! and reform was another: and
that if the Prayer Book was altered, it did not follow that it would be
reformed.

"He then went on to so say, that while he was footman at Squire Martingal’s,
over in Cheshire, one day, when he was waiting at table, and there were four or
five gentlemen at dinner, they were talking about the Prayer Book, and whether
it was not now time for it to be altered.

"And the Squire gave it as his opinion, that there was one word in particular
which he wished very much to see put entirely out of the Book; and that was, the
word ‘damnation.’ Such words as that, he said, ought not to be in a book which
gentlefolks were expected to sit and hear.

"Edmund went on to say, that there was a gentleman at the table, who observed,
it would be better to alter the word to ‘condemnation;’ of which the company
very much approved, though, (as Plush himself remarked,) it was not easy to see
what was gained by the alteration.

"Now, Sir, it does seem to me, that Squire Martingal and his friends forgot,
when they made such short work with the Prayer Book, that there was the Bible
still in their way, quite as much needing to be corrected and amended.

"And I told Edmund so; and I also told him, that if I were in his place, I
should not like to go about repeating private conversations which he might have
overheard at his master’s table; especially when they were so little calculated
to be of use.

"However, Edmund must do as he pleases; but for myself, Sir, I do assure you,
that after giving the subject the best consideration in my power, the objections
which people make against the Athanasian Creed, are, to my thinking, not at all
more substantial than Squire Martingal’s against the Prayer Book and Bible.
Indeed, Sir, it is my opinion, that there is nothing in that Creed either
unscriptural or uncharitable, but quite the very contrary; that it is
essentially, (as I once heard you call the Commination Service,) ‘in its matter,
Christian Truth; and in its manner, Christian Love.’ And, Sir, if you will not
be weary of me, I will try to show you how I came to this conclusion."

"Richard," said I, "you need not fear that you will tire me."

"Well, Sir," he proceeded; "it seemed to me plain from the Scriptures, (what no
one indeed will deny or question,) that the Great ALMIGHTY GOD should be the
object of all our Love and Adoration. From the same Scriptures it also appeared,
that the LORD JESUS CHRIST, our only Saviour and Hope, is entitled to all our
Love and Adoration.

"And again, from the same Scriptures, it appears that the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD the
only Sanctifier, Guide, and Guardian of His Church, is entitled to all our Love
and Adoration."

"Certainly," I replied; "no one, who believes the Scriptures, can doubt this."

"And is not this," he said, "the very doctrine of the first part of the Creed;
"that the Father is GOD, the Son is GOD, and the Holy Ghost is GOD; and yet they
are not three GODS, but one GOD In like manner, if any man inquire for the very
foundation of Christian hope and consolation, surely it is the doctrine that GOD
our SAVIOUR took on him our frail and mortal nature; that He was ‘perfect man,’
as well as ‘perfect GOD.’ Without this doctrine, the peculiar hopes and
consolations of the Gospel fade away and disappear. Now this is the great truth
pressed on our thoughts in the second part of the Athanasian Creed, where we are
taught boldly to maintain that ‘the right faith is, that WE BELIEVE AND
CONFESS—not believe only, but believe and confess,—that our LORD Jesus CHRIST,
the Son of GOD, is GOD AND MAN.’"

"Yes," I answered, "it is difficult to imagine how any one who acknowledges the
truth of the Scriptures, can deny and question this. But you must, I am sure, be
aware, that many people object, that this doctrine is not simply stated, and so
left to every one’s own conscience to approve, but that attempts are made to
draw out distinctions and explanations, which are not in the Scripture, and
which no one can understand; and then, after all, people are made to say, that
whoever does not believe all this, has no chance of salvation."

"Sir," he replied, "there is a verse in the Psalms, which seems to give an
answer to such objectors; ‘if I should say like them, I should condemn the
generation of GOD’S children.’ No one will dare deny that those who framed this
Creed, and those who put it into our Prayer Book, were good and holy men,
sincerely anxious for the honour of ALMIGHTY GOD, and for the salvation of men’s
souls. It was surely, not their fault that these distinctions and explanations,
(if they are to be so called,) became necessary, but the fault of rash or
loose-minded people, who attempted to corrupt the hearts of the simple with
their false distinctions and false explanations.

"Against such, the Church, as a good parent should, warns her sons in the
strongest terms; and if stronger terms could have been found, no doubt she would
have used them.

"And it seems to me, that it is not at all the intention of the Church, in this
Creed or any where else, to endeavour to explain what is above human
comprehension; but only to warn us that quibbled and pretended distinctions have
been made of old, and will be again against the essential doctrines of the
Gospel; and that, come in whatever shape they may, they are to be opposed at
once with a sharp and strong denial; to be at once, and as the Article says,
‘thoroughly’ rejected.

"And the absolute need of some such strong impenetrable fence appears from what
I have heard, that there have been Church people, and even Clergymen, who denied
these doctrines, and, (as might be expected,) scorned this Creed. How they could
reconcile their conduct to their consciences, it is not for me to say; but it is
plain, that if the fence were taken away and weakened, the danger to the fold
would be much increased."

"I fully agree with you," was my reply; "but you know those who dislike this
Creed assert, that the ‘Fence,’ as you call it, is much sharper and stronger
than it need be; and that it would be better to have no ‘Monitory Clauses’ at
all, than any expressed in such strong, and, as they call them, violent terms."

"Sir," he answered, "you know that in different places of the New Testament, we
are taught that adultery, fornication, drunkenness, and other such crimes, are
entirely unsuitable to the Christian Profession, and that persons who are guilty
of them do in practice renounce the Gospel.

"Now supposing it should be thought well by the Governors of the Church to set
forth a solemn warning to profligates thus worded:—

"‘Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he avoid the
crimes of adultery, whoredom, drunkenness, and blasphemy; which crimes, unless
every one do carefully abstain from, without doubt he shall perish
everlastingly.’

"And if then were to follow some solemn admonitions, setting forth, (according
to the sense, though not in the very words of Scripture,) the necessity of
self-denial, mortification, and constant communion with ALMIGHTY GOD in prayer
and at His holy table, so that the affections may be kept set on high and
heavenly things; and all concluding thus:—

"‘This is the rule of Christian Purity, which except a man observe faithfully he
cannot be saved;’

"Do not you, Sir, think such warnings would be quite agreeable to Scripture and
to Christian charity?"

"Indeed I think so," I replied.

"And yet," he proceeded, "supposing such an admonition as this were to be made
by authority, and ordered to be printed in all the Prayer Books, and to be read
twelve times a year in every Church in England, do you not think there would be
a great out cry against it; and that many people, when it was going to be read,
would shut their books, or perhaps go out of the Church?"

"It is too probable," I replied, "considering how little account is now made of
crimes of this kind, even by many who are thought religious people. Indeed, I
have understood from a person I can rely upon, otherwise I could not have
credited it, that one of the objections which Mr. Cartwright himself brought
against the Prayer Book, was, that in the Litany, fornication is termed ‘a
deadly sin."’

"It is strange, indeed, Sir," said he, "and sad to think that any one who
believes the Scriptures could offer such an objection. But it confirms an
opinion I was going to express to you. For if a good kind of man, as Mr.
Cartwright is said to be, objects to the Litany on such grounds, how much more
is it to be expected that such an admonition as that which I have spoken of,
would be frequently scorned and hooted at.

"And then," continued he, "supposing such an admonition as this had been made
and used in the Church for hundreds of years, and it were now to be left out in
the reformed Prayer Book, would not such a measure give great satisfaction and
encouragement to all the loose dissolute people throughout the country?"

"That cannot be doubted," I answered. "But there is one objection, (absurd
enough to be sure,) which people offer against the Athanasian Creed, which you
have not noticed, perhaps be cause you had never heard of it.

"The objection I mean is, that this Creed leaves no allowance for unavoidable
ignorance, or bad education; nor any chance even for persons of weak doubting
minds, no, not for idiots, or children, to escape from its heavy censures.

"It is, obviously, an absurd objection, yet it is what people do urge, and
people too who make pretension to reason and religion."

"Sir," said he, "I can never suppose that any really conscientious person, whose
mind was free from Prejudice, could offer such an objection.

"It must be quite plain to all candid minds, that as in the Scripture itself, so
in the Church Prayer Book, we are always instructed to believe that our merciful
GOD makes allowance for our weakness and blindness in matters of knowledge and
faith, as well as in other things. As in the Scriptures, so in the Church Prayer
Book, we are always taught, that occasional doubt and perplexity are no proof of
want of Faith; that he truly believes who acts (if I may so say,) upon trust,
who, like Abraham, the father of the faithful, ‘obeys, and goes on’ obeying,
‘not knowing whither he goes;’ knowing only, that if he follow GOD’S guidance,
he must be right.

"It is too always taught, as in the Scriptures, so in the Prayer Book, that upon
true repentance, sincere faith in the blood and Mediation of the One Redeemer,
and entire submission to the Guidance of the One Sanctifier, it is, I say,
always taught, that the door of mercy is open even to the most inveterate
sinners, whatever the nature of their sins might have been; unless indeed the
sin against the HOI.Y GHOST be considered an exception; to guard Christians
against which, may be supposed one great and surely charitable purpose of this
Creed.

"How then," he proceeded, "can the Church with any show of reason be called
‘uncharitable,’ which with this evangelical doctrine implied in all her
Services, uses occasionally the strongest language of warning (or even of
threatening,) against fatal sins and errors, if by any means she may preserve
the souls committed to her charge stedfast in the faith, ‘the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints?’"

"Yes," said I, "once for all, never to be changed or frittered away in base
compliance with the ever-varying customs and fancies of worldly and
self-conceited men."

"‘And, Sir," he proceeded, " I put it to myself in this way. What a fearful
thing it would be for a person on his death-bed to deny the SON of GOD, the only
Redeemer, and the SPIRIT of GOD, the only Comforter? Now the Church Prayer Book
considers us all as it were on our death-beds, or at least but a little way from
them. The Services for the Visitation of the Sick, and the Burial of the Dead,
come very close after Baptism and the Catechism. As we should wish to die, so
the Church would have us live. If it be an awful thought to pass into Eternity
in wilful ignorance or negligence of the essential truths of the Gospel, is it
not also an awful thought that people should spend this their probationary time
in such ignorance or negligence? And again, I would ask, can the Church be
called, ‘uncharitable,’ which earnestly and incessantly, and in the plainest,
strongest words that the English language can supply, warns her members of their
danger in this respect?"

"Certainly, Richard," I replied, "what you say is most worthy to be thought on
by all persons who find fault with this Creed. But I wish you to recollect, that
many of them take what they call ‘high ground’ in their argument. They
confidently assert that it is, ‘bigoted,’ ‘unscriptural,’ ‘unchristian,’ and
other such hard names, to pretend that ‘modes of faith,’ (that is their term,)
arc of any great importance, or indeed of any importance at all; that if a man’s
life is in the right, his faith can’t be wrong; that of course adultery and
those kind of things are forbidden in the Testament, but that there are few
passages, (or as some of them say) none at all, which can be brought forward in
support of the opinions put forth in the Athanasian Creed; much less (they
assert) can any passages be found, denouncing so heavy a foe against those who
reject these opinions."

"Sir," he replied, with more than even his usual energy, "I will be bold to say,
that there are as many passages in the New Testament, distinctly proving and
supporting the great doctrines put forth in the Athanasian Creed, as there are
passages expressly forbidding adultery, and other such crimes. But supposing it
were otherwise, it really does not appear to me, that the case would be
different,Gambling is not in words forbidden, (so far as I can recollect,) in
any part or passage in the Old or New Testament; yet no one doubts, I mean, no
serious thinking person, that it is one of the most fatal habits a person can
get into.; not because it is expressly forbidden in any part or passage, but be
cause it is against the whole Gospel; utterly inconsistent with a Christian’s
practice.

"Now, Sir, it really does appear to me, that to deny the great doctrines
contained in this noble Creed, is not merely to go against express passages of
Scripture; passages, I mean, wherein our LORD JESUS, and the Blessed SPIRIT, are
spoken of as GOD; but more than this, it is against the whole Gospel,utterly
inconsistent with a Christian’s faith."

"Well, Richard," I said, "the considerations you have suggested are certainly
such as should lead all Christians to pause before they encourage in themselves
or others any dislike of this ancient, and as you justly call it, this noble
Creed."

"Sir," he replied, "in my poor judgment it is indeed a noble, a magnificent
confession.

"But still, noble and magnificent as it is, if it, or any part of it, were
against Scripture, or against Christian Charity, I, for one, should not be easy
till it were put out of the Prayer Book.

"How happy then am I to think that it breathes the very spirit of pure Christian
Charity; of Love, more than parental; of Lore like His, Sir, who so often would
have gathered His children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings, BUT THEY WOULD NOT!

"Yes, Richard," I said; "and often as this tender yearning anxiety for men’s
souls is displayed in the conduct and words of our adored Master, I have
frequently thought it nowhere more strikingly appears, than in that pathetic
chapter of warnings to which you refer, Matthew 23:1-39; a chapter truly of
‘monitory clauses.’"

"Sir," he answered, "it might almost be expected of those who rashly accuse the
Church of uncharitableness for retaining the Athanasian Creed, that they should
also wish to have that chapter left out of the Calendar; as indeed I have heard
that they do wish many of the Psalms to be omitted on some such ground.

"But it is now time for me to wish you good evening; hoping, Sir, that I have
not taken too great a liberty in thus speaking out my opinions, or wearied you
by staying too long."

"Richard," said I, "once for all, believe me it is one of the chief comforts and
encouragements I have, to be with you at Church and at School, and to talk with
you on these great subjects."

OXFORD, The Feast of the Epiphany.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: 23 - THE FAITH AND OBEDIENCE OF CHURCHMEN, THE STRENGTH OF THE CHURCH.
========================================================================

THE FAITH AND OBEDIENCE OF CHURCHMEN, THE STRENGTH OF THE CHURCH.

[Number 23]

AND Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the CHRIST the Son of the Living
GOD. And JESUS answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but MY FATHER which is in
heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will
build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew
16:16-18. The rock, then, upon which the Church is built, is the confession,
that JESUS is the CHRIST, the Son of the Living GOD; a truth set forth and
shadowed by the Prophets, but openly and plainly taught by the Apostles. St.
Paul uses a similar expression, when he speaks of the body of Christians being
"builtupon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets;" (i. e. resting in the
sound and true doctrine which they taught;) "JESUS CHRIST Himself being the
chief corner-stone," (Ephesians 2:20);-our very spiritual existence depending
upon our adherence to this great truth that JESUS was the anointed Son of GOD,
GOD and Man, the promised SAVIOUR of the world;-He, who by taking man’s nature
upon Him in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. fulfilled the prophecy that the
SAVIOUR should be of the seed of Abraham, in whom "all the nations of the earth
should be blessed," (Genesis 22:18 and the seed of the woman, who should "bruise
the serpent’s head," (Genesis 3:15);-and who, inasmuch as He was "the Only
begotten SON of GOD," (John 3:18) "GOD of GOD," "Very GOD of very GOD," (Nicene
Creed,) fulfilled the prophecy, that the SAVIOUR should be " the mighty GOD,"
(Isaiah 9:6);-He of whom it was said, "Let all the Angels of GOD worship Him,"
(Hebrews 1:6);-and of whom it was likewise said, "Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever
and ever," Psalms 45:6.

I said, that our very spiritual existence depends upon our adhering to this
great and fundamental truth; and this I said not of us as individuals only, but
as Members of the Church of CHRIST, and of that portion of CHRIST’S CHURCH in
this Kingdom which is usually called the Church of England. It is true of us
individually, as appears by the words of St. John; " He that hath the SON, bath
life; and he that hath not the SON of GOD, hath not life ;" (1 John 5:12); by
which we learn, that as long as we slight or disbelieve, or deny this sacred
truth, we have no spiritual life in us. It is also true of us, as Members of the
Church of CHRIST, and of that portion of CHRIST’S Church in this Kingdom which
is usually called the Church of England, as appears from the passage before us;
"Upon this rock," (i. e. upon this firm confession of faith in JESUS as the
Christ, the Son of the Living GOD,) "I will build My Church; and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it." For from this we learn, that the Church, and
any given portion of that Church, is only then able to defy the assaults of the
Devil, that she can only then look forward with confidence to get the victory,
so long as she adheres firmly to this faith and belief in CHRIST. When she
departs from that foundation, then she ceases to have a claim for the
continuance of the promised aid. This is a matter which it behoves Christians at
all times to place before their eyes, and to keep in remembrance; but especially
at the present time, does it behove us, who are Members of the Church of CHRIST
in England, to do so: because of the unceasing endeavours which are being made
by men who are either careless of religion altogether, or who have embraced
false views of it, to overthrow our Church; endeavours, which we have reason to
regard either with fear, or not, according as we have reason, or not, to suppose
that the Members of the Church have departed from the true faith and fear of
GOD, and of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. If there is reason to believe that many or
most of the Members of our Church are regardless of that true faith, and of the
honour of Him in whom we believe, that by their lips, or by their lives, they
set at nought His Majesty, neglect His sacraments, despise His Word, forsake His
Worship, obey not His Voice, or look for redemption and salvation by any other
means than by His Cross and Blood, then we have every reason to fear that these
endeavours of our enemies will be successful; that the light of GOD’S presence
will be withheld from us; and that, as He withdrew from the Jews, when they
neglected CHRIST, the LORD of Glory, so He will withdraw from our Nation also,
and leave it to the wretchedness of its own chosen ways; to the enjoyment of
those idols, the world, the flesh and the Devil, for which it will have forsaken
the HOLY ONE of Israel, and refused to hearken to the voice of the LAMB of GOD,
who died to take away the sins of the world. But if not, if we have reason to
hope that there are many true servants of GOD still to be found; that there are
many who, not with their lips only, but in their hearts and with their lives
acknowledge Him the only true GOD, and JESUS CHRIST whom He has sent;
acknowledge Him so as to obey His voice, and keep and do what He has commanded;
then may we regard the attempts of our enemies without dismay; then may we have
firm and stedfast hope that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against us: that
though it may please GOD that we should suffer for a while;-as we suffered
together with good King Charles at the hands of the Dissenters; as we suffered
in the days of bloody Queen Mary, at the hands of the Roman Catholics; as we
suffered during the first three hundred years after CHRIST, at the hands of the
Heathens and the Jews;-yet that eventually triumph will await us; that He will
bring our Church out of the trial, like gold out of the fire, more pure and of
greater worth, ("I will purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin
;" Isaiah 1:25.) that "all things will work together for good "to us; and that
the purpose aimed at by the affliction is, that He "may present our Church to
Himself as a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing;
but that it should be holy and with out blemish." Ephesians 5:27.

It will hence appear, that it is in the power of every individual, by a holy and
religious life in the true faith and fear of GOD and our LORD JESUS CHRIST, to
promote not only his own salvation, but the welfare and stability of the Church
of CHRIST; or by an unholy, careless, and irreligious life, not only to secure
his own damnation, but to assist the enemies of GOD and man, who are purposed to
overthrow that Church.

If times of confusion and trouble shall come, where can we seek for comfort but
in the love of CHRIST, in the love of GOD to man for CHRIST’S sake? But how can
we then take comfort in that love, if nowwe take no account of it? Let me
entreat you, then, Christian Brethren, while the days of peace are vouchsafed to
you, to give more and more heed to all religious duties. The days may come, when
your Churches will be shut up, or only filled by men who will not teach the
whole truth as it is in JESUS; when you will be deprived of Ministers of
Religion; or have only such as are destitute of GOD’S Commission. Do not, I
beseech you, by your neglect now, add to your misery then the bitterness of
self-reproach, when you will have to say, "I had once the opportunity of
worshipping GOD aright, but I neglected it, and He now has withheld it from me.
I had once the means of receiving the Body and Blood of my SAVIOUR, at the hands
of His own Minister; but I refused it, and now He has placed it out of my
power."

OXFORD. The Feast of the Epiphany.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: 24 - THE SCRIPTURE VIEW OF THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION.
========================================================================

THE SCRIPTURE VIEW OF THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION.

[Number 24] IN referring to the Epistles of the New Testament for proof of the
duty of submission to Spiritual Authority, we are sometimes met by the objection
that the case is very much altered since the days of the Apostles, and since the
extraordinary gifts of the SPIRIT have been withdrawn from the Church. Now it
will readily be admitted on all bands, that the state of the Church is very
greatly altered since these miraculous powers have ceased; but at the same time
we must not allow a general principle of this sort to set aside the authority of
Holy Scripture, as far as regards our own practice, until, by a diligent and
careful study of the Apostles’ writings, we have found that the principle does
really apply to the case in question; as, for instance, that the Apostolic
Authority is grounded in Scripture upon the possession of miraculous powers, and
therefore necessarily ceased when those powers were withheld. Let us then
examine this point more particularly. Have we then considered, in reference to
this matter, that the extraordinary gifts of the SPIRIT were not confined to the
appointed teachers of the Church, but were shed abroad upon the congregation at
large, upon the young and the old alike, upon the servants, and upon the
hand-maidens? (Comp. Joel ii. 28, 29.) It was the promise of the Old Testament,
that, under the dispensation of the New Covenant, GOD would write His Law in the
hearts of His people, so that they should teach no more every man his neighbour,
and every man his brother, saying; Know the LORD, "for they shall all know Me,
from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD." (Jer. xxxi.
33, 34.) This promise, we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews, was fulfilled
in the Gospel; and St. John, in his First General Epistle, expressly
acknowledges the accomplishment of the Prophet’s words. He says to his " little
children," "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have
not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it.
These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the
anointing which ye have received from Him abideth in you, and ye need not that
any may teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is
truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him." (1
John 2:20-21, 1 John 2:27) Such general illumination by GOD’S Holy Spirit might
seem to make any authoritative Apostolic declarations altogether unnecessary for
the converts; but we still find St. John writing to them, and declaring his
testimony to the Christian doctrine with much earnestness; and why? Let us hear
his own words at the beginning of his Epistle; "That which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with US; and truly
OUR fellowship is with the FATHER, and with His Son JESUS CHRIST. And these
things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." Here we have the object of
the Apostle’s affectionate address fully and clearly stated. He and his
Fellow-Apostles, the witnesses of their Master’s Life and Death and
Resurrection, had received from Him a glorious revelation to communicate to the
world: they had seen and did testify, that the FATHER sent the SON to be the
Saviour of the world; upon this foundation they were commissioned to build the
Christian Church; and it was their holy and blessed office to "stablish,
strengthen, settle" the faith of their "little children" in the Gospel; to tell
them how they might keep themselves from the spirit of error, and continuing
"stedfast in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship," might through them have
fellowship with the FATHER and the Son, and so "rejoice with joy unspeakable and
full of glory." We now see the full force of St. John’s authoritative language.
He was marking the lines of "the foundation of the Apostle and Prophets," in
order that his disciples might duly be built upon their most holy faith into a
temple meet for the habitation of God through the SPIRIT: they were GOD’S
building, and the Apostle was one of the "wise master-builders," whom CHRIST had
appointed to build His Spiritual House. And this view of the matter will become
still clearer, if we study well the prayer which CHRIST offered for His Church
at the solemn moment when He was just about to purchase it to Himself by the
shedding of His precious blood. We there find our Blessed LORD, having first
declared that His work was finished on earth, and having earnestly besought the
FATHER now to glorify Him, proceeds to pray for His Apostles, that His FATHER
would preserve them in unity, and truth, and holiness. He says, "I have
manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world; I have
given unto them the words that Thou gavest Me, and they have received them; Holy
FATHER, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may
be one as We are. Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth. As Thou
hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And
for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through
the truth." Thus did CHRIST lay the foundations of His One Holy, Catholic,
Apostolic Church;—in the remainder of His prayer He intreats like blessings for
all who should be built on this sure foundation, that they might be so joined
together in unity of spirit by the Apostles’ doctrine, as to be made a holy
temple acceptable to GOD through Him. (Collect for St. Simon and St. Jude,)
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me
through their word; that they all may be one, as Thou FATHER art in Me and I in
Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast
sent Me." Accordingly, we read that when, on the day of Pentecost, three
thousand were brought to believe on CHRIST through St. Peter’s word, they were
baptized into that holy communion, " and they continued stedfast in the
Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship according to a text already quoted,) and the
LORD daily added fresh members to this Church. And in later times, when false
teachers were gone abroad seducing the disciples, the Apostles wrote to them,
declaring and reminding them what the Apostolic doctrine was, that they might
have the joy fulfilled in themselves of knowing that they were in the unity of
the Apostolic Church, one in CHRIST and in the FATHER. And so St. Paul explains
why he wrote to the Corinthians, "not for that we have dominion over your faith,
but are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand." (2 Corinthians 1:24)

St. Peter, again, in his Second Epistle, uses exactly the same language with St.
John. He writes as "a servant and an Apostle of JESUS CHRIST, to them that have
obtained like precious faith with US; according as His divine power bath given
unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness; exceeding great and
precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine nature:" i.
e. he does not draw any line of difference between himself and his brethren, as
if he had miraculous powers which they had not; but rests his teaching on the
plain fact of his being commissioned, and commissioned with the simple object of
communicating the doctrine which had been disclose-l to him. He addresses his
converts just as St. John does, not as though they were ignorant or unmindful of
the truth, but in order to strengthen their conviction of those holy facts and
doctrines to which he and his brother-Apostles were commissioned to bear
witness. "I will not be negligent," he says, "to put you always in remembrance
of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by
putting you in remembrance. Moreover, I will endeavour that after my decease ye
may have these things always in remembrance. For WE have not followed cunningly
devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our LORD
JESUS CHRIST, but were eye-witnesses of His Majesty, .... and this voice which
came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the Holy Mount." Again he
says, "This Second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir
up your pure minds by way of remembrance, that ye may be mindful of the words
which were spoken before by the holy Prophets, and of the commandment of us the
Apostles of the LORD and SAVIOUR." For by adherence to the commandment of the
Apostles, and the doctrine of the Prophets, it might be known that Christians
were building themselves up on the only true foundation, even JESUS CHRIST. But
it is in St. Paul’s writings that we shall find the fullest and clearest view of
Apostolical Authority; and it is well worthy of our observation, that the Church
upon which the Apostle most strongly enforces that Authority, is the very Church
which is most distinguished in the New Testament for the abundance of its
Spiritual gifts; so that clearly it was not an exclusive possession of
miraculous powers, which constituted the distinction between Apostles and
private Christians He begins his First Epistle to the Corinthians by thanking
GOD on their behalf "for the grace of GOD which was given them by JESUS CHRIST,
that in every thing they were enriched by Him in all utterance and in all
knowledge, so that they came behind in no gift." But the Apostle goes on
immediately to reprove them for their want of unity; it bad been declared to
him, that there were contentions among them. And how did these contentions
arise?—in low views of Apostolical Authority. They had forgotten that there was
but One Foundation; One Building of GOD; One Rule, according to which the
several builders must carry up the structure which Apostles had founded. And how
did the Apostle endeavour to drive out the spirit of schism?—by asserting and en
forcing his own authority over them, as the one only father whom they had in the
Gospel, (though they might choose for themselves ten thousand instructors,) and
by sending Timothy to bring them into remembrance of his ways which were in
CHRIST, as he taught every where in every Church. Thus were they to be brought
back to the blessed unity of spirit of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church—And
here, by the way, we have light thrown upon the doctrine contained in the
Epistles of Ignatius. Remarkable and consolatory to the inquirer after truth as
is the evidence therein afforded to the divine appointment of Episcopacy,
perhaps there is mingled with his satisfaction some surprise at the earnestness
and frequency with which the Holy Martyr urges the doctrine. But it is plain,
what the Apostles are in St. Paul’s Epistles, such the Bishops are in those of
Ignatius centres of unity; and as St. Paul, when denouncing schism, magnifies
the Apostolic Office, in just the same natural, or rather necessary way, does
Ignatius oppose the varieties of opinion in his own day by the doctrine of
Episcopacy.—To return: the same Apostle writes to the Church of Rome; "I myself
am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with
all knowledge, able also to admonish one an other. Nevertheless, brethren, I
have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind,
because of the grace that is given to me of GOD, that I should be the Minister
of JESUS CHRIST to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of GOD." (Romans
15:14-16) The passage which follows is worthy of especial notice, as showing
that the Apostles marked out for themselves distinct provinces, so that each had
his own Diocese, as it were, his own peculiar sphere of duty and authority. St.
Paul tells us be strove to preach not where Christ was named, lest he should
build upon another man’s foundation (Romans 5:20.). Each laid down for himself
his own "measure," and would not stretch beyond it (2 Corinthians 10:14). And
this will perhaps help to explain the fact, which early tradition hands down to
us, of the wide dispersion of the Apostolic Body. At all events, it is certain
from History, that the different Churches claiming Apostolic Descent, were very
careful to maintain the practices which they had severally derived from their
respective Founders. To the Church of Corinth accordingly St. Paul writes as its
sole Founder and Father, claiming upon this ground Supreme Authority over it in
the name of JESUS CHRIST. And with this Epistle before us, we cannot doubt of
the conclusion which, we have already seen, may be clearly enough deduced from
other Epistles of the New Testament, viz. that the Authority which the Apostles
claim for themselves, they claim, not on the ground of high supernatural
endowments, (for these were the possession of the Church at large,) but on the
ground of "the Grace and Apostleship" which they had received from CHRIST, the
Head of the Christian Church, "for obedience to the faith among all nations for
His name." That is, they refer directly to their Commission, as His Apostles, to
go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature; they refer to the
authority with which He invested them, when He stood in the midst of them, and
said unto them, "as MY FATHER hath sent Me, even so SEND I you," and bade them
receive the HOLY GHOST, to be with them in the prosecution of their High and
Holy Office. This point is very strikingly exhibited in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, because there the possession of extraordinary gifts, and the
possession of Spiritual Authority, are brought into immediate contrast with each
other. The Corinthians, proud of the gifts of new teachers, had raised parties
in opposition to St. Paul, and questioned his authority. How then did he
maintain it? not by claiming higher gifts and graces for himself, (though he
spoke with tongues more than they all,) but by referring to his Office, as a
Minister and an Apostle of CHRIST, whose One Spirit governs the whole body of
the Church, appointing divers orders, and dividing to every man severally as He
will. That he was an Apostle he proved by the fact, that he had been equally
favoured with the Twelve; that he had seen our LORD JESUS CHRIST in the flesh:
and bad received the doctrines of His Gospel, and grace to preach them to the
world. This was the simple ground on which he claimed Authority; it was not
because of the gifts or graces which he, as an individual, possessed; nor was it
because he had laboured more abundantly than all the other Apostles; nor because
of his signal labours and afflictions for CHRIST’S sake. He mentions these in
his Second Epistle, to show that, if he chose to adopt the language of his
adversaries, he had a better right than they to glory; but all the while he
tells the Corinthians that he was "become a fool in glorying;" that they had
compelled him; that he could show the signs of an Apostle, and needed no
epistles of commendation. It was in right of his office that he claimed
Authority; it was for the sake of that Office that he endeavoured to give no
offence in any thing, but in all things to approve himself as the Minister of
God.

Now, perhaps some persons may be disposed to think that this Apostolical
Authority would terminate with the Apostles them selves, with the favoured men
who had been " eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word," and could declare to
others what they had themselves heard and seen. This might appear probable, if
we had only our own reasonings to go upon; but Scripture teaches us a very
different lesson. When St. Paul felt that his time was now nearly come, he
writes to Timothy, his "dearly beloved son," giving him his last solemn charge,
as to one who was hence forth to occupy the post which hitherto he had himself
maintained in the battles of his LORD. He earnestly commands him, "watch THOU in
all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an Evangelist, make full proof of
thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of MY departure is
at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished MY course, I have kept
the faith." This faith, which St. Paul had so vigilantly kept was now to be
committed to Timothy’s care; he had already been put in trust with the Gospel by
the HOLY GHOST and the imposition of the Apostle’s hands; and now upon him was
to devolve the solemn responsibility of being left in charge of the Apostle’s
testimony, and of handing it down to future ages. "Be not thou therefore
ashamed’ says the Apostle, "of the testimony of our LORD, nor of me his
prisoner; Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith
and love which is in CHRIST JESUS. That good thing which was committed unto
thee, keep, by the HOLY GHOST which dwelleth in us." And, in reminding him of
this indwelling of the HOLY GHOST, the promise of CHRIST to His Ministers, the
Apostle labours, with evident anxiety, to embolden Timothy, by filling him with
a due sense of the authority and power committed to him. "I put thee in
remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of GOD which is in thee by the putting
on of my hands. For GOD hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and
of love, and of a sound mind." "Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace
that is in CHRIST JESUS. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many
witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach
others also. This last passage is very important, because it shows so clearly
that the testimony which the Apostles bore to CHRIST did not cease with their
ministry, but was to be transmitted along the sacred line of those whom they
ordained, and so handed down to them that were to come after. And where does
this line end? Blessed be GOD, it has not ended yet; and CHRIST’S promise gives
us the comfortable assurance that it shall last "even to the end of the world."
Down to our days, the Church has been "a witness and keeper of Holy Writ;" (Art.
xx.) and so faithful a witness, and so watchful a keeper, that we can feel as
certain of the facts of the Gospel History, and so of the glorious doctrines
which they involve, as if we heard them from the Apostles’ own lips. And how
beautifully are we reminded of St. Paul’s dying charge to Timothy, when we see
the Fathers of our own Church laying their hands on the heads of their sons in
the faith, bidding them receive the HOLY GHOST for their high office and work in
the Church of GOD, and charging them to be faithful dispensers of the Word of
GOD and His Holy Sacraments; and then delivering into their hands that Holy Book
which the Church has transmitted, and giving them authority to preach it in the
congregation! Thus is the testimony of the Apostles still handed down in the
Church, which is "the pillar and ground of the truth;" and thus do their
Successors declare it with authority, "GOD also bearing them witness," not
indeed now "with signs, and wonders, and divers miracles," but still, according
to His own most true promise, with invisible "gifts of the HOLY GHOST.

Let us now return to see how St. Paul exercised his Apostolical Authority. He
had been consulted by the Church of Corinth upon several questions which had
caused difference of opinion among them;—how then does he decide these
questions? In the first place, he draws a broad line of distinction between the
points on which he had an express commandment of his LORD to go upon, and those
on which he had to give his own judgment. In some cases he says, "I command;" in
others, "not I, but the LORD As a Minister and Steward of CHRIST’S household,
his first consideration was, whether, in the course of His ministry, his Master
had left him any explicit commandment; if he found no such commandment, his next
duty was to decide the question by the principles of CHRIST’S Gospel. In this
case, he gave his "judgment, as one that had obtained mercy of the LORD to be
faithful," as having been "allowed of God to be put in trust with the Gospel;"
and in such decisions he felt assured that he had the SPIRIT of God.
Accordingly, he says with confidence, "If any man think himself to be a Prophet
or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the LORD;" referring at the same time to his Apostolical
Authority, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you
only?"—is it nothing to you that the Apostles have so ordained, and the Catholic
Church so received and practised? (1 Corinthians 14:36-37) And now I would ask,
in conclusion, where is the essential difference between the Apostolic age and
our own, as to the relation in which God’s Ministers and His people stand to
each other? I do not say that the Ministers of His word in these days can feel
so sure as the Apostles could, that in the commandments which they give they
have the SPIRIT of GOD; very far from it. But I do say, that neither can the
people feel so sure as in those days of miraculous gifts, that they have the
SPIRIT of GOD with them; and thus the relation between the two parties remains
unaltered. Since the Apostolic times and the age of miracles, the City of GOD
is, as it were, come down from heaven to earth; the scene is changed, but the
city remains the same. The Corner-stone is the same, its foundations are the
same: if it be not built up by the same heavenly rule, it will not be the city
that is "at unity in itself," the city of Him, who "is not the Author of
confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints." His HOLY SPIRIT
works at sundry times, in divers manners, according to His own Almighty wisdom;
sometimes He descends upon His Ministers with an audible sound and in a visible
form 1 and sometimes in visible, amidst the deep silence, and the prayers of His
faithful congregation 2. Outward appearances may be changed, yet His Mighty
Agency remains the same; and it will be our wisdom and our blessedness to feel
and acknowledge His presence in the "still small voice," as well as in the
"great and strong wind," and in "the fire." For though miracles and tongues may
have ceased, He has never ceased to send forth Apostles, and Prophets, and
Evangelists, and Pastors, and Teachers; nor will He cease to send them until the
work of their ministry is accomplished in "the edification of the body of
CHRIST;" "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the SON of GOD, of CHRIST. The question to which these few observations refer,
is one, it must be allowed, of great importance. Our blessed LORD declares to
His Apostles, "AS MY FATHER hath sent Me, even so send I you." Again He says,
"He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." It
becomes then a grave question, to whom did Christ address these words? To the
Twelve Apostles exclusively, or to them and their successors to the end of the
world? It is surely worth our while carefully to search the Scriptures with a
view to ascertain this point. And while we do this, let us bear constantly in
mind that slight intimations of our LORD’S Will are in their degree as much
binding upon us as express commands; that he who knows what probably his LORD’S
will is, will be judged as one who had probability to guide him; that he who
knew not through negligence or slothfulness, will have his negligence or
slothfulness to answer for. It will not be a sufficient excuse for us, that we
thought all that was said in the New Testament of Apostolical Authority could
only apply to the Apostolic age. Let us remember, as a solemn warning to us, how
it came to pass that the Jews despised and rejected CHRIST. They saw no sign
from heaven, and therefore thought He could not be the Prophet like unto Moses.
Their fault was, that they did not humbly and heartily "search the Scriptures."

OXFORD, The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: 25 - THE GREAT NECESSITY AND ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC PRAYER.
========================================================================

THE GREAT NECESSITY AND ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC PRAYER.

(Extracted from Bishop Beveridge’s Sermon on the subject.)

[Number 25]

BESIDES our praying to, and praising GOD in the midst of other business, we
ought to set apart some certain times in every day wholly for this. The Saints
of old were wont to do it three times a day, as we learn from Daniel. For when
King Darius had signed the decree, "That whosoever should ask a petition of any
god or man for thirty days, except of the king, should be cast into the den of
lions," it is written, "That when Daniel knew that the decree was signed, he
went into his house; and, his windows being open in his chamber toward
Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave
thanks unto his GOD, as he did aforetime." (Daniel 6:10) As he did aforetime;
which shows that this had been his constant practice before, and he would not
leave it off now, though he was sure to be cast into the den of lions for it.
But what times of the day these were, which were anciently devoted to this
religious purpose, we may best gather from king David, where he saith, "Evening,
and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud; and He shall hear my
voice." (Psalms 55:17) He begins with the evening, because day then began,
according to the Jewish account; but he observed all these times of prayer
alike. And so questionless did other devout people as well as he. The Jews have
a tradition that those times were ordained to that use, the morning by Abraham;
noon, by Isaac; and evening by Jacob. But whether they have any ground for that
or no, be sure this custom is so reasonable and pious, that the Church of CHRIST
took it up, and observed it all along from the very beginning. Only to
distinguish these times more exactly, the Christians called them, (as the Jews
also had done before,) by the names of the third, the sixth, and the ninth
hours. Of which Tertullian saith, "Tres istas horas ut insigniores in rebus
humanis, ita et solenniores fuisse in orationibus divinis; ‘as they were more
famous than others in human affairs, so hey were more solemn in divine prayers.’
" (Tertul de Jejun c. 10.)

I know the Primitive Christians performed their private devotions at other times
as well as these; but at these set times every day, especially at the third and
ninth hour, they always performed them publicly, if they could get an
opportunity. And if we would be such Christians as they were, we must follow
their pious example in this, as well as in other things.

* * * * As the Jewish Church had by GOD’S own appointment the Morning and
Evening Sacrifice every day in the year; so all Christian Churches have been
used to have their Morning and Evening Prayers publicly performed every day. As
might easily be shown out of the Records of the Church, from the beginning of
Christianity. Not to insist upon other Churches, I shall instance at present
only in our own; which, as in all things else, so particularly in this, is
exactly conformable to the Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the First Book of
Common-Prayer, made by our Church at the beginning of the Reformation, there was
a form composed both for Morning and Evening Prayer: the title of that for the
Morning ran thus; An Order for Mattins daily through the year; and of that for
the Evening, An Order for Even Song throughout the year: and accordingly there
were Psalms and Chapters appointed both for the Morning and Evening of every
day. About three or four years after, the same book was revised and put forth
again. And then the Church taking notice that Daily Prayers had been in some
places neglected, at the end of the Preface she added two new Rules, or, as we
call them, Rubrics; which are still in force, as ye may see in the Common-Prayer
Books which we now use. The first is this: And all Priests and Deacons are to
say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, not being
let by sickness, or other urgent cause. By this, every one that is admitted into
Holy Orders, although he be neither Parson, Vicar, nor Curate of any particular
place, yet he is bound to say both Morning and Evening Prayer every day, either
in some Church or Chapel where he can get leave to do it, or else in the house
where he dwells, except he be hindered by some such cause which the Ordinary of
the place judges to be reasonable and urgent. The other Order is this: And the
Curate that ministereth in every Parish Church or Chapel, being at home, and not
being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the Parish-Church or
Chapel, where he ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto, a
convenient time before he begin, that people may come to hear God’s Word, and
pray with him.

Here we have a plain and express command, that the Curate, whether he be the
Incumbent himself, or another procured by him to do it; whosoever it is that
ministereth GOD’S Holy Word and Sacraments in any Parish-Church or Chapel in
England, shall say the same Morning and Evening Prayer daily in the
Parish-Church or Chapel where he ministereth, and shall take care that a bell be
tolled a convenient time before he begins, that people having notice of it, may
come to GOD’S House to hear His Holy Word read, and join with the Minister in
performing theirpublicdevotions to him. This every Minister or Curate in England
is bound to do every day in the year, if he be at home, and be not otherwise
reasonably hindered. And whether any hindrance be reasonable or no, the Minister
himself is not the ordinary Judge; for in all such cases that is referred by the
common laws of the Church to the Bishop of the Diocese, or the Ordinary of the
place where he ministereth. The law hath made this the duty of every Minister,
and the Bishop or Ordinary is to see he doeth it; and whether any have
reasonable cause ever to omit it, or whether the cause they pretend for it be
reasonable or no; this is left by the law to him. He may allow or disallow of
the pretence, as he upon the full hearing of it shall see good; and may punish
with the censures of the Church any Minister within his jurisdiction that doth
not read the Prayers of the Church, or take care they be read every Morning and
Evening in the year, except at such times when the Minister can prove that he
had such a reasonable hindrance or impediment as will justify him before GOD and
His Church. This care hath our Church taken, that Public Prayers be read every
Morning and Evening throughout the year in every parish within her bounds, that
all who live in her communion may, after the example of the Apostles....., go
every day into the Temple or Church at the Hour of Prayer. She hath not
appointed the hour when either Morning or Evening Prayer shall begin; because
the same hour might not be so convenient in all places. So that in some places
it might be pretended that there was a reasonable hindrance; that it could not
be done just at the time. Wherefore to prevent any such plea, and to make the
duty as easy and practicable, both to the Minister and people, as it could be,
the Church hath left that to the Ministers themselves, who considering every one
his own and his people’s circumstances, may, and ought to appoint such hours
both for the Morning and Evening Prayer in their respective places, as they in
their discretion shall judge to be most convenient. Only they ought to take care
in general that Morning Prayers be always read before, and Evening after noon.
And it is very expedient that thesame hoursbe every day, as much as it is
possible, observed in the same place, that people knowing it beforehand, may
order their affairs so as to be ready to go to the Church at thehour of prayer.
But notwithstanding this great care that our Church hath taken to havedaily
prayersin every parish, we see by sad experience, they are shamefully neglected
all the kingdom over; there being very few places where they have any Public
Prayers upon the Week-days, except perhaps upon Wednesdays and Fridays; be cause
it is expressly commanded, that both Morning and Evening Prayers be readevery
dayin the Week, as the Litany upon those. And why this commandment should be
neglected more than the other, for my part I can see no reason. But I see plain
enough that it is a great fault, a plain breach of the known laws of CHRIST’S
Holy Catholic Church, and particularly of that part of it, which by his blessing
is settled among us. But where doth this fault lie? I hope not in the Clergy.
For I dare not suppose or imagine, but that every minister in England that hath
the care of souls committed to him, would be willing and glad to read the
Prayers every day, for their edification, if the people could be persuaded to
come to them. I am sure there is never a Minister but isobligedto read
themdaily; and never a parish in England but where the people may have them so
read, if they will; for they mayrequireit by thelawsboth of ourChurchandState,
except at such times when their Minister is reasonably hindered from the
execution of his office, in the sense before explained. But the mischief is, men
cannot, or rather will not be persuaded to it. They think it a great matter to
come to Church upon the LORD’S Day, when they cannot openly follow their
particular calling if they would. Upon other days they have other business to
mind of greater consequence, as they think, than going to Prayers. To some it is
a great disturbance to hear the bell sounding in their ears, and calling them to
their duty, which they being resolved not to practise, it makes them very uneasy
to be so often put in mind of it. Others can make a shift to bear that pretty
well, as not looking upon themselves concerned in it. For they take it for
granted, that Prayers were intended only for such as have nothing else to do. As
for their parts, they have a great deal of work upon their hands, and must mind
that, without troubling their heads about any thing else. This is the plain case
of some; but not of all. Blessed be GOD, He hath opened the eyes of many,
especially in this city, who now see "the things that belong to their
everlasting peace," and therefore are as constant at theirpublic devotions, as
they are at theirprivate business. And I trust in His infinite Goodness and
Mercy, that He who hath "begun so good a work among us," will one day perfect
it, that we may all meet together with one heart, and with one mouth to pray
unto Him," and praise and glorify His great name every day in the week, both in
this city, and all the kingdom over. What ahappycity, what agloriouskingdom
would it then be! And how happy should I think myself, if it would please GOD to
make me, the unworthiest of all His Servants, an instrument in His Almighty hand
towards the effecting of it inthis place! It is too great a felicity for me to
flatter myself with the least hopes of. Howsoever I must do my duty, and leave
the issue to Him who hath the hearts of all men in His hand.

* * * * That it is His [CHRIST’S] pleasure that we should constantly usethe
Formof Prayer, which He, as our Great LORD and MASTER, was pleased to compose
for all His Disciples, is so plain that I wonder how any can doubt of it; there
being no command in all the Bible more plain than that, "When ye pray, say, Our
Father, which art in. Heaven," &c. (Luke 11:2) But it is as plain, that He
designedthisPrayer should be usedpublicly, and incommon, by His Disciples when
met together in their public assemblies: in that He hath drawn it up all along
in theplural number, that many may join together in it, and say, " Our Father,
which art in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our
trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into
temptation; but deliver us from evil." So that there is notonepetition,
noroneexpression in it, but what awhole congregationmay jointly use. From whence
St. Cyprian truly observed, that this isPublica et Communis
Oratio:aPublicandCommonPrayer Not but it may, and ought to be used also
privately by every single Christian apart by himself; because every Christian is
a member Of CHRIST’S Catholic Church, and should pray as such in private as well
as in public; and for all his fellow-members, as well as for himself, they being
all but one body. But however, it must be acknowledged, that, it being so
exactly fitted to a public congregation, it was primarily and chiefly intended
for that purpose. And that our SAVIOUR would have us say this Prayer every day,
appears most plainly from that petition in it, "Give us this day our daily
bread." For this shows, that as we depend upon GOD every day for our necessary
food, so we ought to pray unto Him every day for it. And if we must put up this
petition every day, we must put up all the rest with it. For CHRIST hath joined
them together, and therefore we must not put them asunder. Neither is there any
part of the Prayer but what is as necessary to be said every day as this.

Wherefore seeing our Blessed SAVIOUR Himself was most graciously pleased to
compose this Prayer so as to suit it to our daily public devotions, and hath
plainly commanded us to use it, according as He had composed it; we may
reasonably from thence infer, that it is his divine will and pleasure that we
should publicly pray to our Heavenly FATHER every day, as His Church had all
along before done it,Morning and Evening. Be sure His Apostles thought so, when
they had received His Holy Spirit, "to lead them," according to His promise,
"into all truth," and to "bring into their remembrance all things that He had
said unto them." For after the day of Pentecost, on which the HOLY GHOST came
upon them, the next news that we hear of any of them is, that "Peter and John
went up together into the Temple at the hour of Prayer, being the ninth hour,"
or the hour of Evening Prayer; which they would not have done, if they had not
believed it to be agreeable to the doctrine which He had taught them.

* * * * The more pleasing any duty is to GOD, the more profitable it is to those
who do it. And therefore He having so often, both by word and deed, manifested
Himself well-pleased with the public or common Service which His people perform
to Him, we cannot doubt but they always receive proportionable advantage from
it. The Jews callstated publicPrayers [Hebrew text]Stations; and have a saying
among them, "that without such Stations the world could not stand." Be sure no
people have any ground to expect public peace and tranquillity, without praising
and prayingpubliclyunto Him, who alone can give it. But if all the people
(suppose of this nation) should every day with one heart and mouth join together
in ourcommonsupplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, how happy should we then be! how free
from danger! how safe and secure under His protection! This is the argument
which CHRIST Himself useth, why "Men ought always to pray and not to faint;" in
the Parable of the unjust Judge, who was at last prevailed with to grant a
widow’s request, merely by her importunity in asking it. "And shall not GOD,"
saith He, " avenge His own elect, which cryday and nightunto Him, though He bear
long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily." But then He adds,
"Nevertheless, when the SON of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?"
(Luke 18:7-8) As if He had said, GOD will most certainly avenge and protect
those who cry day and night,morningandevening, to Him. But men will not believe
this; and that is the reason why there are so few who believe that He will hear
their prayers, according to His promise. But blessed be GOD, though they be but
few, there are some, who really believe GOD’S Word, and
accordinglyprayeverymorningandevening, not only for themselves, but for the
country where they live, for all their Governors both in Church and State, and
for all sorts and conditions of men among us. To these the whole kingdom is
beholden for its support and preservation. If they should once fail, I know not
what would become of us. But so long as there are pious and devout persons
crying day and night to GOD for aid and defence against our enemies, we need not
fear any hurt they can ever do us; at least according to GOD’S ordinary course
of dealing in the world. I know that He is sometimes so highly incensed against
a people, that He will hearken to no intercessions for them. As when He said of
the idolatrous and factious Jews; "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet
My mind could not be towards this people," (Jeremiah 15:1) Moses had before
diverted His wrath from them, (Exodus 32:11-12, Exodus 32:14) and so had Samuel,
(1 Samuel 7:9) but at this time He saith, Though both of them stood before Him,
and besought Him for it, yet He would not be reconciled to this people. Which
plainly implies, that this was anextraordinarycase, and that Heordinarilyused to
hearken to the prayers which His faithful servants, such as Moses and Samuel
were, made to Him in behalf of the people among whom they dwelt: according to
that of the Apostle St. James, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much," (James 5:16) To the same purpose is that parallel place in the
Prophet Ezekiel, where GOD saith, "That if a land sin grievously against Him,
and He send the famine, the sword, the pestilence, or the like punishment, to
cut off both man and beast from it; though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and
Job were in it, they should deliver none but their own souls." (Ezekiel 4:14,
Ezekiel 4:16) But here we may likewise observe, that in such anextraordinarycase
as this, (which GOD grant may not be our own ere long!) although such righteous
persons by all their prayers and tears can deliver none else yet they themselves
shall be delivered. As Lot was out of Sodom, and the Christians at the final
destruction of Jerusalem, when eleven hundred thousand Jews perished, (Joseph.
de Bel. Jude. 1. 7. c. 17.) and not one Christian, they being all, by the secret
providence of GOD, conveyed out of the city before the siege began. (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 5.) Which shows the particular care that GOD takes of all
that believe and serve Him. And that one would think is enough to prevail with
all that consult their own and others’ welfare, to neglect no opportunities
which they can get of serving so great and good a Master, all the ways they can,
and particularly by performing their daily devotions to Him. In that they have
good ground to hope that He will hear their prayers forothers, but may be sure
He will take care ofthem, whatsoever happens.

OXFORD . The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: 26 - THE NECESSITY AND ADVANTAGE OF FREQUENT COMMUNION.
========================================================================

THE NECESSITY AND ADVANTAGE OF FREQUENT COMMUNION.

(Extracted from Bishop Beveridge’s Sermon on the subject.)

[Number 26]

I HAVE done what I could; I have taken all occasions to convince you of your sin
and danger in neglecting thisBlessed Sacrament, and to persuade you to a more
frequent receiving of it; but I see nothing will do: indeed nothing can do it
but the Almighty Power of GOD, whom I therefore beseech of His Infinite mercy to
open men’s eyes, that they may "see the things that belong to their everlasting
peace, before they be hid from them." And then I am sure this Sacrament would be
as muchfrequented, as it hath been hithertoneglected. But seeing He is usually
pleased to do this great work by the Ministry of His Word, I shall make it my
business at this time, in his name, to put you in mind of yourdutyandinterestin
this particular, and so set before you such reasons why you ought to take all
opportunities of receiving the Mystical Body and Blood of CHRIST your SAVIOUR,
as I hope by His blessing may prevail with many to do it: GOD grant that it may
do so with all that hear me at this time. For this purpose, therefore, I desire
you to consider, First, that this is CHRIST’Sown Institution and Command. He,
"who being in the form of GOD, thought it no robbery to be equal with GOD, and
yet made Himself of no reputation for your sakes." He, who loved you so, as
togive Himself for you,—He, wholaid down his own lifeto redeem and save you,—He,
the very night before He died for you, He then instituted this Holy Sacrament;
and He then said to all that hoped to be saved by Him, and to you among others,
"Do this in remembrance of Me;" and, "do this as oft as ye drink it, in
remembrance of me." What? and will you that hope to be saved by Him, will you
never do this at all? or only now and then, when perhaps you have nothing else
to do? How then can ye hope to be saved by Him? Do you think that He will save
you, whether ye observe Hiscommandsor no? And which of all his commands can ye
ever observe, if ye do not observe this, which is soplain, soeasy, souseful, and
sonecessaryfor you? No, deceive not yourselves. He that came into the world, and
died on purpose to save you, you may be confident would never have required you
to do this, andas often asyou do it, torememberHim, but that it is necessary for
your salvation that ye do it, and that ye do itas often as ye can, in
remembrance of Him.And if it had been necessary in no other, as it is in many
respects, yet His very commanding it, makes it so to you, and to your salvation.
For as He is the only "Author of eternal salvation," He is so only to those who
obey Him," (Hebrews 5:9); that is, "to those who observe all things whatsoever
He hath commanded." (Matthew 28:20) But this is one of those things which he
hath commanded; and therefore unless youdo this, you do notobeyHi, and so have
no ground to expect salvation from Him. He Himself hath told you in effect, that
He will not save you; in that He said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise
perish." (Luke 13:3, Luke 13:5) But ye all know, that he who lives in any wilful
and known sin, or in the wilful neglect of any known duty, he hath not
yetrepented, and turned to GOD, but is still in his natural estate, in a state
of sin and damnation. And if he happens to do so, he must inevitably perish;
there is no help in the world for it.

Wherefore, my brethren, ye had need look about you. CHRIST your SAVIOUR hath
expresslycommandedyou often to receive the Sacrament of His Body and Bloodin
remembranceof Him. And therefore you, who never yet received it, have lived all
this while in the wilful breach of a known Law, and by consequence in a wilful
and known sin: and you who receive it butseldom, do not fullyobeyor come up to
the Law, which plainly requires you to do itoften: at least if it may be had. It
is true, should GOD in His Providence cast you upon a place where you could not
receive it if ye would, I do not doubt but He would accept of your earnest
desires of it, as well as if ye did receive it; and would make up the great
losses you sustained in your spiritual estate for want of it, some other way.
But blessed be His Great Name, this is not your case; for He in His good
Providence hath so ordered it, that you live in a place where this Holy
Sacrament is actually celebrated every LORD’SDay, and may be so, if there be
occasion,every dayin the year. Our Church requires thefirst, and hath provided
for theother, by ordering that thesame Collect, Epistle, andGospelwhich is
appointed for the Sunday, shall serve all the week after; and by consequence the
whole Communion Service, of which they are a part. And therefore, unless you
receive it, and receive itoften too, you will live in the gross neglect, if not
in a plain contempt of CHRIST’Scommand; as you will one day find to your shame
and sorrow; for how well soever ye may otherwise live, this one sin is enough to
ruin and destroy you for ever. "For," as St. James saith, "whosoever shall keep
the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)
And therefore, whatsoever else ye do, if ye do not this, butoffend in this one
point, you are liable to all the punishments that are threatened in the Law of
GOD. Neither is there any way to avoid them, except you repent, and turn from
this as well as from all other sins. And that ye may not think that the
receiving of this Blessed Sacrament only now and then, as perhaps two or three
times a year, will excuse you from the imputation of living in the neglect of
CHRIST’Scommand; I desire you to consider how the Apostles themselves and the
Primitive Christians understood it. Which they sufficiently declared by their
practice. For when our LORD was gone to Heaven, and had, according to Hs
promise, sent down the HOI.Y SPIRIT upon His Apostles, and by that means brought
into His Church about three thousand souls in one day, it is said of them, that
" they continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in
breaking of bread, and in prayers," (Acts 2:42); and of all that believed, it is
said, that " they, continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking
bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of
heart, (Acts 2:46) Where we may observe, first, that bybreaking of breadin the
New Testament, is always meant theAdministration of theLORD’SSupper. Secondly,
this they are said to have done, [kat’ oikon]from house to house, as we
translate it; or ratherin the house, as the Syriac and Arabic versions have it,
and as the phrase [kat’ oikon] is used by the Apostle himself, Romans 16:5. 1
Corinthians 16:19; that is, they did it either in some private house, where
there wasa Church, or more probably in some of thehousesorchambersbelonging to
the Temple, where they daily continued. Thirdly, as they continued daily in the
Temple at the hours of prayer, to perform their solemn devotions there, so
theydailyreceived the Holy Sacrament, and ate this spiritual food "with gladness
and singleness of heart." This being indeed the chief part of their devotions,
whensoever they could meet together to perform them. Especially upon the LORD’S
Day, as the HOLY GHOST Himself informs us, saying, "And upon the first day of
the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto
them, being ready to depart on the morrow," (Acts 20:7); where we see, they did
not only break bread, oradminister the Sacrament of ourLORD’SSupperupon the
first day of the week, which we, from St. John, call the LORD’SDay; but upon
that day they came together for that end and purpose. It is true, St. Paul being
to go away next day, he took that opportunity when they were met together for
that end, to give them a Sermon. But that was not the end of their meeting
together at that time. They did not come to hear a Sermon, though St. Paul
himself was to preach, but theycame togethertoadministerandreceiveCHRIST’S
Mystical Body and Blood; which plainly shows, that this was the great work they
did every LORD’S Day; and that they came together then on purpose to meet with
CHRIST, and to partake of Him at His own table. And seeing that the Law itself
required, "that none should appear before the LORD empty, (Exodus 23:15);
therefore St. Paul requires, that upon thefirst dayof the week, when Christians
thus met together to receive the Sacrament, "every one should lay by him in
store, as GOD prospered him, for pious and charitable uses," (1 Corinthians
16:2) And hence proceeded that custom which is still continued in our Church,
and ought to be so ill all. That whensoever we appear before the LORD at His own
table, we, every one, according to his ability, offer up some thing to Him, of
what He had bestowed upon us, as our acknowledgment of Hisbountyto us, in giving
us whatsoever we have, and of His infinitemercyin giving Himself for us.

