^-^.w 
 
7Xrn-*t/^ 'TV^-^*-'^^ 
 
'^k 
 
REASOJ^S 
 
 FOR. 
 
 SEPARATING 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 Cf)ttrxl) of ^cotlatt0, 
 
 A'SERIES OF LETTERS,^ 
 
 BJ5r 
 WILLIAM INNES,- 
 
 MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL^ DUNDEE. 
 
 CHIETLY ADDRESSED TO HIS CHRISTIAN FRIENDS IN TEAT 
 ESTABLISHMENT, 
 
 Prove all things : hold fast that which is good : abstain 
 ■from all appearance of evil i Thes. v. ai. 
 
 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the 
 truth ? « „ Gal. iv, i6». 
 
 Printed by CHAiMSRSt Ray, ^ Co. 
 
 ANir SOLD BY E. LESSLIE, DUNDEE; GUTHRIE & TAlT^ 
 AND OGLE & AIKMAN, EDINBURGH ; J. & A. DUNCAN; ■ 
 AND M. OGLE, GLASGOW ; T, HILL, PERTH ; MOIR5 
 ABERDEEN; VERNOR & HOOD, POULTRY; AND R>OGLS> 
 ©REAT-TURNSTILE, HOLBORN, LONDON^ 
 
 
 h; 
 
CO NT E NTS, 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Iitroductory remarks, gage i. — Extrfmes to be avoided' 
 on the subject of Church-government, and the place it 
 should hold in our inquiries, 5 . 
 
 LETTER IT. 
 
 Two leading- opinions on Church-government considered;. 
 II. — ^Reasons for considering apostolic example bindings 
 17. — Difference between the Old and New Testament- 
 on this point, 19. — Farther improvement in. the know-« 
 ledge of divine truth to be expeded, 2a. — What is un- 
 certain not to affect what is known — Dr. Paley quoted,, 
 24. — The Christian's duty while his knowledge is im- 
 perfect, 26. 
 
 LETTER Iir. 
 
 Objections to the constitution of the ehurclt, 27. — Pres- 
 byterianism and Tndependency compared, 28. — Differ- 
 ence between a Presbytery and an Independent associa- 
 tion, 31. — Reasons for considering the first Churches* 
 independent, 2^. — Acts xv. the principal passage in sup- 
 port of Presbytery, considered, 37. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 The distinguishing feature of Presbytery un script ural, 46. 
 — How far Independency is subject to the same incon- 
 veniences with Presbytery, 4,9. — The different grounds 
 on which different persons subscribe themselves Presby- 
 terians, 51. — ^The inexpediency of Presbytery, $3-'^'' 
 From the history of the Formula of the church of Scot- 
 land, it requires the belief that Presbytery is exclusively- 
 the scriptural form of church-government, 56. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Defects in the administration of the Established Church, 6r.. 
 — The want of discipline among the Clergy ; and how 
 far the law of Patronage is now a part of the Constitu-- 
 tion, 62. — The call of the People now quite disregarded,. 
 65. — An instance of this in the Writer's own experience,^ 
 66.— How far the powers possessed by Presbyteries may 
 ^e expected to mitigate the. evils of Patronage, 71. — 
 
IT, contents:. 
 
 The hope of Reform in the Establishment vain, 73. — '■ 
 The two Parties in the Church have radically opposite 
 principles, 75. — Countenancing those we believe false.. - 
 Teachers quite unscriptural, 79. 
 
 LETTER VL. 
 
 The way e7angelical Ministers obviate these objections^ 
 I. They subscribe the Constitution, 8z. — 2. They do not- 
 acknowledge the apposite Party as Ministers of Christ 
 at all, 84. — Address to evangelical Ministers, 85. — Prt* 
 vate Christians bound to consider what system they 
 countenance, 89, — The impossibility of observing Christ- 
 ian discipline in individual Congregations -in the Esta* 
 blishment, 93. 
 
 LETTER VIL- 
 
 Private Christians criminal in countenancing impure com-^ 
 munion, loi. — What degree of pmrifeyattainable, 104. — , 
 The general body of Christians called to see that purity 
 be maintained, 108. — To separate where the laws of 
 Christ are not observed, lo^. — Why none allied to 
 separate from the church at Corinth, no. — The argu- 
 ment which justified separation from the Romish church 
 at the Reformation, shewn to be-applicableto the present 
 case^ i.i4« 
 
 LETTER VIII. ' 
 
 Passages requiring separation from impure Churches^ 2 Cor. 
 VI. 14. zTim. iii. 5. Eph.v. 11^ p. 117. — Passages urgetP 
 in defence of ipipure communion ; the case of Judas, i%a* 
 — The Parable of the Mamage-feast, 122. — The Tares 
 and the Wheat, 123. — The advantage of just views of: 
 Christian communion illustrated from an anecdote ir*^ 
 Captain Cook's first voyage, 132. — Relaxation of disci* 
 pline contributes to the spread of Infidelity, 135. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Miscellaneous topics^ — An Inference from the preceding Let-- 
 ters, 136. — The Christian application of property, 138^- 
 — A man must become a Dissenter, before he can extent 
 sively promote the preaching of the Gospel, 143. — On- 
 Party Spirit, and in what it properly consists, 146. — On 
 changing our Opinions according to increasing light, • 
 148. — Address to Students in Divinity, 1^0. — Concludii>§;(, 
 requests to the Reader, 154, 
 
LETTER I. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 
 
 XN OT long after I relinquished my coRnexiot) with 
 the established church of Scotland, I was frequently 
 asked, by many of my friends, why I had not publicly 
 given my reasons for the line of conduct I had seen 
 it my duty to pursue. At that period, howTvei^ a 
 variety of engagements so much occupied my atten- 
 tion, that I had but little leisure to devote to any pub- 
 lication of this kind. Besides, I knew that it was not 
 ignorance of the principles on which I had acted, that 
 induced several, at least, of my friends to disapprove 
 of the step I had taken. I had discussed these prin- 
 ciples with them in conversation again and again. 
 With some they had been the subject of epistolary 
 correspondence. In short, as I had very powerful 
 inducements to continue in my connexion with the 
 establishment, I omitted no opportunity of availing 
 myself of the superior information of my brethren, 
 for removing difficulties, which I sincerely wished 
 removed, but which, the longer I inquired, I found 
 the more closely attached to such a situation. 
 
 In the progress of inquiry, however, into the ar- 
 rangements of the church of Christ, by which this age 
 is certainly much distinguished, the grounds of se-. 
 
 A 
 
2 LETTER L 
 
 paration, not only from the establishment, but also 
 from some of the more numerous classes of dissenters 
 in this country, are becoming every day more interest- 
 ing. 
 
 Those who have no object In view but the disco- 
 very and diffusion of truth, can surely have no ob- 
 jections to the discussion of such a subject, If it be 
 conducted witli a Christian spirit, and with a steady 
 appeal to the unerring oracles of truth. I know Avell 
 indeed, it Is a topic on which, at first sight, a wjlter 
 has unavoidably to encounter a good deal of preju- 
 dice. The very title page of such a publication will, 
 by some, be considered as almost bordering on a per- 
 sonal attack. Others, after looking at it, will remark, 
 •—I see this is on the old stale topic of church-govern- 
 ment, which has been so often introduced, and is long 
 since quite exhausted. I judge, brethren, from ex- 
 perience. Our habits of thinking are certainly much 
 influenced by our situations. I recollect well the time, 
 .(and I believe I here speak the experience of many,) 
 when I felt it extremely unpleasant to hear such a sub- 
 ject introduced. I considered it as only calculated to 
 lead away one's attention from others of superior Im- 
 portance ; and though I secretly felt difficulties, from 
 my connexion with the establishment, the general 
 consideration of my occupying a sphere of extensive 
 usefulness, if It did not remove them altogether, helped 
 me, for the time at least, to banish them from my 
 thoughts. Temperate discussion, however, generally 
 tends in the issue to the diffusion of right principles ; 
 and we must surely allow, that whatever may contri- 
 bute to this, however much it may affect our personal 
 feelings and prejudices, deserves our serious regard. 
 A professing Christian should even blush in secret, 
 
LETTER L S 
 
 rf he could for a moment indulge the wish, that truth 
 on any subject should not be brought to light, with 
 whatever severity and in whatever direction its dictates 
 may fall. 
 
 Though I have little hope of either adding to the 
 information, or altering the opinion of such of my 
 professional friends in the established church, as have 
 examined the subject considered in these letters ; yet 
 I have the fullest reason to believe there are not 
 a few private Christians, perhaps I may add and some 
 ministers too, who, though extremely intelligent in 
 other respects, are but very imperfectly acquainted 
 with it. I have frequently had occasion to observe 
 this. Indeed, after having for a considerable time 
 abandoned the idea of any publication of this nature, 
 the present one owes its birth to some conversations 
 I lately had with different Christian friendly who, 
 though possessing extensive information on" other 
 points, shewed that the grounds of separation from 
 the established church was a subject in a great measure 
 new to them. To such a class of readers, then, I hope 
 it may be of some service, if I shall merely extend 
 a little their information, by putting them in possession 
 of some of the leading arguments, on a topic certainly 
 ef some importance, though no other effect should 
 result from it. 
 
 But I am induced to engage in this service from 
 another consideration. Though I should completely 
 fail, (as I fear will in most instances be the case,) in 
 my attempt to persuade my friends of the propriety 
 of the step I have taken, if they grant but that there 
 is a considerable appearance of solidity in the prin- 
 ciples on which I have acted, it may tend to diminish 
 any prejudices they have imbibed. Dr. Samuel John- 
 
 A2 
 
4 LETTER L 
 
 son thus describes the character of a. clergyman ac- 
 customed to inquiry. " By a solicitous examination 
 " of objections, and a judicious comparison of oppo- 
 ** site arguments, he attained, -what inquiry never 
 '' gives, hut to industry and perspicuity, a firm and 
 *' unshaken settlement of conviction. But his firm- 
 *' ness was without asperity ; for knowing with how 
 " much, difficulty truth is found, he did not wonder 
 " that many missed it." While it becomes all to 
 c'onsidcr with what degree of seriousness and impar- 
 tiality tlieir inquiries are conducted, it is plain that 
 the ultimate result of them in the mind of any indi- 
 vidual must appear truth to him. But if my friend 
 differ from mie, though on the whole I should think 
 him wrong, he has a claim on my forbearance, in pro- 
 portion to the apparent strength of the arguments by 
 which his system is supported. 
 
 It is time, however, to come more immediately to 
 cur subject. I shall only farther premise two things. 
 Firsts that in such a discussion, the scriptures of truth 
 are the only standard to which we conceive an appeal 
 ought to be miade. Secondly, that, in these letters, I 
 do not profess to enter into an abstract discussion re- 
 specting the expediency of national establishments of 
 religion, but simply to state the reasons I had, and 
 which I think are founded on scriptural principles, 
 for separating from the communion of the established 
 church of Scotland. Here it may be remarked, that 
 nothiiTg is more common in discussing the general 
 question with regard to the lawfulness or expediency 
 of religious establishments, than to leave out of sight 
 those that are known to exist, and to suppose ideal 
 ones, where tlie reaconer is at liberty to introduce ex- 
 cellencies that were never found but in his imagina-*. 
 
LETTER I. 5. 
 
 lion, and to exclude defects, which from the present 
 state of human nature, are quite unavoidable, where- 
 ever there is such a union between the church and the 
 world. This reasoning, however, is very fallacious. 
 In examining this point, it would be much better to 
 confine ourselves to such religious establishments as 
 are already in being. It will be time enough to decide 
 upon the merits of these imaginary ones, that are often 
 brought forward in argument, when it appears, from 
 the history of the world, that their existence is cora- 
 patible with the present state of man. Before con- 
 cluding this introductory letter, it may be proper to 
 notice the place which the external arrangements of 
 the church of Christ ought to hold in the scale of our 
 inquiries. 
 
 Here, as in many other cases, it Is much to be re- 
 gretted men have run into two opposite extremes. 
 Some, you find, disposed to treat every inquiry re- 
 specting the subject of church-government with the 
 most marked contempt. The smallest attention to it, 
 particularly if it appear in calling in question some 
 principles which have long been taken for. granted, 
 they consider as almost, an infallible mark of one pos- 
 sessed of a captious and discontented mind. They are 
 apt to look on such with the eye of jealousy or aver- 
 sion. They almost immediately infer, that an inquiry 
 into such a subject implies the neglect cf those that 
 are more, deeply interesting; and they can hardly con- 
 ceive that a disposition to examine the testimony of 
 scripture, on a point, so little, as they think, connected 
 with practice, can be associated with the simphcity of 
 the gospel, and the genuine influence of vital godliness. 
 On the other hand, it is certainly much to be lamented, 
 that a handle has been too often given to those who 
 
e LETTER I. 
 
 Tiew the matter in this light, by the unsuitable place 
 which many have allowed their particular senti- 
 ments respecting the external order of a church of 
 Christ to occupy. They have fallen just into the op- 
 posite extreme. With them a particular mode of 
 church-government is every thing. They seem hardly 
 to admit, though they have the most unexceptionable 
 evidence to the contrary, that an eminent degree of 
 practical godliness is at all compatible with what ap- 
 pears to them incorrect notions on this head ; and is 
 there not sometimes reason to suspect, that they allow 
 what they conceive to be proper principles here to 
 make up for the want of spiritual religion ? They seem 
 to forget that the external arrangements of the church 
 of Christ are only means to the attainment of a cer- 
 tain end ; that the grand practical design of the gos- 
 pel is the restoration of the divine image on the heart 
 of man ; that any means it employs are unavailing, 
 in so far as this object is not steadily kept in view ;, 
 and that their only value is derived from their tend- 
 ency to attain it. 
 
 I trusty my Christian brethren, you will see the ne- 
 cessity of guarding against each of these extremes, 
 and not allowing the errors even of good men to se* 
 duce you from the path of calm and impartial in- 
 quiry. The first question, then, which it will here 
 present is. Hath the Lord Jesus, the great Head of 
 the church, been pleased to reveal any thing respect- 
 ing this subject ? If he hath, the guilt of treating it 
 with neglect is already established. There cannot a 
 question exist on our obligations to attend to it, and 
 to receive with implicit faith whatever he hath re- 
 vealed, so far as we can discover it.. I believe it may 
 be safely assumed as a general principle, that where- 
 
LETTER L 7 
 
 ever the mind feels itself indisposed to examine the 
 testimony of scripture on any subject, it will be found 
 to be secretly owing to some latent prejudice against 
 what may be the issue of such an inquiry ; some sus- 
 picion that it may kad to consequences which we are 
 not prepared practically to follow out. It is true, we 
 find very different opinions respecting what the scrip- 
 tures really contain with regard to churclirgovernment;. 
 and I believe it will be generally admitted, tliat indi- 
 viduals, eminent for personal religion, are to be found 
 among Christians of almost every denomination. This 
 last circumstance has not a little contributed to make 
 many undervalue the importance of any particular 
 principles upon this subject. It is, however, a very 
 improper use of the fact. It is a most unsuitable re- 
 turn to the great Head of the church for those mani- 
 festations of his grace, by which he is pleased to coun- 
 teract the evil tendency of remaining error in the 
 minds of his own people. Many instances may be 
 found of Christians, from remaining ignorance, oc- 
 cupying situations in civil life extremely unfavourable 
 to their spiritual interests. It would, however, be 
 very unwarrantable to argue from the Lord's good- 
 ness, in preserving such persons unhurt amidst sur- 
 rounding dangers, that we might deliberately enter 
 into a situation of obvious temptation. Surely every 
 manifestation of that goodness should rather inspire 
 increasing zeal for his glory, and for the most en- 
 larged discoveries of every part of his revealed will. 
 Besides, there can be no real argument from this 
 quarter, for undervaluing the importance of our in- 
 quiries respecting the institutions of the church of 
 Christ. There must be a right and a wrong here, as well 
 as every where else. Some systems must be nearer thao 
 
8 LETTER /. 
 
 others, to the standard revealed in the scriptures, or (if 
 the existence of this be called in question) to the ge- 
 neral principles which they contain. We are not to 
 inquire into the reasons why the Lord Jesus hath been 
 pleased to impart peculiarly liberal communications of 
 his grace to those who have adopted principles, on 
 some points, confessedly erroneous. We ought to 
 distinguish, however, between the piety of the indivi- 
 dual, and the general tendency of the system under 
 which he acts ; and rejoicing in the one, is perfectly 
 compatible with the most decided disapprobation . of 
 the other. 
 
 Few, I suppose, will deny, that even in the history 
 of the church of Rome, some shining examples of 
 personal religion may be. met with. It would be false 
 reasoning, however, to argue from these against the 
 pernicious tendency of the system they contribute to 
 support. That many, singularly devoted to God, are 
 to be found within the pale of the church of England, 
 must be universally allowed. But will it from this 
 follow, that the form and services of that church are 
 founded on the word of God ; or^ for example, that 
 it is not deeply sinful, that men living in open wicked- 
 ness should be allowed to come forward, and solemnly 
 declare that they believe they are moved by the Holy 
 Ghost to engage in the sacred work of the ministry?* 
 
 * In that part of the service of the church of England, 
 entitled the ordering of deacons, the following questions 
 are proposed by the bishop, and the following answers 
 given by every one vested with that office. 
 
 The Bishop. Do you trust that you are inwardly moved 
 by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this office and nki- 
 nistration, to serve God for the promoting of his glory, 
 and the edifying of his people ? — ^his-Lvcr. I trust so. 
 
 The Bishop, Do you think that you are truly called, 
 according to the vvill of our Lord Jesus Christ, and tb,e. 
 
LETTER I. > 
 
 It is not then the character of individuals, but the 
 general aspect and tendency of any particular system 
 by which our opinion of it ought to be regulated. If 
 it be founded on scriptural principles, ungodly m^n 
 being professedly attached to it will njot make it 
 worse ; and if not, the most eminent examples of 
 holiness among its professed votaries wall not be able 
 to sanction it. 
 
 due order- of this realm, to the ministry of the church ?-^ 
 jimrjjtr. I think so. 
 
 The Bishop. Will you. apply all your diligence to frame 
 and fashion your own lives, and the lives of your families, 
 according to the doctrine of Christ ; and to make both your- 
 selves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome exam- 
 ples of the flock of Christ ? — A72s-vjer. I vv'ill do so, the 
 Lord being my helper. 
 
 After some other questions, the bishop laying his hands 
 severally on the heads of every one of those to be ordered 
 deacons, says, — Take thou authority to execute the office 
 of a deacon in the church of God committed unto thee : 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 With this solemn service we may contrast the following 
 anecdotes, taken from a posthumous work of a late clergy- 
 man of the English church, some time before his death, 
 though he had determined to relinquish his connexion 
 with it. 
 
 " My Lord S. has got a mistress of whom be is 
 
 *' grown weary. On condition the rev. A. B. will marry 
 ** her, and make her an honest woman, he shall be rector 
 ** of such a living, in the gift of his Lordship." 
 
 *' Mr. G. has a son who is neither fit for law, phy- 
 
 *' sic, nor the army. He has such a living in his patronage. 
 " This rip of a son shall be trained to the church;, and be 
 *' the incum.bent of the family rectory." 
 
 " A certain rectory, not fifty miles from this place, is 
 *' said to be of the value of near 2000I. a year. A kind 
 " young lady, whose friends have sufficient interest with 
 " the patron, falls in love with a wicked, swearing, 
 " dashing officer in the army, and manies him. That 
 *' a comfortable maintenance may be secured for the happy 
 " pair, it is agreed that the gentleman shall change the 
 ** colour of his clothes, apply himself to the attainment of 
 " a smattering of Latin and Greek, and admit himself 
 
10 LETTER L 
 
 I shall conclude this letter with the following ge- 
 neral position, in which I think every unprejudiced 
 reader will be disposed to coincide with me : " That, 
 ** (other things being equal,) that church is most 
 
 •* LIKELY TO PROSPER, WHICH, IN THE FORM OF ITS 
 
 ** GOVERNMENT, COMES NEAREST THE MODEL, 08. IS 
 
 ** MOST AGREEABLE TO THE PRINCIPLESWHICH CHRIST, 
 
 ** EITHER DURING HIS PERSONAL MINISTRY, OR AFTER- 
 
 " WARDS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF HIS AFOSTL£S> 
 
 ** HATH MADE KNOWN TO US IN HIS WORD.'* 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 ** a -member of one of our famous universities. THtre he 
 ** actually now is, qualifying himself to take possession of 
 ** this bouncing benefice. The incumbent being dead, 
 *< a pliable parson is put in for a time as a locum tenen:» 
 ** And when the quondam officer has obtained his proper 
 ** credentials, this worthy Le'vite must resign all his fat 
 ** pigs in favour of this son of Mars, The white-washed 
 *' officer will then come forward', and declare in the face 
 ** of God and man, with a lie in his mouth, that he 
 •* trusts he is moved by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel." 
 Simpson's plea for rbligion, p. 152 — 159. 
 Some may perhaps think that these anecdotes are told' 
 in a manner rather too facetious for so serious a subject. 
 But admitting the existence of such facts as they contain- 
 (and this few will question), they discover, when taken in 
 connexion with the ordination service, a degree of pro- 
 fanity that can hardly be equalled. 
 
LETTER II. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BRETHRfeN, 
 
 JL HERE seem to be two general opinions in the 
 Christian world respecting the subject of church- 
 government. The First is, that no model whatever 
 is laid down in scripture that certain ultimate objects 
 are there mentioned, viz. the conversion of sinners, 
 and the edification of the people of God, which must 
 invariably be kept in view ; but that it is entirely left 
 to Christians to judge, according to circumstances, of 
 the means by which these ends are most likely to be 
 attained. It is, Secondly, maintained, that certain re- 
 gulations upon this point maybe dearly discovered 
 in the New Testament, founded either on apostolic pre- 
 cept or example ; that these contain all that Is neces- 
 sary to be directly specified ; and that if any case 
 occur to which they do not immediately apply, the 
 general principles of the gospel are sufficient to guide 
 our decision. 
 
 ^Before attempting a little to appreciate the re- 
 spective claims which these two different systems have 
 to our regard, it may be proper to observe, that much 
 unreasonable and unchristian abuse has been occa- 
 sioned by the different opinions men have held on this 
 subject. Some have, in the first Instance, adopted 
 
12 LETTER II. 
 
 particular sentiments respecting that precise degree of- 
 revelation on this head, which is necessary for the 
 welfare of the church of Christ; and they lilave accused 
 others of impeaching eitlier the wisdom or the good- 
 ness of the grfeat Head of it, if they cou-ld not see 
 that that precise degree was actually communicated. 
 Now this charge is certainly unreasonable. It is beg- 
 ging the question ; because our Idea of what is 
 necessary must be regulated by the fact of what is 
 really revealed. Had the Lord Jesus been pleased to 
 leave the external regulations of his church to human 
 discretion, we should have had no title to complain. 
 The simple question with us ought to be, Has he done 
 so"? All, I suppose, who profess to derive their opi- 
 nions from the word of God, associate with their 
 system the notion of the most perfect wisdom and 
 goodness in the divine author of it. It seems but fair, 
 then, to acknowledge, that either of the above opinions 
 may be adopted, Avithout any other impeachment of 
 these attributes, than what is found in a partial ig- 
 norance of any other department of revealed truth. 
 The first of the opinions above stated, is held 
 by a great many who are members of established 
 cliurches.* For them it is peculiarly convenient, as, 
 
 * Of the justness of this remaik, the -following quota- 
 tions, from two of the latest writers in defence of the 
 two established churches of this kingdom, may ferve as a 
 confirmation. Though the systems these authors support 
 are extremely different, and though there is a particularly 
 marked opposition in the articles they have respectively 
 subscribed on the subject of church-government, when 
 they come to explain their sentiments on that point, there 
 is a striking similarity between them. 
 
 '* Though I flatter myself I have proved Episcopacy to 
 ** be an apostolical institution; yet I readily acknowledge, 
 " that there is no precept in the New Testament which 
 *' commands that every church should be governed by 
 
LETTER IL 1^ 
 
 •if it be just, it implies that amidst all that diversity 
 that obtains among such institutions, each of them 
 rnav be equally conformable to the revealed will of 
 God. It allows men to act according to existing cir- 
 
 *' bishop*. No church can exist v/ithout some form of 
 " government. But though there must be rules and orders 
 *' for the proper discharge of the offices of public wor- 
 ** ship ; though there must be fixed regulations concern- 
 ** ing the appointment of members ; and though a sub- 
 «' ordination among them is expedient in the highest de- 
 «' gree ; yet it does not follow that all these things must 
 *' be precisely the same in every Christian country. They 
 ^* may vary with the other varying circumitances of human 
 '* society; with the extent of a country, v/ith the manner.-? 
 *' of its inhabitants, the nature of its civil government, and 
 -** many otlier peculiarities which might be specified. As 
 <« it has not pleased our almighty Father to prescribe any 
 <' particular form, of civil government for the security of 
 «' temporal comforts to his rational creatures; so neither has 
 *' he prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity 
 *' as absolutely necessary to the attainment of eternal hap- 
 «' piness. The scniptures do not prescribe any definite 
 <' form of church-goveinment." — bishop p rkttyman'i; 
 
 tLEiVIt NTS OF CHRISTIAN TH COLOG Y, Vol. il. p. 383, .396 
 —398- 
 
 *' Presbyterians," says Dr. Hill ol vSt. Andrews, *' may 
 
 *' now rest in a fystem more liberal than that which was 
 
 ** held by their predecessors in the seventeenth eNjnt'jry." 
 
 After mentioning Hooker as the iirst who explained the 
 
 principle on which this system proceeds, and Bishop Std- 
 
 lingflcet as having afterwards more fully demonstrated it, 
 
 the following account of it is subjoined. " Ailliongli 
 
 *' church-govennncnt is of divine appointment ; that is, 
 
 ** although the powers which it implies were not created 
 
 ** by the £tate, but are conveyed kom the Lord Jesus 
 
 <* through those whom he ordained ; yet the New Testa- 
 
 ** ment does not prescribe any one particular form of 
 
 *' church-government in such a mianaer as to render ano- 
 
 ♦' ther form unlawful. By comparing incidental passage^ 
 
 ** in the history of the journeyings of the apostle Paul, 
 
 *' with the information which may be collected from hi^j 
 
 " epistles, we may form a conception of the plan of go- 
 
 ■*' vernment which he established in some churches. But 
 
 " the book of Acts does not enable us to follovv' the 
 
 ** apostle through the whole of his progress; and of what 
 
 " was done by the other aoostlcs, who, in the execution 
 
14 LETTER 11. 
 
 eumstances ; to Liy aside one regulation, and to int:r(5- 
 duc^ another in its room, just as convenience, or the 
 situation of the times may suggest. Indeed, it seems 
 to be founded on a supposition, at least very nearly 
 
 •* of thtir universal con-inT:ssion, visited difTerent quarters 
 «' of the world, scripture gives little information, and an- 
 •* cient writers ?peak very generally and uncertainly. Our 
 ** knowledge upon this sub'ject, therefore, only extends to 
 •' the practice of one apostle. But Vv'e draw a conclusion. 
 *' which the premises do by no means warrant, when wc 
 *' inf^r, that what was done by one apostle in plantlnjj 
 *' some churches, was done by all the apostles in planting 
 *' all churches. The presumption is, that instead of fol- 
 *■' lowing one uniform course, they would in every city 
 •' accommodate their establishments to the efiification of 
 *♦' the Christian converts, and the future increase of be- 
 ** lievers, to the numbers whom they had added to the 
 *' church, to the population of the city, and to the quali- 
 *' fications for the different offices which those v.hom they 
 " found there appeared to possess ; that they would leave 
 *' many thmgs to be settled as the future occasions of the 
 *' church might require.'' 
 
 Again. "The apostles who were sent to gather converts 
 ** out of all countries, could not adopt any form of eccle- 
 *' siastical polity that was equally applicable to the infant 
 " churches which wer£ then p>lanted, and to the national 
 " churches which were afterv/ards to be established ; and 
 ** any attem.pt to bind upon Christians a particular form 
 *' of church-government, m.ust have proved an obstacle to 
 ** tlie propagation of Christianity amongst all the nations 
 *' who found that plan incompatible with their civil in.-^ll- 
 *' tution. The gospeh therefore, preserves upon this sub- 
 ** ject the same just and delicate attention to the nature 
 « of a reasonable being, and the varying circumstances of 
 <* the human race, which pervades the whole system. In- 
 *' stead of creating, by the divine institution of any form 
 *• of chnrch-gcvernment, a pretext for sediticjn or di:af- 
 •« fcction to civil rulers, it inspires such sentiments, and 
 ** delivers such general precepts, as may, in all different 
 *' situations, furnish the most perRct directory for the 
 «< government of the church ; and it leaves every nation 
 ■" which embraces the gospel, to proceed under the in- 
 *' fluence of the true spirit of that religion, in accommo- 
 *' dating their form of church-govcrnmient to their poli- 
 *' ticalconstitutiou ; so that the two moulded together by 
 <' human wisdom, naay conspire in preserving the public 
 
• LETTER IL 25. 
 
 ■allied to that of a 'religion connected with the state : 
 I mean, that the professors of it, as such, may b« 
 placed in so great a variety of circumstances, that 
 no simple code of laws would suit them. Now, 
 whence is this hut from such a connexion \ Suppose 
 no such connexion to exist, and this variety is de- 
 stroyed. You have then Christians in one of tv.'o 
 situations, either In the enjoyment of external peace, 
 
 •* tnirquillity, and pronioting the spiritual and temporal 
 ** good of those who Hve eindiir them." 
 
 HIL.l's THEOL. INSTITUTf-.S, p. l8l, 183. 
 
 I most cordially agree with this author in mair.tainirg 
 that the gospel creates, indeed, no pretext for sedition, or 
 difialTection to civil rulers. But, who woultl for a nioir,ent 
 suppose it does this, though it be asserted tliat it Cbtabiii-hes 
 fli particular form of church-government ? Is there any 
 thing either in Episcopacy, Presbytery, or Independency, 
 inconsistent v.ith the express precept of scripture, that 
 Christians shall be obedient to the powers tliat be, not only 
 for vvTath but for conscience sake ? Surely not. It is only 
 when the church and state are united, that any such pretext 
 can be im:«gined to be derived from the particular form of 
 church-government that is adopted. In the above quotation, 
 it is plainly taken for granted, that the apostles, in their sup- 
 posed merely general regulations, had an eye to tlie na- 
 tional churches afterwards to be established, as v.-ell as the 
 infant churches they v.'ere at the time planting. It might 
 have been useful here to have noticed what sort of national 
 churches these were, as for many centuries those of the 
 Roman Catholic persuasion, from which we have all thought 
 it our duty to separate, v/ere the only ones to which their 
 regulations could refer. The truth seems to be, it Uiust- 
 fust be ascertained that the apostles intended there -.hould 
 be a union betvi-een the church and the world, before we 
 are entitled to look into the regulations they have left re- 
 specting church-government, for any thing that will suit 
 such an arrangement. If it be fairly acknowledged that 
 no such simple code of laws as we have in the scriptures 
 will do this, it will be considered by some as'a presumptive 
 argument that no such state of things was intended by the 
 lawgiver. In the scriptures we have a key ; ar.d if we can 
 discover the lock, the wards of which correspond with it, 
 wft shall conclude that this, and this oniv, vras intended 
 ^y the artificer. 
 
 ■^ 2 
 
16 LETTER IT. 
 
 ):rotected by the government of the country in \vhIcf^ 
 ihcy live, or in a stutc of persecution. If the situa- 
 tions in which they may be pLiced be thus hmited^ 
 ;i. great number of rules for tlie direction of their social 
 intercourse will not be neccssaiv. The same retrula- 
 lions respecting the internal order of the church "will 
 suit both cases. If protected, they are called to oh» 
 ^erve these while they lead quiet and peaceable lives, 
 m all godliness and honesty; and if in a state of perse- 
 cution, tliey are called either to fiee, or if the persc- 
 cutlcn be less severe, in so far as they are permitted, 
 to go on steadily in the observance of the ordinances 
 of Christ, and abide the consequences. 
 
