am not fure but you would have us to understand only a church-officer, as diftinguished from a private believer in a church, by the word brother, Matth. xviii. "If thy brother "trefpafs;" and, I Cor. v. "If any that is called a bro "ther" and if this be fo, then let the clergy only exercise discipline upon one another, they muft not, it seems, bind or loose the private believers of any church; for who gives them a power to judge "them that are without," i. e. them that are not called brethren?

It is moft easy to manifeft, that the faints, or private be lievers of a church, even all the members, as distinguished from their elders, are called brethren; and no man that but glances these two texts, will easily doubt of it, i Theff. v. 12. 13. Heb. xiii. 22. You note down a great many places, which fhew, that the apostles called them that were in office brethren; and you might alfo have noted down texts to fhew, that the apostles themselves were called difciples, while they were sent to preach. And, whatever take place now, who doubts, but those that were in office were faints, and faithful, in the judgment of charity; and fo brethren, as well as they that were not in office in the churches? But I am ftill at a loss to find the place where those in office are distinguished from private members of churches, and that by the word brethren. Surely I cannot find them distinguished by a word common to them with others. And if you had well confidered the texts you note down, you had found other defignations added to diftinguifh officers from other brethren out of office; and which I would have you to notice. These defignations import service, 2 Cor. viii. 23. Eph. vi. 21. Phil. ii. 25.

8. I confefs I am astonished at an affertion of yours, concerning Judas and Silas, p. 313. that they were not members of the church of Jerufalem, but prophets at Antioch, and fometime members of that church, and your inquiry thereupon. What power, fay you, had the elders of Jerufalem to miffionate Judas and Silas,, when they were not members of that church, but prophets at Antioch, unless they had been a part of that fynodical meeting? For this you cite Acts xiii. 1. 2. 3. which proves prophets at Antioch; but there is not a word there of Judas and Silas. Next you have Acts xv. 32. 35. and if you had considered the context and intervening verses, you might have seen, that they belonged to Jerufalem, and not to Antioch; unless you would infer, from Silas's being fent to Antioch, and then let go, and then chufing

chufing to abide at Antioch, that he was a member of that church before he came there. But this is of a piece with the reft of the mighty inferences upon which fynodical authority is eftablished. You infer from Judas and Silas their being prophets, that they were certainly church-officers; and, by the fame rule, you no doubt believe, that the difciples, Acts xxi. 4. and Philip's four daughters, 9. were church-officers; and you infer, from their being chief men or captains, as you call them, among the brethren, that the brethren among whom they were captains were church officers. You have also a rare criticism upon Acts xvi. 4. and an inference upon it, which might well have been spared if you had looked back to the second verfe; and that would alfo have faved you the trouble of looking through the New Teftament, as far down as the Revelation, for the fupport of that fancy. But it would be endless to trace you in all your wild extravagancies upon Acts xv.

I shall conclude this obfervation with taking fome notice of your account of the nature and import of the word exxanım, or church.

You affirm, it is used to exprefs the vifible and catholic body of Chrift, which confifts of all thofe throughout the world that profefs the true religion, together with their children and offspring, p. 51.

When I was declaring the import of this word in the explication of the propofition, I propofed a queftion; which, inftead of answering directly, you are pleafed to overlook, while you are very liberal in your uncharitable rebukes to me, for paffing over this import of the word. The question is this, Expl above, p. 157. It may be a queftion, If all the disciples of Chrift throughout the world be called the church any a therwife than as they appear, and in the Judgment of chari, ty are reckoned to be of this "general affembly, and church "of the first-born?" And now, Sir, I am ready to maintain the negative in the anfwer of this queftion, for any thing I have yet feen in your book, or in any Prefbyterian writer, to the contrary. Thus you have a fair thefis before you; try your metaphyfical and critical skill upon it; and when you fay enough to convince me of my mistake in this position, I fhall retract it: but I will not be moved away from it by quibbles, nor will I be bullied out of it by authorities and bluftering words.

I shall now confider the texts you bring for this import of the word. And the first of them is, 1 Cor. i. 2. which you

connect

connect with chap. xii. 28. " To the church of God which "is at Corinth, with all that in every place call upon the "name of Jefus Chrift our Lord. And God hath fet fome "in the church, firft apoftles, fecondarily prophets, thirdly "teachers." I do not find all them that in every place call on the name of the Lord, called the church, 1 Cor. i. 2.; but I find the fociety in Corinth called the church in Corinth, and the members of it faid to be fanctified, and called to be faints, together with all that call on the name of our Lord Jefus Chrift in every place. And am I from thence to infer, that all that in every other place called on Christ's name are meant by the word church there? But perhaps the stress leans upon the connection betwixt this text and chap. xii. 28. And will you fay, that the import of the word church there is the fame with the import of it here? or though all that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jefus be not here called the church, yet there they go under that defigna. tion by virtue of the connection betwixt this text and that? This is what I reckon you intend; but may you not as well connect this verse with the following part of the fame chapter, and with the third chapter, and with the eleventh chap. ter, and fay, that the Apoftle is afcribing those unchristian fchifms, and those diforders about the Lord's fupper, to all that call on the name of the Lord in every place? In the fame manner you affirm strongly, that all "the strangers "scattered abroad," &c. to whom Peter directs, are called one flock, and all the twelve tribes to whom James directs are called one church, and one assembly. And thus any man may make the scriptures fay any thing he thinks fit.

