3 -' 3 :i 1.3 
 
 SC5^1Q03 
 
Tukw < "Tdv^^ 
 
THE WARRANT, NATURE, AND DUTIES, 
 
 OF THE OFFICE OF 
 
 THE RULING ELDER, 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 BY SAMUEL MILLER, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN TH1 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY" 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY, BY THE 
 REV. WILLIAM LINDSAY, GLASGOW. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 JOHN REID & CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH:— OLIVER & BOYD. 
 
 LONDON:— W HI TTAKER AND CO. 
 
 DUBLIN:— JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 
TO 
 
 THE MINISTERS AND ELDERS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 Reverend and Respected Brethren, 
 
 The substance of the following Essay was de- 
 livered from the pulpit, in the form of a sermon, 
 more than twenty years ago, and subsequently pub- 
 lished. In consequence of repeated solicitation from 
 some individuals of your number, I have thought 
 proper to alter its form, to enlarge its limits, and to 
 adapt it, according to my best judgment, to more 
 general utility. It has long appeared to me, that 
 a more ample discussion of this subject than I have 
 hitherto seen, is really needed. And if the present 
 volume should be considered as, in any tolerable 
 degree, answering the desired purpose, I shall feel 
 myself richly rewarded for the labour which has 
 attended its preparation. 
 
IV 
 
 Such as it is, my venerated friends, I inscribe it, 
 most respectfully, to you. My first prayer in regard 
 to it is, that it may be the means of doing some 
 good; my next, that it may be received by those 
 whom I have so much reason to respect and love, 
 as a well intended effort to benefit the church of 
 God. 
 
 I am aware that some of my brethren do not 
 concur with me in maintaining the divine authority 
 of the office of the Ruling Elder, and, probably, in 
 several other opinions respecting this office advanced 
 in the following pages. In reference to these points, 
 I can only say, that as the original publication, of 
 which this is an enlargement, was made without the 
 remotest thought of controversy, and even without 
 adverting in my own mind to the fact that I differed 
 materially from any of my brethren, so nothing is 
 more foreign from my wishes, in the republication, 
 than to assail the opinions or feelings of any brother. 
 I have carefully re-examined the whole subject, and 
 although in doing this I have been led to modify 
 some of my former opinions in relation to a few 
 minor points, yet in reference to the divine warrant 
 and the great importance of the office for which I 
 plead, my convictions have become stronger than 
 ever. The following sheets exhibit those views, and 
 
that testimony in support of them, which at present 
 satisfy my own mind, and which I feel confident 
 may be firmly sustained. How far, however, the 
 considerations which have satisfied me may impress 
 more impartial judges, I cannot venture to foretell. 
 All that I dare to ask in their behalf is, that they 
 may be seriously and candidly weighed. 
 
 But there is one point in regard to which I an- 
 ticipate no diversity of opinion. If the statement 
 given in the following Essay concerning the duties 
 incumbent on Ruling Elders be correct, it is certain 
 that very inadequate views of those duties have been 
 too often taken, both by those who conferred and 
 those who sustained the office, and that there is a 
 manifest and loud call for an attempt to raise the 
 standard of public sentiment in reference to the whole 
 subject. That we make so little of this office, com- 
 pared with what we might do, and ought to do, 
 does really appear to me one of the deepest de- 
 ficiencies of our beloved church. That a reform in 
 this respect is desirable, is to express but half the 
 truth. It is necessary; it is vital. It has pleased 
 the Sovereign Disposer to cast our lot in a period 
 of mighty plans and of high moral effort for the 
 benefit of the world. In the subject of this volume, 
 I am inclined to think, is wrapped up one of those 
 
VI 
 
 means which are destined, under his blessing, to be 
 richly productive of moral energy in the enterprises 
 of Christian benevolence, which appear to be every 
 day gathering strength. When the rulers of the 
 church shall, in the genuine spirit of the humble, 
 faithful, and laborious Paul, " magnify their office ; 
 when they shall be found cordially and diligently 
 co-operating with those who ' labour in the word 
 and doctrine,' " in inspecting, counselling, and watch- 
 ing over the " flocks " respectively committed to their 
 " oversight in the Lord ; " and when they shall be 
 suitably honoured and employed in their various 
 appropriate functions, both by pastors and people : 
 this change will, I believe, be at once one of the 
 surest precursors, and one of the most efficient means 
 of the introduction of brighter days in the church 
 of God. 
 
 So far as we can anticipate events, this important 
 change must begin with the teachers and rulers of 
 the church themselves. On every one of you, there- 
 fore, if my estimate of the subject be correct, devolves 
 a high and most interesting responsibility. That 
 you may have grace given you to acquit yourselves 
 of this responsibility, in a manner acceptable to our 
 common Master, and conducive to the signal ad- 
 vancement of his kingdom, and that future genera- 
 
Vll 
 
 tions, both in the church and out of it, may have 
 reason to " rise up and call you blessed," is the 
 fervent prayer of, 
 
 Reverend and Respected Brethren, 
 Your friend and Fellow-servant 
 In the House of God, 
 
 SAMUEL MILLER. 
 
 Princeton, April 20th, 1831. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introductory Remarks — Nature of the Church — Visible and 
 Invisible Church — Unity of the Church — A form of govern- 
 ment for the Church appointed by Christ — Nature and limits 
 of ecclesiastical power — Summary of the doctrine of Presby- 
 terians on this subject — The proper classes of officers in a 
 Church completely organized — Positions intended to be esta- 
 blished, as affording a warrant for the office of Ruling Elders. — 
 p. 1—16. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Testimony from the order of the Old Testament Church — 
 Import of the term Elder — Specimen of the representations 
 given of this class of officers — Elders of the Synagogue — 
 Authorities in reference to the government of the Synagogue — 
 The titles, duties, number, mode of sitting, &c, of the Elders 
 of the Synagogue — Quotations from distinguished writers on 
 this subject — Burnet, Goodwin, Lightfoot, Stillingfleet, Grotius. 
 Spencer, Clark, Neander. — p. 17 — 33. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Evidence from the New Testament Scriptures — Model of the 
 Synagogue transferred to the Church — Specimen of the passages 
 which speak of the New Testament Elders — Particular texts 
 which establish the existence of this class of Elders in the 
 Primitive Church — Objections to our construction of these 
 passages — Answered. — p. 34 — 54. 
 
IX 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Testimony of the Christian Fathers — Clemens Romanus, 
 Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, Origen, Gesta Purgationis, &c., 
 Optatus, Ambrose, Augustine, Apostolical Constitutions, Iso- 
 dore, Gregory — Facts incidentally stated by the Fathers con- 
 cerning some of the Elders — Syrian Christians. — p. 55 — 83. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Testimony of the Witnesses for the Truth in the Dark Ages 
 — Waldenses, Albigenses — Bohemian Churches — Calvin derived 
 this feature in his ecclesiastical system from the Bohemian 
 Brethren.— p. 84 — 95. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Testimony of the Reformers — Zuingle, Oecolampadius, 
 Bucer, Peter Martyr, John A. Lasco, Calvin, Whitgift, Dean 
 Nowell, Ursinus, Confession of Saxony, Szegeden, Magdeburgh 
 Centurjators, Junius, Zanchius, Paraeus, Piscator, Cartwright, 
 Greenham, Estius, Whitaker — Ruling Elders generally estab- 
 lished in the Reformed Churches. — p. 96 — 117. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Testimony of eminent divines since the Reformation — Owen, 
 Baxter — English Puritans — of New England — Goodwin, Hooker, 
 Cotton, Davenport, Thorndike, Cotton Mather, Edwards, Kro- 
 mayer, Baldwin, Suicer, Whitby, Watts, Doddridge, Neander. 
 D wight.— p. 118—141. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Ruling Elders necessary in the Church — The importance of 
 Discipline to the purity of the Church — Discipline cannot be 
 maintained without this class of officers, or persons of equivalent 
 powers — The Pastor alone cannot maintain it — The whole body 
 of the church cannot conduct it in a wise and happy manner — 
 Prelatists and Independents both obliged to provide substitutes 
 for them. This provision, however, inadequate. — p. 14*2 — 159. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Nature of the Ruling Elder's office — Analogy between their 
 office and that of secular rulers — Their duties as members of 
 the Church Session — Their more private and constant duties as 
 " overseers" of the Church — Their duties as members of higher 
 judicatories — Question discussed whether they ought to be called 
 Lay Elders — Duties of the Church Members to their Elders — 
 Elders ought to have a particular seat assigned them. — p. 160 
 —180. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Distinction between the office of Ruling Elder and Deacon — 
 The persons whose appointment to take care of the poor is 
 recorded in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, were 
 the first deacons — The question discussed, whether they were 
 Deacons at all — Whether the first Deacons were preachers and 
 baptisers ? — Deacons were never Ecclesiastical Rulers — The 
 office of Deacon dropped by many Presbyterian churches — The 
 offices of Ruling Elder and Deacon united in the same men, in 
 Scotland and the United States — This not desirable — Reasons 
 for this opinion. — p. 181 — 205. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The qualifications proper for the office of Ruling Elder — It is 
 not necessary that they be aged persons — It is of the utmost im- 
 portance that they have unfeigned and approved piety — That 
 they possess good sense and sound judgment — That they be or- 
 thodox, and well informed in gospel truth — That they have emi- 
 nent prudence — That they be of good report among them who 
 are without — That they be men of public spirit — That they be 
 men of ardent zeal and importunate prayer. — p. 206 — 220. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Of the election of Ruling Elders — Who are proper Electors ? 
 — Ought they to be elected for life, or only for a limited time ? 
 — Of the number of Elders proper for each Church — Of those 
 
XI 
 
 who may be considered as eligible to this office — Whether a 
 man may be a Ruling Elder in more than one Church at the 
 same time.— p. 221—234. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Of the ordination of Ruling Elders — Ordination a necessary 
 designation to office — Proofs from Scripture — The laying on of 
 hands — Not always connected with the special gifts of the Spirit 
 — This ceremony ought to be employed in the ordination of 
 Ruling Elders — Probable reason of its falling nto disuse — 
 Authorities in favour of its restoration — Who ought to lay on 
 hands in the ordination of Elders ? — Advantages of imposing 
 hands in ordaining this class of officers. — p. 235 — 251. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 On the resignation of Ruling Elders — Their removal from 
 one Church to another — The method of conducting discipline 
 against v them. — p. 252 — 258. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The advantages of conducting discipline upon the Presby- 
 terian plan — It is founded on the principle of Representation — 
 It presents one of the best barriers against Clerical ambition 
 and encroachments — Furnishes one of the best securities for 
 preserving the rights of the people — Furnishes to Ministers 
 efficient counsel and support — Favourable to dispatch and en- 
 ergy — Accomplishes that which cannot be attained in any other 
 way — Favourable to union and co-operation in enterprizes of 
 Christian benevolence. — p. 259 — 277. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 The prosperity of the kingdom of Christ is an 
 object which the genuine Christian will ever assidu- 
 ously labour to promote. It is the prevalence of the 
 Christian faith alone which can effectually destroy the 
 numberless evils which afflict society, and direct to 
 a beneficial result the improvements and discoveries 
 which are made in the arts and sciences. The great 
 end for which the human race was first brought into 
 existence, was to show forth the glory of God; and the 
 highest perfection of which our nature is susceptible, 
 consists in the entire devotion of our powers to the 
 service of Heaven. The world in which we dwell 
 may be viewed as one great temple, in which adoration 
 and praise are to be paid to the Sovereign Ruler; and 
 those who busy themselves with the things which are 
 seen and temporal, to the exclusion of those which are 
 unseen and eternal, are chargeable with the folly of 
 preferring the decorations of the building to the pre- 
 siding Deity whose glory it illustrates. Love to God 
 should be the paramount feeling in every human breast, 
 and obedience to the sacred laws of Heaven the lofty 
 object to which all our exertions are directed. 
 
 The object of the mission of Christ to this world 
 was to restore the wretched sons of Adam to the ori- 
 
n 
 
 ginal dignity of their nature, and to place them in 
 circumstances in which they might be enabled to fulfil 
 the purposes of their being. In accomplishing this 
 glorious end, the Saviour did not merely, like many of 
 those who have aspired to be the teachers and guides 
 of mankind, diffuse through society information re- 
 specting the duties of life; but he appointed that all 
 those persons, who should be brought to concur with 
 the designs of God in the gospel, should be formed 
 into one body or association; and his followers are 
 required, by the love which he cherished towards them, 
 and which his death so strikingly displayed, to regard 
 each other with the tenderest sentiments of affection. 
 Christians are forbidden by the very spirit of their 
 religion to act as if they were isolated individuals, scat- 
 tered through society, and, like particles of sand, held 
 together by no bond of union : it is their duty to regard 
 each other as all one in Christ, and they should be 
 strongly united together by the cement of Christian 
 affection. And though certainly the Church of God 
 does not destroy our connection with other societies, 
 such as families and kingdoms, yet, because its objects 
 and the interests involved in it are immeasurably more 
 important than those of any other connection, we are 
 required in all cases of competition to give it the pre- 
 ference. We must regard our union with the Chris- 
 tian church as the loftiest privilege which we possess; 
 and we must cleave to it with unyielding tenacity, what- 
 ever sacrifices our perseverance in the service of Christ 
 may require at our hands. " If any man come to me," 
 says the Saviour, " and hate not his father, and mother, 
 and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea 
 and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 
 Every earthly affection must dwindle into nothing, when 
 compared with the love which we cherish to the 
 Son of God. 
 
 The Kingdom of Christ, then, comprehends under 
 its sway all those persons who are renewed in the spirit 
 of their minds, and united to the Saviour by faith. 
 
Its subjects, though living among the men of the world, 
 and united to them by the ties of kindred and country, 
 are a separate people, invested with privileges to which 
 others are strangers: they are mechanically, but not 
 chemically combined with the rest of mankind. And 
 their interest as a peculiar people requires that they 
 should ever be careful to keep themselves distinct from 
 the world ; mingling in its scenes only so far as the 
 business of life may require, and making all their 
 intercourse with the wicked, subservient to the design 
 of bringing them to a knowledge of the truth. 
 
 One of the means which Christ, the Head of the 
 Church, has appointed for preserving his people from 
 the corruptions which abound in the world, is the sys- 
 tem of control or of government which he has esta- 
 blished in his kingdom. Living in the midst of a 
 crooked and perverse generation, even the saints them- 
 selves are liable to be seduced into sin; and too fre- 
 quently, besides, does it happen that persons who have 
 never been truly converted, find their way into the 
 communion of the church; and therefore it was indis- 
 pensably necessary that means should be appointed for 
 ensuring the expulsion of unworthy and irreclaimable 
 members, and for restraining and confirming those 
 whose conduct might be in any measure suspicious or 
 wavering. It must, indeed, be evident to every per- 
 son who reflects upon the subject, that government is 
 as necessary to the prosperity of the church, as it is to 
 the welfare of civil society. Numbers of men cannot 
 act together, unless their proceedings be regulated by 
 some known and acknowledged principles; and in all 
 cases of co-operation the power must be vested some- 
 where, of enforcing upon individuals compliance with 
 the fundamental principles by which they are associated 
 together. 
 
 There is a prejudice, we are aware, entertained 
 by many against the very idea of the power of the 
 church; and it must be acknowledged that some ground 
 has been furnished for it, by the proceedings of person? 
 
VI 
 
 who have borne the Christian name. During the 
 period when the sway of the Papal power was undisputed, 
 the censures of the church were stript entirely of their 
 spiritual character, and instead of being employed to 
 reclaim the erring and to confirm the unstable, they were 
 prostituted to the advancement of worldly schemes. 
 Frequently were even monarchs, when they opposed 
 the will of the haughty Pontiff, made to tremble upon 
 their thrones; and though they might persevere for a 
 time in asserting their independence, they were gene- 
 rally compelled at last, with loss both of honour and of 
 influence, to submit to the spiritual tyranny which they 
 had rashly dared to encounter. Excommunication was 
 one of the most dreadful calamities which could befal 
 either prince or subject, for it excluded its unhappy 
 victim from the most common offices of humanity, and 
 placed him beyond the protection of law. Nor were 
 the rulers of the Romish church the only persons, who 
 fell into the dangerous error, of connecting civil punish- 
 ments with disobedience to spiritual authority: the 
 Protestants followed the fatal example which the adhe- 
 rents of Rome had set them, and for a long series of 
 years their conduct was such as too clearly to show 
 that they had deeply drunk of the cup which 
 bigotry and intolerance had filled. The opinion 
 indeed, it is manifest from history, universally pre- 
 vailed at the period referred to, that penal statutes 
 were the proper weapons by which uniformity of reli- 
 gious belief should be secured; and as every party of 
 course believed themselves to be in the right, and all 
 who differed from them to be in the wrong, the first 
 attempt of each, whenever the opportunity occurred, 
 was to force others to confess their supposed errors, 
 and publicly to recant them. The whole history of 
 England teems with proofs of the justice of these ob- 
 servations. Need we mention the long-continued and 
 cruel persecutions carried on by the Protestant Church 
 of England against the Puritans, which were more 
 atrocious, if possible, than any of the Popish persecu- 
 
Vll 
 
 tions, inasmuch as the difference between the Church 
 of England and the Puritans, in the first instance at 
 least, was trifling compared with the difference between 
 both and the Church of Rome. Nor were the Puri- 
 tans taemselves free from the foul stain of persecuting 
 for conscience' sake. Whatever opinion we may form 
 of them from their early history, their conduct after 
 the Great Rebellion makes it exceedingly manifest, that 
 they had been slow to learn the lesson which the bit- 
 ter experience of so many years might have taught 
 them. Many were the complaints thrown out against 
 the Government, especially by the Presbyterians, for 
 the slowness with which they proceeded to bring the 
 other parties to order, or, as the expression translated 
 into modern English signifies, to compel them to re- 
 nounce their religious opinions; and there can be no 
 doubt, when the unsettled and excited state of the. 
 kingdom is duly considered, that, if Cromwell had 
 not been a man of uncommon energy, and advanced 
 far before the age in which he lived in his notions of 
 religious liberty, there would have raged in England 
 as fierce a persecution as any of which we read in his- 
 tory. But though truth thus compels us to confess 
 that the Puritans themselves were tainted with the 
 spirit of persecution, justice at the same time requires 
 us to state, that they have the signal honour of being 
 the first who renounced the abominable and pernicious 
 principle, that one man has a right to constitute him- 
 self the judge of his neighbour's faith. 
 
 When these facts are considered, it will be readily 
 acknowleged, that the prejudice which many enter- 
 tain against the power of the church, is exceedingly 
 natural. In the hands of worldly and designing men 
 that power was converted into a weapon, which proved 
 the bane alike of the temporal and of the spiritual 
 interestsof mankind; anditneed not excite our wonder, 
 that men should dread the recurrence of similar scenes. 
 But widely different is the view which we entertain of 
 the power of the church: most unscriptural as well as 
 
 A 9 
 
Vlll 
 
 most unreasonable, do we regard the slightest approach 
 to the employment of civil pains and penalties for the 
 defence or support of religion. The power which is 
 vested in the office-bearers of the Christian church, is 
 derived solely from the authority of Christ; and it is 
 entirely of a spiritual nature, extending not to the 
 persons, but simply to the consciences of men. When 
 any member of a Christian society is walking in a dis- 
 orderly manner, whatever may be the nature of his 
 fault — whether a neglect of the ordinances of religion, 
 or impurity of conduct, or a refusal to contribute of 
 his substance for the support of the gospel — it is the 
 duty of the office-bearers to wait upon him, and in a 
 spirit of kindness to admonish him of his error, and to 
 urge him to repentance and amendment of life; but 
 should he refuse to listen to their reproof, should he 
 despise their authority, yea, should he even proceed to 
 the fearful extent of blaspheming the name of Christ, 
 the utmost length to which they are warranted to go, is 
 to declare that he can no longer be recognised as one of 
 their body. No power on earth may legitimately add 
 to this sentence. The excommunicated individual 
 retains all his civil rights, enjoys his property without 
 disturbance, and is as safe in his person as if he were 
 sovereign of the world. No civil disabilities, or bodily 
 inflictions, or loss of property should be connected 
 with the sentence of excommunication: the punishment 
 of spiritual offences is reserved by the Almighty in his 
 own hands. We are members of civil society by the 
 very condition of our birth; we become members of 
 the Church by receiving Christ in faith — two condi- 
 tions of membership which are fundamentally and ra- 
 dically distinct; and, therefore, to make the privileges 
 of the worldly community hinge upon the privileges of 
 the spiritual, is to join together things which have no 
 natural connection. 
 
 But here it will be said, that though the church has 
 confessedly no right to inflict upon any of her mem- 
 bers a greater punishment than exclusion from her 
 
IX 
 
 communion, yet the nation may, and ought to exclude 
 from civil privileges all persons who fall under the dis- 
 pleasure of the church. This is the old doctrine that 
 dominion is founded in grace, a doctrine which has 
 been the source of nearly all the persecutions that have 
 happened in the world. The principle proposed bears 
 a most striking resemblance to the principle upon which 
 the church of Rome defends her conduct. That church, 
 according to the pleading of her own friends, was never 
 guilty of inflicting temporal punishments upon any whom 
 she had declared heretics. She only pronounced the 
 scriptural sentence of excommunication, and then 
 handed the delinquents over to the secular arm of the law ; 
 and it was the magistrate who kindled the flames, while 
 the hypocritical priests with seeming earnestness im- 
 plored him, upon their bended knees, to have mercy 
 upon the wretched sufferers. But most people will be 
 inclined to think that there is no difference of any 
 real importance between this representation of the 
 case, and the view which is commonly received. If 
 I am to be excluded from civil privileges and con- 
 signed to the flames, it matters little to me whether 
 it be by the direct sentence of the church, or by the 
 state founding its proceedings upon the excommunica- 
 tion previously pronounced by the church. 
 
 Do we then deny the right of a nation to fix the 
 qualifications of its own rulers ? By no means. The 
 principle which we uphold is, that every nation has a 
 right to settle the form of its own government; yea, that 
 the legitimacy of any government depends, not upon the 
 length of time during which it may have existed, but 
 simply upon the fact of its being in accordance with 
 the national will ; and the principle opposed to this is, 
 that dominion is founded in grace, or that certain 
 descriptions of persons have a right to rule indepen- 
 dently of the nation's consent. The persons who have 
 a right to sit in the legislative assembly of a nation 
 are those who are fairly chosen by the electors, unre- 
 stricted in their choice, and voting for whom they 
 please. The character of Parliament must be deter- 
 
mined by the character of the nation. Any attempt 
 to regulate by previous law, independently of the 
 national will, what the prevailing sentiments of the 
 supreme assembly shall be, must prove highly per- 
 nicious : for infallibly it will either happen, that the 
 resentment of the proscribed classes will be roused, 
 and disorganization introduced into the framework of 
 society; or the required oaths and tests will degenerate, 
 by tacit agreement, into matters of mere form, and thus 
 will the foundations of the public morals be destroyed, 
 while at the same time the end for which this tremendous 
 sacrifice is made is not attained. If there are any 
 individuals who think that certain descriptions of per- 
 sons alone are qualified to rule, the course which they 
 should adopt is, not to advocate the enactment of laws 
 confining political privileges to men of their views, 
 but to labour with all their might for the diffusion of 
 what they esteem sound principles through society, that 
 the electors may be converted to their opinions, and 
 induced to support them. We are as deeply convinced 
 as any persons can be, that genuine Evangelical 
 Christians, men who have passed from death to life, 
 will always prove the most upright rulers, but we 
 should regard, as utterly futile and unjust, every attempt 
 which might be made to confine to them political privi- 
 leges by positive enactment. Such a system may be 
 practicable under a despotic government, but where 
 the elective franchise is enjoyed, the only course which 
 remains, is to diffuse the principles of pure and un defiled 
 religion throughout every corner of the land ; and 
 then it will infallibly happen, sooner or later, that the 
 governing power will receive a large infusion of prac- 
 tical Christianity. The electors are the fountain of 
 Parliament : make the fountain pure and the stream 
 will be pure also. And as it is only by the diffusion 
 of correct principles through the mass of society, that 
 a right government can be established ; so it is only by 
 the preservation of a right tone of feeling among the 
 electors, that the continued existence of such a govern- 
 
XI 
 
 ment can be secured. The favourite method to which 
 parties, when they have risen to power, have ever been 
 prone to resort, viz. the exclusion, by positive enact- 
 ment, of all who differ from them, is wrong in prin- 
 ciple, seeking fruit where the seed has not been sown ; 
 and it must prove utterly unavailing to stem the tor- 
 rent which a constituency, altered by the lapse of time, 
 will pour in upon the constitution. It is in vain that 
 one generation of men endeavours, by the use of tests 
 and prohibitions, to make any human institution bear 
 the impress of their own sentiments to the end of time ; 
 for each generation retains all the rights which any 
 preceding generation ever possessed ; and therefore, 
 whenever it happens that any institutions have ceased 
 to be in unison with the spirit of the age, they must of 
 necessity give way — brought down by the rude hand 
 of violence, where exclusive laws enacted in their favour 
 have been obstinately adhered to, or fading imper- 
 ceptibly away, like the snow before the increasing 
 power of the sun, where no test has prevented the 
 governing body from gradually adapting itself to the 
 changes of society. 
 
 Let those persons therefore, who are impressed with 
 the importance of having the reins of government 
 placed in the hands of genuine Christians, instead of 
 deploring the w r ant of exclusive laws to shut out Ca- 
 tholics and Infidels, labour to leaven the mass of society 
 with the knowledge of the truth. Christianity, in re- 
 forming the institutions and manners of a country, 
 does not begin with the government. It commences 
 with individuals, generally in the lower ranks of life : 
 its influence extends from one person to another : 
 imperceptibly the number of its adherents increases ; 
 the little leaven leaveneth at last the whole lump. 
 Christians thus gradually acquire more extensive in- 
 fluence, till at last their principles begin to control the 
 measures of government. But all the while their 
 power depends upon the hold which true religion has 
 upon the affections of the inhabitants, and any attempt 
 
Xll 
 
 to build it upon the essentially different foundation of an 
 exclusive test, destroys the moral influence of its charac- 
 ter, and leads to the fatal idea that the Christianity of 
 the statute book, may be regarded as a sufficient sub- 
 stitute for the Christianity of the country. The king- 
 dom of Christ cometh not with observation ; it is 
 within men, and there is more or less of religion in a 
 country — it is partly Christian and it is partly Infidel, 
 whatever acts of Parliament may say, just according 
 to the proportion which the genuine followers of the 
 Redeemer bear to the rest of the inhabitants. 
 
 In perfect accordance with these principles, and 
 leading indeed directly to them, is the doctrine of ex- 
 communication as laid down in the word of God. It 
 imports exclusion simply from the religious privileges 
 of the society whose fundamental laws have been des- 
 pised, but it does not imply any deprivation of civil or 
 political rights, any loss of property, or any bodily 
 suffering. The individual who has been expelled from 
 the church, as well as the individual who has never 
 been a member of it, retains every right which might 
 belong to him as a member of the community ; and 
 any evil or inconvenience which he may suffer, is alto- 
 gether of an indirect kind, not forming part of his 
 sentence, but resulting out of the diminished confidence 
 which his fellow-men, if Christianity be widely diffused, 
 will naturally feel disposed to place in him. 
 
 From the account which we have given of the nature 
 of ecclesiastical authority, and of the limits beyond 
 which it is never permitted to go, it must be apparent, 
 that the prejudices which many have entertained against 
 it, are altogether unfounded. The power of the church 
 is indeed nothing more than the right which every 
 voluntary society possesses, of excluding from its 
 membership those persons who despise and trample 
 upon its fundamental laws. It is the power of enforcing, 
 not by carnal weapons, but by the sanctions of the 
 spiritual world, by the prospect of a future judgment, 
 by the terrors of the Lord, the laws which Christ has 
 
Xlll 
 
 laid down for the regulation of the conduct of 
 Christians. And though some persons might be dis- 
 posed to think that the addition of a little temporal 
 suffering, either in person, or property, or rights, could 
 not hinder, but might rather tend to aid the effect of 
 the sentence of the church, yet the very nature of the 
 case stamps the seal of folly upon such an idea. The 
 value of the sentence of excommunication depends 
 upon the preservation of its spiritual character. If 
 any ingredients of an earthly kind are thrown into the 
 cup which the offender is required to drink, the con- 
 sequence inevitably is that a wrong motive is brought 
 to bear upon his mind ; and for the sake of avoiding 
 the temporal suffering, he may be strongly tempted to 
 make professions of a sorrow of which there is no trace 
 in his heart. But when the power of the church, 
 shorn of all those base and earthly accompaniments 
 which the wisdom of man has added to it, rises in 
 simple majesty, and addresses the conscience of the 
 offender, appealing to the future world, and to that 
 God who though unseen by us yet sees us all, it is 
 eminently calculated to produce a deep impression 
 upon the mind; and the manner in which the final 
 decision is received, will furnish an excellent criterion 
 by which the spiritual state of the individual may be 
 determined. Every person who is brought under 
 discipline by the church, should be made to feel, and 
 if visited with the sentence of excommunication, should 
 be sent away with the impression upon his mind, that 
 it is not his degradation or temporal ruin which is 
 sought, but solely the welfare of his immortal soul. 
 Temporal suffering, it is true, if it comes in the course 
 of God's providence, associated with the sentence of 
 excommunication, may produce the happiest results; 
 but if it is inflicted by the hand of man, and forms 
 part of the sentence pronounced by the rulers of the 
 church, it will either lead to hypocrisy, or to increased 
 open profanity. 
 
 Such is the nature of the authority which Christ has 
 
XIV 
 
 established in his church, and such are the only 
 sanctions which men are permitted to employ for the 
 purpose of securing attention to the institutions of 
 religion. In Presbyterian churches the power of 
 carrying these laws into effect, and of bringing these 
 sanctions to bear upon the consciences of men, is vested 
 in the sessions of particular congregations, and in the 
 associated office-bearers of all the congregations of a 
 district. 
 
 The Presbyterian form of Church government 
 appears to us to be founded in scripture, and to be 
 admirably calculated to promote the prosperity of the 
 body of Christ. The pastoral equality which it estab- 
 lishes, the representative character of its elders, and 
 the subordination of its courts, are excellent safe- 
 guards against injustice and tyranny; and furnish the 
 best means of preserving from encroachment the rights 
 of all the parties concerned. Presbytery differs from 
 Episcopacy in this, that while the latter recognises 
 different orders of teachers, the inferior deriving their 
 power from the superior, and placed under their con- 
 trol, the former places all Christian ministers upon a 
 level, and requires the designation to the sacred office 
 to be made by those who have themselves been pre- 
 viously appointed to it. The difference, again, between 
 the Presbyterian and the Independent forms of church 
 government is this, that among the Independents there is 
 no association of neighbouring churches for the purposes 
 of government, but each congregation is the ultimate 
 tribunal with reference to all the disputes which 
 originate in itself; while among the Presbyterians all 
 the churches of a neighbourhood are associated toge- 
 ther, and their office-bearers or representatives are 
 formed into a judicature, to which there lies an appeal 
 from the decision of each particular church. 
 
 But there is another feature peculiar to Presbytery, 
 which distinguishes it, both from Episcopacy on the one 
 hand, and from Independency on the other, and which 
 is indeed the most remarkable characteristic of that 
 
XV 
 
 form of government, we refer to the office of the ruling 
 elder. Among the Episcopalians, the ordinary mem- 
 bers of the church have no share in its government : 
 the bishop is the fountain of all power in his own 
 diocese, and the inferior clergy derive their authority 
 from him. Among the Independents, on the other 
 hand, the government of the church is vested in the 
 members themselves ; and there is no distinction 
 between the rulers and the ruled: they are identically 
 the same body. But the Presbyterians take a middle 
 and wiser course. They avoid the dangerous extreme 
 of investing any one man with uncontrolled authority, 
 and they avoid the no less hazardous measure of 
 elevating all to the rank of rulers. They place the 
 government of the church not in the pastor alone, nor 
 yet in the members indiscriminately, but in persons 
 chosen by the members, and acting as their represen- 
 tatives. Episcopacy is a system of despotic tyranny : 
 Independency is a pure democracy, while Presbytery 
 is that happy medium, which places the management 
 of affairs, in which all have an interest, in the hands of 
 representatives, in whose election all have a voice. 
 Presbytery, in a word, is founded upon that very 
 principle, viz. the principle of representation, which is 
 now universally regarded as the corner-stone of free- 
 dom, and which experience has shown to be the only 
 principle which can enable bodies of men to act, at 
 once with promptitude and in accordance with the 
 mind of the majority. 
 
 But whatever might be the advantages of the Pres- 
 byterian form of church government, and however 
 great the analogy between it and the principles which 
 experience has shown to be the best in conducting 
 the civil affairs of a nation, we at once acknowledge 
 that, unless it could be shown from scripture that a 
 foundation existed for it there, all such considerations 
 would be insufficient to prove its propriety, or its law- 
 fulness in the Church of Christ. The constitution 
 and laws of the Redeemer's kingdom are laid down in 
 
XVI 
 
 the sacred writings, and nothing is binding upon 
 Christians which cannot be deduced from the precepts 
 of the gospel. In all controversies, the appeal must 
 be made to the law and to the testimony : the grand 
 inquiry must ever be, What saith the Scripture? 
 
 The distinguishing features, then, of the Presbyterian 
 form of church government, are the equality of its 
 teachers, and the existence of a separate class, styled 
 ruling elders, whose office it is to manage the spiritual 
 affairs of the church. 
 
 In maintaining the equality of Christian teachers, 
 it is with the Episcopalians alone that we have any 
 controversy ; for the Independents allow, as well as 
 the Presbyterians, that there is only one permanent 
 order of religious teachers authorized by the sacred 
 Scriptures ; but the Episcopalians have several orders, 
 viz. archbishops, bishops, arch-deacons, deans, 
 rectors, &c. It is proper however to remark, that 
 the Episcopalians themselves do not maintain that all 
 their different orders are to be found in the Bible : 
 there are only two which they pretend to find there, 
 viz. bishops and presbyters, though they imagine, that 
 when once the princple of subordination is established, 
 there is no harm in carrying it out to a further extent, 
 and creating as many different orders as the circum- 
 stances of the case may seem to require. Is it true 
 then that there were two classes of Christian teachers 
 appointed by Christ to exist permanently in the church, 
 the one subordinate to the other? We believe the 
 very reverse to be the case. A small degree of ex- 
 amination will make it apparent that the bishop of the 
 word of God is the pastor of a single congregation, 
 and not, like the bishop of the Church of England, 
 the superintendent of all the teachers residing in a 
 large district of country. The main argument which 
 the Episcopalians employ in defence of their views, is 
 founded upon the fact that the ministers appointed by 
 the apostles, are styled in scripture, sometimes bish- 
 ops, and sometimes presbyters ; whence they hastily 
 
XVII 
 
 infer that, since these names are different, they were 
 intended to designate two different classes, or orders of 
 teachers. But every person who has read the sacred 
 writings with care, must be sensible that the names in 
 question are applied in numerous passages to the very 
 same individuals, and are frequently interchanged 
 without any restriction ; whence it plainly follows that 
 they were intended to designate not two different 
 classes, but one and the same class of religious in- 
 structors. It is sufficient to refer to the portions of 
 scripture which contain the evidence of these state- 
 ments. The following mav be consulted : Acts xx. 
 17—28. Titus i. 5—7. TPeter v. 1, 2. Phil. i. 1. 
 1 Tim. iii. 1 : in which passages the attentive reader 
 will find, in the first place, that the very same 
 individuals who are styled presbyters or elders, are 
 likewise styled bishops or overseers, or persons taking 
 the oversight of the church, which latter phrases are 
 all translations of the same original term; and secondly, 
 that when exhortations are given to persons holding- 
 office in the church, bishops and deacons alone are 
 mentioned, making it clear beyond reach of doubt, 
 that the teaching elders, or the pastors of single con- 
 gregations, are either addressed as bishops, or have 
 not been supposed by the apostles to stand in need 
 of any charge at all. 
 
 The second characteristic of Presbytery, which 
 distinguishes it equally from Episcopacy, and from 
 Independency, is its recognition of a class styled ruling 
 elders, whose office it is, not to preach the word 
 publicly, but to aid the preaching elder in conducting 
 the spiritual affairs of the church. There was a time 
 when this class of office-bearers was very extensively 
 acknowledged to be scriptural, both by the Episcopa- 
 lians and by the Independents, but it is now confined 
 to the Presbyterians; and experience has amply shown 
 that it is of immense importance to the welfare of the 
 Christian community. But it is unnecessary that we 
 should enter into any discussion respecting the office 
 
XVI 11 
 
 of the ruling elder ; for this is the very subject to the 
 consideration of which the following treatise is devoted. 
 Overlooking the first branch of the general question, 
 of which we have taken a hasty view, the author con- 
 fines his attention entirely to the second branch, viz. 
 the office of the ruling elder: and the scriptural war- 
 rant for this office, and its vast utility he establishes, in 
 our estimation, with a variety and force of evidence 
 which it is impossible to resist. The whole treatise, 
 indeed, is excellent, and it cannot fail to be of essential 
 service to the Christian world. The men especially 
 who have been ordained to the office of the eldership 
 should be familiar with its contents: the perusal of its 
 pages would greatly elevate their views of the sacred 
 office to which they have been called, and lead to 
 increased conscientiousness in the discharge of its 
 duties. 
 
 Such is the system or framework of government, 
 which Christ has appointed, as the means of dispensing 
 and applying that power of the church, whose pur- 
 poses we have described, and whose nature and limits 
 we have endeavoured to define. The elders, both 
 teaching and ruling associated together, are the persons 
 whom the Redeemer has invested with the power of 
 carrying into effect the laws of his kingdom. On 
 them is devolved the task of preserving the purity of 
 the church : to them are given the opportunity and 
 the means of exerting a salutary control over all 
 professing Christians ; their duty it is to instruct the 
 ignorant, to reclaim the backsliding, to confirm the 
 unstable, and to console the afflicted ; and according 
 to their decision are persons both to be received into 
 membership with the church, and expelled from her 
 communion. The highest sentence which the Scrip- 
 ture warrants, together with all the inferior steps of 
 discipline, the Head of the Church has placed in their 
 hands, as the means of counteracting and expelling any 
 leaven of wickedness whose presence may be observed, 
 
XIX 
 
 and whose unchecked growth might endanger the wel- 
 fare of the whole body. 
 
 These are duties, the bare enumeration of which is 
 sufficient to demonstrate, the vast importance of the 
 office of the eldership, and the high responsibility 
 which devolves upon those who undertake to act as 
 the spiritual overseers of the church. On their fidelity, 
 under God, depends the purity of the body of Christ : 
 on the right discharge of their duties is suspended the 
 fate of thousands. If they are negligent of the spiritual 
 functions which devolve upon them, and careless of 
 their own private conduct, they may be the means of 
 introducing a total degeneracy of manners into the 
 church, both by the admission of improper members, 
 and by the malign influence of their own example : 
 and thus the very name of Jesus may be brought into 
 discredit, and the prevalence of the principles of in- 
 fidelity be greatly accelerated. There can be no 
 question that the improper conduct of professing 
 Christians is the means of inflicting a deeper wound 
 upon Christianity, than all the malice and opposition of 
 the most powerful avowed enemies ; and that wound, 
 it is as little to be doubted, will be much more deadly 
 and severe, if the very hands which should be prompt 
 to apply to it the healing balsam, lend their assistance 
 to urge forward the weapon which inflicts it. How- 
 can the office-bearers of the church expect that, if they, 
 who should be patterns to others, live in carelessness 
 and folly, the ordinary professors of Christianity will 
 be distinguished for piety, and a diligent and faithful 
 discharge of their religious duties ? Is it not a fact that 
 all who make a profession of religion, are strictly 
 watched by the world ? Is it not a fact that those 
 persons who take office in the church are made the 
 objects of a scrutiny peculiarly close and searching ? 
 Are not all their actions observed ? Is not their 
 example appealed to in every house ? Is not their 
 misconduct employed by the dissolute to encourage 
 each other in their evil courses ? Yes, their sins are 
 
XX 
 
 seeds peculiarly quick to grow, which, falling upon a 
 soil entirely congenial to their nature, produce a most 
 abundant harvest. While they themselves are quietly 
 reposing upon their pillows at home, their example 
 sleeps not with them. Their inconsistencies may be 
 filling the bowl of madness, around which the mid- 
 night revellers sit ; or they may be employed to give 
 point to the argument with which the unbeliever assails 
 Christianity. It is generally allowed that the low state 
 to which religion was reduced in France, by the negli- 
 gence and errors of the Popish establishment, was the 
 main cause of that extensive and fatal triumph which 
 infidelity enjoyed for so long a period in that kingdom ; 
 and every corruption of Christianity, and every incon- 
 sistency of its adherents, tends in a greater or less 
 degree to produce the very same results. 
 
 But, on the other hand, let the office-bearers of the 
 church be sedulous and faithful in the discharge of their 
 important duties, admitting members with caution, and 
 counselling with unremitting watchfulness and affection 
 those who are already in communion; and how salutary 
 and enduring may the results of their labours be ! A 
 high tone of moral feeling will be produced and sustained 
 in the church : a holy emulation will be excited in 
 the bosoms of the faithful : the self-denial and devotion 
 of the office-bearers will transfuse themselves into the 
 breasts of the members : heavenly sympathy will 
 bind together the hearts of all ; and when at any 
 time the rulers of the church may be driven to the 
 dire necessity of exerting the full stretch of their 
 authority, their hands will be strengthened by the 
 countenance and approbation of those who are under 
 their care : and even in cases of difficulty and doubt, 
 where there may be room for misconstruction, the 
 experience which the members have had of their 
 former prudence and zeal, will inspire them with con- 
 fidence in the wisdom and integrity of their present pro- 
 ceedings. The elders indeed of a Presbyterian church, 
 occupy a peculiarly favourable position for exerting a 
 
XXI 
 
 salutary influence over the minds of their fellow- 
 Christians, and form an admirable instrument for 
 preserving the purity of the church, and administering 
 its laws. Chosen by the communicants on account of 
 their superior worth and attainments, they enjoy the 
 confidence of those over whom they preside, and are 
 regarded by them with that powerful sympathy which 
 voluntary choice, unless the objects of it are guilty of 
 egregious misconduct, never fails to inspire. 
 
 Is it not then apparent that elders are men in whose 
 hands there is placed a moral instrument of powerful 
 efficiency, and should they not therefore make it their 
 daily endeavour to wield that instrument in such a 
 manner, that it may be productive of good to the 
 Church of Christ ? Should they not labour to cultivate 
 personal religion, and to exhibit a walk and conversa- 
 tion becoming the gospel, that others seeing their good 
 works, may be stimulated to the cultivation of similar 
 graces ? In vain will they reprove the backsliding, if 
 their own piety be of a questionable kind. Should 
 they not study to acquire an accurate and extensive 
 knowledge of the sacred writings, that they may be 
 able to instruct the ignorant, and to resolve the doubts 
 of those who are involved in perplexity ? Should they 
 not take a deep interest in the diffusion of Christian 
 knowledge, and the enlargement of the Redeemer's 
 kingdom, giving their countenance to every plan of 
 usefulness, both that they themselves may be the 
 honoured instruments of increasing the glory of the 
 Redeemer's name, and that the energies of those who 
 are committed to their care may be directed aright, and 
 prevented from sinking into a state of listless inactivity? 
 Should they not strive to act with prudence, and cir- 
 cumspection in all the affairs which come under their 
 consideration, ever looking with a single eye to the 
 glory of their Master's name, that they may acquire a 
 larger share of the confidence of the Christian people, 
 and be enabled to exert over them the greater moral 
 influence ? Should they not labour to avoid even the 
 
XXII 
 
 appearance of evil, living in all godliness and honesty, 
 lest any actions of theirs, however innocent in them- 
 selves, should, in consequence of unfavourable circum- 
 stances, be converted by the wicked, who are ever prone 
 to judge harshly of the conduct of professing Christians, 
 into weapons of attack against the pure and holy reli- 
 gion of Christ ? Should they not, in a w r ord, regard 
 themselves as the guides of the people of God, stationed 
 over them for the purpose of exciting them, both by 
 precept and example, to the diligent and faithful dis- 
 charge of their duties, and responsible therefore in a 
 certain degree for their improvement, as well as for 
 their own ? To them indeed, as well as to the preach- 
 ing elders, may be applied most justly that striking 
 passage in the book of Ezekiel iii. 17 : " Son of man, 
 I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel ; 
 therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them 
 warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, thou 
 shalt surely die ; and thou givest him not warning, nor 
 speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to 
 save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his 
 iniquity, but his blood will I require at thine hand. 
 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his 
 wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in 
 his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul." 
 
 Such are the duties which the very nature of the 
 case demonstrates to be binding upon those who have 
 assumed the office of the eldership ; and such are the 
 fatal, and such the salutary results which the careless 
 or the diligent discharge of these duties is calculated 
 to produce. What ground then for serious reflection, 
 and what motives to unsparing self-examination do 
 these considerations suggest ! How fervent should be 
 the prayers which the elder of the church presents to 
 God, for strength to enable him to walk uprightly, and 
 for grace to guard him from every course which might 
 prove a stumbling-block to others ! Should not the 
 duty which he owes to Christ, and to the members of 
 the church be ever present to his mind ? The man 
 
XX111 
 
 who knows that he is wielding a weapon which may 
 prove fatal to the lives of others, should certainly give 
 especial heed to his movements: and the servant of 
 Jesus who knows that the gospel is a double-edged 
 sword, with the one edge powerful to heal, but where 
 its healing virtue is depised, powerful with the other 
 to destroy, should use his utmost efforts to bring its 
 salutary edge into contact with the consciences of men. 
 It it an awful responsibility which rests upon the heads 
 of those who undertake the spiritual oversight of the 
 Church of Christ. Stewards of the mysteries of God, 
 they are engaged in a task of the most momentous kind : 
 and their labours are productive of consequences which 
 extend through the duration of eternity. Their 
 employments have reference not to the fleeting interests 
 of this world, but to the immortal destinies of the soul ; 
 and when they neglect or abuse their spiritual func- 
 tions, they are pursuing a course which may involve 
 thousands in a ruin beyond the reach of remedy. 
 Theirs is not the negligence of the men who bring 
 misery upon themselves alone. Theirs is the negli- 
 gence of the guide, whose dying groans are mingled 
 with the groans of the victims whom he has led astray. 
 Like the general whose unskilfulness or folly has con- 
 signed his men to the sword of the foe, their blood they 
 commingle with the blood of others; and the sting of 
 their owm death must carry the concentrated venom 
 of a thousand dissolutions. 
 
 W. L. 
 
 \-Uh November, 1334. 
 
AN ESSAY, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY, 
 
 Our once crucified, but now exalted Redeemer, has 
 erected in this world a kingdom which is his church. 
 This church is either visible or invisible. 
 
 By the invisible church, we mean the whole body 
 of sincere believers, of every age and nation, " that 
 have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under 
 Christ, the glorious Head thereof." Part of these 
 are already made perfect in heaven. Another portion 
 are at present scattered over the earth in different 
 denominations of professing Christians, though not 
 certainly distinguishable from others by the human 
 eye. And the remainder are in future to be gathered 
 in by the grace of God; — when the whole number of 
 the " redeemed from among men," will be united in 
 one holy assembly, which is the " spouse," the " body 
 of Christ, the fulness of Him that filleth all in alL" 
 
 By the visible church is meant the body of those 
 who profess the true religion, together with their 
 children. It is that body which is called out of the 
 world, and united under the authority of Christ, the 
 Head, for the purpose of maintaining Gospel Truth 
 and Order, and promoting the knowledge, purity, 
 comfort, and edification of all the members. When 
 
Q 
 
 we use the term church, as expressive of a visible, 
 professing body, we either mean the whole visible 
 church of God throughout the world, or a particular 
 congregation of professing Christians, who have agreed 
 to unite together for the purpose of mutual instruction, 
 inspection, and edification.* 
 
 The word church is also employed in Scripture to 
 designate a church judicatory; that is, the church 
 assembled and acting by her representatives, the 
 elders, chosen to inspect, and bear rule over the whole 
 body. This, it is believed, will be evident to those 
 who impartially consult Matthew xviii. 15 — 18; and 
 compare the language of the original here, with that 
 of the original, and the Greek translation of the 
 Seventy, of Deuteronomy xxxi. 28 — 30. 
 
 The visible church is a spiritual body. That is, it 
 is not secular or worldly, either in its nature or objects. 
 The kingdom of Christ " is not of this world." Its 
 Head, laws, ordinances, discipline, penalties, and end, 
 are all spiritual. There can be no departure from 
 this principle ; in other words, there can be no con- 
 nection between the Church and the State; no en- 
 forcement of ecclesiastical laws by the power of the 
 
 * It has been asserted by some, that the term Church not 
 only means, strictly, a religious assembly — a body of professing 
 people; but that it cannot be applied, with propriety, to any 
 thing else ; and that it is altogether improper to apply it, as is 
 often done, to the building in which the assembly is wont to 
 convene for worship. This is, undoubtedly, a groundless scruple. 
 Under the Old Testament economy, it is plain that the word 
 synagogue was indiscriminately applied both to the public 
 assembly, and to the edifice in which they worshipped. Besides, 
 the word Church is evidently derived from the Greek words, 
 xv^ov oixo;, " the house of the Lord ;" and therefore, may be con- 
 sidered as pointing quite as distinctly to the edifice as to the 
 worshippers. Nay, it is highly probable that the word in its 
 original use, had a primary reference to the house rather than 
 to the assembly. And even if it were not so, still the under- 
 standing and use of the word in this double sense, if once agreed 
 upon, cannot be considered as liable, so far as is perceived, to 
 any particular objection or abuse. 
 
secular arm, or by " carnal weapons," without depart- 
 ing from " the simplicity that is in Christ," and 
 invading both the purity and safety of his sacred body. 
 
 This great visible church is one, in all ages, and 
 throughout the world. From its first formation in 
 the family of Adam, through all the changes of the 
 Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations, it 
 has been one and the same ; having the same divine 
 Head, the same ground of hope, the same essential 
 characters, and the same great design. Diversity of 
 denomination does not destroy this unity. All who 
 profess the true religion, together with their offspring, 
 however divided by place, by names, or by forms, are 
 to be considered as equally belonging to that great 
 family denominated the church. The Presbyterian, 
 the Episcopalian, the Methodist, the Baptist, and the 
 Independent, who hold the fundamentals of our holy 
 religion, in whatever part of the globe they may reside, 
 are all equally members of the same visible community; 
 and, if they be sincere, will all finally be made partakers 
 of its eternal blessings. They cannot, indeed, all 
 worship together in the same solemn assembly, even 
 if they were disposed to do so : — and the sin and folly 
 o men have separated into different bodies those who 
 ought to " walk together." Still the visible church is 
 one. All who " hold the Head," of course, belong to 
 the body of Christ. " We, being many," says the 
 inspired apostle, " are one body in Christ, and every 
 one members one of another." Those who are united 
 by a sound profession to the same Almighty Head : 
 who embrace the same "precious faith;" who are 
 sanctified by the same Spirit; who eat the same 
 spiritual meat, who drink the same spiritual drink; 
 who repose and rejoice in the same promises ; and who 
 are travelling to the same eternal rest, are surely one 
 body, — in a sense more richly significant than can be 
 ascribed to millions who sustain a mere nominal unity. 
 
 This unity is very distinctly recognized, and very 
 happily expressed by Cyprian, a distinguished Chris- 
 
4 
 
 tian father of the third century. " The church," says 
 he, " is one, which, by its fruitful increase, is enlarged 
 into a multitude. As the rays of the sun, though 
 many, are yet one luminary; as the branches of a 
 tree, though numerous, are all established on one 
 firmly rooted trunk ; and as many streams springing 
 from the same fountain, though apparently dispersed 
 abroad by their overflowing abundance, yet have their 
 unity preserved by one common origin; — so the church, 
 though it extends its rays throughout the world, is 
 one light. Though every where diffused, its unity 
 is not broken. By the abundance of its increase, it 
 extends its branches through the whole earth. It 
 spreads far and wide its flowing streams; yet it has 
 one Head, one Fountain, one Parent, and is enriched 
 and enlarged by the issues of its own fruitfulness."* 
 
 It is ever also to be borne in mind that the church 
 is not a mere voluntary association, with which men 
 are at liberty to connect themselves or not, as they 
 please. For, although the service which God requires 
 of us is throughout a voluntary one : although no one 
 can properly come into the church but as a matter of 
 voluntary choice : although the idea of either secular 
 or ecclesiastical compulsion is, here, at once un- 
 reasonable and contrary to Scripture : yet as the church 
 is Christ's institution, and not men's ; and as the same 
 divine authority which requires us to repent of sin, 
 and believe in Christ, also requires us to " confess him 
 before men," and to join ourselves to his professing 
 people ; it is evident that no one is at liberty, in the 
 sight of God, to neglect uniting himself with the 
 church. Man cannot, and ought not, to compel him; 
 but if he refuse to fulfil this duty, when it is in his 
 power, he rejects the authority of God. He, of course, 
 refuses at his peril. 
 
 Of this body, Christ alone, as before intimated, is 
 the Head. He only has a right to give laws to his 
 
 * De Unitate Ecclesice. Sect. iv. 
 
church, or to institute rites and ordinances for her 
 observance. His will is the supreme guide of his pro- 
 fessing people; his word their code of laws; and his 
 glory their ultimate end. The authority of church 
 officers is not original, but subordinate and delegated : 
 that is, as they are his servants, and act under his 
 commission, and in his name, they have power only to 
 declare what the Scriptures reveal as his will, and to 
 pronounce sentence accordingly. If they attempt to 
 establish any other terms of communion than those 
 which his word warrants; or to undertake to exer- 
 cise authority in a manner which he has not authorised, 
 they incur guilt, and have no right to exact obedience. 
 
 In this sacred community, government is absolutely 
 necessary. Even in the perfect holy and harmonious 
 society of heaven, there is government ; that is, there 
 is law and authority, under which the whole celestial 
 family is united in perfect love, and unmingled enjoy- 
 ment. Much more important and indispensable is 
 government among fallen depraved men, among whom 
 " it is impossible but that offences will come," and to 
 whom the discipline of scriptural and pure ecclesiastical 
 rule, is one of the most precious means of grace. To 
 think of maintaining any societj T , ecclesiastical or civil, 
 without government, in this depraved world, would be 
 to contradict every principle of reason and experience, 
 as well as of Scripture : and to think of supporting 
 government without officers, to whom its functions 
 may be intrusted, would be to embrace the absurd hope 
 of obtaining an end without the requisite means. 
 
 The question, Whether any particular form of church 
 government is so laid down in Scripture, as that the 
 claim of divine right may be advanced on its behalf, 
 and that, of consequence, the church is bound, in all 
 ages, to adopt and act upon it; — will not now be 
 formally discussed. It has been made the subject of 
 too much extended and ardent controversy, to be 
 brought within the compass of a few sentences, or even 
 a few pages. It may not be improper, however, briefly 
 a2 
 
to say, that it would, indeed, have been singular, if a 
 community, called out of the world, and organized 
 under the peculiar authority of the all-wise Redeemer, 
 had been left entirely without any direction as to 
 its government: — That the Scriptures, undoubtedly, 
 exhibit to us a form of ecclesiastical organization and 
 rule, which was, in fact, instituted by the apostles, 
 under the direction of infinite wisdom : — That this 
 form was evidently taken, with very little alteration, 
 from the preceding economy, thus giving additional 
 presumption in its favour: — That we find the same 
 plan closely copied by the churches for a considerable 
 time after the apostolic age : — That it continued to be 
 in substance the chosen and universal form of govern- 
 ment in the church, until corruption, both in doctrine 
 and practice, had, through the ambition and de- 
 generacy of ecclesiastics, gained a melancholy preva- 
 lence: — And, that the same form was also substantially 
 maintained by the most faithful witnesses for the truth, 
 during the dark ages, — until the great body of the 
 Reformers took it from their hands, and established it 
 in their respective ecclesiastical connections. 
 
 These premises would appear abundantly to warrant 
 the conclusion, that the form of Government which 
 answers this description, is the wisest and best ; that 
 it is adapted to all ages and states of society ; and that 
 it is agreeable to the will of Christ that it be universally 
 received in his church. All this the writer of the 
 following Essay fully believes may be established in 
 favour of Presbyterianism. There seems no reason, 
 however, to believe, with some zealous votaries of the 
 hierarchy, that any particular form of goverment is in 
 so rigorous a sense of divine right, as to be essential 
 to the existence of the church ; so that where this form 
 is wanting, there can be no church. To adopt this 
 opinion, is to take a very narrow and unscriptural view 
 of the covenant of grace. After yielding to the visible 
 church and its ordinances, all the importance which the 
 word of God warrants, still it cannot be doubted, that 
 
on the one hand, men in regular external membership 
 with the purest church on earth, may be hypocrites, 
 and perish ; and on the other, that all who cordially 
 repent of sin, and receive the Saviour in spirit and in 
 truth, will assuredly obtain eternal life, although they 
 never enjoyed the privilege of a connection with any 
 portion of the visible church on earth. The tenor of 
 the Gospel covenant is, " He that believeth on the Son 
 of God hath eternal life, and shall not come into 
 condemnation, but is passed from death unto life; 
 but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, 
 but the wrath of God abideth on him." 
 
 Still it is plain, from the word of God, as well as from 
 uniform experience, that the government of the church 
 is a matter of great importance ; that the form as well as 
 the administration of that government is more vitally 
 connected with the peace, purity and edification of the 
 church, than many Christians appear to believe; and, 
 of consequence, that it is no small part of fidelity to 
 our Master in heaven to "hold fast" the form of 
 ecclesiastical order, as well as the " form of sound 
 words " which He has delivered to the saints. 
 
 The existence of ecclesiastical Rulers, presupposes 
 the existence and exercise of ecclesiastical power. A 
 few remarks on the nature, source and limits of this 
 power, may not be irrelevant asa part of this preliminary 
 discussion. 
 
