Page images
PDF
EPUB

when the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ, Christ is worshipped, it follows that when no such physical change takes place, and Christ has therefore not taken possession of this morsel, any adoration then paid, is to the mere work of men's hands,'—if the Scripture be true, this is Idolatry.

"Now that such defects, especially in the intention of the priest, do occur, proving an absence of Transubstantiation on these occasions, the nature of the case alone would render probable; but that it is an established fact is shown from the cases of many priests who have abandoned the communion of the Church of Rome, and who had previously disbelieved her doctrines for some time, and as they have declared themselves, did not, on several occasions, intend to consecrate the elements, and felt that such a thing in the sense attributed by the Council of Trent was impossible. We ask were the people guilty of idolatry in such cases?-The answer that we receive exhibits the strength of our argument on this point;-it is asserted that there can be no idolatry where there is no intention to commit it; now this view sanctions every instance of idolatry ever detailed either in sacred or general history-the veriest heathen is hereby declared a true worshipper, for he never had the intention of committing idolatry; the heathen might assert as their excuse that they thought there was a God in the wood or stone before which they bowed, and why not, (tell me,) with as good and plausible reason as the Romanist? But let us come to a remarkable illustration of this in 'the law and the testimony,' Exod. xxxii.—Aaron was induced by the pressure and intreaties of the people to make a golden calf;-the people did not intend to worship the mere calf itself, for Aaron after building an altar before it, made proclamation, to-morrow is a feast to the Lord,' and yet for this act of idolatry there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.'"-(pp. 44, 45.)

[ocr errors]

WHAT IS A CHURCH? A Sermon. By RICHARD WILSON, D. D., late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, &c. London: Hatchards. 1846.

ANTI-TRACTARIAN TRACTS. By the Rev. J. SPURGIN, Vicar of Hockham. No. I. On Church Government. London: Seeleys. 1845.

THE first of these publications disappoints the reader. Its title naturally raises expectations, that the question stated is about to be discussed. But in the discourse itself no such discussion is found. Thus he who opens it with his mind in a state of doubt, as to "What is a church?"-will find himself, in the perusal of it, not advanced one single step nearer a solution.

Mr. Spurgin's tract is much more effective. The point at which he labours, is to shew,-adopting Bishop Stillingfleet's words,"that the most eminent Divines of the Reformation never did con"ceive any one form of Church Government to be necessary." And it cannot be denied that he has gathered into one view, a great body of testimony, from the most distinguished men in our Church during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in support of the view, that "No form of Church government is, by the Scripture, prescribed to, or commanded the Church of God." (Abp. Whitgift.)

[ocr errors]

We remarked in our number for last November, on some of the faults of Mr. Palmer's Treatise on the Church. The first, and most inexcusable, as we then remarked, is, that he avoids,-we fear, designedly, to explain, at starting, what his subject really is. He talks of definitions;-he offers five ;-but forgets, after all, to state which of the five he selects as furnishing the subject of his Treatise. Thus, in fact, after promising to define his subject, he wholly evades this duty; and passes on, rapidly, to talk about "the Church," before he has informed his readers in which of these five different senses he means to employ that term.

The real subject of Mr. Palmer's book, however, is, the Visible Church of Christ, or, the Catholic Church. But it would not have answered his purpose to state this in plain terms; because, had he done so, some of his assertions would have revolted any ordinary reader. For instance, speaking of the Foreign Reformed Churches, he says, "The Lutheran and Calvinistic societies were "not properly churches of Christ." (Vol. I. p. 383.) "English dissenters could not have been any part of the Church "of Christ, nor were they capable of forming Christian churches."

"The

(Vol. I. p. 404.) "The Presbyterians of Scotland voluntarily "separated themselves from the Catholic Church "

"form no part of the Church of Christ." (Vol. I. p. 577.)

[ocr errors]

they

These passages explain why the subject under consideration was not stated to be, "the visible church," or "the catholic church." Had this been given as the topic, in the first instance, it would have been scarcely possible, with a serious face, to declare the Church of Scotland, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Holland, and many others, to form no portion of "the visible church." But by using the uncertain term, " the Church of Christ," a way is opened for these sentences of excommunication, with less appearance of intolerance or absurdity.

