yet, even at Jerusalem, some Christian divines inform us, there was, during the apostolic age, only one single congregation of Christians. These writers are certainly beside themselves. Prejudice and inadvertence are not sufficient to account for such misrepresentations. Professor Campbell is more inexcusable than those who serve the tabernacle. When an error is connected with the interest, the pride, and the ministerial standing of a person, we are not suprised, if he appears to cherish that error. This is the case, in relation to the independents, but not in relation to Dr. Campbell.

"Exxλno, in the singular number, is repeatedly applied to all Christians in Jerusalem. Acts viii. 1. and xi. 22, and xv. 4. But in any intermediate sense, between a single congregation and the whole community of Christians, not one instance can be brought of the application of the word in sacred writ. The plural number is invariably used, when more congregations than one are spoken of, unless the subject be of the whole commonwealth of Christ.' Campb. Lect. vol. i. p. 204. There was, of course, at Jerusalem, during the apostolic age, no more than one single congregation. This argument is the corner stone of independency. Remove it, and the tabernacle tumbles.

"There were at Jerusalem several congregations in one Church.

"1. The apostles, prophets, and elders, would not have remained at Jerusalem, to preach to one congregation.

"2. Diversity of languages did then as well as now require different places of worship. Miracles were performed, to confer on ministers the gift of tongues. There must have been different congregations, that the ordinary worship of the sabbath might be intelligibly conducted.

"3. They had not in Jerusalem large places of worship, in which very large congregations could meet on the Lord's day, for the stated worship. They usually assembled in private houses, chambers, and upper rooms. "4. There were in Jerusalem at least fifty thousand Christians. "Jerusalem was a city of vast extent. Its population exceeded a million of inhabitants. When besieged and destroyed by the Roman army, it contained upwards of two million. The Jews were then assembled to keep the passover. The ordinary worship of the Jews was conducted in the synagogues. These were their parish Churches. There were nearly 500 of them in the capital of Judea.

"In this great city did the Lord begin his great work. Three thousand, on one day, five thousand, upon another, and, after this, multitudes, men and women, were repeatedly added to the Church. Acts ii. iii. iv. chap. Still the number of disciples at Jerusalem greatly increased. Even after this vast multitudes were added to the Lord, and they remained in peace at Jerusalem, until the persecution commenced. Acts vii. Again, however, the churches had rest throughout all Judea.' The word of the Lord increased and multiplied. There were in Jerusalem several myriads. Acts xxi. 20. IIers μugiádas is translated in Acts. xix. 19, fifty thousand. A myriad is, without dispute, ten thousand. At the time alluded to in this verse, there is every reason to believe, that there were in Jerusalem no less than twenty organized congregations belonging to that presbytery. He who carefully consults the sacred history will find the absurdity of limiting the number of Christians in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth, to a single congregation in each place. These very large cities, however, appear to the Principal of Marischal college, as villages, quite inferior to Aberdeen. During

the triumphs of the gospel, they contained but a single 'Exxλnoia in each of them."-M'Leod's Ecclesiastical Catechism, Note 0.

V.

Farther, to prove the independence of each church, Mr. Carlile adduces the case of the church at Corinth, who are commanded to cast out an offender without any reference to a court of appeal, 1 Cor. Now I would quote this case to prove the very opposite. In Corinth there were many churches, for they are commanded, "let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Cor. xiv. 34; yet these are addressed as one; they are all represented as subject to the same court of jurisdiction; and its highest court was called upon to decide. To make Mr. Carlile's inference from this case legitimate, there must have been only one little congregation in Corinth, all the members of which met in the same place for worship, whereas the representation of the Scriptures is, that there the Gospel was successful and triumphant. But Mr. Carlile, with an air of confidence, "asks for an instance in which a superior court is said to have interfered in the management of an individual church; or in which it is supposed to possess the right of authoritatively interfering." Although he has said that no such instance has been or can be produced, I will furnish him with one. It is the "memorable one" in Acts xv. which he has laboured in vain to set aside. The ground of his argument against it is, that the people were present, to which it is sufficient to answer, and so they are in all Presbyterian courts to the present hour, taking a deep interest in their proceedings, and acting by their representatives. This single principle upsets all he has said upon the subject; and I abstain from indulging in any farther remarks upon it, for the purpose of giving way to the following extract from M'Leod's Catechism, which must settle the question, as I think, with reasonable and unprejudiced men.

"The xv. chapter of Acts has been tortured by ecclesiastical disputants. The Roman imagines that it establishes the papal power of Peter. It is, to the episcopalian, a demonstration of the diocesan authority of James, as bishop of Jerusalem. The independents see nothing more in it than a meeting of all Christians to consult and advise.

