66 ment, is prescribed in the New Testament. The Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, and the Independent, may each find some things there to countenance his respective system; but nothing exclusive is there stated." In proof of this position, so easy to establish," Charitas gives us nothing but two quotations from the Commentary of the Rev. Thomas Scott. For Mr. S. I have a high and unfeigned regard, and his Commentary is in almost daily use with me; yet I should not choose to rest any position entirely upon his ipse dixit, and much less one of such extensive and portentous import as that which Charitas has here advanced. It appears to me, however, that neither the passages from Mr. Scott's work, nor the position of Charitas, which they are brought forward to support, will serve the turn of this writer. Broad as the ground is which he has taken, it is too narrow to admit the superstructure sought to be raised upon it. I submit it to Charitas, whether any thing will serve his purpose short of the position, that the Scripture actually contains nothing whatsoever on the subject of church-government. The practice of his connexion seems to me, and to many, intended to say to the public, that all forms of churchgovernment are equally excellent, or, rather, equally indifferent. The minister of his denomination comes forward in the guise of an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, an Independent, or, it should seem, even that of a Jew, as he finds most expedient and palatable to those with whom he has to do: and does he not thus say, in effect, and in the most solemn circumstances, either that the Scripture says nothing at all on the subject of church-government, that what it says asks for no manner of regard, or that the systems of all denominations of Christians are alike conformable to it? Some one or other of these three positions is, I conceive, expressed by these good men, when they appear in public in the manner which forms the distinguishing trait of their denominations. Now they will not, surely, tell us deliberately that the Scriptures contain nothing on the subject of church-government; for it is certain, that, in various forms, there is much matter directly bearing on this subject, contained in them. Our Lord, in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, speaks of a church, and of the mode in which its discipline is to be conducted, in the case of offences among its members. Agreeably to this, the apostles describe the Christians, in the several places where they resided, as first given to the Lord, and then to each other. Very particular directions are given respecting the choice and duties of bishops and deacons; respecting the orderly conducting of churchaffairs; the treatment, and, if it should be necessary, the separation from christian communion of heinous offenders; and various other things, which it is not now necessary to enumerate. These particulars are, indeed, not given to us in that systematic form into which theological writers have moulded them; but the same remark is equally applicable to the doctrines and morals of the Gospel, or to the phenomena of nature. Yet to systematize, in the later cases, is forbidden by no kind of persons of whom I have any knowledge; and I am aware of no reason which can prove it improper or useless to systematize in matters relating to church-government. Are these parts of the New Testament, then, to be regarded and treated as a mere nullity? Or is it impossible to understand them? Or can it be a matter of total indifference how they are understood? These are the questions, 1 conceive, really applicable to the point in debate; for nothing but the affirmative of one or all of them can justify the practice which Charitas would defend, and which, in its tendency, represents all church-government as a nullity, or as a matter of perfect indifference, as to its form. Yet I will not charge Charitas, or his brethren, with a wilful design to nullify the Scriptures, or to represent them as contradicting themselves; though he really does something very like this, when he says, the opposite systems of Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Independeney, but, most of all, his own, may each find something in the New Testament to countenance them. With equal propriety the same might be affirmed of every error that divides or wastes the Christian Church. But the remark is pu sillanimous, and derogatory to the distinctness of the Scriptures. Allow his use of it, and all opinions would be thrown into the same jumble of indistinctness, as that into which he labours to throw the question of church government. I speak merely of the tendency of his practice, and of his mode of defending it. As I hinted before, it is not necessary to my present purpose for me to defend either Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, or Independency; yet these systems cannot be alike equally conformable to Scripture; nor, in my view, can the practice which so represents them be defended. I have, indeed, an opinion on these subjects, in defence of which I conceive myself able to adduce ample proof pacy, Presbyterianism, nor Independency to be scriptural, let him adopt other methods of conform ing himself to the word of God. But let him not say, that divine truth gives "an uncertain sound;" for, in that case, "who can prepare for the battle?" I wish to regard the differences of men on this point, as well as on doctrinal subjects, with all scriptural charity; but when the Spirit