Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

unguarded expressions of the learned Dodwell; the reader is given to understand, "that nothing was further from the view of the inspired Writers, than to prescribe any rule to us on the subject, or to give us any information which could lead us to imagine, that a particular form of polity was necessary, or even more acceptable to God, than another."- P. 99.

But to say, because no regular system of ecclesiastical government is totidem verbis to be found on record in the Apostolic Writings, that therefore the Apostles never meant to prescribe any rule, or give any information on the subject, is surely, if not to argue weakly, at least to beg the question. The presumption in this case is certainly against any such conclusion. The Apostles might not think it necessary at the time to lay down any regular system of ecclesiatical government. Their thoughts were principally engaged, it may be supposed, in establishing the essentials of Christianity. The circumstantials of it they might leave to be regulated by the example of their own ministry. The government of the Church was in their hands; and their office in it was carried

carried on under the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit. Their practice under such circumstances, they might therefore consider, would prove sufficient prescription in this case. And on this head sufficient information is to be met with in their writings, for the direction of all those who are disposed to be directed by it.

That the Apostles were not mistaken in their judgement on this occasion, the settled constitution of the Christian Church, which has preserved a general conformity to the Apostolic model down to the present time, furnishes the most convincing proof.

In page 160, the Professor appears to differ in opinion from the learned Vitringa, who has displayed much erudition to prove, that the government of the Christian Church was formed on the model of the Jewish synagogue. "It is not even probable," says Professor Campbell, "that this was the case: their different uses and purposes, suggesting the propriety of many differences in their structure and procedure." At the same time the Professor fails not to leave on the minds of his Disciples, on this subject, an impression more favourable to the

Pres

govern

66

Presbyterian than Episcopal form of ment. "On the first erection of the Christian Senate or Council," he says, they could hardly fail to take as much of the form of the Jewish, as was manifestly of equal convenience in both.

It still adds

to the probability of this, that in the synagogue, from which many of the terms used in the Church in those early times, were borrowed, he who presided in conducting the worship, and in directing the reading of the Law, was styled the Angel of the congregation."

In a subsequent page the Professor seems desirous of confirming that idea in the minds of his Disciples, which represents "the Christian Churches as originally analogous, in point of polity, to the Jewish establishment of Synagogues; by observing that the very names of Church officers were borrowed from the Synagogue."-Page 219.

The reader may know, perhaps, that the argument in favour of Presbyterian Government, from the names of officers in the synagogue having been originally adopted in the Christian Church, has been generally advanced by Presbyterian advocates, and repeat

repeatedly answered. It is an argument which, at best, has more of plausibily than of substance in it. The Professor himself, though desirous of deriving from it all the advantage that it is capable of furnishing to his cause, does not appear to build upon it with any confidence.-In fact, the great opposition the early establishment of the Christian Church met with, was from the Jewish Priests. An apprehension of the abolition of the law, and the destruction of the Temple was an idea that, at this time, strongly worked on their minds. Whilst the object our Saviour and his Apostles had in view was to introduce the Christian Dispensation into the place of the Jewish; and to make the worshippers in the Temple zealous members of the Christian Church. With this object in view, it might be considered prudent, during the time the Jewish Temple was destined to remain, to abstain from the use of those titles which had a peculiar correspondence with the service of it ; lest they might be instrumental in adding fuel to the fire of that Jewish prejudice, which already burnt sufficiently strong against the infant Church. Titles bor

rowed

rowed from the Sanhedrim, were not so liable to objection

Grotius, who was no very great friend to the Priesthood, observed, in reference to this subject, that it was not without some reason that our Saviour and his Apostles. abstained from the use of these supposed obnoxious titles. His words are these, "Ut autem Præcones Novi Testamenti Sacerdotes speciatim appellentur, est quidem receptum antiquâ Ecclesiæ consuetudine! sed non de nihilo est, quod ab eo loquendi genere, et Christus ipse, et Apostoli semper abstinucrunt.". De imperio Sum. Potest, Cap. ii. 5.

Such an authority had not, it is probable, much weight with a Professor of the Scotch Kirk; who might consider the office of the Priesthood to have terminated with the Jewish Temple. But there is an authority which, it should be supposed, could not have escaped the attention of a Lecturer on Ecclesiastical History; and which cannot fail to have weight on this subject; I mean that of the celebrated historian, Eusebius; who in his book " De Demonstratione Evangelica;" after having made the follow

« ZurückWeiter »