Images de page
PDF
ePub

world would have accorded as his right, and only reinstated because the scorn of Europe would have followed his dismissal, and the hearty welcome of true fellowship would have awaited the aged philosopher wherever science is known or manhood respected ;-we have seen Michelet, and Cousin, and Victor Hugo under the ban of the new Imperial despotism-the free thought and the free press of the nation utterly prostrated, and Government, by a standing army, professedly established, and actually realized.

France has never known the value of free speech, nor the inestimable safety of free public meeting in any number of speakers or auditors. All the rulers that France has ever had have been tinged with the insane propensity to govern, as if they knew every man's business better than he does himself. "The king reigns, but does not govern," is the universal deliverance of all free nations; and if France will not, or cannot, learn this most necessary truth, she must blunder on, with Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other-the iron rock of despotism, or the whirlpool of revolution. Even under Louis Philippe's Government-which was the only approach to a constitutional government that France has ever had-twenty persons dared not meet together to talk over their grievances without the interference of the police; and now the very shadow of liberty would be shot at, because, forsooth, the Emperor wills it so. Were we in France, instead of in Britain, we dare not address our readers as we have done, and they dare not peruse our essay. should be arrested, and they would be dispersed at the point of the Emperor's bayonets. The practical question is always the real question at last; and the fact is, that we have such a habitual enjoyment of practical liberty in this country, that we are apt to look on it as a matter of course-to forget its value, and

We

to forget the struggles by which it was purchased by our forefathers. Liberty is almost a worn-out theme; it excites no emotion, because it incurs no danger; and as a force can never exhibit its power except when it meets with opposition, so the love of liberty lies dormant with us, because, if brought into play, it would only vaguely battle in a boundless atmosphere where nothing opposed its progress. But if we were in Spain, or Italy, or France, or Catholic Germany, we should find ourselves very inconveniently walled up by restrictions which would make our British blood boil with indignation, and our British memories revert to the customs of our home. We should see in Spain the schools of medi cine shut up in 1830, because they created materialists, heretics, and revolutionists-so at least said the priests and Ferdinand VII.; --we should see in France the whole press muzzled, the sword triumphant, and the people prostrate the little Protestant congregations of the South suppressed and abolished -and all that can be called liberty, absolutely extinguished; we should see in Romanist Germany, Gervinus sentenced to imprisonment for writing a philosophical treatise on the political tendencies of the age;-and in that blessed land of darkness called Italy, where bigotry is still backed by the despotic power of the civil ruler, we should see Francesco and Rosa Madiai shut up in a dungeon, for the unpardonable offence of reading their Bible. On the whole, therefore, we have some reason to congratulate ourselves that Britain is Britain, and not France-not Spain-not Baden-not Tuscany, but Britain; and some reason to remember that Britain is Britain, because there were men in other days who, animated by the immortal genius of patriotism, flung their all into their country's cause, and stood or fell for their country's honour.

Ecclesiastical Affairs.

THE CHURCH AND HER MINISTERS.

How frequently do we hear of the Church! The church is mentioned every day throughout the country, and in almost every part of the world. Nor is this wonderful, when we consider what great things God has spoken of his church in reference to time and eternity. How much is implied in the words of the Apostle, when he says of the Most High, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end," Eph. iii. 21. God is glorified in the church when her members are "rooted and grounded in love;" when "Christ dwells in their hearts by faith;" and "when they are strengthened with

might by his Spirit in the inner man," Eph. iii. 16, 17. He is glorified when his people "comprehend, with all saints, and know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, so as to be "filled with all the fulness of God," Eph. iii. 18, 19. We read that "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it;" and thus "present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish," Eph. v. 25-27.

