was such a distinction in the Eldership, and then we shall have no difficulty in determining the sense of the text-it will no longer be a matter of dispute.

Now, that there was no distinction of lay and preaching Elders I thus prove from the New Testament.

1. The word presbytery is used but once in St. Paul's Epistles, and no where else in the New Testament to signify an ecclesiastical council. The Apostle says to Timothy-Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Lay Elders are evidently excluded from this Presbytery; unless you will say, that the lay part of it laid on their hands at the same time with the pastors. But this, I am well satisfied, you will not venture to assert. Then the point is settled, unless we can find this officer in some other passage of Scripture. And it settles another point also, that your presbytery, in which there are laymen, and the presbytery of the Scripture, in which there are none, are very different things. So that you are unscriptural in the grand distinctive mark of your Church, about which you talk so much, and on which you rely so much. But this by the way. Is there then any other passage of Scripture which countenances Lay Elders? Not one. We read of Elders at Jerusalem; but not a hint that there was a distinction in the office. Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every city, but nothing is said of their ordaining Lay Elders. The Apostles sometimes called themselves Elders; but I hope they were much more than Lay Elders. St. Paul summoned to Miletus the Elders of Ephesus, and as they are also styled Bishops, Lay Elders are effectually shut out from their company. Where then shall we find this strange amphibious creature, a Lay Elder? No where, unless we can draw him out of two passages which you quote. The first is-Having then gifts, differing according to the grace given to us; whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; HE THAT RULETH, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. With this passage you connect the followingGOD hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, GOVERNMENTS, and diversities of tongues. These passages, like every thing else, you quote, and say, settle the matter at once. We have now found the office we are in search of. This office, by whatever name it may be called, and however its character may be disguised by ingenuity, is, to all intents and purposes, the same with that which Presbyterians distinguish by the title of Ruling Elders.'

He that ruleth (let him do it) with diligence! Does the Apostle say, let the layman that ruleth, do it with diligence? Nothing like it. He is evidently speaking of different gifts and graces

of the HOLY GHOST; but not of different offices. These gifts and graces, in the Apostles' times, were common to all ranks of believers; to the people, as well as to the pastors; to the women as well as to the men. But all offices were not. This is too evident to be denied. Joel, speaking of the erection of CHRIST'S kingdom, says—I will pour out my SPIRIT on all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and upon the servants and handmaids in those days will I pour out my SPIRIT. Did not the four daughters of Philip prophesy? Does not St. Paul say, Every woman praying or prophesying bareheaded, dishonoureth her head? If then prophesying were a gift of the HOLY GHOST, common to both men and women, how can you confine it to a particular office in the Church?

Again: teaching, helping, exhorting, were also common to both men and women. Priscilla instructed and taught Apollos the way of the LORD more perfectly. And St. Paul calls her his helper in CHRIST. And the Apostle exhorts the Thessalonians to edify one another, to warn them that are unruly, to comfort the feeble minded, to support the weak. If then it be evident that all these things were common to the first Christians, both to men and women, how is it possible that any one possessing the least understanding can consider them as so many distinct offices, instead of so many distinct graces of the HOLY SPIRIT? If they were distinct offices, then we must have seven in the Church instead of three, and laymen may hold them, and even women. Is this correct?

'But what shall we say with respect to government? Is not that a distinct office in the Church, and does not a distinct office imply a distinct officer ?' I answer, no. All Pastors, whatever their rank was, held the power of government. The Apostles were governors, Presbyters were governors, and Deacons, in an inferior degree, were governors. All pastors, whether fixed or itinerant, were styled shepherds, watchmen, overseers, rulers, and guides. To infer, therefore, that 'government' proves an order of Lay Elders, is as great an instance of assumption as can possibly be produced; as great as if I were to say-' prophesying, working miracles, discerning spirits, diversities of tongues, interpreting tongues, gifts of healing, exhorting, helping,' constituted so many distinct offices and officers in the Church. And as this is contrary to matter of fact, as has been fully shown, it never can be admitted, that when ruling and governing are mentioned, they imply a lay-officer to assist the pastor, the watchman, the overseer, the ruler of the flock. Nothing but direct, positive proof can obtain credit for such an officer, when there are so many powerful arguments against his having existed.

Another argument which I used in my eighth letter against your Ruling Elder is, that it is altogether inadmissible that two officers so essentially different as a ruling and a preaching Elder, should invariably be confounded under one common.

name. And I further observed, that it is a most extraordinary instance of attachment to a hypothesis, that you, who make a community of names an argument in favour of parity (which, by the way, is a mere fallacy) should insist that two essentially different characters are designated by the same title. A capacity for teaching appears to be essential to an Elder. St. Paul tells Timothy and Titus, that Elders must be apt to teach, able by sound doctrine both to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers; and we never once in the Scriptures find the epithets ruling and preaching given to Elders by way of distinction. To these observations you have made no reply; and I must think that you did not reply, because you could not.

Another argument which I advanced against Lay Elders is, that by the rule of Scripture all Elders are entitled to a maintenance. Then Lay Elders must be entitled to it. I admit that this is not by any means a forcible argument; nor did I consider it as such. I mentioned it merely to show the improbability that the Church was burdened with the appointment of officers, who were not at all necessary. The preaching Presbyters had a right, from their commission, to govern, as all acknowledge; and their government was entirely confined to spiritual matters, or, in other words, to the power of the keys. But had you proved the fact that Lay Elders were of apostolic institution, this kind of argument could have no weight, as probabilities in reasoning can never be admitted against the evidence of fact. It was only on the supposition that you had not proved the fact, that I considered this circumstance as affording a degree of probability, that Lay Elders would not have been appointed.

