congregation, like every individual, must stand or fall in the estimation of all others, upon its own character. It is not upon who formed or convened them, or upon who converted them, that they are to be estimated; but, upon the proofs which they afford of their attachment to the king, his constitution and laws.

But, you will say, is our communion with them to be suspended till we see how they get along, and is it not to begin upon the intelligence and general reputation of him that converted them? And to do full justice to the case you make out, I should make such a specification as the following: Suppose A B, the person to whom you allude, was a brother in whose intelligence and prudence we had not much confidence, very zealous, however, and somewhat conceited withal, should send himself off some few miles from our village, preach the gospel, and gather a church in his own way; can we immediately fellowship such a society! Not, I think, upon the intelligence and prudence of him who associated them; (though it may not be once in a lifetime that such a case may occur, for such men are not very likely to plant churches) but upon our own acquaintance with them.

To prevent all this, and many such difficulties, it is only necessary that the brethren discountenance all departures from the ancient order of things. Every one who assumes, upon his own responsibility, to act in a public character, must be regarded as a weak and erring brother, unless he should give proof that he is a factionist, anarchist, or disorganizer. A due regard to such scriptures as the following will direct the churches in the right way: 1 Cor. xvi. 3. Brethren, says Paul, when I come to see you, whomsoever you shall approve by your letters, I will send them to carry your liberality to Jerusalem. 2 Cor. iii. 1. Do we begin again to commend ourselves?—! or, Must we show our letters of recommendation as other preachers? "You are our epistle, (of commendation) written' on our hearts, and read of all men."

Apollos, famous for his eloquence and ability in the scriptures, found it necessary to carry, and the disciples found it necessary to give him, letters of recommendation to the brethren whom they desired to receive him. "When he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren WROTE, exhorting the disciples to receive him."

Let our brethren go and do likewise! and if any of them have not attended to such matters in proper time, let them remember that this is one part of the ancient order of things which they have overlooked. The Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, as well as the first christians, furnished their agents with letters. Thus we find Paul carried letters to Damascus, to "the brethren," of the Jews, touching his errand. But why add a word, as if any one hesitated here! Every person not universally known or signalized by some special gift like the Apostles, or extraordinary ministers of ancient time, finds it is as expedient and necessary as it is scriptural to be furnished with such evidence, when he undertakes any business for the christian community. In accordance with your views on this subject, I remain,

EDITOR.

NEW VERSION DEFENDED,

And 0. Jennings, D. D. Exposed.

No. II.

ΕΚΚΛΕΣΙΑ.

MR. JENNINGS, in order to prejudice his readers, as he did his Presbyterian hearers, against the New Version, and myself as its publisher, declaims most vehemently on the injustice done the Presbyterian church in my ranking Dr. Doddridge with two Doctors of the Church of Scotland, in the first edition of that work. On the title page, Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, are called "Doctors of the Church of Scotland." Before the second edition of that work was completed, I ascertained that Dr. Doddridge was in England classified with the Congregationalists, and not with the Presbyterians, and accordingly noticed the fact in said edition. Now, as Mr. Jennings had seen the second edition, and used it during our interview in Nashville, he could not be ignorant (indeed he acknowledges) that we had made such a statement, and consequently he had no just ground for censure on that account.

