has been already evinced, only the elders; while at the fame time it was his duty, by every proper teftimony of refpectful acquiescence in the fentence of the latter, and by abftaining even from all unneceffary intercourfe with the of

upon the most delicate points, are open to all who have business in them, their proceedings commonly are much more public, for the examination of the world, than thofe of the latter. While not a single stranger of another denomination, and much lefs of the profane and irreligious of men, is permitted to be present during the difcuffions which take place in an Independent church, the confultations and difcuffions of a Prefbytery, or Synod, or General Assembly, are concealed from none, but are conducted in the audience and under the fcrutiny of all. Even their most inveterate enemies are admitted to hear them, and their determinations and reasonings are submitted to their keenest and clostst investigation. Does not this plan then at least, whatever may be the occafional faults of its adminiftrators, feem better fitted, in this view alfo, to fecure upright and impartial justice, than that of Independency, where every thing is hid from the inspection of the world, and not a fingle witness of their tranfactions is admitted? If the failings and errors which are fometimes difcovered in ecclefiaftical courts by Prefbyterian rulers are better known than thofe of Independents, does it not arife from the fuperior candour and publicity of their fyftem? and were the deliberations and debates of Independent churches as open to our inspection, might we not witness in them alfo no lefs imperfection and inpropriety? And upon the whole, while fuch is the opennefs and publicity of this plan, and while even its most private bufinefs, with the decifion which has been formed upon it, must at least be announced in a public meeting, can we fail to be astonished at the affertion of Mr. Haldane (p. 72. of his Addrefs), that "lefs "danger is to be apprehended in a political light, admitting "there were caufe for any, from unconnected congregational "churches than from thofe called Epifcopalian or Prefbyterian. "In the one of thefe" fays he, "a few individuals exercife the "whole authority" (fo that it seems there is authority even among Independents); "in the other, it is vested in Seffions, which generally are small fecret meetings, Synods, and Prefbyteries, greater and leffer affiliated, and corresponding societies, under one parent fociety, called a General Affembly." Is a body,

fender in common life *, in his private capacity, to confirm their deed. And though it fhould be admitted moreover, that the "fentence," as we are told, 2 Cor. ii. 6. “ was "inflicted by many," it will not follow that it was paffed by many, or all of them, for there is an effential diftinction, in every government, between the making and the infliction of a fentence. The former might be performed only by a few who were rulers, while the latter might be executed by all the members of the church, who were bound to concur with the elders, by inflicting the fentence; and who were all, as we have faid, under an obligation to refuse to have fellowship with him, that he might be afhamed, and that others might fear.

Is it faid, in fhort, that as all the Corinthians are commanded to forgive their offending brother (2 Cor. ii. 7.-10.), they must all have been rulers? It is replied, that this confequence appears by no means to followbut that all that can be deduced from it is this, that as they had all been offended by him in their various ftations, fo they were all to forgive him upon tokens of his repentance, and express their forgiveness in a manner which was suited to their fituation in the church. Those who were rulers, and were offended by him in that capacity, were commanded as fuch to forgive him, and reftore him again to the privileges of their fociety; and thofe

the greater part of the meetings of whofe rulers are free to the hearing and examination of all, and whofe deliberations are only private, as in the best regulated civil authoritative courts, when the business requires it—is this body, I fay, though governed by a gradual fubordination of courts, a more striking image of those revolutionary clubs which once threatened the fubverfion and destruction of our kingdom, than a body, almost all whofe proceedings are conducted in fecret, and where nothing in the deliberations of almost any of their courts is tranfacted in the prefence and hearing of the world?

* See, and consult particularly, I Cor. v. 9. 11.

who were members, and had been offended by him as such, on account of the dishonour which he had done to God, were called as fuch to exprefs their forgiveness, and reftore him once more to the comforts and advantages of private fellowship. Thus it would appear, that neither from this in particular, nor from any other expreffion contained in this paffage, we are warranted to conclude that the members at large, in common with the rulers, are entitled to govern the church of Chrift.

SIR,

LETTER VIII.

