that their fins fhould be loofed-things only are spoken of ; and it is not merely a declaration that they were lawful or unlawful, but a judicial release from the punishment of tranfgreffion.

From this induction it would therefore appear, that the binding and loofing mentioned, represent the exercise of authoritative judicial power; and, of consequence, that as this power has already been proved to be committed, together with the keys of the kingdom, to the ministers, and not to the members, the former, as diftinguished from the latter, are the only perfons entitled to the exercife of this authority.

SIR,

LETTER V.

As it appears that the various titles characteristic of rulers are given to the elders exclufively, so the highest acts of government and difcipline feem to be reprefented in fcripture as performed by them, and by them alone. This I fhall now endeavour to prove, and then conclude this part of the discussion.

Of the various acts which ought to be confidered as of the greatest importance in ecclefiaftical government, the first unquestionably which merits our attention is that of the admiffion of members.

It seems manifeft from the facred oracles, that this work is committed exclufively to the pastors of the church, and not to them merely as conjoined with the members. At the effufion on Pentecost, for instance, we are told, that in what remained of a fingle day, after a fermon from the Apostles, about three thousand fouls were added to the church. But how was it poffible that in so short a space the members at large could meet with the pastors, and

hear them examined, and express in order their approbation or difapprobation of the confeffion and character of every individual in such a multitude? When Philip went down to Samaria, and baptized many, both men and women, and when he baptized and received the Ethiopian eunuch as a member of the church, as well as when Ananias baptized Paul, though in the city of Damascus where there was a Christian church, it is plain that this act was performed folely by minifters, without convening or confulting members. While however, in thefe and other inftances, both where a church was forming, and, as in the example at Jerufalem, where it was already formed, the power of admiffion is represented as committed to the ministers alone, as far as we recollect there is not a single inftance in the whole of the New Testament, where perfons were received into the fellowship of the church after the judgment of members had been asked and obtained. It is indeed faid (Acts ix. 26.), that "when Saul, after his converfion, came up to Jerusalem, "and affayed to joined himself to the difciples, they 66 were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a "disciple." But here there is no intimation of any meeting of the members together with the paftors, to confider the propriety of receiving him as a difciple. All that is ftated is fimply this-that all of them, both Apofiles and members, were afraid that he was not, as he profeffed, a disciple in reality, but intended to deceive them; and confequently, that as so general a fear of him was entertained by the church, he could not be received by those whose prerogative it was to admit him. Accordingly, we are informed that when he was at last received, it was in confequence of his "being taken and introduced " by Barnabas to the Apoftles," and of their being satis fied with the account of his converfion and fincerity which was delivered to them by that Christian minifter, ver. 27.

Is it objected, that though it may be proved from these examples that minifters may baptize without consulting the church, they cannot admit to any other ordinance, or communicate to applicants the full privileges of members, without foliciting and obtaining their approbation? I anfwer by demanding in the firft place, whether all Independents allow their paftors to receive adults to baptifm without confulting their churches? whether, in the next place, it can be proved from the word of God that adults, when baptized, are not entitled to every other Chriftian privilege? and whether the three thousand who were baptized at Pentecoft are not declared to have been added to the church as members (Acts ii. 41.), while it is evident that there was not sufficient time for calling the members, and interrogating in their prefence each of thefe converts, and requesting their judgment on the propriety of admitting them? Is it contended, that this scheme is adverse to the principle of Chriftian liberty, as it enables the paftors to impofe whom they please on the communion of the church? It is replied, that it is unjust to affirm that any pastor of a Presbyterian church is warranted by Prefbytery to exercife fuch a power. Certain qualifications are required in the standards of his church before any person can be received into fellowship, and till he obtains fatisfactory evidence that those who apply to him have thefe qualifications, he cannot lawfully receive them. If, through mistake, an improper perfon be occafionally admitted, the members are permitted to communicate what they know of the applicant to the paftors; and if, after remonftrance, he be continued in communion, the loweft individual in the

congre

* Since writing the above, I have looked into Pardovan, book.ii. title iv. fect. iv. and find, that by the conftitution of Prefbyterian churches, no minifter, though he may examine, can admit any person to the privilege of membership, till the whole of his Seffion, as well as himself, are fatisfied both as to his knowledge and piety.

G

gation is allowed to call these pastors to an account, with the whole of their Seffion, before a fuperior court; and if that court fhould decide amifs, to fummon even it, with these paftors and elders, to a ftill higher tribunal; and even that, to a higher, till the obnoxious member be at laft excluded. Among Independents however, with all their boasted liberty and purity of principle, this is impoffible: for if an unworthy applicant be received as a member by a majority of any of their churches, there is no fuperior court, on earth at least, before whom a confcientious minority can arraign them, and procure the expulfion of that member from their fociety; however unfit, he must continue in fellowship, while no alternative is left to them but immediate feparation, or patient fubmiffion amidft obvious corruption. Nor will their feparation terminate here; for if the fame inconfiftency fhall be manifefted by the majority of the other congregation to whom they may attach themselves, from their want of any court fuperior to that congregation, they muft again feparate and join a third, and so on, in a continued course of change and feparation, till, like fome individuals of them, they be excluded from the fellowship of every church upon earth. In fine, if Independents object to the principles of Prefbyterians because their members muft confide, as to the character of an applicant, in the word of the paftor, on what principle do they themselves truft, in the account which is given of him by any of their members when the majority are ignorant of him? May not the pastors and elders obtain in private, all the information which is furnished to the majority by these members in public; and if that majority are difpofed to give credit to the latter in an Independent church, why fhould not the congregation give credit to their pastors in a Prefbyterian? Befides, if the members of a Prefbyterian congregation are not allowed to ftate their fentiments and vote before an applicant is received, it is

because the fcriptures feem to veft that power folely in the pastors. And it certainly appears more confiftent with that tenderness and juflice which are due to fuch applicants, that their qualifications fhould be examined in private by the minifters of the church, and that all neceffary inquiries fhould be made concerning them by him and by the elders, than that every particular the moft delicate and important, refpecting their character, fhould be laid open at large to the fcrutiny and review of a whole congregation; or that they should wait till each of the members be perfonally satisfied respecting them. It would thus feem that the paftors alone, without foliciting the judgment of the members, are authorized by fcripture to perform this part of ecclefiaftical government, and that this conftitution is also better fitted than that of Independency to promote the ends of Chriftian edification *.

Next to the power of admitting members to religious fellowship, and fuperior to it undoubtedly in point of magnitude, is that of ordaining office-bearers to the exercife of their function. This power likewise appears to belong exclufively to the paftors of the church, and neither folely nor conjointly to the Chriftian people.

* It might also have been added, that were it judged expedient, even upon the Presbyterian system, when any perfon applies for the privilege of membership, it could be announced to the congregation, and any member who could substantiate any objections to his admission, as in the case of election to the office of elders, be invited to state them to the minifter or feffion. And it is known to be consistent with our Presbyterian constitution, that the first time a person receives a token for admission to the fupper, it may be delivered to him in the prefence of the whole congregation, fo that being folemnly pointed out to thofe of the members at large, who choose to attend, as a fellow-member, they may recog nize him in that light, and treat him as such.