Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

consider the Apostle as requiring honour from the members of the church to the elders, when, by this scheme, they have an equal, if not a superior share of ecclesiastic power to these very elders, seems a palpable contradiction. Honour can be rendered only by an inferior to a superior, and double honour can be given only by one who is very inferior to one who is greatly superior. But in an Independent congrega. tion, which admits every member to an equal share in the government, no such inferiority can exist. Or, if the word here translated honour, signifies not only honour, but maintenance, as Guyse and other Independents have maintained; and if it be asserted from this passage, that the elders who rule well, are entitled, if they need it, to double maintenance; it will also follow, that if every member is to be an ecclesiastical ruler, he would be entitled also, if he ruled well, to double maintenance. This, however, is no less absurd; for where could the church be found, whose funds could admit of such an expenditure? In fine, Christians are com manded, as was remarked, to obey their rulers, (Heb. xiii. 17); i. e. not merely to be subject to them as one Chris tian is to another, but to render an obedience such as inferiors do to superiors. But if, according to the principles of independency, every member is to have an equal voice in every determination with those who are elders, and if he is in reality a ruler, whatever he may be in name, as well as they; who are the persons that are to perform this command?

If those only who are distinct from the rulers can obey them, then, according to your plan, none can comply with this apostolic injunction, because all are rulers; and conse quently we are reduced to this absurd supposition, that the Apostle commands the rulers to obey themselves. This manifest absurdity is equally supposed, whatever be the kind of obedience that is enjoined, whether it be compliance with persuasion, or submission to authority. As it therefore ap pears impossible to explain these exhortations consistently, if every member has in reality, though perhaps not in name, an equal title with elders to rule the church, the principle which such contradictions suppose, must be rejected; and, by consequence, it must still be affirmed that every indivi dual Christian has not a right to be a ruler in the church of God.

SIR,

LETTER IV.

In addition to the arguments which have already been unged in refutation of your scheme, there are others, from which its contrariety to the sacred oracles is no less apparent.

I therefore observe in the

5th place, That the keys, which are the emblem of subordinate authority in the kingdom of Jesus, are represented in scripture as delivered by him to the ministers, and not to the members.

With regard to the import of the celebrated passage in Matth. xvi, where Jesus is said to have bestowed upon Peter these keys of his kingdom, much diversity of sentiment has obtained. Papists contend that it includes a grant of universal supremacy over the church on earth to Peter, as the representative of the Saviour, which grant they suppose to be transferred to their popes, who, according to them, are the successors of this Apostle. But even though they could prove that their popes were the legitimate successors of Peter (in proving which they have as yet uniformly failed), this passage contains no such grant to them; for, in other places, the rest of the Apostles are pointed out as invested with an equality of power, and as even withstanding him to the face on a particular occasion, because he was to be blamed. Epis copalians alledge that he represented their bishops, to whom, upon their scheme, the government of the church is chiefly committed. But it is plain that no such bishops as theirs are authorized by scripture, which points out to us a plurality of bishops or overseers in many primitive churches (see Philip. i. 1. Acts xx. 17. 28, &c.); and informs us at the same time, that by these we are to understand elders or mimisters, who preached and ruled (see also for this, Acts xx. 1 Pet. v. 1, 2, 3, &c.) Independents assert, that here Peter represents believers in general, to whom, according to them, government of the church of Jesus is intrusted. The reasons on which they build this interpretation are these: That the gift of the keys was conferred on Peter, upon his confessing Jesus to be the Son of God; and, consequently, should be conferred on all who make this confession; and the name Peter or Rock, which was given to this Apostle

the

E

upon this occasion, belongs, they say, equally to all believers, who are, no less than he, spiritual stones, built upon the same holy and blessed foundation. It seems probable, however, that the name Peter, or the Rock, as bestowed upon this Apostle, is not the same with that which is elsewhere given to believers in general, when they are denominated Stones, and living Stones*; nor does it follow that because they possess, in common with him, one part of the honour which he is here declared to have received, they are entitled to the other also. The gift of the keys is undoubtedly very different from that of being a stone built up by God's Spirit on the true foundation, and the enjoyment of the one can never necessarily imply the possession of the other. Besides, though it should be conceded, that the grant of the keys was made to Peter because he confessed Christ to be the Son of God, it cannot be inferred, on any consistent principle, that every one who confesses him is to receive that honour. We know that this Apostle, on another memorable occasion (see John xxi.), when he not only professed his faith, but his love to the Saviour, was anew authorized by him to be a preacher and an Apostle†; but there are few, I believe, who, from this circumstance, would conclude with a celebrated minister, that every man (however weak) who can lay his hand on "his heart, and say he loves Christ, has Christ's call and "warrant to preach the gospel." But if few would adduce this as a proof that all who are possessed of a similar affection should have the office of a minister, on what principle can it be demonstrated, that, though Peter was invested by Jesus with the office of a ruler on his confessing his faith, all who are possessed of similar faith should have a similar function? Nor will the nature of the deed itself authorize it; for by confessing Jesus, and by being built up on him as a living stone, a person becomes merely a member of his family, and a subject of his kingdom. But is it a legitimate inference, that because a person becomes a subject of his kingdom, and a member of his house, he is advanced in consequence of it to the office of a steward, to whose power, as expressed by the usual badge which he anciently wore (a golden key carried on his shoulder), there is an evident allusion in the phraseology before us? Were this the case, it

