fect, any more than his forbearance to the fect that differed from his established church was intended for the profperity of that fect, And now that you have broke filence again, there is certainly art in that alfo. There is more art than reafoning in what you fay against the illiterate minifters; and I fear it is not fo much your meaning, that the people's fouls should beentertained with the fciences of which you fpeak, as that they fhould be fed with the fancy that you have them, and fo are only capable to teach them fcripture-knowledge; and that, being ignorant of those mighty sciences, they may not dare to differ from your gloffes on the fcripture, nor hearken to illiterate men, who, for want of the fciences, cannot explain the fcriptures. Thefe illiterate minifters, if letters could do their business, have far more need of them than you, who are already in the esteem of the multitude far wiser than you really are, and who, according to your own principles, can never have much use for philofophy and criticism in confuting heretics for you know you have no more to do, but to fit down in a prefbytery or fynod, and vote against heresy, and then call on the magiftrate to extirpate it, or root out the heretics; whereas the illiterate have nothing but the word of God, and if they cannot manage that, as it is "mighty "through God," and not through the fciences, they can do nothing. Yet if they prevail in the least against error, God will have more honour than in thofe that need lefs dependence on him, and ufe means to keep themselves off from that dependence; and if the fruits of their miniftry in Angus, and the works of their difciples be compared with yours, it may poffibly appear, that the word of God alone is " the power of God to falvation," and that there is no reafon "to be afhamed of it," without your sciences.

66

You tell us, that, for acquiring these arts and sciences, there ought to be schools of learning, as there were schools of the prophets of old. But were these arts and sciences taught in the schools of the prophets of old? And do you i magine that your expectants and young preachers are the fucceffors of the young prophets, and you, or the teachers of the fciences, the fucceffors of the old ones? And if pastors and teachers be to be trained up in fchools, as were the prophets, what schools do you read of for them in the New Teftament, but the churches of the faints? The pure "word of "God founded out" at firft from the churches; but the first herefies came in from the fchools of the Jewish fcribes, and from the fchools of the Heathen philofophers; and the first

Christian

Christian school at Alexandria produced Arianifm. When the miniftry of the gospel came to be attended with worldly honour and gain, all that fought to be employed in it for the fake of these, were not fitted by Jefus Chrift to "be pastors " and teachers," and his gift alone, though fufficient for its end, was not fufficient to bear them out in the figure they behoved to make in the world, as the fucceffors of the Hea then priests: and therefore they behoved to have fuch qualifications as could be attained the fame way that men attain qualifications for other worldly employments. Thus men came to be ministers of the gospel as they came to be lawyers and physicians. The Heathens at firft ridiculed Chriftianity; but as it grew upon them, in fpite of all the methods that use to be taken with such as are not to be reasoned with, they began to exercise their skill in difputing against it. This proved a temptation to fuch Chriftians as had letters, to lay afide the old "weapons," that were mighty "through God for cafting down imaginations, and every "high thought exalting itself against the knowledge of "Chrift," and contend with "carnal weapons," or oppofe the "wisdom of words," and defend the gofpel against it, by "the wisdom of words." But inftead of maintaining the cause of the gofpel this way, they in effect gave it up, and corrupted the doctrine of Chrift, by an endeavour to reconeile it as much as might be to the "wisdom of the disputer "of this world." Thus the gospel became a science, instead of a "word of faith," and the old difference betwixt these two, stated by the Apostle, 1 Cor. i. & ii. was in a great meafure done away. And thus, ".as Satan beguiled Eve through "his fubtilty, their minds were corrupted from the fimpli"city that is in Chrift." This went on, and continues to this day, under all the various fhapes of the profeffion of Christianity, where-ever expectants, as you call them, inftead of "holding faft the faithful word in teaching, that they

may be able by found doctrine both to exhort and con"vince the gainfayers," are professors of oppositions of science falfely fo called, or of polemic divinity.

When you have stated the opinion and practice of the fect lately rifen among us, you make a fupposition, that the devil should stir up Arians, Socinians, and Deifts, to attack our holy religion. This fuppofition may be allowed; for it is matter of fact, books written by men of letters against the faith of the Son of God, and against the truth of Chritianity, are in the hands of your people, and taking with

them.

