# 'ir 
 
 
 m > 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 v 
 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 O N 
 
 MR. DICK’S SERMON 
 
 CONCERNING THE 
 
 QUALIFICATIONS AND CALL 
 
 OF 
 
 MISSIONARIES, 
 
 PREACHED BEFORE 
 
 m 
 
 THE EDINBURGH MISSIONARY SOCIETY, 
 
 On Tuesday^ March 31. 1801. 
 
 
 By GREVILLE EWING. 
 
 Holdfast the form of sound words* 
 What saith the Scripture P 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 prints fif Bitett, Bapiet arm ftfjuIT, ttongate; 
 
 and sold £7 D. Niven, J. & A. Duncan, and M. Ogle, Glasgow 
 and Ogle & Airman, Edinburgh, 
 
 l8oi. 
 
 I 
 

• Jv-i-j .ja&.’jrs&natmimf. ' X* wgM g —u rj anA 1 .jn.ummeia ».<» w>w w h hmu 
 
 Pv E IVI ARKS 
 
 QH 
 
 MR. DICK'S SERMON. 
 
 
 Every attentive reader of this well written difcourfe, mull be 
 ftruck with the difference, between the dodtrine of the preacher, and 
 the pra&ice of the Society before whom he delivered his fentiments. 
 After the refolution of thanks, and requeft that the Sermon might 
 be printed, confiftency would have required a propofal, that the 
 Society fhould fubjoin a recantation of their errors, and an exhor¬ 
 tation to the public, to give them no more aid, till they fliould 
 cffedt a material alteration of their plan. Upon comparing the 
 Sermon, acknowledged by the Society to be excellent, with the 
 report of the Directors which follows, one cannot but remember 
 poor Richard’s remark concerning the fage quotations that had 
 been made from his Almanack. “ The old gentleman, fays he, 
 ended his harangue. The people heard it, and approved the 
 dodlrine, and immediately pradlifed the contrary, juft as if it 
 <s had been a c-ommon Sermon.” 
 
 But if the dodhine of the preacher be right, by all means let 
 the pradtice of the Society be condemned. The following remarks 
 are not made with a defire of vindicating the Society, further 
 than their condudl may be found to be countenanced by the 
 word of God. The members, who were prefent, had, no doubt, 
 their reafons for approving of w'hac they had heard. Members, who 
 can feldom attend, efpecially thofe who live at a diftance, may not 
 
 A % 
 
 «< 
 
 << 
 
[ 4 3 
 
 be competent judges of every ffep of the Society’s procedure. 
 It is not to the Society therefore, but to the Sermon which they 
 have published for their benefit, that our attention is now to be 
 turned. A Sermon, when publifhed, is fubmitted to univerfal 
 examination; and if affertions, contained in it, fhall appear to any 
 man, to be unwarrantable, or of dangerous tendency, he has a 
 right, publicly, to call them in queflion. 
 
 Afferting this right for myfelf, I beg leave, at the fame time, 
 to premife, that for the talents and character of Mr. Dick, I have 
 the moft fincere refpeCL Though I have never had the pleafure 
 of his converfation, or of hearing him preach, I have feen his late 
 excellent Effay on the Infpiration of the Scriptures, and have 
 ever fince warmly recommended it, to all who with for informa¬ 
 tion on fo important a fubjeCt. In what follows, I find no fault 
 with the Preacher, but only with his fyftem. I wifh to confine 
 the reader’s pttention limply to the matter in debate, and, while 
 I ufe great plainnefs of fpeech, as to the argument; if a fingle 
 fentiment or expreffion like want of politenefs, or fretfulnefs at 
 another man’s liberty of confcience, fhould efcape me, it is what I 
 do not intend, and I fhall certainly be ready, upon conviction, to 
 acknowledge my error, and to afk pardon. 
 
 Our Author thinks, “ there can be no difpute about the text.” 
 (A6ts xiii. 2. P. 4.) The text is indeed fo very plain, that 
 it would feem, as if there needed to be no difpute about it. 
 But of deputation many are the caufes, befides obfeurity; and 
 we often find difference of opinion aCtually exifting, where it was 
 leaf! to have been expeCted. This is remarkably the cafe, in 
 expofitions of Scripture, and particularly of this very text, about 
 the meaning of which our Author is fo confident. Thus, the 
 phrafe, which our tranflators very properly render, “ As they 
 “ miniflered to the X,ord,” Erafmus renders, “ Cam autem tilt 
 * i facrijicarent Domino.” Improving upon fo laudable an example, 
 Corbin, in his French verfion, rendered the paffage, “ Eux cele - 
 
 brans le faint facrijtce de la mejfe ;” and after him, Father 
 E’er on , 4< Les Apotres celebroient la mejfe au Seigneur. *” The 
 r-eafon which Veron offers for tranflating it in this manner, is 
 
 * See Campbell’* Preliminary Differtations, p. 537, 
 
[ 5 3 
 
 Fecaufe the Calvinills had often alked him in what paltage of 
 Scripture it was mentioned that the Apoftles ever faid mafs* 
 That Father, that he might not again be at a lofs for an anfwcr 
 to fuch troublefome queriils as he had found in thofc difciples of 
 Calvin, was refolved that, whether the mafs had a place in the 
 original or not, or even in the Vulgate (the authorized verfion of 
 the Church of Rome) it Ihould (land forth confpicuous in his 
 tranflation, fo that no perfon could miflake it. We may perhaps 
 be difpofed to laugh at this man now, as if he had been merely a 
 bigotted fimpleton. But we may depend upon it, this was by no 
 means the cafe. -Whatever might be his bigotry, he wanted not 
 fufhcient addrefs to prer.oh to the times, to gain the approbation 
 of his brethren, and to fecure not only the literary, but the lucra¬ 
 tive honours, which a proud and opulent hierarchy had it in their 
 power to bellow. It appears from the title of his book, that he 
 was, 44 Docleur en Theologie, Predicateur et Ledkeur du Roi 
 44 pour les controverts. Depute par Nos-feigneurs du Clerge, 
 44 pour ecrire fur icelles.” And to Ihew of what confequence 
 he thought thefe particulars were to qualify him as a ti'anflator, 
 t he obferves in his preface, that, 44 the quality of holy writ well 
 44 deferves, on feveral important accounts, that its tranflators 
 44 (hould be Dodtors. in Theology, and efpecially well verfed in 
 44 controverfes.” 
 
