1

There is another fuppofition of yours, by which you endeavour to fix another abfurdity upon the Independent principles; and that fuppofition feems to me to be this: That the heart-fearching word of God, in the mouth of a pastor, cannot convince and convert a hypocrite that is a churchmember, and charitably judged a brother in Chrift by the paftor; and that he cannot, in preaching, call them in the name of God to be reconciled to God, or deal in a doctrinal way with the confciences of his church, to convince and convert them, whom yet in the bufinefs of church-order, and in difpenfing church-privileges, he looks upon as converted already. As this fuppofition of yours wants much proof, and is not altogether confiftent with a diftinction of your own, p. 147.; fo I am fure it is inconfiftent with the ftrain of the doctrine of the paftors of fuch churches, in whose printed fermons I have seen as much faid, and to as good purpose, for the conviction and converfion of the most refined hypocrites, as ever I faw or heard in any other fermons; and though in all thofe church-duties wherein they must act according to the judgment of charity, the Inde. pendents reckon themselves obliged not to think evil; yet, in the difpenfation of the gospel-doctrine in the name of God toward the confciences of men when they preach, they are not the preachers in the world that are moft liable to the charge of fewing pillows under the arms of church-members or others.

You seem to have a great prejudice at what you call positive evidences, and judging upon them in the admiffion of church members; and I am at fome lofs to understand what you mean by them, though I have heard the expreffion frequently, among people of your opinion, used to exprefs fome very ill thing. If you mean by pofitive evidences, infallible evidences of a thing that none but God infallibly knows, and can affure a man's own confcience of with respect to a man himself, I think it would be a very great evil for a man to require fuch evidence to found his judgment of charity concerning another man's faith and holiness, or concerning his being an object of brother love: and I think he is bound by the law of Chrift to form his judgment in this matter, upon lefs evidence. But if you mean positive evidence, in oppofition to negative, which is no evidence; I must own, I know not how to form a judgment of charity, without fome pofitive evidence. And is not a credible profeffion fomething pofitive? Are not those things you bring from the fathers up

оп

on this fubject pofitive evidences? Is not a credible profeffion an evidence which I ought to credit for fomething? And what is that but what is professed? Is not then a credible profeffion of the faith, love, and hope that is in Chrift, or of Chriftianity, a pofitive evidence of a man's being an object of brotherly love, which evidence ought to be the ground of my judgment of charity concerning him that he is a Christian, a believer in Chrift, a brother for whom Chrift died? If it be otherwise, and if there be no evidence upon which I can charitably judge that any man is a brother for whom Christ died, then tell me, how I can evidence my love to Jesus Christ in the labour of love toward my brother whom I have seen, and my love to God in my love to them that are begotten of him?

You own that pastors are to make inquiry into the state of the flock. But what are they to inquire after? Are they to seek to distinguish faith as it lies in the heart, from hidden hy. pocrify there? That is an inquiry that I am fure no pastor is called to, or capable of; for no man has ought to do with any more but what is visible to man's eye. Thus, while you moft unjustly charge others with the crime of fearching mens hearts, you yourself would fearch it, or else conftitute two kinds of visible Chriftianity, and you condemn the Independent, because he rejects one of them as unfcriptural, and not to be found in the original conftitution of the Christian church, the fcriptural confeffion of faith being but

one.

I shall trouble you no further on this head, but refer you to the explication of the propofition; only I want fcriptureproof for a propofition of yours, viz. That a person, being overtaken in fome fault, must be debarred from fealing ordinances, till the scandal be removed according to Chrift's rule; and yet he is ftill a member of the visible church, unless his obftinacy occafion his rejection by the fentence of excommunication. Bring me clear fcripture-proof for this debarring or fufpenfion from fealing ordinances; and do not tell me of all orthodox divines, that is, all divines that think as you do, and that is yourself.

It seems to me that you do not attend to the process of the argument about the nature of the church in Jerufalem, the church in Antioch, and in Ephefus, &c. For when it is al

ledged

1

ledged by us, that the fcripture language, in the description of the church at Jerufalem, makes for one congregation, you affirm it is impoffible it could be fo, because of several things you alledge from other texts: fo that the whole of your caufe depends upon the proof of this impoffibility and till you prove it, whatever noife you make, you do indeed fay nothing to the purpofe. But, inftead of demonftrating this, you go about to put the Independent to prove; whereas he has no thing to be proven, till you inftruct your impoffibility; and then he will tell you how far he agrees with your glosses up on the texts that now fpeak moft plainly to him of one congregation, I humbly conceive you have failed in the proof of the impoffibility of the church in Jerufalem its being onecongregation, unless you think the proof is finished when you feek that I fhould tell you how that church could meet in one place, from time to time, to obferve the instituted worship; and when, upon my telling you fomething feasible or poffible, you call for proof that it was actually fo as I fay. But feeing your whole scheme hangs upon the fuppofition of the impoffibility of the church at Jerufalem efpecially its be ing one congregation, you must either demonftrate this fup. pofition, or, to use your own beloved phrase, beg the thing in question.

