tural church, we must inquire, first, whether the scriptures forbid a Christian society to have its rules sanctioned by the authority of the governing powers; and, secondly, whether this union of the Church with the State be not indirectly forbidden, although there be no express precept against it.

a

First The union of Church and State was not enjoined by precept or exhibited by example in the New Testament, because it was not practicable in the apostolick times, when "not many mighty, not "many noble," were called; therefore it is unreasonable to demand proof that it is scriptural, that is, com manded by scripture. From the silence of the New Testament we may fairly conclude, that there is nothing contrary to scripture principles in such a union; for, if it were a corruption of the gospel, or a deviation from divine ordinances, "the apostles guarding against, and foreshowing future corruptions, would not have left it unnoticed. The position which is usually opposed to all reasoning from the silence of scripture, viz. that whatever is not 'enjoined in the New Testament is forbidden,' we have a right to deny; because in the Jewish law, where every thing was ordered with the greatest minuteness, no such principle was admitted. The feast of dedication, and the synagogue service, had no warrant in the law of Moses, and yet our Saviour sanctioned both by his présence, though he had blamed and detected in more than one instance departures from the spirit of the Mosaick law. If such were the case with the Jewish church, we may justly conclude, that sanctioning the rules of the church by

the authority of the state, is not in itself a violation of the order of a scripture church. ::

Secondly-Let us consider our Lord's answer to Pilate, which being quoted, as it generally is in these controversies, separate from the context, seems to affirm that his kingdom (that is, his church) has no connexion with the kingdoms of this world. He was accused of claiming to be king of the Jews.→→ Pilate asked him if he were; he admitted that he was a king, yet not such as they conceived, for his kingdom was not of this world. Let the entire passage be fully considered, and it will, I think, appear that there can be no opposition traced between our Lord's assertion, and a church establishment.

To prove the church of England unscriptural in her constitution, reasoning somewhat similar to the following has been adopted :-A church of Christ is a select body in which the members are to be mutually admonished, (Mat. xviii. 15,) and from which disorderly professors of religion are to be excluded and debarred from church-fellowship: the one cannot be done, and the other is not done, in the church of England; therefore it is an unscriptural church.

On Mat. xviii. 15, observe,

1st. Our Lord refers evidently to Levit. xix. 17. 2d. These words were addressed to those who had no idea of a Christian church..

3d. The word used for church occurs throughout the Greek version of the Old Testament, to denote congregation or assembly.

4th. The obstinate brother is to be regarded as

a heathen, not by the church, but by you; that is, by the offended brother.

5th. We learn from the Jerusalem Talmud that the Jews did exercise some such discipline in their synagogues. See Lightfoot on this place.

6th. The spirit of our Lord's precept ought every where to be followed by his people, and can be followed in every society; yet from these observations it appears he never intended to enjoin on us the literal fulfilment of it.

Let us consider how other churches professing greater purity than the church of England, conduct themselves on the subject of close communion in church ordinances.

Ist. In other churches, every one who makes a profession. of believing is admitted: in the church of England this profession is made at confirmation, under the direction of the parish minister.

2d. In other churches, disorderly professors are excluded: the church of England orders this in her rubrick; therefore, the fault is not in her constitution.

3d. In other churches, the members are warned against self-deception; but where is it done either more scripturally or more impressively than in the church of England?

According, therefore, to the theory of the church of England, communion is not more open here than elsewhere; and if it be so in practice, it is because the members are too numerous to admit of minute regulations. God can be only worshipped by those who worship him in spirit and in truth; therefore,

when one enabled so to do, worships him in publick, he must know that none but those who are renewed in heart and life, can join with him-all the rest worship not at all: but it belongs only to God to discriminate between such true worshippers, and those whose heart is far from him. The presence of Judas did not suspend or interrupt our Lord's social devotions; and if a principle of exclusion were acted on in its fullest extent, it would interrupt all social worship.

Such persons as have been led to deem the church of England anti-scriptural in her constitution, and have in consequence withdrawn from her communion, ought to consider these observations, that at least they may see that those who do not follow their example, are able to assign some reasons for their conduct.

Killermogh, Nov. 7, 1813.

No. V.

A DEFENCE OF THE ESTABLISHED

CHURCH.

IN ANSWER TO A LETTER ADDRESSED BY A CLERGYMAN TO SOME OF HIS CLERICAL BRETHREN, INTIMATING HIS INTENTION OF WITHDRAWING FROM HER COMMUNION.

By the Rev. Wm. Napper, Curate of Old Ross.

Written A. D. 1808.

DEAR

We have attentively considered your letter, and are happy to acknowledge the general candour with which it is written; and, however we may differ from the opinions which it contains, we sincerly believe that you have acted conscientiously. It gives us pleasure also to learn, that, although you have suspended the exercise of clerical duties, you have not yet ceased to be a clergyman, and that you would wish, for the sake of an extensive field of usefulness, to resume those duties, if your objections could be removed. Yet, even supposing that we could offer the most cogent reasons, we would not wish you to be hasty in admitting them; because we see more and more the necessity of forming a clear and deliberate judgment.

4