 Neither Hi all we find greater harmony refpedling the principal 
 claufe in the text, 44 Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work 
 44 whereunto I have called them.” Mr. Dick tells us, (and l 
 ' confefs many Dodlors in Theology are of the fame opinion) that 
 here, 44 a command is given to the prophets and teachers in the 
 44 church of Antioch, to Jet apart two perfons, eminently quail- 
 44 lied for the work which the Holy Ghoft had affigned to them,. 
 44 of promulgating the gofpel among the heathens.” By the phrafe 
 fitting apart, he avowedly means ordination by the church, to the 
 work of the miniftry. Now, after all the attention I have been able 
 to give to the paffage, I am either fo ftupid, perhaps, or fo perverfe, 
 as to alfert, in diredt contradidlion of our Author, (and there are 
 Dodlors in Theology on my fide too*) that his text does not fpeak 
 one fingle fyllable on the fubjedt of ordination at all. 
 
 * Doctors Whitby, Doddridge, and Macknight in his life of Paul 
 
C 6 ] 
 
 The expreffion, u Separate me,” which is the text, and “ fct 
 apart/’ or, “ folemnly fet apart,” which are the paraphrafes, 
 will not he found altogether fynonymous. It remains to be con- 
 {idered, whether the Holy Ghofl meant, u Separate me Barnabas 
 s< and Saul from your company, that they may go elfewhere to 
 i( the diflant work to which I have called themor, whether 
 he meant, “ Ordain them to that work.” The following are all 
 the other places in the New Teflament in which the word here 
 rendered, feparate, occurs: Matth xiii. 49. and xxv. 32. Luke 
 vi. 22. Adis xix. 9. Rom. i. 1. 2 Cor. vi. 17. Gal. i. 15. and 
 ii. 12. I leave it with the reader to judge, from the plain fignh 
 fication of the word, and its general application in the above paf- 
 fages, which of the meanings dated is likely to be the true one. 
 I am aware that in Rom. i. 1. the word means feledtion, or ap¬ 
 pointment, or, if you will, ordination, to the work of the gof- 
 pel; but not the ordination treated of .in the Sermon before us. It 
 is the ordination of God, which Paul, in Gal. i. 15. exprefsly 
 oppofes to ordination by the church. The diftindtion he is there 
 making is not between himfelf, and “ a miffionary merely of men;” 
 (P. 25.) but between himfelf and a miffionarv of men, in any 
 fenfe whatever. u Paul an apoftle, fays he, not of men, neither 
 * £ by man, but by Jefus Chrift, and God the Father.” And, 
 in verfes, 15, 16, 17. “ But when it pleafed God, who feparated 
 “ me from mv mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to 
 reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the hea- 
 ,£ then; immediately I conferred not with flelh and blood,” (i. e. 
 I did not immediately confult with man) “ neither went I up to 
 u Jerufalem to them which were apoilles before me,” See. It is 
 remarkable that wherever ordination, by the inftrumentality of 
 man is fpoken of, the words are quite different from that which 
 is ufed in the text before us ; whereas when any word at all re¬ 
 lated to the one in the text occurs, in the fenfe of ordination, it 
 uniformly frgnifies the ordination or fovereign appointment of 
 God. For the truth of this obfervation, thofe who are ac¬ 
 quainted with the original may examine the following paffages: 
 A£U xiv. 23. Tit. i. 5. and compare them with Luke xxii. 22. 
 A£Is ii. 23. and iv. 28. and x. 42. and xvii. 26, 31. Rom. i. 4, 
 and viik 29, 30. 1 Cor. ii. 7. Eph. i. 5, 11. Heb. iv. 7. 
 
[ 7 3 
 
 But the meaning of our text may be eafily afcevtained, without 
 the aid of verbal criticifm I never can make any thing of a paf* 
 fage of fcripture, unlefs I attend to its connexion, and therefore 
 beg leave to quote the three firil veries of the chapter at once. 
 
 “ Now there were in the church that was at Antioch, certain 
 “ prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was 
 4< called Niger, and Lucius of Gyrene, and Manaen, which had 
 M been brought up with Herod the tetrarcb, and Saul. As 
 “ they miniftered to the Lord, and failed, the Holy Ghoft faid, 
 “ Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I 
 “ have called them. And when they had failed and prayed, and 
 “ laid their hands on them, they fent them away.” When Paul 
 had to write about fome prophets and teachers in the church at 
 Corinth, he fays, i Cor. iv. 6. “ Thefe things, brethren, I 
 
 “ have in a figure transferred to myfelf, and to Apollos, for your 
 “ fakes.” Perhaps it may tend to elucidate the paifage under re- 
 view, if we be permitted to make a fimiiar transference; and 
 let it be made to a body of men as nearly agreeing as poflible, at 
 leail in their official chara&er, to Mr. Dick’s notion of the pro¬ 
 phets and teachers in the church that was at Antioch. Take 
 then the lift of the clergy of Edinburgh, as it is given in the Al¬ 
 manack of the prefent year, and fuppofe the hiftory to run thus: 
 4< Now there were in the church that was at Edinburgh, certain 
 Si prophets and teachers; as 
 
 ii EIugh Blair, D. D. 
 t( James Finlayfon, D. D. 
 i( Henry Grieve, D. D. 
 %i Andrew Brown, D. D. 
 * l David Dickfon, 
 
 41 William Gloag, D. D. 
 ** George Baird, D. D. 
 <£ Andrew Hunter, D D. 
 
 u "William Simpfon, 
 
 “ John Kemp, D. D, 
 
 “ Tho. Davidfon, D. D. 
 
 “ John Erikine, D. D. 
 
 “ John Inglis, 
 
 “ David Black, 
 
 “ John Thomfon, t). D. and 
 “ W. Moodie, D D. 
 
