admitting the word to signify properly ecclesiastical rulers, what is here intended by it may have now ceased, as well as workers of miracles, persons endowed with the gift of healing and of tongues, and apostles and prophets, who are mentioned along with them? To this it is answered, that even upon the principles of Independents themselves, while miracles have ceased, and tongues and prophecies have failed, government will for ever continue in the church: and that if we are to infer, from its being here joined with the gifts of miracles and tongues, that it must now be laid aside, we contend that it must be laid aside by Independents as well as by Presbyterians; and upon the same principle it may be proved, that since teachers also are here mentioned along with them, the office of a teacher should no longer be con tinued in the church of Christ.

Upon a review then of the Apostle's reasoning in the whole of this passage, I feel disposed to conclude that all are no more now entitled to be rulers, than they were entitled formerly to be apostles or prophets, or pastors and teachers; and that, in Christ's spiritual body, all are no more authorized to be governors, as they are obviously warranted upon the Independent plan, than, in the natural body, each of the members is to be an eye, or an ear, or a sense of smelling. This reasoning, I apprehend, is no less conclusive against admitting them to rule, even upon the scheme of Independents, by advice and persuasion, than, upon the scheme of Presbyterians, by the exercise of limited subordinate authority.

In the 3d place, The terms employed in scripture to express the various characters and relations of members and their elders seem also to intimate that every Christian is not warranted to claim an equal share of ecclesiastical government. While the rulers, as has been observed, are distinguished in the New Testament by the strongest titles expressive of the office and authority of governors, the members, as has been said, are pointed out at the same time as governed by them, and are enjoined to obey them. But if every Christian among those who are governed (the point of presiding as moderator in their assemblies, and announcing the decision, alone excepted) be as much a governor as the governors themselves, how can the distinction which we have mentioned be preserved? Must not all be governors, and all be governed? and must not the kingdom of Jesus be dis

tinguished by a circumstance not only peculiar to itself, but which would be considered as impolitic and contradictory in every wise and well-regulated human government; namely, that all its subjects should not only be subjects, but rulers, and as much, or rather more entitled, on account of their number, to the character of rulers than the governors themselves? While the former, too, are affirmed, (Acts xx. 28), to be authoritative overseers of the church, as the captains of hundreds and thousands were of their men *, *, and as the rulers of cities were of the inhabitants of these cities †, the members of the church are said to be officially overseen by them in government as well as in doctrine. But if every member, as Independents assert, be not only as much an overseer of the church at large as the overseers themselves, but, as was before evinced, from their superior number, possessed of a far greater share of the oversight-nay, if, as was also noticed, they can completely overturn the proposals of the overseers, and dictate to them what they are to receive and obey, is not the distinction which we have stated completely destroyed? and are not all not only overseers as well as overseen, but are not the very men who are appointed to be overseen, more worthy of being dignified by this honourable name, than the men who are officially characterized by it? While the former are described as the flock, the latter are represented in scripture as the pastors, a name often bestowed upon authoritative civil rulers and officers ‡, and are enjoined to perform the part of pastors to the church of God; i. e. not only to feed them with wholesome doctrine, but also to govern them as a shepherd does his flock §.

* See the passages produced, Letter II, where this very word is applied to them.

See 1 Maccab. chap. i, where this same term is so used; Kai εποίησεν επισκόπους επι παντα τον λαον, σε And made them overseers of "the whole people."

See Isaiah xliv. 28, where it is given to Cyrus, king of Persia ; 2 Sam. v. 2, where it is bestowed upon David, because, as a military officer under Saul, he had led out and brought in Israel; and to the judges of Israel, 1 Chron. xvii. 6, whom God is there said to have commanded to feed or govern his people. See also Homer's Iliad passim, where the common name for Agamemmnon, the leader and commander of the Grecian host, is any Zawy, shepherd of the people.

Compare Matth. ii. 6, where the very word which is employed in Acts xx. 28, to signify the pastoral oversight of the elders at

J

But if each of the flock, as must be the case upon the Independent plan, is to govern not only the other members of the flock, but even the pastors themselves, as much as they are to govern the members, how can this difference of character be maintained? Is not every sheep in the flock of Christ, according to this scheme, not only a sheep, but a pastor? nay, are they not better entitled, upon the principles of Independents, as already mentioned, to the name of pastors, than those who are in scripture distinguished by that appellation? Since, then, it seems impossible to allow the members of the church in general the power of ruling, without making them at once all governors, as well as all governed, all overseers as well as all overseen, and all pastors as well as all sheep; nay, since, from their superior number, which is often twenty or a hundred times greater than that of the ministers, it would make them more really governors, and overseers, and pastors, than the governors and overseers, and pastors theniselves; the plan of Independency, which is attended with such consequences, must certainly be inadmissible, and we are bound to conclude that believers in general are not to govern in the Church of God.

