i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 E uuiinijgffijg[imlf?uil[^ 
 
'"6 
 '//er 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN FORM . 
 
 CHURCH-GOVERNMENT, 
 
 AS 
 
 PROFESSED IN THE STANDARDS 
 
 ■^ ^CBurcfi of ^(otlanti ; 
 
 In Reply to 
 THE ANIMADVERSIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 MclTrs. IxNEs, EwiNG, Ballentine, Glass, &t. among the 
 
 Modern, and of Goodwin, LocKitR, Cotton, &c. 
 
 among the Ancient Independents. 
 
 In a Series of Ijetters, addrejjed to Mr. Innes. 
 
 Vith an APPENDIX, containing Remarks on Mr. Haldane's 
 View of Social Woriliip. 
 
 By JOHN BROWN, 
 
 MINISTER. OF THE GOSPEL, GARTMORE. 
 
 •' Where every thing muft undergo difcuflion," (j. e. by the people, as is the cafe in lo- 
 depenoent churches) «' fome may be in danger of thinking that they have la-wi to make, 
 " inftead o( laius to obey. A few of the moft adtive fpirit and readieft elocution will become 
 " the real movers and managers in every bufinefs. Thofe, in lliort, who have moft need of 
 <• rcftraint, are in danger of being led to fet it at defiance, while the peaceful, and thofe to 
 «• whim the government is comrnitted nominaiiy, are terrified and chained down by the tur.. 
 " biilence of the rcji." 
 
 Eiving on Ads xv. 
 
 «« Let it be recollefted, it \3fyfiems, not the charafter either of ir.#,iduals or of particular 
 •* focieties, the merits of which we are here canvaffing." 
 
 Innes- 
 ♦' Ponderibus iibratafuii." 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 
 PRINTED BY H. INGLIS. 
 
 tSoId by Ogle & Aikman, Guthrie &: Tait, W. Wkyte ; 
 and M. Ogle, Glafgow. 
 
 i8qc. 
 

 
INTRODUCTION, 
 
 The following Letters were originally intended as 
 a Reply to Mr. Innes only. On farther refleiflion, 
 however, it appeared to be proper, not to reftridt 
 thefe inquiries to a review of that vi^riter's fenti- 
 ments, but to confider alfo what had been faid by 
 the more ancient and able advocates for Inde- 
 pendency. In our refearches after truth, it (hould 
 always be our concern to know ^hat is faid, and 
 not merely who fays it \ and certainly Independents 
 cannot obje£l, if, in examining what has been 
 advanced by their prefent champions, we likewife 
 confider the more learned and ingenious arguments 
 of their enlightened predeceflbrs. 
 
 It is requefted to be remarked, that it is the 
 principles only, and not the praBices of Preibyterians 
 that are here defended. The advocate for Pref- 
 bytery is certainly no more bound to vindicate the 
 latter, in order to eftablifh the former, than the 
 advocate for Chriftianity is bound to prove that the 
 condu£l of Chriftians is blamelefs and praife- worthy, 
 in order to (hew that Chriftianity is divine. It is 
 Prelbytery alone as exhibited in the fcriptures for 
 a 2 
 
iv Introduction. 
 
 which we here contend, and it is on this ground 
 alone that we can impartially review and compare 
 it with Independency. 
 
 Let it be further confidered, that if the errors 
 which appear in the conduct of Preibyterians, with 
 regard to government, are better known than thofe 
 of Independents, it is owing, in a great meafure, 
 to the fuperior publicity of their courts. While 
 none but members are allowed to attend the meet- 
 ings of the latter, and while the ftrifteft fecrecy 
 marks their proceedings in general, none are com- 
 monly prohibited from hearing the deliberations of 
 the former. If the miilakes of Prefbyterians then 
 are more generally known than thofe of Inde- 
 pendents, it arlfes from a circumftance which has 
 ever been admitted to be a very important excellence 
 in civil courts ; namely, that their proceedings are 
 ufually condu£led in the prefence and hearing of 
 :fell, even though not connedted with their focieties, 
 while the tranfaftions of Independents are carried 
 on in private, and are carefully concealed from the 
 infpe6tion of the world. 
 
 That inftances of very lawlefs oppreflion have 
 occurred among our Tabernacle Independents in 
 Scotland, even during the fhort time that they 
 have already exifted, is attempted to be proved, 
 Letter II. Thefe inftances are taken either from 
 the writings of thofe who reprefent themfelves as 
 aggrieved, and whofe ftatement has never been 
 refuted by their opponents, or from the writings 
 of thofe who were guilty of the oppreflion, and 
 have acknowledged their fault. And, perhaps, 
 had their courts been as open to the public as 
 
Introduction. v 
 
 thofe of Prefbyterlans, we (hould have heard of 
 a ftiil greater number of a6ls of tyranny and in- 
 juftice. 
 
 To allow the office-bearers to decide on any 
 point, when the members of their congregations 
 have not been previoully confulted, has always 
 been affirmed by former Independents to be a dif- 
 play of ecclefiaftical defpotifm in Prefbyterians. 
 In the Letter however to which we have referred, 
 it is endeavoured to be proved, that, in many 
 inftances, Mr. Ewing contends for this very 
 power ; and confequently, at leaft on their acknow- 
 ledged principles, the conllitution of his church, 
 to a certain extent, mufl be viewed as a fpiritual 
 defpotifm. 
 
 It is attempted, moreover, to be demonftrated in 
 thefe Letters, that the fcheme of thefe writers, by 
 rendering every congregation in the church of 
 Chrift independent of the reft, exhibits fuch a 
 view of his kingdom as would be prefented of the 
 civil and political 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 uniformly to confult the 
 inhabitants before they could perform any a£t of 
 authority. 
 
 That the author, in every inftance, (hould ac- 
 curately have ftated the fentiments of Independents, 
 is what he by no means pretends. As each of their 
 congregations is independent of the reft, it is pof. 
 fible that there may be as many creeds and confti- 
 tutions among them as there are churches on the 
 earth. But to think of reprefenting accurately the 
 »3 
 
vi Introduction. 
 
 fentlmcnts of all of them, amidd this poffiUe y^LXiety, 
 would certainly be a vain and ridiculous idea, efpe- 
 cially as mofl: of them account it a fm to write and 
 publifli thefe creeds to the world; He is confcious 
 however that he has not wilfully, in any inftance, 
 misftated their views ; and if thofe, whofe opinions 
 are here examined, can point out any cafe in which 
 he has not fairly exhibited them, he will moft 
 readily correct it. 
 
 Let it not be faid, that the reafonings in thefe 
 Letters cannot be admitted to be conclufive, becaufe 
 many Independents do not, as is here aflerted, allow 
 their members a right to vote upon every queftion. 
 It is of little importance to differ about words. All 
 Independents (Mr. Ewing excepted) afk the judg- 
 ment and confent of their members upon every 
 matter, before the office-bearers can pronounce a 
 decifion ; and if fo, the arguments which are here 
 adduced, are equally conclufive as upon the former 
 fuppofition. 
 
 Let it be underftood farther, that the arguments 
 advanced will not be confidered as overturned though 
 a number of miftakes (hould be pointed out in 
 feparate and detached obfervations, unlefs the body 
 of the evidence be fairly met, and fully overthrown. 
 It will much lefs be confidered as at all affedled if 
 encountered only by wit and humour, a weapon of 
 which fome advocates for Independency feem to be 
 peculiarly fond. It is from conviction alone that 
 the author of thefe Letters has publilhed his fenti- 
 ments, and when an oppofite conviction is pro- 
 duced, by difpaffionate, and able, and fcriptural 
 reafoning, he will inftantly renounce them. He 
 
Introduction. vii 
 
 has no wifli that Prefbytery fhould be retained any 
 farther than it can be fupported by fcripture, and 
 the moment that it is proved that it cannot fo be 
 fupported, he will be happy to fee that it is rejected 
 by the world. 
 
 It is of little importance for the public to know, 
 that thefe Letters were written amidfl many avo- 
 cations,and at confiderable intervals. It is mentioned 
 only as an apology for any inaccuracies of ftyle, or 
 repetitions of fentiment, which may occur in the 
 perufal of them. This, however, is the only 
 indulgence for which he pleads. He afks none in 
 behalf of the argument. He wiflies it fully and 
 impartially to be examined, and will endeavour 
 candidly to confider the objections which are offered 
 to his reafonings, if Hated in the fpirit of Chriftian 
 meeknefs, and not with that virulence which fhews 
 only how ftrongly an individual fmarts under a fenfe 
 of inconfiftency, or how keenly he is devoted to the 
 purpofes of a party. 
 
 The author originally intended to examine like- 
 wife the argument for Separation from the Church 
 of Scotland, drawn from what have been called its 
 corruptions : but of this, his prefent avocations will 
 not admit. He fhall probably however be induced 
 to complete his defign, as foon as he can command 
 the leifure and time which it muft neceflarily re- 
 quire. And, till fome fuller treatife be publiftied, 
 he begs leave to recommend to the perufal of his 
 readers, Fergufon (of Kilwinning) on Independency 
 and Schifm *, and a valuable pamphlet by a late 
 eminent Minifter, entitled, Thoughts on Modern 
 Divifions. 
 
'*'"■ Introduction. 
 
 The publication of thefe (heets has been delayed 
 for fome time, that the Second Appendix, containing 
 a Review of Mr. Haldane's book on Social Worfhip, 
 as far as relates to the fubjea of Government, 
 might accompany the Letters. 
 
 ESS AT A. 
 
 Except in p. 53. and Letter IX. Dr. »-.„, „o. Dr. Tfaac !V,„. 
 
 was intended to be quoted. 
 P. 236. I. 25. for v:cn:hrs, read the mmhers. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 LtTTtR I. Propriety of the condtift of Mr. Innes and 
 ether Indepei. dents confidcred, p. i — 5. Dr. Stuart^s 
 view of the Church of Scotland as Antichrift, refuted, 
 5, 6. Note. The examination of Prefbytery by Mr. Innes 
 extremely partial, 9, 10. Plan of difcufiion ftated, 10. 
 
 Letter II. On the Nature ^n J Degree of the ^o^^tx claimed 
 by Prejbyterians and Independents. MIfreprefentations 
 of Independents, 11, 12. The degree of power exer- 
 cifed by them, proved to be more than that of advice, 
 13, Iffc. and 14 — 19. Note. Inconfiftency between 
 the fentiments of Mr. Innes and Mr. Ewing, 21 — 26. 
 Unreafonable or imperious authority not claimed by 
 Prefbyterians, 28. The fcriptural terms expreffing the 
 power of church-rulers, 32 — 37. and the relation of 
 members confidered, 37-— 40. Sum of the preceding 
 remarks, 40, i^c. 
 
 Letter III. Of the Perfons entitled to Authority in the 
 Church. Arguments to (hew that all the members can- 
 not have equal power in mattefg of govci r«m£r.t, 4^, ^^. 
 Power of ruling not indifcriminate, proved, from the 
 names given in fcripture to rulers, 49 — 53 — to the 
 " members, 54 — 58 ; and from the duties of the mem- 
 bers to the rulers, 58-— 60. 
 
 Letter IV. Samefuhject. The meaning of Matth. xvi. 19. 
 confidered, 61 — 71. Binding and loofing explained, 
 64 — 69 ; that it implies an exercife of authoritative 
 judicial power, and is committed to minifters only, 
 proved, 69- — 71. 
 
 Letter V. Samefubje&. The higheft afts of govern- 
 ment and difcipline Hievvn to be performed by the 
 elders exclufively. Admiffion of members, 71 — 75. 
 Ordination of office-bearers, necclTary, 76 — 79 ; com- 
 mitted to pallors alone, 80 — S3. Power of difcipline 
 veiled in the office-bearers only, 84—86. 
 
X Contents. 
 
 • 
 
 Letter VI. Argument for Independency from Matth. 
 xvlli. 15, 16, 17, as ftated by Mr. Innes, 86 — 88; 
 anfvvered, from the meaning of the word churchy 
 88 — 90, which is {hown to fignify, in this paffage 
 particularly, the elders and office-bearers ; — from the 
 allnfion to the Jewifh courts, in which the government 
 was not vefted in all who attended them, but in parti- 
 cular rulers, 92 — lOO; and — from the common lan- 
 guage of fcripture on this fubje6l, lOi — 106. 
 
 Letter VII. Argument for Independency from 1 Cor. v. 
 examined, and proved to be inconclufive, 107 — 118. 
 The tendency of the Independent plan to encourage 
 a fchifmatic fpirit, even in matters of trivial importance, 
 confidered, 112 — ii']. Note. 
 
 Letter VIII. Argument from Acts xv. difcuffed, and 
 (hewn to be not only irrelevant, but favourable to 
 Prefbytery, 118 — 127. 
 
 Appendix to Letter VIII. The conftitution of the 
 primitive church proved to have refembled Prefbytery 
 more than Independency, from the teftimony of Cy- 
 prian, 13c — 134 — Clemens Romanus, 134 — Jerome, 
 136 — Ignatius, 137. Cyprian, whom Independents 
 rank among their defenders, further, ihewn to oppofe 
 their fentiments, 139 — 148. 
 
 Letter IX. On the Order of Ruling Elders, This order 
 acknowledged by Watts, Cotton, Goodwin, ISJc. 149. 
 The authority of it proved, from the language of fcrip- 
 ture, as to plurality of elders, 1 50 ; from the extent of 
 infpedion and fuperintendence required of them, ic i — 
 their duties ftated by Dr. Owen, 152 — 155; from 
 the propriety of checking the ambition of pallors, 
 156^^—158; from the qualifications of many of the 
 members, 159 — 162. 
 
 Letter X . Scriptural Authority of this Order. Ro m . x i i. 
 6, 7, 8. explained, 162 — 172. The ruling mentioned, 
 an office in the church, 164— does not refer to gifts, 165, 
 
Contests. xi 
 
 nor to a family, i66 — nor to an infpired prefident, 
 as M'Knight afferts, 169. Meaning of ^^o<f>i^<, 171. 
 I Cor. xii. 28. confidered, 172 — 176. Opinion of 
 Chryfoftom on this text, 173. 
 
 Letter XI. Same fubjea. i Tim. v. 17. confidered: 
 acknowledged by Dr. Owen to be decifive on the 
 point, 177, and by Whitaker, tb. Objeftions exa- 
 mined, 179 — 186. Sentiments of the primitive fathers, 
 188—191. 
 
 Letter XII. On Courts of Review. Difference of 
 opinion among Independents, 192. Aflbciation and 
 fubordtnation of courts contended for by Hooker, 
 Cotton, the Weftminfter Independents, and Goodwin, 
 
 193 196. Strong language of Dr. Owen to this 
 
 piirpofe, 197 — 200. Authoritative rule, and not ad- 
 vice merely. Implied in their ftatcments, 202 — 204. 
 Sentimentsoflndependents in Holland, 204, 205. A^o/^. 
 
 Lettlr XIII. Same fubjea. Views of Independents 
 and Preibyterians as dated by Baillie and Fergufon, 
 206—209, and of Prefbytery by Hoornbeek, ib. 
 Note. Congregations not to be independent of each 
 other, proved, from the fcripture-reprefentation of 
 the unity of the church, 2 1 1—2 22. The non-exiftence 
 of an univerfal church, no objeAIon, 215. Analogy, 
 on this point, between political and ecclefiaftical 
 government confidered and defended, 217. This unity 
 belongs to the univerfal church, and not to a particular 
 congregation only, 221. 
 
 Letter XIV. Same JubjeB. Independency more fa- 
 vourable to error and tyranny than Prefbytcry, 222 to 
 23 2. Ordination by minifters alone, a fymptom of Prefby- 
 terian principles, even among Independents, 232. A 
 court of review neceffary to judge heretical or immoral 
 paftors, 235. Independency lefs favourable than Pref- 
 bytery to an enlightened and candid adminiftration of 
 juftice, 236 — 242. 
 
xii Contents. 
 
 Letter XV. SamefubjeSi. Scripture-authority of courts of I 
 review. Their exiftence among the Jews, 242 — among 
 Chriftians, 244, particularly at Jerufalem, proved, from 
 the number of Chriftians there, 245 — 267. The 
 difperfion at the death of Stephen confiderid, 253 to 
 258. Minifters of different congregations at Jerufalem, 
 fhewn, 261. Teftlmonyof Eufebius,/^. Objedlionfrom 
 Ezra, anfwered, 263. Note. Weekly communion not 
 revealed, 264 — 266. Note. 
 
 Letter XVI. Samefubjed. Plur, 'ity of congregations 
 in Jerufalem argued, from the number ofminijlers employed 
 there y 268 ; from the diverfity of languages fpoken, 
 269. Mr. Ewing's objedtion confidered, 272. The term 
 brethren applied to minifters in the New Teftament, 
 and probably fo to be underftood in Afts xv. 276. 
 Great argument of Mr. Ewing and other Independents 
 from A6lsxxi. 22. fhown to be inconclufive, 278 — 287. 
 
 Letter XVIL SamefubjeB. Independency not fupported 
 by Afts XV. The form of this aflembly — difference of 
 opinion on this point, 289 \ that the members of it 
 were office-bearers, and a reference was made to them, 
 293 ; that they delivered an authoritative decifion, 
 294 — 297 ; that this aflembly was not infpired, proved, 
 298—312. 
 
 Letter XVI II. Same fubjed. Mr. Innes's reafons for 
 giving up A6ls xv. as an argument for Prefbytery, con- 
 fidered and anfwered, 313 — 323. Conclufion from this 
 reafoning, 324. Sentiments of the primitive church, 
 325 — from Cyprian, 331. Teftimony of Eufebius, 332. 
 Conclufion, 333. 
 
 Appendix I. On the Jewifli Synagogues and Sanhedrin, 
 
 334- 
 Appendix II. Remarks on a View of Social Worfhip,^^:. 
 by James Alexander Haldane, 345. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 Mr. I N N E S. 
 
 L E T T E R I. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 It is with the utmoft reludance that I addrefs you oa 
 the fubjed of your late publication. Senfible of the 
 evils which have often refulted to the caufe of Chriil 
 from religious controverfies, and from controverfies efpe- 
 cially of inferior importance, I am forry that an oppor- 
 tunity fliould again be afforded to the enemies of religion 
 to triumph at the increailng animofities and diffenfions 
 of her friends. Confcious alfo of the neceflity of mutual 
 forbearance, to promote among Chriftians that univerfal 
 charity which 13 " the bond of perfeftnefs," I cannot 
 behold, without the deepeft regret, charges the moil 
 awful and momentous, exhibited by one body of Chrif- 
 tians againil another, though equally attached to the 
 fame bleffed caufe ; charges which, from their peculiar 
 chara6ter, are not lefs dellruftive of thofe pleafures and 
 advantages which flow from the cultivation of private 
 intercourfe, than totally incompatible with public fel- 
 lowfhip. 
 
 Extraordinary as was the manner in which you were 
 led to change your views of the EilabHfhment *, and 
 
 * See Letter III. p. 27. in which you admit that it was in 
 confequence of an inquiry begun upon your being offered another 
 fituation in your prefent connection. U.i'c vou finally determined 
 
 A 
 
2 Letter I. 
 
 flrong as may have been your convictions of the pi^opriety 
 of that meafure, it appeared to me particularly unbe- 
 coming in JO?/, or any oi your brethren, to difcover fuch 
 keennefs in your oppofition to that Eftablifhment as you 
 have lately manifefted. It was the avowed defign of a 
 Celebrated fociety *, of which many of you are members, 
 and which raayjuftly be confidered as the parent of your 
 churches, to difieminate the gofpel where the means of 
 inflru(5lion were not enjoyed, or, in your apprehenfion, 
 not enjoyed in purity, and not to form a party for Inde- 
 pendents, by dividing the congregations of faithful mini- 
 fters, either among the Diflenters or in the Eftabhrti- 
 mentf. You ought certainly to have confidered alfo, 
 
 to leave tlie Church of Scotland. Whether fuch alfo was the 
 jTecuiity of your brother Mr. Ballentine, before he renounced his 
 Prefbyterian connecftion, I do not pretend to fay. 1 confider it 
 however as furprifmg, that for many years before he had re- 
 nounced his proftflion as a Prefbyterian, or even his ftudies, in the 
 view of becoming a Prefbyterian minifter, he fliould tell us, that 
 •* he had clearly feen from the word of God, that churches of 
 *' Chfift fbould confift only of converted perJonSy and that their 
 *' government (hould be what is called congregational" or Inde- 
 pendent, and yet have remained a Prefbyterian. See p. 19. of his 
 Obfervations. 
 
 * That for propagating the gofpel at home. 
 
 f That fuch was the original profeflion of this fociety, is 
 evident from the regulations which they delivered to their 
 itinerant preachers aftd catechifls, and vvhich, {o far as I know, 
 they have never yet publicly retraifled. In the ad and 3d of thefe, 
 it is declared, that " thefe itinerants are not to fhew a preference 
 ** to flKjf denomination of Chriflians, either eftahlifoed or dijfent' 
 *' ing., but exhort the people to attend -wherever the gofpel is 
 " preached in purity. And to endeavour to flrengthen the hands 
 *' of all faithful miniflers of Jtfus Chrift, of whatever denomina- 
 " tion." See Appendix to Haldane's Addrefs. If fuch liberal 
 Sentiments however were the genuir.e Jenthnents of this fociety, and 
 have uniformly been adhered to by its itinerants and catechiits, 
 how can it be explained, that in every inflance where they fuc- 
 oeeded in procuring a corgic^ation, that congregation has invarially 
 
Letter I. 3 
 
 that the more formidable the charges which you bring 
 forward againft it are, the more ftriking is your own 
 inconnllency, in granting the higheil and moil valued 
 privileges of your church to perfons while remaining in 
 this very fcciety, if you were fatisned as to the rectitude 
 of their principles and pradice *. 
 
 become an Independent church ? And efpccially, fince you, and 
 MclTrs. Haldane and Ewing, are fo zealous members and patrons of 
 this fbciety, I fliould be glad to know upon what principle you can 
 vindicate your prefent conduit, in writing with fuch vehemence 
 againft faithful min:f>ers both ejJahlificd and diflenting, while, as 
 conne<rted with this fociety, you are J}ill fblemnly declared to b« 
 publicly ailociated, *' to ftrengthen their hands, and encourage 
 " their people to -u>aif upon th^ir labours, and to enjoin all to fliew 
 " no greater partiality for your/elves than for ibern //" 
 
 * Reprehenfible as is the practice of jnlxed communion, as granted 
 occafionaily to the members of other religious focicties b"y fomc 
 of our Difienters, it Teems to be doubly Co upon the principles of 
 yotir churches. You confider the Church of Scotland in particular, 
 as will inftantly be proved, as an image of Antichrifl:, if not 
 Antichrift itfelf. But what plcalure can you experience, when 
 you fit down to participate of'your feaft of love with men whom, 
 you regard as fupporters of this adverfary of the blefled. Saviour ? 
 or what fatisfa»Stioa can they feel, when they reflet that they arc 
 joining in this delightful exercife with perfons who, whatever 
 attachment they profefs, afcribe to them, in another view, this 
 dreadful charader ? If I am not mifinformed too, it has not been 
 uncommon among you to admit thofe to occafional communion, 
 whom afterwards, when they applied for ftated memberihip with 
 the very fame views, you would not receive. But where. Sir, is 
 your warrant either from fcripture or reafon, for denying the 
 latter, which does not introduce to ordinances more folemn, or 
 privileges more important, to perfons to whom you would not 
 fcruple to grant the former ? Yet while you have imparted at 
 firft this privilege with the utmofl cheerfulnefs to thofe pious 
 perfons who occafionally applied for it, you have been known in 
 many inftances, if they perfifted in their applications, to remon- 
 ftrate with them on what you denominated the inconf.ftency of their 
 conduft, and mofl: affiduoufly to infift that they would become 
 ftaisd members. Does an aft however, which, in your opinion, 
 A2 
 
4 Letter I. 
 
 It is undeniable however, that fuch charges have been 
 advanced by you againft it. You yourfelf infinuate 
 (p. 1 16.), in terms the mofl decided, that it is no longer 
 entitled to the charadler of a church of Chr'ijl, And 
 your brother Mr. Ewing, in a late very extraordinary 
 paper refpefling Vows (fee Miflionary Magazine for 
 January 1804, p. 6.), after quoting Rev. xiii. 16, 17. 
 •' And he caufed all, both fmall 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 fell, fave he that had the mark, or the name 
 *' of the beaft, or the number of his name" — introduces, 
 in page 36. a note from the annotations of the Geneva 
 tranflators, explanatory of the mark of the beaft ; and 
 then fubjoins, ** How happy fhould we be that we are 
 ** happily delivered from fo many of the abufes mention- 
 *' ed above ; and that, through the lenity of the govern- 
 ** ment under which we live, any man is at liberty to 
 *• rejeft them all! No clafs of men ought to be more 
 " fenfible of the value of our civil conftitution than 
 
 may be perfonned without inconfiftency for eight or ten times, be- 
 come inconfiftent if movt frequently repeated? And does not the 
 folicitude wiiich you difcover, and the importunity which yon em- 
 ploy, to prevail with thofe who are occafional communicants to be- 
 come dated members, difclofe a def-gn rather of converting^ this 
 folemn and invaluable privilege into a mean oi tncrcafing your own 
 focieties, than of promoting the mutual love of Chriftians ? And, in 
 fhort, according to the principles of your different focieties, every 
 individual, who is admitted 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, according to your uniform pra£\ice, you allow a 
 member of the Church of England, or a member from our Eftablifh' 
 ment or the Prefbyterian DiHenters, when you are fatisfied at once 
 with his faith and piety, to eat with you occafionally the 
 facrament of the fupper, upon what grounds, I demand, could 
 you refufe this perfon, even while he remained an Epifcopaliarii 
 or PreJbyteriaUy a right alfo to adminifter occafionally in your IndC' 
 ■pendent congregations as an ecdefiaftical ruler ? 
 
Letter I. 5 
 
 5* Chriflians, who cannot in confcience hold communion 
 " with a national church. In thefe times, and In this 
 " country i we may refufe to be fealed with Anttchrifi's 
 «< mark, and be neverthelefs fufFered to live among men." 
 Here It Is plain, that he confiders even the ftrongeft of 
 thefe names, which have hitherto been viewed as appro- 
 priated to that church which is called In ferlpture, 
 " The mother of harlots, and abominations of the 
 " earth," as applicable alfo to our national church. 
 She too, It feems. In his opinion, Is the heajl mentioned la 
 this paffage ; and confequently, according to the defcrlp- 
 tion oi this Antichrift, muft fit In the place of God, and 
 exalt herjelf above all ivh'ich is called God: and of her alfo 
 it may be affirmed (however contradidory to fad), that 
 n^e has made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath 
 of her fornications, and has deceived them who dwell 
 upon the earth ly the lying miracles which fhe has pre- 
 tended to perform !!! How ftrange indeed, that perfons 
 Vvho are fuch flicklers for purity of communion, fnould 
 receive to occafional ftllowfaip x\iQ folloivers of this heajly 
 and fupporters of this Antichrift — the members, in fhort, 
 of this church, which cannot be confidered as a church of 
 Chrift ! How ftill more ailonifhing is it, that men, who 
 glory fo much in their candour and charity, fnould apply 
 to our Eliabliihment the titles of a church, not one of 
 the awful charaderiillcs of which, whether as already 
 dated, or more fully defcribed In the facred volume, 
 either can be afcribed to her in themfelves, or were ever 
 hitherto afcribed to her in the fame extent, even by her 
 mofl; inveterate enemies *. See an admirable refutation 
 
 * I mull here except Dr. C. Stuart, who, after leaving tbe 
 Eftablifhrnent, in 1 777 puhliilied a moft violent invective againfl 
 it, in the form of a fermon. . In it he attempts to trace a 
 refembiancc between our church and Antichrift, which is repre- 
 fented in the Revelation, as a woman fitting upon a fcarlet- 
 eoloured beaft, with ieven heads and ten horns. It is remarkable 
 
 A3 
 
6 Letter I. 
 
 of this paper on Vows, and a detedion of fome radical 
 and important errors on which the fcheme of thefe gen- 
 
 however, that while he felefts certain circumftances in which he 
 imagines there is a fimilarity, he omits others far more important 
 and diftindlive, in which even his ingenuity could not difcover 
 the flightcf!: degree of coincidence. It is evident alfo, that to 
 point out a refemblance in a few particulars, admitting that he 
 has fucceeded, will not warrant the application of this name to 
 the Eftabliihment. Some things which are very good, refemble 
 others which are bad, in a number of circumftances ; and yet it 
 cannot be inferred from this, that they are evil. A good man 
 may refemble a bad man, in being fupported by the power and 
 wealth of others, as he here fays that the Church of Scotland 
 refembles Antichrifl ; and yet we cannot infer from this, that he 
 is an unworthy characfler. Nay, we are told in this fame book, 
 chap. xxi. 24. that when the pureft ftate of the church on earth 
 Ihall come, " the kings of the earth," who are faid, in the 
 defcription of Antichrift which he quotes, to give its power and 
 ftrength to the beaft, " fhali bring their glory and honour into the 
 " church." But fmce the Dodor confiders it as one part of the 
 fimilarity of our church to Antichrifl:, that her minifters, while as 
 refponfibie for their dodrine and praiflice as thofe of any Dif- 
 jfenters, are fecured, as long as they difcharge their duty, in their 
 maintenance by Government, what will he fay of the millennial 
 church, into which the kings of the earth are to bring their 
 glory and honour, to fupport and promote it ? Since he reprefents 
 it likewife as an evidence of our fimilarity to the mother of harlots, 
 that we have a -wriiten confejfwn, exhibiting our view of the mean- 
 ing of the fcriptures, and that our creed will not agree with his 
 view of thefe fcriptures, does it not follow from this, that as 
 there is not at prefent a church in Scotland with which he can 
 join in communion, every Baptift, and Independent, and Prefby- 
 terian difTenting, as well as ejiabliped congregation, muft fo far be 
 viewed by him as a member of Antichrift ? In fine, as he 
 mentions it as another point of refemblance, that the 'two 
 •witnefTes of God prophefy in her clothed in fackcloth, it appears 
 necefTarily to refult from it, that as we ate informed in Rev. xi. 3. 
 that thefe wituefTes were to prophefy for 1260 prophetic days, or 
 according to him for that number of years, the Church of 
 Scotland, if we attend to the firft period of its cxiftence as a 
 
Letter I. 7 
 
 tiemen in a great meafure is founded, in the Miffionary 
 Magazine for March 1804*. 
 
 You have, however, produced evidence which appears 
 to you at leaft, demonftrative of the truth of your charges, 
 and which confequently juftifies your feparation from the 
 eftablifhed church. Of this evidence you invite a fair 
 dlfcuflion. It will not therefore, I prefume, be dlfagree- 
 able to you to attend to fome refleftlons which, on a 
 perufal of your Letters, occurred to a member of the 
 Eftablifhment, and which, on review, flill difpofe him 
 to objedl to the cogency of your reafoning, for the necef- 
 fity or propriety of the ftep which you have taken. The 
 arguments which you adduce to eftabllfh your pofitlon 
 are of two kinds ; thofe which, in your opinion, prove 
 the conJVituUon of the Church of Scotland to be antl- 
 fcriptural, and thofe which relate to the improprieties ex- 
 hibited in its adm'in'ijl ration. In the following pages it is 
 propofed to conlider thefe arguments in their order, with 
 the degree of force which they appear to pofTefs. 
 
 Confclous of the fallacy of the common praftlce of 
 arguing againil a fcheme from the ahufe which may have 
 been made of it, or the errors and Inconfiitencies which 
 may have appeared in the conduct of thofe who have 
 held it, you juftly exprefs, in language the mofl: pointed, 
 your difapprobatlon of fuch reafoning. *' It is not," 
 
 diilirKH: fociety, muft, in the Do£lor's view, have dill a profpecft 
 of exigence for an extent of time, not very encouraging to him 
 and his Independent brethren in their attempts to overthrow it. 
 * It may moreover be remarked, that faice it is fpecified in 
 this pafTage as a fign of Antichrift, even according to Mr. Ewing, 
 that Ihe allows none to liveamong men who do not receive her 
 mark or number, it is impoflxble for him, without diredly oppof- 
 ing his own exprejjions, as well as the explicit teftimony of the 
 facred oracles, to apply this opprobrious appellation to our church, 
 which permits Independents to live unmokfted in their re- 
 ligious privileges. 
 
8 Letter 1. 
 
 you fay (p. 9.), " the charafter of individuals, bu* 
 *' the general afpeft and tendency of any particular 
 " fyftem, by which our opinion of it ought to be regu- 
 " lated. If it be founded on fcriptural principles, 
 ** ungodly men being profejjedly attached to it will not 
 " make it worfe j and if not, the moil eminent examples 
 " of holinefs among its votaries will not be able to fanc- 
 " tion it." And again, in p. 105. " Let it be recol- 
 ** lefted, it hfyjlems, not the characters either of indl- 
 ** viduals or of particular focieties, the merits of which 
 ** we are here canvaffing. Thefe are only implicated fo 
 ** far as they are found countenancing a fyftem, of which 
 " there is fatisfadlory evidence that it is not agreeable 
 ** to the word of God." Than this, indeed, nothing 
 can be more rational ; for were we to rtjedt a principle or 
 fyftem on account of the errors, and even immoralities, of 
 many who hold it, we ftiould not only fet afide Prefbytery, 
 but Independency and Chriftianity, and even reafon itfelf. 
 You rightly therefore begin with the conftitution of our 
 church, and on this ground we are willing moft readily 
 to meet you, afTured that if It can be proved to be agree- 
 able to fciipture, it wnll be difficult for you to eftabliili 
 the propriety of feparating from its communion. 
 
 In reviewing then your remarks upon the conji'itution of 
 the Church of Scotland, I am happy to obferve that yoa 
 are pleafed to objeft only to its form of government, 
 confcious, I prefum.e, that the views which It profefTes of 
 evangelical truth, in its ConfefTion and Catechlfms, are 
 no lefs confiftent than your own with the word of God, 
 Its adminiftratioa by Prefbytery alone is the objed of 
 your cenfure, and againft this you declaim as one abun- 
 dant fource of the evils which are to be found in It. 
 With this momentous confequence however, even though 
 thefe evils, fhould exift, I hope it will afterwards appear 
 that Prefbytery is not chargeable ; and that of all thofe 
 forms of government which we know, Prefbytery is the befl 
 
Letter I. 9 
 
 fitted to preferve purity of doftrine and difcipllne. At 
 prefent It is fuincient to mention, that corruptions, not 
 only in governnaent but in ftntiment, are not peculiar to 
 Prefbytery, but are to be found in an equal, if not in a 
 greater degree among Independents themfelves. No 
 where have the opinions of Socinians, and Arians, and 
 Arminians, and Univerfalifts, more generally prevailed 
 than among the Independents in England *. As no 
 argument then, founded upon the exillence of fuch evils 
 among Independents, would be admitted by you to be 
 conclufive againft Independency, unlefs it could be prov- 
 ed that it v/as favourable /o //^^ /V///Wm^/o« of them ; fo 
 no argument, I contend, can be adduced from fuch evils, 
 if they exiil in the Eftablifhment, againft its Prefbyterian 
 government, unlefs it can be evinced that that mode of 
 government is the fource and caufe of the introduBion of 
 fuch errors. But this you have never even attempted to 
 demonftrate. 
 
 I am furprifed, befides, that in your examination of 
 Prefbytery, you did not confidcr its various parts fepa- 
 rately, as detailed in our ftandards, with the particular 
 evidence which is exhibited for each. The great body 
 of that evidence you have very flightly noticed, and part 
 of it you have not even noticed at all. This, however, 
 would undoubtedly have been the moft fatisfadory 
 method of refuting the errors, if errors they are, which 
 are maintained on this fubjeft by our national church, 
 and it would certainly have impreffed your readers with 
 a more favourable idea of your fidelity and candour. It 
 would alfo, perhaps, by no means have been prejudicial 
 
 * That many, alfo, of the Prefbyterians in England have 
 embraced thefe errors cannot be denied. It is well known how- 
 ever, that thefe Prefbyterians have no courts of review, or do not 
 regard them ; and that, while they profefs to be Prefbyterians, 
 from their total inattention to the peculiarities of that fyflem, they 
 are more worthy, in a certain view, of the name of Independents. 
 
10 Letter 1. 
 
 to you in this important particular, if, after flating your 
 arguments in favour of Independency, you had been 
 pleafed likewife to mention what had been faid in anfwer 
 to ihem a hundred times by former Prefbyterians. But 
 this you have thought proper completely to fupprefs j and 
 indead of putting your readers, agreeably to your pro- 
 mife (p. 3.), in pofieffion of the arguments on both fides 
 of the queilion, wh'Ie you have illuftrated, at leaft as fully 
 as you knew them, the arguments of Independents, have 
 totally concealed the replies of their opponents. 
 
 You have thought proper to confidcr at once., and in a 
 very few pages, the d'lfferent peculiarities of the Prefby- 
 terian fyftem ; and fome parts of that fydem you have 
 not even mentioned. As this plan, however, neither ap>. 
 pears to be a faithful exhibition of truth, nor fitted for 
 clear and accurate difcufiion, it is propofed in what 
 follows, to confider 
 
 In the I ft place, The opinions of Prefbyterians and 
 Independents with regard to the nature and extent of 
 that power which fhould be granted to church-rulers. 
 
 2dly, To whom this power is given by the fcriptures 
 in a particular congregation ; whether to the members 
 of the church at large — to the paftor alone — or to the 
 paftor and lay-elders united. 
 
 And in the 3d place. If every particular congregation 
 is fo to be governed, whether its paftor and elders are, 
 by fcripture-authority, required to fubmit to the review 
 and controul of the paftors and elders of feveral congre- 
 gationsj united in a Presbytery, Synod, or Affembly. 
 
[11 3 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 1 HEjirJl point, I apprehend, in which you differ from 
 Prefbyterians, is the nature of that power which they 
 grant to their rulers ; and here, in words at lead, the 
 difference is important. Upon this topic Independents 
 have often declaimed with the utmofl keennefs, and from 
 this fource they have derived their warmed invedives 
 Qgainfl the Eflablifhment. Upon this topic, too, you 
 confiderably enlarge, and attempt to paint, in very 
 fiiocking colours, the baneful confequences with which 
 the authority of Prefbytery is neceffarily attended. 
 
 Before however I attend to your arguments, I would 
 briefly advert to a mifreprefentation which has frequently 
 been made by Independents, of the claims of Prefbyte- 
 rians with regard to the nature and kind oi ihtir authority. 
 Often has it been faid, that the power for which they 
 contend, amounts to nothing lefs than a legiflathe au- 
 thority, and inverts them with a right to enadl at plea- 
 fure whatever laws they wifh to eftablifh in the church of 
 Chrift *. Than this, however, nothing undoubtedly can 
 be more remote from their fentiments. They, as well as 
 Independents, profefs to admit that Jefus is the only Head 
 of his church ; that thofe laws alone which he has reveal- 
 ed, bind the confciences and conduft of his fubjeftsf ; 
 
 * See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 175. near the middle, where he 
 ailfirms that a legiflative power is aflumed by Prefbyterians. 
 
 f In proof of this, we may refer to the words of our Confeflion, 
 chap. xxxi. feft. iii. where it is exprefsly declared, " that it 
 " belongeth to Synods and Councils ininifterially" i, e. merely as 
 the fervants of Jefus, and accountable to him, " to determine 
 •* controverfies of faith and cafes of confciencc" — to the words of 
 tSiat very AfTembly which framed this Confeflion, and coliefted 
 from the fcriptures our form of church-government; " We fay 
 " again, that this power of minifters is no where any other than 
 *' mimjierlal, and that it is not to be exercifcd any where at their 
 
12 Letter II. 
 
 and that the hlghefl honour to which ecclefiaflical rukn 
 can now afpire, is to explain what the dodrine of the 
 church is, with regard to the true meaning of the laws of 
 Chrift, and authoritatively to enforce among thofe of 
 her communion the execution of hts laws. In matters 
 indeed of inferior moment, which regard fimply the con- 
 venience, or external order and regularity of the church, 
 and for which no explicit diredlions are given In the 
 fcriptures, Prefbyterians allow that Chrifl has intrufted 
 
 " otvn wills, but according io his direUlon" (p. 9. of their Anfwers 
 to the Seven Independents) — to the words of the London minifters, 
 who, while they contend mofl: ftrenuoufly for the divine right of 
 Prefbytery, declare explicitly, p. 45. that the power which is to 
 be committed to its rulers is to be " only fubordinate and mini- 
 " fterial" — and to the treatifes of Giilefpie, in his Aaron's Rod 
 Bloflbming, p. 175.; of Wood againfl: Lockier, p. 276. &c.; and 
 of Hall on Church-government, p. 59.; with many other Prefby- 
 terians, who, though they aflert mofl: decidedly the right of the 
 rulers to ecclefiaftical power, very pointedly flate that it is not 
 to be legiflative. Above all, we may refer to that very ftriking 
 fa£t in favour of Prefbytery, that many of the mofl: zealous of 
 our ancient Prefbyterians, in the laft aw-ful perfecutions which 
 were witnefTed in thefe lands, bled and died in fupport of this 
 truth, that Chrijl alone is invefl:ed with a legiflative power in his 
 church. How fl:range then, whatever may be the praHices of 
 Prefbyterians, that Independents fliould deny this to be at leafl a 
 part of their principles, as much as of their own, that the power 
 of church-officers is only to be fubordinate, not legiflative ! And 
 how extraordinary, that the writer before quoted, when fpeaking 
 folely of the Prcfbyterian/y/^^w, fhould boldly affirm, in the face 
 of fuch teftimonies, that it authorizes its church-officers to make^ 
 as well as interpret and execute its laws ! If fuch be the view of 
 the principles of Prefbyterians which is io obnoxious to Indepen- 
 dents, it is no lefs rejected, in profeffion and fyftem, by Prefby- 
 terians than by them. And, at the fame time, it is a view of thi 
 ■principles of Prefljytery which I feel obliged to declare that I 
 have iicver found in the writings of Prefbyterians, and have met 
 with only amidft the felf-created theories and accufations of 
 Independents. 
 
Letter II. 13 
 
 a power with thofe who rule in his church, to appoint 
 fuch regulations as may be requifite for the general ends 
 of edification and utility. But this is no more than 
 Independents themfelveshave uniformly claimed * ; while 
 it is an inconteftable faft, that, in every inftance in which 
 legijlative power is difclaimed by Independents, It is 
 univerfally and explicitly difclaimed by Prefbyterians. 
 
 But admitting that the power with which ruler* 
 are invef\ed is not legiflative, but fimply of the kind 
 which has been nov/ dated, what is the degree of it which 
 they are warranted to cxercife ? Are they entitled, 
 s? Independents affirm, merely to deliver their decifions 
 to thofe whom they govern, as matters of opinion ? or have 
 they a right to announce them, as Prefbyterians maintain, 
 as authoritative determinations^ and require their cheerful 
 and univerfal obedience ? In the former of thefe fchemes 
 you profefs your belief, and reprobate the latter, as 
 fubfervient merely to promote the purpofes of tyranny 
 and opprefiion. That inftances of tyranny may indeed 
 be found in the condudl of Prefbyterians, I readily 
 grant ; bat that fuch inftances are authorized by their 
 fyftem, I pofitively deny. Nothing can be more con- 
 trary to ^t genius at lead of this form of government.; 
 while it is a notorious faft, that it isnot only not ex- 
 cluded by Independency itfelf, but feems not even to 
 be equally precluded by this plan of adminiftration. 
 Many inftances might be adduced, of moft imperious 
 decifions by Independent rulers ; decifioBS, too, which, 
 when once paffed, were for ever final ; and decifions pro- 
 nounced by the very men who, while they exclaim 
 againft Prefbyterians for exercifing even inferior autho- 
 ritative power, profefs to claim no more than a right to 
 deliver their opinion and advice to thofe whom they go- 
 
 * Thus the tabernacle-churches in Scotland require their 
 members to ftand in finging. 
 
 B 
 
t4 Letter II. 
 
 vern. Even in one of your fifter-churches, an inftancci 
 of this kind the moll aftonifhing and unaccountable, if 
 we are to believe the narrative of thofe who were 
 aggrieved, has already occurred ; and their narrative has 
 never yet been invalidated. In this cafe, furely, it was 
 more than an advice or opinion which was delivered : for 
 when certain members refufed to concur with the paftor 
 in a moft infignificant matter, fo far at leaft as it related to 
 liim, a decifion of cenfure was pafied, not only in a tone 
 as authoritative as is ever affumed by any Prefbytery, 
 but in a manner as fummary and rigorous as that of any 
 Roman Conclave *. In Independency, moreover, which, 
 
 ■* See a narrative publifhed by {even members of your church 
 at Perth, who were excommunicated by Mr. Little, for refufing 
 to concur with the reft of the members in adopting the verfion 
 of the Pfalms of David compofed by Dr. Watts. The account 
 ■which is iiere given of the conduct of that gentleman, confidering 
 him as an Independent, is indeed -aftonifhing, and though at- 
 tempted to be fet afide by him in the reply which he has publifh- 
 ed, feems yet to be unanfwered. He contents himfelf, in general 
 (p. 7.), with " denying the view which they give of his words 
 *' and aflions, in relation to their feparation." And though they 
 have produced charges againft him the mod precife a.nd/pecijict and 
 cftabliftied them by fa£ls the mcft pointed and particular, he fatif- 
 fies himfelf, and imagines that he will fatisfy the world, by ftmplj 
 fiying., " that theirs is a moft diftorted and unjuft reprefentation, 
 *'' defigned to bring the whole tabernacle-difcipline to contempt." 
 It muft be obvious however, that fuch vague affirmations, unfub- 
 ilantiated by proof, cannot be fuftained as a fatisfa£lory anfwer 
 to accufations fo ferious, and attempted at leaft to be fup- 
 ported by references to fa£ts and incidents the mcft predfe and 
 determinate. His reafons, moreover, for declining " to enter into 
 *' particulars, and for long filence" after the publication of their 
 narrative (compare p. 1%. with p. 6. 7.), muft ftrike every candid 
 and impartial mind as very extraordinary, when urged by a nian 
 as an excufe for not vindicating himfelf from accufations certainly 
 the mo{\ particular and important. He tells us, that *' it can anfwer 
 *' no other poffible end than to harden the minds, and to increafe 
 " the prejudices, of the public againft the truth — that if he were 
 
Letter II. I^ 
 
 tn its number of rulers, refembles and equals the lowefb 
 form of political democracy, there is certainly more 
 room, as m other democracies, for the difplay of tyranny 
 than in a mixed and moderated government, fuch as that 
 
 *• to follow them over the ground they have trodden, it would be 
 ** to fall into the fame evil he condemns— and bcfides, however 
 *' it may be with others, he feels it impoflible to repciit and refute 
 " their flanders without being in a meafure contaminated with 
 " their fpirit; and rather than this, he would endure their utmoft 
 " reproach, — Thut, from careful examination of his mind, in 
 " fhort, he is perfuaded that it would be more injurious to his 
 " characfter as a Chriftian minifler, to enter into fuch a conteft, 
 " than all their inve£tives can prove — and that thefe are the rea* 
 ** fons why, in the kind of defence which he is pleafed to publifiij 
 " he addrelTes himfelf only to thoje who are under his fajioral care J* 
 But, certainly, if this reafoning were conciufive, it would follow 
 that whenever the condud of a Chriftian, or of a minifter was at- 
 tacked, if the charges appeared to him unjuft and exaggerated, he 
 ought by no means to endeavour to refute and remove them. It 
 is merely his duty to afTert the contrary, and content himfelf with 
 fuppofing that this ajfert'ton, though unfupported by proof, will be 
 completely fatisfa£lory to the world at large, who know no more 
 of him than of thofe who are his accufers. Nay, it is a neceflary 
 confequence from his mode of arguing, that it is impoflible for a 
 Chriftiarr when aflailed by flander.^ to reply to it with meehiefs ; 
 and, like his bleffed Lord when reviled by his enemies, while he 
 vindicates himfelf from their revilings, not to revile them again. 
 But is not this contrary'- at once to the commandments of fcripture, 
 and the example of Jefus, who repeatedly repelled the flanders 
 of his foes? Is it not at variance, alfo, with the conducH: of Paul, 
 who, in his different Epiftles, frequently defends himfelf from the 
 imputations which were caft upon himfelf and his miniflry by the 
 Judaizing teachers ? And does it not imply a cenfure of your 
 brother Mr. Ewing, who repeatedly attempted, though not with 
 fu^cr abundant meehiejs^ to reply to Mr. Robertfon, refpefting the 
 interefting charges which he advances againft: him ; as well as to 
 your friend Mr. Haldane, who thought proper to follow a fimilar 
 courfe, when animadverfions were made upon his opinions and 
 plan by a great literary character ? In fliort, as the honour and 
 iaterefl:s of religion muft undoubtedly be afTeiSted in a very eminent 
 
j6 Letter II. 
 
 of Prefbytery. In the latter, the admlniftratlon is veiled 
 in a few, compofed of minifters and lay-elders ; the 
 laft of whom ought, at leaft by the conflitution of the 
 church, to be chofen from the wifeft and moll pious 
 
 ilcgree by the accnfations which are here advanced againfl: Mr. 
 Little, if not individually refuted, and as it is impoHibie for him, 
 as in the cafe of a mere general allegation, to vindicate himftlf 
 from thefe particular charges by his future conduct, he appears to 
 be bound, by every confideration, to anfwer precifel'y the accufa- 
 tions here exhibited, and thus to 'tvipe away from himfelf and 
 his congregation the odium which appears to be thrown upon 
 them. 
 
 If Mr, Little, befides, as he here tells us, intends only to ad- 
 drefs himfelf to thofe who are under his pafloral care, and to vin- 
 dicate himfelf and his con AuCi Jo I ely to them^ why has he publifhed 
 this addrefs to the -world? Is the world to believe them any more 
 than their paftor, bccaufe, as he was for a long time, they have 
 yet been filent. Did not they too, by confirming the fentence of 
 excommunication, make themfelves a party with him ? and would 
 it be fair to give credit to their vague aflertions againft another 
 party, any more than his, if they do not anfwer the proofs by 
 which their opponents fupport their charges? 
 
 In fine, admitting even that the caufe for which thefe perfons 
 were excommunicated was _////? and valid, one thing feems to be 
 plain, that though the church afterwards fan£tioned this deed, 
 Mr. Little himfelf, after public worfhip, without convening the 
 rnembers and obtaining their confent, ventured to pronounce upon 
 thefe individuals this awful fentence. Nay, when the church 
 aflembled to decide upon the ftep which he had taken, he would 
 not allow the men, whom he alone as yet could be confidered as 
 having excommunicated, to fpeak in their own defence before 
 they were excommunicated by the church alfo. And afterwards, 
 when two of the members who were expelled, waited upon him 
 for a copy of the fentence of excommunication, he told them that 
 he had burnt it, and would not write another; and that if they 
 wanted fuch a paper, they might recover it from the flames^. 
 And, as if thefe infults had not fufficed, when they requeued him 
 to produce a letter which they had written to Mr. Haldane, nar- 
 rating their grievances, and which had been tranfmitted by him 
 to Mr. Little, and when they alked hira exprefsly to point out 
 
Letter IT. 17 
 
 among the people, and fhould be known to be zealoufly 
 attached to their Interefts. Among Independents how- 
 ever, reprefentatives are exchided (a thing which is 
 admitted in the loweft republican forms of government), 
 
 any pafTages of it in which they had misftated the truth, he pofi- 
 tively refufed. Is fuch conduft, however, confident with the prin- 
 ciples of modern Independents, who boaft fo much of the liberty 
 and equity which are difcovered in their courts, and exclaim with 
 fuch keennefs againft the tyranny of our Eftablifhment ? Can 
 their paftor, without requefling a meeting of the church, and ob- 
 taining their confent, excommunicate any of their members ? Are 
 the perfons who are accufed of any crimes or errors, which even 
 7nerit cxcommunicatio)!, denied in their churches, before fentence is 
 pronounced, the privilege of /peaking in their own vindication? 
 Does it refemble the conduft of a man who was confcious that he 
 Iiad adled confulently with juftice or candour, immediately to burn 
 the paper which he had read in impeachment of the chara£ler of 
 any of his members, and infii<fting upon them one of the moft 
 awful of puniihments ? Was it worthy of fuch a confcioufnefs of 
 i:e£litude and moderation, to refufe to furnilh them with another 
 copy of the deed, and to bid them, if they chofe, recal it from the 
 flames ? Could condu<ft fo tyrannical and imperious as this, how- 
 ever merited the fentence, be tolerated in any civil courts in 
 Europe, except thofe of the military defpot of France ? Did it 
 intimate that he was able fatisfadorily to overturn the repre- 
 fer.tation which they had given in their letter to Mr. Hal- 
 dane, when he refufed to read it, and point out any inflance 
 in which their ftatement was incorrect? Are accufations like 
 thefe, which fo deeply concern the honour of religion^ and the refpec- 
 talility of his church, to be fet afide by fimply telling us, that he 
 would prejudice the wicked againfl the truth, and would imbibe 
 the fpirit with w'hich flanders are uttered, were he to reply 
 particularly to thefe allegations ? Such an apology may, perhaps, 
 appear fufiicient to Mr. Little and his Independent fviends, but 
 it will not fatisfy the world at large, judging by the principles of 
 equity and integrity. And till thefe charges are individually, not 
 merely denied, but refuted, the credit of religion, io far as connected 
 with the honour of Independents who afTociate with him, and the 
 difcipline of the church which retains him as its pallor, muft be coo- 
 iidered as deeply and materially afTefted. 
 
 £^3 
 
l8 Letter II. 
 
 and a plan of ecclefiaftical adminiflration is followed, 
 which, in its form at leaft, is much more lawlefs, and 
 more fitted to be produ£live either of tyranny or of anar- 
 chy ; as it conftitutes every member of the church, man. 
 
 Nor is the cafe of Mr. Little the only inftance of oppreflive 
 government which occurs among Independents. Even in a taber- 
 'nacle-church which was formed lately at Elgin, under the mini- 
 4lry of Mr. Ballentine, and the greater part of which feparated 
 from him, fomething very fimilar to fpiritual domination appears 
 to have been pradifed. Their paftor, while he profefTed to grant 
 to each member an equal right to judge with himfelf, was the 
 only perfon, it feems in their apprehenfion, who governed their 
 church. Againft this conducft they remonftrate in the memoris'l 
 which they fent to him ; and obferve, " As to the government of 
 ** the congregation we ihaVi not ftickle for any name, though \vs 
 *' do not love the unfcriptural phrafe Independency. And as to 
 *• the expreflion Prcjbylcrian, from the word prejhytery we know 
 *' it is fcriptural, for it occurs times almoft unnumbered in the 
 " Bible, as any one may fee that has a Concordance, by looking at 
 •* the word elder^ elders, which is the Englifh tranllation for the 
 " word pre/byter, prejbyters. But we will not ftrive about words. 
 *' Our determination is, however, that we will not be governed 
 " by a fingle perfon, for that is neither Prefbytery nor Indc- 
 ** pendency, old nor new, but is a mere arbitrary government, like 
 *' Popery or Eptjcopacy on a fmall fcale ; and this is a condition 
 *' that we cannot depart from, as it is contrary to our original 
 " contra£l when we came together as minifter and people. 
 
 " If our minifter," fay they again, " choofes to take the deacons 
 •* as ^fcjfion or ecclefiaftical council, to rule along with himfelf, 
 " we are pleafed. If this does not fuit him, we agree that feven-, 
 " nine, or a greater number of men be chofen by mutual confent 
 " of minifter and congregation, and as many of the prefent dea- 
 " cons among them as can be agreed upon, and let thefe a£l as 
 '* reprefentatives 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 Ballentine's Obfervations. Whether this 
 reprefentation was true in the extent which they fo frequently 
 and ftrongly affirm, I do not pretend to fay. At any rate it is 
 certain, as Mr. Ballentine acknowledges (p. <)5.)y that their 
 charges were juft in a particular inflance, for without confulting 
 
Letter II. 
 
 19 
 
 woman, or child, for fuch fometlmes, from early pietf, 
 are received to that privilege, a ruler in the church. In 
 Prefbytery, if a perfon feels himfelf aggrieved by the 
 decifion of a Seflion, he may appeal to a Prefbytery, 
 from that to a Synod, and from that to a General 
 Affembly, the fuperior court being in every inilance a 
 check upon the inferior, having power to reverfe its adls 
 and deeds. In Independency however, the decifion of 
 the firfl court is completely final, and the injured can 
 appeal to no other fuperior tribunal upon earth. What- 
 ever then may be the conduB of Prefbyterians and Inde* 
 pendents, fuppofing the rulers, upon each of thefe 
 plans, to be equally faithful and equally confcientious 
 (and, to give juftice to the argument, this muft be 
 
 deacons, or members, or a fingic individual, fo far as is fpecified, 
 he expelled a membtr from the communion of his church. 
 
 To thefe examples of tyranny among Independent rulers, were 
 it confidered as necefTar)', many others might be added, to prove 
 that the people, however flattered by them with the appearance 
 of power, and with the folicitation of their requeft: before any 
 decifion is made, have frequently only the /hew. Of thefc I fliail 
 at prefcnt only mention one. Two refpe<n:able minifters lately, 
 while travelling through England, happened to be prefent in a:i 
 Independent church, where alfo there were another ftranger mi^ 
 nifter and gentleman. After the fer\'ices connected with preaching 
 were finifhed, the paftor proceeded to difpenfe the facrament, and 
 having corrfecrated the elements, announced to the congregation, 
 as if to afii their confent, that this ftranger clergyman and gentle- 
 man propofed that day to eat with them the fupper. Upon 
 uttering however thefe words, without waiting a moment for the 
 confent of the members, he turned to the ftrangers, and, after 
 participating himfelf, delivered to them the bread and cup. Was 
 not this however, and the fa£t can be eflablifhed by inoonteflable 
 evidence, a mere tantalizing of the members of this congregation? 
 Was it not a pretending to confult them about the communication 
 of a moft folemn and important privilege, while yet it was plainly 
 and avowedly declared that their opinion was not to be regard^^ 
 at all ? 
 
20 Letter II. 
 
 fuppofed), I contend that the Prejbyterian form of 
 government is better fitted than that of Independency, 
 to prevent tyranny, and fecure impartial equity to the 
 people. 
 
 ** The diflinguifliing feature of Prefhytery," you fay 
 (p. 28.), " is the fyftem of reprefentation." The 
 miniiler and elders of a particular congregation govern 
 that congregation ; the minifters and elders of a number 
 of cor^gregations, called a Prefbytery, judge of cafes 
 which come before them by appeal againft the fentence 
 of any particular SelTion ; and the minifters and elders 
 of a number of Prefbyteries, denominated a Synod,^ 
 decide upon thofe references which are made to them 
 againft the determination of any particular Prefbytery ; 
 as an AfTembly, again, does upon that of any particular 
 Synod, as well as deliberates about matters of general 
 importance. ** In an Independent church however,'*^ 
 you remark (p. 30.), " nothing is decided by repre- 
 ** fentation. Whatever is done by thofe who are 
 ** appointed to rule, is carried on in the prefence of the 
 ** general body, and with their confcnt. While an 
 " Independent church thus affumes the fole government 
 *' of its own affairs, it is amenable to no fociety of men 
 " under heaven. In reference to its own members, its 
 *' decifion is final, and it pretends to interfere with 
 " none clfe. It will be recollefted (p. 47.), that 
 " this peculiarity of Prefbytery confifts in the authority 
 ** of the reprefentatives of a church of Chrift, as 
 ** diftinguifhed from the perfonal conviction of the 
 " individual members of it. Now we have no hefitation 
 " In afferting, that this diftinguiftiing feature of Prefby- 
 ** tery is directly oppofed to the general fpirit, as well 
 ** as fome of the exprefs precepts of the word of God. 
 ** Every one will allow that Chriftianity is a fpiritual 
 « religion ; and it feems a neceffary principle in fuch a 
 " religion, that every one be convinced in his own 
 
Letter II. 21 
 
 •* mind. The confclence of the individual here has a 
 " moll exteufive fpherc of influence. Its approbation is 
 ** eflcntially neceflary to the exiftence of any adl of 
 *' acceptable worfhip. Whatfoever is not of faith is fm. 
 " The moment that compulflon is introduced, fpiritual 
 ** worfhip is deftroyed. This general pofition, I believe, 
 " few will difpute ; but mark how it affeds the cafe In 
 *' queftion. What is the meaning of the authority 
 " veiled in a Prefbytery, of that power by which they 
 " can command any one under their jurifdidlion to aft 
 ** according to their will ? Docs not the very exiftence of 
 " this authority imply the neceffity of it? Does it not 
 " prove that advice is not fufficient ; that the confcience 
 ** of the individual is not convinced j that fomcthing 
 ** more powerful than perfuafion rauft be reforted to I 
 *' There could be no room for authority, if convi6lion 
 ** were deemed neceffary, becaufe it is only by inftruc- 
 *' tion and perfuafion that it is produced. Like the 
 " fenfitive plant, it ftirinks at the gentlcft touch of 
 " power, and the rude intruder muft: be completely 
 " withdrawn before it again exert its energy. On thefe 
 " principles, I confider the authority of Prefbytery as 
 " Handing on a moft unfcriptural bafis." 
 
 Here, Sir, before I advert to your different remarks, 
 I would notice a very ft.riking and palpable inconfiftency 
 between your view of the government and difclpline of 
 your churches, and that which is delivered by another 
 minifter In your connexion, no lefs diftinguifhed for his 
 prefent zeal againft our Prefbyterlan Eftablifhment, 
 than for the extent and accuracy of the knowledge 
 of your ecclefiaftical conllitution which, in the opinion 
 of his followers, he poffeffes. " Whatever,*^ you affirm, 
 *• Is done by thofe who rule In your congregations. Is 
 ** carried on in the prefence of the general body, and with 
 *' their confent,^* " It feems by no means agreeable to 
 ♦' the diredions given to the primitive churches," fays 
 
22 Letter II, 
 
 that gentleman however, In his leflure upon Acts xv. 
 (p. 34. 35.), " that every meafure^ however trifling or 
 ** obvious, fhould be brought before the church for 
 *' general difcuflion, or for obtaining a public declaration 
 ** of the opinion of each member before the office-bearers 
 ** prefume to put it in pradice. From thcfe, it is plain 
 " that the office-bearers are to feed the flock ; that is, 
 ** to govern them by inftruftion and perfuafion accord- 
 ** ing to the word of God. In doing this, they are 
 ** entitled, nay, bound to carry into tff'ed the rules of 
 ** fcripture, and to require obedience from the church tothofe 
 ** rules ivhen laid before them. A different condu6l de- 
 " prives the church of the benefit of government, muft 
 ** give continual encouragement to diflenfion, and is 
 ** likely to make difclpline degenerate into an engine 
 " offadlion. 
 
 <* Nothing again," adds he (p. 35.), ** is lefs 
 ** likely to ferve the caufe of truth, or even the caufe 
 ** of Chriftian liberty, than making every thing that 
 •* ought to be done, wait for difcuffion in full aflembly^ 
 ** If the church contains the colledlive wifdom, it con- 
 ** tains alfo the collective ignorance of the brethren : if 
 ** it combines their gifts and their grace, it combines 
 ** alfo their infirmities and corruption. Where every 
 ** thing mufl undergo difcuffion, fome may be in danger 
 ** of thinking they have laws to make, inftead of laws 
 ** to obey. A few of the mod adlive fpirit and readieil 
 •• elocution will become the real movers and managers 
 ** in every bufmefs ; and a part will thus be put for the 
 *' whole. When they are agreed, every thing rnuft. be 
 '* complied with : when they are at variance, every thing 
 «* muft be objecled to. No tyranny is fo bad as that of a 
 •* cabal ; that is, of thofe who are uppermoft for the 
 ** moment in the fermentation of anarchy. Debate, 
 <* when indulged, Is favourable to the Introduftion of 
 " this fort of tyranny. It heats the paffions, warps the 
 
Letter II. 2^ 
 
 « judgment ; hurries men to mcafures of violence and 
 '* precipitation ; engages them to the fide which they 
 " happen to have taken ; inclines them to contention, 
 " and tedious confultatlon, about matters of the moft 
 *• trivial importance ; and makes them be ever on the 
 ** watch to fatisfy a reftlefs difpofitlon, by felzing an 
 <* opportunity to interfere. In fhort, ihofe ivho mojl need 
 ** rejlrainty are, by fuch means, in danger of being led 
 ** to fet it at defiance ; while the peaceful, and thofe to 
 <* whom the government is committed nominally ^ are terrified 
 ** and chained do'wn by the turbulence o{ the rejl." 
 
 Here I am certain that you cannot fail to perceive 
 the very fatlsfadlory refutation of your fentlments in 
 particular, and of thofe of Independents in general, with 
 regard to the degree of ecclefiaftical power which fhould 
 be granted to rulers, that is contained in thefe words, 
 even of a fellow-labourer in your vineyard. In them it 
 is affirmed in the plain eft terms, that every meafure 
 ought not to be difcufled in theprefence of church-members, 
 and their opinion and concurrence aflced before a decifion 
 is made, becaufe, if this were done, the church would be 
 deprived of the benejit of government f continual encourage- 
 ment would be given to dllTenfion, and difcipllne would 
 degenerate into an engine of faftion. In them, alfo, it 
 is maintained in terms no lefs explicit, that the governors 
 •arc entitled, nay, hound, to carry into effeft the rules of 
 fcrlpture, and to require obedience from the church to 
 thofe rules <when laid before them; i. e, (as Is evident 
 from the connexion) without prevloufly confulting them. 
 And the reafons which are affigned for allowing the 
 rulers to determine in inferior matters, without the advice 
 of the brethren, are much more conclufive for their 
 authoritative decifion in thofe which are more Important, 
 without their afliftance. If lefs interefling points, and 
 points which are obvious, are not to wait for difcuflion in 
 full aflembly, becaufe, if the church contain the colledivc 
 
24 Letter II. 
 
 wifdom, It contains alfo the colle6live ignorance of tbe 
 brethren ; and if it combines their gifts and their grace, 
 It combines alfo their infirmities and corruption ; much 
 more muft It be the duty of the rulers of the church 
 themfelres, to decide authoritatively on more momen- 
 tous matters, and matters which are confeffedly more 
 difficult and doubtful*. As I am perfuaded, then, 
 
 * Not only is It manifeft from the argument of Mr. Evving which 
 is here dated, that it is the office-bearers alone, even upon his 
 0wn principles, who are to judge in important as well as trivial 
 Blatters without confulting the members ; but whatever be intend- 
 ed, the fame thing feems to be evident from his other arguments. 
 It is the former alone, he fays, who are to decide upon points 
 ^vhich are trifling and obvious, bccaufe, as he before affirms," it is 
 " the office-bearers alone who are aiTthorized in fcripture to feed 
 *' the flock," or, as he explains it, " to govern them by inftrucTlion 
 " and perfuafion according to the word of God." But when the 
 office-bearers are required in the facred volume to feed, or, as he 
 interprets it, to govern the flock, if it entitle them to determine 
 in inferior matters, and matters which are obvious, without con- 
 fulting them, is it not equally plain from it, that they -muft be 
 much more authorized by it to exercife this power in more difficult 
 points ? And if the office-bearers only, in his opinion, fhould 
 judge in thefe lefs interefting cafes, becaufe, as he alfo afferts, 
 according to the pafTagcs which he quotes, ** they are entitled^ 
 •* nay, bound by the word of God, in governing the church, to 
 '' carry into eJfcFl the rules of fcripture, and to require obedience 
 " from the church -to thofe rules nvhen kid before thejn ;" the very 
 fame expreflions, when employed in fcripture rcfpecSting their 
 pciver in genera!, with the obedience of the members, feem as 
 clearly to intimate, that, in every point, the elders are to judge 
 without foliciting the opinion and confent of the members. 
 Are the rules of fcripture, which he admits, from thefe paffages, 
 that they are to carry into effeft, only trifes ? or do they not 
 comprehend every thing the mofl: difficult and important, which 
 can be the fubje£l of determination in an ecclefiaftical court ? If 
 then, as he contends, the office-bearers of the church are warrant- 
 ed, by the paiTages which he produces in the margin, to carry into 
 ^fFe^ the hv/s of Chifi without confulting the opiaion of the 
 
Letter II. 25 
 
 that you will not confider this gentleman as blindly- 
 attached to the caufe of Prefbytery, or in the leaft dif- 
 pofed to promote its interells, I beg you will attend to 
 the tendency of his reafoning, and, after adjujl'mg the 
 
 members, and to require obedience from the members to them^ 
 Vi'hen laid before them ; and if thefe laws, as is evident, include 
 not only what is trivial and obvious, but what is important and 
 ejfeniial ; is it not inconteflable, even from the arguments oi this 
 gentUrnan^ who profefles to be an Independent, that the office- 
 bearers alone, as Prefoyterians maintain, are to determine in mat- 
 ters which are trtifortaiU and ijfi'utial, as well as thofc which are 
 obvious and trivia! ? 
 
 In Hioi-t, if it is only in things which are obvious and trivial 
 that the office-Learers alone, in the opinion of Mr. Ewing, are 
 authorized to judge without confulting the members, ivho are the 
 perfons that are to determine whether the matters which are 
 to be the fubjed of judgment upon any particular occafion, are 
 trivial and obvious, or interefting and doubtful ? It cannot be 
 the people, for that would make the men ever ivhom this extra- 
 ordinary power -was to he exercifed, the judges of the extent to which 
 it was to be employed, which is confidcred as impolitic in all proper 
 governments ; and it cannot be the cfTice-bearevs, for that would 
 be to make the men vi'ho are to exercifc this power, judges of the 
 extent in which they were to exert it, which has always been 
 confidered as no lefs prepofterous. Unlefs then he can point out 
 a fatisfadtory ftasidard, fcp urate from the opinion of the office-bearers 
 ond the people, by which it can be afcertained what things arc 
 trivial and obvious, and what are difficult and important, the 
 commiflion of fuch power as that for which he pleads, to the elders 
 of the church, at leaft upon the principles of Independcr.i focieties, 
 whatever they may think of it. Teems in tlie higheft degree to be 
 dangerous. Their office-bearers, it appears, according to this gen- 
 tleman, are themfelves to judge in things trivial and obvious, 
 without granting the members a fmgle word or vote ; and, at the 
 fame time, fo far as can be difcovered, it is the office-bearers alone 
 who are to fay when they are to exercife this extraordinary power, 
 and ere£l themfelves into the only judges in ihe fociety. If this 
 be confident with your notions of liberty, or the firft: principles of 
 Independency, I fhould be happy to fee upon what grounds it ctin 
 le eftabliffied ? 
 
 c 
 
26 Letter II. 
 
 differences <i\\\on^ yourfelves, honeftly declare, whether it 
 does not at oncejiaily coniradid and completely overthrow 
 your favourite pofition, That ecclefiatllcal rulers are not 
 authorized authoritatively to decide upon any point 
 which falls under their cognizance, without previoufly 
 requeuing the prefence and counfel of the members of 
 the church ? 
 
 I would obferve, moreover, that you yourfelf have 
 admitted a cafe (and it has frequently occurred) in 
 which, even in an Independent church, authoritative 
 power muft be exercifcd by your rulers. " Suppofe,'* 
 you fay (p. 50.), " a cafe of difciphne to occur in an 
 *' Independent church, in which a difference of opinion 
 ** obtained, how far a charge was diflinflly proved. 
 ** The church mufl a6l in one wa^ or another. If the 
 ** party be excluded againft whom the charge is brought, 
 ** thofe who think him not guilty, will take offence at 
 •* the meafure. If, on the other hand, he be continued 
 ** in communion without reproof, thofe who think him 
 ** guilty, will be equally offended." A decifion notwith- 
 ftanding muft neceiTarily be made, and the minority you 
 admit muft either fubmit to the majority, or withdraw 
 from their communion. Novw--, in this inftance, I would 
 aflc you, if an authoritative power be not ufed by the 
 majority of this Independent church, without regard to 
 the will of the minority, as much as by any clafs of 
 
 if the office-bearers, in fine, are to judge in Icfs inierejling mat- 
 ters only, and are to take the judgment of the people in more ini' 
 portant affairs, does not this intimate, that though they are fit for 
 determining what are confidered as irifteSy they are not equal to 
 the determination of things which are irttrtcatcznd hiterejiir.g, and 
 need the fuperior or combined information of the members ?* And that 
 though it woyld be dangerous, from the coUefted ignorance of the 
 latter, as Mr. Ewing affirms, to allow them to judge in things 
 ob%iou3 and trivial, it is perfcBlj fnfe to permit them to judge in 
 things dubious and important ? 
 
Letter II. 27 
 
 Prefbyterian rulers ? and if they do not acl as decidedly, 
 without any regard to the convi£lions of their brethren ? 
 Befides, I would inquire, whether this muft not be the 
 cafe in Independent, as well as Prefbyterian churches, in 
 every injiance (and they cannot be few) in which a quef- 
 tion is carried and acted upon by a majority againft a 
 minority ? Is not the opinion of the latter uniformly dif- 
 regarded ? Is not the will of the former executed as a 
 law .«* Can aty religious fociety exiji without it ? Does 
 not this unqueftionably involve of necejfilyy as much au- 
 thority as the decifion of any Prefbyterian court ? And 
 is not the minority obliged as readily to fubmit to this 
 authoritative determination, if it be an inferior point — 
 or if it be a fundamental article, as univerfally to fepa- 
 rate from their former brethren, if they are fo difpofed, 
 as in Prefbyterian churches ? 
 
 When a majority, in a word, of any of your churches 
 determines againft a minority, that a brother who has 
 happened to offend before all, fhould be rebuked before 
 all, that he may be taught by it to be afhamed, I fhould 
 be glad to know, if it is only a fimple advice which is 
 delivered ? And when fuch a majority decides againfl a 
 minority, that a brother is to be excommunicated, and 
 their decifion is fulfilled, I fhould be happy to be inform- 
 ed, if it is only ^fimple opinion which is ftated ? This, I 
 believe, you will hardly maintain : and confequently, 
 fince in thefe and all other inftances, where the will of a 
 majority is carried and adled upon againft a minority, 
 from the very nature of things, authority is exercifed, I 
 hold it to be unfair and contradictory in Independents 
 to declaim againft Prefbyterians, when they claim for 
 their rulers y the/2OTtf/or//on of authority which is necef- 
 farily alTumed by the majority of the members In each of 
 their congregations j and without which, whatever/»^/y«tf- 
 Jion might be employed, and whatever advices might be de- 
 livered, not one of their focieties caube conceived to exift. 
 
ijS Letter II. 
 
 You affirm, however, that to exercife authority with- 
 out the prefence and confent of the members of the 
 church is inconfiftent with the fpiritual nature of Chrifl'^s 
 kingdom, one of the laws of which is, that before a perfon 
 can perform any acceptable a6t of worfhip, he muft have, 
 in feme meafiirc, a conviftion of its fitnefs and propriety. 
 And you contend, that fince a man muft firft be con- 
 vinced by perfuafion, before he can render any fuch 
 obedience, authority is unneceflary, for if authority is 
 ufed as well as j^erfuafion, it feems to imply that the 
 latter is infufficient. But in anfvver to this I would 
 obferve, that though authority is claimed by Prefbyte- 
 rian rulers over their members, it is not an unreafonahle 
 r.or imperious authority. They confider themfelves as 
 the fervants of the Lord Jefus : the fubjedlion which 
 they demand from the members of their churches, is not to 
 themfelves, or to their ivill, as you infmuate (p. 47.), but 
 to what they confider as the will of their blefled Mafter; 
 and the obedience which they require to their decifions 
 in his name, is not, as you allege, blind and compulfa- 
 tory, but enlightened and voluntary. Nor do they barely 
 deliver their commands, and enjoin immediate and implicit 
 fubmiffion (as one would imagine from your reprefenta- 
 tion); but while they declare authoritatively whatever 
 appears to them to be the mind of Chrift, and command 
 all cordially to obey it, they, no lefs than Independents, 
 are careful to ftate the grounds upon which their decifion 
 refts, and to afford to their members every mean by which 
 their confciences may be fatisfied, and this enlightened 
 and voluntary obedience produced. Their public deli- 
 berations in every inftance, where it is fit, are open to 
 the hearing and examination of their members ; and 
 there feems to be nothing in Prejbytery to prevent every dif- 
 cuflion which is proper to be carried on before an 
 Independent, to be carried on alfo before a Prefbyterian 
 congregation. The reafons, befides, for every deter- 
 
Letter IT. 29 
 
 mination are not only uniformly ftated, as has been 
 already mentioned, but if any of their members 
 either do not underftand their meaning, or perceive 
 their force, they are never denied an opportunity 
 of obtaining fatisfaftion by private converfation, or cor- 
 refpondence with the rulers. If, in any ccrfe, in (hort, 
 of inferior magnitude, they cannot acquiefce in the de- 
 cifion of thefe lulers, forbearance can be granted to them 
 ito lefs than among Independents ; and if, in any cafe, 
 it be neceflary to feparate, becaufe it is of fuperior im- 
 portance, and they cannot comply, they are not compelled 
 to obey, but are allowed to feparate no lefs than among 
 them. 
 
 There is one point however, and but one, in which 
 Prefbyterians appear to differ from Independents on the 
 fubject before us, and on this you feem to lay confider- 
 able ftrefs ; namely, that though the obedience which is 
 required-from their members by the former, is as free and 
 as enlightened as that which is demanded from their mem- 
 bers by the latter, Prefbyterian rulers do not admit their 
 people to judge and vote upon the propriety of their 
 meafures along with themfelves, before they are finally 
 adopted. But to this fa6l the words of Mr. Ewing, 
 which I have quoted, furnifli a complete and fatisfadlory 
 anfwer. Nothing, undoubtedly, more diredly tends to 
 fuhvert the order and government of the church, as that 
 gentleman affirms, than to allow every member a right 
 to judge and vote upon the meafures of rulers, and to 
 oblige thefe rulers to retradt or carry forward any of thefe 
 meafures, only in as far as it is agreeable to a majority 
 of the people. It is, in fadl, conftituting thofe who 
 fhould be ruled, the rulers, while the decifions of thofe who 
 are dignified with that name are entirely fubjedt to their 
 determination. Their opinions, it is evident, where this 
 fyftera is adopted, can only be pafied into laws, when It 
 pleafes the majority of thofe who are to obey them / and 
 
 C3 
 
'30 Letter II. 
 
 when it does not pleafe them, they are completely re- 
 jedled. All the power, therefore, which is vefted in the 
 rulers, according to this plan, is merely nominal ; and 
 amounts fimply to a right to ftate thofe meafures which 
 they have in contemplation to adopt, and to prefide in 
 the meeting- during the deliberation of the members, 
 while the right of judging, as to the propriety of thefe 
 meafures, is committed to the latter. As therefore it 
 feems plain, that to grant to the members, according to 
 this fyftem, a right to vote upon the propofals of the 
 rulers, is utterly fubverfive of the power of thefe rulers, 
 and reduces them to the fituation of thofe who are ruled, 
 while it gives the fupreme authority to the multitude, the 
 greater part of whom, according to Mr. Evving, are un- 
 qualified for judging — as this fyftem, I fay, is attended 
 with thefe confequences, it appears to be totally inad- 
 milTible, and that it is the province of the rulers, with- 
 out the affi [lance of the members, to govern the affairs 
 of the church of God. 
 
 If authority, moreover, as exercifed by Prefbyterians, 
 23 you evidently infinuate, is not confnlent with liberty of 
 confcience, I demand how it is confiftent with it, when 
 exercifed by the majority of an Independent congregation 
 over the minority ? and if it be confidered as unnecejfary, 
 as pradifed by Prefbyterians, as you explicitly affert, 
 becaufe ad'uice ?Lndi perfuafion appear to you fufficient for 
 the government of the church, I afk how it is requi/ite, 
 when affumed by fuch a majority over the minoritji who 
 muft either fubmit, or renounce their communion ? 
 Cannot advice and perfuafion among them too fuffice ? 
 Is it replied, as you have done (p. 51.), that the exer- 
 cife of authority in fuch cafes, among Independents, 
 ** is an unavoidable refult of focial worfhip, and of the 
 *•' formation of Chriftian churches, as long as imperfec- 
 ** tion of knowledge and of charafter remains ?" 1 affirm, 
 that fince you allow that focial worfhip and imperfedion 
 
Letter IT. 3? 
 
 at once of knowledge and of charadler exlil alfo among 
 PrefLyterlans, among them too, even on your own prin- 
 ciples, you muft grant it to be necefiary ; while at the 
 fame time I contend, that for the reafons which have 
 been mentioned, or may yet be mentioned, it fhould be 
 committed to the rulers, and to the rulers alone, without 
 admitting the members to be their advifers. I conceive 
 it befides to be a very evident truth, that whatever is 
 delivered by any clafs of rulers, even though fubordinatc, 
 whether facred or civil, muft be much more regarded 
 when clothed with authority, than when communicated 
 limply as an advice or admonition. It is true, that, till 
 previouily convinced of its propriety, in many cafes, in 
 civil, and always in facred matters, no man can rightly 
 perform any obedience to any government, whether civil 
 or ecclefiaftic. But what would we think of the man 
 who fliould afBrm, that becaufe it is requifite to ftate to 
 the people, very often in civil, and always in facred mat- 
 ters, the reafons for which they are called to yield their 
 obedience, it is umiecejjary and improper for the rulers to 
 clothe their communications to them, requiring this 
 obedience, in the language of authority^ and that they 
 ought fimply to enforce it by advice znA perfuajion .^ 
 Would not fuch an affertion be rcjedled with contempt, 
 as not only fubverfive of one of the ftrongeft prefervatives 
 of public order and focial peace, but as repugnant even 
 to the common fenfe of mankind, which, by uniform 
 practice, has conftantly declared that advice is infufficient, 
 and that the exercife of authority, in every government, 
 is abfolutely efiential to fecure the fubordination and 
 obedience of the fubjecfts ? 
 
 The authority, then, for which I argue, I wifii it to 
 be remembered, is not intended tofuperfede but to promote 
 inquiry ; is not defigned to compel men, as you main- 
 tain (p. 47.), without convidion to believe and obey their 
 €cclefiaftical rulers, but to prefect to them mor« com- 
 
32 Letter II. 
 
 manding incitements to examine, and more powerful 
 though fecondary enforcements and obligations to obey 
 the truth. For this purpofe, it invefts the governors of 
 the church with a power, not merely to declare to her 
 members what appears to be the mind and will of Chrift, 
 and to ad-vlfe them to obey it, but with a power 
 to inform them, that if, upon examination and re- 
 iledlion, they are not difpofed to fubmit to it, they 
 can no longer be entitled to the privileges of his people. 
 The exercife of this power in every church, whether 
 Independent or Prefbyterian, either by the many or the 
 few, I apprehend is effcnitlal to its very exiftence ; for it 
 requires but little obfervation to perceive that neither 
 the purity nor the government of any foclety could long, 
 be preferved, v.'here advices only were delivered to the 
 members. And, in ihort, I mufl remark, that while 
 independents thernfelves, though they affedl to rejecl it, 
 grant to the majority, In each of their congregations, 
 the very fame authority which PrePoyterlans claim for 
 their ecclefiaftlcal rulers, were they to lay afide this au- 
 thority, and aft fimply by advice and perfuafion, the 
 mofl awful confequences mud enfiie from it to their 
 churches. Ancient chaos. In a more fearful form, would 
 once more refume her horrid reign ; confufion and anar- 
 chy would unlverfaily prevail ; and order and govern- 
 ment, in their lawlefs focieties, would be completely 
 annihilated. 
 
 In fme, I would obferve that the various terms alfo 
 employed In fcripture to exprefs the power conferred 
 upon church-rulers, feem plainly to intimate that they 
 are entitled to govern thofe over whom they are placed, 
 not merely by advice and perfuafion, but by authorita- 
 tive rule ; and to govern them thus authoritatively, 
 without previoufly confulting them as to their opinion 
 and concurrence. As an examination of thefe terms 
 jvill enable us the better to afcertaia at once either 
 
Letter II. 53 
 
 the fallacy or the force of the preceding reafoning, let us 
 proceed, though briefly, to confider a few of them j 
 together with fome others, defcriptive of that obedience 
 which is due from the members of a church to their 
 rulers ; and, with an examination of their import, con- 
 clude this Letter. 
 
 In reviewing, then, the terms employed in fcripture 
 to denote the former, we fee that it is compared to the 
 power of a parent over his family ; for fays Paul ( i Tim. 
 iii. 4, 5.), " a bifhop," or overfeer, " muil be one who 
 " rules well his own houfe, having his children in fub- 
 " jeftion with all gravity ; (for if a man know not how 
 " to rule his own houfe, how (hall he take care of the 
 " church of God :") Now it is evidently here affirmed, 
 that a power, correfponding in fome meafure to that 
 which is poffeffed by a parent, or mafter over his family, is 
 vefted in the rulers of the Chriflian church, and that the 
 latter mud be exercifed by them with judgment and pru- 
 dence, if they are parents or mafters, 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 ftridleft 
 fenfe authoritative, as well as perfuafive j that while he 
 fhould employ perfuafion, he is invefted alfo with authori- 
 ty, and can lawfully cxercife it whenever it is requifite ; 
 and that it is the duty of his children to be fubjed to 
 his commands, without waiting till their opinion be afl^ed 
 and adopted. Unlefs, then, the power which (hould be 
 exercifed alfo by church-rulers is authoritative, as well 
 as perfuafive, the reafoning of the Apoftle, in the paflage 
 before us, would be totally inconclufive. It would be 
 faying in effedl, that before a man can be qualified for 
 the exercife of a lower degree of power, a power of ad- 
 vice, he muft have exercifed aright a much higher degree 
 of it, or a power of authority. As fuch a fpecies of ar- 
 gumentation however is uttei-ly unworthy of the infpired 
 Apoftle, we muft certainly rejedl the interpretation which 
 
34 Letter II. 
 
 leads to it, and admit that the rulers of the Chriftian 
 church, like the parent of a family and the matter of a 
 houfe, have a power not only of advice, but of authority. 
 
 Their power is reprefentcd likewife as refembling that 
 of an overfeer^ who does not merely prefide and advife, 
 but authoritatively diredls what he wifhes to be done by 
 thofe over whom he is appointed ; for in A£ts xx. 28. 
 all the elders of the church of Ephefus, and th»y alone, 
 in the fenfc there intended, are affirmed to have been 
 made overfeers of the flock, iTic-KOTroi *. But if fuch an 
 ©verfight as that which we have mentioned, in govern- 
 ment as well as do£lrine, be here afferted to be commit- 
 ted to the elders, and the ciders exclufively, it feems 
 ■Raturally to follow, that, like all other official overfeers, 
 they muil have an authoritative fuperintendence of thofe 
 over whom they are placed, and a fuperintendence which 
 entitles them to prefcribe to church-members particular 
 a6ls of fervice and obedience, without previoufly confult- 
 ing their opinion and advice. This idea is (Irongly con- 
 firmed, by refleAing that this very word is ufed in a celebra- 
 ted Greek tranflation of the Old Teftament (Numb. xxxi. 
 14. and 2 Kings xi. 15.) ta denote the authoritative 
 fuperintendence of military officers^ the captains of hun- 
 dreds, and the captains of thoufands, over their men ; a 
 clafs of governors who were not accuftomed merely to 
 give advices to their foldiers, or to requeft their confent 
 before they delivered their orders. 
 
 Their power, befides, is dcfcribed as fimilar to that of 
 the elders who judged in the gates of the cities of IfraeU 
 
 * Compare I Tim. iii. : from which paflage it is manifeft, that 
 It is an werfight, not as that of one Chriflian over another, but 
 official and authoritative, and which is entirely peculiar to the 
 w/«//?fn of the church, that is here intended; for it is aflerted 
 in that place, that only thofe Chriftians who were already over- 
 feers in the former fenfe, and had the particular qualities there 
 fpecified, were fitted for the overfigbt there mentioned. 
 
Letter II. 35 
 
 for they are frequently in the New Teilament diillnguifk- 
 cd by thi.ir name. See i Tim. v. 17. iffc. Now, fince 
 the name elder when applied to the judges of ancient 
 Ifracl, and fince the correlponding terms, fenators and 
 aldermen in modern times, uniformly denote authorita- 
 tive officers, mud not the very fame name when given to 
 the rulers of the Chriftian church, import in them too a 
 title to authority * ? 
 
 In ftiort, not only are they diftinguifhed by thefc 
 names, but they are charadlerized by others, if pollible, 
 ftill more expreffive of this authority. Thrice are they 
 defcribed in the very fame chapter (Heb. xiii. 7. 17. 24.) 
 by the title of rulers ^ V/£j«dys?, vi'hich, though the 
 weakePt of the appellations beftowed upon them, and 
 though it originally denotes merely guides or con- 
 duftors, fignifies very frequently in the Septuagint, and 
 the bed claffic authors, civil rulers, and almoil uniformly 
 in the New Teilament, authoritative governors. It is ap- 
 plied by Peter (i Epiftle ii. 14.) to fubordlnate governors ^ 
 to whom Chriftians are to fubmit, as well as to the king, 
 who is fupreme ; by Matthew (chap. x. 18.), to denote 
 thofe governors and kings before whom they were to be 
 brought for their adherence to the truth ; by the celebra- 
 ted Greek tranflators, in their verfion of Micah iii. 9. to the 
 political heads of the houfe of Jacob ; in their verfion of 
 Deut. i. 13. ^o ih.t civil rulers i whom Mofes appointed 
 over the hundreds and thoufands of the children of 
 Ifrael; and in their verfion of Dan. iii. 2. to the go* 
 
 * We know alfo, that the rulers of the Jewifh fynagoguc were 
 commonly diftingullned by the name of elders. Hence, in 
 Afts xiii. 15. and Mark v. aa. what is rendered in our verfion 
 " the rulers of the fynagogue," the old Syriac verfion tranllates 
 by a word fignifying elders or fcniores. And hence, moil: probably, 
 from a fimilarity of power between them and the rulers of the 
 Chriftian church, the fcripture has transferred to the latter their 
 
36 Letter II. 
 
 liernon of the various provinces of Babylon under Nebu- 
 chadnezzar ; by Xenophon, in his Anabafis, to the 
 general or commander of the Grecian army ; by Lucian, 
 in his Pfeudomantis, torn. i. p. 904. to the governor of 
 Bithynia ('« tots \yovyAvog l&tGwixg) ; by Jofephus, in his 
 Antiquities, book xviii. chap. iv. to Pontius Pilate, the 
 governor of Judea ; by Matthew, in his Gofpel, chap, xxvii. 
 no lefs than thrice, and by Luke, in his Gofpel, 
 chap. XX. once, to the fame perfon ; by the latter Evange- 
 lift (A£ls vii. 10.) to Jofeph, when made governor by 
 Pharaoh over Egypt, and all his houfe ; and twice again, 
 by the fame hiilorian (Ads xxiii. 24. 26.) to Felix the 
 governor. With the utmofl propriety therefore does Beza, 
 in his note upon the thirteenth chapter of the PItbrews, 
 remark, that the application of this term to the governors 
 of the church, not only imports that they are vefted with 
 authority, but " with very great authority ;'* for, " it ia,'^ 
 adds he, *' verbura au6loritatis maximse," a word ex- 
 preflive of very great authority. And, as if even this 
 did not fufiice, they are defcribed by another title flill 
 flronger and more energetic, Tr^on-af^ivo; ; which is ren- 
 dered in our Bibles (Rom. xii, 8. and i Tim. v. 17.) 
 ** rulers," and in i Theff. v. i 2. " thofe who are over 
 " Chrillians in the Lord." This term, we are affured 
 by Stephens, in his Thefaurus, is very frequently given 
 to political governors ; and is the very word employed in 
 I Tim. iii. 4, 5. already quoted, to fignii'y the authority 
 of a parent over his family, or of a mailer over his houfe ; 
 and in Titus iii. 8. 14. (compare Conftantinu«'s and Park- 
 hurft's Lexicons), to exprefs the command which a Chrif- 
 tian fhould endeavour to attain over himfelf, fo as to 
 excel in good works *. And this very term, as will 
 afterwards b€ proved, is very often ufed by Plato, aud 
 
 * Thefe are all the places, fo far ?.s is recoUe^ed, where it 
 occurs in the New Tt (lament. 
 
Letter II. - s*? 
 
 Xenophon, and Thucydides, and Herodotus, and De- 
 mofthenes, and Ariflotle, for the magijlrates of cities, and 
 governors of countries. Since therefore thefe terms, 
 which are fo frequently employed in the bed claffic au- 
 thors, and ancient verfions and facred oracles, to 
 fignlfy fubordinate rulers and governors, are applied to 
 the elders of the Chriftian church, and fince oled'ience is 
 required from the people to their elders at the very time 
 when they are diftinguifhed by thefe names, is it not 
 plain that they mud be pofTefTed of a power not merely 
 to advife and d'lred, but authoritatively to govern the 
 church of Chrift, whatever may be the degree and ex- 
 tent of that authority ? And if it be affirmed, that 
 notwithftanding the application of thefe names to thera, 
 they are flill to be viev?-ed only as guides and advifersy 
 upon the fame principle may it not be afferted, that 
 though they are given aifo to Joftph, Felix, and 
 Pilate, and the citFerent rulers of the provinces of 
 Babylon, they ought to be confidered as no more than 
 advifers of the people ? and that when Pilate faid 
 concerning our Lord, *' Take him and crucify him,'* 
 he did no more than give an advice ? But if fuch 
 an Inference, when applied to fubordinate political 
 governors, would mod certainly be confidered as com- 
 pletely ridiculous, mud it not be equally ridiculous, 
 when applied to fubordinate ecclefiaftical rulers, who 
 are undeniably didinguifhcd by the very fame ap- 
 pellations? 
 
 And, upon the v^-hole, the terms llkevvire, as we have 
 already remarked, which are employed in fcripture to 
 denote the obedience of the people to their rulers, feem to 
 intimate, that the latter are inveded with a power not 
 only of advice but authority. Not only is one word 
 {TFu&fJo-h) ufed to exprefs their obedience (Heb. xlil. J 7.), 
 which fignifies fometimes to yield to perfuafion, and at 
 other times to obey or fubmit to power and autho- 
 D 
 
5S Letter II. 
 
 rity * ; but another word ('y:ra<x<y), which is not only 
 rendered by Leigh, and Hedericus, and Parkhurft, and 
 Beza, and the Vulgate, together with our tranflators, 
 ** fuhmlt,'' but is frequently taken by the Greek writers, 
 according to the teftimony of one of our moft learned 
 lexicographers, ** to fignify obedience with fubrnl/Jtve re^ 
 <* fpe^." A third word is ufed (' vTroTaa-c-^) — See i Cor. 
 xvi. 1 6.) to exprefs their obedience, if poffible, ftill 
 ilronger, and which is very often employed to denote 
 even the moft entire and complete fubjedlion which is 
 mentioned in fcripture f . It is a metaphorical expref- 
 iion, derived originally from the fubjedlion and obedience 
 
 • Thus, James Hi. 3. (and this is the lead: energetic of all the 
 terms defcriptire of their obedience), " We put bits in the horfes 
 " mouths, that they may obey usy' tt^o? to Truka-^ai avrovg 'vif^iv I 
 thus, too, Titus iii. I. " Put them in mind to obey magiftrates," 
 TTuGu^^uv, &c. Thus, alfo, Homer in his Iliad, booki. line 79th, 
 fpeaking of Agamemnon, the captain-general of the Greeks, fays, 
 "O? (iciyx TTcivruv A^ynuv K^ccnU) ksci 01 7ni6ovT»i A^ccioi ; 
 *•: Who rules fupreme over all the Greeks, and whom the Greeks 
 " ohey,'' — not comply \\-ith in his advice. And in line 33d, men- 
 tioTiing the obedience of Chryfes to the command of this prince, 
 accompanied v.ivh the mofl: terrible denunciations of punifii- 
 ment, he fays, 'i^? i^xr i^'^utnv ^' 'c yi^aiVj KXi iTrahro ^v&a ; 
 " He fpoke, and the old man trembled, and obeyed his word," — 
 not certainly a«quiefced in his advice from perfuafion, for every 
 feeling of his foul revolted againft his obedience. In the fenfe, 
 moreover, of obedience it appears evidently to be taken in this 
 paflage in the Hebrews, if we attend to its connection with the 
 verb 'v^iifciiff and its being ufed to denote the duty of Chriftians 
 to their ^ys^evt?, which is rendered by our tranflators rulers, and 
 which, as we have already fhewn, moft frequently fignifies gover- 
 nors. Mere compliance with advice, however, is not fo much the 
 duty of inferiors to rulers, asfucb, as obedience is ; and confequently 
 our tranflators, in the pafiage before us, have very judicioufly 
 rendered Truhtrk <' obey." 
 
 f And yet this very word denotes even the obedience, in the 
 paflage referred to, which was to be given to dcaconi in the execi?* 
 
Letter II. 39 
 
 of foldiers to their commanders, than which ufually no- 
 thing is more fabmiflive. It is employed to exprefs the 
 obedience of children to their parents, who unqueftion- 
 ably are pofiefTed of authority over them ; for it is the 
 very word which denotes the fubjeftion of the bleffed 
 Jefus to his parents, Luke ii. 51. ; and is the fame word 
 which is ufed, i Tim. iii, 4. when it is faid, " Having 
 ** his children in fubjeftion with all gravity." It figni- 
 fies the fubjedlion of fervants to their matters, who 
 undoubtedly are invefted with authority over them, and 
 can prefcribe to them whatever fervices they choofe, 
 without foliciting their confent and approbation. Thus, 
 Tit. ii. 9. ** Exhort fervants to be obedient CvTrorxa-c-ia-deci) 
 ** unto their own mailers, and to pleafe them well in all 
 " things ; not anfwering them again :" and i Peter ii. 1 8. 
 ** Servants, be fubjedl to your mafters with all fear^^ 
 *v7rorci!r<ro/^ivoi iv ^ccvrt ^e,3cj. Befides, it is the mofl: 
 common exprefTion for denoting the obedience of fub- 
 jefts to their civil rulers, who are entitled not merely to 
 advife, but to govern them by the exercife of authority. 
 Thus, Rom. xiii. i. ** Let every foul be fubjedt to ^hc 
 <« higher powers," 'v7r6TocT<r37&id ; and again, ver. 5. 
 ** Wherefore ye mull needs be fubjeft {'v7roTx<r7i(r6xi)f 
 ** not only for wrath, but for conscience fake." Thus, 
 too, in Titus iii. i. ** Put them in mind to be fubjedl to 
 " principalities and powers," 'vTrarxs-a-iff-Sea ; and thus, 
 likewife, in i Peter ii. 13, 14. " Submit yourfelves to 
 ** every ordinance of man for the Lord's fake," 'vrroTsiyyiTS. 
 And, in fliort, although this word in a fingle inllance 
 be ufed metaphorically ^ to denote fubmifiion where no 
 authority is poffelTed (i Peter v. 5.), in every other in- 
 flance it fignifies fubmifiion from inferiors to fuperiors^ 
 
 tion of their office, as well as the obedience which was to be 
 yielded alfo to every higher office-bearer in his fun(ftion, « \vh« 
 " helped with Paul, and laboured." 
 D 2 
 
40 Letter II. 
 
 where, however diverfified, from the variety of the refa- 
 tion, that fubjeftion may be, it always implies fubmif- 
 fion to authority. But if the moll entire fubmifiion, not 
 merely to advice but to authority, which the nature of 
 the relation can pofiibly admit, be almoll invariably 
 denoted by this word, and if this very term be employed 
 to exprefs the fubmiffion Vv'hich is due from the members 
 of the church to thofe who are their rulers, is it not 
 obvious that the latter are entitled, not merely to advife, 
 but authoritatively to govern the church of Chrift ? And 
 if it be alleged, that, though this term is employed in 
 fcripture to exprefs the obedience of Chriftians to their 
 rulers, it cannot be proved from it that they are to be 
 fubjed to them, confidered as invefted with authority, 
 any farther than they are difpofed to adopt their advice, 
 upon the fame principle it ought to be evinced, that as 
 the fame term is ufed to denote the fubmifiion of children 
 to their parents, and fervants to their mailers, and fub- 
 je6ls to their civil governors, the latter are not entitled 
 to claim from the former, in any inllance, fubjedlion to 
 their authority, but fimply acquiefcence in their counfels. 
 But if fuch a meaning would be confidered as inadmif- 
 fible, becaufe totally fubverfive of the duties which are 
 due in civil life to parents, and mailers, and magiftrates, 
 muft it not be equally inadmifiible in the prefent inilance, 
 becaufe no lefs fubverfive, not merely of that acquiefcence 
 in their advice, but of th3.t fuhjeSion to their authority, 
 which feems naturally to be fuggefled from it, as due 
 from the people to their ecclefiaftical rulers ? 
 