 H As they miniftered to the Lord, and faded, the Eloly Ghoft 
 H faid, Separate me Hugh Blair and W, Moodie, for the 
 work whereunto I have called them. And when they had faft- 
 “ ed, and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they fent them 
 u away.” Would any man, taking this paifage for his text, fay, 
 that it contained a command to the prophets and teachers in the 
 
'[ 8 ] 
 
 church of Edinburgh, to ordain the faid Hugh Blair and 
 W. Moodie, or even to recognife and confirm their ordination ? 
 ( P 27.) How Ihould they ordain men who were ordained already ? 
 For recognifmg and confirming their ordination, there might have 
 been Tome caufe, had they been newly received as profelytes from 
 another church, or even if they had been tranfported (the tech¬ 
 nical term in this country for removal to a new living) from fome 
 other fettlement in the fame church; but to think of recognifmg 
 and confirming the ordination cf men, whofe names ftcod in the 
 roll, who had long been numbered with the reft of their colleagues, 
 whofe ordination was in fadl recognifed in every meeting, and 
 every adl of the fociety, and who had been before employed in fi- 
 milar work to that to which they were now called, fecms altoge¬ 
 ther unaccountable. The hiftory certainly fays no more than this, 
 that Hugh Blair and W. Moodie, being called away from the 
 church that was at Edinburgh upon a million to the heathen, (a 
 bufinefs in which they had already been tried, and which they were 
 well known to have greatly at heart) their brethren were command¬ 
 ed to acquiefce in the difpenfation, and to fend them away for that 
 important undertaking; and that accordingly they did fo, in a 
 very affedlionate and pious manner, expreffing their tendernefs at 
 parting, and the interefl they felt in their fafety, comfort, and 
 fuccefs in the intended million, by falling, prayer, and laying on 
 of hands. The laft mentioned circumftance gives no countenance 
 to the dream about ordination; for whether impofition of hands be 
 a rite, which belonged elfentially to ordination or not, it v unqu-ef- 
 t ion ably was not confined to ordination. 
 
 The application of thefe remarks mull be obvious to every 
 one, who obferves the names of Bttrnabas and Saul among the 
 prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch, who confiders 
 how long they had officiated there (Adis xi. 26.) and how ex- 
 tenfively and fuccefsfully they had laboured as Milfionaries before 
 they came there. If it ftill be polfible to doubt, we may remark 
 further, that Paul and his fellow labourers, were feparated, as in 
 the text, to Miftionary -work, more than once. By attending to 
 the hiftory, it will be found, that the feparation mentioned in 
 our text, referred to that particular million of which the account 
 is comprehended in the xiiith and xivth chapters, at the conch*- 
 
C 9 ] 
 
 fi on of which we are informed that the Miffionaries returned tg> 
 Antioch, “ from whence they had been recommended to the 
 “ grace of God, for the work which they fulfilled.” Here then 
 was an end of the fuppofed ordination of our text; and accord¬ 
 ingly, at fetting out upon another million (x^dts xv. 40.) we 
 find Paul “ recommended by the brethren to the grace of God** 
 again. 
 
 The text before us, therefore, does not fpeak of ordination, 
 but of fervent prayer for Paul and Barnabas, in the view of their 
 going upon one of thole millions which they fulfilled in company 
 with each other. Whatever our Author may mean by “ that 
 “ authoritative publication of the word of God, which conftitutes 
 “ the true idea of preaching in the Nev^ Teftament, and which 
 ii belongs excluftvely to thofe, who, by their office and million, 
 u are ambaffadors of Chrift:(P. 30.) I hope 1 fhall be allowed 
 “ to alfert, that, “ without the fandtion of the text, we are not 
 “ warranted to conhder a pretended authoritative publication as 
 “ regular, or in any fenfe valid .” (P. 25.) 
 
 Befides the radical miftake about the meaning of the fubjedf, 
 feveral expreffions and fentiments occur in the Difcourfe which 
 require examination. The firft head, is an inquiry into the cha- 
 radter and qualifications of Miffionaries, and includes live particu¬ 
 lars, all very good in themfelves, but not unexceptionable in fom$ 
 parts of their illuftration. 
 
 Thus, it is faid under the article of Piety, that Judas ifcariot 
 “ was as truly an Apoftle as Peter and John.’* (P. 7.) Nobody 
 can deny the. call of Judas to be an i\poftle, or his million, during 
 the abode of Chrift upon earth, to announce,to the houfe of Ifrael 
 the approach of the kingdom of heaven. But when we fpeak in 
 general terms of the Apoftoiic office, we can hardly call Judas 
 as truly an Apoftle as Peter and John; for none of the twelve 
 can be conftdered as having been properly qualified for their work, 
 far lefs as having actually performed it, until they had feen the 
 Hord after his refurredtion, had received the commiffion to go 
 into all the world and preach the gofpel to every creature, and had 
 been baptized with the Holy Ghoft on the day of Pentecoft. Such 
 undue ftrefs feems often to be laid on the cafe of Judas, as to ex¬ 
 cite concern, rather about the official credentials, than the perfon- 
 
 B 
 
r>o ] 
 
 al chara&er, or even the dodlrine and difcipline of a minifler of 
 the gofpel. Judas was no longer acknowledged as an Apoflle, 
 than he could, in the judgment of charity, be acknowledged 
 as a difcfple of Chrift. As foon as it was difcovered, that he 
 was a traitor, his 44 call to the office of the miniilty” went 
 for nothing, and the prophetical precept was obeyed, 44 his 
 “ bifhopric let another take.” As to the error, mentioned by 
 our Author, of conne&ing the validity and fuccefs of ordinances, 
 either with the piety or intention of the adminiftrators; if we 
 would only admit, that, 44 neither is he that planteth any thing, 
 41 neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increafe,” 
 we could not fail to fee, that God giveth validity to his ordinances* 
 not becaufe of the men who difpenfe them, but becaufe of his own 
 gracious will which hatft appointed their obfervance- 
 
