for intellectual improvement; and even that little, if they are men of piety, is almost entirely devoted to the instruction of their families, or the acquisition of such knowledge as is subservient merely to their personal religion. Whatever, in short, may be the attainments of others, are there not many among them, whom, though you could not exclude from the table of the Lord on account of any defect in their piety, you would not intrust with a very inferior share in the management even of your temporal affairs? Are there not many to be found among them, to whom, though men of the most amiable characters, you could not commit even the lowest offices in the government of the state, or the guardianship simply of your external interests, where no extraordinary knowledge or wisdom was required? Can you suppose then for a moment, that the King of Zion has constituted such persons the governors of his church? Can you believe that he has appointed every such member, however weak, who has a right, from the evidences of his saving knowlege, and child-like holiness, to the sacrament of the supper, to be a judge also in the most important and difficult matters which regard the dearest interests of his people? Nay, is it possible to admit, as must evidently be the case upon the Independents' scheme, that though the majority of the members of a particular congregation be of this description, he has committed to them the power of judging respecting every matter the most dubious and momentous that concerns the most valuable rights of their brethren; and that this plan is more conducive to the promotion of truth, and the administration of equal and impartial justice, than that which vests this power in a few of the wisest and most enlightened of the members, together with the teachers?

It is of importance still farther to be remarked, that strongly as this difficulty appears to militate against the scheme of Independency in the present age, it must be much more formidable, if we attend to the church at a more early period, or in a less favourable situation. If even in our own country, where the means of information have so long and so plentifully been enjoyed by all, very few are qualified to be ecclesiastical rulers, must not the number of these in the primitive ages, when they had just emerged from the superstition of Judaism or the darkness of Heathenism, and were in some measure shackled by their former prejudices-when the opportunities also of general knowledge were much less

abundant, and when the copies of the scriptures, from their ignorance of printing, were both less numerous, and few but the pastors of the church could read them-must not the number, I say, of those who were qualified to be ecclesiastical rulers at that period have been greatly more limited? And if even among ourselves, so few are fitted for this arduous work, should the gospel be propagated in Pagan countries, as among the Caffres, or inhabitants of Owhyhee or Otaheite, would not the individuals who would be found, in their different congregations, capable of judging upon every point of doctrine or government, however difficult, be much less numerous? Every Caffre or Hottentot however, upon the Independent scheme, who seemed to have as much knowledge as is necessary for salvation, and was enabled to exhibit a corresponding practice, would be recognized in effect as a ruler of the church; and to the judgment and vote of an assembly of such men, would every proposal of their clders, however superior in knowledge, necessarily be subjected, before they could be adopted and acted upon in their congregations*.

2dly, It seems clearly to be taught in scripture, that the power of ruling, whether by persuasion and advice, or by ministerial authority, is committed to some only, and not to all the members of the church indiscriminately. "Salute "all them that have the rule over you," says Paul to the Hebrews, (Heb. xiii. 24), “ and all the saints." Now, as we have already proved that the word which is here transslated rulers, most probably signifies, not merely presidents or governors by advice and persuasion, but authoritative rulers, is it not a natural consequence from the phraseology

* How would Messrs. Ewing or Little relish the submission of all their measures to the cognizance of such a court? Or, if pastors of congregations, like those mentioned by Paul, Heb. v. 12, (and if there were such congregations then, there may be many similag to them now), who, while they might have been teachers, needed to be taught again what were the first principles of the oracles of God; if pastors, I say, of such congregations, would they be will. ing that every point, however difficult and important, should be subjected to their judgment, and determined by their vote? In pres bytery, however, though there was not one of a congregation fitted to be an elder, to assist the pastor in the government of the church, this want could be supplied, by having recourse to the ministers of other churches met as a classical court of review, an expedient which is utterly impracticable to Independents.

in this passage, that as the saints are here distinguished from their rulers, every Christian member is not entitled to be such a ruler? Or, if it mean simply, as Independents alledge, persons who are to govern by advice and persuasion, is it not equally plain from it, that every saint is not to be such a governor*?" God," says the same Apostle (1 Cor. xii. 28), "hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, "prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healing, helps, governments."-Here it is necessary to remark, that in the whole of this context, from the 12th verse, the Apostle is speaking of the church of Christ under the emblem of his body, and affirms that in it there is a variety of offices adapted to the comfort and convenience of the whole, as in the natural body there is a variety of members, each of which is necessary to its happiness, and all of which are essential to its beauty. This variety of members, in the natural body, he asserts to be a proof of the Creator's wisdom, and contends that it is not only bene ficial to the interests of the whole, but that such is the dependence of one member upon another, that none of them has a right to look down with contempt upon the less honourable members. "For the body is not one member," says he (ver. 14), but many. If the foot shall say, Be66 cause I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it "therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, "Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, is it "therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an

eye, where were the hearing? if the whole were hearing, "where were the smelling? But now hath God set the "members in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if "they were all one member, where were the body? But