 If the rulers of the church, then, are not entitled to 
 authority, it would appear that the language of the facred 
 oracles, though diftated by infpiration, in this particular 
 at leall, mull be confidered as incorreft. It has employed 
 not merely one term, but a number of terms, which, in 
 their natural, and unforced, and moll frequent acceptation, 
 plainly aflign to ecclefiaftical rulers «n authoritative 
 
Letter II. 41 
 
 power, while at the fame time it is certain that fuch a 
 power was never intended to be intruded with them. 
 Inftead therefore of being fitted to make Chriftians per- 
 fcd, and furnifhing them thoroughly for every good 
 work, has it not tended rather to bewilder and miflead 
 the church, and led it to flatter that defire of authority 
 which is fo natural to man, by granting to her rulers, 
 in every age, a degree of power which they ought never 
 to have enjoyed ? From this charge, moreover, it feems 
 totally impoffible to vindicate the fcripture, unlefs it be 
 fuppofed that the terms which it ufes upon this intereft- 
 ing fubjecl are jud and accurate, are to be underilood in 
 their obvious and common fignification, and are intended 
 to fugged that ecclefiadical rulers are to govern the 
 church not merely by advice and perfuafion, but by the 
 exercife of authority. 
 
 The fum then of what has been faid in the preceding 
 remarks is briefly this — That the rulers of the church 
 in every age, according to Prefbyterians, are inverted not 
 only with a power of advice, but of authority — That this 
 power, however, is only miniderial and fubordinate, not 
 fupreme and legiflative — That this power, though de- 
 cried and condemned by Independents, is the lame with 
 what is claimed by the majority of each of their dif- 
 ferent cortgregations over the minority — That it affords to 
 all who are under its controul, every mean of informa- 
 tion that is necefTary to produce an enlightened and 
 voluntary obedience — That forbearance can be granted 
 in inferior matters, even where ii is exercifed, no lefs than 
 among Independents, to all who cannot fully comply 
 with it? commands — And that in more important points 
 where they cannot acquiefce, liberty is granted them to 
 retire from that conne6lion, no lefs than among them— 
 That the exercife of this power is abfolutely eflential to 
 the exidence of fociety — that to admit the people to 
 judge and vote before a decidon is made, is only to 
 
 D3 
 
42 Letter II. 
 
 transfer it to them from the rulers — that fuch a tranf- 
 ference conftltutes thofe the governors of the church 
 who are bound to obey — That the names bellowed 
 in the facred oracles upon ecclefiafllcal rulers, and the 
 terms employed in them to defcribe the nature of the 
 obedience of members, are diredlly contradiftory to fuch 
 a plan — And, in fhort, that the only thing which pre- 
 ferves order, and difcipline, and government, even in the 
 congregations of Independents , is their pradically renouncing 
 their favourite idea of adminiftering only by advice and 
 perfuafion, and afting upon the Prejhyterian principle of 
 authority. To this it may be farther added, that if this 
 form of government, which vefts in the rulers the autho- 
 rity for which we contend, appears to be incompatible 
 with religious liberty, becaufe every member is not per- 
 mitted to vote, and adopt or rejefh the decifions of the 
 rulers, upon the fame principle it may be demonftrated, 
 that it is no lefs inconfiftent with civil liberty, to commit 
 to the rulers the government of thcjiate ; and that before 
 any decifion be made by the magiftrates of a city, or 
 county, or kingdom, the people fhould be convened, and 
 their votes colle£led. But as fuch a principle would be 
 confidered as prepoflerous in civil polity, muft it not be 
 equally fo in ecclefiallical government^ and confequently, 
 
 * How aflonilhing then, if fuch only be the authority for which 
 Prefbyterians contend, that it fhould be the ground of fuch virulent 
 reprehenfion to Independents ! One of them, before quoted 
 (fee Watt's Plain Proof, p. 176.), exclaims with much keennefs 
 againft their office-bearers, for claiming a power " only minijlerially 
 ** to determine controverfies of faith, and cafes of confcience." 
 " Here," fays he, " they determine not only how a man is to a£l, 
 " and how he is to be treated outwardly ; but, as it were, inter- 
 " pofe between man and his Maker, and dicTtate what he is to 
 " believe." But will this writer prove, or will any Independent 
 prove, that Prefbyterian rulers aflume a higher power, in the 
 decifion of thefe points, over their members, than is afTumed by 
 the majority of an Independent church over the minority ? Oc 
 
Letter II. 43 
 
 muft not that view of the dependence of the rulers on the 
 votes of the members, to procure efficiency to their mea- 
 
 can they demonftrate, that ,the former interpofe more between 
 Chriftians and their Maker, in their communion, or diiflate more 
 to them what they are to believe, than is necejfarily done, (though 
 they feem to difclaim it) by the majority to the minority in each 
 of their churches? 
 
 " It is faid," adds this writer (p. I77.)j " that the decrees of 
 " their office-bearers, if confonant to the -word of God, are to be re- 
 " ceived with fubmiffion. Weftmin. Confef. chap. xxxi. fe£t. iii. 
 " This," fays he, " feems, at firfb view, to remove the excep- 
 " tionablenefs of this power; but when the matter is viewed 
 " more clofely, the cafe alters. Whether are the courts theni- 
 " felves to decide, whether their decrees are confonant to the 
 " word of God ; or, are thofe who are to receive thefe decrees, to 
 *• judge of this every one for himfelf ? The latter fuppofition, in 
 " a great meafure, deflroys the idea of authority and fubmiffion. 
 " We are to fubmit to decrees as far as we think them right, 
 " i.e. as far as we pleafe. This feems not to heftihmijpon. This 
 " abfurdity is avoided ; the courts themfelves judge whether their 
 " decifions are, or are not, right. They generally affirm the de- 
 " crees, and bind the church-members to the former decrees; and 
 " alfo to their fentence, that thofe decrees are confonant to the 
 " word of God. And thus they bind them under fandion of 
 " excomn^unication." 
 
 To this, however, it is replied, by demanding whether the 7?;^- 
 jcrity in an IndTfendent congregation, when they pafs a decree, do 
 not claim alfo an exclufive power of judging as to its confonancy 
 to the word of God, as much as the rulers of any Prefbyterian 
 court ? Do they not announce to all who are to rema'm in their 
 communion, that they muft receive that decree as the mind of God, 
 as really as Prelbyterians do to the members of their churches ? 
 And do they not tell all who apply to them for jnemherfilp, that 
 they muft admit fuch decrees as a jufl reprefentation of the ynind 
 cf G-jd upon the points to which they relate, as much as the rulers 
 of Prefbyterian churches ? If the latter then, when they exercife 
 this power over the members, are reprobated becaufe they aflume 
 what is denominated by Independents an undue authority, mufl: 
 not the fame objedions prefent themfelves againft the former, 
 who aflume a power no kfs high and commanding ? " Do not 
 
44 Letter If. 
 
 fures, which Is held by Independents, be altogether reje6i- 
 ed as fubverfive of the adminiilration of the church of 
 Chria ? 
 
 " they alio them/elves" as well as the rulers in a Prefbyterlan 
 court, " judge whether their decrees are, or are not, right ? Do 
 " not they" as generally " affirm their decrees, and bind the 
 •' minority and every new applicant, as well as the church at 
 *' large, to receive thefe decrees ; and alio to their fenfence, that thefe 
 " decrees are confonant to the -word of God ? And do not they thus 
 *' bind them under fandion of excommunication ? " And, in fhort, 
 becaufePrefbyterians invite their members to compare their decrees 
 •with the word of God, that when they receive thefe decrees, they 
 may yield to them not a blind but an enlightened obedience, does 
 this " deftroy at once fubmidion and authority ? " If fo, fince, 
 even by the confejpon of Independents, this is all that is claimed 
 by Prefbyterians, as far at leaft: as their fyj} em is concerned, there is 
 no more tyrannical authority or improper fubjeclion, notwith- 
 flanding all their afTertions, among the one than among the 
 other. It feems fVrange, befhies, that the permiflion which 
 is granted by Prefbyterians to their members, to exarr,ine 
 thefe dercrees, and fatisfy themfclvcs as to their propriety or 
 impropriety, Ihoald be confidered by Independents as completely 
 nullifying the authority of the rulers and the fubmiffion of the 
 people. While no one is compelled to admit thefe decrees before 
 examinntion and conviction, is not every one toid, as in an Inde- 
 pendent church, that if, upon inquiry, he will not obey thefe 
 decrees, he cannot enjoy the privilege of member/hip ? And 
 where this is announced, however extenfive the liberty of inquiry 
 which is permitted by Prefbyterlan rulers to their members, and 
 though they do not force them to admit their decrees or remain in 
 their communion, any more than is done by the majority to the 
 minority in Independent congregations, will it follow from this, 
 that the authority of the one and the fubmiflion of the other are 
 deftroyed by fuch privileges ? 
 
E 45 ] 
 
 LETTER III. 
 SIR, 
 
 In the preceding Letter I have attempted to fiiew, that 
 an authoritative power is net only exercifed in general 
 by the rulers of the church in every party, but is their 
 juft prerogative from the united evidence of reafon and 
 fcripture. It follows naturally, under our fecond 
 divifion, to examine who are the perfons that are to be 
 invefted with this power in a particular congregation, 
 whether the members in general, as fome Independents 
 explicitly, and all other Independents indiredly affirm, 
 or only a few, denominated elders, to whom, according 
 to the Prefbyterian fcheme, the exercife of goveroraent 
 is exclufively committed ? 
 
 Here, indeed,, it is but juftice to remark, that there is 
 a certain pre-eminence, in point of power, which is 
 granted by Independents to their elders or pallors. It 
 is their province, they allow, to fit as prefidents in the 
 meetings of their churches, and preferve order ; to pre- 
 pare the bufincfs which is to be the fubjedl of difcuffion 
 for being laid before the members, and ftate the decifion 
 which appears to them mod confonant to the mind of 
 God ; and after the members have finally determined, to 
 announce that determination, and to require fubmiffion to 
 it from the various perfons conne6led with their focieties. 
 If a cafe, moreover, occurs, where the number of voters 
 on each fide of a queftion happens to be equal, they 
 fubmit the point to the vote of their elder who prefides 
 at the time. -In all other refpeCls, however, their power 
 is the fame with that of even the lowed members of the 
 church *. 
 
 * Some Independents indeed have aflerted with Glafs, that as 
 the elders are furnilhed with fuperior gifts for reprefenting the 
 authority of Chrift in his word, and with more fpiritual wifdom 
 
46 Letter III. 
 
 But to admit the members, in general, of a church to 
 an equality of power with thofe who are nominally inveil- 
 cd with the rule, appears to be improper for the follow- 
 ing reafons. 
 
 In the I ft place, Moft of the members of a church 
 are commonly unqualified for the exerclfe^of fuch power j 
 and to fuppofe that Jefus, the King of ZIon, has war- 
 ranted thofe whom he has not qualified to exerclfe this 
 authority is worfe than contradldlory. But that \\\c greater 
 part of the members of a church are not fo qualified, 
 Mr. Ewing, as was remarked, has already acknowledged 
 in the moil decided terms. He grants that fuch is the 
 ftate of the people, that a few of the moft adllve fpirit 
 and readleft elocution will ufually be able to fway a con- 
 gregation ; and that fuch is the colleded ignorance of 
 the brethren, and fuch their colle(Eled infirmities and 
 corruption, that it would be extremely dangerous to the 
 caufe of truth, and of Chrlftian Uhertyy to make every 
 thing that ought to be done, even though trivial and 
 obvious, wait for difcufiion in full affembly. And this 
 reprefentation unqueftionably accords with fac^. How 
 many are there, in every congregation, who, though un- 
 doubtedly attached to the caufe of Chrift, and though 
 
 to apply it to the confcience, they are entitled to fuperior power 
 in the church. But is it not evident, that if their power refults 
 from their gifts and not from their office, and is to be proportioned 
 to the degree of them which they are fuppofed to pofFefs, every 
 member who is believed to have equal qualifications, mufl be 
 entitled alfo to an equality of power ; and every member viho is 
 imagined to have fuperior wifdom, and whofe labours as a paftor 
 are not needed by the church, muft have a right even to an in- 
 fluence fuperior to that of her elders and nominal rulers in all 
 their determinations? Bcfides, whatever may be the gifts and 
 endowments of the elders, as their propofals are fubjeded to the 
 opinion and vote of the members at large, before they can be 
 confidered as decifions binding upon the church, all that fupC" 
 riority of power, which in profefTion and title they attribute t« 
 the elders, muft he completely annihilated. 
 
Letter III. 4^ 
 
 To far acquainted with the dodrines of his gofpel as 
 feems necefTary to faivatlon, are perfons of very feeble 
 powers, and very limited information ! Are there not 
 many among them, who, in the language of fcripture, 
 are iveak, as well as others who are ilrong ; many who are 
 but babes and children in Chrift, as well as others who are 
 fathers ? Nay, it will perhaps be found upon a candid fur- 
 vey, that the majority of thofe who are received as members 
 even in the befl regulated churches, though they underftand 
 fo much of the dodlrines of the gofpel as entitles them, if 
 attended by a correfpondent praftice, to the privilege of 
 communion, are, in fome meafure at leaft, of this 
 defcription. The original faculties of many of them are 
 weak : the degree of culture which they have received 
 in youth is comparatively fcanty : from the attention 
 which is requifite to their fecular employments, they can 
 find but little time in their future life for intelledlual 
 improvement ; and even that little, if they are men of 
 piety, is almoft entirely devoted to the inftruftion of 
 their families, or the acquifition of fuch knowledge as is 
 fubfervient merely to their perfonal religion. Whatever, 
 in fiiort, may be the attainments of others, are there 
 not m.any among them, whom, though you could not 
 exclude from the table of the Lord on account of any 
 defedl in their piety, you would not intruft with a very 
 inferior fliare in the management even of your tem- 
 poral affairs ? Are there not many to be found among 
 them, to whom, though men of the mod amiable cha- 
 radlers, you could not commit even the lowed offices in 
 the government of the ilate, or the guardianfhip fimply of 
 your external interefts, where no extraordinary knowledge 
 or wifdom w^as required I Can you fuppofe then for a 
 moment, that the King of Zicn has conftituted fuch 
 perfons the governors of his church ? Can you believe 
 that he has appointed every fuch member, however weak, 
 who has a right, from the evidences of his faving know- 
 
48 Letter III. 
 
 ledge, and child-like holinefs, to the facrament of the 
 fupper, to be a judge alfo in the moft important and 
 difficult matters which regard the deareft interefts of his 
 people ? Nay, is it poflible to admit, as muft evidently 
 be the cafe upon the Independents fcheme, that though 
 the majorlfy of the members of a particular congregation be of 
 this defcription, he has committed to them the power of 
 judging refpefting every matter the moft dubious and 
 momentous that concerns the moft valuable rights of their 
 brethren ; and that this plan is more conducive to the 
 promoiion of truth, and the adminiftration of equal and 
 impartial juftice, than that which vefls this power in a 
 few of the wifeft and moft enlightened of the members 
 together with the teachers ? 
 
 It is of importance ftill farther to be remarked, that 
 ftrongly as this difficulty appears to militate agalnft the 
 fcheme of Independency in the prefent age, it muft be 
 much more formidable, if we attend to the church at a more 
 early period, or in a lefs favourable fituation. If even in our 
 own country, where the means of information have io 
 long and fo plentifully been enjoyed by all, very few are 
 qualified to be eccleliaftical rulers, muft not the number 
 of theie in the primitive ages, when they had juft 
 emerged from the fuperftition of Judaifm or the darknefs 
 of Heathenifm, and were in fome meafure fhackled by 
 their former prejudices — when the opportunities alfo of 
 general knowledge were much lefs abundant, and when 
 the copies of the fcriptures, from their ignorance of print- 
 ing, were both lefs numerous, and few but the paftors of 
 the church could read them — muft not the number, I 
 fay, of thofe who were qualified to be ccclefiaftlcal rulers 
 at that period have been greatly more limited ? And if 
 even among ourfelves, fo few are fitted for this arduous 
 work, fhould the gofpel be propagated in Pagan coun- 
 tries, as among the Caffres, or inhabitants of O'why'hee 
 or Otaheite, would not the individuals who would be 
 
Letter III. 
 
 49 
 
 found, in their different congregations, capable of judg- 
 ing upon every point of dodrine or government, how- 
 ever difficult, be much lefs numerous ? Every Caffre or 
 Hottentot however, upon the Independent fcheme, who 
 feemed to have as much knowledge as is neceffary for 
 falvation, and was enabled to exhibit a correfponding 
 pradice, would be recognized in effect as a ruler of the 
 church ; and to the judgment and vote of an affembly of 
 fuch men, would every propofal of their elders, hov/ever 
 fuperior in knowledge, neceffarily be fubjefted, before they 
 could be adopted and adted upon in their congregations *. 
 2dly, It feems clearly to be taught in fcripture, that 
 the power of ruling, whether by perfuafion and advice, 
 or by minifterial authority, is committed to fome only, 
 and not to all the members of the church indifcriminately. 
 " Salute all them that have the rule over you," fays 
 Paul to the Hebrews ( Heb. xiii. 24.), "and all the 
 " faints." Now, as we have already proved that the 
 word which is here tranflated rulers, moll probably lig- 
 nifies, not merely prefidents or governors by advice and 
 perfuafiOn, but auihorltatlve rulers^ is It not a natural 
 confequence from the phrafeology in th^, paffage, that 
 as the faints are here diilinguirhed from their rulers, 
 
 * How would MefTrs. Evving or Little reliin the fubmiiTlon of 
 all their meafures to the cognizance of fuch a court ? Or, if 
 paftors of congregations, like thofe mentioned by Paul, Heb. v. 12. 
 (and if there w^re fuch congregations then, there may be many 
 limilar to them now), who, while they might have been teachers, 
 needed to be taught again what were the firft principles of the 
 cracles of God ; if paftors, i fay, of luch congregations, would they 
 be willing that every point, however difficult and important, fliould 
 be fubjefted to their judgment, and determined by their vote? 
 In Prefbytery, however, though there was not one of a congre- 
 gation fitted to be an elder, to affift the paftor in the government 
 of the church, this want could be fupplied by having recourfe to 
 the minifters of other churches met as a claflical court of review, 
 an expedient which is utterly impraflicable to Independents. 
 
 E 
 
50 Letter III. 
 
 every Chrillian member is not entitled to be fuch a 
 ruler? Or, if it mean fimply, as Independents allege, 
 perfons who are to govern by advice and perfuafion, is 
 it not equally plain from it, that every faint is not to be 
 fuch a governor * I " God," fays the fame Apoftle 
 (l Cor. xii. 28.), " hath (et fome in the church, firft, 
 *' apoilles ; fecondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after 
 ** that miracles j then gifts of healing, helps, govern- 
 " fnenls." — Here it is neceffary to remark, that in the 
 whole of this context, from the 1 2th verfe, the Apoftle 
 is fpeaking of the church of Chrift under 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 mem- 
 bers, each of which is neceffary to its happlnefs, and all 
 of which are clTential to its beauty. This variety of 
 liiembers, in the natural body, he afferts to be a proof 
 of the Creator's wifdom, and contends that it is not only 
 beneficial to the interefts of the whole, but that fuch is 
 the dependence of one member upon another, that none 
 of them has a right to look down with contempt upon 
 the lefs honourable members. " For the body is not 
 *' one member," fays he (ver. 14.), *' but many. If 
 ** the foot (hall fay, Becaufe I am not the hand, I am 
 
 * Glafs and other Independents tranflate the word Sj'f^ovs;, 
 which is rendered in our Bibles rulers, gunks. This however, as 
 was before evinced, is contrary to its ufual acceptation in the 
 New Teflament, v;here it generally fignifies rulers or governors. 
 Bcfides, how could this term, upon the principles of Independents, 
 if it fignifies merely guides who had a right only to advife, be 
 applied exclufively to the elders of the church ? As the members 
 indifcriminately, ?.ccording to them, have a right to advife as 
 well as the elders, nay, as the opinion of the former may be 
 adopted occafionally br the congregation while that of the latter 
 is rejefted and fct afidc, have not the members frequently an 
 eqiial, if not a fuperior title to this name, of being guides to their 
 iDuii.fters or elders? 
 
Letter ill. 51 
 
 " not of the body, is it therefore not of the body ? 
 " And if the ear (hall fay, Becaufe 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 hear- 
 " ing ? if the whole were hearing, where were the fmell- 
 •* ing ? But now hath God fet the members in the body, 
 " as it hath pleafcd him. And if they were all one 
 ** member, where were the body ? But now are they 
 *' many members, yet but one body. And the eye 
 " cannot fay to the hand, I have no need of thee ; nor, 
 ** again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you, ^t." 
 After which he informs us (ver. 27.), that believers are 
 the body of Chrift ; and obferves, that in this body 
 (ver. 28.) God hath fet a variety of offices for its edifi- 
 cation, as flriking, and diflinft, and necefTary, as the 
 different members of the natural body. Thefe offices he 
 enumerates, and merjtions among them, firil, *' apoftles ;" 
 fecondarily, " prophets ;" thirdly, " teachers ;" then 
 ** miracles,'' i. e. as is plain from ver. 29. workers of 
 Hiiracles ; then " gifts of heahng," /. e. as is evident 
 from the 30th verfe, perfons who have the gifts of heal- 
 ing ; then " helps," i. e. perfons who are helps ; and 
 then " governments," i. e. perfons who are governors. 
 Now, as he himfelf remarks, in ilating this comparifon 
 (ver. 17. 18.), that every member of the natural body is 
 not an eye, nor an ear, nor endowed by its Creator with 
 the fenfe of fmelling, is it not equally inconteftable that 
 when he alfo tells us, that in the church of Chrift, which 
 is his body, there is a diverfity of offices no lefs ftriking, 
 and that God hath fet in it only /ow^ governments or 
 governors, every member of that church cannot be en- 
 titled to the privilege of being a governor, whether this 
 governor is to rule, as Independents fay, by advice and 
 perfuafion, or, as Prefbyterians contend, by the exercife 
 of authoritative though fubordinate power ? On the 
 whole, is it not manifeft, that if the Apoftle denies In 
 E2 
 
52 Letter III. 
 
 the 29th verfe, that all were to be apoftles, becaufe he 
 had faid In the 28th verfe, that only fome were to be 
 apoftles ; and that all were to be prophets, becaufe God 
 hath fet in the church only fome to be prophets ; and 
 that all were to be teachers, becaufe he had faid before 
 that oviXy fome were to be teachers; is it not alfo manl- 
 feft upon the very fame principle, that as he had faid 
 before too, that God had fet in the church only /c/7«f go- 
 vernments or governors, all who are members of Chrill's 
 fpiritual body are not to be admitted to be governors 
 in his church, whatever may be the nature and degree of 
 that power which thefe governors fhould exercife ? 
 
 Is it affirmed, in anfwer to this, according to the 
 ideas of fome Independents, that the Apoftle, when 
 fpeaking here of governments, intends not an ojice., but 
 iimply a gift or qualification for government, and that 
 no argument of courfe, for excluding the members of the 
 church in general from being ecclefiaftical rulers, can 
 be deduced from its being faid, that " God hath fet in 
 " the church only fome governments ?" We reply, that 
 the argument againft this firft principle of Independency 
 feems equally conclufive, whether the Apoftle is fpeaking 
 of an ofiice, or of a gift ; for, if he intends not an ofHce, 
 but merely a gift, will It not equally follow upon their mode 
 of reafoning, that fmce thofe alone are to rule in the 
 church on whom God has beftowed qualifications or 
 gifts for government, and fince, by their own confeffion, 
 it is here declared that he has beftowed thefe gifts only 
 upon fomCi all cannot be entitled to be rulers in his 
 church ? Befides, that the Apoftle is here fpeaking of an 
 office, and not fimply of endowments, appears, among 
 other things, from the original word here tranftated " fet" 
 or " conftituted" in the church, which always, in fuch 
 a conneclion as this, when the cafe admits it, denotes 
 the appointment of perfons to an office. It is fo under- 
 ilood in this very paftage, when It Is faid, that God hath 
 
Letter III. 53 
 
 fet in the church, fome apoftles, and fome prophets, and 
 fome teachers ; and fince by governments, as was before 
 attempted to be proved, is here intended governors, there 
 appears to be no reafon for underftanding it in a different 
 fenfe when apphed to them. It is the fame word too 
 which is iifed (Ads xx. 28.) to exprefs the appointment 
 of the Ephefian elders, and not merely ihc'iT gifts , to the 
 official overfight of that Chriftian church: " Take heed 
 ** therefore unto yourfelves, and to all the flock, over the 
 " which the Holy Ghoft hath 7na(Ie'' {s^iro), or //, 
 or appoinled " you overfeers :'' and is the very word which 
 is employed (2 Tim. i. 11.) to denote the appointment 
 of the Apoftle Paul to his oiSce : *' VVhereunto I am 
 " appointed (iriSf;v) a preacher, and an apoftle, and a 
 teacher of the Gentiles." Is it contended, moreover*, 
 that even allowing that an office is here intended by 
 governments, it is deacons who are referred to ? To 
 this it is anfwered, that the Apoftle feems already to 
 have mentioned thefe under the name of helps ; and that, 
 at any rate, it is not the province of deacons, as fuch, to 
 govern, but merely to ferve tables, a meaning undoubt- 
 edly too limited and inadequate for the ftrong word 
 which is here ufed by the Apoftle to fignify governments. 
 Or is it alleged f, that admitting the word to fignify 
 properly tcclefiaftical rulers, what is here intended by it 
 may liave now ceafed, as well as workers of miracles, 
 perfons endowed with the gift of healing and of tongues, 
 and apoftles and prophets, who are m.entioned along with 
 • them ? To this it is anfwered, that even upon the prin- 
 ciples of Independents themfclves, while miracles have 
 ceafed, and tongues and prophecies have failed, govern- 
 ment will for ever continue in the church : and that if 
 we are to infer, from its being here joined with the gifts 
 of miracles and tongues, that it muft nov/ be laid afide, 
 
 * See Chandler on Joel, p. 150. 
 
 I Sec Dr. Ifa?.c Watts on the Chriftian Church, p. 73, 
 
 E3 
 
54 Letter III. 
 
 we contend that It muft be laid afide by Independents as 
 well as by Prefbyterians ; and upon the fame principle it 
 may be proved, that fince teachers alfo are here mentioned 
 along with them, the office of a teacher (liould no longer 
 be continued in the church of Chrift. 
 
 Upon a review then of the Apoflle's reafoning in the 
 whole of this paffage, I feel difpofed to conclude that 
 all are no more now entitled to be rulers, than they were 
 entitled formerly to be apoftles or prophets, or paftors 
 and teachers ; and that, in Chriil's fpiritual body, all are 
 no more authorized to be governors, as they are obvioufly 
 warranted upon the Independent plan, than, in the na- 
 tural body, each of the members is to be an eye, or an , 
 ear, or a fenfe of fmelling. This reafoning, I appre- 
 hend, is no lefs conclufive againll admitting them to 
 rule, even upon the fcheme of Independents ^ by advice and 
 perfuafion, than, upon the fcheme of Prefbyterians, by 
 the exercife of limited fubordinate authority. 
 
 In the '2^6. place, Thd terms employed in fcripture to 
 exprefs the various characters and relations of members 
 and their elders, feem alfo to intimate that every Chrif- 
 tian is not warranted to claim an equal fiiare of eccle.- 
 fiaflical government. While the rulers, as has been 
 obferved, are dlilinguiflied in the New Teftament by the 
 flrongeft titles expreffive of the office and authority of 
 governors, the members, as has been faid, are pointed 
 out at the fame time as governed by them, and are 
 enjoined to obey them. But if every Chriftian among 
 thofe who are governed (the point of prefiding as mode- 
 rator in their affemblies, and announcing the decifion, 
 alone excepted) be as much a governor as the governors 
 themfelves, how can the diftindlion which we have men- 
 tioned be preferved ? Muft not all h^ governors, and all 
 hQ governed.^ and muft not the kingdom of Jefus be dlf- 
 tinguifhed by a circumftance not only peculiar to itfelf, 
 but which would be confidered as impolitic and contra- 
 
Letter III. 55 
 
 dIAory in every wife and well-regulated human govern- 
 ment ; namely, that all its fnhjecls fnould not only be 
 fubje^ls, but rulers, and as much, or rather more entitled, 
 on account of their number, to the charafter of rulers 
 than the governors themfelves ? While the former, too, 
 are affirmed (Adlsxx. 28.) to be authoritative overfeers 
 of the church, as the captains of hundreds and thoufands 
 were of their men *, and as the rulers of cities were of 
 the inhabitants of thefe cities f, the members of the 
 church are faid to be officially overfeen by them in govern- 
 ment as well as in doctrine. But if every member, as 
 Independents alTert, be not only as much an overfeer of 
 the church at large as the overfeers themfelves, but, as 
 was before evinced, from their fuperior number, pofTeiTed 
 of a far greater (hare of the overfight — nay, if, as was 
 alfo noticed, they can completely overturn the propofals 
 of the overfeers, and dictate to them what t/jey are to 
 .receive and obey, is not the di(lin£lion which we have 
 Hated completely deftroyed ? and are not ail not only 
 overfeers as well as overfeen, but are not the very men 
 who are appointed to be overfeen, more ivorthy of being 
 dignified with this honourable name, than the men who 
 are officially chara&ert%ed by it ? While the former art: 
 defcribed as ihef^ock, the latter are reprefented in fcrip- 
 tare as the poflors, a name often bellowed upon authori- 
 tative civil rulers and officers :J:, and are enjoined to per- 
 
 * See the paflages produced, Letter II. where this very word is 
 applied to them. 
 
 f See I Maccab. chap. i. where this fame term is fo iifed ; 
 KflW €7r««j(r£v i';rt7K07rov<i iTTi Tiroivra tov A«oy, " And made them 
 *' overfeers of the whole people." 
 
 I See Ifaiah xliv. 38. where it is given to Cyrus, king of 
 Perfia; 2 Sam. v. 2. where it is beflowed upon David, becaufe, as 
 a military officer under Saul, he had led out and brought in Ifrael ; 
 and to the judges of Ifrael, I Chron. xvii. 6. whom God is there 
 faid to have commanded to feed or govern his people. See alfo 
 Homer's Uiad ^ajpm^ where the common name for Agamemnon, 
 
^6 Letter III. 
 
 form the part of pallors to the church of God ; /. e, not 
 only to feed them with wholefome doftrinc, but alfo to 
 govern them as a-fhepherd does his flock *. But if each 
 of the flock, as mud be the cafe upon the Independent 
 plan, is to govern not only the other members of the 
 flock, but even the pajiors themfelves, as much as they 
 are to govern the members, how can this difference of 
 charafter be maintained ? Is not every iheep in the 
 flock of Chrift, according to this fcheme, not only a 
 Jheep, but a pajlor ? nay, are they not better entitled, 
 upon the principles of Independents, as already micntion- 
 ed, to the name of pafiors, than thofe who are in 
 fcripture diftinguiilied by that appellation ? Since, thenr, 
 it feems impofliblc to allovi' the members of the church 
 in general the power of ruling, without making them, at 
 once all governors as well as all gcv erne d, all o-ver Jeers as 
 ^t\\ 2ii all overfeen, and all pajlors as well as all Jheep-; 
 nay, fmce, from their fuperior number, which is often 
 twenty or a hundred times greater than that of the mini- 
 ilers, it would make them more really governors, and 
 overfeers, and pallors, than the govtrnors, and overfeers, 
 and pafiors themfelves ; the plan of Independency, which 
 is attended with fuch ccnfequences, mud certainly be 
 inadmiffible, and we are bound to conclude that believers 
 in general are not to govern in the church of God, 
 
 the leader and commander of the Grecian hoft, is 7rcif,iy,v Xccmv, 
 fticpherd of the people. 
 
 * Compare Matth. ii. 6. where the very word which is employed 
 in A^s XX. 28. to figuiiy the paftorai overfight of the elders at 
 Ephefus over their members, is ufed to denott the pailoral condud 
 of Jefiis, not only as teaching but ruling his people. " Out of thee," 
 fays that Evangeliil refpeding the Saviour, " fhall come a Governor 
 " that lliall rule, Troi^ttSyst, Ihall govern as a J})ephercl my people 
 " Ifrael." Confult, likewile, Rev. ii. 27. xii. 5. and xix. J^. 
 where the fame word which is ufed to exprefs what the elders at 
 Ephefus were authorized to perform as the fliepherds or paftors of 
 the flock, fignifi.^s to ruls, as in other places it means to feed by 
 inflrmflion, 
 
Letter III. j;y 
 
 It is not enough to tell us, that, at leall upon your 
 plan of adminlftration, the members of the church are 
 not confidered as rulers when they exprefs their fenti- 
 ments upon any queftion, but are fimply alked, for the 
 fatisfaftlon of the elders, by whom any meafure is pro- 
 pofed, to deliver their opinion, and ftate their vote. 
 Nor is it enough to fay, that they do not receive the 
 appellation of rulers, if, in their capacity of church- 
 members, they aclually poffcfs and exercife an authority 
 at leail equal, if not fuperior to that of the rulers them- 
 felves. That fuch authority is poffeffed by them, ap- 
 pears to be incontrovertible. Is not the judgment of 
 the members, as Mr. Ewing informs us (p. ^6,), to be 
 taken in every queftion, if a matter of importance, and 
 are not all of them indifcriminately admitted to vote ? 
 You yourfelf too declare (p. 30.), that ** nothing is to 
 ** be done without the conjeni of the members." Mr. 
 Little, alfo, in his Letter to Mr. Donald, one of 'Ctit 
 members excommunicated from the church in Perth, tells 
 him, " that the church were to confider his cafe, and that 
 " of the other members who were excommunicated with 
 ** him." (See his Letter, as inferted at large in the 
 Narrative before mentioned.) And when that cafe was 
 confidered, it is afferted by thefe perfons who were thus 
 excluded, and not denied by Mr. Little, that the roll 
 containing the names of the members of the church was 
 called, and their votes marked, before the deed of the 
 elders was viewed as ratified. Does not the adoption or 
 rejeftion of any meafure depend entirely upon a majority 
 of them? and if fuch a majority are pleafed to fet afide 
 any propofal of the elders or nominal rulers, will it not 
 be fet afide ? and if they are difpofed to vote for an op- 
 pofite opinion, will it not be carried in oppofition to 
 their rulers ; and be binding upon their rule?s, as much 
 as upon any of the members, if they remain In their 
 fociety ? This, I believe, cannot be denied. I contend 
 
38 Letter III. 
 
 therefore, that even upon your plan of Independency, as 
 well as in ever)' other which grants a power of deliberat- 
 ing and voting to your «iembers at large, though you 
 deny them the name and title oi rulers, and allow them 
 only, as you exprefs it, a power of confent, they enjoy 
 not only as muck, but more of the r^^/ authority of rulers, 
 than thofe to whom, according to the words of your 
 brother, the government of your churches is committed 
 nominally; and confequently, thatjyoar fcheme in parti- 
 cular, as well as that of Independents in general, feems 
 juftly chargeable with the inconfiftencies which have 
 been mentioned, or may yet be charged upon it, from 
 the word of God. 
 
 4thly, Terms are ufed in fcripture exprefiive of the 
 duties of Chriftian members to their ecclefjallical rulers, 
 which appear no kfs clearly to intimate that Chriftians 
 in general are not to be governors in the church of God. 
 They are required, for iiiflance (i ThefT. v. 13.), to 
 knoiv their rulers, or thofe who are over them in the Lord ; 
 i. e. to achnoivledge them as fuch. Now, as the word here 
 rendered thofe who were over them in the Lord, as has 
 been already remarked, means not merely thofe who 
 prefided in their affemblies, but authoritative rulers, who 
 bad a right to deliver decifions in the name of Chrifl; 
 and demand their obedience, I cannot fee how this duty 
 could be enjoined upon the members in general, if all of 
 them in reality, though not in name, were as much gover- 
 nors as their rulers or prefbyters. Every Chrijl'ian mem- 
 her, upon the Independent fcheme, being as much a 
 ruler as any of the elders, would require to be acknow^- 
 \ii6g&6. as fuch equally with them; nay, the majority of 
 the rulers, on this plan, being members, and of courfe 
 their influence being greater, it appears as Jit, and perhaps 
 more conjijlent, that the elders (hould be called to acknow- 
 ledge them as rulers, than that they fliould be enjoined to 
 acknowledge the elders. Not only arc the members 
 
L£TT£a IIL 
 
 59 
 
 c^jmmanded in general to acknowledge their rulers as 
 fuch, but to e/Ieem them very highly in love for their 
 work's fake, in ruling, if they barely ruled ; as well 
 as in preaching, if they alfo preached. The original 
 words, which denote the degree of efteem that is due to 
 them, are moft uncommonly expreflive, 'vm^ iKm^Krcr^v ; 
 i. e. literally rendered, " above the greatefl abundance^ or 
 *' exceeding exceeding highly .^^ But how could Chriftians 
 in general be required to render to their elders yi/t:^ an 
 extraordinary refpeS, if all that diftingui/hed them from 
 common members were merely that they were to be 
 prefidents in the affemblies of the church, while an equal 
 fhare of rule belongs to every member in particular ; 
 nay, while it is certain that, as the judgment and votes 
 of the members in every queftion are to fix the decifion, 
 the power of government is chiefly in them ? Are not 
 the memlerSi at leaft as far as government is concerned, 
 upon the Independent plan, better entitled to this 
 exceedingly exceedingly high efteem, for the effects of good 
 government, than the elders themfelves ? Farther, Chriflians 
 are ordered (r Tim. v. 17.) to reckon the elders who 
 rule well, on account of their rulings worthy even oS. double 
 honour, and to give them that honour. But if every 
 member is to be a ruler of the church, as well as the 
 elders, will it not follow from this, that if any of the 
 members rule well, double honour fhould be granted to 
 them as well as to the elders ; and if all the members rule 
 well, will it not equally follow, that all the members fhould 
 give to all the members double honour, becaufe they rule 
 well ? To talk however of all the members of a church 
 giving to all the members, if they ruled well, double 
 honour, is evidently abfurd. And to confider the 
 Apoflle as requiring honour from the members of the 
 church to the elders, when, by this fcheme, they have 
 an equal, if not a fuperior fhare of ecclefiaflic power to 
 
6o Letter III. 
 
 thefe very elders, feems a palpable contradiftion. Honour 
 can be rendered only by an mferlor to a fuperior, and 
 double honour can be given only by one who is very infe- 
 rior to one who is greatly fuperior. But in an Inde- 
 pendent congregation, which admits every member to an 
 equal fhare in the government, no fuch inferiority can 
 exift. Or, if the word here tranflated honour, fignifies 
 not only honour, but maintenance, as Guyfe and other 
 Independents have maintained ; and if it be afferted from 
 this paflage, that the elders who rule well, are entitled, if 
 they need it, to double maintenance ; it will alfo follov/, that 
 if every member is to be an ecclefiaftical ruler, he would 
 be entitled alfo, if he ruled well, to double maintenance. 
 This, however, is no lefs abfurd ; for where could the 
 church be found, whofe funds would admit of fuch an 
 expenditure ? In fine, Chriftlans are commanded, as was 
 remarked, to obey their rulers (Heb. xiii. 17.) ; i. e. not 
 merely to be fubjedl to them as one Chriflian is to an- 
 other, but to render an obedience fuch as inferiors do to 
 fuperiors. But if, according to the principles of Inde- 
 pendency, every member is to have an equal voice in 
 every determination with thofe who are elders, and if he is 
 in reality a ruler, whatever he may be in name, as well as 
 they ; who are the perfons that are to perform this com- 
 mand ? 
 
 If thofe only who are diftinfl from the rulers can obey 
 them, then, according to your plan, none can comply 
 with this apollolic injundlion, becaufe ^// are rulers ; and 
 confequently we are reduced to this abfurd fuppofition, 
 that the Apoftle commands the rulers to obey themfelves. 
 This manifeft abfurdity is equally fuppofed, whatever be 
 the kind of obedience that is enjoined, whether it be 
 compliance with perfuafion, or fubmifiion to authority. 
 As it therefore appears impoflible to explain thefe ex- 
 hortations confiftently, if every member has in reality, 
 
Letter III. 6t 
 
 though perhaps not in name, an equal title with elders 
 to rule the church, the principle which fuch contra- 
 didlions fuppofe, mud be rcjefted ; and, by confequence, 
 it mud Hill be affirmed that every individual Chriftian 
 has not a right to be a ruler in the church of God. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 In addition to the arguments which have already htcn 
 urged in refutation of your fcheme, there are others, 
 from which its contrariety to the facred oracles is no lefs 
 apparent. I therefore obferve in the 
 
 5th place. That the keys, which are the emblem of fub- 
 ordinate authority in the kingdom of Jefus, are repre- 
 fented in fcripture as delivered by him to the minifters, 
 and not to the members. 
 
 With regard to the import of the celebrated pafTage 
 in Matth. xvi. where Jefus is faid to have bellowed upon 
 Peter thefe keys of his kingdom, much diverfity of fen- 
 timent has obtained. Papifts contend that it includes a 
 grant of univerfal fupremacy over the church on earth to 
 Peter, as the reprefentative of the Saviour, which grant 
 they fuppofe to be transferred to their popes, who, accord- 
 ing to them, are the fucceffors of this Apoftle. But 
 even though they could prove that their popes were the 
 legitimate fucceffors of Peter (in proving v,hich they have 
 as yet uniformly failed), this pafTage contains no fuch 
 grant to them ; for, in other places, the reft of the Apoftles 
 are pointed out as inveiled with an equality of power, 
 and as even withflanding him to the face on a particular 
 occafion, becaufe he was to be blamed. Epifcopalians 
 allege that he reprefeuted their bifhops, to whom, upon 
 their fcheme, the government of the church is chiefly 
 F 
 
62 Letter IV. 
 
 committed. But it is plain that no fuch bifhops as 
 theirs are authorized by fcripture, which points out to us 
 a plurality of blfliops or overfeers in many primitive 
 churches (fee Phih'p. i. i. A6ts xx. 17. 2S, l^c) ; 
 and informs us at the fame time, that by thefe we are to 
 underftand elders or minifters, who preached and ruled 
 (fee alfo for this, Afts xx. i Peter v. i, 2,' 3. Effc), 
 Independents affert, that here Peter reprefents believers 
 in general, to whom, according to them, the government 
 of the church of Jcfus is intrufted. The reafons on 
 which they bnild this interpretation are thefe : That the 
 gift of the keys was conferred on Peter, upon his con- 
 felling Jefus to be the Son of God ; and, confeqiiently, 
 fhooild be conferred on all who make this confeflion : 
 and the name Peter or Rock, which was given to this 
 Apoftle upon this occafion, belongs, they fay, equally 
 to all believers, who are, no lefs than he, fpiritual ilones, 
 built upon the fame holy and bleffed foundation. It 
 feems probable however, that the name Peter, or the 
 Rock, as beftowed upon this Apoftle, is not the fame 
 with that which is elfewhere given to beUevers in gene- 
 ral, when they are denominated Stones, and living 
 Stones * ; nor does it follow that becaufe they poffefs, 
 in common with him, one part of the honour which he i& 
 here declared to have received, they are entitled to the 
 other alfo. The gift of the keys is undoubtedly very dif- 
 ferent from that of being aflone built up by God's Spirit 
 on the true foundation i and the enjoyment of the one can 
 never neceffarily imply the pofTefTion of the other. Be- 
 fides, though it fiiould be conceded, that the grant of 
 the keys was made to Peter becaufe he confeffed Chrifl 
 to be the Son of God, it cannot be inferred, on any 
 confiftent principle, that every one who confeffes him is 
 to receive that honour. We know that this Apoftle, 
 
 * See Whitby on the place. 
 
Letter IV. 6j 
 
 on another memorable occafion (fee John xxi.), when 
 he not only profefTed his faith, but his love to the Sa- 
 viour, was anew authorized by him to be a preacher and 
 an Apollle *; but there are few, I believe, who, from 
 this circumftance, would conclude with a celebrated 
 minifler, " that e'-oery m.an (however weak) who can lay 
 " his hand on his heart, and fay he loves Chrift, has 
 ** Chrift's call and warrant to preach the gofpel." But 
 if few would adduce this as a proof that all who are 
 pofTefTed of a fimilar affeftion (hould have the office of a 
 min'ijler, on what principle can it be demonftrated, that, 
 though Peter was invefted by Jefus with the office of a 
 ruler on his confeffing h.\s faiths all who are pofleffed of 
 fimilar faith fhould have z Jimilar funnlon .^ Nor will the 
 nature of the deed itfelf authorize it ; for by confeffing 
 Jefus, and by being built up on him as a living ftone, 
 a perfon becomes merely a member of his family, and 
 a fubjedl of his kingdom. But is it a legitimiate in- 
 ference, that becaufe a perfon becomes a fubjeB of his 
 kingdom, and a member of his houfe, he is advanced in 
 confequence of it to the office of zjleward^ to whofe 
 power, as espreffed by the ufual badge which he anciently 
 wore (a golden key carried on his fhoulder), there is an" 
 evident allufion in the phrafeology before us ? Were this 
 the cafe, it would be a natural confequence that every 
 perfon who becomes a believer, and a living ftone, would 
 be conftituted alfo zjleward in the houfe of God, to rule 
 and govern it ; and in the family of Chrift, all would be 
 Jlewardsy as well as governed. But if all wtvcjleivardsy 
 where were thofe who fhould be governed by them ? 
 Though therefore Peter, on this remarkable occajion, 
 when a clearer difcovery was to be made by Jefus of his 
 chara(^er and kingdom than hitherto was done, received 
 from him the afl^urance that he had committed to him 
 
 * " Feed my flieep ; feed my Iambs." 
 V 2 
 
^4 Letter IV. 
 
 the keys of his kingdom, and advanced him to the ho« 
 nour of being a ruler in it, it will not follow that every 
 Chrifiiariy who believes and confeiTes him on every occa- 
 lion, is to receive that dignity. Does it follow that if a 
 prince, at a particular time, to teftify his approbation 
 of the views entertained of his character and government 
 by one of his fubjeds, advances him to fpecial honour, 
 every one of his fubjedls who exprefles fimilar views, at 
 every future period J and on every occafion, Ihould attain a 
 fimilar honour ? Neither, therefore, of the arguments 
 which have been urged, evince that Peter reprefented be- 
 lievers in general, when he received at this time the keys of 
 the kingdom ; and the obvious meaning of the exprelTions 
 employed to denote this truli, which plainly refer to the 
 office of a ileward, feems totally Incompatible with 
 this idea. 
 
 It is indeed faid (Matth. xvlli.), that ** whatfoever /^^ 
 *' church binds on earth," agreeably to the will of Jcfus, 
 ♦* fliuU be bound in heaven ; and that whatfoever they 
 " ioofe on earth, fliall be loofed in heaven ;" which Is 
 the fame language that accompanies the gift of the keys 
 to Peter (chap, xvl.) : but, I truO:, it will afterwards ap- 
 pear that we are not here to underftand, by the term 
 church, every particular member. On the contrary, we 
 know that language almoft exaflly fimilar is em-ployed 
 by our Saviour, to exprefs the power which he gave to 
 his min'i/IerSi and his min'i/lers alone in their official capa- 
 city. John XX. 21. 23. '* Then faid Jefus unto them 
 *' again, Peace be unto you : as my Father hath fent me, 
 *' even fo fend I you. Wiiofe foever fins ye remit, they 
 <« are remitted unto them ; and whofe foever fins ye retain, 
 « they are retained." To fet afide this remark it is not 
 fuflicient to tell us with fome Independents*, " that, 
 ** perhaps, this forgiving of fin was equivalent to healing 
 
 * See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 1 7 1. 
 
Letter IV. 6^ 
 
 « difeafesy as we know that the Apoftles had the power 
 " of healing difeafes conferred on them, and as our 
 *' Lord declares it to be a proof of authority to forgive 
 " fin on earth :'* Matth. ix. 6. The power of healing 
 difeafes is never, as far as we recolleft. reprefented in 
 fcripture as equivalent to that of forgiving iniquity ; and 
 the Apoflles, in exercifing the former, are never faid to 
 have performed the latter. Nay, even in the paflfage 
 referred to, when our Saviour is alTerted to have healed 
 difeafes, this is by no means pointed out as the fame 
 with iiis forgiving Jin^ but {imply as an attejlation of 
 the truth of what he faid, when he declared that he was 
 commiflioned by his heavenly Father to remit fins on 
 earth. But will it follow that becaufe this was pro- 
 duced as an evidence of the truth of his declaration that 
 he was commiflioned to forgive fins, it was equivalent to 
 the afhual difpenfation of that forgivenefs ? Though the 
 miracles of the converfion of water into wine, of the 
 multiplication of the loaves, of the rcftoration of fight and 
 hearing to the blind and deaf, and many fimilar works, 
 when performed by our Lord, are adduced as evidences 
 that he was, what he profefied, the only Saviour, will 
 it follow that thefe miracles were equivalent to lh\s falva- 
 iion which he came to bcftow ? It feems plain that the 
 power of remitting and retaining fins, mentioned in John, 
 is the fame with what Is expreffed in Matth. xviii. i8. 
 and xvi. 19. by binding an offending, and loojing a peni- 
 tent brother, agreeably to a common metaphor in fcrip- 
 ture, by which men, when, like Simon Magus, under the 
 guilt and the power of fin, are reprefented as fixed in a 
 bond ; and when delivered from thefe, as loofed or fet free *. 
 Now, this binding or loofing certainly does not meaa 
 
 ♦ See alfo Prov. v. 22. " His own iniquities Ihall take the 
 " wicked liimfcif, and lie fhall be holden with the cords of his 
 « iins," &c. 
 
 F3 
 
66 Letter IV» 
 
 the performance of a miracle for the cure of the body of a 
 penitent brother, or a refufal to exert that power upon 
 one who is obftinatc, or the inJlid,ion of difeafe upon one 
 who has tranfgreffed ; for, in that cafe, it would follow 
 from Matth. xviii. that the impenitent brother, whofe 
 cafe we are called to tell to the church, mull be one 
 who is already dlfeafed, or upon whom, if he obftinately 
 perfiil in his fm, difeafe is to be inflifted, and then too, 
 fmce this miraculous power has ceafed, the power of 
 jurifdidllon, or of binding and loofmg, muft have ceafed 
 along with it. But as none of thefe confequences can 
 fafely be admitted, it feems manifeft that the remitting 
 and retaining of fms mentioned in John, and the bind- 
 ing and loofmg fpoken of in Matthew, muft denote the 
 exercife only of an ordinary, and not of a miraculous 
 power. And farther, as it appears to denote not an extra- 
 ordinary but an ordinary power, confining in that fubor- 
 dinate judicial authority to pardon or condemn, which 
 thofe only who have the keys of the kingdom committed 
 to them are authorized to exercife, it is equally evident 
 that it can be vefted in the minifters only, not in the 
 private members of the church. It is never faid to be 
 intrufted to the latter, though it is exprefsly affirmed 
 (John XX.) to be given to the former; and in receiving 
 this authority they are plainly pointed out under the 
 charader of ftewards, which is altogether inconfiftent 
 with the fuppofition that the keys are committed to the 
 members at large, or that they are affociated with their 
 pallors in adminiftering the affairs of the church of 
 Chrift. 
 
 To invalidate the argument for the right of the elders 
 exclufively to govern in the Chriftian church, which is 
 derived from this paffage, many other criticifms have 
 been advanced by Independents. Some have fuppofed 
 that by the keys of the kingdom which were given to 
 Peter, we are to underftand only the key of knowledge, 
 
Letter IV. 67 
 
 and the honour of firft preaching the truths of the gofpel 
 to the Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 In fupport of this they inform lis, that there is an evident 
 allufion to the cuftom of the Jews, who delivered to their 
 Rabbis a key, when invefled with that dignity. This, 
 however, is very far from amounting to the binding and 
 loofmg the guihy on earth, as they were bound and loafed 
 in heaveny which is here affirmed to be connedled with 
 thefe keys, and which undoubtedly miift be an exercife 
 of government. And we know that when the fteward 
 of the houfe of David, whofe kingdom was certainly a 
 type of that of Chrift, had a key delivered to him, it 
 implied his being intruded, under the king, with the 
 affairs of the kingdom. ** It fiiall come to pafs in that 
 ** day," fays Ifaiah (chap. xxii. 20.), ** that I will call 
 " my fervant Eliakim, the fon of Hifkiah : and I will 
 *< clothe him with thy robe, and ftrcngthen him with thy 
 *' girdle, and I will commit thy government into his handy 
 ** (that of Shebna, who was over the houfe, ver. 15.). 
 ** And the key of the houfe of David will I lay upon his 
 " flioulder : he {hall open, and none fhall (liiit ; and he 
 <* ihall fliut, and none (hall open." And we fee likewife 
 the fame emblem when applied to our Lord (who tells us, 
 that he fent his Apoftles as his Father had fent him, and 
 gave them of the glory which his Father had given him), 
 employed to denote authority. " And to the angel of 
 " the church in Philadelphia," fays John (Rev. iii. 7.), 
 *• write, Thefe things faith he that is holy, he that is 
 *' true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, 
 *' and no man (hutteth, and ihutteth, and no man 
 *' openeth." Now, as in thefe other circumftances, it 
 inconteftably includes the power of government, what- 
 ever other idea it may fnggeft ; and as in the paffage 
 before us, it is reprefented as exercifed alfo in relation 
 to a kin^donii and is conneded with the other expreffive 
 
6S Letter IV. 
 
 phrafes beTore fpecltied ; ought it not likewife to be Tor 
 underflood in the prefent inftancc ? 
 
 Accordingly, one of our mod refpectable Englifh In- 
 dependents, in his illuftration of various paffages of 
 fcripture from Oriental cuiloms, gives the fame inter- 
 pretation of this allufion. " As ftewards of a great 
 " family," fays he, *' cfpecially of the royal houfeholdy 
 " bore a key, probably a golden one, in token of their 
 " office, the phr^e of giving a perfon the key, naturally 
 " grew into an expreffion of laifing him to great power 
 " (compare Ifaiah xxii. 22. with Rev. iii. 7:). This was 
 " with peculiar propriety applicable to the ilewards of 
 " the myileriesof God: i Cor. iv. i. Peter's opening the 
 "kingdom of heaven, as being the firll that preached 
 «' it both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, may be con- 
 ** fidered as an illuilration of this prornife ; but it ia 
 «* more fully explained, by the power of binding and 
 " loofmg afterwards mentioned *." As to the diilindlion 
 of the keys into thofe of knowledge, of liberty, and of au- 
 thority, by which other Independents endeavour to evade 
 this argument, it is altogether fanciful, and not autho- 
 rized by the word of God. See the London Minillers 
 Divine Right of Preibytery, lall edition, p. 98. 99, 
 
 Selden and Lightfoot, with fome moderns, underftand 
 by the binding and loofing, a power merely of declaring 
 the doClrines and laws of the gofpel, and not of puaifh- 
 ing or abfolving in a judicial capacity (fee M'Knight on 
 the place) ; and tell us, that thefe terms v.-ere ufed by 
 the Rabbis, to fignify the laiij^uluefs or unlaivfulnefs of 
 things. Binding, according to them, denoted that a 
 thing was bound up, or forbidden to men ; and loofing, 
 that it was free, or permitted — and why not fo here ? 
 To this, however, it may be replied, that Independents 
 themfelves, in general^ do not allow to their members tl*e 
 
 • * Binder's Oriental Cuftoms, Matth. xvi. 19. 
 
Letter IV. 69 
 
 power of binding and loofing in this fenfe ; for it is not 
 the privilege of the members, as fuch, to preach the laws 
 and do6lrines of the gofpel. We know, befides, that 
 the phrafes of binding and loofing were very commonly- 
 employed by the Jewifh Doctors, to fignify not only a 
 doBrlnal declaration of what was lawful or unlawful, but 
 ajWzV/j/puni{hing or abfolving of the excommunicated *. 
 The Greeks alfo had a fimllar expreffion relating to 
 judicial authority. Thus Stephens quotes from jEfchines 
 thefe words, 'Et^u'^xv ryj z^rpi^vi 'v/'Jl^*' ^Jj AY0H re Trx^ccvciiov ; 
 I. e. " as the perfon accufed was not acquitted,'' or, 
 agreeably to the tranflatlon of the word in Matthew, 
 *' was not locfed by the firit vote." So alfo, when it is 
 faid of Jerufalem (Ifaiah xl. 2.), that ** her iniquity is 
 " pardoned" (a cafe exactly in point to Matth. xvlli. 18. 
 where the binding and loofing relate to an offence)^ the 
 Septuagint renders the words AEATTAI ^yrjjj 'yj V^«^t/^, 
 ** her iniquity is loofed^P The Latins, in like manner, 
 employed the fame terras, to exprefs acquittal or con- 
 demnation by judges in the civil courts, as will be evident 
 to any one v/ho confults the writings of Cicero, whofe 
 common phrafe for acquittal is *-^ Jolvere ermine^ to loofe 
 " from a crime or accufation." In fhort, not only do 
 the terms binding and loofing fignify, in facred and pro- 
 fane authors, judicially to punifh, and pardon, and ac- 
 quit, but it feems evident that in this fenfe they ought 
 to be underftood in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew. 
 There, as was remarked, it is an ojfence that is faid to be 
 
 * See Buxtorf s I^exicon, Chald. Talmud. Rabbin, p. I4IC. 
 
 f Thus, likewile (Ecclefiafticus xxviii. 2.), fays the Ion cf 
 Shach, who was a Jew, " Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that 
 " he hath done thee, fo ihall thy fins be forgiven thee alio when 
 " thou prayed ;" literally, " fhall be Icofed to thee," XvSvia-ovTcii^ 
 And thus, too, the Septuagint, Ipeaking of God's forgiving the 
 iin of Job's friends (Job xlii. 9.), fays, that he loofed thcir 
 
70 Letter IV. 
 
 bound or loofed ; and left the brother who commits it 
 fhould be difpofed to difregard the church when they 
 exert this power, it is declared that what is thus done on 
 earth according to the will of the Saviour, ihall be done 
 in heaven alfo. But this binding or loofing of an offence^ 
 furely, cannot fo properly mean, the declaring it to be 
 or not to be an offence, or denouncing the judgments an- 
 nexed to it (though this may be included), as, agreeably 
 to the common acceptation of the phrafe, the pro- 
 nouncing the pardon, or the punifhment — the acquittal, 
 or the guilt of the offender. Befides, this binding or 
 loofing cannot apply to the preaching of the gofpel, or the 
 declaration of its laws ; for it is a fentence in which two 
 or three at leaft muft be agreed — vi^hich is to be employ- 
 ed only after a private remonftrance and admonition, 
 before two or three Chriftian brethren, has been tried 
 without effe^i, and — which muft be juftified by the tefti- 
 mony of witnefTes who have heard the offender vindicate his 
 offence, before it is to be pronounced by the church. It is 
 difficult, however, to perceive on what principle it could 
 be neceffary to call nv'itnejfes before the gofpel was preach- 
 ed, or the laws of its kingdom were announced ; though 
 this was ablblutely effential, if an aB of judicial power 
 was to be exercifed. To th'i?, power all the circumftances 
 mentioned in the paffage eafily apply : we therefore con- 
 clude, that it fanftions the exercife of judicial authority. 
 Nor let it be objcded with M' Knight, that thefe 
 expreffions are not fufceptible of this meaning, becaufeit 
 is not faid, whomfoever, but wbatfoever ye fhall bind or 
 loofe ; for it has been already fhewn, that they are applied 
 in the Old Teftament not only to perfons but to things, 
 where it is certain that punifliing, or pardoning, was in- 
 tended. Thus, when it is faid of Jerufalem (Ifaiah xlii. 
 2.), that her iniquily was to be loofed — of Job's friends 
 (Job xlii. 9.), that X-hzirfins were loofed to them — and of 
 thofe who forgive their neighbours (Ecclef. xxviii. 2.), 
 
Letter IV. 71 
 
 that their Jins fliould be loofed — things only are fpokenof ; 
 and it is not merely a declaration that they were lawful 
 or unlawful, but a judicial relcafe from the punifhment of 
 tranfgreflion. 
 
 From this induction it would therefore appear, that 
 the binding and loofing mentionedj leprefent the exercife 
 of authoritative judicial power ; and, of cop.rcqnence, that 
 as this power has already beer, proved to be committed, 
 together with the keys of the kingdom, to the minifters, 
 and not to the members, the former, as diftlnguiHied 
 from the latter, are the only perfons entitled to the 
 cx&rcife of this authority. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 A S it appears that the various titles charaderiflic of 
 rulers are given to the elders exclufively, fo the highejl 
 &^s of government and difcipltne feem to be reprefented m 
 fcripture as performed by them, and by them alone. 
 This I fnall now endeavour to prove, and then conclude 
 this part of the difcuflion. 
 
 Of the various a6ls which ought to be confidered as 
 of the greateft importance in ecclefiaftical government, 
 the lirft unqueftionably which merits our attention is that 
 of the admijfion of members. 
 
 It feems manifeft from the facred oracles, that this 
 work is committed exclufively to the paftors of the church, 
 and not to them merely as conjoined with the members. 
 At the effufion on Pentecoft, for inftance, we are told, 
 that in what remained of a Jingle day, after a fermon from 
 the Apoflles, about three thoifand {owh were added to the 
 church. But how was it poflible that in fo fhort a fpace 
 the members at large could meet with the paftors, and 
 
72 Letter V. 
 
 hear them examined, and exprefs in order their approba- 
 tion or difapprobation of the confeflion and chara£ler of 
 every individual in fnch a multitude ? When Philip went 
 down to Samaria, and baptized many, both men and 
 women, and when he baptized and received the Ethio- 
 pian eunuch as a member of the church, as well as when 
 Ananias baptized Paul, though in the city of Damafcus 
 where there was a Chriftian church, it is plain that this 
 aft was performed folely by minifters, without convening 
 or confulting members. While however, in thefe and 
 other inilances, both where a church was forming, and, 
 as in the example at Jerufalem, where it was already 
 formed, the power of admifTion is reprefented as com- 
 mitted to the minifters alone, as far as we recoiled there 
 is not a fmgle inftancc in the whole of the New Teftament, 
 where perfons were received into the fellowfliip of the 
 church after the judgment of members had been afked 
 and obtained. It is indeed faid (Ads ix. 26.), that 
 " when Saul, after his converfion, came up to Jerufalem, 
 " and affayed to joined himfelf to the difciples, they 
 " were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a 
 " difciple." But here there is no intimation of any 
 meeting of the members together with the paftors, to 
 confider the propriety of receiving him as a difciple. All 
 that is ftated is fimply this — that all of them, both Apoflles 
 and members, were afraid that he was not, as he pro- 
 feffed, a difciple in reality, but intended to deceive 
 them ; and confequently, that as fo general a fear of him 
 was entertained by the church, he could not be received 
 by thofe whofe prerogative it was to admit him. Accord- 
 ingly, we are informed that when he was at laft received, 
 it was in confequence of his " being taken and introduced 
 ** by Barnabas to the Apojlhsy^ and of their being fatif- 
 fied with the account of his converfion and fmcc- 
 rity which was delivered to them by that Chriftian 
 minlfter, ver. 27. 
 
Letter V. -7^ 
 
 Is it obje<$led, that'though it may be proved from thefe 
 texamples that minifters may baptize without confulting 
 the church, they cannot admit to any other ordinance, 
 or communicate to apph'cants the /«// privileges of mem- 
 bers, without foliciting and obtaining their approbation ? 
 I anfwer by demanding in the firft place, whether all 
 Independents allow their paflors to receive adults to bap- 
 tifm without confulting their churches ? whether, in the 
 next place, it can be proved from the word of God that 
 adults, when baptized, are not entitled to every other 
 Chriftian privilege ? and whether the three thoufand who 
 were baptized at Pentecofl are not declared to have been 
 added to the church as members (A6^s ii. 41.), while it 
 is evident that there was not fufficient time for calling the 
 members, and interrogating in their prefence each of 
 thefe converts, and requefting their judgment on the pro- 
 priety of admitting them ? Is it contended, that this 
 fcheme is adverfe to the principle of Chriftian liberty, as 
 it enables the paftors to impofe whom they pleafe on 
 the communion of the cliurch ? It is replied, that it is 
 unjuft to affirm that any pallor of a Prefbyterian church 
 is warranted by Prefbytery to exercife fuch a power. 
 Certain qualifications are required in the ftandards of his 
 church before any perfon can be received into fellowfnip, 
 and till he obtains fatisfadlory evidence that thofe who 
 apply to him have thefe qualifications, he cannot law- 
 fully receive them*. If, through miftake, an improper 
 perfon be occafionally admitted, the members are per- 
 mitted to communicate what they know of the applicant 
 to the paftors ; and if, after remonftrance, he be conti- 
 nued in communion, the loweft individual in the congre- 
 
 * Since writing the above, I have looked into Pardovan, book ij. 
 title iv. C^Ct. iv. and find, that by the conjiiiution of Prefbyterian 
 churches, no miniflier, though he may examine, can admit any 
 perfon to the privilege of memberfhip, till the whole of his Seflion, 
 as well as himfelf, are fatisfied both as to his knov. ledge and pietv. 
 
 G 
 
74 
 
 Letter V. 
 
 gation is allowed to call thefe p^ftors to an account, with 
 the whole of their Seffion, before a fuperior court ; and if 
 that court fhould decide amifs, to fummon even if, with 
 thefe paftors and elders, to a ftill higher tribunal ; and 
 even that, to a higher, till the obnoxious member be at 
 laft excluded. Among Independents however, wiih all 
 their boafted liberty and purity of principle, this is ira- 
 pofTible : for if an unworthy applicant be received as a 
 member by a majority of any of their churches, there is 
 no fuperior court, on earth at leaft, before whom a con- 
 fcientious minority can arraign them, and procure the 
 expulfion of that member from their fociety ; however 
 unfit, he mull continue In fellcwfliip, while no alicrnatlve 
 is left to them but immediate feparatlon, or patient fub- 
 mifiion amidft obvious corruption. Nor will their fepara- 
 tlon terminate here ; for if the fame Inconfiftency fhall be 
 manifefled by the majority of the other congregation to 
 whom they may attach themfelves, from their want of 
 any court fuperior to that congregation, they muil again 
 feparate and join a chird, and fo on, In a continued courfe 
 of change and feparatlon, till, like fome Individuals of 
 them, they be excluded from the fellowlTiIp of every 
 church upon earth. In fine, if Independents objedl to 
 the principles of Prefbyterlans becaufe their members 
 muft coufide, as to the character of an applicant, In the 
 word of the paftor, on what principle do they themfelves 
 truft. In the account which Is- given of him by any of 
 their members when the majority are Ignorant of him ? 
 May not the paftors and elders obtain In private, all the 
 information which Is furniflied to the majority by thefe 
 members in public ; and if that majority are difpofed to 
 give credit to the latter in an Independent church, why 
 fhould not the congregation give credit to their paftors 
 in a Prefbyterlan ? Befides, if the members of a Prefby- 
 terian congregation are not allowed to ftate their fentl- 
 ments and vote before an applicant Is received, it is 
 
Letter V. "^j 
 
 bccanfe the fcriptures feem to veil that power folely in 
 the paftors. And it certainly appears more confiftent 
 with that tendcrnefs and jujl'ice which are due to fuch 
 applicants, that their qualifications fhould be examined 
 in private by the miniilers of the church, and that all 
 neceffary i-nquiries {hould be made concerning them by 
 him and by the elders, than that every particular the 
 mod delicate and important, refpedling their character, 
 Ihould be laid open at large to the fcrutiny and review 
 of a ivhole congregation ; or that they fhould wait till each 
 of the raembeis be perfonally fatisfied refpedling them. 
 It would thus feem that the paftors alone, without 
 foliciting the judgment of the members, are authorized 
 by fcripture to perform this part of ecclefiaftical govern- 
 ment, and that this conftitution is alfo better fitted than 
 that of Independency to promote the ends of Chriftian 
 edification *. 
 
 Next to the power of admitting members to religious 
 fcllowfhip, and fuperlor to it undoubtedly in point of 
 magnitude, is that of ordaining ofRce-bearers to the 
 cxercife of their funftion. This power likewife ap- 
 pears to belong exclufivdy to the paflors of the 
 church, and neither folely nor conjointly to the Chrif- 
 tian people. 
 
 * It might alib have been added, that were it judged expedient 
 even upon the Prefbyterian fyftem, when any perfoa applies for 
 the privilege of membership, it could be announced to the congre- 
 gation, and any member who could fubflantiate any objedions to 
 his admilTion, as in the cafe of eledion to the office of elders, be 
 invited to (late them to the minifter or feflion. And it is known 
 to be confiftent with our Preft>yterian conftitution, that the firft 
 time a perfon receives a token for admilTion to the fupper, it may 
 be delivered to him in the prefence of the whole congregation, 
 fo that being folemnly pointed out to thofe of the members at 
 large, who choofe to attend, as a fellow-member, they may recog- 
 nize him in that light, and treat him as fuch. 
 G2 
 
7^ Letter V. 
 
 Many, indeed, of the raodern Independents in England 
 maintain, that ordination fhould not now be performed 
 before a perfon is appointed to the charge of a congrega- 
 tion ; that the impoiition of hands was ufed only for the 
 communication of miraculous gifts ; and that the palloral 
 relation is formed fimply by the invitation of the people. 
 Some of them, who invite miniilers to a fettlement, ex- 
 prefsly difcard the idea of ordination, and fay it is only a 
 meeting for prayer and exhortation. And Dr. Prieilley, 
 one of the moft zealous of modern Independents, to 
 prevent the people from forming any other opinion of it, 
 recommended that before this fettlement aduaily takes 
 place, the. young minifter Ihould difpenfe the facraraents 
 to the church. 
 
 To affirm, however, that ordination is now unneceffary, 
 and that an invitation from the people is all that is 
 requifite to form a palloral relation, and to conftitute 
 him whom they ele<5l a regular pallor, feems to be con- 
 trary at once to reafon and to fcripturc. Simple eleftioa 
 may declare the qualification of a perfon who is approved 
 of by the eleftors, for difcharging the duties of his office, 
 but it cannot by itfelf Inveft him v^'ith that office. When 
 Mofes faid to the Ifraelitcs (Deut. i. 13.), " Take ye wife 
 *' men and underftanding, and known among your tribes, 
 ** and I 'Will make them rulers over you," he plainly inti- 
 mates, that the choice of the people was not fufficient of 
 itfelf to conftitute thofe whom they eledled rulers, unlefi 
 accompanied by an official appointment from himfelf. 
 Deacons, alfo, when lirft appointed in the Chriftlan 
 church, after being elefted by the people (A6ls vi. 3.), 
 were folemnly ordained with prayer, and the impofitlon 
 of hands, by the Apoftles. But if this was necefTary in 
 an. office fo inferior as that of the deacon, even after the 
 ele^lion of the people, much more muft It be requifite in 
 an office fo fuperior as that of the paftor. We are inform- 
 ed alfo, that Paul, together with Barnabas (Ads xiv\ 23.), 
 
Letter V, 77 
 
 notwithftanding the choice of the people (if fuch a choice 
 was exercifed), ordained tldcrs in every church, in Lyftra, 
 and Iconium, and Antioch ; that Titus (Tit. i. 5.) 
 was left in Crete, ** to ordain elders," though chofen by 
 the churches, *' in every city, as Paul had appointed 
 " him ;" that this Apoftle enjoined Timothy (i Tim. 
 V. 2^.) " to lay hands fuddenly upon no man," i, e. not 
 to ordain him rafhly, which appears unaccountable, if 
 popular eleftion alone had been fufficient to make the 
 obje(fl of it a paftor. If the choice of the people, more- 
 over, conftitutes a perfon the paftor of an Independent 
 congregation, it feems neceflarily to follow, that fmce 
 no a6l performed by one Independent church is binding 
 on another, if the congregation which chofe him with- 
 draw from his miniftry, or obhge him to leave them, his 
 miniftry muft ceafe with it, and he muft again be reduced 
 to the ftatlon of a private member. Befides, though the 
 obfervance of the imp' lition of hands was occafionally em- 
 ployed as an emblem of the communication of miraculous 
 powers, it cannot be demon ftrated that this was its uniform 
 ufe, or that, from, its being the medium at times of the 
 communication of thefe powers, it fhould now be difcon- 
 tinued. Prayer too, we know ( A6ls viii. 14. — 17. 
 and ix. 40. &c.), was occailonally a mean of imparting 
 thefe powers ; but would any Independent prefume, from 
 this circumftance, to argue, as fome do refpefting the 
 impofition of hands, that prayer fhould now be difconti- 
 nued in the church ? This ufage then, when employed 
 in ordination^ was intended merely as an emblem of the 
 fupplications of thofe who were engaged in performing 
 it, that all neceffary, common^ and ordinary endowments 
 might be beftowed en the perfon on whom they laid 
 their hands. 
 
 This laying on of hands is mentioned by Paul (Heb. 
 vi. 2.) as one of i\it JirJ} principles of the dodrine of 
 
 G3 
 
78 Letter V, 
 
 Chrlft. This, furely, cannot denote a communication of 
 the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, for all the other articles 
 of Chrlflian faith which he fpecifies zs primary or funda- 
 mentali do not relate to what was peculiar to iht primitive 
 church, but are of equal importance to every age. It 
 appears difficult alfo to conceive how this particular 
 miracle ftiould have been of fuch uncommon moment as 
 to merit being confidered in this interefling light, and 
 that the knowledge and belief of it, whatever other 
 information a perfon might poffefs, was effential to his 
 being received as a member. By the impofition of hands 
 then, as Amefius obferves in his refutation of Bellarmine 
 (torn. ii. p. 76.), feems unqueftionably to be defigned 
 the Chriftian miniftry, of the communication of which 
 this obfervance was a fign. In confirmation of this, as 
 well as in refutation of the fentiments of Epifcopalians 
 and Papiils, nothing appears more juft than the words of 
 Cartwright, in his Treatife againft the Rhemifts. " By 
 ** impofition of hands the Apoftle meaneth no facrament, 
 •* much lefs confirmation after baptifm ; but by a trope 
 *' and borrowed fpeech the miniilry of the church, 
 ** upon the which hands were laidt which appeareth in 
 ** that whofocver believeth that there ought not to be a 
 ** miniftry in order to teach, and govern the church, 
 '* overthroweth Chriftianity ; whereas if confirmation 
 ** of children were a facrament, as it is not, yet a man 
 ** holding the reft, and denying the ufe of it, might not- 
 ** withflanding be faved." 
 
 We perceive likewife, that Timothy is commanded by 
 Paul (l Tim. iv. 14.), " not to negle£t the gift which 
 ^' was in him, and which was given him by or ac- 
 <* cording to prophecy *, with the laying on of the 
 
 * It would feem that certain predictions had been delivered 
 concerning Timothy, that he would be an eminent and ufeful 
 minifter; in confequence of which it is here declared, that in the 
 ufual way he had been fet apart to that office. 
 
Letter V. 79 
 
 <* hands of the Prefbytery." But if the laying on 
 of the hands of the Prefhytery on Timothy had im- 
 parted to him any miraculous gift of the Spirit, how 
 could he have negkclecl diligently to exercife it, fince 
 being entirely under the guidance of his extraordinaiy 
 influence, and dire£led by his fupernatural irrefitlible 
 energy, he could not have vvithftood this inftinftlve im- 
 pulfe to employ thofe endowments which he had receiv- 
 ed, ivhenever and ivherever the Spirit fuggefted. And if 
 the impofition of hands, when ufed even in ordaining an 
 Evangelift to his office, does not appear in the prefent 
 inllance to have been the fign of the communication of 
 miraculous gifts, may it not be the emblem of the 
 communication only of common gifts alfo to ordinary 
 miniilers? In fine, this fame Apoftle, in this Epiftle 
 (chap. v. ver. 22.), enjoins this Evangelift '* to lay hands 
 " fuddenly upon no man.-" But if the gifts which were 
 to be conferred, in the ordination referred to, were alto- 
 gether extraordinary, how could this injunction have 
 been delivered ? Could Timothy, when under the 
 viiraculous guidance of the Spirit, impart precipitately his 
 fupernatural gifts to thofe who were unfit or unworthy to 
 receive them ? or could he err, as to the proper perfons 
 who fhould obtain them ? The fuppofition is certainly 
 inadmiffible. From this reafoning we may therefore 
 conclude, that fimple election^ without ordination^ cannot 
 conftitute a man a Chriftian minifter, and that the 
 impofition of hands, employed in ordination, was not an 
 emblem of the communication of miraculous gifts, but 
 of ordinary endowments ; and of courfe, that it, as well 
 as ordination, muil be a ftanding ordinance in the 
 church of God ? 
 
 But granting that ordination fhould ftill be obferved, 
 who are the perfons that are authorized to perform it ? 
 Is it the people alone^ or in conjunction with the elders \ 
 or is it thofe only who are minifters \ That it is com- 
 
8o Letter V. 
 
 mitted to the latter alone, appears to be the general 
 opinion oi your churches, for min'ijlers alone, as far as I 
 know, ordain your paftors. That fuch alfo is the de- 
 termination of fcripture appears evident from a very 
 curfory perufal of the facred volume. Not only is it 
 obvious that the majority of the people are totally unfit 
 to examine the qualifications of a man for the important 
 and arduous work of the miniftry, and confequently that 
 it would be dangerous to intruft: them with fuch power ; 
 and not only is it ridiculous to imagine that thofe who 
 can neither preach nor difpenfe tlie facraments, can im- 
 part an office while they have none themfelves, but it is 
 never aflirmed in any part of fcripture that the people 
 are to ordain. On the contrary, we are informed, that 
 when the firft deacons were chofen by the difciples, they 
 were ordained by the Apoftles (AAs vi.)- — that when 
 Timothy was invefted with tlie office of a minifler, it 
 was by the laying on of the hands of the elderfhlp or pref- 
 bytery, of which Paul was a member (compare i Tim, 
 iv. 14. with 2 Tim. i. 6.) — that *' when faithful men, 
 ^ and men who were found able to teach others alfo," 
 were invtiled with the miniftry in the places where he 
 was labouring, it was to be committed to them by him 
 and his fellovf-elders (2 Tim. ii. 2.) — that when hands, 
 as was before faid, were to be laid upon any, to fet them 
 apart to this office, it was he alone, and his fellovv-mini- 
 fters, who were required to do it (i Tim. v. 22.) — and 
 that when elders were to be ordained in every city in 
 Crete, it was only Titus, and his fellow-minifters, 
 who were to devote them to their work. Is it 
 not wonderful however, that if it be the prerogative of 
 t\it people i either <with elders or 'without them, to ordain 
 others to the work of the miniftry, not a fyllable fhould 
 be mentioned of their being invetted with this truft, or 
 excrcifing this power, and that it fhould be reprefented 
 uniformly as committed to the miiiifters ? 
 
Letter V. 8i 
 
 Robinfon, indeed, with fome arxient Englifh and 
 American Independents, and Lockier, one of the ancient, 
 with fome of our modern Scotch Independents, have 
 not fcrupled to maintain that Matthias, who was chofen 
 in place of Judas, was ordained by the hundred and 
 twenty difciples, who were partly compofed of the eleven 
 apoftles, partly of the feventy difciples, and partly of the 
 private members of the church. All who were prefent 
 could not however be admitted to ordain Matthias, for 
 among thefe *' were the women, and Mary the mother of 
 *' Jefus ;" and it has never yet been alleged by any 
 Independent, as far as I have heard, that ivomen are to 
 be allowed the honour of ordaining a miniiler. It is 
 evident alfo, that no account is given of his ordination, 
 but fimply of his ek^ion, and there is nothing very 
 decided to lead us to fuppofe that he was even chofen 
 by lot by any but the Apoftles. *' Wherefore of thefe 
 *< men," fays Peter, *< that have companied with us 
 " (the Apoftles), all the time that the Lord Jefus went 
 " in and out among us, mud one be ordained to be a 
 " witnefs with us (undoubtedly the Apofl:les) of his 
 ** refurredion.'* Befides, it merits our particular notice, 
 that there was not properly even an eledioriy either by the 
 Apoftles or the people. Two men were named as fit for 
 the apoftleftiip ; and the Lord hiwfelf^ in a fupernatural 
 manner, as they drew out the lots, pointed out to them 
 the individual. The word G-vyKciTi-^Yi(pi7&A (ver. 26.), 
 which is rendered by our tranflators, " he was numbered'* 
 with the Apoftles, and by the Vulgate, " annumeratus 
 " eft cum undecim Apoilolis," does not intimate that 
 he was ordained by the people, as Lockier contended ; 
 but as the learned Mr. Caudrey, in his Vindiciae Clavium, 
 p. 29. fays, " That feeing God had chofen and ordained 
 ** him, they accepted him by orderly fubjeBlon to the 
 " revealed will of Chrifl:." Accordingly, we find the 
 verb '4'i9'?'*'> of which this is a compound, in Luke xiv. 2S. 
 
82 Letter V. 
 
 fignifying to count or reckon the coll of a thing; and in 
 Rev, xHi. 1 8. it is employed to denote the counting of 
 the number of the beaft ; from which it would feem, 
 that c-fyxiSjTiy/jp^fr^/) is properly rendered by our tranfla- 
 tors, " and he was numbered," not ordained, with the 
 Apoftles, and fimply means that he was henceforth 
 counted or reckoned by the church as one of them. 
 
 It is argued farther, that the people muR; be admitted 
 along with the pallors to ordain miniilcrs, becaufe when 
 it is faid of Paul and Barnabas ( Adls xiv. 23.) that 
 *' they ordained elders in every city," the v.'ord 
 X-i^orevr.s-etvTig, in their opinion, properly iigniiies that they 
 chofe them by fuffrage or vote ; and as there were only 
 two of them, they think that they could not themfelves 
 choofe them, but fimply prefided at an eleilion of them 
 by the people. But on this it may be remarked, that 
 if their tranflation were adopted, it would only fliew that 
 the people d^Sl:d, but not that they ot'dzlned ihs elders, 
 two things which are extremely different; for, in any 
 of your congregations, for example, though the members 
 eledl, it is the minifters of other churches alone who or- 
 dain a pallor. Befides, though the word, as applied to 
 the cuftoms of ancient Greece, literally flgnifies ele£lion 
 by fuffrage, exprefled by lifting up the hand of the 
 eledlor, it never denotes to prefule at an eledllon. We 
 know, too, that it means often to conilltute or appoint 
 to an office ivithout fiiffrage or vote. Thus Jofephus, ia 
 his Antiquities, book vl. chap. iv. fpeaks of ** a king 
 ** appointed by God, Ba«r;A£yj 'y7r« tcv Qtov ^u^tror/idu^ ;'* 
 and thus, too, A£ls x. 40, 41. ** Him God raifed up 
 " the third day, and (hewed him openly, not to all the 
 <* people, but to witneiTcs chofen before of God, 
 *' TT^oKi^ii^orcvyif^ivoi?.*' Since, then, it mufl be plain to 
 every perfon who looks for a moment at the grammatical 
 arrangement of Ads xiv. 23. that it was Paul and Bar- 
 nabas who did what is exprefled by ^si^oTcvnTxni?, in 
 
Letter V. 83 
 
 ver. 23. as much as it was they who, according to 
 ver. 22. cormrm.id the fouls of the difciples, and ex- 
 horted them to continue in the faith ; lince this word 
 never figiufits, as far as has been yet afcertdined, to 
 prefide at an eIe£lion, wliere the choice is made by thofe 
 who vote by lifting up the hand \ fmce it means to con- 
 Jlitute, or ordain^ as well as to elecl ; fmce it is never 
 taken in the latter fenfe, but where it is ufed to 
 exprefs the aft of at leaft more than two ; and fince 
 there were only two, in the prefent inftance, who did 
 what is intended by it ; it appears naturally to follow 
 that it cannot denote in the place in queftion, that the 
 Apoilles thcmfelves elefted elders by vote in every city, 
 and much lefs that they prefided at the elediion of them 
 by others, but fimply, as our venerable tranflators have 
 rendered it, that they themfelves " ordained them." 
 And with this idea the verfion of the Vulgate or Old Latin, 
 which formerly was fo generally received by the churches, 
 accurately coincides ; " Et cum conftituiffent illis pef 
 " fingulas ecclefias prefbyteros ;" i. e. ** And when 
 ** they had confatuted or ordained elders to them in every 
 *' church.'* But what argument can be deduced from 
 this, for admitting the people to join with their paftors 
 in ordaining miniilers*? 
 
 * It is obje<fted farther by them, that the Preibytery \vh* 
 ordained Timothy to the office of an Evangelift could not be 
 ordinary pafrors, becaufe they were greatly inferior to him, but 
 Apoflles or Prophets; and of courfe, that no argument can be 
 drawn from his ordination by fuch a Prefbytery, for ths exclufive 
 jight of our prefent minifters to ordain. To this it is replied, 
 that if, according to the fpirit of this obje£tion, only fiiperior 
 minifters could ordain Timothy, how can it be argued that the 
 fcople^ who are greatly inferior to a minifter, can ordain a 
 vunijier ? — that even though it were granted that the Prefbytery 
 which ordained Timothy was compofed of extraordinary miniflers, 
 they did not aft as fuch, but merely in the ordinary capacity of 
 ciders, as the word prefbytery or elderlhip fuggefts — and that for 
 
84 Letter V. 
 
 Thus, then, it would feem that we have no authority 
 from Icrlpture for allowing the people to ordain pallors, 
 and that it is the minifters of the gofpel, and they alone, 
 who are warranted by the word of God, as well as by 
 the explicit declaration o^ your churches, to perform this 
 important adt of ecclefiaftical government. 
 
 Farther, while it is undeniable that the power of 
 exercifing difclpline is committed to thofe who are office- 
 bearers of the church, it does not appear that it is veiled 
 alfo indlfcriminately in all who are members. 
 
 That the power of dlfcipline is conferred upon the 
 office-bearers mull be evident to us, on reading with 
 ijupartiallty the following pafTages. ** Then faid Jefus 
 «* to them again (the eleven Apoftles), Peace be unto 
 *' you : as my father hath fent me, even fo lend I you. 
 <^* Whofe foever fins ye remit, they are remitted ; and 
 ** whofe foever fins ye retain, they are retained :" John 
 XX. 21. 23. " Againft an elder receive not an accufa- 
 " tion, but before two or three wltneffes :" i Tim. v. 19. 
 And that it is minifters alone who are to receive this 
 accufation, and examine thefe witnefTes, feems manlfefl 
 from this, that it is they alone who are to do it that are 
 commanded in the next verfe, " to rebuke before all 
 ** fuch as finned, that others might fear," by whom we 
 are certainly to underftand the minifters. And again, 
 fays Paul to Titus (chap. ill. 10.), " A man that is an 
 ** heretic, after a firft and fecond admonition, reje6l.'* 
 While fuch however are the repeated declarations of 
 
 any thing that we know, there may have been among them 
 ordinary minifters, who might have been admitted with as much 
 propriety, as they were already minifters, to ordain an Evangelift, 
 as teachers, who certainly were but ordinary minifters, were 
 allowed with prophets (Ads xiii. I, a, 3.), to fet apart, by prayer 
 and impofition of hands, Paul and Barnabas, one of whom was an 
 Apoftle and the other an Evangelift, to a particular work in the 
 city of Antioch. 
 
Letter V. 85 
 
 fcripture rcfpecting the commiflion of this power to the 
 miniilers, not a fingle inftance has yet been produced 
 where it is explicitly affirmed to be intruded with the 
 people. PaiTciges have indeed been adduced by Indepen- 
 dents, from the eighteenth of Matthew, and the Fird 
 and Second Epiftles to the Corinthians, to demonflrate 
 that this power has been veiled alfo in the people. But 
 we truft it will appear from the following Letters, that 
 it cannot be proved from either of thefe paflages, that 
 tlie people perjonally are to exercife this power ; and that, 
 agreeably to our cormmon modes of fpeaking, all that is 
 there affirmed to be done by them, may be done by them 
 folely by means of their reprefentatives. On the contrary, 
 however, while not a fingle inilance has yet been brought 
 forward, where the members of the church, as d'lflmguijhed 
 from the minifters, or && joined to them, are intruded with 
 this power, the office-bearers, who are eUewhere charac- 
 terized as governors, without the addition of any other 
 perfon, are commanded to exercife it. Since the elders 
 of the church, then, are the only pcrfons who are exprefsly 
 declared to be veded with this power ; fince the mem- 
 bers, as di/Iingui/Iied from the elders, are never faid to 
 have received this authority, nor to he Joirwd wlih them 
 as ecciefiadical overfeers in fuch a m.anner as that their 
 vote mud be aflced before it can be exerted ; and fince 
 all that is faid to be done by the members could be done 
 by them fimply through their elders or reprefentatives, 
 without expreffing any judgment or vote of their own ; 
 it appeai-s to be a fair and natural conclufion, that the 
 elders of the church, without the members, are to decide 
 in matters of dii'cipline as well as government. 
 
 But if the elders alone, as was now evinced, are to 
 admit members, ordain office-bearers, and exercife dif- 
 cipline, it necedarily follows that it is they alone, in 
 every thing, who are to govern the church. The for- 
 mer confededly are more important matters, and if in- 
 H 
 
86 ' Letter V. 
 
 trufted exclufively with the management of thefe, why 
 fhould they not exclufively be invefted alfo with the 
 admi'niftration of what is inferior ? Befides, as was re- 
 marked, is it not aflerted by Mr. Ewing, that the mem- 
 bers are not to judge in inferior points, from the baneful 
 confeqiiences which, in his opinion, would relult from it 
 to the caufe of truth ; and of courfe, fince they are not 
 to determine in more interefting 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 
 arguments, I feel difpofed to conclude that the elders 
 alone, and not the people, are to govern the church, and 
 that the former are to adminiiler it without even folicit- 
 ing the confent of the latter ; and this conclulion I am 
 authorized to confider as unavoidable, unlefs it can be 
 proved that the arguments which have been urged for 
 this Prefoyterian principle are equally explicable upon the 
 Independent plan, and are contradidled hj fuperior unex- 
 ceptionable proof. In the following Letters it is propofed 
 to confider thefe proofs in order, which have been urged 
 for Independency, with the degree of force which they 
 feem to poiTefs, to counterbalance and overpower the dif- 
 ferent arguments which appear to be prefented by the 
 facred writings in favour of Prefbytery. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 SIR, 
 1 HAT that the people are entitied, in matters which 
 relate to ccclefiaftical polity, to judge and vote as well 
 as their elders, you think to be evident fiom Matlh. xviii. 
 15, 16, 17. *' Where our Lord," you fay (p. 33.), 
 ^* gives his people particular direftions refpeding their 
 f^ condudl in the cafe of offences. Moreover, if thy 
 
Letter VI. 87 
 
 ** brother Jljall trefpafs againji thee , go and tell htm his fault 
 " between thee and htm alone : if he fiall hear thee, thou 
 " hajl gained thy brother. But if he zuill not hear thee^ thm 
 *• take ivlth thee one or fwo more, that in the mouth of tiVQ 
 ** or three 'wUneJfes every 'word may be eJ}ahliJJ:ed. And if 
 " hejlall negka. to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if 
 ** he ncgleSt to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an 
 " Heathen man and a Publican. Here, by ihe 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 
 " fcriptures the word church has two figniiications. It 
 " either denotes the whole aflembly of thofe redeemed 
 " by the blood of Chriil, or an individual fociety. In 
 *' this lafl fenfe it is fometimes applied to a meeting of 
 •* any defcriptlon. It is thus ufed, Ads xix. 32. where 
 " the word generally tranflated church, is rendered af- 
 ** fefnbly. When In this lad and more rellri(fied fenfe 
 ** it is applied to Chriftians, it is plainly defcriptive of 
 ** thofe who meet together for Chriflian fcllovvfhip in an 
 ** individual focicty. Agreeably to this it is dcfervlng 
 " of remark, that when the Chriftians fcattered over a 
 ** province are mentioned, who of courfe met in dif- 
 " ferent focieties, the word church is always found in 
 *' the plural. Thus we have the chu-rches of Judea, the 
 ** cJiurches of Macedonia, the churches of Galatia, ^r. 
 " Examples of the firfl ufe of the term occur, Col. i. 18. 
 " Eph. i. 22. Heb. xii. 23. ; and of the fecond, Ads 
 ** Ix. 31. xiv. 23. I Cor. xiv. 23. In no cafe does it feem 
 " employed to denote the rulers of a church as diftin- 
 " guiflied from the general body, though in Acts xv. 22. 
 ** it is ufed to defcribe the latter of thefe as dillinguifhed 
 *< from the former. As in the paffage then above quot- 
 ** ed. It would be impoffible to comply with the admo- 
 " nition, if by the word church, the church univerfal Is 
 " meant, It Is plain the expreffion cannot be underftood 
 H 2 
 
S8 Letter VL 
 
 ** in any other fenCs than as denoting the particular 
 " fociety of Chriftians with which we are connefted. 
 " To thefe the offence is to be told. If the offending 
 " brother will not hear them, he is to be viewed as a 
 ** Heathen man and a Publican, in the fame light as 
 ** thofe who are ftill in a ftate of Heathenifm, and not 
 ** members of the church at all : in other words, he is to 
 ** be excluded from the fociety. In this paffage nothing 
 ** feems plainer, than that the decifion of the church is 
 ** to be confidered as final. There is not the fmallcfl 
 ** hint about the poffibility of an appeal ; nay, we may 
 " fafely affert, that with fuch a fyftem as a court of re- 
 *' view, by which the decifion of an individual fociety 
 ** may be reverfed, the language is altogether incom- 
 *« patible." 
 
 In anfwer to this, however, I would fhoitly obferve, 
 that it feems by no means juft to affirm, that the church 
 in fcripture fignifies either the church univerfal, or a 
 particular congregation. It is applied in fcripture, for 
 inftance, to the church at Jerufalera, many years after 
 the gofpel had been preached there, and preached even 
 by eleven apoftles, and many prophets and cvangelifts, 
 as well as pallors and teachera, with wonderful fuccef;?. 
 Now, when beftowed upon this church, Prefbyt'erians 
 have afierted, and the church, which you have left, 
 endeavours to prove in her public ftandards, that it 
 undoubtedly includes a mmher of congregations united xn 
 fuch a manner, in point of government, as that while 
 they ilill xtm-^nxzA feparate congregations, and furnifhed 
 fufficient employment even for all thefe minifters, they 
 conftituted only one church. But to attempt to difprovc 
 this, and overthrow the argument adduced from it by 
 ker, for the fubordination of a number of congregations 
 to the review of a Prefbytery, as well as to their own 
 particular rulers, by a finaple affertion that the ivord is not 
 fa to he ttnderjjoocl, appears to me not ingenuous. It is 
 
Letter VI. 89 
 
 plainly what has been denominated by logicians a 
 begging the quejliorii or taking for granted the very thing 
 to be proved, which fpecies of proof, however eafy and 
 expeditious^ 13 unquedionably unfair, and was fcarcely 
 to be expeded from you, who bad engaged to put your 
 readers in pofleffion of the principal arguments on both 
 fides of the queftion. Not only however does the word 
 church, in thefe and other paiTages, fignify a number of 
 congregations united in fuch a manner as to have one 
 common government, wliile at the fame time they had 
 each their particular rulers, but it appears even fometimes 
 to mean the office-bearers of the church as diftinguifhed 
 from the members, in this fenfe it feems to be taken 
 in Acls viii. 1. where we are told, that " there was a great 
 *' perfecution on the fame day (sv iy,nr/i r-zi *r,^u,i^x) againfl 
 " the church which was at Jerufalem ; and that they were 
 *' fl//fcattered abroad about the regions of Judea and Sama- 
 *' ria, except the Apostles.''^ Now, that by the church here 
 fpecified, who were all fcattered abroad except the 
 Apollles, is intended only the minifters, and not the 
 members, appears to be moil probable, not only from 
 this, that the miniilers would be more readily marked out 
 as the firil objeds of their vengeance by the enemies of 
 Chriitianity "^ ^ and that all thole who are mentioned of 
 
 * That the Apoftles at this time did not flee from Jerufalem 
 is indeed remarkable. " Perhaps," as a judicious author obicrves, 
 *' the Jewiili rulers, findiag thai neither threats, nor any punifh- 
 " ment which they could inflict, could deter them from their 
 " duty, were unwilling to exhibit a new proof of the weaknels of 
 " their power. Perhaps, as they continued in a more public 
 " part of the city, where multitudes attended, their enemies 
 " were afraid of exciting a tumult by attacking them. Or, per- 
 " haps, Saul Ipared them from refpeft to the opinion of his 
 " mafter Gamaliel." Or, as might have been added, as they In 
 particular were appointed to be witnelfes of the refurre<flion of 
 Chrift, they might fee it to be their duty to remain in that city 
 
 H3 
 
Jjo Letter VI. 
 
 them who were fcattered abroad, as Philip, (ver. 5.), 
 and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen (chap. xiii. i.), 
 were of this defcription ; but that even after it is affirmed 
 here, that all the church were fcattered abroad except the 
 Apostles^ it is afferted in the 3d verfe, that a church 
 still remained different from the former, and a church 
 which Saul perfecuted, and the men and women of which, 
 entering into their houfes he committed to prifon. But 
 if the nvhole of the church referred to in ver. i. as we 
 are informed, were fcattered abroad except the Jlpostles ; 
 and if at the fame time it be inilantly fubjoined, that 
 there was still a church after this left at Jerufalem, of 
 which thofe alone are mentioned who were not miniftets ; 
 is It not obvious, that, in the former verfc, the church 
 who arc fpoken of, ^nd are declared to have been all 
 fcattered abroad except the Apoftles, can have been the 
 minhters only of that Chriilian church ? Here then is 
 one inftance in wiiich it would feem, that by the church 
 ■we are certainly to underftand its office-bearers as diftin- 
 guifhed from its members ; and this application of the 
 term appears no lefs defenfible upon the principle of fub- 
 ilituting a part for the whole, than the application of it 
 to the members exclufively of the minifters in A£ls xv. 22, 
 agreeably to the view which you give of that paffage. 
 