of God does speak on any subject, I believe it to be the duty of every one to seek to understand and obey his dictate. And I really must express my belief, that a practice which represents all modes of church-government as nugatory or indifferent, would, if widely extended, be equally pernicious with the worst form of ecclesiastical polity ever invented. In justice to Charitas, it is perhaps proper to give, in his own words, the second position on which he builds his defence, although I find that the remarks which I have already made are no less applicable to it than to the first. "The other position," he says, by which our conduct is defended, is, that the apostles regarded it as their duty to conform to existing circumstances, so far as they could with a safe conscience: to the Jews they became as Jews, that they might win the Jews; and to the Gentiles, who were without a written law, as without law, that they might gain them who were without law."-" Some persons," it seems, have "maintained, that this principle, once admitted, will open the door for all the follies of from Scripture, were it neces Popery ;" and he "grants that the sary. But my present argument extends no further than this-that the New Testament does actually speak on the subject of churchgovernment; and that it is the duty of all Christians to reverence the divine record in this, as well as in all other things, and to evince this reverence in their general practice. If Charitas thinks neither Episco- NEW SERIES, No. 7. rule is lax, is liable to be abused, and frequently is abused; but this he cannot help." Lax is the very term he uses; and, I confess, I never before knew it applied, in an innocent sense, to any part of the religion of Jesus Christ. This rule is, indeed, sufficiently lax in the letter of it; but I object 2 Y to the exposition of it given by Charitas and his brethren, in their practice. That it is a christian practice, and even duty, in some sense, to become "all things to all men," I am not disposed to deny; but that this writer has mistaken the nature and extent of the rule, is, I think, evident from the scripture proofs which he produces in defence of his views. For instance, he argues that " Paul circumcised Timothy, observed ceremonial purifications, and prepared to offer a sacrifice in the temple." But how will he account for the fact, that the same apostle resolutely refused to circumcise Titus, even at Jerusalem, and when he was under the most powerful inducements to do so, to gratify both "false brethren" and true? It is plain that Paul had some rule in these cases, by which he considered himself bound to abide. He circumcised Timothy, who was the son of a Jewess; but refused to circumcise Titus, who was a Gentile " by nature." There is certainly some difficulty in the case; but it appears to me, that the opinion of Dr. Guyse and others is highly probable, that so long as God, in his providence, continued in existence the civil government of the Jews, which was founded on the law of Moses, the apostle considered himself and other Jews as bound to conform to it. This view, if admitted, will explain the other cases in which the apostle conformed to Jewish ceremonies. But these cases, however understood, certainly present nothing analogous to that which Charitas would defend. For instance, the system of discipline adopted by Episcopalians, and that used by Independents, are flatly opposed and contradictory to each other. The former is a national church, which has erected spiritual courts, where its government is administered by lay chancellors, and by means of ruinous pecuniary fines, penances, and disabilities in civil society. The Independent believes all this to be grossly unscriptural, as well as contrary to the genius of the gospel kingdom; and adopts what he conceives to be a purely spiritual system, in its forms, its privileges, its motives, and its censures. Now, these are directly "contrary the one to the other;" yet the practice contended for by Charitas proclaims them alike good and scriptural, or alike indifferent and useless. But they cannot be alike good and scriptural, for they are contraries; and if they be alike indifferent and useless, "then verily God hath not spoken" on these subjects, or we are at liberty to disregard what he has said. Underthis head Charitas quotes, as favourable to his argument, a passage from Dr. Williams's work on baptism. I have turned to the Doctor's treatise, but I find no such passage at the place referred to-owing, I suppose, to an error of the press. I see nothing, however, in the passage but what is perfectly consistent with the sentiments which I have now advanced. It is evident, that Dr. W. pleads for no laxity in worship and discipline, but what he contends for in reference to doctrine also; for he expressly and repeatedly applies his remarks both to "doctrine and worship." Charitas concludes with the prayer, that there" may be more of this yielding spirit in things not essential," &c. In this prayer I can heartily join with him, though. I suspect that in our explanation of what is essential, and what non-essential, we should somewhat differ. I should hold it essential to a good conscience for a Christian to seek to understand and practice whatsoever is contained in the word of God; since it is unworthy of divine wisdom to have revealed any thing in vain. Men equally conscientious may, indeed, through ignorance, education, and prejudice, arrive at diffe rent conclusions concerning some particulars; but it is a