Glass, and other Independents, translate the word yoS which is rendered in our Bibles, rulers, guides. This, however, as was before evinced, is contrary to its usual acceptation in the New Testament, where it generally signifies rulers or governors. Besides, how could this term, upon the principles of Independents, if it signifies merely guides who had a right only to advise, be ap plied exclusively to the elders of the church? As the members in discriminately, according to them, have a right to advise as well as the elders, nay, as the opinion of the former may be adopted occasionally by the congregation, while that of the latter is rejected and set aside, have not the members frequently an equal, if not a superior title to this name, of being guides to their ministers or elders?

you,

"now are they many members, yet but one body. And "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; "nor, again, the head to the feet, I have no need of "&c." After which he informs us (ver. 27), that believ ers are the body of Christ; and observes, that in this body (ver. 28), God hath set a variety of offices for its edification, as striking, and distinct, and necessary, as the different members of the natural body. These offices he enumerates, and mentions among them, first," apostles;" secondarily, "prophets;" thirdly," teachers ;" then "miracles," i. c. as is plain from ver. 29, workers of miracles; then " gifts "of healing," i. e. as is evideat from the 30th verse, persons who have the gifts of healing; then "helps," i. e. persons who are helps; and then "governments," i. e. persons who are governors. Now, as he himself remarks, in stating this comparison (ver. 17, 18), that every member of the natural body is not an eye, nor an ear, nor endowed by its Creator with the sense of smelling, is it not equally incontestable, that when he also tells us, that in the church of Christ, which is his body, there is a diversity of offices no less striking, and that God hath set in it only some governments or governors, every member of that church cannot be entitled to the privilege of being a governor, whether this governor is to rule, as Independents say, by advice and persuasion, or, as Presbyterians contend, by the exercise of authoritative though subordinate power? On the whole, is it not manifest, that if the Apostle denies in the 29th verse, that all were to be apostles, because he had said in the 28th verse, that only some were to be apostles; and that all were to be prophets, because God hath set in the church only some to be prophets; and that all were to be teachers, because he had said before, that only some were to be teachers; is it not also manifest upon the very same principle, that as he had said before too, that God had set in the church only some governments or governors, all who are members of Christ's spiritual body are not to be admitted to be governors in his church, whatever may be the nature and degree of that power which these governors should exercise?

f Is it affirmed, in answer to this, according to the ideas of some Independents, that the Apostle, when speaking here of governments, intends not an office, but simply a gift or qualification for government, and that no argument of course, for excluding the members of the church in general from

being ecclesiastical rulers, can be deduced from its being said, that "God hath set in the church only some govern "ments?" We reply, that the argument against this first principle of Independency seems equally conclusive, whether the Apostle is speaking of an office, or of a gift; for, if he intends not an office, but merely a gift, will it not equally follow upon their mode of reasoning, that since those alone are to rule in the church on whom God has bestowed qualifications or gifts for government, and since, by their own confession, it is here declared that he has bestowed these gifts only upon some, all cannot be entitled to be rulers in his church? Besides, that the Apostle is here speaking of an office, and not simply of endowments, appears, among other things, from the original word here translated "set" or "constituted" in the church, which always, in such a connection as this, when the case admits it, denotes the appointment of persons to an office. It is so understood in this very passage, when it is said, that God hath set in the church, some apostles, and some prophets, and some teachers; and since by governments, as was before attempted to be proved, is here intended governors, there appears to be no reason for understanding it in a different sense when applied to them. It is the same word too which is used (Acts xx. 28), to express the appointment of the Ephesian elders, and not merely their gifts, to the official oversight of that Christian church: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves,

and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath « made" (sero), or set, or appointed" you overseers:" and is the very word which is employed, (2 Tim. i. 11), to denote the appointment of the Apostle Paul to his office :"Whereunto I am appointed (Tony) a preacher, and an

apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." Is it contended, moreover, that even allowing that an office is here intended by governments, it is deacons who are referred to? To this it is answered, that the Apostle seems already to have mentioned these under the name of helps; and that, at any rate, it is not the province of deasons, as such, to govern, but merely to serve tables, a meaning undoubtedly too limited and inadequate for the strong word which is here used by the Apostle to signify governments. Or is it allegedt, that

See Chandler on Joel, p. 150.

+ See Dr. Watt on the Christian Church, p. 73.