 Since then this term is applied to the officebearers, in 
 diftinftion from the members, as well as to the members, 
 when diftinguifhed from the office-bearers, or, as in 
 other cafes, when conjoined with them, in which of the 
 fenfes is It to be underftood in this paffage, when a 
 Chrlftian is commanded to tell the offence of his brother to 
 the church ? That it has been admitted to refer to the 
 firft of thefe by fome of the moil refpedlable even of the 
 
 where he had rifen from the dead, to bear teftimony there for a 
 while to this fa£t, even though it fhould expofe them to fuffering. 
 See Robertfon's Lay -preaching indefenfible, p. 38. 
 
Letter VI. gi 
 
 Independents themfelvesy is a fatl which is incontrovertible. 
 The famous Mr. Parker of New England, in his Tradl, 
 de Polit. hb. iii. cap. xv. allows explicitly that the firft 
 time it is mentioned in Matth. xviii. 17. it means the 
 elders, and they alone., though in the following claufe, 
 however inconlillently, he fuppofes it denotes the people 
 as concurring with them. His words are, " Ecclefiani 
 ** primo loco confideratam in his verbis, prac'ife partem 
 ** aristocraticamy id eft prefoyterium, fignificare exifti- 
 *' mamus ; " /. e. " We think that the church, in the 
 ** firll of thefe claufes, fignifies esprefsly the aristocratic 
 " party or the elders.-^ And that it has been confidered, 
 or at ieaft aded upon, by others of them in the fame 
 light is no lefs certain. The celebrated Hooker of 
 America, in his Survey, part iii. chap. iii. p. 36. affirms, 
 that in a cafe of offence, the matter is firft to be told to 
 the elders ; that it is their prerogative to examine whether 
 the point is of fufficient magnitude as to be made a 
 fubjedl of judicial authoritative inveftigation, to call 
 witnefTes, to review the evidence, and conader the 
 fentence which is proportioned to the offence, before the 
 matter Is to be laid before the members. And fuch, alfo, 
 at Ieaft is the praSiice of many of the prtTent bodies of 
 Independents, whofe elders are the perfons to ^'hom, if 
 the offending brother refufes to yield, when admonifhed 
 of his fault before two or three witneffes, the offence is 
 told, and who make a particular inquiry Thto the bufi- 
 nefs before it is announced to the congregation. Such, 
 too, if I am not mifmformed, is the pradlice of your own 
 fociety, and of Its fifter-churches. But without farther 
 detailing the fentiments of Independents, ihe pra^ice at 
 Ieaft of many of whom, with regard to the perfons to whom 
 the offence is to be told, after the private admonition. Is 
 the fame with that of Prefbytevlans, I proceed to obferve 
 that It is equally natural, and much more confiftent, to 
 underftan^ by the church, in the paffage before us, the 
 
^2 Letter VI. 
 
 elders of the congregation, than the congregation at large 
 conne<fled with the office-bearers. 
 
 In the I ft place, It feems plain that in what our Lord 
 here fays, as to the mode of procedure in the Chriftian 
 church, he alludes to the Jewifh ecclefiallical courts, the 
 fynagogue and the fanhedrin, which at that time were 
 familiar to the minds of the Jews, and from which moft 
 probably they would form their ideas of the impmt of 
 his words. This is not only afSrmed by Calvin, Beza, 
 Parasus, and other learned expofitors, but is granted even 
 by the venerable Goodwin, the moft diilinguifhed of the 
 feven Independent brethren who fat in the Affembly of 
 Divines at Weflmiufter. " The allufion of Jefus," fays he 
 (p. 57. 58. of his Trearife on Government), *' is to the 
 ** fynagogues in every town, which were the ecclefiaftical 
 " ftate. The books of Mofes were read in every city, 
 ** in the fynagogues: A£ls xv. 21. To tell tlie church 
 ** therefore," he remarks, *' was to tell that particular 
 " fy^^i'^S^'^ ^^ which they were members ;" and this be 
 endeavours to prove by a variety of arguments. And 
 that this was the meaning of Chrift appears alfo from the 
 words which are fubjoined, " Let him be to thee as a 
 *' Heathen man and a PubUcan ;'* vvliich I obferve, in 
 oppofition to Mr. Glafs *, you rightly confider (p. 34.) 
 
 * See his Letters to Ayton, in the ^r(\. volume of his Works, 
 p. 287. wherg^e denies that this pafTage refers to tKe order of 
 the Jewilh church, or to excommunication from their focieties ; 
 and affirms, after Prynne and fome ancient Independent*, that it 
 contains merely a command to Chriftians to abftain from civil 
 intercourfe and from eating with an obfiinate offending brother, 
 ^s the Jews abftained from aflbciating or eating with a Heathen 
 or a Publican, referring us to I Cor. v. 11. compared with A<n:s 
 X. 28. and xi. 3. It does not however appear that civil inter- 
 courfe was prohibited to the Jews v/ith the Heathens, or was 
 avoided by them, though we know that they did not cultivate 
 religious fellowfhip. On the contrary, we find that Nehemiah 
 permitted the Tyrians to fell their commodities to the children 
 
Letter VI. ^^ 
 
 as denoting txchfionfrom the churchy and which, according 
 to Goodwin (p. 59.), are fimilar in import to " calling 
 " out of the fynagogr.e." Benjamin of Tudela more- 
 over, when fpeaking of the Maffilian fynagogiie, thrice 
 
 of Ifi-acl on every day but the Sabbath (Neh. xiii. 16.— Zl)— that 
 the ftrvants of Hiram and of Solomon were employed together in 
 building the temple — that Jehofhaphat aflbciated with the king 
 of Edom (a Kings iii.) — and that, in the reign of Solomon, there 
 were no lefs than a hundred and fifty thoufand and fix hundred 
 Heathens in the land of Judea, with whom the Ifraelites could 
 not fail to mingle. The intercourfe, then, of which Peter fpeaks 
 (A£ts X a8.), as quoted by Glafs, muft have been a religious inter- 
 courfe ; and this feems to be evident not only from its being Hated 
 as the end for which Cornelius requeued an interview (ver. '1%.), 
 " that he might hear words," or religious inllruftions," from him," 
 but alfo from the tranflation of his words in the Syriac verfion 
 (ver. 2S.), " Ye know that it is unlawful for a man that is a Jew io 
 " join him/elf unto a man that is a ftranger, who is not a Ton of his 
 " generation," ;'. e. in religious fellowOiip. And as it appears plain 
 that it was only religious intercourfe which was avoided with the 
 Heathens by the Jews, fo it has been aflerted, and aflerted with con- 
 fiderable plaulibility, that they v/ere not prohibited from eating 
 every kind of food with the Gentiles, but only fuch as was un- 
 clean. Toftatus, upon a Chron. vi. and Grotius, in his book de 
 Jure Bell, et Pac. lib. ii. cap. xv. fe£l. ix. exprefsly affirm, that 
 it was only fuch meats as were prohibited by the law that the 
 Jews vvere ordered not to eat with the Heathens, but that all 
 other things they might eat with them. And Drufms, in his 
 Quseft. et Refp. lib. ii. Quasft. Ixvii. mentions an old law, from 
 one of the writings of the Rabbis, Elias in Thefbite, which forbad 
 the Jews to drink ivine with Heathens, atyi was made at the time 
 when the Gentiles ufed prelibations of wine in their facred rites : 
 " Lata videlicet eo tempore quo gentes vinum libabant in facris." 
 But fuch a prohibition, and efp-scially for fuch a rcafotiy proves 
 that the Jews migl^t eat and drink with the Gentiles all other 
 things which were not unclean, or employed for idolatrous pur- 
 pofes. It is obvious then, that to reprefent our Saviour, in 
 Matth. xviii. as commandir.g an obftinate offending brother to be 
 treated by his church as a Heathen was treated in thefe refpcfts 
 by tiia Jews, who neither rcfufcd him civil intercourfe, nor 
 
94 Letter VI. 
 
 applies to it in one paragraph, and even to its rulers aloWy 
 the terra kahaly which is moft frequently rendered by the 
 Seventy iKKX/inx, the very word employed in this pafTage, 
 and tranflated church (fte Vitringa de Synagoga, p. ^6^. 
 
 htfitated to eat with him whatever meats were not prohibited by 
 the law or ufed by him to idolatrous puipofes, is to render his 
 words trifling and infignificant. Befides, even admitting that they 
 refufed to have any civil intercourfe with a Heathen, or to cat 
 with him at all, this was only one part, and the haft part of the 
 privileges which they denied him. He could not be a member 
 of their fynagogues, nor was he allowed to worfliip in the inner 
 court of their temple. Ezek. xliv. 7. 9. Afts xxi. a 8. He was 
 viewed, in fliort, as " an alien from the commonwealth of Ifrael, 
 " and a (Iranger from the covenants of promife, having no hope, 
 " and without God in the world." Compare Eph. ii. 1 1, la. 
 To confider the phrafe thei-efore, " Let him be to thee as a Hea- 
 " then man," as including, pn the other hand, any thing lefs 
 than the privation of thefe privileges, is to attach to it a meaning 
 totally below its import and fignificancy. Whatever other pri- 
 vileges then might be refufed to the Heathens, as they were evi- 
 dently excluded by the Jews from their church ; and as appears 
 from the New Teflament, and the writings of the Rabbis, that 
 heretical, or apoftate, o-r difobedient brethren (fee John ix. 
 xii. 4Z. xvi. %. Abarbanel de Capite Fidei, Selden de Jure Natur. 
 et Gent. lib. vi. cap. x.), were cafl by them, like Heathens, out of 
 their fynagogues — and were obliged, like them, to pay ufury for 
 the money which they received in loan, " Quia fratrum nomen 
 " exuerant;" and, as Grotius obferves on Luke vi. 22. if they 
 .'came into the temple, were admitted, like them, only into the 
 outer court, and that too with a particular mark of difgrace ;- 
 fince fuch was the way in which the Gentiles, or Heathens, were 
 ufually treated by the Jews, and fince fuch was the way in which 
 thofe of the Jews -who apoflatizcd were treated by their church, is 
 it not obvious that when the very fame langu.ige is applied in 
 Matthew, to exprefs the conduct of the church of Chrift towards 
 offending brethren, an evident analogy is pointed out in the latter 
 church to the former, and in the punifliments.of the one to thofe 
 of the other ? 
 
 As the allufion, in fine, from the terms Heathen and Publican^ 
 IS plainly Jewifh, it will not be a valid obje<f>ion againft confider- 
 
Letter VI. 95 
 
 564.). It is obferved alfo by Goodwin, upon good au- 
 thority, that .the word a-vvci.ya)yv.f tranflated " fynagogue," 
 and the word sx«A>55-<a, here rendered " church," are, in 
 a rrumber of inftances, " all one in the Septuagint." 
 But we know that the firft of thefe terms, which is often 
 fynonimous with the word here tranflated church, is 
 vifed by James, in allufion to the Jewifh fynagogue, to 
 denote either a Chriilian congregation, or the place 
 where they met, transferring to the latter the name of 
 the former ; for the words of that Apollle (fee his Epiftle, 
 chap. ii. ver. 2.), which are rendered in our verfion, 
 ** If there come into your aifembly, a man with a gold 
 <' ring, ^f." literally mean, " If there come into your 
 ** fy^(^S^S^^^'^ And what is tranflated in our Bibles 
 (Heb. X. 25.), *' for fake not the aflembling of yourfelve^ 
 ** together," literally imports, " your meeting In a 
 '* fynagogue," 2w-<c-vyiajyii;7>]y. If the very name however, 
 hahal err ecclejia, here rendered church, be given fre- 
 quently by the Rabbis themfelves to the Jewifh fynagogue ; 
 if another term, often equivalent to this, and repeatedly 
 ufed in the New Teftament to denote a fynagogue, be 
 elfe where applied to the Chriflian church ; if the conduft 
 which is here enjoined upon this church towards an 
 obftinate offender, be expreffed in language precifely the 
 fame with that which was defcriptive of the conduct of 
 the Jews to an impenitent offender whom they cafl out 
 of tJje'ir fynagogue ; and If our Lord, Vv'hen borrowing 
 thefe terms from the fynagogue, to denote his church, 
 
 Mig it as exclufion from their church which is intended, to tell us 
 that it is only the brother who is offended that is to treat the 
 oiFender as a Heathen and a Publican. If the brother who is 
 offended is to abftain from religious communion with the offender 
 on account of his fin, it is certainly no lefs flrongly declared in 
 this pafTage, that the church, who are no lefs offended than the 
 brother, bectiufe the offender will not hear the777, muft treat him 
 as vi Heathen, and rejeQ him from their fellowfbip. 
 
96 Letter VI. 
 
 and Its conduct towards offenders, gives no intimatloR 
 that they were to be underftood as to it, in a different 
 acceptation than when applied to the former; it is plain 
 that to afcertain the import of this paffage, we muil 
 have recourfe to the praftices of the Jewifh fynagogue, 
 and inquire who were the perfons in that churchy or %y.x.XYt(riocy 
 to whom offnences were told, and who judged refpedling 
 them. 
 
 In examining however who wer.e the perfons of the 
 Jewifli fynagogue, or £«;cA>s(r<«, that adminiflered its 
 affairs, and determined in this as well as other matters, 
 we perceive that they were the rulers. This is evident 
 not only from the teflimony of the New Teftament, but 
 from the writings of their Doftors. Thus, A£ls xiii. 15. 
 ** And after the reading of the law and the prophets, 
 ** the rulers of the fynagogue {uep^is-vvaya'yoi) fent unto 
 " Paul and his companions," ^c. *: among which rulers 
 
 ♦ Without entering particularly into the confideration of the 
 propriety of the Independent pra£lice, of allowing any of their 
 members who chufes to exhort the church when met together, I 
 think it very obvious that one of the common arguments for it^ 
 which they frequently urge from the pafTage here quoted, is totally 
 untenable. We are indeed here informed, that " after the reading 
 " of the law and the prophets, the vnlers of the fynagogue fent unto 
 -** them (Paul and his companions), faying, Ye men and brethren, 
 " if ye have any vi-ord of exhort^ition for the people, fay on." It 
 is to be recollected however, that the church where they were, 
 was not a Chriftian congregation, but a jcivijh fynagogue ; and 
 Vitringa, I think, has proved incontefbabiy in his Treatife on the 
 Synagogue, lib. iii. pars i. cap. vii. that none but thofe who vi'ere 
 confidered as Rabbis or Do£tors, and who were folemnly fet apart 
 by the impofition of hands, were permitted, after the reading of 
 the law and the prophets, to exhort the people. For thefe, he 
 tells us, there were particular feats in all their fynagogues, and 
 cftablifhes his aficrtion by a variety of references. And in fome 
 of thefe feats he affirms, as we are told by Luke (ver. 14.)) that 
 Paul and Barnabas having fat down, were confidered by the rulers 
 as Dodors, and were invited, according ta the ufual cuftom, t» 
 
Letter VI. 97 
 
 it would appear that there was one who was prefident ; 
 for we are informed (Luke xiii. 14. )> that " the ruler 
 *< of the fynagogue (ci,^'/,i^vvxyuyo^) anfwered with in- 
 " dignation, becaufe Jefus had healed on the Sabbath- 
 exhort, declaring at the fame time, that it was contrary to the 
 ufual pra<n:ice in the fynagogue to allow the common members to 
 perform this duty. His words are (p. 709.), " At non de Chrifto 
 *' modo, fed et illius apoflolis et difcipuiis legimus, quod et illi 
 " docenflum cathedrae occupaverint, et inde pro JDoBcribus ab iis 
 " agniti fuerint, quorum id fcire intererat. Narratur id in A^is 
 " Apoftolorum, cap. xiii. 14. Ipfi vera digrejfi Perga veneritnt 
 " Ant'tQchhm Fijidine, et mgxtiTi jynagogajn die Sahbaii, kui uaiX^ovris 
 " kxaSio-av. Sederunt Paulus et Barnabas fynagogam ingrefli. In- 
 " telligendum, occupafTe eos fedes doceiitlunif quod fedxre ku.t 
 " ifA.(pa.iTiv eft: in fcripturis fancVis (compare Matth. xxiii. I, 2. 
 " xxvi. S5' ^c). Sciverunt enim inde archifynagogi, eo forte 
 " animo illos fynagogam ingrefTos cfTe, ut docercnt. Ita enim per- 
 " git Lucas : foji leB'tonem atitcm Ugh et frophetarum viljerunt 
 " T^'^f'^^'^ fy^^^l^S'^ ^-^ ^^^' dice Hies : Viri,fratres,fi qiiis eji in vobis 
 '* fenno exhoric-iiouis, dlriie. Quaenam ratio fuiftet, ut archifyna- 
 " ?PS^ homines hos, fibi, ut plane videtur, ignotos ad dicendum 
 "'■ invitaflent, fi communia vidgi occupajfent fuhfellia, nulioque ex 
 " indicio de eorum aptitudine et docendi animo fatli fuilTent 
 " certiores ? Et quodnam id efTe potuit fignum, qywLxnfeJfto, cum 
 " nihil aiiud de ipfis referatur, quam quod fynagogam ingrefli 
 '' confederint ? Cum vero foluifedendi atftus non pofllt efTe in- 
 *' dicium vel Do&oris, vel inteiitionis docendi, omnino videtur, 
 " aliam hie fignificari feflionem,, quse DoBorum erat." And the 
 fame alfo are the fentiments of Altingius, who exprefsly affirms 
 in his Schilo, lib. iii. cap. vi. '* Atque in hac ufurpatione (fedendi) 
 " pro DoBorihus agniti funt ab archifynagogis, qui fa£ta legis et 
 " prophetarum ledione admiferunt, ut li meditati acceflifTent; 
 ■•' verba in coetu facerent. Neque enim rite hinc concluferis, 
 " cuivis peregrino hoc indultum fuifTe ut publice diceret. Sed 
 " cum peregrini \0i\ fe magijlros prohtercntuv fidcidi privilegio, 
 " pr3Efe£ti fynagogse, ipfis id honoris detulerunt." Whatever then 
 be the arguments which can be adduced by Independents for 
 allowing the members to adurefs the church, it would appear that 
 they are not entitled to advance any from the prefent pafTage. 
 And though it is granted that it is the duty of believers in gene- 
 I 
 
9^ Letter VI. 
 
 " day." See alfo Mark v. 35, 36. 38. Afts xvii. S. 17. 
 Accordingly it is faid by Jofephus, in his account of his 
 life, p. 1020. and 1022. that the fynagoguc at Tiberias 
 was governed by a prefident, as^y^av, and a fenate of 
 elders, (ZovX-^v : ILvynaav 01 mv (t^irx/SoMv Ivia-ov;, rov (Aiv ^ijfiov 
 sxsAgyjv xvta^M^iiv, Tr^otrjunvui oi rriv /2ovXr;v j)|<&»crg ; i. e. ** But 
 ** Jefus, the prefident, feeing the Hate of things altered, 
 *' ordered the people to depart, but thought it proper 
 ** that the fenate y** or, as it is in the Latin tranflation, 
 fenatum folum^ *' fiiould remain." And Maimonides, a 
 <ielebrated Jewifli Rabbi, in Hilcoth Taanioth, cap. iv. 
 fed. i. in his Traft. de Jejuniis, reprefents a fynagogue 
 at Jerufalem as governed by one, whom he denominates 
 princeps or chief, and pater or father, and a fynedrium 
 aut collegium faplentium, i. e. a fenate or college of wife 
 men. The number of the rulers in their fynagoguea in 
 large cities, according to Benjamin of Tudela, as quoted 
 by Vitringa, was fometimes very great ; and even in their 
 lead fynagogues, " they were never lefs," fays Goodwin 
 (p. j8.), " than three, that a major vote might cafl it 
 ** among them." Now if a Jew, when offended, though 
 he made known his complaint in the hearing of the other 
 members of the fynagogtie, fubmitted it for judgment 
 to the Scribes and Doftors, who were rulers of the fyna- 
 gogue, and them alone ; and if our Saviour, when 
 fpeaking of the manner in which an offended brother 
 was to proceed in his church, ufes precifely the very fame 
 language, and bids him tell it exprefsly to zfim'ilar church ; 
 is it not plain, that, fo far at leaft Tis the prefent pqfage 
 
 ral, no lefs under the new than under the old difpenfation, to 
 converfe with one another, in the houfe and by the way, upon 
 the truths of religion, and provoke and exhort one another to 
 every good work, it may perhaps be difficult to prove from the 
 fcriptures, that when a congregation is met in a church- cap ac'ttyy 
 any member who chufes is warranted to rife, and publicly to ex- 
 hort, or admonifh, or inftrudt them. 
 
Letter VI. 99 
 
 is concerned, inftead of proving the right of every 
 member of aChriftlan congregation to hear and judge in 
 a cafe of offence. It demonftrates that this power, as in 
 the Jew'tfi fynagogise^ Is committed to the rulers, and the 
 rulers exclufively . 
 
 Again, as there was a right of appeal from the deter- 
 mination of the rulers of a particular fynagogue to their 
 great fanhedrin, or council of feventy, is it not obvious 
 that this pajfage, Inftead of favouring the Independent 
 plan, of conftituting every congregation a complete court 
 in Itfelf, without fubjedling it to the review of a Pref- 
 bytery, ftrongly eftablifhes the very contrary j and ex- 
 hibits clearly thefe firft principles of Prefbyterians, that, as 
 in the Jewilh courts, It Is the elders alone who are entitled 
 to govern a particular congregation, and that thefe again 
 are fubjeft to the authoritative review of other courts, 
 who can either affirm or reverfe their declfions * ? 
 
 Is it faid, in fine, that we are informed In other places, 
 that the form of government in the New-Teflament 
 church Is completely different from that which exifted In 
 the fynagogue and fanhedrin, and confequently that it 
 cannot be Inferred from this pafTage, that the admi- 
 nlflration fhould be committed in a particular con- 
 gregation only to thofe who are elders, and that thefe 
 again fliould be fubjedl to the authoritative review of 
 a higher court ? It Is replied, that when this Is proved 
 from thefe other pafTages, the inference will be dropt — 
 
 * Accordingly Prynne-, a very noted ancient divine, who fa- 
 voured fome of the fentiments of Independents, in his Anfwer to 
 Gilleipie, affirms, ki oppofition to you, that by the church, or 
 aflembly, mentioned by Matthew, is intended, not the members 
 of a particular congregation, but the fanhedrin; and quotes Jofe- 
 phus, as if he had fpoken of this text, and applied the very name 
 here employed by the Evangelift to that celebrated court. For an 
 account of this court, and of the fynagogue, with a folution of 
 fome objedions urged againft this argument, fee Appendix. 
 I 2 
 
300 Letter VI. 
 
 that it fs readily granted, that \\\ Jo far as the form of 
 government is demonftrated from thefe pafTages to be 
 altered, it ought to be altered — but that unlefs it can 
 be evinced from them, that it is changed in the points 
 about which we are no^jj inquiring, and is taken from 
 the elders in a particular congregation, and in an equal 
 degree given to all the members of a congregation, with- 
 out any pofiibility of appeal to a higher court, the 
 inference is good. So far, however, as the paffage before 
 us is v'leivedin lifdf and explained by the allufion to which 
 it refers, though brought forward by you and the reft of 
 your brethren, as thejirjl argument for Independency, it 
 feems naturally to eftablifli the very contrary, and to prove 
 that in a Chriftian congregation, as in a Jewiili fynagogue, 
 it is the elders alone, and not the members, and the elders 
 as fubordinate to the authoritative review of a fuperior 
 court, who are appointed to govern the church of God *. 
 
 * It is urged indceJ by Goodwin (p. 60,), that no argument 
 can be adduced in favour of Prcfbytery, from the application of 
 the terms defcriptive of the fynagogue and of the mode of pro- 
 cedure in it, in cafes of offence to the Chriftian church, " becaufc 
 " the manner is oftentimes to fpeak in the langtiagc of the Old 
 " Teftament when the fame thing," or an exa£t correfpondency 
 to it " is not meant ; as w hen Chrifl: fpeaks of the perfon offend- 
 *' ing, Matth. v. 2i. he expreffeth the degrees of punifhment to 
 «* feveral fins, under the names of three courts amongft the Jews, 
 " and yet he meaneth fpiritual degrees of punidiment. Thus, too, 
 " in I Cor. ix. 13. the whole fervice of the fan£luary is called the 
 " altar (he that ferveth at the altar, muft live of the altar) ; yet 
 " there is no fuch altar ercfted amongft us as was amongft the 
 " Jews. And the prophets alfo, prophefying of the times of 
 " the gofpel, fpake of our ordinances anew tobe mftituted in Old- 
 " Teftament language; fo, in Ifaiah Ixvi. 33. They pail go from 
 " one neiv moon lo ai: other. Though, under the gofpel, we have 
 " not monthly feafts and meetings as they had, yet the meetings 
 " that we have are exprefTed thereby." From which he concludes, 
 that " though Chrift ufeth fhe fame words to exprefs the inftitu- 
 " tion of the new churches of tlie gofpel by, yet it follows net 
 
Letter VI. loi 
 
 2dly, Though it could not be eftabliflied that there is 
 a reference to the Jewifh fynagogues in this paflage, it 
 feems equally fair, and much more confident, to under- 
 ftand by the term church, the elders of the congregation, 
 than the congregation itfelf. 
 
 Nothing is more common than to fay that a thing is 
 to be done to, or for a body, which is done only to, or 
 by thofe of that body who reprefent the whole, and to 
 whom it is competent. And no phrafeology was more 
 
 " that it is of the fame kind with the old, or that it runneth in 
 " the fame way." But to this it is anfwered, that this paflage is 
 mt here advanced as an argument for Fre/iyiery, though it has been 
 often brought forward with triumph, as an invincible argument 
 in fupport of Independency — that all that is maintained is fimply 
 this, That if we confider the allufion, if it proves any thing, as 
 viewed in itfelf, and without going elfe where to difcov^r the con- 
 ftitution of the church, it is in favour of the former, and not of 
 the latter, and confequently that the argument which has fo 
 often been drawn from it for Independency neceflarily falls. As 
 we muft: have believed, from the padages produced from Goodwin, 
 that there fhould be aliars, and new moons, and degrees of external 
 piinifjment among Chrifiians, the fame with thofe which we are 
 aflurcd exifted among the Jews, unlefs it could be evinced from 
 oiher pafTages, that a change was enjoined ; fo it is no lefs mani- 
 fefl: from the prefcnt paflage, that the government of the Chrif- 
 tian church, in the point here fpecified, muft refemble that of the 
 Jcwilh fynag^ogue, by the name of which it is called, unlefs it can 
 be demonftrated from cihcr fajfages^ that it is appointed to be 
 altered. And it will not futSce to eftablilli this idea, to inform 
 us that the term church, when applied, as in this place, to a 
 Chriftian congregation, moft commonly, in the New Teiiament, 
 denotes the ivhole of the members as well as the rulers, fmce it 
 is certain that it was underflood in the fame latitude of fic^nifica- 
 tion when applied alfo to a Jewilli fynagogue, and yet we know 
 that when a complaint w as told in it before the members at large, 
 it was the rulers alone who judged refpedling it. Granting there- 
 fore all that is defired even by Independents, as to the proper 
 import of the term church, or iKKXr,(Tiu, no argument can be de- 
 duced from it ia confirmation of their fyftem. 
 
 13 
 
102 Letter VI. 
 
 common among the Jews, than to fay that a thing was 
 done by a congregation, which was done only by the 
 elders or rulers of that congregation. Thus, in the cafe 
 of the manflayer (Numb. xxxv. 24, 25.), it is faid, that 
 ** the congr egat'ion of the city to which the manflayer and 
 *' the avenger of blood belonged, fhould judge between 
 *' them. And that the congregation (hould reft ore him 
 *' to the city of his refuge, whither he was fitd ; and 
 ** that he fhould abide in it till the death of the high- 
 *' pried." Yet if Mofes may be allowed to explain his 
 own words, even where this is fo frequently afcribed to 
 the congregation, it was the elders of the city alone who 
 performed it. *' But if any man," fays he (Deut xix. 
 II, 12.), " hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, 
 ** and rife up again (l him, and fmite him mortally that 
 ** he die, and fieeth into one of thefe cities, then the 
 ** elders of his city (hall fend, and fetch him thence, and 
 ** deliver him into the hands of the avenger of blood," 
 (i. e» after judging him) '* that he may die." Here 
 ■we fee that what is in one place repeatedly afcribed to 
 the congregation, 13 in the other afferted to be done only 
 by the elders ; and w^e are afTured that it was the 
 prerogative of the elders alone^ agreeably to the divine 
 appointment (Deut. xvi. 18.), to judge the people. In 
 Jo(h. XX. 4, 5. it is alfo faid, that " when the manflayer 
 ♦< that doth flee into one of thefe cities, fhall (land at 
 " the entering of the gate of the city, and fhall declare 
 ** his caufe in the ears of the elders of the city * ; and 
 <* they fhall take him to the city unto them, and give him 
 ** a place that he may dwell among them. And if the 
 ** avenger of blood purfue after him, then they fhall not 
 ** deliver the flayer into his hand j becaufe he fmote 
 
 * The ufual judges who fat in the gate ; and who, if the city 
 contained only a hundred and twenty familiei, amounted merely 
 to three ; and if it contained more, according to Jolephus, amount- 
 ed to feven, and according to the Talmudifts, to twenty-three. 
 
Letter VI. 103 
 
 " his neighbour unwitlingiy, and hated him not before 
 *« time." And yet it is fubjoined, that " he fliould 
 <* dwell in that city, until he Hood before the congregation 
 ** for judgment.^* Thus we perceive that while the 
 congregation o[ the city from which he fled, are faid, in 
 this pafTage, to have judged in the cafe of the manflayer, 
 in the preceding words we are told that the perfons in 
 the city to which he efcaped, who heard and decided 
 iipon his cafe, were tbe elders ; and confequently, as the 
 government of every city was the fame, it muft have 
 been the elders who were to hear and judge of his con- 
 duft in the city from which he came, while yet we are 
 told that he was to Hand before the congregation. 
 Accordingly we find, from Philo, jofcphus, and other 
 Jewifh writers, that it was the elders alone, and not the 
 people, who judged in their cities ; and that the congrega- 
 tion, being confidered as doing it by them, were faid 
 theivfelves to hwue exercifed the po-iver of judgment^ though 
 it was veiled in and exercifed only by the elders. 
 Agreeably to this, likewife, the Greek tranflators, in their 
 verllon of the Old Teftament, render kakal, the (Irongeft 
 Hebrew word denoting the congregation, in Prov, 
 xxvi. 26. by (Tyvio^iov, a council or affemhly of elders *. 
 
 * It is the fame word which is ufed in Luke xxii. (yd. and Ads 
 iv. 15. to fignify the council of the high-prieH:, the elders, and 
 the fcribes. See alfo Pafor, who quotes DemoflBenes, according 
 to the principle which has been now dated, as employing the 
 w-ord £«xX»<r/a, the word rendered church in Matthew, and the 
 term mofl frequently ufed in the Septuagint, even according to 
 Independents, as the tranflation of kahal or congregation, for an 
 alTembly of nobles who were rulers. " EtpoPscuvro Ss fttj i%uip-/i5 
 " iKY.Xrcriy. yi))r,~at ;" " Ubi accipi videtur (fays he), pro concione 
 *• magnatum repente convocatorum," i. e. " It feems to denote here 
 *' an aflembly of nobles or rulers fuddenly convened." And fee, too, 
 the author of the Guide to Zion, p. 5. and Ainfworth, in his 
 Counterpoifon, p. 113. who, though very keen and very refpe£l- 
 able ancient Independents, admitted that the word iKK?.n<nxi here 
 
104 Letter VI. 
 
 Since then It is plain, from thefe as well as other 
 pafTages in the Old Teftament, that It was common for 
 things to be reprefented as flrongly as told to and judged 
 of by the congregation^ as what Is mentioned In Matthew 
 to be told to the church, while yet It Is certain that It 
 was only the elders of the congregation who were 
 intended ; Is It not equally obvious, that when an offended 
 Chriftlan Is there commanded to tell the church of the 
 fault of his brother, even though there was no reference 
 to the Jewllh fynagogue, that it may he the elders of the 
 church alone who are defigned, provided that It can be 
 proved from other pafTages, that the government of the 
 church Is committed only to the former, as the govern- 
 ment of each of the cities of Ifrael was committed only 
 to the judges who fat in the gate*? But that the 
 government of the church is veiled only in the former, 
 as the government of each of the cities of Ifrael was 
 Intrufted to the latter, has already been attempted to be 
 demonftrated ; and confequently It will no more follow, 
 though an offence Is commanded to be told to andjudged 
 of by the church, that every member Is Intended by the 
 term church, than that becaufe the manflayer was required 
 
 rendered the church, is ufcd repeatedly by the Seventy for the 
 fanhedrin, who undoubtedly were an allembiy only of rukrs. 
 
 * Chryfodom, one of the early fathers after Chrift, who muft 
 certainly have been acquainted with what was at that time the 
 conftitution of the Chrillian church, evidently undcrftood this 
 paflage, not in the fcnfe of Independents, but in the fenfe which 
 is at prefent attached to it by Prefbyterians. As quoted by Zan- 
 chius, in Quart. Prsccept. and by Junius, Contr. iii. lib.ii. cap. vi. 
 in his expofition of this place in Matthew, he afferts, that by the 
 church, to whom tho offence was to be told, was intended the 
 ^^oi^^oi Kctt ^r^o'.rioris , the prefidents and rulers, who, as in i ThclT. v. 
 iz, 13. are always reprefented in the facred volume, and are 
 admitted even by Independents themfelves, to be diftinouiilicd 
 from the people, who are not allowed by them to be nominal 
 ooveruors. 
 
Letter VI. 105 
 
 to tell his caufe before the cor.gregation of any of the cities 
 of Ifrael, and *' even Hand before them for judgment," 
 every Ifraelite, who was a raennbcr of that congregation, 
 was warranted, by the term congregcitlon, to txedi himfclf 
 into a judge by the law of God. 
 
 Your argument, in fine, againft PreJI/yteries and Syno^Sy 
 and other courts of review, from their not being mention- 
 ed in this paffage, though frequently urged alfo by other 
 Independents, appears to be moft inconclufive. It ^s 
 iimply this, that becaufe a thing is not mentioned in one 
 paffage of fcripture that treats of a particular fubjeci, it 
 is not to be found in another that relates to the fame 
 fubjeft ! But would not this, if followed out, lead us to 
 fet afide important parts of almoft every doArine and 
 inftitution of Chriftianity, few of which, we know, are 
 fully contained in one paffage, and moft of which are to 
 be colledled completely only from different paffages ? 
 Befides, even granting that courts of review are not fpeci- 
 fied, a very good reafon feems to be fuggefted, from the 
 paffage itfelf, why they fhould not at leaft be d'lrcBly 
 mentioned. It is obvious that an appeal could only 
 have been made to a fuperior court, \i the brother ivho nv as 
 offended had not received juftice from the court to which 
 he at firfl applied ; for it is he alone who is reprefented 
 as bringing the matter before an ecclefiaftical afferably 
 for their determination. Such a cafe however is not 
 here fuppofed ; for it is exprefsly ftated, that the firjl 
 court to which he applied gave a decifion in his favour. 
 But if \k\Q.firJl court, as has been faid, is here fuppofed 
 to have given a decifion in his favour ; and if the 
 offendh.g brother is never faid to have thought himfelf 
 aggrieved by the decifion which this court paffed againfl 
 him ; and, as is infinuated, was even totally unfolicitous, 
 and completely regardlefs, of bringing it before an 
 ecclefiaftical court at all; what propriety would there 
 have been of introducing the poffibility of an appeal to 
 
jc6 Letter VI. 
 
 a higher court ? Thus, then, it appears that even 
 sdm'itting that fuch courts are not here mentioned, the 
 omiflion is fuch as might naturally have been expe£ied, 
 and that no argument can be urged againft them from 
 t-his omiflion, if it can be proved upon that particular 
 divifion of our fubjedt, that they arc clearly authorized 
 by the word of Godi, 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 1 ou remark in the next place (p. 34. and ^'i),')^ that 
 the principles of Independency feem to be eftablifned 
 with equal deciiion in the fifth chapter of the Firll Epiflle 
 to the Corinthians. As you have not however even hinted 
 at the common arguments deduced by Independents from 
 this paflage, for the right of members to judge in the 
 church, though you endeavour to prove from it, that a 
 congregation cannot be fubjefJted to the review of a 
 Pre/hyteryy permit me, before I confider the inferences 
 which you draw from it far the latter pofition, to (late 
 very briefly the arguments for the former, as mentioned 
 by Mr. Cotton, an eminent ancient American Inde- 
 pendent, in his book entitled, " The Keys of the Klng- 
 *' dom," p. 44. 45, 46. He tells us in the ifl: place, 
 That the reproof for not proceeding to a fcntence againll 
 the incefluous perfon is direfted to the whole as well 
 as to the Prefljytery. " They are all blamed for not 
 " mourning," ^c. i Cor. v. 2. 2dly, They are all 
 commanded, when they are gathered together, to pro- 
 ceed againft. him. i Cor. v. 4, 5. «' In the name of our 
 " Lord Jefus Chrill, when ye are gathered together, 
 " to deliver fuch an one unto Satan." And again, in 
 ver. 13. " Therefore put away from among yourfelves 
 
Letter VII. lo^ 
 
 ** that wicked perfon.'* In the 3d place, He declares 
 this aft of theirs, in putting him away, to be a jucHcial 
 aft ; for, fays he (ver 12.), " do not ye judge them that 
 " are within ?" And 4thly, Upon his exhibiting evidence 
 of his repentance, the Apoftle 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 (latcraent of the arguments of Independents, which 
 are drawn from this paflage, as is any where to be found ; 
 and I confefs that I confider it as much more plaufible 
 than any thing I have met with in Goodwin, Owen, Glafs, 
 or any other Independent. Even thefe however I can 
 by no means admit to be valid arguments in fupport of 
 this fcheme, unlefs it could be eftablidied, independently of 
 them, from other paflages * ; and contend that while the 
 paffages which have been already produced in favour of 
 Prefbytery feem totally inexplicable on any other fcheme, 
 this paffage, as well as that which was lafl mentioned, 
 feems to be equally explicable upon the principles of 
 Prefbyterians as upon thofe of Independents. 
 
 In confirmation of this general remark I obferve, that 
 when Paul reproves the whole of the Corinthians 
 (i Cor. V. 2.) " becaufe they had not mourned,'' he 
 does not fay that he blamed them becaufe they had not 
 all exercifed the power with which according to Inde- 
 pendents they were inverted, and excommunicated him 
 ihemfelves, as judges or governors; but what llrongly 
 indicates that they had no fuch power — that, as the 
 effeft of this mourning, " he who had done this might be 
 *' tahen azuay from among them." Now, though all the 
 members are cenfured for not mourning, might not this 
 cenfure be delivered to them upon the principles of 
 
 * Paflages, I mean, which completely preponderate in clear- 
 nefs and cogency over thofe which are urged for the Prefbyterian 
 fcheme, and paflages which cannot be interpreted upon it. 
 
io§ Letter VIT. 
 
 Prefbyterians, as well as upon thofe of Independents ; 
 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 grofs Impurity of a Chriftian brother ? And If 
 the rulers neglect, as In this Inftance at Corinth, to mark 
 their public difapprobation of his conducl, by Inflidling 
 upon him the merited punifhment, is it not much more the 
 duty of the members ? Befides, when they are not com- 
 manded to mourn that they thetnfelves had not taken him a-Tvay, 
 but fimply that, as the confequence of their for ro^du^ ilirring up 
 their rulers to a fenfe of their duty, he might he taken 
 away from them., Is it not plain that this pafTage, Inflead 
 of favouring the principles of Independency, feems fairly 
 to cilablifn the very oppofite, and that the power of 
 difcipline is vefted In the elders, and not in the members 
 of the church \ 
 
 Nor wnll the command of Paul to the Corinthians, 
 ** to deliver up the inceftuous perfon to Satan when they 
 <* vrere gathered together, and to put away from among 
 *< themfelves that wicked perfon," with his declaration 
 that they had a power " to judge them who were 
 *' within," fuffice to prove that the members at large 
 exerclfed a fimilar power with thofe who were their rulers 
 In adminiilering the government of that Chriftian church. 
 That they ^re fufceptible of this interpretation, if viewed 
 in themfelves, and without attending to other paffages of 
 fcripture, I readily grant — but not more fo than thofe 
 paffages which affert that Chrlft is the propitiation for 
 the fins not only of the Jeu^s, but of the ivhole nvorld^ 
 and that he gave himfclf a ranfom for ^//, if confidered 
 merely In themfelves, are fufceptlble of an explication 
 which excludes the dodrine oi particular, and eftabllfhes 
 the Arminian doArine of untverfal redemption. Now, 
 If you would deny the Inference deduced by Armlnians 
 from thefe latter paflages in fupport of their fyftem, by 
 obferving that thefe paffages are no lefs fufceptible of an 
 
Letter VII. IC9 
 
 cxpHcadon upon CalvlniJIic than upon Arminlan principles, 
 while at the fame time you produce a greater number of 
 pafTages, llronger and more decided, which cannot be 
 explained upon the principles of Artninians, is it not 
 equally fair, if it can be proved that even the ftrongeft 
 exprefiions in this place, defcriptivc of the power of the 
 church of Corinth, can be explained equally upon the 
 principles of Prefbyterians as upon thofe of Independents, 
 while at the fame time a number of other pafTages can be 
 adduced in favour of Preib}'tery totally inexplicable upon 
 the Independent plan— is it not equally fair, I fay, to 
 maintain that thefe expreilions, in this place, no more 
 eftablifli the principles of Independency, than the expref- 
 iions in the other inflance, which are -no lefs energetic, 
 eftablifli the principles of iiniverfa! redemption P 
 
 Can fach exprefiions however as thofe which are here 
 ufed be equally explained upon the fuppofition of Prefby- 
 terians, that it is the rulers of the church, and not the 
 members at large, who are intended ? Yes ; for as was 
 remarked, nothing is more common than to reprefcnt a 
 thing as done by a body at large, while it is done only 
 by thofe in that body to whom it is competent. Thus 
 we are inform.ed in fcripture, that the gieat city Rom.e 
 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 Roine, but by the 
 emperor and fenate ; and thus nothing is more frequent, 
 both in fpeech and writing, than to fay that the people of 
 Great Britain govern their American colonies, while it is 
 only the king and parliament who thus govern them. 
 Thus, too, we fee that precepts are often addreffed to 
 bodies in general to be obferved by them, which yet 
 could be obferved only with propriety by thofe who were 
 their rulers, while, at the fame time, others are to fulfil, 
 in their various fpheres, what is perfonally required from 
 K 
 
no Letter VIL 
 
 them. " If thy brother,'^ faid Mofes to the people of 
 Ifiael (Deut. xiii. 6. ^c), " the fon of thy mother, or 
 ** thy fon, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bofom, 
 " or thy friend which is as thine own foul, entice thee 
 ** fecretly, faying, Let us go and ferve other gods — 
 *' (ver. 8.} thou fiialt not confent unto him, nor hearken 
 ** unto him ; neither fhall thine eye pity him, neither 
 *' /halt thou fpare, neither (halt thou conceal him ; but 
 ** thou (halt furely kill him." Now, who would imagine, 
 from this command of Mofes, that //v Ifrael'ites at large 
 were to kill any perfon who fhould entice them to idolatry, 
 till he was previoufly tried and condemned by the judges 
 upon the depofitlon of witneffes ? And yet is it not 
 obvious that this injunction is here addreffed to the-tn at 
 large^ as ftrongly and dire6lly as the command is here 
 addreffed by Paul to the members at Corinth, to punifh 
 the inceftuous perfon of whom he fpeaks ? Is it not plain 
 alfo, that every Ifraelite was as much authorized by thefc 
 words of his lawgiver, viewed in themfelves, to judge 
 and put to death fiich an enticer to idolatry, as the- 
 Corinthians were authorized by thefe words of Paul, to 
 judge and excommunicate their offending brother ? And 
 are not the yews in general often reproved by the 
 prophets (fee Jer. v. 28. and vi. 5. ^c) for mofl flagrant 
 violations of equity in the public adminiflration of juftice, 
 as well as for other crimes, which could be committed 
 only by their rulers ? But who would imagine from 
 this, that erery Ifraelite was a civil judge^ or that it was 
 not the rulers alone who were refponfible for thefe crimes ; 
 and that notwithflanding the general exprelTions which 
 are employed, that the people were only acceffary to the 
 guilt, in as far as they approved of their conduft, and did 
 not witnefs again ft it ? Befides, is it not, notwithftand- 
 ing, undeniable, that thefe paffages as plainly and exprefsly 
 enjoin every Ifraelite to adminifler public jaflice with 
 
Letter VII. lit 
 
 fidelity and impartiality*, as the Apollle tells the 
 members of the church at Corinth, that they might judge 
 them who were within their communion, and might put 
 away from themfelves wicked perfons ? And is it not 
 manifeft, that they as explicitly blame t/:e Ifraelites at 
 largCi though they were not judges, for not adminiflering 
 juftice in this manner, as that the ApoPJe blames the 
 Corinthians in general for not putting away the inceftuous 
 perfon ? If, then, while the Ifraelites at large are com- 
 manded to adminifter public juftice with fidelity and 
 impartiality, it will not follow that each of them was 
 authorized to be a civil judge, becaufe the power of 
 judging appears, from other pa/fagesy to have been com- 
 mitted to thofe who were appointed to be rulers ; it will 
 no more follow, that though the Corinthians are informed 
 that they were to judge thofe who were within their 
 communion, that every Corinthian member was to be a 
 judge, if it can be proved, as has been attempted, from 
 ether pafiages, that this power is vefted in the ciders alone, 
 and that every member is not entitled, either nominally 
 or really, to the power of a ruler. And if, while the 
 Ifraelites in general were blamed for not thus adminiilering 
 juftice, it was the rulers alone, and not the people, who 
 were intended, though the latter alfo were reprobated, fo 
 far as they acquiefced in their condud, and did not tellify 
 againft it j it is equally inconteftable, that fince, as we 
 have endeavoured to demonilrate, there are fimilar rulers 
 in every Chriftian church, to whom the government is 
 intrufted, though the Corinthians at large are cenfured 
 
 * See alfo Deut. xvi. 19. where after It had been mentioned in 
 the preceding vcrfe, that judges were to be appointed in the gates 
 of evei-y city, who alone were to judge the people, it is faid not- 
 Tvithflanding to every Ifraelite, " Thou fliaLt not wreft judgment, 
 " thou (halt not refpeft perfons, neither take a gift : for a gift 
 " doth Uind the eyes of the wife, and pervert the words of tha 
 " righteous." 
 
 K2 
 
512 Letter VII. 
 
 for not excommunicating the offender, it was the rulers 
 alone who were referred to by the Apoftle, and that no 
 argument of courfe can be deduced from this paffage for 
 the right of the members, in common with the minifters,. 
 to adminifler the affairs of the church of God *. 
 
 Thus even though it were granted, that the inceftuoua 
 perfon was to be delivered over to Satan when the ivhoie 
 cf the members ivere met together, it will not follow that 
 every one of them, in a judicial capacity, was fo to deliver 
 him up, but only the rulers ; for it has been contended 
 even by many Prefbyterians, with Cyprian of old, that 
 whatever is done, fhould be done in the pretence of all 
 the members of the church for their fatisfadion j-. But 
 
 * From this reafoning alfo, if valid and conclufive againft the 
 poflibility of proving from thefe general exprefiions that the Co- 
 rinthians nominally and oftenfibly ruled as well as their ciders, it is 
 no lefs plain that it cannot be evinced from them thafthey judged 
 and voted in any form, any more than it can be eflablilhed from 
 the expreflions employed refpecling the Ifraelites, that their con- 
 fent and vote were neceffary to be aftced before any fentcnce could 
 be pafTed by their civil judges. 
 
 f We know however, as will afterwards be noticed, that in the 
 cafe of the reference of the church of Antioch to that at Jerufa- 
 lem, the apoftles, and elders, and brethren, did not repair to An- 
 tioch to difcufs the matter in the hearing of thefe Chriftians, and 
 anfwer their objefticns; and we will attempt to fhew, that it was 
 not an extraordinary inftance. And even your brother Mr. Ewing, 
 Avho quotes with fuch approbation (p. 83.) the words of Hales 
 vefpeding the Synod of Dort, " That it went like a watch ; the 
 *' main wheels of which, upon which the whole bufmels turns, 
 " are leaft in fight ; for all things of moment were a£led in pri- 
 " vate feflions ; and what was done in public, was only for fhew 
 " and entertainment :" that man, I fay, who quotes v.ith fuch 
 approbation this fneer at the fecrecy of the proceedings of this 
 Synod, himfelf contends, as was before obferved, for a funilar 
 fecrecy in fame of the deliberation* in his church. " Every thing,"" 
 he affirms, as was formerly remarked, " is not to be brought even 
 *' before an Independent church for general difcuflion, or for ob- 
 " taining a public declaration of the mind of each member befote 
 
Letter Vir. 113 
 
 is it a necefTary confequence, that becaufe difcipline wa3 
 to be exercifed in the prefence of all the members, each of 
 them was to exerclfe it ? Though the court of civil juftice, 
 in a particular town, may be held by the magiftrates in 
 
 " the office-bearers fhall prefume to put it in pra£\ice." He even 
 afTerts that to do fo, " would deprive the church of the benefit of 
 " government, and would endanger the caufe of truth and of Chrif- 
 " tian liberty" He infinuates of courfe, that fome of the meet- 
 ings and proceedings, even of their office-bearers, muft he private/ 
 and even explicitly declares (p. 36. 37.), that " if any of their 
 " members are offended by the decifions of the office-bearers in 
 " thefe private meetings, and cannot prevail with them to change 
 " their opinion, they muft feparate from the church." It feemSj 
 then, that even alio in this gentleman's Independent congregation, 
 while he fmiles at the jeft when uttered againft Prelhyterians, 
 in a number cfinfrances, " the office-bearers are Hke a watch; the 
 *^ main -wheels of which, upon ivhich the -whole bufinefs turns, 
 *' cLte leaji in J:ght ; for things, even of fuch moment as that a 
 " difference of fcntiment warrants feparation, are aifted in private 
 " fejpons ; and the liberty of fpeaking, at leafl upon them, which is 
 " granted to the members when they are announced in public, 
 *' after they have been determined by the office-bearers, is only 
 *' for JJje-w and entertainment" 
 
 li he fays, it is only in trivial matters, and matters which are 
 obvious, that the office-bearers are allowed to deliberate and de- 
 termine alone, without the preience and concurrence of the mem- 
 bers ; it is anfwered, that they are matters, a difference of 
 fentiment upon which, by his own acknowledgment, war- 
 rants reparation, and authorizes Chriflians, agreeably to the 
 paffage of fcripture which he cites (a Tim. iii. 5.), " to turn 
 " away" from the communion of thofe who hold them, and to 
 di.Tolve the moft iolemn and endearing relations. Is fuch a repa- 
 ration however to take place, which is often reprcfented in the 
 word of God as a thing fo ferious, and are fuch relations to be 
 diflblved, which conftitute an union To important and intimate, for 
 things which are obvious and trivial in their nature ? If fo, how 
 light and iafignificant indeed muft feparation from a church appear 
 to Independents who adopt his fentiments, and how precarious 
 and dangerous muft be the fituation of thofe focieties where they 
 are acted upon as a principle ! Need we be furprized at thofe fre- 
 
 K.3 
 
114 Letter VII. 
 
 the prefence of the inhabitants, who are invited perhaps 
 to attend, does it follow that every inhabitant, though 
 not officially a judge, is allowed either to fpeak or vote 
 upon the decilions which are paffed, before they are 
 
 quent fucceflive changes uhich appear in the conduft of fome of 
 their members, who are authorized by one of the moft eminent 
 and zealous of their miriifters, fupported as he imagines by the 
 command of fcripture, to move from their communion upon the 
 leafi alteration in their fentiments, and constitute a new church, 
 which again mufl be broken down into innumerable fragments 
 upon every new alteration, though trivial and uninterefting? 
 Such privileges may perhaps be dignified by fome with the name 
 of liberty, but it is a liberty which fcems to be more worthy of 
 the name of licenlioufncfs. Aad however it may be fuited to the 
 difpofitions of thofe who^ from impatience cf controul, cannot 
 brook that their propofals iliould not uniformly be followed in 
 the fociety to which they belong, or from imaginary advancing- 
 perfedHon in knowledge, are contiuuall^y changing in fome degree 
 their opinions, it appears to be little fitted to promote the honour 
 or interefl of reUgion, or to fubferve the advancement of practical, 
 godlinefs. Nothing undoubtedly more diredly tends to deaden 
 the influence of this principle in the heart, than the indulgence 
 of a reftlefs fchifmatic fpirit, even for matters of indifference, for 
 whicli thefe words of Mr. Ewing prefent fuch toleration. And 
 nothing evidently more infallibly leads to injure the caufe of 
 Chriftianity in the world, than fuch repeated changes of religious 
 ftUowfhip, and renunciations of fo important and endearing rela- 
 tions for every trifle, to which the fyftem of this gentleman pre- 
 fents fuch encouragement. 
 
 If it be urged, that he doc: not recommend, but only permits, 
 thefe feparations ; it is anfwcred, that he declares in the moft 
 decided terms (p. 37.), " that thofe who cannot make their I.re- 
 " thren hear them in what they believe to be the doctrine of 
 " fcripture (i. e. by the fuppofition, even in trivial matters) 
 " are at perfeB liberty, as they are in ditty hound, from fuch bre- 
 " thren to turn away : % Tim. iii. 5." And it is remarkable that 
 the paflage which he adduces for this feparation, even for thefe 
 trivial differences, denotes a turning away from them, which is 
 totally incompatible even with their participating occafionally in 
 the facrament ©f the fupper with the men whom they thvis leavs. 
 
Letter VII. 115 
 
 adopted ? Admitting, alfo, that all the Corinthians were 
 to put away from themfelves this wicked perfon, it can- 
 r.ot be inferred that every member was to do fo, either 
 virtually or nominally, as an ecclefiaftical judge, but, as 
 
 If it be alleged on the contrary, to fave his honour, that it is 
 matters of importance about which Mr. Ewing fpeaks, and by dif- 
 ference of opinion upon which, he confiders reparation as warrant- 
 able ; it is replied, that iuch an affirmation is completely oppofite 
 to the whole of his reafoning in the two preceding pages, which 
 avowedly refers only to things " trivial and obvious." And it 
 difcovers a very flriking inconfiftency in this writer, who, while 
 he profeffes to be an Indepaulcut, and to tranfadt all his bufinefs 
 of fuperior importance in the prefence of his members, and with 
 their -yo/f and c^^/z/i-w/, afTerts, according to this view, in the pre- 
 fent paffage, that the office-bearers alone are occaiionally to decide 
 in private, and even upon points of the highefc magnitude, and' 
 that nothing remains for the members, when they are laid before 
 them in public, but compliance, or feparation!! Inftead there-» 
 fore of viewiag him or his congregation as Independents, muft they 
 not more properly be confidered zsfiarJ'ing alone amidft the reft, 
 of their brethren ? And inftead of being clafTed with the other 
 Tabernacle Congregational focieties, fince their principles are a 
 mixture of Independency and Prejlytery, might they not >nore ac- , 
 curately be denominated the Neiv Prejhyierian Independent Church ? 
 
 The fum, then, of thefe remarks is briefly this, that the matters 
 of which he fpeaks are either /rffia/ / and confequently it muft 
 be confidered as one of the principles of his church, ih?,t feparation 
 for trifes, however inftgnificanty is the auty of Chrijliam : or the 
 points to witich he refers are primary and important ; and of 
 courfe it will follow, as he affirms, that the office-bearers are to 
 decide refpe£ling them, without allowing the members to be pre- 
 fent, or to judge and vote ; that while he avows himfeif an Inde^ 
 pendent, he is in fadl a Prefbyterian ; and that his people, who 
 imagine themfelves poffefiTed of the pur eft congregational liter ly, are 
 fubjecl to all the power and authority of Pvefbytery, v/hich to 
 you and your brethren appear fo defpotic. 
 
 In fine, it is remarkable that while there is nothing in Pref^ 
 bytery to prevent the meetings of its ecclefiaftical rulers from 
 being as open to the hearing and attendance of the people as thofe 
 of Indepen4ents, and while even their nioftjpnV«/f meetings, even 
 
Ii6 Letter VIL 
 
 has been already evinced, only the elders ; while at the fame' 
 time it was his duty, by every proper teitimony of refpe(ft- 
 ful acquiefcence in the fentence of the latter, and by ab- 
 ftaining even from all unneceffary intercourfe vi^ith the of- 
 
 npon the moft delicate points, are open to all who have bufuiefs 
 in them, their proceedings commonly are much more public, for 
 the examination of the world, than thofe of the latter. While 
 liot a fingle flranger of another denomination, and much lels of 
 the profane and irreligious of men, is permitted to be prefent 
 during the difcuffions which take place in an Independent church, 
 the confultations and difcuflions of a Prefbytery, or Synod, or 
 General AHembly, are concealed from none, but are conducted iii 
 the audience and under the fcrutiny of all. Even their moft in- 
 veterate enemies are admitted to hear them, and their determi- 
 nations and reafonings are fubmitted to their kecnefl: and clofeft 
 inveftigation. Does not this plan then at leaft, whatever may be 
 the occafional faults of its adminifirators, feem Letter fitted, iii 
 this view alfo, to fecure upright and impartial jiijike, than that of 
 Independency, where every thing is hid from the infpedion of 
 the world, and not a fmgle witnels of their tranfadlions is admit- 
 ted ? If the failings and errors which are fometimcs diicovered 
 in ecclefiaftical courts by Prefbyterian rulers are better knowri 
 than thofe of Independents, dees it not arife from the fuperiof 
 candour and publicity of their fVflem ? and were the deliberations 
 and debates of Independent churches as open to our infpedion, 
 might we not vvitncfs in them alio no lefs imperfedion and im- 
 propriety ? And upon the whole, while fuch is the opennefs and 
 publicity of this plan, and while even its moft private bufinefs, 
 with the decifion vvhich has been formed upon it, muft at Icaft be 
 announced in a public meeting, can we fail to be aftonillied at 
 tlie aflertion of Mr. Haldane (p. 73. of his Addrefs), that " lefs 
 " danger is to be apprehended in a political ligiit, admitting 
 " there were caufe for any, from unconneded congregational 
 ** churches than from thofe called Epifcopalian or Prefbytcrian. 
 " In the one of thefe" fays he, " a few individuals cxercife the 
 " whole authority'" (fo that it feems there is authority even among 
 Independents); "in the other, it is vefted in SefTions, which 
 " generally are fmall fecret meetings. Synods, and Prefbyteries, 
 " greater and ielTer affiliated, and correfponding focieties, under 
 ** one parent ibciety, called a General Aflembly." Is a body, 
 
Letter VII. i i^ 
 
 fender in common life *, in his private capacity, to confirm 
 their deed. And though it (hould be admitted moreover^ 
 that the " fentence," as we are told, 2 Cor. ii. 6. " was 
 *' injlictedhj many,** it< will not follow that it v!^^ pajfed 
 by many, or all of them, for there is an efTential dlitinftion, 
 in every government, between the making and the infl'ict'wn 
 of a fentence. The former might be performed only by 
 ay^'w who were rulers, v.-hiie the latter might be executed 
 by all the members of the church, who were bound to 
 concur with the elders, by inflidling the fentence ; and 
 who were all, as we have faid, under an obligation to 
 refufe to have feilowfnip with him, that he might be 
 afhamed, and that others might fear. 
 
 Is it faid, in fhort, that as all the Corinthians avo 
 commanded to forgive their offending brother (2 Cor. 
 ii. 7. — 10.), they mull «// have been rulers ? It is replied, 
 that this confequence 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 JIatwnSi 
 fo they were all to forgive him upon tokens of his repent- 
 ance, and exprefs their forgivenefs in a manner which 
 vt2i^ ixiitt^ to their fituation in the church. Thofe who 
 were rulers, and were offended by him in that capacity, 
 were commanded as fuch to forgive him, and reftore 
 him again to the privileges of their fociety ; and thofe 
 
 the greater part of the meetings of whofe rulers are free to the 
 hearing and examination of all, and whofe deliberations are only- 
 private, as in the beft regulated civil authoritative courts, when 
 the bufineis requires it — is this body, I fay, though governed by 
 a gradual fubordination of courts, a more ftriking image of thofe 
 revolutionary clubs which once threatened the fubverfion and 
 deftruftion of our kingdom, than a body, aimofl; all whofs proceed- 
 ings are conducHied in fecret, and where nothing in the deliberations 
 of almoft any of their courts is tranfacled in the prefence and 
 hearing of the world ? 
 
 * Sec, and confult partlcula.rly, I Cor. v. 9. II. 
 
2i8 Letter Vlf, 
 
 W'lio were members, and had been offended by him asfuch, 
 on account of the diflionour which he had done to God, 
 were called asfuch to exprefs their forgivenefs, and reftore 
 him once more to the comforts and advantages of private 
 fellowfhip. Thus it would appear, that neither from this 
 in particular, nor from any other expreffion contained ia 
 this paffage, we are warranted to conclude that the 
 members at large, in common with the rulers, are en- 
 titled to govern the church of Chrill. 
 
 LETTER Vlir. 
 SIR, 
 
 In proof of your opinion you farther affirm (p.38.), that 
 the people mull be admitted to judge and vote, becaufe, 
 in the reference to the apoftles and dders at Jerufalern 
 from the church of Antiocb, " they are reprefented as 
 ** all uniting in the decifion that was formed on the 
 *< queftion appealed." Thus we are told, that " it 
 " pleafed the apoftles and elders, with the whole churchy 
 " to fend chofen men of their company to Antioch, with 
 ** Paul and Barnabas,'^ ^c. ; and " that they wrote 
 *< letters by them after this manner: The apoftles, and 
 " elders, and brethren^ fend greeting unto the brethren 
 ** which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and 
 " Cilicia." Let it be fuppofed for a moment, that the 
 brethren, here mentioned, were not the other minifters 
 who were then at Jerufalern befides the apoftles and 
 elders : if it be afferted that tliefe members, in any form, 
 voted and judged in the cafe referred to, while it feems 
 to eftablifh in one view, it completely fubverts in another, 
 the fcheme for which it is urged. You argue againft; 
 Preft)yterians when they attempt to dcmonftrate from 
 this paflage, that one congregation, with its rulers, may 
 
Letter VIII. 119 
 
 be fubje<9: to the rulers of a number of congregations 
 met as a Pre/bytery, and ttll them that this cafe was 
 extraordinary. Mr. Ewing obferves, in his Ledlure, 
 p. 77. that " the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were very 
 ** generally enjoyed in the church at Jerufalem j" and 
 feems to iufinuate from this, the propriety of their being 
 admitted, in a particular view, as ecchfiajlical arbiters ^ 
 to adopt and tranfmit the judgment of the apoftles and 
 elders as their judgment. You your felf alfo affirm, that 
 all who pafTed this decifion were under this influence, 
 though in different degrees : for while you rcprefent the 
 apoftlcs, and elders, and brethren, *' as united in mak- 
 *' ing it," you declare it to be extraordinary ; adding, 
 (p. 44.), " if it was not extraordinary, let us fee to 
 *' what it will lead." But if the argument which is ad- 
 vanced by Prefbyterians from this paffage for a court of 
 review, above the minifters or elders of a particular con- 
 gregation, compofcd of the minifters of a number of 
 congregations, feems to you inconclufive, becaufe this 
 affembly was infpired, and delivered an extraordinary in- 
 fpired decifion, muft it not be equally inconclufive when 
 urged by Independents for the right of the people to 
 judge and vote in their religious aflemblies ? If the 
 minifters and elders of different congregations now, who 
 correfpond to the elders affociated with the apoftles, are 
 not to judge as a Prejbytery in matters which relate to 
 another congregation, becaufe, 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 people now are to judge 
 and vote, becaufe the people at Jerufalem judged and voted 
 under the guidance of this extraordinary infallible energy ? 
 Is it alleged with Mr. Ewing (p. 78.), that though the 
 apoftles and elders were infpired, Prefbyterians allow 
 their minifters, whom they call their fucceffors, though 
 not infpired, to judge and rule, and why not allow the 
 
123 Letter VIII. 
 
 members now to judge and vote, fmce they are thf/uc- 
 cejfors of thofe ancient members who fat and judged in 
 this infpired aflembiy ? We allow, that If it could be 
 proved that this aflembiy was infpired^ no argument 
 would be urged by Prefbyterians for the minifters and 
 elders of a number of congregations deliberating, as an 
 authoritative court of review, in any appeal which is 
 made, as in the cafe here recorded, by a fingle church. 
 It follows therefore, upon his own principles as well as 
 thofe of Prefbyterians i that fince he and his brethren con- 
 fider this affembly as compofed of perfons fupernaturally 
 qualified for the decifion which they delivered, in no 
 point of view are they entitled to conclude, from what 
 they apprehend to be faid of the hrethreus judging in this 
 cxtraordincuj meeting, and under this miraculous injlucnce, 
 that members «ow, upon common occafions, are warrant- 
 ed to judge in the church of God. 
 
 The argument, befides, adduced by you and Mr, 
 Ewing, in common with Mr. Glafs, for the right of the 
 members to judge at prefent in the affairs of the church, 
 from what is here fald of the brethren at Jerufalem, if It 
 prove any thing, proves undoubtedly too much. It de- 
 monftrates not merely their right to judge and vote in 
 matters which relate to their oitm, but in thofe which 
 concern even another congregation. But does not this con- 
 tradict a firll principle of Independency, that neither the 
 members nor the rulers of one congregation have a right 
 to interfere, even according to your own acknowledgment 
 (p. 30.), and according to the favourite pofition of Glafs 
 which he fo keenly defends*, with any other congrega- 
 tion under heaven ? Befides, would not the fubordination 
 to which this argument leads, a fubordination of a par- 
 ticular congregation, not merely, as Prefbyterians main- 
 tain, to the minifleis and lay-elders, the ivifejl and moji 
 
 * fiee his Works, vol. i. p. 155. — %o%. 
 
Letter Vlil. I2l 
 
 enlightened of a number of congregations, but to the memlers 
 indifcr'iminotely of a filler-congregation, be much more in- 
 tolerable, even upon your own principles, than that for 
 which the former contend ? On the whole, whether this 
 aiTembly was infpired, or not infpired, if it be afierted that 
 the brethren mull judge now becaufe they judged then, 
 it will neceflarily follow, not only that the brethren of 
 one congregation may judge in matters which are to bind 
 the brethren of another congregation, but that they may 
 judge of them finally while the latter are not prefent, nor 
 give their confcnt. But does not this contradi£l alfo 
 another Independent principle, as ftated by you, p. 30. 
 " That whatever is done by thofe who are appointed to 
 ^* rule, is carried on in the prefence of the general body, 
 '^' and with their confcnt ?" And will it not completely 
 (>ppofe another favourite pofition of Giafs, and Lockler, 
 and other Independents, " That nothing can be binding 
 " upon any fociety v^-hete ttieir acquiefcence and votes 
 -^^ have not previouHy been a&ed and obtained :" 
 
 Or is it faid, that the affembly at Jerufalem was not 
 u-:fpired, and that the reference made to them was fimply 
 {or opinion and aih ice .^ On this fuppoiiLion, i\o judicial 
 power at all was exercifed, no aft oi government was per- 
 formed by any cf them ; and confcquently, though it 
 were admitted that the brethren at Jerufalem were allow- 
 ed, along v/ith the apoilles and elders, tojlate their opinion 
 4;pou the controverted points, no argument can be ad- 
 duced from, it for tlie right of the brethren at prefent 
 to govern and vote in the church. Governing the church 
 and exerci/ing difcipJine are certainly very different from 
 a mere Jlatement of opinion upon a controverted point, 
 which either might be received or rejcifled- And if the 
 apoilles, and elders, and members, in the cafe before us, 
 merely gave an advice, and dated an. opinion (as is done 
 by the occafional affociations of your minillers, while, as 
 you declare, p. 31. 32. ^c. it is not binding upon any 
 L 
 
122. Letter VIII. 
 
 -of your congregations), it will never follow that becaufc 
 the brethren were permitted to do this, they are autno- 
 rized to govern or exercife difcipline. In no view then 
 does any argureient feem to be deducible from this pafTage, 
 for the right of the people to judge and vote in matters 
 which relate to the government and difcipline of the 
 church of Ch rift. 
 
 Again, fiippofing that this affembly at Jerufalem was 
 neither an extraordinary affembly, nor a meeting convened 
 merely for delivering an advice, but, as will afterwards at 
 leaft be attempted to be proved, an auihorUathe, though an 
 vmnfptred ecclefiaftical court, I do not fee how any argu- 
 ment can be drawn from it for the right of the members 
 to judge in the church. If fo, it would follow, as has 
 been already faid, that, like the brethren at Jerufalem, 
 the brethren now could exercife even an authontaiive 
 po'-iver ; that they would be entitled likewife, like thofe 
 at Jerufalem, to govern not only their own, but even 
 other congregations ; and that they would be warranted 
 alfo authoritatively to govern thefe congregations, even 
 when they were not prefent, and could not confent to 
 their decifions ; all of which fuppofitions are manifeftly 
 inconfiftent with the declared principles of Independents. 
 The truth therefore feems to be, according to the fenti- 
 ments of fome Prefbyterians, that though the members 
 at Jerufalem exprefled their acquiefcence in the decifion 
 of the apoftlcs and elders (a circumftance which could 
 r.ot fail to have uncommon weight upon the minds of 
 the believing Jews at Antioch, as they, muft previoufly 
 have been no lefs attached than themfelves to the diftin- 
 guiftilng peculiarities of the law of Mofes), they by no 
 -means appear to have judged authoritatively, or even 
 voted in the matter. It was to the apoftles and elders 
 alone, and not to the members, that the church at An- 
 .tioch are faid to have referred their caufe : A6ls xv. 2. 
 |5ut if the members at Jerufalem, who were greatly moje 
 
Letter VIII. 125 
 
 numerous than the apoftles and elders, fat In the court, 
 and if the decifion could have been carried only, accord- 
 ing to the conftitution of the Chriftian church, if agree- 
 able to a majority of them, then fince, on account of 
 their number, it mud have been known at Ant'och that 
 it was they alone principally who were to fix the determi- 
 nation, the reference fhould have been made principally 
 to them. It is the apoftles and elders, too, alone (ver. 6.) 
 w'ho are faid to have come together to confider the matter, 
 Eut if it was confidered hy the brethren as well as by them, 
 and, as is witnefTed at prefent in Independent congregations, 
 could not he determined 'UJithout their confent, how is it that 
 they are not mentioned as conllituting a part of that 
 aflembly which convened to deliberate on this intereft- 
 ing reference. During the dehberation, moreover, it 
 was only the apoftles and elders, and not the brethren, 
 who are faid to have fpoken ; and when the decifioa 
 was made, and fent away, it is called " the decrees, not 
 " of t|ie apoftles, and elders, and brethren" (Ads 
 xvi. 4.), as we rauft naturally have expedled upon the 
 principles of Independents, but " the decrees" merely 
 ** of the apoftles and elders." This appears to be wholly 
 inexplicable upon the fcheme of thofe Independents who 
 fuppofe that this meeting was but an ordinary affembly, 
 in which the private members fat as well as the apoftles- 
 and elders, and as they were allowed equally to exprefs 
 their judgment and ftate their votiC, from their fuperior 
 number, muft have had more influence than they in paff- 
 ing the determination. 
 
 It is indeed faid (Ads xv. 12.), that <* all the multl- 
 " tude kept filence, and gave audience to Barnabas and 
 « Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had 
 " wrought among the Gentiles by them." But allowing 
 that by the multitude we are here to underftand the 
 private members, and not the body of the apoftles and 
 other minifters, who certainly would conftitute a very 
 L2 
 
1^4 Letter VIII. 
 
 numerous aflembly, it cannot be den:ionfi:rated from their 
 being faid to have kept filence during the fpeeches of 
 thefe minifters, that they had previoully fpcken and 
 debated in this meeting. All that is neceffarily fuggeftcd 
 is, that during this wonderful narrative of fafts, " they 
 ** were quiet, or held their peace from that noife or 
 ** murmuring" which is often witneffed in multitudes, 
 and which, perhaps, might have been experienced durinti^ 
 the preceding fpeeches ; \n other words, they liftened 
 attentively. Does it follow however, that becaufe the 
 attention of the audience was completely commanded, 
 that the whole of the multitude, as v/ell as the apoftles 
 and elders, had publicly fpoken as judges upon this occa- 
 iion ? It is alfo laid, that " it pleafed the whole church, 
 '* as well as the apoftles and elders (ver. 22.), to fend 
 " chofen men with their determination to Antioch.'* 
 Admitting however, that by the w hole church, or aflembly 
 (^iKKX/iffKn), is not intended the reft o^ the office-bearers yffho 
 compofed tins meeting beiides the apoftles and elders, it 
 deferves to be remarked, fays the ingenious Mr. Muir^ 
 that what is here ftated refpeding the members, if it be 
 the members who are meant, did not take- place till the 
 deliberation was finilhed, and the fentence was paft*ed, 
 which, as we have now feen, was performed entirely 
 by the apoftles and elders. The church, moreover, 
 lie adds, if we choofe rather to retain this tranflation 
 of the word, and intend by it the members, might well 
 be faid to be pleafed with the meafure, and to exprefs 
 their acquiefcence, though they were not allowed, in 
 any view, jucliciaUy to fignify their mind refpefting it. 
 The apoftles and elders might determine that two of the 
 brethren fhould go up to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas^ 
 to teftify the acquiefcence of the whole in the decifion, 
 and might call upon the multitude, as at the cledion 
 of the deacons, to look out from among themfelves 
 two men for this purpofe. Upon their complying with 
 
Letter VIII. 125 
 
 the requeft, and choofing from among themfelves Judas 
 and Silas, it might ilridly be faid that it pleafed them as 
 well as the apoliles and elders, to fend thefe brethren to 
 the church at Antioch, while yet, agreeably to the 
 hidory, they neither publicly judged nor voted in the 
 matter. But the letters it may be faid, which were 
 written to Antioch, were written in the name of the 
 brethren as well as of the apoflles and elders ; and the 
 whole of them are reprefented as faying to the church at 
 Antioch (ver. 28.), that it feemed good to them as well 
 as to the Holy Ghoft, to lay upon them no greater 
 burden than 'necelfary things. It feems plain however, 
 that it might be reprefented as pleafing the members, if 
 they be referred to, only fo far as actjt.'iejYwg in the 
 decition which was made by the apoflles and elders, and 
 not as themfelves joining judicially in the deliberation 
 and determination ; and that it is in this view that their 
 names are inferted in the letters. The reference was not 
 made to them, and would they ever have prefumed to 
 have judged in a caufe in which they were not appealed 
 to ? They are never named among thofe who came 
 together to confider the matter, and can we fuppofe that, 
 if they did not meet either for dehberation or decifion, 
 they determined in this caufe, either 'virtually or o/lenjiblyt 
 as ecclefiaftical judges ? Befides, when the facred hillorian 
 fpeaks of the decifion which was contained in thefe letters, 
 and of the perfuns who paffed it as ecclefiatlical judges, 
 he aaTirms, as has been faid repeatedly, that it was pro- 
 nounced only by the apoftles and elders ; chap. xvi. 
 ver. 4. To make the hillorian therefore conjljlent nv'ith 
 himfelf, it is neceifary to confider him here as telling us, 
 that the brethren merely acquiefced in what was done by 
 the apoilles and elders. Or if it be faid once more with 
 Mr. Ewing *, that though the brethren did not at firft 
 
 See his Ledure, p. 77. near^ths foot, 
 
 ^3 
 
126 Letter VIII. 
 
 judge in thiVappeal, yet they had the honour o^ adopting 
 and tranfm'itting the judgment of the apoftles and elders 
 as their judgment ? It is anfwered, that if this amounted 
 to any thing more than a mere declaration of their 
 acquiefcence and approbation — if it contained in it any- 
 thing which can be confidered as judicial, it is liable to 
 all the objections we havt mentionedc It was a tranf- 
 mitting their judgment as ecclefiallical judges, in a cafe 
 in which they were never appealed to : it was a judicial 
 examination and declfion of a matter which they are 
 never even faid to have aiTembkd with the apoftles and 
 elders to confider : and it was a tranfmitting their judg- 
 ment with all the authority of arbiters (if they too, as 
 he affirms, p. 78. at the top, are among the pevfons who 
 declare that it feemed good to ihtm judicially to lay upon 
 the difciples at Antioch necefTary burdens), while, even 
 upon this gentleman's principles, and thofe of every Inde- 
 pendent, they were not entitled to lay upon them any bur- 
 den ; and while, as has been ftated, in the account after- 
 wards delivered of thofe who then judged, and laid thia 
 burden upon the dlfclples, their name is never mentioned. 
 How could the brethren of one congregation lay judicially 
 any necefTary burdens upon the brethren of another con- 
 gregation, call it an adopting or tranfmitting the judg- 
 ment of the apoftles and elders, or what you pleafe ? Or 
 if it was not an ojlenfible judicial power, but fimply of the 
 kind which is claimed by the members of an Independent 
 congregation that is fuppofed to have been exercifed by 
 thefe members at Jerufalem, upon what ground^ and I 
 requejl it to be particularly confidered, could they exercife 
 even this over the members at Antioch ? Is it confiftent 
 with the diftinguiftiing principles of Independents, to 
 allow to the members of one of their churches the fame 
 power of judging over the members of another, by 
 nuhatever name you call it, which is uniformly exerted by 
 them before any thing can be paffed in their o'wn fociety ? 
 
Letter VIII. 127 
 
 But if it be repugnant even to the principles oi Independents 
 them/elves, to grant to the members of one congregation 
 the fame power of judging as to the affairs of another 
 which they aflume in their own, upon what ground can 
 they affirm that a power merely of this kind, though 
 nominally inferior to that of the miniflers, was exercifed 
 by the members of the church at Jerufalem, though 
 alTociated with the apollles and elders, over the members 
 at Antioch ? On the whole it may be remarked, that 
 as Mr. Ewing admits (p. 77.) that from this decifion 
 of the apoftles there was no di[fent ox appeal^ even though 
 it fhould be granted that the brethren were allowed to 
 adopt and tranfmit to the church at Antioch their 
 judgment as their own, it feetns impoffible to eftablifli 
 from it the right of the brethren not only to adopt, 
 if they are pleafed, but, as is frequently witneffed, 
 to rejedl and nuUlfy^ if they are diifatisfied, the decifions 
 of their office-bearers. Becaufe they were permitted, in 
 one inilance, to teflify their approbation of the determina- 
 tion of their rulers, and adopt, as their judgment, a judg- 
 ment from which they could neither dljfent nor appeal^ 
 will it ever follow that if they are not pleafed with a 
 decifion or propofal of their rulers, they have power to 
 fet it afide, and bring forward another, however contrary 
 to the mind of the former ? 
 
 On a review, then, of this as well as the preceding paf- 
 fages, on which your fcheme is founded, it does not appear 
 that we are warranted by them to believe that the mem- 
 bers of the church, in every deliberation, are to exprefs 
 their judgment, and ftate their vote ; while, from the 
 various arguments which were adduced before, it feeras 
 neceflarily to follow that the elders alone, without the 
 confent and judgment of the people, are authorized to 
 govern the church of God. 
 
C 128 J 
 
 APPENDIX TO LETTER VIII. 
 
 Whatever may be the declarations of fcripture 
 with regard to this matter, it "has been urged by Inde- 
 pendents with the utmofl: confidence, that ecclefiaftical 
 antiquity univerfally affirms that fuch privileges were 
 granted to the Chriftian people in the primitive church. 
 Mr. Ewlng, in particular, has quoted with approbation 
 King's Inquiry into the Primitive Church, as fupporting 
 his opinion, ♦* that the largell churches, in the third 
 " century, were only fingle congregations ;" and Glafs 
 has adduced the authority of Cyprian, to fhew that, at 
 that period, every thing was done according to the 
 determination of the people. But admitting that thefe 
 alTertions could not be difproved, it might be fufficient 
 to reply to them in the very decided expreifions of the 
 firft of thefe writers, refpe£ling the validity of arguntents 
 deduced from antiquity againil the docfcrine of Lay-preach- 
 ing. *' Mr. Dick," fays he, in his Remarks upon a 
 Sermon in Refutation of Lay-preaching, " confirms his 
 ** argument," to ufe Mr. Ewing's own dignified f afire, 
 " by fome anecdotes taken from ecclefiafiical hillory. As 
 « my Bible ilops at the end of the book of the Revelation, 
 *' / am not "jery careful to anfiver in thefe matters J^ Why 
 then, if the word of God be perfed, and fitted to fur- 
 nifn us thoroughly for every good work, fhould Indepen- 
 dents wifh that Prefbyterians fhould be careful to anfvvcF 
 them in this matter, even allowing that they could dcmon- 
 llrate that in the primitive churches, it was by the vote 
 of the people that every meafure was adopted or rejeded ? 
 Befides, we are certain from the facred oracles, as well 
 as the earlieil ecclefiallical 'writers, that many flagrant 
 errors were admitted in the church, both in the days of 
 the apoftles, and in the period which immediately fucceed- 
 
Appendix, 5cC. 129 
 
 id their death *. To prove that a thing is lawful 
 or proper, it is not fuiHcient to tell us, that it was 
 very generally pradifed by the church in the primi- 
 tive ages, but it muft be fhewn to be sgreeable to the 
 word of God. To this Itandard we are to bring their 
 praBlces as well as their doctrines ; and by it alone, not- 
 withltanding their proximity to the apofties in point of 
 time, are to decide whether what was admitted and 
 followed by them iTiould be adopted and imitated, or 
 rejcfled and fet afide. 
 
 Even when we examine the remains of ecclefiaftical 
 antiquity on the point in queftion, to afcertain, not what 
 fhould be followed as an infallible example, but v.'hat was 
 then acknowledged as the conftitution of the church, there 
 are various conliderations which demand our attention, 
 ift. It is probable that in different churches, the govern- 
 ment, as well as worfliip and ceremonies, were different. 
 Accordingly, we find that fome of the early fathers 
 afcribe to the people a greater, and fome of them a 
 
 * See IVIofneim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, &,:. — It is remarkable 
 alfo, that mod of tlie teftimonies produced by King, for the power 
 which Independents would give to the people, are taken from 
 Cyprian, a father who flourifiied in the third century. But, fays 
 an Independent (Liverpool Theological Repofit. vol. iv. p. 306.), 
 when he would invalidate the evidence adduced by King, from 
 ecclefiaftical antiquity, for Prefbyterian Synods, " All the inftances 
 " of them, which Lord King produces, are in the third century, 
 " and therefore v/ithia a time when infant-communion, confc- 
 " cration of elements, ufe of chrifm, fign of the crofs, and other 
 " errors in do£lrine and difcipline, had entered into, and obtained 
 " a footing in the church of Chrift." Now, if this circumftance 
 appear to Independents in general to deftroy the force of the 
 argument which is brought from the writings of Cyprian for 
 Prejbyterian Synodsy muft it not equally deftroy the JlrongeJ} and 
 moft numerous argiimsnts of Independents from ecclefiaftical anti- 
 quity, which are founded on the fenfe which they attach to cer- 
 tain pafiTages collc<fted from the writings of the fame ancient 
 father ? 
 
130 Appendix to 
 
 fmaller portion of power. 2dly, As the clergy, when 
 afterwards raifed, by the extravagant and imprudent 
 liberah'ty of Conilantine, to -a dignity and grandeur like 
 that of fecular princes, infringed the rights and privileges 
 of the people, fo, in the preceding ages, when the 
 governors of the church were fo entirely dependent upon 
 the caprices of the people, they might experience it to 
 be requifite to recede in fome meafure from their legiti- 
 mate rights, and grant to the people a degree of power 
 to which they were not entitled. Allowing, then, that' 
 independents could prove that the fathers granted to the 
 people, in many of their churches, a degree of power- 
 as great as that for which they now contend, it is evident 
 that on their own principles, as well as what has nov/ 
 been ftated, no argument can be advanced from it for a 
 fimilar power to Chriilian members in the prefent day. 
 It mufl previoufly be proved that the clergy were not 
 induced to grant them this power from confiderations, 
 perhaps, of a falfe and reprehenfible prudence ; and that, 
 if they adled from conviftion, their fentiments, upon this 
 head, are not to be numbered among their errors, but, 
 as they are confirmed by fcripture, are to be reckoned 
 among their excellencies, and to be regarded by us as 
 patterns for our imitation. 
 
 That thefe paffages moreover produced by King, from 
 a few of the fathers, will warrant the conclufion which 
 he wifhes to draw from them, is by no means evident. 
 In his very fiifl; authority, from Clemens Romanus 
 (p. 116.), he takes it for granted, that the term ttM^o^ 
 denotes the members, when, as will afterwards be 
 proved, it is frequently applied only to the rulers of the 
 church ; and if it fignify the members, he forgets to (hew 
 that what they are here affirmed by Clemens to perform, 
 might not be performed by them by means of their 
 office-bearers. His fecond authority, from Origen, 
 reprefents a criminal as appearing before a congrega- 
 
Letter VIII. , 131 
 
 lion, but fays not a word of his being judged by them. 
 And even the ftrongeft expreffion adduced from Cyprian 
 refpeding the power of the people, feems to be too du- 
 bious and obfcure to authorize any certain conclufion as 
 to the corftitution of that Chriftian church. *' Ad id 
 ^* vera (fays that father, Epift. v. p. 12. edit. Rigalt.) 
 <« quod fcripferunt mihi comprefbyteri noftri Donatus et 
 ** Fortunatus, Novatus et Gordius, folus refcribere nihil 
 " potui ; quando a primordio epifcopatus mei ftatuerim, 
 " nihil fine confilio veftro, et finu confenfu plebis, mea 
 " privatim fententia gerere." Now, as it is impoffible 
 from the Epiftle to difcover the particular nature of the 
 bufinefs of which Cyprian fpeaks, it feems unfair in 
 King to build upon the exprelTions which he employs 
 refpedling it a conelufion fo general, as that, in every 
 bufinefs, nothing was done by Cyprian without previoufly 
 obtaining the confent of the people. Gulartius and 
 Junius, whofe authority unqueflionably as judges of the 
 conftitution of the primitive church {lands very high, 
 inform us, in their Notes on this pafTage, that Cyprian 
 probably refers to an ordination, and that all that he fays 
 is merely that he never did any thing of that i/W without 
 the advice of his fellow- prcfbyters, and the confent of the 
 people. " Nempe agebatur de aliqua elc6lione quam 
 ** Cypriano quidam e Prefbyterio fuggefferant, eo quod 
 " ecclefia ex perfecutionibus, parte fui Prefbyterii deftitu- 
 " ta effet. Refpondet nihil fe in hac caufa unquam facerc 
 ♦* voluifle quin et Prefbyterii confilium et plebis confenfum 
 " adhiberet." But what though the people are here 
 declared by Cyprian (and the fuppofition is as natural as 
 any which can be adopted) to have a right to be confulted, 
 as to their opinion and confent, before a minifter is ordain- 
 ed ; and what though it is afferted by this father, that he 
 did nothing of this kind without thus confulting them ; 
 will that demonftrate, as King very roundly affirms 
 (p. 106.), " that all things relating to the government 
 
132 Appendix to 
 
 " and policy of the church were performed by the joint 
 ^^ confent and adminiilrations of the clergy and people.** 
 The afTertion of King (p. 121.) that Cyprian writes, 
 that ** whoever was excommunicated, it was hy the divine 
 ^^ fuffrages o/the people" (Epill. xl. ad Plebem), fecms 
 to be equally rafii and unfounded. Cyprian indeed fpcaks 
 of the feparation of {iivt fchifmatic prefbyters from the 
 church of Carthage, who, attaching themfelves to the 
 faction of Fellciffimus, had oppofed the miniftry of this 
 venerable father, and even queftioned his right to dif- 
 charge his function. So far however is Cyprian from 
 affirming that thefe prefbyters had been excommunicated 
 by the votes of the people, that he tells us exprefsly they 
 zoere excommunicated by none, nehiier peoJ>le nor ojfice-hearers^ 
 but had voluntarily Infii6:ed upon themfelves the punifh- 
 ment which they deferved, and expelled themfelves from 
 the communion of the church. <' Et quidem de Dei 
 '' providentia (fays he, p. 5S.) nobis hoc nee volen- 
 " tibus nee optantibus, immo et ignofcentibas et tacen- 
 *' tibus, posnas quas meruerant rependerunt, ut a nobis 
 ** non ejeSll ultra fe ejkerent, ipfi in fe pro confcientia fua 
 *' fententiam darent, fecundum veftra divina fufFragia 
 *' conjurati et fcelerati de ecclefia fponte fe pelleretit.^* 
 Mention is Indeed made of the votes of the people ; and 
 it is intimated, that thefe perfons were conjurati et fcelerati^ 
 or wicked m.en and confpirators, according to their votes. 
 It does not appear hov^ever, that ihefe votes had been 
 a;iven by an afkmbly of the people met judicially, as 
 ecclcfiaftical governors, to coniider their conduct. Had 
 fuch an aflerabiy been called, and fuch a fentence pro- 
 nounced, it is difficult to conceive how thefe men would 
 have been permitted to remain in the communion of the 
 church, and to officiate as minifters. Such a determina- 
 tion, if pronounced by the members together with their 
 office-bearers, as thofe who were over thefe prefbyters 
 in the Lord, neceflarlly Involved in It an exclufion at 
 
Letter VIII. 133 
 
 E.t once from their privileges as members, and their 
 fundlion as minifters ; and fince no fuch punifliment was 
 infli6led upon them, though they were declared by thefe 
 votes to be wicked and confpirators, it is mod probable 
 that the votes were not delivered by the people as an 
 aflembly of ecclefiaftical arbiters convened to judge and 
 punifli thefe offenders, but as met in a different charafter, 
 and for a different purpofe. But in what charafter, 
 it may be afked, had the people met when they delivered 
 thefe votes, and for what purpofe was it requifite that 
 they fhould vote at all ? We anfwer, that thefe favourers 
 of Feliciffimus had endeavoured to alienate the minds of 
 his congregation from the miniftry of Cyprian, and 
 had prompted them publicly to rejcd his authority, 
 and no longer acknowledge him as a Chriftian bifhop. 
 '^* Hi (fays that father) fomenta olim quibufdam confcffo- 
 " ribus et hortamenta tribuebant, ne concordarent cum 
 " epifcopofuo, nee ecclefiafticam difciplinam cum fide et 
 ^' quiete juxta prsecepta Dominica continerent, ne 
 ^* confeffionis fuse gloriam incorrupta et immaculata 
 «' converfatione fervarcnt." And again, " Ac ne pa- 
 " rum fuilfet corrupifTe quorumdam confefforum men- 
 *' tes, tt ccntra-facerdottum Dei. porticnem ruptae fratcr- 
 *' nitatis armare volui/fe.^^ In confequence however of 
 the attempts of thefe men to miilead and feduce them, 
 it is likely that the people would alTemble in a body, to 
 confider whether they would adhere to the miniftry of 
 their pallor, or connedt themfelves with the friends and 
 followers of FellcilTimus. On this occafion a vote would 
 be taken, and the deciiion being in favour of Cyprian, they 
 neceffarily declared the oppofite party to be conjurati et 
 fceleratt, " wicked men and confpirators." Still how- 
 ever, in the whole of this proceeding, they did not aft 
 as the ecclefiaftical judges and overfeers of thefe preiby- 
 ters, and much lefs, as King has ventured to affirm, did 
 they excommunicate them by their votes. Even after 
 M 
 
454 Appendix to 
 
 the determination which was made by the votes of the 
 members, when met in a private capacity, they ftill 
 retained their fundlion as elders ^ and confequently no 
 argument can be drawn from this pafTage, to fhew that 
 when offenders were judicially expelled from the ancient 
 church, it was by the vote of the members as well as of 
 the office-bearers. 
 
 Even though it were conceded that the members of 
 the church were allowed, for their fatisfaftion, to be 
 prefent at the deliberations of the minifters and office- 
 bearers, and were occafionally perhaps admitted to exprefs 
 their concurrence, it does not appear that every thing 
 was fubmitted to their judgment and vote, as well as to 
 the judgment and vote of the overfeers, before it was 
 finally adopted. On the contrary, it is declared by 
 Clemens Romanus, one of the earliefl fathers, in his 
 Firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, who had rebelled againft 
 their office-bearers, that the government of the church 
 •was vefted in the latter. *^ Let us, my brethren," fays 
 he, " look to foldiers who fight under their officers. 
 ** With what regularity, meeknefs, and fubmiffion, they 
 ** execute their orders. All are not pretors, nor rulers 
 *« of thoufands, or of hundreds, fifties, or fmalier com- 
 ** panies : but every one, in his own rank, does what is 
 ** commanded by the king and the irulers. The high 
 ** cannot fubfift without the low, nor the low without 
 **^ the high : There is a certain variety, and it proves 
 ^^ beneficial.—— 
 
 ** Ye then," adds he, " who have laid the foundation 
 *< of this infurre6lion, return to the obedience of your 
 ** prefbyters, and bending the knees of your heart, be 
 ** inftrudled to repentance. Laying afide the haughty 
 '* arrogance of your tongues, learn JuhjeBion : for it is 
 ♦' better with a good reputation to be efteemed little 
 ** in the flock of Chrift, than appearing more eminent 
 ^' in our own eyes, to be deprived of that hope which 
 
Letter Vlil. 13^ 
 
 " he hath given us*." If every member, however, in 
 the church of Chrlft, according to the opinion of this 
 ancient father, was no more to be a ruler than every 
 foldier in an army was to be a pretor, or commander of 
 thoufands, or hundreds, or fifties, or tens, in his view 
 muil it not have been in the higheft degree reprehenfibli; 
 to grant to the people an equality of power with their 
 minifters or office-bearers, the point of prefidency alone 
 excepted ? And if he enjoins the whole of the members 
 to be fubjedl to their minifters with the fame meei^- 
 nefs and fuhmtjfion which are difcovered by fcldiers to 
 thofe who are their officers,, is it not obvious that in his 
 time, or in his church at leaft, every meafure muft not 
 have been-fubmitted to their vote as much as to that of 
 the office-bearers ? Here then feems to be one pointed 
 and decifive teftimony from a father, whofe antiquity 
 and high refpeflability entitle him unqueftionably to the 
 greatefl regard, completely contradiftory to the aflertions 
 of Independents. In his days undoubtedly (and he lived 
 immediately after the apoftles of Chrift) the people 
 cannot have enjoyed the fame authority in ecclefiaftical 
 government as their pailors and elders, or his reafoning 
 would have been inappofite and inconclufive. Nay, had 
 they pofTeffed fuch power in all other congregations, 
 though refufed it in his, his argument would ftill have 
 been weak and nugatory ; for it might have been replied 
 by the Corinthians, that though the members of his 
 church were obliged to be fubjed to their fpiritual over- 
 feers as foldiers are to their officers, yet the appointment 
 of Chrift, and the praftice of every other primitive church, 
 warranted them to claim an equality of power, in judging 
 and voting upon every meafure, with their minifters and 
 elders. But as we cannot fuppofe that fuch an argument 
 
 * See Mr. Robertfon's Reply to Mr. Ewing's Animadverfions on 
 his Attack upon Lay-preaching, p. ai. and 23. 
 
 M2 
 
136 Appendix to 
 
 would have been ufed by Clemens, had he known that 
 this univerfally was the conilitiiLion of the church, it 
 naturally follows, that, at that period at leaft, the people 
 muft have been flrangers to that degree of power which 
 Independents contend ihould now be granted to them in 
 eccleliaftical government. 
 
 Jerome alio, who was not long pofterior to Clemens, 
 exhibits a teftimony no lefs ftrong and explicit againfl 
 Independency, in his Remarks- upon Titus, chap. i. 
 ** Antequam (fays he) diaboli inilinctu, ftudia in reli- 
 ** gione fierent, et diceretur in populo, ego fum Pauh', 
 '** ego Apollo, ego vero Cephae, communi prefbytero- 
 ** rum eonfilio ecclefise gubernabantur," iifc. ; i. e, " Be- 
 ** fore, through the fuggcftion of the devil, fadlions 
 ** arofe in religion, and it was faid among the people, I 
 ** am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the 
 ** churches nvere governed by a common council of pref- 
 ** byters." Upon which the learned Chamier, in his 
 TreatifedeOEcumen. Pontif. lib. x. cap. v. feft. xxii. in 
 reply to Bellarmine, remarks, *' Refpondeo ad primum 
 ** etiamfi ariflocratia non fit totidem fyllabis nominata, 
 ** tamen certo fignificatam his verbis communi prefby- 
 <* terorum eonfilio ecclefiae gubernabantur," ^c. And 
 fubjoins, " Bonam autem fuifle id regiminis formara, inde 
 « fequitur, quod ab initio fuiffe dicat (Hieronymus) cum 
 <* in ecclefia id fit optimum quod veriilimum, id autem 
 *' veriflimum quod primum : — Dicit enim (Hieron.) 
 *' fuiffe ex injlitutionis Dominice veritate." But if, as is 
 juftly obferved by Chamier, we are inftruded by this 
 father, that in the apnjlolic times, and in the ages ivhich 
 immediately fucceeded that period, the churches were govern- 
 ed, agreeably to the injunftion of Chriil himfelf, by a 
 council of prcfbyters, is it not obvious that originally the 
 people cannot have been admitted to parity of power, in 
 every congregation, with their elders and office-bearers ? 
 Had it univerfally been the praftice of the New- Telia- 
 
Letter VIII. 137 
 
 ment churches, and of the congregations at large ia 
 every country which were afterwards formed, to allow 
 their members to judge and vote upon every caufe ; nay, 
 as the members were more nunoerous, had it generally 
 been known that every Chriftian fociety was more really 
 governed by the former than by the latter ; how could 
 Jerome err fo egregioufly in a matter of fad, and affert, 
 in oppofition to the knowledge of all, and at the rifli of 
 inilant and univerfal contrad'idion, that, till fadions had 
 begun to arife in the church, every congregation was 
 governed by a council of elders ? It would appear then, 
 from this clear and ilriking declaration of one who, 
 from antiquity and fuperior information, was eminently 
 quaHfied to judge upon this fubje6l, that, in the apollolic 
 times as well as the fubfequent ages, the people were not 
 permitted to vote and determine in ecclcfiailical matters, 
 bat that the churches were adminiftered, as at prefent 
 among Prefbyterians, by a council of ofhce-bearers. 
 
