Page images
PDF
EPUB

trusted exclufively with the management of thefe, why fhould they not exclufively be invefted alfo with the administration of what is inferior? Befides, as was remarked, is it not afferted by Mr. Ewing, that the members are not to judge in inferior points, from the baneful confequences which, in his opinion, would refult from it to the cause of truth; and of courfe, fince they are not to determine in more interefting matters, is it not evident 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 adminifter it without even foliciting the confent of the latter; and this conclufion I am authorized to confider as unavoidable, unless it can be proved that the arguments which have been urged for this Prefbyterian principle are equally explicable upon the Independent plan, and are contradicted by Superior unexceptionable proof. In the following Letters it is proposed to confider thefe proofs in order, which have been urged for Independency, with the degree of force which they feem to poffefs, to counterbalance and overpower the different arguments which appear to be prefented by the facred writings in favour of Prefbytery.

SIR,

LETTER VI.

THAT that the people are entitled, in matters which relate to ecclefiaftical polity, to judge and vote as well as their elders, you think to be evident from Matth. xviii. 15, 16, 17. "Where our Lord," you fay (p. 33.), gives his people particular directions refpecting their conduct in the cafe of offences. Moreover, if thy

"brother fball trefpafs against thee, go and tell him his fault " between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou "haft gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then "take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two "or three witnesses every word may be eflablished. And if "he fkall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if "he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an "Heathen man and a Publican. Here, by the 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 fignifications. It "either denotes the whole affembly of those redeemed "by the blood of Christ, or an individual fociety. "this last sense it is fometimes applied to a meeting of "any defeription. It is thus ufed, Acts xix. 32. where "the word generally translated church, is rendered af"fembly. When in this laft and more restricted sense "it is applied to Chriftians, it is plainly defcriptive of "those who meet together for Chriftian fellowship in an "individual fociety. Agreeably to this it is deferving "of remark, that when the Chriftians scattered over a "province are mentioned, who of course met in dif"ferent focieties, the word church is always found in "the plural. Thus we have the churches of Judea, the

In

churches of Macedonia, the churches of Galatia, &c. "Examples of the first use of the term occur, Col. i. 18. "Eph. i. 22. Heb. xii. 23.; and of the second, Acts ❝ix. 31. xiv. 23. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. In no cafe does it feem "employed to denote the rulers of a church as diftin"guished from the general body, though in Acts xv. 22. "it is ufed to defcribe the latter of thefe as diftinguished "from the former. As in the passage 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 understood

in any other fenfe than as denoting the particular "fociety of Chriftians with which we are connected. "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 "those 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 plaier, than that the decifion of the church is "to be confidered as final. There is not the fmalleft "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 reversed, the language is altogether incom"patible."

In answer to this, however, I would fhortly obferve, that it seems by no means just 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 Jerufalem, many years after the gospel had been preached there, and preached even by eleven apoftles, and many prophets and evangelists, as well as paftors and teachers, with wonderful fuccefs. Now, when beftowed upon this church, Prefbyterians have afferted, and the church, which you have left, endeavours to prove in her public ftandards, that it undoubtedly includes a number of congregations united in such a manner, in point of government, as that while they ftill remained separate congregations, and furnished fufficient employment even for all thefe minifters, they conftituted only one church. But to attempt to difprove this, and overthrow the argument adduced from it by her, for the fubordination of a number of congregations. to the review of a Prefbytery, as well as to their own particular rulers, by a fimple affertion that the word is not fo to be underflood, appears to me not ingenuous. It is

plainly what has been denominated by logicians a begging the queflion, or taking for granted the very thing to be proved, which species of proof, however eafy and expeditious, is unquestionably unfair, and was fcarcely to be expected from you, who had engaged to put your readers in poffeffion of the principal arguments on both fides of the queftion. Not only however does the word church, in these and other paffages, fignify a number of congregations united in fuch a manner as to have one common government, while at the fame time they had each their particular rulers, but it appears even sometimes to mean the office-bearers of the church as diftinguished from the members. In this fenfe it feems to be taken in Acts viii. 1. where we are told, that "there was a great

[ocr errors]

perfecution on the fame day (sy Exavn ry 'nusga) against "the church which was at Jerufalem; and that they were "all scattered abroad about the regions of Judea and Sama"ria, except the Apostles." Now, that by the church here specified, who were all fcattered abroad except the Apostles, is intended only the ministers, and not the members, appears to be most probable, not only from this, that the minifters would be more readily marked out as the first objects of their vengeance by the enemies of Christianity, and that all those who are mentioned of

That the Apoftles at this time did not flee from Jerufalem is indeed remarkable. "Perhaps," as a judicious author obferves, "the Jewish rulers, finding that neither threats, nor any punish"ment which they could inflict, could deter them from their "duty, were unwilling to exhibit a new proof of the weakness of "their power. Perhaps, as they continued in a more public part of the city, where multitudes attended, their enemies

[ocr errors]

were afraid of exciting a tumult by attacking them. Or, per"haps, Saul fpared them from refpect to the opinion of his "mafter Gamaliel." Or, as might have been added, as they in particular were appointed to be witneffes of the refurrection of Chrift, they might fee it to be their duty to remain in that city

them who were fcattered abroad, as Philip. (ver. 5.), and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen (chap. xiii. 1.), were of this defcription; but that even after it is affirmed here, that all the church were scattered 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 houses he committed to prifon. But if the whole of the church referred to in ver. 1. as we are informed, were scattered abroad except the Apostles ; and if at the fame time it be inftantly fubjoined, that there was still a church after this left at Jerusalem, of which thofe alone are mentioned who were not ministers; is it not obvious, that, in the former verfe, the church who are spoken of, and are declared to have been all fcattered abroad except the Apostles, can have been the ministers only of that Chriftian church? Here then is one inftance in which it would seem, that by the church we are certainly to understand its office-bearers as diftinguished from its members; and this application of the term appears no lefs defenfible upon the principle of subftituting a part for the whole, than the application of it to the members exclusively of the minifters in Acts xv. 22. agreeably to the view which you give of that passage.

Since then this term is applied to the office-bearers, in diftinction from the members, as well as to the members, when diftinguished from the office-bearers, or, as in other cafes, when conjoined with them, in which of the fenfes is it to be understood in this paffage, when a Christian is commanded to tell the offence of his brother to the church? That it has been admitted to refer to the first of these by fome of the moft respectable even of the

where he had risen from the dead, to bear testimony there for a while to this fact, even though it should expofe them to suffering, See Robertfon's Lay-preaching Indefenfible, p. 38.

« PreviousContinue »