rally known than those of Independents, it arises from a circumstance which has ever been admitted to be a very important excellence in civil courts; namely, that their proceedings are usually conducted in the presence and hearing of all, even though not connected with their societies, while the transactions of Independents are carried on in private, and are carefully concealed from the inspection of the world. That instances of very lawless oppression have occurred among our Tabernacle Independents in Scotland, even during the short time that they have already existed, is attempted to be proved, Letter II. These instances are taken either from the writings of those who represent themselves as aggrieved, and whose statement has never been refuted by their opponents, or from the writings of those who were guilty of the oppression, and have acknowledged their fault. And, perhaps, had their courts been as open to the public as those of Presbyterians, we should have heard of a still greater number of acts of tyranny and injustice. To allow the office-bearers to decide on any point, when the members of their congregations have not been previously consulted, has always been affirmed by former Independents to be a display of ecclesiastical despotism in Presbyterians. In the Letter however to which we have referred, it is endeavoured to be proved, that, in many instances, Mr. Ewing contends for this very power; and consequently, at least on their acknowledged principles, the constitution of his church, to a certain extent, must be viewed as a spiritual despotism. It is attempted, moreover, to be demonstrated in these Letters, that the scheme of these writers, by rendering every congregation in the church of Christindependent of the rest, exhibits such a view of his kingdom as would be presented of the civil and political world, were it broken into as many independent governments as there were towns or villages on the lace of the earth, and their governors were obliged uniformly to consult the inhabitants before they could perform any act of authority. That the author, in every instance, should accurately have stated the sentiments of Independents, is what he by no means pretends. As each of their congregations is independent of the rest, it is possible that there may be as many creeds and constitutions among them as there are churches on the earth. But to think of representing accurately the sentiments of all of them, amidst this possible variety, would certainly be a vain and ridiculous idea, especially as most of them account it a sin to write and publish these creeds to the world. He is conscious however, that he has not wilfully, in any instance, mis-stated their views; and if those, whose opinions are here' examined, can point out any case in which he has not fairly exhibited them, he will most readily cor rect it. Let it not be said, that the reasonings in these Letters cannot be admitted to be conclusive, because many Independents do not, as is here asserted, allow their members a right to vote upon every question. It is of little importance to differ about words. All Independents, (Mr. Ewing excepted) ask the judg ment and consent of their members upon every matter, before the office-bearers can pronounce a decision; and if so, the arguments which are here adduced, are equally conclusive as upon the former supposition. Let it be understood farther, that the arguments advanced will not be considered as overturned though a number of mistakes should be pointed out in separate and detached observations, unless the body of the evidence be fairly met, and fully overthrown. It will much less be considered as at all affected if encountered only by wit and humour, a weapon of which some advocates for Independency seem to be peculiarly fond. It is from conviction alone that the author of these Letters has published his sentiments, and when an opposite conviction is produced, by dispassionate, and able, and scriptural reasoning, he will instantly renounce them. He has no wish that Presbytery should be retained any farther than it can be supported by scripture, and the moment that it is proved that it cannot so be supported, he will be happy to see that it is rejected by the world. It is of little importance for the public to know, that these Letters were written amidst many avocations, and at considerable intervals. It is mentioned only as an apology for any inaccuracies of style, or repetitions of sentiment, which may occur in the perusal of them. This, however, is the only indulgence for which he pleads. He asks none in behalf of the argument. He wishes it fully and impartially to be examined, and will endeavour candidly to consider the objections which are offered to his reasonings, if stated in the spirit of Christian meekness, and not with that virulence which shews only how strongly an individual smarts under a sense of inconsistency, or how keenly he is devoted