 To thefe quotations might be added the words of 
 Ignatius, an apoftolic father (Epill. ad Trallianos, edit, 
 Oxon. p. 66.), who calls the prefbyters or elders of his 
 times, the c-wzh^iov Qicj, or the fanhedrin or council of 
 
 God : " 'Oi Oi TT^iTfivTiPOi 'ijg (T'JVi^^lOV @iOV," &C. But 
 
 upon what ground could he diftinguifn them by the name 
 of th^ fanhedrin, the common appellation of the Jew- 
 i(h ecclefiaftical judicial court, if they did not conilitute 
 a correfponding court in the Chriftian church ? With 
 this, too, might be mentioned the words of Origen, who, 
 in his Seventh Homily upon Jofliua, orders " one who 
 <' had bten thrice admonilhed, and was unwilling to re- 
 " pent, CO be cut oft from the church by its prefidents 
 •' or elders : — Tertio adraonitum reiipilcere nolentem 
 *• jubet ab ecclefise corpore defecari, per ecclefiae prse- 
 " fides." And to this might be fubjoined the declara- 
 tion of the authors of the Magdeburgen. Centurise, a 
 work of the highefl credit and authority for its accurals 
 
 M3 
 
138 Appendix to 
 
 reprefentations of ecclefiaftical antiquity : " Jus (fay 
 ** they, Cent. iii. cap. vii. p 151.) traftandi de excom- 
 <* municandis, aut recipiendis publice lapfis, penes feni- 
 •* ores ecclefiae erat ;" i. e. " The right of deciding rc- 
 " fped^ing fuch as were to be excommunicated, or of 
 ** receiving, upon their repentance, fuch as had fallen 
 ** from the profeflion of Chriflianity, was veiled in the 
 ** elders of the church ;" and, in proof of this, they refer us 
 to Tertullian's Apology. They indeed remark (Cent. ii. 
 cap. vii. p. 134.), *' Ceterum fi quis probatos autores 
 <* hujus feculi perfpiciat, videbit formam gubernationis 
 '* propemodum A>j^ox|«t.54? fimilem fuiffe ;" but, in the 
 following words, they fulSciently explain their meaning : 
 <« Singulas enim ecclefis (fay they) parem habebant 
 ** potejlatem verbum Dei pure docendi, facramenta admi- 
 ** niftrandi, abfolvendi et excommunicandi haereticos et 
 <* fceleratos, et ceremonias ab apollolis aeceptas exer- 
 ** cendi, aut etiam pro ratione sedificationis novas con= 
 ** dendi, miniilros eligendi, vocandi, ordinandi, et juflif- 
 ** fimas ob caufas iterum deponendi." From this it is 
 evident, that though, in the former fentence, they had 
 faid that the government o{ the Chriftian church, in the 
 fecond century, was almoil: like a democracy, they in- 
 tended only that it refembled it in this individual circum- 
 fiance, that all its congregations had an equality of 
 power; and, as Wood obfervcs, p. 383, ** that no par- 
 <* ticular church was to have any authoritative and juri- 
 ** dical fuperiority over other particular churches, as the 
 ** Prelaticall men pleaded for authoritative fuperioritie 
 ** in their cathedrall churches, over all particular churches 
 ** in the diaecefe, and the Papalins for an univerfall 
 ** fuperioritie and fupremacie in the church of Rome, 
 ** over all other churches in the world.'* " Befides," 
 as he adds, *' it is to be obferved that among other things 
 " which they reckon up as parts of the church-govern- 
 ** merit, which they fay was much like democracie, they 
 
Letter VIII. 13^ 
 
 " put in the preaching of the word, and adminiftratlon 
 « of facraments, which themfelves before fay (and no 
 ** man of found judgment will deny) are ads proper to 
 ** the called minifters of Chrifl : Whence alfo, it is 
 " manifeft that they mean not a democracie properly fo 
 ** called, which putteth the formall power and exercife 
 " of government in the hands of all and every one 
 " of the multitude, which the Independent brethren 
 « plead for." 
 
 On the whole, even Cyprian, whom Independents have 
 fo frequently reprefented as affirming that the government 
 of the church was purely popular, ufes expreffions by no 
 means confiftent Vvith fuch a fuppofition. He tells us 
 for inftance, in his Epiftle to Quintus, de Haereticis 
 Baptizandis, p. 140. that the perfons 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 memory, and his fellow 
 ** bifhops or minlilers. Quod quidem et Agrippinus, 
 " bonae memorias vir, cum casteris coepifcopis ejus, qui 
 " illo tempore In provincia Africae et Numidlae ecclefiam 
 " Domini guhernabant, ftatult, et librato confilil commu- 
 ** nis examine firmavit." That the power of ordination 
 alfo, that moll important a6l of ecclefiaitical government, 
 was intrufted only with the minifters, in the days of this 
 father, is no lefs evident. In his Fifty-fecond Epiftle, for 
 example, while he fays that Cornelius was chofen to be 
 a bifhop by the vote of the people, he declares moft 
 exprefsly, that he was ordained only by the minifters or 
 clergy. ** Et fa6tus eft (fays he, p. 75.) epifcopus a 
 •* plurlmis collegis noftris qui tunc In urbe Roma aderant 
 <* qui ad nos llteras honorllicas, et laudabiles, et teftlmonio 
 ** fuae praedicationis illuftres de ejus ordinatione miferuat. 
 ** Faftus eft autem Cornelius epifcopus de Dej et Chrifti 
 ** ejusjudicio, de clericorum pene omnium teftlmonio, 
 <* de plebis, qugs tunc affuit fuffragio, et de fagerdotium 
 
l/^cy Appendix to 
 
 " et bonorum virorum collegio*;" i.e. in fubftance, 
 " He was made a blfhop by many of my colleagues who 
 " were then in Rome, according to the judgment of 
 " God and Chrift, the teflimony of almoft all the clergy- 
 " men (who belonged to that church), the vote of the 
 " people who were then prefent, and the college of 
 *' ancient priells and worthy men." And he fays of 
 Novatian (p. 8i.), that " he was made a bifhop by 
 *' fixteen of his fellow minifters or bifhops." *' Nlfi fi 
 " epifcopus tibi videtur, qui epifcopo in ecclefia a fe- 
 " decim coepifcopis fadio, adulteratque extraneus epifco* 
 " pus fieri a defertoribus per ambitum nititur." Not 
 only, moreover, were they the only pcrfons who com- 
 municated ordination, but they alone determined every 
 thing relating to the condufl and duties of the clergy 
 after they had been invetled with their office. Hence 
 Cyprian, in his Sixty-fixth Epiille, p. 126. reprobates one 
 Vidtor, becaufe, in oppofition to the decrees of a council 
 of minifters, he had appointed Fauftinus, a prcfbyter of 
 the church, one of the truftees of his teftament. " Gia- 
 " viter coramoti fumus ego etcollegae mei qui prsefentes 
 ** aderant, et compvefbyteri noftri qui nobis affidebant, 
 ** fratres charifTimi, cum cognovifiemus quod Geminius 
 
 * Sec alio Epift. Ixxv, p. 159. " SeJ et cxt^eri quique hxretici, 
 " fi fe ab ecclefia Dei fcidcrint, nihil habere poteftatis ant gratiae 
 " pofTnnt, quando omnis poteftas et giatia in ecclefia confiituta 
 " fit, ubi prsfident majores natu, qui et baptizandi et manum 
 " imponendi et ordinandi poflident poteftatem ;" i. e. " But the 
 « other heretics alfo, if they feparate from the church, can have 
 " no power or grace, fince all power and grace are placed in the 
 " church, where elders prefide, in whom is vefted the power of 
 " baptizing, and impofition of hands and ordination." And it is. 
 obvious that thefe elders muft have been the minifters of the 
 church, and not merely laymen advanced in age, for they are 
 faid alfo to baptize as well as ordair^, and none we know could 
 perform that aft, but fuch as were recognized as office-bearers or 
 prefoyters. 
 
Letter VIII. 
 
 141 
 
 « Vi(f^or, frater noHer de feculo excedens, Geminium 
 *' Fauftinum prefbyterum tutorem teilamento fuo nomi- 
 ** naverit, cum jam pridem in concilio epifcoporwn jlatutum 
 ^^ Jiti ne quis de clericfs et Dei miniftris tutorem vel 
 ** curatorem teftamento fuo conilltuat — quando finguli 
 ** dlvino facerdotio honorati, et in clerico minifterio 
 ** conftituti, non niii altari et faciificiis defervire, et 
 " preclbus atque orationibus vacare debeant.'* And 
 again, " Quod epifcopi anteceffores nollri, religiofe con- 
 ** fiderantes, et falubriter providentes, cenfuerunt nc quis 
 ** frater excedens ad tutelam vel curam clericum nomf- 
 ** naret ; ac fi quis hoc feciffet, non offerretur pro eoj 
 ♦* nee facrificiura pro dormitione ejus cekbraretur." 
 But if an afTembly of minifters alone decided in this 
 inftance of clerical duty, and even, as is alTerted in thefe 
 paffages, appointed a precife and particular puniHiment 
 to be inflided upon any one who difregarded their decree, 
 is it not obvious that in all other points which refpefted 
 the condudl of the ofiice-bearers of the church, it muft 
 have been they alone alfo who were permitted authorita- 
 tively to judge and determine. In fhort, we find that 
 when a miniiler afted unworthily of his office, it was 
 minifters alone who were authorized to be his judges. 
 Thus when Novatian, after his apoilafy, entreated to be 
 admitted into the communion of the different churches of 
 Africa, the perfons who decided upon the propriety or 
 impropriety of granting his requeft, we are told by- 
 Cyprian (Epift. Ixvii. p. 127.), were a council or 
 afTembly of miniflers. " Et cum (fays he) ad nos m 
 " Africam legatos mififTet, optans ad communicationem 
 " noitram admitti, hinc a concilio plurimorum facerdo- 
 ** tum qui praefentes eramus fententiam retulerit ;" /'. e^ 
 ** And when he had fent deputies- to us to Africa, defir- 
 ** ing to be received into our communion, he carried 
 " back, from a council of many minifters who were 
 " prefent, this fentenge or determination/' Thus, too^ 
 
1^2 Appendix to 
 
 he informs us, in the fame Epillle, p. 129. that the 
 perfons who judged in the cafe of Marclan, when he 
 alfo apoftatlzed, were the office-bearers alone. *' Ex 
 ** quibus cum Marcianus ci^t cceperit, ct fe Novatiano 
 " conjungens, adverfarius mifericordias et pietatis exti- 
 " terit : fententiam non dicat, fed accipiat, nee fic agat 
 ** quafi i-pk juJicaverit de collegio facerdotumy quando ipfe 
 ** fit ab univeiTis facerdotibus judicatus.'' Thus, h'ke- 
 wife, Privatus, an old heretic, was tried and condemned 
 by a council confiding of ninety minifters, which met 
 for the purpofe in the Lambefitanian colony ; and was 
 £lfo denied admiflion into the Chriftian fellowfhip of 
 the African churches by a fimilar council, which was 
 afterwards convened, to decide upon an application which 
 was made by him to that end. " Per Felicianum 
 " autem (fays he, p. 92.) figniiicavi tibi, frater veniffe 
 ** Carthagiiiem Privatum veterem hsereticum, in Lam- 
 " befitana colonia, ante multos fere annos, ob multa et 
 " gravia delicfla nonaginta epifcoporum fententia con- 
 ** demnatum, anteceflbrum etiam noftrorum, quod et 
 " veftram confcientiam non latet, Fabiani et Donati 
 ** literis feveriflime notatum, qui cum caufam fuam apud 
 " nos in concilio, quod habuimus idibus Mails, qusa 
 ** proxime fuerunt, agere velle fe diceret, nee admiffus 
 ** effet, fortur.atum ilium fibi pfeudoepifcopum dignum 
 ** collegio fuo fecit *." 
 
 * It has indeed been afierted by Xing, p. 105. " that the fame 
 *' mode was obferved in the dcpofition of a bilhop as in his elec- 
 " tion. As a bifhop was elefted by the people over whom he 
 ** was to prefide, and by the neighbouring bilhops, fo was he de- 
 " pofed by the fame ; both which things feem to be intimated in 
 " that paflagc of the forementioned Epiftle (Epift. ixviii.) , wherein 
 " it is faid, that the people chiefly has power, either to choofe 
 " worthy bilhops, or to refufe unworthy ones." But upon this 
 it may be remarked, that in the pafTage referred to, Cyprian is 
 aot ipeaking of the degree of authority which the people fhould 
 
Letter VIII. 143 
 
 As it was by ralnlfters alone that mlnifters were judged 
 and conde-THied, if guilty, fo it was by minifters alone 
 that they were afterwards received, 011 evidences of their 
 repentance, into the communion of the church. This is 
 manifeCt from what is tnentioned by Cyprian (Epiil. lii. 
 p. 76.) refpe6ling Trophinrjus, who had feparated from 
 the church, but afterwards, upon his penitence, was 
 publicly re-admitted. " Nam ficut anteceffores no- 
 " fin (fays he) fsepe fecerunt, colligendis fratribus 
 " noilris, chariflimus frater nofter Cornelius neceflitati 
 " fuccubuit : et quonlam cum Trophimo pars maxima 
 " plebis abfcefferat, redeunte nunc ad ecclefiam Trophi- 
 " mo, et fatisfaciente, et poenitentia deprecationis errorem 
 
 have in the depofition of bifhops compared with that of the mini- 
 fliers of the church, but fimply (hewing that it is lawful for them 
 to feparate from fuch bifliops. This he demonflirates by various 
 commands and examples adduced from the fcriptures; and then 
 fubjoins, " Propter quod plebs obfequens prsceptis Dominicis, et 
 " Deum timens, a peccatore prx-pofito feparare fc debet, nee fe ad 
 " facrilcgi faeerdotis facrificia mifcere ; quando rpfa maxime habeat 
 " poteftatem vel eligendi dignos facerdotes, vel indignos recu- 
 " fandi ;" i. e. in fubflance, " Wherefore the people, obedient to 
 " the commandments of the Lord, and fearing God, ought to 
 " feparate themfelves from a wicked office-bearer, efpecially as 
 " they have the power of choofing worthy bifhops, or of refufing 
 " unworthy ones." And as the people are here faid to have had the 
 power of choofing a worthy minifl:er, or refufing an unworthy one, 
 and not to have had more power for this purpofe, as King tranf- 
 lates the words, than the governors of the church, it appears no 
 lefs manifeft from other pafTages, that Cyprian cannot be fuppofed 
 to afTert in this pafTage, that the people were allowed to fit in 
 any court which met to deliberate on the depofition of a bifliop. 
 As it is evident that a bifhop, when elefted by them, was ordained 
 folely by the miniftprs of the church, fo it is no lefs obvious from 
 the inftances which have been mentioned, that though they have 
 a power aifo of feparating from an unworthy overfeer, it is in- 
 tended to be intimated, that this is only to take place after he 
 has been previoufiy judged by an alTembly compofed of the office- 
 bearers. 
 
144 Appendix to 
 
 " prifUnum confitente et fraternitatem, qiiam nuper 
 ** abiliaxerat, cum plena humilitate et fatisfactione revo- 
 ^* cante, audits funt ejus preces ; et in ecclefiam Domini 
 *^ non tarn Trophimus, quam maximus fratrum numerus, 
 <* qui cum Trophimo fuerat admifTus eft : qui omnes 
 ** regrefTuri ad ecclefiam non efTent, nifi cum Trophimo 
 ** comltante venifTent." The perfons who re-admitted 
 not merely Trophimus, but a great number of the people 
 who had feceded along with him, and now repented of 
 their error, were an affembly compofed of the colleagues 
 of Cyprian and Cornelius his fellow-bifhop. " Traftatu 
 *< lUic cum collegis plurimis habito fufceptus eft Tro- 
 ** phimus ;" i. e. " A deliberation being held there, with 
 *' many of our colleagues, Trophimus was received/* 
 And that it was the fame perfons alone who were invefted 
 with a power judicially to pardon and punifti the fins 
 of tranfgrelTors in general in the Chriftian church, feems 
 to be no lefs clear from his Epiftle to Jubaianus, p. 145. 
 " Nam Petro (fays he) primum Dominus, fuper quem 
 ** sedlficavit ecclefiam, et unde unitatis originem inftituit, 
 " et oftendit ; poteftatem iftam dedit, ut id folveretur in 
 ^* coelis, quod lUe folvlftet in terris. Et poft refurrec- 
 '* tionem quoque ad apoftolos loquitur dicens : Sicut mifit 
 ** me pater, et ego mitto vos : Hoc cum dixlffet, 
 ** Infpiravit, et ait illis : Acclpite Spiritum fandlum : 
 ** Si cujus remiferitis peccata, remittentur IllI: fi cujus 
 ** tenuerltis tenebuntur." That is, " For the Lord 
 " gave to Peter, and afterwards to his apoftles, this 
 " power, that what they bound on earth fhould be bound 
 " in heaven, and what they loofed on earth ihould be 
 ^* loofed in heaven." *' Whence," he adds, " we under- 
 " ftand that it is lawful for none but tm office-bearers of 
 ** the church to baptize, and grant remlflion of fms. 
 " Unde intelligimus non nifi In ecclefia pnEpofitis, et 
 *' In evangelica lege, ac Dominica ordinatione fundatis 
 ^* licere baptizare, et remiffam peccatorum dare." If it 
 
Letter VIII. 145 
 
 was his opinion, however, that none but the office-bearers, 
 or t.hQ prspofiti in ecclefia, could bind and loofe in general, 
 and grant a declaration of the remiffion of fins at baptifm 
 in particular, is it not obvious that it muft have been they 
 alone who, in his view, were intruded with the govern- 
 ment of the church \ Had every member enjoyed an 
 equality of power with the miniilers, to bind and loofe, 
 to pardon and punifh offenders in general, can we fuppofe 
 that Cyprian would have inferred from thefe words of 
 Chrift, that this authority was lawful to none but " the 
 ** t\^txz^ ox prspofnt ?^^ 
 
 Let it not be objeded, that, in the following page, 
 the church at large is faid by him to poffefs all the power 
 of her Spoufe and Lord : " Hsc eft una quae tenet et 
 ** poflidet omnem Sponfi fui et Domini poteftatem.*' 
 As it could not be concluded from this, in oppofition to 
 innumerable palTages in his writings, that it was his 
 opinion that every member had power to baptize as well 
 as the paftor, fo it can no more be concluded from it, 
 in oppofition to expreffions no lefs pointed and determi- 
 nate, that every member was entitled to be a virtual 
 though not a nominal ruler. He as exprefsly fays, that 
 it is lawful to none but the minifters, or prapofiti, to 
 bind or loofe, becaufe it was to them alone that Chritt 
 -com.mitted this authority when he addrefTed his apoftles 
 after his refurreftion (John xx. 21, 22, 23.), as hs 
 declares in any pafiage, that it is lawful for them alone 
 to admlniiler the faeraments. His meaning, therefore, 
 in this fentence mud be, that though the whole power of 
 Chrift was given to the church to be exercifed by her 
 minifters, yet it wasnot to be exercifed by every individual 
 of her members in particular. Nor let it be urged, that, 
 from different Epiftles, it appears that the people were 
 not only allowed to be prefent at public deliberations, 
 but even to fpeak and vote. It has been the mind of 
 fome very learned and refpedlable Preibyterians, that, in 
 N 
 
14^ Appendix to 
 
 extraordinary cafes, laymen were allowed to fit in thefe 
 courts and deliver their advice, and exprefs their concur- 
 rence. It was not however the members indifcriminately 
 who obtained this privilege, according to thefe writers, 
 but, while the reft were permitted to be prefent as audi- 
 tors, it was the learned and intelligent only, who had 
 been invited to the performance of this fpecial duty, 
 that were allowed to fit as counfellors in the affembly. 
 ** Eorum (fays Junius, Cont. iii. lib. ii. cap. xxv. n. 2.) 
 *' qui conciliis interfunt, varia effe genera : EfTe audientes 
 *' qui in doftrina et ordine ex auditione informantur : 
 ** effe do6los, qui ad confultationem adhibentur: effe 
 *' denique" epifcopos et prefbyteros, qui decidunt res 
 ** ferendis fententiis :" L e. " Of thofe who are prefent In 
 ** councils, there are various defcriptions of perfons : 
 ** Some are hearers, and are inflru<5Led in the do£lrine 
 ** and order of the church : fome are learned, and are 
 ** admitted as counfellors ; and fome are bilhops and 
 ** prefbyters, who, delivering their opinions upbn the 
 *' fubjefts which they examine, pronounce the decifions." 
 And again (Cont. iv. lib. i. cap. xv. n. 15.), he fays, 
 «« Qui fine aathoritate ecclefise adfunt, eorum alii etiam 
 ** confultationibus adhiberi pofTunt, ut dodli, praefertioi 
 *' ecclefiaftici, fed dicere fententlam definitivam non 
 ** poffunt ;'' i. e. " Of thofe who are prefent without the 
 «* authority of the church, fome who are learned, and 
 ** efpecially ecclefiaftics, may be admitted to the con- 
 ** fultations, but they cannot pronounce a definitive 
 " fentence." Whether this reprefentation however be 
 corre6l or not, it feems plain that even admitting that 
 the people, in fome inftances, might be allowed to fpeak, 
 it could be only as advifers ; and even granting that 
 fometimes they v/ere permitted to vote, it could be only 
 to fhew their concurrence, or fimply as an cxpreflion of 
 their fentiments, for, after all, the power of decifion 
 appears Hill to have belonged to the ofEce-bearers alone. 
 
LfiTTER VIII. 147 
 
 Cyprian mentions (Epift. Iv. p. 96.) two different In- 
 llances, In which when the people had oppofed the 
 reftoration of fome who had formerly apoftatized, but 
 afterwards exhibited evidences of repentance, to the 
 communion of the church, he had himfelf received them, 
 ** Unus (fays he) atque alius, obtinente plebe, et contra- 
 ** dicente, mca tamen facilitate fufcepti,pejores extiterunt, 
 " quam prius fuerant, nee fidem pcenitentise fervare 
 " potuerunt, quia nee cum vera pcenitentia venerant ;" 
 ;. e. " One and another, who had been admitted by my 
 ** indulgence, though the people oppofed It, turned out 
 *' worfe than they were before, becaufe they had come 
 *' again Into the church without true repentance." This, 
 however, would have been impofllble, had the people, 
 who were unqueftlonably more numerous than Cyprian 
 and his fellow-minlfters, pofleffed an equality of ecclefiafti- 
 cal power with him and his brethren in deciding upon 
 this and other matters. Befides, had this been the cafe, 
 how could he affirm, as we fomerly faw, that the perfons 
 who governed the Numidian churches were the minlllers, 
 fince if the people were allowed any higher power than 
 that of occafionally delivering their opinion and expreffing 
 their concurrence, either by voting or otherwife, it was 
 more really they who adminiflered thefe churches than 
 the minlfters and office-bearers ? And how, efpeclally 
 upon the contrary fuppofition, could he reprefent it as 
 lawful for none but the pr^pofiti in ecclefiay or the 
 minifters of the church, to bind and loofe, or remit and 
 punifli fin, fince If every member had a power of final 
 judicial determination no lefs than the office-bearers, they 
 would exercife this authority as well as their minifters, 
 nay, on account of their number, would much more 
 really have polfeffed It I Whatever occafional liberties 
 then, for the fake of peace, might be granted to the 
 people, to fpeak and vote in the congregations which 
 were placed under the infpedion of Cyprian, it is plain 
 N2 
 
148 Appendix, ^c. 
 
 that it muft have been only to exprefs their acquiefcence 
 in the decifions of their office-bearers, and by no means 
 implied that degree of power in ecclefiaftical government 
 for which Independents contend. He too, as well as 
 Clemens, Ignatius, Jerome, Teitulllan, and Origen, 
 af&rms, as we have feen, that it is the office-beavers alone 
 who govern the church ; and at the fame time, by a 
 great variety of expreffions, clearly intimates that every 
 meafure was not then fubje6led to the votes of the mem- 
 bers, and, by their decifion, adopted or fet afide. 
 
 From thefe, then, and other teflimonies, it is contended 
 that the conftitution of the primitive church, after the 
 days of the apoftles, refembled the Prefbyterian and not 
 the Independent fcheme. It is again requeRed however, 
 that it may be carefully remarked that no argument is 
 deduced fronv it for the truth of Prefbytery. Many errors 
 cxifted, even in the earlieft times, in the primitive church, 
 and it Is only as far as their principles and praAIce are 
 fandlloned by fcripture that we are warranted either to. 
 admit or to imitate them. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 SIR, 
 
 If the government of the church is to be committed 
 only to afeiuy it comes next to be confidered who are 
 thefe few \ Are they the minifters alone, who feed the 
 flock with knowledge and underftanding, or have we 
 rcafon to believe that there are other elders affoclated 
 with them, who are fimply to rule and not to preach I 
 The laft is the opinion of Prefbyterians ; and though it 
 is in general denied by moft of the prefent clafTes of In- 
 dependents, was admitted by many of their moft refpec- 
 table predeceffors. Dr. Watts affirms (p. 125. of his 
 
Letter IX. 149 
 
 TreatiTe on the Foundation of the Chriftian Church), 
 *< that if it happens that there is but one minifter or 
 ** prefbyter in a church, or if the minifters are young 
 ** men of fmall experience in the world, it is ufual and 
 *' proper that fome of the eldefl, graveft, and wifeft 
 " members be deputed by the church to join with and 
 ** aflifl: the minifters in the care and management of this 
 ** affair (the admiffion and exclufion of members)." 
 Mr. Thomas Goodwin, in his Catechifm on Church- 
 government, p. 19. exprefsly afferts, that there is a clafs 
 of elders who are to rule and not to teach. Mr. John 
 Cotton alfo, in his Way cf the Churches of Chrift in 
 New England, chap. ii. fe6l. ii. p. 13.-— 35- contends 
 that fuch elders are a divine inftitution, and reprefents it 
 as very generally obtaining in thefe churches. The 
 Weftminifter Independents, moreover, in their Reafons 
 againft the Third Propofition concerning Prefbyterial 
 Government, p. 40. declare, ** that the fcripture fays 
 *' much ol two jorts of ciders, teaching and rulings and in 
 *' fome places, fo plaine^ as if of purpofe to diftinguifh 
 *' them ;" and (p. 3.) " that the whole Reformed 
 *' churches had thefe different elders." And it cannot 
 be denied that never was there a more ftrenuous or en- 
 lightened advocate for this order of elders than the great 
 Dr. Owen, who may juftly be confidefed as the moft 
 learned of Independents *. Venerable, however, as fuch 
 names are, I hope it will appear that it refts not merely 
 on their opinion and authority, but on the diftates of 
 reafon, and„the explicit teftimony of the word of God. 
 
 That the government of the church, then, fhould be 
 vefted not merely in the elders who teach, but in a clafs 
 of elders who rule and do not teach, conjoined with 
 the former, appears to be evident from the following 
 reafons. 
 
 * See his book on the Gofpel-church, 
 
 N3 
 
15^ Letter IX. 
 
 In the firft place, It has been obferved by fome of 
 your brethren, that it feems to be taught in fciipture, that 
 there mull be ^ plurality of elders in every church; and 
 from the maintenance which is requiiite for every teaching 
 elder, it appears obvious that they cannot all be elders 
 who teach. That there muft be ?i plurality of elders in 
 every church, they tell us, is evident, among other paf- 
 fages, from A6ls xiv. 23. where we are told, that *' Paul 
 ** and Barnabas ordained elders in every church *.'* The 
 particular number of thefe elders is not fpecified, but it 
 appears fit that it fiiould be determined by the number 
 of members. At any rate it is certain, that it can 
 never properly be lefs than three ; for if there were only 
 two, and if they fhould happen to differ upon any point 
 of difcipline, or any cafe of government, no decifion 
 could be made. But if, in every church however fmall^ 
 there can never be lefs than three elders, ic feems obvious 
 that all of them cannot be elders who teach. In your 
 own fociety, as well as your fifter-focieties, the teaching 
 elders receive a maintenance, which enables them to 
 give themfclves nvholly to their particular funftion, with- 
 out intermingling in the bufinefs of the world. This 
 indeed is their juft prerogative. '* Do ye not know," 
 fays Paul (i Cor. ix. 13. 14.), " that they which mi- 
 ** nifter about holy things, live of the things of the 
 " temple i* and they which wait at the altar, are partakers 
 " with the altar ? Even fo hath the Lord ordained^ that 
 ** they which preach the gofpel, fhould live of the 
 " gofpel." And though minifters, in extraordinary in- 
 ilances, like the Apoille Paul, may give up with this 
 right, nothing appears plainer than that it is not to be 
 done in ordinary cafes. Reafon and experience indeed 
 
 * See your brother Mr. Ballentine's Obfervations, p. 90. — 95. 
 and the Review of thefe Obfervations in the Miffionary Magazine, 
 which quotes his fentimcnts with the mofl decided approbation. 
 
Letter IX. 151 
 
 unite in proving, that nothing Is better fitted to fecure a 
 refpedlable miniftry, than to grant them fuch a main- 
 tenance as will enable them to (kvote themfelves entirely to 
 perfonal improvement and public duty. But to afford at 
 leafl to three teaching elders fuch a maintenance, the funds 
 qI fcarcely any church are adequate. If there muft be a 
 plurality of elders In every church however fmall, and if 
 that plurality, in every cafe of government, cannot be lefs 
 than three^ it appears naturally to follow that they cannot 
 all be teachers, for all cannot be maintained. There 
 muft of confequence In every church, not only be an 
 elder who teaches as well as rules, and who, as he gives 
 himfelf luholly to the duties of his profeflion, is entitled 
 to maintenance from that fociety, but elders alfo, whofe 
 maintenance. If required, fince they are allowed to at- 
 tach themfelves llkewife to fecular employments, Is not fo 
 great, and more confiftent with the funds and abilities of 
 the church. 
 
 Secondly, The eixtent of that Infpeftlon and fuper- 
 intendence which are required from the rulers of the 
 church over the members, feem.s to fuggeft the necefTity 
 of a clafs of elders who are not to teach, but to have 
 this peculiar province affigned them. 
 
 Not only is It the duty of the elders of the church to 
 make known, by preaching, their privileges and duties to 
 the Chriftlan members, but a clafs of ofBce-bearers is re- 
 quired for government and Infpeftlon, if poffible, ftill more 
 varied and extenfive. It is they alone, we have feen, 
 who are to admit and exclude members, and attend to 
 all thofe laborious inveftigatlons which are often con- 
 nected with the performance at leaft of the laft of thefe 
 ads. It is they alone who are to judge in matters of 
 government, and to determine on every point of difficulty 
 and importance, according to the rules before explained 5 
 as well as to regulate, according to JDr. Owen (p. 290.), 
 the external concerns of the church of Chrift, and an- 
 
152 Letter IX. 
 
 point feafons for extraordinary duties. Befides this, the 
 Dodlor remarks (p. 292.) that they are bound, 
 
 ** In the I ft place, To watch diligently over the ways, 
 ** walking, and converfation of all the members of the 
 *' church ; to fee that it be blamelefs, without offence, 
 ** ufeful, exemplary, and In all things anfwering the 
 ** hollnefs of the corpmands of Chriftj the honour of the 
 " gofpel, and profeflion which in the world they make 
 ** thereof. And upon the obfervation which they fo 
 ** make, in the watch wherein they are placed, to in- 
 <* ftru6l, admonifti, charge, exhort, encourage, comfort, 
 *' as they fee caufe. And this they are to attend unto 
 " with courage and diligence. 
 
 ** They are, 2diy, To watch againft all rlfings or 
 *' appearances of fuch differences and divifions on the 
 <* account of things ecclefiaftical or civil, as unto their 
 *< names, rights, and proprieties in the world, that are 
 ** contrary unto that love which the Lord Jefus requireth 
 ** in a peculiar and eminent manner to be found amongft 
 ** his difciples. — The due obfervance of this law of love 
 *« in Itfelf 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 confift. 
 " And confidering the weaknefs, the paffions, the tempta- 
 ** tions of men, the mutual provocations and exafpera- 
 *' tlons that are apt to fall out even among the beft, 
 *' the Influence that earthly occafions are apt to have 
 " upon their minds, the frowardnefs fometimes of men's 
 *' natural tempers ; the attendance unto this one duty or 
 ** part of rule, requires the utmoft 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 Chrlft requires among his 
 ** difciples, or an undervaluation of the worth and glory 
 ** of It in the church ; or Inadvertency unto the caufes 
 ** of its decays, and of breaches mjide in it, or Ignorance 
 
Letter IX. 153. 
 
 *< of the care and duties that are neceflary to its preferva- 
 
 " tion, that induce men to judge that the work of an 
 
 *< efpecial qflce is not required hereunto. 
 
 " In the 3d place, Their duty is to warn all the 
 members of the church of their efpecial church -duties, 
 that they may not be found negligent or wanting in 
 them. There are efpecial duties required refpectively 
 of all church-members, according unto the diftinft 
 talents, v;hether in things fpiritual or temporal, which 
 they have received. Some are rich, and fome are 
 poor ; fome are old, and fome are young ; fome in 
 peace, fome in trouble ; fome have received more 
 fpiritual gifts than others, and have more opportunities 
 for their exercife. It belongs unto the rule of the 
 church, that all be admoniflied, inflruded, and exhorted 
 to attend unto their refpecElive duties ; not only publicly 
 in the preaching of the word, hvX perjonally as occafion 
 doth require, according to the obfervation which thofe 
 in rule do make of their forwardnefs or remiffnefs in 
 
 < them. 
 " 4thly, They are to watch againft the beginning of 
 
 * any church-diforders, fuch as thofe that infefted the 
 
 * church of Corinth, or any of the like fort ; with 
 
 * remiffnefs as unto the afTemblies of the church, and 
 
 * the duties of them, which fome are fubje(5l unto, as 
 
 * the apoftle intimates, Heb. x. 25. On the conflancy 
 ^ and diligence of the elders in this part of their work 
 ' and duty, the very being and order of the church 
 
 * do greatly depend. The want hereof hath opened a 
 
 * door unto all the troubles, divifions, and fchifms, that 
 ' in all ages have invaded and perplexed the churches of 
 
 * Chrill from within themfelves. And from thence alfo 
 ' have decays in faith, love, and order, infenfibly pre» 
 
 * vailed in many to the difhonour of Chrift, and the 
 
 * danger of their own fouls. Firfl, one grows remifs 
 
 * ia attending unto the affemblies of the church, and 
 
154 Letter IX, 
 
 " then another ; firft to one degree, then to another, 
 " until the whole lump be infedled. A diligent watch 
 " over thefe things, as to the beginnings of them in all 
 " the members of the church, will either heal and re- 
 *' cover them that offend, or it will warn others, and 
 *' keep the church from being either corrupted or defiled : 
 " Heb. xiii. 12. 
 
 " In the 5th place, It belongs unto them alfo to vifit 
 ** the fick, efpecially fuch as whofe inward or outward 
 " conditions do expofe them unto more than ordinary 
 " trials in their ficknefs ; that is, the poor, the afflifted, 
 " the tempted in any kind. This in general is a moral 
 " duty, a work of mercy ; but it is moreover, a peculiar 
 " church-duty, by virtue of inftitution. And one end 
 " of the inflitution of churches, is that the difciples of 
 " Chrift may have all that fpiritual and temporal relief 
 " which is needful for them, and ufeful to them in their 
 " troubles and diftrefles. 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 referve with relief in the minds of them 
 ** whofe outward condition expofeth them to ftraits and 
 " forrows in fuch a feafon, 
 
 ** 6thly, It belongs to them and their office, to advife 
 " and give direAion unto the deacons of the church, as 
 " unto the- making provifion and diftribution of the 
 ** charity of the church for the relief of the poor. The 
 ** office of the deacons is principally execuiivey as we fhall 
 *' fee afterwards. Inquifition into the ftate of the poor, 
 ** with all their circumftances, with the warning of all 
 ** the members of the church unto liberality for their 
 '* fupply, belongs to the elders. 
 
 " In the 7th place, When the ftate of the church is 
 <* fuch, through fuffi^ring, perfecution, and afflidion, 
 ** that the poor be multiplied among them, fo as that 
 « the church itfelf is not able to provide for their relief 
 
Letter IX. 155 
 
 «' in a due manner, if any fupply be fent unto them 
 " from the love and bounty of other churches, it is to 
 « be depofited with thefe elders, and difpofed according 
 « to their advice, and with that of the teachers of the 
 <* church: Ads xi. 30. 
 
 " And 8thly, It is of great importance to teaching 
 " elders to be acquainted with their flock, that they 
 ** may be direfted in their labours. He who makes it 
 •** not his bufinefs to know the ftate of the church which 
 ** he minillers unto in the word and doftrine, as to 
 " their knowledge, their judgment and underftanding, 
 *' their temptations and occafions, and applies not him- 
 " felf in his minillry to fearch out what is necefTary and 
 " ufeful unto their edification ; he fights uncertainly in 
 " his v/hole work, as a man beating the air. But 
 <* whereas their obligation to attend unto the word and 
 " prayer, confines them much unto a retirement for 
 " the greateft part of their time, they cannot by thcm- 
 " felves obtain that acquaintance with the whole flock, 
 <* but that others may greatly afiifl: therein, from their 
 <* daily infpe6lion, converfe, and obfervation." After 
 which the Do^lor fubjoins various other duties ; and then 
 adds (p. 300), " It is a vain apprehenfion to fuppofe 
 " that one or two teaching officers in a church, who 
 " are obliged to give thcmfelves unto the word and 
 " prayer, to labour with all their might in the word and 
 " doftrine, to preach in and out of feafon ; that is, at 
 *" all times, on all opportunities as they are able, to con- 
 *' vince gainfayers by word and v.'riting, pleading for 
 " the truth ; to aflift and guide the confcienccs of all, 
 *■* under their temptations and defertiops, with fundry 
 " other duties, in part fpoken to before, fhould be able 
 *' to take care of, and attend with diligence unto all 
 " thefe things that do evidently belong unto the rule of 
 " the church.'* 
 
1^6 Letter IX. 
 
 Since fuch then are the duties incumbent on the rulers, 
 and fince, if the church be extenfive or greatly fcattered, 
 as is frequently the cafe, it is impoffible for one, or two, or 
 even three teaching elders, though the congregation could 
 fupport them, faithfully and fatisfadtorily to difchargc 
 thefe duties, it feems neceflary that there fhould be 
 another clafs of elders to attend to them. In your 
 focieties, if I millakc not, thefe duties are in general 
 committed to the deacons, who affift the pallor in the 
 fuperintendence of the flock. Such fuperintendence, 
 however, is no proper part of the office of a deacon 
 confidered as Juch^ and belongs only to thofe who are 
 appointed as rulers to watch over the church. And 
 though this infpedlion and fuperintendence may in fome 
 meafure be performed likewife by thofe who are members, 
 as they may communicate inllruftion alfo in a manner 
 fuited to their particular ftations, yet it is plain, that, 
 like the duty of preaching, they belong properly, in all 
 this extent, to thofe only who are elders and overfeers of 
 the flock. But if fuch an overtight and fuperintendence 
 be the duty of the elders, and if it exceed the abilities 
 of thofe elders who teach, and are enjoined to give them- 
 felves wholly to their particular calling, does it not follow 
 that there muft be an order of elders diJlitiB from them, 
 who are to affift them in governing and watching over 
 tlie flock ? 
 
 In the third place, The tendency which in every age, 
 even by the confeffion of Independents, has been dif- 
 covered in paftors to affume to themfelves an immoderate 
 and unreafonable power over the church of Chrift, feems 
 to point out the neceffity of a clafs of elders different from 
 them, who may check thefe ufurpations, and reflrain 
 their ambition. 
 
 That the miniflers of religion, however amiable and 
 venerable their chara6ler, are fubjed to the frailties and 
 imperfedlions of humanity, and that a defire of undue 
 
Letter IX. 157 
 
 2nd extravagant authority has too often been one of thefe 
 imperfedlions, is a truth which will fcarcely be denied. 
 At the diftance of a very few years only from the death 
 of the apoftles did this pernicious principle begin to 
 operate, and it gradually produced thofc affumptions of 
 Epifcopacy, and that tyranny of Popery, which fo long 
 cnflaved the Chriftian world. And to what caufe are we 
 to afcribe the introdu£lion of thefe evils ? If we attend 
 both to the nature of the thing, and to the reprefentations 
 of the fathers, who witneffed and deplored them, they were 
 to be attributed in a great meafure to the difcontinuance 
 of that feparate clafs of rulers who were originally infti- 
 tuted in the Chriftian church, and whofe fuperintendencc 
 reftrained the ambition of the paftors. Accordingly, the 
 writer of the Commentaries commonly attributed to 
 Ambrofe, in his explication of i Tim. v. i. fays, 
 *' Wherefore both the fynagogue, and afterwards the 
 ■** church had elders, without whofe counfel nothing 
 " was done in the church ; which order by what negli- 
 " gence it grew into difufe I know not, unlefs perhaps 
 <' by the floth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, 
 " while they alone wifli to appear fomething." " Unde 
 " et fynagoga et poftea ecclefia feniores habuit, fine 
 *' quorum confilio nihil gerebatur in ecclefia : quod qua 
 *' negligentia obfoleverit nefcio : nifi forte dodlorum 
 *' defidia, aut magis fuperbia, dum foli volunt aliquid 
 " videri." And we know that Calvin, from a convi<Slion 
 of thefe truths, and from a perfuafion of the necefiily of 
 fuch an order of elders to prevent thofe excefies of tyranny 
 which were pra£lifed by the Romlfh clergy at the period 
 of the Reformation, A. D. 1542*, revived thefe rulers 
 
 * Though this order of elders however was more generally 
 leftovcd by this iiluftrious reformer at the period referred to, vet 
 it does not appear that it was entirely abolilhed even in the dark- 
 eft times of error and corruption which preceded this era. Bucer 
 at leaft informs us, in his book entitled, Scripta duo Adverfaria 
 
 o 
 
ijS Letter IX. 
 
 in the Chriilian church. Were fuch an order again t© 
 be dlfcontinued, and the government again intruded to 
 the minillers alone, is it not evident that the door would 
 be opened for fimilar tyranny over the heritage of God ? 
 The inftitutlon therefore of a feparate order to reflrain 
 thefe encroachments, and maintain the rights and liberties 
 of the people, feems abfolutely requifite for the welfare 
 of the church. 
 
 In anfwer to this let it not be remarked, that the 
 power of the clergy is equally bounded by the fcheme of 
 Independency, which allows them not to eftablifh any of 
 their meafures without the previous judgment and con- 
 lent of the members. It is plain that the clergy could 
 more readily influence a congregation at large, many of 
 whom are unable to judge, and v/lli be difpofed to be 
 partial to the opinion of their padors, than a few of 
 the wifeft and moft enlightened of the people, who are 
 no lefs qualified to judge perhaps than the minillers them- 
 felves. Befides, it has already been attempted to be 
 proved, that fuch a power of judgment and confent is 
 not granted to the members, and coafequently that fuch 
 
 J.atomi, (6-c. p. 77. that the Bohemian churches, who, " alone 
 
 " almoft," to ufe his exprelTive words, " frcferved in the -world 
 
 " the purity of the dodrine and the vigour of the difcipline of Chrift," 
 
 had this srder amongft them. " Ilia certe ratio optima, quam 
 
 " obfervant fratres Picardi, qui foU prope in orie, cum puritate 
 
 " dodlrinse, vigorem etiam difciplinae Chrifti apud le retinuerunt, 
 
 " quam laudem ut iis tribuamus, et Dominum, qui fic in illis 
 
 " operatur, celebremus, res ipfa cogit, etiam ft fratres illi a prse- 
 
 " poftere do£tis nonnuUis contemnantur. Ratio vero quam in 
 
 " hac re obfervant, hsec eft. Prseter miniftros verbi et facramen- 
 
 " torum habent certum collegium virorum prudentia et gravitate 
 
 " fpiritus prscellcntium, qui munus obeunt monendi ac corrigendi 
 
 " fratres peccantes, componcndi diffidentes, et in caufis eorum 
 
 " ji'.dicandi. De hujufmodi fcnioribus fcripfit et divus Ambi-ofius in 
 
 '' Epift. i. ad. Tim, cap. v. Uiide et iynagoga," &c. 
 
Letter IX. 1 59 
 
 a pr^fervatlve from the aiTumptions of the clergy is not 
 to be admitted into the church of Chrift. 
 
 Fourthly, There are many to be found in the church 
 who, though not fitted to be teaching elders, are emi- 
 nently quahfied to be rulers. Moil men have it not in 
 their power to attain that learning, and that facility of 
 exprefTion, which are requifite for the form.er, \vl;lle 
 many of them have acquired that experience and fagacity 
 which may fit them for the ufeful difcharge of the latter. 
 Shall the church then, bccaufe they are not qualified to 
 be numbered among her inftruftors, be totally deprived 
 cf the benefit of their endowments ? No, certainly.. 
 Does not Paul, when demon R. rating that there are to be 
 various o^ccs in the church of Clirifl (Rom. xii. i Cor. 
 xii. isfc), urge, in proof of it, that he has beftcwcd 
 upon its memhcYS a variety of gifts which qualiFy them 
 for thefe offices \ But fmce J^fus has bellowed upon 
 many of the members of his church gifts for ruling, 
 while he has not imparted to them gifts for teaching, if 
 there be no office alTigned to them for the exercile cf 
 thcfe gifts, how can this reafoning be conclufive ? i 
 maintain, therefore, that fince Jefus has communicated 
 to many members in his church gifts for ruling, and for 
 that alone, and fince we are taught to believe that where 
 he imparts gifts, there is a correfponding office, there 
 mull in his church be a clafs of elders who are to rule 
 and not to teach, as there is a clafs of elders who are 
 appointed to rule as well as to teach. 
 
 Is it faid, that if this reafoning eftabliili any thing, it 
 eftablifhes too much, for as, according to Independent?, 
 all the members are fitted to judge, {hould not they all 
 be conflituted judges and rulers? It is replied, that to 
 make fuch an inference is in truth to beg the queftion^ 
 or to take for granted the thing to be proved. It was 
 before evinced, that the nvhoh of the members of any con- 
 gregation are very far from being qualified for fuch a 
 O2 
 
1^0 Letter IX. 
 
 truil, and confequently, even according to this principle, 
 ought not to be judges. It is certain, befides, that every 
 one who is qualified to perform the office of a deacon is 
 not entitled, even among Independents, from his pofTefT- 
 ing thefc gifts, to exercife that office, but only fo many 
 as have been regularly authorized and appointed by the 
 church, though it would be very furprifing if the other 
 duties of a paftor prevented him from fulfilling the office 
 of a deacon, that none of the members fhould be nominated 
 to affifl: him. As then it appears that there is to be a diver- 
 fity of offices in the church of Jefus, correfponding to 
 the diverfified gifts of its members, and as there are 
 many of the members who, though eminently qualified 
 for ruling, are not fitted for teaching, it appears necef- 
 farily to follow that there mud be a clafs of elders in the 
 church who are to rule and not to teach. As it has, more- 
 over, been proved that every member has not thefe gifts, 
 of confequence every member cannot have that authority. 
 And as the mere pOiTeffion of gifts does not warrant, 
 even upon the principles of Independents, all who have 
 them to execute the office of a deacon and other func- 
 tions, but that only fo many as the general interefts of 
 the body require, and as have been appointed to the re- 
 gular difcharge of them, are authorized to fulfil them, 
 fo it is no lefs manifeft that all who are diflinguifhed for 
 gifts of ruling are not on this account to be chofen to 
 rule, but only fo many as are necefiary for the Infpe(B:ion 
 and government of the church. 
 
 It is furprifing, in fiiort, that the commiffion of the 
 government to a few of the members who do not teach, 
 but merely rule together with the pallors, fiiould be fo 
 difpleafing both to Epifcopalians and Independents, 
 fmce fomething fimilar exifts among themfelves. Not 
 only are laymen who do not teach, but barely rule, to 
 be found among the different bodies of Protcftants on 
 the continent, and in the high fituation even of cardinals 
 
Letter IX. i6i 
 
 and infpeaors of the different orders of the clergy in the 
 Romifh church, but it is certain that in thofe churches 
 where Epifcopacy is eftabliihed, many rule who are not 
 teachers. Bifhop Burnet, in his Funeral Sermon on 
 Archbifhop Tillotfon, exprefsly affirms, that a bifhop as 
 
 Juchy though appointed to rule, has no care of fouls ^ 
 by preaching, devolved upon him. " In his fundion," 
 fays he, " he was a conftant preacher: For though he 
 " had no care of fouls upon him, yet few that had, labour- 
 " ed fo painfully as he did." And Dr. South, in his 
 Sermon preached at the Confecration of the Biihop of 
 Rochefter, voL i. p. 209. explicitly aflerts, that " a teach- 
 
 -" ing talent is not abfolutely neceffary in a bifliop, nor 
 ♦* is of the vital conjitution of his furxftion. If he have 
 *' it, it is not to be refufed ; but if he have it not, it is 
 «* not much to be defired." And befides their bifhops, 
 we know that they have chancellors, and commiflioners, 
 and church-wardens, and other officers, who, though 
 laymen, judge and decide in ecckfiaftical matters. Dr. 
 Whitaker moreover, though an Epifcopalian, acknow- 
 ledges that there fliould be two clafTes of elders in the 
 church ; and Dr Whitby, as will be flievvn, exprefsly 
 avows himfelf of the very fame fentiments. See alfo 
 Bifhop Jewel's Defence of his Apology, part i. p. 41. 
 where he admits that laymen (houid judge in the churdi ; 
 and fee, too, Willet in his Controverfias, Controv. iii. 
 Qu2sft. iv. p. 41. where he attempts to prove, by a va- 
 riety of arguments, that laymen fhould be allowed to 
 be ecclefiaftical judges. With regard to Independents, 
 it is certain that though the multitude be permitted to 
 
 judge and vote with the paflors, it is a few only of the 
 leading and mofl active of the members who determine 
 every bufinefs. The only difference then between Pref- 
 byterians and them feems to be this, that while the 
 government is comtnltted by the former to a clafs of 
 elders who do not teach, together with the paftors who 
 
 03 
 
i62 Letter IX. 
 
 rule as well as teach, it is intrufted nominally by the 
 latter to all the members together with the pallors, but 
 is exercifed in reality only by afeav of them who influence 
 the reft. Now, is it not better to give not only the 
 power but the name of rulers to thefe few along with 
 the paftor, than, like Independents, to delude the people 
 with the mere name, while the power is neceflarily limit- 
 ed to a few ? On the whole, as the government muft 
 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 often leaft 
 fitted to diredl their decifions, is not the fyftem of Pref- 
 bytery more enlightened and wife ? By this means, they 
 are fecured from the evils which too often refult from 
 the confidence or intrigues of any noify declaimer ; and 
 a court of ecclefiaftical judges is obtained, not only more 
 enlightened and judicious than thofe who frequently 
 poffefs the afcendency in popular affemblies, but who, 
 from their knowledge and experience, being more upon 
 an equality with each other, are lefs likely to be expofed 
 £iP a fuperior influence, and to unite at once that ability 
 and that independence which are abfolutely neceffary to 
 the enjoyment of a wife and perfedl government. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 SIR, 
 
 IjATisFACTORy as may be the confiderations which are 
 fuggefted by reafon for the necefiity and utility of the 
 inftitution of a feparate order of elders, it is on revelation 
 alone that we reft its authority. There are three paf- 
 fages In particular which appear to affert its truth. 
 
 In the firft place, Rom. xii. 6, 7, 8. Here it is necef- 
 fary to remark, that, in the preceding verfes, the apoftle 
 
Letter X. 165 
 
 reprefents the church of Chrlft under the metaphor of a 
 body, and' affirms that as in the natural body there is a 
 variety of members poffefied of different and feparate 
 powers, fo in this fpiritual body there is a diverfity of 
 offices, for the exercife of which a diverfity of gifts is 
 requifite. " As we have many members in one body," 
 fays he, ** and all members have not the fame office^ fo we 
 ** being many, are one body in Chrift, and every one 
 ** members one of another." After this, he declares it 
 was the duty of thofe to whom gifts had been imparted 
 for the exercife of particular offices faithfully to employ 
 them, without vanity or arrogance (compare ver. 3.), in 
 their different fundlions : " Having then gifts, differing 
 " according to the grace that is given to us, whether 
 ** prophecy, let us prophefy according to the proportion 
 " of faith ; or miniilry, let us wait on our minidering ; 
 ** or he that leacheth, on teaching ; or he that exhort- 
 " eth, on exhortation : he that giveth, let him do it with 
 " fimplicity ; he that ruleth, with diligence ; he that 
 ** fheweth mercy, with cheerfulnefs." Nov/, fince in 
 the body of Chrift there is a diverfity of offices as ftriking 
 as that of the offices of the different members of the 
 natural body ; and fince, as is no lefs evident from the 
 comparifon, the united members of the body of Chrift 
 can no more exercife any office of thai body which does not 
 belong to them united, than every member of the human 
 body united can difcharge the office o£ any particular mem- 
 ber of thai body ; and fince, as is equally plain, there are 
 fome of the offices of the body of Chrift which can be ex- 
 ercifed by perfons who cannot difcharge any fuperior 
 fundion, as in the human body there are fome offices 
 which can be performed only by the eye or the ear, 
 while thefe members cannot difcharge any other fundion ; 
 is it not obvious that if it can be proved that ruling is 
 numbered among thefe offices in the former body, it will 
 not only follow that it cannot be exercifed by ally as fee- 
 
1^4 Letter X. 
 
 ing or hearing cannot be performed by all the members 
 of the latter body, but that it can be performed by 
 fome who cannot teach, as feeing and hearing can be 
 exercifed by members of the latter body which have no 
 other funAion ? 
 
 But that ruling is here mentioned as one of the offices 
 in the church of Chrift appears to be undeniable. Thefe 
 offices, as we are informed by Mr. Goodwin and Dr. 
 Guyfe, are firft divided into prophecy * and rainiftry : 
 and are again fubdivided into thofe of the exhorter and 
 teacher, comprehended under the former; and thofe of 
 the perfon who gives, of him who ruk^s, and of him who 
 fiiews mercy, included under the latter. Now, as Paul, 
 when fpeaking of the offices of the church, after his 
 general arrangement, fpecifies particularly hhn that ruhthy 
 is it not evident that the office of the elder who rules is 
 a divine inftitution ? As he introduces it under the head 
 of miniilry, which is confefTedly different in its other 
 branches (that of the deacon who gave, and that of him 
 who (heweth mercy) from the office-bearers who were 
 appointed, under the head of prophecy, to teach and 
 exhort, is it not obvious that this office muft be com- 
 pletely diflinft from that of teaching, and, like the office 
 of the deacon, which too is included under miniftry, 
 may be exercifed by thofe who have neither talents nor 
 authority to preach the gofpel ? In fhort, as the gifts 
 for ruling, which Paul here enjoins the governors of the 
 church to exerclfe with diligence, by the very compari- 
 fon before mentioned, are no more given to all the mem- 
 bers of the church, than the power of feeing or hearing 
 
 ♦ Underftanding by prophecy, as Dr. Guyfe has proved (fee his 
 Note on the place, and his Second Note on i Cor. xiv. i. — 5.), not 
 fche interpretation of fcripture by immediate infpiiation, or the 
 foreteUing of future events, but the ordinary freachh.g of the 
 miniflers of Chrift, as his two witneffcs are faid to ^rophejy during 
 the reign of Antivhrift. 
 
Letter X. 165 
 
 is imparted to all the members of our bodies, is it not 
 manifcft that this office of ruling cannot belong to all the 
 members indifcriminately ? And, in fine, as mere gifts 
 for preachings or giving, do not authorize as many as 
 have them to excrclfe the offices of a pajQor or a deacon, 
 but thofe only are warranted to do fo who have been fet 
 apart to thefe offices, fo is it not evident that when the 
 duty of ruling is fpoken of, every one is not here called 
 to the performance of this duty, but as many only as 
 have been conndered to be requifite to take the overfight 
 of the church, and have been inverted with the office of 
 ruhrs for this end ? Thus, then, it would appear that 
 there is an office of rule in the church of Chrift different 
 from that of the elder who teaches, and that this office 
 is not committed to all indifcriminately, but to as many 
 only of thofe who are qualified for it, and^ are neceffary 
 for this end, as have been regularly fet apart to it by the 
 ciders of the church. 
 
 In anfwer to this it has been fald, that the apoftle is 
 not here fpeaking ol offxes but oi gifts, and confequently 
 that it cannot be inferred from what is here faid, that 
 there is an office of rule diftinft from that of the elder 
 who teaches. But in reply to this it may be obferved, 
 that by introducing a comparifon between the natural 
 body and the church of Chrift (ver. 4, 5.), and affert- 
 ing that as In the former " there were many members, 
 *' all of which had not the fame officcy^ fo in the latter 
 there was a variety no lefs remarkable, he plainly points 
 out a dlverfity not only of gifts but of offices in the 
 latter, as there was a dlverfity not only of gifts but of 
 offices m the former. Though therefore it were admit- 
 ted that the apoftle is fpeaking only of the exercife of 
 the gifts of him who ruleth, agreeably to what he fays 
 in ver. 6. he evidently fuppofes that there is an ojice for 
 ruling in which thefe gifts may be exercifed, and an 
 office diftind from that of the teacher, as when he fpeaks 
 
i66 Letter X. 
 
 of each of the members of our bodies as exerclfing thofe 
 gifts which are peculiar to its offuCi he afcrlbes to it an 
 office feparate from that of any of the other members. 
 As the apoftlc moreover, when he mentions him who 
 teacheth, and him \\\\o g'lveth, fpeaks not merely of gifted 
 brethren as exercifing the endowments which are requifite 
 for thefe offices, bat of fuch only as were onlained to thefe 
 particular funilions, is it not manifeft that when he 
 mentions likewife him who ruleth, he muft intend not 
 merely gifted brethren as governing the church, but 
 thofe only who are invefted with that particular office ? 
 Novi?, if mere qualifications for being a paftor or a deacon 
 will not authorize thofe who pofTefs them to exercife 
 thefe gifts z.% pajlors or deacons, till they are fet apart to 
 thefe offices, it appears equally obvious that though the 
 apoftle were allowed here to fpeak of thofe who ruled as 
 barely exercifing //j(f/r ^///j- for ruling with diligence, he 
 cannot mean that any were to exercife thefe gifts for that 
 end, but fuch as had been ordained to the office of eccle- 
 fiaftical rulers. Inveftiture therefore with the office of 
 ruling is as much requifite to the exercife of rule, as in- 
 veftiture with that of a paftor is to teaching, and invefti- 
 ture with that of a deacon is to giving. And as this 
 office is ejfentially different from the former, and requires 
 qualifications totally d'lflin&y we are warranted to affirm 
 that there muft be an office of ruling in the church of 
 Chrift completely different from that of teaching ; an office, 
 for which as all have neither gifts nor authority, that 
 cannot be exercifed by all, and which, as many have en- 
 dowments for it who are totally unfit for being public 
 teachers, may be exercifed by many who cannot be 
 teachers of the church of God. 
 
 Still it is objefted, that though we hear, in this paf- 
 fage, of him ivho ruleth, it may be only the perfon's oivn 
 family that is intended. But to this it is anfwered, that 
 the various duties here mentioned by the apoftle as per- 
 
Letter X. 167 
 
 formed by the different perfons of whom he fpeaks, are 
 repreferted by him as performed to the church only, 
 and confequently that it mufl be a rule which relates 
 more immediately to the affairs of this fociety which is 
 defigned. Is it contended with Doddridge and other In- 
 dependents, that it is a rule or prefidency (as they fay 
 that the word means), which refers merely to the diflrl- 
 bution of the charitable collecftions of the church ? This 
 would make him who rulethf the fame with the deacon^ 
 or him who givethy which, in a divifion of the different 
 offices of the church, as is here ftated, would be ex- 
 tremely inaccurate. Is it faid, moreover, that the ex- 
 horter, who is the fame with the teacher, is mentioned 
 apparently as a different office-bearer from him ; and 
 him that fheweth mercy, who is the fame with the dea- 
 con, or him who giveth, as a different office-bearer from 
 him ; and why may not the name of him who ruleth be 
 here fuppofed to be given to the deacon, or him who 
 giveth, in reference to his prefidency over the church- 
 flock, though it makes him who ruleth, and him who 
 giveth, the fame office-bearer ? But even though it were 
 allowed that he who teaches, and he who exhorts, or, 
 as fome render it, who reproves and comforts, were the 
 fame office-bearer, and that he who giveth, and he who 
 fheweth mercy, were the fame minifler, it is plain that 
 different branches of their office are referred to. He 
 who teaches men the dodlrines and duties of Chriflianity 
 performs a very different part from him who reproves, 
 or comforts, or exhorts ; and he who was appointed 
 by the church to ihew mercy in the various ways in 
 which it was manifefted in the primitive times to Chrif- 
 tian brethren, who were Urangers and in dlflrefs, certainly 
 performed a very different duty from him who merely gave. 
 If prefiding here, however, means prefiding over the 
 church-flock, and if he who ruleth be the fame with him 
 who giveth, it is employing two expreffions, in an enumera- 
 
i68 Letter X. 
 
 tion of things which are different, £or the very fame part of 
 the office of the deacon. Befides, it has been the opinion of 
 many moll refpedlable men, both among Prefbyterians and 
 Independents, that he who taught, and he who exhorted, 
 - were not perfons who fulfilled only different parts of the 
 fame of&ce, but perfons who difcharged offices entirely 
 diftinB, The former, according to them, was the cate- 
 chift or teacher, who prepared young perfons for perfonal 
 admiffion to the privilege of memberfhip, as well as the 
 catechumens who had become converts from idolatry, 
 or who publicly explained the truths of religion without 
 difpenfing privileges ; the latter was the ftated paftor or 
 bifhop *. And with regard to him who giveth, and 
 him who fheweth mercy, it is well known that it was 
 the opinion of Beza \ and Goodwin if, that they were 
 cither feparate offices, or parts of the fame office, fo 
 diftin6l from each other, as that many, who could dif- 
 charge the laft, could not perform the firft. By him 
 who giveth, they underflood the deacon, and by thofe 
 who (hewed mercy, thofe pious perfons whofe employ- 
 ment it was, in the primitive times, to perform offices 
 of mercy to Chriftians who were ftrangers, and were 
 poor or afflided. Of thefe office-bearers we have fome 
 account in i Tim. v. 9, 10. where, as Calvin remarks, 
 though aged widows are particularly mentioned as in- 
 trufted with this office, the word t<j, " any oncy^ is ufed, 
 and which, being either mafculine or feminine, fiiews 
 that it might be communicated to men, perhaps ad- 
 
 * See Calvin's Inftitutes ; Beza upon the place ; Owen on the 
 Nature of a Gofpel-church, chap, vi.; Goodwin's Church-catechifm, 
 p. 16. where he exprefsly declares, " that the apoftle makes them 
 •* difiind: officers, and that they have their feveral works to attend 
 *' to, the paftor not being to attend to the dodrine, nor the 
 " teacher to exhortation." 
 
 f Confult him upon the place. 
 
 \ See his Catechifm, p. a;. 
 
L.LTTLR X. 169 
 
 %'anced In age, as wtU as to women. Since then it 
 appears that all the other phrafcs employed in this enu- 
 meration denote (i\th.Qr feparate offices, ov fop urate parts of 
 the fame office, *' he who ruleth" mud fignify alfo fome 
 office, or fome part of an office, completely difFi^rent 
 from what is fuggefted by any of the other phrafes. And 
 fmce it cannot be explained as fignifying him who pre- 
 fides over the church-jlocky or as referring to any part of the 
 dcacon*s office, without making it the fame with him 
 who giveih, or him who fheweth mercy, it appears na- 
 turally to follow that the rule or prefidency here men- 
 tioned, mufl be a rule or prefidency entirely different, 
 and a rule which is the fame with that of the elder who 
 governs, though he dues not teach. 
 
 M'Knight indeed aficrts, that by him wlio ruleth 
 fcems to be defigned the perfon who prefided in his 
 tuiu in the meetings of the church, and appointed thofe 
 who were to fpeak for their edification, who, from the 
 extraordinary gift of difcerning fpirits with which he 
 was endowed, dete<fled and prevented heretical teachers 
 from miniflering among them, and whofe province It 
 waSj along with his fellow-preildents, to decide In thofe 
 cafes of crcil controverfy which happened among the 
 faints. See i Cor. vi. i, 2. But there appears to be 
 no authority from fcripture for fuch an office ; and if 
 this were admitted, then, even according to M'Knight, 
 as we are Informed in i Tim. v. 17. that there were 
 fome elders who prefided or ruled well, and did not 
 preach. It would elevate laymen above the pafior and 
 teacher, and give them a power to prefcribe to them in 
 fome cafes their particuLir work. Befides, though it 
 were granted that there was fuch an office, there feems 
 to be no proper reafon for limiting their power to the 
 diredion of the worfhlp and fervices of the church, and 
 the decifion fimply of civil controverfies. There Is a 
 rule or prefidency In the church much more im- 
 P 
 
170 Letter X. 
 
 portant than what is mentioned by this expofitor, a 
 rule which extends to the difpenfation of the privileges 
 and the inflidlion of the puniftiments of this fpiritual 
 fociety. Would it not then be very extraordinary, if> 
 in a profefTed enumeration of the ordinary offices which 
 are inftituted in it *, and which fpecifies the deacon 
 and teacher, no notice (hould be taken of this very in- 
 terefting funftion, by nuhomfoe'ver it is to be exercifed ? 
 Befides, as this interpretation fuppofes that a few of the 
 laymen, conjoined with the paftors, decided not only in 
 civil controverlies, but fixed the labours of the miniflers 
 of the church, and even exercifed the power of denying 
 to heretical or apoftate teachers, without confulting the 
 brethren, the liberty of fpeaking or preaching in their 
 afTemblies, is not this conceding that a few of the mem- 
 bers, together with the paftors, in many important cafes^ 
 may govern the church ? And, if they may exclude 
 the teachers from the rights of teachers., why not alfo ex- 
 clude the members, if they fhew themfelves unworthy of 
 the privileges of members ; and confequently will not 
 the fame inftitution be authorized by this interpretation 
 for which Prefhyterians contend, when they fay that a 
 few of the members who do not teach, together with the 
 paftors, are authorized as elders to govern the church \ 
 Or is It faid, that we may rejeA in part the interpreta- 
 tion of M'Knight, and maintain that the word denotes 
 merely prefidency, without fuppofing that the perfon 
 who prefided had any other power over thofe among 
 whom he prefided than that of a chairman or moderator, 
 who fimply ftates the vote, preferves order, and deter- 
 mines when the number on two fides is equal ? It is 
 
 * That the apoftle here is fpeaking only of ordinary oflSces 
 feems evident, among other things, notvvithftandingtheunfubflan- 
 tiated aftertion of M'Knight to the contrary, from this confidera- 
 tion, that there is not one of them, as far as is here ftated, for 
 the difcharge of which qv.c exiraorditt^ry qualification was required. 
 
Letter X. 171 
 
 replied, that the term, when it fignifies to prefide, as 
 far as \vc know, unitormly denotes a much higher au- 
 thority — an authority which entitles him to govern and 
 direcl thofe over whom he is placed, and not mtrtly to 
 fit as a moderator while they confuk and determine. It 
 is employed, for inftance, in fcripture, as was before ob- 
 ferved, i Tim. iii. 4, 5. 12. to denote the authority 
 connevTted with a Chriftian's prefiding over or ruling hts 
 family ; and in Tit. iii. 8. 14. to fignify the command 
 which he ftiould exercife over himjclfy fo as to excel in 
 good works. It is ufed too, as vias before remarked, 
 by Thucydidcs, to fignify the government o^ a JIate — 
 .7re^6ii<fv^x.ii ■V6V ^Yi^ovy " hc govcmcd the people ;" by Ari- 
 flotle, in his Polit. lib. iii. cap. x. according to Con- 
 ftantinus in his Lexicon, in the fame fenfe — Tr^on'n'tx-'cirxv 
 (cvrtkiVf " they governed them ; by Xenophon, in his 
 QSconomics, in a fimilar acceptation — Tr^o^xmi a-tuvrcv 
 TTciTOi^og, " who prefided over, or goveinefl. thy country ;" 
 by Herodotus, for the fuperintendent of the armory 
 or arfenal — ni? 'c^rAo^nxjjj ;r^os5-«x6;j, ** having been fet 
 over the armory ; by the fame writer, for the magiftrates 
 or governors of cities — 7r^Mi^iori<; im TroXim ; by Plato, in 
 his Epiilles (Epifl. vii.), in the fame fenfe — ^tiy«,M<i 
 wgag5-&»? TcoXiuqy "the prefed or governor of a great 
 ** city ;'* and by Demofthenes pro Corona, in a fimilar 
 acceptation — Kca ,t«sy<5"6)v ^Ji Ttr^ocy^tccrm TTgortft?, *' fet even 
 " over the greateil matters, or having the fupreme 
 ** power." Now, fince the word, as far as we know, 
 fignifies not merely to prefide over an affembly, who, as 
 rulers, are veiled with an equality of power with the pre- 
 fident himfelf (the point of preferving order alone ex- 
 cepted), and can even make determinations which can 
 authoritatively bind him no lefs than themfelves, how 
 can it be fuppofed that, in the prefent paffage, it Is to 
 be taken in this acceptation, and that a number of men 
 would be faid to prefide as governors over the church, 
 P2 
 
17^ Letter X. 
 
 agreeably to this ftrong exprelTion, when all that is 
 meant is only that they fat as chairmen in their meetings, 
 and preferved order, while, in every other point, they 
 were more completely fubjedt to the power of the mem- 
 bers than the members were to that of the prefidents ? 
 But if, as v/e are here taught, there be a clafs of men 
 who are to rule in the church, not merely as chairmen 
 ar.d moderators, but as governors, in whom alone, to- 
 gether with the paftors, the adminiftration is vefted ; 
 and if thefe men, as is here afierted, be diflinguifhed 
 from the paftor, the teacher, the deacon, and thofe who, 
 in the primitive times, fhewt-d mercy ; are we not warrant- 
 ed to affirm that there muft be a clafs of elders who rule 
 and do not teach ? 
 
 The fecond of thofe paffages urged by Prefbyterians in 
 fupport of this pofition, is one to which I have already 
 follcited your attention, namely, i Cor. xii. 28. That 
 the apoflle, in this place, is enum.erating not merely the 
 extraordinary, as Xvl Knight affirms, but alfo the ordinary 
 offices in the church, muft be evident from the comparifon 
 inftituted between the offices of the church and the offices 
 of all the different members of the boG3^ In fpeaking 
 of the latter, the feeble as well as the ftrong, ver. 22. 
 and the lefs honourable as well as the more honourable 
 members are fpecified, ver. 2t. Now, if Paul, when 
 reprobating the Corinthian office-bearers for all afpiring 
 at the highell funftions, tells them that it was as unfeemly 
 as if all the members of the natural body Hiould feek to 
 be an eye, or an ear, or a fenfeof fmelling (ver. 17. iyc); 
 and if, when fpeaking of the variety which, for the wifeft 
 purpofes, was appointed in the body, he mentions not 
 only the ftronger and more honourable, but the feebler 
 and lefs honourable members ; would it not be unaccount- 
 able, if, in detailing the correfponding diverfity of offices 
 which is fitly inftltuted in the church of Chrift, he fpe- 
 cified thofe only which are extraordinary and more exali- 
 
Letter X. 173 
 
 ed^ But if the ordinary as well as extraordinary mini- 
 fters be mentioned, have we reafon to believe that among 
 the former, are included the elder who rules and does 
 not teach ? 
 
 That fuch was the opinion of the venerable Chryfoftcm, 
 one of the moll diilinguidied of the Chriftian fathers, 
 appears to be undeniable. He underftands by " the 
 ** helpers," or fijvr^A-.^ij'Sjj*, " iili qui pauperes fufciperent,'* 
 i. e. " thofe who took care of the poor ;" and by " the 
 " governments," or K'-jpisTf^Tur^^ " iUi qui prseeffent, et 
 *' curam gererent, et res fpirituales adminiitrarent," 
 u e. " thofe who prefided over, and managed and go- 
 " verned the fpiritual concerns of the church." And in 
 this opinion he is followed not only by modern Prefbyte- 
 rians, but by Owen, as well as many of the moil refpe6l- 
 able of the Independents. And that this interpretation 
 is founded in truth, feems evident from an impartial re- 
 view of the pafTage. That the apoflle, in enumerating 
 the different offices which exift in the church, fpecifies 
 not merely fome which are extraordinary, but others 
 which are ordinary^ we have already proved ; and that in 
 afcertaining which of thefe offices are ordinary, and which 
 of them are extraordinary, we are to be guided by their 
 nature, and by the common reprefentations of them in 
 fcripture, appears to be no lefs evident. Judging then 
 by thcfe principles, it would feem that while among the 
 extraordinary offices, are to be claffed thofe of apoilies, 
 and prophets, and workers of miracles, among the ordi- 
 nary, are to be comprehended teachers, and helps, and 
 governments. Thefe are not only, in their own nature. 
 Handing offices, which are continually requifite for the 
 edification of the church, and require no miraculous 
 gifts for their performance, but are always pointed out in 
 fcripture as ordinary ofSces. It has indeed been afferted 
 
 * See his Thirty-firft Homily. 
 
 i"3 
 
174 Letter X. 
 
 by M'Knight, that by the teacher here, we are to un- 
 derftand an extraordinary minifter, becaufe in i Cor. 
 xiv. 6. the doftrine or teaching there mentioned, means 
 doftrine or teaching by infpiration. But though it were 
 granted (and nothing more is there mentioned) that an 
 apojlki or other extraordinary mmx^&Xifomet'imes taught by 
 infpiranion, it is certain that the term teacher, in the 
 New Teftament, commonly fignifies an ordinary minifter, 
 who had no fupcrnatural powers *. It has been contend- 
 ed moreover, by that txpofitor, that by helps, or help- 
 ers, appear to be meant inipired brethren, who, fpeak- 
 jng occafionally to the edification of the church, affifted 
 the apoftlts and elders in their miniftrations. But while 
 it may juftly be queftioned whether any but the mini- 
 fters of the church poflelTed thefe miraculous gifts for 
 teaching, and while we never hear of fuch perfons being 
 helps to the apoftles, we know that deacons, at the 
 period of their inftitution, were exprefsly appointed to 
 aflift them in their work, and to free them from the 
 labour of ferving tables. It has alfo been maintained, 
 that by governments are meant, perfons endowed with 
 miraculous gifts, who prefided in the meetings, and 
 direfted the affairs of the primitive church. But we 
 hear, in the New Teftament, of no fuch infpired officers 
 who were prefidents of the church. In the account 
 which is given ( Afts xv.) of the confultation at Jerufa- 
 lem, upon the reference from Antioch, it was not 
 merely the prefident, but the rulers at large, who fpoke 
 and advifed ; and if, as is evident from the principles 
 both of Independents and Prefbyterians, any of the 
 other members may fet afide any propofal fuggefted by 
 the prefident, and, if he is able to fupport it by fuperior 
 reafoning, may introduce and carry any meafure of his 
 
 • It is plain, too, that as teachers are here diftinguiilicd from 
 apoftles, and prophets, and other infpired inftruiftors, they can 
 here denote only ordinary minifters. 
 
Letter X. 175 
 
 own, I cannot fee how the former are entitled to the 
 name of governments, or governors, rather than the latter. 
 Since by governments, or governors, all who were en- 
 titled to adminifter the church are intended, and fince, 
 as far at lead as is mentioned in the New Teftament, it 
 was not neceflary for this purpofe that thofe who were 
 appointed to it fhould be fiirnifhed with any extraordi- 
 nary gifts, it appears plain that the governments, who 
 are here mentioned, were ordinary officers. And as 
 they are dated as different from teachers and helps, we 
 are warranted to infer that they are a clafs of elders dif- 
 tindl from the paftors, and teachers, and deacons, and are 
 merely to rule in the church of Chrift. 
 
 Here then is another teftimony to the divine authority 
 of the elder who rules and does not preach. Govern- 
 ment in itfelf, as well as according to the uniform re- 
 prefentation of it delivered in the New Teftament, is an 
 office for which no miraculous powers are rcquifite, and 
 an office which is always neceffary in the church. It is 
 therefore an ordinary and ftanding office. It is an 
 office which is here faid to be given to fome only, and, 
 therefore, in no form ought to be committed to all. It 
 is an office which is vefted neither upon the principles of 
 Independents nor Prefbyterians in the prefident alone, 
 for every member of the court has as much, if not more, 
 a voice and power than the prefident himfelf. And it is 
 an office, moreover, completely diftintl from that of the 
 teacher, and is reprefented as exercifed by fome who are 
 entitled to difcharge no higher function. In other 
 words, it is an office which may be difcharged by elders 
 who do not teach. 
 
 Is it faid in anfwer to this, that the apoftle fpeaks 
 here of gifts, not of offices ? It is replied, that as there 
 is an office in the natural body correfponding to the gifts 
 beftowed by the Creator upon any of the members, fo, 
 though it were granted that the apodle fpeaks here only 
 
i']6 Letter X. 
 
 of gifts for government, It would follow from the com- 
 parifon Introduced In the context, that there muil be 
 an office in the former for the exerclfe of thefe gifts. 
 And, In fhort, as thefe gifts are bellowed upon many 
 who are deftltute of talents for being teachers or pallors, 
 though admirably adapted for the office of governors, It 
 appears no lefs obvious, even from this very obje6lIon, 
 that there mud be a clafs of elders diillndl from the 
 pallors. 
 
 Is it urged, that helps, by whom we underftand dea- 
 cons, are placed before governments, vi'hich would not 
 be the cafe, if by governments were . Intended ruling 
 elders, fince the latter are unquelllonably fuperlor to the 
 former ? It is anf^ered, that the facred writers fre- 
 quently pay little attention to this mode of exprefiing 
 rank and dignity. Nay, this fame apoftie, in the loth 
 verfe of this very chapter, though he mentions prophets, 
 in the paffage before us, as the y^roW of the offices in 
 the Chrlftian church, places the gift of prophecy after 
 the gifts of healing and other inferior gifts ; and though, 
 in this paffage too, he Rates the gift^ of miracles before 
 gifts of healing, in the 9th verfe he Introduces the latter 
 before the former. It feems obvious then, that fmce 
 this very apoftie, in this very chapter, mentions repeat- 
 edly offices which are inferior before offices which are 
 confeffedly greatly fuperior, no argument can be adduced 
 from the pofition of helps, or the office of deacons, before 
 governments or governors, agaiaft explaining the latter 
 of ruling elders, becaufe the former are inferior to the 
 latter in dignity. 
 
C 1/7 ] . 
 LETTER Xr. 
 
 SIR, 
 1 HE laft, however, and mofl decifive argument for this 
 order of elders is contained in i Tim. v. 17. ; *' a text," 
 according to the opinion of Dr. Owen, " of uncontroul- 
 " able evidence, if it had any thing but prejudice and 
 *' intereft to- contend with. On the firft propofal of 
 *' this text," fays he, p. 246. " that the elders ivho rule 
 '' zuell are tuorthy of double honour, efpecially thofe ivho 
 " lahour in the 'ujord and do5lrine, a rational man who is 
 " unprejudiced, who never heard of the controverfy 
 " about ruKng elders, can hr.rdly avoid an apprehenfion 
 " that there are two forts of elders, feme that labour in 
 *' the word and doflrine, and fome who do not fo do. 
 " The truth is, it was intereft and prejudice that firft 
 " caufed fome learned men to ftrain their wits to find 
 ** oat evafions from the evidence of this teftimony : being 
 *' fo found, fome others, of meaner abilities, have been 
 " entangled by them. For there is not one new argu- 
 *' ment advanced in this caufe" (and no new arguments 
 have been offered by Independents fmce his day), " not 
 " one exception given in unto the fenfe of the place 
 ** wliich we plead for, but vi'hat has long fince been 
 " coined by Papifts and Prelatifts, and managed with 
 *' better colours than fome now are able to lay on them 
 <' who pretend to the fame judgment." 
 
 Nor is the language of Dr. Whitaker, though a zeal- 
 ous Epifcopalian, lefs ftrong and decided with regard 
 to this paiTage. " By thefe words," fays he, in his Prae- 
 leftion. apud Didioclav. p. 681. ex Sheervodio, " the 
 *' apoRle evidently diftinguifhes between the bifhops and 
 " the infpcftors of the church. If all who rule well be 
 " worthy of double honour, efpecially they who labour 
 " in the word and doftrine, it is plain that there were 
 
1^8 Letter XI. 
 
 *' fome who did not fo labour : for if all had been of this 
 " defcription, the meaning would have been abfurd ; 
 " but the word efpecially points out a difference. If I 
 " fiiouM fay that all they who ftudy well at the unlver- 
 *• fity are worthy of double honour, efpecially they 'who 
 ** labour In ihejludy of theology ^ I mufl either mean that 
 •' <a//do not apply themfelves to the Jludy of theology, or 
 ** I fiiould Jpeah nonfenfe. V/herefore I confefs that to be 
 *' the raoft genuine fenfe by which padors and teachers 
 " are dillingulihed from thofe who only governed, 
 *' Rom. xil. 8. ; of whom v»'e read In Ambrofe upon 
 ** I Tim, V. 17." Iliis verbis diferte diillngult apoftolus 
 inter epifcopos et Infpeflores ecckfise. SI omnes dupllcl 
 honore fint digni qui bene prsefunt, maxime II qui labo- 
 rant In fermone et do£lrina, perfpicuum eft fulfle allquos 
 qnl non laborarunt. Nam fi omnes fuiffent tales, fenfus 
 fulifet abfurdus, fed ^«A*f« ponit difcrlmen. Si dicerem 
 omnes academic! qui bene ftudent, funt duplici honore dig- 
 ni, maxime il qui laborant In ftudio theologise, vel Innuo 
 non omnes incumbere ftudio theologlse, vel Infulfe loquor. 
 Quamobrem fateor ilium effe fenfum maxime genulnum 
 quo paftores et doilores difcernuntur abalils qui folum 
 gubernabant, Rom. xll. 8. de quibus In Ambrofio leglmr" 
 I Tim. v. 17. And fays Dr. Whitby on this paflage, 
 though no lefs rigid an Epifcopallan, " The elders of the 
 *' Jews were of i'wo forts ; i ft, Such as governed In the 
 " fynagogue ; and 2dly, Such as minlftered In reading and 
 " expounding their fcriptures, \Jc. And thefe the apoftle 
 ** here declares to be the moft honourable, and worthy of 
 *< the chiefeft reward. Accordingly the apoftle, reckoning 
 " up the offices God had appointed in the church, places 
 ** teachers before governments : i Cor. xll." 
 
 Here, then, even according to the conceffions of fome 
 of the enemies of Preft)ytery, tivo clafles of elders are 
 mentioned, one who rule well, and, on account of it, 
 
Letter XL 
 
 179 
 
 are worthy of double honour, and one who not only- 
 rule, but labour alfo In the word and doftrlne, and are 
 more efpecially worthy of double honour. 
 
 To this interpretation however a number of objections 
 have been urged by Epifcopalians, and repeated by Inde- 
 pendents, but all of them intended to fupport explications 
 too forced and abftrufe to prefent themfelves readily to a 
 candid reader. Some, for iuftance, with the famous 
 Jofeph Mede, have contended that by thofe who rule 
 well, are intended fubordinate civil magiftrates. But we 
 know that there was not one Chriftian magiilrate at that 
 period in the church, nor for fome hundred years after 
 this Epiille was written ; and were Chriftian magiftrates 
 the rulers here referred to, it would be a neceflary con- 
 fequence, that as thofe who labour in the word and doc- 
 trine are reprefented in this verfe as mere worthy than 
 the firft of double maintenance or honour, they ought to 
 have a more liberal appointment than the civil magi- 
 ftrates. Others have maintained, that by thofe who 
 ruled well, were to be underftood fupcrannuated bifhops, 
 who, though they might afTift in government, could not 
 teach ; and that by thofe who laboured in the word 
 and doflrlne, are meant the younger minifters, who were 
 fit for the vigorous difcharge of this ofnce *. But how 
 could thefe elders rule well, who were fo fupcrannuated 
 that they could not preach ? And if the younger mini- 
 fters received greater honour and maintenance than thofe 
 who had become old in the caufe of Chrift, and had 
 fpent their ftrength and years in his fervice, would not 
 this Indeed be a moft unfuitable return for their zeal and 
 labours ? How then, according to the obfervatlon of Solo- 
 mon, could their gray hairs be to them a crovrn of glory, 
 though found In the ways of righteoufnefs ? 
 
 * See Bifhop King's Sermon on Canticles viii. 
 
iSs Letter XI. 
 
 Others have alleged*, that by the elders who rule 
 well, are fignlfied \.\\t Jiatcd paftors of the church, and 
 by thofe who laboured in the word and doftrine, evange- 
 liils who itinerated for the difFufion of the gofpel. But 
 it Is a fad which is Inconteftable, that in i ThefT. v. 12. 
 rovi KOTTnovroicy <' thofe who laboured in that church, and 
 *' were over them in the Lord," was the name given to 
 their ftated pallors ; and confeqiiently that interpretation 
 which would reprefent thofe who laboured in the word 
 aud dodnne as cvangelifls, and thofe who ruled well as 
 JIated pajlorSi mull be totally groundlefs. 
 
 Some, in fiiort, with Sutclive de Prefbyterlo, p. 75. 
 affirm, that the word here rendered " efpeclally" [(/.aXi^ce.) , 
 fhould be tranflated '* much ;'' and that the apoftle, in- 
 Head of naming ttvo claffes of elders, only affigns the 
 reafon why thofe whom he had mentioned as ruling well 
 fhould receive double honour : *' Let the elders who rule 
 " well," fay they, his words fhould be rendered, " be 
 *' counted worthy of double honour, they labouring," 
 i. e. becaufe they labour " much in the word and doc- 
 *' trine." But upon this it is obferved, that It would be 
 (or preaching alone and not for ruling, according to this 
 Interpretation, that the honour would be claimed ; and 
 can we fuppofe for a moment, that no honour is to be 
 the reward of ruling aright ? Bcfides, as the learned 
 Calderwood, in his Altare Damafcenum, p. 919. has 
 remarked, had this been the meaning of the apodle, he 
 would not have fa:d ^u>a<^a, '01 y.oTmrjTig, but 'a ^y.Xi'^ot, 
 fceTsriifyng, or f/.aXifx y.o^imrig ; i. e. " Let the elders be 
 ** counted worthy of double honour who rule well, la- 
 " bouring greatly, or they labouring greatly in the 
 ** word and dodlrlne," and not as the prefent arrange- 
 ment of the Greek words fuggefts, " Let the elders be 
 " counted worthy of double honour who rule well, 
 
 * See Bilfon on Church-government, p. 135. 
 
Letter. Xf. iSt 
 
 '• efpeciaUy they who labour in word and do^lrlne." 
 Bciides, in every other limilar paffage where the word 
 (here tranflated efpecially) occurs, it unifornoly means a 
 diftindtion oi tnuo perfons or things. Thus, in this very 
 chapter, ver. S. ** If any man provide not for his own, 
 *' and efpecially for thcfe of his own houfe, £5*^." where, 
 though the negle6l of one^s own is condemned, the 
 negle<Sl of one's neareil relatives is evidently held 
 out as much more reprehenfible. Thus too, chap. iv. 
 ver. 10. *' Who is the Saviour,'' or, as the word fhould 
 iiere be rendered, " the Preferver of all men, efpecially of 
 " them who believe," where two clafTes of perfons are 
 obvioufiy diftinguilhed. Thus likewife, 2 Tim. iv. 13, 
 ** Bring the books, efpecially the parchments ;" and 
 Gal. vi. 10. ^' Let us do good to all m.en, but efpecially 
 " unto the houfehold of faith." See alfo Philip, iv. 22. 
 Titus i. 10. 2 Peter ii. 9, 10. and Ads xx. 39. which 
 are all the parallel inftances, as far as I have difcovered, 
 where it occurs in the New Teftaraent, and in all of 
 which it marks a diftinftion between tvi-o claffcs of per- 
 fons or things. Now, when we fee the apoftle, in the 
 pafTages before us, afler fpeaking of elders who rule well, 
 inftrt this very word between thefe and elders who are 
 engaged in preaching, is it not plain that he intended to 
 fugged by it here, as in all thefe other inftances, tivo 
 clafl'es of perfons, fome who ruled well and did not teach, 
 and others who taught as well as ruled ? 
 
 In anfwer to this, let it not be objedled that the par- 
 ticle ^g, " but," is not in this paffage fubjoined to f^xT^iTciy 
 " efpecially," as it ought to have been, had the latter 
 word, as we contend, figniiled efpecially. It is not to be 
 found in a number of the paffages quoted above, v^here, 
 however, the word here tranilated " efpecially," can 
 admit only of that meaning. Thus, in i Tim. iv. 10. 
 " Who is the Preferver of all men, efpecially of them who 
 *' believe" — not " hui efpecially,^' (^ahi^A Tci^on^ not imXt^cc 
 
 Q. 
 
i82 Letter XI. 
 
 h TTiTuv. And thus too, in Titus i. lo. " For there arc 
 ** many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, efpecially 
 ** they of the circumclfion" — not " hut ejpecially^^ f^ctXt'^oe. 
 'cif not f^ecXi-rx h 'oi ix TTi^iTc/^yii;. Accordingly the old 
 Hebrew tranflators have rendered f^etXi's-cct in i Tim. v. i 7. 
 which, in our verfion, is tranflated " efpecially,*' by a 
 word which fignifies, in connexion with KOTrimriiy " emi- 
 ** ncntly they who labour in word and doftrine ;" the 
 Syriac verfion by another, which fignifies " chiefly or 
 ** principally they" who do fo ; and the Old Latin Ver- 
 fion or Vulgate, by tnaxmey a term of the fame import. 
 Hence it would feera that the apoftle, in the latter 
 claufe, is not pointing out merely a reafon why the 
 elders who ruled well fhould receive double honour, but 
 clearly diftlnguifhing, by the term f^oiXiTUi " efpecially," 
 two claifes of elders, one who ruled and did not teach, 
 and one who taught as well as ruled. 
 
 Others, with Bilfon, in his Treatife on Church- 
 government, p. 133, and Tilenus, in his Parasnef. cap. xi. 
 admit that a d'ljVirSion is here ftated, but contend that it 
 is not between elders in different offices ^ but between dif- 
 ferent elders in th& fame office. All elders, they tell us, 
 teach and rule, but there are fome who are diftinguiflied 
 for their extraordinary labours in the caufe of Chrift, and 
 it is to them they apprehend that the apoftle refers, 
 when he fpeaks of thofe who " labour" (xcTrtuvrig) in 
 word and doclrine. The meaning of Paul therefore, 
 according to them, is, " Let the ciders who rule well, 
 <' and who teach, be counted worthy of double honour, 
 " efpecfally they who are noted for their extraordinary 
 ** exertions in the word and dodlrine." This interpre- 
 tation, too, has been generally adopted by the Independ- 
 ents, as it is by your brother Mr. Ballentine, in his late 
 publication, p. 88. It is probable however, that had 
 this been the meaning of the apoftle, he would have 
 fald, " Let the elders who rule and preac/j we/lhQ count- 
 
Letter XI. 183 
 
 ** cd worthy of double honour, efpeclally they who h- 
 << hour in the word and do<flrine." But inftead of this, 
 we fee that he has fimply faid, *' Let the elders who rule 
 *' luellhtt counted worthy of double honour, efpecially 
 <' they who labour in the word and dodrine." Befides, 
 though the word Koxiaa denotes greater labour than Ttcmfy 
 and labour which, in one view, may be called extraordinary^ 
 this is nothing more than what is reprefented in fcripture 
 as the duty of every one who is a teaching elder. It is 
 employed by Paul, i Cor. iii, 8. to fignify the common 
 diity of every teaching elder: " Now he that planteth," 
 fays he, " and he that watereth, are both one ; 2i?.C\ every 
 *' man lliall receive his own reward, according to Lis 
 *' labour^ xo^rav." And, fays he, I ThtfT. v. 12, 13. 
 " Know them which labour among you, and are over 
 " you in the Lord," where it is reprefented as the com- 
 mon duty and work of all the teacherc. Thus, too, it is 
 expreiTive of the common duty and work of all the Old- 
 Tcftament teachers. John iv. 38. " I fent yen to reap 
 ** that whereon you beftcwed no labour: others have 
 " laboured^ and ye have entered into their labours^^—- 
 where the vetb and noun which are ufed by Paul occur 
 no lefs than thrice. And, in fhort, we know that whea 
 the apoftle intends to exprefs unufiml txtniori, he employs 
 another word befides kottixw. TIius, when he fpeaks of 
 the extraordinary exertions of Mary and Peifis to pro- 
 mote the gofpel in their private llations, he exprefTis it 
 not merely by Kcrixa/y but by ttoXXx iKCTnxcrxv, " they 
 ** laboured mwc^ .*" Rom. xvi. 6. 13, And when he 
 mentions his own extraordinary exertions, i Cor. xv. ic. 
 he fays, that " he laboured (^s^/o-o-ors^ov) more abundantly .'' ' 
 And efpecially when he defigns to convey this idea in 
 the moil forcible manner, he couples this term with a 
 word which fignifies not merely, like xo^a^, labour con- 
 nedled with care and anxiety, but agreeably to the 
 
2S4 Letter XT. 
 
 obfervation of the very able Zanchiiis on i ThefT. IL 9.* 
 which combines befides this, the idea of completely fa- 
 tigu'mg and overpo'wcnng the perfon. Thus, m 1 Cor. 
 xi. 27. in enumerating his hardfhips, he fpeaks of him- 
 felf as having been ** in luearinefs and painfulnefsi" or, 
 as it fhould more literally be rendered, " in labour and 
 " wearifomenefs," y.67rov koci (.lay^^ov. So alfo, in i ThefT. 
 ii. 9. he fays, *' For ye remember, brethren, our labour 
 ** and travel," or, as it more properly means, '* our la- 
 ** bour and ivear'tfomenefsi'^ x.ozr6v xui ^oyjcv. Since kutticco) 
 then, as we have feen, which is tranflated, in 1 Tim. v. 1 7, 
 " to labour,*^ properly fjgnifies the common duty and 
 work of every teacher, and fmce the apoftle, when he 
 intends to denote an extraordinary exertion, couples it 
 with fuch words as " much" (^oAAst), or " more abun- 
 <* dantly" (^g^^r^reTsgov), it feems plain that, in this 
 paffage, the elders who are faid to labour in word and 
 do€lrine, are not perfons who make extraordinary exer- 
 tions in preaching, but fimply fuch as perform the com- 
 mon duties of teaching elders. But if tivo kinds of elders 
 be mentioned in that pafTage, and if thofe who labour in 
 the word and dc6lrine be fuch as are engaged only in the 
 common duties of teaching elders, does it not follow, 
 agreeably to the introductory ciaufe of the verfe, that 
 there are to be elders in the church di/IinB from the for- 
 mer, and who, when they merely rule avell^ though they 
 do not teach, are entitled, on account of it, to double 
 honour ? 
 
 Others, in fine, have afTerted with Downham, and 
 Sutclive, and other ancient Epifcopahans, that the word 
 T<^>), here tranflated honour^ denotes not merely honour, 
 
 * Kasraj non eft fimplex labor, fed labor cum fumma cura et foli- 
 citudine conjun£\us; (^.o^J^oi amplius addit : cfl enim labor, non fo- 
 lum folicitudinem, fed etiam defatigationem conjundam habens. 
 Cum enim quis diu multumque operatus eft, folet, laboris mole 
 prefllis, defatigari. 
 
Letter XI. 185 
 
 but, as appears from a Komily cf Cliryfoilom on the 
 paflage, and the Expofitions of Calvin, and Beza, and 
 Bullinger, as well as the following verfe, maintenance 
 alfo. But if it mean maintenance, and if two kinds 
 of elders be mentioned, each of them mufl be entitled to 
 double or proper maintenance, a circumflance which, ia 
 their view, would be extremely inconfiftent. On this 
 cbjeifiion alfo Mr. Balkntine lays confiderable ftrefs, and 
 urges it againft Prefbyteriar.s with abundance of confi- 
 dence. But I do not fee on what principle it is incon- 
 fiilent with the tenets of Prefbyterians to grant even to 
 lay-elders proper maintenance, if their circumftances re- 
 quire ity or if at any time they are called from their 
 employments to the bufmefs of the church longer than 
 their fecular intercfts permit. Befides, it is evident from 
 the diftintflion which is here ftated between elders who 
 only rule, and elders who teach and give themfclves 
 wholly to their facred vocation, that attention is, in the 
 firll place, to be paid to the maintenance of the latter. 
 The former, if they need it, are to receive maintenance ; 
 but it is efpec'ially to be given to fuch as preach, and have 
 no other means of procuring fubfillence. If, after they 
 are provided for, the chutch is able to com pen fate the 
 lay-elders for that time which they devote to her particu- 
 lar buline fs, fhe is bound to do it. Is it cbjcded to this 
 reafoning, as has often been done by Independents*, 
 that the terms elder and bifhop are applied in fcvipture 
 to the fame individuals, and as every bifhop is required 
 by Paul (i Tim. iii. 2.) to be <' apt to leach,'' none 
 ihould be elders who are not public teachers ? It is re- 
 plied, that fuch an inference is not deducible from the 
 pafTdge '^\11 that is aflerted in- it appears Hmply to be 
 this, that an elder, or bifhop, fhould be fitted to teach, 
 according to the Hation which he holds in the church. 
 
 • See Sandeman's Letter to Mr. Wilibn. 
 
 CL3 
 
l86 Letter XI. 
 
 The preaching elder fhould be qualified to teach publicly, 
 according to the nature of his particular fundion ; and 
 the ruling elder fliould be qualified to teach, and admo- 
 iiifh, and counfel privately, according to the particular 
 nature of his office. But becaufe an elder, or bifliop, 
 fhould be apt to teach, according to the particular nature of 
 his ojice, can it fairly be inferred that none are to be elders 
 but thofe who are qualified to be preachers of the gofpel ? 
 
 If it is Hill contended, that as all the elders of the 
 church of Ephefus are commanded by Paul (Afts xx. 
 a8.) to feed that church, they muft all have been mini- 
 fters of the word^ becaufe it is the province of the 
 xninifter, and not of the ruling elder, to feed the church ? 
 It is anfwered, that though lay-elders cannot feed the 
 church by public inilruftions like the teaching elder, they 
 may undoubtedly do fo in their private capacity, by that 
 information, and counfel, and comfort, Vv-hich they may 
 communicate to the members. Befides, the word here 
 tranflated *' feed," frequently means to rule, as a fhep- 
 herd does his flock, as was before obferved *, which is 
 done by them no lefs than by the former. If the word 
 then be tranflated to feed^ it is obvious that the lay-elders 
 might be enjoined by the apollle to perform this duty as 
 well as the minifters, becaufe they were no lefs bound to 
 feed the church by their private inllruftions, than the 
 former were bound to do fo by their public difcourfes ; 
 and if it be rendered to rule., it is evident that they were 
 no lefs admitted to difcharge this office than the teachers 
 themfelves. It cannot therefore be evinced from the 
 prcfent paflage, that there ought not to be an order of 
 ciders in the church, who barely rule, diftind from the 
 elders who rule and teach. 
 
