^■ from f ^e feifimri? of in (Wlemore of ^ub^e ^amuef (Uttffer QBrectorib^e (Jpresenfeb 615 ^amuef (^liffer QBrecftinribge feong to t^e feifirarg of (Princeton Cgeofogicaf ^eminarj? |^o:i:^ohi. 1778-1848. A vindication of the Presbyterian form of chur^ VINDICATION • OF THE .PRESBYTERIAN FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT, AS PROFESSED IN THE STANDARDS OF THE Cburclj of ^cotlanD; IN REPLY TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS OF THE - ANCIENT AND MODERN INDEPENDENTS IS A SERIES Oe LETTERS. By JOHN BROWN, ?SlNI3TEa OF IHE GOSPEL, L^KGTQK, SECOND EDITION. Piinted by A.'Aikman. ^ FOli JAMES TAYLQR SMITH, BOOKSELLER, ROYALS EXCHANGE ; AND SOLD BY J. OGLE, OLIPHANT, WAUGH, AND INNES, W. WHYTE, AliT GUTHRIE 4ND TAIT, EDINBURGH; W.COKE, LEITH; LONGMAN AND COt MATHEWS AND LEIGH, AND T. liiMILTOK, ^ LONDON. OBntereti in ©tationer^ Jpad. THE PUBLISHER'S PREFACE, -L HE Jtattering manner in •vcJiich the First Edition of this Work teas received hy the Christian tvorld, has encouraged the Publisher to bring fonmrd a second ; and, he flatter s himself, that in doing so, he engages in an undertaking which •will be equally acceptable and usefid. The subject ivhich Mr. Broton handles, is of very ctmsiderahle importance at any time: it is especially interesting in the present day ; and the fulness and ability tcith ivhich he has treated it, must give his performance a strong claim oil the attention not only of those xvho hold the same general pnnciples rvhich he sq poxverfully maintains, but of those also ivho hold a different system. The former it p)'>'ovides xvilh a clear and accurate statement of the reasonings, by which their opinions on Chmxk Government are to bejusiifed to their own minds, and de- fended against the attacks or insinuations of others : w-hilcy. to the latter, it affords a body of argument, which, though it may prove instiffcient to change their views, is yet unques- tionably entitled to their impartial and attentive considera- tion. The controversy, indeed, betzveen Presbyterians and Independents, is not quite so vehement in its spirit as it was when Mr. Brownh Work was originally published : but it still exists both in a specidative and a practical form ; and perhaps this pirodicction may be more serviceable than at the period of its first appearance, in determining the merits of that controversy, now that mens'' minds are less heated by passion, and better qualified to take a calm view of whatever is stated on either side, while yet they are not so much cooled as^ to be in any measure indifferent to the'issuc of the ques- tion. On these accounts, the Publisher hopes that the Netv Edition of Mr. Brown's Vindication of Presbytery, will be favourably received by all those who take an interest in the topics which it' professes to discuss, and to whom, from the complete exhauslioyi of the first impression, it has for a low^ while been almost inaccessible. The Reviewers of tlils valuable Publication speak thus : — " We are glad to see a second edition of Mr. Brown's work, and rliearfully embrace the opportunitj' now afforded us, of stating the ©pinion which v.'e are disposed to entertain of its merits, and of recommending it to the attention and perusal of our readers. We may observe, in genera!, that it is extremely valuable, both for the matter which it [contains, and for the manner in which it is executed ; that it is by far the ablest work of the kind which we }iave met vsith ; and that it may be read with great advantage, not only by those whose sentiments it supports, but even by those vhose sentiments it opposes. •' Mr. Brown has given us a very full and very dispassionate trea- tise ; — full, wi.'hout being tedious ; and dispassionate, without be- ing tame and insipid. He has given us what Warburton, laying aside his Episcopaiiiin prejudices, would have called a " well-rea- soned and judicious" performance. Instead of filling his psges ■v-ith mere declamation, which is so easy and so useless; or of in- •'hilging in retorts and reproaches, to which he had ample provoca- tion ; or of amusing us with attempts at wit and liumour, which are too often most unwarrantably employed to break the force of truth; or of diverting our thoughts from the main point, by in- troducing those extraneous remarks, which are frequently resorted to, in order to conceal a poverty of argument ; — he has set the sub- ject fairly and distinctly before him, he I'as followed it closely ihrougli all i'.s windings, in the spirit of calm steady investigation, and never allowed him.self to be tempted either by caprice or by difficulty, to deviate from the course which he has wisely chosen. Throui^hout the whole, our author has shewn himself to be well fitted for the task which he has undertaken. We see evident to- kens of a very accurate and extensive knowledge of the controver- sy in which he has engaged — an attainment the more difficult, on account of the variety of forms assumed by the Independent chur- ches. We observe great acuteness in discerning both the weak and the strong points of his opponents' reasonings, and great skill in exposing the one, and in overturning the other. We remark a display of learning, which could only be acquired by a patient study of the original scriptures, and a laborious research into the writings of the fathers ; and what is of still greater rnoment, our author seems to have a precise understanding of the learning wl^ch' he brings forward, and makes a fair and happy application of it to the various propositions which he is desirous to illustrate, or to establish. But that which strikes us as chiefly characteristic of his controversial talent in this case, is the coohiesv and intrepidity with ■which he encounters every argument, and every objection that is urged by the other side. He shews no disposition to evade a •inglepoint, the consideration of which is essential or conducive to a full and impartial discussion of the question. There is not a strong hold of Independency, however well fortified, against wliich he does not advance, and tliere is not a position on the ground of Presbytery, however fiercely attacked, which he does not defend, with the most undaunted courage, and the most perfect compo- sure. Most other controvenists, when they ape strongly opposed, become afraid, and shrink from the combat ; when they meet with difficulties, they get disconcerted, and run off" to smoother ground ; when they see formidable preparations for receivinej >them, they are discouraged, and stand aloof. Mr, . Brown is never afraid of opposition — never disconcerted by difficulties', — never deterred by the appearance of resistance and danger. — In every part and stage of the controversy, he is cool, col- lected, and unshaken. Nor does this proceed, as his opponents may perhaps allege, from a blind and presumptuous confidence in his own prowess. We observe no symptoms of such a temper. But we see very well, that our author has a clear and comprehen- sive view of the field in which he contends — that he is conscious of possessing a decided superiority, both in the goodness of his cause, and in the efficacy of the means wliich he has for maintain- ing it — and that nothing, in additio* fo these, but prudence, for- titude, and perseverance, appear to him to be necessary for ensur- ing ultimate success. " That Mr. Brown has actually and completely succeeded, we are perfectly satisfied. Independents, it is true, will hold a difFLr- ent opinion of the result ; and we shall never "be so arrogant oc uncharitable, as to impute this to any thing .but a want of that conviction in their minds, which Mr. Brown's volume was intend- ed to produce. We shall not, however, think them entitled to much credit for their judgment or their candour, if they do not allow, both that our author's weapons are powerful, and that he has wielded them with peculiar force and skill. Such a conc! reproofs, and stubborn facls which are presented to them, will acknowledge:, that it deserves their most serious and attentive 'iludy." — Religious Monitor, No. S9, page 190, INTRODUCTION. The fol}or\ving Letters were originally intended as a Reply to Mr. limes only. On farther reflection, however, it appeared to be proper, not to restrict these inquiries to a review of that writer's sentiments, but to consider also what had been said by the more ancient and able advocates for Independency. In our researches after triith, it should always be our concern to know what is said, and not merely u-ho says it ; and certainly Independents cannot object, if, in examining what has been advanced by their (>resent chan^pioi^s, we likewise consider the more learned and ingenious arguments of their enlightened pi'edeccssors. It is requested to be remarked, that it is the prin- i'foks only, and not (he practices of Presbyterians that iiie here defended. The advocate for Presbytery is certainly no more bound to vindicate the latter, in order to esta})lish the former, than the advocate for (Christianity is bound to prove that the conduct of Christians is blameless and praise-worthy, in order to shew that Christianity is divine. It is Presbytery^ alone as exhibited in the scriptures for which we here contend, and it is on this ground alone tliat we can impartially review and compare it with Independency. Let it be further considered, that if the errors which appear in the coriduct of Presbyteries, with regard to government, are better known thijyi those of Independents, it is owing, in a great measure, to the superior publicity of their courts. While none but members are allowed to attend the meetings of the latter, and while the strictest secrecy marks their proceedings in general, none are commonly prohi- bited from hearing the deliberations of the former, If the mistakes of Presbyterians then are more gene- Introduction. vii rally known than those of Independents, it arises from a circumstance which has ever been admitted to be a very important excellence in civil courts ; namely, that their proceedings are usually conducted in the presence and hearing of all, even though not connected with tlieir societies, while the transactions of Independents are carried on in private, and are carefully concealed from the inspection of the world. That instances 6f very lawless op|>rcssion have occurred among our Tabernacle Independents in Scotlaml, even during the short time that they have already existed, is attempted to be proved, Letter II. These instances are taken either from the writings of those who represent themselves as aggrieved, and whose statement has never been refuted by their op- ponents, or from the writings of those who were gnilty of the oppression, and have acknowledged their fault Aud, perhaps, had their courts been as open to the public as those of Presbyterians, we should have heard of a still greater number of acts of tyranny and injustice. To allow the office-bearers to decide on any point, Vv'hen the members of their congregations have not been jjreviously consulted, has always been affirmed by former Independents to be a display of ecclesias- tical despotism in Presbyterians. 'In the Letter how- ever to which we have referred, it is endeavoured to be proved, that, in man^/ instances, IMr. Ewing con- tends for this Very power ; and consecpiently, at least on their acknowledged principles, the constitution of his cliurch, to a certain extent, must be viewed as a spiritual drspotimi. It is attempted, moreover, to be demonstrated in these Letters, that the scheme of these writers, by rendering every congregation in the ciiurch of Christ independent of the rest, exhibits such a view of his kingdom as would be presented of the civil and poli- tical world, were it broken into as many independent governments as there were towns or villages on the face of the earth, and their governors were obliged Viii iNTRODUCTIOPf. uniformly to consult the inhabitants before they could perform any act of authority. That the author, in every instance, should accu- rately have stated the sentiments of Independents, is what he by no means pretends. As each of their congregations is independent of the rest, it is possi- ble that there may be as many creeds and constitu- tions among them as there are churches on the earth. But to thiuk of representing accurately the sentiments of all of them, amidst this possible variety, would certainly be a vain and ridiculous idea, especially as most of them account it a sin to write and publish these creeds to the world. He is conscious however, that he has not wilful'y, in any instance, mis-stated their views ; and if those, whose opinions are here examined, can point out any case in. which he has not fairly fcxhibited them, he will most readily cor- rect it. Let it not be said, that the reasonings in these Letters cannot be admitted to be conclusive, because many Independents do not, as is here asserted, allow their members a right to vote upon every question. It is of little importance to differ about words. All Independents', (Mr. Ewing excepted) ask the judg- ment and consent of their members upon ei-ery matter, before the office-bearers can pronounce a decision ; and if so, the arguments v.hich are here adduced, are equally conclusive as upon the former supposition. Let it be understood farther, that the arguments advanced will not be considered as overturned though a number of mistakes should be pointed out in sepa- rate and detached observations, unless the body of the evidence be fairly met, and fully overthrown.. It will much less be considered as at all affectt^l if en- countered only by vvit and l:amour, a weapon of. v.Iiich some advocates for. Independency seem to be peculiarly fond. It is from conviction alone that the aufhor of these Letters has published his sentim.ent*, ajid when an opposite conviction is produced, by dis- passionate, and able, and scriptural reasoning, he Introduction. ix will instantly renounce them. He has no wish that Presbytery should be retained any farther than it can be supported by scripture, and the moment that it is proved that it cannot so be supported, he will be happy to see that it is rejected by the world. It is. of little importance for the public to know, that these Letters were written amidst many avoca- tions, and at considerable intervals. It is mentioned only as an apology for any inaccuracies of style, or repetitions of sentiment, which may occur in the perusal of them. This, however, is the only indul- gence for which he pleads. He asks none in behalf of the argument. He wishes it fully and impartially to be examined, and will endeavour candidly to consider the objections which are offered to his rea- sonings, if stated jn the spirit of Christian meekness, and not with tliat virulence vrhich shews only how strongly an individual smarts under a sense of incon- sistency^ or hov/ keenly he is devoted to the purposes of a party. The author originally intended to examine likewise the argument for Separation from the C'hurch of Scotland, drawn from what have been called its cor- ruptions : but of this, his present avocations will not admit. He shall probably however be induced to complete his design, as soon as he can command the leisure and time which it must necessarily require. And, till some fuller treatise be published, he begs leave to recommend to the perusal of his readers, Ferguson (of Kilwinning) on Independency and Schism ; and a valuable pamphlet by a late eminent Minister, entitled. Thoughts on Modern Divisions. The publication of these sheets has been delayed for some time, that the Second Appendix, containing a lleview of Mr. Ilaldane's book on Social Worship, as far as relates to the subject of Government, might accompany the Letters. CONTENTS. Introduction vl. Letter I. Propriety of the conduct of Mr. Tnnes and other In- dependents considered, p. 1—5. Dr. Stuart's view of the Church of Scotland as Antichrist, refuted, 5, Note. The exa- mination of Presbytery by Mr. Innes extremely partial, 7, 8. Plan of discussion stated, 8. Letter IL On the Nature a77d Degree of the Power claimed by Presbyterians and Independents. Misrepresentations of Inde- pendents, 9, 10. The degree of power exercised by tliem, prov- ed to be i..ore than that of advice, 10, l^c. and 11 — 15, Note. Inconsistency between the sentiments of Mr. Innes and Mr. Ewing, 17 — 21. Unreasonable or imperious authority not claimed by Presbyterians, 22. Tlie scriptural terms expressing the power of church-rulers, 26 — "0, and the relation of mem- bers consider--d, SO — 32. Sum of the preceding remarks, 33, ^c. Letter III. Of the Persons entitled to Authority in the Church. Arguments to shew that all -the members cannot have equal power in matters of government, 37, i^c. Power of ruling not indiscriminate, proved, from the names given in scripture to rulers, 39 — 43 — to the members, 43 — 46 ; and from the duties of the members to the rulers, 46 — 48. Letter IV. Same subject. The meaning of Marth. xvi. 19, con- sidered, 49 — 56. Binding and loosing explained, 51 — 55 ; that it implies an exercise of authoritative judicial power, and is coramitted to ministers only, proved, 55 — 56. Lettek V. Same subject. The highest acts of government and discipline shewn to be performed by the elders exclusively. Ad- mission of members, 57 — 60. Ordination of office-bearers, necessary, 60 — 63 ; committed to pastors alone, 64 — 66, Power of discipline vested in the ofSce-bearers only, 67 — 68. Letter VI. Argument for Independency from Matth. xviii. 15, 16, 17, as stated by Mr. Innes, 69 — 70; answered, from the meaning of the word church, 70 — 72, which is shown to sig- nify, in this passage particularly, tlie elders and office-bearers ; — from the allusion to the Jewish courts, in which the govern- ment was not vested in all who attended them, but in particular rulers, 73 — SO : and — from the common language of scripture on this subject, 81 — 84. Letter VII. Argument for Independency from 1 Cor. v. exa- mined, and proved to be inconclusive, 85 — 94. The tendency of the Independent plan to encourage a schismatic spirit, evea in matters of trivial importance, considered, 90 — 93, Note. Contents. xi Letter VIII. Argument from Acts XV. dlscussed,*and shewn to be not only irrelevant, but favourable] to Presbytery, 95 — 102. Appendix to Letter VIII. The ccnsiitulicn of the primitive church proved to have resembled Presbytery more than Inde- pendency, from the testimony of Cyprian, 105 — 107 — Clemens Romanus, 108 — Jerome, 110 — Ignatius, 110. Cyprian, whom Independents rank among their defenders, further, shewn to oppose their sentiments, 1 1 1 — 1 19. Letter IX. On the Order of Ruling Elders. This order ac- knowledged hy Watts, Cotton, Goodwin, ISjc. 119. The au- thority of it proved, from the language of scripture, as to plu- rality of elders, 120; from the extent of inspection and super- intendence required of them, 121 — their duties stated by Dr. Owen, 121 — 124; from the propriety of checking the ambi- tion of pastors, 125 — 127; from the qualification of many of the members, 127 — 130. Letter X. Scriptural Authority of tUs Order. Rom. xii. 6, 7, 8, explained, 130 — 138. The ruling mentioned, an office in the church, 131 — does not refer to gifts, 132, nor to a family, 133 — nor to an inspired president, as M'Knight asserts, 135. Meaning of ■!r^oi?;;iJ.i, 137. 1 Cor. xii. 28, considered, 138 — 141. Opinion of Chrysostom on this text, 138. Letter XI. Some subject. 1 Tim. V. 17, considered: acknow- ledged by Dr. Owen to be decisive on the point, 142, and by Whitaker, ib. Objections examined, 143 — 149. Sentiments of the primitive fathers, 150 — 153. Letter XII. On Courts of Revierju. Difference of opinion among Independents, 154. Association and subordination of courts contended for by Hooker, Cotton, the Westminster Indepen- dents, and Goodwin, 155 — 158. Strong language of Dr. Owen to this purpose, 158 — 161. Authoritative rule, and not advice merely, implied in their statements, 162 — 164. Sentiments of Independents in Holland, 164, 165. Note. Letter XIII. Same subject. Views of Independents and Pres- byterians as stated by Baillie and Ferguson, 166 — 168, and of Presbytery by Hoornbeck, 168. Note. Congregations not to be independent of each other, proved, from the scripture-represen- tation of the unity of the church, 169 — 178. The nun-exis- tence of an universal church, no objection, 172. Analogy, on this point, between political and ecclesiastical government con- sidered and defended, 174. This unity belongs to the universal clrurch, and not to a particular congregation only, 177. Letter XIV. Sayne subject. Independency more favourable to error and tyranny than Presbytery, 179 to 187. Ordination by ministers alone, a symptom of Presbyterian principles, even among Independents, 187. A court of review necessary to judge heretical or immoral pastors, 189. Independency less fa- sii COXTENTS. vourable than Presbytery to an enlightened and candid adminis- tration of justice, 190 — 195. Letter XV. Same subject. Scripture-authority of courts of re- vieu'. Their existence among the Jews, 195 — among Chris- tians, 196, particularly at Jerusalem, proved, from the number of Christians there, 197 — 214. The dispersion at the death of Stephen considered, 204 — 206- Ministers of different congre- gations at Jerusalem, shewn, 210. Testimony of Eusebius, ib. Objection from Ezra, answered, 211, Note, Weekly com* munion Tiot revealed, 212 — 214, Note. Letter XVI. Same subject- Plurality of congregations in Jeru- salem argued, from the number of ministers employed there, 215 ; from the diversity of languages spoken, 216. Mr. Ewing's objection considered, 219. The term brethren applied to mi- nisters in the New Testament, and probably so to be understood in Acts XV. 222. Great argument of Mr. Ewing and other la- dependents from Acts xxi. 22. shown to be inconclusive, 223 — 231. I,ETTER XVIL Same subject. Independency not supported by Acts XV. The form of this assembly — difference of opinion on this point,, 222 ; that the members of it were office-bearers, and . a reference was made to them, 235; that they delivered an au- thoritative decision, 236 — 238 ; that this assembly was not in- spired, proved, 2S9 — 250. '' Letter XVIII. Same subject. Mr. Innes's reasons for giving up Acts XV. as an argument for Presbytery, considered and an- swered, 251 — 359. Conclusion from this reasoning, 260. Sen- timents of the primitive church, 261 — from Cyprian, 265. Testimony of Eusebius, 266. Conclusion, 267. ApPt;N"Dix 1. On the Jewish Synagogues and Sanhedrin, 268. Ai'i'EN'Dix II. Remarks on a View of Social Worship, ^c. by James Alexander Haldar.ej 277. VINDICATION PRESBYTERIAN FORM CHURCH GOVERNMENT; IN A SERIES or LETTERS TO MR. INNES. LETTER I. Sir, It is with the utmost reluctance that I address you on the subject of your late pubhcation. Sensible of the evils which have often resulted to the cause of Christ from religious con- troversies, and from controversies especially of inferior impor- tance, I am sorry that an opportunity should again be afforded to the enemies of religion to triumph at the increasing animosi- ties and dissensioi^s of her friends. Conscious also of the neces- sity of mutual forbearance, to promote among Christians that universal charity which is « the bond of perfectness," I can- not behold without the deepest regret, charges the most aw- ful and momentous, exhibited by one body of Christians against another, though equally attached to the same bless- ed cause ; charges which, from their peculiar character, are not less destructive of those pleasures and advantages which flow from the cultivation of private intercourse, than totally incompatible with public fellowship. Extraordinary as was the manner in which you were led to change your views of the Establishment *, and strong " See Letter III. p. 27, in which you admit that it was in conse- quence of an inquiry begun upon your being offered another situ- ation in your present connection, that you finally determined to leave the Church of Scotland. Whether such also was the securi- ty of your brother Mr. Ballentine, before he renounced his Pres- byterian connection, I do not pretend to say, I consider it how- ever 56 surprising, that/,?- v.sny yssrc before he had renounced his 2 ^ Letter I. '<\r, may havi been yo-ir Cvinvic'cions of the propricU'- of tLat measure, it apoenred to me particularly unbecoming in i/o>f, or any of i/our breth:in, to discover sucli keenness in your -opposition to that Establishment as you have lately mani- fested. It was the avowed design of a celebrated society *, of which many of you are members, and which may justly be considered as the parent of your churches, to disseminate the gospel where the means of instruction were not enjoyed, or, lu your apprehension, not enjoyed in purity, and not to form a party for Independents, by dividing the congregations of faithful ministers, either among the Dissenters or in the Esta- blishment f. You ought certainly to have considered also, that the more formidable the charges which you bring for- vv-ard against it are, the more striking is your own inconsist- ency, in granting the highest and most valued privleges of your church to persons while remaining in this very society, profession as a Presbyterian, or even his studies, in the view of be- coming; a Presbyterian minister, he should tell us, that '* lie liad " clearly seen from the word of God, that churches of Christ should *'• consist only oi c^itvericJ persons, and that their provernment should *' be what is called con^reg^ath.ial," or independent, and yet have re- niiiined a Presbyterian. See p. 19, of his Observations. * That for propagating the g;osj3el at home. f That such was the original profession of tlus society, is evident from the res;uIations which they delivered to their itinerant preach- ers and catechists, and which, so far as I know, they have never yet publicly retracted. In the 2d and f5d of these, it is declared, that " these itinerants are not to shew a preference to grant tiie former ? Yet v/hile you !iave imparted at first this pri- vilege with the utmost cheerfulness to those pious persons who oc- casionaily applied for it, you have been known in many instances, if they persisted in their applicatioPiS, to remonstrate v/Ilii tiicm oft \vhat j-ott denominated the inconsistency of their conduct, and nictr assiduously to insiEt that tiiey would becvm? iia'.cd nieni.bets. Docs* an act howcTer, which, in your opinion, may be performed with-' out inconsistency for eight or tai times, become inconsistent if more frequently repeated? And docs not the solicitude which you disco- ver, and the importunity which you employ, to prevail with tliose who are occasional communicaAts to become stated meml)ers, dis- close a design rather of converting this solemn and invaluable pri- vilege into a mean of incieasi/ig your oivn societies, than of promot- ing the nfjftual Isi't of Christians ? And, in short, according to the priiiciples of your different focictic*, every individual, who is ad- mitted as a member, is entitled as a virtual, though not a nominal ruler, to judge and vote in the affairs of the church. If then, ac- cording to your imiform practice, you allow a nun.ber of the Church of England, or a member from our Establishment or the Presbyierian Dissenters, Vv'hen you are satisfied at Once with hi» ' faith and piety, to eat with you occasionally the sacrament of the supper, upon what grounds, I demand, could you refuse this per- son, even while he remaineo .in Episcopalian, or Pyeilyterian, a righ.^. also to administer occasionaUy in your Independent C0ngrcg-«'.)0n= as au ecclesiastical ruler ? i' Letter I. s. Kvving, in a late very extraordinary paper respecting Vows (see Missionary Magazine for January ISO-I-, p. 6.), after quoting R.ev. xiii. 16, 17. " And he caused all, both small *' and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark '* in their right hand, or in their foreheads : and that no man *' might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name •' of the beast, or the number of his name," — introduces, in page 36, a note from the annotations of the Geneva transla- tors, explanatory of the mark of the beast ; and then sub- joins, *' How happy should we be that we are happily de- " livered from so many of the abuses mentioned above ; and *♦ that, through the lenity of the government under which «< we live, any man is at liberty to reject them all ! No class *' of men ought to be more sensible of the value of our civil ♦' constitution than Christians, who cannot in conscience hold *' communion with a national church. In these times, and *« in this cowitrij, we may refuse to be sealed with Jlnii- «' Christ's mru-k, and be nevertheless suffered to live among •*' men." Here it is plain, that he considers even the strong- est of these names, which have hitherto been viewed as ap- propriated to that church which is called in scripture, " The <« mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth," as ap- plicable also to our national church. She too, it seems, in his opinion, is the beast mentioned in this passage ; and con- sequently, according to the description of this Antichrist, niust sit in the flace of God, and exalt herself above all xchich is called God : and of her also it m.ay be affirmed 'llCY.'CVCr COiViiauiciOi'jF to fact), that she has made all na- tions to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornications, ?.nd has deceived them who dwell upon the earth bij the lij- in?- miracles which she has pretended to perform ! ! ! How strange indeed, that persons who are such sticklers for puri- ly of communion, should receive to occasional fellowship t\iQ foUoxvers cf this beast^ and supporters of this Anti- christ — the members, in short, of this church, which can- not be considered as a church of Christ ! How still more ;) n-orishing is it, that men, who glory so much in their can- Jour and charity, should apply to our Establishment the titles of a church, not one of the awful characteristics of which, whether as already stated, or more fully described in he sacred volume, cither can be ascribed to her in them- ^clver, or v.-ere ever liit^ierto ascribed to her in the same ex- Letter I. tent, even by her most inveterate enemies*. Set .... ..^.;.i; - able refutation of this paper on Vows, and a detection of some radical and important errors on which the scheme of * I must here except Dr. C. Stuart, who, after leaving ilie Esta- blishment, in 1777 published a most violent invective against it, in the form of a sermon. In it ht attempts to trace a resemblance between our church and Antichrist, which is represented in th? Revelation, as a woman sitting upon a scarier-coloured beast, with seven heads anci ten horns. It is remarkable, however, that wliile he selects certain circumstances in which he imagines there i« a similarity, he emits others far more important and distinctive, in which even his ingenuity could not discover the sliglitcst degree of coincidence. It is evident also, that to point cut a resemblance in a few particulars, admitting that he has succeeded, v/ill not war- rant the application of this name to the EstaSlishment. Some tilings which are very good, resemble others which are bad, in a number of circumstances ; an-d yet it cannot be inferred from tliis, that they are evil. A good man may resemble a bad man, in being support- ed by the power and wealth of others, as he here says tnat the Church of Scotland resembles Antichrist; and yet we cannot infer from ihis, tliat he is an unworthy character. Nay, we are told in this same book, chap. xxi. tli, that wl)en the puic»t state of the cliurch on earth shall cime, " the kings of tl-.e carti)," wl-.o are said^ in the description of Antichrist which he quotes, to give its power ?.hd strength to the beast, " shall bring their j'.Iory :-.nd honour in- " to the church." But since the Doctor considers it as one part of the similarity of our church to Antichrist, that her ministers, wliile as responsible tor tlicir doctrine and piactice as those of any Dis- senters, are secured, as long as ihcy discharge their duty, in their maintenance by Government, what will he say of the millennial church, into which the kings of the ear;h are to bring their glorv and honour, to support and jiromote it ? Since he represents it likewise as an evidence of our similarity to tne mother of harlots, that we iiave a ivr'itten confession, exhibitini^ our view of the nicining of the scriptures, and that our creed will not agree wiih his vjew of these scriptures, cioes it not follow from this, that as there is no; at present a church in Scotland with v/hlch he can join in com- munion, every Baptist, and Indepetident, and Presbyterian dissent- ing, as w ell as tstabUsIied congregation, must so far be viewed by liim as a member of Antichrist i' In fine, as he mentions it as another point of resemblance, that the two v.'itnesses of God prophesy in her clothed in sackcloth, it appears necessarily to result from it, that as we are informed in Rev. xi. 3. that these witi;esses were to prophecy for ! 20'O prophetic days, or according to him for that number of years, the Church of Scotland, if we attend to the firit period of its existence as a distinct society, must, in the Doctor's view, liave still a prospect of existence for an extent of time, not very encouraging to him and hi? Independent brethren in their at- - tempts tc overthro■v^' u, A3' "-^ Let TEH I. tiTtsc genllemca in a great measure is founded, in the Mis- sionary Magazine for March 1804.*. You have, however, produced evidence v/liich appears to you at least, demonstrative of the truth of your charges, and ^vhich consequently justifies your separation from the esta- ohshed church. Of this evidence you invite a fair discus- sion. It will not therefore, I presume, be disagreeable to you to attend to some reflections which, on a perusal of your Letters, occurred to a member of the tstablishment, and v/hieh, on reyiew, still dispose him to object to the cogency of your reasoning, for the necessity Or propriety of the step v/hich you have taken. The arguments which you adduce to establish your position are of two kinds ; those which, iu your opinion, prove the constilut'ion of the Church of Scot- land to be anti-scriptural, and those which relate to the im- proprieties exhibited in its ndministralion. In the follow- ing pages it is proposed to consider these arguments in their order, with the degree of force which they appear to possess. Conscious of the fallacy of the common practice of argu- ing against a scheme from the abuse which may have been made of it, or the errors and inconsistencies which may have appeared in the conduct of those who have held it, you justly express, in language the most pointed, your disapprobation of such reasoning. " It is not," you say, (p. 9.), " the ''• character of individuals, but the general aspect and ten- *■' dency of any particular system, by which ouu opinion of '< it ought to be regulated. If it be founded on scriptural ** principles, ungodly men being prqfesscdlij attached to it *< will not make it worse ; and if not, the most eminent ex- ■" amplcs ef holiness among its votaries will not be able to <« sanction it." And again, in p. 105. " Let it be recol- '" lected, it is sysiemsy not the characters either of indivi- *^' duals or of particular societies, the merits of which we are *• here canvassing. These are only implicated so far as they "' are found countenancing a system, of which there is satis- *' factory evidence that it is not agreeable to the word of * It may however be remarked, that since it is specified in this passage as a sign of Anticlirist,, even according to Mr. Ewing, that she allows none to I've among men who do not receive her mark or number, it is impossible for him, without directly opposing his »wn tftpressions, as well as the explicit testimony of the sacred ora- cles, to apply this opprobrious appellation to our church, which permits Independ^QU to live unmolested in their xel'gious pri?i- !fje3. Lltier I. 7 " God.** Thcin this, indeed, nothing can be more rational; for, were we to reject a principle or system on account of the errors, and even immorahties, of many who hold it, we should not only set aside Presbytery, but Independency and Chris- tianity, and even reason itself. You rightly, therefore, begin with the constitution of our church, aud on this ground we are willing most readily to meet you, assured that if it can be proved to be agreeable to scripture, it will be difficult for you to establish the propriety of separating from its com- munion. In reviewing then your remarks upon tfic constitution of the Church of Scotland, I am happy to observe that you are pleased to object only to its form cf government, conscious, I presume, that the views which it professes of evangelical truth, in its Confession and Catechisms, are no less consist- ent than your own with the word of God. Its administra- tion by Presbytery alone is the object of your censure, and again&t this you declaim as one abundant source of the evils which are to be found in it. With this momentous conse- quence however, even though these evils should exist, I hope it will afterwards appear that Presbytery is not chargeable ; and that of all those forms of government which we know. Presbytery is the best fitted to preserve purity of doctrine and discipline. At present it is sufficient to mention, that corruptions, not only in government but in sentiment, are not peculiar to Presbytery, but are to be found in an equal, if not in a greater degree, among Independents themselves. Nc- v/here have the opinions of Socinians, and Arians, and Ar- minians, and Universalists, more generally prevailed than among the Independents in England*. As no argument then, founded upon the existence of such evils among Inde- pendents, would be admitted by you to be conclusive against Independency, unless it could be proved that it was favour- able to the introduction of them ; so no argument, I contend, can be adduced from such evils, if they exist in the Estab- lishment, against its Presbyterian government, unless it can be evinced that that mode of government is the source and * That many, also, of the Presbyterians in England have em- braced these errors cannot be denied. It is well known, liowever, that these Presbyterians have no courts of review, or do not re- gard them ; and that, while they profess to be Presbyterians, from their total inattention to the peculiarities of that system, they ar? more worthy, in a certaia vierirj cf the came of Independents, A 3 8 Letter I. cause of the iniroduclion of such errors. But this you. have never eveii attempted to demonstrate. I am surprised, besides, that in your examination of Prec- bytery, you did not consider its various parts separately, as detailed in our standards, with the particular evidence which is exhibited for each. The great body of that evidence you liave very slightly noticed, and part of it you have not eve'ii noticed at all. This, however, would undoubtedly have been the most satisfactory method of refuting the errors, if errors they are, which are maintained on this subject by our national church, and it would certainly have impressed your readers with a more favourable idea of your fidelity and can- dour. It would also, perhaps, by no means have been pre- judicial to y®u in this important particular, if, after stating your arguments in favour of Independency, you had been pleased likewise to mention what had been said in answer to them a hundred times by former Presbyterians. But this you have thought proper completely to suppress ; and in- stead of putting your readers, agreeably to j our promise (p. 3), in posbession of the arguments on both sides of the question, while you have illusti-ated, at Icasl as fully as you knew them, t!ie arguments of Independents, have totally conce?led the replies of their opjionents. You have thought proper to consider at onee, and in a very few pages, the rf7^o-en/ pecuhsrities of the Presbyterian system ; and some parts of that system you have not even mentijned. As this pla;), however, neither appears to be a faithful exhibition of truth, nor fiited for clear and accu- rate discussion, it is proposed in what follows, to consider. In the 1st place, The opinions of Presbyterians and In- dependents with regard to the naaire and extent of that power \vh ch should be granted to chinch-rulers. 2dly, To whom this power is given by the scriptures in a particular congregation ; whether to the members of the church at large — to the pastor alone — or to the pastor and lay-elders united. And in the 3d place. If every particular congregation is so to be governed, whether its pastor and elders a.'-e, by scripture -authority, required to submit to the review and controul of the pastors and elders of several congregatioPS; united in a Prcsb/tcry, Synod, or Assembly. J am; Sir. c-:c. [ 1 LETTER II. Sir, The Jirst point, I apprehend, in which you differ from Presbyterians, is the nature of that power which they grant to their rulers ; and here, in words at least, the difference is important. Upon this topic Indep- udents have often de- claimed with the utmost keenness, and from this source they have derived their warmest invectives against the Estabhsh- ment. Upon this topic, too, you considerably enlarge, and attempt to paint, in very shocking colours, the baneful con- sequences with which the authority of Presbytery is neces- sarily attended. Before however I attend to your arguments, I would briefly advert to a misrepresentation which has frequently been made by Independents, of the claims of Presbyterians with regard to the nature cmd kind of their authority. Of- ten has it been said, that the power for which they contend, amounts to nothing less than a legisUdive authority, and in- vests them Avith 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 eentiments. They, as well as Independents, profess to ad- mit that Jesus is the only Head of his church ; that those laws alone which he has revealed, bind the consciences and conduct of his subjectsf ; and that the highest hcr.our to * See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 175, near the middle, wliere he af- firms tliat a hgislative power is assumed by Presbyterians. ■j- In proof of this, we may refer to the words of our Confession, chap. xxxi. sect. iii. where it is expressly declared, " that it belong- " eth to Synods and Councils tmnisterially" i. e. merely as the ser- vants of Jesus, and accountable to him, " to determine contro« " versies of faith and cases of conscience" — to the words of that very Assembly which framed this Coiife^sron, and collected from the scriptures our form of church-government ; " We say again, " that this power of ministers is no where any other than tr.inistc- " rial, and that it is not to be exercised any where at their orvn " ivillt, but according to hit direction," (p. 9. of their Answers to the Seven Independents) — to the words of the London ministers, who, while they contend most strenuously for the divine right of Pres- bytery, declare explicitly, p. '15), that the power which is to be committed to its rulers is to be ** only subordinate and ministerial ;" and to the treatises of Gillespie, in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming, p. 175; of Wood against Lockier, p, 27^, &c. j and of Hall ca 10 Letter II. which eccleiiastlcal r«/e?"5 can now aspirCj is to explain wLa'. the doctrine of the church is, with regard to the true mean- ing of the laws of Christ, and authoritatively to enforce among those of her communion the execution oiliis laws. In matters indeed of injerior moment, which regard simply the convenience, or external 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 regula- tions as may be requisite for the general ends of edification and utility. But this is no more than Independents themselves have uniformly claimed* ; wiiile it is an incontestible fact, that, in every instance in which legislative power is disclaim- ed by Independents, it is universalli/ and cxpUcilly disclaim- ed by Presbyterians. Bat admitting that the power with which rulers ?.re in- vested is not legislative, but simply of the kind which has been now stated, what is the (h'gree of it which they are warranted to exercise ? Are they entitled, as Independents affirm, merely to deliver their decisions to those whom they govern, as matlers of opinio7i ? or have they a right to an- nounce them, as Presbyterians maintain, as authoritative dc- Cliurch-government, p. 59; with many otli?r Presbyterians, who, thoiigl\ tliey assert most decidedly the right of the rulers to eccle- sii'.itical power, very pointedly state that it is not to be legiilative. Above all, we may refer to that very striking fact in favour of PrejUytery, that raaiiy of the most zealous of our auciect Presby- terians, in the last awful persecutions which were witnessed in these lands, bled and died in support of this truth, that Christ alone is in- ' vested with a lughSaii'vi: power in his church. How strange then, whatever may be the pra:lices oi Presbyterians, that Independents should deny this to be at leastt a part of their f>rinciflet, as much as of their own, that the power of church-ofllccrs is only to be su- bordinate, not legislative! And how extraordinary, that the writer before quoted, when speaking .solely of the Presbyterian systiin, should boldly afHrm, in the face of such teslinionies, that it authorizes its cluirch-oflicers to make, as well as ir.teypret and execute its laws! If such be the view of 7//^ principles o{ Presbyterians which is so obnoxious to Independents, it is no less rejected,, in. profession and system, by Presbyterians than by them. And, at the same time, it is a view of the principles of Presbytery which I feel ob!i£red to declare that I have never found in the writings of Presbyterians, and have met with only amidst the self-created theo- rie.* and accusations o,f Independents. * Thus the tabernacle-churches in Scotland require their mfiin-. bers to jtand ia singing. LETTKa II. 1 i icrmiiiations, and require their cheerful and universal obe- dience ? In the former of these schemes you profess your bcHef, and reprobate the latter, as subservient merely to pro- mote the purposes of tyranny and oppression. That in- stances of tyranny may indeed be found in the conduct of- Presbyterians, I readily grant ; but that such instances are authorized by their system, I positively deny. Nothing can be m,ore contrary to the genius at least of this form of government ; while it is a noiorious fact, that it is not only not excluded by Independency itself, but seems not even to be equallij precluded by this plan of administiation. Many instances might be adduced, of most imperious decisions by Independent rulers ; decisions, too, which, when once pass- ed, were for ever final ; and decisions pronounced by the very men who, while they exclaim agauist Presbyterians for exercising even inferior authoritative power, profess l:o claim no more than a right to deliver their opinion and advice to those wliom they govern. Even in one of your sister- churches, an instance of this kind the most astonishing and unaccountable, if we are to believe the narrative of those who were aggrieved, has already occurred ; and their nar- rative has never yet been invalidated. In this case, surely, it was UTore than an cu'vice or opinion which was delivered ; . for when certnin members refused to concur with the pastor in a most insignificant matter, so far at least as it related to him, a decision of censure was passed, not only in a ton.- as authoritative as is ever assumed by any Presbytery, but in a manner as summary and rigorous as that of any Roman Con- clave*. In Independency, moreover, which, in its nun.bcr * See a narrative publislicd by seven members of your cburch at Perth, who were excommunicated by Mr. Little, for refusing to concur with the rest of the members in adopting the version of the » Psalms of David composed by Dr. Watts. The account wbic!i i* ■here given of the conduct of that gentleman, considering him as an Independent, is indeed astonishing, and thougli attempted to be set aside by him in the reply wiiich he has published, seems yet to be uoanswcrcd. He contents himself, in general (p. 7), vfith I " denying the view wliich they give of his words and actions, in •' relation to their separation." And though they have produced charges against hini the most fmhc and sptcific, and established theni by facts the most pointed and particular, he satisfies himself, ■. and imagines that lie will satisfy th3 woild, by :imf>li/ saying, *• that .' " tlieirs is a most distorted and unjust represefttaticn, designed to " b-ring the wholij fabernacle-tliscip'inc to contempt." It must be ■ obvious however, that such -jjgu: afiirnistior?, unvubs'.antiated by 12 Letter 11 of rulers, resembles and equals the lowest form of 'political democracy, there is certainly more room, as in other de- mocracies, for the display of tyranny than in a mixed and proof, cannot be sustained as a satisfactory answer to accusations GO serious, and attempted at least to be supported by references to f;»cts and incidents the most precise and determinate. His reasons, moreover, for declining " to enter into particulars, and for Jon^ " silence" after the publication of their narrative (compare p. 12 with p. 6, 7.) must strike every candid and impartial mind as very extraordinary, when urged by a man as an excuse for not vindicat- ing himself from accusations certainly the most /;ar//V;//ar and /w- fortanl. He tells US, that " it can answer no other possible end *' than to harden the minds, and to increase the prejudices, of the " public against the truth — that if he were to follow them over *' the ground they have trodden, it would be to fall into the same *' evil he condemns — and besides, however it may be with others, " he feels it impossible to ref>eat and refute their slanders without be- •' ing in a measure contaminated with their spirit ; and rather than " this, he would endure their utmost reproach. — ^That, from care- " ful examination of his mind, in short, he is persuaded that it •* would be more injurious to his character as a Christian minister, *' to enter into such a contest, than all their invectives can prove — " and that these are the reasons why, in the kind of defence which " he is pleased to publish, he addresses himself onlj/ to those who ♦• are under his pastoral care." But, certainly, if this reasoning were conclusive, it would follow that whenever the conduct of a Christian, or of a minister was attacked, if the charges appeared to him unjust and exafjgerated, he ought by no means to endeavour JO refute and remove them. It is merely his duty to assert the con- trary, and content himself with supposing that i\us assertion, though unsupported by proof, will be completely satisfactory to the world at large, who know no more of him than of those who are his ac- cusers. Nay, it is a necessary consequence from his mode of ar- guing, that it is impossible for a Christian when assailed by slan- ders, to reply to it with meekness ; and, like his blessed Lord when reviled by his enemies, while he vindicates himself from their re- vilings, not to re-Me them again. But is not this contrary at once to the commandments of scripture, and the example of Jesus, who repeatedlv repelled the slanders of his foes .' Is it not at variance, also, with the conduct of Paul, who, in his different Epistles, fre- quently defends himself from the imputations which were cast upon himself and his ministry by the Judaizing teachers ? And does it not imply a censure of your brother Mr. Ewing, who repeatedly attempted, though not with superabundant meekness, to reply to Mr. Robertson, respecting the interesting charges which he advances against him ; as well as to your friend Mr. Haldane, who thought proper to follow a similar course, when animadversions were made lapon his opinions and plan by a great literary character ? In short, as the honour and interests of religion must undoubtedly be affect- ed in a very eminent degree by the accusations which arc here ad- Letter IL 13 moderated government, such as that of Presbyter}-. In the latter, the administration is vested in a few, composed of ministers and lay-elders ; the last of whom ought, at least vaiiced ao-ainst Mr. Little, if not individually refuted, and as ir is impossible for him, as in the case of a f7n're' gati'idl nUegSiUnn, to vindicate himself from these particuliir charges by his future con- duct, he appears to be bound, by every consideration, to answer precisely the accusations here exiiibited, and thus to wipe av.ay from himself and his congregation the odium which appears to be thrown upon them. ■ If Mr. Little, besides, as he here tells us, intends only to ad- dress himself to those who are under his pastoral care, and to vin- dicate himself and his conduct sddt, to tlum, why has he publislied this address to the luorU ? Is the world to believe them any ni.irc than their pastor, because, as he was for a long time, they have yet been silent. L)id not they too, by confirminjr the sentence of excommunication, make themselves a party with him ? and would it be fair to give credit to their •vague a:«sertions ag^ainst another party any more than his, if they do not answer the proofs by which tlieir opponents support their charges ? In fine, admitting^ even that the cause for which these persons wer« excommunicated was just and malidy one thing seems to be plain, that though the church afterwards sanctioned this deed, Mr. iJttle himself, after public worship, wiihout convening the mem- bers and obtaining their consent, ventured to pronounce upon these individuals this awful sentence. Nay, when tlie church assembled to decide upon the step which he had taken, he wouhl not allovy the men, whom he alone as yet could be considered »l. having ex- communicated, to speak in their own defence, before they were ex- communicated by the church also. And afrerwaids, when two of the members who were expelled, waited u[)on h;m tor a copy of the sentence of excommunication, he told them th^it he had burnt it, and would not v/rite another; and thrit if they wanted su:h a paper, they might recover it from the fiames. And, as if th se insults had not sufficed, when they requested him to pr. duce a let- ter which they had written to Mr. Haldane, narrating ihe'r griev- ances, and wliich had been transmit ed by him to Mr. Litt'e, and when they asked him expressly to jioint uut any passages of it in which they had mis-stated the truth, he pobitively refused. Is such conduct, however, consistent with tiie principles of m( dern Inde- pendents, who boast so much of the Uberiy and equity which are dis- covered in their courts, and exclaim with sucli keenness against the tyranny of our Establishment ? Can their pastor, without request- ing a meeting fif the church, and obtaining theii consent, excom- municate any of their merribers? Are the persoi.s who are accus- ed of any cnnies or errors, which coen mtrii fxconitnunicatioii, denied in their churches, before sentence is pronounci-d, the privilege cf ipeaLing in their own ■vindication ? Does it resemble the conduct of a maH who was conscious that he had acted consistently with jus- ' _;Jce or candour, immediately to burn the paper which he lud read 34" Letter II. by the constitution of the church, to be chosen from the ■wisest and most pious among the people, and should be known to be zealously attached to their interests. Among Independents, however, representatives are excluded (a thing jn impeachment of the character of any of his members, and in- nictinjT upon them one of the most awful of punishments ? Was St worthy of such a consciousness of rectitude and moderation, to refuse to furnish them with another copy of the deed, and to bid them, if they cliose, recal it from the flames ? Could conduct so tyrannical and imperious as this, however merited the sentence, be tolerated in any civil courts in Europe, except those of the military despot of France.? Did it intimate that he was able satisfactorily to overturn the representation which ihey had given in their let- ter to Mr. Haldane, when he refused to read it, and point out any instance in which their statement was incorrect? Are accusations like these, which so deeply concern the honour of rdifr'wn, and ihs rcipeclnliliiy of his churchy to be set aside, by simply telling us, that be would prejudice the wicked against the truth, and would im- bibe the spirit with v\'liich slanders are uttered, were he to reply particularly to these allegations ? Such an apology may, perhaps, appear sufficient to Mr. l.ittle and his Independent friends, but it will not satisfy the world at large, judging by the principles of equity and Integrity. And till these cliargcs are individually, not merely denied, hut refuted, the credit of religion, so far as connected with the honour of Independents who associate with him,, and the dis- .lipline of the church which retains iiim as its pastor, must be consi- dered as deeply and materially aflected. Nor is the case of Air. Little the only instance of oppres'jive go- vernment which occurs among Independents. Even in a tabernacle- church which was formed lately at Elgin, under the ministry of Mr. Ballantinc, and the greater part of which separated from him, something very similar to spiritual domination a])pears to have been ])r3ct!sed. 'I'heir pastor, while he professed to grant to each mem- ber an equal riglit to judge with himself, was the only person, it seems in their apprehension, who governed their church. Against this conduct they remonstrate in the memorial which they sent to bim^; and observe, " As to the government of the congregation '* we shall not stickle for any name, though we do not love the " unscriptural phrase Independency, And as to the expression Prcs- " byterian, from the vford presbyter, we know it is scriptural, for it *' occurs times almost unnumbered in the Bible, as any one may " s^e that has a Concordance, by looking at the word elder, elders, " w^Mch is the English translation for thf -woid presbyter, presbyters. ♦' But we v.'ill not strive about words. Our determination is, hov/- " ever, that we will not be governed by a j/«Q'/f person, for that is «' neithf-r Presbytery nor Independency, old nor new, but is a mere "arbitrary govtrnmeiU, like Popery or Episcopacy on a small scale ; " and this is a condition that we cannot depart from, as it is con- *' trary tr our original contract when we came together as minister <■' and people. Letter II. !'> which is admitted in the lowest repuhlican forms of govern- ment), and a plan of ecclesiastical administration is followed, which, in its form at least, is much more lawless, and more fitted to be productive either of tyranny or of anarchy ; as it constitutes every member of the church, man, woman, or child, for such sometimes, from early piety, are received to that privilege, a ruler in the church. In Presbytery, if a person feels himself aggrieved by the decision of a Session, he may appeal to a Presbytery, from that to a Synod, and from that to a General Assembly, the superior court being in every instance a check upon the inferior, having power to reverse its acts and deeds. In Independency however, the " If our minister," say they again, " chooses to take the deacons " as a sessim or ecclesiastical council, to rule along with himself, " we are pleased. If this does not suit him, we agree that seven, " nine, or a greater number of men be chosen by mutual couient " of minister and congregation, and as many of the present dea- *' cons among them as can be agreed upon, and let these act as *' representatives of the church or congregation." After which they tell him again, that they will not be governed by him alone. See p. 51 and 52 of Ballaniine's Observations. Whether this repre- sentation was true in the extent which they so frequently and strongly affirm, I do not pretend to say. At any rate it is certain, as Mr. Ballantine acknowledges (p. 95), that their charges were just in a particular instance, for without consulting deacons, or members, or a single individual, so far as is specified, he expelled a member from the communion of his ciiurch. To these examples of tyranny among Independent rulers, were it considered as necessary, many others miilu be added, to prove that the people, however flattered by them with the appearance of power, and with the solicitation of their request before any deci- sion is made, have frequently only the shew. Of these I shall .it present only mention one. Two respectable ministers late'y, while travelling through England, happened to be present in an Inde- pendent church, where also there were another stranger minister and gentleman. After the services connected witli preaching wers finished, the pastor proceeded to dispense the sacrament, and hav- ing consecrated the elements, announced lo the congregation, as if to ask their consent, that this stranger clergyman and gentleman proposed that day to eat with them tlie supper. Upon utterinw however these words, without waiting a moment for i!ie tjnsenc of the members, he turned to the strangers, and, after participat- ing himself, delivered to them the bread and cup. Was not this however, and the fact can be established by incontestable evidence, a mere tantalizing of the members of this congregation ? Was it not a pretending to consult them about the communication of a most solemn and important privilege, while yet it was plainly and avowredly declared that their opinion was not to be rctrarded at all ?- io Letter 11. decision of the first court is completely final, and the injur- ed can appeal to no other superior tribunal upon earth. Whatever then may be the conduct of Presbyterians and In- dependents, supposing the rulers, upon each of these plans, to be equally faithful and equally conscientious (and, to give justice to the argument, this must be supposed), I contend that the Presbylerian form of government is better fitted than that of Independency, to prevent lyracr.y, and secu»; impartial equity to the people. " The distinguishing feature of Presbytery," you say (p. 28), " is the system or representation." The minister and ciders of a particular congregation govern that congre- gation ; the ministers and elders of a number of congrega- tions, called a Presbytery, judge of cases which come be- fore them xby appeal against the sentence of any particular Session ; and the ministers and elders of a number of Pres- byteries, denominated a Synod, decide upon those references which are made to them against the determination of any particular Presbytery; as an Assembly, again, does, upon that cf any particular Synod, as well as deliberates about, matters ox general importance. *' In an Independent church *' however," you remark (p. 30), " nothing is decided by -'' I'epresentation. Whatever is done by those who are ap- " pointed to rule, is carried on in the presence of the gener- *' al body, and with their consent. While an Independent *' church thus assumes the sole government of its ewn af- *' fairs, it is amenable to no society of men under heaven. *' In reference to its own members, its decisi.on is final> and. ** it pretends to interfere with none else. It will be recol- *' lected (p. 47), that this peculiarity of Presbytery con- *' sists in the authority of the representatives of a chufch of ** Christ, as distinguished from the personal conviction of ** the individual members of it. Now we have no hesitation *' in asserting, that this distinguishing feature of Presbytery *' is directly opposed to the general spirit, as well as some " of the express precepts of the word of God. Every one " v.iir allow that Christianity is a spiritual religion ; and it *• seems a necessary principle in such a religion, that every one " be convinced in his own mind. The conscience of the " individual here has a most extensive sphere of influence. " Its approbation is essentially necessary to the existence of *' any act of acceptable worship. Whatsoever is not of *• faith is sin. The moment that compulsion is introduced^ Lktter II. I'J '*< spiritual worship is destroyed. This general position, t " beheve, few will dispute ; but mark how it affects the *' case in question. What is the meaning of the aulhoritu *' vested in a Presbytery, of that power by which they can *« command any one under their jurisdiction to act according *' to their will ? Does not the very existence of this an- " thority imply the necessity of it ? Does it not prove that *' advice is not sufficient; that the conscience of the indivi- *' dual is not convinced ; that something more powerful than " persuasion must be resorted to ? There could be aq room « for authority, if conviction were deemed necessary, because •* it is only by instruction and persuasion that it is produ- " ced. Like the sensitive plant, it shrinks at the gentlest ** touch of power, and the rude intruder must be complete- " ly withdrawn before it again exert its energy. On these " principles, I consider the authority of Presbytery as stand- ** ing on a most unscriptural basis." Here, Sir, before I advert to your different remarks, I would notice a very striking and palpable inconsistency be- tween your view of the government and discipline of your churches, and that Vv'hich is delivered by another minister in your connection, no less distinguished for his present zeal against our Presbyterian Establishment, than for the extent and accuracy of the knowledge of your ecclesiastical con- stitution which, in the opinion of his followers, he possesses. " IVhaievcr,'" you affirm, " is done by those who rule in your *' congregations, is carried on in the presence of the general " body, and v/ith their consent." " It seems by no means " agreeable to the directions given to the primitive churches," nays that gentleman however, in his lecture upon Acts xv. (p. 34, SB), " that every measure, h<^>vever trifling or ob- " vious, should be brought before the c/uirch for general dis- *' cussion, or for obtaining a public declaration of Ih.e opini- " on of 'each meraber before the office-bearers presume to *' put it in practice. From these, it is plain th:it the office- " bearers are to feed the flock ; that is, to gcvc'rn them by " instruction and persuasioii according to the word of God. " In doing this, they are entitled, nay, bound to carry into ** effect the rules of scripture, and to require obedience from " the church to those rules when laid before them. A differ- " erit conduct deprives the church of the benefit of govero^ ♦* meat, must give cor.tinual encouragement to dis:v:iisionp 3 3 )S Letikk ii. " and is Irkely to make discipline dec^cncnitc inio aa enouje " ot taction. " Nothing again," adds he (p. 35}, " is less likely to *' serve the cause of truth, or even the cause of Christian. •♦ liberty, than making every thing that ought to be done, ** wait for discussion in full assembly. If the church con- «* tains the collective wisdom, it contains also the collective •' ignorance of the brethren : if it combines their gifts and *' their graces, it combines also their infirmities and corrup- " tion. Where every thing must undergo discussion, some •' may be in danger of thinking they ha^'e laws to make, in- " stead of laws ta obey. A few of the most active spirit " and readiest elocution will become the real m.o vers and ma- " nagcrs in every business ; and a part will thus be put for ** the whole. When they are agreed, every thing must be " complied with : when they are at variance, every thing *' must be objected to. No tyranny is so bad as that of a. " cabal ; that is, of those who are upperm.ost for the mo- *' meat in the fermentation of anarchy. Debate> when in- *' dulged, is favourable to the introduction of this sort of *' tyranny. It heats the passions, warps the judgment ; hur- *' ric3 men to measiu-es of violence and precipitation ; en- " gag^s them to the side which they happen to have taken ; *' inclines them to contention, and tedious consultation, about *' matters of the most trivial importance ; and makes them ** be ever on the watch to satisfy a restless disposition, by *' seizing an opportunity to interfere. In short, those ivho *' most n.eed 7-cstraint, are, by such means, in danger of be- " ing led to set it at defiance ; while the peaceful, and those *' to whom the govei'nment is committed norvinaUy, are ter- *' rifled and chainedi^doxvn by the turbulence of the rest." Here I am certain that you cannot fail to perceive the veiy satisfactory refutation of your sentiments in particular, arid of those of Independents in general, with regard to the flegree of ecclesiastical power which should be granted to rulers, that is contained in these words, even of a fellow-la- bourer in your vineyard. In them it is afiirmed in the plain- est terms, that ever?j measJire ought not to be discussed tJi the presence of church-members, and their opinion and con- currence asked before a decision is made, because, if this were done, the church would be deprived of the benefit of i^ovcrnmentt continual encouragement would be given to dis-. aension, and discipline would degenerate into an engine of L^ITEU 11. 