APPENDIX TO LETTER VIII.

WHATEVER may be the declarations of scripture with regard to this matter, it has been urged by Independents with the utmost confidence, that ecclesiastical antiquity universally affirms that such privileges were granted to Christian people in the primitive church. Mr. Ewing, in particular, has quoted with approbation King's Inquiry into the Primitive Church, as supporting his opinion," that the largest "churches, in the third century, were only single congregations; and Glass has adduced the authority of Cyprian, to shew that, at that period, every thing was done according to the determination of the people. But admitting that these assertions could not be disproved, it might be sufficient to reply to them in the very decided expressions of the first of these writers, respecting the validity of arguments deduced from antiquity against the doctrine of Lay-preaching. "Mr. Dick," says he, in his Remarks upon a Sermon in Refutation of Lay-preaching, "confirms his argument," to use Mr. Ewing's own dignified satire, "by some anec"dotes taken from ecclesiastical history. As my Bible "stops at the end of the Look of the Revelation, I am not

very careful to answer in these matters." Why then, if the word of God be perfect, and fitted to furnish us thoroughly for every good work, should Independents wish that Presbyterians should be careful to answer them in this matter, even allowing that they could demonstrate that in the primitive churches, it was by the vote of the people that every measure was adopted or rejected? Besides, we are certain from the sacred oracles, as well as the earliest ecclesiastical writers, that many flagrant errors were admitted in the church, both in the days of the apostles, and in the period which immediately succeeded their death*. To prove

See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, It is remarkable also, that most of the testimonies produced by King, for the power which Independents would give to the people, are taken from Cyprian, a father who flourished in the third century. But, says an Independent (Liverpool Theological Reposit. vol. iv. p. 306), when he would invalidate the evidence adduced by King, from ecclesiastical antiquity, for Presbyterian Synods, "All the instan"ces of them, which Lord King produces, are in the third century, and therefore within a time when infant-communion, consecra

that a thing is lawful or proper, it is not sufficient to tell us, that it was very generally practised by the church in the primitive ages, but it must be shewn to be agreeable to the word of God. To this standard we are to bring their practices as well as their doctrines; and by it alone, notwithstanding their proximity to the apostles in point of time, are to decide whether what was admitted and followed by them should be adopted and imitated, or rejected and set aside.

Even when we examine the remains of ecclesiastical antiquity on the point in question, to ascertain, not what should be followed as an infallible example, but what was then acknowledged as the constitution of the church, there are various considerations which demand our attention. 1st, It is probable that in different churches, the government, as well as worship and ceremonies, were different. Accordingly, we find that some of the early fathers ascribe to the people a greater, and some of them a smaller portion of power. 2dly, As the clergy, when afterwards raised, by the extravagant and imprudent liberality of Constantine, to a dignity and grandeur like that of secular princes, infringed the rights and privileges of the people, so, in the preceding ages, when the governors of the church were so entirely dependent upon the caprices of the people, they might experience it to be requisite to recede in some measure from their legitimate rights, and grant to the people a degree of power to which they were not entitled. Allowing, then, that Independents could prove that the fathers granted to the people, in many of their churches, a degree of power as great as that for which they now contend, it is evident that on their own principles, as well as what has now been stated, no argument can be advanced from it for a similar power to Christian members in the present day. It must previously be proved that the clergy were not induced to grant them this power from considerations, perhaps, of a false and reprehensible

"tion of elements, use of chrism, sign of the cross, and other errors "in doctrine and discipline, had entered into, and obtained a foot"ing in the church of Christ." Now, if this circumstance appear to Independents in general to destroy the force of the argument which is brought from the writings of Cyprian for Presbyterian Synods, must it not equally destroy the strongest and most numerous arguments of independents from ecclesiastical antiquity, which are founded on the sense which they attach to certain passages collected from the writings of the same ancient father?

prudence; and that, if they acted from conviction, their sentiments, upon this head, are not to be numbered among their errors, but, as they are confirmed by scripture, are to be reckoned among their excellencies, and to be regarded by us as patterns for our imitation.

That these passages moreover produced by King, from a few of the fathers, will warrant the conclusion which he wishes to draw from them, is by no means evident. In his very first authority, from Clemens Romanus, (p. 116), he takes it for granted, that the term λnos denotes the members, when, as will afterwards be proved, it is frequently applied only to the rulers of the church; and if it signify the members, he forgets to shew that what they are here affirmed by Clemens to perform, might not be performed by them by means of their office-bearers. His second authority, from Origen, represents a criminal as appearing before a congregation, but says not a word of his being judged by them. And even the strongest expressions adduced from Cyprian respecting the power of the people, seems to be too dubious and obscure to authorise any certain conclusion as to the constitution of that Christian church. "Ad id ❝vera (says that father, Epist. v. p. 12. edit. Rigalt.) quod "scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri Donatus et Fortu"natus, Novatus et Gordius, solus rescribere nihil potui ; "quando a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim, nihil sine "consilio vestro, et sinu consensu plebis, mea privatim sen"tentia gerere." Now, as it is impossible from the Epistle to discover the particular nature of the business of which Cyprian speaks, it seems unfair in King to build upon the expressions which he employs respecting it, a conclusion so general, as that, in every business, nothing was done by Cyprian without previously obtaining the consent of the people. Gulartius and Junius, whose authority unquestionably as judges of the constitution of the primitive church stands very high, inform us, in their Notes on this passage, that Cyprian probably refers to an ordination, and that all that he says is merely that he never did any thing of that kind without the advice of his fellow-presbyters, and the consent of the people. "Nempe agebatur de aliqua electi❝one quam Cypriano quidem e Presbyterio suggesserant, "eo quod ecclesia ex persecutionibus, parte sui Presbyterii "destituta esset. Respondet nihil se in hac causa unquam "facere voluisse quin et Presbyterii consilium et plebis con

