"mind. The confcience of the individual here has a "moft extenfive sphere of influence. Its approbation is "effentially neceffary to the existence of any act of "acceptable worship. What foever is not of faith is fin. "The moment that compulfion is introduced, fpiritual "worship is deftroyed. This general pofition, I believe, "few will difpute; but mark how it affects the cafe in " question. What is the meaning of the authority "vested in a Prefbytery, of that power by which they 66 can command any one under their jurisdiction to act according to their will? Does not the very existence of "this authority imply the neceffity of it? Does it not 66 prove that advice is not fufficient; that the conscience "of the individual is not convinced; that fomething "more powerful than perfuafion must be reforted to? "There could be no room for authority, if conviction "were deemed neceffary, because it is only by inftruc❝tion and perfuafion that it is produced. Like the "fenfitive plant, it fhrinks at the gentleft touch of "6 power, and the rude intruder must be completely "withdrawn before it again exert its energy. On thefe "principles, I confider the authority of Prefbytery as "standing on a moft unscriptural basis.”

Here, Sir, before I advert to your different remarks, I would notice a very ftriking and palpable inconsistency between your view of the government and difcipline of your churches, and that which is delivered by another minifter in your connection, no lefs diftinguifhed for his prefent zeal against our Prefbyterian Eftablishment, than for the extent and accuracy of the knowledge of your ecclefiaftical conftitution which, in the opinion of his followers, he poffeffes. "Whatever," you affirm, "is done by thofe who rule in your congregations, is "carried on in the prefence of the general body, and with "their confent." "It feems by no means agreeable to "the directions given to the primitive churches," fays

that gentleman however, in his lecture upon Acts xv. (p. 34. 35.)," that every measure, however trifling or "obvious, should be brought before the church for "general difcuffion, or for obtaining a public declaration "of the opinion of each member before the office-bearers prefume to put it in practice. From these, it is plain "that the office-bearers are to feed the flock; that is, "to govern them by inftruction and perfuafion accord"ing to the word of God. In doing this, they are "entitled, nay, bound to carry into effect the rules of "fcripture, and to require obedience from the church to thofe "rules when laid before them. A different conduct de"prives the church of the benefit of government, muft "give continual encouragement to diffenfion, and is "likely to make discipline degenerate into an engine "of faction.

"Nothing again," adds he (p. 35.), is lefs "likely to ferve the cause of truth, or even the cause "of Chriftian liberty, than making every thing that "ought to be done, wait for difcuffion in full affembly. "If the church contains the collective wifdom, it con"tains also the collective ignorance of the brethren: if "it combines their gifts and their grace, it combines " also their infirmities and corruption. Where every "thing muft undergo difcuffion, fome may be in danger "of thinking they have laws to make, inftead of laws "to obey. A few of the most active spirit and readiest "elocution will become the real movers and managers "in every business; and a part will thus be put for the "whole. When they are agreed, every thing must be "complied with: when they are at variance, every thing "must be objected to. No tyranny is fo bad as that of a "cabal; that is, of those who are uppermoft for the "moment in the fermentation of anarchy. Debate, "when indulged, is favourable to the introduction of "this fort of tyranny. It heats the paffions, warps the

"judgment; hurries men to measures of violence and "precipitation; engages them to the fide which they "happen to have taken; inclines them to contention,

and tedious confultation, about matters of the moft "trivial importance; and makes them be ever on the "watch to fatisfy a restless difpofition, by feizing an "opportunity to interfere. In fhort, those who most need "restraint, are, by such means, in danger of being led "to set it at defiance; while the peaceful, and those to "whom the government is committed nominally, are terrified "and chained down by the turbulence of the reft."

