poffible in ftill ftronger terms, their conviction that this ordinance should be adminiftered to infants at any period. This determination however appears to be as authoritative as their former decision, as to the case of the lapsed, and feems to have been equally binding upon all their churches.

Firmilian, bishop of Cefarea in Cappadocia, in the Latin tranflation of his Letter, which Cyprian has given us among his own Epiftles, affirms that fuch Councils or Synods were common also at that time in the province of Leffer 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 these functions after they apoftatize, he adds, "Quod totum "nos jampridem in Iconio, qui Phrygiæ locus eft, collecti "in unum convenientibus ex Galatia, et Cilicia, et "cæteris proxime regionibus confirmavimus, tenendum

contra hæreticos firmiter et vindicandum :" i. e. "All "which many of us, affembled together in Iconium, a "city of Phrygia, from Galatia, Cilicia, and the neigh"bouring regions, determined to maintain and affert "against the pretenfions of heretics*." And in another part of the fame Epiftle he informs us, that they had at least an annual meeting of this authoritative Synod or Council. Qua ex caufa (fays he) neceffario ut per fingulos annos feniores et præpofiti

"apud nos fit,

readers, from the solidity of reasoning and acuteness of judgment which they discover, are worthy of the perufal of the most enlightened. Thefe Difcourfes have lately been republished in Scotland, and fell for a trifle.

Dionyfius of Alexandria," fays Marshall, "in his Third "Epistle on Baptism, as represented to us by Eufebius, book vii. "chap. vii. tells Philemon, to whom he wrote, that the Africans 66 were not the first introducers of baptizing heretics; but that "the bishops, affembled at Iconium and Synnada, had long before "determined the question"-which, too, proves that this council was authoritative.

"in unum conveniamus ad difponenda ea quæ curæ "noftræ commiffa funt:" i. e. "Wherefore we find it "neceffary that our elders and rulers affemble every for fettling those things which are committed "to our care." Epift. lxxv.

66 year,

66

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 Ecclefiaftical History, book vii. chap. xxix. that, in the reign of Aurelian, a Synod of many minifters met at Antioch, and excommunicated Paul of Samofatena from their different churches. "Ka' 'ov (fays he) TEλEUTHINS 66 συγκροτηθείσης πλείσων όσων επισκοπων συνόδου, φωραθείς και προς απαντων ήδη σαφως καταγνωσθεις ετεροδοξίαν ο της κατά (6 αντιοχειαν αιρέσεως αρχηγός της υπο τον ουρανον καθολικής εκκλησίας αποκηρυττεται.” And in this Synod we are told, in the preceding chapter, that there were, among others, Firmilian, bishop of Cæfarea, now mentioned; Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, paftors of churches in Pontus; Helenus, minifter of the church at Tarfis ; and Nicomas, minifter of the church in Iconium; with Hymeneus, bishop of Jerufalem; Theotecnus, bishop of Cefarea in Palestine, near Jerufalem; and Maximus, bishop of Boftra. Thus, then, it appears that authoritative courts, fuperior to the governors of a particular congregation, are not only clearly authorized by reafon as neceffary and useful, and fanctioned by fcripture as divinely appointed, but existed even in the earliest period of the Chriftian church; and confequently that the fcheme for which Independents contend is not lefs contrary to the reprefentations of antiquity, than it feems to be to reafon and fcripture.

I have now finished what I intended when I began these Letters-a Vindication of the Presbyterian plan of churchgovernment. That I have refuted all the arguments or objections of Independents I do not pretend, for as each of