Seeing the works of Dr. Doddridge in almost all the libraries of Presbyterian preachers; hearing him always quoted with approbation from the pulpits of Presbyterians, though I knew him to be an Englishman, I did not at the time of making out the title for the first edition recollect, if I did before know, that he belonged to the Congrational side of the Westminster Creed, rather than the Presbyterian; but as the Presbyterian and Congregational adherents of the Westminster Creed sit in one and the same General Assembly in Ame rica, I do not yet consider that any injustice was done Mr. Jennings' church by regarding Dr. Doddridge as a teacher of the Church of Scotland. But in a question of fact as to the sectarian standing of Dr. Doddridge, it is admitted and published in the very book which Mr Jennings used, that he was ranked amongst Congregationalists. But the real cause of all this outcry is very obvious: Mr. Jennings was a Presbyterian, and violently opposed to rendering the word ekklesia congregation, as Dr. Doddridge had done. He contended for a church representative, and Doddridge for an assembly of professed christians meeting in one place, as filling up the meaning of the word ekklesia. Judging of others from his own rules of action, he supposed, or wished others to suppose, that we willingly concealed the fact for the sake of having the testimony of Dr. Doddridge against the Presbyterians. This would be censurable, indeed. But no man of candor can, from any thing found in the new version, admit it; for Dr. Campbell's translation and rule, so far as we thought necessary, are given in vindication of the translation. And although all Dr. Campbell has written on this word is not quoted, all that he has said is substantially given. And the very reason which Dr. C. gave for retaining the word church in Matth. xvi. 18, affirms the very thing for VOL. III. 43

which we contend, that it is there unequivocally applied, not to a church representative, but to the whole assembly "who should receive Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God." I still assert that there is no good reason for departing from the word congregation in any one place, because it is more unequivocal than the word church. And if Dr. Campbell thought that in Scotland, in his time, there was any more ambiguity in the word congregation than in the word church, certainly that ambiguity no longer exists, especially in these United States.

After all, our learned Doctor admits that the word church does not "literally translate the word ekklesia, but that it is an abbreviation of the words Kuriou oikos," but he asserts that it gives the true meaning of the original. That the phrase house of the Lord may be a characteristic representation of the congregation of christians, never has been denied by any one, as far as I know; but that it is not a translation of ekklesia, is just as generally admitted; and that is the only point here in debate.

On this subject there is no lack of authority. I know of no critic who affirms not the following position: "EKKLESIA denotes an assembly met about business, whether lawful or unlawful." This definition is conceded by all parties. All Lexicons, all critics who have ever written upon the subject, affirm this. We wanted not to make Dod. dridge a Presbyterian for asserting this. The question is, What word in our language best represents this? church, congregation, or assembly?

Let the reader form a correct estimate of the following facts in deciding whether congregation, assembly, or church should be preferred:

1. The Greek word EKKLESIA, supposed by some to be derived from ekkalein, to call out, but by others from the Hebrew kahel, an assembly, is found in the Septuagint very generally applied to the whole assembly or congregation of Israel. Now as things that are equal to the same are equal to one another, and as the Greek and Hebrew authors of the Septuagint have made ekklesia translate kahel, and both often represent that which King James' translators call the congregation of Israel, it follows that, in the judgment of the king's translators of the Old Testament, ekklesia represents an assembly or congregation; and therefore, where we have ekklesia in the Septuagint, we often find congregation or assembly in the common version.

2. In the New Testament we have, in the common version, a very arbitrary departure from this rule. Psalm xxii. 22, we have kahel in Hebrew, ekklesia in Greek, and congregation in the common version; and yet the same translators, in quoting the same words in Heb. ii. 12, adopt the word church. Psalm xxii. 22, "In the midst of the congregation—(Heb. ii. 12, In the midst of the church)—will I sing praises to thee."

3. The king's translators sometimes render the word ekklesia, in the New Testament, assembly. In Acts xix. it is found three times translated assembly; for the Greeks used the word ekklesia to denote

any sort of assembly, whether lawful or unlawful, called out by the magistrates or by themselves.

4. The word ekklesia occurs 111 times in the New Testament, and is applied to every sort of assembly; to the Jews in the wildernese, an Ephesian mob, particular congregations or assemblies meeting in cities, villages, and private houses, and to the whole assembly or multitude of the redeemed of the Lord on earth and in heaven.

5. It is translated by the term congregation by Drs. Campbell, Doddridge, Macknight, Parkhurst, Adam Clarke, and by Dr. Stuart, the latest translator who has attempted any part of the volume; and time would fail me to tell by how many others, and on how many occasions.

