moderated government, such as that of Presbytery. In the latter, the administration is vested in a few, composed of ministers and lay-elders; the last of whom ought, at least

vanced against Mr. Little, if not individually refuted, and as it is impossible for him, as in the case of a mere general allegation, to vindicate himself from these particular charges by his future conduct, he appears to be bound, by every consideration, to answer precisely the accusations here exhibited, and thus to wipe away from himself and his congregation the cdium which appears to be thrown upon them.

If Mr. Little, besides, as he here tells us, intends only to address himself to those who are under his pastoral care, and to vindicate himself and his conduct solely to them, why has he published this address to the world? Is the world to believe them any more than their pastor, because, as he was for a long time, they have yet been silent. Did not they too, by confirming the sentence of excommunication, make themselves a party with him? and would it be fair to give credit to their vague assertions against another party any more than his, if they do not answer the proofs by which their opponents support their charges?

In fine, admitting even that the cause for which these persons were excommunicated was just and valid, one thing seems to be plain, that though the church afterwards sanctioned this deed, Mr. Little himself, after public worship, without convening the members and obtaining their consent, ventured to pronounce upon these individuals this awful sentence. Nay, when the church assembled to decide upon the step which he had taken, he would not allow the men, whom he alone as yet could be considered as having excommunicated, to speak in their own defence, before they were excommunicated by the church also. And afterwards, when two of the members who were expelled, waited upon him for a copy of the sentence of excommunication, he told them that he had burnt it, and would not write another; and that if they wanted such a paper, they might recover it from the flames. And, as if these insults had not sufficed, when they requested him to produce a letter which they had written to Mr. Haldane, narrating their grievances, and which had been transmitted by him to Mr. Little, and when they asked him expressly to point out any passages of it in which they had mis-stated the truth, he positively refused. Is such conduct, however, consistent with the principles of modern Independents, who boast so much of the liberty and equity which are discovered in their courts, and exclaim with such keenness against the tyranny of our Establishment? Can their pastor, without requesting a meeting of the church, and obtaining their consent, excommunicate any of their members? Are the persons who are accused of any crimes or errors, which even merit excommunication, denied in their churches, before sentence is pronounced, the privilege of speaking in their own vindication? Does it resemble the conduct of a man who was conscious that he had acted consistently with jussice or candour, immediately to burn the paper which he had read

B

by the constitution of the church, to be chosen from the wisest and most pious among the people, and should be known to be zealously attached to their interests. Among Independents, however, representatives are excluded (a thing

in impeachment of the character of any of his members, and inflicting upon them one of the most awful of punishments? Was it worthy of such a consciousness of rectitude and moderation, to refuse to furnish them with another copy of the deed, and to bid them, if they chose, recal it from the flames? Could conduct so tyrannical and imperious as this, however merited the sentence, be tolerated in any civil courts in Europe, except those of the military despot of France? Did it intimate that he was able satisfactorily to overturn the representation which they had given in their letter to Mr. Haldane, when he refused to read it, and point out any instance in which their statement was incorrect? Are accusations like these, which so deeply concern the honour of religion, and the respectability of his church, to be set aside, by simply telling us, that he would prejudice the wicked against the truth, and would imbibe the spirit with which slanders are uttered, were he to reply particularly to these allegations? Such an apology may, perhaps, appear sufficient to Mr. Little and his Independent friends, but it will not satisfy the world at large, judging by the principles of equity and integrity. And till these charges are individually, not merely denied, but refuted, the credit of religion, so far as connected with the honour of Independents who associate with him, and the discipline of the church which retains him as its pastor, must be considered as deeply and materially affected.

Nor is the case of Mr. Little the only instance of oppressive government which occurs among Independents. Even in a tabernaclechurch which was formed lately at Elgin, under the ministry of Mr. Ballantine, and the greater part of which separated from him, something very similar to spiritual domination appears to have been practised. Their pastor, while he professed to grant to each member an equal right to judge with himself, was the only person, it seems in their apprehension, who governed their church. Against this conduct they remonstrate in the memorial which they sent to him; and observe, "As to the government of the congregation "we shall not stickle for any name, though we do not love the "unscriptural phrase Independency. And as to the expression Pres "byterian, from the word presbyter, we know it is scriptural, for it "occurs times almost unnumbered in the Bible, as any one may "see that has a Concordance, by looking at the word elder, elders, "which is the English translation for the word presbyter, presbyters. "But we will not strive about words. Our determination is, however, that we will not be governed by a single person, for that is "neither Presbytery nor Independency, old nor new, but is a mere "arbitrary government, like Popery or Episcopacy on a small scale; "and this is a condition that we cannot depart from, as it is con"trary to our original contract when we came together as minister tand people.

which is admitted in the lowest republican forms of government), and a plan of ecclesiastical administration is followed, which, in its form at least, is much more lawless, and more fitted to be productive either of tyranny or of anarchy; as it constitutes every member of the church, man, woman, or child, for such sometimes, from early piety, are received to that privilege, a ruler in the church. In Presbytery, if a person feels himself aggrieved by the decision of a Session, he may appeal to a Presbytery, from that to a Synod, and from that to a General Assembly, the superior court being in every instance a check upon the inferior, having power to reverse its acts and deeds. In Independency however, the

66

"If our minister," say they again, "chooses to take the deacons "as a session or ecclesiastical council, to rule along with himself, "we are pleased. If this does not suit him, we agree that seven, "nine, or a greater number of men be chosen by mutual consent "of minister and congregation, and as many of the present deacons among them as can be agreed upon, and let these act as representatives of the church or congregation." After which they tell him again, that they will not be governed by him alone. See p. 51 and 52 of Ballantine's Observations. Whether this representation was true in the extent which they so frequently and strongly affirm, I do not pretend to say. At any rate it is certain, as Mr. Ballantine acknowledges (p. 95), that their charges were just in a particular instance, for without consulting deacons, or members, or a single individual, so far as is specified, he expelled a member from the communion of his church.