Now seeing the Apostles themselves, and such as they first converted and
instructed in the faith of CHRIST, usually received this Holy Sacrament every
day in the week, and constantly upon the LORD’S Day; it cannot be doubted, but
that they looked upon themselves as obliged by CHRIST’Scommand to do so; and
that when He said, "Do this, as often as ye do it, in remembrance of Me," His
meaning and pleasure was, that they should often do it, so often as they met
together to perform their public devotion to Him, if it was possible, or at
least upon the LORD’S Day. And as this was the sense wherein the Apostles
understood our SAVIOUR’S words; so they transmitted the same together with the
Faith, to those who succeeded them. For Tertullian, who lived in the next
century after the Apostles, saith, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, "in
omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam Ante lucanis coetibus," was commanded by our
LORD, to be celebrated in all Christian assemblies, even those which were held
before day, (Ter. de cor. mil. cap. 3.) And before him Pliny the Second, who was
contemporary with St. John, in the account he gave of the Christians’ manners to
the Emperor Trajan, saith, among other things, "that they were wont upon a
certain day, to meet together, before it was light, and to bind themselves by a
Sacrament, not to do any ill thing," (Plin. Ep. 1. 10. cap. 97.) Which can be
understood only of the Sacrament of the LORD’S Supper, as administered and
received by them upon the LORD’S Day. And Justin Martyr himself, who lived in
the next age after, in the Apology he wrote to Antonius Pius in behalf of the
Christians, giving a particular account of what they did in their public
congregations, saith, that [te tou heliou legomene hemera] upon that which is
called theday of the Sun, or Sunday, all Christians that live either in the
cities, or in the country, meet together; where they hear the writings of the
Prophets and Apostles read, and an exhortation made to them; and then they
having all joined together in their common prayers, bread and wine is brought
and consecrated, or blessed by the President or Minister; and distributed to
every one there present, and carried by Deacons to such as were absent. [kai he
diadosis kai he matalepsis apo ton eucharistethenton hekasto ginetai]. And the
distribution and participation of the consecrated elements is made to every one,
(Just. Mart. Apol. 2.) And this food, saith he, [kaleitai par’ hemin
Eucharistia], is called by us the Eucharist. From whence it appears, that in
these days, every one that was at Prayers and Sermon, received also the Holy
Sacrament, at least upon the LORD’S Day. None offered to go out until that was
over; or if they did so, they were cast out of the Church, as not worthy to be
called Christians: as appears from the Apostolical Canons made or collected much
about that time, or soon after. One whereof runs thus, [Pantas tous eisiontas
pistous], etc. All believers that come to Church, and hear the Scriptures, but
do not stay to join in the Prayers, and the Holy Communion, ought to
beexcommunicated, as bringing confusion into the Church, (Can. Apostol. 9.) It
was then, it seems, reckoned a great disorder and confusion for any to go out of
the Church, as they now commonly do, until the whole Service, of which the
Communion was the principal part, was all over; and if any did so, they were
judged unfit to come to Church, or keep company with Christians any longer. This
was the discipline of the Primitive and Apostolic Church. This was the piety of
the first Christians: and it continued in a great measure for some ages, as
might easily be shown. But this may be sufficient at present to prove, that the
Apostles and Primitive Christians did not think that they observed our LORD’S
command in the institution of this Holy Sacrament aright, by receiving it only
now and then. For, as they would never have done it at all, but only in
obedience unto that command; so is obedience to that command, they took all
opportunities they could get, of doing it; at least they never omitted it upon
the LORD’S Day. But upon that day, whatsoever they did besides, they always did
this in remembrance of what their Great LORD and SAVIOUR had done for them. And
if we desire to be such Christians as they were, we must do as they did. We
must, after their pious example, observe our LORD’S command, by eating this
bread, and drinking this cup as often as we can; lest otherwise we lose the
benefit of that death He suffered for us, by our neglecting to do what He hath
commandedin remembrance of it.

* * *

What effect they [my arguments] will have upon those that hear them, I know not;
but fear that it will be much the same that reason and argument usually have
upon the greatest part of mankind; that, very little, or none at all. But for my
own part, when I seriously consider these things, I cannot but wonder with
myself, how it comes to pass, that this Holy Sacrament, instituted by CHRIST
Himself, is so much neglected and disused as it is, in a place where His
religion is professed and acknowledged to be, as really it is, theonly true
religionin the world. And after all my search, I can resolve it into nothing
else but the degeneracy of the age we live in, and the great decay of that most
Holy Religion among us. I am sure,from the beginning it was not so. For some
ages after the Establishment of the Christian Religion by CHRIST our Saviour, so
long as they who embraced it gave them selves up to the conduct of that HOLY
SPIRIT which He sent down among them, and were inspired by it with true zeal for
GOD, and inflamed with love to their ever blessed REDEEMER, SO as to observe all
things that He had commanded, whatsoever it cost them; then they never met
together upon any day in the week, much less upon the LORD’S Day, for the Public
Worship of GOD, but they all received this Holy Sacrament, as the principal
business they met about, and the most proper Christian service they could
perform. And it is very observable, that so long as this continued, men were
endowed with the extraordinary gifts as well as the graces of GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT,
SO as to be able to do many wonderful things by it; yea, and suffer too
whatsoever could be inflicted On them for CHRIST’S sake. But in process of time
men began to leave off their first love to Him, and turn His religion
intodispute and controversy; and then as their piety and devotion grew cooler
and cooler, the Holy Sacrament began to be neglected more and more; and the
Priests who administered it, had fewer and fewer to receive it, until at length
they had some obliged indutyandconscienceto consecrate and receive it them
selves, although they had none to receive with them. And this mistake, I
suppose, gave the first occasion to that multitude of private masses which have
been so much abused in the Church of Rome; where the priest commonly receives
himself, although he hath never a one to communicate with him; and so there can
be no communion at all. And as thatabuse, so thedisuseof the Holy Sacrament,
sprang first from men’scoldnessandindifferencyin religion, which hath prevailed
so far in our days, that there are many thousands of persons who are baptized,
and live many years in the profession of the Christian religion, and yet never
receive the Sacrament of CHRIST’S Body and Blood in all their lives. And but
very few that receive it above once or twice a year; which is a great reproach
and shame to the age we live in; but none at all to theChurch: for she is always
ready to administer it, ifpeoplecould be persuaded to come to it. But that they
cannot, or rather will not be; they have still onepretenceor other to excuse
themselves, but none that will excuse them before GOD and their own consciences
another day.

What theirpretencesare, I shall not undertake to determine. They are so many,
that they cannot easily be numbered. And many of them sovainandtrifling, that
they are not worth rehearsing. But the bottom of them all is this; men renounced
the world, the devil, and the flesh in their baptism, but they are loth to do it
in their lives: they then promised to serve GOD, but now they find something
else to do. They have all onesinor other that reigns over them, and captivates
their hearts and affections, so that they cannot endure the thoughts of parting
with it. And they think, as they ought to do, that if they come to the Holy
Sacrament, they mustfirst examine themselves, repent of all their sins, turn to
GOD, renew their baptismal vow, and resolve to lead a new life. But this they
are resolved not to do. And if they should come to the Sacrament, it would but
disturb their quiet, make them uneasy in their minds, and hinder them from
enjoying the pleasure they were wont to take in all their sins. And for their
part, they had rather displease GOD than themselves; and neglect their duty
rather than leave their sins. And to add sin to sin, and "treasure up to
themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous
judgment of GOD." This is plainly the case of most of those who live in the
neglect of His Holy Commandment. And what can be said to such men? so long as
such, they are not fit to come to the Communion. And therefore all that can be
said to them, is only to beg of them to consider their condition before it be
too late, and repent as soon as they can: lest they die, as they have lived, in
sin, and so be punished with "everlasting destruction from the "presence of the
LORD, and from the glory of His power." But there are others who do receive the
Sacrament of CHRIST’S Body and Blood sometimes, as perhapstwoorthreetimes in a
year; and my charity prompts me to believe, that they would do itoftener, if
they thought it to be theirduty. But there are some things which at first sight
may seem, at least to them, to plead their excuse; and therefore deserve to be
duty considered by us. As first, they say, our Church requires them only to
receive three times a year: and they do not question but she would oblige them
to receive it oftener, if it was necessary. This is a mistake that a great many
have fallen into, and by that means have been kept from the Sacrament more than
otherwise they would have been. I call it a mistake; for it is so, and a very
great one. For as in all things else, so particularly in this, our Church keeps
close to the pattern of the Apostolic and Primitive Church; when, as I have
before observed, the LORD’S Supper was administered and received commonlyevery
dayin the week, but most constantly upon the LORD’S Day. And our Church
supposeth it to be so still, and therefore hath accordingly made provision for
it. Which, that I may fully demonstrate to you, it will be necessary to inquire
into the sense and practice of our Church in this point all along from the
beginning of the Reformation, or, to speak more properly, from the time when she
was restored to that Apostolical form which she is now of, as she was at first;
which we date from the reign of King Edward VI. For in the first year of that
pious prince, the Liturgy, or Book of Common Prayer, was first compiled; and in
the second it was settled by Act of Parliament. In which book it is ordered,
that the Exhortation to those who are minded to receive the Sacrament, shall be
read; which is there set down, much the same that we read now. But afterwards it
is said, "in Cathedral Churches, or other places where there is daily Communion,
it shall be sufficient to read this Exhortation above written once in a month.
And in Parish Churches upon the week-days it may be left unsaid." Fol. 123.
Where we may observe, first, that in those days there was daily Communion in
Cathedral Churches, and other places, as there used to be in the Primitive
Church. And accordingly I find, in the records of St. Paul’s, that when the
plate, jewels, &c. belonging to the said Cathedral, were delivered to the King’s
Commissioners, they, upon the Dean and Chapter’s request, permitted to remain,
among other things, "two pair of basyns for to bring the Communion Bread, and to
receive the offerings for the poor; whereof one pair silver, for every day, the
other for festivals, &c. gilt." (Dugdal Hist. of St. Paul’s, page 274.) From
whence it is plain, that the Communion was then celebrated in that Church every
day. And so it was even in Parish Churches. For otherwise it needed not to be
ordered as it is in the Rubric above mentioned, that in Parish Churches upon the
week-days the said Exhortation may be left unsaid. And to the same purpose it is
afterwards said, "when the Holy Communion is celebrated on the work-day, or in
private houses, then may be omitted the Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, the
Homily, and the Exhortation." Fol. 132.

Next after that we quoted first, this Rubric immediately follows; "And if upon
the Sunday or Holy-day, the people be negligent to come to the Communion, then
shall the Priest earnestly exhort his parishioners to dispose themselves to the
receiving of the Holy Communion more diligently, saying," &c. Which shows, that
upon all Sundays and Holy-days people then generally received; the Church
expected and required it of them. And if any Minister found that his
parishioners did not always come, at least upon those days, he was to exhort and
admonish them to dispose themselves more diligently for it; and that by the
command of the Church itself; whereby she hath sufficiently declared her will
and desire, that all her members should receive the Communion as they did in the
Primitive times, every day in the week if possible; and if that could not be,
yet at least every Sunday and Holy-day in the year. In the Rubric after the
Communion Service, there are several things to the same purpose; for it is there
ordered, that upon Wednesdays and Fridays,although there be none to communicate,
the Priest shall say all things at the Altar appointed to be said at the
celebration of the LORD’S Supper, until after the Offertory. And then it
follows: "And the same order shall be used whensoever the people be customably
assembled to pray in the Church, and none disposed to communicate with the
Priest." Fol. 130. Whereby we are given to understand, that upon what day soever
people came to Church, the Priest was to be ready to celebrate the Holy
Sacrament if any were disposed to communicate with him. And if there were none,
he was to show his readiness, by reading a considerable part of the Communion
Service.

There is another Rubric in the same place, that makes it still plainer. Which I
shall transcribe, because the book is not commonly to be had; neither can it be
expressed better than in its words, which are these: "Also, that the receiving
of the Sacrament of the Blessed Body and Blood of CHRIST, may be most agreeable
to the Institution thereof, and to the usage of the Primitive Church, in all
Cathedral and Collegiate Churches there shall always some communicate with the
Priest that ministereth. And that the same may be also observed every where
abroad in the country, some one at the least of that house in every Parish, to
whom by course, after the ordinance herein made, it appertaineth to offer for
the charges of the Communion; or some other whom they shall provide to offer for
them, shall receive the Holy Communion with the Priest; the which may be the
better done, for that they know before when their course cometh, and may
therefore dispose themselves to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament. And with
him or them, who doth so offer the charges of the Communion, all other who be
then godly disposed thereunto, shall likewise receive the Communion. And by this
means the Minister having always some to communicate with him, may accordingly
solemnize so High and Holy Mysteries, with all the suffrages and due order
appointed for the same. And the Priest on the week day shall forbear to
celebrate the Communion, except he have some that will communicate with him."

Here we see what care the Church took that the Sacrament might be daily
administered, not only in Cathedral, but likewise inParish Churches. For which
purpose, whereas every Parishioner had before been used to find the Holy Loaf,
as it was called, in hiscourse; in the Rubric before this, it is ordained that
every Pastor or Curate shall find sufficient Bread and Wine for theCommunion;
and that the Parishioners every one in his course, shall offer the charges of it
at the Offertory to the Pastor or Curate; and in this it is ordained that every
such Parishioner shall then in his course communicate, or else get some other
per son to do it, that so the Communion may be duly celebrated; and all there
present that were godly disposed might partake of it. Which one would have
thought as good a Provision as could have been made in the case. But
notwithstanding, through the obstinacy or carelessness of some, in not making
their said offering as they were commanded, it sometimes failed; as appears from
the Letter written about a year after by the Privy Council, and subscribed by
the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, to the Bishops, to assure them that the
King intended to go on with the Reformation, wherein among other things they
say: "And farther, whereas it is come to our knowledge that divers froward and
obstinate persons do refuse to pay towards the finding of Bread and Wine for the
Holy Communion, according to the order prescribed in the said book, by reason
whereof the Holy Communion is many times omitted upon the Sunday. These are to
will and command you to convent such obstinate persons before you, and them to
admonish and command to keep the order prescribed in the said book. And if any
such shall refuse so to do, to punish them by suspension, excommunication, or
"other censures of the Church." (Hist. of Reform. Part II. Coll. p. 192.) From
whence we may also learn how much they were troubled to hear that the Holy
Sacrament was ally where omitted even upon the Sunday, upon any Sunday; how
great afaultandscandalthey judged it to be, and what care they took to prevent
it for the future. This was the state of this affair at the beginning of the
Reformation, and it continues in effect the same to this day. About three or
four years after the aforesaid Book of Common Prayer first came out, it was
revised, and set forth again with some alterations in the form, but none that
were material in the substance of it. Only the former way of the Parishioners
finding Bread and Wine for the Communion every one in hiscourse, being now found
not so effectual as was expected; that was now laid aside, and it was ordered to
be provided at the charges of the Parish in general, in these words: "The Bread
and Wine for the Communion shall be provided by the Curate and Church "wardens,
at the charges of the Parish; and the Parish shall be discharged of such sums of
money or other duties, which hitherto they have paid for the same, by order of
their houses, every Sunday." Where we may take notice, that as hitherto it had
been provided every Sunday by the houses of every Parish, as they lay in order,
it was now to be provided by the Minister and Churchwardens, at the charges of
the whole Parish, but still every Sunday, as it was before; which being the most
certain way that could be found out for it, it is still continued. The first
part of this Rubric, whereby it is enjoined, being still in force. But the
latter part, from these words, "and the Parish shall be discharged," &c. is now
left out, as it was necessary it should be, after the former course had been
disused for above an hundred years.

Now this Book of Common Prayer, which was thus settled by Act of Parliament, in
the fifth and sixth year of Edward the VI., was that which was afterwards
confirmed in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, with one alteration or
addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form
of the Litany altered, and corrected, with two sentences only added in the
delivery of the Sacrament to the Communicants. These were all the alterations
that were then made, or indeed that have been ever made since that time to this,
except it be in words or phrases, in the addition of some prayers, and in some
such inconsiderable things, as do not at all concern our present purpose. For
the care of our Church, to have the Holy Communion constantly celebrated, hath
been the same all along, from the time that the Book of Common Prayer before
spoken of, was first settled. As may be easily proved from that which was
established by the last Act of Uniformity. Which therefore I shall now briefly
consider, so far as it relates to the business in hand; that we may understand
the sense of our Church at present concerning it. For this purpose therefore we
may first observe that the Communion Service is appointed for the Communion
itself, and therefore called the Order for the Administration of the LORD’S
Supper, or Holy Communion. Now our Church supposing, or at least hoping that
some of her members will receive this Holy Communion every day, hath taken care
that this service may be used every day in the week, as appears from the Rubric
immediately before the proper lessons, which is this: "Note also, that the
Collect, Epistle, and Gospel appointed for the Sunday, shall serve all the week
after, where it is not in this book otherwise ordered." But the Collect,
Epistle, and Gospel are part of the Communion Service, for which there is no
occasion on the week days; neither can it be used except the Communion be
administered, which therefore is here supposed to be doneevery dayin the week.
And so it is also in the celebration of the Communion itself, where there are
proper prefaces appointed to be used upon certain days. Upon Christmas-day and
seven days after. Upon Easter-day and seven days after. Upon Ascension-day and
seven days after. Upon Whit-Sunday and six days after (the next day being
Trinity Sunday, which hath one peculiar to itself). Now to what purpose are
these prefaces appointed to be used seven days together, or six, none of which
can be a Sunday, if the Sacrament ought not to be administered upon all those
days, and so upon week days as well as Sundays? They are all, as I intimated
before, to be used in the actual Administration of it, and therefore plainly
suppose it to be actually administered upon each of those days, which being for
the most part neither Sundays nor Holy-days, they most evidently demonstrate,
that according to the mind and order of our Church, as well as the Primitive,
the LORD’S Supper ought to be administeredevery day, that all who live as they
ought, in her Communion, may be daily partakers of it. In the rules and orders
(which we call the Rubric), after the Communion Service, there are several
things that deserve to be considered in this case. It is there ordered, that
there shall be no celebration of the Communion, except there be a convenient
number; that is,four, orthreeat the least, to communicate with the Priest.
According to which rule, although the Priest have all things ready, and desires
to consecrate and receive the Holy Sacrament himself, yet he must not do it,
unless he have such a number to communicate with him, that it may be properly a
Communion. But, as it is there ordered, "Upon the Sundays and other Holy-days
(if there be no Communion) shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion
until the end of the general prayer (for the good estate of the Catholic Church
of CHRIST);" where we may observe, that the Church, as I have shown, appoints
the Sacrament to be administeredevery day. But if it so fall out, that there be
not in any place a convenient number to communicate with the Priest, and by
consequence, according to the order before mentioned, no Communion; yet
nevertheless upon Sundays and other Holy-days so much of the Communion Service
shall be said as is there limited. Why only upon Sundays and Holy-days, but to
distinguish them from other days, on which if there be a sufficient number of
Communicants, the whole Communion Service is to be used; but no part of it,
except there be so; but upon Sundays and Holy-days, although there be not such a
number, and therefore no Communion; yet, however, the Priest shall go up to the
Altar, and there read all that is appointed to be said at the Communion, until
the end of the prayer for CHRIST’S Catholic Church; whereby the people may see,
that neitherhenor theChurchis to be blamed, if the Holy Sacrament benotthen
administered. For as much as he is there ready by the order of the Church to do
it, and goes as far as he can in the Service appointed for it, without the
actual administration of it; and therefore that the fault is wholly in
themselves that it is notactuallyadministered, because they will not make up a
convenient number among them to communicate with him. Which is a most excellent
order; for the people hereby have not only GOD’S Holy Commandments solemnly
proclaimed, the Epistle and Gospel for the day, the Nicene Creed, and prayers
proper for that occasion read to them; but they are likewise put in mind of
their duty to their SAVIOUR in receiving His most Blessed Body and Blood, and
upbraided with their neglect of it. For which purposes also, I think it very
expedient, that the order of the Church for the reading that part of the Service
at the Communion Table, even when there is no Communion, be duly observed. The
next Rubric, in the same place, that concerns our present business, is this; "
And in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Colleges, where there are many
Priests and Deacons, they shall all receive the Communion with the Priest every
Sunday at the least, except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary." Where
we see that the Church doth not command, but supposes that the Sacrament is
constantly administered in all such places; taking it for granted, that it is
never omitted there, where there are so many persons devoted to the service of
GOD; but that there is always a sufficient number tocommunicate. But she
absolutely commands, that all Priests and Deacons that belong to such
foundations, shall receive theCommunionwith thePriesteverySundayat the least,
except any o£ them have a reasonable cause to the contrary (which the Ordinary
of the place, I suppose, is to be judge of): they are bound therefore, all and
every one of them, to receive it every Sunday, which notwithstanding they cannot
do, unless it be administered every Sunday among them. Wherefore if there be any
such places where it is not soadministered, or any such persons who do not,
without just cause to the contrary,receiveit everySundayin the year, I do not
see how they can answer it to GOD, to the Church, or to their ownconsciences,
Neither are they bound to receive it only everySunday, butevery Sunday at the
least: which plainly supposeth that it is administered uponotherdays as well
asSundays. For otherwise they could not receive itoftener, if they would. And it
is to be hoped, that all such persons receive it as often as it is administered
among them. But the Church expressly requires them toreceiveit at least every
Sunday, so as never to omit it at least uponthatday, except they have a
reasonable, or such a cause to the contrary as will justify their omission of it
before the Church, and CHRIST Himself at the last day. These things being thus
briefly explained, we shall easily see into the meaning of the words that gave
us the occasion to discourse of them, which are these, in the place last quoted;
And note, that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in
the year, of whichEASTERto be one. From whence some have been tempted to think,
that the Church doth not look upon it as necessary that they should communicate
abovethricea year. I say, tempted to think so. For no man surely in his right
wits can of himself draw such an inference from these words, which is so
directly contrary to the sense of the Church, and hath no foundation at all in
the words themselves. For the Church, as I have shown, hath taken all the care
she can, that the Holy Sacrament should be every where administered, if it was
possible, every day, at least every Sunday and Holy-Day in the year; which she
would never have done, if she had thought it sufficient for any one to receive
onlythricea year. For then all her care about thefrequentadministration of it,
would be in vain, and to no purpose. And besides, she hath drawn up an excellent
exhortation to be read by the Minister of every parish, in case he sees the
people negligent to come to the Holy Communion, beginning thus: "Dearly beloved,
on—I intend by GOD’S Grace, to celebrate the LORD’S Supper." Where we may
observe, that it is not said on such a Sunday, but on——with a blank, to shew
that the Minister may appoint the Communion on any day of the week, when he can
have a sufficient number to communicate with him; and so it is in the other
exhortation; only there isdayput in, which may be understood of Tuesday or
Wednesday, or any other day as well as Sunday, for the same reason. In that
first mentioned, the Minister, in the words, and by the order of the Church,
invites all there present, and beseecheth them for the LORD JESUS CHRIST’S sake,
to come to the LORD’SSupper. And among other things, he saith to them all, "I
bid you in the name of GOD, I call you in CHRIST’S behalf, I exhort you as you
love your own salvation, that ye will be partakers of this Holy Communion."
There are several such pathetical expressions in that Exhortation, wherewith the
Church most earnestly exhorts, adviseth, admonisheth all persons to come to this
Holy Sacrament. And this Exhortation every Minister is to read publicly before
all his congregation, whensoever he sees them negligent to come to it; as all
are, who come buttwoorthreetimes a year, where they may have it oftener if they
will. They plainly live in theneglectof it, and therefore ought to have this
Exhortation read to them, according to the order of the Church. Whereby she hath
sufficiently demonstrated, that she doth not think it enough for people
generally to receive it onlythreetimes in a year; but that it is her opinion,
that they ought, and her hearty desire they would receive it as often as it is,
or, according to her order, ought to be, administered among them. But then she
wisely considers withal, that being a National Church, made up of all sorts of
persons, it is necessary that her generalRulesandOrdersshould be accommodated,
as much as possible, to the several conditions and circumstances that many of
them may be sometimes in. And therefore, although she exhorts all her members
tofrequentandconstantCommunion, yet she does not think fit to command, and
oblige them all, under the pain ofexcommunication, to receive oftener
thanthreetimes a year, lest some might be thereby tempted to come sometimes
without that preparation and disposition of mind that is requisite to the worthy
partaking of so great a Mystery. I say, under pain of excommunication; for that
is the meaning and the effect of this law, that they who do not communicate at
least three times in a year, may, and ought to be cast out of the communion of
CHRIST’S Church, as no longer fit to be called Christians, seeing they live in
such a gross neglect of CHRIST’S own command, and of that duty whereby
Christians are in an especial manner distinguished from other men. Other men, as
Jews, Turks, and Heathens, may fast and pray and hear Sermons, in their way; but
to receive the Sacrament of CHRIST’S Supper, is proper and peculiar only to
Christians, or such as profess that religion which JESUS CHRIST hath settled in
the world. And therefore they who receive the Sacrament, do thereby manifest
themselves to be Christians. They who do it not, make it at least doubtful
whether they be Christians or no; for although they were baptized, and so made
Christians once, who knows whether they have not renounced their baptism and
apostatized from the Christian religion? They themselves perhaps may profess
they have not; but the Church can never know it, but hath just cause to suspect
the contrary, so long as they refuse to renew the vow they made in the Sacrament
of Baptism, by receiving that of the LORD’S Supper. And the least that can be
required of them for that purpose, is to do itthreetimes a year; which therefore
the Church absolutely requires; not that it is not necessary for them to receive
itoftener, in order to their salvation; but because it is necessary they should
do it at leastso often,that the Church may be satisfied that they continue in
their communion, and constant to that religion wherein alone salvation can be
had. And hence it is, that in the rule itself, it is not said thatevery person,
butevery parishioner, shall communicate at the least three times in the year;
which therefore is required of all, not as they are members only of theCatholic,
but as they are members of aParochialChurch; and they are bound by this law to
do it at least so often in their ownParish Church, where they are parishioners:
otherwise they do not do it as parishioners, as the law requires. So that
although a man communicates an hundred times in any other place; as in the
Cathedral, which is free to all of the Diocess, or in a Chapel of Ease, or in
any otherChurch, when he can have it at his own, this does not satisfy the law.
But he must communicate at leastthreetimes in the year, as a parishioner, in his
ownParish Church, where there are officers called Churchwardens, appointed on
purpose to take notice of it, and to inform theChurchagainst him, if he neglect
to do it so often as she requires. That she may use the most effectual means to
bring him to repentance for his sin, and to make him more careful for the future
to perform so great and necessary a duty as this is; or if he continue
obstinate, cut him off from the Body of CHRIST, as no longer worthy to be called
a member of it. And therefore all that can be reasonably inferred from this law,
is, that theChurchdoth not think them fit to communicate at all, who will not
communicate at leastthreetimes in the year. But as for her opinion of
thenecessityof communicating oftener, in order to men’s obtaining eternal
salvation by the Blood of CHRIST, that she hath sufficiently declared, by the
great care she hath taken, to have thisHoly Sacramentadministered constantly,as
oftenas it was in theApostles’andPrimitivetime of Christianity; that is,as
oftenas any Christian can desire to have it. For according to the order and
discipline of our Church, if a sufficient number ofparishioners, against whom
there is no just exception, desire to receive it everySunday, orevery dayin the
year, the Minister of their parish not only may, but, as I humbly conceive, is
bound toconsecrateandadministerit to them. The want of such a number being, as
far as I can perceive, the only reason that can ever justify the omission of it.

I have endeavoured to set this matter in as clear a light as I could, because it
will discover to us, several things very observable concerning the Church we
live in. For hereby we see how exactly she follows the pattern of the Primitive
and Apostolic Church in this particular, as well as others; what great care she
hath taken that the Bread and Water of Life may be duly distributed to all her
members whensoever they hunger and thirst after it. With how great prudence she
hath so ordered it, that all may have it as often as they will, and yet none
compelled to receive it oftener than it is absolutely necessary, in order to
their manifesting themselves to continue in the faith of CHRIST. How desirous
she is that all would receive it constantly, and yet how careful that none may
receive it unworthily. How uniform she hath been in her orders about it all
along; and by consequence, what cause we all have to bless GOD, that we live in
the communion of such a Church; and how much it behoves us to receive the Holy
Communion of her; not only as often as she strictly commands all to receive it,
under the pain ofexcommunication, but as often as she adviseth and exhorteth us
to do it in order to our eternal salvation, and as she is ready and desirous to
communicate it to us; And then we should be sure to receive it as often as we
are bound, either in duty to GOD, or by our own interest to do it.

* * * * The Blessed Body and Blood of CHRIST, received, as it ought to be, with
quick and lively faith, will most certainly have its desired effect. But it
operates, for the most part, upon oursouls, as our ordinary food doth upon
ourbodies, insensibly and by degrees. Weeatanddrinkevery day, and by that means
our bodies grow to their full stature, and are then kept up in life, health, and
vigour, though we ourselves know not how this is done, nor perhaps take any
notice of it. So it is with this spiritual meat and drink, which GOD hath
prepared for our souls. By eating and drinking frequently of it, we grow by
degrees in grace, and in the "knowledge of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST,"
and still continue steadfast and active in the true faith and fear of GOD;
though after all, we may be no way sensible how this wonderful effect is wrought
in us, but only as we find it to be so by our own experience. And if we do
‘that, we have no cause to complain that we get nothing by it; for we get more
than all the world is worth; being strengthened in the inward man, and so made
more fit for the service of GOD, more constant in it, and more able to perform
it; or at least are kept from falling back, and preserved from many sins and
temptations, which otherwise we might be exposed to; and this surely is enough
to make any one that really minds the good of his soul, tohungerandthirstafter
this Bread and Water of life, and toeat and drinkit asoftenas he can, although
he do not presently feel the happy effect of it, as some have done, and as he
himself some times may, when GOD seeth it necessary or convenient for him. In
the mean while he may rest satisfied in his mind, that he is in the way that
CHRIST hath made to Heaven; and thank GOD for giving him somany opportunitiesof
partaking of CHRIST’S Body and Blood, and also grace to lay hold of them, to
improve them to his ownunspeakablecomfort, such as usually attends the worthy
receiving of the LORD’SSupper: whereby we are not only put in mind of the great
Sacrifice which the SON of GOD offered for our sins, but likewise have it
actuallycommunicatedunto us, for ourpardonandreconciliationto the ALMIGHTY
GOVERNOR of the world, which is the greatest comfort we can have on this side
Heaven; so great, that we shallneverbe able to express it unto others, how
deeply soever we may be affected with it in ourselves. And though we be not
always thussensiblycheered and refreshed with it, as we could wish to be,
howsoever we can never receive the blessed Sacrament, but we have the pleasure
andsatisfactionof havingdoneour duty to our MAKER and REDEEMER, which far
exceeds all the comforts of this life, and therefore may well stay our stomachs
till GOD sees good to give us more.

* * * * The oftener we do it, [partake the LORD’S Supper,] the more I expert we
shall be at it, and the morebenefitandcomfortwe shall receive from it. It is
very difficult, if not impossible, for those who do it only now and then, (as
once or twice a year,) ever to do it as they ought; for every time they come to
it, they must begin as it I were again; all the impressions which were made upon
their minds I at the last Sacrament, being worn out before the next; and it I
being a thing they are not accustomed to, they are as much to seek I how to do
it now, as if they had never done it before. It is by frequent acts that habits
are produced. It is by often eating and drinking this spiritual food, that we
learn how to do it, so as to digest and convert it into proper nourishment for
our souls. And therefore I do not wonder that they who do it seldom, I never do
it as they ought, nor by consequence, get any good by it, I should rather wonder
if they did. But let any man do it often, and always according to the directions
before laid down, and my life for his, he shall never lose his labour; but,
whether he perceives it or not, he will grow in grace, and gather spiritual
strength every time more and more.

If such considerations as these will not prevail upon men, to lay aside their
little excuses for the neglect of so great a duty, and to resolve for the future
upon the more constant performance of it; for my part, I know not what will and
therefore shall say no more, but that I never expect to see our Church settled,
Primitive Christianity revived, and true piety and virtue flourish again among
us, till the Holy Communion be oftener celebrated, than it hath been of late, in
all places of the Kingdom: and am sure, that if people were but sensible of the
great advantage it would be to them, they would need no other arguments to
persuade them to frequent it as often as they can. For we should soon find, as
many have done already, by experience, that this is the great means appointed by
our Blessed REDEEMER, whereby to communicate Himself, and all the merits of His
most precious Death and Passion to us, for the pardon of all our sins, and for
the "purging our consciences from dead works to serve the living GOD." So that
by applying ourselves thus constantly unto Him, we may receive constant supplies
of grace and power from Him to live in His true faith and fear all our days; and
by conversing so frequently with Him at His Holy Table upon earth, we shall be
always fit and ready to go to Him, and to converse perpetually with Him at His
Kingdom I above, where we shall have no need of Sacraments, but shall see Him
face to face, and adore and praise Him for ever; as for all His other blessings,
so particularly for the many opportunities he hath given us, of partaking of His
most Blessed Body and Blood.

OXFORD, The Feast of the Purification.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: 27 - THE HISTORY OF POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION;
========================================================================

THE HISTORY OF POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION; TO WHICH IS OPPOSED THE CATHOLIC
DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, THE ANCIENT FATHERS, AND THE REFORMED CHURCHES.

(By John Cosin, Bishop of Durham.)

[Number 27]

CHAPTER I. The Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper.

THOSE words which our Blessed SAVIOUR used in the institution of the blessed
Sacrament of the Eucharist, "This is My Body which is given for you; this is My
Blood which is shed for you, for the remission of sins;" are held and
acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible: and if any
one dares oppose them, or call in question CHRIST’S veracity, or the truth of
His words, or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them, except he be allowed
to make a mere figment, or a bare figure of them, we cannot, and ought not,
either excuse or suffer him in our Churches; for we must embrace and hold for an
undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture. And therefore we can as
little doubt of what CHRIST saith, John 6:55, "My Flesh is meat indeed, and My
Blood is drink indeed;" which, according to St. Paul, are both given to us by
the consecrated Elements; for he calls the Bread, "the Communion of CHRIST’S
Body," and the Cup, "the Communion of His Blood."

Hence it is most evident, that the Bread and Wine, (which according to St. Paul
are the Elements of the holy Eucharist), are neither changed as to their
substance, nor vanished, nor reduced to nothing, but are solemnly consecrated by
the words of CHRIST, that by them His blessed Body and Blood may be communicated
to us. And further it appears from the same words, that the expression of CHRIST
and the Apostle, is to be understood in a sacramental and mystic sense; and that
no gross and carnal presence of body and blood can be maintained by them. And
though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signify the blessed
Eucharist, yet the Christian Church, ever since its Primitive ages, hath given
it that name, and always called the presence of CHRIST’S Body and Blood therein,
Mystic and Sacramental. Now a Sacramental expression doth, without any
inconvenience, give to the sign the name of the thing signified; and such is as
well the usual way of speaking, as the nature of Sacraments, that not only the
names, but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibit,
are given to the outward Elements. Hence (as I said before) the Bread is as
clearly or positively called by the Apostle, the Communion of the Body of
CHRIST. This also seems very plain, that our Blessed SAVIOUR’S design was not so
much to teach, what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance,
as what is their use and office and signification in this mystery; for the Body
and Blood of our SAVIOUR are not only fitly represented by the Elements, but
also, by virtue of His institution, really offered to all, by them, and so eaten
by the faithful mystically and sacramentally; whence it is, that "He truly is
and abides in us, and we in Him." This is the spiritual (and yet no less true
and undoubted than if it were corporal) eating of CHRIST’S Flesh, not indeed
simply as it is flesh, without any other respect, (for so it is not given,
neither would it profit us), but as it is crucified andgivenfor the redemption
of the world; neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing, that
this eating of CHRIST’S body is spiritual, and that by it the souls of the
faithful, and not their stomachs, are fed by the operation of the HOLY GHOST;
for this none can deny, but they who being strangers to the Spirit and the
divine virtue, can savour only carnal things, and to whom, what is spiritual and
sacramental, is the same as if a mere nothing. As to themannerof the presence of
the Body and Blood of our LORD in the Blessed Sacrament, we that are Protestant
and Reformed according to the ancient Catholic Church, do not search into the
manner of it with perplexing inquiries; but, after the example of the Primitive
and purest Church of CHRIST, we leave it to the power and wisdom of our LORD,
yielding a full and unfeigned assent to His words. Had the Romish maintainers of
Transubstantiation done the same, they would not have determined and decreed,
and then imposed as an article of faith absolutely necessary to salvation, a
manner of presence, newly by them invented, under pain of the most direful
curse, and there would have been in the Church less wrangling, and more peace
and unity than now is.

CHAPTER II.

Illustrated from Protestant Authorities. So then, none of the Protestant
Churches doubt of the real (that is, true and not imaginary,) presence of
CHRIST’S Body and Blood in the Sacrament; and there appears no reason why any
man should suspect their common confession, of either fraud or error, as though
in this particular they had in the least departed from the Catholic faith. For
it is easy to produce the consent of Reformed Churches and authors, whereby it
will clearly appear, (to them that are not wilfully blind,) that they all
zealously maintain and profess this truth, without forsaking in any wise the
true Catholic faith in this matter.I begin with the Church of England ..It
teacheth therefore, "that in the Blessed Sacrament, the Body of CHRIST is given,
taken, and eaten; so that to the worthy receivers, the consecrated and broken
Bread is the communication of the Body of CHRIST; and likewise the consecrated
Cup the communication of His Blood; but that the wicked, and they that approach
unworthily the Sacrament of so sacred a thing, eat and drink their own
damnation, in that they become guilty of the Body and Blood of CHRIST. "And the
same Church, in a solemn prayer before the consecration, prays thus; "Grant us,
gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son JESUS CHRIST, and to drink
His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body, and our souls
washed through His most precious blood; and that we may evermore dwell in Him,
and He in us." The Priest also, blessing or consecrating the Bread and Wine,
saith thus; "Hear us, O merciful FATHER, we most humbly beseech Thee, and grant
that we receiving these Thy creatures of Bread and Wine according to Thy Son our
Saviour JESUS CHRIST’S holy institution, in remembrance of His Death and
Passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood." …. The same, when
he gives the Sacrament to the people kneeling, giving the bread, saith; "The
Body of our LORD JESUS CHRIST which was given for thee, preserve thy body and
soul unto everlasting life." Likewise when he gives the cup, he saith, "The
Blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and
soul to everlasting life." Afterwards, when the Communion is done, follows a
thanksgiving; " Almighty and everliving GOD, we most heartily thank Thee, for
that Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy
mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of Thy
Son, our Saviour JESUS CHRIST ;" with the Hymn,Glory be to God on high, &c. Also
in the public authorised Catechism of our Church, appointed to be learned of
all, it is answered to the question concerning the inward part of the Sacrament,
that "it is the Body and Blood of CHRIST which are verily and indeed taken and
received by the faithful in the LORD’S Supper." And in the Apology for this
Church, writ by that worthy and Reverend Prelate Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, it
is expressly affirmed, "that to the faithful is truly given in the Sacrament the
Body and Blood of our LORD, the life-giving Flesh of the SON of GOD which
quickens our souls, the Bread that came from Heaven, the Food of immortality,
grace and truth, and life; and that it is the Communion of the Body and Blood of
CHRIST, that we may abide in Him, and He in us; and that He may be ascertained
that the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST is the food of our souls, as bread and wine
is of our bodies."

**** The right Reverend Doctors, T. Bilson, and L. Andrews, Prelates both of
them, thoroughly learned, and great defenders of the Primitive Faith, .... made
it most evident by their printed writings, that the Faith and Doctrine of the
Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures, and the
Divinity of the Ancient Fathers. And as to what regards this mystery, the first
treats of it, in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Alan, and the last in his
Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine, where you may find things worthy
to be read and noted as follows. "CHRIST said, This is My Body; in this, the
object, we are agreed with you, the manner only is controverted. We hold by a
firm belief, that it is the Body of CHRIST, of the manner how it comes to be so,
there is not a word in the Gospel; and because the Scripture is silent in this,
we justly disown it to be a matter of faith; we may indeed rank it among tenets
of the school, but, by no means, among the Articles of our Christian Belief. We
like well of what Durandus is reported to have said, ‘We hear the word, and feel
the motion, we know not the manner, and yet believe the presence;’ for we
believe a real presence no less than you do. We dare not be so bold as
presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true presence; or
rather, we do not so much as trouble ourselves with being inquisitive about it;
no more than in Baptism, how the Blood of CHRIST washeth us: or in the
Incarnation of our Redeemer, how the divine and human natures were united
together. We put it in the number of sacred things, or sacrifices, (the
Eucharist itself being a Sacred Mystery,) whereof the remnants ought to be
consumed with fire; that is, (as the Fathers elegantly have it,) adored by
faith, but not searched by reason."

**** As for the opinion and belief of the German Protestants, it w ill be known
chiefly by the Augustan Confession, presented to Charles the Fifth by the
Princes of the Empire, and other great persons. For they teach, that "not only
the bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of CHIRIST, are truly given to the
receivers;" or, as it is in another edition, that "the Body and Blood of CHRIST
are truly present, and distributed to the communicants in the LORD’S Supper;"
and refute those that teach otherwise. They also declare, "that we must so use
the Sacraments, as to believe and embrace by faith, those things promised which
the Sacraments offer and convey to us." Yet we may observe here, that faith
makes not those things present which are promised; for faith, as it is well
known, is more properly said to take and apprehend, than to promise or perform:
but the Word and Promise of GOD, on which our faith is grounded, (and not faith
itself,) make that present which is promised; as it was agreed at a conference
at St. German, betwixt some Protestants and Papists; and therefore it is
unjustly laid to our charge by some in the Church of Rome, as if we should
believe, that the presence and participation of CHRIST, in the Sacrament, is
effected merely by the power of faith.The Saxon Confession, approved by other
churches, seems to be a repetition of the Augustan. Therein we are taught, that
"Sacraments are actions divinely instituted; and that, although the same things
or actions in common use, have nothing of the nature of Sacraments, yet when
used according to the divine institution, CHRIST is truly and substantially
present in the Communion, and His Body and Blood truly given to the receivers;
so that He testifies that He is in them; as St. Hilary saith, ‘these things
taken and received make us to be in CHRIST, and CHRIST to be in us."’ The
Confession of Wittemberg, which in the year 1552, was propounded to the Council
of Trent, is like unto this: for it teacheth that "the true Body and Blood of
CHRIST are given in the Holy Communion;" and refutes those that say, "that the
Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are only signs of the absent Body and Blood of
CHRIST."

* * * *

Luther was once of opinion, that the Divines of Basil and Strasbourg did
acknowledge nothing in the LORD’S Supper besides Bread and Wine. To him Bucerus,
in the name of all the rest, did freely answer; "That they all unanimously did
condemn that error; that neither they, nor the Switzers, ever believed or taught
any such thing; that none could expressly be charged with that error, except the
Anabaptists; and that he also had once been persuaded, that Luther in his
writings, attributed too much to the outward symbols, and maintained a grosser
union of CHRIST with the bread than the Scriptures did allow; as though CHRIST
had been corporally present with it, united into a natural substance with the
bread; so that the wicked as well as the faithful were made partakers of grace
by receiving the Element; but that their own doctrine and belief concerning that
Sacrament was, that the true Body and Blood of CHRIST was truly presented,
given, and received together with the visible signs of Bread and Wine, by the
operation of our LORD, and by virtue of His institution, according to the plain
sound and sense of His words; and that not only Zuinglius and OEcolampadius had
so taught, but they also, in the public confessions of the Churches of the Upper
Germany, and other writings, confessed it; so that the controversy was rather
about the manner of the presence or absence, than about the presence or absence
itself." All which Bucer’s associates confirm after him. He also adds; "That the
magistrates in their Churches had denounced very severe punishments to any that
should deny the presence of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the LORD’S Supper."
Bucerus did also maintain this doctrine of the blessed Sacrament in presence of
the Landgrave of Hesse, and Melancthon, confessing, "That together with the
sacrament w e truly and substantially receive the Body of CHRIST." Also, "That
the Bread and Wine are conferring signs, giving what they represent, so that
together with them the Body of CHRIST is given and received." And to these he
adds; "That the Body and Bread are not united in the mixture of their substance,
but in that the Sacrament gives what it promiseth, that ii, the one is never
without the other; and so they agreeing on both parts, that the Bread and Wine
are not changed, he holds such a Sacramental Union." Luther having heard this,
declared also his opinion thus; "That he did not locally include the Body and
Blood of CHRIST with the Bread and Wine, and unite them together by any natural
connexion; and that he did not make proper to the Sacraments that virtue u
hereby they brought salvation to the receivers; but that he maintained only a
sacramental union betwixt the Body of CHRIST and the Bread, and betwixt His
Blood and the Wine; and did teach, that the power of confirming our faith, which
he attributed to the Sacraments, was not naturally inherent in the outward
signs, but proceeded from the operation of CHRIST, and was given by His SPIRIT,
by His words, and by the Elements." And finally, in this manner he spake to all
that were present; "If you believe and teach, that in the LORD’S Supper the true
Body and Blood of CHRIST is given and received and not the Bread and Wine only;
and that this giving and receiving is real and not imaginary, we are agreed, and
we own you for dear Brethren in the LORD." All this is set down at large in the
twentieth tome of Luther’s Works, and in the English Works of Bucer.The next
will be the Gallican Confession, made at Paris in a National Synod, and
presented to King Charles IX. at the Conference of Poissy. Which speaks of the
Sacrament on this wise; "Although CHRIST be in Heaven, where He is to remain
until He come to judge the world, yet we believe that by the secret and
incomprehensible virtue of His Spirit, He feeds and vivifies us by the substance
of His Body and Blood received by faith. Now we say that this is done in a
spiritual manner; not that we believe it to be a fancy and imagination, instead
of a truth and real effect, but rather because that mystery of our union with
CHRIST is of so sublime a nature, that it is as much above the capacity of our
senses, as it is above the order of nature." Item; "We believe that in the
LORD’S Supper God gives us really, that is, truly and efficaciously, whatever is
represented by the Sacrament. With the signs we join the true profession and
fruition of the thing by them offered to us; and so, that Bread and Wine which
are given to us, become our spiritual nourishment, in that they make in some
manner visible to us that the Flesh of CHRIST is our food, and His Blood our
drink. Therefore those fanatics that reject these signs and symbols are by us
rejected, our blessed SAVIOUR having said, ‘this is My Body, and this cup is My
blood."’ This Confession hath been subscribed by the Church of Geneva.

* * * *

Now because great is the fame of Calvin (who subscribed the Augustan Confession,
and that of the Switzers), let us hear what he writ and believed concerning this
sacred mystery. His words in his Institutions and elsewhere are such, so
conformable to the style and mind of the Ancient Fathers, that no Catholic
Protestant would wish to use any other. "I understand," saith he, "what is to be
understood by the words of CHRIST; that He doth not only offer us the benefits
of His Death and Resurrection, but His very Body, wherein He died and rose
again. I assert that the Body of CHRIST is really (as the usual expression is),
that is truly given to us in the Sacrament, to be the saving food of our souls."
Also in another place; Item; "That word cannot lie, neither can it mock us; and
except one presumes to call GOD a deceiver, he will never dare to say, that the
symbols are empty, and that CHRIST is not in them. Therefore if by the breaking
of the bread our SAVIOUR doth represent the participation of His Body, it is not
to be doubted but that He truly gives and confers it. If it be true that the
visible sign is given us, to seal the gift of an invisible thing, we most firmly
believe that receiving the signs of the Body, we also certainly receive the Body
itself. Setting aside all absurdities, I do willingly admit all those terms that
can most strongly express the true and substantial Communication of the Body and
Blood of CHRIST, granted to the faithful with the symbols of the LORD’S Supper;
and that, not as if they received only by the force of their imagination, or an
act of their minds, but really, so as to be fed thereby unto Eternal Life."
Again, "We must therefore confess that the inward substance of the Sacrament is
joined with the visible sign, so that, as the bread is put into our hand, the
Body of CHRIST is also given to us. This certainly, if there were nothing else,
should abundantly satisfy us, that we understand, that CHRIST, in His Holy
Supper, gives us the true and proper substance of His Body and Blood, that it
being wholly ours, we may be made partakers of all His benefits and graces."
Again, " The SON of GOD offers daily to us in the Holy Sacrament, the same Body
which He once offered in sacrifice to His FATHER, that it may be our spiritual
food." In these he asserts, as clearly as any one can, the true, real, and
substantial Presence and Communication of the Body of CHRIST, but how, he
undertakes not to determine. "If any one," saith he, "ask me concerning the
manner, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too high for my
reason to comprehend, or my tongue to express; or to speak more properly, I
rather feel than understand it: therefore without disputing I embrace the truth
of GOD, and confidently repose on it. He declares that His Flesh is the food,
and His Blood the drink of my soul; and my soul I offer to Him to be fed by such
nourishment. He kids me take, eat, and drink His Body and Blood, which in His
holy Supper He offers me under the symbols of Bread and Wine: I make no scruple,
but He doth reach them to me, and I receive them." All these are Calvin’s own
words.

I was the more willing to be long in transcribing these things at large, out of
Public Confessions of Churches, and the best of Authors; that it might the
better appear, how injuriously Protestant Divines are calumniated by others
unacquainted with their opinions, as though by these words, Spiritually
andSacramentally, they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood real
Presence and Communication of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Blessed
Sacrament; whereas, on the contrary, they do professedly own it, in terms as
express as any can be used.

CHAPTER III.

How the Papists understand the Doctrine of the Spiritual Presence.

HAVING now, by what I have said, put it out of doubt, that the Protestants
believe a spiritual and truepresence of CHRIST in the Sacrament, which is the
reason, that according to the example of the Fathers, they use so frequently the
term spiritual in this subject, it may not be amiss to consider, in the next
place, how the Roman Church understands that same word. Now they make it to
signify, "That CHRIST is not present in the Sacrament, either after that manner
which is natural to corporal things, or that wherein His own body subsists in
heaven, but according to the manner of existence proper to spirits, whole and
entire in each part of the host: and though by Himself He be neither seen,
touched, nor moved, yet in respect of the species or accidents joined with Him,
He may be said to be seen, touched, and moved; and so the accidents being moved,
the Body of CHRIST is truly moved accidentally, as the soul truly changeth place
with the body; so that we truly and properly say, that the Body of CHRIST is
removed, lifted up, and set down, put on the Paten, or on the Altar, and carried
from hand to mouth, and from the mouth to the stomach; as Berengarius was forced
to acknowledge in the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas, that the Body of CHRIST
was sensually touched by the hands, and broken and chewed by the teeth of the
Priest." But all this, and much more to the same effect, was never delivered to
us, either by holy Scripture, or the ancient Fathers. And if souls or spirits
could be present, as here Bellarmine teacheth, yet it would be absurd to say
that bodies could be so likewise, it being inconsistent with their nature.

Indeed Bellarmine confesseth with St. Bernard, that "CHRIST in the Sacrament is
not given to us carnally, but spiritually;" and would to GOD he had rested here,
and not outgone the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Fathers. For
endeavouring, with Pope Innocent III. and the Council of Trent, to determine the
manner of the presence and manducation of CHRIST’S Body, with more nicety than
was fitting, he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before,
denied what he had affirmed, and opposed his own opinion. His fear was lest his
adversaries should apply that word spiritually, not so much to express the
manner of presence, as to exclude the very substance of the Body and Blood of
CHRIST; "therefore," saith he, "upon that account it is not safe to use too much
that of St. Bernard, ‘the body of CHRIST is not corporally in the Sacrament’,
without adding presently the above mentioned explanation." How much do we comply
with human pride, and curiosity, which would seem to understand all things!
Where is the danger? And what does he fear, as long as all they that believe the
Gospel, own the true nature, and the real and substantial presence of the Body
of CHRIST in the Sacrament, using that explication of St. Bernard, concerning,
the manner, which he himself, for the too great evidence of truth, durst not but
admit? and why doth he own that the manner is spiritual, not carnal, and then
require a carnal presence, as to the manner itself? As for us, we all openly
profess with St. Bernard, that the presence of the Body of CHRIST in the
Sacrament, is spiritual, and therefore true and real; and with the same Bernard,
and all the Ancients, we deny that the Body of CHRIST is carnally either present
or given. The thing we willingly admit, but humbly and religiously forbear to
enquire into the manner.

We believe a presence and union of CHRIST with our soul and body, which we know
not how to call better than sacramental, that is, effected by eating; that while
we eat and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine, we eat and drink therewithal
the Body and Blood of CHRIST, not in a corporal manner, but some other way,
incomprehensible, known only to GOD, which we call spiritual; for if with St.
Bernard and the Fathers a man goes no further, we do not find fault with a
general explication of the manner, but with the presumption and
self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual
presence, as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of GOD’S
Holy Spirit. We contrariwise confess with the Fathers, that this manner of
presence is unaccountable, and past finding out, not to be searched and pried
into by reason, but believed by faith. And if it seems impossible that the flesh
of CHRIST should descend, and come to be our food, through so great a distance;
we must remember how much the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our
apprehensions, and how absurd t would be to undertake to measure His immensity
by our weakness and narrow capacity; and so make our faith to conceive and
believe what our reason cannot comprehend.

Yet our faith doth not cause or make that presence, but apprehends it as most
truly and really effected by the word of CHRIST: and the faith whereby we are
said to eat the flesh of CHRIST, is not that only whereby we believe that He
died for our sins, (for this faith is required and supposed to precede the
Sacramental Manducation,) but more properly, that whereby we believe those words
of CHRIST,This is my Body; which was St. Austin’s meaning when he said, "why
dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth? believe and thou hast eaten." For
in this mystical eating by the wonderful power of the HOLY GHOST, we do
invisibly receive the substance of CHRIST’S Body and Blood, as much as if we
should eat and drink both visibly. The result of all this is, that the Body and
Blood of CHRIST are sacramentally united to the Bread and Wine, so that CHRIST
is truly given to the faithful; and yet is not to be here considered with sense
or worldly reason, but by faith, resting on the words of the Gospel. Now it is
said, that the Body and Blood of CHRIST are joined to the Bread and Wine,
because, that in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Flesh is given
together with the Bread, and the Blood together with the Wine. All that remains
is, that we should with faith and humility admire this high and sacred mystery,
which our tongue cannot sufficiently explain, nor our heart conceive.

CHAPTER IV. The Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

IT is an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome, that in the blessed Eucharist
the substance of the Bread and Wine is reduced to nothing, and that in its place
succeeds the Body and Blood of CHRIST. . . . . The Protestants are much of
another 1mind; and yet none of them denies altogether but that there is a
conversion of the Bread into the Body, (and consequently the Wine into the
Blood,) of CHRIST; for they know and acknowledge, that in the Sacrament, by
virtue of the words and blessing of CHRIST, the condition, use, and office of
the Bread is wholly changed, that is, of common and ordinary, it becomes our
mystical and sacramental food; whereby, as they affirm and believe, the true
Body of CHRIST is not only shadowed and figured, but also given indeed, and by
worthy communicants truly received. Yet they believe not that the bread loseth
its own, to become the substance of the Body of CHRIST; for the holy Scripture,
and the ancient interpreters thereof for many ages, never taught such an
essential change and conversion, as that the very substance, the matter, and
form of the bread should be wholly taken away, but only a mysterious and
sacramental one, whereby our ordinary is changed into mystic bread, and thereby
designed and appointed to another use, end, and office than before. This change,
whereby supernatural effects are wrought by things natural, while their essence
is preserved entire, doth best agree with the grace and power of GOD.

There is no reason why we should dispute concerning GOD’S Omnipotency, whether
it can do this or that, presuming to measure an Infinite Power by our poor
ability, which is but weakness. We may grant that He is able to do beyond what
we can think or apprehend, and resolve His most wonderful acts into His absolute
will and power, but we may not charge Him with working contradictions. And
though GOD’S Almightiness were able in this mystery to destroy the substance of
Bread and Wine, and essentially to change it into the Body and Blood of CHRIST,
while the accidents of Bread and Wine subsist of themselves without a subject,
yet we desire to have it proved that GOD will have it so, and that it is so
indeed. For, that GOD doth it because He can, is no argument; and that He wills
it, we have no other proof but the confident assertion of our adversaries.
Tertullian against Praxeas declared "that we should not conclude GOD doth things
because He is able, but that we should inquire what He hath done;" for GOD will
never own that praise of His Omnipotency, whereby His unchangeableness and His
truth are impaired, and those things overthrown and destroyed, which, in His
Word, He affirms to be; for, take away the Bread and Wine, and there remains no
Sacrament.

They that say, that the matter and form of the Bread are wholly abolished, yet
will have the accidents to remain. But if the sub stance of the Bread be changed
into the substance of CHRIST’S Body by virtue of His words, what hinders that
the accidents of the Bread are not also changed into the accidents of CHRIST’S
Body? They that urge the express letter, should show that CHRIST said, "This is
the substance of My body without its accidents." But He did not say, that He
gave His Disciples a phantastic body, such a visionary figment as Marcion
believed, but that very body which is given for us, without being deprived of
that extension and other accidents of human bodies, without which it could not
have been crucified; since the maintainers of transubstantiation grant that the
Body of CHRIST keeps its quantity in heaven, and say it is without the same in
the Sacrament; they must either acknowledge their contradiction in the matter,
or give over their opinion.

Protestants dare not be so curious, or presume to know more than is delivered by
Scripture and antiquity, they firmly believing the words of CHRIST make the form
of this Sacrament to consist in the union of the thing signified with the sign,
that is, the exhibition of the Body of CHRIST with the consecrated Bread, still
remaining bread; by divine appointment these two are made one; and though this
union be not natural, substantial, personal, or local by their being one within
another, yet it is so straight and so true, that in eating the blessed Bread,
the true Body of CHRIST is given to us, and the names of the sign and thing
signified are reciprocally changed, what is proper to the Body is attributed to
the Bread, and what belongs only to the Bread, is affirmed of the Body, and both
are united in time, though not in place. For the presence of CHRIST in this
mystery is not opposed to distance but to absence, which only could deprive us
of the benefit and fruition of the object. From what has been said it appears,
that this whole controversy may be reduced to four heads; 1. Concerning the
Signs; 2. Concerning the thing signified; 3. Concerning the union of both; and
4. Concerning their participation. As to the first, the Protestants differ from
the Papists in this; that according to the nature of Sacraments, and the
doctrine of the holy Scripture, we make the substance of Bread and Wine, and
they accidents only to be signs. In the second, they not understanding our
opinion, do misrepresent it, for we do not hold, (as they say we do,) that only
the merits of the death of CHRIST are represented by the blessed Elements, but
also that His very Body which was crucified, and His Blood which was shed for
us, are truly signified and offered, that our souls may receive and possess
CHRIST, as truly and certainly as the material and visible signs are by us seen
and received. And so in the third place, because the thing signified is offered
and given to us, as truly as the sign itself, in this respect we own the union
betwixt the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and the Elements, whose use and office we
hold to be changed from what it was before. But we deny what the Papists affirm,
that the substance of Bread and Wine are quite abolished, and changed into the
Body and Blood of our LORD in such sort, that the bare accidents of the Elements
do alone remain united with CHRIST’S Body and Blood. And we also deny that the
Elements still retain the nature of Sacraments when not used according, to
divine institution, that is, given by CHRIST’S Ministers, and received by His
people; so that CHRIST in the consecrated bread ought not, cannot be kept and
preserved to be carried about, because He is present only to the communicants.
As for the fourth and last point, we do not say, that in the LORD’S Supper we
receive only the benefits of CHRIST’S death and passion, but we join the ground
wish its fruits, that is, CHRIST with those advantages we receive from Him;
affirming with St. Paul, "That the bread which we break is [koinonia] the
Communion of the Body of CHRIST, and the cup which we bless, the Communion of
His Blood," (1 Corinthians 10:16); of that very substance which He took of the
blessed Virgin, and after wards carried into Heaven; differing from those of
Rome only in this, that they will have our union with CHRIST to be corporal, and
our eating of Him likewise; and we on the contrary maintain it to be, indeed as
true, but not carnal or natural. And as he that receives unworthily, (that is,
with the mouth only, but not with a faithful heart,) eats and drinks his own
damnation; so he that doeth it worthily, receives his absolution and
justification; that is, he thatdiscerns, and then receives the LORD’S Body as
torn, and His Blood as shed for the redemption of the world. But that CHRIST (as
the Papists affirm) should give His Flesh and Blood to be received with the
mouth, and ground with the teeth, . . . . . . this our words and hearts do
utterly deny. So then, (to sum up this controversy by applying it to all that
hath been said,) it is not questioned whether the Body of CHRIST be absent from
the Sacrament duly administered according to his institution, which we
Protestants neither affirm nor believe; for it being given and received in the
Communion, it must needs be that it is present, though in some manner veiled
under the Sacrament, so that of itself it cannot be seen. neither is it doubted
or disputed whether the Bread and Wine, by the power of GOD and a supernatural
virtue, be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use, and raised to a higher
dignity than their nature bears; for we confess the necessity of a supernatural
and heavenly change, and that the signs cannot become Sacraments but by the
infinite power of GOD, whose proper right it is to institute Sacraments in His
Church, being able alone to endue them with virtue and efficacy. Finally, we do
not say that our Blessed SAVIOUR gave only the figure and sign of His body;
neither do we deny a Sacramental Union of the Body and Blood of CHRIST with the
sacred Bread and Wine, so that both are really and substantially received
together: but (that we may avoid all ambiguity) we deny that after the words and
prayer of Consecration, the Bread should remain bread no longer, but should be
changed into the substance of the Body of CHRIST, nothing of the bread, but only
the accidents continuing to be what they were before; and so the whole question
is concerning the Transubstantiation of the outward Elements; whether the
substance of the Bread be turned into the substance of CHRIST’S Body, and the
substance of the Wine into he substance of His Blood; or, as the Romish Doctors
describe their Transubstantiation, whether the substance of bread and wine doth
utterly perish, and the substance of CHRIST’S Body and Blood succeed in their
place, which are both denied by Protestants. The Church of Rome sings on Corpus
Christi day,This is not bread, butGODand Man mySAVIOUR. And the Council of Trent
doth thus define it; "Because CHRIST our Redeemer said truly, that that was His
Body, which he gave in the appearance of bread; therefore it was ever believed
by the Church of GOD, and is now declared by this sacred Synod, that by the
power of Consecration the whole substance of the bread is changed into the
substance of CHRIST’S Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of His Blood; which change it fitly and properly called
Transubstantiation by the holy Catholic (Roman) Church. Therefore, if any one
shall say, that the substance of Bread and Wine remains with the Body and Blood
of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST, and shall deny that wonderful and singular con
version of the whole substance of the Bread and Wine into the substance of the
Body and Blood of CHRIST, the only appearance and outward form of the Bread and
Wine remaining, which conversion the Catholic (Roman) Church doth fitly call
Transubstantiation,—let him be accursed."