Look throughout Cor. xii. and fee if you can find any church there but the body myftical, which is called Christ, and the church in Corinth, to which the Apostle accommo⚫ dates what he says of the body myftical, because it was vifible, or outwardly reprefented in the church at Corinth. The body that the Apoftle fpeaks of there is all animated by the Spirit of the Lord Chrift, from whom it has its denomina tion, by reason of the unspeakable union which is by his Spi rit: and will you fay, that all those whom you make members of your visible body are made to drink into that one Spirit? and this after you have declared that their religion lies only in the breath of their lips, and that they may be altogether void of the Spirit? This is that body into which the Apostle fays they all, both Jews and Gentiles, were baptized. And, after he has spoken of God's fetting the members in this body,

and

and tempering it together fo as there may be no fchifm in it, he applies what he had faid home to the c urch a Corinth, appointed, as all particular churches are, to fhew forth this body myftical, as they are also instituted on all accounts for the fake of it. It is also manifeft, the Apoftle speaks of the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of the body myftical, and for the establishing of a due profeffion of the Lord Chrift in the churches of the faints, and this for the fake of the myfti cal body. Now, let me know, were not all these gifts in the church at Corinth, and the apoftolic gift firft; for thereby the foundation of it was laid. And then, answer me, Did not God fet apostles, prophets, &c. in the body mystical ? However you may quibble on this question, yet, if you anfwer it affirmatively, you fpeak good found fcripture-language; and, if you please, I will direct you to a place or two that will fupport you, Rev. xxi. 14. Eph. ii. 19. 20. 21. Your next text is Eph. iii. 10. which I read thus: σε Το "the intent, that now unto the principalities and powers in "heavenly places, might be known by the church the ma"nifold wisdom of God." I cannot understand how it came in your head to take the import of the word church here to be your visible body, diftinct from the invifible, and from a particular church. And till I understand how you make it out, I must remain honeftly perfuaded, as before, that it is the general affembly and church of the first-born that is intended.

Then you have 1 Cor. x. 32. "Give none offence, neither "to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of "God." I cannot tell how your argument fhould proceed upon this place, unless it be by denying this propofition, That when a man gives offence to one visible member of the church, or one that appears to be a member of that mystical body, he offends the whole; even as Saul perfecuted the invifible head in heaven, in perfecuting the vifible members. But this cannot be easily denied. Further, I reckon, that as you imagine the Apostle is not in this text intending the body myftical, fo neither do you think he intends the church at Corinth, or any such church whereof Christians happen to be members. And upon fuch fuppofitions ftands your visible bo. dy as the import of the word church here.

You-next cite Heb. ii. 12. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midft of the church will I fing praise unto thee." I always took this to fignify the general affembly and church of the first-born, confifting of Christ's bre VOL. I.

I i

thren,

thren, in whose name he glorifies the Father, and unto whom he declares his Father's name, as John xvii. 26. But fo fond are you of that vifible catholic body which you imagine to yourself, that you take not leisure to think well of the body myftical, which is indeed the church, nor to confider what is proper to it.

In the laft place, you have 1 Tim. iii. 15. "That thou mayst "know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the "truth." It seems you are perfuaded, that neither the whole building of God, built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Chrift himself being the chief corner-ftone, in whom it is all fitly framed together, and growing unto an holy tem ple, nor the little habitation of God at Ephefus, fhewing forth that building, Eph. ii. 19. 20. 21. 22. can be understood by the church of the living God in this text. But your own explication of Acts xx. 28. however crofs it be to the scope of the text, might have served to make you understand, that the elders of the church in Ephefus were bound to feed the church; which is by no means, fay you, to be understood to be the church as visible, and can only be meant of those who are truly redeemed, and is evidently the invifible body of Chrift, p. 158. 159. If you understand this well, I reckon you will not help thinking, that not only apoftles, prophets, and evangelifts, but even paftors and teachers were given to feed, i. e. govern the invisible body of Chrift.

But when men lay down a scheme of principles inconfift ent with the fcriptures, they muft alfo, it feems, take inconfiftent methods of explaining the scripture, to make it answer to all the parts of their scheme.

When you have cited thefe fcriptures, you tell us, " Nay, "the children of profeffing and Chriftian parents are to be "reputed members of the vifible church." But I would afk you, why are they not to be reputed members of the mystical body, if one of the parents be to be fo reputed? But, according to you, the profeffion of Chriftianity is not fuch a thing as gives ground to repute any man that makes it a mem ber of the body of Chrift. And then you conclude, "From "all which it is manifeft, that there is a catholic visible "church in the world, to which Chrift, by a deed of gift, "gave apoftles, prophets, and teachers, with an external po"lity or government." And then, in another place, p. 104. 105, you bring this as a standing witness against the Inde pendent notions, and a warrant for national and provincial churches;