Such is the "church of the living God," to whom it is said, "The Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and

was

all kings thy glory; and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name," Isa. Ixii. 2. And when was this prophecy fulfilled, but when Barnabas and Saul spent a whole year at Antioch, where they "taught a great multitude," and where "the disciples were first called Christians," Acts xi. 26. There Barnabas "saw the grace of God," and glad," while "much people was added unto the Lord," the Head of "his body," the church," and "the shepherd and bishop of souls." But though such was the character of the church, when under the guidance of the apostles, St. Paul foretold the rise of Antichrist, when there would be "a falling away' from her original purity and simplicity; when many would "depart from the faith" once delivered to the saints,

66

[ocr errors]

'giving heed to seducing spirits," or false teachers. In describing these, he observes that they would "forbid to marry, and command to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth," 1 Tim. iv. 1-3. Let us, therefore, contemplate the church and her ministers in primitive times, that we may see how she afterwards fell from her original state, so as to need that reformation for which the faithful sighed in vain, but which she at length obtained by the instrumentality of Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome of Prague, Luther, and other holy men of blessed and immortal memory.

In speaking of the church, we find that the term ecclesia, most frequently translated church, in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles is translated "assembly." There it evidently signifies an assembly of the people, whether lawful or unlawful. In the New Testament, however, it generally denotes a single congregation of Christians, or society of the faithful in Christ; as, "the church at Jerusalem, the church at Antioch, the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria," who are spoken of as "walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit," Acts ix. 31. Now Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, were provinces, or countries; but we never read of the church of Judea, or the church of Samaria, or the church of Galilee, as we elsewhere read of "the Church of England," and "the Church of Scotland." No one, therefore, can

But

plead the authority of the New Testament for national churches, as we can plead that authority for such as are congregational. Nor can it be proved, from the New Testament, that the word church ever signifies either the clergy, or the place in which Christians assemble to worship God, and hear the Gospel preached; although some have been, and perhaps still are, of a different opinion. Well aware of the improper use of the term church in his time, Tyndale rejected it altogether, and invariably rendered the original word, congregation. Thus, in his translation of the New Testament, we read, concerning an offending brother, "If he hear not them, tell it unto the congregation; and if he hear not the congregation, take him as an heathen man, and a publican," Matt. xviii. 17. In like manner we read, in this venerable translation, "Paul, by vocation the Apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and brother Sostenes, unto the congregation of God which is at Corinthum;" and "Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the congregation of the Thessalonians, in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ." while the term church, in the New Testament, most frequently signifies a distinct congregation of professing Christians, it also means the whole body of believers in Christ, of whatever nation. Thus it is said of our blessed Lord, that "he is the head of the body, the church, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence," Col. i. 18. This is what we call the church militant, as all her members have to "fight the good fight of faith," in order to "long hold on eternal life," whereunto they are called. This general body of professing Christians is called the visible church, because it appears in the world as a witness for God, and Christ, and the religion of the Gospel, which all men ought to embrace and profess. It is also called the Catholic or universal church, because every particular church of true believers makes a part of it, and because Christ is the centre of unity, to whom all his true disciples are gathered by the preaching of the Gospel, and united by faith and love. Christ is the head of his followers, and they are in some happy measure acquainted with his character, and with their duty towards him. To him they look as their common Lord, Redeemer, and Saviour, saying, with

[blocks in formation]

was originally but one society, or congregation, without any control over others, as is evident from the epistle of Clement, one of her early bishops, or elders, to the church at Corinth. In writing to that church, Clement assumes no authority over it. He treats it as perfectly independent of his own, exhorting and beseeching its members, with all humility, calling upon them to obey the word of the Lord, and to follow those examples of piety which are found in the Holy Scriptures. In that epistle Clement never speaks of the church at Corinth as part of the Church of Rome, nor does he call its members Roman Catholics. There is nothing of the kind in any part of his epistle. And, indeed, how could the Church of Rome exist out of Rome? or what right could she have to give her name to a Christian church in any other city or country? She had no more right to do this than the church of Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, or Tyre had; none of which churches probably ever thought of doing so. And it is very likely that, when missionaries from Rome were at first instrumental in forming churches in other cities and countries, as they were in Britain, the name of the mother church was given to none of them, and that they bare no other names than those of Christ, and of the places in which they assembled.

