Page images
PDF
EPUB

been, (whether the son of Joseph and Mary, or either of them,) Simeon is declared to have "succeeded James in the episcopal seat at Jerusalem," so that the episcopal office was continued. A full list of those who succeeded the apostles in several of the ancient churches, (as Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome,) for several centuries, is preserved. It may suffice here to give, in the words of Eusebius, a list of the Bishops' at Jerusalem, to the time of Adrian. "The first, therefore, was James, the brother of our Lord; after him, the second was Simeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zaccheus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Epaphras; the fourteenth, Joseph; the fifteenth and last, Judas. And thus many were the Bishops of Jerusalem, from the apostles to the time we are treating of." (B. IV., 5.)*

We can not find a time from the apostles down, when there were not thus bishops in the Church. We have shown that they were in the beginning; we find them in the Church now; and we find them at every intervening period from the beginning till now. The original constitution of the Church and its ministry was Episcopal, as distinguished from Roman Papacy on the one hand, and Independency on the other.

Our Ordinal says: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time, there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." We are satisfied with this. Because it is truth, we do not feel at liberty to disregard it. When we meet with men, whose hearts are manifestly filled with the love of Christ, and laboring in godly sincerity for the conversion of sinners; yet not in connection with this Church-if we may be allowed the expression"continuing in the apostles' doctrine; but not in the apostles' fellowship;" the feeling we would cultivate towards them, is not that manifested by the disciple John: "Master, we found one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us;" rather would we take our lesson

* Eusebius flourished about the year A.D. 825.

from the Master: "And Jesus said unto him, forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:49, 50.)

Being confident that our Church both retains, as near as possible, the form given it by the apostles, and holds the faith once delivered to the saints, we would "hold fast that form," and "contend earnestly for that faith." However perfect the bodily organization of a church, if it be not animated by the faith of the Gospel, it has not a soul; it is at best a carcase not worth preserving, much less contending for. In the fold of a Church, which has had an existence from the times of the apostles, and now teaches the truth as it is in Jesus, we feel ourselves at home:

"Beyond our highest joy,

We prize her heavenly ways

Her sweet communion, solemn vows,

Her hymns of love and praise."

If we rejoice that our names are written in heaven, it is not solely because we have been "added to the Church" visible, but rather because we hope we are "the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

"RELIGIOUS

TO THE EDITORS:

NOVELS."

WILL you allow a friend of yours, (and a special friend of children and of the authors and publishers of children's books,) to examine a little farther, the subject of "Religious Novels," which was discussed in a late number of the Review?

The broad doctrine laid down in the Review is, that no book or writing which has "a feigned plot, incidents, or conversations, given in the style of truth, and liable to be received as truth, can be approved by Scripture or can otherwise be shown to be wise and wholesome as an agency for teaching Christian doctrine." It is obvious that the restriction contained in the last clause excludes a vast proportion of the books or writings

which would fall within the scope of the definition above given -not being employed as a medium of teaching Christian doctrine, but rather to enforce some precept or principle of social or domestic virtue, or to expose or reprove some vicious trait or practice.

A very pleasant tale of Two Cottagers was published many years ago (we believe by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge)-in which the opposite habits of neatness and slovenliness and their fruits were delineated in narrative form and illustrated with cuts. The transactions of each day in the respective households were recorded, and each incident was obviously wrought into the picture for the purpose of adding to the effect. That any person of sufficient leisure and intelligence to note and arrange these circumstances, was present from day to day in both cottages; or that two just such dwellings were ever occupied by two just such families-in a word, that just such incidents ever occurred in exactly such a contrast is to say the least-highly improbable. The story had a marvellous run, did manifest good in improving and elevating many neighborhoods; and though a fiction, we do not understand that it would be open to the Reviewer's objection -not being used "as an agent for teaching Christian doctrine."

