of Prefbytery. In the latter, the adminiftration is vefted in a few, compofed of minifters and lay-elders; the laft of whom ought, at leaft by the conflitution of the church, to be chofen from the wisest and most pious

degree by the accusations which are here advanced against Mr. Little, if not individually refuted, and as it is impoffible for him, as in the case of a mere general allegation, to vindicate himself from these particular charges by his future conduct, he appears to be bound, by every confideration, to answer precisely the accusations here exhibited, and thus to wipe away from himself and his congregation the odium which appears to be thrown upon them.

If Mr. Little, besides, as he here tells us, intends only to address himself to those who are under his pastoral care, and to vindicate himself and his conduct folely to them, why has he published this addrefs to the world? Is the world to believe them any more than their pastor, because, as he was for a long time, they have yet been filent. Did not they too, by confirming the fentence of excommunication, make themselves a party with him? and would it be fair to give credit to their vague affertions against another party, any more than his, if they do not anfwer the proofs by which their opponents fupport their charges?

In fine, admitting even that the cause for which these persons were excommunicated was just and valid, one thing seems to be plain, that though the church afterwards fanctioned this deed, Mr. Little himself, after public worship, without convening the members and obtaining their confent, ventured to pronounce upon thefe individuals this awful fentence. Nay, when the church affembled to decide upon the step which he had taken, he would not allow the men, whom he alone as yet could be confidered as having excommunicated, to speak in their own defence before they were excommunicated by the church alfo. And afterwards, when two of the members who were expelled, waited upon him for a copy of the fentence of excommunication, he told them that he had burnt it, and would not write another; and that if they wanted fuch a paper, they might recover it from the flames. And, as if these insults had not sufficed, when they requested him to produce a letter which they had written to Mr. Haldane, narrating their grievances, and which had been tranfmitted by him to Mr. Little, and when they asked him exprefsly to point out

A

among the people, and should be known to be zealously attached to their interefts. Among Independents however, representatives are excluded (a thing which is admitted in the loweft republican forms of government),

any passages of it in which they had misstated the truth, he positively refused. Is fuch conduct, however, consistent with the prin ciples of modern Independents, who boast so much of the liberty and equity which are discovered in their courts, and exclaim with fuch keenness against the tyranny of our Establishment? Can their pastor, without requesting a meeting of the church, and obtaining their consent, excommunicate any of their members? Are the perfons who are accused of any crimes or errors, which even merit excommunication, denied in their churches, before sentence is pronounced, the privilege of Speaking in their own vindication? Does it refemble the conduct of a man who was confcious that he had acted consistently with justice or candour, immediately to burn the paper which he had read in impeachment of the character of any of his members, and inflicting upon them one of the most awful of punishments? Was it worthy of fuch a consciousness of rectitude and moderation, to refufe to furnish them with another copy of the deed, and to bid them, if they chofe, recal it from the flames? Could conduct so tyrannical and imperious as this, however merited the fentence, be tolerated in any civil courts in Europe, except those of the military defpot of France? Did it intimate that he was able fatisfactorily to overturn the reprefentation which they had given in their letter to Mr. Haldane, when he refufed to read it, and point out any inftance in which their statement was incorrect? Are accufations like thefe, which fo deeply concern the honour of religion, and the respectability of his church, to be set aside by simply telling us, that he would prejudice the wicked against the truth, and would imbibe the fpirit with which flanders are uttered, were he to reply particularly to these allegations? Such an apology may, perhaps, appear fufficient to Mr. Little and his Independent friends, but it will not fatisfy the world at large, judging by the principles of equity and integrity. And till these charges are individually, not merely denied, but refuted, the credit of religion, so far as connected with the honour of Independents who associate with him, and the difcipline of the church which retains him as its pastor, must be considered as deeply and materially affected.

and a plan of ecclefiaftical administration is followed, which, in its form at leaft, is much more lawless, and more fitted to be productive either of tyranny or of anarchy; as it constitutes every member of the church, man,

Nor is the cafe of Mr. Little the only instance of oppreffive government which occurs among Independents. Even in a tabernacle-church which was formed lately at Elgin, under the miniItry of Mr. Ballentine, and the greater part of which separated from him, fomething very similar to spiritual domination appears to have been practifed. Their paftor, while he professed to grant to each member an equal right to judge with himself, was the only perfon, it seems in their apprehenfion, who governed their church. Against this conduct they remonstrate in the memorial which they fent to him; and obferve," As to the government of "the congregation we shall not stickle for any name, though we "do not love the unfcriptural phrase Independency. And as to "the expreffion Prefbyterian, from the word prefbyter, we know "it is fcriptural, for it occurs times almost unnumbered in the "Bible, as any one may fee that has a Concordance, by looking at "the word elder, elders, which is the English translation for the "word prefbyter, prefbyters. But we will not strive about words. "Our determination is, however, that we will not be governed "by a single person, for that is neither Presbytery nor Inde*pendency, old nor new, but is a mere arbitrary government, like "Popery or Episcopacy on a small scale; and this is a condition "that we cannot depart from, as it is contrary to our original " contract when we came together as minister and people.

