tles, appear plainly to have been an Order of Deaconesses regularly appointed to particular functions in the earliest Churches and their Deacons appear to have had an office considerably different from those of our Church. Again, it seems plainly to have been at least the general, if not the universal, practice of the Apostles, to appoint over each separate Church a single individual as a chief Governor, under the title of "Angel" (i. e. Messenger or Legate from the Apostles) or "BISHOP," i. e. Superintendent or Overseer. A CHURCH and a DIOCESS seem to have been for a considerable time co-extensive and identical. And each Church or Diocess (and consequently each Superintendent), though connected with the rest by ties of Faith and Hope and Charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly independent as far as regards any power of control. ing them from the Christian body, on the ground, not of their not being under the best form of Ecclesiastical Government, but, of their wanting the very essentials of a Christian Church: viz., the very same distinct Orders in the Hierarchy that the Apostles appointed: and this, while the Episcopalians themselves have, universally, so far varied from the Apostolical institutions as to have in one Church several Bishops; each of whom consequently differs in the office he holds, in a most important point, from one of the primitive Bishops, as much as the Governor of any one of our Colonies does from a Sovereign Prince. Now whether the several alterations, and departures from the original institutions, were or were not, in each instance, made on good grounds, in accordance with an altered state of society, is a question which cannot even be entertained by those who hold that no Church is comThe plan pursued by the Apostles seems petent to vary at all from the ancient moto have been, as has been above remarked, del. Their principle would go to exclude to established a great number of small at once from the pale of Christ's Church (in comparison with modern Churches) almost every Christian Body since the distinct and independent Communities, first two or three Centuries. each governed by its own single Bishop, consulting, no doubt, with his own Presbyters, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them, and occasionally confer- § 21. Waiving however what may be ring with the Brethren in other Churches, called a personal argument, and supposing but owing no submission to the rulers of that some mode could be devised of exany other Church, or to any central com-plaining away all the inconsistencies I mon authority except the Apostles themselves. And other points of difference might be added. The edifice they overthrow crushes in its fall the blind champion who has broken its pillars. have been adverting to, still, if the essentials of Christianity, at least a considerable portion of them-are not to be found in Scripture, but in a supplementary Tradition, which is to be sought in the works of those early Fathers who were orthodox, the foundations of a Christian's Faith and Hope become inaccessible to nearly the whole of the Laity, and to much the greater part of the Clergy. This, it may be said, is just as it should be; and as it must be: the unlearned being necessarily dependent on the learned, in respect of several most important points; since the great mass of Christians cannot be supposed capable of even reading the Scriptures in the original tongues; Now to vindicate the institutions of our own, or of some other Church, on the Ground that they "are not in theniselves superstitious or ungodly,"-that they are not at variance with Gospel principles, or with any divine injunction that was designed to be of universal obligation, is intelligible and reasonable. But to vindicate them on the ground of the exact conformity, which it is notorious they do not possess, to the most ancient models, and even to go beyond this, and condemn all Christians whose institutions and ordinances are not "one and utterly like" our own, on the ground of their departure from the Apostolical precedents, which no Church has exactly adhered to,-does It is remarkable that there are Presbyterians seem, to use no harsher expression, also, who proceed on similar principles; who connot a little inconsistent and unreasonable. tend that originally the distinction between BiAnd yet one may not unfrequently hear shops and Presbyters did not exist; and consemembers of Episcopalian Churches pro- a Church but) that Episcopal government is an quently (not that Episcopacy is not essential to nouncing severe condemnation on those unwarrantable innovation-a usurpation - -3 of other Communions, and even exclud-profane departure from the divine ordinances! 2 UNCERTAIN FOUNDATION OF FAITH BASED ON REPORTS. much less of examining ancient manuscripts. Now this necessity I see no reason for admitting, if it be understood in the sense that the unlearned must needs take the word of the learned, and place implicit reliance on the good faith of certain individuals selected by them as their spiritual guides. It is in their power, and is surely their duty, to ascertain how far the assertions of certain learned men are to be safely relied on.