Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the plural is never ap

out all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria,"* plied to the Christians of one city, but we read of "the church which was in Jerusalem, the church at Corinth, the church at Antioch, the church at Ephesus;" so that whatever was the bond of union among the different congregations of one city, the apostles seem to have considered them as constituting one church.

But even although we should allow the Independents the proposition which they attempt to prove, it does not appear that they would gain much. If, in the times of which the book of Acts gives the history, all the Christians of every city might conveniently assemble for worship in one place, such regulations as suited this scanty number could not be a proper pattern for after-times, when Christians multiplied beyond the possibility of meeting together: and if in the one congregation which was formed at first, many individuals and many families were united by their common faith under one government, this early union, which was all that the circumstances of the case required, is very far from implying any condemnation of that future union of different congregations, which their vicinity might prompt.

The state of the congregations described in the New Testament not furnishing Scripture-authority, or, what was called in the seventeenth century, a divine right for the Independent form of government, the plea of authority must be set aside, and we are left to try the fundamental principle of this form by those general maxims, which are founded in reason and Scripture.

In appreciating its merits, there are three concessions which will be readily made by every impartial examiner.

1. We admit that the Independent form of government is very much superior to the presumptuous, unconnected spirit of fanaticism: for it implies the perpetual obligation of the positive rites of Christianity; it provides, by the appointment of a particular order of men, for their being regularly administered; and it exhibits not a political association, but an ecclesiastical society possessing and exerting the powers, which it believes to be founded in the institution of Christ, and which it considers as necessary for its preservation.

2. We admit that church government was instituted, not for the aggrandizement of any order of men, but for the edification of the people. If the form of government adopted by the Independents is radically defective, the defect does not lie in their mistaking the object of church power, but in their confounding the source from which it flows, with the purpose for which it is conferred. They were led into the mistake by their experience of what they considered as abuses of church power, what they accounted acts of oppression and invasions of rights of conscience, under the ecclesiastical government of men who professed to derive their power from a higher source; and they thought that they should effectually guard against the introduction of such abuses in the separate societies which they formed, by declaring as their fundamental principle, that the power, which was to be exerted for their edification, resided originally in themselves, and was delegated by them to their own officers.

*Acts ix. 31.

3. We admit that cases may occur where the principles of Independents must be followed out in practice. If a body of Christians were, by any calamity, placed for a length of time in such a situation, that it was impossible for them to obtain the ministrations of a person regularly invested with the pastoral character,―placed in an island without a pastor, and separated from all other Christian societies, it would still continue their duty to join in the worship of God, and to celebrate the rites of Christianity: but that these services might be performed in a manner the most orderly, and the most agreeable to the institution of Christ which circumstances permitted, it would also be their duty to call from among themselves the persons whom they thought best qualified to preside in the public worship, and to administer the rites; and it is not to be doubted that the blessing of God would supply the unavoidable defect.

But even after these three concessions are made, the Independent form of government remains liable to strong objections, in respect both of the mode of appointment to the office of the ministry which it enacts, and of the disunion of the Christian society which it implies. In illustrating these two objections, which are intimately connected together, I shall state the substance of the treatises written in the seventeenth century, in opposition to the congregational brethren.

I. This method of conveying the office of the ministry by the act of the people not only is destitute of the authority of any example in the New Testament, but is contrary to the spirit of all the directions there given upon that subject. Our Lord chose men to be apostles, endowed them with the necessary qualifications, and then gave them a commission to preach and to baptize. We read in the short history of their progress, that they ordained elders in the churches. Paul speaks to Timothy of "the gift which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands, of the gift which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbyter :"* he says to Titus, "for this cause, left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee;"t and he enjoins Timothy to "lay hands suddenly on no man." These passages, when taken together, seem to imply that the office of the ministry, which Timothy and Titus had received from Paul, and other office-bearers joined with him, was with like solemn imposition of hands to be conveyed by them to others. It is true that in Acts vi. the apostles desire the multitude of the disciples to look out among them seven men of honest report to superintend, with the name of deacons, the daily ministration of their charity. But although there was a manifest propriety in desiring the people to propose the persons, whom they judged worthy of being intrusted with the distribution of their charity, yet the men thus nominated did not begin the distribution till they received from the apostles a solemn appointment; and with regard to those offices in the church which were not, like the office of deacons, chiefly secular, but which implied the exercise of spiritual authority, there is not any passage, which, when fairly examined, will be found to intimate that it was conferred by the act of the people.

