Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

ANNOTATIONS.

'It is a happy thing when Religion is well contained within the true bond of unity."

2

It is, therefore, very important to have a clear notion of the nature of the christian unity spoken of in the Scriptures, and to understand in what this 'true bond of unity' consists, so often alluded to and earnestly dwelt on by our Sacred Writers. The unity they speak of does not mean agreement in doctrine, nor yet concord and mutual good will; though these are strongly insisted on by the apostles. Nor, again, does it mean that all Christians belong, or ought to belong, to some one society on earth. This is what the apostles never aimed at, and what never was actually the state of things, from the time that the christian religion extended beyond the city of Jerusalem. The Church is undoubtedly one, and so is the human race one; but not as a society or community, for, as such, it is only one when considered as to its future existence. The teaching of Scripture clearly is, that believers on earth are part of a great society (church or congregation), of which the Head is in heaven, and of which many of the members only 'live unto God,' or exist in his counsels, some having long since departed, and some being not yet born. The universal Church of Christ may therefore be said to be ONE in reference to HIM, its supreme Head in heaven; but it is not one community on earth. And even so the human race is one in respect of the One Creator and Governor; but this does not make it one family or one state. And though all men are bound to live in peace, and to be kindly disposed towards every fellow creature, and all bound to agree in thinking and doing whatever is right, yet they are not at all bound to live under one single government, extending over the whole world. Nor, again, are all nations bound to have the same form of government, regal or republican, &c. That is a matter left to their discretion. But all are bound to do their best to promote the great objects for which all government is instituted,-good order, justice, and public prosperity.

1 Great part of what follows is extracted from a Charge of some years back. * See Bishop Hind's History of the Origin of Christianity.

And even so the Apostles founded christian churches, all based on the same principles, all sharing common privileges,'One Lord, one faith, one baptism,'-and all having the same object in view, but all quite independent of each other. And while, by the inspiration of Him who knew what was in Man, they delineated those christian principles which Man could not have devised for himself, each Church has been left, by the same divine foresight, to make the application of those principles in its symbols, its forms of worship, and its ecclesiastical regulations; and, while steering its course by the chart and compass which his holy Word supplies, to regulate for itself the sails and rudder, according to the winds and currents it may meet with.

Now, I have little doubt that the sort of variation resulting from this independence and freedom, so far from breaking the bond, is the best preservative of it. A number of neighbouring families, living in perfect unity, will be thrown into discord as soon as you compel them to form one family, and to observe in things intrinsically indifferent, the same rules. One, for instance, likes early hours, and another late; one likes the windows open, and another shut; and thus, by being brought too close together, they are driven into ill-will, by one being perpetually forced to give way to another. Of this character were the disputations which arose (though they subsequently assumed a different character) about church music, the posture of the communicants, the colours of a minister's dress, the time of keeping Easter, &c.

This independence of each Church is not to be confounded with the error of leaving too much to individual discretion of the minister or members of each Church. To have absolutely no terms of communion at all,-no tests of the fitness of any one to be received as a member, or a minister of each Church respectively, would be to renounce entirely the character of a christian Church; since of such a body it is plain that a Jew, a Polytheist, or an Atheist might, quite as consistently as a Christian, be a member, or even a governor. And though the Scriptures, and the Scriptures only, are to be appealed to for a decision on questions of doctrine, yet to have (as some have wildly proposed) no test of communion but the very words of Scripture, would be scarcely less extravagant than having no

[graphic]

test at all, since there is no one professing Christianity who does not maintain that his sentiments are in accordance with the true meaning of Scripture, however absurd or pernicious these sentiments may really be. For it is notorious that Scripture itself is at least as liable as human formularies (and indeed more so) to have forced interpretations put on its language.

Accordingly, there is no Christian community which does not, in some way or other, apply some other test besides the very words of Scripture. Some Churches, indeed, do not reduce any such test to writing, or express it in any fixed form, so as to enable every one to know beforehand precisely how much he will be required to bind himself to. But, nevertheless, these Churches do apply a test, and very often a much more stringent, elaborate, and minute test than our Liturgy and Articles. In such communities, the candidate pastor of a congregation is not, to be sure, called on to subscribe in writing a definite confession of faith, drawn up by learned and pious persons after mature deliberation, and publicly set forth by common authority, but he is called upon to converse with the leading members of the congregation, and satisfy them as to the soundness of his views; not, of course, by merely repeating texts of Scripture-which a man of any views might do, and do honestly; but by explaining the sense in which he understands the Scriptures. Thus, instead of subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles, he subscribes the sentiments of the leading members— for the time being-of that particular congregation over which he is to be placed as teacher.1

