that would lead me to suppose for one moment that they were anything but what we designate Independent Churches. I confess I see no evidence-if I examine the matter with all the deliberate judgment which belongs to so important a question, and throw nothing into it of the passion of a polemic-an absurd passion when examining evidence, obviously, at all times-if I were to examine the passages I have just referred to, and all the others of which they are only a specimen, I could not for a single moment hesitate to say, There are here Independent churches, and nothing but Independent churches.

It may be supposed, my friends, that I may have selected these passages partially for upon a question of this kind, every species of motive is suspected; every description of prejudice is supposed to influence the inquirer; and every attempt to submit the truth of any investigation to a body of individuals will be found to be met with suspicion, from one or other of these quarters; consequently, if any such suspicion is excited, (and I think the best fruit of our own investigation is, to find that we are putting you into the way of making the investigation for yourselves)-I think if any individual were to take a Concordance, and select every passage in the whole New Testament in which the expression" church" occurs, he would find that the view I have taken of it, including the whole of the people of God, or including single congregationsevery where prevails; and that there is not a single passage in the whole extent of the Divine Oracles, that would give any other sense to it.

If it should be said, the whole Israelitish nation in the wilderness is sometimes called the Church, I should say at once, I am not looking for that constitution which directed the movements of the Jewish nation; or else I must have their sacrifices, their ceremonies, their civil enactments, their land-marks, their distribution of territory, their agrarian laws, their poor laws, every thing connected with the whole of their administration. As I find it impossible, therefore, to touch them, without being charged with inconsistency if I do not follow out the beginning I have made, as I allow the Old Testament will not indeed prove the style of government of the Church of God-I must then come to the New Testament again, and say, that nowhere in the whole extent of the New Testament (the oracles of God belonging especially to this subject in connexion with our economy) will the word "church" be found to have any signification but that which I have given to it. That it sometimes alludes to the Church in heaven, is an application of the term, that should not be taken advantage of against this view of the subject. That is still the general idea of whole body of the redeemed; for, whether they are in heaven or earth, the term may be fairly applied to them, as including the great whole whom the Saviour has saved.

Now then, if I were to be regulated in all my conduct, with regard to the application by a community of the meaning of the term church, by the application of the term church by all the Sacred Writers; and if I were to take the churches referred to in the text, and look to them as a model, and believing (as I must) that every thing said respecting them throughout the New Testament, made them Independent churches; I am then compelled to say, that thus far we do find the origin of Independency, in the apostolical institutions, in the meaning of the term "church," and in all its Scriptural applications.

But this is not enough. It may be said, and very justly said, we must not

only ascertain the meaning of the term "church," we must see how the churches were constituted and governed. And if we can discover any thing in the constitution and government of the early churches, any thing that may throw farther light upon the question before us than the meaning and application of the term, we are not only warranted in taking that farther light, but we are compelled to employ it. Let us then consider, in the next place, THE CON

STITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THESE CHURCHES.

And here I would take, first of all, the admission of members: for the formation of a spiritual body must begin here. If it should be said, we have no right to forbid any individual, who may make a profession of the Gospel, the enjoyment of all its blessings and privileges in church fellowship, as soon as he makes such a profession, I should then direct your attention to the circumstance of the Ethiopian eunuch, mentioned in Acts, viii. 36. "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" This was after Philip (as we find by the preceding verse) had preached unto him Jesus. "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Now, here is an application made for a Christian ordinance; let us see how the applicant is received by the inspired man. Philip was directed by the Spirit to sit with the eunuch in his chariot, to go up to him, and instruct him; and he did so; and after opening to him the Scriptures, and preaching to him Jesus, and explaining the whole character of the evangelical dispensation, the eunuch asks to be baptized. Now, let it not be said for a moment, that we have not this enlarged explanation; let it not be said we have simply the information that he "preached Christ unto him," and that he preached to him from a certain passage in Isaiah, and that the moment this eunuch made a profession, he is at once baptized. You will observe, that, in the record given of the preaching of Philip, there is nothing said about baptism; and yet the eunuch appears to know every thing about it, and asks for it; and although Philip tells him nothing on the subject, this shews that he had explained to him the nature of baptism, although we are not previously told he had done so. It appears, therefore, that Philip had explained to the eunuch, not only the grand outlines of the economy of redemption, but that he had explained also the outward ordinances of the church of Christ: and, having explained the ordinance of baptism, we find the eunuch asking for that baptism which Philip had thus explained. But even then Philip hesitates. The conversation he had had with him appears to have convinced him of his sincerity; and that conversation would shew how far he had succeeded in informing the mind of the man; but he still urges home upon him the importance of a belief, and a belief with all his heart, in the glorious Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, this is precisely according to the Independent mode of admitting members to the church. An individual in conversation discovers that he has information, information on the great things of God; and he is only urged to the fact, that he must recollect that he should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, before he can be admitted to the institution of the Church of Christ. The doors are not thrown open to any comer, to any individual who chooses to adopt the words of the eunuch, and make this profession. Like Philip, the

