« PreviousContinue »
To ungerstand these very different declarations, in which thie 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 dispersation 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 Princës, who vere vested with authority over the twelve tribes t, which now passed under the jurisdiction of the Apostles. We consequently find,
* 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, transgresses his Saviour's commandment. Yet this text, thus 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 comsequences, 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 Chris. tians 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 as“ in dispute between them (the Dissenters] and the defenders of the Established Church.” Pref. p. v. We commend this ree mark, 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. # 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 “communded that they should not teach in the name of Jesus.",
The nature of the authority, granted to the Apostles, being tlius 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, puis it out of dispute that it was not our Lord's intention to abase, much less annul, the authority of the Ministry; an atten. tion 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 ont 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 strise which of them should be the greatest,” Ibid. 22, 24. This unnatural and untimely contest be silences, hy 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 pow, Prince, Prelate, or Primate to the ecclesiastical rulers ; it is contirmed by the testimony of the primitive Christian Church, who modelled their polity by the custonas of their Jewish ancestors * While they represent the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles, as embracing martyrdom before they would apply the term Kógios, 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 1.
from this learned attack upon the authority of the Ministry, our author descends, by an easy transition, to tie subject of the Bible Society. It cannot be necessary to enter into the neerits of this question, on which our sentiments have been so fully and 30 frequently delivered. As far, however, as we can gather from ten pages of declamatory iuanity, the author of “ the Plea
* Vitring. ubi. supr. Lib. II. cap. xii. $ 4. p. 598.
* S. Ignat. ad Smyrn. cap. viii. p. 36. Id. ad Magn. cap. vis p. 19. S. Clem. ad Cor. cap. xl.--xlii. p. 170. Euseb. ubi. supa Lib. VII. cap. xix. p. 343.
for Unitarian Dissenters” does not patronise that association,
with tlie libe
.” But as in the tenth, or residuary, part of that association, there are some whom we know to be scholars, we would wish them to favour us with some plausible gloss upon this embarrassing passage *.
Though our author, for very obvious, rcasons, declines entering into the question of the merits of the Bible Society, he does not neglect, for reasons equally plain, to improve the opportunity which it affords him of levelling a shaft at the Authorised Yersion. The substance of his objections is contained in the followiug tremendous charge ; : * The English Version contains some evident mistranslations, some false readings, and at least one interpolation." P. 28.
The first count in this charge is substantiated by reference to Act. i. 20. xii. 4. Eph. iv. 32; the second by reference to Act.
* To assist those who are less qualified to discuss questions of this kind, we subjoin the comment of one, who possessed the best means of deciding, and was not overswayed by an attachment to Episcopacy; Seld. de Synedr. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 112. "Avá sua ssw, Anathema sit. Syrus ibi seguim 10912 277 378 sit Chercn, Ebraice In yog' seu sin nin habeatur in statu ejus in quem sententia CHERE», seu ExcOMMUNICATIO, sic dicta, lata est. Consonans est
excommumicatus, quemadmodum habet Codex penes me MS. In Bibliis
seu ratus, id est simpliciter excommunicatus.” By all of wliich we are doutbtless to understand, wish him God speed; and make him ~ member of the Bible Society,'
sx. 28. 1 Tim. iir. 16; and the third by reference to 1 Joh. v. 7: to which we will not condescend to reply, by an observation. On the false readings and interpolations of the New Testament we have, long since, stąted our sentiments; from whence those who are still inclined to support the corrected reading of Act, xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. (we respect a high authority, in excepting 1 Joh. v. 7.) as reconcilable to the Apostles? context, may collect our opinion of their principles, if not of their acumen. On the critic before us, who in three observations upon three simple texts, (Act. i. 20. xii. 4. Eph. iv. 32.) contrives, not merely to blunder upon the whole, but to prove himself ignorant of the meaning of the Greek preposition ĉv, it would be descending rather too low to offer an observation. We however subjoin the following remark, as the most apposite exemplification, with which we are acquainted, of the "effrou. tery of that incurable ignorance,” to use įhe strong language of Bishop Horsley, " which is iguorant even of its own want of knowledge."
ço It is too late to cry out against criticism. Learning is the handmaid of truth, and like it and with it must prevail. We may şhut our eyes to the light, but we cannot extinguish it.-Nor will
now avail, to cast bad names upon critics and reasoners: the cry of heresy can never be raised to purpose in the REPUBLỊC: OP.LET, TERS,” &c. P. 34. n,
As the object with which we undertook a review of the sorry production before us liniils our attention to those points principally which are hostile to the Establishment, we shall release our readers from a subject which cannot be productive of profit or pleasure, after offering a few observations upon the only remaining topic which is discussed with any pretence to learning, or show.of plausibility.
In the antecedent observations, we have replied to the objections of Micaiah Towgood; in the subsequent we must reply to the remarks of Professor Campbell: for of the various subjects which
the work under review, we can discover but a single objection, which has not been repeatedly urged, and refuted. In the course of these observations, in which the sapient authors begs leave to offer his services towards giving (us) information upon two or three hard words, which (we) use with less regard to sense than sound," P. 74, the obligation which he contracts, iu borrowing the favor which he bestows, is indeed repaid by an acknowledgment. The cause of this liberality, alzhough' sedulously concealed, is however no secret to the reviewers ; had it been safe to quote the opinions of Mr. Forster without citing any authority, they would have been doubtless
quoted at the source, not retailed, at second hand, from Dr, Campbell, and the names of both parties have been as sedulously suppressed, as on other convenient occasions.
In the discharge of this undertaking, we are accordingly in, formed, by our author, that“ the Greek word uipacis
, heresy, properly imports no more than election or choice,” P.77: < it is never employed to denote error of judgment, but has in variably a reference to perverseness of disposition and malignity," P.79: that it applies to him who makes a division contrary to the warnings of his conscience," to " sects and factions itat sprang up from worldly designs, and served only carnal motives," P. 73: that the application of these "hard names iş an assumption of infallibility," P.92: and that's the Apostles who could read the human heart, wére' sparing of those harsh and hostile names." P. 88.
The value of this obligation is, however, somewhat diminished to those, who have been long since informed, in similar language, by Mr. Foster * ; that " a beretic is no more than one who chooses to join himself to a particular religious sect;" that
an heretic in a bad sense must be one who knowingly espouses a false doctrine, is insincere in his profession, and asserts and defends what he is convinced is contrary to Christianity;" that
heresy is a work of the flesh, and that the heretics of these (apostolic) times, are set forth as men of immoral lives :" that ď to know a heretic we must know his heart, and that this power was confined to the Apostles, and exercised only through the gift of discerning spirits.” But the obligation is rather stale to those who have long learned the truth from Dr. Stebbing, as inculcated on Mr. Fosters' memory, in terms which were not soon forgotten; “ Though in those parts of the New Testament, where matters are only 'historically declared, Heresy is ofien used in an indifferent sense ; yet in the Epistles which were written to serte, as directions to Christians, in the conduct of their lives, we are perpetually.warned against Heresies, as very bad things. This, Sir, is the truth; and if you had set the point in this just and proper light, it would have raised, perhaps, other sentiments in your hearers, and in your readers t.".,
This observation will, perhaps, acquit us of every obligation, on the score of information, to " the judicious and candid Campbell;" whose“ judgment” in borrowing the errours of his precursors, and “candour” in declining to acknowledge the obligation, are sufficiently delineated in the choice of two apposite epithets. As, in our estimation, a benevolent intention is
* Sermons. pp. 290. 299. ed. 2d.
Steb, II Let. to Fost. p. 19. Lond. 1735.