APPENDIX. No. I. Expediency of a Church government. THE two following statements from Bishop Reynolds and Dr. Balguy comprise whatever is most essential to shew the advantages of a regular Church government, and I have purposely selected these writers, because neither of them can be accused of maintaining what are called high-church views. Bishop Reynolds has argued the case very closely and well. Indeed it was reasonable to suppose that the arguments for the expediency of a Church government would be duly appreciated by a party, many of whom did not conceive that the particular form to which they found it expedient, or judged it their duty to conform, had any higher foundation than expediency.- See his XXVth Sermon. Works Vol. v. p. 388-409. ed. 1826. His argument stands nearly thus: 1. That which God hath appointed as an office in his Church, is to be adjudged necessary. God hath, by his special institution, appointed pastors and teachers in his Church, whose function the Scripture owneth as an office-therefore they are to be acknowledged necessary. (See 1 Tim. iii. 1; Col. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11; Matt. ix. 38; Col. i. 7; Acts xx. 28.) 2. Necessary ordinances presuppose necessary officers to administer them. Christ hath appointed necessary ordinances to be to the end of the world administered; therefore the officers who are to administer them, are necessary likewise. He did not appoint a work to be done, and leave it to the wide world who should do it, but committed the ministry of reconciliation to stewards and ambassadors, by him selected for that purpose. 3. That which was instituted for necessary ends, so long as those ends continue, must be necessary likewise. The office for the ministry was instituted for necessary ends which do and will still continue; therefore the ministry by which they are to be promoted, is still to continue. But it may be objected, others may promote these ends as well as ministers; all believers are commanded to comfort, support, edify one another; therefore no need of such an office for the doing of them. We answer'These great works are not done with the same authority, efficacy, certainty, or order by a private hand as by public officers.' 1. Not with the same authority. A learned lawyer may resolve a man's case as truly as a judge; but when he hath the sentence declared by the judge, this doth more assure and quiet him, because it is a sentence not only of truth, but of authority. (See Tit. ii. 15.) 2. Not with the same efficacy, for the Lord hath made them able ministers, (2 Cor. iii. 6.); furnished them with power for edification, (2 Cor. xiii. 16.); annexed a special promise of blessing to their service, (Matt. xxviii. 20.); the Gospel ministered by them is not in word only, but in power, (1 Thess. i. 5.); not declarative only but operative, they being therein workers together with God, (1 Cor. iii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 1.) 3. Not with the same certainty; for how can it be expected that the cases and conditions of particular consciences should be so well looked after by private men, who have callings of their own to divert them, as by those whose whole work it is to oversee the souls committed to their charge, to whom they may, in every case of difficulty, resort for counsel? Or how can I expect ordinarily as full satisfaction from a private bro ther, as from one whose duty it is to give himself wholly to these things, whose constant business it is to give attendance, &c. &c. (1 Tim. iv. 13-16.) 4. Not with the same order. God is in all his works, much more in his Church, a God of order, (1 Cor. xiv. 33.) If the Apostles themselves found it difficult to attend the Word of God, and tables (Acts vi. 2.), it cannot but be much more difficult for private brethren to attend their own domestical callings and the public concernments of the Church. If a great Apostle said Who is sufficient for these things?' shall we judge private persons fit enough for them? If in the body, God hath set several members for several uses, shall we think so weighty, difficult, and important a service as publishing the glad tidings of salvation, should be intrusted at large in every hand, and no peculiar officers set apart for the dispensing of it? 1 He goes on to argue the necessity of the office from the titles given to it in Scripture, and the importance which those titles imply 1; from the fact that the Apostles took order for the service of the Church by appointing certain officers; and from the constant prescription of all ages and countries in favour of a Ministry. In another Sermon (the 23d) he again argues the necessity of a Ministry, 1st. from the authority of Christ who instituted it, and from the wants of Christ's Church, which could not be taught without it.-See Works, Vol. v. p. 345. Before passing to Balguy, I may just mention that Barrow (Vol. iii. Serm. xxiv.) has put the points of this argument with great closeness and force. The arguments suggested by reason in favour of a regular 1 This argument was perhaps a favourite one in Bishop Reynolds' time. It is given at length in the Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, published by the Provincial Assembly of London, 1654, p. 8, 9. N |