"It is evident," says Mr. Haldane, " that no other kind "of churches, than what is called Independent, can possi"bly be formed in many situations. Such an one is prac "ticable in all circumstances where there are any believers. "This affords no slight argument in favour of this mode of "church order." It affords however no stronger argument for this mode of church-order, than it would present for breaking down the political world into as many independent civil governments as there were towns or villages upon the face of the earth. And, in support of this, it might be contended with equal plausibility, "that it is evident that "no other kind of political governments but those of towns "or villages can possibly be formed in many situations.— But such an one is practicable in all circumstances where "there are any inhabitants." Nay, it might even be prov ed upon, this mode of arguing, that as in many situations, no more than a family can be found in a place, the primitive mode of political government by families is better than any other, and that there should be no superior administration, but as many distinct political governments as there are families in the world. But if this reasoning would be considered as completely inconclusive when applied to civil, must it not be equally inconclusive when applied by Mr. Haldane to ecclesiastical government? May not every thing, moreover, in the church of Christ, in every situation, be administered by the office-bearers, in opposition to the Independent plan, without soliciting the judgment of the members; and as soon as a sufficient number of churches is formed near them, or, even though at a distance, in connection with them, may not a court of review be established amongst them? Have not single congregations and Seceders in America, for example, been subject to the review of a Presbytery or Synod in Britain, and enjoyed, in addition to that congregational government which they had in themselves, the superadded advantage of their superintendence-a benefit which cannot be claimed by Independents? "It may be alleged," says Mr. Haldane, p. 168,. " that if a church has not some body of men to controul it, they will be apt to act improperly and partially. All men are liable to err, and every church needs the constant "care of the great Shepherd. But this care he ever exercises. He has promised to be in the midst of them when met in his name. If we view a church merely like "other societies, they may be considered to be equally prone to err, and we may imagine it might be an advantage "to have unprejudiced persons to appeal to; but as God "promised to Israel of old a special superintendence, so has "Jesus to his churches. It was never intended that they "should go on without it, and this is calculated to keep up "a spirit of dependence on himself, without which no church "can prosper." But has not Jesus promised to Christians individually, as well as to churches, a special superintendence? Do not they err notwithstanding this? and do not Independents themselves grant to their congregations a power of controul, to correct these errors? But if Independents themselves find it necessary to vest a power of control over particular christians in each of their congregations, notwithstanding the superintendence which Jesus has promised to these Christians individually, may not a similar power of controul be requisite over these congregations if they err, notwithstanding the superintendence which Jesus has promised to exercise over them? And if it is not inconsistent with that spirit of dependence on the blessed Jesus which individual Christians are called to manifest, that they should be subject to the authoritative review of a congregation, how can it be incompatible with the exercise of a similar dependence upon him by a congregation, that they should be subject to the review of a higher court? If ordination, in short, consists, as Mr. Haldane contends, only in an appointment of a minister to a particular congregation, and if, as soon as he ceases to be the pastor of that congregation, he ceases to be a minister, on what principle can he be justified in exercising his office beyond that congregation? Why is he admitted, among Independents themselves, to join in ordaining the minister of a sepa rate and distinct congregation? or why is he allowed to dispense the sacrament of the Lord's supper in a congregation where he is not pastor? Will not every reason which can be urged for his being a minister to a particular church only, and for his ceasing to be a minister as soon as he ceases to be the pastor of that society, prove also, that it must be unlawful for him to exercise his function beyond that individual church? In fine," if confessions of faith, of human "composition," as Mr. Haldane maintains, p. 413, "though "they promote an appearance of unity, do not produce "the reality-and if they tend to discourage the people "from searching the scriptures, by inducing a belief that "they are too difficult for the unlearned, and that their "summaries contain whatever is valuable in them," why has Mr. Innes published lately one of these summaries for the benefit of young people, to prepare them for admission to the sacrament of the supper? Does Mr. Haldane here intend also to reprobate the summary which has been published by his brother? or rather, will he acknowledge as a brother, a man who has lately written a book, the tendency of which, in his opinion, is to discourage the people from reading the scriptures? THE END. JAN 30 1919 EDINBURGH: |