 Under the fame particular, another pafiage occurs, which, howv 
 ever plaufible, feems by no means to breathe a proper fpirit. 
 44 Warmth of zeal, which generally creates a flrong prejudice in 
 44 favour of thofe by whom it is difplayed, is no fure tell of piety, 
 44 becaufe it may proceed from temperament, from imagination, 
 44 or from vanity, as well as from faith and love; and a fhow of 
 44 eagernefs to make public exertions for the propagation of reli» 
 44 gion is not merely an equivocal , but even a fufpicious fgn, efpe- 
 44 cially in thofe, who feemed, by the obfcurity of their condition, and 
 44 their want of education , to be deflined to glorify God, folely by 
 <ss the filent and unobferved difcharge of relative - duties. A truly 
 44 pious man glows with a defire to promote the honour of Chrift; 
 is but he is diffident from a fenfe of his own weaknefs and prone- 
 44 nefs to err; and inftead, therefore, of courting, he is difpofed to 
 st decline , ftatfcms of eminence and difficulty. A fteady practice 
 u of religious and moral duties, accompanied with modefty and 
 44 humility, is a more favourable fymptorn of genuine, undifTem- 
 44 bled piety, than fudden fts of 'zeal, and tranfports of devotion." 
 (P. 8. and 9.) Far be it from me to afcribe all zeal to piety, 
 or to defend any thing like forwardnefs, inftability, or enthufiafm ; 
 but when, in unqualified terms, a fhow of eagernefs for propagat¬ 
 ing the gofpel is called a fufpicious Jign, efpecially if it appear, in 
 men of low degree; when true piety, in fuch perfons, is abfolute- 
 ly oppofed to endeavours after general uiefulnefs; when theft 
 
[ 11 3 
 
 are reprefented as a courting of ftations of eminence and difficulty, 
 and as arifing from fucldcn Jits of %eal and tranfports of devotion ; 
 
 I own I am (hocked alike at the fentiments and the language. 
 After receiving a liberal education, and being “ folemrdy fet 
 44 apart” to the office and authority of the Clerical order, men 
 are extremely apt to forget the rock whence they were hewn, 
 2nd the hole of the pit whence they were digged. Having 
 attained ftations of eminence, and a reverend appellation, they 
 too often frown upon all below them, and fpeak loftily of the 
 prefumption even of thofe, who are guilty, at the utmoft, of 
 nothing more, than an attempt to follow their own example. If 
 all who have devoted themfelves to what is called the ftudy of 
 JDivinity are to be fufpe&ed, becaufe they difcovered eagernefs to 
 become Preachers, and that while yet in an obfcure condition, 
 and without education; I (hould be glad to know, why nine- 
 tenths of all the clergy in Scotland, of every denomination, 
 fhould not be involved in that fufpicion ? or why fufpicion fhould 
 fall upon Miffionaries more than upon other men? 
 
 Relpedting the article of knowledge, it will be allowed, on all 
 hands, that perfons (hould never be fent to teach others, what they 
 know not themfelves. It feems extremely rafh, however, to affert 
 foUndly (P. 13.) that it would 44 be highly imprudent and cri- 
 44 minal,” to employ Miffionaries, from vvhofe labours it is never- 
 ihelefs acknowledged poffible to expert, 44 that the obje&s of 
 44 them would be made babes in Chriji” What more did Paul 
 accompliffi by liis abode at Corinth ? 1 Cor. iii. 1. The ferip- 
 
 i 1 
 
 tures call upon thofe who are born again of the incorruptible fee<f 
 
 the word, as new born babes, to defire the fincere milk of the 
 word, that they may grow thereby, if i'o be they have tailed that 
 the Lord is gracious; and allure us, that out of the mouths of 
 babes and fucklings God will perfect praife. But we are here 
 taught to undervalue the mere regeneration of men, and, unlefs 
 we can procure Doftors in Theology who are well verfed in con- 
 troverfies, to reckon it better to fend no Miffionaries at all. 
 
 The fecond head of difeourfe is wholly founded on the errone¬ 
 ous view of the text already expofed. It has long been a cuftom 
 with preachers, not to be very folicitous about the primary and 
 proper meaning of their text, provided the meaning, Which they 
 ate pleafed to afi^x to it, makes what is called a good fenfe, and 
 
C 13 3 
 
 b? agreeable to the analogy of faith. This mode of ufmg texts 
 has, from its conveniency I prefume, been very properly termed 
 the way of accommodation. By means of it we are enabled to 
 accommodate ourfelves with fcripture quotations in fupport. of any 
 thing, and have always in our power this popular advantage, that 
 we may feem to be fpeaking by Divine authority, while in fa£t we 
 may only be {bringing together certain private and arbitrary inter¬ 
 pretations qf rdaii That there is an analogy of faith, or a har¬ 
 mony and refemblance among the doctrines once delivered to 
 the faints, is unquetlionable; but when we can bring no better 
 argument* for the fenfe we put upon paffages of fcripture, than 
 its correfpondenCe with purviews of this analogy; there is reafon 
 to fear, that, inftead of drawing our analogy from the Bible, we 
 are modelling our Bible to the pattern and dimenfions of a prede- 
 termined analogy, not of faith, but of prejudice, not of truth, but 
 Of theory and fyftem. 
 
 Independent, however, of any difpute about the text, the doc¬ 
 trine of this fecond head may be {hewn to be untenable. “ The 
 church,” fays Mr. pick, “ is the organ by which our Saviour 
 makes known his intentions, refpediing the.fervices of this na- 
 <c ture (Miffionary fervices) which he demands from individuals.” 
 (F- 27.) I learn from the xviiith chap, of Matthew, that the 
 church is the organ by which our Saviour makes known his in¬ 
 tentions, refpeCting thofe of its own community whom we fhould 
 regard as incorrigible offenders; but I would gladly know where 
 Chrift directs us to the church as the organ by which he makes 
 known his intentions refpe&ing the fervices, which he demands 
 from individuals, for the propagation of the gofpel throughout 
 the world. When a church is properly conflituted and employ¬ 
 ed, opportunities will be given for the difcovery and improve¬ 
 ment of talents and grace, and the church will by that means be 
 enabled to follow the directions given in the Epiftles to Timothy 
 and Titus for a proper choice of her own office-bearers, wdro cer¬ 
 tainly can never exift but by her ordination. She will alfo feel it 
 her duty to encourage fit perfons to propagate the gofpel among 
 others; and when any of her members are to be feparated for 
 Miffionaiy labours, to fend them away with prayer for their fuc- 
 Cefs. But the queflion is, Hath Chrift .limited himfelf to churches 
 
