Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

doms of this world, and making it a part of their constitution, and the kingdom of Chrift in this world of the very fame dimensions with them, is a thing at least as inconfistent with plain clear fcripture, and the nature of Chrift's kingdom, as ever you will prove a bishop in a prefbytery to be; and a thing you have as little commiffion for from Jefus Chrift as for making a Pope, which was alfo done by man's wisdom, for decency, and order and edification. And whereas you fay of your courts, there is no fubftantial or specific differ. ence between a prefbytery and provincial fynod, &c. the nature of their power being materially the fame; only the latter is more extensive and numerous than the former, the firft being made up of the rulers of feveral congregations, and the latter of these of feveral particular churches; on which account their authority must be proportionally the greater and more extenfive; and thus a national or œconomical affembly are no more fpecifically diftinct from one another, or from a fynod, than a provincial fynod is from a prefbytery: May not the fame apology be made for the fubordination of their officers till it come to the univerfal bishop, the fervant of the fervants of God; feeing the higher courts rule the inferior, and the Chriftians under their charge as effectually as the higher officers rule them that are inferior, and their authority is proportionally the greater and more extenfive, till it come to the higheft officer, even as the authority of the courts you fay is greater and more extenfive till it come to the highest court?

2. When you write against the Independents, you are con fident there is no inftance or example of a congregational prefbytery in the new Teftament: but against the Epifcopalians you doubt not to say, that moft of the churches through the Chriftian world were only congregational during the fe cond and third centuries; and even with refpect to the great er churches, you would have them to be ferved with one al tar, as it is called, p. 534. 535. 536.; which, I acknowledge, anfwers beft unto the proper fcriptural notion of a church, both under the Old Teftament and the New.

3. In ftating the question with the Independents about a congregation, you always make it an affembly hearing and capable to be edified by one paftor preaching at a time: but against the Epifcopalians, you would fet it on another footing, and have recourfe to the Lord's fupper, and the whole body partaking of one altar, as it is called, diftinct from the Catechumens, p. 534. 535. So, against the Independents,

pendents, you make Perth and Dundee, and the like, to be two congregations; and against the Episcopalians you make them but one.

4. Against the Independents you gather together all these converted by the miniftry of the apostles in Jerufalem, and all these converted by Paul's miniftry in Ephefus, where he continued by the space of two years, fo that all they which dwelt in Afia heard the word of the Lord Jefus ; and this to make the number of Christians both in Jerufalem and Ephesus to be fo great, that there behoved to be many congregations in each of them: but against the Epifcopalians you expressly fay, "The church in the fingular number, fo far as I can "obferve, is no where in the New Teftament made use of "in exprefs terms to denote any more than the Christians in "fome city, except when the catholic church is meant. "This I have formerly obferved, and fo there is no folid "foundation in fcripture of any difference between a church "and the Chriftians of fuch a city; which is a clear evi"dence, that the elders fent for to Miletus were only these "of Ephefus; for there is not the smallest ground for taking "it in a diftributive sense, p. 425." And yet all that were converted by Paul's miniftry while at Ephefus must be brought in to dwell in the city, to establish a distributive sense of these words to the elders, "Feed the flock."

5. You are very angry with the Independents for the dif ference they make between the key of doctrine and discipline upon the 15th chapter of the Acts; and think it implies a contradiction to fuppofe, that that meeting which you call a fynod had power to give forth laws, and yet not to cenfure the contraveners, p. 347. And yet, against the Episcopalians, you make fuch a difference between the exercife of the key of doctrine and that of discipline, as fuppofes a power of giving forth the laws of Jefus Chrift, and yet not of cenfuring the contraveners. For you allow that one paftor may give forth the laws of Chrift doctrinally; but you will not allow him by himself to exercife the power of jurisdiction and government, or to exercise the key of difcipline, p. 603. You will not hinder a single paftor or a fingle church to give forth the laws of Chrift to all Chriftians and all churches in the world, in a way of doctrine, and to command obedience in the name of Chrift; but you will not allow one pastor, or one church either, to exercise discipline, or to cenfure all o ther paftors and churches for contravening all these laws of Christ,

Christ, that they publish and declare in his name and authority.

:

6. Against the Independents you make much use of the Jewish church, which you would fain have to be the fame thing effentially with the Chriftian; and you contend ftrongly upon the fubordination of the fynagogues unto fuperior courts but against the Epifcopalians you affirm, the Chriftian church was not erected till the refurrection of Chrift; and you are glad to have it granted by any of them, that the Christian churches were formed according to the fynagogues, and that the Christian church had its model from them, and by no means from the temple. And yet you will deny, that the church in Jerufalem was like a fynagogue, or formed after the model of it. But poffibly you may tell me next of a fynagogue claffical.

I might here call upon you to adjust your own principles, and reconcile yourself handsomely, as a contender against In. dependency, to yourself as a contender against Epifcopacy, before you make fuch bold and impudent charges against fuch as defire to make the laws of Chrift the rule and measure of their faith and practice, as you complain of in the Epifcopalians against your faction; but if you still perfift, then know what you yourself say to the Episcopalians, Append. p. 37. at the close.

