of this paper on Vows, and a detection of some radical and important errors on which the scheme of these gen

however, that while he felects certain circumstances in which he imagines there is a similarity, he omits others far more important and diftinctive, in which even his ingenuity could not discover the slightest degree of coincidence. It is evident also, that to point out a resemblance in a few particulars, admitting that he has fucceeded, will not warrant the application of this name to the Establishment. Some things which are very good, resemble others which are bad, in a number of circumstances; and yet it cannot be inferred from this, that they are evil. A good man may resemble a bad man, in being fupported by the power and wealth of others, as he here fays that the Church of Scotland resembles Antichrift; and yet we cannot infer from this, that he is an unworthy character. Nay, we are told in this fame book, chap. xxi. 24. that when the purest state of the church on earth fhall come, "the kings of the earth," who are faid, in the defcription of Antichrift which he quotes, to give its power and strength to the beast," shall bring their glory and honour into the "church." But fince the Doctor confiders it as one part of the fimilarity of our church to Antichrift, that her ministers, while as refponsible for their doctrine and practice as those of any Diffenters, are fecured, as long as they discharge their duty, in their maintenance by Government, what will he say of the millennial church, into which the kings of the earth are to bring their glory and honour, to fupport and promote it? Since he represents it likewise as an evidence of our fimilarity to the mother of harlots, that we have a written confeffion, exhibiting our view of the meaning of the scriptures, and that our creed will not agree with his view of thefe fcriptures, does it not follow from this, that as there is not at prefent a church in Scotland with which he can join in communion, every Baptist, and Independent, and Presbyterian diffenting, as well as established congregation, must so far be viewed by him as a member of Antichrift? In fine, as he mentions it as another point of refemblance, that the two witneffes of God prophefy in her clothed in fackcloth, it appears neceffarily to refult from it, that as we are informed in Rev. xi. 3. that thefe witnesses were to prophefy for 1260 prophetic days, or according to him for that number of years, the Church of Scotland, if we attend to the first period of its existence as a

tlemen in a great measure is founded, in the Miffionary Magazine for March 1804 *.

You have, however, produced evidence which appears to you at least, demonstrative of the truth of your charges, and which confequently juftifies your feparation from the established church. Of this evidence you invite a fair difcuffion. It will not therefore, I prefume, be difagreeable to you to attend to fome reflections which, on a perufal of your Letters, occurred to a member of the Eftablishment, and which, on review, ftill difpofe him to object to the cogency of your reafoning, for the neceffity or propriety of the ftep which you have taken. The arguments which you adduce to establish your pofition are of two kinds; those which, in your opinion, prove the conflitution of the Church of Scotland to be antifcriptural, and thofe which relate to the improprieties exhibited in its adminiflration. In the following pages it is propofed to confider these arguments in their order, with the degree of force which they appear to poffefs.

Conscious of the fallacy of the common practice of arguing against a scheme from the abufe which may have been made of it, or the errors and inconfistencies which may have appeared in the conduct of those who have held it, you justly exprefs, in language the most pointed, your disapprobation of fuch reafoning." It is not,"

distinct society, must, in the Doctor's view, have still a prospect of existence for an extent of time, not very encouraging to him and his Independent brethren in their attempts to overthrow it.

* It may moreover be remarked, that fince it is specified in this paffage as a sign of Antichrift, even according to Mr. Ewing, that she allows none to live among men who do not receive her mark or number, it is impoffible for him, without directly oppofing his own expressions, as well as the explicit testimony of the facred oracles, to apply this opprobrious appellation to our church, which permits Independents to live unmolested in their religious privileges.