† But when, in the case now before us, men come to consider and inquire what the foundation really is on which they are told (according to the principles I have been speaking of) to rest their own hopes of eternal life, and to pronounce condemnation on those who differ from them, it cannot be but that doubt and dissatisfaction, and perhaps disgust, and danger of ultimate infidelity, will beset them, in proportion as they are of a serious and reflective turn, and really See Appendix, Note (I.) t "It is manifest that the concurrent testimony, positive or negative, of several witnesses, when there can have been no concert, and especially when there is any rivalry or hostility between them, carries with it a weight independent of that which may belong to each of them considered separately. For though, in such a case, each of the witnesses should be even considered as wholly undeserving of credit, still the chances might be incalculable against their all agreeing in the same falsehood. It is in this kind of testimony that the generality of mankind believe in the motions of the earth, and of the heavenly bodies, &c. Their belief is not the result of their own observations and calculations; nor yet again of their implicit reliance on the skill and the good faith of any one or more astronomers; but it rests on the agreement of many independent and rival astronomers; who want neither the ability nor the will to detect and expose each other's errors. similar grounds, as Dr. Hinds has justly observed, that all men, except about two or three in a million, believe in the existence and in the genuineness of manuscripts of ancient books, such as the Scriptures. It is not that they have themselves examined these; or again, (as some represent) that they rely implicitly on the good faith of those who profess to have done so; but they rely on the concurrent and uncmtradicted testimony of all who have made, or who might make, the examination; both unbelievers, and believers of various hostile sects; any one of whom would be sure to seize any opportunity to expose the forgeries or errors of his opponents. It is on "This observation is the more important, because many persons are liable to be startled and dismayed on its being pointed out to them that they have been believing something-as they are led to suppose on very insufficient reasons; when the truth is perhaps that they have been mis-stating their reasons."-Rhetoric, part I. ch. 2. § 4. 45 For anxious to attain religious truth. Every thing in short pertaining to this appeal is obscure,-uncertain,-disputable-and actually disputed, to such a degree, that even those who are not able to read the original authors may yet be perfectly competent to perceive how unstable a foundation they furnish. They can perceive that the mass of Christians are called on to believe and to do what is essential to Christian: v, in implicit reliance on the reports of their respective pastors, as to what certain deep theological antiquarians have reported to them, respecting the reports given by certain ancient Fathers, of the reports current in their times, concerning apostolical usages and institutions! And yet, whoever departs in any degree from these, is to be regarded at best in an intermediate state between Christianity and Heathenism! Surely the tendency of this procedure must be to drive the doubting into confirmed (though perhaps secret) infidelity, and to fill with doubts the most sincerely pious, if they are anxiously desirous of attaining truth, and unhappily have sought it from such instructers. * Would not the ingenuous course be, for those who refer to the authority of The Fathers," to state distinctly, 1st, which of these ancient writers they mean; and, 2dly, whether they have read these? For, a very large proportion, even of the higher classes, are far from being aware of the voluminous character of the works thus vaguely referred to: and being accustomed, when any one refers to "The Scriptures," to understand him as speaking of a well known book, which they presume he professes to have read, it is likely they should conclude, unless told to the contrary, that one who appeals to "The Fathers," has himself read them. † See Note, p. 114. "We are wont to speak of the foundation of the Church, the authority of the Church,-the various characteristics of the Church, and the like,—as if the Church were, originally at least, One Society in all respects. From the period in which the Gospel was planted beyond the precincts of Judæa, this manifestly ceased to be the case; and as Christian societies were formed among people more and more unconnected and dissimilar in character and circumstances, the difficulty of considering the Church as One Society increases. Still, from the habitual and unreflecting use of this phrase, "the § 22. But an attempt is usually made And yet no shadow of proof can be offered to silence all such doubts by a reference that the Church, in the above sense,-the to the Catholic Church, or the "primi- Universal Church, can possibly give any tive" or the "ancient Catholic Church," decision at all;-that it has any constias having authority to decide, and as tuted authorities as the organs by which having in fact decided,—on the degree of such decision could be framed or promulregard due to the opinions and testimony gated, or, in short, that there is, or ever of individual writers among the Fathers. was, any one community on earth, recogAnd a mere reference such as this, ac- nized, or having any claim to be recogcompanied with unhesitating assertion, is nized, as the Universal Church, bearing not unfrequently found to satisfy or rule over and comprehending all particusilence those who might be disposed to lar Churches. doubt. And while questions are eagerly discussed as to the degree of deference due to the "decisions of the universal Church," some preliminary questions are often overlooked: such as,-when, and where did any one visible Community, comprising all Christians as its members, exist? Does it exist still? Is its authority the same as formerly? And again, who are its rulers and other officers, rightfully claiming to represent Him who is the acknowledged Head of the Universal (or Catholic) Church, Jesus Christ, and to act as his Vicegerents on Earth? For, it is plain that no society that has a supreme Governor, can perform Church," it is no uncommon case to any act, as a Society, and in its corporate capacity, without that supreme Governor, either in person, or represented by some one clearly deputed by him, and invested with his authority. And a Bishop, Presbyter, or other officer, of any particular Church, although he is a member of the Universal Christian Church, and also a Christian