made one or two trials of Saturus in reading, when we were approving our readers before the teaching Presbyters, and then appointed Optatus, from among the readers, to be a teacher of the hearers." On this passage you quote Marshal, the translator of Cyprian, thus speaking-"It is hence, I think, apparent, that all Presbyters were not teachers, but assisted the Bishop in other parts of his office." It would have given a fairer view of Marshal's opinion, had you given the whole note. I will supply the defect. Of teaching Presbyters he says, "these were the stated judges of the fitness of such as were to be the teachers (in a lower form) of the hearers." According to Marshal, some of the Presbyters were appointed to instruct, not by preaching, but (probably) by catechizing the hearers, who, he expressly says in the next note, were catechumens. And "hence it is, I think, apparent, that all Presbyters were not teachers, but assisted the Bishop in other parts of his office;" that is, all the Presbyters were not appointed to teach in this inferior manner; but were employed in assisting the Bishop by preaching, administering the sacraments, visiting the sick, and exercising discipline: "So that the ministry then was not solely nor singly a preaching ministry;" but Presbyters were appointed to teach the people in a more easy and familiar manner than public preaching will admit. "Hermas, in Vision 3d, hath the mention of these teachers; and St. Paul alludes to them in 1 Tim. v. 17. It is very probable that the original of this distinction was founded in extraordinary gifts, which, in our author's time, were not totally discontinued; nor were, therefore, the offices founded on them. But we read of no distinction between teaching and other Presbyters in later times, when it is agreed that miraculous gifts were quite ceased. The thing, however, continued all along in some form or other, and there were always in the Church some non-teaching, as well as teaching Presby ters, when the nominal distinction was utterly abolished."

Thus it is evident, that, had you given the whole of Marshal's note, he would appear to be directly opposed to your lay and preaching Presbyters. The distinction is that of teaching, not of ruling Elders; and that only till extraordinary gifts had ceased. Whether he is right or not is another matter; but it is certain that neither he nor Cyprian give the least hint of Ruling Elders.

On this passage from Cyprian you also quote Bishop Fell. But he seems to be of the same opinion with Marshal. He says, "Inter Presbyteros, Rectores & Doctores, olim distinxisse videtur Divus Paulus, Ep. i. ad Tim. iv. 17.” But he does not say that this distinction was that of Ruling Elders, without the power of preaching and administering the sacraments, and of Elders with that power. This is evident from his observing in the same note, that Optatus, the reader, had been lately devoted or set apart to the instruction of the catechumens. This is the kind of teaching Elders spoken of by Fell and Marshal as distinguished from the Priests.

I find, Sir, that you have not brought to view again the case of Numidicus, from Cyprian, nor your testimony from Origen. At this I do not wonder; for you certainly were completely defeated as to those testimonies.

You next take us back from the third to the fourth century, and once more produce the testimony of Hilary. It begins thus: "For indeed, among all nations, old age is honourable. Thence it is (from this respect to old age) that the Synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church; which, by what negligence it grew into disuse I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, while they alone wished to appear something."

Now, Sir, whatever may be the meaning of this passage, you, as I have already observed, are not entitled to any benefit from it, unless you will give up the quotations from the Gesta and St. Augustine; which, if your interpretation be correct, prove Hilary to have spoken an untruth; unless a thing can be in use and out of use at the same time. Yet, as your testimonies are so very few, and but shadows at the best, you shall have them all and welcome.