 When we speak of ecclesiastical power, then, we 
 speak of that which, much as it is misunderstood, and 
 deplorably as ithas been perverted and abused, is plainly 
 warranted, both by reason and Scripture. In fact, it is 
 a prerogative which common sense assigns and secures 
 to all organized society, from a family to a nation. The 
 doctrine attempted to be maintained by the celebrated 
 Erastus, in his work, "De Excommunicatione," viz: 
 that the exercise of all church power, however modified, 
 is to be rejected, as forming an imperium in imperio, 
 is one of the most weak and untenable of all positions. 
 The same argument would preclude all authority or 
 
government subordinate to that of the State, whether 
 domestic, academical, or financial. The truth is, there 
 not only may be, but there actually are thousands 
 of imperia in imperio, in every civil community in 
 the world; and all this without the least danger or 
 inconvenience, as long as the smaller or subordinate 
 governments maintain their proper place, and do not 
 claim, or attempt to exercise, powers, which come in 
 collision with those of the State. 
 
 Now the power exercised by the church is of this 
 character. Christ is the Sovereign. His kingdom is 
 spiritual. It interferes not with civil government. It 
 may exist and flourish under any form of political 
 administration ; and always fares best when entirely left 
 to itself, without the interference of the civil magistrate. 
 Accordingly, it is notorious, that the power of which 
 we speak, was exercised by the church in the days 
 of the Apostles, and during the first three centuries of 
 the Christian era, not only without any aid from the 
 secular arm, but while all the civil governments of the 
 world were firmly leagued .against her, and following 
 her with the bitterest persecution. But the moment 
 the church became allied with the State, that moment 
 the influence of each on the other became manifestly 
 mischievous. The State enriched, pampered, and 
 corrupted the church ; and the church, in her turn, 
 gradually extended her power over the State, until she 
 claimed, and in some instances gained, a haughty 
 supremacy over all rulers and governments. This is 
 an ecclesiastical power which the Bible no where 
 recognizes or allows. It is the essence of spiritual 
 usurpation : and can never have a place but where 
 the essential character of the religion of Jesus Christ 
 is misapprehended or forgotten. This abominable 
 tyranny, so long and so wickedly maintained in the 
 name of the meek and lowly Saviour, who, instead of 
 countenancing, always condemned it ; — has prejudiced 
 the minds of many against ecclesiastical power in any 
 form. On account of this prejudice it is judged proper 
 
to state, with some degree of distinctness, what we 
 mean when we speak of the church of Christ as being 
 invested with power for the benefit of her members, 
 and for the glory of her almighty Head. 
 
 It is evident that even if the church were a mere 
 voluntary association, which neither possessed nor 
 claimed any divine warrant, it would have the same 
 powers which are universally conceded to all other 
 voluntary associations; that is, the power of forming 
 its own rules, of judging of the qualifications of its 
 own members, and of admitting or excluding, as the 
 essential principles and interests of the body might 
 require; and all this as long as neither the rules 
 themselves, nor the execution of them, infringed the 
 laws of the State, or violated any public or private 
 rights. When a literary, philosophical, or agricultural 
 society claims and exercises powers of this kind, all 
 reflecting people consider it as both reasonable and 
 safe ; and would no more think of denying the right 
 to do so, than they would think of denying that the 
 father of a family had a right to govern his own 
 household, as long as he neither transgressed any law 
 of the State, nor invaded the peace of his neighbours. 
 
 But the Christian church is by no means to be con- 
 sidered as a mere voluntary association. It is a body 
 called out of the world, created by divine institution, 
 and created, as its members believe, for the express 
 purpose of bearing testimony for Christ, in the midst 
 of a revolted and rebellious world, and maintaining in 
 their purity the truth and ordinances which He has 
 appointed. The members of this body, therefore, by 
 the act of uniting themselves with it, profess to believe 
 certain doctrines, to be under obligation to perform 
 certain duties, and to be bound to possess a certain 
 character. Of course, the very purpose for which, and 
 the very terms on which the Master has formed this 
 body, and bound its members together, necessarily 
 imply, not only the right, but the duty, of refusing to 
 admit those who are manifestly hostile to the essential 
 
10 
 
 principles of its institution, and of casting out those who, 
 after their admission, as manifestly depart from those 
 principles. To suppose less than this, would be to 
 suppose that a God of infinite wisdom has withheld 
 from a body, formed for a certain purpose, that which 
 is absolutely necessary for its defence against intrusion, 
 insult, and perversion ; in other words, for its own 
 preservation. 
 
 Hence the Apostle Paul, after the New Testament 
 church was erected, speaks (1 Cor. xii. 28.) of " go- 
 vernments," as well as " teachers" being "set in it" by 
 the authority of God. He expressly claims, (2 Cor. x. 
 8,) an "authority" which God had given to his servants 
 as rulers in the Church, " for edification, and not for 
 destruction." And he exemplifies this authority by 
 representing it as properly exercised in casting out of 
 the church any one who was immoral or profane; 
 ( 1 Cor. v.). Hence the officers of the church are spoken 
 of as "guides" [vyovpivoi), "overseers" or "bishops" 
 (s5i-«rxofl-o<), and " rulers" (?r§os<rnyT^) : — and it is declared 
 to be their duty, not only to instruct, warn, and entreat; 
 but also to " rebuke," or authoritatively to admonish 
 and censure. They were commanded by the authority 
 of the Head of the Church (1 Cor. v. Tit. iii. 10.) to 
 " reject," to " put away from them," after using proper 
 admonition, those who w r ere grossly heretical or im- 
 moral. In short, in that period of gospel simplicity 
 and purity, the church claimed no authority over any 
 but her own members; and even over them, no other 
 authority than that which related to their character, 
 duties, and interests as members, and was deemed 
 essential to her own w T ell-being. 
 
 And as this power of the church is not self-created 
 or self-assumed, but derived from her gracious and 
 almighty Head; and as it is, and can, of right only 
 be exercised over her own members, so it is merely 
 spiritual in its nature; in other words, it claims no 
 right whatever to inflict temporal pains or penalties. 
 It cannot touch the persons or property of those to 
 
11 
 
 whom it is directed. It addresses itself only to their 
 judgments and consciences. It includes only a right to 
 instruct, warn, rebuke, censure, and cast out; that is, to 
 exclude from the privileges of the body. This last 
 step is the utmost length to which it can go. When 
 the church has excluded from her pale those toward 
 whom this power is directed ; in other words, when 
 she has declared them out of her communion or 
 fellowship, she has done every thing to which her 
 power extends. All beyond this is usurpation and 
 oppression. The great end of church government, is 
 not to employ physical force, but moral weapons only. 
 It can never invade the right of private judgment. It 
 can never exert its power over any but those who volun- 
 tarily submit to it. And it prescribes no sanctions but 
 those which have for their object the moral benefit ofthe 
 body itself, and also of the individuals to whom they 
 are awarded. The gospel knows nothing of delivering 
 men over to the secular arm, to be punished for offences 
 against the church. The church might, therefore, 
 exert her whole power, in its plenary extent, though 
 all the governments ofthe world w r ere arrayed against 
 her in the bitterest hostility, as they have once been, 
 and as they may again be found. 
 
 And, as all the power of the church is derived, not 
 from the civil government, but from Christ, the 
 almighty King of Zion ; and as it is purely spiritual 
 in its nature and sanctions; so the power of church 
 officers is merely ministerial. They are, strictly, 
 servants, who are to be governed in all things by the 
 pleasure of their employer. They have only authority 
 to announce what the Master has said, and to decide 
 agreeably to that will which he has made known in 
 his word. Like ambassadors at a foreign court, they 
 cannot go one jot or tittle beyond their instructions. 
 Of course, they have no right to set up a law of their 
 own. The Bible is the great statute book of the body 
 of which we speak ; the only infallible rule of faith and 
 practice. And nothing can be rightfully inculcated 
 
12 
 
 on the members of the church as truth, or demanded 
 of them as duty, but that which is found in that great 
 charter of the privileges as well as the obligations of 
 Christians. 
 
 To complete the view of that ecclesiastical power 
 which we consider as implied in church government, 
 it is only necessary to add, that it is given solely for the 
 benefit of the church, and not for the aggrandizement 
 of church officers. Tyrants in civil government have 
 taught, and acted upon the principle, that the great 
 end of all political establishments is the exaltation of 
 a few at the expense of the many. And it is deeply 
 to be deplored that the same principle has been too 
 often apparently adopted by bodies calling themselves 
 churches of Christ. Nothing can be more opposite 
 than this, to the spirit and law of the Redeemer. 
 The " authority " which the apostle claims as existing, 
 and to be exercised in the church, he represents (2 
 Cor. x. 8.) as given " for edification, and not for 
 destruction." Not for the purpose of creating and 
 pampering classes of " privileged orders," to "lord it 
 over God's heritage;" not to build up a system of 
 polity, which may minister to the pride or the cupidity 
 of an ambitious priesthood ; not to form a body, under 
 the title of clergy, with separate interests from the 
 laity of the church. All this is as wicked at it is un- 
 reasonable. No office, no power is appointed by 
 Jesus Christ in his church, but that which is necessary 
 to the instruction, the purity, and the happiness of the 
 whole body. All legitimate government here, as well 
 as elsewhere, is to be considered as a means, not an 
 end ; and as no further resting on divine authority, than 
 we can say in support of all its claims and acts, " thus 
 saith the Lord;" than it is adapted to build up the 
 great family of those who profess the true religion, in 
 knowledge, peace, and holiness unto salvation. 
 
 The summary of the doctrine of Presbyterians, then, 
 concerning ecclesiastical power, may be considered as 
 comprehended in the following propositions : — 
 
13 
 
 1. That the Lord Jesus Christ is the only King 
 and Head of the church, the fountain of all power ; 
 and that no man or set of men, have any right to con- 
 sider themselves as holding the place of his vicar, or 
 representative. 
 
 2. That the Bible contains the code of laws which 
 Christ has enacted, and given for the government of 
 his church; and that it is the only infallible rule of 
 faith and practice. 
 
 3. That his kingdom is not of this world ; and of 
 course, that the church can take no cognizance of any 
 other concerns than those which relate to the spiritual 
 interests of men. 
 
 4. That the power of church officers is not original, 
 or inherent, but altogether derived and ministerial. 
 They have no other authority than, as his servants, 
 and in his name, to proclaim the truth which he has 
 declared, and to urge to the performance of those duties 
 which he has commanded. 
 
 5. That nothing can be lawfully required of any 
 one as a member of the church, excepting what is ex- 
 pressly taught in scripture ; or by good and necessary 
 consequence to be inferred from what is expressly 
 taught there. 
 
 6. That the church being instituted by Christ for 
 the chief purpose of maintaining in their purity the 
 doctrines and ordinances of Christ, is authorized and 
 bound by Him to refuse admission to her fellowship 
 those who are known to be hostile to this purpose, and 
 to exclude such as are found to offend against this 
 purpose after admission. 
 
 7. That the discipline and penalties of the church 
 are wholly of a moral kind, consisting of admonition, 
 entreaty, warning, suspension, and excommunication ; 
 and that exclusion from the fellowship of the body, is 
 the highest penalty that can be inflicted on any delin- 
 quent. 
 
 8. That the apostolic church, though under the 
 bitterest persecution, was instructed by the inspired 
 
14 
 
 apostles, to excercise the power mentioned, and did 
 actually exercise the same ; and is to be considered as 
 therein exemplifying and teaching the principles which 
 ought to regulate the church in all ages. 
 
 9. That the church can excercise no authority over 
 any others than her own members. 
 
 1 0. That none can be compelled to be members, or 
 to submit to her authority any longer than they choose 
 to do so. 
 
 ] 1 . That the authority of the church cannot be 
 lawfully exercised for any other purpose than to pro- 
 mote the purity, order, and edification of the whole 
 body; and that, of course, any exertion of church 
 power, which has for its object the aggrandizement of 
 ecclesiastics at the expense of the body of the church, 
 is an unscriptural abuse. And, 
 
 12. Finally, that all civil establishments of religion, 
 in any form, or under any denomination, are wrong ; 
 contrary to the spirit of Christianity; injurious to the 
 best interests of the church; and really more to be 
 deprecated by the enlightened friends of piety, than 
 the most sanguinary persecution that can be inflicted 
 by the arm of power. 
 
 In every church completely organized, that is, fur- 
 nished with all the officers which Christ has instituted, 
 and which are necessary for carrying into full effect 
 the laws of his kingdom, there ought to be three classes 
 of officers, viz. at least one teaching elder, bishop, 
 or pastor — a bench of ruling elders — and deacons. 
 The first to "minister in the word and doctrine," and 
 to dispense the sacraments ; the second to assist in the 
 inspection and government of the church; and the 
 third to " serve tables;" that is, to take care of the 
 church's funds destined for the support of the poor, 
 and sometimes to manage whatever relates to the tem- 
 poral support of the gospel and its ministers. 
 
 The following essay will be devoted to the consid- 
 eration of the second class of these officers, namely, 
 
15 
 
 Ruling Elders ; and the points which it is proposed 
 more particularly to discuss, are the following: — The 
 church's warrant for this class of officers ; — The 
 nature, design, and duties of the office itself; — The 
 qualifications proper for those who bear it ; — The dis- 
 tinction between this office, and that of deacons ; by 
 whom ruling elders ought to be elected; in what 
 manner they should be ordained; the principles which 
 ought to regulate their withdrawing or being deposed 
 from office, removing from one church to another, &c; 
 and, finally, the advantages attending this form of 
 government in the church. 
 
 The question, whether the church has any warrant 
 for this class of officers, will have different degrees of 
 importance attached to it by different persons. Those 
 who believe that no form of church government what- 
 ever can justly claim to be, in any sense, of divine 
 right, will, of course, consider this inquiry as of small 
 moment. If the church be at perfect liberty, at all 
 times, to adopt what form of government she pleases, 
 and to modify, or entirely to change the same at plea- 
 sure ; then no other warrant than her own convenience 
 or will ought to be required. But if the writer of the 
 following pages be correct in believing that there is a 
 form of government for the family of God laid down 
 in scripture, to which it is the duty of the church, in 
 all ages, to conform ; then the inquiry which it is the 
 purpose of several of the succeeding chapters to pur- 
 sue, is plainly important, and demands our serious at- 
 tention. 
 
 It is believed, then, that the following positions, in 
 reference to the office now under consideration may be 
 firmly maintained, viz. that under the Old Testament 
 economy in general, and especially in the synagogue 
 service, elders were invariably appointed to exercise 
 authority and bear rule in ecclesiastical society ; that 
 similar elders, after the model of the synagogue, were 
 appointed in the primitive church, under the direction 
 of inspired apostles ; that we find in the writings of 
 
16 
 
 some of the early fathers, evident traces of the same 
 office as existing in their times ; that the Waldenses, 
 and other pious witnesses for the truth, during the dark 
 ages, retained this class of officers in the church, as a 
 divine institution ; that the reformers, with very few 
 exceptions, when they separated from the corruptions 
 of popery, restored this office to the church ; that a 
 number of distinguished divines and churches, not 
 otherwise presbyterian, who have flourished since the 
 reformation, have remarkably concurred in declaring 
 for the same office ; and, finally, that ruling elders, or 
 officers of a similar kind, are indispensably necessary 
 in every well ordered congregation. Each of these 
 topics of argument is entitled to separate consideration. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 TESTIMONY FROM THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT CHURCH. 
 
 It is impossible fully to understand either the spirit, 
 the facts, or the nomenclature of the New Testament, 
 without going back to the Old. The Christian religion 
 is founded upon that of the Jews; or rather is the 
 completion of it. The latter was the infancy and 
 adolescence of that body of which the former is the 
 manhood. And it is remarkable, that no class of 
 theologians more strenuously contend for the connec- 
 tion between the Jewish and Christian economies, and 
 the impracticability of taking intelligent views of the 
 one, without some previous knowledge of the other, 
 than most of those who deny the apostolic origin of 
 the class of officers now under consideration. With 
 all such persons, then, we join issue. And, as a very 
 large part of the titles and functions of ecclesiastical 
 officers, were, evidently, transmitted from the cere- 
 monial to the spiritual economy, it is indispensably 
 necessary, in order fully to understand their character, 
 to go back to their source. 
 
 The term Elder, corresponding with *pj, in Heb- 
 rew, and x£g<7/3tmeo? in Greek, literally signifies an aged 
 person. Among the Jews, and the eastern nations 
 generally, persons advanced in life were commonly 
 selected to fill stations of dignity and authority, be- 
 cause they were supposed to possess most wisdom, 
 gravity, prudence, and experience. From this circum- 
 stance, the term Elder, became, in process of time, 
 b2 
 
18 
 
 and by a natural association of ideas, an established 
 title of office.* Accordingly, the Jews gave this title 
 to most of their offices, civil as well as ecclesiastical, 
 long before synagogues were established. From the 
 time of Moses, they had elders over the nation, as 
 well as over every city and smaller community. These 
 are repeatedly represented as inspectors and rulers of 
 the people; as "officers set over them;" and, indeed, 
 throughout their history, there is every reason to believe 
 that the body of the people never, themselves, exer- 
 cised governmental acts; but chose their elders, to 
 whom all the details of judicial and executive authority, 
 under their divine Legislator and Sovereign, were 
 constantly committed. 
 
 The following specimen of the representation given 
 on this subject, in various parts of the Old Testament, 
 will suffice, at once, to illustrate and establish what is 
 here advanced. Even while the children of Israel 
 were in Egypt, they seem to have had elders, in the 
 official sense of the word; for Jehovah, in sending 
 Moses to deliver them, said, " Go, and gather the 
 elders of Israel together, and say unto them, the Lord 
 hath visited you, and hath seen what is done to you 
 in Egypt;" (Exodus hi. 16.) In the wilderness, the 
 elders of Israel are spoken of as called together by 
 Moses, appealed to by Moses, and officially acting 
 under that divinely commissioned leader, on occasions 
 almost innumerable. These elders appear to have 
 
 * It has been often remarked, that the ancient official use of 
 this word, as implying- wisdom and experience, is still preserved 
 in many modern languages, in which Seigneur, Signior, Senator, 
 and other similar words, are used to express both dignity and 
 authority. It is evident that all these words, and some others 
 which might be mentioned, are derivatives from the Latin word, 
 senior. It is no less plain, that the title of the magistrates of 
 cities and boroughs, who are called aldermen or eldermen, is 
 from the same origin with our modern term elder. Many of 
 the titles of respect, both in the eastern and western world, 
 were it proper to take time for the purpose, might be traced, 
 beyond all doubt, to a similar source. 
 
19 
 
 been of different grades, and endowed, of course, with 
 different powers; (Exod. xvii. 5; xviii. 12; xxiv. 1, 9. 
 Numbers xi. 16. Deut. xxv. 7 — 9; xxix. 10; xxxi. 
 9, 28.) From these and other passages, it would 
 seem, they had seventy elders over the nation ; and 
 besides these, elders over thousands, over hundreds, 
 over fifties, and over tens, who were all charged with 
 inspection and rule in their respective spheres. Again, 
 we find inspectors and rulers of the people, under the 
 name of elders, existing, and on all public occasions, 
 acting in their official character, in the time of Joshua ; 
 during the period of the judges; under the kings, 
 especially during the most favoured and happy season 
 of their kingly dominion, probably during the captivity 
 in Babylon ; and, beyond all doubt, as soon as they 
 returned from captiyity, and became settled in their 
 own land ; until the synagogue system was regularly 
 established as the stated means of popular instruction 
 and worship. 
 
 When the synagogue service was instituted, is a 
 question which has been so much controverted, and is 
 of so much real uncertainty, that the discussion of it 
 will not be attempted in this place, especially as it is 
 a question of no sort of importance in the inquiry 
 now before us. All that it is necessary for us to 
 assume is, that it existed at the time of our Lord's 
 advent, and for a considerable time before, and that 
 the Jews had been long accustomed to its order and 
 worship, which no one, it is presumed, will think of 
 questioning. Now, whatever might have been its origin, 
 nothing can be more certain, than that, from the 
 earliest notices we have of the institution, and through 
 its whole history, its leading officers consisted of a 
 bench of elders, who were appointed to bear rule in 
 the congregation ; who formed a kind of consistory, 
 or ecclesiastical judicatory; — to receive applicants for 
 admission into the church ; to watch over the people, 
 as well in reference to their morals, as their obedience 
 to ceremonial and ecclesiastical order; to administer 
 
20 
 
 discipline when necessary; and, in short, as the re- 
 presentatives of the church or congregation, to act in 
 their name and behalf; to " bind" and " loose," and 
 to see that every thing was " done decently and in 
 order." 
 
 It is not forgotten that a few eminent writers, follow- 
 ing the celebrated German errorist, Erastus, have 
 contended that there was no ecclesiastical government 
 among the Jews distinct from the civil ; and that, of 
 course, there were no rulers of the synagogue, separate 
 from the civil judges. Those who wish to see this 
 error satisfactorily refuted, and the existence of a 
 distinct ecclesiastical government among that people 
 clearly established, may consult what has been written 
 on the subject, by the learned Gillespie,* by Professor 
 Rutherford, f by Bishop Stillingfleet, % and others; 
 from whose writings they will be convinced, beyond 
 all reasonable doubt, that the civil and ecclesiastical 
 judicatories were really distinct; that the persons 
 composing each, as well as their respective spheres 
 of judgment were peculiar ; and that the latter existed 
 long after the civil sovereignty of the Jewish people 
 was taken away. 
 
 There has been, indeed, much diversity of opinion 
 among learned men, concerning a variety of questions 
 which arise in reference to these elders of the syna- 
 gogue. As, for example, whether there was a differ- 
 ence of rank among them? Whether some were 
 teachers as well as rulers, and others rulers only? 
 Whether there was any diversity in their ordination, 
 &c. &c? But while eminent writers on Jewish an- 
 tiquities have differed, and continue to differ, in relation 
 to these points, they are all perfectly agreed in one 
 point, namely, that in every synagogue there was a 
 bench of elders, consisting of at least three persons, who 
 
 * Aaron's Rod, &c: Lond. 4to. 1646. 
 
 f Divine Right of Church Government, &c: Lond. 4to. 1646. 
 
 % Irenicum. Part 2, chapter 6. 
 
were charged with the whole inspection, government, 
 and discipline of the synagogue, who, as a court or 
 bench of rulers, received, judged, censured, excluded, 
 and, in a word, performed every judicial act, necessary 
 to the regularity and welfare of the congregation. In 
 this general fact, Vitringa, Selden, Voetius, Marck, 
 Grotius, Lightfoot, Blondel, Salmasius, and, indeed, 
 so far as I can now recollect, all the writers on this 
 subject, who deserve to be represented as high authori- 
 ties, substantially agree. And in support of this fact, 
 they quote Philo, Josephus, Maimonides, Benjamin 
 of Tudela, and the great mass of other Jewish wit- 
 nesses, who are considered as holding the first rank 
 among Rabbinical authorities. Indeed, they speak of 
 the fact as too unquestionable to demand any formal 
 array of testimony for its confirmation.* 
 
 Accordingly, we find various passages in the New 
 Testament history, which refer to these ruling elders, 
 as belonging to the old economy, then drawing to a 
 close, and which admit, it would appear, of no other 
 interpretation than that which supposes their existence. 
 The following specimen will suffice; Mark, v. 22, 
 " And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the 
 synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, 
 he fell at his feet;" Acts xiii. 15, " And after the 
 reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the 
 synagogue sent unto them, saying, ye men and 
 brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the 
 people, say on." On this latter passage, Dr. Gill, an 
 eminent master of oriental, and especially of rabbinical 
 learning, in his Commentary, writes thus : — " ' The 
 rulers of the synagogue sent unto them ; ' that is, those 
 who were the principal men in the synagogue; the 
 
 * When the unanimous agreement of these learned writers is 
 asserted, it is not meant to be alledged that they all entertain the 
 same views of the elders of the synagogue, as to all particu- 
 lars; but simply that they all unite in maintaining that there 
 was, in every synagogue, such a bench of elders, who conducted 
 its discipline, and managed its affairs. 
 
ruler of it, together with the elders ; for there was but 
 one ruler in a synagogue, though there were more 
 elders ; and so the Syriac version here renders it, c the 
 elders of the synagogue.' " By this language, as I 
 understand the Doctor, he does not mean to intimate 
 that the other elders of whom he here speaks did not 
 bear rule in the synagogue ; but there was only one, 
 who, by way of eminence, was called, " the ruler of 
 the synagogue ; " that is, who presided at their meetings 
 for official business. It is plain, however, that, even 
 in this assertion, he is in some degree in error ; for 
 more than once we find a plurality of persons in single 
 synagogues spoken of as " rulers." 
 
 The learned Vitringa, who, undoubtedly, is entitled 
 to a very high place in the list of authorities on this 
 subject, is of the opinion, that all who occupied a place 
 with the bench of Elders in the Synagogue, were of one 
 and the same rank or order ; that they all received one 
 and the same ordination ; and were, of course, equally 
 authorised to preach, when duty or inclination called 
 them to this part of the public service, as well as to rule. 
 And in this opinion he is joined by some others, whose 
 judgment is worthy of the highest respect. But, at the 
 same time, this eminent man freely grants, that a 
 majority of the Elders of the Synagogue were not, in 
 fact, ordinarily employed in teaching or preaching; 
 that this part of the public service was principally under 
 the direction of the chief ruler, or Head of each 
 synagogue, who attended to it himself, or called on one 
 of the other elders, or even any other learned doctor 
 who might be present, and who was deemed capable 
 of addressing the people in an instructive and acceptable 
 manner ; and that the chief business of the mass of the 
 elders was to rule.* The correctness of this opinion 
 has been questioned. A number of other writers, quite 
 his equals, both in talents and learning, and especially 
 quite as conversant with Jewish authorities, have main- 
 
 * De Synag-oga Vetere. Lib. iii. par. i. cap. 7. 
 
23 
 
 tained, that a majority of the elders in the synagogue, 
 were neither chosen nor set apart to the function of 
 teaching, but to that of ruling only. But, in the want 
 of absolute certainty which exists on this subject, and 
 for the sake of argument, I am willing to acquiesce in 
 Vitringa's opinion. Suppose it to have been as he 
 alleges : this is quite sufficient for our purpose. If it 
 be conceded, that there was in every synagogue, a 
 bench of elders, who, as a judicial body, were entrusted 
 with the whole government and discipline of the con- 
 gregation : — that a majority of these elders seldom or 
 never preached, but were, in fact (whatever right they 
 might have had) chiefly occupied as ecclesiastical rulers ; 
 and that all ecclesiastical matters, instead of being dis- 
 cussed and decided by the congregation at large, were 
 constantly committed to the judicial deliberation and 
 decision of this eldership. If these things be granted — 
 and they are granted, in substance, by every writer, 
 entitled to be referred to as an authority, with whom I 
 am acquainted — it is all that can be considered as 
 material to the purpose of our argument. This will 
 appear more fully in the sequel. 
 
 These officers of the Synagogue were called by 
 different names, as we learn from the New Testament, 
 and from the most respectable Jewish authorities. The 
 most common and familiar name, perhaps, was that of 
 elders, as before stated at large. They were also 
 called rulers of the synagogue, — a title of frequent 
 occurrence in the New Testament, as applied to the 
 whole bench of the elders in question ; but which would 
 seem, from some passages, to have been, at least, some- 
 times applied, by way of eminence, to the principal 
 ruler in each synagogue, which principal ruler appears, 
 however, to have been of the same general rank, or 
 order, with the rest, and to have had no other precedence 
 than that which consisted in presiding and taking 
 the lead in the public service. These officers were, 
 further called heads of the synagogue; overseers, 
 or bishops ; presidents ; orderers, or regulators, of the 
 
24 
 
 affairs of the synagogue; guides, &c. &c. These 
 titles are given at length by Vitringa, * Selden, f 
 and others, with the original vouchers and exemplifica- 
 tions of each ; showing that they all imply bearing rule, 
 as well as the enjoyment of pre-eminence and dignity. 
 And, as these elders were distinguished from the 
 common members of the synagogue by appropriate 
 titles, indicating official honour and power ; so they had 
 also distinct and honourable seats assigned them, when 
 the congregation over which they ruled was convened. 
 The place of sitting usually appropriated to them, was 
 a semi-circular bench, in the middle of which the chief 
 ruler was placed, and his colleagues on each side of 
 him, with their faces toward the assembly, and in a 
 certain position with respect to the ark, the principal 
 door, and the cardinal points of the compass. This 
 statement is confirmed by the learned Thorndike, a 
 distinguished episcopal divine, of the 17th century. 
 In speaking of the consistory, or bench of elders, in 
 the synagogue, and describing their manner of sitting 
 in public worship, he makes the following statement, in 
 the form of a quotation from Maimonides, and confirms 
 it abundantly from other sources. " How sit the people 
 in the synagogue? The elders sit with their faces 
 towards the people, and their backs towards the Hecall 
 (the place where they lay the copy of the law ;) and all 
 the people sit rank before rank, the face of every rank 
 towards the back of the rank before it ; so the faces of 
 all thepeople are towards the sanctuary, and towards the 
 elders, and towards the ark : and when the minister 
 of the synagogue standeth up to prayer, he standeth 
 on the ground before the ark, with his face toward the 
 sanctuary, as the rest of the people." % 
 
 * De Synagoga Vetere, lib. iii. par. i. cap. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 f De Synedriis — passim. 
 
 % Discourse on the service of God in religious assemblies. 
 Chap. 3. p. 56. 
 
25 
 
 The number of the elders in each synagogue was 
 not governed by any absolute rule. In large cities, 
 according to certain Jewish authorities quoted by 
 Vitringa, the number was frequently very large. But 
 even in the smallest synagogues, we are assured, as 
 mentioned in a former page, that there were never 
 less than three, that the judicatory might never be 
 equally divided. 
 
 Such were the arrangements for maintaining purity 
 and order in the synagogues, or parish churches of the 
 old economy, anterior to the advent of the Messiah. 
 It would seem to be impossible for any one to contem- 
 plate this statement, so amply supported by all sound 
 authority, without recognising a striking likeness to 
 the arrangements afterwards adopted in the New- 
 Testament church. That this likeness is real, and 
 has been maintained by some of the ablest writers on 
 the subject, the following short extracts will sufficiently 
 establish. 
 
 The first quotation shall be taken from Bishop 
 Burnet. " Among the Jews," says he, " he who was 
 the chief of the synagogue was called Chazan Hake- 
 neseth, that is, the bishop of the congregation, and 
 Sheliach Tsibbor, the angel of the church. And the 
 Christian church being modelled as near the form of 
 the synagogue as could be, as they retained many of 
 the rites, so the form of their government was con- 
 tinued, and the names remained the same." And 
 again ; " in the synagogues there was, first, one that 
 was called the bishop of the congregation. Next the 
 three orders, and judges of every thing about the 
 synagogue, who were called Tsekenim, and by the 
 Greeks, *p*Gurtpi or yi^m. These ordered and de- 
 termined every thing that concerned the synagogue, 
 or the persons in it. Next to them, were the three 
 Parnassin, or deacons, whose charge was to gather the 
 collections of the rich, and to distribute them to the 
 poor. The term elder was generally given to all their 
 judges, but chiefly to those of the great sanhedrim. 
 
 c 
 
26 
 
 So we have it, Matthew xvi. 21 ; Mark viii. 31 ; xiv. 
 43; and xv. 1 ; and Acts xxiii. 14." " A great deal 
 might be said to prove that the apostles, in their first 
 constitutions, took things as they had been modelled 
 to their hand in the synagogue. And this they did, 
 both because it was not their design to innovate, ex- 
 cept where the nature of the gospel dispensation 
 obliged them to do it : as also, because they took all 
 means possible to gain the Jews, who, we find, were 
 zealous adherers to the traditions of their fathers, and 
 not easily weaned from those precepts of Moses, which 
 by Christ's death were evacuated. And if the apostles 
 went so great a length in complying with them in 
 greater matters, as circumcision and other legal ob- 
 servances, (which appears from the Acts and Epistles, ) 
 we have good grounds to suppose that they would 
 have yielded to them in what was more innocent and 
 less important. Besides, there appears, both in our 
 Lord himself, and in his apostles, a great inclination 
 to symbolize with them as far as was possible. Now, 
 the nature of the Christian worship shows evidently, 
 that it came in the room of the synagogue, which was 
 moral, and not of the temple worship, which was 
 typical and ceremonial. Likewise this pari ty of customs 
 betwixt the Jews and Christians, was such, that it 
 made them taken by the Romans, and other more 
 overly observers, for one sect of religion. And, finally, 
 any that will impartially read the New Testament, 
 will find that when the forms of government or worship 
 are treated of, it is not done with such architectonal 
 exactness, as was necessary, if a new thing had been 
 instituted, which we find practised by Moses. But 
 the apostles rather speak as those who give rules for 
 the ordering and directing of what was already in 
 being. From all which it seems well grounded and 
 rational to assume, that the first constitution of the 
 Christian churches was taken from the model of the 
 synagogue, in which these elders were separated, for 
 
27 
 
 the discharge of their employments, by an imposition 
 of hands, as all Jewish writers do clearly witness." * 
 
 The second testimony shall be that of the Rev. Dr. 
 Thomas Godwin, an English divine of great erudition, 
 especially in oriental learning. In his well known 
 work, entitled " Moses and Aaron," we find the follow- 
 ing passage : — " There were in Israel distinct courts, 
 consisting of distinct persons ; the one principally for 
 church business, the other for affairs in the common- 
 wealth : the one an ecclesiastical consistory, the other 
 a civil judicatory. The secular consistory was named 
 a sanhedrim, or council ; the spiritual, a synagogue. 
 The office of the ecclesiastical court was to put a 
 difference between things holy and unholy, and to 
 determine appeals in controversies of difficulty. It 
 was a representative church. Hence is that Die 
 Ecclesioe ; Matthew xviii. 16. f 
 
 The next quotation shall be taken from Dr. Light- 
 foot, another episcopal divine, still more distinguished 
 for his oriental and rabbinical learning. " The apostle," 
 says he, "calleth the minister Episcopus, or (Bishop,) 
 from the common and known title of the Chazan or 
 Overseer in the synagogue." And again, — " Besides 
 these, there was the public minister of the synagogue, 
 who prayed publicly, and took care about reading the 
 law, and sometimes preached, if there were not some 
 other to discharge this office. This person was called, 
 Hin^ n^btt?? the angel of the church, and nCDDn 
 ^n the Chazan, or bishop of the congregation. The 
 Aruch gives the reason of the name. The Chazcut 
 says he, is T2P8 rrbtt? the angel of the church, (or 
 the public minister,) and the Tar gum renders the word 
 HSin by the word nnn> one that oversees. For it 
 is incumbent on him to oversee how the reader reads, 
 and whom he may call out to read in the law. The 
 
 * Observations on the First and Second Canons, &c. pp. 2, 83, 
 84, 85. Glasgow, 12rao. 1673. 
 
 f t Moses and Aaron, book 5, chapter i. 
 
28 
 
 public minister of the synagogue himself read not the 
 law publicly ; but every Sabbath he called out seven 
 of the synagogue (on other days fewer) whom he judged 
 fit to read. He stood by him that read, with great care, 
 observing that he read nothing either falsely or impro- 
 perly, and called him back, and corrected him, if he 
 had failed in any thing. And hence he was called 
 Chazan, that is, e^ktko^o;, Bishop, or Overseer. Cer- 
 tainly the signification of the words bishop and angel 
 of the church, had been determined with less noise, 
 if recourse had been had to the proper fountains, and 
 men had not vainly disputed about the signification of 
 words taken I know not whence. The service and 
 worship of the temple being abolished, as being cere- 
 monial, God transplanted the worship and public 
 adoration of God used in the synagogues, which was 
 moral, into the Christian church, viz. the public 
 ministry, public prayers, reading God's word, and 
 preaching, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of 
 the gospel were the very same, the angel of the church, 
 and the bishop, which belonged to the ministers in 
 the synagogues. " There was in every synagogue a 
 bench of three. This bench consisted of three elders, 
 rightly and by imposition of hands preferred to the 
 eldership." " There were also three deacons, or 
 almoners, on which was the care of the poor." * 
 
 In another place, the same learned orientalist, says, 
 describing the worship in the Jewish synagogue: — 
 " In the body of the church the congregation met, 
 and prayed and heard the law, and the manner of their 
 sitting was this, — The elders sat near the chancel, 
 with their faces down the church ; and the people sat 
 one form behind another, with their faces up the 
 church, towards the chancel and the elders. Of these 
 elders there were some that had rule and office in the 
 synagogue, and some that had not. And this distinc- 
 tion the apostle seemeth to allude unto, in that much 
 
 * Lightfoot's Works, Vol. T. p. 308. Vol. II. pp. 133, 755. 
 
disputed text, 1 Tim. v. 18. * The elders that rule 
 well,' &c. ; where 6 the elders that ruled well ' are set 
 not only in opposition to those that ruled ill, but to 
 those that ruled not at all. We may see then, whence 
 these titles and epithets in the New Testament are 
 taken, namely, from the common platform and consti- 
 tution of the synagogues, where Angelus Ecclesice, 
 and Episcopus were terms of so ordinary use and 
 knowledge. And we may observe from whence the 
 apostle taketh his expressions, when he speaketh of 
 some elders ruling, and labouring in word and doctrine, 
 and some not ; namely, from the same platform and 
 constitution of the synagogue, where ' the ruler of the 
 synagogue ' was more singularly for ruling the affairs 
 of the synagogue, and ' the minister of the congrega- 
 tion,' labouring in the word, and reading the law, and 
 in doctrine about the preaching of it. Both these 
 together are sometimes called jointly, c the rulers of 
 the synagogue;' Acts xiii. 15; Mark v. 22; being 
 both elders that ruled ; but the title is more singularly 
 given to the first of them." * 
 
 Again, he says : — " In all the Jews' synagogues 
 there were Parnasin, deacons, or such as had care of 
 the poor, whose work it was to gather alms for them 
 from the congregation, and to distribute it to them. 
 That needful office is here (Acts vi.) translated into 
 the Christian church, f 
 
 The fourth quotation shall be taken from Dr. (after- 
 wards Bishop) Stillingfleet, who, in his Irenicwn, 
 maintains a similar position with confidence and zeal. 
 The following is a specimen of his language : — " That 
 which we lay, then, as a foundation, whereby to clear 
 what apostolical practice was, is that the apostles, in 
 forming churches, did observe the customs of the 
 Jewish synagogue."^ Ariel in support of this position, 
 
 * Lightfoot : s Works, vol. i. pp. Gil, 612. 
 f Ibid, i. 279. 
 
 J Ireuicura. Part 2, chapter G. 
 c2 
 
30 
 
 particularly in reference to the eldership of the syna- 
 gogue, he quotes a large number of the most distin- 
 guished writers, both Jewish and Christian. It is due 
 to candour, indeed, to state, that Stillingfleet does not 
 admit that any of the elders, either of the synagogue, 
 or of the primitive church, were lay elders, but thinks 
 they were all invested with some kind of clerical 
 character. This, however, as before remarked, does 
 not at all affect the value of his testimony to the 
 general fact, that, in every synagogue there was a 
 consistory, or judicatory of elders, and that the same 
 class of officers was adopted, both name and thing, in 
 the apostolic church, which he unequivocally asserts 
 and proves. 
 
 In the same general doctrine, Grotius and Salma- 
 sius of Holland, decisively concur. By Grotius, the 
 following strong and unqualified language is used : — 
 " The whole polity or order (regimen) of the churches 
 of Christ, was conformed to the model of the Jewish 
 synagogue." And, again, speaking of ordination by 
 the imposition of hands, he says, — " This method was 
 observed in setting apart the rulers and elders of the 
 synagogue; and thence the custom passed into the 
 Christian church."* Salmasius also, and other writers 
 of equally profound learning, might be quoted as 
 unequivocally deciding, that the synagogue had a 
 bench of ruling elders, and that a similar bench, after 
 that model, was constituted in the Christian church. 
 Especially, he contends that the elders of the church 
 were, beyond all doubt, taken from the eldership in 
 the synagogue, f 
 
 The learned Spencer, a divine of the church of 
 England, in the seventeenth century, teaches the same 
 general doctrine, when he says, — " The apostles also, 
 that this reformation (the change from the Old to the 
 
 * Grotii Annotationes in Act. Apost. vi. xi. 
 f De Prhnatu Papoe. cap. i. 
 
31 
 * 
 
 New Testament dispensation) might proceed gently, 
 and without noise, received into the Christian church 
 many of those institutions which had been long in use 
 among the Jews. Among the number of these may 
 be reckoned, the imposition of hands, bishops, elders, 
 and deacons, excommunication, ordination, and other 
 things familiar to learned men."* 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke, whose eminent learn- 
 ing no competent judge will question, also bears testi- 
 mony, that in every Jewish synagogue, at the time of 
 the coming of Christ, and before, there was an 
 ecclesiastical judicatory, or little court, whose duty it 
 was to conduct the spiritual government of each con- 
 gregation. Among several places in which he makes 
 this statement, the following is decisive : — In his Com- 
 mentary on James ii. 2, he says, — " In ancient times 
 petty courts of judicature were held in the synagogues, 
 as Yitringa has sufficiently proved, De Vet. Syn. 1.3: 
 and it is probable that the case here adduced was one 
 of a judicial kind; where of the two parties, one was 
 rich, and the other poor ; and the master or ruler of 
 the synagogue, or he who presided in this court, paid 
 particular deference to the rich man, and neglected 
 the poor person ; though as plaintiff and defendant, 
 they were equal in the eye of justice." 
 
 I shall cite on this subject only one more authority, 
 that of the celebrated Augustus Neander, professor in 
 the university of Berlin, and generally considered as, 
 perhaps, more profoundly skilled in Christian antiqui- 
 ties, than any other man now living. He is, moreover, 
 a minister of the Lutheran church, and, of course, 
 has no sectarian spirit to gratify in vindicating Pres- 
 byterianism. And, what is not unworthy of notice, 
 being himself of Jewish extraction, he has enjoyed the 
 highest advantages for exploring the peculiar polity of 
 that people. After showing at some length, that the 
 government of the primitive church was not monar- 
 
 * De Legibus Hebrceorum, Lib. iii. Dissert. 1. cap. 2. sect. 4. 
 
m 
 
 chical or prelatical, but dictated throughout by a spirit 
 of mutual love, counsel, and prayer, he goes on to 
 express himself thus : " We may suppose that where 
 any thing could be found in the way of church forms, 
 which was consistent with this spirit, it would be 
 willingly appropriated by the Christian community. 
 Now there happened to be in the Jewish synagogue, 
 a system of government of this nature, not monarchical, 
 but rather aristocratical (or a government of the 
 most venerable and excellent.) A council of elders, 
 D^Dpt *•&*&*%«> conducted all the affairs of that body. 
 It seemed most natural that Christianity, developing 
 itself from the Jewish religion, should take this form 
 of government. This form must also have appeared 
 natural and appropriate to the Roman citizens, since 
 their nation had, from the earliest times, been, to some 
 extent, under the control of a senate, composed of 
 senators, or elders. When the church was placed 
 under a council of elders, they did not always happen 
 to be the oldest in reference to years; but the term 
 expressive of age here, was, as in the Latin Senatus, and 
 in the Greek y^evna, expressive of worth or merit. Be- 
 sides the common name of these overseers of the 
 church, to wit, «•£««£»«£«, there were many other names 
 given, according to the peculiar situation occupied by 
 the individual, or rather his peculiar field of labour ; 
 as *m(un$, shepherds ; wyovpsvoi leaders ; a*£«6*w»«s rav a,hxq>uv, 
 rulers of the brethren; and saw***"*, overseers."* 
 
 Now, if in the ancient Jewish synagogue, the 
 government of the congregation was not vested, either 
 in the people at large, or in any single individual, but 
 in a bench of elders; if this is acknowledged on all hands, 
 as one of the clearest and most indubitable facts in Jewish 
 antiquity; and if, in the judgment of the most learned 
 and pious divines that ever lived, both episcopal and 
 non-episcopal, the New Testament church was formed 
 after the model of the Jewish synagogue, and not 
 
 * Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. pp. 283, 285. 
 
S3 
 
 after the pattern of the temple service; we may, of 
 course, expect to find some evidence of this in the 
 history of the apostolic churches. How far this ex- 
 pectation is realized, will be seen in the next 
 chapter. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE OFFICE FROM THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 
 
 In this chapter it is proposed to show, that the office 
 in question is mentioned in the New Testament, as 
 existing in the apostolic church ; that it was adopted 
 from the synagogue, and that it occupied, in substance, 
 the same place in the days of the apostles, that it now 
 occupies in our truly primitive and Scriptural church. 
 The first assertion is, that this class of officers was 
 adopted in the church of Christ, under its New Testa- 
 ment form, after the model of the synagogue. Some 
 have said, indeed, that the apostles adopted the model 
 of the temple, and not of the synagogue service, in 
 the organization of the church. But the slightest im- 
 partial attention to facts, will be sufficient, it is believed, 
 to disprove this assertion. If we compare the titles, 
 the powers, the duties, and the ordination of the officers 
 of the Christian church, as well as the nature and 
 order of its public service, as established by the apostles, 
 with the temple and the synagogue systems respectively, 
 we shall find the organization and service of the 
 church to resemble the temple in scarcely any thing, 
 while they resemble the synagogue in almost every 
 thing. There were bishops, elders, and deacons, in 
 the synagogue ; but no officers bearing these titles, or 
 performing similar functions in the temple. There 
 was ordination by the imposition of hands in the 
 
35 
 
 synagogue; but no such ordination in the temple. 
 There were reading the Scriptures, expounding them, 
 and public prayers, every Sabbath day in the syna- 
 gogue, while the body of the people went up to the 
 temple only three times a year, and even then to 
 attend on a very different service. In the synagogue, 
 there was a system established, which included a 
 weekly provision, not only for the instruction and 
 devotions of the people, but also for the maintenance 
 of discipline, and the care of the poor; while scarcely 
 any thing of this kind was to be found in the temple. 
 Now, in all these respects, and in many more which 
 might be mentioned, the Christian church followed 
 the synagogue model, and departed from that of the 
 temple. Could we trace a resemblance only in one 
 or a few points, it might be considered as accidental ; 
 but the resemblance is so close, so striking, and extends 
 to so many particulars, as to arrest the attention of the 
 most careless inquirer. It was, indeed, notoriously 
 so great in the early ages, that the heathen frequently 
 suspected Christian churches of being Jewish syna- 
 gogues in disguise, and stigmatized them as such 
 accordingly. 
 
 And when it is considered that all the first converts 
 to Christianity were Jews ; that they had been accus- 
 tomed to the offices and service of the synagogue 
 during their whole lives; that they came into the 
 church with all the feelings and habits connected with 
 their old institutions strongly prevalent; and that the 
 organization and service of the synagogue were of a 
 moral nature, in all their leading characters, proper to 
 be adopted under any dispensation ; while the typical 
 and ceremonial service of the temple was then done 
 away; when these things are considered, will it not 
 appear perfectly natural that the apostles, themselves 
 native Jews, should be disposed to make as little change 
 in converting synagogues into Christian churches, as 
 was consistent with the spirituality of the new dispen- 
 sation ? That the synagogue model, therefore, should 
 
36 
 
 be adopted, would seem beforehand, to be the most 
 probable of all events,. Nor is this a new or sectarian 
 notion. Whoever looks into the writings of some of 
 the early fathers, of the reformers, and of a large portion 
 of the most learned men who have adorned the church 
 of Christ, subsequently to the reformation, will find a 
 very remarkable concurrence of opinion that such was 
 the model really adopted in the organization of the 
 apostolic church. Most of the distinguished writers 
 whose names are mentioned in the preceding chapter, 
 are, as we have seen, unanimous and zealous in main- 
 taining this position. 
 
 Accordingly, as soon as we begin to read of the 
 apostles organizing churches on the New Testament 
 plan, we find them instituting officers of precisely the 
 same nature, and bestowing on them, for the most part, 
 the very same titles to which they had been accustomed 
 in the ordinary sabbatical service under the preceding 
 economy. We find bishops, elders, and deacons, 
 every where appointed. We find a plurality of elders 
 ordained in every church. And we find the elders 
 represented as " overseers," or inspectors of the church; 
 as " rulers" in the house of God, and the members of 
 the church exhorted to " obey them," and " submit " 
 to them, as to persons charged with their spiritual 
 interests, and entitled to their affectionate and dutiful 
 reverence. 
 
 The following passages may be considered as a 
 specimen of the New Testament representations on 
 this subject. " And when they had ordained them 
 elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, 
 they commended them to the Lord, on whom they 
 believed;" Acts xiv. 23. " And when they were 
 come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, 
 and of the apostles and elders. And the apostles and 
 elders came together to consider of this matter;" Acts 
 xv. 4, 6. " And from Miletus, he (Paul) sent to 
 Ephesus, and called the elders of the church; and 
 when they were come unto him, he said unto them, 
 
37 
 
 take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers ;" Acts 
 xx. 20, 28. " Is any sick among you ? let him call 
 for the elders of the church, and let them pray over 
 him," &c; James v. 14. " The elders which are 
 among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a 
 witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker 
 of the glory that shall be revealed, Feed the flock 
 of God that is among you, taking the oversight thereof, 
 not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, 
 but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over 
 God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock;" 
 1 Peter v. 1, 2, 3. " For this cause left I thee in 
 Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that 
 are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I have 
 appointed thee;" Titus i. 5. " Obey them that have 
 the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch 
 for your souls as they that must give account;" Heb- 
 rews xiii. IT. " And we beseech you brethren, to 
 know them which labour among you, and are over you 
 in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them 
 very highly in love for their works' sake;" 1 Thessa- 
 lonians v. 12, 13. " Let the elders that rule well be 
 accounted worthy of double honour, especially they 
 who labour in the word and doctrine ; " 1 Timothy v. 
 17. To whatever church our attention is directed in 
 the inspired history, we find in it a plurality of elders; 
 we find the mass of the church members spoken of as 
 under their authority ; and while the people are ex- 
 horted to submit to their rule, with all readiness and 
 affection, these rulers are commanded, in the name 
 of Christ, to exercise the power vested in them by the 
 great Head of the Church, with firmness and fidelity, 
 and yet with disinterestedness and moderation, so as 
 to promote most effectually, the purity and order of 
 the flock. 
 
 The circumstance of our finding it so uniformly 
 stated that there was a plurality of elders ordained in 
 
 D 
 
3S 
 
 every church, is certainly worthy of particular attention 
 here. If there had been a plurality of these officers 
 appointed only in some of the more populous cities, 
 where there were probably several worshipping asssem- 
 blies; where the congregations may be supposed to 
 have been unsually large, and where it was important, 
 of course, to have more than a single preacher ; then 
 we might consider this fact as very well reconcileable 
 with the doctrine of those who assert, that all the 
 elders in the apostolic church were official teachers. 
 But as both the direction and the practice were to 
 ordain elders, that is, more than one, at least, in every 
 church, small as well as great, there is, evidently, very 
 strong presumption that it was intended to conform to 
 the synagogue model ; and if so, that the whole of the 
 number so ordained could not be necessary for the 
 purpose of public instruction; but that some were 
 rulers, who, as in the synagogue, formed a kind of 
 congregational presbytery, or consistory, for the 
 government of the church. The idea that it was 
 considered as necessary, at such a time, that every 
 church should have two, three, or four pastors, or 
 ministers, in the modern popular sense of those terms, 
 is manifestly altogether inadmissible. But if a majority 
 of these elders, whatever their ordination or authority 
 might be, were in fact employed, not in teaching, but 
 in ruling, all difficulty vanishes at once. 
 
 Accordingly, the learned Vitringa, before mentioned, 
 whose authority is much relied upon to disprove the 
 existence of the office of ruling elder in the primitive 
 church, explicitly acknowledges, not only that there 
 was then a plurality of elders in every church, but 
 that, as in the synagogue, the greater part of these 
 were, in fact, employed in ruling only; and that 
 although all of them were set apart to their office in 
 the same manner, and were, ecclesiastically, of the 
 same rank; yet a majority of them, from want of 
 suitable qualifications, were not fitted to be public 
 
39 
 
 preachers, and seldom or never attempted this part of 
 the service. * 
 
 But there are distinct passages of Scripture, which 
 have been deemed, by some of the most impartial and 
 competent interpreters, very plainly to point out the 
 class of elders now under consideration. 
 
 In Romans xii. 6, 7, 8, the apostle exhorts as fol- 
 lows: — " Having then gifts, differing according to the 
 grace given to us ; whether prophecy, let us prophecy 
 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 cheerful- 
 ness." With this passage may be connected another, 
 of similar character, and to be interpreted on the same 
 principles. In 1 Corinthians xii. 28, we are told, — 
 " God hath sent some in the church, first apostles, 
 secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that 
 miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, 
 diversities of tongues." In both these passages there 
 is a reference to the different offices and gifts bestowed 
 on the church by her divine King and Head : in both 
 of them there is a plain designation of an office for 
 ruling or government, distinct from that of teaching ; 
 and in both, also, this office evidently has a place 
 assigned to it below that of pastors and teachers. 
 Now, this office, by whatever name it may be called, 
 or whatever doubts may be started as to some minor 
 questions respecting its powers and investiture, is sub- 
 stantially the same with that which Presbyterians 
 distinguish by the title of ruling elder. 
 
 Some, indeed, have said that the apostle in 1 Cor- 
 inthians xii. 28, is not speaking of distinct offices, but 
 of different duties, devolving on the church as a body. 
 But no one, it is believed, who impartially considers 
 the whole passage, can adopt this opinion. In the 
 
 * Vitringa De Synagoga Vetere. Lib, ii. chap. ii. 
 
40 
 
 whole of the context, from the 12th verse, the apostle 
 is speaking of the church of God under the emblem 
 of a body, and affirms that, in this body, there is a 
 variety of members adapted to the comfort and con- 
 venience of the whole body. " For the body," says 
 he, " is not one member, but many. If the foot shall 
 say, Because 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 every one of them 
 in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they were 
 all one member, where were the body?" Plainly 
 implying that in every ecclesiastical, as well as in every 
 natural body, there are different functions and offices; 
 that all cannot be teachers ; that all cannot be gover- 
 nors, or governments, but that to each and every 
 functionary is assigned his proper work and duty. 
 
 Nor is this interpretation of the apostle confined to 
 Presbyterians. Peter Martyr, the learned Italian 
 reformer, interprets the passage before us just as we 
 have done. In his Commentary on 1 Corinthians xii. 
 28, he speaks thus : " Governments. — Those who are 
 honoured with this function, are such as were fitted 
 for the work of government, and who know how to 
 conduct every thing relating to discipline righteously 
 and prudently. For the church of Christ had its 
 government. And because a single pastor was not 
 able to accomplish every thing himself, there were 
 joined with him, in the ancient church, certain elders, 
 chosen from among the people, well-informed, and 
 skilled in spiritual things, who formed a kind of 
 parochial senate. These, with the pastor, deliberated 
 on every matter relating to the care and edification of 
 the church. Which thing Ambrose makes mention 
 of in writing on the epistle to Timothy. Among 
 these elders the pastor took the lead, not as a tyrant, 
 
41 
 
 but rather as a consul presiding in a council of senators." 
 Many Episcopalians and others find in the passage 
 the same sense. The Reverend Herbert Thorndike, 
 before quoted, a learned divine of the church of Eng- 
 land, who lived in the reign of Charles I., speaks thus 
 of the passage last cited. " There is no reason to 
 doubt, that the men whom the apostle, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
 and Ephes. iv. 11, called doctors, or teachers, are 
 those of the presbyters, who had the abilities of preach- 
 ing and teaching the people at their assemblies. Thar 
 those of the presbyters who preached not, are called 
 here by the apostle, governments; and the deacons, 
 avrikn^i,;, that is, helps, or assistants to the govern- 
 ment of presbyters; so that it is not to be translated 
 helps in governments, but helps, governments, &c 
 There were two parts of the presbyter's office, viz. 
 teaching and governing, the one whereof some attained 
 not, even in the apostles' times." * 
 
 But there is still more pointed reference to this 
 class of elders in 1 Timothy v. 17, " Let the elders 
 that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, 
 especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." 
 It would seem that every person of plain common 
 sense, who had never heard of any diversity of opinion 
 on the subject, would, without hesitation, conclude, 
 on reading this passage, that, at the period in which 
 it was written, there were two kinds of elders, one 
 whose duty it was to labour in the word and doctrine, 
 and another who did not thus labour, but only ruled 
 in the church. The apostle declares that elders who 
 rule well are worthy of double honour, but especially 
 those who labour in the word and doctrine. Now, if 
 we suppose that there was only one class of elders 
 then in the church, and that they were all teachers, or 
 labourers in the word and doctrine, we make the in- 
 spired apostle speak in a manner utterly unworthy of 
 his high character. There was, therefore, a class of 
 
 * Discourse of Religious Assemblies. Chap. iv. p. i 17, 
 d2 
 
42 
 
 elders in the apostolic church, who did not, in fact, or 
 at any rate ordinarily preach, or administer sacra- 
 ments, but assisted in government; in other words, 
 ruling elders. 
 
 For this construction of the passage, Dr. Whitaker, 
 a zealous and learned Episcopal divine, and Regius 
 Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, 
 of whom Bishop Hall remarks, that " no man ever 
 saw him without reverence, or heard him without 
 wonder," very warmly contends, — " By these words," 
 says he, " the apostle evidently distinguishes between 
 the bishops and the inspectors of the church. If all 
 who rule well be worthy of double honour, especially 
 they who labour in the w r ord and doctrine, it is plain 
 that there were some who did not so labour; for if all 
 had been of this description, the meaning would have 
 been absurd; but the word especially points out a 
 difference. If I should say that all who study w r ell at 
 the University are worthy of double honour, especially 
 they who labour in the study of theology, I must either 
 mean, that all do not apply themselves to the study of 
 theology, or I should speak nonsense. Wherefore I 
 confess that to be the most genuine sense by which 
 pastors and teachers are distinguished from those who 
 only governed : Romans xii. 8. Of this class of elders 
 Ambrose speaks in his Commentary on 1 Tim. v. 1."* 
 
 The learned and venerable Dr. Owen, gives his 
 opinion of the import of this passage, in still more 
 pointed language. " This is a text," says he, " of in- 
 controllable evidence, if it had any thing to conflict 
 withal but prejudice and interest. A rational man, 
 who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the contro- 
 versy about ruling elders, can hardly avoid an appre- 
 hension that there are two sorts of elders, some who 
 labour in the word and doctrine, and some who do 
 not so do. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice 
 
 * Praelectiones, as quoted in Calderwood's A 1 tare Damas- 
 cenum, p. 681. 
 
