2dly, Though it could not be established that there is a reference to the Jewish fynagogues in this paffage, it feems equally fair, and much more confiftent, to understand by the term church, the elders of the congregation, than the congregation itself.

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 those of that body who reprefent the whole, and to whom it is competent. And no phraseology 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 answered, that this passage is not here advanced as an argument for Presbytery, 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 itself, and without going elsewhere to discover the conftitution of the church, it is in favour of the former, and not of the latter, and consequently that the argument which has so often been drawn from it for Independency neceffarily falls. As we must have believed, from the paffages produced from Goodwin, that there fhould be altars, and new moons, and degrees of external punishment among Chriftians, the fame with those which we are assured existed among the Jews, unless it could be evinced from oiber paffages, that a change was enjoined; fo it is no less manifeft from the prefent paffage, that the government of the Chrif tian church, in the point here fpecified, muft refemble that of the Jewish fynagogue, by the name of which it is called, unless it can be demonstrated from other paffages, that it is appointed to be altered. And it will not fuffice to establish this idea, to inform us that the term church, when applied, as in this place, to a Christian congregation, most commonly, in the New Testament, denotes the whole of the members as well as the rulers, fince it is certain that it was understood in the fame latitude of fignifica tion when applied alfo to a Jewish fynagogue, and yet we know that when a complaint was told in it before the members at large, it was the rulers alone who judged refpecting it. Cranting therefore all that is defired even by Independents, as to the proper import of the term church, or sxxλnoia, no argument can be deduced from it in confirmation of their fyftem.

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 manslayer (Numb. xxxv. 24, 25.), it is faid, that "the congregation of the city to which the manflayer and "the avenger of blood belonged, fhould judge between "them. And that the congregation should reftore him "to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; and "that he fhould abide in it till the death of the high"prieft." 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 rise up against him, and smite him mortally that "he die, and fleeth into one of thefe cities, then the "elders of his city shall 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 see that what is in one place repeatedly ascribed to the congregation, is in the other afferted to be done only by the elders; and we are affured that it was the prerogative of the elders alone, agreeably to the divine appointment (Deut. xvi. 18.), to judge the people. In Jofh. xx. 4, 5. it is also faid, that "when the manslayer "that doth flee into one of these cities, fhall stand 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 shall take him to the city unto them, and give him a place that he may dwell among them. And if the 66 avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not "deliver the flayer into his hand; because he smote

66

* The usual judges who fat in the gate; and who, if the city contained only a hundred and twenty families, amounted merely to three; and if it contained more, according to Jofephus, amounted to feven, and according to the Talmudists, to twenty-three.

"his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not before ❝ time." And yet it is fubjoined, that "he fhould "dwell in that city, until he ftood before the congregation "for judgment." Thus we perceive that while the congregation of the city from which he fled, are faid, in this paffage, 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 escaped, who heard and decided upon his cafe, were the elders; and confequently, as the government of every city was the fame, it must have been the elders who were to hear and judge of his conduct in the city from which he came, while yet we are told that he was to ftand before the congregation. Accordingly we find, from Philo, Jofephus, and other Jewish writers, that it was the elders alone, and not the people, who judged in their cities; and that the congregation, being confidered as doing it by them, were faid themfelves to have exercifed the power of judgment, though it was vested in and exercised only by the elders. Agreeably to this, likewife, the Greek tranflators, in their verfion of the Old Teftament, render kahal, the strongest Hebrew word denoting the congregation, in Prov. xxvi. 26. by ouvidgiev, a council or affembly of elders*.

It is the fame word which is ufed in Luke xxii. 66. and Acts iv. 15. to fignify the council of the high-priest, the elders, and the fcribes. See alfo Pafor, who quotes Demofthenes, according to the principle which has been now stated, as employing the word xxλnoia, the word rendered church in Matthew, and the term most frequently used in the Septuagint, even according to Independents, as the translation of kahal or congregation, for an affembly of nobles who were rulers. « Εφοβουντο δε μη εξαίφνης “ExxAnoia YeYNTά;" "Ubi accipi videtur (fays he), pro concione magnatum repente convocatorum," i. e. " It seems to denote here an affembly of nobles or rulers fuddenly convened." And fee, too, the author of the Guide to Zion, p. 5. and Ainsworth, in his Counterpoifon, p. 113. who, though very keen and very respectable ancient Independents, admitted that the word sxxλnciæ, here

Since then it is plain, from these as well as other paffages in the Old Teftament, that it was common for things to be reprefented as ftrongly 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 Chriftian is there commanded to tell the church of the fault of his brother, even though there was no reference to the Jewish fynagogue, that it may be the elders of the church alone who are defigned, provided that it can be proved from other paffages, that the government of the church is committed only to the former, as the government 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 vefted only in the former, as the government of each of the cities of Ifrael was intrusted 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 and judged of by the church, that every member is intended by the term church, than that because the manflayer was required

rendered the church, is ufed repeatedly by the Seventy for the fanhedrin, who undoubtedly were an affembly only of rulers.

Chryfoftom, one of the early fathers after Christ, who muft certainly have been acquainted with what was at that time the conftitution of the Chriftian church, evidently understood this paffage, not in the sense of Independents, but in the sense which is at prefent attached to it by Prefbyterians. As quoted by Zanchius, in Quart. Præcept. 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 the offence was to be told, was intended the προεδροι nas #gaswris, the presidents and rulers, who, as in 1 Theff. v. 12, 13. are always reprefented in the facred volume, and are admitted even by Independents themselves, to be distinguished from the people, who are not allowed by them to be nominal

governors.

to tell his caufe before the congregation of any of the cities of Ifrael, and "even stand before them for judgment,” every Ifraelite, who was a member of that congregation, was warranted, by the term congregation, to erect himself into a judge by the law of God.

Your argument, in fine, against Prefbyteries and Synods, and other courts of review, from their not being mentioned in this paffage, though frequently urged alfo by other Independents, appears to be moft inconclufive. It is fimply this, that because a thing is not mentioned in one paffage of fcripture that treats of a particular fubject, it is not to be found in another that relates to the fame fubject! But would not this, if followed out, lead us to set aside important parts of almost every doctrine and inftitution of Christianity, few of which, we know, are fully contained in one paffage, and most of which are to be collected completely only from different paffages? Befides, even granting that courts of review are not specified, a very good reason feems to be fuggefted, from the paffage itself, why they fhould not at least be direaly mentioned. It is obvious that an appeal could only have been made to a fuperior court, if the brother who was offended had not received justice from the court to which he at first applied; for it is he alone who is reprefented as bringing the matter before an ecclefiaftical affembly for their determination. Such a cafe however is not here supposed; for it is exprefsly stated, that the first court to which he applied gave a decifion in his favour. But if the firfl court, as has been faid, is here fuppofed to have given a decifion in his favour; and if the offending brother is never faid to have thought himself aggrieved by the decifion which this court paffed against him; and, as is infinuated, was even totally unfolicitous, and completely regardless, of bringing it before an ecclefiaftical court at all; what propriety would there have been of introducing the poffibility of an appeal to