way. You fet down over again fome of your words cited by me, and own them to be yours, thus: "But what is the a

mount of all this? Alas, he is inconfiftent with himself; " for I hold," say you, p. 425. "that the church, in the " fingular number, fo far as I can observe, is no where in "the New Teftament made use of in exprefs terms, to de"note any more than the Chriftians in fome city, except "when the Catholic church is meant. Thefe, I own, are my words, and I fhall hold the fame opinion." You might also have owned the rest of them, which are to be seen in the Obfervations, p. 11. But how you get rid of the inconfiftency betwixt what is now owned, and what is said a bove, I fee not; If it be not by the addition you now make to the word city: for you now fay, "That city, or its vici"nities, and that city, or its neighbourhood." If you in. clude not all Judea in the vicinities of Jerufalem, and all the proconfular Afia in the neighbourhood of Ephefus, and fo give up to the Epifcopalians what you was juft now taking from them, you must mean fomething like the fuburbs; and fo this addition of vicinities and neighbourhood, whereby you correct your former affertion, ferves to enlarge the churches. of Jerufalem and Ephefus, but not to extricate you. After inquiring at me, Where is the inconfiftency? you tell me on the one hand, "I hold, that the church of Ephefus imports only "the Chriftians in that city or its neighbourhood; and yet "it must be taken diftributively for feveral congregations "therein," But you should also have told, that this was one great reason why it should be fo taken, viz. That the fuccefs of the gospel preached in Ephefus, extended throughout all Afia. Then, on the other hand, you tell me, “I "hold against Dr Hammond, that the church of Ephesus "cannot be taken diftributively for all the churches of Afia. "Now the whole fecret is out." And I alfo fay, now the whole fecret is out. The telling of a part has brought out the whole.

On the fifth inftance you make a very loud cry against me; but you as little clear yourself as on any of the foregoing. You had inferred, from what I faid upon Acts xv. in the Explication of the propofition, how juftly I fhall not now stay to declare, "He plainly grants this fynod had a dogmatical power, but not that of jurifdiction and cenfure." Against this you endeavour to prove, that the one could not be with. out the other; becaufe "a power and authority to deter"mine minifterially in matters of doctrine is ecclefiaftical, VOL. I.

"and

"and belongs unto a church; and as thefe churches had a "power dogmatically to judge of falfe doctrines, so there "was a jurifdictional power connected with it;" and you conclude your proof of the neceffary connection betwixt these two powers thus: "This must be a truth in itself evident, "unless we shall suppose a court vested with a power to give "forth laws and regulations, and yet not impowered to cen"fure the contraveners thereof, which feems to imply a " contradiction." p. 325. 326. 327. Against this I alledged, you allowed the power of the key of doctrine, which I took to be the fame thing with your dogmatical power, to a single paftor; whom yet you would not fuffer, by himself, to exercife the power of jurifdiction and cenfure, or to exercise the key of discipline, which I took to be the same thing with your power of jurisdiction and cenfure.

But now your come off by a twofold diftinction, 1. Be. tween a doctrinal power and a dogmatical power. And you fay you took care to distinguish thus before. I did indeed obferve a diftinction between a doctrinal power and a power of jurifdiction; but, till now, I faw you not diftinguish these three, the doctrinal power, the dogmatical power, and the power of jurifdiction and cenfure, which you fay is connect, ed with the dogmatical. And I can fay nothing of your dif tinction till you inform me of the nature of your dogmatical power, as it is diftinguished from your jurifdictional power, which you fay is connected with it, and from your doctrinal power. 2. You diftinguish between power as exercifing in the preaching of the word to any competent number of Chri ftians, and as exercised in a court of Chrift, i. e. as I take it, between a perfon exercifing power, and a court exercising power. And if this be it, then I may learn, that our doc trinal power is the power that a fingle minifter exercises when he declares the laws of Chrift; and the dogmatical power is the power that two or three of them in a feffion, or twenty ⚫of them in a prefbytery, exercise when they declare the fame thing together that they declared before feparately in their pulpits; and fo it is their meeting together that makes the power to change from doctrinal into dogmatical. Well; but if two or three minifters fhould meet in a feffion, and declare fome laws of Jefus Chrift, and fend them in an epistle to all the minifters and parishes in Scotland or in Britain, inform me, would this be the dogmatical power? Because I have a fufpicion it would remain ftill doctrinal only. And if this be fo, then I am taught, that the dogmatical power is the power

that

that cannot be without the power of jurifdiction and cenfure; and therefore, whatever more I may come to have to fay about this dogmatical power, this one thing is to be faid about it, that is infeparably connected with the power of jurifdic. tion and cenfure. And so you stand clear of the fifth incon fiftency, when the whole intrigue is come out.

