them to be the mind of Christ, and command all cordially to obey it, they, no less than Independents, are careful to state the grounds upon which their decision rests, and to afford to their members every mean by which their consciences may be satisfied, and this enlightened and voluntary obedience produced. Their public deliberations in every instance, where it is fit, are open to the hearing and examination of their members; and there seems to be nothing in Presbytery to prevent every discussion which is proper to be carried on before an Independent, to be carried on also before a Presbyterian congregation. The reasons, besides for every determination are not only uniformly stated, as has been already mentioned, but if any of their members either do not understand their meaning, or perceive their force, they are never denied an opportunity of obtaining satisfaction by private conversation, or correspondence with the rulers. If, in any case, in short, of inferior magnitude, they cannot acquiesce in the decision of these rulers, forbearance can be granted to them no less than among Independents; and if, in any case, it be necessary to separate, because it is of superior importance, and they cannot comply, they are not compelled to obey, but are allowed to separate no less than among them.

There is one point, however, and but one, in which Presbyterians appear to differ from Independents on the subject before us, and on this you seem to lay considerable stress; namely, that though the obedience which is required from their members by the former, is as free and as enlightened as that which is demanded from their members by the latter, Presbyterian rulers do not admit their people to judge and vote upon the propriety of their measures along with themselves, before they are finally adopted. But to this fact the words of Mr. Ewing, which I have quoted, furnish a complete and satisfactory answer. Nothing, undoubtedly, more directly tends to subvert the order and government of the church, as that gentleman affirms, than to allow every member a right to judge and vote upon the measures of rulers, and to oblige these rulers to retract or carry forward any of these measures, only in as far as it is agreeable to a majority of the people. It is, in fact, constituting those who should be ruled, the rulers, while the decisions of those who are dignified with that name are entirely subject to their determination. Their opinions, it is

evident, where this system is adopted, can only be passed into laws, when it pleases the majority of those who are to obey them; and when it does not please them, they are completely rejected. All the power, therefore, which is vested in the rulers, according to this plan, is merely nominal; and amounts simply to a right to state those measures which they have in contemplation to adopt, and to preside in the meeting during the deliberation of the members, while the right of judging, as to the propriety of these measures, is committed to the latter. As, therefore, it seems plain, that to grant to the members according to this system, a right to vote upon the proposals of the rulers, is utterly subversive of the power of these rulers, and reduces them to the situation of those who are ruled, while it gives the supreme authority to the multitude, the greater part of whom, according to Mr. Ewing, are unqualified for judging-as this system, I say, is attended with these consequences, it appears to be totally inadmissible, and that it is the province of the rulers, without the assistance of the members, to govern the affairs of the church of God.

If authority, moreover, as exercised by Presbyterians, as you evidently insinuate, is not consistent with liberty of conscience, I demand how it is consistent with it, when exercised by the majority of an Independent congregation over the minority? and if it be considered as unnecessary, as practised by Presbyterians, as you explicitly assert, because advice and persuasion appear to you sufficient for the government of the church, I ask how it is requisite, when assumed by such a majority over the minority, who must either submit, or renounce their communion? Cannot advice and persuasion among them too suffice? It is replied, as you have done, (p. 51), that the exercise of authority in such cases, among Independents, " is an unavoidable result of "social worship, and of the formation of Christian churches,

as long as imperfection of knowledge and of character re"mains?" I affirm, that since you allow that social worship and imperfection at once of knowledge and of character exist also among Presbyterians, among them too, even on your own principles, you must grant it to be necessary; while at the same time I contend, that for the reasons which have been mentioned, or may yet be mentioned, it should be committed to the rulers, and to the rulers alone, without admitting the members to be their advisers. I conceive it besides

to be a very evident truth, that whatever is delivered by any class of rulers, even though subordinate, whether sacred or civil, must be much more regarded when clothed with authority, than when communicated simply as an advice or admonition. It is true, that, till previously convinced of its propriety, in many cases, in civil, and always in sacred matters, no man can rightly perform any obedience to any government, whether civil or ecclesiastic. But what would we think of the man who should affirm, that because it is requisite to state to the people, very often in civil, and always in sacred matters, the reasons for which they are called to yield their obedience, it is unnecessary and improper for the rulers to clothe their communications to them, requiring this obedience, in the language of authority, and that they ought simply to enforce it by advice and persuasion? Would not such an assertion be rejected with contempt, as not only subversive of one of the strongest preservatives of public order and social peace, but as repugnant even to the common sense of mankind, which, by uniform practice, has constantly declared that advice is insufficient, and that the exercise of authority, in every government, is absolutely essential to secure the subordination and obedience of the subjects?

