These, Sir, are the strong grounds on which I rest my 'charaeter as a divine, and as a Christian'--on which I rest the whole weight of my salvation. If you have any stronger grounds than these, it would really be an act of charity to communicate them; for I can say very truly, that I wish to rest on the firmest ground possible. But if you have not, I shall consider your pity as impertinent, and your declamation as ridiculous.

There is, however, some advantage in this kind of management. When a writer does not choose, or is not able to answer his opponent's arguments, affected pity, or the usual exclamations-Amazing! Strange! How weak! Who would suppose the writer to be in his senses! have great influence on the minds of many readers. So far you display acuteness. You find a weak part in human nature, and you apply to it; but a display of candour and forcible reasoning would be much more creditable and dignified.

I have now, I flatter myself, fully established my assertion, that we cannot prove the genuineness and authenticity of the sacred writings but by testimony; and if this kind of proof be conclusive, in respect to those writings, it must be equally so in respect to episcopacy. For both being matters of fact, both can be proved in no other way than by testimony. The testimony for episcopacy has brought us up to the apostolic age; nay, has brought us far into that age; for Ignatius, as I have more than once observed, spent nearly the whole of a long life in that age; and he asserts that the government of the Church by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, is of divine appointment; and, consequently, that at no time did parity exist.

I should now proceed to examine what you have said in answer to my Scriptural proofs for imparity; but it may be well before I view this part of the controversy, to notice what you have further advanced in favour of Ruling Elders.

REV. SIR:

LETTER IX.

BEFORE I began to examine your proofs for Ruling Elders I observed, in my eighth letter, That were I to admit such an order, diocesan episcopacy would not at all be affected by it. As Bishops have not the sole power in ecclesiastical affairs; as Presbyters are their counsellors and assistants in the administration of Church discipline; so Ruling Elders, even supposing them to have an equal share in the government with preaching Presbyters, would by no means invade the negative power of Bishops.' Episcopacy then is safe, whatever may be the decision of the question.

I also observed, that almost the whole Christian world is against this order of the Church. The Roman, Greek, and Coptic Churches are against it. The Churches of England, Sweden, and Denmark are against it. The numerous sect of Independents in this country, and in Great-Britain, are against it. Nay, even Presbyterians are divided upon this subject. I quoted Bishop Sage as observing that "Chamier, Salmasius, Blondel, Ludovicus Capellus, Moyses Amiraldus, and many others, all Presbyterians, are against it." I quoted him as asserting, that "the whole tribe of the Belgic Remonstrants (keen parity men) are against it in their Confession of Faith ;" and that Baxter, in his preface to his Five Disputations of Church Government, says expressly, that, as far as he could understand, the greatest part, if not three for one of the English Presbyterian ministers, were as far against Lay Elders as any prelates of them all." He confesses himself to be one, and he cites Mr. Vines for another. Now, on this testimony from almost the whole Christian world against your favourite Lay Elders, you make no observations, but very prudently pass it over; although of this kind of auxiliary you generally avail yourself, when you think you can get any thing by it; but I suppose, in this case, it must be considered as a mere cypher. Well, Sir, let it be so; I will take you on your own ground precisely.

You first endeavour to show from presumptive evidence, that the office of Ruling Elder must have been instituted by the Apostles. The amount of your observation is, that the pastor cannot individually perform all the duties which are included in maintaining government and discipline in the Church, as well as ministering in the word and sacraments. And you say, 'We can hardly have a better comment on these remarks than the practice of those Churches which reject Ruling Elders. Our Episcopal brethren reject them, but they are obliged to have their Vestrymen and Church-Wardens, who perform the duties belonging to such Elders. Our Independent brethren also reject this class of Church officers; but they are forced to resort to a Committee, who attend to the numberless details of parochial duty, which the Ministers cannot perform. Now, is it probable, is it credible, that the Apostles, acting under the inspiration of CHRIST, the King and Head of the Church, should entirely overlook this necessity, and make no provision for it? It is not credible.'

Now, Sir, is it possible that you should not know, that there is a wide difference between your Ruling Elders, and our Vestry, and the Independents' Committee? Let us see what the office of a ruling Elder is, from your own Form of Government.

Sect. i. chap. viii. "The Church Session consists of the Minister or Ministers, and Elders of a particular congregation."

Sect. ii.The Church Session is competent to the spiritual government of the congregation," &c. Is this the business of

our Vestry, and the Independents' Committee? No such thing. They have nothing to do with spiritual matters. Their business relates solely to temporal things. 66 They cannot admonish, rebuke, suspend, or exclude from the sacraments those who are found to deserve the censures of the Church," as your Ruling Elders can. Their business is totally different from this; and, therefore, you have misrepresented the matter altogether. Spiritual matters belong entirely to spiritual men. layman, in any degree, the power of the keys, and so far you make him a spiritual man. We find nothing of this mixture in the Scriptures. The keys were given, in the first instance, to the Apostles, and by them to Presbyters or Bishops; but not a word is there said of laymen with spiritual authority.

Give a

The necessity of having laymen to take care of the temporalities of a Church is obvious. There was, therefore, no reason for the Apostles' saying a word about the matter; every Church would take care of such things in their own way. It is one of those many circumstances of expediency, which common sense and common prudence would be left to regulate. But in every instance in which spiritual power is communicated, we find an order of men formed by the reception of it, and a name given to that order; but we do not find the name Ruling Elder in any part of the New Testament.

