Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

themselves

to be the

been left only as above considered, in the form of abstract instruc- The tion, whether formally enunciated, or certainly deducible from the Principles Scriptures. But far more than this was done. On these very object of all principles the apostles actually formed and regulated societies of Christian Christians; so as to leave them not merely abstractedly propounded, Societies. but practically proved. This proceeding, while it lightened the difficulty of the uninspired Church, (especially of those who first received the guidance of it from the apostles, and who most needed it,) proportionably contracted the discretionary powers with which they were invested. If only abstract principles had been left, uninspired authorities would have been justified in regarding solely these, and regulating the means of conformity to them by their own unbiassed judgment. But the apostolical precedents created a newrestriction. Rulers of infallible judgment not only had taught the principle, but the precise method by which that principle was best preserved had been practised by them, and set forth, apparently for the guidance of their less enlightened successors.

Was the Church of all ages bound to follow their track without any deviation? If so, where was any room for discretionary power? If not, on what authority was the deviation to be made, and how far was it authorized? Here the most accurate view of the character and object of the Christian's sacred record is necessary, in order to remove all obscurity from the question. That record, as far as the agency of human ministers is its object, is partly historical, partly legislative. The two terms are not, perhaps, quite expressive of the distinction intended; but, by Scripture being partly legislative, is meant, that it is partly concerned in conveying the rules and principles of religion-the revealed will, in short, of God. It is also partly historical; and of the historical portion no inconsiderable share is solely or principally a practical illustration of these rules and principles. History and legislation are indeed both blended; and it is because they are thus connected: but the respective uses of them, as distinct portions of Scripture, are here, as in other questions of a similar nature, very important. When the historical incidents, the facts recorded, are recorded as specimens of the fulfilment of God's will, their only authority, as precedents and examples, arises from their conformity to the principle which they illustrate. Now it is conceivable and likely, that a change of circumstances may render a practice inconsistent with such a principle, which originally was most accordant with it, and vice versa. The principle is the fixed point, and the course which has first attained it may become as unsuitable to another who pursues it, as the same line of direction would be for two voyagers who should be steering for the same landmark at different seasons, and with different winds. Still, as in this latter case, the first successful attempt would be, to a certain extent, a guide to those which follow; and this, exactly in proportion to the skill of the forerunner. The

H.

P

standards of

[ocr errors]

apostles were known to be infallible guides; and those who immediately succeeded them, and all subsequent ages, are quite sure that they must have pursued that which was, under the existing circumstances, the most direct line to their object, that, circumstanced as Christianity was in their hands, all their regulations were the best possible for preserving the principles of the Church-establishment and government. The uninspired Church was therefore bound to follow them, until any apostolical practice should be found inadequate to accomplish its original purpose. Here commence the discretion and responsibility; the first obligation being to maintain the principle according to the best of their judgment, as the prudent steersman alters his track and deviates from the course marked out in his chart, when wind or tide compel him to the deviation. Different And thus we shall be at no loss for the precise difference of Apostolical authority between the precedents of the apostolical and of the primitive uninspired Church. In matters which admit of appeal to Usage. the usage of the apostolical Church, we are sure, not only that the measure was wise, but the very wisest; and, accordingly, the only question is, whether its suitableness has been affected by any change of circumstances. On the other hand, in a similar reference to the uninspired Church of any age, the measure is first of all pronounced wise or unwise-lawful or unlawful, as it conduces or not to the maintenance of the revealed principles of ecclesiastical society. And, supposing the measure under consideration be proved to have been so conducive, still it is not at once certain, as in the former case, that it was the wisest and most judicious measure which the existing circumstances required or admitted. It emanated from fallible wisdom. Accordingly, in canvassing the authority of such a precedent, we are authorized and bound to institute two inquiries;-Was the measure the most accordant with ecclesiastical principles then? Is it so now? Whereas, in the former appeal to apostolic usage, the only question is, whether it is convenient,

and Uninspired

Qualifica tion arising

from extreme

Antiquity.

now?

