not be mistaken; and yet their opinions were not only diverse, but contradictory.

The suspense in which I was held by these incompatible claimants, sent me more readily and attentively to renew my inquiries among my former friends of your denomination. By these I was instructed, that I need not trouble myself with weighing and comparing the arguments which the English and Scotch churches had to offer in favour of their respective constitutions, for they were both equally destitute of any foundation in truth or Scripture: that I had only to read the New Testament for myself, and it must appear very plain, that the Lord Christ had not left a concern of this importance undetermined; but had directed his apostles to leave in their writings a pattern, according to which it was his pleasure all his churches in future ages should be formed: that the first churches were Congregational or Independent; and that every other plan was unscriptural, and a presumptuous deviation from the declared will of the Lord. As I had been a debtor to some of their writers likewise, and was personally acquainted with several of their ministers, their representations had so much weight with me as to increase my embarrassment.

My difficulties grew upon me, when I found, by consulting different Independent writers, who had professedly treated this subject, that, though they were of one mind, in asserting that a plain and satisfactory pattern for this congregational order might be easily collected, and stated from a perusal of the New Testament; yet, when they came to delineate and describe it according to their own idea, they were far from being agreed among themselves, as to the nature and number of the officers, powers, and acts,

which are requisite to the constitution and administration of a regularly organized gospel church. I formerly employed much time and attention in this disquisition; but, not having for many years past reviewed a controversy which I think rather dry and uninteresting, I cannot, from memory, enter into a detail of particulars; nor is it needful. Of the fact, I think I may be confident, that there is not such an agreement among them as might be expected, if the plan from which they all profess to copy was clearly and expressly revealed in the New Testament, as obligatory upon all Christians. Here I was at a loss again; for, if I could have admitted their principle, that every circumstance of worship and government in a church ought to have the warrant of a precept or a precedent from the Scripture; still I needed help to digest and put together the several regulations which were dispersed in so many different parts of the Gospels and Epistles; for I found myself unable to frame the detached materials into one orderly structure by my own skill. But, when they, who professed to have the light which I wanted, were themselves divided upon the point, I was precluded from the hope of any certain assistance; for, as to probabilities and conjectures, I might as well depend upon my own, as upon those of another.

Nor was this the whole of my difficulty. I was honestly advised to read and examine for myself. I did so; and it appeared to me, by comparing what I read with what I saw, that the Independents could not, at least did not, keep closely to their own principles. I thought I met with usages in the churches planted by the apostles, which did not obtain in any of the congregational churches I was acquainted with. And, on the other hand, I noticed some usages among these of which I could find no

traces in the inspired account we have of the primitive churches. Permit me, by way of specimen, to mention one instance in each kind. If it was necessary, I could mention several; but I wish not to be tedious.

66

The apostle Paul addresses the Corinthians as a church of Christ; and we have from him a larger and more particular account of the practices of their church than of any other. In chapter xiv. of his First Epistle, after censuring and correcting some improprieties which had obtained in their public assemblies, he give them this direction: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the "first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one 'by one, that all may learn, and all may be com"forted." The general practice of congregational churches in our time seems not to comply with this apostolic injunction. I think, my friend, in your assemblies, especially in your solemn stated worship on the Lord's day,there is seldom more than one speaker. The same minister who preaches, usually begins and ends the service. Should it be pleaded that the apostle speaks of prophesying, and evidently supposes that the church of Corinth was favoured with extraordinary gifts and revelations which are now ceased, and that therefore the rule cannot, in that respect, extend to us; I have two answers to make.

In the first place, though we do not expect extraordinary revelations, we have encouragement to hope for the presence of our Saviour, and the gracious influences of his Spirit, when we meet in his name, sufficient to enable us to speak to his praise, and to the edification and comfort of our brethren, if not in foreign tongues, at least in our own; and it is probable that you have more than

once been a hearer in a public assembly, when your heart has been so warmed and impressed with the truths of the gospel, that you would not have been unwilling to have ascended the pulpit yourself, either to confirm or correct what you have been hearing, or to indulge the liberty you found in your mind upon some other important subject. Perhaps something was then revealed to you, which might have been very suitable to the occasion, and to the state of the congregation. Why did you not then declare it? Why did you neglect to stir up the gift of God that was in you? Would it have been contrary to the custom of your churches? But would you not, upon your principles, have been justified by the custom of a New Testament church, and the injunction of an apostle?

But, secondly, and chiefly, I answer, if it be admitted that, because the primitive churches had extraordinary gifts, there are some things in their practice which are not proper for our* imitation, who have not the same gifts: then I quite give up the hope of being able to determine the exact and invariable form of a church, by such lights as the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles afford me; unless some man, or set of men, be qualified and commissioned to draw the line for me, and to show me distinctly how far, and in what instances, the state of the first Christians is limited from being a pattern to us, by the extraordinary dispensations of that age; and how far, and in what cases, their pat-. tern is binding upon us still, notwithstanding those dispensations have long since ceased. To be directed to study these churches as a model, and to be told, at the same time, that some parts of their

*See Neale's History of the Puritans, v.i. p. 379, 2d edit. 1732.

practice were not designed for the imitation of future ages, without distinctly specifying which were, and which were not, is rather the way to perplex and bewilder an inquirer, than to help him to information. Upon this ground, though I might refuse to trust the assumed infallibility of the Pope, I must feel the need of an infallible visible guide to reside somewhere in the church; for without such assistance I could not take a single step with certainty, but must be liable to stumble at the very threshold of my inquiry.

or

I think it is the usual practice, in your churches, to require from all persons who wish to be admitted into your communion, an account, either verbal written, of what is called their experience; in which, not only a declaration of their faith in the Lord Jesus, and their purpose, by grace, to devote themselves to him, is expected, but likewise a recital of the steps by which they were led to a knowledge and profession of the gospel. I select this as one instance in which, I conceive, you have neither precept nor precedent in the Scripture for your warrant. A profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, of acceptance of him, and submission to him in his offices and characters, supported by the evidence of a gospel conversation, should, I apprehend, be deemed sufficient to entitle a person to church-membership; and especially by those who so loudly insist upon the evil of superadding any regulations to those which are already provided by our Lord and his apostles. The authority which makes it a pre-requisite for admission, that a person shall relate how and when he was awakened, what exercises of mind he has passed through, and other particulars of a like nature, appears to me to be as merely human as the authority which prescribes the canons of an established church. If the practice be