f -^ h. # (6 •^ (0 *^ .^ Lc i^ CL « CD _<5 -^^ IS i i^ ^ O- 1 ^ 5 '"^ s 1 CD C :::^6<. •« g < m> g "5 3 izq E .§ ;i V •§ -Ci> M (tS .^ .^ -»^ PL, to •^ 1 Q Oi fc ^ '^ s Ck 2^ « c V^ (D 4v_ LL BX 7240 .C377 1807 . ^ Carson, Alexai ider, 1776- 1844. h reply to Mr . Brov m's \7Tndir?rJt -inn ( ^f the :^ ?n Digitized by the Internet Arcinive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/replytomrbrownsvOOcars R E P L Y Mr BROWN'S VINDICATION PRESBTTERIAN FORM CHURCH-GOVERNMENT : IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE APOSTOLICAL CHURCHES IS DEFENDED. /;/ a Series of Letters to the Author. BY ALEXANDER CARSOX, A. M. TUBERMORE, IRELAND. EDINEURGIi: PRINTED AND SOLD BY J. RITCHIE, Also by A. Johnstone, Ogle 8c Aikman, Guthrie 6c Tait, OtiPHANT 8c Brown, and A Black, Edinburgh ; M. Ogle, and R Williamson, Glafgow j E. Lesslie, Dundee; and R. Ogle, and J, BuRDiTT, London. 1807. r J : ;.*'• ^ pRi\;£(?y;o LOGICAL^ VV HATEVER may be t^e judgment of the reader about the question, whether I * fully overthrow/ I think all must allow that I * fairly meet the argu- ; ments' of my antagonist. I have not fastened on " accidental oversip^hts, nor filled my sheets with the refutation of his errors that were either not at all, or at least but remotely connected with the sub- ject. I have not endeavoured to entangle the main principles in debate, nor have made up my book with tedious animadversions upon the weak- est parts of his work. Every man mwst see that I have assailed him in the very places in which he thinks himself strongest, and have either not at all, or very slightly noticed whatever was not of vital importance in the question under discussion. His arguments I have not evaded, but have stated them in their strongest point of view •, because I was convinced, that in their utmost force I could answer them. I was therefore under no tempta- tion to misrepresent him, nor to answer one difli- culty by proposing another. Before I relinquish- ed my situation as a Presbyterian minister, I had so fully considered the question, that I was con- vinced as long as the New Testament was consi- dered as the standard, the system of Presbytery ' could never be successfully vindicated ; but had my antagonist produced a single particle of pre- iV P RET ACE. viously undiscovered trutli, I was prepared to re- ceive it. I will ever hold; myself ready to add to, or subtract from my systfeinj according to Scriptu- ral evidence. The 'moment that my views of church-order, or any part of them, cannot be sup- ported by Scripture, I will not only be happy to see them rejected by the world, but whether the world will reject or receive them, I will reject them. In receiving the truths of God, and giving up errors, we are not to wait on the changing of the world. The author of the work upon which I animad- vert must be allowed to discover an uncommon, an almost unlimited acquaintance with the writers of all ages on both sides of the question. He has raked together the sentiments of almost everyone who has written on the subject, and discovers a minute knowledge of the works of Independent writers, of whose very names I was ignorant. Yet with all this, I do not look upon him to be tho- roughly acquainted with the subject, as founded in the word of God. He treats it like a question to be decided by the authority of names. He seems to think that m.uch can be said on the one side, and as much, or perhaps a little more, on the other ', and that Presbytery has either a prepon- derance of evidence, or at least has equal preten- sions with its rival to divine authority. Now, if the New Testament contains a divine model of church-government, there cannot be one legiti- mate argument for another system. Owing to Preface. t ©ur remriining ignorance, and imperfect acquaint- ance vvith the word of God, there may be diffi- culties opposed to tiic model which the word of God contains, but to suppose any thing like a comparison of well founded contrary evidence for two opposite systems, is an insult upon the Spirit of truth. I HAVE not made my antagonist responsible for any sentiments but his own, nor at any time have lost sight of hiniy in following the arguments of others who have written on his side of the ques- tion. Authorities I have not produced on my side, nor regarded them on his. As the Scrip- tures must decide the matter, to the Scriptures alone I have appealed. I have used the word /«- dependent i rather than apostolical churvhy that no- thing like an unfair advantage might seem to be taken by the use of words. In writings not con- troversial, I do not like to see this word at all, as applied to cliaracterize the churches of Christ, as it is both unscriptural and inadequate. So far from fully conveying a complete view of the dis- tinguishing features of a church of Christ, it gene- rally conveys a very false notion. On other occa- sions then, I would either use the word church alone, or apostolical churchy to distinguish a church of Christ from other societies called churches; but in controversy, it might be thought to take for granted the thing to be proved, for these societies think themselves churches and apostolical churcJies, It is in this view only I ever acknowledge the Ti Preface. word Indep^ndejit^ as applied to a church of Christ. Those who follow the Lord fully, ought to set themselves to reclaim the word church from the corrupt use of it in the world. Had it not been . for the inventions of men, it would have needed no additional epithet to make it intelligible and distinctive. Much of this work consists of critical analysis. The chief talent displayed in the work upon which I animadvert, is a certain evasive subtilty, and a dexterity in imposing the most arbitrary in- terpretations vnth an air of plausibility and confi- dence. As the question must be decided by the testimony of the passages which we interpret in an opposite sense, it became altogether necessary to examine the principles of interpretation employed by my antagonist, and fully ascertain their £dlacy. I have therefore not only shewn that his interpre- tations are not the obvious sense of the words, but have attempted to shew that his principles of in- terpretation are utterly inadmissible upon every subject. For the justness and propriety of my in- terpretation of every text involved in the discus- sion, I appeal to the common sense of mankind, and to the comm.on principles of language. I in- terpret the word of God upon the same principles I would do any other book. There is not one principle of language held inviolable by my anta- gonist. Were his mode of interpretation admit- ted in courts of law, the true intent of every co- venant might not only be evaded, but might be Preface. vli made to imply directly the reverse of their obvi- ous meaning. Should the author then, upon whose work I animadvert, think proper to reply to my animadversions, this is the hinge upon which victory must turn. He explains one way, I ex- plain another ; the criterion of judgment between us then is, — who explains most naturally ? which of us explains agreeably to the usual principles of language ? It were injurious to the character of revelation to suppose, that each of our opposite interpretations has any just foundation in sound criticism. What I have written, I have written as under the eye of the Searcher of hearts. For every line I must render an account ; and had I not more confidence from the review of the day of the Lord, than from the approbation of the world, I would never send my sheets to the Public. I do not even wish that the world, in its present state, should approve of my performance. I have no- thing to hope, I have nothing to fear. It is but a small matter to be judged of men, but I would not for a thousand worlds be found by the Judge of the world to have perverted his laws and ordi- nances, misrepresented his words, and taught his people to forsake his institutions. It may seem a light matter to many to give a turn to a passage of Scripture •, to make it say something agreeable to our system, or evade a disagreeable conse- quence. To me it appears to manifest a most corrupt and base mind, and a most daring pre- Yill %' PREFACI:.. ■ ' sumption against the Spirit of. truth. -Shall God cJeign to> instruct us, and shall we dare to make him speak what we please ? I have no notion that whoever of us is wrong, is innocently wrong. The book of God is intelligible ; if we misunder- ] stand it, we are inexcusable. With upright and unprejudiced minds, I cannot see how systems so opposite should be taken from the word of God, after a thorough examination of the subject. If for every idle word we shall give an account, how much more "awful is the account we must render of our handling the word of God ! Let us then continue this correspondence, under the impression that we.both shall soon appear before the tribunal of the eternal Judge. peiitceto::t \ ncC.JUN 'am ■ \TU1^QLQG1CLL ^ Mr B R O W N. LETTER I. Sir, I CANNOT begin my observations on your Vin- ■dlcation of the Presbyterian System, by professing, as you do, in your first letter to Mr Innes, " the utmost reluctance to address you on the subject of your late publication." I am satisfied that, on whichever side truth lies, the subject merits ample discussion, and that in the end, much good will result from having the ar- guments on each side of the question fully laid before the Public. The works of darkness alone fear the light. It may indeed be peculiarly disagreeable for those, whose temporal interest would be materially affected by a change of opinions, to have their feelings and their consciences harrowed up, by being called to an examination of this subject j but the real disciples of Jesus should always be open to conviction, and willing to learn more fully the mind of their Lord. Though it is exceedingly popular to deplore ' religious B 10 Letter I. controversies/ yet they must be very little acquainted with the apostolical v/ri tings, who do not know that they are almost altogether controversial. The Chri- stian can never cease to oppose error, till error cease to exist. Had you bevrailed the spirit in which con- troversy is frequently conducted, and which you have abundantly exemplified, there would have been good ground for lamentation. But sutely, if we ha^/e any where a pattern of meekness in discussion, we have it from the pen of Mr Innes. Though I can allow, that there is a comparative importance among divine truths 5 yet I cannot admit, that any thing revealed by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus is uniraportant, and should not be brought into view, whatever may be the conse- quences. I am more than ever sensible, from your publication, of the great importance of the question under debate. I see, that to embrace an unscriptural system of church-government, materially affects our understanding of Scripture in general. Multitudes of texts are thus either darkened or evaded. Indeed the spirit, propriety, and meaning, of a great part of the apostolical epistles, are entirely hidden. You remark in your introduction, " That it is the principles only, and not the practices of Presbyterians, that are here defended. The advocate for Presbytery is certainly no more bound to vindicate the latter, in order to establish the former, than the advocate for Christianity is bound to prove that the conduct of Christians is blameless and praise-worthy, in order to sliew that Christianity is divine." As a Presbyterian^ YOU are not Indeed bound to defend all bodies of Pres- byterians, more than a Christian Is bound to defend all bodies called Christian, and every system which has been called Christianity. But, Sir, as an honest man. Letter I. 11 the very Jcind of Presbytery you defend, is the one you will adopt, and none other. A Burgher Seceder is not bound t6 defend the Presbytery of Pielief, nor the latter to defend the church of Scotland } nor are you bound to defend either of the former. But each of you is certainly called upon to defend the system of Presbytery he has adopted, according to the manner of its administration among you. I will therefore look to you for a de- fence of Presbytery and its effects, as they exist in the church of Scotland. Whenever you abandon the ad- ministration of Presbytery in that church, I -^vill ex- pect you, if you continue to hold it as a divine ordi- nance, to abandon your present connection, that you may enjoy it in its divine purity. As an Independent, I am not bound to defend any of the Independent churches, but that one of which I may be a member, or those which I approve by co-operation or fellow- ship, or which exactly agree with the model which I call divine. But certainly, if I am either a member or elder of any church, I am bound to defend it, not as it should be, but as it is. If Presbytery is a divine ordinance, and if it is not in the church of Scotland what it is in the Scriptures, then you have not a di- vine form of government, and you are bound to sepa- rate, that you may enjoy your divine institution. A church might be called Independent, and in many features resemble an apostolical church, yet upon the whole be so far from the divine model, that I would think it duty to stand at as great a distance from it, as from the church of Scotland. If the pastor, or the pastor with the deacons, or a few of the principal members, exclusively manage all church business 5 or if they decide by majorities like worldly courts, or are composed of saints and sinners proinlscuouslv, or 32 Letter I. are " moved away from the hope of the gospel," they ' may call themselves what they please, but they are not constituted upon the divine model. Such indeed, the advocates of the apostoHcal churches are not bound to defend. But when you write against them, you may properly require a defence of the Independency they profess, with all its effects. I should be glad to know how Christianity could be proved to be divine, if it uniformly had a bad tendency, or wanted energy, when received, uniformly to pro- duce good fruits. The Christian is not indeed bound to shew that all who bear that name are blameless and praise-worthy, in order to prove that Christianity is from God. But certainly no argument could prove it divine, if it had not happy effects upon those who un- derstand and receive it. If when believed, it has not the effects which it is said to have, it cannot be true. A Roman Catholic is not bound to defend the Christian- ity of the Protestant, nor the latter that of the former, A Calvinist, or Arminian. or a Socinian, is not obliged to defend each others system, when writing against in- fidels ; but certainly it will be justly expected that each should defend his own. Our Lord himself was not afraid to rest the truth of his mission upon this very argument, " that they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee j that they also may be one in us: that the ijoorld may believe that thou hast sent me* I in them, and thou in me, that they m.ay be made per- fect in one, and that the world may know (hat thou hast sent me^andhast loved them as thou hast loved me,''^ John xvii.21. 23. I will allow you then, Sir, to adopt any mo- dification, or sect of Presbytery •, but whatever deno- mination of Presbyterians you join, this one I shall ex- pect you to defend. Nothing can be more ridiculous than Letter I. £l to hold one sort of Presbytery in theory and another in practice. Sir, were you a member of a trading company, which enriched itself by fraudulent dealings, though in this you always opposed your partners ', think you would the world take it for a sufficient apology were you to reason thus : * I request that it may be remark- ed, that it is the principle.i only, not the practices of trading companies that I defend. I do not justify this company. All 1 contend for is, that there may be such companies as will act honestly.' ^ But if you intend by this declaration, that principles and practice should be separated upon any subject, I apprehend you not only contradict the ivhole tenor of the word of God, but the maxims of the soundest philosophy. Though the best system may be abused, and the worst system, in some instances, may not discover all its ma- lignancy, it is still fair to try every system by the cri- terion of its tendency. This indeed should not be de- termined from a few solitary results, either good or bad, but from its general effects. If in the histoiy of any among the various Presbyterian denominations, it is found that Presbytery has in general a good ten- dency, it would be idle in us to shew that, in a few cases, it was abused. On the contrary, if we can shew from the history of the church of Scotland, that the Presbyterian form of church government has had a general tendency to promote corruption either in mem- bers, doctrines or practice, or which is the same thing, has not had energy to prevent this, it is of no avail to display in the abstract the advantages of the constitu- tion. That tree cannot be a good one which uniform- ly bears bad fruit, or no fruit. To suppose that the form of government instituted by Christ, is insufficient to attain the ends of government is in my apprehen- 14 Letter I. sion to blaspheme him. Whenever then I write against a member of the church of Scotland upon this subject, I will take my ideas of Presbytery only from that church, and consider the corruptions which I find in it, as the native fruits of the system. He cannot deny me this, until he renounces his connexion. The same shall be my conduct with respect to every denomina- tion of Presbyterians. Their system and the fruits of it, I will ever consider in connexion. This liber- ty I will also readily grant them in their turn. I will hold myself accountable for the corruptions of all the churches which I allow to be on the apostolical model. Now there is not an instance of abuse which you ei- ther prove or mention, belonging to Independent churches, which has not arisen from a departure from the apostolical model, in a greater or less degree. But I will undertake to prove that Presbytery even "vvhen fully acted upon, is insufhcient to attain the great ends of government. It may be true, as you say, that Arminianism, or Socinlanism, has crept into So- cieties called Independent churches in England * •, but such societies are not churches of Christ, for ihey con- sist of " saints, godly, faithful in Christ Jesus, an habita- tion of God through the spirit, united in the fello^vship of the gospel." I will consider myself bound equally •with the church of Scotland to oppose such societies, * That there may be"Sociniao churches in England calling themselves indt-pendent is very probable. But it is a well known fact, that the great bulk of the Socinian churches .are compoieJ of the descendents of Presbyterians, and are maintained by the funds destined for the support of Presbyterian consjregations. This is so notoriovis, that the late Doctor Priestley refused to al- low application to be made for him to an Independent fund; while he cheerfully received from a Prtibyterian fund. Letter I. 15 and even their mode of government, for it is far distant from that of the churches planted by the apostles. " Let it be understood farther", (you remark, page 6. introduction), " That the arguments advanced will not be considered as overturned, though a number of mis- takes should be pointed out in separate and detached observations, unless the body of the evidence be fairly met, and fully overthro^vn." This I fully admit j and as a- proof of it, I will not trouble myself, nor fatigue my readers, by exposing your less important mistakes. Nor will I touch upon your more important errors, which have not an immediate relation to the point un- der dispute. But if I do not " fairly meet, and fully overthrow the body of your evidence," I shall consider myself as having done nothing. If I either shulile, or evade the edge of your arguments, or endeavour to disentangle myself from one dithcuUy by proposing another, I shall consider myself as worse than an idler. If your reasoning were conclusive in the main, any attempt to skrceu ourselves by exposing particular in- accuracies vvoulil manifest a conduct inconsistent with Christianity. Nothing but the authority of Jesus made me abandon the connexion of Presbyterians j the same authority I hope shall always have the same intluence on me. If then you are able to establish Presbytery from the Scriptures, I am ready to be your convert. As I propose to trouble myself wiih nothing but your arguments, I will overlook your jbersona/f (la , and employ the remainder of this letter in stating and reply- ing to the general sentiment of your second letter to Mr Innes. In the beginning of the second letter you say, " The ^rst point, I apprehend, in which you differ from Pres- byterians, is tbe nature of that power which they grant 16 Letter I. to tlieir rulers *, and lieie, in words at least, the difference is important. Upon this topic Independents have often declaimed with the utmost keenness, and from I his source they have derived their \\ armest in- vectives against the establishment. Upon this topic, too, you considerably enlarge, and attempt to paint, in very shockhig colours, the baneful consequences with which the authority of Presbytery is necessarily attended. " Before ho^vever I attend to your arguments, I would brietly advert to a misrepresentation which has fre- quently been made by Independents, of the claims of Presbyterians with regard to the nature an^ I;/ ni/ oi iheir authority. Often has it been said, that the power for which they contend amounts to nothing less than a Jegu/ative authority, and invests them with a right to enact at pleasure whatever laws they wish to establish in the church of Christ. Than this, however, nothing undoubtedly can be more remote from their senti- ments. They, as well as Independents, profess to ad- mit that lesus is the only Head of his church 3 that those laws alone whicli f.-f has revealed, bind the con- sciences and conduct of his subjects J and that the highest honour to which ccciesiaslical ruUrs can no^v aspire, is to explain v/hat the doctrine of the church is, with regard to the trvie meaning of the laws of Christ, and authoritatively to enforce among those of her com- munion the execution of his laws. In matters indeed of injenor moment, which regard simply the conve- nience, or exicmal order and regularity o- the church, and for which no explicit directions are given in the scriptures, Presbyterians allow that Christ has intrust- ed a power with those who rule in his church, to ap- point such regulations as may be requisite for the Letter I. 17 general ends of edification and utility. But this is no more than Independents themselves have uniformly- claimed ; while it is an incontestable fact, that, in eve- ry histance in which lej^islative power is disclaimed by Independents, it is universally and explicitly disclaim- ed by Presbyterians." Here you expressly disclaim all legislative authority on the part of Presbyterians, and assert that they ad- mit, " that those laws alone which Jesus has revealed, bind the consciences and conduct of his subjects." If this is really a matter of fact, as to any denomination of Presbyterians ; if it is agreeable to the Presbyterian constitution, and acted upon as a principle by their assemblies, then with such we are so far agreed. But, Sir, this is contradicted by the general practice of all Presbyterian sects, and immediately contradicted by yourself. You add, " In matters indeed of inferior moment, which regard simply the convenience, and ex- ternal order, and regularity of the church, and for which no explicit directions are given in the Scrip- tures, Presbyterians allow, that Christ has intrusted a power with, those who rule in his church, to appoint such regulations as may be requisite for the general ends of edification and utility." Now, Sir, I ask you, what do you mean by legislation ? Do you mean the giving of new moral precepts, and positive institutions ? In this sense I admit, that Presbyterians do wot profess to legislate. But legislation in a church of Christ compre- hends, not merely these greater matters, but every act and regulation regarding the aifairs of his people. Do the Scriptures any where limit the exertions of ministers of the gospel within certain boundaries ? What then do you call that authority by which presbyterian as- semblies forbid pastors to preach out of their own pa- 18 Letter I. rish, wrthout the consent of the mimster in whose district they may wish to preach ? Is this not an act of legislation ? How can you pretend that you assume not a power of legislation ? All you can say is, that you profess to carry that power only to a certain un- defined extent. Now, to regulate a borough election, is as much an act of legislative authority, as that which regulates the succession to the throne, or ascertains the privileges of the different orders of the State. It is mere shuffling then, to repel the charge of legislation, by giving your laws another name , and to shelter them by the pretended inferiority of their object. A right of legislation is inherent in the Presbyterian con- stitution : it is acted upon by every body of Presbyte- rians in the world. The General Assembly of the church of Scotland, in concurrence with the majority of Presbyterians, has always claimed and exerted such a legislative power. The General Synod of Ulster also, in conformity with this Presbyterian principle, have lately published " An Abstract of Laws, Kegu- lations^ and Rules' In short, Sir, I call upon you to point out upon earth any body of Presbyterians, which does not exercise a legislative authority. The whole procedure of their courts is upon the model of assemblies of le- gislation. And though in their definitions of their au- thority they confine themselves to matters of inferior moment, in which there are no sufficientt direction in Scripture, regarding external order, &.c. j it is yet plain, that in practice they carry it to the m.ost extra- vagant length. There is nothing they are not sup- posed equal to, when assembled. They not only ex- plain the laws of Clirist, but add w^liere these are sup- posed defective. The majority is ever between indi- viduals and the Scriptures. When they act upon Letter I. 19 their principles, there is no such thing as individual li- berty. Expresi^ly to claim an unlimited power of le- gislation, would be Antichrist ^vithout a mask. It is much safer to exercise it under a softer name. The clergy kno^v well, that if in theory they are allowed to legislate in matters of inferior moment, &c. they are not likely to be restrained in practice. They will encroach by degrees j time will familiarize the world to their pretensions, and sanction their usurpation by an- tiquity. If in any age they are called to account for their conduct by individuals, * the -world knows its own,' the mass of mankind will believe as their fore- fathers believed, the prejudices of the multitude con- curring with the interests of x\vq priest hootJ, a little so- phistry will reduce the most extravagant of their transactions to their modest definition, and at worst they can abandon practice as not worth defending, and entrench themselves \nthin their principUs. None will be louder than the clergy in maintaining that Christ is the only king and lawgiver of his church, as long as Christ Avill condescend to reign and give law through the clergy, and not through his word. The honours and prerogatives of his government will not cease to be extolled and vindicated, as long as they have the exercise of them. All the dignities which they heap upon Christ, are reflected back upon them- selves. The greater the prince, the more respectable i\i& ambas adors. The clergy will claim honour for Christ, if Christ will consent to share it vi^th the cler- gy. Like Oliver Crom^vell, they will exercise every act of sovereign authority, under the modest name of Protectors of the Realm. But, Sir, if, as you say, and as any man who under- stands the Scriptures will allow, " those laws alone 20 Letter I. which Christ has revealed, bind the consciences and conduct of his subjects," how are they bound to those laws of inferior moment, enacted by your assemblies ? In the first instance, you say absolutely, that no laws but those revealed by Jesus, can bind the consciences of his subjects. You afterwards say, " that in matters of inferior moment, -which regard simply the conveni- ence, or external order and regularity of the church, and for which no explicit directions are given in the Scriptures, Presbyterians allow that Christ has intrust- ed a power with those ^vho rule in his church, to ap- point such regulations as may be requisite for the gene- ral ends of editication and utillly." How can you re- concile these two assertions ? The object and Inferior moment of a la^v does not destroy its nature as a law. But as to the regulation of those m.atters of Inferior mom.ent, &c., where do Presbyterians find this povver intrusted to them by Christ ? Where do they find this part of their constitution in the word of God ? Are any of the concerns of the kingdom of Christ of such inferior momint^ as to be unworthy of hn attention ? Or have the Clergy more skill in prudential regulations^ than the Lawgiver of Zion ? What do you mean by external order ? or why should internal order be regu- lated by Christ and external order by the clergy ? What are those things which respect the convenience, external order, and regularity of the church, for v^^hich no suf- ficient directions are given in the Scriptures * ? If the * Why may not one of the pastors be exalted above his bre- thren, and turned into a diocesan bishop for the sake of external order? If P^piscopal churches have raised some of the pastors above their proper rank and office; Presbyterian churches have degraded some of theirs into an inferior order. The crime is Letter I. 21 scriptures do not contain sufficient directions for eveiy thing regarding the Individual or social conduct of the disciples, they are an insufficient rule. If Christ has not given sufficient la\vs for every exigency, I am bold to say that he is not an all-wise lawgiver. The best hu- man code is in many respects defective, the best human la\vs are in many cases Insuffxlent, because they are the offspring of the wisdom of man. But not so ^vith the laws of the kingdom of Christ. His wisdom compre- hends at the same time the greatest and the smallest matters : His prudence provided for every possible exi- gency j and his foresight embraced every future case. Is. It possible then. Sir, that you can thus openly de- preciate the w<3rd of God, by denying Its sufficiency? Is It so dark, or so defective, that the clergy must come in to its assistance ? For the government of the church of Scotland, and every other Presbyterian and worldly church, the Scriptures are indeed insufficient. For the management of such machines we will find no directions, either explicit or implied. But for this very reason, they cannot have been instituted by Jesus, An independent church has every necessary Instruction, either In precept, example, or by fair Inference, In the ivord of God. If Christ has tiot provided for such assemblies as yours. It is because they are the offspring of men. Did you think, Sir, to lead us from the argument by a dextrous piece of artifice that appears In this rea- soning ? You first absolutely and unequivocally deny equal in both. If the right of regulating matters of external order, Sec. is once admitted, an Antichrist o< fome kind must hs the inevitable consequence, c 22 Letter I. the charge of legislation. Then to skreen the conduct of your courts you slightly mention, as a thing very trivial, a certain sort of authority which you claim, evidently wishing that it should first serve your pur- pose, and then slip away unnoticed. You must men- tion it, otherwise your cause must fall. But scarcely has tW witness made his appearance till you hurry him oft" the table, lest he should be cross-examined. Instead of vindicating this sort of legislative authority whicii you claim, you just me^ntion it, contenting yourself by saying that Presbyterians allow that Christ has given such authority. But shall we take this for proof ? What is it to us that Presbyteria^is alloAV that Christ has given them this authority ? this is the very thing to be proved. You should not have left this subject till you had shewn us in what part of Scripture Christ has given Presbyterians an authority to make regula- tions respecting things of inferior moment, of. external cr-dQT and regularity, and that he has told them that his word does not contain any explicit directions for these matters. The very thing you ought to prove, you evade, and have swelled your volum.e -with much matter totally irrelevant. This has a double advan- tage. It will cause many to think that you have done some great thing •, that in so large a book you must surely have overturned Mr Innes, and all the Indepen- dents both ancient and modern j and at the same time it will hide the w^eakness of your cause, and lead many from the true merits of the point under debate. You prove at an unmeasurable length, and with a redun- dancy of reasoning, a thing that nobody denies, to wit, that rulers should rule Avith authority, and you wish to prove with a " Presbyterian's allow," the very thing disputed. As if this were granted, you pass Avith the Letter I. 23 utmost precipitancy to another point. You bring to my mind an artifice practised by Louvet in passing through a village in France, after he had been denoun- ced during the tyranny of Robesspiere. Conscious that his forged pass could- not stand examination, and knowing ihat he could not proceed without shew^- ing it, he contrived to divert the attention of the of- ficers by some good wine, and some good stories. Still as he was in the middle of his story, he would, as if re- collecting himself, present his pass, but still as he pre- sented it he withdrew it to finish his story. So from bottle to bottle, and from story to story, till they for- got to examine his pass, all swearing heartily when they left him, that it was as good a pass, as ever was written, though they had not read a line of it. You understood well. Sir, that some sort of legislative au- thority you must claim } but as if conscious that it would not bear examination, you endeavour to lead us hastily away to something else. It seertis, however, that, if this kind of legislative authority is without foundation, Presbyterians are not singular in claiming and exercising it. If they are wrong, they are at least kept in countenance by Inde- pendents. " But this is no more than Independents themselves have uniformly claimed j while it is an in- contestable fact, that, in every instance in which legis- lative power is disclaimed by Independents, it is uni- versal/y and explicitly disclaimed by Presbyterians." Now, Sir, allowing this to be a fact, it is a bad way of justifying the practice of one body by a correspond- ing impropriety in another. If, as you say, Indepen- dents uniformly claim this power as well as Presby- terians, the conduct of the one cannot justify that of the other. Eut, Sir, the assertion is unfounded. That 24 Letter I. some called Independents may have acted upon this principle, may be true. I am no more required to de- fend the practice of all called Independents,, than you are that of all called Presbyterians. You cannot be ignorant, however, Sir, that the churches lately form- ed in Scotland uniformly disclaim, both in theory and practice, all legislative authority, in every instance, in every degree. If there are any who do not, I have no desire to vindicate them. Thus, you say in a note, ** The Tabernacle churches in Scotland require their members to stand in singing." In this, Sir, you are mistaken. Most of the churches do indeed stand in singing : but it is not from decency or external order, left for them to determine by their laws, but because they have Scriptural example for this. Now, Sir, al- though you should be successful in shewing, that there is no Scripture example for this, what would you prove ? Not that they acted from expediency, but that they wer€ wrong in their vie^vs of those parts of Scripture upon which they found this posture in singing. If you were so ignorant of their principles as not to know this, you are unfit for the office you have undertaken. If you knowingly misrepresented the grounds of their conduct in this instance, it is inconsistent with Christian can- dour. Convince them that they have not scriptural authority for standing in singing — I ans\\'er for thern, they will not insist on it^ They will never reply, that they have the power of regulating things of inferior moment by their own discretion, nor vindicate either this, or any other practice, from the authority of the church. If Christ has committed any such subordinate legis- lative authorily to church rulers, then their laws, whicK are the result of it, become equally binding with any Letter I. 25 part of the word of God. Consequently we have du- ties which are not contained in Scripture j and not- withstanding all the warnings Christ and his apostles have given us not to submit to the commandments of men, he has in fact established them, and made it equally duly to obey the laws of the clergy as his o^vn. Here the Scriptures are no longer perfect : they are not a complete rule : we have only an imperfect revelation of the will of our King. But further, upon this supposition, the clergy must either be infallible, or Christ has bound his people to submit to regulaiions which may be improper. As the Scriptures are not supposed to contain these regulations, there is there- fore no standard by which they may be tried. They must then be entirely arbitrary. If it is said that they have power to make such rules as are agreeable to Scrip- ture j I answer, that as they are not in Scripture, they cannot be agreeable to Scripture. To do any thing agreeable to Scripture, is to do what the Scripture commands. If it is said that they have power to make any regulations that do not contradict Scripture j I answer, that if by this is meant express declarations of Scripture, then they may command whatever is not ex- pressly forbidden. Thus for instance, they might for the sake of decency, order, and uniformity, command that all their disciples should be clothed alike, that men should wear long beards, &lc. &.c. &.c. for these things are no where expressly forbidden. Upon this founda- tion the most stupendous Babylon might be raised. But every thing not contained in Scripture is contrary to Scripture. For if the * law of God is perfect,' every additional law supposes it imperfect. Besides^ there is scarcely any human regulation in the things of God, that does not go to set aside some of the coni- C3 26 Letter I. mandments of Jesus. Though they have * a shew of wisdom,' the traditions of men tend to make void the commadments of God. To make a law, for instance, as to the studies and qualifications of pastors, appears a very wise thing. Yet it must set aside the com- mandments of Paul upon that subject to Timothy and Titus. For if these were sufficient, why make any other ? It equally affronts Jesus to require any thing more, or to accept of any thing short. The same ob- servation will hold true of all other human regulations in the affairs of Christ's kingdom. But pray, what do you mean when you say, " That the highest honour to v,'hich ecclesiastical rulers can now aspire, is to explain ^vhat the doctrine 6j the church is, with reg-ard to the true meanino- of the laws of Christ ?" In which of all the numerous Presbyterian acceptations are we to understand the word church in this connexion ? Surely it cannot be the Confession j for you add, ** and authoritatively to enforce among those of her communion^'' to wit, the communion of thi^ church. Yet it is the Confession that is your avowed standard, which contains your doctrines and laws, and to maintain every part of which you are solemnly pledged. You cannot mean by it, those who made the Confession, for it would be impossible for church rulers to enforce obedience upon all of their commu- nion now. It cannot mean the present church rulers themselves, for this would be church rulers explaining the doctrine of church rulers. It cannot mean thef whole body of the people, for this would be to set the" body above the head, and to represent the clergy as explaining to this church its own doctrines. This may be called the tnysterious acceptation of the word church. I do not by this, Sir, intend to vilify youiv Letter I. 27 talents for composition. I am convinced you could write intelligibly, if you had the truth on your side. But the genius of a wriftr is sometimes as necessary to darken, as at other times to elucidate his subject. As tyrannical kings do not wish to have their prerogatives clearly defined, lest they should be kept within its lawful limits, so any intelligible definition of the authori- ty of the Presbyterian clergy, would tend to abolish their usurpation. Wlien a writer then wishes to defend their prerogative, let him write with the most saUtrm uOscu- rity. I am convinced that you must have found yourself a good deal puzzled here. There is every symptom of a mind labouring, without any accurate ideas, under its expressions j so that the claims of Presbyterians may be vindicated, while the nature of their authority may still remain involved in necessary obscurity. What a mixture of condescension and authority in this defini- tion ! The power of the church rulers is only to * ex- plain laws,' and to regulate things of * inferior mo- ment,' but authoritativtiy to enforce obedience. This must have an admirable effect in perplexing your rea- dears ; for while in one view the clergy are nothing, in another they are every thing. But whatever is the meaning of the word church here, you evidently assert, that it is the duty of eccle- siastical rulers to explain, not the laws of .Christ them- selves, but the doctrine of this mysterious church, with regard to the true meaning of the laws of Christ, and to enforce obedience according to this ex- planation. Now, I can see little difference between legislation in the highest sense of the word, and an un- limited authority to explain the laws of Christ, and to enforce obedience to this explanation, without regard to the conviction of the individual who- is to obev. 23 Letter I, Authority and obedience are commensuate, for they are correiadves. There can be no divine authority on the one hand, where there is^ot duty of obedience on the other. Now, if Christ has given the Piesbyterian church rulers an unlimited authority to explain his laws, and to enforce them according to this explana- tion, -vsathout respect to the conviction of those govern- ed, it must be tiie duty of the latter to obey them without reserve. If they are the divinely appointed, absolute expositors of the laws of Christ, their expla- nations are then the laws of Christ. The elders of a church of Christ have hideed authority to enforce the lavy's of Christ, but it is only in the presence, and with the consent of the church. They have no authority in their office distinct from the authority of the law they enforce. Therefore it is to the law, as they them- selves understand it, and not to " the authoritative de- termination" of church rulers, that the flock of Christ should submit. The laws of Christ when understood, will have sufficient weight with any spiritual man, without deriving any addiiional obligation from the authority of office. If it is replied, that those who cannot conscien^ tiously comply with the decisions of their church-rulers may separate, I answer, that the habit of deciding every maiier, not in the presence of those who are to submit to the decisions, and v.ithout their consent,, will accustom them to blind obedience, and thus have a pernicious tendency, even where the decisions may be just. There is a proneness in men to attach an. undue weight to the ofdnions of the clergy, and to re- ceive for doctrines the commandments of their teach- ers. Every tanig then that tends to cherish this evil, should be avoided. Besides, they must have a very Letter I. 29 imperfect acquaintance -v^-ilh human nature, wlio do not know, that men will submit to many things when they have not a power of reversing them, which they would have prevented, had they been adniitted to- a share in the deliberations and judgment *. How many bugbears have the clergy to keep the people in awe of thdm, and deter them from separation ! The mysteri- ous word church ! the awful ^vord schism ! What a wretch must he be, who will rend the bowels of his mother, and forsake the hallowed walls in which his forefathers sung the praises of God ! These and such like motives weigh with the bulk of mankind, more than the most forcible reasoning. Thus they submit to one encroachment after another, till they become completely familiarized with clerical despotism. Thus we find, that in every age, all the crimes, and all the tyranny of the clergy, do not prevent the bulk of man- kind from adhering to them. And ^vhat is still more dreadful, even many of God's children will thus be detained in Babylon. But the clergy have a still more forcible way of convincing any of their discontented clerical brethren. A good living is more powerful than all the logic of Aristotle or Lord Bacon. This wail tame the wildest among the wild *, or at least so far domesticate him, that he will remain in the stall without any other fet- ter. You indeed seem to grant the right of separation * We have the most incontestable proof of this remark, in the conduct of the congregations of the General Synod of Ulster, By far the majority of almost every congregation of the Sy- nod were strenuously averse to the measure of the classificatioa of Royal Bounty, and I am confident would have prevented it hid it been left to them. Yet every congregation aniorig theai hiiS subiuilted to it. 30 Letter I. ■when the conscience cannot submit, with regard t© things of inferior moment. But if we are to judge from the spirit in which you attack a member v/ho left you very quietly, and took his leave very politely, it is not difficult to conjecture what sort of arguments you and your brethren w^ould employ to convince, had you but the power *. Notwithstanding all the appa- rent modesty of this definition of the authority of Pres- byterian church rulers, it is yet so darkly, and vaguely worded, as to support all the extravagant proceedings of your ecclesiastical courts. An unlimited power of explaining and enforcing the laws of Christ, and an authority to make laws respecting things of inferior moment, will sanction the most unlimited exertion of the clerical prerogative. Upon these two points, the whole machinery of the great Antichrist might safely turn. When any matter cannot be called " an expla- nation of a law of Christ," the clergy have nothing to do but call it a matter of inferior moment. No- thing is more dangerous than admitting any claim of authority which is not precise and defined. There is no saying how much ecclesiastical rulers may, on particular occasions, choose to include under the head of " matters which regard simply the convenience, or external order and regularity of the church ;" and tliat they must be the judges, is evident from JMr E.'s * The standarrls you defend, and to every part of which you are sworn, do not allow of separation They ailovv the sword as the last argument to convince the judgment of the weak. So far from permitting her members quietly to depart, her avowed principles will not give toleration to any other sect. Those who yet in reality, as wril as in profesjiion, adhere to the standnrds ot tiie church of Scotland, it is well known, lament toleration, and confeis it as a national siru Letter I. 31 wprds. Nor is his other limitations more perspicuous, " for ^vhich no explicit directions are given in the Scriptures," Every one knows, that Christians of all denominations find nothing explicit in the scriptures which differs from their owTi practice j so that here wc have an avowed claim of legislative power on every subject which the rulers may choose to consider of in- ferior importance." Missionary Magazine, Vol. xi. p. 248. No^v, Sir, if this is the case, the difference between Independents and Presbyterians respecting the nature of that power which the latter give to their rulers is not only ImportanL in words but in reality. It mat- ters not that the Westminster divines and you, call this power merely *' ministerial and subordinate." Sub- ordinate and ministerial are not words opposite to le- gislative authority. Presbyterians claim and exert the right of legislation. It does not mend the matter to tell us, that they do so ministerially and subordi- nately. The Roman Pontiff issues his decrees only minisieriaJly. Ke pretends to be nothing more than Christ's Vicar. The highest Presbyterian assemblies can pretend to nothing less. The point in which they differ. Is not the power of legislation, but the degree of that po^ver. V^hile the mother claims unbounded authority, the daughter Is contented ^vlth a limited and subordinate share of hereditary prerogative. Infalli- bility, though not equally avowed. Is equally neces- sary to both. Indeed every system which supposes - that the word of God is not a complete rule, needs in- ftilllbility and acts upon that principle. Of all v^orld- ]y churches the church of Home is the most consistent. If she acts as infallible, she openly avows infallibility. All others act as if they were Infallible, yet disclaim 32 Letter L infallibility. Tliey are however rising In their demands, and if the mother were dead, it is hard to say, that some of the children might not openly avow the same pre- tensions. You proceed, " But admitting that the power with which rulers are invested is not legislative, but simply of the kind which has been now stated, what is the de^r^e of it which they are warranted to exercise ? Are they entitled, as Independents atKrm, merely to deliver their decisions to those whom they govern as matters of opinion f or have they a right to announce them, as Presbyterians maintain, as authoritative deter- minations, and require their cheerful and universal obedience ? In the former of these schemes you pro- fess your belief, and reproliate the latter, as subservi- ent merely to promote the purposes of tyranny and op- pression," p. 13. Here, Sir, you make a very uncandid statement of our sentiments. You suppose that ^ve claim the sam^e hind of authority with yourselves, and that the only difference JDetween us, is about the degree of it. We disclaim a legislative povvcr of every degree, the least equally with the greatest. Upon this supposition, you ask, " Are they entitled, as Independents affirm, merely to deliver their decisions to those -^vhom they govern, a^; matters of opinion ^ or have they a right to announce them, as Presbyterians maintain, as authoritative deter- minations^ and require their cheerful and universal obe- dience r" If I am to answer these two questions, I will give a negative to both. Church rulers are neither to deliver their decisions as matters of opinion^ nor as authoritative determinations* Church rulers have no right to make decisions at all among themselves. 1 hey call the attention of the brethren to the laws of Christ Letter I. 3;'> tliflt nre applicable to the subject before Ibem, but de- liver to the cburch- no previous decision for their con- sideration. When a church ruler insists upon obedi- ence to a law of Christ, there is all the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in that law, to produce the most cheerful and universal obedience, without acquiring any additional importance or force, from his pastoral or ministerial authority. If it is not a law of Christ, and , if the individual does not see it himself to be a law of Christ, the authority of oBice is nothing. In the exe- cution even of the laws of Christ, Presbyterians hide his authority, by holding forth their own. The most important command of the Lord Jesus, when it passes through the courts of these o-fficial gentlemen, is much more obligatory. It will have little weight except it comes from the lips of the reverend ambassadors -, and is delivered with ministerial authority. You say, that of the former of these, Mr Inne? professes his belief. Pray, Sir, where does Mr Innes make this profession ? I do not recollect any such pas- sage. Mr Innes indeed says in a passage you after- w^ards quote, ^* Whatever is done by those who are ap=- pointed to rule, is carried on in the presence of the general body, and with their consent."*' But this is quite another thing from church-rulers previously and separately deciding a point, and then proposing their decision, to be adopted or rejected by the church. But what do you mean by an authority to make de- cisions which m.ay be adopted or rejected by those for whom they are made. The very idea is absurd. If there is authority to make decisions, there must be also a duty of obedience. In some arbitrations indeed In Civil things the parties may either agree to, or reject the decision of the arbitrators. But in such cases w^e D 34 Letter I. never talk of the authority of the arbitrators. In no case is there authority, or any degree of authority, in those who make a decision, in which there is not a corresponding degree of duty of obedience in those for whom the decision is made. If church-rulers have authority to make laws, those who are governed are bound to obey them. Whatever is the degree or ex- tent of authority in the one, the same is the degree and extent of the duty of obedience in the other. The one can have no right to make any decision which the other is not bound to obey. If it were otherwise, it would suppose that God gave an authority to one to command that, which he gave authority to the other to disobey. If then this is the case, church-rulers have no authority distinct from the laws of Christ which they enforce. Ministerial authority can be nothing but the authority of the laws of which they are the executers. Again, as to the question with respect to the degree of, authority of explaining, and enforcing the laws of Christ, and of making others of inferior moment, &c. you reply that they are auihjritative determinaiions ; the degree of this authority must be absolute : con- sequently the obedience of those who are governed must also be absolute. But allowing that it were a part of the ouice of In- dependent church-rulers to make decisions, to be sub- mitted to the church to be accepted or rejected, for what possible purpose did you range this in the class ^ithe auiKori y of church-rulers ? There is no authority in the matter. This is no more than one man propos- ing his opinion to another. The difference here is not in degree but in kind : not in one being a lo-^ver au- thority than the other j but in one being a matter of authority, the other a matter of opinion or advice. Letter I. 35 But in order to sanction Presbyterian legislation, you must suppose that Independents have such a prac- tice, and this practice you must bring under such a denomination as to kind, that the dispute may be on- ly about the degree. This gives you afterwards an op-, portunity of exercising your wit in shemng the absur- dity of governing by opinion or advice. Sir, you uniformly in your book appear to be inca- pable of distinguishing between a right to make a law, a right to judge of the application of that law, and a right to execute that law, when judged to be applica- ble to any particular case. The first belongs to Jesus alone, — the second, to the whole church,— the third to the rulers of that church. Had you attended to this, you would have been preserved from many blunders which appear in your work. Thus you say, p. 15. that " Independency in its number of rulers, resembles and equals the lowest form of political democracy j" and p. 19. " that it constitutes every member of the church, man, woman, or child, (for such sometimes, from early piety, are received to that privilege) a ru- ler in the church." Now, Sir, I must tell you, that this shews you to be very imperfectly acquainted with the constitution of the churches against which you write. Every mem- ber is indeed bound to judge in all matters that come before the church j none, however, are rulers but the elders. Is there no difference between judging of the application of a law, and executing that law > Church members then, are not church rulers, those only ex- cepted who are appointed to the office of the elder *. * We must always remember that the le.^islative authority exclusively belongs to Christ, and is already exercised in bis word The church is an absolute monarchy, though ihe sub- jects are a willing people. 56 Letter I.. The indefinke use of words is a source of much obscurity in reasoning. Your conclusions, in the fol- lowing passage, are drawn froman undefin€d, ambigu- ous, use of the word -authority. Authority is so dear to Presbyterians that it is no wonder they labour hard to sanction it in themselves by the example of others. — *' I would observe, moreover, tliat you yourself have admitted a case (and it ha3 frequently occurred) in which, even in an Independent church, authoritative power must be exercised by your rulers. * Suppose,' you say (p. 50.), * a case of discipline to occur in an * Independent church, in which a difference of opinion * obtained, hoW far a charge was distinctly proved, * The church must act in one way or another. If the * party be excluded against vv'hom the charge i&brought, * those who think him not guilty, will take offence at * the measure. If, on the other hand, he be continued *- in communion without reproof, those who think him ' guilty, will be equally ofi'ended/ A decision notwith- standing must necessarily be made, and the minority you admit must either submit to the majority, or withdraw from their communion. Now, in this instance, I would ask you, if an authoritative power be not used by rhe iTiajority of this Independent church, without regard to the will of the minority, as much as by any class of Presbyterian rulers ? and if they do not act as decid- edly, without any regard to the convictions of their brethren ? Besides, I would inquire, whether, this must not be the case in Independent, as well as Presbyterian churches, in every instanc (and they cannot be few) in which a question is carried and acted upon by a ma- jority against a minority ? Is not tht opinion of the latter uniformly disregarded ? Is not the will of the former executed as a law / Can any religious society Letter I. 3T exist without It ? Does not this unquestionably involve q/nece.jiiy^ as much authority as the decision of any Presbyterian court ? And is not the minority obliged as readily to submit to this authoritative determination, if it be an inferior point — or if it be a fundamental ar- ticle, as universally to separate from their former bre- thren, if they are so disposed, as in Presbyterian churches ? " When a majority, in a word,of anyof your churches determines against a minority, that a brother who has happened to offend before all, should be rebuked be- fore all, that he may be taught by it to be ashamed, I should be glad to know, if it is only a simple advice which is delivered ? And when such a majority de- cides against a minority, that a brother is to be excont' municaiedy and their decision is fulfilled, I should be happy to be informed, if it is only a simple opinion which Is stated f This, I believe, you will hardly maintain \ and consequently, since in these and all other instances, where the will of a majority is carried and acted upon against a minority, from the very na- ture of things, authority is exercised, I hold it to be unfair and contradictory in Independents to declaim against Presbyterians, when they claim for iheir rulers^ the same portion of authority which is necessarily as- sumed by the majority of the members in each of their congregations J and without which, whatever /)f;y//a- sion might be employed, and whatever advices might be delivered, not one of their societies can be conceived to exist." pp. 2o, 27. That every society of men must have authority to exclude from it all persons acting contrary to its funda- mental rules, is a truth which will not be disputed. No society could otherwise exist. But in this, a church D 5 38 Letter I. of Christ differs from every society upon earth, as well as from all the churches of this world. In ail other societies, there are laws of human institution j but in a church of Christ, there are no laws but those enacted by Christ himself. Now, -when we talk of the autho- rity of a church of Christ, and that of a Presbyterian church, it is exceedingly improper to speak of their authority as the same. The authority of a church of Christ, extends only ta judging of the application of the laws of Christ, and the execution of these laws-: the authority of the rulers of a Presby teria' . church, extends to explain and authoritatively to enforce their ov.n explanation of the laws of Christ, wiihou; the consent, often contrary to the conviction and conscience of the individual j and to enact whatever neiv laws they may choose to call of inferior moment ; and to controul the conduct of individuals at pleasure. The authority reprob.iied by Mr Innes, is not the same claimed and exercised by Indepcnden s. " What is the meaning," says Mr Innes, " of the authority vested in a Presbytery, of thai power by which they can command any one under their jurisdiction to act according to their will ? Does not the very existence of this authority imply the necessity of it ?" The au- thority here censured, is not thai of your rulers exe- cuting the laws of Christ, nor even of judging of chejr application, but that authority by which they enact rliles to regulate congregations, and the conduct of in- di\'iduals. Such authority every Presbyterian deno- mination uniformly exercises. Such authority, Je- sus never gave to any body of uninspired men upon the earth. The authority claimed and ex- ercised by a church of Christ, is to try the con- duct of individuals by the la-.vs delivered in the Letter I. ^ 39 New Testament. For this tliey have the sanctiou of their royal Lawgiver, " Uo ye not judge ihem that are wiihin i"' The question between us ihen, Sir, is not whether church rulers have any authority, nor about the comparative /)yr//o of similar authority j but^. what is the nature and 'xUnt of church power : not whether Independents exercise as muck authority Avhen they decide upon and execute a case of discipline, a3 Presbyterian rulers do upon a similar case j but whe- ther the authority of a church, let its form of govern- ment be w^hat it may, is confined lo judging of the ap- plication of the laws of Christ, and to the execution of thenij and whether this is to be done in the presence: and with the consent of those governed, or whether it reaches to the making of human regulations, and go- verning congregations and individuals by oiher rules in addiiion to ihose of Christ, and whether church busi- ness is to be conducied without the concurrence of ihe general body. Uppn the supposition that Presbyte- rians have a right to enact regulations of their ow-n, we should not condemn them for asserting their autho- rity to put them in execution j but we deny that they have any such authority. Now, Sir, in any of the cases you have supposed to occur in an Independent church, let the decision go as it will, the authority claimed by either one party or the other, is quite different from the undefined autho- rity of Presbyterian assemblies, which not only judge of the l^ws of Christ, but make laws of their own, and execute them at their pleasure. Besides, there are nei- ther majorities nor minorities in a church of Christ. You are always dreaming of your Kirk-Sessions, Pres- byteries, Synods, and Assemblies. Though upon a case occurring, in which forbearance ought not to be exer- 40 Letter I. cised, the one part of a church must exclude, or se- parate from the other, it is never by majorities they should proceed. I do not by this mean, that by per- verseness and obstinacy a member may at any time obstruct the application of the laws of Christ. In such a case, he himself would properly become a subject of discipline. Still, however, it is true, he must be either satisfied or excluded. Complete confidence must ever prevail. With one dissenting voice, the church could not proceed. If ever there arise such a difference as to cause a separation, it is not the majority that makes the church, but those of them who are obedient to the laws of Christ. If there were only three against 3000, these three are the church of Christ, and have a right to cut off the three thousand, if disobedient to the laws of Christ. The separation of an individual, or of a few individuals from a corrupt church, is the very same thing with the general body of a church cutting off one, or a few corrupt individuals. " From such turn away," and " turn away i/ci?," amount to the same thing, and either one or other becomes duty, according to the circumstances. The majority of the church of Scotland, is indeed still the church of Scotland, and it is right that it should be so, for it is a worldly society, governed and regulated upon worldly principles. But it is not so with a church of Christ. A society that deserves that name, must not only be called a church, but must wa^k in all the commandments and ordinan- ces of the Lord. So soon as they refuse to obey the laws of the kingdom, they justly forfeit the name and character. There can, therefore, be no ground for the complaints and apologies of certain pious individuals in tvorldly churches : * Wha£ can they do ? they are but a few, without respectability or influence. They can- Letter I. 4^1 Bot prevail against the general body.' They can do iust what tliey could do if they were the majority* They can, after laying the truth before their brethren, turn from them if they will not obey it. They might indeed make but a ridiculous spectacle to the world, but they would be glorious in the eyes of the King of Zion, and of all his loyal subjects. Yet I am not at all astonished that you always speak of the majority of any of our assemblies as being the church. It is cer- tainly very, difficult for one who, like you, has formed his ideas of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, from the kingdoms of this world, to conceive how a few indivi- duals, perhaps the most contemptible in the eyes of worldly men, should be honoured with the presence and blessing of Christ, in preference to the most re- spectable majority. As ;n -^vorldly societies, a majori- ty is equivalent to the whole, it is not at all wonder- ful, that the same idea should be transferred to a church of Christ, by all who are unacquainted with the nature of his kingdom. Judging of the offences of individuals also, is quite another thing in a church of Christ, from the same thing in a court of law, or a Presbyterian judicatory. Bi every assembly of carnal men, a- leaning towards kindred, friendship, interest or popularity, may be ex- pected. This will envelope the clearest case. Friend- ship on the one hand, and enmity on the other, will pro- tract every discussion. But in a church of Christ, there is nothing of this nature to entangle the inquiry. If they are Christians, they are all brethren in the closest bonds, and the King, whose laws are to be obeyed, is the nearest relation to each of them. They cannot then be swayed, either by private affection or resent- ment, to obstruct the opera Lion of the laws of the king- 42 Letter I. dom. The judges have no relation so near as the Lawgiver, no interest so dear as the honour and pros- perity of his kingdom. In judging of a charge, church members neither know husband nor wife, son nor daugh- ter, father nor mother. Jesus has every relation in himsel£ Besides, they well know, that they cannot manifest their love to their dearest relations in a more effectual man- ner, than by having the laws of Christ executed wuth respect to them. This is the very appointed means to recover them from the snare of the devil. The laws of Christ are all love, even to those upon whom they are executed. But worldly men, judging of the laws of Christ by the laws of men, which look rather to the prevention of similar crimes by the example of punish- ment, than to the correction of the individual, are ever for skreening their friend from the laws of Christ. Chri- stians, however, know that the laws of Christ embrace both these points, and in a very particular manner the latter. With such judges then, it is not likely that there shall often arise a great difference of opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a person accused. The only dan- ger will be in admitting carnal men to membership *» * There may be partialities in a church of Christ from remaining corruption in the members, and the less there is of the power of religion, the more this will incre^ie, and some confusion may be the constquenct ; but this will lead those who truly fear God, to fcarch and try their ways, as well as to admonish each other ^gr.nst the evil which they have witnessed But the laws of Christ are so simple, that there is little danger of a long con- tinuance of division fiom this cause. When it occa>ion$ much trouble, it generally proceeds from ungodly men vho have crept in unawares, and will tend to make them manifest. Letter I. 43 Then indeed the house mil soon be In flames. Only those who are the children of Jesus can have a proper regard for the honour of his laws j only those who are spiritual are fit to judge. But they must indeed be little acquainted with Presbyterian judicatories, who do not kno^v, that the bulk of the members bring with them their private attachments, and their private en- mities. Some are unreasonably persecuted, \\ hiie others are unjustly cleared. By ihe subtilty of argumenta- tion, the plainest case is involved in such mystery, that it becomes sometimes at last difficult even for an un- prejudiced person to know on which side lies truth. Tfee eloquence oi ;he orators on each side of the que- stion, is generally exerted '■;■: their party, not to inves- tigate and elucidate the s abject under discussion j as in the pleadings at the bar, all their exertions are to clear or criminate, according to the side they have taken. A man will be either an atheist or an ortho- dox believer, not according lo his sentiments, either ^vritten or declared, but according to the Strength of his party. When you say then. Sir, page 30. " If authority, moreover, as exercised by Presbyterians, as you (Mr Innes) evidently insinuate, is not consistent with liber- ty of conscience, I demand how it is consistent with it, when exercised by the majority of an Indepen- dent congregation over the minority ?" I answer, the authority claimed and exercised by Independents and Presbyterians is not the same : that which is claimed and exercised by Independents is, to judge of, and exe- cute the laws of Christ ; Presbyterians, on the other hand, assume a discretionary power, to enact laws of expediency and external order, even avowedly. With the formtr, the whole church, rulers and ruled, are judges, 4^ Letter I. and the laws arc carried Into effect by universal con- sent. With the latter, church rulers alone judge, and execute the laws of Christ according to their own ex- planation, and their own laws, not only without, but often against the consent of those who are called to obey *. Now, is it the same thing to say, ' Here is a law of Christ, and you must obey it,' and to say, * Here is a law of the church rulers, and you m.ust obey it ?' Is it the same thing to say, Christ has said, * Do this in remembrance of me,' or * put from among yourselves this wicked person,' and you must obey him j and to say, * The Presbytery has forbidden you to preach in any place without leave, except in your own parish j and you must obey them.' Upon the admitting of the members to judge of the application of the laws of Christ, as •well as the rulers, you have the following observations, page 29. " It is in fact constituting those who should be ru/eiJ the ruler s^ while the decisions of those -who are dignified with that name, are entirely subject to their determination. Their, opinions, it is evident, where this system is adopted, can only be passed into laws f , when it ' * i!r IS well known, th^t raerobers of the church (^f Scotland, are often forced to do things .gain.st their con- sciences ; and jonictimes, it would appear, fci the very reason that it is against thetr consciences. Some vill iict even scruple to advise to sacrifice scruples of conscience to the peace of the church. f The idea of legislation is so deeply rooted in the minds of Presbyterians, that they cannot get rid of it, even when thty would vish to be thought to disclaim it. Passing laws is a thing so common in their coi rts, that they speak usually the languaj^e of Pa-. lian,'ent. Though in words you dery the power of It^islati'^nj yuu evident- Lettkr I. 45 pleases tlie majority of those who are to ob^y them ; and when it does not please them, they are completely rejected. All the power, therefore, which is vested in the rulers, according to this plan, is merely nomi- nal." Now, Sir, you fall into your old mistake, that all who judge in a church are church-rulers. That mau •must be very ignorant, who needs to be told, that judging and ruling are two different things. You have been labouring a considerable time to shew, that the difference between us upon the point of authority- was little more than in words ; yet, according to our plan, it seems, all the power which is v<5Sted in the rulers is merely nominal. Strange I very strange 1 Our rulers are extremely tyrannical and even absolute, yet in the midst of all their tyranny, they have no- thing but the mere name of power I ! What do you mean. Sir, when you say, " Their opinions (viz. of rulers) can only be passed into laws, ■vshen it pleases the majority of those who are to obey them ?" Do you insinuate, that there are any opinions, either of rulers or ruled, passed into law^s among our churches ? If you do, you are either veiy ill informed, or you misrepresent those upon whom you animadvert. The power claimed by the whole church is, not to make laws, but to judge of their application. The power claimed by rulers is not to propose that their opinions should be passed into laws, but to carry into execution the laws of Christ, when judged applicable by the church. ly appf ar. here and elsewhere, to (appose, that no society can exist without it Why else do you speak of In- depep.dents passing " the opinions" ot church rulerss *• into iavvi .?■' E 45 Letter I, Your observations about governing by aiitbority, as distinguisbed from governing by persuasion and advice, are mere trifling. Mr Innes never denies tbat church rulers rule by authority, nor gives the smallest ground for you to suppose, that when, with the consent of the church, they execute the laws of Christ, they give only an advice. He very properly distinguishes betv/een the manner in which the rulers of a church of Christ call the attention of the church to any of his laws, and that by which Presbyterian rulers enforce theirs. The former never proceed to enforce even a law of Christ, without explanation and persuasion. According to the constitution of a Presbyterian church, this is not neces- sary, nor, so far as I know, ever practised. They pass their laws, and peremptorily enjoin and enforce obedi- ence. When Independent church-rulers call for the obedience of the church, it is never to a law of their own, (I speak, of consistent Independents), but to the laws of Christ, to v-hich they ever point. When they call the attention of the members to a law of Christ, there is no room for hesitation or disobedience. As soon as they see that it is a la^v of Christ, they will implicitly obey, knowing that they are not obeying men, but God. You say, that Presbyterian judicatories may explain their decrees, and give any necessary information and satisfaction to their people. But I ask you, Is this necessary ? Is it a part of their constitution ? A master may explain to his servant, if he please, the reasons why he requires such a piece of ^vork to be done j but he may also, if he please, require him to perform it without any explanation. I ask you further, Is it a \isual practice with Presbyterian rulers not to execute Letter I. 47 tlieir laws, till tliey are assured of the conviction of those who obey them ? I can give you manifold exam- ples of the contrary. Obedience is often enjoined and accepted, when it is known to be contrary to conscience, and consequently abomination to God. In the face of so many stubborn facts, especially as long as you are a member of the church of Scotland, I cannot give you credit for your declaration : " The authority then for which I argue, I wish it to be remembered, is not in- tended to supersede, but to promote inquiry." How can the defender of that church that requires at least equally absolute obedience to its own laws as to the laws of Christ, wish to promote inquiry into the pro- priety of those laws * ? Convinced, or not convinced, they must obey, or be excommunicated. Many will think it the safest way not to inquire, lest they should * On a certain occasion not long ago, a minister of the church of Scotland made" a very able speech on the sub- ject of debate, in which he referred less to the laijoi of his church, and more to the Scriptures, than is common on such occasions. One of the principal leaders afterwards observed, that it was not sufficient to argue from the Scriptures alone 5 for after a man had, by entering the church of Scotland, declared his approbation of her standards, he ought to argue from them upon any ques- tion which came before her judicatories, If he consider- ed her doctrines as contrary to Scripture, he ought to renounce his connection at once. — Here is a specimen of the freedom of inquiry, which, according to a very com-- petent judge, the constitution of the church of Scotland promotes amongst her members Let it be observed, that both the- persons alluded to are of the orthodox party, in which, it is prefumed, Mr B. wishes to be in- cluded. ^^ Letter L be convinced on the wrong side, as some' avoid reading the Confession, that they may, as they think, have less guilt in subscribing it. If your laws could be obeyed or not obeyed, according to the conviction of the indi- vidual, there would be room for inquiry. But when it is said, " Here is a law, znd you must obey it, or be no longer of the church," you take away every stimu- lus to the investigation of its propriety. You observe also, pag. 31. " That whatever is de- livered by any class of rulers, whether sacred or civil,, must be much more regarded when clothed with au- thority." Whatever is commanded by rulers, must certainly be commanded with authority. But the ana- logy does not hold between sacred and civil authority. If church-rulers command obedience to a law of Christ, there is sufficient authority in the command. It has no need of being pompously uttered, or clothed with mini- sterial authority. If it is not a law of Christ, but a regulation of men, there is all the authority of the Lord Jesus forbidding obedience. But in civil things, obedience can never be suspended upon the opinion of those who are to obey. The magistrate's command i& clothed ivith authority, because he has power to enforce obedience, whether It is right or wrong ; but, as in sacred things nothing ought to be obeyed but the laws of Christ, nothing else can be clothed wdth authority. It must be confessed however, that this authority of office, distinct from and beyond the laws of Christ, is very necessary to procure regard to the commandments of men. And the certainty that a man will be excom- municated, and, if a minister, deprived of his benefice^ upon disobedience, certainly present the most " com- manding incitements to examine, and the most power- Letter I. 49 ful enforcements and obligations to obey the truth," thac is, to ODcy che clergy *. What do you mean by your four pages of learned quotations, proving chaL church-rulers rule with autho- rity r" Do any of che churches against whom you write deny this ? You are fighting a phantorii of your own brain. It is impossible to ride without authority j au- thority is necessary to the very exiscence of ruling. We do not deny we affirm, tha^ church-rulers rule with authority j and that the church should submit to those who are over them in the Lord. Eut, Sir, our dispute with you is about the nature and extent of that authority. Independents differ from Presbyterians, not in their rulers having no authoriiy, but in having no authority to make laws of their own, in their having no authority to execute discipline without the consent of the church. Independents profess both to obey, and very highly to esteem their rulers for their work's sake j but their obedience to them is only due when their authority is legally exerted, when they call the atten- tion of the church to the laws of Christ. Does not the king of England rule with authority, althottgh he has no power of himself to make laws, nor to explain laws, but to execute the laws of the land ? Do not the elders of an Independent church rule with authority, although they have no power to make laws, nor exclu- * What should we think of the general who, in the field of battle, would dtciate to his soldiers, befort the engagement, that he would give h s commands only as ''incitement:, to examine into the prudence and proprie- ty of his measures : that if his orders did not seem to them to be the most judicious, they might every man follow his own plan?" E3 5q Letter I. sively to judge of the application of laws, but to carry into execution the laws of Christ ? But, Sir, do you not mean to insinuate by these quo- tations, that the authority of church rulers is greater than what is allowed by Independents ? This conse- quence I deny. The nature and extent of the autho- rity cannot be determined from the words employed to denote it, but from the prescribed limits of the office. King George is a ruler, the Grand Signior is a ruler j but their rule has very different limits. The one rules by law, the other according to his will. If you did not intend to ascertain the nature, extent and degree of the authority of church-rulers, from this investigation of the names of their office, your labour is lost. If you did, you fail in your object j for it would be easy to prove, that the authority varied in each of the different examples, according to the nature of the relation or office with respect to which it is used : while in some o£ them, it is the lowest degree of rule j in others it amounts to absolute despotism. Sir, some people carry their books in their head, as porters do on their shoul- ders J their reasoning is rather encumbered than con- firmed by their learning. 51 LETTER II. Sir, L .N entering on the consideration of your third letter, I cannot repress my feelings at the reasoning you employ, nor do I think that I should. I must say, that you appear to be either greatly deficient in infor- mation as to the principles of your adv^ersaries, or that you want candour to combat them fairly. It seems to me altogeiher unnecessary to give a par- ticular answer to evdy part of that leiter. What do you propose to investigate in it ? Is it whether all or a few should rule in a church of Christ ? There is no need for discussion on the subject j it is self-evident. The ciders alone are the rulers in a church. All your quo- tations and deductions lo ; rove this are nugatory. We hold ourselves as much bound as you to prove this, if there were any so weak as to deny it. But do yon mean to prove by it, that each of the members of a church should not judge in every thing which concerns that church ? Here we are at issue with you. The difference between us here, is both real and mo- menious. Judging and ruling are things distinct In themselves, and are separately exercised, even by the best civil go- vernments. While then we hold, that every member of a church of Christ is appointed by the Great Head, a judge of the application of his laws, there are no rulers in our churches but the elders alone. Their rule is not nominal, buL real j and not the less so, because they cannot cany ihe laws of Christ inio execution till they are judged applicable by the church, nor because 52 Letter II. they have no right to make and execute decrees of their own . The only part of this letter which requires to be par- ticularly noticed, Is your first argument, and a word or t^vo will dispatch it. You there endeavour to prove, that the greater part of the members of a church are unfit to judge in such matters as come before them, as being illiterate and mentally weak. I freely allow you, that the great body of almost every church of Christ are very unfit for being civil le- gislators or judges. I know they would make but a poor figure in the General Assembly. I do not sup- pose that most of them could have said much upon the metaphysical questions relating to Cause and Effect, lately agitated in the case of Mr Leslie. But, Sir, in a church of Christ there are no laws to make, and none ©f those intricate and perplexed questions, handled in Presbyterian courts, ever come before them. All they have to do, is to judge of the application of the laws of Christ, and for this all Christians have spiritual wisdom. From the least to the greatest of them, they are all taught of God. " The law of the Lord is perfect, tnakini, 'Ue t^t sirnpic.'''' If church-members did not understand the laws of Christ, they would be as unfit to ebey them, as to judge w^hen they were aoplicable.- Indeed, Sir, there are many acquainted with almost no book but the Bible, who discover much more know- ledge of the nature of the kingdom of Chiist, and even more sound sense, than others who can quote a farrago of authors, and who never look into the Scriptures, but through the medium of their works. You say. Sir, and I perfectly agree with you, that " to suppose that Jesus, the king of Sion, has warrant- ed those whom he has not qualified to exercise this au- Letter II. 53 tTiority, is worse than contradictory." Jesus indeed qualifies his servants for every situation for which he designs them 5 but, for this very reason, I am sure he never has appointed the General Assembly. The most distinguished legislators are as unfit to judge in the house of God, if they are not Christians, as the meanest Christian cottager is to speak in the House of Com- mons. The two kingdoms are not only distinct, but opposite in their nature, and require quite different qua- lifications in the members. For this very reason, I am convinced that the great body of your church-rulers, though they are dignified with the name, and though their mandates are clothed with authority, have never been appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ, as they have not the qualifications mentioned by Paul to Timothy and Titus, as requisite for that office. For this very reason, I am persuaded that by far the majority of the clergy of the church of Scotland, though they arro- gantly style themselves the ambassadors of Jesus Christ, and thunder out their anathemas, in his name, against those who will not submit to their usurped dominion, are yet unfit to be members of a church of Christ, as it has often been allowed by some of their orthodox bre- thren, that they do not know the gospel. Upon this point then we are apparently agreed. If church-mem- bers are not fit for their duty, I will freely grant that their membership has never been recognized by the Lord Jesus. But your opinion, or mine, as to the right and quali- fications of judging in the church of God, is nothing to the purpose. What saiih the Scripture ? Your opinion, on that point, is not more contradictory to that of Independents, than to that of Jesus and his apo- stles. I will not enter upon this point fully at present, 54 Letter II. as I have to meet you In another part of the subje'ct upon this matter. The sixth chapter of 1 Corinthians is sufficient to settle the dispute. The saints are there supposed not only to judge of the personal, but also of the civil disputes of the brethren *. I ask you, Sir, as Paul does the Corinthians, " Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world ? and if the world shall be judged by them, are they unworthy to judge the smallest matters ?" It requires no great mental culture to judge of every matter that comes before a church of Christ. Common sense Is sufficient to judge of the proof of a brother's oifence, whether it be drunkenness, swearing, covetousness, &c. or. the breach of any posi- tive law J and a spiritual understanding will enable them to discover whether he is to be deemed a hypo- crite, or has been overtaken in a fault. Your fourth letter contains another argument, drawn from the circumstance of the keys being given to Peter. You state several hypotheses, which have been adopted by the different denominations who wish to find their system of church government sanctioned by this pas- * The apostle indeed does not erect the church into a civil tribunal, but recommends that civil disputes between btet'nren should be left to the arbitration of some other of their brethren. They were never to go to law with each other, as if there were none of their brethren in the church suf&ciently wise and prudent to judge of and seti tie their differences. They might chuse the wisest among them for this purpose. To shew that no church v*vl want persons sufficiently qualified, he indignantly asks,- " Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you t* No, not one that shall be able to judge between his bre- thren ?" Nay, he supposes that even the least esteemed weie qualified to make an equitable decision. Letter IL 55 sage. Catholics suppose that they were given to Peter, as the representative of Christ, and from him to their popes. The church of England, you say, see their bi- shops coming in succession to Peter. Toh plead for Presbyterian church-rulers, while Independents, you say, look upon Peter, in this instance, as representing all believers. Indeed, Sir, I agree neither with the one nor with the other. In my opinion, you are all equally astray. I dare say, a hundred hypotheses might be suggested, and supported with ingenious conjectures. Whenever men go upon fanciful ground, there is no end to absurdity. I do not doubt but the Emperor of France might plead his right of succession, with as good reasons as any of you have alleged. There is not the smallest degree of darkness in the passage itself, and I do not think that any Protestant party would ever have thought of founding church-authority upcn it, but from a desire of wresting it from the Pope. The greater part of the difficulties of Scripture are not in the Scriptures themselves, but in accommodating the.n to a particular system. The keys of a house are the instruments of opening a house. The keys of heaven, then, are the instrument by -which that kingdom is opened to sinners j that in- strument is the gospel, for " we are born again of the incorruptible seed of the word." Jesus gave Peter these keys, because he gave him power and infallible t^ualifications to preach the gospel to sinners, by which they were to be introduced into the kingdom of heaven, Peter represented neither one nor another •, neither Pope, Prelate, Presbyter, nor church member. He received the power to himself. There is not the smallest ground to suppose any representation •, nor could it have arisen from any other source than the 56 Letter II. ambition of the clergy, who could not be contented \vith any dignity inferior to that of successors to the apostles, and ambassadors of Christ. " I give unto thee,'''' is the address, without ever hinting at his repre- senting either colleagues or successors. The very same power indeed that he gave to Peter, he gave to all the apostles ; but he gave it to themselves in the commis- sion which they received from him, and not by being represented in Peter. The keys are not an emblem of church power, but of apostolical power. This language amounts to neither more nor less than the import of the commission, which all the apostles received from Jesus before his ascension ^ the power of infallibly preaching the doctrines of the gospel, and of declaring to ^vhat characters the kingdom of heaven is open, and to •whom it is shut. All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are admitted into this kingdom, all who do not are excluded ; while the characters of believers and vmbelievers are infallibly drawn, so that those who are approved by the apostles are approved by Jesus j those condemned by them will be condemned by him. This is evidently the meaning of John xx. 23. "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them : and ^vhose- soever sins ye retain, they are retained." While the apostles declare that all who repent and bjslieve shall be saved, and draw the characters of the saved, they also declare that all whoremongers, adulterers, drunk- ards, &.C. shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The apostles remit and retain sins by the gospel which they preached. Now, Sir, no such authority Is vested in any man or body of men at present upon the earth. Whoever preaches the gospel, and thereby brings sinners to sal- vation J v/hoever declares the doctrines of the apostles, Letter IT. 57 as to tliose who shall be saved and condemned, may indeed, in one s^;nse, be said lo open and to shut the kingdom of heaven. Bnt the keys are not his j they still hang upon the shoulders of the apostles, and are to be found only in the Scriptures. Accordingly we find, ^ that whenever another key is used for this purpose, or any fancied improvement made upon the ke>'s, it never answers the purpo-.e. 1'he doctrines and declarations of the apostles at this day, open and shut the kingdom of heaven as much as when they were upon earth. Nay, they will sit upon twelve thrones in the day of judg- ment ! By their doctrines shall all who have heard the gospel be judged, and admitted or excluded accord- ingly. It is very remarkable that our Lord, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. not only gives, but confines the commission of preaching the gospel to the apostles. He says, *' Go j'/p," without taking the smallest notice of any others who should afterwards be engaged in the same work. He commands them, Mark xvii. 15. to ^^ go into all the world y'' or to disciple all nations, as if they were to have visited every nation of the earth, and to have spoken to every creature j whereas, a great part of the world was not discovered till many ages after their death. He says, " Lo, I am with you?'' as if there never were any others to be engaged in the same work. " Lo, I am with you a/way, even to the end of the worlds as if they \ytxt to live for ever. The reason is obvious. Our Lord fore- seeing, intended to cut off the arrogant pretensions of the clergy. The commission of infallibly preaching the gospel, is given and confined to the apostles. To them alone his presence and his blessings are promised. When others go to preach the gospel, it must be the apostolic gospel j otherwise thej are uncommissioned. F 58 Xetter it. Whoever tKen takes the apostles nath him, has Chnst?s license to preach. Let him introduce them to the world, and they will speak for , themselves. Properly- speaking, it is the apostles only that preach : those who declaim the gospel nov/, only call the attention of sin- ners to hear the apostles. They go into all the world, and disciple all nations, because they are wherever their gospel is. If a sinner is converted at the poles, it is by the preaching of the apostles. Christ will be with them, and with them alone j therefore they need ex- pect no success who do not travel in company with the apostles. He will be with them to the end of the world, because, though dead themselves, they will not cease preaching wherever their gospel goes. All the sinners that shall ever henceforth be brought into the kingdom of heaven, shall * " believe through the apo- stles' ^yord." Yet there have been as many disputes about the question, Who has a right to preach the gos- pel ? as about the more important one, What is the gospel ? Our Lord cuts off all succession. The apo- stles alone have a right, in the chief sense of the words, to preach the gospel. Any man who knows their gospel, has a right to make others acquainted with it. If the passage. Matt, xviii. 18. be supposed to refer to the apostles, as from the similarity of the language, and some circumstances in the connexion, is by many thought most probable, it contains the same absolute commission. But from the connexion in which it Is in- * Therefore also when Christ prays for all his disciples to the end of the world, be includes all that were not at that time converted, undet the character of peryons, who should helivve through the apostles' word, John xvii. 20. Letter II. 5^ troduced, I am rather inclined to think that it relates to the ratification of the sentence of the church, mention- ed ver. n. as far as they have acted agreeably to thf; doctrines and laws of the apostles. And perhaps it is for this very purpose that our Lord changes the address in the nth and 18th verses, to shew that it is only as far as the church coincides with the apostles, that he will recognize and ratify their decisions. The observa- tion upon Matt, xxviii. 19. will tend to solve this difH- cuity. As it is still the apostles who preach •, so it is still the apostles who excommunicate, and re-admit the excommunicated- upon repentance. *' To Vvhom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also." It was the apostle Paul, properly speaking, that put away and restored the incestuous person, for the church was only the instru- ment of executing the apostolical law. So likewise upon every other case of discipline. The retaining and remitting of sins, mentioned. John xx. 23. appears to me to be equivalent to the commission. Matt, xxvin. 19. while the binding and loosing mentioned in this place refers solely to tne laws of discipline j the former referring to those that are without, the latter to tho.^c that are within : the one declarhig how sinners shall be saved j the other how those who have given evi- dence of believing the gospel, and in consequence have been admitted in the churcli, shall be treated when they offend against the laws of the kingdom. In whichever manner this passage is explained, it must overthrow the' pretensions of Presbyterians. If it solely refers to the church, then we claim it j for after all your subtletl-^^, we do not despair of rescuing that word out of your hands. If it immediately refers to the apostles, it is to their power of discipline, and from the connexion in which it is introduced, the church, verse i-7. are ap- GO Letter II. pointed tlie judges of it. Did our cause need the aids, of sophistry, it would have been easy to have said many phusih/e things to shew that the keys were lodged with the body of believers. But it is not to darken, it is to elucidate Scripture I write j neither to over- throw nor to establish the theories of men, but to vin- dicate the word of God. I have therefore. Sir, thought it better to give the true meaning of these passages, as I understand them, than to follow you through the va- rious hypotheses you have stated and tediously canvass- ed. There would be no end to conjectures. I might prefer one, you might prefer another -y and every deno- mination upon earth might propose one to suit them- selves, and defend them with plausible arguments. The passage that relates the giving of the keys, when pro- perly understood, will support no party. Long have the different denominations of the v^TDrld agreed to ba- nish the apostles, and ha:sie quarrelled for their title?,, honours and prerogatives. Instead of putting in a claim, I would wish to restore them to their lawful owners. The apostles, ' though dead,. yet speak,' and bear the keys of the kingdom *. * If the giving of the keys to Peter conveys a rjt,'ht to the Presbyterian clergy to admit and exclude members,, independently of the church, then how can yau reason in your observations on i Cor. v. th^t the church members m^y be said to do it by their rulers. If our Lord gave this exclusive prerogative to church rulers, then it can- not be said that in using it they act as the church's repre- sentatives. It is not the business of the church, but of the rulers. The rulers then act for themselves, and not in the name and as the representatives of the body. The church members then in i Cor. v. could not in any sense be commanded to do that which it was nut their duly la auy sense to do. Letter It. o^ But allow to any of the denominations that claim this text that it gives the keys to their church-rulers, what will it prove ? Not that they have a right to make laws, nor exclusively to judge of the application of laws, but merely to execute them. It would prove that pastors were rulers, not that rulers were legislators. It would prove that they were to carry the laws of Christ into execution, not that they were to execute them at their pleasure without the concurrence of the church. A door-keeper in any public place, or the beadle of a meeting-house, or even the highest steu'ard under the Crown, has a right to open to none but ac- cording to instructions. There is no inconsistency between allowing the church-rulers to be the instru- ments of admission and exclusion, without any power of acting independently of the judgment and consent of the church-members, - Again, if Peter, as a presbyterj represented presby- ters, does not this exclude Presbyterian lay-elders from all share of. church power ? Peter, as a presbyter, could only represent the clerical presbyters j unless we sup- pose that he was trotn a layman and a clergyman ! ! Farther, if Peter received the keys as an apostle, he could not, as such, have been the representative of presbyters -, and if he received them as a presbyter, they did not belong to him as an apostle. Consequent- ly the apostles, as such, were excluded from the exer- cise of the keys, and the authority of presbyters is pa-- ramount to that of apostles *. If he received them as an apostle, they did not belong even to himself as a * This indeed agrees very well with y^'ut obliging the apostle Paul to coire to Jerusalem, to get initructions from a fallible and uninspired council, F3 62 Letter II. presbyter, nor could he convey them to such. Novr Peter was a presbyter in no other way than either as that office is inckided in the apostolic, or as he actually discharged that office in any particular place. If he was an elder in the latter sense, then at the time he re- ceived the keys he was not an elder ; and consequently could not receive them, as such. If he was an elder in the former sense, then it could not be as an elder he re- ceived them, for he was only an elder as he was an apo- stle. It is sufficient to shew you that this passage, with re- spect to the keys, can be fairly explained in consistency with our views. I will attempt to do more. I think. I can shew that the phrase, kingdom of heaven never signifies what is called the visible church. Consequent- ly that " the keys of the kingdom of heaven" do not mean the power of admitting to, 6r excluding from the privileges of church-communion. If this shall appear, there will no longer be occasion to dispute about the possession of these keys, nor fatigue ourselves by ascer- taining whether they should be lodged ^vith the Con- clave at Rome, or with the General Assembly at Edin- burgh. Every kingdom consists of its king and his subjects. The ki'iauom of heaven), or the kin^: "m of God consists of Christ and his people. Part of these are on earth, and part in heaven \ but these do not make two kingdoms, but different parts of the same kingdom in different stages. The one is sometimes distinguished by the name of the kingdom of grace, the other by that of the kingdom of glory. The Scriptures however do no where make this distinction, and there is this evil In it, that it leads people to think that they are not the same kingdom in different situa- Letter IL 63 tions, but two kingdoms entirely distinct j and creates obscurity by multiplying the meanings of the word. The kingdom of heaven includes all the saints in heaven, and all the saints on earth ^ and whenever it is used without any restricting circumstances, it is always to be so understood. Sometimes, however, it refers to one part of the kingdom, and sometimes to the other j sometimes to that part of it which is above, and some- times to that part of it which is on earth, just as the word church does when it denotes the general body of the redeemed. Now, of this kingdom no one is ever a member on earth more than in heaven, but a real saint. The most accomplished hypocrite that ever deceived any of the churches of Christ was never a member of this kingdom, because he was not a subject of its king. He might appear to have been such, and from this en- titled to be treated by Christ's subjects as such, as long as he maintained this appearance. In that kingdom, however, he never had a place. But in the present church on earth there may be hypocrites ; consequent- ly the kingdom of heaven never signifies what is called the visible church. The word no where occurs, in which it cannot be explained on this principle. The phrase, k ngaom oj heaven, is indeed interpreted by commentators very variously, and represented as ex- ceedingly nideterminate in its application. To me it appears as uniform in its acceptation, as any other word or phrase in Scripture. It is ahogelher as precise in the idea attached to it, as the phrase, hin^dont of Great Britain. The application of it by John the Baptist, and by our Lord in his parables, is thought to be of the most difBciilt interpretation. " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," i. e. the Messiah is about to appear and set up his kingdoju, and none can 64 Letter IL enter into it but by repentance. The coming of Christ to erect his kingdom, was also a good argument to call them to repentance. He was to be exalted as a Prince and as a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and re- mission of sins. The times of the former ignorance God overlooked, but now he commanded men every where to repent, and intended to bless the command to multitudes in every place where it should be proclaimed. Our Lord, in the parable of the tares. Matt. xiii. 24. says, " The kingdom of heaven is liken- ed unto a man which sowed good seed in his field ; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares.'