There is, however, some qualification to be admitted in this general statement, correct as it is in a general view. The qualifying point is this: in usages for which there is no precise rule or precedent in Scripture, but in which we follow the practice of the ancient Church, there is a difference to be made in the authority of our guide, as the usage can be clearly and decidedly traced to uninspired institution or not. If, looking back through the successive generations of Christians, we find it without date or recorded source, it may have been of apostolical origin; and the strength of this claim is in proportion to the distance of the first link in the chain of its history, in short, to its antiquity,-combined with its apparent wisdom and apostolical character. Such a custom, indeed, may have so great a preponderance of probability in favour of its apostolical origin, as to claim from us nearly the same cautious diffidence in

departing from it, which would influence us in canvassing a deviation from the apostolical precedents themselves.

the

Scriptures.

Our immediate inquiry, however, and the point to which these Limits from remarks have been directed, is not concerning the lawful use of Possession uninspired precedents by us, but the lawful use of inspired prece- of the dents by those who first found themselves deprived of the immediate guidance of inspiration. The Church, it was observed, had several distinct offices to fulfil. It was the trustee of holy writ for mankind; and in this character it was called on, agreeably to the will of God, to exert itself for the preservation, and also for the dispensing, of the deposit. The Church was also the appointed channel of grace; and out of this arose a new demand on its carefulness, to preserve or to provide such forms as should be best adapted for this purpose. From Scripture and from oral instruction it had been taught the great principles by which the apostles had been directed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to attain these ends; and it had, moreover, witnessed and practised under the apostles the measures which inspired wisdom had directed, for a due conformity to these ordained principles of His society. Still, as the principles were the end, and the practice which formed the apostolical precedents, the means, and, as such, only precedents so far as they were conducive to that end; the Church was left to the exercise of a discretion, which, whether exercised rightly or abused, could not, or ought not, to mislead a succeeding age. Every Christian society, at every period, must, as such, possess the Christian's sacred record; and is, by that, enabled to judge how far others, or how far it has hitherto itself employed that discretionary power, so that the Church should retain its great scriptural marks-Spirituality, Universality, Unity.

reasoning

universally

the

Thus, considering the Church as fulfilling its office of preserving This the Scriptures, and of being the channel of evidence to their authen- applied to ticity, the limit to its discretionary power, in any given instance, is the Duty of not hard to be discovered; and we shall scarcely be at a loss to circulating decide on the praise or blame which the apostolical Fathers and Scriptures. their coadjutors deserve on this score from posterity, or on the authority and use of their example. In order to preserve the Scriptures, for instance, it would be obviously their duty to promote their general use among Christians, precisely in the form in which they were first deposited as a trust to be preserved. They might see reason, and it would be right for them, to recast the scriptural truths, and to combine and mould them differently in Homilies, Catechisms, Creeds, and Articles; but it would be unlawful for them to substitute these uninspired compositions, however perfect, however completely conveying scriptural truth, for the sacred writings themselves. The New Testament was an estate in trust; and the trustees had no authority to dispose of the property, however advantageous the transfer might appear. But, although no doubt could arise on this point; although it is evident, that in order

to preserve the Scriptures, and so to preserve them, that each generation may become a strong evidence to the next of their perpetually admitted authenticity, a very general use of the original Scripture is indispensable; still, a doubt may arise, as to the obligation of circulating these writings, in their original form, among all ranks and descriptions of persons; among those, for instance, whose labours or whose history was not likely to descend from one age to another, and thus to furnish the intended evidence. If such a doubt arose, how would it be determined? Obviously, by observing how far the great foundation principles of the Church would be violated or preserved, as one side or the other was adopted in the question. Looking back to the apostolical course, no historical fact, no precedent would, perhaps, present itself as being precisely a parallel case; but what could not fail to force itself on the attention, would be, an anxiety expressed in the sacred writings and in the ministry of the inspired teachers, to preserve that distinction between the Christian and the Jewish Church which forbade a gradation of privileges amongst its members; which maintained the breaking down of the partition walls that formerly separated God's Church into classes, each claiming a different proportion of communion, instruction, and whatever else be comprehended under the term Divine dispensation; which taught that there was one law for all. This reference to the principle of Unity, then, would be sufficient to guide the Church, for the first time, in its distribution of the Scriptures, and would equally suffice to enable any other Church, of any other age, to judge whether it had distributed them rightly or otherwise. No plea, not even an apostolical precedent, (if such a supposition be possible,) would form a ground for withholding, from any portion of the Church, the Scriptures in a language understood by all. This is so, because the principle of unity of dispensation is the fixed mark, by which the apostolical precedents themselves were directed; and any such supposable deviation could only have arisen from extraordinary variation in the means of attaining that end.