1

sensum adhiberet." But what though the people are here declared by Cyprian (and the supposition is as natural as any which can be adopted) to have a right to be consulted, as to their opinion and consent, before a minister is ordained; and what though it is asserted by this father, that he did nothing of this kind without thus consulting them; will that demonstrate, as King very roundly affirms, (p. 106), "that all things relating to the government and policy of "the church were performed by the joint consent and ad"ministrations of the clergy and people."

The assertion of King, (p. 121), that Cyprian writes, that "whoever was excommunicated, it was by the divine "suffrages of the people," (Epist. xl. ad Plebem.), seems to be equally rash and unfounded. Cyprian indeed speaks of the separation of five schismatic presbyters from the church of Carthage, who, attaching themselves to the faction of Felicissimus, had opposed the ministry of this venerable father, and even questioned his right to discharge his function. So far, however, is Cyprian from affirming that these Presbyters had been excommunicated by the votes of the people, that he tells us expressly they were excommunicated by none, neither people nor office-bearers, but had voluntarily inflicted upon themselves the punishment which they deserved, and expelled themselves from the communion of the church."Et quidem de Dei providentia, (says he, p. 58), nobis "hoc nec volentibus nec optantibus, immo et ignoscentibus "et tacentibus, pœnas quas meruerant rependerunt, ut a "nobis non ejecti ultro se ejicerent, ipsi in se pro conscien❝tia sua sententiam darent, secundum vestra divina suffra "gia conjurati et scelerati de ecclesia sponte se pellerent." Mention is indeed made of the votes of the people; and it is intimated, that these persons were conjurati et scelerati, or wicked men and conspirators, according to their votes.— It does not appear, however, that these votes had been given by an assembly of the people met judicially, as ecclesiastical governors, to consider their conduct. Had such an assembly been called, and such a sentence pronounced, it is difficult to conceive how these men would have been permitted to remain in the communion of the church, and to officiate as ministers. Such a determination, if pronounced by the members together with their office-bearers, as those who were over these presbyters in the Lord, necessarily involved in it an exclusion at once from their privileges as members, and

their function as ministers; and since no such punishment was inflicted upon them, though they were declared by these votes to be wicked and conspirators, it is most probable that the votes were not delivered by the people as an assembly of ecclesiastical arbiters convened to judge and punish these offenders, but as met in a different character, and for a different purpose. But in what character, it may be asked, had the people met when they delivered these votes, and for what purpose was it requisite that they should vote at all? We answer, that these favourers of Felicissimus had endeavoured to alienate the minds of his congregation from the ministry of Cyprian, and had prompted them publicly to reject his authority, and no longer acknowledge him as a Christian bishop." Hi (says that father) fomenta "olim quibusdam confessioribus et hortamenta tribuebant, "ne concordarent cum episcopo suo, nec ecclesiasticam "disciplinam cum fide et quiete juxta præcepta Dominica ❝continerent, ne confessionis suæ gloriam incorrupta et im"maculata conversatione servarent." And again," Ac ne "parum fuisset corrupisse quorumdam confessorum mentes, "et contra sacerdotium Dei portionem ruptæ fraternitatis "armare voluisse." In consequence, however, of the attempis of these men to mislead and seduce them, it is likely that the people would assemble in a body, to consider whether they would adhere to the ministry of their pastor, or connect themselves with the friends and followers of Felicissimus. On this occasion a vote would be taken, and the decision being in favour of Cyprian, they necessarily declared the opposite party to be conjurati et scelerati, "wicked men and conspirators." Still, however, in the whole of this proceeding, they did not act as the ecclesiastical judges and overseers of these presbyters, and much less, as King has ventured to affirm, did they excommunicate them by their votes. Even after the determination which was made by the votes of the members, when met in a private capacity, they still retained their function as elders; and consequently no argument can be drawn from this passage, to shew that when offenders were judicially expelled from the ancient church, it was by the votes of the members as well as of the officebearers.

Even though it were conceded that the members of the church were allowed, for their satisfaction, to be present at the deliberations of the ministers and office-bearers, and were