If, however, there had been introduced into this same story an account of the different manner in which the Cottagers respectively began and closed the day-one in the humble confession of sin and the earnest supplication for pardon and grace through the divine Redeemer, and the other in a careless and thoughtless retirement to the slumbers of the night; or if allusion had been made to the Sabbath, consecrated in one and desecrated in the other, with a view to show that godliness is profitable for all things, having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come, it would be clearly contraband; being then converted into an agent to teach Christian doctrine. If we understand the terms of the Reviewer's definition, it would exclude a much smaller number of what he evidently regards as objectionable fictions, than he supposes.

Is there not some indefiniteness even in his own statement, of what his definition includes? "Conversations upon the

Church Catechism between Lucy Smith and her mother, are admissible," he says, "so long as Lucy is made to confine herself to asking questions, and her mother to answering them ; but they would fall within the definition, if the writer in connection with them, should proceed to a feigned story of Lucy's experience, setting forth perhaps the excellent effects produced by some false theory of the Catechism," etc.

This is an "example" of the "limitation" of the Reviewer's "definition," given by himself.

Now suppose we introduce Lucy and her mother by a handsome wood-engraving for a frontispiece, representing them as sitting in a genteelly-furnished parlor, or under an arbor, or walking in the fields, as the taste of the artist or the character of the conversations may suggest. To gratify a natural and perfectly innocent curiosity, we must tell something about them; as, how old Lucy was, whether she went to school, why her father was not walking with them, or her brothers or sister. There can be no objection to this, which does not lie to the introduction of the parties at all; for if any Lucy and her mother had a conversation on the Catechism or on any thing else, the mother must have had a husband, and Lucy must have had a father, and between them all there must have been a home. We accept the Reviewer's restriction that the dialogue shall be confined to questions and answers, and he admits that the parties are fictitious. Surely it is no increase or aggravation of the fiction for us to give a "local habitation" to those to whom the Reviewer gives a "name."

After setting all these preliminary matters right, and putting the dramatis persona in a natural position before the spectator, we come legitimately to the Catechism dialogue as follows:

SCENE I.

(Returning from Church after witnessing the Sacrament of Baptism.)

Lucy. Was I ever baptized, mother?

Mother. Why certainly, my dear. When you were an infant you were taken to church and baptized, just as these infants were this afternoon.

Lucy. Well then, I suppose I am a child of grace, an't I, mother for my Catechism says that by baptism we are made the children of grace, and so my Sunday-school teacher says An't I a child of grace, mother?

too.

Mother. Yes, my child, you are; but you must remember that the grace given you in that blessed sacrament may be lost or extinguished, like the flame of a candle when it is blown out, unless you seek to keep it by obeying God's commands, and diligently seeking to Him for strength and light.

Lucy. But mother, I don't see how that can be, for the Catechism says that the inward and spiritual grace which is given in baptism is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness; and if such a grace was given to me, I don't see but I have suffered that death and received that new birth, and if so I can not die again, can I?.

We need not pursue the supposed dialogue any farther, this scrap being sufficient to indicate that the largest and broadest system of doctrinal teaching might easily be brought into a dialogue in which "Lucy is made to confine herself to asking questions and her mother to answering them." So that while the dialogue itself is between feigned parties, surrounded by feigned scenes and incidents, "the conversations are given in the style of truth and liable to be received as truth." Whether the conversation which the Reviewer allows us to put into the mouths of Lucy and her mother, embraces a false theory of the Catechism can make no difference in determining the question whether the fiction is allowable or not.

We suppose such a conversation would be equally unobjectionable between Lucy and her uncle or an aunt, a cousin or an older sister, as between her and her mother. And if the conversation, in either case, would make a more natural or vivid impression by a little expansion of the circumstances attending it, such as, for instance, a description of the genial smile, cheerful playfulness and overflowing indulgence of some as yet unmarried aunt, or some little sketch of the friends whom Lucy most frequently saw at her mother's, and whose remarks suggested many of the questions which she is allowed "to ask and her mother to answer," in fiction-surely a license to publish a fictitious conversation on a religious subject is not

« PreviousContinue »