faith.-1 Tim. v. 8. A beleever is to provide for his friends and kindred, but especially for those of his owne house, wife and children. See also 1 Tim. iv. 10; Tit. i. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Pet. ii. 10; Acts xx. 38, and xxvi. 3, in all which places, the word especially (uaλiora) is used as a discretive particle, to distinguish one thing from another, without which distinction wee shall but make nonsense in interpreting those places," p. 153.

It is indubitable, from many places in the New Testament, that a plurality of elders was ordained in every church. In the island of Creté they were to be ordained in every city. Here then are two points of difference between Presbyterians and Independents,- —were these all teaching elders? and does the word church always mean a single congregation ? Mr. C. maintains the affirmative in both these questions. On the first I

have met him sufficiently, I hope, to show that there were what, for distinctions, we term ruling elders in some of the churches at least. This is sometimes explained to mean elders, according to the number of churches or cities. The phrases πρεσβυτέρους κατ' εκκλησίαν and κατα πολιν Tgeoßuregous, however obvious, imply a plurality in every city and in every church. In the church of Ephesus, there were at least twelve. In the church of Philippi, there were bishops and deacons. In the church at Rome, there were many officers of different kinds. But Mr. C. gravely informs us, there was only one congregation in each of these places. Well, be it so it will follow that one part, if not of the principle, at least of the general practice of Independent churches, is on Mr. C 's own showing, directly contrary to Scripture. Mr. C, may quote the epistles to the angels of the churches in Asia, to show that there was but one elder or bishop in each; but the argument would prove too much, for it would prove that there were no deacons, contrary to what he regards as essential to all scripturally constituted churches. Besides it is an opinion maintained by many, at different periods, that the angel was not a single person-an opinion which Mr. C. must refute, before he can legitimately conclude, that the angel of each church was a single teaching elder. The Scriptures, therefore, warrant us to maintain there were elders in every apostolical church—that is, according to Mr. C. in every congregation. Let me ask him, is there a plurality of elders in every Independent congregation throughout the empire; or on the contrary, is it not a thing very rarely to be met with? If, therefore, my object were mere victory, I might admit with Mr. C., that a church always means a single congregation; and conclude from his own premises, that almost all the Independent churches in the world are directly antiscriptural in their constitution. My object, however, is truth; and I would not avail myself of any principle I did not believe, even to add temporary strength to my cause. I think there is sufficient reason to believe there was a plurality of elders, whether teaching or ruling, in every regularly organized congregation of Christians in the apostolic times; and at the same time, I maintain, that the word church does not always denote a single congregation. If, as Mr. C. contends, there was but one congregation in every city, either there must have been ruling elders, or the churches in a few places must have been literally crowded with public teachers, But to say that they thus remained in bands about some particular congregations, while whole nations were perishing for lack of the bread of life, and while the command of Christ, " go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature," rested as an imperative duty upon each of them,—would

be to charge the apostles and their fellow-labourers generally with a negligence surpassing that of the deadest and most corrupt state of the church in any after time. It is impossible to come to any other rational conclusion than that the teaching elders were so dispersed, that they had sufficient space to labour, without having one church under the care of a large number, performing its duties in rotation. The word church, I acknowledge, frequently denotes a single congregation; and my convictions of truth forbid me to go farther.

The epistle to the Corinthians is addressed "unto the church of God, which is at Corinth."-1 Cor. i. 2. They therefore constituted a church. And the reviewer has argued, that there were at Corinth more congregations than one, from 1 Cor. xiv. 34. Mr. C. attempts to obviate this, by saying that Paul, as in the previous verse, refers to all churches of the saints. But he forgets that Paul applies the term churches to the very same society whom he had previously denominated the church of Corinth, and whom he addresses in the second person. "Let your women keep silence in the churches."

