not merely by advice and persuasion, but by the exercise of authority.

how

gover

The sum then of what has been said in the preceding remarks is briefly this-That the rulers of the church in every age, according to Presbyterians, are invested not only with a power of advice, but of authority-That this power, ever, is only ministerial and subordinate, not supreme and legislative That this power, though decried and condemned by Independents, is the same with what is claimed by the majority of each of their different congregations over the minority-That it affords to all who are under its controul, every mean of information that is necessary to produce an enlightened and voluntary obedience-That forbearance can be granted in inferior matters, even where it is exercised, no less than among Independents, to all who cannot fully comply with its commands-And that in more important points where they cannot acquiesce, liberty is granted them to retire from that connection, no less than among them-That the exercise of this power is absolutely essential to the existence of society-that to admit the people to judge and vote before a decision is made, is only to transfer it to them from the rulers-that such a transference constitutes those the nors of the church who are bound to obey--That the names bestowed in the sacred oracles upon ecclesiastical rulers, and the terms employed in them to describe the nature of the obedience of members, are directly contradictory to such a plan-And, in short, that the only thing which preserves order, and discipline, and government, even in the congregations of Independents, is their practically renouncing their favourite idea of administering only by advice and persuasion, and acting upon the Presbyterian principle of authority. To this it may be farther added, that if this form of government, which vests in the rulers the authority for which we contend, appears to be incompatible with religious liberty, because every member is not permitted to vote, and adopt or reject the decisions of the rulers, upon the same principle it may be demonstrated, that it is no less inconsistent with civil liberty, to commit to the rulers the government of the state; and that before any decision be made by the magistrates of a city, or county, or kingdom, the people should be convened and their votes collected. But as such a principle would be considered as preposterous in civil polity, must it

not be equally so in ecclesiastical government * ? and consequently, must not that view of the independence of the ru

* How astonishing then, if such only be the authority for which Presbyterians contend, that it should be the ground of such virulent reprehension to Independents! One of them, before quoted, (see Watt's Plain Proof, p. 176), exclaims with much keenness against their office-bearers, for claiming a power" only ministerially "to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience." "Here," says he, " they determine not only how a man is to act, "and how he is to be treated outwardly; but, as it were, interpose "between man and his Maker, and dictate what he is to believe." But will this writer prove, or will any Independent prove, that Presbyterian rulers assume a higher power, in the decision of these points, over their members, than is assumed by the majority of an Independent church over the minority? Or can they demonstrate, that the former interpose more between Christians and their Maker in their communion, or dictate more to them what they are to believe, than is necessarily done, (though they seem to disclaim it) by the majority to the minority in each of their churches?

"It is said," adds this writer, (p. 177), "that the decrees of "their office-bearers, if consonant to the word of God, are to be re"ceived with submission." Westmin. Confes. chap. xxxi. sect. iii. "This," says he, "seems, at first view, to remove the exception"ableness of this power; but when the matter is viewed more "closely, the case alters. Whether are the courts themselves to "decide, whether their decrees are consonant to the word of "God; or, are those who are to receive these decrees, to judge "of this every one for himself? The latter supposition, in a great

measure, destroys the idea of authority and submission. We "are to submit to decrees as far as we think them right, i, e. as "far as we please. This seems not to be submission. This ab"surdity is avoided; the courts themselves judge whether their "decisions are or are not right. They generally affirm the de"crees, and bind the church-members to the former decrees; and "also to their sentence, that those decrees are consonant to the "word of God. And thus they bind them under sanction of ex"communication."

To this, however, it is replied, by demanding whether the majority in an Independent congregation, when they pass a decree, do not claim also an exclusive power of judging as to its consonancy to the word of God, as much as the rulers of any Presbyterian court? Do they not announce to all who are to remain in their communion, that they must receive that decree as the mind of God, as really as Presbyterians do to the members of their churches? And do they not tell all who apply to them for membership, that they must admit such decrees as a just representation of the mind of God, upon the points to which they relate, as much as the rulers of Presbyterian churches? If the latter then, when they exercise this power over the members, are reprobated because they assume what is denominated by Independents an undue authority, must

lers on the votes of the members, to procure efficiency to their measures, which is held by independents, be altogether rejected as subversive of the administration of the church of Christ?