You next observe, that I acknowledge there were such officers in the Jewish Synagogue. But what of that? I proved in my twelfth letter, almost to demonstration, that the Jewish Synagogue was no Church. A Church, I observed, is a society of divine institution; but the Synagogue was of human institution, and, consequently, all its officers were so. Then your ruling Elders, if they were like the Elders of the Synagogue, are of human institution. If you will put them upon this footing, we shall have no dispute with you; yet we shall think that you do wrong in giving them any degree of spiritual power. But that is your affair, not ours. You may justify it as well as you can. But,' you say, we have better evidence.' You certainly need it. The New Testament makes express mention of such Elders.' It is unaccountable, if this be true, that almost the whole Christian world, from the days of the Apostles, should not be able to see those Elders, of whom express mention is made in the New Testament. There is,' you say, 'undoubtedly a reference to them in 1 Tim. v. 17.' Undoubtedly! What! when most Christians not only doubt of them, but positively deny that they ever had an existence in the primitive Church? But these words, 'express,' 'undoubtedly,' have their use. They make up in positiveness what is wanting in proof, which, with many readers, goes a great way.

But let us hear the text. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. On these words you say, Every man of plain, good sense, who had never heard of any controversy

on the subject, would conclude, on reading this passage, that when it was written, there were two kinds of Elders,' [that happens to be the very point to be determined] 'one whose duty it was to labour in the word and doctrine, and another who did not thus labour, but only ruled in the Church.'

Now, Sir, I hope you will allow that there is a great deal of plain good sense in the Christian world, and yet by far the greater part is against you. I hope you will allow that Ignatius, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome, and many other eminent writers, who have enumerated the orders of the Church repeatedly, and yet have not a glance towards ruling Elders; I hope you will allow that these men had plain good sense. I hope you will allow that Baxter, Vines, and the greater part of the English Presbyterian divines in their day, besides numbers of foreign Presbyterians, who have distinguished themselves by their writings, and yet were professed enemies to ruling Elders, were men of plain good sense, I hope you will allow that there are many divines of plain good sense in the Church of England; and in the Latin, Greek, and other Churches, which do not allow of your lay Elders. But perhaps you think that the plain good sense of your few, is of a superior quality to the plain good sense of our many.

To confirm your interpretation of the text in question, you quote Dr. Whitaker, 'a zealous and learned episcopal divine, and Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge.' What was Whitaker zealous for? Certainly not for episcopacy; for you quote him against it. He was indeed zealous for the most rigid species of Calvinism that ever was conceived; as appears from his being the chief promoter of the Lambeth Articles. Learned he undoubtedly was; but an Episcopalian he never was, although a minister of the Church of England; for it is not every one that wears her garb that adopts her principles, either as to doctrine or government. But it is no matter what he was; we have nothing to do with him, but with his reasoning. Let us try it.

He says, as quoted by you, 'If all who rule well, be worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine, it is plain there were some who did not so labour; for if all had been of this description, the meaning would have been absurd: but the word especially points out a difference. If I should say, that all who study well at the University are worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the study of theology, I must either mean that all do not apply themselves to the study of theology, or I should speak nonsense.' Now, Sir, if I judge right, this kind of reasoning will never answer your purpose; for Whitaker leaves the point to be proved wholly untouched. The point to be proved is, that those who ruled well, and those who laboured in the word and doctrine, held distinct offices. St. Paul's words do not necessarily imply

it. Those who ruled well might, for any thing you can prove to the contrary, have been ordained to preach also; and might, in consequence, have frequently preached; but they were not laborious in preaching: This is the distinction marked by the word ' especially'; a distinction not of office, but of industry in the same office. Some Elders were more concerned in ruling, others in preaching; but it is miserable logic to infer from this, that those who ruled well' had not also a right to preach; as miserable logic as it would be to infer that those who preached had not a right to rule. The word 'especially' will not warrant either conclusion. It undoubtedly implies a difference, but not in the powers conferred, but solely in their application. When Whitaker then infers a distinction of office, it is a mere begging of the question. He ought to have proved that the word 'especially' necessarily implies a distinction of office; but this he does not prove by the comparison on which he so much relies. His inference in the comparison is not logical. He observes, "If I should say, that all who study well at the University are worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the study of theology, I might either mean that all do not apply themselves to the study of theology, or I should speak nonsense." But I conceive that there is no nonsense in this; the inference does not result from the premise; for all might be studying theology; but some are laborious in the study of it, while others are not; and this sufficiently marks the distinction. As in the text, all Presbyters might be preachers, but some distinguished themselves most by ruling; while others distinguished themselves by their painful labour in preaching. The words of the text go no further than this, nor does the case which Whitaker puts go a tittle further. Suppose I were to say, Let the students of Columbia College who study well be accounted worthy of double honour, especially those who are laborious in the study of the mathematics. Could you infer from these words, that all the students did not study the mathematics? Could you establish two orders of students; one laboriously studying the mathematics, but nothing else; the other pursuing, and well too, the usual studies of a college, except the mathematics? You certainly could not; all you can fairly and logically establish is a difference necessarily implied in the word 'especially'; but it goes no further than a difference in the degree of application, and by no means extends so far as to imply a difference in the branches of study. This can be determined in no way but by testimony. Apply to this source of information, and immediately you find it to be a fact, that all the students in Columbia College do study the mathematics, and that some labour more in this study than others, and are, therefore, in a special manner, 'worthy of double honour.' Now, this is precisely the mode that ought to be taken to determine whether Ruling Elders are implied in the text under consideration; for the words alone will never do it. We must first establish the fact that there VOL. II.-8