Now, while we deny that the Church of Rome either is, or can be, the catholic or universal church, we are of opinion that the church is not built upon St. Peter more than upon the rest of the apostles. In support of this opinion we refer to the words of St. Paul, where he says to the Ephesians, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone," Eph. ii. 20. But it may be said, Does not our Lord express himself thus: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church? ?" Such, undoubtedly, are the words of

[ocr errors]

Christ; but what does he mean by "this rock?" He means, I am persuaded, the truth which Peter had just confessed. Our Lord had asked his dsciples, "Whom say ye what I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Then, in allusion to Peter's name, which signifies "a stone,' or a rock, his Divine Master said, "Upon this rock" (meaning that which Peter had pointed out by his confession) "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now the doctrine of Peter was also that of the other apostles; and hence we read of "the new Jerusalem," or the Christian church, as having "twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb," Rev. xxi. 14. What can be more childish, senseless, and unscriptural, than the notion, that the church universal rests upon the person or authority of a mere man? On the contrary, the church is gathered in the name, and by the authority of Christ. She stands on the atonement, and rests upon the merits of her Redeemer, for her being and well-being, for the favour of God, and for life everlasting. Hence "the gates of hell," the power of death, and the invisible world prevail not against her, so as to swallow her up. But if our Lord did speak of Peter in a personal sense, and not of the truth which he confessed, where was the foundation of the church after Peter's death? We know that when he died the gates of the unseen world, or state of the dead, opened to receive him, and prevailed against him. If it be said that Peter lives in his successors, and that therefore every bishop of Rome is St. Peter, we deny that such is the fact; and we ask why our Lord did not mention those pretended successors as well as Peter himself? The proper answer is, that they were neither intended, nor so much as thought of on the occasion; and that the Romish doctrine is at variance with the word of God, which says, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. iii. 11. And what does St. Peter himself say on this subject? Adverting to the word of God, by Isaiah the prophet, Peter says, "It is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Unto

you, therefore, who believe he is precious but unto those who are disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected, is become the chief of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence," 1 Peter ii. 6-8.

Respecting the primitive church, I shall only further observe, that it was not established by human laws, or in any way indebted to the civil magistrate for its support. "My kingdom," says our Lord, "is not of this world. if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence," John xviii. 36. It was "a kingdom set up by the God of heaven," as the prophet Daniel describes it, "a stone cut out without hands," but destined to become

66

a great mountain," that should “fill the whole earth." This was not effected by human might, or worldly power, but by the providence of God, the Spirit of his grace, and the power of Divine truth. For more than three hundred years after the death of Christ, all the princes of the world, the secular rulers and magistrates, of every description, being worshippers of idols, were opposed to the church, and sought to destroy her. No earthly monarch drew his sword in her defence, or enacted laws in her favour, until Constantine embraced Christianity, about the year of our Lord 312; and what he did for the church had a tendency to corrupt, weaken, and enslave her. But, under the government of her glorified Head, when the princes of this world were against her, the church increased so as to fill the earth with her children. Hence Tertullian, about the year 200, was enabled to say to the rulers of his time, "We are but of yesterday, and have already filled all your empire. We leave you nothing but your temples. Calculate the number of your armies: the Christians of one province would exceed it. If such a multitude of men as we are should suddenly remove to some remote extremity of the world, ye would be terrified at the solitude in which ye would find yourselves placed, and look in vain for subjects to govern. Almost all the citizens of nearly all cities are Christians."

Having thus spoken of the church, I now proceed to say something of her ministers in primitive times. St. Paul, speaking of those whom "God hath set in the church," mentions "first,

