propagate corruption and prevent reform, on what principle, I demand, can you affert that Prefbytery, with its courts of review, is dangerous and reprehenfible, becaufe, when the majority of its adminiftrators may differ from you in their views of doctrine and their ideas of difcipline, they have it in their power to propagate what you would diftinguifh by the name of corruption, and prevent reform? And if, notwithstanding the evils which may be occafioned by a perverted ufe of the former, you would not contend that every town or village in our native country, and even in every country, fhould be converted into an independent political government, on what grounds can you conclude, from the poffible evils which may refult from the perverted use of the latter, especially as liberty of separation is acknowledged by it, that the church at large should be broken down into independent religious focieties, and that there fhould be as many independent ecclefiaflical governments as there are individual congregations on the face of the earth?

The great object of inquiry in our examination of different forms of government, facred or civil, should undoubtedly be, which of them, when acted upon according to its end, is best fitted to prevent the entrance of corruption among focieties as well as individuals; not, which of them is moft calculated, when misapplied from that end, and conducted by men whofe principles and practice may appear to us to be wrong, to be productive of the greatest evil? Examining then, by this ftandard, the oppofite schemes of Prefbytery and Independency, I think it is manifest from the preceding remarks, that the preference is certainly due to the former. If confcientiously managed, by men who experience the influence of the gofpel, the rulers of each of its individual congregations can exercise towards all as much ftrictness of difcipline as the moft zealous governors of any Independent fociety can exercife towards their members.

And, at the fame time, while Independency has not a fingle court which can judge or punish a whole erring congregation, but allows them, though they fhould proceed to the most dreadful extremes of error or depravity, to pass uncenfured by any ecclefiaftical tribunal, Prefbytery has courts which can inflict upon any obftinate offending congregation, or even a hundred fuch congregations, the fame falutary punishment, to reclaim and reform them, which Independents can inflict upon any individual of their members. And, upon the whole, while Independency, as was already demonftrated in the fecond of thefe Letters, has not a fingle court which can procure redress to any of its members, though he be treated with the utmost cruelty and tyranny by any of its congregations, Prefbytery, by its courts, when they are conducted upon the principles of equity and fidelity, prefents to the pooreft individual in a congregation a mean of immediate and complete fatisfaction, even for the leaft act of injuftice by a Seffion, or Presbytery, or a whole Synod. From thefe views, then, I ftill maintain that the Prefbyterian fyftem ought unquestionably to be preferred to that of Independency, and that the latter fhould be fet afide as inimical to the deareft rights and privileges of Christians as individuals, as well as the united interests of the whole church of God.

In the 3d place, It is a principle revealed in scripture, and a principle acknowledged by you as well as many Independents, that miniflers alone are authorized to ordain. Now, if an Independent congregation be deftitute of paftors, and if, after they are chofen by the people, agreeably to fcripture and the uniform practice of your fifter-churches, minifters be brought from other congre. gations to ordain them to their charge, is not this a practical renunciation of that firft principle of Independency which we are now examining, and a fubjecting the congregation over which they are placed, together with

the paftors, to the performance of a most important act of government by the minifters of churches entirely dif ferent? Is not this confeffedly an act of adminiftration as interesting as any which is performed even among Independents, and yet is it not difcharged to any congregation which folicits it, by perfons who are neither minifters nor members of that congregation? Befides, does it not involve in it the exercise of all inferior branches of authority? Is it not plain that if it is their province to fet apart these members of this other congregation to the work of the miniftry, it is their province also to examine them as to their fitness to be invested with that office, for, without this, will it not follow that if a congregation has erred in its choice of pastors, ordination by the former will only tend to confirm their error, and admit thofe who are totally unqualified to this important function? And does not the fcripture declare, that when candidates for the miniftry are ordained by minifters, hands are not fuddenly to be laid upon them; that they mufl be satisfied as to their qualifications, and muft perfonally be convinced that they are faithful men, able to teach others the doctrines of the gospel? But if every pastor of such a congregation must submit to the fcrutiny of the pastors and office-bearers of other congregations before he is ordained, even after he has been chofen by the vote of the people, is not this recognifing the right of thefe paftors to exercise a very important act of authority over him and the congregation? Is it not invefting them with all the power of a court of review, while yet they are unwilling to grant them the name? And is it not obvious, that if the paftors alone of other congregations can ordain a person to the work of the miniftry in a congregation which is totally destitute of paftors, it is to them alone that he can be amenable for any act of maladminiftration which he may be permitted to commit; and it is by them alone that he can be depofed, if he

