cause of the introduction of such errors. have never even attempted to demonstrate.

But this you

I am surprised, besides, that in your examination of Presbytery, you did not consider its various parts separately, as detailed in our standards, with the particular evidence which is exhibited for each. The great body of that evidence you have very slightly noticed, and part of it you have not even noticed at all. This, however, would undoubtedly have been the most satisfactory method of refuting the errors, if errors they are, which are maintained on this subject by our national church, and it would certainly have impressed your readers with a more favourable idea of your fidelity and candour. It would also, perhaps, by no means have been prejudicial to you in this important particular, if, after stating your arguments in favour of Independency, you had been pleased likewise to mention what had been said in answer to them a hundred times by former Presbyterians. But this you have thought proper completely to suppress; and instead of putting your readers, agreeably to your promise (p. 3), in possession of the arguments on both sides of the question, while you have illustrated, at least as fully as you knew them, the arguments of Independents, have totally concealed the replies of their opponents.

You have thought proper to consider at once, and in a very few pages, the different peculiarities of the Presbyterian system; and some parts of that system you have not even mentioned. As this plan, however, neither appears to be a faithful exhibition of truth, nor fitted for clear and accurate discussion, it is proposed in what follows, to consider,

In the 1st place, The opinions of Presbyterians and Independents with regard to the nature and extent of that power which should be granted to church-rulers.

2dly, To whom this power is given by the scriptures in a particular congregation; whether to the members of the church at large-to the pastor alone-or to the pastor and lay-elders united.

And in the 3d place, If every particular congregation is so to be governed, whether its pastor and elders are, by scripture-authority, required to submit to the review and controul of the pastors and elders of several congregations, united in a Presbytery, Synod, or Assembly.

I am, Sir, &c.

SIR,

LETTER II.

THE first point, I apprehend, in which you differ from Presbyterians, is the nature of that power which they grant to their rulers; and here, in words at least, the difference is important. Upon this topic Independents have often deelaimed with the utmost keenness, and from this source they have derived their warmest invectives against the Establishment. Upon this topic, too, you considerably enlarge, and attempt to paint, in very shocking colours, the baneful consequences with which the authority of Presbytery is necessarily attended.

Before however I attend to your arguments, I would briefly advert to a misrepresentation which has frequently been made by Independents, of the claims of Presbyterians with regard to the nature and kind of their authority. Often has it been said, that the power for which they contend, amounts to nothing less than a legislative authority, and invests them with a right to enact at pleasure whatever laws they wish to establish in the church of Christ*. Than this, however, nothing undoubtedly can be more remote from their sentiments. They, as well as Independents, profess to admit that Jesus is the only Head of his church; that those laws alone which he has revealed, bind the consciences and conduct of his subjects; and that the highest honour to

*See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 175, near the middle, where he af firms that a legislative power is assumed by Presbyterians.

66

In proof of this, we may refer to the words of our Confession, chap. xxxi. sect. iii. where it is expressly declared," that it belong. "eth to Synods and Councils ministerially," i. e. merely as the ser vants of Jesus, and accountable to him, "to determine contro"versies of faith and cases of conscience"-to the words of that very Assembly which framed this Confession, and collected from the scriptures our form of church-government; We say again, "that this power of ministers is no where any other than ministe "rial, and that it is not to be exercised any where at their own "zvills, but according to his direction,” (p. 9. of their Answers to the Seven Independents)-to the words of the London ministers, who, while they contend most strenuously for the divine right of Presbytery, declare explicitly, p. 45), that the power which is to be committed to its rulers is to be "only subordinate and ministerial;" and to the treatises of Gillespie, in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming, p. 175; of Wood against Lockier, p. 276, &c.; and of Hall on

which ecclesiastical rulers can now aspire, is to explain what the doctrine of the church is, with regard to the true meaning of the laws of Christ, and authoritatively to enforce among those of her communion the execution of his laws. In matters indeed of inferior moment, which regard simply the convenience, or external order and regularity of the church, and for which no explicit directions are given in the scriptures, Presbyterians allow that Christ has intrusted a power with those who rule in his church, to appoint such regulations as may be requisite for the general ends of edification and utility. But this is no more than Independents themselves have uniformly claimed*; while it is an incontestible fact, that, in every instance in which legislative power is disclaimed by Independents, it is universally and explicitly disclaimed by Presbyterians.

But admitting that the power with which rulers are in vested is not legislative, but simply of the kind which has been now stated, what is the degree of it which they are warranted to exercise? Are they entitled, as Independents affirm, merely to deliver their decisions to those whom they govern, as matters of opinion? or have they a right to announce them, as Presbyterians maintain, as authoritative de

Church-government, p, 59; with many other Presbyterians, who, though they assert most decidedly the right of the rulers to ecclesiastical power, very pointedly state that it is not to be legislative. Above all, we may refer to that very striking fact in favour of Presbytery, that many of the most zealous of our ancient Presby terians, in the last awful persecutions which were witnessed in these. lands, bled and died in support of this truth, that Christ alone is invested with a legislative power in his church. How strange then, whatever may be the practices of Presbyterians, that Independents should deny this to be at least a part of their principles, as much as of their own, that the power of church-officers is only to be su bordinate, not legislative! And how extraordinary, that the writer before quoted, when speaking solely of the Presbyterian system, should boldly affirm, in the face of such testimonies, that it authorizes its church-officers to make, as well as interpret and execute its laws! If such be the view of the principles of Presbyterians which is so obnoxious to Independents, it is no less rejected, in profession and system, by Presbyterians than by them. And, at the same time, it is a view of the principles of Presbytery which I feel obliged to declare that have never found in the writings of Presbyterians, and have met with only amidst the self-created theories and accusations of Independents.

