unless they approve of the opinion which he is pleased to express. It is "their right and their duty to judge his administration by the laws of Christ." They are "to see that they are governed according to the laws of Christ." And as it is admitted that they may differ in opinion from their pastor, respecting the application of the law of Christ; so, in all such cases, they are to act according to their own judgment, and not according to his. The ruler here has no power-he must submit. This is obviously reversing the scriptural order of things; for instead of the people submitting to the pastor, "as the divinely authorized organ," by whom the law of Christ is to be expounded and applied-the divinely authorized expounder of the law is obliged to submit to the people. 6. As the members of the congregation, though not rulers, are to conduct the government of the church conjointly with the pastor, who is the only official ruler; so, while the pastor presides, they are to deliberate and give judgment concerning all matters that are brought before the church meeting, such as quarrels among themselves, the admission of members, or their excommunication : "And (says Dr Wardlaw) the decision of that assembly is final, without appeal, save to the tribunal of Christ."

Such is a sketch of that system of ecclesiastical government which obtains in the Independent churches, so far as I have been able to collect the details of it from Dr Wardlaw's book. In attempting to prove that this system is scriptural, the author refers us to the directions given by the Saviour in Matth. xviii. 15-17. He refers us also to the account given of the proceedings of the church of Corinth in the case of the incestuous person, recorded in the fifth chapter of the first epistle to that church. I have shown, in a preceding part of the strictures, that the system derives no

support from either of these passages. It is sanctioned neither by Scripture precept, nor by apostolical example. The New Testament makes mention of two classes of persons in the Christian church; one class who are appointed to bear rule, and another class who are enjoined to obey, and to submit themselves. The Independent form of government virtually annihilates this scriptural distinction; for while, according to Dr Wardlaw, the pastors are ordained to have the rule in the churches, and the people are enjoined to submit to the pastors as the appointed rulers, yet the people conduct the government of the church-that is, they rule-conjointly with the pastors. But more than this-the system of government for which Dr Wardlaw pleads, not simply anihilates the scriptural distinction now referred to; it actually inverts, in the practical working of it, the scriptural order; for while it professedly permits the people to rule conjointly with the pastor, it really takes away the power from the latter, who is the ordained ruler, and gives it substantially to the former, who are not recognized as rulers. The pastor, indeed, may state his opinion, and tell the people what they ought to do; but they are not bound to take his advice, except in so far as it may accord with their own views. They are to think, and speak, and act for themselves. In other words, they are the ultimate judges by whose judgment all causes are finally determined. Their decision is final, "without appeal, save to the tribunal of Christ."

When the conduct of the pastor is such as to render it necessary that he himself should be subjected to discipline, before what tribunal is he to be tried? Is it before the tribunal of his own congregation? Are they to investigate the charges brought against him? Are they to pronounce him guilty or innocent? And if guilty, are they to inflict discipline.

upon him, by suspending him from the exercise of his ministry, or by cutting him off from the communion of the church? According to the Independent system, there does not appear to be any other earthly tribunal before which he can be tried except that of his own congregation. In this case, there will be exhibited the anomaly of those who are ruled exercising discipline upon their rulers. And (besides this anomaly) the tribunal before which he is tried, can scarcely be accounted an impartial one, seeing that congregations are ordinarily found to be either strongly biassed in favour of their ministers, or strongly prejudiced against them, when any report injurious to their character arises. But does the pastor decline (as well he may) the authority of his congregation to sit in judgment upon him, and does he submit to have his conduct investigated and judged of by some of his brethren in the ministry-is not this having recourse to part of the machinery of Presbytery, in order to supply the defects of the Independent scheme of government? These brethren, while they shrink at the name of Presbyterian, virtually constitute themselves into a presbytery, to try the cause that is submitted to them. They examine witnesses-they hear the parties-they deliver an opinion and yet, after all, their principles as Independents preclude them from giving an authoritative decision in the matter. Such a system, as it is destitute of scriptural authority, so it has few, if any, practical advantages to recommend it.

face of facts not in modern Independent churches alone, but in some of the apostolic churches themselves), that any system whatever can present an insuperable barrier against the evil of impurity,-I can hardly fancy any candid person making it a question, whether the tendency of the system is not to secure the end of pure communion :-the thing is so very evident." very evident." He then goes on to state the mode in which members are received into the Independent churches. Every applicant for admission, after conversing with the pastor, is named to the assembled church. A competent number of the members is appointed for further conversation with the individual. After due inquiry, by them and the pastor, into profession and character, a report of the case is publicly made; and "all are called upon to judge of the propriety of admission, and formally to give or withhold their assent, or, in case of doubt, to request delay for satisfaction on the doubtful point." By such a process as this, "all (says he) seems to be done that can be done for the attainment of the end."