43 
 
 which first caused some learned men to strain their 
 wits to find out evasions from the evidence of this 
 testimony. Being found out, some others of meaner 
 abilities have been entangled by them. There are 
 elders, then, in the church. There are, or ought to 
 be so in every church. With these elders the whole 
 rule of the church is intrusted. All these, and only 
 they, do rule in it." * 
 
 Equally to our purpose is the judgment of that 
 acute and learned Episcopal divine, Dr. Whitby, in 
 his Commentary on this passage :— " The elders of 
 the Jews," says he, " were of two sorts; 1st, such as 
 governed in the synogogue, and 2dly, such as mini- 
 stered in reading and expounding their scriptures and 
 traditions, and from them, pronouncing what did bind 
 or loose, or what was forbidden, and what was lawful 
 to be done. For when, partly by their captivity, and 
 partly through increase of traffic, they were dispersed 
 in considerable bodies through divers regions of the 
 world, it w 7 as necessary that they should have gover- 
 nors or magistrates to keep them in their duty, and 
 judge of criminal causes; and also rabbins, to teach 
 them the law, and the tradition of their fathers. The 
 first were ordained ad judicandum, sed non ad docen- 
 dum de Ileitis et vetitis., i. e. to judge and govern, but 
 not to teach. The second, ad docendum, sed non ad 
 judicandum, i. e. to teach, but not to judge or govern." 
 " And these the apostle here declares to be the most 
 honourable, and worthy of the chiefest reward. Ac- 
 cordingly, the apostle, reckoning up the officers God 
 had appointed in the church, places teachers before 
 governments;" I Cor. xii. 28. 
 
 I am aware that a number of glosses have been 
 adopted to set aside the testimony of this cogent text 
 in favour of ruling elders. To enumerate and show 
 the invalidity of them all, would be inconsistent with 
 
 * True Nature of a Gospel Church. Chapter vii. pp. 141 
 142, 14:3. 
 
44 
 
 the limits to which this manual is restricted. But a 
 few of the most plausible and popular may be deemed 
 worthy of notice. 
 
 Some, for example, have said, that by the elders 
 that rule well in this passage, civil magistrates are 
 intended ; while, by those who labour in the word and 
 doctrine, ministers of the gospel are pointed out. But 
 it will occur to every reflecting reader, that at the 
 time when the passage of Scripture under considera- 
 tion was addressed to Timothy, and for several 
 centuries afterwards, there were no Christian magis- 
 strates in the Church ; and to suppose that the church 
 is exhorted to choose heathen judges or magistrates, 
 to compose differences, and maintain order among the 
 followers of Christ, is in the highest degree im- 
 probable, not to say altogether absurd. 
 
 Others have alleged that by the elders that rule 
 well are meant deacons. It is enough to reply to 
 this suggestion, that it has never been shown, or can 
 be shown, that deacons are any where in the New 
 Testament distinguished by the title of elders ; and, 
 further, that the function of ruling is no where repre- 
 sented as belonging to their office. They were ap- 
 pointed A^zovuv rgwrs&tt " to serve tables ; " Acts vi. 2, 3 ; 
 but not to act as rulers in the house of God. Of 
 this, however, more in a subsequent chapter. 
 
 A third class of objectors contend, that the word 
 pakis™, which our translators have rendered "especially," 
 ought to be translated " much. " That it is not to be 
 considered as distinguishing one class of elders from 
 another, but as marking intensity of degree : in other 
 words, that it is meant to be exegetical of those who 
 rule well ; viz. those who labour much, or with peculiar 
 diligence, in the word and doctrine. On this plan, 
 the verse in question would read thus : — Let the elders 
 who rule well, that is, who labour much in the word 
 and doctrine, be accounted worthy of double honour. 
 If this were adopted as the meaning of the passage, 
 it would go to show, that it is for preaching alone, 
 
45 
 
 and not for ruling well, that elders are entitled to 
 honour. But is it rational or consistent with other 
 parts of Scripture, to suppose that no honour is due to 
 the latter? It has also been contended, by excellent 
 Greek critics, that the structure of the sentence will 
 not, naturally, bear this interpretation. It is not said, 
 « (uAitr* %6*mrrti as would have been the proper order 
 of the words, if such had been the meaning intended 
 to be conveyed; but pax,;™ « *o*n»mr.— not those who 
 labour with especial diligence and exertion, but es- 
 pecially those who labour, &c. But the most decisive 
 consideration is, that not a single case can be found 
 in the New Testament in which the word p***™ has 
 the signification here attributed to it. It is so gene- 
 rally used to distinguish one class of objects from 
 another, that we may safely venture to say, it cannot 
 possibly have a different meaning in the passage be- 
 fore us. A few decisive examples will be sufficient. 
 In the same chapter, from which the passage under 
 consideration is taken, (1 Tim. v. 8,) it is said, — " If 
 any man provide not for his own, and especially 
 (pa.xt 5 Tx) for those of his own house, he hath denied 
 the faith," &c. Again, (Gal. iv. 10,) " Let us do 
 good unto all men, but especially (^ax/,-™) unto them 
 who are the household of faith." Again, (Philip, iv. 
 22,) " All the saints salute you, chiefly (^/jra) they 
 of Caesar's household." Thus also, (2 Tim. iv. 13,) 
 " When thou comest, bring with thee the books, but 
 especially (,«*«>.<?*•«) the parchments." Further, (1 
 Tim. iv. 10,) " Who is the Saviour of all men, es- 
 pecially (paxtsra) of those who believe." Again, 
 (Titus i. 10,) " For there are many unruly and vain 
 talkers, especially (^«x/,-ra) they of the circumcision." 
 Now, in all these cases, there are two classes of objects 
 intended to be distinguished from each other. Some 
 of the saints were of Caesar's household, and others 
 were not. Good was to be done to all men ; but all 
 were not believers. There were many vain and unruly 
 
46 
 
 talkers alluded to, but they were not all of the cir- 
 cumcision ; and so of the rest. 
 
 A fourth class of objectors to our construction of 
 this passage, are certain prelatists, who allege, that by 
 the elders that rule well, the apostle intends to designate 
 superannuated bishops, who, though too old to labour 
 in the word and doctrine, were still able to assist in 
 ruling. To this it is sufficient to reply, that, whether 
 we understand the " honour " (r^vs) to which the 
 apostle refers, as intended to designate pecuniary 
 support, or rank and dignity, it would seem contrary 
 to every principle, both of reason and Scripture, that 
 younger and more vigorous labourers in the word and 
 doctrine, should have a portion of this honour awarded 
 to them, superior to that which is yielded to those who 
 have become worn out in the same kind of service. 
 These aged, venerable, and exhausted dignitaries, 
 according to this construction, are to be, indeed, much 
 honoured, but less than their junior brethren, whose 
 strength for labour still continues. 
 
 A further objection made to our construction of 
 this passage is, that w T hen the apostle speaks of double 
 honour (Wx« «,«*«) as due to those who rule well, he 
 refers, nojt to respect and regard, but to temporal 
 support.* Now, say this class of objectors, as Presby- 
 terians never give salaries to their ruling elders, they 
 
 * It is worthy of notice, that Calvin, in his Commentary on 
 this place, gives the following 1 view of the apostle's meaning, 
 when he speaks of double honour. " When Chrysostom inter- 
 prets the phrase double honour, as importing support and rever- 
 ence, I do not impugn his opinion. Let those adopt it who 
 think proper. But to me it appears more probable, that a com- 
 parison is here intended between widows and elders. Paul had 
 just before commanded to have widows in honour. But elders 
 are still more worthy of honour than they. Wherefore to these 
 double honour is to be given." This interpretation is natural 
 and consistent. " Honour widows," says the apostle, " that are 
 widows indeed;" but " let the elders that rule well be counted 
 worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the 
 word and doctrine." The same word is used to express honour, 
 in both cases. 
 
47 
 
 cannot be the kind of officers contemplated by the 
 sacred writer in this place. But is it certain, that by 
 the original term here translated, " honour," salary, 
 or maintenance, is really intended? Why not assign 
 to the word <«/«*>» its more common signification, viz. 
 honour, high respect, reverence? It is common to 
 sav, that the illustration contained in the 1 8th verse, — 
 " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the 
 corn ; and the labourer is worthy of his reward," seem 
 to fix the meaning to temporal support. But those 
 illustrations only carry with them the general idea of 
 reward; and surely a reward may be of the moral as 
 well as of the pecuniary kind. But supposing the 
 inspired apostle really to mean double, that is, liberal 
 maintenance, still this interpretation does not at all 
 militate against our doctrine. It might have been 
 very proper, in the days of Paul, to give all the elders 
 a decent temporal support, as a reward for their 
 services. But if any elders chose to decline receiving 
 a regular stipend, as Paul himself seems to have done, 
 he surely did not, by this disinterestedness, forfeit his 
 office. It may be that ruling elders ought now to 
 receive a compensation for their services, especially 
 when they devote to the church a large part of their 
 time and talents. But if any are willing to render 
 their services gratuitously, whether they be ruling or 
 preaching elders, every one sees that this cannot des- 
 troy, or even impair their official standing. 
 
 Accordingly, it will be seen in the sequel, that there 
 is a concurrence of sentiment in favour of our con- 
 struction of this celebrated passage in Timothy, among 
 the most distinguished divines of all denominations, 
 Protestant and Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed, 
 truly remarkable, and affording a very strong pre- 
 sumptive argument in favour of its correctness. 
 
 There is another class of passages, already quoted 
 in a former part of this chapter, which is entitled to 
 more formal consideration. I mean such as that 
 found in 1 Thessalonians v. 12, 13. "And we beseech 
 
48 
 
 you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, 
 and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and 
 to esteem them very highly in love for their works' 
 sake." Such also as that found in Hebrews xiii. 17. 
 " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit 
 yourselves ; for they watch for you souls as they that 
 must give account," &c Here the inspired writer is 
 evidently speaking of particular churches. He repre- 
 sents them as each having a body of rulers " set over 
 them in the Lord," who " watch over them," and 
 whom they are bound to " obey." In short, we find 
 a set of officers spoken of, who are not merely to 
 instruct, and exhort, but to exercise official authority 
 in the church. Now, this representation can be made 
 to agree with no other form of government than that 
 of the Presbyterian church. Not with Prelacy, for 
 that presents no ruler in any single church but the 
 Rector only. It knows nothing of a parochial council 
 or senate, who conduct discipline, and perform all the 
 duties of spiritual rule. Not with Independency, for 
 according to the essential principles of that system, 
 the body of the communicants are all equally rulers, 
 and even the pastor is only the chairman or president, 
 not properly the ruler of the church. But with the 
 Presbyterian form of church government, in which 
 every congregation is furnished with a bench of spiri- 
 tual rulers, whom the people are bound to reverence 
 and obey, it agrees perfectly. 
 
 There is only one passage more which will be ad- 
 duced in support of the class of elders before us. 
 This is found in Matthew xviii. 15, 16, 17. Here it 
 is believed that the 17th verse, which enjoins, — " Tell 
 it to the church," has evidently a reference to the plan 
 of discipline known to have been pursued in the Jewish 
 synagogue ; and that the meaning is, " Tell it to that 
 consistory or judicatory, which is the church acting by 
 its representatives." It is true, indeed, that some 
 Independents, of more zeal than caution, have confi- 
 dently quoted this passage as making decisively in 
 
49 
 
 favour of their scheme of popular government. But 
 when carefully examined, it will be found not only by 
 no means to answer their purpose, but rather to sup- 
 port the Presbyterian cause. We must always inter- 
 pret language agreeably to the well known under- 
 standing and habit of the time and the country in 
 which it is delivered. Now, it is perfectly certain 
 that the phrase — " Tell it to the church," was con- 
 stantly in use among the Jews to express the carrying 
 a complaint to the eldership or representatives of the 
 church. And it is quite as certain, that actual cases 
 occur in the Old Testament in which the term church 
 (txxkntrta) is applied to the body of elders. See, as an 
 example of this, Deuteronomy xxxi. 28, 30, comparing 
 our translation with that of the Seventy, as alluded to 
 in a preceding chapter. We can scarcely avoid the 
 conclusion, then, that our blessed Lord meant to teach 
 his disciples, that as it had been in the Jewish syna- 
 gogue, so it would be in the Christian church, that 
 the sacred community should be governed by a bench 
 of rulers regularly chosen and set apart for this purpose. 
 In support of this construction of the passage before 
 us, we have the concurring judgment of a large ma- 
 jority of Protestant divines, of all denominations. 
 We have not only the opinion of Calvin, Beza, 
 Parseus, and a great number of distinguished writers 
 on the continent of Europe; but also of Lightfoot, 
 Goodwin, and many others, both ministers of the 
 Church of England, and the Independents of that 
 country. It is worthy of remark, too, that Chrysos- 
 tom, known to be an eminently learned and accom- 
 plished father, of the fourth century, evidently under- 
 stands this passage in the Gospel according to St. 
 Matthew, as substantially agreeing with the views of 
 Presbyterians ; or, at any rate, as totally rejecting the 
 Independent doctrine. Zanchius, (in Quart. Prcecept.) 
 and Junius (Controv. iii. lib. ii. cap. vi.) quote him 
 as asserting, in his Commentary on this place, that 
 by the church to which the offence was to be told, 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 we are to understand the ir^i^at »«< T^oarrurn of the 
 church. 
 
 It may not be improper, before taking leave of the 
 scriptural testimony in favour of ruling elders, to 
 take some notice of an objection which has been 
 advanced with much confidence, but which, manifestly, 
 when examined, will be found destitute of the smallest 
 force. It has been said that great reliance is placed 
 on the word ^oiffrain;, found in 1 Timothy v. 17, as 
 expressive of the ruling character of the office under 
 consideration ; whereas, say these objectors, this very 
 word, as is universally known and acknowledged, is 
 applied by several of the early fathers to teaching 
 elders, to those who evidently bore the office of pastors 
 of churches, and who were, of course, not mere rulers, 
 but also " labourers in the word and doctrine." If, 
 therefore, this title be applied to those who were con- 
 fessedly teachers, what evidence have we that it is 
 intended, in any case, to designate a different class? 
 This objection is founded on a total misrepresentation 
 of the argument which it is supposed to refute. The 
 advocates of the office of ruling elder do not contend 
 or believe that the function of ruling is confined to this 
 class of officers. On the contrary, they suppose and 
 teach that one class of elders both rule and teach, 
 while the other class rule only. Both, according to 
 the doctrine of the Presbyterian church, are *ps*rvns; 
 but one only " labour in the word and doctrine." 
 When, therefore, cases are found in the early records 
 of the church in which the presiding elder or pastor, 
 is styled v^™;, the fact is in perfect harmony with 
 the usual argument from 1 Tim. v. 17; the import of 
 which we maintain to be this : — Let all the elders that 
 rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, es- 
 pecially those of their number who, besides ruling, 
 besides acting as ^ a£0 " r&mf > in common with the others, 
 also labour in the word and doctrine. 
 
 It has also been contended that the whole doctrine 
 of the ruling, as distinct from the teaching elder, 
 
51 
 
 tends to weaken, if not wholly to destroy, the Presby- 
 terian argument in favour of parity in the gospel 
 ministry, drawn from the fact, that both Scripture 
 and early Christian antiquity represent bishop and 
 presbyter as convertible titles for the same office. 
 Presbyterians maintain, and I have no doubt, with 
 perfect truth, that, in the language of the New Testa- 
 ment, a bishop means the pastor, or overseer of a 
 single church or parish; that bishop and presbyter 
 are not titles which imply different grades of office; 
 but that a presbyter or elder who has a pastoral charge, 
 who is the overseer of a flock, is a scriptural bishop, 
 and holds the highest office that Christ has instituted 
 in his church. Now, it has been alledged by the 
 opponents of ruling elders, that to represent the 
 Scriptures as holding forth two classes of elders, one 
 class as both teaching and ruling, and the other as 
 ruling only, and, consequently, the latter as holding a 
 station not exactly identical with the former, amounts 
 to a virtual surrender of the argument derived from 
 the identity of bishop and presbyter. 
 
 This objection, however, is totally groundless. If 
 we suppose elder, as used in Scripture, to be a generic 
 term, comprehending all who bore rule in the church: 
 and if we consider the term bishop, as also a generic 
 term, including all who sustained the relation of official 
 inspectors or overseers of a flock; then it is plain 
 that all bishops were scriptural elders; and that all 
 elders, whether both teachers and rulers, or rulers 
 only, provided they were placed over a parish, as in- 
 spectors or overseers, were scriptural bishops. Now 
 this, I have no doubt, was the fact. When, therefore, 
 the apostle Paul, in writing to the church at Philippi, 
 addresses the bishops and deacons ; and when in his 
 conference with the elders of the church of Ephesus, 
 at Miletus, he speaks of them all equally as overseers, 
 or, as it is in the original, bishops (E^o-xaTo^) of that 
 church, 1 take for granted he included the rulers 
 as well as the teachers, in both instances. In a word 
 
52 
 
 I suppose that, in every truly primitive and apostolic 
 church, there was a bench of elders, or overseers, who 
 presided over all the spiritual interests of the con- 
 gregation ; that, generally, a small part only of these, 
 and perhaps seldom more than one, statedly preached ; 
 that the rest, though probably ordained in the same 
 manner with their colleagues, very rarely, if ever, 
 taught publicly, but were employed as inspectors and 
 rulers, and it may be, also, in visiting, catechizing, 
 and instructing from house to house. If this were 
 the case, and every part of the New Testament his- 
 tory favours the supposition, then nothing can be 
 more natural than the language of the inspired writers 
 in reference to this whole subject. Then we readily 
 understand why the apostle should say to Titus, — 
 " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest 
 set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain 
 elders in every cit} T , as I had appointed thee. If any 
 be blameless, &c; for a bishop must be blameless, as 
 the steward of God," &c. We may then perceive 
 why he speaks of a number of bishops at Philippi, 
 and a number also at Ephesus; and, in the same 
 breath, calls the latter alternately bishops and elders ; 
 and, on this principle, we may see no less plainly why 
 the apostle Peter said : — " The elders which are 
 among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a 
 witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a par- 
 taker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the 
 flock of God that is among you, taking the oversight 
 thereof, (^^ravvrs?) — acting as bishops among them, 
 not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, 
 but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over 
 God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." 
 And, accordingly, it is remarkable that the word 
 ■ffoi^avan, used in the second verse of the last quotation, 
 is derived from a word signifying a shepherd, and 
 carries with it the ideas of guiding, protecting, and 
 ruling, as well as feeding in appropriate spiritual 
 pastures. (See Matthew ii. 6, and Revelation ii. 27.) 
 
53 
 
 This view of the subject takes away all embarrass- 
 ment and difficulty in reference to the titles given to 
 the primitive officers of the church. There is abun- 
 dant evidence that every class of elders, as well those 
 who commonly officiated as rulers only, as those who 
 both ruled and taught, bore the names of bishops, 
 inspectors, overseers, during the apostolic age, and 
 for some time afterwards. This was a name most 
 significantly expressive of their appropriate function, 
 which was to overlook, direct, and rule each particular 
 church, for its edification. How long this title con- 
 tinued to be applied to all the elders indiscriminately, 
 it is not easy to say. It was probably in the church, 
 as it was known to have been in the synagogue. All 
 the rulers of the synagogue were popularly called 
 archisynagogi, as is evident from several passages in 
 the New Testament ; but sometimes, as we learn from 
 the same source, this title was applied, by way of 
 eminence, to the presiding or principal ruler of each 
 synagogue. So with regard to the title of inspector, 
 overseer, or bishop, we know that all the elders of 
 Ephesus (Acts xx. 17, 28,) were indiscriminately 
 called bishops by the inspired Paul. We know too, 
 that the same apostle recognizes a plurality of bishops 
 or overseers in the church at Philippi, (chapter i. 1,) 
 who could not possibly have been prelates, as Episco- 
 palians themselves allow. We find, moreover, the 
 same " chiefest of the apostles," giving the titles of 
 bishop and elder, without discrimination, to all the 
 church rulers directed to be ordained in Ephesus and 
 Crete, as the epistles to Timothy and Titus plainly 
 evince. In those pure and simple times no difficulty 
 arose from this general application of a plain and ex- 
 pressive title. For more than a hundred years after 
 the apostolic age, this title continued to be frequently 
 applied in the same manner, as the writings of Cle- 
 mens Romanus, Hernias, Irenneus, and others, amply 
 testify. We find them not only speaking of the elders 
 as bearing rule in each church, but also calling the 
 e2 
 
54 
 
 same men alternately bishops and elders, as was evi- 
 dently done in apostolic times. In process of time, 
 however, this title which was originally considered as 
 expressive of duty and labour, rather than of honour, 
 became gradually appropriated to the principal elder, 
 who usually presided in preaching and ordering the 
 course of the public service. Not only so, but as a 
 worldly and ambitious spirit gained ground, he who 
 bore this title began to advance certain peculiar claims; 
 first, those of a stated chairman, president, or moder- 
 ator ; and, finally, those of a new order, or grade of 
 office. That there was an entire change in the appli- 
 cation of the title of bishop, not long after the apostolic 
 age, a majority of our Episcopal brethren themselves 
 allow. They grant, that in the New Testament this 
 title is given indiscriminately to all who were intrusted 
 with the instruction and care of the church. But 
 that, in the succeeding period, it was gradually re- 
 served to the highest order. In other words, they 
 grant that the title bishop had a very different meaning 
 in the second and third centuries, from that which it 
 had borne in the first. Now, even conceding to them 
 that this change took place earlier than the best 
 records give us reason to believe, it may be asked, 
 why make such a change at all? Why not continue 
 to get along with the language which the inspired 
 apostles had authorised by their use ? Why insidiously 
 make an old title, which was familiar to the popular 
 ear, signify something very different from what it had 
 been wont to signify from the beginning; and thus 
 palm a new office with an old name on the people ? 
 Were there no other fact established by the early 
 writers than this, it would be quite sufficient to con- 
 vince us that the apostolic government of the church 
 was early corrupted by human ambition. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 
 
 That which is not found in the Bible, however fully 
 and strongly it may be enjoined elsewhere, cannot be 
 considered as binding on the church. On the other 
 hand, what is plainly found in the word of God, though 
 it be no where else taught, we are bound to receive. 
 Accordingly, if we find ruling elders in the New TeS- 
 tament, as it is firmly believed we have done — it 
 matters not, as to their substantial warrant, how soon 
 after the apostolic age, they fell into disuse. Still if 
 we can discover traces of them in the early uninspired 
 writings of the Christian church, it will certainly add 
 something to the chain of proof which we possess in 
 their favour. It will add strong presumption to that 
 which is our decisive rule. Let us, then, see whether 
 the early fathers say any thing which can be fairly 
 considered as alluding to this class of church officers. 
 
 But before we proceed to examine these witnesses 
 in detail, it may not be improper to make two general 
 remarks, which ought to be kept steadily in view 
 through the whole of this branch of our subject. 
 
 The first is, — that we must be on our guard against 
 the ambiguous use of the title elder, as it is expressed 
 in different languages. When we look into the writ- 
 ings of the Christian fathers who lived during the first 
 two hundred years after Christ, all of whom, if we 
 except Tertullian, wrote in Greek, we find them gen- 
 
56 
 
 erally using the word ^ s<rgtm ^ to designate an elder. 
 Now this is precisely the same word which the advo- 
 cates of Prelacy apply to the " second order," as they 
 express it, of their " clergy," always called by them 
 " presbyters." And when Presbyterians translate 
 this word by the term elder,* and consider it as used, 
 at least in many cases, to designate that class of officers 
 which forms the subject of this essay, they are consid- 
 ered and represented, by some illiterate and narrow 
 minded persons, as chargeable with an unfair, if not a 
 deceptive use of a term. This charge is manifestly 
 unjust. It will never be repeated by any candid 
 individual, who is acquainted with the Greek language. 
 This is the very word which is almost invariably used 
 by the translators of the Septuagint, all through the 
 Old Testament, to designate elders who confessedly 
 had nothing to do with preaching. In truth, it was a 
 general title of office among the Jews, and it was a 
 general title of office among the early Christians, as 
 any one will immediately perceive by a candid perusal 
 of the New Testament. And the fact is, that if Pres- 
 byterians wrote in Greek, they would of course, 
 employ this very term to express their ruling elder. 
 The word " elder " is the natural, literal, and, we may 
 almost say, the only proper term by which to express 
 the meaning of the Greek title t^uts^. And even 
 when we meet in some of the early fathers with passa- 
 ges in which the officers of the church are enumerated 
 as consisting of E^^a*™, n^&m^/, xai Atxxovoi, it may be 
 said, with perfect truth, that if Presbyterians, at 
 the present day, were called upon to enumerate the 
 standing officers in all their churches, which are com- 
 pletely organized agreeably to their public standards, 
 they would, beyond all doubt, if they used the Greek 
 
 * It is worthy of notice that whenever the word -r^vn^os 
 occurs in the New Testament, our translation, when an eccle- 
 siastical officer is meant, always renders it elder. So far as is 
 recollected, this is invariably done. 
 
•57 
 
 language, represent their regular ecclesiastical officers 
 as every where consisting of E«r««r«, n^ursoci, ««< Aiuxow, 
 meaning by wr*<>™; a parochial pastor or overseer, in 
 which sense Prelatists themselves acknowledge the 
 title to have been generally used in the apostolic age ; 
 and meaning by the title «^^-«?> a ruling elder, 
 which we have no doubt has been shown, and will 
 be yet further shown to be, in many cases, the proper 
 interpretation of the word. When, therefore, we 
 thus translate the word in some of the following quo- 
 tations, let no one feel as if we were taking an 
 unwarrantable liberty. No imputation of this kind, 
 assuredly, will be made by any reader of competent 
 learning to judge in the case. 
 
 The second preliminary remark is, that perhaps no 
 class of church officers would be, on the whole, so likely 
 to fall into disrepute after the apostolic age, and be 
 discontinued, as that which is now under consideration. 
 We know that the purity of the church began to decline 
 immediately after the apostolic age, Nay, while the 
 apostles were still alive, " the mystery of iniquity" had 
 already begun " to work." Corruption, both in faith 
 and practice, had crept in, and, in some places, to an 
 alarming and most distressing extent. And after their 
 departure, it soon " came in like a flood." The disci- 
 pline of the church became relaxed, and after a while, 
 in a great measure prostrated. The hints dropped by 
 several writers in the second century, and the strongly 
 coloured and revolting pictures given by Origen and 
 Cyprian of the state of church in their own times, 
 present a view of this subject which needs no comment. 
 Now, in such a state of things, was it not natural that 
 the office of those whose peculiar duty it was to inspect 
 the members of the church, to take cognizance of all 
 their aberrations, and to maintain a pure and scrip- 
 tural discipline, should be unpopular, and finally as 
 much a? possible crowded out of public view, discred- 
 ited, and gradually laid aside. 
 
 But this is not all. Shortly after the apostolic age, 
 
58 
 
 several ecclesiastical officers, as is confessed on all hands, 
 were either invented or modified, so as to suit the 
 declining spirituality of the times. To mention but a 
 single example. The deacons began to claim higher 
 dignity and powers. Sub -deacons were introduced to 
 perform some of those functions which had originally 
 belonged to deacons, but which they had become too 
 proud to perform. Was it either unnatural, then, or 
 improbable — since things of a similar kind actually 
 took place — that in the course of the undeniable degen- 
 eracy which was now reigning, the ruling elders of the 
 church should find the employment to which they had 
 been originally destined, irksome both to themselves 
 and others ; by no means adapted to gratify either the 
 love of gain, or the love of pleasure which seemed to 
 be the order of the day; — and that both parties gra- 
 dually united in dropping the inspection and discipline 
 once committed to their hands, and in turning their 
 attention to objects more adapted to the taste of 
 ambitious worldly minded churchmen. And this 
 result would be, at once, more likely to occur, and 
 might have occured with less opposition and noise, if 
 we suppose as some learned men have done, that rul- 
 ing and teaching elders, from the beginning, not only 
 both bore the general name of elders, but were both 
 set apart to their office with the same formalities. If 
 this were the case, then there was nothing to change, 
 in virtually discarding the office of ruling elder, but 
 gradually to neglect all their appropriate duties, and 
 in an equally gradual manner to slide into the assump- 
 tion of duties, and especially that of public preaching, 
 which, in the primitive church, they had not been 
 expected to perform. 
 
 Keeping these things in mind, let us examine 
 whether some, both of the early and the late fathers, do 
 not express themselves in a manner which renders it 
 probable, or rather certain, that they had in view the 
 class of elders of which we are speaking. 
 
 In the epistle of Clemens Romanus, who lived to- 
 
59 
 
 ward the close of the first century, to the church at 
 Corinth, we find the worthy father remonstrating with 
 the members of the church for having risen up against 
 their elders, and thrust them out of office — perhaps for 
 the very reason just hinted at — that they found their 
 inspection and rule uncomfortable. Accordingly 
 Clemens addresses the Corinthian Christians in the 
 following manner: — " It is a shame, my beloved, yea, a 
 very great shame, to hear that the most firm and ancient 
 church of the Corinthians should be led, by one or 
 two persons, to rise up against their elders." — ( *p<rZu<npus. ) 
 Again ; " Let the flock of Christ enjoy peace with the 
 elders (*et*Gvngm) that are set over it." Again ; " Do 
 ye, therefore, who first laid the foundation of this sedi- 
 tion, submit yourselves to your elders, and be instructed 
 into repentance, bending the knee of your hearts ;" 
 Epist. 47, 54, 57. 
 
 In these extracts we find an entire coincidence with 
 the language of the New Testament; a plain indication 
 that in every church there was a plurality of elders ; 
 and a distinct recognition of the idea that these elders 
 were rulers, in other words, held a station of authority 
 and government over " the flock" of which they were 
 officers. 
 
 In the epistles of Ignatius, who lived at the close of 
 the first, and the beginning of the second century, we 
 find much said about elders, (^ £<r ^ T£ e w -) The follow- 
 ing is a specimen of the manner in which he speaks 
 of them, in connection with the other classes of church 
 officers. " Obey your bishop and the presbytery (the 
 eldership) with an entire affection ;" epistle to the 
 Ephesians, 20. " I exhort you that you study to do 
 all things in a divine concord: your bishop presiding 
 in the place of God, your elders in the place of the 
 council of the apostles, and your deacons, most dear 
 to me, being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus 
 Christ." Again, " Do nothing without your bishop 
 and elders;" epistle to the Magnesians, 6, 7. " It is, 
 therefore, necessary, that, as ye do, so without your 
 
60 
 
 bishop you should do nothing; also be ye subject to your 
 elders, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope." 
 Again, " Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, 
 and the Bishop as the Father, and the elders as the 
 sanhedrim of God, and the college of the apostles." 
 Again, " Fare ye well in Jesus Christ ; being subject 
 to your bishop as to the command of God, and so 
 likewise to the presbytery, (or eldership;") epistle to 
 the Trallians, 2, 3, 13. " Which also I salute in the 
 blood of Jesus Christ, which is our eternal and unde- 
 filed joy ; especially if they are at unity with the 
 bishop and elders, who are with him, and the deacons 
 appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ. 
 Again, " There is one cup, and one altar, and also 
 one bishop, together with his eldership, and the 
 deacons, my fellow-servants." Again, " I cried whilst 
 I was among you ; I spake with a loud voice, attend 
 to the bishop, to the eldership, and to the deacons ;" 
 epistle to the Philadelphians, Pref. 4, 7. " See that ye 
 all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father, 
 and the presbytery (or eldership) as the apostles; and 
 reverence the deacons as the command of God." 
 Again, " It is not lawful without the bishop either to 
 baptize or to celebrate the holy communion." Again, 
 "I salute your very worthy bishop ; and your venerable 
 eldership, and your deacons, my fellow-servants ;" 
 epistle to the Smyrneans, 8, 12. " My soul be security 
 for them who submit to their bishop, with their elders 
 and deacons ;" epistle to Polycarp, 6. 
 
 The friends of Prelacy have long been in the habit 
 of insisting much on these and similar quotations from 
 Ignatius, as affording decisive support to their system. 
 But I must think that their confidence in this witness 
 has not the smallest solid ground.* For, let it be 
 
 * Intelligent readers are no doubt aware that the genuineness 
 of the epistles of Ignatius has been called in question by a great 
 majority of Protestant divines, and is not only really but deeply 
 questionable. All inquiry, however, on this sufject is waived 
 for the present. 
 
61 
 
 remembered that these several epistles were directed, 
 not to large prelatical dioceses, but to single parishes 
 or congregations ; that in each of these churches there 
 are represented as being a bishop, a presbytery, or 
 bench of elders, and a plurality of deacons; and, 
 therefore, that it is parochial episcopacy, and not 
 diocesan or prelatical, that is here described. And, 
 accordingly, we learn from different parts of these 
 epistles, that in the time of Ignatius, each bishop had 
 under his pastoral charge, but " one altar," " one 
 cup," " one loaf," i. e. one communion table ; and 
 that the people under his care habitually came together 
 to " one place," — in other words, formed " one 
 assembly." 
 
 Agreeably to this view of the subject, it is worthy 
 of notice, that Ignatius calls the presbyters or elders 
 of each church which he addresses, the rvntym Giou, that 
 is, the Sanhedrim, or council of God. But with 
 what propriety could he designate them by this title — 
 the popular title of a well known Jewish ecclesiastical 
 court, if they did not constitute a corresponding court 
 in the Christian church, and if the whole body of 
 ecclesiastical officers which he addressed from time to 
 time were not the rulers of a single flock? The 
 truth is, the whole language of Ignatius, in reference 
 to the officers of whom he speaks, is strictly Presby- 
 terian, and cannot be considered as affording counte- 
 nance to any other system, without doing violence to 
 its natural import. 
 
 Accordingly, it is worthy of notice, that the learned 
 Mr. Joseph Mede, a very able and zealous divine of 
 the Church of England, and a decisive advocate of 
 diocesan Episcopacy, gives a representation of the 
 state of things in the time of Ignatius, which, in 
 substance, falls in with our account of the character 
 of the churches addressed by that father. " It should 
 seem," says he, " that in those first times, before 
 dioceses were divided into those lesser and subordinate 
 churches, which we call parishes, and presbyter. 
 
62 
 
 assigned to them, they had only one altar to a church, 
 taking church for the company or corporation of the 
 faithful, united under one bishop or pastor, and that 
 was in the city or place where the bishop had his see 
 and residence. Unless this were so, whence came it 
 else, that a schismatical bishop was said, constituere, 
 or collocare aliud altare ? And that a bishop and an 
 altar are made correlatives?"* 
 
 The same fact is asserted by Bishop Stillingfleet, in 
 his sermon against separation. " Though, when the 
 churches increased," says he, " the occasional meet- 
 ings were frequent in several places, yet still there was 
 but one church, and one altar, and one baptistery, 
 and one bishop, with many presbyters attending him. 
 Which is so plain in antiquity, as to the churches 
 planted by the apostles themselves, that none but a 
 great stranger to the history of the church can call it 
 in question. It is true, after some time, in the great 
 cities, they had distinct places allotted, and presbyters 
 fixed among them; and such allotments were called 
 Tituli at Rome, Lanrce at Alexandria, and parishes in 
 other places. But these were never thought then to 
 be new churches, or to have any independent govern- 
 ment in themselves, but were all in subjection to the 
 bishop and his college of presbyters, of which multi- 
 tudes of examples might be brought from the most 
 authentic testimonies of antiquity, if a thing so evident 
 needed any proof at all. And yet this distribution, 
 (into distinct Tituli) even in cities, was looked on as 
 so uncommon in those elder times, that Epiphanius 
 takes notice of it as an extraordinary thing at Alex- 
 andria, and, therefore, it is probably supposed that 
 there was no such thing in all the cities of Crete in 
 his time. 
 
 That the elders spoken of so frequently by Ignatius, 
 were all the officers of a single parish or congregation, 
 is also evident, not only from the title which he gives 
 
 * Discourse on Church Government, p. 48. 
 
63 
 
 to the body of elders, but also from the duties which 
 he represents as incumbent on the bishop with whom 
 these elders were connected. It is represented as the 
 duty of the bishop to be present with his flock when- 
 ever they came together, to conduct their prayers, 
 and to preside in all their religious assemblies. He is 
 spoken of as the only person who was authorized, in 
 ordinary cases, to administer Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper ; as the person by whom all marriages among 
 the people of his charge were celebrated ; whose duty 
 it was to be personally acquainted with all his flock ; 
 who was bound to take notice, with his own eye, of 
 those who were absent from public worship ; to attend 
 to the wants of the widows and all the poor of his 
 congregation ; to seek out all by name, and not to 
 overlook even the servant men and maids under his 
 care ; to instruct the children ; to reconcile differences, 
 and, in short, to attend to all those objects in detail, 
 which are considered as devolving on every faithful 
 parish minister. Now, all these representations so 
 plainly apply to the pastor of a single church, and 
 are so evidently impossible to be realized by any other 
 person, that it would be a waste of time, and an insult 
 to common sense, to attempt a more formal establish- 
 ment of the position. 
 
 But if the bishop of Ignatius be a simple parochial 
 bishop, in other words, the ordinary pastor of a con- 
 gregation; and if the presbytery or bench of elders 
 of which he so frequently speaks, are to be considered 
 as all belonging to a single parish, then we can scarcely 
 avoid the conclusion, that they were not all of them 
 employed in public preaching, but that their principal 
 employment was, as assistants of the pastor, and in 
 union with him, to discharge the duties of inspectors 
 and rulers of the church. 
 
 Again, Polycarp, writing to the church of Phillipi, 
 most evidently and unequivocally conveys the idea, 
 that there was a plurality of presbyters (or elders,) 
 not only in his own church, but also in that to which 
 
64 
 
 he wrote, and that they were the regularly appointed 
 ecclesiastical rulers. He addressed them thus : " Let 
 the elders be tender and merciful, compassionate to- 
 wards all, reclaiming those which have fallen into 
 errors; visiting all that are weak; not negligent of 
 the widow and the orphan, and of him that is poor, 
 but ever providing what is honest in the sight of God 
 and men ; abstaining from all wrath, respect of per- 
 sons, and unrighteous judgment; avoiding covetous- 
 ness; not hastily believing a report against any man : 
 not rigid in judgment, knowing that we are all faulty 
 and obnoxious to judgment." * 
 
 Cyprian in his 29th epistle, directed " to his breth- 
 ren, the elders and deacons," expresses himself in the 
 following terms : — 
 
 " You are to take notice that I have ordained 
 Saturus a reader, and the confessor Optatus a sub- 
 deacon, whom we had all before agreed to place in 
 the rank and degree next to that of the clergy. Upon 
 Easter day, we 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, the Rev. Mr. Marshall, the Episcopal 
 translator and commentator of Cyprian, remarks, — 
 " It is hence, I think, apparent, that all presbyters 
 were not teachers, but assisted the bishop in other 
 parts of his office." And Bishop Fell, another editor 
 and commentator of Cyprian, remarks on the same 
 passage in the following words : — " Inter Presbyteros 
 rectores et doctores olim distinxisse videtur divus 
 Paulus ;" 1 Tim. v. 17. — i. e. St. Paul appears to have 
 made a distinction in ancient times, between teaching 
 and ruling elders, in 1 Timothy v. IT. Here two 
 learned Episcopal divines explicitly acknowledged the 
 distinction between teaching and ruling elders in the 
 primitive church ; and one of them an eminent bishop. 
 
 * Epistle to the Phiiippians, Sect. 6. 
 
65 
 
 not only allows that Cyprian referred to this distinc- 
 tion, but also quotes as an authority for it, the principal 
 text which Presbyterians adduce for the same purpose. 
 
 There is another passage in Cyprian's 40th epistle, 
 which the very learned authors of the Jus Divinum 
 Regiminis Ecclesiastici * consider as containing an 
 allusion to the office in question, and which may not 
 be unworthy of notice. At the time when Cyprian 
 wrote this letter, he was in a state of exile from his 
 church. It is directed to the elders, deacons, and 
 people at large, of his congregation, and contains an 
 expression of his wish, that one Numidicus should be 
 reckoned, or have a place assigned him with the pres- 
 byters, or elders of that church, and sit with the clergy. 
 And yet it would appear that this was only as a ruling, 
 and not as a teaching elder that he was to be received 
 by them; for Cyprian subjoins: — " He shall be pro- 
 moted, if God permit, to a more distinguished place 
 in his religion, (or his religious function) when, by 
 the protection of Providence, I shall return." Here, 
 it seems, the presbytery or eldership in that church 
 were directed immediately to receive, or set apart, 
 this man to the office of elder among them ; and their 
 absent pastor or bishop, promises that when he re- 
 turns Numidicus shall be promoted to a still higher 
 office. Now, the only supposable promotion in this 
 case, was to the office of a teaching elder. That the 
 passage is very naturally susceptible of this construc- 
 tion, none will deny. At any rate, it is adopted by 
 some of the most mature divines and scholars in 
 England, of the seventeenth century, however uncere- 
 moniously it may have been since rejected by less 
 competent judges. 
 
 Accordingly, it is worthy of notice, that the famous 
 Henry Dodwell, one of the most learned and zealous 
 Episcopal writers in the British empire, of the seven- 
 teenth century, notwithstanding his determined oppo- 
 
 * Jus Divinum, &c. p. 171, 17^. 
 
66 
 
 sition to every thing peculiarly Presbyterian ; yet, in 
 his celebrated Dissertations on Cyprian, freely grants, 
 that, in the days of that father there were elders or 
 presbyters in the Christian church, who did not preach. 
 He represents this fact as undoubtedly taught by 
 Cyprian in his epistles, and particularly refers for 
 proof, to the first of the passages cited in a preceding 
 page. Nay, he expresses a full persuasion that a 
 similar fact existed in the apostolic church, and quotes 
 1 Timothy v. 17, as a decisive confirmation of his 
 opinion.*' The notion, then, that all testimony sup- 
 posed to be derived from Cyprian in favour of non- 
 preaching elders, is a dream of modern sectaries, for 
 the purpose of carrying a favourite point in church 
 government, is plainly not tenable. Some of the best 
 talents and most mature learning in the Christian 
 church, without any leaning to Presbyterian opinions, 
 have decisively interpreted tjiat father as setting forth 
 such a class of elders. 
 
 Hippolytus, who was nearly contemporary with 
 Cyprian, repeatedly speaks of these elders as existing ? 
 and as exercising authority in his day. In his tract 
 " Against the Heresy of a certain Noetus," he states 
 in the beginning of the work, that Noetus being 
 charged with certain heretical opinions, the " elders 
 ^iffSvn^i) cited him to appear, and examined him in 
 the presence of the church;" that Noetus having at 
 first denied, but afterwards openly avowed the opinions 
 imputed to him, " the elders summoned him a second 
 time, condemned him, and cast him out of the church." 
 It seems, then, that in the third century, there were 
 elders, whose duty it was to examine, try, and excom- 
 municate such members of the church as were found 
 delinquent with respect to either doctrine or morals. 
 In this case, a part, at least, of the trial, seems to 
 have been conducted " in the presence of the church," 
 
 * Dissertationes Cyprianicae, vi. sect. 4, 5, 6. 
 
67 
 
 of which they were rulers ; but still the trial, convic- 
 tion, and excommunication were by the elders. 
 
 Origen who, it is well known, flourished a little 
 more than two hundred years after Christ, in the 
 following passage has a plain reference to the class 
 of officers under consideration : — " There are some 
 rulers appointed whose duty it is to inquire concerning 
 the manners and conversation of those who are ad- 
 mitted, that they may debar from the congregation 
 such as commit filthiness." * This passage is replete 
 with important and conclusive testimony. It not only 
 proves that, in the time of Origen, there were rulers 
 in the Christian church, but that the chief and peculiar 
 business of these rulers was precisely that which we 
 assign to ruling elders, viz. inspecting the members of 
 the church, watching over all its spiritual interests, 
 admitting to its communion those who, on inquiry, 
 were found worthy, and debarring those who were in 
 any way immoral. It is perfectly evident from this 
 passage alone, that, in the days of this learned father, 
 the government and discipline of the church were 
 not conducted by the body of the communicants at 
 large, but by a bench of rulers. 
 
 The same important fact is also indubitably implied 
 in the language of Origen in another place. In his 
 seventh Homily on Joshua, he speaks of one who, 
 " having been thrice admonished, and being unwilling 
 to repent, was cut off from the church by its r uler s." 
 Those who cut off then, from the communion of the 
 church, and restored the penitent, in the time of Ori- 
 gen, were not the body of the communicants, but a 
 bench of elders. This great historical fact is, more- 
 over, explicitly established, as having existed in the 
 third century, (the age of Origen,) by the Magde- 
 burgh Centuriators, a body of very learned Lutheran 
 divines, contemporary with Melancthon, and whose 
 authority as ecclesiastical historians, is deservedly 
 
 * Contra Celsura. Lib. iii. p. 142. Edit. Cantab. 1G77. 
 

 68 
 
 high. " The right," say they, " of deciding respect- 
 ing such as were to be excommunicated, or of receiv- 
 ing upon their repentance, such as had fallen, was 
 vested in the elders of the church.* 
 
 In the Gesta Purgationis Cceciliani et Felicis, pre- 
 served at the end of Optatus, and commonly referred 
 to the beginning of the fourth century, we meet 
 with the following enumeration of church officers : 
 " Pvesbytevi, Diaconi et Senio?*es" — i. e. " The pres- 
 byters, the deacons and the elders." And a little 
 after is added : — " Adhibite conclericos, et Senioves 
 plebis, ecclesiasticos vivos, et inquirant dillgentev 
 qu<£ sint istce disse7itiones" — i. e. " Call the fellow- 
 clergymen and elders of the people, ecclesiastical 
 men, and let them inquire diligently what are these 
 dissentions." In that assembly, likewise, several 
 letters were produced and read ; one addressed, Clero 
 et Seniovibus, — i. e. " to the clergy and the elders ;" 
 and another, Clericis et Seniovibus, — i. e. "to the 
 clergymen and the elders." Here, then, is a class of 
 men expressly recognized as ecclesiastical men, or 
 church officers ; who are styled elders ; who were 
 constituent members of a solemn ecclesiastical assembly 
 or judicatory ; who were expressly charged with in- 
 quiring into matters connected with the discipline of 
 the church; and yet carefully distinguished from the 
 clergy, with whom they met, and officially united in 
 the transaction of business. If these be not the elders 
 of whom we are in search, we may give up all the rules 
 of evidence. 
 
 Some, indeed, have said, that the phrase ecclesias- 
 ticos vivos, in one of the passages last cited, was not 
 intended to designate church officers at all ; that this 
 phrase was early introduced to distinguish " men of 
 the church," — i. e. Christians from Pagans, and other 
 enemies of Christ; and that it probably had some 
 such meaning, and nothing more, in the ancient 
 
 * Cent. iii. Cap. vii. p. 151. 
 
69 
 
 records from which the foregoing extracts are made. 
 It is freely granted that the phrase, ecclesiastici viri, 
 was for a time employed in the Christian church, as 
 well as by the surrounding heathen, in the sense, and 
 for the purpose just mentioned. That is, when 
 Christians were spoken of, as distinguished from Jews, 
 infidels, heretics, &c they were called ecclesiastical 
 men, importing that they did not belong to Jewish 
 synagogues, or heathen temples, or to heretical sects ; 
 but were adherents, or members of the church of 
 Christ. But it is well known that this language was 
 never employed in this sense among Christians them- 
 selves, when distinguishing one class of their own body 
 from another. When used in this case, it always de- 
 signated men in ecclssiastical office.* Besides, in the 
 passage before us, there can be no doubt that the 
 phrase under consideration was used in the latter 
 sense, and not in the former. For the ecclesiastical 
 men, in these passages are represented as joined with 
 the clergy in ecclesiastical functions; especially as 
 directed to investigate and settle ecclesiastical dissen- 
 sions. Surely this could neither be required nor ex- 
 pected of men who sustained no office, and w r ere of 
 course, invested with no authority in the church. 
 
 Another objection which has been confidently urged 
 against that construction which we have put upon the 
 extracts from the Gesta Purgationis, &c. is that the 
 seniors or elders, of which they speak, are mentioned 
 after deacons, and, therefore, are to be considered 
 as inferior to them. " Now," say these objectors, 
 " the ruling elders of the presbyterian church are 
 always considered and represented, by the advocates 
 of that denomination, as above deacons, rather than 
 below them, on the scale of ecclesiastical precedence. 
 Of course, the senior here spoken of, cannot belong to 
 the class of officers for which they contend." To this 
 objection it is sufficient to reply, that the mere order 
 
 * Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastics, Book i. chapter i. section 8. 
 
70 
 
 in which titles are arranged, cannot be considered as 
 decisive of the relative rank with which these titles are 
 connected. At once to illustrate and confirm this re- 
 mark, a single example will suffice. In the epistle of 
 Ignatius, when he speaks of bishops, or pastors, 
 elders and deacons, no intelligent reader supposes 
 that he means to represent the second and third of 
 these classes of offices as inferior to the first. Yet, in 
 his epistle to the Trallians, he speaks thus: — " Let all 
 reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ; and the bishop 
 as the Father ; and the presbyters as the sanhedrim 
 of God, and the college of the apostles." This may 
 argue carelessness or haste in writing; or it may 
 argue a mind in the writer, less intent on ecclesiasti- 
 cal precedence than on more important matters ; 
 but it surely cannot be considered as deciding the 
 relative standing of the different officers of whom he 
 speaks. 
 
 Besides, let it be recollected, that the date of these 
 Gesta was about the year of Christ 303, when the 
 office of ruling elder, if we may credit the very ex- 
 plicit testimony of Ambrose, which will be stated pre- 
 sently, was going gradually out of use. If so, nothing 
 was more natural than that the writers and speakers 
 of that day should be disposed to throw it on the back 
 ground, and rather degrade than advance its appro- 
 priate rank in the scale of ecclesiastical honour. 
 
 There is also a passage in Optatus, of the African 
 church, who flourished a little after the middle of the 
 fourth century, which corroborates the foregoing 
 quotations. It is as follows: — " The church had many 
 ornaments of gold and silver, which she could neither 
 bury in the earth, nor carry away with her, which she 
 committed to the elders, (Senioribus,) as to faithful 
 persons/'* There can scarcely be a doubt that these 
 were not mere aged persons, but official men ; and, 
 especially as we know, from the writings of Cyprian, 
 
 • Optat, Lib. i. p. 41. edit. Paris, 1631. 
 
71 
 
 who resided in the same country, that there were such 
 officers in the African church, a few years before. 
 
 Ambrose who lived in the fourth century,* in his 
 commentary on 1 Timothy v. 1, has the following 
 passage : " For, indeed, among all nations old age is 
 honourable. Hence it is that the synagogue, and 
 afterwards the church, had elders, without whose 
 counsel nothing was done in the church ; which by 
 what negligence it grew r into disuse I know not, un- 
 less, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of 
 the teachers, while they alone wished to appear some- 
 thing." The great body of the Prelatists, as well as 
 some others, have laboured hard to divest this passage 
 of its plain and pointed testimony in favour of the 
 office of ruling elder. They insist upon it that the 
 pious father had no reference whatever to ecclesiastical 
 officers, but only to aged persons, and that he meant 
 to say nothing more than that, formerly, in the 
 synagogue, and afterwards in the church, there were 
 old men, whom it was customary to consult ; which 
 practice, however, at the time in which he wrote, was 
 generally laid aside. This perversion of an obvious 
 meaning, is really so strange and extravagant, that the 
 formality of a serious refutation seems scarcely neces- 
 sary. Can any reflecting man believe that Hilary 
 designed only to inform his readers that in the Jewish 
 synagogues there were actually persons who had 
 attained a considerable age ; that this was also after- 
 wards the case in the Christian church ; and that 
 these aged persons were generally consulted ? This 
 would have been a sage remark indeed ! Was there 
 ever a community of any extent, either ecclesiastical 
 or civil, which did not include some aged persons ? 
 Or was there ever a state of society, or an age of the 
 
 * It is not forgotten that learned men have generally consi- 
 dered the real name of this writer as Hilary. Yet as the name 
 of Ambrose is more frequently given to him, especially by many 
 writers hereafter to be quoted, the latter name will be more 
 intelligible, and therefore, more convenient. 
 
72 
 
 world, in which the practice of consulting the aged 
 and experienced had fallen into disuse ? That think- 
 ing, candid minds, should be able to satisfy themselves 
 with such a gloss, is truly wonderful. It is certainly 
 no argument in favour of this construction of the 
 language of Ambrose, that he prefaces his statement 
 respecting the synagogue and the church, by remark- 
 ing, that " among all nations old age is honourable.'' 
 Surely no remark could be more natural or appropriate 
 when he was about to state, that from the earliest 
 period of the Christian church, and long before in the 
 synagogue, all their affairs had been managed by 
 colleges of elders, (a title importing a kind of homage 
 to age and experience, ) without whose council nothing 
 was done. 
 
 But there is a clause in this extract from Ambrose, 
 which precludes all doubt that he intended to allude 
 to a class of church officers, and not merely to old 
 age. It is this :— " Which by what negligence it 
 grew into disuse, I know not, unless, perhaps, by the 
 sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, who 
 wished alone to appear something." It is very con- 
 ceivable and obvious that both the pride and the sloth 
 of the teachers, or teaching elders, should render them 
 willing to get rid of a bench of officers of equal power 
 with themselves, as rulers in the church, and, con- 
 sequently able to control their wishes in cases of dis- 
 cipline. But it cannot easily be conceived w r hy either 
 sloth or pride should render any so particularly averse 
 to all consultation with the aged and experienced, in 
 preference to the young, on the affairs of the church : 
 especially if these aged persons bore no office, and 
 there was of course, no official obligation to be 
 governed by their advice, as the gloss under considera- 
 tion supposes. It being evident, then, that a class of 
 officers was here intended, the question arises, what 
 class of presbyters, or elders, was that which had 
 grown into disuse in the fourth century ? Not teach- 
 ing presbyters, surely; for every one knows that that 
 
73 
 
 class of Presbyters had not become obsolete in Am- 
 brose's time. His own writings amply attest the re- 
 verse. And every one also knows that this class of 
 church officers has never been laid aside, or even 
 diminished in number, to the present day. 
 
 It is worthy of very particular notice here, also, as 
 no small confirmation of the construction which we 
 put upon the words of Ambrose, that all the most 
 learned and able of the reformers, and a great num- 
 ber of others, the most competent judges in such 
 matters, from the reformation to the present time, 
 have concurred in adopting the same construction, 
 and have considered the worthy father as referring 
 to a class of elders who held the place of inspectors 
 and rulers in the church. Learned Lutherans, and 
 Episcopalians, as well as Calvinists, almost without 
 number, have united in the interpretation of this 
 father, which we have given, with a degree of harmony 
 truly wonderful, if that interpretation be entirely 
 erroneous. Is it less likely that Luther, and Melanc- 
 thon, and Bucer, and Whitgift, and Zanchius, and 
 Peter Martyr, who had no sectarian or private views 
 to serve, should be able correctly to read and under- 
 stand Ambrose, than that modern and more superficial 
 scholars should be betrayed into a mistaken construc- 
 tion, on the side in favour of which their feelings were 
 strongly enlisted? No disrespect whatever is intend- 
 ed to the latter ; but it cannot be doubted that a great 
 preponderancy of testimony, both as to numbers and 
 competency, is on the side of the former. 
 
 Arifr^HnHj hkhnp .of jlippo, who also lived toward 
 the close of the fourth century, often refers to this 
 class of officers in his writings. Thus, in his work, 
 Contra Crescouiinn Granunaticum, lib. iii. cap. 56, he 
 peaks of " Per egr inns, Presbyter, et Seniores Ec- 
 lesice Musticance regionis ;" — i. e. " Peregrine, the 
 presbyter, and the elders of the church of the Musta- 
 can district." And again, he addresses one of his 
 epistles intended for his church at Hippo, in the 
 
 G 
 
74 
 
 following manner : — " Dileclissimis Fratribus, Clero, 
 Senioribus et universes Plebi Ecclesim Hipponensis*;" 
 Epist. 137, — i. e. " To the beloved brethren, the 
 clergy, the elders, and all the people of the church at 
 Hippo." There were some elders then, in the time of 
 Augustine, whom he distinguishes from other presby- 
 ters, and whom he also distinguishes from the clergy. 
 And, lest any should suppose that the elders here 
 spoken of were not officers, but mere private members 
 of the church, he distinguishes them from the plebs 
 universa of the church. Augustine, also, in another 
 place, (De Verb. Dom. Serm. 19,) speaks thus: — " Cum 
 ob errorem aliquem a Senioribus arguuntur, et imputa- 
 tur alicui de illis, cur^ebfius Juerit ? cur res alienas 
 pervaserit?" &c. — . i. e. "When they are reprehended 
 for any error by the elders, and are upraided with 
 having been drunk, or with having been guilty of 
 theft, &c" Can any one doubt that Augustine is here 
 speaking, not of mere aged persons, but of church 
 officers, whose duty it was to inspect the morals of the 
 members of the church, and to " upbraid," or reprove 
 those who had been reprehensible in their deportment ? 
 It would be easy to produce from the same father a 
 number of other quotations equally to our purpose. 
 But Bingham, in his Origines Ecclesiastics Bishop 
 Ta vlpr, in his Episcopacy Asserted, and other learned 
 Prelatists, have rendered this unnecessary, by making 
 an explicit acknowledgment, that Augustine repeatedly 
 mentions these seniors or elders, as belonging to other 
 churches as well as his own, in his time ; and that the 
 same kind of elders are frequently referred to by other 
 writers, both before and after Augustine, as then ex- 
 isting in the church ; as holding in it some kind of 
 official station ; and yet as distinguished from clergy- 
 men. It is true, indeed, that Bingham insists upon it 
 that these were not ruling elders, in our sense of the 
 word ; but that they held some kind of office in the church, 
 and yet were not public preachers, he explicitly grants. 
 We ask nothing more. This is quite sufficient for our 
 purpose. 
 
