Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Whether these were delegates from the other churches of Syria, and from those of Cilicia, in which this controversy was agitated, does not appear. If it should be denied that any such were present, because no specific mention is made of them, those who are most concerned to prove their absence, lest the meeting in Jerusalem should turn out to be a representative assembly, will be involved in an inextricable difficulty. It is evident, that in the present case, there was not merely a reference for advice, but submission to a sentence: and how the elders of Jerusalem could have a right to legislate for the church of Antioch, it is impossible for Independents upon their own principles to explain. One Independent church may apply to another for advice, but it still retains the power to receive or reject it. The church to which the application is made, may give counsel to the other, but has no authority to enforce it. We shall find that something very different took place on the occasion now before

us.

It has been said that the reason for referring this cause to the Church of Jerusalem, was that the Apostles were there, who were inspired men, and could decide this question by infallible authority, and that this was the ground of the submission of other churches to their sentence. But this supposition is of no avail to the cause of Independency, because it appears not to be founded in truth. First, if it had been the wish of the Church of Antioch, that the dispute should be terminated by the authority of inspiration, there was no reason for sending to Jerusalem, as Paul was among them, who was not behind the chief of the Apostles, and Barnabas, who was endowed with supernatural gifts; and there were also prophets, as we are informed in the fourteenth chapter, who enjoyed the miraculous assistance of the Spirit. Their decision would have been infallible, and it would have been the duty of all parties to acquiesce in it. Secondly, if it should be said, that although there were inspired men in Antioch, yet parties had run so high, and such prejudices had been conceived, that a decision there would not have had the effect to settle the peace of the church, and that this was the cause of the reference to Jerusalem; I observe, that while this is probably a true statement of the case, there is no evidence that the reference was made to the Apostles as infallible judges. The reason of this allegation is, that it was made at the same time to the elders who were not inspired. If the Apostles were consulted as oracles, why were the elders also consulted who were not oracles? What right had they to interfere in a sentence proceeding from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? Were the Christians in Antioch so ignorant, as to confound two classes of persons totally dissimilar, and to assign to both equal authority? If the Apostles spoke by inspiration, the elders must have been silent, and they had only to submit, like the parties who had made the appeal. Nothing however is more evident than that the elders were considered as judges, as well as the Apostles. Thirdly, when the question came to be discussed, the assembly proceeded not in the way of authority, but by reasoning. No person rose and pronounced an oracular sentence; but first one Apostle stood up, and then another, and drew from passages of Scripture a conclusion in which all present acquiesced. The business was conducted in the same manner as in other assemblies. Every member had liberty to give his opinion, and that which was supported by solid arguments was adopted.

But although the Christians of Antioch did not send to Jerusalem, to obtain a decision of the question by inspiration, they sought something more than an advice. They submitted the controversy to an authority in which they were bound to acquiesce; and, accordingly, the assembly did not give them a counsel, but issued a decree; so their sentence is called in the next chapter, and the word thus translated is the same which is used to express the authoritative mandates of superiors. The decree of Cæsar Augustus that all the world VOL. II.-62

should be taxed, is called by the same name, doyua; and it is twice employed to denote the ordinances of the Mosaic law. The matters contained in the decree are termed necessary things, things which the churches were not simply advised, but commanded to observe. The obligation of the decree upon the Christians of Antioch, and not upon them alone, but upon all the churches of Syria and Cilicia, and throughout the world, could not arise from the authority of the elders of Jerusalem, even although it had been strengthened by the suffrages of the people, according to the principles of either Independents or Presbyterians. Neither will acknowledge the right of one church to dictate to another, its equal in power and privileges. And the eagerness of Independents to make us believe, that the question was determined in a church meeting, in their sense of the term, only serves to embarrass them the more; for how could the members of one church issue a decree, which should be binding upon all Christian churches? The fact, however, presents no difficulty to us. There were present on this occasion, not only the elders of Jerusalem, but probably deputies from the other churches, which were interested in the controversy; and some suppose these to be meant by the brethren, mentioned in the superscription of the decree. As this point is doubtful, I shall not insist upon it, nor is it necessary to the argument. Besides the elders, the Apostles were members of the council, and their presence was sufficient to constitute it an Ecumenical one, and to render its decrees universally binding. We have, indeed, said that they did not act by inspiration in pronouncing the sentence; but they did not therefore sink down to a level with the other members. Although they reasoned in concert with them, and on other occasions assumed the designation of presbyters or elders, and joined with the ordinary pastors and rulers in administering the affairs of the church, they never did nor could divest themselves of their apostolical character. They had at all times the care of all the churches, and on every public occasion, acted in behalf of them all. In this council they were considered as Apostles; and consequently, if deputies from other churches were not present, the Apostles supplied their place, being the representatives of the Catholic Church. Thus the meeting in Jerusalem became a general council, which had a right to give law to the disciples of Christ in every region of the earth.

