man will sue thee at the law, &c. (mark, it is sue thee at law) and take away thy coat, give him thy cloak also!"

I know not what the laws of that country were, but if they were any thing like ours, I think there are few men who have gone to law for such a trifle, but have found it would have been wise to have acted upon this precept, literally taken. But even allowing it to be metaphorical, surely an excellent moral precept might be conveyed. Do not be of a litigious disposition, but rather put up with a trifling injustice, than involve yourselves in all the anxiety of an uncertain suit at law. Thus, then, as a general rule, whether literal or metaphorical, a Christian would be wise to act upon it; and surely Jesus delivered it subject to the principle of a general rule, that it will admit of exceptions, and all the other precepts in this paragraph stand upon the same footing, and admit of the same rational explanation.

I have merely shewn that these precepts may be explained, even allowing they were intended as laws binding upon Christians in all ages; but as Jesus never wrote, or commanded any other to commit his precepts to writing, I con tend they are not binding upon us, any farther, than as our circumstances are similar to those for whom they were spoken, or as they are reasonable and just in the very nature of things. It has been a maxim with me, and if Mr. B. had attended to it, he would have been saved the trouble of exposing his own folly, by carping at what he does not understand, always to consider when I am reading the New Testament, who it is speaking; who is spoken to; the cause of speaking, and the thing spoken of; and I have found it of very great advantage.

Let us take the precepts of Jesus, objected to by Mr. Burdon, to this criterion, and we may admit them to be literally intended, without impeaching the wisdom of Jesus, or being ourselves ridiculous or wicked. And first, let it be observed, that Jesus often delivered precepts to his disciples in the presence of the multitude, which related to them only. (See Luke, vi. 20; xvi. 14). Now then I find that the precepts, before noticed, were spoken directly to his disciples, and were applicable to them only, as also Matt. vi. 24 to 50, where Jesus tells them, "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon; therefore take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body more the à raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barus ; yet your heavenly

father feedeth them: are ye not much better than they? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these; wherefore, if God So clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, how much more shall he clothe you, oh ye of little faith "

I admit that if this was intended for general application, it would be ridiculous and wicked; but does it follow, be cause its general application would be so, that it may not be highly proper when particularly applied. These pre. cepts were delivered to the particulur disciples of Jesus only, and the cause for which they were spoken is clear from the concluding words-" Oh ye of little faith." Now let us consider the peculiar situation of the apostles: they had engaged in the arduous task of teaching concerning the kingdom of God, throughout the world; they were taught that to do this, they must forsake house and land, and wife and children; and when Jesus sent out his disciples by way of trial, he says, (Luke x. 3)“ Go your way, behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse nor scrip, nor shoes, and salute no man by the way, and into whatsoever house you enter, first say, peace be to this house," &c. Surely these were conditions that would alarm weak minds, and put their faith to a severe trial; which, had Jesus been an impostor, he would carefully have kept out of sight. On the contrary, he shewed, them all the difficulties they had to encounter, and told them that the work he employed them for was incompatible with all worldly considerations. Ye who have undertaken it "cannot serve God and Mammon;" there is no alternative, if you engage in this work you must renounce the things of this world altogether, or you are not fit for my purpose. If you suffer them to interfere in the smallest degree, they will unfit you for the arduous task. Under these circumstances how reasonable and just was it that those who had given up all that they had, for what they considered the cause of truth and of God, should be assured that the God whom they served, and for whom they had made such sacrifices, would take care to supply their wants; and when difficulties either had pressed on their minds, or were anticipated by Jesus, which would weaken their confidence, could any thing be more to the purpose to strengthen and encourage them, than a reference to the birds of the air, or the lilies of the field, who, without any care of their own, were' cloth

ed and fed by the sovereign ruler of the earth? Here then I say, with Mr. Burdon," the whole of this must be taken literally" but I deny what he afterwards asserts, "that the whole tenor of the gospel is to this effect:" unless he means to say, that the whole tenor of the gospel is suited to the peculiar situation and circumstances of the persons who are particularly addressed.

I trust I have shewn that many of the precepts, which Mr. B. says must be taken literally, or admit of no explanation, will, even if metaphorical, admit of a highly rational one; and that those parts which must be taken literally, when considered in connexion with the persons to whom they related, involve no absurdity, but are highly reasonable; therefore any further attempt to throw an odium upon the teaching or religion of Jesus, on account of them, by Mr. B. "would be worse than ridiculous-it would be wicked." I am, yours, &c.

AN OBSERVER,

THE PRIMITIVE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH DELINEATED; WITH AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE TERMS "BISHOP" AND 66 ELDER.'

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

74

INCE writing my former Essay, on looking at the terms Bishop and Elder, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, I find the following definitions, which, as they tend to strengthen my former remarks, I shall quote in this place.