* Here it is said, * This must be the visible church, as the invisible kingdom does not contain any tares.' But the kingdom here spoken of is not said to contain the tares. The tares and the wheat are indeed said to be sown in the same field, ihe wurid, hvX the good seed ©nly are " the children of the kingdom." The tares are " the children of the wicked one." Though they are mixed in the world, and in the same families, the kingdoms to which they respectively belong are not mixed. The tares are not said to have been sewn in the kjrgdom. What is the point of resemblance de- signed to be exhibited <' It is this : The subjects of the kingdom of heaven are placed in the same civil society with the snbjects of the kingdom of Satan. The righ- teous and the wicked, though entirely separated as to the kingdoms to which they belong, are nevertheless externally mixed upon earth ; and the design of this parable is to teach the disciples of Christ, that they are never to attempt to extirpate the seed of Satan. The parables of the musiard-seed and of the leaven, repre- sent the small beginning, the gradual progress, and i\iQ glorious enlargement of tliis kingdom. Again, the Lettitr it. 65 iin^fJom of heaven is said to be like a treasure hid in a, field, because Jesus (its king) is the most inestimable treasure- to those wko fiiid him, and he is to be found only in the word. For the same reasoiL, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a merchant seeking goodly pearls. Many persons, in quest of other things which they ac- count most valuable, nnd Jesus j and when they do so, give up all for him to be a subject in his kingdom. The kingdom of heaven is like to a net. Why ? Be^ cause the gospel of that kingdom being preached to the world at large, xvill bring many to a profession, wlio shall be cast away in the great day. These, however, never were members of that kingdom. The great mistake in explaining this phrase in these parables, seems to be from supposing the likeness to be universal, or that it is between what constitutes the kingdom spoken of, and every point of the resembling objects^ It is sufficient that it holds as to any part of the ob- jects compared, or as to any of their properties, circum- stances, &c. The Emperor of France might be liken- ed to Cromwell, or Julius Cesar, not because of any re- semblance in their persons, but because he resembles them in fortune, arms, or successful enterprizes. In short, there is not one instance in which this phrase oc- curs, where it can be shewn that it refers to any visible assembly of men on earth. Many of the subjects of it are upon the earth, but they are not all visibly united. On the contrary, there is not an instance in which the phrase occurs, which may not be explained upon the principles of interpretation here adopted. If this then is well founded criticism, he keys of the kingdom of heaven cannot mean church power, nor the poAver of admitting and excluding church members. If tide kingdom of heaven is Christ's real and invisible 66 Letter IL kingdom, composed solely of the members of Kis body, the admmistration of this kingdom he commits not to another. The gospel is the key that opens this king- dom to those that believe, and shuts it against all who remain in unbelief. But were I even to allow, that the kingdom of heaven might signify what is called the -visi- ble church, yet, if it is so taken here, all that is meant to be given to Peter, is no more than the power of discipline, or of admitting and excluding from the visible church. The expression would be synonymous with, * I give unto thee the keys of the visible church.' I give you power to admit and to exclude. If it is said that it may also include the power of infallibly preach- ing the gospel, to open the real kingdom of heaven, then if Peter represented the Presbyterian church- rulers, they must also claim this part of the apostolic commission, seeing there appears no limitation in the words. Besides, upon this supposition, if Peter recei- ved this commission as a presbyter, the office of infallU bly preaching the gospel belongs to elders, not to apo- stles J and the apostolic office is inferior to the elder- ship. And what is w^orse for your system, if Peter represented Presbyterian church-rulers, and received this commission as their representative, then the lay- elders, as church-rulers, have as extensive a right to preach as the clerical. Moreover, to include this, would be to suppose two different significations of the phrase, kingdom of heaven, which it certainly cannot have in the same place. However, it might at one time signify the real kingdom of heaven, and at another the ^dsibIe church j yet it cannot in the same place signify both. It must be confined to the one or to the other. The keys of the iiingdom of heaven, are the instrument b^ Letter III. 61 which that kingdom is opened. This kingdom con- sists of Christ and his subjects, and this instrument is Uie gospel. LETTER III. Sir, I N your fifth letter, you profess to treat of the evidence in favour of your side of the question, from the right of admitting members, and of ordaining office- bearers. As to the first, your proofs are altogether in- applicable. Elders are not the successors of the apo- stles, and cannot claim an authority like theirs. An ordhiary magistrate in Ireland might as well attempt to extend the limits of his jurisdiction, by appealing to the povver of the Lord Lieutenant. If we ivish to know the limits of the office of elders, we must exa- mine it as delineated, and practically exhibited in the New Testament. When a superior office includes in- ferior under it, which inferior offices are separately ad- ministered by distinct officers, we cannot tell from any pariru/jr exertion of power in the superior officer, whether it solely belongs to his superior office, or is a part of such inferior offices as are enjoyed by him in common with others. This must be determined by shewing the limits of these inferior offices, either as de- scribed, or exemplified by instances of sufficient autho- rity. We are never warranted to consider an official action of a superior officer, as resulting from an infe- rior offxe, included in his superior, until we can sheiv that such inferior office has power corresponding to such 68 Letter III. an action. For instance, when we read tliat tlie Arc?^ bishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of London, baptise! an infant of the Royal Family, we could not determine from this relation %vhether, according to the constitution of the Church of England, the right of baptism solely belonged to the episcopal office, or was enjoyed by bi- shops of that communion, in common ^vith the inferior clergy. Of this however we may be certain, that bap- tism belongs to the episcopal office *, whether or not it belongs to it excluiively, must be determined from other proof. For this purpose, we must examine the extent and prerogatives of the infeilor offices of that church, from her constitution and from her practice. From this quarter we shall find, that the right of baptism, ac- cording to the constitution of the church of England, belongs to the inferior clergy in common with the supe- rior. But if neither the constitution nor the example of that church proved the right of the inferior clergy to baptise, we should be warranted in concluding, that it belonged solely to the bishops. Again, if we should read that the bishop of Derby ordained such a person to the clerical office, or that he is going through his diocese, confirming the youth, how should \ve ascertain whether, acording to the constitution of the church of England, ordination and corfirmaiion v/ere exclusively performed by bishops, or that it belonged to them, not as bishops, but as clergym-en ? That the administration of these ^vas a part of the episcopal office, we could, from the relation itself, have no doubt *, and that it be- longed to it exclusively, we must also conclude, unless we learn from the constitution or practice of the church that o^^ination and confirmation were administered also by presbyters. We must then examine the duties and prerogatives of the subordinate offices of the church of Letter HI. Oi? England, and from this we sliall find tliat they do not extend to the administration of these ordinances. Now, I apprehend that these ilhistralions are altogether in point. The apostolic office included all subordinate offices, and was paramount to any other office in the church. In the execution of this office, therefore, they m?y do many things wlrlch do not exclusively belong to the apostleship. But liow are we to know these things ? How are we to distinguish between the things which they did solely as apostles, and the things done by them, which might also have been performed by others ? Not certainly from the bare relation that such things were performed by them, but from a Scriptural examination of all inferior offices, to see to what height these actually reached. When we read that an apo- stle did such a thing with respect to church matters, we may be sure that such a thing was included in the apostolic office j but whether it was confined to it or not, we must learn from another quarter. The apos- tles were extraordinary officers. Their office, as such, included all inferior. They were also church-members n any church where they resided. In consequence of .his, many things they did, which none other had a right to do j many things they did, which ordinary- officers might do j and many things they did, which all church-members might do. But whether any particu- lar action was performed by them in the capacity of the first, the second, or the third, cannot be known from the bare relation of the fact, but from either subjoined testimony, or from the account of the several duties and privileges of an apostle, of an ordinary church-ruler, and of a church-member. When we examine the two latter, if we do not find that it is included in any of them, it must be attributed to the first. We are never G ^*ro -Letter III. ■warranted to say on any particular occasion that may ^suit our purpose, that such an exertion - of power be- longed to the second, unless v/e can prove from other circumstances,- that the power of the second was equal to it ; noT that it belonged exclusively to the second, if it comes wathin the sphere of the duties and privileges of the third. Now, instead of investigating the diffe- rent duties of apostles, of elders, and of ehurch-mem- 'bers, upon these principles, you artfully make your •Presbyterian church-rulers step into the place of the apostles, and w^hatever you can find done by apostles, and other extraordinary ministers, you think yourself -sufficiently warranted to claim for your favourites. ** The apostles were church-rulers j therefore, what- •cver was done by apostles, may .be done by Presbyte- rian church- rulers now." Might not I as well say, "" The apostles were church-Tnembers j therefore what- -cver the apostles did, church-members may also do r" And anotlier say, " The apostles were men j therefore -vvhatever the apostles did, all men may do r" The apo- stles, you say, introduced members into the churches without the consent of the members *, therefore Presby- terian church-rulers may do the same. A Welch cu- rate may as well say, " The Archbishop of Canterbury- has authoritative inspection over all the churches in England, why may not I have the same ?" The lowest order of the English clergy may as well vindicate their claims to the right of -jr. /'at/on. mid conjirmaiiony by the example of their bishops. Now, Sir, if the preceding observations are well founded, this gigantic argument, derived from the pre- cedent of apostles and extraordinary officers, will fall to the ground. The power of the apostles included every other power. The whole government of the Letter III: "71 • churcH'es was vested in them. Whate^^er they did with respect to the affairs of the churches, they did with the same unlimited power with Jesus himself j for they were in Christ's stead. They were his accredited am- bassadors. It will not serve you then to allege, that the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost, could not have been examined by the whole church in one day. So soon as the apostles were satisfied with, their profession, the brethren would gladly receive them. Besides, Sir, they could be as easily examined by the whole church as by one member 3 for if they were examined by one, in the presence of the church, it is the same as if every member individually had exa-- mined each of them. You might not only have said that there was not time for e^ach of the members to ex- amine each of the three thousand, and publicly to give his opinion,' but that there was not time for such an ex- amination, even by the apostles. We are certain how- ever, that these persons gave evidence of believing the gospel. Besides, Sir, from the example of Barnabas introducing Paul, (Acts ix. 21.) we see that it is not necessary that every individual should converse with, the member proposed. It is enough that a brother, in whose judgment we have confidence, introduces him as a believer. You say indeed that Barnabas was a Chri- stian minister. Do you intend by this that he was a church-ruler ? Was Barnabas an elder of that church ? If not, did his itinerating as a preacher of the gospel give him authority in that church ? Did he bring him in by the authority of office ? Wasit not by the attesta- tion of facts — that Paul had seen the Lord — that the. Lord hud spoken to him and that he had, as a con- finnation of this, preached boldly at Damascus ?" Could not any brother, aco^uainted with these fcicts,. 12 Letter IIT. have inlTodivzed Paul as well as Barnabas r Had Bar- nabas even been a church-ruler, could his authority have constrained the apostles to submit ? Whatever he was then, Sir, raaketh no matter. He did this, not as bearing any office, but from the knowledge of facts. This instance will for ever warrant the churches to re- ceive members upon the recommendation of a brother. But they must be always brought to the apostles be- fore they be received. The churches must be satis- fied that those they admit are approven by the apo- stles. But it is exceedingly plain from this narrative, that even when the apostles w^ere present in the churche.% members were introduced with the full approbation of the brethren. When Paul came to Jerusalem, " he assayed to join himself to the disciples 5 but they were, all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple." There can be nothing plainer to any man, that hath no system to support by a contrary supposition, than that those who were afraid of him would not receive him. The whole body, rulers and ruled, apostles, el- ders and brethren, are evidently included. All the disciples were afraid of him j therefore he was not re- ceived. But one of the brethren, acquainted with the truth of the matter. Introduced him to the apostles, not to the elders, and he was in consequence received^ When the apostles were fully satisfied, no brother would have any objection. Nothing can be more forced than Your paraphrnse of these words, " that so general a fear of him was entertained by the church, he could not be received by those whose prerogative it was to admit him." This is not rbe simfyh stat^m ,/. This mean- ing is forced out of it in a very O'vplex manner. Be- sides, if in conseo^uence of the disciples not being per* Letter III. 73 suaded he was a believer he could not be received, then liie brethren hav^e a vote. They have a power of preventmg any member to be admitted, which amomils to the very thing for which we contend. Add to this, that if Patd's application for admission had not been publicly notified to the church, all the disciples could not have been afraid of him. When it is said that he attempted to join the disciples, but that they were afraid of him, it is necessarily implied that the applica- tion -was made to the whole body. Had the church been Presbyterian, application would have been made to the session alone. The brethren would have known nothing of the matter till after he was admitted, and perhaps many of them not even then, for a considerable time. In a very large church, unless the candidate is publicly proposed, his admission ©r rejection might not for a length of time be known to many of the members. When then it is said, that before Paul's admission, all the disciples were afraid of him, I hold it an incontro- vertible fact that he was publicly proposed. And when, in consequence of this, he was not received, I hold it also incontrovertible, that the rejecting of him was the deed of the whole body. Public application was made for admission j the wliole churcii was afraid €f him J therefore they did not receive him, till it was ascertained by one of their number that he had believed the gospel. You tell us indeed in a note, p. 15. " that v/ere it judged expedient *, even upon the Presbyterian * Can It then be judged expedienr to dispense with apostolical example ? Were this the extent of the exam- ple, by what authority dare you pretend to set aside its obligation ? When you iay, *• Were it judged expedient," you plainly uippose the propriety of it not being judged expedient. Here then, '* by your traditions vou con* G 3 74 Letter III. •system^ when any person applies for tlie privilege of membership, it could be announced to the congregation, and any member who could substantiate any objections to his admission, as in the case of election to the ofhce of fessedly set aside the commandments of God." What you allow to have been the practice of this apostolical church, you .suppose it to be expedient to dispense with You even claim a greater authority than the apostles exercised j foi what the apostles t;.ought it expedient to do, with the concurrence of the whole church, you think it expedient to do without this concurrence. This is not only suppo- sed in your language, but is confirmed by the universal practice of the church of Scoth^nd Besides, it li not even the theory of Presbyteiy professed in you- standards which you are here defending, it is altogether an ideal Presbytery. If it is a better cue than that professed by the church of Scotland, then the latter cannot be divine ; fot there cannot be supposed to be any thing better than v.hat is divine. What sore si raining you have to adjust the different interestsof the theory of the churchof Scotland with her universal practice I and what endeavours to hide, 6r at leasf to draw the attenti- n of your readers from, the disconfoiroities of the latter with the former I Fhcn, * hea even the professed theory of the church of Scotland fails, you strike out a new theory ; but you are evidently much cramped by the old one. You could give your imagina- tion much more play, were you not restrained by the feac of censuring the standards, which you protess to defend. There is no man, nowever, who will not, by reflecting a moment, evidently see that in every amendment of Pres- bytery which you suggest, you either condemn that pro- fessed by the church of Scotland as not being, in such de- fective cases, agreeable to the divine model, or that the divine model may be improved, or that it is not in every part worthy of scrupulous imitation. Indeed, from the many improvements, additions, and compatibilities which Letter III. 75 -elders, be invited to state them to the minister or ses- sion." " It could be announced to the congregation." I ask you, Is this done by the church of Scotland ? I ask you, Is this a necessary part of the constitution ? I ask you if you think this to be a part of that divine syiUm you defend ? If you really think this to be a part of your divine model, why do you not practise it ? If you do not think so, why do you mention it ? Is it not as an unworthy subterfuge, to avoid the edge of our arguments ? You hold this to be compatible with your constitution, evidently for the sole purpose of bringing your paper presbytery a little nearer to a gos- pel church. But if it is not a part of your constitution^ it is of no value that it is compatible with it. It is not -enough that such a thing might be done in a Presbyte- rian church. These questions will follow. Is such a tiling done by the generality of Presbyterian congre- gations ? Are they even bound to it by their constitu- tion ? If not, vvhat security have we that ever it will be complied ^vrth ? But allowing that the constitution required this, and that it was acted upon, of what use is it, when, after all the remonstrances of the congrega- tion, the church-rulers may even, according to their constitution, receive any member ? The congregation could only act here as informers j and after all their objections, the obnoxious person may still be admitted. Nay, suppose the whole session and the whole congre- gation agree to exclude, or not to admit any individual, they may be forced to comply, by a superior jurisdic- tion. The rejection of Paul could not have been by you suggest, you plainly shew that you suppose, either that the divine model is not coicplcte, or that it is not in every thing binding. 76 Letter III. the churcK-rulers, in consequence of any new informa- tion as to his character received from the disciples. He was rejected because, from his former character, they were all afraid of him. Now this character of Paul was known by the apostles and church-rulers previous- ly. ■ if then he was rejected on account of circum- stances which were previously as xvell known to the church-rulers, as to the body of the church, it could not have been m consequence of any additional inform- ation given to ihe foimer. But how absurd is it for a church, or the defender of a church, which embraces the body of a nation, to speak of not admitting impro- per persons ! Once give a liberty to any individual member among you, who knovvs the gospel, to make just exceptions to the characters of your church- mem- bers, and exclude all he points out, you will soon have empty houses. How absurd is it for you to speak of submitting to the judgment of the congregation the admission of members, while you remain in, and de- fend a church which does not allow the congregations to chase even their pastors j nay, which will, with a body of armed men, ordain ministers over congrega- tions against their consent ! The church you defend in theory, and the church of which you are a member, are not only not the same, but entirely opposite. If the church you defend is upon the divme model, the church of Scotland is upon a human model. You add, ** And it is well known to be consistent with our Pres- byterian constitution, that the first time a person re- ceives a token of admission to the supper, it may be delivered to him in the presence of the whole congre- gation." Is this a part of your divine model ? Does the church of Scotland comply with it ? If noi, why do you not forsake the church of Scotland, to adopt youj? Letter HI. 77 il vine model ? Ah, Sir, what pitiful resources are rneri reduced to, when they employ their pen to force the Scriptures to sanction a worldly system I The church of Scotland differs so very materially from the church you defend, that it is with difficulty I can believe that you are seriously convinced that there is any divine model. You say, *' that it is consistent with the Pres- byterian constitution, that the first time a peron re- ceives a token for admission to the supper, it may be delivered to him in the presence of the whole congre- gation." If this is necessary and agreeable to Scrip- ture, why does not the Presbyterian constitution de- mand it ? If it is not necessary, why does it admit of it? You observe in a note, p. 73. " Since writing the above, I have looked into Pardovan, book 2. title 4. section 4. and find that, by the constitution of Presby- terian churches, no minister, though he may examine, can admit any person to the privilege of membership, till the whole of his session, as well as himself, are sa- tisfied both as to his knowledge and piety." Why had you to look into Pardovan for the consti- tution of a Presbyterian church ! Is not this a tacit ac- knowledgment that it is not in the Scriptures ? Had your constitution been contained in the word of God, could you not as well have appealed to every part of the model there exhibited, and, upon the principle of only defending the theory, have condemned all Presby- terians who did not act up to the model ? You find from Pardovan, that the Presbyterian constitution is such ; she^.v me that constitution in the Bible. Where do you in that sacred volume find the above instruc lions ? Nay, the argument you have used from the conduct of the apostles, will overthrow this constitution of Pardo- 78 Letter III. van. For if church-rulers were represented by the apostles, the session, as composed of laymen, must be excluded from church pov/er. You must shew me then, not only from Pardovan, but from the New Tes- tament, how a session of lay-elders can come in succes- sion to the apostles. If the apostles represented church- rulers, the minister, or ministers only, of a congrega- tion has a right to admit or exclude memberSi. How is it also, I ask, that the Presbyterian congregation re- quires perfect unanimity upon this point, when the highest matters in their supreme assemblies are settled by majorities. A single vote on this side or on that side, would retain or reject the most important article of the creed. Is it then Presbyterian to require per- fect unanimity in the lowest court ? Task also, Where is it determined in the Scriptures, whether the minister fl/o«tf may exarame him, or the session also? Fori take your expression, " though he may examine," to imply that he may exclusively examine. If it does not signify this, it is absurd y for no one would suppose that he may not equally with the lay-session examine any candidate. I ask again, if the minister has the sole right of examination, how it is, in all cases that may occur, possible for each member of the session to be satisfied, when he has it not in his power to put a: question himself ? But farther j if this Is really a part of the divine Presbytenan constitution, then all Presbyterian churches which do not comply with it are so far. not on the di* vine model. If there are members admitted without the full consent of the whole session, they are tram- pling upon a part of a divine constitution. It must then be duty for all who think so to separate from such, if they will not submit to. the divine model. Now, as Letter III. 7§ I am not sure of tlie practice of the church of Scot- land in this instance, I will ask you what it is ? I will tell you that the practice of the General Synod of Ulster is quite the reverse of this. So far as I know, the young communicants are admitted by the minister alone. I am convinced however, that this is not the case with the stricter Presbyterians. The use I will make of this here is, that all churches which do not admit every member with the full consent of the whole session, are off the divine model, if you have given a fair representation of it. Again, if every member of session must be satisfied both as tothe know/ei^ge and />z^/)' of the candidate, I will draw one of two conclusions as to every body of Pres- bvterians j either that such sessions are incapable ■judges of knowUt/ge and />«V(v "i candidates, or that they are not convinced of the knowledge and piety of all they admit. I know of none that is pure, I know of none that professes to be such. Whichever of these conclusions is the just one, I will infer that there is then not in existence a Presbyterian church upon the divine model you defend. Indeed, Sir, it is something worse than effrontery for a member of an established church, that embraces the body of a whole nation, to pretend that all who are admitted to the privilege of member- ship give uitisfifcto* y tmdt.nce of their knowledge and pit \ ; or who, thinking the divine model to be such, will attempt to vindicate a church that acts upon prin- ciples so opposite. In reality .you do not vindicate, you indirectly overthrow the church of Scotland. If the divine model is such as you describe and defend, the church of Scotland is a mere pretender. You descant also upon the superior advantages of presbytery as to the exclusion of corrupt members. 50 Letter III. '* If, through mistake," you remark, *' an improper person be * occasionally admitted, the members are per- mitted to communicate what they know of the appli- cant to the pastor j and if, after remonsLrance, he be continued in rommunion, the lo-^vest individual in the: congregation is allowed to call these pastors to an ac- count, with the whole of their session, before a superior court •, and if that court should decide amiss, to summon even it, with these pastors and elders, to a still higher tribunal ; and even that, to a higher, till the obnoxious member be at last excluded." What a beautiful chain ! Is it possible that there could ever be an unjust deci- sion, even in the lowest Presbyterian court, seeing there is such an admirable provision of subordinate courts ! You might have lengthened the chain by a vast num- ber of links, until you come to the grand council, which is to govern the whole world, according to your divine scheme. But after all, you have not said v/hat was to be the case, if the highest court was to confirm the act of the lowest. You have supposed that the obnoxious member was at last excluded j what if he were to be re-* tained ? Mr Ewing has given you an instance of this. It is enough to say, that this subordination of courts is not in the Scriptures *, and therefore, though it may have a shew of wisdom to the satisfying of the carnal mind, full of the pompous ide?s of this world, we are sure it is not only useless, but injurious. Noiie can be such good judges of the conduct of a member as his brethren, who are in immediate and constant commu- * *' Occadonal/y admitted^ Let those who know th.e church of Scotland, pause a inomeut, and reflect upon this. What may we not expect from a viiter who c.iii defend that church after this mannei ? LETTER 111. 81 tiion with him. And if they can determine the mat- ter themselves, why should they employ others '* But especially as to the courts of the church of Scotland, where is the "security that a Christian will meet with impartiality in their decisions. In the first instance, a-; ■the bulk of them are carnal men, they are spiritually blind, and therefore incapable judges of the affairs of Christ's kingdom. If you and I disputed about the colour of any object, where would be the use of sub- mitting our difference to the decision of blind men ? And what would it serve to have one arbitratibn after another, until we had ihe judgment of all the blind men in the w^orld ? In the second place, all carnal men are enemies to the King of Sion, and consequently to his laws. It may be expected then, that such worldly men will side with the world against Christ, his laws, and disciples. Thus we always find, that m every Vv'orldly church, when a conscientious individual wishes to have the laws of Christ respected and executed, he Is always not only opposed, but hated and calumniated. In the opposition to the la^vs of Christ, none will be so violent as the clergy. Their constant ministering in f acred things, gives them a greater degree of disgust agalnf,t them-, than we will find in other carnal men. Besides, the contrast between their own conduct, and the purity of the religion and la-ivs of Christ, is so stri- king, that they cannot bear to have it brought under their contemplation. It is easy then to see the reason •tvhy, in your courts, those n^ho wish to maintain any purity always miscarry. Christians in your connexion are objects of greater aversion to the carnal clergy, than even to (he rest of the world. None are so unmerci- ful to the -wi ' as the moderate brethren. How then I (juld it be expected that an individual, oitended with H S2 Letter III. the admission of a corrupt member, could succ<^cd In Lis applications to have him excluded ? The world has the superior interest in the church of Scotland j and •while this is the case, all attempts towards pure com- munion, must be abortive. When a magistrate hates the king, and hates the laws, it is not likely that he will be very zealous in having them respected. He will allow of every quibble to evade the true spirit of the laws. " Among Iridependents, however," you observe, *' with all their boasted liberty and purity of principle, this is impossible : for if an uuAvorthy applicant be re- cjeived as a member by a majority of any of their 4:jhurches, there is no superior court, on earth at least, before whom a conscientious minority can arraign them, and procure the expulsion of that member from their society ; however unfit, he must, continue in fellowship, while no alternative is left to them, but immediate se- paration, or patient submission amidst obvious corrup- tion." Did you really think, Sir, that a majority of ajiy of our churches are in the ha'bit of introducing niembers, contrary to the opinion of a minority ? If this is the case, I am really astonished that you should bring so black a charge, without acquainting yourself with the truth of the fact. A majority bring in a member against the opinion of a minority I Those against whom you write vv^ould not do so against the conscience of a single brother. There is not a single member admitted, but with the full consent of the whole church. Our churches kno^v nothing of the ■words majority and minority. If any church called Independent acts upon such principles, I abandon its •defence. It is nothing a-kin to those planted by the Letter HI. ^^ apostles. What shall I say if you krxw this, and have- represented the matter as you have done ? If a hypocrite thrust kimself into any of our churches' unawares, as may frequently be the case, so soon as he is detected, every child of God would instantly unite in excluding him, as bees join in expelling the drone, or^ in removing a dead bee from their hive. Yet the na- tural conclusion any one who should give you credit would draw from your statement is, that a majority ad- mits and retains even corrupt members, contraiy to the ' convictions of a conscientious minority. But you say, Sir, that they must either separate, or' submit patiently amidst obvious corruption. Here you seem to make the admission of a single improper mem- - ber being a very great grievance find corruption, as it is in reality. Can I believe that you are in earnest ? Are not these crocodile- tears ? Tell me, Sir, if your ' conscience is so tender upon this point, how do you re- main in the church of Scotland ? Is there not a single improper member to your knowledge in that con- nexion ? Tell me, is there one of your congregations in all Scotland, in which there are not many ; in most, perhaps the greater part of the members ? Nay, are ' there not some, even in your own congregation, admit- ted to privileges, who, even according to your own loose notions of Christianity, are not Christians. Ah ! Sir, you aifect to make a mighty matter, even of the possibility of an improper member being continued in an Independent church j yet you remain in a situation in which the grossest corruption cannot be avoided. For if you and your -whole session would agree to admit none but those who should give sufficient evidence of believing the gospel, you may be compelled to admit the most obnoxioLis at the discretion ot the superior ^4.- Letter Hi. courts. Let any minister of the General Assembl/ make tlie experiment, to accomplish purity of commu- nion, and hc' will see whether it shall not interpose its maternal authority. You say some things about the baptism gi Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch, to which I shall not take the trouble to advert j for though no adults should be bap- tized, but those who have a right to be admitted to every other ordinance, yet baptism does not constitute church membership. It is the privilege of individuals, as believers, not as church-members. There is no- church authority involved in the question. When an individual goes out to preach the gospel, there is cer- tainly no reason that he should consult a church be- fore he administers the ordinance of baptism to belie- vers, for that ordinance does not exclusively belong to a church, as such,, nor does the admission to baptism give a formal right of membership. It is enough that the church be consulted, when, the individuals apply for admission. Then indeed their right to be satisfied is indispensable. Paul was baptized at Damascus, yet he was not Vvithout difilculty admitted afterwards to membership in the cliurch at Jerusalem. The Ethior pian eunuch was not a chuvch-member, even after he was baptized, though he certainly had a right to be <-uch, had there been a, church in. the place to which he was going. The person also who baptized him was not an eider j for thougli it were .even allowed that Philip was at this time an evangelist, yet as such he- was a different officer. In your dissertation on ordination, I see something right, much wrong, and still more to no purpose at all. You say, *' That it is committed to the latter (elders) alone., appears lo be the general opinion of y< our: Letter III. S5 churclies ; for mlixisters alone, so far as I know, ordaia your pastors." About what then, Sir, are you con- tending ? If this is our opinion and practice as well as yours, why are you at so much trouble to prove it ?• Are you at all this pains to convince us that we are right ? But do you wish to prove from this, that, ac- cording to our principles, they ought not to ordain ? Now, Sir, whatever be the nalure, properties and cir- cumstances of ordination, it is altogether executive, and as long as the churches have the right to elect their officers, it is quite consonant with my views of a church of Christ, that elders ordain them. Your error here is that which runs throiigh your whole work ; that of not distinguishing between judging and determining any matter in a church, and executing such determi- nations. Take this away from you, and your reason- ing falls like a baseless fabric. As to the point in hand, I care not what you make of ordination. It can make nothing for or against any system. Though then I find many things unscriptural in your notions of or- dination, I will not be led off my road. Your view of John XX. 21. 23. I have already considered. Your reasoning from what Paul says to Timothy and Titus, is built upon the common fallacy of confounding the office of an elder with that of an evangelist. That every case of discipline is entirely committed to the whole church, though always to be executed by the elders, I shall elsewhere endeavour to j^rove. 113 S(5^ LETTER IV I COME now with pleasure to review your sent! ments of Matt, xviii. 11. in which you attempt to evade the force of Mr Innes' most clear and' cogent reason- uig. Upon the primary and appropriated meaning of the word iKKXricna, I do not find myself called on to write any thing here, as there is nothing in your book that at all affects Avhat I have said on that point in my ' Reasons for separiuing from the Synod of Ulster,' to which I refer you. I -will confine myself here to an examination of your objections to our views of this passage. In answer to Mr limes, you reply, p. 38. " that It seejns by no means just to affirm, that the churc^: in Scriptuie means either the church universal, or a parti- cular congregation." Now, Sir, how do you attempt to prove this ? I must be allowed to say, that whether you are right or wrong, you proceed neither like a cri- tic', nor a man desirous of investigating truth. Instead of tracing the word to its original, and shewing what it may signify from its intrinsic meaning, or what it ac-r tually does signify from an enumeration of the various passages- in which it occurs in the New Testament, you tell your antagonist that Presbyterians understand it sometimes in a sense different from wdiat he had sta- ted. If, as you pretend, the word church has any other i>ieaning than what Mr Innes has assigned to it, -,vhv do yqu not prove It ? Wliy do you not quote the •places where it viust have another sense. It is not ^'.ifncicnt to shcvr, as you have_attempted} thut it may Lettkr IV. 87 have another application, even were you successful in your efiorts. Pv'Ir Innes has pointed out places where it muit be understood as he contends ; and every other passage can be fairly explained on that hypothesis. To overthrow him, you must refer to places where your antagonists will be obii;^ed to allow that it has the signification for winch you contend. What is the rc^ison that Catholics cannot prove that the pope is not intended by the term church here ? The very same that forbids the Presbyterian interpretaiion j because, in no instance can they produce a passage in which the word is incontestably so used. Both the Catholic and the Presbyterian incerpretation of this celebrated pas- sage stand upon the same sandy foundation. Both are built upon an arbitrary supposition. The former may- be defended by as piausiuit arguments as the latter. Wlien we say, that it signifies a company of saints^ ;()ined in chuich-fellowship, we can prove fiom nume- rous passages that it hath this meaning ^ in which even oin- opponents cannot differ from us.. We use it in its literal, plain, and usual accepiation. I challenge you, Sir, and all the world, to produce one such passage in all the NeAv Testament, where it must incontestably be understood according to ycu" interpretation. If you succeed, I will surrender to you this part of the argu- ment. To fix an interpretation on the word churchy in this place, v/hich it has not incontestably in others, is altogether unphilosophical. The most daring critic in the world would not take such a liberty with a verse of Plomer. You tell us that Presbyterians think that the church of Jerusalem had a number of congregations, and com- plain of Mr Innes' candour in not disproving this. You think that he begs the question. But, Sir, Mr 88 Letter IV. Innes was not bound to disprove every conceit of Pres- byterians. He determines the meaning of tlie word with strict precision, by an enumeration of the pas- sages in ^vhich it is used. If from this he has esta- blished his point, his reasoning is not invalidated by any objections but such as are founded upon the oc- currence of the word clearly in another signification, or such as cannot possibly be explained upon his sys- tem. Objections arising merely from supposed diffi- culties can have no weight. Now, what is your proof that the church of Jerusa- lem was divided into a number of separate congrega- tions ? Is this any where related ? Are the saints of that city any where represented as meeting in separate places for the enjoyment of public ordinances ? Are they in any part of the inspired records represented as separated into distinct bodies ? No, no, no j you do not, you cannot allege this. Quite the contrary is of- ten said, and every xvhere supposed. What then is your proof ? 01 ihe grtat number ofdiicipUs, No houjr in Jerusalem could hold them ; thtrejore a church signifi s a number of separaie congrtgations. What I have further to say upon this point, I will de- fer till I come to consider your letter, in which you attempt formally to prove your position. I will only say now, that I care not how many you make them. If I can prove that the word is universally upon other oc- casions used for a single congregation of saints meeting for worship, when it is not used for the whole king- dom of Christ j and that in no case you can prove the contrary by an example which is clear and undisputed, I am not obliged to shew you how or where they might meet, or hoTv they must have been dispersed. If I can shew from the meaning and use of the word, that such Letter IV, 89 Is its application, and never othenvise^I am not obliged to measure houses, nor the extent of the voice of the first preachers. . It I can shew that there was only one chu;-ch iar^I^u^alem, though the whole nation had been conMcrtefi in that city, the necessary conclusion is, thut no more of the disciples remained there constantly than could meet in one pkce. If objections from sup- posed diihculdes were allowed to invalidate the truth of facts, there is not a point in ancient history whiciv could be indisputably proved. The truth even of our Lord's resurrection would not stand clear, nor that of revelation itself. Equally nugatory are your observations on the oc- currence of this word. Acts viii. 1. where you say that the word seems only to imply the church-rulers. This interpretation is perfectly arbitrary. It is not necessir- ry here, nor is it supported , by any other passage m which the word is unquestionably used in such a sense. Why then should it signify only the church-rulers ? I know of no reason, except it should be out of com- plaisance to the Presbyterian system. It is to no pur- pose that you shew that it r/:ay have this signification here. Before this can be esteemed an exception to the general use of the word, and a valid objection to Mr Innes' reasoning, you are obliged to shew that it must have such a meaning. All your probabilities we can overthrow by a single touch. When we establish our meaning of the word from other clear instances, all we have to do to overthrow your conjectures, is to shew that every passage in the Scriptures can be explained in consistence with our system^ and that supposed dith- culties may have possible solutions. Let u:. hear your reasons for this interpretation of Acts viii. 1. As to the church-rulers behig mo8t ex- 96 Letter IV. posed to persecution, and the reasons you allege for tlie apostles not departing with the rest, notwithstanding their greater notoriety, though it would" be easy to ex- pose this, I will not follow you into the fairy regions of conjecture. Any thing like argument I will answer. I will only trample on may -he's and might-be's. Your argument, derived from the circumstance that those of the dispersed, who are afterwards particularly mention- ed in the history, were ministers, even allowing it to be a fact, would amount to nothing. It does not fallow, that all the rest were so too. But if it were a thing worth an argument, it might be affirmed, that there is not the smallest reason to suppose that some of those mentioned were as yet any thing but deacons. Does it follow, because Philip is afterwards called an evan- gelist, that he was then so. Besides, I will allow you that they were all evangelists, and even on that supposi- tion will undertake to prove, that they are not com- prehended in your definition of the word church, as signifying church-rulers, from their being the represen- tatives of that charch. As evangelists, they were not rulers in any church, as being the representatives of that church, but as having authority paramount to the whole church, in setting In order things that were wanting, according to the apostolic directions. They could not then be called the church, because they were the representatives of that church. This conclusion would not be affected by the supposition that evange- lists are ordinary officers, whose business it is to itine- rate and plant churches according to the apostolic mo- del. This would not make them stationary rulers in any church. This would not be an officer In a formed church, but an officer for forming churches. Upon nei- ther view then of the office of an evangelist, could these Letter IV. 91 persons mentioned have been included in the church, according to your definition of it. But all preachers of the gospel you reckon among your church-rulers. If tiiey cannot he called pastors or elders, they may come under the description of Christian ministers ; whereas both then and now, there were many who preached, and do preach the gospel, who are not church-rulers. Are your probationers church-rulers ? If not, accord- ing to your definition, they are not included in the word church. Your argument from the use of the word church in the third verse, is not only irrelevant, but overthrows completely your conjecture. You make the word church in the first verse signify the pastors 5 in the third, you make it denote the brethren. Now, Sir, v.ould you take the liberty to explain a verse of the Sybil in this manner ? If the Holy Ghost had used words in this loose manner, to signify the most opposite classes of people in the very same assembly, employing it indiscriminately almost in the same breath, without any thing in the connexion to inform us of his inten- tion, would it be possible to arrive at any certain con- clusions from the Scripture's ? Had the pastors only of that church been dispersed, could he not have told us so ? Would it not have been as easy for him to have said, ** The pastors of the church at Jerusalem were all scattered abroad j as to have said, " The church at Jerusalem was all scattered ?" Did he mean to lead us astray ? Or did he wish to enhance the imiportance of the clergy, by leaving room for the exercise of their ingenuity in explaining rhetorical figures ? Surely he could not, upon this supposition, have been the instruc- tor of the simple. The common people will undoubt- edly expect, when they go to the Bible, that the Spirit 92 Letter IV. of God will speak plainly what he means, and when he tells them, that " the church of Jerusalem was dis- persed," they will never dream that after all the church was not dispersed, but only its rulers. I'rom the dif- ferent specim.ens we have of your method of interpre- tation, one would be tempted to suspect that you had embraced that sentiment of Origen, " The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." You ask, if the Tvhole of the church mentioned in verse 1. was scattered, how is another church spoken of in verse 3. ? I answer, if the word in the two places be supposed to refer to different persons, it must mean those immediately afterwards converted by the apostles, for they certainly did not remain in Jerusalem to be idle. There is also no absolute necessity to suppose, that every individual was dispersed. In common lan- guage, a body of people may be said to be scattered, ivhen the bulk of them are so. But the word in both ' places evidently refers not only to the same kind of church, but also to the same individual church. In the first verse, the fact is told generally j in the second, the burial of Stephen is recorded, not as happening after the dispersion, for this would be contrary to rea- son and fact. The first thing the disciples would do, after the death of Stephen, would be to bury him. The devout men then are not different from those scattered abroad. In the third verse, a particular fact is record- edj not only as illustrative of the first verse, but as a specimen of the spirit and conduct of Saul, who -^vas afterwards to make such a figure in the cause of Christ, in preaching the faith which he then attempted to de- stroy. The church of which Saul made havoc, was the very one paid generally in the first verse to be scattered. Letter IV. 93 The first verse gives a general account of the persecu- tion, the third gives a specimen of it. Instead then of proving that there were two churches of two different orders of people, the one ministers, the other individual members, the third verse shews the violence of the per- secution, and proves that the w^ord church, in the first verse, refers to the members as well as to the church- rulers. The havoc that Saul made of the church, was liot after the first dispersion, but during the persecution which occasioned the disp;,rsion. This is put beyond all question by the fourth verse : " Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." Why is the fourth verse introduced by a there/ore / What connexion has it with the verse pre- ceding ? The fourth verse comes as a consequence from the third. " They that were scattered went every where." Why ? Because so dreadful ^vas the persecu- tion, of which a specimen is given in the third verse, that it was utterly impos:able for them to return with safety. " Here then," you say, " is one instance in which it would seem, th;.i by the church we are certainly to un- derstand its othce-bearers, as distinguished from its members." How far. Sir, you have made this good, I leave to those who shall read these observations to de- termine. But granting you your own interpretation for a moment, what would you make of it ? It would indeed be a proof that the word church was more vague in its application than we allow, but would not prove any thing to your purpose. It serves you not a whit. The church in Matt, xviii. 11. you explain to be church-rulers, composed of pastors, and lay-elders, making a session. The church here, according to your own explanation, refers only to ministers. Now, I ^4 Letter IV- Sir, were you even to be indulged In this fancy, it would overthrow your owm system. " Tell it to the church," would not be tell it to the session, or church-rulers, as composed of lay and clerical^ but " tell it to the cler- gy j" and if there was only one minister, " tell it to him." Your reasoning, if it proves any thing, v/ould establish popery. You add, " And this application of the term, appears no less defensible upon the principle of substituting a part for the whole, than the applica- tion of it to the members, exclusively of the ministers, in Acts XV. 22. agreeably to the view which you have given of that passage." Upon this I would remark, 1st, That though the word church, in Acts xv. 22. refers to the members in coatra-distinction to the rulers, as being already men- tioned, yet that the rulers are not excluded, as being no part of the church j they are excluded, because already mentioned. When I say, that the conduct of Lord Nelson excited the admiration of the Parliament, with the whole nation, I do not mean to hint that the Parlip.ment is no part of the nation. 2dly, That the memb£;rs may be called a church, in contra-distinction to their rulers, is very plain, because they exist before their rulers, and even are a church without them j neither of which can be said of the latter. 3dly, There Is this natural reason why the members may be called' the church,in contra-distinction to their rulers, and that the rulers can never be so called in contra-distinction to the members, because the one is a matter of fact, i\it other is only a conjecture ^ because the former are so distinguished in the New Testament, the latter never are. Besides, if it is a fact that the members are some- times called the church, in contra-distinction to their ruJers, this very reason would prevent the latter from Lett?:r IV. $5 being so called, otherwise there would be inextrica- ble ambiguity. 4th, When a part is put for the whole, it is always the greater part. If a mob should disperse the General Assembly, except the king's representa- tive, his suite, and the moderator, it might still be said ■that the General Assembly was dispersed. But if none were dispersed but the commissioner, his atten- dants and moderator, it could not be said that the Ge- neral Assembly was dispersed. But further, if the word church in Acts viii. 1. de- notes the -rulers only of that church, by a part being put for the whole, this is a figure, and upon the figura- tive use of the word nothing can be built. To allow that the rulers can only be called the church, as a part put down for the whole, acknowledges that the prima- ry meaning of the word includes the whole members. Now, if church here figuratively signifies the rulers, as a part for the whole, this application of it can never be adduced elsewhere to prove the meaning of that word for the very supposition that it is figurative, allows that it is not usually so taken. Again, if it denotes, Acts viii. 1. the rulers, as a part for the whole, then it is a diiferent figure from that by which you suppose it to denote the same thing in Matt, x^^ii. 17. Church-rulers there are supposed to be called the church, as the representatives of the church. Now this not only makes the word figurative in both instances, but supposes a different figure em- ployed to make the word denote the same thing. Be- sides, although you make it signify church-rulers in both places, yet they are not in both of the same class. In Matthew, it is the ministers and lay-elders j in Acts, it is the ministers alone. Nor is it in both a church of the same description. In the one, it is a session^ com- 96 Letter IV. posed of tlie minister and lay-elders of a single congre- gation y in tlie other, it is a church composed of the ministers of a city. What bungling criticism ! In every place where you allege the word to have a diffe- rent sense from that which we invariably give it, you must acknowledge it to be figurative and forced 3 and these figures to be essentially different from one ano- ther. In attempting to overthrow the independency of churches, you overthrow the most simple and ac- knowledged principles of language. Had a church any such thing*as representatives to legislate for them, those might indeed figuratively be caUed the church, because in their assembled capacity the v/hole church would be supposed to be met in them. But it is not so with respect to the dispersioa of these representatives, for, as dispersed, they do not represent the church. A nation, by a figure, may be said to be assembled in its representatives ; bnt all the figures described from Aristotle ta -Dr Blair, could not make a nation be scattered in its representatives. Be- sides, Sir, if, as you say, the word church, Acts viii. 2 . signifies the rulers as a part for the ^vhole, how is it said that they were a// scattered ? I'hat the word church does not here denote a small part of the church, is clear from this, that not a// of a part, but a// of the whole, except the apostles, v/ere dispersed. Then, Sir, you must rack your brain for another figure j this one is too short. Whatever the word church signifies, the whole of it, a.nd not a part of it, is said to have been dispersed, the apostles excepted. The persecution was against the church at Jerusslem. Were there no others belonging to it but ministers ? If there were, they were all scattered abroad. But the x'ery e-xcep- tlon made a? to the apostles, shews clearly that the re- Better IV. 97 cotder of this fact intended to be precise, and not gene- ral. Had only the church-rulers been scattered, the members would have been excepted as well as the apo- stles *. So much then, at present, for the meaning of the word church in Actsvili. 1. You next proceed to shew us what are the opinions of the most celebrated ancient Independents, with respect to Matt, xviii. 17. Bur, Sir, as we call no man, Father, upon earth, you might have spared yourself the trouble. If I am fairly to meet and fully to overthrow such passages as this, it will be only by walking over them. Presbyterians are so much in the habit of being ruled by the authority of names, that it is difficult for them not to suppose the. same propensity in others. That the word church in Matt, xviii. 18. refers to the elders of the church, you apprehend is probable, from the allusion that is made to the Jewish ecclesias- tical courts. But how do you prove that there is an allusion to the procedure of these courts ? " Because," say you, " the word iKKM^ta v^as applied to the syna- gogue, and that the discipline of the synagogue was committed to tlie rulers." That the word g»»Ajj(ri«. * If the plain Christian is at a loss to comprehend the strain of the reasoning here, let him go to his Bible^ Tnere is no difficulty in the passa^? itself. My reason- ing is not necessary for any cne who wishes simply to know the fact. The weakest Christian can be at no loss to discover the mtianirig^of the Word church in Acts viii. 1, Matt, xviii. x8. To prove if," can only b^^'neeessary to Silence the subtleties of false learning There - is nii danger of any one mistaking the true meaning of these passages, but those who have got so much learning as is sufficient to>/«;g6( them astray, i, i 'l3 PB Lkttlr Iv^- %\'as employed to denote the whole nation, and aUc; each synagogue of the Jews, I readily admit, and the kno-^vledge of it will undoubtedly help to illustrate the meaning of this place. But that the word fKxXytJict was appropriated to the Jewish judicatories, I altogether deny. On the contrary, the chief council ^vas not by- appropriation called i»KXr,(7{c6f but (rvvv-^^toy } and the rulers of a synagogue not iKKXwuit ^^t 7r^z7^v\i^tiv, The application of the word iKK^-^cnx among the Jews, not only gives no countenance to this conjecture, but absolutely forbids it. The passage quoted from Josephus, is the clearest re- futation of your opinion of the meaning of the word gjt- txsXiviv eiVX)i^io^iiv, 'TT^OTfx.itvon ^i TJjv /SovXnv «j|««rf Campbell proves, to the use. o£ that word in the Nev/ Testanvcnt, denoting either the v/hcie na- tion, oi a jjaj^licuiin ccn^Fegatkn, Now, as it signi- fied the whole of the members of a particular congre- gation or synagogue, if our Lord used the word as the Jews did, as it is most probable he would, he must in^ tend here the whole of the members of a Christian ik-. KXyiTiet. " Tell it to the church," then, according to the exact use of that word among the Jews, would be, " Tell it to the congregation of the saints." There i* no allusion here to a Je^vish court 5 the word is bor- rowed from a Jewish worshipping assembly. It is of no manner of use then, upon this subject,, to acquaint us ^vith the procedure of the Jewish courts in cases of discipline. Our Lord neither mentions nor alludes to them. If the Je^vs had a council of elders in every sy- nagogue^ exclusively to judge of offences, then a person directed to make a complaint to them, would not be instructed to tell it to the synagogue, but to the coun- cil of that synagogue. If it be said, that the council of that synagogue might be called tlie synagogue, I answer that it could be in a figurative sense only, and a figure that would not, in a case of specific direc- tion, be likely to be used. The kirk-session is such a council for a Presbyterian congregation. What Pres- byterian writer would direct the injured party to tell his complaint to the congregation, when he intervded to direct them to the session? I say then, that this would have been an unnatural phraseology had it beerv directed" to- a Jew. E>cxA>jo-<«was a Jewish w^orshippmg assembly, not a Jewislv court. It is then idle to shew that iKK'hm^se. denoted a Jewish synagogue. Before it Could serve you, it must be proved that it was the ap- j;ropriated word- for the council of that synagogue. But tliis it not only is not, but could not be, for tlie vtery reasoa that it was used for the whole synagogue. The congregation and the kirfc-scssion might as well,' 100 Letter IV. among Presbyterians, have the same^ appropriated name. There is here then a complication of fallacies. First, in supposing s>exA)icr<« a Jewish court, or that a Jew would have used 5x«A;)3-j« to denote the rulers of that iK'-cXviTiXy in distinction from the assembly, which "Vvould have been figurative and indeterminate. 2d, That though such a figure might have been occasion- ally used, our Lord would found a specific direcr tion upon the use of a word highly figurative. This would Ue the same as to suppose, that because an En- glish writer might say, * The nation has given a pu- blic sanction to the ministry of Mr Pitt,' meaning the vote of approbation passed by the Parliament, there- fore a foreign kingdom, instituting an assembly like our Parliament, might call it nation. If the rulers of a sy- nagogue could only be called iKx.Xvicristy as acting for the synagogue, it no more signifies church-rulers, than nation does Parliament. It was not the name of the rulers of a Je^vish synagogue, nor could it be transferred, as such, by allusion to the rulers of a Christian corigrega^ tion. . 3d, That as our Lord borrowed the name of his worshipping assemblies from those of the Jews, therefore he -must establish the same modes of govern- ment and discipline. Under the French monarchy, there w^ere courts which had the name of Parliaments j but were these assemblies of the same nature, or simi- larly constituted with the Parliament of Great Bri- tain and Ireland? Yet the one ration undoubtedly bor- rowed this word fromYthe other. Your disquisition then upon the Jewish sanhedrim, however useful it might be ii> itself, is altogether irrelevant. You might as well- hay e, indulged yourself in a dissertation on the origin and constitution of the. Cortes of Spain. ^ Uppn this, question, no matter whether.^that. as^snibly- w.^s-. of .diir Letter IV. 101 vmii or human appointment, or took its origin from an earlier or later date. The constitution of the Jewish and Christian churches is entirely different. If in any respects there i§ a similarity, it is not in consequence ©f any part of the forroetr remaining as binding, but from the appointment of our Lord Jesus Christ. The former had a carnal and worldly polity j the latter is a kingdom not of this world, which not only does not Tequire, but does not admit the same government. The laws and ordinances of the one are carnal, of the other are spiritual. It is in vain to investigate who were the persons that judged of offences among the Jews. €hir Lord dees not give a hint here that the mode of trying offences in his churches should be the same as among them. Oh the contraiy, he bids them tell it to the i«.KXno precise in the beginning of his description of tha process, and so vague in the end ? Nay, if the prece- ding steps were necessary to be most plainly and di- rectly determined, much more the ultimate resource of the injured. It is much more necessary to know ex- actly how and by whom our disputes shall be finally^ settled, than to know what steps we are to take to prev-nt us from ha'^'ing recourse to the last appeal. Add to this, he is not describing the process of a court al- • ready established, but speaking of the affairs of a new" -kingdom. He is giving a model with which those to whom he spoke were uTiacquainted, not describing or alluding to a model already known and in use. Preci- sion is much more necessary when a writer is descri- bing the conslitutiou of-^ court v/Uich he propose^ as a iOo Letter IV. model, and witli wliich none are supposed to be ac- quainted but himself, than v/hen he is speaking of a court with vrhich those vaiom -he addresses have long been familiarized. I remark farther, that such a figure as you suppose can only be legitimately employed when the one are the representatives of the other, and act for them in their name and by their authority, so that the action performed by the one may be said to be the action of the other. If the party which acts, acts for itself, in its o-ivn right and authority, so that the action is not vicarious, there is no propriety in such a figure. The king may be said to do v.diat his ambassador does in his name j tlie nation rnay be said to do what the Parlia- ment does as its representatives, because here the one acts for the other, and have a right to act solely upon the principle that they stand in room of the other. On the other hand, under those governments in which the supreme legislative assemblies are not considered as the representatives of the people, it cannot properly \ye said that the people do what they do, because they do not legislate vicariously. Now church-rulers, as such, arc not the representatives of the church in which they rule. Rulers do not represent the ruled. A shepherd -does not represent his flock. The rulers of a church enforce the laws of Christ upon that church, not in the name and by the authority of the church, but in the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. The eldership of a church must be obeyed, not because they represent and are competent to the whole body, but because by their office they are the appointed executors of the laws of Christ. When an -.elder calls the attention of the church to a law^ of vChrist, he dges not insist on obedience because he re- Le"tti:r IV; ici' presents- and is competent to the wliok body, but be- cause it is a law of Christ, and it is his duty, as a chuixh-ruler, to see that it is obeyed. Until you can prove then that the rulers of a church are the repre- sentatives of those over whom they rule, you cannot suppose such a figurative mode of speech to be employ- ed by our Lord. If our Lord had appointed the el- dership of each church exclusively to judge of of- fences, then the eldership, in this instance, would not fee the representatives of the church acting in its name, but a council acting in their own right, independent of the church. The church, in such circumstances, would- not be considered as judging, nor had they any right to judge. The decisions of sucli a council would in no' sense be the decisions of the church, but the decisions- of the eldership. Again, although we should even suppose that the eldership of a church are the representatives of that church, yet the figure here supposed could not be- properly used in any case in which those addressed^ might understand the represented themselves, instead of the representatives. Thus, though an historian might say, * The British nation enacted a law,' &c. because it is sufficiently obvious that it could only have been through their representatives, yet he could not with propriety and distinctness say, * The nation bestowed- the highest encomiums on the conduct of such a gene- ral,' meaning the vote of the Parliament, because this, would not sufficiently distinguish the approbation of the Parliament from that of the nation itself. The nation can bestow encomiums by itself as well as by its representatives, and as it is most natural to under • stand all language literally, the former would be the most likely to occur ta the mind of the reader. Noxv 108 Letter IV. in the present case, if our Lord used tliis figure, it would have been utterly impossible for those whom he addressed, to have with any certanity discovered his meaning. After having the ofience laid before one or two brethren, and, in their judgment, proved against the offender, the injured person is directed to lay the matter before the church. How^ is he then to know that it is not the church itself, but in its representa- tives ? It is very possible to lay the matter before the whole church, w^hen it should be assembled ; nay, there is nothing more natural, than to acquaint the whole society with the conduct of an oifending bro- ther. It is also in such circumstances, as I already ob- served, most natural to understand language in its lite- ral import. What then should have hindered the dis- ciples at that time so to understand it r Nay, wculd it have been rational to ha^e understood their Lord other- wise ? If then our Lord used such a figure in such cir- cumstances, his lang-uage was not only indistinct, but unavoidably subject to mistake in its most obvious im- port. From these consideration;?, then, it is utterly impro- bable that the word church is to be understood in any other than the literal sense in this place. I demand a reason why it is to be taken figuratively in Uils in- stance. That reason must be per*imptory necessity, otherwise it cannot be admitted. Nothing less than a clear and positive proof that tiie church is itself exclu- ded from judging between brethren j that the elders judge exclusively j and that they do so as the represen- tatives of that cliuxch. It can never be proved Irom- the circumstance of the elders alone being rulers, from their right of ordination, from the keys given to the apostles,. from the apostles' addmg jnembers to the Letter IV. - 109 churches, without consulting the brethren, which are the iliuitrious evidences you have produced for the high prerogatives of church-rulers. These are the pillars upon which you rest the whole fabric. These are your char and express proofs, to quadrate with which, you must turn the remainder of the New Tes- tament into figures. To say that because a word may be taken figurative- ly, therefore it is law-ful for us to have recourse to this mode of explication, whenever it may serve our pur- pose, is very bad reasoning. Because a word is occa- sionally used in some circumstances in a figurative sense, therefore such a figure may be supposed here, is not argument, nor is it the language of those who are in search of truth, but of those who are determined to force the Scriptures to sanction the traditions of men. Nothing but absolute necessity, arising from other more clear and express testimony of Scripture, would engage a candid interpreter, v/hcse real object was to kno^v the mind of God, to remove a dirHcuIly in this manner. The speaker of the House of Commons, ad- dressing the king, might say, ' The nation has granted your Majesty a liberal supply, from the confidence they have in you, that it will be frugally employed for the service of the public' But what w^ould you think of the judgment of the man, who reading from a paragraph in a newspaper, * Let the nation rouse from its lethargy, and firmly -vvithstand the despot of France,' should thus criticise the passage : * The word nation here signifies the Parliament alone. Nothing more i-s meant by this language, than that it is the duty of the House of Commons to rouse irom their lethargy, and firmly oppose the pretensions of France. I can prove it J at least, that the meaning of the writer may be K S *iiO Letter IV. this. The speaker, addressing his Majesty upon the^ supplies granted him by Parliament, used the word in this sense, " The naliou has granted your Majesty a li- beral supply." There is therefore no possibility of determining whether the word nation in this passage of the nev.'spaper intends the whole nation, or their representatives only. It is therefore equally Jair^ and much more consistent, to understand by the term na ion, the representii'ives oj the nutijn^ than the nation itself i* Would not any one pronov.nce this perfect trifling ? yet not more trifling and ridiculous than the criticisms. «f those who would here make a representative church. The same rules of criticism which, when employed upon a common newspaper, w^ould render a man ridi- culous to every work shop in the kingdom, comes with acceptance and admiration from the cells of erudition, when employed to darken the word of God ! There is no such trifling with language upon any other subject. A regard to CGn;mon sense, and the common principles of language, are laid asidfe in the interpretation of Scrip- ture alone. If the quibbling logicians can succeed in perplexing the question, their cause is supposed to stand unshaken by the most vigorous assault of their antagonists. There is nothing so absurd" that a sophist may not make Out, when guided by such mistaken rules of criticism. A critical attention to the meaning of words, and the structure and phraseologies of language, may undoubtedly be useful in investigating questions in theology •, but the greatest use of it is, not so much to find out truth, as to remove the rubbish that has been heaped upon the Scriptures by the learned reve- ries of' commentators. An ounce of common sense is >vorth a pound of learning. A man may be able to quote from a great number of languages, and make Letter IV. Ill Ills ^ages groan under the names of ancient and mo- dern di Vines, yet not himself be a criiic. The prmci- pies of universal grammar, the procedure of the mind in the various application of words, and the analogies T)f language, with the difi'erent processes that usually affect its signification, is more to be attended to in the explication of Scripture, than the weight of veuerabie names, or even the opinion of the most respeclaole lexicographers. Let a man go into a library with the plainest text he can find, let him eKaniine the interpre- taiioil of it by the diitcrent conimenLaiors, and he will jind it to be darkened by erudition. liow many meau- ings ! How many conjectures I To prove then that by a figurative expression a body ■©f people may be said to do that which oihers do for them, is nothing to the purpose, unless it be also shewn, that from express example, or more precise pre- cept in some other parts of the Scriptures, such a figure must undoubtedly be si pposed here. As all the other arguments you have alleged to this purpose are, to say the least, as vague and indeterminate, there is not tlie shadow of foundation to plead such a figure in this in- stance. Independent of all the proofs i have exhibit- ed against the probabirny, nay, possibility, of the use of this figure in the connected circumstances, there is not even room for the allegation, until you establish your point by iucontroverllble evidence. Had you establish- ed your system from other plain passages, then 1 would freely allow you to remo%'e some dithcuities in tliis manner, because Scripture can in no case contradict Scripture, But as long as the literal meaning of €«- KXy>7/tz h what we understand by it, you can never law= fully have recourse to figures to evade the literal mean- ing, until you can «hew, that to understand it literallf 112 Letter TV. would contradict other more plain passages of Scrip- ture. The utmost you can demand for a figure, is a possibility in case of absolute necessity. Were we even to allow you here to have recourse to this hgare, all it could serve you at its utmost amount, would be to evade this single passage. It could be of no use to you in determining the meaning of the word church in other instances where it occurs j for a figure never changes the meaning of words. It is absolute nonsense to say that, because a word may be used figu- ratively, where another word might be more naturallj expected, therefore this word assumes the signification of that for which it is figuratively employed. W hen a word is used figuratively, it does not by any means alter its meaning, even in that instance of figurative acceptation. The whole beauty of the figure lies in not giving the word a signification different from its literal one. When Moses says, Num. xxxv. 24. " The congregation shall judge," &c. (at present allowing your interpretation of this passage to be just) meaning the congregation judging by its elders, the word con- gregation does not alter its signification. It signifies the very same thing here that it does in the most lite- ral occurrence. The difference lies in the figure. No . man from this would say, that the v/ord congregation sometimes signifies elders. Those terms are never con- vertible. It cannot be said that congregation signifies elders, nor elders congregation. Congregation still srignifies what is literally denoted by that word, although it does not literally, but figuratively judge, not by it- self, but by its representatives. No new meaning is by any means given to the word congregation by such a figurative application. £ut how are we to know that there is a figure in the Letter IV. iiS words of I\Toses ? Not certrnnly from the words them- selves, but from more specific direction on this head, as you allege, by Moses himself. Were this truly the case, it ^vould warrant xvhat, without such more precise direction, woixld be utterly unwarrairitable, the under- standing of the expression in Num. xxxv. 24. figura- tively. In this case, both the custom of the nation, and explicit explanation of the same precept by the «ame writer authorize this. Sir, produce me this au- thority for your figui^e, aiid I will grant it j never other- wise. In the same manner, to recur to the foriner exampl-e by which I illascrated this figure, when the speaker says, * The nation has granted your Majesty a liberal supply,' &c. h€ expresses not only an intelligible fact, but he does it in an elegant manner. The word na- . tion used figuratively, gives vivacity and strength to his language, which the word Parliament would not have had, and figures are used only for that purpose. They are not admissible into plain preceptive discourse.. Besides the figure here serves a higher piorpose j it re- calls the sovereign's attention to that great truth, that the whole nation is supposed to be present in their re- presentatives, and that it is really the whole nation that fiifords the supply. It is a literal truth that the nation. f ranted the supply, although they did not grant it lite^ rally by themselves, but by their representatives. Pro- perly speaking, the figure is not in the substitution of nation for Parliament, but in the manner that the na- tion acts, not personally, but by its representatives. No one would ever suppose from this, that the word natioa sometimes signifies the Parliament. The -figure sup- poses that it does not signify this j and it is because it does TiOt signiiy' it that it is used. It is r.ot for w.aut- 114 Letter IV. of an adequate word to represent the legislative asscm" bly, nor is it merely as a synonymous word, but to give interest to the discourse, and convey some ideas that would not have been brought into view by the word Parliament or House of Commons. What would you think of the writer of a dictionary, who upon this au- thority should assign Parliament as one of the mean- ings of the word nation ? I argue then that the w^ord church not only does not here, but never can signify church-rulers. Although upon the principles I have mentioned, a church might be said to do that which others do for them, in their niime, and in their place, this never alters the meaning or application of the word in any manner. It would still signify the same bodyv although that body should act not personally, but by their representatives. If this reasoning is just, it will serve to lay open a fallacy with which you introduce the argument under consideration, and which pervades a great part of your book J namely, that because a body may be said to act by their representatives, therefore the name of that body comes to denote the representatives as one of its significations. If you can prove the figure in any one place, you suppose yourself justified in assigning the fi- gurative use of it as the real meaning of the word whenever it may serve your purpose. You say, " It seems equally fair, and much more consistent, to un- derstand by (he term church y^t elders of the congre- gation, than the congregation itself." Now, Sir, not only is it not equally fair to understand a word in a fi- gurative, as in the literal acceptation, but the using a word figuratively never conveys to it the meaning of the word for which it is figuratively used. Even al- lowing our Lord's expression to have been figurative^ Letter IV. 115 the term church never alters its signification, nor be- comes an adequate word to represent the rulers' of a church. Still the church would be one thing, and the eldership of that church would be another, which could not be denominated by the same name. As long as the body existed, its name could not be given to its re- presentatives. I have hitherto granted that the example, Num.xxxv. 24. upon which you found this argument was in point. Taking Moses as the expositor of his own words, this does not by any means appear decisive. On the contraiy, there is nothing can be deduced from Deut. xix. 11, 12. or xvi. 18. which at all excludes the whole congrega- tion from judging in this matter, even personally. In Numb. xxxv. 24. he says, " The congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood." There is nothing in Deut. xix. 11, 12. that contradicts this in the literal sense. " But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smile him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of those cities, then the elders of his city shall send, and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hands of the avenger of blood, that he may die." Though the elders are here appointed to be the execu- tive officers in this matter, yet it is not said that they shall, exclusively of the congregation, judge of the slayer. Though judgment is supposed, yet it is not here ascribed either to tlie congregation or elders j far less does this passage describe the process of judgment, and confine the phraseology in Numb. xxxv. 24. As judgment then is here supposed, but the manner of it not determined, the legitimate mode of explication is to have recourse to Numb. xxxv. 24. to cast light upon this matter. Nothing but the limitation of this mat- 116 Letter IV. ter to the elders, and the most positive exclusion cf the congregation itself, could warrant us to impose this re- striction on the words of Moses in Numbers. Even had it been said, that * the elders, after judging him, shall deliver,' &c. it would not have excluded the con- gregation from all parlicipation in the trial of the of- fender. In a passage not designed to describe the process of trial, the principal persons engaged in the judgment, and the only persons executively engaged in it, might be said to judge him, though it might be with the approbation and express consent of the Vv'hole as- sembly. According to our la%vs, it might be said, that * the magistrates apprehended the murderer, and, after trial, the judges delivered him to the executioners,' although ^ve know that there must have been twelve of the peers of the criminal to judge of the evidence of his guilt, and find a verdict against him, before the judges could decide his fate. Nor does Dent. xvi. IS. exclude the personal inter- fisrence of the congregation either In this affair or any other. " Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates. They shall judge the people v/ith just judgment." Might not the same thing be said of our judges, though a jury is joined with them in the trial of criminab ? The elders might be the only official judges, yet the w^hole congregation might judge of the evi- dence of the criminaFs guilt. Your interpretation of Joshua xx. 4, 5. is equally un- satisfactory. " Avd when he that doth Hee unto one of those cities shall stand 'it .he entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him' into the city unto them, an^ ■ "ve him a ^lace, that he may dwell among them. And if the avenger of hhod pursue af-' Letter IV. 117 ter liim, tlien tlifty shall not deliver the slayer into his hand j because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not before-time. And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the Congregation for judgment." It is not ^aid in the former part of this precept, as you have chosen to understand it, that the ciders of the city to w-hich he fled decided upon his case. Nay, he was not to be judged by either one or other in the city to which he fled. When he came to the gates of the city of refuge, he was to declare his cause in the ears of the elders who waited for this pur- pose in the gates. Upon his declaration, not upon the evidence cf his innocence, were they to receive him. Nay, from Deut. xix. 11, we find that the murderer was received as -well as the accidental man-slayer, but that he was not to be continued under that shelter, but to be delivered to the elders of his city when they should send for him. In this very passage also it is supposed, that the elders of the city of refuge were , not to be the judges of his guilt or innocence, for he was to dwell in that city, until he stood before his own congregation for judgment. Indeed, how was it pos- sible that the elders oF the city of refuge should be able to judge of tlie guilt or innocence of a man running up to their gates, who could give no proof of his innocence but his own declaration ? There can be nothing more plain than, from the conclusion of this passage, " Un- til he stand before the congregation," that the congre- gation was personally concerned in the trial of the man-slayer, although the elders were undoubtedly the official judges. You produce nothing from Josephus, nor Philo, noir any of^the Jewish writers, to contradict this j nor, if you did, can I allows that the authority of all the rabbles of Israel is sufikient to overthrow^ the 118 Letter IV. jjlain sense of the words of Moses. .Nay, thougli it should be proved that the elders were the sole judges upon every other matter, this language of Moses would necessarily make the case of the man-slaye:r an excep- tion. Were we even to Indulge you for a moment with the ^supposition that the word church is to be taken figura- tively here, and that it judges of offences only by its rulers, still this passage woidd cut the sinews of classi- cal presbytery, i am still disposed to stand upon this ■ ground, notwithstanding what you have advanced, p. 105, to subvert it. You say our argument amounts to this, " that because a thing is not mentioned in one passage of Scripture that treats of a particular subject, it is not to be found in another that relates to the same subject. If this were indeed the spirit of our argument, I would grant at once that it is altogether fallacious. We know well that ihe various parts of this machine iire not to be found in Scripture in any one place \ that they must be carefully collected and adjusted in their proper places. We oannot expect in one passage more than that passage professedly treats of in precept, or might be expected from example. This much, how- ever, we may certainly look for. Although in a gene- ral reference, allusion, or description, we cannot look for any thing detailed in all its parts, yet when the jspeaker or writer is evidently detailing a particular case, and giving the most minute directions as to the steps to be employed before final decision, w^e are war- ranted to expect full information. Such exactly is the case as to the grand law contained in Matt, xviii. 17. Every step of the process is minutely specified. The last in the series is the exclusion of the offender by this church- Now, if there was any appeal from this sen-^ Letter IV. 1I9 tence, if It could be reviewed and reversed by a higher court, is it not unaccountable that he should not at the same time inform us of it ? If in the laws of a University we were to read one to this effect, * When any student is injured by ano- ther, let the injured speak privately to the person who has injured him ^ if he refuses to give satisfaction, let- him take one or two fellow- students, and speak to the •ffender before them, that they may judge between them. If he refuses to listen to their remonstrances, let the injured person complain to the faculty. If they cannot bring him to make proper acknowledgment? and satisfaction, let him be expelled.' Would we not here immediately conclude that the faculty was the kighest court, and that there is no other to which the student expelled may appeal from the sentence pro- nounced ? Is it not evident, that if ever he Is to be re- admitted, it must be by having his sentence reversed by the same authority ? But, Sir, natural as this expectation Is, our argument is not drawn merely from the silence of this passage about courts of review. W^e not only maintain that no mention is here made of them, but that they are vir- tually and effectually excluded. In this passage, our Lord not only does not direct to them, but he says ■what implies that they are no where else Instituted, bv committing the power of excommunication to this church, whatever it may be. Now, Sir, I will contend- It with you, that this is more than silence. This church is supposed to exercise the highest authority, without having its proceedings subject to any review upon earth j with this engagement of the king of Slon, that whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth should be loosed in 120 Letter IV. heaven. Every decision agreeable to tlie revealed will ©f Jesus, every instance of the 'application of his laws, and as to the execution of discipline, according to the apostolical instructions, shall be ratified in heaven by the Head of the church. Is it not here said, that this church has power to bind, and that it also has power to loose ? This must certainly include not merely the clearing of the offending brother by the church, who was found guilty by the brethren who conversed with him, but also more especially the restoration of the of- fender after repentance. Whatever is loosed must have previously been tied. This offender must have been proved previously guilty of the offence, and now upon repentance is acquitted. This must extend not only to repentance before the church excludes him, but also to repentance after he hath been cut off. The same body that is here said to bind, is also said to loose. If thia church has pow^er to exclude univorthy members, it is also natural tliat it sliould have the power of re-admit- ting them, upon sufhcient evidence of their repentance. It is not said that this cliurch had power to bind, but that if they bound partially or erroneously, a higher court could loose. The binding and the loosing are ascribed to the same body. But our Lord cuts off any possibility of their deci- sion being reversed by a superior court, by his positive promise to ratify the sentence. Now if their sentence, as soon as it is passed, is confirmed in heaven, how ab- surd would it be to suppose that that sentence could be revie^ved and reversed upon earth by men ! Na}^, so positively does our Lord affirm his ratification of their sentence, that he docs not even expressly except the case of an unjust determination. This indeed is neces- '^.arily implied* but to have mads such an express es- Letter IV. 121 ception here, would have insinuated that there might be true churches which should be composed of members who might be inadequate or partial judges, neither of which should be supposed j for if they are either, ihey are not a church of Christ at all. As the plainest un- derstanding is capable of judging between brethren as to offences, and as a church ought to be composed of spiritual men alone, Jesus does not provide for instances in which, from partiality, they will favour any party. This may be the case in a body called a church ; but whenever it is so, they forfeit every title to the charac- ter of a church of Christ. The only redress which the injured could receive from them, must be by their repentance. If this does not appear, he is commanded no longer to consider them as a church, but to turn away from them. Our Lord does not affront his churches by enacting regulations which imply, that either out of ignorance or partiality, they will pervert his laws. Now I de- mand, if the sentence of this church is ratified by Jesus, who has a right to review or reverse it ? We argue then, Sir, that not only such courts are not mentioned, though there i^ every reason to suppose that they should had they been instituted, but that the possibility of their existence is here necessarily excluded. This church, whatever it is, has the power of excommuni- cation, of binding and loosing, with the promise of rati- iication to their sentence by the Head of the church. Besides, we shall afterwards shew, that courts of re- view are not only not mentioned here, but that they are mentioned, or exemplified in no other passage of Scripture. Even allowing Acts xv. to establish courts of reference, it by no means could be stramed to justi- fy courts of review. There is a mighty difference be- 122 Lettkr I\': tween settling a di^pated matter, and reversing a sen- tence already passed into execution. But let us hear your reasons- why Presbyterian courts of review are not here expressly mentioned, " Be- sides, even granting that courts of review are not spe- cified, a very good reason seems to be suggested from, the passage itself, why they should not at least be di- rectly mentioned. It is obvious that an appeal could only have been made to a superior court, if the broiher vi}bo was offtraded had not received justice from the court to which he at first applied j for it is he olune who is represented as bringing the matter before an ec- clesiastical assembly for their determination. Such a ease however is not here supposed j for it is expressly stated, that xSxo, first court to which he applied gave a decision in his favour. But if the firn court, as has been said, is here supposed to have given a decision in his favour \ and if the offending broiher is never said to have thought himself aggrieved by the decision w^'ich this court passed against him j and, as is insinua- «,€d,, was even totally unsolicitous, and completely re- gardless, of bringing it before an ecclesiastical court at all •; what propriety would there have been of introducing* the possibility of an appeal to a higher court ?" p. 105. You say that- such- an appeal could only have been supposable, if the first court had not done justice to the offended brother. But according to this reasoning, as the one or two brethren determined in his favour, they should have carried the matter no farther. When the offender refused to hear these brethren, he should then have become as a heathen man and a publican^ v/ithout any reference to the church. "What is the rea- son that the matterwas brought before the church, see- ji'.g the matter was already determined in favour of the Letter IV. 123 offended brother ? Plainly because the one or two bre- thren had no right to exclude a member from a body of which they were only a part. As he' was received by the consent of the whole, he must also be excluded by their decision. Now, undoubtedly the same reason that made it necessary to bring this matter before the ehurch before the offender should be cut off, will also- make it necessary to bring it before the whole body, or at least those who are adequate to the whole body, be- fore he can be excluded from that body. If a congre- gation is only a part of a great whole, neither itself personally, nor in its representatives, can it cut off a member from the general body. This must be done by the body itself, or those who are adequate to it. Now-, Sir, if this church had not been the highest court, it would not have been commanded to execute the highest act of authority that can ever possibly be executed in a church of Christ. Had there been such a thing as a uriiversal church, composed of particular congrei^ations, this alone v.'ould have exercised the right of excommu-. nication. No one could be cut off from it but by it- self, either personally or by representation. One mem- ber of this great body could not have been privileged with the power of cutting off another. Nor will the circumstance that the offended brother is supposed to have justice done him, v.arrant the omis- sion. Why is it supposed that he has justice done him ? Why is not the reverse of this case supposed > If the first court might have given sentence against him, and if there was a superior court to which he might appeal, this case also should have been supposed and provided for. But the reason why the former case alone is supposed, is clear from what I have alrea- dy said, and from the consideration that there -jvas no 124 Letter IV. higher court of appeal, even in case of unrighteous sentence. The existence of a court of review would have required the supposition of a case in which sen- tence was unjustly pronounced. But why was there no provision made for the sup- posed oiFender, In case he had been unjustly excluded or censured ? If there was any court superior to this, this case also would have been supposed and provided for. It win not meet the dithculty to allege that these two cases are not supposed. We must have a reason why they are not supposed. If either of the parties might have been injuriously treated by the church, and if there was any court on earth paramount to that- church,^ they would certainly have been directed to this. If it is alleged that Christ did not suppose an unfair decision in this first Presbyterian court, for the same reasons that I supposed the same thing as to that- of a church, because the judges are competent and faithful, this will cut off, not establish courts of review. For if the first court be both competent and upright, there can be no need for a higher to review its decisions j and if there be no need for it, there is no such thing, for Jesus has no useless wheels in the government of his churches, any more than useless agents in nature. Having now endeavoured to dispel the cloud in which you have attempted to involve this illustrious law of the kingdom, I will conclude my remarks on ^hls part of your book by observing, First, That the very supposition which you make to evade the true meaning of this text, implies that the primary and usual acceptation of this word, is that for which we contend. If, as you arg^ie, church-rulers are here call- ed church, because they represent the church, it shews that the name belongs to the whole body, in its most Letter IV. 125^ simple sense, and not to any part of them. The rulers could not figuratively be called church from those they »ep--sent, unless that was the proper name of those lepresented. The only argument then which could serve your purpose here, overthrows your system every where else. For you allow that church-rulers arc called church, not properly, literally, or in their own Kght, but figuratively, in right of those whom they jepresent, as the Parliament might be called the lia- -tion. Here then, out of your o^vn mouth we have it, that our interpretation is the primary one, and that the word every where literally is to be understood as we understand it. Now if the whole body of the belie^ vers of a congregation arc properly called a church, and church-rulers only so called in their right,, impro- perly, and in a secondary sense, this word ought never to be supposed to assume such a figuratfve meaning, when the literal and natural meaning is not contrary to express Scripture. Secondly, As this is the Kteral signification, so in its usual acceptation it can have no other meaning. This will be seen hereafter, when I examine the diffe- rent passages in wliick this word occurs in the New Testament, Thirdly, The distinctive application of the word churches, applied to a plurality of such assemblies, shews that the word, when used in the singular num- ber, refers only to one congregation, and to the whole of that congregation, except where it is taken as syno- nymous with the kingdom, or whole body of Christ. This argument is urged most clearly by Mr Innes. You mention it, but you never attempt to answer it, by assigning other reasons. When the Scriptures speak of the saints of a city, I2S Letter IV. they are uniformly called the church ifi such a placer* but when they speak of the saints of a province or dis*- trict, they as uniformly call thefti the churches of that country. Thus, the church . at Jerusalem, and the churches in Judea j the church at Corinth, the church in Cenchrea, but the churches oj Achaia, the churches of Galatia, the churches of Samaria ; the church of Ephesus, the church of Smyrna, &.c. but the seven churches of Asia. This plainly shews that the word church, in the singular number, was appropriated to an assembly of saints. Fourthly, As from these reasons, the word church appears clearly to have been appropriated to an assem* bly of saints, so in Matt, xviii. 