will arise from their unbelief of the gospel, hatred and opposition to the person, character, office, and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If the above statement be a just one, then it will follow, that no sinner of mankind will be cast into what is called hell, merely for sins committed against the moral law, they being all laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and for which he was made a sin-offering and bore the curse.

But as men have, by their sins and transgressions, so deeply polluted the conscience and all the powers and faculties of the soul, they must therefore endure the awful effects thereof until they are reduced to such a state of mind as to be willing to receive deliverance therefrom by him they so much and long despised, and whose gospel they treated with disregard and contempt.

I will now attend a little to your other question, namely

Have men, as sinners, sufficient power so to attend unto the gospel as to be saved by it? Or have they, through sin, rendered themselves incapable thereof without supernatural assistance from God over and above the gospel word?

I answer: you know it is fully admitted with us, that Jesus Christ suffered and died to make atonement for all mankind; that he gave himself a ransom for all; that the gospel is an universal address to all where it comes; that it is calculated for and hath a natural tendency to save all who hear it; that it is perfectly eligible to them in the very state they have reduced themselves to by their sins; that they are earnestly called upon, and in the most sympathizing language invited, to incline their ear to hear, that they might be saved; they are also told the dreadful consequences of not hearkening thereto yet, notwithstanding all this, there are some of my friends, whom I much esteem, who uniformly state things in such a manner as to convey the idea that the state of the sinner's mind is such as renders it impracticable for him to attend unto the gospel, or to enjoy the blessing of the forgiveness of his sins, except the Lord, by some unknown or secret influence, effectually tend and attract his will thereto. Now if this is not to make the word yea and nay, I know not what is so. For can any thing be more evidently contradictory and absurd, than to say that the gospel of the grace of God is quite eligible to the state of the sinner, and at the same time to maintain, that, on account of the depravity of his mind, it is impossible for him to attend unto it, so as to be saved, unless the Most High, by some secret influence, attract his mind in such a manner as shall most assuredly and effectually incline his will to attend thereto honestly and sincerely? I should therefore be very glad if some one of those persons who speak in the above manner, would inform us what they mean when they say, that the gospel is calculated to the wretched state of the sinner's mind, and that it is perfectly eligible to him in that state; yet that he cannot enjoy the blessing without the special influence of the spirit, over and above what the gospel word contains?

I have heard this thing stated differently, but cannot perceive which way it mends the matter. It is as follows-The cause why some persons enjoy deliverance from guilt in the conscience, and partake of the salvation revealed in the gospel, is not in consequence of a more

readiness of mind to search the Scriptures, or of a more tractability of will to obey the gospel than others, but because the Lord, in the course of his providence, places them in such and such stations in life, and bringing them into such and such circumstances, which make such impressions on the mind, as brings them to a serious pause, and thereby are brought honestly to attend unto and search the Scriptures and to obey the gospel, But how does this mend the matter?-For, according to this statement, it would seem, that all who are not favoured with those providential circumstances will as certainly miss of the salvation spoken of, as though none such had been provided for them; for no effect can take place without a cause; so that if the cause be wanting, no effect can follow.

To conclude-I have endeavoured to answer your questions in as few words as I could: and now will ask you what you think of it? Has the above way and manner of stating the doctrine a tendency to represent either the gospel or its author in an amiable light? On the contrary, if, on account of any depravity, whether hereditary or self-contracted, the sinner cannot attend to the gospel in the manner and spirit he is called upon and commanded to do, and is to receive condemnation for not doing it, is not such a representation little better than making the whole a mere farce? And hath it not also a natural tendency to cause men to become Atheists or Deists? I am verily of the opinion that it would not reflect so much dishonour on the Deity, to say there is no God, as it is to represent him in such a light as some do.

I am, however, very far from denying all divine communications and special influences on the human mind; for the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament shew that the Most High hath, in a peculiar and special manner, called some unto himself to answer the designs of his universal providence and grace to mankind at large: what I mean is, that it is not his usual and ordinary way, for reasons already mentioned.

To add no more, if yourself, or any other who may read the above, shall conceive that I have not represented persons and things in a just light, and will be kind enough to endeavour to point, out my errors and · mistakes, they shall have the thanks of,

ON THE

INDEPENDANCE

OF CHRISTIAN ASSEMblies.

SEE PAGE 232.

REA

SIR,

EADING over No. XLII. p. 232, of your Miscellany, I found a piece intitled, “Thoughts on a Plurality of Elders," by Mr. T., on which I beg leave to make a few observations.

I am fully persuaded in my own mind, that Christian assemblies, or churches, are perfectly distinct from each other, and independant, as it relates either to doctrine or practice. Mr. T. says certain doubts have risen in his mind upon a closer view of the subject. But what has the dependance or independance of churches on each other to do with a plurality of elders? Surely a plurality of elders may or may not exist among them, whether they are dependant or independant on each other.

It is true, the New Testament says not a word about the churches of Jerusalem, of Corinth, or of any other great city; and I think the reason is as plain as the observation is easy. That expression, "the church which was at Jerusalem," Acts, viii. 1. is emphatic, and clearly proves that there was but one church there.

It is granted, that the members of this church were very numerous, and that sometimes they met privately; but that this was their stated conduct is denied. Sometimes they met publicly in the Temple; and it was at a public meeting that three thousand were converted. I think, from the general history of the church at Jerusalem, their meetings mostly were public, except when they were under a state of persecution; and then it does not appear that they had any stated or regular meetings, for the historian expressly says, "they were all scattered."