IN proof of your opinion you farther affirm (p.38.), that

the people must be admitted to judge and vote, because, in the reference to the apoftles and elders at Jerufalem from the church of Antioch, "they are reprefented as "all uniting in the decifion that was formed on the "queftion appealed." Thus we are told, that "it "pleafed the apoftles and elders, with the whole church, "to fend chosen men of their company to Antioch, with "Paul and Barnabas," &c.; and "that they wrote "letters by them after this manner: The apostles, and "elders, and brethren, fend greeting unto the brethren "which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and "Cilicia." Let it be fuppofed for a moment, that the brethren, here mentioned, were not the other ministers who were then at Jerufalem befides the apoftles and elders: if it be afferted that these members, in any form, voted and judged in the case referred to, while it seems to establish in one view, it completely subverts in another, the scheme for which it is urged. You argue against Presbyterians when they attempt to demonftrate from this paffage, that one congregation, with its rulers, may

be fubject to the rulers of a number of congregations met as a Prefbytery, and tell them that this cafe was extraordinary. Mr. Ewing obferves, in his Lecture, p. 77. that "the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were very "generally enjoyed in the church at Jerufalem;" and feems to infinuate from this, the propriety of their being admitted, in a particular view, as ecclefiaflical arbiters, to adopt and transmit the judgment of the apoftles and elders as their judgment. You yourself also affirm, that all who paffed this decifion were under this influence, though in different degrees: for while you represent the apostles, and elders, and brethren, "as united in mak"ing it," you declare it to be extraordinary; adding, (p. 44.), "if it was not extraordinary, let us fee to "what it will lead." But if the argument which is advanced by Prefbyterians from this paffage for a court of review, above the minifters or elders of a particular congregation, compofed of the minifters of a number of congregations, feems to you inconclufive, because this affembly was infpired, and delivered an extraordinary infpired decifion, muft it not be equally inconclufive when urged by Independents for the right of the people to judge and vote in their religious affemblies? If the ministers and elders of different congregations now, who correspond to the elders affociated with the apoftles, are not to judge as a Prefbytery in matters which relate to another congregation, because, though they determined along with them in the appeal from Antioch, the whole of them were guided by a miraculous energy, on what principle can it be proved that the people now are to judge and vote, because the people at Jerufalem judged and voted under the guidance of this extraordinary infallible energy? Is it alleged with Mr. Ewing (p. 78.), that though the apostles and elders were infpired, Prefbyterians allow their minifters, whom they call their fucceffors, though not inspired, to judge and rule, and why not allow the

members now to judge and vote, fince they are the fucceffors of thofe ancient members who fat and judged in this infpired affembly? We allow, that if it could be proved that this affembly was infpired, no argument would be urged by Prefbyterians for the minifters and elders of a number of congregations deliberating, as an authoritative court of review, in any appeal which is made, as in the cafe here recorded, by a fingle church. It follows therefore, upon his own principles as well as those of Prefbyterians, that fince he and his brethren confider this affembly as composed of perfons fupernaturally qualified for the decifion which they delivered, in no point of view are they entitled to conclude, from what they apprehend to be faid of the brethrens judging in this extraordinary meeting, and under this miraculous influence, that members now, upon common occafions, are warranted to judge in the church of God.

The argument, befides, adduced by you and Mr. Ewing, in common with Mr. Glass, for the right of the members to judge at present in the affairs of the church, from what is here faid of the brethren at Jerufalem, if it prove any thing, proves undoubtedly too much. It demonftrates not merely their right to judge and vote in matters which relate to their own, but in those which concern even another congregation. But does not this contradict a first principle of Independency, that neither the members nor the rulers of one congregation have a right to interfere, even according to your own acknowledgment (p. 30.), and according to the favourite pofition of Glafs which he fo keenly defends *, with any other congregation under heaven? Befides, would not the fubordination to which this argument leads, a fubordination of a particular congregation, not merely, as Presbyterians maintain, to the minifters and lay-elders, the wifeft and most

* See his Works, vol. i. p. 155.-202.