 But, though this system has been extensively adopted 
 by those who are members of some established churches, 
 it is generally found unhappily at variance with the 
 articles they are called to subscril^e. None of thes;?, 
 so far as I am acquainted with them, view the subject 
 in this light. A particular form of church-government 
 >s there inculcated, and that, from the language em- 
 ployed, plainly to the exclusion of all others. But 
 every one must see that tiiis is quite inconsistent witU 
 the opinion we are considering. We may add, that 
 fev/ or none, even of those who professedly hold such 
 a sentiment, seem in their reasoning on church-govern- 
 ment fairly to follow it out. This appears from the 
 solicitude that all parties shew, to quote as much of 
 apostolic precept or example as possible in support 
 of their own particular usages. But such a solicitude 
 is virtually abandoning the opinion m question. If it 
 be true that the external arrangements of the church 
 are thus left to human discretion, our only concern 
 should be to sheAv, that such as we -adopt are fitted 
 to attain tlie end we ought to have in view. Upoiv 
 
LETTER 17, V7 
 
 this principle, if a church were placed in circumstances 
 very different from those in which the early churches 
 stood, totally different regulations might be necessary; 
 and, in such a case, to quote apostolic precept or ex- 
 ample, would not at all be in point ; nay, it might 
 rather indicate something wrong, than what could 
 justly claim our approbation. 
 
 The second of the general opinions above mentioned, 
 is what I have no hesitation In adopting. It is as 
 follows : that certain regulations en the subject of 
 church-government may be clearly discovered in the 
 New Testament, founded either on apostolic precept 
 or example ; that these contain all that Is necessary 
 to be directly specified ; and that If any case occur to 
 which they do not immediately apply the general 
 principles of the gospel, are sufficient to guide our 
 decision. Here, I am aware, some will be disposed 
 to question how far apostolic exam^ple is binding in 
 this matter. I shall therefore state a few reasons for 
 concluding it Is. 
 
 1. I consider apostolic example and precept, so far 
 as they regard the order of the Christian church, as 
 amounting to the same thing. It cannot for a moment 
 be supposed the apostles of our Lord would in this 
 case inculcate one thing, and practise another ; cr 
 practise what they did not mean to recommend as 
 Christian duty. 
 
 2. The apostles were left in charge by their Lord 
 and Master, to teach the disciples all things they were 
 called to observe, Matt, xxviii. 20. If that charp-e, 
 as all will allow, related to the Institutions of Christ's 
 kingdom, then their obligation to teach, includes that 
 of Christians to learn, to listen to the injunctions the 
 apostles have given tj^em. If this be denied; we have 
 
•18 LETTER IT. 
 
 no instnTctlcnsvclTatever on a subject tlie most Impcrf> 
 ant, and the apostolic commission has no meaning 
 that we can attach to it. 
 
 3. If the authority of apostolic precept and example 
 respecting church-government be questioned, then 
 many parts of the New Testament scriptures can be 
 to us of no service : the directions to the early 
 churches can in the present day be of no avail. Buc 
 admitting their authority, every part of the epistles is 
 fraught with the most important instructions. 
 
 4. There is an intimate connexion between the 
 apostolic precepts that relate to church-government, 
 and those which are addressed to individual Christians. 
 Certain external regulations give us an opportunity 
 of observing these, while others do not. In many 
 situations, for example^ It is imxposslble to observe 
 the rule our Lord lays down, Matt, xvlli. 15. We 
 may as well th^en explain away the duties of Christians 
 to each other altogether, as those regulations by which 
 silone an opportunity is afforded of discharging them. 
 
 5. In som.e cases the authority of apostolic example 
 Is directly pleaded, 1 Cor. x. 33, and xi. 1, 2. Perhaps 
 th^ first verse of chap. xi. has a more Immediate con- 
 nexion with the conclusion of the preceding chapter, 
 tiianwlth the following context; and in this way som^ 
 may allege the command here to imitate Paul does 
 not so directly refer to the external order of the church. 
 This objection, however, is completely removed. If we 
 look forward to ver. 16. In It, a regulation practised 
 by the apostles, and the churches they planted. Is clearly 
 quoted as binding, and sufficient to settle all disputes. 
 If universal apostolic example be not equally obligatory 
 in other cases. It is Impossible to conceive any thing 
 more calculated to mislead, tlian the language whicii- 
 Paul here employs*. 
 
LETTER 11: U 
 
 Lastly, in observing the first day of the week, the 
 authority of apostolic example is allowed by all. If 
 it be admitted in one case, where is the line to be 
 drawn at which we are allowed to deviate from it ? 
 Unless its authority be acknowledged, every thing is 
 left loose and undetermined. We have no precise rule 
 to influence our conduct. 
 
 In maintaining the general doctrine, that certain 
 regulations on the subject of church-government may 
 be clearly discovered from apostolic precept or ex- 
 ample, many will coincide ; though, when they come 
 to particulars, there will probably be a considerable 
 diversity of opinion respecting what some of these 
 regulations really are, as well as the degree of preci- 
 sion with which they are revealed. It would be un- 
 suitable in a letter, that is only introductory to my 
 main design, to attempt to enumerate these, or enter 
 upon a discussion of thenrw Neither is it necessary 
 here to notice the causes to which this difference of 
 opinion may often be ascribed. Some I have heard 
 go the length of saying, they can see every thing re- 
 specting the New Testament worship, as precisely 
 pointed out as what related to the Mosaic economy. 
 With these, I acknowledge I cannot agree. When I 
 consider the very minute directions given to Moses re- 
 specting the various parts of the Old Testament wor- 
 ship, and compare them widi \vliat is revealed respecting 
 the New, there seems to me a considerable difference. 
 In the one, every individual ceremony is minutely de- 
 scribed. Nothing whatever is left to human discretion. 
 It must have been owing to gross negligence, or deter- 
 mined opposition to the divine authority, not to a mis- 
 apprehension of tlie rule, or a difficulty in applyinr>- it, 
 if any part of it was neglected. Perhaps here, ther^e 
 
20 LETTER IT. 
 
 could hardly be degrees of approach to the standard 
 of duty. The man who did not implicitly obey the 
 injunction as it stood, was chargeable with direct and 
 wilful disobedience. From the spiritual nature, howcYer, 
 of the religion of the New Testament, the case I may 
 perhaps almost say, is unavoidably different. It has 
 to do with the minds of men, with their tempers and 
 dispositions ; and, of course, tiie rules that refer to 
 spiritual worsliip, in their application at least, do 
 not admit of that degree of precision which can be 
 given to sucli as merely regulate external services. 
 This idea will, perhaps, be best illustrated by an ex- 
 ample or two. It is plain, that a man indulging in 
 covetousness ought not to be allowed to rem.ain as 
 a member of a church of Christ, 1 Cor. v. 11. Is it 
 not, however, necessarily left to the discretion of every 
 church to judge where this charge is fairly applicable ? 
 In like manner, 1 Tim. chapter iii., the character of 
 a bishop is particularly described. The different fea- 
 tures there mentioned, are possessed in very different 
 decrees. But must not indiridual churches determine 
 how far the degree in which any one is distinguished 
 by such a character, renders it proper for him to be 
 trusted with the charj^e of souls ? Let these cases be 
 contrasted with the institutions in general of the 
 Mosaic economy ; and, I think, it will clearly appear, 
 that the former unavoidably require an exercise of 
 human discretion w^hich the latter do not admit. It 
 is, perhaps, partly ov.-ing to this diiference, that so 
 much is said in the New Testam.ent respecting the 
 important duty of forbearance. It seems alm.ost ex- 
 clusively a New Testament grace; and if tlie pre- 
 ceding observations be just, the nature of the dispen- 
 sation accounts for this. From its spiritual nature 
 there is unavoidably more occasion for its exercise. 
 
LETTER If. ^ 
 
 Here, however, we must beg it may be particularly 
 noticed, in what respect we allow the exercise of what 
 has been called human discretion in reference to the 
 institutions of the Christian church. We do not mean 
 that men have a discretionary power to dispense witb 
 any of the regulations enjoined in the word, or to in- 
 troduce any that are not there contained. Our only 
 business is to discover what these are ; and when 
 discovered, faithfully to reduce them to practice. But 
 what we contend for is, that from the spiritual nature 
 of Christianity, it is necessary to resort to hum.an pi-u- 
 dence in the application of the rules already laid down^ 
 and that there is often a greater difliculty in that ap- 
 plication, than some are disposed to adm.it. The 
 opinion we would here be understood to oppose i«, 
 that which so far excludes the operation of this prin- 
 ciple, as leads men at once to condemn those who \v\, 
 any degree differ from them, even in their mode of 
 applying these rules, apparently on the supposition 
 that no room is left for such a difference. This ii 
 indeed an opinion which, perhaps, few or none will in 
 words avow, though many discover too much of its 
 influence in their conduct. Nothing, perhaps, has 
 contributed more effectually to sow divisions in 
 churches, and to destroy that spirit of mutual for- 
 bearance, by which it is one of the peculiar glories of 
 Christians to be distinguished. 
 
 On this part of the subject, however, I would sug» 
 gest two observations. Firsts we know that every 
 regulation necessary to the prosperity of the church 
 of Christ is revealed in scripture, whatever difBculty 
 any may have found in attempting to discover v/hat 
 these regulations are, or in reducing them to prac-? 
 |;ice after jhey are knowjo^. Secotidlj, \"Q knew ijQt 
 
^2« LETTER II. 
 
 what additional light may, in the progress of know- 
 ledge, be thrown on some points which may appear 
 not yet fully ascertained. It is Impossible to conceive, 
 in what a variety of ways the great Head of the 
 church may direct the attention of his people to mere 
 enlarged views of divine truth. Of this remark we 
 have of.late had a striking illustration, in the obliga- 
 tions vvhich Christians of every name have felt, to use 
 their utmost eiTorts to spi'ead the knowledge of 
 Ciiristianity among the heathen. It is true, one class 
 of Christians * (to the'r honour be it mentioned) had 
 for many years discovered the most ardent zeal, and 
 unremitting activity in thib' labour of love. But if we 
 speak of the general body of professing Christians in 
 this country at least, it v/as a department of duty 
 which for a considerable period had seldom or never 
 occurred to their minds. To attempt to trace the 
 circumstances v.hich directed tlieir attention to it, is 
 here unnecessary. It is suflicient to observe, that va- 
 rious events In the course of providence contributed 
 to bring it into view. Whenever it was suggested, it 
 carried its evidence in Ics own bosom. It approved 
 itself to men's consciences, as a genuine and Im- 
 portant branch of the law of love ; and now it is 
 delightful to see, that amidst all that variety of opi- 
 nion that prevails on other points amoi^g Christians,, 
 almost every man who feels the value of the gospel 
 to his own soul, acknowledges his obligations to en- 
 deavour, in his ov\'n sphere, to diffuse the knowledge 
 cf it among his perishing brethren. With so recent 
 an example before our eyes, it would surely be rash 
 in the extreme to say, that there is no room left for 
 unproving in the knowledge of other departments o£^ 
 
 * The Moravians..^ 
 
LETTER II. n- 
 
 revealed truth. It Is by degrees, and these often very 
 slow, that the effects of particular external arrange- 
 ments are discovered. In the history of providence 
 there are perpetually occurring some new combinations 
 of circumstances. The church and the world are con- 
 tinually thrown into new situations ; and these con- 
 tribute to discover the tendencies of principles, which 
 could not be so fully understood in any other way. 
 How flir, then, the many eventful changes that are 
 at present taking place in the civil history of nations ; 
 the increasing discoveries which from this quarter are 
 derived of the deplorable effects of gross ignorance, 
 of public profligacy, and prevailing infidelity ; the 
 growing ^tention of Christians to the nature of 
 Christ's kingdom, and to the order and discipline of 
 his church ; together with the enlarged experience 
 tliey will gradually acquire of the effect of princ.^jles 
 hitherto but little regarded : — how far these may con- 
 tribute to the increase of knowledge at any succeed- 
 ing period, it would be foolish to attempt to predict. 
 
 While we allow, then, remaining imperfection in 
 our knowledge, we must admit that certain differences 
 in opinion must be expected ; and when they arise 
 from this cause, our obligation to exercise Christian 
 forbearance seems quite unquestionable. But it often 
 happens, that where v.'e find a principle that will carry 
 us a certain length, if it suit our purpose, v/e are apt 
 to make an improper use of its aid, and to stretch the 
 application of it farther than it will fairly bear us 
 OL'it. Tliis seems to have been very much the case 
 here. Men have availed themselves of our acknow- 
 ledged ignorance on some points, and of the admission 
 of human discretion in any shape, either to suggest 
 a general doubt respecting the existence of any parti- 
 
24 LETTER IL 
 
 ciilar rules on church-government which arc now ob- 
 ligatory, or at least to produce a suspicion that it is 
 altogether a matter of little importance, and that it is 
 impossible to arrite at any satisfaction in our inquiries 
 concerning it. But because there are some points, which 
 from the present limited state of our knowledge we 
 cannot ascertain, it surely does not follow that there 
 are none which we can: because the exercise of human 
 prudence must be resorted to in appljnng the rules of 
 scripture, we must not infer that these rules are not 
 sufficiently comprehensive and determinate to exclude 
 the necessity of inventing new ones : because on some 
 departments of a general subject we are left to enter- 
 tain doubts, we are not to conclude that cm others we 
 cannot obtain certainty. 
 
 Here I beg leave to quote the very accurate lan- 
 gUtige of Dr. Paley, in his late luminous work on 
 natural theology. 
 
 " True fortitude of understanding consists in not 
 
 o 
 
 ** suffering what we know to be disturbed by what 
 
 ** we do not know\ 1 take It to be a general 
 
 ** way of infusing doubts and scruples into the mind, 
 *' to recall to it its own ignorance, its ov/n imbecillity ; 
 " to tell U3 that upon these subjects we know little ; 
 ** and that little Imperfectly ; or rather, that we know 
 " nothing properly about the matter. These sug- 
 ** gestions so fall in \\\\h our consciousnesses as some- 
 " times to produce a general distrust of our faculties 
 " and our conclusions. But this is an unfounded 
 " jealousy. The uncertainty of one thing does not 
 " necessarily affect tlie certainty cf another thing. 
 " Our ignorance oi many points need not suspend our 
 " assurance of a few. Before we yield in any parti- 
 ** cular instance to the scepticiom which this sort of 
 
LETTER IL tS 
 
 ^ insinuation would induce, we ought accurately to 
 ** ascertain whether our ignorance or doubt concern 
 ** those precise points on which our conclusion rests. 
 ** Other points are nothing. Our ignorance of other 
 " points may be of no consequence to these ; though 
 " they may be points, in various respects, of great 
 ** importance. A just reasoner removes from his 
 ** consideration, not only what he knows, but what he 
 ** does not know, louching matters not strictly con- 
 ♦' nected with his argument, /. e. not forming the 
 ■** very steps of his deduction : beyond these his know*. 
 ♦* ledge and his ignorance are alike irrelevant." 
 
 NAT. THEOL. CHAP. V« 
 
 These obserrations are originally applied to philo- 
 -sophical subje<:ts, and they will be allowed by all to 
 contain the dictates of sound philosophy. In their 
 application to the subject of church-government, they 
 no less express the language of sound divinity. What 
 state of mind is most desirable for a Christian here ; 
 what i6 most conducive, we may almost add v*'hat is 
 absolutely necessary to a well grounded satisfaction, 
 is it not faithfully acting up to the light he has re- 
 ceived while he is striving to get more ? Though 
 some points appear to him yet involved in obscurity, 
 there are others from which that obscurity is removed. 
 Let him then walk by the rule of scripture, so far as 
 he has attained. This seems quite essential to Christian 
 sincerity. There is no way in which we can more 
 eifectually impede our improvement in the knowledge 
 of divine truth, than when we can deliberately refuse 
 to act according to the light we have already obtained. 
 If any one is secretly conscious that there are certain 
 arrangements he is convinced to be agreeable to scrip- 
 ture which he is neglecting, or others he is coun- 
 
 C 
 
2©' LETTER IL 
 
 lenandng' that are opposed to it, there Is plainly Wi 
 this case something quite unwarrantable. Any prin- 
 ciple that can excuse a deviation from one part of 
 revealed truth or known duty, may be equally pleaded 
 to excuse it from another. If such a principle be at 
 all admitted, a flood-gate is opened for a deluge of 
 iniquity ; and whoever indulges it cannot have the 
 testimony of his conscience, that in all things, ac- 
 cording to his knowledge, he is endeavouring to walk 
 ^o as to please God. ^ ^ 
 
 What, my dear brethren, would every Christian 
 consider' as the most desirable situation at the ap- 
 proaching hour of trial? Would he not wish to be 
 found sitting at his Master's feet, improving day by 
 day in the knowledge of his will, and faithfully acting 
 agreeably to that improvement in knowledge, till the 
 full blaze of divine truth burst upon his mind, when 
 he shall put off this mortal, and put on Immortality. 
 May every reader, as well as the writer^of these pages, 
 be found at last In this happy posture, waiting for the 
 second coming of the Lord. 
 
 I shall now conclude this letter by stating, in tP.e 
 form of a general proposition, the principle which it 
 has been the object of the preceding observations to 
 establish.— So far as universal apostolic practice 
 
 RESPECTING THE ORDER AND INSTITUTIONS OF THE 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST CAN BE DISCOVERED, WE ARE 
 CALLED TO FOLLOW IT ; AND THOSE WHO CONSCI- 
 ENTIOUSLY OBSERVE THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, 
 VIRTUALLY ADMIT THIS PRINCIPLE. 
 
 I am; 3cc. 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 
 
 N the two preceding letters, I have directed your 
 attention to some general observations on the subject 
 of church-government ; I shall now state the parti- 
 cular reasons which induced me to relinquish my con- 
 nexion with the church of Scotland. These relate, 
 First, to the comtituiion of that church j and, Secondly, 
 to its adminisiratton. 
 
 But, before entering upon these, permit me toobserve,- 
 that when I saw it my duty to take such a step, it was 
 not the result of a hasty decision, formed wltliout ma- 
 ture deliberation and serious inquiry. I recollect well, 
 when the proposition was first made to me, to leave 
 my charge and occupy another station unconnected 
 with the establishment, the idea that first occurred 
 to miy mind was, that I should feel very great re- 
 luctance in acceding to it. Our inquiries, hov/ever, 
 are frequently suggested by our circumstances. I 
 mention this in my own case, merely as a niatiier v.. :' 
 fact, and not as an apology for having previously ne- 
 glected more fully to examine how far my situation 
 was agreeable to the word of God. But the diffi- 
 culties I had often experienced from that situation, 
 led me to consider this^roposal as a call to engage 
 
 C 2 
 
28 LETTER III. 
 
 in as full an investigation of the subject as possible, 
 iJiat in the issue I might either remain in it without 
 uneasiness, or, from a conviction of duty, deliberately 
 relinquish it. My only reason for noticing this cir- 
 cumstance here, is to shew, that if I had any bias in 
 such an inquiry, it was in favour of my continuing in 
 habits of professional intercourse with many valuable 
 fiiends with whom I had the happiness to be inti- 
 mately acquainted, to whose conversation I had been 
 often indebted both for pleasure and improvement, 
 and whose characters in many points I hope I shall 
 ever esteem. But it is time I should proceed to state 
 the result of my inquiry. 
 
 First, The constitution of the church is presby- 
 terian, and this I consider totally unscriptural. Here 
 it may be necessary to point out the difference between 
 the presbyterlan and independent form of church- 
 government. The distinguishing feature of the former, 
 is the system of representation. In a presbyterian 
 church, * the management of each individual society 
 is, in the first instance, entirely conducted on this 
 plan. The minister and ruling elders, composing 
 vv'hat is called the kirk-session, meet alone, and decide 
 on any case of discipline that combes before them. In 
 some cases, a sessional rebuke, as it is termed, is ad- 
 ministered to the offender. In others of a more 
 flagrant nature, he is, by their appointment, pub- 
 licly rebuked before the congregation. In this way 
 the general body of the church have nothing whatever 
 
 * The manner in which the word church is used here, and 
 on some other cccasions, is in conformity to general custom, 
 and to denote what would be more propeiV expressed by 
 ?. number of churches. Thus, in the church of Scotland, 
 the church of Secession or the church of Relief, a number 
 of individual churches are contained. 
 
LETTER III, «9 
 
 to say in the administration of its discipline. They 
 may be satisfied or not with the propriety of it, as tliey 
 are not informed of the principles on which in any 
 particular case it is conducted. The decision of the 
 session is only known from the result. Under this 
 fofm of church-government too, the representatives 
 of so many neighbouring churches meet in common 
 council ; and to these thus assembled, the individual 
 churches, or rather kirk-sessions, are amenable. Tlieir 
 discipline may be reviewed, their decisions reversed, 
 and new ones dictated, which they are bound to obey.* 
 
 * In the following extract, taken from Dr. Hill's pub- 
 lication formerly quoted, we have a full confirmation 
 -of authority being thus substituted in the room of con- 
 n)ietio77, in the government of the church of Scotland. 
 *' In testimony of that subordination of judicatories Avhich 
 ** pervades the church of Scotland, it is a standing order, 
 ** that the books containing the minutes of the inferior 
 " court shall be laid before the court immediately above 
 *< it. In the ordinary course of ecclesiastical business thrs 
 " is often neglected. But a superior court may, at any 
 *' time, issue a peremptory mandate for the production of 
 " the books of its subordinate judicatories ; and having the 
 " whole train of their proceedings thus regularly submit- 
 *' ted to its inspection, it may take such measures as, upon 
 " this review, appear to be necessary, in order to correct 
 *' errors, to redress wrongs, to enforce observance of gene- 
 " ral rules, and to promote the edification of the people in 
 *' the several districts within its bounds." 
 
 In another passage of the same work, we have the fol- 
 lowing account of the power vested in the General Assembly,, 
 the supreme court of review. This is nothing else than the 
 same system that I have described above, on a more ex- 
 tended scale ; as presbyteries are subordinate to synods,, 
 and synods to the General Assembly, in the same way 
 that kirk-scssions are to presbyteries. " Ever since the 
 *' estabhshment of the church of Scotland, and particular- 
 " ly since patrons were restored to their ancient rights b^ 
 *< the act 1 7 12, presbyteries, even when they did not find 
 " any defect in the personal qualifications of the presentee,. 
 ** have often, from a supposed deficiency in his call, from 
 ** regard to the wishes of the people, or from some local 
 •< circumstances, delayed or even refused to settle him* 
 
 C3 
 
^'SO LETTER III \ 
 
 In an independent church, on the other hand, no 
 thing is decided by representation. Whatever is done 
 by those who are appointed to rule, is carried on in 
 the presence of the general body, ancl with their con- 
 sent. This is equally conducive to their improvement 
 in knowledge, and to their satisfaction with any deci- 
 sion that may be formed. In this way, ruling and 
 teachinp; are associated toofether. If an individual mem- 
 ber has any difficulty with any measure the church at 
 large may adopt, he has an opportunity of stating it 
 and of having itrem.oved, of having the law explained 
 by which such a measure is sanctioned, and the 
 grounds pointed out on which that particular appli-" 
 cation of the law rests. While an independent church* 
 tlius assumes the sole government of its own affairs^ 
 it is amenable to no society of men under heaven. In 
 reference to its own members its decision is final, and: 
 it pretends to interfere wath none else. 
 
 Some, indeed, have insinuated, that the meeting,, 
 in association of the representatives of independent 
 churches,, comes pretty near the institution of pres- 
 
 " When the matter is brought before the General Assem- 
 " bly, that supreme court, if satisfied that the conduct of 
 " the presbyteiy was not warranted by the laws of the 
 " church, interposes its authority, and enjoins them to 
 " proceed with all convenient speed, according to the rule»> 
 " of the church, to receive and admit the presentee mi- 
 ** nister of the vacant parish. If the reluctance discovered 
 " by the members of the presbytery appears to be such 
 ** that they cannot safely be trusted with any discretionary 
 « powers, the General Assembly appoints the particular 
 *' days of their meeting, in order to take the steps previous 
 *' to the settlement ; prescribes the whole course of their 
 " procedure, and constitutes them, in that particular case, 
 " the ministerial officers of the General Assembly, who 
 " are not allowed to exercise their own judgment, but are 
 ♦* required implicitly to obey the instructions given by- 
 « their superiors." — hill's theol. inst. p. 123, 143« 
 
LETTER III, SI 
 
 fcytery. As this, however, forms no part of the sys- 
 tem of independency, I should not probably have 
 taken nocice of it here, had I not repeatedly heard this 
 allegation brought forward against an association of 
 ministers that occasionally meets in this place, and 
 the resolutions of which were published in the Mis- 
 sionary Magazine for December 1802. With regard 
 to this particular association, I must rem.ark, that any 
 comparison of this kind must be founded on a com- 
 plete misapprehension of the nature and design of our 
 institution. It is not in the character of representa- 
 tives at all that we meet, but for our mutual improve- 
 ment as individuals; and in the first of the resolutions 
 above alluded to, our decided opposition to the di- 
 stinguishing character of presbytery, as interfering 
 with the concerns of individual churches, is explicitly 
 declared. 
 
 But, even where associations are composed of those 
 who are representatives of independei^t churches, be- 
 |;ween these and a meeting of presbytery there is this 
 radical difference. In the former, the independency 
 of the individual churches is preserved inviolate; while 
 this is a principle to which the latter is directly op- 
 posed. If there be meetings in which this principle 
 is infringed, by whatever name they are called, so far 
 from attempting to defend them, I consider them as 
 subversive of the leading character by which inde- 
 pendent government is distinguished ; and the churches 
 to which such representatives belong, ought carefully 
 to watch against every encroachment on their Christian 
 liberty. It seems, however, by no means inconsistent 
 withthisfoimof government, that neighbouring church- 
 es should avail themselves of the benefit of each other's 
 opinion in cases of difficulty that may occur. We all 
 
52 LETTER IIL 
 
 acknowledge our obligations to receive increasing' 
 light on every part of the revealed will of God, from 
 whatever quarter it may be derived. Some of the 
 members of one church may have more knowledge 
 than those of another, or from their particular situa- 
 tions, may have had more experience of the effects of 
 this or the other mode of conducting a particular case 
 of discipline. Individual churches, I suppose, are sen- 
 sible that they learn something from almost every case 
 that comes before them ; and may we not improve by 
 the experience of our brethren, as well as by our own. 
 So far, then, as associations may contribute, by the 
 friendly interchange of opinion among those whose 
 minds have been directed to the same subject, tc 
 throw" increasing light on any part of the law of 
 Christ, they seem calculated to be useful, and to con- 
 tain nothing inconsistent with the strictest principles 
 of independency. But, is there no difference between 
 opinion and authority P between availing ourselves of a 
 suggestion which we see founded on scripture, and 
 which approves itself to our conscience, and obeying 
 a command which we do not see to be scriptural, by 
 which the rights of conscience are directly violated, 
 and of- course sin committed by those who submit ? 
 If so, then presbytery, and an association of the repre- 
 sentatives of independent churches, are of the same 
 import. But, as long as in such meetings nothing 
 but opinion is suggested, an essential difference sub- 
 sists between them. Though, however, on these 
 principles such institutions seem defensible ; yet, as 
 there may be a danger of subsLituting the influence 
 of an association, composed of the representatives of 
 churches, in the room of that personal convictioa 
 ■which the members of a church must feel in order to 
 
LETTER III. SS 
 
 exercise spiritual obedience ; and as all the good that 
 can accrue from such institutions, may be equally de- 
 rived from ministers or others meeting as individuals : 
 this last kind of them seems decidedly preferable. 
 
 Having thus stated the distinction between these 
 two modes of church-government, I shall first mention 
 the grounds on which It appears that tlie apostolic 
 churches were independent, and then consider the 
 principal argument urged in support of the presby- 
 terlan form. 
 
 The first passage I shall mention, from. which the 
 system of independency seems to be established, is 
 Matt, xvill. 15 — 17, where our Lord gives his people 
 particular directions respecting their conduct in case- 
 of offences. " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass 
 *' against thee, go and tell him his fault between 
 *• thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou 
 *' hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear 
 ** thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in 
 ** the moulh of two or three witnesses every word 
 ** may be established. And if he shall neglect to 
 *' hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he ne- 
 *' gleet to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an 
 " heathen man and a publican.'* In the scriptures, 
 the word church has two slcrnificatlons. It either de- 
 notes the v^hole assembly of those redeemed by the 
 blood of Christ, or an individaal society. In this 
 last sense It Is sometimes applied to a meeting of any 
 description. It is thus used. Acts xix. 32, where the 
 word, generally translated church, is rendered as- 
 sembly. AVhen in this last and more restricted 
 sense it is applied to Christians, it is plainly de- 
 scriptive of those who meet together for Christian- 
 fellowship in an individual society. Agreeably ta 
 
S4 LETTER III. 
 
 .this, it is deserving of remark, that when the Christia^ns 
 scattered over a province are mentioned, who of 
 course met in different societies, the word church is 
 always found in the plural. Thus we have the churches 
 of Judea, the churches of Macedonia, the churches of 
 Galatia, &c. Examples of the first use of the term 
 occur, Col. i. 18. Eph. i. 22. Heb. xii. 23.; and 
 of the second, Acts ix. 31. xiv. 23. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. 
 In no case does it seem employed to denote the iulere 
 of a church, as distinguished from the general body; 
 though in Acts xv. 22. it is used to describe the latter 
 of these, as distinguished from the former. As in the 
 passage then above quoted, it would be impossible to 
 comply with the admonition, if by the word church 
 the church universal is meant, it is plain the expres- 
 sion cannot be miderstood in any other sense than as 
 denoting die particular society of Christians with 
 which we are connected. To these the offence is to be 
 told. If the offending brother will not hear them, he' 
 is to be viewed as a heathen man and a publican, in 
 the same light as those who are still in a state of 
 heathenism, and not members of the church at all ; 
 in other words, he is to be excluded from the society. 
 In this passage nothing seems plainer than that the 
 decision of the church is to be considered as final. 
 There is not the smallest hint about the possibility of 
 an appeal ; n;iy, we may sa.fely assert, that, with such 
 a system as a court of review, by which the decision 
 of an individual society may be reversed, the language 
 of our Lord is altogether incompatible. 
 
 The same doctrine seems, with equal decision, 
 established from the uniform mode in which the 
 apostle Paul addresses the different churches to whom 
 ke writes. In the course of his epistles, he has fre- 
 
LETTER IIL %% 
 
 ^nently occasion to animadvert with considerable se- 
 verity on different parts of their conduct. While with 
 all fidelity he points out In what respects they had 
 departed from the right path, he charges them to re- 
 turn to it. But, is there a hint dropped about other 
 churches being consulted ; or, is it ever insinuated 
 that if an individual church should act improperly, 
 part of die blame should be borne by the represen- 
 tatives of neighbouring ones, whose authority might 
 influence their conduct? We have a striking instance 
 of pretty severe reproof in the first epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians. A peculiarly gross offender Is mentioned 
 in chapter v. as having appeared among them ; and 
 the other members are sharply rebuked, for having 
 discovered a very unsuitable degree of lenity to- 
 wards him. The apostle, after stating the law of 
 Christ's kingdom, that applied to such a case which 
 perfectly corresponds with that which had been pre- 
 viously enacted by his divine Master, coilcludes with 
 the«e words, verse 15. ** Therefore, put away from 
 *' among yourselves that wicked person." I think it 
 must be allowed by every unprejudiced Inquirer, that, 
 upon the supposition that this church had the sole 
 management of its own affairs, the language used 
 here, as well as throughout the whole epistle. Is cor- 
 rect and apposite. Upon this supposition, it was the 
 business of the general body of the members to rectify 
 what was amiss ; and with them alone lay the blame, 
 if it was not corrected. The same thing, however, 
 cannot be said, If presbyterian government was sanc- 
 tioned by apostolic authority. If a reference to other 
 churches was proper, and none was made, can we 
 suppose the apostle would take no notice of this im- 
 propriety ; or that, while he had so often to admini- 
 
a6 LETTER III. 
 
 ster reproof both to this and some other churches, 
 not a suigle hhit should occur respecting a court of 
 review, either attaching blame to those who ne- 
 glected to appeal to it, or allowing it to share their 
 guilt, if they were misled by its decision. 
 
