And are there not some also, who go further, and insist that this form is binding on the church, under all circumstances and states of society, and, of course, ought to be adopted in all ages? There are certainly some who go even this length. Well! my opponents will reply, is not this holding to the divine right of Presbyterian government? It is. And is it not, of consequence, going the whole length with us, and denying that there can be any true church, or valid ordinances without it? Certainly not. The conclusion has no more connexion with the premises, than with the most remote object in creation.

As both Dr. Bowden and Mr. How have evidently yet to learn the sentiments of the jure divino Presbyterians, and as, for want of information on this point, they are groping in the dark, whenever they approach it; I will endeavour to enlighten this part of their path, and, if possible, prevent, in future, those perpetual wanderings, which are really much more calculated to excite the ridicule, or the commiseration, than the resentment of their Presbyterian readers.

The advocates, then, for the divine right of Presbytery, (I now speak of the most rigid class of them,) believe that, in the apostolic church every regularly organized congregation of christians was furnished with three classes of church officers, with a Bishop, (or Pastor,) Ruling Elders, and Deacons ; that the bench of Elders, with the Bishop as their standing Moderator or President,

constituted the spiritual court, for directing all affairs purely ecclesiastical in the congregation; that the Bishops of a number of neighbouring congregations, were in the habit of statedly meeting together, not only to cherish a spirit of union and fraternal affection, but also to deliberate on matters of more general concern, than those of a particular church; that in these larger assemblies or Presbyteries, (or by whatever name they were called,) a delegation from the Eldership of each church attended with their Bishop; and that, either statedly or occasionally, (it matters not which, as to the principle,) the Bishops and Elders of much larger districts, convened under the title of Synods or Councils, for the purpose of discussing and de ciding great questions, and of making general arrangements. This, they suppose, was the form of government which the Apostles, acting under the inspiration of God, established in the primitive church. They believe, moreover, that as this form of ecclesiastical polity was adopted by inspired men, it is the best form; that it was intended to be perpetual; that it is the duty of churches, in all ages, and in all states of society, to adopt it; and that in proportion as any deviate from it, they deviate from the simplicity and purity of the apostolic age, and contravene the will of God.

But, while this class of Presbyterians zealously maintain the principles which have been stated, they, at the same time, explicitly grant, that there may be deviations from this apostolic form of go

E

vernment, without destroying, or, in any essential degree, impairing, the character of a Christian church. They suppose that imperfection attends every thing human. That although every church, as well as every man, is required to be in all respects perfectly conformed to the Divine will; yet that neither any church, nor any man is, in fact, thus perfect. They suppose that, among individual professors of religion, there may be all manner of variety as to the degrees of exemplariness which they manifest; and yet that they may all be entitled, in the judgment of charity, to be considered as visible christians; and further, that cases may arise, in which it would be difficult to decide whether a man's deviations had proceeded so far, as that he ought, on the whole, to be excluded from this class or not. In like manner, the Presbyterians of whom we are speaking, admit that there are churches which differ considerably as to the degrees of purity which they have preserved, but which, notwithstanding, are all entitled to the character of visible Churches of Christ. They sup pose, indeed, that all deviations from primitive simplicity, whether in doctrine, in worship, or in government, are blameable, and ought to be corrected; but still, that such may exist, in a certain degree, without excluding those who are guilty of them from the class of Churches. And in what actual cases these deviations have become so numerous and important as to render them no longer Churches of Christ, but Synagogues of Satan, they have seldom undertaken to pronounce.

The most rigid Presbyterians have, at different times, both as individuals and judicatories; both by their writings, and their decisions, explicitly acknowledged different denominations of Christians to be true churches of Christ. They have acknowledged our Congregational brethren in New-England; the regular Independents in various parts of GreatBritain; the Episcopalians in England and America; the Lutherans in Germany and the United States; and the Methodist and Baptist denominations, as all churches of Christ. They consider all these, indeed, as more or less corrupt; and have, accordingly, at different times, and without reserve, written, preached, and printed their testimony against those corruptions; but still they have never said of any of them, that they had no church, no ministry, no valid ordinances, but acknowledged the contrary without hesitation or scruple.

In short, the high-toned Presbyterians, of whom we are speaking do not carry the divine right of Church Government further than they carry the divine right of doctrine and worship in the church. Nay, it may be asserted, that, without a single exception, they have always laid more stress on the two latter than on the first, as entering more immediately than that into the vital interests and character of the church. Now, it is well known, that this class of Presbyterians, as well as all others, freely admit that there may be departures from absolute purity, both in doctrine and worship, without un-churching those who admit them. They be

lieve, for instance, that Arminianism is a doctrinal corruption; but yet they would shudder to pronounce that those churches which receive it, have no valid ministry or ordinances, or to deny that any of their members may be saved. They are persuaded, that in the primitive church there were no Forms of Prayer used in public worship; and that the introduction of them is unwarranted and inexpedient; yet I never heard of any one who considered this as so essential an innovation, as either to doubt the piety of those who used forms, or even to pronounce it absolutely unlawful to unite in worship conducted by a liturgy. They know that kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation came into the church together, and have no doubt that together they ought to have been discarded; yet they do not imagine, that this mode of receiving is inconsistent with pious and acceptable communicating; much less that it vitiates the sacrament; and least of all, that it infers a belief in the grand popish error with which it was originally connected. I have known Episcopa- . lians to receive the sacred bread and wine, kneeling, from the hands of a Presbyterian minister, when all the rest of the communicants were sitting; and have no reason to suppose that any other Presby. terian minister would have scrupled to comply with a similar application.

It is to no purpose to say, "that if these be the opinions of jure divina Presbyterians, they are inconsistent with themselves; for that a belief that