 In fliort, even conceding that, in both of thefe in- 
 ftances, the terms refer to public teaching only, it cannot 
 be inferred that becaufe elders in general are called thus 
 
 * See Note, p. 56. 
 
LliTTEK. XL 1S7 
 
 to teach and feed, there are not oihcr ciders, who, 
 though they govern the church, cannot perform thefe 
 duties. General declarations, of whatever kind, very 
 frequently admit of particular exceptions. It is faid, 
 for example, refpedling the whole of the tribe of Levi in 
 general (Deut. xxxiii. 8. 10.), that " they fhould teach 
 " Jacob God's judgments, and Ifrael his law : that they 
 " {hoxxXdi put incenfe before him, and whole burnt facrifice 
 ** upon his altar." And, agreeably to this, we are 
 told that Jehofhaphat, when he had convened them 
 upon a particular occafion (2 Chron. xxix. 5.), thus ad- 
 dreffed all of them (ver. 11.), " My foos, be not now 
 " negligent, for the JLord hath chofen you to Hand 
 " before him, to ferve him, and that you fliould mini- 
 ** iler unto him, and hurn incenfe J' Though all of them 
 however are faid, in the one paffage, to have been originally 
 appointed to burn incenfe before God, and though all 
 of them are commanded to do fo in the other, yet we 
 know, from other pafTages, that there v/ere 7nany of the 
 Levites who, though employed In the fervlce of the an- 
 cient fanftuary, were not authorized to perform this 
 part of the facerdotal fan6lion. Allowing then that it 
 could even be proved that elders in general are required 
 by Paul to be apt to preach, and that the nvhole of the 
 ciders in the church of Ephefus are apparently enjoined 
 to perform this fundlion (and this cannot be demon- 
 ftrated), if it can be evinced, from other paff ages ^ that 
 there fhould be a clafs of elders who are merely to rule 
 and not to preach, it will no more follow, from thefe 
 general injunftions, that thefe fhould not exifl in every 
 church, than it will follow, from the paffages before pro- 
 duced, that none were connedled with the tribe of Levi, 
 or admitted to minifter in the ancient fanduary, but 
 fuch as burned incenfe. 
 
 On the whole, as this feparate order of elders feems 
 clearly to be authorized by the facred oracles, fo it ap- 
 
i88 Letter XI. 
 
 pears from the writings of the primitive fathers, that 
 
 even from the earlleft ages it exifted in the church. In 
 
 the year 103, we meet with thefe words in the very fanr.e 
 
 fentence of the Gefta Pargationis Cseclliani et Ftlicis : 
 
 ** Prefbyteri, dlacones, et feniores, i. e. The prelbyters or 
 
 " paftors, the deacons and elders ;" and a little after 
 
 that, " Adhibete conclericos et feniores plebis, eccle- 
 
 " fiafticos viros, et inquirant diligenter quae fint illie 
 
 ** diiTendones, /'. e. Add tlie ftllow-clergymen and elders 
 
 " of the people, ecclcfiaiticai men, and let them in- 
 
 •* quire diligently what are thefe diffenfions." In that 
 
 affcmbly likewife, different letters were produced and 
 
 read : one addreffed, " Clero et fenioribus, u e. To the 
 
 ** clergymen and the elders ;'* and another, " Clericis 
 
 •* et fenioribus, /. e. To the clergymen and the elders." 
 
 Origen too, who flourilhed only a little more than 200 
 
 years after Chrift, has thefe exprciTions in the third book 
 
 of his Treatife againft Ctlfus ; " There are fome ruhrs 
 
 ** appointed who may inquire concerning the converfation 
 
 ** and manners of thcfc that are admitted, that they may 
 
 •* debar from the congregaticn fuch as commit fihhinefs." 
 
 Bat does not this contain a moll accurate defcription of 
 
 one important part of the office of the elder who is barely 
 
 to rule ? Cyprian moreover, bifhop of Carthage, who 
 
 lived about 240 years after Chriil, in his Thirty-niiith 
 
 Epillle, book iv. (according to the edition of Goulart), 
 
 writing to his preibyters, and eldcrt;, and peoplr-, refpe^t- 
 
 ing one Numidicus, enjoins that he (hould be reckoned 
 
 with the prelbyters of that church, and fliould fit with 
 
 the clergy, 10 make up their Prefoytery, And yet it 
 
 would feem t lat it was only as a ruling, and not a 
 
 teaching prefbyter, that he was to be received by them : 
 
 for he adds, ** Et promovebitur quidem, cum Dcus per- 
 
 *• miferit, ad ampliorem locum religionis fuse, quando in 
 
 ** praefentlam protegente Domino vencrhvus ; i- e- And 
 
 •* indeed, if It be the will of God, he (hdll be promoted 
 
Letter XL 1S9 
 
 « to a more d'lflinguyioed place of his religion, or religious 
 " fur.ftion, when, through the Lord's proteflion, we 
 *' fliall arrive.'* But what more honourable place could 
 he attain, if he was already a teaching elder, and confe- 
 quently, at that period, next to the bifhop ? In the paf- 
 fage before quoted, from the Commentaries of Ambrofe, 
 upon I Tim. v. i. the teftimony which is given to the 
 exiftence, in the church, of an order of elders who 
 merely ruled, and were diilinft from thofe who alfo 
 preached, is ftrong and pointed. He fliews, that by the 
 elders or feniores, of whom he fpeaks, he does not mean 
 only a few of the more aged and experienced of the 
 members, for he compares them to the elders in the Jew'ijh 
 fytiagogue, and attributes to them an equality of power, 
 and we know that the latter were not merely private 
 members of the fynagogue, venerable for their wifdom as 
 well as age, but elders by office. He difcovers alfo no 
 Iefs«:learly, that he does not intend fimply, by the elders 
 to whom he refers, perfons whofe opinion was occqfionally 
 confulted in difficult matters, for he fays exprefsly, that 
 " without their counfel nothing was done in the church : 
 " Unde et fynagoga et poftea ecclefia feniores habuit, 
 ** quorum fine confil'io nihil agehatur in ecclefia.'^ And that 
 thefe elders likevvife were admitted not only to ftate their 
 opinion and deliver their advice, but to rule with an 
 authority not inferior to that of the clergy, he no lefs 
 plainly declares ; for he afcribes to the pride and ambi- 
 tion of the teachers, the difcontlnuance of this order in a 
 number of places, which, vrhile It remained amongft them, 
 curbed the former, and fet bounds to the latter. But 
 how could thefe elders have retrained their ambition-, and 
 prevented their undue affumptlons of power. If they 
 were permitted in the ancient church, to deliver an advice 
 only, which might be adopted or rcje6led by the clergy 
 at pleafure ? Indeed fo incontrovertible did this tefti- 
 mony for the exiftence of this order of office-bearers, in 
 
1 90 
 
 Letter XT. 
 
 the ancient church, appear to many who were opponents 
 of Prefbytery, that it was not only admitted, as we have 
 already feen, by feme of the more candid of the ancient 
 Epifcopalians, but by feme of the mod refpe£lable even 
 of the Independents themfelves. Among thefe is in- 
 cluded, Mr. Cotton of America, already mentioned, 
 who, in his Way of the Churches in New England, 
 cap. ii. feft. ii. p. 30. acknowledges it to be a clear 
 and irrefillible proof of the exiftence of this order in the 
 ancient church, and vindicates the argument which he 
 adduces from this pafTage, for the neceffity of this order 
 even in Independent churches, from the exceptions and 
 cavils of forae of his brethren and others. And, in fine, 
 Auguftine, bilhop of Kippo, who lived about the year 
 420, often refers to thefe elders in his writings. Thus, 
 in his Treatife againil Crefconius, lib. iii. cap. Ivi. 
 " Peregrinus prefbyter et fenlores Mufticanse regionis, 
 ** /. e. Peregrine the prefbyter, and the eUers of the 
 ** Muftican diftriil," where he obvioufly dlftinguifnes 
 between the pailor or prefoyter who taught, and fcparate 
 elders or feniors. Thr.s, alio, he addreifes one of his 
 letters to his church at Hippo {Epift. cxxxix.), " Dilec- 
 ** tiflimis fratribus, clero, fcniorlbus, et univerfae plebi 
 *♦ ecclefias Plipponenfis, i. e. To the beloved brethren, 
 ** the clergy, or clergyman, the elder?, and all the 
 " people of the church at Hippo," where he makes an 
 obvious difcrlmination between the clergy, or clergyman, 
 the elders, and the people. And were it thought requifite, 
 it would be eafy to bring forward other teftlmonies from 
 Eufebius, and Ifidcre, and Jerome, and others, no lefs 
 clearly demonftrative of the exigence of this order in the 
 primitive church. What has already been flated how- 
 ever, appears fufficiently to eftablifii the fa£i ; and con- 
 fequently we feem equally authorized by thefe documents 
 to affirm that this order obtained in the ages which fuc- 
 cecded the apoftles, as we feem to be authorized by rea- 
 
Letter XL 
 
 191 
 
 fon to affirm that It Is neceiTarj'', and by fcrlpture to 
 maintain that It is divinely appointed. 
 
 To contend then with fome Independents, that every 
 congregation fhould not be governed by what has been 
 denominated by Prefbyterians a Seflion, becaufe the term 
 does not occur in the facred volume, though the doc- 
 trine feems to be undeniable, mufl be foolifh and contra- 
 dldlory. Upon the fame principle it would follow, 
 according to the reafonings of Socinians and Arminians, 
 that becaufe the terms Trinity, fatlsfadllon, original fin, 
 efficacious grace, particular redemption, are not to be 
 found In the facred oracles, thefe doctrines are merely 
 inventions of men. If Independents however, as well as 
 others, admit thefe do6lrInes, becaufe they are revealed 
 in fcrlpture, though thefe particular terms are not there 
 employed to denote them, on the fame principle Is It not 
 plain that if It be taught in fcripture that only fome, and 
 not ail the members indifcrlminatelyy are authorized to go- 
 vern a particular congregation, and that among thefe 
 are included elders who do not teach, but limply rule, 
 as well as elders who not only rule but teach, the doc- 
 trine of Seffions is clearly eilablifhed, though that parti' 
 cular word is not to be met with In the facred volume ? 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 X HE lad point of government in which you differ from 
 Prefbyterians, is their courts of reviezu ; or the fubordi- 
 nation of a particular congregation, with its elders, to 
 the authoritative Infpeftion and controul of a Prefbytery, 
 and of a Prefbytery to that of a Synod and Affembly. 
 It is propofed accordingly, agreeably to our method, to 
 
ic)2 Letter XII. 
 
 conclude thefe inquiries upon this part of the fubjedl, 
 with the confideration of this diftinguiniing principle of 
 Prefbytery, with the different objedlions which you have 
 advanced againft it. 
 
 With regard to the propriety of ecclefiaftical courts 
 fuperior to the rulers of a particular congregation, much 
 diverfity of fentiment has obtained even among Inde- 
 pendents. Some, in the greatnefs of their zeal againft 
 Prefbytery, have maintained that it is unlawful for an 
 Independent congregation, even in a difficult cafe, to 
 convene the paflors of any other churches merely to afic 
 their advice. Such a meafure, in their opinion*, would 
 be prejudicial to the improvement of the members in 
 knowledge, for if they were affurcd that in every cafe 
 of difficulty and importance they might have recourfe to 
 this fuperior affembly, though merely {ox counjel, it would 
 make them lefs eager to advance in an acquaintance with 
 the truths and laws of Chrift. Every feparate church 
 therefore, according to them, muft be completely inde- 
 pendent even of the ajjtjlance of others, and mufl not 
 folicit, in any inftance, the advice of their office-bearers 
 met in a coUedtive or affociated capacity. It feems 
 obvious however, that before this reafouing can be con- 
 fidered as valid, it mufl be proved that infallibility has 
 been the attainment of every Independent congregation; 
 or why fliould it refufe to apply for affillance, in any- 
 arduous or interefling cafe, to an affembly of the office- 
 bearers of other churches ? Or, if infallibility be dif- 
 claimed by them, it fliould be demonflrated that though 
 they iruiy err, it is better for them to do fo, fince they 
 have the fatisfadlion of being regarded as the unaffifle* 
 arbiters in all their affairs, than to be prevented from 
 this evil, by being aided by the opinion and counfel of 
 others. And, in fliort, upon the fame principle that it 
 
 * See Miflionary Magazine for Odober 1804, p. 448. 
 
Letter XII. 193 
 
 is affirmed that the members of a particular congregation 
 ought not to apply to others for advice, becaufe it may 
 abate their zeal to improve in knowledge fo as to be 
 enabled to decide in every caufe, it may be proved that 
 the offence mentioned by our Saviour in Matth. xviii. 
 fhould be finally determined by the two or three brethren 
 before whom it is enjoined to be firfl told, and ought not 
 to be announced to the church at all. If announced to 
 the church for their examination and judgment, may it 
 not, if the preceding argument were juft, diminifli the 
 motives which are prefented to each oi the members Indi- 
 'viJually to endeavour to improve, fo as to be himfelf qua- 
 lified, with the alTiftance of a fingle brother, finally to 
 decide a caufe ? And, upon the fame ground alfo, is it 
 not manifeft that there fliould be no fubordlnatlon in 
 civil courts, becaufe, if this principle be admitted, it 
 would make the members of the lowed of fuch affocia- 
 tions lefs eager to improve In juridical knowledge, than 
 if they knew that, in every inflance, they were to depend 
 folely on their own judgment and fagaclty, and were 
 net to follcit the afTiftance of others ? 
 
 While fuch however are the fentiments of others, you 
 profefs to hold a very oppofite opinion, and admit at 
 6nce the lawfulnefs and the utility of the affoclations of the 
 paftors of a number of churches to deliberate In points of 
 intricacy and magnitude. The power however which 
 you grant to thefe aiTociatlons Is purely confultatlve, and 
 differs not only from that degree of authority which Is 
 allowed by Prefbyterlans to a Prefbytery, over the gover- 
 nors of a particular congregation, and to a Synod, over the 
 members of a particular Prefbytery, but even from what 
 was veiled by the rcfpe£lable ancient Independents, 
 already quoted, in their occafional Synods. Not only 
 does Mr. Hooker acknowledge, in his Survey, p. 4. 
 chap. i. ii. that the aflbciation of the paflors of dif- 
 ferent congregations, in one court or Prefoytery, is lawful 
 R 
 
194 Letter XII. 
 
 and beneficial, and not only does he grant that they may 
 be of *' (i'lfferent forts and degrees, fome leffer, fome 
 ** greater, ClafTes, Synods, and thefe Provincial, National, 
 *' Ecumenical ox Univerfal i*"* but his brother Mr. Cotton, 
 in his book entitled the Keys of the Kingdom, ufes very 
 remarkable exprefiions (chap, vi.) refpedting the power 
 of fuch courts. ** They have power," fays he, *' not 
 ** only to give light and counfell in matter of truth and 
 *' practice, but alfo to command and enjoine the things to 
 ** be believed and done. The expreffe words of the 
 ** fynodicall letter, Adls xv. 27. imply no lefTe. It is 
 ** an a6l of the power of the keyes to binde burdens ; 
 *' and this binding power arifeth not only materially 
 *' from tha lueight of the matters impofed, but alfo 
 ** formally from the authority of the Synod, which being 
 *' an ordinance of Chrift, bindeth the more for the 
 *' Synod's fake." The Weniminfter Independents alfo, 
 in their debate with the Affembly, not only exprefsly 
 allow, p. 115. 137. 138. that '* Synods are an holy or- 
 ** dinance of God, and of great ufe for the finding out 
 *' and declaring of truth in difHcuIt cafes, and for heal- 
 ** ing offences," but likewife declare, " that all the 
 ** churches in a province, being offended at a particular 
 *' congregation, may call that fingle congregation to 
 *' account ; yea, all the churches in a nation, may call one 
 *' or more congregations to an account — that they may 
 *' examine and admonifh, and, in cafe of obflinacy, 
 ** declare them to be fubverters of the faith — that they 
 <* are of ufe to give advice to the magijlrate in matters 
 <* of religion," p. 1 1 5. — <* that they have authority to de- 
 ** termine concerning controverjies of faith — that their deter- 
 *' minations are to be received with great honour and 
 <' confcientious refped and obligation, as from Chrift— - 
 *< that if an offending congregation refufe to fubmic to 
 " their determinations, they may withdraw from them, 
 *' and deny church-communion and fellowfhip with 
 
Letter XII. ig^ 
 
 ** them-.— and that this fentence of non-communion may 
 ** be ratified and backed with the authority/ of the civil 
 " magillrate, to the end it may be the more efFeftaal," 
 p. 138.* Mr. Thomas Goodwin, moreover, in his Trea- 
 tife on the Government of the Church ofChrift, p. 2c 2. 
 very pointedly afferts, " that as we acknowledge eledlive 
 ** occafional Synods of the elders of many churches, as 
 " the churches have need :j refer cafes of difference to 
 ** them ; fo in cafe of mal-adminiftration, or an unjuft 
 " proceeding, in the fentence of excommunication, and 
 *• the like, we acknowledge appeals or complaints may be 
 " made to other churches ; and the elders of ihofe 
 *' churches met In a Synod, who, being offended, may, 
 ** as an ordinance of Chrlft, jm^^^ and declare that fentence 
 " to be null, void, and unjuft; and that not fii-nply, as 
 *' any company of men may fo judge, giving their judg- 
 " ments of a faft done ; but as an ordinance of Chrill 
 ** in fuch cafes, and for that end, JanBifed hy him to 
 *« judge and declare in matters of difference." And, again, 
 he adds, " In cafe this church will not own this perfon 
 *' thus wrongfully ejedled ; thefe churches, or any of them, 
 ** upon this determination of their elders (the churches 
 ** at their return approving the fentence), may both 
 << receive the party In among themfelves, and fo relieve 
 •* the man j and further alfo profefs to hold no communion 
 
 * Since it is evident from this and other pafTages in the papers 
 of thefe forerunners of our prefent Independents, that they no 
 lefs certainly believed in the propriety of a connedlion between 
 the church and ftate than our Prefoytenan Eftahlijbment does, nay, as 
 their ideas on this fubje<ft were greatly higher than what is profefTed 
 by it fince the acfl of toleration ; if the latter be viewed by them, 
 on account of this conne^lion, as worthy of being diftinguilhed by 
 the name of Babylon, upon the fame principle muft it not be ex- 
 tended to their ancient predcceflbrs, and muft not modern Inde- 
 pendents be confidered at leaft as the children of thofe who were 
 members and fuppoiters of fpiritual Babylon. 
 
 R2 
 
196 Letter XII. 
 
 ** with that church, if they perceive that church doth 
 ** continue obftinate, having either for the manner pro- 
 " ceeded therein, againft the common principles of equity 
 ** and right, or againfl, and befide the principles where- 
 ** by churches are to proceed which that church itfelf 
 " hath, and doth hold forth and profefs." But does 
 not this, whatever was intended by the author, plain- 
 ly fandlion an autJooritative cnurt of revietu P Is it not 
 here declared, that when an improper decifion is paffed 
 by the rulers of any particular congregation, the perfons 
 who are aggrieved may appeal and complain to a meeting 
 of the elders of a number o^ d'lfthiEl and nominally inde- 
 pendent congregations — That thefe rriinifters, met in 
 this court, may, as an ordinance of Chri/l, declare that 
 fentence to be null and i-cidj and enjoin that, church to 
 review their deed ; and — that if the church which has 
 erred perfifts in its error, thefe m.inifters of feparate and 
 dlstincl congregations may pafs a decifion, declaring that 
 they fliall henceforth be cut off from their communion, 
 which decifion, if ratified by the confent of their churches, 
 fhall be confidered as binding ? Does this declaration 
 however of what the needs of the church at prefent 
 den. and (and the author cannot be fuppofed to have been 
 partial to Prefbytery), correfpond with what you tell 
 us fhould be the fituation of eve}-y congregation, and what 
 you glory in as the boaft of every Independent fociety ? 
 "Was it the opinion of this man, even though an Inde- 
 pendent, that " every particular congregation," as you 
 allege, " fliould have the fole government of its own 
 " affairs, and be amenable to no fociety of men under 
 ** heaven ; and that while, in reference to its own mem- 
 ^ bers, its decifion was final, it fliould pretend to Inter- 
 ** fere nviih none elfe .«"* Or whatever might be the 
 independency which he might afcribe to them in profejfiony 
 does he not fubjeft them as really to the authoritative 
 controul of this aflembly of the pallors of other congrega- 
 
Letter XII. 
 
 197 
 
 tions, if fupported by their churches^ as any Pre/hyterian 
 congregation is to that of a Prefbytery, or a Prefbytery 
 is to that of a Synod or AfTembly * ? The fame remark 
 which is here offered upon Goodwin, may be alfo ap- 
 plied to the extract which was made from the papers of 
 the reft of the Weftminftcr Independents, 
 
 That fimilar fentiments were profeffed by the great 
 Dr. Owen is evident fi'om his book on the Nature and 
 Government of the Gofpel-church. *' No church there- 
 " fore," fays he (p. 413. )> " '^^fi independent, as that it 
 " can always, and in all cafes, obferve the duties it owes 
 *' unto the Lord Chrift and the church catholic, by all 
 •' thofe powers which it is able to ad in itfelf diflin^Iy, 
 
 * Is it objeded, that the cafe muft undoubtedly be different, 
 becaufe the congregation which has erred may either obey or te- 
 je<ft the decifion of thefe paftors, even though fupported by their 
 churches ? It is replied, that if they do fo, according to Goodwin, 
 even though an Independent, they muft be cut off from their 
 communion ; and in what refpesfl does this differ from the autho- 
 rity which is claimed by a. Preft)ytery, or Synod, as a court of re- 
 vievv? This convention of the paftors of Independent churches, 
 though they profefs merely to deliver an advice to the congrega- 
 tion which has erred, and" require them fmiply to review their 
 icntence, tell them at the fame time, that if they do not pro- 
 nouace it " null and void," and adopt the decifion which they 
 po..i!; out, no fellowfhip can henceforth be granted to them with 
 th. t; chur- hes. And to fay that the congregations to which thefe 
 pailoiS belong, muft ratify this determination before it can be 
 val'. i, does not alter the matter, but only demonftrates that this 
 pow^i of controul, and authoritative review, over a particular- 
 cong! egation, which Preftiyterians affirm ought to be lodged in a 
 Pr-ftjytery, or Synod, or AlTembly, (hould be vefted alfo in the 
 members of thefe different churches as well as their paftors. The 
 neccffity of the fuborJlnation of this church to the review of thefe 
 others is ftill admitted ; and this fubordination, in oppofition to 
 you and tne reft of your brethren, one of the wiicft and beft of 
 the ancient Independents affirms to be indifpenfable for promoting 
 the interefts of the church of God. 
 
 R3 
 
198 Letter XII. 
 
 ** nvithcut conjund'ion nv'ith others. And the church that 
 ** confines its duty unto the ads of Its own afiemblies, 
 ^^ cuts itfelf off from the external communion of the church 
 ** catholic ; nor iv'ill It be fafe for any man to commit the 
 •* conduB of his foul to fuch a church. "Wherefore," he 
 adds, *' this a(5ling in Synods is an inJi'Uut'wn of ^efus 
 ** Chrifl ; not in an exprefs command, but in the nature 
 <* of the thing Itfelf fortified ivith apqftoUcal example. For 
 ** having eredled fuch a church-ftate, and difpofed all 
 ** his churches into that order and mutual relation unto 
 ** one another, as that none of them can be complete, or 
 *« difcharge their whole duty without mutual advice and 
 ** counfel ; he hath thereby ordained this way of their 
 ** communion in Synods, no other being pojftble unto that 
 <* end. And hereby fuch conventions are interefted in 
 ** the promife of his prefence, namely, that, where two 
 ** or three are gathered together in his name, there he 
 ** will be in the midft of them. For thefe afTemblies 
 " being the neceffary effeft of his own conftitution in 
 *« the nature and ufe of his churches, are, or may be, in 
 *•' his name, and fo enjoy his prefence." 
 
 Befides, he obferves (p. 414.), that " the end of all 
 *' particular churches is the edification of the church 
 " cathohc unto the glory of God in Chrifl:. And it is 
 *' evident, that in many inftances this cannot be attained, 
 '* yea, that it mufl beftnfully negledied, unlefs this way for 
 " the prefervation and carrying of it on be attended 
 ** unto. Truth, peace, and love, may be loft among 
 ,*fe, churches, and fo the union of the catholic church In 
 **-v.them be difiblved, unlefs this means for their preferva- 
 <* tion and reparation be made ufe of. And that parti- 
 *' cular church which extends not its duty beyond its own 
 " ajfemblies and members, is fallen off" from the principal end 
 ** of its infiitution. And every principle, opinion, or perfua- 
 ** Jion, that Inclines any church to confine Its care and 
 " duty unto its own edification only, yea, or of thofe 
 
Letter XII. 199 
 
 " only which agree with it in fome peculiar praftice, 
 " making it negledive of all due means of the edification 
 " of the church catholic, \?, fcbifmatlcal. 
 
 " There is direftion hereunto included in the order 
 " and method of church-proceedings in cafe of offence, 
 " prefcribed unto it by Chrift himfelf. The beginning 
 ** and rife of it is between two individual perfons ; 
 " thence is it 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 power to determine con- 
 *' cerning it, as unto its own communion, to continue 
 " the offender in it, or rejedl him from it. This muil 
 " abide, as unto outward order and the prefervation of 
 " peace. But no church Is infallible in their judgment 
 " abfolately in any cafe ; and in many, their determi- 
 " nations may be fo doubtful as not to affeft the con- 
 ** fclence of him who is cenfured. But fach a per- 
 " fon is not only a member of that particular church, 
 *' but by virtue thereof, of the caLlioHc church alfo. It 
 ♦' is nectffary therefore that he fhould be heard and judged 
 *' as unto his intereft therein, if he do defire it. And 
 " this can no way be done^ but by fuch Synods as we fhall 
 " immediately defcrlbe. 
 
 <*' Synods" (p. 416.) " are confecrated unto the ufe 
 ** of the church in ail ages ) by the example of the apoftles, 
 " in their guidance of the firft churches of Jews and 
 ** Gentiles ; which hath the force of a divine injiitutiony 
 ** as being given by them under the infallible conduct 
 " of the Holy Ghoft, Ads xv. which we fhall fpeak 
 *' farther unto immediately. 
 
 ** Upon the whole," he remarks, p. 419. «< if It be 
 " reported or known by credible teftimony, that any 
 ** church hath admitted into the exercife of divine wor- 
 ** fhip any thing fuperftitious or vain, or If the members 
 <* of it walk like thofe defcribed by the apoftle, Philip. 
 
200 Letter XII. 
 
 *« lii. 18, 19. unto the dlfhonour of the gofpel, and of 
 .** the ways of Chrlft, the church itfelf not endeavouring 
 *' its own reformation and repentance ; other churches, 
 ** walking in communion therewith, by virtue of their 
 ** common intcreil in the glory of Chrift, and honour 
 ** of the gofpel, after more private ways for its reduc- 
 " tion, as opportunity and duty may fuggeft unto their 
 ** elders, ought to aflemble in a Synod for advice, either 
 •* as to the ufe of farther means for the recovery offuch 
 •* a church, or to 'withhold communion from it in cafe of 
 ** obftinacy in its evil ways. The v.'ant of a due at- 
 " tendance unto this part of the communion of churches, 
 " with refpeft unto gofpei-worfhip in its purity, and 
 ** gofpel- obedience in its power, was a great means of the 
 ** decay and apoftafy of them all. By reafon of this 
 " negligence, in (lead of being helpful one to another, 
 ** for their mutual recovery, and the revival of the things 
 *^ that iverc ready to die^ they gradually infedlcd one 
 ** another, according as they fell into their decays, and 
 " countenanced one another by their examples unto a 
 <' continuance in fuch diforders.'* And with refpedl to 
 the extent of thefe Synods, in p. 426. he fays, " Yet 
 ** this I (hall fay, that whereas it is eminently ufeful unto 
 *' the church catholic, that all the churches profeffing 
 ** the fame do<^rine of faith, within the limits of the 
 *' fame fipreme civil government^ fliould hold conllant 
 <« aftual communion among themfelves unto the ends of 
 << it before mentioned, I fee not how it can be any 
 <* abridgment of the liberty of particular churches i or inter- 
 << fere with any of their rights which they -liold by 
 *« divine inftitution, if through more conflant lejfer 
 « Synods for advice, there be a communication of their 
 •* mutual concerns to thofe that are greater, until, if 
 <« occafion require, and if it be expedient, there he a 
 " General Ajfembly of them all, to advife about any thing 
 «« wherein they are all concerned." 
 
Letter XII. 20i 
 
 Thus while many of the mofli zealous modern Inde- 
 pendents reprobate the idea of convening the paftors of 
 other congregations in a Prefbytery, or Synod, or Gene- 
 ral AlTembly, to review, in any cafe of error or injuflice, 
 a decifion which has been pafTed in a particular congre- 
 gation, the opinion which was held by this moil dif- 
 tinguifhed ancient advocate for Independency was direflly 
 oppofite. Every church which is not conne6led with 
 fuch courts of fuperintendence (and this is the cafe cer- 
 tainly with the Tabernacle-churches), " is cut off," at 
 lead in his view, *' from the external communion of the 
 ** church catholic in a moft important relation ; nor will 
 *' it be fafe," he even affirms, " for any man," however 
 it may be admired and applauded by many, " to commit 
 <* his foul to fuch a church." Nay, however fuch courts 
 may he decried by his modern, but perhaps not more 
 enlightened followers, ** no church," according to him, 
 *' can be complete without them ; and the church which 
 " wants them, is fallen off {rom tbe principal end o( its 
 ** inftitution ; and every opinion, principle, or perfua- 
 ** fion, that leads to the negledl of them, h fcbifmaiicalJ* 
 And, in fhort, while fome of our modern Independents 
 treat with derifion Prefbyteries and Synods as they ob- 
 tain among Prefbyterians, and a/lsi with triumph where 
 we can difcover fuch courts in fcripture, the illuftrious 
 Owen, whofe acquaintance with the fcripturcs was moft 
 probably not lefs profound and extenfive than theirs, ex- 
 prefsly declares them *' to be an injiitution of Chrijl^ not in an 
 *' exprefs command, but in the nature of the thing itfclf, 
 " fortified ivitb apojlolical example J ^ And, again, that 
 *' they are confecrated unto the ufe of the church in all 
 *' ages, by the example of the apojlles, in their guidance of 
 " the firft churches of the Jews and Gentiles ; which 
 ** hath the force of a divine institution^ as being given by 
 " them under the infallible conduB of the Holy Ghost.''* 
 In fine, he allows that there may be not only leffer Synods, 
 
202 Letter XII. 
 
 or meetings, as the word fignlfies, of the paftors of 
 churches in the fame communionj but ** Synods that 
 *' are greater, until, if occafion require, and if it be ex- 
 ** pedient, there be a General Jijfemhly of them all, to 
 *' advife about any thing wherein they are all concerned." 
 It is obvious, then, that if our prefent Independents 
 fneer at Prefbyterlans when they affirm that fuch courts 
 are authorized by fcripture, they muft connedl with them, 
 in their fneer> their own not lefs venerable predecefTors, 
 Owen, and Cotton, and Kooker, and Goodwin, w-ith 
 his fix mod rcfpedlable brethren in the Weftminfter 
 Affembly. And while, in their fuperior wifdom, they 
 look down with pity upon Prefbyterlans in general when 
 they attempt to prove the authority of fuch courts from 
 fcripture, and confider them as wrelling the facred oracles, 
 they ought undoubtedly to look hack with the fame regret 
 and companion upon their onvn erring forefathers^ who, lefs 
 judicious or candid than their more perfedl children, 
 unfortunately believed alfo in Prefbyteries, and Sy- 
 nods, and General Affembiies — courts which, though 
 but confultative, are not more clearly demonftrable 
 than thofe of Prefbyterlans are from the word of 
 of God. 
 
 It may indeed be alleged, that thefe courts of review, 
 for which Dr. Owen contends, fuperior to the elderfliip 
 of a particular congregation, were warranted only to 
 deliver an advice to that individual church, but could 
 not exercife over it any authoritative rule. He affirms 
 however, in common with Goodwin, that if this parti- 
 cular congregation does not comply with the deciiion of 
 a Synod or Aflembly, all the churches, whofe reprefen- 
 tatlves fit in thefe courts, " may withhold communion 
 ** from it." Is not this however, by ^whatever name you 
 call it, as much authority over this particular congrega- 
 tion, even by the paftors and members of other churches, 
 as is ever affumed by a Prefbyterian Synod ? and is not 
 
Letter XII. 203, 
 
 tliis the only difFerence between them, that the Synods 
 of the latter alone exerclle this authoritative power, 
 while the members at large of the various churches re- 
 prefented in the Synods which were argued for by the 
 former, together with the pallors, were to b# vefted 
 with this power over that particular church ? Do not 
 many of the arguments of Dr. Owen moreover, what- 
 ever he defigned, prove that the minifters of a number 
 of churches, met in a Synod, have as much power over 
 any church in a particular communion, which errs either 
 in doftrine or difcipline, as the governors of any parti- 
 cular congregation have over any member of that con- 
 gregation, who walks unworthily of the Chrillian cha- 
 racler ? Nay, as was before remarked, does he not 
 direftly fay, that *' as a Chriilian Is not only a member 
 *' of a particular church, but, by virtue thereof, of the 
 *' catholic church alfo, it is necefTary (if he has been 
 *' aggrieved by any declfion of the men who govern the 
 *' former) that he fhould be /:)eard and JuJged SiS to hh 
 *' Intereft in the latter. If he do defire it ? And does he 
 *' not afTert, that this can no way be done, but hy/uch 
 ** Synods as have been mentioned .^" And, upon the 
 whole. If It be doubted whether thefe confiderations 
 evince that Dr. Owen, while he reprobated an imperious 
 and unreafonable authority, would have granted to Synods, 
 over particular churches, a degree of authority equal to 
 that which is Intrufted to them by Prefbyterlans, let the 
 following very ftrong and fatisfa6l:ory teftlmony from his 
 life be confulted. As the celebrated Whlteficld, though 
 by profefTion an Epifcopalian, Is reported to have de- 
 clared, that of all the ecclefiailical conllitutlons on earth, 
 that of the church of Scotland appeared co him the mofl 
 excellent ; fo this great Independent has left an acknow- 
 ledgment no lefs honourable to her Prefbyterlan admi- 
 niftratlon and difcipline, which proves that he mufl 
 have agreed with her in her views of authority, while at 
 
204 Letter XII. 
 
 the fame time he contended, as her rulers alfo do, 
 that none, who could not fubn:iit to the decllions of office- 
 bearers in any particular inftance, fhould be forced againft 
 their will to continue in the church. *' I have been the 
 ** larger," fays his biographer, in the acconnt of him 
 which is annexed to his book on Spiritual-mindednefs, 
 p. 456. *' in this extradl of the Doctor's opinion about 
 *' church-government, becaufe it (hews (whatever might 
 ** have been his fentiments when younger) how much 
 " he agreed with all Protestant churchesy that of Eng- 
 ** land excepted, in this point, in the latter part of his 
 ** days ; and that had others been of his mind, the dif- 
 ** ference betwixt thofe called Prefbyterians and Inde- 
 ** pendents might eafily have been reconciled. He was of 
 " fo healing a temper in this matter, that / heard him 
 ** fay^ before a perfon of quality, and others. He could 
 ** readily join nuith Prejhytery as it was exercifed in Scot- 
 ** land*.*^ It may perhaps be alleged however, that 
 
 * That fuch alfo were the fentiments of the Independents in 
 Holland, the country where, according to the teAimony of 
 Moflieim (vol. v. p. 406.), about two hundred years ago, congre- 
 gational churches began to be formed, muft be evident to any one 
 who attends either to their writings or proceedings. The church 
 at Rotterdam, for inftance, as we are informed by Hoornbeck, in 
 his Summa Controverfiarum cum Infidclibus, HaEretIcis,~et Schif- 
 maticis, p. 778. having unjuflly depofed one of their minifters, 
 the church at Arnheim wrote to them — dated the offence which 
 their conduct had given to the reft of their brethren — requefted 
 them to fubje£t themfelves, with all their proceedings, to the re- 
 view of a Synod, which was to be called for that purpofe — and 
 told them, that fach a Synod was to be fummoned. The reafon 
 which they affign for it is, that " no particular church, in any 
 " communion, ought to claim an exemption from giving an ac- 
 " count of its conduct, or being cenfurahk by others y" fo repugnant, 
 fay they, " to our fentiments is that independent liberty which is 
 " commonly objefted to us" — a liberty, however, in which the 
 prefent Independents fo much glory. This Synod having met in 
 the city of Arnheim, and the membei-s from Rotterdam having 
 
Letter XII. 205 
 
 though fach were the views of many ancient Inde- 
 pendents refpedting Prefbytcrian government, it is no 
 argument why they fhould ftill be ret-ained by us, if we 
 are not convinced of their utility or truth. It is granted 
 
 been fummoned before them, the budnefs was inveftigated for 
 feveral days, and witnefTes were examined and parties heard. 
 A decifion at laft being given againft the church, it pubhcly and 
 humbly acknowledged its error, received its miaifter, after he too 
 had confelTed fome fault which he had committed, and, having 
 appointed a folemn day of farting, humbled themfelves before 
 God and men on account of their fm. The words of Koornbeck 
 (and Goodwin and Nye, it may be remarked, were members of 
 this Synod) are the following: *' Arnhemienfis costus icripfit ad 
 " Roterodamenfem, fignificans datum fcandalum, ex temeraria 
 " miniftri opprefllone, et depofitione, quare ab iis petit patcren- 
 " tur in nomine Chrifti, et pro vindicando ejus hcftiore, atque in 
 " folatium opprefll miniftri, caufs examen coram reliquis fuae 
 *' nationis eccleliisj vel quibufcunque aliis hoc ipforum fado offen- 
 " lis, inftitui ; utque fe fubjicerent (ita loquuntur, to fubjeft 
 ** themfelves) inlegra totius negctii aUonmique omnhim rtvifioni atque 
 " exa-mliii. Quod ubi concexlKTent prompto lubentique animo, et 
 " adveniflent Arnhemo ii, quos fupra diximus, inflitutufque con- 
 " ventus fuiflet, prsmifla ndhortatione, qus co fpeiftabat ut 
 " docerent, fjngiilarem aliquam et particularem ecclefiam, qus 
 " fibi datam exiilimat a Chriflo judicandi cos qui cjufdem fecura 
 " corporis ac focietatis poteftatem, non debere hh'iarrogare cxemp- 
 '* tionem a reddenda raiione, vcl a cenj.ira aliorinn (an exemption from 
 ** giving account, or being cenfurable by any other J, {\\c magijiratus 
 ** fupra, five proximarum ecclefiarum juxta fe. Tam longe 
 " (dicunt) a mente noflra aberat independent ilia Ubertas, quos 
 *' nobis vulgo impingitur ; etiam turn quando minima nobis a 
 *' regno Anglicano depcndentia, vel revertendi eo fpes videbatur. 
 " Hie autem fuccefius atque exitus Synodi illius fuit, ut, habita 
 " aliquot dierum caufs: cognitione, auditifque et exan-iinatis variis 
 " teftibus, quomodo in curia aliqua ubi vel maxime aucloritate res 
 " agitur, defiderari po(Tet, costus qui ofTenderat, palam errorem 
 " fuum agnoverit, et m.iniftrum, confefium etiam in quo forte ipfe 
 *♦ peccaverat, reftituerit in priftinum fuum locum, indictoque 
 ** folemni jejunio, fe coram Deo ac hominibus propter peccatuni 
 ** lUud fuum humiliarit." How different indeed from the opinion 
 
2o6 Letter XII. 
 
 indeed, that our prefect Independents are certainly not 
 bound, by the example of their forefathers, to adnnit any 
 principle, or perform any duty towards God or man, 
 however important, againft their convidions. Such 
 teftimonies however in favour of Prefbytery, from many 
 of the greateft and moft enlightened men that ever 
 adorned their caufe, ought to lead them at lead to re- 
 view their more levelling and democratic principles * with 
 diffidence and caution, and ought undoubtedly to teach 
 them greater moderation and liberality than fome of 
 them have difcovered in their langtiage refpedling the 
 nature and tendency of a fyftem, which many of their 
 moft diiiinguiflied ancient ornaments either pra^lically 
 admitted^ or publicly commended. 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 SIR, 
 
 JL HAT it may not be imagined that this principle of 
 Prefbytery has no foundation but the authority of re- 
 fpeftable names, I (hall now endeavour to prove that it is 
 eftablifhed by the united evidence of reafon and fcripture. 
 The following quotations from Bailile and Fergufon, 
 two ancient Prefbyterians, contain, if I am not miftaken, 
 a clear and accurate ftatement of the oppofite views 
 which have been taken of this queftion. 
 
 " Independents and Browniils," fays Baillie, in his Dlf- 
 
 of thefe original Independents are the tenets of thofe who now 
 alTume their name, moft of whom are almoft as much diflimilar 
 to them as to Prejhytcrians, and many of whom, in their predilec- 
 tion for illiterate minifters, and virulence againft churches of other 
 denominations, rcfemble rather the Boltonians or Brownifts, than 
 thofe who were diftinguifhed by the name of Independents ! 
 
 * I fpeak of their religious fentimcnts only. 
 
Letter XIII. 207 
 
 uiafive from the Errors of the Times, *' maintain that every 
 " particular church, every fingle congregation, is inde- 
 '< pendent from any Prefbytery, any Synod, any Af- 
 << fembly : This we deny, affirming the true dependence 
 '* and fubordination of parochial congregations to Pref- 
 '* byteries, and of thefc to Synods ; to which we afcrlbe 
 '* power, authority, and jurifdiftlon :" p. 197. " Inde- 
 '* pendency Is the full liberty of fuch a church (a par- 
 '' ticuiar congregation) to difcharge all the parts of 
 ♦• religion, dodlrine, facraments, dijc'ipl'ine, and all withiti 
 '' Ilfclf, without all dependence, all Juhordinatkn to any 
 " other on earth, more or fewer, fo that the fmalleft 
 " congregation, fuppofe of three perfons*, though it 
 ** fall into xhc grojfejl herefes^ may not be controuled by 
 " any orthodox Synod, were it cecumenic (or univerfal) 
 ** of all the churches in the v/orld :" p. 198. 
 
 " We come now," fays the other writer, p. i 50. of his 
 Brief Refutation of the Errors of Independency, Separa- 
 tion, l^c. " to t\i& fecond head ^ and it is that for which 
 " mainly they are called Independents : The point they 
 ** affirm is this, that ever^ particular church-ftlTion, or 
 " congregational elderfhip (or, according to others, con- 
 ** gregation), is furnlflied with the highest power of 
 " church-government on earth, fo that there is no power 
 " in t"he church above them to call them to an account, 
 *' when they go wrong, to refcind any adl once con- 
 " eluded, though it were never fo unjuft. They grant, 
 " that a Synod of minlflers and elders may meet to con- 
 " fult about matters f , but withal affirm, that they have 
 
 * There are fomc of them in Gbfgow which confifi: only of 
 e:ght perfons. 
 
 f You objeft to the propriety of thefe aflbciations of mini- 
 vers being confidered as the reprefentatives of the churches 
 to which they belong, and propofe that they flrould meet only in 
 theic private chararters, as an aflembly of individuals, and not in 
 their public official capacity. 
 
 Sz 
 
2o8 Letter XIU, 
 
 '* no ecclefiaftfcal power to command in tlie Lord any 
 " congregation whatfoever: So that if a man be wrong- 
 ** ed by a Sefilon (or congregation) ; as for inllance, if 
 *' he be unjullly cenfured (as it may very readily fall 
 " out), he muft fit with his wrong, there is no poTver io 
 " right it till Chrijl 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, unkfs it be by 
 " giving an advice, which they may either follow, or 
 ** not follow, as likes them beft. We again grant, 
 *' that particular elderfhips have a power from Jefus 
 " Chrift to exercife difcipline in thefc things which con- 
 ** cern the congregation in particular. But as for other 
 ** things of more public concernment, that is to fay, 
 •* things that concern other congregations as well as 
 ♦' them, thefe ought to be handled by a fuperior judi- 
 *' catory ; and that even in thofe things of particular 
 *♦ concernment.^ they are liable to appeals, and the in- 
 ** fpedlion of the fuperior judicatory ; fo that wherein 
 <* they fliall be found wrong, <^artial, or erroneous, they 
 <* may be called to an account. 
 
 ** We allow unto particular congregations an elder- 
 " fhip and power of difcipline within themfelvcs, to 
 *' judge of thefe things that are of tht'ir particular con- 
 " cernment : But as for things wherein other congrega- 
 ** tions are concerned with them, we hold that fuch do 
 " belong to fuperior JudicalorieSf according to the rule, 
 ** IVhat belongs unto all, fiould be handled hy all. Second- 
 ** ly, we do not give power to any one Jingle congregation 
 « ahon)e another : We fay, that all congregations (the leajl 
 <* as well as the greatejl) are equal in power. We do 
 <* only fay, that all particular congregations fhould be 
 " fubjed to a Prefbytery, made up of elders taken from 
 " among themfelves, wherein no congregation can cjial- 
 
Letter XIII. 209 
 
 " lenge power more than another : the meaneft hath as 
 ** great power in them as the greateft." 
 
 When it is affirmed by Prefbyterians, that every parti- 
 cular congregation ought not to be independent of a 
 Prefbytery or Synod, it is not intended that its rulers, 
 or office-bearers, are to be dependent upon them for the 
 exercife of their power after they are invefted with it, or 
 that they may be deprived of it by them at pleafure, in 
 that fociety which they govern. All that is defigned is 
 fimply that they are fubjeft, in any cafe of error, or any 
 inftance of mal-adminiftration, to the authoritative re- 
 view of the minifters and elders of a number of congre- 
 gations met as a Preibytery ; and, perhaps, it would be 
 better, as the judicious Hoornbeek has obferved, to ex- 
 prefs their relation to fuch a court by the terms fulje^ion 
 ov fiibonrinatlon, than by the word dependence) which is 
 occafionally ufed by fome ancient Prefbyterians *. 
 
 * The words of this very excellent and candid writer, in his 
 book againf!: fchifmatics, p. 771. fieferve to be quoted. " Quid- 
 " nam vero hie tanti, iterum qusero, quod magnarum contentionum, 
 " et tumultuum caufa efle debcat ? quodque non vel tolerari vel 
 " componi, fi non corrigi facile pofiit ? Ecclefiam particularem 
 " habere omnem potedatem eccleilaflicam /«/;■, neque eani accipere 
 *' a Synodo, vel ah aUls fupcnorilns, certum eft. Pone (verbi caufa) 
 " ut modo una particularis fit ecclcfia, vel in mundo, vel in aliqua 
 " parte munui; vel ut non fint ecciefiae, quse fociari in unum poJP- 
 " fint ; aut quod aliqua cum iis Ibciari nequeat : non haec eo 
 " minus ecckfia eft, vel mutila ideo aliqua fui parte, nedum 
 " efieatiaii. Jam fociari in unum ecclefias, et convenirc in Sy- 
 " nodos, baud improbant adverfarii, tantum non deponere a Sy- 
 " nodis. Et fi bene introipiciamus, dependcntia a Synodis non 
 " congrue dicitur. Quippe baud exiftimandum, vel ab aliis fupc- 
 " rioribus, aut ecclefiis, aut Synodis, habere precariam poteftatem 
 " particularem quamquti ecclefiam, vel fe poteftate fua exuere, 
 " quando in Synodo co^t, illamque ei tradere. Neutiquam. 
 " Synodorum vel ufus vel poteftas nihil officere poteft aut debet 
 " ecclefiarum particuiarium libertati et poteftati, eftque non pri- 
 ^' vaiiva, fed cumulativa poteftas, ecclefiaqus particularis ouasli- 
 
 S3 
 
210 Letter XIIL 
 
 The quefti'on then is, Whether every congregation, 
 with its office-bearers, (hould be fo independent as to be 
 completely feparate froni every other in point of go- 
 
 " bet manet fubje£lum proprium et adaEquatum plenx pofejiatis 
 " ecckfwfticx. Neque Synodi in alias fub ea comprehenfas ecclefias 
 " poteftatem ufurpent imperantem, quae dominorum et fuperio- 
 " rum efl: in inferiores fibi fubditos; fed ex communi et libera 
 " ecclefiarum confenfu in Synodum, hxc poteftatem habet dele- 
 " gatam, et auxiliarem vel miniftrantem, ecclefiis voluntaria con- 
 " Jenfione, ob neceflitatem ordinis et sedificationis, Synodis fe fub- 
 " jicientibus. Uti quando in rebufpublicis, vel alibi, ex communi 
 " £equalium confilio collegium erigitur, ad quod communes caufas 
 ** devolvuntur traftandse et definiend^, quod in illas nullam habet 
 " poteftatem, nifi earum arbitrio et mutuo confenfu. Quod in 
 ** circulis vel dioecefibus ecclefiarum, quare hac ifti, illse alteri Sy- 
 " nodo fe adjungant, et fubmittant, apparet. Non eft ergo pro- 
 ** prie haec ecclefiarum ad Synodum relatio, dependent'm dicenda, 
 " neque commode mihi vocabulo Independeiftifmi vel denotata 
 " controverfia, vel hominum feifca videtur : nam bene dici poteft, 
 " ecclefiam particularem efte independentem ab alia, vel a Synodis, 
 *' aut hominibus; pendcre autem a Iblo Chrifto : fuhmijfio potius 
 *• appeilanda fuerat, ut quse venit ex communi confenfii ecclefia- 
 *' rum, fe illi ordini, ad sdincationem et bene efTe ecclefix, fub- 
 " jicientium. A qua nomenclatura ipfos non admodum alienos 
 *• futuros, et molliore verbo rem non malam facilius perfuafum 
 " ipfis iri confidimus, quum in apologia dicentes audiverimus, fuis 
 ** fe {^monhvLsJuhje^ionem prasftare, et Synodi Roterodamenfis fen- 
 *• tentiae fubjedionem a Roterodamenfi coetu poftulatam, teneri 
 " ecclefiam fubmittere aliorum judicio et ccnfurze, &c. quae faci- 
 •* lius mihi videntur concilianda cum fententia noftra, quam cum 
 " nomine dependenti^ (quo ofTjjnduntur) vel poteftatis ufurpatJE 
 *' a Synodo in ecclefias. Verum quid eft quod adeo ofFenderc 
 " eos poflit, fi Synodorum poteftate ita explicata, et limitata, 
 " aliquam iis tribuamus? Cenfuram ftringere incontumacem, 
 ** pronunciare non'Comnntnionem^ quid vel ab excommunicatione 
 " adeo diftat, vel ab ufurpata poteftate ? ilia non-communio paf- 
 " five confiderata, quid differt ab excommunicatione ? qui extra 
 " fanctorum communionem ponitur, annon idem eft quod excom- 
 " municatus ? vel ecclefia fie damnata non-communionc, annon 
 " poteftatem aliquam fentit adverfus fe exercitam ? Certe magis 
 ** videntur verha horrere, qiuam rem,* 
 
Letter XIII. 2il 
 
 vernment ? Or, while in ordinary matters it is governed 
 by its elders, are they refponfible for their condud, in- 
 any cafe of error, to the miniflers and elders of a number of 
 congregations with whom they are affociated in the fame 
 general body and religious fellowfiiip ? and are thefe 
 again accountable to a dill greater alTembly, compofed 
 of the reprefentatives of a greater number of churches, 
 till at lail they arrive at a univerfal meeting or council of 
 the reprefentatives of all the churches in the fame reli- 
 gious connexion, the higheil court in the community ? 
 
 That every congregation ought not thus to be fepa- 
 rated, as is the cafe univerfally with Independent churches^ 
 appears to be manifeft from the following arguments. 
 
 In the id place. The vifible profeffuig church, w^hile 
 comprehending many particular and dirtinft congrega- 
 tions, is reprefented in fcripture as conflituting one great 
 and beautiful whole, one regular and clofely conne(fled 
 fociety. It is compared, for inftance, in Rom. xi. to an 
 oTi've-tree, for while fom.e of the Jews, the ancient church 
 of God, are faid to have been cut off from it on account 
 of their unbelief, the Gentiles, who are compared to a 
 wild dive, are reprefented as graffed in among the 
 branches which remained, and as admitted with them to 
 partake of the juice and fatnefs of the olive-tree. It is 
 often alfo exhibited under the emblem of a ^ocly, parti- 
 cularly in the twelfth chapter of Firfl Corinthians. It is 
 frequently diftinguifhed alfo by the name of a kingdom, 
 as will be evident to any one who examines the thirteenth 
 chapter of Matthew. Nor is it merely, as Mr. Glafs 
 wifhes to infinuate, the invifibk church which is thus 
 defcribed. Of this church it is plain that there is a part 
 in heaven ; but the church here referred to, is one in 
 which a variety of offices are inftituted for its fpiritual 
 edification, and for converting finners to obedience to 
 the truth (i Cor. xi. Eph. iv. ii, 12, T3.)» a circura- 
 flance undoubtedly which will not apply to the former. 
 
212 Letter XIII. 
 
 Befides, that it cannot merely be true believers, the 
 myftical body of Jefus, who are there intended, as is 
 aflerted by that writer, feems evident from this, that, in 
 the firll of thefe pafTagcs, fome of its members are faid 
 ** to have been cut off" from it on account of their unbe- 
 ** iief,^' which cannot be alleged of true believers, unlefs 
 the do6lrine of the perfeverance of the faints be rejected. 
 In the fecond of thefe quotations, the apoftle reprefents 
 the church of which he fpeaks, as a church which, and 
 which alone, had been enriched with fupernatural gifts, 
 as prophecy, miracles, the gift of tongues, Iz^c. We 
 know however, that thefe gifts were bellowed in the 
 primitive times upon m.any who were not members of 
 the invifible church or real believers, for we are told in 
 Matth. vii. 22, 23. that in the day of judgment 
 many will fay unto Chrift, *' Lord, Lord, have we not 
 *' prophefied In thy name? and in thy name have caft 
 " out devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful 
 <' works ? and yet that he will profefs unto them, 
 " I never knew you ; depart from me ye that work Ini- 
 ** quity.'* And, in the thitd of thefe paffages, it appears 
 to be be no lefs undeniable, that it cannot be the regene- 
 rated and invifible church which is compared to a king- 
 dom, for that kingdom u faid there to refemble a field, 
 in which there were tares as well as wheat, and in which 
 thefe tares were to remain till the univerfal harveil:, 
 at the confummation of all things. In fliort, though 
 the higheft fpirltual chara6lers be occafionally applied to 
 this univerfal church, it will not prove that it is only the 
 invifible church, confifting folely of believers, and not 
 the vifible church, of profefTing Chrlftians, which is 
 defigned. It is the cuftom of the different apoftles of 
 Chrift to defcribe men by what they profefs to be, if there 
 be nothing in their condu6l which contradicts that pro- 
 feflion, rather than from what they really are in the fight 
 of God. Paul, we know, addreflcs ths ivhole of the 
 
Letter XIII. 213 
 
 jTiembers of the churches of Rome, and Corinth, and 
 Ephefus, and Theffalonica, as hoi)', and yet we have 
 reafon to fufpefl, that, if in the little company of our 
 Saviour there was one traitor, all of them had not expe- 
 rienced regenerating grace. And Jtfus himfelf, when 
 addrefiing his difciples, and announcing to them promifes 
 of celeftial glory, proceeds upon the fame principle, and 
 treats all of them, agreeably to their profeffion, ^s genuine, 
 faints y though he knew that one of t.hem was a fon of 
 perdition. *' Behold, we have forfaken all, and followed 
 *< thee," faid Feier to him (Matth.xix. 27,28.): <* And 
 ** Jefus faid unto them, Verily I fay unto you, that ye 
 " which have followed me in the regeneration, when the 
 " Son of man (hall fit in the throne of his glory, ye alfo 
 " {hall fit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes 
 ** of Ifrael." Not only fo, but ftrong expreffions are em- 
 ployed ( I Cor. xii. ) to point out the unity of this church, 
 and the duties which refult from it to the members at 
 large. Nay, we are diredlly informed in the 25th verfe. 
 that God hath appointed all of them throughout the 
 world, the lov/ed as well as the mod eminent, to be 
 united in one body for this particular end, that *' there 
 ** fhould be no fchifm in the hodyy but that all the mem- 
 " bers of this univerfal church fhould have the fame care 
 ♦* one for another.** But in what manner is it poflible 
 that thefe reprefentations can be verified upon the Inde- 
 pendent plan ? Were all the congregations in the world 
 compofed of none but fuch as appeared to be faints, and 
 yet were each of thefe difconnecled from the red in point 
 of government, how could thefe defcriptions be fulfilled i 
 Would not every branch in this olive-tree be feparated 
 from every other ? Would not every inferior community 
 In this kingdom be cut oft from the reft \ and would not 
 there be as many fupreme independent principalities, 
 each of them uncontroulable by any higher fubordinate 
 power upon earth, as there were individual focieties! 
 
214 Letter XIII. 
 
 Would not dvery member of this body be torn fiom the 
 others ? and, inllead of there being no fchifm in the 
 body, would It not, according to the very conftltution 
 of the church, be broken down into ten thoufand inco- 
 herent fractions, all of which combined cannot take as 
 much care of any particular fociety, to prevent tiiem from 
 erring, or exercife as much authority over them, if they 
 perfiii in error, as is exercifed by that fociety over any 
 individual of its members ? Since then it feem's manifeil, 
 that the unlverfal profefiing church of Chritl is reprefent- 
 ed in fcripture as a beautiful whole, as intimately con- 
 nefted as a body, or a kingdom, and in which all the 
 congregations are required to take care of one another, 
 that no fchifm may take place in it ; and as this would 
 be imprafticable upon the Independent plan, if each of 
 them was completely feparated from the reft, and could 
 not exercife over it the leaft authority ; this plan muft be 
 confidered as untenable, becaufe*fubverfive of the beau- 
 tiful vifible unity and order of the church. 
 
 Is it faid, that all the Chriftian churches throughout 
 the world may be viewed as united, becaufe they have 
 one faith, one hope, one fpiritual baptifm, one God 
 and Father of all, and one bread and cup, of which they 
 all participate ? This will indeed demonllrate, that all 
 true believers are one myjiical hody^ but it is not about 
 this union that we are now inquiring. It has been at- 
 tempted to be proved, that were all the vifible profefiing 
 congregations on earth to adhere to the doArine and 
 dlfcipline of Chrift, they would conftitute what Is deno- 
 minated In the language of fcripture, one olive-tree, one 
 kingdom, and one body, all the members of which are 
 inverted with power to prevent any fchifm In It. Unlefs 
 then all thefe churches could be conceived to be conneded 
 as far as It is poflible in point oi government^ fo that a 
 congregation fliould be fubjeft to the controul of the re- 
 prefentatlves of a number of congregations, the repre- 
 
Letter XIII. 215 
 
 fentatlons of fcripture muft be nugatory and uniT.eaning. 
 Witho'.u this, no union of Chriilian churches could be 
 witnefTed; and though all the congregations on earth 
 fiiould be agreed in their views of dodrine and worfliip, 
 if, as the Independent fyftem fuppofes, they confiituted 
 innumerable detaclied focleties, it feems impolTible to 
 conceive how, in any view, they could be denominated 
 one vifible church. 
 
 It is true, that tliis one univerfal church has never yet 
 exifted, but it does not follow that the plan which tends 
 to form it, is either ufelefs or improper. The nonexift- 
 ence of this church arifes from the corruptions and pre- 
 judices of men ; but fuppofing it to exift, the fyftem of 
 Independency would entirely deflroy its unity and con- 
 iiftence. Befides, as far as the truth is difTeminated and 
 embraced, it appears required by the authority or at 
 lead by the reprefentations of fcripture, that all who are 
 united in religious priifbiple fhould ccnnedl themfelves 
 Under the fame government, and form one -great and 
 general church. It is not enough to affert, as Glafe has 
 done, that all congregations are no m.ore bound to be 
 fubjetl to one great and general government, than to 
 meet in one great aifembly to partake of the Lords flip- 
 per. The latter, from the nature of things, is impofiible, 
 but experience has demonftrated the pofTibility of the 
 former. Though all the congregations in Holland, 
 France, Switzerland, or Scotland, could not affemble 
 in one place to eat the fupper, we know that the churches, 
 in each of thefe countries, have been adminiliered by a 
 common government, while thefe congregations indivi- 
 dually have alfo been governed by their particular rulers. 
 In like manner, though the whole nation of Ifrael could 
 not meet together to eat the paffover, they were go- 
 verned by a common council of feventy elders, while, in 
 their particular diftritts, they were alfo fubjed to in- 
 .fcrior rulers. 
 
2i6 Letter XIII. 
 
 It is difficult to fay what might, or might not, be 
 pradicable, if the church were abfolutely univerfal. As 
 all the nations in t\ e world conftitute one great political 
 government to which every individual nation is fubjeft, 
 it is by no means impofTible but there might be a gene- 
 ral ecclefiafticai government, com.pofed of the reprefenta- 
 tives of the churches in every country, to which each of 
 thefe churches (hould be fubjeA. Such a general politi- 
 cal government does not indeed ostenftbly exift, but it is 
 always underflood to exift virtually, and has ever been 
 coniidered as the Safeguard of thofe general rights and 
 laws which are called the rights and laws of nature and 
 nations. When the energies of this government are at 
 any time exerted, it may be faid to aiFume a 'vifible 
 form : and it is this which conftitutes and preferves the 
 balance of power among nations. Why then might not 
 a fimilar government exift in religion \^ the church were 
 to become univerfal, to which the colleded church in 
 every particular country fhould be fubordinate. 
 
 Nor does it follow, becaufe it is difHcuk to conceive 
 how fuch a government could exift even thougli there 
 were a univerfal church, that, while it is not univerfal, 
 the different congregations in a particular country, who 
 are united in religious fentiment, ought not to be fub- 
 je£l to one general government. Though all the nations, 
 notwithftanding their fubjeftion to a general virtual go- 
 vernment, are not fubjeft to it in ?l permanent ostenfible form, 
 would any one conclude from this, as Independents do 
 refpeding the church, that each nation fhould not poffefs 
 within itfelf a certain fixed and general political govern- 
 ment, or that there fhould be no rulers in any country 
 fuperior to the magiftrates of a particular town or burgh ; 
 that every fuch town fhould be a diftindl and totally in- 
 dependent government ; and that every individual, connefl- 
 cd with this town, fhould be a virtual as well as a titular 
 governor ? What ought we to do then, but reje6t the 
 
Letter XIII. 217 
 
 Independent plan, which is fo plainly fubveiTive of the uni- 
 ty of the church, and conclude in general, that while every 
 congregation (hould be governed by its diftindl and fepa- 
 parate rulers, there fhould be fuperior courts, to which 
 all the congregations in the fame connexion are bound 
 to be fubjeft. 
 
 It may be faid, indeed, that in political governments 
 men are aflbciated merely for the purpofe of defence 
 againft foreign enemies. This, however, is but one end 
 of their union; for the civil rights and privileges of every 
 individual in the nation are alfo to be protedled from 
 being Invaded. To accompllfh this, they learn from ex- 
 perience that it would be dangerous in the extreme to 
 commit to the rulers of every town or village a fupreme 
 and final juridical power, v»'ithout the pofiibility of appeal 
 to a higher court ; and that confequently a gradation of 
 courts is moll expedient and neceffary. 
 
 Still it will be affirmed, that though this arrangement 
 is proper in political matters, it is not neceffary or pro- 
 per In the church of Chriil, which is exprefsly declared 
 to be a kingdom not of this world. It does not how- 
 ever follow from this particular espreffion, that there 
 ought to be a total difference, in every in/iance, between 
 the fpiritual and the political kingdom. If it did, then, 
 becaufe order and government exifl in politics, they 
 ought not to exifl in religion, but anarchy and diforder be 
 allowed to prevail, a conclufion which few Independents 
 would be difpofed to adopt. If then the kingdom of 
 Chrifl, as it exifls in the vifible general church, does not 
 neceffarily differ, in every point, from political king- 
 doms, the queflion naturally occurs, Are thefe fome of 
 the inflances In which this fimilarity may take place ; that 
 every member is not to be admitted to judge and vote 
 on every propofal of the rulers In a particular church, as 
 every man In a city Is not permitted to judge and vote 
 on every meafure of the maglflrate ; and that it would be 
 T 
 
2i8 Letter XIII. 
 
 improper for every congregation to poflefs an indepea* 
 dent ecclefiaftical government, accountable to no higher 
 court, as It would be improper and dangerous that every 
 town fliould have a political government independent of 
 any fuperlor ? 
 
 In determining this queftlon, It feems fair and reafon- 
 able to appeal not only to fcrlpture but to experience. If 
 then, on the authority of experience, it appears that 
 men In every age have been fo unqualified to declcje on 
 political queftions, that It has been accounted at once 
 dangerous and prepofterous to fubmit every meafure of 
 the governors of a city to the declfion of the citizens 
 before it is adopted, it feems equally jull to maintain 
 that In a congregation, where the fubjefts of dlfcufiion 
 are unquellionably more interefting, and where the mem- 
 bers at large are perhaps as really unquaHfied to decide, 
 it muft be no lefs prepofterous to fubjeft every meafure 
 of government to the review of the people before It be 
 put in execution. And If it has alfo been accounted 
 prejudicial to the civil interefts of men, to conftitute 
 every town In a kingdom an Independent principality, 
 imcontroulable by any higher juridical court, may we 
 not legitimately infer that a fimilar independency, given to 
 a particular congregation, would be equally prejudicial to 
 the religious interefts of men ? Unlefs then it can be 
 proved, that Chriftlans at large are better fitted to be 
 ccclefiaftical governors than civil judges ; or that a par- 
 ticular congregation Is lefs liable to err than the gover- 
 nor or magiftrates of a city ; or that, though they may 
 err as frequently, the confequences of their inri proper 
 decifions, with regard to religion, are of lefs importance 
 than thofe which arife from political errors ; the reafon- 
 jng feems fair and the conclufion unavoidable, even 
 though we grant the favourite pofitlon of Independents, 
 that the church, or kingdom of Chrift, Is not of this 
 world. 
 
Letter XIII. 219 
 
 I know it has been affirmed by Glafs, that when the 
 profeffing church of Chrld is reprefented in fcripture as 
 one, a particular congregation only is intended, and that 
 the unity even of the church univerfal may be afcribed 
 to this congregation, becaufe it is an image of the whole 
 catholic church. In proof of this he tells us, thjat 
 ** the apoftle Paul, in fome pafiages, accommodates his 
 ** do£^rine of the unity of the holy catholic church, the 
 ** myilical body of Chrift, unto a vifible church, a con- 
 " gregation of faints, wherein that catholic body is fliewed 
 " forth ; and exhorts the members, in their feveral ftations, 
 «* to walk according to it, and fiiew it forth : Eph. ii. 22. 
 ** Rom. xii. 6. — 10. Eph. iv. i, 2, 3. 1 Cor. xii. 27.*'' 
 In fome even of thefe pafTages, however, it feems plain 
 that it is the univerfal v'tfihle church, and not merely a 
 particular congregation, to which uaity is attributed. 
 Thus, in Rom. xii. 6. ^c. the apoftle not only fpeaks 
 in general terms of the offices in the church, but includes 
 himfelf, though he had never yet been at Rome, and 
 was not a member of the particular church there. Befides, 
 even Glafs allow^s, that, in ver. 4, 5. he fpeaks of the 
 univerfal church ; confequently, fmce it is his defign, 
 ver. 3. to inculcate the exercife of humility on all 
 Chriilians, and efpecially the office-bearers of the church 
 (and to enforce it, he introduces a ftriking and beautiful 
 allufion to the relation in which all believers iland to each 
 other as members of the general or univerfal church), is it 
 not evident that his inference, in ver. 6. relates to the 
 univerfal church alone, which he there reprcfents as one. 
 That ft was this church alone which he intended in 
 I Cor. xii. is proved from what is ftated in the 28th 
 verfe. It was certainly not merely in a iingle congrega- 
 tion at Corinth, but in the univerfal profeffing vifible 
 church, that " God had fet fome, firft, apoftles ; fecon- 
 
 f Glafs's Works, vol. 1. p. 279. 
 T2 
 
210 Letter •XIII. 
 
 «* darily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers," l^c. That it is 
 the fame univerfal church, of the unity of which he 
 fpeaks, Eph. i v. i, 2, 3. is no lefs clear from the follow- 
 ing context. In fhort, allowing that, mfome occafional 
 paffages, particular churches, as that of Ephefus (Eph. 
 ii. 22.), are reprefented to us as conftituting one church, 
 it will not prove that, in other paffages, the univerfal pro- 
 feffing church is not as exprefsly pointed out as confti- 
 tuting alfo one church. That it is fo defcribed we have 
 already attempted in fome meafure to demonftrate, and, 
 were it neceffary, it might be eftabliilied from other paf- 
 fages alfo. At prefent we fhall only farther remark, that 
 an this light it feems to be very pointedly exhibited in 
 the account of the millennial church ; Rev. xxi. This 
 church certainly cannot mean the invifible church, for 
 we are informed, ver. 24. that the kings of the earth 
 fhall bring their glory and honour into it ; and in ver. 26. 
 that they fhould bring into it alfo the glory and honour 
 ©f the nations. And that it cannot fignify a fingle con- 
 gregation is no lefs plain, for nations are reprefented, 
 ver. 24. as walking in the light of it, and kings of dif- 
 ferent countries as members of it, which certainly will 
 not apply to any fingle congregation. It can only then 
 be the univerfal vifible church ; yet it is defcribed as con- 
 ftituting one great and beautiful whole, for it is pointed 
 out to us under the emblem of a city, and a perfon. It is 
 evident then, that even allowing that unity is fometimes 
 afcribed to a particular congregation in the facred volume, 
 it is no lefs certainly attributed to the univerfal church. 
 And if the unity of a particular congregation would be 
 deftroyed by completely feparating the members from 
 each other, and rendering them independent of the au- 
 thority of the whole, the unity of the univerfal church 
 muft be no lefs deftroyed by feparating every particular 
 congregation which compofes this church, and making 
 
Letter XIII. 22i 
 
 It independent of the controul of the reft, in any cafe of 
 error, in point of government. 
 
 To conchide, is it objefted, that though unity belongs 
 to the univerfal church as well as to a particular congre- 
 gation, yet it is the latter which is always meant when 
 unity is afcribed to the vifible profefiing church ; and that 
 this may well be affirmed even of a particular congrega- 
 tion, becaufe it is an image of the univerfal church of 
 Chrlft, fo that, upon perceiving it, we perceive a repre- 
 fentation of this whole catholic fociety ? It Is replied, 
 that fince every individual faint, or believer, is reprefent- 
 ed in fcrlpture as made at laft, by the grace of God, a per- 
 fedl man, and is an image of the whole myftical body of 
 Chvill, upon the fame principle it might be affirmed, 
 that when Chrift's myftical body alfo is denominated by 
 Paul (Eph. iv. 13.) a perfedl man, it is only ^ fingle 
 Chrijlian which is there intended by him. And fince 
 every particular believer, when fandlified by the grace of 
 God, becomes to him a fplritual temple, and is a delightful 
 image of the whole univerfal church, which is diftln- 
 gu'ihed alfo by that name, upon the fame principle it 
 might be argued, that when the univerfal church, as in 
 Eph. ii. 21. is reprefented as a temple, it is only 
 an hidimdual ChriJVian which is defigned by the apoiile. 
 But if Independents themfelves would confider it as un- 
 fair, were we to maintain that when the univerfal myfti- 
 cal church is defcrlbed in fcrlpture as a perfect man, and 
 a fpirltual temple, individual believers alone are Intended, 
 becaufe they are images of the former, and are called 
 alio by thefe names, muft it not be equally unfair and 
 unreafonable 'u\ them, to affert that though the univerfal 
 vifible church is pointed out in fcrlpture as conftltuting 
 one regular and connected whole, it is only a particular 
 congregation which is defigned, becaufe unity alio is 
 fometimes attributed to fuch congregations, and becaufe, 
 
 T3 
 
222 Letter XIII. 
 
 when we behold the latter, we contemplate an Image and 
 emblem of the former ? 
 
 How, moreover, even upon the principle of this ob- 
 jeftion, can a particular congregation be a reprefentation 
 of the univerfal vifible church, if that church is not 
 united under one common government ? The fociety 
 which is the image of the other in miniature is unquef- 
 tlonably connedled under- fuch a government, and by this 
 alone is conftituted a church. But how can it be a 
 public and vifible emblem of this greater fociety, if the 
 conflituent parts of the latter are not united under fuch 
 an adminiftratlon, and have not even the connedlion 
 which fubfifts among the different members of fuch a 
 congregation ? 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 SIR, 
 
 JtIaving, in the preceding Letter, endeavoured to efla- 
 bHfh from the reprefentations of fcripture, that fuch a 
 unity ought to exift among Chrlftian congregations as is 
 inconfiftent with the plan of Independent churches, 1 
 Ihall now confirm this pofition by (hewing, 
 
 2dly, That if every congregation is made fo indepen- 
 dent of every other, that corruptions and improprieties 
 may be admitted in them without being accountable to 
 any fuperior court on earth, much greater opportunity 
 muil exifl for the introduction of error, and tyranny, 
 than on the Prefbyterian fyftem. 
 
 That the errors or corruptions of a congregation are 
 much more prejudicial to the interefts of religion in the 
 world than thofe of individuals does not admit of dif- 
 pute. In proportion therefore to their magnitude and 
 tendency ought to be the ftrength and efficacy of the 
 means of preventing or fuppreffing them. On the Inde- 
 
Letter XIV. 225 
 
 pendent plan however, if a congregation depart from 
 purity of faith or worftiip, the fame means cannot be 
 applied to reclaim it, as can be employed by its rulers to 
 reclaim or punifh the corruptions of its individual mem- 
 bers. In the latter cafe, they can be admonifhed, re- 
 buked, and, if they perfiil in their errors, excommu- 
 nicated by the rulers. But no fuch power can be exer- 
 cifed over a whole congregation, nor any fuch punifh- 
 ment inflided on it, notwithftanding the greater enormi- 
 ty and more baneful tendency of its errors. Nay, even 
 though a number of congregations Ihould be fedueed or 
 mifled by their example, the contagion muft remain un- 
 Gontrouled by either cenfare or punifhment : and thus 
 our Lord, who has appointed the exercife of difcipline 
 towards offending individuals, has allowed congregations 
 to become corrupt without the polTibility of recover- 
 ing them. 
 
 In Prefbytery, on the contrary, a congregation is as 
 much under the difcipline of its fuperior court as the 
 members are under that of its particular rulers : and even 
 though all the congregations under the revlev/ of a Pref- 
 bytery fhould err, they may be punifhed by a Synod ; 
 which, on falling into fimilar errors with the inferior judi- 
 catories, may be punlflied by the fuprenie court. While 
 Independency therefore provides for the punifhment of 
 the lead faults, or thofe of members, it overlooks the 
 mofl pernicious and more important faults, the herefies 
 and corruptions which may take place in congregations : 
 by confequence, as inattention to t/je greatejl crimes is one 
 of the moft radical and important defeats in any govern- 
 ment, the principles of Independency muft be prejudicial 
 to the general interefts of religion. 
 
 Do you fay, that congregations may admonifh one 
 another when they fall into error, and endeavour to reclaim 
 them ? You allow however, that unlefs there be a power 
 of puniihipg as well ^s of admoniihing an oiTending mem- 
 
224 Letter XIV. 
 
 ber, the evils which he may introduce can neither be 
 prevented nor removed. On what principle, then, can 
 you refufe a fiaiilar power to be neceffary for the preven- 
 tion or fupprelfion of offences committed by a whole 
 congregation ? In reply to this it is not fufficient to fay 
 with Glafs, that though a congregation is not fubjeft to 
 the ecclefiaftical cenfures of any external court, fpiritual 
 judgments may be infli£ted on it by God ; for thefe may 
 defcend on the individual members of a congregation 
 alio, yet the authority of difcipline is confidered as effen- 
 tial to the government of every congregation. Or is it 
 faid, that a corrupt congregation, though not fubjedl to 
 the judgment of men, will finally be judged at the tri- 
 bunal of Chrill. The fame anfwer is fatisfaAory — that 
 the fame is the accountablenefs, and the fame will be the 
 judgn:ient, of every individual who pcrfifls in his fin. 
 Yet even Independents admit the neceffity of difcipline in 
 the cafe of individuals : Can hfs then, it is ftill demanded, 
 be neceflary to prevent error and corruption in a whole 
 congregation than in the cafe of an individual ? Un- 
 doubtedly not ! Independency, therefore, muft be more 
 favourable to the Introdudlion of evils than Prefbytery is, 
 which, to every check which Independency pofTcfles, 
 adds the accountablenefs of every congregation to its fu- 
 perlor court, and the review of all decifions, in inferior 
 judicatories, by a flill higher and fupreme council. 
 
 In oppofition to this you however remark, p. 33. 
 <* So far do we conceive Prefbyterian government from 
 " being an arrangement conducive to general utility, 
 ** that it appears quite the reverfe. It tends to propa- 
 ** gate corruption, and to prevent reform. Suppofe a 
 *' church, on the Prefbyterian model, at firft compara- 
 ** tively pure (as it is generally fuppofed, perhaps in 
 " fome cafes juftly, that churches in their early days 
 ** are), bat by degrees corruption creeps into it. As 
 " foon as that corruption infetfts the majority, from the 
 
Letter XIV. 
 
 225 
 
 << power which Prefbytery gives them over the reft, they 
 «* can force their purer brethren, however rehidlantly, 
 ** to affimilate themfclves to their corrupt ilandard. If, 
 ** for example, in a Pre/by tery, one congregation after 
 ** another begins to lofe fight of Chriftian difcipllne ; 
 ** whenever the greater part of that Prefbytery does fo, 
 *' the reft, however much difpcfed, can no longer main- 
 " tain it. If an individual, in one of thefe purer congre- 
 " gations, feel himfelf aggrieved, an appeal to the ma- 
 " jorlty fecures him redrefs. The fyftem then tends to 
 ** drag down thofe who would aft on Chriftian principles 
 " to a conformity to fuch as have departed from them. 
 ♦' Again, it equally tends to prevent reform. If, amidft 
 ** general corruption, a fplrit of reform fhould appear in 
 *< a fingle congregation, the authority of the reft is a 
 ** bar in its way. This is, we believe, in fome cafes 
 '* feverely felt. Suppofe a minifter in the eftabllftied 
 " church (and in fome inftances, we truft, it is not 
 ** merely matter of fuppofition), in the progrefs of his 
 ** inquiries refpefting Chriftian difcipline, is convinced 
 ** that it is very partially, if at all maintained in his 
 *' congregation, admitting even that a majority of his 
 ** people held the fame fentimcnts j is it not obvious, 
 ** that unlefs the Prefbytery in general were of a fimilar 
 " opinion, any attempt at reform in that congregation 
 ** would prove nugatory and vain. The fame Incon- 
 " venience does not attend Independent churches. We 
 ** are far from infmuating that any form of church- 
 *' government prefents an efFeftual bar to that corruption 
 " to which all inftitutions, conduced by depraved and 
 " fallible men, are liable ; but admitting among Inde» 
 " pendent churches the moft general departure from 
 ** Chriftian principles to prevail, if, in the midft of this, 
 *' an individual corigregation is led to ftudy greater 
 " purity, the fyftem at leaft prefents no external obftacle 
 ** to counterad it." 
 
226 Letter XIV. 
 
 On this objccftion, fo formidable in your apprehenfion, 
 I obferve in general, that while you point out as clearly 
 as poflible what you imagine to be the tendency of the 
 Preifbyterian fyftera to propagate corruption and prevent 
 reform, you forget to fhew that Independency is free 
 from a fimilar tendency. Even on the principles of the 
 reafoning which you adopt, it appears to be much more 
 liable to this objection than Prefbytery. Suppofe, for 
 inftance, a congregation, in either of thefe connexions, 
 juft beginning to fwerve from purity of faith and wor(hIp, 
 and confider the tendency of each of thefe fyflems to 
 prevent or reform them. Independency has not a fingle 
 court which can call it to account, cenfure or punifh it : 
 Prefbytery has fuperior courts, to whofe tribunal it is 
 amenable, and which can -cenfure or punifli it with as 
 much power as an Independent congregation can any of 
 its offending members. Nay, fuppofe this congregation 
 to extend its corruption to ten or twenty churches around 
 it, the fame want of authority and power to check the 
 progrefs of this corruption exifts. But in Prefbytery, 
 though twenty congregations (hould be tainted with 
 error, there are higher courts, which can endeavour to 
 reform them, not op.ly by admonition and perfuafion, but 
 by fuperadding the fame ecclefiaflical cenfures which 
 Independents infiicl on the individuals in a particular con- 
 gregation who periift in error. In a word, in a country 
 where there were 1600 Independent churches, though 
 almofl: the one half of them fhould fall into error, and 
 obilinately perfifl in it, for any power that the remaining 
 majority poffefs, they muft continue unpunifhed ; corrup- 
 tion mud be allowed to extend without controul : they 
 muft be left to themfclves, either to reform, or to ad- 
 vance in corruption. In a Prefbyterian church however, 
 though as many fliould become corrupt, the faithful ma- 
 jority can exercife the difcipline over them with which 
 they are invelled ; employ the fame efficacious means for 
 
Letter XIV. 227 
 
 tlieir rtformatlon which you acknowledge Chrill has 
 appointed to be ufed by a congregation towards its mem- 
 bers ; and if they ihould refift thefe means, finally pro- 
 nounce on thero the fame fentence to which you alfo 
 allow individuals are txpofed. I am truly aftonifhed then, 
 that while fuch is the natiure of Prefbytery, when admi- 
 niftered according to its original defign and by faithful 
 men, that it is as much fitted to exclude corruption from 
 the mod extenfive church, or to reform, it, as the go- 
 vernment eftabliihed in your conne^lion is to prevent the 
 corruption of a particular individual, you fliould endea- 
 vour to reprefent Prefbytery as fo favourable to error, and 
 fo inimical to reform. Nor am I lefs furprifed, when you 
 attempt to infinuate that this charge does not flrike with 
 its utmoft force againft Independency— a fyftem which 
 gives no authority except to a fingle congregation over 
 its own members ; under which, a hundred congregations 
 may embrace the mofl pernicious opinions, and perfift in 
 them without cenfure and without punifhment. 
 
 You indeed aflc (p. 54.), " How does Prefbytery tend 
 " to prevent corruption ? Not by admonition and per- 
 " fuafion. Thefe, indeed, it does not exclude, but this is 
 " a kind of influence which is acknowledged in its fullefl 
 *' latitude by Independent churches ; and therefore re- 
 " fpeding the propriety of adopting it there is no dif- 
 " pute. The ftern tone of authority, then, is the only 
 " method of preventing corruption by which Prefbytery 
 " is diflinguillied. It indeed, like other modes of com- 
 ** pulfion, may produce hypocrify, but it can never pro- 
 *' mote fpiritual obedience. It was never a kind of in- 
 " fluence fandlioned by Him who reigns over a willing 
 ** people." 
 
 Prefbyterian courts however, as was already proved, 
 while they employ authority, ufe alfo admonition and 
 perfuafion. Nor is their authority more flern or com- 
 pulfatory than that which is exercifed by the office-bearers 
 
228 Letter XIV. 
 
 and members of an Independent congregation over an of- 
 fending brother. Do not the governors of fuch a con- 
 gregation add to the means of advice and perfuafion a 
 higher ad of authority^ by infliding on him a moft aw- 
 ful punifnment, if he remain incorrigibly obftinate ? And 
 is the authority of a Prefbyterian court, over an offending 
 congregation, greater than this, or more incompatible 
 with the ufe of perfuafion and advice ? Is it more calcu- 
 lated to produce hypocrify, as you are fo charitable as to 
 allege ? Is it more inconfillent with the influence which 
 is fandlioned by Him who reigns over a willing people I 
 Or on what principle can you explain the extraordinary 
 difficulty attending the Independent fyftem, that while 
 a power to punifli a particular member is allowed to be 
 neceffary for preferving the purity of the congregation 
 to which he belongs, a fimilar power Is denied to a fu- 
 perior court, and a whole congregation fuffered to era- 
 brace the moft dangerous opinions without the poffibi- 
 lity of being cenfured or punifned ? 
 
 You will however probably fay, that as foon as the ^ 
 majority In a Prefbyterlan connexion become corrupt, 
 all the evils which you dcfcribe are found to be realized. 
 It Is true Indeed, that, when perverted from Its original 
 defign, like many other things which In themfelves are 
 good, Prefbytery may produce the worft of confequences ; 
 and It Is even granted, that as, when properly and con- 
 fcientloufly admlniftered. It Is produftive of greater 
 good than Independency, when corrupted and mifap- 
 plled, it may, in one view, be attended with greater evils. 
 The queftion however. In the prefent difcuffion, certainly 
 is, not what fyftem, when perverted from Its original end, 
 is calculated to produce the leqfi evil, but what fyftem, 
 when conduced according to Its defign, Is calculated to 
 produce the greateft good ? Your objedion Is therefore 
 completely irrelevant, becaufe it refts on a miftake about 
 the point in difpute, as well as on a principle long ex- 
 
Letter XIV. 229 
 
 ploded by fcripture, philofopliy, and common fenfe, that 
 the abufe of a thing is a •valid argument againji its ittility. 
 
 By adopting this principle, you invalidate the autho- 
 rity of the moft Important Inftltutions, and fet afide 
 many in which you yourfelf firmly beh'eve. On this 
 ground, for Inllance, as a Jlandtng minijlry^ when profti- 
 tuted to the purpofes of error and worldlinefs. Is 
 much more fitted to dilTcminate corruption and pre- 
 vent reform than private inJlruSiion Is, it fhould be laid 
 afide ; and we ought to believe, with a certain fedl of 
 levellers, that minifters of the gofpel are no longer necef- 
 fary, but every Chriftian himfelf fiiould teach his neigh- 
 bour, and every Chriftian his brother, to know the Lord. 
 On the fame ground alfo, fince civil government y when 
 admlniftered by rulers who are unfaithful, Is no lefs fit- 
 ted, by its fubordination of courts, to propagate moft 
 extenfively evet-y fpecles of corruption^ and to prefent an 
 unfurmountable obftacle to reform, it ought to be laid 
 afide ; and all the nations of men, correding thofe errors 
 into which, by your reafoning, they have in every age 
 fallen, fnould at once abolifh their civil courts of review, 
 break down their kingdoms Into a countlefs multitude of 
 little principalities, and make each of them entirely in- 
 dependent of the reft. Without this you may allege, 
 againft the prefent conftitutlon of almoft every nation on 
 earth, as you do againft Prefoytery, that as foon as cor- 
 ruption infeds the majority in the fuperlor courts, from 
 the power with which they are Invefted over the reft, 
 they can force their purer brethren, however reludantly, 
 to afiimalate themifelves to their corrupt ftandard. U^ i<^^ 
 example, In a kingdom, one city after another, and one 
 ruler after another, begin to lofe fight of political juftice ; 
 whenever the greater part of the rulers In the fuperlor 
 courts of the kingdom does fo, the reft, however much 
 difpofed, can no longer maintain it. If a degenerate 
 'individual, In one of the purer cities, feel himfelf ag- 
 U 
 
zso Letter XIV. 
 
 grieved by the decifion of its rulers, an appeal to the 
 majority, in the fuperior courts, fecures the immediate 
 reverfal of their fentence. This fyflem, then, tends to 
 drag down thofe who would ad on the principles of 
 equity to a conformity to fuch as have departed from 
 them. Again, it equally tends to pfevent reform. If, 
 amidft general political corruption in a kingdom, a fpirit 
 of reform fliould appear in the governors of a fingle city, 
 the authority of the reft is a bar in its way. This, we 
 believe, in fuch cafes, would be feverely felt. Suppofe the 
 governors of fome of thefe cities (and in fome inftances, 
 we truft, even in corrupt kingdoms, it is not merely 
 matter of fuppofition), in the progrcfs of their inquiries 
 refpefting political juftice, are convinced that it is very 
 partially, if at all maintained in their cities — admitting 
 that even a majority of the people held the fame fentl- 
 ments ; is it not obvious, that unlefs the fuperior courts 
 in general were of a fimilar opinion, any attempt at re- 
 formation, in any of thefe cities, would prove nugatory 
 and vain. The fame inconvenience would not follow, 
 were every kingdom upon earth, however, fplit down into 
 as many independent political focieties as there were 
 cities, or towns, or villages in it. We are far from in- 
 finuating that any form of political government prefents 
 an efFe6:ual bar to that corruption to which all inftitu- 
 tions, conduced by depraved and fallible men, are liable ; 
 but admitting among thefe independent political focieties 
 the moft general departure from the principles of juftice 
 and integrity to prevail, if, in the midft of this, an indi- 
 vidual village, or town, or city, is led to ftudy greater 
 redlitude, the fyftem at leaft prefents no external obftacle 
 to counteradl it. If then you would not maintain that 
 civil government, in every form almoft in which it at pre- 
 fent exifts in the world, is abfurd and pernicious, becaufe, 
 when Its adminiftrators are depraved, it is capable, as ex- 
 tcnfively as Pre(bytery itfelf, by its courts of review, to 
 
Letter XIV. 231 
 
 propagate corruption and prevent reform, on what prin- 
 ciple, I demand, can you afiert that Prefbytery, with its 
 courts of review, is dangerous and reprehenfible, be- 
 caufe, when the majority of its adminiilrators may differ 
 from you in their views of doftrine and their ideas 
 of difcipline, they have it in their power to propagate 
 what you would diftinguirti by the name of corruption, 
 and prevent reform ? And if, notwithilanding the evils 
 which may be occafioned by z. perverted ufe of the former, 
 you would not contend that every town or village in our 
 native country, and even in every country, fhould be 
 converted into an independent political government, on 
 what grounds can you conclude, from the pofiible evils 
 which may refult from the perverted ufe of the latter, 
 efpecially as liberty of fcparation is acknowledged by it, 
 that the church at large fnould be broken down into in- 
 dependent religious focleties, and that there fhould be as 
 many independent ecclejiajlical governments as there are in- 
 dividual congregations on the face of the earth ? 
 
 The great object of inquiry in our examination of 
 different forms of government, facred or civil, fhould un- 
 doubtedly be, which of them, when aded upon accord- 
 ing to its end, is beff fitted to prevent the entrance of cor- 
 ruption among focieties as well as individuals ; not, 
 which of them is mofl calculated, when mif applied from 
 that end, and condudred by men whofe principles and 
 pradlice may appear to us to be wrong, to be pro- 
 duftive of the greatejl evil .^ Examining then, by this 
 flandard, the oppofite fchemes of Prefbytery and Inde- 
 pendency, I think it is manifefl from the preceding re- 
 marks, that the preference is certainly due to the former. 
 If confcientioufly managed, by men who experience the 
 influence of the gofpel, the rulers of each of its individual 
 congregations can exercife towards all as much ftridlnefs 
 of difcipline as the mofl zealous governors of any Inde- 
 pendent fociety can exercife towards their members. 
 U2 
 
232 Letter XIV. 
 
 And, at the fame time, while Independency has not a 
 fingle court which can judge or punifh a ivhole erring 
 congregation f but allows them, though they fhould pro- 
 ceed to the mod dreadful extremes of error or depravity) 
 to pafs uncenfured by any eccleuaftical tribunal, Pref- 
 bytery has courts which can inflift upon any obftinate 
 offending congregation, or even a hundred fuch congre- 
 gations, the fame falutary punifliment, to reclaim and 
 reform them, which Independents can infiidl upon any 
 individual of their members. And, upon the whole, 
 while Independency, as was already demonftrated in the 
 fecond of thefe Letters, has not a fingle court which can 
 procure redrefs to any of its members, though he be 
 treated with the iitmojl cruelty and tyranny by any of its 
 congregations, Prefbytery, by its courts, when they are 
 conduced upon the principles of equity and fidelity, pre- 
 fents to the pooreft individual in a congregation a mean 
 of immediate and complete fatisfaftion, even for the leajl 
 adl of injujl'ice by a Seffion, or Prefl)ytery, or a whole 
 Synod. From thefe views, then, I flill maintain that the 
 Prefbyterian fyftem ought urquellionably to be preferred 
 to that of Independency, and that the latter fliould be 
 fet afide as inimical to the deareil rights and privileges of 
 Chriftians as individuals, as well as the united intereils of 
 the whole church of God. 
 
 In the 3d place. It is a principle revealed in fcripture, 
 and a principle acknowledged by you as well as many In- 
 dependents, that minyiers alone are authorized to ordain. 
 Now, if an Independent congregation be dtftitute of 
 pallors, and if, after they arc chofen by the people, 
 agreeably to fcripture and the uniform pradice of your 
 filler-churches, miniflers be brought from other congre- 
 gations to ordain them to their charge, is not this a 
 praBtcal renunciation of that fir ft principle of Indepen- 
 dency which we are now examining, and a fubjedling the 
 congregation over which they are placed, together with 
 
Letter XIV. 233 
 
 the paftofs, to the performance of a moft important a£l 
 
 of government by the minifters of churches enthely dif- 
 ferent? Is not this confefTedly an acl of adminillration 
 as intcrefting as any which is performed even among In- 
 dependents, and yet is it not difcharged to any congre- 
 gation which folicits it, by perfons who are neither mi- 
 nifters nor members of that congregation ? Befides, does 
 it not involve in it the exercife of all inferior branches of 
 authority ? Is it not plain that if it is their province to 
 fet apart thefe members of this other congregation to the 
 work of the miniftry, it is their province alfo to examine 
 them as to their fitnefs to be inverted with that office, 
 for, without this, will it not follow that if a congrega- 
 tion has erred in its choice of paftors, ordination by the 
 former will only tend to confirm their error, and admit 
 thofe who are totally unquahfied to this important func- 
 tion ? And does not the fcripture declare, that when 
 candidates for the miniftry are ordained by minifters, 
 hands are not fuddenly to be laid upon them ; that they 
 mud be fatisfied as to their qualifications, and muft per- 
 fonally be convinced that they are faithful men, able to 
 teach others the dodirines of the gofpel ? But if every 
 paftor of fuch a congregation muft fubmit to the fcru- 
 tiny of the paftors and office-bearers of other congrega- 
 tions before he is ordained, even after he has been chofen by 
 the vote of the people ^ is not this recognifing the right of 
 thefe paftors to exercife a very important aft of authority 
 over him and the congregation ? Is it not inverting them 
 with all the power of a court of review, while yet they 
 are unwilling to grant them the name \ And is it not 
 obvious, that if the paftors alone of other congregations 
 can ordain a perfon to the work of the miniftry in a 
 congregation which is totally deftitute of paftors, it is to 
 them alone that he can be amenable for any a6l of mal- 
 adminiftration which he may be permitted to commit ; 
 and it is by them alone that he can be depofed, if he 
 
 U3 
 
224 Letter XIV. 
 
 walk unworthily of his facred fundion. In fine, though 
 it fhould not be admitted by fome Independents, that a 
 meeting of the miniflers q{ other churches is 7iecejfary for 
 the ordination of the paftor or minifter of a particular 
 congregation, yet if it be granted, with others of thenti, 
 to be lawful and defirable, it feems undeniably to follow, 
 in oppofition to a favourite principle of Independency, 
 that ordination is either not an a6l of government, or 
 that it is lav/ful and defirable even among Independents, 
 that a congregation, in many inftances, fhould be fubjeft 
 to one of the higheft afts of power that can be exercifed by 
 the miniiters and office-bearers of other congregations ? 
 Since then it appears to be evident from the facred voIum.e, 
 that minifters alone are authorized to ordain *, and fince it 
 
 * That miniflers alone can ordain miniilers, was attempted to 
 be proved in a former Letter. In addition to the arguments 
 which were then ftated, it was neglected to be mentioned that 
 confiderable ftrefs has been laid by fome, for the confirmation of 
 this fentiment, upon the appointment of Paul, and his fellow- 
 labourer Barnabas, to an important million, as related in the 
 thirteenth chapter of the A£ts. Even admitting it has been 
 laid, with fome advocates for lay-preaching, that it is not their 
 ordination to the office of the minidry, but fimply their being fet 
 apart to a particular work, which is there referred to, yet as it is 
 evident that they were thus fet apart by minifrers of the gofpel, 
 and them alone (compare ver, I. and 3.), the argument which is 
 prefented by it, for the right of minifters alone to ordain, mull be 
 doubly (Ironger. If miniHers alone can fet apart thofe who are 
 already ordained to a particular work, much more muft; it be ma- 
 nifeft that they alone can perform this higher work, and invert 
 them with their office. At any rate, it feems plain that the ob- 
 fervation of Mr. Ewing, which has been reprefented by fome as 
 completely invalidating any fuch conclufion from this palTage, is 
 unjuft and contradictory. " It is remarkable," fays he, p. 6. of 
 his Remarks upon a Sermon publifhed by Mr. Dick, " that where- 
 " ever ordination, by the inflrumentality 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 related to the 
 " one in the text occurs, in the fenfe of ordination, it uniformly 
 
Letter XIV. 2^^ 
 
 is admitted by many of our modern Independents, that it 
 is either /awful or necejfary that they alone fhould perform 
 this a£t, it feems to be an unavoidable confequence, if they 
 would be confident either with fcripture or with them- 
 felves, that each of their congregations is not to be inde' 
 pendent in e'very InJlancCi but that, in many cafes, it is either 
 latvful or necejfary that it fhould be fubjedl to one of the 
 higheft a6:s of authority by the minifters and office- 
 bearers of other churches. 
 
 In the 4th place, If the paftors of a particular con- 
 gregation become heretical or immoral, and peffift in 
 thefe evils, in another point of light, even upon Indepen- 
 dent principles, a court of review appears neccfTary to 
 judge them. The members of the congregation, accord- 
 ing to the acknowledged tenets of all Independents, are 
 not entitled in the firfl inflance to judge, but are merely 
 allowed to acquiefce and confnt to the propofals of their 
 office-bearers. But if not a f.ngle ojfce-hearer is left in 
 the congregation who retains his authority, how can the 
 members take cognizance of their paflors, fince it is their 
 
 " frgtiifiesthe ordination or iovereign appointment of God." Are 
 we not exprersly told in th; beginning of this chapter, that while 
 " certain prophets and teachers miniflered to the Lord, and farl- 
 " ed, the Holv Ghofl faid to ihc:n^ Separate me Barnabas and 
 " Paul, for the work whereunto I have called them ?" And 
 would not any unprejudiced perfon, who looked no farther than 
 foe frejent pqjfge, fuppofe, upon the lirft perufal of thefe verfes, 
 that it was an appointment, or feparation, by men, and not by 
 God, which was here intended by this expreifion ? If Mr. Ewing's 
 very bold and unqualified aflertion however, refpe<Qing the fepa- 
 ration which is here mentioned, even though but to a particular 
 miflion, be admitted to be juft, the following mufl: be the mean- 
 ing of the infpired hiftorian : " While thefe prophets and teachers 
 " miaiftered and faded, the Holy Ghofi appeared to them, and 
 " commanded himjclf \o Jeparaie to h imfc If B^rn^h3.s and Paul" — 
 a fuppofition at once the moft abfurd and ridiculous, and no lefs 
 inconfiftent with the character of Luke as a man of fenfe, thau 
 with his more extraordinary endowments as ea apoftle. 
 