"There are also some commentators, who conceive that this part of divine revelation makes nothing for any particular form of government. They say it merely announces a decision of the apostles, acting in their extraordinary character, as inspired men.

"I propose to show in this note, that we have in this chapter, an authoritative decree, enacted by a representative assembly, exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over churches and presbyteries.

"1. It is an authoritative decree, Aóyuaтα xexgévα. The word

Acts xvi. 4.

dogma never conveys the idea of advice. It is uniformly expressive of a decree which must be obeyed. It is used in the New Testament only in four places, besides its application to the decree of the meeting at Jerusalem. In two of these, it is applied to the decrees of the Roman emperor. Acts xvii. 7. Luke ii. 1. The decrees of Cæsar are not a simple advice. He compelled his subjects to pay tribute. In the other two places, the word is applied to the positive ordinances of God, Col. ii. 14. Eph. ii. 15. The dogmas of the Lord are not an advice but statutes which bind the conscience. The Septuagint uses the word for laws and decrees. Dan. ii. 13. iii. 10. iv. 3. vi. 1. It is a burden a necessary thing-not a simple advice. Acts xv. 28. It is a decree ordained-not a mere recommendation. "2. It was enacted by a représentative assembly- Church—'Exxλqola. This will appear, if we consider the subject with impartiality. "1. The apostles did not determine the question as inspired extraordinary teachers and rulers. When inspired, they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' This excludes disputation. 2 Pet. i. 21. But about this question there was much disputation. Acts xv. 7. As inspired, any one apostle might have decided the question. It must have been the design of God, in not ordering one to do so, to set us an example of ordinary ecclesiastical proceedings. Besides, the apostles were not alone in forming the decision. The elders, verse 6, the whole Church, verse 22, the brethren, verse 23, were associated with the apostles, in the discussion, framing and execution, of this decree.

"2. The whole Church, literally, was not the enacting authority. The whole Church, literally speaking, includes all the disciples of Christ then on earth, man, woman, and child. These were not at Jerusalem. If it is said that the whole Church means only believers at Jerusalem, this use of the term, whole Church, oλn rỹ ixxλnoíq, is contrary to the whole system of independency itself. What right had the congregation at Jerusalem to enact a decree to bind the churches of Syria? Popery itself is not more despotic than this kind of independency. But where would the whole body of Christians in Jerusalem, amounting to the number of several thousands, nay, myriads, meet? How could they discuss and determine? Supposing that they were present, how long must it have taken them to express their opinions? or is it possible, there would have been no dissenting voice, considering they were so zealous of the law, and long after this, attached to its forms? What instrument did they use to speak with, so that a body of fifty thousand men could hear the instruments? Enough, however, has been said, to show that the body of Christian people was not the enacting authority in the present case. The hypothesis is absurd. Dr. Campbell, in a work which does him much more honour than his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, the Philosophy of Rhetoric, has a very able discussion, which I would recommend to the careful perusal of all who read his Lectures, and are partial to the independent plan of Church government. Phil. of Rhet. Book ii. Chap. vii. The title of the chapter is, "What is the cause that nonsense so often escapes being detected, both by the writer and by the reader? This chapter contains very judicious reflections. But I return to my subject.

"If the reader is satisfied that the decree was not enacted by the apostles, as apostles, nor by the whole church, literally speaking, he must embrace the opinion, that a representative assembly was the enacting authority.

There is no alternative. Upon this principle, and upon this alone, the whole chapter is consistent and intelligible. Every textual difficulty vanishes.