15 
 
 The ancient work, entitled Apostolical Constitutions, 
 although by no means, of Apostolical origin, was pro- 
 bably composed sometime between the second and 
 fifth centuries. The following significant and pointed 
 rule, extracted from that work, will be considered by 
 the intelligent reader as by no means equivocal in its 
 aspect: — "To presbyters also, when they labour 
 assiduously in tfieword and doctrine, let a double por- 
 tion be assigned."* Here is, obviously, a distfnction 
 between presbyters who are employed in teaching, and 
 those who were not so employed. To what duties the 
 other devoted themselves is not stated; but it is 
 evident that teaching made no part of their ordinary 
 occupation. We may take for granted that their 
 duty was to assist in the other spiritual concerns cf 
 the church, viz. in maintaining good order and dis- 
 cipline. This is precisely the distinction which pres- 
 byterians make, and which they believe to have been 
 made in the primitive church. Accordingly the pres- 
 byters, in the same relic of Christian antiquity, and 
 in a subsequent part of the same chapter, are called 
 " the counsellors of the bishop, or pastor ; and the 
 Sanhedrim or senate of the church :" expressions which 
 entirely harmonize with our views of the office of 
 elder in the ancient church. 
 
 To the same class of officers, Isodore of Hispala, 
 who flourished in the sjxth century, "seems to allude, 
 when, in giving directions as to the manner in which 
 pastors should conduct their official instructions, he 
 says : — Prius docendi sunt Senior es plebis, ut per tos 
 infra positi facilius doceantur ;" — i. c. " The elders oi 
 the people are first to be taught, that by them such as 
 are placed under them, may be more easily instructed." 
 Here again, these Seniores are evidently spoken of as 
 church officers, who were set over the people, and yet 
 occupied a station inferior to that of the pastors, or 
 public preachers. 
 
 * Apostol Constit. lib. ii. cap. 28. 
 
76 
 
 Nor does the class of officers appear to have entirely 
 ceased in the church at as late a period as that of 
 Gregory the Great? who wrote in the latter part 
 of the sixth century. In one of his epistles he gives 
 the following direction : — " If any things should come 
 to your ears concerning any clergyman, which may be 
 justly considered as matter of offence, do not easily 
 ; believe it ; but let truth be diligently investigated by 
 \! th e eldgff s of the j&nrdh, who may be at hand, and 
 then, if the characteroF the act demand it, let the pro- 
 per punishment fall on the offender."* 
 
 Here there is evidently a very distinct reference to 
 such a class of officers as that of which we are speak- 
 ing. They are distinguished from clergymen ; and yet 
 they are represented as ecclesiastical officers, to whom 
 it properly pertained to investigate ecclesiastical 
 offences ; and to give advice and direction in peculiarly 
 delicate cases of discipline. At an earlier period of the 
 church, indeed these elders, as well as all other classes 
 of ecclesiastical men, were styled clergymen ; as we 
 shall have occasion more fully to show hereafter : but 
 from the fourth century and onward, elders of this 
 class declined in numbers and in popularity, and not 
 lonof afterwards were in a great measure laid aside, 
 excepting by the humble and devoted witnesses of the 
 truth, of whose testimony we shall speak in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 There is another species of evidence here worthy of 
 notice. The representation which the fathers give of 
 the manner in which the bishop or pastors and his 
 elders were commonly seated, when the church was 
 assembled, and during the 'solemnities of public wor- 
 ship, afford very strong evidence that the mass of the 
 elders were such as it is the object of this essay to 
 establish. We are told by several of the early fathers, 
 that when the church was convened for public worship, 
 
 f* Epist 
 Ecclesias 1 
 
 istola?, lib. ii. epist. 19 — quoted from the Politica 
 Ecclesiastica of Voetius, par. ii. lib. ii. tract, iii. 
 
77 
 
 f/v^l. 
 
 the bishop, or pastor, was commonly seated on the 
 midoTe~oT a raised bench, or long semi-circular seat, at 
 one end of the church ; that his elders were seated on 
 each side of him, on the same seat, or on seats im- 
 mediately adjoining, and commonly a little lower ; and 
 that the deacons commonly stood in front of this bench, 
 ready to give any notice, to execute any order, or to 
 perform any service which the pastor or elders might 
 think proper to direct. This practice was evidently 
 drawn from the Jewish synagogue. And, indeed, the 
 order of assembling, sitting, and worship in the Chris- 
 tian assemblies, for the first two or three centuries, so 
 strikingly resembled that of the synagogue, that 
 Christian churches were frequently contemned, and 
 opposed as " synagogues in disguise."* 
 
 This general fact is so well attested by the early 
 Chistian writers, that it is unnecessary to detain the 
 reader by any formal proof of it. Now, if in every 
 church, when assembled in ordinary circumstances, 
 there were present a pastor, overseer, or bishop, and a 
 body of elders, sitting with him, and counselling and 
 aiding him in the inspection and discipline of the 
 church ; it is hardly necessary to say, that these elders ; 
 could not all have been such presbyters as the friends 
 of Prelacy contend for, as their " second order of 
 clergy." The supposition is absurd. They could only 
 have been such a bench of pious and venerable men, 
 as were chiefly employed in overseeing and ruling ; and 
 corresponding, substantially, with the elders of the pres- 
 byterian church. It is true, indeed, the advocates of 
 Prelacy endeavour to persuade us that these presbyters 
 were the stated preachers in the several congregations 
 or worshipping assemblies which were, as they suppose, 
 comprehended in the bishop's charge. But this 
 supposition is wholly unsupported. Nay, it is directly 
 contrary to the whole current of early testimony on 
 this subject. The very same writers who imform us 
 
 * Thorndike's Discourse on Religious Assemblies, p. 57. 
 g2 
 
78 
 
 that there were any presbyters at all in the Christian 
 church within the first three hundred years, represent 
 a plurality of them as sitting with the bishop or pastor, 
 and present in every worshipping assembly. There is 
 no system with which this statement can be made 
 essentially to agree, but that which is received among 
 presbyterians. 
 
 Another strong argument in support of the doctrine 
 of ruling elders, as drawn from the early fathers, is 
 found in the abundant evidence which their writings 
 furnish, that during the first three or four centuries 
 after Christ, the great body of the Christian presby- 
 ters did not ordinarily preach, indeed never, but by 
 the special permission of the bishop or pastor. The 
 following statement by the learned Bingham, in his 
 Origines Eeelesiasticce book ii. chapter iii. section 4. 
 will be found conclusive on this point : — 
 
 " The like observation may be made upon the office 
 of preaching. This was in the first place the bishop's 
 office, which they commonly discharged themselves, 
 especially in the African churches. Which is the 
 reason we so frequently meet with the phrase, Tra c- 
 tante Episcopo the bishop preaching, in the writings 
 of Cyprian. For then it was so much the office and 
 custom of bishops to preach, that no presbyter was 
 permitted to preach in their presence, till the time of 
 St. Austin, who, whilst he was a presbyter was author- 
 ized by Valerius, his bishop, to preach before him. 
 But that, as Possidius, the writer of his life observes, 
 was so contrary to the use and custom of the African 
 churches, that many bishops were highly offended at 
 it, and spoke against it ; till the consequence proved 
 that such a permission was of good use and service to 
 the church ; and then several other bishops granted 
 their presbyters power and privilege to preach before 
 them. So that it was then a favour for the presbyters 
 to preach in the presence of the bishops, and wholly at 
 the bishop's discretion, whether they would permit 
 them or not; and when they did preach, it was wholly 
 
79 
 
 pottstate accepter, by the power and authority of the 
 bishops that appointed them. In the eastern churches 
 presbyters were more commonly employed to preach, 
 as Possidius observes, when lie says Valerius brought 
 the custom into Africa from their example. And St. 
 Jerome intimates so much, when he complains of it as 
 an ill custom only in some churches to forbid presby- 
 ters to preach. Chrysostom preached several of his 
 elaborate discourses at Antioch, while he was but a 
 presbyter ; and so did Atticus at Constantinople : and 
 the same is obser/ed to have been granted to the pres- 
 byters of Alexandria and Csesarea, in Cappadocia, 
 and Cyprus, and other places. But still it was but a 
 grant of the bishops ; and presbyters did it by their 
 authority and commission. And whenever bishops 
 saw just reason to forbid them, they had power to 
 limit or withdraw their commission again : — as both 
 Socrates and Sozomen testify, who say that at Alexan- 
 dria presbyters were forbidden to preach from the 
 time that Arius raised a disturbance in the church. 
 Thus we see what a power bishops anciently challenged 
 and exercised over presbyters in the common and 
 ordinary offices of the church : particularly for preach- 
 ing, bishops always esteemed it their office as much as 
 any other." This statement is amply illustrated and 
 confirmed by the learned author by numerous refer- 
 ences to early writers of the highest reputation, which 
 it is altogether unnecessary to recite, on account of the 
 notoriety of the fact alleged. 
 
 Can such a statement be contemplated a moment 
 without perceiving, that the mass of the presbyters or 
 elders, during the times here spoken of, were a very 
 different class of officers from those commonly styled 
 " presbyters," in the papacy afterwards, and in more 
 modern prelat.ical churches ? The very circumstance 
 of preaching making no part of their ordinary func- 
 tion; nay, that, in ordinary cases, they were never 
 allowed to t:o it, but in virtue of a special permission, 
 which is evidently the import of the whole account, 
 
80 
 
 unless we make nonsense of it ; places it beyond all 
 doubt that the authority which they received at ordina- 
 tion, did not really commission them to preach at all ; 
 but that the bishop only was the commissioned 
 preacher. This is exactly what presbyterians say. And 
 if ever ruling elders or deacons among us, conduct 
 social worship, and address the people in public, it is 
 always under the direction of the bishop or pastor, who 
 may encourage or arrest it as he pleases. It is vain to 
 say, that presbyters in the Protestant Episcopal church 
 at the present day cannot preach, or perform any 
 ecclesiastical act without the bishop's permission. This 
 is an idle evasion. The fact is, that every one knows 
 that their original ordination, as presbyters, or 
 " priests," as they are called — conveys the full power 
 to preach, administer sacraments, and perform every 
 duty of the ordinary parochial ministration, statedly, 
 and without any further let or impediment. The 
 cases then, are wholly unlike. There were, evidently, 
 in the days of Ignatius and Cyprian, of Chrysostom 
 and Augustine, of Socrates and Sozomen, some elders 
 who did not ordinarily preach, and were not considered 
 as authorised to engage in this part of the public ser- 
 vice, without a special permission ; and who stood, not 
 exactly, indeed, but very much on the same ground, as 
 to this matter, with the elders of our denomination. 
 
 The truth is, some of the very same writers who 
 inform us that elders and deacons were not ordinarily 
 allowed to preach during the first three or four cen- 
 turies, also inform us, that laymen, in cases of 
 necessity, might preach by the bishop's permission. 
 This at once illustrates and strengthens the presbyterian 
 argument. For the same authority which might give 
 a special permission in each case, or a general permis- 
 sion, for a time, to an elder or deacon to preach ; 
 which permission, it seems, might be revoked at plea- 
 sure, without touching the official standing of the in- 
 dividual, much less deposing him from office ; — might 
 also authorize the merest layman in the whole parish 
 
81 
 
 J? 
 
 to perform the same service, whenever it was judged 
 expedient to give the license. 
 
 The truth of the matter seems to have been this. 
 A large majority of the officers called elders, in the 
 three first centuries, were, no doubt, ruling elders — or- 
 dained, it is probable, in the same manner with the 
 teaching elders, — i. e. with " the laying on of hands," 
 and the same external solemnity in every respect. 
 They were not qualified, and were not expected, when 
 ordained, to be preachers; but were selected, on 
 account of their piety, gravity, prudence, and experi- 
 ence, to assist in inspection and government. When, 
 however, the bishop or pastor, who was the stated 
 preacher, was sick, or absent, he might direct a ruling 
 elder to take his place on a single occasion, or for a 
 few Sabbaths. But this function made no part of their 
 stated work : and they seldom engaged in it. After a 
 while, however, these elders, like the bishops on 
 the one hand, and the deacons on the other, began to 
 aspire ; were more and more frequently permitted to 
 preach ; until, at length, non-preaching elders were 
 chiefly banished from the church. As this was a 
 gradual thing, they were, of course, retained in some 
 churches longer than others. They were, probably, 
 first laid aside in large cities, where ambition was most 
 prevalent, laxity of morals most indulged, and strict 
 discipline most unpopular. In this way things pro- 
 ceeded, until this class of officers was almost wholly 
 lost sight of in the Christian community. 
 
 One more testimony, by no means unimportant, of 
 the existence of this office in the primitive church, is 
 to be found in the Rev. Dr. Buchanan's account of the 
 Syrian Christians, contained in his Asiatic Besearches. 
 It will be borne in mind that the learned and pious 
 author considers those Christians as having settled in 
 the East, within the first three centuries after Christ, 
 before the corruptions of the Church of Rome had 
 been introduced, and when the original simplicity of 
 gospel order had been but in a small degree invaded. 
 
82 
 
 Separating from the Western church at that early pe- 
 riod, and remaining for many centuries, almost vvholl) 
 secluded from the rest of the world, they were found 
 in a great measure free from the innovations and super- 
 stitions of the Papacy. Now, if ruling elders had any 
 existence in the Christian church within the first three 
 hundred years, as Ambrose expressly declares they had, 
 we might expect to find the Syrian Christians, in 
 their seclusion, retaining some traces at least of this 
 office in their churches. Accordingly, Dr. Buchanan, 
 in describing the circumstances of a visit which he paid 
 one of the churches of this simple and highly interest- 
 ing people, speaks as follows : — " When we arrived, I 
 was received at^the door of the church by three Kas- 
 heeshas, that is presbyters, or priests, who were habited 
 in like manner in white vestments. Their names 
 were Jesu, Zecharias, and Urias, which they wrote 
 down in my journal, each of them adding to his name 
 the title Kasheesha. There were also present two 
 Shumshanas, or deacons. The elder priest was a 
 very intelligent man, of reverend appearance, having a 
 long white beard, and of an affable and engaging de- 
 portment. The three principal Christians, or lay- 
 eldejrs, belonging to the church, were named Abra- 
 ham, Thomas and Alexandras."* 
 
 This remarkable fact, it is believed, belongs most 
 properly to the present chapter. For if these simple 
 Syrian Christians were really settled in the East, as 
 early as Dr. Buchanan seems, with good reason, to 
 suppose, and were for many centuries entirely secluded 
 from all foreign influence ; we may consider them as 
 having in operation among them, substantially, that 
 ecclesiastical system which existed through the greater 
 part of the Christian church at the close of the third, 
 and the beginning of the fourth century. A kind of 
 testimony which, of course, falls in with our purpose 
 
 1 Christian Researches in Asia, p. 75. N. Y, Edit. 12mo. 
 1812. 
 
83 
 
 in examining the testimony of the early ages of the 
 church. 
 
 Such then, is the amount of the testimony from the 
 Christian fathers. They tell us, with a unanimity 
 and frequency truly remarkable, that in every church, 
 there was a bench or college of elders ; that they sat, 
 with the bishop or pastor, as an ecclesiastical judica- 
 tory, and with him ruled the church ; that this bench 
 or body of rulers was called by various names in 
 different parts of the world, such as, Ecclesice Con- 
 sessus, the Session or Consistory of the church — 
 rm *prtvrsz»v rovitipav, the court or Sanhedrim of the 
 elders — Ecclesice Senatus, the senate of the church — 
 Bov\n tKxXmicc? the council of the church, &c. &c. ; that 
 they were always present with the bishop or pastor 
 when he presided in public worship ; that he did 
 nothing of importance without consulting them ; 
 that they seldom or never preached, unless in cases of 
 necessity, or when specially requested to do so by the 
 pastor ; that they were more frequently than other- 
 wise called clergymen, like the elders who " laboured 
 in the word and doctrine," but sometimes distinguished 
 from the clergy ; that, however, whether called 
 clergymen or not, they were " ecclesiastical men," 
 that is, set apart for ecclesiastical purposes, devoted to 
 the spiritual rule and edification of the church ; that 
 all questions of discipline, such as admitting members 
 into the church, inspecting their Christian deportment, 
 and censuring, suspending and excommunicating, were 
 decided by these elders : and, finally, from all it is 
 apparent, that as discipline became unpopular, and 
 ecclesiastics more aspiring, the ruling part of the elder's 
 office was gradually laid aside, and the teaching part 
 alone retained. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE TRUTH, 
 DURING THE DARK AGES. 
 
 It has been the habit of zealous and high-toned 
 Prelatists, for more than two centuries past, as well as 
 of some Independents, to assert, that ruling elders 
 were unknown in the Christian church until about the 
 year 1541 ; that then Calvin invented the order, and 
 introduced it into the church of Geneva. And some 
 worthy men, of other denominations, have allowed 
 themselves, with more haste than good advisement, to 
 adopt and repeat the assestion. It is an assertion 
 which, undoubtedly, cannot be made good; as the fol- 
 lowing testimonies will probably satisfy every impartial 
 reader. 
 
 At how early a period the old Waldenses took their 
 rise is uncertain. In some of their Confessions of Faith, 
 and other ecclesiastical documents, dated at the com- 
 mencement, or soon after the commencement, of the 
 Reformation by Luther, they speak of their doctrine 
 and order as having been handed down from father 
 to son for more than five hundred years. But Rei- 
 nerius, who himself lived about two hundred and fifty 
 years before Luther, who had once resided among the 
 Waldenses, but afterwards became one of their bitterest 
 persecutors, seems to ascribe to that people a much 
 earlier origin. " They are more pernicious," says he, 
 "to the church of Rome than any other set of here- 
 
85 
 
 tics, for three reasons: — 1. Because they are older 
 than any other sect ; for some say that they have been 
 ever since the time of Pope Sylvester, (who was raised 
 to the Papal chair in 314 ;) and others say, from the 
 time of the Apostles.* 2. Because they are more 
 extensively spread than any other sect ; there being 
 scarcely a country into which they have not crept. 
 3. Because other sects are abominable to God for there 
 blasphemies ; but the Waldenses are more pious than 
 any other heretics; they believe truly of God, live 
 justly before men, and receive all the articles of the 
 creed ; only they hate the Church of Rome." 
 
 Now, John Paul Perrin, the well known historian 
 of the Waldenses, and who was himself one of the 
 ministers of that people, in a number of places recog- 
 nizes the office of elder, distinguished from that of 
 pastor, or teacher, as retained in their churches. He 
 expressly and repeatedly represents their Synods as 
 composed of ministers and elders. The same writer 
 tells us that in the year 1476, the Hussites, being en- 
 gaged in separating and reforming their churches from 
 the Church of Rome, understood that there were some 
 churches of the ancient Waldenses in Austria, in 
 which the purity of the gospel was retained, and in 
 which there were many eminent pastors. In order to 
 ascertain the truth of this account, they (the Hussites) 
 sent two of their ministers, with two elders, to inquire 
 and ascertain what those flocks or congregations were.f 
 
 The same historian, in the same work, speaks of the 
 ministers and elders of the Bohemian churches.^ 
 Now the Bohemian Brethren, it is well known, were 
 
 * Reinerius flourished about A.D. 1250, more than 250 years 
 before the Reformation ; and, at that time, he speaks of the 
 Waldenses as an ancient people y of too remote an origin to be 
 traced with distinctness and certainty. 
 
 f History of the Old Waldenses, part. ii. book 1. chap. 10; 
 book 2, chap. 4; book 5, chap. 7. 
 
 % Partii. book 2. chapter 9, 10. 
 ii 
 
86 
 
 a branch of the same people called Waldenses.* They 
 had removed from Picardy, in the north of France, 
 about two hundred years before the time of Huss and 
 Jerome, to Bohemia, and there, in conjunction with 
 many natives of the country, whom they brought over 
 to their opinions, established a numberof pure churches, 
 which long maintained the simplicity of the gospel. 
 The undoubted existence of ruling elders, then, among 
 the Bohemian Brethren, affords in itself, strong pre- 
 sumptive proof that the same class of officers existed 
 in other branches of the same body. And, accordingly, 
 a Synod, of which we have an account, as held in 
 Piedmont in Italy, in 1570, is represented repeatedly 
 as made up of " pastors and elders.'' Again, in the 
 form of Government of the same people, in the chapter 
 on Excommunication, we find the following direction 
 respecting the disorderly, who refuse to listen to private 
 admonition : — " Tell it to the church ;" that is, to the 
 " guides, whereby the church is ruled ;" and that we 
 may be at no loss who these " rulers" were, we are 
 told in a preceding chapter that they were elders 
 chosen from among the people for the purpose of 
 governing ; and informed that they were distinct from 
 the pastors. 
 
 The testimony of Perrin and others, is supported 
 by that of M. Gillis, another historian of the Wal- 
 denses, and also one of their pastors. In the Confes- 
 sion of Faith of that people, inserted at length in the 
 " Addition" to this work, and stated by the historian 
 to have been the Confession of the ancient, as well as 
 of the modern Waldenses, it is declared, (p. 490 — 
 art. 31,) that " it is necessary for the church to have 
 pastors, to preach God's word, to administer the sacra- 
 ments, and to watch over the sheep of Jesus Christ ; 
 and also elders and deacons, according to the rules of 
 good and holy church discipline, and the practice 
 of the primitive church." 
 
 f History of the Waldenses, 4to. 1655, published by order of 
 Cromwell. 
 
87 
 
 Sir Samuel Moreland, who visited the Waldenses 
 in the year 1656, and took unwearied pains to learn 
 from themselves their history, as well as their doctrine 
 and order ; informs us, that besides their Synodical 
 meetings, which took place once a year, when all can- 
 didates for the pastoral office were commonly ordained, 
 they had also consistories in their respective churches, 
 by means of which pure discipline was constantly 
 maintained.* 
 
 Accordingly, the Rev. Dr. Ranken, in his labori- 
 ously learned History of France, gives the following 
 account of the Waldenses and Albigenses, whom he 
 very properly represents as the same people. "Their 
 government and discipline were extremely simple. 
 The youth intended for the ministry among them, 
 were placed under the inspection of some of the elder 
 barbes, or pastors, who trained them chiefly to the 
 knowledge of the Scriptures ; and when satisfied of 
 their proficiency, they received them as preachers, with 
 imposition of hands. Their pastors were maintained 
 by the voluntary offerings of the people. The whole 
 church assembled once a year, to treat of their gen- 
 eral affairs. Contributions were then obtained ; and 
 the common fund was divided, for the year, 
 among not only the fixed pastors, but such as were 
 itinerant, and had no particular district or charge. If 
 any of them had fallen into scandal or sin, they were 
 prohibited from preaching, and thrown out of the 
 society. The pastors were assisted in their inspection 
 of the people's morals, by elders, w r hom probably both 
 pastors and people elected, and set apart for that 
 purpose."f 
 
 Further ; not only does Perrin speak of the minis- 
 ters and elders of the Bohemian churches, thereby 
 plainly intimating that they had a class of elders 
 
 * History of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont, book i. 
 chapter viii. 
 
 f History of France, vol. iii. pp. 203, 204. 
 
88 
 
 distinct from their pastors, or preachers; but the 
 same thing is placed beyond the possibility of doubt or 
 question by the Bohemian Brethren themselves, who, 
 in the year 1535, presented a Confession of their Faith 
 to Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, with 
 a friendly and highly commendatory preface by Luther; 
 and who, a number of years afterwards, published their 
 " Plan of Government and Discipline," which con- 
 tains the following paragraph : — 
 
 " Elders (Presbyteri, seu Censores morum) are 
 honest, grave, pious men, chosen out of the whole con- 
 gregation, that they may act as guardians of all the 
 rest. To them authority is given, (either alone or in 
 connection with the pastor) to admonish and rebuke 
 those who transgress the prescribed rules, also to re- 
 concile those who are at variance, and to restore to order 
 whatever irregularity they may have noticed. Like- 
 wise in secular matters, relating to domestic concerns, 
 the younger men and youths are in the habit of ask- 
 ing their counsel, and of being faithfully advised by them. 
 From the example and practice of the ancient church, 
 we believe that this ought always to be done ; see 
 Exodus xviii. 21. — Duteronomy i. 13. — 1 Cor. vi. 2, 
 4, 5.— 1 Tim. v. 17." 
 
 This they say, at the close, " is the ecclesiastical 
 order which they and their forefathers had had estab- 
 lished among them for two hundred years :* which 
 they derived from the word of God ; which they main- 
 tained through much persecution, and with much 
 patience, and which they had observed with much 
 happy fruit to themselves, and to the people of God."f 
 
 * The " Plan of Government and Discipline," from which the 
 above extracts are made, was drawn up by their " General 
 Synod" in 1616, and printed in 1632. When, therefore, they 
 declare that they and their forefathers had enjoyed the same 
 order for two hundred years, it carries back the date of this 
 system to 1416, that is to the time of John Huss ; and, of course, 
 nearly a century before the birth of Calvin. 
 
 \ Jo. Amos Comenii Historia Fratrum Bohemorum Ratio 
 Disciplines Ordinisque, &c. 1 1, 56, 68. 
 
89 
 
 And that all mistake might be precluded respecting 
 the real import of the above stated classes, the Bohe- 
 mian historian and commentator, Comenius, makes 
 the following remarks on the elders in question : — 
 
 " Presbyter, a Greek term, signifying the same with 
 Senior, in Latin, (an elder,) is applied by the apostles 
 both to the pastors of the church, and to those who 
 assisted them in taking care of the flock, who do not 
 labour in the word and doctrine ; 1 Timothy v. IT. 
 Such are our elders; they are styled judges of the 
 congregation, or censors of the people, and also 
 ruling elders. I am not ignorant, indeed, that Hugo 
 Grotius has laboured hard to prove that, in the 
 apostles' days there were no other presbyters than 
 pastors ; and that he assigns a different meaning to the 
 passage in 1 Timothy v. 17. Yet, inasmuch as he 
 finally confesses, that although such elders of the 
 church as sit with the pastors in ecclesiastical judica- 
 tories, be an institution of human prudence, they are, 
 nevertheless, very useful, and ought by all means to 
 be retained : I hope no one will easily find any reason- 
 able objection. To guard against abuses, he subjoins 
 very judicious cautions, at the close of chapter xi. of 
 the book which he entitled, De Imperio Summarum 
 Protestatum circa Sacra."* 
 
 In precisely the same manner are both the theory 
 and practice of the Bohemian Brethren understood by 
 the celebrated Martin Bucer, a very learned Lutheran 
 divine, whose fame throughout Europe induced Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer to invite him to England, during the 
 progress of the Reformation in that country, where he 
 received patronage and preferment, and was held in 
 high estimation. Bucer was a contemporary of the 
 Bohemian worthies who published the exhibition of 
 their faith and practice above quoted, and, of course, 
 had every opportunity of knowing both its letter and 
 spirit. He speaks of it in the following terms : — 
 
 * Annotationes ad Rationem Ordinis Fratrum Bohemorum 
 ad cap. i. p. 68. 
 
90 
 
 "The Bohemian Brethren, (Picardi,)* who pub- 
 lished a Confession of their faith, in the year 1535, 
 with a preface by Luther, and who almost alone pre- 
 served in the world the purity of the doctrine, and the 
 vigour of the discipline of Christ, observed an excellent 
 rule, for which we are compelled to give them credit, 
 and especially to praise that God who thus wrought 
 by them, notwithstanding those brethren are prepos- 
 terously despised by some learned men. The rule 
 which they observe was this : besides ministers of the 
 Word and Sacraments, they had, in each church, a 
 bench or college of men, excelling in gravity and 
 prudence, who performed the duties of admonishing 
 and correcting oifenders, composing differences, and 
 judicially deciding in cases of dispute. Of this kind 
 of elders, Hilary (Ambrose) wrote, when he said — 
 " Therefore the synagogue and afterwards the church 
 had elders, without whose counsel nothing was 
 done."f 
 
 It would seem difficult to deny or resist this testi- 
 mony that the Bohemian Brethren held to ruling 
 elders, and actually maintained this class of officers in 
 their churches. Could Bucer, whom Mr. Middleton, 
 in his Biographia Evangelica, represents as " a man 
 of immense learning," and who is spoken of by Bishop 
 Burnet as " perhaps inferior to none of all the Re- 
 formers for learning ;" — could he have been ignorant, 
 either of the real meaning of a public document, put 
 forth in his own time, or of the public and uniform 
 practice of a body of pious people, whom he seems to 
 have regarded with so much respect and affection, as 
 
 * Bucer styles these worthy people, Fratres Picardi, in refer- 
 ence to their origin from the Waldenses, or rather the branch 
 called Albigenses in France, to which those who migrated to 
 Bohemia belonged. But the people to whom he refers are 
 ascertained with unerring certainty by the " Confession of 
 Faith" which he so precisely describes. 
 
 f Scripta duo Adversaria Latomi^ &c. in Cap. De Ecclesice 
 Autoritale, p. 159. 
 
91 
 
 witnesses for God in a dark world ? It cannot be 
 imagined. And what gives additional weight to the 
 testimony of this illustrious man is, that he seems to 
 have had no interest whatever in vindicating this class 
 of church officers; forit isnotknown thatheever had any 
 special inducement, from a sense of reputation, or any 
 other cause, to exert himself in maintaining them ; 
 and the latter part of his life was spent in England, in 
 the service of the established church of that kingdom, 
 in the bosom of which he died. 
 
 As a further confirmation of Bucer's judgment in 
 reference to the Bohemian Brethren, the celebrated 
 John Francis Buddeeus, an eminently learned Lu- 
 theran divine of Germany, of the seventeenth century, 
 who gave an edition, with a large preface, of the work 
 of Comenius, in which the history of the Bohemian 
 Brethren, and their form of Government, are pub- 
 lished, evidently understands their plan in reference to 
 the office of ruling elder, precisely as Bucer and other 
 learned men have understood it. He employs the 
 greater part of his preface in recommending this office. 
 And although he does not seem prepared to allow that 
 it existed as a separate office in the apostolic church, 
 yet he thinks that, virtually, and in substance, it did 
 make a part of the apostolic system of supervision and 
 order. He thinks, moreover, that, without some such 
 office, it is wholly impossible to maintain pure morals 
 and sound discipline in the church of God ; and that 
 the Bohemian Brethren rendered a most important 
 service to the cause of truth and piety in maintaining 
 it in their ecclesiastical system.* 
 
 Luther in some of his early writings, had expressed 
 an unfavourable opinion of the Bohemian Brethren : 
 but, upon being more fully informed of their doctrine 
 and order, and more especially of their provision for 
 maintaining sound discipline, by means of their elder- 
 ship in each congregation, he changed his opinion, and 
 
 * Jo. Francisci Buddaei, Praefatio de instauranda Discipline! 
 Ecclesiastica — Passim. 
 
92 
 
 became willing both to speak and to write strongly in 
 their favour. Hence his highly commendatory pre- 
 face, to their " Confession of Faith," of which men- 
 tion has been already made. And hence, at a still 
 later period, the following strong expressions in favour 
 of the same people. " There hath not arisen any peo- 
 ple since the time of the apostles, whose church hath 
 come nearer to the apostolical doctrine and order than 
 the Brethren of Bohemia." And again, " although 
 these brethren do not excel us in purity of doctrine, 
 (all the articles of faith with us being sincerely and 
 purely taken out of the word of God,) yet in the 
 ordinary discipline of the church which they use, and 
 whereby they happily govern the churches, they go far 
 beyond us, and are, in this respect, far more praise- 
 worthy. And we cannot but acknowledge and yield 
 this to them, for the glory of God, and of his truth; 
 whereas our people of Germany cannot be persuaded 
 to be willing to take the yoke of discipline upon 
 them."* 
 
 It is presumed that no one, after impartially weigh- 
 ing the foregoing testimonies, will listen for one 
 moment, with any respect, to the allegation that the 
 plan of a bench of elders for ruling the church and 
 conducting its discipline was invented by Calvin. 
 But we may go further. The truth is, that instead of 
 the Waldenses, or Bohemian Brethren taking this 
 order of officers from Calvin, it may be affirmed that 
 precisely the reverse was the fact. We have satisfac- 
 tory evidence that Calvin took the hint from the 
 Bohemian Brethren ; and that the system which he 
 afterwards established in Geneva, was really suggested 
 and prompted by the example of those pious sufferers 
 and witnesses for the truth, who had this class of 
 officers in their churches long before Calvin's day. 
 This will be made clearly to appear from the follow- 
 
 * Joh. A. Comenii Historia Bohem. Frat. sect. 82. 
 
93 
 
 When Calvin first settled in Geneva, in 1536, he 
 found the Reformed religion already introduced, and, 
 to a considerable extent, supported, under the ministry 
 of Farel and Yiret, two bold and faithful advocates of 
 evangelical truth. Such, however, was the opposition 
 made to the doctrines which they preached, and espe- 
 cially to the purity of discipline which they struggled 
 hard to establish, by the licentious part of the inhabi- 
 tants, among whom were some of the leading magis- 
 trates, that in 1538, Calvin and his colleagues were 
 expelled from their places in the Genevan church, 
 because they refused to administer the Lord's Supper 
 to the vilest of the population who chose to demand 
 the privilege. In a paroxysm of popular fury, those 
 faithful ministers of Christ were commanded to leave 
 the city within two days. During this temporary 
 triumph of error and profligacy, Calvin retired to 
 Strasburg, where he was appointed Professor of 
 Divinity and Pastor of a Church, and where he re- 
 mained nearly four years. 
 
 In 1540, the year before he was recalled to Geneva, 
 he corresponded with the Bohemian Brethren, and 
 made himself particularly acquainted with their plan 
 of church government, which he regarded with deep 
 interest; an interest, no doubt greatly augmented by 
 the sufferings which ho had recently undergone in 
 fruitless efforts to maintain the purity of ecclesiastical 
 discipline ; in which efforts he had been baffled chiefly 
 by the want of such an efficient system as the Bohe- 
 mian churches possessed. In the course of this cor- 
 respondence, while yet in exile for his fidelity, Calvin 
 addressed the Bohemian pastors in the following pointed 
 terms: — " I heartily congratulate your churches, upon 
 which, besides sound doctrine, God hath bestowed so 
 many excellent gifts. Of these gifts, it is none of the 
 least to have such pastors to govern and order them : 
 to have a people themselves so well affected and dis- 
 posed; — to be constituted under so noble a form of 
 government ; — to be adorned with the most excellent 
 
94 
 
 discipline, which we justly call most excellent, and, in- 
 deed, the only bond by which obedience can be pre- 
 served. I am sure we find with us, by woful experience, 
 what the worth of it is, by the want of it ; nor yet can 
 we by any means attain to it. On this account it is 
 that I am often faint in my mind, and feeble in the 
 discharge of the duties of my office. Indeed, I should 
 quite despair did not this comfort me, that the edifica- 
 tion of the church is always the work of the Lord, 
 which He himself will carry on by his own power, 
 though all help beside should fail. Yet still it is a 
 great and rare blessing to be aided by so necessary a 
 help. Therefore I shall not consider our church as 
 properly strengthened, until they can be bound to- 
 gether by that bond." And the pious historian, after 
 giving this extract from the venerable Reformer, adds : 
 " It so happened, in the course of divine Providence, 
 that not long afterwards, this eminent man was re- 
 called to minister in the church of Geneva, where he 
 established the very same kind of discipline which is 
 now famed throughout the world."* 
 
 Testimony more direct and conclusive could scarcely 
 be desired. Comenius, himself a Bishop of the Bohe- 
 mian Brethren, surely knew what kind of eldership it 
 was which was established among the churches of his 
 own denomination. He says it was the very same 
 with that which Calvin afterwards established in 
 Geneva. We know, too, that this venerable man, 
 before he was expelled from Geneva, in 1538, and 
 while he was struggling and suffering so much for 
 want of an efficient discipline, made no attempt to 
 introduce the institution in question. But, during his 
 painful exile, his attention is forcibly turned to the 
 Bohemian plan. He is greatly pleased with it; speaks 
 in the strongest terms of its excellence : declares that 
 he has no hope of any church prospering until it is in- 
 troduced ; and the very next year, on his return, 
 
 * Joh. A. Comenii Historia Bohem. Frat. sect. 80. 
 
95 
 
 makes it one of the conditions of his resuming his 
 pastoral charge, that this plan of conducting the dis- 
 cipline of the church, by a bench of elders, shall be 
 received with him, and thus causes it to be adopted in 
 Geneva. 
 
 And yet the historian of the Waldenses, John Paul 
 Perrin, has been reproached, and insinuations made 
 unfavourable to his honesty, because he has represented 
 the Bohemian Brethren as having ecclesiastical elders 
 distinct from their ministers of the gospel. How utterly 
 unjust such reproaches are, every one must now see. 
 If there were ever ruling elders in Geneva, they were 
 found in the churches of Bohemia. Nor is it any solid 
 objection to the fact, as we have stated it, that they had 
 some other features in their system of church order 
 which were not strictly presbyterian. All that the his- 
 torian has to do is with facts. Having stated these, he 
 is answerable for nothing more. That those churches 
 gave the title of Seniors, but more frequently of Antis- 
 tites to certain elderly clergymen, who were peculiarly 
 venerable in their character, and who chiefly took the 
 lead in all ordinations, is no doubt true ; that, in their 
 plan of church government, they distinguished their 
 Diaconi from their Eleemosynarii ; and that they in- 
 clude in the list of their ecclesiastical offices, some 
 which are strictly secular, is also manifest. But surely 
 none of these invalidate the fact, that they had ruling 
 elders ; a fact stated in a manner which it is impossible 
 either to doubt or mistake. 
 
 Thus we have good evidence, that all the most dis- 
 tinguished and faithful witnesses for the truth, during 
 the dark ages, with whose faith and order we have any 
 minute acquaintance, carefully maintained the office 
 for which we are contending ; that some of them, at 
 least, considered it as of divine appointment, and 
 accordingly quote in its support Scriptural authority ; 
 and that they appear, with good reason, to have re- 
 garded it as one of the most efficient means, under the 
 divine blessing, of promoting the spiritual order and 
 edification of the church. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS, AND OTHER LEARN- 
 ED AND DISINTERESTED WITNESSES, NEARLY 
 CONTEMPORARY WITH THEM. 
 
 We have seen how utterly groundless is the asser- 
 tion, that ruling elders were invented and first in- 
 troduced by Calvin at Geneva. If there be any truth 
 in history, they were in use long before Calvin was 
 born, and in the purest churches on earth, to say no- 
 thing of their apostolical origin. Nor is this all. It 
 may further be maintained, that a great majority 
 of the Reformers, in organizing those churches which 
 separated from the Church of Rome, either actually 
 introduced this class of officers, or, in their published 
 writings, freely and fully declared in its favour. And 
 this was the case, as we shall presently see, not merely 
 on the part of those who followed Calvin both as to 
 time and opinion ; but also on the part of those who 
 either preceded, or had no ecclesiastical connection 
 whatever with that illustrious man : and who were far 
 from agreeing with him in many other particulars. 
 Now this is surely a marvellous fact, if, as some 
 respectable writers would persuade us to believe, the 
 office in question is a mere figment of Genevan contriv- 
 ance, toward the middle of the sixteenth century. 
 
 The first reformer whose testimony I shall adduce 
 in favour of this office is Ulrick Zuingle, the celebrated 
 
97 
 
 leader in the work of Reformation in Switzerland. 
 And I mention him first, because as he never was 
 connected with Calvin — nay, as he was removed by 
 death in 1531, five years before Calvin ever saw 
 Geneva, or appeared in the ranks of the Reformers, 
 and ten years before the introduction of ruling elders 
 into that city — he cannot be suspected of speaking as 
 the humble imitator of that justly honoured individual. 
 
 On the subject of ruling elders, Zuingle speaks 
 thus : — " The title of presbyter or elder, as used in 
 Scripture, is not rightly understood by those who con- 
 sider it as applicable only to those who preside in 
 preaching: for it is evident that the term is also 
 sometimes used to designate elders of another kind, 
 that is, senators, leaders, or counsellors. So we 
 read Acts xv. where it is said, 8 the apostles and elders 
 came together to consider of this matter.' Here we 
 see that the elders spoken of are to be considered 
 as senators or counsellors. It is evident that the 
 Toi&vTiooi mentioned in this place were not ministers 
 of the word ; but that they were aged, prudent, and 
 venerable men, who, in directing and managing the 
 affairs of the church, were the same thing as the 
 senators in our cities. And the title elder is used in 
 the same sense in many other places in the Acts of the 
 Apostles."* 
 
 Again, Oecolampadius, who also died before Calvin 
 appeared as air^rctfve reformer, and of course before 
 the introduction of ruling elders in the church of 
 Geneva, speaks thus, in an Oration which he pro- 
 nounced before the Senate of Basil in 1530, about a 
 year before his death : " But it is evident that those 
 which are here intended, are certain seniors or elders, 
 such as were in the apostle's days, and who of old time 
 were called *ee&vaph whose judgment being that of 
 
 * This quotation from Zuingle, is taken from the Politicce 
 Ecclesiastics of Voetius, in which it is cited for the same pur- 
 pose as here; a copy of the works of the Swiss Reformer not 
 being at present within the reach of the writei of the Essay. 
 
 I 
 
98 
 
 the most prudent part of the church, was considered 
 as the decision of the whole church." 
 
 Here again, is the testimony of a man, who could 
 not have been influenced by any knowledge of the 
 opinions of Calvin — for Calvin had as yet published 
 no opinions on the subject — and who yet speaks in 
 very unequivocal terms of a class of officers, as not only 
 existing afterwards, but as of apostolical institution ; 
 which, according to some, were not known in the 
 church, either in theory or practice, for ten years after 
 the decease of this distinguished reformer. 
 
 The testimony of Martin Bucer, as one of the most 
 venerable and active of the reformers, properly belongs 
 to this branch of the subject. But as his sentiments 
 were so fully detailed in the quotation from him 
 presented in the preceding chapter, it is not deemed 
 necessary to repeat the statement here. From that ex- 
 tract it is evident, not only that he approved of the 
 office of ruling elder, as of eminent use in the church, 
 but also that he considered Ambrose as asserting that 
 officers of this class were found in the primitive church, 
 and that he agreed with the pious father in maintaining 
 this assertion. Here was another eminently learned 
 man, and a contemporary of Calvin, who bears testi- 
 mony that ruling elders were in use in the purest 
 portion of the Christian church, as a laudable and 
 scriptural institution, centuries before the reformer of 
 Geneva was born. 
 
 The character of Peter Martyr, a celebrated Pro- 
 testant divine of Italy, whose high reputation induced 
 Edward VI. to invite him to England, where he was 
 made Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Canon of 
 Christ Church, speaks of ruling elders in the follow- 
 ing decisive terms : — " The church" (speaking of the 
 primitive church) " had its elders, or, if I may so 
 speak, its senate, who consulted about things which 
 were for edification for the time being. Paul describes 
 this kind of ministiy, not only in the 12th chapter of 
 the Epistle to the Romans, but also in the first Epistle 
 
99 
 
 to Timothy, where he thus writes: — 'Let the elders 
 that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, 
 especially those that labour in the word and doctrine.' 
 Which words appear to me to signify that there were 
 then some elders who taught and preached the word 
 of God, and another class of elders who did not teach, 
 but only ruled in the church. Concerning these 
 Ambrose speaks when he expounds this passage in 
 Timothy. Nay, he inquires whether it was owing to 
 the pride or the sloth of the sacerdotal order that they 
 had then almost ceased in the church."* 
 
 The celebrated John Alasco, a devoted and 
 eminently useful reformer, is also a decisive witness on 
 the same side. Alasco was a Polish nobleman, of 
 excellent education, and great learning. He was offer- 
 ed two Bishoprics, one in Poland, and another in 
 Hungary : but he forsook his native country, and all 
 the secular and ecclesiastical honours which awaited 
 him, from love to the Reformed religion. In his youth 
 he enjoyed the special friendship of Erasmus, who 
 speaks of him in one of his letters, (Erasmi Epist. Lib. 
 28. Ep. 3,) as a man of uncommon excellence and 
 worth. The Protestant churches in the low coun- 
 tries being scattered, in consequence of the agitation 
 produced by the celebrated ordinance called the In- 
 terim, published by Charles V., Alasco was invited 
 to England, by King Edward VI., at the instance of 
 Archbishop Cranmer. He accepted the invitation, and 
 was chosen Superintendent! of the German, French, 
 and Italian congregations erected in London, which 
 are said to have consisted in the aggregate, of more 
 than three thousand souls. He afterwards published 
 
 * P. Martyris Loci Communes. Class, iv. Cap. 1. Sect. 2. 
 
 f It is worthy of notice here that although a superintendent 
 was regarded by Alasco as one who had the inspection of 
 several congregations ; yet " he was greater than his brethren 
 only in respect of his greater trouble and care, not having more 
 authority than the other elders, either as to the ministery of the 
 word and scraments, or as to the exercise of ecclesiastical dis- 
 cipline, to which he was subject equally with the rest." 
 
100 
 
 an account of the form of government and worship 
 adopted in those congregations. The affairs of each, it 
 is distinctly stated in that account, were managed by a 
 pastor, ruling elders, and deacons, and each of these 
 classes of officers was considered as of divine appoint- 
 ment. We also learn from his statement, that the ru- 
 ling elders and deacons of these churches, as well as 
 the pastors were ordained by the imposition of hands. 
 He further informs us, that in the administration of 
 the Lord's Supper, in the churches under his superin- 
 tendency, the communicants sat at the table ; and he 
 occupies a number of pages in showing that this posture 
 ought to be preferred to kneeling. In short, he de- 
 clares " We have laid aside all the relics of Popery, 
 with its mummeries, and we have studied the greatest 
 possible simplicity in ceremonies." 
 
 Notwithstanding the publication of these sentiments, 
 and the establishment of these practices, marking so 
 great a non-conformity with the Church of England, 
 Alasco was highly esteemed, and warmly patronized 
 by Archbishop Cranmer, and also by the King, who 
 granted him letters patent, constituting him and the 
 other ministers of the foreign congregations a body 
 corporate, and giving them important privileges and 
 powers. These letters may be seen among the original 
 records subjoined to Burnet's History of the Refor- 
 mation, ii. 202. The following remarks by Alasco 
 himself, will serve at once to explain the design of the 
 king in granting his royal sanction to these people, and 
 also his own view of the principles upon which he and 
 his brethren acted in founding the churches in 
 question. 
 
 " When I was called by the king, and when certain 
 laws of the countiy stood in the way, so that the public 
 rites of divine worship used under the Papacy could not 
 be immediately purged out, (which the king himself 
 greatly desired,) and when I was anxious and earnest 
 in my solicitations for the foreign churches, it was at 
 length his pleasure that the public rites of the English 
 
101 
 
 churches should be reformed by degrees, as far as could 
 be accomplished by the laws of the country; but that 
 strangers who were not strictly and to the same extent 
 bound by these laws, should have churches granted to 
 them, in which they should freely regulate all things, 
 wholly according to apostolical doctrine and practice, 
 without any regard to the rites of the country ; that by 
 this means the English churches also might be excited 
 to embrace apostolical purity, by the unanimous con- 
 sent of all the estates of the kingdom. Of this project, 
 the king himself, from his great piety, was both the 
 chief author and the defender. For although it was 
 almost universally acceptable to the king's council, and 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury promoted it with all his 
 might, there were not wanting some who took it ill, 
 and would have opposed it, had not his majesty checked 
 them by his authority, and by the reasons which ht 
 adduced in favour of the design." Again, in the 
 appendix to the same book, p. 649, he says : — " The 
 care of our church was committed to us chiefly with 
 this view, that in the ministration thereof we should 
 follow the rules of the divine word, and apostolical 
 observance, rather than any rites of other churches. 
 In fine, we were admonished both by the king himself, 
 and his chief nobility, to use this great liberty granted 
 to us in our ministry rightly and faithfully ; not to 
 please men, but for the glory of God, by promoting the 
 reformation of his worship."* 
 
 On the whole, we have in this case a witness as 
 unexceptionable and weighty as can well be desired. 
 A man of eminent learning, piety, and devotedness. 
 A man formed not in the school of Calvin, but of 
 Zuingle. A man who, when the transactions and 
 
 * See M'Oie's Life of Knox, vol. i. pp. 392—396. See also, 
 Gisberti Voetii Politico? Ecclesiastics. Tom. i. 420 — 422. See 
 also Forma et Ratio totius Ecclesiastici ministerii Edvardi sexti 
 in Peregrinorum, maxime Germanorum Eceles. Also, De 
 Ordinationc Ecclesiarum Peregrinarum in Anglia. Epist 
 Dedicat, et. p. 649. 
 
 2i 
 
102 
 
 publications abovealluded to occurred, livedin England, 
 where ruling elders were unknown : and who yet in 
 these circumstances, declared himself in favour of this 
 class of officers as of divine appointment, and as im- 
 portant to the purity and edification of the church. 
 
 But there is a still more conclusive fact in reference 
 to this stage of the Reformation in England. Alasco, 
 it will be observed, asserts that both king Edward 
 and Archbishop Cranmer were strongly favourable to 
 the plan of discipline which he and others had intro- 
 duced into the churches of foreign Potestants in Eng- 
 land. In confirmation of this statement, there is evi- 
 dence that Cranmer and the rest of the Commissioners 
 in Edward's reign, did directly propose the introduc- 
 tion of ruling elders in the national church. They 
 drew up a body of laws which, though not finally 
 ratified, partly on account of opposing influence, and 
 partly from the premature decease of the monarch, 
 yet clearly show the opinion and wishes of Cranmer and 
 his associates. One of the proposed laws is as fol- 
 lows : — " After evening prayers, on which all shall 
 attend in their own parish churches, the principal min- 
 ister or parson, and the deacon, if they are present ; 
 or, in case of their absence, the curate and the elders, 
 shall consider how the money given for pious uses had 
 best be laid out : and then let discipline be exercised. 
 For, those whose sin has been public, and given offence 
 to the whole church, should be brought to a sense of 
 it, and publicly undergo the punishment of it, that so 
 the church may be the better for their correction. 
 After that the ministers shall withdraw with some of 
 the elders, and consult how all other persons who are 
 disorderly in their life and conversation may be con- 
 versed with ; first by some sober and good men in a 
 brotherly manner, according to the direction of Christ 
 in the gospel ; and if they hearken to their advice, 
 God is to be praised for it ; but if they go on in their 
 wickedness, they are to be restrained by that severe 
 
103 
 
 punishment which is in the gospel prescribed for such 
 obstinacy."* 
 
 The testimony of Calvi n will next be introduced. 
 As he is charged with being the inventor of this class 
 of officers, the weight of his opinion as a witness in its 
 favour, will probably be deemed small by its opposers. 
 But there is one point of view in which his testimony 
 will surely be regarded with deep respect, and, may I 
 not add, as decisive ? That he was a man of mature 
 and profound learning no one can doubt. Joseph 
 Scaliger, himself a prodigy of erudition, pronounced 
 him to have been the most learned man in Europe in 
 his day ; and, particularly, " that no man understood 
 ecclesiastical history so well." Now, it is certain that 
 Calvin did not consider the office of ruling elder as 
 originating with himself; but that he regarded it as 
 an apostolical institution ; that he refers to Scripture 
 for its support ; and that he quotes Ambrose, (whose 
 testimony has been so often refered to,) as an unques- 
 tionable witness for the existence of the office under 
 consideration in the primitive church. The following 
 extracts from his Commentary and his Institutions will 
 fully establish what is here asserted. 
 
 In his exposition of 1 Tim. v. 17, he speaks thus : 
 " From this passage we may gather that there were 
 then t wo kinj js-oiLft,resbyjters ? because they were not 
 all ordained to the work of teaching. For the words 
 plainly mean that some ruled well, to whom no part 
 of the public instruction was committed. And, verily, 
 there were chosen from among the people grave and 
 approved men, who, in common council and joint au- 
 thority with the pastors, administered the discipline of 
 the church, and acted the part of censors for the cor- 
 rection of morals. This practice, Ambrose complains, 
 had fallen into disuse, through the indolence, or rather 
 
 * Peirce's Vindication of the Dissenters, p. 23. Baxters 
 Treatise of Episcopacy, part. ii. p. 112. Reformatio Legum 
 Ecclesiasticarum, ex authoritate Kesris, Hen. viii. et. Edv. vi, 
 4to. 1640. 
 
104 
 
 the pride of the teaching elders, who wished alone to 
 be distinguished/' 
 
 In his Institutions, (book iv. chapter hi.,) he has 
 the following passage equally explicit. " In calling 
 those who preside over churches by the appellations of 
 ' bishops,' ' elders,' and ' pastors,' without any dis- 
 tinction, I have followed the usage of the Scriptures, 
 which apply all these terms to express the same mean- 
 ing. For to all who discharge the ministry of the 
 word, they give the title of < bishops.' So when Paul 
 enjoins Titus to 6 ordain elders in every city,' he im- 
 mediately adds, ' For a bishop must be blameless.' 
 So, in another place, he salutes more bishops than one 
 in one church. And in the Acts of the Apostles, he 
 is declared to have sent for the elders of the church 
 of Ephesus, whom, in his address to them, he calls 
 4 bishops.' Here it must be observed, that we have 
 enumerated only those offices which consist in the min- 
 istry of the word; nor does Paul mention any other 
 in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians 
 which we have quoted. But in the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, and the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he enu- 
 merates others, as ' powers,' 6 gifts of healing,' s inter- 
 pretation of tongues,' ' governments,' ' care of the 
 poor.' Those functions which are merely temporary 
 I omit, as foreign to our present subject. But there are 
 two which perpetually remain, * governments,' and 
 ' the care of the poor.' ' Governors,' I apprehend to 
 have been persons of advanced years, selected from 
 the people, to unite with the bishops in giving admoni- 
 tions, and exercising discipline. For no other inter- 
 pretation can be given of that injunction, ; He that 
 ruleth, let him do it with diligence.' For from the 
 beginning every church has had its senate or council, 
 composed of pious, grave, and holy men, who were 
 invested with that jurisdiction, for the correction of 
 vices, of which we shall soon treat. Now, that this 
 was not the regulation of a single age, experience it- 
 
105 
 
 self demonstrates. This office of government is 
 necessary, therefore, in every age." 
 
 I ask, was Calvin honest or dishonest in these de- 
 clarations? If he had invented and introduced the 
 office himself, could he have been ignorant of the fact ? 
 And whether it was so or not, who may reasonably be 
 considered as best able to judge — himself, or those 
 who lived nearly three hundred years after him ? And 
 who would be most likely to know whether it were of 
 ancient or modern origin ; — the most learned man 
 then, perhaps, in the world — or men with not a tenth 
 part of his erudition, at the present day ? The truth 
 is, these passages, considered in connection with that 
 quoted in a former chapter, in which he speaks of 
 himself, in reference to this office, as following the ex- 
 ample of the pious witnesses of the truth who preceded 
 him, — prove, either that Calvin did not consider him- 
 self as the inventor of the office, but believed that it 
 had been in the church in all ages, — or that he was 
 gratuitously and profligately regardless of the truth, to 
 a degree never laid to his charge. 
 
 Nor is the testimony to the primitive existence of 
 the class of officers, confined to those of the reformers 
 who were favourable to their continuance in the church. 
 Some, by no means friendly to their restoration, were 
 yet constrained to acknowledge their early origin. 
 
 That there were ruling elders in the primitive 
 church, is explicitly granted by Archbishop Whitgift, 
 a warm and learned friend of diocesan episcopacy. 
 " I know," says he, " that in the primitive church, 
 they had in every church certain seniors, to whom 
 the government of the congregation was committed ; 
 but that was before there was any Christian prince or 
 magistrate that openly professed the gospel ; and before 
 there was any church by public authority established." 
 
 And again : — " Both the name and office of seniors 
 were extinguished before Ambrose's time, as he himself 
 doth testify, writing upon the fifth of the first epistle 
 to Timothy. Indeed, as Ambrose saith, the sjmagogue, 
 
106 
 
 and afterwards the church, had seniors, without whose 
 counsel nothing was done in the church ; but that was 
 before his time, and before there was any Christian 
 magistrate, or any church established."* The learned 
 and acute Archbishop, it seems, was not only convinced 
 that there was ruling elders, distinct from preaching 
 elders, in the primitive church, but with all his eru- 
 dition and discernment, he understood Ambrose just 
 as the friends of this class of officers now understand 
 him. 
 
 There is another testimony on this subject, from one 
 of the most conspicious and active friends of the Refor- 
 mation in England, which is worthy of particular 
 notice. I refer to that of the Rev. Dean Nowell, who 
 flourished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and whose 
 celebrated catechism, drawn up in 1562, obtained, 
 perhaps, as much currency and respect as any publica- 
 tion of that period. Nor are we to consider it as ex- 
 pressing the sentiments of the illustrious divine whose 
 name it bears, alone ; for it was unanimously approved 
 and sanctioned by the same lower house of Convocation 
 which passed the 39 Articles of the Church of England, 
 and directed to be published and used as containing 
 the true doctrine of that church. In this catechism, 
 toward the close, when speaking of the evils of retain- 
 ing unworthy members in the church, the following 
 questions and answers occur : — 
 
 " Q. What remedy for this evil can be devised and 
 applied ?" 
 
 " A. In churches well constituted and governed, 
 there was, as I before said, a certain plan and order 
 of government appointed and observed. Elders were 
 chosen, that is, ecclesiastical rulers, who conducted and 
 maintained the discipline of the church. To these 
 pertained authority, reproof, and chastisement; and 
 they, with the concurrence of the pastor, if they knew 
 any who, by false opinions, troublesome errors, foolish 
 
 * Defence against Cartvvright, p. 638, 651. 
 
107 
 
 superstitions, or vicious and profligate lives, were 
 likely to bring a great public scandal on the church of 
 God, and who could not approach the Lord's Supper 
 without a manifest profanation, repelled them from the 
 communion, and no more admitted them until, by 
 public penitence, they gave satisfaction to the church." 
 
 " Q. What is to be done ?" (when those who have 
 been excluded from the church repent, and desire to 
 be restored to its communion.) 
 
 " A. That they may be received again into the 
 church, and to the enjoyment of its holy mysteries, 
 from which they have been deservedly cast out, they 
 ought humbly to supplicate and pray. And, on the 
 whole, there ought to be such moderation used in ad- 
 ministering public penance, that neither by too much 
 severity the offender may be reduced to despondency, 
 nor by too much lenity the discipline of the church 
 relaxed, its authority diminished, and others encour- 
 aged and incited to similar offences. But when, in 
 the judgment of the elders and of the pastor, proper 
 satisfaction shall be made, by the chastisement of the 
 offender for an example to others, he may be admitted 
 again to the communion of the church."* 
 
 Nothing can be more unequivocal or decisive than 
 this testimony. In the opinion not only of the writer 
 of the catechism before us, but also of the leading 
 clergy of the Church of England, who sanctioned it, 
 and enjoined its general use, there ought to be, in 
 every church, besides the pastor, a bench of elders, or 
 ecclesiastical rulers, whose duty it should be to preside 
 over the discipline, and, in conjunction with the pas- 
 tor, to receive, admonish, suspend, excommunicate, 
 and restore members, — in a manner precisely agreeable 
 to the well known practice of the presbyterian church. 
 In truth, Dr. Nowell could scarcely have expressed in 
 more distinct and unqualified terms his approbation of 
 this part of our system, than in telling us what, in 
 
 * See Bishop Randolph's Enchiridion Theologicum, voli. 326, 
 327, third Edition. 
 