To these examples of tyranny among Independent rulers, were it considered as necessary, many others might be added, to prove that the people, however flattered by them with the appearance of power, and with the solicitation of their request before any decision is made, have frequently only the shew. Of these I shall at present only mention one. Two respectable ministers lately, while travelling through England, happened to be present in an Independent church, where also there were another stranger minister and gentleman. After the services connected with preaching were finished, the pastor proceeded to dispense the sacrament, and having consecrated the elements, announced to the congregation, as if to ask their consent, that this stranger clergyman and gentleman proposed that day to eat with them the supper. Upon uttering however these words, without waiting a moment for the consent of the members, he turned to the strangers, and, after participating himself, delivered to them the bread and cup. Was not this however, and the fact can be established by incontestable evidence, a mere tantalizing of the members of this congregation? Was it not a pretending to consult them about the communication of a most solemn and important privilege, while yet it was plainly and avowedly declared that their opinion was not to be regarded at all?

decision of the first court is completely final, and the injur ed can appeal to no other superior tribunal upon earth. Whatever then may be the conduct of Presbyterians and Independents, supposing the rulers, upon each of these plans, to be equally faithful and equally conscientious (and, to give justice to the argument, this must be supposed), I contend that the Presbyterian form of government is better fitted than that of Independency, to prevent tyranny, and secu impartial equity to the people.

The distinguishing feature of Presbytery," you say (p. 28), " is the system of representation." The minister and elders of a particular congregation govern that congregation; the ministers and elders of a number of congregations, called a Presbytery, judge of cases which come before them by appeal against the sentence of any particular Session; and the ministers and elders of a number of Presbyteries, denominated a Synod, decide upon those references which are made to them against the determination of any particular Presbytery; as an Assembly, again, does upon that of any particular Synod, as well as deliberates about matters of general importance." In an Independent church however," you remark (p. 30), "nothing is decided by representation. Whatever is done by those who are ap"pointed to rule, is carried on in the presence of the gener"al body, and with their consent. While an Independent "church thus assumes the sole government of its own af"fairs, it is amenable to no society of men under heaven. "In reference to its own members, its decision is final, and "it pretends to interfere with none else. It will be recol"lected (p. 47), that this peculiarity of Presbytery con"sists in the authority of the representatives of a church of "Christ, as distinguished from the personal conviction of "the individual members of it. Now we have no hesitation "in asserting, that this distinguishing feature of Presbytery "is directly opposed to the general spirit, as well as some "of the express precepts of the word of God. Every one "will allow that Christianity is a spiritual religion; and it

seems a necessary principle in such a religion, that every one "be convinced in his own mind. The conscience of the “individual here has a most extensive sphere of influence. "Its approbation is essentially necessary to the existence of any act of acceptable worship. Whatsoever is not of "faith is sin. The moment that compulsion is introduced,

"spiritual worship is destroyed. This general position, I "believe, few will dispute; but mark how it affects the "case in question. What is the meaning of the authority "vested in a Presbytery, of that power by which they can "command any one under their jurisdiction to act according "to their will? Does not the very existence of this au"thority imply the necessity of it? Does it not prove that "advice is not sufficient; that the conscience of the indivi"dual is not convinced; that something more powerful than "persuasion must be resorted to? There could be no room "for authority, if conviction were deemed necessary, because "it is only by instruction and persuasion that it is produ"ced. Like the sensitive plant, it shrinks at the gentlest "touch of power, and the rude intruder must be complete"ly withdrawn before it again exert its energy. On these "principles, I consider the authority of Presbytery as stand"ing on a most unscriptural basis."

66

Here, Sir, before I advert to your different remarks, I would notice a very striking and palpable inconsistency between your view of the government and discipline of your churches, and that which is delivered by another minister in your connection, no less distinguished for his present zeal against our Presbyterian Establishment, than for the extent and accuracy of the knowledge of your ecclesiastical constitution which, in the opinion of his followers, he possesses. "Whatever," you affirm, " is done by those who rule in your congregations, is carried on in the presence of the general body, and with their consent." It seems by no means "agreeable to the directions given to the primitive churches,” says that gentleman however, in his lecture upon Acts xv. (p. 34, 35), " that every measure, however trifling or ob"vious, should be brought before the church for general discussion, or for obtaining a public declaration of the opini "on of each member before the office-bearers presume 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 instruction and persuasion according to the word of God. "In doing this, they are entitled, nay, bound to carry into "effect the rules of scripture, and to require obedience from the church to those rules when laid before them. A differ❝ent conduct deprives the church of the benefit of government, must give continual encouragement to dissension,