Ecclesiastical Ruler, is not a Ruler of the Universal Church; his jurisdiction not extending beyond his particular Diocess, Province, or Church: any more than a European King is King of Europe. Who then are to be recognized as Rulers of (not merely, in) the Universal Church? Where (on Earth) is its central supreme government, such as every single Community must have? Who is the accredited organ empowered to pronounce its decrees, in the name of the whole Community? And where are these decrees registered? confound the two notions; and occasionally to speak of the various societies of Christians as one, occasionally, as distinct bodies. The mischief. which has been grafted on this inadvertency in the use of the term, has already been noticed; and it is no singular instance of the enormous practical results which may be traced to mere ambiguity of expression. The Church is undoubtedly one, and so is the Human race one; but not as a Society. It was from the first composed of distinct societies; which were called one, because formed on common principles. It is One Society only when considered as to its future existence. The circumstance of its having one common Head, (Christ,) one Spirit, one Father, are points of unity which no more make the Church One Society on earth, than the circumstance of all men having the same Creator, and being derived from the same Adam, renYet many persons are accustomed to ders the Human Race one Family. That talk familiarly of the decisions of the Scripture often speaks of Christians geneCatholic Church, as if there were some rally under the term, "the Church," is accessible record of them, such as we true; but if we wish fully to understand have of the Acts of any Legislative Body; the force of the term so applied, we need and as if there existed some recognized only call to mind the frequent analogous functionaries, regularly authorized to go- use of ordinary historical language when vern and to represent that community, no such doubt occurs. Take, for example the Church of Christ; and answering to Thucydides' History of the Peloponnethe king-senate-or other constituted sian War. It contains an account of the authorities, in any secular community. I transactions of two opposed parties, each PRETENDED DECISIONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 47 made up of many distinct communities; established even by the mere negative on the one side were Democracies, on circumstance of the absence of all menthe other Oligarchies. Yet precisely the tion in the Sacred Writings of any one same use is made by the historian of the Society on earth, having a Government terms the Democracy" and "Oligar- and officers of its own, and recognized chy," as we find Scripture adopting with as the Catholic or Universal Church: regard to the term "the Church." No especially when it is considered that the one is misled by these so as to suppose frequent mention of the particular the Community of Athens one with that Churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, of Corcyra, or the Theban with the Corinth, &c.,-of the seven Churches in Lacedæmonian. When the heathen writer Asia, - and of the care of all the speaks of the Democracy of" or "in" Churches' which Paul had founded, the various democratical States, we natur- would have rendered unavoidable the ally understand him to mean distinct So- notice of the One Church (had there been cieties formed on similar principles; and any such) which bore rule over all the so, doubtless, ought we to interpret the rest, either as its subjects, or as provinsacred writers when they, in like manner, cial departments of it. make mention of the Church of, or in, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, &c. "But there was also an especial reason why the term Church should have been often used by the sacred writers as if it applied to One Society. God's dispensation had hitherto been limited to a single society, the Jewish People. Until the Gospel was preached, the Church of God was One Society. It therefore sometimes occurs with the force of a transfer from the objects of God's former dispensation, to those of his present dispensation. In like manner, as Christians are called "the Elect," their bodies "the Temple," and their Mediator "the High Priest;" so, their condition, as the objects of God's new dispensation, is designated by the term "the Church of Christ," and "the Church." "This negative evidence, I say, would alone be fully sufficient, considering that the whole burden of proof lies on the side of those who set up such a claim. He who appeals to the alleged decisions of a certain Community, is clearly bound, in the first place, to prove its existence. But if we proceed to historical evidence, we find on examination, that there never was a time when the supremacy of any one Church was acknowledged by all, or nearly all Christians. And to say they ought to have done so, and that as many as have refused such submission are to be regarded as schismatics and rebels, is evidently to prejudge the question. "The Universal Church, then, being one, in reference not to any one Government on earth, but only to our Divine Head, even Christ, ruling Christians by his Spirit, which spoke to them from time to time through the Apostles while these were living, and speaks still in the words of the Christian Scriptures, it follows that each Christian is bound (as far as Church authority extends) to submit to the ordinances and decisions,—not repugnant to Scripture, (see Art. xxxiv.,) of the particular Church of which he is a member. "The Church is one, then, not as consisting of One Society, but because the various societies, or Churches, were then modelled, and ought still to be so, on the same principles; and because they enjoy common privileges,-one Lord, one Spirit, one Baptism. Accordingly the Holy Ghost, through his agents the Apostles, has not left any detailed account of the formation of any Christian society; but He has very distincly marked the great "If it were possible that all the Chrisprinciples on which all were to be founded, tians now in existence-suppose 250 milwhatever distinctions may exist amongst lions-could assemble, either in person, them. In short the foundation of the or by deputation of their respective Clergy, Church by the Apostles was not analo- in one place, to confer together: and that gous to the work of Romulus, or Solon; the votes, whether personal or by proxy, it was not, properly, the foundation of of 230 or 240 millions of these were to Christian societies which occupied them, be at variance (as in many points they but the establishment of the principles on probably would be) with the decisions which Christians in all ages might form and practices of our own Church; we societies for themselves.'