2^6 Letter XIV. 
 
 province only to exprefs their concurrence in the propofals 
 of their office-bearers, and not nominally themfelves to 
 afl as juJ^es i Is it faid, that they may withdraw from 
 the miniftration of thefe paftors ? It is replied, that this 
 meafiire cannot confidently be adopted till their paftors 
 be tried, and be proved to be guilty. But how can this 
 be done, if there be no court fuperior to a particular con- 
 gregation ? Befides, it is evident that paftors, who per- 
 fi^ in herefy or immorality, are not only to be deprived 
 of the particular charge over which they are placed, but 
 are folemnly to be depofed, as no longer minifters of the 
 gofpel of Chrift. But if there be no court fuperior to a 
 particular congregation ; who are the perfons that are 
 thus to depofe them, if they perfift in thefe evils, allow- 
 ing that this congregation has withdrawn from their mi- 
 niftrations ? 
 
 And Jthly, If every particular congregation, hovt'ever 
 fmall, is, in every cafe, to be the final judge in every 
 point of government, this plan feems to be lefs fitted to 
 fecure an enlightened and candid adminiftration than 
 that of Prefb) tery. 
 
 Let it be fuppofed for a moment (and nothing lefs can 
 be fuppofed, to give juftice to the argument), that Pref- 
 byterian minifters are as pious and zealous for the interefts 
 of religion as members of any Independent congregation, 
 and fee which of thefe plans is moft happily calculated 
 to provide an enlightened and impartial adminiftration. 
 In the one cafe, a congregation of twenty, or thirty, or 
 fifty members, a great proportion of whom are frequently 
 perfons of feeble powers and limited information, are to 
 be the ultimate judges in every bufincfs, however difficult 
 and important, and no court upon earth can either 
 amend or reverfe their decifion. In the other. It is 
 either determined by the w^ifeft and moft judicious of a 
 particular congregation, together with the minifter, un- 
 der the review and controul of the wifeft and moft judi- 
 
Letter XIV. 237 
 
 clous oi twenty y or a hundred, qx fcveral hundred congre- 
 gations, together with the pallors ; or it is this afiembly 
 itfeif which finally determines it. And, in the one cafe, 
 it is decided by a little afTembly, who ** are more apt," 
 as you acknowledge, p. 52. *' to be influenced by 
 ** party-fpirit, by perfonal animofity, or by local pre- 
 ** judice." In the other, it is determined by this large 
 afiembly, the members of which, from their dillance, 
 their equal relation to the parties, and their previous 
 freenefs from perfonal diflike, to which thofe who rcfide 
 upon the fpot, in your opinion, may be expofed, are 
 much more likely, as you honeflly confefs, to be can- 
 did and unbiafTed. Whatever then may be the conduB of 
 Prefbyterians and Independents, it appears to be unde- 
 niable, that when we confider their different forms of 
 government, on the fuppcfition that the adminiftrators 
 of them are equally faithful and equally confcientiousy the 
 fcheme of the former is much better fitted than that of 
 the latter to fecure, in difficult and important matters, 
 an enlightened and candid difpenfation of juflice. 
 
 Is it faid, that the mem.bers of a particular congrega- 
 tion are much more likely to be qualified to judge in 
 matters which relate to itfeif, than the moil numerous 
 afiembly of learned, and pious, and experienced men 
 who live at a diftance ? It is anfvvered, that if their 
 judgm.ent be fair and equitable, it ought to be founded 
 upon nothing but what is publicly fl:ated and fully can- 
 vafled ; and may not all that information which is openly 
 communicated before a whole congregation be commu- 
 nicated alfo before fuch an afiembly, who, by your own 
 confefiion, v^ill be more candid and unprejudiced? Be- 
 fides, as is obferved by Wood (againfl; Lockier, p. 320.), 
 " In addition to the bufinefles of the exercife of difcipline 
 ** about particular members of congregations, there are, 
 " firfl:, Matters of faith and of the worfhip of God to be 
 «« defined from the v;ord of God 5 and contrary errors^ 
 
238 Letter XIV. 
 
 ** herefies, and corruptions, to be condemned and de- 
 " dared againfl. Secondly, There are n\atters of exter- 
 ** nal order and policy, which are determined by the 
 ** true light of nature, right reafon, and general rules In 
 ** fcripture. Now, I do not think that Independents 
 ** will take It upon them to aver, that a fingle congre- 
 ** gation are like in reafon to be more learned, and fo 
 ** more advantaged to judge In matters of this kind, 
 ** than all the able choice men, miniftersand elders from 
 ** many congregations, affembled together in a Synod, 
 ** or in a Claffical Prefbytery. In the third place, To 
 " infinuate that In bufineiTc-s of difcipline about particular 
 ** perfons there is no other matter to be cognofced and 
 ** determined but qwjliom of fa&, is another miftakc. 
 *' For oftentimes in fuch bufmefies are Involved Intricate 
 " queftlons of law {^ov juris), as frequent experiences in 
 ** the exercifes and procefles of difcipline, prove daily. 
 *' Now although it be true that a particular congregation 
 ** is like to be more learned, as to matters of mere faft 
 ** In bufinefTes of particular members ; yet it can hardly 
 ** be faid In reafon, that it Is like they will be more 
 ** learned in queftlons of law involved therein, than many 
 " choice able men from many congregations. And 
 ** fourthly, Suppofe the members of a particular congre- 
 ** gation may be more learned In the bufineffes which 
 ** relate to themfelves, yet I fuppofe (that which Is not 
 ** unufual to fall out) there may be differences among 
 ** the elders, orbetv/een the elders and the people, or both 
 ** may be divided in their judgments that nothing can 
 ** be concluded amongfl; them : what will you have 
 *' done In fuch a cafe?" Or is it remarked farther, that 
 though it may be expedient, from thefe things, to con- 
 vene meetings as numerous as poffible of the minlfters 
 and office-bearers of other congregations to obtain their 
 advice, yet it would be utterly Improper that a parti- 
 cular congregation fliould fubmit to their authority, 
 
Letter XIV. 239 
 
 but that It ought ftlll to retain- the power of declfion ? 
 It Is demanded, In reply, whether it can be fo conducive 
 to the interefts of truth and equity to veil fuch a power 
 of final determination In thofe whom you admit to be 
 ** more apt to be Influenced by party-fplrit, by prejudice, 
 *' or by perfonal animofity," than to commit it to this 
 more candid as well as more enlightened afTembly ? If 
 thefe circumftances, In the one cafe, render it dangerous 
 and prejudicial to the caufe of juftlce that they fhould 
 ihemfelves determine without convening this afTembly, 
 and foliciting Its advice, muft they not render it alfo no 
 lefs hazardous to it, that the power of fupreme and ulti- 
 mate declfion fhould be veiled in them, though they 
 fliould retain their prejudices after all that be fald to 
 them ? Even upon your own principles then, it appears 
 to be undeniable, that the plan of Prelbytery, in this 
 view alfo, Is better fitted than that of Independency to 
 provide at once for a more enlightened, and fafe, and 
 candid admlnillration of ecclefiafllcal julllce. 
 
 Befides, If any of the members of a particular con- 
 gregation exhibit a charge agalnft the reft of that 
 congregation, and there be no fuperlor court ; vtho 
 are the arbiters that are to determine between them ? 
 Both are parties, and both confider themfelves as equally 
 aggrieved, and confequentiy, by the rules of all confiftent 
 governments, are totally difqualified from judging In the 
 difference. But upon the Independent plan, they are 
 themfelves the only perfons who can aft as arbiters ; and 
 this office, as was obferved, fince there is no fuperlor 
 judicatory, they muft ftill perform, even though both 
 are interefted. Among Prefbyterlans however, when 
 any members of a congregation are injured by thofe 
 who are its elders or governors, they can furamon 
 thefe elders to a fuperlor court, which, if compofed 
 of upright and difinterefted men, will judge Impar- 
 tially between both the parties. Nay, if this fuperlor. 
 
240 Letter. XIV. 
 
 court ftill feem to determine amifs, they can appeal to a 
 third, till at laft they arrive at the higheft fubcrdinatc 
 court in the church. Thence, indeed, if ftill denied a 
 favourable decilion, they can appeal to no fuperior tri- 
 bunal upon earth ; but this arifes only from the imper- 
 fe6lion of the prefent flate of exiftence, which grants 
 not to any, during their earthly lives, when aggrieved by 
 a fupreme tribunal among men, to appeal to and obtain 
 an audible verdidl from the throne of God. Nor is this 
 imperfe6lion peculiar to eccleliaftical — -it is common to it 
 alfo with civil government. Among Independents, on 
 the contrary, in the 'veryfi-Jl hylance, when the minority 
 are injured by the majority of a congregation, the only 
 perfons who can judge of their complaint, are the very 
 men who have committed the wrong ; and whether fuch 
 a plan Is as well fitted as that of Prelbytery, when faith- 
 fully adminiftered, to provide for a candid difpenfation 
 of juftice, it is left to the unprejudiced obferver to fay. 
 
 So far however, according to fome, are thefe beneHts 
 from being the confequences of an enlightened and faith- 
 ful adminiftration of Prcfbytery, that the oppofite evils, 
 however it may be exercifed, feem neceflarily to refult from 
 it, " Farther,'' fays Dr. Watt^ in his Candid Inquiry, 
 p. 175. before quoted, " to keep judges and party en- 
 ** tirely diftinft, hath been always an obje6l to all lovers 
 ** of impartial juftice ; but Prefbytery often confounds 
 ** them. When the cafe concerns the exercife of church- 
 ** power, whether it be a remonftrance from a church- 
 " member againft the deed of a court, or an appeal to 
 «« one fuperior, from an inferior ; whether it be a com- 
 ** plaint of an inferior court to a fuperior, againft fuch 
 <* as may have refufed due fubmiflion to its authority ; 
 <* ftill it is a cafe between church-officers and church- 
 << members ; and all the judges are of the former clafs. 
 ** If they decide againft the court, they are in danger 
 *« of adting in a way unfriendly to church-power even 
 
Letter XIV. 241 
 
 ** in their own hands, and of encouraging a fpirit of 
 << anarchy among the people. Thefe views may have 
 ** often a greater influence, than the merits of the caufe, 
 *« in framing the decifion. We may thus fee why a re- 
 <* monftrant, or appellant, often lofes his caufe in a fupe- 
 '* rior court ; and why the complaint of an inferior 
 ** court is fo often redreffed, and its fentence affirmed." 
 But to this it is anfwered, that if members are permit- 
 ted to fit as judges in the cafe of members ^ there feems to 
 be as much reafon to fear that they may be difpofed to 
 favour their brethren, as that church-officers will be dif- 
 pofed to favour church-officers. Of confequence it will 
 follow upon this mode of reafoning, that when a mem- 
 ber has erred, it ought to be officers alone, in oppofitioQ 
 to a favourite firll principle of Independency, who 
 fhould be allowed to judge him ; and when a church- 
 officer errs, it fhould be members alone, who have no 
 office in the church, and who, even upon the fyftem of 
 thefe gentlemen, have a right only to acqukfce in the 
 propofals of elders, that fliould be permitted to deter- 
 mine. Or if it be alleged, that the court may be com- 
 pofed partly of thofe who are members and partly of 
 church-officers, it is replied, tliat the proportion of thofe 
 who are judges in Independent courts and are only mem- 
 bers, is unfair and dangerous to the rights at leaft of thofe 
 who are elders. In many congregations, the number of 
 the former is fifty or fixty times as great as that of the 
 latter ; and in moll congregations, they are at leaft ten or 
 twenty times fuperior in number. Is it not manifeil 
 then, that if this objedion be vahd when urged againft 
 Prefbytery, it is much more formidable when applied to 
 Independency, where juftice in no cafe, according to it, 
 can be expeded to be fnewn to thofe who are office- 
 bearers, and where partiality in every cafe, from the vaft 
 preponderancy of members who are judges, may be 
 dreaded towards members? Among Preibyterians, on 
 X 
 
242 Letter XIV. 
 
 the contrary, fuch iniquity, as far as the conftitution is 
 concerned, is totally imprafticable. While the clergy 
 form a diftlngulfhing part of their courts, ?k^ equal number 
 of laymen are admitted into them, without whofe con- 
 fent no decifion can be pafled, and who, reprefenting at 
 large the whole members 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 candid and equitable plan, It is impof- 
 fible for the clergy to domineer over the laity, or for the 
 laity, forgetting their proper fituation, to be guilty of a 
 lawlefs and prefumptuous invafion of the rights of the 
 clergy, but dIftlnguKhed alike by equality of numbers 
 and equality of power, they ferve mutually to check and 
 reftrain, and are prevented from attempting to tyrannife 
 over each other : While upon the Independent plan, if 
 this objedllon be conclufive, the members of the church, 
 who conftltute the greateft part of their courts, are no 
 lefs difquallfied from adminiftering juftice impartially to 
 members, than, in another vlev^r, from judging in the 
 caufe of thofe who arc church-officers. 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 SIR, 
 Satisfactory as may be the general arguments fur- 
 nifhed either by reafon or by fcrlpture in fupport of any 
 pofition, you will not deny that they muft be fllU more 
 convincing, when flrengthened by the authority of apo- 
 flolic example. That this additional evidence in favour 
 of ecclefiaftlcal courts of review can be produced, it fhall 
 now be my objc6l to eftablifh. 
 
 That courts of review exiiled among the Jews in the 
 days of Chrift, is a fad which few will controvert. Not 
 
Letter XV. 243 
 
 only were particular rulers appointed over fynagogues, 
 but, as was formerly fiiewn, a general council of fcribes 
 or doftors fat at Jerufalem, and decided in cafes of ap- 
 peal from the inferior courts. Whether this was originally 
 a divine inftitution, or only an appointment of men, as 
 expedient and ufeful, it feems to have obtained the ap- 
 probation of our Saviour. Though he reprobated thofe 
 human Inventions which were contrary to the precept or 
 fpirit of the law, he never cenfured this court ; nay, in- 
 flead of enjoining Nicodemus and Jofeph to refign their 
 places In It, he commanded his difciples to obey its deci- 
 fions, and acknowledge its authority, as far as they were 
 confiflent with the word of God. " Then fpake Jefus 
 ** to the multitude, and to his difciples (Matth. xxiii. 
 ** 1,2, 3.), faying. The fcribes and the Pharifees fit In 
 <* Mofes' feat : all therefore whatfoever they bid you 
 " obferve, that obferve and do ; but do not ye after 
 " their works : for they fay, and do not." But how 
 could he have thus fpoken, if iuch a court had appeared 
 to him improper ? Had fuch an InHitutlon been calcu- 
 lated to be produtllve of as much evil in the ancient 
 church, as It is affirmed by Independents that a fimilar 
 court in the gofpel-church mufl neceffarily occafion, 
 would he ever have required the Ifraelites at large, as 
 well as his followers, to have acknowledged its authori- 
 ty ? This argument acquires additional force, if we fup- 
 pofe that this court was not exprefsly appointed by the 
 divine commandment, but was only fimilar to that of the 
 elders in the wildernefs, which, according to fome, had 
 for a long time been difcontlnued. If fuch a court, 
 though not divinely commanded, but founded fimply on 
 the general principle of utility, was approved of by our 
 Saviour in the ancient church, mull not correfponding 
 courts In the Chrlftian church be equally ivorthy of our 
 approbation and fubmiflion for the very fame reafons, 
 X2 
 
244 Letter XV. 
 
 even though it could not be eftabllfiied that fuch courts 
 were explicitly enjoined by fcripture * ? 
 
 But it is not merely among the ancient Jews that this 
 court exifted with the divine approbation ; in many of 
 the cities where Chriftianity was preached in the primi- 
 tive ages, a fimilar inftitution appears to have obtained. 
 In thefe cities there was not only a number of particular 
 congregations which had each their feparate and refpec- 
 tive office-bearbrs, but they were placed under the fuper- 
 intendence of a general court, to which, as well as 
 to its own pallors and elders, each of them individually 
 was confidered as fubjecl. 
 
 That fuch a court exifted in Ephefus, Corinth, and 
 Rome, might eafily be proved by an induction of parti- 
 culars. At prefent we fhall confider only whether it 
 was eftabilfhed in the church at Jerufalem, which may 
 juftly be regarded as the parent-fociety of all Chrlftian 
 churches, and its government as the faireft model of theirs. 
 
 Now, that in this church there were not only mini- 
 fters, as Prefbyterians would fay, who fuperintended the 
 affairs of particular congregations, but a Prefbytery, 
 confiding of the office-bearers of all the congregations in 
 Jerufalem, which watched over the interefts and con- 
 cerns of the whole, we hope will appear, if it be proved 
 in the ift place. That there was a greater number of 
 believers in that city than could poflibly meet for the 
 purpofes of worftiip in one place ; and 2dly, That the 
 
 * That our Saviour, in this paflage, admits both the propriety 
 and the authority of this Jevvilli court, is evident from this, that 
 the fcribes and Pharifees, wlio compofed the fanhedrin, had a power 
 of authoritative review and controul over the teachers and gover- 
 nors of every particular fynagogue, and confcquently we cannot 
 fuppofe that he would have required the Jews to fubmit to the 
 latter without acknowledging the former. This indeed was im- 
 polTible, for every fcribe and Pharifee was fubjeft, both in doctrine 
 and difcipline, to this fuperintending judicatory. 
 
Letter XV. 245 
 
 elders of thefe different congregations are reprefented as 
 affociated in one general court, for regulating what re- 
 lated to their conimon benefit, as well as deciding In 
 cafes of appeal or complaint. 
 
 It will appear, if it be proved in the lil place. That 
 there was a greater number of Chriftians in that city 
 than could poflibly meet for the purpofes of worfhip In 
 any one place. 
 
 The account ivh'ich Is delivered in the ABs of the Apojlks 
 of the fiiccefs of the gofpel^ and of the number of foUonvers 
 ivhich obtained in Jerufalem, favours this idea. 
 
 We have little pofitive information with regard to the 
 real number of converts to the gofpel during the perfonal 
 miniftry of the Saviour. If we attend however to the 
 number of minillers who were engaged along with him 
 in preaching the word, and the exprefTions employed to 
 intimate his fuccefs, it will be found to have been con- 
 fiderable. Twelve apoftles and feventy difciples laboured 
 together with him In diffeminating the gofpel ; and fuch 
 was their progrefs In this blelTed work, that not only did 
 their adverfaries remark (John xii. 19.) that '•'■ the avorld 
 ** had gone after them," but it is declared (John iv. i ) 
 ** that they heard that Jefus made and baptized more dif- 
 *' ciples than John" — of whom it is faid (Mark i. 5.), 
 ** that there went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
 *' and they of Jerufalem, and were ^//baptized of him *." 
 
 * It is granted indeed, that the number of converts at this 
 period was fmall, compared at leaft with thofe who fhould after- 
 wards beUeve in confequence of his afcenfion, becaufe, as jefus 
 tells us (John vii. 39.), " the Spirit was not yet given," /. e. fo 
 abundantly, " becaufe Jefus was not yet glorified." And it was 
 fmall too, contralled with what might natuiaily have been ex- 
 peded from the perfonal miniitration of fo illuftrious a charader 
 as Jehovah incarnate. Hence we find the Redeemer complaining, 
 in the ftrong lauguage of metaphor, by the prophet Ifaiah (chap. 
 :ilix. 4.), " becaufe he feemed to have laboured in vain, and to 
 
 X3 
 
2^6 Letter XV. 
 
 Whatever was their number, we know that they inchid- 
 ed at lead more than five hundred, for we are told by 
 Paul (i Cor. XV. 6.), that Jefus was feen after his re- 
 furreflion by more than five hundred brethren at once ; 
 and it is probable from what has been faid, that many 
 more had attached themfelves to the profeflion of Chrif- 
 tianity*. To that proportion of them which dwelt at 
 Jerufalem, a great addition was made on the day of 
 Pentecoft, for, " on the fame day," fays Luke (Afts ii. 
 41.), " there were joined to the church about three thou- 
 ** fandfoulsP Nor were thefe three thouf and fouls, Jews 
 who had come up to the city of Jerufalem merely to 
 wait upon the feaft, and who immediately returned to 
 their native countries, as Independents have alTerted. 
 As is remarked by the Weftminfter AlTembly of Divines, 
 p. 38. " The Jev/s that dwelt without the land of Ca- 
 ** naan were not bound to appearance at the feftivals 
 ** there. Nor, fecondly, was it pofiible that they fhould 
 ** do fo, if they had been commanded, unleffe they did 
 <* nothing almoft the whole year but go up to Jerufalem, 
 
 " have fpent his ftrength for nought, and in vain ;" and his 
 fervants aflcing (chap liii. i.), " Who hath believed our report? 
 *' and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ?" Compare John 
 xii. 37, 38. It is plain however, from the context in the firft of 
 thefe places, and from the quotation and application of the laft of 
 them in Rom. x. 16. that they refer not only to Chrlft's perfonal 
 jniniftry, but to the whole of the fpace after his afccnfion till the 
 gofpel was preached very generally to the Gentiles; and there- 
 fore rauft be underftood, like all ftiongly figurative prophetic 
 language, in a reftrided fenfe, fmce it appears from the New 
 Teftament, that many thoufands and ten thoufands of Jews, 
 during that period, were converted to the faith. 
 
 * When the leventy alfo, it might have been mentioned, re- 
 turned from their mifTion, they reported to Jefus, that they faw 
 Satan falling like lightning from heaven, which certainly imports 
 that very great fuccefs had attended their labours, and that 3 
 very great number of converts had believed in the Saviour. 
 
Letter XV. 247 
 
 *' and home again, their habitation being fome of them 
 <' fo many months journey diftant. Thirdly, What had 
 <* the difperfed Jews to do at the feaft of Harveft (for 
 " fo it is called, Exod. xxiii. 16.), when their harveft, in 
 ** very many of thofe places where they dwelt, was not 
 " yec begun? And fourthly, If their diftance from 
 ** Jerufalem made them to choofe to come up but to 
 ** fome one of the feafts, and omit the reft, why to 
 ** Pentecoft, which was the leaft folemn of the three, 
 ** rather than to the Paflbver or Tabernacles, thefe two 
 *< being folemnities for a whole week, Pentecoft but for 
 " a day^ Wherefore they obferve, " Fifthly, We pro- 
 ** duce a more probable reafon of this matchleffe and un- 
 ** paralleled concourfe at this time, for fo we doubt not 
 ** to call it, 'v'l'z,. that the Jews had learned by the fcrip- 
 " ture, and efpecially out of the Prophefte of Daniel, 
 ** that this was the time when the kingdom of heaven 
 ** fhould appear, as it is apparent both out of Luke, chap. 
 ** xix. ver. 11. and out of the Jews own authors, and 
 " therefore came in thofe multitudes to Jerufalem, and 
 ** there fettled to dwell, to fee the fulfilling of thofe 
 <* things that ail the nations fo much looked after." 
 
 Befides, we are told in A6ls ii. 5. that thefe Jews, 
 who are faid in the 41ft verfe to have been added to the 
 church, had dwelt for a confiderable time at Jerufalem, 
 and were then refiding there. Such, according to the 
 authority of Mintert, is the term Kdrmciu, there employ- 
 ed in the original to fignify their refidence ; " for it 
 ** properly denotes, in the Greek writers, a ctrtdin Jlxed 
 ** and durable dioelling, and is oppofed to Trxe^ctxiuy which 
 ** fignifies to fojourn or dwell in a place for a time only." 
 And Suicer, on the word, obferves, that " 'xx^oiKiu pro- 
 " perly fignifies to be a ftranger or fojourner in a place, 
 ** and that, in the ancient glofTes, KxroiKiUj the word 
 " employed in Afts, means to dwell or refide ftatedly : 
 « Quod apud veteres glofTas, habito^ incolo'^ The fame 
 
248 Letter XV. 
 
 diftin£lion is preferved in innumerable inflances in the 
 Septuagint, and very generally in the New Teftaraent. 
 The former term, for example, is ufed in Gen. xii. 10. 
 Luke xxiv. 18. l^c. to fignify a fojourner : and the lat- 
 ter, in Gen. xlvi. 34. to exprefs the refidence of the 
 Ifraelites in Egypt, which was ior feveral hundred years ; 
 in Numb. xiii. 28, 29. to denote the refidence of the 
 Amalekites and Canaanites in their refpedlive countries 
 before they were attacked by the Ifraelites, which com- 
 prehended a Jl'ill greater portion of time ; the refidence of 
 the faints at Lydda, to whom Peter came ( Afts ix. 32.), 
 which was flated and permanent ; and of Jofeph in 
 Nazareth (Matth. ii. 23.), where, according to Eufebius 
 and Epiphanius, he was at leaft about four years. The 
 only places, in (hort, where KctroiKiu fignifies to dwell for 
 a fhorter period, are in the Sc^ptuagint verfion of i Kings _ 
 xvii. 20. where, however, it denotes a refidence for not 
 lefs than a year; and of Jer. xlii. 15. where it is ufed 
 to exprefs the refidence of the Jewifh captains under 
 Joharian, in the land of Egypt, till the danger which 
 they apprehended fhould be over, but in which place 
 it means a refidence in that country which might have 
 been expefted to be protrafted for a very confiderable 
 fpace*. But, in oppofition to this, there is a countlefs 
 multitude of inftances in the Septuagint, where KxroiKieff 
 the word which is here ufed by Luke, can fignify nei- 
 ther a refidence for a feiv days only, as Independents 
 fuppofe to have been the cafe with thefe profelytes at the 
 feaft of Pentecoft, nor even for a year, as when it is ap- 
 
 * Since writing the above, I find that it is employed alfo in 
 the Septuagint verfion of Lev. xxiii. 42. where the Lord com- 
 mands the Ifraelites, that every year, at the feaft of Tabernacles, 
 " they fhould dwell in booths feven days." But it is evident, 
 that though it is here ufed to denote their dwelling in booths, 
 though IjUl for feven days, it is in allufion to the refidence of 
 their fathers in them for forty years, of which this was the em- 
 blem. See ver, 43. 
 
Letter XV. 249 
 
 plied to Elijah, but for a much longer period *. Nor 
 will it fuffice to difprove this to tell us, that fome of 
 them are reprefented by Peter (Ads ii. 9.) as dwelling 
 in Mefopotamia and other places which are there men- 
 tioned, and confequently they could not be ftatedly re- 
 fiding at Jerufalem. This only defcribes the places 
 where they had dwelt before they came to Jerufalem, 
 and from which, of courfe, they received their appella- 
 tion ; but it will not demonftrate, in oppofition to the 
 5th verfe, and the moil general acceptation of the verb 
 tcxrctKWi that they were not ftatedly dwelling, at that 
 period, in that city. Nor can it be proved that they 
 were merely fojourning in Jerufalem, becaufe they are 
 faid in the 5th verfe, only to be dwelling in Jerufalem, 
 iv li^ava-xXvifAi and in ver. 9. agreeably to the original, 
 to inhabit Mefopotamia and thefe other countries, 
 KaroiKitv Mio-oTrorcff^iuv, ^r. for as Independents would 
 not allow, when we hear of the apoftles and elders in 
 Jerufalem (A6ls xvi. 4.), that it means only that they 
 had a temporary refidence in Jerufalem, on what prin- 
 ciple can they attach this meaning to that expreflion in 
 the prefcnt paflage ? We fee, moreover, that all of thefe 
 ftrangers who are mentioned by Luke, in the fecond 
 chapter of the Ads, are reprefented by Peter (ver. 23, 
 24.), not only as contributing to the death, but as wit- 
 nefling the miracles of the bleffed Saviour, which they 
 could not have done, had they not for a confiderable time 
 been dwelling at Jerufalem. Wherever they had formerly 
 dwelt, it would appear that henceforth they made choice 
 
 * See, out of the many inftances which might be adduced, the 
 following examples : Gen. xi. a, 31. xiii. 6, 7. la. 18. xiv. 7. ia» 
 xix. 25. 29, 30. XX. 15. xxi. ao, %1. xxii. 19. xxiv. 6%. xxv. II. 
 xxvi. 6. xxxiv. 10. zz, 23. Exod. ii. 15. Numb. xiii. 19. 28, 29. 
 Deut. i. 4. 44. ii. 4. xix. I. xxix. 16. Jofliua i. 14. Judges x. I. 
 a Sara, ii, 3. 
 
250 Letter XV. 
 
 of Jerufalem as their future habitation ; for we are told 
 in ver. 44, 45, 46. that " all who believed w«re together, 
 ** and had all things in common ; and fold their poffef- 
 " fions (whether in diftant countries or at Jerufalem), 
 ** and parted them to all men, as every man had need f 
 ** and they continuing daily with one accord in the 
 ** temple, and breaking bread from houfe to houfe, did 
 ** eat their meat with gladnefs and finglenefe of heart." 
 Surely when their poffefiions in diftant countries were 
 fold, we may well fuppofe that they would refide at 
 Jerufalem, to enjoy the benefit of the minillratiors o£ 
 the apoftles. And indeed it feems impoffible to explain 
 the exprefiions which are here employed to denote their 
 fellowship with the church at Jerufalem, without admit- 
 ting the truth of this idea. Here then are at leaft above 
 three thoufand Jews who were members of this church ; 
 and if we confider what is faid of the fuccefs of Chrift's 
 miniftry, and the concourfe of his difciples, which in 
 all probability would take place to Jerufalem from oth^r 
 quarters, as foon as they heard of the preaching of the 
 apoftles, it is likely that they amounted to a much greater 
 number*. 
 
 Glorious however as were thefe firft triumphs of the 
 gofpel in the city of Jerufalem, they were followed by 
 others no Icfs diftinguiftied. " The Lord," we are told, 
 Afts ii. 47. after this firft great converfion, *' added 
 " daily to the church fuch as fhould be faved." And in 
 chap. iv. 4. that, after a fermon from Peter, " many of 
 <* them who heard the word believed ; and the number 
 <* of the men was abouty$"'y<? thoufand,''^ Here the facred 
 hiftorian does not record merely, as Independents infi- 
 nuate, the number of them who heard, but of them 
 who believed in confequence of this difcourfe, for 
 
 * The church at Jerufalem was, for a confiderable time, the 
 only Chriftian fociety which exiftcd in the world. 
 
Letter XV. 251 
 
 he is contrafting the happy efFe6ls which attended the 
 apoftles preaching, with the violence and cruelties which 
 were exercifed towards them : " Howbeit, many who 
 ** heard the word believed ; and the number of the men 
 ** was about five thoufand." It would evidently have 
 been no compenfation for the fufFerlngs of the apoftles to 
 tell us, that five thoufand perfons heard their fermons, 
 though it muft have been very confolitary to know that 
 Jive thoufand believed. 
 
 Befides, as the three thoufand converted on the day 
 of Pentecoil, did not Include the hundred and twenty 
 mentioned In the firft chapter of the book of the Ads, 
 fo the five thoufand who are here fpoken of, do not 
 comprehend the three thoufand who are before mention- 
 ed. In every other parage of the b#ok of the A6ls where 
 Luke defcribes the number of thofe who were converted, 
 either upon hearing a fermon or beholding a miracle, he 
 mentions folely thofe netu believers who were added to 
 the church, and does not ftate the number of the whole ; 
 and confequently it is extremely Improbable indeed, that 
 he fhould depart from this peculiarity In the prefent paf- 
 fage. Accordingly we find that Chryfoftom, Irenasus, 
 Jerome, Auguftlne, with many others of the ancient 
 fathers, fo underftood the paffage. In fhort, as the 
 Jews were accuftomed In their calculations to enumerate 
 only the males, and as we find the term ««y5gjj, or men, 
 which Is here employed, ufed repeatedly in calculations 
 In the New Teftament * to fignlfy males as diftlnguifh- 
 
 * See John vi. 10. where it is faid, that Jefus fed five thoufand 
 men by a particular miracle : " So the men fat down, in number 
 " about five thoufand, av^^s?," And compare Matth. xiv. %1. 
 From which it appears that the term in John denotes only males^ 
 for it is faid by that evangelift, that the number of thofe who 
 were fed at this very miracle v,^zs five thoufand metiy befides womcH 
 and children. *' Av>?g," too, fays a very accurate fcholar, refpe£l- 
 itig the word here employed, " differs as muQh in fignificatioa 
 
252 Letter XV. 
 
 ed from females, it is probable that it is fo to be under- 
 ftood in the verfe before us, and that, befides the men, 
 there was a multitude alfo oi female converts. Here then 
 are five thoufand, who, when added to the number of 
 previous converts, make the whole amount to near nine 
 thoufand members, befides a confiderable proportion of 
 females. And even though it were allowed, in oppofition 
 to the ufual manner of Luke, that he intended to in- 
 form us, not of the number who were converted upon 
 this particular occafion, but of the number of the mem- 
 bers of the church in general, it is plain that they com- 
 prehended ^1;^ thoufand males, befides feveral thoufands 
 of believing females *. 
 
 But great as was the number of difciples at Jerufalem, 
 at the period referred^to, it did not reft here. While 
 the people magnified the apoftles for the extraordinary 
 miracle performed at the death of Ananias and Sapphira, 
 it is faid, A6ls v. 14. " that believers were the more added 
 ** to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, ttAjj^jj." 
 And again, we are told, A<5ls vi. 7. that " the word of 
 ** God increafed ; and the number of the difciples multi' 
 
 " from av&^uTTe?, In Greek, as 'otr does from ^owjo, in Latin. To 
 " this difference the facred writers always attend. A remarkable 
 *' inftance of it we have, l Tim. ii. i. — 9. When fpeaking of our 
 " race in general, Paul fays, I entreat that prayers be niade for all 
 *' 7??^;z, avS^uTuv — who will have all men to hefaved, av^^uTovs — 
 ** the Mediator beiiveen God and men, avS^wruv. But when the 
 " apoftle comes to fpeak of the duties proper for the different 
 " k-x.ts, he fays, / -will that men pray every -where, rovs xvo^as. In 
 " like 7nani!er, that -ivomaj, &c. yvvutxas. In the 8th and follow- 
 " ing verfes of the chapter, he feems to fpeak of the duties of 
 " perfons- employed in a family-capacity." Robertfon on Lay- 
 preaching, p. 20. 
 
 * If we may judge of the number of female converts at that 
 period from what it has been at every other time with which we 
 are acquainted, we may fafely conclude that it xnuft have exceed- 
 ed at leaft that of the males. 
 
Letter XV. 253 
 
 «*' plied in Jerufalem greatly ; and a great corr,pany of ths 
 ** priejls were obedient to the faith." And indeed if a 
 great company of the priejls y the chief opponents of Chrif- 
 tianity, and men whofe example was fo much followed 
 by the people, became obedient to the faith, we may 
 well fuppofe that the additions which at this period 
 were made to the church muft have been uncom- 
 monly great. Here then we have a coUedtion of at lead 
 ten or twelve thoufand Chriilians in the city of Jerufalem, 
 who were all not only hearers but members of the church, 
 and probably they confilled of a much greater number. 
 Nor is this to be wondered at, when we confider the 
 abundant communication of the Spirit, which at that time 
 attended the miniftration of the gofpel ; the wide diffufion 
 of the word of truth., for the apoilles are reprefented by 
 their enemies (Adls v. 28.) as even *^ fJUng Jerufalem 
 ** with their doftrine ;'* and the vaft number of inha« 
 bitants contained in thai city, for it is evident, from the 
 account delivered by Jofephus of its defolation, that \i 
 muft have been one of the moft populous cities in the 
 world * . 
 
 Is it faid however, as has frequently been done by 
 Independents, that whatever was the number of the mem- 
 bers at Jerufalem, at the period which we have fpecified, 
 they were completely dilperi'ed at the perfecution which 
 took place upon the death of Stephen ? It is anfwered, 
 that fuch an inference feems by no means deduciblc from 
 the language of Luke, in recording the cffeds of the 
 perfecution which enfued on the death of that martyr | 
 and in fupport of this affertion, the followino- particulars 
 are mentioned from the chapter where this perfecution is 
 related. 
 
 * If many flocked into Jerufalem before the ficge of it by Vci^ 
 pafian, we know alfo, from the teftimony of hiftor/, that many 
 thoufands of Chriilians, as well as others, left it, and made way 
 for them. 
 
254 Letter XV. 
 
 In the ift place, as is obferved by a judicious vvritet 
 already quoted *, ** There is no evidence whatever, that 
 ** this perfecution was protraded beyond the day of 
 " Stephen's martyrdom. The words of the hlftorian,'* 
 A6ls viii. I. £v eKiivyt rn 'vifii^x, which are tranflated in our 
 V tr^ion at that time y ** Hterally mean on that day, or, more 
 ** emphatically, on the fame day. Befides, though the 
 ** term day is fometimes ufed for an indefinite time in 
 *' prophetical language, yet never in a plain hiftorical 
 •* narration. Luke is always accurate in the ufe of his 
 ** terms ; and, when about to mention a period of time 
 ** more indefinitely, fays either in ihofe days^ A6ls i. 15. 
 ** or ahoiti that time. Ads xii. i. It may be fuppofed, 
 •* indeed, that for a few days, the Jewifli council were 
 ** employed in trying the perfons imptifoned, and that 
 *^ they infiided upon them the only punifiiment which, 
 ** without the confent of the Roman governor, it was 
 " competent for them, that of beating in the fynagogue. 
 ** It is probable however, that they durft not farther 
 •* patronife any open perfecution in the city ; nor do 
 ** they feem at all to have carried it to the neighbourhood, 
 •« When Saul, notwithHanding the death of Stephen and 
 ** the punifhment of others, ftill breathed out threatening 
 *< and death againll the difciples of jefus, he obtained 
 " from the chief priefts letters to Damafcus, which lay 
 " beyond the limits of Herod's jurlfdi^tion/' 
 
 It is plain alfo in the 2d place, as was before ftated, 
 That the all who are faid (Afts viii. 1.) to have been 
 fcattered abroad except the apoftles, were the minifters, 
 and not the members of that Chriftian church ; for we 
 fee that a church, confjfting of members, remained in 
 Jerufalem (ver. 3.), after thofe who are mentioned in the 
 ill vcrfe are reprefented as having been all fcattered 
 iibroad except the apoHles, and who confequently could 
 «ii]y be the other minifters of the church. 
 
 * Ml-. Rcbeftron, p. 57. 
 
Letter XV. 255 
 
 And ^dly, as is noticed by Mr. Robertfon In his 
 Reniarky, p. 41. and briefly hinted by Henry in his 
 Comnncntary, The word }ii6--oc^r,<rsiv, v/hich is rendered 
 by our tranflators (ver. i.) *' 'vjere fcaitered abroad j'^ dots 
 not properly mean that they difperfed In confequence of 
 very violent perfeciUion. ** Theie preachers of the 
 *' gofpe)," fays the firfl of thefe writers, p. 41. *' did 
 ** not leave Jerufalem, fo much on account of the vio- 
 ** lence of the perfecution, as in obedience to the com- 
 ** mand of Chrift, IVhen ihey perfecule you in one ciiy,JIee 
 ** ye into another: M-it th. x. 23. Certain it is that "aia^T^ii^ 
 ** does not [o properly fignify to difperfe by 'viokuce, as 
 ** another verb, 'hixcnu^-Tnt^'U), v/liich we find employed, 
 " Matth. xxvi. 31. and Ads v. 37. The former word 
 *' imphes no more than to feparate, by whatever means 
 ** that is effefted. After the confuHon of tongues, God 
 ** is faid to have fcatiered msn on the face of the earth, 
 ** ^ae-iriioiVy when, in the courfe of his providence, he 
 ** led them to fettle at a diftance from one another, 
 ** Many Jews were faid, in the time of our Saviour, to be 
 ** fcattered among other nation?, oixs-Tro^cc, though their 
 *• exile was voluntary. It may be further obferved, thst 
 *' in all languages a verb in a paliive form may fome- 
 " times have a neuter, or, as the Greeks fay, a middle 
 " fignification. Such is the cafe with the very verb ia 
 " queftion, as ufed in the Septuagint verfian of the Old 
 " Teftament*. When Pharaoh had denied draw to the 
 *' Ifraelites, it is faid, they 'were fcattered abroad^ hxaz 
 " ^iia-7ry.^n ; that is, they, of their own accord, went in 
 « every direction in queft of Hubble. When, therefore, 
 " the church at Jerufalem is faid to be fcattered abroad, 
 ** the meaning feems to be, that viewing the perfe- 
 ** cution ralfed againft them as a fignal to depart, they, 
 " either of their own accord, or in concert with the 
 
 * See I Sam. xlv. 34. 2 Sam. xx. %i. &c.. 
 Y2 
 
256 Letter XV. 
 
 ** apoftles, left the city, and diftributed themfclves 10 
 ** every dired^ion. It is faid to have been along (xata) 
 ** the regions of Judea and Samaria. Thus they either 
 ** chofe their direftions, or had them pointed cut to 
 ** them. Luke continues their hiflory in a following 
 " verfe : They then who had d'ifperfed thtrnfehes^ went 
 ** through the land prt-aching the word." 
 
 Viewing this paffage then as a whole, the following 
 appears to h^ve been the real extent of that perfecution, 
 which has fo frequently been reprefented by Independents 
 as completely dlfperfing that Chriftian church. 
 
 ** On the fame day in which Stephen was killed *, 
 ** many, relying on the prote(^lion of the Jewifh rulers, 
 ** or acting under their authority, began to offer outrage 
 " to the minifters of the gofpel, who were preaching the 
 " word. The fury of the former was fo great, though 
 ** not faid to terminate in blood, that all the latter either 
 ♦* left the city, or fo entirely difappeared as to juftify 
 ** the hiftorian in faying, They were fl//fcattered abroad. 
 ♦* In the mean time, which (hews the perfecution was 
 ** not general, devout men, without moleftation, carried 
 " Stephen to his burial, and made a great lamentation 
 ** over him. As for Saul, he carried the perfecution 
 •* farther than his companions, for entering into the 
 ** houfes of private families, which ^vere probably the 
 ** receptacles of thofe who preached the dodrine of 
 ♦* Chrift, he dragged both men and women to prifon f . 
 «* This would caufe any few miniftcrs who might have 
 ** concealed themfelves, alfo to leave the city. As 
 ** Chriftians would make no rcfiilance to their perfecu- 
 
 * See Robertfon's Remarks, p, "^.d. 
 
 f Kara rovi otKov%, which is rendered by our tranflators (Aifls 
 viii. 3.) " into every houfe," as properly fignifies " into the houfes.* 
 *' This perfecution, moreover, might be ftyled a great perfecution, 
 « v^-hich, for a time, deprived the faints at Jerufalcm of fo many 
 « -faithful paftors." 
 
Letter XV. 257 
 
 «" tors, To all might pafs without exciting fuch confufion 
 " as to draw the attention of the Roman governor. It 
 <« farther appears, that the hotteft perfecution was car- 
 " ried on by Saul : He mack havock of the church. But 
 " wherein did that confift ? Not in (hedding ftreams of 
 *' blood. To that length, fupported as he was by the 
 " Jewifh council, he durft not proceed : But entering 
 ** into fome of the houfes of the Chrillians, he commit- 
 ** ted a few men and women to prifon. That either 
 ** the Jews fpiould have purpofed to imprifon the great 
 ** body of Chriftian converts, or that all thefe fhould 
 ** have left the city for the imprifonment of a few, are 
 " ideas too abfurd to need any anfwer." 
 
 But if fuch only was the amount of the perfecution 
 which is here related, it is plain that the members whom 
 it took from that church (if it removed from it any) 
 could not be confidcrablc : and the lofs v/hich was fuf- 
 tained, we have leafon to believe, was fpeedily com- 
 penfated, and more than compenfated, by the numerous 
 converts that were added In their {lead. We are told, 
 that after the perfecuiion raifed by Herod, in which 
 only one perfon was put to death, '* the word of God 
 *' grew and' multiplied :^^ Acts xii. 24. And fuch v.-as 
 its fuccefs, that we are informed by James (Act; x.:i. 
 20.), that it numbered among its followers at Jerufaleni 
 " .Tiany myriads, or ten thoufands of Jews *," This ex:- 
 prelTion, indeed, Mr. Ewing, together with the ancient 
 Independents, afferts '* to be indefinite." " We rejoice,'' 
 alfo adds he, p. 31. "In admitting that it fignifies very 
 " many. But the paffage does not neceffarily Imply,. 
 ** that James and the elders were fpeaking of the num- 
 *' bers of believers in the city of Jerufalem, but rather 
 
 * The words In the orioinai' are very (Irong : *' Thou fetiV, 
 " brother," laid James to Paul, " hoiv many icn ih^ufcirJ: of Jcw^e. 
 " there are which believe, -rsffat ^y^/«^=;," 
 
 V3 
 
2i8 Letter XV. 
 
 *•' of the numbers of believers of the Jewlfli nation*." 
 Here it may be obferved, that though we fhould grant 
 that f^v^ioi is fometimes underftood by the facved writers 
 in an indefinite fenfe, fo as to fignify a number lefs than 
 ten thoufandf yet it dOes not hold with regard to f^v^ixg, 
 the word here employed. The latter, in A6ls xix. 19. 
 Luke xii. i. Heb. xii. 22. Jude 14. and Rev. v. 11. 
 •which are all the places where it occurs in the New Tef- 
 taraent, cannot mean lefs than the literal number, and in 
 fome of them evidently, if taken indefinitely, muft fig- 
 nify more f . Befides, according to the interpretation 
 
 * It is fomewhat remarkable, that while this gentleman pro- 
 fefies his joy at the great number of Jews who believed in Jerufa- 
 lem, he attempts to make it as fmall as pofiible. And it is very 
 extraordinaiy, that while Independents endeavour to prove, againfk 
 infidels, the divinity of Chriftianity from its'ivftonilhing fuccefs in 
 the early ages, they fhould virtually ftrengthen the hands of thefe 
 infidels, by endeavouring to (hew that in a city which, for almoft 
 thirty years, had witnefTed more of the miracles, and enjoyed 
 more of the ableft preaching of the gofpel, than any other place, 
 no more converts were found among thofe who were its inha- 
 bitants than could eafily afTemble for worlhip, or government, in 
 a fingle congregation ! ! ! 
 
 f In the firft of thefe pafiages, the fum at which the books of 
 the Ephefians were valued, is faid to be TnvTi /nv^iochs a^yv^tovy 
 which is literally " five myriads," or, according to our tranflators, 
 " fifty thoufand pieces of filver," where evidently the expreflion 
 cannot be underftood as fignifying leis than ten thoufands. In 
 the fecond of them, believers are faid, in the original, to come to 
 an afTembly " of myriads of angels," kki fAv^tactv ccyyiXuv, and in 
 the third, it is declared that when the Lord comes to judgment, 
 he will be attended " by myriads of his faints," or rather " holy 
 " ones," f/,v^iatrtv'aytais. And in both of thefe places, it is no lefs 
 obvious that it cannot fignify lefs than ieu thoufands of thefe fpirits ; 
 and if it be fuppofed to be taken in an indefinite acceptation, it 
 muft denote even more. Compare fimilar expreflions in a defcrip- 
 tion, at leaft emblematic, of the univerfal judgment : Dan. vii. 
 9, ID. And in the laft of thefe pafTages, confidering the reprefenta- 
 tion which is there given of the numbers who crowded to witnefs 
 
Letter XV* 
 
 259 
 
 of this very gentleman, it is obvious that it cannot fignifjr 
 lefs than many ten thoufands in the paflage in queftion, for 
 it includes, according to him, not merely the number 
 of believers in the city of Jerufalem, but the nunaber of 
 believers from the tuhole yeiuiJJj nation. Certainly, con- 
 fidering the time during which the gofpel had been 
 preached, and the fuccefs which it had obtained in many 
 countries before the period which is here mentioned, 
 ■many ten thoufands of Jews muft have been comprehended 
 among its followers. But allowing that the word 
 ^v^<54^£g here properly means, that there were many ten 
 thoufands of Jews at this time in that city, '* they are 
 ** not affirmed," fays Mr. Ewing, p. 32. ** to be all 
 ** members of the church at Jerufalem ; and very many 
 *' of them were moil likely believing Jews, aflembled 
 *' from various quarters at Jerufalem, at the day of 
 <* Pentecoft. For the probability of this fuppofition 
 ** we may appeal to the hafte made by Paul, if poffible, 
 ** to be at Jerufalem on the day of Pentecoft, and to the 
 ** Increafing number of fellovz-travellers who joined com- 
 ** pany with him on the road, as appears from chap. 
 ** XX. 16. and xxi. 16." On this however it may be 
 remarked, that no argument can be adduced from the 
 number of thofe who went up with Paul at this time to 
 Jerufalem, to fhew that they were travelling thither to 
 obferve this folemnity. It is not faid, in the laft of thefe 
 texts, that thofe whom he met going up to Jerufalem 
 were going thither with that defign^ or that their number 
 was fuch as one would naturally expedl, had there been 
 a general convocation to the feaft of Pentecoft. All that 
 is mentioned Is fimply this, " That there went up with 
 
 the miracles of Jefus, it feems to be equally manifeft that it can- 
 not mean lefs than its ftrid fignification, for we may well fuppofe 
 that more than one myriad of fpedators would be coUeded, and 
 that they might even amount to twenty or thirty thoufand. Ser 
 alfo Rev. v, 11. 
 
26o Letter XV. 
 
 ** Paul and Luke from Cefarea, alfo certain of the difciples 
 *' of Cefarea, and with them one Mnafun of Cyprus, an 
 " old difciple." Had there been a general affemblage 
 to this facred feftival, would not the num'ber of Jews,, 
 who went from Cefarea, have been reprefentcd as 
 much greater ? It has been queftioned moreover, and 
 upon very good grounds, as is obferved by the vene- 
 rable Weftminfter Affembly, whether Paul arrived at 
 Jerufalem before the day of Pentecoft : And even ad- 
 mitting that he was prefent, It- by no means appears that 
 by the many ten thoufands of believing Jews of whom 
 James fpeaks, are intended the whole number of believ- 
 ing Jews, as Mr» Ewing afTerts, who had come up to 
 this feaft 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 acr- 
 cuftomed to refort to Jerufalem from every part in the 
 earth to obferve this folemnity, which lailed for a lingle 
 day only, and which could not with propriety be kept 
 by many of them, as their harvefl at this period was not 
 yet begun. The number then of fuch Jews, from other 
 countries, muft have been comparatively fmall. In fincj 
 whatever number of thefe Jews might have been pre* 
 fent at the feafl, they do net feem to be included among 
 the myriads of Jews who were pointed out to Paul by 
 the apoftle James. The latter are all reprefented as 
 ftrangers to Paul, and as being Informed fimply by the 
 teftimony of others (ver. 21.), " that he taught all 
 " the yews which were among the Gsntlks to forfake 
 ** Mofes" — on account of v^hich It is declared that they 
 were offended. As there were few places however in 
 the Gentile world where Paul had not either before this 
 preached, or fent others to preach under his direction, it 
 is obvious that thofe myriads who were difpleafed with 
 thefe unjuft reprefentations of his dodrine, and had 
 heard of it merely by the teilimony of others, muHhave 
 
Letter XV. 261 
 
 been Jews chiefly, diftinfi fiom thofe who dwelt among 
 the Gentiles. But if even in the little country of Judea 
 there were many mynadi of believing Jews, the greattll 
 proporiion of thefe muft undoubtedly have been in Jeru- 
 falem, which had hitherto been the habitation of almoO: 
 all the apoftles, and where, as we already faw, more 
 than twenty years before, the converts amounted to nine 
 or ten thoufand. Allowing however that only three of 
 thefe myriads belonged to Jerufalem, it will make the 
 number of Jews who were conne6^ed with that church, 
 independently of converts who would be added to them 
 from the Gentiles, no lefs than thirty thaufand. And 
 confidering, as will be noticed under a following argu- 
 ment, the number of minifters, who for fo long a fpace 
 had laboured amongft them, it is probable that their 
 proportion of thefe mariy ten ihoufands muft have been 
 confiderably greater. 
 
 But if fuch was the number of members at Jerufalem, 
 it is evident that they muft have been divided into dif- 
 ferent congregations, each fuperintended by its refpeftive 
 paftors. No place could be found fufficiently large to 
 contain fuch a multitude, with the reft of the hearers 
 who would afTemble along with them ; no preacher could 
 be heard by fuch an audience ; and it cannot be conceived 
 that fo great a number could receive together, in the 
 very fame place, the facrament of the fupper. Eufebius 
 informs us, in his Eccleliaftical Hiftory, book viii. chap. i. 
 that the houfes in which the Chrlftians at firft met were 
 very fmall, and that it was in confequence only of the 
 favour which, in procefs of time, was manifefted to 
 them by the Roman emperors and governors that they 
 were enabled to ereft more capacious buildings : ** 'Q.v 
 
 ** iKy.?.yiiriccg ;" i. e. ** The ancient buildings being by no 
 ^' means fufficient to contain the people, they ereded ir^ 
 
2^7- Letter XV. 
 
 K every city larger churches.^' Accordingly the houfes ifi 
 which the priirative Chriftians were accuftorned to meet, 
 "were fchoc/s, or up/)er rooms, oi[ private dtvillings. We hear 
 of their aflerabiing in an upper room, A£ts i. 12. ll^c. ; 
 -in the houfe of Mary, A6ls xii. 12. ; in the fchool of 
 Tyrannus, Ads xix. 9. ; in an upper chamber at Troa?-, 
 Ads XX. 8. ; in the houfe of Aquila and Prifcilla, Rom. 
 xvi. 5. ; of Nymphas, Col. iv. 15.; and of Archippus, 
 Philem. 2. But where could an upper room, or fchooJ, 
 or houfe, be found in Jerufalem which vvas able to 
 accommodate thirty thoufand individuals for all the 
 purpofes of religious worfhip ? The only place fuf- 
 ficiently large was the temple ; but even in it, there 
 does not appear to have been any fingle apartment 
 which could conveniently admit fuch a multitude. The 
 raoft fpacious court in this building was that called Solo- 
 mon's Porch. *' Now the place," fays Ayton, p. 226. 
 ** which went under this name, was not the mere en- 
 ** trance of the eall gate to the outer temple ; but the 
 ** whole of the eail wall, which vvas built by Solomon, 
 ** at an extraordinary expence, and was in length 500 
 " cubits, or 250 yards. — It is further," adds he, *' to 
 <* be Gonfidered, that the whole length of this wall 
 ** within, there were walks or cloifters from each fide 
 ** of the entry of the porch to the ends of the wall, that 
 *' were fupported by a treble row of marble pillars, into 
 *' a double walk, which was in breadth 30 cubits, or J5 
 " yards. The innermoft of thefe 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 whidi the innermoft 
 " row of pillars ftood, to the Beautiful Gate, together 
 " with the length of the faid wall, which was 5CO 
 *' cubits, was, according to Dr. Llghtfoot, the learned 
 " Mr. Selden (de Jure Nat. et Gen. lib. ill. cap. vl.),and 
 ^* Mr. Lewis (Orig. Heb. lib. iil. cap. xiii.), denominat- 
 
Letter XV. 2^3 
 
 ^^ ed Solomon's Porch." But it is obvious that this place 
 could by no means accommodate fo many thoufands of 
 members, together with their children, and the numerous 
 ilrangers who would continually be attrafted from curio- 
 fity to hear them. Befides, how could a fingle preacher 
 be audible, In a court interfe*^ed by fo many rows of 
 pillars, to forty thoufand hearers? or how could thirty 
 thoufand members meet together in fuch a place for the 
 purpofes of government ? Could each of thefe perfons 
 make himfelf be heard by fuch an aflembly ? could he 
 dlftin6lly hear the opinion and vote of every individual ? 
 and would not bufinefs be conducted with extreme tardi- 
 Refs and difficulty where fo many had to ftate their feati- 
 ments and vote * ? But even granting all thefe fuppofi- 
 
 * Is it iliid, that Ezra, after the captivity, read and expounded 
 the law to the Jews, who amounted to a ftill greater number, and 
 was heard by them all? Nch. viii. i. — 5. I a(k, whether Inde- 
 pendents can fuppofe that a fmgle individual could be heard by 
 fifty or Tixty thoufand perfons ? And is it ftill affirmed, that this 
 fafi, thougli wonderful, feems to be afTerted in this paflage ? It 
 is replied, that it is not afTerted nearly fo ftrongly as is done in 
 Beut. xxxi. 30. that Mofes ' fpake in the cars of all the congre- 
 " gation of Ifrael the words of his fong," at a time when their 
 males only (fee Numb. xxvi. 51. 62.) amounted to fix hundred 
 and twenty-four thoufand fev en hundred and thirty, and when, 
 with their wives and children, they made up probably almoft two 
 millions. But if Independents would not maintain that Mofes 
 made him.felf audible at once to fuch a multitude, how can they 
 demonftrate (fince in the nature of things it is as certainly 
 impoiTible) that Ezra was heard in an open ftreet by fifty or !ixty 
 thoufand, merely becaufe he is faid to have read the law to them 
 when they were met together ? And if Mofes, moreover, reiight 
 be faid to fpeak his fong, as we are informed in Deut. xxxi. 30. 
 compared with ver. 28. in the ears of all the congregation of 
 Ifrael, when he fpake only in the ears, of their elders and officers, 
 who again were to communicate what he faid to the people, might 
 not fomething like this be done by Ezra? Or might he not only 
 r^ad and explain it to a part, while they explained it to others. 
 
264 Letter XV. 
 
 tlons to be not only poflible but probable, it mud iillll 6c 
 proved that the Chriilians at pleafure enjoyed the temple 
 for thefe religious purpofes. So far however is this fa6t 
 from being clear, that, though extremely important, it is 
 pafTed over in filence, a circumftance which probably 
 would not have taken place had they poffeffed that pri- 
 vilege. Nay, though at firft, before the blood of any 
 Chriftians was fhed, the apollles ventured occafionally to 
 preach in the temple, even after they had been beaten 
 for it by the high priefts, we do not find that they after- 
 wards enjoyed fuch a liberty ; and neither at firfl, 
 nor afterwards, did they dare to difpenfe in it the facra- 
 ment of the fupper, or convene, for the deliberations 
 of government, the members who belonged to their 
 church. It is manifefl that liberty would not be granted 
 to them for the latter, either by the priefts or the people, 
 who would be alarmed at the idea of their meeting alone, 
 in a place fo facred, for purpofes unknown to them ; 
 and it is no lefs obvious that they would not attempt to 
 adminifter in it the former. If Paul fo highly difplcafed 
 even the common people (Afls xxl.j, though they fa- 
 voured and magnified the apoftles, that they endeavoured 
 to kill him, for bringing, as they fuppofed, 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 neivjacramenti which vied with, and far 
 furpafTed in point of frequency, according to Indepen- 
 dents, the moft folemn facrament of the ancient econo- 
 my * ? Accordingly, v.'hile the apollles are faid to have 
 
 cfpecially «s we are told (Neh. viii. 7, 8.) that " thirteen others 
 *♦ alfo, befides the Levites, read to the people, at that time, in 
 ** the book of the law of God diftindtly, and gave the fenfe, and 
 " caufed them to underftand the reading ?" 
 
 * That it is probable hat the fupper was more frequently dif^ 
 penfed than the facrament of circumcilion is readily conceded, but 
 bovj much more freqtiently, notwithftanding all that is aflerted by 
 
Letter. XV. 265 
 
 been imprifoned by the high-puefts, becaufe they taught 
 the people, and preached through Jefus the refurreftioii 
 from the dead (Ads iv. 2.), we do not hear that they 
 were cenfured for meeting the Chrlftlans by themfelves 
 
 Independents, fcripture docs not appear exprefsly to fay. la 
 I Cor. xi. 25. we are told, that as often as Chriftians drink the 
 facramental cup, they ihould do it in remembrance of Chrift ; 
 and in ver. 26. that as often as they eat that bread, or drank that 
 cup, they (hewed forth the Lord's death till he came ; but how 
 often they fliould do {o, it does not fpecify. In A£ls ii, 42. it is 
 faid, that the converts who beUeved on the day of Petitecofl, 
 " continued fledfaftly in the apoftles dodrine and fellowfiiip, and 
 " in breaking of bread, and in prayer." But all that is here re- 
 corded, is merely that they perfevered in the belief of the doc- 
 trines, and in the obfervance of all the ordinances of Chriftianity, 
 . v/hile, at the fame time, it is evident that there is not the fmalleft 
 hint hoTV often the fupper, or any other ordinance, was to be ob- 
 ferved. In Ads ii. 46. we are informed, that thefe Chriftians, 
 continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking 
 bread from houfe to houfe, or, as others render it, in a houfe, did 
 participate their food, or the food, with gladnefs and finglenefs of 
 heart. But neither does this feem to be fufficiently explicit ; for 
 in the ifl place. It is not certain that it is the breaking oi facra- 
 mental bread, and not their feafts of love, Vvhich is intended. 
 And adly, If this pafllige prove any thing upon the fubjeft, it 
 proves too much. It will fliew that we ihould eat the fupper, not 
 merely, as Independents maintain, cvtxy Sabbath, but daily. In 
 Ads XX. 6, 7. it is faid, that when Paul and his companions had 
 tarried feven days at Troas, on the firil day of the week, when 
 the difciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them. 
 But it is not here declared, that on every firjl day of the -week, when 
 the difciples came together, they eat facramental bread, but only 
 that on that particular firft day of the week they had done fo. If 
 fome minifters, from adiftance, arriving in Edinburgh on the Mon- 
 day before the faciament of the fupper was difpenfed, Ihould re- 
 main till the firfl day of the following week, and then afliil: at the 
 difpenfation of the facrament, would that circumftance, if nar- 
 rated by any hiilorian, prove that the fupper was obferved every 
 Sabbath in all the churches of Edinburgh ? Or if Independents 
 refer to the writings of the fathers in fupport of this pradice, it may 
 
 z 
 
266 Letter XV. 
 
 in the temple, for the affairs of government, or for dif- 
 penfing, in that place, the facrament of the fupper. And 
 it is remarkable, that at the very time that it is faid that 
 the firft Chrillians continued in the temple to receive in- 
 ftru6lion, it is added (A6ls ii. 46.), " that they brake 
 ** bread from houfe to houfe," or in different houfes ; 
 
 be obferved, ift, That many improprieties, as was before (hewn, 
 were admitted even by the primitive church ; and that we mufl 
 try this, as well as all their pra<ftices, by the fcriptures, and fee 
 whether it is enjoined or warranted by them. Upon examining 
 the fcriptures however, we perceive that it is not explicitly an- 
 nounced how often this ordinance fliould be obferved in the 
 church ; and confequently, though many of the primitive churches 
 eat the fupper every Sabbath, we no more offend againft the 
 word of God than they, if we do not eat it every firft day of the 
 week. And zdly, This argument proves too much. Cyprian, 
 A. D. 250. informs us, in his Treatife on the Lord's Prayer, that 
 dally commumo}is were the common pradice at that time; and 
 Fortunatus, who lived at the fame period, adduces the fourth peti- 
 tion of that prayer as an argument for communicating every day. 
 Bafil, in the fourth century, recommends dai/y comTrnwion / and 
 fays, that it was the practice of the chujch of Cefarea where he 
 was, to celebrate the facrament /o?^r //wf^ a-week, viz. on Sab- 
 bath, Wednefday, Friday, and Saturday (Bafil. Epift. 289.) — 
 Ambrofe feems to intimate that daily communions were in ufe 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 (Epift. lii. ad Lucin.) — And Auguftine, about the year 
 410 (Epilt. cxviii. ad Januar.), that the eucharift was received by 
 fo7ne daily. If Independents then, when fcripture is filent, willi 
 us to take the example of the primitive church as our guide, and 
 from this contend that we Ihoiild eat the fupper every Sabbath, 
 why do not they themfeives adopt this example in its full extent, 
 and communicate daih\ or at leafl on Sabbath, and Wednefday, and 
 Friday, and Saturday ? By thefe obfervations it is not intended 
 however to fay, whether weekly communion is lawful or unlawful, 
 but only to (hew, that as fcripture is filent as to the precife degree 
 of frequency, they are not entitled to declaim with that feverity 
 which they often difcover againft others who cannot, fo often as 
 they, obferve that ordinance. 
 
Letter XV. l6^ 
 
 i. e. as many interpreters explain it, and as the Syriac 
 tranflates it, they kept the eucharift, or brake facra- 
 mental bread *. But if no fingle perfon could be audible, 
 as an inflruftor, to thirty or forty thoufand hearers at 
 once ; if they could not meet together with eafe and 
 fatisfadion for the purpofes of government ; if no fmgle 
 place could be found to accommodate fuch a multitude, 
 when, as at that early period, according to Eufebius, the 
 houfes for worfhip were extremely fmall ; if even in the 
 temple there was no apartment which could contain 
 fuch a number ; and, whatever its fize, if it could not be 
 obtained by them, when they chofe to refort to it, for 
 the private meetings of their members for government, 
 or even for the public celebration of the fupper ; is it 
 not undeniable that there muft have been a variety of 
 congregations in the city of Jerufalem, furnilhed with 
 diftindl and feparate paftors, and meeting in feparate and 
 appropriate churches. 
 
 LETTER XVL 
 
 SIR, 
 
 X HAT there mud have been a plurality of congrega- 
 tions in the city of Jerufalem, I have endeavoured to 
 Oiew in the preceding Letter, from the number of be- 
 lievers who refided In that city. This rendered it totally 
 impoflible for them all to convene in a fingle place for 
 any of the purpofes of religious fellowfliip. And this, 
 as was remarked, was naturally to be expelled, for Jefus 
 having afcended to the right hand of his Father, and 
 Ihed down his Spirit In more rich abundance on the fouls 
 
 * On this circumftance however, as was before dated, no ftrcfs 
 is laid, as it is not certain that it is the- breaking of facramental 
 bread which is here intended. 
 
 Z2 
 
268 Letter XVI. 
 
 of men than had ever formerly been wltneffed by the 
 world, the delightful period had now arrived, when his 
 fpiritual offspring were to be more in number than the 
 drops of dew, " from the womb of the morning :" 
 Pfal. ex. 3. 
 
 The fame conclufion may be argued from the ntimher 
 ojminiflers, avho^ for a very confidcrabh t'lme^ nvere continually 
 employed in labouring in that city. Among thefe were the 
 twelve apoilles, and, as mofl expofitors apprehend, the 
 feventy difciples, together with many prophets (Ads 
 xi. 27, 28.), and many elders (ver. 30.). The firfl clafs 
 of thefe minlfters moreover, and confequently we muft 
 fuppofe the reft of them, were fo engaged in preaching, 
 that they were obliged to inllitute an order of minifters 
 to ferve tables, that they might themfelves be enabled, 
 along with their fellow-miniilers, to give themfelves con- 
 iinually to prayer and the minijlry of the nvord : Afts vi. 
 But if there was only one congregation of believers where 
 each of thefe teachers miniftered in his turn, how^ ex- 
 tremely unaccountable muft this rcprefentation appear ? 
 But one congregation, and above a hundred minlfters, fo 
 imceajingly employed in preaching the word, that they 
 could not find leifure to diftrlbute among the poor the 
 money which had been colleded for them ! It may be faid 
 indeed, that while one of them preached to this congre- 
 gation, the reft were itinerating through different parts of 
 the city. But ft III it appears very extraordinary, that 
 while only two or three were neceffary for the inftruflion 
 of this particular congregation, fo many teachers remained 
 in Jerufalem even for the purpofe of itinerating, while 
 they were much more needed in many other places, as 
 well as the furrounding country. Can it be believed, if 
 there had been only one congregation in that city, that fo 
 many minifters would have refided in it ftatedly for almofl: 
 thirty years, while the reft of the world was fo deftitutc 
 
Letter XVI. 269 
 
 of the means of religious inftruftion * ? Such a fuppofition 
 feems by no means to be probable. The only way then 
 in which we can account for this fa6i appears to be this, 
 that there was fuch a number of congregations in Jeru- 
 falem as farnidied fufficient employment for all of them. 
 
 In the third place, The diverfity of languages fpoken by 
 thefe Chriftians at Jerufalem, clearly evinces that there 
 muft have been a correfponding diverfity of congrega- 
 tions in that city. 
 
 We are told, A£ls ii. that among thofe who were 
 converted on the day of Pentecoft, and who heard the 
 apollles fpeak, each in their oivn language^ were devout 
 men, from Parthia, Media, Elam, Mefopotamia, Cappa- 
 docia, Pontus, Afia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, and the parts 
 of Libya about Cyrene, and alfo from Rome, Crete, and 
 Arabia. We are informed alfo. Ads vi. of a murmur- 
 ing againft the Hebrews, or Jews who fpal^'i the Syriac 
 tongue, by the Grecians, or Jews who, having come 
 from places where the Greek language prevailed, fpake 
 that language. Now admitting even that fome of thefe 
 might not remain at Jerufalem, this diverfity of languages 
 would ilill exiii among thofe who continued, and ren- 
 der it equally neceffary, as on the day of Pentecoft, that 
 the gofpel ihould be preached to them by various mini- 
 llers, and in different congregations, in their native 
 tongues. It may be faid indeed, that they might under- 
 ftand the Syriac, as the Jews at prefent, though they 
 ufe the vernacular tongues of the various countries where 
 they are fcattered, ftill have their religious fervices per- 
 formed in the Hebrew language. It is an indifputable 
 faft however, that the Jews are in general ignorant of 
 the Hebrew ; and the performance of their religion ia 
 
 * The only iiidances recorded in fcripture of occufional vilits to 
 other places by any of thefe minifters (Barnabas exceptcJj, are 
 extremely few, and appear to have been but temporary. 
 
 Z3 « 
 
^fO Letter XVI. 
 
 that language no more proves that they underftand it, 
 than the ufe of the Latin in the Romifh church proves 
 that the common people are acquainted with /'/. Befides, 
 the exclufive ufe of the Septuagint tranflation by the 
 Jews for near 300 years both before and after Chrift, 
 and the writing of the New Teftament in Greek (as Lard- 
 nerfhews to have been the cafe), proves beyond queftion 
 that the Syriac, at this period, was underftood neither by 
 the foreign Jews nor by Gentile profelytes*. So little 
 indeed was it known, that even Philo tranflates the 
 moft 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 fo llriking a 
 difference fubfifts between them, even in point of lan- 
 guage, as (hews that the Syriac, at that period, could 
 neither have been generally nor uniformly underftood by 
 the Jewifh nation. Let " any one, in fhort, confider 
 whether it is probable that the native Jews of Rome, and 
 Crete, and Pontus, i^c. with the profelytes from thefe 
 countries, could be fo well acquainted with the language 
 of Judea, as to be able to receive in it religious inftruc- 
 tlon with the fame pleafure and advantage as in their 
 original tongues ? — Or that the apoftles, who were en- 
 riched with the gift of tongues for almoft thirty years, 
 did not exerclfe this invaluable endowment, though it 
 was abfolutely requifite for difleminating the gofpel 
 among ftrangers and foreigners, or when at leaft it muft 
 have been much more conducive to their edification to 
 have heard the difcourfcs of thefe minifters of Chrift in 
 
 * It was only after the Targums, or the Tranflations, and the 
 Talmuds, or the Expofjtions, of the ancient Scriptures in the Syriac 
 Language had been finilhed, that the Greek verfions of the Seventy, 
 and of Aquila the Jew, ceafed to be ufed by the Jewifh nation. 
 And the difcontinuance of them was produced only by the decrees 
 of their do£lors, who forbad the ufe of them, left their country- 
 men fliould be led by them to embrace Chriftianity. 
 
Letter XVI. 271 
 
 their native languages than In one which was lefs fa- 
 mih'ar ? 
 
 Is It objefted, that the various Jews mentioned by- 
 Luke (Ads ii.), are reprefented as having underftood 
 the apology of Peter on the day of Pentecoft (ver. 14.), 
 though he fpake to them all In the Syriac tongue. It is 
 anfwered, that before this obfervatlon can have force. It 
 muft be demonft rated that Peter fpake to all of them at 
 once in the fame language, and not to each of them in or- 
 der, in their refpedllve languages, as It Is plain was 
 done before this by the apoftles at large (ver. 5. to 
 II.*}; or, on the other hand, that he was the only 
 apoftle who addrefTed thefe Jews at this particular 
 time. Neither of thefe, we apprehend, can be evinced. 
 Peter alone. Indeed, Is particularized, but this does not 
 prove that other apoftles alfo did not addrtfs them. The 
 fame apoftle is reprefented in the following chapter, from 
 ver. 12. as the only perfon who fpake to the Jews on 
 another occafion, and his fpeech only is related ; yet we 
 are told In chap. Iv. i. that John alfo fpake to them. 
 
 * In ver. 5. we are told, that there were dwelling at Jenifalem, 
 Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven; and in ver. 6, 
 that each of thefe heard the apoftles fpeak in their own languages. 
 Of thefe languages fifteen are mentioned : and if there wtre Jev^s, 
 as is here faid, dwelling at Jerufalem, from every nation under 
 heaven, it is probable that the languages which were fpoken by 
 the apoftles on this occafion muft have been much more numerous. 
 But if there were either fifteen or twenty companies of Jews who 
 were all addrefTed by the apoftles in different languages, it muft 
 have been at different times, for there were but twelve of thefe 
 minifters, and it was impoflible for any of them to fpeak to more 
 than one company at once. If the apoftles however, immediately 
 before this apolog)' of Peter, fpoke to a part of thcle companies 
 at one time, and to another at another, might not the fame thing 
 alfo be done by him when he delivered his apolog)-, upon the 
 fuppofition that, at that time, he alone fpake to them in the name 
 of the apoftles ? 
 
a^2 Letter XVI. 
 
 Befides, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecoft, 
 the eleven are faid to have ilood up with him ; and it 
 appears much more natural to fuppofe that they rofe like 
 him to addrefs the audience, as they had done before 
 (ver. 6, 7, 8.), in their native tongues, than that they 
 were altogether filent. Again, it is obferved (ver. 37.), 
 that when the multitude were aroufed to a feeling of 
 their guilt by the truths which they heard, they came 
 not only to Peter, but to the reil of the apoftles, and 
 aflced what they fhould do ? which feems to fuggeft that 
 they had heard thefe truths from them as well as from 
 Peter. In fine, after they had cordially embraced the 
 gofpel, it is faid, that they fteadily adhered to the pro* 
 fefiion of it ; and the language in which it is expreffed 
 (ver. 42.) is this. That they continued in the dodtrine 0/* 
 the apoJiJesy or that which they had heard from them 
 upon this important occafion. But if Peter fpake to 
 thefe companies feparately, or if the reft of the apoftles, 
 as well as Peter, addrefled them by themfelves in dif- 
 ferent divifions, it might be, as on the preceding part of 
 this very day, in their refpedlive languages : and no 
 objeftion can be urged, from what is faid in this place 
 by the facred hiftorian, againft the argument adduced, 
 from the diverfity of languages which originally exifted 
 among the believers in Jerufalem, for a diverfity of con- 
 gregations in that Chriftian church. 
 
 Whether then we 'anfider the number of members, or 
 the number of minlRx^- j, or the diverfity of languages in 
 the church of Jerufalem, we have abundant evidence that 
 it comprehended different congregations, and that they 
 could not all conveniently aflemble for worfhip in one 
 place. 
 
 Mr. Ewing however informs us, that neither the 
 number of the difciples at Jerufalem, nor any of thefe 
 circumftances, prevented them ufuaily from meeting in 
 one place j and of this he apprehends that he has direct 
 
Letter XVI. 273 
 
 evidence, for *< where their numbers are mentioned, 
 ** their meeting in one place is alfo mentioned." In 
 proof of this he refers us to Ads ii. 41. — 47. where we 
 are told, that " all who believed were together, and had 
 " all things in common." But though it were granted 
 that the church at this time, when it was comparatively 
 fmallt met in one affembly, it would not follow that it 
 could meet in one place when it was m.uch larger. Be- 
 fides, all that is mentioned in this paffage is, that, from 
 the love which fubfifted among thefe primitive converts, 
 they were frequently together, and cultivated eagerly 
 each other's foclety. But to this it was not neceflary 
 that they fhould ftatedly meet in one great affembly *. 
 And though we are told moreover, in this and other 
 places, that they alTembled in the temple, it cannot be 
 proved from this fa(5t, that they convened in one congre- 
 gation even to hear the word, for, as was before ob- 
 ferved, the temple contained a variety of places, each of 
 which could conveniently accommodate a congregation f . 
 Still, however, Mr. Ewing contends that his alTertlon 
 is confirmed by Afts v. 12, 13. where it is faid, that 
 ** by the hands of the apoftles were many figns and won- 
 <* ders wrought among the people ; (and they were all 
 
 * Et/ re avTo, which is rendered " together," in the pre- 
 fent pafTage, according to IJghtfoot, is ufed by the Seventy to 
 fignify an aflembly, fometimes in the fame body, Judges vi. ^Z- — 
 fometimes fimply in the fame ftate, Jer. vi. 12. — and fometimes 
 engaged merely in the fame action, or exercife, thougli in difFtrent 
 places, 2 Sam. ii. 13. Pfal. xxxiv. 3. xlix. %. &c. See alfo Pfal. 
 ii. 2. 
 
 f " The High Church of Glafgow," fays Ayton, p. 220. " hath 
 " three dift:in«Sl congregations in it, and there is as much room 
 " befides, as might contain one or two more; but their being in 
 " that huge building all at one time, will no more denominate 
 " them one fingle aflembly for public worlliip, meeting in the 
 " fame individual place, under the inftrudion of one paftor, thaa 
 ** if they were at fome miles diftance." 
 
^74 Letter XVI. 
 
 " with one accord in Solomon's Porch : and of the reft 
 ** duril no man join himfelf unto them : but the people 
 ** magnified them.") But before any argument from 
 this can be conclufive, he muft prove that by the all who 
 were in Solomon's Porch, are intended, not the apoftles 
 alone, as difiinguifhed from the people, but the whole 
 body of Chriftian converts. That it was the apoflles 
 alone, is probable from the conned^ion of the pafFage. 
 The fame fear which fell upon the multitude in general, 
 and which for a time kept them at a diflance from the 
 apoftles, is afTerted, in the nth verfe, to have fallen 
 equally upon the nvhole churchy and, we may naturally 
 fuppofe, would produce upon them a fimilar effeft. But 
 if the rejlofthe churchy as well as the multitude, durft not 
 for a time join themfelves to the apoftles, is it not ob- 
 vious that it muft have been the apoftles alone who are 
 faid to have been all in Solomon's Porch ? Befides, they 
 only are fpoken of in the immediately preceding claufe^ 
 when it is mentioned that many figns and wonders were 
 done by them among the people ; and confeqiiently it 
 is moft natural to fuppofe that the all who are fpecified 
 in the very next words, and who are faid to have been in 
 Solomon's Porch, muft have been the very fame per- 
 fons. And that the apoftles might go up to Solomon's 
 Porch without the people, feems credible, not only from 
 what has been already ftated, but from what is recorded, 
 in a foregoing chapter, of Peter and John, who are repre- 
 fented as going up alone to the temple. Nay, though 
 we fhould allow that the whole of the difciples, as well 
 as the apoftles, were in. Solomon's Porch, yet if we con- 
 lider, as has been remarked, that it was fitted to accom- 
 modate a number of congregations, it muft be evident 
 to all, that it does not neceffarily follow that they were 
 all colle6led into one aflembly. Glafs, and other Inde- 
 pendents, have aflerted, that no more believers refided 
 in Jerufalem than what ftatedly met in one place, be- 
 
Letter XVI, 275 
 
 caufe the apoflles are reprefented, at the eledion of the 
 deacons (Ads vi.), as calling the multitude, and enjoin- 
 ing them to eledl thefe officers. But it might be only the 
 heads of them who in reality were fummoned, if, as we 
 have attempted to fhew, the whole were too numerous to 
 meet in one place. Thus, as was formerly noticed, 
 Mofes is often faid to have called all Ifrael, and to have 
 fpoken in the ears of all the congregation whatfoever the 
 Xiord enjoined him, while, as was formerly noticed, he 
 affembled and addreffed the elders or office-bearers only. 
 Let it be admitted however that the multitude of be- 
 lievers at large were called, it is not faid, either that all 
 of the apoftles, or all of the difciples were in one place, 
 and from any thing that is here mentioned, they might 
 convene in a number of feparate affemblies. Were we 
 to be told, for inftance, that the minillers of Glafgow 
 called the multitude of the members, and aflced them to 
 ele6l a General Seffion, would it not immediately occur 
 to us, from what we know of the congregations in Glaf- 
 gow, that the members would not all meet in one place, 
 but in their different churches, and with their refpedivc 
 office-bearers ? And fuppofe it to be demonftrated from 
 other pafiages, as we have already attempted, that the 
 Chriftians in Jerufalem, like the members in Glafgow, 
 were far too numerous to affemble conveniently in the 
 fame place, though this language be ufed, is it not 
 equally plain that they would meet in different affem- 
 blies ? Nothing then can be certainly deduced from the 
 paffage before us, as to the adual number of congrega- 
 tions In Jerufalem *. 
 
 It is faid further, that all the deacons were brought to 
 the apoftles, and ordained by them in one place. There 
 
 * " Let Independents but confider," fay the Weftminfter Di- 
 vines, " how the city of London choofe their common-council, and 
 « prefent them to the court of aldermen :" p. 21. 
 
2*j$ Letter XVI. 
 
 is a material difference however between election and 
 ordination, and though the latter might be performed in 
 one affembly, the former might be done by the members 
 of the church in their different congregations. 
 
 Is it contended once more, that the church at Jerafalem 
 was a fingle congregation, becanfe the members are repre- 
 fented (A6ls xv.) as all affembled at the decifion on the 
 reference from the church of Antioch ? It is replied, 
 that the whole of the members are not faid to have con- 
 vened with the apoftles on that occafion ; but all that is 
 mentioned is fimply this, that fuch of the difciples as 
 could attend, and were fo difpofed, were allowed to be 
 hearers of that interefting difcuffion. What this number 
 was, is not fpecified. Nay, it might perhaps be alleged 
 with confiderable plaufibility, that it is not evident, from 
 the facred hiftory, that any of the private members of 
 the church were prefent. The term brethren, we know, 
 by which it is fuppofed by Independents that they are 
 here diftinguiflied, is frequently given to minifters as fuch, 
 and to them alone. It is the name by which the minifters 
 of the church of Ephefus are chara£lerized by Paul (Adls 
 XX. 32.), whom he had before denominated (ver. i";. 
 and 28.) elders and overfeers — by which he defcribes 
 other minifters, Philip, i. 14. whom he fpeaks of in that 
 paffage as preaching the word — and which he often 
 beftows upon the evangelifts, Titus, and Timothy, and 
 others, 2 Cor. ii. 13. viii. 18. 23. i Theff. iii. 2. ^c. 
 Should it be afferted then, that by the brethren here 
 fpecified, beftdes the apoftles and elders, may be in- 
 tended the evangelifts and prophets in the city of Jeru- 
 falem, as well as any other minifters who might be then 
 in that place, it might be difficult to difprove it. Nor 
 can the contrary be eftabliftied from the term multitude, 
 or 7FM6cg (ver. 12.), which is applied to that affembly, 
 for we fee the fame name given (chap, xxiii. 7. com- 
 pared with chap. xxii. 30.) to the Jewiih fanhedrin, a 
 
Letter XVI. 2'1'J 
 
 court of rulers onljr, and which probably was not more 
 numerous than this Chriftian council. In chap. i. 15. 
 a fimilar name is given to an aflembly confiding only of a 
 hundred and twenty perfons: " And the number (op^^Aej) 
 *' of the names,'* fays Luke, or, as the fame word is 
 more literally tranflated (Luke xii. i. ^c.)y " the multitude 
 ** of the names, was about an hundred and twenty." 
 The meaning therefore of the phrafe (A£ls xv. 22.), 
 '* It pleafed the apoftles and elders, with the whole 
 " church," or, as the word very frequently fignifies, 
 rather " the whole affembly (2«xA«cr;«)," may be, that 
 the decifion which was given was perfectly unanimous, 
 or that what was propofed obtained the complete concur- 
 rence of the apoftles and elders, and other minifters, 
 who were members of this affembly. And tliat the 
 term iKKXv^a-ix, here rendered church, but which more 
 properly fhould be tranflated affembly, denotes often an 
 affembly of rulers only, was endeavoured, you know, to 
 be proved before, not only °from the authority of De- 
 moflhenes, but of the Septuagint. Befides, that it is fo 
 to be interpreted here feems evident from this, that as 
 the reference <was made only to the apoftles and ftated 
 paftors at Jerufalem, as well as the prophets and evange- 
 lifts, who alfo were elders, it appears neceffary, upon every 
 principle of fair explication, to underftand ** by the 
 " whole of the reft of the affembly, or iy,x,X'A<ricc^ (ver. 22.}, 
 befides the apoftles and ordinary elders, who delivered 
 this decifion, the other minifters alone, fmcc to minifters 
 alone the affair was fubmitted. And it deferves to be 
 remarked, that the only individuals of the brethren, or 
 as it is expreffed, ver. 22. the reft of the affembly, who 
 are here mentioned, and are faid to have been leading 
 men among them [''Ayov(,uvoi)i are Judas and Silas, who 
 are afiirraed, in ver. 32. to have been prophets. But if 
 by the phrafes, the whole of the refl of the affembly, and 
 the brethren^ who are here fpoken of, wiih the apoftles 
 Aa 
 
278 Letter XVI. 
 
 and elders, are to be underftood, not the members of 
 the church at Jerufalem, but only the other minifters 
 who compofed that affembly, no argument can be ad- 
 duced, from what is here fald, to prove that, at this 
 period, no more Chriftian members could be found at 
 Jerufalem than could conveniently meet in one place *. 
 
 The grand argument advanced by Mr. Ewing in com- 
 mon vs'ith his predeceffors, is founded upon A6ls xxi. 22. 
 ♦* After all, however,'' (fays he, p. 32. fpeaking of the 
 many ten thoufands of Jews who were pointed out to Paul 
 as profefling the gofpel) *' no inference is drawn from 
 ** the many myriads of believers, that it would be im- 
 *< poflible for them to meet in one place f . We have an 
 ** inference of a very different kind. What is it there- 
 •* fore ? The multitude (not the paftors and a few dele- 
 ** gates from the reft, but the multitude) muft needs 
 ** come together." But before this reafoning can be 
 admitted to be conclufive, it muft be proved by Mr. 
 Ewing, that, at that period, there was a univerfal con- 
 
 * Is it faid with Glafs, that this interpretation would attach to 
 the term churchy or rather, as the word fignifies, ajfembly^ a dif- 
 ferent meaning in ver. 2%. from that which it has in ver. 3, 4.? 
 It is anfwcred, that this is admitted, but reafons have been affigned 
 a?x>ve for afcribing to it diiferent acceptations in thefe verfes. In 
 ver. 22. it certainly can only denote the whole of that afTembly, 
 or iiCKXnc-ix, who were referred to ; while, in the other verfes, it 
 may include alfo the common members at Jerufalem. The fame 
 remark too will hold as to the diiferent acceptations of the term 
 Irethren, in ver. 22. ; and certainly it will be allowed that when 
 fatisfa£tory reafons feem evidently to require it, diiferent mean- 
 ings may be attached to a word in the fame chapter, and even in 
 the fame yerfe. 
 
 f Such an inference is never exprefsly flated, but fuch an in- 
 ference is as clearly warranted by the fa(n:s which are recorded, as 
 that which is drawn by our Saviour (Matth. xii.) from what is 
 faid in the Old Teftament, of David's eating the (liew-bread when 
 he was hungry, though fuch an inference is not even hinted in 
 the Book of Samuel. 
 
Letter XVI. 279 
 
 courfe of the Chriftian Jews from e'very quarter to Jeru- 
 falem at the feaft of Pentecoft, and that it was poffible 
 for the multitude who would then convene to affemble In 
 one place. The gofpel had been preached, as was for- 
 merly obferved, for alraoft thirty years, not only in Jeru- 
 falem and Judea, but in Rome, Ephefus, Corinth, Phi- 
 lippi, and many other places, with wonderful faccefs. 
 In Jerufalem and Judea alone, during that fpace, many 
 thoufands were converted, and who, together with their 
 children, who muft now have arrived at the years of 
 maturity, would undoubtedly form a very great af- 
 fembly. Now, if to thefe were added as many believ- 
 ing Jews as Independents fay came up from Rome, 
 Ephefus, Corinth, and all the extenfive regions where 
 the gofpel had been preached, the number of thofe who 
 would be colle£^ed on this occafion could not be lefs than 
 fifty or fixty thoufand. But how could fuch a multitude 
 meet together, in the very fame building, for worflilp, 
 or government, or the participation of the fupper ? Was 
 there any houfe which could have contained fuch a mul- 
 titude ? or, if fuch a houfe could be found, was there 
 a fingle individual who could be heard by them ? Be- 
 fides, admitting all thefe, it was impofiible that they 
 fliould convene in the very fame afferably for the pur- 
 pofes of government. The greater part of thefe myriads, 
 by the confefiion of Mr. Ewing and other Independents, 
 were not members of the church of Jerufalem, and con- 
 fequently could not affemble with them for the ends of 
 government, for if they were admitted to vote or judge 
 at all, they would, on account of their number, have had 
 a much greater (hare in the adminiftration than the mem- 
 bers at Jerufalem had. Would not this power, accord- 
 ing to the Independent plan, have been completely fub- 
 verfive of the rights and privileges of the Chriftians at 
 Jerufalem, for is It not one of their firft principles, as 
 has repeatedly been noticed, that the members of one 
 A a 2 
 
!^S6 Letter XVI. 
 
 congregation are not to be governed by the declfions oF 
 the members of any other congregation under heaven ? 
 And is it not evident that whatever was the end 
 for which, as James declares in the words referred to 
 (ver. 22.), the Jews would come together, when they 
 heard that Paul was arrived, it could not be to take cog- 
 nizance of the conducl of Paul in a judicial capacity. 
 Paul was not a member of the church at Jerufalem, or of 
 any church around, and, of courfe, even on the principles 
 of Independents, neither the church at Jerufalem, nor 
 any of the Jews who vv'ere there, had a right to meet as 
 an ecclefiaftlcal court, and decide upon his conduft. 
 The truth feems to be, that James does not refer to any 
 regular meeting of the church which was to take place, 
 but to a tumultuous concourfe, fuch as aftually enfued, 
 as foon as it was announced that Paul was at Jerufalem *. 
 But it is manifeft that the mere affertion that there would 
 be a concourfe of the Jews, however great, as foon as it 
 was reported that Paul was at Jerufalem, will never de- 
 monftrate that the whole of the ftated members in that 
 city, as well as the many thoufands from every other 
 quarter, could meet in one place, either for inftruftion, 
 or communion, or the exercife of government. Neither 
 then, from this,, nor any other paffage, does it appear 
 that the whole of the Chrlftians, refidlng in Jerufalem, 
 could ftatedly affemble in the very fame place. When 
 we therefore rcfiedl on the circumftances already men- 
 tioned, it feems neceflarily to follow, agreeably to our 
 firft general obfervation, that there mufl have been a 
 diverfity of congregations in Jerufalem, each of which 
 had its refpeftlve paftors, and Its refpe<ftive place for 
 ftated convention. 
 
 * In proof of this, among other things, it is not faid that a 
 rpeeting of the members would be called by the apoftles, or any 
 of the rulers af the church, but fimply, upon their hearing of his 
 arrival, they would of themfelves come together. 
 
Letter XVI. 281 
 
 But, in the fecond place, if there was a number of 
 congregations in this city, were they perfedtly inde- 
 pendent of each other in point of government, and did 
 each of them conftitute a completely diilindl and difcon- 
 neded fociety ? No ; for while they formed feparate 
 congregations, each of which had its particular paftors 
 and ftated ordinances, they were ftill fo united, in point 
 of government, as to be uniformly defcribed but as one 
 church. Never do we hear of the churches in Jerufalem, 
 but nine times of the church, and twice, according to 
 fome, of the luhole churchy which was eftablilhed in that 
 city. But this is certainly inconfiftent with the fuppofi- 
 tion, that each of thefe congregations conftituted a fepa- 
 rate and independent church, and direftly contradid^ 
 one of your favourite affcrtions, that the term church, in 
 fcripture, is never applied but to a iingle congregation, 
 who could meet conveniently in the fame place. Befides, 
 when we examine the Hiftory of the Afts, we fee that, 
 in addition to the particular office-bearers who fuperin- 
 tended thefe congregations, they had a general court, 
 compofed of the apoilles and elders of the whole, who 
 fecm conftantly to have adminiilered their general con- 
 cerns, as well as, perhaps, reviewed the decifions of fub- 
 ordinate courts. This court ordained the deacons (Adls 
 vi.) ; received and diflributed the contributions {A£ls 
 xi. 50.) which were fent, for the affiilance of the poor 
 at Jerufalem, by the brethren at Antioch ; and decided 
 (Ads XV.) upon a reference which was made to them 
 from the church at Antioch. And indeed, if they deter- 
 mined in an authoritative manner as to a reference which 
 was made to them by another church at fo great a 
 diilance, we may well believe that while tl^ey governed 
 feparately their different congregations in the city of 
 Jeruialem, they met likewife occafionally as a general 
 council, to judge in any appeals or references which 
 were prefented from thefe particular congregations. 
 
^2 Letter XVI. 
 
 Again, are wc not told, Acls xxl. i8. that when the 
 apoftle Paul had arrived at Jerufalem, he went in unto 
 James ; and all the elders were prefent ? And does not 
 this afTembly of elders not only fuggefl to Paul the man- 
 ner in which he fhould aft on a particular occafion, but 
 affirm, that they had formerly concluded, or determined 
 (^i>ciK?jy.fi/^iv), refpefting the power of the ceremonial 
 law ? But does not this inlinuate that there were meet- 
 ings not only of the elders of each of the congregations 
 to regulate the affairs of thefe particular congregations, 
 but meetings alfo of the elders of the different congre- 
 gations in that city, in a judicial capacity, to decide in 
 matters of more general importance ? And if they met in 
 common with minifters from Antioch, to decide in an 
 appeal which was made to them by that church, much 
 more would they meet with the minifters of any parti- 
 cular congregation in Jerufalem, to determine as to any 
 appeal which might be made to them from that church. 
 When we refledl then upon thefe fads, which have been 
 attempted to be proved — that there was a number of 
 congregations in the city of Jerufalem, each of which 
 had its refpeftive pallors, and its particular place for 
 ftated convention — and that, though thus diftind, and 
 poffefTing their different elders and ovcrfeers, they were 
 yet fo connedled, in point of-'go'vernraent, as to confti- 
 tute only one church — and when we fee the elders of 
 thefe congregations affembling together in one common 
 court, for deciding upon appeals from diftant congrega- 
 tions — is it not obvious that the fcheme of Independency, 
 which afferts that there is not a higher court under 
 heaven than the elderfhip or rulers of a particular con- 
 gregation, and that one congregation, with its overfeers, 
 cannot be fubjefted to the review of the elders of a greater 
 number of congregations, is completely repugnant to 
 the pattern which is left us in this primitive church, and 
 the explicit teftimony of the word of God ? 
 
Letter XVI. 283 
 
 Is it affirmed, as ufual, that thefe affertions, as to the 
 number of congregations in Jerufakm, cannot be juft, 
 becaufe, as has been now remarked, they are reprefented 
 in fcripture but as one church, whereas, had there been 
 different congregations, they would have been exprefsly 
 pointed out as different churches? It Is reph'ed, that we 
 are fufficiently Inftrufled, by the number of believers who 
 refided In Jerufalem, by the variety of their minifters, 
 and the diverfity of languages, that there mull have been 
 a number of congregations in that 'city. To allege 
 therefore, notwithftanding-, that they mull have been but 
 one congregation, becaufe they are defcrlbed in fcrip- 
 ture as but one church, would be«>no lefs unfair and In- 
 conliflent than to afHrm, that, becaufe all the various 
 believers In the world are alfo denominated one church 
 (Matth. xvi. 18.), and one jioch (John x. 16. i Peter 
 V. 3. ^f. ), there is but one congregation in the world. 
 
 The whole nation of Ifrael moreover, as has been 
 remarked, when It Included almoft two millions of 
 perfons, is pointed out to us but as one church (A6ls 
 vll. 38.), and we never hear that at any period, during the 
 ancient difpenfation, they comprehended more churches. 
 But yet we know that even from the earlieft times, 
 when they met, to be taught by the priefts and the Levitesj 
 it muft have been In "a number of dlftinA and feparate 
 congregations ; and, agreeably to this, we are Informed 
 (Pfal. Ixxiv.) of many fynagogues which had been built 
 for this purpofe in the land of Judea. Why then might 
 not the believers in Jerufalem, and why may not the 
 believers in any city or country, though meeting in va- 
 rious and feparate focietles, be pointed out likewlfe as 
 but one church ? 
 
 Is it affcrted, as was done by the ancient Independents, 
 that though it could be proved that there was a number 
 of congregations in Jerufalem, and that thefc congrega- 
 tions were governed by a common court confiftlng of the 
 
284 Letter XVI. 
 
 apoftles, who were entitled to fuperintend all the churches 
 in the world, no argument can be adduced fiom it, for 
 the right of ordinary inferior minifters, fronn various con- 
 gregations, to affenrible as a Prefbytery, and review the 
 decifions of the elders or rulers of a particular congrega- 
 tion ? It is replied, that the apoftles are pointed out in 
 fcripture not only as extraordinary minifters, but in the 
 ordinary charaAer of elders or rulers : i Peter v. i. To 
 affirm therefore with Independents, that it was an extra- 
 ordinary aft, becaufe it was done by apoftles, is to beg the 
 queftion ; nay, if the fame principle were applied to their 
 condufh in other inftances, it would be attended with con- 
 fequences the moft deftr^iftive to Independency. Upon the 
 fame grounds it would follow, that fince the apojUes are faid 
 to have preached, to have difpenfed the facraments, and 
 to have ordained deacons, thefe afts were extraordinary, 
 and ought not now to be performed by ordinary mini- 
 fters, whether Independent or Prefbyterian. But if the 
 mere circumftance of its being related in fcripture, that 
 the apofUes met as a court of review, and fuperintended 
 the affairs of all the churches in Jerufalem, will not de- 
 monftrate that their conduct, in this inftance, is to be 
 viewed as extraordinary^ it becomes neccflary to afcertain 
 by other confiderations whether it was fo. And when 
 we attend to thefe confiderations, we find reafon to con- 
 clude that it was not extraordinary, for both the nature of 
 the thing, and the admiffion of ordinary teaching elders 
 to fit with them in this court and to exercife along with 
 them the fame authority, clearly point out to us an 
 oppofite deduftion. The laft of thefe privileges could 
 never have been granted to them, had the condud of 
 the apoftles in this inftance been extraordinary, and con- 
 fequently not intended to be imitated at prefent -by or- 
 dinary minifters. Ordinary minifters were certainly then 
 as little entitled, had this been an extraordinary power, 
 to claim a ftiare of it, as ordinary minifters in the pre- 
 
Letter XVI. 285 
 
 fent day. Nor were they allowed merely to exprefs 
 their acqiiiefcence in what was faid or determined 
 by the apoflles (as Silvanus and others, whofe names are 
 recorded In the ApoftoHc Epiftles, were), but they pof- 
 fefled an equality of power ; for the decifions which 
 were delivered in this ecclefiaftical court are called ex- 
 prefsly, " the decrees of the elders," as well as of the 
 apoflles. It is obvious then, that the apoftles did not aft in 
 thefe courts of review as extraordinary mlnlfters ; and, by 
 admitting into that council, which governed the affairs of 
 all the congregations in Jerufalem, ordinary ofnce-bearers, 
 we are warranted to fay, that the ordinary elders of a 
 number of congregations are now entitled to meet as a 
 Prefbytery, and examine the decilions of any particular 
 elderfhip, or determine in matters which relate to the 
 interefts of all thefe congregations. 
 
