Page images
PDF
EPUB

&c." Not that we think that any policy and any order of cere "monies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It will be owned, likewise, by those who on this subject are capable of examining with coolness, and pronouncing with im partiality, that we have not that sort of information in holy writ, from which we can with certainty form a judgment concerning the entire model of the apostolick church. What we can learn thence on this subject, we must collect from scattered hints given as it were incidentally, when nothing seemed less the intention of the writers, than to convey to us a particular account of the plan of the society they had formed. It is a just observation of a writer of the last century, and deserves the attention of disputants on both sides :-" Videmus apostolos in scriptis suis magis sollicitos fuisse de ministro"rum virtutibus quam gradibus, et pluribus inculcasse et descripsisse eorum mores, quales illo statu digni essent et loco, σε quam quidem de forma regiminis disceptasse." [Hoornbeck de episcopatu.] But who can be more express on the silence of scripture, in regard to this article of church-government, than that zealous defender of prelacy, Mr. Dodwell, in a passage which I but just now promised to give you in his own words. They are these* :-"Est sane admodum precaria om "nis illa argumentatio, qua colligitur disciplinæ ecclesiastica, "in posterum recipiendæ rationem omnem e scripturis N. Fe"deris esse hauriendam. Nullus enim est qui id profiteatur 66 aperte sacri scriptoris locus. Et ne quidem ullus qui ita de regimine agat ecclesiastico quasi id voluisset scriptor, aut "scriptoris auctor Spiritus Sanctus, ut formam aliquam unam regiminis ubique et in omne ævum duraturi describeret. "Nusquam scriptores sacri satis expresse tradiderunt, quanta "secuta fuerit in regimine ecclesiarum mutatio cum primum "discederent a synagogarum communione ecclesia. Nusquam satis aperte, quantum donis concessum fuerit Spiritus "S. personalibus, quantum vicissim locis et officiis. Nusquam t officiarios extraordinarios qui illo ipso seculo finem habituri "essent ab ordinariis satis accurate secernunt qui nullo unquam seculo essent, dum iterum veniret Christus, in desue"tudinem abituri. Imo sic omnia tum passim nota ipsi quo"que nota supponunt, nec ipsi posterorum causa explicant, "quasi eum duntaxat, qui tum obtinuerit, statum in animo ha"berent. Officia ipsa nuspiam qualia fuerint, aut quam late pa"tuerint, ex professo describunt, quod tamen sane faciendum "erat si formam prescripsissent perpetuo duraturam.' this I shall only subjoin, If the case be as you, Mr. Dodwell,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Parænesis, N, 14.

"To

have, in my opinion, in the passage above quoted, fairly represented it; if all the reasoning be quite precarious from which men conclude, that the whole model of ecclesiastical discipline may be extracted from the writings of the New Testament; if there be no passage of any sacred writer which openly professes this design; if there be not one which so treats of ecclesiastical government, as if the writer, or the writer's author, the Holy Spirit, had intended to describe any one form of polity, as being to remain every where, and for ever inviolate; if the sacred penmen have no where declared, with sufficient clearness, how great a change must take place in church-government, when the churches should first withdraw from the communion of the synagogues; if they no where clearly enough show how much was allowed to the personal gifts of the Holy Ghost, and how much also to places and offices; if they no where, with sufficient accuracy, distinguish the extraordinary officers who were not to outlive that age, from the ordinary who were not to cease till the second coming of Christ; nay, if all the things then generally known, they also suppose known, and never, for the sake of posterity, explain, minding only the state wherein things were at the time; if they no where professedly describe the ministries themselves, so as to explain either their nature, or their extent: which was surely indispensable, if they meant to settle a model in perpetuity; in brief, if the case was really as that gentleman affirms it to have been, (for what is here put by me hypothetically, is positively averred by him in terms the most express) what can we conclude, but that nothing was farther from the view of the inspired writers, than to prescribe any rule to us on the subject, or to give us any information which could lead us to imagine, that a particular form of polity was necessary, or even more acceptable to God than another? What can we conclude, but that it was intended by the Holy Spirit thus to teach us to distinguish between what is essential to the christian religion, the principles to be believed, and the duties to be practised, and which are therefore perpetual and unchangeable; and what is comparatively circumstantial, regarding external order and discipline, which, as matters of expedience, alter with circumstances, and are therefore left to the adjustment of human prudence? What can better account for the difference remarked by Hoornbeck, that the apostles were more solicitous about the virtues than the degrees of the ministers, and more strenuous in inculcating the manners to be observed by them as suitable to their office, and conducing to their usefulness, than copious in describing the form of their government? The one is essential, the other only circumstantial; the one invariable, the other not.