 Here, some may allege that this reasoning is equally 
 hostile to those associations in which the opinion of the 
 members of other churches is consulted, as to our sub- 
 mitting to their authority. The remarks we have al- 
 ready made on these, and on what principles we con- 
 sider them defensible, may sufficiently obviate this ob- 
 jection. We may here, however, add, that the allega- 
 tion might have some force, if ait argument v/ere m-ged 
 in support of these meetings from direct apostolic ex- 
 ample, unless a case of such consultation could be 
 fairly established. It is not, however, on this ground 
 we would for a moment countenance them, but merely 
 on the principle of general expediency, while they 
 contain nothing inconsistent with any part of revealed 
 truth. We consider them not as commanded, but 
 authorized ; not as establishing any authority differ- 
 ent from that which existed in the apostolic churches, 
 but as contributing by the mutual interchange of 
 opinion, to assist us in the discovery and application 
 of that already established. Though we are autlior- 
 ized to resort to every expedient method by which we 
 may more clearly understand the laws of Christ's 
 kingdom, it surely does not follow that we are allowed 
 to add to them. Let it then be recollected, that the 
 question at present is not respecting the expediency of 
 any particular measure (on this, so far as it regards 
 presbyterian government, we shall afterwards have 
 occasion to animadvert) ; but what was the form of 
 
LETTER IIL 57 
 
 j^vemment adopted by the apostolic churclies, and 
 thus sanctioned by apostolic authority. 
 - But, although it is pretty generally allowed that little 
 can be pleaded in support of the presbyterian form of 
 diurch-government from the apostolic epistles, there 
 is a well known passage in the xv. chapter of the 
 Acts of the apostles, on which the defence of this 
 system is generally rested. This I long considered 
 as a strong hold, in which I could sit in safety, and 
 subscribe myself a presbyterian. I shall now shortly 
 5tate the arguments by which^ in my apprehension at 
 least, it was no longer tenable. 
 
 The occasion of the appeal to the church of Jeru- 
 salem here mentioned, which has been so often urged 
 in support of presbyterian government, is distinctly 
 stated in the two first verses. After Paul and Bar- 
 nabas had returned to Antioch, having finished theit 
 first mission to tlie heathen, we learn that " certain 
 ** men which came down from Judea taught the bre- 
 ** thren and said^ except ye be circumcised after the 
 *1 manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When there- 
 ** fore Pual and Barnabas had no small dissension 
 '** and disputation with them, they determined that 
 ** Paul and Barnabas, and certain otlier of them, should 
 ** go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders 
 •** about this question." We find accordingly, from the 
 subsequent part of the chapter, . they went. A meet- 
 ing was called ; the question was agitated ; a deci- 
 sion was formed ; and that decision was transmitted 
 hj the hands of Judas and Silas, in conjunction with 
 Paul and his companion, to the churck at Antioch. 
 Without deeming it here necessary to quote the chap* 
 tei- at lai'ge, which can easily be consulted by any 
 
 X) 
 
58 LETTER III, 
 
 one who chooses to examine the subject, I beg leave 
 to suggest the following observations on it. 
 
 1. If, as was formerly stated, the distinguishing 
 feature of presbytery is the system of representation, 
 it may seem peculiarly strange that ever this passage 
 •should have been quoted in support of it. It was not 
 representatives from the church at Jerusalem that met 
 alone on this occasion, but the rulers of it in con- 
 junction with the whole body. Accordingly, ver. 22, 
 they are represented as all uniting in the decision that 
 was formed on the question appealed ; and, in like 
 manner, when that decision was transmitted to An- 
 tioch, it was the multitude, ver. SO, plainly meaning 
 tlie church at large, that was gathered together to re- 
 ceive it. This, surely, savours much more of the in- 
 dependent, than of the presbyterian form of church- 
 ^ovemment. 
 
 2. There was something more in this case which 
 made it obviously very different from the presbyteries 
 or synods of modern times. We have not in this pas- 
 sage an account of representatives assembled in con- 
 convocation from a variety of different churches, 
 ^vhere a certain number is essentially necessary to con- 
 •titute what is termed the court : we have simply an 
 application from one individual church to another,"re- 
 specting a contested question that occurred, and that 
 had been suggested by persons professedly coming 
 from that church to which tlie application was made. 
 But farther, even in this appeal there were such 
 striking peculiarities, as when impartially considered, 
 will, I think, make it clearly appear, that it affords 
 no example on which we can found the propriety of 
 a similar appeal to any other church whatever. These 
 I shall mention in the following observations, and ac- 
 cordingly remark, 
 
LETTER IIL Z» 
 
 5. The subject of the appeal was peculiar. It has 
 indeed been matter of /^Ispute, whether the question 
 respecting the liberty of the Gentiles related to all 
 converts from heathenism, or only to those who were 
 converted to Christianity from among such as were 
 previously religious proselytes. It is not here neces- 
 sary to enter into that discussion ; it is sufficient to 
 observe, that whether it be undprcf-r^r,^ ♦•/> ^/^r^~ 4.^ *.Uk, 
 one or the other, it v/as a question of very extensive 
 importance at that time to the Christian world ; a 
 question of such a kind too, that no similar one can 
 now occur, and which only needed once to be decided,, 
 eifectually to settle the dispute at erery succeeding 
 period. 
 
 4. It seems pretty obvious, that when Paul speaks 
 of going up to Jerusalem by revelation, Gal. ii. 
 2, he alludes to the journey he took on this occa- 
 sion ; and this furnishes another striking peculiarity 
 in the case before us. On this passage in the epistle 
 to the Galatians, I beg leave to quote the words of a 
 commentator of considerable eminence, who cannot 
 be suspected of writing witli any design to favour the 
 principles of independency. "/ went up ly revelation^ 
 ** This circumstance shews, that the occasion of the 
 ** present journey was of great importance. We may 
 ** therefore believe it was the journey which, at the 
 " desire of the church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas 
 " undertook for the purpose of consulting the apostles 
 " and elders in Jerusalem, concerning the circum- 
 " cision of the converted proselytes, of which Luke 
 ** has given an account. Acts xv. That question 
 " having occasioned great dissensions at Antioch, 
 " and the very existence of the gospel depending on 
 " its decision, it was necessary to determine it in the 
 
 D2 
 
40 LETTER III. 
 
 ** most public and authentic manner. Now, of all 
 
 *' the methods that could be devised for that purpose, 
 
 " to cc nsult the apostles, the elders and the church 
 
 ** at Jerusalem, was certainly the most effectual. For, 
 
 *' if after due deliberation on the question, they de- 
 
 *' clared the Gentile proselytes free from the law of 
 
 '* Moses as a term of their salvation, their decision 
 
 " WOUKl IlHVc i^iCdL v.w-.jyl-* „,Uk tVio ivhnlp hrtdy o^ 
 
 ** the disciples. Besides, as the decision of that vener- 
 " able assembly was to be founded en the witness 
 *' which the Holy Ghost had borne to Cornelius and 
 " ihe other uncircumcised Gentiles who were with 
 •* him, by falling on them v/hile Peter was speaking 
 " to them, Acts, x. ^i-, as he fell on the one hundred 
 ** and twenty at the beginning. Acts ii. 4-, the asscm- 
 *' bling of the r.postles and elders and brethren, in s^o 
 " solemn a manner to decide this question, would be 
 ** of great benefit to the church in after ages; because 
 ** the descent of the Holy Ghost on the first Gentile 
 " converts being mentioned as the ground of their de- 
 ** cision, the truth of that great miracle would, by the 
 ** united testimony of such a multitude of credible 
 ** witnesses, be put beyond all doubt. This observa- 
 ** tion throws a beautiful light on the expression in the 
 <* decree, Acts xv. 28. // seemed good to the Holy Ghost 
 ** and to us ; it seemsd good to the Holy Ghost, who hath 
 ** borne witness to the uncircumcised Gentiles, by 
 " shedding down the gifts upon them, and to us, who 
 " have rightly interpreted the im.port of that witness. 
 " In this view the elders and brethren are mentioned 
 ^' with great propriety in the decree, along with the 
 *^ apostles. Acts xv. 23. They, as well as the apostles, 
 " were certainly informed of the effusion of the Spirit 
 ** on the uncircumcised Gentiles, and were well ^jua* 
 
LETTER III. 41 
 
 " lified to attest that extraordinary event. The ad- 
 " vantage which would attend the decision of this 
 " question by the apostles, elders, and brethren in 
 " Jerusalem, being so great, that method was suggest- 
 *' ed by revelation to PauL And he having com- 
 " municated it to the church at Antioch, they sent 
 ** him and Barnabas to Jerusalem to lay the matter 
 ** before the apostles and brethren. Wherefore, though 
 " Paul was sent by the church at Antioch ; yet, if 
 ** they were directed by a revelation made to Paul to • 
 ** send him, he might justly say he went up by re- 
 " velation." — m*knight on gal. ii. 2. 
 
 5. Observe the very peculiar circumstances in which'- 
 the church at Jerusalem stood, from its being the sear 
 of the residence of the apostles. To them vras com- 
 r/iitted the important charge of teaching the disciples- 
 all things whatsoever they should observe. At this- 
 time it is very questionable, if any part of the New 
 Testament scriptures was committed to writing. At 
 any rate, we know that none of the apostolic epistles 
 had yet any existence ; far less were they collected as« 
 we have them now, for the benefit of. Christians at 
 large, and for their direction in any case of difficulty 
 that might occur. This certainly placed the church 
 at Jerusalem in a situation altogether peculiar. The 
 apostles then occupied tlie room that the New Testa- - 
 ment scriptures do now.. It was as proper to consult : 
 them personally at that time, as it. is for us now to 
 have recourse to their writings, to decide upon any 
 point of New Testament wo-rchip. It is true Paul 
 was at Antioch ; and he undoubtedly possessed inspir- 
 ation and apostolic authoriLY, as well as the rest. But ' 
 on that occasion, the ^^tirsons who taught that doc- 
 trine respecting the necessity of circumcision cattic 
 
 D5 
 
^» LETTER in. 
 
 from Judea. the .eat of the rest of the apo.tles. It U 
 Jretty apparent from ver. 2*, tl.at these personsrep - 
 S 'em as favouring their views. In this s.tuat.cn 
 pHt have had an authority, at least paramov. 
 to his ow alleged in opposition to .t. Noth.ng n. h.s 
 case could give such perfect satisfaction, as the unued 
 Zeds on of'the apostles .hen assembled -g"l- 
 e. Remark the peculiar ---^ il^:lt; 
 
 express their '^--"L ^^ ^hl ^ '^° 3ay assuredly. 
 tV,3t decision was formed, ineycuui , 
 that aecibiuu Ghost and 
 
 is in ver. 28, it seemed good to the Ho y ^ 
 Zls It is observable that expression .s m the 
 r J r.„^ From this the decision 
 
 past time. // seemed s'><"i- ^'"'^ " , 
 
 Lnears plainly to have been groimded on the un 
 appears pia y „,i„eulous operation of ■ 
 
 t p2 a?wa as Barnabas andPaul. The first, ver. 
 /rose up aid said, " Men and brethren, ye know how 
 :: Z Igood while ago, God made choice among u. 
 I rJr entiles by my mouth should hear the word 
 : T^l^X^l^^^--" ln*>^^eplainlyalludes 
 to the case of Cornelius, where, by a miraculous vision, 
 r d rected to go to the Gentiles. In hke man- 
 
 he -- 'i-«;';'^Jf^^ 3„„,bas declared what mira- 
 X: Id ^^ God had wrought among the Gen 
 ZZ them. I know it has been here alleged, that 
 Wausele decision was not pronounced by imme- | 
 . te or ndividual apostolic authority, but arrived at. 
 diate or maiv u t- .uViect, it s not to be 
 
 ^^"^ rlhfrriigl" "L'express dictates 
 V,ewed.nthe same hg ^^^^^^^^^ ^,^^ ^_ 
 
 "' 'T ^ms by noTeans necessarily to imply oppo- 
 pression seems Dy • j n^^tual discussion or 
 
LETTER 11, « 
 
 iattoriy ver. 2 ; but there it Is connected with another 
 translated dissension, which from Its use In other pas- 
 sages, clearly indicates the most decided opposition of 
 sentiment. This is apparent from its being used, chap. 
 xxiii. 7, 10, to denote the dissension that took place 
 between the Pharisees and Sadducees. It would rather 
 then argue a tautology in the sacred writer, if in ver. 2. 
 of this chapter, he employs two words to express pre- 
 cisely the same idea. But waving this remark, and ad- 
 mitting that there really was a debate in the church on 
 this occasion. Dr. Doddridge's note on the passage 
 seems extremely just. " This dispute," he observes, 
 " does not appear to have been among the apostles 
 " themselves ; and if they really had debated the case 
 *' awhile, their decision at last might have been 
 ** under an unerring direction : and I know not any 
 " reason to conclude that their Inspiration was al- 
 ** ways so Instantaneous and express, as to supersede 
 " any deliberation of their own minds, or any consul- 
 " tatlon with each other.'' It surely is not our pro- 
 vince to regulate the particular mode In which the 
 Holy Spirit is to communicate his Influences. I suppose 
 no one calls in question the infallibility of this deci-i 
 slon, by whatever process it was formed ; and on such 
 a question, infallibility and irjsplratlon ar€ of the same 
 import. This, then, Is enough for our argument. 
 While the apostles were at Jerusalem ; while they 
 could give an infallible answer to the question ap- 
 pealed to them ; while they could assured^ say, thus 
 " it seemed good to the Holy Ghost," and quote 
 miracles in support of the assertion ; then the church 
 at Jerusalem was in a state totally peculiar ; and an 
 appeal to it in such circumstances, forms no argument 
 for a similar appeal to any other church. But, 
 
4i LETTER IIL 
 
 7. What has always appeared to me the most dc*- 
 eisive proof that this passage affords no countenance 
 to modem presbvterv, arises from tlie issue of the de- 
 cision tlie church at Jerusalem pronounced, on the 
 question tiiat vras laid before tliem. Thej not only 
 send their decision to Antioch, but to Syria and Ce« 
 licia, ver. 23 ; and we learn from chap. xvi. ver. 4, 
 ■when Paul and Silas went out on Paul's second jour- 
 ney, " they delivered in the di£erent ciiies the decrees 
 *' for to keep that were •rdained of the apostles and 
 ** elders which were at Jerusalem." Here, those who 
 supi>ort presUytery from this passage, seem ineitri— 
 cably involved in a dilemma. It must be allowed these 
 decrees were either binding or not. If they were not, 
 then the whole was merely an application for advice, 
 and the passage has no connexion with piesbyterial 
 authority. If they were binding, then i: follows that 
 the church at Jerusalem ordained decrees which were 
 oblfgatory not only on the church at Antioch, but on 
 every other church in the Christian world, though 
 they had not the shadow of a representative in that 
 meeting where the decrees were formed. Surely this 
 puts it beyond the possibility of a doubt that the case 
 was an extraordinary one, and consequently forms no 
 precedent for other churches, li it was not extraor-- 
 dinary, let us see to what it will lead. It ought then 
 to be imitated, that is, one church should frame decrees 
 to which it is entitled to require obedience from every 
 other church in the Christian world. What church is 
 entitled to claim such a prerogative : — But it is unne- 
 cessary to pursue the argument farther, as the infer- 
 ence implies what is impracticable and absurd. Some,- 
 we may add, aware cf these consequences, in order x.9' 
 avoid them, have gone the length of tup^osin^ that there 
 
LETTER in. 45 
 
 might be representatives at Jerusalem from other 
 churches. This is in other words giving up the point. 
 If we were allowed to make such suppositions, and 
 argue from them where there is not the least shadow of 
 evidence, it would be impossible to prove any thing. 
 To any man who has even a superficial acquaintance 
 with the rules of correct reasoning, this requires no 
 an';vrpr. 
 
 Here I must remind you of the position we form- 
 erly endeavoured to establish ; that we are bound to 
 follow apostolic example, so far as we can discover ic 
 respecting the arrangements of the church of Christ 
 If this position then be a just one, with such views as 
 I have just stated of the constitution of the apostolic 
 churches, and of the principal passage from which 
 presbyterian government has been maintained, no one 
 \v\\\ be surprised that I could no longer allow my 
 name to be affixed to a formula, which requires that 
 every subscriber should be convinced that this mode 
 is founded on, and agreeable to, the word of Gcd, 
 
 I am, (5cc. 
 
LETTER n 
 
 T/» 
 
 9MS.ISTIAN BR.ETHK.EK, 
 
 T was the object of my last letter t© shew, that 
 presbyterian government appears supported neither by 
 apostolic precept nor example. That the authority 
 which it gives to one church over another, did not 
 exist in the apostolic age ; and that the only case 
 which has been considered as in any shape counte- 
 nancing it, has such peculiarities as to furnish no 
 precedent. It may be proper here to add a few ob- 
 servations on the leading peculiarity by which the 
 presbyterian is distinguished from the independeut 
 form of church-government. 
 
 It will be recollected, that this peculiarity consists 
 in the authority of the representatives of a church of 
 Christ, as distinguished from the personal conviction 
 of the individual members of it. Now, we have no 
 hesitation in asserting, that this distinguishing feature 
 of presbytery is directly opposed to the general spirit, 
 as M'ell as some of the express precepts of the word of 
 God. Every one will allow that Christianity is a spi- 
 ritual religion ; and it seems a necessary principle in 
 such a religion, that every one be convinced in his own 
 mind. The conscience of the individual here has a most 
 extensive sphere of infiueuce. Its approbation is csseji-- 
 
LETTER IV. '4f 
 
 tially necessary to the very existence of any act of ac- 
 ceptable worship. " Whatever is not of faith is sin." 
 The moment that compulsion is introduced, spiritual 
 worship is destroyed. This general position, I believe, 
 few will dispute ; but mark how it affects the case in 
 question. What is the meaning of the authority vested 
 in a presbytery, of that power by which they can com- 
 mand any one under their jurisdiction to act according 
 to their will ? Does not the very existence of this au- 
 thority imply the necessity of it? Does it not prove 
 that advice is not sufficient ; that the conscience of 
 the individual is not convinced ; that something more 
 powerful than persuasion must be resorted to ? There 
 could be no room for authority, if conviction were 
 deemed necessary, because it is only by instruction and 
 persuasion that it is produced. Like the sensitive 
 plant, it shrinks at the gentlest touch of poiver, and 
 the rude intruder must be completely withd vwn, be- 
 fore it again exert its energy. On these principles I 
 consider the authority of presbytery as standing upon 
 a most unscriptural basis. The full amount of any 
 advantage that can accrue from the intercourse of 
 neighbouring churches is attained, when by friendly 
 interchange of opinion they contribute to their mu- 
 tual improvement in knowledge, and when they can 
 enjoy the benent of opinion and advice in cases of 
 difficulty that occur. Step beyond this limit, and you 
 get immediately on antichristian ground. A system 
 of unscriptural authority is introduced, mutual confi- 
 dence is banished, and a spirit of mutual jealousy oc- 
 cupies its room. 
 
 I have som^etimes met with good men among some 
 classes of presbyterian dissenters in this country, who 
 endeavoured to obviate this reasoning by alleging that 
 
4« LETTER /K 
 
 though a most unsuitable exercise of presbyterlal au« 
 thority frequently appears in the established church, 
 they, while associated with men who understand and 
 respect the rights of conscience, are In no risk of, 
 in a. similar way, suffering from it. In their presby- 
 teries, I have been told, no one thinks of compelling 
 a brother to engage in any service which he cannot 
 conscientiously approve. I do not question how far 
 the e\lls of a bad system may be mitigated, when it 
 is under the direction of godly men ; nor how far the 
 benefits of a good one may be perverted by m^n cf an 
 opposite description. But the question here is, does 
 such an authority exist ? We allow it is inexpedient, 
 unchristian; but is It unconstiluUonal to exert it \ If not, 
 there must be a radical evil in that system by which 
 such an authority is at all recognised. If a principle 
 is such, that good men would not think of acting upon 
 it, would it not be better avov/edly to disclaim it, 
 than still to retain it as a professed part of their creed ?* 
 
 * Among the presbyterian dissenters indeed in this 
 country, I believe no such unchristian exercise of power is 
 to be met with, as frequently occurs in the established 
 church. I have heard, bowever, from those connected both 
 with the Burghers and Anti-burghers (I am not acquainted 
 with what takes place in the church of Relief j, that at least, 
 something like an approach to it is occasionally found 
 among them. If I am rightly informed, it sometimes hap- 
 pens that a preacher receives a call to diiFerent places at 
 one time, and in this case the synod decides which of these 
 calls he is to accept. If in such a situation he chooses en- 
 tirely to leave it to their decision, it is well. But if, on 
 the other hand, he should see it his duty to accept of one 
 of them, though his brethren should entertain a different 
 opinion, surely no other kind of influence than that of per- 
 suasion should be employed. It is proper that in any 
 step of our public conduct, we should hear the fentiments 
 of our brethren, and weigh their arguments. But in every 
 case a man's own mind must ultimately decide what is to 
 him the path of duty. To employ any other kind cf in- 
 
LETTER ir. 4§ 
 
 With regard to the estabh'shed church, we know well 
 with what triumphant seventy, when an opportunity 
 occurs, this authority is exercised. But, of all the com- 
 plaints I have met with against the exercise of it, I do 
 not recollect having heard it alleged, that in itself it 
 was unconstitutional. The power then exists. It Is a 
 branch of presbytery ; and it is on this ground we 
 consider the system that countenances it inconsistent 
 with the word of God. 
 
 To this objection some may be disposed to reply. 
 This authority, we acknowledge, is often employed in 
 such a manner as bears hard on those that are sub- 
 jected to it, and is accompanied with very material 
 inconveniences. But we are not to imagine that these 
 are exclusively attached to presbyterian churches. 
 Are you not exposed to similar ones in these of the 
 independent form ? Must not the minority there, in 
 like manner, submit to the majority ? If they cannot 
 conscientiously do so, is there any alternative left, ex- 
 cept that of separating from the society ? As I trust, 
 brethren, I have no object in view but the discovery of 
 truth, I am happy to consider any plausible objection 
 that has been brought forward to the system I consldei;* 
 as the scriptural one, and to state what at least has satis- 
 fied my own mind as an answer to it. Here, then, it 
 may be first observed, any independent church would 
 act very Inconsistently with their professed principles, 
 
 fluence than that of persuasion to prevent a man fronr 
 complying with the call of a congregation, while he sees it 
 his duty to do fo, seems an exercise of power inconsistent 
 with the spirit of the New Testament. I should be happy 
 to find this note, if it come under the review of any of the 
 numerous respectable ministers of the above-mentioned 
 connexions, suggest to them the importance of examining; 
 this point more fully. 
 
so LETTER IP''. 
 
 if in a case of ditficulty that occurred where tliere wa^T 
 room for Christians to differ in opinion, they were nor 
 disposed to exercise a spirit of mutual forbearance. If, 
 while one part of them could conscientiously engage 
 in any particular service, and another could not, any 
 think like compulsion were to be employed by the 
 former to induce the latter to act according to their 
 Yiews, I should not think for a moment of defending 
 such a conduct. The only case which I can at all con- 
 ceive somewhat to come under the objection, is the fol- 
 lowing. Suppose a case of discipline to occur in an in- 
 dependent church, in which a dijEterence of opinion ob- 
 tained, how far a charge was distinctly proved. The 
 church must act in one way or another. If the party be 
 excluded ag^'ainst whom the charee is brought, those 
 who think him not guilty will take offence at the mea- 
 sure. If, on the Other hand, he be continued in com- 
 munion without reproof, those who consider him guilty 
 will be equally offended. I suppose the most strenuous 
 opponent of independency could not wish a stronger 
 case stated. Some of my independent brethren, on 
 the other hand, will perhaps think it is too strong a 
 one, and not at all likely to take place. I readily ac- 
 knowledge it would argue some material deficiency 
 on one side or another in the exercise of Christian 
 principles, before things could come this length. When 
 we consider tlie opportunity the independent form of 
 government affords, of hearing and discussing every 
 suggestion of the members, and of joining as a body 
 in prayer i-n every case of dilHculty, to the gre^at Head 
 of the church for direction, while they are encouraged 
 by the promise that, *' if two agree on.ea.rth as touch- 
 •** ing any thing they shall ask, it shall be done fc 
 '* them ;" 'v/e have surely reason to infer, that if tli 
 
LETTEP. IV. 51 
 
 >ulers conduct matters eren with tolerable caution, 
 such a case is seldom likely to occur in practice. But 
 admitting the objection in its fullest force, supposing 
 the situation of things such as above stated, and that 
 as either on the one side or the other forbearance can 
 •no longer be exercised, a separation must ensue ; even 
 this argues nothing against the independent form of 
 church-government. The reason is this. ' Such an 
 inconvenience is an unavoidable result of social wor- 
 ship, and of tlie formation of Christian churches, as 
 long as imperfection of knowledge and of character 
 remains. But these are express duties. Whatever, 
 ihen, is attachable to a directly revealed duty cannot 
 be charged against any particular form of church- 
 government. Could presbytery be as directly proved, 
 from scripture, as the obligation of Christians to asso- 
 ciate together in church-fellowbhip, we shc^ild have 
 no hesitation in supporting it, with whatever incon- 
 venience it might be. attended. Eut if our former ob- 
 servations on this subject are just, w^e have seen that 
 presbytery extends the range of this inconvenience, 
 where the existence, of churches by no means requires 
 it, without any cotmtenance either from- apostolic pre- 
 cept or example, and in direct opposition to the general 
 spirit of the gospel of Christ. 
 
 It may now be proper to examine :i little some of 
 the grounds, on wdiich good men rtill continue to 
 countenance the presbyterian form of church-govern- 
 ment, notwithstanding what appears to others at least 
 very decisive evidence sgainst it. Some, I believCj 
 still hold the diviue right of presbytery, that is, .th.sit 
 it exclusively is the form of government instituted in 
 the word of God ; and that every departure from it is 
 ii gross deviation from tlie standard of revealed trufeh 
 
.,^2 LETTER IF. 
 
 upon that subject. The number of such abettors of 
 this system is now, however, comparatively small. 
 By these the above reasoning must be condem.ned at 
 ©nee, as containing positions most erroneous, if not 
 ♦ipproachlng to something like downright heresy. 
 Others are not so sure that these reasonings are false; 
 yet, as they are not clear that there are any express 
 injunctions in scripture respecting church-government, 
 they act on the general principle of expediency. It is 
 .on this ground they countenance presbytery. They 
 think that when any case of difficulty occurs in an in- 
 dependent church, the members of it are apt to be in- 
 jiuenced by-party spirit, by personal animosities, or 
 by local prejudices ; and that as others from a dist- 
 ance are able to judge more impartially, it is proper 
 tiiat their Influence should be interposed when such 
 cases occui". We have already obser\'^ed how far we 
 conceive a particular form of church-government is 
 enjoined in the word of God. But waving this, 
 what sort of influence Is here to be employed ? If this 
 reasoning be adopted in support of the propriety of 
 consulting neighbouring churches, of obtaining their 
 opinion, of deriving from the interchange of sentiment 
 all that accuracy of discrimination in judging of a case 
 of difficulty which it is fitted to impart, we have no 
 objections to it. All these advantages m.ay be effec- 
 tually obtained in the intercourse of independent 
 churches. But this is something very different from 
 the influence of coercion. This is a kind of influ« 
 ence, which w^e have already endeavoured to prove, 
 Christianity does not acknowledge. 
 
 But though our opinion regarding what is expedient 
 is what we do not admit as a rule of conduct, where 
 apostolic precept or exam.ple is interposed, we shail 
 
LETTER IF. it 
 
 here state a few remarks on the supposed expediency 
 that is attached to presbyterian government. So 
 far do we conceive it from being an arrangement 
 conducive to general utihty, that it appears quite the 
 reverse. It tends to propagate corruption, and to 
 prevent reform. Suppose a church on the presby- 
 terian model, at first comparatively pure, (as it is 
 generally supposed, perhaps, in some cases justly, that 
 churches in their early days are,) but by degrees 
 corruption creeps into it. As soon as that corruption 
 infects the majority, from the power which presbytery 
 gives them over the rest, they can force their purer 
 brethren, however reluctantly, to assimilate themselves 
 to their corrupt standard. If, for example, in a pres- 
 bytery one congregation after another begins to lose 
 sight of Christian discipline ; whenever the greater 
 part of that presbytery does so, the rest, however 
 much disposed, can no longer maintain it. If an in- 
 dividual in one of these purer congregations feel him- 
 self aggrieved, an appeal to the majority secures him 
 ledress. The system then tends to drag dov^n those 
 Vv'ho would act on Christian principles to a conformity 
 to such as have departed from them. Again, it equally 
 tends to prevent reform. If, amidst general corrup- 
 tion, a spirit of reform should appear in a single con- 
 gregation, the authority of the rest is a bar in its way. 
 This is, we believe, in some cases severely felt. Sup- 
 pose a minister in the established church (and in some 
 instances, Vv-e trust, it is not merely matter of suppo- 
 tion), in the progress of his inquiries respecting 
 Christian discipline, is convinced that it is very par- 
 tially, if at all maintained in his congregation, admit- 
 ting that even a majority of his people held the same 
 sentiments ; is it not obvious, that unless the presby- 
 
 £3 
 
5i LETTER /r. 
 
 tcry in general were of a s-iniHar opinton, anyattempr 
 at reform in that congregation vronld prove nugatory 
 and vain.* The sanic inconvenience does not attend 
 independent churches. We are far from insinuating, 
 that any form of church-government presents an ef- 
 fectual bar to that corruption to which all institu- 
 tions, conducted by depraved and fallible men, ,are 
 liable; but admitting among independent churches the 
 most general departure from Christian principles to 
 prevail, if in the midst of this an individual congre- 
 gation is led tQ study greater purity, the system, at 
 least presents no external obstacle to counteract it. 
 
 In reply to this, perhaps it will be alleged, that on 
 tl:e sam.e principle where the majority is in the right, 
 the presbyterian form of government will equally tend 
 to keep individual churches from going wrong. Some, 
 perhaps, who may be disposed to urge this argument, 
 will, on other occasions, remind us of the brighter 
 days and the purer periods of the church of Scotland. 
 Have we not then in her history a luminous display 
 of the efficacy of presbytery, in securing against ge- 
 neral corruption ? Here, indeed, it may be insinuated, 
 the case is not a fair one, as the corruptions that exist 
 In that establishment may be ascribed to other causes. 
 Well, it is to the system we must look, and to its na- 
 tural tendency. Hov/ then, does it tend to prevent 
 corruption ? Not by admonition or persuasion. These, 
 indeed. It does not exclude ; but this is a kind of in- 
 Suence, \yhich is acknowledged in its fullest latitude by 
 
 * It is evident the same reasoning will apply to the sub- 
 jection of presbyteries to synods, and of synods to a 
 General Assembly. From the authority possessed by this 
 last court, there is no reform of a public natui"e that could 
 be attempted in any department of the church, which it is 
 not in its power effectually to prevent. 
 
LETTER IV. SS 
 
 independent churches ; and, therefore, respecting the 
 propriety of adopting it there is no dispute. The stern 
 tone of authority then, is the only method of preventing 
 corruption, by which presbytery is distinguished. It, 
 indeed, like other modes of compulsion, may produce 
 Jiypocrisy, but it can never proinote spiritual obedience. 
 It was never a kind of influence sanctfoned by Him 
 who reigns over a " willing people.'* 
 
 If the foregoing observations be well founded, they 
 seem to afford the following conclusion. Presbytery 
 •extends the range of general corruption, where it pre- 
 vails and makes provision for effectually -counteracting 
 the reform, of individual clnirches where it nnighc 
 take place. Independency prevents particular churches 
 from being affected by the corruptions of otiiers, any 
 •farther than is unavoidable from the contagious influ- 
 ence of bad example ; while in the midst of general 
 corruption it presents no extraneous obstacle to the 
 reform of individual churclics. 
 
 Another source from which some derive ease to 
 their minds, while they avow themselves presbyterians, 
 though they are not quite certain that this form of 
 church-government is revealed in scripture, is the par- 
 ticular mode of expression that is adoptedin the formula 
 they are called to subscribe. They expressly assert their 
 belief, that presbytery \s founded on, and agresahle to- tht 
 ^uord of God. Now, their reasonings are to this effect. 
 We do not see any particular mode of church-govern- 
 ment enjoined in the New Testament. We are therc^ 
 fore entirely at liberty to adopt any one which may 
 seem conducive to the pur}X)ses of edification. We cQn- 
 ceive presbytery, if properly conducted, to be of this 
 description; and on these grounds we can avow our 
 belief that it \s founded on, and a^neabk to the luord of Cvd. 
 
