Page images

Townderstand these very different declarations, in which the Ano are commanded to reverence and submit to the Jewish powers, and, are authorised to supersede and rule over then, 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 disciples, 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 were vested with authority over the twelve tribes F, 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 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 doiminion 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 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. - + Num, i. 4-16. - - - x . U u 2 that,



that, when they were spiritually empowered, they were so sir 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. 28,29,36, puts 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, Hid. 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 deter. mined,” and directly engaged in “a strife which of them should be the greatest,” Hoid. 22, 24. This ummatural 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 owl, Printe, 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 ances. tors”. While they represent the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles, as embracing martyrdom before they would apply the term Küçios, 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 authoritiesł. 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

[ocr errors]

for Unitarian Dissenters” does not patronise that association, with his pence, or his eloquence. It appears, however, that, while he reserves his money for better purposes, with the liberality of the priest in the fable, he has a benediction at the Society's service. While the subject of Bibles, benedictions, and Unitarians, is thus obtruded upon our attention, we cannot avoid adverting to the command which the great Apostle has enforced, with more than his wonted eloquence; Gal. i. 7–9—" but there be some that—would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unlo you, than that which we have preached unto you :—as we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other £ospel unto you than that ye have received, 2,29s, 2 #sa.” To nine tenths out of those who compose the Bible Society; we are perfectly conscious, it is all one, whether these last words have any meaning whatever, or the meaning apparently assigned them, by Messrs. Dealtry, Aspland, and Gisborne, “ bid him

so God speed,”—“ the blessing of God be with him.” But as in wo the tenth, or residuary, part of that association, there are some *:: whom we know to be scholars, we would wish them to favour solo us with some plausible gloss upon this embarrassing passage *.

Though our author, for very obvious. reasons, declines enterto: ing into the question of the merits of the Bible Society, he does o not neglect, for reasons equally plain, to improve the oppor; : tunity which it affords him of levelliisg a shaft at the Authorised so Version. The substance of his objections is contained in the as: 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

go this kind, we subjoin the comment of one, who possessed the best o means of deciding, and was not overswayed by an attachment to o Episcopacy; Seld. de Synedr. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 112. "AváSega fra, o Anathema sit. Syrus ibi >;-- loco Enn sin, sit Cherem, Ebraics (4; Enn on seu Enn on häbeatur in statu jus in quem sententia . o CHEREM, seu Exco MMUNICATIo, sic dicta, lata est. Consonans est ~ Arabs Erpenianus Lex- crea).3 sit per Cherem excommu

zwcatus, quemadmodum habet Codex penes me MS. In Bibliis

- autem. Jaianis Arabs 32,i- ceas); sit segregatus seu sepao' ratus, id est simpliciter excommonicatus.” By all of which we are so doutbtless to understand, “wish him God speed ; and make him a member of the Bible Society.’

- kx. 28.

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

xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 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, stated 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 #y, 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 “effron-
tery of that incurable ignorance,” to use the strong language
of Bishop Horsley, “which is ignorant even of its own want of

“ 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 shut our eyes to the light, but we cannot extinguish it.—Nor will it now avail, to cast bad names upon critics and reasoners : the cry of heresy can never be raised to purpose in the REPUBLIC or LET, TERs,” &c. P. 34. n, *

As the object with which we undertook a review of the sorry
production before us limits our attention to those points princi-
pally 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 re-
maining topic which is discussed with any pretence to learning,
or show of plausibility. - .
In the antecedent observations, we have replied to the ob-
jections of Micaiah Towgood; in the subsequent we must
reply to the reularks of Professor Campbell: for of the various
subjects which compose 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
author “ begs leave to offer his services towards giving (us) in-
formation upon two or three hard words, which (we) use with
jess regard to sense than sound,” P. 74, the obligation which he
contracts, in borrowing the favor which he bestows, is indeed
repaid by an acknowledgment. The cause of this liberality,
although 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 *
- - quote -

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

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 aspects, heresy,
properly imports no more than election or choice,” P. 77: that
“ it is never employed to denote error of judgment, but has ine
variably a reference to perverseness of disposition and malig-
nity,” P.79: that it applies to him who “makes a division
contrary to the warnings of his conscience,” to “sects and factions
that sprang up from worldly designs, and served only carnal
motives,” P. 73: that the application of these “hard names, is
an assumption of infallibility,” P.92; and that “ the Apostles
who could read the human heart, were sparing of those harsh
and hostile names.” P. 88. * . . . . . . . , s , ,
The value of this obligation is, however, somewhat diminish-
ed to those, who have been long since informed, in similar
language, by Mr. Foster *; that “a heretic 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 Å. immoral lives:” that
“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 Tes-
tament, where matters are only historically declared, Heresy is
often used in an indifferent sense; yet in the Epistles which were
written to serve 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, per-

haps, other sentiments in your hearers, and in your readers to .

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. 4. - ever

« PreviousContinue »