18. it is evidently used in its appropriated sense. " Tell it to the church^'*'' — ^e church. Whatever then is the meaning oi church here, it is used in its appropriate signification, and as this is a company of saints, so it must be here under- stood. Fifthly, The matter is put beyond all controversy by a similar precept given by Paul, with respect to ths civil disputes of the brethren, 1 Cor. vi. 1. Here the saints, not the church-rulers alone, are said to be the judges. Yea, the very weakest of them are said to be qualified for this business. Paul would not erect a tribunal different from that of his master. IS' LETTER V. \i BiR, I N reviewing j^our seventh letter, In explication of the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians, I am utterly at a. loss to know what hold to get of the writer who is capable of taking such daring liberties, as are here used, with the word of God. The chapter is too plain to need explication as to any person really desirous of knowing the true meaning of the Spirit upon this point, and I greatly fear, that the mind which admits such •|>erversion of divine truth, is far beyond the reach of argument. I do not expect that any who will not be convinced by reading the chapter itself, would yielti their assent if one should rise from the dead to expound it. To attempt to make it plainer, would, in my opi-' nion, be an insult to the meanest understanding.- For the sake, however, of those not conversant in the sub- tleties of evasive criticism, I will endeavour briefly to unfold the fallacy of your principles of interpreta- tion. The apostle's disapprobation of the conduct of the church of Corinth, with respect to the incestuous per- son, you explain as occasioned by their not mourning on account of the corruption of a Christian brother, to the end that their rulers being stirred up to a sense of their duty, as a consequence of their sorrow^ the offender might be thus removed. Ah, Sir, can I be- lieve that your owm conscience is entirely satisfied with this evasion ? Had this been all that the apostle intend- ed, is this likely to have been the language in which he would have conveyed his meaning ? Were Govern- 128 Letter V. ment displeased with the conduct of a magistrate t\^0 neglected to execute the laws against offenders, is it likely, Sir, that they would wrlie to the district in which that magistrate resided, to censure them for his negligence. Especially, would they rebuke them be- cause they had not mourned, that, as a consequence of this, the magis crate might have been stirred up to a sense of his duty ? What has the people to do v;itlj the neglect of the magistrate ? Would not the supreme power have instantly deprived him of his office, or have written to himself, censuring him for his unfaithful- ness ? Does any one think of blaming the people, when the laws of the land are not executed ? Does any one think of blaming the whole nation, when an ob- noxious bill is passed by the Parliament ? Suppose -the General Assembly of your church should discover an unusual concern for the maintenance of discipline, and 'should hear that there is in one of their congregations such a person as is here described admitted to commu- nion, would they v/rite to the congregation at large, or to the kirk-session ? Would they blame in any mea- sure the private members of the congregation ? W.ould not the admonition be directed to the church rulers ? Especially, would it ever come intc their thoughts to blame the people, because they had not by their sor- row stirred up the session to do its duty, ivithout at- taching the smallest blame to those upon whom alone it should fail ? Alioiving laat the Corinthian church had such a session, and that the whole of the fault of th^ individual members was in not stirring up the rulers to their duty, slill this would have been a very inferior crime compared with that of the rulers ; and if the in- ferior fault of the former was censured with such mark- ed disapprobation, much more severe, doubtless^ would Letter V, 120 Kavc been tlie expression of displeasure against the con-^ duct of the former. Is it possible that those chietly in fault should be suffered to pass without notice, while those, whose only fault w^as not mourning for the others neglect, should be so keenly admonished ■? Let any impartial raader consider this, and judge whether your hypothesis be rational. But supposing that the only fault of the CorIr.thia:ns was in not stirring up their rulers to do their duty, was there no other way of effecting this but by the pu- blicity of their grief ? Have the people no other way of exciting their rulers to faithfulness but by their tears and sighs ? Even Presbyterian forms do not ren- der this necessary. Would they not have been blamed rather for not speaking with their rulers upon this sub^ ject, than for not mourning in their presence ? It must indeed be a shocking despotism that leaves the ruled no other way of expressing their sentiments to their . rulers than by their mourning ? You yourself zealous- ly clear Presbytery of this charge, yet you are not ashamed to charge it to the account of the churches planted by the apostles. This is not the resource that you point out to your congregations if they are aggrie- ved by the conduct of their rulers* ** If, through mistake," you observe, ** an improper person be occa- •ionally admitted, the members are permitted to com- municate what they know of the applicant to the pastors ♦, and if, after remonstrance, he be continued in communion, the lowest individual in the congregation is allowed to call these pastors to an account, with the whole of their session, before a superior court j and if that court should decide amiss, to summon even it, w^ith these pastors and elders, to a still higher tribunal j and even that to a higher, till the obnoxious person be M 13«> Letter V. at last removed/' p. 73. If then the people in a Pres^ byterian congregation are in any sense to be blamed for the neglect of discipline, it must be because they do not first remonstrate with their rulers, and then, if they are not attended to, complain to the higher judi- catories. Now, if the Corinthians had been Presbyte- rians, the apostle's method would have been to write to the session, presbytery, or synod, to reform that abuse. Had he blamed the members in any measure, it would have been because they neglected to remon- strate with the session, and because they did not com- plain to a superior court. According to the Presby- terian constitution, if a member is displeased with an act of discipline, or cannot have an act of discipline put into execution, his way is to appeal to the Presby- tery. Had the Corinthian church been formed on the Presbyterian model, the neglect of this certainly would have been the crime charged upon the individual mem- bers as to this matter *. But, Sir, take away the literal meaning of this chap- ter, and other similar portions of Scripture, and there is no way left to pro\'e that the individual members of a church have either the right of remonstrating with their rulers upon their measures and decisions, or of ap- pealing from tKem to a higher court. I ask you, how do you prove from Scripture that the ruled have a right to remonsirate with the rulers, or to appeal from their decisions ? Have you either precept or example for this part of the Presbyterian constitution ? If the mem- bers of a church have not all a right to judge of the application of discipline, and if the passages of Scrip- * When the pasroral duties are mculcated, tne pastors 9re exclusively and distinctly addressed, and mentioned a Pet. V. I. &C. Letter V^ ^ 131 tare that represent tliem to have this right must all- be taken figuratively to denote their rulers alone, I know of no authority from Scripture to say that they have either the right of remonstrancej or appeal, or indeed any right at all. If both our Lord, when he speaks of the persons who have a right to judge of of-' fences, by the word church, and the apostles, when they speak of the same thing, literally addressing the -whole members, must be understood in a figurative sense, applicable only to the rulers, where shall we find that church-members should even dare to remonstrate against the decisions of their rulers, let them be never so unreasonable ? I apprehend, that if you take away the true spirit and literal meaning of these passages,;< you will not leave any thing but absolute submission (m the part of the members. Either these passages are^ to be understood literally, and establish the right of the whole church to judge of the application of disci- pline y or, if they are to be understood figuratively, as alone applicable to the rulers, they leave no foundation for any kind of interference or concern about church aiTairs on the part of the people. These passages, if they are to be understood figuratively of the rulers, certainly will not also serve to prove that the ruled should have any modification of right in the same matter. Acts xv., however it is strained, will not prove the right of appeal on the part of the people from the decisions of their rulers, for this is not an appeal of the ruled from the decisions of the rulers, nor indeed an appeal of any kind. I should be glad to know then upon what foundation you rest the right of the people to remonstrate or appeal. But, Sir, your argument here is built upon a fallacy, v^liich, when rendered palpable, will cause your reason- 132 Letter V. ing to fall to the ground. Your interpretation sup- poses that the apostle here solely addresses the indivi- dual members of the church of Corinth as distinct from their rulers, and blames thera for not discharging a duty incumbent on them solely as individual members. The apostle's language however is not solely addressed either to rulers or ruled, but to both together as one body. It is not the individual members only, as your wish to have it supposed, who are here blamed for not mourning that the incestuous person might be taken away from among them. The epistle is written to the whole church at Corinth, and out of that church surely you never c?in except the rulers, especially as you are so fond of making them, often exclusively, the church it- self. All the members, rulers and ruled, are blamed for not mourning. It is not said that the individual members are blameable, because they did not mourn on account of this affair, and thereby stir up their rulers to do their duty j and that the rulers are blameabie, because that they did not put the incestuous man out of the church *, but the whole church, without excep- tion, is blamed for not mourning, that he might be ta- ken away. Here then your criticism fails. The ruled are not blamed for not mourning, that thus they might bring the rulers to a sense of duty, but both are blamed for not being properly affected by this instance of cor- ruption, that they might be brought fully to know and to perform their duty as a church in this point. It is very plain that if a church does not mourn, and feel as the greatest grievance an instance of corruption in any of the brethren, they will never heartily unite in exe- cuting the laws of Christ against the offender j on the other hand, if a church is really brought to grieve for a brother's fall, to tremble for his condeir.nation, to feel Letter V. 133 for the interests of tae Redeemer's kingdom, and to be jealous of his honour, they will not a moment wink at a brother's corruption j and when they come to consi- der his offence, there will be but one mind among them all. If they are not deeply affected with sorrow on account of the reproach that such conduct will bring upon the cause of Christ, they will not be likely to discover much zeal in excluding him from their communion. It is not without reason then that the apostle takes notice of their want of humiliation and sorrow on account of the corruption of their church. Without this, the laws of Christ could not have been executed. According as they felt upon this point, would be their conduct. Besides, it appears from the connexion between this and verse third, ihat they probably did not fully know how to proceed w4th him. They had not yet received any particular information on this point j the direction recorded here does not appear to have been previously known. Their crime was then particularly in neglect- ing to be more fu'Jy informed upon this point, by con- sulting the apostles, and by fasting and prayer. Had they instantly humbled themselves, and looked for di- rection in the matter from the Father of lights, it is likely that he would have been removed much sooner. The Spirit of the Lord would have directed the apo- stle sooner to have given the precept, contained in the following verses. You proceed, " Nor wiD the command of Paul to the Corinthians, Ho deliver up the incestuous person to Satan, when they were gathered together, and to put away from among themselves that wicked person, with his declaration that they had a power to judge them who were within,' suffice to prove that^the members at M 3 ^-•^ Letter V. large exercised a similar power with those wlio were their rulers in administering the government of that Christian church. Ihat they are susctptible of this in- terpretation, if vieived in themselves, and u'ithout at- tending to other passages of Scripture, I readily grant — but not more so than those passages which assert that Christ is the propitiation for the sins not only of the Jevv'S, but of the whole world^ and that he gave him- self a ransom for «//, if considered merely in them- selves, are susceptible of an explication which excludes the doctrine of particular^ and establishes the Armi- nian doctrine of universal redemption." p. 108. And are you indeed so exceedingly candid as to al- low that these words, when viewed in themselves, are capable of our interpretation ? Pray, Sir, could words more expressly contain the doctrine for which we con- tend ? Could it possibly have been made more expli- cit ? What circumstance does the language w-ant to make it precise ? Suppose, for a moment, that the apo- stle had really intended what we think he did, tell me what he could have said m.ore pointed, more express, and less susceptible of a different meaning ? What should he have added to render the passage incapable of being misunderstood ? But as you think that the passage is equally suscep- tible of a Presbyterian interpretation, let us submit for a moment to the irksome task of examining your rea- sons. It is much more easy to clear up a real diflicul- ty, than to vindicate the clearest texts from absurd in- terpretations. The latter are only alleged by those v/ho are either unable or indisposed to weigh the force of argument. What then are your arguments for un- derstanding these commands in a Presbyterian sense ? Argument did I say ! Argument you have none. Letter V. 135 You tlimk you have found another difficulty upon ano- ther subject which will puzzle us as much as this chap- ter does you. You say, that Christ's being said to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and to give himself a ransom for all, with such like expres- sions, are equally susceptible of an Arminian interpre- tation, as the passages in dispute are of the sense given them by Independents. Here, Sir, I remark, 1. That it is unfair to remove one difficulty by pro- posing another upon another subject. If we cannot faidy and clearly prove our doctrines, and consistently explain the passages alleged against them by Armi- nians, we must yield. If there were no other way of ex- plaining the texts alleged to support Arminianism, than by having recourse to such evasions as you employ, I would surrender the point in debate. You might as well answer the Arminians, by alleging that the Pres- byterian interpretation was as foreign from the words of this chapter, as the Calvinistic interpretation is from the passages they quote to support Arminianism. Even allowing your argument to be in point, as it is built upon the certainty of the Calvinistic system, it could have no weight with any but Calvinists, and therefore must go for nothing, perhaps with a great majority of the church of Scoiland, though it should pass with us. Instead tlien of proving the Presbyterian interpretation of this chapter, by the Calvinistic interpretation of the texts alleged by Arminians, you must prove both by sound criticism, and the acknowledged and usual prin- ciples of language. 2. That it is not fair to mention a few solitary phrases, that may apparently stand in opposition to tfee general view of the Scriptures, as equal to the plain 136 Letter V. meaning not only of this whole chapter, but even to the strain of the whole epistles. But, 3. It is not a fact that these expressions are equally susceptible of an Arminian interpretation, as this chap- ter is of an Independent one. Ihe literal, the direct, the obvious, the consistent meaning, not of one phrase, or of one verse, but of the whole chapter, is that for %vhich we contend. With respect to the other, the meaning is not only restricted by the whole tenor of Scripture, but in the sense in which the w^ords are un- derstood by Calvinists, they are used not in a refined and unusual acceptation, but according to the commou practice of all languages. We do not explain these passages used by Arminians upon principles incompre- hensible to the unlettered mind, but upon principles acted upon by the most illiterate peasants. In the lat- ter case, I am not able to see a difficulty, with respect to any who are v/illing to be instructed by the word of God. It is not the difficulty nor the ambiguity of the; language that leads people to misunderstand the phrases you allude to, but the pride of the human heart, and its opposition to the sovereignty of God. The phrases- themselves are used in no sense different from common practice, the general regulator of language upon all subjects. There is not a fish-v/oman in the streets ca- pable of misunderstanding such language. It is daily practised by al ranks, learned and unlearned. In an- swering the Arminian then, I would have recourse to »o evasions as you have in answering us, nor to abstruse and metaphysical subtleties *, I would appeal to the common practice of language to confirm my views of the contested passages. You seem to thhik, that in these passages, while the inspired writers speak one thing, they are to be understood as meaning another. Letter V. I37 J understand tnem to speak directly and plainiy what they mean. You seem to think that there is no way of determining or limiting their meaning, but by those other passages which they seem to contradict. I am persuaded that they must be understood in a limited sense, not merely from the general voice of Scripture, which indeed is the primary argument, but also that such limitation is clearly justified from the scope of the passages in which those phrases are found, together with their circumstances and connexion. 4. That if there was any real difficulty in such phrases as you quote, many clear and specific declara- tions necessarily limit their meaning. As to the mean- ing of the chapter under consideration, the whole tenor of the New Testament, with every other direct pre- cept and example upon the same subject, establish the plain and literal meaning. It is altogether clear, di« rect and precise in itself. There is not one direct pas- sage of Scripture that can reasonably be alleged to give it another sense. 5. That were we to suppose that there is a real diffi- culty in each of these cases, the difficulties are not of the same kind. What connexion or resemblance could you find between the case of a direction addressed to a body of people, instructing them how to perform a certain duty in an affair that concerned the vrhole, and the limited use of the words all and world ? These are not the ^vords that are used in this chapter. Why then do you run away from the subject, by supposing a difficulty upon another subject,, a difficulty not the same with what you suppose here ^ We argue, that because the whole church, without exception, are here address- ed, and commanded to assemble and perform this duty, therefore they ought themselves to do it. What 138 Letter V. can you allege against this ? Why, that the phrascsj, •♦Christ gave himself a ransom for all," and ."is a pro- pitiation for the sins of the whole world," are, when: considered in themselves, capable of an Arminian in- terpretation. Is this any thing to the purpose ? Docs the words they are speaking ei- ther of the diSerent nations of the world, and not the individuals of the world, or of all God's children, not «>f all the children of men. When the apostle says,; " He that spared not his. own Son, but freely gave him up to death for us a//," shall I say that all here means only some * ; that it is taken only in a part of its extension ? Nay *, but I will say that all here in- cludes every individual of whom the apostle speaks.; But he speaks of the elect, not of the human race j' * It is very u=ual, in opposing Armini^ns, to say that cU and world are sonDetimes taken only in a p^rt of their extension, i e. that they signify only some of all, and some of the ivorld. This I think is false criticism. All ever exfcnds to all the individuals addreste€ commanded to ob- serve this injunction. Your argument then Is inapplicable, because it sup- poses a mode of address not here used, and because, while it supposes that ail the members of the church are addressed in the command, it is the duty of some only to perform it, which is contrary even to the ex- amples you allege. To make your argument in.point, it would be necessary to prove that although in ap- pearance all a^re addressed, in reality only some are ad- dressed. If the apostle speaks to them all, the com- mand is to them all. As the words a//\ and a// ths ifor///, include all the individuals addressed or referred to, so all those addressed in this command, are even according to that explication, to perform the command. If the Calylnistic explanation of these phrases be al- leged at all, it must be to shew that the apostle, al- though he appears to address the church, yet in reality he addresses the rulers only. If it could prove any thing, it would be, not that all are addressed, but some only, /. f>, the elders are to perform the com.mand j but 140 Letter V. that the church is not at all addressed, though the words are capable of that interpretation, but the elders alone, Do you think that when the inspired writers speak of Christ's being " a propitiation for the whole world," and of giving himself " a ransom for all," that the words are directly applicable to every individual, but only to be understood of some ? But indeed the manner in which you propose this argument, sufficiently shews that you did not well underi.tand your own meaning. You do not attempt to shew how these example* should bear upon the point in hand. You do not il- lustrate the one by the other, or even point out how you wished this passage to be interpreted. You tell us that it is capable of a Presbyterian interpretation, and then, as your only proof, you refer us to what you sup- pose an equal difficulty that hangs on the Caivinistic system. Is this like reasoning ? You come out agaiijst your antagonist like a Goliah, but sculk behind every subterfuge to avoid fairly meeting him. I demand then, Sir, that you will shew how you wish this argu- ment to bear upon the point in hand. But proceed v/ith your analysis : " Can such ex- pressions however as those which are here used be equally explained upon the supposition of Presbyte- -rians, that it is the rulers of tlic church, and not the members at large, who are intended ? Yes j for as was remarked, nothing is more common than to represent a thing as done by a body at large, while it is done only by those in that body to whom it is compe- tent." p. 109. Here, Sir, you again have recourse to your conve- nient figure. It is indeed to you a most useful device, for whenever you are like to sink, it serves to keep you above water. When a specific direction was given to Lettkr v. 141 the saints, called by their appropriated name, in their united capacity, by the help of this figure, you make the church act by its representatives •, now, when they are addressed not only as a body called a church, but with the explication of the meaning of this word, or of the materials that compose it, " to them that are sanc- tified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," and them- selves directed in their assembled capacity to perform this apostolical command, you will make the same fi- gure serve your purpose. What doctrine of Scripture could not be evaded by such lax interpretation ? Does your antagonist in all his book demand any such unna- tural suppositions ? When the apostle says, " Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers," by the help of this figure, how easy would it be to get rid of this precept ! ^ Nothing is more common than to speak of a thing as done by a body at large, while it is done only by those in that body to whom it is competent. The people speak by their ministers. The latter are here admonished against uttering corrupt doctrine, and ex- horted to speak sound doctrine for the edification of the hearers. Individual members are not here tied down to that Puritannical preciseness, for which some sour religioniscs contend. The precept only relates to ministers.' Again, when they are commanded, " Not to forsake the assembling of themselves together," all that is meant hereby relates to the meetings of the clergy. A body meets in its representatives. Indeed, there is no extravagance that might not be proved in this manner. Your example from Rev. xvii. IS. which you think similar, is not to the point. It is not only the oDscure N -142 Lkttlr v. language of prophecy, but it is not the citizens, but the city that is said to reign over the kings of the earth. Rome reigned over the world, because her kings did so. What possible resemblance could you find between these tw^o cases ? The people of Great Britain govcrnii^ their colo- nies, is an -expression highly figurative, and every thing I said upon this subject in the last letter is applicable here. There is a mighty difference betxveen the lan- guage of an orator alluding to a well known fact, and an apostle giving a specific direction, as to a proceed- ing to which they had not been accustomed j a similar they could never previously have witnessed. The i!orid language of oratory would not be, and indeed is not employed to instruct them, but the most minute and circumstantial directions as to the whole affair. There is here nothing that could have the smallest tendency to tempt any sober critic to impose a figura- tive meaning upon this plain letter. In the passage you quote from Deut. xiii. 6. you are incorrect in saying that the precepts, though addressed to the people, are to be observed by the judges. There is not one of these precepts to be obeyed for them by their rulers. To the same persons that all the prece- ding precepts are addressed, is addressed this also, ** Thou shalt surely kill him," and this they were to perform in their own persons as well as any other. Although they were to kill him legally, yet it does not mean that they were to kill him by the judges, but to kill him by bearing witness against him, and by having thir hand f -St vpnrt him. This Surely was not per- forming their duty by the judges. Even among us, it is usually and properly said, that it Is not the judge, but the v/itness, who hangs the criminal. Letter V. 143 You afe also mistaken in saying that the Jews in ge- neral are often reproved by their prophets for the crimes of their rulers. This would be contrary to common sense and cor^mori justice^ and therefore could not be the language of the just and holy God, ■ The people cannot be to blame for that which they cannot help, and have no hand in doing. If their rulers make laws for them, they do not sin for them. Would any one think of censuring a servant for the crimes of his master ? The passages you refer to in Jeremiah v. 28. vi. 5. &c. do not confirm your idea. The words of the pro- phet are indefinite, as prophetic writing very usually is, yet they are not universal \ nor do they blame the whole nation for the crimes of their rulers. " They judge not the cause ^" who judge not the cause ? Why, the judges of the land, those employed in giving judgment. There is here nothing like a universal censure upon the ruled for the injustice of their rulers.- A traveller might as well be hanged for being robbed by a highwayman. It is also a mistake to say, that Deut. xvi. 19. is ad- dressed to every Israelite. They were commanded in verse 18. to appoint judges and officers, whose duty it would be to judge the people v/ilh just judgment. The 19th verse is not an address to every Israelite, but an immediate address to those who should be appointed to judge. It would be absurd to tell a man not to take a bribe, or pervert judgment, who was never to judge, at all. The language is addressed only to the judges. Suppose a patron should present a profligate and Infidel clergyman to a Scotch parish, ^vould any one think of blaming the parishioners for electing this man ? They would indeed be to blame, if they should 144 Letter V. submit to liis ministry j but for his election they were not blameable nor accountable. But these figures are not only inapplicable to the J>resent case, but if ilie passage in dispute raust be ex- plained in a figv-rative manner, it contradicts your first argument. Could you establish your point by aii and the whole vourld^ the supposition in these figures is over- thrown by this. When several circumstantial argu- ments are combined, though each of them is weak, in itself, yet being united in a common centre, they make a strong one j but v/hen they are built upon opposite grounds, they are all rendered suspicio'js. "What should we say of one who wished, when tried for a crime, to prove an alibi by two witnesses, the former of Avhora swore that he saw hira in Dublin on the same day that the other saw him in Edinburgh ? Now this is exactly the case with the examples in your analysis, to force the Presbyterian interpretation upon this passage. If the Calvinistic explication of the phrases we have so often quoted can at all be brought to bear upon this passage, it must be by supposing, that though the apo- stle uses language that seems to be addressed to the whole church, yet in reality he is speaking to the rulers alone \ that the church itself is not at all mentioned or addressed, but all the expressions that seem apparently to mention them, must be understood only to include the rulers. Though the apostle seems to write to the whole church, as sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, yet that by all this we are to mean no- thing more than the mlers of the church j the epistle does not speak a word to the whole body, but is entire- ly in reality directed to the church-officers, though apparently directed to the church. If it is not upon these principles that your unillustrated argument Letter V. 145' irom oU and world must be applied, I am unable to comprehend its meaning. On the other hand, these figures all suppose that the church itself, yes, that very church wbich includes every inaiviciual member^ is ad- dressed and commanded to observe this injunction, but that it is to do it not personally, but by its representa- tives. The former supposes the language to be really applicable to none but those who obey the command, i. e. the rulers j that the church itself is never men- tioned in reality j that when he says, " It is reported commonly that there is fornication among jo«," you means not the church, but the church-rulers j when he says, " Te are pi Jed up,'' it was not the church he blames for being puffed up, but its rulers. Yea, it must be the rulers only who are blamed for not mourn- ing j whereas, as you have supposed, that the individual members only are here censured. In like manner, eve- ry part of the address must be- confined to the rulers,- for they are the same persons he addresses from the be- ginning to the end of the chapter. It will then be only the elders who are commanded to be^" gathered top-ether to deliver him ta Satan," which is also con- trary to another part of your interpretation. The lat- ler argument supposes the whole church to be addressed and commanded, though they are only figuraiively to execute the command. We have a very curious specimen of reasoning when^ you endeavour to silence that expression, " When ye are gathered together." I never read any thing more like what we should expect to issue from a school of the Jesuits. " Thus even though it were granted that the incestuous person was to be delivered over to Satan when the whole of the members were met together, it will not follow that every one of them in a judicial ca- N3 115 Letter V. pacity was ?o to deliver him up, but only the rulers ; for it has been contended even by m?tny Presbyterians, with Cyprian of old, that whatever is done, should be done in the presence of all the members of the church for their satisfaction." And dare you refuse to grant what the apostle so expressly enjoins ? Dare you set aside such a clear, precise and circumstantial precept ? Were even the mere presence of the people all that the apostle commands, as you would wish to have it thought, you cannot reverse his sentence. It must be binding for ever. Why then this chicane ? Why this unwillingness to grant what you cannot pretend to deny ? Does not the apostle expressly say, even accord- ing to your own interpretation, that this affair is to be performed " when ye are gathered together," although it should be supposed that it was only to be done in their presence ? Dare you say that he does not enjoin this to be done in their public assembly ? Why then are you so reluctant to confess it ? Why do you say, *' though it were granted ?" Does not this imply that you might dispute it, if you thought proper ? I ask you then again, does the apostle enjoin this affair to be transact- ed in their public assembly ? Why have you not direct- ly and unequivocally granted this ? Because it con- demns your church proceedings. You do not observe this apostolical precept, even in the sense in which you explain it. But you endeavour to cover the practice of Presby- terian courts, by telling us in a note, that the apostles, elders, and brethren of Jerusalem did not repair to An- tioch, to discuss the matter in the hearing of the Chri- stians there. But allowing this example to be in point, does it prove mat the aposile does not here command Letter V. 147 that the incestuous person should be given over to Sa- tan, " when they were gathered together ?" Granting that the cases are similar, though the example is not conformable to the precep", it cannot prove that the precept is not given in these words. Nor can it prove according to your own views of Acts xv. that the pre- cept is not binding. How do you set aside this pre- cept, according to your own interpretation of Acts xv.? Ey the example of what you call an uninspired synod or council. The command of an apostle of God an- nulled by the example of an uninspired council ! This is greater extravagance than was ever exemplified in the ihickest darkness of the middle ages. '1 hough men in those days exalted the acts of councils lO a level with the Scriptures, yet they never alleged the autho- rity of the one to set aside the other. Might not the example of the General Assembly of the church of Scotland be with equal validity alleged as a reason to set aside any apostolical command ? You might as well quote an old act of Assembly for the same purpose, as Acts XV. upon your view of it. Eut the cases are not parallel. The example re- corded in Acts xvc is not contrary to the injunction here given. As far as the object of the iwo assem- blies was similar, the example is a confirmation of the precept. It does noc annul, but corroborates it. As the aifair of Acls xv. was a piece of church business that concerned the church of Jerusalem, it was discuss- ed not only in the hearing, but vv^iih the approbation, co-operation, and concurrence of the whole church of Jerusalem. As it determined a matter for Antioch, and for the whole Christian Vvxrld, the decision was infalli- ble j the people of Antioch had no more necessi:y to be personally present, than all the Christians on earth. 14S Letter V. I contend tlien, Sir, not only that the example record- ed Acts XV. was agreeable to this as far as the exam- ple came under the precept, but that this precept for- bids your interpretation of Acts xv. ', and that even to explain Acts xv. agreeable to your own theory, it can- not set the precept aside. Allowing that all that is intended by the gathering together of the church, is their being present v/hen discipline is executed, to the end of the world it can never be reversed. You might as well set aside the six:h commandment, or the whole moral law. You might as well set aside the declara- tions, ** He that believes shall be saved — without holi- ness no man shall see the Lord." These all stand upon the same authority. But, Sir, even supposing that this was all that was to be made of this precept, there is another difficulty respecting your opinion as to the church of Corinth. You somewhere, I think, express your confidence that it contained more congregations than one. Granting you this for a moment, then, according to your own interpretation, no act of Presbytery is valid, unless all the members of all the congregations in the Presbytery are present. Now, it will be lull as easy to accommo- date them with a house when met for worship, as when met for discipline. But though in the note you endea- vour to cover the practice of your courts, and to pro- tect them in the breach of this apostolical command, even according to your own interpretation by the ex- am^^le recorded Acts xv. j yet, in order to get rid of this passage with as good a grace as possible, and to give no advantage from the practice of Presbyte- rians, you say that many Presbyterians contend, with Cyprian at their head, (it is the first time I have heard of that proud prelate heading Presbyterians), " that Letter V. 14-9 whatever is done, should be done in the presence of all the members of the church for their edfncation.'" Pres- byterians who are of thia lumd should practise it j and you, Sir, should either refute them, or follow their ex- ample. If such Presbyterians are right, the church of Scotland is wrong j and if the former are wrong, you are equally bound to prove their practice without a just foundation in Scripture, as you are in the case of Independents. The circumstance of some Presbyte- rians being of this mind, and observing this injunction, will not sanction but condemn other Presbyterians who despise it. ** But is it a necessary consequence," you subjoin, ** that because discipline was to be exercised in the presence of all the members, each of them was to ex- ercise it ? Though the court of civil justice, in a parti- cular town, may be held by the magistrates in the pre- sence of the inhabitants, w4io are invited perhaps to at- tend, does it follow that every inhabitant, though not officially a judge, is allowed either to speak or vote upon the decisions which are passed, before they are adopt- ed ?" p. 113. This, Sir, is a most disingenuous representation of the apostle's words. Your sLalement insinuates that there is nothing more said with respect to the church, than that it should be present when discipline should be ex- ercised ', and that the command to exercise discipline ^v^.s given to the rulers. But there are not tv/o de- scriptions of persons addressed. The same persons who are commanded to assemble, are commanded to " put away the incestuous person from among //6^///- Sclvesy Had it been said that the rulers we're to judge of and execute discipline in presence of the church, it would not indeed have been a necessary con- l5o Letter V. sequence, that each of the members of the church tverc to have a share in the discussion. But, Sir, the com-^ mand is given not to the rulers, but to the church at large, and to prevent a few from engrossing this busi- ness to themselves, like a Presbyterian session, they are expressly commanded to do it themselves, and in iheir public assembly. It is not possible for language ta contain a more exact, and punctual, and explicit direc- tion, the thing to be done, the persons appointed to do it, the manner of their proceeding, are all specifically marked. The very possibility of acting by depulation is cut off. The very persons who are commanded to do this, are the persons commanded to assemble, and to do it in their assembled capacity. The very per- sons who are commanded to be gathered together, are commanded to " deliver to Satan." If they are not all to be joined in delivering to Satan, neither are they all to be gathered together. If they are to deliver to Sa- tan by their representatives, so likewise are they to be assembled in their representatives. It may as well be argued that they are not commanded to be assembled, as that those assembled are not to perform this injunc- tion. Indeed, if this could reasonably be disputed, I would despair for ever of coming at any certainty as to the meaning of the Bible upon any point, or of any other book. Ivlore bare-faced perversion never was employed upon a papal bull, to avoid the thunder o£ the Vatican, by the Dominicans, Jansenists, or Jesuits, than you have employed to evade this apostolical coa- mand. With all the charity I can muster, 1 am not able to persuade myself, that this mode of analysis has entirely satisfied your own judgment. I think you must have been exceedingly perplexed upon this part of your subject. I can easily see you at your ease in dis- Letter V. 151 flaying the advantages of Presbytery, drawn from ab- stract principles, and a comparison with the kingdoms of this world •, because there is here something really agreeable to carnal wisdom. I can readily perceive how men are imposed upon here. When men reason at a distance from Scripture, they can go on with free- dom in supporting a corrupt system. But the matter is different when they come to silence the testimonj of Scripture evidence. If all reverence for the word of the dreadful God is not extinguished, a critic must find himself exceedingly cramped when he attempts to make him speak according to an unscriptural system. I beseech you then, Sir, to recollect that this letter was written to the church of Corinth, by the Spirit of Je- sus. If it be an awful thing for a man to rise against his neighbour, and attribute to him sentiments that he never avowed, how dreadful must it be in the day of God, to be found to have represented the Holy Ghost as saying w^hat he never intended ! I beseech you, Sir, examine your motives for writing your defence of Pres- byterj% Do not suffer yourself to be flattered by the smiles of a national church, nor allow your judgment to be warped by the prospect of its honours and pre- ferments. Be not intoxicated with the praises of men. Remember, that though it is very agreeable to human nature to be hailed as the champion of a prosperous church, their ambition is much better founded and di- rected, wlio are waiting for the sentence, " Well done, good and faithful servant." I beseech you, Sir, to re- examine this chapter by the rules of sober criticism, and do not allow yourself to be hurried away by the heat of argument, the desire of victory, or the love of the * praise of men,' to wrest it from its evident pur- port. 152 Letter V, What resources could you possibly imagine you had found in the proceedings of civil courts, to uphold your falling cause ? Though the multitude be present, yet as they have nothing to d©, their presence is never required. The judge and jury can transact business not only equally well, but much more conveniently, when there is no crowd. Was it ever known that the sheriff summoned the inhabitants of a whole county to be present at the trial of a criminal ? But to make the example similar, the multitude must not only be sum- moned to be present, but they must also be commanded, when assembled, to try the criminal, and condemn him when found guilty j meaning all this time that no one %vas to have any concern in the matter but the judges and jury. " Admitting also,'* you say, " that all the Corin- thians w^ere to put away from themselves this wicked person, it cannot be inferred that every member was to do so, either virtually or nominally, as an ecclesiastical judge, but, as has been already evinced, only the el- ders y while at the same time it was his duty, by every proper testimony of respectful acquiescence in the sen- tence of the latter, and by abstaining even from all un- necessary intercourse with the offender in common life, in his private capacity, to confirm their deed," p. 115, — 117. Shall w^e never have done with this figure ? Must it pervade the whole Scriptures upon this single point ? Is this the only subject upon which the inspired writers did not speak plainly ? Really, if the apostle uses as many figures in every chapter, and upon every subject, as he does upon this, he will be very hard to be under- stood. But, Sir, there is no figure in this ; there is no- thing here but plain perceptive language. " Put away Letter V, J53 from amon^ yourselves that wicked person." Pray, Sir, could the apostle have used more express language ^ Allow for a moment that he wished to say what we thmk he did say, what could he have said more precise and particular than this to enjoin it > Did not the apo- sde write to a company of plain people, for the use of the most illiterate, to the end of the world, xvho would never imagine that he would say one thing and mean another ? Allowing you however this figure again, you are much mistaken in saying, that it could not be in- lerred from what you admit, that all the Corinthians ^put the incestuous person away virtually, as ecclesiasti- cal judges. Whatever another does for you in vour name, is virtually done by yourself. Without thismp- •pcnion, there is no foundation for the figure. If they ^vere commanded to do this, and yet did it not, either vmrtually or nominally, pray, in what sense did they do :it .^ Even this figure supposes that the action still was tW, and that the judges did it only in their right ; But, bir, you tak^ the precept, « Put ar.ay from -among yourselves that wicked person," in a double ^ense, including a command for the rulers to perform thatpiececfdi.cipline,andacommandfortheindividual members respectfully to acquiesce in this sentence &c If it means the one, surely it cannot mean the other! £l If T '' r'' ''' P^^^^P^ '^^^ ^g-^^-- -d ^teral Jf, by a figure, they are commanded to do What their rulers are to do for them, then they cannot m he same words be Hterally commanded to acquiesce n the sentence of their rulers. You make them do fitie thing figuratively, and another literally Thev ;^ust>4. by their representatives, but they must sul 'nzt personally to their decisions. '-"And though it should be admitted, moreover. o 154 Letter V. you contmue, "that the senlence, as we are told, 2 Cor. li. 6. was inflicted by many, it will not follow that it Tvas passed by many, or all of them, for there is an es» sential distinction, in every government, between the making and the infliction of a sentence. The former might be performed only by a fe^v who were rulers, whV.e the latter might be executed bv all the members of the church, who were bound to con<:ur with the eU ders, by inflicting the sentence •, and who were all, as we have said, under an obligation to refuse to have fel- lowship with him, that he might be ashamed, and that others might fear," p. in. " Thou'^h it should be admitted I''' What do you mean by such langua-e ? What m.akes you so reluc- tant to admit unequivocally what you yet have not the hardiness to deny ? Why do you concede these thmgs that are so evident, in terms that allow you to retract your concession at pleasure ? Is this like a candid en- quirer after truth ? It is of no consequence to my ar- gumenf, but I cannot approve, of the disposition that leads to this over-cautioas m.ode of disputation. I do not expect an antagonist to surrender any post that is tenable, and it is often very proper to admit, for argu- ment's sake, what need not be admitted, and shotud not be admitted in reality ', yet what cannot be dispu- ted should never be surrendered in terms that miply thai there was suflicient ground to retain it. ^ o.ir concessions appear to me as ridiculous as the conduct of a petty village representing it as a matter of choice that they opened their-gates to a vast army. Do you suppose that the mahm of the sentence ,s inferior to the execution of it > The contrary of th.s is the fact There is indeed in ev.ery government an essen. tial difference between these. The legislative govern- Lettkr v. 15^ itient makes laws, and the executive enforces their ob- ser.ance. But it happens that the office of the latter, not of the former, coi responds to that of church-rulers. The jury finds the verdict, the judge pronounces it. Perhaps, however, you take your illustration from the otRce of the common hangman, who, after sentence is pronounced, intlicts the punishment on tiie criminal, borne sort of power corresponding to this honourable office, you would be willing to give to the illiterale crowd. But there is in the intlicUon of an ecclesiasti- cftl sentence,./, e. the sentence of a church of Chust, nothing that correrponds to the infliction of a penal sentence of the civil law. Nor even are the ghostly fathers themselves now armed wiih the civil sword. There is no corporal punishm.ent to be inflicted after the fallen brother is excluded from the church. I ask you how this sentence was co be inflicted ? Was it not by giving over the wicked person in their assembly, unto Satan ? What was the sentence, but the command to exclude him ? How was this sentence inflicted, but by complying with the command contained in 1 Cor, V. 4, 5. ? How could it then be inflicted by the many, if the many did not themselves personally perform the command ? Not only is the whole church commanded to deliver the incestuous person to Satan in 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. ; they are also said in 2 Cor. ii. 6. to have per- formed this personally, and not by representatives. It Is " the sentence inflicted by many." Now, when this sentence is said to be inflicted by many, it cannot be understood in any other sense, than that it was the act and deed of the many of the whole church. But, Sir, open your Greek Testament, and read the passage, 2 Cor. ii. 6. There you will find no word corresponding to inflicted. The words are, ^ iTrtri^ucc 156 Letter V. avTA 4 vTTd rm ^rXucvav^ literally, this punishment — the punishment of or by the many, in every respect the act and deed of the whole church \ not decreed by the ru- lers, and inflicted by the people ; nor decreed by the people, and inflicted by the rulers ; but in every view the punishment of the many, ruled and rulers. How eould it be the punishment of the many, unless it were thedeed of the many ? The pronouncing of the sen- tence belonged to the elmrch-rulers. In vain, Sir, you try to diminish the weight of this passage y it will prove a mill-stone for ever around the neck of the cause you espouse. But go on, Sir, with your analysis. " Is it said, in short, that as all the Corinthians are commanded to forgive their offending brother, (2 Cor. ii. 7, — 10.) they must all have been rulers ? It is replied, that this consequence appears by no means to follow j but that all that can be deduced from it is this, that as they had all been offended by him in their various stations, so they were all to forgive him upon tokens of his repent- ance, and express their forgiveness in a manner which was suited to their situation in the church. Those who were rulers, and were offended by him in that ca^ pacity, were commanded as such to forgive him, and restore him again to the privileges of their society j and those who were members, and had been ofiended by him as such, on account of the dishonour which he had done to God, were called as such to express their foreiveness, and res I ore him once more to the com- forts and advantages of private fellowship." p. 117, 118. To the question you propose in the beginning of this paragraph, I answer as you do, that it by no means follows, that because they are all to forgive the inces- Letter V. 15T tuous person, therefore they must all be rulers. This certamly does not follow \ for though he is to be re- ceived back, as he ^vas put away, by the unanimous voice of the whole church, yet in this they act not as ru- lers, but as church-members. Even as to the societies of this world, there are many so constituted, that each member of the society has a right to be satisfied with others w^ho are proposed for admission. Yet it is never supposed from this, that every member is an officer in the society. But why did you not try your fevourite figure upon this word ? Could you not have said, * Can this be ex- plained upon the Presbyterian system ? Yes j for no- thing is more commen than for a body to be said to do that which others do for them, - All th.t is meant here is, that they are to forgive him by their rulers.' Let us examine what you have made of it. You say, that " all that can be deduced from it is, that as they were all in their respective siadons offended by him, so they wxre all in their situations in the church to forgive him, rulers as rulers, and private members as such," &.c. ■ Here I observe, that though there are different sta- tions in a church, yet this offence committed against them, did not respect them in those stations. This person did not commit one offence against a ruler, and a different offence against an individual member. The offence was the same with respect to all. They were all offended, not as officers and individuals, but as Chri- stians and church-members. A church-ruler is offend- ed by a public sin in a brolher, not in a way different from any other member. Your criticism then is a mere refinement. It is a distinction without a diffe- rence, invented for the sole purpose of getting rid of 03 15S Letter V.. the testimony of Scripture. It is not possible that any man who has the smallest reverence for the word of God, could seriously think that such subtleties are ne- cessary to explain its meaning. The whole church was commanded in the first epistle to put away the of- fender. The whole church is, in the second, command- ed to forgive him. What can the writer mean, but that the restoration of him is the act of the body at large ? Your Interpretation gives the -^vords also a double meaning, and makes them convey a twofold precepto. You make forgiveness as to the rulers,, mean formal and official re-admission, according to their exclusive prerogative *, as to the members, you make it signify only mental forgiveness, not in an official manner, nor by any public expression=. Here then, in the same word, we have a command given to a body, which has not the same meaning as to all addressed, but is in rea- lity two commands quite different *, directed to two different classes of people, although they are addressed as one. If this was the case, the apostle must have been exceedingly parsimonious of his words. He is more laconic than the Lacedemonians themselves. For- giveness must be taken in a sense, as to one part of those addressed, which it cannot have as to the other, nay, in which it would be presumption in the latter to understand it^ The forgiveness which is inculcated Upon the one part, it would be sin in the other to at- tempt to exercise, although these two different kinds of forgiveness are inculcated in the same words, addressed to one body, without any distinction. My good Sir, do you recollect that it is the Bible you are thus at- tempting to disfigure ? Really the rhetoric of old Strep- siades, in the Nubes of Aristophanes, to evade the de- Letter V. 159 mands of his creditors, is scarcely more ridiculous. Some words you reduce to a very small part of their proper power j to others, you give a double power whenever it suits your purpose. The apostle however did not mean to speak in such a dark and doubtful manner, as to give the disciples of Socrates any just occasion to pervert his words. He speaks what he means, fully and unequivocally, with- out intending at one time less, and at another more, than what his words naturally import. The whole church is commanded to forgive him in the same way. They are not addressed as rulers and ruled, considered in the distinct classes, but as one undivided body> which, though composed of different orders, are in this to act together. The way in which they were all as a body to forgive him, 2 Cor. ii. 8, was to " confirm their love to him," or,, as the original word implies, publicly to ratify their love to him by a re- admission. They did not cease to love him, even when he conti- nued to sin J but when he repented, they were publicly to shew him their love as a brother, by constitutionally receiving him back into communion. Kv^ua-ui signifies to confirm, to ratify authoritatively by a public deed. How could the whole body be commanded Kv^aia-m ug xvlov uyxTnify unless it was by the consent of the whole body that he was to be re -admitted ? This language would be absurd, if addressed to a Presbyxerian con- gregation. But the ninth verse puts the matter be- yond controversy. ** For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things." Did the apostle write to the Corinthians, for this very end, that he might know the proof of them, whether they would be obedient in all things ? Was this injomction to be the very test of their IGO Letter V; discipleslilp ? Wliat proof could they liave given of their obedience to this command, if they had not the power of obeying it themselves, and of refusing to obey it ? The church could have given no proof of its obe- dience or of disobedience, if the whole matter rested exclusively Aviih its rulers. He might as -well have written to die servants of a nobleman to put away a fellow-servant, with a view to have a proof of their obe- dience, while the whole power of keeping or dismissing the servant was vested in the master. Could the ser- vants in such a case give any proof of obedience or dis- obedience ? Would they not answer, ' To put away a fellow-servant does not belong to us. This is the pri- vilege of the master alone. You must apply to him- self.' The whole church was commanded to put away from among themselves the wicked person. This command was given to them for this very purpose, that the apostle might have a proof of their obedience* Therefore, they must have had the power of obeying or disobeying the injunction. ** Your glorying is not good," saith the apostle j " know you not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump ?" But what although they did know this, if they had no power to remedy it ? Where v;as the use or propriety of this remonstrance, if the persons addressed had no more authority to remedy it, than the church of Scotland has to remedy the disorders of the church of Rome ? Does not the apostle speak here in the lan- guage of high indignation, which, when impressed- with his rebukes they felt in their turn against them^ selves, plainly criminating those addressed, and imply- ing that they had power to correct the evil, or purge out the leaven ? Accordingly he adds, " Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump as ye are un- Letter V. 'l6i leavened,** Here a command is given to them in the most decisive terms, which they are supposed to have full pov/er to perform. It is not, * Stir up your rulers to purge out the old leaven, and if th^y do not comply, comolain to the higher courts j but addressing the whole church, both I'ulers and ruled, he commands them to ** purge out the old leaven." The whole church is blamed j the whole church then must have |>osse33ed the requisite authority to obey. There is not in the New Testament a chapter more plain, than the fifth of 1 CoHBthians. The utmost licen<;e of interpre- tation that ever has been used by Socinians, Quakers, or Roman Catholics, has not exceeded what you have employed to make it quadrate with the views of Pres- byterians. It is not a solitary expression that you dis- tort, it is not single words only that you turn into figures. It is figuration with you from beginning to end 5 nay, often both figurative and literal. In one place you sup- pose the apostle to speak exclusively to the individual members, in another to speak exclusively to the rulers, in another figuratively to the individual members, giving a command that they were to obey by thek representa- tives, in another lie speaks figuratively and literally in the same words, in another a command is to be under- stood in a double meaning *, the apostle all the while addressing, without variation, the same persons. The church-members only should have mourned *, the church-rulers only should have excluded the incestuous person : the former may be literally assembled, but they can only figuratively perform, what they are com- manded, when assembled 3 the latter are to decide : the former must acquiesce in the decision, while these two peculiar duties, separately incumbent upon these two orders, are conveyed in the same words. What a. 162 Letter V. ~ hodge-podge ! But all your subtlety, and all ycair fi- gures, will fail to darken these precepts. Though every Christian may not be able to unravel your sophistry, the most unlettered will see that your criticism is unna- tural and fcrrced. After reading your seventh letter, let them take up the New Testament, and again read the cVapter, and I have no fear but all the mist you may have raised before their eyes, will be dispelled by the bright rays of the Sun of righteousness. If the word of God were really so dark as you represent it j if it were really necessary to have recourse to- such rules of criticism to understand it, as you employ to explain the most obvious precepts, It is darker than an oracle of Delphi. We should then need an Infallible interpreter. The common people need" never open the Bible. They may despair of being able to judge of the meaning of the plainest passage in Scripture, Yea, they could not be certain of the personal obliga- tion of the ten commandments. Why might they not obey the moral law by their representatives ? If such clear passages of Scripture may lawfully be explained by a meaning so distant from their obvious import, what may not be imposed upon those passages that are really dark ? Upon this mode of interpretation, it would not be possible to refute any system that ever has been foisted upon the word of God. The Originists, the Mystics, &.C. might keep their ground in defiance of criticism. Yea, I would despair of being able to bring, down the pilLu: saints from their aerial habitations *. * The apostle commanded the epistles to the Colossians, Thes'alonians, Stc. to be read to the brethren ; but of what u^e would it be to them to have tlifse r<-ad to them, if they mu*t be understood by such rules of interpretation as these? He should- have sent with his. epistles some huge folio commentary. It Letter V. IfTS But, Sir, the directions respecting the expulsion and re-admission of the incestuous person, are not the only places you must turn into figures. You must also me- tamorphose the whole epistles. There is not a case of discipline, nor a direction as to the management of church affairs in all the New Teslament, which are not delivered to the churches. There is not a single in- stance in which church-rulers are represented as exclu- sively possessing this authority. Rom. xiv. " Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye." The admission of members then is the business of the whole church. Is this also a figure ? Where are we to look for the plain passages ? The same thing is also plainly taught in Actsix. 26. notwithstanding all your labour to evade it. Paul attempted to join the church at Jerusalem ; what prevented him ? The disciples were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. This is the only reason that is alleged for his rejection. Had the church of Jerusalem been a Presbyterian congrega- tion, Paul would have been admitted or rejected with- out consulting the disciples *, nay, without their know- ledge. He mio-ht have been a member of that church for many years, without the privity of any but such as had previously known him. Should it be said that his application was publicly notified, to give the brethren an opportunity of communicating what they knew of him to the rulers ', I answer, even this supposition will overthrow the practice of the church of Scotland, and so far you must confess yourselves to overlook the mo- del that yourselves call divine. I answer farther, that iGor. V. must be understood in ycur sense he miVht as well have presented the Corinthians with a volume of the intricate philosophy of the Stagirite, 164 Letter V. this could not have been the reason of his rejection, bc^ cause the disciples could give no additional information as to Paul. They knew nothing of him more than their rulers. They all knew what he once was, a per- secutor J and therefore they were all afraid now that his conversion was not real. When it is intimated then that he was rejected in consequence of the fears of the disciples, it cannot be interpreted that the church-rulers rejected him for the additional knowledge they recei- ved respecting him from the disciples, because the rulers knew as much themselves. Since then the fear of the disciples is the only reason to which his rejection is at- tributed, the rejection of him is thus virtually ascribed to the disciples. Had the disciples acted otily as in- formers, the rulers would not be represented as reject- ing Paul on account of the fears of the disciples, but on account of their own fears of him. A jury does not con- demn a criminal on account of the opinions of the wit- nesses, but on account of their evidence, and the degree of weight they phxe in that evidence. It Is then upon their own convictions from the evidence they act. It IS not said that the jury condemned the criminal be- cause the Tvitnesses declared :^ey thought he was guilty but because the jury itself, from the depositions of the witnesses, ivere convinced of his guilt. When the fear of the disciples is alleged as the cause of his rejection, it cannot be imderstood then, that this was the cause \vhy the rulers rejected him, but the cause why they rejected him themselves. Even according to your own interpretation of this passage, the disciples had a ne- gative. No person then should be received in a church, of whom the body of the disciples have any doubt. Acts xvili. 27. Apollos received his letters of reccm- Letter V» 165 mendation, you see, from the brethren, not the session or presbytery. Paul also supposes, that such letters which were necessary for others, but unnecessary in his case, should come from the same source, 2 Cor, iii. 1. The public certificate, as we may call it, or the appro- bation of the character of a person who had been dis- charging the duty of a messenger of the church, is also directed to the whole body, not to the rulers only, Phil. ii. 29, 30. It is the church of Colosse also whom the apostle commands to receive Mark, Col. iv. 10. " Touching whom, ye received commandments j if he come unto you, receive him." From the circumstance of Paul's dispute with Barnabas, on account of Mark's conduct, and from the command contained in the latter part of this quotation, the commandments that he here men- tions as formerly given to the Colossians touching Mark, must undoubtedly mean, that they were com- manded not to receive him. When Mark acted in such a manner as to lose the confidence of the apostle, this church was commanded not to receive him ; when he was brought to repentance, the apostle forgave him, and reversed his command to the Colossians. Both the former command and the present is directed, not to the church' rulers, as it would had they been Presbyterians, but to the whole church. But, Sir, to put the matter beyond all dispute, there is a direction as to discipline in Gal. vi. 1. which your figure cannot possibly twist. " Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." 2^ wbicb are spiritual ; here they are commanded to restore a brother who should fall into sin by surprise. There is a difference to be P 166 Letter V. made between the case of such a person, and one who sins by premeditation, as a hypocrite. Bnt who is fit to make this distinction ? If ever there should be a rase in which the pastors alone ought to judge, this surely is the case. But are the rulers alone command- ed to judge ? No, but the whole church j and their qualification is specified. ^' Ye who are fpiriiuaiy Spiritual men alone are capabld of judging in this mat- ter. The carnal man is not acquainted with the wiles of Satan, the deceitfulness of the human heart, &c. Such a precept w-ould In vain be given to a General Assembly, though all the judges of the land were pre- sent. But the plainest congregation of saints have the requisite qualifications. ' Ye w^ho are spiritual, restore such a one.' Are the church-rulers the only spiritual people in the church ? This precept is given to the whole church, as com.posed of spiritual men, who were capable of making this distinction. Sir, try your fi- gure upon this. Let any one examine the epistles upon this subject, in the same manner as Archdeacon Paley proves the authenticity of the epistles of Paul, and he will meet such a multitude of these indirect, incidental proofs, as wall abundantly corroborate this argument. But not only are the members in conjunction with the rulers entrusted with the discipline of the church, as it respects the brethren ; even the pastors themselves are to be judged by them, and admonished if negligent or faulty. Col. iv. 17. " And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil It." How would a Presbyterian minister take this ? His dignity would be highly in- sulted, if the individual members of his congregation should sit in judgment upon his conduct, and admonish Letti:?i V. 161 him to diligencCo Paul then was not a Presbyterian,. nor was this a Presbyterian congregation to which he wrote, or he would have ccmmitted the admomtion of Archippiis to his presbytery. In fine, of all the directions as to discipline, of all the censures as to the neglect of it, in all the New Testament, there is not one given to the rnlers, as dis- tinct from the brethren. Would it not then be the most unaccountable thing, if the rulers alone have a right to judge of discipline, that in all the commands given upon that point, they should never be named ? That all the censures as to the neglect of discipline, and abuses which church-rulers alone, upon this suppo- sition, could reform, should fall upon those, who were neither guilty in the m.atter, nor had a power of reme- dying ? That those who alone should in this case have borne the blame, are neither reprimanded nor mention- ed ? LETTER VI, Sir, A. -S your book Is rather a set of miscellaneous remarks than a regular treatise, I am obliged to pass by your eighth letter, till I meet it in its proper placQ, where you finally give your views of Acts xv. I pro- ceed to the consideration of the doctrine of the lay- elder, handled in your ninth, tenth, and eleventh let- ters. Here I do not think it necessary to pull down by piecemeal the frail edifice you have reared. If I pick out the key-stones, the arch, with all its supports, 16S Letter VI. will tumble of itself. A tedious refutation of argu- ments tliat are palpably nugatory or irrelevant, -would rather be to insult the understanding of my readers, than useful to assist them in their researches. You ivould have spared yourself and your readers some trouble, had you omitted your frequent and copious extracts from the ancient Independents. To what pur- pose do you place in your van the celebrated names -of Goodwin, V/atts and Owen ? You might as well have substituted in their room, Rutherford, Dixon and Guthrie. To arguments, not to names, do we attach any respect. I am afraid you are so much accustomed to be guided in these matters by authority, that you imagine that no party can be without their leaders. I must tell you then, Sir, that we have no patriarchs xvith us. We agree with the ancient Independents just as far as we judge them to agree VvUth the Bible, and so far we will also agree with Presbyterians and every other sect. If any doctor on any side states or defends your opinion better than you can do yourself, you are welcome to borrow his arguments, or use his language. But no writings, the Bible excepted, can we allow you to quote as authorities. Your first argument for lay-elders, taken from the plurality of elders in every church, has no substance. Though there are to be more elders than one In every church where they can be obtained, does it follow that some of these must be what Presbyterians are pleased to call lay-elders ? Yes, you say, because it could not maintain them all *. And is this the distinction be- * You argue here, that of the pUirality of elders found I'tt every apostolical church, the greater parf must have been 'rv- elders, because otherwise they con Id not be vu porte I yet to s(.void the argument a^^aiu'.t lay-elders, iro.a the Circumstance Letter IV. 169 tween preacliing and lay-elders, that the one are sup- ported by the church, and the other support them- selves ? Every pastor not supported by the church Is then a layman. Few of the clergy will forfeit their title by this crime. Not to mention that all elders are said, 1 Tim. v. IS. (the chief passage from which you attempt to prove this office) to be worthy of mainte- nance, of whatever kind they may be, and that this dif- ficulty will meet the one system as well as the other, is it necessary that every labourer should be supported, whether he needs it or not ? or that all should be sup- ported in the style of parish ministers, suitable to the dignity of a civil establishment ? Is it necessary that a man, when he becomes a pastor, should live more splen- didly than formerly ? That all labourers have a right to a comfortable support, is clear both from reason and express Scripture. But it is equally clear from both, that where a church is poor, those who have the qua- lifications should labour as they have opportunity, while they support themselves, as they were formerly accus- tomed, by their own industry. The elders of Ephesus v/ere commanded to work with their own hands, not only to support themselves, but to minister to the wants of others. It is also very clear, that it is an unscriptu- ral idea, that all the pastors of the same church who need support, are entitled to an equal support, 1 Tim, v. 18. leaves us at no loss as to our duty on this point. that they are all represented as entitled to support, i Tim. v. 17. you elsewhere declare that you see no reason why these lay- elders should not be supported How does this consist with your present argument'' it is totally i mpossible to be consistent in forcing a false system upon the Bible. The genius of Leibtnitz or Newton could not, m like circumitances, avoid mcongrui- ties. P3 ITO Letter VI. While It IS exceedingly desirable tliat some, at least one, should be solely devoted to the service of the church, others may properly spend much of their time in their worldly business. An acquaintance with the original languages of the Scriptures, v.ith history, &.c. is very necessary to be possessed by the church in at least one of its pastors : but though this is desirable, even as to every Christian, it is by no means indispen- sable as to some of the pastors. They may be very useful labourers in many respects without this accom- plishment. Those therefore who must devote all their time to such acquisitions, must undoubtedly require a much greater support than others who can devote the greater part of their time to worldly business. The previous habits of living, ^vlth many other circum- stances, must also be considered ; so that while one will need much, another may need nothing but a small remuneration for the loss of time. Besides, Sir, I do not think with you, that there are few churches able to support three pastors. If Chri- stians were less conformed to the world, should they save what others spend unnecessarily, they could sup- port several labourers in a church, and be as rich at the year's end as their neighbours. The expence of costly entertainments, for shevs^, not for hospitality, would be sufficient to make a considerable augmenta- tion to the funds of a church, if applied to that pur- pose. Christians do not so much want the ability, though they are generally in the lower ranks of life j but in some places they appear criminally ignorant of the extent of their duty on this point, and many seem em.ulous to support a rank like the men of the world. These, I think, are the reasons, generally speaking, why churches cannot support a sufficient number of Letter VI. 171 pastors. But tins appears a very strange argument in the mouth of a defender of a national church. Could not the same authority that secures the manse and sti- pend to one minister in every parish, equally provide for thirty or a hundred ? You have a curious observation upon the number ne- cessary, upon the supposition that there should be more than one. " At any rate," you say, " it is certain that it can never properly be less than thrte, for if there were only two, and if they should happen to dif- fer upon any point of discipline, or any case of go- vernment, no decision could be made," p. 150. You can never divest yourself of that PresbyLerian idea of majorities, minorities, and decisions by vote. Sir, the elders of an apostolical church have no private deci- sions, and upon no business in the church is there ever a balancing of votes. Your second argument shall not detain me a mo- ment. The extent of the oversight of elders proves nothing as to the question, whether all the elders should be of the same^ order, or whether a part of them should be what are calkd lay-elders. It proves indeed the necessity of a pluraHty, numerous in proportion to this extent, but it does not imply that one or two of them only should be pastors. You might as well argue,. that because the city of Edinburgh is too extensive for the inspection of one magistrate, therefore, instead of creating a number of magistrates of equal rank, the first magistrate should be assisted in liis office by the town beadles. Your long quotation, p. 152, — 156. to shew the duty of these lay- elders, I lay upon the same shelf with my Apocrypha. Sir, be so good as to point out to me the duties of a lay- elder from the New Testaments 172 Letter VI. Where this falls, I will not acknowledge the writings of Dr Owen for canonical Scrip Lure. Surely, Sir, this is a tacit confession that the oiHce is not in Scrip- ture, when to describe its duties, you must leave the Eible, and have recourse to Dr Ov/en. Your third argument will be as easily dispatched. This is the necessity of an order of lay- elders to curb the ambition of the clergy. Christ has lefi his churches in possession of a very good restraint upon their rulers, for the latter can carry no measures without the con- sent of the former. Had church-members always been faithful to Christ, in personally discharging their duty as to church afi'airs, anticbriat could never have arisen. But by neglecting this, and deputing others to act for them, the man of sin has entered and grown to maturi- ty. " The ministers of religion," you observe, p. 156. " however amiable and venerable their character, are subject to the frailties and imperfections of humanity, and that a desire of an undue and extravagant authori- ty has too often been one of these imperfections, is a truth which v/ill scarcely be denied." No, indeed, Sir, we are not disposed to deny this. A peep into the General Assembly, or any of its subordinate courts, v/ould convince the most obstinate infidel. The high notions which you have conceived of this office, and the lordly language in which you speak of the autborU iat2ue decisio ,s of church courts, sufficiently intimate that you are not beyond the reach of temptation from this common propensiiy of human nature. But the way to prevent or repress clerical ambition, is for every- church to observe all the commandments and ordi- nances of the Lord, not to employ for this end the maxims of worldly prudence. But is it possible that pastoral ambition shall be more Letter VI. 173 effectually restrained by joining a few with him in the €xercise of church power, than by associating with him in every transaction the whole body of believers ? Is it not more likely that a few v;ill give way to schemes of clerical aggrandizement than the whole church ? You could not but foresee this answer, and therefore you attempt to evade it. You think that the clergy would have more influence upon the bulk of a congregation of ignorant people, than upon a few of the most en- lightened. Sir, have not those enlightened few, as church-members, the means of restraining the ambition of their pastors, equally as if the v/hole power of do- ing so was vested in them alone ? V/hen there are no majorities appointed to decide differences, a pastor would in vain carry with him the ignorant. But, Sir, if a church is composed of proper materials, much as they may esteem their pastors, they esteem Jesus much more, and prefer his authority to influence of any kind. You think you are in a promiscuous Presbyterian congregation, I suppose. Nor is your observation, that pastoral ambition is more likely to prevail over the bulk of a congrega- tion, than over the enlightened fev/, founded in an accurate observation of human conduct. W e know that a man can have more influence over those nearly of an equal rank, or even of a superior rank, but infe- rior as to ofhce, than over those at a great distance be- low hkn. Ey his attentions and condescension, he may flatter the former, who are easily convinced that they are his equals, because they are not far from him, or in some respects above him 3 but the latter can never be deceived, nor deceive themselves in this manner. They are at too great a distance from him, ever to imagine that he esteems them as his equals. This is not only n4 Letter VI. agreeable to human nature, but migbt be confirmed by many examples. I might refer to every man's experi- ence, whether or not those who are esteemed the bet- ter sort of people, or the enlightened few, are not more frequently of the minister's party, than the bulk of the congregation. This was remarkably verified in the affair of the classification of the ministers of the< Gene- ral Synod in Ireland. Generally speaking, the only persons who contributed their assistance to advance clerical dignity, at the expence of their constitution, were those who would be thought the enlightened few. Those that you look upon to be a mere rabble, would have curbed clerical ambition had it been in their power. Your fourth argument, though it does not lead to the conclusion which you draw from it, has yet a foun- dation in truth, and should carefully be attended to by the churches. " There are many to be found in the church, who, though not fitted to be teaching elders, are eminently qualified to be rulers. Most men have it not in their power to attain that learning, and that facility of expression, -ivhich are requisite for the for- mer, while many of them hzve acquired that experi- ence and sagacity which may fit thera for the usefial discharge of the latter. Shall the church then, be- cause they are not qualified to be numbered among her instructors, be totally deprived of the benefit of their endowments ?" p. 159. Though there is no distinc- tion of office in eldership, there are distinct provinces in it, and some are fitted more eminently for one part of it, and some for another. The churches not only may, but ought to choose pastors with a variety of ta- lents ; that each excelling in one department of the office, the saints may, with the more accelerated pro- LETTER VI. 175 gres:;, grow up in all things into Christ. One, from a deep acquaintance with the Scriptures, and the lan- guages in which they were written, may usually be employed in expounding j another, who is perhaps ac- quainted* with no language but that which is usually spoken, may have a greater facilily of speaking, and a more happy manner of arresting the attention of the careless, may be usually employed in preaching the gospel j another may want talents for public speaking, yet be eminently qualified for conversation with the newly awakened, the weak, the tempted and the sick j qualifications in which the others may be as much de- fective, as he is as to those v>-hich they possess j another, from a particular strength and presence of mind, join- ed wiih prudence, patience, gentleness, firmness, expe- rience, knowledge of the world, and a thorough ac- quaintance with the laws of Christ, may be peculiarly qualified to preside in the church, and to be usually engaged in what is called ruling. If a church had so many elders usually employed in these different de- partments, each- of them would be a pastor, and no one of them could with more propriety than another be called -d passages, there is something said applicable to all the Levites, which will justify their being mentioned in general. But upon your supposition, the lay-elders are not addressed at all in Acts xx'. 28. The illustra- tion then is not at all in point. Do you think that the apostle would be guilty of the unpardonable absurdity cf addressing a set of men by name in the beginning of his speech, yet say nothing that is directed or applica- ble to them ? If there were any lay-elders among them, would he not have given them a charge also ? " lO. Peter also, addressing the elders, never hints at Ifwo orders, but gives them all the same instructions j which could not have been the case, had their offices been distinct. Besides, the expression which he uses, " for filthy lucre's sake," shews that all the elders al- luded to received a support. If they did not, there would have been no temptation to take the office for the sake of filthy lucie, nor any need of this warning. They are also all supposed by him to be bishops and shepherds. If then they are bishops, and shepherds, and rulers, are they not pastors ? What is a pastor but a shepherd ? Presbyterians in vindicating their lay- elder, must give him every thing belonging to the pa- storal off.ce, but the name, titles, and dignities. In- deedj were I to admit all you contend for, that they ought never publicly to preach, yet they are pastors, even from what you yourself concede. 1 1 . As the elder is the same with the bishop, and as all bishops are required to be ^i^aySiiKog^ Jit to tench, 1 Tim. iii. 2. so all elders must be teachers. They would not be indispensibly rcvquired to be fit to teach, if they were not to be employed in teaching. It can- not be sustained as a sufficient answer to this, that the 193 Letter VI. " lay-elder may teach privately *. "What I said to oh- viate your allegations upon Acts xx.ii 8. will equally apply here. Private official teaching is still the office of the pastor. Besides, Avhere is this distinction found ? And if it is found, then it can no longer be said that the lay-elder does not labour in word and doctrine But it is not said that one class of these elders must be 2('^xkIiko; in one way, and another class in another way. Tiiey are all required to be h^xxltKo<; in the same way. You seem to think that the fitness to teach consists in a facility in conveying the ideas of the speaker. But the fitness to teach, which the apostle here requires in a bishop or elder, is independent of this. A man might have this facility, yet not be ^;5«k1<«o«, and a man might wanf it, and yet be quite ^/ to teach. Fit- ness to teach consists in the knowledge of what is to be taught J a full and thorough acquaintance with the doctrines and laws of Christ. This is indispensable in every teacher, whether public or private, and equally so in the one as in the other. It is this fitness then that the apostle insists on in an elder, and not merely a talent for public speaking. As then the same fitness in this respect is necessary in private teaching as in pu- blic, the elder that teaches privately, call him a lay- * So far from any of the elders bein^ private teacliers only, without a liberty of public speaking, even inHividual members might and did publicly teach, i Cor xiv. Horn xv 14. Col. iii. 16. &r It is the privileee of every membct to address bis bre- thren, if he hath anything worthy nf communication. The pu- blicity or privacy of teaching then, cannot be a distinction of of- fice in the eldership. The distinction betw een the teaching of individual members, and tliat of elders, is not in the publicity and privacy of it, but in being official in the one, and not so ia the other ; the former may, the latter jnt/st teach. Letter VI. 19^? elder if yoU will, must be as perfectly acquainted with the doctrines and laws of Christ as the preaching elder. This distinction then, useful as it may seem at first view for a salvo, will not avail you. Your private teaching elder must be as well instructed as your pu- blic teaching elder. And indeed, even in the capacity ■ of a ruler, the same thing is requisite. No man can rule without a knowledge of those doctrines, laws, and ordinances which he is to enforce, and by which he is to rule. A king is not fit for his office, if he is not well acquainted with the laws of the realm. But m a church ruler, this is still more indispensable, because he must not only know the laws, doctrines and institu- tions of Christ, to know when they are violated, when they are observed according to their Scriptural mean- ing, and when to apply them ; but also, because it is not sufficient for himself to be acquainted with these, before he can enforce them, he must be able to per- suade those that are ruled that they are Scriptural doc trines, ordinances, laws, &c. He must rule not only according t* the laws of Christ, but according to tne views of these laws entertained by those who are to obey them. He must then, before he can be able to rule, be fit to teach, and to convince the believers of the truth of the doctrines he presses, the divme origin of the ordinances he calls them to observe, and the laws which he enforces. Your lay-elder then, both as a ruler, and as a private teacher, must be acquainted with divine truth equally with your preaching elder. But as to this distinction between private and pubhc teaching, where is the exact Une of separation ? Where do the limits of the one end, and the other begin ? What constitutes the difference? Does it consist m ihelime? Mu.t ike private Leachtr teac.i only on 198 Letter VI. \veek.-d?.ys ? If this constitutes the difference, then all the preaching of the public teachers through the week is only private teaching. Does it consist in the place ? May the public teacher alone teach in the house of worship ? Then whenever you preach out of the housf dedicated to public worship, you are only a private teacher. Docs it consist in speaking from a pulpit wnth a greater degree of dignity, and the power of commanding men to believe the gospel, &c. with the authority of the ministerial office, as being peculiar to the public teacher ? How much more is a sinner ren- dered guilty, by refusing to believe the gospel when called to it by a reverend ambassador, than when only- called by a lay-elder ? Does it consist in the numbers addressed ? Upon this supposition, how many may a lay-elder constitutionally -address ? In which ever of these things, or in whatever other thing this distinction may consist, it is exceedingly important that it be ac- curately defined. If it be the duty of the lay-elder to teach privately, and a sin for him to teach publicly, have pity upon your humble associates, and determine the boundaries of their ofRce with philosophical preci- sion. But what, my dear Sir, is the imperious necessity that drives you to such distinctions, evasions, &.c. ? Is it to reconcile these passages with a more clear and de- cisive testimony of Scripture ? No j but to prop a rotten system, that has not even the appearance of sanc- tion from one direct testimony. 1D9 LETTER VIL Sir, v>' gregations met at a presbytery." Is it not the presbytery alone who has the right to judge of what is error, and what is mal-administradon ? May they not, do they not often class under these heads the doctrines of the gospel, and the observance of some of the precepts of Jesus ? It is in their own power what to call error and mal-administration. If a minister were to preach in his neighbour's parish, without his consent, would not this be mal-administration ? It is mere white- wash to represent their subjection to superior courts only in case of error or mal-administration, as long as they may brand the most sacred doctrines and duties with these names. How absurd is it to say, with Hoornbeek, whose language you quote in a note, that, according to the Presbyterian form of government, a particular con- gregation is possessed of all essential church power in itself, and receives it not from synods or superior coun- cils, seeing no congregation can of itself exercise disci- pline ! Their particular office-bearers cannot exercise discipline till they receive a commission from the supe- rior court, which they recal when they think fit. Church power then can neither, accordmg to this sys- tem, originate in a particular congregation, nor inde- pendently be continued and exercised in it. If every particular congregation has all essential church power within itself, why do they receive this from another source ? Upon the Presbyterian system, how absbrd is It to say, with Hoornbeek, that a single congregation situated in a part of the world, where it could not be associated with others, is a complete church, not at all mutilated ? If it is in this state a complete church not at all mutilated, when it concresces with others, they must be a monster. But if superior courts be essential, and all church power derived from them, no individual S3 20^ Letter VII. congregation can In any circumstances be called with propriety a complete church. How can it be complete wanting that which is essential to its well-being ? How can that Avhich is only a piirt of a great whole be call- ed complete, in the same sense as the whole ? How can a body be complete without the head ? These co- lourings then of the Presbyterian pencil will never de- ceive any wlio have seen the original picture, or have any judgment in the art of painting. In vain you at- tempt to hide, or throxv into the back ground, the hi- deous deformities of your system. It only serves to shew that it is not fit to be exhibited as it is in reality. Yours is presbytery in theory ; was there ever such a presbytery in practice ? In fact, you here not only abandon the defence of the church of Scotland, which you profess to vindicate, but you indirectly condemn her as unscriptural. If you have fairly exhibited the-. features of Scripture presbytery, the church of Scot- land must give up all pretensions to divine origin. In-. Stead of vindicating her, you imagine a presbytery o£ ypxir own, and give it e:-sceilencles which never existed, in any Presbyterian church. But I stay not longer iiv pointing out the essential difference between the forrar of presbytery you ha^e painted, and that church which: you defend, for even this sort of Presbytery I condemn ^. even this goddess of your imagination, adorned -tvith all, the excellencies your fancy can bestow upon her, I will not worship. Eoth courts of review, and associations-, for advice, are equally unfounded in the word of God*." As to a visible universal church, it exists nowhere but. irj the ideas of polemical writers, ai;id the absurd dis- tinctions of scholastic divinity. There is nothing like- it in the Scriptures, as to either name or thing. The?, first passage .ypvi.quote,Ilpi;ua»5.«. 17* i$ not. at aUitcfei Letter VIL 205 the purpose. It has no relation to the universality of union among Christians, nor even to their union with- one another, in any sense, either limited or extended. The apostle is neither treating of the visibility nor in- visibility of believers in a church state 5 but of the cutting off of the Jews from Abraham, and the graft- ing of the Gentile believers in their place. In ex- plaining figures, attention must always be paid to the single point intended to, be illustrated by them, whicE must be collected from the scope of the passage. Fur- ther than this, a figure is never supposed to bear re- semblance to the object of its illustration. The scope of this passage then is simply this, that the natural children of Abraham had been cut off from their rela- tion to the God of Abraham, on account of their re- jecting the Messiah. ', - and that the Gentiles had been taken in, as the children of Abraham, by faith. The latter were a wild olive, but by faith they had been grafted into the good olive, Abraham being considered, as the root or father of the faithfuL The Jews were> cut off as a nation, not merely from external privilegev as your illustration of the figure supposes, but from, all. the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. The Gen- tile believers were admitted, not merely to external fellowship of the church, but to partake of the root and fatness. of the olive, z\ t, to share the blessings of Abra- ham. By unbelief, the Jews not only lost all the spi- ritual privileges which, as the natural descendents of -^ Abraham, they had enjoyed, but they were cut off from being heirs with Abraham of the true Canaan. Their being said to be cut off from those things which* they never actually enjoyed, no more militates- against^ the doctrine of perseverance, than its being said that soiae made shipwreek of the faith, or its being suppo^ 1206 Letter VII. sed that some branches may be cut off from Jesusr,. 