Bishop. "The word comes from the Saxon bischop, and that from the Greek episcopos, an overseer or inspector. Elders. "In the first assemblies of the primitive Christians, those who held the first place were called Elders. The word presbytery is of the same signification."

An office so important as that of an overseer in the Christian church, would necessarily require that men of the greatest talent and virtue should be selected for that purpose, and that their character and qualifications should be clearly defined, as on them in a great measure would depend the order, character, and success, of the cause. Accordingly we find the apostle Paul (1 Tim. iii. 2 to 7; Titus i. 5, 9) most minutely particular on this head, in which every quality that can mark the truly excellent character is described as necessary to qualify a man for the office of bishop or elder; but they were not left entirely to precept to regulate their choice; they had the example of Paul himself, whose life

was a comment on what he taught, as is finely illustrated by his appeal to the elders of Ephesus. Acts xx. 17 to 35.

I shall not make any comparison between the character of primitive and modern bishops. Were I to attempt it, from the bishop of Rome down to the bishop of a dissenting chapel, I should expose myself to a prosecution for libel, since truth is declared to be a libel, and in this instance "comparisons would indeed be odious." The duties attached to this office will be found in the following passages, Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. v. 19, 20; vi. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 15, 24, 25 ; Titus ii. 7. 8; iii. 8; 1 Peter v. 1,3; and the reward they are to expect for their labour is I Peter v. 4, "When the chief shepherd or overseer Jesus shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.' It was not the peculiar or necessary duty of elders to teach publicly in the church; for when Paul is speaking (1 Tim. iv. 17, 18) of the distribution of the funds of the church, to those who needed them, he says, "let the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour (a more liberal allow. ance), especially they who labour in the word and doctrine; for the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the labourer is worthy of his reward," This is highly reasonable; that the man who is most worthy in his character (as he must have been to be elected to the office of overseer), and who has devoted himself to their service, should, if he was past labour, or needed their assistance, be the more liberally provided for. But this has nothing in it to sanction the providing for men who are able to work for their living, or who possess the means of living without labour.

The office of elder is local, and consequently cannot prevent the person filling this office from providing for himself. Materially different was the situation of the apos tles and evangelists, whose business it was to give up house and land, and wife and children," to propagate the gospel, or organize the churches, to which they were expressly called and appointed by the Deity. Of course, be-, ing deprived of all other means, they had a claim upon the churches for support, which Paul so justly asserts; yet notwithstandingthe reasonableness of his claim, and the authority by which he could enforce it, we find him (and no doubt all the others followed his example) generously refusing to accept of such support, while "his own hands could administer to his necessities, and to those who were with him, accounting it more blessed to give than to receive," as his master had taught before, declaring that "the parent

1

should lay up for the children, not the children for the parent ;" and that "he that would not labour, neither should he eat." Go then, ye pretended successors of the apostles, "and do likewise;" but in the present day there can be no claim or pretence for support, much less for a regular salary to any man. No man needs, or is appointed, to preach, or proclaim the gospel : we have in the scriptures all that they can tell us; and the recent plan of distributing the Bible, with out note or comment, proves that, even in their own estima. tion, Christianity may be clearly understood, and make its way with more success by the Bible alone, exempt from their officious meddling If then they have one grain of common honesty, they will renounce their ungodly gains, and give to the cause of truth their best talents, without price or reward. But Dr. Priestley has advocated their cause, where he says, in his Notes on the Bible, vol. 3, page 191-"this indeed is no more than one case in many, which come under this general rule, viz. that persons employed by others, for whatever service, should receive an equivalent for their time and labour, and of course be indemnified for the expence of whatever education may have been requisite to qualify them for their office. It is evident that the ministers of the gospel are in this respect in the same situation with physicians and others, who give their time to any particular profession, who are in fact the servants of those by whom they are employed. If any, like the apostle Paul, be by any means independent of their salaries as ministers, and voJuntarily give their time and labour to what they deem to be the cause of truth and virtue, those to whose benefit they thus devote their labours, are under the same obligation to them as they would be to a physician who would give them his advice gratis; and the recompence that such persons do not expect from men, they will no doubt receive at the resurrection of the just, when they, who (and he should have added without pay) shall have turned many to righteousness, shall shine as the stars for ever and ever."-Let him then, take the converse of the proposition, and acknowledge the dilemma in which this defence has placed him and all his brother hirelings!

I have said it was not the duty of an elder always to teach publicly in the church; and the observation of Paul, "especially they who labour in the word and doctrine," proves the truth of my assertion. The chief business of an overseer was to preside in their assemblies, to watch over the conduct and character of the members, to feed them either publicly or privately with wholesome advice and instruc

VOL, HII.