108 
 
 his judgment, and that of his brethren, every well 
 regulated church ought to have. 
 
 Ursinus, a learned German divine, contemporary 
 with Luther and Melancthon, speaks a language still 
 more to our purpose. " Ministers," says he, " are 
 either immediately called of God, or mediately, through 
 the instrumentality of the church. Of the former 
 class were prophets and apostles. Of the latter class 
 there are five kinds, viz. evangelists, bishops, or pas- 
 tors, teachers, ruling elders, and deacons. Evangel- 
 ists are ministers appointed to go forth and preach 
 the gospel to a number of churches. Bishops are 
 ministers ordained to preach the Word of God and 
 administer the sacraments in particular churches. 
 Teachers are ministers appointed merely to fulfil the 
 function of teaching in particular churches. Ruling 
 elders are ministers elected by the voice of the church 
 to assist in conducting discipline and to order a 
 variety of necessary matters in the church. Deacons 
 are ministers elected by the church to take care of the 
 poor and distribute alms."* 
 
 In the Confession of Saxony, drawn up by Melanc- 
 thon, in 1551, and subscribed by a large number of 
 Lutheran divines and churches, we find this class of 
 officers recognized, and represented as in use in those 
 churches. Speaking of the exercise of discipline, in 
 its various branches, they say: — "That these things 
 may be done orderly, there be also consistories ap- 
 pointed in our churches." Of these consistories, a 
 majority of members, it is well known, were ruling 
 elders. 
 
 Szegeden, a very eminent Lutheran divine, of 
 Hungary, contemporary with Luther, also speaks very 
 decisively of the apostolic institution of ruling elders. 
 The following passage is sufficient to exhibit his sen- 
 timents. " The ancient church had presbyters, or 
 elders, of which the apostle speaks, 1 Corinth, v. 4. 
 
 * Ursini Corpus Doctrine, par. iii. p. 721. 
 
109 
 
 And these elders were of two kinds. One class of them 
 preached the gospel, administered the sacraments, and 
 governed the church, the same as bishops; for bishops 
 and presbyters are the same order. But another class 
 of elders consisted of grave and upright men, taken 
 from among the laity, who, together with the preaching 
 elders before mentioned, consulted respecting the 
 affairs of the church, and devoted their labour to ad- 
 monishing, correcting, and taking care of the flock of 
 Christ." 
 
 The Magdeburgh centuriators, who were eminently 
 learned Lutheran divines, contemporary with Melanc- 
 thon, and who have been regarded, for three hundred 
 years, as among the highest authorities on questions 
 of ecclesiastical history, speak in the following decisive 
 terms with regard to the office in question. And al- 
 though the extract has been given in a former page, 
 yet, as it is brief and pointed, it may not be improper 
 to assign it a place in this connexion. Speaking of 
 the third century, they say : — " The right of deciding 
 respecting such as were to be excommunicated, or of 
 receiving, upon their repentance, such as had fallen, 
 was vested in the elders of the church."f 
 
 The learned Francis J uniu s, a distinguished divine 
 and professor of theology "of" the Church of Holland, 
 who lived at the commencement of the Reformation in 
 that country, and was, of course, contemporary with 
 Martyr, Bucer, Melancthon, &c, wrote very fully and 
 explicitly in favour of the office of ruling elder. In 
 his work entitled Ecclesiastici, he decisively, and with 
 great learning, maintains that pastors, ruling elders, 
 and deacons, are the only three spiritual orders of 
 church officers ; that pastors, or ministers of the word 
 and sacraments, are the highest order, and of course 
 are invested with the power of ordaining; that the 
 
 * Szegedeni Loci Communes, p. 197. edit, quint, folio — 
 Basil. 1608. 
 f Cent. iii. cap. vii. p. 151. 
 
110 
 
 I second class are men of distinguished piety and pru- 
 dence, chosen from among the members of the church, 
 to assist the pastor in the government of the church ; 
 and that the deacons are appointed to collect and dis- 
 tribute the alms of the church. He affirms that these 
 three orders are set forth in scripture, and existed in 
 I the primitive church : and that the disuse of ruling 
 ' elders, as well as the introduction of prelacy, is a depar- 
 ture from the primitive model.* 
 
 The Protestant churches of Hungary and Tran- 
 i sylvania, although in organizing their churches they 
 I did. not actually adopt and introduce the office of rul- 
 \ ing elder, yet in the preface, and other statements, 
 published with their ecclesiastical formularies, they 
 spoke in the most unequivocal terms both of the 
 value and the early origin of this class of officers. 
 The following extract may be considered as a fair 
 specimen of their testimony on this subject: — " Most 
 other nations, belonging to the evangelical confession, 
 have been in the habit of choosing and constituting 
 elders in every village and city, agreeably to the prac- 
 tice of the old church, and also of the New Testament: 
 men sound in the faith, blameless, the husbands of one 
 wife, having faithful children, chargeable with no 
 crime, grave, prudent, &c. It is made the official 
 duty of these men diligently to watch over the lives 
 and conversation of all the members of the church, to 
 rebuke the dissolute, and, if need be, to refer their 
 cases to the pastors and to the whole eldership, &c." 
 Here they make a clear distinction between these 
 elders and the pastors of the churches, and represent 
 the former as assistants to the latter in the spiritual 
 concerns of the church. They then proceed to state 
 why a class of officers so useful, in most cases so 
 necessary, and which they also considered as having 
 existed in the apostolic church, was not received among 
 them.f 
 
 * Ecclesiastici, sive de nat. et administrat. Ecclesia?, &c. Lib. 
 ii. cap. 2, 3, 4. 
 f See G. Voetii Polit. Eccles. par. ii. lib. ii tract, iii. 
 
Ill 
 
 The character of Jer ome Zanchju s, a learned divine 
 of Ijflly of the sixteenth century, who greatly distin- 
 guished himself among the Reformers, is so well known, 
 that a detailed account of his great accomplishments 
 and reputation is unnecessary. On the subject before 
 us, he speaks thus : — M The whole ministry of the 
 Christian church may be divided into three classes. 
 The first consists of those who dispense the word and 
 sacraments, corresponding with those who, under the 
 Old Testament, were called priests and Levites ; and 
 under the New Testament, apostles, pastors, and 
 teachers. The second consists of those whose peculiar 
 office it is to take care of the discipline of the church, 
 to inspect the lives and conversation of all, and to 
 take care that all live in a manner becoming Christians: 
 and also, if at any time there should be a necessity for 
 it, in the absence of the pastor, to instruct the people. 
 There were such under the Old Testament in the 
 sy nagog ue ; and such also were the senators who were 
 added to the bishop in the administration of the New 
 Testament church. These officers are styled presby- 
 ters, (presbyteri,) and elders, (seniores,) of which the 
 apostle speaks, besides other places, in 1 Timothy, v. 
 17; Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy 
 of double honour, especially those who labour in the 
 word and doctrine. In this passage the apostle mani- 
 festly speaks of two sorts or classes of elders, as he was 
 understood by Ambrose and others, among the ancients, 
 and by almost all our modern Protestant divines, as 
 Bullinger, Peter Martyr, &c. &c* 
 
 The most cursory reader of this extract will not fail 
 to take notice, not only that Zanchius evidently ap- 
 proved of this office, but that he thought it of divine 
 appointment; that he interpreted as we do the famous 
 passage in Ambrose, which the opposers of ruling 
 elders have expended so much ingenuity in labouring 
 to explain away ; and that he considered almost all 
 
 * Zanchii Opera. Tom. iv. In Quartum Praeceptum, p. 7^7. 
 
112 
 
 the reformed divines as being of the same opinion with 
 himself. 
 
 The high reputation of Parseus, a learned and pious 
 German divine, contemporary with Melancthon and 
 Zanchius, is also well known. His testimony respect- 
 ing the office under consideration is very explicit. In 
 his commentary on Romans xii. 8, he observes: — 
 " Here the apostle understands the function of that 
 class of elders who, united with the pastors, watch 
 over and correct the morals and discipline of the 
 church. For there were two classes of elders, as 
 may be gathered from 1 Timothy v. 17. Some who 
 laboured in the word and doctrine, who were to be ac- 
 counted worthy of double honour ; such as teachers, 
 pastors, or bishops; the others, such as laboured in 
 conducting discipline, who are here called govern- 
 ments." And in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 
 xii. 28, he says : " The apostle here undoubtedly 
 speaks of the elders who presided in the administration 
 of discipline. For the primitive church had its senate, 
 who attended to the morals of the congregation, while 
 the apostles and teachers were left at leisure to preach. 
 This the apostle indicates very clearly in the first 
 Epistle to Timothy, v. IT, where two classes of pres- 
 byters are represented as constituted. The govern- 
 ments here spoken of were not of princes or praetors, 
 armed with the sword, but grave, experienced men, 
 exercising authority over others, chosen out of the 
 church, by the consent of the church, to assist the pas- 
 tors in conducting discipline, and to alleviate their 
 burdens." 
 
 The celebrated Piscator, who held a distinguished 
 place among the divines who adorned Germany, and 
 maintained the Protestant cause in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, is equally decisive, as an advocate of the office 
 under consideration. In his commentary on 1 Tim. 
 v. 17, he says: — " The apostle distributes elders into 
 two classes — those who preside in maintaining ecclesi- 
 astical discipline but did not publicly teach, and 
 
113 
 
 those who both taught and co-operated in ruling, and 
 were therefore worthy of a great honour, and a more 
 liberal support than the others." 
 
 Few ministers of the Church of England, during 
 the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were more distinguished 
 for talents, learning, and piety, than Thomas Cart- 
 wright^ professor of divinity in the University of Cam- 
 bridgeV the opponent of the high prelatical claims of 
 Archbishop Whitgift, and concerning whom the cele- 
 brated Beza pronounced, that he thought " the sun 
 did not shine upon a more learned man." This 
 eminent divine, commenting on Matthew xviii. 17. 
 Tell it unto the church, &c, thus remarks : — " Theo- 
 phylact upon this place interpreted], Tell the church. 
 that is many, because this assembly taketh knowledge 
 of this and other things by their mouths: that is, their 
 governors. Chrygpstom also saith, that to tell the 
 church is to tell the governors there of. It is there- 
 fore to be understood that these governors of the 
 church, which were set over every several assembly in 
 the time of the law, w r ere of two sorts ; for some had 
 the handling of the word; some other watching 
 against the offences of the church, did, by common 
 counsel with the ministers of the word, take order against 
 the same. Those governing elders are divers times 
 in the story of the gospel made mention of under the 
 title of c rulers of the synagogue.' And this manner 
 of government, because it was to be translated into 
 the church of Christ under the gospel, our Saviour, 
 by the order at that time used among the Jews, de- 
 clareth what after should be done in his church. 
 Agreeably hereunto, the apostle both declared the 
 Lord's ordinance in his behalf, and put the same in 
 practice, in ordaining to every several church, beside 
 the ministry of the word, certain of the chiefest men 
 which should assist the work of the Lord's building. 
 This was also faithfully practised of the churches after 
 the apostles' times, as long as they remained in any 
 good and allowable soundness of doctrine. And being 
 2 K 
 
114 
 
 fallen from the churches, especially from certain of 
 them, the want thereof is sharply and bitterly cast into 
 the teeth of the church's teachers, — by whose ambi- 
 tion that came to pass."* And as proof of this, the 
 author quotes in the margin that very passage of 
 Ambrose cited in the preceding section, and which 
 has alwa}'s given so much trouble to Prelatists and 
 Independents. 
 
 The same writer, in his second reply to Whitgift, 
 speaking of the class of elders under consideration, 
 expresses himself thus : — " For proof of these church 
 elders, which being occupied in the government had 
 nothing to do with the word, the testimony of Am- 
 brose is so clear and open, that he which doth not give 
 place unto it must needs be thought as a bat, or an 
 owl, or some, other night-bird, to delight in darkness. 
 His saying is, that the elders fell away by the ambi- 
 tion of the doctors ; whereby opposing the elders to 
 doctors which taught, he plainly declareth that they 
 had not to do with the word : whereupon it is mani- 
 fest that it was the use, in the best Reformed churches, 
 certain hundred years after the times of the apostles, to 
 have an eldership which meddled not with the word, 
 nor administration of sacraments.f 
 
 The testimony of the Rev. Richard Greenham, a 
 divine of the Church of England, who flourished in 
 the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and who was greatly- 
 revered both for his learning and piety, is very une- 
 quivocal and pointed on this subject. It is in these 
 words: — "The Apostle St. Paul doth notably amplify 
 the honour due to the true and faithful minister. The 
 elders that rule well, (saith he,) let them be had in 
 double honour, specially they which labour in the word 
 and doctrine, 1 Timothy v. 17. As if he should say, 
 let those elders which are appointed to watch and look 
 to the manners and behaviour of the children of God, 
 
 * Cartwright's Commentary on the New Testament — against 
 the Rhemists. 
 f Second reply. Part second, p. 44. 4to. 1577. 
 
115 
 
 if they execute this charge faithfully, be had in double 
 honour ; but above all let the faithful ministers, such as 
 labour in the word be honoured : for why ? the other 
 are overseers of your outward behaviour, but these have 
 another manner of office ; they watch over your souls 
 which tendeth to the salvation both of body and soul." 
 And again, — " The rulers of the church are called the 
 church to whom discipline appertaineth. Not the 
 whole campany of the Jews, but the rulers of the 
 Synagogue are called the church of the Jews."* 
 
 The celebrated Estius, the learned Popish expositor 
 and Professor at Douay, in his commentary on 1 Tim. 
 v. 17, delivers the following opinion : — " From this pas- 
 sage it may manifestly be gathered that in the time of 
 the apostles there were certain presbyters in the 
 church who ruled well, and were worthy of double 
 honour, and who yet did not labour in the word and doc- 
 trine; neither do the heretics of the present day (mean- 
 ing the Protestants) deny this." And in speaking of 
 the establishment of this class of elders in Geneva, 
 about half a century before he wrote, he seems only to 
 blame Cal yjn fo r considering and styling them laymen. 
 He expresses a decisiveopinion that the elders spoken 
 of by Paul in this place were ecclesiastical men, set 
 apart by ecclesiastical rites, and devoted to eccle- 
 siastical duties ; but they did not preach. And he 
 explicitly acknowledges that Ambrose, in the fourth 
 century, speaks of such elders as having existed long 
 before his day. It is worthy of remark, that the same 
 learned Romanist, in another work, not only avows, in 
 the most distinct manner, his belief in the apostolic 
 appointment of non-preaching elders, and quotes 
 1 Tim. v. 17, in support of his opinion ; but he also 
 refers to Jerome and Augustine as witnesses to the 
 same fact.f 
 
 The opinion of the learned Professor Whitaker, a 
 
 * Works, pp. 352. 84-2. fol. 1612. 
 
 f Estii Sententiurum Commentaria. Lib. iv. Par. 2. Sect. 21. 
 
116 
 
 divine of the Church of England, who flourished in the 
 reign of Queen Elizabeth, as to the true meaning of 
 1 Tmothy v. 17, was given at length in a preceding 
 page. The same distinguished divine, in writing against 
 Dury, expresses himself thus concerning the office 
 under consideration : — "Art thou so ignorant as not to 
 know that in the Church of Christ there ought to be 
 elders who should devote themselves to the work of 
 government alone, and not to the administration of 
 the word or sacraments, as we are taught in 1 Tim. 
 v. 17 ?"* 
 
 To these testimonies might be added many more, 
 from learned men of the same distinguished character 
 with those already mentioned, and to the same effect. 
 Chemnitius of Germany; Salmasius of Holland; 
 Marloratus and Danasus, of France ; Hemmingius 
 of Denmark, f — with "a long list of similar names, 
 might all be cited as warm advocates of the class of 
 elders under consideration, and almost all of them 
 decisive advocates of its divine authority. 
 
 Nor are these individual suffrages, though numerous 
 and unequivocal, all that can be alleged in favour of our 
 cause. The great body of the Protestant churches, 
 when they came to organize their several systems in a 
 state of separation from the Papacy and from each 
 other, differing as they did in many other respects, 
 were almost unanimous in adopting and maintaining 
 the office of ruling elder. Instead of this office being 
 confined, as many appear to suppose, to the ecclesias- 
 tical establishments of Geneva and Scotland, it was 
 generally introduced with the Reformation, by Lu- 
 therans as well as Calvinists, and is generally retained 
 to the present day in almost all the Protestant churches 
 excepting that of England. Those of France, Ger- 
 many, Holland, Switzerland, &c, received this class 
 
 * Contra Duraeum, Lib. ix. p. 807. 
 
 -f- See these writers, as well as a numbor of others, referred 
 to in the Politico Ecclesiasticse of Voetius, par. ii. lib. ii. 
 tract, iii. 
 
117 
 
 of elders early, and expressly represented them in their 
 public confessions, as founded on the word of God. 
 It is probably safe to affirm, that at the period of the 
 Reformation, more than three-fourths of the whole 
 Protestant world declared in favour of this office, not 
 merely as expedient, but as warranted by Scripture, 
 and as necessary to the order and edification of the 
 church. 
 
 Does all this, it may be confidently asked, look like 
 the office in question being a mere Genevan innovation ? 
 How shall we reconcile with this extraordinary position 
 the undoubted fact that Lutherans and Reformed in 
 every part of Europe, those who never saw Calvin 
 as well as those who were within the sphere of his ac- 
 quaintance and influence; nay, some of those who died 
 before the illustrious Reformer of Geneva ever appeared 
 at all, either as a writer or preacher, — are found among 
 the decisive, zealous advocates of the office in question, 
 and quoting, as of conclusive authority in its favour, 
 the principal passages of Scripture, and the principal 
 Father, relied on by Presbyterians to establish its 
 apostolical warrant, and its actual existence in the early 
 ages of the ancient church ? Truly it is difficult to 
 conceive how any one who seriously and impartially 
 weighs these facts, can resist the impression that an 
 Institution, in behalf of which so many eminently 
 learned and pious menofdifierentand distant countries, 
 without concert with each other, and without any com- 
 mon interest to serve, in reference to this matter, have 
 so remarkably concurred in opinion, must have some 
 solid foundation both in the inspired volume, and in 
 the nature and necessities of the church. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF EMINENT DIVINES SINCE THE TIME 
 OF THE REFORMERS. 
 
 While we justly attach so much importance to the 
 persons and services of the Reformers, and recur with 
 the deepest reverence to their opinions, we owe scarcely 
 less respect to the judgment of a number of other men 
 who have lived since their time, and of whom the 
 world was not worthy; — men whose testimony can 
 never be quoted but with veneration, and whose charac- 
 ters give an ample pledge of research, at once profound 
 and honest. To the decision of a few of these illustrious 
 men on the subjectbefore us, the attention of the reader 
 is respectfully requested. 
 
 The decisive opinion of Dr. Owen, undoubtedly one 
 of the greatest divines that ever adorned the British 
 nation, in favour of the scriptural warrant of the office 
 of ruling elder was given in a preceding section, and 
 need not now be repeated. I may however add, that 
 the more weight ought to be attached to this opinion 
 on account of Dr. Owen's ecclesiastical connections, 
 which, as is well known, were by no means adapted to 
 give him a bias on the side of Presbyterian order. 
 
 The venerable and eminently pious Richard Bax- 
 ter was no Presbyterian. Yet he expresses himself in 
 
119 
 
 the following very unequivocal language on the subject 
 under consideration. When I plead that the order of 
 subject presbyters (or lay-elders) was not instituted 
 in Scripture times, and consequently that it is not of 
 divine institution, I mean that, as a distinct office, or 
 species of church ministers, it is not a divine institution, 
 nor a lawful institution of man ; but that among men 
 in the same office, some might prudentially be chosen 
 to an eminency of degree, as to the exercise ; and that, 
 according to the difference of their advantages, there 
 might be a disparity in the use of their authority and 
 gifts, I think was done in Scripture times, and might 
 have been after, if it had not then. And my judgment 
 is, that ordinarily, every particular church (such as 
 our parish churches are) had more elders than one, 
 but not such store of men of eminent gifts, as that all 
 these elders could be such. But as if half a dozen of 
 the most judicious persons of this parish were ordained 
 to be elders of the same office with myself; but be- 
 cause they are not equally fit for public preaching, should 
 most employ themselves in the rest of the oversight, 
 consenting that the public preaching lie most upon me, 
 and that I be the moderator of them, for order in cir- 
 cumstantials. This I think was the true Episcopacy 
 and presbytery of the first times."* 
 
 Although it may be doubted whether this venerable 
 man be correct in his whole view of this subject, yet it 
 will be observed by every attentive reader, that in main- 
 taining the existence of a plurality of elders in each 
 church in primitive times, and that a great part of these 
 elders were not in fact employed in preaching, but 
 in inspecting and ruling, he concedes every thing that 
 can be deemed essential in relation to the office which 
 we are considering. 
 
 The Puritan Congregationalists of England, about 
 the year 1605, in the summary of their faith and 
 order, entitled English Puritanism, drawn up by the 
 
 * Disputations of Church Government. — Advertisement, pp. 
 4, 5, 4to. 1659. 
 
120 
 
 venerable Mr. Bradshaw, translated into Latin for the 
 benefit of the foreign Protestants by the learned Dr. 
 Ames, and intended to express the sense of the general 
 body of the Puritans, speak thus on the subject of 
 ruling elders. 
 
 " Since even in the best constituted churches, they 
 know that not a few enormous offences will arise, which, 
 if not timely met, will do injury both to those who 
 believe, and those who are inquiring; while, at the 
 same time, they see that the authority of a single per- 
 son in a parish, resembling the papal, is contrary to 
 the will of Christ : they think, as the case itself re- 
 quires, and as appointed of God, that others also 
 should be selected from the church, as officers, who 
 may be associated with the ministers in the spiritual 
 government." 
 
 " These are inspectors, eaw^ww, a kind of censors, 
 whose duty it is, together with the ministers of the 
 word, as well to watch over the conduct of all the 
 brethren, as to judge between them. And they think 
 that this office is instituted that each may take the 
 more heed to himself and his ways, while the ministers 
 enjoy more leasure for study and devotion, and obtain, 
 through the assistance of their coadjutors, a more 
 accurate view of the state of the flock ; since it is the 
 peculiar duty of the inspectors to be always watchful 
 over the manners and conduct of all the members of 
 the church." 
 
 " To this office they think that none should be pre- 
 ferred but men very eminent for gravity and prudence ; 
 established in the faith; of tried integrity; whose sanc- 
 tity of life and upright example are well known to the 
 whole society." 
 
 In the choice of these elders, respect should always 
 be had to their outward circumstances. They should 
 be able to support themselves in some repectable 
 manner; though it will not be an objection to them 
 
121 
 
 that they pursue some mechanical art, provided they 
 be morally qualified."* 
 
 Nor were these venerable men the only Independents 
 who declared, in the most decisive manner, in favour of 
 this class of officers. The celebrated Dr. Thomas 
 Goodwin, one of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 
 and who is styled by Anthony A. Wood, a very 
 " atlas and patriarch of Independency," is well known 
 to have been one of the most learned and influential 
 Independents of the seventeenth century, and one of 
 the most voluminous and instructive writers of his 
 class. In his " Church Order explained, in a way of 
 Catechism," the following passage occurs; — " What 
 sort of bishops hath God set in his church ?" Answer. 
 Two; some pastors and teachers; some ruling elders, 
 under two heads ; some labour in word and doctrine, 
 and of those, some are pastors, some teachers ; others 
 rule only, and labour not in the word and doctrine." 
 Again ; What is the office and work of the ruling 
 elder ? Answer. Seeing the kingdom of God is not 
 of this world, but heavenly and spiritual, and the 
 government of his kingdom is not lorldly, but stewardly 
 and ministerial ; and to labour in the ministry of ex- 
 hortation and doctrine is the proper work of the pas- 
 tors and teachers ; it remaineth, therefore, to be the 
 office and work of the ruling elders to assist the pas- 
 tors and teachers in diligent attendance to all other 
 aids of rule besides exhortation and doctrine, as be- 
 cometh good stewards of the household of God. As, 
 first, to open and shut the doors of God's house, by 
 admission of members, by ordination of officers, by ex- 
 communication of notorious and obstinate offenders. 
 Secondly ; to see that none live in the church inordin- 
 ately, without a calling, or idle in their calling. 
 Thirdly ; to prevent and heal offences whether in life 
 or doctrine, that might corrupt their own church, or 
 other churches. Fourthly; to prepare matters for the 
 
 * Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 449. 4to. edit, 
 L 
 
122 
 
 church's consideration, and to moderate the carriage of 
 all matters in the church assemblies. Finally, to feed 
 the flock of God by a word of admonition, and, as they 
 shall be called, to visit and pray with their sick brethren. 
 The ground of all this is laid down in Romans xii. 8. 
 where the apostle, besides him who exhorteth and 
 teacheth, maketh mention of another officer, who ruleth 
 with diligence, and is distinct from the pastors and 
 teachers, and that is the sum of his work to rule with 
 diligence. Thus you see the whole duty of these ruling 
 elders, and how they are to assist the pastors and 
 teachers in all other acts of rule besides word and doc- 
 trine. Use 1. From hence observe the great bounty 
 of God unto pastors and teachers, that God hath not 
 left them alone in the church, as Martha complains to 
 Christ that Mary had left her alone to serve : the min- 
 isters of the church have no such cause to complain : 
 for, as he gave the Levites to the priests to help them 
 in their service, so hath he given ruling elders to such 
 as labour in the word and doctrine, that they might 
 have assistance from them in ruling the church of God. 
 Use 2. It may serve to answer a cavil that some have 
 against this office, who say, that if God hath given 
 these officers to the church, he would then have set 
 down the limits of these officers, and not have sent them 
 forth with illimited power. To which it is answered, 
 that their power is strongly limited, as a stewardly 
 or ministerial power and office. It is the power of the 
 keys, which Christ hath expressed in his word, and it 
 consisteth in those things that have been spoken of 
 God's house, to open and shut the doors of God's house, 
 by admission of members, &c. This is such a rule as 
 is no small help to the spirits and hearts of those who 
 labour in doctrine ; and no small help it is also to the 
 whole church of God ; and when they are wanting, 
 many evils will grow, and those without the possibility 
 of redress and amendment, much idleness, much con- 
 fusion, many offences. Though other ministers have 
 
123 
 
 been in the church, we may see how much, in the want 
 of these officers, the churches have been corrupted."* 
 
 The character of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, one of 
 the most learned and pious fathers of New-England, 
 and a distinguished advocate of Independency, is too 
 well known to require remark. In his work entitled 
 " A Survey of Church Discipline," &c, he speaks thus 
 of the office under consideration : — " We begin with 
 the ruling elder's place, for that carries a kind of sim- 
 plicity with it. There be more ingredients required to 
 make up the office of pastor and doctor; and therefore 
 we shall take leave to trade in the first, quo simplicius 
 ac prius. That there is such an office and officer ap- 
 pointed by Christ, as the Scriptures are plain to him 
 whose spirit and apprehension is not possessed and fore- 
 stalled with prejudice, the first argument we have 
 from Romans xii. 7, which gives in witness to this 
 truth, where all these officers are numbered and named 
 expressly. The second argument is taken from 1 Cor. 
 xii. 28. The scope of the place, and the apostle's in- 
 tendment is, to lay open the several offices and officers 
 that the Lord hath set in his church, and so many 
 chief members out of which the church is constituted 
 as an entire body." And after making some other 
 remarks for the right discovery of the apostle's proceed- 
 ing and purpose, he adds: — " From which premises, 
 the dispute issues thus: — As apostles, prophets, and 
 teachers are distinct, so are helps and governments 
 distinct : for the spirit puts them in the same ranks, as 
 having a parity of reason which appertains to them all. 
 But they were distinct offices, and found in persons as 
 distinct officers, as verse 30 — Are all apostles ? Are 
 all teachers ? Therefore, the same is true of gover- 
 nors. A third argument is taken from the famous place, 
 1 Timothy v. 17, which is full to our purpose in hand, 
 and intended by the Holy Spirit of the Lord to make 
 
 * Church order explained, &c, pages 16, 19, 22; to be found 
 in the 4th vol of his Works, four vols. fol. London, 1697. 
 
124 
 
 evident the station and office of ruling elders, unto* 
 the end of the world."* 
 
 The praise of the Rev. John Cotton, one of the most 
 distinguished of the first ministers of New-England, 
 was in all the churches in his time. In a small work 
 entitled " Questions and Answers on Church Govern- 
 ment, begun 25th Nov. 1634," the following passages 
 occur: — " Q. What sorts of ministers or officers hath 
 God set in his Church ? A. The ministers and officers 
 of the Church are some of them extra ordinary, as apos- 
 tles, prophets, evangelists ; some ordinary, as bishops, 
 and deacons. Q. What sorts of bishops hath God 
 ordained in his Church ? A. There are three sorts of 
 them, according as there be three sorts of elders in the 
 Church, though under two heads ; some pastors, some 
 teachers, some ruling elders. That is to say, such 
 elders as labour in the word and doctrine, and such as 
 rule in the Church of God ; 1 Tim. i. 13 ; 1 Cor. xih 
 28 ; Rom. xii. 7, 8 ; 1 Tim. v. 17. Q. What is the 
 work of a ruling elder ? A. Seeing the kingdom of 
 Christ is not of this world, but heavenly and spiritual ; 
 and the government of his kingdom is not lordly, but 
 stewardly, and ministerial ; and to labour in the ad- 
 ministration of exhortation and doctrine, is the proper 
 work of pastor and teacher ; it remains to be the office 
 of the ruling elder to assist the pastor and teacher in 
 all other acts of rule besides, as becomes good stewards 
 of the household of God. And, therefore, to put in- 
 stances, as, First; To open and shut the doors of God's 
 house, by admission of members, by ordination of 
 officers, by excommunication of notorious and obstinate 
 offenders. Secondly; To see that none live in the 
 Church inordinately, without a calling, or idly in their 
 calling. Thirdly; To prevent or heal offences. Four- 
 thly; To prepare matters for the Church's considera- 
 tion, and to moderate the carriage of all things in the 
 Church assemblies. Fifthly; To feed the flock of God 
 
 * Survey &c, part ii. pp. 6, 8, 10, 11 ; 4to London, 1618. 
 
125 
 
 with the word of admonition, and, as they shall be 
 called, to visit and pray over the sick brethren."* 
 
 The venerable John Davenport, it is well known, 
 held a distinguished place among the early lights of 
 the Massachusets and Connecticut churches. In a 
 treatise entitled " The Power of Congregational 
 Churches asserted and vindicated, &c," although his 
 plan did not require, or even admit, that he should treat 
 expressly and at length on the officers of the church; 
 yet he repeatedly, and in .the most unequivocal manner 
 alludes to the office of ruling elder, as belonging to the 
 church by divine appointment ; as altogether distinct 
 from the office of both teaching elder and deacon ; and 
 as being of indispensible importance to the edification 
 of the church, f 
 
 Nor are these the sentiments of detached indivi- 
 duals merely. They were adopted and published, 
 about the same time, by public bodies, in the most 
 solemn manner. In a work entitled, " Church Govern- 
 ment, and Church Covenant Discussed, in an answer 
 of the elders of the several Churches of New-England, 
 to two-and- thirty questions sent over to them by 
 divers ministers in England, to declare their judgment 
 thereon," — in this treatise ruling elders are spoken 
 of as of divine institution, and as actually existing, at 
 the time, in the churches of New- England. The 
 fifteenth question is : — " Whether do you give the ex- 
 ercise of all church power of government to the 
 whole church, or to the presbyters thereof alone ?" 
 To which it is answered : — " We do believe that 
 Christ hath ordained that there should be a presbytery 
 or eldership, 1 Tim. iv. 14; and that in every church, 
 Titus i. 5; Acts xiv. 28; 1 Cor. xi. 28; whose work 
 is to teach and rule the church, by the word and laws 
 
 * A Treatise, 1. Of Faith; 2. Twelve Fundamental Articles 
 of Christian Religion ; 3. A Doctrinal Conclusion ; 4. Questions 
 and Answers on Church Government, — pp. 20, 21. 
 
 f The power of Congregational Churches, &c. pp. 56, 81, 94, 
 115. 12mo. London, 1G72. 
 
126 
 
 of Christ, 1 Tim. v. 17, and unto whom, as teaching 
 and ruling, all the people ought to be obedient, and 
 submit themselves; Heb. xiii. 17. And, therefore, a 
 government merely popular, or democratical, (which 
 divines and orthodox writers do so much condemn, in 
 Morillius, and such like,) is far from the practice of 
 these churches, and, we believe, far from the mind of 
 Christ." The twenty- third question is, " What au- 
 thority or eminency have your preaching elders above 
 your sole ruling elders ; or are they both equal ? 
 Answer. It is not the manner of elders among us, 
 whether ruling only, or ruling and teaching also, to 
 strive for authority or pre-eminence one above another. 
 As for the people's duty toward their elders, it is 
 taught them plainly in that place, 1 Thess. v. 12, 13, 
 as also in that of 1 Tim. v. 17 ; and this word (especially) 
 shows them that, as they are to account all their elders 
 worthy of double honour, so in special manner their 
 teaching or preaching elders."* 
 
 But there is another testimony of the same class, of 
 still higher authority. In a volume entitled, " The 
 Result of three Synods, held by the Elders and Mes- 
 sengers of the Churches of Massachusets Province, 
 New-England," there is abundant evidence to the 
 same effect. These Synods met in 1648, 1662, and 
 1679. Each of them was called by the general court, 
 or legislature of the province, and the results published 
 by the court, with their sanction. 
 
 The Synod of 1648, consisting of the divines of 
 Massachusets and Connecticut, and which drew up 
 what is commonly known as the Cambridge Platform, 
 distinctly recognized the office under consideration as 
 of divine appointment. It speaks as follows, (chapter 
 vii.) " The ruling elder's office is distinct from the 
 office of pastor and teacher. Ruling elders are not so 
 called to exclude the pastors and teachers from ruling; 
 because ruling and government is common to these 
 
 * The Power of Congregational Churches, &c. p. 47, 48, 76. 
 
127 
 
 with the other : whereas attending to teach and preach 
 the word, is peculiar unto the former; Romans xii. 7, 
 8, 9; 1 Timothy v. 17; 1 Corinthians xii. 27; Heb- 
 rews xiii. 17." 
 
 The Synod ofl679 gave its sanction most unequivo- 
 cally to the same doctrine ; not only by unanimously 
 renewing their approbation of the Platform of 1648, 
 but also by new acts of the most decisive character. 
 Two questions proposed to the Synod of 1679 were, 
 first, What are the evils that have provoked the 
 Lord to bring his judgments on New-England? 
 Secondly, What is to be done, that so many evils may 
 be removed ? In their answer to the second question, 
 the Synod say, ' It is requisite that the utmost endea- 
 vours should be used, in order to a full supply of offi- 
 cers in the church, according to Christ's institution. 
 The defect of these churches on this account, is very 
 lamentable ; there being, in most of the churches, only 
 one teaching officer for the burdens of the whole con- 
 gregation to lie upon. The Lord Christ would not 
 have instituted pastors, teachers, and ruling elders, 
 (nor the apostles ordained elders in every church,) if 
 he had not seen that there was need of them for the 
 good of his people. And, therefore, for men to think 
 they can do well enough without them, is both to break 
 the second commandment, and to reflect upon the wis- 
 dom of Christ, as if he did appoint unnecessary offices 
 in his church."* It may not be improper to add, that 
 this Synod, assembled in consequence of the " general 
 court of the colony having called upon all the churches 
 therein to send their elders and messengers, that they 
 might meet in form of a Synod, fn order to a most 
 serious inquiry into the questions propounded to them: 
 and that the result, when proposed, was read once and 
 again, each paragraph being duly and distinctly 
 weighed in { the balance of the sanctuary/ and then, 
 
 * Result of Three Synods, &c., p. 109. 
 
128 
 
 upon mature deliberation, the whole unanimously voted, 
 as to the substance and scope thereof."* 
 
 It is well known that in the Westminster Assembly of 
 Divines there was a small number of learned and zeal- 
 ous Independents, who opposed some of the most 
 prominent features in the presbyterian form of govern- 
 ment with much ardour and pertinacity, and who pro- 
 tracted the debates respecting them for many weeks. 
 But it is equally well known, that all the most able of 
 those divines were warm advocates of the office of 
 ruling elder, not only as a useful office, but as of 
 divine institution. The recorded opinion of one of 
 them, the Rev. Dr. Goodwin, has been already stated. 
 No less pointed in maintaining the same opinion 
 were Messieurs Bridge, Burroughs, and Nye, form- 
 ing, with Dr. Goodwin, a majority of the whole num- 
 ber. And, acccordingly, in their "Reasons against the 
 Third Proposition concerning Presbyterial Govern- 
 ment," they admit, that " the scripture says much of two 
 sorts of elders, teaching and ruling; and in some places 
 so plain, as if of purpose to distinguish them ; and, 
 further, that the whole Reformed churches had these 
 different elders."f 
 
 The following very explicit extract from the well 
 known work of the learned Herbert Thorndike, (a 
 divine of the Church of England, ) on "Religious As- 
 semblies," chapter iv. p. 117, will show his opinion on 
 the subject before us. Speaking of the language of 
 the apostle in 1 Cor. xii. 28, he says: — " There is 
 no reason to doubt that the men whom the apostle 
 here calleth doctors, are those of the presbyters which 
 had the abilities of preaching and teaching the people 
 at their assemblies; that those of the presbyters that 
 preached not, are here called by the apostle govern- 
 ments." 
 
 The following remarks of the Rev. Cotton Mather, 
 
 * Preface, pp. 5, 6. 
 
 f Reasons, &c. pp. 3, 40. 
 
129 
 
 well known as an eminent congregationalist of Mas- 
 sachusets, and author of the Magnalia Christi Ame- 
 ricana, have too much point, and convey too much 
 instruction, to be omitted in this list of testimonies. 
 " There are some who cannot see any such officer as 
 what we call a ruling elder, directed and appointed in 
 the Word of God; and partly through a prejudice 
 against the office ; and partly, indeed chiefly, through 
 a penury of men well qualified for the discharge of it : 
 as it has been heretofore understood and applied, our 
 churches are now generally destitute of such helps in 
 government. But unless a church have divers elders, 
 the church government must needs become either 
 prelatic or popular. And that a church's needing but 
 one elder, is an opinion, contrary not only to the sense 
 of the faithful in all ages, but also to the law of the 
 scriptures, where there can be nothing plainer than 
 elders who rule well, and are worthy of double honour, 
 though they do not labour in the word and doctrine : 
 whereas, if there were any teaching elders, who do not 
 labour in the word and doctrine, they would be so far 
 from worthy of double honour, that they would not be 
 worthy of any honour at all. Towards the adjusting 
 of the difference which has thus been in the judgments 
 of judicious men, some essays have been made, and 
 one particularly in such terms as these. Let it be first 
 recognized, that all the other church officers are the 
 assistants of the pastor, who was himself intrusted with 
 the whole care of all, until the further pity and kind- 
 ness of our Lord Jesus Christ joined other officers 
 unto him for his assistance in it. I suppose none will 
 be so absurd as to deny this at least, that all the church 
 officers are to take the advice of the pastor with them. 
 Upon which I subjoin, that a man may be a distinct 
 officer from his pastor, and yet not have a distinct 
 office from him. The pastor may be the ruling elder, 
 and yet he may have elders to assist him in ruling, and 
 in the actual discharge of some things which they are 
 able and proper to be serviceable to him in. This 
 
130 
 
 consideration being laid, I will persuade myself every 
 pastor among us will allow me, that there is much 
 work to be done for God in preparing of what belongs 
 to the admission and exclusion of church members ; in 
 carefully inspecting the way and walk of them all, and 
 the first appearance of evil with them ; in preventing 
 the very beginnings of ill blood among them, and in- 
 structing of all from house to house, more privately, 
 and warning of all persons unto the things more 
 peculiarly incumbent on them: in visiting all the 
 afflicted, and informing of, and consulting with the 
 ministers, for the welfare of the whole flock. And 
 they must allow me, that this work is too heavy for 
 any one man ; and that more than one man, yea all 
 our churches, do suffer beyond measure, because 
 no more of this work is thoroughly performed. More- 
 over, they will acknowledge to me, that it is an usual 
 thing with a prudent and faithful pastor himself to 
 single out some of the more grave, solid, aged brethren 
 in his congregation to assist him in many parts of 
 this work, on many occasions in a year ; nor will such 
 a pastor, ordinarily, do any important thing in his 
 government without having first heard the counsels of 
 such brethren. In short, there are few discreet pastors 
 but what make many occasional ruling elders every 
 year. I say, then, suppose the church, by a vote, re- 
 commend some such brethren, the fittest they have, 
 and always more than one, unto the stated assistance 
 of their pastor in the church rule, wherein they may 
 be helps unto him, — I do not propose that they should 
 be biennial, or triennial only, though I know very 
 famous churches throughout Europe have them so; 
 yea, and what if they should by solemn fasting and 
 prayer be commended unto the benediction of God in 
 what service they have to do, — what objection can be 
 made against the lawfulness? I think none can be 
 made against the usefulness of such a thing. Truly, 
 for my part, — if the fifth chapter of the first epistle to 
 Timothy would not bear me out, when conscience, 
 
131 
 
 both of my duty and my weakness, made me desire 
 such assistance, I would see whether the first chapter 
 of Deuteronomy would not."* 
 
 After these strong attestations in favour of the 
 office of ruling elder from the most pious and learned 
 of the early Independents, or Congregationalists, of 
 New-England — it will naturally occur to every reader, 
 as an interesting question, how it came to pass that 
 churches which once unanimously held such opinions, 
 laid so much stress on them, and practised accordingly, 
 for about three-fourths of a century, should have long 
 since as unanimously discontinued the office ? The 
 first company of emigrants in 1620, brought a ruling 
 elder with them ; and the office was universally re- 
 tained for many years afterwards. Yet in 1702, when 
 Dr. Cotton Mather published the first edition of his 
 Magnalia, it had been, as would seem from the 
 quotation just made, in a great measure laid aside; and 
 before the middle of the eighteenth century, it had 
 entirely disappeared from the churches of New- Eng- 
 land. A well informed and discerning friend has 
 suggested that the chief reason of this remarkable fact 
 is probably to be traced to another fact alluded to in the 
 following extract. In a small volume printed in Bos- 
 ton, in 1700, and entitled, "The Order of the Gospel, 
 professed and practised by the Churches of Christ in 
 New-England, &c.;" by Increase Mather, President 
 of Harvard College, and teacher of a church in 
 Boston, — in this work, one of the questions discussed 
 is, " Whether or not our brethren, and not the elders 
 of the churches only, are to judge concerning the 
 qualifications and fitness of those who are admitted into 
 their communion?" In answering it, he says: — "If only 
 elders have power to judge who are fit to come to the 
 sacrament, or to join to the churches, then, in case 
 there is but one elder in a church, (as there are very 
 few churches in New-England that have more elders 
 
 * Magnalia, &c. Book v. part ii. p. 206, 207, 8vo. edition, p. 
 1820. 
 
132 
 
 than one,) the sole power will reside in that one man's 
 hands."* On this passage, the friend above referred to 
 remarks, " I am inclined to think that he here means 
 ruling elders; for, 1. Several churches (whether in 
 consequence of the recommendation of the Synod of 
 1679, I do not know) had then two ministers. 2. This 
 question and answer of Dr. I. Mather's is annexed to 
 a reprint in Boston (now lying before me) of ( A Vin- 
 dication of the divine authority of ruling elders in the 
 Church of Christ asserted by the ministers and elders, 
 met together in a provincial assembly, Nov. 2d. 1649, 
 and printed in London, 1650.' But whether this was 
 his meaning or not, it is abundantly evidentfrom various 
 other sources, that the churches of New-England, while 
 they retained the office of ruling elder, had but one 
 such elder at a time, and his business was especially 
 to attend to discipline. The office was, of course, an 
 unwelcome one ; and it became more and more difficult 
 to find men willing to assume it." 
 
 It appears, then, that our excellent brethren, the 
 Puritan Independents, while they zealously maintained 
 the divine warrant, and the great importance of the 
 ruling elder's office, misapprehended its real nature, 
 and placed it under an aspect, before the churches, 
 evidently adapted to discredit and destroy it. Instead 
 of appointing a plurality of these ruling elders, they 
 seldom or never had more than one in each church; 
 and instead of uniting the pastor with him, and forming 
 a regular judicial bench for regulating the affairs of the 
 church, they seemed to have placed each in a sphere 
 entirely separate and independent of each other ; nay, 
 to have made the offices of teacher and ruler wear 
 an appearance of being rivals for influence and power. 
 Certain it is, that the views entertained by each of his 
 proper department of duty often, in fact, brought them 
 into collision, and made the situation of the ruler both 
 uncomfortable and useless. Can it be matter of surprise. 
 
 * Order of the Gospel, &c p. 25. 
 
133 
 
 that, in these circumstances, the office of ruling elder 
 in the congregational churches of New-England 
 gained but little favour with the body of the people, 
 that it came to be considered as at once odious and 
 useless, would be undertaken by few, and, at length, 
 fell into entire disuse ? 
 
 The testimony of the Rev. Dr. John Edwards, an 
 eminently pious and learned divine of the Church of 
 England, who flourished during the latter half of the 
 seventeenth century, is equally decisive in favour of this 
 office. His language is as follows : — 
 
 " This office of a ruling elder is according to the 
 practice of the church of God among the Jews, his 
 own people. It is certain that there was this kind of 
 elders under that economy. — There were two sorts of 
 elders among the Jews, the ruling ones, who go- 
 verned in their assemblies and synagogues, and the 
 teaching ones who read and expounded the Scriptures. 
 Accordingly Dr. Lightfoot, in his harmony of the 
 New Testament, inclines to interpret 1 Timothy v. 17, 
 of the elders in the Christian congregations, who 
 answer to the lay-elders in the Jewish Synagogue. 
 For this learned writer, who was well versed in the 
 Jewish customs and practices, tells us, that in every 
 synagogue among the Jews, there were elders that 
 ruled chiefly in the affairs of the synagogue, and other 
 elders that laboured in the word and doctrine." 
 " And so it was in the Christian Church ; there was a 
 mixture of clergy and laity in their consults about 
 church matters, as we see frequently in the Acts of 
 the Apostles. The Christian Church retained this 
 usage, for which they quote St. Augustine's 137th 
 Epistle, where he mentions the clergy and the elders, 
 and the people. So in his third book against Cresco- 
 nius, he mentions deacons and seniors, that is lay- 
 elders, for he distinguishes them from other presby- 
 ters. One of his Epistles to his Church in Hippo is 
 thus superscribed, ' To the Clergy and the Elders.' 
 See chapter 56th, in the fore-named book against Cres- 
 
 M 
 
134 
 
 conius, where he mentions Peregrinus the Presbyter^ 
 and the Elders (Seniores.)* And nothing can be 
 plainer than that of St. Ambrose — i Both the syna- 
 gogue and, afterwards, the church had their elders, 
 without whose counsel nothing was done in the church, 
 &c.' Further, we read of these seniors in the writings 
 of Optatus p. 41, and in the epistles annexed to him, 
 which the reader may consult. Thus it appears that 
 this was an ancient office in the church, and not 
 invented by Calvin, as some have thought and writ."f 
 " And then as to the reason of the thing, there should 
 be no ground of quarrelling with this office in the 
 church seeing it is useful. It was instituted for the 
 ease of the preaching elders, that they might not be 
 overburdened with business, and that they might more 
 conveniently apply themselves to that employment 
 which is purely ecclesiastical and spiritual. Truly if 
 there was no such office mentioned in the Scripture, 
 we might reasonably wish for such a one, it being so 
 useful and serviceable to the great purposes of religion. 
 What can be more desirable than that there should be 
 one or more appointed to observe the conversation of 
 the flock in order to the exercising of discipline. The 
 pastor himself cannot be supposed to have an eye on 
 every one of his charge; and, therefore, it is fitting that 
 out of those who are fellow-members, and daily converse 
 with one another, and therefore are capable of ac- 
 
 * It will not escape the notice of the discerning reader that 
 these testimonies from Augustine Ambrose, and Optatus, which 
 some have ventured very unceremoniously to treat with con- 
 tempt, when brought forward on this subject, are regarded by 
 this very learned Episcopalian as evidence of the most conclu- 
 sive character. 
 
 f The old and hacknied allegation, which has been the 
 theme of high-toned Episcopalians and Independents for more 
 than two hundred years, that Calvin invented and first intro- 
 duced ruling elders, it will be observed is confidently rejected 
 by this truly learned Episcopal Divine, who, from his ecclesi- 
 astical connection, cannot be supposed to have had any other 
 inducement to adopt the opinion which he has expressed than 
 his love of truth. 
 
135 
 
 quainting themselves with their manners and behaviour, 
 there should be chosen these elders I am speaking 
 of, to inspect the carriage and deportment of the 
 flock."* 
 
 The j udgment of the Rev. Dr. Jerome Kromayer, 
 a very learned Lutheran divine, and Professor of Di- 
 vinity in the University of Leipsic, who lived in the 
 seventeenth century, is very decisive in favour of the 
 apostolical institution of ruling elders. " Of presby- 
 ters, or elders," says he, " there were formerly two 
 kinds, those who taught, and those who exercised the 
 office of rulers in the church. This is taught in 
 1 Timothy v. 17 : Let the elders that rule well be 
 accounted worthy of double honour, especially they 
 who labour in the word and doctrine. The latter 
 were the same as our ministers ; the former, were like 
 the members of our consistories. "f 
 
 A similar testimony may be adduced from Frede- 
 ric Baldwin, another distinguished Lutheran divine 
 and professor of the same century, who is no less 
 decisive in favour of the class of officers under consi- 
 deration.:}; 
 
 The celebrated John Casper Suicer, an eminently 
 learned German divine and: professor, in his The- 
 saurus Ecclesiasticus, after speaking particularly of 
 teaching presbyters or elders, in the first place, pro- 
 ceeds to speak of another class of elders, who (he 
 says,) " chosen from among the people, (or laity,) are 
 united with the pastors, or ministers of the word, that 
 they may be guardians of the discipline of the church. 
 To these the Apostle Paul refers in 1 Timothy v. 17, 
 where, by the elders who labour in the word and 
 doctrine, he evidently understands that class of elders 
 of which we have spoken in the preceding section ; and 
 
 * Theologia Reformata, vol. i. Ninth Article of the Creed, pp. 
 526, 528. 
 
 f Historia Ecclesiastica, auctore Hierouymo Kromayero, 
 D.D. S.S. T. D. in Acad. Leips. 4to. p. 59. 
 
 % Fred. Balduini Institut. Ministrorum, Verbi cap. 10. 
 
136 
 
 by those who rule well, he plainly refers to the class of 
 which we now speak. For if he had intended to speak 
 of only one class, why did he add, especially those who 
 labour in the word and doctrine ? This class are also 
 designated by the term ^^otgrx^suovs, in Romans xii. 8, 
 and by the term xvpeqvvitreis, in 1 Corinthians xii. 29."* 
 
 The very explicit testimony of Dr. Whitby, of the 
 Church of England, was produced in a preceding 
 chapter, when we were discussing the scriptural evi- 
 dence in favour of the office under consideration. It 
 need not, therefore, here be repeated, excepting simply 
 to remind the reader of its decisive character. The 
 concessions also of Bishop Fell, the Rev. Mr. Marshall, 
 and the celebrated Mr. Dodwell, of the same church, 
 will also in this connection be borne in mind. They 
 may be found in the fourth chapter, in connection with 
 the testimony from the fathers. 
 
 The pious and exellent Dr. Watts, though not a 
 presbyterian, must be considered as indirectly doing 
 homage to this part of the presbyterian system, when 
 he says, (in his Treatise on the Foundation of the 
 Christian Church, p. 125,) " If it happens that there is 
 but one minister or presbyter in a church, or if the 
 ministers are young men of small experience in the 
 world, it is useful and proper that some of the eldest, 
 gravest, and wisest members be deputed by the church, 
 to join with and assist the ministers in the care and 
 management of that affair, (the admission and exclu- 
 sion of members.") 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Doddridge, universally known as an 
 eminently learned and pious divine of England, of the 
 Independent denomination, in reference to the office in 
 question speaks thus : — " It seems to be solidly argued, 
 from 1 Timothy v. 17, that there were in the primitive 
 church, some elders who did not use to preach. No- 
 thing very express is said concerning them : only it 
 seems to be intimated, James v. 14, that they prayed 
 
 # Suic e ri Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, Art. Yl^eaQurs^og. 
 
137 
 
 with the sick. It may be very expedient, even on the 
 principles of human prudence, to appoint some of the 
 more grave and honourable members of the society to 
 join with the pastor in the oversight of it, who may 
 constitute a kind of council with him, to deliberate on 
 affairs in which the society is concerned, and prepare 
 them for being brought before the church for its 
 decision, to pray with the sick, to reconcile dif- 
 ferences, &c."* 
 
 The same distinguished writer, in his commentary 
 on 1 Timothy v. 17, has the following remark : — " Es- 
 pecially they who labour, &c. This seems to intimate 
 that there were some who, though they presided in the 
 church were not employed in preaching, Limborch, 
 indeed, is of opinion that *&*tw*H signifies those who 
 did even fatigue themselves with their extraordinary 
 labours, which some might not do, who yet in the 
 general presided well, supposing preaching to be a 
 part of their work. But it seems to be much more 
 natural to follow the former interpretation." 
 
 The celebrated Professor Neander, of Berlin, was 
 mentioned in a preceeding chapter as probably the 
 most profoundly learned Christian antiquarian now 
 living. In addition to the quotation from him pres- 
 ented in that chapter, the following, from the same 
 work, is worthy of notice. 
 
 " That the name e*«*6#off, was of the same significa- 
 tion with irgsafivTepog, i s manifest from those places in 
 the New Testament where these words are exchanged 
 the one for the other; Acts xx. 17, 28. Tit. i. 5, 7 : 
 and from those passages where, after the office of 
 bishop, that of deacon is mentioned ; so that no other 
 office can be imagined between them. If the name 
 i-iaxonos had been used to distinguish any of these 
 elders from the rest, as a ruler in the church senate, 
 a primus inter pares this use of it interchangeably 
 with voe<r(3vTe%og would not have obtained." 
 
 * Lectures on Divinity, Proposition 150, Scholium 5th. 
 
138 
 
 " These presbyters, or bishops, had the oversight of 
 the whole church, in all its general concerns ; but the 
 office of teaching was not appropriated exclusively to 
 them ; for, as we have above remarked, all Christians 
 had a right to speak in their meetings for the edifica- 
 tion of the members. It does not follow from this, 
 however, that all the church members were capable 
 of giving instruction : and it is important to distin- 
 guish a faculty for instruction which was under the 
 command of an individual, from the miraculous and 
 sudden impulses of inspiration, as in prophecy, and the 
 gift of tongues; and which might be bestowed upon 
 those not remarkably favoured by natural gifts. The 
 care of the churches, the preservation and extension 
 of pure evangelical truth, and the defence of it against 
 the various forms of error, which early appeared could 
 not be left entirely to depend upon these extraordinary 
 and often transient impulses. The weakness of human 
 nature to which was committed the treasure of the 
 gospel, as in ' earthen vessels,' seemed to render it 
 necessary that there should be, in every church, some 
 possessed of the natural endowments necessary to in- 
 truct their brethren in the truth, to warn and exhort 
 them against error, and lead them forward in the way 
 of life. Such endowments pre-suppose a previous 
 course of instruction, clearness and acuteness of 
 thought, and a power to communicate their ideas; 
 and when these were present, and the Spirit of God 
 was imparted to animate and sanctify, the man became 
 possessed of the ' x^ia^a, lilu,ax,a.-hicx,s? Those pos- 
 sessed of this x«?«^*, were on this account, calculated 
 for all the purposes above alluded to, without exclud- 
 ing the remainder from exercising the gift imparted 
 to them, of whatever kind it might be. On this ac- 
 count, the #«g/o/*« foleurxec*i*s, and the situation of 
 teachers, (foletaKethtot,) who were distinguished by this 
 gift, was represented as something entirely distinct and 
 peculiar. (1 Cor. xii. 28. xiv. 6. Ephes. iv. 11.) 
 All members of a church could, at times, speak be- 
 
139 
 
 fore their brethren, either to call upon God, or to 
 praise him, when so inclined ; but only a few were 
 ofixaKsttoi, in the full sense of that term." 
 