19 faction. In their., also, it is maintained in terms iio less ex- plicit, th?.t the governors are entitled, nay, bounds to carry into effect the rules of scripture, and to require obedience from the church to those rules xvlien laid before them ; i. e. (as is evident from the connection) without previously con- sulting them. And the reasons which are assigned for al- lowing the rulers to determine in inferior matters, without the advice of the brethren, are much more conclusive for their authoritative decision in those which are more import- ant, without their assistance. If less interesting points, and points which are obvious, are not to wait for discussion ia full assembly, because, if the church contain the collective wisdom, it contains also the collective ignorance of the bre- thren ; and if it combines their gifts and their graces, it com- bines also their iniirmities and corruption ;■ much more must it be the duty of the rulers of the church themstlves, to de- cide authoritatively on more momentous matters, and mat- ters which are confessedly more difficult and doubtfid*. As * Not only is it manifest from the argument of Mr. Ewing which is here stated, that it is the otBce bearers alone, even upon his own principles, who are to judge ia important as well as trivial matters without consulting the members ; but wha;ever he intended, the same thing seems to be evident from his other arguments. It is the for- mer alons, he says, who are to decide upon points which are trilling and obvious, because, as he before affirms, " it is the office-bearers " alone who are authorized in scripture to feed the flock," or, as he " explains it, " to govern them by instruction and persuasion ac- cording to the word of God." But when the office-bearers are re- quired in ths sacred volume to feed, or, as he interprets it, tn govern the flock, if it entitle them to determine in inferior matters, and matters which are ob'jious, without con,sulting them, is it not equal- ly plain from it, that they must be much more authorised by it to exercise this power in more difficult points ? And if the office- bearers only, in his opinion, should judge in these less interesting cases, because, as he also asserts, according to the passages which- he quotes, " they are entitled, nav, bound by the word of God, in " governing the church, to carry into effect the rules of scripture, " and to require obedience from the church to those rules zvhen laid " before til em " the very same expressions, when employed in scrip- ture respecting their poiver in general, with the obedience of the mem- bers, seem as clearly to intimate, that, in e-very point, the elders are to judge without soliciting the opinion and consent of the members. Are the rules of scripture, which he admits, from these passages, that they are to carry into effect, only trifles ? or do they not compre- hend ivery thin^ the most difficult and important, which can be th& 20 Letter II. I am persuaded, tlien, that you will not consider tliis gentle- man as blindly attached to the cause of Presbytery, or in subject of determination in an ecclesiastical court ? If then, as he coTitends, the office-bearers of the church are warranted, by the passages which he produces in the margin, to carry into effect the laivs of Christ without consulting the opinion of the members, and to require ol>edience from the members to them, when laid before them ; and if these laws, as is evident, include not only what is trivial and obvious, but what is important and essential ; is it not in- contestable, even from the arguments of this gentleman, vv'ho profes- ses to be an Independent, that the office-bearers alone, as Presbyte- rians maintain, are to determine in matters which are important ■a.nA essential, as well as those which are obineus and trivial? in short, if it is only in things which are obvious and trivial that the ofTice-bearers alone, in the opinion of Mr. Ewing, are autho- rized to judge without consulting the members, -who are the piersom that are to determine whether the matters which are to be the sub- ject of judgment upon any particular occasion, are trivial and ob- vious, or interesting and doubtful ? It cannot be the people, for that would make the men over ivkom this extraordinary power ivas io be exercised, the judges of the extent to which it was to be employ- ed, which is considered as impolitic in all proper governments ; and it cannnt be the office-bearers, for that would be to make the men who are to exercise tiiis power, judges of the extent in which they visit to exert it, which has always been considered as no less preposterous. Unless then he can point out a satisfactory standard, separate from the opinion nf the ofjice-hearers and the people, by which it can be ascertained what things are trivial and obvious, and what are difficult and importaut, the commission of such power as that for which he pleads, to the elders of the church, at least upon the principles of Independent societies, whatever they may think of it, seems in the highest degree to be dangerous. Their office-bearers, it appears, according to this gentleman, are themselves to judge in things trivial and obvious, without granting the members a single word or vote ; and, at the same time, so far as can be discovered, it is the office-bearers alone who are to say luhen they are to exercise this extraordinary power, and erect themselves into the only judges in the society. !f this be consistent with your notions of liberty, or the first principles of independency, I should be happy to see upon what grounds it can be established ^ If the office-bearers, in fine are to judge in less interesting matters only, and are to take the judgment of the people in more important affairs, does not this intimate, that though they are fit for deter- inining what are considered as trifles, they are not equal to the de- termination of things which are intricate and interesting, and need the superior or combined information of the members ? And that though it would be dangerous, from the collected ignorance of the latter, , as-Mr. Ewing affirms, to allow them to judge in things obvious and trivial, it \s perfect I v safe to permit them to judge in things du- bious and important I Letter II. 21 the least disposed to promote its interests, I beg you will attend to the tendency of his reasoning, and, after adjust- ing the dijf'trences among yoJirselves, honestly declare, whe- ther it does net at once Jtatly contradict and completely over- throw your favourite position, That ecclesiastical rulers are not authorized authoritatively to decide upon anij point which falls under their cognizance, without previously re- (^uesting the presence and counsel of the members of the church ! I would observe, moreover, that you yourself have ad- mitted a case (and it has frequently occurred) in which, even in an Independent church, authoritative power must be exer- cised 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 whom the <' charge is 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 offended." A decision notwithstanding 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 the majoritif of this Independent church, without regard to the will ot the minority, as much as by any class of Presbyterian ru- lers ? and if they do not act as decidedly, without any re- gard 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 eve7-i/ instance (and they caonot be few) in which a question is carried and acted upon by a mnjority against a minority ? Is not tlie oipinion of the latter uniformly disregarded ? Is not the will of the former executed as a lavo P Can any religious society exi?,t without it ? Does not this unquestionably involve of neces- sity, as much authority as the decision of any Presbyterian court ? And is not the minority obliged as readily to sub- mit to this authoritative determination, if it be an inferior point — or if it be a fundamental article, as universally to separate from their former brethren, if they are so disposed, as in Presbyterian ch.urches ? £w LETTEn II. When a majority, in a word, of any of your cliurckes determines against a minority, that a brother who has hap- pened to offend before all, should be 7'cbiikcd before 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 ))iajority decides against a minority, that a bro- ther is to be excommunicated, and their decision is fulfilled, I should be happy to be informed, if it is only a simple opinion which is stated ? This, I believe, you will hardly maintain : and consequently, since in these and all other in- stances, where the will of a majority is carried and acted upon against a minority, frem the very nature of things, au- thority is exercised, I hold it to be unfair and contradictory in Independents to declaim against Presbyterians, when they claim for their rulers, the same portion of authority which is necessarily assumed by the majority of the members in each of their congregations ; and without which, whatever persuasion might be employed, and whatever advices might be delivered, not one of their societies can be conceived to exist. You affirm, however, that to exercise authority without the presence and consent of the members of the church is inconsistent with the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, one of the laws of which is, that before a person can per- form any acceptable act of worship, he must have, ia some measure, a conviction of its fitness and propriety. And you contend, that since a man must first be convinced by persuasion, before he can render any such obedience, autho- rity is unnecessary, for if authority is used as well as per- suasion, it seems to imply that the latter is insufficient. But in answer to this I would observe, that though authority is claimed by Presbyterian rulers over their members, it is not an imreasonable nor imperious authority. They consider themselves as the servants of the Lord Jesus : the subjec- tion which they demand from the members of their churches, is not to themselves, or to their vill, as you insinuate (p. 4-7), but to what they consider as the will of their blessed Master ; and the obedience which they require to their de- cisions in his name, is not, as you allege, blind and compul- satory, but enlightened and voluntary; Nor do they barely deliver their commands, and enjoin immediate and implicit submission (as one would imagine from your representation) ; but while they declare authoritatively whatever appears to Letter II. 23 them to "be llie mind of Clirist, and command all cordially to obey it, they, no less than Independents, are careful to state the grounds upon which their decision rests, and to afford to their members every mean by which their consciences may be satisfied, and this enlightened and voluntary obedi- ence produced. Their public deliberations in every instance, where it is fit, are open to the hearing and examination of theii- members ; and there seems to be nothing in Preshy- icry to prevent every discussion which is proper to be carried on before an Independent, to be carried on also before a Presbyterian congregation. The reasons, besides, for every determination are not only uniformly stated, as has been al- ready mentioned, but if any of their members either do not imderstand their meaning, or perceive their force, they are never denied an opportunity of obtaining satisfaction by pri- vate conversation, or correspondence with the rulers. If, in any case, in short, of inferior magnitude, they cannot acquiesce in the decision of these rulers, forbearance can be granted to them no less than among Independents ; and i^, in any case, it be necessary to separate, because it is of su- perior importance, and they cannot comply,- they are not compelled to obey, but are allowed to separate no less tlian among them. There is one point, however, and but one, in which Presbyterians appear to differ from Independents on the subject, before us, and on this yon seem to lay considerable stress ; namely, that though the obedience which is requir- ed from their members by the former, is as free and as en- lightened as that which is demanded from their me'mbcrs by the latter, Presbyterian rulers do not admit tlieir people to judge and vote upon the propriety of their measures along with themselves, before they are finally adopted. But to this facs the words of Mr. Ewing, which I have quoted, furnish a complete and satisfactory ansv/er. Ivothing, un- doubtedly, more directly tends to sub\-ert thz order and gorernment ol K\vt c\x\xxc\\, as that gentleman afErms, than to allow every member a right to judge and vote Upon the measures of riders, and to oblige these rulers to retract or carry forward any of these measures, only in as far as it is agreeable to a majority of the people. It is, in fact, con- stituting those who should he ruled, the rulers, while the dccisi'diis of those who arc dignified with that name are en- tirely subject to their detei'-mination. Their opinions, it is £4' Lktter, IL evident, where this system is adopted, can only be passed into laws, when it pleases the majority of those who are to ohey tltcm ; 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 ; and amounts simply to a right to state those measures which they have in contemplation to adopt, and to preside in the meeting during the deliberation of the members, while the right of judging, as to the propriety of these measures, is committed to the latter. As, therefore, it seems plain, that to grant to the members according to this system, a right to vote upon the proposals of the rulers, is utterly subversive of the power of these rulers, and reduces them to the situation of those who are ruled, while it gives the su- preme authority to the multitude, the greater part of whom, according to Mr. Ewing, are unqualified for judging — as this system, I say, is attended wiih these consequences, it appears to be totally inadmissible, and that it is t)ie province of the rulers, without the assistance of the members, to go- vern the affairs of tlie church of God. If authority, moreover, as exercised by Presbyterians, as you evidently insinuate, is not consistent with liberty of con- science, I demand how it is consistent with it, when exer- cised by the majoritij of an Independent congregation over the minority F and if it be considered as uujiecessari/, as practised by Presbyterians, as you explicitly assert, because advice and persuasion appear to you sufficient for the go- vernment of the church, I ask how it is requisite, when as- sumed by such a majority over the miyiority, who must either submit, or renounce their comrfiunion ? Cannot advice and persuasion aniong tliem too suffice ? It is replied, as you have done, (p. 51), that the exercise of authority in such cases, among Independents, " is an unavoidable result of *' social worship, and of the formation of Christian churches, << as long as imperfection of knowledge and of character re- *' mains ?" I affirm, that since you allow that social worship and imperfection at once of knowledge and of character exist also among Presbyterians, among them too, even on your own principles, you must grant it to be necessary ; while at the same time I contend, that for the reasons which have been mentioned, or may yet be mentioned, it should be com- n^itted to the rulers, and to the rulers alone, without admit- ting: the members to be their advisers. I conceive it besides Letter II. 25 to be a very evident truth, that whu'erer is delivered by any class of rulers, even though subordinate, whether sacred or civil, must be much more regarded when clothed with au- . thority, than when communicated simply as an advice or ad- monition. It is true, that, till previously convinced of its propriety, in many cases, in civil, and always in sacred mat- ters, no man can rightly perform any obedience to any go- ■vernment, whether civil or ecclesiastic. But what would we think of the man who should affirm, that because it is re- quisite to state to the people, very often in civil, and always in sacred matters, the reasons for which they are called to yield their obedience, it is unnecessary and improper for the rulers to clothe their communications to them, requiring this obedience, in the language of authority, and that they ought simply to enforce it by advice and persuasion ? Would not such an assertion be rejected with contempt, as not only sub- versive of one of the strongest preservatives of public order and social peace, but as repugnant even to the common sense of mankind, which, by uniform practice, has constantly de- clared that advice is insufficient, and that the exercise of aic- thority, in every government, is absolutely essential to secure the subordination and obedience of the subjects ? The authority, then, for which I argue, I wish it to be remembered, is not intended to supersede but to promote in- quiry ; is not designed to compel men, as you maintain, (p. 4<7), Mcithout conviction to hQ\\e.\Q ■diwd obey their ecclesias- tical rulers, but to present to them more commanding in- citements to examine, and more powerful though secondary enforcements and obligations, to obey the truth. For this purpose, it invests the governors of the church with a power, not merely to declare to her members what appears to be the mind and will of Christ, and to advise them to obey it, but with a power to inform them, that if, upon examina- tion and reflection, they are not disposed to submit to it, they can no longer be entitled to the privileges of his people. The exercise of this power in every church, whether Inde- pendent or Presbyterian, either by the many or the few, I apprehend is essential to its very existence ; for it requires but little observation to perceive that neitlier the purity nor the government of any society could long be preserved, where advices only were delivered to the members. And, in short, I must remark, that while Independents themselves, though ■they affect to reject it, gr^t XQ the majonty, in each of their c 26' Letter II. congregations, the very same authority which Presbyterians claim for their ecclesiastical rulers, were they to lay aside this authority, and act simply by ad%ice and persuasion, the most awful consequences must ensue from it to their churches. Ancient chaos, in a more fearful form, would once more re- sum.e her horrid reign ; confusion and anarchy would uni- versally prevail ; and order and government, in their lawless societies, would be completely annihilated. In fine, I would observe that the various terms also em- ployed in scripture to express the pow-cr conferred upon church-rulers, seem plainly to intimate that they are entitled to govern those over whom they are placed, not merely by advice and persuasion, but by authoritative rule ; and to govern them thus authoritatively, without previously con- sulting them as to their opinion and ccacurrence. As an examination of these terms will enable us the better to as- certain at once either the fallacy or the force of the pre- ceding reasoning, let us proceed, though briefly, to consider a few of them ; together with some others, descriptive of that obedience which is due from the members of a church to their rulers ; and, with an examination of their import, conclude this letter. In reviewing, then,, the terms employed in scripture to denote the former, we see that it is compared to the power of a parent over his family ; for says Paul ( 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5), " a bishop," or overseer, '* must be one who rules *' well his own house, having his children in subjection with <' all gravity ; (for if a man know not how to rule his own " house, how shall he take care of the church of God ?") Now it is evidently here affirmed, that a power, correepond- iiig in some measure to that which is possessed by a parent, or master over his family, is vested in the rulers of the Chris- tian church, and that the latter must be exercised by them with judgment and prudence, if they are parents or masters, before they can be admitted to enjoy the former. But it is evident, that the power of a parent over his family is in the Btrictest sense authoritative, as well as persuasive ; that w hile he should employ persxiasion, he is invested also with au- thority, and can lawfully exercise it whenever it is requisite ; and that it is the duty of his children to be subject to his commiands, v/ithcut waiting til! their opinion be asked and adopted. Unless, then, the power which should be exer- ',ued 'rtlso by churcb-rukrs is authoritauve, as well as per- Letter II. S7 suasive, the reasoning of the Apostle, in the passage before us, would be totally inconclusive. It would be saying in effect, that before a man can be qualified for the exercise of a loxoer degree of power, a power of advice, he must have exercised aright a 7nuch higher degree of it, or a power of authority. As such a species of argumentation however is utterly unworthy of the inspired Apostle, we must certainly reject the interpretation which leads to it, and admit that the rulers of the Christian church, like the parent of a family and the master of a house, have a power not only of advice, but of authority. Their power is represented likewise as resembling that of an overseer, who does not merely preside and advise, but authoritatively directs what he wishes to be done by those over whom he is appointed; for in Acts xx. 28, all the elders of the church of Ephesus, and they alone, in the sense there intended, are affirmed to have been made over« seers of thj flock, tTrnricsTroi* . But if such an oversight as that which we have mentioned, in government as well as doctrine, be here asserted to be committed to the elders, and the ciders exclusively, it seems naturally to follow, that, like all oth_-r official overseers, they must have an authoritative supenntendence of those over whom they are placed, and t. supermtendence which entitles them to prescribe to church- membjrs particular acts of service and obedience, without previously consulting their opinion and advice. This idea is strongly confirmed, by reflecting that this very word is used in a celebrated Greek translation of the Old Testa:ncnt (Numb. xxxi. 14'y and 2 Kings xi. 15), to denote the au- thoritative superintendence of military officers, tlie captains of hundreds, and the captains of thousands, over their men ; a class of governors who were not accustomed merely to give adviccs to their soldiers, or to request their consent before they delivered their orders. Their power, besides, is described as similar to that of tli» elders who judged in the gates of the cities of Israel, fui they are frequently in the New Testament distinguished by * Compare I Tim iil ; from which passajfe it is manifest, tlul it is an oversictht, not as that of one Christian over another, bu: official and authoritative, and which is entirely peculiar to tlie r.-;. nisters of the church, that is here intended; for it is asserted in tliu place, that only those Christians who were already overseers in tl\t; former sense, and had tlie particular qualities there speciSed, were fitted for the ovirsirht tlnre mntior.'d, c 2 28 Letter II. their name. See I Tim. v. 17, &c. Now, since the name «ld?r when applied to the judges of ancient Israel, and since the corresponding terms, senators and aldermen in modern times, imiformly denote authoritative officers, must not the very same name when given to the rulers of the Christian church, import in them too, a title to authority* ? In short, not only are they distinguished by these names, but they are characterized by others, if possible, still more f^xpressive of this authority. Thrice are they described in the very same chapter (Heb. xiii. 7. 17. 24), by the title of -rulers, yiytf^ovi^, which, though the weakest of the appella- tions bestowed upon them, and though it originally denotes merely guides or conductors, signifies very Jrequently in the Septuagintj^ and the best classic authors, civil rulers, and almost uniformly in the New Testament, authoritative go- xiernors. It is applied by Peter (1 Epistle ii. 14), to su- Sordinate governors, to whom Christians are to submit, as well as to the king, who is supreme ; by Matthew (chap. :t. 18), to denote those n^owrwori and kings before whom they were to be brought for their adherence to the truth ; by the celebrated Greek translators, in their version of iMicah. iii. 9, to the political heads of the house of Jacob j in their version of Deut. i. 13, to the civil rulers, whom Moses appointed over the hundreds and thousands of the children of Israel ; and in their version of Dan. iii. 2, to the governors of the various provinces of Babylon under Nebu- chadnezzar ; by Xenophon, in his Anabasis, to the general or commander of the Grecian army ; by Lucian, in his Pseu- domantis, torn. i. p. 904, to the governor of Bithynia (i roTi yiyavfitvoi BiSvyiXi); by Josephus, in his Antiquities, book xviii. chap. iv. to Pontius Pilate, the governor of Jndea ; by Matthew, in his Gospel, chap, xxvii. no less than thrice, and by Luke, in his Gospel, chap. xx. once, to the Fame person; by the latter Evangelist (Acts vii. 10), to Joteph, when made governor by Pharaoh over Egypt, and dl his house ; and twice again, by the same historian (Acts * We kiiow also, that the rulers of the Jewish synagogue were commonly difting;uishe(! by tlie nsnie of ehUrs. FJence, in Acts :iciii. 15, and Mark v. 2 ', what is rendered in our version " tl;e ru- ♦' iers of the synanfogue," the old Syriac version translates by a ■word signifying f/ij'i'rj nr seniores. And hence, most probably, from. a s'mihirity of power between them anJ t];e rulers of the Christina church, the scripture has transferred to the iaitcr their name. Letter II. 29 Kxiii. 24-. 26), to Felix the governor. With the utmost propriety therefore does Beza, in his note upon the thirteer.tli chapter of the Hebrews, remark, that the appHcation of thi^s term to the governors of the church, not only imports tliat they are vested with authority, but " with voy great au- thority ;" for, ** it is," adds he, »' verbum auctoritatis tnaximEe," a word expressive of veri/ great authority. And, as if even this did not suffice, they are described by another title still Ptronger and more energetic, 'z-^oi'rx/^.iKSi ; which is rendered in our Bibles (Rom. xii. 8, and I Tim. v. 17), ** rulers," and in i Thess. v. 12, " those who are over Chris- *' tians in the Lord." This term, we are assured by Ste- phens, in his Thesaurus, is very frequently given to political governors ; and is the very word employed in 1 Tim. iii. 'J, 5, already quoted, to signify the authority of a parent over his family, or of a master over his house ; and in Titus iii. 8. 14, (compare Constantinus's and Parkhurst's Lexicons), to express the command which a Christian should endeavour to attain over himself, so as to excel in good works*. And this very term, as will afterwards be proved, is very often used by Plato, and Xenophon, and Thucydides, and Hero- dotus, and Demosthenes, and AristoJe, for tlie magistrates of cities, 2in^ governors of countries. Since therefore these terms, which are so frequently employed in the best classic authors, and ancient versions and sacred oracles, to signify subordinate rulers and gcvernors, are applied to the elders of the christian ch< rch, and since obedience is required from the people to their elders at the very time when they are dis- tinguished by these names, is it not plain that they must be possessed of a power not merely to advise and. direct, but authoritatively to govern the church of Christ, whatever may- be the degree and extent of that authority ? And if it be af- firmed, that notwithstanding the application of these names to them, they are still to be viewed only as guides and ad- visrrs, upon the same principle may it not be asserted, that though they are given also to Joseph, Felix, ai>?■ fiiya 'TfeuiTiuy Apytiav x^nTuiy Ttxt it vniiirai A^xisi ; " Who rules SU- '' preme over all the Greeks, and whom the Greeks aiey," — not comply with in his advice. And in line 33d, mentioning the obe-^ tlience of Ciiryses to the command of this prince, accompanied nvith the most terrible denunciations of punishment, he says, 'ilj t and if this very term be employed to express the submissio» * And yet this very word denotes even the crfjedience, in the passage referred to, which was to be given to deacons in the eiecu- tion oi their office, as well as the obedience which was to be yield- ed also to every higher office-bearer in hi* function, ," who hdped- ^' with Paul, and laboured." 32 Letter I'L %vliich is due nom the members of the church to those who ai-e their rulers, is it not obvious that the latter are entitled, not merely to advise, but authoriiatively to govern the church of Christ ? And if it be alleged, that, though this term is employed in scripture to express the obedience of Christi- ans to then- rul rs, it cannot be proved from it that they are to be subject to them, considered as invested with authority, any farther than they are disposed to adopt their advice ; upon the same principle it ought to be evinced, that as the same term is used to denote the submission of children to their pa- rents, and servants to rheir masters, and subjects to their ci- vil governors, the latter are not entitled to claim from the former in any instance, subjection to their authority, but simply acqui':;scence in their counsels. But if such a mean- ing would be considered as inadmissible, because totally sub- versive of the duties which are due in civil life to parents, and masters, and magistrates, must it not be equally inad- missible in the present instance, because no less subversive, not merely of that acquiescence in their advice, but of that sicbjeclion to their authority, which seems naturally to be suggested from it, as due from the pecple to their ecclesias- tical rulers ? If the rulers of the church, then, are not entitled to au- thority, it would appear that the language if the sacred oracles, though dictated by inspiration, in this particular at least, must be considered as incorrect, it hcts employed not merely one term, but a number of terms, which, i their natural, and unforced, and most frequent acceptation, plain- ly assign to ecclesiastical rulers an aut'ioritative powef, while at the same time it is certain that such a power was never in- tended to be intrusted with them. Instead therefore of be- ing fitted to make Christians perfect, and furnishing thqm thoroughly for every good work, has it nc-i. tended rather to bewilder and mislead the church, and led it to flatter that desire of authority which is so natural to man, by granting to her rulers, in every age, a degree of power which th:y ought never to have enjoyed ? From this charge, moreovt;^, it seems totally impossible to viiidicate the scripture, unless it be supposed that the terms which it uses upon this inte- resting subject are just and accurate, are to be understood in their obvious and common signification, and are intended to suggest that ecclesiastical rukrs are to govern the churcli Letter II. 39 ii(St merely by advice and persuasion, but by the exercise of authority. The sum then of what has been said in the preceding re- marks is briefly this — That the rulers of the church in every age, according to Presbyterians, are invested not only with a power of advice, but of authority — That this power, how- ever, is only ministerial and subordinate, not supreme and legislative — That this power, though decried and condemned by Independents, is the same with what is claimed by the majority of each of their different congregations over the mi- nority — That it affords to all who are under its controul, every mean of information that is necessary to produce an enlightened and voluntary obedience — That forbearance can be granted in inferior matters, even where it is exercised, no less than among Independents, to all who cannot fully comply with its cemmands — And that in more important points where they cannot acquiesce, liberty is granted them to retire from that connection, no less than among them — That the exercise of this power is absolutely essential to the existence of society — that to admit the people to judge and vote before a decision is made, is only to transfer it to them from the rulers — that such a transference constitutes those the gover- nors of the church who are bound to obey — That the names bestowed in the sacred oracles upon ecclesiastical rulers, and the terms employed in them to describe the nature of the obedience of members, are directly contradictory to such a plan — And, in short, that the only thing which preserves order, and discipline, and governineut, even in the congrrga^ iions of Independ'tits, is their practically renouncing their favourite idea of administering only by advice and persuasion, and acting upon the Presbyterian principle of authority. To this it may be farther added, that if this form of govern- ment, which vests in the rulers the authority for wiuch we contend, appears to be incompatible with religious libtrty, because every member is not permitted to vote, and adopt or reject the decisions of the rulers, upon the same principle it may be demonstrated, that it is no less inconsistent with civil liberty, to commit to tiie rulers the government of the state ,- and that before any decision be made by the magistrates of a city, or county, or kingdom, the people should be con- vened and their votes collected. But as such a principle would be considered as preposterous in civil polity, must it 34- Letter I. not be equally so in ecclesiastical government * ? and conse" quently, must not that view of the independence of the ru- * How astoiiishiirg then, if sucli only be the authority for whicli Presbyterians contend, chat it should be the ground of such viru- lent reprehension to I'ldependents ! One of them, before quoted, (see Watt's Plain Proof, p. 176), exclaims witli much keenness ao;ainst their office-bearers, for claiming a power " only jninhtsrlaUy " to determine controversies of faith, and cases of ccuscience." " Here," says he, " they determine not only liow a man is to act, '• and how he is to be treated outwatdly; but, as it were, interpose " between man and his Maker, and dictate what he is to beheve." But will this writer prove, or will any Independent jprove, tliat Fre-bvterian rulers assume a higher power, in the decision of these points, over their members, than is assumed by the majority of an Independent church over the minority ? Or can they demonstrate, tliat i!ie former in»erpose more between Clirislians and thtir Maker iii their communion, or dictate more to tliem what they are to be- lieve, than IS necessarily done, (though they seem to disclaim it) by tiie majority to the minority in each of their churches ? " It is S4id," adds this writer, (p. 177), " that tlie decrees of " their ofnce-bearers, // consonant to the -word of God, are to be re- " ceived with submission." Westmin, Confes. cliap. xxxi. sect, iii. " This," say< lie, " seems, at first view, to remove the exreption- *' ableness of this power ; but wlien the matter is viewed more " closely, the case alters. Whether are the courts themselves to " decide, whether thoir decrees are consonant to the word of "God; or, are those who are to receive these decrees, to judge " of this every one for himself? The latter supposition, in a grejt •* measure, destroys the idea of authority and submission. We •' are to submit to decrees as far as we think them right, /. e. as " far as we please. J'liis seems not to be submission. This ab- " surdity is avoi led ; the courts themselves judce whether their *' decisions are or are not right They generally affirm the de- " crees, a. id bind the ciiurch-membsrs to the former decrees; and ** also to their sentence, that those decrees are consonant to the *' word of God And thus tiiey bind them under sanction of ei- *' communicatioTi." To this, however, it is replied, by demanding whether the ma- fority in an Tndi^pendent Congregation, when they pass a decree, do not claim also an exclusive power of judging as to its consonancjr to the word of God, ,is much as th - inters of any Presbyterian court? Do they not aii.iounce to all who are to remain in their communion, that they must receive that decree as the mind of God, ns really as Presbyterians do to the members of their churches ? And (i) they not tell all who ahply'tc ih:m for membership, that they must a hiiit such decrees as a just representation of the mind of God, upon the points to which tliey relate, as mucii as the rulers of Presbyterian churches? !f '.he latter then, when they exercise this power over the membe;";, are reprobated because they assuine \"\.'iX is deaominated by Independents an uodue authority, mast Letter II. 3.> 'lers on the votes of the members, to procure efiiciency to 'their measure?, which is held by independents, be altogether rejected as subversive of the administration of the chxirch of Christ > not the same objections present themselves against the former, who assume M povptr no less high and commanding? " Do not " they also ihemsel-vcs" as well as the rulers in a Fresbyteiian court, " judge whi-ilier tiieir decrees are <.r are not right ? Do " not they' as generally " affirm their decrees, and bind t!i ■• mi- " nority and every new applicant, as well as the church ai large, *' to receive tht-se decrees; and also to their sentence, that these decries " ^»; consonant to the -u-ord of God? And do not they thus bii'd thenj " under sanction of excommunication?" And, in short, bccau'^e Piesbyterians invite their members to compare their decrees with the word of God, that when they receive tJie-e decree*, they may yield to them not a blind but an enlightened obedience, does ;his " desrroy at once submission and auti.r)rity ?" If so, ^inte, even by the confssii n of Indrp,;nd,rfs, this is all that i> cl-imcd by Presbyte- rians, as far at least as their si/steni is concerned, there is no more tyrannical authority or impr.'fer subjection, noi withstamling all their assertions, among the one th.ui among the other. It ser-ir.s strange, besides, that the pfrnnssion which is granted by Presby- terians to their members, to examine these decrees, and satisfy them-.elves as to their propriety r impropriety, should \e con- sidered by Independents as compl ■ 'v nuli''ying ih;> authoriiy of tl'.e rulers and the subuiitsion of the peop!?. While no on. is compelled to admit ihcse decrees bci'ore exa -^inntion and convic- tion, is not every one told, :>s in an Indepenuent church, th t if, upon inquiry, he will not obey these decrees, he cannot enjoy the privilege of membership? And where this is announced, how- ever extensive the liberty of inquiry which is permi;ted by Pres- byterian rulers to their member?, and though they do not force them to admit their decrees, or remaiu in their cominunicni, any more than is Jone by the mr'jority to the minority in Independent congregation';, will it follow irom this, that the autl ority of the one, and the subraisoion of lae other, are destroyed by such pr;- vilefres ? C 35 ] LETTER III. Sir, In the preceding Letter I have attempted to shew, that an authoritative power is not only exercised in general by the rulers of the church in every party, but is their just preroga- tive from the united evidence of reason and scripture. It follows naturally, under our second division, to examine who are the persons that are to be invested with this power in a particular congregation, whether the members in general, as some Independents explicitly, and all other Independents in- directly affirm, or only a few, denominated elders, to whom, according to the Presbyterian scheme, the exercise of go- vernment is exclusively committed ? Here, indeed, it is but justice to remark, that there is a certain pre-eminence, in point of power, which is granted by Independents to their elders or pastors. It is their province, they allow, to sit as presidents in the meetings of their chur- ches, and preserve order ; to prepare the business which is to be the subject of discussion for being laid before the members, and state the decision which appears to them most consonant to the mind of God ; and after the members have finally determined, to announce that determination, and to re- quire submission to it from the various persons connected with their societies. If a case, moreover, occurs, where the number of voters on each side of a question happens to be equal, they submit the point to the vote of their elder who presides at the time. In all other respects, however, their power is the same with that of even the lowest members of fhe church *. * Some Independents, indeed, have asserted with Glass, that as the elders are furnished with superior gifts for representing the authority of Christ in his word, and with more spiritual wisdom to apply it to the conscience, they are entitled to superior power in the church. But is it not evident, that if their power results from t/teir gifts and not from their o^ce, and is to be proportioned to the degree of them which thev ^re supposed to possess, every memhir v/ho is believed to have equal qualifications, must be entitled iilso to an equality of power ; and every member, who is imagined to have superior wisdom, and whose labours as a pastor are not needed by the church, trust have a right, even to an influence, superior to that of her elders and r.cminal rulers in all their determi- nations ? Besides, whatever may be the gifts and endowments of the elders, as their propo»als are subjected to the opinion and vote Letter III. S7 But to admit the members, in general, of a church to an equahty of power with those who are nominally invested with the rule, appears to be improper for the following rea- sons. In the first place, Most of the members of a church are commonly unqualified for the exercise of ^,uch power ; and to suppose that Jesus, the Kmg of Zion, has warranted those whom he has not qualified to exercise this authority is worse than contradictory. But that the greater part of the members of a church are not so qualified, Mr. Ewing, as was remarked, has already acknowledged in the most de- cided terms. He grants that such is the state of the peo- ple, that a few of the most active spirit and readiest elocu- tion will usuUy be able to sway a congregation ; and that such is the collected ignorance of the brethren, and such their collected infirmities and corruption, that it would be ex- tremely dangerous to the cause of truth, and of Christian li- herty, to make every thing that ought to be done, even though trivial and obvious, wait for discussion in full assem- bly. And this representation unquestionably accords with fact. How many are there, in every congregation, who, though .undoubtedly attached to the cause of Christ, and though so far acquainted with the doctrines of his gospel as seems necessary to salvation, are persons of very feeble powers and vciy limited information ! Are there not many among them, who, in the language of scripture, are tJoenJc, as well as others who are strong ; many who are but babes and children in Christ, as well as others who are fathers f Nay, it will perhaps be found upon a candid survey, that the viajoritu of those who are received as members, even in the best recru- lated ch\irches, though they understand so nuch of the doc- trines of the gospel as entities them, if attended by a corres- j pondent practice, to the privilege of communion, are, in some measure at least, of this description. The originat faculties of many of tliem are weak ; the degree of culture which they have received in vouth is comparatively scanty : from the attention which is requisite to their secular em- ployments, they can find but little time in their future hfe of the members _at large, before tbcy can he considered as deci- ions binding upon the church, all lliat superiority of power ^vhich, in profession aud title, tliey attribute to the elders, must be completely aamhilated. ■ SS Letter III. for intellectual improvement ; and even that little, if tliey are men of piety, is almost entirely devoted to the instruction of their families, or the acquisition of such knowledge as is subservient merely to their personal religion. Whatever, in short, may be the attainments of others, are there not many among them, whom, though you could not exclude from the table of the Lord on account of any defect in their piety, you would not intrust with a very inferior ■share in the management even of your temporal affairs ? Are there not many to be found among them, to whom, though men of the most amiable characters, you could not commit even tlie lowest offices in the government of the state, or the guardianship simply of your external interests, where no ex- traordinary knowledge or wisdom was required ? Can you suppose then for a moment, that the King of Zion has con- stituted such persons the governors of his church ? Can you believe that he has appointed every such member, however weak, who has a right, from the evidences of his saving know- lege, and child-like holiness, to the sacrament of the supper, to be a judge also in the most important and difficult matters which regard the dearest interests of his people ? Nay, is it possible to admit, as must evidently be the case upon the Independents' schem.e, that though the viajoriti/ of the mcm- ocrs of a particular congregation be of this description, he has committed to them the power of judging respecting (.very matter the most dubious and momentous that concerns the most valuable rights of their brethren ; and that this plan is miore conducive to the promotion of truth, and the admi- nistration of equal and impartial justice, than that which vests this power in a few of the wisest and most enlightened of the members, together with the teachers ? It is of importance still farther to be remarked, that t^trongly as this diffi.culty appears to militate against the scheme of Independency in the present age, it must' be much more formidable, if we attend to the clnirch at a moro early period, or in a less favourable situation. If even in our own country, where the means of information h"ve so long and so plentifully been enjoyed by all, very few are qualified to be ecclesiastical rulers, must not the number of these in the primitive ages, wher. thev had just emerged from the super- stition of ,'udaism. cr the ojrkness of Heathenism, and were in some measure shackled by their former prejiulicps- — when the opportunities also of 'gtneral knowledge were much less LEtTER III. S9 abundant, and when the cop'les of the scriptures, from their ignorance of printing, were both less numerous, and few but the pastors of the church could read them — must not the number, I say, of those who were qualified to be ecclesi- astical rulers at that period have been greatly more limited ? And if even among ourselves, so few are fitted for this ar- duous work, should the gospel be propagated in Pagan coun- tries, as among the CafFres, or inhabitants of Ovvhyhce or Otaheite, would not the individuals who would be found, in their different congregations, capable of judging upon eveiy point of doctrine or government, however difficult, be much less numerous ? Every Caffre or Hottentot however, upon the Independent scheme, who seemed to have as much know- ledge as is necessary for salvation, and was enabled to exhi- bit a corresponding practice, w^ould be recognized in effect as a ruler of the church ; and to the judgment and vote of an assembly of such men, would every proposal of their el- ders, however superior in knowledge, necessarily be subject- ed, before they could be adopted and acted upon in their congregations*. 2dly, It seems clearly to be taught in scripture, that the power of ruling, whether by persuasion and advice, or by ministerial authority, is committed to some only, and not to all the members of tfie church indiscriminately. " Salute ** all them that have the rule over you," says Paul to the Hebrews, (Heb. xiii. 24), " and all the saints." Now, as we have already proved that the word which is here trans- slated rulers, most probably signifies, not merely presidents or governors by advice and persuasion, but aut/iorit tive rulers, is it not a natural cOiisequence fiom the phraseology * How would Messrs. Ewing or Little relish the submission of all their measures to the cugnizsnce ot su:k a court ? Or, if pastors o'" congreofaiions, like those mentioned by Paul, Heb. v. 12, (and it ihert; w^re sucli congregations then, there may be in-iny fimilar to them now), who, while they might have been teacher.s, needed to be taught again what \v?re t!ie first princiijles of the oracles of God ; if pastors, I say, of such congregations, would they be will- in-^ that every point, however diffu-ult and /CT/o?/,z/;i,. should be .sub- jtcted to thfir judgment, and determined by thtir loi: ? In prcs- byrpry, however, though there was not one of a congregation fit- ter to be an elder, to assist the pastor in the government of ciie church, this want could be supplied, by having recourse to the miiiisieis of other churches met as a ctassica! court of review, au expedient which is u'.terly impracticable to ludcpendents. 40 Letter Hi. in tliis passage, that as the saints are here distinguished from their rulers, every Christian member is not entitled to be ■uich a ruler ? Or, if it mean simply, as Independents alledge, persons who are to govern by advice and persuasion, is it not equally plain from it, that every saint is not to be such a go- vernor* ? " God," says the same Apostle (1 Cor. xii. 28), '■'• halh set some in the church, first, apostles ; secondarily, " prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles ; then ■' gifts of heahng, \\ii\-oi,, govcr)inicnts." — Here it is neces- ;Vi-y to remark, that in the whole of this context, from the 'ith verse, the Apostle is speaking of the church of Christ i.iider the emblem of his body, and affirms that in it there is a variety of offices adapted to the comfort and convenience of the whole, as in the natural body there is a variety of members, each of which is necessarA^ to its happiness, and all of which are essential to its beauty. This variety of members, in the natural body, he asserts to be a proof of the Creator's wisdom, and contends that it is not only bene- ficial to the interests of the whole, but that such is the de- pendence of one member upon another, that none of them has a right to look down with contempt upon the less ho- nourable members. " For the body is not one member," says he (ver. 14), " but many. If the foot shall say, Be- " cause I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it " therefore not of the body ? And if the ear shall say, " Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, is it ** therefore not of the body ? If the whole body were an " eye, where were the hearinjr ? if the whole were hearing, <* Where were the smelling? But now hath God set the « members in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if *• they were all one member, where were the body ? But * Glas?, and other Ir.depeiKlents, translate t'ne word y,yi/ic:i{, ■whic!-- is rendered in our Bibles, rulers, guides. This, however, as w;is 1-refore evinced, is coniiary to its usual acceptation in the New Testament, wliere it rrenerally sig;nifics ruiers or jrovernors. Besides, iiow couid this term, upon t!ie principles of Independents, if it Ficii'fies merely guides who had a right only to advise, he ap- plied exclusively to the ciders of the ciiurch ? As the vumhers in- disciiminately, according to them, have a right to advise as well as the elders, nay, as the opinion of the former may he adopted cccasion.dly by tiie congrcgati m, wliils that of the l.itter is reject- ed and set aside, have not tlie mciabers frequently an equal, if nor a superior title to this namCj of being guiaci to (heir ministers cr cid'.S's ? Letter III. 'ii <« now are they many members, yet but one body. And ** the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee j *' nor, again, tlie head to tlie feet, I have no need of you, *' S^c." After which he informs us (ver. 27), that belitx- ers are the body of Christ ; and observes, that in this body (ver. 28), God hath set a variety, of offices for its edification, as striking, and distinct, and necessary, as the different members of the natural body. These offices he enumerates, and mentions among them, first, " apostles ;" secondanlvy *' prophets;" thirdly, " teachers;" then " miracles," i. e, as is plain from ver. 29, workers of miracles ; then " gifvfi *< of healing," i. e. as is evident from the 50th verse, per- sons who have the gifts of healing ; then " helps," i. c. persons who are helps ; and then " governments," i. e. per- sons who are governors. Now, as he himself remarks, in stating this comparison (ver. 17, IS), that every member of the natural body is not an eye, nur an ear, nor endowed by its Creator with the sense of smelling, is it not equally incontestable, that when he also tells us, that in the church of Christ, which is his body, there is a diversity ol offices no less striking, and that God hath set in it only some go- vernments er governors, every member of that church can- not be entitled to the privilege of being a governor, whether this governor is to rule, as Independents say, by advice and persuasion, or, as Presbyterians contend, by the exercise of authoritative though subordinate power ? On the Vy hole, is it not manifest, that if tlie Apostle denies in the 29th verse, that all were to be apostles, because he had said in th= 28tli Terse, that only some were to be apostles ; and that all v.ere to be prophets, because God hath set in the church only some to be prophets ; and that ell were to be teachers, be- cause he had said before, that only some were to be teaciiers -, is it not also manifest upon the very Siame principle, that as he had said before too, that God had set in the church only some governments or governors, all who are members of Christ's spiritual body are not to be admitted to ha governors in his church, whatever may be the nature and degree of that power v/hich these governors should exercise ? Is it affirmed, in answer to this, according to the ideas of some Independents, that the Apostle, when speakuig here of governments, intends not an ojfice, but simply a gift or qualification for government, and liiat no argument of course, for excluding the members of the church in genenii from. d3 'i.i~ Letter III. being ecclesiastical rulers, can be deduced from its beii.g said, that " God hath set in the church only some govern - " meats ?" ^Ve reply, that tlve argument against this first principle of Independency seems equally conclusive, whether the Apostle is speaking of an office, or of a gift ; for, if he intends not an office, but merely a gift, will it not equal- ly fvvllow upon their mode of reasoning, that since those r^lone are to rule in the church on whom God has bestovred quahfications or gifts for government, and since, by their own confession, it is here declared that he has bestowed these gifts only upon some, all cannot be entitled to be rulers in hiS church ? Besides, that the Apostle is here speaking of an office, and not simply of endowments, appears, among ether things, from the original word here trasslated " set" c.r " constituted" in the church, which always, in such a connection as this, when the case admits it, denotes the ap- pointment of persons to an office. It is so understood in this very passage, when it is said, that God hath set in the chui4:h, some apostles, and some prophets, and som.e teach- ers ; and since by governments, as was befoj'c attempted to be proved, is here intended governors, there appears to be no reason for understanding it in a diffi:rent sense when ap- plied to tJierii. It is the same word too which is used (Acts "X. 28), to express the appointment of the Ephesian elders, and not merely xIkit gifts, to the official oversight of that Christian church : " 'i'ake heed therefore unto yourselves, " and to all the flock, over the wliich the Holy Ghost hatli «< made" (s.^stu), or net, or appointed *' you overseers :" and is the very word which is employed, (2 Tim. i. 11), to dc- jiote the appointment of the Apostle Paul to his office : — t« Whereunto I am appointed [inhv) a preacher, and an «' apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." Is it contended, moreover*, that even allowing that an office is here intended by governments, it is deacons v/ho are referred to ? To this it is ansvvered, that the Apostle seems already to have, men- tioned these under the name of helps ; and that, at any rate, it is not the province of deasons, as s'.uji, to govern, but merely to serve tables, a meaning undoubtedly too limited and inadequate for the strong word which is here used by the Apostle to signify govenmients. Or is it allegedf , that » See Chandler on Joel, p. 150. ,i See Dr. Watt on tlie Christian Churcb, p. TS, Lktti^ii III. ■ 43 ' admitting the word to signify properly ecclesiastical rulers, what is here intended by it may have now ceased, as well as workers of miracles, persons endowed with the gift of heal- ing and of tongues, and apostles ar^d prophets, who are men- tioned along with them ? To this it is answered, that even upon the principles of Independents themselves, v/hile mira- cles have ceased, and tongues and prophecies have failed, government will for ever continue in the church : and that if we are to infer, from its being here joined v.'ith the gifts of miracles and tongues, that it must now be laid aside, we contend that it m.ust be laid aside by Independents as well as by Presbyterians ; and upon the same principle it may bs proved, that since teockrrs also are here mentioned along with them, the office of a teacher theuld no longer be con- tinued in the church of Christ. Upon a review then of the Apostle's reasoning in tlie whole of this passage, I feel disposed to conclude that a!l are no more no'.v entitled to be rulers, than they were entitled formerly to be apostles or prophets, or pastors and teachers ; and that, in Christ's spiritual body, all are no m-ore authoriz- ed to be govcrr.ors, as they are obviously warranted upon the Ip-dependent plan, than, in the natural body, each of the members is to be an eye, or an ear, or a sense of smelling. This reasoning, I apprehend, is no less conclusive against adm.itting theui to rale, even upon t/ic scheme of Tndepen- - debits, by advice and persuasion, than, upon the scheme of Presbyterians, by the exercise of limited jeubordinate au- thority. In the 3d place, The terms employed in scripture to ex- press the various characters and relations of members and their elders seem also to intimate that every Christian is not warranted to claim an equal share of ecclesiastical govern- ment. While the rulers, as has been observed, are distin- guished in the New Testament by the strongest titles ex- pressive of the office and authority of governors, the mem- bers, as has been said, are pointed out at the same time as governed by them, and are enjoined to obey them. But if every Chi'istian among those who are governed (the point of presiding as moderator in their assemblies, and announcing the decision, alone excepted) be as much a governor as the governors themselves, how can the distinction which we have mentioned be preserved ? Must not all be governors, and ■:.// \iQ governed ? and must not the kingdom of Jesus be dis» 4i Letter III. tinguislicd by a circumstance not oiily peculiar to itself, but which would be considered as impolitic and contradictory in every wise and well-regulated human government ; name- ly, that all its subjects should not only be subjects, but rulersy and as much, or rather m^n'C entitled, on account of their number, to the character of rulers than the governors them- selves ? While the former, too, are affirmed, (Acts xx. ii8], to be authoritative overseers of the church, as the captains of hundreds and thousands were of their men *, and as the rulers of cities were of the inhabitants of these cities f, the members of the church are said to be officially overseen by them in government as well as in doctrine. But if every member, as Independents assert, be not only as much an overseer of the church at large as the overseers themselves, but, as was before evinced, from, their superior number, possessed of a far greater share of the oversight — nay, if, as was also no- ticed, they can completely overturn the proposals of the overseers, and dictate to them what tJieij are to receive and obey, is not the distinction Avhich we have stated complete- ly destroyed ? and are not all not only oversens as well a$ overseen, but are not the very men who are appointed to be overseen, more uoriht/ of being dignified by this honour- able name, than the men who are officiality characterized by it ? Wliile the former are described as the Jloclc, the latter are represented in scripture as the pusiors, a name often be- stowed upon authoritative civil rulers and officers J, and are enjoined to perform the part of pastors to the church of God ; i. e. not only to feed them with wholesome doctrine, but also to govern them as a shepherd does his flock §. — " See tiie passages produced, Letter II, where this very word is applied to them. •)■ See 1 Maccab. chap, i, vvlicre tins same term is bo used; Kkj tcror/je-iv iTtirxecrav; tvTi rraira, rot Xaof, " And made them overseers of " tiic Vi'htjle people." \ See Isaiah xliv. 28, where it is given to Cyrus, king of Persia ; 2 Sam. V. 2, where it is bestovi/ed upon David, because, as a mili- tary ofHcer under Saul, he had led out and brought in Israel ; and to tiie jud ever, of all the -members of a cliurch giving to all the members, if they ruled well, double honour, is evidently absurd. And to 48 Letter III. consider tlie Apostle as requiring honour from the members of the church to the elders, when, by this scheme, they have an equal, if not a superior share of ecclesiastic power to these very elders, seems a palpable contradiction. Honovr can be rendered only by an inferior to a superior, and double lionoiir can be given only by one who is very inferior to one •who is greatly superior. But in an Independent congrega- tion, which admits every member to an equal share in the government, no such inferiority can exist. Or, if the word here translated honour^ signifies not only honour, but main- tenance, as Guyse and other Independents have maintained ; and if it be asserted from this passage, that the elders who rule well, are entitled, if they need it, to double maintenance ; it will also follow, that if every member is to be an ecclesi- astical ruler, lie v/ould be entitled also, if he ruled well, to double maintenance. This, however, is no less absurd ; '| for where could the chiuxh be found, whose funds could ad- I mit of such an expenditure ? In fine. Christians are com.- | manded, as was remarked, to obey their rulers, (Heb. xiii. \ 17) ; i- (!• not merely to be subject to them as one Chris- \ tian is to another, but to Vender an obedience such as infe- | riors do to superiors. But if, according to the principles of independency, every member is to have an equal voice in- every determination with those who are elders, and if he is in reali- ty a ruler, whatever he may be in name, as well as they ; who are the persons that are to perform this command ? If those only who are distinct from the rulers can obey them, then, according to your plan, none can comply wita this apostolic injunction, because all are rulers ; and conse- quently we are reduced to this absurd supposition, that the Apostle commands the rulers to obey tliemiSelves. Thi: manifest absurdity is equally supposed, whatever be the kind 'of obedience that is enioincd, whether it be comphance with persuasion, or submission to authority. . As it therefore ap- pears impossible to explain these exhortations consistently, if every member has in reality, though perhaps not in name, an equal title with elders to rule the church, the principle which such contradictions suppose, must be rejected ; and, by consequence, it must still be affirmed that every indivi- dual Christian has not a right to be a ruler in the church of •God. [ 49 J LETTER IV. OIK, In .addition to the arguments which have already been urg- spd in refutation of your scheme, there are others, from \viMch its contrariety to the sacred oracles is no less apparent. I tubcefore observe in the 5th place, That the keys, which are the emblem of sub- ordinate authority in the kingdom of Jesus, are represented in scripture as delivered by him to the ministers, and not to the members. With regard to the import of the celebrated passage in Matth. xvi, where Jesus is said to have bestowed upon Peter these keys of his kingdom, much diversity of sentiment has obtained. Papists contend that it includes a grant of uni- versal supremacy over the church on earth to Peter, as the representative of the Saviour, which grant they suppose to be transferred to their popes, who, according to them, arc the successors of this Apostle. But even though they could prove that their popes were the legitimate successors of Peter (in proving which they have as yet uniformly failed), this passage contains no such grant to them ; for, in other places, ; the rest of the Apostles are pointed out as invested with an equality of power, and as even withstanding him to the face on a particular occasion, because he was to be blamed. Epis- copalians alledgethat he represented their bishops, to whom, upon thgr scheme, the government of the church is chieflv committed. But it is plain that no such bishops as theirs are authorized by scripture, which points out to us a plura- liiij of bishops or overseers in many primitive chyrches (see Philip, i. 1. Acts XX. 17. 28, ^x. ) ; and inform.s us at the &ame time, that by these we are to understand elders or mi- nisters, who preached and ruled (see also for this, Acts xx. i Pet. v. 1, 2, 3, i^'C. ) Independents assert, that here Peter represents believers in general, to whom, according to them, the government of the church of Jesus is intrusted. The reasons on which they build this interpretation are these : That the gift of the keys was conferred on Peter, upon his confessing Jesus to be the Son of God ; and, consequently, sliould be conferred on all who make this confession ; and the name Peter or Rock, which was given to this Apostle no Letter IV. ^ipon this occasion, belongs, they say, equally to all believers, who are, no less than he, spiritual stones, built upon the same holy and blessed foundation. It seems probable, how- t'ver, that the name PetLV, or the Rock, as bestowed upon this Apostle, is not the same with that which is elsewhere oriven to believers in general, when they are denominated otoncs, and living Stones* ; nor does it follow that because they possess, in common with him, one part of the honour which he is here declared to have received, they are entitled to the other also. The gift nfthc kci/s is undoubtedly very dllTerent from that of being a stone bicilt np hy God's Spirit tjH the irncjvundfition, and the enjoyment of the one can never necessarily imply the possession of the other. Besides, though it should be conceded, that the grant of the keys was jnade to Peter because he confessed Christ to be the Son of God, it cannot be inferred, on any consistent principle, that tver?/ one who confesses him is to receive that honour. Wc know tha.t this Apostle, on another memorable occasion (see John xxi.), when he not only professed his faith, but his love to the Saviour, was anew authorized by him to be a preacher and an Apostlef ; but there are few, I believe, who, from this circumstance, would conclude with a celebrated minister, *< that every man (however weak) who can lay his hand on '^' his heart, and say he loves Christ, has Christ's call and *< warrant to preach the .gospel." But if few would adduce this as a proof that all v>'ho are possessed of a simiku- affec- tion should have the office of a ininiiter^ on wliat principle can it be demonstrated, that, though. Peter was invested by Jesus with the ofEce of a rider on liis confessing his faith, all who are possessed of similar fniih should have a similar junction P Nor will the nature of the deed itself authoriz it ; for by confessing Jesus, and by being built up on him as < a living stone, a person becomes merely a member of his family, and a subject of his kingdom. But is it a legitimate inference, that because a person becomes a suhject of his kingdom, and a member of his house, he is advanced in con- sequence of it to the office of a stenard, to whose power, as expressed by the usual badge which he anciently wore (a golden key carried on his shoulder), there is an evident allu- t-ion in llie phraseology before us ? Were this the case, it * See Wliitby on t!ie place. ^ " Teed my siiccn ; feed mv lambs," Letter IV. 51 would be a natural consequence that even'' person who be- comes a believer, and a living stone, would be constituted also a steward in the house of God, to rule and govern it ; and in the family of Christ, all would be s!exoards, as well as qova'tied. But if all were steioards, where were those who should be governed by them ? Though, therefore, Peter, on this remarkable occasion, when a clearer discovery was to be made by Jesus of his character and kingdom than hitherto was done, received from him the assurance that he had com- mitted to him the keys of his kingdom, and advanced him to the honour of being a ruler in it, it will not follow that every C/irislia7i, who believes and confesses him on everi/oc- casion, is to receive that dignity. Does it follow that if a prince, at a particular time, to testify his approbation of thr views entertained of his character and government by one oi his subjects, advances him to special honour, everij one of hi i subjects who expresses similar views, at everij future period, and on every occasion, should attain a similar honour ? Nei- ther, therefore, of the arguments which have been urged, evince that Peter represented believers in general, when In* received at this time the keys of the kingdom ; and the ob- vious meaning of the expressions employed to denote thi-i trust, which plainly refer to the office of a steward, seem^ totally incompatible with this idea. It is indeed said (Mattii. xviii.), that "Whatsoever t'f? " church binds on earth," agreeably to the will of Jesus') *' shall be bound in heaven ; and that whatsoever they loos:; " on earth, shall be loosed in heaven ;" which is the samr- language that accompanies the gift of the keys to Peter, (chap, xvi.) : but, I trust, it will afterwards appear that we are not here to understand, by the term church, every parti- cular member. On the contrary, we knov/ that language alntost exactly similar is employed by our Saviour, to express the power which he gave to his ministers, and his ministers" alone in their official capacity, John xx. 21, 23. " Then *' said Jesus unto them agaia. Peace be unto you : as my *♦ Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Whose soever *' sins ye remit, they are vemitted unto them ; and whos^ *' soever sins ye retain, they are retained." To set asid^ this remark it is not sufficient to tell us with some Indepen- dents*, " that, perhaps, this forgiving of sin was equivalent * See Watt's Phin Proof, p. 171. ,5 J Letter IV. " to healing diseases^, as we know that the Apostles had tiie *' power of healing diseases conferred on them, and as our «' LiOrd declares it to be a proof of authority to forgive sin « on earth :" Matth. ix. 6. The power of healing diseases is never, as far as we recollect, represented in scripture as equivalent to that of forgiving iniquity ; and the Apostles, in exercising the former, are never said to have performed tlie latter. Nay, even in the passage referred to, when onr Saviour is asserted to have healed diseases^ this is by no means pointed out as the same v/ith \\\& Jhr giving sin, but simply as an attestation of the truth of what he said, wlien he de- clared that he was commissioned by his heavenly Father to remit sins on earth. But will it follow that because this was produced as an evidence of the truth of his declaration that he was commissioned to forgive sins, it was equivalent to the nctual dispensation of that forgiveness .^-Though the miracles of the conversion of water into wine, of the multiplication of the loaves, of the restoration of sight and hearing to theblind and deaf, and m.any similar v.'orks, when performed by our Lord, are adduced as evidences that he was, what he profess- ed, the only Saviour, will it follow that these miracles were equivalent to this salvation which he came to bestow ? It s^ems plains thi-.t the power of remitting and retaining sins, xiit;ntiont'd in JoVin, is the same v.'ith v^hat is expressed in Matth. xviii. 18. and xvi. 19, by binding an ofFerding, and loosing a penitent brother, agreeably to a common metaphor in scripture, by v/hich men, when, like Simon Magus, under the guilt and the power of sin, are represented as fixed in a bond ; and v;hen delivered from these, as loosed or set free*. Now, this binding or loosing certainly does rot mean the performance of a miracle for the cicre of the body of a peni- tent brother, or a refu&al to exert_that power upon one who is obstinate, or the injiiction of disease upon one who has transgressed ; for, in that case, it would follow from Matth. xviii. that the impenitent brother, whose case we are called to tell to the cluirch, must be oriC vvho is already diseased, or upon whom, if he obstinately persist in his sin, disease is to be inflicted, and then too, since this m.lraculous power has censed, the pov/er of jurisdiction, or of binding and loosing, I See also Prov. v. 22, " His own iniquities sh.nll take tlie wirk- " C'd himself, and he '.ball be holdcn wilh the cords of his sips," Letter IV. CO must have ceased along ivith it. But as none of these con- sequences can safely be admitted, it seems manifest that the I'emitting and retaining of sins mentioned in John, and the binding and loosing spoken of in Matthew, must denote the exercise only of an ordinary, and not of a miraculous power. And farther, as it appears to denote not an extraordinary but an ordinary power, consisting in that subordinate judicial authority to pardon or condemn, which those only who hav« the keys of the kingdom committed to them are authorized to exercise, it is equally evident, that it can be vested in the mmisters only, not in the private members of the church. It is never said to be intrusted to the latter, though it is ex- pressly affirmed (John xx.) to be given to the former; and n receiving this authority they are plainly pointed out under the character of stewards, which is altogether inconsistent with the supposition that the keys are committed to the mem- bers at large, or that they are associated with their pastors in administering the affairs of the church of Christ. To invahdate the argument for tlie right of the elders ex- clusively to govern in the Christian church, vv'hich is derived from this passage, many other criticisms have been advanced by Independents. Some have supposed that by the keys of the kingdom which were given to Peter, we are to under- stand only the key of knov.ledge, and the honour of first preaching the truths of the gospel to the Je^vs and Gentiles, In, support of this they inform us, that there is an evident allusion to the custom of the Jews, who delivered to their Rabbis a key, when invested with that dignity. This, how- ever, is very far from amounting to the binding and loosinp- the guilty on earth, as they were bound and loosed in heaven, whicli is here affirmed to be connected with these keVs, and whicli undoubtedly must be an exercise of government. And we know that when the steward of the house of David, whose kingdom was certainly a type of that of Christ, had a key de- livered to him, it implied his being intrusted, under the king, with the affairs of the kingdom. " It shall come to pass iij " that day," says Isaiah (chap. xxii> 20), " that I will eall- " my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah ; and 1 v,ill clothe " him withthy robe, and strengthen him Vvith thy girdle, *' and I will commit thy government into his hand, (tliat of " Shebna, who was over the house, ver. 15). And the " key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder ; *' he shall open^ and ngne shall shut j «nd he sliali shut, r.ni*' 5i Lettuu IV. *« ncr.e shall open." And we see likewise the same cmhJem when applied to o>.;r I>ord, (who tells r.s, that he sent his Apostles as his Father had sent hiai, and gave them of the glory which his Father had given him), employed to denote iiuthority. " And to the angel of the church in Pliiladel- <' phia," says John, (Ilev. iii. 7), " write, Thes.