Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

duce the established laws of Christ's kingdom into the so-called Churches of the world, would be absurdly inconsistent, a vain and wicked profanation. They were adapted and designed for "saints in Christ Jesus," or (in other words) for believers of the unadulterated truth as it is in Christ; for they all are "sanctified through the truth." (John xvii. 17.) They were designed for such, and for no others. But I believe I may confidently assert, that all such, so far as they are engaged in the attempt to walk together by Apostolic rule, find that rule divinely full, and sufficient for the regulation of every thing in a Church which ought to be brought under rule. No doubt, in speaking of the Apostolic rule, I mean to include the recorded and approved example of the Apostolic Churches; and I am fully justified in doing so,-in regarding such recorded example as equivalent with express precept. I am justified in this, from the consideration, that it records how the Apostles regulated the Churches, which they planted; how they "taught always in every Church.”

[ocr errors]

Under what head I should treat the following argument, I am quite uncertain; being quite uncertain in what sense Dr. W. employs the word Church in it. However, it seems as well to introduce the passage here, as in any other order. (p. 22.) When our Lord appointed to his Apostles a kingdom,' and declared that 'whatsoever they bound on earth should be bound in heaven,' promising also to be with them always, even unto the end of the world,' HE MUST surely have conferred on HIS CHURCH a permanent power to ordain rites and ceremonies, and to institute and abrogate religious festivals, provided nothing be done contrary to God's word; and must have given the ratification of his authority to what should be thus ordained. For if his expressions have not this extent, what Do they mean ?”

Upon this very extraordinary argument I would remark, in the first place, that, as a mere argumentum ad ignorantiam, it has no degree of force whatever, for supporting the inference which Dr. W. draws from it. And of this he himself, as a logician, must be sensible.

But waving this; I say in the next place, that the argument is otherwise destitute of all vis consequentiæ; that there is not the slightest connexion between the conclusion drawn and the principle from which it is inferred. With the Apostles Christ is present, sanctioning their words, even unto the end of the world: therefore, the Church has power to ordain rites and ceremonies, and to institute and abrogate religious festivals!' Really, from the authority with which the Apostles were invested, to regulate all things in the Church of Christ, it would rather follow that the Church has no authority to regulate any thing.

But beside the promise in Matt. xxviii. 20. the Dr. also adduces the promise in Matt. xviii. 18. which does indeed apply to every Church of Christ, acting according to the Apostolic word; but is nevertheless as remote as the former from conferring any such power as the Dr. contends for. The words which we have now to consider, stand in immediate connexion with that grand law of the kingdom of heaven, for maintaining the free circulation of brotherly affection in a Christian Church, by directing the discipline to be exercised in the

case of a brother trespassing against his brother, "Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto THE CHURCH, (to the assembled disciples). But if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican:" (let him be removed from all Christian fellowship). Immediately after this injunction, the Lord adds the declaration,— "Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." These words, taken in their connexion, seem not obscurely to import, that his divine authority, as King of Zion, should ratify and sanction the act of that Church, however small and despised, acting in such a case according to this heavenly law; either in their putting away the offender, on his not hearing the Church, or in confirming their love towards him, on his manifesting repentance. Yet of this divine promise Dr. W. ventures to assert, that it MUST confer on the Church the power to institute and abrogate religious festivals, &c. And he ventures to enforce this assertion, by demanding—if it confer not this power, what does it mean?"-In return for Dr. W.'s question, let me be allowed just to suggest to him another question-what is the authority which he conceives has abrogated that law of the Kingdom of Heaven, just now quoted?

[ocr errors]

There remains yet a third sense, in which I find Dr. W. using the word CHURCH. It occurs in page 29, in the following extraordinary sentence:- -"If we hold as indispensable the observance of the Lord's day, and that, on the CHURCH'S authority (which we must do, if it can be established, as a binding ordinance, by nothing else,) then, we must admit that OUR CHURCH's claims to such a power (the power to sanctify any day that may be thought most fitting, p. 23,) are valid, and rest on the appointment of our Lord." Here it is evident that the Dr. employs the phrase our Church," as equivalent with "the Church;" and that by "our CHURCH," he intends, what is called the united Church of England and Ireland.

[ocr errors]

Upon this application of the word, very little needs to be said here. The thing now introduced, as the Church of Christ, is a thing altogether of this world; one of the daughters of that "great whore," produced in the "fornications she has committed with the kings of the earth;" (Rev. xvii. 2.) and among them, with that good Defender of the Faith, our eighth HENRY. In the Mosaic economy, it may be said there was a real and perfect incorporation of Church and State, of the religious and the civil institutions delivered to that peculiar people; and delivered, both of them alike, from the GOD of ISRAEL. But that age has passed away, and the kingdom of heaven has taken place of it; a kingdom, which its divine Author has pronounced to be "not of this world." Any attempt now to confound, or incorporate, his kingdom with the kingdoms of the world, is virtually a denial that "Christ has come in the flesh :" and in all such attempts the thing put forward, as Christ's Church, is always, and of necessity, a thing essentially different from it.

