the Independent churches have no power to apply and execute the laws of Christ, independently of the concurrence of their brethren? If he answer it in the affirmative, then there is no rule or authority exercised by the pastors over their flocks; and, in this case, to call them rulers is a complete misnomer. The phraseology of the text, to which a reference is now made, would require to be altered, to suit the maxims of ecclesiastical polity that prevail among our Independent brethren. Instead of reading it in its present form, Obey them that have the rule over you, &c., it would require to undergo some such transformation as the following: "Attend to the directions given you by your pastor, and concur with him.” This amended form of the text would suit much better than its present form, the account which Dr Wardlaw gives of the system of government (if government it can be called) that obtains in the Independent churches of the present day. He says, p. 318,-" It is not properly a system of popular rule, but of pastoral direction and popular concurrence in the application and execution of the laws of Christ." I repeat the question which I have already put,Does this phrase, popular concurrence, include all that the apostle meant to enjoin, when, addressing himself to members of churches, he said, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves? Dr Wardlaw seems to think that it does. Here I join issue with him, and say that it does not. Let any person attentively consider the import of the two terms, concurrence and obedience, and he will find that they express different ideas. When one class of persons are required to yield obedience to another class, this always implies in it the possession of authority on the part of those whom they are required to obey. Obedience is an act of submission on the part of an inferior to a superior. The term concurrence does not express

any such idea. It does not imply in it submission to authority. The idea which it naturally suggests to the mind, is that of persons sitting and deliberating together on equal terms, and having it in their power to approve of, or reject, any proposal that may be made to them; and, when one person concurs with another, it is not an act of submission which the former is yielding to the latter; it is rather an independent judgment which he is expressing. These two terms, then, express acts or processes of the mind that are essentially different.

But

Dr Wardlaw tells us, that the pastors of the Independent churches are ordained "to have the rule over them;" and yet he tells us, at the same time, that the pastors have no power to apply and execute the laws of Christ, independently of the concurrence of the brethren. If this be the case, is it not clear as noonday, that the members of the Independent churches are not required to obey them that have the rule over them, and to submit themselves? All that is required of them is, that they concur. suppose that the people do not choose to concur in the views expressed by their pastor on a case of discipline, or on any other matter that is submitted to their consideration-what then? Can these pastors, who are ordained "to have the rule over" the Independent churches, apply and execute the laws of Christ? They cannot. Dr Wardlaw says expressly, that they have no power to do so, independently of the concurrence of their brethren. Is not this rather an anomalous-and I may add painful situation for rulers to be placed in, that they cannot execute the laws of their divine Master, simply because those who are commanded to obey them, do not think proper to concur in the sentiments which they express. Have not these pastors, according to my friend's own showing, been ordained "to have the rule over" the churches; in other words, to apply and execute the laws

For

of Christ? Yet they have no power to apply and execute these laws, unless the people, over whom they are ordained" to have the rule," shall grant their concurrence; and, when the concurrence is withheld-what follows? The pastor, after having given, it may be, a correct and faithful statement of the law of Christ, as applicable to the particular case under consideration, is obliged to permit the law (contrary to his own judgment) to remain in abeyance. He cannot carry it into effect. He is himself overruled. His hands, as a ruler, are completely tied up by the people refusing to concur in the views which he has expressed.

Dr Wardlaw substantially admits, that such incongruities as these will occasionally occur under that system of government which obtains in the Independent churches. In a passage (to which I formerly adverted) he says, "That a case is supposable in which a church, taken collectively, may differ from its pastor or pastors respecting the application of the law of Christ, who will deny?"-P. 321. To palliate the matter a little, he adds, "It will be found, however, under the administration of a well instructed, discerning, and prudent pastor (and such all pastors ought to be there is no provision for the contrary) a very great rarity." It is not with rarity or frequency of the occurrence that we have to do, it is with the system in which such incongruities are permitted to take place, and with which they are inseparably connect ed. Nay, Dr Wardlaw obviously regards it as one of the excellencies of their system, that it should be so; for he vindicates the right of the people to sit in judgment upon the administration of their pastor. Start not, presbyterian reader, at the statement. It is indeed true. The following are the words of my respected brother:"It is their right and their duty to judge his (the pastor's) doctrine by the instructions of Christ; and it is