* things " saith he th.at is holy, he that is true, he that hath the hey *' of David, he that opcneth, and no man shutteth, and shul- *' teth, and no man openeth." Now, as in these other cir- cumstances, it incontestably includes the power of govern- ment, whatever other idea it may suggest ; and as in the passage before us, it is represented as exercised also in rela- tion to a hingdoin, and is connected with the other ey.pres- sive phrases before specified ; ought it not likewise to be so understood in the present instance ? A-Ccordingly, one of our most respectable English InTe- pendents, in his illustration of various passages of scripture from Oriental customs, gives the same interpretation of this allusion. " As stewards of a great family," says he, " es- *« pecially of the royal houscliold, bore a key, probably a >" o-olden one, in token of their ofilce, the phrase of giving a "< person the key, naturally grew into an expression of rais- ** ing him to great power, (compare Isaiah xxii. 22, with •■' Rev. iii. 7). This was with pccuhar propriety applic- «•' able to the stewards of the mysteries of God: 1 Cor. iv. J. *' Peter's opening the kingdom of heaven, as being the first <« that preached it both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, *« may be considered as an illustration of this promise ; but it « is m.orc fully explained, by the power of binding and " loosin"^ afterwards mentioned*." As to the distinction of the keys into those of knowledge, ofHberty, and of au- thority, by which other Independents endeavour to evade this argument, it is altogether fanciful, and not authorized ny the word of God. See the London Ministers' Divine ilio-ht of Presbytery, last edition, p. 98, 99. Seidell and Lightfoot, witji some moderns, understand by the bindino- and loosing, a power merely of declaring the doctrines and laws of the gospel, and not of punishing or absolving in a judicial capacity, (see M'Knight on the place) ; j .ind tell us, that these terms were used by the Rabbis, to ^•i^nify the laufuhtess or unkmfuhiess of things. Binding, * Burder's Oriental Customs. Mattli. xvi, 19. i^£rT£R IV. according to them, denoted that n thiny was bound up, or forbidden to men ; and loosing, that it was free, or permit- ted — and why not so here ? To this, however, it may be replied, that Independents themselves, in genci-al, do not allovv' to their members the power of binding and loosing in l/iis sense ; for it is not the privilege of the members, "as such, to preach the laws and doctrines of the gospel. We know, besides, that the phrases of binding and loosing were very commonly employed by the Jewish i)octors, to signify not only a doclri/ial declaration of what was lawful or un- lawful, but a Judicial punishing or absolving of the excom- municated*. The Greeks also had a similar expression re- lating to judicial authority. Thus Stephens quotes from jiEschines these words, Et^hoxv r-zj zriolri -^y.ipu f^n AY0H to ■/rii^x-io^Q'i ; i. e, " as the person accused was not acquitted," or, agreeably to the translation of the word in Matthew, " was not loosed by the first vote." So also, w-hen it is said of Jerusalem, (Isaiah xl. 2), that " her iniquity is " pardoned," (a case exactly in point to Matth. xviii. 18, vvhq!- .» the binding and loosing relate to an offence), the Sep- ;i'*:ai»gint renders the words AEAYTAI uvtm vi uf.cx^Tix, " her 'Iniquity is loosedf." The Latins, in like manner, employ- ed the same terms, to express acquittal or condemnation by judges in the civil courts, as will be evident to any one who consults the writings of Cicero, whose common phrase for ! acquittal is *' solvere crimine, to loose from a crime or ac- " cusation." In short, not only do the terms binding and loosing signify, in sacred and profane authors, judicially to punisli, and pardon, and acquit, but it seems evident that in this sense they ought to be understood in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew. There, as was remarked, it is an I offence that is said to be bound or loosed ; and lest the bro- ther who commits it should be disposed to disregard the church wheti they exert this power, it is declared that what is thus done on earth according to the will of the Saviour, * See Bustorf's Lexicon, Chald. Talmud. Rabbin, p. 1410. t Thus, likewise (Ecclesiasticus xxviii. 2), says the son of Si- : rach, who was a Jew, " Forgive thy neighbour the liurt that he " hath done thee, so shall thy sins be forgiven thee also when thou *' prayest ;" literally, "shall be losad to the," XuSwo^ra.!. And thus, too, the Septuagint, speaking of God's forgiving the sin of Job's friends, (Job xlii. 9), says, that he laossd their sin, EAvfc Tr,i 50 Letter IV. shall be done in heaven also. But this binding or loosing of an offence, surely, cannot so properly mean, the declaring" , it to be or not to be an offence, or denouncing the judg- ments annexed to it (though this may be included], as, agreeably to the comn.on acceptation of the phrase, the pronouncing the pardon, or the punishment — the acquittal, or the guilt of the offender. Besides, this binding or loos- ing cannot apply to the preaching of the gospel, or the de- claration of its laws ; for it is a sentence in which two or three at least must be agreed — which is to be employed only after a private remonstrance and admonition, before two or three Christian brethren, has been tried without effect ; and — which must be justified by the testimony of witnesses who have heard the offender vindicate his offence, before it is to be proiiounced by the church. Tt is difficult, however, to perceive on what principle it could be necessary to call ivltnesscs befose the gospel was pieached, or the laws of its kingdom were announced ; though this was absolutely essen- tial, if an act of judicial ponn r was to be exercised. To this pozvcr all the circumstances mentioned in the passage easily apply : we therefore conclude, that it sanctions the^ exercise of judicial authority. Nor let it be objected with M* Knight, that these expres- sions are not susceptible of this meaning, because it is not said, tv/iomsoeva; but tvliatsoex^er ye shall bind or loose ; for it has been already shewn, that they are applied in the Old Testament not only to persons but to things, where it is certain that punishing, or pardoning, was intended. Thusj wlien it is said of Jerusalem (Isaiah xlii. 2.), that her ini^ quitij was to be loosed — of Job's friends, (Job xlii. 9), that . their sins were loosed to them — and of those who forgive their neighbmirs, (Ecclos. xxviii. 2), that their sins should be loosed — things only are spoken of; and it is not merely, a declaration that they were lawful or unlawful, but a judi- cial release from the punishment of transgression. From thia induction it would therefore appear, that the binding and loosing mentioned, represent the exercise of au- thoritative judicial power ; and, of consequence, that as this power has already been proved to be committed, together with the keys of the kingdom, to the minister.":, and not to the members, the former, as distinguished from the latter, arc the only persons entitled to the excrc;se of this authority. [ 57 J LETTER V. As it appears that the various titles characterialic of ruler* sre given to the elders exclusively, so ike highest acts of go- \)ermnent and discipline seem to be represented in scripture as performed by them, and by them alone. This I shall now endeavour to prove, and then conclude this part of the discussion, Of the various acts which ought to be considered as of the greatest importance in ecclesiastical government, the first, unquestionably, which merits our attention, is that of the admission of members. It seems manifest from the sacred oracles, that this work is committed exclusively to the pastors of the church, and not to them merely as conjoined with the members. At the effusion on Pentecost, for instance, we are told, that in what )-emained of a single day, after a sermon from the Apostles, about three thousand souls were added to the church. But how was it possible that in so short a space the members at large could meet with the pastors, and hear them examined, a'.id express in order their approbation or disapprobation ot the confession and character of every individual in such a multitude ? When Philip went down to Samaria, and bap- tized many, both men and women, and when he baptii-ed and received the Ethiopian eunuch as a member of the church, as well as when Ananias baptized Paul, though in the city Damascus where there was a Christian church, it is plain Lhat this act was performed solely by ministers, v/ithout con- ening or consulting members. While, however, in these and 3ther instances, both where a church was forming, and, as n the example at Jerusalem, where it was already formed, :he power of admission is represented as committed to the Tiinisters alone, as far as we recollect there is not a single in- itance in the whole of the New Testament, where persons vere received into the fellowship of the church after the udgment of members had been asked and obtained. It is ndeed said, (Acts ix. 26), that " when Saul, after his con- •' version, came up to Jerusalem, and assayed to johi him- ' self to the disciples, they were all afraid of him, and be- lieved not that he was a disciple." But here there is no oS Letter V. intimation of any meeting of the members togellier witii tfie pastors, to consider the propriety of receiving him as a dis- ciple. All that is stated is simply this — that all of them, both Apostles and members, were afraid that he was not, as he professed, a disciple in reality, but intended to deceive them; and consequently, that as so general a fear of him was entertained by the church, he coidd not be received bi/ those whose prerogative it was to admit him. Accordingly, we are informed that when he was at last received, it was in con- sequence of his " being taken and introduced by Barnabas *' to the Jlpostles" and of their being satisfied with the ac- count of his conversion and sincerity which v>as delivered to them by that Christian minister, ver. 27. Is it objected, that though it may be proved from these examples that ministers may baptize without consulting the church, they cannot admit to any other ordinance, or com- municate to applicants the full privileges of members, with- out soliciting and obtaining their approbation ? I answer by demanding in the first place, whether w/^ Independents allow their pastors to receive adults to baptism without con- sulting their churches ? whether, in the next place, it can be proved from the word of God that adults, when baptis- ed, are not entitled to every otlier Christian privilege ? and whether the three thousand who were baptised at Pentecost are not declared to have been added to the Church as mem- bers, (Acts ii, 41 ), vvhile it is evident that there was not suf- ficient time for calling the members, and interrogating in their presence each of these converts, and requesting their judgment on the propriety of admitting them ? Is it con- tended, that this scheme is adverse to the principle of Chris- tian liberty, as it enaljles the pastors to impose whom they please on the communion of the church ? It is replied, that it is unjust to affirm that any pastor of a Presbyterian church j is warranted by Presbytery to exercise such a power. Cer- tain quahfications are required in the standards of his church: before any person can be received into fellowship, and till he obtains satisfactory evidence that those who apply to him have these quahfications, he cannot lawfully receive them *» • Since writing tlie above,! have looked into Pardovan, book ii. title iv. sect. iv. and find, tliat by t/a constltuiion of Presbyterian churches, no minister, though lie may examine, can admit any person to t!ie privilege of membership, till the wliole of his Ses- sion, as well as hipiself, are satisfied both as to his knowledge and piety. 1 Letter V. 59 If, through mistake, an improper person be occasionaily ad- mitted, the members are permitted to communicate what they know of the apphcant to the pastors ; and if, after re- monstrance, he be continued in comm.union, the lowest in- dividual in the congregation is allowed to call these pastors to an account, with the whole of their Session, before a su- perior court ; and if that court should decide amiss, to sum- mon even it, with these pastors and elders, to a still higher ribunal ; and even that to a higher, till the obnoxious mem- ber be at last excluded. Among Independents however, with all their boasted liberty and purity of principle, this is im- possible : for if an unworthy applicant be received as a mem- ber by a majority of any of their churches, there is no supe '■. rior 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 innnediate separation, or patient submission amidst ob- vious corruption. Nor will their separation terminate here; for if the same inconsistency shall be manifested by the nia- iority of the other congregation to whom they may attach thuDstlves, fiom their want of any court superior to that congregation, they must again separate and join a third, and so on, in a continued course of change and f.eparation, till, like some individuals of them, they be excluded from the fellowship of every church upon earth. In fine, if Inde- pendents object to the pruiciples of Presbyterians because ilieir members must confide, as to the character of an ap- plicant, in the word of the pastor, on what principle do they themselves trust, in the account which is given of him by any of their members when the majority are ignoia'nt of him ? May not the pastors and eld'TS obtain in private, all tVie information which is furnished to the majority by these members in public ; and if that majority are disposed to give credit to the latter in an Independent church, why should not the Cvingregation give credit to tlicir pastors in a Presbyterian ? Besides, if the members of a Presbyterian congregation are not allowed to state their sentiments and vote before an applicant is na'cived, it is because the scrip- tures seem to vest that power solely in the pastors. And it certainly appears more consistent with that tenderness and justice which are due to such applicants, that their quahfi- calious should be -exaznincd in vrivate by the JTiiaistei'S of 60 Letter V. the church, and that all necessary inquiries should be niadc concerning them by him and by the elders, than that every particuhr the most dehcate and important, respecting their character, should be laid open at large to the scrutiny and re- view of a ii'hoie congj-egalion ; or that they should wait till each of jthe members be personally satisfied respecting them. It would thus seem that the pastors alone, without solicit- ing the judgment of the members, are authorised by scrip- ture to perform this part of ecclesiastical government, and that this constitution is also better fitted than that of Inde- pendency to promote the ends of Christian edification *. Next to the power of admitting members to religious fel- lowship, and superior to it undoubtedly in point of magni- tude, is tliat of ordaining office-bearers to the exercise of their function. This power likewise appears- to belong ex- clusively to the pastors of the church, and neither solely nor conjointly to the Christian people. Many, indeed, of the modern Independents in England maintain, that ordination should not now be performed be- fore a person is appointed to the charge of the congregation ; that the imposition of hands was used only for the communi- cation of miraculous gifts ; and that the pastoral relation is formed simply by the invitation of the people. Some of them, who invite ministers to a settlement, expressly discard the idea of ordination, and say it is only a meeting for pray- er and exhortation. And Dr. Priestley, one of the most 7,ealous of modern Independents, to prevent the people from forming any other opinion of it, recommended that before this settlemient actually takes place, the young minister should dispense the sacramients to the church. To affirm, however, that ordination is now unnecessar}*, and that an invitation from the people is all that is requisite • It rr.ij;ht also liave been added, tliat were it judged expedient, even upon the Presbyterian system, when any person applies for tiie privilege of membership, it could be announced to the congre- pation, and any member who could substantiate any objections to ];is admsssion, as in the case of election to the office of e'deis, be invited to state them to the minister or session, -And it is known to be consistent with our Presbyterian constitution, that tlie first time a person receives a token for admission to the supper, it may be delivered to liim in tlie presence of the whole congrega- tion, so that being solemnly pointed cut to those of the members at large, who choose to atiend, as a fellow-member, they may re* cognize him in that light, and treat him as such. Letter V. 61. to form a pastoral relation, and to constitute him whom they elect a regular pastor, seems to be contrary at once to reason and to scripture. Simple election may declare the qualification. of a person who is approved of by the electors, for discharging the duties of his office, but it cannot by itself invest him with that office. When Moses said to the Israelites, (Deut. i. 13), *' Take ye wise men and understanding, and known* ** among your tribes, and I xmll make them rulers over " you," he plainly intimates, -that the choice of the people was not sufficient of itself to constitute those whom they elected rulers, unless accompanied by an official appointment from himself. Deacons also, when first appointed in the Christian church, after being elected by the people, (Acts vi. 3), were solemnly ordained with prayer, and the impo- sition of hands, by the Apostles. But if this was necessary in an office so inferior as that of the deacon, even after the election of the people, much more must it be requisite in avj ' office so superior as that of the pastor. We are informed also, that Paul, together with Barnabas, (Acts xiv. 23), not- withstanding the choice of the people (•'" such a choice was exercised), ordained elders in every church, in Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioch ; that Titus, (Tit. i. 5), was left in Crete, " to ordain elders," though chosen by the churches, " in every city, as Paul had appointed him ;" that this A- postle enjoined Timothy, (1 Tim. v. 22), " to lay hand« suddenly upon no man," i. e. not to ordain him rashly, which appears unaccountable, if popular election alone had been sufficient to make the object of it a pastor. If the choice of the people, moreover, constitutes a person the pas- tor of an Independent congregation, it "seems necessarily to follow, that since no act performed by one Independent church is binding on another, if the congregation which chose him withdraw from his ministry, or oblige him to leave them, his ministry must cease with it, and he must again be reduced to the station of a private member. Be- sides, though the observance of the imposition of hands was occasionally employed as an emblem of the communication of miraculous pov/ers, it cannot be demonstrated that this was its uniform use, or that, from its being the m.edium at itmes of the communication of these powers, it should now be discontinued. Prater too, we know, (Acts viii. 14 — 17, and ix. 40, &c), was occasionally a m.ean of imparting these powers ; but would any Independent presume, from this T ii.'. ' 1.1:; IT Ell V. ^i^cum3tance, to argue, as some do respecting the itupbsi'- t.ion of bands, that prayer should now be discontinued in the church ? This usage then, when employed in ordina- tion, was iiitcnde-d merely as an emblem of the supplications of those who were encraged in performing it, that all neces- isary, common and ordinary endowments m.ight be bestowed en the person on whom they laid their hands. This hiding on of hands is mentioned by Paul, (Heb. vi. 2), as one ot i\\z first principles of the doctrine of Christ. Thir, surely, cannot denote a communication of the miracu- jlous gifts of the Spirit, for all ihe other articles of Christian faith which he specifics as prhriury or fundamental, do not relate to what was peculiar to ihe p7-imifive church, but arc «f equal importance to cx;ery age. It appears difficult also to conceive how this .particular miracle should have been of such uncommon moment as to merit being considered in this interesting light, and that the knowledge and belief of it, whatever otjicr information a person might possess, was es- sential to his being received as a member. By the imposition of hands then, as A^ncsius observes in his refutation of Bel- lerminc, (torn. ii. p. 76), seems unquestionably to be design- ed the Christian ministry, of the communication of which this observance was a sign. In confirmation of this, as v/ell - as in refutation of the sentiments of Episcopalians and Pa- pists, nothing appears more just than the words of Cart- wright, in his Treatise against the Rhemists. " By impo- " sition of hands the Apostle meaneth no sacrament, much <' less confirmation after baptism ; but by a trope and bor- " rowed speech the ministry of the church, upon the which <« hands were laid, which appeareth in that whosoever be- <« licveth that there ought not to" be a ministry in order to " teach, and govern the church, overthroweth Christianity; *< whereas if confirmation of children were a sacrament, gs it " is not, yet a man holding the rest, and denying the use of " *' it, might notwithstanding be saved." We perceive likewise, that Timothy is commanded by Paul, ( I Tim. iv. 14), *' not to neglect the gift which was " in him, and which was given him by or according to pro- " phecy *, with the laying on of the hands of the Presby- * It would seem that certain predictions had been delivered con- cerning Timothy, that he would be an eminent and useful minister j jn consequence of which it is here declared, that in the usual way •he had been set ?.part to that ofiice. • Letter V. gi ** tery." But if the laying on of the hands of the Preshy tc! y on Timothy had imparted to him any miraculous gift of the Spirit, how could he have neglected diligently to exercise it, since being entirely under the guidance of his extraordinary influence, and directed by his supernatural irresistible ener- gy, he could not have withstood this instinctive impulse to employ those endowments which he had received, tv/iensvcr and wherever the Spirit suggested. And if the imposition of hands, when used even in ordaining an Evangehst to his office, does not appear in the present instance to have been the sign of the communication of miraculous gifts, may it not be the emblem of the communication only of conimcn gifts also to ordinary minieters ? In fine, this s?.me Apostle, in this Epistle, (chap. v. ver. 22), enjoins this Evangelist " to lay hands suddenly upon no man." But if the gifts which v/ere to be confeared, in the ordination referred to, were altogether extraordinary, how could this injunction have been delivered ? Could Timothy, when under the miraculous guidance of the Spirit, impart precipitately his supernatural gifts to those who were unfit or unworthy to receive them ? or could he err, as to the proper persons who should obtain them ? The supposition is certainly inadmis- siblci From this reasoning we may therefore conclude, that simple election, without ordinalion, cannot constitute a man a Christian minister, and that the imposition of hands, em- ployed in ordination, was not an emblem of the communi- cation of miraculous gifts, but of ordinary endowments ; and of course, that it, as well as ordination, must be a standing ordinance in the church of God ? But granting that ordination should still be observed, who are the persons that are authorised to perform it ? Is it the jjcople alone, or in conjunction with the elders ? or is it those only who are ministers ? That it is committed to .the latter alone, appears to be the general opinion oi your chur- ches, for ministers alone, as far as I know, ordain your pas- tors. That such also is the determination of scripture, ap- pears evident from a very cursory perusal of the sacred vo- lume. Not only is it obvious that the majority of the peo- ple are totally unjit to examine the qualifications of a raaa for the important and arduous work of the ministry, and consequently that it v»'ould be dangerous to intrust them with ;uch power ; and not only is it ridiculous to imagine that those who can neither preach nor dispense the sacrament-^, * f2 64 Letter V. can impart an office while they have none themselves, but it is never affirmed in any part of scripture, that the people are to ordain. On the contrary, we are informed, that when the first deacons were chosen by the disciples, they were or- dained by the Apostles, (Acts vi.) — that when Timothy was invested with the office of a minister, it was by the lay- ing on of the hands of the eldership or presbytery, of which Paul was a member, (compare 1 Tim. iv. 14, with 2 Tim. i- 6), — that " when faithful men, " and men who were ^' found able to teach others also," were invested with the ministry in the places where he was labouring, it was to be •committed to them by him and his fellow-elders, (2 Tim. ii. 2), — that when hands, as was before said, were to be laid -jpon any, to set them apart to this office, it w,as he alone, and his fellow-ininistcrs, who were required to do it, (1 Tim. V. 22), — and that when elders were to be ordained in every city in Crete, it was only Titus, and his fellow-ministers, who were to devote them to their work. Is it not wonderful, however, that if it be the prerogative of the people^ either tvith elders dr uiihou'i them, to ordain others to the work of the ministry, not a syllable should be mentioned of their being invested with this trust, or exercising this power, and that it should be represented uniformly as committed to the ministers ? Robinson, indeed, with some ancient English and Ame- rican Independents, and Lockier, one of the ancient, with some of our modern Scotch Independents, have not scrupled To maintain that Matthias, who was chosen in place of Ju» das, was ordained by the hundred and twenty disciples, who were partly composed of ihe eleven apostles, partly of the .seventy disciples, r-nd partly of the private members of the church. All who were present could not, however, be ad- mitted to ordain Matthias, for among these " were the wo- * men, and Mary the mother of Jesus ;" and it has never yet been alledged by any Independent, as far as I have heard, that tvornen are to be allov/ed the honour of ordain- ing a minister. It is evident also, that no account is given of his ordination, but simply of his election, and there is no- ihiug very decided to lead us to suppose that he v.'as even chosen by let by any but the Apostles. '* Wherefore of " these men," says Peter, " that have companied with us, " (the Apostles), all the time that the Lord Jesus went in Letter \'. 65 '* and out among us, must one be ordained to be' a wit- " ness with us (undoubtedly the Apostles) of his rcsur- " rcction." Besides, it merits our particular notice, that there was not properly even an cleclion, either by the apos- tles or the people. Two men were named as fit for the apostlesliip ; and the Lord himself., in a supen:;atural man- ner, as they drew out the lots, pointed out to them the in- dividual. The word and exercise discipline, it necessarily follows that it is they alone, in every thing, who are to govern the church. The former confessedly are more important matters, and if intrusted exclusively with the ma- nagement of these, why should they not exclusively be in- vested also with the administration cf what is inferior I Be- sides, as was remarked, is it not asserted by Mr. Ewing, that the members are not to judge in inferior points, from the baneful consequences which, in his opinion, would result from it to the cause of truth -, and of course, since they are not to determine in more interesting matters, is it not evi- dent that they are not to judge at all ? Upon a review then of this as well as the preceding ar- guments, I feel disposed to conclude that the ciders alone, and not the people, are to govern the church, and that the former are to administer it without even soliciting the con- sent of the latter ; and this conclusion I am authorised to consider as unavoidable, unless it can be proved- that the ar- guments which have been urged for this Presbyterian prin- ciple are equallij explicable upon the Independent plan, and are contradicted by superior unexceptionable proof. In the foUuv/ing Letters it is proposed to consider these proofs in order, which have been urged for Independency, with the degree of force which they seem to pos6>.^s, to counterba- lance and overpower the different arguments which appttar to be presented by the sacix-d writings in favour of Pj^sbytery. I 69 1 LETTER VI. Sir, 1 HAT the people are entitled, in mattei-s which relate to ecclesiastical polity, to judge and vote as well as their el- ders, you think to be evident from Mattb. xviii. 15, 16, 17. I *' Where our Lord," you say, (p. 33), " gives his people I " particular directions respecting their conduct in the case of ' " offences. Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against » " thee, go and tell him his fault betioeen thee and him " alone : if he shall hcaj-'thee, thou hast gained thy bro- " ther. But if he tvill not hear thee, then take iiilh thee *' one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three rdt- '*'' nesses every Kurd may be established. And if he shall ** neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he ** neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an ** heathen man and a .publican. Here, by the church to *« whom the offence of a brother is to be told, you think is *' intended a particular congregation, and every member in *' it ; and in proof of it, remark, that in the scriptures the *< word church has two significations. It either denotes " the whole assembly of those redeemed by the blood of " Christ, or an individual society. In this last sense, it is " sometimes applied to a meeting of any description. It is *' thus used. Acts xix. 32, where the word generally tran- " slated church, is i-endered assembly. When in this last *' and more restricted sense it is applied to Christians, it ** is plainly descriptive of those who meet together for " Christian fellowship in an individual society. Agreeably " to this, it is deserving of remark, that when the Chris- ♦' tians scattered over a province are mentioned, who, of " course, met in different societies, the word church is al- '< ways found in the plural. Thus we have the churches *' of Judea, the churches of Macedonia, the churches of " Galatia, &c. Examples of the first use of the term oc- « cur. Col. i. 18. Eph. i. 22. Heb. xii. 23 ; and of the " second. Acts ix. 31. xiv. 23. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. In no " case does it seem employed to denote the rulers of a " church as distin(Tuished from the general body, though in ** Acts XV. 22, it is used to describe the latter of these as *' distinguished from the former. As in the passage, then, "70 I^ETTER VI. " above quoted, it would be impossible to comply with the " admonition, if by the word church, the church universal *' is meant, it is plain, the expression cannot be understood *' in any other sense, than as denoting the particular society •' of Christians with which we are connected. To thesa *'"the offence is to be told. If the offending brother will '' not hear them, he is to be viewed as a heathen man and a *' pubHcan, in the same light as those who are in a state *' of heathenism, and not members of the church at all : in " other words, he is to be excluded from the society. Ivi " this passage, nothing seems plainer, than that the decision •' of the church is to be considered as final. There is " Tiot the smallest hint about the possibility of an appeal ; " nay, we may safely assert, that with sucli a system as a " court of review, by which the decision of an individual " society may be reversed, the language is altogether in.r. ** compatible." In answer to this, however, I would shortly observe, that it seems by no means just to affirm, that the church in scripture signifies either the church universal, or a particu- lar congregation. It is applied in scripture, for instance., to the church at Jerusalem, many years after the gospel had been preached there, a: id preached even by eleven apostles^ and many prophets ar.d evangelists, as well as pastors and teachers, with wonderful success. Now, when bestov.^ed upon this church, Presbyterians have asserted, and thq church, which yo\i have left, endeavours to prove, in her. public standards, that it undcubtedly includes a number of congregations united in such m manner, ii. point of govern- ment, as that while they stdl remained .srp/rafff congrega- tions, and furnished sufficient einploym-jnt even for all these ministers, they consituted only one church. But to attempt to disprove this, and overthrow the argument adduced from. It by her, for the subordination of a number of congrega- tions to the review of a Presbytery, as well as to their own particular rulers, by a simple assertion, that the ivord is not so to be understood, appears to me not ingenuous. It is plainly what has been denominated by logicians a l^sgging the question, or taking for granted the very thing to be ppoved, which species of proof, however easy and expe- ditious, is unquestionably unfair, and was scarcely to be ex- pected from you, who had engaged to put your readers iix, poesestion of the principal arguments on both sides of tUc Letter VI. 71 question. Not only, however, does the Mmrd chtirch, in these and other passages, signify a number or congregations united in such a manner a^ to have one common govern- raent, while at the same time they had each their particular rulers ; but it appears even someti-mes to mean the office- bearers of the church as distinguished from the members. In this sense it'seems to be taken in Acts viii. 1, where we are told, that " there was a great persecution on the same " day (sv iKiivrj r?i y.fii^a) against the church which was at " Jerusalem ; and that they were all scattered abroad about «' the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the ylposllcs.'" Now, that hj the church here specified, who were all scat- tered abroad except the Apostles, is intended only the mi- nisters, and not the members, appears to be most probable, rot only frora this, that the ministers would be m.ore readi- ly marked out as the first objects of their vengeance by the enemies of Christianity *, and that all those vvho are men- tioned of them who were scattered abroad, as Philip, (ver. 5), and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, (chap. xiii. 1), were of this description ; but that even after it is affirmed here, that all the church were scattered abroad except the Apostles, it is asserted in the third verse, that a church slilL remained different from the former, and a cluirch which Eaul persecuted, and the men and women of v/hich, entering into their houses, he committed to prison. But if the nholc of the church referred to in ver. 1, as we are informed, were scattered abroad except the Apcslles ^ and if at the same time it be instantly subjoined, that there was still a church after this at Jerusalem, of which those alone are mentioned " That the Apostles at this time did not flee from Jerusalem is Indeed remarkable. " Perhaps," as a judicious author observes, " the Jewish rulers, finding that neither threats, nor any punish- " ment which they could iuflict, could deter them from their t'uty, " v;ere unwilling to exhibit a new proof of the weakness of their " power. Perhaps, as they continued in a more public part oi the " city, where multitudes attended, their enemies were afraid of " exciting a tumult by attacl;ing them. Or, perhaps, Saul spared " them from respect to the opinion of his master Gamaliel." Or, as might have been added, as they ifi particular were appointed to be witnesses of the resurrection of Ciirist, they might see it to be their duty to remain in that city where he had risen from the dead, to bear testimony there for a whi^e to this fact, even tliough it should expose tliem to suffering. S?e Robertsou's Lay-preaching Indefensible, p, 38, 72 Letter VI. who were not^ninisters ; is it not obvious, that, in the for- mer verse, the church who are spoken of, and are declared to have been all scattered abroad except the Apostles, can have been the ministers only of that Christian church ? Here, then, is one instance, in which it would seem, that by the church we are certainly to understand its office- bearers as distinguished from its members ; and this applica- tion of the term appears no less defensible upon the princi- ple of substituting a part for the whole, than the application of it to the members exclusively of the ministers in Acts xv. 22, agreeably to the view which you give of that passage. Since, then, this term is applied to the office-bearers, in distinction from the members, as well as to the members, when distinguished from the office-bearers, or, as in other cases, when conjoined with them, in which of the senses is it to be understood in this passage, when a Christian is commanded to tell the offence of his brother to the church ? That it has been admitted to refer to the first of these by some of the most respectable even of the Independents them- selves, is a fact which is incontrovertible. The famous Mr. Parker of New England, in his Tract, de Polit. lib. iii. cap. XV. allows explicitly that the first time it is mentioned in Matth. xviii. 17, it means the ciders, and they alone, though in the following clause, however inconsistently, he supposes it denotes the people as concurring with them. His words are, " Ecclesiam primo loco consideratam in his " verbis, jjrcecise jjr/r^e???. aristocraiicam, id est presbyte- " rium, significare existimamus ;" i, c. " We think that the ** church, in these first clauses, signifies expressly the aris- '• tocratic part, or the elders." And that it has been con- '' sidered, or at least acted upon, by others of them in the same light is no less certain. The celebrated Hooker of America, in his Survey, part iii. chap. iii. p. 36, affirms, that in a case of offence, the matter is first to be told to the ciders ; that it is their pi-erogative to examine whether the point is of sufficient magnitude as to be made a subject of iudicial authoritative investigation, to call witnesses, to re- view the evidence, and consider the sentence which is pro- portioned to the offence, before the matter is to be laid be- fore the members. And such, also, at least is the practice of many of the present bodies of Irdependents, whose elders are the persons to whom, if the offending brother refuses to yield, when admonished of his fault before two or three Letter VI. TS witnesses, the ofience is told, and who make a particular in- quiry into the business before it is announced to the con- gregation. Such, too, if I am not misinformed, is the practice of your own society, and of its sister churches. But without farther detailing the sentiments of Indepen- dents, the practice at least of many of whom, with regard to the persons to whom the offence is to be told, after the private admonition, is the same with that of Presbyterians, I proceed to observe, that it is equally natural, and much more consistent, to understand by the church, in the passage before us, the elders of the congregation, than the congrega- tion at large connected with the office-bearers. In the 1st place. It seems plain, that in what our Lord here says, as to the mode of procedure in the Christian church, he alludes to the Jewisli ecclesiastical courts, the synagogue and the sanhcdrin, whicli at that time were fa- miliar to the minds of the Jews, and from which most prob- ably they would form their ideas of the import of his words. This is not only affirmed by Calvin, Be/a, Parceus, and other learned expositors, but is granted even by the ve- nerable Goodwin, the most distinguished of the seven Inde- pendent brethren who sat in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. " The allusion of Jesus," says he, (p. 57, 58, of his Treatise on Government), " is to the syna- " gogues in every town, which were the ecclesiastical state. " The books of Moses were read in every city, in the syna- « gogues : Acts XV. 21. To tell the church therefore," he remarks, " was to tell that particular synagogue of " v/hich they were members ;" and this he endeavours to prove by a variety of arguments. And that this v/as the meaning of Christ appears also from the words which are subjoined, " Let him be to thee as a lieathen man and a *' publicmi ;^' which I observe, in opposition to Mr. Glass*, * See his Letters to Ayton, in the first volume of his Works, p. 287, where he denies that this passage refers to the order of the Jewish church, or to excommunication from their societies; and affirms, after Prynne and some ancient Independents, that it con- tains merely a command to Christians to abstain from civil inter- course and from eating with an obstinate offending brother, as the Jews abstained from associating or eating with a Heathen or a Publican, referring us to 1 Cor. v, 11, compared with Acts x. 28, and xi. 3. It does not, however, appear that civ;! intercourse was prohibited to tlie Jews vyith the Heathens, or was avoided by them, though we know that they did tiot cultivate religious fellowship. G 7i Letter VI. you rightly consider,, (p. 34), as denoting, exclusion frrnr^ chnrch, and which, according to Goodwin, (p. 59), arc sir milar in import to <^' casting out of the synagogue," Ben- On the contrary, we find tint Nehemiah permitted the Tyrlans to sell their commodities to the ciuidren of Israel on every day but the Sabbath, (Neh. xiii. IG. — 21) — that the servants of Hiram r>nd f,l Solomon were employed together in building the temple — tl;at ."elior.h.aphat associated with the king of Edom, (2 Kings iii) — and lliat, in the reign of Solomon, there were no less than a hundred nnd fifty thousand and six hundred Heathens in the land of JiKlea, •".vith whom the I?raelitC3 could not fail to mingle. The intercourse^ then, of which Peter speaks, (Acts x. 28), as quoted by Gla's?, must have been a rdigiovs intercourse ; and this seems to be evident not only^^from its being stated as the end fwr which Cornelius re- quested an interview, (ver. 22), that he might hear words," or re- ligious instructions, " from him," but also from the translation cf liis wQ.rds in the Syriac version, (ver. 28), " Ye know that it is un- '' lawful for a man that is a Jew to join /lirpiself uvtto a man that is a " stranger, who is not a son of his generation," /. e. in religious fel- lowship. And as it appear? plain that, it was only religious inter- course which was avoided witli '.he Heathens by the Jews, so it has been asserted, and asserted with considerable plausibility, that they were not prohibited from eating every kind of food with the Gen- tiles, but only such as was unclean. Tostatus, upon 2 Chron. vi. and Grotius, in his book de Jure Bell, et Pac. lib. ii. cap. xv. sect. ix, expressly affirm, that it was only such meatr. as were prohibited by the law that the Jews were ordered not to eat with the Hea- thens, but that all other things they might cat with them. And Drusius, in his OuKst. et Resp. lib. ii. Ouxst. Ixvii, mentions an old law, from one of the writings of the Rabbis, Elias in Thesbite, \vhich forbad the Jews to drink ivine with Heathens, and was made p.t the tlnie when the Gentiles vised prelibations of wine in their sacred rites : " Lata videlicet eo tempore quo gentes vinum libab- *' ant in sactis." But such a prohibition, and especially for suc/i a reason, proves that the Jews might eat and drink with the Gentiles all other things which were not unclean, or employed for idola- trous purposes. It is obvious then, that to represent our Saviour, in Matth. xviii, as commanding an obstinate OiTending brother to be ticated bv his church as a Heathen was treated in these respects by the Jews,* who neither refused him civil intercourse, nor hesitated to eat with him whatever meats were not prohibited by the law or used by him to idolatrous purposes, is to render his words trilling and insignificant. Besides, even admitting that they refused to have any civil intercourse with a Heathen, or to eat with him at all, this was only one pari, and the least fast of the privileges which they denied him. He could not be a member of their synagogues, nor was he alloVed to worship in the inner court of their temple. Ezek. xliv. 7, 9. Acts xxi. 28. He was viewed, in short, as " an *' alien from the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger from the " covenants o- promise, having no hope, and without God in ilie Lette'i VI. " 7J jamin of Tudela morever, when speaking of the Massiliail synagogue, thrice applies to it in one paragraph, and even to its rulers alone, the term kahal, which is most frequently rendered by the Seventy ix.KM<^i»-, the very word employed' in this passage, and translated church (see Vitringa de Sy- nagoga, p. 563, 5&\.^ It is observed also by Goodwin, that the word c-wxyuyvi., translated " synagogue," and the word iKuXntrix, here rendered " church," arc, in a number of instances, " all one in the Septuagint." But we knoAV that the first of these terms, which is often synonymous with the word here translated church, is used by James, in allusion to the Jewish synagogue, to denote either a Chris- tian congregation, or the place where they met, transferring to the latter the name of the former ; for the words of tha'_ Apostle, (see his Epistle, chap. ii. ver. 2), v/hich are ren- " vvoirld." Compare Eph. ii. 11, 12. To consider the phrase there- fore, '* Let him be to thee as a Heathen man," as inc!udinj^,on tha other hand, any thing less than the privation of these privileges, io to attach to it a meaning totally below its import and significancy. Whatever other privileges then might be refused to the Heathens, as they were evidently excluded by the Jews from tlieir church; and as appears from the New Testament, and the writings of the Rabbis, tliat heretical, or apostate, or disobedient brethren, (see John ix, xli, 42. xvi. 2. Abarbanel de Capita Fidci, Selden de Jure Natur. et Gent. lib. vi, cap. x.), were cast by them, like Heathens, out of their synagogues — and were obliged, like them, to pay usury for the money wliich they received in loan, " Quia fratrum nomea " exuerant;" and, as Grotius observes on Luke vi. 22, if thev came into the temple, were admitted, like them, on! v into the outer court, and that too with a particular mark of disgrace ; since such was the wray in which the Gentiles, or Heatliens, were usually treated by the Jews, and since such was the way in whicii those of the Je-ws ivho apostatized weiQ treated by their church, is it not obvious thit when the very same language {supplied in Matthew, to express ths- conduct of the church of Christ towards offending brethren, an evident analogy is pointed out in the latter church to the former, and in the punishments of the one to those of the other ? As the allusion, in fine, from the terms Heathen and Publnan^ is plainly Jewish, it will not be a valid objection against considering; it as exclusion from their church vi^hich is intended, to tell us that it ib only the brother who is offended that is to treat the offender as a Heathen and a Publican. If the brother who is ofFended is to abstain from religious communion with the offender on account cf \\\i sin, it is certainly no less strongly declared in this passage, that the church, who are no less offended than the brother, because the offender will not hear them, must treat him as a Heathen, and rejecc him from their fellowship, g2 ' TG Letter VI. tiered in cur version, " If there come into your assembly, " a man with a gold ring, &c." literally mean, " If there " come into your si/nagogue.'^ And what is translated in our Bibles, (Heb. x. 25), " forsake not the assembling of *< yourselves together," literally imports, " your meeting in <' a synagogue,'"' ZTritrvvot'/uyY.'i. If the very name, however, hahal or ecc'esia, here rendered church, be given frequently by the Rabbis themselves to the Jewish synagogue ; if ano- ther term, often equivalent to this, and repeatedly used in the New Testament to denote a synagogue, be elsewhere applied to the Christian church ; if the conduct which is here enjoined upon this church towards an obstinate offend- er, >be expressed in language precisely the same with that ^vhich was descriptive of the conduct of the Jews to an im- penitent offe:;der whom they cast out of their synagogue ; and if our Lord, when borrowing these terms from the sy- nagogue, to denote his church, and its conduct towards of- fenders, gives no intimation that they were to be understood cs to it, in a different acceptation than when applied to the former ; it is plain, that to ascertain the import of this pas- sage, we iniist liave recourse to the practices of the Jewish synagogue, and inquire who were the persons in tJiat cliurchy cr iKx.\nricc., to whom offences were told, and who judged respecting them. In examining, however, who were the persons of the Jewish synagogue, or inK^^ria-Ki, that administered its affairs> and determined in this as well as other matters, we per- ceive that they were the rulers. This is evident not only from the testimony of the New Testament, but from the writirgs of their doctors. Thus, Acts xiii. 15. " And *' after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers *< of the synagogue {u^yjo-vvxyayei) sent unto Paul and his ** companions," &c. * : among which rulers it would ap- * Without entering paiticularlv into the consideration of the propriety of the Independent practice, of allowing any of t/uir members who chu=;es to exliort the church when met together, I think it verv ohvioui that one of the common arguments for it, which they frequently urge from the passage here quoted, is toially un- tenable. We are indeed here informed, that " after the reading of •' the law and tlie prophets, (he rulers of t!ie synagogue sent unto " them (Paul and his companions), saying, Ye men and brethren, *' if ye have any word of exiiortation for the people, say on." It is to be recollected however, that the church vvliere they were, was not a Christian congregation, but a Jt;iv:ih s>/'iagogue ; ai.'d Vitringa, Letter VI. 77 pear that there was one who was president ; for we are in- formed, (Luke xiii. 14), that " the ruler of the synagogue I think, has proved incotitestably ia his Treatiss on the Synagogue, lib. iii. pars i. cap. vii. tiiat none but those wlio were considered as Rabbis or Doctors, and who were solemnly set apart by the impo- sition of hands, were permitted, after the reading of the law and the propliets, to exiiort the people. For these, he tells us, there vv«re particular seats in all their synagogues, and establishes fcis assertion by a variety of references. And in some of these sen'.s he aflirms, as we are told by Luke, (ver. 14.),tiiat Paul and Barnabas having sat down, were considered by tlie rulers as Doctors, and were invited, according to the usual custom, to exhort, declaring at the same time, that it was contrary to the usual practice in the synagogue to allow the common members to perform this duty. His words are, (p. 709), " At nnn de Christo modo, sed et iilius " apostolis et discipulis legimus, quod et iili chcetit'mm caiw?-Jras occu- " paverint, et indc pro Z)cr^o;-i/i«j- ab iis agniti fuerint, quorum id " scire intererat. Narratur id in Actis Apostolorum, cap. xiii, 14. " Tpsi veto digressi Perga -vcncrunt Antioclu.un Phidia, et ingrcssi si/ria- " gogam die SubLaii, koli iKfiXiiira ixai^i/y.v.' Sederunt Paulus et Barna- *' has synagogam ingressi. Iiitelligendum, occupasse cos seda ducct- " iiiim,qnQdisedere Kur ifi " forte animo illos synagogam ingressos esse, ut docerent. Ita cnini " pergU Lucas: -FoU Icctionem autem legis et prophetaium miserunt priS- " fecti synagogjc ad eos, dicentes : T-'iii^fraires, si quis est in vobis sermo ex- " kortationis, dicite. Quccnam ratio fuisset, nt archisynagogi homines " hos, sibi, ut plane videtur, ignotos ad d:cend:tm invitassent, si com- " mwiia iiu/gi occiipasseitt suhscllid, Tiuiloque ex indicio de eornm apt!-. " tudine et docendi animo facti fuissent certiores ? Et quodnam id *' esse potuit signum, quam seaio^ cum nihil aliud de ipsis referatur, " quam quod synagogam ingrecsi consederint ? Cum vcro solus " scJendi actus non possit esse indicium vel Doc/oiis, vel intentionis " docer.di, omnino videtur, aliam hie significari sessioncm, qua; " Doctoru::i erat." And the same also are the sentiments of Altingius, who expressly afHrms in his Schilo, lib. iii. cap. vi. " Atque in liac " usurpatione (sedendi) /^ra Doclorihus agniti sunt ah arcliisynagogis, " qui facta Jegis et prophetarum lectione admiserunt, ut si meditali " acccssissent verba in coetu facerent. Ncque enim rite hinc con- " cluserrs, cuivis peregrino hoc induUun\ fuisse ut publice diceret. " Sed cuni peregrini isti se magistros profiterentur sedendi' privilegio, " prxfecti synagcga:, ipsis id honoris detuJerunt." Whatever then be the arguments wliich can be adduced by independents for allow- ing the members to address the church, it would appear that they are not entitled to advance any from the present passage. And though it is granted that it is tiie duty cf believers in general, no less under the new than under the old dispensation, to converse witli one another, in i\\e house and by the way, upon the truths of te'igion, and prcvoke and eah-jrc 9iie another 19 eyery good work, ■ 7S Let I En VI. ** (x.^X^a-vvci'yiJ''/c;) answered with indignation, because Josii* ** had healed on the Sabbath-day." See also Mark v. [55, 36,38. Actsxvii. 8,17- Accordingly it is said by Josephiis, in his account of his life, p. 1020 and 1022, that the syna- gogue at Tiberias was governed by a president, «^%«v, and a senate of elders, fiovXny- Hv^ttduy ai t;-!v f^iTx,SoXnv Incrcv^, to-> fAiV OYlfiOV iy.i)\ZUiV KVOi^Moilv, TrpoO-fiilVCii Oi T>1V ,3o'jXi)V 1/\\tCiliTi; l.C% '< But Jesus, the president, seeing the state of things alter- *' ed, ordered the people to depart, but thought it proper " that the senate," or, as it is in the Latin translation, se- nahim solum, " should remain." And Maimonides, a cele- brated Jewish Rabbi, in Hilcoth Taanioth, cap. iv. sect. i. in his Tract, de Jejuniis, represents a synagogue at Jerusa- lem as governed by one, whom he denominates princcps or chief, and pater or father, and a sj/nedrium aut coUegmm £apie7ilium, i. e. a senate, or college of wise men. The number of the rulers in their synagogues in large cities, ac- cording to Benjamin of Tudela, as qvioted by Vitringa, was sometimes very great ; and even in their least synagogues, " they were never less," says Goodwin, (p. 58), " than three, that a major vote might cast it among them." Now if a Jew, when offended, though he made known his complaint in the hearing of the otlier members of the synagogue, sub- mitted it for judgment to the scribes and doctors, who were rulers of the synagogue, and them alone ; and if our Sa- viour, when speaking of the manner in which an offended brother v/as to proceed in his churchy uses precisely the very same language, and bids him tell it expressly to a simi- lar church ; is it not plain, that, so far at least as the pre- sent passage is concerned, instead of proving the right of every member of a Christian congregation to hear and judge ill a case of offence, it demonstrates that this power, as in the Jeivish sj/nagop-ue, is committed to the rulers, and the rulers exclusive/^)/. Again, as there was a right of appeal from the determi- nation of the rulers of a particular synagogue to their great sanhedrin, or council of seventy, is it not obvious that this k may perhaps be diftlcult to prove from the scriptures, that when a congregation is met in a church-capctcltij, any member who cluises Is warranted to rise, £ud publicly to exhort, or admonish, or m- j'ruct ther.i. LEXTrR VI. 7^5 2)assage, instead of favouring ihc Indepcrident plan, of con- stituting every congregation a ccmplete court in itself, vrith- out subjecting it to the review ot a Presbytery, strongly establishes the very contrary ; and exhibits clearly these first principles of Presbyterians, that, as in the Jewish courts, it is the elders alone who arc entitled to govern a particular congregation, and that these again are subject to the autho- ritative review of other courts, who can either affirm or re- verse their decisions * ? It is said, in fine, that we are informed in other places, that the form of government in the New Testament churcU is completelij different from that which existed in the syna- gogue and sanhedrin, and consequently that it cannot be inferred from this passage, that the administration should be committed in a particular congregation only to those who are elders, and that these again should be subject to the au- thoritative review of a higher court ? It is replied, that when this is proved from these other passages, the iriference will be dropt — that it is readily granted, that in so fur as the form of government is demonstrated from tJiese passages to be altered, it ought to be altered — but unless it can be evinced from them, that it is changed in the points about which we are nou3 inquiring, and is taken from the elders in a particular congregation, and in an equal degree given to all the members of a congregation, without any possibility of appeal to a higher court, the inference is good. So far, however, as the passage before us is vieived in itself, and explained by the allusion to which it refers, though brought forv.-ard by you and the rest of your brethren, as the Jirst arguracnt for Independency, it seems naturally to establish the very contrary, and to prove that in a Christian congre- gation, as in a Jevs'ish synagogue, it is the elders alone, and * Accordingly Prynne, a very noted ancient divine, wlio favour- ed some of the sentiments of Independents, in his Answer to Gil- lespie, affirms, in opposition to you, that by the church, or asseni- biy ' • • - • ' - tic he ..<.>. -i^v.. — - , -yt J ■■—■• : — •• ployed by the Evangelist to that celebrated court. For an -account of this court, and of the synagogue, with a solution of some objcC' tions urged against this argument, see Appendix. so Letter VI. not the members, and the elders as subordinate to the au- thoritative review of a superior court, who are appointed to govern the church of God *. * It is urged indeed by Goodwin, (p. 60), that no argument can be adduced in favour of Presbytery, from the application of the terms descriprive of the synagogue and of the mode of jjrocedure in it, in cases of offence to the Christian church, " because the " manner is oftentimes to speak in the language of the Old Testa- " ment when the same thing," or an exact correspondency to it " is not meant ; as when Christ sjjeaks of tiie person ofFending, " Matth. V. 22, he expresseth the degrees of punishment to several '* sins, under the names of three courts amongst the Jev/s, and yet " he meaneth spiritual di:gree3 of punishment. Thus, too, in 1 Cor. " ix. 13, the wiiole service of the sanctuary is called tin altar (he " that serveth at the altar, must live of the altar) ; yet there is no " such altar erected amongst us as was amongst the Jews. And the " prophets also, prophesying of the times of the gospel, spake of " our ordinances anew to be instituted in Old-Testament language; " so, in Isaiah Ixvi. 23. Tlnj shall go from one new moon to anoiher. •' Tiiongli, under the gospel, we have not monthly fea-its and meet- ♦' ings as they had, yet the meetings that v.'e have are expressed " thereby." From which he concludes, that " though Christ useth " the same words to express the institution of the new churches of " the go=pel by, yet it follows not that it is of the same kind with " the old, or that it runneth in the same way." But to this it is ; answered, that this passage is »ot here advanced as an argument Jor Pres- bijiery, though it has been often brought forward with tiiumph, as i an invincible argument in support of ///ii'/it'Wi'wfj!,' — that all that is maintained is simply this, That if we consider tlie allusion, if it proves any thing, as viewed in itself, and without going elsewhere to discover the constitution of the church, it i$ in favour of the former, and not of the latter, and consequently that the argument which has so often been drawn from it for Independency neces- sarily falls. As we must have believed, from the passages produ- ced from Goodwin, that there should be altars, and neiu moons, and J degrees of external funishmeiit among Christians, the same Vk'ith those ■ which we are assured e;ci5ted among the Jews, unless it could be evinced from other passages, tliat a change was enjoined : so it is no less manifest from the present jiassage, that the government of the Christian church, in the point here specified, must resemble that of the Jewish synagogue, by the name of which it is called, unless it can be demonstrated from other passages, that it is appointed to be altered. And it will not suffice to establish this idea, to inform us j that the term church, when applied, as in this place, to a Christian congregation, most commonly, in'the New Testament, denotes the •zvholc of the members as well as the rulers, since it is certain that it was understood in the same latitude of signification when applied also to a Jewish synagogue, and yet we know that when a com- plaint VV3S told in it before the members at large, it was the rulers' Letter VI. 81 2dly, Though it could not be established, that there is a reference to the Jewish synagogues in this passage, it seems equally fair, and much more consistent, to understand by the term church, the elders of the congregation, than the congregation itself. Nothing is more common than to say, that a thing is to be done to or for a body, which is done only to or by those of that body who represent the whole, and to whom it is com- petent. And no phraseology was more common among tfie Jews, than to say that a thing was done by a congrega- tion, which was done only by the elders or rulers of that congregation. Thus, in the case of the manslayer, (Numb. XXXV. 24, 25), it is said, that " the congregation of the city " to which the manslayer and the avenger of blood belong- " ed, should judge between them. And that the congre- " gation should restore him to the city of his refuge, whi- «' ther he was fled : And that he should abide in it till the «* death of the high-priest." Yet, if Moses may be allow- ed to explain his own words, even where this is so frequent- ly ascribed to the congregation, it was the elders of the city alone who performed it. " But if any man," says he, (Deut. xix. 11, 12), " hate his neighbour, and lie in wait " for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally " that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities, then the ♦' elders of his city shall send, and fetch him thence, and *< deliver him into the hands of the avenger of ulood," (?. €. :.;it iT judging him), " that he may die." Here we see, that whut is in one place repeatedly ascr'bed to the congrega- tion, is in the other asserted to be done only by the elders ; and we are assured, that it was the prerogative of the elders alo7ie, agreeably to the divine appointment, (Deut. xvi. 18), to judge the people. In Joshua xx. 4, 5, it is also said, that « when the manslayer that doth flee into one of these " cities, shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, " and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of the «< city * ; and they shall take him to the city unto them, alone who judg^ed respecting it. Granting, tlierefore, all that isdc" Bired even by Independents, as to the proper import of the term church, or iKxXxffn/., no argument can be deduced trom it in con- firmation of their system. * Tlie usual judges who sat in the gate ; and who, if the city contahied only a hundred and twenty families, an\ouated mere'y to 82 ■ Letter VI. " and give him a place that he may dwell among thcni. " And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they " shall not dehver the slayer into his hand ; because he " smote his neighbom* unwittingly, and hated him not be- " fore time." And yet it is subjoined, that " he should '• dwell in that city, until he stood before the congregatiofz ''''for judgment.^' Thus we perceive that while tlie C07i- gregation of the city from which he fled, are said, in this passage, to have judged in the case of the man slayer, in the preceding words we are told that the persons in the city to which he escaped, who heard and decided upon his case, were the elders ; and, consequently, as the government of every city was the same, it must have been the elders who were to hear and judge of his conduct in the cxtj' from which he came, while yet we are told that he was to stand before the congregation. Accordingly we find, from Philo, Josephus, and other Jewish writers, that it was the elders alone, and not the people, who judged in their cities ; and that the congregation, being considered as doing it by them, were said themselves to have exercised the power of ^" Judgment, though it was vested in and exercised only by * the elders. Agreeably to this, likewise, the Greek transla- toi's, in their version of the Old Testament, render kalial, the strongest Hebrew word denoting the congregation, in Prov. xxvi.26, by a-ws^^iov, a council or assembly of elders*. three; and if it contained more, according to Josepluis, amounted ; to seven, and acrordinjf to the Tplmudists, to twenty-three. * It is the same word whicii is used inl.uke xxii. 66, and Acts iv, 15, to signify the council of the high-priest, the elders, and the 1 scribes. See also Pasor, who quotes Demosthenes, according to the principle which has been now stated, as employing the v/ord tnKXiitria, thg word rendered church in Matthew, and the term \ most frequently used in the Septuagint, even according to Inde- pendents, as the translation o? i.ihal or congregation, for an assembly of nobles who were rulers. " E^sfiauvro §5 ^jj i%ai<^vyi; ixy.Xr.irnr. " yivnva.t ;" " Ubi accipi videtur (says he), pro concione magnaium " repeute convocatCrum," i. e. " It seems to denote here an assem- " bly of nobles or rulers suddenly convened." And see, too, the author of the Guide to Zion, p. 5, and Ainsworth, in his Counter- poison, p. 1!3, who, though very keen and very respectable ancient IndependentSj admitted that the word iKKyriffia, here rendered the church, is used repeatedly by the Seventy for the saiiliedrin, who undoubtedly were an assembly only of rulers. Letter VI. 83 Since, then, it is plain, from these as well as other pas- sages in the Old Testament, that it was common for things to be represented as strongly a? told to and judged of by the convith what was at th.it time the con- stitution of the Christian church, evidently understood this passage, not in the sense of Independents, but in. tlie sense which is at pre- sent attached to it liy Presbyterians. As quoted by Zanchius, in Ouart. Pra:ccpt. and by Juriiii?, Contr. iii. lib. ii. ca]->. vi, in Jiis ex- position Oi this place in Matt! ew, he asserts, that by the church, to whom t!ie ofFence was to he told, was intended the •yrQo'^noi xai vgararsf, the presidents and rulers, wlio, as in 1 Thess. v. i2, ir:, are always represented in the sscred volume, and are admitted even by Independents themselves, to be distinguislied from tht people, wlio i;re not allowed by thcin to be ncmlnal governors. 84' Letter VI. scripture that treats of a particular subject, it is not to be found in another that relates to the same subject ! But would not this, if followed out, lead us to set aside import- ant parts of almost every doctrine and institution of Chris- tianity, few of which, we know, are fully contained in one passage, and most of which are to be collected completely only from different passages ? Besides, even granting that courts of review are not specified, a very good reason seems to be suggested, from the passage itself, why they should not at least be directhj mentioned. It is obvious, that an apperd could only have been made to a superior court, if the brother tdio tvas offended had not received justice from the court to which he at first applied ; for it is he alone who is represented as bringing the matter before an ecclesiastical assembly for their determination. Such a case, however, is not here supposed ; for it is expressly stated, that the Jirst court to which he applied gave a decision in his favour. But if the first court, as has been said, is here supposed to have given a decision in his favour ; and if the offending brother is never said to have thought himself aggrieved by the decision which this court passed against him ; and, as is insinuated, 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 ? Thus, then, it appears, that even admiling that such courts are not here mentioned, the omission is such as might naturally have been expected, and that no argument can be urged againsr. them from this omission, if it can be proved upon that particular division of our subject, that they arc clearly au> therized by the w«rd ©f God. [ ^5 j LETTER VIL Sir, You remark in the next place, (p. S4<, and 35), that the principles of Independency seem to be establi:4ied with equal decision in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle to the Co- rinthians. As you have not, however, even hinted at the common arguments deduced by Independents from this pas- sage, for the right of members to judge in the church, though you endeavour to prove from it, that a congrega- tion cannot be subjected in ihe rcricxv of the Presbylcrjj, permit me, before I consider the inferences which you draw from it for the latter position, to state very briefly the argu- ments for the former, as mentioned by Mr. Cotton, an emin- ent ancient American Independent, in his book entitled, «' The Keys of the Kingdorn," p. 4^, 45, 46. He tells us j in the first place. That the reproof for not proceeding to a sentence against the incestuous person is directed to the whole as well as to the Presbytery, " They are all blamed *< for not mourning," &c. 1 Cor. v. 2. 2dly, They are nil commanded, when they are gathered together, to pro- ceed against him, 1 Ccr. v. 4, 5, " In tlie name of *' our Lord Jesus Christ, wlicn ye are gathered together, to *' deliver such an one unto Satan." And again, in ver. IS, *' Therefore put away from among youi-selves that wicked *' person." In the 3d place, He declares this act of theirs, in putting him away, to be a judkial act ; for, says he, (ver. 12), " do not ye judge them that are within ?" And 4thly, Upon his exhibiting evidence of his repentance, the Apostle enjoins the brethren at large, as well as the elders, to forgive him : 2 Cor. ii. 4 — 10. This, I believe, you will allow to be as able a statement of the arguments of In- dependents, wliich are drawn from this passage, as is any wl'.ere to be found ; and I confess that I consider it as much more plausible than any thing I have met with in Goodwin, Owen, Glass, or ^ny other Independent. Even these, how- ever, I can by no meaiis admit to be valid arguments in sup- port of this scheme, unless it could be established, indepen- dently of them, from othei' passages * ; and contend that • Passages, I mean, which completely preponderate in clearr.^^ and cogency over those which are urged for the Preshvtef ian EchcnW s0d passages -which cannot be iaterpreted upon i:. II 86' LETTcr.. VII. while the passages which have been ah-eady produced if; favour of Presbytery seem totally inexplicable on any other scheme, this passage, as well ar. that which was last men- tioned, seems to be equally explicable upon the principles of Presbyterians as upon those of Independents. In confirmation of this general remark I observe, that when Paul reproves the whole of the Corinthians, (1 Cor. V. 2), " because they had not mourned," he does not say that he blamed them because they had not r/// exercised the power with which according to Independents they were in- vested, and excommunicated him t/iemsclves, as judges or governors ; but Avhat strongly indicates that they had no such power — that, as the effect of this mourning, " he who had '•' done this might be taken aivay from among them." Now, though all the members are censured for not mourning, might not this censure be delivered to them upon the prin- ciples of Presbyterians, as well as upon those of Indepen- dents ; for is it not the duty of the members, as well as of the rulers, though they do not judge, to mourn on account of the gross impurity of a Christian brother ? And if the rulers neglect, as in this instance at Corinth, to mark their public disapprobation of his conduct, by inflicting upon him the merited punishment, is it not much more the duty of the members? Besides, when they are not commanded to mourn that they thejnselves had iwt taken hini ati:a?