vourable than Presbytery to an enlightened and candid adminis LETTER XV. Same subject. Scripture-authority of courts of re- LETTER XVI. Same subject. Plurality of congregations in Jeru- salem argued, from the number of ministers employed there, 215; from the diversity of languages spoken, 216. Mr. Ewing's objection considered, 219. The term brethren applied to mi- nisters in the New Testament, and probably so to be understood in Acts xv. 222. Great argument of Mr. Ewing and other In- dependents from Acts xxi. 22. shown to be inconclusive, 223- LETTER XVII. Same subject. Independency not supported by LETTER XVIII. Same subject. Mr. Innes's reasons for giving up Acts xv. as an argumeut for Presbytery, considered and an- swered, 251-259. Conclusion from this reasoning, 260. Sen- timents of the primitive church, 261-from Cyprian, 265. Testimony of Eusebius, 266. Conclusion, 267. APPENDIX I. On the Jewish Synagogues and Sanhedrin, 268. VINDICATION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN FORM ΟΙ CHURCH GOVERNMENT; IN A SERIES OF LETTERS TO MR. INNES. SIR, LETTER I. Ir is with the utmost reluctance that I address you on the subject of your late publication. Sensible of the evils which have often resulted to the cause of Christ from religious controversies, and from controversies especially of inferior importance, I am sorry that an opportunity should again be afforded to the enemies of religion to triumph at the increasing animosities and dissensions of her friends. Conscious also of the necessity of mutual forbearance, to promote among Christians that universal charity which is "the bond of perfectness," I cannot behold without the deepest regret, charges the most awful and momentous, exhibited by one body of Christians against another, though equally attached to the same blessed cause; charges which, from their peculiar character, are not less destructive of those pleasures and advantages which flow from the cultivation of private intercourse, than totally incompatible with public fellowship. Extraordinary as was the manner in which you were led to change your views of the Establishment *, and strong See Letter III. p. 27, in which you admit that it was in consequence of an inquiry begun upon your being offered another situ ation in your present connection, that you finally determined to leave the Church of Scotland. Whether such also was the security of your brother Mr. Ballentine, before he renounced his Presbyterian connection, I do not pretend to say. I consider it however as surprising, that for many years before he had renounced his A as may have been your convictions of the propriety of that measure, it appeared to me particularly unbecoming in you, or any of your brethren, to discover such keenness in your opposition to that Establishment as you have lately manifested. It was the avowed design of a celebrated society *, of which many of you are members, and which may justly be considered as the parent of your churches, to disseminate the gospel where the means of instruction were not enjoyed, or, in your apprehension, not enjoyed in purity, and not to form a party for Independents, by dividing the congregations of faithful ministers, either among the Dissenters or in the Establishment t. You ought certainly to have considered also, that the more formidable the charges which you bring forward against it are, the more striking is your own inconsistency, in granting the highest and most valued privleges of your church to persons while remaining in this very society, profession as a Presbyterian, or even his studies, in the view of becoming a Presbyterian minister, he should tell us, that "he had clearly seen from the word of God, that churches of Christ should "consist only of converted persons, and that their government should "be what is called congregational," or independent, and yet have remained a Presbyterian. See p. 19. of his Observations. * That for propagating the gospel at home. That such was the original profession of this society, is evident from the regulations which they delivered to their itinerant preachers and catechists, and which, so far as I know, they have never yet publicly retracted. In the 2d and 3d of these, it is declared, that "these itinerants are not to shew a preference to any deno"mination of Christians, either established or dissenting, but exhort the "people to attend wherever the gospel is preached in purity. And to en"deavour to strengthen the hands of all faithful ministers of Jesus "Christ, of whatever denomination." See Appendix to Haldane's Address. If such liberal sentiments however were the genuine sentiments of this society, and have uniformly been adhered to by its itinerants and catechists, how can it be explained, that in every instance where they succeeded in procuring a congregation, that congregation has invariably become an Independent church? And especially, since you, and Messrs. Haldane and Ewing, are so zealous members and patrons of this society, I should be glad to know upon what principle you can vindicate your present conduct, in writing with such vehemence against faithful ministers, both established and dissenting, while, as connected with this society, you are still solemnly declared to be publicly associated, "to strengthen their "hands and encourage their people to wait upon their labours, and to "enjoin all to shew no greater partiality for themselves than for them ?!" if you were satisfied as to the rectitude of