* * * *

Now we leave inquiring what GOD is able to do, for we should first know His will
in this matter, before we examine His power; yet thus much we say, that this
Roman Transubstantiation is so strange and monstrous, that it exceeds the nature
of all miracles. And though GOD by His Almightiness be able to turn the
substance of bread into some other substance, yet none will believe that He doth
it, as long as it appears to our senses, that the substance of the Bread doth
still remain whole and entire. Certain it is, that hitherto we read of no such
thing done in the Old or New Testament, and therefore this tenet, being as
unknown to the Ancients as it is ungrounded in Scripture, appears as yet to be
very incredible, and there is no reason we should believe such an unauthorised
figment, newly invented by men, and now imposed as an article of Christian
Religion. For it is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend this their
stupendous doctrine; and it is not true, what they so often and so confidently
affirm, that the Universal Church hath always constantly owned it, being it was
not so much as heard of in the Church for many ages, and hath been but lately
approved by the Pope’s authority in the Councils of Lateran and Trent.

OXFORD. The Feast of St. Matthias.

(To be continued.)


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: 28 - THE HISTORY OF POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION; CONT
========================================================================

THE HISTORY OF POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION; TO WHICH IS OPPOSED THE CATHOLIC
DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, THE ANCIENT FATHERS, AND THE REFORMED CHURCHES.

(By John Cosin, Bishop of Durham.)

(Continued.)

[Number 28]

CHAPTER V. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained neither in Scripture
nor in the writings of the Fathers. THE word Transubstantiation is so far from
being found either in the Sacred Records, or in the Monuments of the Ancient
Fathers, that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was no so
much as heard of before the twelfth century. For though one Stephanus, Bishop of
Autun, be said to have once used it, yet it is without proof that some modern
writers make him one of the tenth century; nor yet doth he say, that the Bread
is transubstantiated,but as it weretransubstantiated, which well understood
might be admitted.

Nay, that the thing itself without the word, that the doctrine without the
expression, cannot be found in Scripture, is ingeniously acknowledged by the
most learned Schoolmen, Scotus, Durandus, Biel, Cameracensis, Cajetan, and many
more, who finding it not brought in by the Pope’s authority, and received in the
Roman Church, till 1200 years after CHRIST, yet endeavoured to defend it by
other arguments.

And indeed, the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man
that would prefer truth to wrangling, that it is with the Bread that the LORD’S
Body is given, (as His Blood with the Wine,) for CHRIST, having taken, blessed,
and broken the Bread, said, "This is My Body;" and St. Paul, than whom none
could better understand the meaning of CHRIST, explains it thus; "The Bread
which we break is the [koinonia], Communion or communication of the Body of
CHRIST," that whereby His Body is given, and the faithful are made partakers of
it. That it was Bread which He reached to them, there was no need of any proof,
the receiver’s senses sufficiently convinced them of it; but that therewith His
Body was given, none could have known, had it not been declared by Him who is
the Truth itself. And though, by the divine institution and the explication of
the Apostle, every faithful communicant may be as certainly assured that he
receives the LORD’S Body, as if he knew that the Bread is substantially turned
into it; yet it doth not therefore follow, that the Bread is so changed, that
its substance is quite done away, so that there remains nothing present, but the
very natural Body of CHRIST, made of Bread; for certain it is, that the Bread is
not the Body of CHRIST any otherwise than as the Cup is the New Testament, and
two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different
expressions. Therefore as the Cup cannot be the New Testament but by a
Sacramental figure, no more can the Bread be the Body of CHRIST, but in the same
sense. As to what Bellarmine and others say, that it is not possible the words
of CHRIST can be true, but by that conversion, which the Church of Rome calls
Transubstantiation, that is so far from being so, that if it were admitted, it
would first deny the Divine Omnipotency, as though GOD were not able to make the
Body of CHRIST present, and truly to give it in the Sacrament, whilst the
substance of the Bread remains. 2. It would be inconsistent with the Divine
Benediction which preserves things in their proper being. 2. In [sic] would be
contrary to the true nature of the Sacrament, which always consisteth of two
parts. And lastly, it would in some manner destroy the true substance of the
Body and Blood of CHRIST, which cannot be said to be made of Bread and Wine by a
Priest, without a most high presumption. But the truth of the words of CHRIST
remains constant, and can be defended, without overthrowing so many other great
truths. Suppose a testator puts deeds and titles in the hand of his heir, with
these words, ‘Take the house which I bequeath thee;’ there is no man will think
that those writings and parchments are that very house which is made of wood or
stones, and yet no man will say that the testator spake falsely or obscurely.
Likewise our blessed SAVIOUR, having sanctified the Elements by His words and
prayers, have them to His Disciples as seals of the New Testament, whereby they
were as certainly secured of those rich and precious legacies which He left to
them, as children are of their father’s lands and inheritance, by deeds and
instruments signed and delivered for that purpose. To the Sacred Records we may
added [sic] the judgment of the Primitive Church. For those orthodox and holy
Doctors of our holier religion, those great lights of the Catholic Church, do
all clearly, constantly, and unanimously conspire in this, that the presence of
the Body of CHRIST in the Sacrament is only mystic and spiritual. As for the
entire annihilation of the substance of the Bread and Wine, or that new and
strange tenet of Transubstantiation, they did not so much as hear or speak any
thing of it; nay, the constant stream of their doctrine doth clearly run against
it, how great soever are the brags and pretences of the Papists to the contrary.
And if you will hear them one by one, I shall bring some of their most noted
passages only, that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they
have said to our purpose on this subject.

I shall begin with that holy and ancient Doctor, Justin Martyr, who is one of
the first after the Apostles’ times, whose undoubted writings are come to us.
(A.D. 144.) What was believed at Rome and elsewhere in his time, concerning this
holy mystery, may well be understood out of these his words: "After that the
Bishop hath prayed and blessed, and the people said Amen, those whom we called
Deacons or Ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the
Bread and Wine; and that food we call the Eucharist, for we do not receive it as
ordinary bread and wine." They received it as bread, yet not as common bread.
And a little after; "By this food digested, our flesh and blood are fed, and we
are taught that it is the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST." Therefore the
substance of the bread remains, and remains corruptible food, even after the
Consecration, which can in now wise be said of the immortal Body of CHRIST; for
the Flesh of CHRIST is not turned into our flesh, neither doth it nourish it, as
doth that food which is sacramentally called the Flesh of CHRIST. But the Flesh
of CHRIST feeds our souls unto eternal life.

After the same manner, it is written by that holy Martyr Irenaeus, Bishop much
about the same time. (A.D. 160.) "The bread which is from the earth is no more
common bread, after the invocation of GOD upon it, but is become the Eucharist,
consisting of two parts, the one earthly, and the other heavenly." There would
be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed. Again: "As the
grain of wheat falling in the ground, and dying, riseth again much increased,
and then receiving the word of GOD becomes the Eucharist; (which is the Body and
Blood of CHRIST;) so likewise our bodies, nourished by it, laid in the ground
and dissolved, shall rise again in their time." Again; "We are fed by the
creature, but it is He Himself that gives it. He hath ordained and appointed
that Cup which is a creature, and His Blood also, and that Bread which is a
creature, and also His Body. And so when the Bread and the Cup are blessed by
GOD’S word, they become the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and from
them our bodies receive nourishment and increase." Now that our flesh is fed and
encreased [sic] by the natural Body of CHRIST, cannot be said without great
impiety by themselves that hold Transubstantiation. For naturally nothing
nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and blood by the last digestion,
which it would be blasphemous to say of the incorruptible Body of CHRIST. Yet
the sacred Elements, which in some manner are, and are said to be the Body and
Blood of CHRIST, yield nourishment and encrease to our bodies by their earthly
nature, in such sort, that by virtue also of the heavenly and spiritual food
which the faithful receive by means of the material, our bodies are fitted for a
blessed Resurrection to immortal glory.

Tertullian, who flourished about the two hundredth year after CHRIST, when as
yet he was Catholic, and acted by a pious zeal, wrote against Marcion the
Heretic, who, amongst his other impious opinions, taught that CHRIST had not
taken of the Virgin Mary the very nature and substance of a human body, but only
the outward forms and appearances; out of which fountain the Romish
Transubstantiators seem to have drawn their doctrine of accidents abstracted
from their subject hanging in the air, that is, subsisting on nothing.
Tertullian, disputing against this wicked heresy, draws an argument from the
Sacrament of the Eucharist, to prove that CHRIST had not a phantastic and
imaginary, but a true and natural body, thus: the figure of the Body of CHRIST
proves it to be natural, for there can be no figure of a ghost or phantasm.
"But," saith he, "CHRIST having taken the Bread, and given it to his Disciples,
made it His Body by saying, ‘This is my Body, that is, the figure of my Body.’
Now, it could not have been a figure except the Body was real, for a mere
appearance, an imaginary phantasm is not capable of a figure." Each part of this
argument is true, and contains a necessary conclusion. For, 1. The bread must
remain bread, otherwise Marcion would have returned the argument against
Tertullian, sating as the Transubstantiators; it was not bread, but merely the
accidents of bread, which seemed to be bread. 2. The Body of CHRIST is proved to
be true by the figure of it, which is said to be bread, for the bread is fit to
represent that Divine Body, because of its nourishing virtue, which in the bread
is earthly, but in the Body is heavenly. Lastly, the reality of the Body is
proved by that of its figure; and so if you deny the substance of the Bread, (as
the Papists do,) you thereby destroy the truth and reality of the Body of CHRIST
in the Sacrament.

Origen also, about the same time as Tertullian, speaks much after the same
manner. "If CHRIST," saith he, "as these men (the Marcionites) falsely hold, had
neither Flesh nor Blood, of what manner of Flesh, of what Body, of what Blood
did He give the signs and images when He gave the Bread and Wine?" If they be
the signs and representations of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, though they prove
the truth of His Body and Blood, yet they being signs, cannot be what they
signify; and they not being what they represent, the groundless contrivance of
Transubstantiation is overthrown. Also upon Leviticus he doth expressly oppose
it thus: "Acknowledge ye that they are figures, and therefore spiritual, not
carnal; examine and understand what is said, otherwise if you receive as things
carnal, they will hurt, but not nourish you. For in the Gospel there is the
Letter, which kills him that understands not spiritually what is said; for if
you understand this saying according to the Letter, ‘Except you eat My Flesh and
drink My Blood,’ the Letter will kill you." Therefore as much as these words
belong to the eating and drinking of CHRIST’S Body and Blood, they are to be
understood mystically and spiritually.

St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a glorious Martyr of CHRIST, (A.D. 250.) wrote
a famous Epistle to Coecilius concerning the sacred Chalice in the LORD’S
Supper, whereof this is the sum; "Let that cup which is offered to the people in
commemoration of CHRIST be mixt with wine," (against the opinion of the Aquarii,
who were for water only,) "for it cannot represent the Body and Blood of CHRIST
when there is no wine in the cup, because the Blood of CHRIST is exprest by the
Wine, as the faithful are understood by the Water." But the patrons of
Transubstantiation have neither Wine nor Water in the Chalice they offer; and
yet without them (especially the Wine appointed by our Blessed SAVIOUR, and
whereof Cyprian chiefly speaks,) the Blood of CHRIST is not so much as
sacramentally present.So far wasthe Primitive Church from any thing of believing
a corporal presence of the Blood, the Wine being reduced to nothing, (that is,
to a mere accident without the substance,) for then they must have said, that
the Water was changed into the people, as well as the Wine into the Blood. But
there is no need that I should bring many testimonies of that Father, when all
his writings do plainly declare that the true substance of the Bread and Wine is
given in the Eucharist; that the spiritual and quickening food which the
faithful get from the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and the mutual union of the
whole people joined into one body may answer their type, the Sacrament which
represents them. The words of the Council of Nice, (A.D. 325.) are well known,
whereby the faithful are called from the consideration of the outward visible
Elements of Bread and Wine, to attend the inward and spiritual act of the mind,
whereby CHRIST is seen and apprehended. "Let not our thoughts dwell low, on that
Bread and that Cup which are set before us, but lifting up our minds by faith,
let us consider, that on this Sacred Table is laid the Lamb of GOD which taketh
away the sins of the world. And receiving truly His precious Body and Blood, let
us believe these things to be the pledges and emblems of our resurrection; for
we do not take much, but only a little, (of the Elements,) that we may be
mindful, we do it not for satiety, but for sanctification." Now, who is there,
even among the maintainers of Transubstantiation, that will understand this,not
much, but a little, of the Body of CHRIST; or who can believe that the Nicene
Fathers would call His Body and Blood symbols in a proper sense? when nothing
can be an image or sign of itself. And therefore, though we are not to rest in
the Elements, minding nothing else, (for we should consider what is chiefest in
the Sacrament, that we have our heartslifted unto theLORD, who is given together
with the signs,) yet Elements they are, and the earthly part of the Sacrament,
both the Bread and the Wine, which destroys Transubstantiation.

St. Athanasius, famous in the time, and present in the Assembly of the Nicene
Council, a stout Champion of the Catholic faith, acknowledgeth none other but a
spiritual manducation of the Body of CHRIST in the Sacrament. "Our LORD," saith
he, "made a difference betwixt the Flesh and the Spirit, that we might
understand that what He said, was not carnal, but spiritual. For how many men
could His Body have fed, that the whole world should be nourished by it? But
therefore He mentioned His ascension into heaven, that they might not take what
He said in a corporal sense, but might understand that His Flesh whereof He
spake is a spiritual and heavenly food given by Himself from on high; for the
words that I spake unto you they are spirit, and they are life, as if He should
say, My Body which is shown and given for the world, shall be given in good,
that it may be distributed spiritually to every one, and preserve them all to
the resurrection to eternal life." Cardinal Perron having nothing to answer to
these words of this holy Father, in a kind of despair, rejects the whole
Tractate, and denies it to be Athanasius’s, which nobody ever did before him,
there being no reason for it.

Likewise St. Ambrose, (A.D. 380.) explaining what manner of alteration is in the
Bread, when in the Eucharist it becomes the Body of CHRIST, saith, "Thou hadst
indeed a being, but wert an old creature, but being now baptized or consecrated,
thou art become a new creature." The same change that happens to man in baptism,
happens to the Bread in the Sacrament: if the nature of man is not substantially
altered by the new birth, no more is the Bread by consecration. Man becomes by
baptism, not what nature made him, but what grace new-makes him; and the Bread
becomes by consecration, not what it was by nature, but what the blessing
consecrates it to be. For nature made only a mere man, and made only common
bread; but Regeneration, of a mere man, makes a holy man, in whom CHRIST dwells
spiritually; and likewise the Consecration of common Bread makes Mystic and
Sacramental Bread. Yet this change doth not destroy nature, but to nature adds
grace; as is yet more plainly exprest by that holy Father in the fore-cited
place. "Perhaps thou wilt say," saith he, "this my bread is common bread; it is
bread indeed before the blessing of the Sacrament, but when it is consecrated it
becomes the Body of CHRIST. This we are therefore to declare, how can that which
is Bread be also the Body of CHRIST? By Consecration. And Consecration is made
by the words of our LORD, that the venerable Sacrament may be perfected. You see
how efficacious is the word of CHRIST. If there be then so great a power in the
Word of CHRIST to make the Bread and Wine to be what they were not, how much
greater is that power which still preserves them to be what they were, and yet
makes them to be what they were not? Therefore, that I may answer thee, it was
not the Body of CHRIST before the Consecration, but now after the Consecration,
it is the Body of CHRIST; He said the word and it was done. Thou thyself went
before, but wert an old creature; after thou hadst been consecrated in Baptism
thou art become a new creature." By these words St. Ambrose teacheth howwe are
to understand that the Bread is the Body of CHRIST, to wit, by such a change
that the Bread and Wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance,
(for then they should not be what they were,) and yet by the blessing become
what before they were not. For so they are said to remain, (as indeed they do,)
what they were by nature, that yet they are changed by grace; that is, they
become assured Sacraments of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and by that means
certain pledges of our Justification and Redemption. What is there, can refute
more expressly the dream of Transubstantiation?

St. Chrysostom (A.D. 390.) doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal
Transubstantiation and eating of CHRIST’S Body, without eating the Bread.
"Sacraments," saith he, "ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally,
but with the eyes of our souls, that is, spiritually; for such is the nature of
mysteries;" where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually, which
admits of no plea or reply again. "As in Baptism the spiritual power of
Regeneration is given to the material water; so also the immaterial gift of the
Body and Blood of CHRIST is not received by any sensible corporal action, but by
the spiritual discernment of our faith, and of our hearts and minds." Which is
no more than this, that sensible things are called by the name of those
spiritual things which they seal and signify. But he speaks more plainly in his
Epistle to Caesarius; where he teacheth, that in this mystery, there is not in
the bread a substantial, but a Sacramental change, according to the which, the
outward Elements take the name of what they represent, and are changed in such a
sort, that they still retain their former natural substance. "The Bread," saith
he, "is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the Flesh of CHRIST, by the
consecration of the Priest, yet the Flesh retains the properties of its
incorruptible nature, as the Bread doth its natural substance. Before the Bread
be sanctified we call it Bread; but when it is consecrated by the divine grace,
it deserves to be called the LORD’S Body, though the substance of the real Bread
remains." When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that great Doctor,
he thought it enough to deny, that this Epistle is St. Chrysostom’s; but both he
and Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of
Chrysostom. For besides that at Florence and elsewhere it was to be found among
them, it is cited in the collection against the Severians which are in the
version of Turrianus the Jesuit, in the 4th tome of Antiq. Lectionum of Henry
Canisius, and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus against the Acephali.

Which also hath been said by St. Austin (A.D. 400.) above a thousand times; but
out of so many almost numberless places, I shall choose only three, which are as
the sum of all the rest. "You are not to eat this Body which you see, nor drink
this Blood which My crucifiers shall shed; I have left you a Sacrament which,
spiritually understood, will vivify you." Thus St. Austin, rehearsing the words
of CHRIST again; "If Sacraments had not some resemblance with those things
whereof they are Sacraments, they could not be Sacraments at all. From this
resemblance they often take the names of what they represent. Therefore as the
Sacrament of CHRIST’S Body is in some sort His Body; so the Sacrament of Faith,
is faith also." To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arian.
"We mind in the Sacraments, not what they are, but what they show; for they are
signs, which are one thing, and signifies another." And in another place,
speaking of what they signify, for our LORD was pleased to say, ‘this is My
Body,’ when He gave the sign of His Body.’"

And the same kind of expressions ......... were also used by venerable Bede, our
countryman, who lived in the eighth century, in his Sermon upon the Epiphany; of
whom we also take these two testimonies following: "In the room of the Flesh and
Blood of theLamb, CHRIST substituted the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, in the
figure of Bread and Wine." Also, "At Supper He gave to His Disciples the figure
of His holy Body and Blood." These utterly destroy Transubstantiation. In the
same century Charles the Great wrote an Epistle to our Alcuinus, wherein we find
these words. "CHRIST at Supper broke the Bread to His Disciples, and likewise
gave them the Cup, in figure of His Body and Blood, and so left to us this great
Sacrament for our benefit." If it was the figure of His Body, it could not be
the Body itself; indeed the Body of CHRIST is given in the Eucharist, but to the
faithful only, and that by means of the Sacrament of consecrated Bread. But now,
about the beginning of the ninth century, started up Paschasius, a Monk of
Corbie, who first, (as some say whose judgment I follow not,) among the Latines,
taught that CHRIST was consusbtantiated, or rather inclosed in the Bread, and
corporally united to it in the Sacrament; for as yet there was no thoughts of
the Transubstantiation of the Bread. But these new sorts of expressions not
agreeing with the Catholic doctrine, and the writings of the ancient Fathers,
had few or no abettors before the eleventh century. And in the ninth, whereof we
now treat, there were not wanting learned men, (as Amalarius, Archdeacon of
Triars; Rabanus, at first Abbot of Fulda, and afterwards Archbishop of Ments;
John Erigena, an English Divine; Waldfridus Strabo, a German Abbot; Ratramus or
Bertramus, first Priest of Corbie, afterward Abbot of Orbec in France; and many
more;) who by their writings opposed this new opinion of Paschasius, or of some
others rather, and delivered to posterity the Doctrine of the Ancient Church.
Yet we have something more to say concerning Paschasius, whom Bellarmine and
Sirmondus esteemed so highly, that they were not ashamed to say, that he was the
first that had writ to the purpose concerning the Eucharist; and that he had so
explained the meaning of the Church, that he had shown and opened the way to all
them who treated of that subject after him. Yet in that whole book of
Paschasius, there is nothing that favours the Transubstantiation of the Bread,
or its destruction or removal. Indeed, he asserts the truth of the Body and
Blood of CHRIST’S being in the Eucharist, which Protestants deny not; he denies
that the consecrated Bread is a bare figure, a representation void of truth,
which Protestants assert not. But he has many things repugnant to
Transubstantiation, which, as I have said, the Church of Rome itself had not yet
quite found out. I shall mention a few of them. "CHRIST," saith he, "left us
this Sacrament, a visible figure and character of His Body and Blood, that by
them our spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invisible things, and be
more fully fed by faith." Again, "We must receive our spiritual Sacrament with
the mouth of the soul, and the taste of faith." Item, "Whilst therein we savour
nothing carnal, but we being spiritual, and understanding the whole spiritually,
we remain in CHRIST." And a little after, "The Flesh and Blood of CHRIST are
received spiritually." And again, "To savour according to the Flesh, is death;
and yet to receive spiritually the true Flesh of CHRIST, is life eternal."
Lastly, "The Flesh and Blood of CHRIST are not received carnally, but
spiritually.

As for the opinion of Bertram, otherwise called Ratramnus, or Ratramus, perhaps
not rightly, it is known enough by that books which the Emperor Charles the
Bald, (who loved and honoured him, as all good men did, for his great learning
and piety,) commanded him to write concerning the Body and Blood of our LORD.
For when men began to be disturbed at the book of Paschasius, some saying one
thing, and some another, the Emperor being moved by their disputes propounded
himself two questions to Bertram. 1. Whether, what the faithful eat in the
Church, be made the Body and Blood of CHRIST in figure and mystery. 2. Or
whether that natural Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered,
died, and was buried, and now sitteth on the right hand of GOD the Father, be
itself daily received by the mouth of the faithful in the mystery of the
Sacrament. The first of these Bertram resolved affirmatively, the second
negatively; sand said, that there was as great a difference betwixt those two
bodies, as betwixt the earnest and that whereof it is the earnest. "It is
evident," saith he, "that that Bread and Wine are figuratively the Body and
Blood of CHRIST. According to the substance of the Elements, they are after the
Consecration what they were before. For the Bread is not CHRIST substantially.
If this mystery be not done in a figure, it cannot well be called a mystery. The
Wine also which is made the Sacrament of the Blood of CHRIST by the Consecration
of the Priest, shews one thing by its outward appearance, and contains another
inwardly. For what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the
Wine? These things are changed, but not according to the material part, and by
this change they are not what they truly appear to be but are something else
besides what is their proper being; for they are made spiritually the Body and
Blood of CHRIST; not that the Elements be two different things, but in one
respect they are, as they appear, Bread and Wine, and in another the Body and
Blood of CHRIST. Hence, according to the visible creature they feed the body;
but according to the virtue of a more excellent substance they nourish and
sanctify the souls of the faithful." Then having brought many testimonies of
holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers to confirm this, he at last prevents that
calumny which the followers of Paschasius did then lay on the orthodox, as
though they had taught that bare signs, figures, and shadows, and not the Body
and Blood of CHRIST were given in the Sacrament. "Let it not be thought," saith
he, "because we say this, that therefore the Body and Blood of CHRIST are not
received in the mystery of the Sacrament, where faith apprehends what it
believeth, and not what the eyes see; for this meat and drink are spiritual,
feed the soul spiritually, and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal."
For the question is not simply about the real truth, or the thing signified
being present, without which it could not be a mystery, but about the false
reality of things subsisting in imaginary appearances, and about the carnal
presence.

All this the Fathers of Trent, and the Romish Inquisitors could not brook, and
therefore they utterly condemned Bertram, and put his book in the Catalogue of
those that are forbidden.

CHAPTER VI.

Romish objections considered, as drawn from the writings of the Fathers.

....LET us see what props these new builders pretend to borrow from Antiquity to
uphold their castle in the air, Transubstantiation. They use indeed to scrape
together many testimonies of the Fathers of the first and middle age, whereby
they would fain prove, that those Fathers believed and taught
theTransubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Blood of
CHRIST, just as the Roman Church, as this day, doth teach and believe. We will
therefore briefly examine them, that it may yet more fully appear that Antiquity
and all Fathers did not in the least favour the new tenet of Transubstantiation;
but that, that true doctrine which I have set down in the beginning of this
book, was constantly owned and preserved in the Church of CHRIST.

Now, almost all that they produce out of the Fathers will be conveniently
reduced to certain heads, that we may not be too tedious in answering each
testimony by itself.

1. To the first head belong those that call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of
CHRIST. But I answer, those Fathers explain themselves in many places, and
interpret those their expressions in a manner, that they must be understood in a
mystic and spiritual sense, in that Sacraments usually take the names of those
things they represent, because of that resemblance which they have with them;
not by the reality of the thing, but by the signification of the mystery; as we
have been shown before out of St Austin and others. For nobody can deny, but
that the things that are seen are signs and figures, and those that are not
seen, the Body and Blood of CHRIST. And that therefore the nature of this
mystery is such, that when we receive the Bread and Wine, we also together with
them receive at the same time the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which, in the
celebration of the holy Eucharist, are as truly given as they are represented.
Hence came into the Church this manner of speaking, ‘The consecrated Bread is
CHRIST’S Body.’

2. We put in the second rank those places that say, that the Bishops and Priests
make the Body of CHRIST with the sacred words of their mouth, as St. Hierom
speaks in his Epistle to Heliodorus, and St. Ambrose, and others. To this I say,
that at the prayer and blessing of the Priest, the common bread is made
Sacramental Bread, which, when broke and eaten, is the Communion of the Body of
CHRIST, and therefore may well be called so, sacramentally. For the Bread, (as I
have often said before,) doth not only represent the Body of our LORD, but also
being received, we are truly made partakers of that precious Body. For so saith
St. Hierom; "The Body and Blood of CHRIST is made at the prayer of the Priest;"
that is, the Element is so qualified, that being received it becomes the
Communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which it could not without the
preceding prayers. The Greeks call this, "to prepare and consecrate the Body of
the LORD." As St. Chrysostom saith well; "These are not the works of man’s
power, but still the operation of Him, who made them in the last Supper; as for
us, we are only Ministers, but He it is that sanctifies and changeth them."

3. In the third place, to what is brought out of the Fathers, concerning the
conversion, change, transmutation, transfiguration, and transelementation of the
Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, (wherein the Papists do greatly glory, boasting
of the consent of Antiquity with them,) I answer, that there is no such
consequence. Transubstantiation being another species of change, the enumeration
was not full, for it doth not follow, that because there is a conversion, a
transmutation, a transelementation, there should be also a Transubstantiation;
which the Fathers never so much as mentioned. For because this is a Sacrament,
the change must be understood to be sacramental also, whereby common Bread and
Wine become the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST; which could not be,
did not the substance of the Bread and Wine remain, for a Sacrament consisteth
of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. And so, because ordinary Bread is
changed by consecration into a Bread which is no more of common use, but
appointed by divine institution to be a sacramental sign, whereby is represented
the Body of CHRIST, in whom dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and
being thereby dignified, having great excellencies superadded, and so made what
it was not before, it is therefore said by some of the Fathers to be changed, to
be made another thing. And truly that change is great and supernatural, but yet
not substantial, not of a substance which substantially ceaseth to be, into
another substance which substantially beginneth to be, but it is a change of
state and condition which alters not the spiritual properties of the Element.
This is also confirmed by Scripture, which usually describes and represents the
conversion of men, and the supernatural change of things, as though it were
natural, though it be not so. So those that are renewed by the Word, and Spirit,
and Faith of CHRIST, are said to be regenerated, converted, and transformed, to
put off the old man, and put on the new man, and to be new creatures; but they
are not said to become another substance, to be transubstantiated; for men thus
converted are still the same human body, and the same rational soul as before,
though in a far better state and condition, as every Christian will acknowledge.
Nay, the Fathers themselves used those words, Transmutation, Transformation,
Transelementation, upon other occasions, when they speak of things whose
substance is neither lost nor changed.

4. To the fourth head I refer what the Fathers say of our touching and seeing
the Body of CHRIST, and drinking His Blood in the Sacrament; and thereto I
answer, that we deny not but that some things emphatical, and even hyperbolical,
have been said of the Sacrament by Chrysostom, and some others; and that those
things may easy lead unwary men into error. That was the ancient Fathers’ care,
as it is ours still, to instruct the people not to look barely on the outward
Elements, but in them to eye with their minds the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and
with their hearts lift up to feed on that heavenly meat; for all the benefit of
a Sacrament is lost, if we look no further than the Elements. Hence it is that
those holy men, the better to teach this lesson to their hearers, and move their
hearts more efficaciously, spake of the signs as if they had been the things
signified, and like orators said many things which will not bear a literal
sense, nor a strict examen. Such is this, of an uncertain author under the name
of St. Cyprian; "We are close to the Cross, we such the Blood, and we put our
tongues in the very wounds of our REDEEMER, so that, both outwardly and inwardly
we are made red thereby." Such is that of St. Chrysostom; "In the Sacrament the
Blood of drawn out of the side of CHRIST, the tongue is made bloody with that
wonderful Blood." Again, "Thou seeth thy LORD sacrificed, and the crowding
multitude round about sprinkled with His Blood; He that sits above with the
FATHER is at the same time in our hands. Thou doth see and touch and eat Him.
For I do not shew thee either Angels or Archangels, but the LORD of them
Himself." Again; "He incorporates us with Himself, as if we were but the same
thing. He makes us His Body indeed, and suffers us not only to see, but even to
touch, to eat Him, and to put our teeth in His Flesh; so that by that food which
He gives us, we become His Flesh." Such is that of St. Austin; "Let us give
thanks, not only that we are made Christians, but also made CHRIST." Lastly,
such is that of Leo; "In that mystical distribution, it is given us to be made
His Flesh." Certainly, if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these, he
might thereby maintain, as well that we are transubstantiated into CHRIST, and
CHRIST’S Flesh into the Bread, as that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated
into His Body and Blood. But Protestants who scorn to play the sophisters,
interpret these and the like passages of the Fathers, with candour and
ingenuity, (as it is most fitting they could.) For the expressions of Preachers,
which often have something of a paradox, must not be taken according to that
harsher sound wherewith they at first strike the auditor’s ears. The Fathers
spake not of any transubstantiated bread, but of the mystical and consecrated,
when they used those sorts of expressions; 1. That they might extol and amplify
the dignity of this mystery, which all true Christians acknowledge to be very
great and peerless. 2. That communicants might not rest in the outward Elements,
but seriously consider the thing represented, whereof they are most certainly
made partakers, if they be worthy receivers. 3. And lastly, that they might
approach so great a mystery with the more zeal, reverence, and devotion. And
that those hyperbolic expressions are thus to be understood, the Fathers
themselves teach clearly enough, when they come to interpret them.

5. Lastly, being the same holy Fathers who, (as the manner is to discourse of
Sacraments,) speak sometimes of the Bread and Wine in the LORD’S Supper, as if
they were the very Body and Blood of CHRIST, do also very often call them types,
elements, signs, the figure of the Body and Blood of CHRIST; from hence it
appears most manifestly, that they were of the Protestants, and not of the
Papists’ opinion. For we can without prejudice to what we believe of the
Sacrament, use those former expressions which the Papists believe, do most
favour them, if they be understood, as they ought to be, sacramentally. But the
latter none can use, but he must thereby overthrow the groundless doctrine of
Transubstantiation; these two, the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body, and
the Bread also is a type, the sign, the figure of the Body of CHRIST, being
wholly inconsistent. For it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being
should yet be the sign and representation of another; neither can any thing be
the type and the sign of itself. But if without admitting of a sacramental sense
the words be used too rigorously, nothing but this will follow; that theBread
and Wineare really and properly the very Body and Blood of CHRIST, which they
themselves disown, that hold Transubstantiation. Therefore in this change, it is
not a newness of substance, but of use and virtue that is produced; which yet
the Fathers acknowledged with us, to be wonderful, supernatural, and proper only
to GOD’S Omnipotency; for that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us
a spiritual and heavenly, the Communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, without
GOD’S especial power and operation. And whereas it is far above philosophy and
human reason, that CHRIST from Heaven, (where alone He is locally,) should reach
down to us the divine virtue of His Flesh, so that we are made one body with
Him; therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable, that the Fathers should
tell us, that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the SON of GOD, when
He saith,This is My Body;and that we ought not to measure this high and holy
mystery by our narrow conceptions, or by the course of nature. For it is more
acceptable to GOD with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace
the words of CHRIST, than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper
sense, and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity
of men and Angels.

CHAPTER VII.

History of the rise of the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

WE have proved it before, that the leprosy of Transubstantiation did not begin
to spread over the body of the Church in a thousand years after CHRIST. But at
last the thousand years being expired, and Satan loosed out of his prison, to go
and deceive the nations, and compass the camp of the Saints about, then, to the
great damage of Christian peace and religion, they began here and there to
dispute against the clear, constant, and universal consent of the Fathers, and
to maintain the new-started opinion. It is known to them that understand
History, what manner of times were then, and what were those Bishops who then
governed the Church of Rome; Sylvester II. John XIX. and XX. Sergius IV.
Benedictus VIII. John XXI. Benedict IX. Sylvester III. Gregory VI. Damasus II.
Leo IX. Nicholas II. Gregory VII. or Hildebrand; who tore to pieces the Church
of Rome with grievous schisms, cruel wars, and great slaughters. For the Roman
Pontificate was come to that pass, that good men being put by, they whose life
and doctrine was pious being oppressed, none could obtain that dignity, but they
that could bribe best, and were most ambitious. In that unhappy age the learned
were at odds about the presence of the Body of CHRIST in the Sacrament; some
defending the ancient doctrine of the of the Church, and some the new-sprung-up
opinion.

Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres, (A.D. 1010.) was tutor to Berengarius, whom we
shall soon have occasion to speak of, and his doctrine was altogether
conformable to that of the Primitive Church, as appears clearly out of his
Epistle to Adeodatus, wherein he teacheth, "That the mystery of faith in the
Eucharist, is not to be looked on with our bodily eyes, but with the eyes of our
mind. For what appears outwardly Bread and Wine, is made inwardly the Body and
Blood of CHRIST; not that which is tasted with the mouth, but that which is
relished by the heart’s affection. "Therefore," saith he, "prepare the palate of
thy faith, open the throat of thy hope, and enlarge the bowels of thy charity,
and take that Bread of life which is the food of the inward man." Again, "The
perception of a divine taste proceeds from the faith of the inward man, whilst
by receiving the saving Sacrament, CHRIST is received into the soul." All this
is against those who teach in too gross a manner, that CHRIST in this mystery
enters carnally the mouth and stomach of the receivers.

Fulbert was followed by Berengarius, his scholar, Archdeacon of Angers in
France, a man of great worth, by the holiness both of his life and doctrine.

Berengarius stood up valiantly in defence of that doctrine which 170 years
before, was delivered out of GOD’S Word and the holy Fathers, in France, by
Bertram, and John Erigena, and by others elsewhere, against those who taught
that in the Eucharist neither Bread nor Wine remained after the Consecration.
Yet he did not either believe or teach, (as many falsely and shamelessly have
imputed to him,) that nothing more is received in he LORD’S Supper, but bare
signs only, or mere Bread and Wine; but he believed and openly profest, as St.
Austin and other faithful Doctors of the Church had taught out of GOD’S Word,
that in this mystery, the souls of the faithful are truly fed by the true Body
and Blood of CHRIST to life eternal. nevertheless it was neither his mind nor
his doctrine, that the substance of the Bread and Wine is reduced to nothing, or
changed into the substance of the natural Body of CHRIST; or, (as some then
would have had the Church believe,) that CHRIST Himself comes down carnally from
heaven. Entire books he wrote upon this subject, but they have been wholly
supprest by his enemies, and now are not to be found. Yet what we have of him in
his greatest enemy Lanfrank, I here set down; "By the Consecration at the Altar
the Bread and Wine are made a Sacrament of Religion; not to cease to be what
they were, but to be changed into something else, and to become what they were
not;" agreeable to what St. Ambrose had taught. Again, "There are two parts in
the Sacrifice of the Church, (this is according to St. Irenaeus,) the visible
Sacrament, and the invisible thing of the Sacrament; that is, the Body of
CHRIST." Item, "The Bread and Wine which are consecrated, remain in their
substance, having a resemblance with that whereof they are a Sacrament, for else
they could not be a Sacrament." Lastly, "Sacraments are visible signs of divine
things, but in them the invisible things are honoured." All this agrees well
with St. Austin, and other Fathers above cited.

He did not therefore by this his doctrine exclude the Body of CHRIST from the
Sacrament, but in its right administration he joined together the thing
signified with the sacred sign; and taught that the Body of CHRIST was not eaten
with the mouth in a carnal way, but with the mind, and soul, and spirit. Neither
did Berengarius alone maintain this orthodox and ancient doctrine; for Sigibert,
William of Malmesbury, Matthew Paris, and Matthew of Westminster, make it
certain, that almost all the French, Italians, and English of those times were
of the same opinion; and that many things were said, writ, and disputed in its
defence by many men; amongst whom was Bruno, then Bishop of the same Church of
Angers. Now this greatly displeaseth the Papal faction, who took great care that
those men’s writings should not be delivered to posterity, and now do write,
that the doctrine of Berengarius, owned by the Fathers, and maintained by many
famous nations, skult only in some dark corner or other. The first Pope who
opposed himself to Berengarius was Leo the Ninth, a plain man indeed, but too
much led by Humbert and Hildebrand. For as soon as he was desired, he pronounced
sentence of excommunication against Berengarius absent and unheard; and not long
after he called a council of Verceil, wherein John Erigena and Berengarius were
condemned, upon this account, that they should say, that the Bread and Wine in
the Eucharist are only bare signs; which was far from their thoughts, and
further yet from their belief. This roaring therefore of the lion frightened not
Berengarius; nay, the Gallican Churches did also oppose the Pope, and his Synod
of Verceil, and defend with Berengarius the oppressed truth. To Leo succeeded
Pope Victor the Second, who seeing Berengarius could not be cast down and
crushed by the fulminations of his predecessor, sent his legate Hildebrand into
France, and called another Council at Tours, where Berengarius being cited, did
freely appear, and whence he was freely dismissed, after he had given it under
his hand, that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrifice of the Church, are not
shadows and empty figures; and that he held none other but the common doctrine
of the Church concerning the Sacrament. For he did not alter his judgment, (as
modern Papists give out,) but he persisted to teach and maintain the same
doctrine as before, as Lanfrank complains of him.

Yet his enemies would not rest satisfied with this, but they urged Pope Nicholas
the Second, who, (within a few months that Stephen the Tenth sate,) succeeded
Victor without the Emperor’s consent, to call a new Council at Rome against
Berengarius. For, that sensual manner of presence, by them devised, to the great
dishonour of CHRIST, being rejected by Berengarius, and he teaching as he did
before, that the Body of CHRIST was not present in such a sort, as that it might
be at pleasure brought in and out, taken into the stomach, cast on the ground,
trod under foot, and bit or devoured by any beasts, they falsely charged him as
if he had denied that it is present at all. An hundred and thirteen Bishops came
to the Council, to obey the Pope’s mandate; Berengarius came also. "And, (as
Sigonius and Leo Ostensius say,) when non present could withstand him, they sent
for one Albericus, a Monk of Mount Cassin, made Cardinal by Pope Stephen:" who
having asked seven days’ time to answer in writing, brought at last his scroll
against Berengarius. The reasons and arguments used therein to convince his
antagonist are not now extant, but whatever they were, Berengarius was commanded
presently without any delay to recant, in that form prescribed and appointed by
Cardinal Humbert, which was thus: "I Berengarius, &c. assent to the Holy Roman
and Apostolic See, and with my heart and mouth do profess, that I hold that
faith concerning the Sacrament of the LORD’S Table which our Lord and venerable
Pope Nicholas, and this sacred Council, have determined and imposed upon me by
their evangelic and apostolic authority; to wit, that the Bread and Wine which
are set on the Altar, are not after the consecration only a sacrament, sign, and
figure, but also the very Body and Blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; (thus far it
is well enough, but what follows is too horrid, and is disowned by the Papists
themselves;) and that they (the Body and Blood) are touched and broken with the
hands of the Priests, and ground with the teeth of the faithful, not
sacramentally only, but in truth and sensibly." This is the prescript of the
Recantation imposed on Berengarius, and by him at first rejected, but by
imprisonment, and threats, and fear of being put to death, at last extorted from
him. The form of Recantation is to be found entire in Lanfrank, Algerus, and
Gratian; yet the Glosser on Gratian, John Semeca marks it with this note;
"Except you understand well the words of Berengarius," (he should rather have
said of Pope Nicholas, and Cardinal Humbertus,) "you shall fall into a greater
heresy than his was, for he exceeded the truth, and spake hyperbolically." And
so Richard de Mediavilla; "Berengarius being accused, overshot himself in his
justification:" but the excess of his words should be ascribed to those who
prescribed and forced them upon him. Yet in all this we hear nothing of
Transubstantiation.

Berengarius at last escaped out of this danger, and conscious to himself of
having denied the truth, took heart again, and refuted in writing his own
impious and absurd Recantation, and said, "That by force it was extorted from
him by the Church of Malignants, the Council of Vanity." Lanfrank of Caen, at
that time head of a Monastery in France, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury,
and Guitmundus Aversanus answered him. And though it is not to be doubted but
that Berengarius, and those of his party, writ and replied again and again, yet
so well did their adversaries look to it, that nothing of theirs remains, save
some citations in Lanfrank. But is were to be wished that we had now the entire
works of Berengarius, who was a learned man, and a constant follower of
Antiquity; for out of them we might know with more certainty how things went,
than we can out of what his profest enemies have said. This sacramental debate
ceased awhile because of the tumults of war raised in Apulia and elsewhere by
Pope Nicholas the Second; but began again as soon as Hildebrand, called Gregory
the Seventh, came to the Papal chair. For Berengarius was cited again to a new
Council at Rome, "where some being of one opinion and some another," (as it is
in the acts of that Council, writ by those of the Pope’s faction,) his cause
could not be so entirely oppressed but that some Bishop were still found to
uphold it. Nay, the ringleader himself, Hildebrand, is said to have doubted,
"whether what we receive at the LORD’S Table be indeed the Body of CHRIST by a
substantial conversion." but three months space having been granted to
Berengarius, and a fast appointed to the Cardinals, "that GOD would shew by some
sign from heaven, (which yet He did not,) who was in the right, the Pope or
Berengarius, concerning the Body of the LORD;" at last the business was decided
without any oracle from above, and a new form of retraction imposed on
Berengarius, whereby he was henceforth forward to confess, under pain of the
Pope’s high displeasure, "that the mystic Bread," (first made magical and
enchanting by Hildebrand,) "is substantially turned into the true and proper
Flesh of CHRIST;" which whether he ever did is not yet certain. For though
Malmesbury tells us, "that he died in that Roman faith," yet there are ancienter
than he, who say, "that he never was converted from his first opinion." And some
relate, "that after this last condemnation having given over his studies, and
given to the poor all he had, he wrought with his own hands for his living."
Other things related of him by some slaves of the Roman See, deserves no credit.
These things happened, ...... in the year 1079; and soon after Berengarius died.

Berengarius being dead the orthodox and ancient doctrine of the LORD’S Supper
which he maintained did not die with him; (as the Chronicus Cassinensis would
have it;) for it was still constantly retained by St. Bernard, Abbot of
Clairvaux, who lived about the beginning of the twelfth century. In his
discourse on the LORD’S Supper, he joined together the outward form of the
Sacrament, and the spiritual efficacy of it, as the shell and the kernel, the
sacred sign, and the thing signified; the one he takes out of the words of the
Institution, and the other, out of CHRIST’S Sermon in John 6:1-71. And in the
same place explaining, that Sacraments are not things absolute in themselves
without any relation, but mysteries, wherein by the gift of a visible sign, an
invisible and divine grace with the Body and Blood of CHRIST is given, he saith,
"That the visible sign is as a ring, which is given not for itself or
absolutely, but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one."
..... Now, as no man can fancy that the ring is substantially changed into the
inheritance, whether lands or houses, none also can say with truth, or without
absurdity, that the Bread and Wine are substantially changed into the Body and
Blood of CHRIST. But in his Sermon on the Purification, which none doubts to be
his, he speaks yet more plainly; "The Body of CHRIST in the Sacrament is the
food of the soul, not of the belly, therefore we eat him not corporally: but in
the manner that CHRIST is meat, in the same manner we understand that he is
eaten." Also in his Sermon on St. Martin, which undoubtedly is his also; "To
this day," saith he, "the same flesh is given to us, but spiritually, therefore
not corporally." For the truth of things spiritually present is certain also.

The thirteenth century now follows; wherein the world growing both older and
worse, a great deal of trouble and confusion there was about religion…..So that
now there remained nothing but to confirm the new tenet of Transubstantiation,
and impose it so peremptorily on the Christian world, that none might dare so
much as to hiss against it. This Pope Innocent the Third bravely performed. He
succeeding Celestin the Third at thirty years of age, and marching stoutly in
the footsteps of Hildebrand, called a Council at Rome in St. John Lateran, and
was the first that ever presumed to make the new-devised Doctrine of
Transubstantiation an Article of Faith necessary to salvation, and that by his
own mere authority.

In the fifteenth century the Council of Constance, (which by a sacrilegious
attempt took away the sacramental cup from the people, and from the Priests when
they do not officiate,) did wrongfully condemn Wiclif, who was already dead,
because amongst other things he had taught with the Ancients, "That the
substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the
Altar; and that in the same Sacrament, no accidents of Bread and Wine remain
without a substance." Which two assertions are most true.

By these any considering person may easily see, that Transubstantiation is a
mere novelty; nor warranted either by scripture or antiquity; invented about the
middle of the twelfth century, out of some misunderstood sayings of some of the
Fathers; confirmed by no ecclesiastical or Papal Decree before the year 1215,
afterwards received only here and there in the Roman Church; debated in the
schools by many disputes; liable to many very bad consequences; rejected, (for
there was never those wanting that opposed it,) by many great and pious men,
until it was maintained in the sacrilegious Council of Constance; and at last in
the year 1551, confirmed in the Council of Trent, by a few Latin Bishops, slaves
to the Roman See; imposed upon all, under pain of an anathema to be feared by
none; and so spread too far, by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the
Pope. So that we have no reason to embrace it, until it shall be demonstrated,
that except the substance of the Bread be changed into the very Body of CHRIST,
His words cannot possibly be true; nor His Body present. Which will never be
done.

OXFORD. The Feast of the Annunciation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: 29 - CHRISTIAN LIBERTY; OR, WHY SHOULD WE BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?
========================================================================

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY; OR, WHY SHOULD WE BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

BY A LAYMAN

[Number 29]

He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him
that sent Me.

He that receiveth a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s
reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man,
shall receive a righteous man’s reward. Matthew 10:40-41.

JOHN EVANS was walking along the lane between his own house and the common, when
just at the place where the lane makes a turning, he suddenly met Dr. Spencer,
the Rector of his parish. John was not particularly pleased at thus meeting his
Pastor, for several reasons. He had formerly been a most regular attendant at
the parish church, from which he had lately chosen to absent himself, with his
family. not that he stayed away from idleness, or from any intentional disregard
of the commands of GOD; he felt, as he imagined, the same reverence for the
Divine Will as ever; it was, indeed, rather a mistaken zeal than any thing else,
which had led to his change of conduct. He had been induced, one Sunday, by a
friend who belonged to a dissenting congregation, to go with him to the
meeting-house; and when he was there, there was something in the energy of the
preacher’s manner, in the vehement action by which his teaching was accompanied,
and in his seeming earnestness in the holy cause of GOD, which, as it was quite
new to John, was particularly striking to him. Compared with the fervour of this
man, the quiet but sound discourses of his Rector seemed spiritless and tame;
and John came out of the meeting under the influence of such enthusiastic
feelings, as led him to resolve to visit it again the first opportunity. And
thus he was led on to go again and again, till at last he made up his min to
become a regular attendant there. Thither he accordingly took his family, Sunday
after Sunday; and deserted, of course, the old parish church, the venerable
building in which he and his had received the holy rite of Baptism; in which, as
each of them in turn outgrew their infancy, they had heard for the first time
the solemn sound of congregational prayer; and in which those who had arrived at
a proper age had frequently received from CHRIST’S authorized Ministers, the
symbols of His sacred Body and Blood.

It will be seen from what follows, that in making this change upon such grounds
as have been described, John Evans did not understand that he was disobeying the
GOD, whom he was trying to serve, and putting a slight upon that SAVIOUR, whose
disciple he not only professed himself, but in good earnest desired to be. Yet
though he did not enter into this view of the matter; though he knew not that he
had shown disrespect to CHRIST, in His Minister; still he felt as though he had
not been behaving with perfect respect to the Doctor, whom he loved on his own
account, as he had indeed every reason to do. So what with his fear of a rebuke
on this ground; a rebuke which he dreaded the more from the mildness of the
language in which he knew that it would be clothed; what with the irksomeness of
having to avow opinions which must be disagreeable to one whom he so highly
respected; and, moreover, the suspicion which he could not help feeling, that in
these new ways of his, so different form what he had been used to revere, and so
suddenly taken up, he might possibly be wrong; for all these various reasons, he
met his Pastor with a downcast and half-guilty look, very different from the
open, honest smile with which he had till then, ever greeted the good Clergyman.

Dr. Spencer, however, took no notice of the difference. "Well, John," said he,
"I am glad to see you. I was on my way to have a little conversation with you,
and should have been sorry to have missed you."

John thought it best to be bold, and come out at once with his defence of
himself "I believe, Sir," said he, "that I can guess what it is you were wishing
to talk with me about. I have taken a step which I fear,… I know, … must be
displeasing to you, Sir. I trust, however, that in exercising my Christian
Liberty in the choice of my spiritual teacher, and joining the meeting instead
of going to Church, I shall not seem to have acted from disrespect to you, Sir,
who have so long been a good friend to me and mine."

Dr.—By no means, John; do not suppose either that I feel personally offended at
your conduct, or that I do not regard you with feelings as friendly as ever.
But, as to the Christian Liberty you speak of, we perhaps understand that matter
rather differently; and it was because I thought you were in some mistake about
it, that I was coming to see you to-day. I have missed yourself and family for
some Sundays past in Church, and understood you had joined the meeting. Is not
this the case?

John.—It is, Sir; and, as I have already said, without the slightest notion of
showing you disrespect.

Dr.—Say no more about that, John; I know you too well to suspect you for a
moment of such a feeling as that. Speak to me as to your sincere friend and
well-wisher, in perfect candour: and do not fear that I shall be offended at any
thing you say, while you tell me fairly your reasons for this change in your
conduct.

J.—I am sure, Sir, that in the old Church I never heard any thing from you but
what was good; and I never thought, till the other day, that I could pray better
in any other words than in those of the Church Service. But there is something
so fine in the prayers without book, as they are offered at meeting, and…

Dr.—And something perhaps in the manner and language of the preacher, who
preaches there without a book also. But let me ask, had you no other reasons,
than these, and such as these, for leaving the Church?

J.—None, Sir; but such as these; at least, none that I am aware of.

Dr.—You did not consider that either the Church Prayer-Book, or my Sermons,
taught doctrines contrary to the great truths revealed in GOD’S Word?

J.—God forbid, Sir.

Dr.—You had, then, perhaps, some such notions as this; you though that in the
Church you could pray well, but at meeting you could pray rather better?

J.—Just so, Sir.

Dr.—And you though that you were doing GOD service, then, by joining that
worship which touched you most?

J.—And surely, Sir, I was right in that thought, at least.

Dr.— You would have been right, if GOD had not chosen a Minister for you. In
that case perhaps you might have used you Christian Liberty, as you call it, and
joined any congregation and worship you pleased. But his having given a clear
command alters the case, and makes that which would otherwise have been a matter
of indifference, an act of disobedience and sin.

J.—But if I may be so bold as to ask, Sir, when did GOD give this command, and
where is it to be found? I am not so ready with the Bible as learned people, yet
I know it in my own way. That was the very thing I heard Mr. Tims, who preaches
at the meeting, ask last Sunday. He said, "Where is the Church of England spoken
of in the Bible? name chapter and verse where we are bid belong to it." And then
he went on to say, that the new heart is every thing, and that we shall not be
asked at the last day, whether we were Churchmen or Dissenters, but what the
state of our heart is.

Dr.—We shall be asked at the last day whether we have obeyed GOD’S commandments;
now, one of those commandments is, that we should belong to the Church, as I
will soon show you. But, first, you shall tell me what has been your reason,
till lately, for going to Church.

J.—I was born of Church-going parents, and that made me a regular Church-goer in
my youth. And when I grew up, I always, at least till the other day, thought
that I had the best of reasons for keeping regular to Church. In the first
place, the Church was the Law Church; and that of itself would be a reason, even
if there were no other, for good subjects keeping to it; and then, I knew it had
been in the country many, many years whereas all the meetings about are (so to
say) of yesterday, and in one sense upstarts. And then I had heard from you,
Sir, that in former times it had Saints and Martyrs, such as were when our LORD
was on earth. and I thought it therefore far more likely to be right, and had a
stronger claim on me than any other religion; and especially since I was a
pretty regular reader of my Bible, and never found the teaching which I heard at
Church different from that which I thus picked up at home.

Dr.—All good reasons as far as they went; but I see that I was right in
supposing the chief claim the Church has on all Christians is unknown to you.
Our Church is sprung from that very Church which CHRIST set up at Jerusalem when
He came upon earth; and none of the sects have this great gift. It is a branch
of that Holy Church which CHRIST promised to be with, "even to the end of the
world." You must surely often have met in the Bible with mention of "the
Church;" what did you suppose the word to mean?

J.—I do not know, Sir, that I had any very clear idea what it meant; but I
rather thought it meant, all sincere Christians in all parts of the world, to
whatever Church or sect they might belong.

Dr.—Then it seems you did not understand the word "Church" to signify a body of
men, bound by the same laws, acting together, speaking the same thing, attending
the same worship, reverencing the same Pastors and Teachers, and receiving at
their hands the Sacraments which CHRIST has ordained. Yet it is quite certain
that this is what our LORD meant, when He spoke of His Church. He meant a Church
such as the Church of England. This will be clear to you from Matthew 18:15-17.
In these verses CHRIST speaks of the Church; in the last of them He bids His
disciples regard any one who should in certain cases refuse to "hear the
Church," as a heathen and a publican; as an opposer of His authority, and an
outcast from His sacred fold. Thus it appears the Church He speaks of is not a
mere number of good people scattered over the world, who may or may not have
communion with each other, (which was your notion of the word) but one public,
orderly, visible body, consisting of Ministers and people, such as the Church of
England. To be sure, the Church of England happens to have wealth and honour,
and that first

Church has not; but this is but an accidental difference between them. If the
Church of England were to lose its wealth and honour, it would not, could not,
thereby cease to be a branch of the true Church; and by comparing the text just
given you with Matthew 16:18-19, you will see that it was to this visible Church
that the promise was made, that the gates of hell should not prevail against it.

J.—If you would kindly write down these texts for me, I will turn them out of my
own Bible, and think over them. There is one thing, however, Sir, which comes
into my mind to ask you. Even supposing all Christians ought to join together
into one, yet they do not. There are a good many religions among us, and how is
a plain unlearned man like me to know which is the real Church spoken of in
these passages?

Dr.—The matter is not so difficult as you imagine, even to the most unlearned.
The true Church mustpossess, as I will now show you, certain marks; to which not
even a pretence is made by the numerous sects of Dissenters with which our
country, from different unfortunate circumstances, abounds. let me go back to
the time when the Gospel was first preached, and converts made by the Apostles.
Many of these believers, we find, acknowledged in the Apostles the authority
which CHRIST had given them over the flock, and were followers of them even as
they were of CHRIST, (1 Corinthians 11:1) remembering them in all things, and
keeping the ordinances which they had delivered to the congregation in each
place; and for this conduct the Corinthians received the inspired praise of St.
Paul. (1 Corinthians 11:2) But there were others, who called themselves
Christians, who caused divisions among the brethren, (1 Cor. ii. 18, 19.)
forming parties of their own, and setting at nought the Apostolical Authority.
To these St. Paul spoke in vain, when he said, "I beseech you, brethren, by the
name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there
be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same
mind, and in the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10) They slighted the LORD’S
accredited Minister, and said that his bodily presence was weak, and his speech
contemptible. (2 Corinthians 10:10) Many of the sects which these men formed,
fell, as was to be expected, into follies and heresies; but even without
reference to this fact, even if we suppose them to have taught the great
doctrines of Christianity with the same purity as the Apostles did, could a
reasonable man entertain a moment’s doubt, granting CHRIST had indeed founded a
Church on earth, which that Church was; whether the name of Church belonged to
the company of Christians which obeyed His Apostles; or, on the other hand, to
any one of the sects which vilified and despised them?

J.—Certainly not; that is, there could be no doubt, as long as the Apostles were
alive, that the Christians whom they governed must have made up the true visible
Church of CHRIST.

Dr.—But, John, it is plain you see, that there were a great number of sects then
as there is now; so that a man, who wished to do his duty, would have to look
about him carefully, and would be in danger of doing wrong, if he joined the
first body of so-called Christians, which he met with!—a great number of sects,
I repeat, even though the Apostles were alive; so that it is not the mere
circumstance of the Apostles being dead, which makes a search necessary to find
the true Church.

J.— I see what you would say, Sir.

Dr.—Now then to proceed. You are disposed to doubt, whether one Church was truer
than another after the Apostle’s death. Surely is it not plain, that the Church
would still be the true one, which they had governed? Now you will find,
(Matthew 28:19-20) that our LORD promised to be with His Apostles in their
character of teachers and baptizers of the nations always, even unto the end of
the world. What did He mean by that?

J.—He could not mean that Peter, James, or John, or their brethren, were to live
for ever on earth; for we know that they are long since dead.

Dr.—Certainly not; and we must therefore ascribe to His words the only other
meaning which they can reasonably bear. As he could not have spoken of the
persons of the Apostles, he must have spoken of their offices. He must have
meant that though Peter, James, and John should be taken from the world the true
Church should never be left without Apostles, but be guided by their successors
to the end of time.

John Evans had all this while been retracing with Dr. Spencer the way he had
lately come, and had now arrived at the door of his own house. The good
clergyman thinking he had given him matter enough to cast in his mind, took this
as a fit moment to break off the conversation, determining to resume it some
early day. He therefore merely went into his parishioner’s house, to turn out
for him the texts he had referred to, and then wished him good evening. The next
Sunday John was at Church; and after the service was over, he kept lingering in
the path which led to the Dr.’s house, in hopes of being overtaken by his
Rector. He was not disappointed. Dr. Spencer soon joined him, and the argument
between them was resumed.

J.—If, Sir, as you were saying, our LORD meant, that there should be teachers
and rulers of the Church, to stand in the place of the Apostles after their
death, how is it we hear nothing of these successors, so to call them, in
Scripture?

Dr.—On the other hand I affirm, we hear a great deal about them in Scripture, as
you will agree with me. Surely you recollect the Apostles solemnly laying their
hands on others, or, as it is called, ordainingthem, to act as their assistants
and fellows; and this they did, when Christians became too numerous for them to
attend to them all by themselves. Such a person was Timothy, whom St. Paul thus
consecrated by the putting on of his hands, (1 Timothy 1:6) to bear rule over
that branch of the Church which was established at Ephesus in Asia; such Titus,
(Titus 1:5) whom he left with authority over the Church in the island of Crete,
"to set in order the things that were wanting;" and such Epaphroditus, whom he
sent to the Phillippians as his "brother, and companion in labour, and
fellow-soldier, but their messenger," orApostle. (Php 2:25) Now in the absence
of the Apostles, what do you suppose would have been the conduct of all true
Christians to these whom the Apostles had appointed?

J.—Of course they would have shown them all honour and obedience, in order to
show their respect for the Apostles themselves.

Dr.—Certainly; as reverencing St. Paul, they would have attended to his plain
doctrine; "Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper
concerning you; or our brethren (i. e. Luke and another sent to act jointly with
Titus) be enquired of, they are the Apostles of the Church, and the glory of
CHRIST. Wherefore show yet to them and before the Churches, the proof of your
love, and of our boasting on your behalf." (2 Corinthians 8:23-24) On the other
hand, how do you think these new Apostles would have been treated by those who
slighted the authority of St. Peter and St. Paul?

J.—Those who set at nought the Apostles themselves, would also set at nought
those who stood in their place.

Dr.—You see, then, that had we lived in the days of the Apostles, we should have
had one plain test among others, for discovering the true Church, in spite of
all counterfeits of it. The true Church was that Christian body, which was
governed by men commissioned by the Apostles; and those who were perverse
towards St. Peter and St. Paul, would have been disobedient towards them. But
let us now go a step further. Do you suppose that Timothy, for instance, ceased
to be an Apostles, such as St. Paul had made him, on the death of St. Paul?