/, but simply that, as the consequence of their sorrotv, stirring up their rulers to a sense of their duty, he might be taken atvnT/ from iJieni, is it not plain that this passage, instead of fa- vouring the principles of Independency, seems fairly to esta- bhsh the very opposite, and that the power of discipline is Tested in the elders, and not in the members of the church ? Nor will the command of Pa\il to the Corinthians, " to <' deliver up the incestuous person to Satan when they were <' gathered together, and to put away from among them- *' selves that wicked person," with this declaration that they iiad a pov/er " to judge them who were within," suffice to prove that the members at large exercised a similar power with those who were their rulers in administering the go- vernment of that Christian church. That they are suscep- tible of this interpretation, if viewed in themselves, and with- out attending 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 Jews, but of the "johole vcorld, and that he gave himself a ransom Letter VII. S7 (or all, if considered merely in themselves, are susceptible of an explication which excludes the doctrine of pariicuhu; and establishes the Arminian doctrine of universal redemp- tion. Now, if you would deny the inference deduced by Arminians from these latter passages in support of their sys- tem, by observing that these passages are no less susceptible of an explication upon Calvinistic than upon Anninian principles, while at the same time you produce a greater num- ber of passages, stronger and more decided, which cannot be explained upon the principles of Arminians, is it not equaUij fair, if it can be proved that even the strongest ex- pressions in this place, descriptive of the power of thechurcii of Corinth, c:in be explained equally upon the principles of Presbyterians as upon those of Independents, while at th© same time a number of other passages can be adduced in fa- vour of Presbytery totally inexplicable upon tl?e Independent plan — is it not equally fair, I say, to maintain that these expressions, in this place, no more establish the principles of Independency, than the expressions in the other instance, which are no less energetic, establish the principles of uni- versal re(lemj)tion ? Can such expressions, hovi'ever, as those w^hich are here used, be equally explained upon the supposition of Presbytfi- lians, that it is the rulers of the church, and not the mem- bers at large, who are intended ? Yes; for as was remark- ed, 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 competent. Thus we are informed in scripture, that the great city Rome reigned over the kings of the earth, (Rev. xvii. 18), while yet we know that the world was governed, at the period referred to, not by the citizens of Rome, but by the emperor and senate ; and thus nothing is more frequent, both in speech and writ- ing, than to say that the people of Great Britain govern their American colonies, while it is only the king and par- liament who thus govern them. Thus, too, we see that precepts are often addressed to bodies in general to be ob- served by them, which yet could be observed only with propriety by those who were their rulers, while, at the same time, others are to fulfil, in their various spheres, what is personally required from them. " If thy brother," said Moses tuthe people of Israel, (Deut, xiii, 6, &c..), " the sou -' of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife- n2 88 Letter VIL *' of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, *' entice thee secretly saying, Let us go and serve other ** gods — (ver. 8), thou shalt not consent unto liim, nor *' hearken unto him ; neither shall thine eye pity him, nei- " thei shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him ; but " thou shalt surely kill him." Now, who would imagine, from this command of Moses, that tlie Israelites at large Avere to kill any person who should entice them to idolatry, till he was previously tried and condemned by the judges upon the deposition of witnesses ? And yet is it not obvi- ous that this iiijimction is here addressed to them at large, as strongly and directly as the command is here addressed by Paul to the members at Corinth, to punish the incestuous person of whom he speaks ? Is it not plain also, that every Israehte was as much authorised by these words of his law- giver, viewed in themselves, to judge and put to death such an enticer to idolatry, as the Corinthians were authorized in these words of Paul, to judge and excommunicate their offending brother ? And are net the Jexvs in general often reproved by the prophet?, (see Jer. v. 28, and vi. 5, &c.) for most flagrant violations of equity in the public adminis- tration of justice, as well as for other crimes, which could be committed only by the rulers ? But who would imagine from this, that everij Israelite was a civil judge, or that it was not the riders alone who were responsible for these crimes ; aiid that notwithstanding the general expressions which are employed, that the people were only accessary to the guilt, in as far as they approved of their conduct, and did not v/itness against it ? Besides, is it not, notwith- standing, undeniable, that these passages as plainly and ex- pressly enjoin everij Israelite to administer public justice with fidelity and impartiality *, as the Apostle tells the members of the church at Corinth, that they might judge them who were within their communion, and might put away from themselves wicked persons ? And is it not manifest, that they as explicitly blame tiie Israelites at large, though they • See also Deut. xvi. 19, where after it liad been mentioned in the preceding verse, that judges were to be appointed in the gates ©f every city, who alone were to judge the people, it is said not- withstanding to every Israelite, " Thou shah not wrest judgment, " thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift : for a gift doth *• blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the wordsj of tte righte- •' ous." Letter VII. 89 were not judges; for not administering justice in this manner, as that the Apostle blames the Corinthians in general for liol putting away the incestuous person? If, then, while the Israelites at large are commcinded to administer public lUS- tice with fidelity and impartiality, it will not follow that each of them was authorised to be a civil judge, because the power of judging appears, from other passages, to have been com- z:nitted to those who were appointed to be rulers ; it will no mere follow, that though the Corinthians are informed that they were to judge those who wer^ within their communion, that every Corinthian member was to be a judge, if it can be proved, as has been attempted, from other passages, that this power is vested in the elders alone, and that every member is not entitled, either nomi- nally or really, to the power of a rukr. And if, while the,^ Israelites in general were blamed for not thus administering justice, it was the rulers alone, and not the people, who were intended, though the latter also were reprobated, so far as they acquiesced in their conduct, and did not testify against it ; it is equally incontestable, that since, as we have endeavoured to demonstrate, there are similar rulers in every Christian church, to v.hom the government is intrust- ed, though the Corinthians ct large are censured for not excommunicating the offender, it was the rulers alone who were referred to by the Apostle, and that no argumiCnt of course can be deduced from this passage for the right of the members, in common with the ministers, to administer the affairs of the church of God*. Thus even though it were granted, that the incestuous person was to be delivered over to Satan when tlie tvhole of the viembers were met together, it will not follow that evei-u one of them, in a judicial capacity, was so to deliver him ujj, but only the rulers ; for it has been contended even by many- Presbyterians, with Cyprian of old, that whatever is done, should be done in the presence of all the members of the • * From tliis reasoning also, if valid and conclusive against the po.^sibility of proving from these genera! expr^jssions that the Co- rinthians nominally and ostensibly ruled as well as their elders it is no less plain that it cannot be evinced from theni that they iud'^ed and voted in any form, any more than it can be established from . the expressions employed respecting the Israelites, that their con- sent and vote were necessary to be asked before any sentence could be passed by their civil judges, TT " 90 Letter VII. church for their satisfaction *. But is it a necessary can- sequence, that because discipHne was to be exercised in the presence of all the members, each of them was to exercise it ? • We know, however, as will afterwards be notfced, that in the case of the reference of tlie church of Antioch to tliat at Jerusalem, the apostles, and elders, and brethren, did not repair to Antioch to discuss the matter in the hearing cf these Christians, and answer their objections: and we will attempt to shew, that it was not an extraordinary instance. And even your brother, Mr. Ewing, who quotes with such approbation, (p. 83), the words of Hales respect- ing the Synod of Dort, " I'hat it went like a watch, the main " wheels of which, upon which the whole business turns, are least " in sight ; for all things of moment were acted in private sessions ; *' and what was done in public, was only for shew and entertain- '• ment :" that man, I say, who quotes with such approbation this sneer at the secrecy of the proceedings of this Synod, himself con- tends, as was before observed, for a similar ncresy in some of the de- liberations in his church. " Every thing," he affirms, as was for-] merly remarked, " is not to be brought even before an Independsut " clnirch for general discussion, or for obtaining a public declara- '*' tion of the mind of each member before the office-bearers shall ''^ presume to put it in practice." He even asserts that " to do sOj. *' would deprive the cliurch of the benefit of go-veniment, and would " endanger the cause of tiiith and of Christian liberiy" He insi- nuates of course, that some of the meetings and proceedings, even of their office-bearers, must be pri'vaie ; and even explicitly declares,.; (p. 36, 37), that " if any of their members are oflended by the de- " cisions of the office-bearers in these /r/W.'^ meetings, and cannot *' prevail with them to change their opinion, they must separates " from the church." It seems, then, that even also in this gentle- man's Independent ccr.grcgation, while he smiles at the jest when uttered^ against Presbyteiians, in a number of instances^ " the ojjice-bearcrs arej " like a watch ; the main ivheeh of v.fhich, upon luhich the "whole bust' " itess tur>!s, are least in sight; for things, even of such moment as,, *' that a difference of sentinaent warrants separation, are acted it ^'^ private sessions ; and the liberty of speaking, at least upon them^ *' which i; granted to the members when they are announced if '• public, after they have been determined by the office-bearers, U •' only for shezv and entertcfinmeut. If he says, it is only in trivial matters, and matters which arsj obvious, that the office-bearers are allowed to deliberate and de- termine alone, Vi^ithout the presence and concurrence of the mem- bers ; it is answered, that they are matters, a difference of sentw :nent upon which, by his own acknowledgement, warrants separa-1 lion, and authorizes Christians, agreeably to the passage of scrip-J ture which he cites, (2 Tim. iii. 5), " to turn away" from the com- munion of those who hold them, and to dissolve the most sqlemc and endearing relations. Is such a separation, however, to take place, which is often represented in the word of God as a thing sol serious, and are such relations to be dissolved, which constitute an I Letter VII. 91 Though the court of civil justice, in a particular town, may- be held by the magistrates in the presence of the inhabitants, L who are invited perhaps to attend, does it follow that every union so important and intimate, for things which arc obvious and trivial in their nature ? It so, how !ig/it and insignijicaiit indeed must separation from a church appear to Independents who adopt his sentiments, and how precarious and dangerous must be the si- tuation of those societies where they are acted upon as a principle! Need we be surprized at those frequent successive changes which appear in the conduct of some of their members, wiio are autiio- rized by one of the most eminent and zealous of tiieir ministers, supported as he imagines by the command of scripture, to move from their communion upon the L-sst alteration in their sentiments, and constitute a new church, wiiich again must be broken down into innumerable fragments upon every new alteration, though trivial and uninteresting ? Such privileges may perhaps be digni- fied by some with the name of lihcrtrj, but it is a liberty which seems to be more worthy of tlie name of licmtiousntss. And however it rnay be suited to the dispositions of those who, from impatience of controul, cannot brook that their proposals should not uniformly be followed in the society to which they belong, or from imagin- ary advancing perfection in knowledge, are continually changing in some degree their opinions, it appears to he little fitted to pro- mote the honour or interest of religion, cr to subserve the advance- ment of practical godliness. Nothing undoubtedly more directly tends to deaden the influence of this principle in the heart, than the indulgence of a restless schismatic spirit, even for matters of indifference, for which these words of Mr. Ewing present such toler- ation. And nothing evidently more infallibly leads to injure the cause of Christianity in tiie world, than such repeated changes of religious fellowship, and renunciations of so important and endear- ing relations for every trifle, to which, the system of this gentle- man presents such encouragement. If it be urged, that he does not recommend, but only permits, these separations ; it is answered, that he declares in the most de- cided terms, (p. 37), " that. those who cannot make their brethren " hear them in what they believe to be the doctrine of scripture " {i, e. by the supposition, even in trivial matters) are at perfect li- " Icrti/, as they are in dut^j bound, from such brethren to turn away, •' 2Tim.iii.5." And it is remarkable that the passage which he ad- duces for this, separation, even for these trivial differences, denotes a turning away from them, which is totally incompatible even with their participating occasionally in the sacrament of the supper with th"e men whom tliey thus leave. If it be alleged on the contrary, to save his honour, that it \% matters of importance about which Mr. Ewing speaks, and by differ- ence of opinion upon which, he considers separation as warrant- able; it is replied, that such an affirmation is completely opposite to the whole of his reasoning in the two preceding pages, which • avowedly refers only to things *' trivial and obvious.'' And it 2J LETTEn II. When a majority, in a word, of any of your churckes determines against a minority, that a brother who has hap- pened to offend before all, should be rcbuhcd before all, that he may be taught by it to be ashamed, I should be glad to know, if it is only a simple advice \\')\\c\\. is delivered ? And when siich a majority decides against a minority, that a bro- ther is to be excommunicated, and their decision is fulfilled, I should be happy to be informed, if it is only a simple opinion which is stated ? This, I believe, you will hardly maintain : and consequently, since in these and all other in- stances, where the will of a majority is carried and acted upon against a minority, from the very nature of things, au- thority is exercised, I hold it to be unfair and contradictory in Independents to declaim against Presbyterians, when they claim for their rulers, the same portion of authority which is necessarily assumed by the majority of the members in each of their congregations ; and without which, whatever persuasion might be employed, and whatever advices might be delivered, not one of their societies can be conceived to exist. You affirm, however, that to exercise authority without the presence and consent of the members of the church is hiconsistent with the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, one of the laws of which is, that before a person can per- form any acceptable act of worship, he must have, in some measure, a conviction of its fitness and propriety. And you contend, that since a man must first be convinced by persuasion, before he can render any such obedience, autho- rity is unnecessary, for if authority is used as well as per- suasion, it seems to imply that the latter is insufficient. But in answer to this I would observe, that though authority is claimed by Presbyterian rulers over their members, it is not an unreasonable nor imperious authority. They consider themselves as the servants of the Lord Jesus : the subjec- tion which they demand from the members of their churches, is not to themselves, or to their x^ill, as you insinuate (p. 47), but to what they consider as the will of their blessed Master ; and the obedience which they require to their de- cisions in his name, is not, as you allege, blind and compul- satory, but enlightened and voluntary* Nor do they barely d'.-liver their commands, and enjoin immediate and implicit submission (as one would imagine from your representation) ; but while they declare authoritatively whatever appears to Letter II. 23 lliem to lae tlie mind of Christ, and command all cordially to obey it, they, no less than Independents, are careful to state the grounds upon which their decision rests, and to afford to their members every mean by which their consciences may be satlsiied, and this enlightened and voluntary obedi- ence produced. Their public dehberations in every instance, where it is fit, are open to the hearing and examination of their members ; and there seems to be nothing in Presby- icrr/ to prevent every discussion which is proper to be carried on before an Independent, to be carried on also before a Presbyterian congregation. The reasons, besides, for every determination are not only uniformly stated, as has been al- ready mentioned, but if any of their members either do not understand their m.eaning, or perceive their force, they are never denied an opportunity of obtaining satisfaction by pri- vate conversation, or correspondence with the rulers. If, in any case, in short, of inferior magnitude, they cannot acquiesce in the decision of these rulers, forbearance can be granted to them no less than among Independents ; and i^, in any case, it be necessary to separate, because it is of su- perior importance, and they cannot comply,- they are not compelled to obey, but are allowed to separate no less than among them. There is one point, hcv/evcr, and but one, in which Presbyterians appear to differ from Independents on the subject before us, and on this you seem to lay considerable stress ; namely, that though the obedience which is requir- ed from their members by the former, is as free and as en- litrhtened as that v/aich is demanded from their me'mbcrs by the latter, Presbyterian rulers do not admit their people to indge and vote upon the propriety of their measures along with themselves, before they are finally adopted. But to this faci the words of Mr. Ewing, wliich I have quoted, furnish a complete and satisfactory answer. Is^othing, un- doubtedly, more directly teiids to subvert the order and Z<)veni7Jirnt o£ the church, as that gentleman affirms, than to allow every member a right to judge and vote upon the measures of rollers, and to oblige these rulers to retract cr irry forward any of these measure?, on'y in as far as it ig :;rceable to a majority of the people. It is, in fact, con- tituting those who should le ruled, the rulers, while the ''ecisi'diis of those who are dignified with that name are en- tirely subject to their dete;--n:inat!on. Their opinions, it 13 9i Letter VII. fello-wsliip with him, that he might be ashamed, and that others might fear. Is it said, in short, that as all the Corinthians are command- ed to forgive their offending brother, (2 Cor. ii. 7 — 10), , tliey must all have been rulers ? It is repHed, that this consequence appears by no means to follow — but that all • that can be deduced from it is this, that as they had all been ., offended by him in their various slniions, so they were ali to forgive him upon tokens of his repentance, and express , their forgivenesss in a manner which was suited to their- si' illation in the church. Those who were rulers, and were offended by him in that capacity, were commanded as siich_; to forgive him, and restore him again to the privileges of their Boci^ty } and these Nvho wei'C rnembtra, and had been offended by him as such, on account of the dishonour which. he had done to God, were called as such to express their ■ forgivenness, and restore him oi.ce more to the comforts and advantages of private fellowship. Thus it would appear^ that neither from this in particular, nor from any other eXf , pression contained in this passage, we are warranted to con^j elude that the members at large, in common with the rulersj are entitled to govern the church of Christ, r -95 ] LETTER VIII. Sir, In' proof of your opinion you farther affirm, (p. 3S}, tkat the people must be admitted to judge and vote, because, m the reference to the apostles and elders at Jerusalen^ from the church of Antioch, " they are represented as all uniting in *' the decision that was formed on the question appealed." Thus we are told, that " it pleased the apostles and elders, " with the iv/iole church, to send chosen men of their com- " pany to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas," &c. ; and " that they wrote letters by them after this manner : The " apostles, and elders, and bretliren, send greeting unto the i" brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, " and Cilicia." Let it be supposed for a moment, that the brethren, here mentioned, were not tJie other ministers who were then at Jerusalem besides the apostles and elders : if it be asserted that these members, in nny form, voted and judged in the case refeired to, while it seems to establish in cne view, it completely subverts in another, the scheme for which it is urged. You argue against Presbyterians when t-hey attempt to demonstrate from this passage, that one congregation, with its rulers, may be subject to the rulers of a number of congregations met as a Presbytery, and tell them that this case was extraordinary. Mr. Ewing ob- serves, in his Lecture, p. 77, that '< the miraculous gifts of " the Spirit were very generally enjoyed in the church at 1" Jerusalem ;" and seems to insinuate from this, the pro- priety of their being admitted, in a particular view, as ecclesiastical arbiters, to adopt and transmit the judgment of the apostles and elders as their judgment. You yourself also affirm, that all who passed this decision were under this influence, though in different degrees : for while you repre- sent the apostles, and elders, and brethren, " as united in "making it," you declare it to be extraordinary; add- ing, (p. 44), " if it was not extraordinary, let us see to " what it will lead." But if the argument which is advan- ced by Presbyterians from this passage for a court of review, above the ministers or elders of a particular congregation, composed of the ministers of a number of congregations, seems to you inconclusive, because this assembly was inspir- ed, and delivered an extraordinary inspired decision, must <)6 Letter VIII. it not be equally inconclusive when urged by Independent? for the right of the people to judge and vote in their religi- ous assemblies ? If the ministers and elders of different con- crregations now, who correspond to the elders associated with the apostles, are not to judge as a Presbytery in matters 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 the j^eojile now are to judge and vote, because the j)eoplc at Jerusalem judged and voted under the guidance of this extraordinary infallible energy ? Is it alleged with Mr. Ewing, (p. 78), that though the apostles and elders were inspired, Presbyterians allow their ministers, whom they call their successors, though not inspired, to judge and rule, and why not allow the mem- bers now to judge and vote, since they are the successors of those ancient m.embers who sat and judged in this inspired assembly ? We allow, that if it could be proved that this assembly was inspired, no argument would be urged by Presbyterians for the ministers and ciders of a number of congregations deliberating, as an authoritative court of re- view, in any appeal which is made, as in the case here record- ed, by a single church. It follows, therefore, upon his own principles as well as those of Prcshylerians, that since he and his brethren consider this assembly as composed of persons supernatnrnUy qualified for the decision which they delivered, in no point of view are they entitled to conclude, from what they apprehend to be said of the hretJtren judg- ing in this extraordinary meeting, and under this miracu- lous i)ijluence, that members notv, and upon common occa- sions, are warranted to judge in the church of God. The argument, besides, adduced by you and Mr. Ewing, in common with Mr. Glass, 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 Jerusalem, 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 otvn, but in those which concern even another con- gregation. But does not this contradict a first principle of Independency, that neither the members nor the rulers of one congregation have a right to interfere, even according to your own acknowledgement, (p. 30), and according to the favourite position of Glass whiclx be so keenly de- Letter VIII. 97 fends *, with any other congregation under heaven ? Be- sides, would not the subordination to which this argument leads, a subordination of a particular congregation, not merely, as Presbyterians maintain, to the ministers and lay- elders, the tvisest and most enlig/ilcned of a niunber of con- i gregations, but to tlie members i7idiscriminately of a sister I congregation, be much more intolerable, even upon your own principles, than that for which the former contend ? On the whole, whether this assembly was inspired or not inspired, if it be asserted that the brethren must judge now because they judged then, it will necessarily follow, not on- ly that the brethren of one congregation may judge in mat- ters which are to bind the brethren of another congregation, but that they may judge of them finally while the latter are not present, nor give their consent. But does not this con- tradict also another Independent principle, as stated by you, p. 30, " That whatever is done by those who are appointed " to rule, is carried on in the presence of the general body, " and with their consent V And will it not completely op- pose another favourite position of Glass, and Lockier, and other Independents, " That nothing can be binding upon " any society where their acquiescence and votes have not " previously been asked and obtained ?" Or is it said, that the assembly at Jerusalem was not in- spired, and that the reference made to them was simply for opinion and advice ? On this supposi,^ion, no Judicial poiver at all was exercised, no act oi government was performed bv any of them ; and consequently, though it were admitted that the brethren at Jerusalem were allowed, along with the apostles and elders, to state their opinion upon the con- troverted points, no argument can be adduced from it for the right of the brethren at present to govern and vote in the church. Gove-rning the church and exercising discipline are certainly very different from a mere statement of opinion upon a controverted point, which either might be received or rejected. And if the apostles, and elders, and members in the case before us, merely gave an advice, and stated an opinion, (as is done by the occasional associations of your ministers, while, as you declare, p. 31, 32, S^c. it is not binding upon any of your congregation), it will never follow that because the brethren were permitted to do this, they are * See his Wprks, vol. i. p. 155 — 202. 98 Letter VIII. «• - - ■. ^ ' authorised to govern or exercise discipline. In no view thea does any argument seem to be dediicible from this passage, for the right of the people to judge and vote in matters which relate to the government and discipline of the church of Christ. Again, supposing that this assembly at Jerusalem wa neither an extraordinary assembly, nor a meeting convenec merely for delivering an advice, but, as will afterwards atl least be attempted to be proved, an authoritative^ though ' an 2ini}ispired ecclesiastical court, I do not see how any ar- gument 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 breth- ren now could exercise even an au'horitive potver ; that they would be entitled likewise, like those at Jerusalem, to go- vern not only their own, but even othej- cong^regations ; and : that they would be warranted also authoritatively to govern these congregations, even when they were not present, and. cculd not consent to their decisions ; all of which supposi- tions are manifestly inconsistent with the declared principles^ ®f Independents. The truth therefore seems to be, accord- ing to the sentiments of some Presbyterians, that though, the members at Jerusalem expressed their acqidescence 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 themselves to the distinguishing J cculiarities of the law of Moses), they by no means appear to have judged authoritatively, or even voted in the matter.^ It was to the apostles and elders alone, and not to the mem- bers, that the church at Antioch are said to have referred their cause : Acts xv. 2. But if the members at Jerusalem,] Vv'ho were greatly more numerous than the apostles and el-| ders, sat in the court, and if the decision could have becni carried only, according to the constitution of the Christianl church, if agreeable to a majority of them, then since, onj account of their number, it must have been known at An-j ticch that it was they alojie principally who were to fix the determination, the reference should have been made pr/nci^ pally to them. It is the apostles and elders, too, alonej (ver. 6), who are said to have come together to consider the matter. But if it was considered hy tlu^ hretlircn as well as bv them, and, as is witnessed at present in Independent Letter VIII. 99 congregations, could not be determined mthoui their con- sent, how is it that they are not mentioned as constituting a part of that assembly which convened to deliberate on this interesting reference. During the deliberation, morever, it was only the apostles and elders, and not the brethren, who are said to have spoken ; and when the decision was made, and sent away, it iscalled " the decrees, not of the apostles, «' and elders, and brethren," (Acts xvi. 4), as we must na- turally have expected upon the principles of Independents, but " the decrees" merely " of the apostles and elders." This appears to be wholly inexplicable upon the scheme of those Independents who suppose that this meeting was but an ordinary assembly, in which the private members sat as well as the apostles and elders, and as they were allowed equally to express their judgment and state their vote, from their siqjerior- number, must have had more influence than they in passing the determination. It is indeed said, (Acts xv. 12), that " all the multitude " kept silence, aud gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, de- " daring what miracles and wonders God had wrought •* among the Gentles by them." But allowing that by the multitude we are here to understand the private members, and not the body of the apostles and other ministers, who certainly would constitute a very numerous assembly, it can- not be demonstrated from their being said to have kejJt si- lence during the speeches of these ministers, that they had previously spoken and" debated in this meeting. All that i-j necessarily suggested is, that during this wonderful narra- tive of facts, *' they were quiet, or held their peace from *' that noise or murmuring" which is often witnessed in multitudes, and which, perhaps, might have been experien- ced during the preceding speeches ; in other words, thev listened attentively. Does it follow, however, that because the attention of the audience was completely commanded, that the whole of the multitude, as well as the apostles and elders, had publicly spoken as judges upon this occasion ? It is also said, that " it pleased the whole church, as well as " the apostles and elders, (ver. 22), to send chosen men witL •* their determination to Antioch." Admitting, however, that by the whole church, or assembly, (acKMo-iot), is not intended the rest of the office-bearers who compose this meeting besides the apostles and elders, it deserves to be re- eiarked, says the ingenious Mr. Muir, that what is here 100 - Letter VIII. stated respecting the members, if it be the members who are meant, did not take place till the deliberation was finished, and the sentence was pa'ssed, which as we have now seen, Avas performed entirely by the apostles and elders. The church, moreover, he adds, if we choose rather to retain this translation of the word, and intend by it the members, might well be said to be pleased with the measure, and to express their acquiescence, though they were not allowed, in any view, jiidicialhj to signify their mind respecting it. 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 v.-holc in the decision, and might call upon the multitude, as at the election of the dea- cons, to look out from among them.selves two men for this purpose. TTpon their com.plying with the request, and choos- ing from among themselves Judas and Silas, it might strict- ly be said that it pleased them as well as the apostles and el- ders, to send these brethren to the church at Antioch, while yet, agreeisbly to the history, they neither publicly judgvd nor voted in the matter. But the letters, it may be said, winch were written to Antioch, were written in the name of the brethren as well as of the apostles and elders ; and the whole of them are represented as saying to the church at Antioch, (ver. 28), that it seemed good to them as well as to the Holy Ghost, to lay upon them no greater burden 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 which was made by the apostles and elders, and not as themselves joining Hudicially in the deliberation or determination ; and that it is in this view that their names are inserted in the letters. ^ 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 ? They are never named among those who came together to consider the matter, and can we sup- pose that, if they did not meet either for deliberation or de- cision, they determined in this cause, either virtiiall!/ or os- ten>ibli/, as ecclesiastical judges ? Besides, when the sacred historian speaks of the decision which was contained in these letters, and of the persons who passed it as ecclesiastical jud- ges, he affirms, as lias been said repeatedly, that it was pro- nounced only by the apostles and elders ; chap. xvi. ver. 4. To make the historian therefore consiatent xvith himself, it Letter VIII. 101 J8 necessary to consider him here as telling us, that the brethren merely acquiesced in what was done by the apostles and ciders. Or if it be said once more with Mr. Ewing *, that though the brethren did not at first judge in this appeal, yet they had the honour of ado2)tmg and transmiiling the judgment of the apostles and elders as their judgment ? It is answered, that if this amounted to any thing more than a mere declaration of their acquiescence and approbation — if, it contained in it any thing which can be considered as judi-'* cial, it is liable to all the objections we have mentioned. It was a transmitting their judgment as ecclesiastical judges, in a case in which they were never appealed to : it was a judi- cial examination and decision of a matter which they are never even said to have assembled with the apostles and el- ders to consider : and it was a transmitting their judgment with all the authority of arbiters (if they too, as he affirms, p. 78, at the top, are among the persons who declare that it seemed good to thtm judicially to lay upon the discicles at Antioch necessary burdens), while, even upon this gen- tleman's principles, and those of every Independent, they vvere not entitled to lay upon them any burden ; and while, as has been stated, in the account afterwards delivered of those who then judged, and laid this burden upon the disciples, their name is never mentioned. How could the brethren of one congregation lay judicially any necessary burdens up- on the brethren of another congregation, call it an adopt- ing or transmitting the judgment of the apostles and el- ders, or what you please ? Or if it was not an ostensible judicial power, but simply of the kind which is claim,- ed by the members of an Independent congregation that is supposed to have been exercised by these members at Jeru- salem, upon rvhat ground, and I request it to he particular- ly considered, couJd they exercise even this over the m.em- bers at Antioch ? Is it consistent with the distinguishing principles of Independents, to allow to the members of one of their churches the same power of judging over the mem- bers of another, by uhatever name you call it, which is uniformly exerted by them before any thing can be passed in their oivn society ? But if it be repugnant even to the principles of Indepciidenis themselves, to grant to the mem- bers of o^ee- congregation the same power of judging as to. * See his Lecture, p. 77, nsar the foot. 102 Letter VIH. the affairs of another which they assume in their own, upon what ground can they affirm that a power merely of this kind, though nominallij injerior to that of the ministers, ' ■was exercised by the members of the church at Jerusalem, though associated with the apostles and ciders, over the ■members at Antioch ? On the whole it may be remarked, that as Mr. Ewing admits, (p. 77), that from this decision , of the apostles there was no dissent or appeal, even though it should be granted that the brethren were allowed to adopt ' and transmit to the church at Antioch their judgment as their own, it seems impossible to establish from it the right of the brethren not only to adopt, if they are pleased, but,, as is frequently witnessed, to reject and nnUifij, if they are ''ho] are their officers, is it not obvious that in his time, or in hisl church at least, every measure must not have been submit-l ted to their vote as much as to that of the office-bearers ? — if Here then seems to be one pointed and decisive testimony! from a father, whose antiquity and high respectability en- title him unquestionably to the greatest regard, completely! contradictory to the assertions of Lidependents. In his days! * See Mr. Robertson's Reply to R'Ir. Ewing's Animadversionj on his Attack upon Lay-preaching, p. 21, and 23. Letter VIII. 109 undoubtedly (and he lived immediately after the apostles of Chriit) the people cannot have enjoyed the same authority in ecclesiastical government as their pastors and elders, or his reasoning would have been inapposite and inconclusive. Nay, had they possessed such power in all other congrLga- tionj, though refused it in his, his argument would still h?.ve been weak and nugatory ; for it might have been rcpned by the Coi-inthians, that though the members of his church were obliged to be subject to their spiritual overseers as sol- diers are to their officers, yet the appointment of Christ, and the practice of every other primitive church, warranted them to claim an equality of power, in judging and voting upon every measure, with their ministers and elders. But as we cannot suppose that such an argument would have been used by Clemens, had he known that this universally was the constitution of the church, it naturally follows, that at that period at least, the people must have been strangers to that degree of power which Independents contend should now be granted to them in ecclesiastical government. Jerome also, who was not long posterior to Clemens, ex- hibits a testimony no less strong and explicit against Inde- pendency, in his remarks upon Titus, chap. i. " Antequani " (says he) diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et *' diccretur in populo, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego ve- ^' ro Ccphje, communi presbyterorum consiho ecclesias gu- " bcrnabantur," S)-c. i. e. " Before, through the suggestion " of the devil, factions arose in religion, and it was said " among the people, I am of Paul, I am of A polios, and " I of Cephas, the churches tvere governed by a common ^< council of presbyters." Upon which the learned Cha- mier, in his Treatise dc fficumen. Pontif. Lib. x. cap. v, sect, xxii, in reply to Bellarmine, remarks, " Respondeoad primum etiamsi aristocratia non sit totidem syllabis nomi- nata, tamen certo significatam his verbis communi presby- ** terorum consilio ecclesiie gubernabantur," eye. Arid subjoins, " Bonam autem fuisse id regiminis formam, inde <' sequitur, quod ab »2?7/o fuisse dicat (Hieronymus) cum *' in ecclesia id sit optimum quod verissimum, id autem <* verissimum quod 2jW7?zum .• — Dicet enim (Hieron.) fuissi " ex institutionis DominiccB veritate'.' But if, as is justly observed by Chamier, we are instructed by this father, that ?w the apostolic times, and in the ages xvhich immedialch/ mc<:c€ded that psriodi the churches were governed, agrce- K 110 Arr-EXDix to ably to the injunction of Christ himself, by a council di presbyters, is it not obvious that originally the people can- not liave been admitted to parity of power, in every congre- gacion, with their elders and office-bearers ? Had it uni- versally been the prtictice of the New Testament churche;-, and of the congregations at large in every country which wtve afterwards formed, to allow their members to judge and vote upon every cause ; nay, as the members were more numerous, had it generally been known that every Christian society was more really governed by the fornier than by the latter ; how could Jerome err so egregiously in a matter of fact, and assert, in opposition to the knowledge of all, and at the risk of instant and universal contradiction, that, till factions had begun to arise in the church, every congrega- ':!on was governed by a council of elders ? It would ap- pear then, from this clear and striking declaration of one who, from antiquity and superior information, was eminent- ly qualified to judge upon this subject, that, in the aposto- lic times as well as in subsequent ages, the people were not permitted to vote and determine in ecclesiastical matters, b'lt that the churciics were administered, as at present among Presbyterians, by a council of office-bearers. To these quotations might be added the words of Ignatius, an apostolic father, (Epist. ad Tralhanps, edit. Oxen. p. 66), who calls the presbyters or elders of his times, the a-vvi'^^iov 0i«y, or the sanhedrin or council of God : " 'Oi ^s cT^ecr/Syrs^o* a? ,(rvvi^^iov &iov," &c. But upon what ground could he distinguish them by the name of the sanhedrin, the xrommon appellation of the Jewish ecclesiastical judicial court, if they did not constitute a corresponding court in the Christian church ? With this, too, might be mentioned the words of Oligen, who, in his Seventh Homily upon Joshua, orders "one who had been thrice admonished, and was " unwilling to repent, to be cut off from the church by its <* presidents or ciders : — Tertio admonitum resipiscere no- *' lentcm jubet ab ecclesiie corpore desecari, per ecclesias " presides." And to this might be subjoined the declara- tion of the authors of ,the Magdeburgen. Centnrise, a work of the highest credit and authority for its accurate represen- tatioi.s of ecclesiastical antiquity : *' Jus (say they. Cent. iii. " cap. vii. p. 151), tractandi de excommunicandis, aut re- '' cipiendis publice lapsis, penes seniorcs ecclcsise erat ;" . . e, " The right of deciding respecting such as were to be Letter VIlI. Ill " excommunicated, or of receiving, upon their repentance, '*■ such as had fallen from the profession of Christianity, was " vested in the elders of the church ;" and, in proof of this they refer us to TertuUian's Apology. They indeed remark, (Cent. ii. cap. vii. p. 134), « Ceterim si quis probatos au- " tores hujus seculi perspiciat, yidebit formam gubernatio- " nis propemodum Aii^.»Jsg«:T«x; similem fuisse ;" -but in the following words, they suffic'ently explain their meaning : — " Singulje enim ecclesias (say they), pareju habebant poto- " ialcm verbum Dei pure docendi, sacramenta administran- " di, absolvendi et excommunicandi h^reticos ct sceleratos, " et ceremonias ab apostolis acceptas exercendi, aut etiam *' pro ratione asdificationis novas condendi, ministros eligen- *' di, vocandi, ordinandi, et justissimas ob causas iterum de- " ponendi." From this it is evident, that though, in the former sentence, they had said that the government of the Christian church, in the second century, was almost like a democracy, they intended only that it resembled it in this individual circumstance, that all its congregations had aa equality of power ; and, as Wood observes, p. 383, " that " no particular church was to have any authoritative and " juridical snperioritie over other particular churches, as the " Prelaticall men pleaded for authoritative superioritie in *' their cathedrall churches, over all particular churches in " the ditecese, and the Papalins for an universall superioritie *« and supremacie in the church of Rome, over all other *' churches in the world." '•' Besides," as he adds, " it is " to be observed that among other things which they rec- *• kon up as parts of the church-government, which they " say was much like democracie, they put in the preaching " of the word, and administration of sacraments, which *' themselves before say (and no man of sound judgment *' will deny) are acts proper to the called ministers of Christ ; ** Whence also, it is manifest that they mean not a demo- *' cracie properly so called, which putteth the formall ■ *' power and exercise of government in the hands of all and *' every one of the naultitude, which the Independent bre- " thren plead for." On the whole, even Cvprian, whom Independents have sa frequently represented as affirming that the government or the church was purely popular, uses expressions by no mean--^ consistent with such a supposition. He tells us for instance, in his Epistle to Ouintus, de Hoereticis Baotizandis, p, l-iO", ' K 2 il'2 Appendix to that the persons who " governed the church of the Lord in " the province of Africa and Numidia, at the period to *♦ which he refers, were Agrippinus, a man of worthy me- " mory, and his fellow bishops or ministers. Quod quidem " et Agrippinus, bonae memorise vir, cum casteris coepisco- ** pis ejus, qui iilo tempore in provincia Africce et Numidiae *' ecclesiam Domini gubernabant, statuit, et librato consi- *< hi communis examine finr.avit." That the power of or- dination also, that most important act of ecclesiastical go- vernment, was intrusted only with the ministers, in the days of this father, is no less evident. In his Fifty -second Epistle, for example, while he says that Cornelius was chosen to be a bishop - by the vote of the people, be declares most ex- pressly, that he was ordained only by the ministers or clergy. " Et factus est, (says he, p. 75), episcopus a plurimis col- « legis nostris qui tunc in urbe Roma aderant qui ad no3 " literas honorificas, et laudabiles, et testimonio suze prnsdi- " cationis illustres de ejus ordinatione miserunt. Factus *' est autem Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus ju- *' dicio, de clericorum pene omnium testimonio, de plebis, *' quae tunc afFuit sufFragio, et de sacerdotium et bonoruni " virorum collegio * ;" i. e. in substance, " He was made ** a bishop by many of my colleagues who were then in " Rome, according to the judgment of God and Christ, *< the testimony of almost all the clergymen (who belonged « to that church), the vote of the people who were present, " and the college of ancient priests and worthy men." And he says of Novatian, (p. 81), tliat " he was made a bishop " by siiiteen of his fellow ministers or bishops." ** Nisi si " episcopus tibi videtur, qui episcopo in ecclesia a sedecim " coepiscopis facto, adulteratque extraneus epigcopus fieri * See also Eplst. 1 XXV. p. 159, " Sed et cretcri qiiique Iia;fet!ci, «' 81 se ab ecclesia Dei sciJerint, nihil liaberc potestatis aut gratiae " posEunt, quai'.tlo omnia potestas et gratia in ecck'sia constituta " sit, ubi prxsident majores nata, qui et baptizandi et manuin ini- " ponendi et ordinandi possident potestatcin ;" /. e. " But l!ie otliei- " heretics also, if they separate from ti)c cliurch, can have nu " power or grace, since all power and grace are placed in the " church, where ciders preside, in whom is vested the power of " baptizing, and imposition of liands, *nd orJiuution.^' And it is obvious that tliese elders must have been the ministers of the churcli, and not merely lavmcn advanced in age, for thev are said also to baptize as well as ordain, and none we know could perform that act, but such as v/ere recognised 4S office-bearers or presbvtcro. Letteu VIII. i^3 " lerit ;" i. e. " And when he sent deputies to us to Africa, « dcsirino- to be received into our coranriunion, he carried' K y 1 l-h ApPENDiX JO *' back, from a council of many ministers wlio were present- , " this sentence or determination." Thus, too, he informs us, in the same Epistle, p, 129, that the persons who judg- ed in the case of iVIarcian, when lie also apostatized, were the office-bearers alone. " Ex quibus cum iVIarcianus esse " cceperit, et ce Novatiano conjungens, adversarius miseri- *' cordite et pietatis extiterit : sententiam non dicat, sed ccci- '• pint, nee sic agat quasi \^?,^ j ml leave ril de collegio sacer- '■* doliim, quando ipse sit ab universis sacerdotibus judica- *' tus," Thus, likewise, Privatus, on old heretic, was til- ed and condemned by a council consisting of ninety ministers, which met for the purpose in the Lambesitanian colony ; and was also denied admission into the Christian fellowship of the African churches by a similar council, which was after- wards convened, to decide upon an application which was made by him to that end. " Per Fehcianum autem (says ♦' he, p. 92), significavi tibi, frater venisse Carthagincm *' Privatum veterim hjereticum, in Lambesitana colonia, " ante multos fere annos, ob multa et gravia delicta nona- " ginta episcoporum sententia condemnatum, antecessorum " etiam nostrorum, quod et vestram conscientiam non latet, " Fabiani et Donati literis severissime notatum, qui cum " causam suam apud nos in concilio, quod habuimus idibus <' Maiis, quae proximo fueruut, agere vellc se diceret, nee *' admissus esset, fortunatum istum sibi pseudoepiscopum " dignum collegio suo fecit *." As it was by ministers alone that ministers were judged * It has indeed been asserted by King, p. 10;', " That tlie same '• mode was observed in the deposition of a bishop as in liis elec- " tion. As a bishop v/as elected by the people over whom he was " to preside, and by the neighbouring bishops, so was he deposed ■' by the same; both which things seem to be intimated in tiiat •* passage of the foremenrioned Epistle, (Epist. Isviii), wherein it " is said, that the people chiefly has power, either to choose wor- " thy bishops, or to refuse unworthy ones." But upon this it may be rem.arked, that in the passage referred to Cyprian is not speaking of the degree of authority which the people should have in the de- position of bishops compared with that of the ministers of the church, but simply shewing that it is lawful for them to separate from such bishops. This he demonstrates by various commands and examples adduced from the scriptures ; and then su!)joins, *• Propter quod plebs obsequens praiceptis Dominicis, et Deum ti- ♦' mens, a peccatore prxposito sefarars ss debet, nee se ;id sacriiegi " sacerdotis sacrificia miscere; quando ipsa maxime habeat potes- " tatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi ;" i.t. " \\\ substance, " Wherefore the people, obedient to the com- LEi-xER vur. IIJ and condemned, if guilty, so it was by minibters alone that they were afterwards received, on evidences of their repent- ance, into the communion of the church. This is manifest from what is mentioned by Cyprian, (Epist. hi. p. 76), re- specting Trophimus, who had separated from the church, but afterwards, upon his penitence, was pubUcly re-admitted. " Nam sicut antecessores nostri (says he) saspe fecerunt, " colhgendis fratribus nostris, charissimus frater noster Cor- " nehus neccssitati succubuit : et qucniam cum Trophimo " pars maxima plcbis abscessei'at, redeunte nunc ad ecclesiam " Trophimo, et satisfaciente, ct poenitentia deprecationis <' crrorem pristinum consitente et fraternitatem, quam nuper " abstraxerat, cum plena humilitate et satistactione revo- '• cante, audita: sunt ejus preccs ; et in ecclesiam Domini <' non tani Trophimus, quam maximus fratrum numerus, qui *' cum Trophimo fuerat admissus est : qui omnes rogressuri " ad ecclesiam non essent, nisi cum Trophimo comitante " vcnissent." The persons who re-admitted not merely Trophimus, but a great number of the people who had seced- ed along with him, and now repented of their error, were an assembly composed of the colleagues of Cyprian and Cor- nelius his fellow-bishop. " Tractatu illic cum coUegis plu- " rimis habito susceptus est Trophimus ;" i. e. " A delibe- ** ration being held there, with many of our colleagues, " Trophimus was received," And that it was the same persons alone who were invested with a power judicially to pardon and punish the sins of transgressors in general in the Christian church, seems to be no less clear from his Epistle to Jubaianus, p. \\5. " Nam Petro (says he) primum *' Dominus, super quern cedificavit ecclesiam, et unde uni- " niandments of the Lord, and fearing God, ought to separate " themselves from the wicked office-bearer, especially as they have " the power of choosing worthy bishops, or of refusing unworthy " ones." And as the people are here said to have had the power " of choosing a worthy minister, or refusing an unworthy one, and not to have had more power for this purpose, as King trans- lates the words, than the governors of the churcl), it appears no less manifest from other passages, that Cyprian cannot be supposed to assert in this passage, that the people were allowed to sit in any court which met to deliberate on the deposition of a bishop. As it is evident that a bishop, when elected by them, was ordained solely by the ministers of the church, so it is no less obvious from the instances which have been mentioned, that though they have a power also of separating from an unworthy overseer, it is intend- ed to be intimated, that this is only to take place after he has been previously judged by au assembly composed of the office-bearers. 116 Appendix to " tatis oiiginem institult, et ostendit : potestatem istam dedit, " ut id solvcretur in coelis, quod ille solvisset in terris. Et " post resurrectioncm qnoque ad apostolos loquitur dicens : <' Sicut misit me pater, et ego mitto vcs : Hoc curn dixisset, " inspiravit, et ait illis : Accipite Spiritum sanctum: Si " cujus remiaeritis peccata, remittentur illi : Si cujus tenue- " ritis tenebuntur." That is, " For the Lord gave to Peter, " and afterwards to his apostles, this power, that what they " bound on earth should be bound in heaven, and what they " loosed on earth should be loosed in lieaven." " Whence," he adds, " we understand that it is lawful for none but the " ojfice-hearcrs of the church to baptize, and grant remis- " sioa of sins. Undo intelligimus non nisi in ecclesia prce- *' posit is, et in evangelica lege, ac Dominica ordinatione " fundatis licere baptizare, et remissam peccatorum dare." If it was his opinion, however, that none but the cffice- bearers. or the pr-«//7^ of elders in every church, they tell us, is evident, among other passages, from Acts xiv. 23, where w^e are told, that " Paul and Barnabas ordained " ciders in ei^cry churchf." The particular number of these elders is not specified, but it appears fit that it should be determined by the number of members. At any rate it is certaii', that it can never properly be less than tln-ee ; for if there were only two, and if they should happen to differ upon any point of disciphne, or any case of government, no decision could be made. But if, in every church however small, there can never be less than three elders, it seems ob- vious that all of them cannot be elders who ieach. In your own society, as well as your sister-societies, the teaching eldejs receive a maintenance, which enables them to give themselves ivholly to their particular function, without in- termingling in the business of the world. This indeed is] their just prerogative. " Do ye not know," says Paul,] (1 Cor. ix. 13, 14), " that they which minister about holy]| «' things, live of the things of the temple ? and they whichl " wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar ? Even soi *< hath ihe Lord ordained, that they which preach thej * Sec his book on tlie Gospel Cluircli. •j- See your brother Mr. Balleiitiiie's Observ.->tions, p. 00 — !?5,| and the Review of tliefc Observations in the Missionary Magazine,^ which quotes his sentiments with the most decided approbation. Letter IX. • 121 " gospel, sliould Jive of the gospel." And tliovigh minis- ters, in extraordin:iry instances, like the Apostle Paul, may give up with this right, nothing appears plainer than that it is not to be done in ordinary cases. Reason and experience indeed unite in proving, that nothing is better fitted to secure a respectable ministry, than to grant them such a mainten- ance as will enable them to devote themselves entirely to personal improvement and public duty. But to aitord at least to three teaching elders such a maintenance, the fnnd:i of scarcely any church are adequate. If tliere must be a plurality of elders in every chuicli however small, and if that plurality, in every case of government, cannot be less than three, it appears naturally to follow that they cannot ell be "teachers, for all cannot be maintained. There must of con- sequence in every church, not only be an elder \vho teaches as well as rules, and who, as he gives himself n7/o;'/y to the duties of his profession, is entitled to maintenance from that society, but elders also, whose maintenance, if required, since they are allowed to attach themselves likewise to secular em- ployments, is not so great, and more consistent with the funds and abilities of the church. • Secondly, The extcpit of that inspection and superintend- ence which are required from the rulers of the church over the members, seems to suggest the necessity of a class of elders who are not to teach, but to have ihis peculiar pro- vince assigned them. Not only is it the duty of the elders of the churcli to make known, by preaching, their privileges and duties to the Christian members, but a class of oiTice-bearers is required for government and inspection, if possible, still more varied and extensive. It is they alone, we have seen, who are to admit and exclude members, and attend to all those labori- ous investigation-8 which are often connected with the pej- formance at least of the last of these acts. It is they alone who are to judge in matters of government, and to deter- mine on every point of difficulty and importance, according to the rules before explained ; as well as to regulate, accord- ing to Dr. Owen, (p. 290), the external concerns of the church of Christ, and appoint seasons for extraordinary- duties. Besides this, the Doctor remarks, (p. 292), that I they are bound, " In the 1st place. To watch diligently over the ways, ' walking, and couversalion of all the members of the I, 122 Letter IX. " churcli ; to see that it be blameless, witubut ofre.ncp, " useful, exemplaiy, and in all things answering the holines'; -*•' cf the comnnands of Christ, the honour of the gospel, and " profession which in the \¥orld they make thereof. And " upon the observation which they so make, in the watch « wherein they are placed, to instruct, admonish, charge, " exhort, encourage, connfort, as they see cause. And this <« they are to attend unto with courage and diligence. " They are, 2dly, To watch against all risings or ap- " pcarar.ces of such differences and divisions on the account <' of things ecclesiastical or civil, as unto their names, rights, <' and proprieties in the world, that are contrary unto that «< love which the Lord Jesus req^iiireih in a peculiar and emin- " ent manner to be found amongst his disciples. — The due " observance of this law of love in its^-lf and all its fruits '' with the prevention, removal, or condemnation of all that *< is contrary unto it, is that in which the rule of the church *< doth principally consist. And coiisider-ing the weakness, *• the passions, the temptations of mep, the mutual provoca- « tions and exasperations that ai'e apt to fall out even among •=« the best, the influence that earthly occasions are apt to <* have upon their minds, the fi'owavdness sometimes of men's <« natural tempers ; the attendance unto this one duty or *' part of rule, requires the- utmost diligence of them that «< are called unto it. And it is merely either the want of '< acquaintance with the nature of that law and its fruits, ^« which the Lord Christ requires among his disciples, or an «' undervaluation of the worth and glory of it in the church ; «« or inadvertency unto the causes of its decays, and of ♦' breaches made in it, or ignorance of the care and duties *' that are necessary to its preservation, that induce men to '•judge that the work of an especial c/ffice is not required '• hereunto. *' In the 3d place. Their duty is to warn all die members *' of the church of their especial church-duties, that they *« may not be found negligent or wasting in them. There " are especial duties required respectively of all church- « members, according unto the distinct talents, whether in " things spiritual or temporal, which they have received. *< Some are rich, and some are poor; some are old, and <' some are young ; some in peace, some in trouble ; some _ ♦' have received more spiritual gifts than others, and havej <« more opportunities for their exercise. It belongs untc LKfTLr: iX. J -3 '■< the rule of the church, that" all be admonished, instructed, •^ and exhorted to attend unto their respective duties ; not " only publicly in the preaching of the word, hut jjersona/I^^jy *' as occasion doth require, according to the observation " which those in rule do make of th(.ir forwardness or re- *' missness in them. *' 'itlily. They are to watch against the bfginning of any *' church-disorders, such as those that inf^;sted the church «' of Corinth, or any of the like sort ; with remissness as " unto the assemblies of the church, and the duties of them, " which some are subject unto, as the apostle intimates, " Heb. X. 25. Ou the constancy and diligence of the elders *' ill this part of their work and duty, the very being and *' i-rder of the church do greatly depend. The want hereof <' liath opened a door unto all the troubles, divisions, and •• schisms, that in all ages have invaded and perplexed the " churches of Christ from within themselves. And from « the/.ce also have decays in faith, love, and order, insensibly "• pre\.:led in many lo the dishonour of Christ, and the «• danger of their own souls. First, one grows remiss in al- ♦' tending unto the assemblies of the church, and then ano- *♦ ther ; fir^i to on- degree, then to another, until the whole " lump be infected. . A dihgent watch over these tilings, *« as to the beginnings of them in all the members of the ** church, will either heal and recover them that offend, or " it will warn others, and keep the church from being cither " corrupted or defiled : Heb. xiu. 12. *' In the 5th place. It belongs unto them also to visit the '* sick, especi..l;v Guch as whose inward or outward condi- " lions CO expose them unto more than ordinary trials in *^ their sickness ; that is, the poor, the afflicted, the tempt- ** ed in any kind. This in general is a m.oral duty, a work *' of mercy ; but it is moreover, a peculiar church-duty, by " virtue of institution. And one end of the institution of ■" churches, is that the disciples of Christ may have all that *' spiritual and temporal relief which is needful for them, and ** useful to them- in their troubles and distresses. And if " this duty were diligently attended to by the officers of the *' church, it would add much unto the glory and beauty of ; ♦' our order, and be an abiding reserve with relief in the ♦*' minds of them whose outward condition exposeth them t© "■ straits and sorrows in such a season. l2 221- Letter IX. "- 6thl)', It belongs to them and their office, to advise " and give direction unto the deacons of the church, as unto <' the making provision and distribution of the charity of " the church for the reHef of the poor. The office of the " deacons is principally executive, as we shall see afterwards. " Inquisition into the state of the poor, with all their cir- *'' cumstances, with the warning of all the members of tlie " church unto liberality for their supply, belongs to the *' elders. <* In the 7th place, When the state of the church is such, " through suffering, persecution, and affliction, that the poor " be multiplied among them, so as that the church itself is *' not a"ble to provide for their relief in a due manner, if any *' supply be sent unto them from the love and bounty of ** other churches, it is to be deposited with these elders, " and disposed according to their advice, and with that of *' the teachers of the church : Acts xi. 30. " And Sthly, It is of great importance to teaching ciders *' to be acquainted with their flock, that they may be di- «* rected in their labours. He w^ho makes it not his busi- " ness to knov^ the state of the church which he ministers •' unto in the word and doctrine, as to tneir knowledge, " tlieir judgment and understanding, their temptations and " occasions, and applies not himself in his ministry to search <' out what is necessary and useful unto their edification ; <' he fights uncertainly in his whole work, as a man beating " the air. But whereas their obhgation to attend unto the " word and prayer, confines them much unto a retirement " for the greatest part of their time, they cannot by them- "' selves obtain ;hat acquaintance with the whole flock, but " that ethers may greatly assist therein, from their daily in- '* spection, converse, and observation." After which the Doctor subjoins various other duties ; and then adds, (p. 300), " It is a vain apprehension to suppose that one or two " teaching officers in a church, who are obliged to give tbem- <' selves unto the word and prayer, to labour with all their " might in the word and doctrine, to preach in and out of ♦' season ; that is, at all times, on all opportunities as they " are able, to convince gainssyers by word and v.riting, " pleading for the trutlT; to assist and guide the conscien- " ces of all, under their temptations and desertions, with " sundry other duties, in part spoken to before, should be " able to take care of, and attend with diligence unto all Letteu IX. 125 "' tliese tilings that do evidently belong unto tbe rule of the « church." Since such then are the duties incumbent on the rulers, and since, if the church be extensive or greatly scattered, as is frequently the case, it is impossible for one, or two, or even three teaching elders, though the congregation could support them, faithfully and satisfactorily to discharge these duties, it seems necessary that there should be another class of elders to attend to them. In your societies, if I mistake not, these duties are in general committed to the deacons, who assist the pastor in the superiiitendence of the flock. Such superintendence, however, is no proper part of the office of a deacon considered as suchf and belongs only to those who are appointed as rulers to watch over the church. And though this inspection and superintendence may in some measure be performed likewise by those who are members, as they may communicate instruction also in a manner suited to thdr particular stations, yet it is plain, tliat, like the duty of preaching, they belong properly, in all this extent, to those only who are elders and overseers of the flock. But if such an oversight and superintendence be the duty of the elders, and if it exceed the abilities of those elders who teach, and are enjoiaed to give themselves- ^vholl^ to their particular calling, does it not follow that there must be an order of elders distinct from them,. who are to assist them in governing arid watcliing over the flock ?, In the third place. The tendency which in every age, even by the confession of Independents, has been discovered in pastors to assume to -themselves an immoderate and unreason- able power over the church of Christ, seems to point out the necessity of a class of elders difTerent from them, who may check these usurpations, and restrain their ambition. That the ministers of religion, however amiable and vener- able their character, are subject to the frailties and imper- fections of humanity, and that a desire of undue and extra- vagant authority has too often been one of these imperfec- tions, is a truth which will scarcely be denied. At the dis- tance of a very few years only from the death of the apostles did this pernicious principle begin to operate, and it grad- ually produced those assumptions of Episcopacy, and that tyranny of Popery, which so long enslaved the Christian world. And to what cause are we to ascribe the introduc- tion of these evils ? If we attend both to the nature of the L 3 126 Letter IX. thing, and to ibe j-epresentatior.G of the fathers, who wit- nessed and deplored them, they were to be attributed in a great measure to the discontinuance of that separate class of rulers who were originally instituted in the Christian church, and whose superintendence restrained the ambition of the pastors. Accordingly, the writer of the Commentaries commonly attributed to Ambrose, in his explication of 1 Tim. V. 1, says, " Wherefore both the synagogue, and afterwards " the church had elders, without whose counsel nothing *' was done in the church ; which order by what negligence " it grew into disuse I know not, unless perhaps by the *' sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, while they " alone wish to appear something." *' Unde et synagoga " et postea ecclesia seniores habuit, sine quorum consilio '• nihil gerebatur in ecclesia : quod qua negligentia obsole- " verit nescio : nisi forte doctorum desidia, aut magis super- *' bia, dam soli volunt aliquid videri." And we know that Calvin, from a conviction of these truths, and from a persua- sion of the necessity of such an order of elders to prevent those excesses of tyranny which were practised by the Ro- mish clergy at the period of the Reformation, A.D. 154'2*, revived these rulers in the Christian church. Were such an order again to be discontinued, and the governm.ent again intrusted to the ministers alone, is it not evident that the door would be opened for similar tyranny over the heritage * Though this order of elders, however, was more generally re- stored by this illustrious reformer at the period referred to, yet h does not appear that it was entirely abolished even in the darkest times of error and corruption whicii preceded this era. Bucer at Jeast informs us, ia liis book entitled, Scripta duo Adversaria La- tomi, Isfc. p. 17, that the Bohemian churches, who, " alone almost,"] to use his expressive words, " preserved in the zvorldihe purity of the! *' doctrine and the •vigour of the disciyline of Christ," had this orderj amongst them. " Ilia certe ratio optima, quam observant fratresi " Picardi, qui soli prope in orbe^cVim puritate doctrinx, vigoreml " etiam disciplinse ChristI apud se retinuerunt, quam laudem ut iisj ''^ tribuamus, et Dominum, qui sic in illis operatur, celebremus,! *' res ipsa cogit, etiamsi fratres illi a prsepostere dcctis nonnuUis] " contemnantur. Ratio vero quam in hac re observant, hzc est,] *' Prxter ministros verbi et sacramentorum habent certum coUe- " gium virorum prudentia et gravitate spiritus prxcellentium, qui'' *' munus obeunt monendi ac corrig#ndi fratres peccantes, compo- " nendi dissidentes, et in causis eorum judicandi. De hujusmodi <« senioribus scripsit et divus Ambrosius in Epiit, i. ad. Tim. cap. v. *' Unde et synagoga," 5^^. Letter IX. 127 of God ? The institution therefore of a separate ordei* to restrain these encroachments, and maintain the rights and h- bertics of the people, seems absolutely requisite for the wel- fare of the church. In answer to this, let it not be remarked, that the power of the clergy is equally bounded by the scheme of Indepen- dency, which allows them not to establish any of their mea- sures without the previous judgment and consent of the members. It is plain that the clergy could more readily in- fluence a congregation at large, many of whom are unable to judge, and will be disposed to be partial to the opinion of their pastors, than a few of the wisest and most enlightened of the people, who are no less qualiiied to judge, perhaps, than the ministers themselves. Besides, it has already been attempted to be proved, that such a power of judgment and consent is not granted to the members, and consequently that sach a preservative from the assumptions of the clergy is not to be admitted into the church of Christ. Fourthly, There are many to be found in the church who, though not fitted to be teaching elders, are eminently qualiiied to be rulers. Most men have i^ not in their power to attain that learning, and that facility of expression, which are requisite for the former, while many of them have ac- quired that experience and sagacity which may fit them for the useful discharge of the latter. Shall the church then, because they are not qualified to be numbered among her in- structors, be totally deprived of the benefit of their endow- ments ? No, certainly. Does not Paul, when demonstrat- ing that there are to be various offices in tiie church of Christ, (Rom. xii. 1 Cor. xii. SfC.J, urge, in proof of it, that he has bestowed upon its members a variety Ofgif^^ which qualify them for these offices ? But since Jesus lias bestowed upon many of the members of his church gifts for ruhng, while he has not imparted to them' gifts for teaching, if there be no office assigned to them for the exercise of these gifts, how can this reasoning- be conclusive ? I maintain, therefore, that since Jesus has communicated to many members in his church gifts for ruling, and for that alone, and since we are taught to believe that Vv'here he imparts gifts, there is a cor- responding office, there must in his church be a class of elders who are to rule and not to teach, as there is a class of elders who are appointed to rule as well as to teach. 