66

not the same objections present themselves against the former, who assume a power no less high and commanding? "Do not they also themselves," as well as the rulers in a Presbyterian court, "judge whether their decrees are or are not right? Do "not they" as generally "affirm their decrees, and bind the mi"nority and every new applicant, as well as the church at large, "to receive these decrees; and also to their sentence, that these decrees are consonant to the word of God? And do not they thus bind them "under sanction of excommunication?" And, in short, because Presbyterians invite their members to compare their decrees with the word of God, that when they receive these decrees, they may yield to them not a blind but an enlightened obedience, does this "destroy at once submission and authority?" If so, since, even by the confession of Independents, this is all that is claimed by Presbyterians, as far at least as their system is concerned, there is no more tyrannical authority or improper subjection, notwithstanding all their assertions, among the one than among the other. It seems strange, besides, that the permission which is granted by Presby terians to their members, to examine these decrees, and satisfy themselves as to their propriety or impropriety, should be con sidered by Independents as completely nullifying the authority of the rulers and the submission of the people. While no one is compelled to admit these decrees before examination and conviction, is not every one told, as in an Independent church, that if, upon inquiry, he will not obey these decrees, he cannot enjoy the privilege of membership? And where this is announced, however extensive the liberty of inquiry which is permitted by Presbyterian rulers to their members, and though they do not force them to admit their decrees, or remain in their communion, any more than is done by the majority to the minority in Independent congregations, will it follow from this, that the authority of the one, and the submission of the other, are destroyed by such privileges?

SIR,

LETTER III.

In the preceding Letter I have attempted to shew, that an authoritative power is not only exercised in general by the rulers of the church in every party, but is their just prerogative from the united evidence of reason and scripture. It follows naturally, under our second division, to examine who are the persons that are to be invested with this power in a particular congregation, whether the members in general, as some Independents explicitly, and all other Independents indirectly affirm, or only a few, denominated elders, to whom, according to the Presbyterian scheme, the exercise of government is exclusively committed?

Here, indeed, it is but justice to remark, that there is a certain pre-eminence, in point of power, which is granted by Independents to their elders or pastors. It is their province, they allow, to sit as presidents in the meetings of their churches, and preserve order; to prepare the business which is to be the subject of discussion for being laid before the members, and state the decision which appears to them most consonant to the mind of God; and after the members have finally determined, to announce that determination, and to require submission to it from the various persons connected with their societies. If a case, moreover, occurs, where the number of voters on each side of a question happens to be equal, they submit the point to the vote of their elder who presides at the time. In all other respects, however, their power is the same with that of even the lowest members of the church *,

Some Independents, indeed, have asserted with Glass, that as the elders are furnished with superior gifts for representing the authority of Christ in his word, and with more spiritual wisdom to apply it to the conscience, they are entitled to superior power in the church. But is it not evident, that if their power results from their gifts and not from their office, and is to be proportioned to the degree of them which they are supposed to possess, every member who is believed to have equal qualifications, must be entitled also to an equality of power; and every member, who is imagined to have superior wisdom, and whose labours as a pastor are not needed by the church, must have a right, even to an influence, superior to that of her elders and nominal rulers in all their determinations? Besides, whatever may be the gifts and endowments of the elders, as their proposals are subjected to the opinion and vote

But to admit the members, in general, of a church to an equality of power with those who are nominally invested with the rule, appears to be improper for the following rea

sons.

In the first place, Most of the members of a church are commonly unqualified for the exercise of such power; and to suppose that Jesus, the King of Zion, has warranted those whom he has not qualified to exercise this authority is worse than contradictory. But that the greater part of the members of a church are not so qualified, Mr. Ewing, as was remarked, has already acknowledged in the most decided terms. He grants that such is the state of the people, that a few of the most active spirit and readiest elocution will usully be able to sway a congregation; and that such is the collected ignorance of the brethren, and such their collected infirmities and corruption, that it would be extremely dangerous to the cause of truth, and of Christian liberty, to make every thing that ought to be done, even though trivial and obvious, wait for discussion in full assembly. And this representation unquestionably accords with fact. How many are there, in every congregation, who, though undoubtedly attached to the cause of Christ, and though so far acquainted with the doctrines of his gospel as seems necessary to salvation, are persons of very feeble powers and very limited information ! Are there not many among them, who, in the language of scripture, are weak, as well as others who are strong; many who are but babes and children in Christ, as well as others who are fathers? Nay, it will perhaps be found upon a candid survey, that the majority of those who are received as members, even in the best regulated churches, though they understand so much of the doctrines of the gospel as entitles them, if attended by a correspondent practice, to the privilege of communion, are, in some measure at least, of this description. The original faculties of many of them are weak; the degree of culture which they have received in youth is comparatively scanty: from the attention which is requisite to their secular employments, they can find but little time in their future life

of the members at large, before they can be considered as deciions binding upon the church, all that superiority of power which, in profession and title, they attribute to the elders, must be completely anrihilated.