Page images
PDF
EPUB

SIR,

LETTER II.

THE first point, I apprehend, in which you differ from Prefbyterians, is the nature of that power which they grant to their rulers; and here, in words at leaft, the difference is important. Upon this topic Independents have often declaimed with the utmost keennefs, and from this fource they have derived their warmeft invectives against the Establishment. Upon this topic, too, you confiderably enlarge, and attempt to paint, in very fhocking colours, the baneful confequences with which the authority of Presbytery is neceffarily attended.

Before however I attend to your arguments, I would briefly advert to a misrepresentation which has frequently been made by Independents, of the claims of Presbyte rians with regard to the nature and kind of their authority. Often has it been faid, that the power for which they contend, amounts to nothing lefs than a legislative authority, and invefts them with a right to enact at pleafure whatever laws they wish to establish in the church of Chrift *. Than this, however, nothing undoubtedly can be more remote from their fentiments. They, as well as Independents, profefs to admit that Jefus is the only Head of his church; that thofe laws alone which he has revealed, bind the confciences and conduct of his fubjects+;

[ocr errors]

* See Watt's Plain Proof, p. 175. near the middle, where he affirms that a legislative power is affumed by Prefbyterians.

In proof of this, we may refer to the words of our Confeffion, chap. xxxi. fect. iii. where it is exprefsly declared, "that it "belongeth to Synods and Councils minifterially," i. e. merely as the fervants of Jefus, and accountable to him, "to determine " controverfies of faith and cafes of confcience"-to the words of that very Affembly which framed this Confeffion, and collected from the fcriptures our form of church-government; "We fay "again, that this power of ministers is no where any other than ministerial, and that it is not to be exercifed any where at their

[ocr errors]

and that the highest honour to which ecclefiaftical rulers can now aspire, is to explain what the doctrine of the church is, with regard to the true meaning of the laws of Christ, and authoritatively to enforce among those of her communion the execution of his laws. In matters indeed of inferior moment, which regard fimply the convenience, or external order and regularity of the church, and for which no explicit directions are given in the fcriptures, Prefbyterians allow that Chrift has intrufted

el own wills, but according to his direction,” (p. 9. of their Answers to the Seven Independents)-to the words of the London ministers, who, while they contend most strenuously for the divine right of Prefbytery, declare explicitly, p. 45. that the power which is to be committed to its rulers is to be "only fubordinate and minifterial"-and to the treatises of Gillefpie, in his Aaron's Rod Bloffoming, p. 175.; of Wood against Lockier, p. 276. &c.; and of Hall on Church-government, p. 59.; with many other Presbyterians, who, though they assert most decidedly the right of the rulers to ecclefiaftical power, very pointedly state that it is not to be legislative. Above all, we may refer to that very striking fact in favour of Presbytery, that many of the most zealous of our ancient Presbyterians, in the last awful perfecutions which were witnessed in these lands, bled and died in fupport of this truth, that Chrift alone is invefted with a legislative power in his church. How strange then, whatever may be the practices of Presbyterians, that Independents should deny this to be at least a part of their principles, as much as of their own, that the power of church-officers is only to be subordinate, not legislative! And how extraordinary, that the writer before quoted, when speaking folely of the Presbyterian fyftem, fhould boldly affirm, in the face of such testimonies, that it authorizes its church-officers to make, as well as interpret and execute its laws! If fuch be the view of the principles of Presbyterians which is fo obnoxious to Independents, it is no less rejected, in profeffion and system, by Presbyterians than by them. And, at the fame time, it is a view of the principles of Presbytery which I feel obliged to declare that I have never found in the writings of Presbyterians, and have met with only amidst the felf-created theories and accufations of Independents.

a power with those who rule in his church, to appoint fuch regulations as may be requifite for the general ends of edification and utility. But this is no more than Independents themselves have uniformly claimed *; while it is an incontestable fact, that, in every inftance in which legislative power is difclaimed by Independents, it is univerfally and explicitly disclaimed by Presbyterians.

But admitting that the power with which rulers are invested is not legislative, but fimply of the kind which has been now ftated, what is the degree of it which they are warranted to exercife? Are they entitled, as Independents affirm, merely to deliver their decifions to those whom they govern, as matters of opinion? or have they a right to announce them, as Prefbyterians maintain, as authoritative determinations, and require their cheerful and univerfal obedience? In the former of these schemes you profefs your belief, and reprobate the latter, as fubfervient merely to promote the purposes of tyranny and oppreffion. That inftances of tyranny may indeed be found in the conduct of Prefbyterians, I readily grant; but that fuch inftances are authorized by their fyftem, I pofitively deny. Nothing can be more contrary to the genius at least of this form of government ; while it is a notorious fact, that it is not only not excluded by Independency itself, but feems not even to be equally precluded by this plan of adminiftration. Many inftances might be adduced, of moft imperious decifions by Independent rulers; decifions, too, which, when once paffed, were for ever final; and decifions pronounced by the very men who, while they exclaim against Presbyterians for exercifing even inferior authoritative power, profess to claim no more than a right to deliver their opinion and advice to thofe whom they go

Thus the tabernacle-churches in Scotland require their members to stand in finging.