56 LETTER IV, 
 
 Besides, as church-goveniment is a point of inferlc^ 
 magnitude, the minute distinctions persons make on 
 that subject, or the particular views they entertain, 
 should not interfere with their occupying -a station of 
 important and extensive usefulness. We may fairlj 
 mention this as a pretty common apology, not only 
 from personal experience, but from an acquaintance 
 with the opinion of others on tliis subject. In tlie 
 season of doubt and uneasiness, when inquiry becom.es 
 the most formidable foe, we have often resorted to it 
 as a shield by which we might be protected fiom the 
 darts of the enemy. It does not appear, however, 
 very solid relief, which the mind can receive from any 
 supposed ambiguity in the expression founded on, and 
 agreeable to the ivord of God. Certainly the com.pilers 
 of the Confession of Faith were, honafde^ presbyterians. 
 It was never their intention to insinuate, by this ex- 
 pression, that this was one form of w^hich, as well as 
 others, a subscriber of the formula expressed his appro- 
 bation. If this were even doubtful from the wordb it 
 employs, it will be very apparent if we attend to some 
 things in its history. The expressions respecting 
 ehurch-government, in the formula which was form- 
 erly subscribed by those who entered the church of 
 Scotland, were altered in the year ITU, and the fol- 
 lowing is an abridged account of the reason of this 
 alteration, as given by the late Mr. Randall of Stir- 
 ling, a writer whose correctness of information on such 
 subjects few will be disposed to question. 
 
 At the Revolution, patronage was found incon- 
 venient, and subject to great abuse. It was there- 
 fore laid aside, and in its room a new constitution for 
 the settling of ministers formed, in which when a 
 parish became vacant, the heritors (being Protestant) 
 
LETTER IK SI 
 
 and elders were to propose to the congregation the 
 person by whom the vacancy was to be filled up. An 
 attempt to restore the law of patronage was meditated 
 in 1703, but was not then carried into execution. 
 What proved abortive, however, at that period, suc- 
 ceeded in 1711, when under the Tory administration, 
 in the end of Queen Anne's reign, patrons were re- 
 stored to their ancient rights. It is probable, accord- 
 ing to this author, that the design of the supporters 
 of patronage, both in 1703 and 171 1> was, by means 
 of it, to introduce into the church, men most tractable 
 to their own ultimate and darling object, the restora- 
 tion of Episcopacy and unlimited prerogative. This 
 scheme plainly appears to have transpired in 1703, 
 from the printed sermon which Mr. Meldrum preached 
 before the parliament of that yeaf, in which he de- 
 clares, upon the proposal of restoring patronages, that 
 the plan was thereby to say, as in Ezra iv. 2, " Let us 
 " build with you;" and Neh. iv. II, " They shall not 
 " knovv' nor see till we come in the midst of them." As 
 it also seemed evidently the object of the Tories in 
 1711, under the patronage act, to introduce their 
 friends, or, in other words, those friendly to Episcopacy 
 into the ministry; " aware," says our author, " of the 
 " danger, the church then saw it necessary to make 
 *' her formula, to be subscribed by entrants into the 
 " churches, more precise in respect to presbyterian 
 " government than formerly, in order to guard against 
 *' false brethren in that view coming Into her bosom." 
 Thus far Mr. Randall.* We may just add, that this 
 account is amply confirmed by a comparison of the 
 language used in the formula of IGS-i-, with what oc- 
 curs in that of 17 11, respecting the article of church- 
 
 '* Tracts concerning patronage, p. 46 — 49. 
 
rs LETTER IV. 
 
 government. A subscriber of the former declarer, 
 that lie owns and acknowledges the presbyterian go- 
 vernment of this church as settled by law, to be the 
 only government of this church, and that he will sub- 
 mit thereto and concur therewith, &c. A subscriber 
 of the latter asserts his persuasion, that it is founded 
 on, and agreeable to the word of God.* 
 
 Although then, we conceive the good men who 
 compiled the formula, as well as those who altered it, 
 in their opinions on church-g^cvernment, as well as on 
 «ome other points, unquestionably to have erred, we 
 believe they held their errors confcientiously. They 
 fairly acted according to their light. It is a refine- 
 ment that has been reserved for later times, for men 
 deliberately to attach their signature to a formula, 
 a great part of the doctrines of which thev really do 
 not believe. f But wliatever use .may have been made 
 
 * These two formulas, in so far as respects the subject 
 of church-government, n"«ay be seen in the Quarterly ?.ia- 
 gazine for March 1798, published at Edinburgh. 
 
 f It is pretty generally known that this doctrine has 
 been openly espoused by Archdeacon Paley, in his princi- 
 ples of moral philosophy. He maintains, for example, that 
 one who subscribes the articles of the church of England? 
 has only to inquire what was the design of the legislature 
 of the 13th of Elizabeth in imposiflf them. It intended 
 then to exclude from offices in the church, i. all abettors 
 of Popery ; 2. Anabaptists, at that time a powerful party 
 on the Continent; 3. Tlie Puritans, v/ho were hostile to 
 an Episcopal constitution. — '* Whoever," says he, -" finds 
 *' himself comprehended within these descriptions, ought 
 " not to subscribe." Ke adds, that others may subscribe 
 them; if not as articles of faith, as articles of peace. 
 
 On this doctrine of the Arch Jeacon^s, Mr. Gisborne sug- 
 gefls the following very just observations. 
 
 " That subscription may be justified without an actual 
 " belief of each of the articles, as J undevftand Mr. Paley to 
 " intimate, iS a gratuitous assertion. On this point the ar- 
 " tides speak for themselves. AVhy is an article continued 
 " in its place, if it is not m,eant to be believed \ If one m: / 
 
LETTER IK 5^ 
 
 cf the- language of the Confession of Faith on this 
 point, we cannot for a moment impeach the compilers 
 x)f it with any deficiency in precision. They surely 
 intended to give no countenance to the idea, that the 
 particular mode of church-government was left as a 
 matter of human discretion. Every subscriber not 
 .only asserts, that he is persuaded that presbyterian go- 
 vernment is founded on, and agreeable to the word 
 of God ; but also, that to the utmost of his power, in 
 his station, he will maintain, support, and defend the 
 same. These expressions were surely never intended 
 to imply that no particular mode of church-governnient 
 is revealed in scripture, but that the discretion of in- 
 dividuals, and the circumstances of the times, w€re left 
 to determine whether one mode was to be adopted 
 or another. If this language be compatible with the 
 supposition, that those who employed it held .such 
 sentiments, where is precision to be found, or what 
 forms of expression can be resorted to, by which the 
 opinions of one age can be transmitted to another ? 
 
 *' be signed without being believed, why may not all ? By 
 ** what criterion are we to distinguish those which may be 
 *' subscribed by a person who thinks them false, from 
 ** those which rnay not ? is not the present mode of sub- 
 ** scription virtually the same as if each article were sepa- 
 *'■ rately offered to the subscribers ; and in that case, could 
 *' any man be "justified in subscribing one which he disbe- 
 ** lieved ? No circumstance could have a more direct tend- 
 ** ency to ensnare the censciences of the clergy, no cir.^ 
 ** cumstance could afford the enemies of the established 
 *' church a more advantageous occasion of charging her 
 " m.ini;iters with insincerity, than the admission of the opi» 
 <* nion that the articles may be safely subscribed, without 
 " a conviction of their truth, taken severahy, as well as 
 *' collectively. That opinion I have seen maintained in 
 ** publications of inferior note ; but it was with surprise 
 ** and concern, that I beheld it arowed by a writer of_such 
 " authority as Mr. Paley. — gisborne's principles of 
 
 MORAL PHILOSOPHY INyESTlGATED, jnd edit- p. 193. 
 
Mr LETTER /r. 
 
 Respecting the inferiority of this subject in point 
 of importance, when compared with many others 
 that have occupied the attention of professing Christ- 
 ians, we do not for a moment entertain a doubt. No 
 one can take a candid survey of the Christian world, 
 without seeing many, eminent for personal religion, 
 living under very different external arrangements. 
 Let it, however, be recollected, that the relative im- 
 portance of the subject does not at all affect the rncon- 
 sisten»y of subscribing sentiments we do not believe. 
 No one, for example, will compare, in this point of 
 view, the doctrine of the atonement of Christ with 
 that of the particular form of church-government we 
 adopt ; but the inconsistency is equally great, and the 
 criminality too, so far as It consists in insincerity, if 
 a Socinian subscribe a Calvlnlstic creed, and one who 
 does not believe in presbytery subscribe a Presbyterian 
 »ne. 
 
 I am, &e. 
 
LETTER r. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 
 
 
 JL HE ©bservations contained in tlie preceding letters 
 •relate entirely to the constitution of the church of Scot- 
 land-; my next objections to continuing in its commu- 
 Tiion refer to the administration of it. Let no one 
 suppose there is any inconsistency between these two 
 classes of objections. Though the constitution of a 
 •church may appear unscriptural (and we should con- 
 sider this alone a sufficient reason for leaving it) ; yet 
 the manner in which the administration is conducted, 
 may in some cases mitigate the evils which the system 
 itself may have a tendency to produce. On the other 
 hand, the administration may be such as to give the 
 fullest energy to every defective principle in that con- 
 stitution, and counteract tlie operation of any that are 
 of an opposite kind. The existence then, of an admi- 
 nistration of this description, may fairly be considered 
 as an additional reason for witlidrawing from any 
 establishment in which it is to be found. My objec- 
 tions on this head are derived from the very great 
 
 RELAXATION OF DISCIPLINE IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OT 
 THE CHURCH, AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACTING OST 
 CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IN HER COMMUKIOJJ, 
 
eS LETTER r. 
 
 This, in the" first place, appears among those who are 
 public teachers ; and we cannot reasonably expect any 
 -thing else, when we consider the manner in which 
 they are invested with the sacred office. Nothing can 
 be more obvious from the whole spirit of Christianity, 
 than that the relation between a pastor and his flock 
 must be a voluntary one. The idea of such a relation, 
 where the pastor is not the object of the people's choice, 
 is an absurdity. Such a system may be carried on 
 •where a profession of religion is merely used as a po- 
 litical engine, or v,'here the people are buried in gross 
 ignorance or stupid indifference ; but it cannot for a 
 moment stand the test of even a small degree of 
 knowledge, or of serious inquiry. Is it not, however, 
 a notorious fact, that it is the law of patronage that 
 determines who are to preside over by far the greatest 
 .number of the parishes in Scotland. Thus it often 
 happens, that perhaps a dissipated, or even an infidel 
 patron, is to appoint the person who is to be placed 
 .as a pastor over several hundreds ©f professing Christ^- 
 ians. This nee4s no commentary : to mention it is 
 -enough. 
 
 Here, perhaps, some will indignantly reply ; — The 
 law of patronage we cordially detest ; but it is not a 
 part of the constitution of the church of Scotland. On 
 the other hand, does not that .constitution expressly 
 require the call of the people as a necessary step, pre- 
 :vious to any one being ordained to the pastoral charge. 
 Let it be recollected, we are at present speaking of 
 the administration of the church. It is by no means 
 requisite to our present argument, to inquire parti- 
 cularly when patronage was introduced, or how far it 
 may now at least be considered as connected with the 
 constitution of the established church. The following 
 
LETTER K 63 
 
 account is given of the present state of the law re- 
 
 ♦ 
 
 specting it by Dr. Hill, in the work already oftener 
 than once quoted. After taking notice of the act of 
 the British parliament, by which patrons were restored 
 to their ancient rights, he adds i 
 
 " The church of Scotland complained of this act as 
 ** an invasion of its privileges ; made various inelFec- 
 ** tual efforts to obtain a repeal of the act, and during 
 ** a great part of the last century, gave annual in- 
 *' structions to the commission of the General As- 
 ** sembly to make due application to the king and 
 ** parli-am.ent for redress of the grievance of patronage, 
 ** in case a favourable opportunity for so doing should 
 *' occur. But, since the year 17S4, this articl^^ has 
 ** been left out of the instructions given to the com- 
 ** mission* A great majority of the members cf the 
 ** church, both ministers and laymen, are now cor- 
 ** viaced that patronage aifords the most expediejit 
 " method of settling vacant parishes ; and whatever 
 ** difference of opinion may still prevail on the ques- 
 " tion of expediency, fev/ pretend to doubt that pa- 
 ** tronage is the law of the land, interpreted and con- 
 ** firmed by various decisions of the civil courts, and 
 " by the uniform voice of the judgments pronounced 
 ** by the church during a long course of years." 
 
 H1LL*S THEOL. INST. p. 195. 
 
 This system then, certainly is a part of the consti- 
 tution now in the most essential sense. It is a prin- 
 ciple that is daily acted upon, that possesses the most 
 extensive influence, and that is universally recognised 
 by its members. Let it not be said this is going too 
 far. We readily allow many uniformly oppose its 
 pernicious influence, at least in church courts ; but do 
 they not as uniformly acknowledge men as ministers 
 
 F2 
 
€4> LETTER F, 
 
 in these comts, who are entlrelv indebted to tlie law 
 of patronage for the places they at. present occupy? 
 This dispute may, however, be brought to a short 
 issue. If it be contended that it is not a part of the 
 constitution of the estabhshed church ; then it is a, 
 ji;ross, and many will allow, a most dangerous inno- 
 ration. Should not this be a sufficient reason for relin- 
 quishing a communion in which there is such a de- 
 parture from the principles they are called to sub- 
 scribe ? In order to become acquainted with the pre- 
 sent constitution of the established church, we must 
 look not into the formula, but into the state of our 
 church courts. This will, indeed, be considered by 
 many as an unwarrantable position* So far, however, 
 as it affects the comfort of the individual, it will be 
 found a just one. Of what avail are good principles, 
 if only held in theory, and not acted upon; and is it any 
 solid consolation, when we are constrained to act upon 
 bad ones, that we have not at least solemnly subscribed 
 them, jmd they do not form a professed part of our 
 creed. 
 
 It is readily acknowledged, that that part of the- 
 constitution of the church, which requires the call of 
 the people as a necessary step, previous to the ordina- 
 tion of a minister, if faithfully followed out, woidd tend- 
 considerably to counteract the evil effects of patronage. 
 To prevent mistakes, however,! must be permitted here 
 to take notice of the absurdity of supposing the general 
 body of the people capable of choosing a minister of 
 Christ, or that merely as the inhabitants of a parish,, 
 they should have any thing to do with such an election. 
 This is an inconsistency with the religion of the New 
 Testament, that meets us at every turn in discussing 
 any point connected with a national rel.ig^'On. Mix 
 
LETTER r. Q5 
 
 W'ilberforce justly observes, that " Christianity, in the 
 •* language of scripture, is not a geographical, but a 
 " moral term. It is not being the native of a Christian 
 ** country. It is a condition, a state, a possession of 
 ** a peculiar nature." When I speak then, of the call 
 of the people as in any way productive of good effects, 
 I beg not to be misunderstood. I do not suppose 
 that even this would ever put things on a scriptural 
 foundation. I only mean that the evils of patronage 
 might thereby be corrected ; and in this point of view,' 
 when compared with that system, the tendency of this 
 measure would be in a certain degree beneficial.- 
 But it is well known that this part of the constitutioir 
 has now dwindled away into a mere form. It was for 
 many years a subject of contest in church courts, 
 whether a person could be ordained a minister of a 
 parish without it. The period of struggle, however, 
 has long since expired. Dr. Hill thus represents the 
 regard that is now paid to this part of the constitu^ 
 tion ; and the statement must be universally acknow- - 
 ledged to be a most correct one.* 
 
 " It has been the immemorial practice of the church^ 
 ** of Scotland, by appointing the moderation of a call, 
 ** to give the people an opportunity of encouraging 
 ** the labours of their future minister, by addressing- 
 *' to him this invitation ; and in consequence of this 
 ** practice, , one of the legal steps in the settlement of 
 
 * Some apology may seem requisite for introducing the 
 language of this writer so frequently ; hut I do it because 
 he must not only be allowed to be a moft unexceptionable 
 witness in proof of what are the present usages of the esta- 
 blished church, but also from, the well known influence he 
 possesses among the moderate party., as it is termed, he 
 maybe fairly viewed as expressing the sentiments of by 
 far the greater part of the clergy. 
 
 F-3 
 
m LETTER r. 
 
 ** a minister, is a sentence of the presbytery sustain^ 
 ** ing the call. But, whatever was the state of mat- 
 ** ters at the time when tliis practice began, it is now 
 ** understood that a call may be sustained, however 
 •* small the number of subscribers. For, although the 
 ** matter was long vehemently contested, and is still 
 •* occasionally the subject of discussion, the church 
 ** courts have shewn, by the train of their decisions 
 •* during the greatest part of the last century, that 
 ** they do not consider themselves as warranted by 
 ^ law to refuse admission to a presentee, upon ac- 
 ** count of any deficiency in the subscription to his 
 
 •* call." THEOL. INST. p. 205^. 
 
 It is now considered then as a settled point, that be- 
 the wishes or die opinions of the people what tliey 
 may, any licentiate who can appear with a presen- 
 tation in his pocket, has sufficient security of being or- 
 dained minister of the parish for which it is issued. 
 If in this case any one should venture to oppose such 
 a measure as unconstitutional, because the call of the 
 people is not obtained, he will soon find that such op- 
 position is completely fruitless ; and if he should ven- 
 ture to carry it to a superior court, he will probably, 
 receive, as the due reward of his squeamishness, and 
 to throw fresh light on the constitution of the church> 
 a severe reprimand for disturbing the regularity of it* 
 procedure, and an express obligation personally to 
 take a share in the ordination he opposes. 
 
 The truth of this I can assert from dear-bought ex- 
 perience. In the presbytery with which I was con- 
 nected, one of the parishes became vacant, and a person 
 was presented to the living, who was found obnoxious 
 to the general body of the people. As at the moder- 
 ation of tlie call comparatively few subscribed it, a 
 
LETTER V. m 
 
 majority or the presbytery thought they could not go 
 on in the settlement. The case was of course ap- 
 pealed to the commission, of the General Assembly^ 
 and the presbytery were commanded to proceed. It 
 is here necessary to inform those who are unacquahited 
 with the usages of presbyterian churches, that before 
 any one can be ordained as pastor of a particular con- 
 gregation, they observe a form called the serving of an 
 edict. On this occasion the members of the congre- 
 gation are asked, if they have any thing to object to 
 tlie life or doctrine of the person who is proposed to 
 be set apart as their ministtr. Well ! at this stage o£ 
 the business, some of the people came forv^-^ard, and 
 charged tlie presentee, among other things, with pro- 
 fane swearing.. The presbytery, of course, thought it 
 would be an insult on common sense, after going 
 through the form of asking the people such a question 
 if they refused to pay any attention to their answer ; 
 in short, they considered themselves bound to inquire, 
 if there was any evidence in support of such a charge. 
 Here a fresh appeal was instantly, made to the com- 
 mission of the General Assembly. . This for the time 
 prevented any farther inquiry. When the case came 
 to be discussed before that court, it was the general 
 opinion that the presbytery acted improperly in not 
 requiring the accusers to bring forward a regular libel, 
 though some who had paid a good deal of attention 
 to the forms of the church viewed the matter in a dif- 
 ferent light. One would here suppose, that even though 
 the conduct of the presbytery had been irregular, that 
 was no reason why the people should not be satisfied; 
 •why the spirit of that part of the constitution, which 
 is intended to remove any prejudices from their minds, 
 .should be violated. But what was the decision of the 
 
08 LETTER r. 
 
 court ? That, on a certain day, without any farther in- 
 quiry, the presentee be ordained, and that every meni' 
 ber of presbytery be required to attend ! I must con- 
 fess, we all complied (one member excepted, who was 
 at the time visited with family affliction). I have no 
 hesitation in now acknowledging my conviction, that 
 such of us as saw it our duty to oppose the ordination- 
 acted very improperly by such a compliance. Our. 
 opinion of the measure was not altered. Nothing was- 
 done, nor allowed to be done, which was calculated 
 to remove our suspicion that there might be some 
 foundation for the charge. If it be a maxim of scrip- 
 ture that every man must be persuaded in his own 
 mind, and that whatever " is not of faith is sin,'* 
 then no human authority whatever can justify a man 
 in complying with a requisition which he is con- 
 vinced is inconsistent with the will of God. Dr. HilPi 
 account of the provision which the constitution of the 
 church makes for the voice of the people being legally 
 heard in the admission of their minister, is as-foliows* 
 " At any time during the course of his trials," 
 says he, " they may give in to the presbytery a libel, 
 ** charging him with immorality of conduct, or un- 
 ** soundness of doctrine. When they present the libel, 
 ** they bind themselves, under pain of ecclesiastical 
 ** censure, to prove it ; but the presbytery is not at 
 *' liberty to proceed to the settlement, till the libel be 
 ** discussed. After the trials of the presentee are 
 •* finished, all who have any objections to his life or 
 " doctrine, are summoned by a paper read from the 
 *' pulpit, which we call an edict, and may then, 'wit/^^ 
 *' out the formality of a libely state their objections as 
 *' matter of charge. The charge will he disregarded 
 ** by the presbytery, if it is frivolous j and as proof mus^. 
 
LETTER V, 'm 
 
 ** be instantly adduced, the edict does not afford any 
 ** occasion for vexatious delay ; hut it gives persons ^ the 
 " most unacquainted ivith the forms of business, an oppor- 
 " tunity of stating tlieir personal knowledge of any 
 " circumstance in the character and conduct of the 
 *' presentee, which renders him unworthy of being a 
 " minister of the gospel ; and by exhibiting the jea- 
 " lousy with which the constitution of our church 
 " watches over the qualifications of entrants, it fur- 
 " nishes a lesson of circumpection to all who direct 
 *' their views to the church.'* 
 
 This quotation tends very clearly to shew, that a 
 constitution on paper and in practice may be two very 
 different things. From the most perfect recollection, 
 I can say that this was precisely the view which differ- 
 ent members of presbytery entertained of the design of 
 the edict. They conceived it was intended to give to 
 persons, the most unacquainted with the forms of bu- 
 siness, an opportunity of stating their objections to a 
 presentee, without the formality of a libel; and on this 
 ground they proposed immediately to examine evidence 
 on the charges that were brought forward. As I was 
 appointed by the presbytery one of their representa- 
 tives to defend their cenduct before the commission of 
 the General Assembly, I can vouch for this view of 
 the subject being laid before that court. Some of the 
 members, however, of the party with which the above 
 mentioned author is known uniformly to act, w^ith- 
 out deigning to enter into any reasoning, to remove 
 the difficulties the presbytery stated to any other line 
 of conduct than that which they adopted, by a pe- 
 remptory motion, which was carried by a majority, 
 appointed the settlement in the manner I have already 
 riientioned, 
 
^0 LETTER V, 
 
 It is well known, that when such ordinations at first* 
 took place, before those who felt interested in the bu- 
 siness had the good sense quietly to retire from the 
 establishment altogether, and to choose pastors for 
 themselves, it was not uncommon to oppose the set- 
 tlement with open violence. Nothing could argue 
 a more complete ignorance of the spirit of the gospel. 
 We hope, however, the progress of knowledge re- 
 specting the nature of the kingdom of Christ, will ef- 
 fectually put a period to such measures ; and that if 
 professing Christians are not led by other means to 
 more scriptural principles, they will peaceably with- 
 draw, aud arail themselves of the privilege bestowed 
 by the excellent civil constitution under which they 
 live, by adopting such regulations in divine worship, 
 as from a serious inquiry into the word of God, seem 
 most to accord with Uiat infallible standard. 
 
 A violent settlement has, I believe, often been an- 
 object of terror to conscientious young men when en- 
 tering into the ministry, who thought that if it came, 
 in their way they could in no shape countenance it. 
 All these live in the hope that wherever such a settle- 
 ment may happen, they at least shall not be under the 
 necessity of personally engaging in it. But it deserves- 
 inquiry, if there be any material diiference between 
 ordaining men whose characters we cannot approve, 
 and acknowledging them as Christian brethren after 
 they are ordained ; if there be, I must acknowledge I 
 have not penetration enough to discern it. Sitting, 
 however, with them in church courts ; making them, 
 perhaps, the organ of prayer, as presiding in these, and 
 submitting to the laws which they enact; is surely the 
 most decisive acknowledgment of them in this character. 
 It is not uncommon to hear it alleged as some 
 
LETTER r. 7! 
 
 «€ort of palliative, at least of the law of patronage, 
 that a patron, whatever his character may be, has it 
 not in his power to injure the church, unless its inte- 
 rests have been previously sacrificed by the clergy 
 themselves. Before any person be capable of receiving 
 a presentation, he must have obtained a license to 
 preach from a presbytery. Let presbyteries then, it 
 is said, exercise suf&cient caution ; let them allow none 
 to come forward in the capacity of a preacher but such 
 as are duly qualified for the sacred office, and the per- 
 nicious effects of the law of patronage will be com- 
 pletely counteracted. 
 
 We have already remarked the absurdity of sup- 
 ;posing, that a pastoral relation can exist where it is 
 not as voluntary on the side of the people as on that 
 of the minister. The question then, is not whether a 
 patron or even a presbytery conceives a man fit for the 
 sacred ofiice, but is he the object of choice with the 
 people over whom he is to preside ? If this choice be 
 not consulted, the pastoral relation cannot exist. But 
 "besides, this reasoning proceeds wpon a supposition, 
 which every thing, either in the history or the general 
 tendencies of ecclesiastical procedure, completely for- 
 bids us to expect can be realised. One evil often begets 
 another, and these when fairly introduced, have a re- 
 ciprocal tendency to confirm and increase one another's 
 influence. The law of patronage has introduced into 
 their present livings by far the greater part of the 
 -clergy of Scotland, under a system, where in practice 
 at least, the choice of the people is considered in no 
 way essential. After a corruption of this nature is 
 fairly established, does not the whole system present 
 what amounts nearly to a moral certainty, that so far 
 €rom its being checked, it must acquire an accumu- 
 
7^ LETTER V, 
 
 lating influence. Such is the effect, it is easy to tract? 
 it to the cause, the union between the church and the 
 world naturally produces this. Water seeks the level. 
 — The magnet points to the north. — With almost 
 as much uniformity may we expect men, who derive 
 their present ecclesiastical situations entirely from 
 the law of patronage, to support the principle on 
 which their present comforts, (perhaps in one sense 
 we may add, their future hopes,) are founded. Can 
 it be for a moment supposed, that men who have 
 themselves been introduced into a parish in opposition 
 to the voice of the people, will be chiefly anxious to 
 bring forward others, who are likely to be objects of 
 popular choice. Facts, as well as the plainest princi- 
 ples of reasoning, prove, that they will not. When 
 such characters appear before a presbytery, the majo- 
 rity of which are what are called moderate brethren; 
 they are looked upon with an eye of jealousy or aver- 
 sion ; and though, perhaps, they cannot refuse them 
 license, they plainly discover they wish no applications 
 from men of such a character. Nor is this at all to 
 be wondered at. A very slight acquaintance with 
 human nature is sufficient to account for it. Abstract- 
 ing from that opposition, which must ever exist be- 
 tween men of radically different sentiments^ ministers 
 who were never themselves the choice of their people, 
 and by whom, perhaps, that choice is professedly an 
 object of contempt, cannot feel gratified at any appear- 
 ing in their neighbourhood, who in this respect differ 
 from themselves. Unpleasant comparisons are imme- 
 diately instituted. This produces inquiry and discus- 
 sion ; and from these, perhaps, arises what many con- 
 sider as one of the most obnoxious of modern heresies, 
 that, if a person is not satisfied with his parish minister. 
 
L-'ETTER V, 7S 
 
 Ticmay go to a neighbouring one, from whose minis- 
 trations he may derive greater advantage. 
 
 From these observations, v^-e see hov/ vain the ex- 
 pectations are of -some well-meaning people, who ex- ■ 
 press their hopes, that degenerate as they acknowledge 
 the church of Scotland now is, the time may yet come 
 when she may experience a considerable reformation. 
 I have sometimes heard this urged as an argument 
 f©r remaining in her communion, when her corrup- 
 tions could no longer be defended. Great as these 
 are, it is said we entertain the hope of better days» 
 We consider the church has little need to lose any 
 of those remaining few in her communion, who are 
 disposed to struggle for the maintenance of her ancient 
 order and discipline. No ! we conceive it their duty 
 te remain at their posts ; and not to give way to a 
 spirit of despondency, but to exert themselves to the 
 utmost in their particular stations, if, pcradventure, 
 a period of revival may yet arrive. — Fallacious liopel 
 Every thing in the present system shevv^s how unrea- 
 sonable (I had almost said absurd) it is to entertain it. 
 It it should even be alleged the time was when there 
 appeared some chance of the evils of patronage being 
 counteracted, and of that part of the constitution 
 v/hich consists in the call of the people being still 
 maintained; though, from the nature of the system, 
 • even tliis we cannot admit ; yet, does not every one 
 know that now, at least, this is a lost cause ; that pre- 
 cedent has succeeded precedent, where tlie wishes of 
 the people have been treated with contempt ? Does 
 not every one know, that if a case were to be brought 
 forward into the church courts, where a presentee had 
 not the call of the people, with a view on this ground 
 te .prevent the settlement, it would be easy, with the 
 
 G 
 
 I 
 
74 XETTER V. 
 
 utmost certainty, to predict the issue? The point then 
 Is already decided. Every fresh accession to the num- 
 ber of those 'whose ecclesiastical existence depends on 
 the law of patronage, strengthens the impossibility of 
 an alteration, for all those who owe their preferment 
 to such a measure, are sure, in their turn, to yield it 
 their firmest support. The consequence is plain : the 
 minority, who used to support the call of the people, is 
 dwindling year after year. Indeed, it is not to be 
 wondered at, that men who are really attached to this 
 part of the constitution, should rather allow it to be 
 quietly sacrificed, than bring forward the discussion 
 afresh, while they know that nothing is to be gained 
 by it but harsh insinuation and severe invective from 
 their opponents, for disturbing the order of the church, 
 and the tranquillity of the neighbourhood in which 
 they dwell. Hence the boasted unanimity of some 
 late General Assemblies, and that supposed improve- 
 ment in the spirit of the times which it indicates. Fa- 
 tal improvement ! by which all hopes of a reform are 
 buried in the grave, because founded on that part of 
 the constitution, from which, if at all, they might have 
 been expected to spring. 
 
 I have thus been somewhat particular in noticing 
 the manner in which men are introduced into the 
 sacred office in the established church, because it 
 seems, In a considerable measure, to account for that 
 very great mixture of characters to be found in her 
 communion. All, indeed, are required to subscribe 
 the same formula ; and if subscription could produce 
 imanimity, or if it necessarily implied a cordial belief 
 of the doctrine contained in the standard to which it 
 is appended, we should not then find that radical 
 opposition of principle, w^hicli in church courts is at 
 
LETTER V, 75 
 
 present to be met with. It is readily allowed> that 
 men united in spirit and in general principles, may en- 
 tertain difFerent opinions upon some points that may 
 come before them. This, however, has no connexion 
 with that decided, universal opposition to each other, 
 which has created, and which marks the two opposite 
 parties in the church. The questions that come before 
 ihem are often questions of great importance. They 
 involve great general principles. A difference of opi- 
 nion upon them cannot take place, without indicating 
 a radical opposition in the systems on which the op- 
 posite parties act. Let us take, for example, that dif- 
 ference of opinion to which we have already alluded^- 
 respecting the necessity of the call of the people to 
 the existence of the pastoral relation, or to the great 
 ends of that relation being attained. Can men differ 
 on this point, and at the same time entertain the same 
 views respecting the leading doctrines, and the general 
 spirit of the gospel of Christ ? No ! a difference of 
 sentiment here is a sure index of two directly opposite 
 systems, which never can coalesce. The man, indeed, 
 who considers religion chiefly in the light of a useful 
 political institution ; as a valuable means of keeping 
 the multitude in habits of decency and sobriety ; who 
 imagines that if these be secured, all will be well for 
 eternity ; who treats as the vagaries of enthusiasm, 
 the necessity of a radical change of heart and of prin- 
 ciple, before a man can enjoy solid peace; who would- 
 be shocked at the insinuation, that one though even 
 decent in his habits, if a stranger to vital godliness, 
 must stand exposed to eternal destruction from the 
 presence of the Lord: — Such a man may well be sup- 
 posed to consider the call of the people as quite unne- 
 
 G2 
 
^76 LETTER V. 
 
 cessary. It is not essential to his system.* With hlai 
 ix is the business of the legislature to appoint men to 
 iiiaintain the worship of the supreme Being through the 
 country, and he conceives it a matter of comparative-- 
 
 * Here it must be remarked, we by no means concede 
 the position, that if we were merely to view Christianity, 
 in reference to its present political advantages, as tending 
 to raise the standard of morals in a country, it would not 
 be expedient to consult the wishes of the people. We are 
 convinced, that even that inferior good would be much 
 more effectually attained, were their choice attended to. 
 This discussion, however, is not here necessary to our ar- 
 gument. The system may at least go on, and a certain 
 degree of political good be attained, though their choice is 
 disregarded. 
 
