« 이전계속 »
which has greatly puzzled the commentators, as it is strangely out of keeping with the general spirit of the narrative, and as it contradicts, rather awkwardly, the pretensions of the Popedom. According to this testimony, Hyginus ‘ARRANGED THE CLERGY AND DISTRIBUTED THE GRADATIONS. [in a note, Hic clerum composuit, et distribuit gradus.] Peter himself is described by Romanists as organizing the Church; but here, one of his alleged successors, upwards of seventy years after his death, is set forth as the real framer of the hierarchy.”—P. 552.
Here we have the author again building his castle of cards on such an exposed position that the least puff of wind will blow it down. We never before heard that this passage had puzzled commentators -except Presbyterian-for we had not far to look before we found a simple and satisfactory solution :
“ The Romans had in every city a civil magistrate, who was called defensor civitatis, whose office was to execute justice both in the city and in its suburbs, and within the villages contiguous to the city and within its jurisdiction ; and as they had such a civil officer, so likewise there was a Bishop in every city who was superintendent over the affairs of the Church, not only within the walls of the city, but in the adjoining villages. But the numbers of the Church increasing, it was too great a work for the city presbyters to exercise their functions both in cities and villages, and therefore this Pope, and other Primates following his example, settled district presbyters in those and other villages and towns within their dioceses, and limited the boundaries thereof, which are called parishes. .....
“As to the division of dioceses into parishes, I find that Evaristus, Bishop of Rome, anno 110, and who suffered martyrdom in the reign of the Emperor Trajan, was the first who divided the city of Rome into parishes, and about fifty years afterwards his successor Dionysius attempted the like throughout the Christian world.”—Rights of the Clergy, by W. Nelson. 1712. Pp. 439, 440.
Here we have the simple explanation of the portentous sentence, which Dr. Killen prints in capitals, and makes to be the commencement of Episcopacy: when the historian relates that on account of the increase of the Christians, especially in rural districts, the Bishops were compelled to give up the collegiate system and adopt the parochial, our Presbyterian historian finds the creation of Bishops out of Presbyters.
In speaking of the worship of the Church, Dr. Killen of course maintains that the Church adopted the Synagogue as its model, and not the Temple-an assumption which he thinks is clear from the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles. Here he forgets two things: first, that so long as the Temple stood, the early Christians regularly attended its services; it was a Divine institution, and its services of Divine appointment; until, then, the same Divine power which instituted it also removed it, so long they followed
their Divine Master's example, and frequented its services; but when Divine judgment removed it, then they organized the Church, and the Church's worship on her own basis. Secondly, we have a Scriptural testimony that besides the Temple and its Altar and Sacrifices, the Church had her Altar and Sacrifice : “We have an Altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” (Heb. xii. 10.) Can any words be plainer than these to show that the Church had her Altar, Sacrifice, Priesthood, apart from the Jewish ? Again, take S. Paul's argument to the Corinthians against eating things offered to idols : “ Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar ? What shall I say then ? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the LORD, and the cup of devils : ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils.” (1 Cor. x. 18.) Here, unless then the Church had a real Altar, and a real Sacrifice, as well as the Jews and heathens, there could be no analogy and no argument.
This is negative proof, but Scripture affords positive. One book, at least, of the New Testament was written after the destruction of the Temple, and is intended for the instruction and guidance of the Church till CHRIST's Second Coming—the Apocalypse. Here the beloved Apostle was permitted to view the worship of the Host of Heaven; here he sees the Temple in Heaven, with the various furniture of the Jewish Temple; or rather, he sees that of which the Jewish Temple was the likeness ; that which Moses saw on the Mount (of which it was said to him, “ See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed thee on the mount;'') that which Ezekiel saw, when the material Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed—the reality, of which the others were only figures. That temple which existed, and still exists, when the types are de. stroyed, and for the same reason was it displayed to S. John, as it had been displayed to Moses and Ezekiel. It was displayed to Moses, that from it he might build the Tabernacle; it was displayed to Ezekiel, that from it the Second Temple might take its form and appearance. It was displayed to S. John, that from it might be taken the pattern for the Christian Church to frame her Temples. It is worthy of note that the Second Temple differed from the first; and the reason was that the Temple seen by Ezekiel differed from that seen by Moses ; and the Jews copied Ezekiel's figure, and not Solomon's Temple. A difference was seen by S. John: the veil was done away, the Priests sat in a semicircle about the Throne of God within the Holy of Holies. So, if any one studies the form of the early Churches as given in Bingham, he will see that they are copied from the Vision in the Apocalypse.
Here, then, we have the Divine authority for saying that the worship of the Church follows the Temple, and not the Synagogue. So also the Church perpetuated the two great Jewish Feasts of Pasch and Pentecost : the third, the Feast of Tabernacles, has no counterpart in the Church, (unless, as some think, Christmas takes that place,) because its antitype is not yet come. It was the Feast of Harvest, and will only be fulfilled at the Resurrection and Judg. ment; the new Tabernacles representing the resurrection bodies of the saints, when mortality shall put on immortality; and the High Priest coming out of the Holy of Holies to bless and absolve the people who have assisted at the atoning sacrifices representing CARIST coming forth from the Temple in heaven to judge, and to give His final absolution, “ Come, ye blessed, inherit the kingdom.”
All that Dr. Killen or any other Protestant writers may say about the simplicity of early worship, and the pattern of the Synagogue, &c., goes for nothing before the word of Scripture in the Apocalypse; there we have a choral service and musical instruments, as well as an altar and a chancel. Of course the Church under persecution could not develope her glorious worship; she could only do this when the countenance of ternporal power smiled upon her: and then we see she did.