1 Tim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6.

+ 1 Tim. v. 22.

† Titus i. 5.

One passage which is chiefly relied on as giving countenance to Independency is Acts xiv. 23 ; χειροτονήσαντες δε αυτοίς πζεσβυτέρους κατ' εκκλησίαν. But besides that xgoro, before the time of Luke, was used for simple designation, without the exercise of suffrage, as is plain from his own expression, Acts x. 41, it is applied in this passage, not to the people, but to Paul and Barnabas, so that whatever be the meaning of the word, it can only be considered as making known the part, which these disciples took in the appointment of elders.

Accordingly the qualifications of those who were to be made bishops, and elders, and deacons, are mentioned, not in epistles to the churches, but in epistles to Timothy and Titus, who are directed to the proper method of trying such as might be admitted to take part with them in overseeing the church of God. The judgment of the qualifications is vested in those who, having been themselves found qualified, may be supposed capable of trying others; their act, following upon their approbation, is the solemn investiture of those whom they have found worthy; and they are the instruments by which Jesus Christ conveys to that order of men, which he meant to continue in his church till the end of the world, the authority implied in the exercise of their office.

II. The second great objection to the Independent form of government is the disunion of the Christian society which it implies. It considers the followers of Jesus as constituting so many separate associations, every one of which cares for itself, is complete within itself, and has only a casual connexion with others. If, therefore, in the exercise of the separate authority of any congregation, wrong be done to an individual, he is left, while he remains a member of that congregation, without the possibility of redress; and if neighbouring associations should quarrel, which, considering the caprice and violence of human passions, is perhaps not much less likely than that they will live in peace, no method is provided for terminating their dissensions, or for preserving, amidst these dissensions, the continuance of their agreement in any common principles. But this is directly opposite to the Scripture idea of the Christian society, or Catholic church, which is represented as "one body," professing one faith, separated, indeed, by the necessity of circumstances into associations meeting in different places, but retaining amidst this separation all the unity which is possible. To this Catholic church, founded by the labours of the apostles, spread in idolatrous nations by the preaching of those whom the apostles ordained, and still maintained and extended in the world by the ministrations of all the servants of Christ, the promises are made: for its gifts continue to be distributed; and the rites, which the great body of Christians agree in celebrating, are the rites not of this or that association, but of the church of Christ. A person must receive baptism from a particular association; but, by being baptized, he becomes a member of the great society; or, in the language of the book of Acts, "he is added to the church." He must join in the Lord's Supper with a particular body of Christians; but by eating that one bread, and drinking that one cup, he holds communion with all in every place, who "show the Lord's death." When he forfeits, by his own fault, his right to be numbered amongst that body of Christians with whom he formerly associated, he ceases to be a mem

ber of the Catholic church; and he remains without the church, till he be found worthy of being re-admitted by those who had excluded him.

According to these views, the different meetings of Christians are branches of one society, united as parts of a whole; and the first thing which enters into our conception is the whole, while the circumstances, which rendered it necessary for this whole to be divided, are a matter only of secondary consideration. When, therefore, in our speculations concerning that government which "God hath set in the church," we begin with considering government in reference to the whole, and from thence descend to the several divisions, we follow the order of nature. Whereas, if, like the Independents, we confine our attention to the divisions, we lose sight of the unity of that which is divided; and, as we invert the process by which the society that we analyze was constituted and enlarged, we shall probably arrive at conclusions unfounded in fact, and very remote from the intention of the Author of the society.