On this passage from Hilary, you observe, "It is scarcely credible to what miserable expedient Dr. B. resorts to set aside the force of this testimony. He insists upon it, that the pious father only meant to say, that in former times the elderly men of the Church used to be consulted, which custom is now laid aside.'" And again-'He says nothing more than that it was formerly customary to consult the aged; no doubt in difficult situations of the Church, which frequently occurred in the first three centuries, while persecution lasted.' Upon this you observe, 'it is difficult to answer suggestions of this kind in grave or respectful language. Can any man in his senses believe that Hilary only designed to inform his readers, that in the Jewish Synagogues there were persons who had attained a considerable age; that this is also the case in the Christian Church, and that in difficult cases, these aged persons were consulted? This would have been a sage remark indeed.' Were you, Sir, an ingenuous opponent, you would not suppose that I meant to tell my readers, that there were aged men in the Church, which every child knows to be the fact; but that aged, grave, and sensible laymen were much consulted in the primitive times of the Church, when she was so often thrown into critical situations, and reduced to distressing straits. But in Hilary's day the aged were not consulted, but the clergy conducted every thing at their own pleasure. Now, that there is not much sageness in the remark is true; but there may be truth in it notwithstanding, Hilary does not say, that these seniors were Ruling Elders; he does not say, that they were a component part of every Presbytery; he does not say, that they with the pastors have the power of examining and licensing candidates for the Gospel

ministry of ordaining, settling, removing, or judging ministers —of resolving questions of doctrine or discipline-of condemning erroneous opinions;" in short, "of ordering whatever pertains to the spiritual concerns of the Churches under their care." Not a hint is given of any one of these particulars. He says no more than that seniors or elderly men were consulted; but that the custom was grown into disuse in his time. And yet out of this you endeavour to draw Ruling Elders, who had concern, and no small share of it, in spiritual matters. And you speak with so much confidence, that one would really suppose the fact was as clear as the sun. Elderly men were consulted; therefore there were Ruling Elders, who shared in the spiritual government of the Church. A very logical inference to be sure!

'But what decides the question (as you say) is, that in the fourth century this plan of having Elders to assist by their counsel in the government of the Church, had chiefly grown into disuse.' And from this circumstance you seem to think that Hilary's Elders must be of the ruling kind, otherwise the Church must have become so corrupt as to thrust all aged persons out of its communion; or, if the more venerable and aged were suffered to remain, were they never more consulted in cases of difficulty and danger?' This is most extraordinary reasoning! Either the aged must have been consulted, or they must have been excluded from the Church. But what necessity is there for consulting them? Certainly, in ordinary cases, there is none; the Bishops and Clergy are able enough to do without it; but in times of great difficulty and danger, as in the first three centuries, when the Church was under terrible persecution from the Heathen, all its collected wisdom would be deemed necessary. The aged part of every congregation would then be consulted. But when Christianity became established, and the Church enjoyed the favour of the government, this practice ceased, although there was still enough of difficulty arising from the persecutions of the Arians and other heretics to have kept it in the Church. But the Clergy, indulging sloth or pride, dropped the practice. That any thing more can be made out of this passage, is utterly beyond my comprehension.

But supposing, Sir, there was a bench of Elders chosen by the people to represent them, as your Form of Government speaks, does it appear from Hilary that they had any thing more to do than to give their advice to the Bishops and Clergy? There is not the least appearance of any thing further; not the least appearance of their having any concern in the spiritual government of the Church. Your conclusion then is mere arbitrary assumption.

It appears to me very extraordinary, that if there was an order of Lay Elders in the Church, not one of the great commentators or historians of antiquity should give us any hint of it. St.

k Presbyterian Form of Government,

Jerome, whose learning you admit, in his commentary on the texts quoted, does not give us the least hint of it. He was as quick sighted as you are, and yet he could not see any Lay Elders in Scripture; nor in the more early ages of antiquity. Nor after him could the historians Socrates and Theodoret. The learned Chrysostom also gives us no hint of the kind. Nor does Eusebius, although he enumerates the orders of the Church, perhaps fifty times in his history. Nor does one of the councils, either general or provincial. And if we go into the third century, nothing is to be found there in your favour--nothing in Origen, Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian-nothing in Irenæus, or any writer of the second century. Supposing then that your testimonies were good for the fourth century, still the rule of Lirinensis and St. Augustine totally fails. The institution cannot be supported by antiquity, universality, and general consent; and, therefore, is, not apostolic.

