a higher court? Thus, then, it appears that even admitting that fuch courts are not here mentioned, the omiffion is fuch as might naturally have been expected, and that no argument can be urged against them from this omiffion, if it can be proved upon that particular divifion of our fubject, that they are clearly authorized by the word of God.

SIR,

LETTER VII.

You remark in the next place (p. 34. and 35.), that the principles of Independency feem to be established with equal decifion in the fifth chapter of the First Epiflle to the Corinthians. As you have not however even hinted at the common arguments deduced by Independents from this paffage, for the right of members to judge in the church, though you endeavour to prove from it, that a congregation cannot be fubjected to the review of a Prefbytery, permit me, before I confider the inferences which you draw from it for the latter pofition, to flate very briefly the arguments for the former, as mentioned by Mr. Cotton, an eminent ancient American Independent, in his book entitled, "The Keys of the King"dom," p. 44. 45. 46. He tells us in the 1ft place, That the reproof for not proceeding to a sentence against the incestuous perfon is directed to the whole as well as to the Prefbytery. "They are all blamed for not "mourning," &c. 1 Cor. v. 2. 2dly, They are all commanded, when they are gathered together, to proceed against him. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. "In the name of our "Lord Jefus Chrift, when ye are gathered together, "to deliver fuch an one unto Satan." And again, in ver. 13. "Therefore put away from among yourselves

"that wicked person." In the 3d place, He declares this act of theirs, in putting him away, to be a judicial act; for, fays he (ver 12.), "do not ye judge them that "are within?" And 4thly, Upon his exhibiting evidence of his repentance, the Apoftle enjoins the brethren at large, as well as the elders, to forgive him: 2 Cor. ii. 4.-10. This, I believe, you will allow to be as able a ftatement of the arguments of Independents, which are drawn from this paffage, as is any where to be found; and I confefs that I confider it as much more plausible than any thing I have met with in Goodwin, Owen, Glass, or any other Independent. Even thefe however I can by no means admit to be valid arguments in fupport of this scheme, unless it could be established, independently of them, from other paffages *; and contend that while the paffages which have been already produced in favour of Prefbytery feem totally inexplicable on any other scheme, this paffage, as well as that which was last mentioned, feems to be equally explicable upon the principles of Prefbyterians as upon thofe of Independents.

In confirmation of this general remark I observe, that when Paul reproves the whole of the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 2.) "because they had not mourned," he does not say that he blamed them because they had not all exercised the power with which according to Independents they were invefted, and excommunicated him themfelves, as judges or governors; but what ftrongly indicates that they had no fuch power-that, as the effect of this mourning," he who had done this might be "taken away from among them." Now, though all the members are cenfured for not mourning, might not this cenfure be delivered to them upon the principles of

* Paffages, I mean, which completely preponderate in clearnefs and cogency over those which are urged for the Presbyterian fcheme, and paffages which cannot be interpreted upon it.

Prefbyterians, as well as upon thofe of Independents; for is it not the duty of the members, as well as of the rulers, though they do not judge, to mourn on account of the grofs impurity of a Christian brother? And if the rulers neglect, as in this inftance at Corinth, to mark their public difapprobation of his conduct, by inflicting upon him the merited punishment, is it not much more the duty of the members? Befides, when they are not com'manded to mourn that they themselves had not taken him away, but fimply that, as the confequence of their forrow, ftirring up their rulers to a sense of their duty, he might be taken away from them, is it not plain that this paffage, instead of favouring the principles of Independency, feems fairly to establish the very oppofite, and that the power of discipline is vested in the elders, and not in the members of the church?

Nor will the command of Paul to the Corinthians, "to deliver up the incestuous perfon to Satan when they "were gathered together, and to put away from among "themselves that wicked perfon," with his declaration that they had a power" to judge them who were "within," fuffice to prove that the members at large exercised a fimilar power with those who were their rulers in adminiftering the government of that Chriftian church. That they are fufceptible of this interpretation, if viewed in themfelves, and without attending to other paffages of fcripture, I readily grant-but not more fo than those paffages which affert that Chrift is the propitiation for the fins not only of the Jews, but of the whole world, and that he gave himself a ransom for all, if considered merely in themselves, are fufceptible of an explication which excludes the doctrine of particular, and establishes the Arminian doctrine of univerfal redemption. Now,

if

you would deny the inference deduced by Arminians from these latter paffages in fupport of their fyftem, by obferving that these paffages are no lefs fufceptible of an

explication upon Calviniflic than upon Arminian principles, while at the fame time you produce a greater number of paffages, ftronger and more decided, which cannot be explained upon the principles of Arminians, is it not equally fair, if it can be proved that even the ftrongest expreffions in this place, defcriptive of the power of the church of Corinth, can be explained equally upon the principles of Presbyterians as upon those of Independents, while at the fame time a number of other paffages can be adduced in favour of Prefbytery totally inexplicable upon the Independent plan-is it not equally fair, I fay, to maintain that thefe expreffions, in this place, no more eftablish the principles of Independency, than the exprefGons in the other inftance, which are no lefs energetic, establish the principles of univerfal redemption?

Can fuch expreffions however as those which are here fed be equally explained upon the fuppofition of Presbyterians, that it is the rulers of the church, and not the members at large, who are intended? Yes; for as was remarked, nothing' is more common than to represent a thing as done by a body at large, while it is done only by those in that body to whom it is competent. Thus we are informed in scripture, that the great city Rome reigned over the kings of the earth (Rev. xvii. 18.), while yet we know that the world was governed, at the period referred to, not by the citizens of Rome, but by the emperor and fenate; and thus nothing is more frequent, both in fpeech and writing, than to say that the people of Great Britain govern their American colonies, while it is only the king and parliament who thus govern them. Thus, too, we fee that precepts are often addreffed to bodies in general to be observed by them, which yet could be observed only with propriety by those who were their rulers, while, at the fame time, others are to fulfil, in their various spheres, what is perfonally required from

K

them." If thy brother," said Mofes to the people of Ifrael (Deut. xiii. 6. &c.), " the fon of thy mother, or "thy fon, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bofom, "or thy friend which is as thine own foul, entice thee "fecretly, faying, Let us go and ferve other gods"(ver. 8.) thou shalt not confent unto him, nor hearken "unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither "shalt thou spare, neither fhalt thou conceal him; but "thou shalt surely kill him." Now, who would imagine, from this command of Mofes, that the Ifraelites at large were to kill any person who should entice them to idolatry, till he was previously tried and condemned by the judges upon the depofition of witneffes? And yet is it not obvious that this injunction is here addressed to them at large, as ftrongly and directly as the command is here. addressed by Paul to the members at Corinth, to punish the incestuous perfon of whom he speaks? Is it not plain alfo, that every Ifraelite was as much authorized by these words of his lawgiver, viewed in themselves, to judge and put to death fuch an enticer to idolatry, as the Corinthians were authorized by these words of Paul, to judge and excommunicate their offending brother? And are not the Jews in general often reproved by the prophets (fee Jer. v. 28. and vi. 5. &c.) for most flagrant violations of equity in the public administration of juftice, as well as for other crimes, which could be committed only by their rulers? But who would imagine from this, that every Ifraelite was a civil judge, or that it was not the rulers alone who were refponsible for these crimes; and that notwithstanding the general expreffions which are employed, that the people were only acceffary to the guilt, in as far as they approved of their conduct, and did not witness against it? Befides, is it not, notwithstanding, undeniable, that these paffages as plainly and exprefsly enjoin every Ifraelite to adminifter public juftice with