« ZurückWeiter »
as manifestly to be observed to the end of time, when by these means, and the mighty co-operation of the Saviour with them, the Kingdoms of the world will become the kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ.
It is not only in India and the British Colonies that these principles are applicable. A wider field is probably soon to open to us in the affairs of Turkey. Hitherto the institutions of the Turks, civil and military, as well as religious, have been supposed to be as immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. But we have lived to witness a surprising revolution in the military department, while, from every traveller, we learn that an approximation to European manners and customs is becoming fashionable among the Turks. When once a spirit of innovation is introduced it is impossible to conjecture to what extent it may proceed. “I have often adverted,” says Mr. Forster, in his Mahometanism Unveiled, “ to the anomalous doctrine of Mahomet, by which the Arabian Antichrist relinquishes to our Lord the final and supreme administration of religion, M. D'Ohsson acquaints us that this important article of belief is interwoven with the whole religious creed and traditions of Mussulmans. The very efforts of the Mussalman doctors to qualify the final supremacy acknowledged, by their Prophet, to exist in Christ Jesus, only augments the proof of the intrinsic value of those concessions.
“ According to the most recent sources of information, the effects of this tenet of Islamism are forcibly operative among the Turks. A British officer who had resided much in different parts of the East, mentioned to the author the interesting fact, that he found an expectation prevalent among the Turks 'that Mahometanism must be finally swallowed up by Christianity.' To the enquiry whether such appeared to be the popular belief of the Turks, Major - replied, that it might be going further than his experience authorized, to affirm this ; that few Turks reasoned or reflected; but that five or six individuals had, independently expressed the same opinion to him ; and went, in consequence, so far as to say that they would themselves be. come Christians from this persuasion, were it not through fear of the consequences of forsaking Mahometanism, which are appalling.” Vol. ii. p. 525.
The profoundly learned work of Mr. Chancellor Forster has perhaps been more talked of than read. It must be studied to be properly appreciated. When the Turks begin, in earnest, to reason and reflect, they will examine the evidences of their religion, and if we wish to convert them not, to no religion,-but to the Christian religion, no work is so calculated to supply an evangelist with proper topics as the one before us. Until we gain over some mighty Mahometan power to our side, our prospects of success in India will not be bright.
C. This subject is eloquently elucidated by a writer who will ever rank high among the worthies of the Church of England, the Reverend Hugh James Rose, in his “ Christianity always progressive.”
D. By Catholics I mean homo-ousians* and episcopalians not in a state of schism. For this was the meaning invariably attached to the word by the primitive Christians.
It is sometimes urged in favour of the Moravians that they retain the episcopal succession. If this be true, still it is not to be forgotten that, by setting up Bishop against Bishop, and altar
• Or Trinitarians, as they are designated in modern times.
against altar, they are precisely as schismatical now as the Novatians were of old.
The same may be said of the Papists, who, in the tenth year of Queen Elizabeth, seceded from the reformed Catholic Church, to which they had previously conformed.
It ought never to be forgotten that there cannot be two Catholic Churches in the same place. If, therefore, we of the Church of England are Catholics, we must consider those who separate from us as either heretics or schismatics. If, on the contrary, we concede the title of Catholic to any other church or sect in England, then we admit that we are either heretics or schismatics ourselves. To those who have been accustomed to study the early history of the Church this will appear plain enough. I mention the fact, however, here, because I am convinced that many pernicious practices have been introduced into the Church of England by persons who, wishing her well, yet support her not as the Catholic Church in England, but merely as one among many sects. They understand the word Catholic in its etymological and not in its ecclesiastical sense. I believe that to this source may be traced the disagreement which exists, so far as discipline is concerned, between two parties who adopt very contrary measures for the support of our Establishment. One party looks to primitive usage, and the other to puritan prejudices. The one party, from a love of truth, desires to preserve the Church in its distinctive character ; the other, from a motive of expediency, to do away with all distinctions, and in this manner to conciliate dissenters. If, in an age'not of right and wrong but of expediency, our rulers endeavour to gratify the latter party, they will in the same proportion offend the former, which is perhaps more numerous than is generally supposed, and which has not forgotten what the nonjurors of the last century suffered for conscience sake,
I am aware that it may be objected to what is said above, that we make it to depend upon circumstances, whether we are schismatics or not. And, in the present state of Christendom, we must admit that such, to a certain extent, is the case. If we go, for instance, to France, we cannot deny that a branch of the Catholic Church is established there ; yet we know, at the same time, that it is in connection with the see of Rome, and that it retains the popish innovations and beresies - introduced during the dark ages. We cannot, therefore, conform to it without damage to our consciences; without, in fact, being guilty of what we believe to be gross idolatry. The question, then, is whether the necessity of the case does not justify our schism. One, of two evils, must exist,—but schism is a less evil than idolatry. The sectarians, popish and protestant, are, of course, most welcome to the same plea in England. But this does not prove that schism is no offence, -it only proves that in certain cases it may be a pardonable offence. Perhaps of all English sectarians the Socinians are most justified, as far as the act of schism is concerned, in seceding from the Church, since they worship not the same God that we do.
In Scotland we do not deem ourselves guilty of schism for refusing to conform to the Established Kirk ; since the Established Kirk, though deserving of much praise, by rejecting Episcopacy is not, according to our notions, a Catholic Church.
It is of the greatest importance, in these days, to teach our people how to make this distinction,-a distinction which some persons seem anxious to overlook. This institution or that society is recommended to support, because Bishop A. or Arch. deacon B. belongs to it,--and it is thus assumed at once, that it cannot be contrary to our ecclesiastical discipline and principles. Whereas the very most that it will prove,-even if it will prove 80 much,-is, that by the individual or individuals in question it is not considered as such. But, since episcopacy implies not infallibility, the opinion of a Bishop is not one whit better than that of a Presbyter. “Episcopus major est Presbytero, Augustinus, tamen, minor est quam Hieronymo."
It is painful, most painful, to write on such a subject, but we must speak out. Hitherto the parochial clergy of England have had to contend for the divine right of episcopacy, and sometimes even with Bishops themselves; but we may, hereafter, be compelled to place ourselves in a different attitude, and to defend our own rights as clergy of the second throne. If St. Cyprian refused to ordain even a Subdeacon or Reader without the consent of the Presbyters of his church, the English clergy of the second order may fairly expect to be consulted before bills are introduced into Parliament, (and, at least, tacitly sanctioned by the Lords spiritual,) materially affecting their rights and privileges.
There was a time when we could say, with St. Jerome, "et nos habemus in ecclesia senatum nostrum, cætum presbyterorum." And, with all our deference for the episcopal order, we must pot forget that we ought to be ovu bounci TOV ET IPHONOU, Ouvedpov xou Gran TNS ExxanSIAS. We in truth, are upholding the cause of episcopacy itself, (which we only uphold as considering it essential to the existence of a church,) when, for the same reason, we maintain our own rights, and represent the Bishop as the spi. ritual pastor of the diocese, acting in concurrence with the other clergy, and not, as he is too generally regarded, as a magistrate appointed, by the civil authority, to keep the clergy in order, “ Contenti sint honore suo ; Patres se sciant esse, non dominos, amari debent non timeri." Hieron. Ep. 62, ad Theoph.