you fay (p. 9.), "the character of individuals, but "the general aspect and tendency of any particular "fyftem, by which our opinion of it ought to be regu "lated. If it be founded on fcriptural principles, "ungodly men being profeffedly attached to it will not "make it worfe; and if not, the most eminent examples "of holiness among its votaries will not be able to fanc"tion it." And again, in p. 105. "Let it be recol"lected, it is fyflems, not the characters either of indi "viduals or of particular focieties, the merits of which "we are here canvaffing. Thefe are only implicated fo "far as they are found countenancing a system, of which "there is fatisfactory evidence that it is not agreeable "to the word of God." Than this, indeed, nothing can be more rational; for were we to reject a principle or system on account of the errors, and even immoralities, of many who hold it, we should not only fet afide Prefbytery, but Independency and Chriftianity, and even reafon itself. You rightly therefore begin with the conftitution of our church, and on this ground we are willing moft readily to meet you, affured that if it can be proved to be agree able to fcripture, it will be difficult for you to eftablish the propriety of feparating from its communion.

In reviewing then your remarks upon the conflitution of the Church of Scotland, I am happy to observe that you are pleased to object only to its form of government, confcious, I prefume, that the views which it profeffes of evangelical truth, in its Confeffion and Catechifms, are no lefs confiftent than your own with the word of God. Its administration by Prefbytery alone is the object of your cenfure, and against this you declaim as one abundant fource of the evils which are to be found in it. With this momentous confequence however, even though thefe evils fhould exift, I hope it will afterwards appear that Prefbytery is not chargeable; and that of all those forms of government which we know, Prefbytery is the best

fitted to preserve purity of doctrine and difcipline. At present it is fufficient to mention, that corruptions, not only in government but in fentiment, are not peculiar to Prefbytery, but are to be found in an equal, if not in a greater degree among Independents themfelves. No where have the opinions of Socinians, and Arians, and Arminians, and Univerfalifts, more generally prevailed than among the Independents in England *. As no argument then, founded upon the existence of fuch evils among Independents, would be admitted by you to be conclufive against Independency, unless it could be proved that it was favourable to the introduction of them; fo no argument, I contend, can be adduced from fuch evils, if they exift in the Establishment, against its Presbyterian government, unless it can be evinced that that mode of government is the fource and cause of the introduction of fuch errors. But this you have never even attempted to demonftrate.

I am surprised, besides, that in your examination of Prefbytery, you did not confider its various parts feparately, as detailed in our ftandards, with the particular evidence which is exhibited for each. The great body of that evidence you have very flightly noticed, and part of it you have not even noticed at all. This, however, would undoubtedly have been the most fatisfactory method of refuting the errors, if errors they are, which are maintained on this fubject by our national church, and it would certainly have impreffed your readers with a more favourable idea of your fidelity and candour. It would alfo, perhaps, by no means have been prejudicial

* That many, alfo, of the Presbyterians in England have embraced thefe errors cannot be denied. It is well known however, that these Presbyterians have no courts of review, or do not regard them; and that, while they profess to be Presbyterians, from their total inattention to the peculiarities of that system, they are more worthy, in a certain view, of the name of Independents.

to you in this important particular, if, after ftating your arguments in favour of Independency, you had been pleafed likewise to mention what had been faid in answer to them a hundred times by former Prefbyterians., But this you have thought proper completely to fupprefs; and inftead of putting your readers, agreeably to your promife (p. 3.), in poffeffion of the arguments on both fides of the question, while you have illuftrated, at leaft as fully as you knew them, the arguments of Independents, have totally concealed the replies of their opponents.

You have thought proper to confider at once, and in a very few pages, the different peculiarities of the Prefbyterian fyftem; and fome parts of that fyftem you have not even mentioned. As this plan, however, neither appears to be a faithful exhibition of truth, nor fitted for clear and accurate difcuffion, it is propofed in what follows, to confider

In the 1ft place, The opinions of Prefbyterians and Independents with regard to the nature and extent of that power which should be granted to church-rulers.

2dly, To whom this power is given by the feriptures in a particular congregation; whether to the members of the church at large-to the paftor alone or to the paftor and lay-elders united.

And in the 3d place, If every particular congregation is fo to be governed, whether its paftor and elders are, by fcripture-authority, required to fubmit to the review and controul of the paftors and elders of feveral congre gations, united in a Prefbytery, Synod, or Affembly.