It is objected by Independents, that this meeting did not resemble a Presbyterian synod, in which only ministers and elders have a right to deliberate and judge; for that the people also took a part in the business. "The Apostles and elders with the whole church, were pleased to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch;" the letter is superscribed by "the Apostles, elders, and brethren," and "all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul." But" the multitude" can mean only the people who had convened to witness the proceedings, and who listened to the narrative with profound attention. The "whole church," or the whole assembly, must signify only the persons present, who could be but a part of the church properly so called, which we have seen consisted of many thousands; and consequently, even upon the principles of Independents, they have no judicial authority. The "brethren" have been understood to be other ministers of the word; but, admitting that they were the people, we can rationally conceive nothing more to be intended, than that they concurred in the decree, and signified their consent to the foreign churches as a means of obtaining their acquiescence; in the same manner as the laity were sometimes permitted, in ancient times, to subscribe the decrees of councils, in order to testify their approbation of them.* This is the conclusion to which we must come, if we attentively and candidly consider the whole history of this meeting, and would render one part consistent with another. The reference from Antioch was not made to the whole body of be

* Grotii Annotat. ad Acta Apostol. xv. 22.

lievers in Jerusalem, but to the Apostles and elders; it is expressly stated that "the Apostles and elders came together to consider the matter," and the multitude are only incidentally mentioned as present; and, although the brethren are conjoined with them in the beginning of the letter sent to the churchés, yet when delivered to them, it is called the decree, exclusively of the Apostles and elders. It is worthy of attention, too, that we do not find a single member of the church taking part in the discussion. From these particulars, it seems to be a necessary conclusion, that the people had no concern in the discussion and determination of the question; and that, although the church and the brethren are afterwards brought forward to view, their appearance being posterior to the sentence, can reasonably be understood to import only their approbation of it. This explanation will recommend itself to a candid inquirer, because it harmonizes the different parts of the narrative; whereas, the opposite opinion represents Luke as writing in a careless and inaccurate manner, while, in the successive steps of the process, he studiously excludes the people from the office of judges, and then abruptly admits them at the close.

If any of you should be of opinion that the assembly in Jerusalem has not been proved to be conformable in every point to a Presbyterian synod, we would say to him, that we do not pretend to trace a perfect similarity, but that we have established the principle upon which such synods are founded. There was, in this case, a reference from an inferior to a superior assembly, and the design was to obtain, not a simple advice, but an authoritative decision. We have, therefore, apostolical example for courts of review. The transaction clearly recognizes the system of subordination, and justifies the transference of a cause from the consistory, or session of a particular congregation to a presbytery, and from a presbytery to an assembly of presbyteries, which the Greeks call a synod, and the Latins a council. And thus we have disproved the last principle of Independency, that all acts of government are performed in a single congregation, ultimately, and without appeal.

The advantage, and even the necessity of courts of review have been acknowledged by some enlightened Independents; and Dr. Owen, the brightest ornament of the party, has not hesitated to declare, that a church, meaning a single congregation, cannot always perform its duty to Christ and the Catholic Church by its intrinsic. powers; that, in attempting to do so, it cuts itself off from the communion of the church universal, and that it would not be safe for any man to commit himself to its care.* When this passage was, sometime ago, brought under the notice of the public,† it gave great offence to Independents, who were not aware that it was to be found in his writings, and would willingly, if they could, have disputed its genuineness, because it aims a mortal blow at their scheme. But so he thought, and so every man who takes a dispassionate view of the subject will think. Modern Independents partially acknowledge its truth in their practice, for the associations which are generally established among them, are an imitation of our presbyteries and synods. They profess, indeed, to have no authority over the churches, of the delegates from which they are composed, and to meet solely to consult about their affairs, and to give them an advice; but the power which they disclaim in words, they exercise in fact; for, if any church does not consent to what has been agreed upon, it is, I understand, cut off from their communion.

There are some weighty objections which may be urged against the Independent system. First, It destroys the visible unity of the church, by frittering it away into a multitude of little societies, separate and unconnected. It is a matter of lamentation to good men, that Christians are divided into so many parties, which have no intercourse with each other; but this state of things is the consequence of imperfect views of the truth, of prejudice, passion, • Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, chap. xi. † Lectures on the Acts, lect. xvi.