J.—I do not see why he should; but I should like to know whether there is proof
from Scripture that he did not?

Dr.—When St. Paul was just going to be put to death for the sake of the Gospel,
he writes thus to Timothy: "Preach the Word! be instant in season, out of
season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. . . . . .
Watch thou in all things, endure affliction, do the work of an evangelist, make
full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course." (2
Timothy 4:2-7)

J.—From these words it is certainly clear that St. Paul intended Timothy, whom
he had appointed to act as his brother and fellow-labourer while he lived, to
act as his successor when he should be no more.

Dr.—And all true Christians, who have reverenced Timothy as if really St. Paul,
when that Apostle was removed from them for a time by distance, would no less
reverence him as such, when the Apostle was removed once for all by death.

J.—They could do no less.

Dr.—It follows, then, that even when the Apostles had all entered into their
rest, i.e. in the second age of the Gospel, we might still have used the test I
have given, to distinguish the Church of CHRIST from sects falsely claiming that
name. We should have found the one set of Christians reverently sitting at the
feet of the successors of Apostles; all the others so called, openly rejecting
their rightful authority.

J.—It is true; even while these successors of the Apostles lived, all who
professed to obey CHRIST, were bound to pay them and would have paid them, a
reverence which the false sects would not have paid; so that in those times
there would certainly have been no difficulty in finding which was the Church,
which it was our duty to join.

Dr.—And when Timothy, Titus, or Epaphroditus, as exercising the same full
authority which had been exercised by St. Paul, themselves appointed
fellow-labourers and successors, committing, as the Apostle had enjoined one of
them to do, the things which they had heard to faithful men who might be able to
teach others also: (2 Timothy 2:2) would not these faithful men be reverenced by
all true Christians, for the very same reason which led them to reverence those
who appointed them?

J.—They would so, no doubt. As long as a direct line was continued from the
Apostles themselves onwards, all consistent Christians must have paid them
reverence. And such a succession might have gone on for a long while,—an hundred
years or more.

Dr.—What if it have now gone on for eighteen hundred years? What if, by the good
providence of GOD, the line which began with the Apostles Peter and Paul should
have continued even to this very day? so that there are men who stand in the
place of the Holy Saints and Martyrs of Scripture up to this very hour, under
the great and eternal Head of the Church? You look surprised, but such is the
fact; and if such persons do really exist, and if we find one community of
Christians acknowledging and obeying, and ruled by them, while every other body
of professing Christians in our island disclaims and rejects them, you will see
that this test will enable the most simple-minded and unlearned person to
discriminate between the true Church of CHRIST and the unauthorized sects which
called themselves CHRIST’S followers now, almost as clearly as he could had he
lived in the days of the Apostles themselves.

J.—Yes; the body of Christians, which reverences and is guided by the successors
of the Apostles, must be the true Church of CHRIST. But who are these successors
of the Apostles in our country? though, to be sure, I think I know what answer
you will give me.

Dr.—The Bishops of the Church of England are they. There is not one of them who
cannot trace his right to guide and govern CHRIST’S Church, and to ordain its
Ministers, through a long line of predecessors, up to the favoured persons who
were consecrated by the laying on of the holy hands of St. Peter and of St.
Paul. This is a fact which dissenters from the Church of England do not, and
cannot deny: nor do they profess that the authority of those, whom they call
their ministers, to teach and to administer the Sacraments, rests at all on such
grounds as these.

J.—I understand you, Sir; but I have one remark to make, if you will please to
hear it. Bishops do not work miracles, as the Apostles did; nor can you mean
that we are to look upon their teaching and writings now, as dictated by
immediate inspiration, and consequently infallible, like the New Testament. How
then are they successors of the Apostles?

Dr.—You are bringing me to a large subject, John; which we will discuss some
other time, not on a Sunday evening, when you have your young ones at home,
waiting to say their verses to you; and I had rather rest than argue after the
Services of the day. We will have some further talk when occasion offers;
meanwhile, in answer to your inquiry, I will but bid you compare John XX. with
Acts ii. The miraculousgifts were sent down upon the Apostles on the day of
Pentecost; but the commission to preach, teach, and ordain, was given, quite
independently of all such extraordinary endowments, before our SAVIOUR ascended
into heaven. One word at parting.—You have had a good education; your mind has
been opened to enter into arguments, to see objections, and answer questions:
your understanding has been sharpened. This is a talent which may be used
rightly, or abused; to the unwary all gifts are temptations. As riches betray
men into selfishness and an evil security, so does a sharp wit tend to make them
self-confident, arrogant, and irreverent. Look at the advantages which GOD has
given you, not as a cause of boasting and self-gratification, but seriously and
anxiously, as a treasure of which you are steward for GOD, and concerning which
you must one day give account to him.

OXFORD, The Feast of the Annunciation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 32: 30 - CHRISTIAN LIBERTY; OR, WHY SHOULD WE BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND? CONT
========================================================================

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY; OR, WHY SHOULD WE BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

BY A LAYMAN.

(Continued.)

[Number 30]

He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him
that sent Me.

He that receiveth a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s
reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man,
shall receive a righteous man’s reward. Matthew 10:40-41.

JOHN EVANS did not fail to look out in his Bible the texts to which Dr. Spencer
had referred him; and he saw clearly that the miraculous powers with which it
pleased GOD to endue the Apostles, were by no means necessarily connected with
the commission which those Apostles had previously received from our LORD; the
commission, we mean, to teach and baptize all nations.

John was seen again on the next Sunday, at his accustomed place in church. The
doctor preached from the text, Mark 16:17-18; "And these signs shall follow them
that believe: in My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

He pointed out to his congregation the beautiful regularity which pervades the
works of God; the settled laws, the established order, with which our Maker
guides the course of things around us; the certainty with which the stars rise
and set, the moon waxes and wanes, the flower follows the bud, and the seed the
flower. He reminded his hearers how truly, from the times of the flood, GOD’S
promise has been fulfilled: and seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and
winter, day and night, have not ceased. (Genesis 8:8) "And surely," said he, "we
see in these things the proofs that GOD is a God of order; that He would not
lightly or without important reasons change the system which he has established,
the laws which he has framed. If then we were to hear that the ALMIGHTY had on a
certain occasion broken through these laws, and violated by miracles the
established order of nature, we should have the strongest reason to suppose,
1st, that He had only done so in order to accomplish something which could not
conceivably have been accomplished without such interpositions; and 2ndly, that
He would discontinue these interpositions as soon as they became no longer
necessary.

"Now both these conclusions," continued the Doctor, "we find to agree alike with
the Bible and with the recorded history of mankind. It was necessary that the
doctrines of Christianity should be known to be the infallible truth of GOD;
that what the Apostles said or wrote on the subject should be received as the
words of GOD Himself speaking to mankind. Now this authority, as far as we can
see, can be given to mortal man only by GOD’S visibly interfering in his
support; and such interferences are what we call miracles. We see then, that for
the establishment in the world of Christianity, and of the authority of those
sacred books which form the New Testament, miracles were necessary; and we find
from Scripture that miracles were then vouchsafed. But when the interference had
been fully proved, when evidence of it could be handed down by ordinary means to
following generations; and when no more divine truth was to be revealed,
miracles were needed no longer; and the history of the world informs us, that
they have ceased for seventeen hundred years." And while the Doctor, in
conclusion, pointed out on the one hand the folly of expecting a recurrence of
such marvels in our own days, an expectation which amounts to an acknowledgment
that Christianity is as yet imperfect, and that we are to look for a more
complete revelation; he dwelt with much earnestness on the danger of imagining
that GOD’S peculiar protection of Christianity, GOD’S peculiar inward gifts to
believers, ceased with the cessation of the outward signs and wonders which at
first accompanied the revelation of His Word.

John listened with great attention; and, when the Service was over, he thought
long and deeply upon what had been said. He looked out also the different texts
which the Doctor had mentioned in his Sermon; and in so doing he came to one
which rather puzzled him. It was John 14:16. "It is strange," said he to
himself: our LORD promised that the COMFORTER whom He would send, should abide
with his followers for ever; I really do not see why this promise should be
given, if the greatest and most striking gifts which that COMFORTER was to
bestow, were to cease at the end of one, or at most of two generations." That
evening, as he was strolling in the fine summer twilight along the banks of the
river, he met the Doctor, who had walked that way to enjoy the fineness of the
season, and to refresh himself after the holy labours of the day. He told him
his difficulty, nearly in the words in which we have expressed it; and the
Doctor, smiling good-naturedly, thus replied.

Dr.—Are you quite sure, John, that you have stated your case aright? Is it
perfectly certain that miraculous powers were the greatest gifts which the
ETERNAL SPIRIT was commissioned to bestow upon mankind?

J.—It certainly appeared to me that they were; such marked, such striking
instances of God’s favour were surely greater boons than any thing else which we
can conceive to be given to mortals in this present life. I think, Sir, that I
have heard you yourself call these gifts of the SPIRIT, as opposed to others,
His extraordinary gifts.

Dr.—You may very probably have heard me so call them; but "extraordinary" only
means "unusual;" and it does not always follow that what is unusual is more
important than what is of frequent occurrence. But tell me, John, in the case in
which one thing is done in order to prepare for the doing of some other thing,
which is the most important of the two; the first of these things or the last;
the means or the end?

J.—The end, of course, is more important than the means; no man would venture to
call the scaffolding which is raised that the house may be built, more important
than the house itself.

Dr.—Now think a moment, John, before you answer me; why were the miraculous
powers bestowed on the Apostles?

J.—To make men believers in CHRIST.

Dr.—To prepare the way, that is, for their receiving those in ward gifts of the
SPIRIT, in which true believers now participate as fully as those who lived in
the days of the Apostles.

J.—I see, Sir; the extraordinary gifts might be compared to the scaffolding, the
ordinary ones to the house.

Dr.—Exactly so, John; marvellous and striking as were the signs and wonders of
the Apostolic age, we should ever recollect that they were not greater gifts, or
even gifts so great as those inward ones which are our evangelical inheritance,
as well as that of the primitive Christians. When the doctrine of the HOLY
GHOST, and of His inward influence, was new to the world, it pleased GOD to
confirm it, and to show that the influence was real, by permitting, in some
cases, those on whom it descended to perform works which they could not have
done, had not God been with them. Thus the real importance, even then, of these
miraculous gifts consisted in their bearing witness to the inward and unseen
ones which GOD still showers upon His Church.

J.—And which we dare not suppose to have ceased, merely because the outward
signs of them did, when GOD Himself had promised that they should last for ever.

Dr.—Well; the promise of support to the Apostles, in the performance of their
ministerial duties, was equally perpetual; CHRIST was to be with them, we have
seen, as the teachers and baptizers of all nations, "alway, even unto the end of
the world." The reality of their powers, and, among others, of their power of
conferring the HOLY GHOST on others, was attested at first by miracles. (Acts
8:17-18) But we have no more reason for supposing that the true powers of the
ministry ceased with the outward signs, in the case of the Apostles, than we
have for supposing, in the case just mentioned of the gifts of common believers,
that from the moment miracles were no longer vouchsafed, the HOLY SPIRIT
withdrew Himself from the guidance of the Church for ever. That GOD has bestowed
Apostolic gifts upon Apostles, and the regenerating influences of His HOLY GHOST
upon other believers, we know from the recorded testimony of those who witnessed
the miracles by which the reality of those gifts and influences was at first
established. That those gifts and influences will be alike perpetual in the
Church, we are bound to believe upon the solemn word of Him who gave them.

J.—Miracles, then, performed in one age, and handed down by history to others,
form the standing proofs of the reality of those gifts which were given to the
church for ever; and one of those gifts was undoubtedly the Apostolic power;
which we must believe, upon this evidence, to be still existing.

Dr.—Exactly so; and infallibility of doctrine, itself a miracle, ceased with
miracles in general. We cannot see any reason for the continuance of such a gift
to the successors of the Apostles, when the Apostles themselves have recorded
all things necessary to salvation in those sacred Scriptures, which have come
down to our times, and to which we can all refer. Nor have we the slightest
ground for doubting the permanence of those Apostolic privileges which were of
perpetual necessity, merely because a miraculous gift, evidently no longer
necessary, has been discontinued.

J.—This, Sir, I understand; but there is one difficulty which occurs to me. As
the rulers of the true Church are no longer in fallible, what is to prevent
their all falling together into error, and thus leading astray the whole Church
committed to their care?

Dr.—We may infer from CHRIST’S promise already mentioned, that this will never
happen to the whole Church at once; that some true Apostles will be found on
earth in every age, until that last period of the world’s history, which shall
witness His coming. But that with regard to particular branches of His Church,
this may happen, and has happened, is a melancholy truth. There is one simple
test, however, by which we may at once assure our selves that the Church of
England has not so fallen away, or, as it is called, apostatized from the faith
of her Lord and Master.

J.—And what is that, Sir?

Dr.—As the eternal truth of GOD is contained in His revealed word, the Bible; no
Church, whatever may be the errors of its individual members, can be said, as a
Church, to have fallen away, and consequently to have lost her claim to the
obedience of CHRIST’S true disciples, while she still reverences that
Bible;—while she puts it into the hand of each of her followers, and bids him
read it, and seek there, and there only, the proofs of the doctrine which she
inculcates; and while she declares, as the Church of England does in her sixth
Article, that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so
that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

J.—Then according to you, Sir, the Church of England is not only the true, but
the original Church of CHRIST established in this kingdom.—Now Sam Jones, the
Catholic, who attends the Popish Chapel in the next parish, tells me that his is
the original Church, and that the Church of England is a new one.

Dr.—That which is truly the Catholic Church, is indeed the oldest; but though we
in a common way call the Papists, or followers of the Pope, Catholics yet it is
we who are the true Catholics; for the term only means members of CHRIST’S
universal Church. The history of the Papists is this. Many centuries ago,
strange and corrupt notions and practices prevailed in many of the Churches in
Europe. Among others, people thought the Pope or Bishop of Rome was gifted with
authority from Heaven to controul all the branches of the Church on earth, and
that his word was to be of more weight than even the Holy Scriptures themselves.
But about three hundred years ago, the Bishops of the Church of England saw
these errors in their true light; they saw that the Pope’s authority was not
founded on Scripture, and they consequently refused to acknowledge it, while
they at the same time corrected, upon scriptural principles, the other errors
and evil practices which I have alluded to. These changes did not make the
Church of England a new Church, nor prevent that body which was CHRIST’S true
and original Church before from being CHRIST’S true and original Church still.
Some Bishops of that day, it is true, disapproved of these changes, and refused
to accede to them; but as, when they died, they providentially appointed no
successors, there has never since been any real ground for doubt which was the
true Church of CHRIST in this favoured land. The Bishops of the Church of
England, and they only, are the representatives by succession of those who, more
than a thousand years ago, planted the Gospel on our shores [1].

J.—But there are persons whom the Papists call their Bishops —whence do they
come?

Dr.—They derive what they call their right from their appointment by foreign
Bishops in an unauthorized manner. The Pope and his followers would by no means
acknowledge the changes which had taken place in England; they declared that our
Church had apostatized from the faith, and refused to communicate with us, till
we should return to all our ancient errors They have since, upon the alleged
ground that our line of Bishops was extinct, given commission from time to time
to different persons to exercise episcopal authority here; but as the ground was
false, the commission was of course void. We acknowledge the Pope and his
Bishops in foreign countries to be, by station, ministers of the Church, though
we admit and lament the fact, that they have led the branches of it over which
they preside into apostasy and shame; yet we feel that in sending their
representatives hither, to act in defiance of the Church already established,
they are exceeding the limits of their authority. We feel that GOD, who is not
the author of confusion, but of peace, in all churches of the saints, (1
Corinthians 14:33) cannot sanction the intrusion of one Bishop, however duly
consecrated, into the See of another, with a view to the usurpation of his name
and office, and to the organizing a systematic opposition to his authority. We
are compelled there fore to regard those who are ordained, as Popish Priests
are, by these intruding Bishops, as unauthorized and schismatical ministers of
religion, and as violaters, like the other dissenters around them, of the laws
of CHRIST’S Church, and of the unity of His fold.

J.—I thank you, Sir, for giving me so good an answer to Sam when next I meet
him. And I thank you, too, deeply and sincerely do I thank you, for teaching me
the nature of one great branch of Christian duty which I never understood
before. I seem now to see that there is a sin of which a Christian may be
guilty, of which I never before thought; the sin, I mean, of refusing obedience
to the command of our REDEEMER to hear His Apostles; to demean ourselves as
dutiful members of the Church which those holy persons founded, and over which
He Himself, invisibly, presides; a sin, of which they are deeply guilty who
separate themselves from that Church altogether, and join one or other of the
many sects which reject her authority. Pray, Sir, by what name is such a sin
properly called?

Dr.—It is called "schism," from a Greek word signifying "division." A man may
forfeit the privileges enjoyed by him as a member of CHRIST’S Church in two
ways:—either on account of "heresy," of his adopting opinions opposed to the
great truths of the Word of GOD; or through schism, through a disregard of
Church authority, and a notion that so long as his doctrine is pure, he may join
what sect he pleases, or even set up one for himself. The exercise of such a
privilege I have heard some people call "Christian Liberty."

J. (smiling).—I understand you, Sir: but you shall hear me use the words in this
improper sense no more. The true liberty where with CHRIST has made us free, is
theirs alone, who in reverencing His ministers, walk in the way of His
commandments. Admitting, as I now do, the force of what you have said;
convinced, as I now am, that the Church of England is the Apostolic Church of
CHRIST, established by our LORD Himself, I cannot but see that their sin is
indeed great, who wilfully reject and despise it.

Dr.—Such persons would do well to consider our SAVIOUR’S words to those
Ministers whose successors they slight. "He that despiseth you, despiseth Me;
and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." (Luke x. 16.)

J.—They would indeed, Sir; and I thank GOD that you have shown me the meaning of
this text before I had completely separated myself from the Church to which my
SAVIOUR has commanded me to belong. GOD knows, I meant to do no such thing when
first my curiosity led me to the meeting.

Dr.—I know it, John; but let me show you the danger of making the first step, of
yielding to the first temptation. Curiosity led you to a place, to which, if you
understood your duty, you had no business to go; you were pleased, and tempted
to repeat your visit, and might soon have been led to unite yourself entirely to
that unauthorized congregation; in defiance, as I have now shown you, of the
solemnly declared will of the ALMIGHTY.

J.—Well, Sir; I will, by GOD’S blessing, keep myself from such temptations for
the future. I trust that on each succeeding Sunday, while life and health are
spared me, I shall be found in my old accustomed seat at Church, and kneel in
the sacred spot where my forefathers knelt before me: and GOD grant that no
temptation may ever again lead me astray, or induce me to separate from the holy
Church of my REDEEMER.

Dr.—It gives me, John, the sincerest pleasure to hear you express such
sentiments as these. One good effect will, through GOD’S grace, result even from
this your temporary wandering from the fold. You will now know better than you
did, what we mean when in the words of our Liturgy we pray for "the good estate
of the Catholic Church;" and you will be enabled, I trust to join more fully
than heretofore in the beautiful prayer, "that it may be so guided and governed
by GOD’S good SPIRIT, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be
led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of
peace, and in righteousness of life."

J.—I hope, Sir, that I shall: I hope that I shall ever feel duly thankful for
the blessing of being called into CHRIST’S Church, thus happily established
among us; and I trust that when in the name of the congregation you put up the
prayer for protection against "false doctrine, heresy, and schism," my heart and
soul may accompany my lips in the response,—"Good LORD, deliver us !"

OXFORD, The Feast of the Annunciation.

FOOTNOTE

[1] In the same manner it may be shown, that the established Church of Ireland
alone represents that Church which the labours of St. Patrick, in the fifth
century, planted in that island. Those who preside over the Romanists have
received consecration from Rome, at a very recent period. And the corruptions
which prevail in their religion, and which distinguish it from ours, became
prevalent long after the Saint’s death. Our doctrines therefore approach more
nearly to his than theirs do; and our Church is the true and original Church of
CHRIST in Ireland, in every sense which the words will bear.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 33: 31 - THE REFORMED CHURCH.
========================================================================

THE REFORMED CHURCH.

[Number 31]

All the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD because
the foundation of the House of the LORD was laid. But many of the Priests and
Levites, the chief of the fathers, who were ancient men that had seen the first
House, when the foundation of this House was laid before their eyes, wept with a
loud voice.—Ezra 3:11-12.

SOME remarks may, perhaps, be profitably made on the following well known lines
in Herbert’s Church Militant, in which the text above quoted is applied to our
own period: The second Temple could not reach the first, And the late
Reformation never durst Compare with ancient times and purer years, But in the
Jews and us, deserveth tears.

Nay, it shall every year decrease and fade, Till such a darkness shall the world
invade At CHRIST’S last coming, as His first did find;

Yet must their proportions be assigned To these diminishings, as is between The
spacious world and Jewry to be seen.

Surely there is a close analogy between the state of the Jews after the
captivity, and our own; and, if so, a clear understanding and acknowledgment of
it will tend to teach us our own place and suggest to us our prospects.

1. It is scarcely necessary to notice the general correspondence between the
fortunes of the two Churches. Both Jews and Christians "left their first love,"
mixed with the world, were brought under the power of their enemies, went into
captivity, and at length, through GOD’S mercy, were brought back again from
Babylon. Ezra and Nehemiah are the forerunners of our Hookers and Lauds;
Sanballat and Geshem of the disturbers of our Israel. Samaria has set up its
rival temple among us.

2. The second Temple lacked the peculiar treasures of the Temple of Solomon, the
Prince of Peace; such as the Ark, the visible glory of GOD, the tables of the
Covenant, Aaron’s rod, the manna, the oracle. In like manner the Christian
Church was, in the beginning, set up in unity; unity of doctrine, ortruth, unity
of discipline, or Catholicism, unity of heart, or charity. In spite of the
heresies which then disturbed the repose of Christians, consider the evidences
which present themselves in ecclesiastical history of their firm endurance of
persecution, their tender regard for the members of CHRIST, however widely
removed by place and language, their self-denying liberality in supplying their
wants, the close correspondence of all parts of the body Catholic, as though it
were but one family, their profound reverential spirit towards sacred things,
the majesty of their religious services, and the noble strictness of their life
and conversation. Here we see the "Rod" of the Priesthood, budding forth with
fresh life; the "Manna" of the Christian ordinances uncorrupted; the "Oracle" of
Tradition fresh from the breasts of the Apostles; the "Law," written in its
purity on "the fleshly tables of the heart;" the "Shechinah," which a multitude
of Martyrs, Saints, Confessors, and gifted Teachers, poured throughout the
Temple. But where is our Unity now? our ministrations of self-denying love? our
prodigality of pious and charitable works ? our resolute resistance of evil? We
are reformed; we have come out of Babylon, and have rebuilt our Church; but it
is Ichabod; "the glory is departed from Israel."

3. The Jewish polity was, on its restoration, so secularized, that the vestiges
of a Theocracy scarcely remained in the eyes of any but attentive believers.
That it really existed as before, is plain from the prophetic gift possessed by
Caiaphas, wicked man as he was. Consider the anomaly of the political relation
of the Jews towards the Ptolemies and Seleucidae, their alliance with Rome,
their dispersion over the Roman Empire, their disuse of certain of the Mosaic
ordinances, the cruelties and blasphemies of Antiochus, the reign of Herod, and
his virtual rebuilding of the Temple, a remarkable omen as regards ourselves.
Turn to the restored Christian Church, and reflect upon the perplexed questions
concerning the union of Church and State, to which the politics of the last
three centuries have given rise; the tyrannical encroachments of the civil power
at various eras; the profanations at the time of the Great Rebellion; the
deliberate impiety of the French Revolution; and the present apparent breaking
up of Ecclesiastical Polity every where, the innumerable schisms, the mixture of
men of different creeds and sects, and the contempt poured upon any show of
Apostolical zeal.

4. Consider the following passages from the Prophets, after the Captivity, and
see if they do not apply to present times.

Haggai 1:4-10. "Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your ceiled houses, and
this house lie waste? Now, therefore, thus saith the LORD of Hosts, Consider
your ways. Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not
enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is
none warm; and he that earneth wages, earneth wages to put it into a bag with
holes," &c.

Malachi 1:6-13. "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I
be a Father, where is Mine honour? and if I be a Master, where is My fear? ....
Ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted, and the fruit thereof even His meat,
contemptible. Ye say also, Behold what a weariness is it, . . . and ye brought
that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering;
should I accept this of your hands, saith the LORD?"

Malachi 2:1-9. "And now, O ye Priests, this commandment is for you. . . And ye
shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that My covenant might be
with Levi, saith the LORD of Hosts. My covenant was with him of life and peace,
and I gave them to him, for the fear wherewith he feared Me, and was afraid
before My Name. The Law of Truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in
his lips; he walked with Me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from
iniquity. For the Priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they shall seek the
Law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of Hosts. But ye are
departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the Law; ye have
corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of Hosts. Therefore have I also
made you contemptible and base before all the people." Does not the history of
the times of Hoadley and such as he, and our present trials throw light upon the
parallel?

Malachi 3:8-9. "Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed Me; but ye say, Wherein
have we robbed Thee? in tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye
have robbed Me, even this whole nation."

5. It is remarkable that, while the reinstated Jewish Church was so deficient in
zeal, piety, and consistent obedience, and was punished by failure and
disorganization; yet it never fell into those gross and flagrant offences, which
were the opprobrium of its earlier period. It was clear of the sin of idolatry.

6. Moreover consider the parties, unknown to the era of the Theocracy, which
divided the Church after the captivity; the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the rest;
the necessary consequence of a relaxation of the original principle of national
union. The case is the same in this day; as if the Church were already dead, new
forms of organization, multiplied varieties of life and action, show themselves
within her.

7. Lastly. The following texts suggest hope to all true Christians. (Haggai
2:5-9) "According to the word that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of
Egypt, so MY SPIRIT REMAINETH AMONG YOU: fear ye not." He will be with us even
in this base and grovelling age, as with St. Paul, St. Cyprian, and St.
Athanasius.

"Thou wilt; for Thou art Israel’s God; And thine unwearied arm Is ready yetwith
Moses’ rod," &c.

"The glory of this latter house SHALL BE GREATER THAN OF THE FORMER, saith the
LORD of Hosts."

Strange it now seems before the event, how the Church should close both with
glory and yet in unbelief; yet surely, as in the history of Jerusalem, so now
both predictions will be at once fulfilled. (Malachi 4:1-2) " The day cometh
that shall burn as an oven, andall the proud, yea, andall who do wickedly shall
be stubble: butunto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise
with healing in His wings." And let it be remembered, that when our Lord seems
at greatest distance from His Church, then He is even at the doors. Doubtless,
when the Angel appeared in the Temple to Zacharias, the news of a miraculous
interposition was as great a marvel to the world at large as if it were now
noised abroad of one of our own Ministers in the course of his Christian
Service.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Mark.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 34: 32 - THE STANDING ORDINANCES OF RELIGION.
========================================================================

THE STANDING ORDINANCES OF RELIGION.

[Number 32]

MOST of us, perhaps, will find, upon examination, that we do not feel and act,
as the Apostles and the early Church felt and acted, with regard to the
Ordinances of our Religion. The reader is entreated to give this suggestion a
fair consideration; not to hurry on, nor turn away from the recollection, that
we shall all one day be judged, not merely by what we actually knew, but by what
we might have known, respecting our duties to CHRIST and His Church. Let him
consider, whether his own reason, and the Holy Scriptures, which were expressly
written in order that we might possess full religious knowledge, do not say more
on this subject than be has yet duly weighed and acted upon.

First, consider what Reason says; which surely, as well as Scripture, was given
us for religious ends.

1. Can you possibly imagine any better method of perpetuating doctrines, than by
ordinances, which live on like monuments? Consider, for instance, what is
implied in Christian Salvation; remember whose property and subjects we are when
we come into the world; and then endeavour, if you can, to estimate the value of
those two Blessed Ordinances, which are the standing and definite publication,
to every one of us, to our fathers, and our children, of the infinite mercies of
GOD, as manifested in the Covenant of the Gospel. E. g. a generation of ungodly
men (suppose) rise up and possess the earth; Satan, through their means;
corrupts all that he can, in the world; but meantime, something is living on, in
the very midst of them, independent of the variable opinions of the human mind;
something, which they cannot spoil, and which, after they are gone to their
account, and all their wretched folly has spent itself upon their own head, will
come forth pure and unsullied, full of sweetness and edifying comfort to the
remnant which shall then rise up, who will feed upon it by faith, and form anew
the living temple of the HOLY GHOST, in their generation. Thus the consecrated
Form of Religion will be like some fair statue, which lies buried for ages, but
comes forth at length as beautiful as ever; they will be furnished with all
requisites for teaching us those lessons, which the preceding age has been
engaged in obliterating.

2. If it be true that our weak and carnal minds do not readily dwell upon, nor
comprehend, spiritual things by themselves, can we conceive any thing more
precious to us on earth, than the outward forms which GOD Himself has appointed
to arrest our attention, to embody unseen realities, to serve as a kind of
ladder between earth and heaven, between our spirit and the Spirit of Holiness?
It is much to our purpose to observe, that Almighty GOD Himself directly
declares that this is His design, in the institution of Forms and Ordinances.
And the consideration of such passages of Scripture may perhaps set us on asking
ourselves whether we can be really desiring the end, if we find ourselves at all
irregular in seeking the means which He has appointed. (Vide Exodus 12:26.
Exodus 13:5-10 and Exodus 13:11-16. Leviticus 23:43. Joshua 1:1-7.)

3. Further, religious ordinances are, to the consciences of individuals, a
recurring testimony against sin. Can we conceive any thing more precious in an
ungodly world, in the perverse world of our own heart? Dare we then suffer to
decay, and go to nought, the means which GOD has provided for calling sinners to
repentance, and even the best men to self-examination? Shall we suffer ourselves
to think and speak lightly of them, and neglect to defend them when they are
attacked? To remove a barrier against error, is in its measure to encourage and
tempt men to it; and comes under the denunciation pronounced by our Blessed
LORD, (Luke 17:1-2) "Woe unto him through whom offences come; it were better for
him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than
that he should make to stumble one of these little ones."

Just the same care did GOD take of His peculiar people of old. "Write ye this
song for you, and teach it the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that
this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. For when I
shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that
floweth with milk and honey, and they shall have eaten and filled themselves,
and waxed fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke
Me, and break My covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and
troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a
witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed."
(Deuteronomy 31:19-21)

"Which of you," says Hooker, "receiveth a guest whom he honoureth, and whom he
loveth, and doth not sweep his chamber against his coming? And shall we suffer
the chambers of our hearts and consciences to lie full of vomiting, full of
filth, full of garbage, knowing that CHRIST hath said, ‘I and My Father will
come and dwell with you ?’... Blessed and praised for ever and ever be His Name,
who, perceiving of how senseless and heavy metal we are made, hath instituted in
His Church a Spiritual Supper, and an Holy Communion, to be celebrated often,
that we might thereby be occasioned often to examine these buildings of ours, in
what case they stand. For sith GOD doth not dwell in temples which are unclean;
sith a shrine cannot be a sanctuary to Him; and this Supper is received as a
seal unto us, that we are His house and His sanctuary; that His CHRIST is as
truly united unto me, and I to Him, as my arm is united and knit unto my
shoulder; that He dwelleth in me as verily as the elements of bread and wine
abide within me; which persuasion, by receiving these dreadful mysteries, we
profess ourselves to have; a due comfort, if truly; and if in hypocrisy, then
woe with us.

4. These arguments, in behalf of the duty of keeping to the Standing Ordinances
of Religion, are strengthened by the consideration of the peculiar influence
which old and familiar institutions exert over the affections. If Christianity
were left to select and reject its ordinances, as one age succeeded to another,
there would be no safeguard for the permanence and identity of the religious
temper itself. GOD indeed might invisibly preserve it; but so He might (did He
so choose) without ordinances of any kind. But, since He has vouchsafed to
employ them, it is but judging according to the revealed course of His
Providence, to say, that His purpose is more fully answered by their being of a
standing than of a variable nature. Thus we find an argument from the reason of
the case, for rigidly adhering to those which have been transmitted to us.

5. Consider for one moment what becomes of any of us, if we be not blest and
supported with the Divine Grace; and then consider through what channels it is
mostnatural to expect, andsafest to seekthis Grace: whether
throughStandingOrdinances, those to which the Church has ever had recourse as
appointed by CHRIST and His Apostles, or those which we follow without inquiry
as to their antiquity or acceptableness. The analogy of former dispensations
leads us to the same conclusion. Abraham at Hebron (Gen. xv. 8, 9.) seeks a
sign; Almighty GOD refers him to theusualordinance of worship, sacrifice,
andthereinsends him a sign. So again, He might have revealed Himself to Moses in
any place; but if Moses would find Him, it must be in the Tabernacle.
Corneliusprayedandfasted, certainly not expecting a supernatural vision; but one
was sent him, with the message of salvation. On the other hand, it is the
peculiarity of false prophets and unsound teachers to seekchangeandnoveltyin the
rites with which they approach GOD. "When Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to
bless Israel, he went notas at other timesto seek for enchantments, but he set
his face towards the wilderness." (Numbers 24:1) Accordingly he is obliged to
speak with a wavering belief: "Peradventurethe LORD will come to meet me." So
much for whatReasonsuggests to us. Now let us observe what GOD Himself has
directly told us inScriptureconcerning Standing Religious Ordinances.

1. He positively enjoins them. Turn to the Jewish ceremonies, and remember that
they were, (1.) Often unintelligible in their full import, yet positively
enjoined, even on pain of death. E. g. Circumcision (Genesis 17:14), the
Passover (Exodus 12:15. Numbers 9:13) And remember that our faith and obedience
are chiefly tried in things not understood, as, for instance, in the prohibition
of the tree of knowledge. (2.) They were afterwards found to be significant. See
the Epistle to the Hebrews throughout. Just as wise teachers store the minds of
children with things which they will not fully understand till a future day, so
does our Divine Master admit us to the Symbols of that eternal worship and
service of Him, which shall constitute the blessedness of the next life, a
blessedness which it hath not entered into man’s heart to conceive. (3.) The
ordinances-of the Christian Church are held in such high honour, that even to
those whom He had first enriched with His miraculous gift, it was yet a farther
and indispensable blessing to receive a solemn admission into her sacred
mysteries. Mark, for instance, St. Peter’s converts, Acts x. 44—48. They had
received the HOLY GHOST, and spake with other tongues: "Then answered Peter, Can
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the
HOLY GHOST as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of
the LORD." Vide also Acts 13:2-3.

2. GOD provided that the Jews should be able to keep His ordinances; rather
interrupting the course of nature, and controlling the feelings of whole
nations, than that the ordinances of His service should be set aside on a single
occasion. If He commands the observance of the Sabbath in the wilderness, He
provides for the people a double store of manna on the day before, and
miraculously preserves it from corruption. (Exodus 16:5, Exodus 16:24) If He
directs that the land be allowed to lie fallow every seventh year, He sends a
triple harvest in the sixth year. (Leviticus 25:21) If He enjoins all the males
to leave their homes, and appear before Him thrice in the year, he suspends all
the jealous and hostile feelings of the neighbouring nations, and promises that
they should not even "desire" the land of the Israelites. (Exodus 34:24)

3. We cannot dare to conjecture how much evil may come from neglecting positive
ordinances. King Saul departed from the express command of GOD, respecting the
way in which sacrifice should be made to Him. He could even make a plausible
excuse for what he did; but turn to 1 Samuel 13:13, and see what it drew down
upon him: "Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the commandment of the
LORD thy GOD which He commanded thee; for now would the LORD have established
thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the
LORD hath sought Him a man after His own heart, and the LORD hath commanded Him
to be captain over His people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD
commanded thee." Think again of Nadab and Abihu; they did notneglect the worship
of GOD; but they thought they might surely take the fire for the sacrifice from
whence they would; "surely this was a minor point," as some among us are
presumptuous enough to say. But He who gave laws to them and us, knows nothing
of minor points. There can be no little sin, for there is no little authority to
sin against. Nadab and Abihu were struck dead for offering with strange fire.
This is agreeable to the analogy of the physical world, which is open to our
senses. It is a simple and apparently harmless thing to place a candle near
gunpowder, or to bring certain gases together; but the result may cost us our
life.

4. Such was the importance of observing positive ordinances in the Jewish
Church. Surely the lesson delivered in the Old Testament is intended for us
Christians. We have the same unchanging Father, who was the GOD of Israel, and
who has given us the Scriptures that we may have the means of searching out His
will. First consider the light in which He views in the law of Moses what we are
apt to call "minor points." "Therefore shall ye abide at the door of the
Tabernacle of the Congregation day and night, seven days, and keep the charge of
the Lord,that ye die not." (Leviticus 8:35) After the death of Nadab and Abihu,
the charge is given "unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, Uncover
not your heads, neither rend your clothes, lestye die, and lestwrath come upon
all the people." (Leviticus 10:6) "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor
thy sons with thee, when ye go into the Tabernacle of the Congregation,lest ye
die." (Ibid.) This was the uniform tone of the Divine Guardian of the Church
then. Is the duty less urgent now? when, (1.) the added claim on our gratitude
is all that the New Testament tells us. (2.) The Ordinances are so much fewer,
and therefore, first, thetroubleof them is so incomparably diminished; next,
thepreciousnessof them (humanly speaking) so much more strikingly seen: they are
the only jewels of this sort that we have left.

5. Remark may be made upon the very circumstance, that, in the Christian
Covenant, Standing Ordinances are made the channels of its peculiar blessings.
The first use of Ordinances is that of witnessing for the Truth, as above
mentioned. Now theirsacramentalcharacter is perfectly distinct from this, and is
doubtless a great honour put on them. Had we been left to conjecture, we might
have supposed, that in the more perfect or spiritual system, the gifts of grace
would rather have been attached to certain highmoralperformances; whereas they
are deposited in mere positive ordinances, as if to warn us against dropping the
ceremonial of Christianity. This last observation leads to the brief notice of
an objection sometimes brought against the necessity of a Christian’s attention
to Ordinances, grounded on the notion of thespiritual characterof Christianity.
Now,—1. Are we quite sure thatweare more spiritual, and more independent of the
external helps of the Church, than Samuel,—Hezekiah,—Josiah,—and Daniel?— 2.
What does our own experience say? Do we see the best and holiest of men becoming
most independent and regardless of them, or the very reverse? 3. Are the
feelings of love, affection, reverence, tender remembrance, which are
entertained to wards such places and things as are associated in our minds with
the persons who are the primary objects of these feelings,inconsistentwith
spiritual-mindedness? Are not the Ordinances which Christ and His Apostles have
appointed, thebond of perpetuated unityto the Church, a precious and mysterious
medium for the "Communion of Saints" in all countries and ages? No one among us
would think it a mark of weakness to cherish with attachment and respect a Bible
which his father had used for half a century, from which he had learned the
words of life and the way of salvation. And is it not a soothing and elevating
privilege, to feel that we, even at this distant day, are allowed to come and
walk in the very steps of all the holy men of old, the glorious company of the
Apostles, and the noble army of martyrs, to take that narrow path, whose farther
end they have now found to be in heaven? In walking over the very ground where
the holy Apostles lived and walked as Bishops, or in following our LORD Himself
into Gethsemane, along the beach of the sea of Gennesareth, or in pausing with
Him on the Mount Olivet, as He weeps over Jerusalem, we find ourselves moved
with some thing too deep and touching for words, and almost for thought; and is
it no privilege, no blessing, tothinkwith Him, to have our spirit admitted to
move in the same path which His Holy Spirit hath chosen; to be consecrated with
Him and to Him in the water of Baptism, to eat the Holy Supper with Him, to fast
with Him, to pray with Him in the very form and very thoughts which flowed from
His divine mind and lips?

If these things are so, how can we hold up our heads, and dare-to think of the
way in which we have handled His Ordinances, handled that Form in which He has
deigned to live on in the world, and to move before the eyes of His Church! If
we can recollect the moment when we have been so dead in heart as to have found
ourselves considering, not how often our Saviour would let us come and hold
communion with Him, but how few times would satisfy Him,—whether "this one"
omission would draw down His displeasure,—if there be one of us who lives in
this spirit, "how dwelleth the love of God in him?"

Once more, if, when all times, all places, all forms are in themselves alike,
yet it has pleased the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose Name
is Holy, to choose to Himself certain forms, places, and times, for His especial
dwelling upon earth,—with what reverend and solemn feelings should we go to meet
Him there, and approach His altar with our gift! We read (Leviticus 22:18,
Leviticus 22:25) that the GOD of Israel would admit no blemished creature to be
sacrificed to Him; nor will He now accept the offering of our hearts unless we
cleanse ourselves from all unbelief, insincerity, and guile: "wash our hands in
innocency, and so go to His altar."

OXFORD. The Feast of St. Mark.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 35: 33 - PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY.
========================================================================

PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY.

[Number 33]

IN primitive times the first step towards evangelizing a heathen country seems
to have been to seize upon some principal city in it, commonly the civil
metropolis, as a centre of operation; to place a Pastor, i. e. (generally) a
Bishop there; so surround him with a sufficient number of associates and
assistants; and then to wait, till, under the blessing of Providence, this
Missionary College was able to gather around it the scattered children of grace
from the evil world, and invest itself with the shape and influence of an
organized Church. The converts would, in the first instance, be those in the
immediate vicinity of the Missionary or Bishop, whose diocese nevertheless would
extend over the heathen country on every side, either indefinitely, or to the
utmost extent of the civil province; his mission being without restriction to
all to whom Christian faith had never been preached. As he prospered in the
increase of his flock, and sent out his clergy to greater and greater distances
from the city, so would the homestead (so to call it) of his Church enlarge.
Other towns would be brought under his government, openings would occur for
stations in isolated places; till at length "the burden becoming too heavy for
him he would appoint others to supply his place in this or that part of the
province. To these he would commit a greater or lesser share of his spiritual
power, as might be necessary; sometimes he would make them fully his
representatives, or ordain them Bishops; at other times he would employ
presbyters for his purpose. These assistants, or (as they were called)
Chorepiscopi, would naturally be confined to their respective districts; and if
Bishops, an approximation would evidently be made to a division of the large
original diocese into a number of smaller ones connected with and subordinate to
the Bishop of the metropolitan city. Thus, from the very Missionary character of
the Primitive Church, there was a tendency in its polity to what was afterwards
called the Provincial and Patriarchal system.

It is not, indeed, to be supposed that this was the only way in which the
graduated order of sees (so to call it) originated; but, at least, it is one
way. And there is this advantage in remarking it: we learn from it, that large
dioceses are the characteristics of a church in its infancy or weakness;
whereas, the more firmly Christianity was rooted in a country, and the more
vigorous its rulers, the more diligently were its sees multiplied throughout the
ecclesiastical territory. Thus, St. Basil, in the fourth century, finding his
exarchate defenceless in the neighbourhood of Mount Taurus, created a number of
dioceses to meet the emergency. These subordinate sees may be called suffragan
to the Metropolitan Church, whether the respective rulers were mere
representatives of the Bishop who created them, i. e., Chorepiscopi: or, an the
other hand, substantive authorities, sovereign within their own limits, though
bound by external ties to each other and to their Metropolitan. The most perfect
state of a Christian country would be, where there was a sufficient number of
separate dioceses; the next to it, where there were Chorepiscopi, or Suffragan
Bishops in the modern sense of the word.

Few persons, who have not expressly examined the subject, are aware of the
minuteness of the dioceses into which many parts of Christendom were divided in
the first ages. Some Churches in Italy were more like our rural deaneries than
what we now consider dioceses; being not above ten or twelve miles in extent,
and their sees not above five or six miles from each other. Even now (or, at
least, in Bingham’s time) the kingdom of Naples contains 147 sees, of which
twenty are Archbishopricks. Asia Minor is 630 miles long, 210 broad; yet in this
country there were almost 400 dioceses. Palestine is in length 160 miles, in
breadth 120; yet the number of known dioceses amounted to 48. Again, in the
province of Syria Secunda, the see of Larissa (e. g.) was about 14 miles from
Apamea, Arethusa 16 from Epiphania. And so again, turning to the West, though
the dioceses were generally larger, as partaking more of a Missionary character,
yet we shall find in Ireland at one time from 50 to 60 sees.

Such was the character of the Primitive Regimen, where Christianity especially
flourished in the zeal and number of its professors. But, where the country was
mountainous or desert, the inhabitants scanty, or but partially Christian, it
was considered advisable to leave all to the management of one chief Pastor, who
appointed assistants to himself according to his discretion, as the
circumstances of the times required. The office of these Chorepiscopi, or
country Bishops, was to preside over the country clergy, inquire into their
behaviour, and report to their principal; also to provide fit persons for the
inferior ministrations of the Church. They had the power of ordaining the lower
ranks of clergy, such as the readers, sub-deacons, and exorcists; they might
ordain priests and deacons with the leave of the city Bishop, and administer the
rite of confirmation; and were permitted to sit and vote in councils. Thus their
office bore a considerable resemblance to that of our Archdeacons; except, of
course, that they had the power of ordination; whereas the latter are only
presbyters. And, in matter of fact, by such presbyters (visitors, as they were
called) they were superseded in the course of the fourth and following
centuries, till at length the Pope caused the order to be set aside almost
altogether in the ninth.

Little use was made of Suffragans during the middle ages; but, at the time of
our Reformation, Archbishop Cranmer felt the deficiency of the English Church in
respect of Bishopricks, and projected several measures to supply it. The most
complete was that of increasing the number, of dioceses; availing himself of
existing circumstances; he advised the King to apply the Abbey lands to the
founding of twenty additional sees. Bishop Burnet gives some of the particulars
of this attempt in the following passage:

"On the 23d of May, in the session of Parliament, a bill was brought in by
Cromwell for giving the King power to erect new bishoprics by his
letters-patent. It was read that day for the first, second, and third time, and
sent down to the Commons. The Preamble of it was, ‘that it was known what
slothful and ungodly life bad been led by those who were called religious. But
that these houses might be converted to better uses; that GOD’S word might be
better set forth; children brought up in learning; clerks nourished in the
universities; and that old decayed servants might have livings; poor people
might have almshouses to maintain them; readers of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin,
might have good stipends; daily alms might be administered, and allowance might
be made for mending of the highways, and exhibitions for ministers of the
Church; for these ends, if the King thought fit to have more bishopricks or
cathedral churches erected out of the rents of these houses, full power was
given him to erect and found them, and to make rules and statutes for them, and
such translations of sees, or divisions of them, as he thought fit.’ In the same
paper, there is a list of the sees which he intended to found; of which what was
done afterwards came so far short, that I know nothing to which it can be so
reasonably imputed, as the declining of Cranmer’s interest at court, who had
proposed the erecting the new cathedrals and sees, with other things mentioned
in the preamble of the statute, as a great mean of reforming the Church." Some
of the proposed additional dioceses are then enumerated; Essex, Hertford,
Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, Oxford and Berkshire, Northampton and
Huntingdon, Middlesex, Leicester and Rutland, Gloucestershire, Lancashire,
Suffolk, Stafford and Salop, Nottingham and Derby, Cornwall. As to the means by
which they were to be endowed, no opinion is here expressed on its lawfulness,
as the present sketch is confined to the consideration of the spiritual part of
the ecclesiastical system. It is scarcely necessary to add that Cranmer’s views
were partly realized, in the subsequent creation of the dioceses of Chester,
Bristol, Glocester, Oxford, and Peterborough. The same prelate whose episcopate
has had so important an influence upon the constitution of our Church ever
since, also projected with great wisdom, a system of suffragan bishops or
Chorepiscopi, which he was able to bring into effect, and which lasted till the
reign of King James. Twenty-six such bishops were appointed; the bishop of the
diocese having the power of presenting two persons to the king, who might choose
either of them, and present them to the archbishop of the province for
consecration. These suffragans exercised such jurisdiction as their principal
gave them, or as had formerly been committed to suffragans; their authority
lasting no longer than he continued their commission to them. "These were
believed," says Burnet "to be the same with the Chorepiscopi in the primitive
church; which, as they were begun before the first council of Nice, so they
continued in the Western Church till the 9th century, and then a decretal of
Damascus being forged, that condemned them, they were put down every where by
degrees, and now revived in England. The suffragan sees were as follows:
Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Dover, Guilfold, Southampton, Taunton,
Shaftsbury, Molton, Marlborough, Bedford, Leicester, Gloucester, Shrewsbury,
Bristol, Penrith, Bridgwater, Nottingham, Grantham, Hull, Huntingdon, Cambridge,
Pereth, Berwick, St. Germain’s, and the Isle of Wight."

After the disuse of suffragans in the reign of James I. there was a fresh
project for establishing them on the Restoration. Charles, in one of his
declarations, promises to increase the number of bishops, in accordance with
Archbishop Ussher’s plan for episcopal government. However, his intention was
not put into execution, doubtless owing to existing circumstances, which
reasonably interfered with it. The following extract is made from Bingham,
Antiqu. ix. 8, "One great objection against the present diocesan episcopacy, and
that which to many may look the most plausible, is drawn from the vast extent
and greatness of most of the northern dioceses of the world, which makes it so
extremely difficult for one man to discharge all the offices of the episcopal
function . . . The Church of England has usually followed the larger model, and
had very great and extensive dioceses; for at first she had but seven
bishopricks in the whole nation, and those commensurate in a manner to the seven
Saxon kingdoms. Since that time she has thought it a point of wisdom to contract
her dioceses, and multiply them into above 20; and if she should think fit to
add 40 or 100 more, she would not be without precedent in the practice of the
Primitive Church. In Ireland there are not now above half the number of dioceses
that there were before, and consequently they must needs be larger by uniting
them together. In England, there are more in number than formerly, some new ones
being created out of old ones, and at present the whole number augmented to
three times as many as they were for some ages after the first conversion.
Besides that, we have another way of contracting dioceses in effect here in
England appointed by law, which law was never yet repealed; which is by
devolving part of the bishop’s care upon the Chorepiscopi, or suffragan bishops,
as the law calls them:-a method commonly practised in the ancient Church in such
large dioceses as those of St. Basil and Theodoret, one of which had no less
than fifty Chorepiscopi under him, if Nazianzen rightly informs us. And it is a
practice which was continued here all the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and even to
the end of King James; and is what may be revived again, whenever any bishop
thinks his diocese too large, or his burden too great to be sustained by himself
alone." To the above statements, may be subjoined the present number of souls,
and the area of square miles, in certain of our dioceses, as given in a pamphlet
lately published, which has come into the writers hands since the foregoing was
put on paper. (Vide Plan for a New Arrangement, &c. by Lord Henley.)

Souls. Square Miles.

Chester ...................1,806,722 4140

London ...................1,676,725 1942

York .......................1,526,288 5300

Lincoln .................... 920,011 5775

Lichfield................... 978,655 3344 By this table, it is not here intended
to insinuate the necessity of any immediate measure of multiplying the English
sees or appointing suffragans, (the expediency of which is to be determined by a
variety of considerations, which it were unprofitable here to detail,) but to
show that the genius of our ecclesiastical system tends towards such an
increase, and that the only question to be determined is one of time. These
statements are also made with the view of keeping up in the minds of churchmen a
recollection of the injury which the Irish branch of our Church has lately
sustained in the diminution of its sees.

OXFORD. The Feast of SS. Philip and St. James.

P. S.-Since this was written, a new arrangement of Dioceses and Sees has been
made by authority of a Royal Commission, composed of members the greater part of
whom were laymen, and without confirmation of their acts on the part of the
Church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 36: 34 - RITES AND CUSTOMS OF THE CHURCH.
========================================================================

RITES AND CUSTOMS OF THE CHURCH.

[Number 34]

He who is duly strengthened in faith, does not go so far as to require argument
and reason for what is enjoined, but is satisfied with the tradition alone.

Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 26.

THE reader of ecclesiastical history is sometimes surprised at finding
observances and customs generally received in the Church at an early date, which
have not express warrant in the Apostolic writings; e. g. the use of the cross
in baptism. The following pages will be directed to the consideration of this
circumstance; with a view of suggesting from those writings themselves, that a
minute ritual was contemporaneous with them, that the Apostles recognise it as
existing and binding, that it was founded on religious principles, and tended to
the inculcation of religious truth. Not that any formal proof is attainable or
conceivable, considering the brevity and subjects of the inspired documents; but
such fair evidence of the fact, as may recommend it to the belief of the earnest
and single-minded Christian. It is abundantly evident that the Epistles were not
written to prescribe and enforce the Ritual of religion; all then we can expect,
if it existed in the days of the Apostles, is an occasional allusion to it in
their Epistles as existing, and a plain acquiescence in it: and thus much we
find.

Let us consider that remarkable passage, (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) which, I am
persuaded, most readers pass over as if they could get little instruction from
it. St. Paul is therein blaming the Corinthians for not adhering to thecustomof
the Church, which prescribed that men should wear their hair short, and that
women should have their head covered during divine service; a custom apparently
most unimportant, if any one ever was, but in his view strictly binding on
Christians. He begins by implying that it is one out of many rules or traditions
([Greek text: paradoseis]) which he had given them, and they were bound to keep.
He ends by refusing to argue with any one who obstinately cavils at it and
rejects it: "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither
the Churches of GOD." Here then at once a view is opened to us which is quite
sufficient to remove the surprise we might otherwise feel at the multitude of
rites, which were in use in the Primitive Church, but about which the New
Testament is silent; and further, to command our obedience to such as come down
to us from the first ages, and are agreeable to Scripture. In accordance with
this conclusion, is the clear and forcible command given by the Apostle, (2
Thessalonians 2:15) "Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
been taught, whetherby word, or our epistle." To return. St. Paul goes on to
give the reason of the usage, for the satisfaction of the weak brethren at
Corinth. It was, he implies, a symbol or developement (so to say) of the
principle of the subordination of the woman to the man, and a memorial of the
history of our creation; nay it was founded in "nature,"i e.natural reason. And
lastly, it had a practical object: the woman ought to have her head covered
"becauseof the angels." We need not stop to inquirewhatthis reason was; but it
was a reason of a practical nature which the Corinthians understood, though we
may not. If it mean, as is probable, "because she is in the sight of the
heavenly angels," (1 Timothy 5:21) it gives a still greater importance to the
ceremonies of worship, as connecting them with the unseen world.

It would seem indeed as if the very multiplicity of the details of the Church
ritual made it plainly impossible for St. Paul to write them all down, or to do
more than remind the Corinthians of his way of conducting religious discipline
when he was among them. "Be ye followers of me;" he says, "I praise you that ye
remember me in all things." It is evident there are ten thousand little points
in the working of any large system, which a present instructor alone can settle.
Hence it is customary at present, when a school is set up, or when any novel
manufacture in trade, or extraordinary machinery, is to be brought into use, to
set it going by sending a person fully skilled in its practical details. Such
was St. Paul as regards the system of Christian discipline and worship; and when
he could not go himself, he sent Timothy in his place. He says in 1 Corinthians
4:1-21 : "I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto
you Timotheus, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in
CHRIST, as I teach every where in every Church." Here there is a like reference
to an uniform system of discipline,— whether as to Christian conduct, worship,
or Church government.

Another important allusion appears to be contained in 1 Corinthians 11:22
commented on. "What, have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye
theChurch ofGOD ?" This is remarkable as being a solitary allusion in Scripture
tohousesof prayer under the Christian system, which nevertheless we know
fromecclesiastical historywere used from the very first. Here then is a most
solemn ordinance of primitive Christianity, which barely escapes, if it escapes,
omission in Scripture. A passing allusion is made in another passage of the same
Epistle, to the use of the word Amen at the conclusion of the Eucharistical
prayer, as it is preserved after it and all other prayers to this day. Thus the
ritual of the Apostles descended to minutiae, and these so invariable in their
use, as to allow of an appeal to them. In the original institution of the
Eucharist, as recorded in the Gospels, there is no mention of consecrating the
cup; but in 1 Corinthians 10:16, St. Paul calls it "the cupof blessing, which we
bless." This incidental information, vouchsafed to us in Scripture, should lead
us to be very cautious how we put aside other usages of the early Church
concerning this sacrament, which do not happen to be clearly mentioned in
Scripture; as e. g. the solemn offering of the elements to GOD by way of
pleading His mercy through CHRIST, which seems to have been universal in the
Church, till Popery corrupted it. As regards the same Sacrament, let us consider
the use of the word [Greek text: leitourgounton],ministering, (Acts 13:2); a
word which, dropt (so to say) by accident, and interpreted, as is reasonable, by
its use in the services of the Jewish Law, (Luke 1:23; Hebrews 10:11) remarkably
coincides with the [Greek text: leitourgia] of the Primitive Church, according
to which the offering of the Altar was intercessory, as pleading CHRIST’S merits
before the throne of grace.

Again, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, we incidentally discover the existence of persons
who are styled "the baptized for the dead." Perhaps it is impossible to
determine what is meant by this phrase, on which little light is thrown by early
writers. However, any how it seems to refer to acustomof the Church, which was
so usual as to admit of an appeal to it, which St. Paul approved, yet which he
did not in the Epistle directly enforce, and but casually mentions. In 1
Corinthians 1:16, St. Paul happens to inform us that he baptized thehouseholdof
Stephanus. It has pleased the HOLY SPIRIT to preserve to us this fact; by which
is detected the existence of a rule of discipline for which the express
doctrinal parts of Scripture afford but indirect warrant, viz. the custom of
household baptism. (Vid. also Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33) This accidental disclosure
accurately anticipates the after practice of the early Church, according to
which families, infants included, were baptized, and that on a weighty doctrinal
reason; viz. that all men were born in sin and in the wrath of GOD, and needed
to be individually translated into that kingdom of grace, into which baptism is
the initiation.

These instances, then, not to notice others of a like or a different kind, are
surely sufficient to reconcile us to the complete ritual system which breaks
upon us in the writings of the Fathers. If any parts of it indeed are contrary
to Scripture, that is of course a decisive reason at once for believing them to
be additions and corruptions of the original ceremonial; but till this is shown,
we are bound to venerate what is certainly primitive, and probably is apostolic.

It will be remarked, moreover, that many of the religious observances of the
early Church are expressly built upon words of Scripture, and intended to be a
visible memorial of them, after the manner of St. Paul’s directions about the
respective habits of men and women, which was just now noticed. Metaphorical or
mystical descriptions were represented by a corresponding literal action. Our
LORD Himself authorised this procedure when He took up the metaphor of the
prophets concerning the fountain opened for our cleansing (Zechariah 13:1.) and
represented it in the visible rite of baptism. Accordingly, from the frequent
mention of oil in Scripture as the emblem of spiritual gifts, (Isaiah 61:1-3,
&c.) it was actually used in the Primitive Church in the ceremony of admitting
catechumens, and in baptizing. And here again they had the precedent of the
Apostles, who applied it in effecting their miraculous cures. (Matthew 6:13.
James 5:14) And so from the figurative mention in Scripture of salt, as the
necessary preparation of every religious sacrifice, it was in use in the Western
Church, in the ceremony of admitting converts into the rank of catechumens. So
again from Php 2:10, it was customary to bow the head at the name of JESUS. It
were endless to multiply in stances of a similar pious attention to the very
words of Scripture, as their custom of continual public prayer from such
passages as Luke 18:7; or of burying the bodies of martyrs under the altar, from
Revelation 6:9; or of the white vestments of the officiating ministers, from
Revelation 4:4.

Two passages on the subject from the Fathers shall now be laid before the
reader, by way of further illustration, and first from Tertullian:

"Though this observance has not been determined by any text of Scripture, yet it
is established by custom, which doubtless is derived from Apostolic tradition.
For how can an usage ever obtain, which has not first been given by tradition?
But you say, even though tradition can be produced, still a written (Scripture)
authority must be demanded. Let us examine, then, how far it is true, that an
Apostolic tradition itself, unless written in Scripture, is inadmissible. Now I
will give up the point at once, if it is not already determined by instances of
other observances, which are maintained without any Scripture proof, on the mere
plea of tradition, and the sanction of consequent custom. To begin with baptism.
Before we enter the Water, we solemnly renounce the devil, his pomp, and his
angels, in church in the presence of the Bishop. Then we are plunged in the
water thrice, and answer certain questions over and above what the LORD has
determined in the written gospel. After coming out of it, we taste a mixture of
milk and honey; and for a whole week from that day we abstain from our daily
bath. The sacrament of the Eucharist, though given by the LORD to all and at
supper time, yet is celebrated in our meetings before day break, and only at the
hand of our presiding ministers….. We sign our forehead with the cross whenever
we set out and walk, go in or out, dress, gird on our sandals, bathe, eat, light
our lamps, sit or lie down to rest, whatever we do. If you demand a scripture
rule for these and such like observances, we can give you none; all we say to
you is, that tradition directs, usage sanctions, faith obeys. That reason
justifies this tradition, usage, and faith, you will soon yourself see, or will
easily learn from others; meanwhile you will do well to believe that there is a
law to which obedience is due. I add one instance from the old dispensation. It
is so usual among the Jewish females to veil their head, that they are even
known by it. I ask where the law is to be found; the Apostle’s decision of
course is not to the point. Now if I no where find a law, it follows that
tradition introduced the custom, which after wards was confirmed by the Apostle
when he explained the reason of it. These instances are enough to show that a
tradition, even though not in Scripture, still binds our conduct, if a
continuous usage be preserved as the witness of it."—Tertullian, de Coron. S 3.

