other side of the Tweed, we will not take upon ourselves to determine. Let us substitute the latter term for the former, and whatever difficulty is found in the question before us, will rest, we conceive, with those only, who are ignorant of the language and doctrine of the Reformers, who compiled the office before us. As it was agreeable to their theology, to consider all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works, as proceeding from God; they have defined, in their context, the motives, on the truth and purity of which, they require from the candidates a solemn assurance, that they trust they are inspired by the Spirit of God.' To the questions proposed to them, relative to their purpose of administering the Word and Sacraments, giving attention to Prayer, forming their life according to God's word, and living in obedience to their Ordinary,' the following words are subjoined, "God who hath given you this will to do all these things, grant also unto you strength and power to perform the same And if this declaration, relative to the 'will' and purpose of the candidates, had not been sufficient to fix the meaning, in which they used the term moved;' it might be infallibly collected from that formulary which contains a professed definition of the Call to the Ministry. All internal motions, or perceptions of the Spirit, are not only superseded in it; but the subject before us, thus briefly and fully explained: " And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work, by men, who have publick authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard †.' * Form. of Order. Deacons. † XXXIX. Art. §. xxiii. That this is the sense in which the question before us has been understood, by every sane divine, since the time of the Reformation, may be collected from the fol lowing authorities, which are above all exception: Bp. Latim. Serm. on Gosp. for St. Andr. day, fol. 121. "Let us learne 1 say, that when we be meete, and that God will have us to bear offices, he will call us thereunto by lawful means by his magistrates," &c. Stebb. Treat. conc. Oper. of Hol. Spir. p. 67.-" no one ought to take this office upon himself, unless he be first of all possessed of à due sense of the dignity and importance of it, of a sincere desire, and firm resolutions of advancing the glory of God, therein to the atmost of his power. Now these good dispositions of mind being all of them effects of the divine grace, a man who is endued with them may well enough be said to be called by the Spirit; and such a call as this our Church expects and requires. But this is not the call which these men contend for. For the call which they contend for is such a call as carries with it a special designation of the person to the office of minister, and by consequence, actually invests him with the ministerial authority." The The next stroke is levelled against the temporalities of the Ministry. The titles and secular honours of the highest ranks in the Church are proved profane and unscriptural, by the following learned remark, directed against the titles-Lord, and Father God, by which they are designated. "Luke xxii. 25, 26. The kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship;-but ye shall not be so.? Matt. xxiii. 9, 10.And.call no man your Father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in Heaven. Neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Master even Christ.' You cannot evade the force of these precepts of our Lord, which were. addressed to his disciples amongst others, by the same ingenuity with which you press James iii. 1. into your service. P. 11. Were our ingenuity as acute, and our reading as enlarged as our opponents', we might probably perceive the difficulty of escaping the force of this invincible objection; which, to give every person his due, originated with that mighty master of reason, Micaiah Towgood, in his vigorous attack upon the established religion*. Yet such is the structure of our understanding, that if there exist any difficulty in these passages, we conceive it to exist in the Beotian wit of the objector. On turning from the version of these passages to the original, and looking from the text to the context of the Evangelists, it is directly apparent, that the titles proscribed by our Lord, are those of the Jewish, and Gentile rulers. The terms which he uses in referring to the former, are Paßßì, Пarng, Kadnínrús †; those which he uses in referring to the latter, are Baoiλe US, Κύριος, Εὐεργέτης. The former titles are rendered in the He brew version of St. Matthew, published by Munster, and Tillet, Bishop of St. Brieue, 17, a, bo§: but the last term is rendered in Syriac. When reduced to this form, the passage of St. Matthew exhibits no difficulty; as these were the titles of the three ranks in the great national consistory of the Jewish nation; the Prince, Father, and Doctors of the Sanhedrim. The terms used in St. Luke, admit of as certain and satisfactory Towgood, Dissent. ful. just. and proved. p. v. 11. 243, 244. ed. 12th. + Matt. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. μn xλndñтε PABBI—x' ПATEРA μǹ פ¬ λέσητε μηδὲ κληθῆτε ΚΑΘΗΓΗΤΑΙ. Luc. xxii. 25, 26. οἱ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΣ τῶν ἐθνῶν ΚΥΡΙΕΥ8σιν αὐτῶν. καὶ οἱ ἐξεσι άζοντες αὐτῶν ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΑΙ καλῶνται. f Matt. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. ולאתקראו מלמדים. לא תקראו רבי - לא תקראו לכם אב These orders are thus distinguished; Gemar, Babyl. ad Tit. Bicurim, cap. 3. fol. 65. col. 3. §. 3. 11 DJJJ Wawa, Quoties in VOL. IV. DEC. 1815. Ü u gredebatur satisfactory an explanation. The common titles, adopted by both dynasties to which the Jews were subject, the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, were Oeds, Zwrng, Evegvérns*; these idolatrous titles having been given by the Gentiles to their princes; the last two were even given by the Jews to their benefactors. Having thus fixed the sense of the terms used by our Lord, an application to the context of the Evangelists will determine the sense of the passages before us. And the text and context, thus taken together, are so far from subverting the authoity of the Ministry, that they expressly confirm it, not only under the Jewish but Christian dispensation; while the adduced passages merely provide against the abuse of that authority, by prohibiting the unlawful assumption of the titles of Jews or Gentiles. Matt. ibid. 1, 2, 3. "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." Luke, ibid. 28, 29, 30. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptation: and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me: that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Unde grediebatur Princeps [w], universus assurgebat populus, simul †Thus Josephus represents the Jews as addressing himself. f. Vit. 50. Tom, II. p. 34. καλώντων ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΗΝ με και ΣΩΤΗΡΑ. Το To understand these very different declarations, in which the Apostles are commanded to reverence and submit to the Jewish powers, and, are authorised to supersede and rule over them, we have only to consider the different periods in which they were uttered. At the time when the first declaration was made, the Jewish authorities were not dissolved; our Lord himself being then under the law. He then consequently enjoins an obedience to the constituted authorities, prohibiting his disci ples, as subject to himself, from usurping the titles of Ruler, Father, and Rabbi *. At the time when the last declaration was -made, the Mosaic dispensation was about to be dissolved, the great end of our Lord's coming, being on the eve of its accomplishment. He consequently empowers the Apostles to supersede the twelve Jewish Prelates, or Princes, who vere vested with authority over the twelve tribest, which now passed under the jurisdiction of the Apostles. We consequently find, 2 * That the prohibition given in Matt. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. against the assumption of the titles, Father, Master, or Rabbi, vid. Joh. i. 39. xx. 16. was never contemplated, however remotely, by the Apostles, in the foolish and wicked light in which it is set by the modern Independents, is put out of dispute by 1 Cor. iv. 15. Jam. iv. 1. when both titles are recognised, as applicable to the Ministry. Were the precept, in fact, understood in the strictness of the letter, the absurdity would obviously follow-that every man who has a son or servant, and suffers him to call him father or master, Yet this text, thus transgresses his Saviour's commandment. wretchedly misrepresented, is the very key-stone by which the whole arch of Independency is supported; and the foundation on which the abettors of that system build the following consequences, which are as inimical to the security of our civil, as repugnant to the spirit of our ecclesiastical establishment. Towgood's Dissent. ful. just. p. 243, 244." Christianity is so far from enjoining, that it actually forbids our obedience to Civil Governors in all things of a religious nature. It commands us to call no man upon earth Father or Master," i. e. to acknowledge no authority or jurisdiction of any in matters of religion; but to remember that one, one only is your Master and Lawgiver even Christ; and all Christians are brethren, i. e. stand upon an equal footing, having no dominion over one another." This "is the only point" (which is indeed the definition of Independency) which our author represents "in dispute between them [the Dissenters] and the defenders of the Established Church." Pref. p. v. We commend this remark, from the twelfth edition of a book in the highest repute with the Dissenters to the observation of those Churchmen, who see no danger in uniting with a body of men, on their own terms, who hold these principles, with the pertinacity of enthusiasts. as + Num, i. 4--16. that, when they were spiritually empowered, they were so far from doing all whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees commanded;" that they opposed" the high priest, the chief priests, and the council," because they "commanded that they should not teach in the name of Jesus.", The nature of the authority, granted to the Apostles, being. thus determined; the extent of the prohibition given by him to the Ministry, Luke xxii. 25, 26. may be as clearly placed beyond controversion. A reference to the context, Ibid. 28, 29, 30, puts it out of dispute that it was not our Lord's intention to abase, much less annul, the authority of the Ministry; an attention to the circumstance which occasioned the prohibition, Ibid. 24, taken in conjunction with the obvious meaning of the terms in which it is couched, Ibid. 25, 26, clearly mark out the extent of the interdict. The Apostles, who, for a long time, doted upon the temporal splendor of an earthly kingdom, heard their Lord declare," the Son of Man goeth as it was determined," and directly engaged in "a strife which of them should be the greatest," Ibid. 22, 24. This unnatural and untimely contest he silences, by a pointed reference to " the Kings of the Gentiles;" and specifying their profane titles, declares that they shall not be affected by his disciples. As the above interpretation is illustrated by the customs of the antient Jewish Church, who gave the title of w>, Prince, Prelate, or Primate to the ecclesiastical rulers; it is confirmed by the testimony of the primitive Christian Church, who modelled their polity by the customs of their Jewish ancestors*. While they represent the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles, as embracing martyrdom before they would apply the term Kúgios, Lord, in the idolatrous sense in which it was assumed by the Gentile Princes +; they represent that reverence which was paid those venerable personages, as suitable to their dignity, as the successors of the Apostles, who superseded the Jewish authorities. From this learned attack upon the authority of the Ministry, our author descends, by an easy transition, to the subject of the. Bible Society. It cannot be necessary to enter into the merits of this question, on which our sentiments have been so fully and so frequently delivered. As far, however, as we can gather from ten pages of declamatory inanity, the author of " the Plea * Vitring. ubi. supr. Lib. II. cap. xii. § 4. p. 598. + Vid. Plin. et Polyc. Mart. ubi. supr. p. 649. n.** S. Ignat. ad Smyrn. cap. viii. p. 36. Id. ad Magn. cap. vi. p. 19. S. Clem. ad Cor. cap. xl.-xlii. p. 170. Euseb. ubi. supr. Lib. VII. cap. xix. p. 343. for |