:

inquirer would hesitate; and like Philip he would look for satisfaction like Philip he will be informed with regard to the state of the man's mind; and like Philip he will then yield to the evidence the man has given of his knowledge, and of his sincerity, so far as he can judge either of the one or of the other; and hence will admit him into communion with the church. So far as this case, then, is concerned, we have obviously a specimen of the mode of admission.

66

If we take, further, Acts, ix. 26, we shall find another illustration. We are told that "when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple." He had made a profession of Christianity to them, and he comes and is desirous to unite himself with them. Now, had they belonged to churches of a different description from Independent churches, he would have been admitted at once, and asked no questions, for conscience sake; there would have been no inquiry about his character, his conduct, his information, his spiritual views of things; there would have been an open fellowship for him. Not so, however, with the churches of Christ at that period. He assayed to join himself to the disciples; but they hesitated: again: they were like Philip with the eunuch they were not convinced; they wanted farther information and a stronger conviction upon the case: they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple:" not because he did not profess it, for he did; they rejected his profession; they did not believe it. And no one will doubt that the apostle Paul, who had previously to this period received the vision of the Lord at Damascus-no one will doubt that the apostle Paul, who previously to this period had forsaken all for Christ, and counted it loss-no one could doubt the sincerity, the emotion, the earnestness, and the gravity with which he would make the Christian profession; yet all this is doubted, all this is disbelieved It would not do to say, that they were trying the man—that were uncharitable; they were doubting the profession of a man who had come to them, for the purpose of uniting himself to their fellowship, and they were justified in doubting him, on the principle, until they had farther evidence. Now that evidence they had in the testimony of Barnabas, in the twenty-seventh verse: "But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles"-when they had rejected him—“and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem." Then he was united to their fellowship; he was received. Now this is precisely the Independent method of admitting to the fellowship of the Gospel of Christ. And, therefore, it appears to me, that we have in this instance a proof, that the mode adopted by Independents in the admission of church members, is precisely that which belonged to the church of old.

If it should be asked, however, have we nothing more on this subject? I should say, Yes. On this subject we have the fact, that all the churches are spoken of as churches" called to be saints;" as the "faithful in Christ Jesus;" as "the spiritual body of Christ." Under such epithets, scattered through the whole of the apostolical epistles, they will give you at once to perceive, that the apostles, who employed these epithets, regarded the parties to whom they were

addressed, as having given this credible evidence of their Christianity, and as having been thus received: therefore, expressing the judgment of charity towards them, they spoke of them just as we should speak of persons that had given this description of evidence.

Taking this view, then, of the mode of admission, supported as it is by the general ideas I have thrown out, I come, in the next place, to inquire, how they dismissed the individuals who were unworthy, or proved themselves to be unworthy, members of the church. And here again I take, 1 Corinthians, v. 9, as a guide upon the subject. If we take that epistle we shall find, that from the ninth verse it reads thus: "I wrote unto you," says the apostle, "in an epistle, not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then ye must needs go out of the world." He is letting them know, that his directions referred to the fellowship of the church, and are not general rules to keep in society. "But now," says he, "I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth." Now, here you perceive the rule is laid down. They are to judge all within: they have nothing to do with those who are without, but to endeavour to teach them, and bring them to the knowledge of the truth: to exercise any discipline amongst them is not their province. They are not to pronounce judgment concerning them, for the purpose of carrying that into effect; because they are beyond their pale, and beyond their power: they have nothing to do with them beyond the simple obligation to endeavour to teach them, and enlighten them, upon the salvation of their souls.

