tent, even by her most inveterate enemies*. See an admirable refutation of this paper on Vows, and a detection of some radical and important errors on which the scheme of

* I must here except Dr. C. Stuart, who, after leaving the Establishment, in 1777 published a most violent invective against it, in the form of a sermon. In it he attempts to trace a resemblance between pur church and Antichrist, which is represented in the Revelation, as a woman sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast, with seven heads and ten horus. It is remarkable, however, that while he selects certain circumstances in which he imagines there is a similarity, he omits others far more important and distinctive, ita which even his ingenuity could not discover the slightest degree of coincidence. It is evident also, that to point out a resemblance in a few particulars, admitting that he has succeeded, will not warrant the application of this name to the Establishment. Some things which are very good, resemble others which are bad, in a number of circumstances; and yet it cannot be inferred from this, that they are evil. A good man may resemble a bad man, in being supported by the power and wealth of others, as he here says that the Church of Scotland resembles Antichrist; and yet we cannot infer from this, that he is an unworthy character. Nay, we are told in this same book, chap. xxi. 24, that when the purest state of the church on earth shall come," the kings of the earth," who are said, in the description of Antichrist which he quotes, to give its power and strength to the beast," shall bring their glory and honour in"to the church." But since the Doctor considers it as one part of the similarity of our church to Antichrist, that her ministers, while as responsible for their doctrine and practice as those of any Dissenters, are secured, as long as they discharge their duty, in their maintenance by Government, what will he say of the millennial church, into which the kings of the earth are to bring their glory and honour, to support and promote it? Since he represents it likewise as an evidence of our similarity to the mother of harlots, that we have a written confession, exhibiting our view of the meaning of the scriptures, and that our creed will not agree with his view of these scriptures, does it not follow from this, that as there is 10t at present a church in Scotland with which he can join in communion, every Baptist, and Independent, and Presbyterian dissenting, as well as established congregation, must so far be viewed by him as a member of Antichrist? In fine, as he mentions it as another point of resemblance, that the two witnesses of God prophesy in her clothed in sackcloth, it appears necessarily to result from it, that as we are informed in Rev. xi. 3. that these witnesses were to prophecy for 1260 prophetic days, or according to him for that number of years, the Church of Scotland, if we attend to the first period of its existence as a distinct society, must, in the Doctor's view, have still a prospect of existence for an extent of time, not very encouraging to him and his fadependent brethren in their attempts to overthrow it,

Ewing, in a late very extraordinary paper respecting Vows (see Missionary Magazine for January 1804, p. 6.), after quoting Rev. xiii. 16, 17. " And he caused all, both small "and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark

in their right hand, or in their foreheads : and that no man 66 might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name "of the beast, or the number of his name,"-introduces, in page 36, a note from the annotations of the Geneva translators, explanatory of the mark of the beast; and then subjoins, "How happy should we be that we are happily de"livered from so many of the abuses mentioned above; and "that, through the lenity of the government under which "we live, any man is at liberty to reject them all! No class "of men ought to be more sensible of the value of our civil "constitution than Christians, who cannot in conscience hold "communion with a national church. In these times, and in this country, we may refuse to be sealed with Anti"christ's mark, and be nevertheless suffered to live among men." Here it is plain, that he considers even the strongest of these names, which have hitherto been viewed as appropriated to that church which is called in scripture, "The "mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth," as applicable also to our national church. She too, it seems, in his opinion, is the beast mentioned in this passage; and consequently, according to the description of this Antichrist, must sit in the place of God, and exalt herself above all which is called God: and of her also it may be affirmed (however contradictory to fact), that she has made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornications, and has deceived them who dwell upon the earth by the lying miracles which she has pretended to perform!!! How strange indeed, that persons who are such sticklers for purity of communion, should receive to occasional fellowship the followers of this beast, and supporters of this Antichrist-the members, in short, of this church, which cannot be considered as a church of Christ! How still more a tonishing is it, that men, who glory so much in their canour and charity, should apply to our Establishment the titles of a church, not one of the awful characteristics of which, whether as already stated, or more fully described in the sacred volume, either can be ascribed to her in them.. selves, or were ever hitherto ascribed to her in the same ex

tent, even by her most inveterate enemies*. See an admirable refutation of this paper on Vows, and a detection of some radical and important errors on which the scheme of