*See Whitby on the place.

"Feed my sheep; feed my lambs."

would be a natural consequence that every person who be comes a believer, and a living stone, would be constituted also a steward in the house of God, to rule and govern it; and in the family of Christ, all would be stewards, as well as governed. But if all were stewards, where were those who should be governed by them? Though, therefore, Peter, on this remarkable occasion, when a clearer discovery was to be made by Jesus of his character and kingdom than hitherto was done, received from him the assurance that he had committed to him the keys of his kingdom, and advanced him to the honour of being a ruler in it, it will not follow that every Christian, who believes and confesses him on every occasion, is to receive that dignity. Does it follow that if a prince, at a particular time, to testify his approbation of the views entertained of his character and government by one of his subjects, advances him to special honour, every one of his subjects who expresses similar views, at every future period, and on every occasion, should attain a similar honour? Neither, therefore, of the arguments which have been urged, evince that Peter represented believers in general, when he received at this time the keys of the kingdom; and the ob vious meaning of the expressions employed to denote this trust, which plainly refer to the office of a steward, seems totally incompatible with this idea.

It is indeed said (Matth. xviii.), that "whatsoever the "church binds on earth," agreeably to the will of Jesus) « shall be bound in heaven; and that whatsoever they loose

on earth, shall be loosed in heaven;" which is the same language that accompanies the gift of the keys to Peter, (chap. xvi.): but, I trust, it will afterwards appear that we are not here to understand, by the term church, every parti cular member. On the contrary, we know that language almost exactly similar is employed by our Saviour, to express the power which he gave to his ministers, and his ministers alone in their official capacity. John xx. 21, 23. "said Jesus unto them again, Peace be unto you: as my. "Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Whose soever

"Then

"sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose "soever sins ye retain, they are retained." To set aside this remark it is not sufficient to tell us with some Independents*," that, perhaps, this forgiving of sin was equivalent *See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 171.

56

"to healing diseases, as we know that the Apostles had the power of healing diseases conferred on them, and as our "Lord declares it to be a proof of authority to forgive sin "on earth" Matth. ix. 6. The power of healing diseases is never, as far as we recollect, represented in scripture as equivalent to that of forgiving iniquity; and the Apostles, in exercising the former, are never said to have performed the latter. Nay, even in the passage referred to, when our Saviour is asserted to have healed diseases, this is by no means pointed out as the same with his forgiving sin, but simply as an attestation of the truth of what he said, when he declared that he was commissioned by his heavenly Father to remit sins on earth. But will it follow that because this was produced as an evidence of the truth of his declaration that he was commissioned to forgive sins, it was equivalent to the actual dispensation of that forgiveness? Though the miracles of the conversion of water into wine, of the multiplication of the loaves, of the restoration of sight and hearing to the blind and deaf, and many similar works, when performed by our Lord, are adduced as evidences that he was, what he professed, the only Saviour, will it follow that these miracles were equivalent to this salvation which he came to bestow? It seems plains that the power of remitting and retaining sins, mentioned in John, is the same with what is expressed in Matth. xviii. 18. and xvi. 19, by binding an offending, and loosing a penitent brother, agreeably to a common metaphor in scripture, by which men, when, like Simon Magus, under the guilt and the power of sin, are represented as fixed in a bond; and when delivered from these, as loosed or set free*. Now, this binding or loosing certainly does not mean the performance of a miracle for the cure of the body of a penitent brother, or a refusal to exert that power upon one who is obstinate, or the infliction of disease upon one who has transgressed; for, in that case, it would follow from Matth. xviii. that the impenitent brother, whose case we are called to tell to the church, must be one who is already diseased, or upon whom, if he obstinately persist in his sin, disease is to be inflicted, and then too, since this miraculous power has ceased, the power of jurisdiction, or of binding and loosing,

See also Prov. v. 22, "His own iniquities shall take the wick"ed himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins," &c.

« ElőzőTovább »