The authority, then, for which I argue, I wish it to be remembered, is not intended to supersede but to promote inquiry; is not designed to compel men, as you maintain, (p. 47), without conviction to believe and obey their ecclesiastical rulers, but to present to them more commanding incitements to examine, and more powerful though secondary enforcements and obligations, to obey the truth. For this purpose, it invests the governors of the church with a power, not merely to declare to her members what appears to be the mind and will of Christ, and to advise them to obey it, but with a power to inform them, that if, upon examination and reflection, they are not disposed to submit to it, they can no longer be entitled to the privileges of his people. The exercise of this power in every church, whether Independent or Presbyterian, either by the many or the few, I apprehend is essential to its very existence; for it requires but little observation to perceive that neither the purity nor the government of any society could long be preserved, where advices only were delivered to the members. And, in short, I must remark, that while Independents themselves, though, they affect to reject it, grant to the majority, in each of their

C

congregations, the very same authority which Presbyterians claim for their ecclesiastical rulers, were they to lay aside this authority, and act simply by advice and persuasion, the most awful consequences must ensue from it to their churches. Ancient chaos, in a more fearful form, would once more resume her horrid reign; confusion and anarchy would universally prevail; and order and government, in their lawless societies, would be completely annihilated.

In fine, I would observe that the various terms also em. ployed in scripture to express the power conferred upon church-rulers, seem plainly to intimate that they are entitled to govern those over whom they are placed, not merely by advice and persuasion, but by authoritative rule; and to govern them thus authoritatively, without previously consulting them as to their opinion and concurrence. As an examination of these terms will enable us the better to as.certain at once either the fallacy or the force of the pre ceding reasoning, let us proceed, though briefly, to consider a few of them; together with some others, descriptive of that obedience which is due from the members of a church to their rulers; and, with an examination of their import, conclude this letter.

In reviewing, then, the terms employed in scripture to denote the former, we see that it is compared to the power of a parent over his family; for says Paul (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5), a bishop," or overseer, "must be one who rules "well his own house, having his children in subjection with

all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own "house, how shall he take care of the church of God?") Now it is evidently here affirmed, that a power, corresponding in some measure to that which is possessed by a parent, or master over his family, is vested in the rulers of the Christian church, and that the latter must be exercised by them with judgment and prudence, if they are parents or masters, before they can be admitted to enjoy the former. But it is evident, that the power of a parent over his family is in the strictest sense authoritative, as well as persuasive; that while he should employ persuasion, he is invested also with authority, and can lawfully exercise it whenever it is requisite ; and that it is the duty of his children to be subject to his commands, without waiting till their opinion be asked and adopted. Unless, then, the power which should be exercised also by church-rulers is authoritative, as well as per

suasive, the reasoning of the Apostle, in the passage before us, would be totally inconclusive. It would be saying in effect, that before a man can be qualified for the exercise of a lower degree of power, a power of advice, he must have exercised aright a much higher degree of it, or a power of authority. As such a species of argumentation however is utterly unworthy of the inspired Apostle, we must certainly reject the interpretation which leads to it, and admit that the rulers of the Christian church, like the parent of a family and the master of a house, have a power not only of advice, but of authority.

Their power is represented likewise as resembling that of an overseer, who does not merely preside and advise, but authoritatively directs what he wishes to be done by those over whom he is appointed; for in Acts xx. 28, all the elders of the church of Ephesus, and they alone, in the sense there intended, are affirmed to have been made overseers of the fock, επισκοποι*. But if such an oversight as that which we have mentioned, in government as well as doctrine, be here asserted to be committed to the elders, and the elders exclusively, it seems naturally to follow, that, like all other official overseers, they must have an authoritative superintendence of those over whom they are placed, and a superintendence which entitles them to prescribe to churchmembers particular acts of service and obedience, without previously consulting their opinion and advice. This idea is strongly confirmed, by reflecting that this very word is

used in a celebrated Greek translation of the Old Testament (Numb. xxxi. 14, and 2 Kings xi. 15), to denote the authoritative superintendence of military officers, the captains of hundreds, and the captains of thousands, over their men ; a class of governors who were not accustomed merely to give advices to their soldiers, or to request their consent before they delivered their orders.

Their power, besides, is described as similar to that of the elders who judged in the gates of the cities of Israel, for they are frequently in the New Testament distinguished by

*Compare 1 Tim. iii; from which passage it is manifest, that it is an oversight, not as that of one Christian over another, but official and authoritative, and which is entirely peculiar to the ministers of the church, that is here intended; for it is asserted in that place, that only those Christians who were already overseers in the former sense, and had the particular qualities there specified, were fitted for the oversight there mentioned.