to the purposes of a party. The author originally intended to examine likewise the argument for Separation from the Church of Scotland, drawn from what have been called its corruptions: but of this, his present avocations will not admit. He shall probably however be induced to complete his design, as soon as he can command the leisure and time which it must necessarily require. And, till some fuller treatise be published, he begs leave to recommend to the perusal of his readers, Ferguson (of Kilwinning) on Independency and Schism; and a valuable pamphlet by a late eminent Minister, entitled, Thoughts on Modern Divisions. The publication of these sheets has been delayed for some time, that the Second Appendix, containing a Review of Mr. Haldane's book on Social Worship, as far as relates to the subject of Government, might accompany the Letters. CONTENTS. LETTER I. Propriety of the conduct of Mr. Innes and other In- dependents considered, p. 1-5. Dr. Stuart's view of the Church of Scotland as Antichrist, refuted, 5, Note. The exa- mination of Presbytery by Mr. Innes extremely partial, 7, 8. LETTER II. On the Nature and Degree of the Power claimed by Presbyterians and Independents. Misrepresentations of Inde- pendents, 9, 10. The degree of power exercised by them, prov- ed to be more than that of advice, 10, &c. and 11-15, Note. Inconsistency between the sentiments of Mr. Innes and Mr. Ewing, 17-21. Unreasonable or imperious authority not claimed by Presbyterians, 22. The scriptural terms expressing the power of church-rulers, 26-30, and the relation of mem- bers considered, 30-32. Sum of the preceding remarks, 33, &c. LETTER III. Of the Persons entitled to Authority in the Church. Arguments to shew that all the members cannot have equal power in matters of government, 37, &c. Power of ruling not indiscriminate, proved, from the names given in scripture to rulers, 39-43-to the members, 43-46; and from the duties of the members to the rulers, 46-48. LETTER IV. Same subject. The meaning of Marth. xvi. 19, con sidered, 49-56. Binding and loosing explained, 51–55; that it implies an exercise of authoritative judicial power, and is committed to ministers only, proved,. 55-56. LETTER V. Same subject. The highest acts of government and discipline shewn to be performed by the elders exclusively. Ad- mission of members, 57-60. Ordination of office-bearers, necessary, 60-63; committed to pastors alone, 64-66. Power of discipline vested in the office-bearers only, 67-68. LETTER VI. Argument for Independency from Matth. xviii. 15, 16, 17, as stated by Mr. Innes, 69-70; answered, from the meaning of the word church, 70-72, which is shown to sig- nify, in this passage particularly, the elders and office-bearers; -from the allusion to the Jewish courts, in which the govern- ment was not vested in all who attended them, but in particular rulers, 73-80; and-from the common language of scripture on LETTER VII. Argument for Independency from 1 Cor. v. exa- APPENDIX TO LETTER VIII. The constitution of the primitive church proved to have resembled Presbytery more than Inde- pendency, from the testimony of Cyprian, 105-107-Clemens Romanus, 108-Jerome, 110-Ignatius, 110. Cyprian, whom Independents rank among their defenders, further, shewn to oppose their sentiments, 111-119. LETTER IX. On the Order of Ruling Elders. This order ac- knowledged by Watts, Cotton, Goodwin, &c. 119. The au- thority of it proved, from the language of scripture, as to plu- rality of elders, 120; from the extent of inspection and super- intendence required of them, 121-their duties stated by Dr. Owen, 121-124; from the propriety of checking the ambi- tion of pastors, 125-127; from the qualification of many of LETTER X. Scriptural Authority of this Order. Rom. xii. 6, 7, 8, explained, 130–138. The ruling mentioned, an office in the church, 131-does not refer to gifts, 132, nor to a family, 133-nor to an inspired president, as M'Knight asserts, 135. Meaning of gos, 187. 1 Cor. xii. 28, considered, 138- 141. Opinion of Chrysostom on this text, 138. LETTER XI. Same subject. 1 Tim. v. 17, considered: acknow ledged by Dr. Owen to be decisive on the point, 142, and by. Whitaken, ib. Objections examined, 143–149. Sentiments of the primitive fathers, 150-153. LETTER XII. On Courts of Review. Difference of opinion among LETTER XIII. Same subject. Views of Independents and Pres- byterians as stated by Baillie and Ferguson, 166-168, and of Presbytery by Hoornbeck, 168. Note. Congregations not to be independent of each other, proved, from the scripture-represen- tation of the unity of the church, 169-178. The non-exis tence of an universal church, no objection, 172. Analogy, on this point, between political and ecclesiastical government con- sidered and defended, 174. This unity belongs to the universal church, and not to a particular congregation only, 177. LETTER XIV. Same subject. Independency more favourable to |