66

[ocr errors]

:-

After all, however, when we speak of "the Church of Christ," we must adopt one of these two of Mr. Palmer's definitions :"the whole Christian body or society, considered as composed of "its vital and essential members, the elect and sanctified children of God"-or,-the whole society of Christians throughout the world, including all who profess their belief in Christ, and are "subject to lawful pastors.' (Vol. I. p. 4). We repeat,-when we speak of the Church of Christ, we must mean one of these two things, and we cannot mean both of them at the same time. We speak either of the Visible or Catholic Church, or of the Invisible or Spiritual Church. But Mr. Palmer's book treats of the Visible or Catholic Church;-not of the Invisible. And we shall proceed to shew, that, so viewed, his descriptions and boundary marks are all erroneous.

[ocr errors]

The Visible or Catholic Church is variously described in Scripture. St. Paul writes to one church,-Ephesus,-where he had set in authority a bishop chosen by himself, and to whom he gives full directions how to behave himself" in "the church of the living God" (1 Tim. iii. 15). But he writes to another, -Corinth,wherein it is clear that no such government existed; for he complains of their strife and divisions (1 Cor. i. 12), and requires their "submission," not to any one bishop, but to various persons commended by him (1 Cor. xvi. 10-16). In Crete he places a bishop, Titus :--but to Philippi he writes, saluting the "bishops and deacons," and distinguishing no presiding authority. In like manner St. John addresses, in each of the Asiatic churches, the elder, or bishop. But he condemns more than one of these churches, bishop and people, as "dead," " lukewarm," and in danger of utter condemnation. And in another place, he speaks of Diotrephes, the ruler or bishop of a church, as a tyrannical and persecuting despot. Thus, we find in the New Testament, various outlines of church government; and we find also churches, ad

dressed as such by apostles themselves, sometimes in danger of Divine rejection, and sometimes ruled over by capricious tyrants.

As a general result, then, we may say, that the apostles did not speak of the Visible Church as consisting solely of pure and holy members or as governed and guided by any one model or system of discipline or government. On the contrary, sometimes the bulk of the members are blamed,-sometimes the ruler or overseer; And there are tolerably clear indications of different systems and modes of organization, in different churches. Hence we should say, that the idea of the Visible or Catholic Church, which we gather from Scripture, is merely that of the baptized professors in every place, who, under various circumstances, publicly adhered to Christ as their Lord.

Mr. Palmer, however, constructs a variety of conditions, by the operation of which he excludes almost all the Reformed Churches. Thus he says, "Every Church of Christ must be able to prove, "that it perpetually existed as a Christian society from the apos"tolic times, or that when founded, it was derived peaceably from "the apostolic churches; or was received and acknowledged as a "Church by such."-(Vol. I. p. 383.)

"It is as impossible that there should be two particular churches "in the same place, as two universal churches in the world."(Vol. I. p. 68.)

"If it can be shewn, that any society of professing Christians "was originally founded by the apostles, or the churches they in"stituted; that this society has been always visible; that it has "never voluntarily separated itself from the great body of the "church, or was excommunicated by any regular or valid judg"ment, then it follows that such a society must be a portion of "the Church of Christ, as far as it can be proved such from the "unity of communion."-(Vol. I. p. 71.)

The drift of all these provisos evidently is, to remove the question from the ground of doctrine, on which our Church places it, -and to involve us in "endless genealogies."

But it is very strange that the principal and leading definition given by our Church, of the term "CATHOLIC CHURCH"-should be constantly overlooked by Mr. Palmer and all his friends. It

runs thus:

may

"We pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church; that it be guided and governed by thy 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."

"

[blocks in formation]

Thus we perceive, beyond doubt or dispute, from the language of the framers of our Liturgy:

1. That our Church considers the Catholic Church to be formed of" all who profess and call themselves Christians."

2. That she considers them to be not all in "the way of truth," nor all "holding the faith;"-but prays that they may be led into that way, and brought to hold that faith.

3. That she prays also that they be brought to hold the faith "in unity of spirit, and in the bond of peace." But she does not even ask, that they may be brought into unity of external form, or under the bond of an infallible authority.

Now all this is in admirable agreement with the language of our Article; which in defining the visible Church of Christ, and declaring who are lawful ministers, is careful to avoid all condemnation of Churches" less perfectly organized" than our own.

« PreviousContinue »