apostles." Now these servants of Christ, as apostles, had no successors, it being impossible that they should. The apostles were personally chosen and called by Christ himself to attend upon him while he continued on earth, and to be witnesses of his resurrection from the dead, and of his ascension into heaven. Hence it was necessary to the apostleship of St. Paul, that he should have "seen the Lord" after his resurrection. Such, then, was the character and such the qualifications of the apostles, that when they had finished their course of service, none could supply their place. St. Paul mentions, "secondly, prophets;" and though prophesying has various meanings, we are probably to understand by "prophets" those who, like Agabus, were enabled to foretell future events. In the next place, the apostle mentions "teachers," including, no doubt, the bishops, or overseers of the church, of whom it is required as a qualification of their office, that they should be "apt to teach." By "miracles" doubtless to be understood persons enabled to work "signs and wonders,' as were the apostles themselves. And what can 66 gifts of healings" signify, but those who were enabled, in a miraculous manner, to heal the sick. "Helps" may denote the evangelists, who assisted the apostles in various ways. "Governments" have been explained to signify persons who presided in Christian assemblies to preserve order. As to "diversities of tongues," although the Church of Rome professes to have the power of working miracles, her advocates never tell us of their missionaries going to the heathen prepared for their work by the miraculous gift of tongues. They are all obliged to learn foreign languages in the same laborious way as other missionaries do; and since miraculous power is not given to save the time and trouble of learning languages, we conclude that the Church of Rome is as destitute of it in every other respect, and has no real miracle to boast of.

are

[ocr errors]

But what I wish more especially to observe, respecting the ministers of the church in primitive times, is this, that they were not placed above one another, so as to exercise dominion over their brethren. We cannot find, in the New Testament, that God hath set in the church, popes, cardinals, archbishops, lord bishops, abbots and

priors, archdeacons, and so on. Even the Apostles had "not dominion" over the faith of their brethren, but were "helpers of their joy." And what

does Peter say to "the elders" or ministers of his day? He says, "Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof, not as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock," 2 Pet. v. 2, 3. Yet Dr. Milner, in speaking of the church to which he belonged, observes that, “Each Catholic is subject to his pastor, each pastor submits to his bishop, and each bishop

acknowledges the supremacy of the successor of St. Peter, in matters of faith, morality, and spiritual jurisdiction." Letter xvi. p. 191. Now this is directly opposed to the command of Christ, when correcting the ambition of the sons of Zebedee, Matt. xx. 2528. His words are, "Be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren," Matt. xxiii. 8. Such were the ministers of the true church in primitive times. Langrove Cottage. JOHN BULMER.

Essays, Extracts, and Correspondence.

BRITISH MISSIONS.

To the Editor of the Christian Witness.

SIR,-I have long wished for an opportunity of calling the attention of our pastors, deacons, and members to the subject of British Missions. The appearance of Mr. Thompson's letter on the cover of this month's WITNESS, together with your own remarks on it, have induced me to attempt it now. You say truly, "Something should be done." Our secretaries, treasurers, and committees say, "Something must be done." And it now remains for our ministers and churches to say, Something shall be done."

66

Mr. Thompson's suggestion is a good one, but I have no hope of seeing it carried out. The chairmen of the Union, and those other gentlemen whose position in the body would give weight and influence to anything they might say, as "deputations to the noncontributing churches," are either not inclined to undertake such work, or not able to do it from the overwhelming press of public engagements. If such deputations could be obtained, I have no doubt that they would stimulate the churches, augment the resources of the Missions, and gain for them a much higher place in the general esteem of our people than they have hitherto enjoyed.

But why, Sir, should deputations be necessary? Why should the wealth of the church be wasted in journeys that might be avoided? Why should ministers have to leave their homes and their own proper spheres of labour,

and to submit to toils and treatment not always the most delicate or kind, to urge on their own brethren to do that which is no more the duty of the visitors than of the visited? The reason why such things should be necessary it would probably puzzle the most ingenious man amongst us to give; but the reason why they are necessary, just lies in the afflictive fact, that more than a thousand of our churches every year refuse to join their brethren in the support of their own Missions.

When, in the year 1840, it was resolved that the plan of simultaneous collections should be recommended to the body, much was said in favour of the plan, and bright were the cherished hopes of its successful working. The arguments have not yet been answered; and, alas! the hopes have not yet been realized. The history of the movement reflects a deep disgrace upon the denomination; and the enemies of our principles are not slow to point to it as an illustration of our isolation and disjointed working. Here are the statistics of the matter, "from the first day until now."

[blocks in formation]
« PrécédentContinuer »