* I must here except Dr. C. Stuart, who, after leaving the Establishment, in 1777 published a most violent invective against it, in the form of a sermon. In it he attempts to trace a resemblance between pur church and Antichrist, which is represented in the Revelation, as a woman sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast, with seven heads and ten horus. It is remarkable, however, that while he selects certain circumstances in which he imagines there is a similarity, he omits others far more important and distinctive, ita which even his ingenuity could not discover the slightest degree of coincidence. It is evident also, that to point out a resemblance in a few particulars, admitting that he has succeeded, will not warrant the application of this name to the Establishment. Some things which are very good, resemble others which are bad, in a number of circumstances; and yet it cannot be inferred from this, that they are evil. A good man may resemble a bad man, in being supported by the power and wealth of others, as he here says that the Church of Scotland resembles Antichrist; and yet we cannot infer from this, that he is an unworthy character. Nay, we are told in this same book, chap. xxi. 24, that when the purest state of the church on earth shall come," the kings of the earth," who are said, in the description of Antichrist which he quotes, to give its power and strength to the beast," shall bring their glory and honour in"to the church." But since the Doctor considers it as one part of the similarity of our church to Antichrist, that her ministers, while as responsible for their doctrine and practice as those of any Dissenters, are secured, as long as they discharge their duty, in their maintenance by Government, what will he say of the millennial church, into which the kings of the earth are to bring their glory and honour, to support and promote it? Since he represents it likewise as an evidence of our similarity to the mother of harlots, that we have a written confession, exhibiting our view of the meaning of the scriptures, and that our creed will not agree with his view of these scriptures, does it not follow from this, that as there is not at present a church in Scotland with which he can join in communion, every Baptist, and Independent, and Presbyterian dissenting, as well as established congregation, must so far be viewed by him as a member of Antichrist? In fine, as he mentions it as another point of resemblance, that the two witnesses of God prophesy in her clothed in sackcloth, it appears necessarily to result from it, that as we are informed in Rev. xi. 3. that these witnesses were to prophecy for 1260 prophetic days, or according to him for that number of years, the Church of Scotland, if we attend to the first period of its existence as a distinct society, must, in the Doctor's view, have still a prospect of existence for an extent of time, not very encouraging to him and his fadependent brethren in their attempts to overthrow it,

these gentlemen in a great measure is founded, in the Missionary Magazine for March 1804*..

your

You have, however, produced evidence which appears to you at least, demonstrative of the truth of your charges, and which consequently justifies your separation from the esta blished church. Of this evidence you invite a fair discussion. It will not therefore, I presume, be disagrecable to you to attend to some reflections which, on a perusal of Letters, occurred to a member of the Establishment, and which, on review, still dispose him to object to the cogency of your reasoning, for the necessity or propriety of the step which you have taken. The arguments which you adduce to establish your position are of two kinds; those which, in your opinion, prove the constitution of the Church of Scotland to be anti-scriptural, and those which relate to the improprieties exhibited in its administration. In the following pages it is proposed to consider these arguments in their order, with the degree of force which they appear to possess. Conscious of the fallacy of the common practice of arguing against a scheme from the abuse which may have been made of it, or the errors and inconsistencies which may have appeared in the conduct of those who have held it, you justly express, in language the most pointed, your disapprobation of such reasoning. "It is not," you say, (p. 9.), "the "character of individuals, but the general aspect and ten«dency of any particular system, by which our opinion of "it ought to be regulated. If it be founded on scriptural

principles, ungodly men being professedly attached to it "will not make it worse; and if not, the most-eminent ex"amples of holiness among its votaries will not be able to "sanction it." And again, in p. 105. "Let it be recol"lected, it is systems, not the characters either of indivi"duals or of particular societies, the merits of which we are "here canvassing. These are only implicated so far as they "are found countenancing a system, of which there is satis"factory evidence that it is not agreeable to the word of

*It may however be remarked, that since it is specified in this passage as a sign of Antichrist, even according to Mr. Ewing, that she allows none to live among men who do not receive her mark or number, it is impossible for him, without directly opposing his own expressions, as well as the explicit testimony of the sacred oracles, to apply this opprobrious appellation to our church, which permits Independents to live unmolested in their religious privileges.

"God." Than this, indeed, nothing can be more rational; for, were we to reject a principle or system on account of the errors, and even immoralities, of many who hold it, we should not only set aside Presbytery, but Independency and Christianity, and even reason itself. You rightly, therefore, begin with the constitution of our church, and on this ground we are willing most readily to meet you, assured that if it can be proved to be agreeable to scripture, it will be difficult for you to establish the propriety of separating from its communion.

In reviewing then your remarks upon the constitution of the Church of Scotland, I am happy to observe that you are pleased to object only to its form of government, conscious, I presume, that the views which it professes of evangelical truth, in its Confession and Catechisms, are no less consistent than your own with the word of God. Its administration by Presbytery alone is the object of your censure, and against this you declaim as one abundant source of the evils which are to be found in it. With this momentous consequence however, even though these evils should exist, I hope it will afterwards appear that Presbytery is not chargeable; and that of all those forms of government which we know, Presbytery is the best fitted to preserve purity of doctrine and discipline. At present it is sufficient to mention, that corruptions, not only in government but in sentiment, are not peculiar to Presbytery, but are to be found in an equal, if not in a greater degree, among Independents themselves. Nowhere have the opinions of Socinians, and Arians, and Arminians, and Universalists, more generally prevailed than among the Independents in England*. As no argument then, founded upon the existence of such evils among Independents, would be admitted by you to be conclusive against Independency, unless it could be proved that it was favourable to the introduction of them; so no argument, I contend, can be adduced from such evils, if they exist in the Establishment, against its Presbyterian government, unless it can be evinced that that mode of government is the source and

That many, also, of the Presbyterians in England have embraced these errors cannot be denied. It is well known, however, that these Presbyterians have no courts of review, or do not regard them; and that, while they profess to be Presbyterians, from their total inattention to the peculiarities of that system, they are more worthy, in a certain view, of the name of Independents,