128 - Letter IX. Is it said, that if this reasoning establish any thing, it lz^ tabhshes too much, for as, according to Independents, all the members are fitted to judge, should not they«// be con- stituted judges and rulers ? It is rephedj that to make such an inference is ia truth to btg the question, or to take for granted the thing to .be proved. It was before evincedj that the iv'iole of the mimbtrs of any congregation are very far fi-oni being quaUliad for such a trust, and conseq4ientIy, even according to this principle, ought not to be judges. It is certain, besides, that every one who is qualified to per- form the office of a deacon is not entitled, even among In- dependents, from his possessing these gifts, to exercise that oincc; but only so many as have been regularly authorized and appointed by the church, though it would be veiy sur- mising if the other duties of a pastor prevented him from fulfilling the office of a deacon, that none of the members!, should be nominated to assist him. As then it appears that there is to be a diversity of offices in the church of Jesus, corresponding to the diversified gifts of its members, and as theie are many of the members who, -though eminently qua<- lified for ruling, ar^ not fitted for teaching, it appears ne- cessarily to follow that there must be a class of elders in the church who are to ruleand not to teach. ■ r*.s it has, more- over, been proved that *very member has not these gifts, of consequence, every member cannot have that authority. And as the mere possession ot gifts does not warrant, even upon the principles of - Independents, all who have them to exe- cute the office of a deacon and other functions, but that only so many as the general interests of the- body require, and as have been appointed to the regular dischaj'ge of them, are authorized to fulfil them,;, so it is no less manifest that all who are distinguished for gifts of ruling are not on thi account to be chosen to rule, but only so many as are ne- i cessary for the inspection- and government of the church. It is surprising, in short, that the commission of the go vernment to a few of the members who do not teach, but merely rule together with the pastors, should be so displeas ing both to Episcopalians and Independents, since some- thing similar exists among themselves. Not only are lay- men who do not teach, but barely rule, to be found among the diiien.nt bodies, of Protestants on the continent, and in the high situation even of. cardinals and inspectors of the different orders of the clergy in the Romish church, but it is certain that in those churches v/here Episcopacy ia estab- { Letter IX. 129 lished, many rule who are not teachers. Bishojf Burnet, in his Funeral Sermon on Archbishop Tillotson, expressly affirms, that a bishop as such, though appointed to rule, has 710 care of souls, by preaching, devolved upon him. " In " his function," says he, " he was a constant preacher: " For though he had no care of souls upon him, yet few *< that had, laboured so painfully as* he did." And Dr. South, in his Sermon preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Rochester, vol. i. p. 209, explicitly asserts, that *' a teaching talent is not absolutely necessary in a bisliop, " nor is of the vital constitution of his function. If he •' have it, it is not to be refused ; but if he have it not, it is " not much to be desired." And, besides their bishops, we know that they have chancellors, and commissioners, and church-wardens, and other officers, who, though laymen, judge and decide in ecclesiastical matters. Dr. Whitaker moreover, though an Episcopalian, acknowledges that there should be two classes of elders in the church ; and Dr. Whitby, as will be shewn, expressly avows himself of the very same sentiments. See also Bishop Jewel's Defence of his Apology, part i. p. 41, where he admits that laymen should judge in the church ; and see, too, Willet in his Controversias, Controv. iii. Qua28t. iv. p. 41, where he at- tempts to prove, by a variety of arguments, that laymen should be allowed to be ecclesiastical judges. With regard to Independents, it is cei-tain that though the multitude be permitted to jud-^c and vote with the pastors, it is a few only of the leading and most active of the members who de- termine every buKir.es"^. The only difference then between Presbyterians and them seems to be this, that v/hile the go- vernment is commitled by the former to a class of elders who do not teach, together with the pastors who rule as well as teach, it is intrusted nominally by the latter to all the members together with the pastors, but is exercised in reality only by a few of them who influence the rest. Now, is it not better to give not only the power but the name of rulers to these few along with the pastor, than, like Inde- pendents, to delude tlie people with the mere name, while the power is necessarily limited to a few ? On the whole, as the government must really, from the nature of the thing, be placed in the hands of a few, and as the leading men in a congregation, though perhaps forward and loquacious, are cfteu least fitted to direct their decisions, is not the system ISO Letter X. of Presbytery more enlightened and wise ? By this mear.;v they arc secured froir, the evils which too often result froni' the confidence or intrigues-" of any noisy declainier; and a- court of ecclesiastical judges is obtained,' not only more en- lightened and judicious tlijin those who frequently possess the ascendency in popular asseniblies, but who- from their knowledge and experience, being more upon an equalilif with each other, are less likely to be exposed to a superior influence, and to unite at once that ability and that inde- pendence which are absolutely necessary to the enjoymcat of a wise and perfect government. LETTER X. Sir, OATISFACTORV as maybe the considerations which are sug- gested by reason for the necessity and utihty of the institu- tion of a separate order of elders, it is on revelation alone tliat w^e rest its autliority. There are three passages in par- ticular which appear to assert its truth. In the first place, Rom. xii. 6, 7, 8. Here it is necessary to remark, that, in the preceding verses, the apostle repre- sents the church of Christ under the metaphor of a body, and affirms that as in the natural body there is a variety of members possessed of different and separate powers, so in this spiritual body there is a diversity of offtces, for the ex- ercise of wdiich a diversity of gifts is requisite. ** As we " have many members in one body," says he, " and all " members have not the same qfice, so we being manjs are " one body in Christ, and every one members one of ano- *' ther." After this, he declares it was the duty of those,, to whom gifts had been imparted for the exercise of parti- cular offices faithfully to employ them, without vanity or ar- rogance, (compare ver. 3], in their different functions; " Having then gifts, differing according to the grace that " is given to us, whether prophecy, lei us prophesy accord- " ing to the proportion of faith ; or minisiry, TeT us wait *' on our ministering ; or he that te?cheih, on teaching ; or " he-that e>diorteth, on exhortation; iie th^t giveth, let " him do it with simpUcity ; he that ruleth, with diligence^, Letter X. 131 ='.lie that shewcth mercy> with chearfulness." Ncv, since in the body of Christ there is a diversity of offices as strik- ing as that of the oifxcs of the different members of the na- tural body ; and since, as is no less evident from the com- parison, the united members of the body of Christ can no more exercise any office of tliat body which does not belong to them united, than every member of tlie human body vaiited can discharge the office of any jiarlicular member oi ■that body ; and since, as is equally plain, there are some of -the offices of the body of Christ which can be exercised by persons who cannot discharge any sjiperior function, as in the human Iwdy there are some nfjices which can be perform- ed only by the eye or the ear, v,']ii!e thcde members cannot discharge any other function ; is it not obvious that if it can be proved that ruling is numbered among these offices in the -former body, it will not only follow that it cannot be exer- ■cised by all, as seeing or hearing. cannot be performed by all : the members of the latter body, but that it can be per- formed by some who cannot teach, as seeing or hearing can be exercised by members of the latter body which have no other function f But that ruling is here mentioned as one of the offices in the church of Christ appears to be undeniable. These of- iices, as we are informed by Mr. Goodwin and Dr. Guise, are first divided into prophecy* and ministry : and are again Gubdivided into these of the exhorter and teacher, compre- hended under the former ; and those of the person who I gives, of him who rules, and of him who shews mercy, in- cluded under the latter. Now, as Paul, when speaking of the offices of the church, after his general arrangement, spe- cifies particularly him that rideth, is it not evident that the office of the elder who rules is a divine institution ? As he introduces it under the head of ministry, which is confessed- ly different in its other branches (that of the deacon who gave, and th?.t of him who shewcth mercy) from the office- bearers who were appointed, under the head of prophecy, to teach and exhort, is it not obvious that this office must * Understanding by prophecy, as Dr. Guyse has proved, (see his Note on the place, and his Second Note on 1 Cor. xiv. 1 — 5), not the interpretation of scripture, by immediate inspiration, or the fore- ! telling of future events, but the irdinary preaching ol the ministers of Christ, as his two witnesses are said to prophesy during tlie reign of Antichrist. 132 Letter X. be completely distinct from that of teaching, and, like the office of the deacon, which too is included under ministry, may be exercised by those who have neither talents nor au- thority to preach the gospel ? In short, as the gifts for ruling, which Paul here enjoins the governors of the church to exercise with diligence, by the very comparison before mentioned, are no more given to all the members of the cliurch, than the power of seeing or hearing is imparted to all the members of our bodies, is it not manifest that this office of ruling cannot belong to all the vicmbers indiscrimi- nately ? And, in fine, as mere gifts for j^^caching, or giv- ing, do not authorise as many as have them to exercise the offices of a 2'iC'-slor or a deacon, but those only are warranted to do so who have been set apart to these offices, so is it not evident, that when the duty of ruling is spoken of, every one is not here called to the performance of this duty, but as many only as have been considered to be requisite to take the oversight of the church, and have been invested with the office of 7-ulers for this end ? Thus, then, it would appear that there is an office of rule in the church of Christ different from that of the elder who teaches, and that this office is not commatted to all indiscriminately, but to as many only of those who are qualified for it, and are necessary for thi- end, as have been regularly set apart to it by the elders ot the church. In answer to this it has been said, that the apostle is not here speaking of ojjlces but of gifts, and consequently that it cannot be inferred from what is here said, that there is an office of rule distinct from that of the elder who teaches. But in reply to this it may be observed, that by intro- ducing a comparison between the natural body and tlie church of Christ, (ver. 4, 5), and asserting that as in the former " there were many members, all of which had not " the same ojjice" so in the latter there was a variety no less remarkable, he plainly points out a diversity not only of gifts but of offices in the latter, as there was a diversity not only of gifts, but of offices in the former. Though, therefore, it were admitted th.at the apostle is speaking only of the exer- cise of the gi/ts of him who ruleth, agreeably to what he says in ver. 6, he evidently supposes that there is an office for ruling in v/hich these gifts may be exercised, and an office distinct from that of the teacher, as when he speaks of each of the members of our bodies as exercising those gifts Letter X. 133 whicli are peculiar to its office, he ascnbes it to an office se- parate from that of any of the other members. As the apos- tle, moreover, when he mentions him who teacheth^ and him who giveth^ speaks not merely of gifted brethren as exer- cising the endowments which are requisite for these offices, but of such only as were ordained to these particular func- tions, is it not manifest that when he mentions likewise him who ruleth, he must intend not merely gifted brethren as governing the church, but those only who are invested with that particular office ? Now, if mere qualifications for being a pastor or a deacon will not authorize those who possess them to exercise these gifts as pastors or deacons, till they are set apart to these offices, it appears equally ob* •vious, that though the apostle were allowed here to speak of those who ruled as barely exercising their gifts for ruling I with dihgence, he cannot mean that any were to exercise these gifts for that end, but such as had been ordained to the office of ecclesiastical rulers. Investiture therefore with the office of ruling is as much requisite to the exercise of rule, as investiture with that of a j^nstor is to teaching, and investiture with that of a deacon is to giving. And as this office is essentially different from the former, and requires qualifications totally distinct, we are warranted to affirm that there must be an office of ruling in the church of Christ completely different from that of teaching ; an office, for which as all have neither gifts nor authority, that cannot be exercised by all, and which, as many have endowments for it who are totally unfit for being public teachers, may ^e exercised by many who cannot be teachers of the church of God. Still it is objected, that though we hear, in this passage, of him xvho ruleth, it may be or') the person's oivn family that is intended. But to tiiis it is answered, that the vari- ous duties here mentioned by the apos:.le as performed by the different persons of whom he speaks, are represented by liim as performed to the church only, and consequently that it must be a rule Vv-hich relates more immediately to the affairs of this society which is designed. It is contended with Doddridge and other Independents, that it is a rule or presidency (as they say that the word means,) which refers merely to the distribution of the charitable collections of ; the church ? This would make him who ruleth, the same twith the deacon, or him who givcthj which, in a divisior* 134< LCTTER X. of the different offices of the church, as is here stateUs would be extremely inaccurate. It is said, moreover, that the exhorter, who is the same with the teacher, is mentioned apparently as a different office-bearer from him ; and him that sheweth mercy, who is the same withi the deacon, or him who giveth, as a different office-bearer from him ; and why may not the name of him who ruleth be here supposed to be given to the deacon, or him who giveth, in reference to his presidency over the church-stock, though it makes him who ruleth, and him who giveth, the same office-bearer ? But even though it were allowed that he -who teaches, and lie who exhorts, or, as some render it, who reproves and comforts, were the same office-bearer, and that he who giveth, and he who shev^'eth mercy, were the same minister, it is plain that different branches of their office are referred to. He who teaches men the doctrines and duties of Chris- tianity performs a very different part from him who reprove's, or comforts, or exhorts ; and he who was appointed by the church to shew mercy in the various ways in which it was manifested in the primitive times to Christian brethren, who were strangers and in distress, certainly performed a very different duty -from him who merely gave. If presiding here, however, means presiding over the church-stock, and if he who ruleth be the same with him who giveth, it is em- ploying two expressions, in an enumeration of things which are different, for the very same part of the office of the deacon. Besides, it has been the opinion of m.any most re- spectable men, both among Presbyterians and Independents, that he who taught, and he who exhorted, were not perfons ■ tvho fulfilled only different parts of the same office, but persons who discharged offices entirely distinct. The former, according to them, was the catechist or teacher, who prepared young persons for personal admission to the privilege of membership, as well as the catechumens who had become converts' from idolatry, or who publicly ex- plained the truths of religion without dispensing privileges j the latter was the stated pastor or bishop*. And with re- * See Calvin's Institutes; Beza upon the place; Owen on the Nature of a Gospel-church, chap, vi ; Goodwin's Church-cate- chism, p. 16 ; where he expressly declares, " that the apostle makes " them distinct officers, and that they have their several works to '* attend to, the pastor not being to attend to the doctrine, nor the *• teacher to exhortation." Letter X. 135 gard to liim who giveth, and him who shevvetli mercy, it is well known that it was tlie opinion of Beza* and Good- win f, that they were either separate offices, or parts of the same office, so distinct from each other, as that many, who could discharge the last,_ could rot perform the first. By him who giveth, they understood the deacon, and by those who shewed mercy, those pious persons whose employment it was, in the primitive times, to perform- offices of mercy to" Christians who were strangers, and were poor or afflicted. Of these office-bearers we have some account in 1 Tim. v. 9, 10, w here, as Calvin remarks, though aged widows are par- ticularly mentioned as intrusted v>'ilh this office, the word T<5, " anif one" is used, and which, being either mascvdine or feminine, shews that it might be communicated to men, perhaps advanced in age, as well as to women. Since then it apptars that all the other phrases employed in this enn- ■^' meraticn denote either ^^jjfirfl/(7 r>//7cM, or srparate jjCirts of - the same office, " he who ruleth" must signify also some office, or some part of an office, completely different from what is suggested by any of the other phrases. And since it cannot be explained as signifying him who presides over ihe cliurck-stock, or as referring to r/Hj/ part of the deacon's office, without making it the same with him who giveth, or him wdio sheweth mercy, it appears naturally to follow that the rule or. presidency here mentioned, must be a rule or presidency entirely different, and a rule which is the same with that of the elder who governs, though he does not teach. M'Knight indeed aserts, that by him who ruleth seems to be designed the person who presided in his turn in the meetings of the church, and appointed those who were to speak for their edification, who, from the extraordinary gift of discerning spirits with which he was endowed, detected and prevented heretical teachers from ministering among them, and whose province it was, along with his fellow-pre- sidents, to decide in those cases of civil controversy which happened among the saints. See 1 Cor. vi. ], 2. But there £ppears t.o be no authority from scripture for such an office; and if this were "admitted, then, even according to M*Kuight, as we are informed in 1 Tim. v. 17, that there * Consult him upon the place. I See his Catechism, p. 27. m2 136 Letter X. were some elders who presided or ruled well, and did not preach, it would elevate laymen above the pastor and teacher, and give them a power to prescribe to them in some cases their particular work. Besides, though it were granted that there was such an office, there seems to be no proper reason for limiting their power to the direction of the wor- ship and services of the church, and the decision simply of civil controversies. There is a rule or presidency in the church much more important than what is mentioned by this expositor, a rule which extends to the dispensation of the privileges and the infliction of the punishments of this spiritual society. Would it not then be very extraordinary, if, in a professed enumeration of the ordinary offices which are instituted in it*, and which specifies the deacon and teacher, no notice should be taken of this very interesting function, by tvho)nsoever it is to be exercised ? Besides, as this interpretation supposes that a few of the laymen, con- joined with the pastors, decided not only in civil controver- sies, but fixed the labours of the ministers of the church, and even exercised the power of denying to heretical or apostate teachers, without consulting the brethren, the li- berty of speaking or preaching in their assemblies, is not this conceding that a few of the members, together with the pastors, in many important cases, may govern the church ? And, if they may exclude the teachers from the rights of teachers, wliy not also exclude the members, if they shew themselves, unworthy of the privileges of members ; and con- sequently will not the same institution be authorized by this interpretation for which Presbyterians contend, when they say that a few of the members who do not teach, together with the pastors, are authorized as elders to govern the church ? Or is it said, that we may reject in part the inter- pretation of M'Knight, and maintain that the word denotes merely presidency, without supposing that the person who presided liad any other power over those among whom he presided than that of a chairman or moderator, who simply states the vote, preserves order, and determines when the number on two sides is equal ? It is replied, that the term, * That the apostle here is speakiug only of ordinary office seems evident, among other things, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated assertion of M'Knight to the contrary, fiom this consideration, that there is not one of them, as far as is here stated, for the dis- charge of which cne cKlraordhiary fjualification was required. Letter X. 137 when it siguilacs to preside, as far as we knov.-, unifo'-'^-^; denotes a much higher authority — an authi«^'-; winch en- titles liim to govern and direct ^hoc^ over whonM^e is placed, and not merely to sit at, a moderator while they consult and determine, it is employed, for instance, in scripture, as was before observed, 1 Tim. iii. -h, 5, 1 2, to denote the aut'ho- rity connected with a Christian's presiding over or ruling kis fandhj ; and in Tit. iii. 8, 14, to signify the command which he should exercise over himself, so as to excel in good works. It is used too, as was before remarked, by Thucydides, to signify the government of a state — Trs^oit^ny.u rov oi-ifiiv, " he governed the people ;" by Aristotle, in his Polit. lib. iii. cap. X, according to Constantinus in his Lexicon,in the same sense — Tr^oit^-ziy-scrciv ecvruv, " they governed them ; byXeno- phon, in his QLconomics, in a similar acceptation — 7r^or»rti; e-ioi-jTsv TTccr^i^og, " who presidest over, or governest thy country ;" by Herodotus, for the superintendent of the ar- mory or arsenal — •rr,g oTs-y.oinx-r.i ^r^ssrn-'i*?, *' having been set over the armory ; by the same writer, for the magistrates or governors of cities — w^wsrA'T:? rwv -^tcXicov ;. hy Plato, in his Epistles (Epist. vii), in the same sense — jAiyaXAg ■x(^ai<^ug 71-oMui;, " the prefect or governor of a great city ;" and by Demosthenes pro Corona, in a similar acceptation — xsn fAiytruv "^A Ts-^xy^.dT&iv TT^o^y.i, " set even over the greatest " matters, or having the supreme power." Now, since the w'ord, as far as we know, signifies not merely to preside over aji assembly, who, as rulers, are vested with aa equality of power with the president hin^iself (the point .of preserving order alone excepted), and can evei> make determinations which can authoritatively bind him no less than themselves, how can it be supposed that, in the present passage, it is to be taken in this acceptation, and that a number of men •would be said to preside as governors over. the church, agreeably to this strong expression, when all that is meant is only that they sat as chairmen in their meetings, and pre- served order, while, in every other point, they were more completely subject to the power of the members than the members were to that of the presidents ? But if, as we are here taught, there be a class of men who are to rule in the church, not merely as chairmen and moderators, but as go- vernors, in whom alone, together with the pastors, the ad- ministration is vested ; and if these men, as is here asserted, be distinguished from the pastor, the teachej-, the deacon, ,M 3 138 Letter X.. ~^'1 those who, in the primitive times, shewed mercy ; are v/e not Will 1 c.,.(\ to affirm that there must be a class of ciders who rule and do uyj\. tpach ? The second of those passages urged V>y Presbyterians in support of this position, is one to which I have already so- licited your attention, namely, 1 Cor. xii. 28. That the apostle, in this place, is enumerating not merely the extra- ordinary, as M' Knight affirms, but also the ordinary offices in the church, must be evident from the comparison insti- tuted between the offices of the church and the offices of all the different members of the body. In speaking of the latter, the feeble as v;ell as the strong, ver. 22, and the less lionourable as well as the more honourable members are spe- cified, ver. 21. Now, if Paul, when reprobating the Corin- thian office-bearers for all aspiring at the highest functions, tells them that it was as unseemly as if all the members of the natural body should seek to be an eye, or an ear, or a sense of smelling, (ver. 17, ^"C.) ; and if, when speaking of the variety which, for the wisest purposes, was appointed in the body, he mentions not only the stronger and more ho- nourable, but the feebler and less honourable members ; ivould it not be unaccountable, if, in detaihng the corres- ponding diversity of offices which is fitly instituted in the church of Christ, he specified those only which are extraor- dinary and more exalted ? But if the ordinary as well as extraordinary ministers be mentioned, have we reason to be- lieve that among the former, are included the elder who rules and does not teach ? That such was the opinion of the venerable Chrysostomj, one of the most distinguished of the Christian fathers, ap- pears to be undeniable. He understands by " the helpers," or «svrectable of the Independents. And that this interpretation is founded in truth, seems evident from an impartial review of the passage. That the apostle, f See hi» Thirty-first Homily. Letter X'. 13S in enumerating the different offices which exist in the church, specifies not merely some which are extraordinary, but others which are ordinary., we have already proved ; and that in ascertaining which of these offices are ordinary, and which of them are extraordinary, we are to be guided by their nature, and by the common representations of them in scripture, appears to be no less evident. Judging then by these principles, it would seem that while among the extra- ordinary offices, are to be classed those of apostles, and pro- phets, and workers of miracles, among the ordinary, are to be comprehended teachers, and helps, and governments. These are not only, in their own nature, standing offices, which are continually requisite for the edification of the church, and require no miraculous gifts for their perform- ance, but are always pointed out in scripture as ordinary offices. It has indeed been asserted by M< Knight, that by the teacher here, we are to understand an extraordinary mi- nister, because ir» 1 Cor. xiv. 6, the doctrine or teaching there mentioned, means doctrine or teaching by inspiration. But though it were granted (and nothing more is there mentioned) that an ajmstle, or other extraordinary minister, sometimes taught by inspiration, it is certain that the term teacher, in the New Testament, commonly signifies an or- dinary minister, who had no supernatural powers*. It has been contended moreover, by that expositor, that by helps, or helpers, appear to be meant inspired brethren, who, speaking occasionally to the edification of the church, assist- ed the apostles and elders in their ministrations. But while it may justly be questioned whether any but the ministers of the church possessed these miraculous gifts for teaching, and while we never hear of such persons being helps to the apostles, we know that deacons, at the period of their insti- tution, were expressly appointed to assist them in their work, and to free them from the labour of serving tables. It has also been maintained, that by governments are meant, persons endpwed with miraculous gifts, who presided in the meet- ings, and directed the affairs of the primitive church. But we hear, in the New Testament, of no such inspired of- ficers who were presidents of the church. In the account • It is plain, too, that as teachers are here distinguished from apostles, and prophets, and other inspired instructors, they can here denote only ordinary ministers. 14.0 Letter X; \ which is given, (Acts xv), of the consultation at Jerusaler.-^- upon the reference from Antioch, it was not merely tlie pre sident, but the rulers at large, who spoke and advised; and. if, as is evident irom the principles both of Independents and Presbyterians, any of the other members may set aside any proposal suggested by the president, and, if he is able to support it by superior reasoning, may introduce and carry any measure of his own, I cannot see how the former are entitled to the name of governments, or governors, rath&r- than the latter. Since by governments, or governors, all who were entitled to administer the church, are intended, and since, as far at least as is mentioned in the New Testament, it was not necessary for this purpose that those who were appointed to it should be furnished with any extraordinary gifts, it appears plain that the governments, who are here mentioned, were ordinary officers. And as they are stated as different from teachers and helps, we are . warranted to. infer that they are a class of elders distinct* from the pastors, and teachers, and deacons, and are m.erely to rule in the church of Christ. Here then is another testimony to the divine autliority cf the elder who rules and does not preach. Government in itself, as well as according to the uniform representation of it delivered in the New Testament, is an ofiice for which no . miraculous powers are requisite, and an ofiice which is always necessary in the church. It is therefore an ordinary and standing ofEce. It is an office which is here said to be . given to som.e only, and, therefore, in no form ought to be committed to all. It is an office which is vested neither upon the principles of Independents nor Presbyterians in the. president alone, for every member of the court has as much, if not more, a voice and power than the president himself. . And it is an office, moreover, completely distinct from that, of the teacher, and is represented as exercised by some who. are entitled to discharge no higher function. In othen words, it is an office which may be discharged by elders, who do not teach. Is it said in answer to this, that the apostle speaks here- of gifts, not of offices ? It is replied, that as there is an of- fice in the natural body corresponding to the gifts bestowed by the Creator upon any of the members, so, though it were granted that the apostle speaks here only of gifts for govern, inent, it M'ould follow from the compvison introduced in X. Letter X. 141 context, that there must be an office in the former for the exercise of these gifts. And, in short, as these gifts are bestowed upon many who are destitute of talents for being teachers or pastdrs, though admirably adapted for the office of governors, it appears no less obvious, even from this very objection, that there must be a class of elders distinct from the pastors. Is it urged, that helps, by whom we understand deacons, are placed before governments, which would not be the case, if by governments were intended ruling elders, since the latter are unquestionably superior to the former ? It is an- swered, that the sacred writers frequently pay little atten- tion to this mode of expressing rank and dignity. Nay, this same apostle, in the 10th verse of this very chapter, though he mentions prophets, in the passage before us, as the second of the offices in the Christian church, places the gift of pro- phecy after the gifts of healing and other inferior gifts ; and though, in this past^age too, he states the gifts of mira- cles before gifts of healing, in the 9th verse he introduces the latter before the former. It seems obvious then, that eince this very apostle, in this very chapter, mentions repeat- edly offices which are inferior before offices which are con- fessedly greatly superior, no argument can be adduced from the position of helps, or the office of deacons, before govern- ments or governors, against explaining the latter of ruHng cldersj because the former are inferior to the latter in dignity. [ U2- ] LETTER XL Sir, 1 HE last, ho;\-ever, and most decisive argument for I'ak - order of elders is contained in 4 Tim. v.- 17 ; " a text/' according to the opinion of Dr. Owen, " of uncontroulable «« evidence, if it liad any thing but prejudice and interest to «< contend with. On the first proposal of this text," says he, p. 21-6, " thzt t/ie elders tv/iorzile zvell are ivort//^ of «' double konoiir, especially those tvl/o labour in the ivord " and doctrine, a rational man v^'ho is unprejudiced, who " never heard of the controversy about ruling elders, can " hardly avoid an apprehension that there are two sorts of " elders, some that labour ia the word and doctrine, and " some who do not so de. The truth is, it was interest " and prejudice that first caused some k-arncd men to strain *' their wits to find out evasions from the evidence of this " testimony : being so found, some others, of meaner abili- «• ties, have been entangled by them. For there is not one *' new argument advanced in this cause" (and no new argu- ments have been offered by Independents since his day), " not one exception given in unto the sense of the place •' which we plead for, but what has long since been coined *' by Papists and Prelatists, and managed with better coloursj " than some now are able to lay on them who pretend tt ** the same judgment." Nor is the language of Dr. Whitaker, though a zealoua| Episcopalian, less strong and decided with regard to this passage. " By these words," says he, in his Pra^lectionJ apud Didioclav. p. 681, ex Sheervodio, " the apostle eviJ *' dently distinguishes between the bishops and the inspec-] *' tors of the church. If all who rule well be worthy ol " double honour, especicdly they who labour in the wore " and doctrine, it is plain that there were some who did no^ " so labour : for if all had been of this description, the *' m.eaning would have been absurd ; but the word especially *' points out a difference. If I sho'.dd say that all they whc " study well at the university are worthy of double honour " esjiecially tJtei/ xv/io labour in the study (>f theology, " must either mean that all do not apply themselves to thi " study of theology, or I shoidd speak nonsense. Wherel " fore I confess that to be the most genuine sense by whicl Letter XL 14-3 " pastors and teachers are distinguished from those who " only governed, Rom. xii. 8 ; of whom w^e read in Am- *' brose upon 1 Tim. v. 17." lUis verbis discrte distinguit apostolus inter episcopos et inspectores ecclesiae. Si omnes duplici honore sint digni qui bene prssunt, maxime ii qui laborant in sermone et doctrina, perspicuum est fuisse ali- quos qui non laborarunt. Nam si omnes fuissent tales, ■gensus fuisset absurdus, sed fixXi'rx ponit discrimen. Si dicerem omnes academici qui bene studenti sunt duplici honore digni, maxime ii qui laborant in studio theologice, vel innuo non omnes incumbere studio theologias, vel insulse lo- quor. Ouamobrem fateor ilium esse sensum maxime genui- muTi quo pastores et doctores disccrnuntur ab aliis qui solum gubernabant, Rom. xii. 8, de quibus in Ambrosio legimus, 1 Tim. V. 17. And says Dr. Whitby on this passage, though no less rigid an Episcopalian, " The elders of the " Jews were oi tivd sorts: 1st, Such as governed in the synagogue : and 2dly, Such as ministered in reading and expounding their scriptures, SfC. And these the apostle *' here declares to be the most honourable, and worthy of " the chiefest reward. Accordingly the apostle, reckoning ** up the offices God had appointed in the church, places ♦< teachers before governments : 1 Cor. xii." Here, then, even according to the concessions of some of the enemies of Presbytery, hvo classes of elders are mention- ed, one who rule well, and, on account of it, are worthy of double honour, and one who not only rule, but labour also in the word and doctrine, and arc more especially worthy of double honour. To this interpretation, however, a number of objections have been urged by Episcopahans, and repeated by Inde- pendents, but all of them intended to support explications too forced and abstruse to present themselves readily to a candid reader. Some, for instance, with the famous Joseph Mede, have contended that by those who rule well, are in- tended subordinate civil magistrates. But we know that there was not one Christian magistrate at that period in the church, nor for some hundred years after this Epistle was written ; and were Christian magistrates the rulers here re- ferred to, it would be a necessary consequence, that as those who labour in the word and doctrine arc represented in this verse as more worthy than the first of double maintenance or honour, they ought to have a more liberal appointment 14'4 Letteii XL than the civil magistrates. Others have maintained, that by those who ruled w^ell, were to be understood superannuated bishops, who, though they might assist in government, could not teach ; and that by those who laboured in tht: word and doctrine, are meant the younger ministers, who were fit for the vigorous discharge of this office*. But how could these elders rule well, who were so superannuated that they could not preach ? And if the younger ministers re- ceived greater honour and maintenance than those who had become old in the cause of Christ, and had spent their strength and years in his service, would not this indeed be a most unsuitable return for their zeal and labours ? How then, according to the observation of Solomon, could their gray hairs be to them a crown of glory, though found in the ways of righteousness ? Others have alledgedf , that by the elders who rule well, are signified the stated pastors of the church, and by those who laboured in the word and doctrine, evangelists who itinerated for the diffusion of the gospel. But it is a fact which is incontestable, that in 1 Thess. v. 1 2. tov? y-ovtmrcti;, *' those who laboured in that church, and were ox^er them " in the Lord," was the name given to their stated pastors ; and consequently that interpretation which would represent those who laboured in the word and doctrine as evangelists, and those who ruled well as stated j^astors, must be totally groundless. Some, in short, with Sutchve de Presbyterio, p. 15, af-^ firm, that the word here rendered " especially" (^f^xXt?-x), should be translated " much ;" and that the apostle^ instead^ of naming tivo classes of eldehs, only assigns the reason wh^ those whom he had mentioned as ruling well should receive double honour : " Let the elders who rule well," say theyj his words should be rendered, " be counted worthy of ** double honour, they labouring," i. e. because they labour ** much in the word and doctrine." But upon this it is ob^ served, that it would be for preaching alone and not fej ruling, according to this interpretation, that the honouj would be claimed ; and can we suppose for a moment, that no honour is to be the reward of ruling aright ? BesidesJ as the learned Calderwood, in his Altare Damascenurei " See Bishop King's Sermon on Canticles viii. f See Bilson on Church-government, p. 135. Letter Xl. 145 p. 919, has remarked, had this been the meaning of the apostle, he would not have said fucXiru, oi ntvimiii, but U fixXir* x»^<«»T£5, or |K«/(r« *«7rn duty and work of all the Old Testament teachers. John iv. 3.^, " I sent you " to reap that whereon you bestowed no labour : others «' have l,:boured, aud ye have entered into their labours" — • where the verb and noun which are used by Paul occur no less than thrice. And, in short, we know that when the apostle intends to express unusual exertion, he employs another word besides kotthicu. Thus, wh^n he speaks of the extraordinary exertions of Mary and Persis to promote the gospel in their private stations, he expresses it not merely by ;ts5r;a», but by TcoXXa ix.07rix(ry.v, " they laboured wuiA«), or '* more, abun- *' dantly" (^■xi^ie-a-crieov) , it seems plain that, in this passage,, the elders who are said to labour in word and doctrine, are not persons who make extraordinary exertions in preaching, but simply such as perform the common duties of teaching elders. But if hvo kinds of elders be mentioned in that passage, and if those who labour in the word and doctrine be such as are engaged only in the common duties of teach- :!ng elders, does it not follow, agreeably to the introductory- clause of the verse, that there are to be elders in the church dislinct from the former, and who, when they inerely rule ivell, though they do not teach, are entitled, on account of it, to double honour ? Others, in fine, have asserted with Downham, and Sut- clivc, and other ancient Episcopalians, that the word T}, here translated honour, denotes not merely honour, but, as appears from a Homily of Chrysostom on the passage, and the Expositions of Calvin, and Beza, and Bullinger, as well r.s (he following verse, maintenance also. But if it mean maintenance, and if two kinds of elders be mentioned, each of them must be entitled to double or proper maintenance, a circumstance which, in their view, would be extremely in- consistent. On this objection also Mr. Ballentine lays con- siderable stress, and urges it against Presbyterians with abundance of confidence. But I do not see on what prin- ciple it is inconsistent with the tenets of Presbyterians to grant even to lay-elders proper maintenance, if their circum- stances require it, or if at any time they are railed from their employm.cnts to the business of the church longer than their secular interests permit. Besides, it is evident from the distinction which is here stated between elders who only rule, and elders who teach and give themselves wholly to their sacred vocation, that attention is, in the first place, to be paid to the maintiinance of the latter. The former, if they need it, are to receive maintenance ; but it is esjoecially to be given to such as preach, and have no other means of procuring subsistence. If, after they are provided for, the church is able to compensate the lay-elders for that time v/hich they devote to her particular business, she is bound to do it. Is it objected to this reasoning, as has often been done by Independents*, that the terms elder and bishop are * See Saiideman's Letter to Mr. Wlljon, Letter XI. . HQ applied in scripture to the same individuals, and as every bishop is required by Paul, ( 1 Tim. iii. 2), to be « apt to " teach," none should be elders who are not public teach- ers ? It is rephed, that such an inference is not deducible from the passage. All that is asserted in it appears simply to be this, that an elder, or bishop, should be fitted to teach, according to the station which he holds in the church. The preaching elder should be qualified to teach publicly, ac- cording to the nature of his particular function ; and the ruling elder should be qualified to teach, and admonish, and counsel privately, according to the particular nature of his office. But because an elder, or bishop, should be apt to teach, according to the particular nature of his qffice, can it fairly be inferred that none are to be ciders but those who are qualified to be preachers of the gospel ? If it is still contended, that as all the elders of the church of Ephesus are commanded by Paul, (Acts xx. 28), to feed that church, they must all have been ministers of the word, because it is the province of the minister, and not of the ruling elder, to feed the church ? It is answered, that though lay-elders cannot feed the church by public instruc- tions like the teaching elder, they may undoubtedly do so in their private capacity, by that information, and counsel, and comfort, which they may communicate to the members. Besides, the word here translated " feed," frequently means to rule, as a shepherd does his flock, as was before observ- ed*, which is done by them no less than by the former- If the word then be translated to feed, it is obvious that the lay-elders might be enjoined by the apostle to perform this duty as well as the ministers, because they were no less bound to feed the church by their private instructions, than the former were bound to do so by their pubhc discourses ; and if it be rendered to rule, it is evident that they were no less admitted to discharge this office than the teachers them- selves. It cannot, therefore, be evinced from the present passage, that there ought not to be an order of elders in the church, who barely rule, distinct from the elders who rule and teach. In short, even conceding that, in both of tliese inotancefj the terms refer to public teaching only, it cannot be inferred that because elders in general are called thus to teach and • « See Note, p, 56. N 3 150 Letter XT. feed, there are not other elders, who, though, they govera the churcli, cannot perform these duties. General declara- tions, of whatever kind, very frequently admit of particular exceptions. It is said, for example, respecting llie "whole of the tribe of Levi in general, (Deut. xxxiii. 8, 10), that *' they should teach Jacob God's judgments, and Israel his ** law : that they should put incense before him, and whole *' burnt sacrifice upon his altar." And, agreeably to this, we arc told that Jehoshaphat, when he had convened them upon a particular occasion, (2 Chron. xxix. 5), thus address- ed all of them, (ver. II), '* My sons, be not now negli- *' gent, for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, *' to serve him, and that you should minister unto him, and *' burn incense.'" Though all of them, however, are said, in the one passage, to have been originally appointed to burn incense before God, and though all of them are commanded to do so in the other, yet we know, from other passages, that there were many of the Levites who, though employed in the service of the ancient sanctuary, were not authorized to perform this part of the sacerdotal function. Allowing then that it could even be proved that ciders in general are lequired by Paul to be apt to preach, and that the "whole of the elders in the church of Ephesus are apparently enjoined to performi this function (and this cannot be demonstrated), if it can be evinced, from other passages, that there should he a class of elders who are merely to rule and not to preach, -it will no m.ore follow, from these general injunctions, that these should not exist in every church, than it will follow, from the passages before produced, that none were connected with the tribe of Levi, or admitted to minister in the ancient sanctuary, but such as burned incense. On the whole, as this separate order of elders seems clearly to be authorized by the sacred oracles, so it appears from the writings of the primitive fathers, that even from the I earliest ages it existed in the church. In the year 103, we meet with these words in the very same sentence of the, Gesta Purgationis Caeciliani et Fehcis : " Presbyteri, dia- "* cones, et seniores, i. e. The presbyters or pastors, the! *' deaeons and elders ;" and a little after that, " Adhibetej *' conclericos et seniores plebis, ecclesiasticos viros, et in- *< quirant diligenter quje sint islas dissensiones, i. e. Add! ** the fellow-clergymen and elders of the people, ecclesias->! »' tical men, and let them inquire diligently what are these" Letter XL 151 *« dissensions." In that assembly likewise, different letters were produced and read : one addressed, " Clero et senio- *« ribus, i. e. To the clergynnen and the elders ;" and another, " Clericis et senioribus, i. e. To the clergymen and the *' elders." Origen too, who flourished only a little more than 200 years after Christ, has these expressions in the third book of his Treatise against Celsus : " There are •' some rulers appointed who may inquire concerning the " conversation and mantiers of those that are admitted, " that they may debar from the congregation such as commit " filthiness." But does not this contain a most accurate description of one important part of the office of the elder who is barely to rule ? Cyprian moreover, bishop of Carth- age, who lived about 24'0 years after Christ, in his Thirty- ninth Epistie, book iv, (according to the edition of Goulart), writing to his presbyters, and elders, and people, respecting one Numidicus, enjoins that he should be reckoned with the presbyters of that church, and should sit with the clergy^ to make up their Presbytery. And yet it would seem that il was only as a ruhng, and not a teaching presbyter, that he was to be received by them : for he adds, " Et promove- " bitur quidem, cum Deus permiserit, ad ampUorem locum *' religionis suae, quando in prsesentiam protegente Domino " venerimus ; i. e. And indeed, if it be the will of God, he " shall be promoted to a more distinguished place of his " religion, or religious function, when, through the Lord's " protection, we shall arrive." But what more honourable place could he attain, if he was already a teaching elder, and consequently, at that period, next to the bishop ? \n the passage before quoted, from the Commentaries of Am- brose, upon 1 Tim. v. 1, the testimony which is given, to the existence, in the church, of an order of elders who merely ruled, and were distinct from those who also preached, is strong and pointed. He shews, that by the elders or se- niores, of whom he speaks, he does not mean only a few of the more aged and experienced of the members, for he com- pares them to the elders in the Jeivish synagogue, and attri- butes to them an equality of power, and we know that the latter were not merely private members of the synagogue, venerable for their wisdom as well as age, but elders by of- fice. He discovers also no less clearly, that he does not intend simply, by the elders to whom he refers, persons %vho5e opinioQ was occasionally consulted in difficult matters. 152 Letter XL for he says expressly, that " without their counsel nothing « was done in the church : Undo et synagoga et postea ec- *' clesia scniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur " in ejclesia." And that thes^ elders likewise were ad- mitted not only to state their opinion and deliver their ad- vice, but to rule with an authority not inferior to that of the clergy, he no less plainly declares ; for he ascribes to the pride and ambition of the teachers, the discontinuance of this order in a number of places, which, while it remained amongst them, curbed the former, and set bounds to the latter. But how could these elders have restrained their ambition, and prevented their undue assumptions of power, if they were permitted in the ancient church, to deliver an advice only, which might be adopted or rejected by the clergy at pleasure ? Indeed so incontrovertible did this testimony for the existence of this order of office-bearers, in the an- cient church, appear to many who were opponents of Pres- . bytery, that it was not only admitted, as we have already seen, by some of the more candid of the ancient Episcopa- lians, but by some of the most respectable even of the Inde- pendents themselves. Among these is included, Mr. Cotton of America, already mentioned, who, in his Way of the Churches in New England, cap. ii. sect. ii. p. SO, acknow- ledges it to be a clear and irresistible proof of the existence of this order in the ancient church, and vindicates the argu- ment which he adduces from this passage, for the necessity of this order even in Independent churches, from the ex- ceptions and cavils of some of his brethren and others. And, in fine, Augustine, bishop cf Hippo, who lived about the year 4'20, often refers to these elders in his writings. Thus, in bis Treatise against Cresconius, lib. iii. cap. Ivi, ** Pere- ** grinus presbyter et seniores Mustican?e regionis, i. e. " Peregrine the presbyter, and the elders of the Mustican^ *< district," where he obviously distinguishes between the pastor or presbyter who taught, and separate elders or seniors. Thus, also, he addresses one of his letters to his church at Hippo, (Epist. cxxxix), " Dilectissimis fratribus, " clero, senioribus, et universae plebi ecclesise Plipponensisjjj " i. e. To the beloved brethren, the clergy, or clergyman,! ** the elders, and all the people of the church at Hippo,'* where he makes an obvious discrimination between tl clergy, or clergyman, the elders, and the people. Anc were it thought requisite, it .would be easy to bring forwarc Letter XT. 153 other testimonies from Eusebius, and Isidore, and Jerome, and others, no less clearly demonstrative of the existence of this order in the primitive church. What has already been stated however, appears sufficiently to establish the fact ; and consequently we seem equally authorized by these do- cuments to affirm that this order obtained in the ages which succeeded the apostles, as we seem to be authorized by rea- son to affirm that it is necessary, and by scripture to main- tain that it is divinely appointed. To contend then with some Independents, that every con- gregation should not be governed by what has been deno- minated by Presbyterians a Session, because the term does not occur in the sacred volume, though the doctrine seems to be undeniable, must be foolish and contradictory. Upon the same principle it would follow, according to the reason- ings of Socinians and Arminians, that because the terms Trinity, satisfaction, cJginal sin, efficacious grace, particular redemption, are not to be found in the sacred oracles, these doctrines are merely inventions of men. If Independents however, as well as others, admit these doctrines, because they are revealed in scripture, though these particular terms are not there employed to denote them, on the same pinnci- ple is it not plain that if it be taught in scripture that only some, and not all the members indiscriminately, are autho- rized to govern a partieular congregation, and that among ; these are included elders who do not teach, but simply rule, as well as elders who not only rule but teach, the doctrine of Sessions is clearly established, though that particvJat ivord is npt to be met with iu the sacred volume ? [ 154> 3 LETTER XII. Sir, The last point of government in which you differ from Presbyterians, is their courts of revinv ; or the subordina- tion of a particular congregation, with its elders, to the au- thoritative ii s^)ection and controul of a Prpb!,ytery, and of a Presbytery to that of a Synod and Assembly. It is pro- posed accordingly, agreeably to our method, to concli'de these inquiries upon this pouit of the subject, w\t\\ the con- sideration of this distinguishing principle of Presbytery, with the different objections which you have advanced against it. "With regard to the propriety of ecclesiastical courts su- perior to the rulers of a particular congregation, much di- versity of sentiment has obtained even among Independents. Some, in the greatness of their zeal against Presbytery, have maintained that it is unlawful for an Independent con- gregation, even in a difficult case, to convene the pastors of any other churches merely to ask their advice. Such a measure, in their opinion*, would be prejudicial to the im- provement of the members in knowledge, for if they were assured that in every case of difficulty and importance they might have recourse to this superior assembly, though merely for counsel, it would make them less eager to advance in an acquaintance with the truths and laws of Christ. Every se- parate church therefore, according to them, must be com- pletely independent even of the assistance of others, anc must not sohcit, in any instance, the advice of their officel bearers met in a collective or associated capacity. It seema obvious, however, that before this reasoning can be consi^ dered as valid, it must be proved that hifallibilitij has beet the attainment of every Independent congregation ; or wh] should it refuse to apply for assistance, in any arduous ot interesting case, to an assembly of the office-bearers of otheij churches ? Or, if infaUibility be disclaimed by them, it should be demonstrated that though they mat/ err, it is better for them to do so, since they have the satisfaction of beinj regarded as the unassisted arbiters in all their affairs, than tc b; prevented fx-om this evil, by being aided by the opinion and counsel of others. And, in short, upon the same prin'j * See Missionary Magazine for October lS04j p. 443, Letter XII. 153 cijiJe that it is affirmed that the members of a particular con- gregation ought not to apply to others for advice, because it may abate their zeal to improve in knowledge so as to be en- abled to decide in every cause, it may be proved that the offence mentioned by our Saviour in Matth. xviii, should be finally determined by the two or Mretf brethren before whom it is enjoined to be first told, and ought not to be announ- ced to the church at all. If announced to the church for their examination and judgment, may it not, if the preceding argument were just, dmiinish the motives which are present- ed to each o^ the mnnbers indiviidually to endeavour to im- prove, so as to be himself qualified, with the assistance of a single brother, finally to decide a cause ? And, upon the same ground also, is it not manifest that there should be no subordination in civil courts, because, if this principle be ad- mitted, it would make the members of the lowest of such as- sociations less eager to improve in juridical knowledge, than if they knew that, in every instance, they were to depend solely on their own judgment and sagacity, and were not to solicit the assistance of others ? While such, however, are the sentiments of others, you profess to hold a very opposite opinion, and admit at once the lawfulness and the utility of the associations of the pastors I of a number of churches to deliberate in points of intricacy and magnitude. The pov/er, however, which you grant to these associations ib purely consultative, and differs not only from that degree of authority which is allowed by Presby- terians to a Presbytery, over the governors of a particular congregation, and to a Synod, over the members of a parti- cular Presbytery, but even from what was vested by the re- spectable ancient Independents, already quoted, in their oc- casional Synods. Not only does Mr. Hooker acknowledge in his Survey, p. 4-. cap. i. ii, that the association of the pastors of different congregations, in Cne court or Presby- tery, is lawful and beneficial, and not only does he grant that they may be of " different sorts and degrees, some lesser, " some greater, Classes, Synods, and these Provincial, Nd- " tional, GiCnwenicnl or Universal :" but his brother Mr. Cotton, in his book entitled the Keys of the Kingdom, uses very remarkable expressions, (chap, vi), respecting the power of such courts. " They have power," says he, •* not only to give li^lit and counsell in matter of truth and " practice, but also to command and evjoine the things to 156 Letter XII. " be believed and done. The expresse words of the syno- " dical letter, Acts xv. 27, imply no lessg. It is an act of « the power of the keyes to binde burdens ; and this bind- « iag power ariseth not only materially from the "weight of <' the matters imposed, but also formally from the authority <' of the Synod, which being an ordinance of Christ, bind- « eth the more for the Synod's sake." The Westminster Independents also, in their debate with the Assembly, not only expressly allow, p. 115, 137, 138, that *' Synods are " an holy ordinance oj' God, and oi great use for the finding " out and declaring of truth in difficult cases, and for heal- *' ing offences," but likewise declare, " that all the churches ** in a province, being offended at a particular congrega- *' tion, may call that single congregation to account ; yea, " all the churches in a nation, may call one or more congre- " gations to an account — that they may examine and ad- " monish, and, in case of obstinacy, declare them to be " subverters of the faith — that they are of \ise to give advice " to the magistrate in matters, of religion," p. 115, — *' that they have authority to determine concerning contro- <♦ versies of faith — that their determinations are to be re- " ceived with great honour and conscientious respect and " obHgation, as from Christ — that if an offending congrega- « tion refuse to submit to their determinations, they may *' withdraw from them, and deny church-communion and " fellowship with them — and that this sentence of non- " communion may be ratified and backed with the autho- <« rity of the civil magistrate, to the end it may be the mon <* effectual," p. 138*. Mr. Thomas Goodwin, moreoverJ in his Treatise on the Government of the Church of ChristJ p. 202, very pointedly asserts, " that as we acknowledge *' elective occasional Synods of the elders of many churchesj *« as the churches have need to refer cases of difference to * Since it is evident from this and other passages in the paper! of these forerunners of our present Independents, that they no lesi certainly believed in the propriety of a connection between thi church and state than our Presbyterian Establishment does, nay, a their ideas on this subject were greatly higher than what is profess ed by it since the act of toleration ; if the latter be viewed b^ them, on account of this connection, as worthy of being distiol guished by the name of Babylon, upon the same principle must not be extended to their ancient predecessors, and must not moderd Independents be considered at least as the children of those whi were members and supporters of spiritual Babylon, Letter XIL 157 " them : so in caae of mal-administration, or an unjtist pro- « ceeding, in the sentence of excommunication, and the hke, <' we acknowledge appeals or complaints may be made to " otlter churches ; and the elders of those churches met in a " Synod, who, being offended, may, as an ordinance o£ <' Christ, judge and decl-are that sentence to be null, yoid, " and unjust : and that not simply, as any company of men. " may so judge, giving their judgments of a fact done ; <' but as an ordinance of Christ in such cases, and for that " end, sanctijied by him to judge and declare in matters of " difference." And, again, he adds, *' In case this church <' will not own this person thus wrongfully ejected ; these " churches, or any of them, upon this determination of their " elders (the churches at their return approving tlie sen- ♦' tence), may both receive the party in among themselves, " and so relieve the man ^ and further also profess to hold " no communion with that church, if they perceive that " church doth continue obstinate, having either for the " manner proceeded therein, against the common principles " of equity and right, or against, and beside the principles " whereby churches are to proceed which that church itselF " hath, and doth hold forth and profess." But docs not this, whatever was intended by the author, plainly sanction an authoritative court ofrevieiv ? Is it not here declared, that when an improper decision is passed by the rulers of any particular congregation, the persons who are aggrieved, may appeal and co7)fplain to a meeting of the elders of a number of distinct and nominally independent congregations — That these ministers, met in this court, may, as an ordi- nance of Christ, declare that sentence to be nidi and void-> and enjoin that church to review their deed ; and — that if the church which has erred persists in its error, these minis- ters of separate and distinct congregations may pass a deci- sion, declaring that they shall henceforth be cut off from their commuRion, which decision, if ratified by the consent of their churches, shall be considered as binding ? Does this declaration however of what the needs of the church at present demand (and the author cannot be supposed to have been partial to Presbytery), correspond with wh^t yoti tell "US should be the situation of every congregation, and what you glory in as the boast of every Independent society ? Was it the opinion of this man, even though jin Indepen- dent, that " every particular congregation," as you allege, o 1,38 Letter XII. " should have the sole government of its Ovvn atTaii-s, end be ** amenable to no society of men under heaven ; and that *' while, in reference to its own members, its decision vvae " final, it should pretend to interfere tvitk none else ?" Or whatever might be the indeiyendency which he might ascribe to them in prnjession, does he net subject them as really to the authoritative cantroul of this assembly of the pastors of ether congregations, if supported by tlseir churches, as any Presbyterian congregation is to that of a Presbytery, or a Presbytery is to that of a Synod or Assembly* ? The same remark which is here offered upon Goodwin, may be also ap- plied to the extract which was made from the papers of the rest of the Westminster Independents. That similar sentiments were professed by the. great Dn Owen is evident from his book on the Nature and Govern- ment of the Gospel-church. " No church therefore," says he, (p. 41 '5), " is so independent, as that it can always, *' and in all cases, observe the duties it owes unto the Lord *' Christ and the church catholic, by all those powers which *• it is able to act in itself distinctly, lathout conjunction ^< mth others. And the church that confines its duty * Is it objected, that the case must undoubtedly be different,, because the congregation which has erred may either obey or re- ject the decision of these pastors, even though supported by their ^•churches ? It is replied, that if they do so, according to Goodwin, €ven though an Independent, they must be cut off from their com- munion; and in what respect does this differ from the authority •which is claimed by a Presbytery, or Synod, as a court of review ? This convention of the pastors of Independent churches, though they profess merely to deliver an advice to tlie congregation which has erred, and require them simply to review their sentence, tell ' them at the same time, that if they do not pronounce tt " null and " void," and adopt the decision which they point out, no fellow- ship can henceforth be glinted to them with their churches. And, to say that the congregations to which these pastors belong, must i ratify this determination before it can be valid, does not alter tbeJ Blatter, but only demonstrates that this power of controul, andJ authoritative review, over a particular congregation, which Pres-J byterians affirm ought to be lodged in a Presbytery, or Synod, orj Assembly, should be vested also in the members of these different' churches as well as their pastors. The necessity of the subordina- tion of this church to the review of these others is still admitted; and this subordination, in opposition to you and the rest of your brethren, one fof the wisest and best of the ancient Independents affirms to be indispensable for promoting the interests of the church of God. Letter XII, 159 ■<> unto the acts of its own assemblies, cids il&elf off from the '« external communion of the church catholic ; nor will it be " safe for any man to commit the conduct of his sozd to " sioch a church. Wherefore," he adds, " this acting in «*^ Synods is an institution of Jesus Christ ; not in an ex- " press command, but in the nature of the tki?ig itself, ^^ fortified xvith apostolical example. For having erected *' such a church-state, and disposed all his churches into " that order and mutual relation unto one another, as that « none of them can be complete, or discharge their whole " duty without mutual advice and counsel ; he hatli thereby ^'- ordained this way of their communion in Synods, no other " being possible unto that end. And hereby such conven- «< tions are interested in the promise of his presence, namely, « that, where two or three are gathered together in his « name, there he will be in the midst of tliem. For these ** assemblies being the necessary eflect of his own constitu- " tion in the naLure and use of his churches, are, or may be, <♦ in his name, and so enjoy ^:!S presence," Besides, he observes, (p. 414), that " the end of all par- '* ticular chu!->ches ia.-che edification of the cliuvch catlioi.c " unto the glory of God in Christ. And it is evident, *< that in many instances this cannot be attained, yea, that *^ it must be sinfidly neglected, unless this way for the pre- " servation and carrying of it on be attended unto. Truth, *♦ peace, and love, may be lost among churches, and so the « union of the catholic church in them be dissolved, unless " this means for their preservation and reparation be made « use of. And that particular church which extends not • " its duty beyond its own assemblies and members, is fallen ** «2^/'"o»2 the principal end of its institution. And every ■**■ -principle, opinion, ov piersuasion, that inclines any church « to confine its care and duty unto its own edification only, ** yea, or of those only which agree with it in some peculiar ..