 " It is very clear, too, that this talent for teaching, 
 was different from that of governing, (i. e., x^io^a. 
 Kv^umtac,) which was especially necessary for him who 
 took his seat in the council of the church, that is for a 
 -o-:<j%vTi%o$ or £7T/ff«o7ro;: One might possess the know- 
 ledge of external matters — the tact, the Christian pru- 
 dence necessary for this duty, without the mental 
 qualities so peculiarly desirable in a teacher. In the 
 first apostolic church, from which every thing like 
 mere arbitrary arangements concerning rank were 
 very distant, and all offices were looked upon only as 
 they promised the attainment of the great end of the 
 Christian faith, the offices of teacher and ruler, 
 lilctvKCL-hog and «w^v were separated. For this distinc- 
 tion, see Romans xii. 7, 8. In noticing this well 
 defined distinction, we may be led to the opinion, that 
 originally those called, by way of preference, teach- 
 ers, did not belong to the class of rulers, or overseers. 
 Also, it is not clearly proved that they did always 
 belong to the class of ^^tvrsQot. Only this is certain 
 — that it was considered as desirable that, among the 
 rulers there should be those capable of teaching also. 
 When it is enjoined upon the presbyters in general, 
 as in the farewell of Paul to the Church of Ephesus, 
 (Acts xx.) to watch over the church and preserve its 
 doctrine pure, it does not necessarily follow that the 
 duty of teaching, in its strict sense, was insisted on ; 
 but rather a general superintendence of the affairs of 
 that body. But when, in the epistle to Titus, it is de- 
 manded in an e*w*oxog that he not only ■ hold fast the 
 form of sound words ' in his private capacity, but that 
 he should be able to strengthen others therein ; to 
 overcome opposers, and ' convince gainsayers,' it seems 
 to be implied that he should possess the ' gift of teach- 
 ing.' This must have been, in many situations of the 
 churches, exposed as they were to errors of every kind, 
 
140 
 
 highly desirable. And on this account, in 1 Tim. v. 
 17, those among the ^gaQvre^ot, who united the gift of 
 teaching (3/&a«t*?u*) with that of governing, (kv^vwi?) 
 were to be especially honoured. This distinction of 
 the two gifts shows that they were not constantly or 
 necessarily united."* 
 
 The same writer says : — " We find another office in 
 the apostolic times — that of deacons. The duties of 
 this office were from the first only external, (Acts vi.,) 
 as it seems to have taken its rise for the sole purpose of 
 attending to the distribution of alms. The care of the 
 poor, however, and of the sick, and many other exter- 
 nal duties were, in process of time, imposed upon those 
 in this station. Besides the deacons, there were also 
 deaconesses appointed, who could have free access to 
 the female part of the church, which was, on account 
 of the peculiar manners of the east, denied, to a great 
 extent, to men. Here the female had an opportunity 
 of exercising her powers for the extension of the true 
 faith, without overstepping the bounds of modesty and 
 propriety, and in a field otherwise inaccessible. It 
 was their duty, too, as experienced Christian mothers, 
 to give advice and support to the younger women, as 
 seems to have been the case from Tertullian, De Vir- 
 gin. Veland. c. 9."-j- 
 
 Only one authority more shall be adduced on this 
 subject, and that shall be from the pen of our vener- 
 able and eloquent countryman, the Rev. Dr. Dwight, 
 whose character for learning, talents, and piety, needs 
 no attestation from the writer of this essay. Though 
 himself a congregationalist, and without any other 
 inducement to declare in favour of ruling elders, than 
 
 * It is worthy of notice that this profound ecclesiastical his- 
 torian, in another place, quotes Hilary (Ambrose) as speaking 
 of the ruling elders, in the synagogue, and in the church, and 
 interprets him as plainly teaching the distinction here made be- 
 tween teaching and ruling elders, substantially as we have done 
 in a preceding chapter. 
 
 f Kirchengeschichte. 
 
141 
 
 that which the force of truth presented, he expresses 
 himself concerning their office in the following une- 
 quivocal terms : — " ruling elders are, in my apprehen- 
 sion, scriptural officers of the Christian church ; and I 
 cannot but think our defection, with respect to these 
 officers, from the practice of the first settlers of New- 
 England, an error in ecclesiastical government."* 
 
 This array of witnesses might be greatly extended, 
 were it proper to detain the reader with further ex- 
 tracts. But it is presumed that those which have been 
 produced are abundantly sufficient. It will be ob- 
 served that no presbyterian has been cited as an au- 
 thority in this case. The names, indeed, of multi- 
 tudes of that denomination, might have been produced, 
 equal to any others that can be shown on the catalogue 
 of piety 7 , talents, and learning. But the testimony 
 of more impartial witnesses may be preferred. Re- 
 course has been had, then, to those who could not 
 possibly have been swayed by a presbyterian bias. 
 And a sufficiency of such has been produced, it is 
 hoped, to make a deep impression on candid minds. 
 Romanists, Protestant Episcopalians, Lutherans and 
 Independents, have all most remarkably concurred in 
 vindicating an office, the due admission and scriptural 
 use of which are, perhaps, of more importance to the 
 best interests of the church of God, than this, or any 
 other single volume can fully display. 
 
 * Theology explained and defended, vol. iv. p. 399. 
 
CHAPETR VIII. 
 
 RULING ELDERS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IN THE 
 CHURCH. 
 
 By this is meant, that the laws which Christ has 
 appointed for the government and edification of his 
 people, cannot possibly be executed without such a 
 class of officers in fact, whatever name they may bear. 
 But that which is the necessary result of a divine in- 
 stitution, is of equal authority with the institution 
 itself. All powers or instruments really indispensable 
 to the faithful and plenary execution of laws which an 
 infinitely wise Governor has enacted, must be con- 
 sidered as implied in those laws, even should they not 
 be formally specified. 
 
 Now, all serious impartial readers of the Bible be- 
 lieve, that, besides the preaching of the gospel, and the 
 administration of the sacraments, there is very much 
 to be done for promoting the order, purity, and edi- 
 fication of the church, by the maintenance of a 
 scriptural discipline. They believe that the best in- 
 terest of every ecclesiastical community requires, that 
 there be a constant and faithful inspection of all the 
 members and families of the church ; that the negli- 
 gent be admonished; that wanderers be reclaimed 
 
143 
 
 that scandals be removed ; that irrregularities be cor- 
 rected; that differences be reconciled; and every pro- 
 per measure adopted to bind the whole body together 
 by the ties of Christian purity and charity. They 
 consider it as vitally important that there be added to 
 the labours of the pulpit, those of teaching " from 
 house to house," visiting the sick, conversing with 
 serious inquirers, catechising children, learning as far 
 as possible the character and state of every member, 
 even the poorest and most obscure of the flock, and 
 endeavouring, by all scriptural means, to promote the 
 knowledge, holiness, comfort, and spiritual welfare of 
 every individual. They believe, in fine, that none 
 ought to be admitted to the communion of the church, 
 without a careful examination in reference to their 
 knowledge, orthodoxy, good moral character, and 
 hopeful piety; that none ought to be permitted to re- 
 main in the bosom of the church, without maintaining, 
 in some tolerable degree, a character proper for pro- 
 fessing Christians ; that none ought to be suspended 
 from the enjoyment of church privileges but after a 
 fair trial ; and that none should be finally excommuni- 
 cated from the covenanted family of Christ, without 
 the most patient inquiry, and every suitable effort to 
 bring them to repentance and reformation. 
 
 It is no doubt true, that the very suggestion of the 
 necessity and importance of discipline in the church 
 is odious to many who bear the Christian name. The 
 worldly and careless portion of every church consider 
 theinterpositionof ecclesiastical inspection andauthoritv, 
 in reference to the lives and conversation of its mem- 
 bers, as officious and offensive meddling with private 
 concerns. They would much rather retain their ex- 
 ternal standing as professors of religion, and, at the 
 same time pursue their unhallowed pleasures without 
 control. They never wish to see a minister, as such, 
 but in the pulpit ; or any church officers in any other 
 place than his seat in the sanctuary. To such persons, 
 the entire absence of the class of officers for which we 
 
144 
 
 are pleading, together with the exercise of all their 
 appropriate functions, will be matter rather of felicita- 
 tion than regret. Hence the violent opposition made 
 to the introduction of ruling elders into the church 
 of Geneva, by the worldly and licentious part of her 
 members. And hence the insuperable repugnance to 
 the establishment of sound and scriptural discipline, 
 manifested so repeatedly and to this day, by some of 
 the largest national churches of Europe. 
 
 But I need not say to those who take their views of 
 the Christian church and its real prosperity from the 
 Bible and from the best experience, that enlightened 
 and faithful discipline is not only important but 
 absolutely essential to the purity and edification of the 
 body of Christ. It ought to be regarded as one of the 
 most precious means of grace, by which offenders are 
 humbled, softened, and brought to repentance ; the 
 church purged of unworthy members ; offences re- 
 moved; the honour of Christ promoted; real Christians 
 stimulated and improved in their spiritual course; 
 faithful testimony borne against error and crime ; and 
 the professing family of Christ made to appear holy and 
 beautiful in the view of the world. Without wholesome 
 discipline for removing offences and excluding the 
 corrupt and "profane there may be an assembly, 
 but there cannot be a church. The truth is, the ex- 
 ercise of a faithful watch and care over the purity of 
 each other in doctrine, worship, and life, is one of the 
 principal purposes for which the Christian church was 
 established, and on account of which it is highly prized 
 by every enlightened believer. And, I have no doubt, 
 it may be safely affirmed, that a large part of all that is 
 holy in the church at the present day, either in faith 
 or practice, may be ascribed, under God, as much to 
 sound ecclesiastical discipline as to the faithful preach- 
 ing of the gospel. 
 
 And if the maintenance of discipline be all important 
 to the interests of true religion, it is a matter of no less 
 importance that it be conducted with mildness, prudence, 
 
145 
 
 and wisdom. Rashness, precipitancy, undue severity, 
 malice, partiality, popular fury, and attempting to en- 
 force rules which Christ never gave, are among the 
 many evils which have too often marked the dispensa- 
 tion of authority in the church, and not unfrequently 
 defeated the great purpose of discipline. To conduct 
 it aright is undoubtedly one of the most delicate and 
 arduous parts of ecclesiastical administration, requiring 
 all the piety, judgment, patience, gentleness, maturity 
 of counsel, and prayerfulness which can be brought to 
 bear upon the subject. 
 
 Now the question is, by whom shall all these multi- 
 plied, weighty, and indispensable services be performed ? 
 Besides the arduous work of public instruction and 
 exhortation, who shall attend to all the numberless and 
 ever-recurring details of inspection, warning, and visita- 
 tion, which are so needful in every Christian commun- 
 ity ? Will any say it is the duty of the pastor of each 
 church to perform them all ? The very suggestion is 
 absurd. It is physically impossible for him to do it. 
 He cannot be every where, and know every thing. He 
 cannot perform what is expected from him, and at the 
 same time so watch over his whole flock as to fulfil every 
 duty which the interest of the church demands. He 
 must " give himself to reading ;" he must prepare for 
 the services of the pulpit ; he must discharge his various 
 public labours ; he must employ much time in private, 
 in instructing and counselling those who apply to him 
 for instruction and advice; and he must act his part in 
 the concerns of the whole church with which he is 
 connected. Now, is it practicable for any man, how- 
 ever diligent and active, to do all this, and at the same 
 time to perform the whole work of inspection and go- 
 vernment over a congregation of the ordinarv size ? 
 We might as well expect and demand any impossibil- 
 ity ; and impossibilities the great and merciful Head 
 of the church requires of no man. 
 
 But even if it were reasonable or possible that a 
 pastor should, alone, perform all these duties, ought he 
 
 N 
 
146 
 
 to be willing to undertake them ; or ought the church 
 to be willing to commit them to him alone ? We know 
 that ministers are subject to the same frailties and im- 
 perfections with other men. We know, too, that a 
 love of pre-eminence and of power is not only natural 
 to them, in common with others; but that this principle 
 very early after the days of the apostles, began to mani- 
 fest itself as the reigning sin of ecclesiastics, and pro- 
 duced, first Prelacy, and afterwards Popery, which has 
 so long and so ignobly enslaved the Church of Christ. 
 Does not this plainly show the folly and danger of 
 yielding undefined power to pastors alone ? Is it wise 
 or safe to constitute one man a despot over a whole 
 church? Is it proper to intrust to a single individual the 
 weighty and complicated work of inspecting, trying, 
 judging, admitting, condemning, excluding, and restor- 
 ing, without control ? Ought the members of a church 
 to consent that all their rights and privileges, in reference 
 to Christian communion, should be subject to the will 
 of a single man, as his partiality, kindness, and favour- 
 itism, on the one hand, or his caprice, prejudice, or 
 passion, on the other, might dictate ? Such a mode of 
 conducting the government of the church, to say no- 
 thing of its unscriptural character, is, in the highest 
 degree, unreasonable and dangerous. It can hardly 
 fail to exert an influence of the most injurious charac- 
 ter both on the clergy and laity. It tends to nurture in 
 the former a spirit of selfishness, pride, and ambition ; 
 and instead of ministers of holiness, love, and mercy, to 
 transform them into ecclesiastical tyrants. While its 
 tendency, with regard to the latter, is gradually to 
 beget in them a blind implicit submission to clerical 
 domination. The ecclesiastical encroachments and 
 despotism of former times, already alluded to, read us 
 a most instructive lesson on this subject. The fact is, 
 committing the whole government of the church to the 
 hands of pastors alone, may be affirmed to carry in it 
 some of the worst seeds of Popery ; which though, 
 under the administration of good men, they may not 
 
147 
 
 at once lead to palpable mischief, will seldom fail in 
 producing in the end the most serious evils, both to 
 those who govern and those who obey. 
 
 Accordingly, as was intimated in a preceding chapter, 
 we have no example in Scripture of a church being 
 committed to the government of a single individual. 
 Such a thing was unknown in the Jewish synagogue. 
 It was unknown in the apostolic age. And it continued 
 to be unknown, until ecclesiastical pride and ambition 
 introduced it, and with it a host of mischiefs to the body 
 of Christ. In all the primitive churches we find a plu- 
 rality of " elders," and we read enough in the early 
 records, in some particular cases, to perceive that these 
 " elders" were not only chosen by the members of the 
 church, out of their own number, as their representa- 
 tatives, to exercise over them the functions of inspection 
 and ruling; but that, whenever they ceased to discharge 
 the duties of their office acceptably, they might be re- 
 moved from its actual exercise at the pleasure of those 
 by whom they were chosen. Thus plainly evincing 
 that the constitution of the primitive church was emi- 
 nently adapted to guard against ecclesiastical tyranny : 
 and that if that constitution had been preserved, the 
 evils of clerical encroachment would have been avoided. 
 Accordingly, it is remarkable that the pious Ambrose, a 
 venerable father of the fourth century, quoted in a 
 former chapter, expressly conveys an intimation of this 
 kind, when speaking of the gradual disuse of the office 
 of ruling elder. " Which order," says he, " by what 
 negligence it grew into disuse, I know not, unless, per- 
 haps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the 
 teachers, who alone wished to appear something." 
 
 " It is a vain apprehension," says the venerable Dr. 
 Owen, " to suppose that one or two teaching officers in 
 a church, who are obliged to give themselves unto the 
 word and prayer, to labour in the word and doctrine, 
 to preach in and out of season — would be able to take 
 care of, and attend with diligence unto, all those things 
 that do evidently belong unto the rule of the church. 
 
148 
 
 And hence it is, that churches at this day do live on the 
 preaching of the word, and are very little sensible of 
 the wisdom, goodness, love, and care of Christ in the 
 institution of this rule in the church, nor are partakers 
 of the benefits of it unto their edification. And the 
 supply which many have hitherto made herein, by per- 
 sons either unacquainted with their duty, or insensible 
 of their own authority, or cold, if not negligent in their 
 work doth not answer the end of their institution. And 
 hence it is, that the authority of government, and the 
 benefit of it, are ready to be lost in most churches. 
 And it is both vainly and presumptuously pleaded, to 
 give countenance unto a neglect of their order, that 
 some churches do walk in love and peace, and are 
 edified without it ; supplying some defects by the 
 prudent aid of some members of them. For it is 
 nothing but a preference of our own wisdom, unto the 
 wisdom and authority of Christ; or at best an un- 
 willingness to make a venture on the warranty of his 
 rule, for fear of some disadvantages that may ensure 
 thereon."* 
 
 If, in order to avoid the evils of the pastor standing 
 alone in the inspection and government of his church, 
 it be alleged that the whole body of the church 
 members may be his auxiliaries in this arduous 
 work; still the difficulties are neither removed nor 
 diminished. 
 
 For, in the first place, a great majorty of all church 
 members, we may confidently say, are altogether un- 
 qualified for rendering the aid to the pastor which is 
 here contemplated. They have neither the knowledge, 
 the wisdom, nor the prudence necessary for the purpose; 
 and to imagine a case of ecclesiastical regimen, in which 
 every weak, childish, and indiscreet individual, who, 
 though serious and well-meaning enough to enjoy the 
 privilege of Christian communion, is wholly unfit to be 
 an inspector and ruler of others, should be associated 
 
 * True Nature of a Gospel Church, pp. 177, 178. 
 
149 
 
 with the pastor, in conducting the delicate and arduous 
 work of parochial regulation, is too preposterous to be 
 regarded with favour by any judicious mind. Can it 
 be believed for a moment, that the all-wise Head of the 
 church has appointed a form of government for his peo- 
 ple in which ignorance, weakness, and total unfitness 
 for the duty assigned them, should always, and almost 
 necessarily, characterize a great majority of those to 
 whom the oversight and guidance of the church were 
 committed ? Surely this is altogether incredible. 
 
 And if this consideration possess weight in regard to 
 old and settled churches, established in countries which 
 have been long favoured with the light and order of the 
 gospel, how much more to Pagan lands, and to 
 churches recently gathered from the wilds of Africa, the 
 degraded inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, or the 
 miserable devotees of Hindoo idolatry ? If in the best 
 instructed and best regulated churches in Christendom, 
 a majority of the members are utterly unqualified to 
 participate in the government of the sacred family, 
 what can be expected of those recent, and necessarily 
 dubious converts from blind heathenism, who must, of 
 course, be babes in knowledge and experience, who are 
 surrounded with ignorance and brutality, and have just 
 been snatched themselves from the same degradation ? 
 Surely, if we may say with propriety of some nations 
 who have recently thrown off the chains of slavery, to 
 which they had long been accustomed, that they were 
 not prepared for a republican form of government, with 
 still more confidence can we maintain, that, whoever 
 may be prepared to take part in the government of the 
 church, the poor novices in the situation supposed, are 
 totally unqualified. Even if the popular form of eccle- 
 siastical polity could be considered as well adapted to 
 the case of a people of more enlightened and elevated 
 character, which may well be questioned, it must be 
 pronounced altogether unfit for a church made up of 
 such materials. Now it is the glory of the gospel that 
 it is adapted to all people and all states of societv. Of 
 2 x 
 
150 
 
 course, that form of ecclesiastical government which is 
 not of a similar stamp, affords much ground of suspicion 
 that it is not of God, and ought to be rejected. 
 
 But further; if the greater part of the members of 
 the church were much better qualified than they com- 
 monly are for co-operating in its government, would 
 their co-operation be likely to be really obtained in a 
 prompt, steady, and faithful manner ? All experience 
 pronounces that it would not. We know that there 
 are few things in the government and regulation of 
 the church, more irksome to our natural feelings, than 
 doing what fidelity requires in cases of discipline. 
 When the ministers of religion are called upon to dis- 
 pense truth, to instruct, to exhort, and to administer 
 sacraments, they engage in that in which we may sup- 
 pose pious men habitually to delight, and to be always 
 ready to proceed with alacrity. But we may say of 
 the business of ecclesiastical discipline, that it is the 
 " strange work," even of the pious and faithful. It is, 
 in its own nature, an unacceptable and unwelcome 
 employment. To take cognizance of delinquencies in 
 faith or practice ; to admonish offenders ; to call them, 
 when necessary, before the proper tribunal ; to seek 
 out and array proof with fidelity ; to drag insidious 
 error and artful wickedness from their hiding places ; 
 and to suspend or excommunicate from the privileges 
 of the church, when the honour of religion, and the 
 best interests of the body of Christ call for these 
 measures, — is painful work to every benevolent mind. 
 It is work in which no man is willing to engage, unless 
 constrained by a sense of duty. Even those who are 
 bound by official obligation to undertake the task, are 
 too apt to shrink from it ; but where there is no par- 
 ticular obligation lying on any one member of the 
 church more than another to take an active interest in 
 this work, the consequence will probably be, that few 
 will be disposed to engage in the self-denying duty. 
 Where all are equally bound, all may be equally back- 
 ward, or negligent, without feeling themselves charge- 
 
151 
 
 able with any special delinquency. And, what is 
 worthy of notice, those who will be most apt to go 
 forward in this work, and profer their aid with most 
 readiness, will generally be the bold, the vain, the 
 ardent, the rash, the impetuous, — precisely those who 
 are, of all persons living, the most unfit for such an 
 employment. But even if it were otherwise ; if all the 
 members of the church were equally forward and 
 active, what might be expected in a religious com- 
 munity, when every member of that community was 
 equally a ruler, and when the most ignorant and 
 childish busy-body among them might be continually 
 tampering with its government, and fomenting disturb- 
 ances with as much potency as the most intelligent 
 and wise ? The truth is, in such a community, tran- 
 quility, order, and peace could scarcely be expected 
 long together to have any place. 
 
 We could scarcely have a more instructive comment 
 on these remarks than the practice of those churches 
 which reject ruling elders. Our Episcopal brethren 
 reject them. But they are obliged to have their vestry- 
 men and church-wardens, who, though no divine 
 warrant is claimed for them, and they are not set 
 apart in the same manner or formally invested with 
 the same powers with our ruling elders, yet they per- 
 form many of the same functions in substance, and 
 are in fact official counsellors and helps. True, in- 
 deed, these officers are not clothed with the power, and 
 seldom perform any acts of ecclesiastical discipline, 
 properly so called ; yet they may be, and sometimes 
 perhaps are, consulted on subjects of this nature. 
 And where this is not the case, we may say without 
 impropriety, that in churches of that denomination 
 no discipline is exercised. In the Church of England, 
 as is confessed on all hands, no scriptural discipline 
 exists. The most profligate and vile are not excluded 
 from the communion of the establishment. This is 
 deeply lamented by many of the pious members of that 
 establishment; and at an early period, after the com- 
 
\5% 
 
 mencement of the Reformation in that country, it was 
 earnestly wished and proposed, as we have seen in a 
 preceding chapter, to introduce ruling elders, as a 
 principal means of restoring and maintaining discipline. 
 And although the absence of discipline does not exist 
 to the same extent, in the churches of the Protestant 
 Episcopal denomination in the United States, yet it 
 may be altogether wanting, as to any pure and effi- 
 cient exercise, in all those Episcopal churches in which 
 some leading pious laymen are not habitually consul- 
 ted and employed in maintaining it. A pious minis- 
 ter, indeed, of that denomination may, and does, con- 
 form to his rubrics, in giving the people proper in- 
 struction and warning, as to a suitable approach to the 
 communion which he dispenses. But here he is com- 
 monly obliged to stop ; or, at any rate, does in prac- 
 tice, usually stop. All efficient inspection of the moral 
 condition of the whole church, admonishing the care- 
 less, bringing back the wanderers, and causing those 
 who persist in error or in vice to feel the discipline of 
 ecclesiastical correction, is notoriously almost un- 
 known in the churches of the denomination to which 
 we refer. And this deficiency is manifestly not owing 
 to the want of intelligent and conscientious piety in 
 many of the ministers of those churches; but, beyond 
 all doubt, to the entire want of an organization which 
 alone renders the exercise of a faithful and impartial 
 discipline at all practicable. 
 
 Our congregational brethren also reject ruling 
 elders. Yet it is well known, that while they adopt a 
 form of government which in theory allows to every 
 member of the church an equal share in the exercise 
 of discipline, their most judicious pastors, warned by 
 painful experience of the troublesome character and 
 uncertain issues of popular management in delicate 
 and difficult cases which involve Christian character, 
 are careful to have a committee of the most pious, 
 intelligent, and prudent of their church members, who 
 consider each case of discipline before-hand in private, 
 
153 
 
 and prepare it for a public decision ; and thus perform, 
 in fact, some of the most important of the duties of 
 ruling elders. This is what the venerable Dr. Cotton 
 Mather doubtless means, when he says, as quoted in 
 a preceding chapter, that " there are few discreet 
 pastors but what make many occasional ruling elders 
 every year;" and when he gives it as his opinion, in 
 the same connection, that without something of this 
 kind, churches must suffer unspeakably with respect 
 to discipline. And where nothing of this kind is 
 done, the experience of Independent and Congrega- 
 tional churches in conducting discipline, it is well 
 known, is often such as is calculated to give give deep 
 and lasting pain to those who love the peace and order 
 of the church. Strife, tumult, and division of the most 
 distressing kind, are often the consequence of attempt- 
 ing to rid the church of one corrupt member. 
 
 But perhaps it will be said, let the pastor habitually 
 call to his aid, in conducting the discipline of the 
 church, a few of the most judicious and pious of his 
 communicants; those whom he knows to be most 
 conscientious and wise in counsel. But neither is this 
 an adequate remedy. The pastor may consult such, if 
 he please; but he may choose to omit it, and be 
 governed entirely by his own counsels. Or, if he con- 
 sult any, he may always select his particular friends, 
 who he knows will encourage and support him in his 
 favourite measures; thus furnishing no real relief in 
 the end. How much better to have a bench of assis- 
 tant rulers, regularly chosen by the people, and witli 
 whom he shall be bound to take counsel in all impor- 
 tant measures. 
 
 Thus it is that those churches which reject the class 
 of officers which it is the object of this essay to recom- 
 mend, do practically bear witness that it is impossible 
 to conduct discipline in a satisfactory manner, without 
 having a set of individuals virtually, if not formally, 
 vested with similar powers. Where no such efficient 
 substitute is employed, discipline is either in a great 
 
154 
 
 measure neglected, or its maintenance is attended 
 with inconveniences of the most serious kind. In 
 other words, the opponents of ruling elders are obliged 
 either to neglect discipline altogether, or, for main- 
 taining it, to have recourse to auxiliaries of similar 
 character and power, while they deny that there is any 
 divine warrant for them. Now, is it probable, is it 
 credible, that our blessed Lord and all-wise King and 
 Head of his church, and his apostles, guided by his 
 own Spirit, should entirely overlook this necessity, and 
 make no provision for it? It is not credible. We 
 must, then, either suppose that some such officers as 
 those in question were divinely appointed, or that 
 means, acknowledged by the practice of all to be indis- 
 pensable in conducting the best interests of the church, 
 were forgotten or neglected by her divine Head and 
 Lord. Surely the latter cannot be imputed to in- 
 finite wisdom. 
 
 There are some, however, who acknowledge that 
 there ought to be, and must be, in every church, in 
 order to the efficient maintenance of discipline, a plu- 
 rality of elders. They confess that such a body or 
 bench of elders was found in the Jewish synagogue ; 
 that a similar eldership existed in the primitive church; 
 and that the scriptural government of a Christian con- 
 gregation cannot be conducted to advantage without 
 it. But they contend that these presbyters or elders 
 ought all to be of the teaching class ; that there is no 
 ground for the distinction between teaching and ruling 
 elders; that every church ought to be furnished with 
 three or more ministers, all equally authorized to 
 preach, to administer the sacraments, and to bear 
 rule. 
 
 It requires little discernment to see that this plan is 
 wholly impracticable ; and that if attempted to be car- 
 ried into execution, the effect must be, either to de- 
 stroy the church, or to degrade, and ultimately to pro- 
 strate the ministry. It is with no small difficulty that 
 most churches are enabled to procure and support one 
 
155 
 
 qualified and acceptable minister. Very few would 
 be able to afford a suitable support to two ; and none 
 but those of extraordinary wealth could think seriously 
 of undertaking to sustain three or more. If, therefore, 
 the principle of a plurality of teaching elders in each 
 church were deemed indispensable, and if a regular 
 and adequate training for the sacred office were also, 
 as now, insisted on ; and if it were, at the same time, 
 considered as necessary that every minister should re- 
 ceive a competent pecuniary support, the conse- 
 quence, as is perfectly manifest, would be, that nine- 
 teen out of twenty of our churches would be utterly 
 unable to maintain the requisite organization, and 
 must of course become extinct. Nay, the regular 
 establishment of gospel ordinances, in pastoral churches, 
 would be physically possible only in a very few great 
 cities or wealthy neighbourhoods. Surely this cannot 
 be the system enjoined by that Saviour who said — 
 " to the poor the gospel is preached." 
 
 The only remedy for this difficulty would be to 
 reduce the preparation and acquirements for the 
 ministry — to make choice of plain illiterate men for 
 this office ; men of small intellectual and theological 
 furniture, dependant on secular employments for a 
 subsistence, and, therefore, needing little or no sup- 
 port from the churches which they serve. This is 
 the plan upon which several sects of Christians pro- 
 ceed ; and it is easy to see, that upon this plan the 
 feeblest churches may have a plurality of such mini- 
 sters as these, and, indeed, any number of them, 
 without being burdened by their pecuniary support. 
 But, then, it is equally evident that the execution of 
 this plan must result in degrading the ministerial 
 character, and in finally banishing all well qualified 
 ministers from the church. They could no longer 
 be " able ministers of the New Testament — workmen 
 that need not be ashamed." They could no longer 
 " give themselves wholly " to the labours of the sacred 
 office. They could no longer " give themselves to 
 
156 
 
 reading," as well as to exhortation and teaching. In 
 short, the inevitable consequence of maintaining, as 
 some do, that there must be a bench, that is a plur- 
 ality of elders in every church, for the purpose of in- 
 spection and government, as well as of teaching ; and, 
 at the same time, that all these elders must be of the 
 same class, that is, that they must all be equally set 
 apart for teaching and ruling, — cannot fail to be, to 
 bring the ministerial character, and of course ulti- 
 mately the religion which the ministry is destined to 
 explain and recommend, into general contempt. The 
 Sandemanians, and a few other sects, have substan- 
 tially held the opinion, and made the experiment here 
 stated, and invariably, it is believed, with the result 
 which has been represented as unavoidable. 
 
 To obviate these difficulties, some have said, let 
 deacons, whom all agree to be scriptural officers, be 
 employed to assist the pastor in conducting the 
 government and discipline of the church. This pro- 
 posal, together with some principles connected with it, 
 will be considered in a subsequent chapter. All that 
 it is deemed necessary or proper to say in this place 
 is, that an entirely different sphere of duty is assigned 
 to deacons in the New Testament. No hint is given 
 of their being employed in the government of the 
 church. For this proposal, therefore, there is not the 
 shadow of a divine warrant. Besides, if we assign to 
 deacons the real office, in other words the appropriate 
 functions of ruling elders, what is this but granting the 
 thing, and only disputing about the title ? If it be 
 granted that there ought to be a plurality of officers 
 in every church, whose appropriate duty it is to assist 
 the pastor in inspecting and ruling the flock of Christ, 
 it is the essence of what is contended for. Their 
 proper title is not worth a contest, except so far as it 
 may be proper to imitate the language of Scripture. 
 
 If, then, the maintenance of discipline be essential 
 to the purity and edification of the church; if en- 
 lightened, impartial, and efficient inspection and disci- 
 
157 
 
 pline, especially over a large congregation, cannot pos- 
 sibly be maintained by the pastor alone ; if it would 
 be unsafe, and probably mischievous in its influence 
 on all concerned, to devolve the whole authority and 
 responsibility of conducting the government of a 
 church on a single individual ; if it would, especially, 
 in all probability essentially injure the clerical char- 
 acter to be thus systematically made the depository 
 of so much power, without control and without appeal; 
 if every other mode of furnishing each church with a 
 plurality of rulers besides that for which we contend 
 would either deprive a great majority of our churches 
 of the means of grace altogether, or, by bringing 
 ministers within their reach, reduce and degrade the 
 ministerial office far below the standard which the 
 scriptures require ; if these things be so, then we are 
 conducted unavoidably to the conclusion, that such 
 officers as those for which we contend are absolutely 
 necessary; that although a church may exist, and 
 for a time may flourish without them, yet, that the 
 best interests of the church cannot be systematically 
 and steadfastly pursued without those, or some other 
 officers of equivalent powers and duties. 
 
 But all the difficulties which have been supposed 
 are obviated, and all the advantages referred to, 
 attained by the plan of employing a judicious class of 
 ruling elders in each church to assist in counsel and 
 in government. In this plan we have provided a body 
 of grave, pious, and prudent men, associated with the 
 pastor, chosen out of the body of the church mem- 
 bers, carrying with them, in some measure, the feel- 
 ings and views of their constituents ; capable of coun- 
 selling the pastor in all delicate and doubtful cases; 
 counteracting any undue influence or course of 
 measures into which his partiality, prejudice, or want 
 of information might betray him ; exonerating him at 
 once from the odium and the temptation of having 
 all the power of the church in his own bauds ; con- 
 ducting the difficult cases which often arise in the 
 
158 
 
 exercise of discipline with the intelligence, calmness, 
 and wisdom, which cannot be expected to prevail in a 
 promiscuous body of communicants ; and, in a word, 
 securing to each church all the principal advantages 
 which might be expected to result from being under 
 the pastoral care of four or five ministers, vested with 
 plenary preaching as well as ruling power: without 
 at the same time burdening the church with the pecuni- 
 ary support of such a number of ordinary pastors. In 
 a word, the insuperable difficulty of doing without this 
 class of officers on the one hand, the great and mani- 
 fest advantages of having them on the other, and the 
 perfect accordance of the plan which includes them 
 with that great representative system which has per- 
 vaded all well regulated society from its earliest exis- 
 tence, and received the stamp of divine approbation — 
 form a mass of testimony in favour of the office be- 
 fore us, which, independently of other considerations, 
 seems amply sufficient to support its claims. 
 
 I shall close this chapter with the following extract 
 from Dr. Owen, when speaking of the importance and 
 necessity of the office of ruling elders in the church. 
 " It is evident," says he, " that neither the purity nor 
 the order, nor the beauty or glory of the churches of 
 Christ, nor the representation of his own majesty and 
 authority in the government of them, can long be 
 preserved without a multiplication of elders in them, 
 according to the proportion of their respective mem- 
 bers, for their rule and guidance. And for want here- 
 of have churches of old, and of late, either degenera- 
 ted into anarchy and confusion, their self-rule being 
 managed with vain disputes and janglings unto their 
 division and ruin ; or else giving up themselves unto 
 the domination of some prelatical teachers, to rule 
 them at their pleasure, which proved the bane and 
 poison of all primitive churches ; and they will and 
 must do so in the neglect of this order for the 
 future."* 
 
 * Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, 4to, p. 178. 
 
159 
 
 We have thus completed our view of the first part 
 of the inquiry before us, viz. our warrant for the office 
 of ruling elders. If this office were found in the Old 
 Testament economy — if it plainly had a place in the 
 apostolic church — if a number of the early fathers 
 evidently recognize its existence in their day — if the 
 witnesses for the truth in the darkest times, and the 
 great body of the Reformers sanctioned and retained 
 it as of divine appointment; if some of the most 
 learned Episcopal and Independent divines since the 
 Reformation, have borne decisive testimony to this 
 office as of apostolical authority; and if some such 
 office be manifestly indispensable to the purity and 
 order of the church, — we may confidently conclude 
 that our warrant for it is complete. 
 
CHAPTER IX, 
 
 THE NATURE AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE. 
 
 Having considered, so much at large, the warrant 
 for the office of ruling elder, chiefly because there is 
 no part of the subject more contested ; we now pro- 
 ceed to other points connected with the general in- 
 quiry. And the first of these which presents itself, is 
 the Nature and Duties of the office in question. 
 
 The essential character of the officer of whom we 
 speak is that of an ecclesiastical ruler. He that 
 ruleth let him do it with diligence, is the summary of 
 his appropriate functions as laid down in Scripture. 
 The teaching elder is indeed also a ruler. In addi- 
 tion to this, however, he is called to preach the gos- 
 pel and administer sacraments. But the particular 
 department assigned to the ruling elder is to co-operate 
 with the pastor in spiritual inspection and government. 
 The Scriptures, as we have seen, speak not only of 
 " pastors and teachers," but also of " governments ;" 
 — of " elders that rule well, but do not labour in the 
 word and doctrine.' , 
 
 There is an obvious analogy between the office of 
 ruler in the church, and in the civil community. A 
 
161 
 
 Justice of the Peace in the latter has a wide and impor- 
 tant range of duties. Besides the function which he 
 discharges when called to take his part on the bench 
 of the judicial court in which he presides, he may be, 
 and often is, employed every day, though less publicly, 
 in correcting abuses, compelling the fraudulent to do 
 justice, restraining, arresting, and punishing criminals, 
 and, in general, carrying into execution the laws 
 formed to promote public tranquility and order, 
 which he has sworn to administer faithfully. 
 
 Strikingly analogous to this are the duties of the 
 ecclesiastical ruler. He has no power, indeed, to 
 employ the secular arm in restraining or punishing 
 offenders against the laws of Christ. The kingdom 
 under which he acts, and the authority which he ad- 
 ministers, are not of this world. He has, of course, 
 no right to fine, imprison, or externally to molest the 
 most profligate offenders against the church's purity 
 or peace, unless they be guilty of what is technically 
 called, " breaking the peace," that is, violating the 
 civil rights of others, and thus rendering themselves 
 liable to the penalty of the civil law. And even when 
 this occurs, the ecclesiastical ruler, as such, has no 
 right to proceed against the offender. He has no 
 other than moral power. He must apply to the civil 
 magistrate for redress, who can only punish for break- 
 ing the civil law. Still there is an obvious analogy 
 between his office and that of the civil magistrate. 
 Both are alike an ordinance of God — both are 
 necessary to social order and comfort — and both are 
 regulated by principles which commend themselves to 
 the good sense and the conscience of those who wish 
 well to social happiness. 
 
 The ruling elder, no less than the teaching elder, 
 or pastor, is to be considered as acting under the 
 authority of Christ, in all that he rightfully does. If 
 the office of which we speak was appointed in the 
 apostolic church by infinite wisdom ; if it be an ordi- 
 nance of Jesus Christ, just as much as that of the 
 o2 
 
162 
 
 minister of the gospel, then the former, equally with 
 the latter, is Christ's officer. He has a right to speak 
 and act in his name; and though elected by the 
 members of the church, and representing them in the 
 exercise of ecclesiastical rule, yet he is not to be con- 
 sidered as deriving his authority to rule from them, 
 any more than he who " labours in the word and 
 doctrine" derives his authority to preach and ad- 
 minister other ordinances from the people, who make 
 choice of him as their teacher and guide. There is 
 reason to believe that some, even in the Presbyterian 
 church, take a different view of this subject. They 
 regard the teaching elder as an officer of Christ, and 
 listen to his official instructions as to those of a man 
 appointed by Him, and coming in his name. But 
 with respect to the ruling elder, they are wont to 
 regard him as one who holds an office instituted by 
 human prudence alone, and, therefore, as standing on 
 very different ground in the discharge of his official 
 duties from that which is occupied by the " am- 
 bassador of Christ." This is undoubtedly an errone- 
 ous view of the subject, and a view which, so far as it 
 prevails, is adapted to exert the most mischievous 
 influence. The truth is, if the office of which we 
 speak be of apostolic authority, we are just as much 
 bound to sustain, honour, and obey the individual 
 who fills it and discharges its duties according to the 
 Scriptures, as we are to submit to any other officer or 
 institution of our Divine Redeemer. 
 
 We are by no means, then, to consider ruling 
 elders as a mere ecclesiastical convenience, or as a set 
 of councillors whom the wisdom of man alone has 
 chosen, and who may, therefore, be reverenced and 
 obeyed as little or as much as human caprice may 
 think proper; but as bearing an office of divine ap- 
 pointment — as the " ministers of God for good " to 
 his church — and whose lawful and regular acts ought 
 to command our conscientious obedience. 
 
 The ruling elders of each church are called to 
 
163 
 
 attend to a public and formal, or to a more private 
 sphere of duty. 
 
 With regard to the first, or the public and formal 
 duties of their office, they form, in the church to 
 which they belong, a bench or judicial court, called 
 among us the " church session, 5 ' and in some other 
 Presbyterian denominations, the " consistory ; " both 
 expressions importing a body of ecclesiastical men, 
 sitting and acting together as the representatives, and 
 for the benefit of the church. This body of elders, 
 with the pastor at their head, and presiding at their 
 meetings, form a judicial assembly, by which all the 
 spiritual interests of the congregation are to be watched 
 over, regulated, and authoritatively determined. Ac- 
 cordingly, it is declared in the ninth chapter of our 
 Form of Government — " The church session is 
 charged with maintaining the spiritual government of 
 the congregation, for which purpose they have power 
 to inquire into the knowledge and Christian conduct 
 of the members of the church, to call before them 
 offenders and witnesses, being members of their own 
 congregation, and to introduce other witnesses, where 
 it may be necessary to bring the process to issue, and 
 when they can be procured to attend; to receive 
 members into the church ; to admonish, to rebuke, to 
 suspend, or exclude from the sacraments, those who 
 are found to deserve censure ; to concert the best 
 measures for promoting the spiritual interests of the 
 congregation, and to appoint delegates to the higher 
 judicatories of the church." 
 
 This general statement of the powers and duties of 
 the church session, it will be perceived, takes in a 
 wide range. Or rather, to speak more properly, it 
 embraces the whole of that authority and duty with 
 which the great Head of the church has been pleased 
 to invest the governing powers of each particular con- 
 gregation, for the instruction, edification, and comfort 
 of the whole body. To the church session it belongs 
 to bind and loose; to admit to the communion of the 
 
164 
 
 church, with all its privileges ; to take cognizance of 
 all departure from the purity of faith or practice ; to 
 try, censure, acquit, or excommunicate those who are 
 charged with offences ; to consult and determine upon 
 all matters relating to the time, place, and circum- 
 stances of worship, and other spiritual concerns; to 
 take order about catechizing children, congregational 
 fasts or thanksgiving days, and all other observances, 
 stated or occasional; to correct, as far as possible, 
 every thing that may tend to disorder, or is contrary 
 to edification; and to digest and execute plans for 
 promoting a spirit of inquiry, of reading, of prayer, 
 of order, and of universal holiness among the mem- 
 bers of the church, It is also incumbent on them, 
 when the church over which they preside is destitute 
 of a pastor, to take the lead in those measures which 
 may conduce to a choice of a suitable candidate, by 
 calling the people together for the purpose of an 
 election, when they consider them as prepared to 
 make it with advantage. 
 
 Although, in ordinary cases, the pastor of the 
 church may be considered as vested with the right to 
 decide whom he will invite to occupy his pulpit, either 
 when he is present, or occasionally absent; yet, in 
 cases of difficulty or delicacy, and especially when 
 ministers of other denominations apply for the use of 
 the pulpit, it is the prerogative of the church session 
 to consider and decide on the application. And if 
 there be any fixed difference of opinion between the 
 pastor and the other members of the session, in re- 
 ference to this matter, it is the privilege and duty of 
 either party to request the advice of their presbytery 
 in the case. 
 
 In the church session, whether the pastor be pre- 
 sent and presiding or not, every member has an equal 
 voice. The vote of the most humble and retiring 
 ruling elder, is of the same avail as that of his minis- 
 ter. So that no pastor can carry any measure unless 
 he can obtain the concurrence of a majority of the 
 
165 
 
 eldership. And as the whole spiritual government of 
 each church is committed to its bench of elders, the 
 session is competent to regulate every concern, and to 
 correct every thing which they consider as amiss in 
 the arrangements or affairs of the church, which ad- 
 mits of correction. Every individual of the session 
 is, of course, competent to propose any new service, 
 plan, or measure, which he believes will be for the 
 benefit of the congregation, and if a majority of the 
 elders concur with him in opinion, it may be adopted. 
 If, in any case, however, there should be a difference 
 of opinion between the pastor and the elders, as to the 
 propriety or practicability of any measure proposed, 
 and insisted on by the latter, there is an obvious and 
 effectual constitutional remedy. A remedy, however, 
 which ought to be resorted to with prudence, caution, 
 and prayer. The opinions and wishes of the pastor 
 ought, undoubtedly, to be treated with the most re- 
 spectful delicacy. Still they ought not to be suffered, 
 when it is possible to avoid it, to stand in the way of 
 a great and manifest good. When such an alternative 
 occurs, the remedy alluded to may be applied. On 
 an amicable reference to the presbytery, that body 
 may decide the case between the parties. 
 
 And as the members of the church session, whether 
 assembled in their judicial capacity or not, are the pas- 
 tor's counsellors and colleagues, in all matters relating 
 to the spiritual rule of the church, so it is their official 
 duty to encourage, sustain, and defend him in the 
 faithful discharge of his duty. It is deplorable when 
 a minister is assailed for his fidelity by the profane or 
 the worldly, if any portion of the eldership either take 
 part against him or shrink from his active and deter- 
 mined defence. It is not meant of course, that they 
 are to consider themselves as bound to sustain him in 
 every thing he may say or do, whether right or wrong : 
 but that when they really believe him to be faithful 
 both to truth and duty, they should feel it to be their 
 duty to stand by him, to shield him from the arrows of 
 
166 
 
 the wicked, and to encourage him as far as he obeys 
 Christ. 
 
 But besides those duties which pertain to ruling 
 elders with the pastor, in their collective capacity as 
 a judicatory of the church, there are others which 
 are incumbent on them at all times in the intervals of 
 their judicial meetings, and by the due discharge of 
 which they may be constantly edifying the body of 
 Christ. It is their duty to have an eye of inspection 
 and care over all the members of the congregation, 
 and for this purpose to cultivate a universal and inti- 
 mate acquaintance, as far as may be, with every family 
 in the flock of which they are made "overseers/' They 
 are bound to watch over the childern and youth, and 
 especially baptized children, with paternal vigilance, 
 recognizing and affectionately addressing them on all 
 proper occasions ; giving them and their parents in 
 reference to them seasonable counsel, and putting in 
 the Lord's claim to their hearts and lives, as the children 
 of the church. It is their duty to attend to the case of 
 those who are serious, and disposed to inquire concern- 
 ing their eternal interest; to converse with them, and 
 from time to time, to give information concerning them 
 to the pastor* It is their duty to take notice of, and 
 admonish in private, those who appear to be growing 
 careless, or falling into habits in any respect criminal, 
 suspicious, or unpromising. It is their duty to visit and 
 pray with the sick as far as their circumstances admit, 
 and to request the attendance of the pastor on the sick 
 and the dying when it may be seasonable or desired. 
 It is incumbent on them to assist the pastor in main- 
 taining meetings for social prayer, to take part in con- 
 ducting the devotional exercises in those meetings; to 
 preside in them when the pastor is absent ; and, if they 
 are endowed with suitable gifts, under his direction oc- 
 casionally to drop a word of instruction and exhortation 
 to the people in those social meetings. If the officers 
 of the church neglect these meetings, (the importance 
 of which cannot be estimated,) there is every reason 
 
167 
 
 to apprehend that they will not be duly honoured or 
 attended by the body of the people. It is the duty 
 of ruling elders also to visit the members of the 
 church and their families with the pastor, if he request 
 it, without him if he do not, to converse with them, 
 to instruct the ignorant, to confirm the wavering, to 
 caution the unwary, to reclaim the wandering, to en- 
 courage the timid, and to excite and animate all classes 
 to a faithful and exemplary discharge of duty. It is 
 incumbent on them to consult frequently and freely 
 with their pastor on the interests of the flock committed 
 to their charge ; to aid him in forming and executing 
 plans for the welfare of the church ; to give him from 
 time to time such information as he may need, to enable 
 him to perform aright his various and momentous 
 duties, to impart to him with affectionate respect their 
 advice, to support him with their influence, to defend 
 his reputation, to enforce his just admonitions, and in 
 a word, by every means in their power to promote the 
 comfort, and extend the usefulness of his labours. 
 
 Although the church session is not competent to try 
 the pastor, in case of his falling into any delinquency 
 either of doctrine or practice ; yet, if the members 
 observe any such delinquency, it is not only their 
 privilege, but their duty to admonish him, tenderly 
 and respectfully, yet faithfully, in private; and, if 
 necessary, from time to time : and if the admonition be 
 without effect, and they think the edification of the 
 church admits and demands a public remedy, they 
 ought to represent the case to the presbytery, as before 
 suggested in other cases, and request a redress of the 
 grievance. 
 
 But the functions of the ruling elder are not con- 
 fined to the congregation of which he is one of the 
 rulers. It it his duty at such times, and in such order 
 as the constitution of the church requires, to take his 
 seat in the higher judicatories of the church, and there 
 to exercise his official share of counsel and authority. 
 In every Presbytery, Synod, and General Assembly of 
 
168 
 
 the Presbyterian church, at least as many ruling as 
 teaching elders are entitled to a place; and in all 
 the former, as well as the latter, have an opportunity 
 of exerting an important influence in the great concerns 
 of Zion. Every congregation, whether provided with 
 a pastor or vacant, is entitled besides the pastor, (where 
 there is one,) to be represented by one ruling elder, 
 in all meetings of the Presbytery and Synod ; and as 
 in those bodies vacant congregations and those which 
 are supplied with pastors are equally represented each 
 by an elder, it is manifest that if the theory of our 
 ecclesiastical constitution be carried into effect, there 
 will always be a greater number of ruling elders than 
 of pastors present. In the General Assembly accord- 
 ing to our constitutional plan, the numbers of each are 
 precisely equal. 
 
 In these several judicatories the ruling elder has 
 an equal vote, and the same power in every respect 
 with the pastors. He has the same privilege of ori- 
 ginating plans and measures, and of carrying them, 
 provided he can induce a majority of the body to con- 
 cur in his views ; and thus may become the means of 
 imparting his impressions, and producing an influence 
 greatly beyond the particular congregation with which 
 he is connected, and indeed, throughout the bounds of 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States. This 
 consideration serves to place the nature and the impor- 
 tance of the office in the strongest light. He who 
 bears it, has the interest of the church as a spiritual 
 trust as really and solemnly, though not in all respects 
 to the same extent, committed to him as the elder 
 who " labours in the word and doctrine." He not only 
 has it in his power, but is daily called, in the discharge 
 of his official duties, to watch over, inspect, regulate, 
 and edify the body of Christ ; to enlighten the ignor- 
 ant, to admonish the disorderly, to reconcile differences, 
 to correct every moral irregularity and abuse within 
 the bounds of his charge ; and to labour without 
 ceasing for the promotion of the cause of truth, piety, 
 
169 
 
 and universal righteousness in the church to which he 
 belongs, and wherever else he has an opportunity of 
 raising his voice, and exerting an influence. 
 
 But when it is considered that those who bear the 
 office in question are called upon in their turn to sit 
 in the highest judicatories of the church, and there to 
 take their part in deliberating and deciding on the most 
 momentous questions which can arise in conducting 
 ecclesiastical affairs — when we reflect that they are 
 called to deliberate and decide on the conformity of 
 doctrines to the word of God; to assist as judges in 
 the trial of heretics, and every class of offenders against 
 the purity of the gospel ; and to take care, in their 
 respective spheres, that all the ordinances of Christ's 
 house be preserved pure and entire ; when, in a word, 
 we recollect that they are ordained for the express pur- 
 pose of overseeing and guarding the most precious con- 
 cerns of the church on earth — concerns which may have 
 a bearing, not merely on the welfare of a single indi- 
 vidual or congregation, but on the great interests of 
 orthodoxy and piety among millions, we may surely 
 conclude, without hesitation, that the office which they 
 sustain is one, the importance of which can scarcely 
 be over-rated, and that the estimate which is com- 
 monly made of its nature, duties, and responsibility, 
 is far, very far from being adequate. 
 
 If this view of the nature and importance of the 
 office before us be admitted, the question very natu- 
 rally arises, whether it be correct to call this class of 
 elders lay elders, or whether they have not such a 
 strictly ecclesiastical character as should prevent the 
 use of that language in speaking of them ? This is 
 one of the points, in the present discussion, concerning 
 which the writer of this essay frankly confesses that 
 he has, in some measure, altered his opinion. Once 
 he was disposed to confine the epithet clerical to 
 teaching elders, and to designate those who ruled 
 only, and did not teach, as lay elders. But more 
 mature inquiry and reflection have led him first to 
 p 
 
170 
 
 doubt the correctness of this opinion, and finally to 
 persuade him that so far as the distinction between 
 clergy and laity is proper at all, it ought not to be 
 made the point of distinction between these two classes 
 of elders, and that when we speak of the one as 
 clergymen, and the other as laymen, we are apt to 
 convey an idea altogether erroneous, if not seriously 
 mischievous. 
 
 Some judicious and pious men have, indeed, ex- 
 pressed serious doubts whether the terms clergy and 
 laity ought ever to have been introduced into our 
 theological nomenclature. But it is not easy to see 
 any solid reason for this doubt. It is wise to contend 
 about terms, when the things intended to be expressed 
 by them are fully understood and generally admitted ? 
 The only question, then, of real importance to be 
 decided here is this, Does the New Testament draw 
 any distinct line between those who hold spiritual 
 offices in the church, and those who do not? Does 
 it represent the functions pertaining to those offices as 
 confined to them, or as common to all Christians? 
 Now, it seems impossible to read the Acts of the 
 Apostles, and the several apostolic epistles, especially 
 those to Timothy and Titus, and to examine, in con- 
 nection with these, the writings of the " apostolic 
 fathers," without perceiving that the distinction be- 
 tween those who bore office in the church, and private 
 Christians, was clearly made, and uniformly main- 
 tained, from the very origin of the church. That the 
 terms clergy and laity are not found in the New 
 Testament, nor in some of the earliest uninspired 
 writers, is freely granted. But is not the distinction 
 intended to be expressed by these terms evidently 
 found in Scripture and in all the early fathers? 
 Nothing can be more indubitably clear. The titles 
 of " rulers" in the house of God, " ambassadors of 
 Christ," "stewards of the mysteries of God," "bishops, 
 leaders, overseers, elders, shepherds, guides, ministers," 
 &c, as distinguished from those to whom they minis- 
 
171 
 
 tered, are so familiar to all readers of the New 
 Testament, that it would be a waste of time to 
 attempt to illustrate or establish a point so unquestion- 
 able. If the inspired writers every where represent 
 certain spiritual offices in the church as appointed by 
 God, if they represent those who sustain these offices 
 as alone authorized to perform certain sacred functions, 
 and teach us to consider all others who attempt to 
 perform them as criminal invaders of a divine ordi- 
 nance, then surely the whole distinction intended to 
 be expressed by the term clergy and laity is evidently 
 and most distinctly laid down by the same authority 
 which founded the church. 
 
 The word ***£o $, properly signifies a lot. And as 
 the land of Canaan, the inheritance of the Israelites, 
 was divided among them by lot, the word, in process 
 of time, came to signify an inheritance. In this figu- 
 rative or secondary sense, the term is evidently em- 
 ployed in 1 Peter v. 3. Under the Old Testament 
 dispensation, the peculiar people of God were called 
 (Septuagint translation) his **»»£*ff> or inheritance. Of 
 this we have examples in Deuteronomy iv. 20, and.ix. 
 29. The term, in both these passages, is manifestly 
 applied to the whole body of the nation of Israel as 
 God's inheritance or peculiar people. Clemens Ro- 
 manus, one of the " apostolic fathers," speaking of the 
 Jewish economy, and having occasion to distinguish 
 between the priests and the common people, calls the 
 latter **txot. Clemens Alexandrinus, towards the close 
 of the second century, speaks of the Apostle John as 
 having set apart such persons for " clergymen " (y-Moot) 
 as were signified to him by the Holy Ghost. And in 
 the writings of Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, the 
 terms " clergy" and " laity" occur with a frequency 
 which shows that they were then in general use. 
 Jerome observes, that ministers are called clerici, either 
 because they are peculiarly the lot and portion of the 
 Lord, or because the Lord is their lot, that is, their 
 inheritance. Hence that learned and pious father 
 
172 
 
 takes occasion to infer — " That he who is God's 
 portion ought so to exhibit himself that he mav be 
 truly said to possess God, and to be possessed by Him/'* 
 And as we have abundant evidence that ecclesiastical 
 men were familiarly called clerici, or " clergymen," 
 from the second century, so have the same evidence 
 that this term was employed to designate all ecclesias- 
 tical men. That is, all persons who had any spiritual 
 office in the church, were called by the common name 
 of clerici^ or " clergymen." It was applied continually 
 to elders and deacons, as well as to bishops or pastors. 
 Nay, in the third century, when not only the inceptive 
 steps of Prelacy became visible? but when the same 
 spirit of innovation had also brought in a number of 
 inferior orders, such as sub-deacons, readers, acolyths, 
 &c, these inferior orders were all clerici. Cyprian, 
 speaking of a sub-deacon, and also of a reader, calls 
 them both clerici. The ordination of such persons, 
 (for it seems they were all formally ordained) he calls 
 ordinationes clericce, and the letters which he trans- 
 mitted by them, he styles literce clericce. The same 
 fact may be clearly established from the writings of 
 Ambrose, Hilary, and Epiphanius, and from the 
 canons of the council of Nice. Indeed, there seems 
 reason to believe, that in the fourth and fifth centuries, 
 and subsequently, the title of clerici was not only 
 given to all the inferior orders of ecclesiastical men, 
 but was more frequently and punctiliously applied to 
 them than to their superiors, who were generally 
 addressed by their more distinctive and honourable 
 titles. Those who recollect that learning, during the 
 dark ages, was chiefly confined to the ministers of 
 religion, that few, excepting persons of that profession, 
 were able to read and write, and that the whimsical 
 privilege, commonly called " benefit of clergy," grew 
 out of the rare accomplishment of being able to read, 
 will be at no loss to trace the etymology of the word 
 
 * Epist. 2d. ad. Nepotian, 5. 
 
173 
 
 clerk (clericus), or secretary, as used to designate one 
 who officiates as the reader and writer of a public body. 
 
 To distinguish the mass of private Christians from 
 those who bore office in the church, they were desig- 
 nated by several names. They were sometimes called 
 -koLiKoi — laid, laymen, from **e?i populns ; sometimes 
 tliuTut, " private men," from ^«>g, privalns, (Acts iv. 
 13 ;) sometimes BianKa, \, e . " seculars," from B/& ? . 
 which signifies a secular life. Soon after the apostolic 
 age, common Christians were frequently called *^? 
 skkKyis nx.gr ikoi, " men of the church," i. e. persons not 
 belonging either to Jewish synagogues, or Pagan 
 temples, or heretical bodies, but members of the 
 church of Christ. Afterwards, however, the title 
 " ecclesiastics" became gradually appropriated to 
 persons in office in the church.* 
 
 The quotations made in a former chapter from 
 Augustine, and the writings of some other fathers 
 about his time, in which they seem to distinguish 
 between the clergy and the elders, may seem to militate 
 with the foregoing statement. But in reference to 
 these passages, the learned Voetius, while he quotes 
 them as decisive of the general fact of the early 
 existence of the elders under consideration, supposes 
 that the office, in the fourth and fifth centuries, was 
 beginning to fall into disuse, and that, of course, 
 though it was still found in some churches, it began 
 to be spoken of with less respect, and sometimes to 
 be denied a place among the offices strictly clerical. f 
 
 But, after all, there is no real difficulty as to this 
 point. For although the terms " clergy " and " cleri- 
 cal " were pretty generally applied to all classes of 
 church officers, even the lowest, in the third, fourth, 
 and fifth centuries ; yet this was not always the case. 
 Thus, in the Apostolical Canons, which were probably 
 composed in the fourth or fifth centuries, there is an 
 
 * See Stephani Thesaurus, and Bingham's Origines Eccle- 
 siastics?. 
 
 f Politic* Ecclesiastic*, par. ii. lib. ii. tract, iii. 
 2 P 
 
174 
 
 express distinction made between the deacons and the 
 clergy. In the third and fourth Canons, having 
 ordered what sorts of first-fruits should be sent to the 
 church, and what to the home of the bishop and 
 presbyters, it ordains as follows : — " Now it is mani- 
 fest that they are to be divided by them among the 
 deacons and the clergy." From cases of this kind 
 we may evidently infer, that although all kinds of 
 ecclesiastical officers were generally ranked among 
 the clergy during the period just mentioned, yet this 
 was not invariably so, and of course no inference can 
 be drawn from occasional diversity of expression as 
 to this matter. 
 