He has also laboured strenuously to prove that there was but one congregation at Jerusalem; and amply makes up in dogmatism whatever is lacking in proof. He asserts: "you cannot prove, that at any time there was more than 5000 Christians in Jerusalem." Now this is the man who censured the reviewer in unmeasured terms, (p. 8,) for "deciding what another person can or cannot do." He asserts that 3000 would require the same care, whether they formed twenty congregations or one. Now one man could evidently preach to 3000 people, if there were a house sufficiently large to accommodate them; but does Mr. C. mean to assert, that a minister could preach as effectually to twenty congregations as to one? Perhaps he will say preaching is no part of the care of a congregation. It is, however, a part of the pastor's office-a part of the "feeding" enjoined on all pastors. Does he mean that the only duties of a minister are visiting from house to house? If so, it is a direct misnomer to talk of a congregation, which means a meeting or assembly. If he does not mean this, it will follow from his assertion, that it is as easy to preach twenty sermons as one! He says diversity of languages did not require different places of worship; for if the persons addressed were resident for any time in the city, though they might not speak the language fluently, they would understand it when spoken. To the correctness of this conclusion, it is necessary, as he makes it, that the 5000 should have been resident in the city. But 8000, or, at the lowest estimate, 5000, was the number of the converts, as recorded in Acts iv. 4. It follows, either that Mr. C. is wrong in labouring to prove that there were never at any time more than 5000 Christians in Jerusalem; or that after the first expansive effort of the preached Gospel, the united labours of the apostles and many others never increased the church by so much as one solitary individual! This, besides its inherent absurdity, directly contradicts the writer of the Acts. After the church consisted, by Mr. C.'s interpretation of Acts iv. 4, of 5000, "they (the apostles) were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake with boldness. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all."-Acts iv. 31, 33. "And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women."-Acts v. 14. "And the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly." Acts vi. 7. We read, that, after the conversion of Paul, the "churches

had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."-Acts ix. 31. But if the hypothesis, that all the 5000 were resident at Jerusalem, be incorrect, then the argument from the diversity of languages assumes its original force, even on Mr. C.'s own mode of reasoning; and whether they were resident or not, the argument cannot be overturned by the bare conjecture, that all the multitude could understand a language they could not speak.

In order to confuse the numerical part of the proof as much as possible, he asserts that the term "myriads" is confessedly used indefinitely. But then he does not seem to know, that, when used indefinitely, it is always expressive of a very large number, generally of countless multitudes. The only example he ventures to produce is, Luke xii 1: "And there were gathered together an innumerable multitude," to hear Jesus, and to be healed of their diseases. Such multitudes were frequent: it is obvious, from the verse, that the multitude was too immense for him to address. Mr. C.'s aim is to prove that it may be applied to a small number. Now I have examined, I think, every instance in which the word ugiades occurs in any of its forms in the Septuagint and New Testament, The following instances of the use of it, will show the failure of Mr. C.'s ignorant attempt to limit its meaning to a small number.-Gen. xxiv. 60; Num. x. 36; Deut. xxxiii. 2. 17; 1 Sam. xviii. 7; Ps. iii. 6; lxviii. 17; xci. 7; Cant. v. 10; Dan. vii. 10; xi. 12; Mic. 6, 7; Mat. xviii. 24; 1 Cor. iv. 15; xiv. 19; Rev. ix. 16; v. 11;-the last, according to Griesbach's reading, not containing the word ugras, but an equivalent phrase. In all these examples the word is used indefinitely; and in all of them it denotes numbers almost or altogether beyond calculation. In spite, therefore, of Mr. C.'s puny struggle to free himself from the force of Dr. M'Leod's reasoning, that reasoning still remains "irresistible;" and we have the most tenable ground for maintaining, that at the period mentioned in Acts xxi. there were many myriads-that is, many tens of thousands of Christian Jews in Jerusalem.

Mr. C. has also attempted to invalidate the conclusion Presbyterians derive from Acts xv. by labouring to prove that the synod held at Jerusalem was not a representative assembly. Now, without repeating the arguments of Dr. M'Leod, which I must say are as yet untouched, I remark, with some other Presbyterian writers, that it was Paul and Barnabas, and not the whole church, that disputed with the erroneous teachers. Why was this, if, as Mr. C. maintains, all the members have a right to join in discussing every point, and passing every decree in church assemblies? Again, Paul and Barnabas were appointed representatives of the church at Antioch, to go to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem-not to all the brethren, or coetus fidelium, about the question.-Acts xv. 2. We read, indeed, that they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders; but if this prove any thing for Mr. C. it will prove too much; for it will make the apostles and elders no part of the church. The multitude kept silent, Acts xv. 12, and consequently took no part in the deliberation, and therefore acted not in the manner claimed for all church members by Mr. C. They took no part in the decision of the question, as is evident from the summary of the sentiments of the apostles and elders given by James, and also from Acts xvi. 4, in which the deacons are said to have been ordained by the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem, without any mention of all the breth

ren.