B

vern. Even in one of your fifter-churches, an inftance of this kind the most aftonishing and unaccountable, if we are to believe the narrative of thofe who were aggrieved, has already occurred; and their narrative has never yet been invalidated. In this cafe, furely, it was more than an advice or opinion which was delivered: for when certain members refused to concur with the paftor in a moft infignificant matter, fo far at least as it related to him, a decision of cenfure was paffed, not only in a tone as authoritative as is ever affumed by any Prefbytery, but in a manner as fummary and rigorous as that of any Roman Conclave *. In Independency, moreover, which,

* See a narrative published by seven members of your church at Perth, who were excommunicated by Mr. Little, for refusing to concur with the rest of the members in adopting the version of the Pfalms of David composed by Dr. Watts. The account which is here given of the conduct of that gentleman, confidering him as an Independent, is indeed astonishing, and though attempted to be fet afide by him in the reply which he has published, feems yet to be unanswered. He contents himself, in general (p. 7.), with “ denying the view which they give of his words "and actions, in relation to their feparation." And though they have produced charges against him the most precise and specific, and established them by facts the most pointed and particular, he fatiffies himself, and imagines that he will fatisfy the world, by simply faying, "that theirs is a most distorted and unjust representation,

[ocr errors]

'

defigned to bring the whole tabernacle-discipline to contempt." It must be obvious however, that fuch vague affirmations, unfubstantiated by proof, cannot be sustained as a satisfactory answer to accufations fo ferious, and attempted at least to be fupported by references to facts and incidents the most precise and determinate. His reasons, moreover, for declining " to enter into "particulars, and for long filence" after the publication of their narrative (compare p. 12. with p. 6. 7.), must strike every candid and impartial mind as very extraordinary, when urged by a man as an excufe for not vindicating himself from accufations certainly the most particular and important. He tells us, that "it can anfwer "no other poffible end than to harden the minds, and to increase "the prejudices, of the public against the truth-that if he were

in its number of rulers, refembles and equals the lowest form of political democracy, there is certainly more room, as in other democracies, for the display of tyranny than in a mixed and moderated government, such as that

"to follow them over the ground they have trodden, it would be "to fall into the fame evil he condemns-and befides, however "it may be with others, he feels it impoffible to repeat and refute "their flanders without being in a measure contaminated with "their spirit; and rather than this, he would endure their utmost "reproach. That, from careful examination of his mind, in "short, he is perfuaded that it would be more injurious to his "character as a Chriftian minister, to enter into fuch a contest,

than all their invectives can prove-and that these are the rea"fons why, in the kind of defence which he is pleased to publish, "he addresses himself only to those who are under his pastoral care.". But, certainly, if this reafoning were conclufive, it would follow that whenever the conduct of a Christian, or of a minister was attacked, if the charges appeared to him unjust and exaggerated, he ought by no means to endeavour to refute and remove them. It is merely his duty to affert the contrary, and content himself with fuppofing that this assertion, though unsupported by proof, will be completely fatisfactory to the world at large, who know no more of him than of thofe who are his accufers. Nay, it is a necessary confequence from his mode of arguing, that it is impoffible for a Christian when affailed by flanders, to reply to it with meekness; and, like his blessed Lord when reviled by his enemies, while ho vindicates himself from their revilings, not to revile them again. But is not this contrary at once to the commandments of scripture, and the example of Jefus, who repeatedly repelled the flanders of his foes? Is it not at variance, alfo, with the conduct of Paul, who, in his different Epiftles, frequently defends himself from the imputations which were cast upon himself and his ministry by the Judaizing teachers? And does it not imply a cenfure of your brother Mr. Ewing, who repeatedly attempted, though not with Superabundant meekness, to reply to Mr. Robertson, respecting the interesting charges which he advances against him; as well as to your friend Mr. Haldane, who thought proper to follow a fimilar courfe, when animadverfions were made upon his opinions and plan by a great literary character? In short, as the honour and interests of religion must undoubtedly be affected in a very eminent

« PreviousContinue »