The sum then of what has been said is this-The text we have been considering does not afford the least ground for support of Lay Elders. A distinction among the Elders spoken of there was; but it was a distinction of personal exertion, not of office. None of the Elders we read of in the New Testament have the epithet lay applied to them; and, in several instances quoted, they are expressly marked as ministers of the word. The Presbytery mentioned by St. Paul necessarily excludes them, unless we allow them power to ordain. And, lastly, as the rod of discipline put into the hands of Pastors is entirely of a spiritual nature, and founded altogether on the administration of the sacraments, Lay Elders can have no share whatever in the spiritual government of the Church, and, consequently, are a mere human invention.

But if we cannot find this order of men in the New Testament, perhaps we may in the writings of some of the fathers. Now, allowing this to be the case, with what consistency can you appeal to them-you, who will not allow the unanimous testimony of the fathers in favour of episcopacy to be conclusive, if we cannot find it in the Scriptures? Surely, this is most extravagantly unreasonable. If there is but a shadow in the fathers in your favour, you eagerly catch at it; but if we produce numer→

ous and decisive proofs from them in our favour, they are not worthy of regard. I should think it quite enough for you to contradict the universally received principles of evidence; but to be inconsistent too, is rather too much.

Another striking instance of your inconsistency, is your beginning your testimony for Lay Elders in the fourth century, after you had made a terrible outcry against me for pursuing the same method. In me, it indicated a distressing consciousness of the weakness of my cause;' in you, it is, no doubt, a proof of the goodness of your cause. In me, it was 'unnatural;' in you, it is perfectly natural. My testimonies are depreciated, because the age was corrupt; yours are not in the least affected by that circumstance. You seem to have completely adopted the principle of the lawyer in the fable-" If it was your ox that gored my cow, that is a very different matter."

But, Sir, as I wish to possess that charity which beareth all things, I will, in my next letter, patiently examine your testi monies, and give them all the consequence they deserve,

REV. SIR:

LETTER X.

You first quote the Gesta Purgationis Cæciliani et Felicis, in which are these words-" the Presbyters, the Deacons, and Elders;" and again, "call the fellow-clergymen, and Elders of the people, ecclesiastical men, and let them inquire what are these dissentions." Further: a letter read in that assembly was addressed "to the Clergyman and the Elders," and another "to the Clergymen and the Elders."

After

Now, Sir, the first observation I have to make is, that you are exceedingly inadvertent with respect to testimonies. these quotations you produce Hilary saying, that these Elders were out of use in his time, which was the fourth century, the very age in which Optatus lived. If they were out of use at that time, what are the quotations from the Gesta good for? If they were not out of use, what is the quotation from Hilary good for? One of them certainly is good for nothing, as they are flat contradictions. To which then will you adhere? For surely you will not insist upon my answering both sides of a contradiction, Till you pronounce your election, I am, by the laws of fair disputation, under no obligation to answer either; and even then it would be quite sufficient to set one quotation against the other, and leave our readers to strike the balance. But, Sir, I can easily excuse you--In longo opere, fas est obrepere somnum. [In a long work, we must allow a man sometimes to nod.] Notwithstanding I am under no obligation to take any further

notice of this contradiction, yet I will fully and fairly examine all that you have said.

On the two passages quoted from the Gesta, you ask, 'What can this language mean? Here is a class of men expressly called ecclesiastical men, or Church officers, who are styled Elders, and yet distinguished from the clergy, with whom, at the same time, they meet and officially transact business. If these be not the Elders of whom we are in search, we may give up all the rules of evidence.'

The Elders then in these passages being called ecclesiastical men, and distinguished from the clergy, must be your Lay Elders, who are concerned in the discipline of the Church.

Now, Sir, I wonder you did not recollect that St. Cyprian calls singers and readers ecclesiastical men. Are they for that reason to be deemed an order of apostolical institution, and concerned in the discipline of the Church? Nay, the holy martyr calls readers, 'clergymen.' Are readers of apostolic institution? Why then are your ecclesiastical Elders to be founded on apostolic sanction? And if because they are distinguished from the Clergy, they are Ruling Elders, with whom are they to be ranked? Not among the Clergy, for they are distinguished from them; not among the laity, for they are distinguished from them also. With whom then are we to rank them? for they belong to neither clergy nor laity. I believe, among the creatures of imagination.

You produce two passages of similar import from Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. He speaks of "Peregrine the Presbyter, and the Elders of the Mustacan district." And again; he addresses one of his epistles to his Church at Hippo, "To the beloved brethren, the Clergymen, the Elders, and all the people of the Church of Hippo." And then you observe, 'There were some Elders in the days of Augustine who were not clergymen, i. e. Lay Elders.' Then, I say, there were in the days of Augustine, Elders, who were not of the people. I ask again, if they were neither Clergymen nor laymen, what were they?

And here I would put you in mind once more of my observation with respect to this order of men, supposing them to have had an existence in the primitive Church-that diocesan episcopacy is not at all affected by it. Here we have proof from fact that the observation is correct. You will have it that they were in the Church in the fourth century, and yet you acknowledge that diocesan episcopacy prevailed in that age. Were you then to establish your point, you do not in the least injure episcopacy. Let our readers remember this.

Your next quotation is from Cyprian's twenty-ninth epistle, directed" to his brethren, the Presbyters, and Deacons." In this epistle he thus speaks: "You are to take notice that I have ordained Saturus a reader, and the confessor Optatus a subdeacon; whom we had all before agreed to place in the rank and degree next to that of the clergy. Upon Easter day we