T

Canonici, T. I. p. 876. The following letter is the best illustration I can offer of the danger pointed out in the text. A question arose, after Mr. Wesley's death, whether the Methodist preachers had any scriptural authority to administer the Holy Communion. The question was decided by lot, and the Conference wrote as follows, To the Members of our Societies, who desire to receive the Lord's Supper from the hands of their own preachers.

“Very Dear Brethren,

"The Conference desire us to write to you, in their name, in the most tender and affectionate manner, and to inform you of the event of their deliberations concerning the administration of the Lord's Supper. After debating the subject time after time, we were greatly divided in sentiment. In short, we knew not what to do that peace and union might be preserved. At last, one of the senior brethren (Mr. Pawson) proposed that we should commit the matter to God by putting the question to the lot, considering that the Oracles of God declare, that 'the lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.' And again, 'that the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.' And considering also that we have the example of the Apostles themselves, in a matter, which we thought, all things considered, of less importance! We accordingly prepared the lots; and four of us prayed. God was surely then present, yea, his glory filled the room. Almost all the preachers were in tears, and, as they afterwards confessed, felt an undoubted assurance that God himself would decide. Mr. Adam Clarke was then called on to draw the lot, which was, 'You shall not administer the sacrament the ensuing year.' All were satisfied. All subEvery countenance seemed to

mitted. All was peace.

testify that every heart said, 'It is the Lord, let him do what

seemeth him good.' A minute was then formed according to the previous explanation of the lots, that the sacrament should not be administered in our Connexion, for the ensuing year, except in London. The prohibition reaches the Clergy of the Church of England, as well as the other brethren. We do assure you, dear brethren, we should have been perfectly resigned if the lot had fallen on the other side. Yea, we should, as far as Christian prudence and expediency would have justified, have encouraged the administration of the Lord's Supper by the preachers; because we had not a doubt but God was uncommonly present on the occasion, and did himself decide.

66

'Signed, in behalf of the Conference,

"London, July, 1792."

"ALEXANDER MATHER, President. "THOMAS COKE, Secretary.

And yet, although we are assured that "God was uncommonly present on the occasion, and did himself decide," and decide generally, the Conference took upon themselves to make an exception (an exception from the divine decision) in favour of London, without casting lots a second time. Some judicious animadversions are made upon the gross inconsistency, not to say the profane presumption of such conduct, by Mr. Mark Robinson, in his Letter on Church Methodism, p. 74. A somewhat similar transaction on the part of certain Bohemian and Moravian Presbyters is related by Dr. Hickes, in his Letter to the Author of Lay Baptism Invalid, p. liv. I will subjoin Bishop Stillingfleet's remarks addressed to a certain prelate, who made a vow that he would resign his bishopric, in case it should be so determined by lot; and "having fasted, prayed, and received the sacrament, of two lots took up one, as received from God; and

before opening, on his knees promised performance, and the lot was for resigning---but some time after, a great scruple arose in his mind. The Apostles (whose practice was his main motive) had the Holy Ghost to guide them; he had not. They did it to determine a necessary point; his was a voluntary matter.---Whereupon he had recourse a second time to lots, concluding that God would not suffer him twice to be misguided." Upon this strange instance of weakness Dr. Stillingfleet observes, "This is no competent way for any man to judge what the mind of God is in such a case. To fast and pray to understand the mind of God, about things which we have sufficient rules to direct us in, is the fundamental principle of enthusiasm; and was the method of those who, by virtue of this principle, were carried to do such things which we profess to abhor. I think it were far better to fast and pray for wisdom and courage to do our duty, than to know whether we are to do it or no. It may be just with God to suffer those to be deluded, and entangled in their own snares, who are rather asking God what they are to do than setting themselves about their work."—"It is a thing very presumptuous for any particular person to imagine the Providence of God will concern itself as much about his affairs, as about the choice of an Apostle. But the wise man says, The lot is cast into the lap, and the whole disposing thereof is from the Lord: which signifies no more than that the most casual and uncertain things are under the disposition of divine Providence; not as though God would declare his mind every time men cast lots, though they should do it never so seriously; and to expect God should do that which he hath never promised to do, is in plain terms, tempting of God; which is, calling in the help of extraordinary Providence, where God hath never promised it; as appears by our Saviour's answer to the Devil's temptation. Again, it is impossible for any man to come to any satisfaction in his

mind this way; for he can have no assurance that the lots did express the mind of God, unless he would try that by another lot, and so run on till he be entangled, that he can find nothing to rest upon."-Miscellaneous Discourses, p. 21.

P. 12. cloven.] I have employed the word used by our translators, although diaμepisóμevaι means not cloven, but distributed among them. I should not have thought it worth while to direct the reader's attention to the right interpretation of this phrase, had not a fanciful propriety been discovered by some commentators in the supposed cloven form of each tongue of fire.

P. 13. There are two channels, &c.] This paragraph is in great measure taken from Ernesti's Dissertation de Dono Linguarum, in his Opuscula Theologica, p. 457.

P. 16. such as should be saved.] Tovs owloμévovs. Dr. Hammond interprets this, those that did escape, having complied with the direction given in v. 40, ow0nte ảπò rǹs γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιάς ταύτης. Our translators have rendered it as though it were σωθησομένους.

Ibid. continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine.] ἦσαν προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων, continued steadily and closely attending to the teaching of the Apostles, who, as we are informed, in c. v. ver. 42, daily in the temple, and in every house, ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. So in 1 Tim. iv. 13, Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. It should rather be to teaching: as in Rom. xii. 7, or he that teacheth on teaching. Our translators, however, used the word doctrine in this sense, which is no longer given to it in common discourse. Mark iv. 2, And he taught them many things by parables; and said

unto them in his doctrine. Matth. vii. 28, When Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine.

. Ibid. and fellowship.] τῇ κοινωνίᾳ καὶ τῇ κλάσει τοῦ aprov. Chrysostom, on 1 Cor. x. 16, the bread which we break, is it not the communion (Koivwvía) of the body of Christ? refers to this passage of the Acts, so as to make it appear that he understood T Kowvwvią to refer to the communion of the Eucharist, and that it was to be coupled with r kλáσel toυ aprov. So Bishop Pearson, Joseph Mede, and others; while many have understood it of a community, or communication of goods, viz. to the poor: so Heinrichs and Kuinoel. But with this last interpretation the word πроσкарrεpouvτεç seems to be incompatible; and with the former, the absolute use of KoLvwvía. I am therefore disposed to adhere to the interpretation of our translators. See Bishop Pearson, Lect. in Act. Apost. p. 34.

P. 17. from house to house.] кar olкov, more correctly rendered, in the house: domi, not domatim. olkov is here expressly distinguished from iɛpóv. So Scaliger, Hammond, Beveridge, Cave, Wolf, and the Arabic and Syriac versions. See Joseph Mede's Works, I. p. 409.

LECTURE II.

P. 22. They spoke more largely, &c.] I would not be understood as alluding to the notion of a Disciplina Arcani, imparted only to the more worthy; but simply to the order of instruction which would naturally be observed by the teachers of a new religion.