-Encyclopædia should be no more bound to acquiesce Metropolitana. "Age of the Apostolical in and adopt the decision of that majority, Fathers," p. 774. even in matters which we do not regard as essential to the Christian Faith, than "The above account is sufficiently we should be, to pass a law for this modern phraseology) "the Christian realm, because it was approved by the Public." Whatever is, or has been, majority for the human race."* attested, or believed, or practised, by all of these, or by the greater part of them, or by several of those whom we may regard as the best and wisest among them,-is, of course, entitled to a degree of attentive and respectful consideration, greater or less according to the circumstances of each case. Many persons are accustomed to speak as if a majority had some natural inherent right to control and to represent the whole of any Assembly or Class of persons. We are told of this or that being "held by most of the early Fathers;" of the opinions or practices of "the greater part of the members of the It is in quite a different sense that we early Church;"-of the "decision of speak of the "Authority," for instance, the majority of" such and such a Coun- of Parliament; meaning, of an Act of cil, &c. No doubt, when other points Parliament, regularly passed according to are equal, the judgment of a greater the prescribed forms, and claiming (if not number deserves more consideration than at variance with the divine laws) submisthat of a less; but a majority has no such sion-compliance-obedience; quite incontrolling or representing power, except dependent of any approbation on our part. by express, arbitrary regulation and And yet one may find it asserted, as a enactment; and regulations as to this matter that admits of no doubt, and is to point differ in different cases. Thus, the be taken for granted, as "generally addecision of a Jury, in England, is their mitted, except by those trained in a mounanimous decision; in Scotland, that of dern school, that any particular Church two-thirds; a decision of the House of owes obedience to the Universal Church, Peers is that of a majority of those who of which it is a part." Such assertions are (personally, or by Proxy) present; sometimes come from men of acknowof the House of Commons,-of a majo- ledged learning; in reality far too learned rity in a House of not less than forty; not to be themselves well aware that there &c. And when there is no express never was, since the days of the Apostles, enactment or agreement on this point, any such Body existing as could claim, on nothing can fairly be called an opinion the plea of being the recognized repreor decision of such and such persons, sentative of the whole Christian World, except one in which they all concur. When they do not, we then look, not merely to the numbers, but also to the characters and circumstances of each party. this "obedience," from each particular Church; and hence, these bold assertions will often succeed in overawing the timid, in deceiving the ignorant and inconsiderate, and in satisfying the indolent. Many again are misled by the twofold The temptation, doubtless, is very ambiguity in the phrase "Authority of strong-especially for those who would the Catholic (or Universal) Church;" maintain doctrines or practices that are, both "Authority," and "Church" being seemingly at least, at variance with Scripoften employed in more than one sense. ture-to make an appeal to a standard Authority, in the sense, not of power, but that is inaccessible to the mass of manof a claim to attention and to deference, kind, and that is in all respects so vague; (more or less as the case may be,) belongs to a vast and indefinite number of writers, of course to the "Universal Church," extending over a very long and indefinite meaning thereby not any single Society, but Christians generally throughout all regions;-the "Christian World," or (in Essays, 4th Scries, pp. 166-171. † See Appendix, Note (K.) It is worthy of remark that Power (or Authority in that sense) in reference to any particular act, or decision, does not admit of degrees. A man may indeed have more or less power than another: that is, he may have rightful power to do something which another cannot: but with respect to any specified act, he either has the power, or he has it not. On the other hand, "Authority" in the sense of a claim to deference, admits of infinite degrees. space of time;-and to avail oneself of the awe-inspiring force of sacred names, by exhorting men, in the apparent language of Scripture*—(for no such passage really exists) to "hear the Church!" * Our Lord directs his disciples, in the event of a dispute between two individuals, to refer the matter, in the last resort, to the decision of the Congregation, Assembly, or Church (Ecclesia:) and that if any one disobey (or "refuse to hear," as our translators render it) this, he is to be regarded "as a heathen," &c., iiv The ixxxeoizs guy. Those who adduce this passage, would, it may be presumed, have at least preferred bringing forward, if they could have found one, some passage of Scripture which does support their views, |