[ r 3 ] 
 
 as the organ of making known his intentions? To this the reply is 
 a flrong affirmation. “ Unlefs the interpofition of the church be 
 “ admitted, and regarded as indifpenfable, there remains no certain 
 method of diftinguifhing between a regular call, and the wild 
 44 claims of enthufiafm, or the artful pretences of impoftured* 
 Modeft indeed! So the interpofition of the church is a certain 
 method of dillinguifhing regularity from enthufiafm, or impofture. 
 Nay, there is no falvation from thefe evils in any other way, for 
 there remains none other method under heaven, given among 
 men, whereby any thing like certainty can be obtained on the 
 fubjedt. Surely it is difficult even to infinuate fuch monflrouS' 
 proportions, with fo much as common gravity of countenance. 
 Have we forgotten the whole holl of barbarous words ending in 
 - alian , -erian y -endent , and -inianP If not, why fhould we defpife 
 their irrefiftible evidence concerning the organic certainty of the 
 decifions of the church. Protellants have long been unanimous in 
 . exploding Papal infallibility; but if we are merely to exchange it 
 for that which is ecclefiaftical; if we mull confine ourfelves to the 
 alternative of the hackneyed quellion, whether infallibility (hall be 
 aferibed to the Pope, or to a general council; the Chriflian has 
 only to read the hiftory of both, or to attend for a few months 
 any church court whatever, and he will probably fee reafon to 
 be perfectly indifferent about the infignificant decifion. 
 
 But 44 when any man is called, in an extraordinary manner, to 
 <£ the work of the gofpel, it is reafonable to expedt, that he will 
 “ be enabled to give extraordinary proofs of his commiffion.** 
 What is meant by being called in an extraordinary manner? If it 
 mean a man called, like the prophets or apoflles of old, to be the 
 organ of revealing fecret things which have hitherto belonged 
 unto God; if it imply a claim of infpiration; then certainly he 
 would need extraordinary proofs of a miraculous nature. But 
 we are taught in feripture to expert no more commiffions of this 
 kind. To apply to the queflion in hand, an extraordinary call 
 mult mean fnnply the call of a man, who has begun to preach to 
 the world, without the concurrence of a church, and who perhaps 
 has come to places where the brethren know' not whence he may be. 
 Now, however extraordinary this cafe may appear, it is plainly 
 provided for in feripture* and is therefore fuch as we may expect 
 
[ 14 ] 
 
 will occur. And, what is particularly worthy of obfervation, 
 even in this extraordinary cafe, and when the danger of impofitioft 
 refulting from it, is directly held out, we are commanded to look 
 for nothing more, than the ordinary proofs of a Divine commiflion, 
 that is, for confeflion of the truth, and correfponding practice. 
 For the juilice of this ijtmark I appeal to the following feriptures. 
 44 Beware of falfe prophets, faid Chrift, which come to you in 
 44 fheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
 
 44 iliall know them by their fruits: do men gather grapes of 
 44 thorns, &c.—Wherefore by their fruits ye fhail know them.** 
 Matth. vii. 15—20. The whole epiftle to the Galatians is level¬ 
 led againft falfe teachers; yet although the danger of thofe 
 churches was certainly very great, Paul boldly bids God fpeed to 
 all teachers of whatever defeription other wife, who gave the ordi¬ 
 nary proofs of a Divine commiflion. 44 As many as walk acccrcU 
 44 ing to this rule,” fays he, (the rule of glorying only in thd 
 crofs) 44 peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Ifrael of 
 44 God.” (Gal. vi. 16.) In like manner, John fays, even wher£ 
 claims to infpiration were involved in the queftion, 44 Beloved* 
 44 believe not every fpirit, but try the fpirits whether they are of 
 44 God: becaufe many falfe prophets are gone out into the world. 
 44 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every fpirit that confef- 
 44 feth that Jefus Chrift is come in the flefh, is of God. And 
 44 every fpirit that confeffeth not that Jefus Chrift is come in the 
 44 flefh, is not of God: and this is that fpirit of Antichrift, whereof 
 44 ye have heard that it fhould come, and even now already is if 
 44 in the world.” (1 John iv. i~— 3.) Again, in a letter ad- 
 dreffed to an individual and her family, 44 If there come any 
 44 unto you, and bring not this doftrine, receive him not into 
 44 your houfe, neither bid him God fpeed: for he that biddeth 
 44 him God fpeed, is partaker of his evil deeds ” (2 John 10, 11.) 
 What a pity that in none of thefe cafes, there fhould have been a 
 reference to the church, that by the method of certainty, the 
 danger might have been effectually prevented for ever. 
 
 If it be faid, thefe rules are given to churches, as well as to 
 individuals, I anfwer, why then do not the churches obferve them? 
 At the very leaft, they require that a church fhould not condemn 
 a man before it hear him, and know what lie doth;, that it fhoald 
 
 
r *53 
 
 not condemn him for the bare fadt of preaching, unlefs it fee rea.- 
 fon to condemn what he fays. If it have not fufficient means of 
 deciding, it may let him alone. But many churches now have 
 determined beforehand, that if any man be found on the face of 
 the earth, to preach without their leave, he is guilty of a crime, 
 fo that though he fpeak with the tongues of men, and of angels, 
 and have not their licence, or their ordination, he is become as 
 founding brafs, or a tinkling cymbal. Nay, while they avow 
 that they know 7 nothing at all about either him, or his principles; 
 yet, becaufe they hear, that he has committed the unpardonable 
 fin of preaching the gofpel without following with them, they 
 command all'their people to let him be unto them as an heathen 
 man and a publican. 
 
 With the firft of our Author's conclufions, that only a church, 
 can ordain, (P. 27.) I have always, in fubftance, agreed- 1 
 have therefore merely to regret, that the only law of the Million* 
 ary Society which he quotes with approbation, that “ every 
 ** Miflionary to be ordained, lhall be remitted for ordination, 
 “ to the particular religious connection to which he belongs,’* 
 is one which that Society has never yet had it in their power 
 to obferve. The truth is, that the Society has never been 
 much in favour with any of the religious connections to which 
 either its Miffionaries or its members have belonged. There mult 
 furely be a fault fomewhere. 1 will not prefume to fay, whether 
 it lies with the Society or with the churches, or whether there 
 may not have been faults on both tides. But I believe the origi¬ 
 nal difaffedlion rofe from this, that fame of the churches looked 
 upon the Society, as Clergymen commonly do upon a lay-preach¬ 
 er, they knew it had been conftituted without their leave, and 
 therefore they behaved to it very like a Hep-mother. 
 