1 Tim. i. 19, 20. John xv. People may be said to lose that which they appeared to have enjoyed. But in the" case before us, there is no need of this mode of analysis. The Jews, as a nation, did enjoy spiritual blessings from their connexion with Abraham, but these, as a nation, they forfeited by their rejection of the Messiah. This passage then is designed to exhibit no view of Christians in a church capacity, not even their invisible union. The union of Christ and his people is indeed beautifully exhibited, John xv, under the figure of a' I'ine and its branches. The chief and prominent idea intended to be conveyed, is the union of all believers with Christ, having their life, nourishment and fruitful- ness from him, as the branches have from the trunk of the vine. From this consideration, our Lord presses upon them the necessity of constantly abiding in the faith, in order to spiritual health, and fruitfulness in good works. They are not to live upon themselves,.. their frames, their feelings, their past experience, their evidences, &.c. He warns them, that the moment they let the truth slip out of their minds, they will be- come barren and unfruitful, like a branch broken off from the vine. This is the only kind of union that is designed to be exhibited in this passage. It is true indeed that the branches have a union with one ano- ther, but this is not the truth exhibited by the speaker. Besides, this union of the branches is only in conse- quence of a vital union with the trunk, not by mere juxta-position. A branch that is not vitally connected with the trunk, cannot have a coimexion with the other branches. This figure could not then be at all em- ployed to signify visible external union. Some may indeed appear for a time to have been branches, who Letter VII. 201- Tvill be afterwards found to have had no real union n-ith the trunk, and will be certainly removed even from what they appeared to have, but such persons- may or may not have been members of any visible church. They may have appeared for a time to have been branches of Christ, without having, had an oppor- tunity of connecting- themselves with any visible church. Besides, all believers, although they should from circumstances have lived and died without being' members of any church upon earth, have a real and vi- tal union with this vine, and an invisible union with all, the branches. Add to this, that the Christians of all. denominations are thus united. It cannot mean thea any visible external union in church-fellowship. It is astonishing that any man of common sense should understand 1 Cor. xii. of a visible church. It is Christ the head, and all saints in heaven and in earth his members, who compose this church. Are they not said, " by one Spirit to be baptized into one body ?" This is what is not true of a visible universal church- upon earth, either in reality, or appearance, or even* profession. But though it should be true in the latter sense, it would not justify this application of the lan- guage. Though a man may be said to be what he gives evidence at the time of being, yet he can never properly be said to be what he himself only professes, to be. Then all the knaves in the world are ver\ ho- nest. ffhTu That the apostle is here speaking of a visi- ble universal church upon earth, is an idea that could never suggest itself to any one who had not been ac- customed to look at the Bible through the glasses of the schoolmen, who by their subtile distinctions endea- vour to stretch the Scripiures to equalize with their chimerical systems. Where did the idea of a universal,. SOS Letter VII. visible cliurch originate ? Is it any thing but the fig- ment of imagination ? Has it any existence in any part of the word of God, that you will press it u^jon this chapter ? If it can be taken out of the Scriptures, it must be by the rule of the hidden sen\e of Origen. But if these, and such like passages, speak only of the visible church, then of that real church, consisting of Christ and his living members, of their union with him and with one another, &c. we have nothing said. So much said about a thing called a visible church, consisting in all ages, almost from the apostles' days, mostly of those lying in the wicked one, and not a word of the true city oi" God ! Are all the glorious- things spoken of this city of God to be applied to such a motley mass ? As well might the rude attack of a mob be a proper representation of the charge of the Macedonian phalanx. As to what you say about this church, spoken of in 1 Cor. xii. being represented as alone possessing mira- culous gifts, such a thing is not said. It is indeed said that the church possessed these miraculous gifts, but it is not said that none but members of this church pos- sessed such gifts. You argue, that the church spoken of 1 Cor. xii. cannot be the invisible church, because it is set forth as furnished with a variety of offices, which could not be said of the former, as a part of it is in heaven. In- deed, Sir, in speaking of the kingdom of Christ, I nei- ther use the words visible nor invisible, because the contrast that this distinction supposes between two sup- posed churches, is altogether fanciful. When the word church in Scripture, in its religious sense, does not de- note a congregation of saints^ it refers to the whole body or kingdom of Christ, part of which is in heaven Letter VII, 2C9 and pari on earth. In a more enlarged sense than a single congregation, there is no body that can be called a visible church, for in their church state they can be visible in no other way j therefore the epithet invisible^ attached to the whole body of Christ, is altogether un- necessary, for it supposes another church that is proper- ly called the visible church. Accordingly we find, that the sacred writers do not find these epithets neces- sary in using the word church. They are under no apprehensions of obscurity from the double use of the word, because no such double use was attached to it by them. This is a discovery, the honour of w^hich be- longs to after ages. Indeed, I would ask nothing but the necessity of attaching these epithets to the word church, to distinguish its different meanings according to scholastic interpretation, to prove that the word it- self had in Scripture no such acceptation. The abet- tors of worldly systems cannot now speak of the church as referring to the true saints in heaven and earth, without prefixing the epithet invisible, because they have extended the word itself to ^vhat they call the vi- iibie church. Now if, to prevent obscurity, such dis- tinguishing epithets must be added constantly by those who embrace these views, is it not certain that the in- spired writers would also have used these epithets for the same reason ? Is it less necessary in an apostle to be precise, that his words may not be misunderstood, than for theologians ? Is it peculiar alone to the inspired writers to speak nonsense ? As then the distinction of viiihii and invisible is now indispensable to prevent obscurity, we may, by every rule of candid criticism, conclude that the ideas represented by these words have no existence in the writings of the apostles. The church of God— of Christ, &c. are names perfectly sy- 210 Letter VII. nonymous witli the phrase Itingdorn of heaven. I'he saints above and those belo^v, do not constitute two churches, but one church or family, consisting of diffe- rent parts, Eph. iii. 15. In speaking then of this church, what is said sometimes refers to the one part of it, sometimes to another, and sometimes to the whole, according to the connexion, and the nature of what is said. This criterion will easily direct us in the application of what is said respecting the church. As the whole members make one body, so what is said of one division of the members, or one single member, might be said of the whole. The man who hurts my finger, hurts my body j the physician who relieves me from a headach or gout, has relieved my body. The church then is furnished with different offices, because the members of it upon earth are so. As the members above and below make only one church, one body, the church may literally and properly be said to have these offices in it. Your fallacy proceeds from the supposi- tion, that the saints in heaven are one body, and those below are another. A man of fortune may be said to have provided tutors for his family^ although the great- er number of his children are out of their pupilage. God then hath set in the church first apostles, secondly prophets, &.c. because that part of his family, yet in their minority, possess these. The word churchy ac- cording to no acceptation of it, either sacred or pro- fane, could be applied to all the Christians upon earth, whether professing or real. If a single state should be called so, it is united in itself, collected into one dis- trict, and separated from other nations. The Jewish nation is termed a church, not only because they were assembled in the wilderness, but because they were ga- thered together in the land of Canaan, and principally I^ UTTER Vii. 2-1 L becciubc the ^vhole nation was a rcpresentaiion of tlie 'vvhole church of Christ. But upon no principle can all the professing Christians on earth be called a church, for in no sense are they ever assembled together, nei- ther in themselves nor by their representatives, neither literally nor figuratively. But believers of all denomi- nations, and of all countries, have a real union, and are truly and properly at all times assembled in Jesus Christ. In him, those on earth are assembled with those above. Therefore the apostle writes, Heb. xiL 22, 23. " But ye are come to Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels j to the general assembly and church of the first born, who are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." Here the saints w-hom he addressed are said already to have joined the general assembly and church of the first-born. In Je- sus, those in heaven and these on earth are assembled, as one church, one city, one Sion. But if the twelfth chapter of 1 Cor. relates to the visible church, and if to this visible church belongs these ofHces, &c. of ^vhom is this visible church com- posed ? Where is it ? If it be visible, let us see it. As the different denominations taken together cannot make a church, because they are in no sense assembled, nor even united by a common profession of the same prin- ciples, it follows, that of all the denominations in the world, one only is the vuible church. What then is this church ? Is it the church of Rome ? She says so herself, but you will not believe her. Is it the Eastern church ? Is it the Lutheran church ? Is it the Arme- nian church ? Is it the church of the Morophysites ^ h it -the church of England ? Is it the church of Scot< T ^12 Letter VII. land ? Is it any of all those who have sprung from these ? NoTv, to which ever of these the character be- longs, it will exclude all the rest from being consider- ed as churches. Nay, all who are not connected with it, will necessarily be excluded from every thing spoken of in this chapter, and other passages, concerning this church. As these offices spoken of are said to be set in this church, they cannot belong to any other. This church then will unchurch all other churches both of their vislbiiiiy and reality, yea, and even of the blessings peculiar to tlie members of it, and eternal life among the rest. Farther, if the apostle -is here speaking of the visible church, this church can contain no more than are as- sembled in it. Now, allo^ving even the assembling by representation, this visible church must be confined not only to one denomination, but to one association of that denomination. It cannot embrace the church of Scot- land and the General Synod of Ulster, for they are never assembled even in their representatives. The Burgher Seceders of Scotland and of Ireland cannot both put in their claim. But the absurdities to which this arbitrary interpretation would lead, are endless. And as there is no ground for it in the passage, so there is no occasion that it should be forced on it to cover a sysiem. As to the thirteenth chapter of Matthew, I hope I have already shewn, that neither there nor any where else can the phrase, ' kingdom of heaven,' signify what is called the visible church. Where did you learn, Sir, that the kingdom there spoken of is said to resem- ble a field in which theie -^vere tares as well as wheat ? The points of resemblance are not betwee-^. the king- dom and the field, but between the kingdorri and the Letter VII. 213 wheat, and the wicked ^and the tares j and the drift of the parable of the tares, is to shew the common situa-- tioa of these opposites. Accordingly, if our Lord was any judge of his own meaning, he says that the field is •not the kingdom, but the world, the commons, as it were, upon which these two classes meet. The good ' seed are the children of the kingdom ; the tares are not the children of the kingdom, but the children of the ivLcked on . But, Sir, were all the congregations In the world united under a common government, the unily descri- bed in the above passages of Scripture, would not be exhibited by this circumstance. The union of Chri- stians in the same particular church, is not pointed out by their being under the same government and go- vernors. This is represented by their union in ordi- nances, especially in *the Lord's supper, 1 Cor. x. 17, The oneness of the body is represented by their parti- cipation of the one bread. The circumstance of being under a common government is not even taken into the account. Besides, though all the congregations of the world were Independent, there not only may, but it they are Christians, and act as such, there certainly xvill be among them tbe strictest union, both external and internal. This m.ay not appear to the carnal eye, but it is not on that account the less real. Like the apostolical churches, they would mutually receive each other in the arms of Christian love, because Christ has received them, and forward the business of brethren personally strangers to them, even In temporal matters. A church at the north pole would receive a brother upon his letters of introduction from his church, in the opposite extremity of the earth. Is there no union among the children of the same father, though the ■2i-i Letter ViL. are scattered in difFcrent k;n2;doms ? Must they, iu order to shew their union to the world, enter inta an association to assist and defend each other ? Would not such an association, instead of shewing the world their real union, and broiherly affection, convince it that they wanted the true bond of union. If there existed real brotherly love, there would be no occasion for any formal external bond. It is not the existence of love, but the want of it *, that causes such associations among professing Christians. If they had real union, there could be no need for visible external bonds. Your dream of a universal visible church, compre- hending all the professing Christians of all the nations of the earth under one government, I lay aside with the reveries of Mathias and Buccold, the enthusiasts of Munster. What idea would an intelligent man of the world entertain of a scheme, even for a universal political government ? Such a scheme for the govern- ment of the people of Christ, ought to have proceeded from the pen of the wildest enthusiast. You dare not directly ..suggest the expediency of such a universal go- vernment, even for the nations of this world, lest you should be understood to sanction the pretensions of some bold innovator, in endeavouring to climb to the summit of universal po^ver. You content yourself by saying, that all the nations of the earth virtually constitute one great political government, to which every individual nation is subject. But here, Sir, your illustration is not in point *, first, because that this balance * See the National Covenant, and Solemn League and Gove- jiant, with the Acts of Assembly and Parliament, ordaining the subscription of them. See also the Acts of Assembly and Par- liament respecting the Westminster Assembly of divines. Letter VIL 215 of power among the nations of the earth, is only for mutual security against the encroachments of one ano- ther. However opposite the views and principles of government of the different nations, they all unite to prevent any one among them from getting such an as- cendency as to endanger the liberty and the security of all. They are not supposed, in virtue of this, to unite to regulate or review any of the affairs of any of the nations that are merely internal, and have no influ- ence upon the interests of the whole. In this there can be no resemblance, because there can be no external danger apprehended by any one church from another. Church association is for internal government, not for curbing the ambition of each other. In this point, the churches of Christ can have no likeness to the king- doms of this world, whose associations are for mutual defence against external danger. Secondly, if the ana- logy were good, it would suppose, not the union of all Christians under one government, but an association, either ostensble or virtual, of all the different deno- minations, to prevent any individual among them from obtaining such an ascendency as to endanger the liber- ty of the rest *. It must be a political union, and have influence only by carnal weapons. Before then your analogy will serve you, were we even to grant you that our Lord was mistaken when he said, " My kingdom is not of this world," you must roundly assert that it would be for the benefit of the human race that all the nations of the earth should be under one government,, and though you might perhaps teach this doctrine at present -^vith safety in France, I doubt if it would be so palatable in Britain. * The spiritual balance of power ! What a ludicrous idea I \ T3 -1-6 Letter VII. But if it is so monstrous in politics, liow imicli morc monstrous is it when applied to the kingdom of Christ. If all the nations of the earth were under one govern- ment, if such a thing could even be imagined, it must be the most complete despotism that can be conceived j and if all the professing Christians upon earth, were to be under one govenment, it must be the most absolute despotism also. Had God intended such an universal church upon earth, an infallible head \vould undoubt- edly have been appointed. 1 am convinced that the idea of an infallible head must have sprung out of the idea of a universal \dsible church. They are corres- ponding parts of the same Avild hypothesis. Nor is it possible to conceive how such a machine could be p;uided, -tvithout an unerring spring to keep its v;heels in perpetual and regular motion. This infallibility Vv-ould be as safely lodged with one man as with a num- ber. If there ever should be such a church, the su- preme government m.ust certainly be vested in a few comparatively j and if they be invested with authority, without resort or appeal any where else, they must in- deed be infallible. Suppose there should be in this chief council in the latter days, no less than one million of representatives, but vfe cannot at most suppose more than what could transact business together, still this would be no pro- portion to the numbers whom they represent. It would not be perhaps one out of every provincial synod. Con- gregations then -^vould be entirely governed by a fo- reign poiver. Even national assemblies would be of no account. Europe itself would perhaps be insuffi- cient to turn the scale in a vote. But I am almost ashamed of noticing such whimsies. They are un- -.V or thy of a moment's thought. Upon the forehead ^f Letter VII. 217 this scheme I see written in large characters, Mystery, Babylon the Great ! You say, p. 215. " As far as the truth is dissemi- nated and embraced, it appears required by the autho- rity, or at least by the rtprfStntauon.\ of Scripture, that all who are united in religious principle, should connect themselves under the same government, and form one great and general church." What do you mean by the distinction between ihe authorhy and the representations of Scripture ^ Do you really think that if the views you have given of the Scripture pas- sage in question are the true representations of Scrip- ture, there is any doubt about the authority of such re- presentations ? But, Sir, I see the reason y you are pro- fessedly the defender of the abstract theory of Presby- tery, but you are also a member of the church of Scot- land. It is not easy for any waiter to adjust matters so, that he can defend the one without direcily censur- ing the other. You are really in an axvkward situation, and' it requires great dexterity in manoeuvring between them.. Hence that mixture of boldness and caution in your book. In fact, the theory you defend is almost in every point different from the church of Scotland. Here, if these supposed Scripture representations should be absolutely pronounced binding, the conduct of the General Assembly must be highly reprimanded.. They are making no efforts to unite, with those of the same sentiments in other countries, under one government. They are totally unconnected even with their brethren in Ireland, who boast of being descended from the kirk. Nay, I am bold to say, that if your reasoning is good, it Avould overturn the church of Scotland. If the Presbyterians of all the kingdoms of the Vv-orld ought to be. under one common government, then the 218 Letter VII. churcli of Scotland, as far as it is connected with the state, may be altered, or enlirelv changed. This su- perior court might alter parts of its constitution that are even fixed by Act of Parliament, and consequent- ly interfere with civil auairs as well as ecclesiastical. I can see then the reason why you soften your language, and endeavour to make these passages strongly prove Presbytery, and at the same time bear lightly lipon the constitution and. practice of the church of Scotland. - But you cannot defend a universal church upon any principles that wull not rob the church of Scotland of her independence^ I am persuaded that many of the clergy would be un^villing to part with this privilege. Nor, if they were all willing, is it likely that the go- vernment of the country would permit such an essen- tial change, a change that would deprive Government of every political advantage arising from a civil eccle- siastical establishment. Nor do I think that this scheme would ever have entered even your head, had it not been to defend your theoretical presbytery. You could not have made use of these portions of Scripture with any colour of plausibility, had you not avowed the ne- cessity of a universal church. You saw plainly that your reasoning led to this conclusion, and it was w'lih a better grace you acknowledged it, than that it should be forced on you by your antagonist. But you trifle in such a manner with the Scriptures, as often tempts me to doubt that you are ignorant of something still more important than the nature of a church of Christ. Your own views of i t seem to make little impression wpon you. The Scriptures make such representations, yet a doubt is admitted whether or not these repre- sentations have authority. But if they have no autho- rity in the one case, neither have they in the other. If Letter VII. 219 they represent all CDnc^re;:^"^^*^^'^^ ^^ under one govern- ment, ycu do not imply an iiuLhoritaLive obligation of imitation to the whole extent, neither do they to any extent. If there can be any excuse for the church of Scotknd, the General Synod of Ulster, the church of Geneva, the Presbyterian churches of America, &.c. not uniting themselves under one government, the same might be pleaded with respect to the congrega- tions that compose the church of Scotland, &.c. upon the supposition that they should dissolve their -union. All the churches or associations of Presbyterians are independent j the only difference as to the external disunion between them, and churches individually inde- pendent, Is in the extent of their independence. Al- lowing your own interpretation of these passages, they condemn all Presbyterian associations as well as Inde- pendents. The unity of this supposed body is equally broken in the one case as In the other. Nay, it is more so with you than with us. If the poorest mem- ber from one of our cburches were to visit another, with proper letters of recommendation, he would be received without hesitation. But I believe a doctor of divinity from the General Synod of Ulster, might live in Edinburgh for two months, without an opportunity of preaching in any of the parish churches \ and, if presented to a Scotch kirk, would be declared inad- missible. This is a specimen of your boasted union. But it is altogether absurd to suppose that our Lord would institute a form of government which it would never yet have been possible to put in practice. The wars that have at all times existed, would completely have prevented the meeting of delegates from the con- tending countries. How would it be possible, for in- stance, at this time, for the representatives of France 220 Letter VII. and of Great Britain to meet in the same council ? Must the existence of any thing necessary to the well- being of the churches of Christ, depend upon the will of princes, the fate of empires, or any external circum- stances ? Besides, if there actually existed such a uni- versal church, no case of discipline could be finally decided, if there were any to object, until it would go before the representatives of this church. To deter- mine every dispute between individuals, if either party wishes successively to appeal from one court to ano- ther, there must be a meeting of representatives from all quarters of the globe. Christianity has nothing to do w^ith such a clumsy machine, nor would any sober Presbyterian ever wish to see it in motion. That one which has been so universal, is much more simple and ingenious 3 yet the world is beginning to tire of it. Towards the end of this letter,you ask a question, p . 2 2 2. *' How, moreover, even upon the principle of this objec- tion, can a particular congregation be a representation of the universal visible church, if that church is not uni- ted under one government ?" Who says that a particu- lar church is an emblem of the universal visible church ? It is indeed an emblem of the whole church of Christ, but not of the aggregate of Christian congregations. Much better you had studied the Scriptures themselves a little closer, in their native dress, than to have filled your head with the fanciful opinions of musty au- thors. In your fourteenth letter, you endeavour to confirm the doctrine contained in your last, by several other arguments. The first is p. 222. " That if every con^ gregation is made so independent of every other, that corruptions and improprieties may be admitted in them, Letter VII. 221 without being accountable to any superior court on ear Ji, much greater opportunity must exist for the in- troduction of error and tyranny than on the Presbyte- rian system." There is here a shew of Heshly wisdom, but to silence you, it might be sufficient to reply, that God hath not sa ordained. We are willing, however, to examine and contrast the tendency of the two sys- tems in all their bearings. To shew, a priori^ that such a thing is necessary in a church of Christ, is in- deed to go far to establish it. But this reasoning, a priori^ must not proceed upon worldly principles, but from an analogy to the other institutions and facts of Scripture. In this you are through your whole work. entirely deficient. Your arguments which are not pre- tended to be founded on express Scripture, are all ta- ken either from the kingdom.s of this world, or the cir- cumstances of other societies. You have no appeal to the sister institutions of the divine Author, the proce- dure of God in other instances, or the general spirit and design of the Christian religion. Your principles ^vould serve very properly to estimate the value of the Mahometan constitution, but are not only totally inap- plicable, but directly opposite to the nature of the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world. When our Lord said thai his kingdom was not of this world, he certainly did not mean to say that it was not situated in this ^vorld, the contrary of which he teaches us in the parable of the tares. He must mean, that it is en- tirely different from the kingdoms of this world, in its nature, its subjects, its laws, its inst utions, its mode of government, its sunport, &:c. But, havin;'^ premised this, w^e are w'illing to enter with you most fully into an estimate of the respective merits of these two svstems. There is no manner of 222 Letter VII. doubt that the form of government instituted by Jesus, is that which has the greatest advantages with the fewest disadvantages. We shall bring the matter to a short issue. To prevent the spreading of corruption, I ask what advantages hath Presbytery which Independency hath not ? You will say, the power of your courts over con- gregations, and of the superior courts over the inferior. If a minister, or congregation, or whole presbytery were to become corrupt, you could recover them. I ask you how would you recover them ? Ey persuasion and conviction ? We have this equally in our power. By excommunication and depriving of temporal emo- luments ? As to the former, what is it but a simple se- paration from the communion of the church ? We have what is fully equal to it. If any Independent church becomes corrupt either in its doctrine or its members, we withdraw our countenance from it. With such we hold no communion *. This, Sir, is certainly virtual excommunication. Where there is no visible association, there can be no room for any visible sepa- ration from a part of that association. In such a case, the duty is to have no " fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." As to the latter, a povv'er to in- * Th:?, Sir, is ihe most effectual excomrrunication, both.as to its tendency to recaim '.hose who go astray, and to prevent our being corruptee! by them With all the boasted advantages of Presbelery to lepress corruption, you, as an individual, rould not in your connexion withdravv tii'm the communion ot the vil- est character. You have communion with all the reprobatts lie- longing to the church of Scotland, as well as with alJ the most worthy member'^ and without stparatir.si from the chuich, you cannot avoid il. -^s soon as we lo^e confidence in one another, we are under no obligation to continue extern;;! fellow;h)p. Letter VII. 223 !fiuence by temporal motives is not a benefit, but the most serious disadvantage. Every incitement that a church possesses, the truth excepted, to allure men into its communion, or to retain them in it, is an essential evil. There are few people so conscientious, especially of those churches who are thus confessedly corrupt, who will not rather dissemble and temporize, than part with a good parish. When we look into church histo- ry, and revievv^ the various instances in which indivi- duals of the clergy have been called to account for their erroneous opinions by the superior courts, we find comparatively few who have not either renounced their opinions verbally, or modine-i their language in such a manner as to agree with the orthodox system In ap- pearance, while in reality they have held their senti- ments. Indeed, if men are changed merely by autho- rity, and mere authority is all you can be allowed more than is common to us, he cannot be an honest man ; and there is no gain to the church by the seem- ing recantation of his errors, but that of hypocrisy. For a particular proof of this observation, I refer you to certain transactions, not very many years ago, in the Ge- neral Assembly, respecting one gentleman in the Synod of Galloway, and another in the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr. Do not all the ministers of the church of Scotland solemnly declare the Westminster Confession of Faith to be their faith ? Do they all believe it ? If a minister or congregation is not reclaimed by admoni- tion, and mthdrawing of the countenance of other pure churches, all the inventions of men would fail to re- claim them. Authority might make them dissemble, and silence them, but they would still be as black as the Ethiopian. Presbyterian discipline is indeed well calculated, as Mr Innes remarks, to make them hypo« U 224 Letter VII. crites 5 but if a straying brother is not reclaimed by advice and remonstrance, the bastile and guillotine would be ineffectual. " A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." The awful fruits of such human restraints are evident in the perjury, insin- cerity, and hypocrisy which they introduce wherever they are practised. There is nothing more usual than for men to solemnly pledge themselves at ordination to support one system of articles, and through all their life set themselves to overthrow them. But you think that you sufhciently answer this in the following passage, p. 223. *" Do you say that congre- gations may admonish one another when they fall into error, and endeavour to reclaim them ? You allow, however, that unless there be a power of punishing, as well as of admonishing an offending member, the evils v/hich he may introduce can neither be prevented nor removed. On what principle then can you refuse a si- milar power to be necessary for the prevention or sup- pression of offences committed by a whole congrega- tion ?" Yes, Sir, we allow that unless there is a power of putting aw?y a corrupt member, he is likely to in- jure or to destroy the whole body. Did I labour un- der a mortification in one of my members, I would have it cut off, lest the rest of the body should be af- fected. But if you laboured under the like disease, however I might advise you to cut off your limb, there would be no occasion for me to force you to this, for the disorder could not be communicated to me. Here then. Sir, lies your fallacy j and the question which you so triumphantly propose as unanswerable, has not the smallest difficulty in its solution. A church puts away a corrupt member, because corruption spreads and eats like a gangrene j but there is n©t the same Letter VII. 225 danger where there is not the same connexion. If such- a member were continued in a church, he would spretid his corruption ; but if there be a corrupt member in another church, or a whole corrupt church, all we have to do, is to keep him or them out from us, and not to go in among them. Corruption in individuals or churches with vis, cannot necessarily extend beyond the limits of each church. A little leaven leavens a very large mass of dough 5 but a very large portion of lea- ven cannot leaven that which has no communication with it. The leaven will extend to all the dough in the same trough •, but it will not extend to that in another trough, except there be some conductor. If then you could prove that the churches should all be united in one universal church, I allow that this uni- versal church ought to have the power of excommuni- cation, because such a union is a conductor for the lea- ven to pass from one congregation to another. But •where there is no such union, it is enough for us to keep ourselves from mixing with those who are leaven- ed. If a person infected with a plague should come into my house, I should have him removed j but if the plague is in his house, all I have to do is to avoid go- ing into his house, and not to allow him to come into mine. Now, Sir, I contend that Independency can exert every legitimate influence to prevent corruption in the churches, as well as classical presbytery. Let us now enquire as to the tendency to propagate corrup- tion. Here you quote a specimen of incontrovertible reasoning from Mr Innes. It is as demonstratively conclusive as any proposition in Euclid. How do you endeavour to overturn it ? Not by meeting, but avoid- ing it. Instead of shewing that Presbytery, when cor- rupt, is not the most formidable engiiie to spread cor- ^2\S Letter Vil, ruption, you dexterously carry away your reader''^ atten- tion from the consideration of that point, to another totally distinct, viz. the supposed advantages of Pres- bytery, and defects of Independency, in preventing corruplion, both considered as pure. Upon this sub- ject, you dare not look youT antagonist in the face. Presbytery is the god of the plains, but not the God of the hills. You employ every art of a wily general to draw us off this ground, as not a proper criterion of the merits of the question, that you may engage us in & situation which is > more suitable for loose skirmishing. What a dexterous manoeuvre have we in the following, statement ! p. 228. " The question, however, in the present discussion, certainly is, not what system, when perverted from its original end, is calculated to pro- duce the /east evil ; but vvhat system, -ivhen conducted according to its design, is calculated to produce the greatest good V Who granted you this ? When con-, trasting the comparative excellence of two systems, must w^e not consider their possible disadvantages upon misapplication, as well as their advantages, when used aright ? In considering the tendencies of any institu- tion, it is equally fair to estimate their disadvantages as their advantages. That which has all the advan- tages with none of the disadvantages of others, is like- ly to be the plan of government that Christ would adopt. If every influence consistent with the nature of Christ's kingdom, to prevent corruption, can be exerted on the principles of Independency, would it have been consistent . with his wisdom to institute a form of government, which would be calculated to do more injury, when corrupted ? This becomes demon- strative, w^hen it is considered that Jesus knew what corruptions were to take place among his real, as v. ell Letter VII. 22T^ as professing followers. Allowing Independency to have been the plan instituted by Jesus, all the blame of introducing antichrist must lie with men, for as lon^ as the churches remained independent, it could never rise higher than one congregation. Will any other plan so fully justify Jesus and condemn men in this in- stance ? Granting that the churches had been indepen- dent, let them be supposed as corrupt as they can be ima« gined, that monster could never have been reared* j and whenever light should have appeared, there would have l^een no external obstacle to prevent its reception. But if Christ instituted a universal visible associated church, whenever the churches became corrupt, they unavoid- ably were subject to an antichrist of one sort or other, A universal church of any form, having its heads cor- rupted, whether one or a thousand, must have been the most powerful obstacle to prevent reformation. Inde- pendency then has all the advantages of Presbytery to prevent corruption, both considered as pure, without any of its tendencies to spread corruption, both consi- dered as depraved ', it must then be from heaven. Nor is this. Sir, as you say, arguing from the abuse of a ♦ Is it not remarkable that the apostle, after warning the Thessalonians of the rise of antichrist, gives them no other rules to prevent his rise among others, nor his power over themselves, but to stand firm in what they then protessed, and to hold fast the traditions which they had been taught both by word and letter ? The TFc^et^ovii?^ or traditions which have a divine ori- gin, are principally the ordinances and institutions of Christ'* churches, i Cor. xi. z z Thess iii. 6. On the other hand, the jr«g«5o«f the reasoning on the second observation of the l^th Essay, Vol. 1. which seems as just as it is ingenious, is equally applicable to the forms of church govern- ment. In proportion as it is extended, will it tend the sooner and more effectually to enslave the people. Not only the power of superior courts, but the authority of names will give currency to errors throughout every part of the association. Independent churches are nei- ther awed by each other, nor influenced by the autho- rity of names j habitually acknowledging and acting upon this principle, that there is nothing that com- mands respect but the word of God. On the other hand, when an error or a corruption springs up among the leading men of associated churches, it spreads like a pestilence. It soon becomes a fashion. It is gene- rally a sufficient evidence of the truth of any doctrine, that it is the opinion of the ancient rabbins. Your next argument is from the practice of ordina- tion. Upon this subject we need not be tedious, let ordination be what it will. For if the kind of ordina- tion you talk of be absolutely necessary to the validity of the pastoral office, then, Sir, there is not an ordained minister in all the Protestant churches. Their ordina- tion is originally derived from the pope, or from lay- men. The first Protestant -ministers were either lay- men, or excommunicated priests. As to ordination, the truth seems to be this j office-bearers are to be set apart to that office by prayer, fasting, and imposition of the hands of the presbytery of that church. If it is a newly formed church, in which there is no Presbytery, the Scriptures no where make that necessary which is Impossible. In planting churches, the evangelists " set in order things that were a-wanting, and ordained el- ders in every city." But there is no instance in Scrip- S34 Letter VII. ture of the elders of one cliurch setting apart the el- ders of another. Nor can the elders of a number of churches, with any propriety, plead the right of suc- cession to the office of the evangelist. If this argu- ment can be used at all, it will go to prove that the office of an evangelist is a standing office in the church, which is not necessary for me, on the present occasion, either to affirm or deny. Of one thing we may how- ever be assured, that God would not make the validity of an office depend upon any external rite, which it might often be very inconvenient, sometimes impracti- cable to obtain. If an individual church-member --.vere cast accidentally upon a heathen island, and by his la- bours many were converted, could these persons never become a church, could they never have a minister, be- cause there were no ministers to put hands upon him ? Such was the situation of the reformers, such may be the situation of many churches. Be this as it may, there is not an example of the elders of one church or- daining the elders of another, in all the word of God. This is sufficient for my purpose at present, and I will not waste time with useless digressions. But ordination is no where in Scripture represented as conveying an office. The officer is by that rite so- lemnly set apart to the discharge of the duties of his office, and recommended to the grace of the great Head of the church. When this is done by the elders of another church, it never implies that they give him a right to discharge that office in that church. The choice of the church, in consequence of their judging that he possesses the Scriptural qualifications, gives him that right. This is only the manner of setting him apart to that work. In circumstances where it is Letter VII. 235 •oracticable, it is proper j when otherwise, it is not ne- cessary. Your next argument is, page 235. "In the 4th place, if the pastors of a particular congregation be- come heretical or immoral, and persist in these evils, in another point of light, even upon Independent princi- ples, a court of review appears necessary to judge them. The members of the congregation, according to the ackno-^vledged tenets of ail Independents, are not enti- tled in the first instance to judge, but are merely allow- ed to acquiesce and consent to the proposals of their ofhce-bearers.'" Where did you learn that a court of review was ne- cessary in this instance, according to Independent prin- ciples ? Who told you that the people are not to judge in the first instance, but only to acquiesce in and con- sent to the proposals of the office-bearers > Suppose a church had only one pastor, yet it is not complete in that situation, that church may not only judge of him, but exclude him, if they find him unworthy of execu- ting that office any longer. In judging of him, no doubt they will depute one of the brethren to preside for the time, as in the case they had no pastor at all. A church may not only do this, but any other act of dis- cipline, if they have not other pastors. Eut I need not waste time on the subject, when an express direction on the point is given in Colossians iv. 17. ^' Say to Ar- chlppus. Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it."" Your last argument in this letter is p. 236. " And, Slhly, if every particular congregation, hoxvever small, ■is, in every case, to be the final judge in every point of government, this plan seems to be less fitted to secure X 236 Letter VII. an enliglitcnei and candid aiministration than that of Presbytery.'' In ar.swer t3 all this, I think it sufHcient to reply in general, that as a church of Christ is composed of spi- ritual men, there will always be among them some who are able to judge of any thing that respects that church, 1 Cor. vi. Gal. vi. 1. and as they are all bre- thren in Christ, and members one of another, if they act as such there can be no partiality. If they are worthy of their name and place, they cannot favour one to the disadvantage of another. Therefore, seeing they are supposed capable of judging aright, and disposed to ex- ercise justice according to their judgment, no Christian brother need fear their decision. On the contrary, suppcse that they are carnal men who are united under tViis form cf church-government, if ihey give a v^Tong cr a partial judgment, the sooner the injured can sepa- rate himself from them the better. What w^ould it fignify to him to complain to a superior court upon such men ? Could a superior court make that church Christians ? And could such an individual, if a Chri- slian, unite with them again, after all the penances that a superior court could oblige them to undergo, till he should see them changed men ? Should it have any tendency to reconcile him to them, that he had got the judgment reversed, or that they had been punished for injuring him ? What would it serve were they obliged to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem ? Again, suppose that the church is composed of Christians, but that, through w^ant of information qn the point, they have passed an injurious sentence, as soon as they see this, they will be ready to m.ake reparation, without being compelled by a superior court. But if they cannot both be brcu?;ht to understand one another, their union Letter VII. 237 in the same church is far from being desirable. The external power that keeps them together is holding a handful of sand, which, if left to itself, would scatter. A superior court may * film the sore, but corruption will spread within.' As to the enlightened and can- did administration of justice by Presbyterian cliurch- courts, if this were my business at present, it would be easy to give abundant specimens. In p. 2 ]9. you ask a question v. hich a word Vvill an- swer. *' Besides, if any of the members of a particu- lar congregation exhibit a charge against the rest of that congregation, and there be no superior court, who are the arbiters that are to determine between them ?" If a part of the church has injured an individual, the church will judge between them. If an individual be injured by the whole church, if the church will not make reparation upon his remonstrance, they forfeit their title to their name. He is no longer to acknow- ledge them for a church. Would it be of any advan- tage that a superior court should make them confess a fault of which they did not really repent ? Or could the injured person remain with them upon such terms ? Presbyterian discipline would here hide an evil which it would be of advantage to discover. It binds toge ^ ther what ought to be separated. 238 MATTER VIi; J51K, I COME now to answer your fifteenth letter, lu which you endeavour to prove that there must have been a number of congregations in Jerusalem, from the vast number of disciples in that city. You set out, by paving the way for courts of review among Christians, from the example of the ecclesiastical courts of the Jews. Upon this point I am not concerned to follow you. You may as well describe the constitution of England or France. The Jewish church was a Tvorld- ly kingdom, with carnal ordinances and a worldly po- lity. Nothing el«e could have answered the end. The nation was the church, and as the most of them were carnal men, they v/ere not fit subjects for any govern- ment, but one on the principles of other states. But the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. Its con- stitution is entirely spiritual. The civil and sacred code of the Jews was in one body, the rulers of the na- tion v/ere the rulers of the church. The principles then of the constitution of their church, with their forms of procedure, must bear an analogy to those of the king- doms of this world. Christ's churches have nothing to do with the regulation of political matters, nor the government and laws of the different nations in which they live. The end of their association is purely spiri- tual. Doubtless, it was ignorance of this distinction that led so many enthusiasts after the Reformation to en- deavour to establish a pure political kingdom, under the sanction of our Lord Jesus Christ. They saw evi Letter VIII, 2W dently that tlie churches of Christ were described as composed of saints, but confounding his kingdom with the kingdoms of this world, they were led to attempt the chimerical project of establishing a political king- dom of saints. But I cannot pass an observation which you make upon Matt, xxiii. 1, 2, 3. in which you say that our Lord commands his disciples to obey these courts. Obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees is not here in- culcated as they were members of any council, but as they sat in Moses' seat, i. e. read and expounded the law and the prophets. To sit in Moses' seat was not to be members of an ecclesiastical council, but to de- clare the laws of Moses. Their obedience then was cnly to Moses j by no means either to the doctrines or ritual inventions of men, or any human impositions. They are not here commanded to obey the decisions of these Scribes and Pharisees considered as an ecclesiasti- cal court, but as they individually sat in Moses' seat, and read the law to the people. You say indeed that our Lord ** reprobated those human inventions that were contrary to th€ precept or spirit of the law," But our Lord makes no such re- servation in his censures of human inventions. Upon all such, of every kind and degree, he expresses the most unqualified disapprobation. " In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." ** Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, must be plucked up." " Why do ye also make void the law of God, by your traditions ?" Every human invention is of this description, and hu- man inventions were as much forbidden under the Jew- ish as under the Christian dispensation. The various -vashings introduced by the elders were in themselves X3 24-0 Letter VIII. as suitable emblems of purificallon, as those Instituted by God himself. Why then did not .our Lord con- demn his disciples, upon the remonstrance of the Pha- risees, for eating meat -vvlth umvashen hands ? Because they had not the divine sanction. The difference be- tv>-een such rites, and those Instituted by God, did not consist in the greater spirituality, or even emblemati- cal fitness of the latter than of the former, but in the one being of divine the other of human origin. Even under the carnal Jewish dispensation, the church-rulers had not the power of regulating things simply of an external nature, nor of adding the slightest amend- ment. Now, if under that carnal dispensation and worldly policy, in which the wisdom of man might have place, it was nevertheless entirely excluded, is it supposable that, under the Christian dispensation and spiritual kingdom, Christ Vv'^ould give scope for the In- genuity of men ? In pleadln'< for the right of legisla- tion as to matters of external order, Presbyterians claim more than was . njoyed b l^v high priest of the Jews, and the whole Jewish hierarchy. In what consisted the superior excellency of the rites of God's appoint- ment over the washing before meat, and other Inven- tions of the elders ? In what was the latter contrary to iBe prec pt or spirit the iaw of God ? Is it in any other way than as every other human invention Is r This rite contradicts no precept, nor is it contrary to the spirit of the law in any other way than as It, like every human Inventio In religion, supposes God's law imperfect, and arraigns his legislative competency. Why then. Sir, do you misrepresent the words of our Lord Jesus, and Insinuate that, in those passages in which he condemns all human interference In the things of God in the most decisive and unqualified language. Letter VIII. 241 he only censures a certain class of such inventions ? Will you dare to sanction such will- worship by the ap- probation, connivance, or silence of the Lord Jesus ? But the reason of this unfair gloss upon our Lord's language is very plain. Our Lord must not condemn, in an unqualified manner, the inventions of the Jewish rulers, because he would thereby condemn the princi- ples of Presbyterians. If he would not allow of any human regulations among the Jews, there could be no pretext for the most daring arrogance demanding any such privilege now% The claims of the ancient and modern rabbins are so entwisted, that it is impossible to condemn the one without, at the same time, condemn- ing the other. ** Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.'' You say your argument acquires additional force in supposing that such courts are of human invention. ** Must not corresponding courts in the Christian church be equally worthy of our approbation and sub- mission for the very same reasons, even though it could not be established, that they were explicitly enjoined in Scripture ?" I thank you \ Sir, I thank you for this discovery of your real sentiments upon this subject. The divine right of Presbytery must be supported, if possible J because it would shock the old stanch Presbyterians to put it on a human foundation. Hence Scripture must be silenced, mangled, distorted, evaded, according to exigency. But conscious, after all, that this crazy fabric would not be able to v.dthstand the storm of a vigorous opposition, when it falls, there is an inner retreat, another refuge to shelter the cause. Though God shall forsake it, it will not on that ac- count be left destitute and naked 5 the supposed divine sanction of human courts among the Jews will take it 242 Letter VIII. up, and give It protection. Sucli and such arguments prove that God is the author of Presbytery 5 but if God should disown it, it is no great matter : it can do tolerably well v/ithout him. Is this like the language of a man thoroughly persuaded of the divine origin of that system which he defends ? Is this like the reason- ing of an author fully persuaded that he was using his pen in the cause of divine truth ? Is it like the spirit of a writer, whose only intention is to vindicate the insti- tutions of God ? Is there any symptom of a mind can- didly in search of truth, and wishing to know the mind" of the Spirit of God. If it is possible to see the soul of 3 waiter in his unguarded moments j if there is any thing to be gathered from the spirit of a book, this may be gathered from yours — that you are unwilling to rest Presbytery solely on a divine institution j that you are not convinced that you have a full and perfect model, and therefore, while you struggle hard to defend the divine right, you are at the same time anxious to pro- vide a shelter in case of a defeat. The evident spirit of your performance shews, that you are determined to defend Presbytery at all events. If it is divine, so much the better j but if it is not divine, it is notwith- standing defensible. You say in your Introduction, p. 7. " He (the writer) has no wish that Presbytery should be retained any farther than it can be support- ed by Scripture, and the moment that it is proved that it cannot be so supported, he will be happy to see that it is rejected by the w^orld.'* But how can I under- stand in what possible manner this consists with the passage under review ? Will this mode of defending Presbytery allow me to think that you are in earnest in your assertion ? How can it be so, seeing here you attempt to vindicate Presbytery, upon the supposition Letter VIII. 243 that its courts of review were merely of human inven- tion ? Now, if such courts in the Christian church be^ worthy of our approbation and submission, even al- though it could not be proved that they were explicitly enjoined in Scripture, how can you consistently with this declaration, declare that if they cannot be sup- ported by Scripture, you v.ould wish to see them abo- lished ? If these two passages can be reconciled, it must be by such rules of criticism as you have employ- ed upon the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians. But how docs the argument acquire additional forcr. from the supposition of the Jev^ish courts being of hu- man ori^nn ? If the Christian church-courts correspond to the Jewish, and if the former are to be proved from the latter, is not the argument stronger upon the sup- piDsition of their divine, than of their human institu- tion ? Can a human institution, supposed to be sanc- tioned by Christ, give a firmer foundation to courts that correspond to this institution, than a divine insti- tution would do ? No j but here is the point in which it has superior force. You are aware that the proving of the Jewish courts to be divine, will not prove cor- responding Christian courts to be divine also, any more than every other part of the Jewish dispensation must have corresponding parts under the Christian. Then our Lord's sanction to Jewish courts of divine origin, ■would be of no force, unless it could be proved that Christian courts were of divine origin j and, in this case, they would not need the sanction here supposed to be given them. But if the Jewish courts were of human origin j and- if, as such, our Lord approved of them y then the inference is, that it may also be suppo- sed that he will now be equally complaisant to the pre- tensions of Presbyterians, and sanction their courts, al- ii-i^ Letter Vlll. though they should be found to be only the inventions of men. Here then is the manner in which this illus- trious argument comes to have this superior force. It can have superior force upon no other supposition, than- that Christian courts are of human invention. Now, this is a very odd kind of reasoning in a writer who contends so pompously for the jus divinum. I cannot think that it would ever come into the head of an au- thor to attempt to derive superior strength to an argu- ment, from a supposition that overthrows the very cause for which he contends, unless he were reduced to a sad pinch. For what are you contending through your whole performance ? For what purpose do you at- tempt to refute Mr Innes, and every other writer who defends the divine right of the Independent fonn of church-government ? Is it not to establish the divine right of Presbytery ? And is it possible that you can keep your ground, and give up the very subject of do- bate ? It is not like granting a single argument to your adversaries, nor a whole class of arguments. In this supposition, you give up the very thing for which yon are professedly contending ? What ! grant courts of review to be of human origin, and yet defend their jus divinum ! It Is not possible for the same author consistently to be the author of both these hypotheses. One Presbyterian may defend Presbytery as a human institution, and another defend it as divine. But the same man ought not upon any supposition to do both. If Presbytery is really defensible as a human institu- tion, why is not this the footing upon v/hich you have grounded your defence, as the most learned and illus- trious of your brethren have done ? If this is really your opinion, if Christ would approve of our submis- sion and obedience to these courts of human invention.. Letter VIII. 24& equally as if he had instituted them himself, you need not have been at so much trouble in torturing the Scriptures to countenance such courts. You should at once have justified them as a human device, which, from their wisdom, could not fail to be sanctioned by Christ. But Presbyterians would find a difficulty even upon this supposition, which you do not seem to have noticed. If courts of human invention may be sanc- tioned by Christ, one kind of them may be sanctioned as vrell as another *. Upon this supposition, I leave you to struggle with all the other churches of this world. Upon this fooling, I will not defend Indepen- dency. I know that, when brought into view with the blooming children of this world^s wdsdom, this • would appear like an orphan. Besides, if she is not of heavenly birth, I will let her perish in her blood. I call upon every believer of the truth to examine the spirit of this passage, and to consider whether the wri- ter is not determined to defend Presbytery, or at least that he is not inclined to renounce it, upon the strong- est evidence of its being only a child of this world's wisdom. If this is not his meaning, there is no sense in language. As long as he is in this temper, I de- spair of making liim a convert. * Upon this supposition, ihe cliurch of Scotland is highly cersuruble, for giving at diflerent times such opposition to the Government, in attempfin^r to regulate her external politv. Upon the supposition that the churches of England and Scntlaad are both of human origin, the former is by much the preferable. Supposing both plans to be acted upon agreeable to their end, the former is by much the simpler and the more effectual ; sup- posing tliem to be abused, it is much easier to pleas^e one tyrant than severa-l hundreds. Mr Innes parses a compliment upon the co.n.parative excellence of the Scotch national eMablifhrnent, which, in my opinion, it does not deserve. 246 Letter VIII. But such courts you assert were also In use ir. many of the cities in wliich the gospel was first preached. You could easily prove this by an induction of facts with resp^-ct to Ephesus, Corinth and Rome, but you are contented to she-.v that this was the case with re- spect to Jerusalem. And indeed, had you succeeded, I would ackno^.vledge that it was sufficient to prove the general point. But ho^v do you prove this ? Is it by any positive authority from the word of God ? Is it from any direct testimony ? Is it from the circumslance of the disciples of that place being called churches^ or from their being represented as assembling for worship and ordinances in different places ? No such thing ; your proof is altogether negative. Negative proof will never establish any thing opposed by positive credible evidence. All I have to do, is to prove the matter of fact. Your negative arguments, were tiicy like mountains, would weigh lighter than vanity. Upon this point then, I shall look upon my business to be to establish the matter of fact from positive evidence. I shall, in that event, bid defiance to all your .probabili- ties and conjectures. All 1 have to do, is to shew- that your objections are not insuperable. It will not be necessary to prove that such and such things were actually the case j it will be enough to shew you tliat they may have been the case. Difficulties, if not abso- lutely insuperable, are never supposed to Invalidate a well authenticated fact. In establishing the matter of fact from plain, and positive, and decisive evidence, the proof doubtless, is to be expected on my part. Here, if I rest any thing upon probabilities, or possibilities, i, e. if I argue that the Christians of Jerusalem consti- tuted pne church, because such a tiling is probable or possible fjom such and such reasons, my fabric is so far Letter Vlil. 24-7 baseless. In that case, I would reason like a child ; for a positive f&ct cannot with security be rested on what is probable or possible. If the evidence is only- probable or possible, there is still room to suppose the contrary, and the matter of fact is not proved, but ren- dered probably or possibly true. In this part of the subject, I must make the attack, and if I cannot force you from your trenches, I will not claim the victory. If you can sustain the charge, my cause as to this matter of fact is lost. I say, that as to the proof of this matter of fact my cause would be lost, if you are able to prove that my arguments do not establish it. But even in this case you do not gain a victory, unless you are able not only to defend yourself in your trenches, but to charge me in turn, and drive me off the field. Suppose I were unable positively to prove, that the Christians of Jerusalem -were only one church, It would not follow of necessary consequence that they were more. It might have been the case, and yet no sufficient documents left to prove it. If you could do no more then than sustain my charge, it would in that ease be a drav.n battle upon this point. It will not serve you to shew that we cannot prove the Christians of Je- rusalem to have constituted only one church, unless you can shew that they positively constilulcd more than one. You would only in that case deprive us of this argument. Before this could serve your system essentially, you must positively shew that there were in Jerusalem a plurality of churches. If I cannot posi- tively prove that there was only one church in Jerusa- lem, I cannot use this argument ; if you cannot posi- tively prove that there were more, you cannot bring it as an objection to my system. In that case, we must both lay this argument aside. Though then, if I wisli Y 24S Letter VIIL to make use of this argument, I must positively prove the matter of fact, yet to defend my system it is only necessary to shew, that it cannot be positively proved that there were in Jerusalem more than one church. So much I thought necessary as to the manner of conduct- ing this part of the debate, for you very artfully en- deavour to throw the whole v/eight of the positive proof on your adversary, and content yourself by start- ing objections. The things that your system positive- ly requires to be fully established by direct evidence, you suppose it necessary for your antagonist positively to disprove. Now the system of your adversary only requires him to shew that such things cannot positively be proved. In answering your letters then on this subject, I shall think it sufRcient to receive your charge, to stand on the defensive, and shew that your objections may be answered. If your objections are not such, that upon no possible supposition will they quadrate with my liypothesis, they are nugatory. What I shall be obliged to do, is to shew that such and such difficulties are capable of such and such solutions. Whatever I do farther, I shall consider as entirely gra- tuitous. There is not a matter of fact recorded in an- cient history, that might not be overthrown or invali- dated upon the principles of your reasoning. Chri- stianity itself could not stand the test of such a species of objections. Had you, from the meaning of the v/ord church, by which the saints of Jerusalem are called, es- tablished your point, or from actual testimony as to their assembling, &c. you might lawfully corroborate your reasoning by the circumstance of the vast num- bers of Christians h\ Jerusalem. But in the face of direct testimony, you build a system upon certain sup- Letter VIII. 24^ posed ailTiculdes, whliout a single posldve proof. This, Sir, upon all subjects is inadmissible. But let us come to the point. Let us inquire what iS the actual testimony of the Acts of the Apostles^ upon this matter. The fu'st thing is undoubtedly to look out for positive evidence. What saith the whole- tenor of the history in the Acts of the Apostles ? If there were only one, o? if there were more congrega- tions in Jerusalem, it may be lawfully expected that the history which gives an account of the saints in that city, will undoubtedly inform us. This it does, both from the name by which they are called, and from the actual representations af their assembling and acting as one body. 1. As to the name by which the saints of Jerusalem are called, this is church, never churches. Now what •is the meaning of the word church / Its primary mean- ing and usual acceptation cannot be denied to be what v/e contend for. The very supposition of Presbyte- rians allow that this is its common and proper accepta- tion. Even according to their theory, it could not be frinu-alively put for church-rulers, unless it literally de- nc'ed the people whom they are supposed to represent. li then the literal, proper and usual acceptation of this word is a congregation of saints, this is the sense in which it is always to be understood, without perem.pto- rj necessity, and in such cases only as the circum- stances and connexion will easily shew that it is not to be understood literally. A figurative sense can never bre imposed upon any word, except the literal would be absurd, or contradictory to positive and notorious ilict. Farther, I contend that this is not only its literal ind usual acceotation, and that it should never be un- ^30 Letter VIII. derstood differently, except in the circumstances stated above, but also that it never can be appropriated to a number of congregations united, either literally or figu- ratively. Not literally, for there would not be one assembi) , but different assemblies ; not church, but churches, for they are never assembled together. Not figuratively from the cirGumstance of being assembled in their representatives, for although a figurative ex- pression might be used in florid composition, it is not allowable, but would be highly unsuitable in plain nar- ration. But in no composition, from the florid style of Hervey to the unornamented style of Swift, can the figurative use of a word be given as an appropriated name. As I shewed before, a figure never changes the meaning of a word, and when a word is so used, it re- tains its own proper meaning, and from this circum- stance is derived the beauty of the figure. Although such a figure might be occasionally used, yet upon eve- ry ordinary occasion, its acceptation must be literal. The phrase * the church at Jerusalem,' could never be appropriated to the plurality of congregations in that city, even although it might occasionally, in circum- stances already stated, be so used. Could it be possi- ble, with perspicuity, to use the word nation as the ap- propriated name of the Parliament ? Yet, on some oc- casions in oratory, it might figuratively be so used. If it should be given by appropriation to the representa- tives, it must be taken from the represented. But I contend still farther, even such a figure could not be occasionally used. An assembly may figura- tively get the name cf those for whom they act, but they can get no name in their right ■which those for whom they act do not themselves enjoy. The V art la- ment may be figuratively called by the name of the Letter VIII. ■ 251 nation f but not by any name which is enjoyed by that nation in common with others. When the Parliament does any thing, it may -figuratively be said Great Bri- tain does it y but it would be absurd to say that Europe does it, because the people of Great Britain do not ex- clusively enjoy that name. If there n^ere any such thing as a representative church, a kii'k-sesslon might figuratively be so called, because those whom they re- present enjoy that name. But as a number of churches are not literally a church, and cannot be so called, as they are not an assembly, so the assembled represen- tatives of such churches cannot be called a church, even figuratively, because their constituents do not en- joy that name. The figurative use of a word must be founded on the literal. It appears then that neither a Presbytery, nor any superior court could, even figura- tively, be called a churct , because, even allon^ing the system of representation, the represented are not so called. Such assemblies are not churches in the figu- rative sens^e of the word. Again, if it is contended that such assemblies are a < church from the civil or unappropriated sense of the word -— not to remark at present upon the absurdity of giving, in sacred things, the civil unappropriated sense of a word which has been appropriated to certain religious assem- blies of a certain description, let it be observed, that upon the first appropriation of a word in a religious use, re- spect must undoubtedly be had to the profane accepta- tion of it, from which it is borrowed 5 but after it hath thus been appropriated, it is absurd to apply it to sacred things in its civil sense. Besides, even in the civil ac- ceptation of this word, it Vv'as not any assembly, but usually applied to assemblies of a certain kind. It is not equivalent to c-^\o^ or tfM^h, or even those other Y3 f52" Letter VIII. words which denoted regularly organized assemblies. Ex.xAj3<7om'at^ i. c; somewhat. Every object with which he was unac- quainted, he called a %om''ct. So with them the word church is applicable to any assembly, nay, the very distinctive name of all their assemblies for worship, and courts of discipline, from the congregation and session, to the universal church and its representatives. It is a perfect ^orri'at. But the absurdity they charge upon the Scriptures, they avoid themselves in the appropria- ted names of their assemblies of all descriptions. Con-' gregation, though an exact translation of iKxXn^ix, they use, only as we do church, which practically disproves their ow^n theory. They never think of denominating every court by the name congregation, although they charge such an absurdity upon the Koly Spirit. In- deed, there is nothing covers the nakedness of tliis hy- pothesis, but the circumstance of iXKXYtna being a word in a dead language. If any man would attempt to. write a book, applying any v.ord upon this principle, he would not only be unintelligible, but ridiculous. When men go to explain words in a dead language^ 256 Letter VIII. without having considered the general principles and processes of all languages, there is no shape into ^vhich they may not turn them. Their meanings will be as various, as unsettled, as the possible combinations of the letters of the alphabet. Every word is figurative or literal, must be stretched above its meaning, or squeezed beloxv it, must signify this or that, just as it suits their purpose. Again, if the word church was in the apostolical days used to signify a number of congregations, how comes it to pass, that \^hen the congregation of a dis- trict or nation are spoken of, they are not called a church, but chufches. If the congregations of Jeru- salem are called a church, why are not all the congre- gations of Judea called a church ? Why are not ih^r diiTercnt congregations of. Galatia, Samaria, Asia, Achaia, &c. called a church. Are they not called churches, never church ? This is the most positive proof that the v/ord never was applied to more congre- gations than one. Again, produce me one passage w-here it is clearly and incontestibly applied to more than one congrega- tion, except when it is equivalent to the v.'hole saints in heaven and earth. If ycu cannot, upon what prin- ciples of criticism can you demand such a meaning for it here ? In disputing upon any subject, before we can • pro\'e that such a word has such a signinccition in such a place, we must produce instances in Vv'hlch it cannot reasonably be denied to have such an application. . Without this, nothing could ever be proved. You. cannot even pretend to one positive proof, either in the sacred or civil use of the word. All your strength lies in supposed difficulties. If the Roman pontiff says that the word church properly belongs to himself, how- Letter VIIL 251 -vvoald you disprove it, but by calling upon bim to shew any one passage, wbe re it had plainly such a meaning, or a similar meaning upon another subject ? He may as well be called church, from being the sole representative of the church, as any body of Presbyte- rian rulers, as being representatives. The difference irx point of number is nothing. Having shewn that the disciples at Jerusalem were called a church, and that different congregations could not in any sense be so denominated, let us now exa- mine w^hat is the farther testimony of the Acts of the Apostles upon this point. Are the Christians at Jeru- salem any where represented as subdivided into diffe- rent congregations, each with rulers and ordinanses se- parate from the rest ? To determine this, it is not suf- ficient to enquire into the numbers said to be convert- ed there*, but to establish the fact on either side, by actual testimonies and positive evidence. Now, if my reasoning against the propriety of the application of the name church to a plurality of churches holds good, I consider the fact is already proved, and that nothing can invalidate this, but the most positive assertions or plain representations to the contrary. If tlie meaning and application of the word church is such, and only such, and if it is applied to the saints in Jerusalem, what shall hinder it to be understood so ? Nothing could even apologize for our looking out for another meaning, but the most decisive proofs that the matter of fact was not so as this seemed to represent it. Here then, Sir, I am entrenched •, and it is no way incum- bent on me to bring any actual testimony from positive declarations to corroborate the fact. The proof of the contrary lies wholly on you. It might very readily have happened, that a church might have been men- 258 Letter VIII. tioned, without any documents on either side, farther than the name. When a Presbyterian speaks of the congregation of such a town, I am at no loss to know that there is but one H'orshipping assembly of his deno- mination in that to^vm. Notliing but his expressly telling me the contrary, would cause me a moment to doubt of this \ and, in that case, I would tell him that liis language was very improper, and altogether calcu- lated to mislead. Here then I sit on the top of my strong-hold, without the least apprehension from your assault. Not a stone of it can be shaken, but by posi- tive, testiiitiony. I am not obliged to shew you by any other testimony, that there v/as but one church at Je- rusalem. The only reason we have to prove that the saints of that place constituted one church, is because the v/ord church is applied to them. Were it not for this, it would not invalidate our system, if there had been one hundred churches there. All we have to do then, is positively to prove the meaning and legitimate application of this word. The field is then ours, and we cannot be driven from it, but by your proving that there actually ivere, not that there probably %vere more churches than one in that city. If we can sus- tain your assault, and shew" that you cannot positively prove the contrary, our victory is undisputed. But though our argument only requires us to defend our trenches, we are willing to come forth and take the field with you, because that there is not only no evi- dence to prove against us, b^t the strongest, the most direct evidence in our favour. Our cause requires no farther actual proof, yet we can produce an irrefraga- ble chain of testimonies. The question then is this ; are the saints at Jerusalem always represented as one body assembled for the enjoyment of ordinances, or Letter VIII. 259 •are tliey considered 3S separated into difFerent congre- p-ations with distinct office-bearers ? No one will hesi- tate a moment for an answer, who has no interest in darkening the subject. There is not a single passage in the whole history that gives the smallest foundatiou to the supposition, that they were separated into distinct churches. Let us run over a few of the evidence?^ Acts ii. 41, 42. Here they are considered as one con- gregation, and as having continual fellowship in the ordinances of Christ. That they ate the Lord's supper together, is expressly mentioned. In verse 44. the be- lievers are all said to be together. They are also said to continue with one accord in the temple, which proves that they must have met as one body. Besides, at this time they were called a church, or rather the church, at that place j ver. 47. " The Lord added the saved to the church." They are represented as one body which was increasing by daily additions, and this one body was the church at Jerusalem, the church. At the time they are described, Acts i. 15. they w^ere undoubtedly one body •, when they come to be divided, wx must be informed of the change. In Acts iv. 32. they are one company, and verses 3], 32. they were assembled in praying and hearing the word. There is yet but one church ; they w^ere assembled ) they were of one heart and one soul, and had all things in common. In verses 33, 34. the apostles preached to them all, and great grace was upon them all. None among them lacked. Can it be more expressly declared, that they were one body usually meeting for every purpose of worship, &c. They had one common collection, not a collection in each of several congregations. The apostles are al- ways considered as labouring among the same body, not in different congregations, as otherwise would have Z 2G0 Letter VIII. been tlie case. The apostles are always considered as labouring jointly in this assembly. Had there been different congregations, they could not have been toge- ther, but each In a different congregation. Acts v. J 2. Here they are represented as being all with one accord in Solomon's porch. Acts vi. 1, — 6. What Is here spo- ken, is supposed to be spoken before the whole multi- tude of the disciples, and approved of by them. " The saying pleased the whole multitude." They are repre- sented as one body also, choosing officeis. The office of a deacon belongs to a congregation, and he has no authority in othisr congregations, 'i'hese seven deacons are jointly chosen by the whole multitude, and not se- parately by different individual congregations. They are also jointly appointed to the charge of the poor Christians of all Jerusalem. Had there been different congregations, there would have been deacons appoint- ed for each. The whole multitude are not only sup- posed to be together, but as jointly choosing officers belonging to a single congregation. Had there been more congregations than one, the deacon would not be an offiiCer of a particular church, but a general officer in a Presbytery, or whole connexion of congregations. According to this, there should only be a certain num- ber of officers in every Presbytery, to take care of all the poor of that whole Presbytery. The deacon's of- fice would then be more extensive in its range than that of the pastor's. But the deacon's office not only belongs to the congregation, but It is absolutely neces- sary that in every congregation, there should be such officers to provide for the poor. These seven deacons were chosen for the joint, not the separate discharge of their duty. Had there been different congrega- tions, the whole multitude would not have chosen so Letter VIII. 26^1 map.y In common, but each congregation so many for itself. It would have been much better to have had a collection in each, and officers to distribute in each, that the wants of individuals being belter known in their particular congregations, they might the more easily be supplied. Does not the practice of Presby- terians prove this ? Have they not men appointed to take care of the poor in each congregation, not so many for a Presbytery ? Does the money collected in each congregation go into a general purse to be distri- buted through the whole Presbytery ? Acts xxi. 18. 22. Here, at this advanced period, the multitude could come together. Acts xv. 4. 12. 22. Here the whole church are expressly said to meet and transact business. " Let any one judge what is the plain and obvious Import of these passages. Do they not all express or imply that the believers at Jerusalem were one undivided body, assembling in one place for the worship of God ? By whatever rule of interpreta- tion this is denied, the most important facts and doc- trines of the gospel maybe set aside." Sccial Worships p. 157. 1st edit. Now, Sir, from the name by which they are called, and from, the unvaried tenor of their history in the Acts of the Apostles, it appears most evidently, that the disciples at Jerusalem formed only one congrega- tion. Is there a single passage in all the history, in which they are said or supposed, either expressly or by implication, to have been divided into distinct congre- gations ? If there were really a difficulty as to their numbers, a difficulty can never destroy a fact, far less be the foundation of an opposite system, as you attempt to make it. When I have shewn from the plain mean- ing of the word church, and the plain declarations cS :T62 Li-xrzR ViiL Scripture, that they all met in one place, you cannot invalidate the fact, or make it the least suspicious by any thing but an insuperable objection. Your objection^ hoAvevcr, at its utmost amount, is not insuperable * y and I defy you ta shew them p-js:'- tively at any one time, to have exceeded five thousand. Suppose it is said that they were on such a day five thousand, and that on the very next five thousand were converted, I am not necessarily obliged to give you credit for ten thousand. There is a possibility that most of the first five thousand might have died or em:- gritted, i do not say it is probable, but all I have to do is to shew that it is possible. For when a fact is es- tablished by positive proof, negative allegations may be * We are informed by Dr M'Laine, in a note to hJs Transla- tion of Mo^heim, that therR were present at the council of Pla- centia ( A. D T095) ^^'^ bishops, 4-co ecclesis^tics, and 300.0CO lay-m^n. VVhy might not an objector, upon the principle of the impossibility of the Ghrhtians at Jerusalem meeting in one place, here bouily contradict this fact? ' There was no such meeting, because there was no house could hold so many • nor could any speaker make himself audible to them all at the same time.* Yet doubtless it was for the purpose of hearing the deli- berations, that each person was present. But how each speaker made himself audible, we are not informed. This however can- not invalidate the fact. Could not persons appointed, and sta- tioned at certain distance?, have reported the substance of what was said by each speaker to those in the remotest parts of the assembly. Allowing the Christians then to have been ten times as many as your estimate even supposes, it could nut invalidate a fact authenticated by such a multitude of the clearest tenitno- Tiies. Not however that I think the disciples of Jerusalem ever at any one period amounted to more than could stand within the compass cf the human voice. Indeed, various circumstances lead us to believe they were not near so many, even as this would ac- commodate. Letter VIII. 26r answered by a bare posnUiiitj. V\'e know that the Scripture cannot convey an untrue representation, and therefore every thing that seems to contradict its posi- tive declarations must be only in the want of proper information as to such things. Things that appear diffi- cult to us at this distance of time, had no ditnculties to those acquainted with the times and circumstances to •which the facts relate. A thousand things may be un- known to us that would, if known, remove these diffi- culties. Although then I hold myself bound to give every attainable satisfaction upon this point to a person seriously in search of tnith, yet, in answering a writer w^ho is evidently determined to make the plainest Scriptures bend to his system, I think, it enough to si- lence him. Sufficient reasons have been given by dif- ferent writers to account for the accommodation of vast multitudes in Jerusalem. For my part, I care not if there was not a single street in Jerusalem sufficient to hold them, as long as I have such positive testimony. Wherever they might meet, and ho-wever numerous the}^ might have been, the canopy of heaven was large enough to cover them. But though I would not fear to admit your extrava- gant estimation of their numbers, without the smallest diminution^ I w^ill submit for a few minutes to examine your items, that we may have a specimen of the accu- racy of your rule of calculation. As to those converted on the day of Pentecost, you say, p. 246. " Nor were these 3000 souls Jews, who. had come up to the city of Jerusalem, merely ta w^ait upon the feast, and v/ho immediately returned to their native countries, as Independents have asserted." Sir, Independents do not assert that they positively must have been all such. They argue that it is probable, or Z3 264f Letter VIII. at least possible, that many of them mny have been such. This is all that is necessary on their part. This will serve to remove a difficulty from ar established fact. It lies with you positively' to prove that they were not such Jews 5 otherwise your objection has no force. The reasons which you allege are, 1. * The Jews that dwelt without the land of Canaan were not bound to appearance at the festivals there.' It is not necessary that they mu.u have all been bound to come j it is enough to she^v that it was their privilege, and a privilege w^hich such a people as the Jews could not fail to embrace upon every convenient opportunity. * Nor, 2d, was it possible that they should do so, if they had been commanded, unless they did nothing almost the W'hole year but go up to Jerusalem and home again *,' &c. Nor is it necessary that all of them should come from the most distant coimtries. It will serve our purpose sufficiently well, if those who chose might come from the neighbouring countries. ' 3. What had the dispersed Jew^s to do mth the feast of harvest, when their harvest, in many o^^ the places where they dwelt, was not yet begun ?' No matter as to the har- vest of ^he Jews in other parts of the world : let them live where they would, they had an interest in this as a feast of their country, appointed of their God. The Jewish feasts were typical, and, as such, all Jews, wherever they lived, had the same concern in them. * 4. If their distance from Jerusalem made them to chuse to come up but to some one of the feasts, and omit the rest, why to Pentecost, which was tlie least solemn of the three ?' &.c. Those v*'ho could might come oc- * I Lliink the meetings of your universal church will keep the inhabitants of the world pretty busy. Letter VIII. 265 casionally to any of them, as they had opportunity. Your fifth reason is a good one, and although many might have come on account of the feast of Pentecost, many more might have come on account of the univer- sal expectation of the appearance of the Messiah, and have dwelt in Jerusalem. These, however, it is proba- ble, or at least possible, m : ht return upon their con- version, for the purpbse of carrying to o hers the glad tidhigs. You add, p. 247. " Besides we are told in Acts ii. 5. that these Jews w?ho are said in the 4ist verse to have been added to the church, had dwelt for a consi- derable time at Jerusalem, and were then residing there. Such, according to the authority of Mintert, is the term KoiTcsy,?&, there employed in the original to signify their residence : " for it properly denotes in the Greek wri- ters, a certain y^vf-^y and durable dwellings and is oppo- sed to 7i:&!,^6i-K.w^ which signifies to sojourn or dwell in a place for a time only." This reasoning h not good 5 because it is not founded on just criticism. Your dis- tinction between x-HTciKiM and Trx^oiKia is not agreeable either to their intrinsic import, or the practice of the language. There is indeed a very great difference be- tween these words, but neither you nor Mintert, upon whose authority you hazard this criticism, seem to un- derstand that difference. The former word is not op- posed to the latter j the one as signifying a durable dwelling, and the other to dwell in a place for a short time only. The idea of the duration of time, either long or short, is in neither of the words. They may, and are both applied to denote residence in a place for a period either longer or shorter. Th^ length of time is never known from the words themselves, but from other circumstances. KetroiKicj can be opposed to ^ru^oim 266 Letter VIII. Kiu in no other way than as the former signifies to dwelt in a place in general, without reference to that place or country, whether we are aboriginal natives, or stran- gers j the latter signifies to dwell as a stranger, and may be applied to a man's whole life, or any given pe- riod, as well as a single day. It is compounded of the preposition 5r«g«, signifying bj, at, or near lo, and oikov to divelL By an opposite process, the word 7r<«go{x5g, I acknowledge the distinction 270 Letter VIII. between this and uv&^ojTag. The distincllon is always observed when speaking cf one sex, in opposition to, or in contrast with the other. Whenever there is any thing in the narration, that could present to the mind the distinction of sex, this distinction, in the use of these txvo w^ords, Is demanded by accurctcy. But when no circumstance of sex is intended to be brought into view, oivy,^ is frequently used as generally as c^vd^uTrc^, See Luke xi. 31. 32. Matth. vii. 24. 26. Acts v. 36.' James i. 20. Rom. iv. 8. &c. It is quite enough for us then tiiat it can be so used j -we have not to shew that it must of necessity have such a signiEcation here. To serve your purpose, it must be shev/n that the word never can be so used. Besides, there is this reason that it should here include both men and women j for as to the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is neither male nor female. What purpose would it serve to give us an account of the male disciples only ? Why should the females be of so little estimation as not to be inclu- ded ? Was it a matter of great importance to inform us of the number of the male disciples, but a matter of no importance whether any females believed the gospel ? This would be contrary to the practice of the evangelists, who take full as much notice of the females as of the males. As to the miracle of feeding the multitude record- ed in the gospels, there is a sufficient reason for men- tioning the women and children separate from the men, because they were but few in proportion. Men-chil- dren are also distinguished from the men for the same reasons. There mighi be also a view to the superior quantity of food necessary for men, to shew the true extent of the miracle. But in reckoning the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ, there can no good reason be given, why the females should not be as particularly Letter VIII. 271 noticed as the males. Five thousand ihen is the high- est calculation you can demand with certainty *, and I defy you to prove positively, that at any one time after- wards, they are said to exceed this number. All the after additions cannot be an equal increase of the num-. ber, because there is a possibility many v^^ays of the former number being greatly lessened. Before you can bring the circumstance of the number of the disci- ples at Jerusalem as an objection to their constituting one church, you must prove that it was such that they could not possibly meet together either in the house oi' in the fields. We come now to consider your observations on the dispersion, which took place upon the death of Ste- phen. Here also we stand on the defensive. If such a thing as a general dispersion were possible, your ob- jection as to the supposed numbers, is not of force. Al- though you should succeed in proving, that a general dispersion could not be necessarily inferred from this account, you can never prove that the words will not bear this meaning j nay, that the most obvious import of the words does not require it. But your argument falls to the ground, unless you can shew that the words will not admit a general dispersion. It is not necessary that I should say more on this subject, than barely to shew that it cannot be deter- mined from this narrative, that the dispersion which it relates wj-^^ not ^encraL But I v/ill undertake to prove to the satisfaction of any unprejudiced judge, that, from the account here given, it must have been gcnt-rni. With respect to Mr Robertson's observation upon the word r^i^ot^ it will be found to be a distinction un- sanctioned by the Greek language. Both this, and day^ A a. 272 Letter VIII. the corresponding word in English, frequently mean time indefinitely. The difference in the use of the phrases iv iKUvn r^ riui^^x and iv ikuvxi^ tuk; yif^i^xi?, is not that the latter includes a longer portion of indefinite time, but that it points out more indefinitely the date of the commencement of that period. Had Luke here used the phrase gv iKUvxiq ru,t<; y.us^aig, or kxt ittavcv rov xxi^ovj the period of the continuation of the persecution would not thereby be proved to have been longer, but the commencement of it would have had a more inde- finite date assigned to it. From the phrase here used, we have the d?.te of the commencement of the persecu- tion precisely determined. It began exactly at the death of Stephen, not about it. 1'he truth is, th^ phrase used does not determine in any respect, nor was it designed to determine, the period of the continuation of the persecution, but merely the date of its com- mencement. The narrator has no des'gii to inform us, nor could he by any of these phrases have informed us of the time this persecution lasted. Translate it as literally as possible, it makes nothing against our sense of the narrative. " Upon that day there arose a great persecution, against (or upon) the church which was at Jerusalem." - The duration of the persecution mi2;ht, as far as the w^ord ■fij^a^x is concerned, have been one hour or fifty years. The length of that period must be determined from other circumstances. Now yivofzxi is the verb which is used to modify ihe existence. It is not simply said there was^ but there began to be, ^c. If then it is said that a persecution began on such a day, it is a very plain intimation that it did not cease on that day. Your second argument is, that it was not all the church that was scattered, but only the ministers. This, Letter VIII. 273 however, plainly contradicts the inspired penman •, for he exp^e^^sly says, that they were all scattered abroad except the apostles. Now, the excepring of the apo- stles plainly shews, that the narrator meant to be pre- cise. I have already shewn, that the word church" could not be employed to denote the representatives of a particular congregation, even had the constitution- been Presbyterian, in any other than a figurative sense, and that it could not be applied either literally or figu- ratively to the rulers of many congregations, for in no sense are they a church. You must overthrow that reasoning, or the matter is settled. Upon the passage in question, however, I will make a few additional re- marks. The word church, it cannot be denied, even by Presbyterians, primarily and properly signifies a congregation of saints. It cannot be applied in its figurative meaning, but upon this supposition. Now it- is said here, in the language of plain narrative, " There arose at that time a great persecution upon the churchy the church which was at 'Jerusalem ^"^ Here the word church is evidently used in its literal and appropriated signiflcavion. The narrator mentions the church, as it it were a well known thing of which he wrote. Ke particularizes it — the church at Jeruso/tm. But the church at Jerusalem cannot m.ean the mini- sters alone of that city, seeing these could not be call- ed so even figuratively, but as they represented the church. Now, though the church-rulers, met in coun- cil, might figuratively be called by the name of their constituents, yet they could not, even figuratively, get that name in bearing persecution j for in this, they do not represent the church. It was no part of their offi- cial duty, which they performed in name of that body, i contend then, that, even granting the system of re- 2T4 Letter VIII. presentation, and the propriety of figurative language upon such an occasion, ciiurch cannot be here used for church-rulers by the boldest figure imaginable. But, according to you, it must not be the church- rulers of a congregation, but of several congregations, who are meant. This signification it could not have upon any terms. Besides, the Presbyterian interpreta- tion of this passage supposes, that it was the ministers alone who were dispersed, not the lay-elders. Now, the ministers, without the lay-elders, could not, even by Presbyt-crians, be called the church. The lay-elders are representatives as 'ivell as the ministers. Nay, the ministers cannot be representatives of the laity at all, for on that supposition they would act in a double ca- pacity. They would both represent the laity and themselves. At all events, if church-rulers are called tlie church because they represent.the church, by what rule of criticism do you exclude the lay-elders ? Again, according to you, the church at Jerusalem consisted of different congregations. Now, if all the congregations of Jerusalem were called a church, or toe church of J,erusalem, when the persecution is said to be against that church, it must mean all those congregations. Al- lowing it possible to be figuratively given to their ru- lers, a figure cannot be supposed where the literal meaning will answer. The circumstances and connec- tion must necessarily demand such a figure,. before it is lawful to have recourse to it. Besides, the expression, the church which is at Jdrusaiem, plainly supposes that there was nothing in that city ^vhich among Christians bore that name, but one determinate assembly. Had this been the appropriated name for all the congrega- tions united, it could not have been appropriated to any qneof them. I defy you to produce in language any such Letter VIII. 275 ambiguity. Were all the Christians of Jerusalem the church at Jerusalem ? Could what is said here be lite- rally applicable to the whole ? Is this a thing in whiclr they could have been personally concerned ? If it must be answered in the affirmative, would it be proper in the inspired penman to relate a thing in language lite- rally applicable to the whole church, relating a fact which might have happened to the whole, while at the same time he only means it of a very small part of that church ? But this is not only a fact which might have happened to the church itself, but it is one which could not happen to them in the person of others. But the matter is put beyond controversy by the word Trecvngy alL " At that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and those w^ho composed it were all scattered abroad," &c. Whatever constituted the church at Jerusalem, is here said to be all scattered, the apostles excepted. The ministers could not be the whole of the church. Sup- pose even that they were not said to have been scatter- ed, but to have been assembled to transact business for their constituents, it could not be said they were all the church. Although it might be said in high rheto- rical language, * Great Britain met to consider such a- question,' meaning that the Parliament met, it could not be said that all, or all the individuals of Great Britain met. But there can be nothing more com- pletely absurd than to suppose any figure in the simpli- city of narrative. What would any man think of- the historian who should write thus, * Oliver Cromwell- dispersed Great Britain, or all Great Britain ?' mean- ing that he dispersed the Parliament. What then I ask was the church at Jerusalem ? Did the ministers alone compose this church ? This is all that the Ro- Aa 3 ^T6 Letter VIII; man pontlfr professes lo demand. But if the whole body of Christians in that city constituted the church, of the body in general it is affirmed, that they were -scattered. With respect to the occurrence of the word in the 3d verse, I deduce from it the very contrary concUi- sion from what you have done. I have already shewni that this conduct of Saul w^as not subsequent, but ante- cedent to the dispersion. But whether it was the one or the other, the word church, according to every rule of interpretation, must have the same meaning in the third, that it hath in the first verse. The historian is- evidently speaking of the same object, at least the same kind of object. It is not possible that the inspired winter should be guilty of such absurdity as to use the same v/ord in two such different senses, in the same narrative, in the compass of three verses. He tells us in the first verse, that there was a great persecution against the church. He tells us in the third, that Paul made havock of the church. Could he intend two sorts of churches ? Though it should net have been the same individuals, surely it must have been the same kind of church. If a Presbyterian were to use the words, '• Tiiere v/as a greet persecution against the ccngrega- ^on,' would any one understand him to mean that the jtersecution was only against the minister, or ministers. If he would add, ' such a one made great havock of the congregation,' would any one understand be spoke of two diiferent kinds of congregations ? Though it were allowed that the church which Paul persecuted w^as composed of different individuals from that spoken of in the first verse, it must still be of the same kind. It must mean those converted by the apostle's subsequent labours. Besides, why should it be thought that there Letter VIII. 277 was no persecution against any but the ministers, when Saul is said to have dragged to prison men and even women. Surely the latter were not church-officers. Your third observation is, " That the word ^iiTTrec^n- a-xv does not imply that they were dispersed in conse ' quence of very violent persecution, but only in allu- sion to the command of Christ, " when they persecute you in this city, flee ye to the next," that ^ixs-Ko^Tn^a wo'ild have denoted a more violent persecution." This, Sir, I look, upon to be unsound criticism. The vio- lence of the persecution is not to be gathered from the w^ord used to denote the dispersion, w^iether it was the one or the other. This must be determined by what is really testified, and from the effects attributed to it. Neither the one nor the other of these w^ords ne- cessarily imply a dispersion by violence, and both may equally be applied to a dispersion effected by the most violent means. Whether a dispersion is forced or vo- luntary, must be kno\\Ti by the cause to which it is at- tributed. This must be the case v^^ith every word that signi- fies to scatter, in every language. When I say, after the rising of a session of college, * that the students are now widely dispersed through many countries,' it will be easy to see that I do not mean that they were dispersed by violence. I do not attribute their dispersion to a violent cause j nay, the cause is so obvious I do not assign it at all. But when we read in the ncwspaperSj * The Russians were defeated in the battle of Auster- litz, and are dispersed in all directions,' would any man, with one scruple of common sense, understand the writer to mean that their dispersion was voluntary ? The dispersion of an army, stated in connection with 3 battle, necessarily attributes the dispersion to a defeat. 