No. IV. A LETTER From the Rev. George Hamilton, Rector of Killermogh, to the Editor, with two Papers-the first on Apostolick Practice, and the second on Ecclesiastical Establishments. MY DEAR FRIEND, Killermogh, In addition to the paper transmitted a few days ago, "On the Conduct of the Apostles," &c. I now send, agreeable to your desire, heads of such arguments as occurred to me on the question at present under discussion, 'Is the church of England a scriptural church? It would be well to observe how the apostle speaks, Rom. xiv. of those who abstained from meats, &c. because they thought their Christian profession required it; and how severely he reproves, 1 Cor. iii. those who were acting in such a way as would ultimately tend to the establishment of parties. In the present day the former would, by many, be deemed departers from the simplicity of the gospel; the latter its firm supporters. But Paul was taught of God, and therefore rightly divided the word of truth. Yours, &c. GEORGE HAMILTON. The Conduct of the Apostles, as proving that they did s not intend to leave on Record an exact Model of a Christian Church, considered. Were we to regulate the contents of the word of God, by what we think it ought to contain, we certainly would expect that our Lord or his apostles should have given explicit directions for the administration of baptism; yet the undetermined controversy on this subject shows us that the forms in which, and the persons to whom, this rite ought to be administered are not specified in the scriptures, and that we are left to regulate our conduct by other guides, differing from, though not contradicting, the declarations of scripture. Those who take for granted that the New Testament contains specifick rules for church government, which are binding on all Christians, ought to consider this fact attentively; because, if the administration of baptism be of more importance than church discipline, as it undoubtedly is, (the one relating to admission into the church, the other to conduct while in it,) when we find scripture silent on the one, it may lessen our expectations of finding it explicit on the other. The conduct of the apostles in regulating the internal discipline of the churches they formed, shows they did not intend every one to be accurately conformed to a particular model, from which no deviation was allowable; because, first, no church except that at Jerusalem had a community of goods; and even this was abandoned, when the circumstances which called for it no longer existed, as we may learn from the members being afterwards exhorted "to distribute or communicate." (Heb. xiii. 16.) At first, when many of the members were strangers in Jerusalem, it became necessary to support them; and when the number of believers multiplied to many thousands, (Acts, xxi. 20,) this necessity gradually ceased. So that here is decided proof that local circumstances were attended to in forming the internal regulations of the churches. But It may be said that this was a peculiar case, and that the very circumstances attendant upon this regulation are sufficient to show that it was not intended for our imitation, but that, when the rules of other churches were not thus influenced by local circumstances, we are bound to follow them. on this point we may refer to a second fact, which manifests that the regulations of the Gentile churches were not designed as models for our imitation; and it is this: Paul often referred on these subjects, either to what he had said, or to what he intended to say, by word of mouth. See 1 Cor. iv. 17. vii. 7. xi. 2. 23. 34. 2 Thess. ii. 15. iii. 6. Tit. i. 5. Such references to oral tradition are plain proof he never intended future churches to be formed on precisely the same plan. These two facts seem to put beyond dispute the truth of what was asserted, that a system of church discipline perfect in all its parts, and which all Christians are bound to adopt, was not laid down in the sacred writings or exhibited by the practice of the apostles; for, first, their churches had different regulations; and, secondly, many of these regulations 3 are beyond our reach, because they were never committed to writing. Further, every Christian church in the world has admitted the truth of what is contended for, because several apostolick practices have been either abandoned, or never adopted; for men were sensible of their being unsuitable to an altered state of society. The holy kiss is an example of this; for, although it was continued in the time of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, it was afterward laid aside for obvious. reasons. The common sense of mankind protests against its introduction in modern times; and those who have lately thought themselves bound to adopt it, have found it necessary to assert without proof, that, among the primitive church, each person salut ed only those of the same sex. Washing of feet was a very ancient custom, (Gen. xviii. 4. xix. 2:) it was continued among the Jews, (Luke, vii. 38-44,) was adopted by our Lord, (John, xiii.) and practised in the church, (1 Tim. v. 10;) yet every attempt to retain it is justly ranked among the superstitions of Popery. Here we might refer to customs prevalent in church meetings, where miraculous gifts were exercised, (1 Cor. xi. 14;) and to the mode of administering the Lord's supper: but every attentive reader of the New Testament will recollect instances of practices sanctioned by the apostles, which have been abandoned as inconsistent with European manners, or impracticable in the present state of society. Those who look for, and profess to adopt, an -apostolick model, (to be consistent,) should follow " every apostolick practice; for, if they abandon even the most trifling, they concede the point in question, and virtually admit, that the primitive churches are to be followed only when it can be done with consistency and propriety in the existing state of society. This is exactly what the church of England does and claims to be a scriptural church, because her doctrines being such by the confession of her enemies, her discipline does not militate against scripture order, and, as far as is expedient or practicable, is conformed to the primitive church. Should these observations lead any persons to abandon the idea of finding in the New Testament a system of church government, and yet leave them in search of what may as far as possible approximate to the apostolick churches, and consequently desirous to withdraw from the church of England, where they have often received spiritual instruction, I would refer them to the following paper for proof, that some, at least, of their objections to the established church are unfounded, and that an ecclesiastical establishment is not so contrary to the spirit of Christianity as many are taught to think. An Ecclesiastical Establishment not contrary to the Spirit of Christianity. Every body of Christians forming a society, must be so constituted as to be governed by rules: now, in order to ascertain whether the Christian society called the established church of England be a scrip |