Dr Wardlaw does not positively deny that an equal degree of purity is attainable in the Presbyterian churches as in those that are Independent; but then he writes as if the thing were merely within the range of possibility-and scarcely to be expected-while, in the Independent churches, the purity is to be looked for almost as a matter of course. He says (p. 325)—“ I freely admit, that a minister and his session, duly impressed with the importance of purity in this fellowship, and acting conscientiously, have a great deal in their power. It were most uncandid to deny, or to question, that, with due care, their success may be equal to that of any Independent church. I am speaking of adaptations and tendencies:-and all that I say is, that an Independent church affords facilities still more ample, and checks

still more stringent, for the end desired." It is difficult to perceive how a Presbyterian minister and his session, consisting, as it generally does, of the most intelligent persons in the congregation, should not be as capable of judging of the Christian attainments and the Christian character of an applicant for admission, as an Independent pastor and his committee of deacons or members. The former are as duly impressed with the importance of purity in their fellowship as the latter, and they will be found acting as conscientiously in the matter. And with regard to all the members of the church being required" to judge of the propriety of admission, and formally to give or withhold their assent," what additional security does this give for purity of communion? It gives none. For should the members have no personal knowledge of the individual applying for admission, they must be influenced in the judgment which they pronounce, solely by the report of the pastor and of the committee; and, on the other hand, should they have a personal knowledge of the applicant, there is a danger of their being influenced by the partialities of friendship, or of relationship, to pronounce in his favour, on grounds somewhat different from those of his qualifications as a Christian.

But whatever opinion may be formed on these points, I cannot admit that the Independent churches in this country are distinguished for a greater degree of purity of communion than the Presbyterian dissenting congregations. Taking numbers for numbers, there is, to say the least, as much piety, and intelligence, and sobriety, and missionary zeal, and public spirit, to be found in the latter as in the former. I do not mean to speak disparagingly of the purity of communion that may exist among our Independent brethren; but when it is either plainly affirmed, or broadly insinuated, that they have

attained to a higher degree of purity than their Presbyterian dissenting neighbours, such an affirmation, or insinuation, must be met by a pointed contradiction. The tree is known by its fruits; and Presbytery has no reason to dread a comparison with Independency, either as to the abundance or quality of the fruit which it has produced.

Another advantage, which Dr Wardlaw represents the Independent form of church government as possessing over every other, is, “that, from the popular form of their constitution, churches constituted on Independent principles do require a larger amount than others of the operation of certain Christian graces, in order to their prosperity."-P. 340. These "certain Christian graces," of which a larger amount is required in the Independent churches, than in any others, are humility, love, self-denial, meekness, and forbearance. Dr Wardlaw descants with peculiar complacency on this topic. "I am far (says he) from thinking it any derogation from the claims which Independency has to christian acceptance, to allow that the churches formed upon its principles cannot possibly prosper, can hardly continue to exist, without the prevailing and dominant influence of humility, and love, and self-denial, and meekness, and forbearance. They cannot thrive, they cannot be held together, without these." Again he says, "A system of rule by which the brethren are excluded from taking any part in the administration of the affairs of the church, in which all goes on without their knowledge, or independently of their concurrence, may certainly have the advantage of bringing them less into immediate contact, and so diminishing the consequent hazard of collision. But then, does it not demonstrate its unapostolical character, by the very circumstance of its rendering comparatively useless, limiting entirely to the intercourse of

private life, the many and earnest injunctions and admonitions to the exercise of those affections of mind and heart of which we now speak? It is, in my apprehension, a presumption against the divine authority of any system of church government, that it can be carried on with but little comparative requisition of those Christian graces; little, at any rate, among the brethren,' to whom the epistles are addressed. And, on the other hand, it is a presumption in favour of any system, that the exercise of them is indispensable."-P. 341, 342.