273 Letter Vllt As to the point in hand, we are left at no loss about the cause of their dispersion. " There was a great persecution against the church w^hich was at Jerusalem, and they wese all scattered abroad." Is not the dis- persion expressly attributed to the persecution ? Th« critic who would look out for another cause of the dis- persion, if I could not make some allowance for the blindness of prejudice, and the eagerness to support a falling church, I would really consider as labouring under some mental debility. As to Mr Robertson's distinction between the mean- ing and use of tiiua-Trupa) and oiaa-KoiTri^a^ it is not found- ed either in the composition or application of these two words. There is not the smallest degree of inherent vk)lence in the one more than in the other. The lat- ter is used often, and among others in the following places, where there is no violence. supposed, Matt.xxv. 24. Luke XV. 1 3. xvi. 1 . It is quite childish In Mr Robertson to shew, that ^ixs-Trn^a is often used when no great degree of violence has been used. It might be used with equal propriety to express the sowing of seed in a field, and the dispersion of the French nobles at the revolution. Nor would the use of the word ^ixa-- KcsTTit^a be a whit more determinate. But it must also fee remarked, that though the word ^.^o-Tre;^*' does not always denote a dispersion by persecution or violent means, yet it always includes in it the Idea that the scattering spoken of has been effected by some degree ef force. It is not necessary indeed that this should be external force ; it may be inclination or interest. The dispersion of seed to which this primarily alludes, does not imply violence, but it implies that the seed which has been placed on the field in a separated state, has been forced to occupy that situation by some im--^ Letter VIII. S't pelKng cause. The degree and kind of force em- ployed, is known only by other circumstances. Thus even when I say, * The bcea are dispersed or soAvn over the heath,' or, * The cattle are dispersed over the plain,' though 1 do not mean to attribute this to a vio- lent cause, it yet implies that there has been some cause, some motive that has impelled them to take this situation. The appeiite that prompts them to seek for provision, is this impelling cause, and though it is not external, the form of the expression requires this ana- lysis. They are dispersed. What is the dispersing cause ? Their appetites. Mr Robertson's supposition as to the use of the pas- sive for the middle voice here, is still more grossly un- natural. " It may be further observed," says he, *• that in all languages a verb in a passive form may sometimes have a neuter, or, as the Greeks say, a mid- dle signification." It is indeed true, that in all lan- guage^, a passive verb may be used in circumstances where the middle would have served the purpose, or, in, other w^ords, where the agent and the sufferer, or the thing acted upon, are the same ; yet this by no means destroys the passive nature of the verb even in that use or it, nor warrants us to say that the passive voice ia that instance is the same as the middle voice. This sort of bungling criticism would confound the princi- ples of language, and overwhelm every subject to which it might be applied in inextricable darkness. If one voice is exactly of the same meaning as another, and may at any time be used for it, ^vhat purpose do they serve ? Why does language recognise them ? If they are not a proper means of distinction, why is lan- guage loaded v.uth any but one ? No man who under- stands the genius of language would think of confound- 280 Letter VIIL ing the use of the voices. Although, in certain cir- cumstances, one may come to have the effect of ano- ther, or to be used ^vhere another might be expected, each has still its own province, and it is only by under- standing that province that the process can be traced, by which it comes seemingly out of its' own territories. When a young man goes oat in the morning, vath his dog and gun, if he returns after a little, saying, * I am wounded,' the family will immediately understand that he means that he has wounded himself. There is no other cause assigned, and the circumstance of his being- engaged in fowling, will lead to the conclusion that the agent and the sufferer are the same. ' He is understood in- the same sense as if he had said, * I have wounded myself.' But shall we say that the passive voice here assumes the signification of the middle, and that ' I am w^ounded,' Is just the same as ' I have wounded myself ?' No, verily^ the passive voice h?.s here all its essential features, and' there is still an agent and a sufferer^ though they are the same person. Nor are these expressions, though any of them might be used upon this occasion, exactly of the same import. When he says, * I am wounded,* he means to call the attention of the hearers to the fact that he is wounded, without any reference to the cause- of the wound. When he says, * I have wounded my- self,' he means to inform us, not only that he is wound- ed, but to prevent us from thinking that another was the cause of it. Again, suppose two persons go out to fight a duel, and after a few minutes a messenger re- ports, ' Mr is wounded,' we instantly conclude that he has been wounded by his antagonist. The con- nexion of the circumstances forces this conclusion on us without hesitation. Though the c use is not attribu- ted, it is because it is too obvious to be stated. We L>:TTER VIII. ogj v.oiild laugh at the pedant, who should exercise his critical talents upon a newspaper account of a duel as is here done with respect to the dispersion recorded in Ac is. Whenever the passive voice is used in circum- stances where there is no adequate external cause alle- ged expressly, or implied, or taken for granted as suffi- ciently known, it is then lawful to suppose that the sufferer is the same with the agent j yet even in this si- tuation, the properties of the passive voice are not de- stroyed, nor its use confounded with that of the middle. But in every circumstance, without exception, in which an adequate external cause is alleged, or from the con- nexion supposed, to this must the cause be attributed. If there were not some regulating principle of this kind, it would be impossible to come at the meaning of any passage. The voices would then not contribute to the precision of language, but to its indistinctness and confusion. There has nothing contributed more to embarrass subjects of rehglous controversy, than the principles of criticism that the generality of Eible commentators have adopted. They have so much learning as is sufficient to lead them into difficulties that would never occur to the unlearned reader j yet they seem to have so little understood the genius and principles of language, and its uniform analogies, that they are guided by the most arbitrary rules of inter- pretation. One word stands for anoiher, one voice foy another, &c. just as it suits their purpose. The Scrip- tures are dragooned, by their figures, to countenance the most absurd fancies. Would any man follow out the principle of this observation of Mr R. he might defy the precision of eveiy writer to communicate their sentiments with any degree of certainty and perspicui- ty. The wildest conceits of the most extravagant 282 Letter VIII. sects miglit not only evade the censure, but claim the protection of Scripture. Paul says, " Tlirice was I beaten with rods." Here, says the bold flagellant, is a sanction for the wholesome discipline of the whhp. It is true Paul says, Thrice was I beaten, but " it may be observed, that in ail lavtguages a verb in a passive form may sometimes have a neuter, or, as the Greeks speak, a middle signification." Here then, * / was beaten,"* signifies, * / beal tnyselj.'' Now, it is evident, if the great apostle Paul inflicted this severe discipline upon himself, it is equally necessary for us» Hence it is evident that the substance of true religion consists \i\ flagellation. * Lord Nelson wns slain in the battle of Trafalgar.' But a cautious critic replies, * Take care how you understand the writer. This by no means necessarily signifies that Lord Nelson was killed in consequence of the fire of his enemy. As the passive verb sometimes assumes a middle signification, it may also be understood to mean, that Lord Nelson killed himself.'' Is this ridiculous ? Not more so than the supposition, that the dispersion spoken of in Acts viii. 1. was not caused by the persecution. * There was a great battle— the Russians are dispersed.' * But we must not conclude from this, that the defeat Vv-as the cause of this dispersion. It might be quite voluntary. They might have only gone home to recruit themselves for another campaign.' Is this ridiculous ? Equally so is your interpretation. The dispersion of the Rus- sians is only slated in connection with the battle, and if \\t are to understand that the dispersion was caused by a victorious enemy, upon what principle of inter- pretation is it pretended, that the dispersion of the Chri- stians frorii Jerusalem was not caused by the persecu- tion stated in connexion v.ith it •"— " Tliere was a great Letter VlII. 285 persecution, and they were all dispersed." Is there any supposable cause but the persecution ? The application of the principles already explained, will enable any one to solve your examples from the Septuagint. A.-coj ^HT-rrx^vi does not literally signily that the people scatiered tbemse/vrs, but that they were scattered. The command of Pharaoh that they should get no straw, obliged them to be dispersed in gathering stubble. Pharaoh's commands dispersed them. The same analysis will apply to your other examples, and any instances that can possibly be alleged. Would it ever enter the mind of any sober writer to suppose, that the persecution was only a signal to de- part j or that they dispersed rather in obedience to the command of Jesus, than from the violence of the per- secution ? This very command of our Lord was de- signed to be put in execution only when persecution -should be so violent that they could not stand it. It Avas never understood that to obey it, the disciples v,'ere obliged to leave a city upon the smallest opposi- tion or persecution. Had this been the case, the gos- pel never could have taken root in any place, for they were not long without opposition when they entered into a city *. If this was the meaning of our Lord's command, th« apostles paid no regard to it j for they always remained as long as they possibly could j till persecution arose to the most dangerous height. Of- ten they did not go before they were stoned and scourged. The spirit of the precept is, that the dlscl- * Were this the spirit of the precept, Christians would be as unsettled in their habitations as the Eremites. They would not lodge, perhaps, during their lives, two nights in one house, or in one city. Bb 2S4 Letter VIII. pies of Jesus sliould rather fly than fight. When lhc\ cannot remain in any place with the safety of their lives, they are at liberty to tiy somewhere else \ not to form any combinations to defend themselves, like the men of the world. How unnatural is every feature in this analysis ! How unlike the reasoning of a man who has entered into the genius of the Christian religion I Eve- ry line of the picture is distorted. But that the persecution -^vas the cause of the disper- sion, is absolutely said Acts xi. 19. " They that were scattered abroad by or jrom the persecution that arose about Stephen." Not only are they said to be disper- sed, but to be dispersed by a cause assigned, and that cause is the persecution. Three times the passive form of the verb is used, speaking of this dispersion,. Acts vlii. 1. 4. xi. 19. Must it, in any occurrence, be under- stood in a middle sense ? But the preposition octto com- pletely assigns the persecution as the cause of the dis- persion. * They were dispersed— cause of their disper- sion, the persecution.' Would any honest interpreter ever look for another cause, when the Holy Spirit here ascribes one both sufficient and obvious. Add to this, that if it be supposed that they dispersed themselves voluntarily, it is not at all likely that the pastors, more especially all the pastors, and these alone, should desert the ilock. Can any man assign a reason why all pas- tors in Jerusalem should, without any violence offered to them, leave the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, for the purpose of preaching elsewhere ? Besides, this persecution is expressly called a great persecution. "Why then should it not be thought to" have caused the disciples to fly ? But how curiously is this accounted for by Mr R. as quoted by you in a note. " This persecution, moreover, might Letter VIII. 285 be styled a great persecution, which for a time depriv- ed the saints at Jerusalem of so many faithful pastors," p. 236. Yes ', but it was not a great persecution against the pastors, but a great persecution against the church. But this is self-contradiction. He argued before, that the persecution was not the cause of the dispersion, but a signal to disperse. Here he allows that it was a great persecution, because it deprived the saints at Jerusalem of so many faithful pastors. Now, had it been only a signal to depart, it could not have been the acknowledged cause of the dispersion. If I have a friend in a distant country, whom I appoint to meet rne at a certain place, the signal for our setting out being the first grand engagement between the French and the Prussians, my family could not say that it was a great battle, because it deprived them for a long time of my society. This was only the signal, not the cause of my leaving home. But the truth will fre- -quently come out upon the cross-examination of the v;itness. It is very difficult to be consistent in at- tempting to impose such a series of ridiculous solutions on the Scriptures. Never was there a more complete contradiction between two accounts of a transaction, than that of the Acts of the Apostles, and ?vlr Robert- son's. One of them is certainly false. There Is scarcely a common line between the original, and the pretended picture. I have however reaped this one advantage from it : I have seen how far the desire of supporting an established system ^vill contribute to choke the plainest dictates of common sense, when they stand opposed to its pretensions. I have seen that men are capable of endeavouring to force the word of God to countenance the wildest fancies j but It is a mournful picture of human nature. 286 Letter VIII. Upon the wliole, it appears that, according tvo tr_ literal, and natural, and necessary signiiication of the words, not the ministers alone, but the general body ot disciples at Jerusalem, were dispersed on this occasion. On your part, you cannot pretend that your interpreta- tion is as o'jvious from the words, or that it is as literal as ours. You have, as usual, to turn the account into figures, search for causes of the dispersion, not assigned or suggested in the narrative, while that which is as- . signed is refused j to suppose the same word variously used to the most opposite objects, in the same connec- tion, and substitute perpetually one voice for another, &c. With us, every thing is natural •, vath you, every thing is forced. A very child could not be at a lo&s to know the meaning of the passage according to our interpretation j according to yours, the subtle genius of a Peripatetic philosopher could scarcely follow your distinctions. Now, for what purpose have you and your friep.ds invented all tliese extravagant suppositions ? Is it to vindicate the character of the Scriptures, and l^Yove them consistent with themselves ? No ', it is not to solve a dlfBcuUy, but to create one. The disciples •at Jerusalem are called one church. All these suppo- sitions must be m.ade, not to remove an objection as to the propriety of this denomination, but to raise an ob- jection to it. As I already observed, I was no way obliged by my cause to follow you through these dis- cussions. I might have contented myself by shewing that this might have been a general dispersion. Were I to give you credit for all you have attempted to doy to wit, to shev^^ that this persecution might not have been general, it vvould not do you the smallest service ; as long as the fact of a general dispersion is possible, so lono; it will be a valid solution. But vou have not ■- Letter VIII. 287 refuge to shelter you. You may be driven from every hiding-place. Every shelter you can avail yourself of, is merely a perversion of Scripture. If then it is proved from the meaning of the word churchy and the representations given in the Acts of the Apostles, that there was but one congregation of saints at Jerusalem j and if the most natural interpreta- tion of the words of this narrative will obviate your ob- jection from their numbers, would any candid critic refuse to allow the narrative to be understood in its most obvious sense, and acknowledge this as a sufficient removal of the difficulty ? It would sufficiently serve our purpose to shew that this might possibly have been a general dispersion. But this is not only a possible, it is the plain meaning of the account. To the serious inquirer, no degree of obscurity hangs over the narra- tive J and as for those who love darkness rather than light, they Tvill never be without a pretext. The next passage you produce is Acts xxi. 20. llocM fz'j^ixh^y ho^v many myriads ! Upon this I re- mark, in the first place, that whether f/.v^isig be definite or indefinite, it maketh no matter. The Jews here re- ferred to, do not seem to be the Jews of Jerusalem alone, but of the whole nation, as distinguished from the be- lieving Jews among the Gentiles. The proportion of these that might be supposed to be in Jerusalem, it is idle to attempt to estimate, especially for the purpose of founding an argument on the result. Overturn a well authenticated fact by probable calculations ! No- thing but a positive account could serve your purpose. All that is incumbent upon us, is to shew that it can- not necessarily be inferred that they all belonged to Je- rusalem. In the second place, even allowing that those referred to were all at that moment in the city^ Bb3 288 Lktter VIII. I adopt and defend the language of Mr Ewing, quo- ted by you, p. 259.— you by no means Invalidate his argument by any thing you allege. You say, that "no argument can be adduced from the number of thosa who went up with Paul at this time to Jerusalem, to shew that they were travelling thither to observe that solemnity." It Is sufficient that this Is the most proba- ble errand. It serves us that it may have been the case. As to the numbers being too few for such an occasion, and the foreign Jews not being commanded to attend, the latter of these objections obviates the former. It was their privUege, therefore they came when convenient. It was not their indispensable duty, therefore from the most distant countries, they did not come In great numbers. A few from every direction, would make a great sum total. But had only numbers of the believing Jews of Judea been present, it would have fully justified the expression contained In Acts xxi. 20. You say, that It has been questioned by the West- minster Assembly, whether Paul arrived at Jerusalem before the day of Pentecost. Their questioning it Signifies nothing. We are expressly Informed of his design to be there on that occasion, and of his haste ou that account. There is every reason to suppose that he vrauld not be disappointed. Can you prove, how- ever, the contrary ? Nothing less will serve you. In the third place, whether the believing Jews of Jerusa- lem, alone, or of all Judea, or of all the world, are re- ferred to, the word (av^^ix^ is equally with y.v^ioi used in- definitely. It Is evident, even from the occasion and the intention of the speaker, that this word Is not de- signed to intimate the precise amount of the numbers referred to. The design is, not to acquaint Paul with. Letti:r VIII. 289 tlie. exact number of believing Jews either In one place or another, bat simply from consideration of the great numbers, to shew the necessity of the conduct after- \vards recommended. He adds, " The multitude will come together." It is not said that there are such a number of ^vg{- eih^f but TToa-cti, how many ? appealing to the know- ledge of Paul himself. As we ^vould say in English, * Consider, brother, how many, or what multitudes,' &c. Your observation upon the difference between ^iv^ioi and fiv^ixg is not well founded. What should make the one of these definite and the other indefinite ? The only difference between them is, that the one is the substantive, and the other the adjective. They are both used sometimes definitely, and sometimes in- definitely, just as we use such a round number for a great number, whether it is more or less. My§<«< is used Matt, xviii. 24. as uv^ix? Acts xix. 19. Yea, in each of the places which you fjuote, Acts xix. 19. exr cepted, ficv^ict^ is indefinite. Your observation, that if it is indefinite, it is used in these places for nothing less than its intrinsic amount, proves nothing. The very circumstance of its being an indefinite word of number, will make it go as far beyond, the mark, or fall on this side of it. When Mr Ewing contends that it is inde- finite, and may be applied to any great number, when the speaker does not mean to convey exact information, he will as readily grant that it may be extended to a number ten thousand times its original amount. As an indefinite word of number, it may be, and is applied to the whole hosts of heaven, and all the redeemed on earth. But understand it as you will, you will find that it is applied in the plural number, Luke xii. 1. to the multitudes attending the preaching of Jesus. But ■290 Letter VIII. how many soever the numbers of the disciples of Jeru- salem at this time might have been, we are sure that they could meet, because, it is actually said on this oc- casion, that " the multitudes must needs come toge- ther." You say, -such large numbers could not be accom- modated with a house. Why should not an area or court serve the purpose > What multitudes meet on certain occasions in the woods of America, and conti- nue whole days, and even weeks on the place. Rate them at even the extravagant number of 30,000, still they might have met. If I were asked how they could enjoy ordinances, my answer is ready. If they really amounted to so many, they must have met, for they are called a church, the multitude is spoken of as coming together, and they are every where in the Acts represented as meeting in one assembly. But why should we suppose that they were so numerous that they could not mdtt in a house, seeing ibe many myriads here referred to, are not necessarily applicable to the Christians of Jerusalem * ? And why should they be supposed to meet v.Ithout, seeing the temple could contain such vast multitudes >* You desire us to prove that they had the liberty of using the templeV * There can be nothing more obvious than that Acts xxi. 2(5. refers to the Jewish Christians of all Judea. The conduct en- forced upon the apostle from the consideration of the numbers of believing Jews, would be equally prudent and necessary on ac- count of the believing Jews throughout all Judea, as well as those of Jerusalem. The Jews in every part of that country, would soon be informed of Paul's conduct on this occasion. 1 am then not at all concerned about the satisfactcriness of any other solution. I support the other suppositions, merely to shew that- your criticism fails in every item of th« series. Letter VIII. £91 We know that they enjoyed the temple till the death of Stephen, and it does not lie upon us to prove that they still had it, but upon you positively to prove that they had ii not. Eut, for my part, as long as a field -will hold thern, I do not think it necessary to join you in measuring Solomon's porch, or the temple, or any other building in Jerusalem. You think it very strange in Mr Ewing, that he will not allow the Christians in Jerusalem to have amounted at any one period' to the vast numbers alleg- ed by Presbyterians, in order to defend Christianity against infidels. Indeed, Sir, Christianity needs no such rotten props as exaggeration. If this were a cri- terion of a divine religion, Christianity would not have the highest pretensions. While we rejoice most hearti- ly In the success of the gospel in Jerusalem, we do not think it proper to contradict the Scriptures, either to humour Presbyterians, or to silence infidels. And we are just as much concerned for the success of the gospel In every other place. I am afraid that there are some who are anxious to heighten the numbers of Christians in Jerusalem, rather to support an hypothesis, than to Increase the kingdom of the Redeemer. The gospel has now been preached upwards of seventeen hundred years *, perhaps there are not in the world seventeen cities, (are there seven r) the Christians In which could not stand within the compass of the human voice. Be- sides, it must seldom happen that nearly all the m.em- bcrs are present at any one meeting. '292 LETTER IX. Sir, Y. OUR shteenlh letter continues tlie subject of the preceding. That there must have been a plurality of congregations in Jerusalem, you think is evident, ** from the number of ministers who, for a very consi- derable time, were continually employed in labouring in that city." As the fact could establish nothing were it proved, for the same number of m.embers would need nearly the same number of labourers, whether in one congregation or many j but especially, as it rests on Apocryphal authority, I do not consider it my duty to w^aste my time with the hypothesis. That there were very many labourers in that city, I have no doubt j that the seventy disciples at first sent out by our Lord were continually resident in Jerusalem, is nei- ther recorded, nor is at all probable. For I think with you, that *' it cannot be believed that so many la- bourers would have statedly resided at Jerusalem, while the rest of the world vv as so destitute of religious instruction." Besides, this was not the purpose for which they were chosen, but to carry the glad news through the cities and villages of Judea. What was the number of teachers in Jerusalem, we have no suffi- cient documents to prove. You say, that the same thing is evident from the di- versity of languages of the Christians at Jerusalem. To refute this, I need only say that, if the strangers men- tioned were any time resident in that city, though they might not be able themselves to speak the com- mon language with fluency, they would sufficiently un- Letter IX. 293 derstiind it v.'lien spoken. Accordingly, on the day of Pentecost, (Acts ii.) Peter addresses the whole multi- tude in the same language. You answer by antici- pation, that " before this be of force, it must be demonstrated that Peter spake to them it or.ce in the same language.'''' The demonstration of the contrary lies upon you. This, as I have shewn, is agreeable to universal experience, with respect to strangers resident on business in large commercial towns. This also is the plain and obvious import of the narrative, and the only thing that would present itself naturally to the mind of the reader. That they were all addressed at the same time in the same words, is as clear as lan- guage can convey a meaning. Verse 14. " But Peter standing up v/ith the eleven, lift up his voice, and said unto them. Ye men of Judea, and ail ye that dwell at 'Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words." Here it is evident, that the whole multi- tude were addressed at once in the same language. As to the supposition, that Peter " might have spoken to each of them in order, in their respective languages, as is evident the apostles did, verses 5, 6." there is not room for it in the narrative j verse 14. is too precise to admit it. Whereas, in the other case, w^e have certain intimation that every man heard them speak in his own language. This then must necessarily have been either from different speakers at the same time, in different parts of the house, or at different times. But in the 14th verse, Peter addresses the whole multitude in the same language. But you forget yourself j if the apo- stles addressed the different nations at different times, in fifteen or twenty languages, all in one assembly, could not the same thing take place in all the other meetings of the saints ? Though it were even granted 294> Letter 15^ tliat Peter did not address these different nations all at the same time and in the same language, yet he spoke to each of them in the presence of all, which is all that is necessary for our purpose. From verses 5, o. this must certainly have been the case, at the time the mul- titude came together. Indeed it is extremely reason- able to suppose, that as there were continually strangers coming from other countries, they Vv'ould generally in- terpret, at least if the language spoken at Jerusalem was not commonly understood by foreigners. Such a direction is given to the church at Corinth. When one should speak in an unknown tongue, those -ivho did not understand it, were not to separate themselves and form a new church, or even to leave the assembly du- ring the time j another was to interpret. We know that this is actually the case with some of the travel- ling preachers in the Methodist connexion in Ireland. Tliey speak in Irish, and interpret in English, or vice ve?\fa. While this is so obvious, I do not think it ne- cessary to fatigue my readers with more upon the sub- ject. You come next to consider some of the passages which represent the disciples at Jerusalem as meeting in one place. Upon iVcts ii. 41, — 41. you observe, " Though it were granted that the church at this time, when it was comparatively small, met in one assembly, it would not follow that it could meet in one place, when it was much larger." Indeed, Sir, it does not need the penetration of Sir Isaac Newton to discover, that when a church becomes so numerous that they cannot meet in one place, they would, like the bees, di- vide, and form a second church. But w^hen this should be the case, they would be no longer the same church, no longer the church at Jerusalem, but the churches at Letter IX 29^ Jerusalem. We should then, from that period forward, have heard no more of their meeting for worship, &c. in one place, but have had the history and transactions of each. But it is not more clearly stated here that they met in one place, than it is when their numbers were the greatest. Why then do you come down so far as to make this supposition in this case more than in others ? Not because it is more clearly stated that they met in one place at this period, but because you think you could make a shift at this time without the divi- sion. But if this will not serve your purpose, you have another resource at hand. You are determined by all means to carry your point. You will silence tlie plainest evidence the Spirit of God can give. Like the cuttle-fish, when you are in danger of becoming a prt«/ to your antagonist, you will render the water muddy that you may escape him. I could not have thought it possible that any critic could have been so disingenuous, as to use the sophistry, perversion and evasion contained in the following reasoning., *' Be- sides, all that is mentioned in this passage is, that, from the love which subsisted among these primitive con- verts, they were frequently together, and cultivated ea- gerly each other's society. But to this it was not ne- cessary that they should statedly meet in one great as- sembly. And though we are told moreover, in this and other places, that they assembled in the temple, it cannot be proved from this fact, that they convened in one congregation even to hear the word, for, as was be- fore observed, the temple contained a variety of places, each of which could conveniently accommodate a con- gregation," p. 273. Leaving out of view the reverence that is due to the Cc ^^6 Letter IX. words of the Holy Spirit, a candid critic would be ashamed to olTer such violence to the text of Aristotle. Indeed, I cannot say more plainly that I believe them to have met in one place, than this Scripture assures me that they did. I despair of convincing the \vriter who is capable of defending his hypothesis in such a manner. Let the Christian of the most ordinary ta- lents read the passage with a teachable spirit, and I have no doubt of the result. I can easily see how a Christian, through weakness, prejudice, or neglect of examination, may be attached to the Presbyterian sys- tem of church-government. But to wrest the words of God in a manner palpably contrary to their inten- tion, ! As long as a writer uses argument, lie should be refuted ^ but when, through a whole treatise, in defence of every part of a whole system, there is one perversion of Scripture after another, it is very difficult, if not improper, to repress indignation. You hint in a note that the Greek words, «jr< ro «wt«, might be otherwise translated than hyt'^getber. Though you are not the only critic who has said so, it is altoge- ther without any just foundation, either in the analysis of the elliptical expression, or in the practice of the language. There is not an instance, so far as I know, in all the New Testament or Septuagint, in which it has another meaning. See Matt. xxii. 34. Acts i. 15. Actsiii. 1. 1 Cor. vii. 5. xiv. 23. Nor is there one instance you quote upon the authority of Lightfoot, in \vhich it has not the same meaning. Jeremiah, vi. 12. represents their houses, fields, and wives, as tigtther passing to strangers. In 2 Sam. ii. 13. if together be only referred to David's servants, it represents them as sitting together on one bank of the pool. But I see no reason why it should not mean the meeting together of Letter IX. 2^+' both parties, for they were really together when s6 near each other as to be able to converse. Psal.xxxiv. 3, IS an exhortation to people joined together in one wor- shipping assembly, to praise God. Psnl. xlix. 2. repre- sents the rich and poor as together' addressed by the Psalmist. He is addressing the whole world upon a subject equally interesting to the rich and to the poor. Psal. ii. 2. represents the Jewish rulers as met together' in consultation against our Lord Jesus Christ. But X am at a loss to know what you mean by this supposed^ possible alteration. How do you think should it be translated ? If you are really convinced that the trans- lation is faulty, why do you not propose what appears to you to be a more just translation > This, however, you do not attempt. You content yourself by refer-' ring to different meanings of the phrase according tor Lightfoot, without discovering a prefeferice to any one of them that is different from- the common one. You' must be conscious, that any other way of translating the passage would be here perfectly.. ridiculous, and therefore you have done no more than to state other possible ways of understanding it, leaving your reader to choose any one but the common one. I say, but the common one, for if you wished your reader to adopt this, there was no occasion for hinting at others. Your scope seems to be, that, as the phrase is supposed to be capable of different meanings, the common one can be less certainly relied on. Like the disguised papal emis- saries, your object Is gained when you have succeeded in rendering the meaning of Scripture uncertain. There will be then room for the Presbyterian accepta- tion, as the others make way for papal infallibility. But I cannot understand what you mean by " an as- sembly In different places," An assembly mav be se= £^8 Letter IX. parated by a wall, cr by a river, &c. yet ht'ng met together for common business, they are not in different places in any sense that could serve you. If people are met in different apartments in the same house for worship, &c. they are not one . assembly, when each company is separately em-raged. They are then many assemblies. On th-e other hand, if they are unitedly engaged, our hypothesis would not suffer, though they should occupy as many apartments as there are cells Ki a honey-comb. As to the possibility of their meeting in different congregations in the temple, I think you must have found yourself greatly galled when you had recourse to this expedient. If the apartments of the temple were so large, that each of them could * conveniently accommodate a congregation,' much more would the great courts in which such multitudes of Jews met for united worsliip, contain the most numerous assembly. But nothing can be more unnatural than the supposi- tion, that they met in separate assemblies for distinct worship. When it is said that " they continued daily "with one mind in the temple," the very design of the Spirit of God in giving the account, is evidently to shew their meeting together, and union in one place. Nothing could justify a contrary interpretation, had it not been directly afterwards said, that they met in dif- ferent congregations for distinct worship and discipline, in different apartments of the temple. As to the cir- cumstance of the different congregations of the High Church of Glasgow, it could not be said of them, that ' they continue every sabbath, with one mind, in the High Church.' What would be the meaning of opco- 6vuciOo^ in such a case ? How could they be said to be in such a place I'/i one mind, when they are in different Letter IX. 299 apartments, having no more connexion witli each other than with the congregations in the Hebrides. The congregations of the High Church are never said to meet together, nor are they ever represented as one assembly. It might as well be said of the inhabitants of the different floors of the highest house in Edin- burgh, that * they all live in one house, in one mind.' Now, according to your mode of interpretation, a tra- veller returning to his country from visiting Glasgow or Edinburgh, might assure his countrymen, that ' it was a very common thing for several hundred indivi- duals to live in the same house v/ith the greatest har- mony.' Would it not be concluded by those who were unacquainted with these places, that they were actual- ly in the same family ? He would really be a lying traveller ^ and although, when detected, he might use your sophistry, and reply, that though he had said that they lived in one house, he did not say that they lived together as the same family, I doubt if sound morality would excuse him. When people are said to live in the same house, it is understood that they live as one family, unless the contrary is intimated. The very lan- guage then which would be pronounced a falsehood among men, you without scruple put into the mouth of the Holy Ghost. When the disciples are said to con- tinue in the temple in one nrind^ it supposes that they have an intercourse, and such an intercourse as amor.g the men of the world would lead to cifftrent minds and to disputes. Such language could mean nothing v;hen applied to the different congregations of the High Church, except perhaps that they manifest such a Christian spirit that they do not abuse each other, like th' mob at a contested country election, nor justle each other as they pass and repass at the great door. But Cc 3 ^>^^ Lltier IX. in this case, it would not be, * they continue in the High Church,' but * they go in and out of the High Church in one mind.' You add, page 273. " Still, however, ]VIr Ewing contends that his assertion is confirmed by Acts v. 12, 13. where it is said, that * by the hands of the apos- tles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people J (and they were all with one accord in Solo- mon's Porch : and of the rest durst no man join him- self unto them : but the people magnified them.') But before any argument from this can be conclusive, he must prove that by the all who were in Solomon's Porch, are intended, not the apostles alone as disliur guished from the people, but the whole body of Chri- stian converts. That it was the apostles alone, is pro- bable from the connection of the passage. The sam€ fear which fell upon the multitude in general, and "which for a lime kept them at a distance from the apo- stles, is asserted in the 11th verse, to have fallen equal- ly upon the whole church, and, we may naturally sup- pose, would produce upon them a similar eifect. But if the rest of the church, as well as the multitude, durst aot for a time join themselves to the apostles, is it not obvious, that it must have been the apostles alone who are said to have been all in Solomon's Porch f" That by the all who are here said to be in Solo- mon's Porch, is intended the whole body of the disci- ples, no reader would think of questioning, if it did Tiot stand in the way of his hypothesis. Let the plain Christian read over the passage, and he will find no difficulty to make him pause for a moment j and the plainest and most obvious meaning of Scripture is al- ways the true meaning, except it contradicts reason, or the general tenor of revelation. The Scriptures were Letter IX. 301 designed for the use of persons of the plainest under- standing J therefore, though there may be grammatical incorrectness sufficient to offend the delicacy of a fas- tidious critic, it is never such but the scope of the pas- sage will explain itself. In such cases as this, the half learned critic is in most danger of going astray. While he is hunting after curious solutions, the plain Christian easily finds the true one, from the general sjHrit and substance of the passage. That the word all here refers to the disciples in ge- neral, as well as to the apostles, is obvious from several reasons. 1. For what purpose would the disciples be alone in Solomon's Porch ? It is no answer to this that Peter and John are said to go up to the temple together, without any other company. They might go thither for the purpose of joining in the temple worship j and though they went up alone, they were not in the tem- ple alone. They had many to hear the gospel. But in Solomon's Porch they could not be, for the sake of the Jewish worship, nor, if they were alone, for the purpose of preaching either to the disciples or to the people. Had it been a private meeting, like others recorded, it would have been in a private room. When a dozen of friends wish to enjoy each others company for a few hours, they are not likely to meet at the mar- ket-cross. Public meetings only need be held in pu- blic buildings, or places of public concourse. Their meeting in Solomon's Porch clearly proves that it was a public meeting, open not only to the disciples, but to all v/ho chose to attend. 2. Had there been none present but the apostles, I diO not think that the word 7r What is the circumstance he should have added to prevent his meaning from be- ing misunderstood ? Can any man be found so hardy as to put this upon the rack^ and by inquisitorial tortures., force it to contradict itself ? You say, " But it might be only the heads of them >vho in rea/iiy were summoned." If the inspired his- torian tells us that the muUiiude of the disciples were summoned j and if, in reality^ only the heads of themt were summoned, then the Spirit of God tells us vvhat is not in reality a truth. Your assertion is directly contradictory to that of the Spirit of truth. Whether it is better to believe God, or to believe you, let the disciples of Jesus judge. Nothing can be plainer than that the body of the disciples were called into the pre- sence of the apostles. " The twelve called the disci- ples, yea, the multitude of the disciples, unto them." As if it were not sufficiently precise to say, * They : called the disciples,' and as if anticipating the sophistry of such daring critics, the narrator declares in the most emphatical manner, in the most diffuse style, " Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto themy Why then should we suppose that they called - only the heads of them ? Nothing can be more affront- ing to the word of God than such a mode of interpre- tation. If the Holy Ghost speaks in such language^ always saying one thing in words, and meaning ano- ther in reality, he cannot surely intend to instruct, but to bewilder the reader. Is it not strange that the per- son, who perhaps would be shocked with another for 510 Letter IX. denying the authenticity of the Scriptures-, scruples not to affix a meaning to every passage that stands in the way of his hypothesis, contrary to its words and most evident intention ? I think it is even more audacious to admit that God hath spoken, yet make what we please of what he has said, than to deny that he hath spoken at all. If the passage under dispute would admit of your interpretation, I am bold to say that there is not a doctrine of revelation that could be certainly proved. It might be argued with equal plausibility that Christ did not die, but a phantom was affixed to the cross. The circumstance of Moses speaking his song in the ears of all the congregation, which you bring as a jus- tification of your own interpretation, is not at all to the point. V/here did you learn that Moses, though he declares that he spoke it in the ears of all the congre- gation, in reality spoke it only in the ears of the el- ders ? This interpretation is as arbitrary and as unnatu- ral as the other. The most likely interpretation is, that he spoke it in the midst of the camp, with all Is- rael around ', and though they could not all hear him, yet he might very properly, especially in the language of the Old Testament, be said to have spoken it in the ears of all the congregation, because he spoke it in tl^ presence of all, equally directed it to all as equally ap- plicable to all. If any did not hear it from his own lips, it v^ as c.n account of their distance ', those that could not hear his voice from the extremity of the camp could learn it from their neighbours. It was also to be put into the hands of all, as equally and imme- diately suitable to all. When we are told that he spoke the words of his song in the ears of all the congrega- tion, why should we suppose ihat he does not in reality mean wh#.t he says ? Before this- illustration could be Letter IX. 311 sTuitable to your purpose, it must be said, * that Moses called all the congregation of Israel unto him, and re- peated in their hearing the words of this song.' It must afterwards be said, * that Moses did not call the congregation of Israel unto him, nor pronounce his song in their presence 5 that he called only the heads of the congregation into his presence, and pronounced the song in their hearing only.' Such an absurdity and contradiction, however, w^e will no where find in the word of God. But if it was only the heads of them the apostles call- ed into their presence, then it is only the heads of a con- gregation that should choose the deacons j for the very persons who came into the presence of the apostles, are commanded to choose these officers. Nay, upon youf hypothesis, it must be only the heads of a Presbytery,- for you suppose that there were here many congrega- tions. If you could make this good, no doubt you would be entitled to the solemn thanks of the General Assembly, which, though it may allow this right in the people as to the choosing of lay-elders, does not re- cognise it as to the choosing of ministers. The same persons who are addressed, are commanded to " look €ut among themselves seven men of honest report," &c. If your interpretation is good, there is not then" the shadow of privilege left to congregations. Thisr however is completely contradicted immediately after- wards, verse 5. " And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen," &c. It is not said that the saying pleased the elders only, but that it pleased the wnoie multiiude ; and it is added, they chose Stephen, &c. They chose— \}c\t multitude chose. The saying pleased the whole multitude, and the whole multitude chose Stephen, Sic. Now, when it is said' Dd3 512 Letter IX. that the apostles called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and are represented as speaking to the per- sons summoned, commanding them to choose these of- ficers 5 and when again it is added, that the saying pleased the whole multitude, and that they chose Ste- phen, &c. it is demonstratively evident, that it was the disciples themselves in a body, and not their heads, that were summoned to attend the apostles. It is really vex- atious to be obliged to prove with minute and critical discussion, things that must be evident from the narra- tive to the understanding of a child. A captious per- son might, with equal propriety, call upon us to prove that the sun is the source of light and heat. You continue, p. ^'^S. " Let it be admitted, how- tver, that the multitude of believers at large were call- ed, it is not said, either that all of the apostles, or all ' of the disciples Avere in one place, and from any thing that is here mentioned, they might convene in a num- ber of separate assemblies." Yes, Sir, it is said as plain as possible, that the apo- stles were together, and that the multitude came toge- ther unto them. The apostles are represented as act- ing in one body, c* ^o^iKx, the twelve. The disciples are represented as one, re TeX/t^oi. The twelve are saidr to call the multitude unto them, not every one of them a diiierent part of the multitude in a different place. The twelve are not only here, but every where repre- sented as being and acting together in this church. Had each apostle called into a separate assembly a part of this multitude, it could not be said that the twelve called the multuude unto them. The to ttAjj^os consi- ders the numbers that compose it as one body. What would you expect the narrator to have added, had It been his intention to inform us, tliat the multitude met Letter IX. 313 the apostles together ? If it were said, * The session called tlie congregation unto them,' would it be at all doubtful whether the session acted together, and that the congregation as a body met them ? Would any one ever suppose from this account, that each of the members of the session called into a separate apart- ment a distinct company ? Your example is not in point : " Were we to hje. told, for instance, that the ministers of Glasgow called the multitude of the members, and asked them to elect a general session, would it not immediately occur to us from what we know of the congregations of Glasgow, that the members would not all meet in one place, but in their different churches, and with their respective office-bearers." 1. No such thing ever could be told, for the con- gregations in Glasgow are not a t* ^tAjj^c?, except they were considered as one body. But considered as one body, it could not be said that the ministers called that body unto them. Each of them only called a part of it. In their different congregations they might be 7r?iYi$y), but they could not in that disjointed view be called TO 7rXn6og. TlMhs is used to denote numbei-s only in their assembled capacity. I know not that ever men or things are called ra ttMSoi; Vv'hich are not assembled, or at least considered as an undivided body or groupe, in the point of view in which they are re- presented. See Mark iii. 1. 8. Luke i. 10. ii. 13. v. 6. Acts xxviii. 3. Jam. v. 20. 1 Pet. iv. 8. 2. It could not be said that the ministers (or rather ministry, representing the ministers of the city as one body, as ci ^ohKoi does the apostles) called the multi- tude unto them ; for if this were said, it would imply both that the ministers were in one place, and that the 314 Letter IX. people assembled in a body with them. From what some people might know of the manner of proceeding in such cases, they might not believe this to be a cor- rect statement •, but certainly this is the conclusion every one would draw, who was not acquainted with these matters, and if so, it must be an improper ac- count. When a historian uses language which most obviously leads those unacquainted vnih the facts he relates to wrong views of his meaning, he is unfit for his ofF.ce. You suppose here a form of expression which no accurate historian could use, in transmitting, facts to posterity. Were an historian to record the fact to which you allude, he would express it in some such form as the following : ' The ministers of Glas- gow desired their respective congregations to assemble and choose,' &:c. 3. It could not be said that the whole multitude chose Stephen, &c. j for this supposes that each officer was elected by the whole body j whereas, including this general session, each congregation elected only one part. Here the whole multitude are represented as one body, jointly electing each of the seven officers. It is not said that one congregation chose one, and ano- ther chose another, and so on, but " the whole multi- tude chose Stephen," &c. This general session o£ Glasgow would be said to have been elected thus : * The congregation of St Andrew's chose Mr y the congregation of St Enoch's chose Mr — j the congregation of the Ram's Horn chose Mr ,' &.c. It would not be said that the whole multitude chose Mr - and Mr , &c. 4. The fifth verse represents the saying as uttered^ -and received in one place only, and that it was pleasing in the presence of the who/e muitiiude. The apostles Letter IX. 315 are represented as addressing, not separately but con- jointly, the whole of this ^Aij^o? at the same time : ** Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It Is not reason that we should leave the word and serve tables." There can be no- thing more plain than that this was addressed to one body only. It is added, " Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men," &c. Now, if this language was addressed, not to one body, but to many congregations, it was a command to each of them to choose seven deacons •, but we find that the command to choose seven was given to the whole mul- titude, and that seven was the number that was chosen by the whole multitude. When the apostles then de- liver the command to the whole multitude to choose 3even, and when seven were all that were actually cho- sen, I hold it as demonstratively evident, that they did not meet in different assemblies. As the whole multi- tude chose only seven in all, it is not possible that this language could have been separately addressed to them in several congregations. To make your example ana- logous to this, each of the ministers of Glasgow must desire his congregation to choose a whole general ses- sion. 5. If the twelve met the disciples in different com- panies, if each apostle had been engaged, there must have been twelve congregations. If there were fewer than twelve, then in some of the assemblies there would be more of the apostles than in others. If there were more congregations than twelve, then there would be none of the twelve to meet thr.n. But according to your hypothesis, there were at least fifteen or twenty congregations. How could twelve apostles speak at the same time in fifteen or twenty congregations >. 316 Letter IX. 6. Had eaeh of them chosen one, there must have been seven congregations ; otherwise some of them would have chosen more than others. If there were more than seven, all but that number must have chosen none. Besides, if there were only seven congrega- tions, and the number of disciples to have been thirty thousand, not having the use of the temple, but meet- ing In private rooms as you contend ; then these thirty thousand could no more be accommodated in seven pri- vate roonas, with all that might attend in each of the assemblies, than they could be accommodated in one loom. But if there were an hundred ministers in Je- rusalem, as you suppose, according to the general ideas of Presbyterians, there must have been nearly a hun- dred congregations, the number of collegiate charges among them being exceedingly few, even where they have large houses and extensive districts for an audi- ence. Now, if one minister is sufficient for a Scotch- parish, one would surely be sufficient for as many as could meet in a private room in Jerusalem. 7. If there were not seven congregations, some of them must have contained more of the deacons than others. If there w-ere more than seven, all but this number had none. Seven deacons for a hundred mini- sters ! Seven deacons for, according to your account, fifteen or twenty congregations ! 8. If they were chosen as a general board for the whole Christian poor of Jerusalem, even in this case it would have been necessary that one or more of them; should have been resident in each congregation, to know the necessities af the poor. A general board for a number of congregations, is not as eifectual as a particular one in each. 9. If tills w^as a general board for a number of con- Letter IX. 317 gregations in an association, then the deaconship be- longs not to separate congregations. It is no prece- dent for each congregation to liave an order of offi- cers to take care of the poor. If the institution was at first a general board for a Presbytery, then it is impro- per in Presbyterians to commit this to the lay-elders of each congregation. The collection and management of the money for the poor of each Presbytery, should be committed to the care of a joint order of deacons, belonging not to any single congregation, but equally related to the whole. If this is the case, the office of the deacon is more extensive in its sphere than that of the pastor. He is then not an officer of a church, but of a Presbytery. I may add also, that the occasion of the institu- tion of the order of deacons was not because the con- gregations were multiplied, or that the church divided, but because of the increase of the disciples. The mur- muring also of the Grecians against the Hebrews, shews that they were all in one congregation. Had they not been supplied out of one common stock, there would have been no ground for one party murmuring against another. The poor of one Presbyterian con- gregation will never think of murmuring about the division of the poor's money in another congrega- tion. You add, p. 215.- bottom, "It is said further, that all the deacons were brought to the apostles, and ordained by them in one place. There is a material difference however bet^veen election and ordination, and though the latter might be performed in one as- sembly, the former might be done by the members of the church in their different congregaiions." But the difference betv:een election and ordination is 31S Letter IX. not here the subject of dispute. We are enquiring about a matter of fact, if the disciples met in one as- sembly. Now this is equally proved if they met in one assembly at ordination, as if they had met in one for election. Now, if these deacons had been officers in different congregations, they would have been sepa- rately ordained in these different congregations. Be- sides, Sir, the strength of the argument lies not in their being merely ordained in one place by the apostles, but in their being presented before the apostles by the whole multitude that elected them. " Whom they set before the apostles." The very persons who elected them s. t them before the apostles. This then shews "what we are here contending for, that the whole mul- titude of the disciples could, and did usually meet in one place. It is also plain from the narrative, that the election and the ordination took place at the same time, the latter in immediate succession to the former, in the very same assembly. There is no intimation of the smallest delay, or change of the scene of action,. But why do you allow that they were ordained in one place ? Is it because this is more clearly related than that they were elected in one place ? I cannot think so J the latter is even more circumstantially and fully recorded. You think that it is not necessary to your system to put this latter passage upon the rack \ other- wise, I have no doubt it would have undergone similar tortures. It would be as easy to make it prevaricate as the former. Indeed, Sir, I cannot persuade myself that any one could so far impose upon his own under- standing, as really and seriously to have any doubts whether the plain and obvious meaning of this whole narrative is not that the disciples met in one assembly. I have no fear that any subtleties will ever succeed in Letter IX. 319 making it dark, ns to any persons who are enquiring in earnest j but I would seriously caution you against ac- customing yourself to take such liberties with the word of God. It must really have the most pernicious ef- fects upon the mind, not only as to the explanation of Scripture upon this subject, but in general as to every other. It must induce a general want of reverence for the plain dictates of revelation, and accustom you to explain every thing, not according to the most obvi- ous import of the words, but according to your inte- rests, passions or prejudices. If such plain Scriptural narratives cannot positively be understood with preci- sion, what may not be made out of the more difficult parts ? If the Spirit of God is not intelligible in the plain import of his words, even w^hen he speaks of earthly things, or records facts that any other historian could record, ho-tv shall we understand him w^hen he instructs us in heavenly things ? How shall he commu- nicate to us those things " which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man to conceive," which notwithstanding he has revealed to his apostles, and by them in those very Scriptures re- vealed to us ? If the passages under dispute might be understood, according to any lawful rules of criticism, in the sense which you affix to them, I have no hesita- tion in saying that the historian, so far from being w^orthy of recording the apostolical transactions for the instruction of after generations, was unfit to keep a register of the births and deaths of a country pa- rish. " And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Gre- cians against the Hebrews, because their widows w^ere neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve Ee 320 Letter IX. called the multitude of the disciples un^o them, and said, It is not reason that xve should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wlierefoie, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But ive will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And tlie saying pleased the whole multitude : and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles : and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." Read this again, my dear Sir, and try if it is possible for you to find any real dimculty. I ask you, as you shall answer in the day of God, did you really think that you gave the fair sense of this narrative ? or did you not merely suggest the things you have stated, as possible Vv-ays of evading the obvious import of the words ? It is really a serious thing for us. Sir, to ex- plain the word of God, which he hath given for the instruction of his children. It is not like boys in a disputing club, arguing for victory, and saying every thing that can be thought of to perplex their antago- nists, envelope the subject, and evade truth. Our minds should be filled with horror at the thought of suggesting any thing merely for the sake of escaping from the edge of the sw^ord of the Spirit. Possible eva- sions, and plausible things are at hand upon every point of revelation. There is no doctrine so clearly taught, but many possible and plausible evasions may be found bv those who are disposed to look for them j and there is no Scripture that might not be as plausibly evaded, as the united assembling of the disciples of Jerusalem Letter IX. 321 Is by your arguments. RetnemDcr that the victory is not to be decided by the voice of this world. We must come before another tiibunah Short and inglorious will be his triumph, Vv/ho triumphs at tbc expence of trulh. That the disciples of Jerusalem constiLuted one as- sembly, is as clear as laiiguage can express it, ftom Acts XV. Accordingly I am not much surprized at your efforts to darken this evidence. Your criticism is indeed the rarest I have ever seen vpon any subject. Words, with you, can signify nolhir.g, any thing, or every thing, according as it will suit your purpose. Appropriated words will assume their most general sense, and in an instant sink down to the lowest degree of particular application. Words appropriated to one thing, you can easily appropriate to another, and en- large and confine their extension at your pleasure. " Is it contended once more," you say, p. 276. " that the church at Jerusalem was a single congrega- tion, because the members are represented, Acts xv. as all assembled at the decision on the reference from the church of Antioch ? — ^it is replied, that the whole of the members are not said to have convened with the apostles on that occasion \ but all that is mentioned is simply this, that such of the disciples as could attend^ and were so disposed, were allowed to be hearers of that interesting discussion." Pray, Sir, what part of the chapter is It upon which you found this assertion ? W^here is it simply mention- ed, that such of the disciples as chose were admitted merely to hear this discussion ? But before I reply- to this, I shall consider the interpretation which you propose, of the words, brethren^ and church, and mul- titude. " Nay, it might perhaps be alleged," you con- 3i22 Letter IX. tinue, " witli considerable plausibility, that it Is not evident from the sacred history, that any of the private members of the church were present. The term bre- thren, we know, by which it is supposed by Indepen- dents that they are here distinguished, is frequently given to ministers as such, and to them alone. It is the name by which the ministers of the church of Ephesus are characterized by Paul, (Acts xx. 32.) Tvhom he had before denominated, (ver. 17. and 2S.) elders and overseers — by which he describes other mi- nisters, Philip, i. 14. whom he speaks of in that pas- sage as preaching the word — and which he often be- stows upon the evangelists, Titus and Timothy, and others, 2 Cor, ii. 13. viii. 18. 23. 1 Thess. iii. 2. &c. Should it be asserted then, that by the brethren here specified, besides the apostles and elders, may be intend- ed the evangelists and prophets in the city of Jerusa- lem, as well as any other ministers who mJght be then in that place, it might be difficult to disprove it," — p. 276. No, Indeed, Sir ', there is not the smallest difficulty in disproving this conceit. It is a much more difficult matter to avoid expressing contempt for the author who could suggest such a wild fancy. It is a misfor- tune to be engaged with an antagonist who is capable of availing himself of such resources, and of employ- ing such wretched evasions. The terras brother and brerbren, though frequently applied in Scripture in the signification which they bear in the-world, to express the natural relation of the children of the same pa- rents, yet are appropriated to denote those who are re- lated to each other in Christ, as born again of his Spi- rit, through the instrumentality of the incorruptible seed of the word, whenever they are applied to belie- Letter IX. 323 vers, or addressed from one believer to others. All mankind are brethren, and are frequently so called in Scripture, but Christians are so in a relation that sur- passes any other among men j therefore they are em- phatically and appropriately uretbren. This is the very name which our Lord himself gives his disciples. This is the only title, in a religious sense, he will allow them. In Mat. xxiii. addressing all his disciples, as ap- pears from ver. 1. he says in ver. 8. " Be not ye called Rabbi ; for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are bretoren.'''' Accordingly we find all the disciples every where addressed by ihis appellation conferred on them by their Lord : Acts i. Id. vi. 3. xvii. 6. xxii.13. xxviii.l4.Il. iCor.v.ll. vi. 5, 6. 8. vii.l5. viii.ll. XV. 6. Gal.ii.4. Phil. i. 1 2. iii. 1. iv. 1. 8. Col. i. 2. 1 Thes. i. 4. ii. i. 9. 14. 17- iii. 7. iv. 1. 6. 13. v. 1. 4. 12. 14. 25. 2 Thes. i. 3. ii. 1. 13. 15. iii. 1. 6. 13. 15. 1 Tim. V. 1. Heb. iii. 1. xiii. 22. James i. 2. 9. 19. ii. 1.5. 15. iii. 1.10. v. 10. 12. i9. 1 Pet. iii. 8. v. 12. 1 Johnii. 1. 9. 10. 11. iii. 14, 15, 16, 17. iv. 20. v. 16. 3 John iii. 5. 10. Yea, this is the very word by which Jesus expresses his relation to his people, Mat. xxv. 40. 45. xxviii. 10. Luke viii. 21. Rom. viii. 29. Heb. ii. 11, 12. 17. Je- sus is not ashamed to call the meanest of his flock by this endearing appellation, though the lordly ambition of the clergy would confine it to themselves. Brotherly love is the love which is to be exercised between these brethren. If brethren in the New Tes- tament denoted the ministers of the gospel, then bro- ther ly love would be the mutual and reciprocal love of these ministers to each other. But we find that bro- theriy iovf; is the love of all saints to each other, Romo xii.lO. 1 Thess. iv. 9. Heb. xiii. I. 2 Pet. i. 7. Ee 3 324 Letter IX. AhX'porr,^, or the brothirhood, is the aggregate bodv of these brethren. If mmisters were the brtthren, then the brotherhood would be the aggregate body of mi- nisters. But the brotherhood is the aggregate body of the saints. 1 Pet.ii. 17. v. 9. Brethren was also the appellation by which the Jews addressed, or spoke of each other. The whole nation were brethren. The term v.^as not confined to their rulers. Acts xxii. 1. 5. xxiii. 5, 6. xxviii. 21. But above all, the ot uhiX(poi, the brethren^ is ever ap- propriated to the body of believers. Whenever the New Testament writers speak of the brethren^ it is as fully understood that they mean the believers, as when they speak of the disciples. The terms, the disciples^ believers^ saints^ &o. are not more strictly appropriated to the servants of Jesus, than the brethren. It is not more clearly understood whom they mean v/hen they speak of the twelve^ nor is it novv^ more clearly under- stood what the Moravians mean when they speak of the brethren^ nor Vvhat the Oiiakers mean when they speak of the friends. Acts xvi. 2. 40. xvii. 10. 14. xviii. IS. 27. xxi. 7. 17. xxviii. 15. Rom. xvi. 14. 1 Cor. viii. 12. xvi. 11, 12. 20. Gal. i. 2. Eph. vi. 23. Philip, iv. 21. Col. iv. 15. 1 Thess.iv. 10. v. 26, 27. I Tim. iv. 6. John xxi. 23. Acts ix. 30. xi. 1. 29. xii. 17. 1 Pet. i. 22. John iii. 14. 16. 3 John 3. 5. 10. with many others. Indeed, throughout the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, the disciples are as usually and as indiscriminately called brethren^ as they are called saints \ and ihe brethren is their appropria- ted appellation. To what purpose is it then, Sir, that you allege those passages where the elders or evangelists are call- ed brethren ? These were brethren indeed, but in no Letter IX. 325 other sense than the meanest of the flock. By what authority do you say that the term brethren is given, Acts XX. 32. Phil. i. 4. &:c. to ministers, ^ j such ? They are not called brethren as ministers, but as Chri- stians, as must appear to every one who xvill examine the different places where the word occurs. You might as well argue from the King's addressing the House of Commons by the term, Gtnilcmeti^ that there is not another gentleman in England, but the members of that House. Church officers can no more be called ex- clusively brethren, than they can. exclusively be called diiCipLs sainis, Cbrisuariy. These words are perfect- ly interchangeable. I defy you to shew, that in the New Testament this term was ever appropriated to ministers. Yea more, I say it could not have been ap- propriated to them : 1. Because, as pastors, they are not more peculiarly brethren than the other members, according to the religious use of that word. 2. Be- cause the v.'Oid was appropriated to the disciples in ge- neral, and therefore could not have, in the same book, upon the same subject, with respect to the same body, a more limited appropriation. The term brethren, as the term church, includes the pastors, when the latter are not spoken of in contra-distinction j but the pas- tors are neither the brethren, nor the church. Nay, more, when the rulers are contradistinguished from the body of the disciples, and separately named, the terms brethren and church, as in this very chapter, are the words used to denote the general body that remains. The same thing takts place, when the rulers of any body are contradistinguished from the body with which they are connected. Thus we might say, such a thing * met the approbation both of the Parliament and of the nation.' The clergy have reversed this process, 326 Letter IX. and have taken from the individual members the ap- pellation church ; and you would now follow up the usurpation, and endeavour to take from them the appel- lation brethren j nay, you seem determined not even to leave them the ugly word muliitude. Instead of these appellations by which the Holy Spirit has distinguish- ed the body of believers, the family pride of antichrist, almost among all sects, has affixed to them the con- temptible appellation of laymen. But who are the brethren mentioned in the first verse of this very chapter ? " And certain men which came down from Jerusalem taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Was it only upon the ministers of Antioch that the Jewish teachers inculcat- ed the necessity of circumcision in order to salvation ? Who are the brethren in the very next line of this same 23d verse ? *' The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethrtn^'' &.c. '[he brethren of one place send to the bretkrtn of another. Is it pos- sible that the word brethrtn in this address should not have in both instances the same meaning ? In both in- stances, it is evidently used as the appropriated appella- tion of the bodies to whom it is applied. Is it then possible that in the same sentence a word should have not only two meanings, but tv/o appropriated mean- ings ? Would language be at all intelligible upon this supposition ? If the Ouakers of Great Britain and Ire- land were to write to the (Quakers in America, and ad- dress their letter in the following terms, * The friends in Great Britain to the jmnos in America,' would any one ever suppose, that there was any doubt whether the term friends in the former instance had the same extension as in the latter ? Now, the terms the frisnds Letter IX. 327 are not more peculiarly and descriptively appropriated to the body of the Quakers, than the terms the hre- thi\m were appropriated to the body of the disciples. But upon your principles of interpretation we might reason thus : ' Many examples might be adduced, in which one of the rulers of the Quakers, addressing olhers of the same class, calls ^\tn\jriends ; therefore, if we Vv-ere to say that the terms the friends in the first occurrence of it in this address, signify jo/^/j' the ru- lers of the ^takers, and not the general body, it might be difficult to disprove it.' Common sense however would instantly reply, * True, one of the heads among the Quakers might address another of the same class by the term friend, but he does so, not as an official character. He would use the sam.e address to the meanest of the society. But the heads of the Qua- kers could not be called exclusively and appropriately, thefriefidi,hQc?.\.ise this is the appropriated appellation of the whole body.' Upon the same principles, a fo- reigner newly arrived in London, and hearing one of the Members of the House of Commons addressing another by the title Mr , would conclude that every other person whom he might hear addressed in the same manner, was a member of Parliament. A little acquaintance, however, with the manners of the country, would convince him that this was not the dis- tinguishing title of a member of Parliament, but was common to him with the meanest man in England. Farther, according to you, the word brethren is ap- propriated to all ministers, whether apostles, elders, prophets, or evangelists. Your references are intend- ed to prove this. But here it must have a more limit- ed appropriation, i. e. to prophets, evangelists, and fo- reitni ministers, in contradistinction to apostles and el- S28 Letter IX. ders. The afyos'le^, the elders^ and the brethren, are three difFerent orders j it lies upon you then to prove, not that the brethren was appropriated to all the orders of ministers, but to those alone, to whom you here ap- ply these terms. The b-ttbren must here mean an or- der contradistinguished from the tv/o before mention- ed. Now, as an order contradistinguished from two other ministerial orders, why are prophets, evangelists, and foreign ministers called the brethren. Why were the prophets, evangelists, and foreign ministers, called the brethren rather than the elders ? Why was it not said, the apostles^ \he prophtt' ^ and the brethren ? As prophets, evangelists, and foreign ministers, the appel- lation brethren does not characterise them. You must be able to shew that these difFerent orders are called the brethren^ in contradistinction to apostles and elders. This they never are in Scripture, nor could they be. For it must be upon one of these two princi- ples : either that the appellation brethren is their pecu- liar descriptive appellation, and not common to them with the apostles and elders ^ or, that this appellation being common, is used to denote prophets, evangelists, &c. in contradistinction to apostles and elders, the for- mer as constituting the general body of ministers, and the latter as distinguished out of the general body, from their superior power, or their superior conse- quence. The former is not the case by your own rea- soning. The latter is not the case, because the gene- ral body of ministers are elders, not evangelisis and prophets. Nor are elders of superior distinction to prophets and evangelists, nor deserve more specific mention. Clergy is a general word, applicable to all the orders of the church of England. The expres- sion, ' The English clergy are a learned body,' in- Letter IX. 329 eludes all orders from the arclibishop to the curate. But when the higher orders are specifier: lly mentioned, and the word c/ergy afterwards used, the latter will ap- ply to all those not iucluded in the former, as in con^ tradistinction from them. Thus, * Ihe English bi- shops and c/vrgy, since the time of Archbishop Laud, lean tov/ards Arminianism.' Here, though the bishops are cur^y, yet they are distinguished out of them, as an order over the rest. But clergy here contradistin- guishes the body from the rulrrs. In the same manner, congregation is a v/ord which, when it stands alone, in- cludes the minister and session of a Presbyterian con- grcgacion. But when the rulers are to be contradis- tinguished from the body in general, we say * session and congregation j' and when the different orders of rulers are to be distinguished also from one another, we say, * Minister, session, and congregation.' But here again those called in contradistinction the con- gre:{aiv.'n^ are ihe general body j and those called in contradistinction ihe session^ are the general body of ru- lers, out of which the minister is distinguished. Now, I apprehend from these illustrations I have done your argument all the juscice you can demand, and stated It as fairly as you could wish. Were I then to allow you that the appropriate aopellation, the brethren^ was pe- culiar to ministers, yet it could not be applied to any order or orders In contradistinction to others, but as those to whom it was thus applied constituted the ge- neral body. Upon this supposition. It would undoubt- edly have been given, not to the prophets, but to the ciders. The address would have been, * The apostles, the prophets, the evangelists and the brethren^'' i. e. the body of ministers in general. Again, if elders are supposed to be a higher order 330 Letter IX. than that of prophets and evangelists, and if, as yovi say, the prophets and evangelists ^vere also elders, they are already mentioned by their higher office. They are included in the elders already mentioned. Why should they be mentioned again ? This would be like saying, * The bishops, and clergy, and curates,' as if cu- rates were not clergy. If they ^vere not ordinary church-officers, nor acted here, as you affirm even of the apostles, as inspired, what right had they to a seat in this assembly, according to the ideas of Presbyte- rians r If prophets and evangelists are each an order higher than that of elder, or equal to it, vrhy are they not as specifically mentioned r Why should they be grouped under the terms the brethrn? This supposes not only that the general body of those called brethren are prophets and evangelists, but that they are of much inferior consequence, as a general body is to those who are over them. Again, if these brethren, or any of them, were fo- reign ministers, as you suggest, and if they were not elders, what right had they to sit in this assembly, if it w^as a Presbyterian general council. If they were el- ders, are they not already menUoned ? This would be saying, * The apostles, and elders, and elders.' Do you mean to insinuate that the foreign ministers were not elders, or being such, that they were of an inferior or- der to those of the city of Jerusalem ? This is like the working of the mystery of iniquity, which very early began to make a distinction between the city and coun- try bishops, calling the latter cbortifuscopi. The terms the brethren here, cannot include any that were elders, because the elders are distinctly mentioned j nay, are mentioned in contradistinction from these brethren. If the foreign ministers arc here called the brethren^ in Letter IX. 331 contradisllnction from the city ministers, who are in contradistinction from the former called elders, then no ministers should be called t/ders but those who live in the city, where the general council meets. The cler- gy of Edinburgh are the only elders of the church of Scotland j the rest form a common mass, called in con- tradistinction from these elders or city clergy, the bre- thren. But upon what principles could the terms the brethren, be given as the contradistinguishing appella- tion of prophets, evangelists, and foreign ministers ? Eut where do you find these foreign ministers ? From what circumstances are you led to believe that there were such at this meeting ? Upon what authority do you argue from this as a point granted ? What are the documents you can produce to prove this ? Can any thing be more palpably absurd, than to go about to prove that such a phrase might denote foreign minis- ters, until you prove that such were actually present ? Could any interpretation be more arbitrary than this ? You might as rationally suppose that they were angels or devils, as foreign ministers, when it cannot be pro- ved that there was any such in that assembly. Indeed, Sir, it is hard to see how you yourself can believe this absurdity, from the efforts you make to prove that those termed the bnthren did nothing but acquiesce in the decision of the apostles and elders. Had you been thoroughly satisfied that this was a stable foundation, you never w^ould have so strenuously endeavoured to prove a hypothesis that completely overturns it. Who- ever reads your eighth letter w^th impartiality, will be convinced, that the man who there takes every means to lower ihe brethren, cannot at the same time be per- suaded that they were prophets, evangelists and foreign ministers. Had they been such, they w^ould have had Ff 332 Letter IX. the same ofHcial concern in the deliberations ar.d deci- sions at this meeting, as the elders of Jerusalem, even according to the Presbyterian model. Nay, had thcv not, it would destroy that model. The man who v^as thoroughly persuaded that they were such, wouM have turned the Avhole force of his genius to she^v that those termed the brethren^ had the same share in the delibe- rations and decisions, as the elders of Jerusalem. Eve- ry argument that goes to shew that they had not the same authority, lends its force to overturn the Presby- terian system. Another might take up your own argu- ments, and from your own confession prove to you that foreign ministers had not a right to a seat in the Gene- ral Assembly ; that they might be admitted to hear, and to express their submissive acquiescence j but that they ought by no means to speak, deliberate, or vote with the ministers of Edinburgh. How could you, in consistency with what you have said, refuse to grant him this ? It is not possible for the same man consis- tently to vindicate the different hypotheses you have adopted. Every argument that goes to serve the one, in proportion as it does so, or may be thought to do so, it injures the other. I am afraid your friends have been too kind to you j that they have loaded you with their opinions 5 and that you wish to strengthen the cause by supporting a variety of theories, with all the address you can command. Now, whatever eifect this might have coming from different men, it undoubtedly does not serve you to vindicate ihem all. It would be both safer for the candour of your own character, and more ettectual to your cause to adopt one thing, and defend it so/dy. At least, you should never attempt to defend theores that oppose each other. Your theo- ries are so opposite, that when you proceed to the se- Letter IX. 33?, ccnd, you are as much called upon to refute the for- mer as I am. You are like a man raising abutments to an old house that has a bad foundation •, Avho, from his great anxiety to keep it up, raises so many, and so weiglUy, as to crush in the building. You say, p. 122. *' Tiie truth therefore seems to be, according to. the sentiments of some Presbyterians, that though the members at Jerusalem expressed their acq-n.'scence in the decision of the apostles and elders, (a circumstance which could not fail to have uncommon weight upon the minds of the believing Jews at Antioch,. as they must previously have been no less attached than them- selves to the distinguishing peculiarities of the law of Moses), they by no rv:ans appear to have judged au- thoritatively, or even voted in the matter." Now, if this is good reasoning when applied to the brethren^ considered as individual members, it is also good rea- soning when applied to them, considered as foreign mi- nisters. If, upon the one supposition, they by no means appear to have even voted in the matter, how will it appear that they did so upon the other ? Whe- ther this is your own opinion or not, you here support it as strenuously as possible, and endeavour to render it plausible by every shadow of argument you can find. But hoiv doe? this consist with the other hypothesis, that makes these persons, termed the brethren^ to be foreign ministers, upon ^vhich supposition they must have had equal authority, and an equal vote with any of the elders of Jerusalem ? You say also in p. 276. *' But all that is mentioned is simply this, that such of the disciples as could attend, and were so disposed, were allowed to be hearers of that interesting discus- sion. What this number was, is not specified." Now, if this is simply stated, how is it consistent -^vith this 334? Letter IX. simple statement, that, after all, these brethren were not the individual disciples, but really ministers, who •not only were present, but must have enjoyed a full share in the deliberations ? Must the simple statement of the narrative immediately assume another shape when the brethren are supposed to be clergymen ? It must simply say one thing if the brethren were indivi- dual members ^ but it must simply say the contrary, v/hen they are considered as ministers. If the brethren were the body of the church-members, the narrative must simply say that only some of them were present, and that those who were present did nothing but hear the discussion ; if the brethren were the other ministers, the narrative must as positively £ay that they both were present, and deliberated and voted. There is really such inconsistency and contradiction in these senti- ments, that it is difficult to allow them to be the chil- dren of the same parent. You affect a mighty triumph, when you think you have discovered a diversity of sen- timent between Independents, though, were it a thing worth dispute, it would be easy to shew that it is un- founded. I v/Ill be much surprised if you can shew the consistency of these different hypotheses. Though it is not necessary that different authors should be con- sistent with each other, it is surely necessary that aa author should be consistent w^ith himself. It must indeed be a very strange thing if the narra- tive gives a foundation for two so opposite theories upon this subject as these. The one makes the brethren to be the disciples j the other, the prophets, evangelists and foreign ministers. The one makes only a part of the brethren to be present •, the other, the whole. The one makes the brethrtn only hear \ the other makes them speak, vote and decide. Can the same narrative Letter IX. 333 support eacli of these liypotbeses ? Can the same au- thor consistently support .i.em ? Indeed there is some- thin.; in the complexion of your language in support of the hypothesis, that the brethren were ministers, which strongly intimates, that it Is rather a desperate resource than a fixed and sober opinion. You say, " It might perhaps be alleged with considerable plausibility," &c. — " Should it be asserted then, that by the brethren here specified, besides the apostles and elders, may be intended the prophets and evangelists in the city of Je- rusalem, as well as any other ministers who might be then in that place, it might be dithcult to disprove it." Is this like the language of one fully convinced that he was giving the true and direct meaning of the sacred page ? And is it consistent with that reverence we ought to have for the word of God, and the teachable spirit with -.vhich we ought to receive its dictates in their genuine meaning, to speak of " alleging plausible things," and of starting theories that might not be ea- sily disproved ? I will ask you then this question — Plave you supported this theory from a conviction that it is the true spirit of the passage, or have you taken it merely as a refuge in case you should be beaten out of your 'Other fortress ? Are you not rather trying what plausible things may be said to support this theo- ry, than fully persuaded that it is the mind of the Spi- rit ? It is a very dangerous thing to sport w^ith the word of God. By it he speaks to his children. It is highly insulting to his majesty, and unbecoming the character of a Christian, to say plausible things, and start novelties, merely to avoid the true meaning. In my mind, your reasoning upon this point is so far from being plausible^ that it is rather the wildest extrava- gance. But had you even succeeded in saying a num- Ff 3 336 Letter IX. ber of plausible things to support a fanciful theory, and in proposing difficulties that might not be easily removed, you would still be very far from gaining your point. Plausible things have been spoken against the Scriptures themselves, and difficulties have been started of tenfold more difficult solution than any you here al- lege against the plain meaning of this narrative. Nor is it for the credit of an author to rack his brain in saying plausible things, rather than acknowledge the simple account of the transaction here recorded. How many plausible things might you say even against the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ! How many plausi- ble things might you say against the corruption of hu- man nature ! And though you are not disposed to say plausible things against these doctrines, what can you, upon your own principles, say against those who do ? Do you not here set them the example ? And if plau- sible things be said against the plain meaning of the words of this narrative, why may not plausible things be said against the plain import of any other passage of Scripture ? Nay, if you say plausible things against the obvious meaning of this account, -what security have we that you would not say plausible things against any other doctrine of Scripture, if the defence of the church gf Scotland needed this. But they are not only called the brethren, but the assembly is said to have been a multitude^ ver. 12. You must then say some more of your plausible things, to shew the possibility that your council might be called a mul- titude. And nothing is easier than this \ for " the Jew- ish sanhedrim, ^vho were rulers only, are called to ^tAjj- ^oj. Acts xxiii. 7. and which was probably not more nu- merous than this Christian Councils Lideed, Sir, a multitude of any class or kind of people is a viultiiude* Letter IX. 337 If all the kings on earih were assembled, they would make a multitude of king,. A General Assembly might be called a multitude. And though the multi- tude^ with the words that correspond to it in other lan- guages, when used as an appropriated appellation, which may be known by having no reference to any other assembly pointed out in the connexion, denotes the many in opposition to the Jew, or the ruled in con- tradistinction to their rulers, I freely acknowledge that it refers here to this particular assembly, and not to the body of the disciples in contradistinction from their of- fice bearers. The muhitud., when the contrary is not ascertained from the connexion, refers to the body of the disciples in general, but in this place, it evidently refers to the general body of this assembly. " All the multitude," is plainly all the assembly. But ttAjj^o?, to what body soever it is applied, must be a multitude, and a multitude can never be a small number. If you wish to prove or suggest this, common sense will re- volt. The Jewish sanhedrim was a numerous assem- bly, and at this time it must have been numerously at- tended, or it could not have been called to ttAjj^^j. That it was probably not more numerous than this meeting, upon the supposition that the individual Chri- stians of Jerusalem formed no part of it, is a gratuitous assertion, for which not a shadow of proof is, or can be produced. Your conjectures, and plausibilities, and probabilities, go for nothing in argument. If you ex- clude the church-members, you have none you can count upon to make up this multitude but the apostles, and the elders or ministers of one church. Upon no rational calculation of their numbers could they be called a multitude. If you wish to convince any ra- tional man that the church-officers of that meeting 338 Letter IX. were a multitude, you must prodr.ce your proof. None but the most simple can be influenced in their decision by your intemperate guesses. I call upon you then to produce your numbers to complete this muiiitude. I have mine at hand — the whole Christians of the city of Jerusalem. Nay, more, not only have you no proof of any office-bearers being present, but those of Jeru- salem alone, but there is proof that none other could have been there. There was no summoning of foreign ministers ', and even those who might accidentally be in Jerusalem, could not, upon Presbyterian principles, have enjoyed a seat in the assembly. They were not representatives themselves, nor had their congregations an opportunity of sending lay-elders to keep up the ba- lance of power. Nor could this assembly be a lawful general assembly, had not all in connexion with it, or bound by its decrees, been summoned to attend by their representatives. Now, not only is there no account of this summoning, but there could not have been such a summoning, consistent with the complexion of the nar- rative. In verse 6. the apostles and elders are said to have come together, in language that leaves us no room to suppose that there were others expecpted from a distance. O;)C^0i is not TrM^tx:, and therefore I have here no- thing to do with your observation on the application of it. Acts i. 15. I may observe, hov/ever, that though these two words may, and often are applied to the same numbers, and that though the former may be applied to as great a number as the latter, they are not at all perfectly synonymous. The one might very often be expunged, and the other inserted in its place, without any difference in the sense j yet there are occasions when this could not be the case. The former might Letter IX. . 339 most literally be translated a irro-u-/^, the latter a mul- titude J the former denotes numbers considered as crowded, confused, or disturbed and is often connect- ed with tumult J the latter denotes numbers considered as numerous. This will appear even from the use of the words, to any one who will take the trouble to run up and compare the different places where these words occur. Though, as I observed, they will often find them interchangeable, they will often find the contra- ry. See Luke v. 15. 19. vl. 19. Acts xxiv. 18. Luke viil. 4. 45. ix. 12. 16. Luke viii. 37. xxiil. 1. 27. Actsvi. 5. V. 14. iv. 32. xxv. 24. &c. The same thing evidently appears from their derivatives and cog- nates. UXr.^vyx signifies to fill ^ o^Xm to disturb. It is evi- dent then that an assembly might be an o;^;iej, that could not be called a TiXri^o^,, and the same numbers might in one situation be an o^^cq^ ^"^ in another not. The li- teral translation of the passage to which you refer is, * There was a crowd of names (or persons) together, about an hundred and twenty.' The historian intends to call our attention to the number that were toge- ther. Indeed, it w^ould be altogether vain to attempt to ascertain the exact number that may be called a ^A',i^aj, for this, in different circumstances, will be exceedingly various. But in no circumstances could it be applicable to the number of church-officers whom you can prove to have been ai this time in Jerusalem. This Is quite enough for me. Instead of an hundred and twenty, you can- not positively shew that they amounted to even twenty. However, what cannot be ascertained by exact calcula- tion, does not cause the smallest dithculty in practice. The most vulgar mind is at no loss as to the idea it should form of the indefinite numbers included in ^rAij^oc, or ^>-l'V !.0 Letter IX. muhiiudc. This criterion, as well as the word, vviil abundantly prove that there must have been truly a multitude present In this sissembly. This is strongly marked in the complexion of the verse. " The mulii- turje — <7//the multitude — all the multitude kept si/tncry Every feature shev/s that there w^as a great assem- My. Let us now come to ifcKXy.jia, which you once more put upon the rack. You have already had it a single congregation, a number of congregations, a kirk-ses- sion, the clergy of Jerusalem as distinguished from those church-rulers that are termed lay- elders. Here you must have it an assembly, i. e. any assembly in the ci- vil or unappropriated acceptation. To this I reply, 1. That, leaving out of the ques- tion at present its most proper and legitimate civil ap- plication, in the New Testament it hath been appro- priated to*the meetings of the saints for worship, &c. and when employed to denote religious Christian assem- blies, it is never otherwise used. I call upon you to point an instance, vv^here it applies to any of the assem- blies of Christians, in which it is not used in that ap- propriated acceptation. The very circumstance of its being appropriated in religion to a particular kind of assembly, will prevent its being used in an unappropri- ated sense upon the same subject. The tumultuous as- sembly at Ephesus, (Actsxix. 39. 