We shall not stop to examine Dr. Killen's arguments against the use of a Liturgy : they are of the usual kind, and have been answered over and over again. We shall only say this, that it is a Scriptural fact that our LORD did institute a Liturgy, and one which all the Catholic Church, as well as the heretical Churches, have carefully preserved ; and which it was reserved for the enlightened founders of Protestant bodies to dispense with,—we mean the form of the Consecration of the Holy Eucharist; a form that the Lord Himself considered of such vast importance to preserve and continue in its integrity, that He vouchsafed a special revelation of its manner and words to the Apostle of the Gentiles, who was not present at its first institution. (1 Cor. xi. 23.)
We have said before that we suppose that one of the chief motives for the writing of this book was to meet the damaging effects likely to be produced on Presbyterianism by the publication of Dr. Cureton's Ignatian Epistles. These Epistles, even in their muti. lated form, are so clearly a witness against the religion that Dr. Killen defends, that he is driven to the expedient of maintaining that they are a forgery. One of the chief proofs of this convenient line of argument to show that these writings could not be composed by an Apostolic man,-is from our finding in them so many expressions at variance with the Gospel ; i. e., Dr. Killen's and the Protestant idea of the doctrine of the Gospel.
sweredural fact ttholic Churnd whi
“ But instead of following such a course, this Ignatius addresses them in a style of a starched and strait-laced Churchman. “Let your
ate againstut then so do works mest id, "all things at
treasures,' says he,' be your good works. Let your baptism be to you an armoury. Look to the bishop, that God may also look upon you. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons. What intelligent Christian can believe that a minister, instructed by Paul or Peter, and filling one of the most important stations in the Apostolic Church, was verily such an ignorant driveller ?”' (P. 416.)
The convenience of this mode of argument is certainly very great; and could we always use it, what doctrine of the Gospel could we not deny ? If we were to follow this rule, how much of the New Testament should we have left ? No doubt these Ignatian Epistles militate against the favourite doctrine of Justification by Faith without works, but then so do the Gospels ; for they teach repentance, and fasting, and doing works meet for repentance. “Give alms of such things as ye have, and behold, all things are clean unto you,” is one of our blessed Lord's own precepts. Again, “ If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” Nay, the very terms of the final sentence must be altered : it must be no longer, “ Come, ye blessed, receive the kingdom. For I was an hungered,” &c., -not a judgment according to works, but one of the mere will of God. Again, not only must S. James' Epistle be denominated, as it was by Luther, an epistle of straw, and not fit for the sacred volume, but S. Paul's, the great champion for justification by faith, must go too; for have we not there these unProtestant expressions, “ To do good and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased ”-and “I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for His Body's sake, which is the Church ?” Sorrowfully must we part with S. Peter also ; for does he not say, “ Baptism doth now save us ?” Reft thus of the New Testament, what is left to the Presbyterian Kirk but the Westminster Confession, and the Longer and Shorter Catechism? With these few relics we take leave of Dr. Killen, only we wish to do so in kindness ; so before we close, we will thank him for the testimony that he bears to the fact that Church teaching was in full force at the end of the second century :
“Thus we find them speaking of 'sins cleansed by repentance,' and of repentance as 'the price at which our Lord has determined to grant forgiveness. We read of "sins being cleansed by alms and faith,' and of the martyr by his sufferings washing away his own iniquities.' We are told that by Baptism' we are cleansed from all our sins,' and
regain that Spirit of God which Adam received at his creation, and lost by his transgression.' . ... The same writer (S. Cyprian) insists on the necessity of penance."--p. 460.
“Some of the early Christian writers .... appear to have entertained an idea that Christ was in the Eucharist, not only in richer manifestations of His grace, but also in a way altogether different from that in which He vouchsafed His presence in prayer or praise, or any other Divine observance. They conceived that, as the soul of man is united to his body, so the Logos or Divine nature of CHRIST pervades the consecrated bread and wine, so that they may be called His Flesh and His Blood : and they imagined that, in consequence, the sacred elements imparted to the material frame of the believer the germ of immortality. Irenæus declares that our bodies receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possessed of the hope of eternal life.”—P. 488.
“ Thus before the close of the second century, it was termed an offering and a sacrifice, and the table at which it was administered was styled the altar.'”—P. 490.
Here we have proof, and that from an unfriendly quarter, that the great Catholic doctrines that we are now struggling to maintain, are those of the most primitive times, and we thank him for his testimony.
The second book on our list we intended to review at greater length, but for reasons given below we abstain from doing so. Its object is to maintain the position of the Established Kirk against the claims, and we may add, the reproaches of the Free Kirk : the point in dispute between the two bodies is the “ Headship of CHRIST." Each body claims to “hold the Head,” and denies that the other does so : the Free Kirk holds that it is essential to “ holding the head,” that each congregation should elect its own minister, and that the Established Kirk, by allowing the Queen and lay patrons to present to benefices, does not “hold the Head." The Establishmentarian is driven, as the author of the book before us, to maintain that the State has the sole right to decide in religious differences, and that the people should follow the guidance of the State,-in fact, pure Erastianism. According to this, the author, should he live in England, is bound to join the Church of England ; if in Malta, the Roman Church ; if in Corfu, the Greek. The truth is, that the Free Kirk has the best of the argument, and the Established Kirk has the endowments ; so they never can agree; and the bitterness with which they revile each other is something quite incredible. The Free Kirk bas without doubt inherited the principles and position of the old Covenanters, as well as their spirit: a considerable portion of their spirit has also fallen on the Established Kirk, as the book before us proves, but it has sadly degenerated from their principles. No doubt a comfortable manse and regular income has a great tendency to subdue a martyr's courage; it bursts forth however sometimes in writing, as this book testifies, for certainly, since the days of the Puritans, we