It must be admitted that the Independent form of church government, which gives so much power to the private members of the churches, which permits them to judge in all matters connected with the government of the church, which permits them to sit in judgment upon the doctrines and administration even of the pastors themselves, I say, it must be admitted, that this scheme of government requires, on the part of its adherents, a large amount of humility, love, self-denial, meekness, and forbearance. But whether such a system has a tendency to foster these Christian graces in the hearts of its adherents, is another question. The tendency appears to me to run in the opposite direction. When all the members of a congregation act the part of rulers, and control by their votes even the pastorate itself, is this calculated to promote a spirit of humility, and love, and self-denial? Certainly not. These and the other graces mentioned would be much more effectually promoted in the bosoms of the members, if, instead of aspiring to be rulers, they would yield obedience to the Scripture injunction, which says, 66 obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves."

From the statements above quoted, Dr Wardlaw obviously wishes us to draw the conclusion, that our Inde

pendent brethren are under "the prevailing and dominant influence of humility, and love, and self-denial, and meekness, and forbearance;" for he says, that these are the bonds by which their churches are held together, and "they cannot thrive, they cannot be held together without them." I do not mean to quarrel with him for praising his own brethren. Probably they deserve all the praise that he gives them. But if, in making these statements, he wishes us to believe, that the graces now mentioned exercise a "prevailing and dominant influence" only over the Independent churches, he is making by far too large a demand upon our credulity. I would ask the question at him, may not the members of Presbyterian congregations be as much under the "prevailing and dominant influence" of these graces, in submitting to those rulers who are set over them in the Lord, as the members of the Independent churches are, in submitting to one another? suredly they may; and it will be found, in point of fact, that they are. The superiority, which my respected brother claims in this respect for his favourite Independency, I am not inclined to concede.

As

I now bring my strictures to a close. They have extended to a much greater length than I originally intended. My apology, for having occupied such a large portion of the Magazine with these strictures, is the importance of the subject to which they refer; and the ability and high reputation of the individual with whom, on the present occasion, I have entered the lists. I have discussed with him the principal points at issue between Presbyterians and Independents, so far as these points have been brought under our notice in the book that now lies before me. In controverting his arguments and criticisms, I have endeavoured to do so in the spirit of fairness and of candour. I have opposed argument to argument, and have met

criticism with criticism. While I have used all manner of freedom in showing, that my friend's arguments occasionally fail him, and that his criticisms are not always well founded, I trust that I have not exceeded, in this respect, the limits which fair and honourable controversy allows. I am not aware that I have permitted, in the course of the discussion, a single sentence to drop from my pen that indicates any thing like a feeling of personal unkindness, or that is inconsistent with the respect so justly due to Dr Wardlaw, on account of his piety, his talents, his learning, and his high standing in the church of Christ. My ingenious and talented brother has said all, I believe, that can be said in behalf of Congregational Independency; and, in general, he has said it well. But his book must, notwithstanding, be pronounced a failure, in so far as the Scripture argument in favour of Independency is concerned. The system of ecclesiastical polity, for which he pleads, derives no sanction from the New Testament. It dispenses with a class of rulers that are repeatedly and decidedly mentioned in the writings of the apostles, namely, ruling elders. It recognises the pastor (or minister) as the only person ordained to bear rule in the church. It gives, at the same time, to the people, by a species of self-contradiction, the power of con

ducting the government, along with the pastor: Nay more, it gives to the members of the congregation the power of effectually controlling the rule of the pastor, by either concur ring with him in his views and mea sures, or not, as they think proper. It mars the visible unity of the church. Instead of exhibiting the church of Christ to the view of the world as a united body, the different parts of which are members one of another, it fritters it down into so many separate independent portions; each of which pursues its own course, having no apparent connexion with the rest. So far as I am able to perceive, the New Testament gives no sanction to churches constituted on such principles, but the contrary. Dr Wardlaw need not therefore be surprised, though his book should fail to convince any, except those who have already been accustomed to pronounce the Shibboleth of Independency.

I close these pages with expressing my earnest wish, that his valuable life may be long spared; and that he may have health and vigour given him to employ his pen, not in writing books on Congregational Independency, for this is obviously not his appointed walk of usefulness, but in expounding the mysteries, defending the doctrines, and teaching the morals of the Christian religion.

ARRANGEMENTS have been made, by the Synod's Committee on Sabbath Schools, for the delivery of a course of lectures on this subject during the coming winter. We highly approve of this. One great design of the appointment of such a Committee or Board, is to keep the particular subject constantly before the church, and by wisely varied arrangements, and timely suggestions, to help on the im

provement and extension of that part of our congregational institutions which is specially committed to their friendly supervision.

It is quite evident that this principle has hitherto been kept in view by this Committee. In one year an elaborate series of statistics were col lected; in another, a synodical address was issued; in a third, deputations were sent forth, who met with