Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

I am not to imagine that there was no difference betwixt the King, the Lords, and the Commons, all acting in that mat

ter.

You fay further, "In a word, the Apostle indites his epiftle "to the church of Corinth, when he appoints the excommu. "nication of the incestuous man:" well, according to your own way of reafoning in other cafes, it was to be done by thofe to whom the epiftle was indited. But you tell me, "Yet it was only the deed of the rulers of that church." Thus, it feems, you are of the mind it was only the rulers that were called to mourn, that the incestuous man might be taken away from among them, and it was only among them that this inceft was, and not among the people, 1 Cor. v. 1.

2.

And the rulers only were that whole lump that was in danger of being leavened with this leaven, and not the whole body that partook of the Lord's fupper, y 5. 6. 7. 8. And you think, it feems, that the rulers only were not to keep company, nor eat with any that was called a brother, and yet à fornicator, or the like; and they only were to judge thefe within, and put away evil from among them, y 11. 12. 13. But how do you prove that this was only the deed of the rulers acting without the confent of the people, or that the apoftle is injoining them to do this thing by themselves, without the concurrence of the people? For if you be not faying this, you are faying nothing. All I have in the proof of an affertion fo very bold, fo cross to the text, is a criticism upon a word in 2 Cor. ii. 6. which our tranflators have rendered many, and you think it should have been tranflated chief ones for you would have it believed, that, because AV, Matth. vi. 25. and xii. 41. 42. fignifies more or greater, where it is placed in a comparison as an adverb; therefore #AVV, 2 Cor. ii. 6. denotes the rulers of the church in Corinth. And it feems you are of opinion, that the forgiving and comforting of that perfon, or loofing him, was only the deed of these " chief ones" that bound him, and these only were to confirm their love towards him, and to give proof of their obedience to Chrift, fpeaking in the Apostle, touch. ing that matter. But I hope you will reconcile this opinion of yours with the text and context, 2 Cor. ii. 5.-10.

Then you fignify, that Cyprian's fentiment is of no weight with you, till you understand, that the whole church, Acts XV. 22. is the worfhipping.affembly; but I think I have faid enough to let you fee that; and fo Cyprian's faying must have fome weight with you. You fay he speaks only of his pri

vate refolution for his practice; and this purpose and practice will not be an argument that the people had a negative on the prefbytery, or that each in the church was to be perfonally prefent, and give their affent before any jurisdictional act could be paffed. You know beft what you mean by this negative, and you make a beautiful diverfion from the question, when you speak of each in the church being perfonally prefent; but certain it is, that Cyprian did nothing of that kind, of which he speaks, without the counsel of the prefbytery and the confent of his people. And I think a more laborious answer to what I have told you from the facred oracles, together with an answer to what King brings from antiquity, Inquiry into the conftitution, &c. of the primitive church, chap. vii. and your own Jamison, Cypr. Ifot. chap. vi. § 5. & 16. toward the close, would have been very becoming, before this very bold affertion of yours: "As this was never the practice of the Chri"stian church, so it is void of all foundation in the facred o"racles." Further, what you mean by concurrence in jurif dictional management, I know not; only I know that Jefus Chrift is the only Lawgiver in the church, and his word the only law; but if you mean the concurrence of the people with their elders or bishops in binding and loofing according to his law, then I am of opinion, that every one that confiders the things wherein elders rule, and the nature of binding and loofing, will fee a flagrant contradiction in this fentence of yours. "I am very far from approving minifters "their lording it over God's heritage; but at the same time, "I know no right the people have to a joint concurrence in "jurifdictional management."

I referred you, in the conclufion of my letter, to what I have written on John xviii. 36. 37. of which you have not been pleased to take any notice. But I find you, in excepting against what I alledged in my fpeech touching the difference betwixt your parishes and the first churches, advancing fome things abundantly confuted in that book, as your notion of kings their being nurfing fathers to the church, and of the identity of the covenant with the Jewish nation, and the covenant with the Christian church or kingdom of heaven, p. 5. & 6. of your letter. You also complain of me for want of charity to the commiffion, in faying, "That the commiffion will "not affirm these parishes and their overseers are of the same "kind with the firft Chriftian churches or congregations and "their prefbyteries." And the reafon of your charge is, "Thus you must either imagine they were a set of men who "fubfcribed one thing and believed another, than which "there

3 D 2

"there can be no more unchristian charge; or elfe, they did "affirm, that these parishes are of the fame kind and nature "with the first Christian churches." Thus, it seems, they fubfcribed not the Formula, but your sense of it. And if they subscribed it in any other fenfe than this of yours, they are unto you bad men. But I am not fatisfied about your own fubfcription, if this was it, That the churches planted by the apoftles were parifhes; for you have affirmed, that the churches and their prefbyteries planted by the apostles were not congregations, as parishes are, and the prefbytery of an apoftolic church was not the prefbytery of a parish.