 Now, if this historical deduction of the titles clergy 
 and laity be correct, it is plain that, according to 
 early and general usage, ruling elders ought not to be 
 styled laymen, or lay elders. They are as really in 
 office — they as really bear an office of divine appoint- 
 ment — an office of a high and spiritual nature, and 
 an office, the functions of which cannot be rightfully 
 performed but by those who are regularly set apart 
 to it — as any other officer of the Christian church. 
 They are as really a portion of God's lot — as really 
 set over the laity or body of the people, as the most 
 distinguished and venerated minister of Jesus can be. 
 Whether, therefore, we refer to early usage or to 
 strict philological import, ruling elders are as truly 
 entitled to the name of clergy, in the only legitimate 
 sense of that term — that is, they are as truly eccle- 
 siastical officers as those who " labour in the word 
 and doctrine." 
 
 The scope of the foregoing remarks will not, it is 
 hoped, be mistaken. The author of this Essay has no 
 zeal either for retaining or using the terms clergy and 
 laity. So far as the former term has been heretofore 
 used, or may now be intended to convey the idea of a 
 " privileged order" in the church — a dignified body 
 lifted up in rank and claim above the mass of the 
 church members — in a word, as desginating a set of 
 
175 
 
 men claiming to be vicars of Christ, keepers of the 
 human conscience, and the only channels of grace — he 
 disclaims and abhors it. He is a believer in no such 
 meaning or men. But so far as it is intended to desig- 
 nate those who are clothed with ecclesiastical office 
 under the authority of Christ, and authorized to dis- 
 charge some important spiritual functions which the 
 body of the church members are not authorized to 
 perform, and to mark the distinction between these 
 two classes, the writer is of the opinion that the 
 language may be defended, and that either that, or 
 some other of equivalent import, ought to be used, nay, 
 must be used, if we would be faithful to the New 
 Testament view of ecclesiastical office as an ordinance 
 of Jesus Christ. And if the term clergy, in this 
 humble, Christian, and only becoming sense, be applied 
 to those who preside in the dispensation of public ordi- 
 nances, it may with equal propriety be applied to those 
 who preside with pastors in the inspection and rule of 
 the church. 
 
 If any should be disposed to remark, on this subject, 
 that the use of the term clergy is so appropriated, by 
 long established public habit, to a particular class of 
 ecclesiastical officers; that there can be no hope that the 
 mass of the community will be reconciled to an 
 extension of the title to ruling elders ; the answer is, 
 be it so. The writer of this volume is neither vain 
 enough to expect, nor ambitious enough to attempt, a 
 change in the popular language to the amount here 
 supposed. But he protests against the continued use 
 of the term lay elder, as really adapted to make an 
 erroneous impression. Let the class of officers in ques- 
 tion be called ruling elders. Let all necessary dis- 
 tinction be made by saying : — " Ministers, or pastors, 
 ruling elders, deacons, and the laity or body of the 
 people." This will be in conformity with ancient usage. 
 This will be maintaining every important principle. 
 This can offend none, and nothing more will be 
 desired by any. 
 
176 
 
 Were the foregoing views of the nature and duties 
 of the elder's office generally adopted, duly appreciated, 
 and faithfully carried out into practice, what a mighty 
 change would be effected in our Zion ! With what a 
 different estimate of the obligation and responsibilities 
 which rest upon them would the candidates for this 
 office enter on their sacred work ! And with what 
 different feelings would the mass of the people, and 
 especially all who love the cause of Christ, regard these 
 spiritual counsellors and guides in their daily walks, 
 and particularly in their friendly and official visits ! 
 This is a change most devoutly to be desired. The 
 interests of the church are more involved in the pre- 
 valence of just opinions and practice, in reference to 
 this office, than almost any other that can be named. 
 Were every congregation, besides a wise, pious, and 
 faithful pastor, furnished with eight or ten elders, to co- 
 operate with him in all his parochial labours, on the 
 plan which has been sketched, men of wisdom, faith, 
 prayer, and Christian activity — men willing to deny 
 and exert themselves for the welfare of Zion — men alive 
 to the importance of every thing that relates to the 
 orthodoxy, purity, order, and spirituality of the church, 
 and ever on the watch for opportunities of doing good — 
 men, in a word, willing to " take the oversight" of the 
 flock in the Lord, and to labour, without ceasing, for 
 the promotion of its best interests — were every 
 church furnished with a body of such elders, can any 
 one doubt that knowledge, order, piety, and growth in 
 grace, as well as in numbers, would be as common in 
 our churches as the reverse is now the prevailing state 
 of things, in consequence of the want of fidelity on the 
 part of those who are nominally the overseers and 
 guides of the flock ? 
 
 While discussing the nature of this office, and the 
 duties which pertain to it, it seems to be natural to 
 offer a few remarks on the manner in which those who 
 bear it ought to be treated by the members of the 
 
177 
 
 church ; in other words, on the duties which the 
 church owes to her ruling elders. 
 
 And here the discerning and pious mind will be at 
 no loss to perceive that these duties are co-relative to 
 those which the rulers owe to the church. That is, 
 if they are the spiritual rulers of the church, and 
 bound to perform daily, and with fidelity and zeal, the 
 duties which belong to this station, it is evident that 
 the members of the church are bound to recognize 
 them in the same character, and to honour and treat 
 them as their spiritual guides. Were it, then, in the 
 power of the writer of this volume to address the 
 members of every Presbyterian church in the United 
 States, he would speak to them in some language as 
 the following : — 
 
 Christian Brethren, — Every consideration which 
 has been urged to show the importance and duties 
 belonging to the office of ruling elders, ought to remind 
 you of the important duties which you owe to them. 
 Remember, at all times, that they are your ecclesiastical 
 rulers, rulers of your own choice, yet by no means 
 coming to you in virtue of mere human authority, but 
 in the name and by the appointment of the great 
 Head of the Church, and, of course, the " ministers of 
 God to you for good." 
 
 In all your views and treatment of them, then, 
 recognize this character. Obey them " in the Lord," 
 that is, for his sake, and as far as they bear rule agree- 
 ably to his word. " Esteem them very highly in love 
 for their work's sake," and follow them daily with 
 your prayers, that God would bless them and make 
 them a blessing — reverence them as your leaders — 
 bear in mind the importance of their office, the arduous- 
 ness of their duties, and the difficulties with which they 
 have to contend — countenance and sustain them in 
 every act of fidelity, make allowance for their infir- 
 mities, and be not unreasonable in your expectations 
 from them. 
 
 Many are ready to criminate the elders of the church 
 
178 
 
 for not taking notice of particular offences as speedily, 
 or in such manner, as they expect. And this disposition 
 to find fault is sometimes indulged by persons who have 
 never been so faithful themselves as to give that infor- 
 mation which they possessed respecting the alleged 
 offences ; or who, when called upon publicly to sub- 
 stantiate that which they have privately disclosed, have 
 drawn back, unwilling to encounter the odium or the 
 pain of appearing as accusers, or even as witnesses. 
 Such persons ought to be the last to criminate church 
 officers for supposed negligence of discipline. Can your 
 rulers take notice of that which never comes to their 
 knowledge ? Or can you expect them, as prudent men, 
 rashly to set on foot a judicial and public investigation 
 of things, concerning which many are ready to whis- 
 per in private, but none willing to speak with frankness 
 before a court of Christ ? Besides, let it be recollect- 
 ed that the session of almost every church is some- 
 times actually engaged in investigating charges, in 
 removing offences, and in composing differences which 
 many suppose they are utterly neglecting, merely 
 because they do not judge it to be for edification in all 
 cases to proclaim what they have done, or are doing, 
 to the congregation at large. 
 
 Your elders will sometimes be called — God grant 
 that it may seldom occur ! — but they will sometimes 
 be called to the painful exercise of discipline. Be not 
 offended with them for the performance of this duty. 
 Rather make the language of the Psalmist your own : 
 " Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness ; 
 and let him reprove me, it shall be an excellent 
 oil, which shall not break my head." Add not to the 
 bitterness of their official task by discovering a resent- 
 ful temper, or by indulging in reproachful language, 
 in return for their fidelity. Surely the nature of the 
 duty is sufficiently self-denying and distressing with- 
 out rendering it more so by unfriendly treatment. 
 Receive their private warnings and admonitions with 
 candour and affectionate submission. Treat their 
 
179 
 
 public acts, however contrary to your wishes, with 
 respect and reverence. If they be honest and pious 
 men, can they do less than exercise the discipline of 
 Christ's house against such of you as walk disorderly ? 
 Nay, if you be honest and pious yourselves, can you 
 do less than approve of their faithfulness in exercising 
 that discipline ? If you were aware of all the difficul- 
 ties which attend this part of the duty of your elder- 
 ship, you would feel for them more tenderly, and 
 judge concerning them more candidly and indulgently 
 than you are often disposed to do. Here you have it 
 in your power, in a very important degree, to lessen 
 their burdens and to strengthen their hands. 
 
 When your elders visit your families for the purpose 
 of becoming acquainted with them, and of aiding the 
 pastor in ascertaining the spiritual state of the flock, 
 remember that it is not officious intrusion. It is 
 nothing more than their duty. Receive them not as if 
 you suspected them of having come as spies or busy 
 intruders, but with respect and cordiality. Convince 
 them, by your treatment, that you are glad to see them; 
 that you wish to encourage them in promoting the 
 best interests of the church, and that you honour 
 them for their fidelity. Give them an opportunity of 
 seeing your children, and of ascertaining whether your 
 households are making progress in the Christian life. 
 Nay, encourage your children to put themselves in the 
 way of the elders, that they may be personally known 
 to them, and may become the objects of their affec- 
 tionate notice, their occasional exhortation, and their 
 pious prayers. Converse with the elders freely, as 
 with fathers who " have no greater joy than to see 
 you walking in the truth." And ever give them cause 
 to retire under the pleasing persuasion, that their 
 office is honoured, that their benevolent designs are duly 
 appreciated, and that their labours " are not in vain 
 in the Lord." In short, as every good citizen will 
 make conscience of vindicating the fidelity, and 
 holding up the hand of the faithful magistrate who 
 
180 
 
 firmly and impartially executes the law of the land, 
 so every good Christian ought to feel himself bound 
 in conscience and honour, as well as in duty to his 
 Lord, to strengthen the hands and encourage the 
 heart of the spiritual ruler, who evidently seeks, in the 
 fear of God, to promote the purity and edification of 
 the church. 
 
 The nature of the office before us also leads to 
 another remark with which the present chapter will 
 be closed. It is, that there seems to be a peculiar 
 propriety in the ruling elders (and the same principle 
 will apply to the deacons, if there be any of this class 
 of officers in a congregation,) having a seat assigned 
 them, for sitting together in a conspicuous part of the 
 church, near the pulpit, during the public service, 
 where they can overlook the whole worshipping 
 assembly, and be seen by all. The considerations 
 which recommend this are numerous. It was in- 
 variably so in the Jewish synagogue. The same 
 practice, as we have seen in the former chapter, was 
 adopted in the early church, as soon as Christians 
 began to erect houses for public worship. This official 
 and conspicuous accommodation for the elders is con- 
 stantly provided in the Dutch Reformed Church in 
 this country, and it is believed by most of the Re- 
 formed Churches on the Continent of Europe. It is 
 adapted to keep the congregation habitually reminded 
 who their elders are, and of their official authority, 
 and also to remind the elders themselves of their 
 functions and duties. And it furnishes a convenient 
 opportunity for the pastor to consult them on any 
 question which may occur, either before he ascends the 
 pulpit or at the close of the service. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OFFICES OF THE 
 RULING ELDER AND DEACON. 
 
 These offices have been so often confounded, and 
 opinions attempted to be maintained which tend to 
 merge the former in the latter, that it is judged pro- 
 per to make the difference between them the subject 
 of distinct consideration. 
 
 The only account that we have in scripture of the 
 origin of the deacon's office is found in the following 
 passage in the Acts of the Apostles vi. 1 — 6. " And 
 in those days, when the number of the disciples was 
 multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians 
 against the Hebrews, because their widows were 
 neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve 
 called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and 
 said, It is not reason that we should leave the word 
 of God and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look 
 ye out among ye seven men, of honest report, full of 
 the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint 
 over this business. But we will give ourselves con- 
 tinually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 
 And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and 
 they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the 
 Q 
 
182 
 
 Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, 
 and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a Proselyte 
 of Antioch, whom they had set before the apostles ; 
 and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on 
 them." 
 
 On this plain passage various opinions have been 
 entertained. It will be to our purpose to notice a few 
 of them. 
 
 I. Some have doubted whether these were the first 
 deacons chosen by the direction of the inspired apostles. 
 The learned Dr. Mosheim supposes that the Church 
 of Jerusalem, from its first organization, had its in- 
 ferior ministers, in other words, its deacons, and that 
 there is a reference to these in the fifth chapter of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, under the title of young men, 
 (vscotsqoi, and victuivKot,) who assisted in the interment 
 of Annanias and Sapphira. He is confident that the 
 seven deacons spoken of in the passage just cited, were 
 added to the original number; and that they were 
 intentionally selected from the foreign Jews, in order 
 to silence the complaints on the part of the Grecians 
 of partiality in the distribution of the offerings made 
 for the relief of the poor. To this opinion there 
 seems to be no good reason for acceding. The objec- 
 tions to it are the following : — 
 
 1. It is by no means probable that a class of officers, 
 of great importance to the comfort and prosperity of the 
 church, should have been instituted by divine authority, 
 and yet that the original institution should have been 
 passed over by all the inspired writers in entire silence. 
 
 2. In this narrative of the election and ordination 
 of the seven deacons there is not the most distant 
 allusion to any pre-existing officers of the same charac- 
 ter or functions. The murmuring spoken of seems 
 to have proceeded from the body of the Grecian, or 
 foreign Christians, and to have been directed against 
 the body of the native, or Hebrew Christians. 
 
 3. It is evident from the spirit of the narrative that 
 the appointment of these deacons was expressly 
 
183 
 
 designed to relieve the apostles themselves of a labori- 
 ous service, with which they had been before encum- 
 bered, but which interfered with their discharge of 
 higher and more important duties. Surely the address 
 of the apostles would have been strange, if not un- 
 meaning, had there been already a body of officers who 
 were intrusted with the whole of this business, and 
 they had only been solicited to appoint an additional 
 number, or to put a more impartial set in the place of 
 the old incumbents. 
 
 4. It is plain that these officers were not chosen 
 from among the young men of the church, as Dr. 
 Moshiem seems to imagine, nor was the office itself 
 one of small trust or dignity. The multitude were 
 directed to " look out for seven men of honest report," 
 or established reputation, " full of the Holy Ghost and 
 of wisdom :" and when the Apostle Paul afterwards 
 writes to Timothy, and points out the character of 
 those who ought to be selected for this office, he speaks 
 of them as married men, fathers of families, distin- 
 guished for their gravity, men who had been " first 
 proved" and found "blameless," as orthodox, just, 
 temperate, holy men, regulating their own households 
 with firmness and prudence. 
 
 5. Dr. Moshiem is not borne out by the best 
 authorities in his interpretation of the words vwnyut 
 and nmwnxu. The most skilful lexicographers assign 
 to them no such official meaning. Besides, the nature 
 and responsibility of the office, and the high qualifi- 
 cations for it pointed out by the apostles at the time 
 of this first choice, and required by the Apostle 
 Paul afterwards, when writing to Timothy respect- 
 ing proper persons to be chosen and set apart as 
 deacons, by no means answer to the view which Dr. 
 Moshiem takes of the inferiority of the office, or the 
 propriety of bestowing it on young men, as the church's 
 servants. 
 
 6. Finally, it may be doubted whether there had 
 been any real need of the deacon's office until the time 
 
184 
 
 arrived and the events occurred which are recorded in 
 the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. But a 
 short time had elapsed since the church had been 
 organized on the New Testament plan. At its first 
 organization the number of the poor connected with 
 it was probably small. But very shortly after the day of 
 Pentecost the number of foreigners who had come up 
 to the feast, and had there been converted to the Chris- 
 tian faith y was so great, and the number of these who, at 
 a distance from all their wonted pecuniary resources 
 and their friends, stood in need of pecuniary aid, had 
 also become so considerable, that the task of " impart- 
 ing to those who had need," became suddenly a most 
 arduous employment. This had been accomplished, 
 however, for a short time under the direction of the 
 apostles, and without appointing a particular class of 
 officers for the purpose. But when the foreign Jews 
 came forward and made complaint of partiality in this 
 business, the apostles, under the direction of heavenly 
 wisdom, called upon the " multitude" to make choice 
 of competent persons whom they might appoint over 
 this branch of Christian ministration. This appears 
 to be a plain history of the case ; and to resort to Dr. 
 Moshiem's supposition is to throw a strange and per- 
 plexed aspect over the whole narrative. 
 
 II. There are others who have doubted whether the 
 " seven" whose election and ordination are recorded 
 in the 6th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles were 
 deacons at all. They allege that the office to which 
 they were chosen and set apart was a mere temporary 
 function, not designed to be a permanent one in the 
 Christian Church, and which, probably, did not last 
 much if any longer than what is commonly called 
 " the community of goods," which existed sometime 
 after the day of Pentecost. 
 
 Against this supposition the following reasons are, 
 in my view, conclusive. 
 
 1. If this supposition were admitted, then it would 
 follow that there is no account whatever in the scrip- 
 
185 
 
 tures of the origin or nature of the deacon's office. 
 The office is mentioned again and again in the New 
 Testament ; but if the narrative in the beginning of 
 the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles be not a 
 statement of its origin, nature, and duties, we have no 
 account of them any where. Can this be considered 
 as probable ? 
 
 2. Is it likely, judging on the principles and from 
 the analogy of scripture, that a short occasional trust, 
 a mere temporary trusteeship, if I may so speak, would 
 be appointed with so much formality and solemnity — 
 marked not only by a formal election of the people, 
 but also by the prayers and " the laying on of the 
 hands " of the apostles ? What greater solemnities 
 attended an investiture with the highest and most 
 permanent offices in the Christian Church? 
 
 3. It is a well known fact, that in the Jewish syna- 
 gogue, which was assumed as the model of the primi- 
 tive church, there was a class of officers to whom the 
 collection and distribution of alms for the poor were 
 regularly committed. We may venture to presume, 
 then, that the appointment of similar officers in the 
 church would be altogether likely. 
 
 4. When it is considered what an important and 
 arduous part of the church's duty it was in the apos- 
 tolic age, and for some time afterwards, to provide for 
 the very numerous poor who looked to her for aid, it 
 is incredible that there should be no class of officers 
 specifically set apart for this purpose. Yet if the 
 " seven " are not of this class, there is no account of 
 any such appointment in the New Testament. 
 
 5. The language of some of the earlier, as well as 
 the later Christian fathers on this subject, clearly 
 evinces that they considered the appointment recorded 
 in the chapter of the Acts of the Apostles now under 
 consideration, as the appointment of Christian deacons, 
 and as exhibiting the nature of that office, and the 
 great purpose for which it was instituted. A small 
 specimen of the manner in which they speak on the 
 
 Q2 
 
186 
 
 subject will be sufficient to establish this position, 
 Hermas, one of the apostolical fathers, in his Simili- 
 tude, ix. 27, expresses himself thus: — " For what 
 concerns the tenth mountain, in which were the trees 
 covering the cattle, they are such as have believed, 
 and some of them have been bishops, that is, presi- 
 dents of the churches; then such as have been set 
 over inferior ministries, and have protected the poor 
 and the widows." Origen (Tract. 16, in Matt.) evi- 
 dently considered the deacons as charged with the 
 pecuniary concerns of the church. " The deacons," 
 says he, "preside over the money-tables of the church." 
 And again, " those deacons who do not manage well 
 the money of the churches committed to their care, 
 but act a fradulent part, and dispense it not according 
 to justice, but for the purpose of enriching themselves, 
 these act the part of money-changers, and keepers of 
 those tables which our Lord overturned. For the 
 deacons were appointed to preside over the tables of 
 the church, as we are taught in the Acts of the 
 Apostles." Cyprian speaks (Epist. 25) of a certain 
 deacon who had been deposed from his " sacred 
 diaconate on account of his fraudulent and sacrilegious 
 misapplication of the church's money to his own 
 private use, and for his denial of the widows' and 
 orphans' pledges deposited with him." And in another 
 place (Epist. 3, ad rogatianum) he refers the appoint- 
 ment of the first deacons to this choice and ordination 
 at Jerusalem. It seems, then, that the deacons, in the 
 days of Cyprian, were intrusted with the care of 
 widows and orphans, and the funds of the church 
 destined for their relief. It is incidentally stated in 
 the account of the persecution under the Emperor 
 Decius, in the third century, that by order of the Em- 
 peror, Lauren tius, one of the deacons of Rome, was 
 seized, under the expectation of finding the money 
 of the church, collected for the use of the poor, in his 
 possession. It is further stated that this money had 
 really been in his possession, but that, expecting the 
 
187 
 
 storm of persecution, he had distributed it before his 
 seizure. 
 
 Eusebius (lib. ii. cap. 1) says, — " There were also 
 seven approved men ordained deacons, through prayer 
 and the imposition of the apostles' hands;" and he 
 immediately afterwards speaks of Stephen as one of 
 the number. Dorothseus, bishop of Tyre, contem- 
 porary with Eusebius, also says, (Lives of the Pro- 
 phets, &c.) " Stephen, the first martyr, and one of the 
 seven deacons, was stoned by the Jews at Jerusalem, 
 as Luke testifieth in the Acts of the Apostles." 
 
 Ambrose, in speaking of the fourth century, the 
 time in which he lived, says, (Comment, in Ephes. iv.) 
 " The deacons do not publicly preach." Chrysostom, 
 who lived in the same century, in his commentary on 
 this very passage in Acts vi. observes, that " the 
 deacons had need of great wisdom, although the 
 preaching of the word was not committed to them ;" 
 and remarks further, that " it is absurd to suppose 
 that they should have both the offices of preaching 
 and taking care of the poor committed to them, seeing 
 it is impossible for them to discharge both functions 
 adequately." Sozomen the ecclesiastical historian, who 
 lived in the fifth century, says (lib. v. cap. 8) that 
 " the deacon's office was to keep the church's goods." 
 In the apostolical constitutions, which, though un- 
 doubtedly spurious as an apostolical work, may pro- 
 bably be referred to the fourth or fifth centuries, it is 
 recorded, (lib. viii. cap. 28,) " It is not lawful for the 
 deacons to baptize or to administer the Eucharist, or 
 to pronounce the greater or smaller benediction." 
 Jerome, in his letter to Evagrius, calls deacons " mini- 
 sters of tables and widows." Oecumenius, a learned 
 commentator who lived several centuries after Jerome, 
 in his commentary on Acts vi., expresses himself thus: 
 " The apostles laid their hands on those who were 
 chosen deacons, not to confer on them that rank which 
 they now hold in the church, but that they might, 
 with all diligence and attention, distribute the neces- 
 
188 
 
 saries of life to widows and orphans." And the 
 council of Trullo, in the sixth century, expressly 
 asserts, (can. 16,) that the seven deacons spoken of 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, are not to be understood 
 of such as ministered in divine service or in sacred 
 mysteries, but only of such as served tables and 
 attended the poor. 
 
 Another consideration, which shows beyond contro- 
 versy that the early Christians universally considered 
 the " seven " spoken of in the sixth chapter of the 
 Acts of the Apostles as the proper New Testament 
 deacons, is, that for several centuries many of the 
 largest and most respectable churches in the world 
 considered themselves as bound, in selecting their 
 deacons, to confine themselves to the exact number 
 seven, whatever might be their extent and their exi- 
 gencies, on the avowed principle of conformity to the 
 number of this class of officers first appointed in the 
 mother church at Jerusalem. The council of Neocae- 
 sarea enacted it into a canon that there should be but 
 seven deacons in any city, however great, because this 
 was according to the rule laid down in the Acts of 
 the Apostles. And the church of Rome, both before 
 and after this council, seems also to have looked upon 
 that example as binding; for it is evident from the 
 epistles of Cornelius, written in the middle of the 
 third century, that there were but seven deacons in 
 the church of Rome at that time, though there were 
 forty-six presbyters. Prudentius intimates that it was 
 so in the time of Sixtus, also in the year 261; for, 
 speaking of Laurentius the deacon, he terms him the 
 chief of those " seven men " who had their station 
 near the altar, meaning the deacons of the church. 
 Nay, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the custom in 
 that city continued the same, as we learn both from 
 Sozomen and Hilary, the Roman deacon, who wrote 
 under the name of Ambrose.* 
 
 * Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastics, b. ii. ch. 20, sect. 19. 
 
189 
 
 6. The current opinion of all the most learned and 
 judicious Christian divines of all denominations, for 
 several centuries past, is decisively in favour of con- 
 sidering the passage in Acts vi. as recording the first 
 appointment of the New Testament deacons. Among 
 all classes of theologians, Catholic and Protestant, 
 Lutheran and Calvinistic, Presbyterian and Episcopal, 
 this concurrence of opinion approaches so near to 
 unanimity, that we may, without injustice to any other 
 opinion, consider it as the deliberate and harmonious 
 judgment of the Christian church. 
 
 The very learned Suicer, a German Professor of the 
 seventeenth century, in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, 
 (Art. ±i*ko<jos,) makes the following statement on this 
 subject : — " In the apostolic church, deacons were 
 those who distributed alms to the poor, and took care of 
 them : in Other words, they were the treasurers of the 
 church's charity. The original institution of this class 
 of officers, is set forth in the sixth chapter of the Acts 
 of the Apostles. With respect to them, the 16th canon 
 of the council of Constantine (in Trullo) says : — 
 " They are those to whom the common administering 
 to poverty is committed, not those who administer 
 the sacraments." And Aristinus in his Synopsis of the 
 canons of the same council, canon 18th says: — "Let 
 him who alleges that the seven of whom mention is 
 made in the Acts of the Apostles were deacons know 
 that the account there given is not of those who ad- 
 minister the sacraments, but of such as 'served tables.' " 
 Zonaras, ad Canon 16, Trullanum, p. 145, says, those 
 who by the apostles were appointed to the diaconate, 
 were not ministers of spiritual things, but ministers and 
 dispensers of meats. Oecumenius also, on the 6th 
 chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, says : — " They laid 
 their hands on the deacons who had been elected, 
 which office was by no means the same with that 
 which obtains at the present day in the church, (**. e. 
 under the same name;) but that with the utmost care 
 
190 
 
 and diligence they might distribute what was necessary 
 to the sustenance of orphans and widows." 
 
 From these considerations, I feel myself warranted 
 in concluding with confidence, that the "seven" chosen 
 at Jerusalem to " serve tables," were scriptural deacons, 
 and the first deacons; and that, of course, every 
 attempt to evade the necessary consequence of admit- 
 ting this fact is wholly destitute of support. 
 
 III. A third opinion held by some on this subject is, 
 that although the passage recorded in the beginning 
 of the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, is an 
 account of the first appointment of New Testament 
 deacons, and though their primary function was to 
 take care of the poor, and " serve tables;" yet that the 
 appropriate duties of their office were afterwards en- 
 larged. Thus the Prelatists say, that Philip one of 
 " the seven," is found soon after his appointment as 
 deacon, preaching and baptizing. Hence they infer 
 that these functions of right pertain to the deacon's 
 office, and have belonged to it from the beginning. 
 On the other hand, some Independents say, that the 
 word deacon, according to its Greek etymology, means 
 minister or servant ; that this general term may cover 
 a large field of ecclesiastical service, and that New 
 Testament deacons were probably at first intended, 
 and now ought to be employed, to assist the pastor in 
 counsel and government, as well as in serving the 
 Lord's table, and attending to the relief of the poor. 
 And even some Presbyterians have expressed the 
 opinion that our ruling elders were a kind of deacons 
 in disguise, and ought so to be considered and called; 
 and that there ought not to be, and cannot be consis- 
 tently with Scripture, any office-bearer charged with 
 the duty of assisting the pastor in counsel and rule, other 
 than the deacon. 
 
 I am fully persuaded that this is an erroneous 
 opinion. It appears to me manifest, not only that it is 
 inconsistent with the form of government of the Pres- 
 byterian church, but what is a much more serious 
 
191 
 
 difficulty, that it is altogether irreconcileable with the 
 New Testament. For, 
 
 1. An attentive and impartial perusal of the record of 
 this first institution of deacons, must convince any one 
 that preaching, baptizing, or partaking in the spiritual 
 rule and government of the church, were so far from 
 being embraced in the original destination of the New 
 Testament deacon, that they were all absolutely pre- 
 cluded by the very terms, and the whole spirit of the 
 representation given by the inspired historian. The 
 things complained of by the Grecian believers are, not 
 that the preaching was defective, or that the govern- 
 ment and discipline of the church were badly man- 
 aged. Not a hint of this kind is given. The only 
 complaint was, that the poor a widows had been 
 neglected ;" in other words, had not had the due share 
 of attention to their wants, and of relief from the 
 church's bounty. To remove all cause of complaint on 
 this score, the " seven" were chosen and set apart. 
 The sphere of duty to which they were appointed was 
 one which the apostles declared they could not fulfil 
 without leaving the word of God to serve tables."* 
 They say, therefore, to the members of the church, 
 " look ye out seven men of honest report, full of the 
 Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint 
 over this business," i. e. over the " serving of tables:" 
 " And we will give ourselves to prayer and the 
 ministry of the word." Now, to suppose that these 
 
 * It has been supposed by many that the phrase, " serving 
 tables," in the history of the institution of the deacon's office, 
 had a reference either to the Lord's table, or to overseeing- and 
 supplying the tables of the poor, or perhaps both. But I am 
 inclined to believe that this is an entire mistake. The word 
 Tooc,7rs£a., signifies indeed a table; but, in this connection, it 
 seems obviously to mean a money-table, or a counter on which 
 money was laid. Hence r^avs^erns a money-changer, or money- 
 merchant. See Matt. xxi. 12, xxv. 27; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 
 23. The plain meaning, then, of Acts vi. seems to be this; — 
 " It is not suitable that we should leave the word of God and 
 devote ourselves to pecuniary affairs." 
 
192 
 
 very deacons were appointed to officiate in "the ministry 
 of the word and prayer," is an inconsistency, nay an 
 absurdity, so glaring that the only wonder is how any 
 one can possibly adopt it after reading the passage in 
 question. If the object had been, to adopt a supposi- 
 tion, fitted to exhibit the apostles, and the " multitude" 
 too, as acting like insane men or children, one more 
 directly adapted to answer the end could not have 
 been thought of. 
 
 2. The circumstance of Philip, sometime after his 
 appointment as deacon, being found preaching and 
 baptizing in Samaria, and other places, does not 
 afford the smallest presumptive evidence against this 
 conclusion. Soon after his appointment to the diaconate 
 in Jerusalem, the members of the church in that city 
 were chiefly "scattered abroad by persecution." Philip 
 was of course driven from his residence. Now, the 
 probability is that about this time, seeing he was a 
 man " full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," and 
 therefore eminently qualified to be useful in preaching 
 the gospel, he received a new ordination as an Evan- 
 gelist, and in this character went forth to preach and 
 baptize. He is expressly called an " Evangelist," by 
 the same inspired writer who gives us an account of his 
 appointment as a deacon ; ( Acts xxi. 8. ) Until it can be 
 proved, then, that he preached and baptized as a dea- 
 con and not as an Evangelist, the supposition is 
 utterly improbable and altogether worthless. It is really 
 an imposition on credulity to urge it. And that cer- 
 tainly never can be proved as long as the sixth chapter 
 of the Acts of the Apostles remains a part of the inspired 
 volume. As to Stephen, another of the "seven," dis- 
 puting with gainsayers in private, and defending him- 
 self before the council, it was not official preaching 
 at all. It was nothing more than every professing 
 Christian is at all times not only at liberty but under 
 obligation to do, when assailed by unbelievers, or when 
 brought before an unjust tribunal. 
 
 The truth is, the practice of connecting the functions 
 
193 
 
 of preaching and baptizing with the deacon's office, 
 is one of the various human inventions which early 
 began to spring up in the church, and which turned 
 almost every ecclesiastical office which had been 
 divinely instituted more or less from its primitive char- 
 acter. " But from the beginning it was not so." It 
 is a departure from the apostolical model. We find, 
 indeed, in several of the writers of the first three or 
 four centuries, frequent intimations of deacons being 
 permitted to preach and administer the ordinance of 
 baptism. But in almost every instance, it is repre- 
 sented as done in virtue of a specific permission from 
 the pastor or bishop in each case, and as entirely un- 
 lawful without such permission, — a very different thing 
 from a function inherent in an office, and always law- 
 ful when a proper occasion for its exercise occurred ! 
 In fact, ecclesiastical history, I believe, will bear me 
 out in saying, that within the first three centuries it 
 would be just as correct to assert that private Chris- 
 tians in general had a right to preach and baptize, as 
 to maintain that deacons, in virtue of their office as 
 such, had this right, because we meet with some in- 
 stances of their being both called upon to do so in 
 cases of supposed necessity, or when specially permit- 
 ted by superior ecclesiastics. Mr. Bingham, the 
 learned episcopal antiquary, explicitly tells us, on the 
 authority of several early writers, that private Chris- 
 tians, who sustained no office whatever in the church, 
 were sometimes called upon to address the people in 
 the absence, or at the special request, of him whose 
 official duty it was to preach. The same learned 
 author goes on to state, that in the apostolic age, or 
 as long as the special gifts of the Holy Spirit, enabling 
 men to prophecy, continued, all who possessed such 
 special gifts, whether in office or not, might use " the 
 word of exhortation " in the church. " But then," 
 he adds, " as such extraordinary gifts of the spirit of 
 prophecy, were in a manner peculiar to the apostoli- 
 cal age, this could not be a rule to the following ages 
 
 R 
 
194 
 
 of the church. And, therefore, when once these gifts 
 
 wore ceased, the church went prudently by another 
 rule, to allow none but such as were called by an ordi- 
 nary commission to perform this office, except where 
 some extraordinary natural endowments (such as were 
 in Origen before his ordination) answering in some 
 measure to those special gifts, made it proper to grant 
 a license to laymen to exercise their talents for the 
 benefit of the church. Or else, when necessity im- 
 posed the duty on deacons to perform the office oi 
 preaching, when the bishop and presbyters were by 
 sickness or other means debarred from it. For the 
 aforesaid author (Ambrose) plainly says, that deacons 
 in his time were not ordinarily allowed pnedica/r in 
 populo, i. e. preach to the people, as being an office to 
 which they had no ordinary commission. And the 
 same is said by the author of the Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions, and many others. Therefore, since deacons 
 were not allowed this power, but only in some special 
 cases, it is the less to be wondered at, after the ceas- 
 ing of spiritual gifts, it should generally be denied to 
 laymen."* 
 
 A mistake on this point, in reference to the deacon's 
 office, has arisen from misinterpreting certain terms 
 which are used by some of the early writers to expres.^ 
 their public service. The words *.o^yux. wigvf, xvovow. 
 &C, are frequently used in the New Testament to ex- 
 press the public preacher, and preaching of the gospel. 
 Now, when the same words are applied by some of 
 the earlier Greek Fathers, and the corresponding 
 words, prcrco. pradicatio, wnd pradicarc. by the Latins 
 to the deacon's orHce, it has been hastily concluded 
 that they were habitually preachers, in the New Testa- 
 ment sense of the term. But the truth is, as every one 
 in the least degree acquainted with those writers knows, 
 these terms when used by the Fathers signify an en- 
 tirely different thing. The deacons, in the third, 
 
 * Bingham's OHgiues Ecclesiastics, b. 14. ch. 4. sect 4. 
 
195 
 
 fourth, and fifth centuries, arc every where represen- 
 ted as the common heralds, or criers of the chinch. 
 That is, when any public notice was to be given ; 
 when the catechumens or the penitents were to be 
 called upon aloud to come forward, or to withdraw; 
 or when any public proclamation was to be made, in 
 the course of the service in the church ; it belonged 
 to the deacon's office to perform this duty. Hence he 
 was called the *»gv& or crier, and was said *npu90u»t to 
 cry aloud, or make proclamation. It belonged to the 
 deacons also, to keep order at the doors, when the 
 service was beginning; to see that the worshippers 
 were seated in a quiet and orderly manner ; to stand 
 around the communion table when it was spread, and 
 with fans, made either of dried skins or peacock's 
 leathers, to keep off the flies from the consecrated 
 elements ; and, after the consecration of the sacramen- 
 tal elements, to bear them to the communicants. 
 These and a variety of subordinate duties were con- 
 sidered as pertaining to their office, and hence they 
 w r ere regarded not as having any part of the priest- 
 hood, according to the language of that day ; but as 
 being the " church's servants." All this is so explicitly 
 acknowledged, and so abundantly proved by the 
 learned Bingham, (Origines Ecclesiastical, book ii. 
 chap. 20; and book xiv. chap. 4,) that any further 
 enlargement on the subject is altogether unnecessary. 
 The original office of the deacon was one of high 
 trust and dignity; requiring much piety, wisdom, pru- 
 dence, and diligence. But when the purity of the 
 church, both in doctrine and practice declined, and 
 especially, when the ardour of her charity to the poor 
 had greatly slackened, that officer having little to do 
 in his appropriate department, sunk, for a time, into 
 a kind of ecclesiastical menial. 
 
 3. The directions afterwards given by Paul to 
 Timothy, (1 Tim. hi.) respecting the proper qualifica- 
 tions of candidates for the deacon's office, are decis- 
 ively opposed to the view of the subject which I am 
 
196 
 
 When the apostle speaks of the 
 qualifications indispensable in a teaching elder or 
 bishop, he says he must not only be grave, pious, and 
 of good report, but also " apt to teach," &c. But he 
 prescribes no such condition in the choice of deacons. 
 He gives no intimation that teaching made any part 
 of their official work. It is said, indeed, that they 
 ought to be men " holding the mystery of faith in a 
 pure conscience ;" by which I understand to be meant, 
 that they must be men holding the true faith in 
 sincerity ; in other words, that they must be orthodox 
 and pious ; qualifications which ought to be found in 
 all who bear office in the Church of God. 
 
 4. We have not the least evidence from any source, 
 that the function of government was ever connected 
 with the deacon's office. We read of ruling elders, 
 but never of ruling deacons. Among all the multi- 
 plied witnesses drawn from the synagogue and the 
 church, and from almost all denominations of Chris- 
 tians, ancient and modern, in favour of a bench of 
 elders in each congregation for conducting its govern- 
 ment and discipline, I recollect no example of the 
 members of that bench being called deacons, or of 
 deacons having any place among them. Nay, it is 
 perfectly manifest, that if, according to the scriptural 
 model, there ought to be bench or college, made up 
 of a plurality of elders in each church, to be intrusted 
 with the inspection and rule of the whole body, then 
 there is not a shadow of evidence to support the claim 
 of the deacons to a seat in that body. But if such a 
 bench of rulers, under the name of elders or presby- 
 ters be given up, then I will venture to assert, there 
 is not a shred of evidence, either in or out of the 
 Bible, that similar powers were ever assigned to 
 deacons as such. We may, indeed, call our ruling 
 elders by the name of deacons if we please. And so 
 we may call them dervises or imans with the Turks, 
 and say that we mean by these titles to designate the 
 members of the parochial presbytery or consistory in 
 
197 
 
 each church. But the real questions which present 
 themselves for solution are such as these, — Is it agree- 
 able to the New Testament model, that there be in 
 every Christian congregation a plurality of pious and 
 prudent men, invested with the office of inspection 
 and government in the church ? Or ought all eccle- 
 siastical authority and discipline to be exercised by 
 the pastor alone? If the former be admitted, then 
 ought the body of spiritual rulers to be styled elders 
 or deacons ? If the latter name be contended for, as 
 the more scriptural, then what passage of Scripture, 
 or of early uninspired history, can be mentioned 
 which countenances the application of this title to 
 ecclesiastical rulers as such ? The truth is, it is not 
 perceived how any can consistently maintain, that the 
 officers whom Presbyterians are wont to call ruling 
 elders, are really deacons, and ought to be so desig- 
 nated, without abandoning the church session, as 
 destitute of all scriptural warrant. He who does this, 
 however, must hold, either that the pastor of each 
 church has the whole government and discipline in 
 his own hands, and that the persons called elders or 
 deacons, are only a set of convenient advisers, without 
 any rightful judicial authority, or that all authority 
 ought to be exercised by the body of the communi- 
 cants, and every question of admission or discipline 
 submitted to their vote. In the latter case, he may 
 be a very pious and excellent Independent, but he 
 has no claim to the character of a Presbyterian. 
 
 It is deeply to be regretted, that the office of deacon 
 in its true nature, and its highly important and scrip- 
 tural character, is not to be found in many Presby- 
 terian churches. In some, this office is wholly dropped. 
 Neither the name nor the thing is to be found in 
 them. In others, the ruling elders, or the members 
 of the church session, are constantly styled deacons, 
 and scarcely ever designated by any other title, while 
 the office really indicated in Scripture by that title is 
 not retained. And in a third class of our churches, 
 r2 
 
198 
 
 those who are meant for real deacons, that is, who are 
 chosen and set apart as such, as well as called by that 
 name, are employed in functions for which the office 
 of deacon was never instituted. The cases, it is 
 feared, are few, in which the offices of elder and 
 deacon are both retained, and the appropriate functions 
 of each distinctly maintained. 
 
 Perhaps in a majority of our churches, the office of 
 deacon, strictly so called, is entirely dropped. This, 
 it is believed, is also virtually the case to a consider- 
 able extent in the Church of Scotland, and among 
 the large and respectable body of Presbyterians in 
 the north of Ireland. The origin of this extensive 
 disuse of an unquestionable scriptural office, is pro- 
 bably to be traced to the peculiar form of the provision 
 made in some countries for the support of the poor, 
 which was supposed to render the deaconship as a 
 separate office, unnecessary. Deacons had a place in 
 the original organization of the Protestant Church of 
 Scotland, and for many years after the Reformation 
 were universally retained and much employed in that 
 church as a distinct class of officers. But in later 
 times, the office has either been suffered to fall into 
 disuetude altogether, or, as is more common, has been 
 united with that of ruling elder, in the same indi- 
 viduals. So that the ruling elders in the Church of 
 Scotland are generally expected, and undertake to 
 act as deacons also. The same arrangement, it is 
 believed, is also generally adopted among the Presby- 
 terians in Ireland. 
 
 As to those churches in our own country in which 
 the office of deacon has been suffered to fall into 
 disuse altogether, this event is certainly, on a variety 
 of accounts, to be regretted; among others, for the 
 following reasons. 
 
 1. Every scriptural precedent is worthy of serious 
 regard. The office of deacon was evidently brought 
 into the church by inspired men. And although it 
 is not contended that it is essential to an organized 
 
199 
 
 church to have officers of this class, inasmuch as the 
 church undoubtedly did without them for a short 
 time after its first organization, yet as the office is an 
 institution of infinite wisdom, and necessary to a full 
 array of all the officers which belong to the visible 
 church, it seems expedient to retain it in all cases in 
 which it is possible. 
 
 2. We know that in every Jewish synagogue, before 
 the coming of Christ, there was a class of officers 
 whose peculiar duty it was to collect and dispense the 
 monies contributed for the support of the poor. This 
 seems to have been an invariable part of the syna- 
 gogue system. And as that system was evidently the 
 model on which the Christian church w T as formed, we 
 may presume, that a feature of it so strongly recom- 
 mended by age and experience, is worthy of adoption. 
 
 3. Although some churches may plead in excuse 
 for discontinuing the use of this office, that they have 
 no church poor, and therefore no occasion for the 
 appropriate services of deacons, yet the question is, 
 Ought they to allow this to be the case ? What though 
 the laws of the state make provision of a decent kind 
 for all the poor? Are there not commonly within 
 the bounds, and even among the communicants of 
 every church of any extent, and of the ordinary 
 standing in point of age, generally found a greater 
 or less number of persons who have seen more com- 
 fortable days, but are now reduced; aged widows, 
 persons of delicate retiring spirits, who are struggling 
 with the most severe privations of poverty in secret, 
 but cannot bring themselves to apply to the civil 
 officer for aid as paupers; who, at the same time, 
 would be made comparatively comfortable by a pit- 
 tance now and then administered in the tender and 
 affectionate spirit of the gospel? Now, ought the 
 church to take no measures for searching out such 
 members who are not, and cannot be reached by the 
 legal provision, and kindly ministering to their com- 
 fort? But if there be no class of officers whose 
 
200 
 
 appropriate duty it is to make this whole concern an 
 object of their attention, it will too often be neglected, 
 and thus the interest of Christian charity seriously 
 suffer. It is not a sufficient answer to this argument 
 to say, as those who philosophize on the subject of 
 pauperism say, and, to a certain extent, with great 
 truth, that this very provision would probably invite 
 application, and perhaps, in some instances, induce 
 improper reliance upon it, to the neglect of economy 
 and diligence. Supposing this, in some degree, to be 
 the case, would it not be better to relieve some portion 
 of the poverty brought on by improvidence, than to 
 allow humble, tender piety to pine in secret, unpitied 
 and unrelieved, under the pressure of that helpless 
 penury, which was induced by the hand of a sovereign 
 God ? Nay, is no pity, no active sympathy due from 
 the church even to indigence notoriously induced by 
 sin ? The considerations which have been suggested, 
 furnish, indeed, a good argument for having deacons 
 of suitable character; men of piety, wisdom, benevo- 
 lence, practical acquaintance with the world and with 
 human nature, who would be likely to perform their 
 duty with discernment, prudence, and unfeigned 
 Christian charity, cautiously guarding against the 
 evils to which the relief they are commissioned to bear 
 is exposed, but no argument at all against affording 
 such relief when really needed. 
 
 4. It is a great error to suppose that deacons can- 
 not be appropriately and profitably employed in various 
 other ways besides ministering to the poor of the 
 church. They might, with a great propriety be made 
 the managers of all the money tables, or fiscal concerns 
 of each congregation ; and, for this purpose, might be 
 incorporated, if it were thought necessary by law, 
 that they might be enabled regularly to hold and em- 
 ploy all the property, real and personal of the church. 
 But, even if it were thought inexpedient that boards 
 of deacons should be allowed thus to supersede the 
 boards of " trustees," which are, at present, commonly 
 
201 
 
 employed to manage each ecclesiastical treasury ; still 
 there are very important services in reference to 
 pecuniary concerns, which they might manage, and 
 which it is believed, would be greatly beneficial to the 
 church if they were considered as at all times bound 
 to manage, and should actually manage with wisdom, 
 energy, and zeal. I refer to the church's contributions, 
 to the various great objects of Christian enterprise 
 which distinguish the present day. That these contri- 
 butions to the cause of the Bible; of missions, foreign 
 and domestic ; of Sabbath schools ; and of the various 
 other Christian and benevolent undertakings for pro- 
 moting knowledge, virtue, and happiness, temporal and 
 eternal, among men, ought to be continued, and 
 greatly increased, — no one who looks into the Bible, 
 or who knows any thing of the Christian spirit, can 
 for a moment doubt. It is quite evident, too, that 
 these contributions ought to be perfectly volun- 
 tary, and any attempt to render them otherwise, would 
 be both unscriptural and mischievous. But would it 
 not tend to render the whole business of liberality to the 
 cause of Christ more regular, more easy, more abun- 
 dant, and ultimately more productive, if it were placed 
 under the enlightened advice, and wise management 
 of six or eight deacons in each church ? Suppose the 
 pastor and the elders of every congregation to be 
 animated with a proper spirit on this subject, and 
 to be habitually uttering and diffusing proper sen- 
 timents ; and suppose the whole business of collecting 
 the contributions, and paying them over to the respec- 
 tive treasuries for which they were destined, were 
 devolved on the deacons, as an executive board, who 
 might call to their aid, and would really confer, as 
 well as x*eceive a benefit, by calling to their aid, in the 
 details of collection, a number of active, pious sub- 
 agents ? Can any one doubt that the contributions of 
 the churches would be more systematic, more regular, 
 more conveniently received, better proportioned, and 
 a part, at least, and in some cases a large part, of the 
 
202 
 
 expenses paid to travelling agents, saved for the cause 
 of Christ ? The truth is, an enlightened, active, pious 
 board of deacons might place this whole subject on 
 such a footing, and when they had gotten it fairly 
 arranged, and under way, might manage it in such a 
 manner, as without adding in the least degree to the 
 burdens of the people, would render their contribu- 
 tions more productive, as well as more easy and 
 economical in every part of their management. 
 
 With respect to the mode of disposing of the deacon's 
 office adopted extensively in our sister churches of 
 Scotland and Ireland,* and in a few instances in this 
 country, namely, laying it on the ruling elders, and 
 uniting both offices in the same individual, it is un- 
 doubtedly liable to very strong objections, as will appear 
 from the following considerations. 
 
 1. One office is quite enough to be borne by the same 
 person ; especially an office so important, so responsible, 
 so abundantly sufficient to employ the heart, the hands, 
 and the time of the most active and zealous, as that of 
 the ruling elder. However pious, wise, and unwearied 
 he may be, he will find the work pertaining to his office 
 as elder, enough, and more than enough, especially in 
 this day of enlarged Christian activity to put in requi- 
 sition all his powers. Why then add another office to 
 one already occupied, if he be faithful to the utmost 
 extent of his faculties? Similar remarks may be made 
 to a considerable extent concerning the deacon's office. 
 It is enough when faithfully discharged, to occupy all 
 the leisure time of the most active and faithful incum- 
 bent. Both certainly cannot be undertaken by the 
 same individual, without some of the duties pertaining 
 to one or the other being neglected. 
 
 2. Where there are suitable candidates for office 
 among the communicants of a church, it is commonly 
 
 * The same mixture of offices has also long existed, it is 
 believed in the Church of Geneva. See Le Mercier's Ch. Hist, 
 of Gen. p. 214. 
 
203 
 
 wise to distribute offices as extensively among them as 
 circumstances will conveniently admit. If indeed, there 
 be a dearth of proper materials for making ecclesiastical 
 officers, the difficulty must be surmounted in the best 
 way that is practicable. But if there be individuals 
 enough to sustain it, the diffusion of office-power among 
 a considerable number, is so far from being an evil, that 
 it is manifestly, and may be highly advantageous. It 
 brings a greater number to take an interest in the affairs 
 of the church. It makes a greater number intimately 
 acquainted with the concerns of the church. And by 
 calling a greater number to pray, and speak, and act in 
 behalf of the church, it tends to promote the spiritual, 
 and it may be the everlasting benefit of them and 
 their children. Why, then, heap a plurality of offices 
 upon a single person ? It is depriving the church of a 
 manifest advantage, and may be the means of depri- 
 ving the individuals themselves of both comfort and 
 edification. 
 
 3. If there be not an absolute imcompatibility be- 
 tween the offices of ruling elder and deacon, there is 
 at least such an interference between their respective 
 duties, as is certainly undesirable, and ought by all 
 means to be avoided. There is a collision in this case 
 analagous to that which takes place, when a man visits 
 the sick in the double character of a physician and 
 minister of the Gospel. For although in many cases, 
 the duties and services of each character may happily 
 harmonize and help one another ; yet perhaps, in 
 many more, it will appear to the discerning eye that 
 they had better be separated. When an elder, as such, 
 goes forth to the discharge of his official duties, it is to 
 promote the spiritual interest of the flock of which he 
 is made one of the " overseers." To this purpose it is 
 important that he should have the most unreserved and 
 confidential access to all the members of the flock and 
 their children ; and that nothing should be allowed to 
 intervene which was adapted to disguise the feelings, to 
 divide the attention, or to clog the operations of either 
 
204 
 
 party. But if, when this elder visits the poor for the 
 sake of benefitting their souls, they receive him with 
 smiles, with apparent cordiality, and with much pious 
 talk, chiefly for the concealed purpose of increasing the 
 allowance which, as deacon, he may be disposed to 
 minister to them : or, when he visits them as a dea- 
 con, they feel jealous, or alienated on account of some 
 supposed deficiency in that allowance, and of course 
 in some measure close their minds against him as their 
 spiritual guide : or, when the mind of the Presbyter 
 deacon himself becomes divided and perplexed between 
 the rival claims of these two classes of duties, less good 
 is done, less pure unmingled feeling exercised, and 
 less comfort enjoyed on either side.* 
 
 On all these accounts, the two offices in question, as 
 they are entirely different in their nature, ought un- 
 doubtedly to be separated in practice, to be discharged 
 by different persons, and to be carefully guarded 
 against that interference which is adapted to render 
 both less useful. 
 
 We are led, then, by the foregoing facts and argu- 
 ments, to the following conclusions : — - 
 
 1. That the deacon is a divinely instituted officer, 
 and ought to be retained in the church. 
 
 2. That the function to which the deacon was ap- 
 pointed by the apostles, was to manage the pecuniary 
 affairs of the church, and especially to preside over 
 the collections and disbursements for the poor. 
 
 3. That deacons, therefore, ought not only to be 
 men of piety, but also of judgment, prudence, know- 
 ledge of the world, and weight of character. 
 
 4. That preaching was not, in the primitive church, 
 any part of the deacon's duty, but came in among 
 other human innovations, as corruption gained ground. 
 
 5. That there is no warrant whatever for assigning 
 
 * See this subject treated in a striking manner, and at con- 
 siderable length, in Dr. Chalmers' Christian and Civic Economy 
 of Large Towns. Vol. i. chapter vii. 
 
205 
 
 to deacons the function of government in the church, 
 and that their undertaking any such function, is 
 nothing less than ecclesiastical usurpation. 
 
 6. That confounding the office of deacon with that 
 of ruling elder, is an unwarranted confusion, both of 
 names and offices, which are entirely distinct. 
 
 7. That even the uniting of these two offices in the 
 same persons is by no means advisable, and tends 
 materially to impair the comfort and usefulness of 
 both. 
 
 8. That deacons ought to be ordained by the im- 
 position of hands. In this ordination the hands of 
 the pastor and of the eldership ought to be laid on. 
 I know not the shadow of a reason why this solemnity 
 should be omitted. The venerable Dr. Dwight, in 
 his System of Theology, when treating on the office 
 of deacons, unequivocally declares his conviction that 
 the laying on of hands ought always to be employed 
 in setting them apart, and pronounces the omission of 
 it to be " incapable, so far as he knows, of any de- 
 fence." The disregard of scriptural example in the 
 omission, is as painful as it is obvious and unques- 
 tionable. 
 
 9. That the deacons, although they ought always, 
 if possible, to be present at the meetings of the church 
 session, for the sake of giving information and aiding 
 in counsel, can have no vote as church rulers, and, 
 therefore, cannot give their vote in the admission or 
 exclusion of members, or in any case of ecclesiastical 
 discipline. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE QUALIFICATIONS PROPER FOR THIS OFFICE. 
 
 The account which has been given of the nature 
 and duties of the office of ruling elder, is adapted to 
 reflect much light on the qualifications by which he 
 who bears it ought to be distinguished. Those who 
 are called to such extensive, interesting, and highly 
 important spiritual duties — duties which enter so 
 deeply into the comfort and edification of the Church 
 of God — it surely requires no formal argument to 
 show, ought to possess a character in some degree 
 corresponding with the sphere in which they are ap- 
 pointed to move. There cannot be a plainer dictate 
 of common sense. Yet to attempt a brief sketch of 
 the more important of the qualifications demanded for 
 this office, may not be altogether unprofitable. 
 
 And here it may be observed, in the outset, that it 
 is by no means necessary that ruling elders should be 
 aged persons. For although it cannot be doubted that 
 the title is literally expressive of age ; and although it 
 is equally certain, that, originally, the office was 
 generally conferred on men somewhat advanced in 
 life, as being most likely, other things being equal, to 
 possess wisdom, prudence, experience, and weight of 
 
207 
 
 character; yet the term, from a very early period, 
 came to be a mere title of office, without any respect 
 to the years of the individual who bore it. This is 
 evident, not only from the history of Jewish practice, 
 but also from the statements of the New Testament. 
 If Timothy was not merely a ruling, but also a teach- 
 ing elder, though so young a man that the apostle 
 said to him — Let no man despise thy youth ; and if, 
 in every age of the church, young men have been con- 
 sidered as qualified, on the score of age, to be elders 
 that labour in the word and doctrine as well as rule, 
 there can be no doubt that young men, if otherwise 
 well qualified, may with propriety be appointed elders 
 to assist in ruling the Church of God. Nay, where 
 such persons, with other suitable qualifications, are to 
 be found, it is expedient to introduce some in younger 
 life into the eldership of every church; not only that 
 there may be individuals in the body fitted for more 
 active duties, but also that some of the number may 
 have that kind of official training, and that familiarity 
 with ecclesiastical business, which early experience 
 and lono- habit alone can give. 
 
 It may be remarked, however, that although neither 
 scripture, nor the constitution of the presbyterian 
 church, prescribes any absolute rule with respect to 
 the age of those who may be considered as candidates 
 for the eldership ; yet it is very manifest, that those 
 who are either minors in age, or "novices" in the 
 Christian character and profession, ought by no means, 
 in ordinary circumstances, to be elected to this office. 
 In the Church of Scotland, the rule is, that no one 
 can be chosen an elder who is not twenty-one years of 
 age. A similar regulation, it is believed, exists in 
 some other foreign churches; and it may be consi- 
 dered as a dictate of common prudence. 
 