"The assembly is composed of presbyters. The apostles are expressly mentioned, not because they acted in superiority to the elders, in this instance, but in order to secure the whole confidence of the Church, in the decision of a question so very interesting to every Christian. The confidence of the Church, even in this day, in a decree of its courts, is increased, upon hearing that the most intelligent and faithful men in the Church were present, and gave their assent to the measure. The apostolic name, although acting in an ordinary capacity, was justly influential. In this first council it is, therefore, expressly mentioned. Verse 6. This assembly is called all the multitude, ãv rò λños. Ver. 12. This was not the whole mass of Christians. Let the historian Luke explain his own phrase. The Tv To Tλños, whole multitude, led Jesus to Pilate, Luke xxiii. 1. Matthew tells us, chap. xxvii. 1, 2. that this whole multitude was the chief priests and the elders of the people—that is, the Jewish Sanhedrim, the supreme council of Judea. Nay, Mark, chap. xv. 1, expressly says it was the sanhedrim, the whole council, öλov rò cuvedgrov. Since, consequently, this name, TV TÒ πλñdos, was given to the supreme council of the Jews, it is not difficult to ascertain its meaning in relation to a Christian representative assembly. The Christian Tav Tò πλños, is the general synod-the öλy rỹ innλydiq, verse 22. There is not a class of persons distinct from the apostles and elders, held up to our view in this'verse. It only informs us, that the apostles and elders acted in a collective capacity, and that the enacting assembly was a proper representation of the whole Church. Indeed, the whole Church could not possibly, otherwise than by representation, be present at Jerusalem. A similar phraseology occurs, Mark xv. 1. No one, however, supposes that the Sanhedrim was quite distinct from the priests, the scribes, and the elders who composed it. It pleased the apostles and elders with the unanimous voice of the whole Church representative, to send commissioners from this court to Antioch, along with Paul and Barnabas. See verse 22. The commissioners are sent to the brethren in the ministry. The decree of the synod is inscribed to the subordinate judicatories of the Church. The brethren, adλpoi, verses 22 and 23, are not distinct from the Church officers met in the synod. They are ministers. They are also members of the assembly-all the delegates from the Churches which were not of Judea. These are distinctly mentioned, in order to show to the Churches more immediately interested in this decision, that their own delegates consented to the measure. These άdeλpol cannot have been laymen; Barnabas and Silas were the leading men among them. They were "άvdgas youμévous." But Barsabas and Silas were ministers. Their brethren were so also. They were also members of the enacting assembly. The commissioners were selected from among the brethren who enacted the law, verse 22.

"3. This assembly exercised jurisdiction over different presbyteries. "1. The decision respects all the Churches. 2. The question is referred from the presbytery of Antioch. This presbytery consisted of probably twelve ministers and congregations. We can reckon eight with certainty. There were men of Cyprus, and men of Cyrene, preaching at Antioch, Acts xi, 20. These could not have been less, in all, than four. Paul and

other teachers, verses 27, 28, must be at least three added to the four. To these seven we may add Barnabas, verses 22-24.

"In the assembly of ministers at Antioch, the dispute about the law of Moses became so serious, that it is referred for decision to the highest authority of the Church. And 3dly, all the churches cheerfully submitted to the decree. Acts xv. 31, 41, and xvi. 4, 5. It must have, therefore, been enacted by a competent authority." M'Leod's Catechism, note P. If this be not demonstration, it is at least reasoning as conclusive as any demonstration in Euclid.

Had I not trespassed too long already, I should exceedingly like to submit a few thoughts on the following most extraordinary sentence: "the principles of the congregational system render it impossible that our churches should ever become incorporated with the state, or depend on aid, obtained by compulsory assessments, either for the support or the extension of the Gospel in the world." Did Mr. Carlile never read the History of England? Or if he did, has he forgotten it? Or does he suppose that all men have forgotten it as well as himself? Did he ever read the history of John Owen, or Oliver Cromwell, or the Commonwealth? Is he acquainted with the history of the Independents in New England? And does he know that lands were appropriated for their support? Dr. Owen accepted both titles and emoluments from the Government of the day. He was dean of Christ Church, Oxford, for several years. He argued that it was the duty of the Government to provide for the ministers of religion. The reasoning of an Independent is such a rarity now-a-days, on this side of the question, that I cannot resist the temptation of quoting from him the following passage :

"I. That the public preachers of the Gospel ought to be maintained, by a participation in the temporal things of them to whom the word is preached, an appointment of the Lord Christ, and of the apostles in his name and authority; 1 Cor. ix. 14. Gal. vi. 6.

"II. The reasonableness of this Gospel institution is manifested by the Holy Ghost: 1. From the law of nature; Luke x. 7. 1 Cor. lx, 7. 11. 2. From the law of nations in the same place. 3. From the tendency and equity of Mosaical institutions; 1 Cor. ix. 9-13.

"III. Where God by providential dispensations hath laid things in a nation, in a subserviency to an institution of Christ according to his promise, Psal. ii. 8.-Isa. xlix. 23. as he hath done in this case, to oppose that order of things, seems to be a fighting against God and his anointed.

"IV, The payment of tithes, 1. Before the law; Gen. xiv. 20. Heb. vii. 4. 5. with, 2. The like usuage among all nations, living according to the light of nature; 3. Their establishing under the law; with, 4. The express relation in Gospel appointment unto that establishment, 1 Cor. ix. 14. do make that kind of payment so far pleadable, that no man, without being able to answer and satisfy that plea, can with any pretence of a good conscience, consent to their taking away.