This fuppofition, from which your scheme is inferred, is itfelf an inference which you, and all Prefbyterian writers a gainst Independency, draw from the number of converts in Jerufalem, and of believing Jews, the diversity of languages there, and the number of teachers. To make your fuppofition ftand upon these foundations, you have these things to prove.

1. That all those converted by the gofpel in Jerufalem were members of that church. You know where you affirm, that the church in the fingular number, fo far as you can ob serve, is no where in the New Testament made use of in exprefs terms to denote any more than the Chriftians in some city, except when the catholic church is meant. And I want that you should inform me, how all the numbers that were from time to time converted by the gospel in Jerufalem, where the Jews throughout Judea and Galilee were still reforting, and where the Jews throughout the world were feveral times in the year coming to worship, can be faid to be only of the Jews that inhabited Jerufalem? Were they the only Jews about the temple? or was converting grace confi ned to them? And do we not exprefsly read of a multitude that canie from the cities, round about, bringing fick folks to VOL. I. M m

be

be healed by the apoftles? Though churches be not mentioned throughout Judea and Galilee, till after the dispersion; yet, when we come to fpeak of impoffibilities, it will be hard to prove it impoffible that there were not churches throughout Judea and Galilee before. Probable conjectures will not do, where an impoffibility is to be proven.

2. It is also to be made manifeft, That there was no place, before the difperfion, where all the members of the church could poffibly affemble as one congregation. The scripture fpeaks exprefsly of their meeting in the temple, and in Solomon's porch. Against this it used to be faid, that Solomon's porch could not hold them all, taking it for the porch of the temple, 2 Chron. iii. 4. But you have taken pains to tell us, that the true Solomon's porch could not only hold one vast congregation, but very many; fo that you have turned this branch of the proof of your impoffibility out of doors; only you would have your readers imagine, that there were fuch partitions in Solomon's porch for diftinct congregations, as there are for the several parishes in Glasgow.

3. The next thing to be proven is, That there was no common language among the dwellers in Jerufalem. That they understood different languages, feverals of them that inhabited that city, there is no queftion; but it will not be eafy to demonftrate, that there was no common language among the inhabitants. And for what is faid of the people mentioned Acts ii. if words can fignify any thing of that kind, they all understood the language of Peter's fermon, even all that were converted by it.

4. You must also prove, That the twelve apostles, the then pastors and teachers of that church, could not find room for their gifts of teaching and exhorting, and of preaching, in a church that assembled every day in the temple; and that they had not work enough, who, befide their conftant "labour "in the word and doctrine," in the daily affemblies of the church, and among the church-members, were bearing wit nefs of the Lord's refurrection, and preaching to multitudes, both about the temple and in private houses, as occafion of fered.

5. It is next to be made evident, That, when the difperfion was, and while the perfecution that arofe about Stephen lafted, any more of the church remained in Jerufalem than as many as could affemble in fome private place, or even that the church did at all affemble in the very heat of the perfe cution. In the proof of this it is ufually affirmed, that only

teachers

"

teachers were scattered abroad; and, when you fay this, you muft mean office-bearers, elders; for you will not allow, that any of the members of that church not in office, whatever extraordinary gifts they were endowed with, preached the gospel, however they might be called to it at that time. But though it be manifeft, that they that were fcattered abroad went every where preaching the word; yet it is most evident, that all they that were perfecuted and scattered did not preach; unless we should say, that women preached; and then, I think, you will be in no ftrait to say, that all the members of the church that were men preached, Acts i. 3. 4. I have no reason to question, that the fame thing is meant by the church in 1. & 3.; and it is plain in y 3. that the church was both men and women.

6. It must also be demonstrated, That all the myriads of believing Jews, long after the difperfion, were members of the church that was then in Jerufalem, and was under the immediate inspection of the prefbytery there. And you may likewise try your critical skill a little, for your diverfion, upon the word myriads, to fhew, that it always, in the New Teftament, is to be taken to fignify ten thousands; and that it must be so taken Luke xii. 1. where you find myriads in one congregation.

Unless these things be demonftrated, your fuppofition falls to the ground, and your conftitution of the Christian church that is founded upon it comes to nought. And when we fhall fee them proven, then we fhall confider what was the plan of the church laid down in Jerufalem to be followed in after rages, and whether there were in that place diftinct fixed congregations and feffions, united in a claffical presbytery, and fubject to it: and, till you be able to produce a pattern for fuch feffions in the New Testament, I will easily deny, that there is any pattern there for your claffical prefbyteries. For whatever kind the prefbytery in Jerufalem was of, if it had not kirk-feffions under it, if it was not compounded of them, it was no pattern for your claffical prefbytery: and as I reckon you and I will agree, that the other scriptureprefbyteries were of the fame kind with that at Jerufalem; fo, when we come down to primitive churches in the second and third centuries, we will find no prefbytery there but the eldership of one church, that was ferved with one altar. But till you demonftrate your forefaid fuppofition, which I do not expect to fee of a fudden, I must remain fecure in the poffeffion of as plain a truth as fcripture-words have made it,

M m 2

that