 Even to the fecond conclulion, that Miffionaries fhould be 
 ordained, (P. 28.) I fhould have no objection, provided it were 
 meant merely to refer to the manner in which churches fhould 
 proceed in cafes that were known to them, and did not imply the 
 inveiling of fallible men with the Divine right of permitting, and of 
 courfe hindering, at pleafure, the preaching^of the gofpel, through¬ 
 out the world; nor decide upon the iawfulnefs of the conduit of 
 individuals without, hearing them, or knowing what they do* 
 
L 16 ] 
 
 Under this article, notice is taken of the opinion of the advocated 
 for what is called lay-preaching, to decry which feems, among 
 Clergymen of every denomination, to be unanimoufly confidered, 
 th t prefent truth . 44 I know, indeed,” fays our Author, 44 that it 
 
 44 was the opinion of the elder Socinians, and th&t the fame opi- 
 44 nion is held by fotne others of a far purer faith, that every qua- 
 44 lifted perfon has a right to preach the gofpel, and may under- 
 44 take that fervice, without any other call. Before, however, 
 il we adopt this novelty, (for a novelty that may be termed, of 
 44 which there is no veflige in the early records of Chridianity,) 
 44 we mud fee clearer and more cogent arguments, than have yet 
 44 been produced for it.” (P. 29.) Here a very odious compari- 
 fon is indituted between Socinians and thofe who are acknow¬ 
 ledged to be of a purer faith. This feems rather unfair 5 for 
 whether the opinion in quedion be right or wrong, it certainly 
 contains in it, nothing that can mark an alliance with Socinianifm, 
 or tend to encourage that erroneous fydem. The opinion itfelf 
 is, it feems, a novelty. If fo, to be fure the controverfy reJpedt- 
 ing it, is at an end. And fo indeed it would be, if aflertion could 
 do the buftnefs, for we are coolly told in a parenthefts, that there 
 is no vedige of this opinion in the early records of Chridianity. 
 And we are admonifhed further to make no reply to this authori¬ 
 tative declaration, unlefs we can fay fomething new, as clearer and 
 more cogent arguments mud be -feen, than have yet been produced. 
 If among the early records of Chridianity, it be permitted us to 
 rank the New Tedament, I think vve (hall hardly be driven to 
 defpair on the fubjedt, by a coup de main like this. But before 
 it be neceffary for us to fay any thing more on it, either old 
 or new; it feems pretty plain from what has been faid already, 
 that our opponents would need to ufe clearer and more cogent 
 arguments for the univerfal and indifpenfable necedlty of ecclefiaf- 
 tical ordination, than thofe which happen to have been produced 
 for it in our Author’s Difcourfe. It might alfo be of ufe, in fet¬ 
 tling the quellion between us, to fhew what vediges are to be 
 found, in the early records of Chridianity, of the Prefbyterian 
 novelty called a Probationer , a man licenfed to preach upon trial, 
 licenfed to preach but not to baptize, and at liberty to preach only 
 where his fuperiors appoint him. Whether is this title better or 
 
[ <7 ] 
 
 wori'e than that of a Catechijl? (P. 31 ) And whether are vv<» 
 not wholly indebted for both, to that interpofition, which mull: 
 at all events be admitted, and held indifpenfahle, even the certain 
 method, the oracular organ of the church. 
 
 Our Author admits, “ that if a private Chriilian were conduct- 
 ed by Providence into a heathen land, it' would be incumbent 
 “ upon him to endeavour to make the poor inhabitants acquainted 
 with the truth.” (P. 29.) On this I have only to remark, 
 that the fame duty is incumbent on private Chriftians even in 
 what is called, a Chriilian land. There is great need for it, par¬ 
 ticularly in the country in which we live, and an abundant biei- 
 fmg often attends the faithful difeharge of it. But, fays our 
 Author, “ his zeal would tranfgrefs due bounds, if he affumed the 
 “ character and authority of a Miffionary, and fuppofed himfelf 
 <c entitled to plead the commiffion, which Chritl gave to the 
 (i apoftles and their fuccefibrs. The inftrudtions which one man 
 i( may adminiller to another in the fpirit of charity, are very dif- 
 “ ferent from that authoritative publication of the word of God, 
 66 which conllitutes the true idea of preaching in the New Telta- 
 ii ment, and which belongs exclusively to tbofe, who by their 
 “ office and million, are ambalfadors of Chrilt.” (P. 30.) An 
 authoritative publication of the word of God by commiffion from 
 him, is unquellionably the true idea of preaching in the New 
 Teftament. They who preach the gofpel, have, in the feriptures, 
 the means of appealing to Divine authority, both for the truth 
 of what they fay, and for the propriety of proclaiming that 
 truth. And if any man pretend to adminider infirubtions of a 
 religious nature, without warrant from feripture both for their 
 truth, and for their being adminiltered, he is guilty of fm. Be¬ 
 fore the feriptures were completed, preachers could only refer to 
 thofe parts of them which were yet given, and, for the veil, had 
 to depend upon oral inftrudtion, or infpiration. N Men, acting as 
 ambalfadors of Chrilt, might then fpeak as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghoft, while thofe only who had a fimilar undtion from on 
 high, could fully judge of their warrant and fidelity. But now 
 that revelation is Unfilled, the commiffion of the ambalfador of 
 Chrilt is limited to the contents of the Holy Bible, and all who 
 have a copy of that book, and can read it with underltanding, 
 
[ *8 ] 
 
 are fully pofTeffed of the means of judging how far they ought to 
 admit the authority of what he fays. Nor can they fafely judge 
 of his doftrine by any other rule. They mull not receive it be- 
 caufe he is ordained, nor rejedl it, becaufe he is not ordained, but 
 ; fimply inquire what faith the fcripture ? 
 