6. Mr. Jennings, so reckless of assertions, says I have no authority from Macknight for this translation. But let the reader examine Macknight on the Hebrews, vol. 5. p. 59, Heb. ii. 12, and see how much dependence is to be put in the assertions of this violent partizan. It is a fact that Macknight translates the word ekklesia by our favorite term, congregation.

7. The word congregation, with us, covers the whole ground of the original term; but the term church does not. Any assembly, large or small, special or general, lawful or unlawful, good or bad, may be called an ekklesia, a congregation, but every one knows that only one sort of an assembly can be called a church, in our common acceptation of the term. Besides, the word church, in England and America, as often denotes an assembly of bricks, or stones, or logs of timber, as of saints or christians.

Now, courteous reader, put all these facts together, and then see how much the world is indebted to Mr. Jennings for his abusing me for preferring the word congregation to the word church as a general version of the word ekklesia.

But my strongest objection to the word church is because of the abuse of it by some of the sects. It is worried out of all sense and meaning by some of Mr. Jennings' party. With them a kirk session, a presbytery, a synod, and the general assembly, are called a church. "Tell it to the church" means, with them, tell it to the minister and village elders; in the session house, presbytery, synod, or general assembly in Philadelphia. "The church of God" means, with them, all baptized infants and servants, united with the adults; or any thing and every thing, meeting or not meeting for religious purposes-legislative, executive, or judicial.

To avoid all these cabalistic usages and mystic meanings, we prefer, with all authority from the highest literary tribunals, the word congregation, or assembly; leaving it to the epithets to ascertain what sort of a congregation or assembly it may be.

Church, like the word synagogue, first meant the building; and afterwards the people that met in it began to be designated by the name of the house. With us the term is now so vague that the phrases "Methodist church," "Presbyterian church," "Episcopalian church," as often mean the house belonging to the sect as the sect itself. In

this way the word may be used by those who do not wish to discard it from the English tongue; but unless we use it figuratively, and speak of the christian congregation as the temple or house of the Lord, we can see no propriety in retaining it in an English version of the New Testament, especially as a version of the word ekklesia which it is not, never was, and, from its prostitution in our time, never can be. EDITOR.

Narrative of a few weeks in New York. [THE writer of the following narrative, a young man just arrived from Ireland on the 5th of July last, confines himself to the religious affairs amongst those who have renounced allegiance to human creeds, and have taken the Scriptures alone for their guide; but some of whom, it seems, have carried so much of the lumber of Babylon with them, that, while they have moved away out of its geographical confines, their houses are furnished with the spoils of the people who formerly held them in bondage. We shall add a few remarks on the narrative when closed in our next number.]

EDITOR M. H.

On my arrival in New York I found that the church that had thrown off the yoke of the clergy, was divided into five sects, no two of which would hold fellowship together. In this state of things I was at a loss how to act. To remain any length of ti.ne in the city without holding fellowship with any church, appeared to me to be wrong; and yet to join any one of the five, might be sanctioning that which was the most blameable for the separation. I conversed with the most influential member in one of them on Sunday morning, the 8th of July, and found that union in every opinion was required by his body. I told him I did not wish to impose any opinion on him or the church with which he was associated, and would expect a similar favor from them. He replied that there were a few doctrines by which they tried all others, and if an applicant did not assent to these, they rejected him as unsound, viz. "The total and entire depravity of man, in consequence of which he would go on to eternity in oppo sition to God, were he not arrested." "The sufficiency of the blood of Jesus to save sinners, as such, independent of their faith or obedience." "The salvation of the elect being effected at the moment Jesus expired, so certainly and definitely that none but those elected could be saved; and that the Bible was sent into the world for the very purpose of producing faith in the elect, in believing the truths contained in which they were as passive as stones." "That a man, after believing and obeying the truth, was just as depraved as before, and that no reason existed for his being taken to heaven, but that God so pleased."

*

I urged the responsibility of man against this theory, and wished to know how the wicked could be sent to hell for not believing and obeying the gospel, when Christ had not given them power to do so.