Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

The same form of worship, the same creeds, the same Sacraments, the same government under Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were every where established; and eventually the same Holy Scriptures, as from time to time they were written, were every where received. In short, the Churches which the Apostles established were universally the same; or rather, they were uniform and living branches of one Church Catholic or universal. Still, as in the hearts of individuals, the Christian faith, received in purity, may have a different bias and development according to the character and circumstances of the recipient, as, for instance, the faith of St. John was developed in love, that of St. Peter in zeal, that of Mary in devotion, that of Martha in activity; and as we perceive amongst those whom we esteem to be good men a very different form of character and mode of conduct, so it is in different Churches- the form of their faith has been greatly modified by their local circumstances and national characteristics. This variation would be the more marked in Churches which had declined, in any degree, from their Apostolic purity. And what Church has not done so more or less?

Thus, while the faith of the Thessalonians grew exceedingly, and their charity towards each other abounded, so as to rejoice the heart of St. Paul;' we find in the Church of Corinth, a tendency to schism and self-will, such as might have been expected in a rich and intellectual community; and in the Galatian Church, a disposition to rest on the obsolete ordinances of the Jewish ritual. St. John, also, in his description* of the Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, intimates that a distinctive variety of character had already been developed amongst them. If, then, so soon after their establishment by the Apostles, and even while they were yet under apostolic superintendence, we find great diversities of character in various Churches, it is reasonable to suppose that still greater differences should arise in the lapse of centuries.

First, as regards rites and ceremonies. Our own Article declares that "It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies should be in all places one, and utterly alike, for at all times they

[blocks in formation]

have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners; so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain change and abolish ceremonies, or rites of the Church, ordained only by man's authority, so that all things may be done unto edifying.' Here we have an element of great diversity. It is manifest that the same ceremonial may not be suitable to a hot and cold climate, to a rich and poor country, to a highly civilized and rude community. Therefore, while those ordinances which are laid down in Scripture as essential, as the two sacraments; and those which are of so universal, and of so early a foundation as to warrant the strong belief that they were instituted by the Apostles themselves; as, for instance, the observance of the Lord's Day, infant baptism, and episcopal ordination—while these have been retained in all branches of the Church Catholic, there are many minor ceremonies which appear, in different places, under various aspects, and the whole form of worship

1 Article xxxiv.

6

may be very dissimilar in different Churches, and, nevertheless, each Church may be free from error.

The revolutions of nations, also, must of necessity produce great diversities. A Church suffering under persecution will appear very different in external circumstances from one enjoying the friendship of the civil powers. A Church established would differ, in many respects, from one unestablished, although in all

essentials the

very same.

And not only as regards the form of worship, but the form of doctrine, there may be apparently a considerable difference in different churches, and yet essential truth may be served. Some Churches may be in the habit of dwelling more on one doctrine, and some on

pre

another; yet without denying or suppressing those truths, which, nevertheless, they do not make sufficiently prominent. It is, no doubt, a fault to magnify any doctrine beyond its due proportion, or unduly to extenuate any Gospel truth; yet it is possible that this apparent partiality may arise, in some degree, from the necessity of circumstances. Suppose that in any particular place grievous errors have sprung

up, and it has been necessary for the rulers of that Church to protest against them, and to annex such protest to the ancient formularies; as, for instance, some of our own thirty-nine Articles; this annexation will, doubtless, give a peculiar character to that Church, and will distinguish it from others; and persons taking a superficial view might consider the essence of the Church to consist in its peculiarity, rather than in those deep and vital principles which it has in common with the Church universal. It may also happen that some practice laudable in itself may have been greatly abused, and the rulers of a particular Church may have seen. cause to repress it; while it has remained without scandal in other communities. In short, it is very possible to imagine a multitude of circumstances, through which the form both of worship and doctrine in particular Churches may, in the course of their history, have come to vary considerably, yet without any real difference in essentials. All may still continue "in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship," yet may have each a peculiar form of development.

Thus great differences may exist even with strict propriety; but it is also very possible to

« PredošláPokračovať »