 This naturally leads us to notice an argument we have- 
 often heard used in support of ecclesiastical establish- 
 ments, from the valuable effects on the general stand- 
 ard of morals that are found to result from them. This 
 reasoning, however, often proceeds on the supposition that 
 Christianity and the civil establishment of it are the same 
 thing. No one, indeed, can question, that wherever 
 Christianity exists, it will in a certain degree tend to im- 
 prove the morals of a people. A comparison of the morals 
 of the inhabitants of Britain with those of Turkey, will 
 illustrate this. But that improvement is the result of those 
 valuable principles contained in Christianity being m.ade 
 known, not of the circumstance of its being by law esta- 
 blished. The only ground on which any can imagine the 
 civil establishment of it is- essential to the general improve- 
 ment of morals, is the supposition that the knowledge 
 of it will not otherv, ise be generally diffused. How far 
 the justness of this supposition is refuted by the exertions 
 of dissenters in both parts of the kingdom, as well as those 
 of some opulent individuals among ourselves, the reader 
 must be left to judge. These, perhaps, may tend to shew 
 that the diffusion of Christianity through a country, is r^t 
 at least necessarily dependent on the aidof the civil power. 
 We acknov. ledge, v^•ere not religion by law established, we 
 should have the number of professors considerably dimin- 
 ished. We cannot, however, suppose the gen';:ral standard 
 of morals would be affected by this. One of the principal 
 means of producing decency of character, even among 
 those who do not profess Clnistianity, is the conduct, of 
 Christians around them, testifying in their conscienres 
 that there is a reality in religion, though they do what 
 they can to resist that testim.ony. On this principle, \vc 
 
LETTER V, 17 
 
 ly little moment, under however great a variety of opi- 
 nion on other points this is conducted. All this hangs 
 well enough together. But, suppose a man has quite 
 different views of Christianity ; that though he feels and 
 acknowledges its most beneficial effects upon our gene- 
 ral character and habits, and in this respect is a great 
 blessing to society, yet that it chiefly relates to the 
 world that is to come ; that while it tends to humanize 
 the minds, and to ameliorate the manners of men, 
 this is only a secondary and inferior good, which it 
 unavoidably attains in its way to a greater ; that it 
 
 apprehend that it will be generally allowed, that even an 
 avowed infidel will be more decent in a community where 
 he can see the effects of genuine Christianity on the 
 character, than if his society were confined to mere pro- 
 fessors, or other infidels like himself. In this case, it is 
 not the profession, but the exiftence of Christianity that 
 produces the effect ; and though the number of professors 
 Avere less, if those who were such were more exemplary,, 
 perhaps there is no reason to think that the general state of 
 morals would be injured by the change. > 
 
 The conclusion v/e draw from these observations is, that 
 Christianity is useful in a political and moral point of view, 
 in proportion.as it diffuses truth andjust principles through 
 a country. Even a corrupt system of it generally preached, 
 will raise the standard of morals above heathenism, and it 
 will do so in proportion to the truth contained in it. But, 
 if instead of this, a purer one be introduced (whether by- 
 law estabhshed or not), the beneficial effects uill be greater^ 
 because the proportion of diffused truth is increased. 
 Hence w-e.must give- the moderate clergy the credit of 
 consistency, in. endeavouring to oppose what others con- 
 ceive to be genuine Christianity. " It does not appear so to 
 them. As they must view their own principles to be right,' 
 they must consider vi'hat is opposed to them, or what steps 
 beyond them, to be wrong. But that men who thcmselvis- 
 bold other sentiments, should oppose the publication of 
 the doctrines they themselves preach, as essential to a sin- • 
 ner's hope, in places where Ihey know they are not preach- 
 ed already, seems a melancholy discovery of the fatal in- 
 fluence of party spirit, and can never be supported on tbc>.. 
 pj'incij).ks of consistency and truth. 
 
 G a. 
 
«0 LETTER F. 
 
 ** ings.'* Jer. xxili. 16, &c. Were not these things 
 written aforetime for our learning ; or uill any one 
 question whether or not what is here addressed to the 
 Jews conveys any instruction to us who live in New 
 Testament times ? Let no one say this is judging 
 harshly of those who differ from us. It must be re- 
 collected, tliat truth is one ; and vv'here men hold op- 
 posite radical principles, consistency absolutely re- 
 quires that such as maintain one class of these, consi- 
 der those who support the other as essentially wrong. 
 
 Again, " Beware of false prophets which come to 
 " you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are raven- 
 ** ous wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." 
 'Matt. vii. 15. In like manner Paul thus addresses the 
 Galatians: " Though we or an angel from heaven 
 " preach any other gospel unto you than that which 
 " we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
 " As we said before, so say I now again; if any preach 
 " any other gospel unto you than that ye have re* 
 *' ceived, let him be accursed." Gal. i. 8, 9. In 
 conformity with this too, is the language of the apos^ 
 tie John. *' Whosoever transgresseth and abideth 
 " not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God : he^ 
 ** that, abideth in the doctrine of Christ, be hath both 
 ** the Father and the. Son. If there come any unto 
 " you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not 
 ** into your house, neither bid him God speed. For 
 ** he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his 
 " evil deeds." 2 John, ver. 9. 
 
 On this last passage, a respectable commentator 
 whose work I have already had occasion to quote, . 
 and who was him-self a member of the Scotch e- 
 stablishment, has the following observations. *' Ta 
 " prevent the person to whom this epistle was wjli^- 
 
LETTER V. %\ 
 
 ** ten from being deceived by impostors^ the apostle 
 " directed her to require of those who went about 
 " preaching the gospel, to give an account of the 
 " doctrines which they taught ; and if she found that 
 ** tliey did not hold the true doctrine concerning the 
 ** person of Christ, he advised her not to receive them 
 ** into her house, nor even to give them the common 
 ** salutation of wishing them health and happinesiS. 
 " For, among the Christians of that age, this wish 
 " was not a mere compliment as with us, but an ex-^ 
 " pression of real good will. The apostle's advice, 
 " therefore, was perfectly proper, because they who 
 ** entertained, or otherwise shewed respect to false 
 " teachers, enabled them the more eifectually to spread 
 " their erroneous doctrine, to ruin the souls of those 
 " whom they deceived ; consequently, as the apostle 
 ** observes, they became partakers of their evil deeds.'' 
 
 MCKNIGHT. 
 
 This view of the import of this passage we may 
 remark, is quite in unison with the precept of the apos-- 
 tie Paul, 1 Cor. v. 11. " Now I have written to you 
 " not to keep company, if any man that is called a 
 " brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, 
 " or a railer, or a drunkard, cr an extortioner ; with 
 " such an one no not to eat." The precepts de- 
 livered by the two apostles seem founded on the same 
 principle, viz. the harm that may be done by shewing 
 any countenance to one who either violates the pre- 
 cepts, or perverts the doctrines of the gospel of Christ. 
 But if the apostle thus cautioned Christians in early 
 times against even bestowing the rights of hospitality on 
 false teachers, and employing tlie common expressions 
 of friendly intercourse with them, lest this should ba 
 interpreted as expressing some degree of approbaticia 
 
»0 LETTER r. 
 
 " ings." Jer. xxiii. 16, &c. Were not these thlngss 
 written aforetime for our learning ; or will any one • 
 question whether or not what is here addressed to tlie 
 Jews conveys any instruction to us who live in New 
 Testament times ? Lot no one say this is judging 
 harshly of those who differ from us. It must be re- 
 collected, that truth is one ; and where men hold op- 
 posite radical principles, consistency absolutely re- 
 quires that such as maintain one class of these, consi- 
 der those who support the other as essentially wrong. 
 
 Again, " Beware of false prophets which come to 
 *' you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are raven- 
 *' ous Avolves, - Ye shall know them by their fruits." 
 •Matt. vii. 15. In like manner Paul thus addresses the 
 Galatians : " Though we or an angel from heaven 
 " preach any other gospel unto you than that which 
 ** we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
 ** As we said before, so say I now again ; if any preach 
 " any other gospel unto you than that ye have re* 
 " ceived, let him be accursed.'^ Gal. i. 8, 9. In 
 conformity with this too, is the language of the ape*, 
 tie John. *' Whosoever transgresseth and abideth 
 " not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God : he 
 ** that, abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both 
 " the Father and the Son. If there come any unto 
 " ycu and bring not this doctrine, receive him not 
 *' into your house, neither bid him God speed. For 
 ** he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his 
 " evil deeds." 2 John, ver. 9. 
 
 On this last passage, a respectable commentator 
 whose work I have already had occasion to quote, 
 and who was him.sclf a member of the Scotch e- 
 stablishment, has the following observations. " To 
 " prevent the person to whom this epistle was wjlt?^- 
 
LETTER y. bl 
 
 •* ten from being deceived by impostors^ the apostle 
 ** directed her to require of those who went about 
 " preaching the gospel, to give an account of the 
 " doctrines which they taught ; and if she found that 
 ♦* tliey did not hold the true doctrine concerning the 
 " person of Christ, he advised her not to receive them 
 " into her house, nor even to give them the common 
 ** salutation of wishing them health and happiness. 
 " For, among the Christians of that age, this v/ish 
 " was not a mere compliment as with us, but an ex- 
 " pression of real good will. The apostle's advice, 
 " therefore, was perfectly proper, because they who 
 " entertained, or otherwise shewed respect to false 
 ** teachers, enabled them the more ejQfectually to spread 
 " their erroneous doctrine, to ruin the souls of those 
 " whom they deceived ; consequently, as the apostle 
 " observes, they became partakers of their evil deeds." 
 
 MCKNIGHT. 
 
 This view of the import of this passage we may 
 remark, is quite in unison with the precept of the apos- 
 tie Paul, 1 Cor. v. 11. " Now I have written to you, 
 " not to keep company, if any man that Is called a 
 " brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, 
 " or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner ; with 
 " such an one no not to eat." The precepts de- 
 livered by the two apostles seem founded on the same 
 principle,,vlz. the harm that may be done by shewing 
 any countenance to one who either violates the pre- 
 cepts, or perverts the doctrines of the gospel of Christ,. 
 But if the apostle thus cautioned Christians In early 
 times against even bestowing the rights of hospitality on 
 false teachers, and employing the common expressions 
 of friendly Intercourse with them, lest this should ba 
 interpreted as expressing some degree of approbation 
 
•82 LETTER V. 
 
 of their pernicious errors ; how much more must Ft 
 be inconsistent with this precept, pubhcly to acknow- 
 ledge them in the capacity of Christian ministers, by 
 sitting with them in church courts ; there, perhaps, 
 employing them in presenting our addresses to God 
 in prayer, and professedly joining with them in their 
 deliberations respecting the interests of the kingdom 
 «f Christ. 
 
 I am, 3cc« 
 
LETTER ri. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 
 
 N my former letter, I stated what appears to me 
 sufficient evidence of a radical difference of sentiment, 
 and opposition of principle, among the ministers of 
 the established church ; a difference of such a nature, 
 that if the system of the one class be the religion of the 
 Bible, that of the other is not. The conclusion I drew 
 from this was, that from different passages of scripture, 
 it appears quite inconsistent with duty to have any 
 ministerial intercourse with men in public office, whose 
 principles we conceive to be essentially wrong. 
 
 I shall here mention two ways in which I have 
 heard good men endeavour to evade this inference. 
 First, it is often said. We are not at all answerable 
 "for the defects that occur in the administration of the 
 church with which we are connected. These, we 
 would not for a moment attempt to defend. But it 
 is the constitution we subscribe. It is this we are bound 
 to maintain ; and we consider it our duty, in our own 
 ,sphere, when an opportunity occurs, loudly to con- 
 demn every deviation from it. The consolation, how- 
 ever, that is drawn from this quarter, cannot, I think, 
 bear tlie test of fair inquiry. If our disapproving of 
 
U LETTER VI. 
 
 particular measures in the administration could pr©» 
 cure us liberty to withdraw from having any personal 
 concern in it ; if we could refuse to acknowledge men 
 as Christian brethren, whose principles we condemn ; 
 and if we could relinquish their jurisdiction ; this 
 might afford some solid relief. But it is well known 
 this is not the case. However much some individuals 
 may disapprove of particular measures, they may be 
 constrained to take an active share in carrying them 
 into execution. They are completely under the juris- 
 diction of church courts, whose decisions are guided 
 by men whose principles they think radically wrong. 
 The excellence of the constitution in such a case seems 
 to afford but little comfort. It by no means bears on 
 the difficulty that was stated. The difficulty is this. 
 You are called, in fact, to acknowledge as ministers 
 those whom you consider false teachers, and whose 
 principles you think- essentially wrong ; and what is 
 the solution ? We subscribe, what is in theory a good 
 constitution ; such a one, that if its principles were 
 acted upon, w^e should not be in any such disagreeable 
 situation. Is the difficulty removed ? 
 
 But there is another solution of it, which if it could 
 be fairly maintained, w^ould, doubtless, be more satis- 
 factory. It is alleged by some ministers, in extenua- 
 tion of their sitting in church courts with men of op- 
 posite sentiments, that in doing so they do not ac- 
 knowledge them as ministers of Christ at all. They 
 uniformly meet them on the ground of opposition ; 
 and every subject that is discussed, gives them an op- 
 portunity of shewing them that they most decidedly 
 disapprove of their principles. This was seriously 
 urged to me before I left the establishment, by an in- 
 telligent and useful Christian minister, as a satisfactory 
 
 I 
 
1. LITER VL KS- 
 
 ^plvilian of the above difficulty. To me, liowever, it 
 never could appear in. this light. There is surely in 
 the conduct of such as hold this sentiment, something 
 that is very apt to deceive. Were I addressing such 
 ministers, I would STiy ; Surely, my beloved brethren, 
 from your own principles you should guard with the 
 utmost care against whatever might tend to mislead, 
 where nothing; less than the everlastino- intei-ests of men 
 
 o o 
 
 ^re at stake. Are not these men v/ith whom you sit 
 in church courts, in one .sense still your brethren ; 
 Though you think them essentially wrong, have they 
 inot still a claim on your compassion ? You may indeed 
 feel a secret conviction, that unless many of them at 
 least experience a change of character, they are on the 
 road that leads to ruin ; but certainly, the nature of 
 your connexion v/ith them is calculated to prevent 
 them from entertaining such an idea. It is true you 
 oppose them ; and you may consider that this habi- 
 tual, stated opposition, indicates radically different 
 .principles. Eut you know v.-ell, they do not view it 
 in this light.* They do not consider the difference 
 
 * We have a striking proof that the difference that pre- 
 vail^ in church courts, is not considered by some of the 
 moderate clergy, as implying any essential difference of 
 principle, from the following passage in a sermon preached 
 -on the death of the late Dr. Erskine, by his surviving col- 
 league. 
 
 ■ ** The man of whom I have spoken,- belonged to an 
 ** old school, long and deservedly respected in the world, 
 ** and to a class of men in particiilar, who, as ministers of 
 a religion, weil maintained the dignity of the sacred order 
 ** in this metropolis of their native land ; who, differing, 
 *< like others, about the outworks of the house of God, 
 ** had yet but-one mind in things that more nearly con- 
 *' cerned both its honour and ultimate defence, and Vv'hose 
 « example had naturally an influence on the world, pro- 
 *' portioned to the respect that was paid to their character., 
 ■^' The last of them has,. in the person .ot-X>r. Erskine, bee« 
 
«6 LETTER VL 
 
 between the two parties to be such, that If the 4lte 
 be right, the other must be essentially wrong. You 
 know well that they allow that you, though weak, 
 may be very well-meaning sort of people ; that you ' 
 have Indeed, either from education, early habits, or 
 bodily constitution, got an unhappy mixture of enthu* j 
 siasm In your principles, which is productive of false 
 zeal, and often afflicts you with a degree of squeam- 
 ishness on some points, which they conceive to be . 
 very unnecessary. But making allowance for these 
 weaknesses, which In their apprehension better prin- 
 ciples, or perhaps a mere vigorous understanding 
 would correct, they do not conceive that there Is \ 
 any very material difference between you and them- 
 selves. You who know the original, will judge if j; 
 the picture be not a tolerably correct one. If you 
 really consider your moderate brethren then, as de- 
 ceiving themselves In a matter of eternal moment ; 
 does not the nature of your intercourse with them 
 
 <* committed to the silent grave. But the names of such 
 *' men as Camming and Wishart, and Walker, — Dick aiid 
 '* Robertson, and Blair, — are embalmed with the name of 
 *' Erskine, In the hearts of all who have learned in any 
 ** measure how to value what is most respectable in our 
 ** Zion. God grant, that while their memory is yet fresh 
 ** in the mind, -the men who now fill their places in the 
 " world may catch a portion &f their spirit! God grant, 
 *' that while they, like Elijah of old, may yet seem to be 
 *' but dropping their mantle on the earth, their spirit also, 
 *' like that of the prophet, may remain to bless the chil- 
 .,*< dren of men.'* 
 
 Did the difference of sentiment that prevailed between 
 ^he tVv'o classes of characters above mentioned, relate to 
 points not essential ; then what a pity is it, it appeared 
 so much, and was carried so far ; that such a handle was 
 .given to the world, to represent the ministers of the gospel 
 of peace as perpetually wrangling and disputing with one 
 another. Did it, on the other hand, relate to such as were 
 essential, is it not equally to be regretted it -was not carrie<^ 
 ^inuQli farther. 
 
LETTER VL 8"^. 
 
 tend to support the deception? We naturally judge 
 of men's principles not from what may pass in the 
 heat of debate, and far less from consequences only 
 deducible from this, but from the general tenor of 
 their conduct ; and surely, sitting with men year after 
 year in church courts, and professedly deliberating 
 with them about the affairs of the church of Christ, 
 has the most awful tendency to mislead them, if at 
 bottom you view them as enemies of the cross of Christ. 
 But farther, observe the tendency of this conduct on 
 the world. Is it calculated to make them imagine that 
 there is any radical dliference of principle between the 
 two parties in the established church \ Though some 
 who particularly attend to the subject may see this, 
 certainly the general body of the community do not. 
 They often speak of one party as a little stricter than 
 the other ; but w^hen this is mentioned, they conceive 
 the whole amount of the difference is told. I readily 
 acknowledge that the world will not see the dilTerence, 
 though we take the most decided steps to shew it. 
 But, as we value the souls of men, it is surely our 
 duty to avoid every thing by which that difference 
 is concealed. Brethren, the time is short. The con- 
 sequences of every part of our conduct will soon ap- 
 pear. The utmost possible fidelity in all our inter- 
 course v/ith our fellow-men is of the last Importance. 
 Examine this point seriously. It is a subject that 
 i richly deserves investigation. Our principles here must 
 I possess an extensive influence over cur conduct ; and 
 \\Q all allow that errors, either in opinion or practice, 
 which result from neglecting inquiry, are unques- 
 tionably criminal. I am persuaded it is owing to 
 want of examination, that many valuable Christian mi- 
 
 liisters do not discover the inconsistency between their 
 
 TT o 
 
85 LETTER VI. 
 
 principles^ and the situations tbey at present oecup-p 
 Before concluding this part of die subjett, I would 
 just farther remark, that, allowing the above inter- 
 pretation might be put upon the opposition which one' 
 party gives to another in church courts, still a fresh 
 difficulty occurs. Ministers in the established church 
 are unquestioniibly placed under the jurisdiction of 
 the presbyteries, and the other ecclesiastical judica- 
 tories witli which they are connected ; neither can it 
 at all be a matter i:>i doubt by what party the deci- 
 sions of these courts are regulated^ Admitting then, 
 the principle of this apology we are considering, the 
 question naturally occurs, Is it lawful for Christiaji 
 ministers to subject their consciences in matters re- 
 lating to tlie church of Christ, to men whom they do 
 not consider as influenced by the spirit of the gospel? 
 To me this question seems to admit of no discussion. 
 The decision appears self-evident. I cannot conceive 
 any principles founded on scripture, by which the af- 
 firmative can be maintained. The inference, however,. 
 Is- sufficiently obvious. Unless the lawfulness of such 
 a conduct can be supported, the most favourable 
 construction that can be put upon the opposition 
 •which the one party in the church shews to the other^ 
 were it even more uniform and decided than it is, 
 can by no means, in my apprehension, justify evange«r 
 Heal ministers continuing in the establishment, while 
 they have such sentiments reFpecting the characters 
 cf those with whom they are connected. 
 
 I have thus stated what appeared to me, after ma- 
 ture examination, a solid scriptural reason for leaving 
 the established church, from the almost total relax- 
 ation of discipline among the clergy, when viewed 
 alopg \ri;h that unavoidable connexion whicli eyerj 
 
LETTER VL m< 
 
 miijlster in that communion must have with all the 
 rest. Though this is often a subject of lamentatioa 
 among private Christians in the establishment ; yet 
 they are apt to think it one, which is only interest- 
 ing to the clergy themselves, who from their public 
 situation, are expressly called to act along with meix 
 of an opposite character. Flagrant abuses they will: 
 allow exist ; but they conceive it quite out of their 
 power to do any thing to correct them. They would 
 by no means defend these ; but if Providence (they 
 argue) has blessed them with a serious gospel minister, 
 they have reason to be thankful, and have nothing more 
 to say. Here, however, it becomes every one to inquire- 
 what is the nature of the system in general we are con- 
 tributing to support. We do not ask, are valuable^^ 
 Christian ministers found connected with it (of this 
 we presume no man will entertain a doubt) ; but is it 
 as a 'iuhole, agreeable to the revealed will of God ? It 
 is by the answer we can fairly return to this question, . 
 that the general elTect cf our conduct is to be esti- 
 mated. 
 
 Christians in the private walks of life are apt to lay 
 too little stress on their individual influence or exam- 
 ple. But every one, however limited his spliere, tends- 
 to swell the tide of public opinion, either in one 
 direction or another ; and, however triflin'y we may 
 consider our influence, it is surely of much importance - 
 that, such as it is, it be directed into the right channel, 
 •It is a talent granted to us ; and, however small, we • 
 are unquestionably answerable for the improvemenl^ 
 we make of it. Do any of my Christian friends then, to- 
 whom these letters are addressed, perceive any force in 
 the foregoing rcar>onings ? Do you consider m.inisters, 
 mio, in many points, you are justly bound tecsteem^ 
 
90 LETTER VL 
 
 not acting on Christian principles, In having connexion 
 "U'ith men of sentiments directly opposite to their own ' 
 Then it surelr becomes you to inquire how fa^r you 
 are authorized to countenance even your most valued 
 friends in principles and practices you hold to be 
 wrong. Let no one here insinuate, we wish to alienate 
 your affections from your ministers. No, brethren ;. 
 but you yourselves will allow, that great as that ought 
 to be for their works sake, and the truth that dwelleth in 
 them, your attachment to the cause of the Lord Jesus 
 ought to be much greater. Now, what is it that it 
 requires ? It certainly requires that we countenance 
 no system which is inconsistent with the revealed will 
 €f God. Can this then be said of that when taken as, 
 a. whole, which you and they at present support ? This 
 ££ems the only question by which the path of duty is 
 to be determined. 
 
 The effect that would, perhaps, in some instances be 
 produced, by private Christians acting on the principles 
 ,1 have described, w^ould be that of leading the ministers- 
 to v/hom they are attached to leave their present situ* 
 aticns. One considerable inducement to remain in 
 ihem, is derived from the comfortable intercourse tliey 
 can enjoy with the chosen few in their congregations 
 whom they really consider Chritians. Thus, I believe, 
 it often happens, that serious ministers and their Christ- 
 ian hearers, contribute to countenance one another in, 
 situations which, perhaps, both may have some secret 
 suspicions are not very scrij>tural. Were such mem* 
 J^rs of their congregations to withdraw, they could 
 4ind little comfort in those that remain. Besides, one 
 obstacle to their leaving i^ieir present conn: "ion, might 
 y\ this way be considerably removed, I refer to the 
 d.".5icuUy of obtaining the means of support iu a dmilar 
 
LETTER VT, §T 
 
 sphere of usefulness. We do not inquire at present, 
 how far this difficult^ is a legitimate one ; but that 
 man would argue but little acquaintance with human 
 nature, if he doubted that even among good men it 
 V'lU. have its influence. But, supposing this to take 
 place, that the decided conduct of private Christians 
 on the above mentioned principles, was not only to 
 induce their ministers to take such a step, but along 
 with it to enable them to continue in a sphere of public 
 exertion j woukl it not be one, in all probability, ex- 
 tremely conducive to their comfort and usefulness I 
 If I may judge from experience, I should conceive it 
 would contribute much to both. Instead of being forced 
 isiito apparent union with those with whom they have 
 no common principles, and peremptorily excluded from 
 it with those with whom they have, (which is literally 
 their present situation,) they would be no longer fet- 
 tered in tlieir exertions ; they could co-operate V\'ith 
 those with whom in principle, and I trust in many- 
 cases, I may add, in heart, they are united ; they 
 could engage in the exercise of Christian discipline 
 with those who vvere desirous of being regulated by 
 the laws of Christ ; and they could, wherever an op- 
 portunity occurred, enjoy the liberty of preaching to 
 their fellow-sinners the gospel of the kingdom. I ac- 
 knowledge, when I think of the destitute situation, in 
 point of religious Instruction, of many parts of this 
 country, and contrast with this the eminent talents for 
 public usefulness which many of my professional 
 friends in the establishment possess, I cannot but feel 
 a deep regret, that they should be confined to the 
 weekly labours of their own parish, while thousands 
 'U'-ithin their reach are perishing for lack of knowledge, 
 a;i4 of the appointed means of obtaining it. It is jjih 
 
9^ LETTER VL 
 
 possible to calculate the good that might be done, \f 
 every evangelical minister were circumsciibed in his 
 exertions, by nothing else but the verge of that circle 
 m. the surrounding neighbourhood which his activity 
 could reach. Time is on the wing: souls are precious j 
 and each of us, brethren, should be solicitous to im- 
 l^rove to the utmost possible degree, every oppor- 
 tui^ity of usefulness. 
 
 To this I have heard good men often reply : we- 
 feel none of those supposed fetters on our exertions 
 you mention. We have as much to do in our own 
 parish as we can accomplish. This may be so far 
 true. If the most laborious minister had only a 
 hundred people to watch over, he might spend all his 
 time usefully among them. But, would it not be more 
 conducive to usefulness, if instead of continually ad- 
 dressing the same people, he had it at least occasion- 
 ally in his power to preach to those who did not hear 
 the gospel at all f Every evangelical minister Vv^ll 
 easily discover many parishes in his neighbourhood, 
 which on his own principles, he must acknov/ledge to 
 be in this deplorable sifjation. It. is true, he may 
 be often invited to assist his neiphbours : but w^hat 
 neighbours are they? Such, perhaps, as preach the- 
 same doctrines with himself j and, of course, it is of 
 little consequence, whether he preach in their parishes 
 or not. He may also, indeed, be occasionally asked. 
 to assist his ynoderate bretliren. But this unfortunately 
 cuts two ways. There cannot, perhaps, be a more 
 decided proof of a most defective arrangement, than 
 that a Christian minister cannot observe one part of 
 the commands of his divine master, without violat- 
 ing another. This is plainly the case here. "While 
 lie. preaches the gospel to a destitute congregation, he.. 
 
LETTER VL 93 
 
 IS by the very act of doing so, virtually acknowledging 
 as a public teacher, one v/hom he does net consider 
 a minister of Christ. But suppose one of these mo- 
 derate brethren, with a little more consistency than is 
 frequently discovered by either party, were never ta 
 think of asking any one to assist him but those of his 
 own sentiments, there might in that case exist a parish 
 where, according to the principles maintained by evan- 
 gelical ministers, the gospel of Christ was never 
 preached; and the establishment would not only makq 
 no provision for this dreadful defect being remedied, 
 but so far as its powers extended actually furnish a se- 
 curity against it. Is there nothings wrong in a sys- 
 ^m from which so serious an evil flows I 
 
 But I now proceed to another defect in the admi- 
 nistration of the church, which appears fully to author- 
 ize^ nay, to require a separation from it ; / mean the 
 almost total ivant of discipline which is to he found In Indi- 
 indual congregations, and the imposslhlUfy of Introduchig it. 
 As tliis is a subject in which private Christians are apt 
 to feel themselves more immediately interested, let 
 me request your attention to the foilowing observa- 
 tions. 
 
 There are three different steps appointed to be taken 
 by the members of a Christian church in case of of- 
 fences; none of which can be observed in the establish- 
 ment. The first is recorded in Matt, xviii. \o — 17» 
 a passage I had formerly occasion to quote. " More- 
 *' over, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go 
 " and tell him his fault between thee and him alone, 
 " If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother j 
 " but if he will not hear tl'.ee, then take with thee one 
 ** or two more, that in the mouth of two or three wit- 
 **- nesses every ward may be stablUhed. And if h^ 
 
94. LETTER VI. 
 
 " shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church 'r 
 " but If he neglect to hear the church, let him be 
 " unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." It 
 is true, in the communion of the established church, 
 if one professing Christian be offended with another, 
 he may go and tell him his fault. If this do not suc- 
 ceed, he may take with him one or two more. But 
 should this also fail, how is the next part of the rule 
 to be observed ? He may indeed complain to the ses-. 
 sion ; and they may call the offender before them : 
 but is this the rule of scripture ; or has the person 
 offended an Oj^portunlty of obtaining the opinion of 
 his Christian brethren in the church at large, upon 
 the subject of offence, thus to have it removed, ancl 
 to bring the offender to a sense of sin ? Every one 
 knows he has not. In the passage, however, above 
 quoted, if other modes of removing an offence do not 
 succeed, we are explicitly called to tell it to the 
 church ; and we are surely not at liberty to tampep 
 with the express rule of scripture and say, the busi- 
 ness which our Lord committed to the general body, 
 we will allow to be managed by a few individuals, 
 while that body is never consulted. 
 
 Another step in the discipline of a Christian church 
 is mentioned, 1 Tim. v. 20. *' Them that sin, rebuke 
 *' before all, that others also may fear." There is 
 indeed one sin, that of fornication, often rebuked in 
 the establishment. But, from the way in which the 
 business is usually conducted, even this cannot be pro- 
 perly considered as a part of tlie discipline of the 
 church of Christ. In most places a rebuke is adminis- 
 tered to every one who is guilty of the offence, and 
 willing to submit to tire censure; though he has never 
 bf en admitted to the comraunlon of the church at all. 
 
LETTER V7. 95 
 
 and thoiTgh no symptoms of penitence appear in his 
 character. But is not this ahnost the only sin that is 
 thus treated, as if there were no other way in which 
 professing Christians were found deviating from the 
 precepts of God's revealed word ? 
 
 Here, however, it may perhaps be asked, where 
 lies the blame ? Is it not, in a great measure, to be 
 found with ministers themselves ? Might not they 
 with their session, call other offenders before them, 
 and treat them in the same way ? Yes ! they might, 
 -but what is the consequence ? — Here, again, the evil 
 of the system appears. — Admitting that a minister and 
 his session were perfectly unanimous, that one charge- 
 able with some other violation of the law of Christ 
 should be publicly rebuked ; nay, supposing the con- 
 gregation with which the offender is connected were 
 of the same opinion, he may, if he chooses, appeal to 
 the presbytery, and if he do not receive the wished-for 
 redress, there he may farther apply for it in course to 
 the synod or General Assembly. Here it may be al- 
 leged, that though this undoubtedly takes the power 
 of administering discipline out of the hands of those 
 among whom the offence was originally committed ; 
 yet we cannot suppose that such an appeal will be of 
 any avail to the offender, unless there be some defi- 
 ciency in the evidence by which the charge brought 
 against him is attempted to be substantiated. We 
 readily admit it is in many cases difficult to obtain 
 satisfactory evidence in support of a charge, which we 
 have at the same time much reason to suspect well 
 founded. But we believe it will also be allowed, that 
 that difficulty is greatly increased, by the different 
 -views, which they before whom the charge is brought, 
 ^tertain of the degree of eriminaUfy which the matter 
 
9G LETTER VI. 
 
 cj the charge contains. Hence, the difficult j of proving 
 ■a particular violation of the divine lav?" often depends 
 very much on the characters of those to whom it is to 
 be proved. If they have such incorrect views as to 
 perceive cotnparatively little evil in the particular ini- \ 
 quity of which an offender is accused, it will be very 
 difficult indeed to bring any satisfactory proof of its 
 having been committed. It may be replied here, that 
 such a case, no doubt, may exist, as tliat of a libel 
 being proven, though the person is not guilty ; be- 
 cause the charges in the libel may be such as implies 
 little or no criminality. Such, how^ever, are not the 
 cases that are likely to occur in church courts. The 
 line between what is sinful and what is not, is laid 
 down with too much precision in the word of God to 
 admit of this. But, a man may be often secretly 
 influenced in judging of a charge, by his view of 
 the sin alleged in it, even where the avowed ground of 
 his decision must be a deficiency in the evidence by 
 which it is supported. Every professing Christian, for 
 example, particularly those who are called to act in 
 a judicial capacity in church courts, must publicly con- 
 demn intoxication, though in his private sentiments 
 (perhaps occasionally exhibited by a practical illustra- 
 tion) he might be clearly of opinion, that occasion- 
 ally indulging in a glass too much, really contained 
 in it but little or nothing that seriously deserved 
 censure. A little acquaintance then, with human na- 
 ture, will, I believe, clearly convince any one, that our 
 views of the evidence adduced on any particular sub- 
 ject, are apt to be considerably biassed by the manner 
 in wdiich we are affected towards the point to be 
 proved. This is apt to be the case, even where it is 
 only some speculative opinion we are disposed to sup- 
 
LETTER VL 97 
 
 port. But if the point to be proved is of another na- 
 ture ; if the principles or the character of some of liie 
 party with which we co-operate are involved in it ; ii 
 it be of such a kind, that if allowed to be established 
 it may one day in its course severely militate against 
 ourselves ; it is easy to see how exceedingly this bias 
 must be increased. 
 