Upon this passage it may be observed, that Tertullian, flourishing A. D. 200, is
on the one hand a very early witness for the existence of the general doctrine
which it contains, while on the other he gives no sanction to those later
customs, which the Church of Rome upholds, but which cannot be clearly traced to
primitive times.

St. Basil, whose work on the HOLY SPIRIT, S 66, shall next be cited, flourished
in the middle of the fourth century, 150 years after Tertullian, and was of a
very different school; yet he will be found to be in exact agreement with him on
the subject before us, viz. that the ritual of the Church was derived from the
Apostles, and was based on religious principles and doctrines. He adds a reason
for its not being given us in Scripture, which we may receive or reject as our
judgment leads us, viz. that the rites were memorials of doctrines not intended
for publication except among baptized Christians, whereas the Scriptures were
open to all men. This at least is clear, that the ritual could scarcely have
been given in detail in Scripture, without imparting to the Gospel the character
of a burdensome ceremonial, and withdrawing our attention from its doctrines and
precepts.

"Of those articles of doctrine and preaching, which are in the custody of the
Church, some come to us in Scripture itself, some are conveyed to us by a
continuous tradition in mystical depositories. Both have equal claims on our
devotion and are received by all, at least by all who are in any respect
Churchmen. For, should we attempt to supersede the usages which are not enjoined
in Scripture as if unimportant, we should do most serious injury to Evangelical
truth; nay, reduce it to a bare name. To take an obvious instance; which Apostle
has taught us in Scripture to sign believers with the cross? Where does
Scripture teach us to turn to the east in prayer? Which of the saints has left
us recorded in Scripture the words of invocation at the consecration of the
bread of the Eucharist, and of the cup of blessing? Thus we are not content with
what Apostle or Evangelist has left on record, but we add other rites before and
after it, as important to the celebration of the mystery, receiving them from a
teaching distinct from Scripture. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism, and
the oil for anointing, and also the candidate for baptism himself......After the
example of Moses, the Apostles and Fathers who modelled the Churches, were
accustomed to lodge their sacred doctrine in mystic forms, as being secretly and
silently conveyed...This is the reason why there is a tradition of observances
independent of Scripture, lest doctrines, being exposed to the world, should be
so familiar as to be despised......We stand instead of kneeling at prayer on the
Sunday; but all of us do not know the reason of this. Again, every time we kneel
down and rise up, we show by our outward action, that sin has levelled us with
the ground, and the loving mercy of our Creator has recalled us to heaven." The
conclusion to be drawn from all that has been said in these pages is this:—That
rites and ordinances, far from being unmeaning, are in their nature capable of
impressing our memories and imaginations with the great revealed verities; far
from being superstitious, are expressly sanctioned in Scripture as to their
principle, and delivered to the Church in their form by tradition. Further, that
they varied in different countries, according to the respective founder of the
Church in each. Thuse.g., St. John and St. Philip are known to have adopted the
Jewish rule for observing Easter-day; while other Apostles celebrated it always
on a Sunday. Lastly, that, although the details of the early ritual varied in
importance, and corrupt additions were made in the middle ages, yet that, as a
whole, the Catholic ritual was a precious possession; and if we, who have
escaped from Popery, have lost not only the possession, but the sense of its
value, it is a serious question whether we are not like men who recover from
some grievous illness with the loss or injury of their sight or hearing;—whether
we are not like the Jews returned from captivity, who could never find the rod
of Aaron or the Ark of the Covenant, which, indeed, had ever been his from the
world, but then was removed from the Temple itself.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Philip and St. James.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 37: 35 - THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST IN THEIR MINISTER'S COMMISSION.
========================================================================

THE PEOPLE’S INTEREST IN THEIR MINISTER’S COMMISSION.

[Number 35]

And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose
on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19) In these words our blessed
Lord delivers to St. Peter the same commission, as we find Him, in chapter
xviii. of the same Gospel, giving to the rest of the apostles; the commission,
power, and authority of chief shepherds, or pastors to the Church;-the
commission to be the keepers and guardians of the revealed word of God, and to
have authority to teach the people out of it, and what they must do to be saved,
what course of faith and duty will admit them to heaven, through the sacrifice
of Christ; and what will exclude them from all claim to the salvation which He
has purchased for man. It is to this part of the commission that St. Paul
alludes when he says, "As we have been allowed of God to be put in trust with
the Gospel, so we speak not as pleasing men, but God which trieth our hearts" (1
Thessalonians 2:4); and again he says, "we are ambassadors for CHRIST, as though
GOD did beseech you by us." (2 Corinthians 5:20) But something beyond the
ministration of the Word, is committed to the care of the pastors, when our LORD
speaks of "the keys of heaven," viz. the ministration of the sacraments. The
sacrament of Baptism, by which souls are admitted into covenant with God, and
without which none can enter into the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5); the
sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, by which the souls of the faithful
are strengthened for their LORD’S service, and brought into union with Him (1
Corinthians 10:16), and without which they are, ordinarily speaking, cut off
from union with Him, from communion with the faithful, and cast out of the
Kingdom of Heaven. For it is expressly said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53) St. Paul also
tells us, that the ministration of these sacraments is entrusted to the pastors
of the Church by this commission, when he says, "Let a man so account of us, as
of the ministers of CHRIST, and stewards of the mysteries of God." (1
Corinthians 4:1) This commission, which you find in chapter xvi. given to St.
Peter, and in chapter xviii. given to all the Apostles,-which is made mention of
in St. Luke’s Gospel, where our SAVIOUR says to them, "I appoint unto you a
kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me" (Luke 22:29), and again in St.
John’s, where CHRIST says, "As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you" (John
20:21);-this commission, I say, was left by the apostles to their successors,
viz. those apostles or bishops whom they appointed to be their helpers in
governing the churches during their life-time, and to occupy their place when
dead. And it has been handed down, by the laying on of hands, from bishops to
bishops, and will so continue to the end of time, according to that promise,
whereby our LORD engaged to continue with them always in the exercise of it,
when He said to the apostles, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of
the world." (Matthew 28:20) By virtue of this commission, each bishop stands in
the place of an apostle of the Church; and discharges the important trust
reposed in him, either in his own person, or by the clergy whom he ordains and
gifts with a share of his authority.

Herein is the difference between the ministry of such persons as have received
this commission from the bishop, and of those who have not received it;-that to
the former, CHRIST has promised that his presence shall remain, "Lo, I am with
you always, even to the end of the world:" and that when they minister the Word
and Sacraments (which are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven), what they do upon
earth, in His name, according to His will, shall be ratified and made good in
heaven. "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." But to those
who have not received the commission, our LORD has given no such promise. A
person not commissioned from the bishop, may use the words of Baptism, and
sprinkle or bathe with the water, on earth, but there is no promise from Christ,
that such a man shall admit souls to the Kingdom of Heaven. A person not
commissioned may break bread, and pour out wine, and pretend to give the LORD’S
Supper, but it can afford no comfort to any who receive it at his hands, because
there is no warrant from CHRIST to lead communicants to suppose that while he
does so here on earth, they will be partakers in the SAVIOUR’S heavenly Body and
Blood. And as for the person himself, who takes upon himself without warrant to
minister in holy things, he is all the while treading in the footsteps of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram, whose awful punishment you read of in the book of Numbers.
(Compare Numbers 16:1-50 with Jude 1:11.)

It is of the utmost importance that you should know and understand that it is by
virtue of this commission, that we Clergymen lay claim to your attention, when
we minister the Word and Sacraments. It is not because we have received an
expensive education; it is not because we move in the station of what is called
gentlemen; it is not because we have hitherto been encouraged by the State; it
is not because we, most of us, have enough of this world’s goods, both to supply
our own wants, and to impart to the necessities of others; it is not for these
things that we dare to speak to you in the name of GOD. Time was when the clergy
had them not; the time may come again when they shall not have them. Men may
rudely and unjustly taken away these things; may make us as poor as the poorest;
may destroy what is called our station in society; may make us appear ion the
eyes of men a humbled and degraded class, as they did the Apostles; may "cast
out our name as evil for the SON of MAN’S sake," as they did theirs. This cannot
alter our position in spiritual things, nor the relation which we bear to GOD
and CHRIST, and to your souls. Men cannot take away what CHRIST has given us,-I
mean the Divine commission; they cannot set aside the trust which He has placed
in our hands,-I mean "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18), nor
make void the promise He has made, that in the faithful exercise of this
ministry, He is "with us always, even to the end of the world."

Remember, then, that whether your pastors be rich or poor, honoured or despised
by the world, it is only the having received this COMMISSION that makes us "bold
in our GOD to speak unto you the Gospel of GOD" (1 Thessalonians 2:2); and it is
only this that can give you any security that the ministration of the Word and
Sacraments shall be effectual to the saving of your souls. Learn, then, to
cherish and value the blessing which GOD has vouchsafed to you, in having given
you pastors who have received this commission. The Dissenting teachers have it
not. They lay no claim to regular succession from the Apostles; and though the
Roman Catholic clergy have indeed been ordained by the hands of Bishops, they
are mere intruders in this country, have no right to come here, and besides,
have so corrupted the truth of GOD’S word, that they are not to be listened to
for a moment.

OXFORD, The Feast of the Ascension.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 38: 36 - ACCOUNT OF RELIGIOUS SECTS AT PRESENT EXISTING IN ENGLAND.
========================================================================

ACCOUNT OF RELIGIOUS SECTS AT PRESENT EXISTING IN ENGLAND.

[Number 36]

"I beseech you, brethren, mark them whcih cause divisions and offences contrary
to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Romans 16:17.

IT is conceived, that many members of the English Church, whom late events have
awakened to a knowledge of the religious differences which exist in the world,
are but insufficiently acquainted with the chief points which distinguish the
various religious bodies which are among them; and may be anxious for
information on the subject. The following statement, drawn up by a Clergyman at
the request of a parishioner, is submitted to their consideration. The English
Church, which is a true branch or portion of the "One Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church" of Christ, receives and teaches the entire Truth of God
according to the Scriptures; the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the
Truth. This may be proved by reference to the Scriptures; in which no
fundamental doctrine can be pointed out, which the Church does not teach: nor
can it be shown that the Church teaches any thing, as necessary to salvation,
but what is contained in the Scriptures, or can be proved by them,—this being
the acknowledged rule of teaching set forth in the 6th Article of the Church.
The parties which are separated from, and opposed to, the Church, may be
arranged into three classes. 1. Those who reject the Truth. 2. Those who receive
and teach apart, but not the whole, of the Truth. 3. Those who teach more than
the Truth.

I.—Those who reject the Truth.

Under this head are included all who deny that JESUS "is the CHRIST, the SON of
the living GOD, and that salvation is through His blood. Such are

1. SOCINIANS, (so called from Socinus, a chief teacher of their error), who
profess to receive the Old and New Testament, but reject these fundamental
doctrines as there set forth, and reject also the doctrine of the Personality
and operations of the Holy Ghost. These men commonly call themselves Unitarians.

2. JEWS, who profess to receive the Old Testament, but denounce our LORD as an
Impostor. These contradict the Prophets of the Old Testament, to whose evidence
our LORD appealed while fulfilling their prophecies 3 and they forget the living
witness they themselves afford to our SAVIOUR’S truth, who foretold concerning
their Church and nation, the evils which have since happened, and under which
they are now suffering.

3. DEISTS (SO called from professing to acknowledge merely a Deity), who reject
both the Testaments, denying that GOD has ever revealed His will to men. Thus
they contradict reason, which suggests that He would not leave the beings whom
He created capable of happiness, without instruction how to attain that
happiness: they contradict also the unanswerable evidence of history, miracles,
and fulfilment of prophecy, which prove that He actually has revealed His Will,
and that the Book which we call the Bible contains that Revelation.

4. ATHEISTS (i. e. men "without God"), who deny altogether the existence of a
GOD. These contradict the voice of nature, which, by the regularity of seasons,
the succession, growth, and decay, of plants, of animals, and men, by the course
of the planets and all its other wonderful works, attest the existence, power,
and goodness of a Superior Being, who must have made all these things at the
first, and now continues and preserves them.

These four Classes may be placed together, because to all four the same passage
of St. John is applicable. "Whosoever denieth the SON, the same hath not the
FATHER," and of all four it may be truly said, "They have trodden under foot the
SON of GOD, and counted the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, and done
despite to the Spirit of Grace."

II.—Those who receive and teach a part but not the whole of the truth, erring in
respect of one or more fundamental doctrines.

Under this head are included most of what are called "Protestant Dissenters."
The chief of these are,—

1. PRESBYTERIANS, SO called from maintaining ‘the validity of ordination by
Presbyters or Elders only, in other words, by the second order of the clergy,
dispensing with and superseding the first.

2. INDEPENDENTS, SO called from being opposed to and independent of all
ecclesiastical government.

3. METHODISTS (subdivided into an immense variety of sects; the chief are
Wesleyans, Whitfieldians, or Lady Huntingdon’s, Ranters, or Primitive
Methodists, Brianites, or Bible Christians, Protestant Methodists, Tent
Methodists, Independent Methodists, and Kilhamites).

These three do not receive or teach the Truth respecting the doctrine of "laying
on of hands," which St. Paul classes among the fundamental doctrines of
Christianity, and by which the Christian ministry receives its commission and
authority to ad minister the Word and Sacraments. For they one and all reject
the first (i. e. the Apostolic, or, as we now call it, Episcopal) order of
clergy, who exercised that rite according to the New Testament, and without whom
there is no warrant from Scripture for believing that the Clergy can be
appointed, or the Sacraments be duly administered.

4. BAPTISTS, who have departed from the Truth not only as concerns the doctrine
of "laying on of hands," but also as concerns the doctrine of Baptism; another
of the fundamental doctrines, according to St. Paul. For they refuse to permit
their children to receive that sign of admission into the Christian covenant.
Thus they contradict the Old Testament, for there we find that to the Christian
Covenant, or Covenant in Christ, which God confirmed with Abraham, children were
enjoined to be admitted; and those children whose parents withheld them from
receiving the sign of the covenant, were counted by God to have broken His
covenant. They contradict also the New Testament, for there our Saviour says,
"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not;" and St. Paul
declares that where either parent is a believer, then "are the children holy,"
i. e. admissible to the covenant of grace.

5. QUAKERS, who reject altogether laying on of hands, and both the Sacraments.

Besides these are, especially in Wales, JUMPERS and SHAKERS, a chief part of
whose religious worship consists in violent exercise and contortions of the
body.

III.—Those who teach more than the truth.

Under this head are included all who teach besides the Scriptures, something
else as of equal authority with what is contained in them. The chief of these
are,—

1. ROMANISTS, or PAPISTS, (so called because they are the followers of the Pope
or Bishop ofRome,) who teach that the images of God and of the Saints ought to
be worshipped; that the Virgin Mary and other Saints ought to be prayed to; that
in the Lord’s Supper, after consecration, the bread is no longer bread, the wine
no longer wine; that all Churches owe obedience to the Pope of Rome, &c. &c.
They have at different times attempted to confirm these doctrines by pretended
miracles.

2. NEW JERUSALEMITES, or SWEDENBORGIANS, so called from their leader, who
pretended to have received a new revelation.

3 . SOUTHCOTIANS; the followers of Johanna Southcote, who pretended to be a
prophetess.

4. IRVINGITES; so called from one of their chief leaders, who pretend to have
received a new Revelation, and a new order of Apostles, which, like the Papists,
they attempt to confirm by pretended gifts of unknown tongues, prophecy, and
miracles; like all under this head, a mixture of delusion and imposture.

Churchman, whosoever thou art, that readest the list of follies and errors in
the 2d and 3d classes, into which the pride of man’s heart and the wiles of
Satan have beguiled so many of those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, first give to God your hearty thanks for having preserved you a member
of the "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," which teaches the way of God
in truth, "neither handling the word of God deceitfully," like the second class,
nor following cunningly devised fables, like the third, but, by manifestation of
the truth, commending itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. Next
pray to Him for yourself, that you may have grace to walk worthy of your high
calling and privilege; in repentance, faith, and holiness, and in close
communion with the Church, especially by a frequent participation in the
Eucharistic Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which is at once the
highest and most essential act of Christian worship, and the surest token of
Church membership. Next pray to God for mercy upon all, both those who have gone
beyond or fallen short of the Truth, and those who have altogether rejected it;
that He may be pleased so to turn their hearts, and fetch them home to His
flock, that they may be saved together with His true servants, and be made one
fold under one Shepherd.

One word more. From each of these three Classes, which have been here
considered, the Church in England has undergone persecution. 1st. In the 4th and
6th centuries,from those who reject the Truth, when they who denied that JESUS
is the CHRIST the SON of the living GOD, expelled and murdered those who
believed in Him, and called upon His Name. 2nd. In the 16th century,from those
who teach more than the Truth, when the Papists or Romanists burned alive those
who rejected their corrupt additions to the Catholic faith. 3rd. In the 17th
century,from those who teach less than the Truth, when the Protestant Dissenters
expelled and barbarously treated the Clergy, shut up the Churches, and forbade
the use of the English Liturgy. But on each occasion, though it pleased God for
a while to try the faith and constancy of his servants by sufferings, He failed
not finally to deliver his people, and to protect and strengthen His Church. At
the present time, these three Classes of opponents have united their forces, and
Unbeliever, Papist, and Protestant Dissenter, obeying Satan’s bidding, are
endeavouring to do that together, which they have failed to do singly, namely,
to over throw and destroy our branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. And
it is not improbable that GOD, for our correction and improvement, or for the
glory of His name, may again put the faith and constancy of His servants to the
proof, by permitting them to suffer afflictions for His name’s sake. But as He
is "the same yesterday and to-day and for ever," His power undiminished, His
truth unchanged, we may rest assured, that if we will be true to Him, He will be
true to us; and will protect the Church of His Son, which is "built upon the
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, JESUS CHRIST Himself being the Chief
Corner-stone," and concerning which Church, that SON has said, that "the gates
of Hell shall not prevail against it." Fear not, therefore, neither be
faint-hearted; has not GOD commanded you? Be strong, and of good courage!

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Barnabas.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 39: 37 - BISHOP WILSON'S FORM OF EXCOMMUNICATION.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S FORM OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

[Number 37]

It is well known that Bishop Wilson, who presided over the Church in the Isle of
Man, from 1698 to 1755, was stirred up by Him who made him overseer, to revive
the Primitive Discipline, and was remarkably blest in his undertaking. The
principle of this discipline is, that no man who sinned openly, whether in creed
or practice, should be allowed to remain in free and full communion with the
Church; but should be censured, put to penance, suspended, or excommunicated, as
the case might require. The following is the form he proposed to use, in
inflicting the extreme punishment of excommunication.

My Brethren, and all good Christians here met together.

We are met upon a very unusual and mournful occasion.

We have hitherto (blessed be GOD) preserved, in some good measure, the ancient
discipline of the Church; and notorious sinners have been prevailed upon to take
shame to themselves in a public confession of their offences; and to desire the
prayers of the Church for the grace that is necessary for atrue conversion.

I am sorry to tell you, that there is a person now under the censures of the
Church, who utterly refuseth to submit to this wholesome Discipline; being more
concerned for the shame that attends his censures, than he is for his salvation.

We have laid before you his crimes; and the Christian methods which have been
made use of to bring him to a sense of his guilt and danger, and to oblige him
to make what satisfaction he can for the scandal he hath given.

You will see how very long we have waited in hopes of bringing him to submit to
the discipline of the Church; until at last our discipline begins to be
slighted, as too weak for such offenders.

However, it ought not repent us we have waited with patience; when we consider
with what mighty patience GOD himself waiteth to be gracious; and that the
sentence of excommunication was never, in the primitive Church, executed
hastily, nor until all other probable ways had been made use of without effect.

Now, this being the last remedy which the Church can make use of for awakening
obstinate offenders, the whole Church ought to be satisfied upon what grounds,
and by what authority, we pronounce this sentence; and what will be the effects
of such a sentence when passed according to the will and appointment of JESUS
CHRIST. The Holy Scriptures tell us, that our LORD JESUS CHRIST, who came to
seek and save His lost creatures, has appointed divers ordinances for the
conversion and salvation of men. For instance:—He has appointedPreaching, to
draw men to Him; He has appointed the Sacrament ofBaptism, by which we are
admitted into His household the Church; and that of the LORD’S Supper, as a
pledge of His love, and of our communion with Him. And lastly, He hath
ordainedGodly Discipline, that such who do not live as becomes their Christian
profession may be reproved, corrected, and amended, or else cast out of His
Church. And all these ordinances are committed unto His Ministers, who are
called Hisstewards; because to them He has committed the keys of His house and
kingdom, that is, the Church; that they may admit such as are worthy, and that
they may shut out such as behave themselves disorderly in His family.

JESUS CHRIST, I say, committed this power to His Apostles, and they to their
successors; with this assurance from His own mouth,He that heareth you, heareth
Me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me. So that you
see, whosoever makes a jest of Church Discipline, makes a jest of an ordinance
of GOD; and a man may as well despise the whole Christian Religion, asthispower,
which is as much the ordinance of JESUS CHRIST, as preaching, or the use of the
Sacraments. The most unlearned Christian will understand this, when he is asked,
For what end he was baptized? He will answer, That he might thereby be made a
member of CHRIST, a child of GOD, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven. But
why does be believe that Baptism does give him a right to these blessings? Why;
because JESUS CHRIST gave power to His Ministers to baptize all nations; that
such as are baptized into CHRIST, have put on CHRIST; that is, are members of
CHRIST’S body, which is His Church.

Now will not our LORD CHRIST, who has promised to own you for His children when
His Ministers have admitted you into His Church by Baptism, will He not also
disown you, when the same Ministers, acting inHis name, shall by the same power
of the keys, shut you out of His Church? For if you believe that they receive
you into CHRIST’S Church by Baptism, you must believe that they shut you out as
effectually byexcommunication. In short, every Christian, when he is baptized,
is admitted into the Church upon a most solemn promise to live as a Christian
ought to do; if he does not do so, those very ministers who admitted him are
bound toexhort, torebuke, and tocensurehim; and if these methods will not do,
toexcommunicate him; that is, to cut him off from the body of CHRIST, and from
GOD’S favour and mercy:—not that he may be lost for ever, but that he may see
his sad condition, and repent, and be saved. The form of excommunication made
use of by the Apostles of our LORD, was, bydelivering offenders to Satan. Now,
because this is laughed at by profane persons, who do not know the Scriptures, I
will show you what that means. The Spirit and the Word of GOD has told us, that
the devil has a kingdom and subjects, over whom he reigns; that is,over the
children of disobedience, That JESUS CHRIST has alsoHiskingdom and subjects; and
when the Apostles gained over any of the subjects of Satan unto CHRIST, they are
saidto turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan untoGOD.

Now, when any of CHRIST’S subjects become rebellious, and refuse to be governed
by the laws of the Gospel, His Ministers are bound to admonish them of their
sin, and of their danger; and if they refuse to obey their godly admonitions,
then to turn them out of that society of which CHRIST is the head; and
consequently,such personsfall under the power of Satan again, who useth his
subjects like slaves. And GOD permits him to do so, that sinners, if they are
not utterly lost, may with the prodigal, when he was forced to herd with swine,
see the state they are fallen into, and repent; and desire to get out of the
snare and power of the devil; and be restored to the favour of GOD. So that
excommunication is made use of,not as a punishment onlybutas a remedy; that
sinners, seeing the evil state they are in, being deprived of all hopes of
salvation while they are out of the Church, may desire to be restored to GOD’S
grace, from which they are fallen, that they may work out their salvation with
more fear for the time to come. But here I must take notice of one thing that
often hinders the Discipline of the Church from having this good effect upon
sinners. They are apt to say,If I am shut out of this Church I can go to
another. Why has CHRIST more Churches than one? Is CHRIST divided? saith the
Apostle. Do not all Christians profess to believe oneholy, ApostolicChurch?. And
is not this Church a member of that holy Church? And have not the Ministers of
CHRIST here the same authority from their LORD and PRINCE, as any other
Christian Bishop; namely, the authority ofbinding, andloosing? And will not our
sentence, when we proceed according to the rules which CHRIST hath given us, be
confirmed in Heaven? If so, what advantage will a sinner get by going to another
society, if after all JESUS CHRIST shall confirm the sentence of his former
Pastor? And for want of being reconciled by Him, shall shut him out of Heaven?

It is true our Lord hath not given us any power to compel men by outward force,
either to come into, or to continue in His Church; but will people for this
reason despise the power which CHRIST has given us? They will hardly do so, if
they know what St. Paul hath said upon this: "The weapons we use," saith he,
"are not carnal, but mighty through GOD;" that is, GOD can humble the stoutest
sinner, and make the power of His ministers effectual, when they use their Power
for His glory, and according to His will.

You see, good Christians, that we take upon us no authority but what CHRIST has
given us; what His Apostles exercised, and what we are bound by our most solemn
vows to exercise.

Every Bishop, for instance, at his consecration, solemnly promises, that he will
correct and punish disobedient and criminous persons within his diocese,
according to such authority as he has byGOD’S word. What authority he has by
GOD’S Word, you have already heard: and all serious Christians must acknowledge,
that we should become adversaries to ourselves, to our Church, and our country,
if we should suffer CHRIST’S discipline to fall into decay, while we are
warranted and bound both by the laws of GOD and this land, to exercise it,
especially when vices of this kind begin to grow upon us.

Only let us take care that we usethis authorityas the Apostle directs,for
edification, and not for destruction. And if we must be forced to shut this
unhappy person out of the Church, let it be with the same compassion and
reluctancy that a father turns his rebellious son out of his house, not with a
design that he should starve and be lost for ever; but that being made sensible
of the misery of being out of his father’s house, he may more earnestly desire
to return and be received into favour, and become a more dutiful child for the
time to come.

GOD has infinite expedients to bring back sinners that are gone away from Him.
We know how the prodigal son was brought to a sense of his condition by the
miseries he met with when he was from under his father’s care. How David’s eyes
were opened by a parable. How Manasseh became an instance of repentance, when in
bonds. And we should not despair, but be confident rather that GOD will bless
his own institutions in the hands of us His ministers, for the good of all such
persons as draw these censures upon themselves. And it will be far from being
severity to them, if by these means they may be brought to a sense of their evil
condition, and "their souls saved in the day of theLORD JESUS." This is the
design of Church censures; and that they may have this good effect, the Apostle
has given directions to all Christians not to accompany with such, that they may
be ashamed And our holy Church in her Articles, as you will find it in the
thirty third Article of the Church of England, has declared in these words:That
person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the
unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole
multitude of the faithful, as a heathen and publican, until he be openly
reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that hath
authority thereunto.

Pursuant to which Article, the Church, in the eighty-fifth Canon, appoints, That
all persons excommunicated, and so denounced, be kept out of the church by the
churchwardens. And in the sixty-fifth Canon, directs,That all such as stand
lawfully excommunicated, shall every six months be openly denounced and declared
excommunicate; that others may be thereby admonished to refrain their company
and society, &c. As for any temporal penalties or incapacities which an
excommunicate person may be exposed to; these do not properly belong to the
Church; they are no part of our sentence; they are altogether in the hands of
the civil magistrate. Our sentence is purely spiritual; it is the sentence of
JESUS CHRIST, and only concerns the good of the souls of those He has committed
to our care. It is part of that ministry which we received by the imposition of
hands, and which we most humbly pray GOD to enable us to exercise toHis glory,
to the putting a stop to the growing vices of the age, and to the edification of
the Church of Christ, which He has purchased with His blood.Amen. THE SENTENCE.

It is with great reluctancy, GOD is our witness, and after many prayers to GOD
for their conversion, that we proceed to thislast remedywhich CHRIST has
appointed for the conversion of sinners. But we hope you are not shut out, that
you may ever remain out of the Church; but that you may become sensible of your
errors, and return with more zeal to your Heavenly Father. In the mean time we
must do our duty, and leave the event to GOD. In the name of JESUS CHRIST, and
by the authority which we have received from Him, we separate you from the
communion of the Church, which He has purchased with His blood, and which is the
society of all faithful people; and you are no longer a member of His body, or
of His kingdom, until you be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the
Church by a judge that hath authority so to do. When Persons excommunicated are
received back into the Church.

I, an unworthy minister of JESUS CHRIST, by the same authority and power, even
that of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; by which for thy obstinacy, and other crimes,
thou hast been excluded from the communion of CHRIST’S Holy Church: By the same
power, I do now release thee from that bond of excommunication, ac cording to
the confession now made by thee before GOD and this Church; and do restore thee
again unto the communion of the Church of CHRIST: beseeching the ALMIGHTY to
give thee His grace, that thou mayest continue a worthy member of the same unto
thy life’s end, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. Amen.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. John the Baptist.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 40: 38 - VIA MEDIA.
========================================================================

VIA MEDIA.

No. I.

[Number 38]

Laicus.—Will you listen to a few free questions from one who has not known you
long enough to be familiar with you without apology? I am struck by many things
I have heard you say, which show me that, somehow or other, my religious system
is incomplete; yet at the same time the world accuses you of Popery, and there
are seasons when I have misgivings whither you are carrying me.

Clericus.—I trust I am prepared, most willing I certainly am, to meet any
objections you have to bring against doctrines which you have heard me maintain.
Say more definitely what the charge against me is.

L. That your religious system, which I have heard some persons style the
Apostolical, and which I so name by way of designation, is like that against
which our forefathers protested at the Reformation.

C. I will admit it, i. e. if I may reverse your statement, and say, that the
Popish system resembles it. Indeed, how could it be otherwise, seeing that all
corruptions of the truth must be like the truth which they corrupt, else they
would not persuade mankind to take them instead of it?

L. A bold thing to say, surely; to make the earlier system an imitation of the
later!

C. A bolder, surely, to assume that mine is the later, and the Popish the
earlier. When think you that my system (so to call it) arose?—not with myself?

L. Of course not; but whatever individuals have held it in our Church since the
Reformation, it must be acknowledged that they have been but few, though some of
them doubtless eminent men.

C. Perhaps you would say (i. e. the persons whose views you are representing),
that at the reformation, the stain of the old theology was left among us, and
has shown itself in its measure ever since, as in the poor, so again in the
educated classes;—that the peasantry still use and transmit their Popish rhymes,
and the minds of students still linger among the early Fathers; but that the
genius and principles of our Church have ever been what is commonly called
Protestant.

L. This is a fair general account of what would be maintained.

C. You would consider that the Protestant principles and doctrines of this day
were those of our Reformers in the sixteenth century; and that what is called
Popery now, is what was called Popery then.

L. On the whole: there are indeed extravagancies now, as is obvious. I would not
defend extremes; but I suppose our Reformers would agree with moderate
Protestants of this day, in what they meant by Protestantism and by Popery.

C. This is an important question, of course; much depends on the correctness of
the answer you have made to it. Do you make it as a matter of history, from
knowing the opinions of our Reformers, or from what you consider probable?

L. I am no divine. I judge from a general knowledge of history, and from the
obvious probabilities of the case, which no one can gainsay.

C. Let us then go by probabilities, since you lead the way. Is it not according
to probabilities that opinions and principles should not be the same now as they
were 300 years since? that though our professions are the same, yet we should
not mean by them what the Reformers meant? Can you point to any period of Church
history, in which doctrine remained for any time uncorrupted? Three hundred
years is a long time. Are you quite sure we do not need A SECOND REFORMATION?

L. Are you really serious? Have we not Articles and a Liturgy, which keep us
from deviating from the standard of truth set up in the sixteenth century?

C. Nay, I am maintaining no paradox. Surely there is multitude of men all around
us who say the great body of the Clergy has departed from the doctrines of our
Martyrs at the Reformation. I do not say I agree with the particular charges
they prefer; but the very circumstance that they are made is a proof there is
nothing extravagant in the notion of the Church having departed from the
doctrine of the sixteenth century.

L. It is true; but the persons you refer to, bring forward, at least, an
intelligible charge; they appeal to the Articles, and maintain that the Clergy
have departed from the doctrine therein contained. They may be right or wrong;
but at least they give us the means of judging for ourselves.

C. This surely is beside the point. We were speaking of probabilities. What
change actually has been made, if any, is a further question, a question of
fact. But before going on to examine the particular case, I observe that change
of opinion was probable; probable in itself you can hardly deny, considering the
history of the universal Church; not extravagantly improbable, moreover, in
spite of Articles, as the extensively prevailing opinion to which I alluded,
that the clergy have departed from them, sufficiently proves. Now consider the
course of religion and politics, domestic and foreign, during the last three
centuries, and tell me whether events have not occurred to increase this
probability almost to a certainty; the probability, I mean, that the members of
the English Church of the present day differ from the principles of the Church
of Rome more than our forefathers differed. First, consider the history of the
Puritans from first to last. Without pronouncing any opinion on the truth or
unsoundness of their principles, were they not evidently further removed from
Rome than were our Reformers? Was not their influence all on the side of leading
the English Church farther from Rome than our Reformers placed it? Think of the
fall of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Reflect upon the separation and
extinction of the Nonjurors, upon the rise of Methodism, upon our political
alliances with foreign Protestant communities. Consider especially the history
and the school of Hoadly. That man, whom a high authority of the present day
does not hesitate to call a Socinian, was for near fifty years a bishop in our
Church.

L. You tell me to think on these facts. I wish I were verse enough in our
ecclesiastical history to do so.

C. But you are as well versed in it as the generality of educated men; as those
whose opinions you are now maintaining. And they surely ought to be well
acquainted with our history, and the doctrines taught in the different schools
and eras, who scruple not to charge such as me with a declension from the true
Anti-popish doctrine of our Church. For what the doctrine of the Church is, what
it has been for three centuries, is a matter of fact which cannot be known
without reading.

L. Let us leave, if you please, this ground of probability, which, whatever you
may say, cannot convince me while I am able to urge that strong objection to it
which you would not let me mention just now. I repeat, we have Articles; we have
a Liturgy; the dispute lies in a little compass, without need of historical
reading:—do you mean to say we have departed from them?

C. I am not unwilling to follow you a second time, and will be explicit. I
reply, we have departed from them. Did you ever study the Rubrics of the Prayer
Book?

L. But surely they have long been obsolete;—they are impracticable!

C. It is enough; you have answered your own question without trouble of mine.
Not only do we not obey them, but it seems we style them impracticable. I take
your admission. Now, I ask you, are not these Rubrics (I might also mention
parts of the Services themselves which have fallen into disuse), such as the
present day would call Popish? and, if so, is not this a proof that the spirit
of the present day has departed (whether for good or evil) from the spirit of
the Reformation?—and is it wonderful that such as I should be called Popish, if
the Church Services themselves are considered so?

L. Will you give me some instances.

C. Is it quite in accordance with our present Protestant notions, that
unbaptized persons should not be buried with the rites of the Church?—that every
Clergyman should read the Daily Service morning and evening at home, if he
cannot get a congregation?—that in college chapels the Holy Communion should be
administered every week—that Saints’ Days should be observed?—that stated days
of fasting should be set apart by the Church? Ask even a sober-minded really
serious man about the observance of these rules; will he not look grave, and
say, that he is afraid of formality and superstition if these rules were
attended to?

L. And is there not the danger?

C. The simple question is, whether there is more danger now than three centuries
since? was there not far more superstition ill the sixteenth than in the
nineteenth century? and does the spirit of the nineteenth move with the spirit
of the sixteenth, if the sixteenth commands and the nineteenth draws back?

L. But you spoke of parts of the Services themselves, as laid aside?

C. Alas!....

What is the prevailing opinion or usage respecting the form of absolution in the
office for Visiting the Sick? What is thought by a great body of men of the
words in which the Priesthood is conveyed? Are there no objections to the
Athanasian Creed? no murmurs against the Commination Service? Does no one
stumble at the word "oblations," in the Prayer for the Church Militant? Is there
no clamour against parts of the Burial Service? No secret or scarcely secret
complaints against the word regeneration in the Baptismal? No bold protestations
against reading the Apocrypha? Now do not all these objections rest upon one
general ground: viz. That these parts of our Services savour of Popery? And
again, are not these the popular objections of the day?

L. I cannot deny it.

C. I consider then that already I have said enough to show that Churchmen of
this day have deviated from the opinions of our Reformers, and become more
opposed than they were to the system they protested against. And therefore, I
would observe, it is not fair to judge of me, or such as me, in the off-hand way
which many men take the liberty to adopt. Men seem to think that we are plainly
and indisputably proved to be Popish, if we are proved to differ from the
generality of Churchmen now-a-days. But what if it turn out that they are
silently floating down the stream, and we are upon the shore?

L. All, however, will allow, I suppose, that our Reformation was never completed
in its details. The final judgment was not passed upon parts of the Prayer Book.
There were, you know, alterations in the second edition of it published in King
Edward’s time; and these tended to a more Protestant doctrine than that which
had first been adopted. For instance, in King Edward’s first book the dead in
CHRIST were prayed for; in the second this commemoration was omitted. Again, in
the first book the elements of the LORD’S Supper were more distinctly offered up
to GOD, and more formally consecrated than in the second edition, or at present.
Had Queen Mary not succeeded, perhaps the men who effected this would have gone
further.

C. I believe they would; nay indeed they did at a subsequent period. They took
away the Liturgy altogether, and substituted a Directory.

L. They? the same men?

C. Yes, the foreign party: who afterwards went by the name of Puritans. Bucer,
who altered in King Edward’s time, and the Puritans, who destroyed in King
Charles’s, both came from the same religious quarter.

L. Ought you so to speak of the foreign Reformers? to them we owe the Protestant
doctrine altogether.

C. I like foreign interference, as little from Geneva, as from Rome. Geneva at
least never converted a part of England from heathenism, nor could lay claim to
patriarchal authority over it. Why could we not be let alone, and suffered to
reform ourselves?

L. You separate then your creed and cause from that of the Reformed Churches of
the Continent?

C. Not altogether; but I protest against being brought into that close alliance
with them which the world now-a-days would force upon us. The glory of the
English Church is, that it has taken the VIA MEDIA, as it has been called. It
lies between the (so called) Reformers and the Romanists; whereas there are
religious circles, and influential too, where it is thought enough to prove an
English Clergyman unfaithful to his Church, if he preaches any thing at variance
with the opinions of the Diet of Augsburg, or the Confessions of the Waldenses.
However, since we have been led to speak of the foreign Reformers, I will, if
you will still listen to me, strengthen my argument by an appeal to them.

L. That argument being, that what is now considered Protestant doctrine, is not
what was considered such by the Reformers.

C. Yes; and I am going to offer reasons for thinking that the present age has
lapsed, not only from the opinions of the English Reformers, but from those of
the foreign also. This is too extensive a subject to do justice to, even had I
the learning for it; but I may draw your attention to one or two obvious proofs
of the fact.

L. You must mean from Calvin; for Luther is, in some points, reckoned nearer the
Romish Church than ourselves.

C. I mean Calvin, about whose extreme distance from Rome there can be no doubt.
What is the popular opinion now concerning the necessity of an Episcopal
Regimen?

L. A late incident has shown what it is; that it is uncharitable to define the
Catholic Church, as the body of Christians in every country as governed by
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; such a definition excluding pious Dissenters and
others.

C. But what thought Calvin? "Calvin held those men worthy of anathema who would
not submit themselves to truly Christian Bishops, if such could be had." What
would he have said then to the Wesleyan Methodists, and that portion of the (so
called) Orthodox Dissenters, which co-operates, at present, with the Church?
These allow that we, or that numbers among us, are truly Christian, yet make no
attempts to obtain Bishops from us. Thus the age is more Protestant now than
Calvin himself.

L. Certainly in this respect; unless Calvin spoke rhetorically under
circumstances.

C. Now for a second instance. The following is his statement concerning the
LORD’S Supper. "I understand what is to be understood by the words of CHRIST;
that He doth not only offer us the benefits of His death and Resurrection, but
His very body, wherein He died and rose again. I assert that the body of CHRIST
is really, (as the usual expression is,) that it is truly given to us in the
Sacrament, to be the saving food of our souls." ...... "The SON of GOD offers
daily to us in the Holy Sacrament, the same body which He once offered in
sacrifice to His Father, that it may be our spiritual food."... "If anyone ask
me concerning the manner, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret
too high for my reason to comprehend, or my tongue to express." Now, if I were
of myself to use these words, (in spite of the qualification at the end,
concerning the manner of His presence in the Sacrament,) would they not be
sufficient to convict me of Popery in the judgment of this minute and unlearned
generation?

L. You speak plausibly, I will grant; yet surely, after all, it is not unnatural
that the Reformers of the sixteenth century should have fallen short of a full
Reformation in matters of doctrine and discipline. Light breaks but gradually on
the mind: one age begins a work, another finishes.

C. I am arguing about a matter of fact, not defending the opinions of the
Reformers. As to this notion of their but partial illumination, I am not
concerned to oppose it, being quite con tent if the persons whom you are
undertaking to represent are willing to admit it. And then, in consistency, I
shall beg them to reproach me not with Popery but with Protestantism, and to be
impartial enough to assail not only me, but "the Blessed Reformation," as they
often call it, using words they do not under stand. It is hard, indeed, that
when I share in the opinions of the Reformers, I should have no share of their
praises of them.

L. You speak as if you really agreed with the Reformers. You may say so in an
argument, but in sober earnest you cannot mean to say you really agree with the
great body of them. Neither you nor I should hesitate to confess they were often
inconsistent, saying, at one time, what they disowned at another.

C. That they should have said different things at different times, is not
wonderful, considering they were searching into Scripture and Antiquity, and
feeling their way to the Truth. Since, however, they did vary in their opinions,
for this very reason it is obvious I should be saying nothing at all, in saying
that I agreed with them, unless I stated explicitly at what period of their
lives, or in which of their writings. This I do state clearly: I say I agree
with them as they speak in the formularies of the Church; more cannot be
required of me, nor indeed is it possible to say more.

L. What persons complain of is, that you are not satisf1ed with the formularies
of the Church, but add to them doctrines not contained in them. You must allow
there is little stress laid in the Articles on some points, which are quite
cardinal in your system, to judge by your way of enforcing them.

C. This is not the first time you have spoken of this supposed system of ours. I
will not stop to quarrel with you for calling it ours, as if it were not rather
the Church’s; but explain to me what you consider it to consist in.

L. The following are some of its doctrines: that the Church has an existence
independent of the State; that the State may not religiously interfere with its
internal concerns; that none may engage in ministerial works except such as are
episcopally ordained; that the consecration of the Eucharist is especially
entrusted to Bishops and Priests. Where do you find these doctrines in the
formularies of the Church; that is, so prominently set forth, as to sanction you
in urging them at all, or at least so strongly as you are used to urge them?

C. As to urging them at all, we might be free to urge them even though not
mentioned in the Articles; unless indeed the Articles are our rule of faith.
Were the Church first set up at the Reformation, then indeed it might be right
so to exalt its Articles as to forbid to teach "whatsoever is not read therein,
nor may be proved thereby." I cannot consent, I am sure the Reformers did not
wish me, to deprive myself of the Church’s dowry, the doctrines which the
Apostles spoke in Scripture and impressed upon the early Church. I receive the
Church as a messenger from CHRIST, rich in treasures old and new, rich with the
accumulated wealth of ages.

L. Accumulated?

C. As you will yourself allow. Our Articles are one portion of that
accumulation. Age after age, fresh battles have been fought with heresy, fresh
monuments of truth set up. As I will not consent to be deprived of the records
of the Reformation, so neither will I part with those of former times. I look
upon our Articles as in one sense an addition to the Creeds; and at the same
time the Romanists added their Tridentine articles. Theirs I consider unsound;
ours as true.

L. The Articles have surely an especial claim upon you; you have subscribed
them, and are therefore more bound to them, than to other truths, whatever or
wherever they be.

C. There is a popular confusion on this subject. Our Articles are not a body of
divinity, but in great measure only protest against certain errors of a certain
period of the Church. Now I will preach the whole counsel of GOD, whether set
down in the Articles or not. I am bound to the Articles by subscription; but I
am bound, more solemnly even than by subscription, by my baptism and by my
ordination, to believe and maintain the whole Gospel of CHRIST. The grace given
at those seasons comes through the Apostles, not through Luther or Calvin, Bucer
or Cartwright. You will presently agree with me in this statement. Let me ask,
do you not hold the inspiration of Holy Scripture?

L. Undoubtedly.

C. Is it not a clergyman’s duty to maintain and confess it?

L. Certainly.

C. But the doctrine is no where found in the Articles; and for this plain
reason, that both Romanists and Reformers admitted it; and the difference
between the two parties was, not whether the Old and New Testament were
inspired, but whether the Apocrypha was of canonical authority.

L. I must grant it.

C. And in the same way, I would say, there are many other doctrines unmentioned
in the Articles, only because they were not then disputed by either party; and
others, for other reasons, short of disbelief in them. I cannot indeed make my
neighbour preach them, for he will tell me he will believe only just so much as
he has been obliged to subscribe; but it is hard if I am therefore to be
defrauded of the full inheritance of faith myself. Look at the subject from
another point of view, and see if we do not arrive at the same conclusion. A
statesman of the last century is said to have remarked that we have Calvinistic
Articles, and a Popish Liturgy. This of course is an idle calumny. But is there
not certainly a distinction of doctrine and manner between the Liturgy and the
Articles? and does not what I have just stated account for it, viz. that the
Liturgy, as coming down from the Apostles, is the depository of their complete
teaching; while the Articles are polemical, and except as they embody the
creeds, are only protests against certain definite errors? Such are my views
about the Articles; and if in my teaching, I lay especially stress upon
doctrines only indirectly contained in them, and say less about those which are
therein put forth most prominently, it is because times are changed. We are in
danger of unbelief more than of superstition. The Christian minister should be a
witness against the errors of his day.

L. I cannot tell whether on consideration I shall agree with you or not.
However, after all, you have said not a word to explain what your real
differences from Popery are; what those false doctrines were which you conceive
our Reformers withstood. You began by confessing that your opinions and the
Popish opinions had a resemblance, and only disputed whether yours should be
called like the Popish, or the Popish like yours. But in what are yours
different from Rome?

C. Be assured of this—no party will be more opposed to our doctrine, if it ever
prospers and makes noise, than the Roman party. This has been proved before now.
In the seventeenth century the theology of the divines of the English Church was
substantially the same as ours is; and it experienced the full hostility of the
Papacy. It was the true Via Media; Rome sought to block up that way as fiercely
as the Puritans. History tells us this. In a few words then, before we separate,
I will state some of my irreconcilable differences with Rome as she is; and in
stating her errors, I will closely follow the order observed by Bishop Hall in
his treatise on "The Old Religion," whose Protestantism is unquestionable.

I consider that it is unscriptural to say with the Church of Rome, that "we are
justified by inherent righteousness." That it is unscriptural that "the good
works of a man justified do truly merit eternal life." That the doctrine of
transubstantiation, as not being revealed, but a theory of man’s devising, is
profane and impious. That the denial of the cup to the laity, is a bold and
unwarranted encroachment on their privileges as CHRIST’S people. That the
sacrifice of masses, as it has been practised in the Roman Church, is without
foundation in Scripture or antiquity, and therefore blasphemous and dangerous.
That the honour paid to images is very full of peril, in the case of the
uneducated, that is, of the great part of Christians. That indulgences, as in
use, are a gross and monstrous invention of later times. That the received
doctrine of purgatory is at variance with Scripture, cruel to the better sort of
Christians, and administering deceitful comfort to the irreligious. That the
practice of celebrating divine service in an unknown tongue is a great
corruption. That forced confession is an unauthorised and dangerous practice.
That the direct invocation of Saints is a dangerous practice, as tending to
give, often actually giving, to creatures the honour and reliance due to the
Creator alone. That there are not seven Sacraments. That the Roman Doctrine of
Tradition is unscriptural. That the claim of the Pope to be Universal Bishop is
against Scripture and antiquity.

I might add other points in which also I protest against the Church of Rome, but
I think it enough to make my confession in Hall’s order, and so leave it. And
having done so, I will ask you but one question. Which says more against Popery,
the Articles or I? The only severe words in the Articles being, that "the
Sacrifice of Masses" "were blasphemous fables a dangerous deceits;" whereas the
"doctrines concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of
images as of relics, and also Invocation of saints," are only called "a fond
thing," vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather
repugnant to the Word of GOD."

L. Thank you for this conversation; from which I hope to draw matter for
reflection, though the subject seems to involve such deep historical research, I
hardly know how to find my way ..through it.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. James.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 41: 39 - BISHOP WILSON'S FORM OF RECEIVING PENITENTS.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S FORM OF RECEIVING PENITENTS.

[Number 39]

After Morning Prayers, the person who is censured to penance standing in the
accustomed place and habit, the Minister shall exhort him as follows:

BROTHER, The Church being a society of persons professing to live in the fear of
God, and expecting the judgements of God to fall upon them, if His laws are
broken without calling the offenders to account; it is reasonable that every
member of this society, who has been guilty of any scandalous offence, should
either openly confess his sins, and promise reformation for the time to come; or
else should be cut off from the body of CHRIST, which is the Church.

Now, to awaken you to a true sense of your condition, I will set before you the
Word of GOD; that you may certainly know what will be the end of a wicked life;
and that knowing the terror of the LORD, you may speedily turn unto Him and make
your peace.

Hear then what the Apostle St. Paul saith of great offenders: Be not deceived:
neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of GOD.

Hear also what the same Apostle saith:

Now the works of the flesh are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
laciviousness, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:
of the which I tell you before, as I have told you in time past, that they which
do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of GOD.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living GOD, who can destroy
both body and soul in hell; where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched.

These being the very words of GOD, you will do well to consider into what
condition you have brought yourself; and indeed, the only comfort you have is
this, that you are yet alive, and that the day of grace and repentance is yet
afforded you. Which that you make use of, I must also let you know, what GOD has
declared concerning such as repent and turn unto GOD, and bring forth fruits
meet for repentance. To the LORD our GOD belong mercies and forgivenesses,
though we have rebelled against him.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. And our
blessed SAVIOUR, to show us what great compassion GOD has for him that has gone
astray, and returns to his duty; He represents Him as a man, who having found
his lost sheep, takes it upon his shoulders, rejoicing. And in another parable,
to make us understand the love of GOD for penitent sinners, he shows us how we
may hope to be received, even as a compassionate father received his prodigal
son, whenever he became humble and sensible of his faults; he embraced him, he
clothed him, he rejoiced with his whole family. And such joy there is amongst
the angels of GOD, when a sinner repenteth.

Such great encouragement you have to return to GOD. But then, you must do it
sincerely; you must not only appear outwardly a penitent, but with a true
penitent heart come before GOD and His Church. Which if you do, you will not
look upon this as a punishment inflicted upon you by the Church, but as a
wholesome medicine administered for the good of your precious soul. Without
which, you might have gone on, adding sin to sin, until there had been no more
space for repentance.

You will suffer yourself to be admonished; acknowledge your offence; and give
glory to GOD, in owning His power to punish you in the next life, though you
should escape in this.

You will testify to others that it is, indeed, an evil thing and bitter to
forsake the LORD. And owning this so publicly, you will be ashamed to return to
the sins you have repented of.

Then we shall pray to GOD that He would, for CHRIST’s sake, accept of your
repentance; that He would enable you to live for the time to come in obedience
to the laws of JESUS CHRIST, that your souls may be saved at the day of
judgement.

These are the wholesome ends the Church proposes in her censures; following
herein the Apostle’s directions, in meekness instructing those that oppose
themselves, that they may recover themselves out of the snares of the devil, who
are taken captive by him at his will.

Therefore, dear brother, consider that you are in the presence of GOD-the
searcher of hearts. You may indeed, deceive this congregation with a feigned
repentance, but you cannot deceive Him that made you; who, if you dissemble in
this matter, will shut you out of heaven, though you continue a visible member
of His Church here. But that we may take all due caution, I must in the name of
the congregation, ask you these questions: Are you from your heart sorry for the
sin you have committed?- Answer. I am. Will you be more careful for the time to
come; and by GOD’s help, avoid all temptations to it?—

Answer. I will. Will you constantly pray to GOD to assist you to do so?- Answer.
I will. Do you desire the forgiveness of all good Christians, whom you may have
offended?-Answer. I do. And do you desire that others, seeing your admonition of
such as, after a Christian manner, shall advise you, if they shall see you
forget yourself and the promises you have now made?- Answer. I will.

Then shall the Minister say, May the gracious GOD give you repentance to life
eternal; receive you into his favour; continue you a true member of the Church
of CHRIST; and bring you unto his everlasting kingdom, through the same JESUS
CHRIST our LORD. Amen.

After which he shall speak to the congregation as follows:

Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this person is moved by the good
SPIRIT of GOD to confess his sins, and to be afflicted for then; let us, that we
may mourn with him as becomes good Christians, consider that we are all subjects
to sin, and to death eternal; That there is nothing so vile and wicked which we
should not run into, did not the grace of GOD prevent us;

That, therefore, we have nothing to value ourselves for above others, but what
the good SPIRIT of GOD has given us.

Let him, then, as the Apostle advises, that thinks he stands, take heed lest he
fall.

Let us remember the words of CHRIST, Watch and pray, that ye enter not into
temptation; because our adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh
continually about, seeking whom he may devour.

Let us learn never to be ashamed to acknowledge our sins to remembrance, and
judge ourselves, though we are not censured by the Church. Let us confess our
sins unto GOD, who is most willing to pardon us, if we turn unto Him with all
our hearts, stedfastly purposing to lead a new life. Which GOD grant we may all
do, for JESUS CHRIST’s sake. Amen.

Then shall be said distinctly the fifty-first Psalm, together with the Prayers
appointed in the Commination service for Ash-Wednesday.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. James.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 42: 40 - RICHARD NELSON.  BAPTISM
========================================================================

RICHARD NELSON. No. III.

BAPTISM.

[Number 40]

Ye hear in the Gospel the express words of our Saviour Christ, that except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this Sacrament, where it may be
had."—Office of Baptism for those of Riper Years.

DURING the summer, after the conversation last related, in which, as the reader
may remember, we had been speaking of the Athanasian Creed, I was called away to
a distance from home by the unexpected illness of a near relation, which became
serious, and lasted so long as to keep me absent for two or three Sundays. The
time of year was about Midsummer, and it so happened that one of the Sundays was
the eighth after Trinity. Thinking over the first morning lesson of the day, as
I sat watching by my kinsman’s bedside, I was forcibly struck by the awful way,
in which it appears to impress upon men the duty of separating themselves, in
some way or other, from unbelievers. "Eat no bread, nor drink water, neither
turn again by the way that thou camest:" that is, "however tired, hungry, and
thirsty you may be, and however kind and pressing they may be, have nothing at
all to say to them: do not even return the same road, but make your self as
strange among them as ever you can." Long and deeply, with my Bible in my hand,
did I muse upon this history, and the more I thought, the more I was convinced,
putting every thing together, that such as I have said is its true moral and
meaning. I must own, however, that the train of thought was not altogether
agreeable to me. I could not disengage myself from an unpleasant, though not a
very distinct, conviction that this material part of piety, separation from the
enemies of God, had not been sufficiently pressed on my people, in my course of
parochial instruction. The thought came across my mind, "What if any of them now
should go astray for want of due warning on that point, and should come to a bad
end?" And I secretly determined with myself, in the silence of the sick room,
that I would endeavour for the future to supply this great deficiency, and that
until Church discipline can be restored again (which the Prayer Book teaches us
to wish and pray for), I would try to prevail on those who were most likely to
be prevailed to act upon the principles of it, and establish something like it
in their own houses: using a kind of holy reserve towards those who will not
hear the Church. These thoughts occupied me that night during most of my waking
hours, my patient happily sleeping soundly, and my anxiety about him of course
growing less: and when towards morning I was relieved on my post as nurse, the
same thoughts still haunted me in my dreams. At last I settled into a sound
slumber, and, as was not unnatural, overslept myself. I was awakened on the
Monday morning, an hour after the usual time, by my friend’s servant bringing a
letter into my room, which I saw by the post mark came from my own parish, but I
could not at all recollect the hand writing. I opened it eagerly, not knowing
what to expect, and read as follows:

"Honoured and dear Sir,

"I make bold to trouble you with a few lines, as I find on calling at the
Parsonage that Mr. Mason is not yet well enough for you to leave him: which a
little troubled me, for I wanted to ask your kind advice on a matter of some
consequence, and I could do it much more comfortably by word of mouth. As it is,
I must try and state my case to you by letter, hoping that I shall be able to
make it plain, and knowing that you will excuse other defects, which will be
many. The thing, Sir, is this: you have seen something of my nephew, young
Philip Carey, the bricklayer of Amdale. For I remember, when he had some work in
our parish, he went to you to buy a Bible, and you had some talk with him, and
named him to me afterwards, seeming rather pleased with him; and indeed he is a
steady, good tempered lad, though I say it that should not say it. Well, Sir,
that Bible was intended for a present, he would not tell me then to whom, but I
afterwards found that he had given it to a young woman named Vane, who was in
service, where he last worked: and in short, there was a talk among the people,
which I as a kinsman was one of the last to hear, that they were very soon going
to be married. I was not very much surprised at this: but I own to you, Sir, I
was more vexed than some of our people can well account ‘for. Not that I have
any thing to say against the young woman’s conduct; indeed I believe she has
always borne a good character, and is, as the world goes, very respectable: but
I know very well that her father had been for many years unsettled in his
thoughts on religion—more, as I believed, of a Baptist than any thing else: and
I thought to myself, if Letitia (for that is her name) is not very different
from her father, how can the Church’s blessing go along with such an union? and
without the Church’s blessing, how can they expect to be happy? So I made it my
business to see my nephew, and asked him quietly, if no scruple of this sort had
ever come into his mind; and a good deal passed between us, which I need not at
present tire you with. However, the upshot was, we parted good friends, but both
of the same mind as when we met. And on the Sunday I walked over to Amdale, and
called on my sister Lucy, Philip’s mother (his father died last year), and we
had a long discourse, in which she seemed to think me strange and bigoted: but
yet I hoped that what I had said would keep them from going on quite
inconsiderately. So much the more was I disappointed at receiving a note from my
sister this morning, begging me to order my matters so as to be at Amdale church
at 10 o’clock next Saturday, they having fixed on that day for the wedding, and
wishing me to give the young woman away. I can see, they quite reckon’ upon it,
and I fear they will be very much affronted should I refuse. I conclude they
hardly thought me quite in earnest in what I said to them. But though it will be
a great grief to me to have them look unpleasant at me (for next to my own
family, I have always delighted in my sister’s), I seem to have made up my mind,
unless you, Sir, should think differently, not to have anything to do with this
marriage; and I cannot help thinking they will one day thank me for it. I shall
not now intrude on you with my reasons; but one line just to say yes or no would
greatly oblige, "Honoured and dear Sir, "Your humble and obliged servant,
"RICHARD NELSON." When I had read this letter, though I was grieved to think
that my friend Richard, who had always lived such a quiet life, and with whom I
had sometimes talked of the great happiness we both enjoyed—a rare happiness in
these times—of belonging, each of us, to a family undivided in religious
opinions: though, I say, I was grieved to think of Richard’s being thus
disturbed, yet I was on the whole more pleased for the thing to have be fallen
him than if it had happened to any other man in the parish, for reasons which
the reader will easily guess. I wrote to him as he desired, not a long letter,
but such as to show him that I heartily approved of his principles, and trusted
to his discretion for applying them in the most effectual way. While I stayed
with my relation, I heard no more of the matter, but I thought of it day and
night, and wondered how it would turn out. The middle of the next week, my
relation having nearly recovered, I returned home; and the first thing I did was
to contrive a little job of walling, that I might have an excuse for sending to
Richard Nelson. I saw at once, when he came into the room, that he had been
going through a good deal; he looked anxious, though very calm and cheerful. The
following conversation, or some thing very like it, passed between us, after I
had given my orders about the work:—

"And how goes on this wedding, Richard?"

"Pretty much as I expected, Sir: we have had a good deal to say to each other
about it, I, and my sister, and Mr. Vane; but though I spoke very plainly to
them, they would not believe I was in earnest, till the very day before that
intended for the marriage. And when they saw that I meant what I said, they were
forced to put off the marriage, till a friend of theirs can be written to, and
come, with whom it seems they had made an old engagement, that he should be the
father at their wedding, if any one was, out of their two families. In the mean
time I am sorry to say they look rather black on me; and not only they, but a
many of the neighbours too. But luckily I had made up my mind to that
beforehand."

"They must look black upon me, too, then. For I should have done just the same,
according to what I understand of the case. But I suppose you told them on what
ground you went?"

"I did, Sir, as well as I could, in y plain way. I saw them all at different
times, Mr. Vane, and my sister, and the two young people, and told them all the
same thing; viz., that I look on marriage as a sacred thing; that the Church
never meant her sacred things to be made common; that such would be the case,
were a person in Letitia’s state (for do you know, Sir, she is not yet even
baptized,) to be admitted to Christian marriage; that the neglect of this rule
is every day doing great mischief; and that, being as I am, Philip’s Godfather,
as well as his nearest relation, I was bound especially to do what I could to
hinder him from the sin and the peril.