It is not enough to tell us, that, at least upon your plan of administration, the members of the church are not considered as rulers when they express their sentiments upon any question, but are simply asked, for the satisfaction of the elders, by whom any measure is proposed, to deliver their opinion, and state their vote. Nor is it enough to say, that they do not receive the appellation of rulers, if, in their capacity of church-members, they actually possess and exercise an authority at least equal, if not superior to that of the rulers themselves. That such authority is possessed by them, appears to be incontrovertible. Is not the judgment of the members, as Mr. Ewing informs us, (p. 36), to be taken in every question, if a matter of importance, and are not all of

Ephesus over their members, is used to denote the pastoral conduct of Jesus, not only as teaching, but ruling his people. "Out of "thee," says that Evangelist respecting the Saviour, "shall come a "Governor that shall rule, ova, shall govern as a shepherd my "people Israel." Consult, likewise, Rev. ii. 27, xii. 5, and xix. 15 where the same word which is used to express what the elders at Ephesus were authorized to perform as the shepherds or pastors of the flock, signifies to rule, as in other places it means to feed by instruction,

them indiscriminately admitted to vote? You yourself too declare, (p. 30), that "nothing is to be done without the "consent of the members." Mr. Little also, in his letter to Mr. Donald, one of the members excommunicated from the church in Perth, tells him, "that the church were to consider "his case, and that of the other members who were excom"municated with him." (See his Letter, as inserted at large in the Narrative before mentioned.) And when that case was considered, it is asserted by these persons who were thus excluded, and not denied by Mr. Little, that the roll containing the names of the members of the church was called, and their votes marked, before the deed of the elders was viewed as ratified. Does not the adoption or rejection of any measure depend entirely upon a majority of them? and if such a majority are pleased to set aside any proposal of the elders or nominal rulers, will it not be set aside? and if they are disposed to vote for an opposite opinion, will it not be carried in opposition to their rulers; and be binding upon their rulers, as much as upon any of the members, if they remain in their society? This, I believe, cannot be denied. I contend, therefore, that even upon your plan of Independency, as well as in every other which grants a power of deliberating and voting to your members at large, though you deny them the name and title of rulers, and allow them only, as you express it, a power of consent, they enjoy not only as much but more of the real authority of rulers, than those to whom, according to the words of your brother, the government of your churches is committed nominally; and consequently, that your scheme in particular, as well as that of Independents in general, seems justly chargeable with the. inconsistencies which have been mentioned, or may yet be charged upon it, from the word of God.

4thly, Terms are used in scripture expressive of the duties of Christian members to their ecclesiastical rulers, which appear no less clearly to intimate that Christians in general are not to be governors of the church of God. They are required, for instance, (1 Thess. v. 13), to know their rulers, or those who are over them in the Lord; i. e. to acknowledge them as such. Now, as the word here rendered those who were over them in the Lord, as has been already remarked, means not merely those who presided in their assemblies, but authoritative rulers, who had a right to

deliver decisions in the name of Christ and demand their obedience; I cannot see how this duty could be enjoined upon the members in general, if all of them in reality, though not in name, were as much governors as their rulers or presbyters. Every Christian member, upon the Independent scheme, being as much a ruler as any of the elders, would require to be acknowledged as such equally with them; nay, the majority of the rulers, on this plan, being members, and of course their influence being greater, it appears as fit, and perhaps more consistent, that the elders should be called to acknowledge them as rulers, than that they should be enjoined to acknowledge the elders. Not only are the members commanded in general to acknowledge their rulers as such, but to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake, in ruling, if they barely ruled; as well as in preaching, if they also preached. The original words, which denote the degree of esteem that is due to them, are most uncommonly expressive, væg_izmegiooõv; i. e. literally rendered, “above "the greatest ab ndance, or exceeding exceeding highly." But how could Christians in general be required to render to their elders such an extraordinary respect, if all that dis- . tinguished them from common members were merely that they were to be presidents in the assemblies of the church, while an equal share of rule belongs to every member in particular; nay, while it is certain that, as the judgment and votes of the members in every question are to fix the decision, the power of government is chiefly in them? Are not the members, at least as far as government is concerned, upon the Independent plan, better entitled to this exceedingly exceedingly high esteem, for the effects of good government, than the elders themselves? Farther, Christians are ordered, (1 Tim. v. 17), to reckon the elders who rule well, on account of their ruling, worthy even of double honour, and to give them that honour. But if every member is to be a ruler of the church, as well as the elders, will it not follow from this, that if any of the members rule well, double honour should be granted to them as well as to the elders; and if all the members rule well, will it not equally follow, that all the members should give to all the members double honour, because they rule well? To talk, however, of all the members of a church giving to all the members, if they ruled well, double honour, is evidently absurd. And to