 Or, Is it objefted, as is done by Glafs, that it cannot 
 be proved that there were ftated elders in each of the con- 
 gregations in the city of Jerufalem who governed thefe 
 congregations, and who, when united as a court, regulated 
 the affairs which refpeded them all? It is a fufficient 
 anfvi^er, that it cannot be proved that there nvas not in 
 each of them a fixed and ftated elderfhip who fuperin- 
 tended it ; and it is moft probable, from the conftltution 
 of other congregations, as well as from what is elfe- 
 where faid of Paul and Barnabas ( Adla xlv. 23. " that , 
 ** they ordained elders in every church," or, as Inde- 
 pendents would explain It, in every congregation), that 
 there were fuch office-bearers. At any rate, and this is 
 the point at prefent in debate, it feems evident that each 
 of thefe congregations was not independent of the con- 
 troul of the overfeers of others in point of government, 
 but that there was a court correfponding to what we 
 fhould denominate a Prefbytery, compofed of the elders 
 of the different congregations, who exercifed an authori- 
 tf.tive power over each, as well as decided in matters of 
 
286 Letter XVI. 
 
 general importance. The former, though probable from 
 every thing that is fald of a Chriftian congregation in 
 the New Teftament, is a point of inferior magnitude 
 only, and, in fome circumftances, has been determined, 
 as to other churches, by convenience and utility. The 
 latter is a point of higher moment, and, though com- 
 pletely oppofite to the principles of Independents, 
 appears to be eftabliflied from the circumftances which 
 have been fpecified. In fome of the foreign Prefbyterlan 
 churches moreover, where the people are neither allowed 
 to judge nor to vote, there are no private Seffions in 
 particular congregations, but the elders or rulers of a 
 num-ber of congregations, alTociated as a Prefbytery, 
 fuperintend the affairs of each of thefe congregations, 
 and determine in m.atters which concern the whole. 
 Even then, if we fuppofe that the church at Jerufalem 
 ■was conftituted upon the laft of thefe plans, it is plain 
 that every congregation which belonged to it, was not, 
 in point of government, independent of the authoritative 
 fuperintendence of the minillers of the reft. And if we 
 admit that it was formed like all other churches in the 
 New Teftament, and that each of its congregations had 
 its feparate office-bearers who governed it, and that thefe 
 again were connected in a general court, with the office- 
 bearers of the reft, who decided in matters of common 
 concern, the fame conclufion follows. Thefe congrega- 
 tions in Jerufalem, even in the days of the apoftles, were 
 not independent of each other with regard to govern- 
 ment, and therefore congregations ought certainly not 
 to be independent in the prefent day. 
 
 Finally, is it affirmed, with Lockier and others, that 
 the fphere of ruling and of teaching (hould be equal, 
 becaufe the ThefTalonians are commanded " to know them 
 <* who were over them in the Lord, and who laboured 
 *' or preached among them?'* i Theff. v. 12, 13. It 
 IS anfwered, that though they be enjoined there to know 
 
Letter XVI. 287 
 
 thofe who laboured among them in word and do<flrine, 
 and were over them in the Lord, it will not follow from 
 this, that none were to be over them in the Lord, unlefs 
 they thus llatedly laboured amongft them. Though the 
 former clafs of rulers were entitled to their refped, it 
 can never be inferred that a feparate order, who were to 
 govern but not to preach to them, were not entitled alfo 
 to their dutiful regards. If this injundion does not pre- 
 vent, even among Independents, thofe who do not 
 ilatedly labour, from occafionally preaching to them, or 
 difpenfing the facramcnt, why fhould it prevent thofe 
 who do not ftatedly labour among them, from occa- 
 fionally meeting to overfee and fuperintend them, as well 
 as to determine in matters of general concern ? To affert, 
 in fine, that becaufe, in the pafTage before us, Chriftians 
 are called to honour thofe who not only ruled but taught 
 among them, there can be no other rulers who can meet, 
 from the elderfhips of other congregations, for delibera- 
 tion, is to take for granted the thing to be proved. It is 
 as if an inhabitant of Glafgow fhould fay, Becaufe I am 
 commanded by the Conftitution to honour the Magi- 
 ftrates under whofe fuperintendence I live, there can be 
 no other part of the Conflituticn which enjoins me to be 
 fubjeft to a Sheriff, becaufe he does not dwell amongft 
 us — or to the Lords of Seflion, becaufe they are fo far 
 removed from us. But if reafoning hke this would he 
 accounted abfurd in our political government, "muft it 
 not be equally abfurd to infer from this command, which 
 enjoins Chriftians to honour thofe who refide amongft 
 them and rule over them, that there can be no other court 
 appointed to review the declfions of the former, becaufe 
 the office-bearers in it do not ftatedly refide, and preach, 
 and rule amongft them ? 
 
C 288 3 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 SIR, 
 
 Among the diiTerent arguments which have been 
 urged by Prefbyterians for courts of review, none uu- 
 douhtedly is more ftriking or fatisfaftory than that vt^hich 
 is drawn from the fifteenth chapter of the Ads of the 
 Apoftles, You have been pleafed particularly to confider 
 this pafTage, and have endeavoured to overturn the rea- 
 foning of your opponents. Before concluding the pre- 
 fent inquiry, it will therefore be proper to examine the 
 force of this argument, and the validity of the reafons 
 on which you obje6l to its cogency. 
 
 Prior to your remarks on this celebrated chapter, 
 you obferve with triumph (though as to the firfl part of 
 your affertion, I know not upon what authority), that 
 ** although it is preily generally allowed that Utile can 
 ** be pleaded in fupport of the Prefbyterlan form of 
 ** church-government from the Apojlolic Epifiles, there is a 
 ** well known pafTage in the fifteenth chapter of the A<5ls 
 ** of the Apoflles, on which the defence of this fyftem is 
 ** generally refted. This," fay you, *< I long confidered 
 ** as a ftrong hold in which I could fit in fafety, and 
 << fubfcribe myfelf a Prefbyterlan. I fhall now fliortly 
 ** Hate the arguments by which, in my apprehenfion at 
 *< leaft, it was no longer tenable.'* But inftead of pro- 
 ceeding at prefent to review thefe arguments in order, 
 permit me briefly, after adverting to the occafion of this 
 reference from Antioch, to confider in the firft place, 
 The form of that affembly to which the reference is 
 laid to have been made. Secondly, Whether the decifion 
 which it delivered upon this occafion was fimply an advice, 
 or an authoritative determination ? And in the third 
 place. Whether the members of it were guided in their pro- 
 ceedings by a fupernatural influence, or were left to the 
 
Letter XVII. 2S9 
 
 exerclfe of tlieir own prudence and fagaclty, v/ith the 
 common aids of the facred Spirit. 
 
 The occafion then of the reference, as narrated m 
 the two firft verfes of the chapter, v»'as this : Certain 
 men, from Judea (probably believing Pharifees), had 
 come down to Antloch, and taught the Chriftians there? 
 that unlefs they were circumcifcd after the manner of 
 Mofes, they could not be faved. As this dodrine was 
 contrary to that of Paul and Barnabas and their fellow- 
 minifters, who were at that time at Antioch, a keea 
 difcuffion enfued. Still however the Judaizing teachers 
 refufed to yield ; and as a harmonious decifion could not 
 be obtained from the affociated minlfters at Antioch, oc 
 a decifion at lead fufficient to fiience the former, it was 
 agreed that it fhould be fubmitted to the determination 
 of the apodles and elders at Jerufalem. This propofal 
 accordingly was put in execution, and Paul and Barnabas 
 were appointed, on the one Ctde, to go up to Jerufalem, 
 and ftate their fentiments, as the Fharifaic teachers feem 
 to have been nominated on the other, to fupport their 
 views ; and a meeting of the apoftles and elders having 
 been called, and the point difcuiTed, a decifion was made, 
 and tranfmitted to Antioch. That we may difcover 
 then whether what is here recorded affords any precedent 
 for courts of review as held by Prefbyterians, let us con- 
 fider, in the Firft place, the form of this affembly. 
 
 On this point there has been much variety of opinion. 
 By Mr. Glafs, younelf, and other Independents, it has 
 been confidered as compofed of the church at Jerufalem 
 together with her rulers, and the whole of the apoftles ; 
 and the reference is fuppofed to have been fimply that of 
 one church to another. " The church of Jerufalem," 
 fays the firft of thefe writers, in his Second Letter to 
 Ayton, vol. i. p. 385. *' the firft church, where our Lord 
 ** left his apoftles when he afcended, had this pre-eminence 
 '' above all other churches unto which the word came, 
 Bb 
 
290 • Letter XVII. 
 
 *' that the word of God came firll out from it ; and 
 ** that other churches had their order, and the ordinances 
 " of Chrift, from that church." In proof of this he 
 quotes Ifaiah il. i. — 4. and Micah iv. i, 2, 3. And 
 afterwards he fays (p. 386.), « When the believing 
 *' Gentiles were troubled with this queftion, Whether 
 " this was a part of the doftrine of repentance and 
 *« remiiKJon of lins to be preached to the Gentiles in 
 *< Chrid's name, beginning at Jerufalem ? where were 
 *' they to feek the decifion of it but there, where it was 
 ** the Lord's will, that the doftrine of repentance and 
 *' remiffion of fins fhould begin, and from thence go 
 ** forth unto all nations? And what fociety fhould 
 " determine this queftion, but that fociety wherein he 
 *•' gave orders about it, and from which he would have 
 " that dodlrine to proceed, and go forth to the nations ?'* 
 But when the reference is prefented, no mention is made 
 of the members at Jerufalem, though there is of the 
 apoftles and elders, a circumflance which is unaccountable, 
 if it was fimply an appeal from one church to another ; 
 for if the conftitution of the church at Jerufalem was 
 Independent, it muft have been known at Antioch that 
 the votes of the memlers, who were twenty times more 
 numerous than the apoftles and elders, would determine 
 the queftion. Befides, as was obferved alfo, none but 
 the apoftles and elders are faid to have come together to 
 confider the matter. If Mr. Glafs's account however be 
 juft, ought not the members to have been fummoned, and 
 the decree to have been called thdr decree, as well as that 
 of the apoftles and elders. Befides, is it not moft whim- 
 iical and abfurd to maintain that the Chrlftian church at 
 Jerufalem, becaufe it was the firft church on earth, and 
 the refidence of the apoftles, was invefted for almoft 
 thirty years with an univerial Epifcopacy over every other 
 church i Such an inference is not fupported by the paf- 
 fages quoted from Ifaiah and Micah. They aftert indeed, 
 
Letter XVII. 291 
 
 that the gofpel was to hegin to be preached from Jerufalem, 
 but not a fyllable is mentioned, either there or elfewhere, 
 of the right of the diurch which was to be formed in 
 that city, to determine the faith of every other church 
 during the apoftolic age, or in any other period. Though 
 this power might be veiled in the apodles as extraordinary 
 miniilers, on what principle could it be granted to the 
 members at large of the church at Jerufalem ? Was their 
 opinion ntcefiary to confirm the diciates of infpiration ? 
 or was it fafe to fubmit the deciiions of the apollles to 
 their judgment and vote ? Nay, even when the apofiles 
 were referred to as ordinary miniilers, on what ground 
 could the members indlfcriminately claim a riglit not 
 only of declaring, to the church which applied to them, 
 the true do6lrine of repentance, but (as will be afterwards 
 proved) of authoritatively laying on them whatever bur- 
 deos they chofe? — This alTembly, then, could not be mere- 
 ly a meeting of the members of the church at Jerufalem, 
 together with the apoilles and elders ; and confequcntly 
 the reference from the Chriftian^i at Antioch could not 
 be an application from one Independent church to 
 anotlier. 
 
 But though this alTembly at Jerufalem cannot be allow- 
 ed to be the meeting of a particular congregation only, 
 did it refemble a Prefbyterian Synod in every refpeft, and 
 include reprefentatives from the churches of Antioch, 
 Syria, and Ciiicia, as well as of Jerufalem? Such was 
 the opinion of the Prefbyterian Divines In the Weftmlnfter 
 Aflembly — of the London Minifcers — of Wood, Ayton, 
 Hall, and Mulr ; but this, whether the cafe or not. Is by 
 no means neceffary for our prefsnt argument In fupport 
 of Prefbytery. The appointment of the miniilers of the 
 different churches next to any congregation to conilitute 
 a Prefbytery, for reviewing the deeds of the overfeers of 
 that congregation, and the appointment of the miniilers 
 of various Prefbyteries next to a Prefbytery to form a 
 Bb2 
 
592 Letter XVII. 
 
 Synod, for reviewing the condiiA of that particular 
 Prefbytery, are matters altogether circumjlant'ial, not 
 effential to the firft principles of Prefbytery, and adopted 
 merely from convenience. It is not of fundamental impor- 
 tance in Prefbytery, whether its courts of review are 
 compofed of the minifters whofe local fituation is neareft 
 each other, or of minifters who are placed at a confiderahle 
 dijlance ; or whether a Synod be made up of a particular 
 number of feparate Prefbyteries, or of an affemblage of 
 minifters from different and more remote places, but 
 fuperior in number to thofe who conftitute the Prefbytery 
 from which a reference is made to them. Thefs circum- 
 iiances muft be determined from the particular pleafure 
 and fituation of thofe churches which agree in government, 
 and can be more eafily arranged in modern times than 
 among ancient believers. Though then it could not be 
 proved that there was a Synod at Jerufalem correfponding 
 in all refpetls to a modern Synod, it will by no means, 
 as Independents have often afferted, enervate the argu- 
 ment. The grand point to be afcertained is fimply this, 
 Were the minifters and church of Antioch fubordinate, 
 in this reference, to the authoritative review of a ntimber 
 of other minifters convened at Jerufalem as minifters of 
 Chrift, though the affembly fhould have refembled ftridly 
 neither a Prefbytery, nor Synod, nor any fuch affociation ? 
 If this can be eftabliftied, all the other arrangements will 
 neceffarily follow, and nothing more is requifite to 
 demonftrate their propriety *. 
 
 * " The pofitive precepts of fcripture," faid a very diftinguiOied 
 charafter, when fpeaking on the lubje^t of church-government, 
 " are fo expreffed as to comprehend every pofliblc cafe which can 
 " occur in the fubje£t to which they relate ; and, in referring to 
 ** them, there can never be a deficiency either of direction or 
 c« authority. But when we refer to fcriptural examples for the 
 « authority of modern praftice, we mufl not forget that an example 
 ♦* could not go beyond the circumftances of the particular cafe in 
 
Letter XVII. 293 
 
 We are exprefsly told, that the church at Antioch 
 referred the matter, for final declfion, to the affembly 
 convened at Jerufalem, and that by this decifion they 
 determined to abide. The members of this court, as vva? 
 before proved, appear to have been office-bearers alone ; 
 and even the Inthren, who are joined with the apoflles 
 and elders in the letter which was written by this 
 affembly, feem to have been of this dcfcription ; and 
 were either prophets and evangelifls, or other minifters, 
 who were at that time at Jerufalem. The other mem- 
 bers, befides thefe brethren, were the common elders of 
 the congregations in Jerufalem, and the apoftles, who, 
 even as uninfpired teachers, were univerfal pallors and 
 
 *' which it occuvredj although by fair inference or analog)' it may 
 
 " authorize many things which that cafe did not require or admit 
 
 " of. The application of the church at Antioch to what has 
 
 *' been called the council of Jerurakm, is an example and authority 
 
 " for a reference from an inferior to a fuperior court. The 
 
 " example could in this point go no farther from the nature of 
 
 " the cafe. But its authority goes far beyond it. It is quite 
 
 " fufficient to authorize an appeal or a complaint (as well as a 
 
 " reference) from an inferior court to a fuperior, and every other 
 
 " jurifdi<ftion of the fuperior which the circumflances require. 
 
 *' It authorizes not merely the fubordination of one inferior to 
 
 " one fuperior court, which is all th»t the example mentions, 
 
 " but fuch a gradation of court-jurlfdiif^ion as the circum fiances 
 
 " of the church of Chrift, in different fituations, render expedient. 
 
 " This is but one illuftration — but the idea may be iiluftrated by 
 
 *' a multitude of fimilar cafes, and fhews the abfurdity of the 
 
 " condu(n; of Independents, who, while they neglect or explain 
 
 " a-^'ay a great part of the praifice which is clearly found in the 
 
 " Bible, aifcd to fix down the pra£iice of modern times to the 
 
 *' precile letter of the exatuples they choofe to refer to, though 
 
 '' ever To contrary to their true fphit and def.gr. Every pin cf 
 
 " Prefbytery could not poflibly be found in any fcripture-exarnple, 
 
 " although the general fyflem is not only explicitly but clearly 
 
 «* authorized by the praOice of the primitive church as far as the 
 
 *^ csfes occurred." 
 
 Bb3 
 
294 Letter XVII. 
 
 xninifters to all the churches in the world. Here then 
 is one fa6l which appears to be afcertained, that there 
 was a reference from the minifters and members at An- 
 tioch to another court at Jerufalem, which was not 
 only competent completely to decide on the queftion 
 referred, but whtch^ even as uninfpired, pofTeiTed the high 
 authority of a general council, which could give univcr- 
 fality to its decrees, and compofed, as far as is recorded, 
 of none but office-bearers. 
 
 But admitting that there was a reference here to 
 another court, confiding of ecclefiailical office-bearers 
 only, what was the degree of power which they exer- 
 cifed ? Did they communicate an advice only to the 
 minifters at Antioch ? or did they deliver a fubordinately 
 authoritative decifion ? That the latter, and not the 
 former, was the degree of power which they are faid to 
 have exercifed, appears, agreeably to our Second pofition, 
 to be very clearly manifeil from the following con- 
 fiderations. 
 
 The decifion which they delivered, as was before 
 ftated, is called a decree, A6^s xvi. 4. ; and the word 
 ^c^^iAy there rendered decree, in the only other four in- 
 ilances where It occurs in the New Teftament, denotes, 
 not merely an advice or opinion, but a law, or highly- 
 authoritative injun6tion. Thus, in Luke ii. i. and A(Els 
 xvli. 7. it fignifies the decrees of the Roman emperor, 
 which certainly were more than fimple advices ; and in 
 Eph. ii. 15. and Col. ii. 14. the ordinances or com- 
 inandments of the ceremonial law, which certainly were 
 more than admonitions. It is ufed alfo by the Seventy, 
 in their tranflation of Dan. ii. 13. iii. 10. 29. and 
 iv. 6. to exprefs the decrees or mandates of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, and Dan. vi. 8, 9. 12. 15. 26. the imperial 
 decrees of Darius, as well as in two of the verfes of that 
 chapter, to fignify the laws of the Medes and Perfians, 
 which altered not. Nor does the verb ^oy^oitfy^ in 
 
Letter XVII. 295 
 
 Col. ii. 20. the only Inftance produced by Independents 
 in fupport of their opinion, feem to denote fubjcftion 
 merely to doftrine or inftrudlion, but, as our tranflators 
 have rendered it, to ordinances or commandments. The 
 things, for their undue fubjedlion to which Paul -eproves 
 the Colollians, are called in ver. 22. the commandments 
 of men, evrx^^f^xrcCf by which we are unqucftionably 
 to underlland the ceremonial precepts of the Mofaic 
 law, which were originally binding as the command- 
 ments of God, but at that time were obligatory, upon 
 thofe who chofe to obey them, only as the command- 
 ments of men *. 
 
 Not only however is the decifion of the apoftles and 
 elders called a decree, but we are informed, A6ts xvii. 4. 
 it was ordained by them, «sx^<«.sy<5v, a word which, when 
 applied to an alTembly, and added to the former, imports 
 the moll decided exercife of authority. It is employed, 
 for inftance, by the Seventy, in their verfion of Efther 
 li. 1. to exprefs the judgment of a Perfian council againil 
 Queen Vafhti, when they decreed that flie fliould be de- 
 graded from her regal fituation ; and the word a-vyx^i^icc, 
 which is derived from it, is ufed, in their tranfiation of 
 Dan. iv. 17. 24. ijfc. to figni^y a decree. And in A&ls 
 xxiv. 6. it denotes the authority of the JewiHi fanhedrin, 
 or council of the elders, v*'hich Tertullus declares was 
 ready to have proceeded to pronounce judgment upon 
 Paul — as in A6ls xiii. 27. it exprelTes the authority of' 
 
 * Accordingly ^oyfcxril^is-ds, in Col. ii. 20. is explained, in the 
 very ancient Syriac verfion, by a word which is equivalent to 
 judicamini — " Are ye judged by thefe commandments ?" by Eraf- 
 mus and Bullinger, " Decretis ienemini — Are ye bound by thefs 
 " decrees of men ?" by Gualther, Stephanus, and Beza, " Ritibus 
 " oneramini — Are ye loaded with thefe rites or obfervances ?" and 
 by Budaeus, Leigh, Parkhurft, Wetftein, and Kypke, " Have ye 
 *' thefe decrees or ordinances impofed upon you ? or, Are you fubje<fl 
 " to thefe ordinances ?" 
 
296 Letter XVir. 
 
 this very court, when they tried and condemned the 
 bleffed Saviour. I do not indeed recoiled a fingle in- 
 ftance where it is not to be fo underilood, when applied 
 to an afiembly of judges or rulers. 
 
 The condudl, moreover, of the apoilles and elders, on 
 this occafion, is exprefTed by their laying what appeared 
 to them a necejary burden on the church of Antioch, 
 than which words, I apprehend, few can be conceived 
 more ftrongly defcriptive of the exercife of authority. 
 Nor is it of any importance to obje£l that the verfe 
 fhould be rendered, *' It fcemed good to the Holy 
 ♦* Ghoft, and to us, that no burden fhall henceforth be 
 <* laid upon you but thefe neceflary things," and to afTcrt 
 that this burden is the fame thing with the yole mention- 
 ed, ver. 10. for fliil, as Mr. Evving allows, p. 74. 75. it 
 implies that a burden was laid on them. When we are 
 told, Matth. xxiii. 4. that the Pharifaic Rabbis bound 
 heavy burdens upon the flioulders of men, do we not 
 perceive fomething more than mere inftruftion or admo- 
 nition defigned, and that they delivered them as their 
 zvTuX^ciTu, or commandments, Matth. xv. 9. which all 
 were to obey who wlfhed to be confidered as of their 
 feft ? In fine, this decree, ordaining nece^ary things or 
 burdens, we are informed, ver. 28. (eemed good to them, 
 as well as to the Holy Ghoft : " It feemed good to the 
 '* Holy Ghoft, and," as it is in the Arabic verfion, ** it 
 ** feemed good to us." And that this denotes ajudicial 
 decifion feems manifeft, not only from what has been 
 already ftated, but from the import of this phrafe, when 
 applied to the deciilon of an afiembly of rulers. Thus 
 Jofephus (Antiq. book iv. chap, viii.), fpeaking of a de- 
 cree of their great fanhedrin, difobedience to which was 
 punilhed by death, reprefents it as ro ^okow ; i, e. " what 
 ** feemed good to them." Thus too Demofthenes, as 
 quoted by Stephanas, h'^o^c^c&t rn ^ov>^y„ *' it is decreed 
 <« by the fenate 5" and Plato, as cited by Budseus, 
 
Letter XVII. 297 
 
 ^i^cicTut ^i.6t Kci&ccviiVf " it is certainly appointed for me to 
 " die." Whether then we confider thefe exprefiions 
 feparately, or attend to them as united, nothing feems 
 plainer than that the decifion which was given by this 
 aflembly at Jcrufalem was not merely an advice or a 
 declaration, whether they had commifiioned thcfe here- 
 tical teachers who had come down to Antioch to publifli 
 their errors, or whether what was taught by them was 
 agreeable to the dofhrine of repentance unto life, but an 
 authoritative determination, to which the church at 
 Antioch was bound moll cheerfully to fubmit in the 
 Lord. 
 
 Still however, though this was an authoritative deter- 
 mination, are we certain that they were not dire^ed in 
 it by a miraculous influence ? That this was the cafe is 
 alTerted by Mr. Glafs, in his Letters to Ayton, where 
 he fays, that " the apoflles afted in this council as 
 *' apodles, and were guided by an extraordinary mira- 
 " culous influence." Mr. Ewing alfo fays, that the 
 reference was made to the apoilles, as infpired ; that the 
 elders too, who were joined with them, were probably 
 infpired ; that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were 
 very generally enjoyed in the church at Jerufalem ; and 
 that when the minifters of this court pronounced thefe 
 words, " it feemed good to the Holy Ghoft, and to us," 
 they fpokc them unqueftionably as infallible men. And 
 you avow this to be your own opinion, and endeavour to 
 defend it by a variety of arguments. Let us then inquire, 
 Thirdly f Whether they were direfted by this influence in 
 the cafe before us, or were left to the exercife of their own 
 wifdom and fagacity ? 
 
 That the apodles were not uniformly directed by a 
 miraculous influence I think you muil grant, if you re- 
 fleft for a moment on what is recorded in the gofpel- 
 hiftory. Many of their adions, as was formerly noticed. 
 
298 Letter XVII. 
 
 fuch as the ordination of deacons, the difpenfation of the 
 facraments, the preaching of the word, and, in many in- 
 ilances, the government of the church, did not require 
 fuch a preternatural influence, for they were performed 
 by men who were not infpired, and are ftill perfotmed 
 by men who have no miraculous influence, either of fug- 
 geftioii or of fuperintendence. To prove that what was 
 done in this afiembly was the did\ate of infpiration, it is 
 not fufficient to fay that it was done partly by apoftles, 
 fince even they were not always miraculoufly guided, 
 but were left, with the common minillers of the church 
 in every age, to their own wifdom and refle6^ion, and the 
 iifual aids of the divine Spirit. You muft produce fome- 
 thing either from the fubjeft of reference which was fub- 
 mitted to their invefl:igationj or from their mode of 
 procedure, or from their exprefs declaration, or from the 
 fubfequent teilimony of the facred hiftorian, before your 
 hypothefis can be admitted. But from none of thefe, I 
 apprehend, can this deduction be made, while, on the 
 contrary, it feems probable, from a number of clrcum- 
 flances, that, in the whole of this bufinef?, they aded 
 only as common minifters. 
 
 In the I ft place, Paul and Barnabas, at the original 
 difcuffion at Antioch, adiled not in the high chara6ler 
 of apoftles, but only of ordinary minifters. Had not 
 this been the cafe, they could never have fubmitted to the 
 T«|<? or appointment of the church at Antioch to go up 
 to Jerufalem (Ads xv. 2.), for as an apoftle, Paul was 
 far fuperior to them all, as Barnabas was to many of them, 
 and could never have been authoritatively appointed by 
 them. But had thefe minifters, when they delivered the 
 very fame opinion, as to the mind of the Spirit, which 
 was afterwards affirmed in the council at Jerufalem, a6led 
 as infpired, or as direfted by a miraculous fuperintending 
 energy, can we fuppofe for a moment, that, in fupporting 
 their pretenfions, they would refign the extraordinary 
 
Letter XVII. 299 
 
 cliara(!ler which they affumed, and fubmit to a common 
 decifion of the office-bearers, appointing them to go up 
 as commlflioners to Jerufalem for the decifion of the caufe ? 
 What right had the minifters, or members, at Antioch 
 to ordain thefe extraordinary minifters of Chrift, who, 
 infpired, or miraculoufly direded by his Spirit, had 
 made known to them a part of his will, to go up to 
 Jerufalem to afcertain whether the dodrine which they 
 taught was true, and whether it correfponded with that 
 of the other apoftles, or to obtain any determination fix)m 
 thefe minifters on that fubjedl ? If Paul and Barnabas 
 however, though extraordinary minifters, at the begin- 
 ning of this bufmefs, did not adl as extraordinary, but as 
 ordinary minifters, this is one point at leaft, in which 
 their pre-eminent charafter was laid afide; and it muft 
 require very ftrong evidence to convince us, that when 
 the reft of the apoftles met at Jerufalem, and delivered 
 precifely the 'very fame determination, they aded in a 
 charadler in any degree fuperior. 
 
 2dly, If this queftion was to be determined by infpi- 
 ration, it was unneceflary to have gone to Jerufalem for 
 the decifion. Paul certainly, as well as the other in- 
 fpired minifters, was as able to have delivered fuch a 
 decifion as the apoftles at Jerufalem ; and unqueftionably 
 if evidence had been prefented to the minifters of the 
 church of Antioch, that the Holy Ghoft, in a fuper- 
 natural manner, had fettled the matter, by communi- 
 cating to them his will through a fingle minifter, it muft 
 have been as decifive as if he had fpoken to them by 
 twelve. Is it faid, that the Judaizing teachers at An- 
 tioch might have reprefentcd the other apoftles at Jeru- 
 falem as of a different mind from Paul and Barnabas I 
 It is replied, that not a fingje hint of this is mentioned 
 in the whole of the narrative, a'circumftance which is 
 farprifing, if that was the ground of the reference. Be- 
 fides, the miracles which were performed by Paul as an 
 
300 Letter XVII. 
 
 extraordinary minifter, when, in this as well as other 
 parts of the do<flrine which he delivered, he laid claim to 
 the charadler of an infallible teacher (Gal. iii. 3.), mull 
 have completely filenced fuch an objeftion, and fatisfied 
 the minds of the Chrlillans at Antioch. Certainly it 
 mull have occurred to the brethren in that city, that the 
 Holy Ghoft could not contradid himfelf, and that he 
 would not enable Paiil to perform amongft them the fame 
 ftriking miracles In atteftation of his doftrine, on the 
 point in queftion, which he did at Galatia for that very 
 purpofe, if the fentiments of this minifter had been con- 
 trary to thofe of the other infpired teachers. Since, then, 
 had an infpired decifion been wanted by the office-bearers 
 and brethren at Antioch, Paul was as competent to have 
 delivered it as the whole of the apoflles, and fmce the 
 evidence which he could produce, in confirmation of his 
 decifion, was as ftrong as theirs, nay, completely demon- 
 flrated that his mind, upon this fubjeft, was the fame 
 with theirs, it feems plain that the determination which 
 they wiflied, upon this occafion, muft have been of a 
 different defcription. Paul and Barnabas, it would 
 appear, a<5led only as ordinary minifters, and, in the dif- 
 cuflion which firft of all took place at Antioch, ftated 
 what appeared to them to be the mind of God from an 
 examination of the fcriptures, while the Pharifaic teachers, 
 on the contrary, who made very high pretenfions to a 
 knowledge of the Old Teftament, obflinately defended 
 an oppofite opinion. As the veneration which was dill 
 paid to the latter for their knowledge of the law, even 
 by the converted Jews, was extreme, and as Paul and 
 they could not agree, it was refolved that the matter 
 fhould be referred to the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem, 
 By their determination of the fenfe of the law, upon 
 this interefting topic, both parties were to be regu- 
 lated ; and, in afcertaining its fenfe, it feems plain 
 that it was not expeded that they (hould be guided 
 
Letter XVIL ^ 301 
 
 by infpiration, for had infplration been wanted by them 
 to fettle the queilion, or had Paul laid claim to it 
 when he delivered his opinion, and confirmed his pre- 
 tenfions to it by undeniable miracles, it is obvious 
 that no reference could have been made to Jerufalem. 
 The Spirit which performed miracles by Paul, in attefta- 
 tion of his opinion, could not oppofe the Spirit who 
 dwelt in the apoftles ; and confequently it mull have 
 been utterly improper, as well as unneceffary, to have 
 fent to Jerufalem to fee whether Paul's fentiments ac- 
 corded with theirs, or whether the apoftles had commif- 
 fioned thefe men from Judea to teach the doArine which 
 Paul condemned, or for any purpofe that Independents 
 have fpecified. 
 
 In the 3d place, The perfons to whom this reference 
 was made, were not only apoftles but ordinary elders. 
 When Paul and Barnabas (Ads xv. 2.) had had no fmall 
 dlfTenfion and difputation with the falfe teachers at An- 
 tioch, the rulers of that church determined that thefe 
 minifters ftiould go up to Jerufalem, to the apoftles and 
 elders, about this queftion. If then, as is plain, the term 
 elder is employed in fcrlpture to reprefent only ordinary 
 minifters of Chrift, or extraordinary minifters in their 
 ordinary capacity^ and if the reference, in this cafe, was 
 made to thefe minifters equally with the apoftles ; if they 
 met officially " to confidsr of the matter''^ (ver. 6.) — claim 
 authoritali've fuperiority to the falfe teachers, and declare 
 that they were entitled to teach nothing but what they 
 commanded ihtm (ver. 24.) — decide on the queftion, and 
 fay that it feemed good to themy as well as to the apoftles 
 and the Spirit, to lay upon the brethren at Antioch 
 neceflary burdens (ver. 28.) ; and if the decifion which 
 was made be called their decrees^ as well as the decrees 
 of the apoftles (chap. xvi. 4.); It feems neceflarily to 
 follow, that the apoftles, as well, as elders, muft have 
 aded here only as ordinary minifters. Had not this been 
 Cc 
 
302 Letter XVII. 
 
 the cafe, it was impofllble for the elders to he judges at all. 
 The apoflles alone being extraordinary rulers, and pof- 
 feffed of miraculous influence, elders could have fubmitted 
 only, and not judged; for men who were uninfpired could 
 certainly not add, by their councils or opinions, to the 
 dictates of infpiratlon, and much lefs could they be 
 requifite to prevent it from erring : confequently, fincc 
 they, as well as the apoftles, are faid to be referred to 
 as judges, and to have difcharged this duty, the apoftles 
 muft have afted, on this occafion, only as ordinary 
 minifters. 
 
 Mr. Ewing indeed affirms, p. 19. that the elders 
 fpecified, were probably endowed with the extraordinary 
 gifts of the Holy Ghoft. This however is a gratuitous 
 affertion, for no part of the facred hiftory fupports it. 
 Befides, though it were admitted that fome of the ordinary 
 minifters, as well as the members, of many primitive 
 churches were pofleffed of thefe gifts, it cannot be 
 demonftrated that it was the unlverfal attainment of all 
 the common paftors of this, or any of thefe primitive 
 churches *, while, on the contrary, it can be evinced that 
 the term elder is applied ufually in fcripture to officers 
 who have no fuch miraculous endowments, nor extraordi- 
 nary charafter. Is it alleged, moreover, as Mr. Ewing 
 does, that the melTage from Antioch was intended to 
 afcertain not merely a point of doflrine, but alfo a point 
 of faft — not merely whether Gentile believers muft be 
 circumcifed, but whether the men from Judea had been 
 fent by thefe minifters at Jerufalem to teach the brethren 
 at Antioch to this efFedl ? It is anfwered, that it is 
 obvious from the facred narrative, as has been already 
 proved, that the elders, not lefs than the apoftles, were 
 
 * If there were only fix elders, or even one elder, in this 
 alTembly, who was not infpir^d, and yet was allowed to judge, all 
 the reft muft have a<fted only as ordinary minifters, otherwife he 
 could not have judged, but could only have fubmitted. 
 
Letter XVII. 303 
 
 dire6lly applied to, to decide the controverfy or queftion, 
 
 as well as to afcertain the fa£t (if an application for the 
 latter purpofe was made at all); that they equally came 
 together to confider of the matter — and this certainly could 
 not be the matter of faft, for of that there could be no 
 doubt ; that they both authoritatively, not merely afcer- 
 talned a faft, but laid neceffary burden?, or things, upon 
 the church at Antioch ; and that the decrees which 
 they pafTed, not unqueftlonably about a fad, but about 
 the queftion referred, are denominated the decrees of 
 both. Or is it affirmed again with that writer, that it 
 is not wonderful that the brethren at Antioch (hould 
 have joined the apoftles and elders together in their 
 meflage, when the apoftles fometimes clafs themfelves in 
 the fanae manner*, and, on this occafion, take along 
 with them not only the elders, but the whole church, in 
 their reply ? We obferve, that it is yet to be demon- 
 ftrated that the whole of the common members of the 
 church, as well as the elders, were Included by them in 
 their reply ; and that the contrary has at leaft been 
 attempted to be eftabliftied. — And as when Peter denomi- 
 nates himfelf, in the paffage here cited, an elder or pref- 
 byter, he fpeaks of himfelf only as a common ruler, fo, 
 in this light, I contend that he, as well as his fellow- 
 apoftles, are to be viewed in this meeting at Jerufalem. 
 Befides, even If this term, when applied to that apoftle, 
 was defcriptlve of him as an extraordinary minifter of 
 Chrift, it is plain that when it is beftowed upon ordinary 
 minifters, as In the cafe before us, it muft be underftobd 
 in a completely different fenfe. And though Paul joins 
 with himfelf others who were not apoftles, in the faluta- 
 tions and benedldions which he delivers in his Epiftles 
 to feveral Chriftian churches, he never fays of himfelf 
 and thefe inferior minifters, It feemed good to us, and 
 
 * See I Peter V. i. 
 C C 2 
 
304 Letter XVII. 
 
 the Holy Ghofl, to lay upon you neceffary burdens ; 
 and never, as was before noticed, are his Epiftles to thefe 
 churches called, like thefe decrees, the Epiftles of Paul 
 and Timothy, or Paul and Silvanus. Thefe were pre- 
 rogatives to which none of the companions of Paul were 
 admitted, but prerogatives which are afcribed, in the 
 prefent cafe, to the elders as well as apoftles ; and con- 
 fequently this circumftance, in the view of every candid 
 and unprejudiced mind, muft mark an equality of power, 
 as having been exercifed by them in the inftance be- 
 fore us. 
 
 Farther, is It maintained with Glafs *, that when 
 *< we read of the apoftles, and elders, and brethren, 
 ** afting in this matter, we muft underft;and that every 
 " one of them did the part that was proper to them? 
 *' that the apoftles brought forth and infallibly declared 
 ** the mind and will of the Lord Chrift upon this 
 ** fubjeft ; that the prefidents or elders of the church 
 ** in Jerufalem went before the brethren as enfamples of 
 ** JuhjeBion unto the revelation of the mind and will of 
 ** the Lord by the apoftles, and were their leaders in 
 ** this matter ; and that the brethren obeyed 2Si^ fulmitted 
 *' themfehes to their prefidents and guides, who agreed 
 *< in judging according to the mind and will of Chrift: 
 " brought forth by the apoftles ?" The fame objedions 
 feem to prefent themfelves to this, as to the preceding 
 explanations. On this fuppofition, it is evident that the 
 elders did not judge, with regard to the point of con- 
 troverfy, any more than the common members at Jerufa- 
 lem, or even than the members at Ant'toch ; that all that 
 they did, was merely, like the brethren in Antioch and 
 Jerufalem, to fubmit to the deciiion of the apoftles; and 
 that the latter were the only arbiters in the bufinefs. 
 But how can this be reconciled with what has been 
 
 * See his Second Letter to Ayton. 
 
Letter XVII. 305 
 
 already ftated, that the elders, as well as apoftles, met 
 officially " to coufider of the matter ?" Since thea 
 the bufiuefs was referred to and determined by the 
 elders as well as apoftles, both of them mull have 
 aded only as ordinary rulers, for had any of them 
 been diredled as extraordinary minifters by a miraculous 
 influence of fuggcftion or fuperintendence, the reft, as 
 Glafs very honellly confefTes, could only have fubmitted, 
 and could not have been allowed to judge at all. 
 
 Laftly, The manner of procedure, in this court, does 
 not indicate that they adled as extraordinary minifters, 
 or were dirc^cfled by a fupernatural influence from God. 
 We are told by Luke, A6ls xv. 7. that, in the begin- 
 ning of their confultation, " there was much dijput'ing 
 *' amongft them." But furely thofe perfons, whofe de- 
 cifioii was not pafled till after much difputation, could 
 not all have been infpired, or do not, at leaft during the 
 whoh of their meeting, appear to have been guided by 
 a miraculoub influence. *' Here, however, it may be 
 " remarked," fay you, p. 42. *' that the expreffion 
 " «5-j^>iTi3ff-/$ feems by no means neceflarily to imply oppo- 
 *' fition of fentiment, but limply mutual dlfcuffion or 
 *' inquiry. It is indeed the fame word rendered difputa- 
 ** i'lon^ ver. 2. but there it is connefted with another 
 ** (ri45-;?), traniJated diiTenfion, which, from its ufe in 
 *' other paffages, clearly indicates the moft decided oppcfi- 
 ** tion of fentiment. This is apparent from its being ufed, 
 ** chap xxiii. 7. 10. to denote^the diflenfion that took 
 " place between the Pharifees and Sadducees. It would 
 *' rather argue a tautology in the facred writer, if, in 
 " ver. 2. of this chapter, he employs two words to exprefs 
 ** precifely the fame idea." It by no means however 
 appears a tautology to render (rvZ:firr,7i,q " difputation," 
 in the 2d verfe ; for the word s-<«cr<5, tranflated " dif- 
 *' feniion," may denote the oppofition of fentiment 
 that was between them, and o-«f>]TJ3C"<j, the difputation 
 Cc 3 
 
$06 Letter XVII. 
 
 which enfued in confequence of that diflenfion or contra- 
 riety of fentiment. Befides, we know that the verb 
 from which it comes, is ufed in A6:s vi. 9. to exprefs the 
 d'tfputation which took place between Stephen and the 
 Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians; and in A(^s 
 ix. 29. the difputation of Saul againft the Grecians ; 
 and a kindred-noun is employed by Paul, 1 Cor. i. 20. 
 to fignify the difputer of this world. That this is the 
 fenfe in which a-v^v^rna-ii muft be underftood in the 7th 
 verfe^ feems evident from this, that it is faid that after 
 there had been much crv^Y^rv)Ti?f Peter rofe, and faid, " Why 
 ** tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the 
 ** difciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to 
 ** bear i" Had there been only however, as you exprefs 
 it, *' muiua! inquiry on this fubjeft," how could he repro- 
 bate what had been already faid by them, as approaching 
 almoft to a tempting of God? Is inquiry^ which is a duty 
 when lawfully profecuted, to be branded vi'whfuch a name ? 
 And fince the condu£l of part at leaft of the prefent 
 afiembly (whether they fimply inquired^ as you contend that 
 the word fiiould be rendered, or keenly difputed, as others 
 maintain) is diftinguifhed by this name, as far as the 
 bufinefs had already proceeded, is this confident, I would 
 ajfli you, with the fuppofition, that they were either guided 
 by an infallible energy, or by miraculous fuggeftion ? 
 
 " But waving your remark," fay you, p. 43. " and 
 ** admitting that there was really a debate in the church 
 «* on this occafion. Dr. J)oddridge*s Note on the paf- 
 ** fage feems extremely juft. This difpute," he ob- 
 ferves, " does not appear to have been among the apoftles 
 ** themfelves." — But how this obfervation, which ap- 
 pears to you fo juft, can be confidered as admiffible, I 
 do not fee. We are exprefsly told, ver. 6. after what 
 had been mentioned of the diflenfions which had taken 
 place upon this fubjed at Antioch, and probably at 
 Jerufalem, that the apoftles and elders came together to 
 
Letter XVII. 307 
 
 conjider the matter. Now, fince this is dated in the 
 very vcrfe which goes before, it would naturally, I 
 think, occur to any unprejudiced mind, that the much 
 difputing, mentioned in the next verfe, muft have 
 happened only among the apoilles and elders, who had 
 come together to confider the matter. To none but them 
 was the bufmefs referred ; and as none but they are here 
 reprefented to have alTembled to deliberate about it, 
 on what principle can it be proved, either from the 
 authority of Dr. Doddridge, or of any other writer, that 
 any but the apoftles and elders difputed ? And if they 
 had not only difputation, but much cl'ifputai'ioriy before 
 they were even prepared to attend to the propofal 
 which was made to them by Ptter, is it probable that 
 the affcmbly, during the 'whole of the dircuflion, was 
 either fupernaturally infpirtd, or miraculoufly fuperin- 
 tended by iht fame /acred Spirit ? If this was the cafe, 
 that Spirit, who is the author o^ order and not of con- 
 fufion, of unity and not of difcord, muft as yet at leall 
 have ftimulated the whole of this great afiembly, yvho 
 were all infpired, or condu(i^cd by his influence, to 
 mutual controverfy and mutual diflenfion. 
 
 But if much difputation prevailed in this aflembly before 
 they were addreffed by Peter and James, what method 
 was adopted by thefe apoftles to bring them to un- 
 animity, and to lead them to the decifioa which they 
 at laft pafled ? Did they lay claim to any extraordi- 
 nary infpiration of the Spirit, to bend the minds of 
 the dlflentient brethren ? or is it any where declared, 
 that the Spirit, after this, defcended, and difpofed them 
 to make an enlightened and harmonious determination ? 
 No, afTuredly. None of thefe claims was made by Peter 
 or his fellow-apoftles, and no fuch extraordinary infpiring 
 influence is even, in the mojl dijiant manner^ affirmed to 
 have been communicated after this to any, or all of them. 
 We are merely told, that Peter reafoned with them, to 
 
3o3 Letter XVII. 
 
 prove that the Gentllea needed not to be circumci'fed in 
 order to falvation, as any Chriftian miniiler might now 
 do, from fads which were obvious and notorious to all. 
 He Informs them, that they all knew that a good while 
 ago (alluding to the convevfion of Cornelius), God made 
 choice among them, that the Gentiles by his mouth 
 {hould hear the word of the gofpel ; and that God, who 
 knoweth the hearts, bare them witnefs, bellowing upon 
 them the Holy Ghoft, in his miraculous gifts and faving 
 benefits, even as he did to them j and put no difference 
 betVveen the one and the other, purifying their hearts by- 
 faith. After this it is faid, that, in confirmation of the 
 fame truth, Barnabas and Paul declared what miracles 
 and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by 
 them : and then it is mentioned, that, to ellablilh the 
 fame dodlrine, James quoted a pafiage from the prophet 
 Amos, as explicitly fupporting the fentim^nts of his 
 brethren. But what is there in this v/hich beipeaks 
 infpiration ? Was It impoflible for them to deduce fuch 
 conclufions from tliefe miracles, thefe fa(5ls, and thefe 
 prophecies, without being infpired, or directed by a 
 miraculous Influence ? If fo, how can fimilar conclufions 
 be now made on other fubjeds, and with perfeft accuracy, 
 by men who are neither fo infpired nor direded ? If 
 however, on the contrary, as appears to be inconteilable, 
 all this might have been done by them then, as well as 
 by minifters now, without the infpiration of fuggeftion 
 or fuperintendence, and If neither they themfclvcs, nor 
 the facred hiftorlan, claim for them either of thefe kinds 
 of infpiration, on what principle can It confiftently be 
 maintained that they were, at this time, conduced by this 
 miraculous energy ? 
 
 Is It objeded further with Glafs *, that it cannot be 
 deraonftratcd that the apoftles and other minifters were 
 
 * See his Second Letter to Ayton. 
 
Letter XVII. 
 
 309 
 
 not infpired, from their eftabllfhing their opinion by 
 reafoning from miracles and ancient prophecies, becaufe 
 the fame thing is done in all the infpired Epiftles, which 
 yet were written by an infallible influence ? It is an- 
 fwered, that if the mere circumftance of their reafoning 
 does not appear of itfelf to prove that they were not in- 
 fpired, it is at leaft a prefumptive argument againft it, 
 unlefs their infpiration could be evinced from other con- 
 fiderations ; and when viewed together with the circum- 
 flances which attended their reafoning, it feems to be 
 completely decifive. Befides, there is a mofli ftriking 
 difference between the reafonings of the apoftles in their 
 infpired Epillles, and in the cafe in queftion. Before 
 they wrote their Epiftles, they were fully fatisfied of the 
 mind of Chrift as to the point of which they were to 
 fpeak, and all the reafoning which they employ in them, 
 under his direftion, is fimply to recommend it to their 
 fellow-men. But here they affemble to afccrtain his 
 mind about a point as to which they were yet uncertain, 
 and before they determine on it, fo as to announce it to 
 others, have much difputatioQ and reafoning refpefting 
 it among themfelves. It is evident therefore that the 
 objection is not in point, and that before any thing can 
 be deduced from it, a cafe muil be produced in which a 
 number of apoftles and ordinary minifters met under ex- 
 traordinary fuperintending influence to write an infpired 
 Epiftle, and before they determined upon what they fliould 
 fay, had much difputation and difcuflion am.ong themfelves. 
 But this Mr. Glafs never attempted to produce, and no 
 Independent has ever been able to bring forward. 
 
 Or is it alleged with Doddridge, as quoted by you, 
 p. 43. " That if the apoftles really had debated the 
 *' cafe awhile, their decifion at laft might have been 
 " under an unerring direftion : and that there appears 
 " to be no reafon to conclude that their infpira- 
 «< tiou was always fo inftantaneous and ejrprefs, as to 
 
310 Letter XVII. 
 
 " fuperfede any deliberation of their own minds, or any 
 ** confultation with each other ?" It is here conceded, 
 that when the apoftles and elders firft met, they were 
 not under an infallible miraculous influence ; and if they 
 were not under that influence when they firft convened, 
 it will be difficult to afcertain, from the facred hiftory, 
 when the afflatus or guidance began. It is alfo to be re- 
 collefted, that if this afTembly met and reafoned fo long 
 as to the mind of the Spirit, and yet were infpired from 
 the period that they convened, or at lafl obtained this 
 fupernatural influence after much d'tfputatloni the cafe is 
 fo extraordinary, and fo entirely different from every other 
 inftance of the infpiration of the Spirit recorded either 
 in the Old or New Teilament, that before it can be ad- 
 mitted, very explicit declarations of the fa6l muft be 
 produced. But none of thefe, we believe, can be found 
 by any one who turns his attention to the narrative of 
 JLuke; and all that is mentioned by the Do6lor, and 
 other Independents, is, that it might be the cafe. On the 
 whole, even though it were allowed that the apoftles 
 and elders might eonfult together before the Spirit was 
 pleafed to make known to them his will, I would afl< any 
 man, whether it is probable that he would fuffer them to 
 meet in his name as an infpired afTembly (if they were 
 referred to as fuchj, and not merely advife with each 
 other, but difpute, and even have fo much difputation as 
 that they are adually faid to have been almoft guilty of 
 tempting him ? 
 
 In fine, you obferve, p. 43. that " no one calls 
 *< in queftion the infallibility of this decifion by what- 
 « ever procefs it was formed. This, then," you remark, 
 ** Is enough for our argument. While the apoftles 
 '* were at Jerufalera, while they could give an in- 
 " fallible anfwer to the queftion appealed to them ; 
 *^ while they could afl'uredly fay, Thus it feemed good to 
 
Letter XVII. 311 
 
 ** the Holy GhoJ, and quote miracles in fupport of the 
 " aiTertion ; then the church at Jerufalem was in a ftatc 
 ** totally peculiar, and an appeal to it, in fuch circum- 
 *' fiances, forms no argument for a fimilar appeal to any 
 " other church." We know afTuredly, from the facred 
 records, that their declilon was jujif but that it was 
 infp'ired, or infallible, is not ftated. It is manlfeft that 
 they did not err in their determination, but that they 
 might not have erred in it, as well as in their debates and 
 reafonings, is not aiferted. Refpefting therefore the 
 poflibility of their erring it is needlefs to debate, and it 
 ought rather to be fatisfadorily proved by Independents, 
 that they could not difcover the truth, on this fubjed, with- 
 out fuch an influence — a point which as yet they have 
 forgotten to demonftrate. Befides, that they were able 
 to quote a miracle in confirmation of their opinion, 
 which was wrought, not during the time of their meeting to 
 determine their judgment, but a confiderable time 
 before, is no proof that they were infpired, or guid- 
 ed by an extraordinary infallible influence to draw 
 from it a certain and jufl conclufion. Any minijler 
 of Chrift, though not an apoftle, nor infpired, nor 
 guided by a fupernatural energy, might certainly have 
 drawn from it the inference which they did ; and we 
 know that miracles, performed in the days of Chrift 
 and his apoftles, can be adduced ly us now, in fupport of 
 many doftrines. Nor was there any thing extra- 
 ordinary, as you would infinuate, in their declaring 
 that their decifion had appeared good to the Holy 
 Ghoft. It evidently refers to its according with his 
 revelation in the 01d-Tefl:ament fcriptures as quoted 
 by James, and with the miracle which he performed 
 upon Cornelius and his houfe, and not to any new and 
 fupernatural communication. But what is there in this 
 which may not now be aflerted by the minifters of Chrift, 
 
312 
 
 Letter XVII. 
 
 as is obferved by the learned and judicious Whitaker *, 
 « if, like this afTembly, they decree and determine no- 
 <* thing but from fcripture, and if they fhall exannine all 
 ** queftions by the fcripture, and fhall follow the voice 
 « of fcripture in all their decrees ?" In fhort, not only 
 do the apoftles and elders fay, that it feemed good to 
 the Holy Ghoft, but that it feemed good alfo to them, 
 an exprefiion which appears to be unaccountable, if 
 they were either under an influence of fuggeftion or 
 fuperintendence. Did any of the ancient prophets ever 
 employ this language, " Thus faith the Lord, and thus 
 «< fay we ?'* And if it was the Holy Ghoft alone who 
 now fpake by the apoftles, and decided the queftion, and 
 if they gave an infallible decree only as his minifters or 
 inftruments, and with a confcioufnefs of his infpiration, 
 how could they reprefent it as feeming good to them 
 diftinft from the Spirit ? Neither, then, from this, nor 
 any other circumftance, has it yet appeared that this 
 affembly was infpired, while, on the contrary, it feems 
 manifeft, from the confiderations which have been men- 
 tioned, that they were left to the guidance of their own 
 prudence and fagacity, and the common influences of 
 the facred Spirit. 
 
 LETTER XVIII. 
 
 SIR, 
 X H E fifteenth of the Afls once appeared to you a 
 ilrong hold, in which you could fit in fafety and fub- 
 fcribe yourfelf a Prefbyterian, but you have been induced, 
 it feems, to capitulate to Independents, becaufe you 
 have been led to perceive that the cafe which it records 
 was extraordinary, and affords no precedent for courts 
 
 See his Controv. iii, Quseft. 
 
Letter XVIII. 313 
 
 of review. Your reafons for adopting fuch a conclufioa 
 were the following. 
 
 I ft, You obferve, p. 38. that the members at Jerufalem, 
 as well as the rulers, are reprefented as all uniting in the 
 decifion which was formed on the queftion appealed*; 
 and, in like manner, when that decifion was tranfmitted 
 to Antioch, it was the multitude (ver. 30.), plainly 
 meaning the church at large, that was gathered together 
 to receive it. " This furely," you add, ** favours much 
 ** more of the Independent, than of the Prefbyterian 
 ** form of government." It is yet however to be proved 
 that the members from Antioch united as judges in this 
 decifion. And though all the members from Antioch had 
 been prefent when the decifion of the aflembly at Jerufa- 
 lem was delivered, all that could be inferred would be 
 merely this, that the people have a right to hear the 
 determinations of a fuperior court. 
 
 2dly, You remark, that " there was fomething more 
 " in this cafe, which made it obviouily very different 
 *' from the Prefbyteries or Synods of modern times. We 
 " have not, in this pafTage, an account of reprefentatives 
 " aflembled in convocation from a variety of different 
 ** churches, where a certain number is effentiaily neceffary 
 " to conftitute what is termed the court : we have 
 " fimply an application from one individual church to 
 " another, refpedling a contefled queftion that occur- 
 " red, and that had been fuggefted by perfons profefTedly 
 " coming from that church to which the application was 
 *' made." On this let it be obferved, that the preceding 
 reafoning was not intended to prove that the affembly at 
 Jerufalem refcmbled either a modern Prefbytery or Synod, 
 but only that it conftituted an ecclefiaftical court Ji/Iinci 
 
 * This certainly can never be confidered as an appeal, but only 
 a reference, for no contrary fentence was given at Antioch, from 
 which any proteft or appeal was made to Jerufalem. 
 
 Dd 
 
314 Letter XVIII. 
 
 from that at Antloch, and to which the latter was fubor- 
 dinate. It is not contended that we find in it the model 
 of either of thefe reprefentative courts, but that it exhi- 
 bits a moil decided evidence of the fubjedlion of one court 
 of ordinary minlfters to the authoritative review and fuper- 
 intendence of another. Since it is adduced, of courfe, only 
 to t^?i\A\^\ the general principle of fubordination to courts 
 fuperlor to an individual congregation, and fince no 
 argument is brought from it for the particular form of 
 Prefbyterian courts, the objedion under confideratioa 
 muft be wholly irrelevant. Befides, it is to be remem- 
 bered that the reference was not from one Chriftian 
 church to another. Though the matter was referred to 
 the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem, it is not fald that it 
 was referred to them as the minlfters 0/ Jerufalem. And, 
 as was before remarked, fince it Is granted by your 
 brethren that more than a fimple advice was given, If 
 it be afiirmed that the minlfters and church of Jerufalem 
 exerclfed an a6l of authoritative power over the church of 
 Antloch, unlefs it can be proved that the former were 
 infpired, confequences will follow from it, fubverfive not 
 merely of Prefbytery, but even of Independency. If 
 none but the minlfters of the church in Jerufalem were 
 applied to, then the minlfters of a parent-congregation 
 may be follclted by another congregation to decide what 
 ihall be taught and praftifed among them, In any cafe 
 of difficulty, where they cannot themfelves agree. But 
 is not this to admit the principle of fubordination to a 
 court fuperlor to the elderftiip of a particular congrega- 
 tion I and is it not better that the court, to which this 
 fubordination Is to be yielded, fhould be compofed of the 
 minlfters of feveral churches than only of one congrega- 
 tion ? And if the members as well as minlfters of the 
 church at Jerufalem judged in the reference from An- 
 tloch, does It not follow, as was before noticed, that one 
 Tabernacle-church may fit in judgment on the affairs of 
 
Letter XVIII. 315 
 
 another ? Ivlight not the church in Glafgow deternaine 
 v/hat fhould be taught in the church at Dundee, and the 
 church at Edinburgh exert an authoritative power over 
 both ? And v/ill not this fubordination of churches una- 
 voidably enfue from your reprefentation, unlefs you can 
 prove that the church at Jerufalem was guided by a 
 miraculous infallible influence, which is not now vouch- 
 fafed to ChriRian congregations ? 
 
 3dly, You affirm, that " the fubjeft of the appeal 
 *' was peculiar. It has indeed," you fay, *' been mat- 
 «' ter of difputc, whether the queftion refpefting the 
 " liberty of Gentiks related to all converts to Chiif- 
 " tianity, or only to thofe who were converted to Chrif- 
 *' tianity from among fuch as were previoufly religious 
 *' profelytes. It is not licrc nccefTary to enter into tliat: 
 " difculTion : it is fufiicient to obferve that whether it 
 *' be underilood to refer to the one or to the other, it 
 " was a qiiellion of very extenfive Importance at that 
 *' time to tlie Chtiftian world ; a queftion of fuch a kind 
 *' too, that no fimilar one can now occur, and which 
 '* only needed once to be decided, eifecSlually to fettle tlie 
 " difpute at every fucceediug period." 
 
 The queftion which was difculTed in this ecclefiaflical 
 court was certainly not of more general or ilriking im- 
 portance than others which have been examined in many 
 modern, uninfpired, ecclefiaftical courts. Will any In- 
 dependent maintain, for Inftance, that the doBrines of 
 grace, which, in the language of the Father of our glo- 
 rious Reformation, are the artlculi Jlantts aut caden- 
 t'ls ecdefide {t, e. the points upon the reception or 
 rejedlion of which the church mufl fland or fall), 
 and which were difcufled fo fully in the Synod of 
 Dort, were not of equal magnitude with the queftion 
 which was confidered at Jerufalem ? It is manifell 
 alfo, as was before (hewn, that the manner in which 
 this queftion was determined by this aftembly, as 
 Dd 2 
 
3i6 Letter XVIII. 
 
 far at leaft as is Rated in fcriptiire, was in no refpeft 
 different from that in which quellions may now be 
 decided in ecclefiaftical courts. May not they too, 
 though not infpired, or miraculoufly guided, examine 
 the fcriptnres, and the extraordinary works performed in 
 the primitive ages oi the church, and by thefe regulate 
 the judgments which they pronounce ? And it feems 
 prefumptuous to affirm that no fimJlar queftion can ever 
 again occur, and that tliis queftion needed only once to 
 be determined, effcdually to fettle and lilence the difpute. 
 It is imp( flible for any one pofitively to fay what dif- 
 ferences of opinion may yet be diicovered refpe6ling the 
 meaning of the facred oracles, and differences which 
 may, as in former times, even upon important points, 
 divide the world. With regard to th's queilion. bcfides, it 
 is worthy of being remarked, that even after its determi- 
 nation by this aiTembly at Jerufalem, it flil! appears to 
 have been agitated in many Chriftian churches. Paul, 
 in his Epiltles to the Corinthians, Philippians, and 
 Theffalonians, written at a much later period, com- 
 bats precifely the very fame errors. Nay, what would 
 have been unneceffary if tliis determination had been 
 infpired, or the opinion of tvTelve had been fuperior 
 to that of one apollle, he never once refers to it as 
 infallible and iinally decifive, but expofes their fallacy by 
 reafoning only. In fine, if there was a queilion here 
 which concerned the world, there was an aflembly con- 
 vened, partly compofed of men who were the rainiilcrs 
 of all the Chriftian churches in the world. And if a 
 General AiTembly, or CEcuraenic Council, judged in a 
 matter of univerfal importance, may not the minifters of 
 a number of different congregations m.eet like them, 
 and judge authoritatively in matters which relate to all 
 thefe congregations ? 
 
 4thly, You allege, that " it feems pretty obvious that 
 *« when Paul fpeaks of going up to Jerufalem by reve- 
 
Letter XVIII. 317 
 
 *' lation, Gal. il. 2. he alludes to the journey he took 
 ** upon this occafion ; and this furnifhes another ilriking 
 " peculiarity in the cafe before us." In confirmation of 
 this affertion, you refer us to a Note of M'Knight on 
 the pafTage. The afTertlon which you here make, 
 amounts to nothing more than a hypothefis, fupport- 
 ed merely by an ingenious conjedure of a refpe6table 
 commentator, which certainly mud be acknowledged to 
 be too feeble a foundation for fo important a dedudion. 
 Something pofitive or explicit ought undoubtedly to be 
 advanced before it can be allowed that this court was 
 infpired. Befides, you are fenfible that fo high an au- 
 thority as that of the celebrated Paley has ventured to 
 call in queilion the hypothefis of M'Kin'ght, and flated 
 to it obje£lions which have never yet been anfwered, 
 and which cannot be overturned by the bare aifertion of 
 Mr. Ewing, " that he does not think them fufficiently 
 *' conclufive." *« It may be doubted," fays he, *' to what 
 *' journey the words which open the fecond chapter of 
 ** the Epiille (that to the Galatians), then fourteen years 
 *' afcencards I iu.'nt up unto yerufuhm^ relate. That 
 ♦^ wliich bcft correfponds with the date, and that to 
 *' which mod interpreters apply the pafTage, is the 
 *' journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerufalem, when 
 *' they went thither from Antioch, upon the bufinefs of 
 " the Gentile converts ; and which journey produced 
 " the famous council and decree recorded in the fifteenth 
 *' chapter of the A6ts. To me this opinion appears to 
 <' be encumbered with llrong objedions. In the Epiftle, 
 " Paul tells us that he went up by reve/ation, chap. if. 
 '• ver. 2. In the Ads, we read that he was fent by the 
 *• church of Antioch, chap. xv. ver. 2. This is noL 
 <' very reconcileable. In the Eplftle, St. Paul writes 
 *« that when he came to Jerufalem, he communicated 
 *' that gofpel v/hlch he preached among the Gentiles, 
 *' but privately, to them which were of reputatioui 
 
3i8 Letter XVIII. 
 
 " chap. ii. ver. 2. If by that gofpel be meant the Im- 
 ** munity of the Gentile Chrillians from the Jewifh law 
 •* (and I know not what elfe it can mean), it is not 
 <* eafy to conceive how he fliould communicate that 
 ■** privately, which was the fubjedl of his pubhc mef- 
 «' fage. But a yet greater difficulty remains, viz. that 
 *« in the account which the Epiftle gives of what paffed 
 ** upon this vifit at Jerufalem, no notice is taken of the 
 ** deliberation and decree which are recorded in the 
 ** Afts, and which, according to that hiftory, formed 
 •* the bufmefs for the fake of which the journey was 
 ** undertaken. The mention of the council and of its 
 ** determination, whilft the apoflle was relating his pro- 
 *' ceedings at Jerufalem, could hardly have been avoided, 
 ** if in truth the narration belong to the fame journey, 
 <* To me it appears much more probable that Paul had 
 ** taken fome journey to Jerufalem, the mention of 
 ** which is omitted in the Ads. Prior to the apoflolic 
 *' decree, we read that Paul and Barnabas abode at 
 ** Antioch a long time with the difciples*. Is it un- 
 *' likely that during this long abode, they might go up 
 ** to Jerufalem and return to Antioch ? Or would the 
 ** omlffion of fuch a journey be unfuitable to the gene- 
 <* ral brevity with which thefe memoirs are written, 
 ** efpecially of thofe parts of St. Paul's hillory which 
 " took place before the hiftorian joined his fociety f ?'* 
 
 But admitting that this mafterly reafoning could be 
 overthrown, and that Paul, when he tells us that he 
 went up by revelation to Jerufalem, refers to his going 
 up as a commiffioner from Antioch, what is to be inferred 
 from this extraordinary incident ? That the affembly to 
 which he was to go, was to be aduated either by a 
 miraculous influence, or guided by a fupernatural fuper- 
 intending energy ? No, affuredly. The degree of gifts 
 
 • A€ts xiv. 28. f HorsE Paulinas, p. 195. 
 
Letter XVIII. 
 
 319 
 
 pofTtlTed by this afTembly for the decition of the quellion, 
 and the manner in which they were to determine it, muft 
 be learned from other circnmflances. Perhaps the court 
 was to be divinely infpired, or perhaps it was to be 
 diredled only by common prudence, and the ufual aids 
 of the facrcd Spirit — and the dcfign of the Spirit in 
 fuggefting it to Paul to go up to Jerufalem, and to fubmit 
 the caufe to the apoftles and elders, even as ordinary 
 miniilers, might be to point out to his church, in future 
 times, a pattern for them to follow in diiBcult cafes. 
 None of thefe however can be deduced from the fuperna- 
 tural admonition of the Spirit, for this might have been 
 given on cither fuppofition. I maintain, therefore, that 
 you are not entitled to infer, from this circumllance, 
 that the afTembly, to which the apoftle was to refer the 
 bufinefs, was either infpired, or infallibly diredled ; and 
 that there is equal reafon for believing that this bufinefs 
 was fubmitted to a fnperior court, even of uninfpired 
 minifcers, to exhibit a clear and fatisfadlory example of the 
 manner in which in.portant and difficult queftions were 
 thenceforth to be determined in the Chriftian church. 
 
 *' Obferve,'* fay you, jthly, " the very peculiar circum- 
 *' ftances in which the church at Jerufalem ftood, from its 
 " being the feat of the reudence of the apoftles. To 
 ** them was committed the important charge of teaching 
 " the difciples all things whatfoever they fhould obferve. 
 " At this time it is very queftionable, if any part of the 
 *' New-Teftament fcrlptures was committed to writing. 
 *' At any rate, we know that none of the Apoftolic 
 ** Epiilles had yet any exiftence ; far lefs were they 
 *' collefted as we have them now, for the benefit of 
 *' Chriftians at large, and for their direction in any cafe 
 <* of difficulty that might occur. This certainly placed 
 <* the church at Jerufalem in a fituation altogether 
 «* peculiar. The apoftles then occupied the room that 
 «< the New-Teftament fcriptures do now. It was as 
 
323 Letter XVIII. 
 
 " proper to confult them perfonally at that time, as it 
 *' is for us now to have recourfe to their writings to 
 " decide upon any point of Nevv-Teftament worfliip. It 
 *' is true, Paul was at Antioch, and he undoubtedly 
 ** poffeffed infpiration and apodolic authority as well as 
 ** the reft. But, on that occafion, the perfons who 
 <* taught that doftrine refpeding the neceffity of cir- 
 ** cunficlfion came from Judea, the feat of the reft of the 
 " apoftles. It is pretty apparent from ver. 24. that thefe 
 " perfons reprefented them as -favouring their views. In 
 *' this fituation, Paul muf; have had an authority at leaft pa- 
 " ramount to his own alleged in oppofition to it. Nothing 
 *' in this cafe could give fuch perfedl fatisfaftion, as the 
 " united decifionof the apoftles when afTembled together." 
 It is readily conceded, that the church of Jeruialem 
 ftood, at that period, in very peculiar circumftances, but 
 not fo peculiar as you would infinuate. Though the 
 NeW'Teftament fcriptures were not then completed, and 
 though many references were made to the apojiles who 
 refided at Jerufalem, as to matters of doftrine, I muft 
 again tell you, that I cannot fee why you affirm that 
 they were made alfo to the whole of the Chriftians 
 who dwelt at Jerufalem. If thefe references required 
 infpiration for their determination, moft of the Chriftians 
 at Jerufalem could no more decide upon them than the 
 churches from which they came. And if they did not 
 require it, and yet were fettled by authoritative fentences 
 from the apoftles, the common members at Jerufalem 
 had no more right to pafs them upon other churches 
 than the members at Corinth, or Ephefus, or Rome had. 
 Let it be allowed then, that the apoftles, till the New 
 Teftament was completed, were ufually referred to, while 
 they remained at Jerufalem, as the fmal arbiters of reli- 
 gious controverfies — what follows? That, when they 
 delivered thefe decifions, they were always infpired? 
 Such a conclufion would be« begging of the quejlioiif or a 
 
Letter XVIII. 321 
 
 taking for granted what neither you nor any other 
 mortal can prove. It would be faying that God never 
 fuffered them occafionally to afcertain his mind from the 
 Old-Teftament fcriptures, and from any miraculous works 
 which he had previoufly performed, but guided them 
 always by a fupernatural influence, which is too pre- 
 fumptuous, I fhould think, for any imperfeft creature 
 to affirm. It is fafer to determine this point by the 
 faft, as related in fcripture, than, with the Ariflotelians 
 of old, to lay down a hypothejis, or fuppofition of our oiun, 
 and, tahng it for granted^ endeavour to accommodate to it 
 this particular faft. Attending then to this faft, and to 
 what is recorded of it, I muil once more declare, that 
 however the apoftles a6ltd in other references, when they 
 fupplied the place of the New-Teftament fcriptures, they 
 do not appear to have a£led by infpiration in the prefent 
 inftance. The decifion which they pronounced, feems to 
 have been the fruit of their examination of the Old- 
 Teflament fcriptures, and attention to fome former 
 miracles which had been wrought, and not of any fuper- 
 natural fuggeflion. At the fame time, it is granted 
 that in other inftances where infpiration was neceiTary, 
 they would aft under its influence, and be guided by its 
 didlates. Your attempt to (hew that if infpiration had 
 been requifite, Paul was not uifficient to have determined 
 the controverfy, was confidered in the preceding Letter. 
 
 Your lalt, however, is your favourite argument, for 
 you fay, p. 44. " What has always appeared to me the 
 *' moil decifive proof that this pafTage affords no coun- 
 «' tenance to modern Prefbytery, arifes from the iffue of 
 " the decifion the church at Jerufalera pronounced, on 
 " the queftion that was laid before them. They not 
 " only fend their decifion to Antioch, but to Syria and 
 <' Cilicia, ver. 23. ; and we learn from chap. xvi. ver. 4. 
 <' when Paul and Silas went out on Paul's fecond jour- 
 " ney, they delivered in the different cities the decrees 
 
322 Letter XVIII. 
 
 •« for to keep, that were ordained of the apoftles and 
 " elders which were at Jerufalem. Here, thofe who 
 *' fupport Prefbytery from this pafTage, feem inextricably 
 <* involved in a dilemma. It mull be allowed thefe 
 *' decrees were either binding or not. If they were not, 
 ** then the whole was merely an application for advice, 
 *' and the palTage has no connexion with Prefbyterial 
 " authority. If they were binding, then it follows that 
 *' the church at Jerufalem ordained decrees which were 
 " obligatory not only on the church at Antloch, but on 
 «< every other church in the Chrillian world, though 
 " they had not the fliadow of a reprefentative in that 
 <* meeting where the decrees were formed. Surely this 
 *' puts it beyond the pofliblHty of a doubt that the cafe 
 ** was an extraordinary one, and confequently forms no 
 ** precedent for other churches. If it was not extra- 
 ** ordinary, let us fee to what it will lead. It ought 
 ** then to be imitated ; that is, one church fhould frame 
 ** decrees to which it is entitled to require obedience 
 ** from every other church in the ChriRian world. 
 " What church is entitled to claim fucli a prerogative ? — 
 " But it is unneceifary to purfue the argument farther, as 
 ** the inference implies what is impradlicable and abfurd." 
 To the formidable argument founded on this dilemma 
 I would briefly ftate, that, I apprehend, Prefbyterians 
 may fafely grant that an authoritative power was exer« 
 clfed by this affembly, and yet none of your momentous 
 confequences will follow. What though Its decrees were 
 binding upon Syria, and Cilicia, and Lyftra, and Ico- 
 nium, as well as Antloch, will it ever be proved from 
 this, that they were the di6tate of infpiration ? No, verily. 
 Were there not apoftles in this council, as has been 
 already faid, who, afting even in their uninfpired capa- 
 city, were univerfal pallors, 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 minifters,^ 
 
Letter XVIII. 323 
 
 Recording as opportunity offered ? How, of courfe, can 
 it be demot;{lrated from the univerfally obligatory power 
 of the decrees that they muft have been fupernaturally 
 fuggefted, when the apoftles, who were members of the 
 affembly which paffcd them, even as uninfpired minrjlersy 
 had a right to deliver them not only to thefe, but to all 
 other churches ? Neither, then, from this, nor any 
 other circumftance, does it appear that the decifion 
 which was pronounced by this council was an infpired 
 decifion, or that the members of it were guided by any 
 fuperior influence than their own judgment and prudence, 
 and the common aids of the facred Spirit. 
 
 Is it faid, that no power properly juridical was aflumed 
 by this affembly, and that therefore no precedent can be 
 pleaded from it for the power of modern courts of review ? 
 It is replied, that the power of determining what was to 
 be preached as the means of falvation was claimed by it, 
 than which, undoubtedly, none can be confidered as a 
 higher or more important exercife of authority. Their 
 determination, moreover, as has been noticed, is called a 
 decree, and the very faft of their pafTing fuch a decree, 
 implied in them the power alfo of punifhing all who 
 refufed to fubmit to it. But if this is not to be con- 
 fidered as ecclefiaftical power, I know not what is en- 
 titled to the name. 
 
 Thus, I conceive, the three general pofitions have 
 in fome meafure been eftablifhed. F'lrjl, That there 
 was a court at Jerufalem of Chriftian miniflcrs, who fat 
 and determined in a reference which was made to them 
 from another court at Antioch : Secondly, That this court 
 at Jerufalem delivered not merely to that at Antioch a 
 g^eneral advice, but an authoritative decifion : And thirdly. 
 That, in this decifion, they feem neither to have been di- 
 re<9:ed by miraculous fuggellion nor extraordinary fuper- 
 intendence, but by the ufual aids of the facred Spirit, 
 which are common to faithful minifters in every age. 
 
324 Letter XVIir. 
 
 If this however was the cafe, and a court at Antloch 
 was fubje£l to the review of a court at Jerufalem, Is it 
 not a clear and fufficlent warrant for thofe courts of re- 
 view which exiil anriong Prefbyterians ? It mull certainly 
 be of little importaiice to objv^dl that this court at Jeru- 
 falem did not refennble a Prcfbytery or Synod, fmce it 
 was unqutftionably compofed of minitlers of Chrift add- 
 ing in an ordinary and cooimon capacity, and different 
 from thofe from whom the reference was prefented. 
 This, I prefume, is the grand point in difpute; and 
 fmce it is eftabUrned, it authorizes, I apprehend, courts 
 of review to any extent that the circumttances of the 
 church may be found to require. \^ the principle of the 
 fubordinatlon of courts be demonftrated, it is evident 
 that for the fame reafon that it is proper to fubjeft the 
 rulers of a particular congregation to the review of a 
 Prefbytery, if the declfion of the Prefbytery is not fatif- 
 faftory, it is lawful and defirable to refer it to the deter- 
 mination of a greater number of minifters, met as a Synod, 
 or to a Hill greater number, as an Affembly. 
 
 With regard to the fentiments of the primitive church, 
 a diverfity of opinions has exifted. Mr. Ewing has 
 quoted, in proof of their Independency, an unfubilan- 
 tiated afTertion of Moflieim, without a fingle document 
 to confirm it *. In oppofition to this however, were we 
 to abide merely by the reports of the learned, it might 
 be fufiicient, on this point, to refer Independents to the 
 authority of Lord King, whom they fo much commend, 
 and who, in his Inquiry Into the Conftitution of the 
 Primitive Church, part I. chap. viii. has not merely, 
 like Mofheim, afferted, but fully proved, that courts of 
 review, in the early ages, were common in the church. 
 Many others alfo might be mentioned as of fimilar fenti- 
 ments. Few inftances indeed can be adduced of Pref- 
 
 ♦ See Appendix tq his Ledure, p. 90. 
 
Letter XVIII. 325 
 
 byteries or Synods before the time of Cyprian. But for 
 this a very fatisfaftory reafon can be afiigned. Mod of 
 the writings of the fathers, before that period, are loft ; 
 and in the few which remain, the only hints which arc 
 delivered refpefting the government of the church arc 
 entirely incidental. *' The reafon," fays King, p. 148. 
 ** why we find not more Synodical decrees of the three 
 *' firft centuries, comes not, from that they judicially 
 " determined none, or required not the obfervance of 
 <* them ; but from that, either they were not careful, 
 *' or the fury and violence of the times would not permit 
 *' them, to tranfmit them down to their fucceflbrs ; or 
 " through the length of time they are loft, and fcarce 
 " any thing befides the names of fuch Synods arc now 
 " remembered, and of multitudes, neither names nor 
 ** decrees are to be found. But yet there is enough 
 •* efcaped the fury of perfecution, and the length of time, 
 *' to convince that thofe Synods did decree thofe things 
 " which they judged expedient for the polity, difcipline, 
 *' and government of thofe particular churches that 
 *' were within their refpeftive provinces, and required 
 *« them to be obferved by all the members thereof.'* 
 Befides, as, on a former part of the fubjed, it was 
 fliewn that Independents have never been able to adduce 
 any plaufible proof, of the right of the people at large to 
 'fudge and vote in ciiurch-bufinefs, from the writings of 
 the fathers prior to the time of Cyprian ; how can they 
 objeA to quotations from this their favourite author, 
 which Prefbyterians bring forward, to prove the fubordi- 
 nation of judicatories in ecclefiaftical government? 
 
 In reviewing the writings of the fathers, we find that 
 they acknowledge that fuch courts of review exifted in 
 the church from the earlieft period. Cyprian, for inftance, 
 in his Sixty-fixth Epiftle, written, according to the 
 calculation of Marftiall, A.D. 249, not only fpeaks of 
 a Synod and its authoritative decrees, but reprefents 
 Ee 
 
326 Letter XVIII. 
 
 thefe as having obtained among his more ancient predc- 
 cefTors. " Graviter commoti fumus ego et collegse mei 
 ** qui prasfentes aderant, et comprefbyteri noftri qui 
 ** nobis alTidebant, fratres cariflimi, cum cognovifTeraus 
 *' quod GeminlusVidlor, frater nofler, de feculo excedens, 
 ** Geminium Fauftinum prefbytcrum tutorem teftamento 
 *' fuo nominaverit, Q\xm jam pridem in coneiJio epifcoporum 
 ** ftatutum fit, ne quis de clericis et Dei miniftris tutorem 
 *' yel curatorem teftamento fuo conftituat f /. e. " It 
 ** was a great concern to me and to my colleagues who 
 *' happened to be prefent with me, and to our fellow- 
 *' prefbyters who fat in judgment along with us, when 
 ** we learned that our brother Geminius Vi6lor, at his 
 ** death, had appointed Geminius Fauftinus, a prefbyter, 
 *' executor of his will, fince it hath long ago been 
 ** determined in a Council or Synod ofhijhopsy that no one 
 ** fhould nominate in his will, a clergyman, or a minifter 
 «* of God, to be an executor, or a guardian." And 
 again, as a proof that this Synod was not merely con- 
 fultative, after making fome obfervations upon the neceflity 
 of requiring the minifters of the church to devote them- 
 felves entirely to their facred fundion, he adds, " Quod 
 *' epifcopi anteceffores noftri religiofe confiderantes, et 
 *' falubriterprovidentes,cenfuerunt ne quis frater excedens 
 ** ad tutelam vel curam elericum nominaret ; ac fi qui 
 *' hoc faceret, non offerretur pro eo, nee facrlficium pro 
 *' dormitione ejus celebraretur, neque enim apud altare 
 ** Dei nominari meretur in facerdotum prece, qui ab 
 '* altari facerdotes et miniftros voluit avocare. Et ideo 
 ** Vi6lor cum contra formam nuper in concilio a facerdo- 
 <* tibus datam, Geminium Fauftinum preibyterum aufus 
 ** fit tutorem conftituere, non eft quod pro dormitione 
 ** ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio aliqua nomine 
 " ejus in ecelefias frequentetur, ut facerdotum decretum 
 •' religiofe et neceifarie faftum fervetur a nobis, fimul et 
 " caeteris fratribus detur exemplum, ne quis facerdotes 
 
Letter XVIIl. 327 
 
 " et miniilros Dti, altari ejus, et ecckrije vacantcs ad 
 " feculares moleftias devocet." That Is, " Which the 
 *.' bifhops, otjr predecefTors, religioufly ccnfidering, de- 
 " creed that no brother, at his death, (hould name a 
 " clergyman an executor to his will ; and if any one 
 ** fliould do fo, there ilionld be no offering for him, nor 
 '* facrihce prefented for his repofe, for he who would 
 ** call off from the altar its priefts and mlnlders, does 
 ** not deferve to be mentioned in the prayers of the 
 " pried at the altar. Wherefore fmcc V^iclor, againd ihe 
 *' canon which was lately delivered upon this occafion in 
 ** a council Gl bifhops, has prefamcd to appoint Geminiu3 
 " Fauftinus, a prefbyter, his executor, there is no reafon 
 *' why an oblan'on (hould be offered for his repofe, nor 
 ** the cudomary prayers of the church prefeiited on his 
 *' behalf, both that this SyruJical deaee may be obferved 
 '* by us, and an example may be given to the red of 
 ** our brethren, that no perfon uiay call to a fecular 
 " employment the priefts «nd miniders of God, whofe 
 <' wliole time and care {hould be devoted to his altar." 
 
 Another of thefe authoritative Synods or Councils is 
 mentioned by Cyprian, in a palTage formerly quoted 
 from his Sixty-feventh Epidie. Speaking of Novatian, 
 he fays, " Et cum ad nos in Africam legatos raifillit, 
 " optans ad communlcatlcnem noftram admitti, hinc a 
 *' concUio plurimorum facerdotum qui prcefentes eramus fen- 
 *' tentiam retulerit, fe foris effe cospifFe, nee pofTe a 
 ** quoquam nodrum fibi communlcari," i^c. : i. e. " And 
 *< when he had fent his meflengers to us in Africa, de- 
 " firing to be admitted to our communion, he received 
 ** this fentence from a Council of many miniders who 
 " were then afTembled, that he had begun the rupture, 
 ** and could not be admitted by any of us to our com- 
 " munlon." Here we fee a Council or Synod, of many 
 mtni/lerSf cxerclfing an authoritative power over all the 
 churches to which they belonged, and decreeing that 
 E e 2 
 
,328 Letter XVIII. 
 
 this man fliould not be received into their communion. 
 And again, in the fame Epiflle, talking of wicked and 
 arrogant men, he fays, ** Ex quibus cum Marcianus efTe 
 ** cceperit, et fe Novatiauo conjungens, adverfarius 
 *' mifericordiae et pietatis extiterit : fententiam non 
 " dicat, {ed accipiat, nee fic agat, quafi ipfe judicaverit 
 *' (ie calleglo facer dotuniy quando ipfe fit ab uuiverfis facer- 
 ** dotlbu* jiidicatus :" i, e. *' Since Marcian hath begun 
 ** to be one of thtfe, and joining himfelf to Nova- 
 *' tian, hath proved himfelf to be an enemy to mercy 
 '' and piety, let him not pretend to pronounce any 
 ** fentence, but let him receive it ; nor let him be- 
 *' have like one who is to judge the luhole college of 
 ** hijl)opSf fince he himfelf has been judged by all of 
 *.' them." Kere he fpeaks of a whole college of pallors 
 as pronouncing fentence of excommunication upon a 
 lieretic ; and if we attend to another paffage in this 
 Epillle, we (liali fee that the college included the mini- 
 ilers of many churches. " Therefore," fays he, *• dear 
 " brother, the very numerous body of miniRers is fo united, 
 *' thvit if any of our college become heretical, the reft; 
 *' alTifl, and, like good and companionate fliepherds, 
 " gather the fiieep of the Lord into his fold," " Idclrco 
 *' enim, frater cariffime, cop'iofum corpus cjl facerdoiium 
 " Concordia^ mutus glutino atque unitatis vinculo copu- 
 *' latum ut fi ex collegio noftro hterefin facere," Ifjc. 
 
 In his Fifty-ninth Epiftle likewife, addreffed to Fidus, 
 and fubfcribed by Cyprian, and fixty-iix miniiters who 
 had fat in council with him, he fpeaks of a decree which 
 they had made, and which was conlidered as binding by 
 all the churches to which they belonged. And at the 
 fame time they find fault with one Therapius, becaufe, 
 In oppofition to their decree, he had ralhly reflored to 
 the communion of the church, Vidor, a prcfbyter, be- 
 fore he had exhibited fuflicient evidences of penitence ; 
 and fay, that though they might have inflidted upon 
 
Letter XVIII. 329 
 
 Theraplus a higher punifliment, they would content 
 themfelves with a reproof and admonition. " Legimus 
 " (fays Cyprian to Fidus), h'teras tuas, frater cariflime, 
 ** quibus fignificafti de Vidlore quodam prefbytero, 
 ** quod el, antequam pcenitentiam plenam egiflet, et 
 ** Domino Deo, in quern deh'querat, fatisfeciffet, temere 
 *' Therapius collega nofter immature tempore et prse- 
 " propera feftinatione pacem dederit. Quae res nos fatis 
 ** movit, receffum effe a decreti noftri auftoritate, ut ante 
 *' legitimum, et plenum tempus fatisfaftionis, pax ei 
 *' concederetur. Sed librato apud nos diu confilio, fatis 
 *' fuit objurgare Therapium collegam noftrum, quod 
 *' temere hoc fecerit, et InftruxifTe, ne quid tale de ccetero 
 *' faciat." That is, " We have perufed your Letter, 
 *' dearefl brother, wherein you intimate to us the cafe 
 *' of Vidlor, once a prefbyter, whom our colleague 
 '* Therapius rafhly admitted before he had exhibited 
 *' fufficient marks of penitence, and made fatisfadion to 
 ** that God againft whom he had offended. Which 
 '' circumilance troubled us not a little, becaufe, over- 
 *' looking the authority of our decree^ he had been reftored 
 •'' to communion before the lawful term of fatisfaftion 
 '' had expired. But having long and fully confidered 
 " the matter, we refolved to content ov.vfelces with repri- 
 ** manding our colleague Therapius for his precipitate 
 *' condutl, and with admonifhing him to guard againft 
 <' fuch meafures for the future." 
 
 This fame council, moreover, which had thus authori- 
 tatively determined refpefling the time during which 
 offenders fliould be fufpended from the communion of the 
 church before they were re-admitted, pronounces, at the 
 fame time, a decifion refpeciing the time at which infants 
 faould be baptized. " Qu^antum vero (fays Cyprian) 
 *' ad caufam infantium pertinet, quos dixifti intra 
 «' fecundum vel tertium diem, quo nati funt, conftitutos 
 *' baptizarl non oportere, et confiderandum effe legem 
 Ec 3 
 
33^ Letter XVIII. 
 
 «* circumcifionis antiquae, ut intra odlavum diem cum qui 
 «* natus eft baptizandum et facrlficandum non putares ; 
 '* longe aliud in concilio noftro omnibus vifum eft. In 
 ** hoc enim quod tu putabas effe faciendum, nemo con- 
 *< fenfit, fed univerfi potius judicavimus nulH hominum 
 " nato mifericordiam Dei et gratlam denegandam." 
 That is, " Now, as to the cafe of new-born infants, who 
 ** ftiould not, according to your opinion, be baptized with- 
 •* in the fecond or third day after their birth, but ftiould 
 ** rather wait the time appointed by the law for circumci- 
 ** fion, and fo not be baptized nor devoted to the fervice 
 ** of God till the eighth day, I muft tell you that we were 
 ** all here affembled in council, of another mind ; and 
 ** no one of us came into yovir fentiments ; but on the 
 ** contrary, we all concluded, that the grace and mercies 
 ** of God were to be denied to none who (hould come 
 ^* into the world*.'' And afterwards they exprefs, if 
 
 * " The unanimity" (fays Marfhall, in his Notes upon Cyprian, 
 which I have juft now feen) " wherewith this queftion was 
 " carried (at this early period of the church), fhews that 
 *' infant-baptifm, even at this time, was no novel ufage : there 
 *' was no manner of difpute, whether infants fliould be bap- 
 " tized ; but whether before the eighth day or not : to which 
 " the unanimous refolution was, that the grace of God fhould be 
 *' denied to none." It is hoped that the reader, for the fake of 
 the obfervation, will pardon the little digreffion contained in this 
 note. And it is trufted that thofe who arc defirous of afcertaining 
 the truth upon this fubje(rt, and have not an opportunity of per- 
 nfing the more laborious Treatifes of Wall and Williams, will not 
 be difpleafed with the author, if he recommend to their attention, 
 at leaft in fupport of infant-baptifm, the very ingenious pamphlet 
 of Peter Edwards, v\'ho, for eleven years, was an Antipedobaptift 
 minifter, but renounced that connedion ; the Diflertation of Pirie, 
 and his Defence of that Diflertation ; the manly reafoning of the 
 late venerable Dr. Erfkine, in his Sermon upon that fubjed, in 
 the fecond volume of his Difcourfes ; and Three Sermons upon 
 Baptifm, by Dr. Lathrop of America, which, while they are pecu- 
 liarly adapted, from their admirable perfpicuity, to the plaineft 
 
Letter XVIII. 351 
 
 pofilble in flill ftronger terms, their convi6tron that this 
 ordinance fiiould be adminiRered to infants at any period. 
 This determination however appears to be as authoritative 
 as their former decifion, as to the cafe of the lapfed, and 
 feems to have been equally binding upon all their 
 churches. 
 
 Firoiilian, bifhop of Cefarea in Cappadocia, in the 
 Latin tranflation of his Letter, which Cyprian has given 
 us among his own Epiftles, afiirms that fuch Councils or 
 Synods were common alfo at that time in the province 
 of LelTer Afia. After telling us, as was before mentioned, 
 that elders alone prefide in the church, and baptize and 
 ordain, and that heretics are not entitled to perform tbefe 
 fun£xions af^ter they apollatize, he adds, *" Qn^od totum 
 ** nosjampridem in Iconio, qui Phrygije locus eft, colle^tx 
 " in unum convenientibus ex Galatia, et Cilicia, et 
 ** ca:teris proxime regionibiis confirmavimus, tenendiim 
 ** contra hsereticos firmiter et vindicandum :" i. e. " All 
 ** which many of us, afiembled together in Iconium, a 
 " city of Phrygia, from Galatia, Cilicia, and the neigh- 
 ** bouring regions, determined to maintain and aflert 
 *' againft the pretenfions of heretics*.^* And In an- 
 other part of the fame Epiftle he informs us, that they 
 had atleaft an annual meeting of this authoritative Synod 
 or Council. " Qua ex caufa (fays he) neceflario 
 *' apud nos fit, ut per fingulos annos feiiiorcs et prjepofitl 
 
 readers, from the folidity of reafoning and acutenefs of judgment 
 which they difcover, are worthy of the perufal of the moft enlight- 
 ened. Thefe Difcoarfes have lately been republillied In Scotland, 
 and fell for a trifle. 
 
 * " Dionyfius of Alexandria," fays Marfhall, " in his Third 
 ** Epiftle on Baptifm, as reprefented to us by Eufcbius, book vii. 
 " chap. vii. tells Philemon, to whom he wrote, tli^t the Africans 
 *' were not the firft introducers of baptizing heretics; but that 
 " the bitliops, aflembled at Iconium and Synnada, had long before 
 " determined the queftion"— which, too, proves that this council 
 was authoritative. 
 
332 Letter XVIII. 
 
 " In unum convenlamus ad difponenda ea quae curse 
 " nottrae commiffa func :** i. e. " Wherefore we find it 
 " neceffary that our elders and rulers affemble every 
 ** year, for fettling thofe things which are committed 
 " to oar care." Epift. Ixxv. 
 
 In fine, omitting the accounts of many other Synods, 
 which might cafily be produced from the writings of 
 Cyprian, we are informed by Eufebius, in his Eccle- 
 fiailical Hiftory, book vii. chap. xxix. that, in the reign 
 of Aurelian, a Synod of many minifters met at An- 
 tioch, and excommunicated Paul of Samofatena from 
 their different churches. *' KcJ^ 'ov (fays he) TiXivrotiec^ 
 
 ** TTPO? 'dTrccvTCJV vio/i crii(p!k>g '/csiTccyvMo-dus iTi^ooo^idv'o rr,g Ketra 
 ** etyria^iiciv '"ccipiTicurj cc^^riyog ry^g vtto rev ov^avov Kei&oXtKyi(; 
 
 " iKKXr.o-ix? ccTiroKYiPUTTircn.'^ And in this Synod we are 
 told, in the preceding chapter, that there were, among 
 others, Firmilian, bifhop of Csefarea, now mentioned ; 
 Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, paftors of churches 
 in Pontus ; Helenas, minifter of the church at Tarfis ; 
 a'.^.d Nicomas, minifter of the church in Iconium ; with 
 Hymeneus, blihop of Jerufalem ; Theotecnus, bifhop of 
 Cefarea in Paleftine, near Jerufalem ; and Maximus, 
 bifhop of Boflra. Thus, then, it appears that authori- 
 tative courts, fuperior to the governors of a particular 
 congregation, are not only clearly authorized by reafon 
 as neceffary and ufeful, and fan<?lioned by fcripture as 
 divinely appointed, but exifted even in the carlieft period 
 of the Chriilian church ; and confequently that the 
 fcheme for which Independents contend is not lefs con- 
 trary to the reprefentations of antiquity, than it feems 
 to be to reafon and fcripture. 
 
 I have novv finifhed what I intended when I began thefe 
 Letters — a Vindication of the Prefbyterian plan of church- 
 government. That I have refuted all the arguments or 
 objedions of Independents I do not pretend, for as each of 
 
Letter XVIII. 333 
 
 their congregations is nnconne£led with the reft in point 
 of adminiftration, there may be as many eccIefiajTtcal conJU- 
 tutionSf and as many diverfitles of fentiment vvitli regard to 
 government among them, as there are congregations. But 
 who would profefs to detail or examine the whole of thefe 
 fyftems ? Befides, as it is another of the principles of 
 moft of our modern Independents, that written con- 
 fefiions, exhibiting their view of the meaning of fcripr 
 lure, are unlawful, it is extremely difficult to afcertain the 
 tenets even of a few of them, on this, or any other point 
 ©f doftrine. This principle certainly has its own ad- 
 vantages, and muft be particularly fuitable to the plan 
 of thofe who are frequently changing their religious 
 fentiments. It is extremely difadvantageous however to 
 the public at large, who can have no certain way of 
 difcovering their tenets, while, in another point of view, 
 it is no lefs injurious to themfelves, as it frequently 
 obliges the moft impartial inquirers to commk involun- 
 tary miftakes in attempting to ftate their principles. Ifj 
 in the preceding pages therefore, there be any miftakes 
 with regard to the fentiments of Independents, it is 
 again requefted that they may not be afcribed to a defign 
 wilfully to diftort or mifreprefent them. Againft this, 
 as far as the author was aware, he has endeavoured to 
 guard, and he ftiould be forry indeed, if, in the view 
 which he has delivered of any dodliine or argument, 
 he had yielded to its influence in the flighteft degree. 
 And confcious as he is that he has attempted, as far as he 
 could afcertain the truth refpedling their principles, to 
 know and to ftate it, if, in any inftance, he has erred, 
 he muft beg leave, without any intention invidioufly to 
 fneer at this particular principle, to fet it down to the 
 account of their wanting any public and written con- 
 feftion — a peculiarity however which may be followed, at 
 leaft in the convidion of Independents, with advantages 
 which will more than compenfate fuch evils. 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 JEWISH SYNAGOGUES Sc SANHEDRIN. 
 
