صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

promoting his religion in the world; but not with a view to exclude any Chriftians, who were capable, from co-operating with them in the fame good caufe." CAMPBELL, vol. i. p. 118.

Nothing but the eagerness to maintain, at allevents, a favourite hypothefis, could, it may be fuppofed, have prevented the able refuter of the fophiftical HUME from adverting to the particular circumftances which accompanied the original delivery of the Apoftolic commiffion, and thence perceiving the objection to which fuch a mode of reafoning is palpably obnoxious. The word commiffion, from the verb committo, which in one of its leading fenfes fignifies to entrust, to give in charge, is thus illuftrated by AINSWORTH, from Cicero: " Rem magnam difficilemque alicui committere." But according to Dr. CAMPBELL'S ufe of this word, as applied to our SAVIOUR'S COMmission delivered to his Apostles, we are to understand by it a commiffion of, no charge or office to particular persons, which might not be freely affumed and exercised by all; a fenfe, which if we mistake not, totally evacuates its established and peculiar meaning. We cannot, indeed, be furprised, that a minifter, unable to trace his own commiffion from the proper fountain, fhould attempt to perfuade the world, that no commiffion has been delivered, but what may be indifcriminately exercised; fuch a principle does not seem to be an improbable confequence of the original deviation from Apoftolic practice. But that

fuch a latitudinarian principle should have been in-. culcated by a Profeffor from a theological chair, of which he claimed exclusive poffeffion by virtue of a commiffion delivered to him for that purpose; and in a course of lectures, one principal object of which appears to have been the maintenance of the Presbyterian form of Church government, against the origi nal Apoftolical one of Episcopacy, is what could not have been believed, had not the fact been established by record. But were Dr. C. ftill living, we would take the liberty to afk one fhort queftion; which, if he could answer fatisfactorily, we might begin to think his mode of reafoning on this occafion entitled to attention. If the particular appointment of certain chofen individuals, felected from a numerous body, to an important office, (as was the cafe in our SAVI OUR's delivery of the commiffion to his Apostles) carries in it nothing in which we can discover a commiffion for their exclusive exercise of that office; it may be asked, on the principle that an all-wife Being does nothing in vain, why did fuch a particular appointment take place?

Had Profeffor CAMPBELL been a member of the corps diplomatique, and in that character written a treatise on the rights and privileges of ambaffadors; and adopting a mode of reafoning fimilar to that here made ufe of, had he maintained, that the royal appointment of a certain individual to the representative office of an ambaffador carried in it nothing, from

[ocr errors]

which we could discover any right to the EXCLUSIVE exercife of that office; but that, notwithstanding this particular appointment, the office ftill remained open to be exercised, ad libitum, by any individual who might think himself qualified to undertake it, or to affift in it; his brethren of the corps, it is prefumed, would confider his treatife to be as little entitled to their thanks, as his argument was to their notice.

The able Reviewer of Dr. CAMPBELL's work in the Anti-Jacobin has illuftrated the Doctor's mode of reafoning on this occafion by a different fimilitude; which, as it may strike some readers more forcibly, is here fubjoined. "It is not probable (fays the Reviewer) that his Majefty's commiffion to the President of the Supreme Court of Law in Scotland, expressly prohibits all other lawyers from executing that office to which it appoints him; and it is certainly not improbable, that there are many lawyers at the Scotch bar perfectly well qualified to prefide over any court of law in that part of the united kingdom. Yet what would Dr. C. have thought of the man, who, having formed opinions of the courts of law fimilar to those which he had formed of the conftitution of the Chriftian Church, fhould have faid, *There is nothing in the commiffion given to the Prefident of the Court of Seffion, from which we can difcover, that it is a commiffion entrusted to him exclufively as a judge, and not given to him alfo as a lawyer; and that he is particularized in it, only be

caufe he is beft qualified for discharging the duties of the office; but not with a view to exclude any lawyer, who is capable, from occafionally taking poffeffion of his chair, and prefiding with authority over the court."

Either of the above fimilitudes, it is prefumed, is fufficient to expose the weakness of the ground on which the reasoning of Dr. C. ftands; though it may prove infufficient to counteract the prevalency of the false principle built upon it. For unhappily, it is not the establishment of truth, fo much as the fupport of opinion, that the generality of mankind are anxious to fecure; and as the world is now circumftanced, the more latitudinarian that opinion is, the more welcome will be its reception. We are not, therefore, furprised to find the principle here alluded to daily gaining ground; and profeffed members of the Church becoming tools in the hands of those whose object it is to undermine it, by admitting the government of the Church to be a matter of " doubtful opinion;" and confequently, that the communion of one clafs of Christians may be equally fcriptural with that of any other.

But by a matter of doubtful opinion we understand a matter, which, upon competent investigation, does not furnish fufficient evidence to determine the judgment on either fide. On fuch a matter a difference of opinion must fubfift; and where it does, it is its own justification. For men may differ about an opinion, without either breach of charity, or of the unity of the

Church; which requires not that all should precisely be of the fame opinion, but of the same communion; and for this evident reason, because no difference of opinion among Chriftians, concerning matters really doubtful or not effential, can justify the pofitive fin of fcifm. But if any point be admitted to be a doubtful one, only because a difference of opinion exifts upon It, whether the point in question relate to the confti. tution of the Church or its doctrine, the human mind must be left in an equal ftate of general indecifion with refpect to its religious concerns. A ftate of mind which will ultimately introduce that dangerous error, to which MELANCTHON looked forward with ferious apprehenfion. "It was to be feared," he faid, "that the time would come, wherein men would be tainted with this error; either that religion is a matter of nothing, or that the differences of religion are merely verbal."

It is true indeed, with respect to points on which there is no determining standard of appeal, an opinion will be right or wrong, according to the order or caprice of the day; and what was right to day may, in conformity to the fluctuation of the public mind, be wrong to-morrow. But the question is, does the point under confideration admit of proof? And has that proof been fairly appreciated? If it have not, the perfons who, by occafional communion with different bodies of Chriftians, think proper to act as fome members of the Church do, on the fup

« السابقةمتابعة »