the

66

equally their right and their duty to judge his administration by the laws of Christ."-P. 321. It would have been kind in my friend, and satisfactory to his presbyterian readers, if he had added a text or two, for the purpose of showing the scripture authority he has for affirming, that it is the right and duty of the people to sit in judgment upon the administration of their spiritual rulers. From whom is it that these rulers derive their authority? Is it from the people, or from Christ? Dr Wardlaw, I know, will agree with me in the answer which I return to these questions, when I say, that their authority is derived from Christ. He it is who has "set" them as governments" in his church-he it is who has delivered the laws which they are required to administer-and he it is who has given them authority to administer these laws. It follows that they are responsible to Christ, and to him alone, for the manner in which this spiritual authority is exercised by them. They cannot be responsible both to Christ and to the people; because this would be making them accountable to two masters, whose judgments concerning their administration might vary widely from each other. If they be accountable for the exercise of their authority, not to the people, but to Christ, on what ground is it affirmed, that "it is the right and duty" of the people to judge their administration? They are to act in all cases so as to commend themselves to the approbation of their divine Master, let the judgment of the people concerning their conduct be what it may. To their Master they are to stand or to fall. In the mean time, until Dr Wardlaw has produced one or more texts of scripture, showing clearly that it is the right and duty of the people to judge the administration of those who are set over them in the Lord, he must excuse me from giving my assent to this doctrine.

It is difficult to perceive how Dr

Wardlaw will be able to reconcile the doctrine which he teaches on this subject, with the apostolical injuctions I have quoted above. Paul says to the members of churches,--" Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." Dr Wardlaw says to the same persons-"Judge them that have the rule over you-it is your right and duty to do so—and I leave it to yourselves to determine whether you will concur with them or not." My friend may possibly think, that these two injunctions are quite compatible with one another; and he may attempt to reconcile them by telling us, that the people are first to judge and then to obey; and that the obedience which they yield is to depend on the judgment which they form concerning the measures pursued by those who are set over them in the Lord. But this virtually nullifies the injunction of the apostle; for it leaves it discretionary with the people whether they will obey or not, whereas the apostolical injunction, inculcating obedience, is imperative. There is no discretionary power left them to obey or not, as they may judge proper. They are not, indeed, bound to remain under the superintendence of pastors or rulers, whose doctrines and rule they do not consider as in accordance with the word of God. But so long as they are under their superintendence, they are to submit themselves-they are to obey them as persons acting in the name and by the authority of Christ, the sole head of the church. In yielding obedience to them, they show their respect for the high authority under which they act. They are virtually yielding obedience to Christ himself, whose servants these rulers are, and whose laws they have been appointed to administer.

From the statements contained in the preceding pages the reader will perceive, that the main distinctive feature in that form of polity which obtains in the Independent churches,

is, that the power of government is lodged in the people as well as in the pastor. Though, according to Dr Wardlaw, the latter is the only recognised official ruler, yet he has it not in his power to determine any thing without the concurrence or vote of the former. The pastor presides and directs. The people deliberate, and judge, and determine; so that the controlling or governing power may be considered as virtually lodged in them. The texts of scripture which Dr Wardlaw adduces in support of this form of government are (as might have been expected) few in number; and they by no means establish the point which they are intended to prove. There are two passages-and only two-to which he makes a direct appeal. Any other evidence which he adduces in support of his favourite theory, may be regarded as wholly inferential.

The first of the passages now referred to, is Matthew xviii. 15–17."Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." I expected that Dr Wardlaw, in quoting this passage, would have shown in what way it gives countenance to the doctrine, that the people are to sit in judgment on all cases of discipline, and to determine these cases. This he has not done: he has not even attempted to do it. He tells us that the word εκκλησια, here translated church, does not mean merely the office-bearers or rulers of the congregation, but the congregation along with the rulers :-"Then (says he) the charge-Tell it unto the church,'

-will mean-Make it known to the Christian assembly with which the offender and yourself are connected; lay it before the brethren :-and the decision of that assembly is final, without appeal, save to the tribunal of Christ."-P. 235. This is Dr. Wardlaw's interpretation of the phrase, "Tell it to the church." According to him, the meaning of the Saviour is the same as if he had said, "Bring the matter before the congregation, that they may judge and decide in the case; and their decision is to be final." I submit to my friend, that this interpretation is by far too arbitrary to bring conviction to the mind of any person who is not already convinced, that the Independent form of church government is in accordance with scripture. The Saviour certainly directs his disciples to tell the case of an offending brother (in the circumstances supposed) to the church or assembly: but he says not one word about the members of the church, as a body, sitting in judgment on the case and administering censure. This is a gloss put upon our Saviour's words by our Independent brethren, which we are not bound to receive.