[blocks in formation]

Your critical obfervations on the fcripture, and on the ex plication of my propofition, give me fome ground to suspect, there is no great reafon for the conplaint infinuated in your preface in these words: "I am but an obfcure country mini.

fter." I own, an obfcure country minister has little ufe for nice criticism; and, if his parish be very large, he may be more fuitably employed than in that art, which is moft proper for doctors of divinity. But though you had time, as you have not in your prefent fituation, I must acknowledge the fample you have given of your talent this way does not evidently declare that you deferve the doctor's chair. No man needs fufpect me of a design to fhew my talent in criti cifm, in order to preferment in the national church; neither can I pretend to be a critic: but you will not, I hope, kon it prefumption in me, to put you in mind of fome things that look very odd to me, and that I cannot easily understand, till either you, having more time, or some friend of

yours

rec

of

greater

greater genius and leifure, clear them up to me; and if, after all, I remain in the dark, there is no help for that.

1. The first thing I take notice of, is what you fay, p. 90. "I defire," say you, ❝ our author may affign us, what place "of the New Testament it is, that calls any fingle church, "the church at Antioch, at Corinth, at Ephefus, &c. He "that pretends to a fuperlative regard to fcripture-style ought "ftrictly to regard it himself. We have frequent mention "of the church of Ephefus, &c. but no where at Ephefus, "&c.; but this was not without defign." Here you, that fometimes condemn me for thinking evil, appear to me as he that trampled on Plato's pride. But I confefs I am to this hour at a lofs to know what could be my design in saying at, where you would have me to fay of; and I could be fatisfied to see a little more of your critical fkill upon at and of. I fee in my English Bible, the church at Jerufalem, Acts viii. 1. the church at Antioch, Acts xiii. 1. the church at Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 2. 2 Cor. i. 1. which, no doubt, has led me into that way of fpeaking at which you take umbrage. Your good liking to of instead of at, has put me to look for it; and fo I find the church of the Theffalonians, I Theff. i. 1. 2 Theff. i. 1. the church of the Laodiceans, Col. iv. 16. I dare not fay of Theffalonica, or of Laodicea, left I be checked by you for altering the expreffion of defign. But I may fay of Ephefus: for I once read it, and, if I remember right, but once, Rev. ii. 1. And if a way of speaking be to be established in the method of plurality, at must carry it, for it has many against one, and but one. If we go to the first language with this nice obfervation of your's, there, I fear, we shall neither find of Ephefus, nor at Ephefus; but we must speak after this manner, the Ephefian church. And if we speak about Ephefus, as other churches are spoke of, we must say," the church of the Ephefians; the church in Ephefus ;" and this last is the common way of speaking in the New Teftament: for, if 1 may prefume to tranflate, I find, "the church in Jerufalem, in Antioch, in Corinth," &c. 2. Next, I find you would puzzle me with a hard question upon that famous phrase which επί το αυτό, you find, after the Prefbyterian writers have pointed it out to you, Acts iv. 25. 26. and I, it seems, did not fet it down when I noted down other texts: but I affure you, if it had been in my eye, I had set it down, as making for the sense of that phrase which I contend for. Your queftion is, Is it to be learned from any part of the facred oracles, that Herod, Pontius Pilate,

[ocr errors]

and

[ocr errors]

επι το αυτο,

and the kings of the earth, with the rulers, affembled together in one place, against the Lord and his Chrift? This question had been more exact, though perhaps not fo pungent, if you had kept close by the words of the text; and I fhall not fay it was of defign, that you did not keep by them. If you had feen my anfwer to the "Defence of national churches," a part of the facred oracles had caft up to you, where you would have found the kings of the earth, even Herod and Pontius Pilate, standing up, and the rulers, even the rulers of the Jews, gathered To auro, in one place, against the Lord and against his Chrift; and that is Luke xxiii. from the 1st to the 15th verfe. You must take notice, that y 26. of Acts iv. fays only, "The rulers were gathered" επί το αυτο : and this is the fenfe of the Hebrew adverb VAHAD, which fignifies in one, as the Greek words properly fignify, in the fame. And if the conftant fenfe of the Greek phrafe in the New Tefta ment be, in one or the fame place, and be found in that fig nification here, then this is the fenfe of the Hebrew word, as it ftands in Pfalm ii. 2. And whatever other ufes it may be otherwife put to, yet there if muft fignify one place. And in that text, as well as in Acts iv. 26. it is only ascribed to the rulers, as standing up is unto the kings. I need not tell you, that 27. chap. iv. of the Acts, is an explication of

25. and 26. of that chapter. I would have you also to no. tice, that in 27. there is a different reading, which is to be found in the Syriac, vulgate Latin, and Beza's Latin verfions, according to feveral Greek manufcripts; and. I have it in Bleau's Greek Teftament, where, after anbeas, you may read ἐν τῇ πόλει ταυτη. I am far from infifting on this different reading; only, if it has crept into fome copies as a glofs, it may be from thence inferred, that, when that glofs obtained, 171 TO AUTO was understood to fignify in one place. But what. ever be in this, that we may have a diftinct view of y 27. we may confider the words in the order wherein they stand in the original "For there were gathered together, of a "truth, against thy holy child Jefus, whom thou haft a "nointed, hoth Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles, "and (with) the people of Ifrael" Allow me now to ask you, Does the forefaid part of the facred oracles (Luke xxiii. 1.-15.) teach you, that Herod, with his men of war, was together in one place with the people of Ifrael? and does it not also teach you, that Pontius Pilate (and if there were aGentiles with him) was also affembled together in one place with the people of Ifrael? Do you not find the rulers

ny

of

« EdellinenJatka »