"And it was curious to me, Sir, in the midst of my vexation, to observe in what
a different way the different persons I had to deal with received what I had to
say. Each had his own objection, one to one part of my notions, and another to
another. Mr. Vane thought it very strange that marriage should be made so purely
a matter of Religion; my sister, I am sorry to say, was inclined to think very
slightly of the difference between us and the Baptists; Philip was quite sure,
that let him be once married, he should soon bring his wife to the same way of
thinking as himself, (for to do him justice, he has no thought of leaving the
Church;) and, as for the young woman, she said but little, but what she said,
affected me more than all the rest; for she really seemed to think me unkind and
cruel, in exposing and discrediting her, and making her out (so she said) to be
no Christian."

"I do not much wonder," said I, "at the young people; but I own I am a little
surprised that Mr. Vane should utter a thought which appears to me so very
shocking, as that marriage need not be sanctified by Religion at all."

"Why, Sir," replied Richard Nelson, "he has been of late much out and about,
talking with all sorts of people; and then he meddles with politics and
elections, all rather in a wild way, and it brings him into strange company, and
sets him on reading strange books. So he has picked up this notion among others,
which I understand the French are very full of, as well as our Frenchified
newspapers But I should not have thought of arguing with him about it, it seems
so absurd and shocking of itself, if I had not been afraid of his doing my
nephew some harm by it; for Philip was in the room with us, of course listening
eagerly to what passed. But I do not know" (interrupting himself) "why I am
troubling you, Sir, with this conversation."

"By all means go on, I beg of you. I am a little inquisitive to know what he
could have to say for such a notion."

"His fancy was, as far as I could make it out, that the peace and order of the
country is every thing. And if, said he, people can go on well, and be faithful
and happy in marriage without any public religious service, why should it be
urged on them by the law?"

"To which I suppose you answered, that there is another world as well as this;
and it does not follow that things will turn out well in that, because to our
short and dim sight they seem to go on in peace and order here."

"To be sure, Sir, that is very plain; but I do not think I went so deep. I took
him straight to Scripture; for in that way I thought Philip would attend to me
most. I put it to him in this way: if marriage is a different thing to a
Christian from what it would be to any one else; if it is not only one of the
greatest earthly blessings, but also a special and holy token, appointed by God
to signify unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church;
then, to enter on it without prayer, or in any other but a religious way, must
be almost as affronting to the Almighty, as if one profaned the Sacrament of His
Son’s body and blood. And again, since we are plainly told, that Christian men
ought never to expect any blessings from God, except as members of His Son’s
body, (that is, I take it, as parts of His Church,) how can one help fearing to
forfeit the whole of the blessing intended in matrimony, if one scornfully
refuse it as offered by the Church? And I take it, that every man does reject it
in God’s sight, who, disliking it in his heart, submits to it merely because it
is the law of the land. Thus I went on, not expecting to make any impression on
Mr. Vane; indeed, I saw too clearly that he was sneering in his heart all the
time, but he did not like to say much, for fear of turning Philip against him;
who, as I rejoiced to perceive, entered very much into this part of my talk. And
as we walked away to my sister’s, he expressed to me some wonder that so pious a
man as Mr. Vane should ever have approved of the notion of marrying by Justices
of the Peace. ‘But I assure you, uncle,’ said he, ‘that we none of us agree with
him. My mother and Letitia would both of them be miserable if they thought the
Church’s blessing would be wanting on our union. And although I must acknowledge
that I could wish some parts of the service omitted, yet it must be owned, on
the whole, to be extremely beautiful; and I, for my part,’ he went on to say,
‘never expect to see the day, when I shall take any dislike to the Church, for
that or any other reason."’

Here I interrupted Richard in his recital. "I do wish," I said, "that people who
are so much wiser and more delicate than the Prayer Book, would look a little
into their Bibles too. And when they have well reformed both, we shall see how
purely the world will go on, the warnings of God being silenced, and the mistake
corrected, which the Church has made, in speaking out plainly about fashionable
and shameful sins." My friend Richard smiled at my vehemence, and said, "To be
sure, Sir, it is tolerably plain, (what I have often thought of the warnings of
the Athanasian Creed also,) that the very repugnance which many men feel towards
repeating them, is rather a proof of their usefulness and necessity, supposing
the substance of them to be true. For it is plain, that people who shudder so
much at repeating them after the Church, would never have courage to deliver the
like warnings for themselves. And the same kind of remark may be made on the
passages you now allude to in the Office of Matrimony. And thus people might be
left to perish unwarned, through false delicacy, or false good nature. I must
say, that if I was a Clergyman, and felt, as I suppose I should feel, that such
warnings ought to be given, I should feel most deeply obliged to the Prayer Book
for putting words into my mouth, and commanding me to speak them. I would much
rather have it so, than be left to form words of my own. I should feel it less
painful to myself, and probably less annoying to others. And now that we are
upon this subject; permit me, Sir, just to ask you, do you not think: it would
do much good, and correct what may perhaps be justly called thevulgarobjections
to the Marriage Service, if men would. try to enter a little more into the
spirit of the household: stories, and family scenes of the Old Testament? The
book of Ruth especially—can anyone read it reverently, and not learn a great
deal of the difference between True and False Delicacy? You will feel my
meaning, Sir, at once."

"Indeed," said I, "I do; and although I am not aware that I ever before heard it
said in so many words, yet, I should imagine it must have been silently
experienced by every right-minded reader. And if it should turn out, that the
spirit of that Book is exactly the same with the spirit of our Marriage Service,
who would desire a more complete vindication of it? But pray let us go back to
your story, which I beg pardon for having interrupted. You were on the way to
your sister, Mrs. Carey’s; and I think you told me, that you found it very hard
to make her so much as understand your objection to the marriage, or how any one
could possibly imagine Baptists, as such, to be aliens to the Church."

"Yes! she was quite positive at first, that I must have some view of my own,
some worldly purpose, in ‘setting my head’ against the match. As long as she had
this fancy, she would not even listen to my arguments; and as it was, I believe
she did but half hear them. I did not indeed trouble her with many for I thought
that two or three plain texts, with the interpretation confirmed by a little
unquestionable history, might and ought to be sufficient."

"Let me just guess, what line you probably took with her. I suppose you first
pointed out to her, that our Saviour’s promises are made to individuals, not
simply as believing and repenting, but as joining themselves, by faith and
repentance, to the Church which He was founding through his Apostles. For
instance, you might perhaps put her in mind, that our Saviour in His prayer
before His sufferings, in ch. xvii. of St. John, plainly had an eye to the
command he purposed to give them, when he was going to be taken out of their
sight: which command we read in the last three verses of St. Matthew. The prayer
was ‘not for the Apostles alone, but for all who should believe on Him THROUGH
THEIR WORD: that they all might be one. For whom was this prayer offered? Not
for all who any how should believe in CHRIST, but ‘for them who should believe
on Him through the word of the Apostles:’ i. e. for the very same per sons
described in the other text: ‘GO ye and teach (or, as it is in the margin, make
Disciples, or Christians, of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.’ Those whom he had before prayed for, he
here in effect orders to be taught or made Disciples, by persons having
Apostolical authority. But these very same Disciples are to be one and all
baptized. For our Lord’s words are quite express: ‘ Make Christians of them by
baptizing them;’ so that if we are to go by these words, it is quite plain that
persons unbaptized cannot properly be called Christians: and if we compare the
same words with the other text, it seems very doubtful whether such persons are
included in the meaning of our SAVIOUR’S gracious intercession: which is surely
a point to be deeply considered. Do you quite understand me, Richard?"

"Yes, Sir, I believe I do. Those are some of the places in Scripture, which I
turned to and begged my sister Lucy to consider. But of course, Sir, I could not
reason on them so exactly as you have now done. There was another place too,
which I begged her to think a good deal of, which must needs, I think, sound
very awful to those who are inclined to make light of Baptism: I mean what was
said to Nicodemus, ‘Except a man be born OF WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of GOD.’ It seems to me, Sir, that in speaking those
words, our Saviour, who knew what he would do, must have borne in mind his
purpose of causing water to be what it is made in the Sacrament of Baptism, the
outward and visible sign of our new birth, and admission into His Church. I put
the substance of the two places side by side in this way.

John 3:5.

If you would enter into the kingdom of GOD, you must be born of water and of the
Spirit.

Matthew 27:19.

If you would be a Disciple or Christian, you must be baptized by Apostolical
authority. in the name of the Holy Trinity.

What made me stronger in this opinion, was observing the like argument in our
Divine Master’s language, when speaking of the other Holy Sacrament. As thus:
for I wrote the four places down to make my meaning plain to the very eye.

John 6:53.

If you would have life in you, you must eat the flesh of the Son of man, and
drink his blood.

Matthew 26:28.

If you would eat Christ’s body and drink his blood, you must take and eat the
bread, and drink of the cup, blessed by those who have authority to bless it in
remembrance of Him.

"I hope, Sir, you will not think that I am using the Bible too freely: but I
must own, to me it is very convincing, when I see one part of our SAVIOUR’S
discourses thus pointing as it were to another, and both so thoroughly agreeing
with the known customs of the early Church, as I have always understood these
do.

"For it is now some few years, Sir, since I began to think on this subject, and
what few doubts I had, were very much settled by a book which you kindly spared
me from your Lending Library. I think it was called ‘A conference of two men on
the subject of Infant Baptism.’ And it showed to my thinking most closely, the
opinion of the Church on that subject, in times when they must have known what
the very Apostles used to do.

"These things, in my plain way, I tried to point out to my sister; and I was in
hopes to have convinced her that wilfully to remain unbaptized is a more
grievous sin than the generality of Dissenters (aye, and a great many Churchmen)
imagine. I thought, when our LORD so distinctly affirmed, that one MUST be born
of water and the Spirit, before one could even ‘enter into GOD’S kingdom,’ it
was not too much to ask of a Christian man, that he should not marry such a
person, considering what the Holy Spirit has said by St. Paul to all Christians,
that if they marry, they must marry ‘in the Lord;’ that is to say, must select
such persons as make part of the body of Christ, considering too what strict
charges were given to the Israelites of old time, not to make marriages with the
heathen and unbelievers. I thought to myself, and I put it strongly to my
sister, how can I, with these convictions, with the Scriptures lying open before
me, and as I think distinctly forbidding such things, how can I be helper to
such a union? how can I come to GOD’S altar, and present my relation there to
Him, and beg His blessing on an act which in my conscience I believe to be
sinful, and most provoking to Him? In short, I told them it was out of the
question; and if they would put themselves in my place for a moment, they would
see that it must be so."

"I should like to know what the young man thought, as he stood by and heard all
this."

"Oh, Sir, I could see that he was very uneasy; he made two or three endeavours
to break in upon us with some remarks of his own: but I was steady in not
permitting him till I had stated my own view, so as to give it a fair chance.
When I had finished, and was going away, leaving my sister, as it seemed to me,
more puzzled than convinced by what had been said, Philip came close up to me,
and said, in the tone of a man more or less vexed, ‘You mistake me quite, uncle,
if you think I have any notion of leaving the Church, because I am proposing to
marry one who is not yet a Churchwoman. I like the Church as well as ever. I was
born and bred in it, and hope to die in it; nay, and by this very engagement of
mine, I expect to do good service to the Church. For I shall be very much
disappointed indeed, if Letitia be not very soon prevailed on to be baptized,
and conform, after she becomes my wife.’

"I told him, if such was indeed her mind, the matter might in no long time be
settled to the satisfaction of us all. He had only to wait till that happy
change, which he so confidently looked for, had taken place, and I would most
gladly attend him as he desired. At this he looked a little disconcerted, and it
was plain enough that he had been mistaking what he only wished, for what was
likely to happen. So I just asked him one question, whether he thought himself
wiser and steadier than Solomon? He very likely (said I), when he permitted
himself first to form an attachment to a heathen, expected to bring her over to
the faith and worship of the one true GOD; but it ended in his becoming himself
an idolater. Indeed, GOD’S warnings to his ancient people, not to be unequally
yoked with unbelievers, every where go upon the notion, that the’ corrupting
side in such unions will be commonly too strong for that which was originally
right. How can it be otherwise, while human nature is corrupt, and when the aid
of Divine Grace is forfeited by men’s presumptuously running themselves into a
state of continual temptation? And, I added, what I have more than once heard
from those who have read modern history, that the same kind of result is there
also visible enough, attending on the like profane marriages among those who
call themselves Christians. I ventured to mention one example, which had
occurred to myself, in such little reading as I have had time for in that
line—the example of one whom I deeply honour and reverence—you will guess that I
mean King Charles the Martyr. I do not know whether I am right, but it has
always seemed to me, that the one great error of his Majesty’s life was his
being ‘unequally yoked’ with a person of another creed,—a person with whom I
suppose he could not well pray, although, as we happen to know for certain, he
prayed constantly for her conversion. His own faith to be sure was unstained;
but we know what evil ensued to his family and kingdom; and perhaps many of his
own calamities might be traced to the cause. Now if that just and good king
cannot be excused for such a marriage, what can be said for an ordinary
Christian, should he run into the like danger? What is ‘tempting GOD, if this be
not?’ Thus I ran on; but Philip evidently said little attention to me. He seemed
to be making up his mind that I was prejudiced, and that it was no use his
listening at all. So I went away for the present, hoping before long to have an
opportunity of speaking to him when he was more willing to hear."

"I thought," said I, "that you told me just now of your having conversed with
the young woman herself: did I mistake you? or was that at another time?"

"That was just as I was going away: I passed by accident through the room where
she was, and we had a very few words together. It was plain at once, by her
manner, that she considered me personally unkind in what I had been saying of
her to my sister. I begged her to bear with me, considering that I was so much
older, and that I could have nothing at heart but my nephew’s good; and I put
her in mind of two or three things which had passed, such as I thought would be
most apt to pacify and soothe her when she remembered them; and then I begged
her seriously to consider, not at present whether I was right or no in my
opinion of the necessity of Baptism, but supposing I thought myself right, how
could I act otherwise than I was doing? Which, I asked, is the truer charity? to
let people go on unbaptized and unsanctified, for fear of paining them;—to treat
them as if they were quite safe, when if you will believe our SAVIOUR, you must
believe they have not yet even entered into the Church and Kingdom of GOD,—or to
show them that you feel in earnest for their danger; to remind them what
sentence the Church would pass on them, should they die in their present
condition? She would not, in that case, allow them Christian burial. Why?
Evidently, because she thinks them not members of CHRIST’S body; not entitled by
covenant to those promises, the rehearsing of which over the grave are in her
mind is part of Christian burial. I believe, and obey the Church; and if it was
the nearest and dearest relation I have, I should count it kindness; not
cruelty, to treat him as she would have him treated to ‘have compassion on him,
making a difference,’ and so try to bring him, with an humble and penitent
heart, to our SAVIOUR’S Baptism in good time.

"This was the tone of what I said to her; but I had hardly time for so much as
this: however, as she is naturally good tempered and candid, she seemed to take
it pretty well."

"I should like to know," said I, "whether she has ever expressed any wish for
Baptism. A person who thinks of it, but is as yet irresolute, may be regarded, I
should think, in a different light from one who distinctly slights and
disparages it; more like one of the beginners in Christianity, who were called
in old time Catechumens. Whereas, those who indulge in scorn, and make
themselves easy in such a condition, show the very temper of the worst heretics.
Have you any notion to which of these two classes the young woman you are
speaking of rather belongs?"

"I should not suppose she had ever thought much of the matter, until of late,
that the question has been started by this proposed wedding. What thoughts she
has, I should fear, are rather of the scornful kind. She has been used to hear
people say, under breath, perhaps, but not the less emphatically for that,
something like what Naaman the Syrian said, ‘May I not wash elsewhere, and be
clean?’ with plenty of hints about superstition and Popery, and other words of
the like sound."

"It is too likely: one has heard of late of too much of that kind among the
Baptists, and among others who agree with them in slighting the ancient Church.
And worse consequences even than the contempt of Baptism follow, I fear, too
often. Persons become generally irreverent towards religion altogether. A proud
common sense, as it calls itself, usurps the place of that humility which befits
a creature and a sinner in judging of his duties towards GOD. Nothing is
cordially believed which is not theoretically understood: nothing carefully and
reverently practised, of which the use is not perceived. And thus the religion
of our time is in danger of dwindling down to a wretched kind of political
decency: and where, of all parties, is the change going on most rapidly? Among
those who left the Apostolical Church because ‘it was not spiritual enough’ for
them!"

"And yet, Sir, is there any thing so strange in that? Our blessed LORD joined
the two together, the high, mysterious, and spiritual, doctrine of the Trinity,
with the no less mysterious communication of grace by water Baptism. They who
begin by being so bold as to despise the water, which He commanded to be used,
it is very natural, as far as I see, that they should end by despising the word
which He commanded to be spoken,—the sacred name of the FATHER, the SON, and the
HOLY GHOST.

"It is indeed but too natural, like all the other steps which men make down the
broad way which leads to perdition. But it is some kind of satisfaction to me to
find, that quiet thoughtful laymen see the danger, as well as we who are of the
clergy. And I suppose we shall be pretty well agreed upon the remedy, namely, to
do what little we can towards reviving among men the knowledge and love of the
ancient Church."

"Ah, Sir, if that might be! But a Christian must not despond about the Church,
nor the meanest Christian of being made useful, in his place, towards the
highest ends. I will not therefore indulge in forebodings: but will rather try
again what I can do with the opportunity which Providence has put in my way. I
certainly will do nothing to countenance this marriage; and if I cannot prevent
it, at least some part of what I say may rise up in some of their minds some
day, and may help them to truer and better thoughts. But you must help me, Sir,
with your advice, and (may I be so bold?) with your prayers."

"It is my bounden duty, Richard," said I, as I shook him by the hand at parting.
"And take this Scripture home for your comfort; that if a man humbly ‘cast his
bread upon the waters,’ —if he trust his Maker with it in earnest, he shall ‘
find it after many days."’

OXFORD, The Feast of St. James.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 43: 43 - RICHARD NELSON. LENGTH OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
========================================================================

RICHARD NELSON. LENGTH OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE.

No. IV

[Number 43] What a weariness is it!"-- Malachi 1:13.

"O, they be blessed that may dwell Within Thy house always: For they all times
Thy facts do tell, And ever give Thee praise.

"Yea, happy sure likewise are they Whose stay and strength Thou art, Who to Thy
house do mind the way, And seek it in their heart."

Psalms 84:5-6.

AMONG all the boys of our Sunday-school, none have given me so much trouble as
Absalom Plush, and two of farmer Yawn’s sons. They are almost always behind
their time; at school they are very inattentive, and at Church their conduct has
been repeatedly so disgraceful, that it even attracted the attention of one of
the Churchwardens, who gave them a severe reprimand, and threatened to send for
a constable; since which they have conducted themselves rather more decently.
Perhaps my readers may be inclined to ask why I suffer them to remain in the
school, their behaviour having been so bad. My answer must be, that as they are
but little boys, (for Absalom is the eldest, and he is not more than eleven, if
so much,) I still hope they may improve; and if I were to put them out of the
school, I fear I should lose all chance of gaining any influence over them.
However I have made up my mind that if they behave in this sort of way again,
they shall go.

There is, too, another consideration which has rather disposed me to be sorry
for these boys in the midst of my displeasure, namely, that if they had been
well instructed, and a good example had been set them at home, they would,
perhaps, have behaved differently at school and in Church. For young Plush does
not want for sense, though he is so unruly; and as to the little Yawns, they are
not naturally of bad dispositions, but so determinedly indolent and unwilling to
make any exertion for their own improvement, that it is a great trial of one’s
patience to endeavour to teach them. I am, however, sorry to say, the examples
they have before them at home are not such as to encourage them to turn to good
account the instruction they may receive at Church or at the school. This I was
fully aware of from the first, and, accordingly, as it is my usual custom when
the children behave ill at school to take the first opportunity of mentioning it
to their parents and friends, with the hope of throwing in a word which may be
for their good too, I determined that I would do so in these instances. An
occasion soon offered itself of speaking to farmer Yawn, whose house is very
near to mine. But before I state what passed between us, I should say that I
had, that same morning, talked the matter over with my friend Richard Nelson, in
whose class Absalom was, as well as the elder of the two Yawns.

"Sir," replied Richard, in answer to my question respecting the conduct of these
boys, "as to Lawrence Yawn, I cannot say that he applies much to his book, or,
as I think, ever means to do so. Indeed, I have heard that he should say he
likes to be at the bottom of the class, because then he has a chance of leaning
against the wall, or of resting on the corner of my chair. But Absalom Plush is
much more untractable, and inclined to be impudent too. To give you an instance,
Sir, what happened only last Sunday. He came in very late, as he frequently
does, and when I spoke to him about it he only laughed, and said he could not
come sooner, and under breath, as I thought, he should not, and he seemed to me
occasionally to be humming to himself some kind of song."

"A song!" said I, "what in the school? that is something new indeed."

"However," proceeded Nelson, "according to your advice to us in such cases, I
took no notice at the time: but in the evening, as he happened to come along the
path by our garden, I said to him, ‘Absa1om, I do wish you would pay a little
more attention at school, I really fancied to-day you were singing something of
a song.’ ‘Well,’ said he, ‘suppose I was—what then? ‘twas only a bit of a tune
that a man was singing in at father’s, one night last week; and father said,
that altering the words a little, it would just suit us boys of the
Sunday-school. There is no harm (he continued) in the words, I will tell you
what they were.’ But they seemed to me, Sir, to be part of a very mischievous
ballad, signifying that instead of Churches and Prayer Books, people had better
sit in public houses and study newspapers; that Church-going is time-wasting,
and so forth. So it is plain that the boy is encouraged at home in his bad ways;
and, as you ask me the question, Sir, I fear it is not much better with the two
Yawns; for I dare say you must have observed that there are six or seven people,
who always come late into Church, rain or shine, morning or evening, and amongst
them Master Yawn comes in as regularly as possible just about the end of the
first Lesson."

"Yes," I said, "I have observed it, and have long wished for an opportunity of
inquiring into the cause of such a practice."

After some other observations we parted, and it happened, as I before observed,
that on the same day my neighbour Yawn came to our house to borrow a milking
bucket, which I very readily lent him, though not with my servant’s good will,
as such articles seldom returned from the farmer’s in exactly as good a
condition as they went.

Seeing him, then, go out of the yard with the bucket in his hand, I met him at
the garden gate, and said to him at once, "I do wish, Mr. Yawn, you would speak
to Lawrence and the little boy, for by their irregularity and extreme idleness,
they vex me very much, and do harm to the other boys in the school."

"Sir," he replied, making a low bow, "I am very sorry indeed to come troubling
again so soon for a bucket, but our people are so careless—" "O never mind about
the bucket," I said, "only please let it be thoroughly cleaned—but I want you to
tell me what will be the best way of treating that idle fellow, Lawrence, and
his little brother."

"Sir," he answered, "I am very sorry indeed they should have done any thing to
offend you, but you may depend on it they shall always for the future come to
school in good time, and mind what is said to them; otherwise, their mother or I
will give them the stick as sure as every Sunday morning comes round."

"Mr. Yawn," I replied, "I should be very sorry to have Sunday made the day for
such unpleasing performances in your house or in any other. I do not at all wish
any boys to come to the school against their will, especially if their friends
only send them to please me."

"O Sir," he said, "I am sure it is not at all against our will—though,
certainly, ‘tis a longish while for the children to stay, from nine to half past
twelve, or more; and I don’t altogether wonder that the boys are tired. But they
shall come for the future, and stay too, tired or not tired, for I should be
very sorry we should do any thing to offend you, Sir."

"You have told me so now three times, Mr. Yawn," I answered, "so of course I
ought to believe it. But at all events, I hope I shall not offend you if I take
this opportunity to ask you, why you and Edward Gape, and two or three others,
make a rule of treating our Church Service in such a careless, and I must say
scornful way."

"Me treat the Church with scorn! ‘ he replied, "why, Sir, what can you be
thinking of? Why I scarcely ever miss a Sunday. ‘Twould be a good thing for you
clergymen if every body else was as regular."

"As to that," I replied, "it makes no sort of difference to us whether people
come or stay away, except so far as that we ought to be thankful when they do
right, and grieved when they neglect their duty. In this respect, Mr. Yawn, we
are the really ‘ independent’ ministers. But what I allude to is, your strange
unaccountable custom of coming into Church so late. I have been here now nearly
six years, and in all that time, though by your own account you have come to
Church regularly once every Sunday, yet I doubt if ever you have been within the
walls till after I had begun reading the Lessons."

"Yes, Sir, I have," he said, "you are mistaken there."

"Come now," I said, "if I have been here five years and a half, I have been here
286 Sundays, and I think I may venture to say, that during all that time you
have not been in Church time enough to hear all the first Lesson more than
twenty times."

"Perhaps not," he said, "twenty is a good many."

"Well," I replied, "I will venture to say not more than ten times."

"I am not sure of that," he answered.

"But I am sure of it," I said, " sure that you have not been in by the time that
I mention, even five Sundays."

"I can remember at least three times," he answered, "once when I mistook the
clock, and once when old Thomas Pout brought his new bassoon, and on the
Fast-day I was in at the Psalms, I am confident. But I don’t wish to make an
argument about the matter; I will tell you, Sir, plainly, that I have a great
deal to do on a Sunday morning, more than you think of, and that instead of
finding fault with me for being so late, you should thank me for coming at all.
Think, Sir, how many don’t come at all, and there am I in the pew as regular,
pretty near, as old Job the clerk, only half an hour later."

"Yes," I said, "you are very regular in your irregularity. But, Mr. Yawn, let me
ask you this one question,—do you come to Church to do any good to ALMIGHTY GOD,
or to me, or to yourself? Is it any profit to the ALMIGHTY that you serve Him,
if such an imperfect attendance as yours can be called service; or to me is it
any profit or advantage in the way of worldly interest? You know full well, my
friend, that yours is the danger, yours will be the loss, if you persist in thus
dishonouring the holy, jealous GOD." To this his only reply was, that he had
been used to do it for a good way in forty years, and it was not to be expected
he should alter now; and with this observation he walked slowly away with the
bucket over his arm. But thinking, I suppose, that he had not been quite civil
to me, he turned round with the intention, as I hoped, of making some sort of
promise of amendment; but my hope was groundless, for he came back and said in
rather a low voice, "I hope, Sir, nothing I have said will prevent you taking
your butter of us as usual; and as to the boys, I promise you they shall be well
punished every Sunday morning, and then, Sir, if they do behave ill, you know it
will not be my fault, or my wife’s."

I made no answer, but as I walked back to the house, I was led sadly to reflect
on the tendency of a worldly and selfish spirit to deaden not merely all serious
sense of Religion, but even the natural affection of a parent for his children.

Some few evenings afterwards, as I was returning homewards from a distant part
of the parish, Nelson overtook me, when I told him of the conversation I had
with my neighbour Yawn, adding that I had little hope his boys would ever come
to any good, especially as their father seemed determined to keep to his bad
habit merely because it was his habit, without giving any sort of reason or
excuse for it.

"O Sir," replied Nelson, "he fancies he has a very fair reason, only he did not
like to mention it to you. He thinks, or at least pretends to think, (for I do
not imagine he puts his mind much to any thing,) that the Church Service
altogether is too long and tedious. And he and some others have of late been
much encouraged in this their notion by a travelling man, (whether he comes from
Hull or Preston I am not sure,) who quarters at Plush’s occasionally, sometimes
for a fortnight at a time, and is so kind as to offer to enlighten us in this
dark corner of the world."

"I have heard of him," I said; "it seems then he dabbles in religion as well as
in politics."

"Yes, Sir," replied Richard, "that he certainly does, for I had the whole
account of him from a man who was working with me the week before last; you know
him, Sir, I dare say, William Burnet."

"O yes, I know him," I said, "very well; any thing like the prospect of a change
in religion or politics William dearly loves, without troubling himself much to
enquire whether or not it is likely to be a change for the better in either
case. But what did the wise man from Hull say about the Church Service?"

"Why," answered Nelson, "as I never was in company with the man myself, perhaps
it will be the best way for me to tell you, Sir, if you like to hear it, what
passed between Burnet and me an the subject. And indeed it is not Burnet only,
but a good many others are of the same way of thinking, more than used to be
formerly."

"Yes," said I, "their number increases, I fear, very rapidly, and if so, all who
love Truth and the Prayer-book, ought to be on their guard. But now will you
please to tell me how you answered Burnet’s arguments?"

"Sir," he replied, "I will tell you as near as I can remember, what passed
between us on this subject, though I do not promise to be able to repeat his
exact words; and certainly nothing I said is worthy to be called an answer to
arguments."

"Make no apologies," I said, " but proceed."

Well then, Sir, said Nelson, thus it was,—Burnet was constantly commending this
friend of his, who was then lodging at Plush’s, and wishing me to come along if
it were but one evening, that I might judge for myself how beautiful he could
talk and expound on any subject a person might choose to mention, politics,
trade, agriculture, learning, religion, and what not. But I said to him, "No,
Will, I have something else to do of an evening than to sit in a beer-shop
listening to your friend Tiptop (for that is the man’s name). But I dare say you
can give me some account of his wise sayings; what was he upon last night?"

"Last night, (said Will, after some little consideration,) last night he was
lecturing about the Church Prayer-book, a subject that he has often spoken very
well upon in my hearing, but never better than he did yesterday evening."

"What was his argument?" I asked.

"Judge by this," said Will, taking a printed paper out of his pocket, "it is one
of Mr. Tiptop’s perspectuses, as he calls them." (I have this paper with me,
said Nelson to me, and with your leave, Sir, I will read some of the heads.)
"The Church Service lengthy, tedious, and prolix—in this respect lamentably
prejudicious to thc spread of vital religion—vast numbers of highly-talented
individuals unable to devote their time and attention to these procrastinated
forms—consequently compelled to neglect religion altogether—surprising effects,
if the Service was abbreviated at least one-half--the churches immediately sure
to be filled with crowds of devout worshippers—this with facility accomplished
by merely shortening the lessons three-fifths, omitting all superstitious forms,
such as the absolution, creeds, &c.—the Lord’s Prayer repeated usque ad
nauseam." (At this expression, Will said all the company expressed their
approbation very vehemently, some even clapping their hands; but he did not like
to ask what it meant, for fear of appearing ignorant): and so Mr. Tiptop
finished with saying, that in his opinion, about a couple of pleasing hymns, a
dozen verses out of the Testament, three or four prayers, and a sermon in
quantity and quality according to the taste of the audience; this would be
enough for him in all conscience, and he supposed for others too, and need not
altogether take up more than thirty-five or forty minutes at the outside,
allowing fifteen or twenty for the sermon.

"But, Will," said I, "do you really and seriously imagine it would be well if
such alterations as these were made in the Church Service?"

"To be sure I do," he answered, "and so do many other people, who understand
these things better than I or you do. Indeed Mr. Tiptop told us that some
gentlemen had actually taken the matter up, and that it would be brought before
the parliament very speedily, and such alterations would be made as should suit
the spirit of the age; above all, that the Service must be shortened, otherwise
the Church would be entirely deserted, and the Establishment upset."

"GOD forbid," I said, "that the Church should be governed by the spirit of the
times. I trust she is governed by a very different SPIRIT. I trust she may be
willing to be (as you threaten) utterly deserted, rather than herself desert the
station allotted to her by the Chief Shepherd. And as to the Establishment being
in danger, it may be perhaps true, yet I am sure nothing more dangerous can
befall it, than for our governors to hearken to the counsels of such orators as
Tiptop, though encouraged by all the Plushes in England, each with a company of
puffers and smokers about him."

"But Dick," said he to me, "what is the use of a Church, my friend, if people
are tired of it, and won’t go to it." To this I answered, "You might as well
ask, what is the use of our SAVIOUR’S precepts, if people are tired of them and
won’t obey them? You will not, I suppose, say, that the holy rules of the Gospel
ought to be publicly set aside, merely because they are generally neglected."

"No," he replied, "of course I do not mean that."

"Well then," said I, "neither should you affirm that it is the duty of the
Church to withdraw or alter her rules, merely because people are weary of
complying with them."

"That may be true," he answered, "but you must remember that the Church herself
did not mean that the Service should be so long. What we have all at once, was
formerly divided into two or three parts, as I have understood. Why should it
not be again?"

"What you say is, I believe, no more than the truth," I replied; "I have been
lately reading a little book upon the subject, and from that I understood that
there were first the early morning prayers—then, perhaps, after two or three
hours, the Litany—and then again, after a short interval, the Communion Service,
including a sermon of considerable length, (an hour possibly) and afterwards the
administration of the Sacrament. But this last service alone would be much
beyond Mr. Tiptop’s limit of forty minutes; and in this way, ‘the spirit of the
age’ would be more opposed even than it is now."

"O," he said, "I never thought of having the Sacrament administered every
Sunday."

"Then," replied I, "you forgot one of the principal intentions f the Church in
having the Services so divided. If the Bishops and clergy thought well, I do not
deny that it would in many aspects be edifying, if this ancient custom in all
its parts could be revived; but yet I will tell you plainly, that I do not think
it would have the effect you seem to imagine, of bringing people to Church, for,
to my knowledge, it was tried by a clergyman in a parish near Sheffield, and to
his great surprise, many of his parishioners stayed in consequence quite away
from the Church. Some said, they should not think of going so hear half a
service; others, who had a mile or two to come to Church, said they were
scarcely allowed to rest themselves, but that as soon as they got in it was time
to go back. So the clergyman thought it best to return to the old, or, rather I
should say, the modern custom again, of uniting the services."

"And yet," said Burnet, "the American Church has shortened the Lessons very
much, Mr. Tiptop told us."

"It may be so," I answered, "but it does not follow that it is a wise measure
nevertheless, though far it be from me to say that it is otherwise. Still, of
the two, the daughter should take pattern from the mother, rather than the
mother from the daughter. And for myself I must say, that I have often been glad
that the Lessons are of considerable length, for two reasons especially.

"What are they?" he asked.

"The one is," I replied, "that in very short readings it is not so easy to
discover the general meaning and argument; and the other, that if I have from
any cause been inattentive in one part, I have not been so throughout. So also
with respect to the Lord’s Prayer, I have often and often been glad to have had
a second and a third opportunity of joining in it with increased attention.
Therefore, Will, I for one shall never give my vote to have the Services
shortened in either of these ways; and as to Mr. Tiptop’s fine perspectus, or
what he calls it, I don’t think it worth a rush." To this Burnet answered, "that
it was plainly of no use to reason with me, as he saw I was determined to keep
to the old ways."

"That I am," said I, "and think I have pretty good authority for it, authority
somewhat more to be depended on than Mr. Tiptop’s opinion."

"But," continued Will, "I do still persist in affirming that great numbers of
people are weary of the length of the Service, and that it would be but common
kindness to see what can be done to relieve their grievance. And since nothing
can be more easy than just to omit a few prayers and other old-fashioned forms,
and shorten the Lessons, it would be a shame not to try it, and when it is done,
every body will be pleased, and the Church establishment will be greatly
strengthened."

"Well," said I, "whatever effect such a measure might have on the Establishment,
I am confident it would deeply injure the Church. And as to what you say about
relieving a grievance, I wish you to consider this argument which I met with in
a book of Sermons that was lent to me a few weeks ago. ‘If people were weary
merely of the length of the Service, they would be at least attentive at the
beginning, and their weariness would come on by degrees; but we know it is not
so. Of the two, they are often more tired in the early part of the Service than
in the later.’ I do not remember the exact words, but such is the meaning."

"Yes," he said, "that is because they care more about the sermon than they do
about the Prayers and Lessons."

"Very well," I replied, "you have supplied me with a strong argument against
your own views. For by whose opinion do you think the Church ought to be chiefly
guided, that if the few (if they be few) who delight in the Prayers and Lessons,
or that of the many (if they be many) who are weary of them even from the
beginning?"

"Why," he replied, "I thought it was now almost universally agreed, that What
most people think, is True—What most people determine, is Just—What most people
like, is Good. Mr. Tiptop called these ‘Three Grand Parliamentary Principles,’
and we all admired them."

"But, Will," I said, "suppose it should happen that, ‘What most people like’
might be to get rid of the restraints of Religion altogether, I reckon you would
not consider this a safe and good principle to be guided by; and yet you may be
sure that this, and nothing less than this, lies at the root of all these
pretended Church Reforms. And as to the principal contriver of these deceits,
the Great Reformer himself, I do not choose to mention his name to you, but I
think you will find him spoken of, and hid character awfully set forth, in John
8:1-59, and if I recollect right, John 8:44.

"But really now, Will," I continued, "will you be kind enough to tell me, what
are people hindered from by the length of the Service? how comes it men’s time
is so much more precious now than it was formerly? and if the Service were made
shorter how would they be better employed than in hearing GOD’S holy word, and
praying for His blessing on themselves and their friends?

"I say, Will, what do Farmer Yawn, and Ned Gape, and the rest of you do, who
walk always so late into Church; are you spending your time any better than if
you came into GOD’S house before the bell ceases?"

"As to that," said he, laughing, "we generally sit on the wall, at least when
the weather is dry, and look at Ned’s pigs, or talk over the news, or anything,
just to pass the time. But the farmer’s rule is, to begin shaving just as the
bells chime, and then he comes in at the first Lesson as exact as clock-work,
and we after him."

"Then;" said I, "why should you and he trouble about having the Service
shortened, for I suppose, whatever were its length or shortness, you would
always come in twenty minutes after it had begun."

"That would be as we should please," he said. "However, I see plainly I shall
never be able to reason you out of your bigoted old-fashioned notions. I only
wish I could bring you and Mr. Tiptop together. I think he would soon settle you
and your arguments too; he would quickly turn the laugh against you, I can
assure you, Master Nelson." To this I answered, "that I had no reason to be
afraid of Tiptop, his arguments, or his jests, but that 1 never would willingly
go or stay in the company of persons who could make light of serious matters;
and I told Burnet, that I was sure sooner or later, he would allow that I was
right in this resolution."

"This, Sir, was the substance of my conversation with Will; and if you should be
disengaged next Sunday evening and disposed to see me, I should be glad to have
a few more words with you on the same subject." To this I readily agreed, so we
parted at his garden-gate; and as I heard his door shut, I could not but say to
myself, if happiness is to be found on earth it is in that cottage, and what is
the precious secret whereby it has been attained? No secret at all, (I answered
myself) but simply the practice of "pure and undefiled religion," "patient
continuance in well doing," with "glory, honour, and immortality" in view. When
he came to me in my study on the Sunday evening, according to appointment, he
said that he really was anxious to know whether there was any truth in the
report which Tiptop and others had so confidently spread about, that some
alteration of the Prayer-book was intended, especially (as they said) for the
purpose of making the Service more ‘short and compact, and suitable to the taste
of the times.’

I answered, "that of course it was out of my power to say what our governors in
Church or State might wish, but that I feared that in Religion, as in other
matters, there was some reason to apprehend too great regard might be paid to
popular fancies, even by those who are as far as possible from approving of
them."

"Sir," he replied very earnestly, "I hope and trust the Church Services will
never be shortened one sentence, line, or word. Grown people, Sir, are but
children in Religion. If once you begin to yield to their indolence and dislike
of trouble, you sanction the bad feeling, and it will go on increasing till it
has eaten out the very heart of piety."

"Yes," I replied, "I fully agree with you. And to say the truth, it is my firm
opinion that if any alteration is necessary, it is the other way, that the
Service should be longer instead of shorter. I mean, for instance, that the
"Prayer for Christ’s Church Militant" should be regularly used as appointed,
after the morning sermon when there is no Communion; at least where it can be
done without any great inconvenience, which possibly in some churches may not be
the case. It is to my mind one of the most perfect of uninspired compositions,
and it is greatly to be wished that it might be made familiar to every ear and
every heart."

"Sir," said he, "I have often thought so. Still at the best our weakness is
great: ‘the corruptible body,’ as the wise man says, ‘presses down the soul;’
and I suppose it is the case with all of us occasionally, and even when we would
most earnestly deplore and strive against it, that our thoughts are apt to
wander and our devotions to be cold. Whenever, therefore, I have found myself
disposed to be weary of GOD’S house and service, or have beard others
complaining of the tediousness of the Prayers and Lessons, I have said to
myself,—if David, the Prince of Penitents, were here now, would he speak or
think thus, he who desired to abide in GOD’S tabernacle for ever—who envied (as
it were) the sparrows and the swallows their continual abode under the sacred
roof—who, when shut out, or far away longed, yea, even fainted for the courts of
the LORD, as a hart thirsting for the water brooks! If holy Daniel, that
greatest of statesmen, that real "man of business;" if he were among us now—he,
who in a far distant land, and prime minister to the greatest of earthly kings,
would yet let no day pass in which he would not thrice find or make leisure to
offer solemn prayers to the GOD of his fathers, his windows being open in his
chamber towards Jerusalem, where lay the temple of his GOD in ruins; that as he
could not be there in person, he would be so in heart and mind, would he say
that our Church Service is too long? If St. Paul, that most heroic, and (if
there were such a word,) that most unselfish of men,—if he were now among us,
would he be weary of our Lessons, Prayers, and Creeds,—he whose conversation and
home was in heaven—who desired to depart and to be with CHRIST, and who calls on
all true Christians to "hold fast the form of sound words," in Christian faith
and love! Or the beloved John, the last and greatest of prophets,—weary, not of
his LORD’S service, but of being kept so long from his presence would he, and
all the other holy men of every age, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors,
and saints, whether of the Patriarchal, Jewish, or Christian Churches, would
they complain of our Services being TOO LONG?

"O no, Sir, that is not to be imagined. So neither ought we to complain, heirs
with them of the same promises, and looking to meet them hereafter in our one
great eternal Home."

"Richard," I replied, "you say true. As it is dangerous for an individual to
take for his guidance any but a perfect pattern of Christian conduct, so is it
dangerous for the Church to follow any but a perfect model of Christian worship,
so far as perfection can be obtained. Her rules should be framed not according
to what people are, but what they ought to be: otherwise you must plainly see
that a door will be at once opened for numberless errors as well in doctrine as
in practice."

"Yes, Sir, I see it," he replied. "And, therefore, it seems to me, that when on
such subjects popular opinion runs vehemently in a wrong direction, (or if not
wrong, at least questionable,) that then it is not the best time, but the very
worst possible, for yielding to its fancies. So that even if it should be at any
time, necessary or expedient (which I cannot think it ever will be) to shorten
the Church Services, yet then is the very worst of all times to set about it,
when there is the greatest demand for it."

"You are quite right," I said, "beyond all doubt. But I think it would be a
great support to the good cause, that is, to the cause of GOD, and truth, the
Church, and the Prayer Book; and also a great encouragement to such among us of
the clergy as desire to stand in the old paths; if in every parish a few serious
thinking persons would consider of drawing up and signing a solemn address to
their respective Bishops, plainly saying that they utterly disapprove of all
plans whatever for shortening the Church Service, unless some urgent cause
should arise, stronger than they have ever yet heard; and that as churchmen they
never can or will consent to any such plans of miscalled Church reform. For you
know, Richard, laymen are quite as much part of THE CHURCH as the clergy; and it
is your right and duty to stand up in its defence, as much as it is ours."

"Sir," he replied, "you may he sure I would gladly sign such a declaration as
this you propose, and I think I know four or five more who would sign it also
with all their hearts."

"That will be sufficient," I said, "for our parish, for no doubt the Bishops
will estimate the value of such addresses, not by the quantity, but by the
quality of those who sign them—not by the number of names, but by the worth of
those who bear them, their honesty, piety, and truth." So we agreed that an
address of this kind should be prepared, and kept ready to be presented to the
Bishop whenever circumstances should seem to require. Not of course that we were
so vain as to expect that our exertions could be of much avail; but still, as
Richard said, "We cannot stand by and see the noble old Prayer Book pulled to
pieces, just to humour a mob of Tiptops, Gapes, and Yawns."

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Matthew, 1834.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 44: 44 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.

NO. 2.—MONDAY.

[Number 44]

Question from the Office of Consecration.——ARE YOU PERSUADED THAT THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES CONTAIN SUEFICIENTLY ALL DOCTRINE REQUIRED OF NECESSITY TO ETERNAL
SALVATION THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST? AND ARE YOU DETERMINED, OUT OF THE SAME
HOLY SCRIPTURES, TO INSTRUCT THE PEOPLE COMMITTED TO YOUR CHARGE, AND TO TEACH
OR MAINTAIN NOTHING AS REQUIRED OF NECESSITY TO ETERNAL SALVATION, BUT THAT
WHICH YOU SHALL BE PERSUADED MAY BE CONCLUDED AND PROVED BY THE SAME ?—Ans. I AM
so PERSUADED AND DETERMINED BY GOD’S GRACE.

Question.—WILL YOU THEN FAITHFULLY EXCERCISE YOURSELF IN THE SAME HOLY
SCRIPTURES, AND CALL UPON GOD BY PRAYER FOR THE TRUE UNDERSTANDING1, OF THE
SAME; SO AS YOU MAY BE ABLE BY THEM TO TEACH AND EXHORT WITH WHOLESOME DOCTRINE,
AND TO WITHSTAND AND CONVINCE GAINSAYERS ?—Ans. I WILL DO SO BY THE HELP OF GOD.

O GOD, the fountain of all wisdom, enlighten my mind, that I myself may seek and
be able to teach others, the wonders of Thy law; that I may learn from Thee,
what I ought to think and speak concerning Thee; and that whatever in Thy Holy
Word I shall profitably learn, I may in deed fulfil the same. Direct and bless
all my labours. Give me a discerning spirit, a sound judgment, and an honest and
a religious heart, that in all my studies my first aim may be to set forth Thy
glory, by setting forward the salvation of men. And if, by my ministry, Thy
kingdom shall be enlarged, let me, in all humility, ascribe the success, not
unto myself, but unto Thy Good Spirit, which enables us both to will and to do
what is acceptable to Thee, through JESUS CHRIST our Lord. Amen.

Acts 6:4. "But we will give ourselves continually unto prayer, and to the
ministry of the word."

Luke 6:39. "Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the
ditch?"

1 Timothy 4:13. "Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine."
Quesnelle says, Not to read, is to tempt GOD; to do nothing but study, is to
forget the ministry. To read, in order to appear more learned, is a sinful
vanity. But to read, in order to exhort, and to instruct with wholesome
doctrine, this is according to GOD’S will and word.

James 1:5. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of GOD, who giveth to every
man liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Wisdom being the
gift of GOD, and this gift the fruit of prayer, a prayer that is humble,
earnest, and per severing, will assuredly be blessed with this excellent gift. O
JESUS, cause me to read, to understand, to love, to practise, and to preach Thy
Word.

John 7:17. "If any man will do (that is, is disposed, de sires to do) His will,
he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of GOD, or whether I speak of
myself." Light and truth discover themselves to such as desire to follow them.

Psalms 25:14. "The secret of the LORD is among them that fear Him, and He will
shew them His covenant." It was the saying of a learned man, saith Dr.
Lightfoot, that he got more knowledge by his prayers than by all his studies.

Matthew 11:25. "I thank Thee, O FATHER, LORD of heaven and earth, because Thou
hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto
babes." My GOD and SAVIOUR, imprint on my heart the amiable characters of
simplicity and humility, which are the marks of Thy elect, of such to whom Thou
wilt reveal Thyself. It is a dangerous mistake to think that any man can have a
right understanding of divine things, without being illuminated by divine grace,
and without leading an holy life.

Psalms 119:19. "I have more understanding than my teachers, because I keep Thy
commandments." There is a light arising from a sincere good life, which
dispelleth all darkness, and is the best defence against error and sophistry.

Psalms 25:10. "All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep
His covenant and His Testimonies." That is; to such as do so, all the ways of
GOD, and whatever He hath revealed, will appear to be the effect of infinite
wisdom, goodness, justice, and truth. He giveth light and understanding unto the
simple.

Matthew 5:8. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see GOD."

Luke 22:32. "When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." GOD grant that
we may all of us consider the absurdity of going about to convert others,
without being converted ourselves. To understand the Holy Scriptures aright, is
to understand them as the Primitive Church did.

1 Samuel 3:9. "Speak, LORD, for Thy servant heareth." Speak to my heart, that I
may obey Thy word. "Teach me to do Thy will, for thou art my GOD." It belongs to
GOD, to give the true understanding of His own word.

Matthew 7:5. "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." That
is, purify your own heart from all worldly aims; mortify your own passions,
which are the cause of your blindness; study that Word which alone can en
lighten you; and lay aside all prejudices which are contrary to piety. A Pastor
should never undertake to teach a virtue which he has never practised himself.

Luke 5:5. "We have toiled all the night, and taken nothing." So does every
preacher, who does not beg GOD’S blessing upon his labours. It is impossible for
any man to teach well, who does not live well.

"My people perish for want of knowledge." The design of Religion being to lead
men to GOD, how he is to be served, appeased, attained; the business of a
preacher should be to show how all the parts of religion contribute to these
ends. He that reads the Sacred Scriptures, and understands the things concerning
the kingdom of GOD, and the way of conducting men thither, need not complain for
want of learning. In preaching, we must speak to the heart, as well as to the
understanding and to the ear. The end of preaching is, to turn men from sin unto
GOD, that they may be saved. He that has not this in his view will do little
good. A preacher should accustom himself to give a practical turn to every
thing. He that leaves it to his hearers to apply what he has said, leaves to
them the greatest part of his own duty. To be heartily in love with the truth
one recommends, is the great secret of becoming a good preacher.

John 7:16. "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." To preach our own
thoughts, forsaking GOD’S word, is like an ambassador, who neglects his prince’s
instructions, and follows his own fancy. With what truth can it be said, that
"the sheep hear his voice," when the shepherd speaks of things, or in such a
manner, as is above their capacity? Grant, O LORD, that I may read thy word with
the same spirit with which it was written. Learning does not always lead men to
GOD; it often carries them from him. Indeed, when they study to find out, and
correct their own weakness, their folly, and thecorruption of their nature; to
be convinced of the evil of sin, of the vanity of the world; to fill their souls
with heavenly wisdom and devout affections towards GOD; and all this, that they
may be better able to convince and edify their neighbour; such learning leads
men indeed to GOD:—the rest is folly. Have mercy upon all that sit in darkness;
and may the saving truths of the Gospel be received in all the world! He that
sets his heart upon the world, is not in a capacity of understanding the Gospel.
Give me that true wisdom which consists in knowing how to save myself and them
that hear me. Remember, that a man may have the knowledge of the Word, without
the Spirit.

Obscurity of the Scriptures

Serves to subdue the pride of man; to convince us, that to understand them, we
have need of a light superior to reason, and that we may apply to GOD for help.
May I ever understand the true language of thy Word, O LORD, and profit by it!
Vouchsafe, O GOD, to give me a love for thy Sacred Scriptures, and a true
understanding of them, that I may see therein the wonders of thy conduct, and
thy love for us, thy miserable creatures.

Sermons Should be instructions, not declamations, or displaying curious
thoughts, which may amuse, but not edify Christians. If GOD suffers even an holy
pastor not presently to see the fruits of his labours, it is to convince him,
that the success of his labours belongs to GOD; that he ought to humble himself,
and pray much, and fear lest the fault should be in himself.

Pride and irreligion meet with darkness in the midst of light; raise vain
disputes, unprofitable reflections and inquiries; while humility attains to
light, in the midst of darkness and difficulties.

Whenever GOD vouchsafes to open the heart, be the under standing and parts never
so small, we see the reasonableness and beauty of His Word, we taste the
sweetness, and feel the power thereof.

John 12:16. "These things understood not His disciples at the first; but when
JESUS was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of Him,
and that they had done these things unto Him." We often read the Scripture,
without comprehending its full meaning; however, let us not be discouraged; the
light, in GOD’S good time, will break out, and disperse the darkness, and we
shall see the mysteries of the Gospel. Grant me, O LORD, a persevering love of
Thy Word, and so much light, as is necessary for myself, and those that hear me.

John 12:30. "JESUS said, This voice came not for Me, but for your sakes." The
way to profit by reading the Scriptures, is to apply to ourselves that which is
spoken in general to all; this truth, this command, this threat, this promise,
this intimation, is to me.

John 12:49. "I have not spoken of myself, but the FATHER which sent me gave me a
command, what I should say, and how I should speak." He preaches with a
well-grounded confidence, who advances nothing merely of his own head, but what
he has received from GOD. He may then expect a blessing. But then, let him take
care not to disguise it by a language foreign from GOD’S Word. O HOLY SPIRIT of
grace, cause me both to understand and love thy Word.

Acts 1:1. "The former treatise have I made of all that JESUS began both to do
and teach." This is the whole of a Pastor’s life. For a man to preach the Gospel
before he has practised it, is to be a very bad imitator of the Prince of
Pastors. LORD, grant that I may imitate thee by a life conformable to thine; by
all ways becoming my station in the Church; and lay hold of all the
opportunities which Thou shalt put into my hands. It is GOD who does all good by
the labours of His ministers. To Him, therefore, must be all the praise. More
sinners are converted by holy, than by learned men. Inflame my heart, O GOD,
with an ardent love for Thy Word, an ardent zeal for Thy Glory, with a pure and
disinterested love for Thy Church, and with an hearty desire of establishing Thy
kingdom. Who can say it is not owing to himself, that his flock are ignorant of
their duty?

Romans 2:21. "Thou, therefore, which teachest another, teachest thou not
thyself?" Unhappy that person who has in his hands the rule of knowledge and of
the truth, and makes no other use thereof, but to set up for a teacher of
others, without applying to himself those truths with which his mind is filled.
A mind full of light, and a heart full of darkness, how dreadful is that man’s
condition! "Without holiness no man shall see the LORD." In all our studies, we
should take care to beg of GOD to preserve us from error, and to lead us to, and
keep us in, all truths necessary to salvation, by His HOLY SPIRIT.

Colossians 4:4. "That I may make it manifest, (that is, the mystery of the
Gospel) as I ought to speak." All preachers do not speak as they ought. A man
may have the skill to give Christian truths a turn agreeable to the hearers,
without affecting their hearts. Human learning will enable him to do this. It is
prayer only that can enable him so to speak as to convert the heart. May I ever
speak to the hearts, and to the capacities of my flock.

2 Timothy 4:1-3, &c. "I charge thee, before GOD and the LORD JESUS CHRIST,
preach the Word. Be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort,
with all longsuffering and gravity. For the time will come, when they will not
endure sound doctrine; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth. But
watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, make full proof of (or fulfil) thy
ministry." Preaching is a duty, but not the only duty of a Pastor. He is to take
all occasions to instruct those that seek the truth; refute such as oppose it;
reprove those that do not practise it; and confirm such as have embraced it. And
the more we perceive the times of Apostasy approaching, the more zealous ought
we to be to defend sound doctrine. We deceive ourselves, if we fancy that we
have done our duty when we have given our people a sermon one day in seven: we
must try all ways to gain a soul. It will be no comfort to a Pastor, that the
world praises him for some one part of his duty, while GOD condemns him for the
neglect of another.

1 Peter 4:11. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of GOD." That is,
worthy of GOD, not weakening it by softening interpretations, nor altering it by
human inventions, nor degrading it by a profane eloquence. If we find that
people do not attend to the Sacred Scripture, as the Word of GOD, with eagerness
and attention, we ought to fear that the fault is in those that preach it after
such a manner as is not proper or likely to make them believe it to be the Word
of GOD. It is good to know what GOD has revealed, and to be ignorant of what he
has not thought fit to make known to us.

Ejaculations before reading the Holy Scriptures.

Give me, O GOD, a love for thy Scriptures, and a true under standing of them. O
JESUS, open my understanding, cause me to love Thy Word, and to order my faith
and life according to it. May I, O JESUS, love Thy Word, make Thy Gospel my
delight, and continue in the practice of Thy law unto my life’s end.

Reading Scripture.

John 16:13. "The HOLY SPIRIT shall guide you into all truth." O HOLY SPIRIT,
make me to understand, embrace, and love the truths of the Gospel. Give, O GOD,
Thy blessing unto Thy Word, that it may become effectual to my conversion and
salvation, and to the salvation of all that read or hear it. Give me grace to
read Thy Holy Word with reverence and respect becoming the gracious
manifestation of Thy Will to men; submitting my understanding and will to Thine.
Let Thy gracious promises, O GOD, contained in Thy Word, quicken my obedience.
Let Thy dreadful threatenings and judgments upon sinners, fright me from sin,
and oblige me to a speedy repentance, for JESUS CHRIST His sake. Cause me, O
GOD, to believe Thy Word, to obey Thy commands, to fear Thy judgments, and to
hope in, and depend upon, Thy gracious promises contained ill Thy Holy Word, for
JESUS CHRIST’S sake. Grant, O LORD, that in reading Thy Holy Word, 1 may never
prefer my private sentiments before those of the Church in the purely ancient
times of Christianity. Give me a full persuasion of those great truths, which
Thou hast revealed in Thy Holy Word. The Gospel will not be a means of salvation
to him who reads or hears it only, but to him who reads, loves, remembers, and
practises it by a lively faith. Cause me, O GOD, rightly to understand, and
constantly to walk in the way of Thy commandments. Grant us in this world
knowledge of Thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting, for JESUS
CHRIST’S sake. Amen. From hardness of heart and contempt of Thy Word, Good LORD
deliver us. Give us all grace to hear meekly Thy Word, to receive it with pure
affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the SPIRIT, to amend our lives
according to Thy Holy Word.

Luke 24:45. "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the
Scriptures." Unless Thou, O JESUS, openest our understanding, all our pains, all
our learning, will signify little.

Matthew 13:36. "Declare unto us this parable." This should instruct us, that the
knowledge of GOD’S Word, and the mysteries of the Gospel, are favours which we
must always beg of GOD.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Michael.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 45: 45 - THE GROUNDS OF OUR FAITH.
========================================================================

THE GROUNDS OF OUR FAITH.

[Number 45]

EVERY system of theology has its dangers, its tendencies towards evil. Systems
short of the truth have this tendency inherent in themselves, and in process of
time discover it, and work out the anticipated evil, which is but the legitimate
though latent consequence of their principles. Thus, we may consider the present
state of Geneva the fair result on the long run of the system of self-will which
was established there in the sixteenth century. But even the one true system of
religion has its dangers on all sides, from the weakness of its recipients who
pervert it. Thus the Holy Catholic doctrines, in which the Church was set up,
were corrupted into Popery, not legitimately, or necessarily, but by various
external causes acting on human corruption, in the lapse of many ages. St.
Paul’s command of obedience to rulers, was changed into the tyrannical rule
ofoneBishop overallcountries; his recommendation of an unmarried life, for
certain religious objects, was made a rule of celibacy in the case of the
clergy. Now let us ask, what are the badtendenciesof Protestantism? for this is
a question which nearly concerns ourselves. We are nearly 300 years from its
rise in this country; have any evils yet shown themselves from it? It is not
here proposed to examine the question at large; but a hint on one part of the
subject, may be made in answer to it. At the Reformation, the authority of the
Church was discarded a by the spirit then predominant among Protestants, and
Scripture was considered as the sole document both for ascertaining and proving
our faith. The question immediately arose, "Is this or that doctrine in
Scripture ?"—and in consequence, various intellectual gifts, such as
argumentative subtilty, critical acumen, knowledge of the languages, rose into
importance, and became the interpreters of Christian truth. Exposition lay
through controversy. Now the natural effect of disputation is to make us shun
all but the strongest proofs, those which an adversary will find substantial
impediments in his line of reasoning; and, therefore, to generate a cautious
discriminative turn of thought, to fix in the mind astandardof proof simulating
demonstration, and to make light of mere probabilities. This intellectual habit,
resulting from controversy, would also arise from the peculiar exercises of
thought necessary for the accurate scholar or antiquarian. It followed, that in
course of time, all the delicate shades of truth and falsehood, the unobtrusive
indications of GOD’SWill, the low tones of the " still small voice," in which
Scripture abounds, were rudely rejected; the crumbs from the rich man’s table,
which Faith eagerly looks about for, were despised by the proud-hearted
intellectualist, who (as if it were a favour in him to accept thc Gospel,) would
be content with nothing short of certainty, and ridiculed as superstitious and
illogical whatever did not approve itself to his own cold, hard, and
unimpassioned temper. For instance, if the cases of Lydia, of the jailer, of
Stephanas, were brought to show our LORD’Swishas to the baptism of households,
the actions of his apostles to interpret his own commands, it was answered; "
This is no satisfactory proof; it is notcertainthat everyone of those households
was not himself a believer; it is notcertainthere were any children among
them;"—though surely, in as many all three households, the probability is on the
side which the Church has taken, especially viewing the texts in connexion with
our SAVIOUR’Swords, "Suffer the little children," &c. Again, while the
observance of the LORD’Sday was grounded upon the practice of the apostles, it
was somehow felt, that this proof was notstrong enoughto bind the mass of
Protestants: and so the chief argument now in use is one drawn from the Jewish
law, viz. the direct Scripturecommand, contained in the fourth commandment. Our
SAVIOUR has noticed the frame of mind here alluded to, in Mark 8:11-12, where
his feelings and judgment upon it are also told us:—"And the Pharisees came
forth, and began to question with Him, seeking of Hima sign from heaven,
tempting Him. AndHe sighed deeply in His spirit, and saith, Why doth this
generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you,There shall no sign be given
unto this generation. And He left them."