solemn duty, incumbent on us all, neither wilfully nor negligently to add to, or diminish from, the things contained in the book of God. Charitas and his brethren, I dare say, directly teach nothing to the contrary of this; but I really think it to be the natural effect of their practice, to lead men to undervalue, or wholly to disregard, certain parts of what God has revealed. FIDELITAS. ACCOUNT OF CATHOLIC CHAPELS (To the Editors.) ON THE SINFULNESS OF FORM- THE mind of man is so intimately connected with a material body, that it can obtain no knowledge but what is either immediately derived through the material senses of that body, or from reflection on what is thus derived. Now, the material senses can only convey the knowledge of material objects; and, hence, if the mind obtain any knowledge of immaterial objects, it must be derived entirely from the latter source. But the mode in which the material senses convey knowledge of material objects to the mind is, by conveying to the mind an image of those objects; and without such image, the mind can have no knowledge of, nor exercise thought with regard to them. But it is impossible that the knowledge of immaterial objects should be conveyed to the mind in the same mode; because, in the first place, they have no form; and, in the second place, if they had, reflection, whence the mind derives its knowledge of them, not being a material organ, can convey no form to the mind. And it is not necessary that it should be conveyed to the mind in this mode; for although the mind can conceive of no material objects, except images of those ob3 jects be conveyed to it-and for this plain reason, because the senses are the only sources of its knowledge with regard to them, and images are the only know10 ledge which they convey-yet it can conceive of immaterial objects without such images: e. g. understanding, thought, will, &c. &c. GENTLEMEN - As the Catholic Cheshire 7 11 7 19 6 11 3613770 47 Several of the chapels in London, it should be remarked, belong to different ambassadors; and many of them in the country form part of the establishment of the more opulent Catholic gentry. With a few exceptions, the Catholic chapels are small. W. E. Nevertheless, it requires a greater effort, on the part of the mind, to conceive of objects without images, than with; and for these obvious reasons, that the concep tions of the latter kind must neces sarily precede those of the former, and, consequently, be more familiar; and that the conceptions of the former kind require the exercise of the faculty of reflection, which is a higher faculty than mere conception-and hence the human mind, (although active in itself, yet nevertheless, through its connection with an inactive body, willing to avoid labour,) is naturally disposed to form to itself images of the immaterial objects of its knowledge somewhat similar to those of the material objects: and hence peculiar caution is requisite, lest we should do thus with regard to the GREAT and EVER BLESSED GOD. That it is highly improper and sinful so to do with regard to that glorious and immaterial Being, will, we trust, appear evident from these two considerations-1st. That no image which we can form, can possibly be a just representation of God: and, 2dly. That an image of God which is not a just representation of him must necessarily derogate from the glory and perfection of his nature. The first of these every one must admit, for if God be immaterial, and form belong only to material beings, no form can be a just representation of God; and if this be admitted, the second must necessarily follow, for God is a perfect Being; but this image is not a just representation of God, therefore it is a representation of an imperfect being but the distance between perfection and the highest degree of imperfection is infinite, therefore it is a representation of a being infinitely below God, and a representation of such a being, as God; but it is manifest that any representation of a being infinitely below God, as God, is a representation derogatory from his glory and perfection; and hence it is self-evident, that it is highly improper in a creature to do,or think any thing derogatory from the glory and perfection of the Creator. To whom (we may HINTS ON FAMILY WORSHIP. IT was the opinion of the excellent Baxter, that if family religion were duly attended to, the preaching of the word would not be the common instrument of conversion. Without inquiring into the correctness of this opinion, we may assume it as a generally acknowledged fact, that family-instruction has been, in all ages of the church, a most powerful instrument in the hands of God, for increasing the number of those who shall form a part of the great family above. I trust it is needless, in the present day, to advance any arguments in favour of a duty as rational as it is imperative-the many excellent treatises extant on this subject, have sufficiently proved its propriety, and the labours of more than one eminent minister, in the composition of forms for those who feel themselves unable to conduct such a service extemporaneously, have left all professing Christians who neglect it without excuse. The object of this paper is to suggest some improvements in the mode of conducting it, in order to render it more extensively useful in those families where its importance is acknowledged. I believe the usual mode to be, first, to read some portion of Scripture, and then conclude by prayer; to this some add the singing of a hymn, and others |