Here I am certain that you cannot fail to perceive the very fatisfactory refutation of your fentinents in particular, and of thofe of Independents in general, with regard to the degree of ecclefiaftical power which should be granted to rulers, that is contained in these words, even of a fellow-labourer in your vineyard. In them it is affirmed in the plaineft terms, that every measure ought not to be discussed in the presence of church-members, and their opinion and concurrence asked before a decifion is made, because, if this were done, the church would be deprived of the benefit of government, continual encouragement would be given to diffenfion, and discipline would degenerate into an engine of faction. In them, also, it is maintained in terms no less explicit, that the governors are entitled, nay, bound, to carry into effect the rules of fcripture, and to require obedience from the church to those rules when laid before them; i. e. (as is evident from the connection) without previously confulting them. And the reasons which are affigned for allowing the rulers to determine in inferior matters, without the advice of the brethren, are much more conclufive for their authoritative decifion in those which are more important, without their affiftance. If lefs interefling points, and points which are obvious, are not to wait for difcuffion in full affembly, because, if the church contain the collective

wisdom, it contains alfo the collective ignorance of the brethren; and if it combines their gifts and their grace, it combines also their infirmities and corruption; much more muft it be the duty of the rulers of the church themselves, to decide authoritatively on more momentous matters, and matters which are confeffedly more difficult and doubtful *. As I am perfuaded, then,

* Not only is it manifest from the argument of Mr. Ewing which is here stated, that it is the office-bearers alone, even upon his own principles, who are to judge in important as well as trivial matters without confulting the members; but whatever he intended, the fame thing feems to be evident from his other arguments. It is the former alone, he says, who are to decide upon points which are trifling and obvious, because, as he before affirms," it is "the office-bearers alone who are authorized in scripture to feed "the flock," or, as he explains it," to govern them by instruction "and perfuafion according to the word of God." But when the office-bearers are required in the facred volume to feed, or, as he interprets it, to govern the flock, if it entitle them to determine in inferior matters, and matters which are obvious, without confulting them, is it not equally plain from it, that they must be much more authorized by it to exercise this power in more difficult points? And if the office-bearers only, in his opinion, fhould judge in these less interesting cafes, because, as he also asserts, according to the paffages which he quotes," they are entitled,

nay, bound by the word of God, in governing the church, to carry into effect the rules of fcripture, and to require obedience "from the church to thofe rules when laid before them;" the very fame expreffions, when employed in fcripture refpecting their power in general, with the obedience of the members, feem as clearly to intimate, that, in every point, the elders are to judge without foliciting the opinion and consent of the members. Are the rules of fcripture, which he admits, from these paffages, that they are to carry into effect, only trifles? or do they not comprehend every thing the most difficult and important, which can be the fubject of determination in an ecclefiaftical court? If then, as he contends, the office-bearers of the church are warranted, by the paffages which he produces in the margin, to carry into effect the laws of Chrift without confulting the opinion of the

that you will not confider this gentleman as blindly attached to the cause of Presbytery, or in the least difpofed to promote its interefts, I beg you will attend to the tendency of his reasoning, and, after adjusting the

members, and to require obedience from the members to them, when laid before them; and if these laws, as is evident, include not only what is trivial and obvious, but what is important and effential; is it not incontestable, even from the arguments of this gentleman, who profeffes to be an Independent, that the officebearers alone, as Presbyterians maintain, are to determine in matters which are important and essential, as well as thofe which are obvious and trivial?

In short, if it is only in things which are obvious and trivial that the office-bearers alone, in the opinion of Mr. Ewing, are anthorized to judge without consulting the members, who are the perfons that are to determine whether the matters which are to be the subject of judgment upon any particular occasion, are trivial and obvious, or interesting and doubtful? It cannot be the people, for that would make the men over whom this extraordinary power was to be exercifed, the judges of the extent to which it was to be employed, which is confidered as impolitic in all proper governments; and it cannot be the office-bearers, for that would be to make the men who are to exercise this power, judges of the extent in which they were to exert it, which has always been considered as no less prepofterous. Unless then he can point out a fatisfactory standard, separate from the opinion of the office-bearers and the people, by which it can be ascertained what things are trivial and obvious, and what are difficult and important, the commiffion of fuch power as that for which he pleads, to the elders of the church, at least upon the principles of Independent societies, whatever they may think of it, seems in the highest degree to be dangerous. Their office-bearers, it appears, according to this gentleman, are themselves to judge in things trivial and obvious, without granting the members a single word or vote; and, at the fame time, so far as can be discovered, it is the office-bearers alone who are to say when they are to exercise this extraordinary power, and erect themselves into the only judges in the fociety. If this be confiftent with your notions of liberty, or the first principles of Independency, I should be happy to fee upon what grounds it can be established?

C