The fixth inftance you are pleased to fet down in your own words; and you say, "I wish I may get rid of it, for it is "very formidable; for fay you, I have maintained against "the Independents the fubordination of the fynagogues unto "fuperior courts, and made much ufe of the Jewish church "as the fame thing effentially with the Chriftian. Against "the Epifcopalians I affirm, the Chriftian church was not "founded till the refurrection of Chrift." And then you make your ufual complaint about the pages, and that these are not the words in your book. But I would be content to fee wherein I have mistaken or misreprefented you. Need I fet down all the words of the firft, fecond, and third pages, of the very first section of the first chapter of your book, to show, that you affirm the fame thing more ftrongly than in the words by me used, and bring arguments to prove it? Do you not conclude your reasoning thus ? "And in this I am feconded by Mr Sage, that great champion for Epifcopacy, who fays, That the Chriftian church was not, could not be founded till our Lord was rifen, feeing it was to be "founded on his refurrection." And when you have laid down this principle, with the confent of your adverfary, do you not draw these two inferences from it against the Epifcopalian? "s 1. That there is no argument can be drawn for Epifcopal government, from the actings of the twelve apoftles and "feventy difciples during the days of our Lord's perfonal mi"niftry, and while their meffage was only, The kingdom of "heaven is at hand.-2. That the government of the Jewish "church, according to the fubordination of their priests, " can be no argument for the like under the New Tefta"ment." And, in the end of the fection, you say these words: "And if there be any order or fet of officers that "were under the Jewish difpenfation, to which the minifters "of the gofpel have a relation, or anfwer to, it must be to "the ordinary prophets and teachers in the fynagogues, who "read and expounded the law and the prophets unto the "people, but had no concern in the temple."

But, after you have complained of my injustice, you now tell me what you really hold; for you fay, "1 hold,” p. 1.

Sf 2

" that

"that properly the Chriftian church was founded on the re "furrection of Chrift, and had not a formal being, distinct "from the Jewish, till that time; yet the gofpel-church had "its beginnings in the miniftry of John the Baptift, and was "gradually carried on by Chrift and his apoftles, till its for "mal establishment diftinct from the Jewish polity." By this newly added claufe, about its beginnings in the miniftry of John the Baptift, it seems to you it had not any beginnings before; and you have afforded fome beginnings of a revival to the argument, from the actings of the twelve and the feventy, while their meffage was, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," which before you destroyed; for now you say, "While that kingdom was only at hand, it even then had its "beginnings, and was carried on gradually by Christ and his "apoftles." And how it was carried on before it was found. ed, and how it had its beginnings before it had a formal being, you can declare when you write again, by adding another claufe, or by a metaphyfical diftinction or two, fhewing, that the oppofition is not ad idem, fecundum idem, eodem modo, et eodem tempore; and fo no contradiction.

You fay further," Again, I hold, that the covenant of grace under the Old Teftament and that under the New "were fubftantially the fame," p. 120. But I can fee no. thing like that in all that page of your book, unless it be in this fentence, "None will deny the connection betwixt the

manner of admiffion under the Old Teftament to that of "the New or gofpel ftate of the church, in the fulness of "time, that acknowledge, with all orthodox divines, that "the conftitution of thofe two churches were effentially the "fame, and that their only difference was in accidentals." Because it belongs to your reason to determine what was ef fential to the Old-Teftament church, you are of opinion, that the whole temple-service and priesthood, and fubordination among the priests, was accidental to the Old-Teftament church of Ifrael; and that the peculiar regulations in the New-Teflament-church, agreeable to the nature of Chrift's kingdom, vaftly differing from that church-œconomy which hitherto had obtained by divine appointment, are but acci dental to the New-Teftament church: but the manner of admitting members was effential to the Old-Teftament church, and fo must be alfo in the New Teftament church, which is the fame effentially. According to this, your only way with the Epifcopalian was to tell him, "That the government of "the Jewish church, according to the fubordination that

was among the priests, was not effential, but accidental to "the Jewish church; and therefore can be no argument for "the like under the New Testament;" and not to draw this as an inference from your grand pofition, "The Chri"ftian church was not founded till Chrift's refurrection:" for, by this manner of overthrowing the Epifcopal arguments from the Jewish church, you expofe yourself to the Independent, and give him leave to tell you, that your arguments from the state of the church before Chrift's refurrection will not prove the like under the New Teftament; for the NewTeftament church was not founded till Chrift's refurrection. You proceed, and fay farther, "That there was good rea "fon to infer a fubordination of judicatures under the New "Teftament from the fubordination of the fynagogues to "the ecclefiaftical fanhedrim under the Old; and that this "argument was founded, not on the identity of the thing, "but on a parity of reafon," p. 283. &c. "Now, fhew "me the inconfiftency of these propofitions?" But the Epifcopalian can tell you, his argument for the fubordination of officers from the Jewish fubordination is not founded on the identity of the thing, but on a parity of reafon. He does not plead for a typical priesthood, but for good order among church-officers under the New Teftament, as no less needful than under the Old; and he has this advantage of you, that, in these places which you cite for the fubordination of fynagogues to the fanhedrim, there is not one word of a fynagogue, nor of the rulers of fynagogues in feparate or claffical meetings, p. 281. 282.; but exprefs mention of the fubordination of the church-officers, Levites, priests, and chief priests. But your pofition against him overthrows all his arguments, "The New-Teftament church was not founded "till the refurrection of Chrift ;" and therefore the government of the Jewish church can be no argument for the like under the New Teftament: and, by parity of reafon, it overthrows your arguments against the Independent.

In your book you ftill contend, that what you bring from the Jewish church, and the government you plead for from thence, is moral; and by this you anfwer the objection ta. ken from the abrogation of the Jewish polity, in one of the pages to which you now refer, by the &c. p. 285. 286. But in your Review, p. 11. you tell us, "That our bleffed Lord "might have revealed another plan or scheme of government "in his houfe than what he hath done, I believe no Prefby“terian will deny." And thus you ftand clear of the fixth inconfiftency,