網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

greater number of the Methodist societies never were members of the church of England. No one can be made to believe at this day that the Methodists in America ever have been in any way connected with that church. Mr. Wesley himself says, his "American brethren are totally disentangled from the state and English hierarchy, at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church; and we judge it best that they should stand fast in the liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free."

Again, Mr. Bolles says that "another doctrine of the tract is that Mr. Wesley warned his followers not to separate from the church," Are not Methodists now, were not Methodists then, members of the church? They claim to be surely: not, howeve er, members of the church of England, but, members of the Church of Christ!-branches of the true vine. And when any clergyman of any other denomination shall so far forget his mission as to brand us with the name of "schismatics,"—"men living in open rebellion against God," "without a ministry, without sacraments, without a divine warrant," we feel ourselves called upon to rebuke such arrogance with becoming plainness and severity.

[ocr errors]

66

Mr. Wesley warned his followers not to separate from the Church." What followers? his followers in England; not those in America. But what does Mr. Wesley mean by the term Church? The following extracts from his sermon entitled "Of the Church" will show what he considered essential to constitute a church, or even the church. How much do we almost continually hear about the church! with many it is a matter of daily conversation. And yet how few understand what they talk of: how few know what the term means! A more ambiguous word than this, the Church, is scarce to be found in the English language. It is sometimes taken for a building, set apart for public worship; sometimes for a congregation, or body of people, united together in the service of God. It is only in the latter sense that it is taken in the ensuing discourse. It may be taken indifferently for any number of people, how small or great soever. As, where two or three are met together in his name,' there is Christ; so, (to speak with St. Cyprian,) where two or three believers are met together, there is a church.' Thus it is that St. Paul, writing to Philemon, mentions 'the church which was in his house'; plainly signifying, that even a christian family may be termed a church.

"Several of those whom God hath called out of the world (so the original word properly signifies) uniting together in one congregation, formed a larger church; as the church at Jerusalem whom God hath so called.

"Let us consider, first, who are properly the church of God?

What is the true meaning of that term? The church at Ephesus,' as the Apostle himself explains it, means, 'the saints,' the holy persons 'that are in Ephesus'; and there assemble themselves together to worship God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ: whether they did this in one, or (as we may probably suppose) in several places. But it is the church in general, the Catholic or universal church, which the Apostle here considers as one body: comprehending not only the christians in the house of Philemon, or any one family; not only the christians of one congregation, of one city, of one province, or nation; but all the persons upon the face of the earth, who answer the character here given. What is the church? The Catholic or universal church, is, all the persons in the universe whom God hath so called out of the world as to entitle them to the preceding character; as to be one body,' united by one spirit'; having one faith, one hope, one baptism; one God and Father of all, and through all, and in them all.'

[ocr errors]

"That part of this great body, of the universal church, which inhabits any one kingdom or nation, we may properly term a national church; as, the church of France, the church of England, the church of Scotland. A smaller part of the universal church are the christians that inhabit one city or town; as the church of Ephesus, and the rest of the seven churches mentioned in the Revelation. Two or three christian believers united together, are a church in the narrowed sense of the word. Such was the church in the house of Philemon, and that in the house of Nymphas, mentioned Col. 4, 15. A particular church may, therefore, consist of any number of members, whether two or three, or two or three millions. But still, whether they be larger or smaller, the same idea is to be preserved. They are one body; and have one spirit, one Lord, one hope, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all.

"This account is exactly agreeable to the nineteenth article of our church, the church of England: (only the article includes a little more than the Apostle has expressed :)

6 OF THE CHURCH."

'The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered.'

"It may be observed, that at the same time our thirty-nine articles were compiled and published, a Latin translation of them was published by the same authority. In this the words were, 'catus credentiam,' a congregation of believers; plainly showing that by faithful men, the compilers meant, men endued with living faith. This brings the article to a still nearer agreement to the account given by the Apostle.

"But it may be doubted, whether the article speaks of a particular church, or of the church universal? The title, 'Of the Church,' seems to have reference to the Catholic church; but the second clause of the article mentions the particular churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Perhaps it was intended to take in both: so to define the universal church, as to keep in view the several particular churches of which it is composed.

"These things being considered, it is easy to answer that question, 'what is the church of England'? It is that part, those members of the universal church, who are inhabitants of England. The church of England is that body of men in England, in whom 'there is one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith';which have 'one baptism,' and 'one God and Father of all.' This, and this alone, is the church of England, according to the doctrine of the Apostle.

"But the definition of a church, laid down in the article, includes, not only this, but much more, by that remarkable addition: 'In which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered.' According to this definition, those congregations in which the pure word of God (a strong expression) is not preached are no parts either of the church of England, or the church Catholic: as neither are those in which the sacraments are not duly administered." After taking exceptions to this clause which excommunicates from the church of God, for mere opinion sake, he proceeds: "How clear is this! If the church, as to the very essence of it, is a body of believers, no man, that is not a christian believer, can be a member of it. If this whole body be animated by one spirit, and endued with one faith, and one hope of their calling; then he who has not that spirit, and faith, and hope, is no member of this body. It follows, that not only no common swearer, no sabbath breaker, no drunkard, no thief, no liar, none that lives in any outward sin; but none that is under the power of anger, or pride; no lover of the world; in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of his church. Can any thing then be more absurd than for men to cry out, The Church! The Church! And to pretend to be very zealous for it, and violent defenders of it; while they themselves have neither part nor lot therein; nor indeed know what the church is."-Wesley's Ser. vol. 2, p. 154. Of such a church, the Methodists claim to be members, and, I, trust, they will ever heed the warning voice and from that church never separate.