But when they have judged those who are within, when this was laid down as the constant practice of the church, that all should judge those who are within-let us ask, What were they to do in consequence of the judgment they were to pronounce concerning those who were within? He tells us in the last words of the chapter-"Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Exclude him, dismiss him. A case, therefore, is here brought before us; the prerogatives of the church are laid down: they are constantly to judge those who are within; for this is laid down as the habit of the church, and not as a prerogative only, to be exercised, on this occasion; and they are to apply habitually this prerogative exercised in the case of this individual : having inquired into this case, and having pronounced judgment, they are to put him away from among them. The Apostle says here, that they were not to keep company with those who were covetous. Now, I ask any individual, how a covetous man is to be held up on evidence connected with his covetousness, but by looking to his character generally, to ascertain his disposition. Here then the mind is to be judged, but judged by the outward conduct-its true, its proper index. And, let me add, if any one should say this should be rigid judgment, (although it is not necessary that I should defend what the Oracles of God so clearly lay down)-I would say, that it is the species of judgment on which we all act; we judge every man by his outward appearance. We may

refuse, it is true, (for we have something to do with the question of judges,) to admit that we are judges of the heart; and we may tell others that they should not judge it. But in every thing else we do judge it; and, when this is not the way, we do judge it in this instance too; that is, we judge the heart from the outward conduct, taking the one as the form and index of the state and condition of the other. This is the way it always acts in all its movements; it is the way it ever will act; it is the way it must act; and if it acts not in this way, it acts not at all. There is, it is true, injustice in judging where there is not proper ground, but I protest against the imputation of injustice in a judgment that has ground to proceed upon. Consequently, if we find this to be the case, there is nothing rigid or severe in judging, where a Christian body acts up, in our humble judgment, to those states and conditions of mind which the word of God tells us are essential to the right of uniting in Christian fellowship with a Christian church.-So much for the mode of admission.

Let me now, as I have shewn you now how the Word of God admits members, and disciplines members-that this is quite in the Independent method, and not in any other-let me now direct your attention to the OFFICERS GOVERNING THESE CHURCHES, and see whether we cannot here again find, that Independency has its origin in the New Testament.

The officers of the Church are in the first place designated "bishops," and in the next place "deacons." Now, if it should be said that there are other officers-the apostles, the men that had the gift of tongues, the men that had the gift of healing, the men that had the gift of prophecy, the individuals that possessed a variety of superintendence over the general Church of God—the evangelists, like Titus, and like Timothy; if it should be said, "These men appeared amongst the apostolical Church of Christ, therefore they also must be regarded as its officers; and if you adhere strictly to the New Testament, you must have men representing these as their successors, as well as men representing the bishops and deacons you are now about to describe;" I should say, in reply to all this, It does so happen that the bishops and deacons are distinctly prescribed as the standing officers of the Church. The bishops and deacons are not only prescribed as of apostolical authority, as the standing officers of the Church; but their qualification is given for the purpose of discharging this office. Now, no evangelist, no individual possessing the gift of tongues, or healing, or any of the other offices that I consider extraordinary, and intended for the first diffusion of the Gospel-none of these had their qualifications laid down, nor is there any direction about the appointment of any one of them. They appeared for the purpose of meeting the circumstances under which Christianity was at first diffused; but there is no appointment of any other. We are nowhere told, that if any man desire the office of an apostle," as he does that of "a deacon," "he desireth a good work." We are nowhere told, that "the man that desires the office" of a prophet, the office of one that speaks in different languages, or of one that has the gifts of healing, "desires a good work;" neither are the qualifications laid down in connexion with such a direction as shew us that he is to stand in the Church. They appear in the Church, and do the duty of the particular and extraordinary period in which they lived. We have the history of their appearance, and we have the history of the discharge of the