صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

wicked and hypocritical perfons. Neither fhould we have feparated at all, but upon the utmost neceffity; and even then it was with all the unwillingness imaginable." The corruption of the church of Rome then was (in direct contradict on to what Bishop HOADLEY fays on this fubject) the ground upon which our feparation from it was built; not that right of Christian liberty, for which Bishop WARBURTON is here pleading: a right which Bishop JEWELL never admitted; as may be feen from his fermon at ST. PAUL'S Crofs, in which he learnedly defends the church of England, and feverely condemns the Diffenters for their non-conformity to it; which he could not confiftently have done, had he feen the Reformation in the light in which Bishops HOADLEY and WARBURTON have here placed it.

In fact, this right, upon which the reformers did not act, because it was a right which they did not acknowledge, takes the Reformation off from that firm ground of reafon and fcripture upon which it will ever stand secure; and places it upon that uncertain ground of precarious opinion, upon which the church, as a fociety, can no where exift.

For if Christian liberty give every man a right to worship GoD according to his confcience, in

t

other words, according to his own private opinion and perfuafion, (for confcience, in the modern acceptation of the term, means nothing more) I would be glad to know what argument can be brought to promote the unity of the Chriftian church, which this principle does not immediately fet afide; a principle which justifies the extravagancies of the wildest sectary, and places religious perfuafions of every kind upon the

fame dead level.

Bishop WARBURTON's notions of the church communion, as it was to be expected, correfpond with his notions of church authority; and appear calculated rather to loofen and diffolve that bond of union, by which the church of CHRIST was defigned to be held together, than to answer any other purpose. They are founded upon the following distinction, which this celebrated writer has made between the

Jewish and Chriftian church. "The Gofpel (fays he) was first addreffed to the Jews as a nation, a church, a fociety. But when the Gentiles had in their turn the Gospel offered unto them, the addrefs was only to particulars. For though the terms of falvation respected the Jewifh Sanhedrim, yet the Roman Senate, as fuch, had no concern in them. And those particulars who received the word, became,

not neceffarily, from the fimple nature and genius of the faith, members of any community, but of the fpiritual kingdom of GOD."

Should the foregoing account of the distinction be tween Jew and Gentile have conveyed a fatisfactory idea to the mind of the reader, it certainly has not to mine; for with a defire to pay all due refpect to the authority from whence it proceeds, I have been unable to discover the leaft ground for it.

The Jewish Sanhedrim and Roman Senate, with respect to the terms of falvation under the Gospel, appear to have stood precisely upon the fame footing: for to the members of neither of thefe bodies, in their collective character, were those terms addreffed. In ST. PETER's first fermon at Jerusalem, his address was not to the Jews as a nation, a church, or a fociety; but to "the men of Ifrael, who had crucified the LORD CHRIST." And his anfwer to their question, when, upon their being pricked in their hearts, they faid to PETER and the rest of the Apoftles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" was thus addressed to them as individuals" Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of JESUS CHRIST, for the remiffion of fins, and ye fhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoft." Acts ii. 38. It was ordained,

indeed, that the Gofpel fhould be firft preached to the loft sheep of the houfe of Ifrael; upon the idea, it is probable, that from their education under the law, as a school-mafter to bring them to CHRIST, they ought to have been in a state of preparation to receive it. But this particular attention to the Jew, though it tended for fome little time to confirm the Apostles in their prejudices, made no alteration in the nature of the commiffion 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." MARK xvi. 15. When "the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile had been broken down by him, who had made both one," the church was open for the equal reception of all people. In the general execution therefore of the Apoftlic commiffion, 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 fame Lord over all, being rich unto all who call upon him." Rom. x. 12. Gal. iii. 28. Both Jew and Gentile, therefore, were admitted into the church of CHRIST upon the fame plan; refpect being had only to their profeffion of faith, as individuals, in a crucified Redeemer.

FF

The distinction, then, here made between the Jew and Gentile, in their manner of receiving the Gospel, appears to be not lefs imaginary, than the conclufion 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 fpeaking.

This mode, therefore, of representing Christians, as members of CHRIST's fpiritual kingdom, as it were in contradiftinction to their being members of any community, is that kind of defcription which every profeffor will not fail to accomodate to his own particular cafe; but it is not to be reconciled with the account of the Chriftian church in the facred writings; into which all who profeffed the true faith were neceffarily to be admitted. For from these writings it appears, that the particulars to whom the Gospel was addreffed, were, by virtue of their faith, admitted members of a community, or fpiritual society, distinguished by the name of the kingdom or church of CHRIST.

It would be to trespass upon the reader to enter upon a particular analyfis of this learned author's mode of arguing upon the fubject before him; or

« السابقةمتابعة »