66

The writer of these strictures, in his Essay on the Office of Ruling Elder, making some remarks on the passage under consideration, states, that he considers the word "EKKλŋola" in this passage to be equivalent to the word congregation. But he asks, "What kind of congregation does it denote ?-not certainly a congregation without rulers; but a congregation consisting of two classes of persons, namely, the private members and elders." Dr Wardlaw, referring to this statement, expresses his acquiescence in it by saying, "Who ever denied his position? My friend surely knows better, than to suppose Independents to understand the church or congregation here as meaning the brethren, without and independently of their office-bearers.

No, certainly;"" They understand the word church as signifying, strictly and properly, a Christian society, organised with its appropriate officers, according to the mind of Christ, and as fulfilling its functions accordingly." P. 97. I request my readers to mark the meaning, which Dr Wardlaw affixes to the word “ EKKλnoia" (church) in Mat. xviii. 15-17. He admits the meaning of it to be "a congregation consisting of two classes of persons, namely, the private members and the elders." "Who (says he) ever denied this position?" He admits further (p. 310), that both of these classes are not rulers-and that the elders" are ordained in the churches of Christ to have the rule over them." If, then, in every congregation there are, according to the institution of Christ, two classes of persons—one class who are to be ruled, and another class who are appointed to rule

I ask Dr Wardlaw, on what ground he rests his interpretation of the phrase "Tell it to the church," when he says the meaning of it is, that the whole congregation are to sit in judgment on cases of discipline, with the view of bringing them to a final issue? Is not this giving the power of government to those persons who he himself says are not rulers; and is it not virtually nullifying the power of those, who he says are ordained. in the churches of Christ to have the rule over them?" Surely my brother, with all his zeal for Independency, will not continue to plead for an interpretation which requires him to be guilty of such inconsistency as this.

66

The fair inference to be deduced from the Saviour's language, in the passage under consideration, is, that seeing express mention is made in the New Testament of a class of persons (elders) being ordained in every church, for the purpose of bearing rule, and superintending the affairs of the congregation, the case of an offending brother is to be made pub

licly known to the church, with the view of its being brought under the consideration of those whose official duty, as rulers, it is to judge in these matters. "They are to hear the parties, to examine witnesses, and to give judgment and seeing they are the authorized organs, by whom the church acts in cases of discipline, so, whatever is done by them in reference to such cases, may with sufficient propriety be said to be done by the church; exactly on the same principle as a nation is said to do what is done by its parliament, or a town is said to do what is done by its corporations. Nothing is more common than to speak of the proceedings of the church,' or 'the decisions of the church'-when, by such phraseology, we understand the proceedings and decisions of the ecclesiastical rulers."

6

It is a similar phraseology that is employed in the passage that has given occasions to these remarks; and the Saviour, in employing it, knew that it would not be misunderstood by the Jews, as they were not unaccustomed to this mode of speech. Repeated instances of it occur in the Old Testament writings. If the reader will compare, at his leisure, Exodus xii. 3, with the 21st verse of the same chapter; Numbers xxxv. 24, with Deut. xix. 12; and Joshua xx. 6, with the 4th verse of the same chapter; he will find, in all these instances, that in the first-mentioned passages the congregation is said to do what is stated in the last-mentioned to be done by the elders. If Dr Wardlaw, then, and his Independent brethren, think it right to give to all the members of their churches the power of judging and determining cases of discipline, and all other matters connected with the government of Christ's kingdom, it is obvious that they must find their authority for doing so somewhere else than in the direction which the Saviour gave to his disciples, when

he said to them, "Tell it to the church."

The other passage, quoted by Dr W., as furnishing direct proof in support of the Independent form of church government, is the account given of the case of the incestuous person in the fifth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. My friend extends his remarks on this passage to a more than ordinary length, and he seems to consider the proof which it furnishes as quite conclusive. Before noticing any of the remarks which he makes, let us attend to the facts of the case as they are stated in the passage. A member of the church of Corinth had been guilty of a heinous sin—the sin of incest. Those whose duty it was to attend to this business had not inflicted on him the discipline which they ought to have done. Instead of removing him from their communion, they still permitted him to enjoy his privileges as a member of the church. The apostle reproves the members generally for the improper spirit which they manifested in these circumstances:-"Ye are puffed up," said he, "and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you." He then states to them what his solemn judgment was in the matter-a judgment which he had formed, as though he had been present with them. This judgment was to the following effect:"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." These are the facts of the case as stated by the apostle himself. In the statement that is made, is there any thing mentioned about the people being required to meet for the purpose of investigating the scandal? Or, is there any thing said about