ed and bigoted circle, to a tribunal more noble and candid his lips must never hope to taste. Should the Church be divided, as that at Corinth was, into different parties, there is no composing hand, no power that can judge between them, and pronounce, upon a review of the dispute, who is in the right, and who is in the wrong. Besides, say they, such a society is, in its government, cut off from every benefit it might derive from the piety, from the talents, and from the prudence of those who stand on higher ground in the Church of Christ. It is in religion, what a village would be with respect to the comforts and enjoyments of life, were it separated from the circulation of benefits which it receives from its connexion with the empire.

These objections however must lose much of their force when applied to those who admit of Courts of Review the propriety, and even the necessity of which was admitted by the Old Independents, by Dr. Owen, by Messrs. Hooker, Cotton, Goodwin, and the Westminster Independents, and also by those in Holland. Associations which have something of this, or of a similar kind, are very common among the English Independents; and though there is certainly some difference between their system and that of the Presbyterians, there is a marked opposition in the former to that which is adopted by the Scotch Independents. The latter Independents reject all associations for the purpose of counsel and advice, as well as for authoritative determination. Mr. Brown has brought forward the substance of the arguments we have briefly stated against the Independents, and Mr. Carson in his answer to that gentleman's performance, has made strong replies to them. Presbyterians charge Independents with a tendency to encourage a schismatic spirit,

in matters the most trivial, and as calculated to give great facility for the introduction both of error and of tyranny, compared with the system which they adopt. Independents deny that either of these consequences follow from their Church Government, and undertake to fix them as the inseparable attendants of that of their opponents.

The second position of the Independents is, that in every congregation, the whole individuals who compose it are entitled to a share in the Government, and a voice in all its regulations. Independents allow the right of their Pastor to preside in the meetings of their Churches; to preserve order; to prepare the business which is to be the subject of discussion, and to state his own sentiments: but in the determination of it, he has no more power than any other member of the congregation. To this Presbyterians object, that many persons have a right to be numbered with the Church of Christ, who in Grace are but babes and children, and who by this scheme are placed on a footing with such as are fathers; that upon such principles, no family could be wisely and well governed, much less can provision be made for the extended and combined interests of a religious society. Men, say they, whose natural faculties are extremely weak, and who have possessed few advantages for the cultivation of the slender powers they possess, in that season of life when they are most susceptible of it; and whose employments allow them little time for intellectual improvement, in more advanced life, are utterly unqualified for ruling in the Church of Christ.-They further observe, that these arguments derive greater force when they are transferred from these times, and from the country in which we live, to the Churches in an earlier period of

the world, or in a situation less favourable to improvement. During the first ages of the Church of Christ, general knowledge was far from existing in that improved and advanced state, to which it has now arrived in Britain. Before the invention of printing, copies of the Scriptures were possessed by but a small number of Christians. Should the Gospel be propagated among the Hottentots (we have reason to bless God that supposition is now realized), or in any other country on which the cloud of ignorance had sat so thick and deep, they ask, could we reasonably suppose that every person fit to be admitted to the communion of a Church, was also fit to be introduced to act as a ruler, and to decide upon every question of doctrine or of government? This, however, they say, the system of Independency supposes him to be. They observe that the force of these objections appears to have struck the mind of a strenuous, though very respectable advocate for Independency, and to have drawn from him the following confession. "Nothing again," says he, "is less likely to serve the cause of truth, or even the cause of Christian liberty, than making every thing that ought to be done, wait for discussion in full assembly. If the Church contains the collective wisdom, it contains 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 must undergo discussion, some may be in danger of thinking that they have laws to make, instead of laws to obey. A few of the most active spirits 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 so bad as that of a cabal; that is, of those who are uppermost for the moment in the fermentation of anarchy. In short, 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 rest." *

To the objections stated, Mr. Carson makes the following reply, in his second letter to Mr. Brown, "In the Church of Christ there are no laws to make, and none of those intricate and perplexed questions handled in the Presbyterian Courts, ever come before them. All they

have to do is to judge of the application of the laws of Christ, and for this, all Christians have spiritual wisdom. From the least to the greatest of them they are all taught of God. The law of the Lord is perfect, making wise the simple.' If Church members did not understand the laws of Christ, they would be as unfit to obey them, as to judge when they were applicable. Indeed, Sir, there are many acquainted, with almost no book but the Bible, who discover much more knowledge of the kingdom of Christ, and even more sound sense than others who can quote a farrago of authors, and who never look into the Scriptures, but through the medium of their works.-I ask you, Sir, as Paul does the Corinthians, do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by them, are they unworthy to judge the smallest matters? It requires no great mental culture to judge of every matter that comes before a

• Mr. Ewing's Lecture upon Acts, xv. p. 55.

Church of Christ. Common sense is sufficient to judge of the proof of a brother's offence, whether it be drunkenness, swearing, covetousness, &c., or the breach of any positive law, and a spiritual understanding will enable them to discover, whether he is to be deemed an hypocrite, or has been overtaken in a fault."*

To that principle of independency, which acknowledges the equal right of all the members of a congregation to take a direct part in its government, it is further objected, that it stands evidently opposed to the distinction which the Scripture makes between those who are rulers, and those who are ruled; and to that submissive obedience, and honour, which it claims from the latter to the former. "Salute all them that have the rule over you," says Paul in his epistle to the Heb. xiii. 24. In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul requires that a Bishop rule well his own family, having his children in subjection with all gravity, and gives this as the reason, that if he know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God? An argument which evidently proves that Bishops are to govern the house of God. chap. iii. 4, 5. To this statement, Independents reply, that they allow the distinction between Rulers and Church Members, but they insist that whatever is done by those who are appointed to rule, be done in the presence, and with the consent of the general body. "Every member is indeed bound to judge in all matters that come before the Church; none however are rulers but the Elders. Is there no difference between judging of the application of a law, and executing that law?

Mr. Ewing's Lecture upon Acts, p. p. 52, 54.