extraordinary cafes, laymen were allowed to fit in these courts and deliver their advice, and exprefs their concurrence. It was not however the members indifcriminately who obtained this privilege, according to these writers, but, while the reft were permitted to be present as auditors, it was the learned and intelligent only, who had been invited to the performance of this fpecial duty, that were allowed to fit as counsellors in the affembly. "Eorum (fays Junius, Cont. iii. lib. ii. cap. xxv. n. 2.) "qui conciliis interfunt, varia effe genera: Effe audientes

qui in doctrina et ordine ex auditione informantur : "effe doctos, qui ad confultationem adhibentur: effe "denique epifcopos et prefbyteros, qui decidunt res "ferendis fententiis:" i. e. "Of those who are present in "councils, there are various defcriptions of perfons: "Some are hearers, and are inftructed in the doctrine "and order of the church: fome are learned, and are "admitted as counsellors; and fome are bishops and

prefbyters, who, delivering their opinions upon the "fubjects which they examine, pronounce the decifions." And again (Cont. iv. lib. i. cap. xv. n. 15.), he says,

Qui fine authoritate ecclefiæ adfunt, eorum alii etiam ❝ confultationibus adhiberi poffunt, ut docti, præfertim "ecclefiaftici, fed dicere fententiam definitivam non "poffunt ;" i. e. "Of those who are prefent without the "authority of the church, fome who are learned, and "efpecially ecclefiaftics, may be admitted to the con"sultations, but they cannot pronounce a definitive "fentence." Whether this representation however be correct or not, it seems plain that even admitting that the people, in fome inftances, might be allowed to speak, it could be only as advisers; and even granting that fometimes they were permitted to vote, it could be only to fhew their concurrence, or fimply as an expreffion of their fentiments, for, after all, the power of decifion appears ftill to have belonged to the office-bearers alone.

Cyprian mentions (Epift. Iv. p. 96.) two different inftances, in which when the people had oppofed the restoration of fome who had formerly apoftatized, but afterwards exhibited evidences of repentance, to the communion of the church, he had himself received them. "Unus (fays he) atque alius, obtinente plebe, et contra "dicente, mea tamen facilitate fufcepti, pejores extiterunt, quam prius fuerant, nec fidem pœnitentiæ fervare "potuerunt, quia nec cum vera pœnitentia venerant ;" i. e. "One and another, who had been admitted by my "indulgence, though the people opposed it, turned out "worse than they were before, because they had come "again into the church without true repentance." This, however, would have been impoffible, had the people, who were unquestionably more numerous than Cyprian and his fellow-ministers, poffeffed an equality of ecclefiaftical power with him and his brethren in deciding upon this and other matters. Befides, had this been the cafe, how could he affirm, as we fomerly faw, that the perfons who governed the Numidian churches were the minifters, fince if the people were allowed any higher power than that of occafionally delivering their opinion and expreffing their concurrence, either by voting or otherwise, it was more really they who adminiftered thefe churches than the minifters and office-bearers? And how, especially upon the contrary fuppofition, could he reprefent it as lawful for none but the prapofiti in ecclefia, or the ministers of the church, to bind and loose, or remit and punish fin, fince if every member had a power of final judicial determination no less than the office-bearers, they would exercise this authority as well as their minifters, nay, on account of their number, would much more really have poffeffed it? Whatever occafional liberties then, for the fake of peace, might be granted to the people, to speak and vote in the congregations which were placed under the inspection of Cyprian, it is plain

that it must have been only to exprefs their acquiefcence in the decifions of their office-bearers, and by no means implied that degree of power in ecclefiaftical government for which Independents contend. He too, as well as Clemens, Ignatius, Jerome, Tertullian, and Origen, affirms, as we have seen, that it is the office-bearers alone who govern the church; and at the fame time, by a great variety of expreffions, clearly intimates that every measure was not then subjected to the votes of the members, and, by their decifion, adopted or set aside.