41.) might be called an iKxXvio-ix in the civil sense of the word, not only be- cause it was a popular assembly, but also because the historian was there speaking of civil, not of religious assemblies. He wrote of that as if a profane historian had written. To appropriate a word in any branch of science, or .in an art, and to use it promiscuously In an unappro- Letter IX. 341 piiated sense, upon the same subject, v/oald be altoge- ther absurd, and lead to Inextricable canfuslon. In- deed, a word comes to be appropriated in one sense, or to one particular object, or class of objects, though It could Intrinsically, with equal justice, be applied to r.iany others, just to avoid "confusion, or circumlocu- tion. Every congregation among Presbyterians might as well have been called an assembly as congregation ; yet each of these words is now absolutely confined to one only of each of these objects. Tbe congregation is the congregation of a particular parish j the assirn- h!y is the General Assembly. Congregation might li- terally be applied to the Parliament, and Parliament (from parler, to speak, a meeting for public debate or discussion) might literally be apphed to the General Assembly ; but they are each appropriated, without ex- ception, upon a diiTcrent department to particular assem- blies only. If, in speaking about religious matters, a person says, he Is a member of the congregaiion, we readily understand that he speaks of the religious as- sembly that beais that name, m that particular neigh- bourhood. In some places, the house of worship Is called the meeting-house, and those who m-eet are call- ed !he meiting^ and th^y are spoken of by those names without any confusion or danger of misunderstanding 5 yet these -ivords might be literally applied to the mar- ket-house, and the people assembled in the market. When a man in the north of Ireland says he Is going to tneetingy we know he does not mean the market. But that word becomes more limited in Its appropria- tion, from the circumstance of the assemblies of diife- rent denominations:, and it could no more be applied to the meeting of some religious assemblies, than It could be to the market. When a man says, * / am going to 342 Letter IX. meeting^ we not only understand him to mean a reli- gious meeting, but that such meeting is a dissenting congregation. In the same manner, the terms (he churchy when used indefinitely by a member of either of the established churches of Great Britain, are readi- ly understood to be the established church. Thus also a churchman In England is a member of the establish- ed church. There is not a more settled and universal principle in language. The same word may indeed be appropriated, without any confusion, upon different subjects, or as to different denominations upon the same subject. Thus f^e churchy when used by a Presbyterian in Scotland, will readily be understood to refer to the established church j when an Independent speaks of the church, except when he is conversing of the established church, in which case he may use the word in Its vulgar and improper accep- tation, it is always known that he speaks of one parti- cular congregation, that one, to-wit, to which he be- longs, or which is the subject of conversation. But even here, if the parties addressed are not aware of the sentiments of the speaker or writer, there is danger ©f his meaning being mistaken. Hence the necessity that w^e are under, in rescuing some Scripture words from improper application, to use them in tl^ir Scriptural sense, with some additional mark, to shew that we do not take them In their misapplied acceptation. Thus, when we speak of the Scripture presbytery, we are In some part of our treatise or conversation obliged to In- timate that it is the eldership, or plurality of elders of a particular congregation. Without this, many might suppose that we used the word according to its vulgar erroneous appropriation. In the same manner with respect to the words bishop, elder, &c. As to appro- Letter IX. 343 pnations upon different subjects, tliey do not cause such obscurity. Thus there Is no confusion in calling the place of meeting for a civil court, and the place of meeting for the rulers of a Presbyterian congregation, by the name sesiion-house. But two courts, both of them civil, or both of them religious, could not have the same name. Even as to the word session-house, If there Is both a civil and religious house of this name In any town, the one will generally absorb the name from the other, and the one of lesser importance must have some additional mark of distinction. This is a principle of criticism which the most ignorant, as well as the most learned, constantly acknowledge in their application of words In their native tongue. But, strange ! no sooner do the critics look Into a book written in a dead language, than the words signify any thing that can be found in the original Ideas, or most extensive unappropriated use. It Is a great misfortune to be able to turn over the leaves of a lexicon, without understanding the principles upon which the applica- tion of words in all languages proceed. With persons of this description, In every connexion, and upon every subject, words may be taken In any of all the nume- rous significations that can be found affixed to them In a lexicon. The circumstance of appropriation that operates so universally In all languages, hath no re- spect paid to It. This error hath some apology in those whose limited acquaintance with the writers In such dead languages disqualifies them from ascertaining the actual practice, and obliges them to make their obser- vations from second hand 5 but it Is totally Inexcuse- able In those who pretend to strengthen or prove their cause by an appeal to the original. From this very source arises the absurdity of the application of words, Gg 344 Letter IX. by those wKo may be called dictionary speakers. Tliey use the words, not from their observation and know- ledge of the practice of the English language, but from the significations they find attached to them in their dictionary. Plence the ridiculous figure that some people of a vulgar education make, when they at- tempt to speak fine. Now this custom, so disgusting in our own language, is quite analogous to the princi- ples of criticism which you here employ to explain iKKXi)o-tx, and the absurdity of it is only concealed by the circumstance of its being applied to a dead lan- guage. EkxXvjo-ix signifies an assembly, any assembly, an assembly of rulers. I can get it in such a significa- tion, therefore it may be so understood here. Upon the principles of interpretation w^hich I am here reprobating, let us take up an old newspaper, written during the French republic. We read, * The Convention condemned Lewis XVL to suffer death.' The most vulgar man in Great Britain would find no difficulty here. No discussion would be necessary to find out the meaning of convention. But a captious critic upon your principles might answer : * Gentle- men, take care of forming a rash judgment upon this matter. It is by no means certain, that the word con- vention here refers to the national legislative assembly of France. Many strong reasons might be given to shew the improbability of this j and though the word convention is sometimes given to that particular assem- bly, yet certain it is that that word is frequently ap- plied to other assemblies. It signifies a coming toge- ther ; any body of people coming together may be called a convention. This therefore may have been any other party of men in the nation.' Now, would lliis be like reasoning ? Yet convention vras not more 1 Letter IX. 345 strictly appropriated to the national legislative assem- bly of France, than iKK.MTta. was to a religious Chri- stian congregation. I might illustrate the same thing from the words, congress, synod, synagogue, seceders, dissenters, Protestants, the Revolution, the Reformation, the speaker, the minister, with innumerable others. Indeed, to allow your mode of interpretation, or rather of evasion, to be justifiable, would render the clearest propositions the most unintelligible. The word jx^cAj^s-^^, I contend, then, has an appro- priated meaning, when applied in its religious use, and is never, can nevei be, otherwise applied upon that sub- ject. Speaking of civil things, it may have its civil acceptation j but speaking of religious meetings of Christians, it always must be taken according to its ap- propriation. And this difference between its civil and religious use is not peculiar to this word j but common to it with angel, apostle, elder, bishop, deacon, &c. Nor is this difference between the civil and religious appropriation of words peculiar to religion, but is com- mon to it with the different departments of civil things. There are different appropriations of the same w-ord in distinct subjects as to civil things. Yet there are ahvays common ideas upon w^hich they are found- ed, and when the process has been retraced to the ori- gin, they will be generally found to be warranted by the root. In places where the chief magistrate of a town is called Governor, when a person speaking of civil things uses the term, ' The Governor,' every one will perceive to whom he alludes. When a student under a preceptor speaks of the governor, conversing with respect to his education, it is as certainly known that he intends his tutor. In the same manner, when a countryman in Ireland speaks of the Rtctor, we know 346 Letter IX. ivithout hesitation that he means the established parish minister. When a student in a university or academy speaks of the Rector it is as clear that he intends the master of the academy, or the superinlendant of the uni- versity, who bears that name. But according to your principles of reasoning, he might mean any ruler or go- vernor. Just so xvilh respect to the civil and religious appropriations of iKKM7eakness of your reasoning, andin carrying your reader away from this point, as if it must be universally grant- ed. After putting the most extravagant, and inconsis- tent, and forced explanation upon the words under exa- mination ; after understanding them in diiferent senses, not only in the same connexion but in the same sen- tence, you gravely tell us that this will certainly be al- lowed. This indeed is an excellent mode of reason- ing. To prove the most extravagant things, there is nothing to do but take it for granted, and confirm it by a general unexemplified assertion. Even this you tell us In a note, as if your reasoning no way depended upon It, as a matter of so little importance as not to be w^orthy of being incorporated in the body of the trea- tise. No reasonable man, forsooth, could question the propriety of the manner of interpretation j and the ge- Hh 356 Letter IX. neral assertion in the note is only necessary for tlie in- formation of those who have not the perspicuity to dis- cern that propriety. Such general unilhistrated asser- tions have an admirable effect in deceiving the careless reader. He will never think of suspecting the truth of an assertion that is uttered with confidence, and sup- poses its propriety so clear and undisputed, as to pre- clude the necessity of particular proof. Thus, while you are insufferably tedious in proving what nobody denies, you prove the most monstrous propositions by taking the consent of your adversary for granted, or by a general assertion. Your antagonist is not only obliged to refute you, but to find out particular illustra- tions for your general unexemplified assertions, and to shew how far, in some cases, they may be true, as well as to shew that in the present they are false. But were we even to allow, that the same terms might, upon the same subject, have a different appro- priation, and that there was nothing to determine this, but circuitous reasoning from the nature of what is said, and its suitableness to those of whom it is said, with othtr indirect arguments, and that the highest proof oh either side could only amount to probability; still I would combat the application of your principles in the present case. There is every feature of family likeness between fhe churchfs and between the bre- thren spoken of in the different parts of this narrative. There is every probability from the connexion. By connexion, I do not mean merely the proximity of situ- ation of the w^ords. I mean more especially the proba- bility the narrative affords, that they are the same or similar objects of which the historian speaks in the whole account by those terms. These are such, that I would have no apprehension from leaving the determi- Letter IX. 357 nation of tne matter to the common sense of tlie most illiterate reader. In the first verse, the historian in- forms us, that certain men from Jerusalem taught the brethren the necessity of the observance of the law of Moses. In the third verse he informs us, that Paul and Barnabas, on their way to Jerusalem about the above qaesLion, declared the conversion of the Gentiles as they passed through Phenice and Samaria, which news caused great joy to the brethren. In the 22d verse, he tells us that Judas and Silas, chief men -among the brethren, were chosen to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. In the 23d verse, we are told that letters were written to Antioch with this ad- dress " The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren,^'' &c. Now, I appeal to the common sense of both peasant and philosopher, will propriety warrant the writer to have used, or the reader to understand, this appropriated appellation diffe- rently in these examples ? Does it require any axgu- menlation to make good this position to the conviction of any one who will only condescend to use his under- standing with impartiality ? But this will still be more evident from the different places of this narrative, in Vv'hich the terms the church occurs, as the w^ord in each instance is evidently refer-;- able to the same, or a similar object j and not only so, but referable to the same, or a similar object with the brethren. In verse 3. we are informed, that on their journey to Jerusalem, they xvere supported by the church, i. e. the church of Antioch, which you do not pretend to deny includes the body of the members. Npw, as in the first verse, the body of the disciples at Antioch are called the brethren, and as the same body is here called the church, it is demonstratively evident 358 Letter IX. that botli the brethren and the church refer to the same object, and are different appropriated appellations for the same body. In verse 4. we are told that the mes- sengers, when they arrived at Jerusalem, were received of the church, which must be the body of the disciples, as the apostles and elders are specifically mentioned. In verse 22. we are informed that it pleased the apos- tles and elders, with the whole church, to send, &.c. Here the apostles, elders, and church, are also specifi- cally mentioned, as well as in verse 4. Is it not then evident, that the apostles, and elders, and church, are the same in the one verse as in the other ? Is it not as demonstratively certain that it is the same church, as that it is the same apostles and elders ? If you take the liberty to suppose that it is a different church that Is referred to in verse 4. from that which is referred to in ver. 22. by what arguments will you refute m.e, if I suppose that they are not the same apostles and the same elders in both places ? If you say that in verse 4. the church is taken in its appropriated meaning, but that in verse 22. it is taken in its unappropriated civil acceptation for any assembly, by what reasons will you refuse to grant me, were I so extravagant as to demand it, that in verse 4. it is the apostles and elders who are appropriately so called, of whom the historian speaks, but that in ver. 22. it is any other persons who may be called messengers and seniors ; that it might be the messengers of Antioch, and the old men of Jerusalem ? But if both these verses refer to the same classes, and in the former the church means the body of the disci- ples, the same must it likewise signify in the latter. ^Farther, in verse 22. we are informed that the apo- stles, and elders, with the ivhole church, chose mes- sengers to go to Antioch, and wrote a joint letter. In Letter IX. 359 verse 23. we are informed that these letters were writ- ten in the name of the aposLles, and elders, and bre- thren. Therefore the brethren in the 23d, must mean the same class with the Avhole church in the 2 2d verse. The brethren then, and the church, are both applied to the same object. If it is proved that the brethren re- fers to the body of the disciples, it is also proved that the church refers to the same. In each of verses 4.22. and 23. the apostles and elders are mentioned conjoint- ly with another class, which class in the two former in- stances gets the same name, in the latter, a name pro- ved to be appropriated to the same in other parts of the same narrative. There is not then only proof that in these verses the body of the disciples are spoken of as the third class, equal to the proof that the same apo- stles and elders are spoken of, but superior proof. Not only are they called by the same nam.e in verses 4. and 22. as well as the apostles and elders j but the same class is spoken of in the 23d verse by another name, equally appropriated to the body of the disciples. If this proof is not completely satisfactory, I am at a loss to know what would be esteemxd such. But there is not only such a redundancy of cvi- dence, from the multitudes of examples in which these terms are shewn to be appropriated, and that a single incontestible instance of a contrary appropriation can- not be adduced j from the whole complexion of the present connexion in which they are used, and their mutual reference in all the places in which they occur to the same object 5 and from the necessity that our adversaries are under, in all the other places of the con- nexion, to confess that they refer to the body of the disciples : there is also a sort of phraseology in the address of the letter, that evidently obliges us in pro- Hh3 360 Letter IX. priety, to suppose the brethren who write, to be the same kind of brethren with those to whom they wrote. " The brethren at Jerusalem to the brethren at An- tioch," &c. You say, indeed, that a word may not only have a different meaning in the same connexion, but also in the same verse \ i. e, if it answers your pur- pose here, the very same sentence. Not taking into account at present u hat I have said to shew what class of words might be so used, and that an appropriated appellation was none of them, I question if your asser- tion is true even as to the general words of which I gave an example. We might indeed find multiplied examples of this in the heavy divinity of the seven- teenth century j but I doubt if it be altogether consis- tent with perspicuity, Avhich is the most essential re- quisite in all kinds of compositions. We might in- deed, expressing ourselves in aphorisms, exhibit the fol- lowing series : * The world is round. — The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. — The world is ex- ceedingly wicked. — Love not the world.' But in most cases, to use the same word in different senses in the same sentence, would create obscurity. " Another source of obscurity,', says Dr Campbell *, " is when the same word is in the same sentence used in different senses." Now, if in any situation the different accep- tation of the same word could cause obscurity, and is therefore unlawful, this is the situation. Th:: brethren of one place write to the brethren of another. If the word has not the same meaning in both instances, the composition is faulty in the highest degree. It is a mode of address, of which I can neither find nor make an example in which the terms have not the same sig- * Philosophy of Rhetoric, Vol. II. p. i7. Letter IX. 361 nincation. * The Seceders of Scotland, to the Sece- ders of Ireland, send greeting. — The church at A. to the church at B.' &c. I call upon you to produce me, from any good writer, a similarly worded address, in which the repeated word has not the same sense ivith what it has in the first part of the sentence. You cannot claim even to be heard till you do this. To shew that the expression, * with the whole church,' does not signify the body of the disciples, you observe, p. 277. that the meaning may be, " that the decision was perfectly unanimous, or that what was proposed obtained the complete concurrence of the apostles and elders, and other ministers, who were members of this assembly." Here is a very dextrous piece of management to deceive the inadvertent reader. As those who leave out the second commandment are obliged to split the tenth, to keep up the number 5 so, in order to make up the three classes enumerated, you make a distinction between the country clergy and the prophets and evangelists, on the one side, and the cler- gy of Jerusalem en the other. The latter you call el- ders, and the former ministers. The prophets and evangelists, you say, ivere elders j if so, they are inclu- ded in the second class : if they w^ere not elders, what business had they, according to your principles, in this assembly ? Besides, if they were there as prophets and evangelists, the terms used do not distinguish them. The country clergy must also have been elders, and therefore are also Included in the second class. The expression with the wto/e church, must refer only ta those who are not comprehended in those classes previ- ously mentioned, i. e. who were neither apostles nor elders. Now, according to Presbyterians, none but such had a right to sit in it. The apostles and elders 362 Letter IX. are then the whole assembly. The phraseology would be similar to this : * The minister and elders, with the whole session.' And the address of the letter, * The apostles, and elders, and brethren,' would be as if we should say of a Presbyterian synod, * The ministers, and clergy, and elders.' Besides, such foreign mini- sters as you suppose to be present, you do not consi- der as regularly summoned or advertised for the pur- pose of joining in this grand council, but to have been at Jerusalem merely accidentally. Is this consistent with the regularity of a Presbyterian synod ? Why were not all the elders of all the world summoned ? Even if such had been accidentally there, they could not have been representatives. Add to this, if there were ministers there from distant places, and no lay- elders, what comes of the Presbyterian model ? You add, " Besides, that it is so to be interpreted here seems evident from this, that as the reference was made only to the apostles and stated pastors at Jerusa- lem, as Vv'ell as the prophets and evangelists, who were also elders, it appears necessary, upon every principle of fair explication, to understand by the whole of the rest of the assembly, or iKKMa-sx, ver. 22. besides the apostles and ordinary elders who delivered this decision, the other ministers alone, since to ministers alone the affair was submitted." To what does this perspicuous sentence amount ? The apostles and elders alone are mentioned as being referred to. The assembly then who consi- dered the matter must contain no other. The conclu- siveness of the reasoning I have already discussed , and as to the phraseology, " The apostles and elders at Jerusalem," it equally excludes the prophets and evangelists, if they were not elders 5 and if they were, they are already mentioned among the elders. Foreign Letter IX. 363 ministers, or elders, are also equally excluded from the words, " elders at Jerusalem," as the individual mem- bers. If, then, none could constitute a part of this as- sembly, but those who are named in the words, *' The apostles and elders at Jerusalem," all the elders on earth besides are excluded. If the apostles and elders at Jerusalem alone were appealed to, why should any foreign ministers judge in the matter, more than indivi- dual members ? If the one are excluded, because they are not named among those to whom it is said the re- ference was made, so also are the other. According to this, the apostles and elders at Jerusalem alone con- stituted the whole assembly, and the phraseology would be, ' The apostles and elders, with the w^hole of the apostles and elders.' By varying and jumbling the words by a sort of legerdemain, you involve the matter in a little necessary obscurity, so as to impose upon the understanding of the reader, who may think it safer for him to have a skilful interpreter to judge for him, than to judge for himself. But what do you mean by, " Since to ministers alone the affair was submitted ?" Have you forgot you are a Presbyterian ? This might come from other worldly churches with propriety, but it is passing strange in the mouth of the advocate of the divine right of Presbytery. What becomes of that order called lay-elders ? Had they nothing to do in this ge- neral council, the grand model for the universal visible church ? If this is a truth, you have given with your own hand the death-blow to the Presbyterian model. You observe farther, " And it deserves to be re- marked, that the only individuals of the brethren, or as it is expressed, verse 22. the re^t of the assembly, (this, Sir, is not expressed) who are here mentioned, 364 Letter IX. and are said to have been leading men among them (^yiyovuivoi), are .ludas and Silas, who are affirmed in verse 32. to have been prophets." Indeed, Sir, they must have greater perspicacity than I possess, who can see how this deserves particular no^^ice. As I have frequently remarked, the terms /he brethren, even ac- cording to your own application of it, does net charac- terise or distinguish the prophets j it would belong to them only in common with apostles and elders, and with them, under this appellation, you yourself join the foreign ministers. This observation then, which, if I understand it, seems to be intended to prove that the prophets were the brethren, would in this view contra- dict your former hypothesis, as well as tend to prove, if it had any strength, that the apostles and elders were excluded from this appellation. But the reasoning is extremely puerile, if I understand the spirit of the pas- sage. * Judas and Silas were prophets : Judas and Si- las were chief men among the brethren ; therefore the brethren were prophets.' Take a parallel example : * Mr Brown is a minister of the church of Scotland : Mr Brown is a chief man among the advocates for Presbytery j therefore the advocates for Presbytery are all ministers of the church of Scotland.' Judas and Silas, 2iS prophets, were not necessarily church-offi- cers. The gift of prophecy, like the gift of tongues, of healing, of miracles, of exhortation, &c. was en- joyed by many of the individual brethren, and even by females. But had they also been said to have been el- ders as well as prophets, it would have made no mat- ter. An elder is included among the brethren, when they are not contradistinguished ; but every brother is not an elder. It seems, however, pretty obvious from the phraseology, as well as from other circumstances. Letter IX. 365 that Judas and Silas, though prophets, were not elders. It is not likely that a church should send away its pas- tors as messengers, while they had a multitude of others equally suitable. And did the historian mean to tell us,; by the word yiyovu.ivoi. that they were rulers, it is not likely that he would have used a periphrasis. In- stead of " leading men among the brethren," he would have used the appropriated word yiyif^ovii, Itaders, But truly I do not care, as to tlie point under debate, wdiat you make of this. I do not understand why you have particularized Jiyovitt^va/, unless it was to shew that they were rulers. Grant it then for a moment. The bre- thren you understand to be the prophets, &.c. This then will make Judas and Silas rulers among the pro- phets and other clergy. They must then have been diocesan bishops, or some such superintending offi- cers. But not only is It evident from the foregoing argu- ments, that ihe cir-urch signifies the body of the disci- ples \ the form of the expression, " the apostles and elders, v^ath the whole church," shews that the two former classes, which are particularized, constituted but a comparatively small portion of this assembly. It is quite the same with, ' The minister, and elders, with the whole congregation,' speaking of some unani- mous resolution of a Presbyterian particular assembly. * The king, and the ParUament, with the whole nation.' Or, S':eaking of a free-mason society, ' The master, and vrardens, with the -^vhole lodge.' * Mr and Mrs -, wdth their whole family.' * Our ambassador and his lady, with his whole suite, arrived at Dover.' Such a form of expression is no where used, but when those who are grouped in the concluding class are either of inferior importance, or of superior numbers j generally 366 Letter IX. both. Such as, * The King and Queen, with the whole Royal Family.' Those mentioned in the prece- ding class or classes, are specified on account of the distinction of their rank, or office, or character, &c. Were we to grant that there were at Jerusalem mini- sters from every congregation in the world, and that all the prophets and evangelists were elders also, it is not possible that the class of their enumeration should be this general groupe, or any class different from the elders of Jerusalem. They would be included in the second class. If the prophets and evangelists had been distinguished at all from the other elders, it would have been as .prophets and evangelists. The phrase- ology would then have been such as this : * The apo- stles, and prophets, and evangelists, and elders, with the whole church.' If the prophets and evangelists were elders also, they would even have been more worthy of a particular mention then ordinary elders. I am not able even to devise an example in which such a mode of enumerating an assembly does not suppose that those included in the general class are the body of the assem- bly. * Resolved, by the rector, and church-wardens, with the whole vestry of the parish of .' If you can think of one of another kind, produce it. Lastly, if you claim the liberty, in the most arbitra- ry manner, to make iKKXna-iBi in this place any assembly in an unappropriated sense, why may not every other do the same in every other place where the word occurs, if it may happen to suit their theory or inclination ? If you impose this sense on the word here, by what mode of reasoning will you shew the impropriety of the same application of it by Dr Stillingfleet, Matt, xviii. 18. ^ " Tell it to the church," he explains, * Tell it t© the select assembly,' /. c to any number of persons the par- Letter iX. 367 ties may think proper to choose for referees.' But tlie fashion of the times change. It was the D^octor's great, aim to unite all the various denominations into one •> to-wit, tlie church of England. To effect this, his chief aim Avas to shew, that there was no precise, full, and perpetually obligatory model. He therefore, like the generality of mediators, compromised matters, and endeavoured to lay a foundation for union by removing, the divine foundation. It was his business then to force this unappropriated meaning upon churchy in Matt. xviii. 18. But your design is to prop the venerable fa- bric, cemented by the blood of your ancestors, as tlie only divine model of church-government. Matt, xviii. J8. must thpn be a kirk session with you, as it was a select assembly with Dr Stillingfleet, and Acts xv. 25* must be, not a church, but any assembly. If such li- berties were allowable to be taken v/ith language, we might evade the most obvious precept of holy writ. Upon the whole, you have no right to demand at- tention to your theory with respect to \}\g church, ver. 22. and the brethren, ver. 23. till you prove, not on\f that such foreign ministers were at that time in Jerusa- iera, but that they came for the express purpose of sit* ting in this assembly. You cannot prove that there was a single representative from any congregation in the world. What reason then. Sir, have you to sup- pose that the oi ahxpoi were such, with prophets and evangelists 5 and that these, with the apostles and elders, constituted this assembly ? Shall wild suppositions pass upon us for arguments ? Since it is neither said that they were there, nor should be there, upon what prin- ciples do you suppose that they were actually there ? Is there any other passage in Scripture which shews that representatives did, or ought to have come from li 368 Letter IX. other congregations ? Prove this as a foundation, or you cannot lay a stone in the building. The disciples are called the church often, they are called the brethren often, they are called wAu^o?, or the multitude, often — they were in Jerusalem. Why then should it be sup- posed that these words, usually appropriated to them, should, in this instance, be unaccountably applied in another sense, even to the exclusion of them ? What- ever these words may, or may not signify, it cannot be such ministers in this passage, because none such -tvere present. But had they been present, there is no reason can be given why they should be denominated the bre- thren, in opposition to the elders of Jerusalem, were these terms even appropriated to ministers. But such an appropriated application they never possessed. Now, Sir, I will dispute the matter with you, upon all the words in question ~c/?>&'rr/>. multitude, brethren. All apply usually to the disciples in general. To sup- port your theory, it is necessary that you succeed in your explanation of each of these words. If I succeed even as to one of them, I baffle all you say, because all the terms are applied to the same objects. The same persons who are called church in ver. 22. are called the brethren, ver. 23. j and if it cannot be proved that there were present any church-rulers but the apostles and elders of Jerusalem, the disciples must have made the multitude. How far I have succeeded as to each of these points, I leave to the unprejudiced Christian to determine. It will need no great penetration to disco- ver which theory strains the words most. I take them in their natural, and usual, and appropriated sense. You cannot take one of them as they usually occur. Nay, your favourite word church you were obliged to part with, as the peculiar possession of the clergy, and Letter IX. 369 to receive It as a fief from its profane acceptation. You have to force different meanings on the same xvords in the same connexion, nay, In the same sen- tence. Church must now be this and now that, chan- ging its appearance with the versatility of Proteus. Multitude must here be a few church-rulers, and bre^ thren prophets, evangelists, and foreign clergy !!! Now, is it not a most unaccountable thing, if that can be the true system, which must defend itself by the distortion of every word by which the assembly is denoted ? Is it not strange, if the inspired historian intended to say what you make him say, that he did not use more un- equivocal language, and apply terms which would have conveyed his meaning in their usual sense ? Was he at such a loss for words ? Was the Spirit who directed him unable to make a judicious choice, that these three must be used in such a forced and unnatural significa^ tion ? You proceed, p. 278. " The grand argument advan- ced by Mr Ewing, in common with his predecessor?, is founded upon Actsxxi. 22. ' After all, however,^ (says he, p. 32. speaking of the many ten thousands of Jews who were pointed out to Paul as professing^ the gospel) ' no inference is drawn from the many myriads of believers, that it would be impossible for them to meet in one place. We have an inference of a very different kind. What is it therefore ? The multitude (not the pastors and a few delegates from the rest, but the multitude) must needs come together.' But be- fore this reasoning can be admitted to be conclusive, it must be proved by Mr Ewing, that at that period there was a universal concourse of the Christian Jews from every quarter to Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost, 3~0 Letter IX. and that it v;as possible for the raullitude who would then convene to assemble in one place." P*lr Evving has neither to prove the one nor the other. The multitude are here said to be about to come together j therefore he has neither to count their numbers, nox provide a place for them. It is equal to him whether they should meet within doors or with- out 'y whether the multitude consisted of the Christians of Jerusalem alone, or of numbers from other places along with these. The fact however is evidently this j the many thousands, or myriads, to whom the elders call the apostle's attention, are the Christians of Ju- dca, in opposition to the Jewish Christians among the Gentiles, j and the multitude whom they represent as likely to come together, is the disciples of Jerusalem. As if they had said, * Consider what vast numbers of belie^ang Jews there are in Judea j these are all zeal- ous of the law, and they vv'ili hear such things of thee as shall ofiend them, for they will soon be informed of your conduct j nay, more, the church in this city, as soon as they hear of youx arrival, must come together to hear an account from you of yout success,' &c. But whatever may be thought of the reference of the many thousands, it bears not upon this point. Though you should even find it a valid argument as to the number of the disciples at Jerusalem, yet it can never tend to shew that the raultitude did not come together. Nay, as Mr E^ving argues, granting you that these many thousands referred entirely to the disciples of Jerusa- lem, they must all have been in the habit of meeting, for the muJthude must needs come together. Is it not a silly evasion, • to say that the multitude could not come together^ unless that Mr Ewing proves that it was composed of vast numbers from otl\er places as Letter IX. 37i well as tlie disciples at Jerusalem, and that this vast multitude could then meet in one place ^ What obliges him to prove that they might meet in one place, when it is said that tbey must needs meet ? What obliges him to prove that there were many present from other . places, when the possibility of their meeting Is, accord- ing to your ov/n hypothesis, more supposable without this ? It must be a very curious thing, if, to prove a fact, we are obliged to prove something that our adversaries think is calculated to Invalidate that fact, before it can be established. If you think, such a supposition of any service to you, the proof lies upon yourself j we have no need of it. But you say, p. 280. " The truth seems to be, that James does not refer to any regular meeting of the church which was to take place, but to a tumultuous concourse, such as actually ensued as soon as it was an- nounced that Paul was at Jerusalem." To this I re-- ply : Upon the supposition that this multitude was a tumultuous concourse of unbelieving Jews, the reason that is just assigned for this conduct recommended to the apostle, w^ould be altogether irrelevant. That rea- son is founded upon the offence that would be taken at Paul's conduct, not by the unbelieving, but by the be- lieving Jews. If the speaker referred to a mob in the 22d verse, what connexion has the foregoing argu- ments with the conduct, to enforce which they are given ? But from the conduct recommended, and from the connected account in the 25th verse, it is abundant- ly evident that this conduct was recommended to Paul to avoid offending the believing Jews, for the same reason that the Gentiles were commanded. In Acts xv. to abstain from things strangled, and from blood, and from things offered to idols. Again, if the motive for lis 3'H Letter IX. the cond'jct recommended, was to prevent displeasing the unbelieving Jews, it was, we see, without effect j na}', the very oGcasion that brought on the tumult to which you allude. Lastly, (for I need not waste time upon a thing so palpably evident), It is not said there will be a concourse, tumult, mob, riot, or any such thing '^ but ' it is altogether necessary that the to ttAjj- ^9;, the muIii'Uih, come together, for they will hear that you are come.* It is not stated merely as a pro- bable event, but as a thing altogether necessary and proper for the r?:tiltuude to meet. It V\'as requisite that there should be a meeting of the disciples to receive file apostle, and to hear his reports It is intimated that the meeting could not be avoided, because they would hear that he was come. Besides, there does not ap- pear to have been any such tumult till " the seven days were almost ended." But the meeting in verse 22. is connected v>'Ith the first hearing of his arrival. Add to this, that %Mhq would not have been the word cho- f.en to denote such a tumult, but ^o^vto;, or some word of like import. See verse 34. Matt, xx-vi. 5. xxvii^^S-l-. Acts XX. 1. &c. But h is not only ttAjj^oc, but ra TrXih hg, that is here used, i. e. not a multitude, or any mul- titude, but the muiiitude must needs come together. The word is here plainly taken in an appropriated acceptation, referring to a multitude which the hearers then, and the readers now, are in no danger of mistaking. The multitude is here synonymous with the brethren^ the church. See als Acts vi. 2. 5* With respect to what you say upon the supposition that there were a plurality of congregations in Jerusa- km, I think it unnecessary to make any observations. The fact is not proved, and therefore cannot be a foun> ' aatioB for farther di«<:u'-siont Letter IX. 313 Having taken up a consiclerable portion of these sheets with a critical examinalion of the Vv'ord church , for the benefit of those who cannot ent€r into discus- sions of this nature, I shall, as concisely as possible, ex- hibit under one view the various passages in which it occurs in the New Testament, as far as I can collect them. This is at once the most certain and the most simple method of ascertaining the meaning-of words. That explanation of any word, appellation or phrase, which is the most literal, the most obvious, and the most generally applicable, is undoubtedly the true ex- planation. If we can shew that every passage, in which the v.'ord church is used to denote a Christian Religious assembly, will naturally explain according to the signification which we affix to It, while at the same lime it preserves one uniform meaning, it can admit of no doubt in the mind of every unprejudiced person, that such must be ils true signification. On the other hand, if, according to the Presbyterian interpretationj many passages where the word occurs must be forced, or receive a figurative meaning, while the word must receive a variely of widely different senses, it is the most decisive proof that such cannot be the meaning- attached to it by the Spirit. I propose but one mean- ing to the word ikkP^vjctix, in every instance in ^vhich it is applied to any of the assemblies cf Chrisl's disciples npon earth. When It is taken as synonymous with the phrase, kingdom of heaven, it refers not to any visi- ble earthly assembly j and from this, as well as the cir- cumstances of the connexion, there is not the smallest danger of mistaking the one for the other. Besldesj these tv/o applications proceed upon perfectly similar principles, and the latter is as literal as the former. The objects are also not only kindred in their nature. 374 Letter IX. but the latter Is the great antitype of the former. All believers on earth, though absent at present from the church in heaven, are members of that church, just as the members of a particular church are considered as a church when in their respective habitations. The bro- ther who, for a length of time, Is detained from meet- ing with the church, is still a member of the church. In the same manner are all saints on earth members of the church above. As soon as they believe the gospel, ** they are come to the general assembly and church o£ the first-born." Now, if the passages in which the word occurs will bear me out in this view of the subject, does the man stand upon ground equally firm, who must give it such a diversity of meanings,' in many of which there are not common principles *, who must force or figuilze every passage, in which he takes it in a sense diiferent from me j and who must understand it diiferently in the very same connexion ? I most earnestly call the at- tention of my readers, both learned and unlearned, to this consideration. I could rest the whole cause upon it, and it requires nothing but common sense to weigh the argument. Let us then run up the diiferent pas- sages in which this word is found in a religious sense in the New Testament, examining them by the crite- rion stated above. Matt. xvi. 18. " Upon this rock I will build my church." This is the church universal. All the saints In heaven and earth are built upon the rock Christ Je- sus, according to the confession of Peter. There is no danger of confounding this with any particular congregation,, for Christ speaks as having but one church in the same sense, and the declaration is appli- cable to all believers. See Eph.ii. 20, 21. Letter iX. 375 Matt. xvin. 3 8, *' Tell It to the cluircli." There Is no danger here of confounding a particular congrega- tion with the church universal, for to that church it would not be possible to make a complaint. There was no'olher txLernal visible assembly upon earth call- ed church, but a particular congregation, and when they are commanded to tell it \p the church, It deter- mines it to that particular church of which they might be members. How simple then, and perspicuous does this view of the passage appear, when contrasted with the Presbyterian ?xceptations of it ? In the former, there is no possibility of mistake j in the latter, there is no possibility of determining wnth certainty. If the "word has so many meanings as Presbyterians affix to it, by what rule shall it be Incontestibly proved ^vhich of them we are to apply to it here ? Whether is it, Tell it to the congregation, or tell it to the session ? tell it' to the Presbytery, as consisting of pastoral and lay- tiders, the representatives of their respective congrega- tions, or tell it the ministers of a Presbytery, as contra- cUstinguished from the lay-elders ? tell it to the na- tional church,, or the church universal ? tell it to a re- ligious assembly, or to any assembly the parties may think proper to depute ? According to Presbyterians, the word has all these acceptations, and many others. All these are assemblies upon earth 5 and that the com- plaint ought to be made to it in particular, each of these could aiTcrd some plausible pretensions, were there only advocates for each as strenuous as you are for one. As the word is taken by Presbyterians in all these senses, there is danger of mistaking that particular as- sembly intended here by our Lord. If tliey should even happen to be right, it must be by guess, rather than rational evidence^ 376 Letter IX. Acts ii. 47. " The Lord added the saved to the church." Here, according to our view, there is no obscurity. The saved are added to the church. This must be the church of Jerusalem, because their being added to this church is represented as subsequent . to their being saved, but to the church universal they arc added the moment they believe. Their being saved^ and their being added to the church universal, are the i same thing. But how unintelligible is it upon the Presbyterian system ! To give only a few of the many possible interpretations upon this plan : According to Presbyterians, the v/ord church sometimes denotes the saints above as contradistinguished from those below. How then can it be certainly known but the meaning is, that the persons referred to ^vere added to the church above by death ? Why may not the church be taken for the session, and the passage be explained to signify that the persons spoken of were made ministers or lay-elders ? You might from this argue, that those who were real believers were chosen to fill the ofhcer-, which implies that a mere profession of religion, with a sufficient quantity of external decorum, was sufficient to be an individual member. But perhaps even this would not favour the church of Scotland. Why may it not even be taken In its unappropriated signification, to signify the worshipping assembly as any assembly, and the meaning be, that God so ordered matters, that those who were to be saved, attended the place of worship ? I cannot see upon what principles you could oppose an innovating Presbyterian who should adopt any of these interpretations. If there should arise any nev/ modeller of the Presbyterian system, your own weapons might be successfully turned against your- self. Letter IX. 311 Acts V. 11. "And great fear came upon all the church." A single congregation is the only consistent interpretation this will bear *, to-wit, the church in which this was performed. But upon the lax princi- ples of interpretation adopted by Presbyterians, there is no certain rule for discovering what sort of church is intended. Is it one of many congregations in Jerusa- lem ? Is it the whole of the congregations of Jerusa- lem considered as a Presbytery ? Is it the churches of the nation ? Is it the churches of any particular divi- sion of the world ? Is it the universal visible church ? Is it the universal militant invisible church ? Is it the session of the congregation in which this affair happen- ed ? Is it the clergy of all the congregations of Jeru- salem ? Is it any assembly, to-wit, the promiscuous meeting that was then present, or perhaps the sanhe- drim, &.C. ? Acts viii. 1 . " And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusa- lem." We have already at length considered the rea- sons for understanding the word here in its proper and usual sense. But admitting the Presbyterian latitude of signification attached to this word, could any man say definitely what it must mean here ? It is as lawful to defend any or all of the other meanings, as the one you have chosen to affix to it. Could it be proved that it was not a general council assembled at Jerusalem ? Why might not any assembly, of any description, as well here as in Acts xv. 22. ? Acts viii. 3. " As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison." 1 his text you give up to -denote the body of the disciples of Jerusa- lem j but there is nothing to prevent you from claim- 3 (O lai.TTt.K IJV. ing It liere, more than in any.otlier place, were you net obliged upon that supposition to share the clerical pre- rogatives with females. Acts ix. 31. *' Then had the churches rest through- out all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria," &c. Here: I would be glad to know how this can be interpreted upon any other principle than that church in .the sin- gular number was solely appropriated to a single con- gregation, Tvhen applied to a-i assembly of Christ's dis- ciples. It is not the church of Judea, the church of Galilee, and the church of Samaria, but the churches of Judea, '&c. Nay, more, had these hctn Presbyte- rians, all under the same government, the phraseology would not have been even the church of Judea, arid the church of Galilee, and the church of Samaria, but 2.11 these would have been in one church, and even then but a small part of a church. The phraseology would have been something like this, * The church had rest throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria,' i.e. the part of the church that lies in these countries. Presbyte- rians may in theory argue that each of their assemblies, classical as well as worshipping, is a church j but in reality they give the appellation church only to the ge- neral body under the same government, or to those who are supposed to represent them. They never speak of the church of Ediuburgh^ the church of Glas- go%v. They never speak of their presbyteries as churches, or of their synods as churches, though with- out scruple they v/ill make the inspired writers speak of the church of Jerusalem as a presbytery. As you explain the persecution in the eighth chapter of Acts, as dispersing the clergy solely, perhaps this passage means that tiie clergy iu those countries were now freed from Letter IX. 379 persecution. If it was the clergy alone who were dis- turbed, it could be the clergy alone who got rest. Acts xi. 22. " Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas," &c. Here, what shall hinder the word to be understood in its literal and ob- vious import ? Tef the church sends forth Barnabas. Acts ii. 26. " And it came to pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church." Can you ieny that the church here spoken of is a congregation of saints ? Or that the whole disciples of Antioch con- stituted one church or congregation only ? The writer evidently refers to the stated meetings of a particular body, so well known under the appropriated name, the church, that he supposes farther specification to be un- necessary. Is it not then most evident, that when the same writer speaks of the church, he must mean a si- milar body ? I contend that, either he does so, or he does not write intelligibly. Acts xii. 1. " Now, about that time, Herod the king stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church." Can any thing be plainer than that the historian speaks of the disciples of Jerusalem ? And that they constitu- ted but one congregation, is knov.'n from their being called church, not churches. Acts xii. 5. " Peter therefore was kept in prison •, but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him." Does not the church here signify the body <3f the disciples of Jerusalem ? Not churches, but church. Acts xiii. 1. " Now there were in the church that was at Antioch," &c. Of what did the church of Antioch consist ? Of church officers only, or of a num- ber of believers in an organized society? That there Kk 5SU L.ETTER lA. was but one church In Antioch, is clear from the disci- pies being spoken of in their oi-ganized capacity as one church, not churches. Besides, In Acts xi. 26. they are all said to assemble in one church. Acts xiv. 23. " And when they had ordained them ciders in every church." Here the disciples of Lystra, the disciples of Iconlum, and the disciples of Antioch in Pisidia, are each considered as a separate body call- ed a church. The expression Is Illustrated by another "which refers to the same thing in Titus I. 5. Titus was left in Crete, among other things, " to ordain el- ders in every city," " In every church," and " lu every city," are expressions here supposed equivalent. There was one, and but one church, as yet, In every city In Avhich there were disciples. Acts xiv. 27. *> And when they were come and had gathered the church together." Here it Is positively declared that the church of Antioch was one congre- gation only J for the disciples are not only called the churchy not the churches^ but this church Is said to be gathered together. The church of Antioch is also said to be gathered together by the brethren sent down from the church at Jerusalem. Acts xv. 30. ** And when they had gathered the multitude together." This shews not only that the disciples at Antioch formed one church, but that the multuude and the church are equivalent appropriated names given to the disciples j which fully proves what I advanced upon Acts xxl. 22. Besides, the gathering together of the church at An- tioch on the return of Paul and Barnabas, and the lat- ter rehearsing all that God had done by them for the information of the former. Is just analogous with what is recorded in Acts xxl. 22. In the one case, the church did come together to hear what Paul and Bar- Letter IX. SS^i flabas had done ; and in the other, it Is asserted that it was " altogether necessary that the multitude should- come together." It is then evident that the multuu^.er in Acts xxi. 22. is the same with the churct in Acts xiv. 2 7. Acts XV. 3. ** And being brought on their way by the church j*'' to-wit, the church of Antioch, repre- sented in Acts xiv. 21. as assembled all in one plact. Here the church must incontestibly mean the disciples, because the apostles and elders are mentioned and con- tradistinguished from, the church. That the disciples of Jerusalem constituted one assembly only, is evident in this place, besides the usual arguments, -from tkeir being said to receive the messengers from Antioch. It cannot be alleged that they received them representa- tively, for the rulers are also said to have received them. Acts XV. 22. *^ Then pleased it the apostles and el- ders, with the whole church." What should prevent the word church here, from ha\4ng its primary, appro- priated and usual meaning ? Acts XV. 41. *' And he went through Syria and Ci- licia confirming the churches." Here, when he speaks of the disciples of a country or province, he speaks of them not as a church, but as churches. V/hen he spoke of the disciples of Antioch, he called them the church that was at ^i/ntioch ; but vx'hen he speaks of the disci- ples of Syria, in which lay the city of Antioch, he calls them churches. Is it not then palpably evident to any impartial upright mind, that the church was appropria- ted to the body of the disciples in one assembly ? As the inspired writers, speaking of a number of congre- gations, uniformly call them churches, what farther proof do we need that there was only one congregation 382 Letter IX. in every place where the disciples are called church P Why does he not say the churches of Antioch, as well as the churches of Syria, if there were more congrega- tions than one in the former ? Acts xvi. 5. " And so were the churches [not the church] established in the faith." The churches in this verse, is an expression equivalent to the cities in the preceding verse. They went through the cities,. delivering to them, i. c. to the churches in them, &c. The church in a city, but the churches in the cities. Acts xviii. 22. " And when he had landed at Cesa- rea, and gone up and saluted the church." How could he salute the church, if it was not one assembly ? or could there have been more than one congregation as yet in Cesarea ? The church is here an appropriated appellation of a body as well known, under that name, as the supreme civil governor of Rome was known by the term, the emperor. If it was not so appropriated and used in this sense-, how could it be understood what he meant by it here ? In Acts xlx. the word occurs in its civil sense for 2. popular assembly. Acts XX. 17. " And from Miletus he sent for the el- ders of the ciiurch." It is not the churches, but the church at Ephesus. Besides, from this we learn, not only that the church here necessarily denotes the disci- ples in contradistinction from their rulers, but that the elders can never be called the church on this very ac count. The word church is here the name that con- tradistinguishes the body of the disciples from their rulers, and the word elders is the name that contradis- tinguishes the rulers from the church. Jt is absolutely impossible then that ever these two words should be in- terchangeable. If they are contradistinguishing names Letter IX, i'i^ of two parties in a body, the one the name of the body m general, the other the name of the rulers of that body, how absurd would it be to suppose that the dis- tinguishing name of the body should become the distin- guishing name of the rulers > It might as well be alle- ged that the contradistinguishing w^ords king and peo- ple, or ministers and people might be interchanged, and that the people in a civil sense might denote the king, as distinguished from his subjects, and that the people in a religious sense might denote the clergy, in opposi- tion to their flocks. The elders are here called not ihe churchy but the elders of the church. If the word church could properly and as intelligibly have denoted the church-rulers, why is it not said that he sent for the churchy meaning the church-rulers ? Was there any need to be more precise here than in Matt, xviii. 17. &c. Would there have been greater danger of misun- derstanding this application of the word in this, than in other instances ? Would his real intention have been less easily discovered from the connexion and circum- stances in this passage than in the others >. By no m.eans •, but much the contrary. The connexion and address of Paul to the elders would absolutely have shewn in w^hat sense the word was to be understood, for he speaks to none but the elders. All to whom he addresses himself are considered as bishops, having oversight of the flock. Here then, if in any place, we would have church used for church-rulers, because from the circumstances, it could not have been misun- derstood. Since then the inspired historian, when speaking of church-rulers, both in cases where the body of the disciples arc also brought into view, and in others as the present, where the latter are not named as having any share in the transaction ) since the histo- Kk3 -S-4!' Letter IX. rlan speaks of tlie rulers, not by the name church, hvl as distinguished from the church, I hold it to be irre- sistibly evident, that the word church never can be substituted for church-rulers, or elders ,5 and that con- sequently, when he speaks of the church, he refers tc the body of the disciples. When he says that Paul sent for ibe elders of the churchy it plainly supposes that the church and the elders were two different classes, and that the latter were the officers of the for- mer. I then demand a substantial reason why Christ did not say. Mat. xviii. 17. ' Tell it to the elders of the church,'' if it had been the elders of the church whom he intended. Had Paul sent a message to Ephesus, de- siring the attendance of the church, tell me with the candour of an upright enquirer after truth, do you think he \vouId have been understood to mean the el- ders ? Would not the whole church have resorted to him at Miletus ? If so, with what consistency do you suppose the Lord Jesus Christ to use such enigmatical language in Matt, xviii. 17. ? When he says, ' Tell it. to the church,' wguld it be understood that he intend- ed only the elders of the church ? If, on every occa- sion, when the inspired writers evidently speak of church-rulers, they give them their own distinguishing name, Vvhy should it be supposed that they would at any time use the word which distinguishes the body of the disciples from their rulers, as denoting their rulers? Suppose again, that the word church sometimes deno- ted the church-rulers, and sometimes the brethren in general, and that Paul's message had been addressed to the church at Ephesus, without farther specification, would he have been understood ? Would the message have been intelligibly precise ? How would they liave ^nown whether he meant the pastors or the disciples :n Letter IX. 385 general ? Yet tliis is the very absurdity you charge upon our Lord Jesus, in his direction above referred to J and on the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, ch. viii. 1. XV. 4. '12. &.c. Were men in common life to speak upon such principles, language would not be in- telligible. Acts XX. 28. " Feed the church of God," I. e. as In the preceding part of the verse, " the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers j" the sin- gle church committed to their joint oversight. Rom. xvi. 1. " — a servant of the church, which Is at Cenchrea." Could this have been more than a sin- gle congregation ? And is it supposable that the same phraseology has not always the same meaning ? Why should the expression, " the church which is at Cench- rea," signify one congregation of saints, and the church which is at Jerusalem, or the church which is at An- tloch, signify either a number of congregations, or the clergy of a number of congregations, &.c. ? Whatever the church is at one place, the same must it be at every other place. Rom. xvi. 4. " All the churches of the Gentiles." Not the Gentile church. This phraseology clearly evinces, that neither the Christian commonwealth, nor any combination of particular congregations, were yet considered as a church. Such expressions as, * the eas- tern church,' ' the western church,' * the church,' con- sidered as referring to all professing Christians, * the church of Scotland,' ' the reformed church,' ' the Lu- theran church,' &c. took their rise, not from the Nev/ Testament, but from the working cf the mystery ot iniquity. Rom. xvi. 5. " The church which is in their house.'' Could this have been mere than a single assembly ? 336 Letter IX. Rom. xvi. 16. " The churches of Christ salute you,'" to-wit, the churches in the neighbourhood where he" then resided. These he calls, not the church of Achaia^ but the churches. Rom. xvi. 23. " Gaius, mine host, and of the whole church^^'' i. e. the church of Corinth. 1 Cor. i. 2. 2 Cor. i. 1. " Unto the church of God which is at Corinth." What this church was, is ex- plained " to them that are sanctified, called to be saints." That they constituted but one assembly, is clearly seen among other reasons from their being ac- tually said to meet usually. 1 Cor. xi. 17. 18. 20. 22. xiv. 23. 1 Cor. iv. 17. " As I teach in every church." Church is here supposed to be the appropriated deno- mination of every particular congregation. 1 Cor. vi. 4. " Least esteemed in the church." The congregation of the saints. 1 Cor. vii. 17. " So ordain I in all the churches :" J. e. I not only give these regulations to the church at Corinth, but I ordain the same to be observed in all the churches of the world. Every particular congre- gation is considered as a church, and the aggregate of them are not a church, but churches. The apo- stle does not say, * So ordain I in every part of the church,' but in all the churches. These churches also are all to be formed on the same model, and receive the same regulations. 1 Cor. X. 32. " Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God," i. e. the church at Corinth. 1 Cor. xi. 16. " Neither the churches of God." The aggregate of congregations are invariably called churches. Letter IX. 387 1 Cor. xi. 18. " When ye come together In the church." Could it be more evidently stated that they usually met as one assembly ^ 1 Cor. xi. 22. " Despise ye the church of God," i. e. the assembly of God's children at Corinth. 1 Cor. xii. 28. " God hath set some in the church." Tl e ::hurch universal, in the part of which that is upon eai ; -1 God hath instituted these ofhces. 1 Cor. xiv. 4, 5. 12. 19. " He that prophesleth, edl- fieth die church-^- that the church may receive edify- ing- to the edifying of the church- yet in the church I had rather speak," &c. Do these passages need a commentary ? He could not speak in an assembly that was not present. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. "If therefore the v/hole cliurch be come together." Could language more plainly assert that the church of Corinth was one assembly ? 1 Cor. xiv. 28. " If there be no interpreter, let him k eep silence in the church." Does not this imply that the church was one assembly ? 1 Cor. xiv. 33. "As in all tke churches of the saints." Here again we have the regular distinction between the use of the singular and plural number of this word. God was the author of peace and order^ not only in this, but in every other church of his- saints. 1 Cor. xiv. 34. " Let your vvomen keep silence In the churches," i.e. the different meetings of the church. The appropriated name of the body charac- terizes them as ac?tually met. Strictly speaking then, tliey arc a church, or act as a church, only vvhen met. T'iiQ different meetings of the body are, in this point of view, so many churches. Yet this and all other words, appropriated to any body from particular cii:- 388 Letter IX. cumstances, come to be given to such bodies in all cit-=^ cumstances, or at least when the distinguishing circum- stances which gave rise to the name, are not held up to view. Thus, that body called the Parliament, though thus designated from their public discussion of matters that regard the national welfare, are called by this name when they are sleeping as well as when they are speaking. And thus, * There was a church-meet- ing to-day,' is a more usual phraseology than * There was a church to-day j' though undoubtedly the latter is the more strictly proper. The apostle then forbids women to speak in the meetings of the church, or more literally in the churches. Now this must have been an assembly of the members at large, for in assemblies of church-rulers women had no place, and therefore it would have been absurd to command them not to speak in them. This was an assembly of which womea were members, but not public speakers. Eesides, that church is here a single assembly, is clear from the cir- cumstance of forbidding women to speak in it, which supposes that there were others that might speak in it. It must then have been single congregations to which he refers, for in the church, considered as the aggre- gate of many congregations, there could be no speakr ing, as it is not an assembled church. That the church here refers to the diiTerent meetings of the same body, is not only evident from the above analysis, but from the connexion of the whole chapter, in which the body addressed are supposed in several places to be but one church. In ver. 23. he says, " If therefore the whole church be come together." In this it is supposed that the body addressed usually assembled in one church. They could not In the same letter be considered as con- stituting a number of churches. The phraseology is- Letter IX. 389 -exvictly similar to the following that might be used by a Presbyterian : * We have good congregations in the evenings, but very thin ones in the morning.' 1 Cor. xiv. 35. " For it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Here again church must be a single and popular assembly. But according to the Presbyterian latitude of application assigned to the word church, I do not see how it could be decisively proved that women ought not to speak in the church, considered as a congregation. Those who should choose to support the contrary, might allege that the word church here means the assemblies of church-ru- lers alone •, that females were not allowed to speak in -church-courts, but that they might speak in the public congregation. Would not this be every whit as plau- sible as the Presbyterian interpretation of Matt, xviii. 17. Actsviii. 1. &c. ? 1 Cor. XV. 9. Gal. i. 13. Phil. iii. 6. " I persecuted the church of God." This is the church as synony- mous with the kingdom of heaven, rather than the par- ticular church at Jerusalem, although it does not ap- pear that Paul had actually persecuted any besides. But he persecuted the church universal, because he persecuted that part of it w^hich was exposed to him. It is one whole. He that persecutes one individual of it, persecutes the whole j yea, the persecution of the least esteemed of Christ's members, is a persecution of , himself. " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?" If the hail of a finger is parted, the whole body is pain- ed. He that v;ounds another in the foot, wounds the ' man. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. " As I have given order to the churches of Galatia," not the church of Galalia. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. " The churches of Asia salute you j" 390 Letter IX. not the church of Asia. In every instance in ^vhich a number of congregations are expressly spoken of, they are called not church, but churches. Every single congregation of Christians is called a church. Is it then at all warrantable, without any example or autho- rity from the meaning of the word, in the face of a multitude of examples to the contrary, to force the word church by an arbitrary interpretation to denote a number of churches ? I call upon you to produce a sin- gle example in which a number of congregations, evi- dently mentioned or referred to, are called church. I call upon you to shew me upon what principles of grammar it could be so used. If you can do neither, I am confident that I will have all the learning in Scotland on my side. I am confident that there is not a man in the church of Scotland, of an established lite- rary character, would hazard his reputation, by vindi- cating the propriety of giving a signification to a word which it neither intrinsically possessed, nor of which a single well authenticated example could be found. I shall also be very much mistaken, if there shall be found a single man among those of acknowledged lite- rary eminence in the church of Scotland, who would undertake to defend the hypothesis, that there is in the New Testament a complete and unalterable model for church-government. Why else was the defence of the divine right of the Presbyterian form of church-go- vernment entrusted to you and Mr Smith alone ? Shall the national church of Scotland be repeatedly attack- ed, and shall the learning of Scotland refuse its aid to defend her •* Is there more learning in any part of the world than in Scotland ? Why did not the universities pour forth their learning, and overwhelm the adversaries of the church ? Shall that church which possessed a 1 Letter IX. 391 rcan who could silence a Hume, be now left destitute ^of the defence of her most eminent doctors, if its di- vine right were really defensible ? No \ if the church of Scotland were founded upon divine authority, it pos- sesses men who would irresistibly prove It. Her re- fractory sons would soon be obliged to return to their allegiance, or sculk from the field of battle. But it is a fact too well known to be particularly corroborated, that all the learning of both the British religious establishments, opposes a complete and unchangeable model of any kind. Conscious that there is nothing like a model In Scripture for these stupendous fabrics, they rightly judge it safer and easier to defend their particular systems, by supposing much left to the go- vernors of the nation, to the wisdom of the church-ru- lers, and the changes of times and circumstances. This method, though equally false, is fraught with much less absurdity, and has less mischievous eifects upon the Interpretation of Scripture, than the other. Thus, we find many of them giving a tolerably fair account of the first churches, because their system does not require the testimony of Scripture to be disguised or perverted. They can admit that such and such was the case then, because times and circumstances are now greatly chan- ged. This Is the true reason, I apprehend, why none of the first-rate talents have appeared In this contest. To vindicate the church of Scotland as a good human system, would, in the estimation of the bulk of the good people of Scotland, be nearly as bad as to oppose it. The divine right must then be abandoned to such as can believe it. The former, no doubt, will look on, applauding In public, and laughing in private. Like those statesmen who disbelieve Chnstianity, but see its advantages upon society j though they do not believe LI c92 Letter IX. the divine right themselves, they will be very -well sa- tisfied that others should believe it. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. " Aquila and Priscilla, with the church that is In their house." A single assembly without doubt. 2 Cor. viii. 1. " The churches of Macedonia," not the church of Mace'donia. The distinction is without exception. 2 Cor. viii. IS. " WTiose praise is in all the churches,''* not in every part of the church, or in the church. 2 Cor. viii. 23. " Messengers of the churches." These messengers, chosen by the Macedonian churches to carry their contribution to the poor saints at Jerusalem, are not called the messengers of the church, but of the churches. Here, if any ^vhere, the dilxerent congre- gations of Macedonia would have been called a church, for they are now represented as united in a common message and gift. Why then is it not the messengers of the Macedonian church ? 2 Cor. viii. 24. " Before the churches." The same Macedonian churches, who by their messengers would hear of the conduct of the Corinthians. 2 Cor. xi. 8. " I robbed other churches." The Christians at Corinth are here, as a church, contrasted with other churches. 2 Cor. xi. 23. " The care of all the churches ^" not the care of the church. Is not this distinctive phrase- ology completely decisive ? 2 Cor. xii. 13. " Inferior to other churches." The church of Corinth is here contrasted with, and suppo- sed equal to every other church. The apostle would only compare kind with kind. Gal. i. 2. " Unto the churches of Galatia •," no where are they called the church of Galatia. If there j tr.TTER IX. 393 were several congregations in Jerusalem, Anlloch, Co- rinth, &c. why docs he not address them m the same manner as he does this, as churches, not church > Wny does not the writer of the Acts of the Apostles observe the same distinction ? G-al. i. 22. " And was unknown by face unto the churcbes' of Judca - Why does be not say, the church of Judea ? Why does he use the word church, when speakhig of the disciples 'of Jerusalem, and churches when he speaks of the disciples of Judea ? Ephps. i. 22. iii. 10. 21. V. 23. 24. 25.-27. 29. 32. Col. i. 18. 24. Heb. ii. 12. xii. 23. Church universal j no danger of mistaking the application. That the church at Ephesus was one single congre- gation, and complete in itself, is clear from chap. n. 22. « In ^vhom yc also are bui/t together, for an habitation af God, through the Spirit." They were all in one building, and, without any others joined with them, composed a complete house or habitation for the Spirit of God to dwell in. ,. i . Col. iv. 15. *' Nymphas, and the church which is m hishouse." This must certainly have been but one congregation. PhiUv. 15. No church but ye only." The Phihp- plans, as a single congregation, are contrasted with other churches of the same' kind. ^ Col. iv. 16. " Cause that it be read also m tne church of the Laodiceans •,'. i. e. in the church of the Laodlceans, as well as in your church. Church must here be one assembly, for in another sense tne epistle could not be read in tbe church. , ^ , r 1 Thess i 1. 2 Thess.i. 1. •* Unto the church of the Thessalonians." Had there been more than one, they would have been called churches. ^-^ Letter IX. 1 Thess.n. 14. " Followers of the churches of God x^'hich are in Judea.- Here again we have the distinc tion between the use of church and churches. Remem- ber that the saints in Jerusalem are always called the church at Jerusalem ; while those of the whole nation are called the churches of Judea. 2 Thess. i. 4. " Glory in you in the churches of God." Every congregation of the saints is here con- sidered as a church, in each of which, as Paul was la- bouring among them, he spake with approbation and exultation of the church of the Thessalonians. 1 Tim. iii. 5. " How shall he take care of the church- of God ?" to~wit, the church in which he should be a bishop. 1 Tim. iii. 15. " In the house of God, which is the church of God." Every individual church is a com- plete representation of the body of Christ. They are one body as they eat of the one bread. They are a house or complete building for the habitation of God, Eph. ii. 22. When Timothy was labouring in any of these churches, he was labouring in the house of God. Each of these houses, like a pillar, held the truth out to public view. They are like a city set upon a hill j like lights shining in a dark place. Their union in the ordinances of Christ, preaches the gospel to the world. 1 Tim. V. 16. " Let not ^he churcli be charged ;" I e. the church to which these poor widows belonged. As he is speaking of the duty of maintaining poor wi- dows, it is not likely that the clergy will claim it here. Philem. 2. " To the church in thy house j" onjv one congregation surely. James v. 14. " Let him send for the elders of tht Letter l^^ ^^ cWrcli." Without doubt, the elders of the particular church of which he should be a member. 3 John 6. " Thy charity before the church -, the coiiRrecation of which he was a member. _ Ver 9. " I wrote unto the church ;" that particular .iiurch. He wrote to the church itself, not to the el- ders alone, with respect to the brethren to whom he alludes. But the mystery of iniquity had already be- gun to work in this church, and through the mfluence of Diotrenhes they were not received. It was then, by crimin'al negligence on the one hand, and usurpa- tion on the other, that the members of the churche. came at last to be mere ciphers in the church. Ver 10. " Casteth them out of the churcii. ±.y this usurped authority, Diotrephes lorded it over the rest of the brethren, and cast such out of the churcU as disobeyed his mandates. Here then it is evident ex- ■communication belongs to a single congregation. Had it not been the privilege of the church, Diotrephes could not have usurped it. He could not have sue ceeded, until he had got the same ascendency m the superior courts, had this church been a Presbyterian congregation. Here then is a church just m tne sta.e which you represent an Independent church to be m. The evils of this situation, you would correct by a su- perior court. If you were consistent, you would blame the constitution of this church. Now, the same excuse th-,t you made for our Lord's silence with respect to an apoeal to suptrioy assemblies, will not serve you here. Here is an injurious sentence passed and e.-cecuted ,; vet the apostle speaks nothing of an appeal to a higher assembly. Had there been any such thing as a supe- . rior court, the apostle would certainly have directed '' the aggrieved to apply to it, to 'review the unjust sen- ^t)6 Letter IX. tence procured in this church by the influence of DiV trephes. Neither does he write to a presbytery or sy- nod to punish Diotrephcs, but declares he would re- member him if he came. Rev.i. 4. 11.20. ii.'7. 11. 17. 23.29. iH. 6. 13. 23. xxii. 16. " The seven churches which are in Asia j" not the church of Asia. When spoken of unitedly, they are churches ; when separately spoken of, each of them is called church. Rev. ii. 1. 8. 12. 18. iii. 1. 7. 14. Each of them also is addressed as complete in itself, and unconnected with ihe others. Each is praised or blamed individually. Each of them is required to rectify its own disorders. Nov/, Sir, 1 cp.U upon you ta run over these passages, and shew us how you understand thew^ord church in each of them. They will all, without force or figure, explaia according to our hypothesis, which is so simple as to give but one m-aning in every instance in which it applies to any visible assembly of Christ's disciples. With you, the word must assume the most discordant variety of meanings, without sanction from its primary import, Its usual scccptalion, a single positive example, or any of the common analogies of language. It is now lite- ral, and now^ figurative j now appropriated, and now un- appropriated j now appropriated to one thing, and nor/ to another j without any fixed rule to regulate us in this perplexity, without any cle;v to lead us into the labyrinth. Besides, you employ figures which I have attempted to shew are utterly absurd. You must over- throw this, or your cause is overthrown. 39" LETTER X. H .AVING considered your arguments for a plu- rality of churches in Jerusalem, and your objections to the presence of the individual members in the meetuig recorded in Acts xv. ; I shall now return to review your eighth letter. Before we proceed, on either side, to draw consequences from the transaction here related, it is absolutely necessary that we accurately determine what were the component parts of the assembly. This is the reason I have been so diffuse in proving, that there was in Jerusalem one Christian church only. If I have succeeded in this, I shall have little trouble in what remains. " Let it be supposed for a moment," (you say, p. 118.) " that the brethren here mentioned, were not the other ministers who were then at Jerusalem besides the apo- stles and elders : if it be asserted that these members, in any form J voted and judged m the case referred to, while it seems lo establish in one view", it completely subverts in another, the scheme for which it is urged. You argue against Presbyterians when they attempt to demonstrate from this passage, that one congregation, with its rulers, may be subject to the rulers of a num- ber of congregations met as a Presbytery, and tell them that this case vv-as extraordinary.'^'* Yes, Sir ; the circumstance of this case being extraordinary, and in- fallibly decided by the apostles, will indeed equally prove, that neither the elders of one congregation alone, nor these with the whole congregation, can decide for any other congregation. But we contend, that if this history gives the elders of one congregation a right to 398 Letter X. judge for another, it will equally give the members ot || one congregation a right to the same. The infallible determination of this question entirely precludes this transaction from being considered at all as a model for uninspired assemblies to make decrees. But as to the determination with respect to the matter of fact 5 to wit, whether the church had sent out the judaizing teachers with directions to inculcate the obligation of the Mosaic law, the whole church was equally concern- ed, and equally qualified to declare, as they do in their letter, " to whom we gave no such commandment.*' In this it is evidently a model, recorded for our imita- tion. This then is a suiticient answer to your next ar- gument. " But if the argument which is advanced by Presbyterians from tliis passage for a court of re- view, above the ministers or elders of a particular con- gregation, composed of the ministers of a number of congregations, seems to you inconclusive, because this assembly was inspired, and delivered an extraordinary inspired decision, must it not be equally inconclusive when urged by Independents for tiie right of the peo- ple to judge and vote in their religious assemblies ?" Yes, Sir j it is equally conclusive against the members of one congregation judging and voting in the affairs of another, as against the elders of one congregation^ judging, in the affairs of another congregation. It shews, that neither elders nor individual members of one congregation, should judge for another congrega- tion } but it shews, that whenever the elders are ad- mitted to judge, the individual members are also ad- fnitted. The horns of this dilemma, then, are exceed- ingly harmless. There is nothing proved, but that in- dividual members have no better right to judge for others, than elders have j which is a very uniinportant Letter X. 399 proposition. As to the matter of fact above stated, the model is still proper. " If the ministers and elders of different congrega- tions now, who correspond to the elders associated with the apostles, are not to judge as a Presbytery in mat- ters which relate to another congregation,, because, though they determined along with" them in the appeal from Antioch, the whole of them were guided by a miraculous energy, on what principle can it be proved that . hg peopU now are to judge and vote, because the people at Jerusalem judged and voted under the guid- ance of this extraordinary infallible energy ?" There is here an uncandid statement. The judging and voting of the ministers and elders are supposed to refer to other congregations, and that of church-members to the concerns of their own church alone 5 while you make it equally improper for individual members to judge in their ov/n affairs, as for the former to judge in the affairs of other congregations. Had you rea- soned fairly, the conclusion from the infallible deter- mination of this question would have been, that it is equally improper for one Independent church to judge for another, as for a classical Presbytery to judge for tlie congregations connected with them : or that it is equally improper for individual members to judge for others, as it is for ministers and elders to judge for others. This indeed is an undeniable truth, but of all truths the most unimportant \ for I suppose there are' not in the world any who would question it. ^Vill this hold, however, as to the affairs of the church it- self, which require no inspiration, such as the fact so ^ often referred to ? Besides, if inspired apostles joined the brethren with them, in a matter which they might have determined y, ithout them , by what pretext will unir^ 400 Letter X-. spired ministers and elders exclude the individual Trient- bers from their deliberations ? If they were admitted. to join in a decision with inspired men, what should forbid them to join in the decision of every matter with their uninspired rulers. If their approbation and consent was in any measure, or in any view, either ne- cessary or useful in this matter, which was determined by the apostles of Jesus^ will not the same be much more necessary and useful when matters are decided by fallible men ? Tliere is no reason that can be al- leged for admitting the brethren to a participation in this decision, that will not have tenfold strength, as to the decisions of fallible men. Even upon the supposi- tion that this- was a fallible council, the supposition would not tend to exclude the members from a share in the decision of church-business, but to increase the, evidence of its necessity. As inspired men, each ofj the apostles w^as indeed of himself qualified to decide the matter, j but if they are considered as uninspired^ men, they had need, not only of the brethren of Jeru- salem, but of all the churches in the w^orld j and) even after all, the decision should not command obedi- ence. If this was an ordinary and fallible decision, designed as a precedent, it establishes the right of the individual members, as well as of the rulers of one church, to judge and determine for another. If it was an infallible decision of the question about circumci- sion, as well as of the matter of fact with respect to the instructions given to the teachers that w^ent down to Antioch, the circumstance of the brethren be- ing joined with the apostles and elders, will for ever prove, that in every decision of the church, the brethren ought to be joined with the elders. The infallibility of this decision will indeed cut off Letter X. 4ul all pretensions, both of elders and brethren, to decide for other churches j but it will incontestibly prove, tliat in all cases in which the elders are admitted to judge, the consent of the brethren is necessary j and that the laws of Christ must be executed among them with the approbation of the w^hole church. Whether this decision was inspired or uninspired, the rights of the brethren are unaffected. " The argument, besides, adduced by you and Mr Hwing, in common with Mr Glas, for the right of the members to judge at present in the affairs of the church, from what is here said of the brethren at Jeru- salem, if it prove any thing, proves undoubtedly too much. It demonstrates not merely their right to judge- and vote in matters which relate to their own^ but in those which concern even another congregation. But does not this contradict a first principle of Inde- pendency, that neither the members nor the rulers of one congregation have a right to interfere, even ac- cording to your own acknowledgment (p. 30.) and according to the favourite position of Glas which he so keenly defends, with any other congregation under heaven ?" Indeed, Sir, if this history could be alleged to prove any superior courts, it would certainly establish the right of a single church, in its otiicers and brethren. Those who extend it as a model for references and ap- peals, must certainly allow it to go that length. Eut this absurdity is «oc alitached to our views, but to those of Presbyterians. It is very easy to see how it may prove enough for our purpose, without proving too much. As I have said more than once, the brethren and elders of the church of Jerusalem were of right joined in this decision, so far as it regarded the af. fairs of that church. As the teachtTS ^vho vvent do^\'n 402 Letter X. to Antiocli inculcating the necessity of circumcision, received no such doctrine from the church at Jerusa- salem, it was quite proper that the church should sig- nify this to the brethren at Antioch. Now this may very lawfully prove the right of church-members to a participation with their elders in the business of their own church, without proving either that elders or bre- thren, should judge for other churches. As to the obligation of circumcision, none but inspired persons could infallibly determine it ; yet the apostles chose to join the whole brethren with them in this, as well as the elders j and if the elders were not inspired, they were both equally unfit to decide, though with the clearest conviction they might join in the infallible de- cision of the apostles. Now, if in the decision of a question which none could infallibly determine but inspired persons, the apostles thought it proper to have the approbation and explicit consent of the whole bre- thren, as well as of the elders, it will follow, that in every instance in v^'hich the elders decide, the brethren must join in the decision. If they were admitted to join the apostles, will any arguments forbid them to join the uninspired ministers ? Now, Sir, in both these ways the argument Avill prove enough, without too much. After all, I am not much concerned to prove from this passage the right of members to judge in their own affairs. This is established by so many other passages, as to take away every temptation to force it on this place. I urge this rather to illustrate the his- tory, than to support my theory, which stands impreg- rably firm without it. But it is very evident, that the great intention of the Spirit in recording this -whole afiuir, is not only in this public manner to annul the LETTER X. 4u:. Mosaic dispensation, but to giVe us a model for the transaction of church-business. " Besides, would not the subordination to which this argument leads, a subordination of a particular congregation, not merely, as Presbyterians main- tain, to the ministers and lay-elders, the wisest and most enlightened of a number of congregations, but to the mem.bers indiscriminately of a sister congre- gation, be much more intolerable, even upon your own principles, than that for which the former contend ?" Indeed, Sir, of two things evidently absurd, it is of very little importance to determine which is the mxore absurd. I will allow you, without any disturbance, to take which of these opinions you please. But I will contend, that whether it be tolerable or intolerable, absurd or proper, if this history affords a model for any courts of reference, appeal, or review, it establishes in- contestibly the right of one church, in its members and officers. Novr, make you what you please of it. It follows also, you say, not only that the brethren of one congregation may judge for those of another, but even while the latter are not present. You add, " But does not this contradict another Independent principle ?" Rather you should have said j does not this contradict the Scriptures, (1 Cor. v. 4.) and there- fore cannot be deducible from this passage ? The con- tradiction is not between two principles of Indepen- dents, but between the principles of Presbyterians and the w^ord of God. Independent churches judge for others, neither in their presence nor out of it. Nor does the argument derived from this history prove that they ought to do so. " Or is it said, that the assembly at Jerusalem was not inspired, and that the reference made to them was M m 404 Letter X. .... ^im^\y ^OY opiruon 2.v.dL\iIvic£ .^ On this suppctel^Ioi no Judicial fiower at all was exercised, no act of ^r, . vernment was performed by any of them ; afi^ijjbix^v, quently, though it were admitted that the bmj^^p:.- Jerusalem wxre allowed, along with the apostles "aru elders, to state their opinion upon the controvertetl points, no argument can be adduced from it for the right of the brethren at present to govern and vote in the church. Governing the church and exercising dis" cipline are certainly very dilTerent from a mere s.'ate- ment of opinion upon a controverted point, which either might be received or rejected. And if the apostles*, and elder?, and members, in the case before us, merely gave an advice, and stated an opinion (as is done by the occasional association of your ministers, while, as you declare, p. 31. 32. &c. it is not binding upon any of your congregations), it will never follow that be-" cause the brethren were permitted to do this, they are au- thorised to govern or exercise discipline." pp. 121, 122. I believe Indeed, that the ancient Independent wri- ters have poured forth abundance of nonsense about meetings for counsel and advice. Some of them have supposed, that though this narrative does not afford a model for meetings of ministers to make authoritative decrees for the churches, yet that it sanctions such meetings for the purpose of giving counsel and advice to the churches. Their ^rror I treat with the same freedom that I do yours. I look upon this theory to be much more absurd even than the Presbyterian. For it is not possible to explain the passage in such a manner as to establish the divine right of assemblies for advice. This meeting gave not advice, but decrees j did not submit opinions to be canvassed, but doctrines to be believed, and precepts to be observed. If It is at all Letter X. 405 a model for any foreign interference, it establishes ab- solute authority en the one hand, and passive and un- limi;.ed obedience on the other. I cannot see any thing that could tempt inquiring Christians to adopt this theory, except they have not been thoroughiy purged from Presbyterian prejudices, or a desire not to appear all at once to go to so great a distance from the churches of this world. Perhaps a mixture of these motives have operated with tliem. They are a Utile shocked themselves, and perhaps afraid that others will be more so, with the idea of being so unlike to other societies called churches, in every distinguishing fea- ture. On the contrary, I am of opinion, that we ought not to wish to hide from the churches of the world, how much we diiTer from them. We ought to be so- licitous rather to shew them, that in every distinguish- ing feature the kingdom of Christ differs from the kingdoms of this world. We ought not to keep the worshippers of the beast in countenance, by making an image of the beast. There is no reason to fear alarming the prejudices of the world, or of Christians. If the cause is the Lord's, v/e may safely rest it upon his shoulders. If men will receive instructions from the word of God as to the nature of Christ's kingdom, it is well. But if any man will be obstinately and perversely ignorant, let him be ignorant. It is our duty to hold forth the word of life, in every part of it j it is in the Lord's hand who shall receive it. He has no need of our wisdom to help forward his plans. But if such meetings are not instituted from this passage yVr^ divinOy they cannot plead it to sanction their innocency. If they are not the oiTspring of the wisdom of God, they must be the offspring of the wis- dom of man : and the Lord will no mors countenance 406 Letter X. one human religious InstUution than he -will another. To say that such assemblies are useful, yet not institu- ted, is to arraign the -^visdom of Jesus, as a legislator, and to deny the competency of his institutions. If they are not divinely appointed, they cannot be useful, they cannot be innocent. I am bold to predict, that wherever they are tried, either an increasing acquaint- ance wiih the v^^ord of God, and a deeper knowledge of the nature of Christ's kingdom, will lay them aside, or they Vvill degenerate into an engine of Satan. In the very first instance, they must tend to damp in- quiry in the churches, sind gradually habituate them to allo'sv others to have the trouble of thinking for them. It is also a needless waste of time and of money •, with- out attaining even the legitimate advantage of an in- terchange of opinions. It must be well known, that more than half a dozen cannot maintain conversation j the rest must be mute, or, if they must all speak, time w^ill be greatly consum.ed. Besides, the formalities of a club or association must render conversation vapid and formal. If we wish the benefit of an interchange of sentiments, let us individually correspond, or rather as often as possible let us visit each other's churches, and let us receive one another in the Lord. This vall have incalculable advantages, and for this we wuU have the sanction of the apostolical churches. I look upon all such religious associations to be both unlawful, and exceedingly injurious. The increase of knowledge in the churches 'is not to be effected by their pastors meeting to plan, reason, confer, propose and solve difficulties, &c. j but by their labouring amofig them abundantly. The doctrines, precept?, and insti- tutions of the New Testament are not enveloped in such mystery, as to require the wise men of the world Letter X. 40T to assemble to draw them from their obscurity. As to the association to which you allude, I believe it does not now exist. I am persuaded that you^will find, that most of those who composed it, are at this time entirely opposed to it. " Again, supposing that this assembly at Jerusalem was neither an extraordinary assembly, nor a meeting convened merely for delivering an advice, but, as will afterwards at least be attempted to be proved, an au- thoritative, though an uninspired ecclesiastical court, I do not see how any argument can be drawn from it for the right of the members to judge in the church. If so, it would follow, as has been already said, that, like the brethren at Jerusalem, the brethren now could ex- ercise even an authoritative power j that they would be entitled likewise, like those at Jerusalem, to govern not only their own, but even other congregations j and that they would be warranted also authoritatively to govern these congregations, even when they were not present, and could not consent to their decisions 5 all of which snppositions are manifestly inconsistent with the declared principles of Independents." — pag. 122. Yes, Sir •, if this was an ordinary uninspired autho- ritative decision, it vv^ould prove that church-members, as well as church-rulers, may make laws, prescribe doctrines to be received, and precepts to be observed, with respect to other churches, even when the latter are not present to give their consent. Therefore, to avoid this absurdity, it must be supposed to have been an extraordinary and infallible decision. But it is not more absurd that church-members of one church should decide for those of another, than that church-rulers should do so. Your reasoning in this place is exceed- Mm 3 Why o th.s, that such a thing cannot be the case be cause it would imply „],,, ;, ^ , , ' ''^' of thp r„^ 7 contrary to the principles of the Independents. The principles of the Indepen- dents are m these points taken for a.xioms. They have not a ways the same weight with you ; but in this in- tance they must not be questioned, because that it an- "vers your purpose to take them for granted. But you here abstract the principles of Inde;endents from the grounds on which they are founded. Independents do. -deed deny that church-members have those powers tc «n.ch you refer. They suppose that this passage gives no foundation for such an opinion. But wha^ deter! rames tnem m this opinion ? The conviction that this decision was extraordinary and infallible. Once take away that supposition, and they cannot but admit, that church-members have a right to judge even for other churches, and ^that not in their presence. Upon the supposition that this v.as an uninspired assembly, these consequences will follow, in opposition both t'o Inde- penaents and Presbyterians. It is indeed lawful to ar- gue from the acknowledged principles of our oopo- nents ; and thougii the reasoning should not be con- clusn-e as to others, if it is fairly deducible from their prmcples, it must be allowed valid by them until they alter such principles. But in such cases, we must no't separate between their principles, and the reasons upon which they are rested. In this place, you reason from the principles of Independents, taking them to be true, while at the same time your argument is rested upon a supposition that takes away the reasons of their truth. Independents believe that the brethren have no such prerogatives, because this decision was inspired. You take the truth of the first for granted, while your the- Letter X. 409 ory denies tlie latter. This reasoning then has no force either in itself, or against Independents. Make the supposition good which you have taken for granted, and I will take all the consequences to which it would lead. I will argue both against Independents and Presbyterians, the extensive authority of some single church, in its elders and brethren. And indeed, as to uninspired assemblies, I see no greater absurdity in church-members judging for other churches, than in church-rulers doing the same. They are both su- premely absurd, and contradictory to other passages of Scripture j therefore cannot be the legitimate meaning, of this narrative. The theory then that admits, or can- not prevent such consequences, is a false one j conse- quently this decision must be an inspired one. " The truth therefore seems to be, according to the sentiments of some Presbyterians, that though the mem- bers at Jerusalem expressed their acquiescence in the decision of the apostles and elders (a circumstance which could not fail to have uncommon weight upon the minds of the believing Jews at Antioch, as they must previously have been no less attached than them- selves to the distinguishing peculiarities of the law of Moses), they by no m.eans appear to have judged- authoritatively, or even voted in the matter,"—- pag. 122. Indeed, Sir, there was no voting either of apostles^ or elders, or brethren. The apostles decided the mat- ter j and the whole church, elders and brethren, heart- ily joined in the decision. The obligation of the de- crees arose from the infallibility of the determination. But the letter was a joint one, and the decision express- ed as a joint one. It is not said in the letter, that the brethren informed the brethren at Antioch that they 410 Letter X. acquiesced in the decision, but the apostles, elders, and brethren, unitedly speak through every part of the ad- dress. " It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord." Similar is the strain of the whole, letter. The brethren are as particularly associated with the apostles as the elders. The brethren, as well as the elders, -were assembled with one accord with the apostles, and are represented as fully as they are, to have joined in all that was transacted. As to the au- thority of the judgment of elders and brethren, if they were both uninspired, it was in both the same. There was no authority in the opinion of any who were not inspired. But as to a distinction between the weight of the judgment of the elders, and of the brethren, or the manner in which they concurred in this decision, there is not the smallest hint in the narrative or letter. The acquiescence of the whole assembly to the truth stated by the apostles, is expressed in the same man- ner. But view the matter in any light you please, ex- haust your invention in finding out distinctions j still the brethren -were present, and had their names sub- joined to those of the apostles and elders in these de- crees. In >vhatever then this transaction is de;signed to be a m.odel, it must include the brethren. Allow- ing your own statement to be altogether just, it must overthrow your ecclesiastical constitution, as in one view or other it makes the acquiescence of the bre- thren to be a part of the divine m.odel. If the names of the brethren were necessary to give weight to apo- stolical decrees, much more so to those of uninspired men. If this is the model, why do you not embrace it ? Why do you not separate from the church of Scot- land, that you may enjoy it ? Why should this part of the model be void of obligation, more than any other Letter X. 411 part of it ? Why are the people among you cut off from that which even this interpretation allows to be their privilege ? This model then is on the one hand defec- tive, and on the other redundant. You have not only to supply it with Presbyterian wheels and springs, but also, in making room for them, to cut away some of those which it originally possessed. Indeed, the im- provements of the machine are-so many and important, that the new model is very well entitled to a patent. But if this was an uninspired assembly, as you profess to believe, and if the truth of the matter seems to be, that those here called the brethren, were no farther concerned in the decision than they are here represent- ed, how does this tally with the supposition that the brethren were really themselves mii.islers ? Does not this go to prove that in a synod or general council, the clergy of the cily in which the meeting is held, have alone a right to make every decision, and that all the privilege of the other ministers consists in dutifully ac- quiescing in the determination of the former ? Certain- ly, whatever -weight is in the above extract must go to prove this, if these brethren shall be found, agreeable to your theory, to have been ministers from foreign places, with evangelists and prophets. " It was to the apostles and elders alone," you say, " and not to the m.embers, that the church at Antioch referred their cause." Certainly none were fit to deter- mine the matter, but those who could infallibly know the mind of God j but though it were a fact that the elders at Jerusalem w^ere not inspired, it was proper to join them with the apostles, as being the rulers of the church from which the Judaizing teachers came. As the message not only referred to the decision of a dis- puted question, but to the ascertaining of a fact with 412 Letter X. respect to the cliurch at Jerusslem, tlie rulers of tliat church were properly advertised of this. It was their business to lay the matter before the church. Had the apostles been all dead, and the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit enjoyed by none in Jerusalem, it would have been proper to have written to the elders of that church for satisfaction upon this point. The improper conduct of brethren, when at a distance from their ov/n church, should certainly be noticed by other churches, and reported. This report is very properly addressed to the elders, as the executive officers of the church. But a reference to the church at Jerusalem, either in its rulers or brethren, as to the settling of any point of doctrine, never would have been made, ex- cept there had been inspired authority there. But if it was to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem alone that the church of Antioch referred its cause, how does this agree Vv'ith the notion that this was a general council ? How^ does this dispose of your foreign ministers -^ If the brethren here mentioned in the address of the let- ter, could have no share in the decision of this question,, though those who determined it were equally uninspi- red with themselves, because they are not mentioned specifically as referred to, (Acts xv. 2.) how do these same brethren come to have a vote and authoritative judgment, the moment they are supposed to have been ministers ? If, as church-members, they are excluded, because not mentioned in the reference, how are they admitted as foreign ministers, though not mentioned ? for this argum.ent excludes the brethren, not as indivi- dual members, but as not being mentioned. Acts xv. 2. If there were no more joined in this decision than those mentioned. Acts xv. 2. then it cuts off the brethren, whether they were ministers or individual members. It Letter X. 413 cuts off all foreigners •, none are concerned in the mat- ter, but the aposdes and elders at Jerusalem. • You continue, " But if the members at Jerusalem, wiio were greatly more numerous than the apostles and elders, sat In the court, and if the decision could have been carried only, according to the constitution of the Christian church, if agreeable to a majority of them, then since, on account of their number, it must have been known at Antloch that it was they alone principally who were to iix the determination, the refe- rence should have been made principally to them."