and secular interests; and all acknowledge that it is not as it ought to be. But Independency upon principle parcels out the followers of Christ into distinct portions, and pronounces their incorporation into one body to be contrary to Scripture. Instead of exhibiting the church as the one kingdom of Christ, it distributes it into an endless variety of little republics. Secondly, It lodges the power of managing the affairs of the church in incompetent hands. Men may be qualified to be members of a Christian society, who are altogether unfit to be rulers. The grace of God may exist in a mind which has received no culture from education, and is very scantily endowed with natural gifts. A person may know the truth by Divine illumination, so as to believe and love it, and may know the wickedness and deceitfulness of his own heart, who is very imperfectly acquainted with the characters, and tempers, and ways of men. There is an absurdity in supposing that day-labourers, who perhaps can hardly read; domestic servants, who are so much engaged from morning to night, that they can, with difficulty, find time to look into the Bible; and women, living in a state of seclusion, or holding intercourse only with persons as ill-informed as themselves, are proper persons to discuss and determine the intricate cases which may come before a church. The Presbyterian plan is evidently more rational, which commits the government to the ministers of Christ, and elders chosen for their superior knowledge, and prudence, and experience. Lastly, It provides no means for determining controversies. If the members of an Independent congregation differ in opinion, they must wrangle on without the prospect of an end, or must withdraw from each other, and set up separate churches. In this way their disputes frequently terminate, and not seldom they have kept their churches in an agitated state for many weeks and months. In our church courts, unanimity is more likely to be obtained; if the decision of one court does not give satisfaction, a cause can be brought under the review of another. There is, besides, a greater probability of candid investigation and impartial decision, as the judges are not immediately interested; and while all questions are submitted to the rulers, the minds of the members are left in peace.

LECTURE C.

ON THE CHURCH.

Rulers of the Church.-Extraordinary Office-Bearers: Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists.— Ordinary Office-Bearers: Pastor; His Duties:-Teacher or Doctor, His Duties:—Deacons— Ruling Elders; Warrant for them; Their Duties.

I HAVE endeavoured to show you, from the Scriptures, what form of government Jesus Christ has prescribed to his church, and it has appeared, I trust, that we find in them the outlines of the Presbyterian plan. It is acknowledged that it is not so fully detailed as the plan given to the Jewish Church, which contains a minute account of the tabernacle, of its services, of the persons who alone had a right to minister in it, and, in short, of every thing which related to religion: "See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount."* This is the reason that there have been so many disputes * Heb. viii. 5.

upon the subject. As only general principles are laid down, they have been viewed in different lights, and men have reared upon them different superstructures. But if the principles are clear, they furnish a rule to guide us in the development of the system; and the scheme which we have adopted, is, I think, fairly deduced from them, in all its ramifications.

I now proceed to lay before you a short account of the persons whom Christ has appointed to administer this government. The Apostle Paul has given an enumeration of them in the Epistle to the Ephesians; which, however, is not complete, because there are two orders which he has omitted, but which are mentioned in other passages of the New Testament: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."* They are divided into two classes, the extraordinary and the ordinary office-bearers of the church. In the first class are included apostles, prophets, and evangelists; and we call them extraordinary, not only because they were endowed with supernatural gifts, but because they were instituted only for a time. They were ordained to serve a particular purpose, namely, the establishment of the Christian church; and when this design was accomplished, their offices ceased. The ordinary office-bearers of the church are pastors and teachers, and to these must be added ruling elders and deacons.

The apostles stand first in the catalogue, and they hold the highest rank among the ministers of the church. The word signifies a messenger, a person sent to execute a commission. In this sense it was used by the Greeks, and it occurs also in some places of the New Testament: "The servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent-axoro205-greater than he that sent him." Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, of certain brethren who had been deputed to receive the collections for the saints, calls them αποστολοι εκκλησιων, "the messengers" or "apostles of the churches." The same title is given to Jesus Christ himself, who is called "the Apostle of our profession,"§ because he was sent by the Father to publish the religion which we profess; and hence he said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." In the same general sense the term is applied to the twelve disciples, who are known by the designation of Apostles; but it is, at the same time, expressive of something peculiar respecting them.

We may remark, in the first place, that they received their commission immediately from Jesus Christ himself, first during his personal ministry, when he sent them to publish the good news of the kingdom throughout the land of Judea; ¶ and again after his ascension, when he commanded them to "go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."** With respect to Paul, who was afterwards added to the number, he is careful to inform us, that his commission was of the same nature with that of his brethren: "Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." The case of Matthias, who was nominated by the Apostles to fill up the place of Judas, is not an exception; for a direct appeal was made to Christ; and after prayer, the lot fell upon him.‡‡ Secondly, it was an indispensable qualification of an Apostle that he should have been an eye and an ear witness of the actions and sayings of Christ, and that he should have seen him after his resurrection, as we learn from the words of Peter, when they were deliberating about a successor to Judas.§§ Paul, indeed, was not in all respects so qualified; but what was essential was supplied by the personal appearance of our Saviour to him, and the revelation with § Heb. iii. 1. †† Gal. i. 1.

Eph. iv. 11, 12.
John vii. 16.
+ Acts i. 24, 26.

† John xiii. 16.
¶ Matth. x. 5.
§§ Ib. i. 21, 22.

+2 Cor. viii. 23.
** Mark xvi. 15.

« AnteriorContinuar »