From thefe, then, and other teftimonies, it is contended that he conftitution of the primitive church, after the days of the apoftles, refembled the Prefbyterian and not the Independent fcheme. It is again requested however, that it may be carefully remarked that no argument is deduced from it for the truth of Prefbytery. Many errors existed, even in the earliest times, in the primitive church, and it is only as far as their principles and practice are fanctioned by fcripture that we are warranted either to admit or to imitate them.

SIR,

LETTER IX.

IF the government of the church is to be committed

only to a few, it comes next to be confidered who are these few? Are they the minifters alone, who feed the flock with knowledge and understanding, or have we reafon to believe that there are other elders affociated with them, who are fimply to rule and not to preach? The laft is the opinion of Presbyterians; and though it is in general denied by moft of the prefent claffes of Independents, was admitted by many of their most respectable predeceffors. Dr. Watts affirms (p. 125. of his

Treatise on the Foundation of the Chriftian Church), "that if it happens that there is but one minifter or "prefbyter in a church, or if the minifters are young "men of fmall experience in the world, it is ufual and "proper that fome of the eldeft, graveft, and wifeft " members be deputed by the church to join with and "affift the minifters in the care and management of this "affair (the admiffion and exclufion of members)." Mr. Thomas Goodwin, in his Catechifm on Churchgovernment, p. 19. exprefsly afferts, that there is a clafs of elders who are to rule and not to teach. Mr. John Cotton alfo, in his Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, chap. ii. fect. ii. p. 13.-35. contends that fuch elders are a divine inftitution, and represents it as very generally obtaining in these churches. The Weftminifter Independents, moreover, in their Reasons against the Third Propofition concerning Prefbyterial Government, p. 40. declare," that the fcripture fays "much of two forts of elders, teaching and ruling, and in "fome places, fo plaine, as if of purpose to diftinguish "them ;" and (p. 3.) "that the whole Reformed "churches had these different elders." And it cannot be denied that never was there a more ftrenuous or enlightened advocate for this order of elders than the great Dr. Owen, who may juftly be confidered as the most learned of Independents*. Venerable, however, as fuch names are, I hope it will appear that it refts not merely on their opinion and authority, but on the dictates of reafon, and the explicit teftimony of the word of God.

That the government of the church, then, fhould be vefted not merely in the elders who teach, but in a class of elders who rule and do not teach, conjoined with the former, appears to be evident from the following reafons.

* See his book on the Gospel-church.

In the first place, It has been obferved by fome of your brethren, that it seems to be taught in fcripture, that there must be a plurality of elders in every church; and from the maintenance which is requifite for every teaching elder, it appears obvious that they cannot all be elders who teach. That there must be a plurality of elders in every church, they tell us, is evident, among other paffages, from Acts xiv. 23., where we are told, that " Paul "and Barnabas ordained elders in every church *." The particular number of these elders is not specified, but it appears fit that it should be determined by the number of members. At any rate it is certain, that it can never properly be less than three; for if there were only two, and if they should happen to differ upon any point of discipline, or any cafe of government, no decifion could be made. But if, in every church however small, there can never be less than three elders, it feems obvious that all of them cannot be elders who teach. In your own fociety, as well as your fifter-focieties, the teaching elders receive a maintenance, which enables them to give themselves wholly to their particular function, without intermingling in the bufinefs of the world. This indeed is their juft prerogative. "Do ye not know," fays Paul (1 Cor. ix. 13. 14.), "that they which mi"nifter about holy things, live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar? Even fo hath the Lord ordained, that "they which preach the gospel, fhould live of the gofpel." And though minifters, in extraordinary inftances, like the Apoftle Paul, may give up with this right, nothing appears plainer than that it is not to be done in ordinary cafes. Reason and experience indeed

*See your brother Mr. Ballentine's Observations, p. 90.-95. and the Review of these Obfervations in the Miffionary Magazine, which quotes his fentiments with the most decided approbation.