 These seem the only principles which can account 
 for what we behold taking place in church courts 
 every day; I mean that whatever is the subject, (un- 
 less the minority give up the point, from seeing that 
 opposition is unavailing,) the house is almost uni- 
 formly divided into two parties. Are there not many 
 cases which clearly appear proper subjects of church- 
 discipline, which, if brought before a modern General 
 Assembly, we could easily predict what would be the 
 issue : — But if we could suppose an assembly com- 
 posed of such men as the late respected Dr. Erskine^ 
 and those who used to co-operate witli him, would 
 it not be as easy to predict an issue quite the re- 
 verse \ To what is this to be ascribed ? To diiferent 
 principles, on which these two classes of men would 
 judge oi evidence when presented to them; or to an oc- 
 casional difference of opinion which men of the same 
 leading sentiments might -entertain? No! but to a 
 radical difference of principle biassing their judg- 
 ments, and leading them to form opinions directly 
 opposite on almost any case that came before them. 
 These remarks may tend to shew, that the power 
 an offender has of appeal to the presbytery and su- 
 .perior courts for redress^ must render completely 
 nugatory every attempt which the most conscien- 
 tious minister and session can adopt, faithfully to 
 administer the laws of Christ's kingdom, as they re- 
 
 I 
 
^8 LETTER VL 
 
 ^ard professors chargeable with public ofFence. On 
 this point we may just add, that if even the most cor- 
 rect decision from a presbytery, a synod, or a General 
 Assembly, could in every case be depended upon, 
 still this is a deviation from the plain rule of the word 
 of God. According to it, every case of discipline is 
 to be determined by the church, or particular society 
 with which the offender is connected ; and its decision 
 is to be final. Besides, it is obvious that in this system 
 of appeal, one great design of discipline, (perhaps 
 we may safely say the principal one,) which is to re- 
 move offence from those to whom it was originally 
 given, is completely frustrated. This is not done, 
 unless they are personally satisfied. Now, the very 
 idea of an appeal implies the want of this. Satisfaction 
 may be given to a presbytery, a synod, or a General 
 Assembly, while the offence, so far as it respects the party 
 who originally received it, is by no means removed. 
 
 A third step in the exercise of Christian discipline, ' 
 clearly pointed out in the word of God, is the exclusion 
 from a church of Christ of open transgressors, while j 
 they give no evidence of repentance. A case of this 
 nature, and the law of Christ respecting it, is recorded, \ 
 1 Cor. chap. v. Because different opinions have been 
 entertained respecting the meaning of some of the 
 expressions in this chapter, a handle sometimes has 
 been made of this to throw a general doubt over the 
 whole. This, for example, has been the case respect- 
 ing the expression that occurs, ver. 5, where the 
 apostle desires the church to deliver the offender to 
 Satan for the destruction of the flesh. As there are 
 two kingdoms in the world, the kingdom of God and 
 the kingdom of the devil, and as those who embrace 
 Christianity are said to be delivered from the power 
 
LETTER VL 99 
 
 of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of God's 
 dear Son ; so exclusion from a church of Christ is 
 aptly enough expressed, by delivering one unto Satan. 
 From the phrase, however, /or the destruction ofthejitjb 
 being added, some apprehend that something more 
 than simple excommunication is meant ; and that the 
 apostle here refers to a bodily disease, with which he 
 was empo\\-ered miraculously to punish notorious of- 
 fenders. To this there seems a plain allusion, chap, 
 xi. 30. Others understand by the term Jlesh, the m^or- 
 tification of the offender's pride, lust, and other fleshly 
 passions. But, without here entering into the re- 
 spective merits of these interpretations, which would 
 only be digressing from our argument, we must re- 
 mind you of a principle mentioned in a former letter, 
 that our ignorance or doubt respecting some points 
 should not affect our assurance of others. No one, 
 I think, can read the passage, and fairly question this 
 position, that the church at large is here expressly 
 required to exclude from their communion any pro- 
 fessor who was a fornicator, covetous, an idolater, 
 a railer, a drunkard, or an extortioner, unless he gave 
 satisfactory evidence of his repentance. The first ex- 
 pression in support of this assertion that occurS; is in 
 ver. 2, where the apostle complains that they had not 
 mourned that the gross offender, 'vho had appeared 
 in the church, had not been taken away from among 
 them. He then reminds them, ver. 9, that he had 
 written before, *' not to keep company with fornica- 
 " tors; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this 
 ** world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or 
 *' with idolaters ; for then must ye needs go out of 
 ** the world. But now 1 have written unto you, not . 
 " to keep company, if any man that is called^a bro- 
 
 12. 
 
100 LETTER VL 
 
 '* tlier be a f.'rincator, or covetous, or an idolater, or 
 " a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, vrith 
 *' such an oiie no not to eat.'* The lowest view 
 tliat can be taken of tlie expression, no not to cat, un- 
 questionably implies exclusion from the communion- 
 table, though I can by no means think it confined to 
 this. It seems plainly to suggest our obligations to 
 avoid that sort of friendly and familiar intercourse, 
 which is usually indicated by persons inviting one 
 another to their table. The reason is plain. Such 
 intercourse seems incompatible with that decided con- 
 demnation w^e should imiformly express of that con- 
 duct by which a man has been justly excluded from 
 a church of Christ. But let it be recollected, that 
 communion at the Lord's table is the highest kind of 
 communion we can enjoy on earth. If then, that which 
 is inferior be prohibited, which consists simply in 
 friendly intercourse, this superior kind must, of couri;e, 
 be condemned. The expression, in the conclusion of 
 ver. ] 3, is, if possible, s.till more explicit. " Put 
 "away from yourselves that wicked person." 
 
 Here then the law is laid down. Tlie cimrch at 
 Corinth was bound to exclude from its society such 
 persons as were chargeable with the sins above men- 
 tioned, v/hile no evidence of repentance appeared. If 
 v/e admit the authoiity of apostolic precept or exam- \ 
 pie, the same law is equally binding on Christians in 
 the present day. There is something then essentiallf ; 
 wrong in any church where it cannot be observed. i 
 
 Our position was, that while in the established ' 
 church there is an almost total relaxation of Christian 
 discipline, in the present state of things it is impossible 
 to restore it. It is easy to see, that the same reasoning 
 we employed to shew the impossibility of adminls^ter- 
 
 I 
 
. LETTER VL 101 
 
 jng, In every case that 'requires it, public rebuke, will 
 equally shew the impossibility of exercising this higher 
 measure, exclusion. It is not merely a minister and 
 session, or even his whole congregation, if they were 
 consulted, that must be satisfied with regard to the 
 propriety of adopting it. The presbytery must be 
 made to see that it is right ; and if an offender should 
 even think they were a little partial, if he can obtain a 
 majority in the General Assembly, he can smile at 
 the scruples of his offended brethren, and as if the 
 decision of a church court could admit him into 
 heaven, he can insist on w^hat he ignorantly terms hfs 
 Christian prhileges. But I shall reserve some farther, 
 remarks on this subject for another letter. 
 
 I. am, Sec. 
 
LETTER riL 
 
 CHRISTIAN BRETHREN^ 
 
 N the conclusion of my last letter T endearoured to 
 shew, that the rules mentioned in scripture for the re- 
 gulation of discipline in Christian churches cannot be 
 observed in the church of Scotland ; that neither pri- 
 vate offenders can be treated according to our Lord^s 
 rule, nor those chargeable with open and gross sin 
 publicly rebuked or excluded, according to the cir- 
 cumstances of tlie case, as the apostolic precepts ex- 
 pressly require. 
 
 That this is a fact, is what many are not disposed to 
 call in question. But while they allow it, I have been 
 often seriously asked what harm does this to the in- 
 dividual ? Surely, it is said, in partaking of the Lord's 
 supper, every one has only to do with himself; and L 
 find that I can enjoy this ordinance, though I have 
 much reason to suspect persons of a very improper 
 character are seated around me. To this it is often 
 triumphantly added, What sort of a church do you 
 take yours to be? Do you Imagine it is a perfectly 
 pure one ? If you do, you will soon find yourself mis- 
 taken. Wait a little ; though you may begin well 
 enough, like most others, you will soon become like 
 your neighbours. — This remark upon the folly of ex- 
 
LETTER VII. 103 
 
 pecting a perfectly pure church on earth, Is often 
 brought forward in such a way, as if it were supposed 
 to preclude all farther inquiry, and finally to settle 
 the dispute. Pernnt me, however, to request your 
 patient attention to a fev/ observations on this reason- 
 ing, reminding you in the outset, that the question is 
 not what is, or what may in future be the state of this 
 or the other church (for the corruptions of one will 
 make no apology for those of another) ; but what is 
 the rule prescribed by the word of God ? It is surely 
 of importance for Christians to inquire respecting the 
 path of duty on this point, as v/ell as every other. 
 
 First, then, I know no class of Christians that denies 
 the propriety of discipline altogether. Though we 
 cannot expect a perfectly pure church on earth, if by 
 the phrase is meant either a church of perfect charac- 
 ters, or one in which we are perfectly certain all are 
 believers ; yet every one will allow we should not de- 
 liberately admit open impurity. How strange would 
 this reasoning appear, when used in reference to the 
 character of individuals, which is often so confidently 
 applied to communities ? I know perfect purity is 
 •what I cannot expect to attain on earth ; it is there- 
 fore vain to attempt an approach to it ; I may deli- 
 l)erately live in known iniquity. Such a mode of 
 reasoning we should universally condemn ; and yet it 
 seems just as improper to apply it to the one case as 
 to the other. Though perfect purity then, cannot be 
 attained ; no one argues that no degree of it ought to 
 be attempted ; and wherever the shadow of discipline 
 exists, our obligations to attempt some measure of it 
 is virtually acknowledged. 
 
 A distinction has been often here stated, which 
 seems tp me a solid and satisfactory one. It is that- 
 
104 LETTER VIL 
 
 which subi>ists between a hypocrite and a person charga- 
 able with open iniquity. By a hypocrite I here mean 
 not one who, though he makes a profession of religion, 
 discovers his real character by a conduct Inconsistent 
 with that profession; but one who, though false at bot- 
 tom, assumes the guise of religion so completely, as 
 effectually to impose on those around him. Such cha- 
 racters may be in every church; and no blame attaches 
 to a church, though such should exist in her commu- 
 nion. The reason is plain. We are never required to 
 exam^ine the hearts of men. It is not our province; it 
 is completely beyond our power. When such charac- 
 ters exist, they do no harm to the members of a church, 
 because there is nothing in their conduct that throws 
 a stumbling in the way of their Christian brethren. 
 They, in like manner, do no harm to the world by 
 their profession of Christianity, because there is nothing 
 that tends to give occasion to the enemies of the Lord 
 Jesus to blaspheme. To their ovv'n Master, who is 
 the Searcher of the heart, and the alone Judge of the 
 secret motives of men, they must stand or fall. The 
 case, however, is certainly very different with those 
 who are chargeable w4th open iniquity. For that 
 kind of purity which consists in preventing such per- 
 sons from prostituting the ordinances of the gospel, by 
 remaining members of a church while they are coiv 
 tinuing in the known practice of sin, I most decidedly 
 contend ; and as this is the purity required in scrips 
 ture, there seems nothing in it which is not attainable. 
 Nay, no one can doubt that it is practicable, who be- 
 lieves that it is enjoined. It is the want of this de- 
 gree of it, or rather the impossibility of attaining It, of 
 v/hich I complain in the established church, and which 
 I am persuaded produces effects the most pernicious*- 
 
LETTER VII. 105 
 
 Before leaving this part of the argument, I must 
 observe hov^^ little force there is in the objection that 
 is derived, either from the present imperfections of 
 the independent churches lately instituted in tliis 
 country, or from their supposed degeneracy in after 
 times. That im.perfections appear we allow ; nor is 
 this to be wondered at, when it is considered that such 
 societies are in a great measure a nev/ thing in this part 
 of the kingdom, and that we have all the disadvan- 
 tages arising from many early prejudices, and much 
 inexperience, to encounter. — But, do any of these 
 churches deliberately tolerate what is a plain deviation 
 from the laws of Christ ? If so, let them be given up 
 to deserved condemnation. — But, supposing even this 
 severe charge to be substantiated, still the argument 
 remains unaffected by it. Let it be recollected, it is 
 systems^ not the characters either of individuals or of 
 particular societies, the merits of which we are here 
 canvassing. These are only implicated so far as they 
 are found countenancing a system of which there is 
 satisfactory evidence that it is not agreeable to the 
 word of God. The question then here is, do the 
 principles on vrhich these churches are constituted, 
 pieclude the^Tcrm of abuses, or present any obstacle 
 to the full observance of the laws of Christ ? If not, 
 their constitution may be scriptural, though their con- 
 duct should be deeply censurable. In the church of 
 Scotland, however, this is not the case. If the pre- 
 ceding reasonings be just, they tend to shew, that m. 
 its administration not only these laws are not ob- 
 served, but from the nature of the system they cannot 
 be. We Vs^ould not be understood by this to insinuate, 
 that Christians are called to continue in any church, 
 kowever scriptural its constitution, if the members of 
 
106 LETTER VIL 
 
 it, in spite of remonstrance, persisted in the neglect of 
 any of the laws of the Lord Jesus ; but it is because 
 such a palpable evil not only exists in the establishment, 
 but admits of no remedy, that we here infer a connexion 
 with it to be clearly inconsistent with the word of God. 
 
 Some endeavour to obviate all the objections that 
 are drawn from the defective administration of the 
 church, by remarking, that charity thinkerh no evil. 
 It is the spirit of the gospel to judge as favourably of 
 others as possible ; and it is sometimes hinted, that if 
 Christians were more disposed to lock at home, they 
 would see enough there to occupy their attention, 
 without thinking so much of the character of their 
 neighbours. It is not thus, however, that we are to 
 shake off our obligations to attend to an express pre- 
 cept of God's holy word. Our obligations to look at 
 home none will dispute ; but surely, one duty should 
 not jostle out another ? Charity, it is true, thinketh 
 no evil ; but it also rejoiceth in the truth. There are 
 here two extremes into which men are apt to fall. — 
 Judging rashly, and condemning without evidence, is 
 one ; but neglecting to try men by the rule of scrip- 
 ture, and admitting them to communion where there 
 is no want of evidence of their living in known sin, is 
 another. It is surely possible to fall into the latter of 
 these, as well as the former; and this is not charity, but 
 the most complete violation of it. 
 
 It is worthy of notice, that when our Lord, 
 Matt. vii. % is speaking of the difference between a 
 man's profession and his practice, he lays it down as 
 a rule to his disciples, — By their fruits ye shall know 
 them. The mode of expression seems to imply, that 
 it is not merely a matter of permission that we are al- 
 lowed to judge of others in this way, but a matter of 
 
LETTER VIL 107 
 
 tiuly^ we are called to do it. It was, indeed, a subject 
 worthy of an express precept by our blessed Lord. 
 We are all disposed to form some opinion or other 
 respecting the characters of those around us. This is 
 too often influenced by prejudice, by false information, 
 by party spirit, or some such improper principle. 
 Here Jesus, however, prescribes an unerring rule. 
 It is the only fair and sure standard by which, when 
 we can have recourse to it, our opinions ought to be 
 regulated. 
 
 No one will, I think, deny that had the church at 
 Corinth disregarded the apostle's command respecting 
 the characters which he required to be excluded from 
 its society, as in a passage formerly quoted, it would 
 have been highly blameable. If so, and if what was 
 addressed to that church was intended to be a rule to^ 
 Christians in every subsequent age ; then, wherever 
 any of such a character as the apostle there mentions 
 are retained in the communion of any church, there 
 must be a grievous fault somenvhere. This is generally 
 allowed ; but the blame is usually thrown on those 
 only who occupy public offices ; and as others ima- 
 gine it is entirely out of their province to interfere in 
 these matters, they conclude that no part of it can 
 be imputed to them. I shall here then state the 
 grounds on which it appears to me that this cannot 
 exculpate private Christians, in countenancing a com- 
 munion they confess to be unscriptural. 
 
 Who were commanded by the apostles to see that 
 the discipline of the early churches should be pro- 
 perly conducted ? Not merely the public oflicers of the 
 church, but the general body. This is apparent from 
 the mode of address at the beginning of the different 
 apostlic epistles. All those sent to particular churches 
 
108 LETTER VIL 
 
 are plainly addressed to all the members in an asso- 
 ciated capacity. To take one example out of many, 
 the 1st epistle to the Corinthians is directed to " the 
 ^* church of God which is at Corinth ; to them that 
 ** are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, all 
 ** that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ 
 ** our Lord, both theirs and ours," 1 Cor. i. 2. Now 
 this is the class of people who are enjoined to put 
 in execution the laws respecting discipline, which are 
 contained in the subsequent part of the epistle. In like 
 manner, when the apostle writes his second epistle, in 
 which we learn they had complied with the injunction 
 contained in the first, he speaks of the punishment to 
 which the offender had been subjected, as inflicted of 
 many, 2 Cor. ii. 6. In this expression there is a plain 
 reference to the share which the general body of the 
 church took in the administration of Its discipline. 
 The general body then of every Christian church has 
 still the same trust committed to them. It is no 
 apology here, to say we are not consulted. This is 
 only putting the difficulty a little farther off, and say- 
 ing that one evil introduces another. It is in other 
 words acknowledging, that though you are entrusted 
 by the great Master with the discipline of his house, 
 you have thought proper to renounce the charge, and 
 put it entirely into the hands of others. They have 
 agreed to take upon themselves all the responsibility, 
 and therefore, whatever mismanagement may take 
 place, you imagine you shall be called to bear none of 
 the blame. But we are not thus allowed at our option 
 to decline a trust with which we have been so solemnly 
 invested by the Lord Jesus ; a trust, the faithful dis- 
 charge of which is so intimately connected with the 
 prosperity of his kingdom. If the discipline then of A 
 
Chinstian church is thus committed to the general 
 bodyof Its members, surely where it is notoriously 
 neglected, nothing can secure them frcmi a deep share 
 of the blame ? I ackno\vledge difficult <:ases may 
 sometimes occur, where, from local circumstancesj 
 Christians must either partake of ordinances, amidst 
 -many palpable and acknowledged defects in the ad- 
 ministration of discipline, or be deprived of them al- 
 together ; but surely, where Christians find that re- 
 monstrance is vain ; that th^ very constitution of the 
 church with which they are connected effectually pre- 
 cludes a return to scriptural order ; that as long as 
 they continue in it, they must live in the known ne- 
 glect of a part of the institutions of Christ ; the call 
 seems a pretty plain one, to relinquish such a society 
 as soon as they can find one where scriptural discipline 
 is maintained. As this, however, is a principle that 
 ,has been very warmly controverted; and as many 
 Christians, though they most readily acknowledge the 
 'grossest abuses In the church with which they are 
 connected, by no means see it their duty to separate 
 irom It ; it may be useful to examine the grounds on 
 which the propriety of such a separation has been 
 called in question. 
 
 The principal argument I have seen urged against 
 such a step, is drawn from there being no express 
 •command given by the apostle to any of the church 
 at Corinth to separate from the rest, in case tke ma- 
 jority had aot obsei-ved the injuncttoas he gave them, 
 jrespectlng their treatment of tlie gross ofender that 
 had appeared in their society. The same observation 
 has been made respecting the epistles, add-ressed In the 
 2nd and 3rd chapters of the book of Revelations to the 
 churches in Asia. In these. It has been said^ there were 
 
110 LETTER VIL 
 
 many grievous defections ; and yet the pure part of 
 these churches is never required to separate from the 
 other. These; it will be observed, are only different 
 cases, where the argument is the same. An answer 
 to one, will, of course, include an answer to the rest. 
 We shall select then the case of the church at Corinth; 
 and inquire why we find no command, on the suppo- 
 sition of the majority proving refractory, that the other 
 members should secede. 
 
 Here, I would in the first place remark, we are apt 
 to form very erroneous views of the characters that 
 composed the apostolic churches, if we suppose they 
 ivere similar to the members of the churches establish- 
 ed by law In the present day. Observe, for example, 
 how those who composed the church at Corinth are 
 denominated. " The church of God, the sanctified 
 ** in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," chap. i. 2. 
 And again, chap. vi. 11, after the apostle had been 
 enumerating some of the gross sins with which heathens 
 in general are chargeable, he adds, " Such v/ere some 
 "** of you; but ye are washed; but ye are sanctified ; 
 *■' but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 •** and by the spirit of our God." These expressions 
 tend to -shew, that gross as some of the abuses were 
 which prevailed in that church, from their newly 
 emerging from a state of heathenism ; still, as a body, 
 they had the distinguishing marks of the disciples of 
 the Lord Jesus ; marks which constituted them quite 
 different -characters from their careless and ui^godly 
 neighbours around.* How far these expressions arc 
 
 * In some of the ver^' Interesting accounts we have lately 
 received from our baptist brethren in India, we find a 
 striking resemblance between some of the Hindoo con- 
 verts, and what appears to have been the character of some 
 ^f the members of the church at Corinth. Trom their pre- 
 
LETTER VIL 111 
 
 applicable to the general body of the members of na- 
 tional churches, you yourselves must determine. The 
 same observation may be made with regard to the 
 churches mentioned in tlie book of Revelations. Let 
 any one carefully read the epistles addressed to them, 
 and he will see that the language is only applicable to 
 Christians; though many of them in a state of grievous 
 defection, that many of the expressions cannot possibly 
 apply to those who had never any pretensions to 
 Christianity at all. At that period, it should be re- 
 collected, the very profession of Christianity Vv'as in 
 general a tolerably good test of sincerity, on account 
 of the dangers to vv'hich the person who made it v/as 
 exposed. At the very tim.e that John was directed to 
 write these epistles, he Vv'as himself in a state of banish- 
 ment in the isle cf Patmos, for the word of God, and 
 the testimony of Jesus Christ. Such, then, were the 
 characters that composed the early churches. Amidst 
 all their defects, they were distinguished from an un- 
 godly world by some of the m^ost decided marks of 
 vital Christianity. Such v/ere the persons addressed 
 by Paul, when he wrote to the church at Corinth. 
 The epistle was addressed to the whole body. As a 
 
 vious habits they sometimes discover extravagances both 
 in opinion and practice, which in this country we would 
 never dream of ; while along with these they give good 
 reason to hope, that they are really influenced by the belief 
 of the truth. The same cause accounts for these apparent 
 inconsistencies in both. Christianity, in both ca?es, had to 
 encounter not merely carelessness, or even habits of ini- 
 quity conti acted amidst a blaze of surrounding light, 
 which, though disregarded, at least discovered their cri- 
 minality ; but such habits, contracted amidst the dark- 
 ness of heathenism, v/hich by long conce?-ling their guilt, 
 tended more deeply to rivet them, and even where grace 
 interposed, rendered an effectual deliverance from thcia. 
 a. more gradual attainment. 
 
 K 2 
 
U2 LETTER VIL 
 
 body, they were in some points much to blame ; bur 
 from the constitution of the church, whenever the 
 apostoiie authority was interposed, they could unite in 
 correcting what was amiss in their conduct. 
 
 We must here remind you of a distinction formerly 
 stated, which seems to contain a complete solution of 
 any difficulty that may be supposed to exist in this 
 case. The constitution of the church was scriptural, 
 though its conduct was not. This is a distinction which 
 all admit, whatever notions they entertain about church 
 government. It is the foundation of the plea that it 
 ■usually urged for continuing in societies confessedly 
 Tery impure. We do not say it would be a valid one, 
 if this unscriptural conduct were persisted in ; but thi^ 
 distinction tends clearly to shew the difference between 
 the church at Corinth, and the established church, for 
 example, in these lands. In the former, there was 
 nothing in the principles on which the members of it 
 -cere united, which prevented them from a full and 
 immediate compliance with the commands of Christ ; 
 und Ave accordingly find from the issue, this actually 
 took place. In the latter, we have endeavoured to 
 prove this compliance is imapossible: at any rate, even 
 %vhere it is argued to be possible, it is acknowledged 
 »ot to be observed. 
 
 We have then no direction from the apostle what 
 individuals at Corinth should have done, on the sup- 
 position of the majority disregarding his injunction. 
 The reason is plain. The case did not admit of it; as, 
 in a public capacity, they shewed a disposition to cor- 
 rect what was blamc-vv-crthy, all was well. The mere 
 silence of scripture in this instance, surely cannot be 
 considered ac affording a rule for Influencing our con^ 
 • act in cases, the leading features of which are §o com- 
 
LETTER VIL liS 
 
 pletely diiFerent. The general body of the Corinthian 
 church had, amidst all their defections, the distinguish- 
 ing marks of the Christian character. The constitu- 
 tion of the church admitted an immediate correction 
 of abuses ; and that correction accordingly took place. 
 From this it is argued, that because from such a 
 church Christians are not called to separate, tliey are to 
 continue in fellowship with societies, the great body 
 of whom they believe to have no pretensions to Christ- 
 ianity at all ; and the constitution of which effectually 
 precludes the correction of abuses, the most flagrant 
 which prevail in them. How does this reasoning hang 
 together ; or how is it possible to consider the one of 
 these principles a fair inference from the other? 
 
 I have already hinted why it is unreasonable to ex- 
 pect any direction in this case. with regard to the con-- 
 duct of individuals, if the Corinthian church in general 
 had disregarded the apostle's injunction. As that in- ■ 
 junction was observed, there was no room for It. I 
 think, however, we may fairly infer, from the general 
 tenor of scripture, what would have been their duty 
 on such a supposition. No one can question whether 
 or not the rejection of. the apostle's authority would 
 have been criminal. . He must, of course, have con- • 
 demned all who had any share in It. But every in- 
 dividual must have taken a. side. He must either .have 
 joined with the church in the disregard of the apostle's 
 command, or he must, have separated himself from . 
 them, and supported his authority. There seems very 
 little difficulty in determining here what Vv'ould. have 
 been the path of duty. Should there not be still as 
 little in discovering it, when we arc convinced that 
 the society with which we are connected is really^ 
 living in the habitual, deliberate neglect of those very 
 
 K3, 
 
lU LETTER VII. 
 
 injunctions respecting Christian discipline, which were 
 on tliis occasion addressed to tlie church at Corinth. 
 Is not the conduct of those, who in the present day 
 persist in countenancing impure communion, notwith- 
 standing the apostle's condemnation of it, precisely 
 similar to what, on the supposition that a division 
 /had taken place on this business in the Corinthian 
 church, must have been the conduct of that party 
 wlio were determined to keep the offender in their 
 society ? whose language, of course, would have been^ 
 We are resolved to go on in the way we are doing, 
 let the apostl-e say what he will. I cannot see how it 
 is possible to evade this inference. You are requested. 
 Brethren, seriously to consider it. It must eitlier be 
 proved to be a false one, or it is easy to see it will 
 lead to very decisive practical consequences. 
 
 It is curious to observe how much people are apt to 
 be influenced in their reasonings, by the particular 
 effects which it is foreseen will flow from them. The 
 same kind of argument, which when applied to one 
 subject seems perfectly conclusive, when applied to an- 
 other appears to have no force at all. On what ground 
 is it we maintain the propriety of separating from the 
 church of Rome? Because she had completely departed 
 from the i^s&of Christ'siingdoffi, and from the nature 
 of her constitution, there was no possibility of her re- 
 turning to them. In that case, the Christian reformers 
 must either have continued in the communion of the 
 church in which they were born and bred, while they 
 knew that in doing so they were living in the neglect 
 of a certain portion of Christ's revealed will, or they 
 inust have separated ; they clearly had no other alter- 
 r.ative. We know what they did ; and no Protestant 
 entertains a doubt> whether the step they took was 
 
LETTER VIE 115 
 
 according to duty or not. Is it acknowledged that 
 there is a discipline appointed in scripture to be main- 
 tained in the church of Christ, whicli in the present 
 state of things is not, and cannot be maintained iu 
 the church of Scotland ; then the same question cer- 
 tainly occurs, Are we to continue in communion with 
 her, and live in the neglect of that part of the law of 
 Christ ; or arc we called to separate from her, that 
 we may have an opportunity of observing it ? 
 
 I know it will be here insinuated, that the compa- 
 rison is by no means a fair one. Is it reasonable, it 
 will be asked, to compare the church of Scotland, a 
 church distinguished by so many godly ministers and 
 eminent private Christians, with the church of Rome, 
 when covered with the grossest abominations. The 
 reform^ers separated from the church of Rome, because 
 she was no church of Christ at all, and because she was 
 totally incapable of reform. This we hope, hov/ever^ 
 cannot be pleaded here. We acknowledge, in the- 
 establishment there are many corruptions. Tliese we 
 sincerely regret ; but what church is free of them ? 
 and great as they are, we hope for better days. — To 
 this description of the church of Scotland, I readily 
 subscribe. That there are many valuable ministers, as^ 
 well as private Christians within her pale, none will 
 dispute : and how far the hope of a reform is well 
 founded, I have already considered in a former 
 letter. — But can any thing that exists in the esta- 
 blishment of this country, be at all put in competition 
 v/ith the gross abuses that prevailed in the Romish 
 church, at the time of the Reformation ? — I by no 
 means say It can. But I have attempted to state some 
 direct violations of the laws of Christ which prevail 
 ia the church of Scotland, and which, from, its constl- 
 
116 LETTER VIL 
 
 tution, cannot be corrected. Till then, we are informed 
 what precise degree of known and deliberate neglect of 
 the institutions of Christ's house may be allowed, 
 and in a public body may be compatible with the cha- 
 racter of a Christian church, I cannot discover how 
 the reasoning by which we so justly defend _the con- 
 duct of the early reformers, is not equally applicable 
 to the subject we are at present considering. 
 
 With regard to the claim the church of Scotland 
 has to the character of a church of Christ, I would 
 only farther remark, we generally take our descrip- 
 tion of a public body, not from that of a few de- 
 tached individuals of it, but from the general mass. 
 If this mode of decision be a just one; if the character, 
 in this instance, is to be determined by that of the ma- 
 jority ; how far the appellation of a church of Chrivt 
 is here applicable, judge ye. 
 
 I am, 5cc, 
 
LETTER VI IL 
 
 CHEliSTIAK fia£THtl£t^> 
 
 
 JL HE observations contained in my last letter, were 
 chiefly designed to shew the fallacy of the opinion, 
 that in partaking of the Lord's supper, it is no business 
 of ours to inquire into the conduct of those with whom 
 we professedly hold communion ; and that it can do 
 no harm, though persons of the most immoral cha- 
 racter should associate with us in the celebration of 
 that holy ordinance. As this is one of the prhicipal 
 arguments by which many justify their continuing in 
 the communion of a church, in which they readily ad- 
 mit there is the most notorious v/ant of discipline, it 
 may be proper to state some additional observations 
 on it. 
 