 Inftru&ions adminirtered in private differ from preaching, as 
 private does from public, in other things, in refpedt of dignity 
 of manner, and extent of ufefulnefs; but if fupported by Divine 
 authority, the particular mode of communication can make no 
 difference, either in the title of the fpeaker, or the obligation of 
 the hearers. Paul fpake with the fame authority when he taught 
 publicly, and from houfe to houfe. A man is as much obliged 
 to liften to the word of God, when fpoken to him, by his father, 
 or brother, or neighbour, while he fitteth in the houfe, or vvalketh 
 by the way; as when he hears it declared by a clergyman, from 
 the pulpit, on the mod folemn occafion. \ 
 
 The right of fpeaking in a church, or in any fociety, muft 
 depend upon the will of that fociety. But we are not warranted 
 by any part of the word of God, to fay that the right of publifh- 
 ing the gofpel to the world, belongs exclufively to any office or 
 to any order of men. No fuch exclufive privilege belonged to 
 prophets, priefts, or kings, under the Jewifh difpenfation: no 
 fuch exclufive privilege belonged to apoftles, prophets, evangelifts, 
 paflors, or teachers, under the Chriflian difpenfation. It did 
 belong to all thefe offices to publifh the word of God, but not to 
 any of them exclufively. It is manifert that many publifhed the 
 word of the Lord, and gave iriftru&ions concerning the law, who 
 were not confldered as inverted in the ordinary way, with any of 
 thefe offices. No man, however, is called a falfe prophet, ora 
 falfe teacher, in the Old Teftament, unlefs he was guilty of fpeak¬ 
 ing lies. This is uniformly declared to be the evidence of running 
 unfent. (Jer. xxiii. from 9th to the end, efpecially verfes 21, 
 22, 28.) In like manner, no man is called a falfe teacher, in the 
 New Tertament, unlefs he erred concerning the faith. (2 Pet. ii. 
 throughout.) Some go io far as to fay, that although a lay* 
 preacher may publifh the truth, and God may in fovereignty 
 fave fouls by it, yet that does not juftify the man’s conduct. If 
 this be fo, then that cannot fandtion lay*preaching, which Paul 
 
[ 19 3 
 
 held to be a fufficient feal of apoftlefhip, i Cor. ix. 2. and 
 2 Cor. iii. 1, 2. There cannot be produced from fcripture, one 
 fingle inftance, in which God blefied unwarrantable means, for 
 the falvation of a foul. We read of falfe teachers drawing away 
 difciples after them, but never of their bringing difciples to 
 Chrift; of their fubverting fouls and whole houfes, but never of 
 their faving them. Chrift will punifti men, becaufe he was an 
 hungered, and they gave him no meat. But where does he tell 
 us, that he will fay. Depart, ye curfed, into everlafting fire, pre¬ 
 pared for the devil and his angels; for I was an hungered, and, 
 without a commifiion that was regular, or in any fenfe valid, ye 
 prefumed to feed me: I was thirfty, but to you did not belong 
 the exclufive privilege of giving me drink. If our hearts revolt 
 at this ftatement, we muft either juftify lay-preac’hing, wherever 
 it is allowed to be evangelical and fuccefsful, or elfe fuppofe, that 
 a man may fin againft the church, without finning againft the 
 Head of the church ; and from fuch fins many Chriftians will feel 
 no great anxiety to be faved. 
 
 There is no evidence, in the New Teftament, that the commif- 
 fion to go into all the world and preach the gofpel to every crea¬ 
 ture, which was given to the apoftles, was given to them exclufive- 
 ly. None of the accounts of its being given fay fo, nor is there 
 any thing like this, in the infpired hiftory of its fulfilment. It is 
 laid, by our Author, to belong to the apoftles and their fucceffors. 
 It appears, however, to have been obeyed, by many alfo of their 
 contemporaries, and that not only without any exprefs ordination 
 from a church, but abfolutely without the knowledge of any 
 church, or of any apoftle, at leaft for fome time, after they were 
 found to be preaching the gofpel every where to their fellovv-fin- 
 ners. For the truth of thefe remarks, 1 beg merely that the 
 inquirer would take the trouble to lead, for himfelf, the Adis of 
 the Apoftles, and, to obferve, as he goes along, whether from 
 that hiftory it appears, that preaching belonged exclusively to the 
 apoftles, or to thofe only befides them, who had been previously; 
 ordained by a church. If that work was not fo confined then,, 
 how much lefs, in fubfequent and degenerate ages. If we are 
 taught any lefion by fcripture hiftory it is this, that when corrup, 
 
 C z 
 
' t » ] 
 
 tion prevails among office-bearers in God’s fancluary; when mer* 
 render ufelefs, or pervert, Divine inftitutions; others, whom they 
 know not and defpife, are railed up by Providence, that the 
 work of the Lord may not ceafe. It is in vain to fay, that pri¬ 
 mitive times were extraordinary, and are therefore no precedent. 
 Are they not appealed to, on both rides? At any rate, the im¬ 
 portance of propagating the gofpel, and the commiffion to do fo-, 
 were none of their extraordinary features, but are common to the 
 times of the gofpel, alway even to the end of the world. If 
 miracles be pleaded, it is obvious, that men without any ordina¬ 
 tion are fpoken of as preaching, who are not faid to have been 
 endowed with miraculous gifts, and even where their qualifica¬ 
 tions are mentioned, inftances occur, in which nothing but elo¬ 
 quence, knowledge of the fcriptures, and of the way of the Lord, 
 together with zeal, are reckoned among the number. 
 
 How, then, a man would be carried too far by his zeal, if, in 
 adminiftering inftruction to heathens, he fhould affign as his war¬ 
 rant, that Chrift had commanded it to be done, feems altogether 
 inconceivable. If we mull admit a diftinilion between inftruc- 
 tions, given in the fpirit of charity, and an authoritative publica¬ 
 tion exclufively belonging to clerical office, I fear, it will confift 
 in this, that the latter is much more congenial with the fpirit of 
 domination. 
 