Again, considering the Church in another capacity, as the dispenser of scriptural truth, we naturally find it shaping its measures by an attention to those circumstances, which would render, in each age and society, the Scriptures more easily learned, or less liable to be mistaken. These truths being always the same, there would still be much room for discretionary power, in conveying them to children, or to mature minds; to a cultivated, or to a rude people; to a philosopher, or to the vulgar. As errors and heresies arose, a further modification would take place in the mode of teaching truths once perverted; and these would be, according to the exigency, made more prominent, more explicit, and be more definitely and securely worded. Catechisms, Creeds, and Articles, would be the Catechisms, natural result of the Church's efforts to do its duty as dispenser of Articles, scriptural truth. As a body, likewise, it would, with the same

Το

Creeds,

intent, appoint preachers of the word, and dispose the oral and Preaching. written eloquence of its ministers to bear in the same direction. For the right management of all this, the uninspired Church would often find no parallel or strict precedent in apostolical history, and would act on its own discretion. But here, again, its discretion would not be quite uncontrolled. It would be bound so to act, as to conform to those very fundamental principles of the Church to which the apostles themselves conformed; nor would its practice, in any such case, be a precedent for after times, unless it could abide this test, nor even then, for we should further calculate on its conformity to the scriptural principles, under all the difference of circumstances between the then and the present condition of the Church, before we admitted it as a lawful precedent.

corruption

Church not

with God's

tions,

Nor would it, at all, affect the Divine character of our religion, if Early it should appear that the Church had, in any one instance, departed of Practice from its principles, immediately on losing its inspired and extraordi- by the nary superintendence. Even if it were found to be so, this would inconsistent not affect its claim to a divine origin, much less oblige us to imitate other and perpetuate the error. In mere human institutions, it may imply dispensawant of wisdom and foresight in the founder, that his work should soon have degenerated, and its object be defeated; but this reasoning is not applicable to the Divine appointments; at least it does not apply to the condition of the Church more than to any other of these appointments. The same difficulty meets us in the history of the progressive corruption of the human race; in the backslidings of God's chosen people, the Jews; and it is what we have reason to look for even in the last dispensation itself, from the prophetic warning of its inspired founders. It is a difficulty which resolves itself into the inexplicable question concerning the existence of evil. The general corruption of the Christian world, at any past period, ought to be considered rather as a presumption that the Church is assisted by God; and this the more, the earlier such corruption occurred. so for this reason. When the old world first began to corrupt religion, we know that men plunged deeper and deeper into error. When the Jews began to disobey the law and to practise idolatry, we see plainly from their history that the like fate would have befallen them. And why did it not? Because God continually interposed. What, then, but a corresponding, though insensible, Divine guardianship can account for that which has taken place in the Church of Christ-reformation? That it should have occurred otherwise, is contrary to all that has ever happened, according to the religious history of mankind in every age.

an argument for the presence of

His constant It is ship.

Guardian

ary power of

To the rulers of the Church, viewed in its sacramental character, Discretionas the temple of the Holy Ghost, and the medium of Divine grace, the Church a discretionary power was likewise left, and likewise subject to a as to limitation which could never be fairly misunderstood. For the attainment of this object, certain forms and ceremonies were requi

Ceremonies.

« VorigeDoorgaan »