ordained, that the sacraments should not be administered in private houses; that a minister of Trament was suspended at that time, for baptising an infant in a private house; but that, confessing his offence, he was ordained to make his public confession in Trament. They mention another minister, who had become an object of censure for baptising privately.

Alex. Some divines have defended the practice of private baptism. Ruf. It may be so. be so. But the church of Scotland seems to have had good reasons for condemning it: such as, that it is contrary to the nature and design of the sacraments, as being public ordinances; a person's partaking of which, is a solemn and public profession of his union and communion with the whole church of Christ; that it separates preaching from baptising, which two things are joined together in our Lord's solemn charge to his ministers, Matth. xxviii. 19; that it deprives the parent and his child of the particular prayers of the congregation on their behalf; that it opens a door to a clandestine and irregular admission of persons to the communion of the church; and fosters the popish notion of the absolute necessity of baptism to the salvation of infants.

Alex. I think, the Seceders would have censured the apostles, who never scrupled to baptise any person, as soon as they found, that he believed in Jesus.

Ruf. They did so, where there was no constituted church. But we have reason to believe, that they would have censured the irregular and clandestine dispensation of baptism in constituted churches. They enjoined all things to be done decently and in order, 1 Corinth. xiv. 40. Paul rejoiced, when he saw the order of a constituted church, Colos. ii. 5.

§ 80. Alex. Our time does not now admit a longer discussion of this subject. Let us proceed to the fifth thing, which they sometimes mention as a ground of complaint, which is the xxi. chapter of our form of government concerning vacant congregations assembling for public worship-directing every vacant congregation to meet together on the Lord's day, at one or more places, for the purpose of prayer, singing praises, and reading the holy scriptures; together with the works of such approved divines, as the presbytery, within whose bounds they are, may recommend: and that elders or deacons be the persons who shall preside, and select the portions of scripture, and of other books to be read; and to see that the whole be conducted in an orderly manner.

Ruf. Candour obliges us to attend carefully to the sense in which they disapprove this part of our form of government. They inculcate private and domestic praying, praising, reading the word, spiritual conference, and exhorting one another, as the common duty of christians. Such private teaching, say they, is held forth in many texts; as in Colos. iii. 16, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another: 1 Thess. v. 11, Comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do: Heb. iii. 15, Exhort one another daily: Mal. iii. 16, Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another, and the Lord hearkened and heard: Zech. viii. 21, The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the Lord, and to seek the Lord of

hosts: I will go also. From these and other texts they teach, that it is the duty of christians to meet together in private societies for prayer and spiritual conference. But they reckon that, in a constituted state of the church, the ordinary public worship of a congregation ought to be under the administration of one, or more, invested with the office of the pastor or teacher. It is certain, that no other public worship is acknowledged by the Westminster assembly. According to their directory, the minister is both the mouth of God to a worshipping congregation, in teaching, convincing, reproving, exhorting and comforting; and also, the mouth of the congregation to God in public prayer. In the larger catechism, they say, " All "are not permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation;" meaning, that they only ought to read it publicly, whose office it is both to read the word of God, and to explain it to the edification of others, Nehem. viii. 8. It is certain, that public worship under the administration of such, as are not called by their office to dispense the word of God publicly, is a novelty in the Presbyterian church. Such public worship obtained, indeed, among some Independents, who contended, that any church members, who have gifts, may preach the word publicly and ordinarily; falsely supposing, that Christ's sending them to preach, consists in his giving them gifts for that work; though the scripture distinguishes between God's giving persons gifts and his giving them authority to exercise these gifts in the public preaching of the word. Christ gave gifts to his apostles by breathing on them, and causing them to receive the Holy Spirit: but he gave them authority, or sent them, by saying to them, Go and baptise all nations. Gifts are supposed as prerequisites to sending; but are still to be considered as distinct from it. I have read a saying of Luther, on this subject, which I think is solid: "God giveth talents, saith "he, to those who are called of him: therefore, gifted men should "attend to and accept the calling of God. It may be, the perverse"ness of the church denies a calling to one who is gifted. Then, I "say, let him use his talent in private. God reapeth not, where he "doth not sow."