 Mr. Dick confirms his argument by fome anecdotes taken from 
 Eccldiafiical Hiftory. As my Bible flops at the end of the 
 book of Revelation, I am not very careful to anfwer in thefe 
 matters. If, however, any one will take the trouble to look into 
 Piclet’s Tbeologie Chroiitnns^ Tom. 2. Liv. 14. Chap 22. Si la 
 vocation au, mimjlere par des Pajleurs ejl abfolumcnt necejjaire? he 
 will fee that the fame ftory can fometimes be quoted on differ¬ 
 ent fides of the fame queftion. It is perhaps proper alfo, that 
 the people of this country fhould know, that, by the confeffion of 
 fome of the older, moft eminent, and orthodox Proteftant Divines 
 of the fchool of Geneva itfelf, whofe writings have long been, and 
 flill are, referred to, as text books, in our moft refpeilable Divi¬ 
 nity Pialls, the dcipifed caufe of lay-preaching is effentially cou¬ 
 rt died with the caufe of the bleffed Reformation from Popery * 
 
t 21 1 
 
 and accordingly both are defended by them at once, and with the 
 fame arguments. As one proof among many of this remarkable 
 fadt, I beg leave, in addition to the reference made above, to 
 quote a few words from the fame book, Chap. 25. De la Voca~ 
 tion des Rej'ormateurs. e< II paroit de ce que j’ai dit, quel juge- 
 “ ment on doit porter de la vocation des Reformatcurs . Si leur 
 
 “ dodlrine eft veritable, on a tort de chicaner leur vocation; car 
 ** la doEtrine ne depend pas de la vocation; mais la vocation de la 
 <c doEtrine ; la doElrine n’ eft pas veritable, parce que ceux qni 
 Ci P enfeignent ont ete legitimement apellez; mais ceux-la font 
 “ legitimement apellez, qui enfeignent une bonne dodlrine. 
 “ Que la vocation foit faite dans les formes, ou qu* elle ne 
 “ le foit point, la dodlrine n* en eft ni plus ni moins vraie; et 
 “ les peuples ont fort peu d* interet a s* en informer, pourveu 
 “ qu’ ils foient affurez, que ce qu* on leur enfeigne eft la verite; 
 “ perfonne n’ eft apelle legitimement a precher P erreur: mais tout 
 “ le monde a une legitime vocation d* annoncer la verite.” In 
 the fame chapter Monf. Pictet exprefsly acknowledges, that the 
 reformers were of two kinds; the one, thofe who had already re¬ 
 ceived their call in the church of Rome, the other, thofe who had 
 received their call from the churches, who called them, which he 
 afterwards explains to be thofe who had been called by congrega¬ 
 tions without a paftor. This latter cafe is evidently that of mi* 
 nifters who had no other ordination than this call of the people; 
 and accordingly in Chap. 22. with a diredt reference to the refor¬ 
 mers, the Author pleads, that ordination by paftcrs is not abfolute- 
 ly neceffary. “ Si Dieu avoit attache la validite du miniftere a 
 “ V ordination , il feroit abfolument neceffaire, que la vocation fe fit 
 u par P ordination des pafteurs; mais il eft faux que Dieu ait at- 
 •* tache, a 1 ’ ordination, la validite du miniftere.” Again, “ Si 
 u V ordination par les pafteurs etoit abfolument neceffaire, il pour- 
 “ roit arriver, que les peuples demeureroient fans pafteurs, et que 
 4 * la veritable religion periroit entierement, favoir lors que P eglife 
 u feroit corrompue, et qu’ elle auroit de mechans condudleurs.” 
 
 If then “ without the fandtion of the church (by church meaning 
 clergy *) “no pretended call can be confidered as regular, or 
 
 * See Note, p. z 6 * 
 
if 
 
 : == 1 
 
 ** in any fenfe valid; if the interpofition of the church he indifpen- 
 “ fable; if an authoritative publication of the word of God belong 
 “ exclusively to the apodles and their fucceffors,” by derivation 
 of this kind alone; what mud become of the Proteftant Prefby- 
 terian clergy? However refpedlable as a body, and defervedly re- 
 fpecled; however eminently bleffed the labours of many of them 
 have been, and dill are f ; it is notorious, that, according to this fyf- 
 tem, they are not the fucceffors of the apodles by a legitimate 
 line of clerical defcent, but at their belt eftate, a fpurious brood, 
 the offspring of a diforderly coalition, between depofed excommuni¬ 
 cated prieds, and lay-preachers, vvhofe very ordination was ftained 
 with the facrilegious guilt of laical profanation. Although this 
 happened many years ago, and is by fome forgotten, it mud ever 
 ftand as an irremediable daw, in all claims to exclufive authority, on 
 the part of Protedant, efpocially of Prefbyterian clergymen ; and all 
 attempts to affert and vindicate fuch claims, are exactly a revival of 
 the Popifh mode of reafoning againd the Reformation. It is not a 
 little amufing to obferve how different fome things are in reality 
 from what they are in appearance. Many who heard Mr. Dick’s 
 Sermon would no doubt reckon it a defence of the indifpenfable ne- 
 ceffity of clerical ordination calculated to fupport the difcipline of 
 the church of Scotland ; whereas the dodtrine of his Sermon, fairly 
 followed out, and applied to the pedigree, credentials, and official 
 privileges of every clergyman prefent, was in effedt this: “ Vanity 
 “ of vanities, faith the preacher, vanity of vanities, all is vanity. 
 
 It appears, then, both from the early records of Chridianity, 
 and the neceffity that has occurred for reformation in the Church, 
 that no exclufive right of adling as Miffionaries, belonged to the 
 Apodles and thofe who claimed to be their fucceffors by regularly 
 tranfmitted ecclefiadicai ordination#' 
 
 The rules for afcertaining the call and qualifications of Mif¬ 
 fionaries are given in fcripture, and apply equally to thofe who aie 
 ordained, and thofe who are not. 
 
 Thefe rules Efficiently fecure an able minidry, while they are 
 diredfcly oppofed to every fydem, which would obdrudl or limit 
 the preaching of the gofpel. 
 
 f See, Account of a Revival of Religion at Mottlin, by Mr. Stewart. 
 
 A 
 
 V 
 
C 2 3 3 
 
 It has of late been often made a queftion, t( Who have a right 
 to preach the GofpeH” and this queftion has been pretty fully 
 difcufied. I beg leave to (late another queftion, “ Who have a 
 right to forbid the preaching of it;” 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 <7 
 
 i i 
 
 / 
 
 i 
 
i 
 
 •Jfc 
 
 / 
 
 ! 
 
 % 
 
 t