form of excommunication], "and not restored until they repent and publicly revoke these their wicked and anabaptistical errors" (CAN. XII.). a Probably very few Episcopalians would now be found to rest the claim of the Church of England to be the only branch of the Catholic Church of Christ "within this realm," upon royal authority. On the contrary, many of what is known as "the High Church Party," are in favour of separating the Church from the State. They esteem, as we do, liberty a greater blessing than privilege. It may even be argued that since the passing of the Act of Toleration, followed in more recent times by the removal of the civil penalties and disabilities attached to Nonconformity, Dissenting Churches are as truly "such as by the laws of this land are allowed" as congregations belonging to the Establishment; and that thus the ban of canon XI. is annulled. But we see, unhappily, no abatement in the spirit or practice of intolerance. Congregational, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist ministers freely occupy one another's pulpits, preaching the same gospel; and the members of these free Churches mingle freely at the Lord's table. (b) (a) In like manner the Royal Declaration prefixed to the "Articles of Religion" asserts in the strongest manner the royal authority in regard to doctrine as well as discipline, and amounts to a complete prohibition of freedom of conscience. (b) The exception furnished formerly by those Baptist Churches which practised 'close communion,' has happily now nearly disappeared. Diverse in government, rite, and even theology, we arc 66 one in Christ Jesus." We "receive one another as Christ also received us to the glory of God" (Roм. xv. 7). But the Episcopal Church holds aloof. A rigid fence surrounds it, over which its ministers cannot climb into our pulpits, nor ours into theirs. There are largeminded men who dislike and condemn this sectarian intolerance. But they are powerless to alter it. Multitudes of members of the Church of England would think they were doing wrong-sinning-if they even entered 'a Dissenting meeting!' Nay (incredible as it might seem to Christians bred in the atmosphere of brotherhood and freedom, outside these ecclesiastical ramparts), there are even 'guilds' whose members are solemnly bound never to set foot within a Nonconformist Church. If this be not SCHISM, it is hard to say what is. It is 'causing division' among Christians, to whom the Master has said, "All ye are brethren." It is withstanding, in the face of the world, His prayer-"That they all may be one that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me." On what plea or foundation does this exclusiveness rest? Not on doctrine, for it is notorious that while multitudes have preached the doctrines asserted in the Thirty-nine articles who never signed them, multitudes have signed them who have not preached them. Not on holiness of life, or spiritual gifts, or actual success in spreading the kingdom and gospel of Christ. Only sheer ignorance and folly could enable anyone to maintain that Howe, Baxter, Flavel, and others of the ministers ejected by the Act of Uniformity (A.D. 1662); Watts, Doddridge, the Wesleys, Robert Hall, Angell James, and a great host of their fellow Nonconformist ministers, were any whit inferior, in grace or gifts, piety or usefulness, to their contemporaries within the Establishment; or that any missionaries of the Cross have been more signally owned by Our Saviour and employed by the Holy Spirit than Carey, Williams, Moffat, and a multitude of others less famous, perhaps, but not less faithful. A noble army of living names could be added, but it is needless. Neither is discipline the basis of these claims; for while purity of communion is at least aimed at in the FREE Churches, in the Church of England it is not even attempted. There remains then only ORGANISATION: Church government; a theory of holy orders and of the distinction of the clergy into Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as utterly unknown to the Apostolic Churches as the doctrine of the priestly character of the Christian ministry. To base the unity of the Church of Christ on organisa tion and 'holy orders' is, in effect, to deny that this unity existed in the times of the Apostles. It is to exclude from the Catholic Church of Christ an enormous number (indeed, including Continental, American, and Missionary Churches, a large majority) of devout, earnest, consistent, loving, zealous Christians. It is thus to reduce the Church of Christ to a Christian sect. Let us admit that external union, if possible, has its advantages. Slowly and unwillingly, with much prayer and study of God's word, the earlier Nonconformists separated openly from a Church in which they could not have the two things they most prized-purity of fellowship, and freedom to study, follow, and preach God's word. Even after the Civil War and the Restoration, the Church of England might by a very moderate exercise of tolerance and concession of liberty, have been able to re-absorb the bulk of Nonconformists, and to become in reality as well as name the Church of the Nation. The Act of Uniformity made this for ever impossible. Let us not overmuch regret it. Diversity of government, ritual, method, and theology, has also immense advantages. Men are not all made to one pattern, nor are Christians. It is not outward diversity, but the lack of the charity which "thinketh no evil," and of the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," which entails the guilt of SCHISM. May be had of W. BRIERLEY, Publisher, 2, Bond Street, Leeds, Leeds Tracts on Church Principles.-No. 3. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." [R.V.: "Severally members thereof"]-1 Cor. xii. 27. O earnest, well-instructed Christian can be satisfied N° with simply seeking his own salvation, or being assured that he is saved. As long as any one imagines that he must obtain salvation by his own effort-penitence, prayer, faith, holiness, or good works-he may well be wholly absorbed in this question, "What must I do?" For he can never be sure he has done enough. In plain fact, not only he never can do enough: he never can do anything to secure salvation. He is beginning at the wrong end. He is like a man outside a door that trying to pull it open instead of knocking till it is opened. But the more clearly any one sees, and the more simply he believes in "the kindness and love of God our Saxion toward man," and that "not by works of righteousness which we have done, opens only from a 1884. |