 In the course of the preceding letter, I had occasion 
 to mention the rule respecting discipline, which was 
 expressly prescribed by the apostle Paul to the church 
 at Corinth ; and we attempted to shew, that coun- 
 tenancing the admdssion to Christian communio^, of 
 any living in open sin, was a direct violation of it. 
 Several other passages may be quoted to the same 
 ■effect. With this view, 2 Cor. vi. 14 — 17, has beeti 
 fften mentionedt " tie ye not unequally yoked to* 
 
118 LETTER VIIL 
 
 ** gether with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath 
 *' righteousness with unrighteousness ? And what com- 
 " munion hath light with darkness \ And what con- 
 " cord hath Christ with Belial ? or what part hath he 
 " that believeth with an Infidel ? And what agreement 
 ** hath the temple of God with idols ? for ye are the 
 ** temple of the living God ; as God hath said, I v/ill 
 *' dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be 
 " their God, and they shall be my people. , Where- 
 " fore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, 
 " saith the Lord, touch not the unclean thing ; and 
 " I vrill receive you, and I will be a father unto }^u, 
 " and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the 
 " Lord Almighty." This passage, we acknowledge, 
 had originally a reference to Christians separating 
 from idolaters. But are we to suppose from this it 
 has no other application ; then it Vv^ill follow it is a 
 passage of scripture v/hich has no use, except among 
 Christians living in countries where idolatry is prac- 
 tised ? It is here deserving of remark, that the very 
 word that is employed, ver. 14, to denote ccmmun'wn'y 
 is employed, 1 Cor. x. 16, to express that fellowship 
 which Christians have at tlie Loi d's table. " The cup 
 " of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion 
 ** of the blood of Christ ? the bread which we break, 
 " is it not the communion of the body of Christ V* 
 The import of the passage then seems most explicit, 
 that Christians are expressly required not to join in. 
 professed Christian communion with persons who are 
 cl}argeable with open iniquity. 
 
 2 Tim. iii. I — b. has also been frequently quoted, 
 as equally explicit on this point. The apostle here 
 predicts, that in the last days perilous times should 
 come : and what was to constitute them so perilous i 
 
LETTER VIIL . 119 
 
 Men of a new and peculiar character should arise. 
 They should be " lovers of their own selves, covetous, 
 *^ boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, 
 ** unthankful, unhol}'^, without natural affection, truce- 
 *' breakers, false accusers, Incontinent, despisers of 
 *' those that arc good, traitors, heady, high-minded, 
 ** lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God." 
 W -11 ! all this was nothing new. Such men have 
 existed in all ages. But the dangerous peculiarity fol- 
 lows. Along with such a character, they should asso- 
 ciate " a form of godliness, while they denied the 
 ** power thereof." They were to be not men of the 
 world, who openly live without God, and who make no 
 pretensions to religion. From such characters no pe- 
 culiar danger was to be expected. But they were to be 
 immoral professors. Here the danger lay. They 
 were to endeavour to unite the service of God with 
 that of mammon ; to render a life of sin compatible 
 with the professslon of faith In the gospel. When 
 such men appear, the duty of those who respect apos- 
 tolic authority Is plain. — '* From such turn away." 
 
 To these passages we may add, the precept which 
 is recorded, Eph. v. 11. " Have no fellowship with 
 ** the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove 
 ** them." This, It may be alleged, seems chiefly to 
 refer to the general tenor of our conduct in our Inter- 
 course with an ungodly world, that we are not to imi- 
 tate them. But are we to confine It to this ; or can 
 we be said to observe the precept. If we hold professed 
 Christian communion with those who are living In open 
 Iniquity ? It deserves observation, that the same word 
 which is rendered felloivjljip in tlris case, is used, Rev. 
 xviii. 4, where Christians are called to come out of 
 mystical Babylon, " that they be not partahn of her 
 
HO LETTER VltL 
 
 ** sins, and that th^y receive not of her plagues.'* 
 Now, ad«iitting the common Protestant interpretation 
 cf this last passage, that Christians are here called not 
 to be partakers with the church of Rome in her ini- 
 quities ; how are they to comply with the injunction ? 
 Can they do so, if they continue in her communion at 
 all, though they be not personally guilty of the abo- 
 minations with which many in that church are charge- 
 able ? Does it not rather require an open and avowed 
 separation from her ; the most decided expression we 
 can possibly give of our disapprobation of her princi- 
 ples and practices ? In like manner, we surely cannot 
 be said to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works 
 of darkness, if we join in communion with those who 
 are known to practise them. 
 
 But scripture, if properly understood, must uni- 
 formly speak one language. There must be some 
 mistake respecting its meaning, if there appear any 
 discrepancy in its different declarations. As many 
 then, defend impure communion, on the supposition 
 that there are different passages which seem to coun- 
 tenance it, I shall next take notice of such of these as 
 I have heard pleaded as an apology for such a prac- 
 tice. 
 
 It has been urged then, as an argument in vindi- 
 cation of continuing in the communion of a church 
 •confessedly very impure, that we find the grossest 
 impurity, even among that small number who accom- 
 panied our Lord during his personal ministry on 
 earth. One of them had a devil. That one, too, it 
 has been argued, was allowed by our Lord himself 
 to be present at the first celebration of the ordinance 
 of the supper. It is surely then unreasonable to be so 
 scrupulous, though similar characters should be foun<i 
 
LEl'TER VIIL 12i 
 
 ^n our churches. It is well known that it has been 
 pretty warmly disputed, whether Judas was at the 
 first institution of the supper or not ; but as my an- 
 swer to this argument does not turn upon this point, 
 it is unnecessary here to enter upon the discussion of 
 it. Here I beg leave to recall to your attention a 
 distinction stated in the last letter, between a hypo- 
 crite and one who is openly immoral. Now, amidst 
 all the atroc'ty of Judas's character, he seems plainly 
 to have been of the former description. This is very 
 apparent, from no suspicion being attached to him 
 more than any of the rest, when our Lord told the 
 disciples that cue of them should betray him« Each 
 individual asked. Lord, is it L'* So far then, as related 
 to the rest of tlie disciples, they could have no diffi- 
 culty in associating with him, as long as his character 
 was concealed. But it is urged, his omniscient Lord and 
 Master knew it from the beginning. True; but this, if 
 it proves any thing, unfortunately proves too much, 
 and therefore nothing can be inferred from it at all. 
 Our Lord, though he knew his character, chose him 
 as an apostle, and sent him out to preacli the gospel.' 
 Will it from this be argued, that we are allowed to or- 
 dain men to the sacred cfHce, though we know them 
 to possess characters the most unprincipled I I suppose 
 tliis is an inference which no one thinks of drawing. 
 But if our Lord's example will not authorize this, in 
 opposition to the express precepts of Paul in his epistle 
 to Timothy ; as little will it justify impure ccmrnumon, 
 which is equally inconsistent with the same apostle's 
 language to the Corinthian church. The truth is, the 
 omniscience of Christ is never to be viewed as a rule 
 ■of duty to us. To the law and to the testimony we 
 
 L 
 
122 LETTER VIIL ' 
 
 must resort, and be habitually influenced by their de- 
 cision. 
 
 Another passage that has been quoted in vindica- 
 tion of retaining in Christian communion persons evi- 
 dently living in sin, is the parable of the marriage- 
 feast, recorded, Matt. xxii. We are there informed, 
 ver. 11," when the King came in to see the guests, he 
 " saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment; 
 " and he said unto him, friend, how earnest thou in 
 ** hither, not having a wedding-garment ? and he_was 
 " speechless." Here, it has been alleged, we find no 
 complaint brought by the king against either the ser- 
 vants who invited this improper guest, or those who 
 were found at the feast along with him.^ The indi- 
 vidual alone is charged with guilt, and he is of course 
 called to bear his own punishment. One who examines 
 this passage superficially, is apt to be misled by the- 
 figure that is used. By the wedding-garment some 
 suppose is meant regeneration ; others, the righteous- 
 ness of Jjesus Christ : for our present purpose it mat- 
 ters not which is denoted by it. The fallacy then 
 lies here. It naturally occurs to us, that any person 
 must see what sort of dress every one has, who comes 
 to a public entertainment ; that of course, both the 
 servants and the rest of the guests must have been able 
 to distinguish this person from all others. But though 
 the figure denotes that v/hich is external and v'lsihlet 
 that vvhich it is intended to represent is something 
 hiternaU and of course mvisibls ; som.ething that can- 
 not be discovered by man, but v/hich is only known 
 to the great Searcher of hearts. This man then was 
 a hypocritical professor. He appeared to accept the 
 invitation to the marriage-feast as cordially as his 
 neighbours. As man then can only judge from ap- 
 
LETTER FIIL 125 
 
 pearances, wherever such characters exist in a church, 
 there can be no blame. We shall only add, that if 
 any should object to this method of removing the dif- 
 ficulty, and still imagine the language refers to a cha- 
 racter that could be known, this passage, like the one 
 formerly considered, w^ould then prove too much. 
 It must be remarked, that on this supposition it not 
 only exculpates private Christians from joining in 
 communion with such as are knowm to live in sin, 
 but it justifies ministers in admitting such. The ser- 
 vants who invited the man not having the vvedding- 
 garment, were no more blamed than the rest. Few, 
 however, will go this length. They readily allow 
 there must be no inconsiderable blame somev/here, 
 v/hen Christian ordinances are grossly prostituted. 
 
 The last passage I shall m.ention, and which is most 
 frequently quoted in defence of continuing in the 
 communion of a church confessedly very impure, is 
 the parable of the tares and the wheat, recorded. Matt, 
 xiii. 24. It may seem strange there should be such 
 diiTei^ent opinions entertained respecting the meaning 
 of this parable, when our Lord has himself given us 
 the interpretation of it, ver. S7. The following ob- 
 servation on it will, I hope, sufficiently shew, that in 
 whatever light it be viewed, it is at least completely 
 misapplied, wherever it is quoted to support the pro- 
 priety of holding communion w4th those who give 
 decided evidence thai; they are strangers to the poiuer ef god' 
 llness, 
 
 1. It will be universally allowed as a just principle 
 in interpreting scripture, that figurative passages must 
 be explained in consistency with those that are simple, 
 and the meaning of which admits of no dispute. 
 
 2, Two views of the import of this parable have 
 
 L2 
 
124 LETTER VIIL 
 
 been suggested, either of which when taken as u- 
 whole, is consistent at least vith other passages of 
 sacred writ. The first supposes the field to be the 
 church, v;hile in a present world.. If this scheme of " 
 interpretation be adopted, the tares must mean hypo- 
 crites, not the openlv wicked ; the v/heat real Christ- 
 ians, as distinguished from hypocrites ; and the object 
 of the parable must be to shew, that though we are- 
 iiot to separate from our communion those we may 
 merely suspect of hypocrisy, yet w^e may rest assured, 
 a final separation will take place between the hypocri- 
 tical professor and the genuine disciple of the Lord 
 Jesus.- — The other view of the parable is this. The- 
 field denotes not the church, but tlie world. By this 
 expression is here plainly meant not the men of the 
 world, as distinguished from Christians, but the habit= 
 able globe on which v/e dwell. Setting out on this 
 principle then, the tares must mean not merely hypo- 
 crites, but the openly wicked ; and the design of the 
 parable must be to shew, that Christians must on no 
 pretence persecute those who are living in sin around 
 them. That it is the appointment of Providence that 
 they and their ungodly neighbours live together at 
 present, but that at tlie great day of trial they shall 
 be for ever separated. 
 
 3. Whichever of these modes of interpretation be 
 adopted, the parable contains nothing inconsistent 
 with the general tenor of sacred writ. But this can only 
 be said where they are kept separate, and when each 
 scheme of interpretation is taken as a luhole, and is re- 
 spectively connected with its own proper appendages. 
 If you take some of these belonging to the one, and 
 associate them with tliose of the other, the unity of the 
 parable, is destroyed ; nay you introduce a view of it: 
 
LETTER VIIL 12S 
 
 ^liite inconsistent with other plain passages of the" 
 word of God, and which of course must be a false oneo 
 But it is only by such a mode of explaining it, that 
 ' it can be at all construed as sanctioning our joining in 
 communion with open transgressors.- To do this we 
 must make the world the church, and the tares not 
 hypocrites, but men known ta be living in sin. But 
 as this is in express opposition to the directions of the 
 apostle to the church at Corinth, if the consistency of 
 scripture be maintained, it is an interpretation which- 
 must at once be relinquished. 
 
 4. Though I conceive the above observations sufE-- 
 cient to shew that it is a complete misapplication of 
 the parable, when it is quoted in vindication of such 
 impurity of communion as we have been considering, 
 in this and the preceding letter; it may be proper to^ 
 add a few reasoiis, from vrhich the latter of the above 
 mentioned interpretations of it seems obviously to be 
 the true one. 
 
 Here it must naturally occur, that this is the only 
 interpretation of the parable which accords with that 
 key to its meaning, with which the Lord Jesus him- 
 self has been pleased to furnish us. We also findy 
 that when using that key, every part of the passage 
 has an obvious, important, and appropriate meaning.. 
 Let us try it. The field is the world. In it was ori-- 
 ginally sown the good seed. The devil, however, the 
 enemy of God and man, introduced sin into it, here 
 denoted by sov/ing tares. Kence these appear among" 
 the wheat. In the field, how are the tares distin- 
 guished from the good seed ? not in the first period of 
 their growth, but after the fruit appears. The wicked . 
 cannot be distinguished from the righteous In infancy 
 Bnd childhood- It is not till the dispositions be gra-^ 
 
 JL3. 
 
126 LETTER VIIL 
 
 dually developed, till the character be somewhat 
 formed, till they thus bring forth their peculiar fruity 
 that they are known. This is the uniform language 
 of scripture. By their works men's characters are to 
 be ascertained. We may here rem.ark by the way, 
 that after the fruft appeared, the servants are repre- 
 sented as being easily able to distinguish between the 
 good grain and the noxious weed. Now this very much 
 militates witli the other interpretation, which makes 
 the tares to represent hypocrites, because a hypocrite 
 is really a concealed character. The tares in the in- 
 terpretation are denominated the children of the 
 wicked one, an expression in this connexion parti- 
 cularly, which certainly denotes a life of open wicked- 
 ness. The servants of the householder are represented 
 as saying to him, " Sir, didst not thou sow good seed 
 " In thy field ? From whence then hath it tares ? He 
 *' said unto them, an enemy hath done this ?" I am 
 w^ell aware, that In interpreting the parables of our 
 Lord,^ we are not to look for a particular allusion in 
 every minute circumstance that is mentioned in them^ 
 It will, however, be allowed strongly to confirm the 
 justness of any interpretation, w^hen we find that even 
 those parts of a parable that may be considered as 
 more Incidental, while from the place they hold, they 
 plainly refer to some of the leading doctrines re- 
 corded in scripture, contain representations in perfect 
 imison with tliese doctrines. Now this is tlie case 
 here. An enemy haj;h done it. This is the only an- 
 swer which scripture any where gives to this question, 
 which has perplexed men in every age, viz. How has 
 sin been introduced Into the world? " Let no man say 
 " vvhen he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for 
 ♦* God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth 
 
LETTER VIIL 127 
 
 *' he any man," James i. 13. The wickedness that 
 is in the world is to be ascribed not to God, but to 
 the malignant enemy of God and man. We may just 
 here add, that while in this view of the parable, the 
 figurative representation perfectly accords with the 
 fact as mentioned in scripture ; in the other, I m.ean 
 that which makes the field the churchj and which is 
 the only view of it that can be forced into the service 
 of impure communion, we unavoidably get into the 
 inconsistency of representing the servants of the hus- 
 bandman doing while awake what an enemy is said 
 to have done while m.en slept. 
 
 The next incident seems to contain the special, 
 instruction this parable is meant to convey. " The 
 *' servants said unto him, wilt thou that we gather 
 " them up \ But he said, nay, lest while ye gather up 
 " the tares, ye root up also the wheat vv^Ith tliem.. Let 
 " both grow together until the harvest, and in the time 
 ** of harvest I vrill say to the reapers, gather ye to- 
 ** gether first the tares, and bind them in bundles to . 
 " burn them : but gather the wheat into my barn.'* 
 The proposal of the servants here, very much accorded ■ 
 with, that of the tv/o disciples mentioned, Luke ix. 5'4^ 
 The Inhabitants of a village of the S^amaritans had 
 refused our Lord permission to pass through that vil- 
 'lage on his way. Filled with indignation at this, 
 Jamies and John said unto him, " Lord, wih thou 
 " tiiat we command fire to come down from heaven, 
 " and consume them ?" NotSvithstanding, however, 
 the severe rebuke they received from our Lord on 
 that occasion, has not the' same spirit discovered itself 
 among professing Christians in every subsequent age ? 
 How extensive its ravages, and hov/ baneful its eiTects 
 have been under the Polish hierarchy, when its-pov/er 
 
l^S LETTER rilf. 
 
 was more extensive than, through the divine goodnes?^. 
 it is now, every one acquainted with church history' 
 knows. We may add, do not the penal laws againstr 
 ofFenders, which are found among the regulations of 
 almost every national church in VN?-hich any degree of 
 corporal punishment, or the loss of civil privileges is 
 threatened, too plainly indicate the same spirit. The 
 impropriety then, of Christians- as such, preteilding to 
 punish, far m.ore to attempt to extirpate wicked men, 
 because they were the enemies of God, was a subject 
 worthy of being' particularly noticed by our Lord ; 
 and such seems to be the design of this part of the 
 parable. A reason is subjoined why the seivants are; 
 not to attempt to root up the" tares ; lest they should- 
 also root up the wheat with them. The stalks could 
 be distino;uished the one from the other hy the fruit,- 
 Eut their roots were so intervv^oven, that the one could- 
 not be rem.oved, without the other receiving materials- 
 injury. What a lively representation is this of the 
 connexion between Christians and ungodly persons in 
 the social and domestic relations of life. Here, we' 
 behold a pious child supported by an ungodly parent. 
 The preservation of the one is intimately connected 
 with that of the other. There, we see an unprincipled 
 master supremely devoted to tlje v\'orld ; but in the 
 prosecution of his business, he is miade the instrument"- 
 ef supporting, a godly serva.nt vdth perhaps a jium.erous 
 family. This part of the parable accords with what- 
 is pretty clearly taught in som.e other parts of scripture,, 
 that the wicked are preserved, and have many blessings 
 conferred on them, chiefly for the sake of God's people, 
 that they may administer to their introduction into 
 life, and to their preservation and comfort in tra- 
 ^fcelling tlirougli the wildernessv Such a connexion. 
 
LETTER VIIL 129 
 
 Between the righteous and the wicked, is the appoint- 
 ment of Providence. We are not then to quarrel with 
 It. But the harvest is approaching. The day of judg- 
 ment is hastening on, and that is th^ period fixed for 
 a final separation. 
 
 Viewing the parable in this light, I know no part of 
 it which can be supposed to create any difficulty, ex- 
 cept our Lord*s expression, ver. 41 , wherd he says " the 
 " angels shall gather outof Z'/j- kingdom all things that 
 " offend, and them which do iniquity." Here let it be 
 recollected, the Most Hif>h ruleth in the kingdom of 
 men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. The Lord 
 reigneth, let the earth be glad.. He reigns in the 
 kingdoms of nature and providence as well as grace \. 
 and this world is one department of his vast dominion. 
 It is plain then, that tlie expression here, relates to the 
 world in this point of view. The field, which is the- 
 world, is represented, ver. 24-, to be the property of the- 
 person who sowed the good seed. The sam.e is in like 
 manner said' of the kingdom.. It was by stealth the 
 enemy came and sowed the tares. Agreeably to this,-, 
 the world is the property of its sovereign Creator. It is 
 by injustice, by a miixture of deceit and usurpation, that, 
 the enemy of souls has any influence in it. But that 
 influence shall be gradually destroyed. Before the.- 
 time of the end, it shall be completely done away. 
 The kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdoms 
 of our God and of his Christ, But at the end of the 
 world, all who have ever lived in it shall be judged.. 
 It is then the final separation shall take place. Then 
 shall all things that offend be gathered out of his 
 kingdom, who Is sovereign proprietor of all. The 
 period of the invasion cf his rights by his enemies shall.: 
 lae. over. Then shall the devil and his angel-s, with. 
 
130 LETTER VIIL 
 
 their associates in rebellion among the children of men, 
 be for ever cast into utter darkness. Then shall there 
 be new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth 
 only righteousness. 
 
 5. My last remark on -this parable is, that like the 
 other passages quoted to justify joining in communion 
 with those who live in open sin, if it prove any thing 
 at all, it proves too" much. It cannot be understood 
 in any degree to countenance this, unless we are pre- 
 pared to say, that ministers are not only free from 
 blame in admitting the openly ungodly to sacred 
 ordinances, but that they would be really in a high 
 degree culpable, if they pretended to exclude them ; 
 that they would be chargeable with a direct violation 
 of the law of Christ, if they presumed to question the 
 right of the most notorious profligate to sit down at 
 the Lord's table. The reason of this inference is plain. 
 It is an express command th?.t the tares and the 
 wheat are to grew together till the harvest. If the 
 tares then are the openly wicked, and the field the 
 church, it is criminal at present to separate them. Few, 
 however, I presume, vrould think, of occupying this 
 ground. But surely, if such extravagant consequences 
 fairly flow from a particular view of this parable, they 
 sufficiently shew the fallacy of the interpretation from 
 w^hich they can be deduced. — An apology may seem 
 necessary for dwelling so long on this passage. Those, 
 however, who know how uniformly, and often in what 
 a tone of triumph it is quoted, as tending to condemn 
 the attempts that are made by some of the lately 
 formed churches in tiiis cotmtry to maintain purity of 
 communion, will not, I hope, consider any part of 
 the discussion as superfluous. 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to shew, that from differ- 
 
LETTER VIII. 131 
 
 ^nt declarations in scripture, churches are commanded 
 to exclude from their society persons living in open 
 sin. I have also attempted to prove, that the different 
 passages, which are usually adduced in vindication of 
 such persons being foiind in Christian churches, by no 
 means support the conclusions that have been drawn 
 from them. If the preceding reasonings on these to- 
 pics be allowed to be just, the criminality of Christians 
 joining in communion with such persons seems pretty 
 clearly established. It may be useful, however, to add 
 a fev7 words on the very pernicious eiFects resulting 
 from such a conduct. 
 
 The advantage of Christian discipline appears from 
 its probable effects upon the individual who is the 
 subject of it ; upon the church with which he is con- 
 nected ; and on the world around. It is like all the 
 other institutions of Chiist, full of grace. He knew 
 what w^as in man. lie knew the tendency even his 
 own people would have to go astray. In connecting 
 them then in churc'h-fellow^ship, he not only unites 
 them by the ties of Christian love, but also by those of 
 mutual interest. He makes them conducive to one 
 another's safety and improvement. But what is im- 
 plied, if we can say it matters not to us w'hat sort of 
 characters are in communion with us ? It certainly 
 indicates we have no correct notion of communion at 
 all. This properly denotes a common interest in the 
 blessings, the privileges, and hopes of the gospel. 
 This is clearly taught, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17- " The cup of 
 " blessing which (or for v/hich) we bless, is it not 
 " the communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread 
 " which we break, is it not the communion of the 
 *' body of Christ? Because (it is) one bread, we the 
 ** many are one body, for v;e all partake of that one 
 
 1 
 
132 LETTER Flit 
 
 '<* bread." This will, I believe, be very generally ad- 
 mitted .by those who have exarained the original, to 
 be the genuine import of the 17th verse, though 
 somewhat different from our translation. If, how- 
 ever, we feel no concern about the characters of 
 those with whom we associate in the ordinance of 
 the supper, v. e may indeed remember the Lord's 
 death, but it, is no communion. We plainly lose 
 sight of one of the leading characters of the insti- 
 tution, and from such false notions, we are deprived 
 of all that mutual safety that Christians derive from 
 watching over one another in love. In such a world 
 of temptation, this is surely- no trifling loss. To such 
 a.s know the extreme deceltfulness of their own hearts., 
 the fidelity of Christian friendship, in warning them .of | 
 their danger when tliey are apt to go astray, will ap- 
 pear a blessing of the highest value. 
 
 The importance to the safety of individuals, of cor- 
 rect views of Christian communion, and of brethren in '*\ 
 2l church feeling their obligations to watch over one 
 another in love, may perhaps be aptly enough illus- 
 trated by the following anecdote which occurs in Cap- 
 tain Cook's first voyage. In a high southern latitude, 
 near the extremity of South America, Mr. Banks and 
 Dr. Solander, with other ten, went ashore to examine 
 the country ; but as they had gone to a considerable 
 distance, night came on before they could return to 
 the ship. As the air was excessively cold. Dr. So- 
 lander, who well knew that extreme cold, especially 
 when joined with fatigue, produces a torpor and 
 sleepiness almost irresistible, conjured the company to 
 keep moving, whatever pain it might cost them, and 
 -whatever relief they might be promised by an inclina- 
 don to sleep. " Whoever sits down," sajs he, " will 
 
LETTER VIIL 133 
 
 ^ sleep; and whoever sleeps will wake no move. 
 " Thus," adds our author, " at once admonished and 
 ** alarmed, they set forward ; but the cold became 
 *' suddenly so intense, as to produce the effects that 
 *' had been most dreaded. Dr. Solander himself was 
 " the first who found the inclination, against which 
 " he had warned others, irresistible ; and insisted on 
 " being siifFered to lie down." — Mark here the value 
 of association, and of those connected in a society 
 taking a friendly interest in one. another's safety and 
 welfare. Professing Christians, like these circum- 
 navigators, are apt to foil asleep-; and if this be in- 
 dulged, they may sleep the sleep of death. In a so- 
 ciety, however, this tendency is not so likely to seize 
 all at once. When one is affected by it, the friendly 
 exertions of his brethren m.ay contribute to rouse him, 
 and when his vigour and activity are renewed, he 
 may, perfiaps, have occasion to repay to each in 
 turn, the friendly ofiices which in time of need he re- 
 ceived from him. In this deliglitful kind of intercourse 
 wliich the Lord Jesus has established among his people, 
 we have duty and interest combined. To all the other 
 inducements to the exercise of brotherly love, v%-e have 
 that powerful one superadded, which a regard to our 
 ownspiritual safety and improvementis fitted to produce. 
 But it is not merely a loss that is sustained by the 
 careless individuals of a church, where such relaxed 
 notions of the nature of Christian communion obtain ; 
 they receive a most serious positive Injury. When you 
 allow men to partake of the ordinances of Christliin- 
 ky who are living in sin, what is the result? Yoa 
 foster tliem in a system of the most dreadful self- 
 deception. They will admit they have their fillings, 
 and that they are not among the strictest class of Christ-. 
 
 M 
 
134 LETTER VIIL 
 
 ians : but still, they hope they are among the number- 
 Men, in looking forward to futurity, though the thought 
 of it should be extremely transient, generally wish to 
 have something to rest on. A mere profession of religion 
 often forms a prop here, which however unavailing, at 
 least prevents them from looking for any other support. 
 In this way many, by being permitted to partake of sa- 
 ,cred ordinances while living in sin, are lulled asleep in 
 a state of the most fatal security ; while, if they were 
 denied admission to these, and led to suppose they had 
 no claim whatever to the Christian character, of all 
 •means this would be the most likely to excite in them 
 a serious concern about the world to come. I can speak 
 here from personal observation. I have no hesitation 
 in concluding every one who joins in the participation 
 of ordinances with persons living in sin, as contri- 
 buting his share to that system of self-deception, 
 which will be found at last to have ruined thousands. 
 It is unnecessary particularly to describe the perni- 
 ■cious effects of the want of discipline in a church, upon 
 the general body of its members. These may be disco- 
 vered from what has been already said respecting in- 
 dividual offenders. " A little leaven," says the apostle, 
 " leavens the whole lump;*' and it is on this consider- 
 ation he urges the exclusion of persons living in sin 
 from a church of Christ. But I shall now conclude 
 this letter with noticing the effects which a departure 
 here from the standard of scripture naturally produces 
 oipon the world at large. 
 
 Of late years, there have been many complaints of % 
 the alarming spread of infidelity in these lands. It is j 
 true, indeed, there has been a much more extensive \ 
 r'.YOwal of it, though surely those who have made 
 :that .avowal were never any thing else but infidels 
 
LETTER VIIL 135 
 
 at heart. But, without examining whether real 
 infidelity be at present on the increase or decline in 
 this country, we will be jastined in asserting, that few 
 things contribute more to its diffusion, than the sad 
 prostitution of sacred ordinances that prevails amongst 
 us. What was it that helped forward the infidelity 
 of France ? The mummery of Popish superstition ; 
 the play of priestcraft ; the observance of a parcel of 
 forms and ceremonies, while the native power and 
 spirit of the religion of Jesus was completely obscured. 
 What notions were superficial observers led from these 
 to form of Christianity r They might view it in the 
 light of a political institution ; they might speculate 
 upon its utility in this respect ; but if tliey inquired no 
 farther than what they saw, the idea of the divinity 
 of its origin would never occur to their minds. Are 
 no similar effects likely to be produced from the pro- 
 stitution of sacred ordinances in these lands ? In the 
 early ages of Christianity, the consistent lives of pro- 
 fessing Christians was one most powerful means by 
 which its influence was diffused. The heathens beheld 
 in these the glorious effects which this heavenly system 
 produced. But if instead of this, a profession of it be 
 exhibited to the world as compatible with a life of sin; 
 if the drunkard, the sw^earer, the sabbath-breaker, be 
 seen seated at the sacred table, must not the observer 
 be either shocked at the profanity of it, if he has any 
 respect for Christianity at all ; or if the revei se be his 
 char.icter, must not such a sight dispose him to look 
 upon religion as a mere farce, and thus contribute to. 
 confirm him in his infidelity ? 
 
 I am,, &£». 
 
7 i^TT'lf? IQ 7ir 
 
 #HS.t£TIAN ERETMREM, 
 
 In the preceding letter I have finished what it vrns- J 
 fhieHy my design to lay before you, as the grounds 
 t)f my separation from the established church. I have 
 attempted to shew in what respects its constitution 
 seems to be unscriptural ; and any. one who views it in 
 this light, can no longer consistently or conscienti- 
 ously subscribe it. I have also endeavoured to point 
 cut such flagrant defects in the administration of its 
 discipline (defects, too, which from the nature of the 
 system admit of no remedy), that whoever examines 
 the rules laid down in scripture upon this subject, 
 must see the necessity of relinquishing that commu- 
 nion, before he can observe them. Some miscellaneous 
 tJ3pics remain connected with this subject, but which 
 the plan I had adopted precluded me from bringing 
 forward in the course of the preceding letters. On 
 these, I shall in this concluding one suggest a few 
 observations. 
 
 Here, then, I would first observe, that the princi- . 
 pies above stated, furnish a sufficient answer to a 
 question that has been often asked, viz. Wliy do those 
 who have of late professed to be so zealous, to diffuse- 
 
LETTER IX, 137 
 
 tiie knowledge of the uospel throu h this country, not 
 confine their exertions to those places where it is not 
 preached. This, indeed, might have been useful; but 
 it is not done. They go to places where, even ac- 
 cording to their own account, it is preached already ; 
 as well as to those where it is not. This remark is 
 chiefly applicable to those towns where houses have 
 of late been opened for the preaching of the gospel, 
 and churches on congregational principles formed.- 
 In answering this objection, it is net necessary to re-- 
 sort to the consideration of the places of worship- 
 in the establishment, where the doctrines of Christ- 
 ianity are faithfully taught, being in general quite 
 inadequate to the reception of the great body of the 
 inhabitants. Although it could be shewn there were 
 places sufficient to contain all who would attend them 
 where these doctrines are clearly preached, still we- 
 c-onceive it would be decidedly* the duty of Christ-- 
 ians to separate from the mass of immoral professors, 
 with which, in their present state, they are unavoid- 
 ably connected, ?nd no longer to countenance a system 
 which, when .taken as a whole, they cannot consider to ■ 
 be founded on the word of God.- The question here, 
 is simply this. Is the preaching of the gospel the 
 only thing Christians are called to look for in a church 
 of Christ ; or if this be obtained, may we deliberately 
 dispense with other' express institutions of his kincr- 
 dom ? If Christians find themselves placed in a situ- 
 ation Avhere they cannot observe these, are they not 
 plainly called to look out for another in which they 
 can? We are not here to be alarmed at the chanp-e 
 
 o 
 
 of separation. The only separation we should dre^d, . 
 is that which involves a departure from the laws of the^:- 
 liord. Jesus. It is this alone that will be fgund - ci> ■ 
 
138 LETTER IX. 
 
 ininal at last, whether it be practised by few or by 
 inanv. 
 
