But we are aware that it is necessary for us, not only to combat your opinion of the exclusion of civil authority from the affairs of Christ's kingdom, but also your opinion of the essential nature of a scriptural church. This you conceive to be 'an assembly " of believers meeting in one place.' Now we admit that one congregation is often called a churchbut, besides the difficulty of conceiving that the Christians of many cities, who are called churches, could possibly assemble in one place-as the church of Jerusalem when Paul was a prisoner, and each of the seven churches of Asia, when John wrote to them, we do not know that the word church is any where so defined as to be limited to one congregation, to the exclusion of other more extended applications. The whole body of believers are collectively called the church of Christ; and why there should never be an intermediate use of the term, though a change of circumstances should bring about a subordinate union between several churches, we are not able to discern. But this is only a dispute about names---the real question is, whether every congregation or church must necessarily be distinct and independent? Now we, on the contrary, contend, that every such church in the present day must necessarily be unscriptural in your sense of the word, that is, cannot be conformed to

never be altered legally, without the consent and act of the Con vocation. There can be no power or authority in laymen to make or unmake a church, any more than there can be a power in the church to make or unmake the civil constitution."

Jones's Essay on the Church."

an apostolick model, which is so much insisted on. Our proof is this, that there is not one instance in the New Testament of a church appointing its own officers; the elders were always ordained by some extrinsick and superior power. The only case, which can with any colour be adduced as an example, is the appointment of deacons in the church of Jerusalem. But though the apostles thought fit to refer the choice of the seven to the people, it is plain they added, "whom we may appoint over this bu̟"siness:" and when they were chosen, they were set before the apostles, and they laid their hands on them. It may often be expedient to forbear the exercise of a right, as Paul did of his right to claim a maintenance. The twelve had a right to nominate the deacons, but they saw it expedient that they should be elected. The people therefore elected the deacons by permission; and this is a very different thing from doing it by virtue of an inherent power, which is the power now asserted, including also the power of appointment. If the apostles intended that after their decease every church should appoint its own officers, why do we not find any intimation of such an intention? and why were churches incapable of such appointment during the lifetime of the apostles? Why did Paul leave Titus in Crete, for this cause, that he might set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city, if the church of every city was competent to do all that themselves? They might want information indeed as to the rules they ought to observe; but, if that were all, would not a letter of directions

from the apostle have answered every purpose? It is. remarkable that such a letter was written; but it was addressed to Titus, not to the church. Two similar letters are addressed to Timothy and in all three he writes to them respectively as placed in situations of delegated authority, which is strongly intimated to be transmissible-"The things that thou "hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same "conimit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to "teach others also." (2 Tim. ii. 2.) This charge seems to have been given in the prospect of calling Timothy away from Ephesus, and of the apostle's own departure from the world, of both which he speaks in the last chapter: and the history of the succeeding times gives great countenance to such an opinion. But however this may be determined, we think it incontrovertible, that there is no scripture precedent of a church appointing its own officers; and therefore that, upon the principle of requiring in all points an apostolick model, a strictly congregational or independent church must be unscriptural. If this form, then, be untenable, what connexion ought a Christian to resort to? We think the most eligible plan would be, to look round and endeavour to see from the indications of Providence, where the delegation of its authority resides, applying the principle that is laid down in scripture in terms large enough to admit of such application, that "there is no power but of God---the powers that be

are ordained of God;" then humbly and conscientiously to submit, not to human authority in opposition to divine, but, "to every ordinance of man for

"the Lord's sake," (1 Peter, ii.) to human powers as bearing God's commission; remembering always, that when they require any thing contrary to that authority by which they are constituted, "we must obey God rather than men.'

We are thus led to consider the consequences which appear to you to result from the admission of what you call 'human authority,' but which we call'delegated divine power †,' namely, the unavoidable continuance of unscriptural practices; and in the front of these we meet the charge of believers joining in worship with unbelievers. Now, we will not for a moment defend such a practice-we admit that it is on the face of it inconsistent. But our answer is, that the charge is misapplied; and we think much of the confusion which has arisen upon the whole subject may be traced to an unwarranted use of the terms believer and unbeliever. There is no scriptural precedent to sanction a believer joining in the worship of an unbeliever as such: nay, believers are most earnestly warned against such fellowship;

What are we to think of the law of the land determining the degrees of kindred within which marriage may be contracted? Is it a civil contract or a divine institution? We clearly think it a divine institution, otherwise the contract might be limited for a certain time, as has been attempted. Yet this divine institution is left open to the modifications of what you call human authority.. Then why not other divine institutions? This appears to us one key of the controversy, that they are often delivered in generals, leaving the minutiae to be variously ordered as varying circumstances may require.

+ See a Sermon preached by the Very Reverend Dean Graves, at the consecration of the present Bishop of Limerick, in 1806.

but the recorded instance was countenancing pagan worship by eating in an idol's temple. The question which is now agitated seems never to have arisen in the primitive church; which is, whether persons professing the same faith shall be divided, upon a suggestion that one part of them are infidels, in contradiction to their own avowal? Yet it is plain there were some in the primitive church who did not in heart hold the genuine truth; some had not the knowledge of God; some who for the time ought to have been teachers, had need to be taught again the first principles, (see Heb. v.;) but we do not find their ignorance treated as infidelity; nay, it does not appear that a course of life, which if persevered in would certainly exclude from heaven, was sufficient to prove a man an infidel, though perhaps it might prove him worse than an infidel, and virtually a denier of the faith. (See 1 Tim. v. 8.) In this last position at least we suppose you will agree with us, because you have given it as your opinion, that a believer ought not to withdraw from a scriptural church, in the case of its becoming grossly corrupt. How then is an infidel to be discriminated? Is it by requiring him to pronounce Shibboleth? Is it by applying the test of some proposition in which we presume the truth of the gospel to be emphatically comprised? This in fact we observe to have been much practised of late; and this we apprehend to have produced so sad a perversion of principles as to brand many who have drank into the spirit of Christ with the name of unbelievers, and to flatter others as believers, who'