their congregations is unconnected with the reft in point of administration, there may be as many ecclefiaftical confli tutions, and as many diverfities of fentiment with regard to government among them, as there are congregations. But who would profess to detail or examine the whole of these fyftems? Befides, as it is another of the principles of most of our modern Independents, that written confeffions, exhibiting their view of the meaning of fcripture, are unlawful, it is extremely difficult to ascertain the tenets even of a few of them, on this, or any other point of doctrine. This principle certainly has its own advantages, and muft be particularly fuitable to the plan of those who are frequently changing their religious fentiments. It is extremely difadvantageous however to the public at large, who can have no certain way of discovering their tenets, while, in another point of view, it is no lefs injurious to themselves, as it frequently obliges the moft impartial inquirers to commit involuntary mistakes in attempting to state their principles. If, in the preceding pages therefore, there be any mistakes with regard to the fentiments of Independents, it is again requested that they may not be ascribed to a defign wilfully to diftort or mifrepresent them. Against this, as far as the author was aware, he has endeavoured to guard, and he should be forry indeed, if, in the view which he has delivered of any doctrine or argument, he had yielded to its influence in the flightest degree. And conscious as he is that he has attempted, as far as he could ascertain the truth respecting their principles, to know and to ftate it, if, in any instance, he has erred, he muft beg leave, without any intention invidiously to fneer at this particular principle, to fet it down to the account of their wanting any public and written confeffion-a peculiarity however which may be followed, at leaft in the conviction of Independents, with advantages which will more than compenfate fuch evils.

APPENDIX I.

ON THE

JEWISH SYNAGOGUES & SANHEDRIN.

To the argument from the conftitution and proceedings of the Jewish Synagogue and Sanhedrin, illuftrated in Letter VI. it has been objected that they were merely human inventions, not introduced till after the Babylonish captivity, and therefore could not be defigned as a pattern to Christian churches. That they were introduced only at this period, is a point which has been warmly, and with confiderable plaufibility, contefted by many diftinguished ecclefiaftical writers of antiquity.

It is highly probable however, that fynagogues, to a certain degree, were coeval with the fettlement of the Ifraelites in Judea. It was the office of many of the Levites, who were exempted from agriculture and other fecular employments, and were difperfed through the various districts of the land, not only to offer facrifices, but to inftruct the people in the truths of religion; for this maxim is mentioned by Malachi, chap. ii. 7. as eftablished in every age of their church, that "the priest's "lips fhould keep knowledge, and they should seek the

law at his mouth; for he was the meffenger of the "Lord of hofts." But how could they fo conveniently communicate this inftruction as by collecting the people into fynagogues or affemblies? It would feem alfo, that without fome fuch convocation or affembly, from the very beginning, the Sabbath could not have been obferved by them; for it is exprefsly faid, Lev. xxiii. 3. that the Sabbath was to the Ifraelites a holy convoca

tion, or for a holy convocation, in or among all their dwellings. If no fuch convocation was observed then, throughout the whole nation, till after the captivity, there was no public worship except at Jerufalem-a circumftance which muft appear highly extraordinary, when we reflect that they were the only visible church of God in existence at that period. Nor will it be eafy to account for the following defcription of the ravages of the enemies of the Jews, probably at the time of the captivity: "They have destroyed all the fynagogues of God "in the land," px x -, Pfal. lxxiv. 8. where, fays a refpectable critic, not only 7 from "77", convenire fecit ad locum tempufque ftatutum, is properly tranflated fynagogues, in which the people were ftatedly to meet for religious worship, but the words and 8, 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 Jerusalem.

Farther, as fynagogues, however they might be altered after the captivity, appear to have exifted many ages before; fo, thé fanhedrin, or court of seventy elders, though it also 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 fcripture, than that it was inftituted the second year after the children of Ifrael came out of Egypt. "Ita nihil certius "eft quam eam, ut e fcriptura diximus, anno exitus " fecundo tribuendam *." He quotes alfo Archbishop Usher, Capellus, Perkins, Temporarius, Codomannus, Scaliger, Helvicus, Calvifius, Buntingius, Maffæus, and many others of the moft diftinguished ecclefiaftical antiquaries, as attributing to it an origin nearly fimilar. Lightfoot likewise, with Grotius, Lowman, and many of the moft illuftrious names in biblical literature, might

* Selden de Synedriis Hebræorum, p. 631.