their principles and practice *. It is undeniable however, that such charges have been advanced by you against it. You yourself insinuate (p. 116), in terms the most decided, that it is no longer entitled to the character of a church of Christ. And your brother Mr. * Reprehensible as is the practice of mixed communian, as granted occasionally to the members of other religious societies by some of our Dissenters, it seems to be doubly so upon the principles of your churches. You consider the Church of Scotland in particular, as will instantly be proved, as an image of Antichrist, if not Antichrist itself. But what pleasure can you experience, when you sit down to participate of your feast of love with men whom you regard as supporters of this adversary of the blessed Saviour? or what satisfaction can they feel, when they reflect that they are joining in this delightful exercise with persons who, whatever attachment they profess, ascribe to them, in another view, this dreadful character? If I am not misinformed too, it has not been uncommon among you to admit those to occasional communion, whom afterwards, when they applied for stated membership with the very same views, you would not receive. But where, Sir, is your warrant either from scripture or reason, for denying the latter, which does not introduce to ordinances more solemn, or privileges more important, to persons to whom you would not scruple to grant the former? Yet while you have imparted at first this privilege with the utmost cheerfulness to those pious persons who oc casionally applied for it, you have been known in many instances, if they persisted in their applications, to remonstrate with them on what you denominated the inconsistency of their conduct, and most assiduously to insist that they would become stated members. Does an act however, which, in your opinion, may be performed without inconsistency for eight or ten times, become inconsistent if more frequently repeated? And does not the solicitude which you discover, and the importunity which you employ, to prevail with those who are occasional communicants to become stated members, disclose a design rather of converting this solemn and invaluable privilege into a mean of increasing your own societies, than of promoting the mutual love of Christians? And, in short, according to the principles of your different societies, every individual, who is admitted as a member, is entitled as a virtual, though not a nominat ruler, to judge and vote in the affairs of the church. If then, according to your uniform practice, you allow a member of the Church of England, or a member from our Establishment or the Presbyterian Dissenters, when you are satisfied at once with his faith and piety, to eat with you occasionally the sacrament of the supper, upon what grounds, I demand, could you refuse this person, even while he remained an Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, a right. also to administer occasionally in your Independent congregations as a24 ecclesiastical ruler? Ewing, in a late very extraordinary paper respecting Vows (see Missionary Magazine for January 1804, p. 6.), after quoting Rev. xiii. 16, 17. " And he caused all, both small "and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark "in their right hand, or in their foreheads : and that no man "might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name "of the beast, or the number of his name,”-introduces, in page 36, a note from the annotations of the Geneva translators, explanatory of the mark of the beast; and then subjoins, "How happy should we be that we are happily de"livered from so many of the abuses mentioned above; and that, through the lenity of the government under which "we live, any man is at liberty to reject them all! No class "of men ought to be more sensible of the value of our civil "constitution than Christians, who cannot in conscience hold "communion with a national church. In these times, and in this country, we may refuse to be sealed with Anti"christ's mark, and be nevertheless suffered to live among men." Here it is plain, that he considers even the strong. est of these names, which have hitherto been viewed as appropriated to that church which is called in scripture, "The "mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth," as applicable also to our national church. She too, it seems, in his opinion, is the beast mentioned in this passage; and consequently, according to the description of this Antichrist, must sit in the place of God, and exalt herself above all which is called God: and of her also it may be affirmed (however contradictory to fact), that she has made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornications, and has deceived them who dwell upon the earth by the lying miracles which she has pretended to perform!!! How strange indeed, that persons who are such sticklers for purity of communion, should receive to occasional fellowship the followers of this beast, and supporters of this Antichrist-the members, in short, of this church, which cannot be considered as a church of Christ! How still more atonishing is it, that men, who glory so much in their canour and charity, should apply to our Establishment the titles of a church, not one of the awful characteristics of which, whether as already stated, or more fully described in the sacred volume, either can be ascribed to her in them. selves, or were ever hitherto ascribed to her in the same ex |