Page images
PDF
EPUB

fon to affirm that it is neceffary, and by fcripture to maintain that it is divinely appointed.

To contend then with fome Independents, that every congregation fhould not be governed by what has been denominated by Prefbyterians a Seffion, because the term does not occur in the facred volume, though the doctrine seems to be undeniable, must be foolish and contradictory. Upon the fame principle it would follow, according to the reasonings of Socinians and Arminians, that because the terms Trinity, fatisfaction, original fin, efficacious grace, particular redemption, are not to be found in the facred oracles, these doctrines are merely inventions of men. If Independents however, as well as others, admit thefe doctrines, because they are revealed in fcripture, though these particular terms are not there employed to denote them, on the fame principle is it not plain that if it be taught in scripture that only some, and not all the members indifcriminately, are authorized to govern a particular congregation, and that among these are included elders who do not teach, but fimply rule, as well as elders who not only rule but teach, the doctrine of Seffions is clearly established, though that particular word is not to be met with in the facred volume?

SIR,

LETTER XII.

THE laft point of government in which you differ from Prefbyterians, is their courts of review; or the fubordination of a particular congregation, with its elders, to the authoritative infpection and controul of a Prefbytery, and of a Prefbytery to that of a Synod and Affembly. It is propofed accordingly, agreeably to our method, to

conclude these inquiries upon this part of the subject, with the confideration of this diftinguishing principle of Prefbytery, with the different objections which you have advanced against it.

With regard to the propriety of ecclefiaftical courts fuperior to the rulers of a particular congregation, much diverfity of sentiment has obtained even among Independents. Some, in the greatness of their zeal against Prefbytery, have maintained that it is unlawful for an Independent congregation, even in a difficult cafe, to convene the pastors of any other churches merely to ask their advice. Such a measure, in their opinion*, would be prejudicial to the improvement of the members in knowledge, for if they were affured that in every case of difficulty and importance they might have recourse to this superior affembly, though merely for counsel, it would make them lefs eager to advance in an acquaintance with the truths and laws of Christ. Every feparate church therefore, according to them, muft be completely independent even of the affiflance of others, and muft not folicit, in any instance, the advice of their office-bearers met in a collective or affociated capacity. It seems obvious however, that before this reafoning can be confidered as valid, it must be proved that infallibility has been the attainment of every Independent congregation; or why should it refufe to apply for affiftance, in any arduous or interefting cafe, to an affembly of the officebearers of other churches? Or, if infallibility be dif claimed by them, it should be demonstrated that though they may err, it is better for them to do fo, fince they have the fatisfaction of being regarded as the unaffisted arbiters in all their affairs, than to be prevented from this evil, by being aided by the opinion and counsel of others. And, in fhort, upon the fame principle that it

* See Miffionary Magazine for October 1804, p. 448.

is affirmed that the members of a particular congregation ought not to apply to others for advice, because it may abate their, zeal to improve in knowledge fo as to be enabled to decide in every cause, it may be proved that the offence mentioned by our Saviour in Matth. xviii. should be finally determined by the two or three brethren before whom it is enjoined to be first told, and ought not to be announced to the church at all. If announced to the church for their examination and judgment, may it not, if the preceding argument were juft, diminish the motives which are prefented to each of the members individually to endeavour to improve, fo as to be himfelf qualified, with the affiftance of a fingle brother, finally to decide a cause? And, upon the fame ground also, is it not manifeft that there fhould be no fubordination in civil courts, because, if this principle be admitted, it would make the members of the lowest of fuch affociations lefs eager to improve in juridical knowledge, than if they knew that, in every inftance, they were to depend folely on their own judgment and fagacity, and were not to folicit the affiftance of others?