 X O the argument from the conditution and proceed- 
 ings of the Jewifh Synagogue and Sanhedrin, illaflrated 
 in Letter VI. it has been objeded that they were 
 merely human inventions, not introduced till after the 
 Babylonifli captivity, and therefore could not be defigned 
 as a pattern to Chriilian churches. That they were in- 
 troduced only at this period, is a point which has been 
 warmly, and with confiderable plaufibiiity, contefled by 
 many diftinguifhed ecclefiaftical writers of antiquity^ 
 
 It is highly probable however, that fynagogues, ta 
 a certain degree, vi'ere coeval with the fettleraent of the 
 Ifraelites in Judea. It was the office of nriany of the 
 Levites, who were exempted from agriculture and other 
 fecular employments, and were difperfed through the 
 various diftrifts of the land, not only to offer facrifices, but 
 to inftru6l the people in the truths of religion ; for this 
 maxim is mentioned by Malachi, chap. ii. 7. as efla- 
 blifhed in every age of their church, that " the prieft's 
 ** lips lliould keep knowledge, and they {liould feek the 
 *' law at his mouth; for he was the meffenger of the 
 ** Lord of hofts.'* But how could they fo conveniently 
 communicate this inftruftion as by collefting the people 
 into fynagogues or afTemblies ? It would feem alfo, that 
 without fome fuch convocation or affembly, from the 
 very beginning, the Sabbath could not have been ob- 
 ferved by them ; for it is exprefsly faid, Lev. xxiii. 3, 
 that the Sabbath was to the Ifraelites a holy convoca- 
 
Oh the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 335 
 
 tion, or for a holy convocation, in or among all their 
 dwellings. If no fuch convocation was obferved then, 
 throughout the whole nation, till after the captivity, there 
 was no public worihip except at Terufalem — a circum- 
 ftance which muft appear highly extraordinary, when 
 we refledl that they were the only vifible church of God 
 in exiftence at that period. Nor will it be eafy to ac- 
 count for the following defcription of the ravages of the 
 enemies of the Jews, probably at the time of the capti- 
 vity : " They have deftroyed all the fynagogue* of God 
 «« in the land," yiKl Vk "'"IP'172 hD, Pfal. Ixxiv. 8. 
 where, fays a refpedable critic, not only ^^i^lTD from "li^% 
 convemre fecit ad locum tempufqxie Jlatutiimt is properly tranf- 
 lated fynagogues, in which the people were ftatedly tQ 
 meet for religious worfhip, but the words Vd and 1>"iK3> 
 all the fynagogues — in the land, being added, prevent us from 
 explaining this expreffion, as fome do, only of the temple, 
 and holy places belonging to it, at Jerufalem. 
 
 Farther, as fynagogues, however they might be alter- 
 ed after the captivity, appear to have exifled many 
 ages before; fo, the fanhedrin, or court of feventy elders, 
 though it alfo might be altered at this period, was moft 
 probably of much earlier origin. The learned Selden 
 fays, that nothing is more certain from the facred fcrip- 
 tiire, than that it v/as inftituted the fecond year after the 
 children of Ifrael came out of Egypt. " Ita nihil certius 
 ^* eft quam earn, ut e fcriptura diximus, anno exitus 
 <« fecundo tribuendam *." He quotes alfo Archbifiiop 
 Ulher, Capellus, Perkins, Temporarius, Codomannus, 
 Scallger, Helvicus, Calvifius, Buntingius, MafTasus, and 
 many others of the moft diftingulfhed ecclefiaftical anti- 
 quaries, as attributing to it an origin nearly fimilar. 
 Lightfoot likewife, with Grotius, Lowman, and many 
 of the moft illuftrious names in biblical literature, might 
 
 * Selden de Syn-sdriis Hebrseorum, p. 631. 
 
336 Appendix I. 
 
 here be adduced as of this opinion, together vvilh a long 
 lift of Jewifli doftors, as appears from their Talmuds. 
 
 The inititiition of this court feems plainly to be pointed 
 out in Numb. xi. 16, 17. " And the Lord faid unto 
 ** Mofes, Gather unto me feventy men of the elders of 
 <« Ifrael, whom thou knoweit to be eiders of the people, 
 ** and officers over them ; and bring them unto the 
 ** tabernacle of the congregation, that they may ftand 
 <* there with thee. And I will come down, and talk 
 « with thee there : and 1 will take of the fpirit which 
 *« Is upon thee, and will put it upon them ; and they 
 " fhall bear the burden of the people with thee, that 
 ** thou bear it not thyfelf alone." " The general defign 
 <* of the inftitution of thefe feventy," fays the judicious 
 JLowman, " was, as is here faid, that thty might hear the 
 <* burden along nv'tth Mofes, that he might not bear it 
 " alone. Tliis fure cannot be meant of the common 
 •* and ordinary adminlftration of juftice, which had been 
 ** provided for juft before in the jethronlan prsefedures. 
 <* As far then as they were to affift Mofes In matters 
 *< judiciary, it could only be in thofe greater matters, 
 «« which, as referved caufes, were to be brought before 
 ** Mofes ; or fuch difficult queftions as were referred by 
 ** appeal from the inferior judges. In this fcnfe, this 
 *' court of the feventy elders will be a conftitution not 
 " much unlike the (ancient) parliament of Paris, fo far 
 *' as that was a court of law. But this was not the only 
 *« end for which this court was Inflituted. The imm.e- 
 " diate occafion of its inftitution was the complaint of 
 «* Mofes on the murmuring and feditlon of the people 
 *^ and the difpleafure of God ; that fire was fent to con- 
 *< fume them that were in the uttermoft parts of the 
 ** camp. It Is in anfwer to this complaint of Mofes on 
 *' this occafion, that the Lord faid, Gather unto me feventy 
 ** men of the elders of Ifrael — that they mayfland nvith thee ; 
 ** and theyjhall hear the burden of the people with thee, that 
 
Oj* the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 337 
 
 *' thou bear it not thyfelf alone. We fee plainly that 
 ** thefe feventy were to be co-adjutors to Mofes in his 
 " councils, how to anfwer the people's complaints, and 
 *' to advife what would be beft to do on all occafions, 
 *' efpecially of greater difficulty ; to preferve peace and 
 *' good order among the people, and to prevent thofc * 
 " mutinies which would likely prove fatal to the whole 
 " nation, if not remedied by fome means or other. In 
 " this view,'' he adds, " the feventy elders will appear 
 ** to be defigned not only as a {landing court of law and 
 ** equity to afiill Mofes as judge in caufes of greater < 
 
 ** confequence, and in appeals, but to afTift the judge 
 ** with their advice upon every occafion ; this was 
 " properly to bear the burden of the people with Mofes, 
 *' that he might not bear it himfelf alone. For now the 
 " judge would not bear all the envy or ill-will of the 
 *' people when diflatisfied or uneafy with any part of the 
 '* adminiftration, for the common people, though they 
 *' know very little of the reafons of any adminiftration, 
 " are yet apt to think every thing wrong that does not 
 " pleafe them, or which is attended with difficulties to 
 " themfelves or the public. Now a council of feventy 
 " perfons, of the moil approved wifdom and integrity, 
 " would at leaft fliare this burden among them all, 
 " inftead of throwing the whole on one man. And it 
 " would be moreover an eafe to the judge's own mind, 
 " and make him more refolved in any council to be taken 
 *< or executed, when it fhould be with the advice and 
 " approbation of a multitude of counfellors, in which 
 
 ** there is wifdom and fafety. And, finally, it was 
 
 " proper to give authority and refpedl to fuch orders as 
 " (hould be made by advice of perfons whom the people 
 *' themfelves had approved and chofen as eminent for 
 ** their wifdom and integrity. Confider then this court 
 *' as a ftanding fenate always at hand, or as a conftant 
 ** privy-council to the judge, and we have a moft wife 
 Ff 
 
338 Appendix I. 
 
 <* provlfion for the eafier and better government of the 
 •' whole ration ; and this will make a confiderable part 
 ** of the ftates-general of the united tribes*." 
 
 In this rational and mafterly account then of the 
 feventy, we have not only an excellent view of the end 
 of their inftitution, but a very fatisfadlory proof of the 
 necefiity of their continuance in every fubfequent age. 
 If fuch co-adjutors were neceffary to Mofes for the ends 
 here fpecitied, much more to the judges and kings who 
 fucceeded him, of whom none furpafled, and but few 
 equalled him in knowlege and fagacity. In this account 
 too, as well as in the reprefentations of fcripture, we have 
 a complete refutation of the aflertion of Vitringaf, that 
 the feventy were intended not to judge, but merely to 
 be witneffes and infpedlors of the actions of Mofes, and, 
 in this manner, prevent any odium which he might incur 
 from any part of his work. *' Noune hoc commodiffime 
 ** ita intelligitur, ut Mofen liberarent magna invidisc 
 " parte, fuaque ilia pkiralitate, uti propiores adlionum 
 <* Mofis teftes illius modi murmurationes populi impe- 
 ** dirent aut compefcerent ?" What need was there that 
 the "Lord-JhouU take of the Spirit, and give It to them for 
 this purpofe, if they were only defigned to be witneffes 
 of his condudl ? or could their performing the part of 
 witneffes amount to the full import of that very energetic 
 cxpreflion, of bearing the burden of the people along with 
 him ? 
 
 That this court might fometimes be difcontinued 
 during the laxer periods of the Jewifh government is 
 indeed probable. It would be too much however, from 
 this, to fuppofe that it totally ceafed after the days of 
 Mofes. There feems to be a ftrong allufion to it In 
 Deut. xvli. 8, 9, 10. *' If there arife a matter too hard 
 " for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, be- 
 
 * Lowman's Civil Government of the Hebrews, p. 169. 
 f See his Diflert, de Syncd. Hebrseor. p. 569. 
 
Om the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 339 
 
 *'< tween plea and plea, and between ftroke and ftroke, 
 *' being matters of controverfy within thy gates ; then 
 " flialt thou arife, and get thee up into the place which 
 " the Lord thy God (hall choofe ; and thou fhalt come 
 " unto the priefts the Levites, and to the judge that 
 " fhall be in thofe days, and inquire ; and they (hall fhew 
 ** thee the fentence of judgment. And thou flialt do 
 ** according to the fentence which they of that place 
 *' (which the Lord fhall choofe) fiiail fhew thee, and 
 " thou {halt obferve to do according to all that they 
 ** inform thee," iitc. Now, that the priefts and judge, 
 here mentioned, could not be, as Vittinga fuppofes, only 
 ordinary priefts and judges, or fmgle perfons, is probable 
 from this, that though priefts and Levites refided in every 
 city, tliey were not competent to give the decifion 
 required ; but the people, in whatever part of the land 
 they lived, were to com.e up to Jerufalem, and ftridlly 
 fubmit to the deternriinations of the priefts and judge there, 
 under pain of the moft dreadful penalties : ver. 11, 12. 
 But if the priefts and Levites coXipetent to decide on 
 thefe matters, were to be found at Jerufalem only, they 
 muft certainly have been inverted with extraordinary 
 powers ; and when we attend to what was before ftated, 
 it feems moft likely that they were no other than the 
 feventy elders, with the prieft or judge who was their 
 prefident. This court, in fine, though difcontinued for 
 a feafon, prior to the reign of Jehofliaphat, feems to have 
 been revived by this prince ; who defcribes the objeft for 
 which it was inftituted, in almoft the very terms ufed in 
 Deuteronom.y . By this court, alfo, Jeremiah was probably 
 tried and acquitted : Jer. xxvi. 
 
 It is certainly not conclufive to argue, that becaufe 
 the court of the feventy is not mentioned by that parti- 
 cular name after the days of Mofes, it muft have ceafed 
 with him. It might as well be alleged, that though, from 
 its being afErtned that in Chrift there is neither male nor 
 
 Ff2 
 
34® Appendix I. 
 
 female, women may be admitted to the Lord's fupper, yet 
 as there Is no account in the New Teftament of a woman 
 partaking of this ordinance, no woman partook of it in 
 the primitive church. It will be faid, perhaps, that the 
 writings of the early fathers bear teftimony to this faft. 
 But Jofephus, Philo, and Maimonides, who may pro- 
 perly be denominated the Jewifh Fathers, no lefs fully 
 atteft the exiftence of this court. Or is it contended 
 that fuch a court was certainly not in ufe in the days 
 of the judges, becaufe it is faid, Judges xxi. 25. that 
 *' becaufe in thofe days there was no king in Ifrael, every 
 ** man did what was right in his own eyes ?" We re- 
 ply, that this court, according to the opinion of the 
 accurate Lowman, being defigned only for the decifion 
 of higher matters, and more difficult and interefting con- 
 troverfies, was not properly concerned with the common 
 adminiftration of the laws of juitlce; and that it might 
 with more propriety be afierted that they had no judges 
 at that time in the gates of their cities, to whom this 
 belonged as their peculiar care, than that they had no 
 fanhedrin, which was not immediately concerned in thefe 
 matters. Yet we know from Deut. xvi. 18. that fuch 
 judges were to be appointed by the Ifraelites, after their 
 fettlement in Canaan, in every city, and fuch judges alfo 
 •we have reafon to believe they had at this very period. 
 
 We thus fee that the fynagogue and fanhedrin are 
 not to be accounted mere human inventions. But even 
 though it were granted that they were not introduced 
 till after the Babylonilh captivity, it feems ftlU to follow 
 that if they were not founded upon a direft divine com- 
 mandment, they were at lead indlreftly warranted and 
 encouraged by the divine word. The inftitutlon of fyna- 
 gogues was defigned for improving the people in the 
 knowledge of the law, and was a fulfilment of the divine 
 injundion, that fmce the prieft's lips were to keep 
 knowledge, they were to feek the law at his mouth. 
 
On the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 341 
 
 Befides which, as ia proved in the preceding Letters, It 
 received the approbation of Jefus himfelf. And with 
 regard to the fanhedrin, it was evidently founded on the 
 commandment of God to the Ifraehtes (Deut. xvl. 18.), 
 *' to make to themfelves judges and officers in all the gates 
 ** of their cities, which the Lord their God gave them 
 " throughout their tribes ;" a commandment which ap- 
 pears to have authorized them not only to appoint as 
 many judges in their particular cities as they found to be 
 neceflary, but alfo to eftablifh a Juperior court of judges 
 in their chief city, by whicli the fentences of the inferior 
 courts might be reviewed, and judgment pronounced In 
 matters of peculiar difficulty or importance. 
 
 Do Independents further afTert, that thefe were not 
 eccLtiiaftlcal, but only civil courts, and, of courfe, that 
 we are not entitled to argue from the government which 
 obtained in them, to that which is to exift in the Chrif- 
 tian church ? It is replied, that the fynagogue being 
 defigned for the religious inftruftion of the people, and 
 its privileges and puaifhments being fpiritual (in fo far 
 as the Jewlfh ceconorny admitted of this), It mud have 
 been principally, if not entirely, an ecclefiaftical inditu- 
 tion. The reafon why the blind man (John ix.) v/as 
 call out of the fynagogue, ^'1%. his profeffion of faith In 
 Chrift, was purely ecclcfialtical : and our Saviour him- 
 felf tells his difciples, that the fame puniiliment would be 
 inflicted on them for a fiinUar fault. Nor is it lefs plain 
 that the fanhedrin, though It was empowered to take 
 cognizance of civil, was appointed alfo to judge of eccle- 
 fiaftical matters. Thofe who appealed to It, were re- 
 quired to hearken to the pried as well as to the judge, 
 Deut. xvii. ; and when revived by Jehodiaphat, 2 Chron. 
 xix. It was authorized to determine in the matters of the 
 Lord as well as In the king's matters. The account 
 liktwife of the manner In which excommunication was 
 performed by them in a particular inftance, as recorded 
 Fi3 
 
342' Appendix I. 
 
 in Pirke Rabb. Eliefer, cap. xxxviii. (hews that this 
 ceremony, though attended fometlmes with the privation 
 of civil rights, vi'as alfo an ecclefiaftical puniihment. 
 «* Ezra, Zerobabel, and Jofhua," fay the Jews, " aflembled 
 '* the whole congregation in the temple of the Lord ; 
 *« and they brought three hundred priefts, three hun- 
 ** dred trumpets, and three hundred books of the law, 
 ** and as many boys ; and they founded their trumpets; 
 ** and the Levites, finging, curfed the Samaritans in the 
 ** myfiery of the name Jehovah, and in the decalogue, 
 ** and with the curfe of the fuperior houfe of judgment, 
 *' and likewife with the curfe of the inferior houfe of 
 ** judgment, that no Ifraehte (hould eat the bread of the 
 ** Samaritans, that no profelyte fhould be received from 
 ** them, and that they Ihould have no part in the rejur- 
 ** redtion of the dead P ** Quid turn fccerunt Ezra, Zero- 
 <* babel etjehofhua ? Congregaverunt totam ecclefiam feu 
 ** castum populi in templum Domini et introduxerunt 
 •* trecentos facerdotes, et trecentos adolefcentcs (feu 
 ** difcipulos minores) quibus erant in manlbus trecentse 
 ** buccinae, et trecenti libri legis. Hi clangebant ; Le- 
 ** vitse autem cantabant et pfallebant ; et excommunica- 
 ** bant Cuth^os per myfterium nominis Tetragrammati, 
 ** et per fcripturam defcriptam in tabulis legis, et per 
 *' anathema fori fuperioris feu cceleili?, et per anathema 
 *' fori inferioris feu terreftris, ita ut nemo Ifraeli- 
 ** tarum unquam in poilerum comederet buccellam 
 '* aliquam Cuthaeorum. Hinc dicunt quicunque come- 
 ** dit carnem Cuthaei, Is vefcitur quafi carne porcina 
 ** Cuthaeus quoque ne fieret profelytus, neque haberet 
 ** partem In refurredllone mortuorum, juxta illud quod 
 ** fcriptum eft, Non ad 'vosjimul nobifcum attinet injlaura' 
 ** t'lo domus Dei nojtii : neque in hoc neque in future 
 « feculo." Buxtorf, too, explains the ejedion from 
 their fynagogues to be a cafting out from their holy 
 affemblies, and as corrcfponding to the. excommunication 
 
On the Jewish Synagogues, &c. 343 
 
 fpoken of in i Cor. v. which furely muft have been the 
 a6l of an ecclefiaftical court*. Selden makes it imply 
 at lead an exclufion from fellovvflilp in holy affemblies, 
 and confiders it as equivalent to that excommunication 
 which, according to Tertullian, exifted in his days in the 
 Chriftian church f. Ludovicus Capellus, in his Speci- 
 legio upon John ix. 22. affirms that the Jcwirti excom- 
 munication by Niddui was an ecclefiaftical cenfurc, and 
 excluded from a communion in holy things, and infi- 
 nuates the fame of the other modes of excommunication. 
 Goodwin, in his Mofes and Aaron, book v. chap. 1. 
 fpeaking of the Jewifh ecclefiaftical court, fays, that to 
 the members of it belonged the power of excommunica- 
 tion, and that it was a reprefentative church. " Hence," 
 fays he, " is that (Matth. xviii. 17.) die ecckjia — 
 " tell the church." The famous Bertram, moreover, in 
 his book de Repub. Hebrseor. lib. vii. thinks that the 
 Jewifh excommunication by N'lddin was fimilar to our 
 fufpenfion from the facrament, and that their excom- 
 munication by Cherem anfwered to our excommunication 
 from the church. And Grotius, in his Annotations on 
 Luke vi. 22. affirms that their excommunication re- 
 iembled that of the ancient Druids, who excluded thofe 
 who \vere under it from the public facrinces — " inter- 
 " dixerunt facrificiis." On the whole, it may be re- 
 marked that in the twenty-four cafes in which excom- 
 munication was infli^led (mentioned by Buxtorf, Lexi- 
 con, p. 1304. 1305. — Selden de Jure Nat. et Gentium, 
 lib. iv. cap. viii. — and Joh. Coch. in his Annotations in 
 Excerpt. Gem. Sanhedrin, cap. ii. p. 147. )> there were 
 feveral in which not only civil and external injuries, but 
 religious fcandals, were the reafon of their infliction. One 
 
 * See his Lexicon Chald. Talmud, et Rabbin, edit. 1639, 
 p. 827. 8z8. 
 f Sec his Treatife de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. iv. cap. ix, 
 
344 Appendix I. 
 
 caufe, was the defp'ifing of any of the precepts of the law of 
 Mofesy or ftatutes of the Scribes ; another, the mention' 
 ing of the name of God raJJAy, or a 'vain oath ; another, 
 the tempting of others, or prtlenting to them occafion to 
 profane the name of God ; another, making them to eat 
 holy things lulthout the temple ; another, the preventing of 
 ihtm from fulfilUng the commandments ; another, a prefent- 
 ing a profane offerings according to Buxtorf, or a fichly 
 animal,, according to Coch. ; another, a prieft's not fepa- 
 rating the gifts of an oblation, &c. p'n all of which inftances, 
 as well as others which might be ftated, it is plain that it 
 was not civil injuries, hut religious fcandals, that were 
 the grounds of the excommunication, and confequently 
 that the fynagogue and fanhedrin, which pronounced 
 this excommunication, mud certc^inly be viewed as eccle- 
 fiaftical courts. 
 
 Thus, then, it appears that the fynagogue and 
 fanhedrin, whatever conntftion they might have la 
 another view with civil matters, mull be confidered 
 as ecclefiafticai courts — that they were inftituted, if 
 not upon explicit divine warrant, yet with the exprefs 
 permifiion and approbation of the Deity — and that 
 the allufion of our Saviour, in Matth. xviii. to thefe 
 Jewifh courts, whatever of them is intended, fully war- 
 rants the dedudion of Prefhyterians from this pafiage, 
 that fimilar courts fliould exift. alfo in the Chrlilian 
 church, and the government be veiled in their hands, 
 unlefs it can be proved from other paflages, that it is not 
 merely ecclefiafticai rulers in particular, but the members 
 of every Chriilian congregation in general, who are now 
 to govern the church of God. 
 
APPENDIX IL 
 
 REMARKS ON a VIEW of SOCIAL 
 WORSHIP, &c. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES ALEXANDER HALDANE. 
 
 OiNCE the preceding Vindication of Prefbytery was 
 written, a book, by the author now mentioned, has been 
 publifhed in defence of Independency. Expefting to 
 find in it an abler or at leail a fuller defence of the 
 principles which are here controverted than is contained 
 in the publications of MefTrs Innes or Ewing, I read it 
 with avidity, but muii confefs that I have been completely 
 difappointed. For any adclitional argument which it brings 
 forward, it might, as far as I can judge, have remained 
 unpubiifhed, vvithout any material injury either to the 
 reputation of the author, to the inftruttion of the world, 
 or to the particular caufe which it meant to ferve. It 
 abounds with profeffions of candour, of the mofl liberal 
 charity, and of the moft ferious and difinterefted regard for 
 truth. And yet while Mr. Haldane avowedly examines 
 Prefbytery in generaly and points out the evils which he 
 thinks refult from it, he almoft uniformly improves it 
 into a pretext for haranguing, chiefly againft our Efta- 
 bllflied Church, and for exhorting her members to re- 
 nounce her communion. Were there not other churches 
 however, as the Relief, and Burgher, and Antiburgher, 
 which are equally zealous in fupporting Prefbytery, and 
 which, of courfe, equally merited his cenfure I How 
 
34^ Appendix II. 
 
 comes it then, that, in his impartial and unblafled 
 reprefentation of truth, the evils which he fuppofes 
 necefiarily to refult from this fcheme in general, fhould 
 be urged, with fuch zeal, as reafons for feparation, only 
 from our Prefbyterian church ? Is the very fame plan 
 worfe when found in ibe Church of Scotland than in other 
 focietics ? Befides, if he was induced by any particular 
 reafons to be peculiarly zealous againft this Church, why 
 did he not uniformly guard againft mifreprefentations, 
 and ftridly adhere to that truth for which he fo frequently 
 profeffes his regard ? 
 
 Of the juilice of this ftri(5lure, I fhall at prefent mention 
 one inftance, taken from a Note, p. 4C9. " Every one,*' 
 fays he, " who dies in the communion of the Church of 
 *' England is committed to the grave as a dear brother, 
 ** of whofe refurrefliou certain hope is exprefTed. Al- 
 ** though this is not the form in Scotland, yet the fpir'it 
 ** of the conjiitut'ionh the fame. All are Chriftians, and 
 ** confequently all go to heaven." Now, let me ailc 
 Mr. Haldane on what ground he reds his affertion, 
 that the conflitution of our church on this point, is the 
 fame with that of the Church of England ; or that it is 
 one of the articles of its conftitution, that all within its 
 pale are Chriftians, and confequently that all of them 
 go to heaven ? Is it not an opinion which fhe has 
 uniformly and publicly held, that neither in her com- 
 munion, nor in that of any church upon earth, are all 
 Chriftians, nor will all go to heaven ; for if in the little 
 company of the twelve apoftles there was one traitor, will 
 there not be many fuch in more numerous focieties ? And 
 does ftie not in her Confeffion of Faith, chap. xxix. fed. 
 viii. exprefsly delineate, in terms which completely con- 
 tradift his aflertion, the charafter of thofe who are worthy 
 communicants, and fliall finally be faved ? " Although 
 *' ignorant and nvicked men receive the outward elements in 
 *' this facrament," (and here it is plainly fup^ofed that 
 
Remarks, &c. 347 
 
 th«y may receive them in her communion as well as in 
 that of other churches) " yet they receive not the thing 
 " figniiied thereby ; but, by their unworthy coming 
 " thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the 
 ** Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all /^«5r^«f 
 ** and ungodly perfom, as they are unfit to enjoy com- 
 " munion with him, fo they are unworthy of the Lord's 
 *' table, and cannot, without great fin againfl Chriil, 
 ** while they remain fuch, partake of thefe holy myfteries, 
 ** or be admitted thereunto." Since it is affirmed then, 
 in this and other pafTages, that ignorant and ungodly 
 men may be found in her communion, and that fuch arc 
 utterly unfit to partake of the fupper, and confequently 
 no lefs unfit for heaven, how could this writer, when 
 confcious of thefe facls, fo confidently aflert that it is 
 the fpirit of her conflitution, *' that all who die in her 
 " connexion go to heaven, and that of their happy re- 
 '* furreftion no doubt can be entertained ?" 
 
 It is remarkable alfo, that when he profefies to be very 
 fenoujly fearching after truth, and to prefent us with the 
 evidence on both fides of the queftion, he (hould amufc 
 himfelf and the reader with a filly and trifling fneer, while 
 he pafTes very (lightly over any thing like argument. This 
 is particularly the cafe in p. 166. where he introduces a 
 ftale and inappofite witticifm of Dr. Hardy, late Eccle- 
 fiaftical Profeffor in the Univerfity of Edinburgh. ** He 
 " was in the ufe," fays he, " of telling his iludents, 
 *' that Synod-fermons ufed formerly to be divided into 
 " four heads, proving the divine right, i. Of Kirk- 
 " feffions — 2. Of Prefbyteries — 3, Of Synods — 4. Of 
 *' General AiTemblies. — What a pity, faid he, that the 
 " preachers fliould have forgot to have proved the divine 
 " right of the Committees of Overtures and Bills!!" 
 Now, on this it may be remarked that Independents can 
 no more prove the divine right of their Committees, who 
 inquire into the knowledge and charader of any appli- 
 
34S Appendix IL 
 
 cant for memberfliip, than Prefbyterlans can eilabllO), 
 from explicit cxpreffions, the divine right of the Com- 
 mittees of Overtures and Bills. Dr. Hardy's fneer there- 
 fore, if at all juft, mud fall w^ith equal force upon thefc 
 Independent Committees. Befides, as we have already 
 attempted to fhew that Kirk-fefiions,Prelbyteries, Synods, 
 and General AfTemblies, are authorized by fcripture, 
 and as Committees of Bills and Overtures confift 
 only of certain members from the former, who are to 
 prepare the bufinefs for more prompt decifion — as the 
 fcripture enjoins alfo, that all things be done decently 
 and in order, and as this plan appears often to be bed 
 fitted for this end, what is there either ridiculous or re- 
 prehenfible in the adoption of It ? Independents them- 
 felves, as was now faid, appoint Committees, though no 
 fuch Inftitutlons be fpecified in fcripture, and why may 
 not thefe Prefbyterian Committees be likewife nominated, 
 if conducive to the pnrpofes of general utility. It would 
 certainly therefore have been more beneficial, had Mr. 
 Haldane, Inllead of quoting this very feeble witticifm, 
 at leaft, endeavoured, to anfwer a few more of the argu- 
 ments produced In favour of Prefby tery, and to flate fome 
 more forcible reafons In fupport of Independency. 
 
 In p. 54. he quotes with applaufe the words of one 
 who fays, that he adores the fulnefs of fcripture ; and then 
 adds, " This fulnefs, refpedllng every thing connected 
 " with religion, will be more evident the better we 
 " underftand It. When we come to fpeak of the order 
 " and difcipline of the firll churches, I hope it will 
 ** appear that no cafe can occur in a church of Chriil 
 " concerning which we have not fufi&clent direftions In 
 *' the New Teftament. Thefe direftions do not exclude 
 <* the exerclfe of prudence and difcretlon. WIfdom is 
 ** neceffary to apply the laws of Chrift properly ; but 
 " to ufe our wifdom In the application of laws, is widely 
 '* different from affuralng a right to add to, or to alter 
 
Remarks, &c. 349 
 
 " them." Now, if it is here infinuated that e'ucry pradice 
 in a church of Chrift muft be enjoined by fcripture in 
 expHcit terras, the affertlon is inadmlffible, becaufc it 
 fuppofes what is not only utterly impradicable, but con- 
 tradidory to the acknowledged principles both of Prefby- 
 terians and Independents. Is every part either of the 
 order or worlliip in the churches of the latter exprefsly 
 prefcribed in the facred volume ? Is there any paflage^ 
 as was now ftated, that appoints a committee of the 
 members of the church to examine the knowledge and 
 character of any perfon who applies for memberfhip \ 
 or does it appear that this was done in any of the churches 
 which are mentioned in the New Teflament? Is there 
 any pafTage which authorizes Independents to fing hymns, 
 or paraphrafes of fcripture, in addition to the verfion of 
 the Pfalms of David \ We are indeed exhorted by Paul, 
 Col. iii. 16. as Mr Haldane obferves, p. 303. to fing in 
 pfalms, and hymns, and fpiritual fongs, but nothing" 
 certain can be deduced from this in fupport of that 
 practice, for as all thefe names are applicable to the 
 Pfalms of David, many of which are hymns and fpiritual 
 fongs, the apoftle, for aught that can be afcertained from 
 this place, might refer only to them *. Omitting other 
 pradices which might be mentioned, is there any pafTage 
 which requires Chriftians always to (land while they fing I 
 Mr. Haldane indeed fays, p. 304. thatpraife is an imme- 
 diate addrefs to God ? But fo alfo is prayer ; yet, like our 
 Saviour, we may certainly either Hand and lift up our 
 eyes to heaven, or fall upon our faces to the ground, or, 
 like Paul, bow our knees to our God and Father. It is 
 indeed farther faid, that Ifrael was exhorted io JIand up ^nd. 
 blefs the Lord their God : Neh. ix. 5. It appears how- 
 
 * It is not intended by this to deny the propriety of finging 
 fuch paraphrafes, but only to fhew that there is no exprefs v.arrani 
 f'jr the v.le of them from fcripture. 
 
 Gg 
 
350 Appendix II. 
 
 ever from what follows, that what the Ifraelites did when 
 they flood up at that time, was to offer up a prayer, and 
 not merely to fing a pfalm. Compare Neh. ix. from ver. 6. 
 to the end. At any rate, the contrary will not be eafily 
 proved. What argument then can be deduced for this 
 pradlice of Independents from the prefent paffage ? Is 
 it alleged notv^ithftanding, as is done by Mr. Haldane, 
 that it is plain from Pfal. cxxxiv. i. that the Ifraelites 
 muil have flood when they fang to God ? It is re- 
 marked in return, that it is evident from ver. 2. that 
 it is the duty of prayer, and not of praifc, which is 
 there reprefented to be required from them : " Lift up 
 *' your hands in the fanftuary," it is faid, " and blefs the 
 " Lord." It is faid, moreover, that it is undeniable 
 from Pfal. cxxxv. i, 2, 3. that the Ifraelites flood up when 
 they fang praifes to God ; for they " who flood in the 
 *' houfe of the Lord, in the courts of the houfe of God," 
 are there called to praife the Lord. Yet from any thing 
 contained in thefe verfes, the Pfalmifl might call on thofe 
 alone, who flood in the temple as fentlnels or priefls, to 
 praife the Lord, as he afterwards calls on the people at 
 large, who did not fland in it, for thefe purpofes. But 
 though he enjoins thofe who flood for thefe purpofes in 
 the courts of the temple, and whom he afterwards deno- 
 minates (ver. 19. and 20.) '* the houfe of Aaron and 
 ** the houfe of Levi," as he alfo enjoins (ver. i.) the 
 fervants of the Lord in general to do fo, whom he after- 
 wards denominates (ver. 19.) " the houfe of Ifrael," 
 what argument can fairly be drawn from this, to fhew 
 that the Ifraelites at large flood when they praifed the 
 Lord? Nay, even granting that thofe who (ver. 1.) 
 ilood in God's houfe were the Ifraelites in general, who 
 flood in the outer courts of the houfe of the Lord at 
 the time of the offering up of incenfe, and prayed to 
 God — and alfo when they prefented their facrifices, what 
 argument does this afford to prove that they flood like- 
 
Remarks, &c. 351 
 
 v.ife when they fang his praifes ? And, in fine, are we 
 reminded that the church in heaven are defcribcd as 
 {landing before the throne (Rev, vii. 9.) when they offer 
 up their praifes ? To this it is fufficicnt to reply in the 
 words of his friend Mr. Ballentine, which he cites with 
 approbation, p. 227. " The whole book of Revelation, the 
 <* epiilolary as well as the figurative parts, are written in a 
 ** figurative manner." Is not this more probable, from 
 the defcription (chap. viii. ver. 3.) of an angel as coniing 
 and [landing at an altar in heaven, having a golden cen- 
 fer ; and to whom was given much incenfe, that he fiiould 
 offer it with the prayers of all faints ? And yet who would 
 fappofe that there is an altar in heaven, or incenfe, or a cen- 
 fer ; or that altars fhould be erefted in the cliurch on earth, 
 and that mlnifters, when they offer up the prayers of God's 
 people, fhould have incenfe and ccniers? On the whole, 
 this idea is confirmed by the i ith and 12th verfes of the 
 feventh chapter, following thofe quoted by Mr. Haldane, 
 and informing us, that while part of the celeilial inhabitants 
 Jland while they offer up their praifes, part of them alio 
 fall upon their faces P But would any Independent argue 
 from this, that the members of their churches ffiould 
 fometlmes fall upon their faces when they prefent their 
 praifes *, though he is furely as much warranted to afiirm 
 this, as to affirm that they ^o\i\A Jland, becaufe another 
 part of the heavenly inhabitants are reprefented as (land- 
 ing when engaged in that exercife ? But if the fcripture 
 feems to point out no particular pofiure for the per- 
 formance of praife, nor no particular warrant for finging 
 any other facred hymns ^or fpiritual fongs than the 
 Pfalms of David, nor no precife example nor injunction 
 for a committee, fimilar to that which is employed by 
 Independents, to inquire into the knowledge and cha- 
 
 ♦ Is it faid, that what was uttered by thofe who fell on their 
 faces was a prayer ? It is anfwered, that it was no more a prayer 
 than what was fpoken by thofe who flood before the throne. 
 
 Oz2. 
 
352. Appendix II. 
 
 rafter of thofe who apply for memberiliip ; nay, if foiT 
 many other things which might ealily be mentioned, 
 Independents have no exprefs direftions in the New 
 Teftament, though they do not hefitate to adopt them ; is 
 5t not incontrovertible, that if it be aflerted that every the 
 minuteft circumftance refpeding the order and difcipline 
 of the church is explicitly revealed, a pofition is maintained 
 which is not, and cannot be a6led upon by any church 
 upon earth ? It would appear then-, that in many things 
 Independents themfelves, as well as others, are obliged 
 to a6l on the principle of expediency ; and yet there are 
 none who are louder than they in reprobating this prin- 
 ciple, and, among thefe, there are few who are keener 
 than our author. 
 
 It is granted indeed, that like every other principle, 
 that of expediency may be perverted ; and that, when 
 io perverted, it muft be very prejudicial. Its abufe how- 
 ever can never be a valid argument againll its utility. 
 Though, when employed by wicked and defigning men 
 to fet afide the great and fundamental principles of order 
 and difcipline which are revealed in fcripture, it has been 
 attended with evil, yet this will never prove that it may 
 not be followed by good, wlien ufed to fupport inferior 
 praftices, which do not contradict but promote the former, 
 though at the fame time they are not explicitly revealed. 
 By many Independent churches, it is praftifed in many 
 inftances, and muft therefore, even in their opinion, be 
 attended with advantage. 
 
 The queftion, ivhen the principle of expediency is to 
 be followed, every Independent is as much bound to 
 anfvver as the Prefbyterian is, unlefs he maintain that 
 there is an explicit warrant in fcripture for every praflice 
 in their churches. An obfervance or praftice indeed, 
 though not exprefsly revealed, may be fafely adopted, 
 whenever it does not contradi6l any of the effentlal 
 principles of government, or when it is warranted by 
 
Remarks, &c. 355 
 
 other acknowledged general principles. Nor do we 
 hefitate again to afTert, that this principle is admitted 
 and a£led on by every fociety *. To follow the author 
 through the whole of his inconfiftencies on the different 
 
 * We may here notice, that this principle mnfl: be applied to 
 regulate the precife degree of frequency with which the Lord's 
 fupper is to be celebrated, as we have already attempted to fhew 
 that it is not exprefsly revealed. See Note in p. 264. et fcq. 
 Mr. Haldane indeed endeavours to prove that it is to be received 
 every Sabbath; and argues that becaufe it is faid, I Cor. xi. ao. 
 that when the difciples came together, they ate the Lord's fupper, 
 and in chap. xvi. 2. that they came together on the firfl: day of 
 the week, they muft have obferved this ordinance every firft day 
 of the -week. But this argument proves too much ; for if they 
 did eat the fupper every time they came together, they muft fre- 
 quently have received it twice or thrice a-week at leaft, for it is to 
 be prefumed that, like Independents, they might meet in a church- 
 capacity on other days than Sabbath. Why then do not Meflrs. 
 Haldane, Evving, and Little, join in commemorating the death of 
 Jcfus when they and their churches come together into one place, 
 for public inilruftion or private difciplinc, on the evenings of 
 Wednefday, or Thurfday, or Friday ? 
 
 It deferves to be remarked alfo, that as the apoftie does not 
 fay that the Corinthians always ate and drank in the name of 
 the Lord when they were met in a church-capacity, how does 
 Mr. Haldane know how frequently they did fo ? or how can he 
 afiirm that they did fo weekly ? He tells us however, that it v.as 
 thus frequently obferved by Chrillians in the firft and fecond cen- 
 tury. But we have formerly fliown, that the argument is as con- 
 ciufive in favour of dal'y as of -weekly communion. Bpfides, with 
 what confiftency can this argument be ufed by one, who, in the 
 vcr^' book which contains it, decidedly protells againft its admif- 
 fion in religious difputes. " If any of the religious rites of any 
 " party," fays he, p. 51. " be called in queftion, do they not uni- 
 •' formly endeavour to tflablini thefe, by appealing to the prac- 
 " tice of the primitive Chriftians ? Indefed fo far has this been 
 " carried, that the pradice of the three firft centuries after Chrift 
 " has alfo been reforted to. This has opened a -wide door for 
 " abuj'cs. It goes upon the fuppofition, that, during that time, 
 *' the churches retained their original purity; but furtly we may 
 
 Gg3 
 
354 Appendix II. 
 
 fubjeds of which he treats, would neither be prafticable 
 within the narrow bounds of the prefent Appendix, nor 
 connefted with the principal defign of the preceding 
 Letters. I fhall only point out, as fhortly as poflible, a 
 few of his inaccuracies on the fubjed of government, as 
 this alone is the ground of thefe inquiries. 
 
 In reviewing his fentiments on this topic, it is impoffible 
 not to notice the very ftriking contradiftion between his 
 views and thofe of MefTrs. Ewing and Little. Mr. 
 Ewing, as we have fhewn, p. 24. 25. 112. 113. moft 
 pointedly affirms that every thing which is to be done, as 
 a part of ecclefiaftical government and difcipline, is ndt 
 to be done in the prefence of the people and only with 
 their confent. Mr. Haldane, on the contrary, afferts, 
 p. 153. and other places, *' that the elders are to put 
 ** the lavi^s of Chrift in execution, but only with confent 
 '• and in prefence of the church.'* And one of the 
 jules followed by Mr. Little in his Tabernacle-church, 
 as quoted in the Narrative referred to, p. 14. is, that 
 every thing fhould be fubmitted to the vote of the mem- 
 bers before it is finally adopted. Mr. Haldane, on the 
 contrary, while he maintains that nothing (hould be done 
 without their confent, and v/hile he contends, p. 212. 
 •* that every new member ought to be admitted by the 
 *'• unanimous voice of the church," objefts very ftrongly 
 to the practice of voting. " We have no inflance in the 
 *' fcriptures," fays he, p. 372. " of any thing in the 
 ** primitive churches being decided by votes. This 
 
 ** learn from the corruptions in the churchef j even in the days of 
 " the apoftles, that this was moft improbable. We are even ex- 
 «' prefsly warned upon this fubjecl, by being informed that the 
 " myftery of iniquity was at work in their time." But if it opens 
 a -wide door for ahufe, as he here afferts, to appeal to the pradlice 
 of the churches, after the apoftles, upon any queftion, why does 
 Mr. Haldane, not only on this queftion, but on that of baptifm, 
 P* 333' 334' exhibit a very ftriking inftance of this impropriety ? 
 
Remarks, &c. 355 
 
 " appears at all times unneceflary, and can be attended 
 <* with no good efFed.'* It is manifefl then, that among 
 three of the moft zealous of our Tabernacle Independents, 
 there is a decided and important oppofition of fentiment, 
 on matters, too, which affedl fome of the firft principles 
 of Independency. Might not Mr. Haldane then, in his 
 very laudable folicitude for the purity of the church, 
 have bellowed a portion of his ftriftures and animadver- 
 fions on his two erring brethren ; and, while he attempts 
 to correft the errors of the members of our Eftablilhment, 
 have extended fome falutary cailigation to Meflrs. Ewing 
 and Little, of whom the former has advanced an opinion 
 fubverfive of Independency, and the latter has not fcrupled 
 to avow a fentiment which, in Mr. Haldane's apprehen- 
 fion, is hoflile to its interefts ? 
 
 To maintain, moreover, as Mr. Haldane here does, 
 that every declfion in an ^dependent congregation ought 
 to be perfe6lly unanimous, and that, when this cannot 
 be the cafe, no determination fnould be made, feems 
 completely ridiculous. Suppofe, as was remarked, p. 53. 
 a cafe of difcipline to occur in an Independent church, 
 in which a difference of opinion obtained how far a 
 charge was diilindlly proved — that the majority are fully 
 fatisfied that the perfon againft whom it is brought is 
 guilty, and that the minority profefs themfelves of an 
 oppofite mind ; nay, fuppofe that long and patient 
 inquiry fhould be made into the matter, and that, as 
 Mr. Haldane advifcs, much fervent prayer fhould be 
 employed, and that ftill the members cannot agree — what 
 will be the confequence ? A majority of ninety out of a 
 hundred members, who are convinced that the perfon 
 who is criminated is guilty, are not to inflidl on him the 
 merited punilTiment, becaufe they cannot perfuade their 
 brethren to adopt their views. Or if they do inflid it 
 upon him, fince unanimity muft prevail among all who 
 are aflbciated as an Independent church, the minority 
 
^^6 Appendix II. 
 
 muft neceffarlly feparate from the majority. In every 
 inftance, of courfe, where the minority cannot be per- 
 fuaded to think with the majority, and where the laws 
 of Chrift mull be put in execution, a feparation muft 
 take place, and new and more numerous Independent 
 churches, from every new minority, mull continually be 
 forming. And, indeed, combining this favourite principle 
 of MefTrs. Haldane and Glafs with the affertion of Mr. 
 Ewing (fee p. 113. and 114. of thefe Letters), that the 
 members of a church may feparate from their brethren, 
 and form new focieties, for difference of fentiment on the 
 merell trifles, we have another very impreflive and faithful 
 reprefentation oi\\\Qfchifmaiic tendency of the Independent 
 fcheme. PcrfeB unanbnhy, fay MefTrs. Glafs and Haldane, 
 muft: be obferved in all the decilions of the church — votes 
 muft be excluded ; and, till the unanimity can be fully 
 attained, forbearance muft be exerciied, and the laws of 
 Chrift muft not be executed. And when the period of 
 this forbearance comes to an end, though the difference 
 of fentiment be upon a point which is trifling, the mino- 
 rity, fays Mr. Ewing, are at perfeft liberty, and are in 
 duty bound, fmce unanimity is requifite in every church, 
 to turn away from the m.ajority, and eredl themfeives 
 into a new congregation*!!! 
 
 * Since every member of an Independent congregation is ad- 
 mitted by the elder, who prefides at the time, to (late his opinion, 
 and as nothing more is exprelTed by a vote, I cannot fee on what 
 confiftent grounds MefTrs Haldane and Glafs can objed to voting. 
 As the members of the churches, too, mentioned in fcripture, 
 according to them, voted in the election both of Matthias and the 
 firft deacons, and as Independents ftiil vote, in many congregations, 
 in the election of their office-bearers, why may they not vote in 
 other decifions ? In a word, fhould it be faid that the reafoning 
 contained in the preceding Letters cannot be conclufive, becaufs 
 it proceeds upon the falfe fuppofition that all the members of an 
 Independent cono;regation are allowed to vote in every bufipefs j 
 
Remarks, &c. 357 
 
 The views which Mr. Haldane gives of the nature of 
 the power which is claimed by Prefbyterlans are, like 
 the ftatements of many other Independents, unfair and 
 exaggerated. He calls it, for inftance, like his predeceiTor 
 Mr. Lockier, p. 158. •' human authority or coercion," 
 and in p. 159. " compulfory power." It has already 
 however been attempted to be proved (Letter II.), that 
 no more authority, nor coercion, nor compulfion, is 
 alTumed by Prefbyterians than by Independents * ; and 
 that the only difference between the two is this, that, 
 among the former, the elders alone are intruded with the 
 
 it is replied, that it can never be overthrown by this, for if they are 
 not allowed to vote, they are undoubtedly permitted to exprefs their 
 jiulgment, and only in as far as it accords with it can any propofal 
 be carried. But in what refpeds this privilege -virtually dirTers 
 from that of voting, or how the latter can be attended with worfe 
 ctfeds, I acknowledge that I am utterly unable to perceive. As 
 Independents, though they allow the members to fpeak, do not 
 finally determine till they are completely unanimous, might not 
 the fame thing be done, even though a vote was taken ? 
 
 * The fame power which Mr. Haldane fays, p. 372. line 21. 
 " is in the church itfelf," and to which every member is fubje£l; 
 a power which authorizes them, as he tells us, p. 350. " if they 
 " look to Chrift for direction, and form a deliberate judgment, to 
 " a£V according to it againfl: an offending member, -whether he he 
 ** convinced or 7ict :"" the fame power, we fay, is ail for which 
 Prefbyterians contend for their office-bearers. They admit too 
 with him, p. 258. that tkefe office-bearers, who are rulers only 
 under Jefiis, have no more power to make laivs than Independents 
 themfelves afcribe to their churches. They allov/ alfb, as much 
 as Independents themfelves, that " rulers cannot require the 
 " church, or any individual member, to fubmit to their decifions, 
 " unlefs they can fliew that the authority of Chrift enjoins fub- 
 " mifHon in that particular adt." And at the fame time they 
 maintain, that " if they look to Chrift for diredlion, and form a 
 " deliberate judgment, they mufl ad according to it, whether 
 " thofe who are under them are convinced or not" as Mr. Haldane 
 declares, in the pafTage now quoted, mufl be done by the mem- 
 bers of an Independent congregation to an offending brother. 
 
338 Appendix II. 
 
 government, while, among the latter, though the elders 
 are the nominal rulers, the people alfo mud be confulted 
 on every occafion. But this, as has at kail been endea- 
 voured to be eftabliflied in the Third Letter, is to 
 conftitute the perfons who are appointed to be ruled, and 
 who are far mere numerous than the titular governors, in 
 reality the rulers. And to talk o^ governors y as is done by 
 this author, p. 262. and 263. riding their congregations 
 merely by prefiding in their aiTemblies, and by perfuading 
 them to their duty, v/hile they are totally unable to irJliSi 
 vton them any pmujTjment if they refufe to comply with- 
 their requifitions, fcems to be very abfurd*. 
 
 * High indeed was the efteem which was foijneriy profefTed by 
 ©ur author, and many of his friends, for the Rev. Rowland Hill, 
 a man who once warmly patronifed them. No man bowever can 
 fpeak more flrongly in condemnation of the fyflem vihich they 
 no-w profefs than this very writer, whom they certainly once ac- 
 counted a man peculiarly diftingiii filed for candour and charity. 
 " One extreme," fays he, p. 108. of his Remarks attached to his 
 Journal, and addrejfed to our author, " generally produces another. 
 " However I might be difpofed to vote for the redu£^ion of the 
 *' Epifcopacy of the Englilh Church, yet I had much rather be 
 " under the Right Reverend Fathers in God with us, than under 
 *' the jurifdiction of the Moft Reverend Mothers in God among the 
 " ftridter Independents. — Medio tuttjpmus ibis.*' Again, fays he, 
 p. 80. " To take a candid and general view of this mode of 
 " church-difciphne (that of the Church of Scotland), 1 am not 
 " furprifed, allowing fomething for education, that every clafs of 
 *' Scceders fhould have ftill adhered to her ^£'??fr^/ rules. For, 
 « admitting in the firft place, the juft; requifition of the choice of 
 " minifters to reft with the people, it is but conliftent that the 
 " further management fhould in a meafure reft with others. If 
 *' it be with the people to appoint, and to accufe in cafe of mif- 
 " condud ; it is but reafonable that others fliould determine the 
 " juftice of that accufation. If the total controul refts with thofe 
 " that appointed him to the office, the rule is perfeftly reverfcd : 
 " Obey them that have the rule over you, and fubmit yourfelves; 
 " for they watch for your fouls, as they that muft give account : 
 " that they may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that is 
 
REMA2.KS, Sec. 359 
 
 It 13 obferved likewife by Mr. Haldane, p. 366. that 
 '* the idea of a church of Chrift fitting by its repre- 
 ** fentatives" (as the paftors or elders have improperly- 
 been called) " has no foundation in fcripture — and that 
 ** all the direftions given by the apoftled to the churches 
 ** refpefting difcipline were evidently addrefled to the 
 ** whole church." In proof of this, he adduces what is 
 faid by Paul to the church of Corinth refpedling the 
 incefluous perfon. But for an attempt at leafl to refute 
 
 " unprofitable unto you : Heb. xiii. 17. For, fuppofing the con- 
 " troul to be with the people, it is they that are to have the rule 
 " over hbn, and he muft be admonipcd by them. He is neither 
 " fliepherd, nor paflor, to watch over ; nor elder, to rule over 
 " them ; nor bilhop, to overfee them : he knows nothing of 
 " authority but by their per?}7iJ/ioii, and is perfe(ftly the creature of 
 " their caprice and controul. All difputes, therefore, under fuch a 
 " frame of government, muft terminate in divifions. Now, in a 
 " j'/r/t? Independent government," (and fuch a government it ap- 
 pears exifts in all our Scotch Tabernacle-congregations, that of 
 Mr. Evving excepted) " in a variety of inflances, this fad is 
 " principally proved, becaufe arbritration is wanting, and the 
 " Prefbyterian government wifely provides for this arbitration." 
 
 And, in Ihort, he remarks upon Heb. xiii. 17. that " fome 
 " have fuppofcd the word 'viyZofAcci would have been better tranf- 
 " lated by the fofter term, to lead or guide, than to rule. The 
 " fofter," adds he, " the better, as tyranny is no more proper in 
 " the minifter over the people, than it is in the people over the 
 " miniflier. But I judge we have here a diftin£lion without a 
 " difference. When a man leads and guides, I think he may be 
 " faid to rule ; though I confefs the word riilcy and efpecially 
 " when attended with that offubmit, is as griping to the confe- 
 " quential old ladies in a flrictly Independent church, as is the 
 *' word obey, in the marriagc-fervicc of our Englifli Liturgy, to 
 " many a female, when under the neceflity of promifing, for once, 
 *' what fhe never means afterwards to perform i!" 
 
 If the word 'viyi^fAeci here fignifies to lead, it means, as was 
 proved, Letter II. to lead or guide in a way which implies the 
 fxercife of authority, though at the fame time not inconfiHent 
 with the ufe of perfuafion. 
 
360 Appendix II. 
 
 his very fuperficial ftatement of this argument, as well as 
 the more able objedlions of Mr. Cotton^ the reader is 
 referred to Letter VII. And as to his rem?irk in that 
 page, ** that when the whole church joins in an adl of 
 « difcipllne, it is calculated more to imprefs the mind of 
 " the offender, to manifeft the obedience of the whole 
 <^ to the laws of Chrift, and to create a greater abhorrence 
 « of fin in the church, for thus pafling fentence on one 
 ** another, they condemn themfelves if they fhould ever 
 " adl in a fimilar manner," it proves a great deal too 
 much. On the fame principle, it would be better to 
 admit all the lieges in a city to join in performing an a£l 
 of civil juridical authority, than to commit that power 
 to the maglftrates alone : for it might be urged, with 
 equal plaufibility, that it is calculated more to imprefs 
 ** the mind of an offender, to manifeft the obedience of 
 ** the community to the laws of the kingdom, and to 
 ** create a greater abhorrence of the crime in them, for 
 ** thus paffing fentence on another, they would condemn 
 ** themfelves if they fliould ever a6t in a fimilar manner." 
 The fophiftry of this reafoning is obvious, whether applied 
 to church or politics. And if the lieges of a city, by fub- 
 mitting to the authority exercifed by their maglftrates 
 when they infli(5l punifliment upon any offender, as really 
 exprefs their obedience to the law, and their abhorrence 
 of the crime, as if they themfelves, in any fenje^ had been 
 judges — nay, if, by fubmitting to that power which pub- 
 licly pronounces fentence upon another, they as incon- 
 teftably condemn themfelves, if they fhould ever a6t in a 
 fimilar manner, as if they had been magiftrates, is not the 
 fame thing manifeft as to the members of the church ? 
 
 Another paffage brought forward by Mr. Haldane^ to 
 fhew that the people are to be admitted in every matter 
 of government to an equality of pov/er, with refpeft to 
 judging, with the nominal rulers, is Matth. xviii. 17. 
 And in confirmation of the arguments of Independents 
 
Remarks, &c. 361 
 
 from this place, he fills up alraoft ten pages of his book 
 with a quotation from Dr. Campbell, an author to whom 
 he is not a little Indebted ; and with very copious cita- 
 tions from whofe Lectures on Church-hiftory, his friend 
 Mr. Ewing, with the editors of the late Edinburgh 
 Quarterly Magazine and Liverpool Repofitory, have fre- 
 quently enriched their writings. For an examination 
 however of the remarks of the Doftor, and of Inde- 
 pendents In general, upon that celebrated paflage, fee 
 Letter VL There it is obferved, that hy the church men- 
 tioned in Matth. xvlii. to which offences are to be told, 
 Mr. Parker of New England, a very eminent Inde- 
 pendent, honelUy allows that the fitft time it occurs, it 
 means exprefsly the arijiocratic part^ or the elders : 
 " Prsscife partem ariftocraticam, id ell preibyterium." 
 There, too, it is at leafl endeavoured to be proved, that, 
 in A6ls vlii. the term church denotes the oflice-bearers, 
 and they alone ; and that, even upon the interpretations 
 of this place which have been given by the moil famous 
 Independent writers, it is an argument for Prelby- 
 tery, and not for Independency, though It is urged by- 
 Mr. Haldane, with the reil of his brethren, as fupporting 
 the latter only. Let us hear however what is faid by this 
 diilingulflied writer, whofe authority is quoted by Mr. 
 Haldane, and under whofe reafoning he feems more 
 Vv'illing to fnelter himfelf than under his own. " Let it 
 " be obferved," fays he, as cited by our author, p. 148. 
 *' that oar Lord gave thefe dire£lions during the fub- 
 ** fiftence of the Mofalc ellablifhment ; and if we believe 
 *' that he fpoke intelligibly, or with a view to be under- 
 " flood, we muft believe alfo, that he ufed the word in 
 *' an acceptation with which the hearers were acquainted. 
 " Dodvveil himfelf faw the propriety of this rule of in- 
 ** terpreting (Diftinclion between Soul and Spirit, ^c, 
 " feft. vlu) when he faid, * It very much confirms me 
 " in my reafonings, when I find an interpretation of the 
 H h 
 
362 Appendix II. 
 
 ** fcriptures not only agreeable to the words of the fcrip- 
 ** tures, but agreeable alfo to the notions and fignifica- 
 ** tions of words then received. For that fenfe which 
 ** was mod likely to be then underftood was, in all like- 
 ** lihood, the true fenfe intended by the Holy Ghoft 
 " himfelf. Otherwife there could be no fecurity that his 
 ** true fenfe could be conveyed to future ages, if they had 
 " been themfelves miftaken In It, to whofe underftanding 
 " the Holy Ghoil was then particularly concerned to 
 " accommodate himfelf.' Now all the then known ac- 
 *' ceptations," fays the Dodlor, ** as I fhewed before, 
 ** of the name zKKMo-iccy were thefe two, the whole 
 *' Jewlfh people, and a particular congregation. The 
 ** fcope of the place fufficiently fhews It could not be the 
 <' former of thefe fenfes ; It raufl therefore be the latter. 
 ** What further confirms this Interpretation Is, that the 
 " Jews were accuftomed to call thofe affemblies which 
 ♦' met together for worfhip In the fame fynagogue by this 
 ** appellation, and had, if we may believe fome learned 
 *' men converfant In Jewifh antiquities, a rule of pro- 
 *' cedure fimilar to that here recommended, which our 
 " Lord adopted from the fynagogue, and tranfplanted 
 ** inta his church." Now admitting, as is obferved in 
 Letter VI. the Dodor's remark, which Mr. Haldane 
 quotes as one of the bulwarks of his fyftem, that the 
 Jews were accuftomed to call thofe affemblles which met 
 together for worfhip In the fame fynagogue by this ap- 
 pellation, and allowing that they had a rule fimilar to 
 that which Is here recommended, a confequence very 
 different from what is apprehended either by the Dodlor, 
 or the writer before us, appears neceffarlly to follow. 
 It feems unavoidably to refult from It, as was before 
 proved, that, as In a Jewifh fynagogue, though the offence 
 is told In the hearing of the members. It is thofe who 
 are diftlnguifhed by the name of rulers, and they alone, 
 even without afliing the opinion or confent of the mem- 
 
Remarks, Sec. 363 
 
 bers, that are to judge and determine. Such it was 
 before evinced from the concefiions of Goodwin, who 
 fays, that " there never could be lefs than tbree rulers in 
 '* any fynagogne, that a major vote -im^ht cajl it among 
 ** them ;^^ and fuch alfo, as was ellablifhed from the 
 authority both of Jofephus and Maimonides, were the 
 perfons who adminiitered thefe Jewilli afiemblies, and 
 without foliciting the confent of the people. This quota- 
 tion from Dr. Campbell therefore, inftead of fupporting 
 this argument for Independency, appears completely to 
 overthrow it ; and proves, that though the members of a 
 Chnftian church, like thofe of a Jewifh fynagogne, may- 
 be allowed to hear the complaint which is prefcnted by a 
 brother to thofe who are rulers againii one who offends 
 him, it is the office-bearers alone, without the confent 
 or concurrence of the members, that are to judge of the 
 complaint, as it was they alone who judged of firailar 
 matters in a Jewifli fynagogue. 
 
 It is affirmed by Mr. Haldane, p. 164. that by " the 
 *' whole church," as it is tranflated in our Bibles, who 
 are reprefented as joining in the decree of the apoftles 
 and elders at Jerufalem (Ads xv. 22.), mem.bers who 
 had no official charafter are intended. But before this 
 is admitted, it is requefted that what is mentioned, 
 Letter XVI. p. 276. 277. may be anfwered. And if" 
 this fhould be anfwered, it is begged that what is Hated, 
 Letter VIII. may be fairly refuted, before any argument 
 can be deduced from that pafTage, for the right of 
 members in the prefent day to judge in every matter 
 of ecclefiaftical government. And, indeed, as Mr. 
 Haldane exprefsly maintains that the decifion which was 
 pronounced by the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem was 
 an infpired decifion, the reafon which he affigns for allow- 
 ing uninfpired members to affift at this confultation is 
 very extraordinary. " It may appear ftrange," fays he, 
 ** that if a revelation was to be given refpe<^ing this 
 
 Hh2 
 
364 Appendix II. 
 
 ** matter, the whole church ihould be joined in the 
 ** decree of the apoftles, or that they and their elders, 
 " as well as the apoftles, y?jo?/Z'-/ he called together to conjult. 
 " But by this means a great end was gained. The 
 ** church heard all that could be faid upon the fubject, 
 " together with the decifion of the chofen witneffes and 
 " ambafladors of Chrift, and tlius, no doubt, would be 
 ** difpofed the more readily to embrace uncircumcifed 
 " Gentiles as brethren in Chrift." Though this how- 
 ever might be a very good reafon for allowing the 
 members of the church at Jerufalem to hear the delibera- 
 tions and determination of this afTembly, which Mr. 
 Haldane defcribes as an infpired alTembly, it appears, 
 in every view, difficult to conceive how it could render 
 it proper to admit men who were not infpired to con- 
 fult with the former upon the prefent queftion. Could 
 thofe who were In this fituation add any thing to the 
 information of thofe who were guided by an Immediate 
 miraculous influence ? or for what purpofe could thbfe 
 who were aided fimply by their own fagacity be called 
 together to confiih^ as Mr. Haldane affirms, with thofe 
 who were direfted by this extraordinary energy ? 
 
 The third fubjedl of inquiry contained in thefe Letters, 
 namely, Whether there ftiould be a clafs of elders who are 
 only to rule, while there are others who preach as well 
 as rule, is very curforily examined by Mr. Haldane. 
 He denies that there fhould be fuch an order, p. 230. 
 and boldly afferts that the inftitution of it *' was one of 
 ** the fteps of the myftery of iniquity by which the man 
 " of fin acquired fuch power." But, In oppofition to 
 this, the reader is requefted to perufe with impartiality 
 Letters IX. X. and XL where it is endeavoured to be 
 proved, that this is an office founded on reafon, pre- 
 fcrlbed by fcripture, and diftingulftied by the approba- 
 tion of the moft zealous and orthodox primitive fathers 
 in the ages immediately pofterior to the apoftles. Let 
 
Remarks, &c. 365 
 
 him coufult efpecially the teftlmony produced from the 
 writings which have frequently been afcribed to Ambrofe, 
 p. 157. to the exiftence of this particular order of elders 
 in the earlieft periods of the Chriilian church j and to his 
 declaration that it was on account of the difcontinuance 
 of this order, at the time at which he lived, that the 
 power of the clergy had become fo enormous : — the 
 words of Bucer, which are there quoted, refpeding the 
 Bohemian churches, " who alone almoft," as he remarks, 
 *< preferved in the world the purity of the doftrine, and 
 ** the vigour of the difclpline of Chrift," amidtl the uni- 
 verfal corruption of the Romifh church, and who had 
 this order among them. Let him recolleft, as is there 
 ilated, that it was to check thefe exceffes which were 
 pradiied at that period by the Romifh clergy, that Calvin, 
 at the Reformation, revived thefe elders. Let him attend 
 to the fadl, that Roman Catholics and Epifcopalians are 
 not lefs zealous than Independents againil this clafs of 
 rulers ; that, as is remarked by the learned Dr. Ovveii 
 (himfelf an independent), p. 177. there is not one new 
 argument advanced againil the paffage in 1 Tim. v. 17. 
 which has frequently been urged for ruling elders— -not 
 one exception given in to the affixing fuch a fenfc to it, 
 but what has long fince been coined by Pap'ijls and Pre- 
 latillb, and managed with better colours than the Inde- 
 pendents of his day were able to lay on them. Let him 
 reflect, we fay, upon thefe things, and then confider 
 what he muft think of the fwaggering affertion of this 
 author, that the infcitution of this order was one of the 
 fteps of the myftery of iniquity by which the man of hn 
 acquired fuch power!!! 
 
 Rafh, indeed, and unfounded as is this aUertion, refpefl- 
 ing the tendency of this order, it muii be acknowledged 
 to be lefs wonderful than fome of the arguments by which 
 he endeavours to iliev/ that this order is not appointed in 
 fcripture. The miniltcrs,he fays, are called hyPrefDyterians 
 
 HI13 
 
3^6 Appendix IL 
 
 the Clergy, or, as the Greek word from which it comes lite- 
 rally fignifies, the men who are the peculiar inheritance of 
 God, and the elders who rule but do not preach, Lay-elders, 
 or the Laity. He next attempts to fhew that the firft of 
 thefe names ought not to be appropriated to minifters, 
 and that the people are as really a part of the clergy, or 
 of the inheritance of the Lord, as the pallors ; and 
 having produced, in fupport of this, fix very humorous 
 pages from Dr. Campbell's LeAures, imagines that he 
 has proved to the fatisfadion of all, that there ought 
 to be no fuch thing as the office of lay-elders, who rule 
 and do not preach. But what connexion this conclufion 
 has with thefe premifes, I profefs myfelf completely un- 
 able to difcover. Becaufe fome have applied to the elders 
 who both teach and rule, and thofe who only rule, the 
 names Clergy and Lay-elders, therefore there can be no 
 fuch ofSce as that of elders who rule but do not preach !! 
 How aftonifning! The man who can difcern how the 
 one of thefe fentiments follows from the other, pofTefTes 
 indeed no common portion of ingenuity and fagacity. 
 Might it not as well be concluded, from the application of 
 improper names to thefe elders, that there (hould not be 
 an order of elders in the church who are to preach and 
 rule, as to infer, merely from the mifapplication of thefe 
 names to them (even granting it to be a mifapplication), 
 that there fliould not be a clafs of eiders who are only to 
 rule ? Does Mr. Haldane, moreover, need to be inform- 
 ed, that even Calvin himfelf, the great reviver and cham- 
 pion for Prefbytery, at the era of the Reformation, denies 
 the didindlion which he here reprobates, and yet ftrongly 
 and exprefsly contends for thefe elders ? Is he not fen- 
 fible alfo, if he is willing to acknowledge it, that fuch 
 Prefbyterians as retain the terms Clergy and Lay-elders 
 do not ufe them in the fenfe in which he reprefents them 
 as employed by the Roniifh church ? Will he venture 
 to come forward, and, as an honeft man, declare, whether 
 
Remarks, &c. 367- 
 
 it is an effentiai principle of Prefbytery to require all who 
 are connected with it to believe, as he would infinuate, 
 p. 231. by his quotation from Dr. Campbell, that the 
 minifters, who preach as well as rule, arc called Clergy, 
 " as being in this prefent world God's peculium-i or fpe- 
 *' clal inheritance ?" — or that the members of its con- 
 gregations at large, and elders who only rule in parti- 
 cular, are denominated Laymen, in common writings 
 and converfation,, from a Greek word which fignifies 
 a ftone, becaufe they rcfemble a ftone (fee p. 234.) 
 in ignorance and infenlibility ? Do they adopt the 
 opinion of Altensfaig in his Lexicon, which he cites 
 with very great approbation from Dr. Campbell, when 
 reafoning againil them ? " A clergyman fignifies a 
 *' learned man, fcientific, fl^ilful, full of knowledge, 
 " accompliflied, and intelligent. A layman, on the con- 
 " trary, fignifies an unlearned man, unlliilful, filly, and 
 *' J^ony .■?" And is every clergyman in their opinion, as 
 we are told that he v/as in his, as quoted by Mr. Haldane, 
 ** in fo far as he is a clergyman, refpeftable ; and every 
 *' layman, fo far as he is fuch, defpicable ?" Or diO they 
 adopt the fentiments of Cardinal Bona, as copied from 
 Dr. Campbell, p. 235. in relation to the care that fhould 
 be taken by the clergy, that laymen may not be allowed 
 to do themfelves harm hy Jlu dying the projounder parts of Jcr'ip- 
 ture, which their ftupidity, as he exprelTes it, is utterly 
 incapable of comprehending ? ** Concerning laymen," 
 fays he, '* in whom pride the mother of blindnefs reigns, 
 *' fo far as refpefts thofe things which regard faith and 
 ** morals. For when like idiots, they prefume to explain 
 " the facred writings, which are the moil profound of 
 *' all writinge ; and again, when they happen to pofTefs 
 " any external accomplifhments, they defpife all others, 
 ** and being thus doubly bhnded by pride, they defervedly 
 ** fall into that word error through which they are in- 
 *' fatuated by God, fo that they know not how to dif- 
 
363 Appendix II. 
 
 " cern what is good and what is evil. Wherefore, let 
 ** not laymen read all the books of the lacred fcripture." 
 Will Mr. Haldane maiiitain that fuch is the acceptation 
 in which the terms under review are underilood by Pref- 
 byterians ; or that fuch are the views entertained by the 
 Church of Scotland of the Clergy and Lay-elders, as they 
 are called by fome, or of the Laity in general ? Is not 
 all that is meant when her miniilers or members fpeak of 
 her clergy, perfons who are ordained to teach and rule ; 
 and when they talk of lay-elders, thofe 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 
 fenfe can it be made to appear, that becaufe neither the 
 terms Clergy nor Elders are to be found in fcripture, there 
 cannot be two feparate dalles of office-bearers, one who 
 preach as well as rule, and another who rule but do not 
 preach ? 
 
 It is granted by Mr. Haldane, p. 237. that there 
 may be a diverfity 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 beft qualified. " One man 
 *' may be beft qualified for labouring in public ; another 
 *' may be his fuperior in converfation, and may more 
 *' eminently promote the edification of the church by 
 ** more private admonition and inftru6lion." The truth 
 of this remark he illuftrates by two inftauces, tc;keii from 
 charafters in political life. '* Dr. Franklin, " fays he, 
 ** fo juftly celebrated for his wifdom and genius, feldom 
 « or never made a fpeech in Congrefs ; yet fuch was 
 " the eftimatlon of his judgment and penetration, that his 
 " opinion, delivered in a (hort fentence or two, had gene- 
 «« rally the greateil weight. Mr. Addifon had no talents 
 *' for public fpeaking, and yet he was fecretary of ftate. 
 << Had thefe men been members of a church, and ex- 
 •< celled as much in the knowledge of divine things as 
 
Remarks, &c. 369 
 
 *' they did in other things, would they not have been 
 " eminently qualified for overfeeing or feeding the flock 
 *' of God ?'* Now, if, as was before proved, there is 
 to be a diverfity of cffices in the church of Chritl corre- 
 fponding to the diverfified gifts of the members, and if 
 there be fome members, though admirably fitttd for ruling, 
 as little qualified for being preachers as Dr. Frar klin 
 or Mr. Addifon were for being public fpeakers, is it not 
 evident, even upon his own principles, that there fhould 
 be fome elders who are only to rule and not to preach in 
 the church of God ? 
 
 In confirmation of his remarks upon the necefiity of a 
 diverfity of ecclefiaftical offices correfponding to the 
 diverfified gifts of the members, he refers us to i Tim. 
 V. 17. '* Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy 
 *' of double honour, efpecially they who labour in the 
 " word and doftrine. That by double honour," fays he, 
 " here is meant larger temporal fupport, is evident not 
 ** only from the frequent ufe of the word ri/^-zi in this 
 *' fenfe, but from the reafon of the precept ; for, adds 
 *' the apodle, Thou fhalt not muzzle the ox that tread- 
 " eth out the corn ; and the labourer is worthy of his- 
 *' reward ; ver. 18. This fupport is to be bellowed both 
 " on thofe who rule, and on thofe who preach, although 
 <* more abundantly on the former. 
 
 ** Some,'* fays he, " in order to avoid a diftindlion 
 ** between preaching and ruling elders, confider the pre- 
 " cept to refpe^l thofe elders who are laborious in the 
 *' difcharge of their- duty ; but this implies the abfurditjr 
 " of the church being called to fupport in a liberal man- 
 " ner elders who were not laborious. The meaning of 
 *' the precept feems obvious, that the elders who faith- 
 *' fully difcharge their duty fhould be liberally provided 
 *' for, but that this was efpecially their duty towards 
 ** thofe who labour in the word and doftrine. Their 
 " gifts were fuperior, they were calculated for more e» 
 
3/0 Appendix II. 
 
 " tenfive ufefulnefs, they would require to devote more 
 ** of their time to ftudy and reading and preaching the 
 ** gofpel, not merely in the church, but to unbelievers 
 '* around them, they flood in need of more fupport from 
 ** their brethren." 
 
 After conceding however fo much in favour of that 
 very office which he had before afTerted to be one of the 
 Heps of the myftery of iniquity by which the man of fin 
 acquired fuch power, he advances an obfervation not lefs 
 contradid.ory to the preceding fentiments than totally 
 inconfiftent with the text upon which it is made. " If 
 ** any," fays he, *' from this text (i. Tim. v. 17.), infer 
 " that the elders who rule well are not entitled io preach, 
 " they muil alfo maintain that the elders who preach are 
 ** not entitled to rule ; a reilriction which has never been, 
 " and is not likely to be advanced." But are we not 
 infl.ru6led in this very pafTage, that the elders who labour 
 in word and doftrine mud alfo rule nvelU before they caa 
 be entitled, in preference to others, to the double honour 
 here mentioned ? And is it not as exprefsly affirmed (as 
 obferved. Letter XI.) that other elders, when they merely 
 rule well, and do not labour in the luord and doctrine, are 
 alfo entitled to double honour ? Does it not follow of 
 courfe, fmce none can receive this liberal fupport who do 
 not perform the nvhole of their duty^ that there mufl be a clafs 
 of elders who fulfil all the duties which they are called to 
 perform when they merely rule welly and at the fame time 
 a diflinft clafs who are not only to ruky but to be employed 
 in preaching the word and doftrine, and who muil faith- 
 fully difcharge both parts of their funftion before they can 
 more efpecially be entitled from it to liberal maintenance ? 
 If, as the mod learned of Independents however admits 
 (Letter XI. p. 177.), ** a rational man, who is unpre- 
 " judiced, and never heard of the controverfy about riding 
 *' eldersy upon reading this text, can hardly avoid an 
 " apprehenfion that there are two forts of elders, forae 
 
Remarks, See. 371 
 
 *' who labour in the word and do6lrIne and rule well, and 
 " fome who rule well, but do not fo labour ;" and if, as 
 even a great Epifcopalian maintains, p. 178. any man 
 who would draw an oppoiite couclufion from thefe words 
 <would /peak nonfenfe ; how can Mr. Haldane with any 
 juftice afTcrt, *' that if any, from this text, infer that the 
 " elders who rule well are not entitled to preach, they 
 " muil alfo maintain, that the elders who preach are not 
 «« entitled to rule * ?" 
 
 With regard to the fourth of the principles difcuffed 
 in thefe Letters, or the fubjedion of the rulers of a par- 
 ticular congregation to the authoritative review of the 
 rulers and office-bearers of a number of congregations 
 met as a Prefbytery, or Synod, or AfTembly, Mr. Haldane 
 is guilty of no lefs mifreprefentation than on fome of the 
 preceding articles. " From the view we have taken," fays 
 he, p. 157. " of the conftitution of the apoftolic churches, 
 " it appears, that although embarked in the fame caufe, , 
 *' they mufl: have been completely independent of each. 
 " other. Jefus has not even permitted an individual to 
 " transfer to a church the fubjedlion which is only due 
 *' to hinnfelf. Far lefs can we fuppofe, that he has given 
 " one church, or churches, dominion over others." 
 And again, " Can any thing be found in fcripture to 
 " countenance the idea of the dependence of congrega- 
 " tions of faints upon one another ? In vain do we look 
 " for it." It is a well known fa6t however, as was 
 before noticed, that Prefbyterians claim for a Prefbytery 
 or Synod no more dominion over a particular congrega- 
 
 * " Some good people who met in the North," fays Mr. Rowland 
 Hill, p. 152. " rigid for Independency, thought they had proved 
 " that all elders were preachers, by aficing if all preachers were 
 " not elders ; the firil propofition being granted, it was fuppofed 
 " the other would foUov.' in courfe. It is juft as readily granted, 
 " that ail kings are men, but it is not as readily proved therefrom, 
 " that alt men are kin^s" 
 
372 Appendix II. 
 
 tlon than an Independent church uniformly claims over 
 each of its members, and that the former require none 
 of their congregations to be more dependent upon them 
 than an Independent church requires each of its members 
 to be dependent upon it. 
 
 To prove that every particular congregation ought not 
 to be independent of the review and controul of the 
 minifters and elders of a number of congregations, we 
 before referred (Letters XV. and XVI.) to what Is 
 fald in fcripture of the church at Jerufaiem. This church 
 we then endeavoured to fnew, from the number of thofe 
 who are reprefented as having been added to it at different 
 times, and who ftatedly refided there — from the number 
 alfo of the minifters who laboured in It for many years, 
 and from the variety of languages which were requifite 
 for its edification, muil have confifted of feveral congrega- 
 tions, which, though adminiftered by their feparate and 
 particular rulers, were fubjeft alfo to one common 
 government. In oppofition to this, Mr. Haldane remarks, 
 p. 153. " We are but imperfedlly acquainted with the 
 <' ftate of things at Jerufalem. The temple-worniip was 
 *' completely different from any thing among us. Vail 
 ** crowds of Jews came up to the great feaft from every 
 ** part of Judea and the adjacent countries. We have 
 ** no reafon to fuppofe that the thoufands who believed 
 •* were all fixed inhabitants at Jerufalem.'* And again, 
 p. 154. *' We learn from Jofephus, that the multitude 
 " who aflembled in the temple was immenfe." He fays 
 (Jewifh War, book vi. chap, ix.), that " Ceilius, under 
 ** Nero, direded the high-priefts to take the number of 
 <* the inhabitants of Jerufalem at the time of the pafFover. 
 " They found the facrifices to be 256,500, which, allow- 
 ** ing ten perfons to each vidim (the ordinary number), 
 " amounts to 2,565,000 perfons, pure according to the 
 " rites of the law, deducing thofe who by uncleanneffes 
 
R.EMARKS, Sccs 373 
 
 *« could not partake at tins feail*. He elfevvhere eili- 
 ** mates the number of thofe who aflembled at the fcaft 
 ** of the paifover (book ii. chap, xiv.) at 3,000,000, a 
 ** number to which the ufual rcildcnt inhabitants bore 
 " no proportion." But allowing that fome of thefe 
 converts \vere not ftated inhabitants of Jerufalem, it has 
 ah-eady been (hewn that the number of thofe who are 
 reprefented as having their ufual refidence there, was far 
 too great for a fmgle congregation. And, indeed, if Jeru- 
 falem, as he allows, was fo large as to accommodate three 
 millions at the time of the paffover, the number of its 
 fixed inhabitants mud have been very great. When 
 therefore we confider the fuccefs of the gofpel, in that 
 favoured period, in other places — the number of the mi- 
 nifters conftantly engaged in this important work in the 
 city of Jerufalem, and yet that they could not find time 
 to ferve the poor — and that they were thus employed in 
 this city for almoil thirty years, is it poflible to believe 
 that no more were converted by all of them in that fpace, 
 than could conveniently meet for receiving the facrament, 
 •and for other religious purpofes, in one congregation ? 
 Was this the time when, agreeably to the intimations of 
 ancient prophecy (Pfal. ex.), the fpiritual offspring of 
 Chrift were to furpafs in number the drops of dew from 
 the womb of the morning ? and was the proportion of 
 thefe, as Independents affirm, that were to be found 
 among the fixed inhabitants of Jerufalem, no more, in a 
 fpace of almoft thirty years, than one congregation ? If 
 fo, indeed, the fuccefs of probably a hundred minifters 
 in Jerufalem mud have been extremely fmall ; and it feems 
 difScuIt to account for this very extraordinary facft, that 
 
 * Bafnage fays, in his Hiftory of the Jews, book i. chap. ix. that 
 Jomctimes two millions and fcven hundred thoufand perfons 
 <-nnv"ned. 
 
 Ii 
 
374 Appendix II. 
 
 while the reft of the world needed fo much the means of 
 falvation, fo many minifters fhould have remained in that 
 city for fo long a period though their labours were fo in- 
 effectual, while other preachers, in many other places, 
 were made in a much more diftinguiflied degree to 
 triumph in Chrift. On the whole, as was before hinted, 
 p. 258. does not this affertion of Independents ftrengthen 
 the hands of infidels, and weaken, if not annihilate, 
 one of the grandefl and moft powerful arguments for 
 Chriftianity — that which is drawn from its aftoniihing 
 fuccefs in the early ages ? If the number of followers 
 which, during thirty years, it gained even in Jerufalem, 
 where our Saviour lived, and died, and rofe again — 
 where fo many apoftles, and prophets, and evangehfts, 
 and paftors rainiftered — where fo many miracles were 
 performed, and fo many Jews refided — was fo fmall, how 
 much fmailer mud have been their number in other places 
 which were lefs highly diftinguifhed ? In every point of 
 view then, we feem bound to acknowledge that the num- 
 ber of converts, among the ftated inhabitants of Jeru- 
 falem, muft have been much greater than could meet 
 merely in a fingle congregation. And fince the whole 
 of thefe different congregations in Jerufalem, as was 
 before fpecified, are reprefented as conflituting one 
 church, fubjeft to the fame common and general govern- 
 ment, it certainly prefents a very powerful argument for 
 fubjefting a number of feparate congregations, in the 
 prefent day, to a fimilar government, while they are 
 fubordinate alfo to their ov.'n particular rulers *. 
 
 * It was before remarked, that even allowing that the temple 
 could have contained the whole of the Chriftians at Jerufalem, it 
 does not appear that the apoftles were permitted to preach in it 
 at pleafure, after they are faid to have been beaten for this : 
 A£ls V. But even admitting, as is ftated, A<fts v, 42. that they 
 v.ere permitted frequently after this, like any other Jews who 
 
Remarks, &c. 575 
 
 As to the pafTages which he produces, p. 156, 157. 
 to (hew that the whole of the believers in Jerufalem 
 were accuftomed to meet for religious purpofes in one 
 affembly, they have been confidered in the preceding 
 Letters. 
 
 As has already been remarked, the fifteenth chapter of 
 the book of A£l3 has often been urged as an argument for 
 PrePoyterian courts of review. But without endeavouring 
 to overthrow the reafoning on which this inference is 
 founded, Mr. Haldane does not hefitate very roundly to 
 affert, p. 159. that *' the pafTage is wholly inapplicable 
 *' to the purpofe." And having proved by this ajfertion 
 that it is thus inapplicable, he details at length the theory 
 of Independents, which has before been examined in our 
 review of this chapter. 
 
 In the account, too, which Mr. Haldane gives of this 
 reference, there are many affirmations inconfiilent witli 
 the fimple narrative contained in this paiTage. He main- 
 tains, for inftance, that the decilion delivered was an in- 
 fpired decifion; and one reafon, he tells us, p. 160. why the 
 church at Antioch fubmitted the controverfy to the deci- 
 fion of the affembly which met at Jerufalem was, that '' the 
 " apoftles were ilill there, who were the chofen witnefles of 
 " the death and refurredion of Chrlft, Ads x. 41. to 
 ** whom in a particular manner, the promife of the Spirit 
 " was given, to guide them into all truth, John xvi. 13." 
 But was not the reference made, not only to the apoftles, 
 but to the elders at Jerufalem? Ads xv. 2. Were not 
 
 were men of learning, to addrefs the people from any paflage of 
 the Old Teftament that was read in their hearing, and even 
 granting that in thefe addreffes, as is faid in the text here cited, 
 they took an opportunity to teach and preach to them Jefus, it is 
 not credible that they would be allowed to meet there with the 
 perfons who compofed their church alone, and deliberate in fecret, 
 like our prefent Independents, upon matters of government, 
 Ii2 
 
76 Appendix II. 
 
 the latter admitted to join in the confultation : Are they 
 not, as well as the apoilles, reprefented in the decree, as 
 laying necefiary burdens upon the Chriftians at Antioch ? 
 ver. 28. Yet unqueftionably they were not infpired ; 
 and if fo, mull not the apoilles alfo, in the prefent matter, 
 have afted as uninfpired ? for, as has already been proved, 
 the elders could neither have been admitted to confult 
 nor determine, had the apoftlcs been guided by a 
 miraculous influence : all they could have done, would 
 have been fimply to fubmit to the explicit fapernatural 
 deciiion of the Spirit fpe^king by the apoilles. 
 
 He fays, that the apoftlcs, and elders, and the church, 
 p. 161. " came together to confider the queftion of the 
 *^' neceffity of circumcifion to falvation." But, in oppofi- 
 tion to this, we are informed, Afts xv. 6. that it was 
 only *' the apoflles and elders who carr^e together to 
 *' confider of the matter," as it is to them alone, ver. 2. 
 \h:\i it is repitilerited as having been fubmitted. Betides, 
 if an infpiied decifion was to be pronounced by the 
 apoilles alone, why was it requifite that tlie elders and 
 church fliould come together to confider tliis point ? He 
 afferts, that the difputing mentioned, ver. 7. did not 
 take place among the apoilles. But would not any one 
 who looks at the 6th verfe, and refledls upon the perfons 
 who are there defcribed as coming together, imagine 
 that ic was among the fame perfons that the difputing 
 fpoken of, ver. 7, enfued ? And to afiirm that it could 
 not be among the apoftles, " becaufe, in ordering the 
 " affairs of the church, they were under the infallible 
 *' direftion of the Spirit, and never differed in their 
 '* doftrine," is to take for granted the very thing 
 to be proved. Might they not differ for a time in 
 their difcufiions, to afcertain His mind upon this fubje6l, 
 as Paul and Peter, though apoflles, differed at another 
 time, upon another point ? Gal. ii. As Mr. Haldane 
 
Remarks, 8cc. 377 
 
 moreover admits, p. 162. that the exprefllon, kfeemed 
 good to the Holy Ghojl^ " does not appear to refer,'' as 
 Mr. Innes contends, " to the Spirit, as guiding the 
 ** apoftles, but to the tellimony quoted by James from 
 ** the word of God, concerning the Gentiles being 
 " received into the church,'* it is difficult to conceive 
 on what ground he can believe that the decifion delivered 
 by this aflembly was infpired. To maintain that it was 
 fo, becaufe " it is inferted as a part of that fcripture. 
 ** which cannot be broken," is to advance an opinion 
 which, unlefs it can be proved that the apoftles and elders 
 afted In this inftance under a miraculous influence, is 
 certainly untenable. Upon the fame principle might it 
 not be proved, that as the letter of Claudius Lyfias, the 
 Roman captain ( Afks xxlii. 26. — 30. ), is inferted in fcrip- 
 ture, he, too, muft have been infpired \ Though " cir- 
 " cumcifion, in (hurt, was a foiemn ordinance of God, 
 " and though it was therefore proper that it, as well as 
 " the law of Mofes, (hould thus publicly be declared to 
 *' be no longer neceflary for the acceptable worfhippers of 
 ** Jehovah,'' yet it appears to be more than we can 
 venture with fafety to affirm, that this affembly, while 
 they quoted fcripture, and adduced miracles, in confir- 
 mation of their opinion, needed to be guided by a 
 fupernatural influence in making this declaration. This 
 point can be determined only by fcripture, and fcripture 
 fays nothing to lead us to adopt the views of Mr. Haidane. 
 Farther, when it is recorded that the apoftles and elders, 
 when confulted upon this matter, decided that circumci- 
 fion was no longer neceflary, and adduced fcripture, and 
 appealed to miracles, in fupport of their determination, 
 and when we fee fimilar fentiments advanced refpec'^ing 
 the law of Mofes in general, in other paiiages, no room 
 is left for difference of opinion upon the prefent fub- 
 je£t in future ages. 
 
 lis 
 
378 Appendix II. 
 
 Is it fald with Mr. Haldane, p. 164. that it cannot 
 be demonftrated that the apoftksaded in their uninfpired 
 capacity becaufe elders were joined with them, for 
 Timothy and Sollhenes are joined with Paul in the falu- 
 tations of his Epiftles, and yet, in writing them, he a6led 
 as infpired ? This objeftion, as ftated by Mr. Glafs, had 
 been confidered before ; and the reader is referred to the 
 Letters which relate to this very interefting chapter for 
 a reply to this quibble. 
 
 Again, we are told by Mr. Haldane, p. 163. that 
 ** this council, as fome call it, would rather authorize 
 <* appeals to a particular church, an argument which has 
 ** not efcaped the Church of Rome." It is anfwered, 
 that we have repeatedly declared that the apoftles and 
 elders at Jerufalem were referred to by the church at 
 Antioch, not as miniilers of the church of Jerufalem, 
 for neither the church of Jerufalem, nor any other in- 
 dividual church, v/as entitled to fuch power over the 
 church at Antioch. They were viewed fimply as mini- 
 fters of Chrift in general, and conftituted a court of 
 ecclefiallical office-bearers different from that which met 
 at Antioch, and to whofe authoritative review the latter 
 was fubordinate. But if they were not referred to as 
 the minifters of Jerufalem, but fimply as minifters of 
 the church in general, and if the church at Jerufalem 
 was not confidered in it as having any authoritative 
 fuperintendence as an individual fociety over the church 
 at Antioch, the objeftion of Mr. Haldane is completely 
 irrelevant. To tell us, moreover, that " this argument 
 ** has not efcaped the Church of Rome, and that Eckius, 
 " the famous adverfary of Luther, ufed the very fame 
 " weapons againft that reformer which Prefbyterians 
 ** employ againlt congregational government," is to tell 
 us nothing to the point. It amounts merely to this, 
 that arguments which have been urged from this palfage 
 for Prefbytery, have been urged alfo, though upon a 
 
Remarks, Sec. 379 
 
 different ground than is ftated in thefe Letters, for the 
 Roman Catholic fyfteni. But it will never follow, from 
 their being advanced, however inconclufively, for the 
 latter, that they may not be conclufive for the for- 
 mer. Many of the rational arguments, for inftance, in 
 favour of Independency, adduced by our author, agree in 
 fuhjlance with the arguments adduced by the well known 
 Thomas Paine, and other levelling demagogues, for 
 the rights of the people in political democracy. Bet 
 would Mr. Haldane allow that they were not conclufive 
 for Independency, becaufe they had been urged by 
 Paine for political democracy ? Many arguments, too, 
 which have been brought forward with propriety and 
 fuccefs for a wife, fuperintending, particular Providence, 
 have been employed to eftablilh that all things were fub- 
 ject to a blind fatality. But would any man allow, that 
 becaufe they had not efcaped the advocates for the latter, 
 they were not concluiive for the former ? And many 
 arguments which have been employed by the apoftle 
 Paul, and other believers in the dotirine of juilification 
 without the works of the law, have been ufed by Antino- 
 mians for the purpofes of iicentioufnefs, to iliew that 
 men may live as they pleafe. But would Mr. Haldane 
 admit, that becaufe the very fame arguments had been 
 adduced by Antinomians in fupport of their fcherae 
 which had been ufed by Paul in demonflration of the 
 dodrine of juilification by grace, they were not valid 
 for the latter ? If he would refufe however to grant this 
 conclufion in thefe other cafes, ought he not equally to 
 rejedt it in the one before us, and allow, that even though 
 the argument which has been deduced by Prefbyterians 
 and Roman Catholics from this paffage, for their refpec- 
 tive fyftems, had been the fame (and the contrary has 
 been proved), it might be inconclufive for the latter, 
 while conclufive for the former ? 
 
380 Appendix II. 
 
 > In enumerating the diftinguKliIng excellencies of Inde- 
 pendency, Mr. Haldane mentions, as peculiar to it, cir- 
 cunnftances which arp common to it with Prefbyterlan 
 government. He fays, for example, p. 396. '* that an 
 ** Independent church may exiit equally under any form 
 " of civil government." But cannot Prefbyterlan 
 churches exift equally under all forms of civil government ? 
 If the favourite principle of Mr. Haldane be adopted, 
 that the civil government In any country, of nvhatever 
 form, is not to interfere with the church, may not the 
 church exift with equal eafe under any government, 
 whether it be Independent or Prefbyterlan ? And even 
 granting that It is to interfere hke the Britlfh Govern- 
 ment, to fecure a comfortable maintenance to the clergy, 
 as long as they do their duty, might not this be done 
 under any form of political admlniitration to Prefbyterlan 
 churches, whether democratic, ariflocratic, monarchical, 
 or mixed ? It cannot therefore be allowed to be one of 
 the diftinguifhing excellencies of Independency, that it can 
 exift equally under any form of civil government, fince 
 that is no more peculiar to it than to Prcfbytery, Eplfco- 
 pacy, or any other form of ecclefiaftlcal adminiftration. 
 
 ** It In no fhape," fays he, " interferes with any form 
 ** of civil government, nor can, fo far as It a6ls upon 
 ** proper principles, be juftly regarded as an objeft of 
 <' jealoufy to the ftate." And then he adds in a Note, 
 that '* churches independent of each other, and acknow- 
 ** ledging no head upon earth, are certainly far lefs fcr- 
 " midable to civil government, than a great body com- 
 ** prehending thoufands. It may be, in all different parts 
 " of the country, fubjedl to an Individual or to a repre- 
 " fentatlve body. The former, were they hoftile to 
 « government, muil alter their conftitution before they 
 ** could attempt any thing againft the (late." But does 
 not Prefbytery alfo no lefs refrain from interfering with 
 
Remarks, &c. . 381 
 
 civil government, and, fo far as it ads upon proper prin- 
 ciples, is it not plain that it can no more juitly be 
 regarded as an objed of jealoufy to the i^ate r Belides, 
 when we confider the umform fwrecy which dlftlnguifhes 
 all the meetings of Independents for matters of govern- 
 ment, and the opennefs and publicity of the meetings of 
 Preibyterians, and that the power v/hich is given by 
 Independency to the people in the church is fimilar to 
 what is granted to ihem by democracy in the Rate, and 
 how ready they may be to transfer this fpirit from the 
 one to the other, is it not obvious that if any form of 
 ecclefiaftical government be formidable to the ilate, it 
 muil be that of Independency, and that Pr^ioytery, from 
 its beneficial confequences in this refpecl, mull be entitled 
 to the preference ? 
 
 " It is evident," fays Mr Haldane, " thst no ether 
 *' kind of churches than what are called Independent, can 
 *' poffibly be formed in many iituations. Such an one 
 *' is praflicable in ^z// circumftances where there are any 
 ** believers. This affords no flight argum.ent in favour 
 " of this mode of church-order." It affords however no 
 Wronger argument for this mode of church-order, than it 
 would prefent for breaking down the political world into 
 as many independent civil governments as there were 
 towns or villages upon the face of the earth. And, in 
 fupport of this, it might be contended with equal plaufi- 
 bility, " that it is evident that no other kind of political 
 *' governments but thofe of tovv^ns or villages can poffibly 
 *' be formed in many fituations. But fuch an one is 
 •' practicable in all circumllances where there are any 
 " inhabitants." Nay, it might even be proved upon this 
 mode of arguing, that as in many fituations, no more than 
 a family can be found in a place, the primitive mode of 
 political government by families is better than any other, 
 and that there fliould be no fuperior adminiftration, but 
 
382 Appendix II. 
 
 as many diftinft pclitical governments as there are families 
 in the world. But if this reafoning would be confidered 
 as completely inconclufive when applied to civil, muft it 
 not be equally inconclufive when applied by Mr. Haldane 
 to ecclefiaftical government ? May not every thing, 
 moreover, in a church of Chrift, in every fituation, be 
 adminiftered by the office-bearers, in oppofition to the 
 Independent plan, without foliciting the judgment of the 
 members ; and as foon as a fufficient number of churches 
 is formed near them, or, even though at a diftance, in 
 connection with them, may not a court of review be 
 eflabliflied amongft them ? Have not fingle congrega- 
 tions of Seceders in America, for example, been fubjeft 
 to the review of a Prefbytery or Synod in Britain, and 
 enjoyed, in addition to that congregational government 
 which they had in themfelves, the fuperadded advantage 
 of their fuperintendence — a benefit which cannot be 
 claimed by Independents? 
 
 ** It may be alleged," fays Mr. Haldane, p. 168. 
 ** that if a church has not fom.e body of men to controul 
 *' it, they will be apt to a6l improperly and partially. 
 ** All men are liable to err, and every church needs the 
 <* conRant care of the great Shepherd. But this care 
 *' he ever exercifes. He has promifed to be in the midit 
 " of them when met in his name. If we view a church 
 ** merely like other focieties, they may be confidered to 
 ** be equally prone to err, and we may imagine it might 
 " be an advantage to have unprejudiced perfons to appeal 
 ** to ; but as God promifed to Ifrael of old a fpecial 
 <* fuperintendence, fo has Jefus to his churches. It was. 
 *' never intended that they (hould go on without it, and 
 " this is calculated to keep up a fpirit of dependence on 
 " himfelf, without which no church can profper." But 
 has not Jefus promifed to Chriftians mdivtduallyy as well 
 as to churches, a fpecial fuperintendence I Do not they 
 
Remarks, kc. 383 
 
 err notwithftanding this ? and do not Independents them- 
 felves grant to their congregations a power of controul, 
 to correal thefe errors ? But if Independents tliemfelves 
 find It neceffary to veft a power of controul over parti- 
 cular Chriilians in each of their congregations, notwith- 
 flanding the fuperintendence which Jefus has promifed. 
 to thefe Chriilians Individually, may not a fimilar power 
 of controul be requiiite over thefe congregations if they 
 err, notwlthllandlng the fuperintendence which Jefus 
 has promii'ed to exercife over them ? And if it is not 
 inconfiftent with that fpirit of dependence on the bleffed 
 Jefus which Individual Chiiftians are called to manifeft, 
 that they fhfiuld be fubjcdl to the authoritative review of 
 a congregation, how can it be incompatible with the 
 exercife of a fimilar dependence upon him by a congre- 
 gation, that they (hould be fubjedl to the review of a 
 higher court ? 
 
 If ordination, In fhort, confifts, as Mr. Haldane con- 
 tends, only In an appointment of a minlfter to a particular 
 congregation, and if, as foon as he ceafes to be the pallor 
 of that congregation, he ceafes to be a miniiler, on what 
 principle can he be jufllfied in exercifing his office beyond 
 that congregation ? Why Is he admitted, among Inde- 
 pendents themfelves, to join in ordaining the minifter 
 of a feparate and difllndl congregation ? or why Is he 
 allowed to difpenfe the facrament of the Lord's fupper 
 in a congregation where he is not pallor ? Will not 
 every reafon which can be urged for his being a minifter 
 to a particular church only, and for his ceafing to be a 
 minifter as foon as he ceafes to be the paftor of that 
 fociety, prove alfo, that it muft be unlawful for him to 
 exercife his fun£lion beyond that individual church ? 
 In fine, " if confelTions of faith, of human compofition," 
 as Mr. Haldane maintains, p. 413. " though they pro- 
 *' mote an appearance of unity, do not produce the 
 
384 Appendix II. 
 
 <* reality— and if they tend to dlfcourage the people 
 " from fearching the fcriptures, by inducing a belief 
 ** that they are too difficult for the unlearned, and that 
 ** their fumnnaries contain whatever is valuable in 
 *« them/' why has Zvlr. Innes publifhed lately one of 
 ihefe fitmmaries for the benefit of young people, to prepare 
 them for ainriiffion to the facrament of the fupper? 
 Does Mr. Haldane here intend aifo to reprobate the 
 fummary which has been publifhed by his brother? or 
 rather, will he acknowledge as a brother, a man who has 
 lately written a book, the tendency of which, in his 
 opinion, is to difcourage the people from reading the 
 fcriptures ? 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printed bv H. Ingl: ; 
 
938.22 
 B81 
 
 fflBr°^ 
 
 KW 3 1965