We are warned against the same hard, intractable temper in the book of
Psalms:—"I will inform thee, and teach thee in the way wherein thou shalt go;
and I will guide thee with Mine eye. Be ye not like to horse and mule, which
have no understanding; whose mouths must be held with bit and bridle, lest they
fall upon thee." Psalms 32:9-10. This stubborn spirit, which yields to nothing
but violence, is determined to feel CHRIST’S yoke ere it submits to it, will not
see except in broad day-light, and like the servant who hid his talent, is ever
making excuses, murmuring, doubting, grudging obedience, and stifling docile and
open hearted faith, is the spirit of ultra-Protestantism, i.e. that spirit, to
which the principles of Protestantism tend, and which they have in a great
measure realized. On this subject the reader may consult Nos. 4, 8, and 19, of
this series of Tracts.

Now to apply this to the doctrines, at present so much undervalued, which it is
the especial object of these Tracts to enforce. When a clergyman has spoken
strongly in defence of Episcopacy, a hearer will go away saying, that there is
much very able and forcible, much very eloquent and excellent, in what he has
just heard; but after all,there is very little about Episcopacy in Scripture.
This is the point to which a shrewd, clear-headed reasoner will
resort,—"afterall;" we come round and round to it; the doctrine advocated is
plausible, useful, generally received hitherto;—granted,—butScripture says very
little about it.

Now it cannot be for a moment allowed, that Scripture contains little on the
subject of Church Government; though it may readily be granted that it obtrudes
on the reader little about it. The doctrine is in it, not on it; not on the
surface. This need not be proved here, since the subject has been variously
considered in former Numbers of this series. But it may be useful in a few words
to show how the state of the argument and controversy concerning Episcopacy,
illustrates the above remarks, and how 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 mater how we get at it,ifwe get at it. If it be a
fact, that the earliest Christian communities were universally episcopal, it is
a reason for our maintaining Episcopacy; andin proportionto our conviction, is
it incumbent on us to maintain it. Nor can it be fairly dismissed as a
non-essential, or ordinance indifferent and mutable, though formerly existing
over Christendom; for,whomade us judges of essentials and non-essentials?howdo
we determine them? In the Jewish law, the slightest transgression of the
commandment was followed by the penalty of death; vide Leviticus 8:35; Leviticus
10:6. Does not its universality imply a necessary connexion with Christian
doctrine? Consider how much 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 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 offaith 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 Scriptureappear to have
sanctioned it, though this is not altogether certain from Scripture. In a
difficult case we do all 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,
thoughmost 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, The Feast of St. Luke.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 46: 46 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.

No. 3.--TUESDAY.

[Number 46]

Question from the Office of Ordination.— ARE YOU READY, WITH ALL FAITHFUL
DILIGENCE, TO BANISH AND DRIVE AWAY ALL ERRONEOUS AND STRANGE DOCTRINE, CONTRARY
TO GOD’S WORD; AND BOTH PRIVATELY AND OPENLY TO CALL UPON AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS
TO DO THE SAME?—Ans. I AM READY, THE LORD BEING MY HELPER.

Blessed be the good providence of GOD, who, in great compassion for this Church
and Nation, has hitherto preserved us from heresies and schisms.

O LORD, continue to us this great mercy, and grant that we, Who are appointed to
watch over Thy flock, may employ our learning and our time in promoting of true
piety; that we may never grow secure and careless, but that we may endeavour to
secure the power, as well as the form of godliness. Have pity upon all Christian
Churches, that are distracted by contending parties, and reduce all that wander
out of the way. Enable us to preserve this Church in peace and unity by all
means becoming the spirit of the Gospel. Keep us stedfast in the faith, that we
may never be tossed about with any wind of doctrine, or the craft of men. Let
the zeal and industry of those that are in error provoke us to be zealously
affected in a righteous cause; in labouring to make men good, and in converting
sinners from the error of their ways; which GOD grant for JESUS CHRIST’S sake.
—Amen.

"But," the Bishop, "himself also, as his important affairs will permit him,
shall use his best persuasion, and all good means he can devise, to reclaim both
them and all other within his Diocese so affected."—Canon 66th.

2 Timothy 4:3. "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but
after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching
ears."

N.B. We are now in these sad times, and it behoves all faithful Pastors to know
it. It is not the doctrine of the Gospel, if it favours men’s lusts. They that
will not receive, or who reject, the truth, are often judicially punished with a
greediness to receive errors, falsehoods, and fables.

2 Timothy 4:5. "Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, make full proof of
(or fulfil) thy ministry." He that is wanting in any essential part, is wanting
to his own salvation.

LORD, Thou art just in all the troubles which Thou hast brought upon this Church
and Nation. Yet, O LORD, have mercy upon us, and restore to us that peace and
unity which we once enjoyed.

Matthew 7:20. "By their fruits ye shall know them.’’ This rule, though given by
CHRIST himself, is seldom observed. The best fruits are counted as nothing, are
overlooked, and often condemned by those who have none good to show. Hence, all
the evils the Church suffers.

Matthew 13:25. "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the
wheat." O JESUS, awaken the Pastors of Thy flock, and open their eyes, that they
may perceive the tares which choke the seed,—the wolves which destroy Thy sheep.
A mixture of good and bad in the Church is necessary to instruct, exercise,
purify, sanctify, and keep the righteous in humility.

Matthew 13:29. "Nay, lest, while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the
wheat with them." A zeal not regulated by this prohibition, allows no time to
the good to grow strong in goodness, or to the wicked to forsake their evil
ways; but chooses rather to destroy the good, provided they can but destroy the
bad.

Revelation 2:14, Revelation 2:20. "I have a few things against thee, because
thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast
a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto
idols, and to commit fornication. Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel to teach and
to seduce my servants to commit fornication.’’ How dreadful is the government of
the Church, wherein a man must answer for those sins which he does not hinder!
To tolerate by silence those who favour and pro mote sin, JESUS CHR1ST rebukes
in the persons of these Bishops.

O my SAVIOUR ! Thou who givest me this warning, enable me to profit by it.
Assist me, in this day of trial, effectually to oppose and suppress that spirit
of impurity, idolatry, profane ness, and irreligion, which is broken in upon us.

If for fear of offending men or from a false love of peace, we forbear to defend
the truth, we betray and abandon it.

Acts 28:29. "And when he had said these things,—the Jews had great reasonings
among themselves." A preacher of the truth is not to be blamed for the contests
which it gives occasion to carnal men to raise. Even CHRIST Himself could not
preach without disturbing sinners;—and if He came not to bring peace on earth,
but a sword of division, His Ministers ought to expect to do the same.

It is not by the heat of disputation, but by the gentleness of charity, that
souls are gained over to GOD. And when controversy is necessary, as sometimes it
is, let it never be managed with harshness, bitterness, or severity, lest it
exasperate and harden, more than convert and edify. A prudent condescension has
often prevailed upon the weak, and rendered them capable of hearkening to
reason, when the contrary conduct would have removed them farther from the
light. We ought to avoid evil men and seducers, in order to shame them;—to
deprive them of that credit, whereby they may do hurt;—to make them to return to
a right mind,—and that we may avoid the snare ourselves.

Disputes. The primitive Fathers were ever modest upon religious questions. They
contented themselves with resolving such questions as were proposed to them,
without starting new ones; and carefully suppressed the curious, restless
temper. May I receive from Thee, O GOD, at all times, the rules of my behaviour
on these occasions.

GOD judges otherwise than we do of these things. He knows the good He intends to
bring out of evil,—either for the sanctification of the righteous,—conversion of
the wicked, By His goodness in bearing with them,—or leaving them without
excuse.

One single soul is worth the utmost pains of the greatest Minister of CHRIST.
But, then, let us take care, when it is brought into the fold, that he be a
better Christian than before,—that he be not two-fold more the child of hell
than before.

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Simon and St. Jude.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 47: 48 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEIDTATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S MEIDTATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.

No. 4--WEDNESDAY.

[Number 48]

Question from the Office of Consecration.—WILL YOU DENY ALL UNGODLINESS AND
WORLDLY LUSTS, AND LIVE SOBERLY, RIGHTEOUSLY, AND GODLY, IN THIS PRESENT WORLD,
THAT YOU MAY SHOW YOURSELF IN ALL THINGS AN EXAMPLE OF GOOD WORKS UNTO OTHERS,
THAT THE ADVERSARY MAY BE ASHAMED, HAVING NO THING TO SAY AGAINST YOU?—Ans. I
WILL SO DO, THE LORD BEING MY HELPER.

1 Corinthians 9:27. "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest,
by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
And if Paul, what shall be said of us?

Galatians 5:24. "They, that are Christ’s, have crucified the flesh with the
affections and lusts." Nature is content with a little, grace with less.

Titus 2:15. "Let no man despise thee;" that is, demean thy self agreeable to the
authority which thou hast received from Jesus Christ, not making thy office
contemptible by any mean action; but act with the dignity of one who stands in
the place of God.

Leviticus 4:3. "If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of
the people, then let him bring a sin-offering." N.B. That the same sin, in a
single priest, is to have as great a sacrifice as a sin of the whole people of
Israel. The flesh never thrives but at the cost of the soul. Let us ever
remember, that mortification must go further than the body. Self-love, pride,
envy, jealousy, hatred, malice, avarice, ambition, must all be mortified, by
avoiding and ceasing from the occasions of them. The sobriety of the soul
consists in humility, and in being content with necessaries.

Matthew 7:14. "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto
life, and few there be that find it." But, if the difficulties of an holy life
affright us, let us consider, "who can dwell with everlasting burnings?" All
mankind being under the sentence of death, certain to be executed, and at an
hour we know not of, a state of penance and self-denial, of being dead and
crucified to the world, is certainly the most suitable, the most becoming temper
that we can be found in, when that sentence comes to be executed, that is, when
we come to die. The more we deny ourselves, the freer we shall be from sin and
the more dear to God. God appoints us to sufferings, that we may keep close to
Him, and that we may value the sufferings of His Son, which we should have but a
low notion of, did not our own experience teach us what it is to suffer. Had
there been any better, any easier way to heaven, Jesus Christ would have chosen
it for Himself and for His followers.

Take up the Cross. This is designed as a peculiar favour to Christians, as
indeed are all Christ’s commands. Miseries are the unavoidable portion of fallen
man. All the difference is, Christians suffering in obedience to the will of
God, it makes them easy; unbelievers suffer the same things, but with an uneasy
will and mind. To follow our own will, our passions, and our senses, is that
which makes us miserable. It is for this reason, and that we may have a remedy
for all our evils, that Jesus Christ obliges us to submit our will, our
passions, &c. to God. The good Christian is not one who has no inclination to
sin, (for we have all the seed of sin in us,) but who being sensible of such
inclinations, denieth them continually, and suffers them not to grow into evil
actions. No pleasure can be innocent which hinders us from minding our
salvation. We need but taste any pleasure a very little while, to become a slave
to it. The only way to overcome our corrupt affections, is absolutely to deny
their cravings. We have reason to suspect every doctrine which would teach us to
avoid Sill without suffering, since the Holy Scriptures speak so much of
self-denial, of the difficulty of working out our salvation. Self-denial is
absolutely necessary to prepare us to receive the grace of God; it was
absolutely necessary that John the Baptist should prepare the way, by preaching
repentance and self-denial. Men need not be at pains to go to hell; if they will
not deny themselves, if they make no resistance, they will go there of course.
One does not begin to fall, when the fall becomes sensible. "They that are
Christ’s, have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts." This is the
only true test of being truly Christians. Afflictions may make men esteem us
less; but God loves us the more for them, if we bear them with resignation;
which if we do, it is a certain sign of his grace and care of us. The yoke of
Christ is not only safer, but even easier, than that liberty we are naturally
fond of It makes the practice of virtue pleasant; frees us from the violence of
corruption, from being ruined by false pleasures. Crosses make death less
frightful. And indeed, he that will not obey Jesus Christ must obey his own
passions, the world, its customs, humours, which are the worst of tyrants, and
downright slavery. Every day deny yourself some satisfaction; youreyes, objects
of mere curiosity; yourtongue, every thing that may feed vanity, or vent enmity;
thepalate, dainties; theears, flattery, and what ever corrupts the heart;
thebody, ease and luxury; bearing all the inconveniences of life, (for the love
of God,) cold, hunger, restless nights, ill health, unwelcome news, the faults
of servants, contempt, ingratitude of friends, malice of enemies, calumnies, our
own failings, lowness of spirits, the struggle in overcoming our corruptions;
bearing all these with patience and resignation to the will of God. Do all this
as unto God, with the greatest privacy. All ways are indifferent to one who has
heaven in his eye, as a traveller does not chuse the pleasantest, but the
shortest and safest way to his journey’s end; and that is, if we were to chuse
for ourselves, the way of the cross, which Jesus Christ made choice of, and
sanctified it to all his followers. It being much more easy to prevent than to
mortify a lust, a prudent Christian will set a guard upon his senses. One
unguarded look betrayed David. Job made a covenant with his eyes. Evil
communications corrupt good manners. Sensuality unfits us for the joys of
heaven. If that concupiscence which opposes virtue be lessened, a less degree of
grace will secure innocence. All ways are indifferent to one who has heaven in
his eye. Self-denial has respect to the good estate of the soul, as it hinders
her from being carried away to the lower pleasures of sense, that she may relish
heavenly pleasures. "The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head." (Matthew
8:20) This should fill us with confusion, whenever we are over-much concerned
for the conveniences of life. Our affections being very strongly inclined to
sensible good, for the sake of which we are often tempted to evil, and fall into
great disorders, we should resolve to sacrifice our will to reason, and reason
to the Word of God. God does not require it of us, that we should not feel any
uneasiness under the cross, but that we should strive to overcome it by His
grace.

Virtues of a Holy Life.

Fervency in devotion; frequency in prayer; aspiring after the love of God
continually; striving to get above the world and the body; loving silence and
solitude, as far as one’s condition will permit; humble and affable to all;
patient in suffering affronts and contradictions; glad of occasions of doing
good even to enemies; doing the will of God, and promoting His honour to the
utmost of one’s power; resolving never to offend Him willingly, for any temporal
pleasure, profit, or loss. These are virtues highly pleasing to God. There is no
pleasure comparable to the not being captivated to any external thing whatever.
Self-denial does not consist in fasting and other mortifications only, but in an
indifference for the world, its profits, pleasures, honours, and its other
idols. It is a part of special prudence, never to do any thing because one has
an inclination to it; but because it is one’s duty, or it is reasonable; for he
who follows his inclination because he wills, in one thing, will do it in
another. He that will not command his thoughts and his will, will soon lose the
command of his actions. Always suspect yourself, when your inclinations are
strong and importunate. It is necessary that we deny ourselves in little and
indifferent things, when reason and conscience, which is the voice of God,
suggests it to us, as ever we hope to get the rule over our own will. Say not,
it is a trifle, and not fit to make a sacrifice of to God. He that will not
sacrifice a little affection, will hardly offer a greater. It is not the thing,
but the reason and manner of doing it, viz. for God’s sake, and that I may
accustom myself to obey His voice, that God regards, and rewards with greater
degrees of grace. (Life of Mr. Bonnell, p. 122.)

Romans 15:3. "Even Jesus Christ pleased not Himself;" as appears in the meanness
of His birth, relations, form of a servant, the company He kept, His life,
death, &c. The greater your self denial, the firmer your faith, and more
acceptable to God. The sincere devotion of the rich, the alms of the poor, the
humility of the great, the faith of such whose condition is desperate, the
contemning the world when one can command it at pleasure, continuing instant in
prayer even when we want the consolation we expected: these, and such like
instances of self-denial, God will greatly reward. They who imagine that
self-denial intrenches upon our liberty, do not know that it is this only that
can make us free indeed, giving us the victory over ourselves, setting us free
from the bondage of our corruption, enabling us to bear afflictions (which will
come one time or other), to foresee them without amazement, enlightening the
mind, sanctifying the will. and making us to slight those baubles, which others
so eagerly contend for.

Mortification consists in such a sparing use of the creatures, as may deaden our
love for them, and make us even indifferent in the enjoyment of them. This
lessens the weight of concupiscence, which carries us to evil, and so makes the
grace of God more effectual to turn the balance of the will. (Norris’s Christian
Prudence, p. 300.) It is the greatest mercy, that God does not consult our
inclinations, in laying upon us the cross, which is the only way to happiness.
Jesus Christ crucified would have few imitators, if God did not lay it upon us,
by the hands of men, and by His providence. "Let him deliver him now, if he will
have him." (Matthew 27:43) Carnal man cannot comprehend that God loves those
whom he permits to suffer; but faith teaches us, that the cross is the gift of
his love, the foundation of our hope, the mark of his children, and the title of
an inheritance in heaven. But unless God sanctify it by his Spirit, it becomes
an insupportable burden, a subject of murmuring, and an occasion of sin.

(To be continued.)

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Andrew.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 48: 49 - THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
========================================================================

THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

[Number 49]

In referring to Scripture for the proof of points relating to the doctrine of
the Church, we sometimes find the force of our arguments evaded by the objection
that, although the texts and passages we refer to seem to prove the points for
which they are cited, we still appear to be giving them an undue prominence in
our system. It is admitted, for instance, that the Epistles to Timothy and Titus
prove an Episcopal form of Church government: that certain passages in the First
Epistle to the Corinthians indicate the existence of a certain order of Church
service, &c.; but then these passages are thought to occupy a subordinate place
in the records of the New Testament, while our doctrine of the Church would put
them prominently forward. This is, doubtless, a point to be well considered; for
the apostolic rules of Scripture teaching and interpretation, must be faithfully
observed: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God," or
"prophesy," let him prophesy "according to the proportion (or analogy) of
faith."

Now, to meet this difficulty, let it be considered that the restoration of a
doctrine so evidently important in its bearings as that of the Church, must
necessarily produce a great change upon a system out of which it has been lost.
We have been accustomed to a Ptolemaic theory of our spiritual system; we have
made our own little world the centre, and have ranged the doctrines of Scripture
around it, according to the relation they seem severally to bear to our own
individual profit. We find ourselves called upon to adopt an opposite theory; to
take for the centre of our system a body which we had been used to regard as a
mere satellite attending upon our own orb. No wonder if we feel our notions
deranged; if every thing seems put into a new place; that which before was
primary, now made subordinate; and vice versa. This is no more than we might
naturally expect: the only question for us to settle is this: does the theory
which is proposed for our acceptance bring facts to support it? The maintainer
of the Copernican theory, perhaps, directs our attention principally, or even
exclusively, to objects which we had else comparatively neglected, or entirely
overlooked. But this is no fatal objection to his views. The satellites of
Jupiter might seem to hold a subordinate place in the solar system, and their
eclipses to be comparatively uninteresting phenomena: and yet the examination of
them led, we know, to great and important discoveries. Just so, some apparently
insignificant text, lying in the depth of Scripture, far removed, as we think,
from the centre light of Christian doctrine, may be the means of suggesting to
us most important consideration,--of impressing upon us the conviction that we
have been going upon a false theory, and leading us to a truer notion of the
system in which we are placed. We do well, indeed, to weigh carefully the
meaning of the texts which are brought before us, and to examine the deductions
which are founded upon them, whether they follow naturally from the premises.
But we do not well if we allow ourselves to be prejudiced against the evidence
which is brought from Scripture, merely because it is contrary to our
pre-conceived notions; because it seems to put us in a strange country, exalting
the valleys, and making low the mountains and hills, turning Lebanon into a
fruitful field, and causing the fruitful field to be counted, in comparison, as
a forest. This is not to inquire after truth in the spirit of true philosophers,
or, which is the same thing, of little children. And for such only is knowledge
in store; "of such" only "is the kingdom of heaven." For illustration of these
remarks I would refer to the passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel, which are first
pressed upon our notice, when our attention is turned to the evidence of
Scripture respecting the nature and office of the Christian Church. First and
foremost, of course, is the well known promise to St. Peter, (Matthew 16:18)
"Upon this rock will I build my Church." It is argued by the Churchman, that the
obvious sense of the word Ekklesia (Assembly), as it would strike an
unprejudiced reader, is that of a visible body; and that this sense is confirmed
by the use of the term in Matthew 18:17. Again, we are referred to the
remarkable passage, (Matthew 24:45-51) "Who then is that faithful and wise
servant, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their
portion of meat in due season. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when he
cometh, shall find so doing,: &c. It is asked, whether we do not find traces
here of a line of ministry to continue in Christ’s "Church" and "household"
until His coming again. And we are bidden to compare with this passage that
final promise of our Lord to His Apostles, with which the Gospel concludes,
(Matthew 28:20) "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," as
confirming the proof of an uninterrupted succession of the Apostolical ministry.
From these passages, then, put together, we seem to derive some idea of the
Church as a Visible Spiritual Society, formed by Christ himself; a household
over which He has appointed his servants to be stewards and rulers to the end.
But then this view is drawn from what might seem a few insulated passages,
occurring in a Gospel which we have been accustomed to look to for what we think
more practical truths. And how do they affect us? We do not like to have our
minds called off to such external relations. The interpretation offered us of
these passages, seems, indeed, correct, and the argument grounded on them
legitimate: but after all they are but a few scattered passages, referring to
points which we consider of inferior importance, and not entitled to have so
much stress laid upon them, or to be made foundations of a system. But now,
discarding prejudice and theory, let us calmly and teachably take up the Gospel
of St. Matthew, in the hope, by diligently comparing of spiritual things with
spiritual, to obtain an insight into its true meaning. Let us take the passage
first referred to. The promise is made to St.Peter: it may be well, therefore,
to look through the Gospel, and collect the scattered notices of this Apostle.
We shall thus ascertain whether the promise would seem to have been made to St.
Peter individually, as the Romanist would argue, or whether, as Churchmen in
England would say, it was made to him as the representative of the Apostolic
body, and so the type of the Christian ministry. Or, on the other hand, we shall
see whether the mention of St. Peter in this passage, and the prominent place
which seems in it to be given him, stand so completely alone that it cannot be
wrought into any thing like a regular system.

Now if we look carefully into St. Matthew’s Gospel, we seem to find, throughout,
a peculiar place occupied by St. Peter. In chap. xiv, we have the narrative of
the strength and weakness of his faith, in walking on the water to go to Jesus;
a circumstance not related by any other of the Evangelists. In the next chapter
we find Peter asking for an explanation of our Saviour’s "parable" respecting
the things which defile a man, and the "blind leaders of the blind," who had
been offended at the saying (Matthew 15:15). In Matthew 16:1-28 is the promise
under our consideration, and the offense which so soon followed, and called down
upon him his Master’s displeasure. In chap. xvii. we have the store of the
tribute money, and that discourse of our Lord with St. Peter which seems to have
given rise to the disciples’ question, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven?" Again, in Matthew 18:1-35, when our Lord has been explaining to his
disciples how the offending brother is to be dealt with by "the Church,"
(Matthew 18:17) and has confirmed to them the solemn declaration before made to
St. Peter, (which shows in what sense it was made in the first instance to St.
Peter,) "Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be
bound in heaven," &c., we read, "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how
often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?" In Matthew 19:1-30 we
find him anxiously inquiring of his Lord, what reward should be given to himself
and his fellow-apostles, who had forsaken all and followed Him. The answer is
the remarkable and solemn promise to the Twelve, which this Evangelist alone
records in this place: "Verily, I say unto you, that ye which have followed me,
in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory,
ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Throughout St. Matthew’s Gospel, St. Peter seems to be put forward in a very
peculiar manner, of which, however, we are scarcely aware, until we compare the
other Evangelists, and observe the difference between them in their selection
and arrangement of the events they record. This is, however, too extensive a
subject to enter upon at present. Our only object is to suggest the inquiry,
whether there is not something more than casual in the prominent place which St.
Peter occupies in St. Matthew’s Gospel, and whether this peculiarity does not
imply the existence of some deeper meaning than we should at first sight attach
to several apparently insulated passages, in the centre of which stands the
noble confession in the sixteenth chapter, and the gracious and glorious promise
which was founded upon it. In that promise, made by our Lord to St. Peter, it is
said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Here we find an
expression which is of very common occurrence in St. Matthew, and peculiar to
his Gospel: no other Evangelist employs the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven."
Here again we shall do well to collect together the various passages in which
the expression is used; and then we shall see that the doctrine of the Church
and its Ministers, unfolded in the promise to St. Peter, is no insulated and
subordinate point in St. Matthew’s Gospel. In the beginning of the Gospel we
find the Baptist preaching and saying, "Repent ye, forthe kingdom of heavenis at
hand;" and the ministry of our blessed Lord, taking up the Baptist’s message,
opens with the same announcement. "From that time (the time that John was cast
into prison) Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand." (Matthew 4:17) We read of his going about all the synagogues of
Galilee, "preaching the Gospel of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23); and in His Sermon
on the Mount we hear Him declaring who they are to whom that kingdom belongs,
(Matthew 5:3, &c.) "The kingdom of heaven" was to be a fulfilment of the earlier
dispensation, the law and the prophets; "whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments," says our blessed Lord, "and shall teach men so, the
same shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do
and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I
say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of
the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of
heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19) This, with other parallel passages, seems to give us
a clue to the view of the Gospel dispensation as unfolded by St. Matthew. Our
Lord appears in the character of a prophet, like Moses, raised up to be the
Giver of a new law, and the Founder of a new Kingdom or Polity. The Scribes and
Pharisees were corrupt expounders of the Divine law, they were unfaithful
stewards of the mysteries of the kingdom: other servants were therefore to be
chosen into their place, who should be the true "light of the world;" faithful
rulers over God’s household, giving to every one of their portion meat in due
season. The Scribes and Pharisees were to be deposed from Moses’ seat; St. Peter
and his fellow apostles were to be exalted in their room. They had "the keys of
knowledge" committed to them, to open the kingdom of heaven unto men; but they
had abused their trust, and they were to be deprived of their sacred office.
Thus does our Lord pass sentence upon them: "Woe unto you, Scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites: for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye
neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."
And thus, in terms strictly corresponding, as it would appear, is their
bishopric given for another to take: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; and I
say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in
heaven. " The kingdom of heaven, of which the keys were thus taken away from the
Scribes and Pharisees, and given to St. Peter and his brethren, was that
everlasting kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, which had been
committed to the Son by the Almighty Father. To Him of proper right it belongs;
of Him alone it is properly said, that "He openeth, and no man shutteth; and
shutteth, and no man openeth." "The law and the prophets were until John," He
himself declares: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man
presseth into it. "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of
heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Luke 16:16.
Matthew 11:12) For the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was then
first preached to sinners. The Son of Man had power on earth to forgive sins
(Matthew 9:6); and He had also power to retain them: He was empowered to gather
the wheat into his garner, and to burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire
(Matthew 3:12). But when, as the Messenger of the Covenant, He came, in
fulfilment of prophecy, to visit His temple, and to punish the priests who had
corrupted the covenant, and been partial in the law, He came, at the same time,
to "purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver," that they might
"offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." Let us bear this prophecy in
mind when we turn to St. Matthew’s Gospel, and let us see whether the long vista
of God’s dispensations in reference to his elder "church" and household, the
covenant made with his ministers, the promises given to them, their
unfaithfulness and corruption, will not throw a new light on many passages of
the Gospel, which seemed before dark and uninteresting. We might, for instance,
put side by side the discourses of our blessed Lord with the Pharisees, and
those which He held with His own disciples; we might see the one cavilling
against the truth, and laying snares for Him who came to try and prove them,
until at length He gave them over to their blindness, and denounced a fearful
catalogue of woes upon their heads: we might watch the other, gradually weaned
from prejudice and carnal-mindedness, instructed in "the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven," as they were able to learn them, until they were fit to be
left alone in the world, with the Spirit of their departed Master to be with
them to the end of their ministry, while they made disciples of all nations, and
taught them to observe the things which he had commanded them. We should then
trace, with no careless feeling, in the sixteenth chapter, the lines of the
Christian Church. When we see the faithless Pharisees, leagued with their
bitterest enemies, to tempt the Great Prophet of the Church; when we hear Him
affectionately reproving His own disciples for their want of faith; and warning
them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees; when we then hear
the solemn question put to the twelve, and the bold and undoubting answer of St.
Peter, we shall see a depth and fulness of meaning in our Saviour’s blessing,
which perhaps we never saw before, and feel that "blessed" indeed are we too,
unto whom, through the covenant made with Simon, the son of Jonah, the blessed
Chieftain of a blessed company, it has been revealed of the Father which is in
heaven, that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Or, let us turn to the passage in the eighteenth chapter, in which the name of
"the Church" occurs again, and the promise made to St. Peter is incidentally
confirmed to the whole Apostolic body. Our Blessed Lord is there teaching His
disciples how we are to deal with our brethren when they offend us, and how oft
to forgive them. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained
thy brother; but if he will not hear three, then take with thee two or three
more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect
to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and as a publican.
Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in
heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." In
this passage, taken by itself, we must understand by the term ekklesia, as has
been observed, a visiblebody: but let us look at it again in its connection with
the series of passages in which we have seemed to trace the idea of "the kingdom
of heaven" as the fulfilment of that elder visible church, which was established
by the ministry of Moses. The repetition of the promise before made to St. Peter
connects this passage closely with that in Matthew 16:1-28, there the power of
the keys was promised by our Lord; here the principles and rules are given for
its exercise. For these our blessed Lord refers to the spirit of the Mosaic law.
The first step to be taken towards an offending brother breathes the general
spirit of the Mosaic law, and closely agrees with the injunction specially
given, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt in any wise
rebuke thy brother, and not suffer sin upon him" (Leviticus 19:17). The next
step is in exact fulfilment of the command in Deuteronomy 17:6 : "At the mouth
of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to
death; but at the mouth of one witness shall he shall not be put to death." And
the final rejection of the brother that "will not hear the church," is in no
less strict accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic denunciation: "And the man
that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest (that standeth
to minister there before the Lord thy God), or unto the judge, even that man
shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel" (Deuteronomy 17:12).
The Christian "Church" seems thus to come into the place of the congregation of
Israel; the Apostles, into the office of the Levitical priest and judge; and
since their Master came to fulfil the law, they were to "do and teach" that law
in his spiritual meaning. Now "the end of the commandment is charity, out of a
pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned; from which some
have swerved," says the Apostle, "have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring
to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what hey say, nor whereof they
affirm." (1 Timothy 1:5-7). This description of false apostles, the rivals of
the true apostles of Christ, is equally applicable to those whom they were
appointed to supersede. If we look to our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, we find
how the Scribes "swerved" from the commandment in its true "end" and object;
their explanations of the sixth and sevenths commandments show how little they
understood of the spirit of the law of love. In that Sermon Christ’s disciples
are instructed how they are to fulfil the commandments: they are now directed
how, as faithful ministers of God’s word, they are to "do and teach" them, viz.
by governing the Church of God according to the spirit of true brotherly love.
Why had Levi been so grievously rebuked by the ministry of the last of the
prophets? (Malachi 2:1-9). Why was not "the offering of Judah and Jerusalem
pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years?" (Malachi
3:4 comp. Malachi 2:13) They had forgotten the brotherly covenant which bound
Israel together as children of one earthly parent, and one Father in heaven, who
had a care for his "little ones," and would not that one of them should perish.
"Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal
treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our
fathers? Judah hath dealt treacherously, covering the altar of God with tears,
and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or
receiveth it with good-will at your hand. (Malachi 2:10-13). But, when the sons
of Levi had been duly purified, that they might offer unto the Lord an offering
in righteousness--the true righteousness of the law, perfect brotherly
love--then would the Lord again return to his temple, renew with Levi this
"covenant of life and peace," and bless the sacred service of his holy
congregation. "Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall
be bound in heaven," &c. Again, "I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree
as touching any thing that they shall ask on earth, it shall be done for them of
my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them." Can we doubt the meaning of this solemn
promise? and is it not full of comfort to faithful members of Christ’s holy
catholic and apostolic church? Does it not teach us, that upon us truly "the
ends of the world are come;" that we are the children of a long line of
spiritual ancestry, the heirs, highly blessed and favoured indeed, of a rich and
glorious inheritance?

It would be easy to follow out, to an almost indefinite extent, the line of
illustration, of which a few points have been traced. Other similar lines might
also be drawn, throwing much light upon separate passages of the same Gospel;
as, for instance, the comparison of "the kingdom of heaven" to a householder,
which might be traced through many parables, &c. throwing light upon the
remarkable passage already referred to in the twenty-fourth chapter. Or again,
in illustration of the fearful outline, which is there set before us, of the
misconduct and punishment of the "wicked servant," we might draw out the
intimations, which our Lord’s words, on several occasions, give us, of
unfaithful ministers and stewards, who were in after days to abuse the power
committed to them, to lord it over their fellow servants, to eat and drink and
to be drunken: or, still further, we might borrow from the condemnation of the
Scribes and Pharisees a fearful light on the character of the "hypocrites," with
whom his portion is assigned. But enough, perhaps, has been said for our present
purpose, which has been, not to urge for exclusive adoption a particular
interpretation of certain passages, nor even to recommend any particular idea as
supplying the only clue to their meaning; but simply to meet an objection, which
it is believed, indisposes the minds of many thoughtful readers of Holy
Scripture to receiving the evidence which is drawn from its records, in support
of the doctrine of "the Church." To such persons it is here suggested, that
their difficulty arises from prejudice in favour of a particular theory.
Scripture may be viewed from other points that that which they have chosen: and
the theory which a different view suggests may perhaps be found to explain more
phenomena, and unfold deeper mysteries, than theirs. The expression, or
incident, or agreement, which they overlook, and cast aside, may, to another,
serve as a clue to a mysterious volume, and give "thoughts which do often lie
too deep for tears." Only let not persons be startled and offended at finding
truths in Scripture which they had entirely overlooked, or thought practically
unimportant, assuming a prominent place in the system which is recommended to
their consideration. This must be the case at first. If the interpretation given
of a passage of Scripture seems agreeable to the natural sense of the words, to
the context, or to other parts of Scripture; if it seems to give more meaning to
passages or portions than they had in our eyes before; let this be enough for us
for the present: let us thankfully admit it, not lightly or hastily starting
objections, or caring for its effect upon our pre-conceived opinions. "Every
word of God is pure" (Proverbs 30:5); and if we are bidden not to "add to His
words," lest He reprove us, and we be found liars (Proverbs 30:6); we are also
warned, in the most mysterious, and to many readers, apparently unpractical,
book of the New Testament, "If any man shall take away from the words of the
prophecy of this book, God shall take away his part out of the holy city, and
from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:19) Surely we
may incur the risk of thus taking away from the words of prophecy, without
literally mangling its sacred page. We may settle with ourselves, that it is an
external matter, and not important to our individual interests. Rather let us
humbly receive the very crumbs which fall from the Master’s table, "laying aside
all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies and envies, and all evil speakings,
if so be we have tasted that the Lord is gracious." (1 Peter 2:1, 1 Peter 2:3)
The scattered limbs of sacred truth, which are presented to our view, may seem
to us at first sight like the dry bones, which the prophet saw in the vision:
but the word of prophecy may yet bring them together, may cover them with sinew,
and flesh, and skin, and fill them with a living spirit; the breath from the
four winds may breathe upon the slain, and they may "stand up" upon their feet,
before our eyes, "an exceeding great army." "And when this cometh to pass, then
shall they know that there hath been a prophet among them:" "for I have poured
out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God." Wherefore, "now be
strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord God: and be strong, O Joshua, son of
Josedech the high priest, and be strong all ye people of the land, and work, for
I am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts. According to the word that I covenanted
with you when ye came out of Egypt so my Spirit remaineth among you: fear ye
not." (Haggai 2:4-5) "Go ye therefore, andmake disciplesof all nations, teaching
them to observeall things whatsoever I have commanded you;and lo, I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world."

OXFORD, The Feast of the Nativity.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 49: 50 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.

No. 4.—Wednesday—(continued)

[Number 50]

Luke 16:19. "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine
linen, and fared sumptuously every day." For a man, then, to be rich, to be
clothed magnificently, and to take no care of the poor, is sufficient to send
him to hell, because he cannot lead a Christian life. Repentance, mortification,
and the cross, are utterly inconsistent with a soft, sensual, voluptuous life;
the desire of happiness, with the love of this present life. It is, therefore, a
most miserable state, for a man to have everything according to his desire, and
quietly to enjoy the pleasures of life. There needs no more to expose him to
eternal misery. "He that loveth his life, shall lose it; and he that hateth his
life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal (John 12:25) He that loveth
life, (that is, is fond of it) for the sake of the pleasures, advantages, it
affords, will soon lose the love of heavenly things; the love of God, of his
soul, and of the duty he owes to them: He hates it, who does not value it in
comparison of eternal life, which he hopes for. A Christian gives proof of this,
by mortifying himself; a Pastor, in spending his life in the works of the
ministry, &c. Those whom God loves in order to an happy eternity, He weans from
the pleasures of this present life.

Temperance consists in a sober use of all earthly, visible things, and in
confining ourselves within the compass of what is necessary. With God all things
are possible. The Almighty God enable me to conquer the temptation of riches,
and to get above the allurements of this present life. There is much more reason
for a man to humble himself, on account of his self-denial, than to boast of it,
since the corruption of his nature is so great, that he cannot follow even the
lawful dictates of nature, without hazarding his soul. Christian self-denial is,
to resist and crucify in ourselves the spirit and inclinations of Adam,--the
flesh, its affections and lusts,--to die to our passions, in order to follow the
motions of the Spirit.

Fasting,

Necessary, to bring our hearts to a penitent, holy and devout temper. Our Church
requires this, and appoints days and times, &c.; and it has been the honour of
this Church, that she hath kept up to her rules, where others have shamefully
neglected them. Fasting necessary, to perform the vows that are upon us all. By
fasting, by alms, and by prayers, we dedicate our bodies, goods, and souls to
God in a particular manner.

Meditations proper for a Clergyman during Lent. The primitive Bishops had places
of retirement near their cities, that they might separate themselves from the
world, lest teaching others they should forget themselves; lest they should lose
the spirit of piety themselves, while they were endeavouring to fix it in
others.

Prosper, O God, the good thoughts, the good purposes, which Though Thyself shall
inspire. I acknowledge Thy goodness, which hast raised me above my brethren, and
appointed me as a Successor to Thy Apostles. O may I ever act agreeably to this
character. May I never profane a character so holy and so divine, lest God
should pour down His vengeance upon my ungrateful heart. Pardon me whereinsoever
I have been wanting in the several duties of my calling; and give me grace to be
more careful for the time to come. Amen.

How am I bound to adore Thy goodness, my great Master! Thou hast set me in
office amongst the chief of Thy servants; but I will, for Thy sake, make myself
the servant of the meanest of Thy servants. By ,me Thou communicatest Thy grace
in the Sacrament; by me Thou teachest Thy people the truth; by my hands Thou
adoptest them Thy children in baptism, feedest them with Thy body, comfortest
them in affliction, armest them against the fear of death, and fittest them for
a blessed eternity. Grant that I may truly weigh the sanctity of my calling, and
faithfully discharge it; and that others may weigh it, and bless Thee for so
great a blessing. I am appointed to sanctify others. O grant that I may first
sanctify myself; that I may separate myself from this world, its profits,
pleasures, honours, and all its idols. Amen. Let my zeal, O my Lord and Master,
be answerable to that account which I must one day give. Let me not see Thy laws
broken, hear Thy name blasphemed, Thy word set at nought, Thine ordinances
despised, with patience. And oh, may I never, by any neglect or sinful silence
of mine, contribute to these crimes; but employ my authority to suppress them.
Let me remember what was once said by Christ himself to a Christian bishop:
"Because thou art lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my
moth." Inspire my heart with such holy resolution and courage, that I may not
fear any man when Thy honour and my duty call me; that no worldly considerations
may hinder me, when my office obliges me to stand in the gap. Amen. Give me such
holy dispositions of soul, whenever I approach Thine altar, as may in some
measure be proportionable to the holiness of the work I am about, of presenting
the prayers of the faithful, of offering a spiritual sacrifice to God, in order
to convey the body and blood of Jesus Christ, true bread of life, to all His
members. Give me, when I commemorate the same sacrifice that Jesus Christ once
offered, give me the same intentions that he had, to satisfy the justice of God,
to acknowledge His mercies, and to pay all that debt which a creature owes to
his Creator. None can do this effectually but Jesus Christ: Him, therefore we
present to God, in this Holy Sacrament. O Thou, who has made me a servant in Thy
house, give me such dispositions as that I may never dishonour Thy service.
Amen.

I am a sinner, and yet I am appointed to offer up prayers for others. It is to
the great God to whom I offer these prayers. To me the Church, the spouse of
Christ, intrusts her desires, her interest, her necessities, and her thanks.
What a trust is this! O may I never betray it! may I never obstruct Thy mercies
to Thy Church by a formal service. Let me ever speak to God, and from God with
attention, with love, with respect, with fear, with purity of heart, and with
unpolluted lips. Amen. The office of a shepherd of souls is full of difficulty.
Consider what toil Jesus Christ underwent, what reproaches, what contempt, and
what despight!-- and from those persons to whom He preached the most concerning
truths; and, last of all, laying down His life for His sheep. I am astonished,
and greatly ashamed, when I consider how very far I come short of this pattern,
how poor my pains have been, how little of my time, my care, my thoughts, have
been spent in this service. O Chief Shepherd, and Bishop of souls, communicate
to me, the meanest of thy herdsmen, such a degree of concern as may thoroughly
qualify me for this great work; pardon my past negligence, and lay not to my
charge the evils which may have happened thereby. Amen. Consider the patience of
your great Master, with what compassion He treated sinners; transcribe His
example; and if any of your flock are perverse, froward, obstinate, bear with
them, condescend to their weakness, and strive to reduce them even against their
wills. But has this been my way? Very far from it. I have been impatient when
any of my flock have not been bettered by my care and pains. And this, not from
a true zeal for the glory of God, and the good of souls, but too often, alas!
from a principle of self-love; angry, because I have been so conceited as to
think that my labours should not be in vain. And yet how often has God spoken to
me myself, and I regarded it not? How long was his grace ineffectual even with
myself. O Jesu, impart to me a portion of that Spirit of meekness which
prevailed with Thee to preach to a people who regarded Thee not, who despised,
who crucified Thee. Then why should I, who am a sinner, complain of my
unsuccessful labours? Forgive, gracious God, the faults I have committed in this
great work of the ministry; and let no unworthiness in me hinder thy blessings
from descending upon the souls committed to my care. Amen.

Reflect seriously what a dreadful account you have to give, if you say, "Peace,
peace, when there is no peace;" or if you give the children’s bread to dogs,
that is admit to the Lord’s Table those that are unworthy of such a favour. This
would be to lay men asleep in their sin. Lord, preserve Thy servant from this
sin. Amen. I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have don. O Lord,
that I could say this to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made me
Overseer. That I could say, Be ye devout, as ye see me devout; do ye forgive one
another, as ye see me ready to forgive; despise the world, &c. as ye see me do
it. Let me seriously consider, that I am not only answerable for my own personal
offences; I sin every time I cause others to sin by my example. What reparation
can be made, what answer can be given, when Christ requires our flock at our
hand? Lord, suffer me not to follow my own will; reform me, that I may reform
others; give me light to discover, and grace to amend, where I have done amiss.
Amen. Let your conversation be such as becomes, not only the gospel, but
ministers of the gospel, to whom all that is curious, useless, light, and vain,
is forbidden; all scurrilous language, idle stories, &c.

Endeavour to leave some impression of piety upon the minds of those with whom
you converse. Jesus Christ did so always. Make no distinction betwixt the rich
and the poor, as to converse with one, and not with the other. Lord, grant that
Thy example may ever be before me; and my conversation holy, useful, and
edifying. Amen. As to the disposal of the Church’s revenues, the suggestions of
avarice, of vanity, of pleasure, and of the world, ought not to govern me. I am
only a steward, not a proprietor, and should be as criminal as those laymen that
invade them, if I convert them to lay and secular uses; which side of sacrilege,
very probably, took its rise from other observing the Church’s revenues put to
secular uses. Grant, O my Lord, who hast given me much more of this world’s
goods than Thou tookest Thyself, grant that I may apply the goods of the Church
to Thy glory, and to the support of Thy poor members; and pardon all my vain
expenses. Amen.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 50: 51 - ON DISSENT WITHOUT REASON IN CONSCIENCE.
========================================================================

ON DISSENT WITHOUT REASON IN CONSCIENCE.

[Number 51]

As one mass doth contain the good ore and base alloy; as one floor the corn and
the chaff; as one field the wheat and the tares as one net the choice fish and
the refuse; as one fold the sheep and the goats as one tree the living and dry
branches: so doth the Visible Church enfold the true universal. Church, called
the Church mystical and invisible. And for this reason, and because
presumptively every member of the Visible Church doth pass for a member of the
invisible, (the time of distinction and separation being not yet come,) because
this Visible Church, in its profession of truth, in its sacrifices of devotion,
in its practice of service and duty to GOD, doth communicate with the invisible,
therefore commonly the titles and attributes of one are imparted to the other."
—Altered from Barrow on the Unity of the Church, vol. vii. p. 631.

IT is often asked, "Why should not a man attend both the Church and Meeting, if
he derives benefit from both?" And again, "Why should not a man be a Dissenter,
though he have nothing particular to object against the Church, if he is not
violent in his opposition to the Church? The following remarks, in answer to
these questions, were written by a clergyman for the, use of his parishioners.

Many of you have made remarks to me on the subject of Dissent, when I have been
visiting you in your cottages; and the substance of these remarks has apparently
been, that it was of, very little importance, whether a man belonged to the
Church, or dissented from it, because the difference, is after all: but small
between Churchmen and Dissenters. You have thus spoken (as it would seem)
sometimes with a view of drawing out my opinions, sometimes as a sort of defence
or apology for your own. Sometimes in order to invite an argument. I have
purposely in my answers abstained from entering into the question, and confined
myself to saying simply, that I did not think as you did upon the matter. It
would by no means have fallen in with the purpose for which I visited you on
first coming to the parish, to have entered into any lengthened reasonings. My
object in calling was to express my good-will towards you, and therefore to seek
our points of agreement, and not our points of difference. At the same time you
are not to suppose that I at all wish to conceal my sentiments, and it is
because some of you may perhaps have an erroneous impression of what my opinion
is on this subject that I now write this. My observations will be as short, as I
can well make them. I shall avoid as much as possible any thing like
controversy, or any expressions of opinion as to the relative merits of this or
that form of dissent, or any discussion of the particular Articles of Faith (so
far as there may be said to be such at all) among the several persuasions around
us. Bear in mind, my object is, to show you that Dissent is a sin. But before I
proceed further I must make two observations, which I wish you to keep in mind,
while you read these remarks, because they will remove some difficulty, which
you might otherwise feel in what follows.

1. I allow there may beconscientiousDissenters, nay, I hope in charity, there
are many;—but by a conscientious Dissenter I mean a man who separates himself
from the Church, because he thinks he finds something in her doctrines or
discipline so far contrary to scriptural truth and the precepts, of the Gospel,
that by adhering, to: her, he would be putting an obstacle in the way of his own
salvation. Other persons may think themselves conscientious Dissenters who do
not go nearly so far in their condemnation of the doctrines or practice of the
Church: nay, so far from it, that they would defend their Dissent upon the
ground that there is no material difference between the system and teaching in
the one, and the system and teaching in the other. But such men l do not call
conscientious Dissenters, but careless or weak-minded persons, who cannot have
thought much or seriously upon the subject, and who can hardly have read with
attention what is to be found in the New Testament respecting the sin of schism,
or on the unity of the Church, and the duty of obedience to it. Indeed a man out
to consider very seriously what account he can give of his faith, who is far
both Churchman and Dissenter, and so far disposed towards both, as to attend
indiscriminately one or other place of worship; who also could give very little
better explanation of the difference between one and the other, than a statement
of the difference in the public services of each, and other particular matters
of form, and of external observance. Such a person can neither be a true
Churchman nor a conscientious Dissenter. He cannot be a true Churchman, for if
he was he would not attending a Dissenting place of worship. For Dissent from
the Church must imply a condemnation of something or other, be it of more or
less importance, in the doctrines or discipline of the Established Church. and
whoever attends service in a Meeting-house,when he has the opportunityof going
to the Parish Church, does, by so doing, give his silent approbation to the
principle of Dissent, and shows that at least he does not disapprove of the
opinions of the particular body to whose Meeting he goes. He cannot be, on the
other hand, a conscientious Dissenter, or he would not frequent the Church,i.e.a
place of worship, which is supported by a system, which he considers one of
injustice, and which excludes and condemns that to which he himself belongs; to
say nothing about the probability of his hearing something, which, though not
directly levelled against Dissent, still is in spirit a reproof and protest
against it. When I say that Dissent is asin, I by no means thereby imply, that
for that reason every Dissenter if at once and necessarily a sinner. To say that
a particular thing is a sin, is a very different thing from saying that every
one who does it is a sinner. It will be as well to make this quite clear to you,
and therefore I will give you some cases in which you would, without hesitation,
make the same remark that I have done.—To kill a fellow-creature is undoubtedly
a crime; but you would not say that the person who killed another by accident,
or in defence of his country, or of his own life, or by command of lawful
authorities, was criminal. There are, indeed, few deeds which are in a general
way sins, which may not be committed under such circumstances as to rescue the
person who did them from being on that account a sinner. There was once a nation
which did not think thieving wrong: there is a nation which does not consider a
parent’s destroying a child, when too poor to maintain it, as a sin: and there
is a class or sect in another nation who hold the same opinion as to the lives
of their parents, when too old to be serviceable to themselves. You see from
these illustrations that thedegreeof criminality attaching to a person for his
actions, depends very much on the extent of knowledge he has of the nature of
the act, his education, and various other circumstances. It is very difficult to
weigh these exactly in estimatinghow farany particular person himself does wrong
while he is committing a wrong act: GOD alone can see the heart; and, therefore,
it is better to speak without immediate reference to persons, and only as to the
character of the opinion or action under consideration. With these explanations,
first, on the score ofconsciencecausing it; next, ofcircumstancesvarying the
degree of criminality in different persons; I repeat, Dissent is asin, which I
now go on to prove to you.

Persons dissent from the Church on account of some difference or other, this is
plain; and, from what I have already said, it is also plain that I do not intend
to say any thing in what follows concerning thegreater differences which cause
Dissent, i.e. differences which are founded upon a different interpretation of
Scripture. For when a man thinks the Church unscriptural, he has a good reason
for leaving it, and is (what I have called above) a conscientious Dissenter;
though at the same time I am bound to say, I think his conscience a very
erroneous one, which leads him to consider the Church unscriptural; and while I
allow him to be conscientious in one sense of the word, yet I also think
himheretical,—just as those men who (as our LORD foretold) thought, when they
persecuted the Apostles, "they did GOD service," were wrong, not in that they
obeyed their conscience, but because they had not a more enlightened conscience.
"The light that is in" a merely conscientious Dissenter is (what CHRIST has
called) "darkness." I say this before passing on to consider (as I mean to do)
the other kind of Dissenters, those, viz. who dissent for some lesser
difference, merely lest you should suppose that I consider a person absolved
from all guilt, on the ground of his being conscientious; for as a good
conscience is a great treasure, so a dark conscience is like the blind leading
the blind. Now then let me address myself to that larger number of persons who
have no material objection against the Church as to its doctrines or discipline,
and who do not think that a Dissenter will be saved a bit more than a Churchman;
who, indeed, are so far from condemning the Church, that they always feel rather
disposed, when acknowledging their Dissent, to make a sort of apology or
explanation for their leaving the Church, as e.g. that "it was so far to go to
Church," or that "their health was weak," or "no good sittings were to be had,"
or that "they had an objection to the clergyman of the parish," or that "they
were more edified by the service at Meeting, as more spiritual," or such
reasons. I shall begin by placing before you some arguments, which indirectly
support my assertion concerning the sinfulness of Dissent.

(1.) Christians are required to unite in serving GOD in mutual charity and
hearty concord. Hence such direction as these from the Apostles to different
Churches,viz.that they should endeavour to keep "the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace," that they should be "like-minded, having the same love," being
"of one accord, of one mind, standing fast in one Spirit with one mind," that
they should "walk by the same rule, and mind the same thing," that "with one
mind and one mouth they should glorify GOD, the Father of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST," that they should "all speak the same thing," that there should be "no
divisions among them," but that they be "perfectly joined together in the same
mind in the same judgment." As to the construction which some persons put on
such passages,viz.by making them to refer to an unity in the spiritual sense, to
a mystical union of the faithful all over the world, in the invisible Church of
CHRIST, it is clearly inadmissible. For as a matter ofreason, what can be the
use of such strong and repeated exhortations to an union, whose only external
sign is a profession of charitable indifference to all diversities of religious
opinion, and whose principle bond of union, is a secret internal feeling, as to
which no one can exactly judge his neighbour? And yet in the New Testament,
direction are given concerning such divisions, as respecting a thing, of which
every Christian can judge. And further, as a matter offact, the Church or body,
in which unity is preserved, is spoken of as avisiblebody,VidMatthew
16:18;Matthew 18:17.1 Timothy 3:15.1 Corinthians 12:1-31.Ephesians 4:4-12.

(2.) Obedience to superiors is enjoined. This command seems to me, to give a
double sanction to the legitimately appointed authorities of the Church. First,
An authority indirectly, inasmuch as duty to the State requires of us obedience
to all those who have the sanction of its authority for their dignities,
provided always, obedience to them does not involve some sacrifice of principle,
so as to be against our consciences. Hence, since the time that Church and State
have been united, it becomes the duty of a good subject to pay reverence and
obedience to the appointed ministers of religion, upon civil as well as upon
religious grounds. Secondly, An authority directly, because obedience to
spiritual superiors isseparately enjoined. E. g. "Likewise ye younger; submit
yourselves to the elder," 1 Peter 5:5 :—(you will see from the first and second
verses, that the elders mean spiritual superiors, who are set over you.) And
again, "Submit yourselves unto such, and to every one, that helpeth with us, and
laboureth." (1 Corinthians 16:16) "Obey them that have the rule over you, and
submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give
account." (Hebrews 13:17) Again, "We beseech you, brethren, to know them which
labour among you, and are over you in the LORD, and admonish you; and to esteem
them very highly in love for their works’ sake." (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13)

(3.) It is also a command to Christians, not to give a brother cause of sorrow
and offence. Now any separation must do that. The question therefore is, whether
the grounds for it are such as to compel us, from regard to our own souls, and
even out of Christian charity to him, to separate from communion with the body
to which he belongs, that we may thereby make him acquainted with the danger
there is to his eternal salvation in remaining in a body, from which we feel
obliged, for conscience sake, to come out. If we do not think we endanger our
salvation by continuing in the Church, we are not justified for mere matters of
opinion, and things, which we do not hold to be essentials of religion, to cast
a reproach upon the body, from which we remove as from a thing unclean, and to
give pain, doubts, and cause of dissensions, by thus withdrawing.

I proceed next to some direct arguments in support of the assertion, that
separation, as such, and when not on account of some fundamental doctrine, is a
sin.

1st. Hear what Scripture tells us should be our conduct towards those who cause
divisions, and then consider, whether such persons are brought before us as
exercising a proper liberty of choice.

"We command you in the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that ye withdraw
yourselves from every brother, that walketh disorderly and not after the
tradition which ye have received of us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house, nor bid him GOD speed." (2 John 1:10) "These are they who separate
themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." (Jude 1:19)

"I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary
to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even to the
words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and to the doctrine which is according to
godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes
of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil-surmisings, perverse
disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that
gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." (1 Timothy 6:3-5)

2dly. Consider the manner they are represented in, who cause disunion in the
Church. The terms are, indeed, so harsh to modern (so called) liberal notions,
that one feels sure of incurring the reproach of being a bigot for venturing
thus to apply what we read in Scripture; and the general view respecting these
passages probably is, that the time of their application is quite gone by, and
that they have long since become a dead letter. And yet, reflect, these terms
are not used of persons, who were infidels, or heathens, or of those who
corrupted the main doctrines of Christianity. St. Paul blames the Corinthians,
because they expressed a preference for one teacher above another, and though
they all taught the same thing, still he says of such a difference, "that there
are contentions among you," and speaks of it as an evidence of their "carnal
mind." (1 Corinthians 3:3)

3rdly. There are many passages in the Epistles, in which the ways, dispositions,
and practices of false teachers are described, concerning which the learned
differ much, and determine differently the sort of opinions condemned in them.
Allowing, however, what weight is fair to this circumstance, yet after all look
at them attentively with a view of finding whether they will give you any light
for the guidance of your conduct in this matter; and, while you consider them,
bear the following remarks in mind:—

1. That which is condemned in these persons is either their professing false
doctrine, or their making disorder, disturbance and disunion in the Church. If
you think any of them apply to the second, then such passages apply to my
argument here, because they go to prove, that making a separation and disputes
in the Church is wrong.

2. You will learn from some of them that a person may think himself quite
sincere in leaving the Church, and, yet his own heart may have deceived him,
thought it cannot deceive GOD, who will call him to account hereafter. 2 Timothy
3:13. 2 Thessalonians 2:11.

3. You will see that heresy and schism are placed along with bas passions, and
bad actions, and vicious dispositions, as if in some way connected with them,
and as if we may therefore be called to give account for these opinions, just as
much as for those actions, and passions, and dispositions of mind. 1 Timothy
6:3, 1 Timothy 6:20. 1 Timothy 1:3-4. 2 Timothy 4:3; 2 Timothy 3:13. Galatians
1:9. 2 Peter 2:18, 2 Peter 2:10. Titus 1:10; Titus 3:10-11. 2 Corinthians 11:13,
2 Corinthians 11:15. Acts 20:20. Matthew 7:15. 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2
Thessalonians 3:11. 2 John 1:9. Ephesians 4:14. Jude 1:16. Php 1:15-16.

4thly. Consider the case of Korah in the Old Testament. He was a priest of the
second order, and, with other Levites, withdrew his obedience from the High
Priest. There was no matter of doctrine or worship in dispute between them and
Aaron, nor any other dispute than that of Church government. And yet how
terrible was his punishment. In his case we cannot evade the application to the
Gospel times, because St. Jude makes it for us, speaking of those who "perish in
the gainsaying of Core." Jude 1:11.

5thly. When the Jews fell into wickedness and idolatry, priests as well as
people, and GOD sent prophets to reprove them, yet none of these holy prophets
did separate from communion with the wicked priests, and set up another
priesthood in opposition to them. They did not think it lawful, how holy soever
they were, to intrude themselves into the priesthood, as they had not been
lawfully called and appointed.

These two cases go very strongly to prove that there is a duty to submit
ourselves, for conscience’ sake, to the established order and manner in the
Church, so long as the church enjoins nothing which plainly contradicts the
revealed will of GOD, and to perform which would therefore do violence to our
sense of right.

6thly. Consider further, the ground upon which our SAVIOUR ordered the authority
of the Scribes and Pharisees to be respected, viz. because they sat in Moses’
seat (Matthew 23:2); i.e. because they were the lawfully appointed and regularly
ordained ministers of the established religion. Moreover, throughout the acts of
the Apostles, where we are to look for the use and gradual formation of s system
of Church government, in proportion as the converts become more numerous, and
more widely scattered in different countries, we may trace a principle of union
and of subordination throughout the various Churches and Assemblies of
believers. Care too was taken for the continuance of this union and this
subordination, both in the manner of appointing teachers then, and in providing
for their similar appointment for the time to come: and this manner of providing
a due supply of fit persons for the ministry has been observed not only during
the age of the Apostles, and their immediate successors, but it may be said
through the first fifteen centuries after the establishment of Christianity.

7thly, Turn to the solemn prayers of our SAVIOUS in John 17:1-26. "Holy Father,
keep through thine own name those whom thou hat given to me, that they may be
one, as we are;" and again, the same prayer, "neither pray I for these alone,
but for them also, which shall believe on Me, through their word, that they all
may be one, as thou, Father, are in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one
in Us." . . . . Would it not be in direct opposition to the spirit and letter of
this prayer to justify every individual Christian in claiming the right of
withdrawing himself from communion with the Church upon every slight difference
of opinion? As if Christianity required of us no surrender whatever of the
private judgment, and as if it were never right for a Christian silently to
acquiesce in existing usages, or new ordinances, in things indifferent, when
commanded by lawful authority, unless he was convinced of the benefit and
propriety of them, which would, in fact, be to make every individual Christian a
law unto himself in all things; or, to adapt our language to the day, as if it
were never required to assent in religious matters in the same way as in civil
matters, i.e. without being convinced of the advisableness or benefit of the
thing enjoined, but merely because, on the one hand, lawful authority orders it,
and, on the other, we see no danger to our souls in obeying it.

8thly. CHRIST hath given an authority to the Church, and therefore there is but
one thing which can justify usin going against its authority, and that, a firm
conviction, that by doing what the Church orders, we should transgress some
still more evident and higher command of GOD: as, e.g. when the Church of Rome
pronounced it lawful to take away the lives of excommunicated princes. and is
not separating from the Church transgressing its authority?

If any one ask, where is this authority spoken of in Scripture? let him consider
the following texts.

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and
he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me." (Luke 10:16) "If he neglect
to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
(Matthew 18:17)

"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye
shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18)

"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye
retain, they are retained." (John 20:23) "Lo, I am with you always, even unto
the end of the world." (Matthew 28:20)

9thly. CHRIST hath appointed the Church as the only way to eternal life. We read
at the first, that the LORD added daily to the Church such as should be saved;
and what was then done daily, hath been done since continually. CHRIST never
appointed two ways to heaven; nor did He build a Church to save some, and make
another institution for other men’s salvation. "There is no other name under
heaven given unto men, whereby we must be saved, but the name of JESUS:" and
that is no otherwise given under heaven, than in the Church.