But what shall we say of a doctrine which, like this of the episcopal polity, was never alleged to belong to the religion of nature, and is now discovered, by one of its warmest advocates, to have no better title to be accounted a principle of revelation, not having been instituted by Christ, or his apostles, or even in their time? No mention is made of it in scripture, the canon of which was finished, before this novelty appeared upon the earth; nor is any appointment given in holy writ by anticipa tion concerning it. Whence then have we either the institution, or the doctrine of its necessity? I know not what answer Dodwell could give to this, except the following. From frequent study, profound researches into antiquity and critical investigations concerning doubtful idioms, we have made the discovery. These exercitations, I acknowledge, have their use, and are sometimes subservient to the cause of religious verity; chiefly indeed for illustrating its evidences, or repelling objections, but never for teaching its fundamental principles or essential duties. These, like the prophet's vision, are written in characters so legible and plain, that," he may run who readeth them." No scope for Herculean labour, bodily or mental. "Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven ?" No need for scaling the firmament, diving into the abyss, or crossing the ocean. "The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart." That system must convey a strange idea of revela tion, which exhibits it as, in respect of the truths necessary to be known by all, perfectly mute to the unlearned, and of service only to linguists, criticks, and antiquaries. How different is the notion conveyed by Christ, the founder and the finisher of the faith!" I adore thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because having hidden these things from sages and the learned, thou hast revealed them to babes." It was to instruct and save the ignorant and the sinful that Jesus Christ came into the world. And, in consequence of this divine purpose, nothing recommended wretches to his charitable attention more than their needs. Besides, if the scriptures contain a revelation from God, and consequently be true, we must admit them to be perfect, and to want nothing essential to the infor mation of christians in faith and practice; for this is what they affirm concerning themselves. "They are able to make men wise unto salvation: for all scripture, given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." But in this a true Dodwellian can never consistently acquiesce, who maintains a certain ecclesiastical polity to be essential, concerning which he at the same time admits, that scripture has given us neither informa

[ocr errors]

tion nor command.

This necessarily forces us into the dilemma of affirming, either that the doctrine of Dodwell is not only false but pernicious, in subverting the authority of scripture; or that scripture is both false and self-contradictory, in asserting the perfection of its own doctrine, whilst it has withholden all intelligence upon one article; without the observance of which, all the other instructions it gives are vain, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins. And who is the revealer of this article, this mystery which hath been hidden from ages and generations? If the revelation itself be of importance, it is but just to acknowledge, that the world is indebted for it, more to Mr. Henry Dodwell, than to all the apostles and evangelists of our Lord, or even to all the sacred penmen of either Öld or New Testament put together.

But as it is not every one's province or humour to trace nonsense through all its dark and devious windings, I shall desist from expatiating further on the absurdity of making that a doctrine of the gospel with which the New Testament does not acquaint us, or a christian institution which did not commence till after the decease of the last of the apostles; and shall only further observe, that the defect of scriptural evidence, so frankly acknowledged on the other side, will be allowed by any person of understanding to be an irrefragable argument, that the polity or model of government was not judg ed by the apostles to be of so great consequence, as that it should of necessity be either fixed or perfectly known. Whereas it must have been of the last consequence, if the very existence of a church, and the efficacy of God's word and ordinances, totally depended on it.

But that there was no such dependance, as is supposed, on any thing in the form of the ministry, is manifest also from this, that in the directions given to christians, as to the judgments they ought to make of those who may assume the character of teachers in divine things, the people are never directed to an examination of, what I may call, the ostensible source of the authority of those teachers, but solely to the consideration of their character and conduct, and of the doctrine which they teach. "Beware of false prophets," said our Lord, "who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." But how shall we beware of them, or by what criterion shall we distinguish the false from the true? Shall we critically examine their spiritual pedigree, and sec whether, by an uninterrupted succession of regular baptisms and ordinations, they be lineally descended from the apostles? Impossible. A method this which would involve every thing in impenetrable darkness, and plunge all the hopes and pros

pects of the christian into a skepticism, from which there could be no recovery. On the contrary, the test he gives is plain and familiar. Mark his words:" Ye shall know them by "their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of "thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good "fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good "tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree "bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth "good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore "by their fruits you shall know them." And the apostle John says, "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether "they are of God." And how are we to try them? The sequel plainly shows, that it is by the coincidence of their doctrine with that of the gospel. The like was also the method prescribed under the former dispensation by the prophet. "To the law and to the testimony," says he, "if they speak "not according to this word, it is because there is no light in "them." A very different mode of trial would now be assigned by a zealous patroniser of the hierarchy, popish or protes

tant.

[ocr errors]

There is a memorable incident, and entirely apposite to the point in hand, which is recorded by two of the evangelists, Mark and Luke. John said to Jesus, "Master, we saw one "casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because "he followeth not us." Jesus answered," Forbid him not, for "there is no man who shall do a miracle in my name, that can "lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is "for us. " The apostles still retained too much of the Jewish "He spirit, not to consider more the party than the cause. "followeth not us,”—a reason which to this day, alas! would be thought the best reason in the world by most christian sects, and by every individual who possesses the spirit of the sectary. From Christ's testimony we have ground to believe, that what this man did, was done with an intention truly pious; not to make dissension, or form a party against the disciples, but to promote the common cause. And what was so done, would probably be productive of the great end of the christian ministry, the conversion of the hearers to the faith, love, and obedience of the Messiah.

But even where so much cannot be said of the goodness of the intentions, we are not warranted to decide against the utility or success. The apostle Paul observes, that whilst some preach Christ of love, others do it of envy, and strife, and contention. This, I imagine, is the scriptural, I say not the ecclesiastical, notion of schismatical teachers. For that alone is schism in the sense of the holy writ, which wounds charity,

« PreviousContinue »