was thus addressed to them as individuals Repent, and be name of Jesus Christ and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." It was ordained, indeed, that the Gospel should be sh first preached to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; upon the idea, it is probable, that their education under the law, as a a school-master to bring them to Christ, they ought to have been in a state of preparation to receive it. But this part particular attention to the Jew, though it tended for some little time to confirm the Apostles in their wwww usluge the prejudices, made no alteration in the commission which they had received. That was of the most general kind. They were to " go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature."+ When the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile had been broken down by him, who had made both one, the Church for the equal reception of all people. In the general execution, therefore, of the Apostolic commission, there was to be "no difference between Jew and Greek," between bond and free, . between male and female; all were to be "one in Christ Jesus;” «the same Lord over all," being "rich upon him." Both Jew and all who call of Christ therefore, the were admitted into the Church of The distinction, *Acts ii. 36, et seg. Eph. ii. 14. here' remade between the manner of receivin receiving the + Mark xvi. 15. Gospel, appears to be not less imaginary, than the clusion built upon it to be unfounded. For the spiritual kingdom of God has generally been understood, in, scripture, language, to be descriptive of the Church of Christ; or of that community of which the author must be supposed to be here speaking foldedore comm, is that This mode, therefore, of representing Christians, as members of Christ's spiritual kingdom, as it were in contradistinction to their being members of any kind of description which every professor will not fail to accommodate to his own particular but it is not to be reconciled with the account of the Christian Church in the sacred writings; into which all who professed the true faith were necessarily to be admitted. For from these writings it appears, that the particulars to whom the Gospel was addressed, were, by virtue of their faith, admitted members of a community, or spiritual society, distinguished by the name of the kingdom or Church of Christ. It would be to be to trespass upon the reader to enter upon a particular analysis of this learned author's mode of arguing g upon th the subject before him; or to point out the various contradictions that are to be met with in the pages alluded to. It may suf fice to observe, that the argument upon which much is built, by all advocates for religious liberty, and which has its force when confined to the corruptions of the Church of Rome, becomes weak and ineffectual in its general application to the Church of Christ. 1 But an author, who, though highly distinguished for his sagacity and erudition. appears, from his writings, not to have formed a consistent idea of the nature and constitution of the Christian Church himself, cannot be expected to convey that idea to his readers. And in such case, great abilities serve rather to confound and perplex the truth, by rendering it a subject of more complex investigation, than to elucidate and confirm it. What we lament in this case is, that bishops, whose sacred office it is to preside over and govern the Church of Christ committed to their charge, should use a language calculated, if generally acted upon, to leave no Church on earth for the exercise of the spiritual authority with which they have been entrusted. There is still a third writer of great respectability, whose opinions upon Church subjects appear to differ widely from those of the old school. In his chapter on religious establishments, Archdeacon Paley informs his readers, "That it cannot be proved that any form of Church government was laid down in the Christian Church; that no command for that purpose was delivered by Christ himself; and upon the supposition that bishops and presbyters were appointed by the Apostles, that the true conclusion is, that such offices were at first erected in the Christian Church, as the good order, the instruction, and exigencies of the society at that time required; without any intention of regulating the appointment, authority, or the distinction of Christian ministers under future circumstances." Such appears to be the Archdeacon's conclusion upon this subject; although such is not the conclu sion which it might be expected would have been drawn by a presbyter of the episcopal Church. But without opposing to this confident assertion of Dr. Paley our own confident negative, (which, from our particular examination of this subject, we need not hesitate to do) it shall be observed only, that the Doctor's argument, though entitled to attention upon the consideration of the quarter from whence it proceeds, does not stand upon firm ground. Should we allow that no command from our Saviour, respecting the form of Church government appears upon record, does it follow from thence that no command was ever delivered upon this subject? And on the ground that no express form of Church government is to be found, totidem verbis, laid down in the scripture, are we authorized in concluding, from that circumstance, that no form was established? The instructions which our Saviour might, and most probably did, give the Apostles on this subject, upon the delivery of their commission;* * The Apostle to the Hebrews, speaking of the priests under the law, says, Heb. viii. 5, that they served " unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle; for see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the Mount." From whence it appears, that the plan for the service of the tabernacle was delivered by God to Moses in the Mount. We do not say, that the necessary inference from the above circumstance is, that our Saviour's conference with his Apostles in the Mount, when he delivered to them their commission, had a similar object in view with respect to the service of his Church; but we think that the analogy between the two cases does at least make such a conclusion highly probable; and ought, in our judgment, to more 19 the resemblance to be expected between the form of government established under the Jewish, and Christian economy, considered as two branches of the same Christian Church; (Christianity being only Judaism spiritualized) and the circumstance of the Apostles, in the discharge of their office, acting under immediate inspiration; are considerations which ap pear not to have had sufficient weight allowed them in the Archdeacon's scale of judgment. The reasons, also, which he has assigned why no permanent Church government could be fixed upon, namely, because "no precise constitution could be framed, which would suit with the condition of Christianity in its primitive state, and with that which it was to assume, when it should be advanced into a national religion; and because a particular designation of office or authority amongst the ministers of the new religion might have so interfered with the arrangements of civil policy, as to have formed, in some countries, a considerable obstacle to the progress) and reception of the religion itself;" are reasons which, it is presumed, will not be generally admitted. That a religious establishment is no part of Christianity, but only the means of inculcating it," is a position that will be readily granted. But if a religious establishment has been deemed neces sary to the propagation of Christianity, it will be concluded, that that form of it, which was set on foot by those inspired persons, to whom the charge of the Church was first committed, is best caleulated to answer the end in view. This is a fair 66 than balance against any supposed want of information on this subject in the Apostolic writings. |