* Thus the tabernacle-churches in Scotland require their mem bers to stand in singing.

terminations, and require their cheerful and universal obedience? In the former of these schemes you profess your belief, and reprobate the latter, as subservient merely to promote the purposes of tyranny and oppression. That instances of tyranny may indeed be found in the conduct of Presbyterians, I readily grant; but that such instances are authorized by their system, I positively deny. Nothing can be more contrary to the genius at least of this form of government; while it is a notorious fact, that it is not only not excluded by Independency itself, but seems not even to be equally precluded by this plan of administration. Many instances might be adduced, of most imperious decisions by Independent rulers; decisions, too, which, when once passed, were for ever final; and decisions pronounced by the very men who, while they exclaim against Presbyterians for exercising even inferior authoritative power, profess to claim no more than a right to deliver their opinion and advice to those whom they govern. Even in one of your sisterchurches, an instance of this kind the most astonishing and unaccountable, if we are to believe the narrative of those who were aggrieved, has already occurred; and their narrative has never yet been invalidated. In this case, surely, it was more than an advice or opinion which was delivered: for when certain members refused to concur with the pastor in a most insignificant matter, so far at least as it related to him, a decision of censure was passed, not only in a tone as authoritative as is ever assumed by any Presbytery, but in a manner as summary and rigorous as that of any Roman Conclave*. In Independency, moreover, which, in its number

* See a narrative published by seven members of your church at Perth, who were excommunicated by Mr. Little, for refusing to concur with the rest of the members in adopting the version of the Psalms of David composed by Dr. Watts. The account which is here given of the conduct of that gentleman, considering him as an Independent, is indeed astonishing, and though attempted to be set aside by him in the reply which he has published, seems yet to be unanswered. He contents himself, in general (p. 7), with "denying the view which they give of his words and actions, in "relation to their separation." And though they have produced charges against him the most precise and specific, and established them by facts the most pointed and particular, he satisfies himself, and imagines that he will satisfy the world, by simply saying, " that "theirs is a most distorted and unjust representation, designed to "bring the whole tabernacle-discipline to contempt." It must be ebvious however, that such vague affirmations, unsubstantiated by

of rulers, resembles and equals the lowest form of political democracy, there is certainly more room, as in other democracies, for the display of tyranny than in a mixed and

proof, cannot be sustained as a satisfactory answer to accusations so serious, and attempted at least to be supported by references to facts and incidents the most precise and determinate. His reasons, moreover, for declining " to enter into particulars, and for long "silence" after the publication of their narrative (compare p. 12 with p. 6, 7.) must strike every candid and impartial mind as very extraordinary, when urged by a man as an excuse for not vindicating himself from accusations certainly the most particular and important. He tells us, that it can answer no other possible end than to harden the minds, and to increase the prejudices, of the "public against the truth-that if he were to follow them over "the ground they have trodden, it would be to fall into the same "evil he condemns-and besides, however it may be with others, "he feels it impossible to repeat and refute their slanders without being in a measure contaminated with their spirit; and rather than "this, he would endure their utmost reproach.-That, from care“ful examination of his mind, in short, he is persuaded that it "would be more injurious to his character as a Christian minister, "to enter into such a contest, than all their invectives can prove

and that these are the reasons why, in the kind of defence which "he is pleased to publish, he addresses himself only to those who "are under his pastoral care." But, certainly, if this reasoning were conclusive, it would follow that whenever the conduct of a Christian, or of a minister was attacked, if the charges appeared to him unjust and exaggerated, he ought by no means to endeavour to refute and remove them. It is merely his duty to assert the contrary, and content himself with supposing that this assertion, though unsupported by proof, will be completely satisfactory to the world at large, who know no more of him than of those who are his accusers. Nay, it is a necessary consequence from his mode of arguing, that it is impossible for a Christian when assailed by slanders, to reply to it with meekness; and, like his blessed Lord when reviled by his enemies, while he vindicates himself from their re xilings, not to revile them again. But is not this contrary at once to the commandments of scripture, and the example of Jesus, who repeatedly repelled the slanders of his foes? Is it not at variance, also, with the conduct of Paul, who, in his different Epistles, frequently defends himself from the imputations which were cast upon himself and his ministry by the Judaizing teachers? And does it not imply a censure of your brother Mr. Ewing, who repeatedly attempted, though not with superabundant meekness, to reply to Mr. Robertson, respecting the interesting charges which he advances against him; as well as to your friend Mr. Haldane, who thought proper to follow a similar course, when animadversions were made upon his opinions and plan by a great literary character? In short, as the honour and interests of religion must undoubtedly be affect ed in a very eminent degree by the accusations which are here ad