walk unworthily of his facred function. In fine, though it fhould not be admitted by fome Independents, that a meeting of the minifters of other churches is necessary for the ordination of the paftor or minifter of a particular congregation, yet if it be granted, with others of them, to be lawful and defirable, it seems undeniably to follow, in oppofition to a favourite principle of Independency, that ordination is either not an act of government, or that it is lawful and defirable even among Independents, that a congregation, in many inftances, fhould be subject to one of the higheft acts of power that can be exercised by the ministers and office-bearers of other congregations? Since then it appears to be evident from the facred volume, that minifters alone are authorized to ordain *, and fince it

*That minifters alone can ordain minifters, was attempted to be proved in a former Letter. In addition to the arguments which were then stated, it was neglected to be mentioned that confiderable ftrefs has been laid by fome, for the confirmation of this fentiment, upon the appointment of Paul, and his fellowlabourer Barnabas, to an important miffion, as related in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts. Even admitting it has been said, with some advocates for lay-preaching, that it is not their ordination to the office of the ministry, but simply their being fet apart to a particular work, which is there referred to, yet as it is evident that they were thus fet apart by ministers of the gospel, and them alone (compare ver. I. and 3.), the argument which is prefented by it, for the right of ministers alone to ordain, must be doubly stronger. If ministers alone can set apart those who are already ordained to a particular work, much more must it be manifest that they alone can perform this higher work, and invest them with their office. At any rate, it feems plain that the obfervation of Mr. Ewing, which has been represented by fome as completely invalidating any fuch conclusion from this passage, is unjust and contradictory. "It is remarkable," fays he, p. 6. of his Remarks upon a Sermon published by Mr. Dick, " that where

ever ordination, by the inftrumentality of man, is spoken of, "the words are quite different from that which is used in the "text before us; whereas when any word at all related to the one in the text occurs, in the sense of ordination, it uniformly

is admitted by many of our modern Independents, that it is either lawful or necessary that they alone should perform this act, it seems to be an unavoidable confequence, if they would be confiftent either with fcripture or with them. felves, that each of their congregations is not to be independent in every inflance, but that, in many cafes, it is either lawful or necessary that it should be fubject to one of the highest acts of authority by the minifters and officebearers of other churches.

In the 4th place, If the paftors of a particular con. gregation become heretical or immoral, and persist in thefe evils, in another point of light, even upon Independent principles, a court of review appears neceffary to judge them. The members of the congregation, according to the acknowledged tenets of all Independents, are not entitled in the firft inftance to judge, but are merely allowed to acquiefce and confent to the proposals of their office-bearers. But if not a fingle office-bearer is left in the congregation who retains his authority, how can the members take cognizance of their pastors, fince it is their

"fignifies the ordination or sovereign appointment of God." Are we not exprefsly told in the beginning of this chapter, that while "certain prophets and teachers ministered to the Lord, and fast"ed, the Holy Ghost said to them, Separate me Barnabas and "Paul, for the work whereunto I have called them?". And would not any unprejudiced perfon, who looked no farther than the prefent paffage, suppose, upon the first perusal of these verses, that it was an appointment, or feparation, by men, and not by God, which was here intended by this expreffion? If Mr. Ewing's very bold and unqualified afsertion however, respecting the separation which is here mentioned, even though but to a particular miffion, be admitted to be just, the following must be the meaning of the inspired historian: "While these prophets and teachers "ministered and fafted, the Holy Ghost appeared to them, and " commanded himself to separate to himself Barnabas and Paul”— a fuppofition at once the most abfurd and ridiculous, and no lefs inconfiftent with the character of Luke as a man of sense, than with his more extraordinary endowments as an apostle.