** practice, making it neglective of all due means of the ■< edification of the church cathohc, is schismatical. " There is direction hereunto included in the order and " method of church-proceedings in case of offence, prescrib- ^** ed unto it by Christ himself. The beginning and rise of "*' it is between two individual persons ; thence it is carried *' unto the cognizance and judgment of two or three others " before unconcerned ; from them it is to be brought unto «^=the church; and there is no doubt but the church hath o2 160 Letter XII. " power to determine concerning it, as unto its own com- " munion, to continue the offender in it, or reject him from *' it. ~ This must abide, as unto outward order and the pre- *' servation of peace. But no church is infalHble in their *' judgment absohitely in any case ; and in many, their de- «* terminations may be so doubtful as not to affect the con- " science of him who is censured. But such a person is not " only a member of that particular church, but by virtue " thereof, of the catholic church also. It is necessary " therefore that he should be heard and Judged as unto his " interest therein, if he do desire it. And this can no ivay " be done, but 5y such Sijuods as we shall immediately de- *« Ecrlbe. *' Synods" (p. 416), " are consecrated unto the use of *' the church in all ages, by the example of the apostles, in *' their guidance of the first churches of Jews and Gentiles ; " >vhich hath the force of a divine instituLion, as being " given by them under the infallible conduct of the Holy *' Ghost, Acts XV. which we shall speak farther unto im- " mediately. " Upon the whole," he remarks, p. 419, " if it be re- " ported or known by credible testimony, that any church ** lip.th admitted into the exercise of divine worship any " thing superstitious or vain, or if the members of it walk «* like those described by the apostle, Philip, iii. 18, 19, «' unto the dishonour of the gospel, and of the ways of '' Christ, the church itself not endeavouring its own refor- " mation and repentance; other churches, walking in com- " munion therewith, by virtue of their common interest in *« the glory of Christ, and honour of the gospel, after more <' private wa^'S for its reduction, as opportunity and duty <' may suggest unto their elders, ought to assemble in a *' Synod for advice, either as to the use of farther means for " the recovery of such a church, or to xvithhold communion " from it in case of obstinacy in its evil ways. The want " of a due attendance unto this part of the coinm union of " churches, with respect unto gospel-worship in its punty, " and gospel-obedience in its power, was a great means of " the decay and apostasy of them all. By reason of this " negligence, instead of being helpful one to another, for " their mutual recovery, and the revival' of the things that " xiere ready to die, rhey gradually infected one another, »' according as they fell into their decays, and countenanced Letter XII. 161 *< 'one another by their examples unto a continuance in such " disorders." And with respect to the extent of these Synods, in p. 426, he says, " Yet this I shall say, that " whereas it is eminently useful unto the church catholic, " that all the churches professing the same doctrine of faith, " within the limits of the same supreme civil govermnent, " should hold constant actual communion among themselves " unto the ends of it before mentioned, I see not how it can " be any abridgment of tlie liherly of particular clrurckes, *' or interfere with any of their rights which they hold by " divine institution, if through more constant lesser Synods *' for advice, there be a communication of their mutual con- " cerns to those that are greater, until, if occasion require, " and if it be expedient there be a General Assembly of " them all, to advise about any thing wherein they are all " concerned. Thus while many of the most zealous modern Indepen- dents reprobate the idea of convening the pastors of other congregations in a Presbytery, or Synod, or General As- sembly, to review, in any case of error or injustice, a decision which has been passed in a particular congregation, the opi- nion which was held by this most distinguished ancient ad- vocate for Independency, was directly opposite. Every church which is not connected with such courts of superin- tendence (and this is the case certainly with the Tabernacle churches), *' is cut oft," at least in his view, " from the ** external communion of the church catholic in a most im- *< portant relation ; nor .will it be safe," he even affirmiS, " for any man," however it may be admired and applauded by many, " to commft his soul to such a church." Nay, however sA.]ch courts may be decried by his modern, but per- haps not more enlightened followers, " no church," accord- ing to him, " can be complete without them ; and the ** church which wants them, is fallen off from the jjrincipal " end of its institution ; and every opinion, principle, or ** persuasion,. that leads to the neglect of them, is scliisynati" ** cal." And, in short, while some of our modern Inde- pendents treat with derision Presbyteries and Synods as they obtain among Presbyterians, and ask with triumph where' we'can discover such courts in scypture, the illustrious Owen, whose acquaintance with the scriptures was most probably not less profound and extensive than theirs, expressly declares them, « to be an institution of Christ, not in an express 3 16^ Letter XII. *' command, but in the nature of the thing itself, forlif,ed ** iviih apostolical example." And, again, that " they are *' consecrated unto the use of the church in all ages, by the ** example of the apostles, in their guidance of the first *' churches of the Jews and Gentiles ; which hath the force *' of a dixnne institution, as being given by them under the *■'■ infullihlc conduct of the Holy Ghost." In fii>e, he allows that there may be not only lesser Synods, or meetings, as the word signifies, of the pastors of churches in the same communion ; but " Synods that are greater, until, if occasion require, and if it be expedient, there be a General /Issemhh; *' of them all, to advise about any thing wherein they are all " concerned." It is obvious, then, that if our present In- dependents sneer at Presbyterians when they affirm that such courts are authorized by scripture, they must connect with them, in their sneer, their own not less venerable predeces- sors, Owen, and Cotton, and Hooker, and Goodwin, with liis six most respectable brethren in the Westminster As- sembly. And while, in their superior wisdom, they look down with pity upon Presbyterians in general when they at- tempt to prove the authority of such courts from scripture, and consider them as wresting the sacred oracles, they ought undoubtedly to look lack with the same regret and compas- sion upon their oxvn erring forefathers, who, less judicious or candid than their more perfect children, unfortunately be- lieved also in Presbyteries, and Synods, and General Assem- blies — courts which, though but consultative, are not more clearly demonstrable than those of Presbyterians are from the word of God. It may indeed be alleged, that these courts of review, for which Dr. Owen contends, superior to the eldership of a particular congregation, were warranted only to deliver an advice to that individual church, but could not exercise over it any authoritative rule. He affirms however, in common with Goodwin, that if this particular congregation does not comply with the decision of a Synod or Assembly, all the churches, whose representatives sit in these courts, " may *< withhold communion from it." Is not this however, by ivhatever name you call it, as much authority over this par- ticular congregation, even J^y the pastors and members of other churches, as is ever assumed by a Presbyterian Synod ? and is not this the only difference between them, that the Synods of the latter alone exercise this authoritative power, Lettkr XIL 163 v/hile the members at large of the various churches repre- sented in the Synods which were argued for by the former, together with the pastors, were to be vested with this power over that particular church i Do not many of the argu- ments of Dr. Owen moreover, whatever he designed, prove that the ministers of a number of churches, met in a Synod, have as much power over any church in a particular commu- nion, which errs either in doctrine or discipline, as the gover- nors of any particular congregation have over any member of that congregation, who. walks unworthily of the Christian character ? Nay, as was before remarked, does he not di- rectly say, that "-as a Christian is not only a member of a " particulai' church, but, by virtue thereof, of the catholic " church also, it is necessary (if he has been aggrieved by '' any decision of the men who govern the former) that he " should be lieard and judged as to his interest in the latter, " if he do desire it ? And does he not assert, that this can " no way be done, but by such Synods as have been men- " tioned ?" And, upon the whole, if it be doubted whe- ther these considerations evince that Dr. Owen, while he reprobated an imperious and unreasonable autliority, would have granted to Synods, over particular churches, a degree of authority equal to that vv'hich is intrusted to them by Presbyterians, let the following very strong and satisfactory^ testimony from his life be consulted. As the celebrated Whitefield, though by profession an Episcopalian, is report- ed to have declared, that of all the ecclesiastical constitu- tions on earth, that of the church of Scotland appeared to him the most excellent; so this great Independent has left an acknowledgment no less honourable to her Presbyterian administration and discipline, which proves that he must have agreed with her in her views of authority, while at the same time he contended, as her rulers also do, that none, who could not submit to the decisions of office-bearers in any particular instance, should be forced against their will to continue in the church. " I have been the larger," says his biographer, in the account of him which is annexed to his book on Spiritual-mindedness, p. ^oQ, " in this extract of " the Doctor's opinion about church-government, because " it shews (whatever might have been his sentiments when *« younger) how much he agreed with cdl Frotesicmt *' chnrcheSi that of England excepted, in this point, in the ^ latter part of his days ; and that had others been of his IGl. Letter XIF. " mind, the difference betwixt those called Presbyteriaiiy " and Independents might easily have been reconciled. He- " was of so healing a temper in this matter, that / heard *' Jtim say, before a person of quality, and others, He could' " readily join ivith Presbytery as it iins exercised in Scot" '' land* J' It may perhaps be alleged however, that though * That such also were tlie sentiments of the Independents ip. Holland the country where, according to the testimony of Mo- slieim, (vol. v. p. 406), about two hundred years a church at Afnheim wrote to them — stated the offence which their, conduct had given to tlie rest of their brethren — requested them to subject themselves, with all their proceedings, to the review of a Synod, which was to be called for that purpose — and told them, that such a Synod was to be summoned. The reason which tlic^" assign for it is, that " no particular church, in any communion,, " ought to claim an exemption from giving an account of its con- duct, or iei/!g c£iisi/ra'uL' hij othsrs T So repugnant, say they, " to our " seuUmev.ts \?> X\i3.t. hiJefendeiit libet'tj/ \yh\ch. is commonly objected- " to us" — a liberty, however, in which the present Independents' so much glory. This Synod having met in the city of Ariiheini^ and the members from Rotterdam having been summoned before tliem, the business was investigated for several days, and witnesses were examined and parties heard. A decision at last being given, against the church, it publicly and humbly a^-knowledged its error, received its minister, after lie too had confessed some fault whicli* he had committed, and, having appointed a solemn day of fastings luimbled themselves before God and men on account of their sin. The words of Hoornbeek (and Goodwin and Nye, it may be re- marked, were members of this Synod) are the following : " Arn- " hemiensis coetus scripsit ad Roterodamensem, significans datum- " scandalum, ex temeraria ministri oppressione, et depositione,: " quare ab iis petit pnterentur in nomine Christi, et pro vindicando " ejus honore, atque in solatium oppress! ministri, causae exam.en, " coram reliquis suae nationis ecclesiis, vel quibuscunque aliis hoc " ipsorum facto offensis, institui ; utque se subjicerent (ita loquun- *' tur to subject themselves) iniegra' tothis nc'gocii actprumque vniniiim- " re'vhioiii atque examini. Ouod ubi concessisseut prompto lubenti- " que animo, et advenisscnt Arnhemo ii, quos supra diximus, in— " stitutusque conventus fuissef, prasmissa adhortatione, qux eo " spectabat ut docerent, singularem aliquam et particularem eccie- " slam, qux sibi datam existimat a Christo judicandi eos qui ejus- " dern secum corporis ac societatis potestatem, nun debere sibi' " arrogare exemplioncm a rcddcnda rat'tonc, I'el a ccnsura aliort/m fan- " e>:empi:on froffi S''ii"g affoutif, or bang cen:uruble hv an-ij other )■, s;va Letter XII. 165 such were the views of many ancient Independents respect- ing Presbyterian government, it is no argument why they should still be retained by us, if we are not convinced of their utility or truth. It is granted indeed, that our present Independents are certainly not bound, by the example of their forefathers, to admit any principle, or perform any duty towards God or man, however important, against their con- victions. Such testimonies however in favour of Presbytery, from many of the greatest and most enlightened men that ever adorned their cause, ought to lead them at least to re- view their more levelling and democratic principles* with diffidence and caution, and ought undoubtedly to teach them greater moderation a)id liberality than some of them have discovered in their language respecting the nature and ten- dency of a system, which many of their most distinguished ancient ornaments either p?rifc'/fa/^ admitlec/f or publicly commended. " fftaghtratiis su\irn, s'lvs proximarum ecclesiarum juxt.i se. Tam *' longe (dicunt) a niente nostra aberat independens ilia libeitas, qure " nobis vulgn impingitur ; etiam turn fjuando minima nobis a " regno Anglicano dependentia, vsl rcvcrtendi eo spes videbatur. '• Hie autem successus atque cxitus Synodi illius fuit, ut, habita *' aliquot dierum causse cognittone, auditisque et examinatis variis " testibus, quomodo in curia aliqua ubi vel maxime auctoritate res ♦' agitur, desiderari posset, ccetus qui ofFenderat, palam errorem *' suum agnoverit, et ministrum, confessum etiam in quo forte ipse " peccaverat, restituerit in pristinum suum locum, indictoque " solemui jejunio, se coram Deo ac hominibus propter peccatum •' illud supm humiliarit." How different indeed from the opinion of these original Independents are the tenets of those who now assume their name, most of whom are almost as much dissimilar to ihem as to Prsshyterians, and many of whom, in their predilection for illiterate ministers, and virulence against churches of other de- nominations, resemble rather the Boltonians or Brownists, than those who were distinguished by the name of Independents ! " I speak of their religions sentiments only. C I6G J LETTER XIII. SiK, i HAT it may not be imagined that this principle of Pres- bytery has no foundation but the authority of respectable' iiames, I shall now endeavour to prove that it is established by the united evidence of reason and scripture. The following quotations from Baillie and Ferguson, two ancient Presbyterians, contain, if I am not mistaken, a clear and accurate statement of the opposite views which have' been taken of this question. " Independents and Brownists," says Baillie, in his Dis- suasive from the Errors of the Times, *' maintain that every " particular church, every single congregation, is indepen- " dent from any Presbytery, any Synod, any Assembly: " This we deny, affirming the true dependence and subor- " dination of parocliial congregations to Presbyteries, and' " of these to Synods ; to which we ascribe power, autho-- " rity, and jurisdiction :" p. 197. " Independency is the •• fidl liberty of such a church (a particular congregation) " to discharge all the parts of religion, doctrine, sacraments,. ♦' discipline, and all within itself, without all dependence,- " all subordination to any other on earth, more or fewer, so ** that the smallest congregation, suppose of iZiree persons*, ' ** though it fall into the grossest heresies, may not be con- " trouled by any orthodox Synod, wei'e it cecumenic (or, ♦' universal) of all the churches in the world :" p. 198. " We come now," says the other writer, p. 150, of his; Brief Refutation of the Errors of Independency, Separation, Sfc. " to the second head, and it is that for which mainly' they arc called Independents : The point they affirm is. this, that every particular church-session, or congrega- tional eldership (or, according to others, congregation), is furnished v/ith the highest power of church-government on earth, so that there is no power in the church above them to call them to an account, when they go wrong, to rescind any act once concluded, though it were never so unjust. They grant, that a Synod of ministers and' elders * There are some of them in Glasgow which consist cnly o£ . ei^/ii persons. Letter XIIL 157 *•' may meet to consult about matters*, but withal affirm, ** that they have no ecclesiastical pcnser to command in the .** Lord any congregation whatsoever : So that if a man be *' wronged by a Session (or congregation) ; as for instance, ^' if he be unjustly censured (as it m.ay very readily fall *' out), he must sit with his wrong, there is 7to pozver to " 7-ight it till Christ come in the clouds : Or if a particular " congregation divide, turn heretics, run wrong (as many " of the Independent congregations do), there is no church- "" power to heal the breach, unless it be by giving an advice, *' which they may either follow, cr not follow, as likes *< theniibest. We again grant, that particular elderships " have a power from Jesus Christ to exercise discipline in " these things which concern the congregation in particu- \\ *< lar. But as for other things of more public concern- " ment, that is to say, things that concern other congrega- ■•« tions as well as them, these ought to be handled by a *« superior judicatory ; and that even in those things of ^ar- V ticular concernvient, they are liable to appeals, and the *' inspection of the superior judicatory ; so that wherein -*< they shall be found wrong, partial, or erroneous, they may '** be called to an account. *' We allow unto particular congregations an eldership " and power of discipline within themselves, to judge of *' these things that are of their particular concernment : *' But as for things wherein other congregations are con- ** cerned with them, we hold that such do belong to supe- ** rior judicatories, according to the rule, IVhat belongs ** imto all, shoidd he handled by all. Secondly, we do not " give power to any one single congregation above another : " We say, that all congregations (the least as well as the *' greatest) are equal in power. We do only say, that all ** particular congregations should be subject to a Presby- •* tery, made up of elders taken from among themselves, " wherein no congregation can challenge power more than ** another : the meanest hath as great power in them as the *• greatest." • You object to the propriety of these associations of ministers being considered as the representatives of the churches to which they belong, and propose that they should meet only in their pri- vate characters, as an assembly of individuals, and not in their public official capacity. 168 Letter XIII. Wlien it is affirmed by Presbyterians, that every parti- cular congregation ought not to be independent of a Pres- bytery or Synod, it is not intended that its rulers, or office- bearers, are to be dependent upon them for the exercise of their power after they are invested with it, or that they may be deprived of it by them at pleasure, in that society which they govern. All that is designed is simply that they are subject, in any case of error, or any instance of mal-admini- stration, to the authoritative .review of the ministers and elders of a number of congregations met as a Presbytery ; and, perhaps, it would be better, as the judicious Hoornbeek has observed, to express their relation to such a court by the terms subjection or suhordincdion, than by the word dependence, which is occasionally used by some ancient Presbyterians*. * The words of tliis very excellent and candid writer, in his book against schismatics, p. 771, deserve to be quoted. " Quid- " nam vero hie tanti, iterum quajro, quod magnarum contentio- •* num, et tumultuum causa esse dcbeat ? quodque non vel tolerari •' vel cotnpoiii, si non corrigi facile possit? Ecciesiam particu- " larem habere omnem potestatem ecclesiasticani in se, neque earn " accipere a SynoJOfVe] ab aliis superioribits, certum eat. Pone (verbi " causa) ut modo una particularis sit ecclesia, vel in mundo, vel in •' aliqua parte mundi, vel ut non sint ecclesia, qua sociari in unum " possint; aut quod aliqua cum iis sociari nequeat : non hsec eo *' minus ecclesia est, vel mutiia id;;o aliqua sui parte, nedum essen- " tiali. Jam sociari in unum ecclesras, et couvenire in Synodos, " haud improbant adversarii, tantum non deponere a Synodis. Et " si bene introspiciamus, dt-pendentia a Synodis non congrue dicitur. " Qiiippe haud existimandum, vel ab aliis superioribus, aut eccle- " siis, aut Synodis, habere prccariam potestatem particularem " quamque ecciesiam, vel se potestate sua exuere, quando in Sy- " nodo coit, illamque ei trader'e. Neutiquam. Synodorum vel usus " vel potestas nihil officere potest aut debet ecclesiarum particula- *' rium libertati et potestati, estque non privatha^ s^ed cutnulativa " potestas, ecclesiaque particularis quaelibet manet subjectum pro- *' prium et adsquatum pUtia potestatis ecclesiastics. Neque Synod! *' in alias sub ea comprehensas ecclesias potestatem usurpent impe- *• rantem, quae dominorum et superiorum est in inferiores sibi sub- *' ditos ; sed ex communi et libero ecclesiarum consensu in Syno- " dum, haec potestatem habet delegatam, et auxiliarem vel minis- " trantem, ecclesiis -voluntaria coiueiisione, ob necessitatem ordinis Ct •' sedificationis, Synodis se subjicientibus. Uti quando in rebus- " publicis, vel alibi, ex communi aequaliom consilio collegium " erigitur, ad quod communes causx devolvuntur tractandjs et " definienda, quod in illas nuUam habet potestatem, nisi earumar- " bitrio et mutuo consensu. Ouod in cirtulis vel dioecesibus ec- Letter XIII. 169 The question tKen is, Whether every congregation, with its office-bearers, should be so independent as to be com- pletely separate from every other in point of government ? Or, while in ordinary matters it is governed by its elders, are they responsible for their conduct, in any case of error, to the ministers and elders of a number of congregations with whom they are associated in the same general body and religious fellowship ? and are these again accountable to a still greater assembly, composed of the representatives of a greater number of churches, till at last they arrive at a uni- versal meeting or council of the representati-s-es of all the churches in the same religious connection, the highest court in the community ? That every congregation ought not thus to be separated, as is the case universally with Independent churches, appears to be manifest from the following arguments. . In the 1st place. The visible professing chnrch, v/hile comprehending many particular and distinct congregations, is represented in scripture as constituting one great and beau- tiful whole, one regular and closely connected society. It " clesiarum, qiiare liac isti, ilia: aiteri Svnodo se adjungant, et ?ub- " mittant, apparet, Non est ergo proprie lixc ecclesiarum ad Sv- " nodum relatio, dtpendeni'ia dicenda, neque coinmnde niiiii voca- " bulo Independenlismi vel denotata controversia, vel homiiium secta " videtur : nam bene dici potest, ecclesiani particul.-irem es?e in- " dependentem ab alia, vel a Synodis, aut hominibus; pendcre " autem a solo Christo: submisslo pf»tius appellanda fuerat, xit qua; •' venit ex communi consensu ecclesiarum, se illi ordini, ad xdifi- " cationem et bene esse ccclesias, subjicientium. A qua nomen- " datura ipsos non admodum alienos luturos, et moniore verbo " rem non malam facilius persuasum ipsis Iri confidimus, quum iu " apologia dicentes audiverimus, suis se senioribus subjcct'wneut " prestare, et Synodi Roterodamensis sententiae subjectionem a " Roterodamensi ccetu postulatam, teneri ecclesiam submittore " aliorum judicio et censur.x, Ixfc. qux facilius mihi videntur con- " ciiianda cura sententia nostra, quam cum nomine dependentiaj " (quo offunduntur) vel poiestatis usurpatx a Svnodo in ecclesia?. " Verum quid est quod adeo offendere eos possit, si Synodorum " potentate ita explicata, et Ijmitata, aliquani iis tribnamus? Cen- " surnm strin^ere incontumacem, pronanciare non-comnnmione!?:, quid " vel ab excommunicatioiie adeo distat, vel ab usurpata potestate ?. " ilia non-communio passive considerata, quid difFert ab cxconi- " municatione ? qui extra sanctorum comnuinionem ponitur, " annon idem est quod excommunicatus ? vel ecclesia sic damnata ■' non-communione, annon potestatem aliquam sentit advcrsus sa ^' exercitam ? Cefte magis videntur verba horrere, quam mm" i rO i^ETTER XIll. is compared, for instance, in Rom. xi, to an olive-tree, for M'liile some of the Jews, the ancient church of God, are said to have been cut off from it on account of their unbe- lief, the Gentiles, who are compared to a wild olive, are re- presented as graffed in among the branches which remained, and as admitted with them to partake of the juice and fat- ness of the olive-tree. It is often also exhibited under the emblem of a body, particularly iq. the twelfth chapter of 1st Corinthians. It is frequently distinguished also by the name of a kingdom, as will be evident to any one who exa- mines the thirteenth chapter of Matthew. Nor is it merely, as Mr. Glass wishes to insinuate, the invidhle church which is thus described. Of this church it is plain that th'ere is a part in heaven ; but the church here referred to, is one in •which a variety of offices are instituted for its spiritual edi- lication, and for converting sinners to obedience to the truth (1 Cor. xii. Eph. iv. 11, 12, 13), a circumstance un- doubtedly which will not apply to the former. Besides, that it cannot merely be true believers, the mystical body of J«sus, who are there intended, as is asserted by that writer, seems evident from this, that, in the first of these passages, some of its members are said " to have been cut off from it " on account of their unbelief," which cannot be alleged of true believers, unless the doctrine of the perseverance of the ■saints be rejected. In the second of these quotations, the apostle represents the church of which he speaks, as a church which, and which alone, had been enriched with superna- tiiral gifts, as prophecy, miracles, the gift of tongues, S^c. We know however, that these gifts were bestowed in the primitive times upon many who were not members of the invisible church or real believers, for we are told in Matth. vii. 22, 23, that in the day of judgment many will say unto Christ, " Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? *■*■ and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy name *' done many wonderful work« ? and yet that he will profess ** unt6 them, I never knew you : depart from me ye that •' work iniquity." And, in the third of these passages, it appears to be no less undeniable, that it cannot be the rege- nerated and invisible church which is compared to a king- dom, for that kingdom is said there to resemble a field, in which there were tai-es as well as wheat, and in which these tares were to remain till the universal harvest, at the con- summation of all things. In shortj though the highest spi- Letter XIII. 171 ritual characteis be . occasionally applied to this universal church, it will not prove tiiat it is only the invisible church, consisting solely of believers,' and not the visible church, of professing Christians, which is designed. It is the custom of the different apostles of Christ to describe men by what they profess to be, if there be nothing in their conduct which contradicts that profession, rather than from what they really are in tlie sight of God. Paul, we know, ad- dresses the ivhole of the members of the churches of Rome, and Corinth, and Epliesus, and Thessalonica, as holy, and yet we have reason to suspect, that, if in the little company ol our Saviour there was one traitor, all of them had not ex- perienced regenerating grace* And Jesus him.self, when ad- dress'ng his disciples, and announcing to them promises of celestial glory, proceeds upon the same principle, and treats all of them, agreeably to their profession, as genuine saints, though he knew that one of thera was a son of perdition. *' Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee," said Peter to- him (Matth. xix. 27, 28) : " And Jesus said unto *' them. Verily I say unto you, that ye which have follow- " ed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit *' in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve " thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Not only so, but strong expressions are employed (1 Cor. xii), to point out the unity of this church, and the duties which re- sult from it to the members at large.. Nay, we are directly informed in the 25th verse, that God hath appointed ail of them throughout the world, the lowest as well as the most eminent, to be imited in one body for this particular end, that " there should be no schism in the hody, but that *' all the members of this universal church should have the *' same care one for another." But in what manner is it possible that these representations can be verified upon the Independent plan ? Were all the congregations in the world composed of none but such as appeared to be saints, and yet were each of these disconnected from the rest in point of governm.ent, how could these descriptions be fulfilled ? Would not every branch in this olive-tree be separated from every- other ? Would not every inferior community in this kingdom be cut off from the rest ? and would not there be as many supreme independent principalities, each of them un- controulable by any higher subordinate power upon earth, as. there were individual societies? Would not every member p2 172 Letter XIII. of this body be torn from the others ? and, instead of there being no schism in the body, would it not, according to the very constitution of the church, be broken dov/n into ten thousand incoherent fractions, all of which combined cannot take as much care of any particular society, to prevent them from erring, or exercise as much authority over them, if they persist in error, as is exercised by that society over any individual of its members ? Since then it seems manifest, that the universal professing church of Christ is represented in scripture as a beautiful whole, as intimately connected as a body, or a kingdom, and in which all the congregations are required to take care of one another, that no schism may tuke place in it ; and as this would be impracticable tipon the Independent plan, if each of them was completely sepa- rated from the rest, and could not exercise over it the least authority ; this plan must be considered as untenable, be- cause subversive of the beautiful visible unity and order of the church. Is it said, that all the Christian churches throughout the iT/orld may be viewed as united, because they have one faith, one hope, one spiritual baptism, one God and Father of all, and one bread and cup, of which they all participate ? This will indeed demonstrate, that all true believers are one mys- tical body, but it is not about this union that we are now inquiring. It has been attem^pted to be proved, that were all the visible professing congregations on earth, to adhere to the doctrine and discipline of Christ, they would consti- tute what is denominated in the language of scripture, one cHve-tree, one kingdom., and one body, all the members of which are invested with power to prevent any schism in it. Unless then all these churches could be conceived to be con- nect ed as far as it is possible in point oi government, so that a congregation should be subject to the controul of the re- presentatives of a number of congregations, the representa- tions of scripture must be nugatory and unmeaning. With- out this, no union of Christian churches could be witnessed ; and though all the congregations on earth should be agreed. in their views of doctrine and worship, if, as the Independent uystem supposes, they constituted innumerable detached so- cieties, it seems impossible to conceive how, in any view, they could be denominated one visible cburch. It is true, 'that this one universal church has never yet existed, but it does not follow that the plan which tends to Letter XIII. 173 form it, is either useless or improper. The non-existence of this church arises from the corruptions and prejudices of men ; but supposing it to exist, the system of Indep^ndsncy would entirely destroy its unity and consistence. Besides, as far as the truth is disseminated and embraced, it appears required by the authority or at least by the representations of scrip- ture, that all who are united in religious principle should connect themselves under the same government, and form one great and general church. It is not enough to assert, as Glass has done, that all congregations are no more bound to be subject to one great and general government, than to meet in one great assembly to partake of the Lord's supper. The latter, from the nature of things, is impossible, but ex- perience has demonstrated the possibility of the former. Though all the congregations in Hcjliand, France, Swit- zerland, or Scotland, could not assemble in one place to eat the supper, we know that the churches, in each of these countries, have been administered by a common government, while these congregations individually have also been go- verned by their particular rulers. In like manner, though, the whole nation of Israel could not meet together to eat the passover, they were governed by a common council of seventy elders, while^ in their particular districts, they were also subject to inferior rules-s. It is difficult to say what might, or might not, be prac- ticable, if the. church were absolutely universal. As all the nations in the- world constitute one great political govern- ment to which every individual nation is subject, it is by no means impossible but there might be a general ecclesiastical government, composed of the representatives of the churches in every country, to which each of these churches should be subject. Such a general political government does not in- deed ostensibly exist, but it is always understood to exist virtually, and has ever been considered as the safeguard of those general rights and laws which are called the rights and laws of nature and nations. When the energies of this go- vernment are at any time exerted, it may be said to assume a visible form : and it is this wliich constitutes and pre- serves the balance of power among nations. Why then might not a similar government exist in religion if the church were to become universal, to which the collected church in every particular couutry should be £ubordin«ite. P 3 i7-i Letter XIII. Nor does it follow, because it is difficult to conceive how such a government could exist even though there were a uni- versal church, that, while it is not universal, the different congregations in a particular country, who are united in re- ligious sentiir.enls ought not to be subject to one general government. Though all the nations, notwithstanding their subjection to a general viitual government, are not subject to it in a permanent ostensible Jhnn, would any one con- clude from this, as Independents do respecting the church, that each nation should not possess within itself a certain lixed and general political government, or that there should 1)6 no rulers in any country superior to the magistrates of a particular town or buigh ; that every such town should be a distinct and totally independent government ; and that every individual, connected with this town, should be a virtual as well as a titular governor ? AVhat ought we to do then, but reject the Independent plan, which is so plainly subver- sive of the unity of the church, and conclude in general, that while every congregation should be governed by its distinct and separate rulers, there should be superior courts, to which all the congregations in the same connection are bound to be subject. It may be said, indeed, that in political governments men are associated merely for the purpose of defence against fo- reign enemies. This, however, is but one end of their imion ; for the civil rights and privileges of every individual in the nation are also to be protected from being invaded. To accomplish this, they learn from experience that it would be dangerous in the extreme to commit to the rulers of every town or village a supreme and final juridical power, without the pcssibihty of appeal to a higher court ; and that con- sequently a gradation of courts is most expedient and neces- sary. Still it will be affirmed, that though this arrangement js proper in political matters, it is not necessary or proper in the church of Christ, which is expressly declared to be a kingdom not of this world. It does not however follow from this particular expression, th?t there ought to be a total difference, in every instance, between the spiritual and the pohtical kingdom. If it did, then, because order and ■government exist in politics, they ought not to exist in re- ligion, but anarchy and disorder be allowed to prevail, a conclusipn which few Independents would be disposed to Letter XIII. 175 adopt. If then the kingdom of Christ, as it exists in the visible general church, does not necessarily differ, in every point, from political kingdoms, the question naturally occurs, Are these some of the instances in which this similarity may take place ; t^iat every member is not to be admitted to judge and vote on every proposal of the rulers in a particular church, as every man in a city is not permitted to judge and vote on every measure of the magistrate ; and that it would be improper for every congregation to possess an indepen- dent ecclesiastical government, accountable to no higher court, as it would be improper and dangerous that every town should have a political government independent of any superior ? In determining this question, it seems fair and reasonable to appeal not only to scripture but to experience. If then, on the authority of experience, it appears that men in every age have been so unqualified to decide on political questions, that it has been accounted at once dangerous and preposter- ous to submit every measure of the governors of a city to the decision of the citizens before it is adopted, it seems equally just to maintain that in a congregation, where the subjects of discussion are unquestionably more interesting, and where the members at large, are perhaps, as really unqua- lified to decide, it must be no less preposterous to subject every measure of government to the review of the people be- fore it be put in execution. And if it has also been account- ed prejudicial to the civil interests of men, to constitute every town in a kingdom an independent principality, uncontroul- able by any higher juridical court, may we not legitimately infer that a similar independency, given to a particular con- gregation, would be equally prejudicial to the religious in- terests of men ? Unless then it can be proved, that Chris- tians at large arc better fitted to be ecclesiastical governors than civil judges ; or that a particular congregation is less liable to err than the governor or magistrates of a city ; or that, though they may err as frequently, the consequences of their improper decisions, with regard to religion^ are of less importance than those which arise from political errors ; the reasoning seems fair and the conclusion unavoidable, even though we grant the favourite position of Independents, that the church, or kingdom of Christ, is not of this world, I know it has been affirmed by Glass, that when the pro- fessing church of Christ is represented in scripture as one, a 176 Letter Xlir. particular congregation only i-s intended, and tliat thetmity; even of the church universal may be ascribed to this congre- gation, because it is an image of the whole catholic church. In proof of this he tells us, that " the apostle Paul, in some " passages, accommodates his doctrine of the unity of the " holy catholic church, the mystical body of Christ, unto a " visible church, a congregation of saints, wherein that ca^ '* tholic body is shewed forth ; and exhorts the members, " in their several stations, to walk according to it, and shev/ « it forth ; Eph. ii. 22. Rom. xii. 6. — 10. Eph. iv. 1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. xii. 27.*" In some even of these passages, how- ever, it seems plain that it is the .urdversal visible church, and not merely a particular congregation, to which unity is attributed. Thus, in Rom. xii. 6, Sfc. the apostle not only speaks in general terms of the offices in the. church, but includes himself, though he had never yet been at Romej and was not a member of the particular church there. Be- sides, even Glass allows, that, in ver. 4, 5, he speaks of the universal church ; consequently, since it is his design, ver. 3, to inculcate the exercise of humility on all Christians, and especially the office-bearers of the church (and to enforce it, he introduces a striking and beautiful allusion to therejatioa in which all believers stand to each other as members of the general or universal church,) is it not evident that his infe- rence, in ver. 6, relates to the universal church alone, wl-.icli he there i-epresents as one. That it was this church alone which he intended in 1 Cor. xii, is proved from what is stated in the 28th verse. It was certainly not merely in a single congregation at Corinth, but in the universal profess- ing visible church, that " God had set some, first, apostles; *' secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers," SfC, That it is the same universal churchy of the unity of which he speaks, Eph iv. I, 2, 3, is no less clear from the following context. In short, allowing that, in S07»e occasicnal passages, parti- cular churches, as that of Ephesus, (Eph. ii. 22), are re- presented to us as constituting one church, it will not prove that, in other passages, the universal professing church is not as expressly pointed out as constituting also one church. That it is so described, we have already attempted in some measure to demonstrate, and, were it necessary, it might be established from other passages also. At present we ehaU * Glass's Works, vol. i. p. 279. Letter XIII. 177 only farther remark, that in this light it seems to be very pointedly exhibited in the account of the millennial church : Rev. xxi. This church certainly cannot mean the invisible church, for we are informed, ver. 24, that the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honour into it ; and in ver. 26, that they should bring into it also the glory and honour of the nations. And that it cannot signify a single congre- gation is no less plain, for nations are represented, ver. 24-, as walking in the light of it, and kings of different coun- tries as members of it, which certainly will not apply to any single congregation. It can only then be the universal visi- ble church ; yet it is described as constituting one great and beautiful whole, for it is pointed out -to us under the emblem of a city, and a person. It is evident then, that even allow- ing that unity is sometimes ascribed to a particular congre- gation in the sacred volume, it is no less certainly attributed to the universal church. And if the uTiity of a particular congregation would be destroyed by completely separating the members from each other, and rendering them indepen- dent of the authority of the whole, the unity of the universal church must be no less destroyed by separating every par- ticular congregation which composes this church, and making it independent, of the controul of the rest, in any case of error, in point of government. To conclude, is it objected, that though unity belongs to the universal church as well as to a particular congregation, yet it is the latter which is always meant when unity is as- cribed to the visible professing church ; and that this may well be affirmed even of a particular congregation, because it is an image of the universal church of Christ, so that, upon perceiving it, we perceive a representation of this whole catholic society ? It is replied, that since every individual saint, or believer, is represented in scripture as made at last, by the grace of God, a perfect man, and is an image of the whole mystical body of Christ, upon the same principle it might be affirmed, that when Christ's mystical body also is denominated by Paul, (Eph. iv. 13), a perfect man, it is caly a single .Christian which is there intended by him. And since every particular believer, when sanctified by the grace of God, becomes to him a spiritual temple, and is a delightful image of the whole universal church, which is dis- tinguished also by that name, upon the same principle it might be argued, that when the universal church, as in 178 Letter XIIIl Eph. ii. 21, is represented as a temple, it is oiiiy an indu'-i dual Christian which is designed by the apostle. But if Independents themselves would consider it as unfair, were we to maintain that when the universal mystical church is de- scribed in scripture as a perfect man, and a spiritual temple, individual believers alone are intended, because they are images of the former, and are called also by these names^ must it not be equally unfair and unreasonable in them, to assert, that though the universal visible church is pointed out in scripture as constituting one regular and connected whole, it is only a particular congregation which is designed, be- cause unity also is sometimes attributed to such congrega- tions, and because, when we behold the latter, we contem- plate an image and emblem of the former ? Hoiv, moreover, even upon the principle of this objection, can a particular congregation be a representation of the uni- versal visible church, if that church is not united imder one common government ? The society which is the image of the other in miniature is vinquestionably connected under such a government, and by this alone is constituted a church. But how can it be a public and visible emblem of this greater society, if the constituent parts of the latter are not united under such an administration, and have not even tha connection which subsists among the different members oi such a Congregation ? 'C 179 ] LETTER XIV. Sir, Waving, in the preceding Letter, endeavoured to establish from the representations of scripture, that such a unity ought to eJcist among Christian congregations as is inconsistent with the plan of Independent churches, I shall now confirm this position by shewing, i2dly. That if every congregation is made so independent of every other, that corniptions and improprieties may be admitted in them without being accountable to any superior court on earth, much greater opportunicy must exist for the introduction of error, and tyranny, than on the Presbyterian system. That the errors or corruptions of a congregation are much more prejudicial to the interests of religion in the world than those of individuals does not adniit of dispute. / In proportion, therefore, to their magnitude and tendency ought to be the strength and efficacy of the means of pre- venting or suppressing them. On the Independent plan however, if a congregation depart from purity of faith or worship, the same means cannot be applied to reclaim it, as -can be employed by its rulers to reclaim or punish the cor- ruptions of its individual members. In ihe latter case, they can be admonished, rebuked, and, if they persist in their errors, excommunicated by the ruleis. But no such power can be exercised over a whole congregation, nor any such punishment inflicted'on it, notwithstanding the greater enor- mity and more baneful tendency of its errors. Nay, even though a number of congregations should be seduced or misled by their example, the contagion must remain uncon- trouled by either censure or punishment : and thus our Lord, who has appointed the exercise of discipline towards offending individuals, has allowed congregations to become corrupt without the possibility of recovering them. In Presbytery, on the contrary, a congregation is as much under the discipline of its superior court as the members are under that of its particular rulers ; and even though all the congregations under the review of a Presbytery should err, they may be punished by a Synod ; which, on falling into 180 Letter XIV. similar errors with tlie inferior judicatories, may be punislicd by the supreme court. While Independency therefore pro- vides for the punishment of the least faults, or those of members, it overlooks the most pernicious and more import- ant faults, the heresies and corruptions which may take place in congregatiotis : by consequence, as inattention to the greatest crimes is one of the most radical and important defects in any government, the principles of Independency must be prejudicial to tlie general interests of religion. Do you say, that congregations may admonish one another when they fall into error, and endeavour to reclaim them ? You allow, however, that unless there be a power of punish- ing' as well as of admonishing an offending member, the evils which he may introduce can neither be prevented nor re- moved. On what principle, then, can you refuse a similar power to be necessary for the prevention or suppression of offences committed by a whole congregation ? In reply to this it is not sufficient to say with Glass, that though a congregation is not subject to the ecclesiastical censures of any external court, spiritual judgments may be inflicted on it by God ; for these may descend on the individual mem- bers of a congregation also, yet the authority of discipline is considered as essential to the government of every congre- gation. Or is it said, that a corrupt congregation, though not subject to the judgment of men, will finally be judged at the tribunal of Christ. The same answer is satisfactory — that the same is the accountableness, and the same will be the judgment, of every individual who persists in his sin. Yet even Independents admit the necessity of discipline in the case of individuals : Can less then, it is still demanded, be necessary to prevent error and corruption in a whole cono-reo-ation than in the case of an individual ? Undoubt- edly not ! Independency, therefore, must be more favour- able to the introduction of evils th.an Presbytery is, which, ' to every check which Independency possesses, adds the ac- countableness of every congregation to its superior court, and the review of all decisions, in inferior judicatories, by a still higher and supreme council. In opposition to this you however remark, p. 53. " So *' far do we conceive Presbyterian government from being *' an arrangement conducive to general utility, that it ap- ** pears quite the reverse. It tends to propagate corruption, " and to prevent reform. Suppose a church, on the Pres- Letter XIV. 181 " byterian model, at first comparatively pure (as it is ge- " nerally supposed, perhaps in some cases justly, that " churches in their early days are), but by degrees corrup- " tion creeps into it. As soon as that corruption infects " the majority, from the power which Presbytery gives << them over the rest, they can force their purer brethren, " however reluctantly, to assimilate themselves to their cor- " rupt standard. If, for example, in a Presbytery, one *' congregation after another begins to lose sight of Chris- " tian discipline ; whenever the greater part of that Pres- *' bytery does so, the rest, however much disposed, can no " longer maintain it. If an individual, in one of these purer •< congregations, feel himself aggrieved, an appeal to the ma- " jority secures him redress. The system then t?nds to ** drag down those who would act on Christian principles to " a conformity to such as have departed from them. Again, *' it equally tends to prevent reform. If, amidst general •* corruption, a spirit of reform should appear in a single " congregation, the authority of the rest is a bar in its wax'-. " This is, we believe, in some cases severely felt. Suppose <* a minister in the established church (and in some instances, << we trust, it is not merely matter of supposition), in the " progress of his inquiries respecting Christian discipline, is " convinced that it is very partially, if at all maintained in " his congregation, admitting even that a majority of his " people held the same sentiments ; is it not obvious, that " unless the Presbytery in general were of a similar opinion, " any attempt at reform in that congregation would prove " nugatoi-y and vain. The same inconvenience does not " attend Independent churches. We are far from insinuat- " ing that any form of church-government presents an ef- " fectual bar to that corruption to which all institutions, " conducted by depraved and fallible men, are liable ; but " admitting among Independent churches the most general " departure from Christian principles to prevail, if, in the " midst of this, an individual congregation is led to study " greater purity, the system at least presents no external " obstacle to counteract it." On this objection, so formidable in your apprehension, I observe in general, that while you point out as clearly as possible what you imagine to be the tendency of the Pres- byterian system to propagate corruption and prevent reform, you forget to shew that Independency is free from a similar Q 182 • L-ETTER XIV. tendency. Even on the principles of the reasoning which you adopt, it appears to be much more liable to this objec- tion than Presbytery. Suppose, for instance, a congrega- tion, in either of these connections, just beginning to s\Vcrve from purity of faith and worship, and consider the tendency j oi each of these systems to prevent or reform them. Inde- | pendency has not a single court which can call it to account, ' censure or punish it : Presbytery has superior courts, to whose tribunal it is amenable, and which can censure or punish it with as much power as an Independent congrega-^ tion can any of its offending members. Nay, suppose this congregation to extend its corruption to ten or twenty churches around it, the same want of autliority and power to check the progress of this corruption exists. But in PiTsbytery, though twenty congregations should be tainted with error, there are higher courts, which can endeavour to reform them, not only by admonition and persuasion, but by superadding the same ecclesiastical censures which Indepen- dents inflict on the individuals in a particular congregation who persist in error. In a word, in a country where there were 1600 Independent churches, though almost the one half of them should fall into error, and obstinately persist in it, for any power that the remaining majority possess, they must continue unpunished ; corruption tnust be allowed to extend v.'ithout controul ; they must be left to themselves, either to reform, or to advance in corruption. In a Presby- terian church however, though as many should become cor- rupt, the faithful majority can exercise the discipline over 1 them with which they are invested ; employ the same effi- ' cacious means for their reformation which you acknowledge Christ has appointed to be used by a congregation towards its members ; and if they should resist these means, finally , pronounce on them the same sentence to which you also I allow individuals are exposed. I am truly astonished then, that while such is the nature of Presbytery, when adminis- tered according to its original design and by faithful men, that it is as much fitted to exclude corruption from the most j extensive church, or to reform it, as the government esta- \ blished in your connection is to prevent the corruption of a particular individual, you should endeavour to represent Presbytery as so favourable to error, and so inimical to re- , form. Nor am I less surprised, when you attempt to insi- nuate that this charge does not strike with its utmost force Letter XIV. 183 against Independency — a system v.duch gives no authority except to a single congregation over its 6\vn membLM-s ; under which, a hundred congregations may embrace the most pernicious opinions, and persist in them without cen- sure and without punishment. You indeed ask, (p. 51'), " How does Presbytery tend " to prevent corruption ? Not by admonition and persua- " sion. These, indeed, it does not exchide, but this is a kini " of influence wliich is acknowledged in its fullest latitude *' by Independent churches ; and therefore respecting tlie *' propriety of adopting it there is no dispute. The stern " tone of authority, then, is the only method of prev^'nting " corruption by vrhich Presbytery is distinguished. It in- '« deed, hke other modes of compidsion, may produce liy- " pccrisv, but it can never promote ppiriUnl ob;J:e.^.ce. J *' was never a kind of iuifueiice saiictioned by Hiin who ** reigns over a willing people." Presbyterian courts however, as was already proved, while they employ authority, use also admonition and persuasion. Nor is their authority more stern or compulsatory than that which is exercised by the office-bearers and members of an Independent congregation over an offending brother. Do not the governors of such a congregation add to the means of advice and persuasion a higher act of authority, by in- flicting on him a most awful punishment, if he remain in- corrigibly obstinate ? And is the authority of a Presbyte- rian court, over an offending congregation, greater than this, or more incompatible with the use of persuasion and advice ? Is it more calculated to produce hypocrisy, as vou are so charitable as to allege ? Is it more inconsistent witli the influence which is sanctioned by Him who reigns over a willing people ? Or on what principle can you explain the extraordinary difficulty attending the Independent sys- tem, that while a pov/er to punish a particular member h allowed to be necessary for preserving the purity of the con- gregation to which he belongs, a similar power is denied to a superior court, and a wliole congregation suffered to cm- brace the most dangerous opinions without the possibility of being censured or punished ? You will, however, probably say, that as soon as the rn-ijo- rity in a Presbyterian connection become corrupt, all the evils which you describe are found to be realized. It is true, indeed, that, when perverted from its origin design, q2 184 Letter XIV. ~ like many other things which in themselves are good, Pres- bytery may produce the worst of consequences ; and it is even granted, that as, when properly and conscientiously ad- ministered, it is productive of greater good than Indepen- dency, when corrupted and misapplied, it may, in one view, be attended with greater evils. The question, however, in the present discussion, certainly is, not what system, when nervei-ted from its original end, is calculated to produce the hast evil, but what system, when conducted according to its design, is calculated to produce the greatest good ? Your tibjection is therefore completely irrelevant, because it rests on a mistake about the point in dispute,, as well as on a prin- ciple long exploded by scripture, philosophy, and common .'cnse, that the abuse of a lltivg is a valid argiimeni against /Is 7itiliti/. By adopting this principle, you invalidate the authority of the most important institutions, and -ect aside many in '.vliich you yourself firmly beheve. On this ground, for instance, as a standing minisiry, when prostituted to the purposes of error and worldliness, is much more fitted to disseminate corruption and prevent r€forra than private in- > 'ruction is, it should be laid aside ; and we ought to believe, with a certain sect of levellers, that ministers of the gospel •are no longei necessary, but every Christian himself should teach his neighbour, and every Christian his brother, to know 'iie Lord. On the same ground also, since civil goveru- iuait, when administered by rulers who are unfaithful, is no kss fitted, by its subordination of courts, to propagate most extensively evcrj/ species of corruption, and to present an un- surmountable obstacle to reform, it ought to be laid aside ; lirid all the nations r.f men, correcting those errors into '.vhich, by your reasoning, they have in every age fallen, should at once abolish their civil courts of review, break down their kingdoms into a countless multitude of little ])rii^cipal:ties, and make each of them entirely independent of the' rest. Without this you may allege, against the present constitution of almost every nation on earth, as you do ugainst Presbytery, that as soon as corruption infects the majority in the supeiior courts, from the power with which ihey are invested over the rest, tliey can force their purer b|:^l!iren, however fcluctantly, to assimilate themselves to tnfcir corrupt standard. If, for example, in a kingdom, one . .tv after aiiOlhcr, and one ruler after another, begin to lose Letter XIV. 135 Mglit of political justice; whenever tV.e greater part ov the rulers in the superior courts of tlie kingdom does fo, the rest, however much disposed, can no longer maii.tain it. If a degenerate individual, in one of t'ae purer cities, feel himselt aggrieved by the decision of its rulers, an appeal to the ma- jority, in the superior courts, secures the immediate reversal of their sentence. This system, then, tends to drag down those who would act on tlie principles of equity to a con- formity to such as lia*e departed from them. Again, it equally tends to prevent reform. If, amidst general poli- tical corruption in a kingdom, a spirit of reform should ap- pear in the governsrs of a single city, the authority of the rest is a bar in its way. This, we believe, in such cases, would be severely felt. Suppose the governors of some of these cities (and in some instances, we trust, even in corrupt kingdoms, it is not merely matter of supposition), in the progress of their inquiries respecting political justice, are convinced that it is very, partially, if at all n^iaintained in their cities — admitting that even a majority of the people held the same sentiments ; is it not obvious, that unless the superior courts in" general were of a similar opinion, any attempt at reformation, in any, of these cities, wculd prove nugatory and vain. The same inconvenience would not follow, were every kingdom upon earth, however, split down into as many independent politicsl societies as there were cities, oi- towns, or villages in it. We are far from insinuating that any form of political gevernnient presents an effectual bar to thirt corruption to which all institutions, conducted by de- praved and fallible men, are liable ; btit admitting^>mong these independent political societies the most general depar- ture from the principles of justice and integrity to prevail, if, in the midst of this, an individual village, or town, or city, jg led to study greate:^ rectitude, the system at least presents no external obstacle to counteract it. If then, you would not maintain that civil government, in every form almost in which it at present exists in the world, is absurd and perni- cious, because, when its administrators are deprived, it is capable, as extensively as Presbytery itself, by its courts of review, to propagate corruption and prevent reform ; on what principle, I dem.and, can you assert that Presbytery, with its courts of review, is dangerous and reprehensible, because, when the maiority of its administrators may differ from you in their views of doctriae and their ideas of die- q3 188 Letter XIV. cipline, tliey have it in their power to propagate what you ^vould distinguish by the name of corruption, and prevent reform ? And if, notwithstanding the evils which may be oc- casioned by a ^;ertr?'i!eflf i<5e of the former, you would not contend that every town or village in our native country, and even in every country, should be converted into an in- dependent polilical government, on what grounds can you conclude, from the possible evils which ?H(7^ result from the perverted ttse of the latter, especially as liberty of separation is acknowledged by it, that the church at large should be broken down into indepevdnit rc/i^ions societies, and that there should be as many independent ecclesiastical gorern- vienis as there are individual congregations on the face of the earth ? The great object of inquiry in our examination of different forms of government, sacred or civil, should undoubtedly be, v.hich of them, when acted upon according to its end, is best fitted to prevent tlie entrance of corruption among so- cieties as well as individuals ; not, which of them is most calculated, when misapplied from that end, and conducted by men whose principles and practice may appear to us to be wrong, to be productive of the greatest evil? Examining then, by this standard, the opposite schemes of Presbytery and Independency, I think it is manifest from the preceding remarks, that the preference is certainly due to the former. If conscientiously managed, by men who experience the in- fluence of the gospel, the rulers of each of its individual congregations can exercise towards all as much strictness of -discipline as the most zealous governors, of any Independent society can exercise towards their members. And, at the same time, while Independency has not a single court which can judge or punish a tvhole erring congregation, but allows them, though they should proceed to the most dreadful ex- tremes of error or depravity, to pass uncensured by any ec- clesiastical tribunal. Presbytery has courts which can inflict upon any obstinate offending congregation, or even a hun- dred such congregations, the same salutary punishment, to reclaim and reform them, which Independents can inflict upon any individual of their members. And, upon the whole, while Independency, as was already demonstrated in the second of these Letters, has not a single court which can procure redress to any of its members, though he be treated with the utmost cruelty and tyranny by any of its Letter XIV. 187 congregations, Presbytery, by its courts, when they are con- ducted opon the principles of equity and fidehty, presents to the poorest individual in a congregation a mean of imme- diate and complete satisfaction, even for Uie least act of in- JHSlice by a Session, or Presbytery, or a whole Synod. From these views, then, I still maintain that the Presbyte- rian system ought unquestionably to be preferred to that of Independency, and that the latter sliould be set aside as ini- mical to the dearest rights and privileges of Christians as individuals, as well as the united interests of the whole church of God. In the Sd place. It is a principle revealed in scripture, and a principle acknowledged by you as well as many Indepen- dents, that ministers alone are authorized to ordain. Now, if an Independent congregation be destitute of pastors, and if, after they are chosen by the people, agreeably to scrip- ture and the uniform practice of your sister-churches, minis- ters be brought from other congregations to ordain them to their charge, is not this a practical renunciation of that first principle of Independency which we are now examining, and a subjecting the congregation over which they are placed, together with the pastors, to the performance of a most im- portant act of government by the ministers of churches en- tirely different? Is not this confessedly an act of administration as interesting as any which is performed even among Inde- pendents, and yet is it not discharged to any congregation which solicits it, by persons who are neither ministers nor members of that congregation ? Besides, does it not involve in it the exercise of all inferior branches of authority I Is it not plain that if it is their province to set apart these mem- bers of this other congregation to the work of the ministry, it is their province also to examine them as to their fitness to be invested with that office, for, without this, will it not follow that if a congregation has erred in its choice of pas- tors, ordination by the former will only tend to confirm their error, and admit those who are totally unqualified to this important function ? And does not the scripture declare, that when candidates for the ministry are ordained by minis- ters, hands are not suddenly to be laid upon them ; that they must be satisfied as to their quahfications, and must per- sonally be convinced that they are faithful men, able to teach others the doctrines of the gospel ? But if every pas- tor of such a congregation must submit to the scrutiny of 188 Letter XIV. the pastors and office-bearers of other congregations before he is ordained, even after he has been Ciioscn by the vote oj ilie peojjle, is not this recognising the right of these pastor;- to exercise a very important act of authority over him and the congregation ? Is it not investing them with all the power of « coia-t ofrcvieiv, while yet they are unwilling to grant them the name ? And is it not obvious, that if the pastors alone of other congregations can ordain a person to the work of the ministry in a congregation which is totally destitute of pastors, it is to them alone that he can be amen- able for any act of mal-administration which he may be per- mitted to commit ; and is it by them alone that he can be deposed, if he walk unworthily of his sacred function. In line, though it should not be admitted by some Indepen- dents, that a meeting of the ministers of oilier churches is neccssarij for the ordination of the pastor or minister of a particular congregation, yet if it be granted, with others of themi, to be /arvful and desirable, it seems undeniably to follow, in opposition to a favourable principle of Indepen- dency, that ordination is either not an act of government, or that it is lawful and desirable even among Independents, that a congregation, in many instances, should be subject to one of the highest acts of power that can be exercised by the ministers and office-bearers of other congregations ? Since then it appears to be evident from the sacred volumcj that ministers alone are authorized to ordain*, and since it, • That ministers alone can ordain minister?, was attempted to he proved in a former Letter. In addition ;j t!ie arguments which were then stated, it was neglected to be mentiuned that consider- able stress has been laid by some, for tlie confirmation of tliis sen- timent, upon tlie appointment of Paul, and his fellow-labourcr Bar- nabas, to an important mission, as related in the tiiirteenth cliaptcr- of the Acts. Evei:^ admitting it has been said, with some advocates for !ay-preaching, that it is not their ordination- to tiie ofHce of the ministry, but simply their being set apart to a particular work, which is there referred to, yet as it is evident that they were thus set apart by ministers of the gosgel, and them alone (compare ver. 1, and S), the argument which is presented by it, for the right of ministers alone to ordain, must be doubly stronger. If ministers alone can set apart those who are already ordained to a particular work, much more must it be manifest that they alone can perform this higher work, and invest them with their office. At any rate, it seems plain that the observation of Mr. Ewing, which lias been represented by some as completely invalidating any sucii conclu- si'ju from this pisiagej is unjust and contradictory. " It is remark- Letter XIV. 189 is admitted by many of our modern Independents, that it is either laicful or necessary that they alone should perform this act, it seems to be an unavoidable consequence, if they would be consistent either with scripture or with themselves, that each of their congregations is not to be independent in every instance, but that, in many cases, it is either laiifid or necessary that it should be subject to one of the highest acts of authority by the ministers and office-bearers of other churches. In the 4;«£■//" Barnabas and Paul" — a supposition at once the most absurd and ridiculous, and no less inconsistent with the character of Luke as a man of sense, than with his more extraordinary endowments as an evangelist. 190 Lei TEE XIV. replied, lliat this measure cannot consistently be adopted till their pastors be tried, and be proved to be guilty. But how tan this bj done, if there be no court superior to a particu- lar congregation ? Besides, it is evident that pastors, v.-ho jiersist in heresy or imrnorahty, are not only to be deprived of the particular charge over which they are placed, but are solemnly to be deposed, as no lunger mii;is'.ers of the gospel of Christ. But if there be no court superior to a particular conprregation ; who are the persons that are" thus to depose them, if they persist in these evils, allowing that this con- gregation has withdrawn from their ministrations ? And 5thly, If every particular congregation, however small, is, in every case, to be the final judge in every point of government, this plan seems to be less fitted to secure an enlightened and candid administration than that of Presby- t-rry. L,et it be supposed for a moment (and nothing less can be supposed, to give justice to the argument), that Presbyte- rian ministers are as pious and zealous for the interests of religion as the members of any Independent congregation, and see which of these plans is most happily calculated to provide an enlightened and impartial administration. In the one case, a congregation of twenty, or thirty, or fifty mem- bers, a great proportion of whom are frequeni:!y persons of feeble powers and limited information, are to be the ultimate judges in every business, hovi'ever difficult and important and no court upon earth can either amend or reverse their decision. In the other, it is either determined by the wisest and most judicious of a particular congregation, together with the minister, under the review and controul of the wisest and most judicious of ix\:enty, or a hundred, or several lamdred congregations, together with the pastors ; or it is this assembly itself which finally determines it. And, in the one case, it is decided by a little assembly, who " are " more apt," as you acknowledge, p. 52, *' to be influenced *' by party-spirit, by personal animosity, or by local pre- " judice." In the other, it is determined by this large as- sembly, the members of which, from their distance, their equal relation to the parties, and their previous freeness from personal dislike, to which those who reside upon the spot, in your opinion, may be exposed, are much more likely, as you honestly confess, to be candid and unbiassed. Whatever then rjay be the coiidncl of Presbyterians and Ir.depeudents^ Lettb.i XrV. 191 It appears to be I'.ndeniable, that when we consider their dif- ferent forms of government, on the supposition that the ad- ministrators of them are equally faithful and equaU'j con- scientious, the scheme ot the former is much better fitted than that of the latter to secure, in difficult and important matters, an enlightened and candid dispensation of justice. Is it said, that the members of a particular congregation are much more likely to be qualified to jui?ge in matters which relate to itself, than the most numerous assembly of learned, and pious, and experienced men who live at a dis- tp.nce ? It is answered, that if their judgment be fair and equitable, it ought to be founded upon nothing but what is publicly stated and fully canvassed ; and may not all that in- formation which is openly communicated before a whole congregation be communicated also before such an assembly, who, by your ov/n confession, will be more candid and un- prejudiced ? Besides, as is observed by Mr. Wood (against LiOckier, p. 320.) " In addition to the businesses of £hs " exercise of discipline about particular members of con- *' gregations, there are, first, Matttrs of faith and of the " worship of God to be defined from the word of God ; *' and contrary errors, heresies, and corruptions, to be con- " demned and declared against. Secondly, There are mat- " ters of external order and policy, which are determined by " the true light of nature, right reason, and general rules in " " scripture. Now, I do not think that Independents will «* take it upon them to aver, that a single congregation are •' like in reason to be more learned, and so more advantaged " to judge in matters of this kind, than all the able choice *< men, ministers and elders from many congregations, 'as- ** sembled together in a Synod, or in a Classical Presbytery. " In the third place, To insinuate that in businesses of dis- *< cipline about particidar persons there is no other matter *' to be cognosced and determined but quest io7is of fad , is " another mistake. For oftentimes in such businesses are " involved intricate questions of law (or Juris J, as frequent *< experiences in the exercises and processes of discipline, ** prove daily. Now although it be true that a particular ** congregation is like to be more learned, as to matters of *' mere fact in businesses of particular members ; yet it can " hardly be said in reason, that it is like they will be more ** learned in questions of law involved therein, than many <' choice able men from many congregations. And fourthly. 