Indeed, if that great whore had not "made the inhabitants of the earth drunk with the wine of her fornication," they would have perceived indisputable evidence of this assertion in the very phrase, -the Church of England, of Scotland, &c. &c. The Scriptures afford no one instance of any such phraseology; but always use the word Church, or assembly, in its application to Christians,-either for the body of Christians assembling in a particular place, or for the collective aggregate of all Christians, in every age and place; that "great congregation," in the midst of which Christ declares, (or manifests,) the name of the only true God to those whom he is not ashamed to call his brethren." (Ps. xxii. 22. Hebr. ii. 11, 12.) Yet it is not surprising that those, who profanely attribute the title of CHRIST'S Church to any of those politico-religious systems, which have been established by human enactments throughout Christendom, should maintain a consistency of profaneness by charging those with heresy and schism, who obey that solemn call, come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. xviii. 4.)

But lest my meaning be mistaken, let me here remark, that I do not view the great mass of Dissenters in these countries with a more favourable eye, than those retaining their connexion with the Establishment. Both are equally remote from even the thoughts of returning to Apostolic Christianity in faith or practice.

were to be regulated at all in the concerns of religion by human traditions, I should certainly, as a matter of taste, prefer the regulations made by Acts of Parliament, to the inferior authority of one or more dissenting Ministers. The systems originating with the latter are no less Antichristian than the former; while they have much less of worldly respectability and splendour.

In the passage I have last quoted from Dr. W. he declares his opinion, that "the observance of the Lord's day can be established, as a binding ordinance, by nothing else than the CHURCH'S Authority," to sanctify any day that may be thought most fitting. If it were so, I have sufficiently proved, that "every right-minded Christian" would be bound to abandon its observance. But it really is not so. There is an observance obligatory on Christians upon the first day of the week; and the obligation rests indeed upon an immoveable rock, however weak and insufficient it may appear in the eyes of Dr. W. The recorded example of the Apostolic Churches, (Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. xi. 17. 20.) and our certainty as to the source whence they received their regulations, to the end of the world must bind the Christians of any place, who professedly hear the Apostles, to come together on the first day of the week, as brethren, the redeemed of the Lord, for the purpose of shewing forth Christ's death in the ordinance of his Supper. (Some further observations on this head may be found in the REMARKS corrective of Occasional Mistranslations," &c. No. XII. on Acts xxi. 4. In No. IX. also, of the same publication, may be found a short exposure of the supposed Sabbatical character of the first day of the week.)

[ocr errors]

The observance of the Lord's Supper was so much the leading object of the weekly assembling of the Apostolic Christians, that this

singly is selected to designate the object of that assembly; though we are taught that they came together for other exercises also of brotherly fellowship and mutual edification. But these were subordinate to the commemoration of that death and resurrection of the Lord, which formed the basis of all their hope toward God, and of all their heavenly union with each other.

I add only two more short remarks on the general subject. The first is that the intimations given in the Scriptures of the way, in which the first Churches were directed by the Apostles to walk, were never designed to form such a systematic code of laws, as the vanity of gainsayers might require; though sufficient for the children of God, to mark out their course to the end of the world. The second is that I have preferred the phrase of "the first day of the week," to that of "the Lord's day," by which Dr. W. designates it. The former continually occurs in the Scriptures of the New Testament: - the latter is to be found there only in the one passage, Rev. i. 10.; and it is more than doubtful, whether it be there employed to mark any particular day of the week; though I am aware that such an application of it is very common in ecclesiastical writers posterior to the Apostolic age. Certainly, "the day of the Lord" is used in very different applications, in other parts of Scripture, both of the Old Testament and of the New.

COLLECTION OF LETTERS

ON

SCRIPTURAL SUBJECTS.

I.

TO ALEX. KNOX, ESQ.

Nov. 4, 1802.

DEAR KNOX,-I thank you for the copy of your Remarks which you have sent me. I have read it this evening with attention, and not without a very serious engagement of mind before I opened it. It is written with your usual ability and in that gentlemanly manner which I expected; but I fear is too well calculated to counteract the good I hoped my little Address might produce in the Methodist society. However, so far as I am enabled to act with a single eye to the glory of God, I may with happy confidence leave all results to Him. I knew that my little piece would be very obnoxious to many in and out of that Society, and I know as well that yours will be very acceptable. Yet I confess to you that I would rather be the writer of mine than of yours. You give me more credit than is due to me for facility in composing. I mean, if life be spared, to answer your Remarks; but it will probably be the work of several months, i. e. of the horæ subsecivæ of several months. I desire not only to weigh my words well upon these subjects (and you will find I have done so more than you are aware in some of those passages where you think I am most open to attack,) but to have a close eye to the spirit in which I utter them: and all this is inconsistent with a hasty reply. But I shall probably without delay put to press a second edition of the Address (altering, however, the word "most" to

many," Vol. 1, p. 7.) as I see nothing in your remarks that ought to make me withdraw it from circulation, while I am glad that they will give me an opportunity of discussing some of the topics more at large in a reply.

And now, my good friend, will you pardon me for addressing a few words in this private letter, as a poor dying sinner addressing a fellow-sinner. My heart's desire for you is that you might be made a happy partaker of that simple faith in a glorious Saviour, against which I think in the latter part of your Remarks you at least covertly contend: except in the twentieth line, p. 50, when you assert what, rightly understood, includes the whole. If ever you be brought to Him, you will be brought to Him stripped of all your preliminary repentance and piety and doings of every kind-as a poor publican

« AnteriorContinuar »