for the duties it discharged.

Extraordinary occasions, which called for supernumerary services, that might intercept the regular returns of industry, or that exposed to incidental expenses, and so required remuneration, formed exceptions to the general rule. Though Presbyterians rest this part, as well as the other parts of their system, upon what appears to them the authority of Scripture, they consider the office of Ruling Elders as opposing the most effectual restraints that can be opposed, to the absolute power of the clergy. The love of power is natural to all men, and the corruption of human nature disposes all men to abuse it. "Every man," says a profound and masterly writer, "pushes on till he comes to something that limits him.-To prevent the abuse of power, it is necessary that, by the very disposition of things, power should be a check to power."* It is this check which forms the superlative excellence of the political constitution of Britain, and, in approaching it as nearly as the difference of their circumstances would admit, the wisdom of the United States of America has shone with distinguished lustre. These are the only two Governments in the world that have political liberty for their foundation. Of despotic power the same writer has given us a just and awful picture. "When the savages of Louisiania are desirous of fruit, they cut the tree to the root, and gather the fruit."t Never did the annals of political despotism present to the mind a picture more justly descriptive of the wretched state of the laity, for ages before the Reformation, by the oppression of the clergy, than that which is exhibited by the image of a tree cut down for the sake of gathering its fruits.

• Spirit of Laws, Vol. 1, Book 11, Chap. 4.

Book 5, Chap. 13.

Mr. Brown observes, that to the discontinuance of the separate class of rulers (Ruling Elders), the gradual progress of Ecclesiastical tyranny, that laid prostrate at its feet the liberties of the Church, and trampled them in the dust, is in a great measure to be ascribed. To prove the fact, he quotes an ample confession of it from the writer of the Commentaries, commonly ascribed to Ambrose. "Wherefore," says this writer, "both the synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church; which order, grew into disuse, by what negligence I know not, unless perhaps by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, while they alone wish to appear something." To prove the existence of this order in the primitive Church, the same writer has brought various testimonies from the fathers.* How venerable soever the character of the Ministers of Christianity may be found, and how salutary soever their influence has been known when their power flows in the channel that has been marked out for it, it needs mounds and banks to restrain its impetuosity, and to curb its violence, for they are men of like passions with others.

Presbyterians may be ranked into two classes. The first are such as believe, that the great lines of their system are drawn, with marked decision in the word of God, and are designed for the perpetual direction of the Church in all the ages of the world; and this is unquestionably the doctrine taught in the Form of Church Government, agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and approved by the Church of Scotland.-Other Presby

Brown's Vindication, &c. Letter 11, p. p. 188, 191.

terians consider this Form of Church Government as more consonant than either Episcopacy or Independency, to that which, according to the infallible records, existed in the primitive Church. Though they do not contend for it as of universal and indispensable obligation, they consider it as a wise and salutary regulation, to provide for the regular administration of the laws of Christianity, guarded against tyranny and usurpation on the one hand, and against anarchy and confusion on the other. Though many Presbyterians have not been sparing in intemperate and uncandid reflections on the friends of opposite systems, and especially on those of Episcopacy, none of them, so far as we know, have ever directly approached to that abominable spirit of bigotry, which confines the blessings of Divine grace to the ordinances dispensed among themselves. In the Form of Church Government, and of Ordination of Ministers by the Westminster Assembly, Episcopal ordination is held to be valid, and not to be disclaimed by any who have received it.

The doctrine of the Independents, with respect to Church Government, consists in two propositions. The first is, that every congregation is in itself a complete Church, having a full and perfect government in itself, and accountable to no human authority whatsoever. The second is, that in every such society, the whole body of the faithful are entitled to claim a share in its government, and a voice in all its regulations. In both of these propositions they are directly at issue with the Presbyterians, and also with the friends of Episcopacy. Here the old alliance between the former parties expires, and those who formerly were friends fast sworn, part in acrimonious dispute. To the first proposition of the Independents, Episcopalians and Presbyterians object, that

GOVERNMENT.

SITY

it completely destroys that union of the Christian Church,
which consists in her perfect organization, as the members
of one body, by breaking her down into an infinite num-
ber of small societies, insulated from one another; and
thus necessarily prevents that subservience of the parts
to the good of the whole, and that mutual co-operation
in which only the strength and perfection of any associ-
ation can be found. They argue from the representations
given in Scripture of the Church, as constituting one
great whole, one regular and closely united society. It
is, say they, compared to an olive tree (Rom. xi.), from
which some branches (the Jews) were broken off, and
the Gentiles who are compared to a wild olive, grafted
on among the remaining branches, to partake with them.
of the fatness of the olive tree. It is also represented un-
der the metaphor of a body, all the parts of which being
fitly compacted together, by that which every joint sup-
plies, according to the effectual working in the measure
of every part, make increase of the body unto the edi-
fying of itself in love. These and other such images,
they think can never apply to the most numerous socie-
ties of men, crumbled into independent, solitary particles,
so far at least as to have no bond of union. They consider
a human body dissected, of which all the parts are sepa-
rated from the trunk, and from one another, as a correct
representation of Independency.
To these represen-
tations Independents reply, that "The union of Chris-
tians in the same particular Church, is not pointed out
by their being under the same Government and Gover-
nors. This is represented by their union in ordinances,
especially in the Lord's supper.-1 Cor. x. 17.
gleness of the body is represented by their participation of
the one bread. The circumstance of their being under a

The sin

common Government is not even taken into the account. Besides, though all the congregations in the world were independent, there not only may, but if they are Christians and act as such, there certainly will be among them the strictest union, both external and internal. This may not appear to the carnal eye; but it is not on that account the less real. Like the Apostolical Churches, they would mutually receive each other in the arms of Christian love, because Christ has received them, and forward the business of brethren personally strangers to them, even in temporal matters. A Church at the North Pole would receive a brother, upon his letter of introduction from his Church, in the opposite extremity of the earth. Is there no union among the children of the same father, though they are scattered in different kingdoms?"*

Both Episcopalians and Presbyterians also object, that by the constitution of Independent Churches it is impossible, in many cases, to provide for the equal and candid administration of justice. Suppose, say they, that an individual, or a number of individuals, in such a congregation, through the influence of local prejudices and those animosities which often operate, in a contracted circle, even upon the minds of good men, should unjustly be expelled the communion of that Church, of which he formerly was a member, or they formerly were members, what redress can possibly be hoped for? The Church is independent and amenable to no superior court on earth. To the man who is a member of such a society, that privilege, the sweetest fruit that grows on the tree of British Liberty, of appealing from a contract

• Mr. Carson's Reply to Mr. Brown's Vindication, p. p. 213—14.