192 Letter XIV. " Suppose the members of a particular congregation may be *' more learned in the businesses which relate to themselves, " yet I suppose (that which is not unusual to fall out) there *' may be differences among the elders, or between the elders " and the people, or both may be divided in their judg- *' ments that noching can be concluded amongst them ; *' what will you have done in such a case ?" Or is it re- marked farther, that though it may be expedient, from these things, to convene meetings as numerous as possible of the ministers and office-bearers of other congregations to obtain their advice, yet it would be utterly improper that a parti- cular congregation should submit to their authority, but that it ought still to retain the povv'er of decision ? It is de- manded, in reply, whether it can be so conducive to the in- terests of truth and equity to vest such a power of final de- termination in those whom vou admit to be " more apt to *' be influenced by party-spirit, by prejudice,' or by per- *' sonal animosity," than to commit it to this more candid as well as more enlightened assembly ? If these circumstan- ces, in the one case, render it dangerous and prejudicial to the cause of justice that they should themselves determine without convening this assembly, and soliciting its advice, must they not render it also no less hazardous to it, that the power of supreme and ultimate decision should be vested in them, though they should retain their prejudices after all that he said to them ? Even upon your own principles then, it appears to be undeniable, that the plan of Presby- tery, in this view also, is better fitted than that of Indepen- dency to provide at once for a more enhghtened, and safe, and candid administration of ecclesiastical justice. Besides, if any of the members of a particular congrega- tion 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? Both are parties, and both consider themselves as equally aggrieved, and consequently, by the rules of all consistent governments, are totally dis- qualified from judging in the difference. But upon the In- dependent plan, they are themselves the only persons who can act as arbiters ; and this office, as was observed, since there is no superior judicatory, they must still perform, even though both are interested. Among Presbyterians however, when any members of a congregation are injured by those who are its elders or governors, they can summon these el- Letter XIV. 193 ders to a superior court, which, if composed of upright and disinterested men, will judge impartially between both the parties. Nay, if this superior court still seem to determine amiss, they can appeal to a third, till at last they arrive at the highest subordinate court in the church. Thence, in- deed, if still denied a favourable decision, they can appeal to no superior tribunal upon earth ; but this arises only from the imperfection of the present state of existence, which grants not to any, during their earthly lives, when aggriev- ed by a supreme tribunal among men, to appeal to and ob- tain an audible verdict from the throne of God. Nor is this imperfection peculiar to ecclesiastical — it is common to it also with civil government. Among Independents, on the contrary, in the very first instance, when the minority are injured by the majority of a congregation, the only persons who can judge of their complaint, are the very men who have committed the v/rong ; and whether such a plan is as well fitted as that of Presbytery, when faithfully adminis- tered, to provide for a candid dispensation of justice, it is left -to the unprejudiced observer to say. So far however, according to some, are these benefits from being the consequences of an enlightened and faithful administration of Presbytery, that the opposite evils, how- ever it may be exercised, seem necessarily to result from it. " Farther," says Dr. Watts, in his Candid Inquiry, p. 175, before quoted, " to keep judges and party entirely distinct, *' hath been always an object to all lovers of impartial jus- " tice ; but Presbytery often confounds them. When the " case concerns the exercise of church-power, whether it " be a remonstrance from a church-member against the deed ^' of a court, or an appeal to one superior, from an inferior ; *' whether it be a complaint of an inferior court to a supe- *' rior, against such as may have refused due submission to " its authority ; still it is a case between church-officers and " church-members ; and all the judges are of the former " class. If they decide against the court, they are in " danger of acting in a way unfriendly to church-power " even in their own hands, and of encouraging a spirit of " anarchy among the people. These views may have often *' a greater influence, than the merits of the cause, in fram- *' ing the decision. We may thus see why a remonstrant, •' or appellant, often loses his cause in a superior court ; and 194 Letter XIV. " why the complaint of an inferior court is so often redress- *' ed, and its sentence affirmed." But to this it is answered, that if members are permitted to sit as judges in the case of members, there seems to be as much reason to fear that they may be disposed to favour their brethren, as that church-rrfficers will be disposed to fa- vour church-ojficers. Of consequence, it will follow, upon this mode of reasoning, that when a member has erred, it ought to be officers alone, in opposition to a favourite first principle of Independency, who should be allowed to judge him ; and when a church-officer errs, it should be members alone, who have no office in the church, and who, even upon the system of these gentlemen, have a right only to acquiesce in the proposals of elders, that should be permitted to deter- mine. Or if it be alleged, that the court may be composed partly of those who are members and partly of church-of- ficers, it is replied, that the proportion of those who are judges in Independent courts and are only members, is un- fair and dangerous to the rights at least of those who are el- ders. In many congregations, the number of the former is fifty or sixty times as great as that of the latter ; and in most congregations, they are at least ten or twenty times superior in number. Is it not manifest then, that if this objection be valid when urged against Presbytery, it is much moi'-e for- iiiidable when applied to Independency, where justice in no case, according to it, can be expected to be slrewn to those who are office-bearers, and where partiality in every case, from the vast preponderancy of members who are judges, may be dreaded towards members ? Among Presbyterians, on the contrary, such iniquity? J>s far as the constitution is concerned, is totally impracticable. While the clergy form a distinguishing part of their courts, an equal number of laymen are admitted into them, without whose consent no decision can be passed, and who, representing at large the whole m.embers in their congregations, are ever ready, as the guardians of their rights, to repel any attack which may be made upon their privileges. Thus, according to this can- did and equitable plan, it is impossible for the clergy to do- mineer over the laity, or for the laity, forgetting their proper situation, to be guilty of a lawless and presumptuous inva- sion of the rights of the clergy, but distinguished alike by equahty of numbers and equality of power, they serve mu- tually to check and restrain, and are prevented from attempt- Letter XIV. 195 ing to tyrannise over each other : while upon the Indepen- dent plan, if this objection be conclusive, the members of the church, who constitute the greatest part of their courts, are no less disqualified from administering justice impartially to members, than, in another view, from judging in the cause ef those who are church-officers. LETTER XV. Sir, Satisfactory as may be the general arguments furnished either by reason or by scripture in support of any position, you will not deny that they must be still more convincing, when strengthened by the authority of apostolic example. That this additional evidence in favour of ecclesiastical courts of review can be produced, it shall now be my object to es- tabhsh. That courts of review existed among the Jews in the days of Christ, is a fact which few will controvert. Not only were particular rulers appoi.ited over synagogues, but^aswas formerly shewn, a general council of scribes or doctors sat at Jerusalem, and decided in cases of app'.^al from the infe- rior courts. Whether this was originally a divine institution, or only an appointment of men, as expedient and useful, it seems to have obtained the approbation of our Saviour. Though he reprobated those human inventions vv'hich were contrary to the precept or spirit of the law, he never cen- sured this court ; nay, instead of enjoining Nicoderaus and Joseph to resign their places in it, he commanded his dis- ciples to obey its decisions, and acknowledge its authority, as far as they were consistent with the word of God. " Then « spake Jesus to the multitude, and to hU duciplss, (Matth. " xxiii. 1, 2, 3), saying. The scribes and the Pharisees sit " in Mx)ses' seat : all therefore whatsoever they bid you ob- " serve, "that observe and do; but do not ye after their " works; for they say, and do not." But how could he have thus spoken, if such a court had appeared to him im-. proper ? Had such an institution been calculated to b? pro- ductive of as much evil in the ancient church, as it is affirm- R 2 196 Letter XV. cd by Independents that a similar court in the gospel-chnrcfe must necessarily occasion, would he ever have required the Israelites at large, as well as his followers, to have acknow- ledged its authority ? This argument acquires additional force, if we suppose that this court was not expressly ap- pointed by the divine commandment, but was only similar to that of the elders in the wilderness, which, according to some, had for a long time been discontinued. If such a court, though not divinely commanded, but founded simply on the general principle of utility, was approved of by our Saviour in the ancient church, must not corresponding courts in the Christian church be eqiuilly •wortliy of our approba- tion and submission for the very same reasons, even though it could not be established that such courts were explicitly enjoined by scripture* ? But it is not merely among the ancient Jews that this, court existed with the divine approbation ; in many of the cities where Christianity was preached in the primitive ages, a similar institution appears to- hsve obtained. In these cities there was not only a number of particular congrega- tions which had each their separate and respective office- bearers, but they were placed under the superintendence of a general court, to whicli, as well as to its own pastors and elders, each of them individually was considered as subject. Thai such a court existed in Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, might easily be proved by an induction of particulars. At present we shall consider only whether it was established in the church at Jerusalem, which may justly be regarded as the parent-society of all Christian churches, and its govern- ment as the fairest model of theirs. Now, that in this church there were not only ministers, as Presbyterians would say, who superintended the affairs of particular congregations, but a Presbytery, consisting of the office-bearers of all the congregations in Jerusalem, which * That our Saviour, hi this passage, admits both the propriety and the autliority of this Jewish court, is evidetU from ihis, that the scribes and Pharisees, who composed the Sanhedrin, had a |)o\ver of authoritative review and controul over the teacliers and jj;overnors of every particular synagogue, and cori'-equently we can- not supi>ose that he wouk! have reouired the Jews to submit to the latter without acknowledging tlie former. This, indeed, was im- possible, for every scribe and Pharisee was subject, both in doc- trine and discipline, to this superintending judicatory. Letter XV. 197 Watched over the interests and concerns of the whole, we hope will appear, if it be proved in the 1st place, That there was a greater number of believers in that city than could possibly meet for the purposes of worship in one place ; and 2dly, That the elders ot these diff'rent congre^alions are represented as associated in one general court, for regulating what related to their common benefit, as well as deciding in cases of appeal or complaint. It will appear, if it be proved in the 1st place, That there' was a greater number of Christians in that city than could possibly meet for the purposes of worship in any one place. The account tvhich is delivered in the Ai'ts of the Apostles of the success of the gospel, and of the number ofjblloivcrs rvhicli obtained in Jerusalem, favours t/us idea. We have little positive information with regard to the real number of convefts to the gospel during the personal minis- try of the Saviour. If we attend, hovrever, to the number of ministers who were engaged along with him in preaching the word, and the expressions employed to intimate his success, it will be found to have been coneidei-able. Twelve apostles and seventy disciples laboured together with him in dissemi- nating the gospel ; and such was their progress in this bless- ed work, that not only did their adversaries remark, (John xii 19), that " the world had gone after them," but it is de- " clared, (John iv. 1), that they heard that Jesus waofe and « baptized more disciples than John" — of whom it is said, (Mark i. 5), " that there went out unto him allih.Q land of " Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of « him*." Whatever \Yas their number, we know that *" It Is granted indeed, that the number of converts at this pe- riod was sm '11, compared at least with those who should afterwards believe in consequei. re of his ascension, because, as Jesus tells us, (John vii. 89), " inc Spirit vva«; ii^t yet given," i. e, so abundantly, " becausp Jesus was not yet glorified." And it was small too, con- trasted with what might naturally have been expected from the personal ministration of so illustrious a character as Jehovali in- carnate. Hence we liud the Redeemer complaining, in the strong language of metaphor, by the prophet Laiaii, (chap. xlix. 4.), " because he stemfd to have laboured in vain, and to have spent *' his strength for nought, and in vain ;" and his servants asking, (chap. iiii. 1), " Who hath believed cur report ? and to w!>om is " the arm of the Lord revealed .■"' Compare Jolm xii. 3V, 38. It is plain, however, from the context in the first of these places, and from the quotation and application of the last of them in Rons, r2 ]9S Letter XV. they included at least more than five hiiiidred, for v/e arc told by Paul, (1 Cor, xv. 6), that Je&us Vv'as seen after his resurrection by more than five hundred brethren at once ; and it is probable from what has been said, that many more had attached themselves to the profession of Christianity*. To that proportion of them which dwelt at Jerusalem, a great addition was made on the day of Pentecost, for, " on " the same day," says Luke, (Acts ii. 41), <•' there were " joined to the cluirch about three thousaiid souls." Nor were these l/irec tJtoiisand soids, Jews who had come up to the city of Jerusalem merely to wait upon the feast, and who immediately returned to their native countries, as Indepen- dents have asserted. As is remarked by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, p. SS.' " The Jews that dwelt with- " out the land of Canaan were not bound to appearance at " the festivals there. Nor, secondly, was it possible that «' they should do so, if they had been commanded, unless « they did nothing almost the whole year but go up to Je- " rusalem, and home again, their habitation being some of «' them so many months journey distant. 7'hirdly, What «< had the dispersed Jews to-do at the feast of Harvest (for *< so it is called, Exod. xxiii. 16), when their harvest, in *' very many of those places where they dwelt, was not ^^et « begun ? And fourthlvj If their distance from Jerusalem *' made them to choose to come up but to some one of the « feasts, and omit the rest, why to Pentecost, which was «« the least solemn of the three, rather than to the Passover 4' or Tabernacles, these two being solemnities for a whole «' week, Pentecost but for a day." Wherefore they obscrvp,^ «' Fifthly, We produce a more probable reason of this «' matchless and unparalleled concourse at this time, for so X. IG, that tliey refer not only to Christ's personal ministry, but to the v.?hole of the space after his ascension till the gospel was preach- ed very generally to the Gentiles; and therefore must be under- stood, like all strongly figurative prophetic language, in a restrict- ed sense, since it appears from the New Testament, that many uhousands and ten thousands of Jews, during that period, were converted to the faith. * When the seventy also, it might have been mentioned, re- turned from their mission, they reported to Jesus, that they sawr Satan falling like lightning from heaven, which certainly imports that very great success had attended their labours, and that a very great number of converts had believed in the Saviour, Letter XV. 190 " vvc doubt not to call it, viz. tliat the Jews had learned by " the scripture, and especially out of the Prophesie of '* Daniel, that this was the time when the kingdom of " heaven should appear, as it is apparent both out of Luke, " chap. xix. ver. 11, and out of the Jews own authors, and '• therefore came in those multitudes to Jerusalem, and there. " settled to dwell, to see the fulillhncr of those things that " all the nations so much looked after." Besides, we are told in Acts ii. 5, that these Jews, who are said in the 4'l3t verse to have been added to the chuch, had dwelt for a considerable time at Jerusalem, and were ihen residing there. Such, according to the authority of Miiitcrt, is the term Ka.roix.iu, there employed in the original to signify their residence ; " for it properly denotes, in the ♦' Greek writers, a certain_^x^c/ and durable divelling, and " is opposed to 7irii^o;x.iw, which signifies to sojourn or dwell << in a place for a time only." And Suicer, on the word, observes, that " Ta^oix-iiu properly signifies to be a stranger << or sojourner in a place, and that, in the ancient glosses, *' KUTotKii), the word employed in Acts, means to dwell or '• reside statedly: Quodapud veteres glossas, /i«iz7o, z?zco/o.'* The same distinction is preserved in innumerable instances in the Septuagint, and very generally in the New Testament. The former term, for example, is used in Gen. xii. 10. Luke xxiv. 18, S^'C. to signify a sojourner: and the latter, in Gen. xlvi. Si, to express the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, which was for several hundred years ; in Numb, xiii. 28, 29, to denote the residence of the Amalckites and Canaanites in their respective countries before they were at- tacked by the Israelites, which comprehended a slill greater portion of time ; the residence of the saints at Lydda, to whom Peter came, (Acts ix. 32), which was stated and permanent ; and of Joseph in Nazareth, (Mattli. iil 23), where, according to Eusebius and Epiplianius, he was at least about four years. The only places, in short, where Kx-coiKKa signifies to dwell for a shorter period, are in the Sep- tuagint version of 1 Kings xvii. 20, where, however, it de- notes a residence for not less than a year ; and of Jer. xlii. 15, where it is used to express the residence of the Jewish captains under Johanan, in the land of Egypt, till the danger which they apprehended should be over, but in which place it means a residence in that country v/high might have been 200 Letter XV. expected to be protracted for a very considerable space*. But, in opposition to this> there is a countless multitude of instances in the S?ptuiigint, where Kxroiiatd, the word which is here used by Luke, can signify neither a residence for a Jeiv claims only, as Independents suppose to have been the case with these proselytes at the feast of Pentecost, nor even for a year, as when it is applied to Elijah, but for a much longer period f. Nor will it suffice to disprove this to tell us, tliat some of them are represented by Peter, (Acts ii. 9,) as dwelling in Mesopotamia and other places which are there mentioned, and consequently they could not be statedly residing at Jerusalem. This only describes the places where they had dwelt before they came to Jerusalem, and from which, of course, they received their appellation ; but it will not demonstrate, in opposition to the 5th verse, and the most general acceptation of the verb KUToiKiu, that they were not statedly dwelling, at that period, in that city. N(ir can it be proved that they were merely sojourning in Jerusalem, because they are said in the 5th verse, only to be dwelling in Jerusalem, iv li^tva-aMf^y and in ver. 9, agree- ably to the original, to inhabit Mesopotamia and these other countries, x.ciTotx.iv Mio-oTrerxfAictv, Sfc. for as Independents would not allow, when we hear of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, (Acts xvi. 4), that it means only that they had a temporary residence in Jerusalem, on what principle can thev attach this meaning to that expression in the present passage ? We see, moreover, that all of these strangers who are mentioned by I^uke, in the second chapter of the Acts, ar^ represented by Peter, (ver. 23, 24), not only as contri* buting to the death, but as witnessing the miracles of the blessed Saviour, which they could not have done, had they * Since writing the above, I find tiiat it is employed also in the Septuagint version of Lev. xxiii. 42, where the Lord commands the Israeli ies, that every year, at vhe feast of Tabernacles, " they *' should dwell in booths seven days." But it is evident, that though it is here ii-irl to denote their dwelling in booths, though hut f ^r seven days, it is in alluMon to the residence of their fathers in them for forty years, of which :his was the emblem. See ver. 43. f See, out of the many Instances wliich might be adiluced, the following examples ; Gen. xi. 2, 31. xiii. G, 7, 12, 18, xiv. 7, 12. xix. £5,29,30. XX. 15. xxi 20, 21. xxii, 19. xxiv, 62. xxv. 11, xxvi, 6. xxxiv. 10, 22, 23. Exod. ii. l.'j. Numb, xivi, 19, 28, 29. Deut. i. 4, 44. ii. 4. xix. 1. zx'n, IG. Joshua i. 14,, Judges s, Jt 2 Sam. ii. S. . Letter XV, 201 not for a considerahle time been dwelling at Jerusalem. Wherever they had fgrmerly dwelt, it would appear that henceforth they made choice of Jerusalem as their future habitation ; for we are told in vcr. 44, 45, 46, that " all " who believed were together^ and had all things in common : " and sold their possessions (whether in distant countries or " at Jerusalem), and parted them to all men, as every man " had need : and ihey continuing daily with one accord in *' the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did " eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." Surely when their possessions in distant countries were sold, we may well suppose that they would reside at Jerusalem, to enjoy the benefit of the ministrations of the apostles. And indeed it seems impossible to explain the expressions which are here employed to denote their fellowship with the church at Jerusalem, without admitting the truth of this idea. Here then are at least above three tJionsand Jews who were mem- bers of this church ; and if we consider what is said of the success of Christ's ministry, and the concourse of his dis- ciples, which in all probability would take place to Jerusa- lem from other quarters, as soon as they heard of the preach- ing of the apostles, it is likely that they amounted to a much greater number*. Glorious however as were these first triumphs of the gospel in the city of Jerusalem, they were followed by others no less distinguished. " The Lord," we are told. Acts ii. 4'7, after this first great conversion, " added daili/ to the " church such as should be saved." And in chap. iv. 4, that, after a sermon from Peter, " many of them who heard ** the word believed ; and the number of the men was about ~*' Jive fhousamL'' Here the sacred historian does not re- cord merely, as Independents insinuate, the number of them who lieard, but of them who bcliexied in consequence of this discourse, for he is contrasting the happy effects which at- tended the apostles' preaching, with the violence and cruelties ■which were exercised towards them : " Howbeit, many who «' heard the word believed : and the number of the men *' was about live thousand." It would evidently have been no compensation for the sufferings of the apostles to tell us, that five thousand persons heard their sermons, though it * The church at Jerusalem was, for a considerable time, the only Cliristian societv which existed in ihe world, 202 Letter XV. must have been very consolotary to know that^tf tJiousand believed. Besides, as the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost, did not inchide the hundred and twenty mention- ed in the first chapter of the book of the Acts, so the five thou- sand who are here spoken of, do not comprehend the three thousand who are before mentioned. In every other jmssage of the book of the Acts where Luke describes the number of those iN'ho were converted, either upon hearing a sermon or beholding a miracle, he mentions solely those nctv be- lievers who were added to the church, and does not state the number of the whole ; and consequently it is extremely improbable indeed, that he should depart from this pecu- liarity in the present passage. Accordingly we find that Chrysostom, Irenasus, Jerome, Augustine, with many others of the ancient fath-^rs, so understood the passage. In short, as the Jtws were accustomed in their calculations to enume- rate only the males, and as we find the term xv'S^n, or men, which is here employed, ustd repeatedly in calculations in the New Testament * to signify males as distinguished from females, it is probable that it is so to be under.-tood in the verse before us, and that, besides the men, there was a mul- titude also of female converts. Here then are five thousand^ who, when added to the number of previous converts, make the whole amount to near nine thousand members, besides a considerable proportion of females. And even though it * See John vi. 10, where it is said, that Jesus fed five thousand men by a particular miracle: " So the men sat down, in number " about five tliouoand, avSjtj." And compare Matth. xiv. 21. From wliicli it appears that the term in John denotes onfj/ ma !ei, for it is said by tliat evangelist, tha^ the number of inose who were fed at this very miracle was Jive thousand inen^ brsides women and children. " Avjj^," too, says a very accurate scholar, respecting the word here empUjyed, " differs as much in signification from " aiS^ca'i^sts *' were obedient to the faith." And indeed if a great compa?ii/ of the priests, the chief opponents of Christianity, and men whose example was so much followed by the people, became obedient to the faith, we may well suppose that the •additions which at this period were made to the church must have been uncommonly great. Here then we have a collec- tion of at least ten or twelve thousand Christians in the city of Jerusalem, who were all not only hearers but members of the church, and probably they consisted of a much greatei- number. Nor is this to be wondered at, when we consider the abundant communication of the Spirit, which at that time attended the ministration of the gospel; the wide diffu- sion of the word of truth, for the apostles are represented by their enemies, (Acts v. 28), as even " filling Jerusalem " with their doctrine ;" and the vast nun'ber of inhabitants contained in that city, for it is evident, from the account delivered by Josephus of its desolation, that it must have been one of the most populous cities in the world -j-. Is it said however, as has frequently been done by Inde- pendents, that whatever was the number of the members at * If we niav judge of tlie number of female converts at tliat pe- riod from what it has been at every other time witli which we are acquainted, we may safely conclude that it must have exceeded at least that of the males. f If many flocked into Jeruialem before the siep-e of it by Ves- pasian, we know also, from the testimony of history, ti)at many thousands of Christums, as well as others, kft it, and made way for them,- -201- Letter XV. Jerusalem, at the period which we have specified, they were completely dispersed at the persecution which took place upon the death of Stephen ? It is answered, that such an inference seems by no means deducible from the language of Luke, in recording the effects of the persecution which en- sued on the death of that martyr ; and in support of this assertion, the following particulars are mentioned from the chapter where this persecution is related. In the Jst place, as is observed by a judicious writer already quoted*, '< There is no evidence whatever, that this *' persecution was protracted beyond the day of Stephen's " martyrdom. The words of the historian," Acts viii. 1. ■jy SKiiv/i ryi I! i^i^ci, which are translated in our version at thai time, " literally mean on that day, or, more emphatically, ** on the same day. Besides, though the term day is some- *' times used for an indefinite time in prophetical language, " yet never in a plain historical narration. Luke is always *' accurate' in the use of his terms ; and, when about to m.en- ** tion a period of time more indefinitely, says either in those " days^ Acts i. 15, or about that time. Acts xii. 1. It *' may be supposed, indeed, that for a few days, the Jewish •" council were employed in trying the persons imprisoned, " and that they inflicted upon them the only punishment " which, without the consent of the Roman governor, it " was competent for them, that of beating in the synagogue. " It is probable however, that they durst not farther pa- " troniss any open persecution in the city ; nor do they *' seem at all to have carried it to the neighbourhood. When " Saul, notwithstanding the death of Stephen and the pu- '* nishment of others, still breathed out threatening and death <* against the disciples of Jesus, he obtained from the chief ** priests letters to Damascus, which lay beyond the limits " of Herod's jurisdiction." It is plain also in the 2d place, as was before stated, That the all v.'ho are said, (Acts viii. I), to have been scattered abroad except the apostles, were the ministers, and not the members of that Christian church ; for we see that a church, consisting of members, remained in Jerusalem, (ver. 3), after those -who are mentioned in the 1st verse are represented as having been all scattered abroad except the apostles, and ^ Mr. Robertson, p. 37, Letter XV. 205 who consequently could only be the other ministers of the church. And 3dly, as is noticed by Mr. Robertson in his Re- marks, p. 41, and briefly hinted by Henry in his Comment- ary, The word ^isa-Trx^ris-scv, which is rendered by our trans- lators, (ver. 1), ** ivere scattered abroad," does not pro- perly mean that they dispersed in consequence of very vio- lent persecution. *' These preachers of the gospel," says the first of these writers, pT41, " did not leave Jerusalem^ ■*' so much on account of the violence of the persecution, as *< in obedience to the command of Christ, JVJien they per- <« secute you in one city, flee ye into another : Matth. x. 23. « Certain it is that ^^c>l,a■7^^^^ca does not so properly signify to « disj)crse by violence, as another verb, ^<«(r;4«g7r(^«i», which « we find employed, Matth. xxvi. 31, and Acts v. 37. *« The former word imphes no more than to sepa7-ate, by " whatever means that is effected. After the confusion of " tongues, God is said to have scattered men on the face *' of the earth, onTTru^zv, when, in the course of his provi- <* dence, he led them to settle at a distance from one another. ■" Many Jews were said, in the time of our Saviour, to be «< scattered among other nations, oixa-TTA^xy though their *< exile was voluntary. It may be fui'ther observed, that " in all languages a verb in a passive" form may sometimes *' have a neuter, or, as the Greeks say, a middle significa- <' tion. Such is the case with the very verb in question, as " used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament*. " When Pharaoh had denied straw to the Israelites, it is " said, tiiey icere scattered abroad^ >i««j 5. is literally " five myriads," or, according to our translators, " fifty " thousand pieces of silver," where evidently the expression cannot be uaderitood as signifying less than ten thousands. In the second s 2 208 Letter XV. to the Interpretation of this very gentleman, it is obvious that it cannot signify less than many ten thousands in the passage in question, for it includes, according to him, not merely the number of believers in the city of Jerusalem, but the number of believers from the ivhole Jexvish nation. Cer- tainly, considering the time during wliich the gospel had been preached, and the success which it had obtained in many countries before the period which is liere mentioned, many ten thousands of Jews must have been comprehended among its followers. But allowing that the word fAv^tetoig here properly means, that there were many ten thousands of Jews at this time in that city, " they are not affirmed," says Mr. Ewing, p. 32, *' to be all members of the church " at Jerusalem ; and very many of them were most likely *' believing- Jews, assembled from various quarters at Jeru- <' salem, at the day of Pentecost. For the probability of '* this supposition we may appeal to the haste made by Paul, <' if possible, to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, " and to the increasing number of fellow-travellers who " joined conrpany with him on the road, as appears from '* chap. XX. 16, and xxi. 19." On this however it maybe remarked, that no argument can be adduced from the number of those who went up with Paul at this time to Jerusalem, to shew that they were travelling thither to observe this so- lemnity. It is not said, in the last of these texts, that those whom he met going up to Jerusalem were going thither with that design f or that their number was such as one would jiaturally expect, had there been a general convocation to the feast of Pentecost. All that is mentioned is simply this, ©f them, believers are sard, in the orijiinal, to come to an assembly " of myriads of angels," Kcct f^v^iaciv ayyiXun ; 'And in the third, it is declared tliat when the Lord comes to judgment, he will be attend- ed " by myriads of his saints," or rather " holy ones," fjt.voiaiTiv lyiai;. And in hoth of these places, it is no l?ss ohvious that it cannot signify less than ;(f« thousands of these spirits; and if it be supposed to be taken in an /Wr;^H/7f acceptation, it must denote even more. Compare similar expressions in a description, at least em- blematic, of the universal judgment : Dan. vii. 9, 10. And in the last of these passages, considering the representation which is there given of the numbers who crowded to witness the miracles of Jesus, it seems to be equallv manifest that it cannot mean less than its strict signification, for we may well suppose that more than one myriad of spectators would be Collected, and that they might evea amount to twenty or thirty thousand. See also Rev. v. 1 1, Letter XV. 209 ** That there went up with Paul and Luke from Cesarea, ** also certain of the disciples of Cesarea, and with them one " Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple." Had there been ;; general assemblage to this sacred festival, would not the number of Jews, who went from Cesarea, have been repre- sented as much greater ? It has been questioned moreo'.'er, - and upon very good grounds, as is observed by the vener- able Westminster Assembly, whether Paul arrived at Jeru- salem before the day of Pentecost : And even admitting that he was present, it by no means appears that by the many ten thousands of believing Jews of whom Jarnes speaks, are intended the whole number of believing Jews, as Mr. Ewing asserts, who had come up to this feast from the various quarters of the Gentile world. It was before evinced, that the Jews in general, who lived among the Gentiles, were neither bound nor accustomed to resort to Jerusalem from every part in the earth to observe this solemnity, which lasted for a single day only, and which could not with propriety be kept by many of them, as their harvest at this period was not yet begun. The number then of such Jews, from other countries, must have been comparatively small. In fine, whatever number of these Jews nriight have been present at the feast, they do not seem to be included among the myriads of Jews who were pointed out to Paul by the apostle James. The latter are all represented as strangers to Paul, and a* being informed simply by the testimony of others, (ver. 21 ), " that he taught all the Jetvs tv'iich iverc among the Gen- " tiles to forsake Meses" — on account of which it is de- clared that they were offended. - As there were few places however in the Gentile world where Paul had not either be- fore this preached, or sent others to preach under his direc- tion, it is obvious that those myriads who were displeased v/ith these unjust representations of his doctrine, and had heard of it merely by^the testimony of others, must have been Jews chiefly, distinct from those who dwelt among the Gentiles. But if even in the little country of Judea there' were mayiij ivyriads oi h^X\zv\r,g Jews, the greatest propor- tion of these must undoubtedly have been in Jerusalem, which had hitherto been the habitation of almost all the apostles, ^nd wliere, as we already saw, more than twenty- years before, the converts amounted to nine or ten thousand'. Allowing however that only three of these myriads' belong- ed to Jerusalem, it v»'ill make the number of Jews who wers^ ,53 210 ■ Letter XV. connected with tliat church, independently of converts wit® would be added to tliern from the Gentiles, no ler^s th?.n thirl;/ ihousand. And considering, as will be noticed under a fol- lowing argument, the number of ministers, who for so long a space had laboured amongst them, it is probable that their proportion of these mani/ ten thousands must have been con- siderably greater. But if such was the number of members at Jerusalem, it is evident that they must have been divided into different congregations, each superintended by its respective pastors. No place could be found sufficiently large to contain such a multitude, with the rest of the hearers who would assemble along with them ; no preacher could be iieard by such an audience,; and it cannot be conceived that so great a number could receive together, in the very same place, the sacra- ment of tlie supper. Eusebius informs us, in his Ecclesias- tical History, book viii. chap. i. that the houses in which the Christians at first met were very small, and that it was in consequence only of the favour which, in process of time, was manifested to them by the Roman emperors and gover- nors that they were enabled to erect more capacious build- ings : " '£lv ^A hiy.x ^n^ctfAuq irt rot? TrmXict otKo^cifA-zicxa-iv *■' Xfy.ovuiyoi., ivpitxg itg TT^iXro? ctvet ttxitci? roiq voXitg mSif^sXtuv, ■" a-H^uv iKKh/io-icti i" i. e. " The ancient buildings being by *' no m.eans sufficient to contain the people, they erected in *' every city larger churches." Accordingly the houses in which the primitive Christians were accustomed to meet, were schools, or dipper moms, or private divellings. We hear of their assembling in an upper room. Acts i. 12, Sfc. ; in the house of Mary, Acts xii. i 2 ; in the school of Ty- rannus, Acts xix. 9 ; in an upper chamber at Troas, Acts XX. 8 ; in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. xvi. 5 ;. of Nymphas, Col. iv. 15; and of Archippus, Philem. 2.. !But where could an upper room, or school, or house, be. found in Jerusalem which was able to accommodate thirty: thousand individuals for all the purposes of religious worship ?■ The only place sufficiently large was the temple ; but even in 'it, there does not appear to have been any single apart- ment which could conveniently admit such a multitude. The most spacious court in this building was that called Solo- mon's Porch. " Now the place," says Ayton, p. 226, ■■■* which went under tlis name, was not the mere entrance "'* of the east gate to the outer temple ; but the whole of Let-ikv. XV. 211 ' the cast wall, wliich was built by Solomon, at an extra- ' ordinary expence, and was in length 500 cubits, or 250 ' yards. — It is further," adds he, " to be considered, that ' the whole length of this wall within, there were walks or ' cloisters from each side of the entry of the porch to the * ends of the wall, that were supported by a treble row of ' marble pillars, into a double walk, which was in breadth ' 30 cubits, or 15 yards. The innermost of these pillars ' was joined to the wall, and this made the two walks to be ' divided in the middle by a row of pillars. Now, the ' whole of this breadth, from the wall on which the inner- ' most row of pillars stood, to the Beautiful Gate, together ' with the length of the said wall, which was 500 cubits, ' was, according to Dr. Lightfoot, the learned Mr. Selden, ' (de Jure Nat. et Gen. lib. iii. cap. vi.), and Mr. Lewis, ' (Orig. Heb. lib. iii. cap. xiii. ), denominated Solomon's ' Porch." But it is obvious that this place could by no means accommodate so many thousands of members, together with their children, and the numerous strangers who would continually be attracted from curiosity to hear them. Be- sides, how could a single preacher be audible, in a court in- tersected by so many rows of pillars, to forty thousand hearers ? Or how could thirty thousand members meet to- gether m such a place for the purposes of government ? Could each of thes.* persons make himself be heard by such an assembly ? could he distinctly hear the opinion and vote of every individual ? and would not business be conducted with extreme tardiness and difficulty where s( many had to state' their sentiments and vote*? But even granting all * Is it said, that Ezra, af^er the captivity, read and expounded ihe law to the Jews, who amounted to a still greater number, and was heard by them all ? Neh. viii. 1 — 5 I ask, whether Inde- pendents can suppose that a single individual coulu be heard by fifty or sixty thousand persons ? And is it still affirmed, that this fact, though wonderful, seems to be asserted in this passage ? It is replied, that it is not asserted nearly so strongly as is done in Deut. xixi. SO, that Moses " spake in the ears of all the congregation " of Israel the words of his song," at a time vi'hen their males only (see Numb. sxvi. 51, 62), amounted to six hundred and twenty- four thousand seven hundred and thirty, and when, with their wives and children, they made up probably almost two millions. But if Independents would not maintain that Moses made himself audible at once to such a multitude, how can they demonstrate (since in the nature of things it is as certainly impossible) that Ezra- CI 2 Lettef. XV.' these suppositions to be not only possible but probable, it must still be proved that the Christians at pleasure enjoyed the temple for these religious purposes. So far however h this fact from being clear, that, though extremely import- ant, it is passed over in silence, a circumstance which pro- bably would not have taken place bad they possessed that privilege. Nay, though at first, before the blood of any Christians was shed, the apostles ventured occasionally to preach in the temple, even after they had been beaten for it by the high-priests, we do not find that they afterwards en- joyed such a liberty ; and neither at first, nor afterwards, did they dare to dispense in it the sacrament of the supper, or convene, for the deliberations of government, the members who belonged to their church. It is manifest that liberty would not be> granted to them for the latter, either by the priests or the people, who would be alarmed at the idea of their meeting alone, in a place so sacred, for purposes un- known to them ; and it is no less obvious that they would not attempt to administer in it the former. If Paul so highly displeased even the common people, (Acts xxi), though they fa\oured and magnified the apostles, that they endea- voured to kill him, for bringing, as they supposed, certain Greeks into the temple, and polluting the holy place, would it not have been much more dangerous had they dared to celebrate in it a 7ieiv sacramcnty which vied v%'ith, and far surpassed in point of frequency, according to Independents, the most solemn sacrament of the ancient economy '* ? Ac- was heard in an open street by fifty or sixty tliousand, merely be- cause he is said to have read the law to them when they were met together ? And if Moses, moreover, might be said to speak his song', as we are informed in Deut. xxxi. 30, compared with ver. 28, in the-ears of all the congregation of Israel, when he spake only in the ears of their elders and officers, v;ho again were to commu- nicate what he said to the people, might not something like this be done by. 5zra ? Or might he not only read and explain it to a part, while they explained it to others, especially as v/e are told, (Neh. viii. 7, S), that " thirteen oilurs *' also, besides the Levites, read to " the people, at that time, in the book of the law of God distinctly, " and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading ?" * 'fhat it is probable tliat the supper was more frequently dis- pensed thiiu the sacrament of circumcision is readily conceded, but liGiv much more ixei\\x^nx\y, notwithstanding all that is asserted by Independents, scripture does not appear expressly to say. In 1 Cor. si. 25, we arc told, tliat as often as Christians drink the sacra- mental cup, they should do it in reifterabrance of CItrist ; and ia Letter XV. 213 cotilingly, while the apostles are said to have been imprison- ed by the high-priests, because they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead, (Acts iv. 2), we do not hear that they were censured for ver. 2G, that as often as they ate that bread, ortlrank that cup, tliey shewed forth tlie Lord's death till he came; but how often they should do so, it does not specify. In Acts ii. 42, it is said, that the converts who believed on the day of Pentecost, " continued " stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and 'in brealc- " inof of bread, and in prayer." But all that is here recorded, is merely that they persevered in the belief of the doctrines, and in the observance of all the ordinances of Christianity, while, at the same time, it is evident that there is not the smallest hint hoio often the supper, or any other ordinance, was to be observed. In Acts ri. 46, we are informed, that these Christians, continuing da'dy vith one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, or, as others render it, in a house, did participate their food, or the food, with gladness and singleness of heart. But neither does this seem to be sufliciently explicit: for in tlie'lst place, It is not certain that it is the breaking of sacramental bread, and not thsir feasts of love, which is intended. And 2uly, If this passage prove any thing upon the subject, it proves too much. It will shew that we should eat the supper, not merely, as Indepen- dents maintain, every Sabbath, but dailij. In Acts xx. 6,. 7, it is said, tliat when Paul and his companions had tarried seven days at Troas, on the first day of the week, when the discipl«3 came to- gether to break bread, Paul preached to them. But it is not here declared, that on every frst day of the iveek, when the disciples came together, they ate sacramental bread, but only that on that parti- cular first day of the week they had done so. If some ministers^ from a distance, arriving in Edinburgh on the Monday before the .sacrament of the Supper was dispensed, sliould reniain till the first day of the following week, and then assist at the dispensation of the sacrament, would that circumstance. If narrated by any histo- rian, prove that the Supper was observed every Sabbath in all the churches of Edinburgh ? -Or if Independeuts refer to the writings of the fathers in support of this practice, it may be observed, 1st, That many improprieties, as was before shewn, were admitted even by the primitive church ; and that we must try this, as well as all their practices, by the scriptures, and see whether it is en- joined or warranted By them. Upon examining the scriptures however, we perceive that it is not explicitly announced how o.ften this ordinance should be observed in the church ; and consequently, though many of the primitive churches ate the Supper every Sab- bath, we no more offend against the word of God than they, if we do not ate it every first day of the week. And 2dly, This argu- ment proves too much. Cyprian, A. D. 250, informs us, in hig Treatise oq the Lord's Prayer, that daily communions were the com- mon practice at that time; and Fortunatus, who lived at the same pcti'Kl, adduces tlie fourth pstitiou of that prayer as an argument 214? Letter XV. meeting the Christians by themselves in the temple, for the affairs of government, or for dispensing, in that place, the sacrament of the supper. And it is remarkable, that at the very time that it is said that the first Christians continued in the temple to receive instruction, it is added, (Acts ii. 46 ), " that they brake bread from house to house," or in diffe- rent houses ; i. e. as many interpreters explain it, and as the Syriac translates it, they kept the eucharist, or brake sacra- mental bread*. But if no single person could be audible, as an instructor, to thirty or forty ttiousand hearers at once ; if they could not meet together with ease and satisfaction for the purposes of government ; if no single place could be found to accommodate such a multitude, when, as at that early period, according to Eusebius, the houses for worship were extremely small ; if even in the temple there was no apartment which could contain such a number ; and, what- ever its size, if it could not be obtained by them, when they chose to resort to it, for the private meetings of their mem- bers for government, or even for the public celebration of the supper ; is it not undeniable that there must have been a variety of congregations in the city of Jerusalem, furnished with distinct and aepnrate paatora, and meeting in separate and appropriate churches. for communicating^ every day. Basil, in the fourth century, re- commends daily comrnunion \ and says, that it was the practice of the Qhurch of Cesarea where he was, to celehrate the sacrament four times a-week, vlz.oa. Sai)bath, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, (Basil. Epist. 289.)— Amhrose saaniA to Iiitiinafa that dfl't^y c^t^snu* nioni were in use at Milan, (De Sacram. lib. v. cap. iv. p. 449.)—" Jerome tells us, that they were kept up, in his time, in the churches of Spain, and at Rome, (Epist. lii. ad Lucin.) — And Augustine, about the year 410, (Epist. civiii. ad Jaauar.), that the eucharist was received by some daily. If Independents then, when scripture is silent, wisii us to take the example of the primitive church as our guide, and from this contend that we should eat the Supper every Sabbath, why do not they themselves adopt this example m its full extent, and communicate daily., or at least on Sabbath, and Wed- nesday, and Friday, and Saturday.' By these o^aservations it i* not intended liowever to say, whether weekly comnauuion is lawful or unlawful, but only to shew, that as scripture is silent as to the precise decree of frequency, they are not entitled to declaim with that severity which they often discover against others who cannot, stt often as they, observe tliat ordinance. * On this circumstance however, as was before stated, no stress. J» laid, as it is not certaiji that it is the breaking of sacramental bread whicli is here intended. C 215 3 LETTER XVI. , Sir, 1 HAT there must have been a plurality of congregfttions in the city of Jerusalem, I have endeavoureil to shew in the preceding Letter, from the number of behevers v.-ho resided in that city. This i-endered it totally impossible for them all to convene in a single place for any of the purposes of religious fellowsliip. And this, as was remarked, was na- turally to be expected, for Jesus having ascended to the right hand of his Father, and shed down his Spirit io more rich abundance on the souls of men than had ever formerly- been witnessed by the world, the delightful period had no\T arrived, when his spiritual offspring were to be more in nunaber than the dreps of dew, " from the womb of the *' morning :" Psal. ex. 3. The same conclusion may be argued from the vinnber. of minislers, tvlio, for a ver^ conside?-able time, twre continu- ally employed i}i labouring in that city. Among these were the twelve apostles, and, as most expositors apprehend, the seventy disciples, together with many prophets, (Acts xi. 27, 2y), and many elders, (ver. 30.) The first class of these ministers moreover, and consequently Ave must suppose the rest of them, were so engaged "in preaching, that they were obliged to institute an order of ministers to serve tables, that they might themselves be enabled, along with their fellow-ministers, to give themselves co??//«?.'.7//?/ to prayer and the ministry of the ivord : Acts vi. But if there was only one congregation of believers where each of these teachers ministered in his turn, how extremely unaccountable must this representation appear ? But ojze congregation, and above a Jnindred ministers, so unceasingly eniployed in preaching the word, that they could not find leisure to dis- tribute among the poor the money wliich had been collected for them ! It may be said indeed, that while one of them preached to this congregation, the rest Avcre itinerating through different parts of the city. But still it appears very extraordinary, that while only two or three were necessary for the instruction of this particular congregation, so many teachers r^jcained in Jerusalem even for the purpose of iti- 216 Letter XVI. nerating, while they were much more needed in many other places, as well as the surrounding country. Can it be be- lieved, if there had been only one congregation in that city, that so many ministers would have resided in it statedly for almost thirtij years, while the rest of the world was so des- titute of the means of religious instruction* ? Such a sup- position seems by no means to be probable. The only way then in which we can account for this fact appears to be this, that there was such a number of congregations in Jerusalem as furnished sufficient employment for all of them. In the third place, The diversity of languages spoken by these Christians at Jerusalem, clearly evinces that there must have been a corresponding diversity of congregations in that city. We are told, Acts ii, that among those who were con- verted on the day of Pentecost, and who heard the apostles speak, each in their otvn language, were devout men from Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Trygia, PamphyHa, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and also from Rome, Crete, and Arabia. We are informed also, Acts vi, of a murmuring against the Hebrews, or Jews who spake the Syriac tongue, by the Grecians, or Jews who, having come from places where the Greek lan- guage prevailed, spake that language. Now admitting even that some of these might not remain at Jerusalem, this di- versity of languages would still exist among those who con- tinued, and rendered it equally necessary, as on the day of Pentecost, that the gospel should be preached to them by various ministers, and in different congregations, in their na- tive tongues. It may be said indeed, that they might un- derstand the Syriac, as the Jews at present, though they might use the vernacular tongues of the various countries where they are scattered, still have their religious services performed in the Hebrew language. It is an indisputable fact, however, that the Jews are in general ignorant of the Hebrew ; and the performance of their religion in that lan- guage no more proves that they understand it, than the use of the Latin in the Romish church proves that the com- mon people are acquainted with it. Besides, the exclusive * The only instances recorded in scripture of occasional visits to other places by any of these ministers (Barnabas axcejited}, are cjtremely few, and appear to have been but temporary. Letter XVI. 217 tise of the Septuagint translation by the Jews for near 300 years both before and after Christ, and the writing of the New Testament in Greek (as Lardner shews to have been the case), proves beyond question that the Syriac, at this period, was understood neither by the foreign Jews nor by Gentile proselytes *. So little indeed was it known, that even Philo translates the most common Syriac word on the authority of others. And it will be obvious to any one who examines with attention the Targums, or Talmuds, that so striking a ditlerence subsists between them, even in point of language, as shews that the Syriac, at that period, could neither have been generally nor uniformly understood by the Jewish nation. Let any one, in short, consider whether it is probable that the native Jews of Rome, and Crete, and Pontus, SfC. with the proselytes from these countries, could be so well acquainted with the language of Judea, as to be able to receive in it religious instruction with the same plea- sure and advantage as in their original tongues ? — Or that the apostles, who were enriched with the gift of tongues for almost thirty years, did not exercise this invaluable endow- ment, though it was absolutely requisite for disseminating the gospel among strangers and foreigners, or when at least it must have been much more conducive to their edification to have heard the discourses of these ministers of Christ in their native languages than in one which was less fami- liar > It is objected, that the various Jews mentioned by Luke (Acts ii), are represented as having understood the apolo- gy of Peter on the day of Pentecost, (ver. 14), though he spake to them all in the Syriac tongue. It is ansv/ered, that before this observation can have force, it must be demon- strated that Peter spake to all of them at once in t/ie same language, and not to each of them in order, in their respec- tive languages, as it is plain was done before this by the * It was only after the Targums, or the Translations, and the Talmuds, or the Expositions, of the ancient Scriptures in the Sy- riac Lanj);uage had been finished, that the Greek versions of the Seventy, and of Aquila the Jew, ceased to be used by the Jewish nation. And the discontinuance of them was produced only by the decrees of their doctors, who forbad the use of them, lest their countrymen should be led by them to enibrace Christianity. X 21S Letter XVI. npostles at large, (ver. 5. to 11*) ; or, on the otiicr-liand, that he was the only apostle who addressed these Jews at this particular time. Neither of these, we apprehend, can ho evinced. Peter alone, indeed, is particularized, but this docs not prove that other apostles also did not address them. The same^postle is represented in the following chapter, from ver. 12, as the only person who spake to the Jews on another occasion, and his speech only is related ; yet we are told in chap. iv. I, that John also ^pake to tl^em. Besides, when PetJi- preached on the day of Pentecor;. the eleveyi ■are said to have stood up with him ; and it appears much inore natural to suppose that they rose like him to ad- dress the audience, as they had done before, (ver. 6, 7, 8), in their native tongues, than that they were altogether silent. Again, it is observed, (ver. 37), that when the multitude were aroused to a feeling of their guilt by the truths which they heard, they came not only to Peter, but to the rest of the apostles, and asked what they should do ? which seems to suggest that they had heard these truths from them as well as from Peter. In fine, after they had cordially embraced the gospel, it is said, that they steadily adhered to the pro- fession of it ; and the language in which it is expressed, (ver. -42), is this. That they continued in the doctrine of the a- ■postles, or that which they had heard from them upon this ■important occasion. But if Peter spake to these companies separately, or if the rest of the apostles, as well as Peter, -addressed them by themselves in different divisions, it might -be, as on the preceding part of this very day, in their re- * In ver. v, we are told^ that there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from evert/ nation under heaven ; and in ver, 6, that each of these heard the apostles speak in their o\yn languages. Of these languages fifteen are mentioned -. and if there were Jews, as is here said, dwelling at Jerusalem, from every nation under hea- ven, it is probable that the languages which were spoken by the apostles on this occasion must have been much more numerous. — But if there were either fifteen or twenty companies of Jews who •were all addressed by the apostles in different languages, it must have been at different times, for there were but twelve of these ministers, and it wal*impossible for any of them to speak to more than one company at once. If the apostles, however, immediate- ly before this apology of Peter, spoke to a part of these companies at one time, and to another at another, might not the same thing also be done by him when he delivered his apology, upon the sup- position that, at that time, he alone spake to them in the name of the apostles ? Letter XVL 219 spective languages : and -no objection can be in-ged, from what is said in this place by the sacred historian, against the argument adduced, from the diversity of languages which originally existed among the behevers in Jerusalem, for a diversity of congregations irt that Christian church. Whether then we consider the number of members, or the number of ministers, or the diversity of lauguage in the church of Jerusalem, we have abundant evidence that it comprehended different congregations, and that they could not all conveniently assemble for worship in one place. Mr, Ewing, however, informs U5> that neither the num- ber of the disciples at Jerusalem, nor any of these circum- stances, prevented them usually from meeting in one place ; and of this he apprehends that he has direct evidence, for " where their numbers are mentioned, their meeting in one ** place is also mentioned." In proof this he refers us to Acts ii. 41 — %7, where we are told that " all who beheved " were together, and had all things in common." But though it were granted that the church at this time, whea it was comparatively small, met in one assen:uly, it would not follow that it could meet in one place when it was much larger. Besides, all that is mentioned in this passage is, that, from the love which subsisted among these primitive converts, they were frequently together, and cultivated ea- gerly each other's society. But to this it was not neces- sary that they should statedly meet in one great aseembly*^. And though we are told moreover, in this and other placesj 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 before observed, the temple con- tained a variety of places, each of which could conveniently accommodate a congregation f . • * Er/ T3 auTo, which is rendered " together," in the present pas- sage, according to Lightfoot, is used by the Seventy to signify aa as5enibly, sometimes ia the same body, Judges vi. 33. — sometimes simply in the same state, Jer, vi. 12. — and sometimes engaged merely in the same action, or exercise, though in different places, 2 Sam. ii. 1J5, Psal. xxxiv. 3, xlix. 2. '(Sfi:. See also Psal. ii. 2. f " The High Church of Glasgow," says Ayton, p. 220, " hath " three distinct congregations in it, and there is as much room " besides, as might contain one or two more; but their being ia " that huge building all at one time, will no more denominate theni " one single assembly for public worship, meeting in the same in- '220 Letter XVI. Still, however, Mr. Ewing contends that his assertion is confamed by Acs v. 12, 13, where it is said, that " by *' the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders " wrought among the people; (and they were all with cue " accord in Solomon's Porch : and of the rest durst no man " join himself 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 distinguished from the people, but the whole body of Christian converts. That it was the apostles alone, is probable from the connection of the passage. The same fear which fell upon the multitude in general, and which, for a time kept them at a distance from the apostles, is asserted, in the 11th verse, to have fall- en equally upon the xvnole cimrch, and, we may naturally h'.ippose, would produce upon them a similar effect. But ■if the rest of the church, as well as the multitude, durst not for a time join themselves to the apostles, is it not obvious that it must have been the apostles alone v/ho ^re said to iiave beer. "// in Solom.on's Porch ? Besides, they only are spoken of in the immediately preceding clause, when it is mentioned that many signs and wonders were done by them among the people; and consequently it is most natural to sup- pose that the all v/ho are specified in the very next words, ■and who are said to have been in Solomon's Porch, m.ust have been the very same persons. And that the apostles might go up to Solomon's Porch without the people, seems credible, not only from what has been already stated, but from what is recorded, in a foregoing chapter, of Peter and John, who are represented as going up alone to the temple. Nay, though we should allov/ that the whole of the disciples, as well as the apostles, were in Solomon's Porch, yet if we consider, as has been remarked, that it was iitted to accommodate a number of congregations, it must be evident to all, that it does not necessarily follow that they were all collected into one assembly. Glass, and other In- dependents, have asserted, that no more believers resided in Jerusalem than what statedly met in one place, because the apostles are represented, at the election of the deacons, (Acts vi), as calling the multitude, and enjoining them to elect " dividual place, under tlie instruction of one pastor, th;in if they ■' were at sume miles distance." Letter XVI. 221 these officers. But it might be only the heads of them who in i-eahty were summon, d, if, as we have attempted to shew, the whole were too numerous to m.eet in one place. Thus, as we foimcrly noticed, Moses is often said to have called all Israel, and to have spoken in the ears of all the congrega- tion whatsoever the Lord enjoined him, while, as was former- ly noticed, he assembled and addressed the elders or office- bearers only. Let it be admitted, however, that the mul- titude of believers at large were called, it is not said, either that all of the apostles, or all of the disciples were in one place, and from any thing that is here mentioned, they m:ght convene in a number of separate assemblies. Were we to be told, for instance, that the ininisttrs 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 in Glasgow, that the members would not all meet in one place, but in their differ- ent churches, and with their respective office-bearers ? — And suppose it to be demonstrated from other passages, as we have already attempted, that the Christians in Jerusalem, like the members in Glasgow, were far too numerous to as- semble conveniently in the same place, though this language be used, is it not equally plain that they would meet in differ- ent assemblies ? Nothing then can be certainly deduced from the passage before us, as to the actual number of con- gregations in Jerusalem *. 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, between election and ordina- tion, and though the latter might be performed in one as- sembly, the former might be doiie by the members of the church in their different congregations. Is it contended once more, that the church at Jerusalem was a single congregation, because the members are repre- sented, (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 interest- * " Let Independents but consider," ssy the Westminster Di- vines, " how the city of London choose their common-council, and " present them to the court ot aldermen," p. 2). T 3 222 Letter XVI. ing discussion. What this number was, is not specified. — - Nay, it might perhaps be alleged with considerable plausi- bility, that it. is not evident, from the sacred history, that any of the private members of the church were present. The term bret/e?-e72, we know, by which it is supposed by Inde- pendents 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 characte- rized by Paul, (Acts xx. 32), whom he had before denomi- nated, (ver. 17 and 28), elders and overseers — by which he describes other ministers, Pliilip i. I4f, whom he speaks of in that passage as preaching the word — and which he often be- stows upon the evangelists, Titus, and Timothy, and others, 2 Cor. ii. 13, viii, 18, 2:5, 1 Thcss. iii. 2, S^-c. Should it be asserted then, that by the 'brethren here specified, besides the apostles and elders, may be intended the evangelists and prophets in the city of Jerusalem, as well as any other mini- sters \jho might be then in that place, it might be difficult to disprove it. Nor can the contrary be established from the term multitude, or TrXn^o^ (ver. 12), which is applied to that assembly, for we see the same name given (chap, xxiii. 7, compared with chap. xxii. SO), to the Jewish sanhedrin, a court of rulers only, and which probably was not more nu- merous than this Christian council. In chap. i. 15, a si- milar name is given to an assembly consisting only of a hun- dred and twenty persons : " And the number {i>)5- be pointed out likewise as but one church ? 