66

Now surely a church scattered through persecution is not a fit model to form others by. But Mr..T. says, They met in retired flacesthe upper rooms of houses." It is astonishing to me how Mr. T. " upon a close view of the subject," should so mistake nouns singular for the plural number. The word church, it seems, according to him, ought to be understood churches; and the phrase 66 an upper room," must mean "retired places-upper rooms of houses." But Mr. T. makes another assertion which I must take some notice of They had not any place large enough to hold the whole body of Christians together." Does Mr. T. possess a perfect knowledge of all the buildings (at least as it respects dimensions) standing in Jerusalem in the days of the apostles? If he does not, how came he to make such an assertion? But it seems as though Mr. T. could supply what the New Testament says not a word about: if this is his general mode of argument, no wonder he has " doubts rising in his mind.”

It might be sufficient to notice, that the assertion is totally unfounded; and, consequently, the inference like the proposition from which it is drawn. But let us investigate this matter a little. We are informed, Acts, i. 13. "When they were come in, they went into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John," &c. The words "where abode," are descriptive, and will lead us to discover where this upper room was situated. I also would observe that ungv, upper room, is in the nominative case; and as it appears the historian meant to describe what upper room it was that the disciples met together in, so it follows, of consequence, that the article ought to be translated in its definitive sense, and instead of "an upper room," we should read "the upper room," &c. Let it be also noted that St. Luke was the author of the Acts of the Apostles, and it is agreed that he wrote this book after his Gospel. Now nothing is more common, when an author has written on any subject, and he is engaged in writing on another, or a continuation of the same, and has occasion to mention any thing already described, to refer you to his first performance for a particular description. This is the case with Luke; he had, in his Gospel, expressly named the place where the apostles resorted after the ascension of Christ. Luke xxiv. 52, 53. "And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalein with great joy, and were continually in the Temple, praising and blessing God." So, when he is about to write the Acts of the Apostles, he introduces his history by making mention of the ascension of Christ, with which fact he had concluded his Gospel: thus he connects the history of Christ and his apostles together.

In his Gospel he says, They returned to Jerusalem, and were continually in the Temple," and in his history of the apostles, speaking of the same fact, he as expressly says, "They returned to Jerusalem, and went up into the upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John," &c.; consequently the upper room where they resorted to praise God for the fulfilment of his promises, was an upper room in the Temple.

Without going any further, I think it very probable that an upper room in this public building might be large enough to hold the whole church together, though they consisted of some thousands.

But having found the place of meeting, let us take a little notice of two or three actions said to be performed. "These (the apostles) all continued with one accord; in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those` days (that is, the days after the ascension, while they were waiting for the spirit) Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty) Men and brethren," &c Acts, i. 14-16. An hundred and twenty names make an upper room begin to look spacious.

When they had considered what Peter had said relative to the choice of a witness for the resurrection of Christ, and chosen one for that purpose, and the day of Pentecost was fully come, the historian informs us, “They (the hundred and twenty) were all with one accord in one place." And as he gives not the least intimation that they had changed

their situation, neither is it likely they should in so short a time, it is natural to conclude that the place where the disciples were with one accord, was the upper room just now described. Here the promise of the descent of the spirit was fulfilled. "And they were all filled with the holy ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance." See Acts, ii. 1—4.

This happened at a time when there were many foreign Jews in Jerusalem; and, having heard of this remarkable event, the multitude came together, and every man heard them speak in the language of his own nation. Then Peter, embracing the opportunity, stood forth, and preached unto them that Jesus was the true Messiah: the consequence was, that three thousand were converted to the faith, were baptized, and added unto the hundred and twenty. "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." And then, at the end of this first series of fac's, the historian once more mentions, expressly, the Temple, as their place of meeting. "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, breaking тe xaт oxov apтov, in the house the bread; they ate their food with gladness and singleness of heart."

As this translation is something different from the common, it may be necessary to say a word or two in its defence. The word oxo, in our translation rendered house to house, in the margin at home, I have simply rendered house; the word is in the accusative case, therefore I have said the house. This word seems to refer, not to the whole of the building called the Temple, but to some one particular part of it, because the Temple is expressly mentioned in the former part of the verse,

That one may signify a house, or, as we should say, a chamber of the Temple, Dr. Hammond has sufficiently proved in his annotation on Acts, i. 13. to which I refer. Luke might have used this word to save a repetition of gw, Temple; for by Oxy we sometimes understand the Temple, as Matth. xxi. 13. My house shall be called the house of prayer," &c. See Luke, xi. 51.

66

But yet, as I think it has been proved, from Luke, xxiv. 52, 53. and Acts, ii. 46. that the upper room Acts, 13. was a room in the Temple, so it is natural to conclude that oxov signifies the same place. Here they might meet, without interrupting the Jews, or being interrupted by them in their daily devotions.

From the whole I would remark, that the apostles did not go out to the multitude, but the multitude came to them; consequently the astles did not leave the place, where they first resorted, to preach to the multitude. I would also remark, that the multitude came together, consequently, they were not in separate classes.

Hence it is demonstrated that the place was large enough to hold them all, though their number was so great as to allow of three thousand being converted. So again, when the church chose the seven deacons, the apostles called the multitude of the disciples unto them-and this when their number was encreased.

And now with respect to the apostles using the singular number when they write to the disciples in a city, as for instance, "The church at