— • pp. 122, 123. Upon the supposition that this was a reference to an uninspired court, this might have some Vv-eight j but as the matter was to be decided by inspiration, it has none in any point of view. It was not by the votes of a majority of uninspired men that the brethren of An- tioch were to be determined as to their duty, but by, " It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost." I do not know in what part of Scripture you have got the idea of a majority being necessary in the decision of every question, according to the constitution of the Christian church. Is it from precept, or example, or Inference, you have derived this piece of information ? Complete unanimity is necessary in all the proceedings of a church of Christ. Presbyterians surely have borrow- ed this idea from worldly societies, from Vv'hich they have got the other distinguishing parts of their consti- tution. But I may retort, if this was an uninspired assembly, so numerous that it is called a multitude, and . if the decision vv-as to have been made by a plurality of voices, then the elders, being but a sm.all part of the assembb^ might have been almost overlooked, or at least the reference ought to have been principally made 414 Letter X. to those wlio were not apostles. There is no founda- tion for your allegation, upon the supposition that the apostles were inspired, but certainly if they were unin- spired, and a majority of votes to decide the question, the apostles might as well have been at Gartmore as at Jerusalem. *' It is the apostles and elders too alone," you say, " who are said to have come together to consider the matter." Sir, it is as expressly said in one place that the whole church came together, as it is in another, that the apostles and elders came together. Is it any strange thing, that the principal persons only are at first generally mentioned as coming together ? Indeed, if nothing more had been added, we would have no right to suppose that there were any others present. But it is afterwards as clearly shewn that the whole church was^ assembled, as that the apostles and elders were assembled. All who are mentioned as joining in the letter, are expressly said to " be assembled with one accord." Now, it was the apostles, and elders, and brethren, who joined in this letter j therefore the apo- stles, and elders, and' brethren, w^ere assembled with one accord in deciding with regard to the contents of this letter. But if none but the apostles and elders came together, what comes of your foreign ministers ? If the brethren, as church-members, are here excluded, because not said in the same verse to have come toge- ' ther \^ith the apostles and elders, how are they admit- ted as ministers when not mentioned, Acts xv. 6. ? *' During the deliberation, moreover," you say, " it was only the apostles and elders, and not the brethren, who are said to have spoken, and the decrees are call- ed the decrees of the apostles and elders, not the de- crees of the apostles, and elders, and brethren." The Letter X. 415 laposlles alone are specified as having spoken. There is no more room to suppose that an uninspired elder spoke, than that an uninspired brother spoke. In de- termining the mind of the Spirit, none had a right to give judgment who were not inspired, though they might all join in this, when the mind of God was in- fallibly made known. That the individual members i were equally concerned with the apostles in determi- ning the mind of God upon this question, we do not affirm, because the determination was Infallible. But there is no mere reason to believe that uninspired el- ders had a greater share in it, than uninspired brethren. SlrictJy speaking, the decision was made by Peter and James, or by .1 ames alone, and unanimously adopted by the -^vhole assembly. That the decision is called, i^cts XV. 4. the decrees of tlie apostles and elders, determines nothing, seeing not only as to the decrees, but in the whole of the letter, the brethren are joined with them. Though then, for the sake of brevity, they are called the decrees of the apostles and elders, yet they might also have been called the decrees of the apostles, and elders, and brethren. For though the decrees were given by James alone, yet it pleased the apostles to join the brethren with themselves in giving them. If Mr Carey should write a letter in the name of all his fellow missionaries, to which, in testimony that it was their joint letter, they should all subscribe their names 5 in speaking of this letter, we might call it, for the sake of brevity, Mr Carey's letter ; or, if we washed to convey particular information as to those concerned In writing it, we might call It the letter of Mr Carey and his fel- low-labourers. Yet the letter is not so much the letter of the others as of Mr Carey, for he is supposed to have composed it. A bill might also be called, Mr Nn 416 Letter X. Fox's India bill, although a number had been at the framing of it. In such cases, when particuLir inform- ation is not intended to be conveyed, the principal and' most conspicuous persons alone are mentioned. But what suppose they should have been the decrees of the apostles and elders alone ? What suppose the brethren had neither been admitted to join in the deci- sion, nor had been even present -* This can be no pre- cedent for the elders of different churches making de- crees, nor for the elders of one church to make 4j?Crees without the apostles being with them. The decrees of the elders would not be valid without the names of the elders standing in front, as well as those of the bre- thren subjoined. Whether then the elders were inspi- red or uninspired, this, upon no consideration, can be a precedent for any but the elders of one church, and to them only, when they can get the aposilcs to come down from heaven to sit at their head. For whatever reason the elders were joined to the apostles, the for- mer cannot act upon this model without the latter. Even vrere we to grant, for argument's sake, that these elders were pastors of dilTerent flocks in Jerusalem, it w^ould afford a precedent only for the elders of one city deciding for those who had no elders or represen- tatives present, and in this case also the presence of the apostles is required. " It is also said," you continue, " that it pleased the whole church, as well as the apostles and elders, (ver. 22.) to send chosen men with their determination to Antioch. Admitting, however, that by the w^iole church or assembly, {iKx-Xmioi) is not intended the rest of the office-bearers w^ho composed this meeting be- sides the apostles and elders, it deserves to be remark- ed, says the ingenious Mr Muir, that what is here sta- Letter X. 4lv7 ted respecting tlie members, if it be the members who are meant, did not take place till tbe deliberation was finished, and the sentence was passed, which, as we have now seen, was performed entirely by the apostles and elders."— p. 124. Indeed, Sir, it makes very little matter at v^^hat time the whole cbarch joined the decision, seeing that • it is evident that they really did so. Allowing this state nent to be altogether correct, it only affects the etiquette of the court. If, in the decision transmitted to Antioch, the names of the whole church were sub- joined to those of the apostles and elders, I do not see how the discovery of this exceedingly Ingenious gentle- man can effectually relieve you. It might be some con- solation indeed to the pride of the clergy, that the brethren v/ould not be allowed to signify their assent to any proposition, till their very reverend fathers had first given their judgment. But if it is necessary that their decrees should have the sanction of the Vv^holie church, i. e. in Presbyterian language, the whole peo- ple, their present constitution derives no countenance from this model. I do not then think it worth while to spend time in ascertaining the etiquette of this as- sembly. It is entirely sufficient for my purpose, that even the apostles of God thought proper to join the w^hole church of Jerusalem wsth_. them in their deci- sion. At what stage of the business this was done maketh no matter. I am persuaded, indeed, that the matter was decided before the church expressed its consent j but it was decided no more by the uninspired elders, than by the uninspired brethren. You here re- present the matter as if the question had been put to the vote among apostles and elders, and that then a sy- nodical decree was passed in form, which was after- I I 418 Letter X. Vv'arcis assented to by the brethren. Now this may ht an ingenious supposition, but I must be allowed to say, that there is no truth in it, so far as the present narra- • tive informs us. If you and your ingenious friend ' have any other more full and authentic accounts of this transaction than what are recorded in this chapter, you would do well to favour the world with the discovery. There was no formal separate sentence of the apostles and elders previous to that of the church. There was no voting. James decided the matter in the most ab- solute language, without supposing any room for diffe- rence in opinion. Nor does the narrative give room to suppose that his sentence needed to be strengthened even by the formal assent of the other apostles. It Is Rot said that the apostles, or the apostles and elders, or the apostles, and elders, and brethren, unanimously adopted the opinion of James. This Is taken for grant- ed ; and in consequence of this decision of James, the apostles, and elders, and brethren, did not proceed to a formal decision, but to act upon the decision already unalterably pronounced by James. ' *' Then pleased It the apostles, and elders, with the w4iole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch," &c. But how will this ingenious hypothesis agree with your still more Ingenious discovery, that these brethren, or the whole church, were other ministers ? If it appears from this narrative, that those called the brethren, and the whole church, were not allowed to signify their assent to this decision, until the sentence was fully pass- ed and settled, and if these were prophets, evangelists, and foreign ministers, does not this establish an invidi- ous distinction between the clergy of the city, and those of the country ? Would not this make the fo- reign ministers inferior in power, even to the city lay- Letter X. 419 elders ? for if there were any lay-elders at all in the assembly, ihey must be included in the elders that are , mentioned. IF then the apostles and elders settled the whole matter, before they allowed the brethren to ex- press their approbation •, then upon the supposition that those brethren were ministers, the clergy and lay- elders of Edinburgh alone should settle every matter in the General Assembly, without allowing the foreign mini- sters either to speak or vote in any matter. After the vote should pass, and the sentence be fixed, the foreign ministers might be allowed humbly to express their as- sent to the metropolitan decrees. Now, Sir, you exert all your ingenuity to support each of these hypotheses, I am confident, if you had not allowed your zeal to drown your reflection, you must have seen that it is al- together impossible for the same author to adopt both j that you were pulling down with the one hand what you were building with the other •, that every argu- ment that could give an accession of strength to the one, takes as much from the other. You wantonly triumph when you suppose you have discovered a diffe- rence of sentiment betn-een Mr Inncs and Mr Ewing, though there is not the slightest inconsistency when the different views of the passage are fairly considered j but this is Brown against Brown. There is no possi- bility of reconciling these two theories. A disinterest- ed reader, totally unacquainted with the subject, could not but discover from your perplexity, and vari|if^f inconsistent solutions of difficulties, that it cannotw. the truth you are defending. Your arguments have no resemblance' to those of a man strongly impressed with a distinct conception of a divine model. On that sup- position, you would not be racking your invention to shew in how many ways your antagonist might be an- N n 3 420 Letter X. swered, or how sucli and such arguments may be eva- ded. When a man really understands a passage, and wishes to give the just view of it, he is no way solici- tous to persuade people that there are several ways of understanding it almost equally evident. Whenever I hear a preacher expounding a text in different ways^ giving several meanings, without discovering a prefe- rence to one, I immediately conclude that he has yet no clear conceptions of the subject j that his own mind is not fully made up. For although he should give t^v'enty views of the same passage, if his mind is fully convinced of the truth of one, as but one can be true, he will decidedly adopt that, and labour to discredit all the others. Now, Sir, it appears to me that you have really no correct, decided views on this subject at all. You appear almost at a loss, which of many theories upon the different parts of your subject you should adopt. Between these theories, you are writing like a man in convulsions. If you were completely confi- dent of the truth of one, you would have laboured not to establish, but overthrow every other. As those who v;ish to pass bad money, sometimes instead of giving a shilling, will give a handful, hoping that some of them may be taken j so you, justly suspicious of the validity of your principal theory, give us others, with the hopes that some of them may serve your purpose. This, with superficial observers, may serve to impress ideas of the richness of your cause, from your variety of resources ; but with those who will take the trouble -to consider the matter a little more attentively, it will only excite suspicions of poverty. " The church, moreover, he adds," (Mr Mulr), " it we choose rather to retain ihis translation of the word, and intend by it the members, might w ell be pleased Letter X. 421 with the measure, and to express their acquiescence, though they were not allon'ed in any yiq.\v judicially to signify their mind respecting it." What is meant by this refinement ? Neither the rest of the apostles, nor the elders and brethren, were called upon judicially to express their approbation of the sentence given by James. The 22d verse does not represent the confir- mation of this sentence by the whole assembly, or by any part of it, but relates to what took place pursuant to the sentence. The truth of James' sentence is taken for granted, and the assembly does not proceed to con- firm it, but to act upon it. It was the sentence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore needed no confirmation. In the transmission of the sentence of the Holy Spirit, the apostles, elders, and brethren, united in a joint letter, and sent it by the hands of chosen m.essengers. It is not said that the church v^as pleased with the measure, and expressed their acquiescence in it, as this gloss sup- poses j but that it pleased them, with the apostles and elders, to send chosen men to Antioch, transmitting through them the sentence of the Holy Spirit, recog- nized by the v/hole assembly. The sentence was the sentence of the Holy Ghost, pronounced by an. apostle of Jesus, and agreed to be transmitted in the name of the v/hole assembly to Antioch. *' The apostles and elders might determine, that two of the brethren should go up to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, to testify the acquiescence of the whole in the decision, and might call upon the multitude, as at the election of the deacons, to look out among themselves tv/o men for this purpose." Sir, how are you warranted to interpose your mi^ht-be'^^ in direct contradiction to what the passage itself asserts ? It Is not said, that tii^ apostles and elders determined to 422 Letter X. send men to Antiocli, and commanded the church to choose them j but that, *' It pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men," &c. These chosen men, i. e. the men chosen by the apostles, elders and brethren, were Judas and Silas. There is here no such thing as one thing asserted with respect to the apostles and elders, and another with re- spect to the church. The church is as much joined with the former in determining to send, as they are in the choice of those sent. " But the letters, it may be said, which -were written to Antioch, were written in the name of the brethren as well as of the apostles and elders j and the whole of them are represented as saying to the church at Anti- och, (ver. 28.) that it seemed good to them as well as to the Holy Ghost,. to lay upon them no greater bur- den than necessary things. It seems plain, however, that it might be represented as pleasing the members^ if they be referred to only so far as acquiescing in the decision Vv^hich was made by the apostles and elders, and not as themselves joining judicially in the delibe- ration and determination ; and that it is in this view that their names are inserted in the letters." — p. 125. Sir, if conjecture would prove any thing, there could be no end to this, or any other dispute. There is here not the smallest intimation of what you suppose. The apostles, and elders, and brethren, are all repre- sented as united in the same things, in the same man- ner. The obligation of their joint decrees certainly depends upon the inspiration of the whole, or of one part of them. If there was one inspired man among them, this is completely secured. But it is not saidj that it pleased the one to acquiesce in the decision of the others; but, " It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost, , Letter X. 423 and to us :" — to us, the apostles, elders, and brethren. That the decrees of the church and of the elders, if un- inspired,' were obligatory, arises from their being also the decrees of the apostles. Why any uninspired men, whether elders or brethren, were allowed to join the apostles, it is not incumbent upon me to account. " The reference was not made to them, and would they ever have presumed to have judged in a cause in which they were not appealed to V* Fact surpasses reasoning a priori. 'We see, that they have been ac- tually admitted to join in this letter wiih the apostles in transmitting the judgment of the Holy Spirit. What was most fitting, was better known to the Spirit of God than to you or me. For my part, it is sufficient to me to knoTV that the apostles, who were the accre- dited transmitters of the oracles of God, thought this the most eligible manner. I will take the account as it stands, without adding any thing to make it more full, or defalcating the account, to make it square with a system. I will ne^'^r presume either to dictate to God how he should proceed, or presumptuously de- mand from him a reason of his conduct. I am satis- fied that the records of Scripture are both sufficiently plain, and sufficiently full, for every necessary informa- tion to Christians. I therefore take their accounts just as they stand, in their most obvious and consistent sense. The Spirit of God here tells me, that the bre- thren were joined with the apostles in laying on those burdens, as plainly as ever any proposition was contain- ed in language. Instead then of denying that this could have been the case, from arguments a priori, as previously established opinions, I think it proper rather to inquire what instruction the Spirit of God means to convey by this fact. Pray, Sir, does it not take a lon^ 424 Letter X. time for you to read a passage of Scripture, if you are accustomed to take the meaning of it with you ? Ac- cording to your interpretation of this, and every other passage of Scripture which comes under your review, there is so much to be supposed, so much to be added, so many distinctions, so many passages seemingly mean one thing, yet really mean another, that I think you must be a long tim,e labouring through a chapter. If this is the just method of interpretation, it is absolute absurdity to put the Bible in a man's hand, before he is well acquainted with the system, and has been accus- tomed to view the Scripture language through the in- terpretations of the rabbies. Xhis method, I believe, has been practised by the recornniendation of some of the spiritual guides. *' 'They are never named among those who are said to come together to consider the matter." They did meet, and it seemed good (ver. 25.) to them, as well as to the others, being assembled with one accord^ to send chosen men, &c. " Besides, when the sacred historian speaks of the decision w^hich was contained in these letters, and of the persons who passed it as ecclesiastical judges, he af- firms, as has been said repeatedly, that it was pronoun- ced only by the apostles and elders j chap. xvi. ver. 4. To make the historian therefore consistent with him- self, it is necessary to consider him here as telling us, that the brethren merely acquiesced in what was done by the apostles and elders." — p. 125. A sufficient answer has already been made to this, as far as the representation is founded in fact. But it is a falsification of the language of Scripture. The histo- rian indeed calls them, the decrees of the apostles and elders j but that they were also the decrees of the who'je * Letter X. 425 church, is as clear from the letter, as that they were the decrees of the apostles and elders is clear from this. The reason of being thus called in Acts xvi. 4. I have assigned ; but without positively assigning any, I might insist upon their being the decrees of the church, as well as of the apostles and elders, from the phraseology of the letter. If the reason assigned does not please you, look for a belter. The historian's lan- guage in the different places is altogether reconcilable in my view, according to principles every day recogni- zed by the best use. Your supposition would not re- ccntile the two passages. For it is absolutely, fully, and unequivocally staled In the let ter, that the bre- thren were joined with the apostles, just in the same manner as the elders. Now, any supposition that con- tradicts this, will not reconcile the two passages, but destroy the- testimony of one of them. Why do you say that the decision was pronounced only by the apo- stles and elders ? The passage does not say so. It was pronounced by the apostle James, and neither the el- ders, nor even the rest of the apostles, are represented as giving their votes as ecclesiastical judges, more than the brethren. They are then the decrees of the apo- stles, and elders, and brethren, according to the unde- niable tenor of the letter in which they are transmit- ted. They are obligatory decrees, because there was inspiration in the assembly, and are therefore in reality, and are called, the decrees of the Holy Gb)st. But if the decrees were pronounced only by the apostles and elders as ecclesiastical judges, and if this is so evident, that all other parts of the narrative must be explained to tally with this, how will you contrive to bring the brtthrerj from the back ground, upon the supposition that they were ministers ? It cannot be because they 426 . Letter X. will then be contained in the elders mentioned ; for this would make the sacred historian speak nonsense, which is full as bad as to conLradipt himself. Whoever the brethren might be, they must be different from those previously mentioned. " How could the brethren (p. 126.) of one congre- gation /ay judicially any necessary burdens upon the brethren of another congregation ?" I will answer this question by another. How can the uninspired elders of one congregation lay judicially any necessary bur- dens upon the brethren of another congregation, or upon their own ? I will answer both : Certainly ufDon no other consideration than that they joined with the inspired apostles. The apostles were the representa- tives of Jesus 'y the church of Jerusalem, like every other church of Christ, was the body of Christ \ the whole body therefore were joined with those who re- presented their head. Had not the apostles been at their head, their decrees would have been entitled to the same respect with the Dictata of Hildebrand. This to me seems a clear and sufficient solution of the ques- tion J if it does not seem so to you, search for a better. But without giving myself the trouble to satisfy you on this head, I will peremptorily insist that the brethren did so, let the reason be w4iat it may. To account for this, is no more incumbent upon me than it is upon you •■, and the matter is no more strange with respect to uninspired brethren, than -with respect to uninspired elders. The apostles, guided by the Spirit of God, joined to themselves in this affair whom they pleased. If the elders were uninspired, they were equally with the brcLhren unfit for this business j and if, as you al- lege, the apostles themselves were uninspired, they ■were altogether unlit for it, and are worthy of no re- ' Letter X. 42T gard. Witliout inspiration, no burdens caa be laid on the disciples of Jesus, either by themselves or by others. Eut if this should be allowed to sanction the propriety of ecclesiastical assemblies s'dll laying burdens on the disciples of Christ, the brethren, even in that view, can never be excluded from their full share in it. Indeed, the supposition that this was an uninspired obligatory decision, would establish the right of every church- member equally with their rulers. If they were all un- inspired, as they are all in the same way represented as joining in the sentence, there is no reason why tlie brethren should not always be admitted to the same privilcp-e. If the question had been to be determined by voles, the apostles would have had little share in the decision. I come now to review your 17th letter. " But ihqugh this assembly at Jerusalem cannot be allowed to be the meeting of a particular congregation only, did it resemble a Presbyterian Synod in every respect, and include representatives from the churches of An- tioch, Syria, and Cilicia, as well as of Jerusalem ? Such ^vas the opinion of the Presbyterian divines in the Westminster Assembly — of the London ministers — of Wood, Ay ton. Hall, and Muir •, but this, whether the case or not, is by no means necessary for our present argument in support of Presbytery. The appointment of the ministers of the different churches next to any congregation to constitute a Presbytery, for revie^ving the deeds of the overseers of that congregation, and the appointment of the ministers of various Presbyte- ries next to a Presbytery to form a Synod, for review- ing the conduct of that particular Presbytery, are mat- ters altogether circumstantial, not essential to the first principles of Presbytery, and adopted merely from Oo 4^8 Letter X. conveniei^ce. It is not of fundamental irnporlnnce In Presbytery, vvlielher Its courts of review are composed of the ministers whose local situaaon is nearest eacli other, or of ministers who are placed at a considerable distance ; or whether a Synod be made up of a parti- cular number of separate Presbyteries, or of an assem-- blage of ministers from different and more remote places, but superior in number to those who constitute the Presbytery from which a reference is made to thtm. These circumstances must be determined from the par- ticular pleasure and situation of those churches which agree in government, and can be more easily arranged m modern times than am.ong ancient beliex'ers. Though then it could not be proved that there vras a Synod at Jerusalem corresponding in all respects to a modern Synod, it will by no means, as Independents have often asserted, enervate the argument. The grand point to be ascertained is simply this : Were the ministers and church of Antioch subordinate, in this reference, to the authoritative review of a number of other ministers convened at Jerusalem as ministers of Christ, though the assembly should have resembled strictly neither a Presbytery, nor Synod, nor any such association ? If this can be established, all the other arrangements will necessarily follow, and nothing more is requisite to de- monstrate their propriety." — pp. 291, 292. If you pretend to have a dlvinemcdehyoumust produce it from the Scriptures in every part. I will not indeed expect it to be exhibited In one place, under one view. This would be unanalogcus to the manner of convey- ing every other Scripture truth. But without doubt, every wheel, and every pin of a divine machine, must be 'divine. Whatever is left to be added by the inge- nuity of man, according to circum.stances, is not divine Letter X. 429 but human. The complete machine would not then be divine, but partly divine and partly human. It would come far short of proving Presbytery, to prove that there ought to be courts of review. There might have been such courts instituted, yet upon a model es- sentially different from the Presbyteiian. Supposing then that it is proved, or taken for granted, that this passage warrants such courts, the next question will be what is the constitution and form of those warranted by it ? The copy must correspond to the origiaal. Every part of the model must be exhibited in the cony, and nothing must be admitted, which has not a corresponding part in the original. If this meeting in Jerusalem esta- blishes subordination to a superior court, such superior court must be of the same construction with that re- presented in this passage. It must be composed of the apostles, and elders, and brethren of one church. If Christ appointed courts of review, and left the consLltution of these courts to the wisdom of men, we have then no divine model at all. You here give up the defence of Presbytery, as constituted after a divine model. Every thing is left to be modelled by man. There is nothing determined, but that there should be reference to higher authority. Now, if this is the case, you cannot vindicate the dimne right of the Presbyte- rian form of church-government. You do not con- tend that you have a true copy of a divine pattern, but rather that you have a divine right to form a mo- del for yourselves, and to add or to take from even the model which you pretend to have discovered In this chapter. This reasoning entirely proceeds upon tlie supposition that there is no divine model j for a model that may be altered by addition or defalcation, is not an obligatory model. Instead of shelving that the '^30 Letter X. Scriptures give a model, you attempt only to shew tLat they give authority to make up a complete model, only stipulating that the court shall consist of church rulers. It seems Jesus is not at all concerned about the exact ; plan of the ecclesiastical court, provided that it con* sists of ministers. He has determined that there should be such courts, composed of such persons ; but as to the series of subordination, and the plan of the consti- tution of each, he has left this to the discretion of the Presbyterian clergy, to be regulated by circumstances, and has given them letters patent to sanction the par- ticular form they should adopt, and to preclude every other denomination from the same privilege. Nothin-r can be more absurd, than for those who pretend to have here a divine model, to contend that they are not to be guided by that modt-l. Your reasoning am.ounts to this : Christ has not indeed given a complete mo- del, but he has given some hints towards a model, with a patent to establish It, when it is completed by the clergy. It requires little penetration to discover from this paragraph, that you are convinced of being on bad ground, and that you are anxious to escape from it. You are afraid to speak, lest you should not speak suf-*^ ficiently guarded \ you are afraid to be silent on this point, lest your cause should appear desperate. You hint at the opinion of others, wishing it to be adopted, yet afraid positively to sanction it, and conscious of its total want of proof, wish to appear to do independent of it. What caution ! What circumspection ! Yet in the greatest danger, safety sometimes depends upon assuming apparent unconcern. The sage distinction between fundamental importance, and things altogether Circumstantial, adopted merely fro?n convenience, pro- Letter X. 4ol nounced witli an air of confidence, as if tlie matter could not be doubted, or for a moment disputed, brings you safely, and even triumphantly out of this most cri- tical situation. You artfully confound the question as to the propriety of reference, with the question as to the authorized referees, and take for granted, that if the former is proved. Presbytery will follow of course. Now, Sir, there can be nothing more fallacious than this. These two questions are entirely distinct 5 and though we deny both, yet the former might have been the case, without sanctioning the latter. These ques- tions then should be handled separately, and indepen- dently of each other. I will for a moment grant the propriety of reference, and superior authority among the churches, to be established from this chapter, and upon this ground will oppose classical Presbytery. The persons who composed this model, were the apostles, elders, and brethren, as a single church. I will even go farther, and grant, for argument's sake, that in this assembly there were none but ministers j even then it would be but the ministers of one church. I will go farther still. I will grant that they were ministers in this assembly from other places besides Jerusalem, and will undertake to prove that this will not establish Presbyteiy. This v/ould only be a common ground for the church of Rome, the church of England, the church of Scotland, and all others who might choose to embrace it. To shevs^ that it was a Presbyterian as- sembly, it Is necessary, not only to prove that they were ministers who composed It, and some of them fo- reign ministers, but that there Vv'ere ministers and lay- elders In it from every congregation bound by the de- cision ; in short, that Its construction was exactly simi- lar to whatever Presbyterian assembly It is pretended Oo3 432 Letter X. to correspond. Instead then of huddling these two questions together, and passing them for true ahnost by taking their truth for granted 5 by telling us what iy fundamental and what is circumstantial in the Presby- terian constitution ; there is no part of the subject re- quired to be more largely handled, and more clearly ascertained from Scripture. Yet you have not a sin- gle proof from Scripture, nor a single reference to it. You give us nothing but some general observations, founded on the nature of your ecclesiastical constitu- tion, not on the constitution of the assembly which you pretend to adopt as a model. You have wasted whole letters upon nothing • and have fatigued your- self in beating the air, while matters of vital import- ance in the debate are entirely evaded. Suppose then that there is a power lodged some-^ where, of setiiing disputes, and of authoritatively de- claring what is to be believed and practised, there can- not be a question of greater importance, than who has this povv-er ? What is the construction of that assembly appointed by Christ to deteimine things of such infi- nite consequence ? Does this authority belong to the pope alone, or to the pope and his council j to a con- vocation of bishops •, to a general assembly of presby- ters J to some single church definitely, with its elders and brethren, or indefinitely to any church to whom the parties may agree to refer their cause j or to any kind of assembly at the option of the disputants ? I insist. Sir, that this is no more a defence of Presbytery than it is of Popery, Prelacy, or any other modification of courts of reference, appeal, or review, that actually exists, or may be hereafter invented. All that you at- tempt to fix by divine authority, is the propriety of re- ference to a superior court. Now, there might be a. Letter X. 433 thousand diflFercnt modifications of assemblies, which may all equally claim the protection of this theory. If there is no divine model given of the assembly legally constituted for this purpose, it is absurd to give any one of them the exclusive title of a divine right. I ask you, Sir, do you yourself believe the divine right of the Presbyterian model / Do you believe that the constitution and forms of your assemblies are exhibited, in this assembly at Jerusalem ? Answer the question w^ith^ut equivocation or shuffling. If you cannot sanc- tion the particular construction of your highest assem- bly by the model pretended to be here exhibited, with the number, conformation, constitution, gradation of rank, manner of process, &c. of all the subordinate courts between this and the congregation in which the dispute happened, I call upon you as an upright rea- soner to abandon the divine right, and ingenuously ac- knowledge the principles upon which you defend the church of Scotland. You have here virtually given it up, but you do not candidly confess this. You wish to retain the divine right in name, while you disengage yourself from the obligation of its particular forms. In other words, though this meeting at Jerusalem, even after all the refinements, defalcations, distortions and additions you could make, cannot afford any thing like a model, for the Gothic fabric erected at Geneva, yet the latter must nevertheless be divine, because the for- mer was an appeal to clergymen. The minds of some, of the good people of the kirk would have been start- led, had you directly abandoned the divine right of that form of ecclesiastical government for which their ancestors yo«^^/- and bled. To vindicate the kirk upon the principle of apostolical practice not being binding, and the form of government and order of churches in. 434 Letter X. particular countries being left to be regulated by cir- cumstances, at the discretion of ecclesiastical and civil rulers, miglit have been acceptable to a certain class of readers, but would have been far from serving the cause with tlie bulk of the people. The arcana of your art consists in amusing the serious part of those attached to the establishment with the fullest claims of a divine ripht, while at the same time vou defend the particular construction, number, and subordination of your courts, as being optional, and of trilling import- ance. Your great aim accordingly seems to be to en- tangle and perplex the question, render every thing uncertain, unhinge the whole principles of reasoning, and throw sand into the eyes of those who were begin- ning to use them for themselves. Your confidence surely arises from supposing that you have so involved the question in uncertainty and darkness, that it would be impossible to develope it, rather than from the con- viction that you have succeeded in proving Presbytery. For I cannot think that you have so far imposed upon your own understanding, as to believe that you have defended successfully the Presbyterian constitution. This is seen through the w^hole tenor of your book. You do not depend so much upon being able to shew your model, as in shewing that the arguments of Inde- pendents may be evaded 5 and that their model cannot with unanswerable certainty be proved from the pas- sages of Scripture on which they found it. If you could succeed in this, it would serve your purpose al- most as eifectually as if you could prove Presbytery. In your circumstances, a drawn battle would be as good as a victory. An established church can never be effectually injured, so long as it could be shewn that its plan of government was equally divine with any Letter X. 435 other. If the balance is even beam, there are so many prejudices, so many temptations that will turn the scale in its favour, in opposition to all practical errors and corruptions that may have been incorporated with the system. I am not astonished then that you touched this part of your subject but lightly, and wished to lead your readers so quickly over the ground, that they might not have time to discern the fallacy. You pass this point almost without attempting proof, lest people might be provoked to think that proof was necessary. But we cannot agree to let the matter pass in this man- ner. \¥e cannot allow it to be taken for granted, that, if the propriety of reference is proved, the right be- longs to Presbytery. Was the propriety of reference fully proved, the divine right of Presbytery would still remain to be proved. This w^ould be only a step In your favour, in common with innumerable other actual or possible sects. This is only the foundation or plat- form upon w^hich the model is to be erected and exhi- bited. From this we can see neither the length, nor breadth, nor height, nor form, nor materials, nor num- ber, and dimensions, and relative proportions of apart- ments of the building. What do w^e mean. Sir, when we speak of a model ? Should you ask a projector for a model of a house, would you think that he gave you sufficient information, when he barely pointed to the situation of the house, and fixed the spot on which the buildhig should be erected ? Would you not expect a plan of every part of the work, and the various pro- portions that each part should bear to every other ? Yet, when Jesus gives a model, you think it sufficient to point to the hill upon which the edifice is to be rai- sed. Is this like the instructions eiven for the con- 436 Letter X. struction of the tabernacle, or of the temple ? Was there any ihmg here left to the wisdom of man ? Were even the outlines given to be filled up at discretion ? Shall Jesus then appoint the clergy to decide what his people are to believe and practise, and leave it to the clergy to plan the construction, constitution, &c. of their OTvn assemblies ? Then, Sir, if you have a divine model, produce It in all Its parts. I will admit not a single apartment in the house, that cannot be shewn to be in the model. No form can be called divine, which has not a corresponding part to every part of the divine model, of which it pretends to be the copy, and which has nothing more. But let us examine the above extract a liclle more particularly. You ask, ''Did this assembly at Jerusalem resemble a Presbyterian synod in every respect, and include representatives from the churches of Antioch, Syria and Cillcia, as well as of Jerusalem ?" You an- swer, " Such was the opinion of the Presbyterian di- vines In the Westminster Assembly— of the London ministers — of Wood, Ay ton, Hall, and Muir." For what possible purpose do you state the diiFerent bodies and Individuals w^ho held the affirmative of this ques- tion, without giving us the grounds of their opinion ? Do you mean that we should argue against the mere authority of names > If you believed this opinion yourself, you ought, without respect to those v/ho adopted or those w^ho rejected It, to have confirmed your opinion by producing your evidence of the fact. If you did not believe It, It was only a waste of paper to advertise us of the opinion of these men. It ap- pears evidently that you yourself do not believe it, and I am afraid there is still less probability of Its, gaining credit with us. Eut it is not difficult to see vour ob- Letter X. 437 ject. You are aware that there are many -with whom these names will w-eigh full as much as argument. You stale the opinion then with its venerable authors^ that those may ^vho can believe it \ and while you seeming- ly lay no stress on it, you do not renounce it, lest your antagonist should take advantage of the concession. You pretend to be able to do suiiiciently well w-ithout it, while, from the authority you produce, you insi- nuaLe that the opinion is defensible, were it necessary to your argument. Should you fail in your way of de- fending Presbytery, you have still a retreat in this. I have made it a rule in my observations, to attack no views of Presbytery but those you adopt or suggest. As you must have stated this opinion for some purpose, I will ask you upon waiat grounds is it alleged that there were representatives present in this assembly from Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia ? Does the narrative declare or suggest any thing that can possibly give the smallest foundation for this opinion ? Is this fact assert- ed in any other passage of Scripture ? If not, I ask if there can be an instance of more shameless effrontery, than to assert what the word of God no where affirms ? Would it be more unwarrantable, if an enthusiast were to assert that there w^ere also present a deputation from all the hosts of the angels of heaven ? Were a man in thfe city of London to run over the bills of mortality, and point out how many of the deceased were in hea- ven, and how many in the abodes of misery, we would rather ascribe his conduct to derangement than pre- sumption and impiety. Yet he has an equal warrant to do this, as any have to allege that there w^ere repre- sentatives from distant countries at Jerusalem, when the Scriptures no where give such information. To ^vhat height of absurdity and presumption will even ^ 438 LettePv X. grave and temperate men be carried, v;lien they give themselves over to prejudice and system ! Besides, as it was an accidental assembly, there could not have been representatives present from all those churches. In this case, we would have heard of the summoning of representatives from those churches ; and, if a general council, from all the churches of the world. Do we read in church-history of any general council, in which we are not informed of the summon- ing of those who were to constitute it, and of the per- son by whom it was called ? But of the summoning of members, w^e have here no account from any single church on earth, far less from all the churches in the world. Would not the summoning and meeting of the members have taken up a considerable time ? Yet there is nothing that leads to this conclusion. On the con- trary, that there was no such concourse is clear from the narrative. The brethren at Antioch are said to send up to Jerusalem io rhe apostles and elders. If this had been a general council, would it have been said that they sent up to Jerusalem to the apostles and el- ders ? It is here plainly implied that there were no fo- reigners there. But this supposition is as much opposed to your new hypothesis, as it is to us. The defence of your theory requires you not to strengthen, but to discredit the opinion which we are now considering. If there were representatives from Syria, Cilicia and Antioch, it was an astonishing breach of the Presbyterian constitution for the uninspired apostles and elders of Jerusalem to determine the business themselves, and allow the repre- sentatives from those countries to signify their assent only after the matter was settled. After all, what shall it serve those gentlemen whose Letter X. 439 opinion you state, could they even prove that there were representatives from Antioch, Syria and Cllicia ? If It was a general council, representatives were as necessary from all other churches in the world, as from thcs? churches j and if it was only a subordinate synod, t.hose churches who had no representatives in it, were not bound by its decrees, unless it is also established that one Synod combined the churches belonging to another. And if it was only a subordinate synod, why did not the judaizing teachers appeal to a general coun- cil ^ If it is said, because they submitted to the deci- sion of this -y I answer, this is not true with respect to all. Many continued in after-times to teach the same doctrines. Again, the Presbytery founded upon the supposition that there were present representatives from those churches, stands upon a different foundation from that which your arguments defend. Were this a truth, the former would have a divine model. But your's is upon a human construction, and might be modelled in vari- X)us ways. Once more, I ask what could tempt those writers to suppose that such representatives were present, without having any evidence upon which they could found their judgment ? I ask you why you have laboured so hard to bring foreign ministers into this assembly ? I ask you why you appear so willing that this opinion of the Westminster divines, &c. should be believed, while yet you do not pledge yourself for it ? Is it not because it is the sober judgment of these writers and yourself, that your system requires this supposition ? You may •affect an air of unconcern about the truth of this opi- nion, and pretend that it is a matter of little Import- ance y yet this anxiety to have it believed, proves the 440 Letter X. judgment of your consciences better tlian the most di- rect words. Had it not been considered to have been necessary for making this a model for Presbytery, that there should have been representatives from these places, such an absurd, totally unfounded assertion ne- ver would have been made. I appeal to your own conscience, would it not be an infinite triumph to you to be able to prove satisfactorily this opinion which you affect to treat, not as of fundamental importance, but merely circumstantial ? Whatever you may pretend^ W'hatever sophistry may devise, this assembly can never be made a model for Presbyterian courts upon any other supposition, than that representatives were pre- sent from every church bound by the decision. No wonder then that those writers have laboured so hard to prove this point. Nothing can prove more clearly than this unfound(?d supposition, that Presbyterians have at first gone to Acts xv. with a system, not for a system. Some errors have taken their rise from a su- perficial view of detached parts of Scripture, which, considered in. themselves, and without reference to the Connexion and design of the passage, may have sug- gested views to the careless which they do not contain. But this cannot plead this apology. There is nothing in the chapter at all calculated to suggest to the most inattentive reader the idea of classical Presbytery. This has been first invented, and then the xvth of Acts has been thought of as a sanction. Human schemes in re- ligion would not pass so well in the world under hu- man names. The laws of Numa must be sanctioned by the goddess Egeria. " This, whether the case or not," you think, " is by no means necessary to your present argument in sup- port of Presbytery." Why is it, not necessary ? " The Letter X. 44X nppoltitinpnt of the ministers of the different churches next to any congregation to constitute a Presbytery, for reviewing the deeds of the overseers of that con- gregation, and the appointment of the ministers of va- rious Presbyteries next to a Presbytery to form a Sy- nod, for reviewing the conduct of that particular Pres- bytery, are matters altogether circumslantial, not es- sential to the first principles of Presbytery, and adopt- ed merely from convenience," By this you must sure- ly mean that it is a matter indifferent whether any par- ticular congregation be subjected to the nearest or most remote Presbytery 'j-and whether any particular Presbytery be immediately subjected to the nearest or most remote Synod. I beg you "will be so kind as to shew me how you wish this to bear upon the point. Do you mean this as a reason why it is of no import- ance whether or not there were representatives from Syria and Cilicia, although they are bound by the de- cision ? If I understand your meaning, this is not to the purpose at ail. If this was a Presbyterian assem- bly, we argue that there must have been representa- tives from Syria and Cilicia, and every other place which was bound by the decrees. You ansv^er, this is not necessary, because whether a congregation Is sub- jected to the nearest or most remote Presbytery, is a matter not of fundamental importance. You might as well have said, this is not necessary, because Shem, Ham and Japheth -ivere the sons of Noah. If this- were a general council, it would be absurd to object to the distance of Syria, Cilicia and Antioch, from Jeru- salem. Upon this supposition, our objection is not to the distance of the places, but to their having no repre- sentatives in the assembly in which they were bound/ If they had not, they were not Presbyterians. 442 Letter X. *' It is not of fundarnental importance;'^ y©u ss}', ** whether a Synod be made up of a particular number of separate Presbyteries, or of an assemblage of mini- sters from diiferent and more remote places, but supe- rior in nnniber to these who constitute the Presbytery from which a reference is made to them." If this is the case, you have no model for a Synod. If the con- stitution of it is kft to the particular churches that agree in government, the model is then human. This may be the case with Presbytery, but it would not have been the case had it been a divine institution. Christ would have constructed this as well as every other part of the machine. Eut what is all this to the purpose ? Does this tell us why there should not have been re- presentatives from Syria, &.c. ^ " Though then it could not be proved that there was a Synod at Jerusalem, corresponding in all respects to a modern Synod, it will by no m.eans, as Indepen- dents have often asserted, enervate the argument ?** Not at all J why should it ? No matter of wdiat con- struction this meeting of Jerusalem was j it w-ill be the most perfect model for Presbytery. This sentence is a consequence drawn from your preceding reasoning. Nqw what is the sum of that reasoning ? Does it not altogether respect local arrangements ? Do you even attempt to give any reasons why there were not repre- sentatives from Syria, &.c. ? Yet you draw^ a conse- quence, as if you had sufficiently proved the point with VN'hich you set out j to-wit, that it is not necessary to your argument that representatives should have been in this assembly from Syria, &c. Did you really think ^ Sir, to impose this upon us for argument ? Did you be- lieve that you were speaking to any purpose ^ Did yoii Letter Xo 44Sr maglne that your reasoning warranted your conclu* sion i " The grand point to be ascertained is simply this, Were the ministers and church of Antioch subordinate in this reference^ to the authoritative review of a num- ber of other ministers convened at Jerusalem as mini- sters of Christ, though the assembly should have re- sembled strictly neither a Presbytery, nor Synod, nor any such association?" What do you mean here by con- vened .«* Do you mean any others than the apostles and elders who were previously at Jerusalem ? If you do not, your expression is improper \ for it gives us the idea of the persons alluded to assembling at Jerusalem for that particular purpose, at that particular time, and not as being already at Jerusalem. Do you intend by it the convening of other foreign ministers. I beg you to remember, that- though you have supposed this, you have not proved it. You cannot then argue from it. If you wish to reason, you should then have said, ^ the apostles and elders at,' instead of " a number of 0ther ministers convened at Jerusalem." What do you mean by review ?■ Do you mean the settling of a dis- pute primarily referred to them ? If you mean any thing more, you mistake the fact. If you mean this, your language is incorrect j for a review of any affair by a court, implies that a decision had previously been made, of the propriety of which such court was to judge. Instead then of saying; * authoritative review,' you should have said, ' authoritative determination or deci- sion.' What do you mean by * ministers and church ?' Do you mean by this distinction, that in this business the ministers acted as a distinct body, or that the refe- rence had gone from them ? This is not fact. In the reference, there is no distinct point of view in which Pp 3 44^ Letter. X. - the rulers can be disthiguislied from the brethren. If then you mean to suggest any thing more by thi^ phraseology than that the church, as consisting of mi- nisters or elders, and brethren, were subordinate, &.c. you have no ground in the history. What do you mean l^y subordinate .^ Do you mean to hint at a se- ries of subordinate courts ? Do you mean any thing by It more than subject ? If you do, it is unwarrantable. Is this then the sum of this paragraph ? " Was the church at Antioch subject in this reference to the au- thoritative decision of the apostles and elders at Jcrusa- j^m ?" Now, Sir, if this is not the substance of your language, it is not founded upon any thing that you Lave proved, or that can be proved from the narrative, if it is, instead of being the grand point to be ascer- tained, it is a point taken for granted on all hands. Not only the- ministers- and church at Antioch, but all the' ministers and churches of the world, vrere subject to this decision. So far from this- settling the disputej it does not advance one step towards it.- But I will go farther with you : I will grant you- far a moment, that this transaction aifords us a proof that there ought to be, in difficult cases, a reference to some superior court. Still I will contend, that it can sanction only one particular assembly modelled after itself. The question still remains, of what constitu- tion and form is the m^odel here exhibited > The grand point will be, to determine which of all the churches in the world is sanctioned by this 3 or whether, even upon this supposition, it will favour any of all w^ho have ever laid claim to it ? If this is to be' a model, must not the model be exactly copied ^ I will grant, that if the propriety of reference could be proved from thi?, 'A\s present viev>:s of it are false. But in this C3S?, we Letter X. 445 ivould not yield the palm to Presbytery, as it would establish the propriety of reference to the pastors, os the pastors and brethren of some single church. How can it be the grand point to be proved, which does not determine, ivhether the right belongs to the church of Rome, the church of England, the church of Scotland, or any other ? Shall that be called a model which may or may not be copied ? Granting you then that there ought to be courts of reference, what is their construc- tion ? What are the constituent parts of the model } The apostles, elders, and brethren. Granting that it Is obligatory without the apostles, elders, and brethrcR of one church. Elders or pastors, no lay- elders : el- ders of one church, the elders at Jerusalem alone. You say indeed, that " the members of this court appear to have been officers alone, and even the brethren seem to have been of this description.'" Counting nothing on what I have said to disprove this, a seem to be, will prove nothing. If you cannot prove ii, you cannot reason fiom it. This then, and a similar passage in your IStli letter^ jp. 324. I will not take for reasoning. " It must cer- tainly be of little importance to object that this court at Jerusalem did not resemble a Presbytery or Synod, since it was unquestionably composed of ministers of Christ acting in an ordinary and common capacity, and different from those from whom the reference was' presented. This, I presume, is the grand point in dis- pute 'y and since it is established, it authorizes, I ap- prehend, courts of review to any extent that the cir- eumstances of the church may be found to require." Similar reasoning would equally establish any form of associated church-government, from this passage. The Pcpe might sa^/, * It mu«t certainly be of little ira- 446 Letter X. portance to object, that this court at Jerusalem did no^- in all respects resemble a meeting of the sacred col-- lege, since it was unquestionably composed of ministers of Christ. This I presume Is the grand point in dis- pute, and since it is established, it warrants the au-- thority of the Pope and his council overv the whole world.' Indeed those conversant in the disputes after the Reformation, will easily see, that the adherents of" the Pontiff have used this chapter to support his claims, with much more plausibility, and colour of argument, than the Presbyterians can do. The church of En- gland may next step in upon this ground. * It must certainly be of little importance to object that this court at Jerusalem did not resemble a convocation of bishops, since it was unquestionably composed of mi- nisters of Christ.' The ancient Independents might also put in their claim. * Notwithstanding that con- gregations are completely independent of each other as to their government and discipline, yet, in matters of doubt, it is proper to have an association to deter- mine these things, which determination must be re- ceived as far as agreeable to Scripture.' * You cannot hold these sentiments and really believe that there is a. divine model. You do not defend Presbytery more - than you defend any other worldly system. Ycu make it a matter of indifference upon what model superior courts are constructed. And as you have begun to re- form backwards, I see no security in your views, that you would not embrace the communion of the church cf Rome, should it ever become established in Scotland, Divest Popery of the absurdities which are not essen- tial to the system, as far as respects the form of govern- ment, and it will be much easier defended than Pres- bytery. The machine is much more simple, and itr- Letter X. 44"^ motions much more equable and regular. The infalli- bility which it needs and claims, is equally necessary to your courts, for their decrees must as positively l>e obeyed. If you do not pretend to be infallible, the absurdity is only the greater. Though i infallibility is disclaimed in words, it is acted upon in spirit by all who enact humrji laxvs, or use a discretionary powder in the affairs of ChrisL''s kingdom. Why migVit you not then go back to some of the purest general coun- cils as your standards ; and, agreeably to your convenient distinction between principles and practice, could you not imagine and defend a very fine theory ? You might shew in the abstract, the many possible advan- tages of such a system w^hen rightly administered, and that it is not just to take into the account its possible abuses. Should you be pressed by the infallibility, you would have nothing to do, but to distinguish be- tween the Pontiff of Rome and the court of Rome.. Nay, if you have found out a plan to make the apo- stles themselves fallible, even in the things of Christ, it could not be a great affront to his Holiness, if nov/ and then he should become only an ordinary teacher. Indeed, Sir, I should be glad to know upon what con- sistent principles you could oppose the church of Rome, or refuse her commimion, were she established in Scot- land, reformed of those abuses which do not respect the form of her government. Your reasoning against Independency is exactly analogous, to that used against the Reformers. Why is Erasmus condemned for act- ing upon such principles ? " Erasmus ! that much in- jured name, the glory of the priesthood, and 7ts shame.'*' It was the plan, not the administration, which he de- fended. There is not an argument you state upon this potnt, that would not have tenfold forfce in the hands 448 Letter X. of Roman Catholics. Let them defend a universal Episcopacy without taking into the account its possible or actual abuses, how will you overturn them r If the corruptions of a church are no cause for deserting her communion ; ^and if it is of no consequence upon what construction superior courts are formed, I request to know^ why you are ar Protestant ? But there is another thing in the above quotation to which I call the reader's attention, and the same thing is often exemplified in your book. You often set out W'ith the guarded profession of making a thing probable ©r plausible j but afterwards iii your reasoning assume this probable or plausible thing,, as an unquestionably fact. Such disingenuity in your mode of reasoning is unworthy of a good cause. In assigning your reasons ior your opinion as to the persons intended by the words the brethren^ a seemed to be was all you claimed. NoiVf that they were ministers, is a fact unquestionable. When you set out to shew that the apostles were un- inspired in this assembly, you were contented with say- ing, that, p. 298. " li seems probab/e, from a numl^cr oj ctrcumstarweSy thait^ in the whole of this business,, they acted only as common ministers.'" Now. that they acted in an ordinary and common capacity is a fact unquesiionabie. When you are directly giving us your proof, you assume little, that V'/e may with le*s scrupulosity examine and weigh your arguments, as yoa appear to put but little stress on them yourself. But as soon as your pretended proof is out of our view-, you assume an air of demonstration. You would persuade' us that it would be unreasonable to doubt it, after what you had said. Your conclusions are not only true, but unquestionably true, though founded only on probable circumitanciSy and // appears, ox ii seemtth^ Ah! Sir; Letter X. 44^ y -defend your cause with the whole force of your genius, but let us have no artifice. ' Upon this critical part of your subject, in which it is dangerous to speak, and dangerous to be silent, you bring, in a note, another of your ingenious friends to your support. He does indeed appear to be an inge- nious gentleman, and the case requires ail his ingenuity ; Dignus V in did nodus. " The positive precepts of Scripture,' said a very distinguished character, when speaking on the subject of church-government, * -are so expressed as to com- prehend every possible case which can occur in the subject to which they relate *, and, In referring to them, there can never be a deficiency either of direction or authority. But when we refer to scriptural examples for the authority of modem practice, we must not for- get that an example could not go beyond the circum- stances of the particular case in which it occurred, al- though by fair inference or analogy it may authorize many things which that case did not require or admit of. The application of the churck at Antioch to what has been called the council of Jerusalem, is an example and authority for a reference^ from an inferior to a su- perior court. The example could in this point go no farther from the nature of the case. But its authority goes far beyond it. It is quite sufficient to authorize an appeal, or a coitiplaint (as well as a reference) from an inferior court to a superior, and every other juris- diction of the superior which the circumstances require. It authorizes not merely the subordination of one hi- ferlor to one superior court, which is all that the ex- axriple mentions, but such a gradation of court-jurisdic- tion as the circumstances of. the church of Christ, in different situations, render expedient. This is but one illustration— but the idea m^y be illustrated by a mul- 450 Letter X. titude of similar cases, and sheivs the absurdity of the conduct of Independents, who, while they neglect or explain away a great part of the practice which is clearly found in the JBible, afiect to ^ix dawn the prac- tice of modern times to the precise letter of the ex- o triples they choose to refer to, though ever so con- trary to tbiir true spirit and dtsign. Every pin of Presbytery could not possibly be found in any Scrip- ture-example, although the general system is not only explicitly but clearly authorized by the practice of the primitive church as far as the cases occurred.'' pp. 292. The writer strains hard to extend the authority of ^hls example to sanction Presbyterian assemblies, but ills conclusion is founded on a fallacy, and gratuitous assertion. Instead of illustrating his meaning, and corroborating his argument, by an example upon a different subject j he takes the very point under de- bate, and stretches it to the standard height by mere arbitrary supposition. The fallacy lies in considering An example as extending its authority, not merely to all similar cases, but to things of a quite different species. A single example will indeed extend its au- ihority to an infinite number of similar cases, but can never effect things that are no w-ay related. When we speak of the different extent of example and its au- thority, we mean, if we reason justly, Its extent as to different cases coming under the same head, not as to different kinds. An example has indeed authority be- yond the particular case exhibited, and not only may, but must, include every other similar case. If the incestuous person was put away from the church of Corinth, so must every other incorrigible transgressor be put away. If the 13th of Acts exhibits a mode4 i Letter X. 451 of referencs as to the particular case of the doctrine of circumcision, it establishes reference in general. One case being referred to any particular assembly, will prove, that any other case may be referred to the same assembly ; and could it be proved that this was designed as a model to fallible assemblies, it will give the authori- ty of arbitration to that assembly which is formed upon the model here exhibited. One case of reference given as an example to the churches of Christ, will prove that every doctrine, precept and institution of the gos- pel may be equally referred. If this is the meaning of the writer, I perfectly agree with him. But upon what principles of reasoning does the writer find him- self justifiable in asserting, that an example of refer- ence, will authorize, not merely reference in general, but appeal from the decision of reference ? If this matter was referred, and settled by this reference, how does it give authority to appeal from the reference f Does it not even forbid such appeal ? If this was a final decision, and you yourself declare that we are ex- pressly told that the church of Antioch referred the matter for final decision to the assembly convened at Jerusalem •, if the decision was final, how is there room for appeal ? Appeal then, so far from being warranted by the example of reference, is cut off by this example, except that there can be shown another example of appeal, which will prove that this reference was nc^t final. Courts of reference, and courts of appeal, are quite dilTerent : though one example of reference to uninspired authority will prove reference in general, and one instance of appeal will prove appeal in gene- ral, yet the example of reference cannot by any means extend to appeal. A court to settle controversies when referred, is quite another thing from a court to 0.1 452 L LITER X. receive appeals from the decision of other court?. They must stand either upon different precepts, or dififereRt examples. Having thus taken the foundation from this reasoning, I might allow it to tumble in a piece. But as it is an exceedingly important part of this de- bate, and as you evidently wish to steal out of our hands, I will be a little more particular. This very distinguished character observes, that " the application of the church , at Antioch to what has been called the counjcil of Jerusalem, is an example and authority for a reference from an inferior to a su- perior coun^ Now, taking it for granted at present, that this is authority for reference, is it accurate to say, that this reference was from an inferior to a superior court ? Was it referred to Jerusalem by a court at Antioch ? Was it referred by -the congregation at Antioch, or any individual among them, from the de- cision of a court of Antioch ? If neither of these can be shewn to have been the case, is it consistent with truth or candour, to. represent this as authority of re- ference from one court to another ? . It is not the re- ference of the church-rulers at Antioch, unable to set- tle the dispute themselves. It is not an appeal from any part of these from the judgment and decision of the majority. It is not an appeal from the church- members of Antioch from the decision of their church- rulers. It is the reference of the whole brethren at Antioch to a source of infallible direction. There was no decision at Antioch. The matter is referred to Je- rusalem in the first instance. It is not one court re- viewing the deeds of another ; or judging after de- cision had been made by an inferior court j it is the first and the last court (if you must have this name) to which reference was made in the matier. Letter X." 453 '^ The example,'' l^e continues, "could go no far- tHer, from the nature of the case." Why then does he add, "But its authority goes much farther ?" Can an example have authority in cases to which it cannot be extended ? Had he said, that from the nature of the case we have only -one example, and therefore it is ab- surd to look for a particular example for every case to be referred, he would have reasoned incontrovertibly. But when he alleges that the authority of an example i^'iil reach far beyond the- bculidaries of that Idnd of jurisdiction of which it is an example, and that a case being referred will warrant a case being appealed fronj reference, it is not reasoning, but rant. Might I not as well reason in this manner : < The meetings of the primitive churches on the day on which Christ rose from the dead, prove the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. The exam- ple could go no farther, from the nature of the case. But its .authority goes far beyond it. It is quite suffi- cient to prove, that we should keep every day in the week as a Sabbathj as well as the first. For we must not forget, that an example could not go beyond the circumstances of the particular case in which it occur- red, although by fair inference or analogy it may au- thorize many things which that case did not require, or admit of.' In the same manner we might prove, that church-courts not only should decide matters of religion, but assume civil jurisdiction, and judge in cases of life and death. < This case at Jerusalem, from its nature, only extends to religious disputes, but its authority goes much farther. It is quite sufficient to shew, that church-courts should exercise the power of dispensing life or death.' Nothing can be more gra- • tuitous than this reasoning. It is mere assertion. There 454 Letter X. is nothing to v/hich we might not extend any example upon the same principles. He observes farther, " It authorizes not merely- the subordiaatlon of one inferior to one superior court, which is all that the example men lions, but such a ■ gradation of court -jurisdiction as the circumstances of the church of Christ, in diiierent situatii^ns, render ex- pedient." Truly this is a very fruitful passage. Was there ever such a huge multifarious system, built upon such a slender foundation ? There is here a divine mo- • del, yet the construction of every part of it is left to the church-rulers, and in diiferent situations and cir-: ■ cumstances the model may be altered. But so far from warranting a gradation of church-jurisdiction to an in- : definite length, it does not afford an example of one inferior court applying to one superior. Allowing then the propriety of reference in cases of dispute, will this prove that there is an appeal from the first deci- sion, to an indefinite number of superior courts ? Will the proving that this was a court exhibiting a model of decision by reference, prove that we may not abide by this reference, but appeal to other courts ? The es- tablishing then of a court of reference from this pas- sage, will not establish, but destroy every gradation of court jurisdiction. If the matter was here finally deci- ded by the first court applied to, there is no room left for either inferior or superior courts. If (his assembly was a Presbytery, it cuts off Synods and all superior councils, on the one hand j and kirk-sessions on the other. If it was a general council, nothing can be de- termined by any court below a general council, even in the first instance. Plad this been a general council, and Presbytery of divine institution, the example here given would have exhibited the whole series of subor- Letter X. 455 iinate courts. We would first have heard of the deci- sion of the kirk-session al Antioch j then of the ap- peal of the church, or some part of them, to the Pres- bytery to which they were subject ', then, if this did not satisfy them, to the Synod, &c. until finally they bring the matter to this general council j of the sum- moning, and meeting, and transactions of "which, we would have been informed. I contend then "that the example here, exhibited, even alloiving it to establish the propriety of courts to settle disputes referred, so far from necessarily implying other superior and infe- rior courts, gives us a complete refutation of that opi- nion. An example of reference cannot in itself prove the existence of courts of appeal. If they exist, they must be shewn from other passages of Scripture. But this example of reference is of such a nature as to shew that they are not appointed in any other place. Had this been the case, the example not only might, but must have embraced them. The case could not have come lo the liighest, without passing through ail the subordinate courts. The exaimple, so far from ne- cessarily giving an imperfect model, from the nature of the case, was calculated to unfold every part of the machine, from the first reference to the kirk-session at Antioch, through ail the subordination of courts to this general council. I ask then, where do you found the subordination of one court to another ? I ask you, where do you found an optional, unlimited gradation of courts r This, so far from being sanctioned by the ex- ample, is absolutely disproved by it. If there is to be reference, it must go no further than the first assembly, because that assembly is a general council, and in this case immediately applied to. " Independents," this writer asserts, " while they Q,q3 456 Letter X. neglect or explain away a great part* of the practice which is clearly found in the Bible, affect to fix down the practice of modern times to the precipe letter of the examples they choose to refer to, though ever so i:ovi\.ra.iy to their true spirit and ^^j/j//." I ask you, Sir, as you have adopted this v.'riler's language, and therefore must make good his charge, what is that great part of the practice which is clearly founded in tlie Bible, which Independents neglect or explain away ? If you can shew us this, we will be your debtors. We have no standards, like you, to prevent us from re- ceiving any part of truth when discovered. We do not profess to have attained to a perfection of know- ledge in the Scriptures, but agreeable to what we have attained, we profess to walk. lie then w^ho will shew us the way of the Lord more perfectly, will do us a mere essential service than were he to enrich us with the treasures of the Indies. But what sort of a spirit appears in this ? One should be led to tliinfe from tliis language, that it is offermg violence to a person to at- tempt to acquaint him with any part of his duty hi- therto unknown. He takes it for granted that Inde- pendents would look upon this attempt as an injury, rather than a favour. Surely this must proceed from what Presbyterians are conscious of in their own situa- tion, ii they were in earnest inquiring after truth j if they had their ears open to hear, and were ready to be guided by the word of God, they would not consi- der those who call their attention to their duty as the disturbers of their repose. They are like men who hold an esLate with a bad title j conscious of being un- able to keep possession if their title should be cxamin- ' cd, they are beyond measure incensed against those TVho wi'jh to bring the matter to a fair trial* Being Letter X. 45T thus affected themselves, they fancy that all others must feel m a similar manner. How strange is the contrast between men's conduct in temporal and in spi- ritual concerns ! Had our neighbour discovered a rich mine of gold, he would take it for granted that he could do nothing more acceptable to us, than to invite us ta come and partake of the treasure. He would not make the discovery in language that would intimate our reluctance to part with our poverty to partake of his riches. Yet, strange ! when men call our atten- tion to some hitherto unknown truth of Scripture, they take it for granted that it will be as unwelcome as the robber to a miser. But is this practice, which Independents neglect or explain away, yet is clearly found in the Bible, such. as is practised by Presbyterians ? If it is answered in the affirmative, I ask what part of the practice of the apostolical churches is observed by Presbyterians and omitted by Independents ? If it is neglected both by Presbyterians and Independents, though clearly found' in the v,^ord of God, how do those Presbyterians who think so, excuse their contempt of this part of Scrip- ture ? Do they plead that practice may be clearly found in the Bible, yet notwithstanding be not obliga^ tory ? Do they think that it is left to their discretion what part of scripture-practice to observe, and what to neglect ? If any practice is clearly found in the word of God, let them first follow it, and then %ve shall be- lieve that they are in earnest. But they act like the people of the world, when they are reproved for sin. These recriminate againsf their advisers, and allege that the latter are guilty of other sins, not to induce them to abandon them, but to excuse themselves by ilieir example. As if they should say, * Though h 458 Letter X.' am guilty of this, yet you are guilty of tliat j therefore' you should be silent, and let me enjoy my sins without disturbance.' Just in the same manner, Presbyterians allege that Independents neglect some part of aposto- lical practice, not to induce them to comply with it, but to excuse themselves for the neglect of apostolical ■ institutions. What does this w-riter mean by the opposition which - he seems to suppose as existing between the letter of an example, and the true spirit and meaning of the exam- ple ? Does he mean that the language in which an ex- ^ ample is contained, says one thing, and that the true spirit and meaning of the example says another ? I ■ have been in the habit of thinking that the Bible f peaks just what it intends, and that its language is in itself the fittest of all others to convey its meaning. I apprehend that a distinction between the /wfa^/^V/^ of - any passage, and the language in which that meaning ; is conveyed- is most absurd, and must be a fruitful source of enthusiasm. It must lead peopk to disregard the language of Scripture as unfit to discover its true meaning, and induce them to give scope to the imagi- nation to find out the meaning of particular passages, not from the words, but from enthusiastic impulses. Now, as to the point in hand, 1 know of no lawful way to find out the meaning of this example, but from ihe letter or the language in which it is conveyed. If any thing more than is contained in the words of this chapter has been revealed to Presbyterians, I do not envy them the discovery. I will endeavour to find • out the meaning of the Holy Spirit by his language. I know indeed he leads Christ's people into the know- ledge of the word j but it is not by giving them any ^scovery in opposition to, distinct from, or not con- Letter X. 459 tained in his words, but by opening tbeir minds to per- ceive the true a \'\ legitimate import of these words. I contend then that the meaning :and spirit of an exam- ple can never go beyond its letter, or the language that contains \t, for that is what I understand by it in such a connexion. There is no way of knowing its true- snirit and meaning but by its letter. But perhaps the writer means by we Utter of nn ex- simple^ the single case exhibited in that example. l£ this however is his meaning, his language is improper to convey his meaning, and his assertion would be un- . founded. The letter of an example does not signify the single case contained in that example, and Inde- pendents do not confine the authority of an example to the single case exhibited, but extend it to all similar cases. If our Lord cured a withered hand on the Sab- bath, we may do any necessary work of mercy on the Sabbath. But his example of curing the affiicted on the Sabbath, will not r/arrant our following our tem- poral business on the Sabbath, because this does not come under the same denomination- with the case exhi- bited in the example. But upon this writer's princi- ples, this example of our Lord might be made to sanc- tion common labour on the Lord's day. * This ex- ample,' it might be said, * establishes the propriety of doing works of mercy on the Sabbath. The example could in this point go no farther, from the nature of the case. But its authority goes far beyond it. It is quite sufficient to authorize our following our v/orldly business on the Sabbath.' This reasoning is every whit as- legitimate and conclusive, as that which from an example of reference would prove a court of appeal or review. " Every pin of Presbytery," adds the vrrilcr, "could -^0- LETTtR X. - ' not possibly be found In any Scripture example/' We do not look for every pin in every, or in any single ex- ample. But we expect, that if the machine be divine, • the different examples recorded in Scripture, when ^ brought together, will exhibit 3 complete view of the TV^ole. Though we do not expect to see every part in . every example, w^e lawfully expect that every part and ev&ry pin wiirbe somewhere contained in Scripture, in p^cept, example, or undeniable inference. That party. > that pin which is not contained in the model pretended ta be divine, is not divine. That which is no where -^ exhibited In Scripture, we justly deny to be any part of ^' the will of Jesus, and any part, even the most minute " pin, of the model which he has given for his churches, - If- this assembly was a Presbytery, I do- not expect that it will give me a m.odel for a kirk-session, but a ■• kirk-session must be shewn me in some other place^ofd Scripture. If it was a Synod, I do not expect that it '^ will give me a m.odel for a Presbytery, but a Presbyte- * ry must be shewn me in some other part of the word - •of God. If it was a general council, I do not expect that It will afford also a model for a Synod, but a Sy- nod I must see from some other example or precept be- fore I admit It to be divine. I will expect that this ■ can be only one of all the series of Presbyterian courts,. I will not look for a model for any other from the ex- ample itself, but an example or precept for each of ■ ♦hem I will- have in some part of Scripture, before I - am authorized to admit them as divine institutions. > Prove one of your assemblies from this, and the rest -' from different examples, cr a distinct precept. Which- ■ ever of your assemblies you choose to pitch upon as ■ a copy of this model, you must prove to resemble - the model In every part, without either deficiency err ■■' Letter X. 461 • 'cduudancy. If it was a Presbytery, why should it -not give us every constituent part of a Presbytery ^ A Presbytery cannot be justly expected to give at the same time a model for any other of your assemblies, but why should it not give a-model of itself ? If it was a Presbytery, is it unreasonable to demand how it re- senibled a Presbytery ? If it was designed as a model for Presbytery, how can it afford a pattern, without exhibiting all its essential parts ? I do not then expect in it every pin of the system ; but I must find every • pin of the system in the Scriptures some vvhere. JT any where, I care not how scattered; And if it was a Presbytery, I will expect to find jn it every pin of a ■presbytery. This is not expecting too much j this is not demanding what the example, from the nature of ■the case, could not be supposed to give, but what the example, from the very nature of the case, would cer- tainly have given. How absurd is it to allege, that this example exhibits a model for Presbytery, while -it does not give a model for any one of its courts, fioni the highest to the lowest ! How absurdly do they act, who with you contend for a divine and exclusive mo- del, yet allege that it does not affect the argument, though the assembly which you take for your m.odel " should have resembled strictly neither a Presbytery, nor Synod, nor any such association !" What effronte- ry must the man have, who can talk (for I cannot say reason) in this manner ! If you vindicate Presbytery as a good human device, upon tTie principle that the par- ticular form of church-government has been left by- Christ to be particularly moulded by the rulers of the church and state, agreeably to the prejudices, prepos- sessions and customs of different countries ; then aban-^ don- at once all respect to the practice of the churches 462 Letter X. planted by the apostles. We shall ihen be obliged te prove to you that the approved practice of the aposto- lical churches is a part of that Scripture which cannot be broken j but it is altogether inconsistent to vindi- cate Presbytery as divkie, yet that she .may be model- led by ihe fancies of men, and that it is a matter in- different whether or not she be formed resembling the construction of the model of which you profess that she is a copy. You hold this to have been a general ■council J a general council then you must prove it to liave been. The model must exhibit all its parts, springs, wheels, pivots and pins. When you do so, I will take it for a general council. After this, you will he so kind as to shew me that part of your model which corresponds to each of all your subordinate courts in their proper rank and gradation, from this general council to the kirk-session. I require no more from you in behalf of Presbytery, than I will engage to do in behalf of Independency. The part of the system to which I cannot produce corresponding parts in the model, 1 promise to renounce. The parts of the model which you can shew are not yet taken into the copy, we will receive when you discover them, and thankfully adopt them in practice. But though every part of the divine model of Pres- bytery cannot be expected from every example, yet i£ this was a general council, the example here recorded, from the very nature of the case, would have afforded room for an exhibition of the number, rank and grada- tion of courts. I do not expect that this meeting should afford a model for any but one corresponding assembly, but the whole narration containing various ■examples, must have given us the process of the busi- ness through the different 'courts, had any such courts 1 Letter X. 463 existed. We are Informed of tlie ongiii of the dis- pute, and the proceedings of the disciples at Antioch about it, and of every material circumstance respecting it, till the messengers came to Jerusalem. Here then, though the assembly at Jerusalem could not be suppo- sed to give a model for the subordinate assemblies, if the ca?e had been handled after the Presbyterian man- ner, v;e would have had in this chapter a full view of the whole series of courts in their due order, and the constituent parts of each of them. The matter could not have gone to a general council, till it had passed through each of all the subordinate courts in their or- der. The messengers would have been sent from kirk- session to Presbytery, from Presbytery to Synod, from Synod to National Assembly, &c. till at last they arri- ved at this famous general council. The example then here recorded, is such that, from the very nature of the case, the narrative would have given us the most com- plete view of the whole Presbyterian system. How ab- surd then is it for this writer to assert, that " the gene- ral system of Presbytery is not only explicitly but clearly authorized by the practice of the primitive church, as far &s the cases occurred !'''' A case here occurred, which might have exemplified, nay, if it was a general council, must have exemplified them all. This might have some plausibility, if the affair here recorded had been settled by a kirk-session. It might then be alleged that a case did not occur to give an ex- ample of any of the superior courts. But even in this case, if cases did not occur to give an example In mo- del, they must be given in precept 5 for if neither cases occurred to exhibit each of the assemblies, nor a pre- cept was given to provide for such cases when they should occur, how have we a divine model ? What are Rr 464 Letter X* we to do with those cases for which we have no direc- tion in Scripture, either from precept or example ? If sufficient cases did not occur, and if sufficient precepts are not given, we have then no sufficient model. Had it even happened, which we see it has not, that a case had not occurred to give an example of the gradation of church power from the lowest to the highest court, it would have been Incumbent on the apostles to have -supplied the defect by a precept. A verse or tivo ad- ditional in precept would have supplied the want of ex- ample. But the apostles omitted this forsooth to give 'Some scope to the prerogatives of the clergy. To save the trouble of a few verses, they must leave ground for a foundation to the anti-christlan edifice. The pontiff may defend his usurpation in the same lan- guage. Every pin of the Roman hierarchy could not possibly be found in any Scriptural example, although " the general system Is not only explicitly but clearly authorized, by the practice of the primitive church, as far as the cases occurred.'''