If every association of Christians be viewed as independent of every other, it will unavoidably follow that ordination is the act of the people; for whence is a separate unconnected body of Christians to receive a pastor, unless from their own nomination? But if we preserve the view of a great society divided into many branches, then it follows, that in the same manner as every one who is baptized becomes a member of the Catholic church, so every one who is ordained, by the laying on of hands of the office-bearers of the church, becomes a minister of the church universal. He is invested with that character, in a manner the most agreeable to the example and the directions contained in the New Testament; and by this investiture he receives authority to perform all the acts belonging to the character. He cannot perform these acts to the church universal, because it is nowhere assembled; and the separation of the church universal renders it expedient, that the place in which he is to perform them shall be marked out to him. But this assignation of place is merely a matter of order, which is not essential to his character, which does not detract from the powers implied in his character, and which serves no other purpose than to specify the bounds in which the church universal, by the hands of whose ministers he received the power, requires that the powers shall be exercised.

What is the most proper manner of assigning the limits for the exercise of the powers conveyed by ordination, is a question which has been violently agitated both in ancient and in modern times. It was the subject of the controversy which was waged for many centuries between the Pope and the princes of Europe, about what was called the investiture of church benefices; and it is the same question which has appeared in Scotland under the form of a competition between patronage, a call by heritors and elders, and popular election. The decision of this question, in every country, depends upon civil regulations; and if the church proceeds without the authority of the state, to assign the limits of exercising ministerial powers, she introduces a collision between the civil and ecclesiastical governments. Her business is to convey the powers to those whom she finds qualified. By ordination they become ministers of the

church universal; for, having been tried by a particular branch of the church, acting in the name of Jesus, and in virtue of the trust derived from him, they receive authority and a commission to perform all the acts, which belong to those who are called in Scripture ambassadors, stewards, rulers, and overseers. Subsequent to this authority and commission, and essentially distinct from it in nature, although often conjoined with it in practice, is the invitation or appointment, applying the exercise of the authority to a particular district of the church. The invitation, when Christians are not recognised by the laws of the land as entitled to their protection, is, of necessity, and of right, the act of the people to whom the person is to minister; but when Christianity enjoys the benefit of being incorporated with the constitution of the state, it comes, in consequence of that civil advantage, to be modified in such manner as the government of the state is pleased to direct.

You will find yourselves involved in inextricable difficulties upon many questions in church government, unless you are careful thus to separate in your minds ordination, which is the appointment of Jesus Christ, conveying a character by the instrumentality of the officebearers of his church, from the election of a minister, which is the appointment of men applying or limiting the exercise of this character, in such manner as they please, and with more or less wisdom, as it happens. It is the leading feature in the system of Independency to confound these two; and you will find, in your future experience of ecclesiastical business, that all the approaches to Independency, which appear in the sentiments or the conduct of particular persons, arise from their not keeping them perfectly distinct. Whenever ordination is considered as the act of Jesus Christ, by his office-bearers constituting a minister of the church universal, the idea of one great society is preserved. The whole may be diversified in outward circumstances, but it does not cease to be a whole; for, from this principle there result subordination to superiors, which is essential to church government, and a bond of union amongst those, who are so far removed in place as not to be amenable to the same earthly superior. But whenever ordination is confounded with election, the unity of the great society is lost; the whole is crumbled into factions; there is no legal redress for the wrong which may be done by small unrelated jurisdictions; and there is no constitutional mean of deciding the controversies, which, arising among the separate associations merely from their neighbourhood, may disturb their peace and embitter their minds.

I have entered thus fully into the discussion of the Independent form of government, because, in canvassing its merits, I have been led to lay down some fundamental principles of church government, in which Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians are agreed, and which we shall carry along with us in comparing their different schemes. These principles are the foundation of a distinction, which, although not expressed in Scriptural terms, appears to us agreeable to Scriptural views; I mean the distinction very early made between the clergy and the laity. We shall afterwards find, that this distinction has been supposed to imply powers and exemptions on the part of the clergy, to which no order of men derives any title from the

« AnteriorContinuar »