"If our minister," say they again, " chooses to take the deacons "as a feffion or ecclefiaftical council, to rule along with himself, "we are pleased. If this does not fuit him, we agree that feven, "nine, or a greater number of men be chosen by mutual confent "of minister and congregation, and as many of the present deacons among them as can be agreed upon, and let these act as "representatives of the church or congregation." After which they tell him again, that they will not be governed by him alone. See p. 51. and 52. of Ballentine's Obfervations. Whether this representation was true in the extent which they fo frequently and ftrongly affirm, I do not pretend to say. At any rate it is certain, as Mr. Ballentine acknowledges (p. 95.), that their charges were just in a particular inftance, for without confulting

woman, or child, for fuch fometimes, from early piety, are received to that privilege, a ruler in the church. Ia Prefbytery, if a perfon feels himself aggrieved by the decifion of a Seffion, he may appeal to a Prefbytery, from that to a Synod, and from that to a General Affembly, the fuperior court being in every inflance a check upon the inferior, having power to reverse its acts and deeds. In Independency however, the decifion of the firft court is completely final, and the injured can appeal to no other fuperior tribunal upon earth. Whatever then may be the conduct of Prefbyterians and Independents, fuppofing the rulers, upon each of these plans, to be equally faithful and equally confcientious (and, to give juftice to the argument, this must be

deacons, or members, or a single individual, so far as is specified, he expelled a member from the communion of his church.

To thefe examples of tyranny among Independent rulers, were it confidered as neceffary, many others might be added, to prove that the people, however flattered by them with the appearance of power, and with the folicitation of their request before any decision is made, have frequently only the fhew. Of these I fhall at present only mention one. Two refpectable ministers lately, while travelling through England, happened to be present in an Independent church, where also there were another stranger minister and gentleman. After the services connected with preaching were finished, the pastor proceeded to dispense the facrament, and having confecrated the elements, announced to the congregation, as if to ask their confent, that this stranger clergyman and gentleman propofed that day to eat with them the fupper. Upon uttering however these words, without waiting a moment for the confent of the members, he turned to the strangers, and, after participating himself, delivered to them the bread and cup. Was not this however, and the fact can be established by incontestable evidence, a mere tantalizing of the members of this congregation? Was it not a pretending to confult them about the communication of a most folemn and important privilege, while yet it was plainly and avowedly declared that their opinion was not to be regarded at all?

fuppofed), I contend that the Prefbyterian form of government is better fitted than that of Independency, to prevent tyranny, and fecure impartial equity to the people.

The

"The diftinguishing feature of Prefbytery," you fay (p. 28.)," is the fyftem of reprefentation." minifter and elders of a particular congregation govern that congregation; the minifters and elders of a number of congregations, called a Prefbytery, judge of cafes which come before them by appeal against the sentence of any particular Seffion; and the minifters and elders of a number of Prefbyteries, denominated a Synod, decide upon thofe references which are made to them against the determination of any particular Prefbytery; as an Affembly, again, does upon that of any particular Synod, as well as deliberates about matters of general importance. "In an Independent church however," you remark (p. 30.)," nothing is decided by repre"fentation. Whatever is done by thofe who are

66

appointed to rule, is carried on in the prefence of the general body, and with their confent. While an "Independent church thus affumes the fole government "of its own affairs, it is amenable to no fociety of men "under heaven. In reference to its own members, its "decifion is final, and it pretends to interfere with "none else. It will be recollected (p. 47.), that "this peculiarity of Presbytery confists in the authority "of the reprefentatives of a church of Chrift, as "diftinguifhed from the perfonal conviction of the "individual members of it. Now we have no hesitation "in afferting, that this diftinguishing feature of Prefby"tery is directly oppofed to the general fpirit, as well fome of the exprefs precepts of the word of God. "Every one will allow that Chriftianity is a fpiritual "religion; and it feems a neceffary principle in such a 66 religion, that every one be convinced in his own

66

as