* In this way, we might make as many additions to the Scriptures as we please. To justify them, we would have nothing to do but al- lege that the cases did not occur during the time re* corded in Scripture-history. Were we then to allow that this chapter establishes the divine right of some superior assembly to settle disputes, and command what is to be believed and practised, the constitution and construction of such an assembly must be the same with that exhibited here as a model. It must consist of the apostles, elders and brethren of one church only. It would not prove any subordination of courts, or a right of appeal from the first decision. Even had it been an appeal from a Pres- byterian congregation, or any part of it, in Antioch, it Letter X. 465 •S;ill not warrant an optional gradation of courts. It would sanction one superior court of appeal only. The first appeal and the last must be to a general council. Had there been a Presbyterian series of courts, the matter would have been first tried by the session at Antioch ; the appellants would hrive brought It to the Presbytery, from Presbytery to Synod, from Synod to National Assembly, &.c. unillit came at last to this ge- neral council. And upon Presbyterian principles, it Crivi be only on the supposition that it passed through all these that it.caine to a general council. Could it liave been settled by any of the inferior courts to the satisfaction of all parties, it never would have come to this assembly. Would one of your kirk-sessions be allowed to appeal to the General Assembly, ivithout previously having brouglit the matter through all the subotdiiiate courts ? How does it consist v/itli Presby- terian principles, that reference was made in the first instailice to a general council ^ Whether this assembly wis a court of primary reference or appeal, it cuts ofF every other. If a general council, all subordinate courts are cut oiF 5 if a Presbytery, all superior courts are cut off, for this decided for the wlioie world. A superior court being granted, Presbytery has no just: pielensions to the sanction of the model here exhibit- ed. Before you can succeed, you must prove that this assembly to which you refer as a model, is exactly re- presented in your corresponding assembly ; and like- wise prove each of your other courts from different ex- aDipIes or precept. You must shew that these elders vv-ere officers of different congregations in Jerusalem, and not of one church j that the half of them were lay, and the other half clerical elders. You must tell us whether all the elders at Jerusalem, both lay and ^(^Q Letter X. clerical, were present j and if not, how many of eacli kind, that we may know how to constitute a similar assembly. Were they present in their own right, as the representatives of their distinct orders, or was one or both orders of them the representatives of their re- spective congregations ? If all the clerical, and only some of the lay-elders were present, you must prove this, or shew why they should not. If they were all present of both kinds, whatever assembly pretends to be formed on this model must be similarly constituted. You must also shew that there were representatives present from all the churches in the world j and if all the elders of all the congregations in Jerusalem were present, so must all the elders of all the congregations in the world. By what right did all the elders of all the congregations in Jerusalem sit in an assembly re- presentative of the whole Christian world ? To make the representation equal, there must have been no more of the elders of the congregations at Jerusalem in this assembly, than of every other congregation. When you have done all this, and have arranged this assem- bly in complete Presbyterian order, a single dissenting voice in your assemblies will destroy the obligation of their decrees. If there be one member in a general council to object to the measures adopted, it cannot shelter its decisions by this model. But how do you make this assembly, though, in your estimation, uninspired, rise to the dignity of a general , council ? Will not the reader be at a loss to guess how such a position can be established from this passage ? Yet it does not give you the smallest trouble. You have not even the trouble to make out this point by the usual method of appealing to the testimony of Scripture, and by reasonings and deductions from this* Letter X. '46: Tills Is effected in a moment, in a single sentence, by the help of one of those subtile distinctions, which so much abound in this work. The apostles were pre- sent, who, though nothing but uninspired^ ordinary^ common ministers ^w'^ve. nevertheless universal pastorSy and ministers to all the churches in the world. — Vn'in' spired^ ordinary^ common mini.ters, yet universal bi' ihops !!! Monstrous absurdity ! Then all uninspired, ordinary, common ministers, are universal pastors, yi universal bishop is nothing but an ordinary minister ! Can it be necessary to give a particular answer to such quibbling > It suiliciently refutes itself, for it is a con- tradiction in terms. It makes the apostles ordinary ministers, yet, as ordinary ministers, universal bishop*^, who are certainly extraordinary ministers ; for there are no such ministers now, except you choose to make the Roman pontiff an exception. The apostles were Indeed universal bi^hops, but, as such, they were not uninspired, ordinary^ common mi- nisters. They were universal bishops in no other sense than as they were apostles. If, in any instance, they did not act as apostles, they could not be considered as universal bishops. As uninspired men, they had no au- thority over all the churches in the world. As uuiu- S'pired men, they could indeed have acted as elders In any church in which they might be called to the pasto- ral office 'y but, as uninspired men, they could have no authority in any church, in which they did not labour as stated pastors. If, in discharging the office of elder in a church, they could lay aside their apostolical cha- racter, they would have had then, even in that church, no more authority, or more extensive jurisdiction than the other elders. If they were ordinary ministers, and uninspired teachers, what entitled them to distinction ^ R r S 46n Letter X. If, in this assembly, you divest them of their apostoli- cal character, and make thent ordinary ministers, they must fill the place, not of all the churches of the world, but of so many common ministers, and their presence will never give the character of universality to any council which was not in itself universal. Nay, if you divest them of their apostolical character, and make this a representative assembly, you must prove that each of them was a pastor and representative of a par- ticular church, or they will have no right even to the seat of a common minister in this Presbyterian court. But the apostles never laid aside their apostolical cha- racter. Though they were subject to the sins and in- firmities of other men, yet, in declaring the will of Christ upon any subject, upon all occasions, they were as infallible as Christ himself. Nay, they were in Christ's stead. They were ambassadors for Christ.. It was not they who spoke, but the Holy Spirit by them;.. I ask you, Sir, upon what portion of Scripture do you found this distinction between the apostles as apo- stles, and the apostles as universal bishops ? Do you find the apostles so called, and so acting in any situa- tion in which they are said not to be apostles ? Were there ever an oider of officers in the church of Christ of this description ? Where have you found these offi- cers ? If there never existed such a separate order, and if the apostles are never represented in this character, distinguished from their apostolical office, why have you made the distinction ? Is this a distinction previ- ously established, or have you invented it, without any authority, merely to serve a turn ? I could have wish- ed to have preserved a good opinion of the uprightness of the intentions of my antagonist ^ but really it is al- Letter X. , 4i69 most beyond my power to think, that a man can rea- son thus upon the word pf God to the satisfaction of his own conscience. Beware of handling the word of God deceitfully, and of shutting your eyes against the light. In justice God may give up the man to his own blindness who comes to his word, not to learn what it speaks, but to teach it what to speak. Is this like re- ceiving, like a little child, the will of the heavenly Fa- ther ? *' Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth," should express the disposition of every one -who inquires after the mind of God in his word. Could this idea ever have suggested itself to a man desirous above all: things to know the will of Jesus that he might obey it ? I beseech you. Sir, to ask your own conscience whether you are defending the church of Christ or the church of Scotland. I beseech you to consider whether the glory of God is the great aim of such reasoning. Do you expect the reward of this work in the approbalioa of Jesus, or in the smiles of the world and in church preferment ? Did you commence and carry on your work with a mind open to conviction, and willing to be solely guided in your conclusions and subsequent conduct by the word of God ? or was it your determi- nation to see what might be said to evade the conclu- sions of your antagonists ? Was the conviction of the divine right of the Presbyterian form of church-go- vernment which you now profess, obtained after much earnest prayer for direction, impartial examination, with the glory of God principally in view, and a readi- ness to give up your present situation, had the evidence preponderated on the other side ? or has your investi- gation of the subjecL originated from your desire of vindicating )our church, as far as the Scriptures could be made to bend to your system, and of distinguishing 470 Letter X. yourself as one of her champions ? I leave these Im- portant questions with your conscience. Though your motives and mine are nothing to our arguments, yet they are of great importance to ourselves. I do not mean to insinuate that our arguments are the stronger from the uprightness of our intentions. Bat vvhat an awful thing will it be for that one of us, who shall be found to have perverted the xvord of God to sanction rebellion against Jesus, by overturning and changing the la-ws and constitution of his kingdom ! If those who attempt to subvert the constitution of earthly- kingdoms are the abhorrence of civil rulers and of the peaceable community, how dreadtul is it to attempt to overturn the plan of government ii:istituted by Jesus, and to substitute another in its stead. Remember that this King sits in heaven, and that it is vain to oppose him, for he will bring to nought the understanding of the prudent. Remember that Jesus will judge the world j and that those very apostles Vvhose decision you refuse to admit as infallible, shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Think of the awful threatening against those who stumble any of the weak children of God. " Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it were bet- ter for him that a miil-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the rnidst of the sea." i cannot recognize in such advocates of Presbytery, the successors of Knox, and the other illuslrious re- formers. They were the reformers of their day j and as they acted according to their light then at every hazard, no doubt, did they still exist, they would be the foremost in reformation. But those who pretend to be their successors, instead of advancing, take a Letter X. 471 nxed station at the point where their ancestors left off, as if ihey had been infallible. Bat what will this distinction serve you, were we to indulge you with it a little, for the sake of argument. If the apostles were present in that assembly, of whatever description it may be supposed to have been, as universal bishops, and if this assembly is exhibited as a model for the settling of all future controversies, then the court formed upon this model, must always have universal bishops among them, or the copy will want the most distinguishing part of the original. In- stead of being a model for a universal council, it would be a model only for one church judging for the whole world, having a few universal bishops among them. And as these universal bishops, it seems, are ordinary ministers, so they will easily be found. "What a charm- ing model for the court of Rome ! If your reasoning stands good, the decrees of the Vatican, with their universal bishop at their head, are much more worthy of respect than those of any Presbyterian assembly. Again, if the apostles, acting as universal bishops, could serve instead of the presence of representatives from the churches of Syria, Cilicia, &c. there was no need for the presence of the elders of Jerusalem, or of any foreign ministers. Why could not the apostles, as universal bishops, have represented the different con- gregations supposed to be in Jerusalem, &c. as well as those of Syria, &c. ? Upon this principle, the apostles alone, even as uninspired^ common ^ ordinary miniiterSy could have formed a universal council. Nay, if being universal bishops gave the apostles a right to represent and bind the ^vhole Christian world, then as each of the apostles was a universal bishop, so each of them could have represented the whole visible church. Paul 4'^'".i2 Letter X. then, though degraded from his apostolical character, as an unin^pired^ con,mon, orduiary minister, by virtue of being some way unaccountably at the same time a universal bishop, might have seitled this matter at An^ tioch. as the representative of the whole Chr;Stian church. You ailect to think that it is an argument against the supposiiion of Paul's inspiration, that the matter was brought Up to the council of Jerusalem. But if there is any thing in this, it militates vvitb equal force against his universal episcopacy. Was Paul a universal bishop, and in virtue of being so, could represent and bind the whole Christian ivorld j and could he not, in virtue of these high prerogatives, have silenced a fev\^ false teachers, and have commanded the obedience of a single church i But the proving of the apostles to be universal bi- shops, as ordinary uninspired ministers, would not prove this to have been a general council. If all the Christian world was bound by these decrees, because there were present in this assembly universal bishops^ then the obligation of the decrees results from the power supposed to be lodged in the universality of this episcopacy, not in the universality of the council as to the number of its members. If the apostles bound all Christians by virtue of their universal episcopacy, the obligation of the decrees depends upon the autho- rity supposed to be in this office, and not from this council being composed of representatives of all the churches In the world. This would not make the assembly a universal council, but a council of universal bishops. A universal council is understood to be a council composed of the representatives of all the churches in the n'-orld. Now the apostles, as universal bishops, were not universal representatives. As unl- LETTER X. 47:; versal bishops, they could do any thing, to which the prerogaiives of that office may be supposed to extend. If It is one of the prerogatives of a universal bishop, that he can bind decrees upon churches, not being present in themselves or in their representatives, this is but ano- ther name for an apostle. It will make nothing for your system, were we even to grant that the apos'les were universal bishops independent of their apostolical ■office, except you could prove that they were appoint- ed by all the churches In the world as their represen- tatives. And upon this- supposition, nothing would depend upon their universal episcopacy 5 for any other ordinary ministers might have been equally chosen as re- presentatives. If then they acted as universal bishops, and had authority to make decrees for all the churches in virtue of that office, they did not act as representa- tives J and If they acted as representatives, their au- thority was not derived from being universal bishops, but from representing all the churches In the world. Again, if a universal bishop, in virtue of his office, «"an bind the universal church, then a particular bishop ran bind a particular church. The same authority that the former has o^'er the universal church, the lat- ter must have over his particular church. If then a universal bishop could make decrees for the universal church, ^vlthout being nominated to represent them, a particular bishop can do the same in his congregation. Every pastor then Is an absolute lord in his congrega- tion J he may dtcree according to his pleasure, with- out any Interference from the people. This will en- tirely cut off the kirk-session. If a council of univer- sal bishops can give law to the Christian world, a council of particular bishops can give law to their particular congregations j and a general council of the 474 Letter X. clergy may bind the church universal, the latter havhig not a single representative in the assembly. This will exclude all laymen from church courts. It will cut off all representation. Recollect then, Sir, that a coun- cil of universal bishops, and a universal council, are two very different things. The apostles might have been the former without being the latter, and they might have been the latter without being the former. But why do I spend time in disproving a mere fan- cy ? Why do I pick down by piece-meal an edifice that is raised upon the sand ? Why shall I trouble my- self to shew, that the constituent parts of this assembly do not resemble any of the Presbyterian courts, seeing each of these courts are erected upon a supposition that has not the smallest countenance from Scripture ? The whole system Is founded upon the Idea of representa- tion. If this foundation Is not in any part of the Scrip- tures, the building being baseless falls at once. Why do we spend time in arguing whether church-rulers as representatives may not be called a church, when there is not in all the word of God the shadow of evidence that there Is any such representation ? I ask you then, Sir, where do you find that one man may represent another in religious matters ? Where do you find any church-assembly composed of representatives ? Can you produce any example, or any precept ? Is there any thing like it In this xvth chapter of Acts ? I care not then what you call the apostles : still this assem- bly is not a representative assembly. No matter as to this argument whether they were particular bishops, or universal bishops, or apostles. Neither they, nor any one present. Is a representative. The very soul and essence of the Presbyterian system has not even an appearance of foundation in the word of God. W^eie Z Letter X. 475 y our whole reasoning upon this point ■allc'^ved lo be conclusive, it establishes a system quite different and opposite from ppesbytery. It would exclude laymen from all share oT church power. The ministers, and the ministers without being chosen as representatives, would then in their own right determine all contro- versies, and enact all decrees. If no such thing as re- presentation is taught in the New Testament, why have Pxesbyterians argued upon this, as if it were granted ? Why shall w^e be called upon to shew that a church- ruler cannot be a church-representative, w^hen riieie is no such thing as representation > Here then, Sir, is a previous question to be settled : till you prove this as a foundation, it is vain to attempt to raise a su- perstructure. Were I even then to allow you, that this assembly was an uninspired assembly, composed r){ ministers alone, and that in that capacity they had a right to bind the Christian world, and to leave a model for future ages, it makes nothing for your sys- tem. Again, granting you that this vvas a representative council, and that the apostles had been nominated by all the churches in the world as their representatives j why had some of these churches other representatives besides the apostles, and others none ? Had not the ■apostles as good a right to represent the congregations of Jerusalem, &c. as all others in the world ? or if the apostles were only the representatives of those churches which had no others present, was this a fair and equal representation ? Ail the congregations in the world had only a few common representatives while the single church at Jerusalem, or if you will *all the congregations of Jerusalem, had all their eiders present. If the apostles had not a vote for every cqr- Ss 4-T6 Letter X. gregation thev represented, of vv-h.at service was the universality of their episcopacy ? Wiiere is the use of giving them a great name, If the meanest member of the council had a vote that would g6 as far to influ- ence the determination as any of the apostles ? Their universal episcopacy could in no way fit them for such .an extensive representation. If Scotland and Ireland could only send one member to Parliament between them, w^ho should be called a universal representative, ,€f what use would this name be to his constituents, it .every county and borough jnember in England had as good a vote as he had. Notwithstanding you dig- „nify these uninspired men with the pompous title of universal bishop, you in reality make them only cy- phers. Instead of directing, according to your scheme, they must have been directed by this assembly. But the idea of representation never occurred to any man from this narrative itself j it has been taken from the systems of civil governments, and transferred to reli- gion. Like every other distinguishing part of your .system, it is a child of human wisdom. Once more, if the churches in Syria, Cilicia, &c. were bound by these decrees, because the apostles were present as universal bishops, then, upon your own principles, the ordinary elders at Jerusalem could no more be said to bind those churches, than the church- members. The church-members, you allege, could not have been in this assembly, because they could not bind other churches j now, if this wxre conclusive rea- soning, it would also prove, that the ordinary elders could not have been in this assembly, because they could not bind Syria, Cilicia, &c. Whether you call the aposi'cs by their own title, or by that of universal bishops, it comes to the same thing. Syria and Cilicia, Letter X. 4'77 tic. were boimd by tbeniy not by the ordinary elders. I cannot yet see then, Sir, how it will ever be possible' for you to escape from the horn&of Mr Innes' dilemma, which you thought this distinction would enable you easily to avoid. The apostles as luiinspired men, had no- authority over ihe church of Christ. Neither their doc- trines nor their decrees had any power of obligation, but- as his infallible ambassadors. If it had been possible that Jesus would have allowed them to teach in his name without infallibility, they deserved no attentioir nor obedience, farther than they could produce Scrip-' ture to support what they delivered 5 /. e. just the- same authority that is possessed by the meanest saint on earth. As uninspired men, they had no authority to settle any controversy, or impose any burden. But whatever was the model of this assemblv, if the- apostles were infallible in their decision, an infallible council can be no precedent to a' fallible one. In- fallible decrees are made to be obeyed, not to be imi- tated by other decrees of fallible men. Justly suppo- sing, that you could never establish the propriety of reference from this chapter, if the apostles acted in their proper character, you have ventured to suggest the most daring hypothesis, and have attempted to di- vest them, in this instance, of their nspiraiion and apostolical authority. Were you to succeed in your attempt, without praving your point, you would leave no basis whereon to rest the inspiration of the Scriptures. If the interpretation of the passage of Amos, quoted by James in this assembly, is not infalli- bly true, what better security have we for the infalli- ble interpretation of the Old Testament, in the various sermons and letters of the apostles ? If a letter written by one apostle has the authority of infallibility, shall 4:8 Letter X. a letter wrilten by all the apostles jointly have kss we^glit ? You require that it should be proved by po- sitive declaration, as to tliis instance, that they weft infallible. The proof of the contrary lies upon you. As apostles, they were infallible in every thing which they taught, either by preaching or writing. It re- mains for you to shew, that in tliis, or any other instance, they were not infallible in their interpretation of Scripture, or in their commands to the churches. It must be proved, that on this occasion they were divest- ed of their apostolical character. Whether they were directed in every instance by immediate afflatus from the Holy Spirit suggesting a new discovery of his will, or infallibly secured from error in their manner of re- lating what they knew without such new revelation, makes no matter.^ As the ambassadors of Jesus, they must, upon ail occasions, upon all subjects relating to the kingdom, have been in the room of Jesus himself. Those who are fallible will sometimes err, and if they are fallible in one case, .why may they not he fallible in another ? Once establish the position w^hich you here lay down, and every man may object to any part of Scripture that may displease him. The Lord Jesus Christ left his apostles in his own place, and gave them full authority as to every thing to be believed and practised. Whatever they did, was done by himself, in all that they taught the churches. " I will give unto' thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Here incontrovertibly is given unto Peter, authority infallibly to declare whatever was neces- sary to be believed and practised by those who should enter into the kingdom of God. If he had the keys of the Letter X. 47!» kingdom, when he opened that kingdom to any one without insisting on circumcision, he was infallible in doing so. Had he insisted on circumcision, it would have infallibly shown that this was the mind of his Lord. When he abolished it, the same thing is £G evidently seen. " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, ihey are retained." They have here infallible autho- rity to declare how sinners were to be pardoned, and to describe the characters of those who give evidence that their sins are pardoned, and of those who give evidence that they are yet in their sins. Now, the question, whether circumcision was necessary to salva- tion, came within this commission. They had autho- rity to declare the mind of Jesus as to this matter. Indeed, if they had not, they were not ambassadors of Christ. Upon a question, whether such a thing was or was not necessary to salvation, that the apostles of Jesus Christ had not infallible information ! Suppose that the apostle Paul was not infallible when teaching at Antioch, and yet strenuously contended against the necessity of circumcision, he might notwithstanding have been wrong. For if he was a fallible teacher, he might liave been in an error. Had it then turned ©ut to have been the will of Jesus, that circumcision should be preached as necessary to salvation 5 that he did not know this till after his going to Jerusalem, and chat many whom he had taught at Antioch died be- . fore his return without circumcision, hath not the apo- stle of Jesus deceived them ^ Upon whom should the Lord Jesus have charged their blood ? What would then have come of his promise. Mat. xvi..l9. John xx. 23. &c. ? Would not the Lord Jesus himself have been to blame for deceiving them ? for they were de- Ss 3 4Sfa Letter X. ««eived by one who had his commission, infallibly tft declare his ^vill and promise to be with them. Nay, if the matter was not infallibly determined at Jerusa- lem, there is still a possibility that they wxre all mis- taken. The sentence might have been reversed by a succeeding revelation. It is no answer to. this, that this was not the case ^ it might have been the case, unless the sentence was infallible. But what is of still greater importance, if the determination of this . the atonement ? ^-^^ J^ ^^^ ,„d to me, that _. It seems good to he ilo.y , ^,^ ^^ge «nners shall be saved ^l-ug^ Jf ; J , , J J, _H be ffV^rt:^!^;^^. themselves, 'rch.: t-.r -er,;voduce W^ently the pas- ,,ges of S" P'--^;"- ^^^;^ „^„,1 p,,etice. From r " er terelt inst.-ucting the churches in Ihs " y "e ithority of their judgment, without this l^t^" y Testament Scriptures, every p c- .eferrmg to the 0.d . .^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^,^^ ^t " Tt meT Had this then been a fallible deci- i'Tsc-ptres would have been stated as the sion, the o i ^ r,o^ this source alone could rrifyC Sain. Had the apostles be. l^U W neter would have made the. opm.on tbe o-round of the consolation of believers. -^ £ is still more evident, from the necessary burden, Sh they lay upon them. They ^^o -yi^^^J, the letter, the reason of this necessity alleged by James 488 Letter X. in the meeting. They do not refer them to any por- tion of Scripture as their authority. They allege as motives of obedience, that this seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to them. I'heir OAvn word as to the mind of the Holy Ghost, Is the ground of the obedi- ence which they challenge. Now, If they were unin- spired, they act In a much more arbitrary and lordly manner than you pretend that Presbyterian synods use In the exercise of their similar authority. The autho- rity for which you contend, " Is not Intended to super- sede, but to promote Inquiry j to present to them more commanding Incitements to examine, and more power- ful, though secondary enforcements and obligations to obey the truth," pag. 321. But this decision enjoins obedience, without having the grounds of It submitted to examination, and Is Implicitly received. It was gi- ven, not to assist them In their Inquiries, but to be obeyed as the mind of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, 5. The manner of receiving this decision shews that it was Infallible. They received and submitted to the decrees Instantly, rejoicing for the consolation which they afforded, although they had nothing but the testi- mony of the writers of the letter, that this was the will of Jesus. They did not remain in suspence till they had searched the Scriptures more fully to see whe- ther they agreed with this letter. As soon as they read the letter, they were convinced j the result of which was, exceeding joyfulness. And indeed, what ground of conviction did they enjoy now, which they did not enjoy previously, but the judgment of those who wrote the letter ? They had the Old Testament Scriptures previously ; the letter did not refer to them, or give an exposition of any part of them, which might enlighten them in the knowledge of some things of which they V 489 Letter ^. When then as the mind of the i.oiy ^^^ ^^^.^.^_^ ^^ ^^j^j. ,Key looked upo„*=..^hog^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hbly directed. 1^ - - ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ , should rejoice. W .lethe ._^^^^^.,^^^^ ^^^ ^j^, infallible, they acted as if aiey ^^ .^ .^ brethren of Antioch — ^^^^.^ , „ception be- „ere infallible. /' -/ f ];; J xhe authority of the eoming thewor of God^^ both of their obedience epistle Itself was th. gr ^ affected the way o£ .^id ioy. Now on a ^^,^, in the in- salvation, had they not had imp ^^^ ^^^^^ «ity of those -^l^^^X^l^,..., it .ith received the '1^-- -U j^W ^^^^^ .^^ ^^^^^^ . „ the Scriptures, and had een ^^^^.^^_^.^^ would they have "^"-^X s^iP— '^''^ '"^ maturely the testimony of the be P ^^^.^ ^^^^ they enjoyed before ^^^^ ^^ ^^.^^^^ ^^^^.^^ ,^ ,, S tnre itseX N ^^ ^^^ ^^^3,1,3 J ;rer7r ilori— neous submission and glad- ^^^^^' . f.^ r, oassage from the Old 6. J--,hav,ng,u ted y^. g^_^ ^^^_ ^ ^^ Testament, ^peaWs not^^ a ^^ „„,„i,hstanding opinion upon a point ^'^^^ J ,,;, sentence in olhervvise determined. He pro ^^ ^^^^ ,,e most -*--"!!—:;; a Lve that the Lord Jesus Christ. He did not say nounce sentence. representative assembly, 490 Letter X. rogant in the highest degree, and must have subjected him to censure. Eut we find that afcer he pronounced sentence, there was not a single objection, or even ad- ditional observation. There w as not even a formal ac- quiescence in his sentence \ the word of Jesus in per- son could not have been more cordially assented to. Had not his decision been infallible, if there had not been farther discussion and a formal vote, there would at least have been a formal assent of~ the house to this dpinion. The greatest leader In the General Assem- bly, or in the Eritish Parliament, must have his opi- nion sanctioned by the formal assent of the house, be- fore it is considered as their decision. You are even at pains to shew, that the word which James uses to signify his judgment, " imports the most decided exer- cise of authority." Eut if James w^as only an unin- spired man, w^hy did he assume such an air of authority in an assembly, in w^hich the most ignorant lay-elder had as good a vote as he had himself. He could not authoritatively pronounce sentence by himself, if the decision must be carried by a majority of voices. But if he was guided by the Spirit of God, he might in the most absolute manner make the decision j for the same would be the mind of all in the assembly who had the Spirit of God. What should you think of the mem- ber who should rise up in the General Assembly after much discussion, saying, ' I pronounce sentence in this matter \ it shall be so or so V 7. Their decision is expressly said to have been the decrees of the Holy Ghost. It affects not the argu- ment, that this should be supposed to relate to the words of the Holy Ghost, i. e. the Scriptures quoted by James. It isV.o matter to me how they came to know^ this, whether by immediate afTiatus, or infallible Letter X. 491 direction In the Interpretation of Scripture. It is enough for me to know the fact, that it was the mind of the Holy Spirit j and that it was so is witnessed, not by one only, but by all the apostles of Jesus Christ. I have as good evidence of this, as I have of Christ's re- surrection. If 1 am deceived as to this point, the apo- stles of the Lord Jesus have deceived me. Those per- sons whom Jesus promised to fit, by the gifts of his Spirit, to declare all the truth, tell me that this deci- sion was the decree of the Holy Spirit. I beg to know any fact better authenticated in all the Scrip- tures. When Paul says, 1 Tim. Iv. 1. " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that In the latter times some shall depart from the faith," whether he Is supposed to refer to the Old Testament prophecies, or to the im- mediate communications of the Spirit to himself, no man thinks that it should have less weight upon the one supposition than upon the other. Paul's interpre- tation of Scripture is itself Scripture. But If it is not infallibly certain that the sentence passed at Jerusalem was the mind of the Spirit, neither Is It infallibly cer- tain that this Is the mind of the Spirit which Paul de- clares. If what all the apostles declare to be the mind of the Spirit, might notwithstanding be otherwise, much more may that be otherwise which is asserted only by one apostle, and that very apostle who you af- firm w^as not inspired when he was preaching the gos- pel at Antioch. Though then it should be found that by " it seemeth good unto the Holy Ghost," nothing more is referred to than the words of Amos, it maketh no diflference. The interpretation is an apostolical In- terpretation. When an uninspired man tells me that such a thing Is the mind of the Holy Spirit, I wait for his proof that it is so, and my conviction rests upon the Tt3 492 Letter X. Scriptures wlilcli he prodaces. But when an apostle tells me that such a thing is the mind of the Spirit, I look for no other proof but his word. Here then that this letter was the mind of the Spirit, we are assured by all the apostles. But, 8. The words, " It seemeth good to the H0I7 Ghost," cannot be confined to the " quotation from Amos \ they must also extend to the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the preaching of Peter, in giving the Gentiles to believe, and to have their hearts purified by faith, without circumcision. Nor can they be confined to both of these things •, for the necessary burdens which are also said to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, are not inferences either from the fact related by Peter, or the Scripture quoted by James. The Holy Spirit then must have made this known to them in some other way. If it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to lay upon the brethren at Antioch, &c, certain necessary bur- dens, which necessary burdens were not contained in the passage quoted by James, the Holy Ghost must have made this known to them by immediate sugges- tion. The reason for laying on these burdens is not said to be deduced from any text of the Old Testa- ment, but from this circumstance, that " Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day." Now, how did they know that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay these necessary things as a burden upon the Gentile believers ? In this part of his sentence, James must have had his instructions immediately from the Holy Spirit. That this was the mind of the Spirit, for the reason assigned, he could have known no other way. He must have had the most direct revelation. Not that I think au apostolical interpretation of the Letter X. 493 Old Testament to be In any manner of inferior credit to the most immediate revelation. But this is sufti- cient to cut off every pretext for quibbling in those who prefer the credit of a sect to the integrity of Scrip- ture. The whole decision was the judgment of the Holy Ghost, as testified by the fact related by Peter, an apostle who could infallibly understand the import of the fact 5 by the passage quoted by James, an apo- stle who could infallibly interpret the Scripture which he alleged j and by the immediate communication from the Holy Spirit suggesting to him certain neces- sary things to be enjoined as a burden. There is in tills letter then, an example of almost every different kind of inspiration : immediate and independent reve- lation, infallible interpretation of prophecy, infallible superintendency in the relation of a fact, and irifalllble exposition of the intention and import of this fact. 9. If they were not infallible in the laying on of this burden, and if this assembly is designed to exhibit a model for other uninspired assemblies to impose bur- dens which they may judge necessary, then such as- semb-ies as resemble this, have a discretionary power that any part of the ceremonial law they please may become obligatory. Nay, I see no reason why they may not enjoin abstinence from, ffesh, pilgrimages, pe- nances, and every other thing their wisdom may judge necessary. If this was an uninspired assembly, which hath imposed upon the disciples some things as a bur- den, for which they did not quote Scripture authority, if it is a model, it will warrant all the superstitious ob- servances of antichrist. 10. Knowing the infallibility of the interpreter, we are assured of the legitimacy of the inference from the passage of Amos j but it is evident that it required in- 494 Letter X. fallible interpretation to make the inference. It is not an obvious inference. It required the most intimate knowledge of the Scriptures, and the illumination of the same Spirit that dictated ihe prophecy, to enable the interpreter to make this inference with complete certainty. Nay, it requires full confidence in the in- fallibility of the interpreter, to be thoroughly convin- ced that it is not strained. Those -tvho do not consider the apostle as infallible, may doubt whether this text from i^mos is completely decisive and clear j especial- ly as the inference from it is so immensely important, affecting the very essence of the gospel, and the plan of salvation. We should think it a very audacious thing, if any writer were to undertake to canvass and disprove the interpretation here given to this passage by James j yet, upon your theory, there would be nothing improper in it, nay, it would be a very lawful and use- ful inquiry to examine into the legitimacy of this infe- rence with the utmost jealousy, and re-examine the whole subject W'ith respect to the obligation of the ce- remonial law. Even were we, upon the w^hole, to be satisfied with the decision, we might reject some of the particular proofs alleged in this assembly 5 and the man who should say that the passage from Amos quo- ted by James, fails to prove that for which he alleges .it, you could not condemn upon your own principles. If you cannot shew him that the inference is so clear and obvious, that it presents its own evidence, you fail to convince him. This interpretation by James, if he were uninspired, may as lawfully be questioned, as the interpretation of any other passage of Scripture in the sermons or- writings of ordinary ministers. But how great is the pow er of attachment to ancient systems ! Presbyterians in general, without a murmur, can bear Letter X. 405 you to divest the apostles of Jesus Christ of their apo- stolical character, and to represent them as ordinary uninspired ministers j yet they cannot, without the ut- most indignation, bear to hear the decisions of the Westminster divines called in question. In this coun- try at least, the bulk of them, I mean of those who are attached to the old school, are accustomed to reverence the writings of Boston, the Erskines, Willison, &c. as the word of God j they never think of questioning any interpretation of Scripture by them. Though they were not inspired, yet they had such an uncom- mon share of the common aicis, as sufficiently served the same purpose. If at any time we should call in question any of the dogmas, or even forms of expres- sion, of the Shorter Catechism, there is a cry of sacri- lege, as if we had attempted to invalidate the authori- ty oi the Scriptures. Yet these very persons have La- ken no offence against your book, in which, wdthout scruple, you attempt to disprove the inspiration of the apostles, represent the letter written by all the apostles as worthy of the same reception wath that of Claudius Lysias, and endeavour to establish principles totally and necessarily subversive of the inspiration of the New Testament. Can that system be from God, that leads its votaries so far from himself ? Can that be of divine appointment, which transfers to men the respect and confidence due only to the word of God ? Yet this is the visible tendency of the system w^hich you endea- vour to uphold. This is the inevitable tendency of every system that allows human interference in the things of God. If church-rulers have any power dis- tinct from the word which they inculcate j if any thing is left to be supplied by their discretion, it is impossible, in the very nature of things, but an undue weight will 496 Letter X. be attached to tlieir opinions and decisions. It is im- possible for the very best men, in such circumslances, always to keep within just limits, when the limits are not distinctly marked. But you allege that ordinary ministers might have made the decision. I answer, that ordinary ministers might as well have made the whole New Testament. There is nothing in it (if the book of revelation is not an exception, and perhaps even this Is not an excep- tion) which is not contained in, and Inferred from the Old Testament. The most important doctrines of the New, are deduced from the Old, both by our Lord and his apostles. This Indeed was their usual mode of preaching. If then there Is no need of Inspiration, with respect to every point that can be deduced from the Old Testament, there Is not an Inspired book in the New Testament. According to you, the gospels, be- ing a history of matters of fact, needed no inspiration ; the epistles, containing doctrines founded upon th^ Old Testament, needed no Inspiration. There Is not in all the New Testament any doctrine that cannot be as ea- sily deduced from the Old as this. We have seen such a specimen of the kind of Inferences, that the ecclesi- astical assemblies of diiferent denominations have drawn from the Scriptures, even after the New Testament has been completed, as should make us beware of easi- ly assenting to such fallible deductions. If all the passages of the New Testament, which are even direct deductions from the Old, are to be considered as unin- spired, what have we left ? If ordinary ministers had been sufficient to Infer all the doctrines of the New Testament from the Old, Avhy was there instituted such an order as apostles, or why were these furnished v.itli the effusion of the Holy Ghost ? If ordinary ministers Letter X. 497 had been sufficiently qualified to expound with com- plete certainty the Old Testament Scriptures, why were there secondarily an order of prophets for this very purpose, to supply the lack of the apostles' pre- sence, and of the writings of the New Testament, be- fore they were delivered to the churches ? God does nothing in vain •, he gives no gift or office that is not necessary. What then is the use of the gift of inter- pretation of prophecy, according to your system ? If fallible uninspired men could have suited this purpose, why such a waste of divine extraordinary communica- tions ? Ordinary-.ministers may indeed make inferences from the Old Testament, and expound its propKecies 5 but they have now the New Testament key to unlock the treasures of the Old. They have now the sermons of our Lord and his apostles. They have now the Gospels, the Acts and Epistles of the apostles, in which these prophecies are expounded. These afford a clue to conduct us into every labyrinth, which the first churches had not immediately in w^riting. But there Is still a greater difference between the exposition of prophecy by those who are inspired, and by those who are only ordinary teachers. The exposition of the for- mer is infaUible, that of the latter is fallible, and must be judged of, and approved by the Scriptures them- selves, before it is received. The apostle James had need of inspiration in this interpretation, because we are to be implicitly guided by his determination. But in our controversy, you and I have no need of inspira- tion, because there is no credit to be given to our In- terpretation of Scripture, farther than every one Is persuaded from his own examination that we handle the word of God fairly. If any man is led astray by the apostle James, the Lord Jesus Christ is answerable for 493 Lj^ttePv X. his error. But if any man is led astray by either you or me, he is inexcusable. He has the word j by that he is to prove all thuigs, and hold fast only that which is good. The Lord Jesus Christ has not told him that he has commissioned either of us to declare his will with infallible certainty. The truth of our respective systems must be judged of by the Scriptures. From this therefore it follows, that in the very plainest case, in the most obvious inference, the apostles needed in- fallible superintendance, both in ideas and words, be- cause if they had either misconceived or ill-expressed any sentiment, the mischief was irremediable. The fault must lie upon Jesus, because the apostles were in his place. But in the most difficult cases, ordinary teachers have no need of inspiration, nor infallible su- perintendance, because nothing depends upon their judgment. The conviction of the hearers should arise solely from the word, and the evidence from other passages of Scripture which they may produce to illus- trate and confirm their doctrine. If then this is the case as to the plainest inference, much more is it the case with the less obvious. And the inference in ques- tion is one of these. For my part, such an inference would never have occurred to me, had I been an unin- spired member of that assembly, 11. The apostles are referred tain their apostolical character, and the answer returned in the same. They are addressed, not as universal uninspired bishops, but as the apostles of Jesus Christ. They are addressed also as an order distinct from the elders j " To the apostles and elders :" and in the letter, they have their own place, as a distinct order, which is not that of uni- versal uninspired bishops, but of apostles. *' The apo- stles, the elders, and brethren," They are then refer- Letter X. 49§ red to In tlieir official character, and lliey answer In their official character. Besides, even according to your fanciful distinction, they acted in an official cha- racter, why then should it not be in their proper dis- tinguishing official character ? Why is an office that never existed, distinct from their apostolical office, de- vised for them on this occasion ? They are referred to as apostles, they answer as apostles j apostles then they must be considered. When Paul elsewhere wishes to prove his inspiration and infallible authority, he says, " Am I not an apostle '^^ He supposes the establish- ing of his character as an apostle, to be the same thing as establishing his divine warrant and infallible autho- rity. For this very purpose, he introduces most of his epistles by styling himself an apostle, and is often very particular in asserting that he was called to be such by ■God the Father, and by our Lord Jesus Christ. This could not be out of clerical parade, as the clergymen style themselves Reverend, because all religious titles were forbidden by his Master. It must then be to gain the unlimited confidence and obedience of those to whom he wrote, as an infallible teacher commission- ed and furnished by God. " Whereunto I am ordain- ed a preacher and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and He not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity," 1 Tim. ii. 7. To what purpose is this solemn asseveration as to the truth of his being an apostle, if, as such, he was not inspired, and had infal- lible knov^dedge of the will of God ? Why does he so often, in such a solemn manner, assert his apostolical character, if it is not that those to whom he speaks may have complete confidence in his doctrine, as the word of God ? If it is not, this is a useless and imper- tinent preface to his declarations. What should we Uu 500 Letter X. think of the minister, who, while he was delivenno- some important pait of his discourse, should gravcly assert his ministerial character, and assure his hearers that he was a rmnister of the gospel ? Would it not be as if he should say, * I am a minister of the gospel ; therefore you may believe me, and receive my doc- trines.' This would not suit an uninspired man, for it ■\vas not by his ministerial authority, but by the Scrip- tures which he should produce, that his hearers were to be convinced. When then Paul thus solemnly asserts his apostolical character, it must be that as such his words may be received, not as the word of man, but as the word of God. His declaring himself to be an apostle, he considers to be the same as declaring his in- fallibility. Accordingly, immediately after this asser- tion, he proceeds to give his commands as If Jesus spoke in person. " I will therefore," &c. — '* I am an apostle, I lie not." But of what importance Is it here that he was an apostle if an apostle was not infallible ? *' I am an apostle," said he, before he gave the com- mand as to men's praying, and women's dress. * But what suppose you are an aposile,' might the females answer, if they would be taught by Mr Brown •, * an apostle is sometimes inspired, and sometimes not In- spired ? You must work a miracle, or we will not obey you.' The idea of Inspiration, ay.d the Idea of an apostle, are. In my mind, inseparable. The latter ne- ver presents itself without the former. I have no other idea of the distinction between an apostle, and those otlier ministers who also ^^'itnessed the resurrec- tion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that the former were appointed Infallibly to report that fact with its true import. Many others were witnesses of the death and resurrection of our Lord j and understood also the Letter X. 50f import cf tliese facts. But the apostles were qualified to explain perfectly, without being subject to the small- est misapprehension, the whole plan of salvation, with all its connections and bearings. 12. These decrees were delivered to the churches to ki'(p, (^(pvXccrtruv) not to be canvassed. Had they been the decrees of uninspired men, the churches would have been commanded to prove them by the word of God. More could not have been said for any other part of Scripture. 13. " And so v^ere the churches established in the faith," Acts xvi. 5. Established in the faith by hu- man decrees I I They were then nourished up in the words of men, not in the words of faith. Christians may be nourished by the teaching of ordinary ministers from the word of God -, but there is no possibility that:' they could be nourished by a human decision, without the grounds of that decision. Such are some of the internal evidences of the in- spiration of this portion of Scripture. But there are many other arguments that peremptorily deiinand our assent to this truth. 1st, The very insertion of this epistle in the New Testament Scriptures, and the detail of the whole transaction being embodied with the other epistles of the apostles, shews that it is infallibly agreeable to the lioly Spirit. Were it not so, it could not be exhibited either as the divine decision of a particular point, or as a model. Had not the decision as to the question about circumcision, and the necessary burdens, been in- fallibly agreeable to the will of our Lord, it would not have been recorded with approbation for our instruc- tion. When Luke inserts it in his history, he stamps it with the broad seal of heaven. The speeches, let- 502 Letter X. ters, and reasonings of uninspired men, are not record- ed in Scripture, either as models for imitation in reli- gious assemblies, or as divine decisions. The letter of Claudius Lysias is not inspired, but who looks upon it as a model ? If this epistle of all the apostles is equal- ly uninspired with that of Claudius Lysias, I will pay them equal deference. I will no more be bound by Mible apostles than fallible military officers. If the apostles were not inspired, for what purpose is this whole transaction recorded ? If they were uninspired, the model which they exhibited is uninspired, and in- stead of having the authority of obligatory example, it must itself be sanctioned by either a divine model, or divine instructions in direct commandment. 2d, Those that could not infallibly decide this ques- tion, could not infallibly preach the gospel. Nay, of such importance was it in the estimation of the apo- stles, that the making of circumcision necessary is called another gospel. If then they could not infalli- bly declare whether it was necessary, they did not in- fallibly know the gospel method of salvation. Peter shews it to be connected with the very essence of the gospel j and to make circumcision necessary, is oppo- sed to the free salvation of Jews and Gentiles through the grace of Christ. " But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.'' This could not have been the case, if circum- cision, which would have made us debtors to do the whole law for justification, had been necessary. No man then was qualified to preach the gospel of Christ, as his ambassador, who was not infallibly Instructed on this point. The commission received by the apostles was, " Go ye, therefore, and proselyte all nations, teaching them all things whaic^ver I have commanded Letter X. 5o3 you, and, lo ! I am with you alway.^ Here they are supposed to have in command every thing that they are to teach. If ever they taught any thing for which they had no command, it is not sanctioned in this com- mission. Was this matter any part of the mind of the Lord ? Was it any point about which his people need- ed instruction ? If it was, the apostles have it in com- mand to resolve the question. Have they not Christ's promise, that he would be with them, that he would be with them alvoay / Dare any one say that he w^as not W'ith them on this occasion ? There is no subject in which they needed his presence more than in this. In- failibilily in no case could be more necessary. If this decision was not infallible, the gospel was not yet in- fallibly preached, nor at any time till it was infallibly determined j and, as we have no better authority for the inspiration of the apostles at any other time, have we yet infallible authority upon which to rest our faith, 3d, Nothing can shew that the apostles were fallible in any thing regarding the kingdom of Christ, but an absolute assertion of Scripture. And in w^hatever in- stance they are fallible, or not completely instructed, Vit. must have some other more infallible director. If not, there will be points uponw^hich we have no divine instructions, which are notwithstanding a part of Christ's will with regard to his people's conduct, which supposes a defective revelation. If on any mat- ter the apostles spoke without divine illumination, their opinion cannot be obligatory, and the point cannot be of any importance. If the apostles should declare some things as inspired, and others as uninspired, with- out advertising us of it on every particular occasion, there would be an end to all confidence in them as the oracles of God. How should we separate the chaff U u .? ^0* Letter X. from the wheat ? So far however from this, the apo- sties on no occasion speak, in giving directions to the churches, without infallibility, knowing the mind of their Lord. Some things they taught by permission, and not by commandment j but this repects the com- mandment which they gave, and not what they recei- ved. 4th, If the apostles were not here infallible, there might have been a contrary determination, and the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ were so forsaken by their Ma- ster, that they might have deceived the world with re- spect to the very nature of the gospel, which, as am- bassadors, they were appointed to preach. But if they were infallibly saved from this, it is the same as inspi- ration. The reason, and the only reason that ordina^ ry preachers do not need infallible guidance, is that there is nothing which depends upon their opinion of the Scriptures which they illustrate and enforce^ They are not ambassadors, and have no testimony of their own to give. Christ's honour is not pledged for their veracity, judgment or accuracy. Their business is to call men's attention to the testimony of the apo- stles. If, in any instance, they lead men into error, Jesus is not to blame for this j for he has given the Scriptures as a standard, and has not given the world reason to suppose that any thing depends on the au- thority of preachers. But if the apostles were at any time left to themselves to teach what they might possi- bly misunderstand, Jesus is not clear of deceiving the world. Blasphemous thought ! How desperate is the cause that must be supported at the expence of the inspiration of the ambassadors of our Lord Jesus Christ ! 5th, If this was an authoritative, yet uninspired as- Letter X. ' 505 sembly, then the apostles of Jesus might have been outvoted, and consequently been obliged to teach what was contrary to their opinion of the will of Jesus, or have been condemned and excommunicated by this general council. The apostles of Jesus would then have been directed in what they were to preach over all the world by an uninspired assembly. Those commissioned to teach, might have been obliged to submit to be taught by those whom they ought to have taught, and if they had not submitted to the council, have been obliged to go into the world excommunica- ted from the universal visible church of the Lord Je- sus Christ, to teach under ail these disadvantages. 6th, Infallibility is implied in the very notion of a decree of a religious nature. If those who command or decree are fallible, they may decree and command contrary to the w-ill of Christ. The authority of an uninspired church-ruler must rest on the divine com- mand which he produces. He has no authority dis- tinct from this. The law which he enforces receives no additional weight from his office. Therefore obe- dience to him must arise from the conviction of those upon w^hom the law is enforced. Yea, although it should appear to him the most evident law of Christ, he is to enforce it upon them only as understanding- it 5 for if they do not obey out of faith, their submission is sin J and to possess authority to command compli- iance" without conviction, would involve a power to command them to sin. A church-ruler then, though he has no discretionary power, has all the authority of the law which he enforces : still, however, obedience is only due to the law, upon conviction that it is a law of the kingdom. If an individual does not understand it, he is not to submit to it. His sia is not in disobey- 506 Letter X. ing the authority of the ruler, but In benig slow of heart to understand the Scriptures. The church-ruler is to call upon him to understand and submit to the law of Christ, never to his authority or superior judg- ment. If they cannot agree, and the matter is of such a nature as to prevent the exercise of mutual forbear- ance, they, are to turn away from each other. 7th, If the decision was not infallible it was useless^ nay sinful. Those who had doubts upon this subject,, must either have rested implicitly upon the wisdom of men to remove them, or they might have retained them, even after this decision. If the former was the case, then they acted not in faith : their conduct was sinful,, although the judgment of the assembly had been just. They obeyed not God, but man. And a fallible de- cree commanding obedience is guilty of tempting to. that sin, by usurping the place of God's word. It can- be oflio use to decree upon doubtful or dark passages of Scripture, except those who assume the authority of issuing decrees, have infallible guidance to direct them to form a true judgment. They cannot otlier- v.ise challenge obedience. But if the decrees were not to be received implicitly, they were useless, and ivistead of effecting complete concord, they would have excited a keener discussion. The judaizing teachers, who were so warmly and zealously attached to circumcision, would not have been likely to submit implicitly to men as liable to error as themselves. Nor would it have been their duty to have yielded the point upon such grounds. The reception of their decrees would then have depended upon the conviction of each individual who was to obey them ; and as we before shewed, there was no grounds of evidence submitted to them in the letter which contains the decrees. Every indi- Letter X. 507 vJdual mu?t, after all, judge for himself ef their con- formity to the Scriptures, without any assistance from the decrees themselves to search for and weigh the evidence of this conformity. They must then have met with a very diiierent reception in the different churches over the world, yea even in the same church. If this question was not divinely determined, the Lord Jesus has given just grounds for a separation of his disci- ples into two sects. There would in this case have been no advantage resulting from the decision. The idea of an assembly invested with a power of settling controver- sies and imposing necessary burdens, whose decisions may be canvassed, and received or rejected according to the judgment of those for whom decision is made, is an absurdity. They are then not decrees, but advice, judgment, or exhortation. 8th, There can be no divine authorityto command, in any instance in which it is not the duty of those com- manded, to obey. The authority of the one, and. the allegiance of the other, must have the same extent. A divine authority in an assembly to command, and yet a divine- authority in those commanded to disobey ! what an absurdity I 9th, The apostles never claim authority as fallible men. On the contrary, if anyone had received the gos- pel from them as uninspired men, Paul supposes that it was useless. " For this cause also thank we God, without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the word of God." Now, had this assembly been fallible, and this decision the word of man only, although it were agreeable ta the word of God, the reception of it upon this ground would have been matter of grief, not of glorying to 508 ' Letter X. an apostle. The reception even of a divine truth upon any thing but divine testimony, is not pleasing to God. In such a case it is not divine truth to us. In all human references, the parties who make the reference are supposed to be determined to settle the matter of dispute by the judgment of the referees, wheiher they themselves should be convinced or not. If they must both be convinced, reference is useless. It IS then not a reference for decision,, but a reference for opinion. But in matters of religious opinion, which cannot be received or given up, but Vvith full conviction, there is no room for reference to any but infallible re- ferees. The decision of fvdlible men cannot change the mind of either party, any further than they con- vince the judgment by argument. Nay, even about civil matters, parties referring a case, and engaging ta abide by the decision of the arbitrators, do not oblige themselves to change their opinions j for this they • could not do. If my neighbour and I have a dispute about property, we may leave it to a reference, and doing so we ought tobe finally decided by their opinion, though, it is very possible that the arbitration may not be strictly pleasing to either of us. Eut VvC cannot do so with res- pect to religious matters •, if we are not convinced by the arbitration, it is sinful to obey it. I may give avvay my civil property agreeable to the decision of men,, although I may be convinced that there is no just claim to demand it. " If any man will sue thee at the law, and take aw^ay thy coat, let him have thy cloak also," /. e. as I take it, wdien any man brings a legal process against us, and carries his point by the laws of the land, we are to give up to that authority, although we are convinced that the judges have been partial or mistaken. We are not to suppose, that because we Letter X. 509 are convl.iced that the decision has been unjust, we are thereiore warranted to resist the civil powers, and re- fuse compliance. Nay, if our adversary brings ano- ther process as unjust as the former, and carries it by the opinion of the legal judges of the land, we are to submit lo that also. Here then is not only a ivarrant, but a divine command, to submit to the judg- ment of those legally authorized, although we are not convinced of iis justice. But can you produce any such command as to religious matters ? Does the Lord Jesus tell his disciples to submit in the same manner to the judgment of uninspired church-rulers ? And if there Vvas any such assembly of uninspired men com- missioned by Jesus to settle religious controversies, would he not give us some instructions with respect to the extent of their authority and of our obedience ? Would he be so particular in shewing us our duty to the laws of the land in which we live, and say nothing about our duly to the laws of these assemblies ? Though in civil matters jesus commands us to be amenable to the decision of the lawful judges of the land, yet he does not command us to believe that their judgment is always equit- able. How absurdiiisthen tosuppose, that partieshaving a difference in religious sentiments should leave it to the determination of fallible men, and engage to act accordingly ! The very engagement to do so would be perjury j for they may not be convinced, and it is a first principle in the law of Christ, that no one is to act contrary to his convictions. Having now stated some reasons to establish the infallibility of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, I shall briefly advert to your objections. I have the less need to be tedious, as most of them have been al- ready answered in substance, in the preceding part of 510 Letter X. this letter. You set out with a principle, which, v/ere it proved, would shake our confidence in the apostoli- cal character. " That the apostles were not uniform- ly directed by a miraculous influence I think you must grant, if you reflect for a moment oa what is recorded in the gospel history. Many of their actions, as was for- merly noticed, such as the ordination of deacons, the dispensation of the sacram.ents, the preaching of the word, and, in many instances, the government of the church, did not require such a preternr;tural influence, for they were performed by men who were not inspired, and are still performed by men who have no miraculous influence, either of suggestion or of superintendance." pp. 297, 298. Indeed, Sir, I will not grant that the apostles were fallible in any one of those instances to which you re- fer. In some of these things, they must have had a direct communication from the Spirit, and in others an infallible superintendance. Were not the apostles in- fallibly directed by the Spirit, in what manner to or- dain the deacons ? If they were not, I deny the obli- gation of their example. To prove the propriety and the manner of ordination, you might as well quote the ceremonies of dubbing a knight-errant from the annals of chivalry, as the example of the apostles in ordaining deacons, if they were not inspired. As to dispensa- tion of sacraments, I have never heard of the apostles dispensing any sacraments either civil or religious. If you mean the Lord's supper and baptism, I will also affirm, that in these they must have had infallibility. In the preaching of the w^ord also, they must ever have been guided by the unerring Spirit. The apo- stle Paul commands Timothy to " hold fast the fonn of sound words, which he had heard of him, in faith Letter X. 511 and love." The words of tlie aposlle were to be re- ceived in faith ; but |:lie words of uninspired men are not to be received in faitli. They are to be tried by the word of inspiration, and when found agreeable to that unerring standard, then it Is to the Scriptures that faith is given. You seem to think, because these things are still performed by ordinary teachers, that therefore the apostles, in doing the same things, were no more inspired than the latter. I have already she\vn you the reason why inspiration, or Infallible guidance, is neces^ry to apostles, and not to ordinary teachers. Christ is answerable for every error of the apostles j but as he has given us the New Testament re- velation in addition to the Old, as a form and standard of sound words, there Is no occasion for Inspiration in ordinary teachers. If they go Into error, Jesus is not accountable for it j for he never gave us reason to suppose that he would make them infallible. If others are led astray by them, they are inexcusable j for they have the form of sound words in the Scriptures. But the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, as his ambassa- dors, in every Instance, must have been infallibly secu- red from error in their teaching and presiding in the churches. These things are indeed still performed by men, who have no miraculous influence either of sug- gestion or of superintendence ; but they are not stan- dards in performing them. Their conduct in them is to be tried by the apostolical precepts and example. These things, you say, did not require a preternatural influence. To perform them infallibly right, they did require supernatural guidance. If not, why are there such differences upon each of the points to which you have referred ? Infallible superintendence was necessa- ry on all points to the apostles, for It is by their words 512 Letter X. thai Christ shall judge the world. According to your reasoning, the apostles and sacred penmen had no need of infallible superintendence, in any thing of which they could have information from others. If infallible guidance was not necessary to the apostles in preach- ing, &.C. neither is infallible guidance necessary in the writers of the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, nor indeed of the Epistles \ for if the apostles could preach without infallible guidance, why could not they write without it ? For what reason should the apostles be inspired in wTiting their episllcs to the churches, and uninspired in preaching to the churches or to sin- ners ? The evangelists might have had personal know- ledge, or particular information with respect to the facts recorded by them, yet they needed infallible superintendence in relating the very things of which they were eye-witnesses. I really cannot see upon what consistent principles you can pretend to hold the inspiration of the New Testament. If, in the doc- trines and institutions of the gospel, the apostles were not under infallible guidance, I cannot see any founda- tion left on which to rest the divinity of the Scriptures. There are indeed many things recorded in the Scrip- tures of which the penmen might have personal know- ledge j but in these very things, infallible superintendence is necessary to entitle them to full credit. Had they not been infallibly directed, they might in many things have been mistaken. But v.-hy do you think that in the instances to which you refer, the apostles were not inspired ? Is it not because, in your estimation, they needed no inspiration ? But the point about which this meeting was held, was not one of these. Inspiration, direct inspiration, was necessary. It was not merely like a fact which required nolhing but infallible super- Letter X^. 513 it WIS a case of dispute among tlie disci- ples of Christ, and therefore was not one of those things which needed no direct inspiration. But how absurdly do you contend that this case did not need inspiration, when you affirm that the apostles them- selves were of diiTerent opinions upon the subject, and had a long and warm debate ! Indeed, Sir, I am often shocked at the sentiments which you discover hi this treatise. You appear to me to have no proper reve- rence for the word of God. According to you, the Scriptures are not the word of God. The greater part of them, at least, are the words of men. Your first objection against the inspiration of the apostles in this assembly is as follows : " In the first place, Paul and Barnabas, at the original discussion at Antioch, acted not in the high character of apostles^ but only of ordinary ministers. Had not this been tie case, they could never have submitted to the t*--!*^ or appointment of the church at Antioch to go up to Je- rusalem, (Acts XV. 2.) for, as an apostle, Paul was far superior to them all, as Barnabas was to many of them, and could never have been authoritatively appointed by them."— p. 298. Strange indeed, if the apostle must lay aside his apostolic office before he can bear a message. It was not necessary indeed that the messenger should have been an apostle, but it was not necessary for him to lay aside this office, before he could carry a message from^ his inferiors. Must the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland lay aside his vice-royalty, before he can present a peti- tion to the king ? The apostles were totally unacquaint- ed with the etiquette of Presbyterian church-courts. But, my good Sir, you forget where this position will lead you. Paul must also lay aside his office as an or- 514 ' Letter X. dinary minister, for he was deputed by the brethren, who were his inferiors, even considered in that office. Eut to suppose that a man must lay aside a superior of- fice, before he can exercise an inferior, is an idea too absurd to need refutation. "Why do you represent the choice of Paul and Barnabas as an authoritative ap- pointment ? They were chosen for this service, not con- strained by authority. The great apostle of the Gen- tiles authoritatively commanded by a kirk- session at Antioch ! ! " Secondly, If this question was to be determined by inspiration, it was unnecessary to have gone to Jeru- salem for the decision. Paul certainly, as well as the other inspired ministers, was as able to have delivered such a decision as the apostles at Jerusalem j and un- questionably if evidence had been presented to the mi- nisters of the church of Antioch, that the Holy Ghost, in a supernatural manner, had settled the matter, by communicating to them his v»'iil through a single mini- ster, it must have been as decisive as if he had spoken to them by twelve.'*— p. 299. As to the reason why it seemed good to God to have the question thus publicly determined, it does not lie upon liS to justify him. It is sufficient for us to know that the question was settled by the apostles. This assures us of the infallibility of the decision, and whe- ther we can discover them or not, we know that he had good reasons for the manner of the determination. Sufficient reasons may be, and have been assigned for it •, but if you do not like them, we are not bound to please you in this matter. The apostle Paul was at Antioch ', he opposed the Jewish teachers •, there was no doubt upon his mind ; he taught this as he taught every other doctrine. If he was not infallible in teach» Letter X. 515 Ing It, the commission which he received from Jesus was void. He could not preach the gospel as an am- bassador. Was infallibility less necessary now than when he wrote his epistle to the Galatians on the same subject ? You suppose, that he might have settled the matter by a miracle. But, Sir, the apostles were not obliged to resort to miracles to prove every sermon, or every doctrine which they delivered, nor did they so. They established their character as apostles in general by the working of miracles, and this implied their infallibility in all that they taught in the name of Jesus Christ. If they should have resorted to miracles whenever any should oppose them, they might have done nothing else than work miracles. Paul did not work a miracle when he wrote his letter to the Galatians, more than he did at Antioch. If at one time the apostles were fallible, and at another infallible, what confidence could we repose in them ? We must have a miracle for every word they speak. I desire you to shew that at any period of their lives, from the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, till their death, they were not infallible in what they taught. What an ab- surdity, to suppose that the apostle Paul was teaching at Antioch, and that he cou-ld not infallibly declare the gospel ! for if he could not decide this question infalli- bly, he could not preach infallibly. The moment the apostles ceased to be infallible, they ceased to be am- bassadors for Christ. No longer was it a truth which was spoken to them by Jesus, " Lo I I am with you alway." " In the third- place," you say, " the persons to whom this reference was made, were not only apostles, but ordinary elders." As ordinary elders, it was pro- Xx3 516 Letter X. per to refer to them, to ascertain the matter of fact whether this was the doctrine taught in the church at Jerusalem. If it is said, that, as uninspired men, they also joined in laying on the necessary burden, I answer, so also did the whole church, and if the apostles had joined the whole Christian world with them, it could not in the least invalidate their infallibility, any more than Paul's joining the brethren with himself invali- dates the epistle to the Galatians. If there was one inspired man in the assembly, the infallibility of the decision is completely secured. But if there was a real difficulty in reconciling the inspiration of the apo- stles, with the co-operation of uninspired elders, there is a necessity rather to suppose the inspiration of the letter, than fallibility in the former. The apostles at no time were fallible in delivering the doctrines, laws, and ordinances of the churches of Christ j any thing must be supposed rather than this. " Lastly," you say, " the manner of procedure in this court does not indicate that they acted as extraor- dinary ministers," &c. It is sufficient to answer to this that they were always extraordinary ministers, and executed not even any inferior office, but as it was con- tained in their superior. A general may submit to the 4uty of a drill-sergeant, bijf he is si.ill a general, and, even in that, has all the authority of the general as vvell as of the sergeant. As to the disputing in that assembly, it is enough to shew that it is not necessary to suppose that it was among the apostles. The bare possibility of this is suf- ficient for my purpose, although it is very evident. And although it should have been among the apostles, It is not necessary to suppose that any thing is meant bv the word but discussion. Much might be said to Letter X. 5l7 prove tliese points, but positive proof does not lie upon us y the contrary must be positively proved by you. If you cannot positively shew that the disputation was among the apostles j and if so, that it was such as to imply that they had different opinions, it will avail you nothing. At all events they could finally say, that it ** seemed good to the Holy Ghost." At what parti- cular time, or in what particular manner God commu- nicated his mind to the apostles on this point, is not at all material. We know that it actually seemed good to the Holy Ghost, for this is unitedly attested by those who were commissioned to declare his mind. Had all the apostles been uninformed by the Spirit on this point, till the moment that James spoke, it would not affect the inspiration of the epistle. Before they gave decision, they were informed. It is not only absurd, but impious to fix precise rules of etiquette, which the Holy Spirit must scrupulously observe in communica- ting his will. Were vrc to indulge ourselves in the li- berty of quesiioning the inspiration of the sacred pen- men on every occasion in which their writings might contradict our opinions, interests and prejudices, there are innumerable instances in which Ave might reason with all the plausibility you can employ upon this point. But as long as these decrees are prefaced with *' it seemeth good unto the Holy Ghost," attested by the accredited ambassadors of Jesus Christ, I vail look upon them to contain infallibly the mind of Christ. I have nothing but the testimony of the same witnesses for his resurrection. But under what obligation are we to prove the in- fallibility of the apostles in this matter ? None, cer- tainly. Give you all you ask ^ there is nothing more effectually rids us of all difhculties, if there were any, 5lS Letter X. than your own hypothesis. If the apostles did not here act as apostles, we have then no apostolical autho- rity for this assembly. You may as well sanction such assemblies now, by a general council of the fourth cen- tury, and determine the form of them by the model of a former general assembly. If the apostles were un- inspired here, I refuse to submit my faith and practice to their decision. I have therefore discussed this sub- ject rather to vindicate the authority of the apostles in general, than to support the view^s with respect to church order, which I judge agreeable to the Scrip- tures. You have struck at the foundation of the au- thority of the xvord of God. Your hypothesis can only rise on its ruins. I am indeed sorry that any who make a profession of Christianity should enter- tain such sentiments. But it must be to us a most con- vincing evidence of the truth of our views of church- order, to find our antagonists driven to such a despe- rate mode of defence. In this view, I did rejoice to find such an hypothesis suggested. If our views of this passage must stand good as long as the apostles maintain their own character, they will remain for ever. I have no desire that our numbers should be in- creased by the addition of any who strip the apostles of their commission and infallibility. Such persons I should consider as unfit for membership in apostolical churches. Did I need any thing to convince me of the unscripturalness of the Presbyterian form of church government, no external circumstance could more ef- fectually contribute to this than your defence of it. You are labouring from first to last j and have re- course to so many evasions, as, in the estimation of any impartial reader, though not deeply acquainted with the subject, must make it apparent that the cause which Letter X. 519 needs such a defence, cannot be the cause of Christ. I am much mistaken if your book v.ill not make more Independents from among those who tremble at the word of God, than even a direct defence of Indepen- dency. You have indeed furnished wiLh arguments those who love darkness rather than light •, but there is not in all your book any thing calculated ^o satisfy an enquiring Christian. ■ The glory and prosperity of the church of Scotland, rather than the glory of God, appears to have been your great aim. But, my good Sir, had you succeeded in establishing the divine right of Presbytery, what have you dorje for the church of Scotland, or any other of the Pres- byterian denominations ? Were I convinced as fully of the divine right of the Presbyterian farm of church- government, as I am of the divinity of the Bible, I would not acknowledge as a church of Ch;-ist any Pres- byterian body that 1 know. In all of them, the king- dom of Christ, and the kingdoms of this world, are con- founded J nor are they formed of the same kind of ma- terials that composed the churches planted by the apo- stles. The question respecting the form of church-govern- ment, however important in itself, is quite a subordi- nate one. The first, the great question is. What is a church of Christ ? Of whom is it composed ? Of those who give evidence of kno^ving and obeying the gospel, or of the whole inhabitants of a parish, except such as are grossly ignorant and immoral ? Is it a number of Christians united in fellowship, and separated from the world, or is it a few Christians mixed with a multitude of visible unbelievers ? The church of Scotland is not a church of Christ, although its form of government corresponded exactly to the divine model, and although 52f^ Letter X. one half of those who compose it were real believers. Believers alone, as far as they can be distinguished, compose a church of Christ. You may as w^eil, upon this ground, defend the church of Rome as the church of Scotland, as being a church of Christ. There are, no doubt, Christians in both. It cannot certainly be the similarity of the form of government, and all other ordinances, to those of the apostolical churches, that constitutes any body a church of Christ. There might be the most exact resemblance in each of these points, yet not a feature of a church of saints or holy per- sons. Suppose, for instance, the devils were to mimic a church. Let them adopt your form of Presbytery, with all its courts of review, from a kirk-session to a. general council, with a rigidity of discipline exceeding the severity of John Knox, and with all the Presbyte- rian sacraments and ordinances — would you call this a church of Christ ? If not, it is not the form of govern- ment and ordinances of worship thai constitutes a church. Suppose again that a number of those devils were to become incarnate, and that they were known. to be such. Let them form a church upon your model, with an ample establishment for tlie clergy, do you think that the servants of Jesus might lawfully join them, because they lived In the same parish * ? or if they did, could such a union be called a church of * I have heard it said of a member of the church of Scotland, that he could sit down to the Lord's supper with the devil on his right hand. It appears to be almost an universal decla- ration by tho^e of the established church, that they have no con- cern with those who join in the same acts of wsrsbip with them- seives. Letter X. 521 •Christ ? Yet there is no difTerence between the devils, and the devil's children, as to their fitness to be members cf that body which is the emblem of the body of Christ, and the habitation of his Spirit. Until men believe the gospel, they have fellowship not with Christ, but with devils. They have no place in the kinodom of Christ. Let us then, Sir, discuss this sulject before we enter upon the form of government. They are entirely distinct, and the former is certainly the previous question. Until we agree about the mar teiials of the house, we need not contend about the plan of it. After you have settled the one point, we will cheerfully hear what y«u have to say upon the other. If you could tbtn convince us that the Presby- terian form of church government is divine, there is nothing in our situation or circumstances that can for a moment prevent us from adopting it. We should not lose a parish-stipend by our change of sentiments and conduct. On the contrary, we would thereby avoid much popular reproach, and vastly increase our num- bers. But, Sir, could you succeed in this. It would be the most deadly wound that ever the church of Scot- land received. Those godly persons who are detained v,lih you only by the prejudices of education, would then come out of the corrupt mass to enjoy their fa- vourite system free of its corruptions \ whereas now they remain In their situation, because they see no greater purity with any other body of Presbyte- rians. Ptemember then, you have not only to defend Pres- bytery in the abstract, but the church of Scotland with all its corruptions. Upon what foundation rests the right of .patronage ? By what process of reasoning does the crthcdcx brother satisfy his conscience in 522 Letter X. complying witli the imperious injunctions of a higher court, to lay hands upon one whom he cannot consider as a minister or a servant of Christ ? How do you de- fend the mixing of the kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this world, when Christ says, " My king- dom is not of this world ?" Do you believe that the magistrate, as such, has power in the church of Christ ? Do you not subscribe the 23d chapter, with the rest of the Westminster Confession ? Do all the ministers of the church of Scotland, from their sermons and con- versation, appear to believe all the doctrines which they have subscribed, and to have taken the oath in judgment, in truth, and in righteousness ? Is it possible for any man who is not infallible, conscientiously to subscribe a formula, in which he vows never to change his opinions ? What is the casuistry that gives ease to the conscience of a godly minister in the church of Scotland, when he is obliged by a higher court to ad- minister ordinances to unworthy characters ? A member of the church of Scotland must defend her conduct, as well as her constitution. There is therefore more art than Christian simplicl'y and up- riglitness in the plan of your defence. The presbytery you defend is the best you can conceive 5 the presby- tery you practise is the very worst. Nay, the Presby- tery you defend is so good, that it exists as yet only in theqry. You are a nominalist, not a realist. Shew me one like it in all the world, in all the ages of the world. The Presbytery you defend, and the Presby- tery you have adopted, are as diiFerent as any two sys- tems. If you would act up to the principles upon which you reason, you could not remain in the church of Scotland, nor in any of its ramifications. If it is the divine form of Presbytery you have defended, that Letter X, 523 of the cliurcii of Scotland Is not divine. Nay, you virtually give up the church of Scotland, when you profess to defend her standards only. If the church had been defensible, there would have been no occasion to abandon every thing but her original constitution. We therefore, Sir, wait with impatience for that part of your Vv-ork, in which you propose to " examine the argument for separation from the church of Scot- land, drawn from what have been called her corrup- tions." We wish to know what you call them j for we think, that if the Presbytery you have imagined is the divine form, those deviations from it in the church of Scotland must be corruptions, even in your -own ac- count 5 and to overthrow you, if you attempt to de- fend the present state of things, we shall have nothing to do but to bring one part of your performance to bear upon the other. Lose no time then j such a de- fence is much needed, and I am sure if you can effect it, your brethren will not allow you to be called from it by parochial avocations. Indeed, It requires little time to state and defend truth. The pen that is guid- ed by a good conscience, and a strong impression of the importance of the subject, will move swiftly. Truth requires only to be fairly exhibited, and she will defend herself. The most illiterate men can comprehend our arguments and defend our cause. There is nothing to do on our part, but to refer to the different portions of Scripture, and leave them with the consciences of those whom we address. If we are obliged to go into ab- stract reasoning, it is only to answer the perversions and evasive explanations of Scripture employed by our antagonists. To satisfy those who wish to know the mind of the Spirit, we might content ourselves with transcribing the different Scriptures that refer to the Yy 524 Letter X. subject, without giving any explanation. It Is only to silence sophistry, that we have occasion to employ te- dious deductions. Now, Sir, if I may hope to be indulged wuth the honour of your future correspondence, I request that you will give me a volume to myself. Do not address a book to me, as you have done to Mr Innes, in which, instead of replying to my arguments, you shall state and canvass the sentiments of almost every person who has written on the subject. I care not with whom I agree, or with whom I differ, If I agree with the word of God. Your book is a professed answer to Mr Innes' Reasons for Separating from the Church of Scotland j yet Mr Innes Is very seldom in your view. You are mostly engaged In wrestling with the ancient Indepen- dents. You artfully evade Mr Innes, by exposing the- ories long exploded, or by bringing ancient Indepen- dents to disagree v/ilh hirn. Mr Innes' book Is still unanswered ; and -tvliat Is most astonishing in a work professing to be an answer, you never consider the very argument which lies at Ihe bottom of his reasoning, and which first led him to suspect the foundation of the Presbyterian system. Let us then, my good Sir, bring the matter to a fair trial at the bar of the Scriptures. If I have misinterpreted any part of the sacred volume, I shall be ready upon conviction to abandon It. I am extremely glad that you have brought the contest to the public. It can never be dismissed until the tri- umph of truth takes place. Many who never consi- dered the question will be roused to Inquiry, and a good cause \vUl,fnever suffer by Investigation. There is an observation which I have frequently made, and which I believe will hold good upon every subject, that truth comes forward to every reiterated attack with Letter X. 52^j fresh vigour and new arguments ; on the other hand, that a false hypothesis will always be weakened by every succeeding charge, and that it is exhausted al- most as much by its own attempts to defend itself, as by the assault of the antagonist. The reason is obvi- ous j all that can be said for the latter, lies in difficul- ties and forced explanations, which can never be reite- rated with success. With respect to the former, the deeper the subject is investigated, the greater number of proofs will occur. Evidence v.dll arise even out of objections. Truth is an inexliaustible mine 3 and if it >7as to be worked b3/ a thou5;and successive generations, there will still be as much left as will recompense the labours of posterity. All divine truth is connected and interwoven, and a deeper acquaintance with any one part will enlarge our knowledge of the whole. Many treat the ques- tion of church-government as quite insignificant. I am persuaded that it is of very great importance. For un- til it be fully understood, there cannot be any cordir.l and enlightened union and co-operation among Clu'i- stians j and the world will be stumbled by the multi- tude of sects and denominations. Division among Ghristians certainly must be sinful. It is then surely no useless inquiry to seek where this sin lies. Let wj then discuss this subject as largely as the subject de- mands. I have not considered your views of the government of the churches in the ages succeeding the apostolic, because it does not come into the immediate subject of investigation. I take it for granted, that whatever form of government was instituted by the apostles, will have its traces for a considerable time after. But be- fore any of us can be allowed to make this appeal, v,'£ 5^6 Letter X. must fully prove our hypothesis from the Neiv Testa^ ment. That subject never has been set in so clear and i^mpartial a light as by Dr Gampbell j but after your freedom with the apostles, I was not at all astonished that you forced the fathers to speak the language of Presbyterians. One other thing I would call to your remembrance. We are writing for eternity. Recollect that the lite- rary reviews of our friends and of our enemies are not final. Our works shall be reviewed at the dread tribu- nal of the God of truth, whose word we are handling* How awful will it be to be found at that day to have perverted his directions, and to have contributed to make his children mistake his commands ! We cannot allege that the Scriptures were dark upon the subject, and that we were necessarily led astray j for that vvould be to arraign the Judge himself. Besides, we both seem to think that the Scriptures are very clear upon the subject. Whichever of us is wrong, is inex- cusably wrong J for Jesus has given a plain revelation. Consider also how many may be influenced by our reasoning, and that that one of us who is wrong may be found to have led thousands into his error, or to keep them in it. Consider, that in a short time we shall be far beyond the reach of praise or blame, but that the influence of our labours may affect many gene- rations. Can you then look forward to the smiles of the Lord Jesus on a judgment-seat, for your reward in this undertaking '' I have now concluded my observations on your book. I have spoken very plainly, but with the most perfect good will. I do indeed consider that your defence of the Presbyterian form of church-government indicates a very bad state of mind, and I should not act kindly Letter X. 527 by you did I .not tell you so. " A^our arguments I have endeavoured to refute by argument. Mere decla- mation I know no way of refuting, but by analysing it J nor do I conceive how inconsistencies can be an- swered, otherwise than by exposing them. In such analysis and exposition, which I own I have attempted without ceremony or reserve, an air of ridicule is una- voidable •, but this ridicule, I am well aware, if found- ed, on misrepresentation, will at last rebound upon my- I am, &c. * Dr Campbe-l. YyS INDEX. A Address, the Author's, to Mr Brown, on his defence of Prefbytery, 521, — 524. on his motives for writing it, 468. on his mode of reafoning, 355, 396. on the reverence due to the word of God, 151. his ufing fo much freedom with it, 319. and attempting to prove, that the aflembly at Jerufalem was a model for Prefbytery, 439. on denying the infpiration and infallibility of the apoftles, 518. on appearing at laft before the judgment-feat of Chrift, 525. Antichrijl, could not have arifen had Chriftians acted faithfully, 172. rules given by the apoftles to prevent his rife in after ages, 227. Apoftles^ the power of opening and fluitting the kingdom of hea- ven given to them exclusively, 56. commiffion of preaching the gofpel infallibly, confined to them, 57. their office para- mount to every other office in the church of Chrift, 69, what they did as apostles no rule for elders, 70. were ambaf- fadors for Chrift, 71. they decided the queftion referred to the aifembly at Jerufalem, 409. were univerfal bilhops, but in no other fenfc than as they were apoftles, 467. in decla- ring the will of God, they were as infallible as Christ him- feif, and acted in his ftead, 468. as uninfpired men, they had no authority over the church of Chrift, 477. were in- fallible in every thing which they taught, 478. whatever they did, was done by Chrift himself, ibid. Mr B. attempts to divest them of infpiration, 477. if they are obeyed as un- infpired, our obedience is not to God, but to man, 4S4. as fallible men, they never claim authority, 507. Mr B.*s objei- tions to their infpiration anfwered, 513, Si(J. Arbitration^ none in matters of religion, 508. AJfemhly at Jerufalem^ of whom compofed, 397. nothing done in it by votes, 409. this could have had no effe2iii/7g, among the affembly at Jerufalem, what, 5KJ. was not by the apoftles, ib. E Elders alone rulers in the church, 51. are not the fuccefTors of the apoftles, and cai>not claim an authority like theirs, C-j, how the limits of their office are to be afcertained, 7i?/i. are all pallors inverted with the full character, i Si. iSp 193, cannot plead the right of fucceflion to the office of eiangcli/ts needed infallibility in relating the things of which they were eye-witnefles, 512. F Fear, meaning of the word in Scripture, 303. difference between the fear of God, by which Chriftians are influenced and the fear of wicked men,?3 different eftcd:^ of thefe on both, 304, G Gifts, .".iruculous, not poflfefl^ed by the church at Corinth only, 20S. H Haldane, Mr, quoted on the believers in Jerufalem meeting together in one place, 261. HooRNBEEK, quoted on church-power, 203, Hu.iJiE, JMr, his obfervaiion on the different effe(fls of extended - and confined civil government, as it refpedls literature, 232, I Jesus has given in his word fiifficient diredtions as to the go- vernment of his church, 2t. left his apoftles in his own place, 478 gave them full authority as to every thin? to be belie- ved and pradifed, tbid. his ufual method of preaching, 4S7, 496. Independency, eminently adapted to promote union among all the difciples of Chrlft, 213. poffVfl'es every advantage that Prelbytery hath to prevent the fpreading of corruption, 222, muff be from heaven, 227. Mr B.'s reafoning against it ex- adlly analogous to that ufed againfl the Reformers, 447. Independents, ancient, their mifl:ake as to aflfociationsof minifters for advice, being fanctioned by the word of God, 404. Independents have no barriers in their way to prevent them from receiving the truth when difcovered, 256. 521. Independent churches, their fuperior liberty to worldly ones, 1S6, thole lately formed owe much of their fuperior conformity to Scripture, compared with that of the ancient Indepen- dents, to the objections of their oppolers, 201. Infallibility^ though difclaimed in words, is adled upon in fpirit, 534j Index. by all who enact human laws, or nfe a difcretionary power in the kingdom of Chrift, 447 was neceflary tor the apoftles in difpenfing the ordinances of the gofpel, 510. fee Apoftles. Infpiration, an example of almoft every kind of, given in the de- crees made by the apoftles at Jerufalem, 493, Interpretation, the great liberties taken with it by Mr B. I(ji, 178, 321. confequences of, i6z. 319. JosEPHUs quoted on the meaning of the word churchy 98, Judging and ruling, different things, 51. fee Rulers. K Keys given to Peter, 55. for what purpofe, ibid, not carried by any but the apoftles. 56. are an emblem not of church, but of apoftolical powfr, ibid, do not fignify the power of- admit- ting to, or excluding from church-communion, 62. Ki?2gdom ofChri/l, not of this world, 238. is entirely fpiritual in its constitution y^/ti. confounded by Prelbyterians with the kingdoms of this world, 519. Ki;igdom of heaven, does not fignify the vifib'e church, 6t. con- fifts of Chrift and his people, ibid no where in Scripture dif- tinguiflied into the kingdom of grace, and the kingdom of glory, lb. the evil of making this diftinction, ib the impofli- bility of a hypocrite ever being a member of it, 63. L Laws of Chrifi, fufRciency of, and infufHcicncy of human, 21, a firft principle in, that no one is to atft contrary to convicilion, 59 Legijlation, in a church of Chrift what, 17. right of it inherent in the Prrfbyterian conftitution, 18. carried to the moft ex- travagant length, ib its progrefs, 19 entirely difclaimed by the Independent churches lately formed, 24. LouvET, anecdote of, 23. Lo've, what meant by confirming it, 159 brotherly, what, 2,1^- M Members of a church, are to judge in every thing concerning that church, 51. capable of judging of the application of the laws ot Chrift, 52, fee Brethrc?i. Minificrs ordiriary, not qualified to aA the part of apoftles, 496. have no need of infpiration. 49S and why, 504, diftincflion between them and the apoftles, 500. MuiR, Mr, quoted by Mr B. the fallacy of his reafoning re- fpecting the alTembly at Jerufalem, 416. 420. Index. 535' Multitude, meaning of the word in Scripture, 3*53. does not fig- nify tumult, as argued by Mr B. 372. N Nation, the Jeiuisb, why called a church, 210. O Offences, the mode of trying them in the church of Chrift difte- rent from what it was among the Jews, loi. Offenders no ii^T^ezl to a higher court from the fentence pafled on them by Chrift, Matt, xviii 17., 118. Ordination, nature of, 233 manner of condudling it, ibid, is en- tirely executive, 85 nowhere in Scripture reprefented as conveying an office, 234. Origen, a fentiraent of, concerning the Scriptures, 92. F Fajlcrs, if negligent or faulty, to be judged and admoniflied by the brethren, 166. not all entitled to the fame fupport from the churches, 169. not neceflary that they fliouid all pofTels the fame abilities, 170. why churches in general are not able to fupport a fufficient number of them, ibid, have no private decifions, 171. Pajioral off.ce, a diftinclion of departments in it, 180. Paul, the Apojlle, how he was firft admitted into the church, 71. why he introduces his epiftles by ftyling himfelf an apu- ftle, 499. his teaching by permilTion, and not by command- ment, what, 504. Pentcccjl, whether on the day of, Peter addreffed the who'e multitude in the fame language, 293. Frejbytery, even when a(fled upon, is infufficient to attain the great ends of government, 14. that which is defended by Mr B. ideal, 74. note. Blr B.'s views of it oppofite to what is uni- verfally pradlifed, 2Ci. Mr B. unwilling.to reft it on a divine inftitution, 242. the defence of, as conftituted after a divine model given up by him, 429. Frejbyterians, authority of, legiflative, 17. differ from the Ro- man pontiff, not in the power of legiflation, but in the de- gree of that power, 31. difclaim infallibility, yet acfl as if in- fallible,/^. enforce their laws, though contrary to convi(5lion, 47, their authority fuperfedes enquiry, ibid, au inftance of their inconfiftency, 148. in pleading for the right of legifla- tion, claim more than was enjoyed by the Jewifli hierarchy, Zz 536 Index. 240. how they a6l when their faults are pointed out to them, 457- Prep}yterian churches, their office-bearers both receive their commiffiun from the fuperior courts, and are completely de- pendent upon them for the exercife of it, 202 not formed of the fame kind of materials that compofed thofe planted by the apoftles, 519. principles, without pradlice, indefenfible, 10. contrary to Scripture, 13. Prophecy, the gift of, enjoyed by many of the individual brethren in the firft churches, and even by fome females, 354- expofi- tion of, difference between that of thofe who are infpired, and thofe who are not, 497. Funipjmetit corporal, none to be infli(fted on the fallen brother after his exciuiion from the church, 155. ^ncflion under debate, importance of, 10. R Reformers, acted according to the light they had, 470- did they ftill exift, would be the foremoft in Reformation, ibid, how thofe a(ft who pretend to be their fucceflbrs, ibid. Reprefentati'jn, in matters of religion, origin of, 55, 476. is a child of human wifdom, ib. Reprefentati'ves, none fent from the churches to the aflfembly at Jerufalem, 437. this could notbe the cafe, and why, 438. Robertson, Mr, his diftincflion between the meaning and ufe of certain Greek words unfounded, childifh and unnatural, 278. confequences of his criticifms, 280, 2S2. his account of the perfecution raifed by Saul completely contradidls the word of God, 2S5. Rulers in the church of ChriJi'\\2iVt no right to make decifions among themfelves, 32. they call the attention of the brethren to the laws of Chrill, ibid, authority of their office nothing, 33. the commandments of Chrift have no need of minifterial authority, 48 they do adl with authority, but in what re- fpe<^, 49, 50. as fuch, are not the reprefentatives of the church in which they a(fl, 106. enforce the lawyof Chrift, not in the name of the churchy but in the name of Chrift, ib. abfolute fubmiffion to them, the confequence of adling on Mr B.'s principles, 131. Riilen in Fre/bytsrian chinches^ tlieir authority, fuch as ChriH Index. 53^1 never gave to any body of uninfpired men on earth, 38. the awful length to which it extends, ib. the great body of them appear never to have been appointed by the Lord, and why, jbhi. S Sentence of a church ofChri/l, nothing in it correfponding to the infliction of a penal fentence of the civil law, 155. Separation, means employed by the clergy to prevent it, 29. Socinian churches, of whom principally compofed, 14. note. Spirit, common aids of, what. 4S2. his teaching common to all Chriftians, ibid, how his teaching may be diftinguiflied from the fuggeftions of enthufiafm, tbicl. teaches only by his word, 483. Stillingfleet, Dr, abfurdity of his interpretation of the word church, 366. Sy/lems, ancient, of religion, the power of attachment to, difco- vered by Prefbyterians, 494. are much dearer to Prefbyte- rians than the authority of Scripture, 495. tendency of thofe that allow human interference in the things of God, ibid. T Tares and luh cat, the parable of, confidered, 64, 21:. Teaching and ruling, though diftinil things, belong to the fame ofKce, 181. official, in what the difference between public and private confifts, 192, 198. Toleration, not allowed by the ftandards of the church of Scot- land, 3c. note. U Udion nvith Chri/l, by what it is reprefenteJ, 213. among the members of the church of Scotland, fpecimen of, 219. Uui'verfal I'ijible church, 'h2L.% no exiftence in the word of God, 208. Unii'erfal church-go-dermnent , Mr B.'s plan of abfurd, 214. con- fequencesof, 2i(J. W Welchrnan, anecdote of a, 255. Word of God, a ferious thing to explain it, 320. beft method of doing it, 373. World, the people of, how they ad when reproved for fin, 457, INDEX OF TEXTS OCCASIONALLY ILLUSTRATED. N, UMSERS XXXV. Deut. xvi. 1 8 19 xix. II, 12 xxxi 30 xxxiii 8, 10 Jofliua XX 4, 5 2- Sam. ii. 13 Pfdlm ii. 7. xxxiv 3 xlix. z Jer. V. 28 Mat. V. 40 X 23 xiii. 24 xviii 15, 17 xxiii. 1, 2, 3. xxviii 19,20 » John XV. I, II XX 23 Adls i. 14 24 Pag. 1 12 116 143 215 310 xv6 2g6 297 - ib. ib. 14? 508 - 2S3 - 64 104 - 2;9 57.59.503 20d - 5<5- ?02 A(fls ii. 9 14 IV. 4 V. 12 viii r xi. 19 xxi. 20 Rom xi. 17 xii. 6 1 Cor. V. I vi I xii. 2S Col. iv. 10 Gal. vi. I I Tim iv. I ii. 7 Pag. 268 293 269 300. 3" - pd 284 . 2S7 - 204 1S3, 1S5 M5 54 - 183 ' 165 ib. - 49t 499 For an illufiration of many others, fee meaning of the ivord ■■ church. THE END. ^ J. RITCHIE, PRINTJER, EDINBURGH, I li'l'm l'l°" ^''^°'°9i<;al Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 01029 9701