them. Infidelity is growing and fpreading apace; and the courfe of the world that has been in the channel of fuperftition, under the Chriftian name, to the great dishonour of that name, (from the days of Conftantine, but especially from the time the clergy came up as the "eighth head" of the Roman empire, and "the ten kings gave their power to "the beaft to make one opinion"), is now turning into the channel of Infidelity, to the great grief of the clergy of all forts; because it shakes their throne, and fills their kingdom with darkness. When you have laid down your fuppofition, you propofe your argument in a question, What could fuch men do to defend it? And they will perhaps inquire again, feeing your temporal interest and your authority in the world lies at the stake, What are you doing to defend it? Men of letters, both in the church of England and your church, have been writing defences; but what have any of your fect in this church of fered that is worth the reading? You can in your manner find fault with the writers for Chriftianity, and charge them with betraying the cause, while you cannot fay it is through their want of letters. You contend for the evidence that the teftimony of God in the gospel carries in itself, and is beheld by them whofe understandings he opens to understand the fcriptures, and behold that evidence in them, and you do well. But is that evidence to be feen only in the original Hebrew and Greek text? Or could they at Rome perceive it, where I fuppofe Paul spoke it in Latin to the Romans, as they of Athens did, to whom I fuppofe he spoke Greek? And could the Greeks perceive any evidence in his references to the Old Teftament, which he cited to them in Greek, as did these to whom he spoke in the Hebrew tongue? Next tell us, is this evidence that the word of God in the scriptures carries in itself, to be perceived only by the "fcribes and dif "puters of this world," the critics, philofophers, aftronomers, mathematicians, polemic divines, geographers, hiftorians, &c.? Or alfo by the "babes," the "foolish, base things of this world?" And is it to be communicated to o. thers by "the wisdom of words, or in that plain fimple manner wherein it is declared in the fcriptures? Then let us understand what advantage you have here with your letters beyond the illiterate? We are still at a loss to know what you can do to defend the Christian doctrine by your letters against the adverfaries. What adverfary have you baffled? Or whom have you converted by the power of your learning, or otherwife, from Socinianism, Arianism, or Deifm? You have had

Infidels

Infidels to deal with in Dundee: but what did you, beyond raifing an use of lamentation in the pulpit, and telling them in private, that they fhould be hanged? An illiterate man would have taken another courfe; he would have plainly told them the evidence that he himself saw in the gofpel, and how the atheism and infidelity of his own heart was quelled by the word of God; and if he prevailed not, he would pray for them, and fhew them the truth of Christianity in his life, and even in deeds of good will to them; while, at the fame time, he would fuffer no member of the Chriftian fociety, wherein he is concerned, to lead a life of contradiction to any part of the gofpel, but "take heed to himself, and the "whole flock," to have "a conversation becoming the go"fpel." This is the fect lately rifen, against which you feem so much displeased; but why should it displease you, that, while there are fo many of you trained up in letters, and well hired to defend your gofpel, a fet of people fhould engage in this way of the defence of Chriftianity a gainst their worldly intereft? Or what kind of men are ye, that neither defend Christianity yourselves, nor fuffer the defence that either the literate or illiterate are offering to it?

Next, you inquire how they would do with Jefuits? to which they will readily anfwer, even the fame they do with you, while you fubvert the gofpel" of the kingdom of hea"ven" in many inftances, and mislead the people. Your little stories and your arguings in the mouths of your agents, come to their hand. They fee through your arts and disguifes, they discover the fallacies of your arguings by the word of God, they maintain the truth of that word, and set some of your misled people right; fo would they do with Jefuits.

You put their answer to your questions in the fhape of an objection. O, fay they, we have the word to oppofe them; which is not ill faid. But what is your answer to this ob jection?

Had there not, fay you, been men of learning before you to have tranflated it, you even would not had that. Well, they have it; and I hope you do not grudge them this, as your fathers of the Roman church did, when the Lord, in his marvellous providence, brought the fcriptures to light in the languages of the nations. The illiterate adore the wif dom, goodness, and power of God in this, as they do in the first publication of the gospel by the gift of tongues, before it was written, and likewife in the writing of it. And from

this

this faying of yours, they have reason to think, that if you had been a clergyman, when it began to be tranflated into the modern languages, you had at least refused to use your learning that way, for fear of the confequence and the danger that might come to the church thereby. The fect of which you complain do not as you here infinuate, decry the knowledge of the languages that is neceffary for translating the Bible, as they do not decry the art of printing, without which, you men of letters would have laboured under a vast difadvantage; but as they will not fay that no man but a printer can be a minifter, neither dare they affirm, that none but a tranflator is fit for that office. They fuppose a man may be capable to tranflate the Bible, and yet not qualified for the miniftry, as the word of God directs, as another may be qualified for that office according to the scriptures, and yet know the word of God only in his own native language. The reading of the fcriptures was much attended to in the first churches, and they could not all hear or know them, without being read to them; fo they had readers who were not minifters, fitter for that than for the miniftry; yea, and perhaps fitter for reading than the ministers themselves: for no doubt you can inform us by your skill in history, if there were not ministers in the first churches that could neither read nor write. But do you in carneft affirm, that none are fit for the miniftry but such as are capable to tranflate the Bible? And if you do, are you perfuaded that yourself is a minifter, or many more with you, who content themselves with as much knowledge of the Hebrew for ordinary as carries them through their trials? I remember of a letter that came to your prefbytery from one for whofe miniftry you had not a great regard, but he was a noble Hebrean. He infulted the reverend prefbytery, by writing to them the words of a language which they were fuppofed to know, and he understood they knew not, and that was the Hebrew. This was a reflection upon them full as fevere as any you have made on the men that are willing it be perceived they are unlearned and ignorant men. Further, you know how many of you are rufted as to the little knowledge you had of the Greek Teftament when you came off the irons. And are your confciences fo far feared, as not to give you the leaft uneafinefs, when you make your people believe, that others cannot be ministers for the want of that knowledge of the facred languages which you yourfelves leaft of all study?

Then