While fuch however are the fentiments of others, you profefs to hold a very oppofite opinion, and admit at once the lawfulness and the utility of the affociations of the pastors of a number of churches to deliberate in points of intricacy and magnitude. The power however which you grant to these affociations is purely confultative, and differs not only from that degree of authority which is allowed by Prefbyterians to a Prefbytery, over the governors of a particular congregation, and to a Synod, over the members of a particular Prefbytery, but even from what was vefted by the refpectable ancient Independents, already quoted, in their occafional Synods. Not only does Mr. Hooker acknowledge, in his Survey, p. 4. chap. i. ii. that the affociation of the pastors of different congregations, in one court or Prefbytery, is lawful

[merged small][ocr errors]

and beneficial, and not only does he grant that they may be of different forts and degrees, fome leffer, fome "greater, Claffes, Synods, and thefe Provincial, National, "OEcumenical or Univerfal;" but his brother Mr. Cotton, in his book entitled the Keys of the Kingdom, ufes very remarkable expreffions (chap. vi.) respecting the power of fuch courts. "They have power," fays he, "not "only to give light and counfell in matter of truth and "practice, but also to command and enjoine the things to "be believed and done. The expreffe words of the "fynodicall letter, Acts xv. 27. imply no leffe. It is "an act of the power of the keyes to binde burdens; "and this binding power arifeth not only materially "from the weight of the matters impofed, but also "formally from the authority of the Synod, which being an ordinance of Chrift, bindeth the more for the Synod's fake." The Westminster Independents alío, in their debate with the Affembly, not only exprefsly allow, p. 115. 137. 138. that " Synods are an holy or"dinance of God, and of great ufe for the finding out "and declaring of truth in difficult cafes, and for heal"ing offences," but likewife declare, "that all the "churches in a province, being offended at a particular "congregation, may call that fingle congregation to "account; yea, all the churches in a nation, may call one "or more congregations to an account-that they may "examine and admonish, and, in cafe of obstinacy,

[ocr errors]

declare them to be fubverters of the faith-that they 66 are of use to give advice to the magistrate in matters "of religion," p. 115." that they have authority to de"termine concerning controverfies of faith-that their deter"minations are to be received with great honour and "confcientious refpect and obligation, as from Chrift"that if an offending congregation refuse to submit to "their determinations, they may withdraw from them, and deny church-communion and fellowship with

"them—and that this fentence of non-communion may "be ratified and backed with the authority of the civil "magiftrate, to the end it may be the more effectual," p. 138. Mr. Thomas Goodwin, moreover, in his Treatife on the Government of the Church of Christ, p. 202. very pointedly afferts, "that as we acknowledge elective " occafional Synods of the elders of many churches, as "the churches have need to refer cafes of difference to "them: fo in cafe of mal-adminiftration, or an unjust "proceeding, in the fentence of excommunication, and "the like, we acknowledge appeals or complaints may be "made to other churches; and the elders of those "churches met in a Synod, who, being offended, may, as an ordinance of Chrift, judge and declare that fentence "to be null, void, and unjust; and that not fimply, as "any company of men may fo judge, giving their judg"ments of a fact done; but as an ordinance of Chrift "in fuch cafes, and for that end, fantified by him to "judge and declare in matters of difference." And, again, he adds, "In cafe this church will not own this perfon "thus wrongfully ejected; thefe churches, or any of them, "upon this determination of their elders (the churches "at their return approving the fentence), may both. "receive the party in among themselves, and fo relieve "the man; and further also profefs to hold no communion

66

* Since it is evident from this and other paffages in the papers of thefe forerunners of our prefent Independents, that they no lefs certainly believed in the propriety of a connection between the church and state than our Prefbyterian Establishment does, nay, as their ideas on this fubject were greatly higher than what is profeffed by it fince the act of toleration; if the latter be viewed by them, on account of this connection, as worthy of being distinguished by the name of Babylon, upon the fame principle must it not be extended to their ancient predeceffors, and must not modern Independents be confidered at least as the children of those who were members and fupporters of spiritual Babylon.

« PreviousContinue »