differences among yourselves, honeftly declare, whether it does not at once flatly contradiЯ and completely overthrow your favourite position, That ecclefiaftical rulers are not authorized authoritatively to decide upon any point which falls under their cognizance, without previously requesting the prefence and counfel of the members of the church?

I would obferve, moreover, that you yourfelf have admitted a cafe (and it has frequently occurred) in which, even in an Independent church, authoritative power must be exercised by your rulers. "Suppose," you fay (p. 50.), "a case of discipline to occur in an "Independent church, in which a difference of opinion " obtained, how far a charge was diftinctly proved. "The church must act in one way or another. If the "party be excluded against whom the charge is brought, "those who think him not guilty, will take offence at "the measure. If, on the other hand, he be continued *in communion without reproof, those who think him "guilty, will be equally offended." A decifion notwithftanding muft neceffarily be made, and the minority you admit muft either fubmit to the majority, or withdraw from their communion. Now, in this inftance, I would afk you, if an authoritative power be not used by the majority of this Independent church, without regard to the will of the minority, as much as by any class of

If the office-bearers, in fine, are to judge in less interesting matters only, and are to take the judgment of the people in more important affairs, does not this intimate, that though they are fit for determining what are confidered as trifles, they are not equal to the determination of things which are intricate and interesting, and need the fuperior or combined information of the members? ¡And that though it would be dangerous, from the collected ignorance of the latter, as Mr. Ewing affirms, to allow them to judge in things obvious and trivial, it is perfectly fafe to permit them to judge in things dubious and important?

Prefbyterian rulers? and if they do not act as decidedly, without any regard to the convictions of their brethren? Befides, I would inquire, whether this must not be the cafe in Independent, as well as Prefbyterian churches, in every inflance (and they cannot be few) in which a queftion is carried and acted upon by a majority against a minority? Is not the opinion of the latter uniformly difregarded? Is not the will of the former executed as a law? Can any religious society exist without it? Does not this unquestionably involve of neceffity, as much authority as the decifion of any Prefbyterian court? And is not the minority obliged as readily to fubmit to this authoritative determination, if it be an inferior point or if it be a fundamental article, as univerfally to feparate from their former brethren, if they are fo difpofed, as in Presbyterian churches?

When a majority, in a word, of any of your churches determines against a minority, that a brother who has happened to offend before all, fhould be rebuked before all, that he may be taught by it to be afhamed, I fhould be glad to know, if it is only a fimple advice which is delivered? And when fuch a majority decides against a minority, that a brother is to be excommunicated, and *their decifion is fulfilled, I should be happy to be informed, if it is only a fimple opinion which is ftated? This, I believe, you will hardly maintain and consequently, fince in these and all other inftances, where the will of a majority is carried and acted upon against a minority, from the very nature of things, authority is exercifed, I hold it to be unfair and contradictory in Independents to declaim against Prefbyterians, when they claim for their rulers, the fame portion of authority which is neceffarily affumed by the majority of the members in each of their congregations; and without which, whatever perfuafon might be employed, and whatever advices might be delivered, not one of their focieties can be conceived to exist.

You affirm, however, that to exercise authority without the prefence and confent of the members of the church is inconfiftent with the spiritual nature of Chrift's kingdom, one of the laws of which is, that before a person can perform any acceptable act of worship, he must have, in fome measure, a conviction of its fitnefs and propriety. And you contend, that fince a man must first be convinced by perfuafion, before he can render any such obedience, authority is unneceffary, for if authority is ufed as well as perfuafion, it feems to imply that the latter is infufficient. But in anfwer to this I would obferve, that though authority is claimed by Presbyterian rulers over their members, it is not an unreasonable nor imperious authority. They confider themselves as the fervants of the Lord Jefus: the fubjection which they demand from the members of their churches, is not to -themselves, or to their will, as you infinaate (p. 47.), but to what they confider as the will of their bleffed Mafter;' and the obedience which they require to their decifions in his name, is not, as you allege, blind and compulfatory, but enlightened and voluntary. Nor do they barely deliver their commands, and enjoin immediate and implicit fubmiffion (as one would imagine from your reprefentation); but while they declare authoritatively whatever appears to 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 decifion refts, and to afford to their members every mean by which their confciences may be satisfied, and this enlightened and voluntary obedience produced. Their public deliberations in every inftance, where it is fit, are open to the hearing and examination of their members; and there feems to be nothing in Prefbytery to prevent every difcuffion which is proper to be carried on before an . Independent, to be carried on alfo before a Prefbyterian .congregation. The reafons, befides, for every deter

mination are not only uniformly ftated, 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 fatisfaction by private converfation, or correspondence with the rulers. If, in any cafe, in short, of inferior magnitude, they cannot acquiefce in the decifion of these rulers, forbearance can be granted to them 'no less than among Independents; and if, in any cafe, it be neceffary to feparate, because it is of fuperior 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 Prefbyterians appear to differ from Independents on the fubject before us, and on this you seem to lay confiderable 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 themfelves, before they are finally adopted. But to this fact the words of Mr. Ewing, which I have quoted, furnish a complete and fatisfactory anfwer. Nothing, undoubtedly, more directly tends to fubvert 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 thefe rulers to retract or carry forward any of thefe meafures, only in as far as it is agreeable to a majority of the people. It is, in fact, conftituting those who fhould be ruled, the rulers, while the decifions of thofe who are dignified with that name are entirely fubject to their determination. Their opinions, it is evident, where this fyftem is adopted, can only be paffed into laws, when it pleases the majority of thofe who are to obey them; and

when it does not please them, they are completely rejected. All the power, therefore, which is vefted in the rulers, according to this plan, is merely nominal; and amounts fimply to a right to ftate those measures which they have in contemplation to adopt, and to prefide 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 feems plain, that to grant to the members, according to this fyftem, a right to vote upon the proposals of the rulers, is utterly fubverfive of the power of these rulers, and reduces them to the fituation of those who are ruled, while it gives the fupreme authority to the multitude, the greater part of whom, according to Mr. Ewing, are unqualified for judging-as this fyftem, I fay, is attended with these confequences, it appears to be totally inadmiffible, and that it is the province of the rulers, without the affiftance of the members, to govern the affairs of the church of God.

If authority, moreover, as exercifed by Prefbyterians, as you evidently infinuate, is not confiftent with liberty of confcience, I demand how it is confiftent with it, when exercifed by the majority of an Independent congregation over the minority? and if it be confidered as unnecessary, as practifed by Prefbyterians, as you explicitly assert, because advice and persuasion appear to you fufficient for the government of the church, I ask how it is requifite, when affumed by such a majority over the minority, who muft either fubmit, or renounce their communion? Cannot advice and perfuafion among them too fuffice? Is it replied, as you have done (p. 51.), that the exercife of authority in such cases, among Independents, "is an unavoidable result of social worship, and of the "formation of Chriftian churches, as long as imperfec"tion of knowledge and of character remains?" I affirm, that fince you allow that focial worship and imperfection