64 66 Shades of Hippocrates and Galen! if ye could but re-visit the degenerate followers of your mighty selves, and view the unfathomable abyss into which they have madly plunged the science whose birth ye cherished, and whose cradle ye rocked, would not your venerable old faces flush with resentment at the arrogant presumptions of the motley crew, and hasten to sever, in an agony of disgust, the links which connect your great names with a profession which despises and rejects your teachings? ble, we must protest most emphatically left finger;" repugnance for butter;" against the globular part of the business, speedy loss of appetite by eating," &c., &c. and refuse our credence to a theory which Many of its observations are filthy and would fain persuade us that the effect is in obscene. an inverse ratio to the cause; that though an atom too small for estimation will work the most wonderful results, dozens of such atoms would pass through the system without effect. Is it not the acme of absurdity for one moment to suppose that substances which even when administered in copious doses hardly prove efficient, when diminuted beyond the perception of our most refined senses, produce cures more than miraculous? Fancy the ignorance of the man who will assert that he can empirically prognosticate the action and effects of an agent, which but the nicest analyses of a Herapath could detect, and of whose actual presence the prescriber himself could give you not the faintest shadow of a proof! We do not despair some day of lighting upon an advertisement offering to feed large union or convict establishments upon the Homœopathic principle (pity they could not include the clothing too!); or provision packets for searching squadrons, warranted not to weigh more than a few ounces! A medical man may carry the whole Pharmacopoeia about in his pocket; nor do we see any reason why a patient should not make assurance doubly sure, and swallow all of it in a single dose, diluted to the x-1 extent. We beg to adduce a few specimens of the Homœopathic doses: The ordeal of experiment, no less than the tribunal of theory, has demonstrated the utter fallacy of the globulistic views; some of the members of the Academie de Medecine experienced, after repeated attempts, nothing but repeated failures. Andral tried it on 130 or 140 patients, in the presence of the Homoeopathists themselves, yet in but a single case was he successful. The claims of imposture were unable to stand the searching test of science. But we have a more serious charge to prefer against the supporters of the system, and one which we would in truth believe to be applicable only to a contemptible minority. When the sacred office of the pastor is debased by the introduction of the things of time and sense; when the inspired words of the Deity are invoked to sanctify the claims of a question purely scientific, the duty of Charcoal, 2 decillionths of a grain! Opium, 2 decillionths of a drop of a the literary questor is then past; uncomprospirituous solution!! mising rebuke is the only resource. We Nutmeg, 2 millionths of a grain!!! allude to a recent sermon preached with the Our readers may think that we are joking; direct object of explaining and substanwe were never in more sober earnest. Any tiating by proof from holy writ the views of one who has a spare half hour to throw Homœopathy, and published in a medical away in perusing the treatises on the sys-journal of the day. We feel that the detem may satisfy himself of the truth of our assertions. In the French edition of Hahnemann's Materia Medica, no less than 45 octavo pages are devoted to the statements of 720 symptoms produced by the onemillionth of a grain of vegetable charcoal! Among the many effects ascribed to this agent we find, "itching of the internal angle of the left eye;" "itching of a wart on the mands of our duty are satisfied by the mere notice of the subject; it is unnecessary to shock the feelings of our readers by delaying longer upon it. The true means of resistance to the onward progress of Homoeopathic and other absurdities are in the hands of the profession itself: ignorance of the laws of Physiology and Pathology clings like the gloomy mantle of night around the opening path of medical *Hahnemann's organs; Dr. Guin's" Pharma- science. The existence in its ranks of men eopæia Homœopathica," &c. exercising its mysterious art, and wielding its weapons potent no less to destruction clear notions of the processes of digestion, than to salvation, to whom its fundamental assimilation, and secretion. Without just truths are as enigmatical as the riddles of views of force, cause, and effect-without a the Sphinx, amply account for the rapid clear view into the very essence of natural strides of sedition so recently manifested phenomena-without a solid physiological amongst its adherents. We firmly believe, and chemical education, is it to be wondered that until the unclean thing is weeded out at that men, in other respects rational, rest and branch, and the cautery be applied should defend the most absurd notions; that to the affected parts, the contagion will the doctrines of Hahnemann should prevail spread, and gather as it goes. We may con- in Germany, and find disciples in all counclude in the words of the most eminent phy- tries? Reason alone will not prevent whole siological chemist* of our day, who writes: nations from falling into the most abject "How differently would the treatment of superstitions; whilst even a child, whose diseases be conducted if we had perfectly mind has been duly developed and instructed, will repudiate the fear of ghosts and hobgoblins." VINCLUM. . • Liebig's" Letters on Chemistry," p. 13. Bistory. CAN THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN AND NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE BRITISH CHURCH BE PROVED? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I. Is choosing this side in the present discassion, we cannot be deemed guilty of acting from an impulse of bitterness or hostility against the English Church, because we love that communion, and our name is enrolled among its members But those who know most of men and things, know how often it happens that great societies contain numerous individuals, who arrogate for their peculiar institution such proud titles and claims as would be instantly rejected by the more sober members. We rejoice, then, to have the opportunity to record our verdict against the proud assumption which many Churchmen have claimed for our beloved church. Nor are we deterred from recording our humble conviction by the remembrance that many great and good men have thought against us. No assumption can ever be substantiated by the number of men, however great, that may have supported it: if it were thus, then would all the lying devices of Romanism be estabEsbed upon an unassailable foundation. The assumptions of societies, as well as those of individuals, must be taken to the one unerring test, that it may be proved whether they be legal or vain. When an individual assumes kingly airs, his compeers ask him to show his credentials, and make known his antecedents. So is it with churches. When any one church arrogates to herself a proud pre-eminence above all kindred churches, she at once challenges all reflecting minds to inquire into the authority upon which she pretends to establish her claims. Thus has the harlot of Rome been hurled from the proud pinnacle of her mundane glory. Her besotted assumptions led inquiring minds to ask after her credentials; those credentials could not be found in the word of God, and they indignantly rejected that foul system of lies, and stamped Rome-" Babylon, the foredoomed of God." The proud claims now put forward by High Churchmen lead us to inquire, where are the proofs that the English Church is the only apostolic church in this land. Comparisons are generally invidious, but when we find one set of professing Christians striving to unchristianize every professing sect who do not think with them, our dutynay, our interest--requires that we should examine the proofs such men adduce to substantiate their assertions. We proceed, then, to notice a few of the most salient and most frequently-adduced arguments brought forward by those who promulge these claims. The bishops are a favourite pillar upon which this proud pretension rests. 'See," say these men, "here are the veritable successors of the apostles, and how can our church be any other than apostolic?" But may not the Romanist use the same argument with the same effect? If bishops alone form a proof of apostolicity, then verily the Church of Rome is no apostate. But we must examine the bishops to find out if they are worthy of being called the apostles' successors. We are well aware, that individual abuse is no argument against a system; but a system may be examined to see if it bears the marks which justify its pretensions. Compare the English bishops and their pompous titles, their almost regal splendour, and the palaces they inhabit, with the estate of the twelve lowly men whom they profess to succeed. Or read the following, and then determine whether the English bishops give an apostolic essence to the British Church:-" The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock," 1 Pet. v. 1-3. Do the English bishops present this picture? Have they ever done so? Where, then, is this apostolic conduct? Must not a man have the spirit of Christ to be one of his? and must not a man have the spirit and power of an apostle to be apostolic? Again, is there anything apostolic in beholding a bench of bishops filling the seats of a legislative hall? Is it following the pattern of him who determined to know nothing save Jesus and him crucified? Are these remarks made in an invidious spirit? They are not. We are now speaking of a system which is put forward by High Churchmen as a proof that their church is the only apostolic church in England. Our readers must determine whether such proof be worthy of their reception: for ourselves, we see as much apostolic proof in the lowly meeting-house, where no mitred-one ever enters, but where the word and sacraments are duly ministered, as is to be found in the whole bench of bishops, with their appended palaces and gorgeous cathedrals. They, and they alone, are apostolic who worship that Jesus whom the apostles preached, and who draw their doctrine from the Book of Life. Again, much stress is laid upon the interminable chain of bishops there has been in England; but the same argument is as good for Rome as for England. When were there no bishops in the Romish Church? And are we to believe that church to be apostolic because she can point to a line of bishops? Surely, surely, something more than a line of bishops is needed before we can account the horrors of the inquisition and the iniquities of the confessional holy and apostolic! The Church of Rome has her interminable chain of bishops, but she has, for ages, lost any claim to be called apostolic; consequently, a line of bishops does not impart an apostolic character-ergo, the English Church cannot found her claim upon her succession of bishops. That the Church of England has no right to an exclusive title of apostolicity may be seen by her departure froin apostolic usage. We are not going to determine whether the primitive Christians had bishops or not; of this we are certain-if they had, they were as unlike the bishops of the present day as two things can well be. But we shall show that, if they had bishops, our present system of creating bishops is altogther unapostolic. In the first chapter of Acts we find, that when the place of the traitor apostate had to be filled up by another apostle, he was not selected at the will of a few, but the whole church had the electing of the same: and this was ever the custom when a christian church assembled, until spiritual tyrants raised their head in the militant church of Christ. "In those early times, every christian church consisted of the people, their leaders, and the ministers and deacons; and these, indeed, belong essentially to every religious society. The people were, undoubtedly, the first in authority; for the apostles showed, by their own example, that nothing of moment was to be carried on or determined without the consent of the assembly,* and such a method of proceeding was both prudent and neces *Acts i. 15; vi. 3 ; xv. 4; xxi. 22. sary in those critical times. It was, therefore, the assembly of the people which chose their own rulers and teachers, or received them by a free and authoritative consent, when recommended by others. The same people rejected or confirmed, by their suffrages, the laws that were proposed by their rulers to the assembly; excommunicated profligate and unworthy members of the church."- Vide Mosheim, 1st Cent. "A bishop, during the first and second centuries, was a person who had the care of one christian assembly, which, at that time, was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant."-Mosheim, 1st Cent. Such was the usage in the apostolie times. Compare the present practice of selecting bishops by the ruling authority, and the utter want of authority by the laity in the Church of England, with the usage of some of the sects, and determine which is nearest to the apostolic. Some injudicious Churchmen fancy that their cathedral pomp, and their form of prayer, stamp their church with an apostolic impress; no words are needed to prove the fallacy of such an argument. The way by which a cure of souls is obtailed in the Church of England prevents her members from supposing that she is more apostolic than her neighbours. Can it be apostolic to purchase what is termed a living? Again, can it be apostolic that some christian ministers should have their thensands, and do but little work, while numbers of earnest, devoted men hardly receive a subsistence for their dependants? Would not the apostles scorn to have their names attached to any system which would allow such an unfair distribution of this world's wealth among a community of professed brethren? Verily, Churchman as I am, I blush to think that the sects are extremely more apostolic in this very essentiai thing. Again, what is there apostolic in the prohibition which prevents episcopalian ministers from preaching in unconsecrated places of worship? What part of the writings of the apostles will warrant bishops in preventing godly ministers from preaching in a diocese because they do not hold all the opinions they consider orthodox? But the Church of England is wrong in affirming that she can trace her descent from the apostles. High Churchmen are very bold in proclaiming that the Anglo Church is not an offshoot from Rome. Thus wrote Gresley:-"We have undoubted historical evidence of the existence of a pure branch of the church universal, governed by bishops, and possessing all the marks of a true church from the earliest time. If not founded by one of the apostles, still no doubt was ever entertained that the bishops of the ancient British Church derived their order from them in a regular manner. At the time of the Saxon invasion, the British Church was much oppressed; but when the Saxons themselves had been converted by the mission of Augustin, the two churches, that is to say, the ancient British and the Saxon, gradually coalesced into one, and, whether we trace the succession of our ministry through St. Augustin, who received his orders from the Gallican Church, or through the ancient British line, the fact of their being duly ordained and descended from the apostles, and so from Christ, is undeniable."* Here we see that this writer is obliged to trace the descent of the English Church from Rome: for it is a mere sophistry to speak of the British Church after she succumbed to Rome; when she submitted to receive the dogmas and rule of Rome, she at once threw aside her identity, and ignored her existence as an independent church. What, then, is the inference? Must we not see that our English Church is only a partially reformed church that sprung from the bowels of Rome? And can anything apostolic be born from the corruptions of Rome? It is sophistry to speak of descending from the British Church, when that church became lost in succumbing to Rome. With regard to what Gresley states concerning bishops, we refer to what we have stated above in refutation of his sophistries. It is painful to hear mere tyros in theology, who have just received episcopal ordination, vaunting about their apostolical descent, and with their childish arguments striving to unchristianize those venerable men who, for a long series of years, under Dissenting banners, have been fighting the battles of the Lord, and have been instru • "English Church." fact! When, oh! when, will all true Christians unweave the webs of sophistry which now divide them, and mingling in one harmonious whole, determine to drop all unmeaning and senseless shibboleths, and strive only to adorn and extend the dominion of Christ? One word only is needful to show that the Church of England is not independent. Can that be free which is held in thrall by any other power? Acts of Parliament decide for the Church of England, and by those acts she cannot, of her own free will, amend or alter any of her laws. If her sons discover the symptoms of Popery in her constitution, they cannot at once get rid of the same, but they must wait until it pleases Queen, Lords, and Commons, to permit them to expunge the same. Hence, then, the Church of England is not free. mental in gathering in many souls to the We have now brought our article to a conclusion; and if any can point out the fallacy of our argument, or the incorrectness of our statements, we shall thank them for their service. One thing we long to see, viz., truth triumphant, and error thrown AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.--I. THIS question naturally admits of a twofold division. We shall in this article consider the first part, viz.:-"The Apostolic Origin of the British Church." In order to simplify the subject, we shall endeavour to prove, first, That the British Church was founded, not only during the lifetime of the Apostles, but by an Apostle or Apostles in person; secondly, That St. Paul was its founder.* First, some of the evidence that the British Church was of Apostolic Origin. That it was the case is highly probable, from many considerations. First, from the very easy and frequent intercourse between Britain and Rome during the lifetime of the apostles; and secondly, and more especially, from the vast number, not only of Roman, but other foreigners, trafficking in Britain, settled in Britain, and serving in the armies of Britain. The writer is indebted to many works, but particularly to Foye's "English Church." W. T. Some few years after the subjugation of this island to the imperial sceptre, we find that there were so many foreigners in Britain, that in one year (A.D. 61) no less than 70,000 of them perished in an insurrection of the natives. At this time, too, so populous and rich a mart was London, that it is recorded of Seneca, the philosopher, that he amassed property in the island amounting in the lowest calculation to £300,000. At this period we learn from sacred and profane history, that Christianity spread "mightily abroad" in the world. At Rome there were zealous Christians, even in the palace; for St. Paul, writing from Rome to the Philippians (iv. 22), says, "All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Cæsar's household." That Christianity must have taken deep root in Rome is a natural inference. Heathen history tells us, that in the reign of Nero, about A.D. 64, when by public decrees search was made for the Christians, Vast, indeed, was the multitude which was apprehended of that pernicious sect," as 66 |