But, says Mr. C. although not mentioned here as interfering, they are so mentioned in Acts xv. 22. They are, indeed, represented as taking a deep interest in all the proceedings, and as cordially joining in the sentiments expressed in the letter sent to the church of Antioch. But the decree was not their act; and they exercised no other privilege than what Presbyterian church members at the present day enjoy in church courts. It is said the apostles acted by inspiration, and that, therefore, this meeting can be be no model for modern church courts. I ask, in reply, where, then, was the use of the apostles and elders coming together to consider this matter, and why is it not said the apostles, and elders, and brethren came together to consider the matter?—Acts xv. 6. It is palpably evident the brethren met along with the apostles and elders only as deeply interested spectators; and that while the apostles felt assured Christ would be in the midst of them by his Spirit, to guide their deliberations and decision, they were not inspired to make the decision independent of reasoning and mutual consultation.

:

Respecting the perpetuity of the deacon's office, Mr. C. has attacked the reviewer with surpassing virulence, representing him as substituting a human expedient for a divine ordinance. The term expedient may have answered Mr. C.'s purpose, because it is frequently misused to express what is convenient or useful in opposition to what is morally right. The soundness of this distinction I hesitate not to deny whatever is really expedient is right; and, conversely, whatever is right is expedient in the proper sense of the word. The reviewer had said deacons were appointed when necessary, by the apostles, and that where they are not necessary for the church, we are not bound by Scripture to appoint them. Mr. C. concludes, that on this principle pastors may or may not exist in a church. The real inference, however, is, that as deacons are to be appointed when necessary, so pastors are also to be appointed when necessary. Now it is easy both to understand and to prove that pastors are always necessary, and that therefore they are perpetual in the church; let him prove the same of deacons, and I will at once grant him that they ought to be appointed in all churches equally with pastors. In proving this, he must prove that there were deacons in the church of Ephesus, and the other churches in Asia, and in all the churches throughout Judea and other places,

Mr. C. has asserted (p. 11, note) that "there are ministers, not Independents, known to both of us, and if the Apostle Paul came down from the third heavens, and asked for their pulpits, they could not accede to his request, until they had obtained permission, not from the members of their churches, but from the managing committees." Now, let me ask Mr. C. did he himself never preach in Presbyterian pulpits in Belfast, without leave obtained or asked from the committees of the congregations? This question demands a distinct answer; for if he did, his assertion, now quoted, comes before the public as a direct calumny on his Presbyterian brethren in Belfast.

One word respecting his statements on the subject of communion, and I have done. Mr. C. admits the reviewer's principle, that a sound profession and a blameless life, constitute the ground of admission to the communion of the church. Where, then, is the farther ground for cavil? Mr. C. contends, that none but real Christians ought to be admitted to communion. This is admitted. Now, I challenge Mr. C. to show any other sound evidence the church can obtain of a man's Christianity, than

"a sound profession, and a blameless life." His business in writing against the reviewer evidently was to do this, and not to substitute instead of it, a series of insinuations, that Presbyterian ministers" preach one Gospel in the pulpit, and another when standing at its base." He is also called upon, in making out the system of reasoning he has commenced to compare the lives of Independent and Presbyterian church members, in his own congregation, and in the neighbouring Presbyterian congregations, and show the mighty advantage the former exhibit in all that is indicative of real Christianity. I grant the Presbyterian church in this country suffered much laxity of discipline to steal over her; but times of renovation have come, and the faithful ministers of the Gospel are earnestly struggling to re-establish the pure, and pristine, and Scriptural dis. cipline of the church. Does Mr. C. dread that this revival may be fatal to the Independent cause among us? If not, why was his voice unheard until he saw the death slumber shaken off, and the church returning to her first love?

I have only to say, in conclusion, that as far as my limits would permit, I have attempted to meet Mr. C. on the main points of the controversy; and on this account have passed over a multitude of minor points, of an objectionable character. I have endeavoured to use no word of severity, except where I conceived I had first proved the justness of its application. Hoping that the controversy may be rendered conducive to the promotion of the cause of truth,

Royal Belfast College,
March, 1834.

I am Sir, yours, &c.

A STUDENT.

BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION.

It is with regret we submit the following resolution to our readers, as the result of the negociations between the Board and the Committee of Synod. We had hoped the Board would have put it in the power of the Synod to have availed themselves of its benefits, without any sacrifice of principle; but this, in the opinion of the Committee, it has not done. The Committee, we understand, required that the four propositions of the Synod, which had been acceded to by Lord Grey, should be received by the Board also unconditionally; but the Board refused so to receive them, and insisted upon farther conditions. Should it appear proper to the Committee, we shall publish the entire correspondence in a future Number, that so the members of Synod may be the better qualified to form a correct judgment at the next annual meeting :

"That the Moderator be instructed to notify to the Moderators of the respective Presbyteries, that the negociations of this Committee with the Board of National Education had, for the present, terminated unsatisfactorily; and that they had referred the consideration of the whole case to the next meeting of Synod."