And thus it is that tests of some kind or other, written or unwritten (that is, transmitted by oral tradition), fixed for the whole Body, or variable, according to the discretion of particular governors, are and must be, used in every Christian Church. This is doing no more than is evidently allowable and expedient. But it is quite otherwise when any Church, by an unwarrantable assumption, requires all who would claim

1 Cautions for the Times, page 451. I have known, accordingly, a minister of a continental Protestant Church strongly object to all subscriptions to Articles, saying, that a man should only be called on to profess his belief in Jesus Christ; and yet, a few minutes afterwards, denouncing as a 'Rationalist' another Protestant minister.

the christian name to assent to her doctrines and conform to her worship, whether they approve of them or not,-to renounce all exercise of their own judgment, and to profess belief in whatever the Church has received or may hereafter receive.

'The religion of the heathen consisted rather in rites and ceremonies than in any constant religious belief. .. But the true God hath this attribute,' &c.

Bacon here notices the characteristic that distinguishes the Christian religion from the religion of the heathen. The religion of the heathen not only was not true, but was not even supported as true; it not only deserved no belief, but it demanded none. The very pretension to truth-the very demand of faith-were characteristic distinctions of Christianity. It is Truth resting on evidence, and requiring belief in it, on the ground of its truth. The first object, therefore, of the adherents of such a religion must be that Truth which its divine Author pointed out as defining the very nature of his kingdom, of his objects, and of his claims. For this cause came I into the world, that I might bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." And if Truth could be universally attained, Unity would be attained also, since Truth is one. On the other hand, Unity may conceivably be attained by agreement in error; so that while by the universal adoption of a right faith, unity would be secured, incidentally, the attainment of unity would be no security for truth.

[ocr errors]

It is in relation to the paramount claim of truth that the view we have given of the real meaning of Church Unity in Scripture is of so much importance; for the mistake of representing it as consisting in having one community on earth, to which all Christians belong, or ought to belong, and to whose government all are bound to submit, has led to truth being made the secondary, and not the paramount, object.

What the Romanist means by renouncing 'private judgment' and adhering to the decisions of the Church is, substantially, what many Protestants express by saying, 'We make truth the first and paramount object, and the others, unity.' The two expressions, when rightly understood, denote the same; but

1 John xviii. 37.

they each require some explanation to prevent their being understood incorrectly, and even unfairly.

A Roman Catholic does exercise private judgment, once for all, if (not through carelessness, but on earnest and solemn deliberation) he resolves to place himself completely under the guidance of that Church (as represented by his priest) which he judges to have been divinely appointed for that purpose. And in so doing he considers himself, not as manifesting indifference about truth, but as taking the way by which he will attain either complete and universal religious truth, or at least a greater amount of it than could have been attained otherwise. To speak of such a person as indifferent about truth, would be not only uncharitable, but also as unreasonable as to suppose a man indifferent about his health, or about his property, because, distrusting his own judgment on points of medicine or of law, he places himself under the direction of those whom he has judged to be the most trustworthy physician and lawyer.

On the other hand, a Protestant, in advocating private judgment, does not, as some have represented, necessarily maintain that every man should set himself to study and interpret for himself the Scriptures (which, we should recollect, are written in the Hebrew and Greek languages), without seeking or accepting aid from any instructors, whether under the title of translators (for a translator, who claims no inspiration, is, manifestly, a human instructor of the people as to the sense of Scripture), or whether called commentators, preachers, or by whatever other name. Indeed, considering the multitude of tracts, commentaries, expositions, and discourses of various forms, that have been put forth and assiduously circulated by Protestants of all denominations, for the avowed purpose (be it well or ill executed) of giving religious instruction, it is really strange that such an interpretation as I have alluded to should ever have been put on the phrase 'private judgment.' For, to advert to a parallel case of daily occurrence, all would recommend a student of mathematics, for instance, or of any branch of natural philosophy, to seek the aid of a well-qualified professor or tutor. And yet he would be thought to have studied in vain, if he should ever think of taking on trust any mathematical or physical truth on the word of his instructors. It is, on the contrary, their part to teach him how-by demonstration or by experiment-to verify each point for himself.

« AnteriorContinuar »