Here, then, I finish my series of arguments. Not that there are not many others,
which might be brought forward, to show that Dissent is wrong; but I prefer
confining my remarks to those which have something in common with one another.
The principles upon which all the reasonings here given are in some sort
founded, are, 1. the Christian duty of obedience; 2. of preserving unity; 3. of
avoiding, in all cases where we can, with a safe conscience, any giving occasion
of offence, or pain, or perplexity, to our Christian brethren:—in other words,
the duty of having an eye always to CHRISTIAN CHARITY,i.e.brotherly love, in our
way of performing our duties, especially those about the limits of which we are
notquite sure. The sum of the matter as here set before you is this. If a man’s
separation from the Church be upon grounds which he really believes to be of
vital importance, I have nothing to do with him. He acts from conscientious
motives, and cannot remain in communion with a Church, which teaches what he
holds to be false doctrines. "To his own Master he standeth or falleth;" and it
is not for me to judge how he has come to this conclusion. I can, however, fully
understand, that so long as he holds such an opinion about our Church, he cannot
have any thing to do with it, but must come out from it. But if I see a man
attending the Church occasionally, as if he thought there was nopositive harmin
what is taught there, then I say, that man has not done rightly in becoming a
Dissenter, because I gather from Scripture that it is a duty to submit to
established authorities in religious matters, just as in political and civil
matters, so long as there is no vital and essential difference between his own
articles of faith, and those which the established Church maintains. He ought to
submit in all things indifferent for conscience’ sake. And his only sound and
sufficient defence for separating from the Church, is a belief, that he cannot
be saved in it on account of its holding false doctrine. If he cannot say this,
he has no sufficient reason for thus "rending CHRIST’S body," by removing
himself out of the Church, and for giving an example to others to set up some
new sect for themselves upon any trifling ground of difference.

I will add only one more remark in conclusion, which is this. You read in the
New Testament of great and important promises made to the Church, whatever that
Church be: you read also of many very strong and sharp rebukes given to those,
who caused dissensions and disputes in the Church, during the time of the
Apostles: you read also of the heavy condemnation, which will come upon those
who have been partakers in these sins; and also you know the warnings of our
SAVIOUR and of the apostles, that in the latter days, the danger and subtilty of
these errors and heresies would increase, so as to deceive (if it were possible)
even the elect; and, lastly, you know, that even though persons think they are
conscientiously obliged to make a schism, still they may be condemned for this
very false conviction of their deceitful hearts. Now, since all this is the
case, would it not be prudent for a single man, who thinks of becoming a
Dissenter, to consider seriously where he is most likely to come within the
terms of these promises, and where he is least likely to be liable to the
threats and denunciations above alluded to? Would it not be well to reason with
himself somewhat on this wise: "The Church may not mean the Church, as some
people understand it, who suppose that Dissenters are left out of it; but still
as I never heard any one say, that the Dissenters were the only true Church, and
that the Established Church was shut out of the promises, because she was no
longer part of the true Church, surely I am more safe, more likely to come in
for a share of these blessings, if, while in other things I strive to do my duty
without troubling myself to decide things, which in truth are too hard for me, I
continue a member of the Established Church. By so doing, I follow the example
of my forefathers, of my country, of holy martyrs before me, and rest my faith
on the authority of those, who are, by virtue of their office, successors of the
Apostles; whereas, in the other case, I must, on my own judgment, set aside all
this weight of authority, and do that, which is as much as to say, that till
within the last thee hundred years the whole world has been in darkness, and
that I can see clearer than all those great, and good, and pious, and learned
persons, who have lived and died before in the faith." Surely it is the safer
course to remain stedfastly in the Church, without halting between opinions;
there is more chance of your being right there.

NOTE.

P.S. In order that you may know whom you ought to look upon as your proper
spiritual guides and governors, I lay before you the description given of them
by the famous Dr. Isaac Barrow. "Those, I say, then, who constantly do profess
and teach that sound and wholesome doctrine, which was delivered by our LORD and
his Apostles in a word and writing, was received by their disciples in the
primitive Churches, was transmitted and confirmed by general tradition, was
sealed by the blood of the blessed martyrs, and propagated by the labours of the
holy fathers; the which also manifestly recommendeth and promoteth true
reverence and piety towards GOD, justice and charity towards men, order and
quiet in human societies, purity and sobriety in each man’s private
conversation.

"Those who celebrate the true worship of GOD, and administer the holy mysteries
of our religion, in a serious, grace, and decent manner, purely and without any
notorious corruption, either by hurtful error, or supertitious foppery, or
irreverent rudeness, to the advancement of GOD’S honour, and edification of the
participants in virtue and piety.

"Those who derive their authority by a continued succession from the Apostles,
who are called unto and constituted in their office in a regular and peaceable
way, agreeable to the institution of GOD, and the constant practice of His
Church, according to rules approved in the best and purest ages; who are
prepared to the exercise of their functions by the best education, that
ordinarily can be provided under sober discipline, in the schools of the
prophets; who thence, by competent endowments of mind and useful furniture of
good learning, acquired by painful study, become qualified to guide and instruct
the people; who, after previous examination of their abilities, and probable
testimonies concerning their manners (with regard to the qualifications of
incorrupt doctrine and sober conversation, prescribed by the apostles), are
adjudged for the office; who, also, in a pious, grave, solemn manner, with
invocation of GOD’S blessing, by laying on of the hands of the presbytery, are
admitted thereunto.

"Those whose practice in guiding and governing the people of GOD, is not managed
by arbitrary, uncertain, fickle, private fancies or humours, but regulated by
standing laws; framed (according to general directions extant in holy Scripture)
by pious and wise persons, with mature advice, in accommodation to the seasons
and circumstances of things, for common edification, order, and peace.

"Those, who, by virtue of their good principles, in their dispositions and
demeanour appear sober, orderly, peaceable, yielding meek submission to
government, tendering the Church’s peace, upholding the communion of the saints,
abstaining from all schismatical, turbulent, and factious practices.

"Those, also, who are acknowledged by the laws of our country, an obligation to
obey whom is part of that human constitution unto which we are in all things
(not evidently repugnant to GOD’S law) indispensably bound to submit; whom our
Sovereign, GOD’S vicegerent, and the nursing father of His Church among us,
(unto whom in all things high respect, in all lawful things entire obedience, is
due,) doth command and encourage us to obey.

"Those, I say, to whom this character plainly doth agree, we may reasonably be
assured, that they are our true guides and governors, whom we are obliged to
follow and obey; for what better assurance can we in reason desire? what more
proper marks can be assigned to discern them by? what methods of constituting
such needful officers can be settled more answerable to their design and use?
how can it be evil or unsafe to follow guides authorized by such warrants,
conformed to such patterns, endowed with such dispositions, acting by such
principles and rules? Can we mistake or miscarry, by complying with the great
body of GOD’S Church through all ages, and particularly with those great lights
of the primitive Church, who, by the excellency of their knowledge, and the
integrity of their virtue, have so illustrated our holy religion?"

(Barrow, Serm. LVI. p. 284—287. vol. iii.)

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Matthias.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 51: 52 - SERMONS FOR SAINTS' DAYS AND HOLIDAYS.
========================================================================

SERMONS FOR SAINTS’ DAYS AND HOLIDAYS.

(No. 1. ST. MATTHIAS.)

[Number 52]

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, and that ye
should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain."—St. John
xv. 16.

THE service of this day invites us to consider the nature and commission of that
ministry, by which Christians all over the world are made partakers of heavenly
and spiritual blessings. On this point, as on most others, it is obvious that
the New Testament does no where furnish a regular and orderly course of
instruction, such as on many great subjects we find in our Creeds, Articles, and
Catechism. But the mind and will of our Divine Master may be gathered plainly
enough, at least by those who are willing to show a reasonable respect to the
witness of the early Church.

St. Luke, in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, informs us, that our
LORD was not taken up, until "after that He, through the Holy Ghost, had given
commandments unto the Apostles whom He had chosen;—being seen of them" at
various times during as much as "forty days," and "speaking of the things
pertaining to the kingdom of GOD." Then, doubtless, He gave them instruction in
what method and order to proceed, what kind of ministry to settle in His Church.
Who would not wish to know what was the tenor of those conversations? But the
Holy Ghost, in His unsearchable wisdom, has not seen fit directly to put them on
record: an omission which appears very significant, when compared with the
minute register which the Gospels supply of many former discourses. So it is,
that on the occasion, which would seem to promise most information concerning
the nature of CHRIST’S kingdom, instead of finding any report of what our
blessed SAVIOUR said, we find a report of what His Apostles did.Their Acts and
Letters take place of the desired memorial of His parting instructions. Is not
this a hint to us all, on authority which cannot safely be despised, that we
must look to the actual conduct and system of the early Church for a true notion
of the things pertaining to "the kingdom of GOD," of which our LORD then spake
to His Apostles. However early, on minute points, partial errors may have crept
in, is it not evident to common sense, that the system which we trace back in
the Church to the very generation next following the Apostles, must be in all
great points the very system enjoined by our LORD, and partially disclosed in
the subsequent history of His servants?

It follows, that in order to make out our SAVIOUR’S will on any point relating
to the discipline and proceedings of His Church, the first portion of Scripture
to which our attention is directed is the Acts of the holy Apostles.

Now, the very first Act of the Apostles, after CHRIST was gone out of their
sight, was that commemorated this day;—the ordination of Matthias in the room of
the traitor Judas. That ordination is related very minutely. Every particular of
it is full of instruction; but at present I wish to draw attention to one
circumstance more especially; namely, the time when it occurred. It was
contrived (if one may say so) exactly to fall within the very short interval
which elapsed between the departure of our LORD and the arrival of the Comforter
in His place: on that "little while," during which the Church was comparatively
left alone in the world. Then it was that St. Peter rose and declared with
authority that the time was come for supplying the vacancy which Judas had made.
"One," said he, "must be ordained;" and without delay they proceeded to the
ordination. Of course, St. Peter must have had from our LORD express authority
for this step. Otherwise it would seem most natural to defer a transaction so
important until the unerring Guide, the Holy Ghost, should have come among them,
as they knew He would in a few days. One the other hand, since the Apostles were
eminently Apostles of our Incarnate LORD, since their very being, as Apostles,
depended entirely on their personal mission from Him (which is the reason why
catalogues are given of them, with such scrupulous care, in so many of the holy
books):—in that regard one should naturally have expected that he Himself before
His delegation would have supplied the vacancy by personal designation. But we
see it was not His pleasure to do so. As the Apostles afterwards brought on the
ordination sooner, so He had deferred it longer than might have been expected.
Both ways it should seem as if there were a purpose of bringing the event within
those ten days, during which, as I said, the Church was left to herself; left to
exercise her faith and hope, much as Christians are left now, without any
miraculous aid or extraordinary illumination from above. Then, at that moment of
the New Testament history, in which the circumstances of believers corresponded
most nearly to what they have been since miracles and inspiration ceased—just at
that time it pleased our LORD that a fresh Apostles should be consecrated, with
authority and commission as ample as the former enjoyed. In a word, it was His
will that the eleven Disciples alone, not Himself personally, should name the
successor of Judas; and that they chose the right person, He gave testimony very
soon after, by sending His Holy Spirit on St. Matthias, as richly as one St.
John, St. James, or St. Peter.

Thus the simple consideration of the time when Matthias was ordained, confirms
two points of no small importance to the well-being of CHRIST’S kingdom on
earth. First, it shows that whoever are regularly commissioned by the Apostles,
our LORD will consider those persons as commissioned and ordained by Himself.
Secondly, it proves that such power to ordain is independent of those
apostolical functions, which may be properly called extraneous and miraculous.
It existed before those functions began; why then may it not still continue,
however entirely they have passed away?

We must not pretend to be wise above what is written; but there is, I trust,
nothing presumptuous or unscriptural in supposing that JESUS CHRIST, the great
Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, purposely abstained from nominating St.
Matthias in his life-time, in order that Christians in all times might
understand that the ordained successors of the Apostles are as truly bishops
under Him, as ever the Apostles were themselves. For this is the constant
doctrine of the ancient Church, delivered in express terms by our LORD in the
text, "Ye have not chosen me, butI have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye
should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain."

It may seem strange that our LORD should deem it necessary to guard His
Disciples against such a notion as that they had chosen Him, rather than He
them: called as they had been, when they least expected it, from their daily
employments of fishermen, publicans, and the like. But "for our sakes, no doubt,
this is written;" to check an error which CHRIST foresaw would too generally
prevail in His Church, especially in these latter days, which pride themselves
so much on light and liberty. The error I mean is, that of imagining that Church
communion is a voluntary thing, which people may adopt or no, (I will not say at
their own pleasure, though too many go as far as that, but) as they seem to find
it for the time most edifying. Another kindred notion is, that the Christian
ministry is also a voluntary thing; that there is no real difference between
clergy and laity, any more than is enacted by the law of the land for mere
decency and order’s sake; but that otherwise a man who can and will do good as a
clergyman is to all intents and purposes a clergyman enough.

These are not very uncommon notions. But take them at their best, and are they
in effect any better than as if St. Paul and the other Apostles had considered
themselves as choosing CHRIST instead of being chosen by CHRIST? He who reasons
so, is he not chargeable with setting up his own calculation against the
declared will and system of our LORD?

Hear now on the other hand the very doctrine of the Church Apostolical. JESUS
CHRIST, the chief Shepherd and Bishop, commits the pastoral office to whom He
pleases; in the first place, to His Apostles, and after them, to all whom they,
by the help of His ordinary grace, shall appoint; which latter proposition you
have just heard clearly made out from the ordination of St. Matthias. Therefore,
although there be many Bishops, yet the Episcopal office is but one. the lines
of the true Catholic Church are drawn out, as the Psalmist says, to the ends of
the world, over all lands; but trace them back, and they all meet in the same
centre, JESUS CHRIST. Therefore it isall one Church, and not a thousand
independent churches, as they would make it, who boast of choosing CHRIST,
instead of humbly and thankfully acknowledging the choice which He has made of
them, in that He has cast their lot within reach of His ministers and
sacraments. This view, so clearly deducible from the promise of our LORD, and
the conduct of His Apostles, is most unanswerably confirmed by the whole history
of the Primitive Church. Every where the Bishops were the chief pastors, and the
government and order of the Church was vested in them. To separate from them,
except they were proved grossly heretical, was accounted schism. Why? Because it
was universally understood, that the Bishops were the connecting chain which
bound the successive generations of Christians to the first generation, the holy
Apostles; nay, and to our LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself. For the believers of those
days were made to the Churchthroughthe Apostles: so that if they broke off their
connection with the Apostles, they broke off their connection with CHRIST. Would
you hear some of the very words of those holy men of old? Take the following,
which are part of a letter written by St. Ignatius, the friend of the chiefest
of the Apostles, when he was on the verge of martyrdom. They are some of his
last words, written to warn the friends for whom he was most anxious, against
the heresies which were springing up in the Church.

"By submitting yourself to your Bishop as to JESUS CHRIST, you convince me that
you guide your lives by no rule of man’s invention, but by the rule of JESUS
CHRIST, who died for us, that ye, believing in His death, might escape
altogether from death. It follows, of course, that in no part of your conduct ye
separate yourselves from your Bishop: which thing also ye now practise." No test
could be shorter or more simple. "You are in communion with your Bishop, humbly
receiving from him, or those by him deputed, the genuine word and Sacraments of
JESUS CHRIST: therefore, I make no question but you are also in communion with
our LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself; at least, as far as Church Privileges go; as far
as I or man can judge."

Surely the holy martyr, St. Ignatius, was as good a judge of what Christian
communion depends on, as any person can be supposed in our days. And we see that
he judges of it, not by those tests which we now hear most insisted on; not by
convictions, and emotions, and highly-wrought feelings; but by the simple fact
of adherence to that system, which our LORD himself has established for our
salvation. Now, we know from every page of St. Ignatius, what his view of that
system was. It was the system of Christian ordinances, administered by Bishops,
with Priests and Deacons under them. That, in the mind of St. Ignatius, was the
sure mark of the Church of GOD. Nor was this a mere private opinion of his: it
was rather the constant tradition of the Church Universal. what is very
remarkable, it was the tradition not only the sound part of the Church, but of
the heretics also. In those early days, even those who corrupted the doctrine of
the Church seldom or never dared to breathe any thing against the Apostolical
Succession of her Bishops. To do so, if they possibly could, would have been
greatly to their purpose; because one very plain argument by which their
misrepresentations of doctrine used to be confuted, was by appealing to the
traditional account of the same doctrines, preserved in many of the most famous
Churches, by means of the regular succession of Bishops. Some of the Fathers
thus reckon up the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, for more than three
hundred years, from the time of the Apostle, and are thereby enabled to trace
back as far the true interpretation of certain hard places of Scripture,
relating to the great truths of the Gospel. The heretics who disputed those
truths, no doubt, would have been too happy, could they have proved that the
chain of tradition wanted a link; that the succession from the Apostles was not
clearly made out, or that being made out, it signified nothing. But the ground
they used to take was quite different. they never dreamed of denying
thepastsuccession: it was too certainly known to be denied; but they took very
great care to secure afuturesuccession for themselves. They hardly ever broke
off from the Church, until they had got some Bishop to patronize their heresy:
through whom they might continue the Apostolical commission in a line of pastors
of their own.

Thus as well the enemies of the Church as her friends bore witness in those
early days to a truth which too many of both seem now agreed on forgetting: That
Episcopal Authority is the very bond which unites Christians to each other and
to CHRIST: so that it was apparently a kind of proverb with them,Without the
Bishop do nothing in the Church.

What is more, the teaching of the Primitive Church brought this matter home to
every man’s own soul, not only on the general ground of submission to all our
LORD’S ordinances, but because the bread and wine in the Eucharist was not
accounted the true Sacrament of CHRIST, without CHRIST’S warrant given to the
person administering: which warrant, the Fathers well knew, could only be had
through His Apostles and their successors.

Hear again the same St. Ignatius. "Let that LORD’S Supper be counted a LORD’S
Supper indeed, which is ministered by the bishop, or by one having his
commission." Observe, Ignatius, the friend of the Apostles, reckons the
Sacrament no Sacrament, if the consecrating minister want the Bishop’s
commission. Could St. Ignatius possibly mistake the mind of the Apostles on that
point, he who had conversed familiarly with them at the time when the Church was
used to "continuedailyin breaking of bread?" And with him agreed the whole
Church of GOD for the first fifteen hundred years: knowing that when our LORD
said, "Do this in remembrance of Me," His Apostles only were present; therefore
non but they and their deputies could be said to have His warrant for blessing
that bread and cup. And this is a matter pertaining to each man’s salvation. For
that bread and cup are the appointed mean, whereby the faithful are to partake
of CHRIST’S Body and Blood offered for their sins. Can any devout man,
considering this, reckon it a matter of small moment, whether the minister with
whom he communicates be a minister by apostolical succession or no? In the
judgment of the Church it makes no less difference than this: Whether the bread
and cup which he partakes of shall be to him CHRIST’S Body and Blood or no. I
repeat it: in the judgment of the Church, the Eucharist administered without
apostolical commission, may to pious minds be a very edifying ceremony, but it
is not that blessed thing which our SAVIOUR graciously meant it to be: it is not
"verily and in deed taking and receiving" the Body and Blood of Him, our
Incarnate LORD.

Even as St. Paul seems to intimate, when he so pointedly asks the Corinthians,
"The cup of blessingwhich we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of
CHRIST? The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of CHRIST?
Why such a stress on the words, "which we bless," "which we break;" except
because the Corinthians knew (and they could only know by Apostolical teaching),
that the agency of the Apostles in blessing and breaking was needed to assure us
that the holy signs really convey the thing signified?

Thus you see every thing concurs; the ordination of St. Matthias, the promise of
our LORD, the hints found elsewhere in holy Scripture, the express laws of the
Universal Church, the constant doctrine of the friends of the Apostles;—all
agree to show that Communion with GOD incarnate, such Communion as He offers in
His holy Supper, cannot be depended on without an Apostolical Ministry. To think
otherwise is the error of those, who, mixing up human inventions with the
everlasting Gospel, take upon them to "choose CHRIST," instead of humbly owning
themselves "chosen by Him," and labouring to bear fruit accordingly. But still
more fatal will beourerror, if having this high privilege, we cause it to be
reproached by our abuse or negligent using. We, by GOD’S blessing, are among
those, who, through an Apostolical Ministry, have constant access to the Body
and Blood of our REDEEMER. What if we be found no more exemplary, no humbler, no
more constant in our piety, than those whose possession of the means of grace is
so much more questionable than ours? There is a prophetic warning against such:
"You only have I know of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish
you for all your iniquities." There is also yet a more awful warning from Him
who will come to be our Judge: "Thou, Capernaum, which are exalted unto Haven,
shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works which have been done in
thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say
unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of
judgment, than for thee."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 52: 53 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.

No. V.—Thursday.

[Number 53]

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

Question from the Office of Consecration.—WILL YOU MAINTAIN AND SET FORWARD, AS
MUCH AS IN YOU LIETH, QUIETNESS, LOVE, AND PEACE, AMONG ALL MEN; AND SUCH AS BE
UNQUIET, DISOBE DIENT, AND CRIM1NOUS WITHIN YOUR DIOCESE, CORRECT AND PUNISH,
ACCORDING TO SUCH AUTHORITY AS YOU HAVE BY GOD’S WORD, AND AS TO YOU SHALL BE
COMMITTED BY THE ORDINANCES OF THIS REALM?—Ans. I WILL SO DO, BY THE HELP OF
GOD.

O GOD of peace and love, make me, thy minister, a messenger and instrument of
peace to this people to whom I am sent; that by thy gracious assistance I may
root out all strife and variance, hatred andmalice, and that this Church and
Nation may enjoy a blessed tranquillity. Bless the discipline of this Church in
my hands, and make it effectual for the conviction of wicked men and gainsayers.
Assist me, by thy good Spirit, that I may apply a proper cure to every disorder;
that I may reprove with mildness, censure with equity, and punish with
compassion.

O merciful GOD, who wouldest not the death of a sinner, but that he should be
converted and live, bring into the right way all such as are gone astray from
thy commandments. Vouchsafe unto all penitents, (and especially unto all such as
are now under the censures of the Church,) a true sense of their crimes, true
repentance for them, and thy gracious pardon, that their souls may be saved in
the day of the LORD JESUS. Amen.

Church Discipline.

However the Church be in some respects incorporated with the commonwealth in a
Christian state, yet its fundamental rights remain distinct from it; of which
this is one of the chief—to receive into, and to exclude out of the Church, such
persons which, according to the laws of the Christian Society, are fit to be
taken in, or shut out. And when temporal laws interpose, it is temporal
punishment only, which they design to inflict or set aside.Bishop Stillingfleet.

Ezekiel 2:6. "And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of
their words; thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or
whether they will forbear."

2 Corinthians 13:10. "Lest I should use sharpness, according to the power,"
(namely, of binding and loosing,) "which GOD hath given me to edification, and
not to destruction."

1 Timothy 1:20. "Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may not blaspheme."
O admirable use and command of Satan! He is GOD’S enemy, and yet does Him
service; and an adversary to man, and yet helps to save him. He is the author of
blasphemy, and yet teacheth not to blaspheme. That is, One that is stronger than
he directs his malice to ends which he did not intend. Satan is set on work to
take him down by terror and despair whom before he had tempted to sin. But while
Satan thinks to drive him to destruction by despair, GOD stops his course, when
the sinner is sufficiently humbled; and then, as it was with CHRIST, Satan is
dismissed, and Angels come and minister unto him.—Rouse.

What great man shall we now find, who will not take it ill to be reproved? and
yet David, a prince and favourite of GOD, when he was reproved, even by a
subject, did not turn away in a rage, but confessed his fault, and repented
truly of his sin.—St. Ambros. ap. David. The very office of Consecration, so
often confirmed by Acts of Parliament, does warrant every Bishop, in the
clearest and most express terms, to claim authority, by the Word of GOD, to
exercise all manner of spiritual discipline within his own diocese.—Codex Jur.
Eccl. Angl. p. 18.

Men should bepersuaded, notforced, to forsake their sins; because GOD rewards
not those who, through necessity, forsake their sins; but such as do so
voluntarily.—Chrysost. Be steady and fearless in the discharge of your duty,
without failing in that respect which is due to higher powers.

Grant, O GOD, that I may have an eye to duty only, that I may fear no temporal
evil, and be concerned only lest I should not in all respects please Thee my
GOD.

Deuteronomy 1:17. "The judgment is GOD’S." As this should oblige all people to
be afraid of a judgment or censure passed by men commissioned by GOD, so it
should make us very careful that our judgment be such as is worthy of GOD, and
agreeable to His will and Word.

1 Corinthians 16:22. "If any man love not the LORD JESUS CHRIST, let him be
Anathema Maranatha." Here is a positive direction to the Church to excommunicate
all such as plainly discover that they have no love for JESUS CHRIST,—who are
scandalous or profane.

Since we are to give an account of the souls committed to our charge, we cannot
be debarred of making use of all the means enjoined us by the Gospel to reduce
sinners.

We ought to be thankful for the favours which we have received from religious
princes; but if our benefactors require of us what is inconsistent with our
trust, we then know whom we are to obey.

2 John 1:10-11. "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive
him not into your house, neither bid him GOD speed,—for he that biddeth him GOD
speed, is partaker of his evil deeds." Not to show our abhorrence of sin, is to
con sent to it. Men do not sufficiently consider the guilt of this, when they
converse with notorious offenders without scruple. They partake with them in
their sins; they harden the sinner; they forget the fidelity they owe to GOD and
to His laws, and greatly hazard their own salvation.

Excommunication was never pronounced except where the case was desperate, by the
obstinacy of the party, in refusing admonition, and to submit to
discipline.—Penit. Disc. p. 41, 42, 75, 120.

Luke 15:22. "The Scribes and the Pharisees murmured, saying, This man receiveth
sinners, and eateth with them." On some occasions, we ought to avoid sinners,
for fear of being corrupted,—or to put them to shame, in order to their
conversion. But to converse with them, as our LORD did, in order to teach them
their duty, to encourage them in the way of piety, &c. this is Godlike.

Mark 8:33. "Get thee behind me, Satan.—Thou savourest not the things that be of
GOD, but the things that be of man." How dangerous is tenderness in matters of
salvation! To spare a penitent, is to ruin him by a fatal kindness.

How perilous is the government of the Church, wherein a man becomes guilty of
those things which he does not hinder. Revelation 2:20. "I have a few things
against thee, because thou sufferedst that woman Jezebel to teach and to seduce
my servants to commit fornication," &c. 2 Corinthians 10:4. "For the weapons of
our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through GOD, to thc pulling down of
strongholds." We surely mistake the spirit of the Gospel, when we would
establish and defend the Church by human policy, and carnal means, by friendship
of great men, credit, reputation, splendour, riches, &c. GOD will have us to use
other sort of arms, namely,—patience, humility, meekness, prayers, suffering,
and spiritual censures, to which GOD will join His own Almighty power.

All mankind are agreed that human legislatures can only dispense and make laws
in cases purely human.

(To be continued.)

OXFORD, The Feast of St. Matthias.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 53: 54 - SERMONS FOR SAINTS' DAYS AND HOLIDAYS.
========================================================================

SERMONS FOR SAINTS’ DAYS AND HOLIDAYS.

No. II, THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.

[Number 54]

"Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."—Galatians 1:8.

THIS day, though named from the Blessed Virgin, is one of the greatest festivals
of our Saviour. And, therefore, in former times the Church of England reckoned
it the beginning of her year; thereby especially giving intimation, that she
would have the whole year dedicated to JESUS CHRIST. For this day, with which
she began it, marks the time of His gracious incarnation; upon which all that we
have or hope, both in Heaven and in earth, entirely depends. For, as St. Paul
argues concerning another link in the chain of GOD’S mysterious mercy, If Christ
were not truly made man, then He did not truly die for our sins: if He did not,
then was He not raised again: and "if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain,
ye are yet in your sins." Such was the adorable will of GOD Almighty, in His
counsels for redeeming lost mankind. There was to be no communion between GOD
and man, except through the everlasting SON, Himself both GOD and man. This is
the foundation laid from the beginning, besides which no man can lay any other.
Men may think little of it, but the evil spirits know it well; and accordingly,
they have busied themselves from the beginning in nothing so much as in
perplexing the minds of the unwary with regard to the incarnation of our LORD
and SAVIOUR, and our communion with GOD through him. Church history is little
else than a record on the one hand, of their unceasing endeavours to corrupt the
Faith on these two points; on the other of His watchful Providence, meeting and
baffling them, in every age, by ways of His own, prepared also from the
beginning, for their confusion, and our trial.

One of the very chiefest of these precautions was His appointing persons in his
Church to watch the treasure of Divine Truth, to try and assay, by comparison
with it, whatever doctrines from time to time became current, and to give
notice, with all authority, wherever they found GOD’S mark wanting. To mention
no other places; our Lord himself, in the text which I considered on St.
Matthias’ day, expresses himself in this manner. "I ordained you, that you
should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain." The
Apostles were to take precautions, not only that their ministry might be
fruitful for the time, but also that it might flourish and abound for ever.
Those who work under their commission, may in virtue of this promise expect more
abiding results from their labours, than any, however zealous, who may venture
to take this honour to themselves. Not to forfeit this privilege, the holy
Apostles instituted a regular custom, according to which, in all future times
the faithful might be warned against heretical doctrines. When any new point
arose, regarding which the judgment of the Church was doubtful, reference was
made to the chief pastors or Bishops, solemnly assembled to consider the
subject; and they having thoroughly examined it, proclaimed an anathema, i. e. a
sentence of excommunication, against the teachers and maintainers of dangerous
error. For example; the very first controversy which arose in the Church related
to the question whether the whole law of Moses ought to be observed as a
condition of the Christian covenant. It was settled by the Apostles’ meeting at
Jerusalem, as you read in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts. And, being settled,
whoever contradicted it, whoever added either Moses’ law or any thing else to
the terms of salvation by Christ, and thereby began to preach a new Gospel,
other than that received at first, you hear in the text what St. Paul says of
him. "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed:" let him be anathema,
cut off from the communion of Christian people; not allowed to pray, or receive
the sacrament, in the assemblies of Christian men. Let him be, to those who obey
CHRIST, as a heathen man and a Publican." Thus speaks the Apostle of those who
should be so presumptuous as to teach the Jewish fable of the necessity of
circumcision, after the decision of the Holy Spirit by Apostolical Church had
been published. For it was published, with the utmost care, by letters and
messengers sent to all the Churches; and being so, could not be disobeyed
without wilful arrogancy and irreverence. Thus St. Paul and the rest of the
Apostles made known to the Church in all ages their right, and the right of the
Bishops, their successors, to mark out such heretics as might arise from time to
time, and put the faithful on their guard against them. And thus quite down from
the time of our LORD, the Apostolical succession of pastors has continued, as a
divinely-appointed guard, meant to secure the integrity of Apostolical doctrine.

Let us, as on this day we are bound, consider more especially what we owe to
that holy succession, in respect of that on which, as Christians, our all, as we
cannot but know, depends: I mean the true doctrine of the Incarnation of our
LORD and SAVIOUR. It may be positively said, that under Providence we owe our
inheritance of this saving doctrine to the chain of rightly-ordained Bishops,
connecting our times with the time of its first promulgation. This will be more
clearly seen, if the two following statements are considered; neither of which
can be reasonably doubted by any one who has looked much into Church history.

1. In ancient times the system of Apostolical, i.e. of episcopal anathemas, was
the Church’s main safeguard against the misinterpretations of Scripture, which
from time to time threatened to deprive her children of their faith in GOD the
SON, made man for our salvation.

2. Wheresoever in modern times the Apostolical succession has been given up,
there the true doctrine of our LORD’S incarnation has been often corrupted,
always in jeopardy.

These propositions are of course too large to be fully made out in the narrow
limits of a sermon. But a few instances of each will show what is meant, and
will serve to draw serious minds to reverential thought on the whole subject.

I. Even during the Apostolic age, there were many, who under pretence of purer
doctrine, refused to confess "JESUS CHRIST come in the flesh." This we know from
the later books of the New Testament; especially from the writings of St. John.
And by the records of the two next generations we learn that the corruptions
were of two kinds, apparently opposite. Some, out of pretended reverence for our
LORD’S Divine nature, refused to own Him, made very man for us. They would have
it, that His blessed body was no more than a dream or vision, and all that He
did here, a scene as it were enacted by the will of the Almighty to make an
impression on our minds. Others, on the contrary, denied His divine being,
pretending, no doubt, extraordinary reverence towards GOD the Father Almighty,
they would not hear the Gospel doctrine that he who is One with the FATHER, had
vouchsafed to become one of us. They would have it that the crucified Jesus was
either a mere human saint, or at best a sort of good angel. Against both these
blasphemous errors St. John himself had given warning, pronouncing as it were
the Church’s anathema beforehand. "There are many deceivers entered into the
world, who confess not JESUS CHRIST come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
anti-Christ. . . . Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of
CHRIST, hath not GOD. He that abideth in the doctrine CHRIST, he hath both the
FATHER AND THE SON. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him GOD speed. For he that biddeth
him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." However, in the next generation
after St. John, this evil leaven was still found working in the Church, and the
false teachers of both sorts still had the boldness to please Scripture, which
somehow they contrived to wrest and pervert in their own way. How were they to
be answered? How was it to be made manifest that their interpretation of
Scripture was wrong? It was done by appealing to that interpretation, which had
the warrant of the Apostles themselves. How was that interpretation known? By
its preservation in the several Churches which had been founded by the
Apostles,—Rome, Corinth, Jerusalem, and the rest. How had the right
interpretation of Scripture been preserved in each of those places? By the
succession of Bishops, each in turn handing over to the Bishop that followed him
what he had himself learned of his predecessors. The defenders of Evangelical
truth reasoned as follows:—

"The tradition of the Apostles, made known in all the world, may be clearly
discerned in every Church, by those who are willing to behold things as they
are; nay, and we are able to enumerate those whom the Apostles ordained to be
Bishops in the several Churches, along with their successors, even down to our
time, none of whom ever taught or imagined any such doctrine as the heretics, in
their frenzy, maintain. If such interpretations had been known to the Apostles,
in the manner of hidden mysteries, reserved to be taught apart to the most
perfect, surely, of all others, they to whom the Churches themselves were
committed would have had these mysteries committed to them also. For it was the
Apostles’ wish to have their successors, and those entrusted to bear sway in
their stead, complete and unblameable in every thing; whose correct demeanour
was sure to be the Church’s blessing; their fall, her extreme calamity. It were
too long, however, at present to enumerate the chains of Bishops in all the
Churches. Look at one of the greatest and ancientest, well known to all, the
Church founded and established at Rome, by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and
Paul. What tradition she received from the Apostles, and what faith, to be
preached to all men, we are able to ascertain; the same having come down to us
by the unbroken series and succession of her Bishops. And thus we confound all
those who in any way draw wrong conclusions, through self-complacency, or vain
glory, or blindness of heart and evil prejudice. For to this Church of Rome,
because of the eminent dignity" (of that city), "it cannot be but that other
Churches resort, I mean believers, from every quarter; and in the same Church,
among those so resorting, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved
entire." Thus speaks the holy Bishop and martyr IrenÊus, who lived within twenty
years of St. John himself; and, to make good his words, he proceeds to reckon up
the Bishops of Rome, from the first, appointed by the two great Apostles, to the
time of his writings—twelve in number. "By this order and succession," says
IrenÊus, "the tradition inherited by the Church from the Apostles, and the
substance of their preaching, has come down safe to our times."

Thus wrote IrenÊus, living in Gaul. And in like manner, not long after him,
Tertullian, writing against the same heretics in Africa, and defending that
doctrine of our LORD’S true Incarnation, which is the very life of the world:—
"The heretics," says he, "themselves plead Scripture. How are we to know whether
their’s is the true sense or our’s? The natural way is to look and see whether
either of the two can be traced back to the time of the Apostles. What CHRIST
revealed to them they preached; what they preached, must be known by the
testimony of those Churches which they themselves founded. If there be any
heresies claiming Apostolical antiquity, let them give account of the first
beginning of their Churches; let them unfold the roll of their Bishops, so
continued by succession from the beginning, as that their first Bishop shall
have received ordination from some Apostle or disciples of the Apostles; such a
disciple, I mean, as went out from them. For thus do the Churches which are
truly Apostolical make out, as it were, their genealogical tables: the Church of
Smyrna vouching as her first Prelate Polycarp, there established by St. John;
the Church of Rome, Clement, in like manner, ordained by St. Peter; and the
other Churches no less have each some person to name, fixed by the Apostles, as
Bishops, in each respectively; through whom each derives the seed of Apostolical
communion." Now, as Tertullian goes on to argue, "this unbroken connexion with
the Apostles was a strong pledge of their inheriting sound Apostolical doctrine,
too, except it could be proved their doctrine had varied at any time. For, as
the Apostles must have agreed with each other in their teaching, so neither
could Apostolical men have put forth doctrines contrary to the Apostles; except
that they were such as had revolted from the Apostles, and might be detected by
the diversity of their doctrine." And this would hold in each following age,
till some actual variation took place. And if it held in respect of any one
Church, how much more in respect of the combined evidence of the independent
Churches in all parts of the world, each producing their several lines of
succession, terminating in several Apostles or Apostolical men, and each
agreeing (for all material points) in the same traditionary doctrine and the
interpretation of the Scriptures! For instance, when on some occasion, as the
same Tertullian relates, the Churches of Rome and Africa "interchanged the
watchword," or, as we might say, "compared notes;" what an encouragement and
confirmation must it not have proved to both, to find themselves mutually
agreed, without previous concert, in their views of Scripture truth, and of the
system established by the Apostles. By such arguments in the first age were the
enemies of Christ’s Incarnation put to silence. It is plain, so far, how well
the Episcopal succession answered the purpose assigned to it by our LORD, of
providing that the fruit of Apostolical teaching should remain; and how
vigorously the Church’s anathema, first pronounced by St. John, was followed up,
to the confusion of those who "abode not in the doctrine of CHRIST."

Still more remarkable to the same purpose are the examples of the following age.
There, too, we find the Apostolical succession the main out-work of Apostolical
doctrine; the truth of CHRIST’S Incarnation defended, not as in the former age
by single writers appealing to the long lines of Bishops who had taught it, but
by the Bishops of the Church themselves, synodically met to pass sentence on the
questionable teaching of some of their colleagues. Being so met, they
represented not simply the judgment of the contemporary Churches, but also that
of each former generation of Christians, on the great mystery in dispute. Each
Bishop taking part in a synodical decision on those cardinal points of the
faith, was understood as avouching, besides his own opinion, the traditionary
interpretation likewise which his Church had inherited from her first founder. A
very little thought will show how greatly this adds to the support furnished by
such meetings to orthodox and saving truth. A convention of learned theologians
agreeing in their views of Scripture, would, no doubt, carry great authority. A
council of Bishops, in the third century, was such a convention, and a great
deal more: it was a collection of harmoniousindependenttestimonies to the way in
which the writers of Scripture had originally intended their writings to be
understood. The advantage of so meeting and comparing their respective
traditions, was particularly evident in those cases in which any member of their
own sacred order had countenanced, or seemed to countenance, heretical opinions.
For instances of the kind occur in the age now under consideration; the one
displaying in a peculiar way the scrupulous watchfulness of the early Church:
the other, her uncompromising firmness;—both in vindication of the pure Gospel
of GOD manifest in the flesh. The first is the case of Dionysius, Bishop of
Alexandria, one of the most famous Prelates of his time. The heresy of Sabellius
had sprung up in his province, which, under pretence of magnifying our blessed
LORD, confounded His Person with that of the Almighty FATHER, and so in fact
denied the whole economy of Salvation: maintaining that the FATHER himself was
incarnate; that He appeared on earth as the SON, and suffered on the cross for
us. Refuting these, the holy Bishop had argued from those expressions of
Scripture which represent our LORD in his human nature, as the work or creature
of GOD the FATHER. "The Incarnate SON," said he, "is not the same with the
FATHER, as the tree is not the same with the husbandman, nor the ship with the
builder." Expression surely justifiable enough, since what they affirm is found
almost word for word in our LORD’S own discourses. "I am the trueVine, and my
Father is theHusbandman." However, the expressions were misunderstood, although
from St. Dionysius’ own report it should seem that he had carefully guarded them
by the context; it was generally reported that he had used language derogatory
of the Divine honour of our LORD. A synod met a t Rome to examine the matter, on
behalf of which the then Bishop of Rome, also named Dionysius, wrote to the
Bishop of Alexandria, requesting an explanation; which he gave to the full
satisfaction of the whole Church; summing up his doctrine in these remarkable
words: "Of the names used by me to express the Divine Persons, there is none
which can be separated or divided from the other to which it is related. Thus,
suppose I speak of the FATHER; before I add the term ‘SON,’ I have implied His
existence, by using the term ‘FATHER.’ I add the term SON; though I had not
mentioned the FATHER, assuredly the idea of Him would have been comprised in
that of the SON: I join to these the ‘HOLY GHOST,’ but at the same time I annex
the thought of the fountainfromwhom and the channelbywhom He proceeds;" calling
him, as it seems, the SPIRIT of the FATHER and the SON. "Thus, on the one hand,
we do as it were expand the UNITY, without division, into a TRINITY of Persons;
on the other hand, we gather the TRINITY, without diminution, into an UNITY of
substance." This noble confession of a perfect faith we owe to the friendly
remonstrance of the assembled Bishops; and surely the advantage is great, of
such a standing guard, in enabling the Church not only to recognize and repel
her enemies, but also to know for certain those friends about whom otherwise she
might stand in doubt. If, when the excellent Bishop Taylor published his
‘Liberty of Prophesying,’ there had been a council of primitive Bishops at hand,
to warn him authoritatively of the evil consequences which heretics would
afterwards draw from some of his positions, the Church would, in all
probability, have been a gainer in two ways: first, what he had there put
incautiously would have been corrected, and the sting taken out: and next, we
might so much the more unreservedly use his authority on other points. But to
proceed with the third century:—Very soon after this friendly debate with
Dionysius, both he, and the Bishops who had remonstrated with him, and indeed
the great body of the Orthodox Prelacy, were called on to maintain the truth of
our LORD’S incarnation in another case, in which all remonstrance had failed.
This was the case of Paul of Samosata, himself also Bishop and Pastor of one of
the most renowned sees, Antioch; the only Church which at that time could
compare in dignity with Rome and Alexandria. To expose the errors of so high a
functionary, to call him to account, and finally, he continuing obstinate, to
depose him, was the work of no mean authority; especially as he had the support
of a strong political party, and used many arts which in all times have been
found popular and effective. It appears by the report of the synod of Bishops
assembled to inquire into his cause, that he delighted to resemble men of much
secular business; to have people pressing on him; to be reading letters and
dictating answers as he went along the public street. Again, in his preaching,
he constantly aimed at making a show of ingenuity, and producing a splendid
effect for the time. His action was violent and showy, and he encouraged in the
very Church, the rude expressions of applause, shaking of handkerchiefs, and the
like, which were practised in the theatres. The fathers, and their
interpretations of Scripture, he took all opportunities of disparaging, praising
himself at their expense, more like one lecturing, or telling fortunes for hire,
than like a genuine Christian Bishop. It is clear at once, what view such a
person would be likely to take of the high and mysterious doctrines of our
religion. It is no matter of surprise to find him maintaining, in opposition to
our LORD’S own words, that CHRIST was from beneath, and not from above; that he
was merely a human Prophet, not the SON of GOD come down from Heaven; that the
wisdom of the Almighty dwelt in Him as it had dwelt in former Prophets, only in
more abundant measure. In short, he held the same doctrine as those who now call
themselves Unitarians. And there is good reason to think, that he was favoured
and protected by the ruling power in the state. Zenobia, who at that time
exercised imperial sway in Syria with the title of Queen of the East, was
strongly addicted to a kind of deistical Judaism, the same in substance with his
Unitarian opinions. These few particulars may give some idea of the peril in
which the orthodox faith and true Church lay then at Antioch. But even under the
most untoward circumstances, the Bishops of the neighbouring sees assembled; and
their interference, by the blessing of GOD, was effectual in preserving their
charge from apostasy. It is worth observing how well their proceedings answer to
the line marked out in such cases by our LORD himself, in His charter of Church
censures. First, then send Paul a brotherly expostulation, telling him his fault
between them and him alone. The first sentence of this letter is much to be
noticed, not only for its calm and gentle tone, but also, for its very distinct
reference to the succession of doctrine from the Apostles as a test of truth.
"Health in CHRIST:—We have just now, by discourse with each other, satisfied
ourselves of our mutual faith. Now that every one’s mind may be clearly
disclosed, and all disputed question more completely set a t rest, we have
thought good hereby to set forth in writing the faith which we have received
from the beginning, and hold fast, handed down as it is and safely guarded in
the Catholic and holy Church, preached even to this day, through succession by
the blessed Apostles, those who were even eye-witnesses and ministers of the
word; this faith we have decreed to set forth out of the Law and the Prophets,
and the New Testament." Then having gone though a large body of Scripture
evidence for the most High Godhead of our LORD and SAVIOUR, they conclude:—
"These things, a few out of very many, we have set down, desiring to know
whether you think and teach as we do, and requesting you to signify to us your
approbation or disapprobation of what we have written." This epistle was
followed up by various conferences: but Paul yet refusing to be reclaimed, the
Bishops of Syria went to act upon the remaining part of our SAVIOUR’S enactment
in such cases: they assembled, to the number of seventy or eighty, and called on
him to "hear the Church:" which, when he refused, they formally deposed him, and
separated him from the body of Christian people, pronouncing on him the
following sentence:— "Him, thus setting himself against GOD, and refusing to
give way, we have been compelled to excommunicate, and his room to set another
as Bishop over this Catholic Church; by the providence of GOD, as we believe."
This they made known to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, and all the world
over, that they, acquiescing in the sentence pronounced, might lose no time in
writing to the new Bishop of Antioch letters of communion and acknowledgment, as
the manner of the churches then was; directing their letter, "To the Bishops of
Rome and Alexandria, and all our fellow servants throughout the world, whether
Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church under Heaven." By
the co-operation of those distant Bishops, the sentence was finally and
effectually confirmed: the Church of Antioch delivered from her unfaithful
shepherd, and the verity of our LORD’S Divine Nature passed on, as a precious
deposit, to other councils and other times.

These few brief examples,—not, it will be observed, standing apart, but taken as
what they truly are, specimens of a great and general system, continually in
action throughout the Christian world;—these few examples may serve to show how
close a connexion naturally subsists between sound doctrine and apostolical
succession in the ministry. We have seen that the one, in those primitive ages,
was constantly appealed to as no slight guarantee for the other. It could not
well be otherwise, as long as the successors of the Apostles did their duty,
originally in ordaining none but orthodox men, and afterwards in watching and
censuring (if need were) the most exalted even of their own colleagues, on
sufficient proof of defection on their part.

Two facts are quite indisputable: the first, that in those ages the Bishops and
Pastors were considered as the chosen apostolical guardians of the truth faith;
the other, that they really acted as such. Does not the conclusion irresistably
follow, that such Providence intended them to be? And can any one, knowing these
circumstances, read the peculiarly significant promises at sundry times
addressed by our LORD to His Apostles, and not perceive in the Episcopal
succession the appropriate fulfilment of those promises? For instance, " I have
chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that
your fruit should remain." "I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world." "Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it."

We have then from Scripture, the consolation of believing, that as long as we
reverence and uphold the Apostolical ministry, we are in our line and measure
"labouring together" with GOD himself. We are so far doing our humble part in
that system which the all-wise Redeemer has ordained to be the human, visible,
secondary instrument of guarding and propagating those truths, on which our
communion with Him depends. This will be seen yet more clearly, on proceeding to
examine thedoctrinalresults, such as they appear on the whole in those Churches,
which from error or necessity have parted with the Apostolical succession. This
must be attempted on some future occasion. For the present, reverting to that
ineffable mystery, from which on this day especially all our devout thoughts
should begin, and in which they should end, I would only ask one question.What
will be the feelings of a Christian, particularly of a Christian pastor, should
he find hereafter that in slighting or discouraging Apostolical claims and
views, (be the temptation what it may) he has really been helping the evil
spirit to unsettle men’s faith inTHE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD?

OXFORD, The Feast of the Purification.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 54: 55 - BISHOP WILSON'S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.
========================================================================

BISHOP WILSON’S MEDITATIONS ON HIS SACRED OFFICE.

NO. V.—THURSDAY.

[Number 55]

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

(Continued.)

There is a public absolution, which is no more than a relaxation of a censure.
There is no relation betwixt that and the absolution of sins.

GOD ratifies in heaven the judgments of His ministers on earth, when they judge
by the rules prescribed by His Word.

Whenever Church discipline meets with discountenance, impieties of all kinds are
sure to get head and abound. And impieties, unpunished, do always draw down
judgments. The same JESUS CHRIST who appointed baptism, for the receiving men
into His Church and family, has appointed excommunication to shut such out as
are judged unworthy to continue in it.

Matthew 18:16, &c. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go tell him his
fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy
brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that
in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he
shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear
the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say
unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and what
soever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." So that if baptism
be a blessing, excommunication is a real punishment: there being the same
authority for excommunication as for baptism. And if men ridicule it, they do it
at the peril of their souls. In short, this authority is necessary, if it is
necessary to pre serve the honour of religion. It is appointed by JESUS CHRIST.
The ends proposed by it are, to reform wicked men, and to remove scandals. If
the sentence is duly executed, the offender is really deprived of the ordinary
means of salvation. It is in deed a sentence passed by men, but by men
commissioned by GOD Himself; that is, by the HOLY GHOST. The authority of CHRIST
is to be respected in the meanest of His ministers.

Excommunication, the most dreadful punishment which a Christian can suffer,
becomes less feared than it ought to be, through the countenance which
excommunicated persons meet with, contrary to the express command of GOD, "With
such a one, no not to eat." A true penitent will be willing to bear the shame of
his sins (where he has given offence) before men, that he may escape the
confusion of them hereafter. But then he ought to know, that to submit to the
outward part of penance, is not to submit to GOD, unless it proceed from the
fear and love of GOD. A man may see his sin, confess it, abhor it, and yet be a
false penitent. Judas did all this. What he wanted was the grace of GOD, to see
the mercy of GOD, as well as His justice.

Those who are first to lead men into sinful courses, seldom trouble themselves
to recover them out of them. The ministers of CHRIST must do it, or they must
die in their sin.

Mark 5:4. "And they laughed him to scorn." O, my Lord and Master! let me not be
driven from my duty, by the infidelity and scoffs of the world.

How desperate soever the condition of a sinner may appear, we must neither
insult over it, nor despair of his conversion. A person who has offended and
scandalized others by his sins, ought, before he be admitted to the peace of the
Church, and to receive the Sacrament, to give some good ground of assurance, by
a sober life, that he is a true penitent.

Mark 6:1. "Shake off the dust under your feet, for a testimony against them."
Jesus CHRIST permits not His Apostles to avenge themselves by their Apostolical
power, nor even to desire that He should do it; but to leave their cause to GOD,
with full confidence in Him.

Luke 19:8. "And if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I
restore him fourfold." The judgment, which, of his own accord, this penitent
passes upon himself, will condemn those who reject all the remedies offered, and
all methods made use of, for their conversion, and who will not make the least
atonement for their crimes. Men show very plainly that they love sin, when they
will not suffer any one to put a stop to it, to remove the occasions thereof;
and to shame, to reprove, and to punish the sinner. This is a sin which draws
after it great judgments.

If a pastor hopes to do his duty without reproving the world, (without
testifying that the works thereof are evil; John 7:7.) or to reprove it without
being hated by it, he will deceive himself; he may carry it fair with men, but
will be condemned by JESUS CHRIST.

John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." They
whose duty it is to punish offenders, should take great care not to be
influenced by pride, hypocrisy, passion, false zeal, or malice; but to punish
wish reluctancy; with compassion, as having a sense of their own misery and
weakness, which, perhaps, render them more guilty in the sight of GOD. Let
Ecclesiastical Judges always remember, that the HOLY GHOST, to whom it belongs
to bind and loose, never makes Himself the minister of the passions of men.

John 12:43. "They loved the praise of men more than the glory of GOD." And this
is the cause that men count it more shameful to acknowledge their crimes than it
was to be guilty of them.

We must never insult a sinner; but, without extenuating his sin, we must comfort
him, by showing him the good which GOD may bring out of it.

Acts 8:3. "As for Saul, he made havock of the Church." The designs of GOD toward
Saul should teach us not to despair of any man’s conversion, but to pray for it,
and to use our best endeavours, instead of being angry, and using them ill.

Acts 9:9. "And Saul was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor
drink." JESUS CHRIST Himself, in this instance, teaches His ministers not to be
too hasty in receiving penitents, but to let them fast and pray, and bear the
sense of their sin, and of their bad condition, before they be reconciled. It
teaches penitents to fast and pray, and to bear with patience the fruit of their
own doings,

Acts 19:18. "Many that believed, came and confessed their deeds," &c. The Spirit
of Grace always inclines men toconfesstheir evil deeds, and humble themselves
for their sins. There could not be a more shameful one than dealing with the
devil, &c. yet this did not hinder them,—or from sacrificing the most valuable
things that had been instruments in their wickedness. This is a proof of a true
conversion, &c. The fall of others, is for us a great instruction, and a lesson
which we ought to study, not in order to insult our neighbour, but to fear for,
and amend, ourselves.

Let us not despise any sinner. GOD has sometimes very great designs in relation
to those who are at present most opposite to Him. To reprove, when persons are
not in a proper disposition for amendment, would be to give both them and
ourselves trouble without any prospect of advantage. To make reproof beneficial,
they to whom it is given should see that it does not proceed from humour, or
from a design to vex them, but from a true zeal and love for their souls. A true
charity will never insult those that are gone astray, but will use the greatest
sinners mildly, lest they should be driven to despair by too great severity. The
Church forgives sins "in the person of CHRIST" (2 Corinthians 2:10) She remits
the temporal punishment of them also, be cause CHRIST is the Sovereign High
Priest, and because it belongs to GOD alone to recede from the strictness of His
justice, in what manner He thinks fit. An ecclesiastical governor should
endeavour to preserve discipline, and the esteem of his people, at the same
time, by acts of tenderness, &c.

2 Corinthians 10:8. "For though I should boast of my authority, (which the LORD
hath given us for edification, and not for destruction,) I should not be
ashamed." It is necessary, sometimes, to extol the dignity of our office. N. B.
Pastors are appointed by CHRIST to edify the Church; they must, therefore, be
honoured and obeyed. The disorders which a good pastor observes in his flock,
will always be matter of humiliation to him, because he will always impute them
to himself. A pastor, a priest, who does not, with tears and supplications,
bewail the sins of his people, cannot call himself their mediator with GOD.

It is the greatest comfort of a good pastor, to feel himself obliged to use
nothing but good advice, and the mild part only of his authority; but when that
will not do, he must "use sharpness;" but still, with this view, that it be for
their edification, not for their destruction.

It seldom happens that great men, whether clergy or laity, reform their lives,
because they seldom meet with persons of courage to oppose them, or to tell them
of their faults. A Bishop who is not restrained by any earthly engagements, will
not spare any man whose conduct is prejudicial to the faith.

Galatians 5:12. "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." To wish
shame, or some temporal evil, for the salvation of our neighbour’s soul, is not
contrary to charity. It seems, matters were come to a great height of evil, when
St. Paul was forced to wish that to be done, which he did not, in prudence,
think fit to do.

Sir 8:5. "Reproach not a man that turneth from sin, but remember that we are all
worthy of punishment."

2 Thessalonians 3:6. "Now we command you," (and the same authority subsists
still in the governors of the Church,) "in the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly," &c.
Nothing is there which the faithful ought more carefully to avoid, than
disorderly livers,—nothing which pastors ought more earnestly to warn their
flocks of. May I ever observe the rules of an holy and charitable severity.

2 Thessalonians 3:14. "And if any man obey not our word, note that man, and have
no company with him, that he may be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but
admonish him as a brother." Excommunication is only for the contumacious,— not
to insult, but to cure.

1 Timothy 5:19. "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or
three witnesses." A pastor ought not lightly to be exposed to the revenge of
those, whom it is probable he has, or shall have, occasion to reprove.

1 Timothy 5:20. "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
That is, who sin grievously and are convinced before two or three witnesses—let
such be censured, before, or by the consent of, all the congregation.

2 Timothy 2:25. "In meekness instructing," (reproving) " those that oppose
themselves,—if GOD peradventure will give them repentance," &c. When we consider
that repentance is the gift of GOD—that the wiles of the devil are many, and
corruption of nature very strong, we shall compassionate instead of insulting a
sinner. We shall adore the mercy of GOD towards ourselves, and hope for it for
others. We shall tear for ourselves, and pray for them. They may recover, and be
saved. We may fall, and be lost for ever. When men will not take care of their
own salvation, the Church owes this care to her children, to hinder them as much
as possible from ruining others.

If excommunication is perpetual, it is caused by the obstinacy of the offender,
not by the laws of CHRIST, or His Church, which only deprives wicked men of the
benefit of communion for a time, to bring them to a sense of their duty. Church
discipline is for the honour of GOD, for the safety of religion, the good of
sinners, and for the public weal—that Christians may not run headlong to ruin
without being made sensible of their danger,—that others may see, and fear, and
not go on presumptuously in their evil ways,—that the house of GOD may not
become a den of thieves, —and that judgments may not be poured down upon the
whole community. Joshua 22:20. Did not Achan commit a trespass, and wrath fell
on all the congregation? The most effectual way of answering these ends is, to
exercise strict impartial discipline. First, to withhold from Christians the
benefit of the Holy Sacrament, till they behave themselves so as to be worthy of
so great a blessing. And, secondly, if they continue obstinate, (all proper
methods being used to reclaim them,) to excommunicate them; and to oblige all
sober Christians not to hold familiar conversation with them. But first of all,
Christians should be made sensible of what blessings they are deprived, when
they are debarred the communion,—even the greatest on earth; without which they
can have no hopes of salvation, but must perish eternally, John 6:53.

He that understands and believes this, will submit to any hardships, rather than
incur, rather than continue under, a sentence so full of terror; and a sentence
passed by one commissioned by GOD; and bound, at the peril of his soul, to pass
it, it being the greatest indignity to CHRIST and the divine ordinance, to
prostitute the body and blood of CHRIST, to notorious evil livers. GOD has
therefore lodged a power in the pastors of His Church, to repel all such; and it
is a mercy even to them to be hindered from increasing their guilt and their
damnation. Nor can any prince, governor, nor human law, hinder a Christian
Bishop from exercising this power, because he is under an obligation to the KING
of kings and LORD of lords to do his duty in this respect. Nor must it be
pretended, that the punishment which Christian Magistrates inflict may supersede
this discipline. Those punishments only affect the body, and keep the outward
man in order. These are designed to purify the soul, and to save that from
destruction. Excommunication, as St. Paul tells us, (1 Corinthians 5:5) is "for
the destruction of the flesh, that the soul may be saved;" that is, to mortify
the corruption of nature, lust, pride, intemperance, &c.; this being the only
way to save the soul of the sinner, and to bring him to reason, that is, to
repentance. For upon a sinner’s repentance, (unless where he has incurred the
sentence more than once,) the Church is ready to receive him into her bosom,
with open arms. But then by repentance must be understood,nota bare change of
mind; not an acknowledgment of the sin and scandal; not a serious behaviour for
a few days;—all which may soon wear off; but, a course of public trial of
sincerity, such as may satisfy a man’s self, and all sober Christians, that the
sinner is a true penitent: that he has forsaken all his evil ways, evil company,
evil habits; that he is grown habitually serious, devout and religious,—and that
by fasting and prayer, he has, in some good measure, got the mastery of his
corrupt nature, and has begun a repentance not to be repented of. For want of
this care and method, many Christians are ruined eternally. They sin and repent,
and sin again, and think all is safe, because they have repented, as they think,
and are pardoned.

There are people who are in the same sad case with those that stand
excommunicated, though no sentence has passed upon them, namely, such as live in
a contempt of the public worship of GOD. They cannot properly be turned out of
the Church, who never come into it, but they keep themselves out of the ark, and
consequently must perish.

Excommunication, in the primitive times, was pronounced in the congregation to
which the offender belonged. After which, they gave notice to all other
Churches; namely, ‘let no temple of GOD be open to him, let none converse with
him, &c.

2 Samuel 12:13-14. "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD.
And Nathan said, the LORD also hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die.
Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the
LORD to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall surely die." The
divine justice punisheth every sin, either in this world or in the next. A
sinner’s willingness to undergo any punishment which shall be appointed by the
minister of GOD, in order to make proof of, and to establish his repentance, is
a sure sign that GOD has not withdrawn his grace, notwithstanding his sin.

(To be continued.)

OXFORD, The Feast of the Annunciation.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/newman-john-h-tracts/
========================================================================