On the account I have given of this whole matter from the learned Bingham and Albaspinæus, you cheer yourself with a laugh. They say, there were Seniores Ecclesiæ, [Elders of the Church,] who were chosen to assist the Bishop with their advice in the weighty affairs of the Church; and also Seniores Ecclesiastici, [ecclesiastical Elders,] who were entrusted with the treasures and outward affairs of the Church, as our Vestries are; but neither of them is considered by them as of apostolic institution. The Seniores Ecclesiæ, you say, were the Lay Elders of your Church. And you add, 'It is really laughable to find Dr. B. conceding in substance all that we desire; and yet, on account of some petty points of difference, which are too frivolous to be noticed, and which do not affect the main question, insisting that there is nothing like our Lay Elders to be found in primitive times.'

Now, Sir, the 'petty points of difference' are the following: The Seniores Ecclesia were not of apostolic institution; you say your Lay Elders are. This, to be sure, is a very 'petty point of difference.' The former were not a component part of the Presbytery; the latter are. Another petty point. The Seniores Ecclesiæ had nothing to do with examining candidates for the ministry-with resolving questions of doctrine or discipline with condemning erroneous opinions-with ordaining and judging of ministers. Six more 'petty points of difference.' But still, no doubt, the inference is good, sound, and logical. The Seniores Ecclesiæ differ in eight important points from Presbyterian Lay Elders; therefore they are the same. Certainly, I deserve to be laughed at for asserting there is nothing to be found like Lay Elders in primitive times!

Next we are presented with a curiosity of another kind. A quotation is given from the Apostolic Constitutions. Till now they were not worth regarding; too corrupt to be depended upon; but suddenly they are freed from their stains, and are very good evidence for Lay Elders. Another circumstance in

this curiosity is, that they were composed between the second and fifth centuries; but you do not tell us when the words quoted were written, whether in the third or fourth century. If in the fourth, the quotation is not worth a straw, if Hilary speaks truth; and if in the third, there is not a shadow to be found for Lay Elders, but the words of this quotation. Let us then examine them. Thus they run-" To Presbyters also, when they labour in teaching, let a double portion be assigned." On this you say, 'Here is, obviously, a distinction between Elders who are einployed in teaching, and those who are not so employed.' If it were obvious, I think that I am not so blind, but that I should perceive it. The only distinction that I can perceive is that of labouring, or being laborious in preaching, and not being so. If the distinction you wish to establish was intended, the words would have been, "To Presbyters also, when they labour in teaching, let a portion be assigned double to that of Ruling Elders." This would be clear; but in none of your quotations is there any language that has the least claim to perspicuity; nor is even the title given in Scripture, or in all antiquity. Í doubt, whether there ever was a stronger instance of prejudice, than is afforded by the frequent attempts that have been made to establish Lay Elders on apostolic usage; while, at the same time, their advocates can resist the numerous, positive, and direct testimonies of the first five centuries in favour of the apostolic origin of episcopacy. But so it is; episcopacy has been abandoned by a few; and that few, we may be assured, will never cease opposing it.

If I could be surprised at any quotation you may think proper to give, it would be at your mentioning Bishop Taylor as granting, that a set of men, called Seniors, existed in the Church at an early period. You cannot tell us where the acknowledgment is made, but you are sure it is to be found somewhere. This, I suppose, is quite sufficient to balance my long quotation from him against Lay Elders; quite sufficient to balance a whole chapter in his Episcopacy Asserted, against them; quite sufficient to balance the following strong language: "The thing is so evident [that there were never any Lay Elders in the Church] that it is next to impudence to say that, in antiquity laymen were parties and assessors in the consistory of the Church. It was against their faith; it was against their practice;" and, speaking of the quotations from Ambrose and Austin, he says, "they are but like sophisms to prove that two and two are not four; for to pretend such slight, airy imaginations against the constant, known, open catholic practice and doctrine of the Church, and history of all ages, is as if a man should go to fight an imperial army with a single bulrush."

You next endeavour to force Ignatius into the service of Ruling Elders. I really thought that I had so completely settled 1 Episcopacy Asserted, p. 165.