228^ Letter XVI. Is it asserted, as was done by the ancient Independents, that though it could be proved that there was a number of congregations in Jerusalem, and that these congregations were governed by a common court consisting of the apostles, who were entitled to superintend all the churches in the world, no argument can be adduced from it, for the right of ordin- ary inferior ministers, from various congregations, to assemble as a Presbytery, and review the decisions of the elders or rulers of a particular congregation ? It is replied, that the apostles are pointed out in scripture not only as extraordi- nary ministers, but in the ordinary character of elders or rulers: 1 Peter v. 1. To affirm, therefore with Independ- ents, that it was an extraordinai-y act, because it was done by apostles, is to beg the question ; nay, if the same prin- • ciple were applied to their conduct in other instances, it would be attended with consequences the most destructive to Independency. Upon the same grounds it would follow, that since tJie apostles are said to have preached, to have dis- pensed the sacraments, and to have ordained deacons, these acts were extraordinary, and ought not now to be perform- ed by ordinary ministers, whether Independent or Presbyte- rian. But if the mere circumstance of its being related in scripture, that the apostles met as a court of review, and su- perintended the affairs of all the churches in Jerusalem, will not demonstrate that their conduct, in this instance, is to be viewed as exti-aordinary, it becomes necessary to ascertam by other considerations whether it v/as so. And when we at- tend to these considerations, we find reason to conclude that it was not extraordinary, for both the nature of the thing, and the admission of ordinary teaching elders to sit with them in this court and to exercise along with them the same authority, clearly point out to us an opposite deduction. The last of these privileges could never have been granted to them, had the conduct of the apostles in this instance been extra- ordinary, and consequently not intended to be imitated at present by ordinary ministers. Ordinary ministers were cer- tainly then as little entitled, had this been an extraordinary power, to claim a share of it, as ordinary ministers in the present day. Nor were they allowed merely to express their acquiescence in what was said or determined by the apostles (as Silvanus and others, whose nam.es are recorded in the Apostohc Epistles, were), but they possessed an equality of power ; for the decisions which were delivered in this eccle- Letter XVI. . •SSD siastical court are called expressly, " the decrees of the el- •' ders," as well as of the apostles. It is obvious then, that the apostles did not act in these courts of review as extraor- dinary ministers ; and, by admitting into that council, which, governed the affairs of all the congregations in Jerusalem, ordinary office-bearers, we are warranted to say, that the or- dinary elders of a number of congregations are now entitled to meet as a Presbytery, and examine the decisions of any particular eldership, or determine in matters which relate to the interests of all these congregations. Or, is it objected, as is done by Glass, that it cannot b^ proved that there were siated elders in each of the congre- gations in the city of Jerusah m who governed these congre- gations, and who, when united as a court, regulated the ' affairs which respected them all ? It is a sufficient answer, that it cannot be proved that there xvns not in each of them a fixed and stated eldership who superintended it ; and it is most probable, from the constitution ot other congregations, as well as from what is elsewhere said of Paul and Bari.abas, (Acts xiv. 23, ♦' that they ordained elders in every church," or, as Independents \Aonld explain it, in every c )ngregatiun), that there were such cffice-bearers. At any rate, and this is the point at present in debate, it seems evident that each, ot these congregations was not independent of the < ontroul of the overseers of others in point of government, but that there was a court correspondiiig to what we Ehuuld denomi- nate a Presbytery, composed of the elders of the dilTerent congregations, who exercised an authoritative power over each, as well ds decided in matters of general importance. The former, though probable from every thing that is said of a Christian congregation in the New Testament, is a point of inferior magnitude only, and, in some circumstances, has been determined, as to other churches, by convenience and utility. The latter is a point of higher mome^, and, though completely opposite to the principles of Independents, ap- pears to be established from the circumstancee which have \been specified. In some of (ha foreign Presbyterian churches moreover, where the people are neither allowed to judge nor to vote, there are no private Sessions in particular congrega- tions, but the elders or rulers of a number of congreoations, • associated as a Presbytery, superintend the affairs of each of these congregations, and determine in matters which concern the whole. Even then, if we suppose that the church at u "230 Letter XVI. Jerusalem was constituted upon the last of these plans, it is plain that every congregation which belonged to it, was not, in point of government, independent of the authoritative su- perintendence of the ministers of the r^st. And if we admit that it was formed hke all other churches in the New Tes- tament, and that each of its congregations had its separate office-bearers who governed it, and that these again were connected in a general court, with the office-bearers of the rest, who decided in matters of common concern, the same conclusion follows. These congregations in Jerusalem, even in the days of the apostles, were not independent of each other with regard to government, and therefore congrega- tions ou^ht certainly not to be independent in the present day. Finally, it is affirmed, with Lockier and others, that the sphere of ruling and of teaching should be equal, because the Thessalonians are commanded " to know them who were *' over them in the Lord, and who laboured or preached *' among them?" 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. It is answered, that though they be enjoined there to know those who laboured among them in word and doctrine, and were over them in the Lord, it will not follow from this, that none were to be over them in the Lord, unless they ^hus statedly laboured amongst them. Though the former class of rulers -were en- titled to their respect, it can never be inferred that a separate <«rder, who were to govern but not to'preach to them, were not entitled also to^ their dutiful regards. If this injunction does not prevent, even among Independents, those who do not statedly labour, from occasionally preaching to them, or dispensiag the sacrament, why should it prevent those who do not statedly labour among them, from occasionally meet- ing to oversee and superintend them, as well as to determine in matters of general concern ? To assert, in fine, that be- cause, in the passage before us. Christians are called to ho- nour those who not only ruled but taught among them, there can be no other rulers who can meet, from the elder- ships of other congregations, for deliberation, is to take for granted the thing to be proved. It is as if an inhabitant of Glasgow should say. Because I am commanded by the Con- stitution to honour the Magistrates under whose superin- tendence I live, there can be no other part of the Constitu- tion which enjoins me to be subject to a Sheriff, because he does not dwell amongst us — or to the Lords of Session, be- Letter XVI. 23! cause they are so far removed from us. But if reasoning like this would be accounted absurd in our political govern- ment, must it not be equally absurd to infer from this com- mand, which enjoins Christians to honour those who reside amongst them and rule over them, that there can be no other court appointed to review the decisions of the former, be- cause the office-bearers in it do not statedly reside, and preachy and rule amongst thera ? LETTER XVIL Sir, Among the different arguments which have been urged by Presbyterians for courts of review, none undoubtedly is more striking or satisfactory than that which is drawn from the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. You have been pleased par.icularly to consider this passage, and have endeavoured to overturn the reasoning of your opponents. Before concluding the present inquiry, it will therefore be proper to examine the force of this argument, and the vali- dity of the reasons on v/hich you object to its cogency. Prior to your remarks on this celebrated chapter, you ob- serve with triumph (though as to the first part of your as- sertion, I know not upon what authority), that " although. *' it is pretty generally allowed that little can be pleaded ia *' support of the Presbyterian form of church-government *' from the Apostolic Epistles, there is a well known passage <* in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, on ** which the defence of this system is gejierally rested. *' This," say you, " I long considered as a strong hold in *' which I could sit in safety, and subscribe myself a Pres- " byterian. I shall now shortly state the arguments by " which, in my apprehension at least, it was no longer ten- *' able." But instead of proceeding at present to review these arguments in order, permit me brisflv, after adverting to the occasion of tliis reference from Antioch, to consider in the first place, 'V\i chapter, to signify the laws of the Medes and Persians, which altered not. Nor does the verb ^oy/^x-. tiZju, in Col. ii. 20, the only instance produced by Inde- pendents in support of their opinion, seem to denote sub- jection merely to doctrine or instruction, but, as our trans- lators have rendered it, to ordinances or commandments. — The things, for their undue subjection to which Paul re- proves the Colossians, are called in ver^ 22, \}c\.Q^commcind-' menls of men, i)iTccXf4,xric, by which we are unquestionably to understand the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic law, which were originally binding as the commandments o£ God, Letter XVII. 2S7 but at that time were obligatory, upon those who chose to obey them, only as the commandments of men *. Not only, however, is the decision of the apostles and elders called a decree, biit we are informed, Acts xvii. 4, it v/as orddned by them, KiK^imnt, a word which, when ap- plied to an assembly, and added to the former, imports the most decided exercise of authority. It is employed for in- stance, by the Seventy, in their version of Esther ii. 1, to express the judgment of a Persian council against Queen Vash- ti, when they decreed that the should be degraded from her regal situation ; and the word vvyK^ifix, which is derived from it, is used, in their translation of Dan. iv. 17, 24, Sfc, to signify a decree. And in Acts xxiv. 6, it denotes ths authority of the Jewish sanhedrin, or council of the elders, which Tertullus declares was ready to have proceeded to pro- nounce judgment upon Paul — as in Acts xiii. 27, it expres- ses the authority of this very court, when they tried and condemned the blessed Saviour. I do not, indeed, recollect a single instance where it is not to b-; so understood, when applied to an assembly of judges or rulers. The conduct, moreover, of the apostles and elders, on this occasion, is expressed by their laying what appeared to them a necessary burden on t!;e church of Antioch, than which words, I apprehend, few can be conceived more strongly de- ecriptive of the exercise of authority. Nor is it of any import- ance to object that the verse should be rendered, " It seem- «* ed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, that no burden *< shall henceforth be laid upon you but these necessary ** things," and to assert that this burden is the same thinj with the yohe mentioned, ver. 10, for still, as Mr. Evring allows, p. 74, 75, it imphesthat a burden was laid on them. When we are told, Matth. xxiii. 4, that the Pharisaic Rab- bis bound heavy br.rdens upon the shoulders of men, do we iiot perceive something more than mere instruction or admo- * Accordingly ^ay/^etni^iirh, in Co!, ii. 20, is explained, in the very ancient Syriac version, by a word vvhich is equivalent to JuJi- camini — " Are ye judged by these commandments ?" by Erasmus and Bullinger, " Dcoctis tencmhd — Are ye bound by ihese decrees of *' men ?" by Guahher, Stephanus, and Beza, " Ritihus cneramlni — •' Are ye loaded with these rites or observances ?" and by Budoeus, Leigh, Parkhurst, Wctstein, and Kypke, " Have ye these d:crees " or ordinances imposed upon you ? or. Arc you subject to these " ordinance*?" 23^ LlETTER XVII: . nition designed, and that they delivered them as their ivrx.\- fixta, or commandments, Matth. xv. 9, which all were to obey who wished to be considered as of their sect ? In fine, this decree ordainimr necessary tfdngs or burdenSy we are informed, ver. 28, seemed good to them, as well as to the Holy Ghost ; " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and,'* as it is in the Arabic version, " it seemed good to us."^ And that this denotes a judicial decision seems manifest, not only from what has been already stated, but from the im- port of this phrase, when applied to the decision of an as- sembly <:>i rulers. Thus Josephus (Antiq. book iv. chap, viii), speaking of a decree of their great sanhedrin, disobe- dience to which v/as punished by death, represents it as t» "^DKovv ; i. e. " what seemed good to them." Thus too, .Demosthenes, as quoted by Stephanus, ^i^oy,&»t tji /3aoA|)j " it is decreed by the senate ;" and Plato, as cited by Bu- daeus, ^i^ox.rM fiot xnSxtuv, " it is certainly appointed for *' me to die." Whether, then, we consider these expres- sions separately, or attend to them as united, nothing seems plainer than that the decision which was given by this as- sembly at Jerusalem was not merely an. advice or a declara- tion, v.'hether they had commissioned these heretical teach- ers who had come down to Antioch to publish their errors, . or whether what was taught by them was agreeable to the doctrine of repentance unto life, but an authoritative deter* niination, to which the church at. Antioch was bound most cheerfully to submit in the Lord. . Still however, though this was an. authoritative determi- nation, are we certani that they were not directed in it by a miraculous influence ? That this was the case is as- serted by Mr. Glass, in his Letters to Ayton, where he says, that <' the apostles acted in this council as apostles, •< and were guided by an extraordinary miraculous influence." Mr. Evving also says, that the reference v;as made to the apostles, as inspired ; that the elders too, who were joined with them, were probably inspired ; that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were very generally enjoyed in the churcli at Jerusalem ; and that when the minister of this court pro- nounced these words, " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost *' and to us," they spoke them unquestionably as infallible men. And you avow this to be your own opinion, and en- deavour to defend it by a variety ,of arguments. Let us then inqure. Third!}/, Whether they were directed by thil.; Letter XVII. 239 in?.uence in the case before us, or were left to the exercise ©f their own wisdom and sagacity ? Tliat the apostles were not uniformly directed by a mira- culous influence I think you must grant, if you reflect for a moment on what is recorded in the gospel-history. Many of their actions, as was formerly noticed, sucli as the ordi- nation of deacons, the " on that occasion, the persons v/ho taught that doctrine " respecting the necessity of circumcision came from Judea, " the seat of the rest of the apostles. It is pretty apparent <' from ver. 24, that these persons represented theni as fa- Letter XVIII. 257 " voi'.ring Uieir views. In this situation, Paul must have « had an authority at least paramount to his own alleged in « opposition to it. Nothing in this case could give such " perfect satisfaction, as the united decision of the apostles " when assembled together." It is readily conceded, that tlic church of Jerusalem stood, at that period, in very pecuhar circumstances, but not so pe- culiar as you would insinuate. Though theNew Testament scriptures were not then completed, and tl'iough many re- ferences were made to the np siles who resided at Jerusalem, as to matters of doctrine, I must again tell you, that I cannot see why you affirm that they were'm.ade also to the whole of the Christians who dwelt at Jerusalem. If these referen- ces required inspiration for their determination, most' of the Chriricians at Jerusalem could no more decide upon them than the churches fropi which they came. And if they did jiot require it, and yet were settled by authoritative senten- ces from the apostles, the common members at Jerusalem had no more right to piiss them upon other churches than the members at Corinth, or Ephesus, or R.ome had. Let it be allowed then, that the apostles, till the New Testament was completed, were usually referred to, while they remain- ed at Jerusalem, j>. the final arbiters of religious controver- sies — what follows ? That, when th^y delivered these deci- sions, they were alzvat/s inspired ? . Such a conclusion would be a begging of the question, or a taking for granted what neither you nor any other mortal can prove. It would be saying that God never suffered them occasionally to ascertain his mind from the Old-Testament scriptures, and from any- miraculous works which he had previously performed, but guided them always by a supernatural influence, which is too presumptuous, I should think, for any imperfect creature to affirm. It is safer to determine this point by the fact, as related in scripture, than, with the Aristotelians of old, to lay down a hj/pothesis, or supposition of our oivn, and, taking it for granted, endeavour to accommodate to it this particular fact. Attending then to this fact, and to what is recorded of it, I must once more declare, that howeversthe apostles acted in other references, when they supplied tHh» place of the New Testament scriptures, they do not appear to have acted by inspiration in the present instance. The decision which they pronounced, seems to have been the fruit of their examination of the Old-Testaraent "criptur^s, y3 255 Letter XVIII. and attention to some foi-mer miracles wliieh Lad Lci.:. ■vvroug'at, and not of any supernatural suggestion. At tht same time, it is granted that in other instances where inspi- ration was necessary, they would act under its influence, and be gnided by its dictates. Your attempt to shew that if in- Fpliaticn had been requisite, Paul was not sufficient to have determined the controversy, was considered in the preceding Letter. Your last, however, is your favourite argument, for you say, p. 4-1'. '• What has always appeared to me the most '• decisive proof that this passage affords no countenance to *• modern Presbytery, arises from the issue of the decision ^' the church at Jerusalemi pnuiounccd, on the question that *' w-as laid before them. 'I'hey not only send their decis-iou *■' to Antioch, but to Syria and Cilicia, ver. 23 ; and we learn *' from chap. >:vi. ver. 4, when Paul and Silas went out on " Paul's second journey, they delivered in the different cities *' the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles *' and elders which were at Jerusalelii. Here, those who *' support Presbytery from this passage, seem inextricably " involved in a dilem.ma. It must be allowed these decrees *' were either binding or not. If they vi'ere not, then the *' whole was merely an application for advice, and the pas- *' sage has no connection with PiTsbyterial authority. If *' they were not binding, then it follows that the church at *' Jerusalem ordained decrees which were obligatory not *' only on the church at Antioch, but on every other church *' in the Christian world, though they had not the shadow *' of a representative in that meeting where the decrees were *' formed. Surely this puts it beyond the possibihty of a *' doubt that the case was an extraordinary one, and conse- ** quently forms no precedent for other churches. If it was *• not extraordinary, let us see to what it will lead. It *' ought then to be imitated ; that is, one church should *' frame decrees to which it is entitled to require obedience *< from every other church in the Christian world. What *' church is entitled to claim vach a prercgaiive ? — But it is «' unnecessary to pursue the argument farther, as the infe- *' rence impHes what is impracticable and absurd." To the formidable argument founded on this dilemma I would briefly state, that, I apprehend, Presbyterians may safely grant tl^at an authoritative power was exercised by this assembly, and yet none of your isomcntous conscquen- Letter XVIII. 259 ces will follo^Y. What though its decrees were bindino- -i;pon Syria, and Cilicia, and L,ystra, and Iconium, as well as Autioch, will it ever be proved from this, that they were the dictate of inspiration ? No, verily. Were there not apostles in this cour.cil, as has becu already said, who, acting even in their uninspired capacity, were universal pastors, and had a right to ordain decrees which were binding upon all the churches on earth, as well as to preach to all of them, as ordinary ministers, according as opportunity offered ? How, of couisc, can it be demonstrated from the universally ob- ligatory power of the decrees that they mast have been su- pernaturally suggested, when the apostles, who were mem- 'bcrs of the assembly which passed them, even as uninspired viiimlers, had -a right to deliver them not only to these, but to all other chui-clics ? Neither, then, from this, nor any other circumstance, does it appear that the decision which was pronounced by this council was an inspired deci- sion, or that the members of it wei'e guided by any superior influence than their own judgment and prudence, and th'e conimon aids of the sacred Spirit. Is it said, that no power properly juridical was assumed by this assembly, and that therefore no precedent can be pleaded from it for the power of modern courts of review i It is replied, that the power of determining what was to be preached as the means of salvation v/as claimed by it, than which, undoubtedly, none can be considered as a higher cr more important exercise of authority. Their determination, moreover, as has been noticed, is called a decree, and the very fact of their passing such a decree, implied in them the pov/er also of punishing all who refused to submit to it. But if this is not to be considered as ecclesiastical power, I know not what is entitled to the name. Thus, I, conceive, the three general positions have in some measure been established. First, That there w^as a •court at Jerusalem of Christian ministers, who sat and deter- mined in a reference which was made to them from another court at Antioch : Secondly, That this court at Jerusalem delivered not merely to that at Antioch a r;eneral advice, but an authoritative decision : And tliirdlij. That, in this decision, they seem neither to have been directed by mira- culous suggestion nor extraordhiary superintendence, but by the usual aids of the sacred Spirit, w liich are common to faithful ministers in every age. 260 Letter XVIII: If this however was the case, and a court at Aritioch was subject to the review of a court at Jerusalem, is it not a clear and suifieient warrant for those courts of review which exist among Presbyterians ? It must certainly be of little imr portaiice to object that this court at Jerusalem did not re- semble 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 dispute ; and since it is established, it authorizes, lappje- hend, courts of review to any extent that tlie circumstanc'es of the church may be found to require, li t/ie p7'incijjlc of the subordination of courts be demonstrated, it is evident that for the same reason that it is proper to subject tlje rulers of a paiticular congregation to the review of a Presbytery, if the decision of the Presbytery is not satisfactory, it is lawful- ':* required not the observance of them ; but from that, • See Appendix to his Lecture, p. 9'5. Letter VIII. 261 " cither they v/ere not careful, or the fury and %io]ence cf " the times would not permit them, to transmit them down " to their successors ; or through the length of time they " are lost, and scarce any thing besides the nam?s of such *' Synods are now remembered, and of multitudes, neither *' names nor decrees are to be found. But yet there is " enough escaj^ed the fury of persecution, and the length of " time, to convince that those Synods did decree those *' things which they judged expedient for the pcl:ty> dii,cip- *' line, and government of those particular churches that " were within their respective provinces, and required them *' to be observed by all the aiembcis thereof" Besides, as, on a former part of the subject, it was shewn that Indepen- dents have never been able to adduce any plausible proof, of the right of the people at large to judge and vote in church- business, from the writings of the fathers prior to the time of Cyprian ; how can they object to quotations from this their favourite author, which Prebbyteviar.s bring forward, to prove the Eubordination of judici-.tunes in ecclesiastical government ? In reviewing the writings of the fathers, we find that they acknowledge that such courts of review existed in the church from the earliest period. Cypnan, for instance, in his Sixty-sixth Epistle, written, according to the calculation of Marshall, A. D. 249, not only speaks of a Synod and its authoritative decrees, but represents these as having obtained among his more ancient predecessors. " Gravitcr commoti *' sumus ego et coUegae mei qui prsesentes aderant, et com- " presbytcri nostri qui nobis assidebant, fratres carissimi, " cum cognovissemus quod Gemmius Victor, frater nos- ,' tcr, de seculo excedens, Geminium Faustinum presby- " terum tutorem tcstam.ento suo nom.inaverit, cum jV;»i 2'^'- " (Inn in concilio episcoporum statutum sit. ne quis dc " clericis et Dei ministris tutorem vel curalorem tebtamen- " to suo constiluat :" i. e. " It was a great concern to me " and to my colleagues who happened to be present with ** with me, and to our fellow-presbyters who sat in judg- " mcnt along with us, when we learned that our brother <' Geminius Victor, at his death, had appointed Geminius " Faublinus a presbyter, executor of his will, since it hath " lovg ago been determined in a Council or Syyiod qfbisJtop'', *' that no one should nominate in his will, a clergyman, ♦' or a minister of God, to be an executor, or a guardian." A 'id again, as a proof that tliis Synod was not merely cou- 2G2 Letter XVIII. sultative, after making some observations upon the necessity- of requiring the ministers of the church to devote themselves entirely to their sacred function, he adds, " Quod episco- " pi antecessores nostri religiose considerantes, et salubriter *' providentes, censuerunt ne quis frater excedens ad tute- " lam vel curam clencum nominaret ; ac si qui hoc faceret, •' non ofierretur pro t(.», ucc sacrificium pro dormitione ejus " celebraretur, neque enim apud altare Dei nominari mere- " tr.r in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altari sacerdotes et mini- " stros voluit avocare. Et ideo Victor cum contra formam »< nuper in concilio a sacerdotibus datam, Geminium Fau- «' stinum presbytcriim ausus sit tutorem constitutre, non est " quod pro dormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblalio, aut depret ♦< catio aliqua nomine ejus in ccclesice frcquentetur, ut sa- " cerdotum decretum religiose et necessarie factiHn servetnr " a nobis simul et csettris fratribus detur exemplum, ne quis " sacerdotes et ministros Dei, altari ejus, et ecclesias vs- *' cantes ad seculares molestias devocet." That is, " Which '< the bishops, our predecessors, religiously cpnsidering, de« <' creed that no brother, at his death, should name a cler« •' gyman executor to his will ; and if any one should do soj " there should be no offering for him, nor sacrifice present- ♦' ed for his repose, for he who would call off from the al* " tar its priests and ministers, does not deserve to be men- " tioned in the prayers of the priest at the altar. Where- *' fore since Victor, against the canon which was ' lately de- *' livered upon this occasion in a council of bishops, baa " presumed to appoint Geminius Faustinus, a presbyter, *' his executor, there is no reason why an oblation should " be offered for his repose, nor the customary prayers of the " church presented on his behalf, both that this Si/nodical " decree may be observed by us, and an example may be " given to the rest of our brethren, that no person may call " to a secular employment the priests and ministers of God, " whose vvhol:- time and care should be devoted to his altar." Another of these authoritative Synods or Councils is men- tioned by Cyprian, in a passage formerly quoted from his Sixty-seventh Epistle. Speaking of Novatian, he says, " Et " cum ad nos in Africarn legatos misissit, optaiis ad com- ** municatioiiem nostram admitti, hinc a cnncilio plurimo- '< riim uncerdolum qui prxsentes eramus sententiam retulerit, " se foris ess'- cccnisse, nee posse a quoqiiam nostrum sibi <' communicari," Sfc. ; i. e. " And when he had sent his Letter XVIIL 2G3 "' messencrers to us in Africa, desiring to be admitted to our " communion, he received this senteiice from a Council cf " many ministers who were then assemok-d, that he had be- *' gun the rupture, and could not be admitted by any of us " to ovx communion." Here we see a Cotiiicil or Synod, of many minitscrs, exercising an authoritative power over all the churches to which they belonged, and decreeing that this man should not be received into their communion. And again, in the same Epistle, talking of wicked and arrogant men, he says, " Ex quibus cum I'^arcianus esse cocperit, et " se Novatiano conjungens, adversarius misericordice et pie- *' tatis extiterit : sententiam non dicat, sed accipiat, nee sic *' agat, quasi ipse judicaverit de collegia sacerdotum, quan- " do ipse sit ab universis sacerdotibus judicatus :" i. e. " Since Marcian hath began to be one of these, and joining " himself to Novatian, hath proved himself to be an enemy " to mercy and piety, let him not pretend to pronounce any *' sentence, but let him receive it ; nor let hmi behave like *' one who is lo judge the ivhule college of bishops, since he " Himself has been judged by all of them." Here he speaks of a whole college of pastors as pronouncing sentence of ex- communication upon a heretic ; and if we attend to another passage in this Epistle, we shrdl see that the college includ- ed the ministers of many churches. " Therefore," says he, " dear brother, the very numerous body of ministers is so " united, that if any of our college become heretical, the " rest assist, and, like good and compassionate shepherds, ** gather the sheep of the Lord into his fold." " Idcirco « enim, frater carissime, copioswn corpus est sacerdotium •* concordise mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum *' ut si ex collegio nostro hasresin facere," Sec. In his Fifty -ninth Epistle likewise, addressed to Fidus, and subscribed by Cyprian, and sixty-six ministersS who had sat in council with him, he speaks of a decree which they had made, and which was considered as binding by all the churches to which they belonged. And at the same time they find fault with one Therapius, because, in opposition to their decree, he had rashly restored to the communion of the church,' Victor, a presbyter, before he had exhibited sufficient evidences of penitence ; and say, that though they might have inflicted upon Therapius a higher punishment, they would content themselves with a reproof and admoni- tion. « Legimus (says Cyprian to Fidus), literas tuas. 261. Letter XVIII. " frater carissirne, quibus significasti de Victore quodam *' pvesbftero, quod ei, anteqviani pocnitentiam plenam egis- " set, et Domino Deo, in quem dcliquerat, satisfecisset, '• temere Therapins collega nostcr immaturo tempore et " prsepropera festinatione pacem dedcrit. Qnce res nos sa- " tis movit, recessum esse a decreti nostri auctoritate, ut " ante Icgitimum, et plenum tempus satisfactionis, pax ei " concederetur. Sed librato apud nos diu consilio, satis " fuit objurgare Thcrapium coUegam nostrum, quod temere *' hoc fecerit, ct instruxisse, ne quid tale de cajtero faciat." That is, "We have perused your Letter, dearest brother, " wherein you intimate to us the case of Victor, once a. " presbyter, whom our colleague Thcrapius rashly admit- « ted before he had exhibited sufficient marks of penitence, *« and made satisfaction to that God against whom he had <' offended. Which circumstance troubled us not a little, " because, overlooking the authority of our decree, he had " been restored to communion before the lawful term of sa- " tisfaction had expired. But having long and fully Consi- " dercd the matter, we resolved to content ourselves with *' reprimanding our colleague Tlierapius for his precipitate <• conduct, and with admonishing Kim to guard against such " measures for the future." This same council, moreover, which had tlius authorita- tively determined respecting the time during which offenders should be suspended from the communion of the church be- fore they were re-admitted, pronounces, at the same time, a decision respecting the time at which infants should be baptiz- ed. " Quantum vero (says Cyprian) ad causam infantium " pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem, " quo nati sunt, constitutos baptizari non oporterc, et con- " sidcrandum esse legem circumcisiouis antiqux, ut intra oc- " tavum diem cum qui natus est baptizandum et sacrifican- ." dum non putares ; longe aliud in concilio nostro omnibus <« visum est. - In hoc cnim quod tu putabas esse faciendum, •' nemo consensit, sed univcrsi potius judicavimus nnlli ho- " minum nato misericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandani." That is, " Now, as to the case of new-born intuits, who *' should not, according to your opinion, be bap'tized with- *' in the second or third day after their birth, but should ra- " ther wait the time appointed by the law for circumc'sion, " and so not be baptised or devoted to the service of God " till the eighth day, I must tell you that we are all here Letter XVIII. 265 " assembled in council, of another mind ; and no one of us " came into your sentiments ; but on the contrary, we all *' concluded that the grace and mercies of God were to be de- " nied to none who should come into the world *." And afterwards they express, if possible in still stronger terms, their conviction that this ordinance should be administered to infants at any period. This determination, however, ap- pears to be as authoritative as their former decision, as to the case of the lapsed, and seems lo have been equally binding upon all their churches. Firmilian, bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, in the La- tin translation of his Letter, which Cyprian has given us among his own Epistles, aflirms that such Councils or Sy- nods were common also at that time in the province of Les- ser Asia. After telling us, as was before mentioned, that el- ders alone preside in the church, and baptize and ordain, and that heretics are not entitled to perform these functions after they apostatize, he adds, " Quod totum nos jampridem *' in Iconio, qui Phrygize locus est, collect! in unum con- *' vcnientibus ex Galatia, et Cilicia, et caeteris prcxime *' regionibus confirmavimus, tenendum centra hsereticos fir- ''' miter et vindicandum :" /. e. " All which many of us, * " The unanimity" (says Marshall, in his Notes upon Cyprian, which I liave just now seen) " wherewith this question was carried " at this early period of the church), shews that infant-baptism, " even at this time, was no novel usage : there was no manner of " dispute, v/hether infants should be baptised; but whether be- " fore the eighth day or not ; to which the unanimous resolution " was, that the grace of God should be denied to none." It is hop- 'ed that tiie reader, for the sake of the observation, will pardon the . Jittle digression contained in this note. And it is trusted that those who are desirous of ascertaining (he truth upon this subject, and liave not an opportunity of perusing the more laborious Treatises of Wall and Williams, will not be displeased with the author, if he recommend to their attention, at least in support of infant-baptism, the very ingenious pamphlet of Peter Edwards, who, .for eleven years, vi'as an Antipedobaptist minister, but renounced that con- nection ; the Dissertation of Pirie, and his Defence of that Disser- tation ; the manly reasoning of the late venerable Dr. Erskine, in his Sermon upon that subject, in the second vorume of his Dis- courses; and Three Sermons upon Baptism, by Dr. Lathrop of America, which, while they are peculiarly adapted, from their admirable perspicuity, to the plainest readers, from the solidity of reasoning and acuieness of judgment which they discover, are wor- thy of the perusal of the most enlightened. These Discourses have Jactly been republished in Scotland, and sell for a trifle. z 2{)6 I«ETTEIl XVIII. *« assembled together hi Iconium, a city of Phrygia, from " Galatia, Cilicia, and the neighbouring regions, determined " to maintain and assert against the pretensions of heretics*." And in another part of the same Epistle he informs us, that they had at least an annual meeting of this authoritative Synod or Council. " Qua ex causa (says he) necessario *' apud nos fit, ut per singidos annos seniores et praspositi " in unum conveniamus ad disppnenda ca quae curas nostras *' commissa sunt :" i. c. " Wherefore we find it necessary " that our elders and rulers assemble every year, for settling *' those things which are committed to ourcare." Epist. Ixxv. « In fine, omitting the accounts of many other Synods, which might easily be produced from the writings of Cyprian, we are informed by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, book vii. chap, xxix, that, in the reign of Aurelian, a Synod ».)f many ministers met at Antioch, and excommunicated Paul of Samosatena from their different churches. " Koi6' ov " (says he) TiXivrxMi a-vyKpor>i6itcryig TrXuicnv otui ixKrytttTCUv " o-yv(5oov, ^co^ahti Kcii TTfiOi uTTcivruv ijoij c-«^fc»5 y-XTxy^ua-iiii; " itl^o^o^toiv T!5; x-oiroc, avTio^iixi citpia-ioj^ up^nXt^ tjjs vtto t«V " ovg^civov KxdoXtKri; iZKXvi It is granted indeed, that like every other principle, that i expediency may he perverted ; and tliat, when so pervert- - fcd, it must be very prejudicial. Its abuse however can never be a valid argument against its utility. Though, when employed by*vicked and designing men to set aside the great and fundamental principles of order and discipline which are revealed in scripture, it has been attended with ■V evil, yet this will never prove that it may not be followed by good, when used to support inferior practices, which do not contradict but promote the former, though at the same time v-they are not cxphcitly revealed. By many Independent churches, it is practised in many instances, and must there- fore, even in .'//c/r»opinion, be attended with advantage. The question, xdien the principle of expediency is to be followed, every Independent is as much bound to answer as the Presbyterian is, unless he maintain that there is an ex- plicit warrant in scripture for every practice in their churches. v^'An observance or practice indeed, though not expressly re- vealed, may be safely adopted, whenever it does not contra- dict any of the essential principles of government, or when it is warranted by other acknowledged general principles. Nor do we hesitate, again to assert, that this principle is admitted ar.d acted on by every society*. To follow the author * We may here notice, that this principle must be applied to rear'jlate tlie precise degree of frequericy wilh wiiich the Lord's ^Supper is to be celebrated, as we have already attempted to shewr Tliat it is not expressly revealed.' See Note in p. 212, et seq. Mr. Haldane indeed endeavours to prove that it is to be received every Sabbath; and aroiies tliat because it is said, 1 Cor. xi. 20, that when the disciples came together, they ate the Lord's Supper, and in chap. xvi. 2, that they came together oji the first day of the week, tliey must iiave observed this ordinance every first day of the week. But this arp-ument proves too much ; for if they <\\i\ eAt the Supper every time they came together, ihey must frequently have receiv- ed it twice or thrice a-week at least, for it is to be presumed that, like Independents, they mig:ht meet iu a church-capacity on other days than Sabbath. Why then do not Messrs, Haldane, Ewing, and Little, join in commemorating; the death of Jesus when they and their churches cotne together into one place, for public instruc- tion or private discipline, on the evenings of -Wednesday, or Thurs- day, or Fridiiy ? ■• It deserves to be remarked also, that as tlie apostle does not say that the Corinthians ahuays ate and draiik in the name of the Lord wlien they were met in a church-capacity, how does Mr. Haldane know liow frequently they did so ? ct h.ovv can he aCu'm that they did so weekly .> He tells us, hovi'sve!", thr.t it was thus frcq^uently 284 Appendix II. through the whole of his inconsistencies on the different sub- jects of which he treats, would neither be practicable within the narrow bounds of the present Appendix, nor connected with the principal design of the preceding Letters. 1 shall only point out, as shortly as possible, a few of his inaccura- cies on the subject oi government, as this alone is the ground of these inquiries. In reviewing his sentiments on this topic, it is impossible not to notice the very striking contradiction between his views and those of Messrs. Ewing and Little. Mr. Ewing, as we have shewn, p. 19, 20, 89, 90, most pointedly af- firms that every thing which is to be done, as ? part of ec- clesiastical government and discipline, is* not to be done in the presence of the people and only with their consent. Mr. Haldane, on the contrary, asserts, p. 15^, and otlier places, " that the tlders are to put the laws of Christ in execution, " but only with consent and in presence of the church." And one of the rules followed by Mr. Little in his Taber- nacle-church, as quoted in the Narrative referred to, p. l^, is, that every thing should be submitted to the vote of the members before it is iinally adopted. Mr. Haldane, on the contrary, while he maintains that nothing should be done without their consent, and while he contends, p. 212, " that <« every new member ought to be admitted by the unanimous observed bv Christians in the first and second century. But we have formerlv slinvvn, that tl.e Hrsjuinent is as conclusive in favour of daily as of ivceili/ co'i.iTiunion Besides, with what consistency can this artrument he usi d l)y one, vt-ho, in the very book which contains it, decidedly protests against its admission in religious dis- putes. " If any ot the relijjjious rites of any party," s:i)'s he, p. 51, " hf called in quesiion, do they not uniformly endeavour to esta- " blisli thesO-, by appealing to tlie practice of the primitive Chris- •' tians ? Indeed so far has this been carried, that the practice of " \\\p t'lre? first centuries aftc^r Christ has also been resorted to. " 'fliis has opened a iviJe door for ahvits It goes upon the suppo- " sition, that, durino thai time, the churches retained their original " puiity; but surely we may jeain fmm the corruptions in tiie " churclies, even in the days of the apostles, that this was most " imprdhable. We are even expressly w.irned upon this subject, " by being informed tfiat tlie my=tei v of iniquity was at work in " their time " But if it 'opens a ivid^ door for abuse, as he here as- serts, to ajipfa! to the practice of thf churches, after the apostles^ upon any question, why does Mr. Haldane, nr)t only on this ques- tion, but on thai ol haptism, p. 353, 334, exhibit a very striking instance of this impropriety ? Remarks, &c. 2SJ " voice of the church," objects very strongly to the practice of voting. *' We have no instance in the scriptures," says he, p. 372, " of any thing in the primitive churches being " decided by votes. , This appears at all times unnecessary, *' and can be attended vi'ith no good effect." It is mani- fest then, that among three of the most zealous of our Ta- bernacle Independents, there is a decided and important op- position of sentiment, on matters, too, which affect some of the first principles of Independency. Might not Mr. Hal- dane then, in his very laudable solicitude for the purity of the church, have bestowed a portion of his strictures and animadversions on his two erring brethren ; and, while he attempts to correct the errors of the membero of our Esta- blishment, have extended some salutary castigation to Messrs. Ewing and Little, of whom the former has advanced an opinion subversive of Independency, and the latter has not scrupled to avow a sentiment which, in Mr. Haldane's ap- prehension, is hostile to its interests ? To maintain, moreover, as Mr. Haldane here does, that every decision in an Independent congregation ought to be perfectly unanimous, and that, when this cannot be the case, no determination should be made, seems completely ridicul- ous. Suppose, as was remarked, p. 40, a case of discip- line to occur in an Independent church, in which a difference of opinion obtained how far a charge was distinctly proved — that the majority are fully satisfied that the person against whom it is brought is guilty, and that the minority profess themselves of an opposite mind ; nay, suppose that long and patient inquiry should be made into the matter, and that, as Mr. lialdine advises, much fervent prayer should be employ- ed, and that still the members cannot agree — what will be the consequence ? A majorily of ninety out of- a hundred members, who arc convinced that the person who is crimi- nated is guilty, are not to inflict on him the merited punish- ment, because they cannot persuade their brethren to adopt their views. Or if they do inflict it upon him, since una7ii- viitif must prevail among all vi'ho are associated as an Inde- pendent church, the minority must necessarily separate froni the majority. In every instance, of course, where the mi- nority cannot be persuaded to think with the majority, and where the laws of Christ must be put in execution, a separa- tion must take place, and new and more numerous Inde- pendent churches, from every r.ew minority, must conti- <<* 286 Appendix^ II. nually be forming. And, indeed, combining tbis favourite principle of jMessr?. Haldane and Glass with the asseition of Mr. Ewing, (see p. 90, and 91, of these Letters), that the members of a church may separate from their brethren, and form new societies, for difference of sentiment on the merest trifles, we have another very impressive and faithful representation of the schismatic tendency of the Independent scheme. Perfect unnnimiti/, say Messrs. Glass and Hal- dane, must be observed in all the decisions of the church — votes must be excluded ; and, till the unanimity can be fully attained, forbearance must be exercised, and the laws of Christ must not be executed. And when the period of this forbearance comes to an end, though the difference of senti- ment be upon a point which is trifling, the minority, says Mr. Ewing, are at perfect liberty, and are in duty bound, since unanimity is requisite in every church, to turn away from the majority, and erect themselves into a new congre- gation * ! ! ! The views which Mr. Haldane gives of tlte nature of the power which is claimed by Presbyterians are, like the state- ments of many other Independents, unfair and exaggerated. He calls it, for instance, like his predecessor Mr. Lockier, p. 158, " human authority or coercion," and in p. J59» " compulsory power." It has already however been at- * Since every member of an Independent congrejratinn is ad- mitted by the elder, who presides at the time, to state his opinion, and as nothin^more is expressed by a vote, I cannot see on what consistent grounds Messrs. Haldane and Glass can object to voting;. As the memliers of the churclies, too, mentioned in scripture, ac- cording to them, voted in the election both of Matthias and tlie first deacons, and as Independents still vote, in many congregations, in the election of their office-bearers, why may they not vote in other decisions? In a word, should it be said that the reasoning contained in the preceding Letters cannot be conclusive, because It proceeds upon ihe false supposition that all the members of an Independent congregMtion are allowed to vote in eV' ry business; it IS replied, that it can never be overthrown by tliis, for if they are not allowed to vote, they are undoubtedly permitted to express their judgment, and only in as far as it acf(irds with it can any pro- posil be carried. But in what respects this privilege "y/r/uj//^ differs from that of voting, or how the latter cnn be at'ended with worse eflVct", 1 acknowledge that I am utteily unable lo perceive. As Inrlependents, though they allow tlie members to speak, do not fiii-illy determine till they are completely unanimous, might not the fame tiling be done, even though a vote was taken ? Remarks, &c. 287 tempted to be proved (Letter II), that no more authority, nor coercion, nor compulsion, is assumed by Presbyterians than by Independents* ; and that the only difference be- tween the two is this, that, among the former, the elders alone are intrusted with the government, while, among the latter, though the elders are the nominal rulers, the people also must be consulted on every occasion. But this, as has at least been endeavoured to be established .in the Third Letter, is to constitute the persons who are appointed to be ruled, and who are far more numerous than the titular go- vernors, in reality the rulers. And to talk of governors^ as is done by this author, p. 262, and 263, ruling their congregations merely by presiding in their assemblies, and by persuading them to their duty, while they are totally un- able to injiict upon tlieni any pM«w-7i?HfH^ if they refuse to comply with their requisitions, seems to be very absurd-j-. ' * The same power which Mr. Haldane sny?, p. S??, line 21, " is in the church iisclf," and to which every menihi-r is subject ; a power which authorizes tliein, as he tells us, p, SJO, " it' they " look to Christ for direction, and form a deliberate judgment, to " act according to it against an offending member, luhcther he bd " (onviiiced or not :" the same power, we say, is all for which Pres- byterians contend for their office-hearers. They admit too with him, p. 258, that these office-bearers, who are rulers only under Jesus, have no more power io maL' laivs than Independents them- selves ascribe to their churches. 'I'hey allow also, as much as In- dependents themselves, that " rulers cannot require the church, or " any individual member, to submit to their decisions, unless they " can shew that the authority of Christ enjoins submission in that ♦' particular act." And at the same time they maintain, that " if " they look to Christ for direction, and form a deliberate judg- " ^ment, they must act according to it, whether those who are " under them are coii'uinccd or not" as Mr. Haldane declares, in the passage now quoted, must be done by the members of an Indepen- dent congregation to an offending brother. •}• High indeed was the esteem which was formerly professed by our author, and many of his friends, for the Rev. Rowland Hill, a man who once warmly patronised them. No man however, can speak more strongly in condemnation of the system which they now profess than this very writer, whom they certainly once ac- counted a man peculiarly distinguished for candour and charity. " One extreme," says he, p. 103, of his Remarks attached to his Journal, ax\A addressed to our aaikor, " generally produces ahother. " However I might be disposed to vote for the reduction cf the " Episcopacy of the English Church, yet I had much rather be " under the Right Reverend Fathers in God with us, than under " the jurisdiction of the Most Reverend Mothers in God among the 288 Appendix IL It is ol)served likewise by Mr. Haldane, p. 366, that *' the idea of a church of Christ sitting by its representa- " tives" (as the pastors or elders have improperly been called) " has no foundation in scripture — and that all the " stricter Independents. — Medio tutissitnus ills." Again, says he, p. 80. " To take a candid and general view of this mode of churcli- " discipline, (that of the Church of Scotland), lam not surprised, " allowing something for education, that, every class of Scceders *' should liave still adiicred to her gemrul rules. For, admitting in ♦' the first place, the just requisition of the choice of ministers to " rest with the people, it is but consistent that the further man- " agement should in a measure rest with others. If it be with the " people to appoint, and to accuse in case of misconduct; it i.-s " but reasonable that others should determine the justice of that " accusation. If tiie total controul rests with those that appointed " him to the office, the rule is perfectly reversed : Obey them " that have the mh over you, and submit yourselves; for they " watch for your souls, as they that must give account : that they " may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that is unprofitable " unto you: Heb. xiii. 17. For, supposing ilie controul to be with " the people, it is f/i.-^.that are to have the rule over him, and he must " tf admonished by them. He is neither shepherd, nor pastor, to " watch over; nor elder, to rule over them; nor bishop, to over- " see them : he knows nothing o^ authority but by their permission, " and is perfectly the creature of their caprice and controul. All dis- " putes, therefore, under such a frame of government, must ter- " minate in divisions. Nov^', in a strict Independent government," (and such a government it appears exists in all our Scotch Taber- nacle-congregations, that of Mr. Ewing excepted) " in a variety " of instances, this fact is principally proved, because arbritatiou " is wanting, and the Presbyterian government wisely provides for " th.is arbitration." And, in short, he remarks upon Heb. xiii. 17, that " some have " supposed the word iiyiof/.tsA would have been better translated by " the softer term, to lead or guide, than to rule. The softer," adds he, " the better, as tyranny is no more proper in the minister " over the people, than it is in the peor-ie over the minister. But •' I judge we have here a distinction without a difference. When " a man leads and guides, I think he may lie said to rule ; though " I confess the word rule, and especially when attended with that " oi submit, is us griping to the consequential old ladies in a strictly *' Independent church, as is tiie word tiey, in tlie marriage-service " of our English Liturgy, to many a feniale, when under the ne- " ccssity of promising, for once, what she never means afterwards " to perform ! !" If the word tiyioftcti here signifies to lead, it means, as was proved, Letter II. to lead or guide in a way whicii implies the exercise of authority, though at the same time not inconsistent with the use oi persuasion. Remarks, &c. 289 « directions given by the apostles to tlie churclies rcspect- " ing dissipliiie were evidently addressed to the whoitt *' church." In proof of this, he adduces what is said by Paul to the church of Corinth respecting the incestuous person. But for an attempt at least to refute his very su- perficial statement of this argument, as well as the more able objections of Mr. Cotton, the reader is referred to Letter VII. And as to his remark in that page, " that when the " whole church joins in an act of discipline, it is calculated *' more to impress the mind of the offender, to manifest the ♦' obedience of the whole to the laws of Christ, and to create *' a greater abhorrence of sin in the church, for thus passing « sentence on one another, they condemn themselves if they *' should ever act in a similar manner," it proves a great deal too much. On the same principle, it would be better to admit all the lieges in a city to join in performing an ac'. of civil juridical authority, than to commit that power to tht- magistrates alone: for it might be urged, with equal plau- sibiiity, that it is calculated more to impress " the mind of " an offender, to manifest the obedience of the communilv *' to the laws of the kingdom, and to create a greater ab- *' horrence of the crime in them, for thus passinr sentence " on another, they would condemn themselves if they should " ever act in a similar manner." The sophistry of this reasoning is obvious, whether applied to church or politics. And if the lieges of a city, by submitting to the authority exercised by their magistrates when they inflict punishment upon any offender, as really express their obedience to the law, and their abhorrence of the crime, as if they them.selves, in any sense., had been judges — nayj if, by submitting to that power which publicly pronounces sentence upon another, they as incontestably condemn themselves, if they should ever act in a similar manner, as if they had been magistrates, is not the same thing manifest as to the members of the church ? Another passage brought forward by Mr. Haldane, t» shew that the people are to be admitted in every matter of government to an equahty of power, with respect to judging, with the nominal rulers, is Iviatth. xviii. 17. And in coa- firmation of the arguments of Independents from this place, he fills up almost ten pages of his book with a quotatioa from Dr. Campbell, an author to whotfi he is not a little in- debted ; and with very copious citations from whose Lec- •2D0 AprEXDix II, tures on Cliurch-bistory, his friend Mr. Evving, with the editors of the late Edinburgh Quarterly Magazine and Li- verpool Repository, have frequently enriched their writings. For an examination however of the remarks of the Doctor, and of Independents in general, upon that celebrated passage, sec Letter VI. There it is observed, that by the church mentioned in Matth. xviii, to which offences are to be told, Mr- Parker of Tsiew England, a very eminent Independent, honestly allows that the first time it occurs, it means expressly the aristocratic part, or the elders : " Prsecise partem aris- *' tocraticam, id est presbyterium." There, too, it is at least endeavoured to be proved, that, in Acts viii, the term church denotes the office-bearers, and they alone ; and that, even upon the interpretations of this place which have been given by the most famous Independent writers, it is an argu- ment for Presbytery, and not for Independency, though it is urged by Mr. Haldane, with the rest of his brethren, as supporting the latter only, ^.et us hear, however, what is said by this distinguished writer, whose authority is quoted by Mr. Haldane, and under whose reasoning he seems more Avilling to shelter himself than under his own. " Let it be <• observed," says he, as cited by our author, p. 148, " that *' our Lord gave these directions during the subsistence of ** the Mosaic establishment ; and if we believe that he spoke *' intelligibly, or with a view to be understood, we must be- ♦' lieve also, that he used the word in an acceptation with << which the hearers were acquainted. Dodvvell himself *< saw the propriety of this rule of interpreting (Distinction ♦' between Soul and Spirit, Sec. sect, vii), when he said, <' It very much confirms me in my reasonings, when I find an *' interpretation of the scriptures not only agreeable to the «' words of the scripture, but agreeable also to the notions *« and significations of words then received. For that sense " which was most likely to be then understood was, in all «< likelihood, the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost " himself. Otherwise there could be no security that his *' true sense could be conveyed to future ages, if they had " been themselves mistaken in it, to whose understanding ♦« the Holy Ghost was then particularly concerned to ac- '< commodate himself.' Now all the then known accepta- ** tions," says the Doctor, '• as I shewed before, of the name *< ixx.Ma-tx, were these two, the whole Jewish people, aiid a " particular congregation. The scope of the place suffi- Remarks, &c. 291 •' ciently shews it could not be the former of these senses ; " it must therefore be the latter. What further confii-ms " this interpretation is, that the Jews were accustomed to " call those assemblies which met together for worship in " the same synagogue by this appellation, and had, if we " may believe some learned men conversant in Jewish anti- " quities, a rule of procedure similar to that here recom- " mended, which our Lord adopted from the synagog^, " and transplanted into his church." Now admitting, as is observed in Letter VL the Doctor's remark, which Mr. Haldane quotes as one of the bulwarks of his system, that the Jews were accustomed to call those assemblies which met together for w rship in the same synagogue Ly this appella- tion, and allowing that they had a rule similar to that which is here recommended, a consequence very diiferent from what is apprehended either by the Doctor, or the writer before us, appears necessarily to follow. It seems unavoidably to result from it, as was before proved, that, as in a Jewish synagogue, though the offence is told in the hearing of the members, it is those who are distinguished by the" name of rulers, and they alone, even without asking the opinion or consent of the members, that are to judge and determine. Such it was before evinced from the concessions of Good- win, who says, t!iat " there never could be less than three *' rulers in any synagogue, that a major vote 'might cast it " among them ;" and such also, as was established from the authority both of Josephus and Maimonides, were the persons who administered these Jewish assem,blies, and with- out soliciting the consent of the people. This quotation from Dr. Campbell therefore, instead of supporting this ar- gument for Independency, appears completely to overthrow it ; and proves, that though the members of a Christian church, like those of a Jewish synagogue, may be allowed to hear the complaint which is presented by a brother tor those who are rulers against one who offends him, it is the office-bearers alone, without the consent or concurrence of the members, that are to judge of the com.plaint, as it was they alone who judged of similar matters in a Jewish syna- gogue. It is affirmed by Mr. Kaldane, p. 164:, that by "the ** whole church," as it is translated in our Bibles, who are represented as joining in the decree of the apostles a^id el- ders at Jerusalem, (Acts xv. 22), members who had no of- Bb2 J92 Appendix IL icial character are intended. But before this is admitted!, "' is requested that wliat is mentioned, I^etter XVI. p. 221, ■-.'22, may be answered. And if this should be answered, it i;; begged that what is stated, Letter VIII. may be fair- ly refuted, before any argument can be deduced from that passage, for the right of members in the present day to 'Oge in every matter of ecclesiaGtical government. And, 'c'd, as Mr. Haldane expressly maintains that the decision ■nca was pronounced by the apostles and elders at Jerusa- n -ivaa an inspired decision, the reason which he asigns for -•.ing unir.r-pired members to assist at this consultation is :.y extraordinary. " It may appear strange," says he, " that ii a revelation was to be given respecting this matter, *• the whole church should be joined in the decree of the '• apostles, or that they and their elders, as well as the " apcstles, skouid ic called together to considt. But by " this means a great end was gained. The church heard " all that could be said upon the subject, together with the '• decision of the chosen witnesses and ambassadors of Christ, *' .and thus no doubt, would be disposed the more readily " to embrace uncircumcised Gentiles as brethren in Christ." Though this however might be a very good reason for al- lowing the members of the charcli at Jerusalem to hear the rlelibcrations and determination of this assembly, which Mr. Haldane describes as an inspired assembly, it appears, in every view, difncult to conceive how it could rendtr it proper to admit men who were not inspired to consult with the former upon the present qiiestion. Could those wha were in this situation add any thing to the information of those who were guided by an immediate miraculous in- iluence ; or for what purpose could those who were aided simply by their own sagacity be called together to consult, as Mr. Haldane affirms, with those who were directed by this extraordinary energy ? The third subject of inquiry contained in these Letters, iiamely, Whetiicr there should be a class of elders who are only to rule, while there are others who preach as well as rule, is very cursorily examined by Mr. Haldane. He de- nies tliat there should be sucli an order, p. 2^0, and bollly asaurts that the institution of it " was one of the steps of th.G " mystery of iniquity by which the man of sin acquired such " power." But, in opposition to this, the reader is re- cjuc-lcd to peruvo with impartiality Letters IX. X. and XL Remarks, &c. 29S v/her^ it is endeavoured to be proved, ihat this is an ofnce, founded on reason, prescribed by scripture, and distinguish- ed by the approbation of the most zealous and orthodox primitive fathers in the ages immediately posterior .to the apostles. Let him consult especially' the testimony produ- ced from the writings which have frequently been ascribed to Ambrose, p. 126, to the existence of this particular order of elders in the earliest periods of the christian church ; and to his declaration that it was on account of the discontinuance of this order, at the time at which he hved, that the power of the clergy had become so enormous : — the words of Bu- cer, which are there quoted, respecting the Bohemian churches, " who alone almost," as he remarks, " . resei'ved " in the ivorld the purity of the doctrine, and the vigour «< of the discipHne of Christ," amidst the universal corruption of the Romish church, and who had this order among them. Let him recollect, as is there stated, that it was to check, these excesses which were ^.cactised at that period by the Ro- mish clergy, that Calvin, at the Reformation, revived these elders. Let him attend to the fact, that Roman Catholics and episcopalians are nut less zealous than Independents a- gainst this class of rulers ; that^ as is remarked by the learn- ed Dr. Owen (himself an Independent), p. \^% there is not one nev/ argument advanced against the passage in 1 Tim. V. 17, which has frequently been urged for ruling elders — i;ot one exception given in to the affixing such a sense to it, but what has long since been coined by Papists and Prela- tists, and managed whh better colours than the Indepen- dents of his day were able to lay on them. Let him reflect, we say, upon these things, and then consider what he must think of the swaggering assertion of this author, that the institution of this order vv'as one of the steps of the mystery of iniquity by which the man of sin acquired such power! ! ! Rash, indeed, and unfounded as is this assertion, respect- ing the tendency of this order, it m.ust be acknowledged to be less wonderful than some of the arguments by which he endeavours to shew that this order is not appointed in scrip- ture. The ministers, he says, are called by Presbyterians the Clergy, or, as the Greek word from which it comes literally signifies, the men who are the peculiar inheritance of God, and the elders who rule but do not preach, Lay- elde Sj or the Laity. He next attempts to show that the Bb3 294' JIemarks, Lc. first of these r.ames, ouglit to be appropriated to ministers, and that the people are as really a part oi" the clergy, or of the iflhciitance of the Lord, as the pastors; and having produ- ced, in support of this, six very humorous pages from Dr. Gaiiipbell's L,ectures, imagines that he has proved to the satisfaction of all, that there ought to be no such thing as the office of lay-elders, who rule and do not preach. But ■what connection this conclusion has with these premises, I profess myself completely unable to discover. Because some , have applied to the elders wl)o both teach and rule, and those who only rule, the names Clergy and Lay-ciders, therefore there can be no such office as that of elders who rule but do not preach ! ! How astonishing ! The man who can discern how the one of these sentiments follows from the other, possesses indeed no comm.on portion of ingenuity and sagacity. Might it not as well be concluded, from the application of improper names to these elders, that there thould not be an order of elders in the church, who are to preach and rule, as to infer, merely from the misapplica- tion of these names to them (even granting it to be a misap- plication), that there should not be a class of eiders who are only to rule ? Does IVIr. Haldane, moreover, need to be informed^ that even Calvin himself, the great reviver and champion for Presbytery, at the era of the Reformation, denies the distinction which he here reprobates, and yet strongly and expressly contends for these elders ? Is he not sensible also, if he is willing to acknowledge it, that such Presbyterians as retain the terms Clergy and Lay-elders do not use them in the sense in which he represents them as employed by the Romish church ? Will he venture to come forward, and, as an honest man, declare, whether it is an essential principle of Presbytery to require all who are con- nected with it to beheve, as he would insinuate, p. 2S1, by his quotation from Dr. Campbell, that the ministers, who preach as well as rule, are called Clergy, " as being in this <* present world God^s peculi urn, or special inheritance ?" — or that the members of its congregations at large, and elders who only rule in particular, are denominated Laymen, in common writings and conversations, from a Greek word which signifies a stone, because they resem.ble a stone (see p. 234), in ignorance and insensibihty ? Do they adopt the opinion of Altensfaig in his Lexicon, which he cites with very great approbation from D;-. Campbell, when rea- Remarks, &c. 295 soniiig against them ? "A clergyman signifies a learned *' man, scientific, skilful, full of"kno'vvledge, accomplished, " and intelligent. A layman, on the contrary, signifies an " unlearned man, unskilful, silly, and slony ?" ^ And is every clergyman in their opinion, as we are told that he was in his, as quoted by Mr. Hsldane, " in so far as he is a *' clergyman, respectable ; and every layman, so far as he is " such, despicable ?" Or do they adopt the sentiments of Cardinal Bona, as -copied from Dr. Campbell, p. 235, in re- lation to the care that should be taken by the clergy, that laymen may not be allowed to do ihemsehes harm by studij- ing the frofounder 'parls cf scripture, which their stupidity, as he expresses it, is utterly incapable of comprehending ? " Concerning laymen," says he, " in whom pride the *' mother of blindness reigns, so far as respects those things <' which regard faith and morals. For when like idiots, " they presume to explain the sacred writings, which are the *' m.ost profound of all writings ; and again, when they " happen to possess any external accomplishments, they de- " spise all others, and being thus doubly blinded by pride, " they deservedly fall into that worst error through which " they are infatuated by God, so that they know not how " to discern what is good and what is evil. Wherefore, let *' not laymen read all the books of the sacred- scripture." Will Mr. Haldane maintain that such is the acceptation in which the terms under review are understood by Presbyte- rians ; or that such are the views entertained by the Church of Scotland of the Clergy and Lay -elders, as they are called by some, or of the Laity in general ? Is not all that is meant when her ministers or members speak of her clergy, persons whg are ordained to teach and rule ; and when they talk of lay-elders, those of the people who are elders in the church, and yet are only to rule and not to preach ? And upon what principle of common sense can it be made to appeal", that because neither the te7-ms Clergy nor Elders are to be found in scripture, there cannot be two separate classes of office-bearers, one who preach as well as rule, and another who rule but do not preach ? It is granted by Tvlr. Haldane, p. 237, that there may be a diversity of gifts among elders, and that it is not improper for each of them peculiarly to apply his mind to, and to be chiefly engaged in that particular part of duty for which he is best qualified. " One man may be best quahfied for la- 2db Appendix li. . " boiiring in public ; another may be his Gnpcrior in con- - " versation, and may more eminently promote the edification " of the church by more private admonition and instruction." The truth of tliis remark he illustrates by two "-nstances, taken from characters in political life. " Dr. Franklin, " says he, so justly celebrated for his wisdom and genius, " seldom or never made a speech in Congress ; yet such was " the estimation of his judgment and penetration, that his " opinion, delivered in a short sentence or two, had generally " the greatest weight. Mr. Addison had no talents for " public speaking, and yet he was secretary of state. Had *' these men been members of a church, and excelled as " much in the knowledge of divine things as they did in "other things, would they not have been eminently quali- " lied for overseeing or feeding the flock of God i" Now, if, as was before proved, there is to be a diversity of offices in the church of Christ corresponding to the diversified gifts of the members, and if there be some members, though ad- mirably fitted for ruling, as little qualified for being preach- ers as Dr. Franklin or Mr. Addison were for being public speakers, is it not evident, even upon his own principles, that there should be some elders who are only to rule and not to preach in the church of God ? In confirmation of hisi remarks upon the necessity of a di- versity of cccleaiastical offices corresponding to the diversi- fied gifts of the members, he refers us to 1 Tim v. 17. " Let the ciders who rule well be counted worthy of double " lionour, especially they who labour in the word and doc- " trine. That by double honour," says he, here is meant " larger temporal saiDport* is evident not only from the fre- " quent use of the word n/Lcn in this sense, but from the " reason of the precept ; for, adds the apostle. Thou shalt " not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn ; and the *' labourer is worthy of his reward ; ver. 18. This support " is to be bestowed both on those who rule, and on those " who preach, although more abundantly on the former. «« Some," says he, " in order to avoid a distinction be- " tween preacliin^ and ruling elders, consider the precept " to respect those elders who are laborious in the discharge <' of their duty ; but this implies the absurdity of the church " being called to support in a liberal manner elders who " were not laborious. The meaning of the precept seems ♦' obvious, that the elders who faithfully discharge their Remarks, : .!g the scriptuz-es ? . ,« THE END. EDINBURGH i Printed l>y A, Airman, DATE DUE ' 11 IM 1 r tft7 w %j\jri i- D f?»'/ /'^ CAYLORO rHINTKOINU.S*. 1 1012 01031 8873