Alex. The Seceders carry this matter too far. Persons, that are not called to the ministerial office, may embrace opportunities of teaching and exhorting publicly; otherwise, the woman of Samaria. was wrong, in communicating her discovery of Christ to her fellowcitizens: and Mr. James Durham, when an officer in the Scotch army, was blameable for praying with the men under his command, and for giving them many serious exhortations concerning the case of their souls: and also the martyrs, who solemnly declared, to attending multitudes, the testimony which they held, and which they were going to seal with their blood. Besides, when the people of a congregation meet to deliberate about their public affairs, I should think it very proper for the president of the meeting to begin with prayer.

Ruf. But I cannot see, how any one of these cases is an example of the practice in question. The woman of Samaria was not taking upon her to preside in the ordinary solemn worship of a constitute church or congregation, when she informed her fellow-citizens of her interview with Christ. In a constitute church, the apostle declares, that a woman is not permitted to speak publicly. Mr. Durham was

only performing a duty of christian charity towards the men under his command, which his station gave him an opportunity of performing. So the president of a meeting, for deliberating about temporal affairs, ought to act as the mouth of the assembly, in seeking the direction and blessing of God; whom we are bound to acknowledge in all our ways. This is more necessary and becoming, if the affairs under deliberation affect the welfare of a worshipping congregation. regard to a martyr, he is in the providence of God called upon, as a witness, to bear a solemn testimony to the truth. It is evident, that not one of these things belongs peculiarly to the regular exercise of the ministerial office; as is the case with that of leading or directing the ordinary public worship on the Lord's day, in a constituted state of the church. In all the instances now adduced, the persons do nothing but what belongs to their respective stations. But, in an assembly for public worship, no man, but a sent and called minister, can properly say, that it belongs to his station to read the word of God, to pray and exhort publicly. Has any one of them, who is not a minister, a sufficient ground to say to the rest, I have a call from God, which none of you have, to officiate in public worship?

Alex. The elders and deacons have the call of the people, who have chosen them.

Ruf. But the public reading of the word and public prayer in the assemblies for public worship on the Lord's day, do not belong to the office, to which the people have chosen them. It is evident, that the Westminster assembly, in their form of church government, which they have drawn from the sacred scriptures, did not allow elders or deacons to do what, in that form of sound words, is assigned peculiarly to the office of the pastor.

§ 81. Alex. We should now proceed to the consideration of the other evils you mention, viz. the form of swearing by kissing a book, public lotteries, and the Mason oath. But as we have conversed on these subjects before, we need not resume the consideration of them.

Ruf. These three evils prevail as much in this country, as in Great Britain; and therefore a testimony against them here is equally ne

cessary.

Now, sir, we have taken a survey of the several grounds of complaint, which the Seceders exhibit as grievances, which they intreat us to redress. I do not find, that on any of these particulars they are chargeable with falsehood, or even with any exaggeration. There are other public matters which they sometimes complain of and desire to have amended; such as, reading sermons instead of preaching them, the admission of many to sealing ordinances, who are known neglecters of the worship of God in their families, the neglect of the publication of the purpose of marriage a competent time before the celebration of it.

Alex. I would ask, whether these things are not disapproved either expressly or implicitly in the confession and catechisms which we have adopted: why then do the Seceders charge us with these things!

Ruf. What you say of the Westminster confession and catechisms is most readily granted; but they reckon, that our general profession of adherence to these forms of sound words is as far from proving satisfactorily, that we renounce the tenets or practices which the Sece

ders testify against, as a similar profession made formerly by Messrs. Simson and Campbell, and more lately by Dr. M'Gill was from proving that they renounced the errors with which they were charged. How can we expect that such an apology will satisfy the Seceders; whilst the tenets and practices, which they consider as errors and corruptions, however habitually and publicly persisted in, pass without censure? You would surely reckon it very absurd for a person to offer to vindicate himself from any charge brought against him, by alleging that the Bible, which he had adopted as the rule of his faith and practice, condemned either expressly or implicitly the misdemeanor with which he was charged. If our judicatures disapprove the form of swearing by kissing a book, public as well as private lotteries, swearing the Mason oath, attending the public administrations of Methodists and other teachers of error, admitting the neglecters of family worship to sealing ordinances, why do they not declare that these offences, complained of by Seceders, are sinful; and that such as persist in the practice of them any longer, shall incur the censures of the church? Why does not the presbyterian church in the United States of America exhibit an explicit, public testimony against such evils ?