 Again. — Occupy t'lll I come^ is an important precept 
 left on record by the great Head of the church, the 
 force of which men will feel in proportion to their 
 impressions of their obligations to him who delivered 
 it. Among other talents of usefulness, />/"'?/>(?/■/)' is one 
 which he has bestowed in various degrees upon his 
 people, and which of course, they are called to ini-- 
 prcve to the utmost of their power. Here, we cannot 
 but admire the connexion that subsists between dif* 
 ferent branches of Christian duty, and the tendency 
 which the discovery of one has to throw new light 
 upon another. In a former letter I had occasion to 
 notice the extensive interest in Missionary exertions 
 that v/as excited a few years ago, and how generally 
 the principle is now* acknowledged among Christians, 
 that they are bound to contribute, according to their 
 abilities, to send the gospel to their heathen brethreui 
 In the progress of inquiry, this naturally led to ai> 
 other topic, the degree in which the friends of Christ*- 
 ianity are call-ed to employ their substance in pro- 
 moting tliis object. Whatever had been- done by some 
 individuals in this way previous to that period, cer^ 
 tainly the general body of Christians had been ac- 
 customed to do very little.* The truth is, a field for 
 
 * On this Kubject, the language of a late animated ad- 
 dress to the Chri,stian public is peculiarly forcible and just. 
 *< We (Christians) have not been sufficiently separated 
 *' from the world, either in our pursuits or ourepiiit. We 
 " have been drawn into the vortex of worldly ambition 
 " and covetous desires. We have been hoarding up riches 
 " for our children as it was in our power, though it be 
 " like building v/alls between them and heaven-.- Yes: 
 *' Christians, as if they had made a covenant with death, 
 "and with hell were at agreement, have distinguished 
 ** thi^r.sje-vcs in the accumulation of wealth, the. display of _ 
 
LETTER IX. IS§ 
 
 Stich pecuniary exertion had not been pointed out ; 
 but as soon as it was, the obligation to supply tho 
 sinews of exertion in order to occupy it, naturally 
 occurred. It is, however, much to be lamented, that 
 though the doctrine of scripture respecting the duty 
 of Christians to employ their property in the service 
 of the gospel, has since that time frequently been 
 pointed out, its influence is still much less extensive 
 among professors than could be wished. Nor can 
 this be matter of surprise ; for, as it is not merely a 
 speculative principle, but one that enters very deeply 
 into our general habits and mode of living, we cannot 
 expect any to act upon it wdio are not decidedly the 
 followers of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 When the question is indeed asked, to what extens 
 we are called to employ our substance in this manner; 
 it is obvious, from the various degrees in which it is 
 bestow^ed on men, as well as the almost endless variety 
 in the peculiar circumstances of each, that no parti- 
 
 ** finery in their furniture, cqufpnge, and houses, and have 
 " spent much of their time in paying and receiving useless 
 " visits, while but a fmall portion of their abundance or 
 " leisure has been applied in the service of Him who 
 *' bought them with a price, and gave them all they enjoy. 
 " During a long period of uninterrupted prosperity and 
 " peace at home, and for the space of more than a century 
 ** of religious liberty, many of them have been dwelling in 
 " their ceiled houses, while the Lord's house has been lying 
 " waste. They have fatisfied themselves saying, the time 
 " is not come, the time that the Lord's house should 
 **^ be built. Their poorer brethren have in their measure 
 " been actuated by the same spirit. The mite of poverty 
 " and the offering of abundance have been almost equally 
 " withheld. Self-indulgence has been substituted for the 
 " devising of liberal thmgs, or the performance of felf-de- 
 ** nying services." The whole of this exct llent address 
 is seriously recommended to the attention of every reader* 
 
 SEE ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY 
 
 FOR PROPAGATING THE GOSPEL AT HOME. Edin. iSc.^;;. 
 
liO LETTER IX. 
 
 cular rule can be prescribed. But though this Is the- 
 case, there are some general points which seem pretty 
 plain, and which, if acknowledged, shew how little 
 attention professing Christians in general pay- to this 
 subject. These may be considered as somewhat ap- 
 proaching, at least, to a rule which will suit men in 
 almost every situation. It may be useful to mention 
 4 few of them. 
 
 Though Christianity is no levelling system ; thought 
 it does not require all to live exactly in the same style;, 
 ■yet every one must see, in whatever station he is 
 placed in providence (unless confined to the mere 
 necessaries of life), that there is a certain range in the 
 scale, a certain difference between what he may spend 
 on his person or famJly, and that degree of penurious- 
 ness which would excite ridicule and contempt, and 
 which would destroy tke eifects of his example on. 
 those around him. It is plain, the ability of a Christ- 
 ian to contribute by his property to promote the cause- 
 of the gospel, will be in a considerable measure af-- 
 fected by the place in this scale he is disposed to og-- 
 cupy. Now, what Christianity here requires, there- 
 seems little difficulty in determining. — Again, if from . 
 this general observation we descend to particulars, 
 which is commonly done In conversation on this sub- 
 ject ; though a man cannot always draw the line of 
 distinction between the necessaries and the comforts 
 of life, and the comforts and the luxuries of It, there 
 are many articles he can have no difficulty in placing. - 
 in their proper classes here. How many, for example, 
 cannot be considered as conducive either, to health or 
 comfort, but plainly belong to the catalogue of the^ 'j 
 r^ratifications of the pride of life ? Where property is - j 
 so much required for the diifusion of the gospel, every 
 coiiscientLous Christian who desires faithfully to follow. 
 
LETTER IX. 141 
 
 his self-denied Master, will be at little loss to discover 
 in what direction the path of duty in this case will 
 lead. — In like manner, a good deal of money is often 
 expended in some trifling or frivolous gratification, in 
 the indulgence of some particular whim, in defence of 
 which nothing can be pleaded but a little temporary 
 amusem.ent. If this be such as does no harm to so- 
 ciety, it generally goes by the name of innocent ; and 
 it is conceived, if a man comes lawfully by what he 
 possesses, he is entitled to spend It in any way he 
 thinks fit. Every discerning Christian, however, will 
 judge diiferently here. He knovrs that this Is a most 
 criminal abuse of property, where so many cases occur, 
 in which the sovereign Proprietor demands it for the 
 advancement of his own glory, in promoting the eter- 
 nal interests of the children of men. — Once more, it is 
 a rule of scripture, that we should provide for those 
 of our own household. But how often Is this sadly 
 perverted, when It is urged as an apology for hoarding 
 up money, after a man knows that a competent pro- 
 vision is already made for his family, while the urgent 
 calls ot Providence require him to contribute to the im- 
 mediate relief of those who are perishing In their Ini- 
 quities, from ignorance of the path of life. In these 
 remarks I have only noticed the obligations of Christ- 
 ians, to administer by their property to the spread of 
 the gospel. I have omitted those under which they 
 lie, to alleviate the bo^'i/y distresses of their fellow- 
 creatures, not because they are either less binding, or 
 appear in the general practice of professors to be suf- 
 ficiently felt, but because .they are at least more ge- 
 neially acknowledged, and our obligations of the 
 former class are more Immediately connected with the 
 subject of our present discussion. 
 
 J.t may be thought by many I might have gon© 
 
U2 LETTER IX. 
 
 farther, and stated some more specific rules on this 
 subject. My design, however, rather is to direct the 
 attention of my Christian brethren to the important 
 duty of the conscientious application of property ; 
 as I am persuaded it is not so much owing to the 
 difficulty of discovering it, as to a prevailing inatten- 
 tion to it that it is so little observed. The period is daily 
 drawing nearer, when we shall all be called to give 
 an account of our stewards]] ip ; and who would not 
 wish, that his report should indicate the utmost possible 
 fidelity, in the improvement of every talent v/lth which 
 he was entrusted. The question with us ought to be, • 
 not how much have we done ; but can we do more ; 
 or is there is a possibility, that by more assiduously 
 watching every opportunity of usefulness, and by in- 
 creased vigour of exertion, we may more extensively 
 advance our Master's glory, and thus turn the reinain- 
 ing portion of our short abode on earth to a better 
 account than that which has already elapsed. 
 
 Some may here be disposed to remark, all this m.ay 
 be correct enough ; but what is its connexion w-ith the 
 subji^'ct of these letters ? The connexion is this. Some 
 of those V. ho v\'ere hostile to foreign missions, suggested 
 as <in apology for not ct-u,itenanc"ng them, th.it we had 
 plcnfy of heathens athon:;e. Why, said they, expend 
 your property by sending persons to distant countries 
 to diiiuse the knowledge of Christianity, wnile there 
 are thrsusands in our own land living in such ignorance 
 and wickedness. Though this reasoning was originally 
 used as an apology for not contributing to missionary- 
 exertions at ail, it suggested a useful hint. Many 
 Christians, aware of the truth of the assertion, saw 
 the necessity of doing something in behalf of the nu- 
 merous class of their Ignorant countrymen. But how 
 was this to be doae ? la connexion with the established. 
 
LETTER IX, 145 
 
 cliurch it could not. Melancholy as the situation of 
 many parts of Scotland in a religious view is, such a 
 connexion absolutely precludes a man from using the 
 means God has appointed for remedying it. It is true, 
 if he has propert}^ he may disseminate useful books; 
 and on some occasions he may get a catechist intro- 
 duced; but what is the great means of divine appoint- 
 ment ? Preaching the gospel. He is forced then to 
 become a dissenter, before he can with any consistency 
 either employ this method of difl\ising the knowledge 
 of divine truth, or take an active share in any measures 
 which have such an object in view^ 
 
 It must surely then, to every serious and reflecting 
 mind, argue some radical defect in the established 
 system, that while amidst the acknowledged want of 
 evangelical instruction in many parts of this country, 
 it not only makes no provision itself for remedying the 
 evil, but, from its principles, absolutely precludes any 
 witiiin its pale from attempting it, though they were 
 willing to do so at their own expence. I suppose it 
 ■will be generally allowed, that if any private members 
 of the establishment were to send a person to preach 
 the gospel into any parish whatever, they would be 
 considered as following divisive courses; and, however 
 much their zeal might be secretly applauded by such 
 erangelical ministers as are really in spirit, dissenters 
 from the majority of their brethren, they could not 
 openly support such a cause.* It is true, there is one 
 way, and, so far as I kncv/, only one, in which the 
 members of the established church can employ pro- 
 perty in promoting the preaching of the gospel ; I 
 
 * On two or three occasions before I left the establishment, 
 I collected a few people, and addressed them from a pas- 
 s.^ge of scripture in the parishes of otlitTministtrs, without 
 baving previously asked their consent; but not at the time 
 
144 LETTER IX. 
 
 mean by purchasing presentations, and thus bringing 
 forward evaneelical ministers into situations of use- 
 fulness. This is, however, a very precarious method. 
 For, omitting other objections to the measure, if there 
 be an incumbent in the parish at the time the right of 
 patronage is bought, it may be a long time before the 
 possession of it can be of any service. — Again, though 
 it should be purchased with the purest motives, after 
 the death of the immediate purchaser the management 
 of il must be left to others ; and every one who has 
 attended to this subject must know the extreme diffi- 
 culty of leaving a trust of this nature, in such a man- 
 ner that the views of the person in whom it was ori- 
 ginally vested shall be faithfully followed out. But 
 besides, if we could suppose all these difficulties re- 
 move J., and that immediarely on the purchase of the 
 right of patronage, it was in the power of the pur- 
 chaser to introduce an evangelical preacher into the 
 living, though a certain degree of good might in this 
 way be obtained, it would certainly be less than if a 
 person of the same character and principles could be 
 placed in the same part of the country, unconnected 
 with the establishment.. Such a connexion would not 
 only confine his usefulness to a particular spot, hor/ever 
 destitute the neighbouring district might be; but Vv'hile 
 
 when there v/as public worship in the established church. 
 This, I understood afterwards, gave offence; though it was 
 never taken notice of to me while I remained in the esta- 
 blishment, but vras (as I have learnt) made a ground of 
 charge after I left it. It was supposed to come undc-r the 
 general charge of following divisive courses ; a phrase of 
 that convenient latitude, that every one may apply it as he 
 thinks fit. I suppose, however, that whatever latitude any 
 one may attach to the expression, none will question whe- 
 ther, in the present state of thin2:s, such a measure would 
 be allowed ; and yet it is very diflcrent from the one above 
 supposed, that of countenancing stated preaching in an/ 
 neighbouring parish. 
 
LETTER IX. 145 
 
 it subjected him to the jurisdiction of the presbytery, 
 it would totally unfit him from acting in the capacity 
 of a pastor, agreeably to the dictates of the word of 
 God. 
 
 In reflecting on this subject, I cannot but express 
 my regret and surprise, that many opulent individuals 
 in the established church, whose principles lead theni 
 to consider many parts of this country as destitute Ol 
 the proper means of spiritual instruction, should not 
 have done something in this way to remedy such an 
 evil, as it is the only way in which they can do it. 
 There 'must surely be something very defective in 
 those principles, which can allow us to sit unconcerned, 
 while we know that many are p>erishing for lack c^f 
 knowledge, if we can possibly be instrumental in pro- 
 ■curing for them the means by which it may be ol> 
 "tained. Such were not the principles by which Paul 
 ■was animated. He laboured to the utmost, that none 
 to whom his influence could in any shape extend, 
 should remain ignorant of the way of salvation. I 
 have heard indeed some pious ministers insinuate en 
 this subject, that if the Lord had any good to do in 
 a particular parish, it was easy for him either to bring 
 the present minister, if a careless one, to an acquaint- 
 ance with the gospel, or to remove him, and to place 
 a faithful one in his room. Such reasoning, however, 
 hardly deserves a serious reply. It is making the 
 secret counsels of God the rule of duty to us ; it is 
 limiting the Holy one of Israel; it is not only suppos- 
 ing the establishment is the most litely way in which 
 he will communicate his grace, but that it is the only 
 way in which we can at all 'expect such a favour. 
 This mode of reasoiiing can furnish no solid apology 
 for neglecting that express command, *»vhich req^uires 
 
 N 
 
146 LETTER IX, 
 
 that the gospel be preached to every creature. It 
 may be considered, I thhik, as an indisputable maxim 
 in Christian theology, that if there be any within our 
 reach remaining destitute of the appointed means of 
 becoming acquainted with the word of life, while it 
 is at all in our power to communicate these, there is 
 something which, upon Christian principles, must at 
 once be condemned ; iTnd any system which precludes 
 us from employing such means, cannot be founded on 
 the word of God. 
 
 There is another topic to which, in this concluding 
 letter, I beg leave shortly to call your attention. It is 
 the charge oi party fplrit, which almost all classes of 
 professing Christians are so much disposed to allege 
 against those who dilier from them. As it is a 
 feature of the character which all condemn, it 
 forms a very convenient charge, when on any con- 
 troverted subject one wishes to discountenance in- 
 quiry. I have little doubt that many, in reading the 
 preceding letters, will insinuate they contain just the ] 
 sentiments of a party, and that they are intended to | 
 condemn all, except the denomination to which the 
 writer belongs. But is this reasonable or just ? Is it 
 the way in which the progress of truth is to be pro- 
 moted ; or is it not the most effectual way to retard 
 it ? Is it not the method which many adopt to turn 
 aside the attention of others from subjects which they 
 do not wish them to examine, because they fear, per- 
 haps, what may be the consequences of inquiry ? If in 
 discussing any^ subject, a sim.ple appeal is made to the 
 word of God ; if it is brought forward as the only 
 ground on which we approve of som^e practices and 
 opinions, and condemn others ; we may be liable to 
 .the cliarge of jjiisapprehending its meaning, or reason- 
 
LETTER IX, Uf 
 
 ing inconclusively from It ; but that of party spirit 
 seems, in such a case, totally irrelevant. — But, does 
 not such a spirit actually exist ? Is it not often mani- 
 fested ? and does it not frequently stain religious con- 
 troversy ? In what then, does it properly consist ? 
 Any man, I answer, seems liable to this charge, who 
 maintains any part of his system not by scriptural evi- 
 dence, but merely by the opinions and usages of those 
 Vv'ith whom he associates ? Such a spirit is farther indi- 
 cated by a disposition to deny any excellence in the cha- 
 raters of those not of our party, though there may be 
 the most explicit evidence of their distinguished piety; 
 or, if this is Incontrovertible, to call in every circum- 
 stance by which we may detract from that excellence 
 as much as possible. I'his is often accompanied with 
 a corresponding disposition, to Imagine every kind of 
 worth is concentrated in those of our own denomina- 
 tion, and a determination to resist any evidence by 
 wliich this opinion might be shaken. Party spirit 
 Hke^^Ise manifests Itself by a readiness to hear with 
 secret satisfaction, of the disputes that prevail among, 
 those who dliTcr from us, or any thing that may tend 
 to diminish their Influence, instead of feeling for the 
 defects of our Christian brethren, and for the injury 
 which religion sustains In the eyes of the world from 
 the unelrcumspect conduct of any of Its professors. 
 It Is also frequently discovered In a disposition to 
 question, If any good can be done among any deno- 
 mination but our own; and, instead of rejoicing in the 
 gospel being any where successfully preached, in feel- 
 ing a secret grudge that, If the spread of its influence 
 was to take place, we and our friends should not have 
 been the instruments chosen to promote it. 
 
 Si^ch then, are the symptoms of an michrlstian party 
 
 N 2 
 
148 LETTER IX, 
 
 spirit; but to comply with the apostolic admonition, in 
 earnestly contending for what we apprehend to be the 
 faith once delivered to the saints, if it is done in the 
 iipirit of the gospel, and by a uniform appeal to the 
 V70rd of God, while at the same time we rejoice in all 
 tbe good that either appears in the characters, or is 
 accomplished by the exertions of any cf cur Christian 
 brethren, can with no propriety expose us to such a 
 charge. It frequently, however, happens, that they 
 are loudest in their exclamations against such a spirit, 
 v-'ho are themselves most deeply tinctured by it. You 
 T. ill often meet v/ith men v.'ho cannot hear with any 
 tolerable patience a single argument against their pre- 
 conceived opinions, who will neither read themselves, 
 r.or so far as their influence extends, allow others to 
 read what is opposed to them ; who are all the while 
 complaining vehemently of the party spirit by which 
 others are actuated. There surely cannot be a more 
 decided indication of that very disposition of which 
 such persons complain, than in refusing to examine any 
 argum.ent professedly founded on the vrord of God. 
 If it be a false one, let its fallacy be pointed out, and 
 then v^'e are entitled boldly to discard it ; till this be 
 done, it possesses an undoubted claim to our most 
 serious regard. 
 
 These observations lead me to take notice of an 
 obiection I have sometimes heard stated against one 
 principle by which, perhaps, as much as any other, 
 the mem.bers of the independent churclies lately insti- 
 tuted in this country are distinguished. The principle 
 consists in being prepared to change oiir opinions on 
 any point, wherever we see that increasing light thrown 
 upon scripture requires us to do so. This, we have 
 b^en often told, is a very convenient principle. It is 
 
LETTER IX, 149 
 
 impossible, from your opinions, one day to know what 
 they are to be next. In this way, there is no security 
 given that you are not to depart even from the funda- 
 mental doctrines of the gospel. It forms an excellent 
 handle for the designing to impose upon the unv/ary : 
 but people must be very foolish, indeed, who connect 
 themselves with a denomination which, before they 
 are aware, may lead them into the most dangerous 
 errors. No ! no ! Let us have some fixed standard 
 to which you pledge yourselves to adhere, and then 
 we shall know where to find you. — How far the prin- 
 ciple is a convenient one, is not with us a rnatter of 
 concern. How far is it scriptural, is our only inquiry, . 
 Neither is it necessary to examine what evidence the 
 history of the church affords us in proof, that sub,- • 
 scribing a public formula secures against a departure- 
 even from the fundamental doctrines of the Christian- 
 faith ; — a very cursory view of the state of the two 
 established churches of this kingdom seems sufficiently 
 to settle this point. But surely, those who themselves 
 believe the fundamenti.l doctrines of the gospel, ar6 
 very incautious In suggesting that any danger can. 
 arise to these, from a principle, by which the supreme 
 authority of scripture is so decidedly acknowledgedo . 
 There Is certainly no want of scriptural evldencf in 
 support of them ; and if this be the case, the higher 
 the respect is that is she^vvn to such' evidence, the 
 more firmly is their influence established.. But If we • 
 suppose that someone, from the seductive, iniluence 
 of error, wa\. led In his private sentiments to abandon ■ 
 these doctrines, by conceiving them not founded on 
 the word of. God, would it be his duty In such a case 
 publicly to m.aintain them ? Surely not. By doing so, , 
 incerity^ one^ of the first principles of religion, Svould-i 
 
150 LETTER IX. 
 
 be directly violated. If it be thought that subscrip- 
 tion to a formula may secure professional orthodoxy, 
 whatever a man's private sentiments may be, It is no 
 desirable attainment. In such a case, it can only 
 foster hypocrisy ; and, before the principles of the 
 formula can be preached, the integrity of the preacher 
 must be sacrificed. 
 
 But farther, do Protestants admit any other rule 
 than that of scripture, as the rule of their faith ? Da 
 they claim infallibility in the attainments they have 
 made ; or do they suppose they have already reached 
 such a maturity in knowledge, that there is no room^ 
 for farther improvement. No ! these are principles 
 they avowedly disclaim. If they do so then, is it any 
 thing more than consistency requires, to stand pre- 
 pared to follow the increasing light of scripture, whl- 
 tliersoever it may lead, the very principle for which we 
 are contending ? AH,. too, will allow it is our duty daily 
 to pray for more enlarged, or more correct views of 
 every part of revealed truth. Surely, a principle then, 
 which allows us, without restraint, to act on such an in- 
 crease of knowledge, is at least much more consistent 
 with such a duty, than when we pledge ourselves to 
 maintain a certaia. class of principles to which, what- 
 ever alteration in the progress of inquiry our opinions 
 may experience, we are un.der a powerful temptation 
 professedly to adhere. 
 
 Before I conclude these letters, there is one class 
 into w^hose hands they may occasionally fall, and 
 w:hose attention I would particularly request to the 
 subjects discussed in, them ; I mean such as propose 
 to engage in the work, of the ministry. I do not here 
 allude to such as think of the sacred office merely as 
 a,, method, of obtaining a livelihood. Persons of this. 
 
LETTER IX, 151 
 
 description (and it is to be feaied there are too many) 
 will be apt to treat any expostulations on this subject 
 with contempt. Any difficulties about the subscrip- 
 tion of a formula, they consider as the silly scruples 
 of weak minds ; and they would conceive it very 
 foolish to stickle about subscribing almost any articles^ 
 if a presentation to a comfortable living called on 
 them to do so. There are, however, some of another 
 description, who, in the prospect of engaging in the 
 work of the ministry, are deeply impiessed Vv'ith the 
 vast importance of the service, and the awful respon- 
 sibility connected with the manner in which it is per- 
 formed. Do not, my young friends, think that it is 
 from a desire to promote the interests of a party, that 
 I would seriously entreat you to examine well the 
 grounds on which you proceed. Much of your future 
 comfort depends on your being satisfied that the situ- 
 ation you may be called to occupy is agreeable to 
 scripture, and that all the doctrines you subscribe are 
 strictly founded on its authority. If you entertain 
 doubts on this subject, though by the persuasion and 
 example of good men whose opinions you respect, 
 and whose characters you venerate, these may for a 
 season be laid asleep ; they will awake again ; they 
 will- meet you at every turn ; and if you are not more 
 successful in getting quit of them than some of your- 
 predecessors, they will not only mar your comfort, 
 but by depressing your spirits, they will damp your 
 exertion, and mar your usefulness. Besides, this is the - 
 time you are most fit to examine these points. I do 
 n.ot say you can now do it with the greatest ability, but 
 you can now do it with the greatest impartiality. A 
 shrewd observer of human nature has justly remarked, 
 ttat a man's character is apt to be formed much 
 
15^2 LETTER IX, 
 
 more by the temptations, tlnm by the duties of his pro-- 
 fesslon. Even at present you will feel a bias, (for ic^. 
 is unpleasant to discover truths which will level at one 
 stroke all our projected plans of comfort and useful- 
 ness,) but that bias will become much stronger after 
 you are fairly embarked. The propensity then, is pe- 
 culiarly strong, to justify the step we have taken; and 
 our capacity of examining evidence on the subject, 
 diminishes (unless some very striking incident occur) 
 in proportion as our temptations to support one set cf 
 principles increase. It is far less difficult to avoid 
 going forwaid than to recede.* Of late years, the 
 
 * On this subject-, the fallowing very just observations 
 ocJcur, in a work lately published by a respectable writer 
 C(5nnccted with the church of England. — " Against a tempt- 
 " ation to use unwarrantable latitude in interpreting the-, 
 •" articles,. it is the duty of every one who studies theni:> 
 « with a v lev/ to subscription, honestly and diligently to » 
 **, guard. A desire, previously formed, of entering into the ^ 
 « church; the difficulties and inconveniencies of turning 
 << to another line of life ; the suggestions of interest in all' 
 " its fliapes, refeiring to past expences and to future pro- 
 " spects ; these, and other circumstances, will be very apt 
 "to bias the judgment, and influence the determination, 
 " of the inquirer. Let him never forget his danger; let 
 *' him examine the meaning of the several articles \vjth 
 ** upright views and impartial investigation; let him not 
 " content himself with perusing what has been written in ^ 
 « their defence ;«kbut qualify himself to form a satisfactory - 
 '* decision respecting their conformity to the scriptures, 
 ** in the same manner in which ne would enable himself' 
 " to determine any other controverted point, by informing 
 " himself of the principal arguments alleged aga.inst them, . 
 " and appreciating with equal deliberation and fairness 
 " what he finds urged on either side of the question. Let 
 *< him remember, that if he subscribes while perplexed 
 «' by distracting doubts, and without peace and satisfaction 
 " of mind, he not only incurs present g.uilt, and guilt too 
 "which' will be likely to be continually aggravated, as 
 «< long as he remains a minister of the established churcii 
 «' with his scruples unremoved ; but entails upon himself 
 « constant uneasiness anji disquiet, and constant, teicpia- 
 " tions tocndcavom- to bund his judgment, and titifle his 
 
LETTER IX. 153 
 
 subjects treated in these letters, have been much more 
 discussed than formerly ; and if these discussions have 
 contributed to throw any additional light upon them, 
 we become prcportionably culpable, if we either refuse 
 to examine them, or resist what scriptural evidence is 
 adduced to support. There is one principle, however, 
 the truth of which we will all acknowledge, and the 
 importance of which to our comfort we will all feel. 
 Let every one be persuaded in his own mind. I am 
 far from thinking that what has appeared decided 
 evidence to me, will carry evqual conviction to others; 
 but let the subject be examined with impartiality and 
 prayer ; let us be prepared to submit to evidence^ 
 vherever it may appear, and to follow truth whither- 
 soever it may lead us. Whatever be the issue of ia- 
 quiry, it is only thus that solid and permanent satis- 
 faction can be obtained. 
 
 I shall be happy, if any thing I have stated shall 
 contribute t© the diffusion of principles, which I am 
 convinced are equally connected with the comfort of 
 individual Christians, and the general prosperity of 
 the church of Christ. The more I consider the sub- 
 ject, the more am I persuaded that the present union 
 between Christians and the world is extremely un- 
 favourable to both these objects; but many are begin- 
 ning to inquire into this point, by whom it had long 
 
 ** conviction ; temptations which will increase in propor- 
 *' tion to the length of time during which he shall iiave 
 " been a minister of the national church, and to the pre- 
 *' ferment and profits which he derives frpm it. If the re- 
 *' suit of his inquiries and reflections should be such, that 
 *< he feels himself incapable of making the necessary sub- 
 ** scription with a safe and quiet conscience, let him desist 
 *' from his intention of enrolling himself among the clery 
 *' of the establishment. — inquiry into the duties off 
 
 MiVN, BY THOMAS CISBORNE, A. M. LONDON, p. 3^6* 
 
15^. LETTER IX, 
 
 been overlooked ; and if this inquiry be conducted 
 with candour and seriousness, and with a uniform 
 appeal to the word of God, I have little doubt it will 
 issue in a degree of separation from the world, which 
 comparatively few have yet seen it their duty to adopt. 
 In the preceding letters I have studiously avoided any 
 modes of expression which might appear unreasonably 
 severe against those from whom I am forced to differ. 
 Iji this I hope I have succeeded. If I thought there 
 was a single expression justly exceptionable on this 
 ground, I would instantly expunge it. It is much to 
 be regretted that a handle is often given to the ene- 
 mies of the gospel, from the unchristian spirit with 
 which publications of a controversial kind are con- 
 ducted. It is surely possible for Christians to point 
 out to others wherein they think them wro'ng, without 
 losing sight of the equally important duty, of endea- 
 vouring to exhibit to the vrorld the disinguishing spirit 
 of the gospel of Christ. 
 
 I have only farther to present to my readers the 
 following requests. First, Though some of the po- 
 sitions contained ia these letters be thought question- 
 able, let not these be considered as affecting the evi- 
 dence of such as are satisfactorily proved. We do 
 not look for infalilbility in any human publication ; 
 nay, we should probably be disposed indignantly to 
 throw aside any one, in which the audior had the 
 arrogance to claim it ; and yet we often see one con- 
 demned, merely, it would appear, because it does 
 not possess this character ; or, in other words, be- 
 cause there are some positions in it which we conceive 
 not quite tenable. These are often very unfairly se- 
 lected; and, without farther inquiry, they are thought 
 quite sufficient to discredit all the rest. This Is hot 
 
JLETTER IX. 155 
 
 surely the way to read with profit. To do this we 
 must read with discrimination. ** Prove all things, 
 " and hold fast that which is good.'' We should 
 cheerfully receive what appears supported by evidence, 
 though in company with that of which the proof may 
 seem to us extremely defective. 
 
 Secondly. Every one who examines these letters 
 will, I hope, consider his obligations to come to one 
 decision or other on the subjects contained in them ; 
 and whatever decision he forms, to act consistently. 
 I make this request, because I have heard persons in 
 conversation, acquiesce in the validity of almost every 
 argument I have brought forward ; and yet, from the 
 influence of habit, of indifference, of dread of singu- 
 larity, or some such cause, delb^rately go on in sup- 
 porting a system they decidedly condemned. What a 
 strange inconsistency is this ! To the serious attention 
 of such, I would recommend the following very just 
 observations of a respected friend. " When men 
 <* hate any part of divine truth, so as to disobey, con- 
 *' trary to the dictates of conscience ; conscience fre- 
 *' quently relapses into a state of insensibility, and 
 " disobedience comes to be awfully easy. There are 
 " persons v/ho, for a time, were very much Impressed 
 *' with the importance of scriptural communion ; but 
 " they would not act upon their convictions, and their 
 *' convictions are gone. They appear to be quite re- 
 ** conciled to corruptions which alarmed them ; and 
 ** some of them are even zealous to lead others to the 
 " same state of Indifference."* Though, v.-hen we 
 consider the influence of education, of early habit, of 
 early prejudices, and external situation, we cannot 
 precisely ascertain the measure in which we are ac- 
 
 * Sec Missionary Magazine for Feb. 1804, p. 62. . The 
 whole of this article deserves the most attentive perusal. 
 
156 LETTER IX. 
 
 countable, for the want of conviction in spite of evi- 
 dence ; we surely are so in the most unlimited degree, 
 for the manner in which we treat our convictions, after 
 they have been fairly produced. The great Searcher 
 of the heart alone sees them ; and, in the awful pro- 
 spect of appearing before him, should not every 
 man tremble at the tjiought of having failed to act up 
 to the light he has received, and of having resisted 
 convictions which he Is conscious he has experienced ? 
 Let me farther request ; if any one shall think it 
 worth while either to animadvert on these letters, or 
 regularly to answer them, he will not merely fasten on 
 particular expressions in what has been written, amidst 
 manifold unavoidable interruptions, but fairly meet 
 • the general principles they contain, and on scriptural 
 evidence shew that they are unfounded. As I trust 
 they are written with a view ta advance the cause of 
 truth ; and as, in the preceding part of this letter, there 
 is the most unqualified disavowal of any claim to in- 
 falilbillty; I hope I shall feel genuine satisfaction in 
 whatever way that cause Is promoted. 
 
 I am yours, &c. 
 
 W. I. 
 
 • '^••«<,^%N»,w«*^ I 
 
 Chalmers, Ray, & Co. 
 Printers, Dundee 
 
 I 
 
/v»>(^ 
 
 (MMMMMMIMM 
 

 
 ■ff