But, perhaps, Mr. Bolles and his man of the tract mean, that Mr. Wesley warned his followers never to separate from the church of England in its national, and not in its spiritual acceptation. This could extend, if taken in this sense, only to those who were members of that establishment, for certainly he would

not warn his followers not to separate from that with which they never were connected! and, hence, all the Methodists in America, and a large portion of those who bore this name in England, were not included in this warning. The warning, nevertheless, in this sense of its application is to be qualified, for Mr. Wesley did, in part, separate, and would have wholly separated had necessity warranted it. Observe his sentiments. He had renounced the peculiar views of a high Churchman,-a succession, through a corporation, of Bishops, superior to and distinct from Presbyters -for he says, "I firmly believe I am a scriptural Episcopos or Bishop, as much so as any man in England or in Europe, for the" (doctrine of an) "uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable which no man ever did or can prove." Again he says, "Lord King's account of the primitive church, convinced me, many years ago, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order, and, consequently, have the same right to ordain."

In violation of the order of the church of England, Mr. Wesley had established field preaching,-had organized societies-adopted and enforced disciplinary regulations unprovided for by and unknown to the government and ritual of that church:-had appointed and employed lay preachers,-had ordained Ministers for the administration of the sacraments. In all these things he was an innovator upon the order and discipline of the church of England, and in all these things had proved himself, partially, a separatist. What does Mr. Wesley say in reference to separation, in reply to inquiries of him by his distressed brethren, who lived in parishes where the ministers were ungodly? He says, "when this is really the case, I cannot blame them if they do separate"-"I believe to separate thus from these miserable wretches, who are the scandal of our church and nation, would be for the honor of our church as well as for the glory of God"— "a kind of separation has already taken place, and will inevita bly spread, though by slow degrees." And in regard to himself, he says, "my conclusion which I cannot yet give up,-that it is lawful to continue in the church-stands, I know not how, almost without any premises that are to bear its weight," and after enumerating the opinions he holds different from or at variance with other individuals of the church of England, he observes, "and were we pushed on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty rather wholly to separate from the church than to give up any one of these points.' And again, "the good Bishop of London has excommunicated Mr. Gardner for preaching without a license. It is probable the point will now be determined concerning the church: for if we must either dissent or be silent, actum est, (it is done) we have no time to trifle." Pages of similar quotations might be made; but these are sufficient, I think, to show that Mr. Wesley did, in part, sep

[ocr errors]

arate from the church of England, and would have wholly separated from it had necessity required him to do so; and this decision being known to the clergy induced them to be careful not to increase that necessity. These explanations, enable us now to understand Mr. Wesley's warning, which was simply this,he advised those of his followers who were communicants in the Church of England to remain so, as long as their consciences would permit them or their course was tolerated: but beyond this he did not advise them to bear, nor did he pledge that he would bear himself. Notwithstanding this plain inference from the writings of Mr. Wesley, the author of the tract, according to Mr. Bolles, would have the world believe that all Methodists were Church of England men, and that Mr. Wesley had solemnly warned them never to separate from that Church!!

"Another doctrine of the tract," according to Mr. Bolles, is that "Mr. Wesley did not appoint his ministers to administer the sacraments." It will not be expected here to account for or make consistent all the acts and expressions of Mr. Wesley, as quoted by Mr. Bolles. It would not be a difficult task to do so, but it is deemed unnecessary and the minute detail and investigation that it would require seems not to be called for. Mr. B's great error consists in his application of Mr. Wesley's remarks to other subjects, objects and circumstances than they related to. So far as the simple question is concerned, whether Mr. Wesley did or did not appoint preachers to administer the sacraments, a reply can be given in a few words; but inasmuch as this ground will have to be gone over again in another part of the work I will now only make a few brief observations upon it.

Because Mr. Wesley reproved a lay preacher, who without authority did baptize children, is no evidence that he did not appoint preachers to administer the sacraments? The same act done by a lay reader of the Protestant Episcopal Church would result in the dismissal from office of the individual. Because, in his sermon, he declared such an assumption of the duties of the sacred office by those who were not appointed or ordained to such duties was sinful and the act rebellion against God; can it be justly inferred that, therefore, Mr. Wesley did not grant authority to nor empower any of his preachers to do such duties? and that it would be a sin for any Methodist preacher to administer the sacraments? Certainly Mr. Wesley would not have charged the transgression upon those of his Ministers who were thus authorized;-it was the officiousness, the doing of that which the lay preacher had no right to do which was censurable. This logic, then, of Mr. Bolles and the tract, is altogether sophistical, and the conclusions made, wholly unwarrantable and untenable. Mr. Jackson, in his life of Charles Wesley, says, "in accordance with principles, and with an existing state of things which

« 上一頁繼續 »