Alex. She has not, as yet, deemed it proper to do so: but if the time comes, that she thinks it necessary, I hope she will testify against the evils and errors of the day.

Ruf. Your way of speaking puts me in mind of those Jews who, when the prophet Haggai was encouraging them to rebuild the temple, said, The time is not come, the time that the Lord's house should be built. And why is it not time to exhibit an explicit, public testimony against the evils and errors of the day? God's name is dishonoured by these evils and errors: And will not zeal for his declarative glory urge us to testify against them without delay? Souls are in danger of being insnared and ruined: and will faithful watchmen neglect at such a time to give them seasonable warning? In these evils and errors, the enemy comes in, like a flood: and shall not ministers and people, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, lift up a standard against him? Are not ministers, especially, neglecting a most important duty of their office, when they do not join together in judicially asserting and declaring the truths of God in a direct and pointed opposition to the errors that prevail ?

§ 82. Alex. In the pamphlet to which we have so often referred, the authors insult the understanding of mankind by an eccentrick harangue about the peculiar ardour with which all sorts of persons at the reformation from Popery, embraced the testimony of the Waldenses, Lollards, Wickliffites and Bohemians; when at the same time, that testimony is so far from pleasing the Seceders, that if these men were to arise from the grave, and hold the same sentiments, which they held before their death, these gentlemen would not so far acknowledge them as christians, as to hold stated or occasional communion with them, or hear a sermon from one of their ministers. The reformers did not condemn the church of Rome, because she did not testify judicially against free masonry and lotteries.

Ruf. The passage you alluded to in the pamphlet entitled, Evils of the Work, simply asserts (without affecting to harangue) that they who embraced the reformation preached by Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin

and others were engaged in the same cause which had been maintained before by the Waldenses, Albigenses, Wickliffites, Hussites and others. If this assertion insults the human understanding, it has been insulted by the most judicious writers, concerning the reformation. Turretine on this question, Where the protestant religion was before Luther and Zuinglius? observes that before these reformers, there were, according to Thuanus, Eneas Sylvius, and other historians, some who professed the same faith, and testified against the same errors of Popery, such as, the Waldenses, the Wickliffites, the Lollards. Mezeray in his abridgment of chronology, says of the Waldenses, that they had almost the same opinions which are held by those now called Calvinists. And how can we deny (what is the purport of the passage which you censure) that the revival of God's work in his church reconciles the minds of men to those truths and ordinances of Christ, against which they had before been strongly prejudiced, and to which for some time before a few only had professed adherence.

With regard to your remark, that the Seceders would not hold communion with the witnesses of Christ in former times, if they were now living and holding the same sentiments which they held before their death,-1 observe, that it is much the same with the objection, which was commonly in the mouths of the Papists in the period of the reformation; namely, that the fathers of the primitive church, had they been then alive, would have had no communion with our reformers. It is true, the profession made by the church, since the canon of scripture was closed, ought to have been, in substance, one and the same. But there are two things which occasion variations in the form of the church's profession, or of the manner in which it is stated in different periods or places of the world. One is, that several articles of Divine truth are better understood and more clearly and distinctly stated in the church's profession in one period or place of the world, than in another; in this respect churches as well as individuals are capable of improvement. To be convinced of this truth, we need only compare the state of the church before the coming of Christ, with the state of it after that event; and its state before the reformation from Popery with its attainments afterwards; or the confession of the Greek church with the confessions of the reformed churches. The other thing that occasions a diversity in the statement of the church's profession, is, the diversity of the errors and corruptions which the church has to struggle with in different ages and places of the world. But notwithstanding such variety of attainments, so far as the church of Christ, in different times and places, is adhering to his truth, and opposing error, she is engaged in the same cause. Hence, the testimony of Wickliffe and the testimony of the Seceders may both be considered as the word of Christ's patience, and as faithful testimonies against the errors and corruptions of their respective times: nor can it be any sufficient objection to this harmony between him and them, that there are various articles of truth and various evils specified in their testimony, which are not specified in his; and on the contrary, many in his testimony which are not in theirs. For this diversity is no more than what necessarily arises from the progressive attainments of the church, and from the various ways in which the truth is opposed in

*Loc. 18. quæst. x. vol. iii. page 64.