As to what you fay of kings being nurfing fathers, if Con ftantine's becoming a nurfing father, in your sense of that ex. preffion, made not the churches to alter in kind from the apoftolic inftitution, or gave not the clergy an excellent op. portunity for it, (for truly he was no way to be blamed as they), then I am mistaken as to the sense of 2 Theff. ii. 7. 8. and I once more defire you may read and confute what I have faid on that fubject in my book on the kingdom of Christ. You tell me, " It is not a perfon's living in the local "bounds of a parish that constitutes him a member of that "congregation." But I am fure this makes him fubject, whether he will or not, to your parish-discipline, and he must pay you stipend, if he have a heritage there. And what is it that puts him in that parish, if it be not living in that local bounds? Is it his coming to the kirk under the influ ence of custom or fuperftition, or coming to the parish-minifter to get himself married, or to get a name to his child as neighbour and other does, and as his father did before him, that conftitutes him a member of that congregation? I am fure men were not thus conftituted members of the apoftolic churches. But you tell me what does it, in the latter end of p. 6. Now, leaving you to explain handsomely what you fay about binding their children to do as they do, if you leave all the reft of the parish out of the congregation, but thofe you there defcribe, I am fure the congregation will not be pa rochial, but a church gathered out of the parish, and not join. ing in the parish-worship. You likewise affert, that the kingdom or nation of Scotland was brought into church.or der at first by the preaching of the gofpel. And I marvel that no account of this influence of the gofpel, far furpaff ing the influence it had on the people of any nation in the apoftles days, has come down to us. I have a ftrong fufpi cion, there must have been something of your external cu mulative

mulative power in the cafe of bringing the whole nation or kingdom into church-order. And that is not the power that makes the fort of Chriftians that are hated of all nations, and whose foes are those of their own house; nor the fort of churches, wherein the members ftand faft in one mind and one fpirit, striving together for the faith of the gospel, and not terrified by their adverfaries. Then you fignify, that when a nation is thus brought in, their children are federally holy, as the children of the Jews, though their parents were not to be accounted vifible faints. And thus I am to ima gine, that the pofterity of the firft Chriftians in the eastern parts of the world are holy to this day. Neither fhall I doubt but they are better people than many in Scotland that have accefs to know more of Chriftianity than they have.

Thus, Sir, I have taken fome notice of your letter, and given you occafion to reconfider your principles with the cause you are oppofing. And I hold what I said in the conclufion of my last letter as here again repeated. But I cannot exprefs the confidence in any performance of mine, nor in this, that you exprefs, while you fignify your fatisfaction that our epiftles are to be read before Chrift's tribunal. As to which, I would defire to fay fomething like what the Apoftle fays, 1 Cor. iv. 3. 4. 5. which I beseech you seriously to confider. Things will appear, and perfons too, in another fhape before that tribunal, and we are to ftand or fall there only by his word, especially his law of brotherly love to our brother whom we have seen, and there we shall not be run down by the world's cry, nor exalted by the efteem of the multitude, or by the things that procure the reputation of the world. Perfons and things, now highly esteemed, will then be in abomination; and perfons and things now set at nought, and had in abomination, will then be had in honour. So, wishing you may helped fo to act in this world, as may tend to your honour in that day, I rest,

[blocks in formation]

398

Of the unity and diftinction of the ELDER'S office.

TH

[Written in the year 1731; and now first printed.]

HE officers of Chrift's inftitution are diftinguished, firft, into extraordinary and ordinary. The extraordinary are, thofe that were employed in the first joining together of the New-Teftament church, the body of Chrift, made up of Jews and Gentiles, reconciled to God, in one body, by Chrift's death, and in laying the plan of gofpel-churches, and in making the New-Teftament revelation. Such were the apoftles, the chofen eye-witneffes of the Lord's refurrection; and the prophets, inspired by the Holy Ghost for explaining infallibly the Old Teftament by the things now writ ten in the New; and the evangelifts, the apoftles ministers. These can be fucceeded by none in that which was peculiar to them; as the nature of their work, completed when the New-Teftament revelation is complete, does abundantly ma nifeft. And yet the churches of Chrift may be faid to have them ftill, as, in the days of our Lord, the Jews had Mofes and the prophets to hear. But they are fucceeded in all that was not peculiar to them by the ordinary officers; as we fee the deacons in Jerufalem took a part of the work that at first was in the hands of the apostles, even that ministry that is dif tinguished from the miniftry of the word. And then the elders were employed in the rest of the work of the apostles that was not peculiar to them; fo that the apoftles, after the fetting apart of elders, are distinguished from them also, no doubt by that which was peculiar to them*.

The ordinary offices, or orders of ordinary offices, are thefe two, and no more; the order of elders or bishops, and the order of deacons; and befide the bishop or elder, and the deacon, with whom we may reckon the deaconefs, or the widow miniftring to the fick, there is no ordinary churchofficer.

That bishop and elder are the fame in the New Testament, is manifeft from thefe fcriptures, Acts xx. 17. 28. Tit. i. 5.7.

* A&ts xv. 2. 4. 6. 22. Acts xvi. 4«

« ForrigeFortsæt »