INTRODUCTION.

THE

HE following Letters were originally intended as a Reply to Mr. Innes only. On farther reflection, however, it appeared to be proper, not to refrict thefe inquiries to a review of that writer's fentiments, but to confider alfo what had been faid by the more ancient and able advocates for Independency. In our researches after truth, it should always be our concern to know what is faid, and not merely who fays it; and certainly Independents cannot object, if, in examining what has been advanced by their prefent champions, we likewife confider the more learned and ingenious arguments of their enlightened predeceffors.

It is requested to be remarked, that it is the principles only, and not the practices of Prefbyterians that are here defended. The advocate for Pref. bytery is certainly no more bound to vindicate the latter, in order to establish the former, than the advocate for Chriftianity is bound to prove that the conduct of Chriftians is blameless and praife-worthy, in order to fhew that Christianity is divine. It is Presbytery alone as exhibited in the scriptures for

which we here contend, and it is on this ground alone that we can impartially review and compare it with Independency.

Let it be further confidered, that if the errors which appear in the conduct of Prefbyterians, with regard to government, are better known than those of Independents, it is owing, in a great measure, to the fuperior publicity of their courts. While none but members are allowed to attend the meetings of the latter, and while the ftricteft fecrecy marks their proceedings in general, none are commonly prohibited from hearing the deliberations of the former. If the mistakes of Prefbyterians then are more generally known than those of Independents, it arifes from a circumftance which has ever been admitted to be a very important excellence in civil courts; namely, that their proceedings are ufually conducted in the prefence and hearing of all, even though not connected with their focieties, while the tranfactions of Independents are carried on in private, and are carefully concealed from the infpection of the world.

That inftances of very lawless oppreffion have occurred among our Tabernacle Independents in Scotland, even during the fhort time that they have already exifted, is attempted to be proved, Letter II. Thefe inftances are taken either from the writings of thofe who reprefent themselves as aggrieved, and whofe ftatement has never been refuted by their opponents, or from the writings of those who were guilty of the oppreffion, and have acknowledged their fault. And, perhaps, had their courts been as open to the public as

thofe of Prefbyterians, we fhould have heard of a ftill greater number of acts of tyranny and injuftice.

To allow the office-bearers to decide on any point, when the members of their congregations have not been previously confulted, has always been affirmed by former Independents to be a difplay of ecclefiaftical defpotism in Presbyterians. In the Letter however to which we have referred, it is endeavoured to be proved, that, in mang inftances, Mr. Ewing contends for this very power; and confequently, at least on their acknow ledged principles, the conftitution of his church, to a certain extent, must be viewed as a fpiritual defpotifm.

It is attempted, moreover, to be demonftrated in thefe Letters, that the fcheme of these writers, by rendering every congregation in the church of Chrift independent of the reft, exhibits fuch a view of his kingdom as would be prefented of the civil and political world, were it broken into as many independent governments as there were towns or villages on the face of the earth, and their governors were obliged uniformly to confult the inhabitants before they could perform any act of authority.

That the author, in every instance, should accurately have stated the sentiments of Independents, is what he by no means pretends. As each of their congregations is independent of the reft, it is pof fible that there may be as many creeds and conftitutions among them as there are churches on the earth. But to think of representing accurately the

fentiments of all of them, amidst this possible variety, would certainly be a vain and ridiculous idea, efpecially as most of them account it a fin to write and publish these creeds to the world. He is conscious however that he has not wilfully, in any inftance, misftated their views; and if thofe, whofe opinions are here examined, can point out any case in which he has not fairly exhibited them, he will most readily correct it.

Let it not be faid, that the reasonings in these Letters cannot be admitted to be conclufive, because many Independents do not, as is here afferted, allow their members a right to vote upon every question. It is of little importance to differ about words. All Independents (Mr. Ewing excepted) ask the judgment and confent of their members upon every matter, before the office-bearers can pronounce a decifion; and if fo, the arguments which are here adduced, are equally conclufive as upon the former fuppofition.

Let it be underftood farther, that the arguments advanced will not be confidered as overturned though a number of mistakes should be pointed out in feparate and detached obfervations, unless the body. of the evidence be fairly met, and fully overthrown. It will much lefs be confidered as at all affected if encountered only by wit and humour, a weapon of which fome advocates for Independency feem to be peculiarly fond. It is from conviction alone that. the author of these Letters has published his fentiments, and when an oppofite conviction is produced, by difpaffionate, and able, and fcriptural reafoning, he will inftantly renounce them. He

has no wish that Prefbytery fhould be retained any farther than it can be fupported by scripture, and the moment that it is proved that it cannot so be fupported, he will be happy to fee that it is rejected by the world.

It is of little importance for the public to know, that thefe Letters were written amidst many avocations, and at confiderable intervals. It is mentioned only as an apology for any inaccuracies of style, or repetitions of fentiment, which may occur in the perufal of them. This, however, is the only indulgence for which he pleads. He afks none in behalf of the argument. He wishes it fully and impartially to be examined, and will endeavour candidly to confider the objections which are offered to his reafonings, if ftated in the spirit of Chriftian meekness, and not with that virulence which fhews only how strongly an individual smarts under a sense of inconfiftency, or how keenly he is devoted to the purposes of a party.

The author originally intended to examine likewife the argument for Separation from the Church. of Scotland, drawn from what have been called its corruptions: but of this, his prefent avocations will not admit. He shall probably however be induced to complete his defign, as foon as he can command the leisure and time which it must neceffarily require. And, till fome fuller treatise be published, he begs leave to recommend to the perufal of his readers, Ferguson (of Kilwinning) on Independency and Schiẩm; and a valuable pamphlet by a late eminent Minister, entitled, Thoughts on Modern Divifions.