 But, though the circumstance of age, as a general 
 rule, does not enter into the essential qualifications of 
 ruling elders, there are other qualifications which are 
 highly important, and indeed indispensable. These 
 
208 
 
 are stated by the inspired apostle, in writing to 
 Timothy, in the following comprehensive and pointed 
 language : — " An elder must be blameless, the husband 
 of one wife, having faithful children ; one that ruleth 
 well his own house, having his children in subjection 
 with all gravity ; not accused of riot, or unruly ; not 
 self-willed ; not soon angry ; not given to wine ; no 
 striker; not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hos- 
 pitality; a lover of good men; sober, just, holy, tem- 
 perate, sound in the faith, in charity, in patience." 
 See Timothy iii. compared with Titus i. 6 — 8, and ii. 
 2, which passages evidently appear, on tracing the 
 connection, to be equally applicable to teaching and 
 ruling. 
 
 The design of appointing persons to the office of 
 ruling elder is, not to pay them a compliment ; not 
 to give them an opportunity of figuring as speakers in 
 judicatories ; not to create the pageants of ecclesias- 
 tical ceremony ; but to secure able, faithful, and truly 
 devoted counsellors and rulers of the church. To 
 obtain wise and efficient guides, who shall not only go 
 along with the flock in their journey heavenward, but 
 go before them in every thing that pertains to Chris- 
 tian duty. 
 
 It cannot be doubted, indeed, that every member of 
 the Christian church is bound to exhibit a holy, de- 
 vout, and exemplary life ; to have his mind well stored 
 with religious knowledge ; to be able to give an answer 
 to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is 
 in him ; and to avoid every thing that is criminal in 
 itself, that may be just cause of offence to his breth- 
 ren, or that may have even the appearance of evil. 
 But it is equally manifest, that all these qualifications 
 are still more important, and required in a still higher 
 degree in those who are intrusted with the spiritual 
 inspection and regulation of the church. As they 
 occupy a place of more honour and authority than 
 the other members of the church, so they also occupy 
 a station of greater responsibility. The eyes of hun- 
 
209 
 
 dreds will be upon them as elders, which were not 
 upon them as private Christians. Their brethren and 
 sisters, over whom they are placed in the Lord, will 
 naturally look up to them for advice, for instruction, 
 for aid in the spiritual life, and for a shining example. 
 The expectation is reasonable, and ought not to be 
 disappointed. The qualifications of elders, therefore, 
 ought, in some good measure, to correspond with it. 
 
 1. An elder, then, ought, first of all, to be a man 
 of unfeigned and approved piety. It is to be re- 
 gretted when the piety of any member of the church 
 is doubtful, or evidently feeble and wavering. It is 
 deplorable when any who name the name of Christ 
 manifest so much indecision in their profession — so 
 much timidity and unsteadiness in their resistance to 
 error and sin — so much conformity to the world, and 
 so little of that undaunted, ardent, and thorough 
 adherence to their professed principles, as to leave it 
 dubious with many whether they are " on the Lord's 
 side" or not. But how much more deplorable when 
 any thing of this kind appears in those who are ap- 
 pointed to watch, to preside, and to exert an extensive 
 influence over a portion of the family of Christ ! 
 What is to be expected, when " watchmen on the 
 walls of Zion " — for such ruling elders are undoubtedly 
 to be regarded — appear as beacons to warn private 
 Christians of what ought to be avoided, rather than 
 as models to guide, to attract, and to cheer them on 
 to all that is spiritual, and holy, and becoming the 
 gospel. 
 
 Can he who is either destitute of piety, or who has 
 but a small portion of it, engage in the arduous and 
 deeply spiritual duties of the ruling elder with comfort 
 to himself, or with any reasonable hope of success ? 
 It cannot be supposed. To fit ecclesiastical rulers 
 for acting in their appropriate character, and for per- 
 forming the work which pertains to it, with cordial 
 diligence, faithfulness, and perseverance, will require 
 cordial and decisive attachment to the service of the 
 s2 
 
210 
 
 church; minds intent upon the work; hearts filled 
 with love to Jesus and to the souls of men, and pre- 
 ferring Jerusalem above their chief joy. Unless they 
 are animated with this affectionate interest in their 
 work ; unless they are habitually impelled by an en- 
 lightened and cordial attachment to the great cause 
 in which they are engaged, they will soon become 
 weary of their arduous and self-denying labours ; they 
 will find waiting on the flock, visiting and praying 
 with the sick, instructing the serious and inquir- 
 ing, correcting the disorderly, watching over the 
 spiritual interests of all, and attending the various 
 judicatories of the church, an irksome task. But 
 with such a zeal as has been described, they will be 
 ready to contend for the truth, to engage in the most 
 self-denying duties, nay, to "spend and be spent" 
 for Christ. To promote the best interests of Zion 
 will be their " meat and drink." No labours, no 
 trials, no difficulties will move them, neither will they 
 count their lives dear unto themselves, so that they 
 may finish their course with joy, and accomplish the 
 work which they have received of the Lord Jesus, 
 A few such elders in every church would, with the 
 divine blessing, do more to silence infidelity — to strike 
 even the scorner dumb — to promote the triumph of 
 gospel truth — and to rouse, sustain, and bear forward 
 the cause of vital piety, than hundreds of those mini- 
 sters and elders who act as if they supposed that 
 supplying the little details of an ecclesiastical formality 
 was the whole purpose of their official appointment. 
 And, in truth, we have no reason to expect, in general, 
 that the piety of the mass of members, in any church, 
 will rise much higher than that of their rulers and 
 guides. Where the latter are either lifeless formalists, 
 or, at best, but " babes in Christ," we shall rarely 
 find many under their care of more vitality or of 
 superior stature. 
 
 2. Next to piety, it is important that a ruling elder 
 be possessed of good sense and sound judgment. 
 
211 
 
 Without this he will be wholly unfit to act in the 
 various difficult and delicate cases which may arise in 
 the discharge of his duty. A man of weak and child- 
 ish mind, however fervent his piety, is by no means 
 adapted to the station of an ecclesiastical ruler, coun- 
 sellor, and guide. He who bears the office in question 
 is called to have intercourse with all classes of people : 
 to engage in the most arduous and trying duties, and 
 to deliberate and decide on some of the most perplex- 
 ing questions that can come before the human mind. 
 Can it be doubted, that good sense and solid judg- 
 ment are indispensable to the due discharge of such 
 official work as this? How would a judge on the 
 bench, or a magistrate in his office, be likely to get 
 along without this qualification? Much more im- 
 portant is it, if possible, that the ecclesiastical ruler be 
 enlightened and judicious, because he deliberates and 
 decides on more momentous subjects, and because he 
 has no other than moral power with which to enforce 
 his decisions. Moses, therefore, spoke the language 
 of good sense, as well as of inspired wisdom, when he 
 said to the people of Israel, (Deut. i. 13,) " Take ye 
 wise men, and understanding, and known among your 
 tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." This 
 point, indeed, it would seem, can scarcely be made 
 more plain than common sense makes it, and might, 
 therefore, be considered as foreclosing all illustration, 
 did not some churches appear disposed to make the 
 experiment, how far infinite wisdom is to be believed 
 when it pronounces, by the prophet, a wo against 
 those who make choice of babes to rule over them. 
 
 3. A ruling elder ought to be sound in the faith, 
 and well informed in relation to gospel truth. The 
 elder who is not orthodox in his creed, instead of con- 
 tributing as he ought to build up the church in the 
 knowledge and love of the truth, will of course be the 
 means of scattering error, as far as his influence 
 extends. And he who is not well informed on the 
 subject of Christian doctrine, will not know whether 
 
212 
 
 he is promoting the one or the other. Accordingly, 
 when this class of officers is ordained in our church, 
 we call upon them to do what we do not require from 
 the private members of the church, viz. solemnly and 
 publicly to adopt the Confession of Faith, " as con- 
 taining the system of doctrine taught in the Holy 
 Scriptures. ,, When this is considered, and also that 
 they are expected to be, to a certain extent, instructors 
 and guides in divine things to many of those committed 
 to their oversight; and, above all, that they will be often 
 called to deliberate on charges of heresy, as well as 
 immorality, and to sit in judgment on the doctrinal 
 belief, not only of candidates for admission into the 
 church as private members, but also on cases of 
 alleged aberration from the truth in ministers of the 
 gospel ; the necessity of their being " sound in the 
 faith," and of their having enlightened and clear views 
 of the s} r stem of revealed truth, is too plain to need 
 argument for its support. 
 
 The truth is, the ruling elder who is active, zealous, 
 and faithful, will have occasion, almost every day, to 
 discriminate betwen truth and error, to act as a 
 guardian of the church's orthodoxy, to pass his judg- 
 ment, either privately or judicially, on real or supposed 
 departures from it, and to instruct the inexperienced 
 and the doubting in the great doctrines of our holy re- 
 ligion. And although all elders are not expected to 
 be profound theologians any more than all ministers, 
 yet that the former as well as the latter should have 
 a general and accurate acquaintance with the gospel 
 system, and be ready to defend its leading doctrines, by 
 a ready, pertinent, and conclusive reference to scriptural 
 testimony, and thus be able to " separate between the 
 precious and the vile," in theory as well as in practice, 
 is surely as little as can possibly be demanded of those 
 who are placed as leaders and guides in the house of 
 God. F 
 
 4. Again, an elder ought to be a man of eminent 
 prudence. By prudence here is, of course, not meant 
 
213 
 
 that spurious characteristic which calls itself by this 
 name, but which ought rather to be called timidity, or 
 a criminal shrinking from duty, on the plea that "there 
 is a lion in the way." Yet while we condemn this as 
 unworthy of a Christian, and especially unworthy of a 
 Christian counsellor and ruler, there is a prudence 
 which is genuine and greatly to be coveted. This is 
 no other than practical Christian wisdom which not 
 only discerns what is right, but also adopts the best 
 mode of doing it; which is not at all inconsistent with 
 firmness, and the highest moral courage, but which 
 happily regulates and directs it. It has been often 
 observed that there is a right and a wrong way of doing 
 the best things. The thing done may be excellent in 
 itself, but may be done in a manner, at a time, and 
 attended with circumstances, which will be likely to dis- 
 gust and repel, and thus prevent all benefit. Hence a 
 man who is characteristically eccentric, undignified, 
 rash, precipitate, or indiscreetly talkative, ought by no 
 means to be selected as an ecclesiastical ruler. He will 
 probably do more mischief than good, will generally 
 create more divisions than he heals, and will rather 
 generate offences than remove them. Perhaps there is 
 no situation in human society which more imperiously 
 calls for delicacy, caution, reserve, and the most vigilant 
 discretion, than that of an ecclesiastical ruler. If popu- 
 lar rumour begin to charge a church member with 
 some delinquency either in faith or practice; let one of 
 the elders, under the notion of being faithful, implicitly 
 credit the story, go about making inquiries respecting 
 its truth, winking and insinuating, and thus contributing 
 to extend its circulation ; and however pure his motives, 
 he may, before he is aware, implicate himself in the 
 charge of slander, and become so situated, in respect to 
 the supposed culprit, as to render it altogether improper 
 that he should sit in judgment on his case. The maxim 
 of the wise man — " be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow 
 to wrath," applies to every human being, especially to 
 every professing Christian, but above all to every one 
 
214 
 
 who is appointed to maintain truth, order, purity, peace 
 and love in the Church, of God. 
 
 It requires much prudence to judge when it is pro- 
 per to commence the exercise of discipline against a 
 supposed offender. Discipline is an important, nay, a 
 vital matter in the Christian church. But it may be 
 commenced indiscreetly, vexatiously, when that which 
 is alleged cannot be shown to be an offence against the 
 divine law; or when, though a really censurable offence, 
 there is no probability that it can be proved. To 
 attempt the exercise of discipline in such cases is to 
 disgrace it, to convert it from one of the most impor- 
 tant means of grace into an instrument of rashness, 
 petulance, and childish precipitancy. Often, very 
 often has the very name of discipline been rendered 
 odious, the peace of families and neighbourhoods 
 grievously disturbed, the influence of ecclesiastical 
 judicatories destroyed, and the cause of religion deeply 
 wounded, by judicial proceedings, which ought either 
 never to have been commenced, or to which the 
 smallest measure of prudence would have given a very 
 different direction. 
 
 The importance of the subject constrains me to 
 add, that prudence, much prudence is also imperiously 
 demanded in the exercise of a dignified and cautious 
 reserve while ecclesiastical process is pending. One 
 great reason why it is thought better by Presbyterians 
 to exercise discipline rather by a bench of wise and pious 
 ecclesiastical senators, than by the vote of the whole 
 body of church members, is, that the public discus- 
 sion and decision of many things concerning personal 
 character, which the exercise of discipline necessarily 
 discloses respecting others, as well as the culprit, is 
 adapted in many cases to do more harm than good, 
 especially before the process is closed. To guard against 
 this evil, it is very important that the elders carefully 
 avoid all unseasonable disclosures in respect to the busi- 
 ness which may be at any time before the Session. 
 Until they have done what shall be deemed proper, in a 
 

 215 
 
 delicate case it is surely unwise, by thoughtless blabbing, 
 to throw obstacles in their own way, and perhaps to 
 defeat the whole purpose which they have in view. 
 Yet how often, by one imprudent violation of this plain 
 rule, has the discipline of the church been degraded or 
 frustrated, and the character of those who administered 
 it exposed to ridicule ? 
 
 These, and similar considerations, serve clearly to 
 show, that no degree of piety can supersede the 
 necessity of prudence in ecclesiastical rulers ; and that, 
 of all characters in a congregation, an indiscreet, 
 meddling, garrulous, gossiping, tattling elder, is one 
 of the most pestiferous. 
 
 5. It is important that an elder be " of good report 
 of them that are without." The circumstance of his 
 being chosen to the office by the members of the 
 church, does, indeed, afford strong presumption that 
 he sustains among them an unexceptionable character. 
 But it is also of great importance that this class of 
 officers, as well as those who " labour in the word 
 and doctrine," should stand well with those who are 
 without, as well as those who are within the pale of 
 the Christian community. The ecclesiastical ruler 
 may often be called, in discharging his official duties, 
 to converse with the worldly and profane, who have 
 no particular regard either for his master or his 
 office. Nay, he must be almost every day that he 
 lives the object of the scrutiny of such men. In this 
 case it is peculiary desirable that his personal character 
 be such as to command universal respect and confi- 
 dence ; that it be not liable to any particular suspicion 
 or imputation; but that, on the contrary, it possess 
 such weight and respectability in the community, as 
 will render him an aid and a blessing to his eccle- 
 siastical connection. To this end, his unbending 
 integrity in all the walks of life; his spotless probity 
 and honour in every pecuniary transaction ; his gravity 
 and dignity in all the intercourse of society ; his 
 exemplary government of his own family ; his abstrac- 
 
216 
 
 tion from all unhallowed conformity to the world; — 
 ought to present in some good measure a pattern 
 of Christian consistency. It is saying little in favour 
 of a church officer, to allege that his reputation is such 
 that he does no harm to the ecclesiastical body with 
 which he is connected. It is to be regretted if he do 
 not promote its benefit every day by his active services, 
 and extend its influence by the lustre of his example. 
 
 6. A ruling elder ought to be a man of public spirit 
 and enlarged views. He who is called by his official 
 duty to plan and labour for the extension of the 
 Redeemer's kingdom, surely ought not, of all men, to 
 have a narrow and illiberal mind ; to be sparing of 
 labour, parsimonious in feeling and habit, or contented 
 with small attainments. It is eminently desirable, 
 then, that a ruling elder be a man of expanded heart 
 toward other denominations, as far as is consistent with 
 entire fidelity to scriptural truth and order; that he aim 
 high in spiritual attainment and progress; that he be will- 
 ing to give much, to labour much, and to make sacrifices 
 for the cause of Christ; and that he be continually 
 looking and praying for the further enlargement and 
 prosperity of Zion. Such a man will not be willing to 
 see the church fall asleep, or stagnate. Such a man's 
 mind will be teeming with desires, plans, and prayers for 
 the advancement of the Saviour's cause. Such a man 
 will not content himself, nor be satisfied to see others 
 contenting themselves, with a little round of frigidform- 
 alities, or with the interests of a single parish; but the 
 aspirations of his heart, and the active efforts of his life, 
 will be directed to the extension and prosperity of the 
 church in all its borders, and to the universal establish- 
 ment and triumph of that gospel which is " the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one that be]ieveth.' , 
 
 The qualification of which we speak has been, in all 
 ages, and from the nature of the case must ever be, of 
 inestimable importance in every ruler and guide of the 
 church. But we may venture to pronounce that it never 
 was so important to the church that she should have 
 
217 
 
 such rulers as it is at the present day. Now that she is 
 awaking from her slumber, and arousing to a sense of her 
 long forgotten obligations — now that she is, as we hope, 
 arising from the dust, and " putting on her beautiful 
 garments," and looking abroad in the length and 
 breadth of those conquests which have been promised 
 her by her Almighty Head — now that all her resources, 
 physical and moral, are called for in every direction, with 
 an emphasis and a solemnity never before equalled — 
 is it not manifest that all who, in such a stage of her 
 course, undertake to be her counsellors and guides, 
 ought to be neither drones nor cowards, neither par- 
 simonious of labour and sacrifice, nor disposed to sit 
 down contented with small acquisitions? Ruling elders 
 at the present day have perhaps an opportunity of 
 serving the church more extensively and effectually 
 than ever before. How desirable and important then, 
 that they have a heart in some measure commensurate 
 with the calls and opportunities of the day in which 
 their lot is cast ! How desirable that they cherish those 
 enlarged and liberal views, both of duty and effort, 
 which become those who are called to a conspicuous 
 and interesting part in a cause which is dear to all 
 holy beings ! So important is this, that it is probable 
 we shall generally find that in liberality of contribution 
 to the various objects of Christian effort, and in en- 
 largement of mind to desire and seek the extension of 
 the Redeemer's kingdom, the mass of the members of 
 any church may commonly be graduated by the char- 
 acter of their elders. If the leaders and guides of the 
 church be destitute of public spirit, and be not found 
 taking the lead in large plans, labours, and sacrifices, 
 for extending the reign of knowledge, truth, and 
 righteousness ; it will be strange, indeed, if a more en- 
 larged spirit be found prevailing among the generality 
 of their fellow members. 
 
 7. The last qualification on which I shall dwell, as 
 important in the office before us, is ardent zeal and 
 a spirit of importunate prayer. Large views, and 
 
 T 
 
L 2iS 
 
 liberal plans and donations, will not answer without 
 this. The truth is, the Church of God has the most 
 serious and unceasing obstacles to encounter in every 
 step of her progress. As long as she is faithful, her 
 course is never smooth or unobstructed. In maintain- 
 ing truth, in guarding the claims of gospel holiness, 
 and in sustaining discipline, the enmity of the human 
 heart will not fail to manifest itself, and to offer more 
 or less resistance to that which is good. The worldly 
 and profane will ever be found in the ranks of deter- 
 mined opposition. And, alas ! that some who bear the 
 name of Christ are not unfrequently found in the 
 same ranks : thus grieving the hearts and trying the 
 patience of those who are called to act as the repre- 
 sentatives and leaders of the church. To meet and 
 overcome difficulties of this kind, requires all the fixed- 
 ness of purpose, and all the zeal in the service of Christ, 
 which his most devoted servants can brin^ to their 
 work. 
 
 Besides all this, there is much in the daily duties of 
 the ruling elder which puts to a very serious test all 
 his devotedness to the cause of his Master. He is called 
 to live like a minister of the gospel, in the very atmos- 
 phere of prayer and religious conversation. In the 
 chamber oIl the sick and dying, in conversing with the 
 anxious inquirer and the perplexed or desponding be- 
 liever in the private circle, and in the social meeting 
 for prayer, abroad and at home, in the house and by 
 the way. it must be "his meat and drink" to be found 
 ministering to the best interests of his fellow-men. So 
 that if he have but little zeal, but little taste for prayer, 
 but little anxiety for the welfare of immortal souls, 
 he will not, he cannot enter with proper feeling into 
 his appropriate employments. But if he be animated 
 with a proper spirit, he will find it pleasant to be thus 
 employed. Instead of shunning scenes and opportuni- 
 ties of usefulness he will diligently seek them. And 
 instead of finding them wearisome, he will feel no hap- 
 
219 
 
 piness more pure and rich than that which he expe- 
 riences in such occupations as these. 
 
 It is evident, then, not only that the ecclesiastical 
 ruler ought to have unfeigned piety, but that his 
 piety ought to be of that decisive character, and accom- 
 panied with that fervent zeal, which bears its possessor 
 forward without weariness in the discharge of self- 
 denying duties. The higher the degree in which he pos- 
 sesses this characteristic, provided it be accompanied 
 with wisdom, prudence, and a knowledge of human 
 nature, the greater will probably be his usefulness in 
 the church which he serves ; and the greater assuredly 
 will be his own personal enjoyment in rendering that 
 service. 
 
 It is more than possible that this view of the qualifi- 
 cations proper for the office which we are considering, 
 may cause some, when solicited to undertake it, to draw 
 back under the conscientious impression that they have 
 not the characteristics which are essential to the faith- 
 ful discharge of its duties. And it would be wrong to 
 say that there are not some cases, in which such an 
 impression ought to be admitted. There can be no 
 doubt that there are those who bear this office who 
 ought never to have accepted it. To this class unques- 
 tionably belong all those who have no taste for the 
 appropriate duties of the office, and who do not resolve 
 sedulously and faithfully to perform them. But let no 
 humble devoted follower of Jesus Christ, who truly 
 desires to serve and glorify him, and who is willing 
 from the heart to do all that God shall enable him, for 
 the promotion of the Redeemer's kingdom ; let not 
 him be deterred by the representation which has been 
 given from accepting the office, if called to it by his 
 Christian brethren. The deeper his sense of his own 
 unfitness, the more likely will he be to apply unceas- 
 ingly and importunately for heavenly aid, and the 
 nearer he lives to the throne of grace the more largely 
 will he partake of that wisdom and strength which he 
 needs. There are no doubt some, as we said, who are 
 
220 
 
 really unqualified for this office ; but, in general, it may 
 be maintained that those who have the deepest im- 
 pression of the importance and arduousness of its duties, 
 and of their own want of adequate qualifications, are 
 far better prepared for those duties than such as 
 advance to the discharge of them with unwavering 
 confidence and self-complacency. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 ON THE ELECTION OF RULING ELDERS. 
 
 Under this general head a variety of questions 
 occur, the solution of which is important. 
 
 I. In the first place, who are the proper electors 
 of ruling elders ? This question is not definitely re- 
 solved by the " Form of Government" of the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States. Its language is as 
 follows : — " Every congregation shall elect persons to 
 the office of ruling elder, and to the office of deacon, 
 or either of them, in the mode most approved and in 
 use in that congregation ; but, in all cases, the persons 
 elected must be male members in full communion 
 in the church in which they are to exercise their 
 office." 
 
 When a new church is to be organized, and when 
 of course there are no elders already in office, applica- 
 tion ought to be made to the presbytery, stating the 
 wishes of those who contemplate forming the church, 
 requesting their sanction, and also the appointment of 
 one or more of their number to preside in the election 
 and ordination of the candidates for the respective 
 offices of elders and deacons. The person or persons 
 thus appointed by the presbytery to act in the case, 
 after causing due and regular notice of their appoint - 
 
 t 2 
 
222 
 
 ment and its object to be given, ought to meet with the 
 members of the congregation, to preach on the subject 
 which occasions the meeting, to explain the nature and 
 importance of the office ; and, having done this, to call 
 upon those who may be qualified as electors to give 
 their votes for such of their number as they would 
 wish to have as their spiritual rulers. Having done 
 this openly in the face of the congregation, the ordina- 
 tion of the elders elect may either take place on the 
 spot before the assembly shall separate, or may be 
 postponed to a future time, as may be judged most 
 expedient. By this is meant, that the election in this 
 case, being made immediately by a popular vote of the 
 members of the church, there is no need of postponing 
 the ordination for the purpose of propounding the 
 names of the persons elected from the pulpit, as is 
 necessary and practised in other cases. In the case 
 supposed, the full concurrence of the persons entitled 
 to vote in the choice made, has been already ascertained 
 by their suffrages. 
 
 In this choice, the votes may be given either viva 
 voce, or by ballot. The latter method, however, is b} T 
 far the most common, and is evidently the most proper, 
 for a variety of reasons, some of which will readily 
 occur to every enlightened and delicate mind. 
 
 Concerning the persons who are properly entitled to 
 vote in such an election, there has been some diversity 
 of opinion. That all the male members of the church 
 in what is called " full communion" have this right, 
 there can be no question. In this all are agreed. But 
 it has been maintained, not indeed with the same 
 unanimity, yet it is believed by a large majority of the 
 most judicious and enlightened judges, and probably on 
 the most correct principles, that all baptized members 
 of the church, who must be of course regarded as 
 subject to the government and discipline administered 
 by these rulers, are entitled to a voice in their election. 
 And where there are female heads of families, who 
 bear the relation of membership to the church in either 
 
22S 
 
 of the senses just mentioned, and who are not repre- 
 sented by some qualified male relative on the occasion, 
 it has been judged proper to allow them to vote in the 
 choice of ruling elders, as is generally the case in the 
 choice of a pastor. 
 
 There seems, however, to be some good reason for 
 restricting the right to vote for ruling elders within 
 narrower bounds than are commonly assigned in the 
 choice of a pastor. In that choice, in most congrega- 
 tions, all pew-holders, and all stated worshippers who 
 are stated contributors to the support of the pastor in 
 their just proportion, whether baptized or not, whether 
 willing to submit to the exercise of discipline or not, 
 and whether of fair moral character or not, are con- 
 sidered as entitled to a vote. But, in the election of a 
 pastor, there is one security against an improper choice 
 which does not exist in the case of a ruling elder: 
 namely, that the call must be submitted to the presby- 
 tery, and receive the sanction of that body before it can 
 be prosecuted. Whereas, no such security exists in 
 the case of a ruling elder. Of course, if all pew- 
 holders and pecuniary supporters, without any refer- 
 ence to member-ship or character, were allowed to 
 vote in the election of the latter class of officers, they 
 might choose persons to the last degree unsuitable for 
 the office, and adapted to destroy rather than benefit 
 the church. Besides, every one, however heterodox or 
 immoral, may be a stated attendant on public worship; 
 and every stated attendant on the worship of any 
 church may be said to have an interest in the charac- 
 ter of the pastor, and a right, as far as may be, to be 
 pleased in the choice : but no one can be said to have 
 any part or particular interest in the discipline of the 
 church, excepting those who are subject to its opera- 
 tion, which can be the case with none but those who 
 are members of the church. 
 
 Accordingly, the General Assembly of the church, 
 which met in 1829, in answer to a question solemnly 
 
224 
 
 referred to it by one of the western presbyteries* — 
 adopted, and sent to the churches the following judg- 
 ment, in relation to the subject before us: — " It is the 
 opinion of this General Assembly, that the office of 
 ruling elder is an office in the Church of Christ ; that 
 ruling elders, as such, according to our Confession of 
 Faith, book 1. on Government, chapter v. are the re- 
 presentatives of the people, by whom they are chosen 
 for the purpose of exercising government and discip- 
 line in the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; that 
 the discipline lawfully exercised by them is the dis- 
 cipline exercised through them by their constituents, 
 in whose name, and by whose authority, they act in all 
 that they do.f To suppose, therefore, that an unbap- 
 tized person, not belonging to the visible kingdom of 
 the Redeemer, might vote at the election of ruling 
 elders, would be to establish the principle, that the 
 children of this world might, through their represen- 
 tatives, exercise discipline in the Church of God; 
 which is manifestly unscriptural, and contrary to the 
 standards of our church. Resolved, therefore, that 
 the question in the said overture be answered in the 
 negative." 
 
 Where there is already an existing church session, 
 and the object is to add to the number of its members, 
 in this case the election of new elders may be made in 
 any one of several methods : — either by the vote of the 
 members of the church at large, as already stated ; or 
 
 * The question submitted was in these words — " Ought an 
 unbaptized person, who yet pays his proportion for the support 
 of a congregation, to be permitted to vote for ruling elders ?" 
 
 f It is well known that the General Assembly, in this clause 
 of their judgment, did not mean to deny that ruling elders, in 
 the rightful discharge of their duties, act in the name and by 
 the authority of Christ, This great truth is plainly recognized 
 in a preceding clause. But merely to say, that they act as the 
 representatives, and on the behalf of the members of the church 
 at large; so that when a complaint is brought to the eldership, 
 it is, strictly speaking, according to ancient language, " telling 
 it to the church." 
 
225 
 
 by a nomination on the part of the existing elders, 
 proposed to the church, and considered as their choice, 
 if not objected to ; or by the nomination of double the 
 number proposed to be chosen by the session, and a 
 choice by the members of the church out of the list so 
 nominated. 
 
 In the Church of Scotland, " new elders are chosen 
 by the voice of the session.* After their election has 
 been agreed upon, their names are read from the pul- 
 pit in a paper called an edict, appointing a day, at the 
 distance of not less than ten days for their ordination. 
 If no member of the congregation offer any objection 
 upon that day, or if the session find the objections 
 that are offered frivolous, or unsupported by evidence, 
 the minister proceeds, in the face of the congregation, 
 to ordain the new elders."f 
 
 The same method of adding new elders to existing 
 church sessions is adopted, in substance, by many 
 Presbyterian churches in the United States. The 
 church sessions, in these congregations, judge when it 
 is proper to make an addition to the number of elders ;£ 
 deliberate on the proper candidates ; ascertain privately 
 whether they will serve if appointed ; and, after com- 
 pleting, with due consideration and care, their lists 
 
 * In the infancy of the Reformed Church in Scotland, the 
 mode of electing- ruling- elders was by no means uniform. In some 
 churches the existing- session made a nomination to the church 
 members, out of which a choice was made by the latter. In 
 other churches, the choice was made immediately by the com- 
 municants at large. In some churches the session appointed 
 electors ; and in others, they acted as electors themselves. It 
 was a number of years before the practice stated above as the 
 prevalent one, became general. — M'Crie's Life of Melville, ii. p. 
 477, 478. 
 
 f Hill's Institutes. Part ii. Section 4th, p. 212, 213. 
 
 j It is hardly necessary to say, that when the church session, 
 in any such congregation, shall be considered as unduly delaying 
 to make a suitable addition of new elders to their number, it is 
 the privilege of the members of the church, after due application 
 and remonstrance to the session, without effect, to apply to the 
 presbytery for the redress of their alleged grievance. 
 
226 
 
 cause them to be announced by their moderator from 
 the pulpit, on several successive Sabbaths; — after which, 
 at the proper time, their ordination takes place. This 
 plan of choosing has some real advantages. When 
 wisely executed, it may be supposed likely to lead to a 
 more calm, judicious, and happy choice, than would 
 probably result from a popular vote, especially w 7 here 
 no consultation and understanding had taken place 
 among the more grave, pious, and prudent of the 
 church members. And, therefore, where this plan has 
 been long in use, and unanimously acquiesced in, it 
 had, perhaps, better not be changed. Yet it seems to 
 be more in harmony with the general spirit of Presby- 
 terian church government, and certainly with the pre- 
 vailing character of our institutions, to refer the choice, 
 where it can conveniently be done, after due consul- 
 tation and care, to the suffrages of the members of the 
 church. 
 
 Accordingly, the General Assembly of our Church, 
 which convened in 1827, in reply to a complaint made 
 respecting the mode of electing elders adopted in one 
 of the churches under the care of the presbytery of 
 Philadelphia, pronounced the following judgment: — 
 
 " While the assembly would recognize the undoubted 
 right of each congregation to elect their elders in the 
 mode most approved, and in use among them, they 
 would recommend, that in all cases, where any dissa- 
 tisfaction appears to exist, the congregation be promptly 
 convened to decide on their future mode of election. 
 And they are inclined to believe that the spirit of our 
 constitution would be most fully sustained by having, 
 in all cases, a direct vote of the congregation in the 
 appointment of their elders." 
 
 In the Church of Holland, the following is the 
 general rule in regard to the election of this class of 
 officers : — " The elders shall be chosen by the suffrages 
 of the consistory, and of the deacons. In making this 
 choice, it shall be lawful, as shall best suit the situation 
 of each church, either to nominate as many elders as 
 
227 
 
 shall be judged necessary for the approbation of the 
 members in full communion, and upon their being 
 approved, and found acceptable, to confirm them with 
 public prayers and engagements; or, to propose a 
 double number, that the one half of those nominated 
 may be chosen by the members, and in the same 
 manner confirmed in their office." Accordingly, in 
 that country, although an election by the members of 
 the church sometimes takes place, yet the common 
 method, it is believed, is for the consistory, or elder- 
 ship of the church, together with the deacons, to make 
 choice of new elders and deacons; in other words, to 
 form a list of proper candidates for the office, to 
 nominate them agreeably to a certain rule to the 
 church, and if no objection be made to consider the 
 person so nominated as the choice of the church. 
 
 In the " explanatory articles " of government 
 adopted by the Reformed Dutch Church in the United 
 States, the following article explains the practice of 
 that church in this country: — "The manner of choosing 
 elders and deacons is not rigidly defined. A double 
 number may be nominated by the consistory, out of 
 which the members of the church may choose those 
 who shall serve. Or, all the members of the church 
 may unite in nominating and choosing the whole num- 
 ber, without the interference of the consistory. Or, 
 the consistory for the time being, as representing all 
 the members, may choose the whole, and refer the per- 
 sons thus chosen, by publishing them in the church, for 
 the approbation of the people. The last method has 
 been found most convenient, especially in large churches, 
 and has long been generally adopted. But where 
 that, or either of the other modes, has for many years 
 been followed in any church, there shall be no varia- 
 tion or change, but by previous application to the 
 classis, and express leave first obtained for altering 
 such custom."* 
 
 * See the Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church in the 
 United States. 
 
228 
 
 In the Church of Geneva, the choice of elders and 
 deacons is made in the manner which the foregoing 
 article declares to be most common in the Dutch 
 churches in the United States — namely, by a selection 
 and nomination by the consistorial assembly, which, 
 if not opposed, is final, and followed by the usual 
 ordination, without the " laying on of hands."* 
 
 The same method, also, of electing elders and 
 deacons was early established in the Protestant churches 
 of France. The consistory nominated, and the 
 nomination was announced from the pulpit, for the 
 approbation of the people. f 
 
 II. The next question which arises is, how often 
 ought this election to be made ? Is it for life, or for 
 a limited time ? 
 
 According to the original constitution of the Reformed 
 Church of Scotland, the elders and deacons were 
 chosen but for one year. This was the arrangement 
 adopted in the " First Book of Discipline," formed in 
 1560, and also in the " Second Book of Discipline," 
 drawn up in 1578, and which continued for a number of 
 years in the Scottish church. This plan seems to have 
 been suggested by the earnest wish of the first elders 
 themselves, who, finding the office burdensome, as it 
 then involved much care and labour, begged permission 
 to resign it to others after a single year. But although the 
 election, at that time, was made annually, and a large 
 portion of the incumbents of the office were actually 
 changed every year ; yet the same men might be elected 
 from year to year if they were willing to serve, and it 
 sometimes happened, in fact, that a few whose piety 
 and leisure rendered due attention to the duties of the 
 office easy and pleasant, were re-elected for many suc- 
 cessive years. The same form of ordination seems to 
 have been repeated after every annual election, as well 
 with respect to those who had often been ordained 
 
 * See Mercier's Church History of Geneva, p. 209. 
 f Quick's Synodicon, i. p. 27. 
 
229 
 
 before, as to those who had never submitted to this 
 solemnity. 
 
 This practice, however, has been long since laid 
 aside in the Church of Scotland; and the office of the 
 ruling elder been for many years regarded as an office 
 for life, as much as that of the ministry of the gospel. 
 
 In the Protestant Churches of France also, the office 
 in question was from the beginning, and it is believed 
 still is temporary. The rule on this subject found in 
 the Book of " Discipline of the Reformed Churches of 
 France," as drawn up by the first national Synod in 
 1559, is in these remarkable words — " The office of 
 elders and deacons as it is now in use among us, is not 
 perpetual, yet because changes are not commodious, 
 they shall be exhorted to continue in their offices 
 as long as they can, and they shall not lay them 
 down without having first obtained leave from their 
 churches."* 
 
 The Reformed Dutch Church in the United States, 
 after the example of her parent Church in Europe, 
 adopts the following plan for the election of elders and 
 deacons: — "In order to lessen the burden of a perpetual 
 attendance upon ecclesiastical duties, and by a rotation 
 in office, to bring forward deserving members, it is the 
 established custom in the Reformed Dutch Church, 
 that elders and deacons remain only two years in 
 service, after which they retire from their respective 
 offices, and others are chosen in their places; the rotation 
 being always conducted in such a manner, that only 
 one half of the whole number retire each year. (See 
 Syn. Dord. Art. 27.) But this does not forbid the 
 liberty of immediately choosing the same persons again, 
 if from any circumstances it may be judged expedient 
 to continue them in office by a re-election."f 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding this annual election, those who 
 have ever borne the office of elder or deacon in the 
 
 * Quick's Synodicon, p. 28. 
 
 f Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church in the U. States. 
 
230 
 
 Dutch Church, are still considered, though never re- 
 elected, as bearing while they live a certain relation to 
 the offices which they have sustained respectively. This 
 appears from the following additional article found in 
 the same code. " When matters of peculiar importance 
 occur, particularly in calling a minister, building of 
 churches, or whatever relates immediately to the peace 
 and welfare of the whole congregation, it is usual (and 
 it is strongly recommended upon such occasions, 
 always) for the consistory to call together all those who 
 have ever served as elders or deacons, that by their 
 advice and counsel they may assist the members of the 
 consistory. These when assembled constitute what 
 is called the ' Great Consistory.' From the object or 
 design of their assembling, the respective powers of each 
 are easily ascertained. Those who are out of office, 
 have only an advisory or counselling voice ; and, as 
 they are not actual members of the board or corporation, 
 cannot have a decisive vote. After obtaining their 
 advice, it rests with the members of the consistory to 
 follow the counsel given them or not as they shall 
 judge proper." 
 
 But in the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States, the office of ruling elder is now, and has been 
 from the beginning, perpetual. The election to it is 
 once for all. It of course continues through life, un- 
 less the individual be deposed from office. Like a 
 minister of the gospel, he cannot lay aside his office at 
 pleasure.* He may indeed, from ill health or for 
 
 * The writer is here stating what is the actual constitution 
 of the Presbyterian church as to this point. He does not sup- 
 pose, however, that there is any infringement of Presbyterian 
 principle in the annual elections of ruling- elders, formerly 
 practised in the Church of Scotland, and still practised in the 
 Dutch and French Churches. Where a church is large, con- 
 taining- a sufficient number of grave, pious, and prudent mem- 
 bers to furnish an advantageous rotation, and where the duties 
 of the office are many and arduous, it may not be without its 
 advantages to keep up some change of incumbency in this 
 
231 
 
 other reasons, cease if he think proper, to perform the 
 active duties of the office. But he is still an elder ; 
 and if he recover his health, or the reason which in- 
 duced him to withdraw be removed, he may resume 
 the duties of the office without a new ordination. Of 
 this, however, more in a subsequent chapter. 
 
 III. A third question which arises under this head, 
 is, How many elders ought to be elected in each 
 church ? In answer to this question little more than 
 considerations of expediency can be suggested. No 
 absolute rule can be laid down. 
 
 In the Jewish Synagogue, we are told there were 
 commonly at least three ruling elders found in each 
 ecclesiastical senate. In the time of Cyprian in the 
 third century, there were in the single church of Car- 
 thage, of which he w 7 as bishop or pastor, eight elders, 
 of whom five were opposed to his being received as 
 their pastor. Soon after the opening of the Reforma- 
 tion in Scotland, and while there was onlv a single 
 Protestant congregation in the city of Edinburgh, 
 there were twelve elders, and sixteen deacons belong- 
 ing to that church. Dunlop ii. 638. In the year 
 1560, four years before the decease of Calvin, there 
 were twelve ruling elders in the Church of Geneva. 
 Calv. Epist. Gaspari Oleviano. 
 
 The Form of Governmentofthe Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States, does not define the proper num- 
 ber of elders in each church. Speaking of the church 
 session, it declares (chapter 9, sect. 2,) that of this 
 judicatory, " two elders, if there be as many in the 
 congregation, with the pastor, shall be necessary to 
 constitute a quorum." From this rule it seems to be a 
 legitimate inference, that if there be only one elder in 
 
 office. But in general, it seems manifest that the spiritual 
 interests of a congregation will be likely to be managed most 
 steadily and to edification by permanent officers, who are never 
 even temporarily withdrawn from the sphere of duty in which 
 they move, and who are daily gaining more knowledge of the 
 church, and more experience. 
 
the congregation, he, with the pastor, may constitute a 
 regular session for the transaction of business. The 
 existence of so small a number as even two, however, 
 is greatly to be regretted, and ought by no means to be 
 submitted to, if proper candidates for the office can be 
 found. In the smallest church it is desirable that there 
 should be at least from five to seven elders. Without 
 some such number, there cannot be that weight in their 
 judicial counsels, and that influence drawn from every 
 part of the congregation in aid of the pastor, and the 
 best interests of the whole body, which a well selected 
 bench of officers of that number would be likely to im- 
 part. In large churches there ought to be at least ten 
 or twelve : and in churches much beyond the usual 
 size, fourteen or fifteen would not be more than enough 
 to gain all the advantages which the best arrange- 
 ment with regard to this office might be expected to 
 secure. 
 
 It ought to be borne in mind, however, that there is 
 no advantage whatever to be gained by electing un- 
 suitable men to this office, for the sake of adding mere 
 numbers to the church session. It is much better to 
 get along with three or four pious, wise, and prudent 
 elders, than to add two or three dozens to their ranks 
 of men of an opposite stamp, who by their want of 
 piety and wisdom, might be a nuisance instead of a 
 comfort, a curse instead of a blessing. Pastors, then, 
 and their churches, instead of making haste to fill up 
 the ranks of their congregational senators with un- 
 suitable members, had better wait patiently until the 
 Head of the Church shall provide for them candidates 
 in some measure " after his own heart." 
 
 IV. The last question which will be proposed for 
 solution is, Who may be considered as eligible to this 
 office? 
 
 The proper personal qualifications for this office have 
 been considered in a preceding chapter. These are 
 not intended to be brought into view here. All that 
 is designed is, a reference to two or three points of 
 
233 
 
 legal qualification, which are necessary to render a 
 candidate eligible in the view of the ecclesiastical 
 casuist. 
 
 And first, no one can be elected an elder in any 
 church, who is not a member in full communion in 
 the church of which he is to be chosen an officer. The 
 extreme impropriety of choosing men to represent the 
 members of the church, and to sit in judgment on the 
 standing, deportment, and church membership of others 
 who were not themselves in full communion with 
 the body of Christ, is so glaring as to need no 
 comment. 
 
 But the eligible candidate for this choice must be a 
 male member. Some indeed have seriously doubted 
 whether there were not in the apostolic church, female 
 elders, or elderesses; and also whether there ought 
 not to be a similar class of elders in every church at 
 the present day. A great majority, however, who have 
 treated of this subject, believe, that the female officers 
 apparently referred to in Titus ii. 3, and a few other 
 passages in the New Testament, were intended to be 
 merely a temporary appointment, arising out of that 
 state of seclusion in which females lived, and do still 
 live in the eastern world, and not at all necessary in 
 those countries where females may be approached and 
 instructed without the intervention of individuals of 
 their own sex. The Presbyterian Church has 
 judged and acted in conformity with this view of the 
 subject.* 
 
 It has been queried, whether a person who is an 
 acting ruling elder in one church, may be chosen to 
 the same office in another, and thus be an acting mem- 
 ber of two church sessions at the same time ? This 
 question ought undoubtedly to be answered in the 
 negative. An elder can no more be a member of two 
 
 * The Moravians, or United Brethren, and the society of 
 Friends or Quakers, are the only ecclesiastical hodies in Pro- 
 testant Christendom, so far as is now recollected, in whose 
 system of church order female elders actually have a place. 
 
 U 2 
 
434 
 
 different sessions, and responsible of course to both at 
 the same time, than a private Christian can be enrolled 
 as a member in two different churches at the same 
 time, and equally amenable to both ; or than a minis- 
 ter of the gospel can be a member of two Presbyteries 
 at the same time, and liable to be called to an account 
 by both simultaneously, and to have entirely inconsis- 
 tent requisitions made by each. An elder in one 
 church, then, is not eligible to the eldership in another, 
 unless on the principle of his taking a dismission from 
 the former, for the purpose of forming a regular and 
 official relation to the latter. 
 
CHAPTER XliL 
 
 OF THE ORDINATION OF RULING ELDERS. 
 
 By ordination is meant that solemn rite or act by 
 which a candidate for any office in the Church of 
 Christ is authoritatively designated to that office, by 
 those who are clothed with power for the purpose. 
 
 It cannot require formal argument to prove that this 
 rite or something analagous and equivalent to it, is in- 
 dispensable in conducting all regular ecclesiastical 
 government. If certain officers have been appointed 
 in the Church by Jesus Christ, her King and Head : 
 if certain qualifications have been declared by Him 
 indispensable to fit men for serving the church in these 
 offices, without which they ought not to be permitted 
 to occupy them, and if an extraordinary and immedi- 
 ate designation to office by Jesus Christ himself be not 
 now to be expected in any case — if these things be so, 
 it inevitably follows that some person or persons must 
 have power committed to them by the Head of the 
 Church, to examine or try candidates for these offices; 
 to judge of their qualifications, and if approved, to 
 invest them with office. The idea that, with such 
 directions as the New Testament contains on this 
 subject, men should be left at liberty to take these offices 
 upon themselves by their own act, and at their own 
 
236 
 
 pleasure, is full of absurdity; and if realized, would 
 undoubtedly lead to endless disorder and mischief. 
 Only suppose the secular offices of a nation to be thus 
 assumed by men at will ; and by none more readily 
 than the vain, the ignorant, the self-sufficient, and the 
 ambitious, as would inevitably be the case, if such 
 were the path of access to office, and there would be 
 an end of all order. But if it be neither safe nor per- 
 mitted for men to intrude into official stations uncalled, 
 and if an immediate investiture by the Master himself 
 be out of the question, we are driven to the conclu- 
 sion that all regular and lawful introduction to office 
 must be through the medium of human ordainers, 
 acting in the name of Christ, and governing themselves 
 by his declared will. 
 
 Accordingly, while the Saviour himself in the days 
 of his flesh, immediately invested with office the twelve 
 apostles, and all others whom he personally called and 
 sent forth, no sooner had He ascended to heaven, than 
 the practice of introducing to office by the instrumen- 
 tality of men began, and so far as we are informed, 
 was uniformly continued. Then the ministers of 
 Christ began to act upon the principle afterwards so 
 explicitly communicated to Timothy, and enjoined 
 upon him : " That which thou hast heard of me 
 among many witnesses, the same commit thou to 
 faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 
 Here we are plainly taught that men are not to seize 
 upon the sacred office themselves. It is to be " com- 
 mitted to them," and that not by every one, but by 
 those only who have regularly " received" it them- 
 selves. We find, too, that the method of ordination 
 which had been in use in the Jewish Synagogue, and 
 to which all the first Christians had been accustomed, 
 was transferred to the church, and became a stated part 
 of ecclesiastical order. Paul and Barnabas were set 
 apart to a particular service, by a plurality of ecclesi- 
 astical men, with prayer, imposition of hands, and fast- 
 ing. When they, in their turn, went forth to execute 
 
237 
 
 the work to which they had been called, we find them, 
 wherever they went, " ordaining elders,'' and commit- 
 ting to them the care of the church. Timothy was in- 
 vested with office " by the laying on of the hands of 
 the presbytery." And even the deacons were called 
 to their office in the same manner. It was referred 
 to the people to " look out " and elect the candidates; 
 but having done so, the}' brought them to the apostles, 
 who " laid their hands upon them," and conferred on 
 them the important office to which they were appoin- 
 ted. 
 
 It is no part of the belief of the Presbyterians that 
 ordination imparts any direct influence, either physical 
 or moral, to whom who receives it. They have no 
 idea that in this act, by a kind of opus operatum, ac- 
 cording to the Romanists, an " indelible character" is 
 communicated. They do not suppose that any hal- 
 lowed energy proceeds from the hands of the ordain- 
 ers to him on whose head they lay them in the act of 
 imposition. But they regard it simply as that official 
 act by which a man is pronounced, declared, and mani- 
 fested to be actually put in possession of the office to 
 which he has been chosen. It is, in one word, the 
 actual induction into office of one elected to fill it. 
 The case is precisely analogous to that of civil rulers. 
 The man who is appointed to the office of judge on a 
 secular bench, has no real addition made, either to his 
 intellect, his learning, or his moral excellence, by 
 taking the oath of office, and complying with those 
 formalities which actually introduce him to his official 
 station. And yet so important are these formalities, 
 that his power lawfully to act as judge absolutely de- 
 pends upon them. Before they take place, he is not 
 really in office ; and after they take place, he is clothed 
 with that plenary power which qualifies him for the 
 regular discharge of every official duty. And so of 
 every other civil officer in the land. Thus it is in the 
 church. Ordination is the essence of a lawful exter- 
 nal call to ecclesiastical office. It is that act, before 
 
238 
 
 which, the ecclesiastical officer is not prepared, regu- 
 larly, to discharge a single function appropriated to the 
 station to which he is elected; but after which, he is 
 prepared for their regular and valid performance. 
 
 That ruling elders, besides being regularly chosen 
 to office, should be ordained, — that is publicly and 
 solemnly designated and introduced to office by appro- 
 priate formalities — our ecclesiastical constitution re- 
 quires and prescribes a form for the purpose, concern- 
 ing which I shall only say, that as far as it goes, it is 
 well devised, impressive and excellent. I say, as far 
 as it goes; — for it has been for many years my settled 
 conviction that the ordination service in question in 
 not making the imposition of hands a stated consti- 
 tuent part of it, is chargeable with an omission which, 
 though not essential, and therefore not a matter for 
 which it is proper to interrupt the peace of the church, 
 yet appears to me incapable of a satisfactory defence, 
 and which it is my earnest hope may not much longer 
 continue to be, as I know it is with many, matter of 
 serious lamentation. 
 
 The " imposition of hands," as a constituent part of 
 ordination, is an old and impressive rite. It was, noto- 
 riously, a familiar mode of designation to office, through 
 the whole of the Old Testament economy. It is, if I 
 mistake not, universally acknowledged to have been 
 employed in ordaining all the elders of the Jewish 
 synagogue. We find it is used in every ordination 
 without exception, the particulars of which are detailed 
 in the New Testament history. And even in setting 
 apart the deacons, nothing can be more explicit than 
 the statement, that it was done with the " imposition 
 of hands." So far, then, as we are bound to reverence 
 and follow ancient, primitive, and uniform usage, I 
 know of no solid reason why it should be omitted in 
 any case. 
 
 Some, indeed, have attempted to defend the omission 
 of this rite, by alleging that the imposition of hands, 
 in the days of the apostles, was connected with the 
 
239 
 
 supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were then 
 common ; and that with those special gifts, it ought to 
 have ceased. In support of this allegation, they com- 
 monly adduced such passages as those recorded in Acts 
 viii. 17, 18; xix. 6; Heb. vi. 2, &c. This argument, 
 however, if it have any force, ought to banish the im- 
 position of hands from all ordinations, but can never 
 justify the omission of it in ordaining ruling elders and 
 deacons, while it is retained in the ordination of those 
 who " labour in the word and doctrine." But the 
 validity of the whole argument, it is believed, may be 
 set aside without difficulty. 
 
 We read in the New Testament of four cases or 
 kinds of " laying on of hands." The first b}' Christ 
 himself, to express an authoritative benediction; (Matt. 
 xix. 15; Mark x. 16;) the second, in the healing of 
 diseases; (Mark xvi. 18; Acts xxviii. 8;) the third, in 
 conferring extraordinary gifts of the Spirit ; (Acts viii. 
 17, xix. 6;) and the fourth, in setting apart persons 
 to sacred office ; (Acts vi. 6, xiii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 14.) 
 The venerable Dr. Owen, in his commentary on Heb. 
 vi. 2, expresses the opinion, that the " laying on of 
 hands," mentioned in that passage, is to be considered 
 as belonging to the third kind or class of cases, and, 
 of course, as referring to the extraordinary gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit. Others have supposed, that it rather be- 
 longs to the fourth example here enumerated, and 
 therefore applies to the ordination of ministers. On 
 this point I decide nothing. But my reasons for sup- 
 posing that the imposition of hands in the ordination 
 of church officers, had no reference to the imparting 
 of supernatural gifts, and consequently ought not to 
 be deemed an extraordinary and temporary rite, are 
 such as these — 1. This rite has been employed in all 
 ages of the church in setting apart persons to ecclesi- 
 astical office ; 2. It is one of the most natural and 
 significant modes of designating a person who is in- 
 tended to be consecrated or devoted to a particular ser- 
 vice ; 3. It was manifestly employed in a number of 
 
240 
 
 cases which occur in the sacred history, where no spe- 
 cial gifts were intended to be conveyed ; and, therefore, 
 though sometimes connected with those gifts, yet we 
 are sure it was not in all cases thus connected;* 4. 
 When hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas at 
 Antioch, it was not that they might receive these gifts, 
 for they were possessed of them prior to this solemnity; 
 5. In this case too, it is remarkable that they seem to 
 have been ordinary pastors and teachers who laid 
 their hands upon one, at least, of extraordinary gifts 
 and character ; 6. And finally, in 1 Tim. v. 22, the 
 whole rite of ordination seems to be comprehended in 
 this act — " Lay hands suddenly on no man," &c. 
 And if we consider the act of laying hands on the head 
 of the candidate for sacred office, as intended at once 
 solemnly to designate his person, to express an official 
 benediction, and to indicate his entire consecration to 
 the service of God, we could scarcely conceive of an 
 act more simple, and yet more appropriate and full of 
 meaning. And although those who lay on hands in 
 this transaction altogether disclaim, as was before stated, 
 the power of conveying the Holy Ghost to the indivi- 
 dual ordained, yet as an emblem of what he needs, 
 and ought unceasingly to seek, and of what his brethren 
 desire and pray for on his behalf, it is surely in a high 
 degree expressive, and by no means open to the charge 
 of either presumption or superstition. I would say, 
 
 * " Imposition of hands was a Jewish ceremony, introduced 
 not by any divine authority, but by custom : it being- the prac- 
 tice among- those people, whenever they prayed to God for 
 any person to lay their hands upon his head. Our Saviour 
 observed the same custom, both when he conferred his blessings 
 on children, and when he healed the sick, adding prayers to 
 the ceremony. The apostles likewise laid hands on those 
 upon whom they bestowed the Holy Ghost. The priests ob- 
 served the same custom when any one was received into their 
 body. And the apostles themselves underwent the imposition 
 of hands afresh, when they eutered upon any new design. In 
 the ancient church imposition of hands was even practised on 
 persons when they were married , which custom the Abyssinians 
 still observe." Burder's Oriental Customs, ii. 35. 
 
241 
 
 therefore, concerning this part of the solemnity of 
 ordination, in the language of the venerable Calvin, — 
 "Although there is no express precept for the imposition 
 of hands, yet since we find it to have been constantly 
 used by the apostles, such a punctual observance of it 
 by them ought to have the force of a precept with us. 
 And certainly this ceremony is highly useful both to 
 recommend to the people the dignity of the ministry, 
 and to admonish the person ordained, that he is no 
 longer his own master, but devoted to the service of God 
 and the church. Besides, it will not be an unmeaning 
 sign, if it be restored to its true origin. For if the Spirit 
 of God institute nothing in the church in vain, we 
 shall perceive that this ceremony which proceeded from 
 Him, is not without its use, provided it be not perverted 
 by a superstitious abuse."* 
 
 But if this rite be so reasonable, so scriptural, so 
 expressive, and so generally adopted by almost all 
 Christian denominations, in ordaining those elders who 
 " labour in the word and doctrine ;" how comes it to 
 pass that it should be so generally, not to say univer- 
 sally omitted in the ordination of ruling elders ? I have 
 long deplored this omission,f and cannot help believ- 
 ing that the restoration of so appropriate and impres- 
 sive a part of the ordaining service, would in all proba- 
 bility be attended with beneficial effects. 
 
 It is not easy to ascertain the origin of the omission 
 
 * Institutiones, Lib. iv. Cap. iii. 16. 
 
 f More than twenty years ago, the author of this volume, 
 under the deep and unwavering conviction that he had scrip- 
 tural authority to sustain him, when called upon to ordain 
 elders and deacons in a vacant church, added to the usual 
 solemnity on such occasions, the act of "laying on hands" in 
 the ordaining- prayer. Finding, however, that many of his 
 brethren considered it as an innovation, and were by no means 
 prepared to introduce the practice; believing that diversity of 
 practice in relation to this matter would be very undesirable ; 
 and persuaded, moreover, that the act in question ought not 
 to be deemed an essential in any ordination,— he resolved not, to 
 repeat it until it could be used without offence, and with better 
 prospects of edification to the church. 
 x 
 
242 
 
 in question. The apostolic office of ruling elder was 
 preserved as we have seen by the witnesses of the truth 
 during the dark ages. Whether the pious Waldenses 
 and Bohemian Brethren were in the habit of setting 
 apart this class of officers with the imposition of hands, 
 cannot now, so far as I know, be determined. The 
 reformers received the office under consideration from 
 those pious Waldenses, and were well aware as their 
 writings evince, that all ordinations in the Synagogue 
 and in the primitive church, had been accompanied 
 with the laying on of hands. Still however, while they 
 with one accord retained this rite in the ordination of 
 teaching elders, they seem quite as unanimously to 
 have discarded it in the ordination of ruling elders.* 
 Of the cause of this their writings give us no intimation, 
 nor has it ever been my lot to hear from any quarter, a 
 single reason for the omission which was in the least 
 degree satisfactory. To be told that the omission has 
 " long been established," that while all the Protestant 
 Churches in the world, except that of England receive 
 this class of officers in one form or another, they are 
 " no where ordained by the imposition of hands," that 
 this is " the custom of the church," that to depart from 
 it would be "to innovate" and "give offence," &c. that 
 this rite "may be omitted without injury, not being an 
 essential part of ordination," &c. is surely little adapted 
 to satisfy an inquiring mind, desirous of receiving as 
 well as of being able to give a reason for every 
 practice. 
 
 But although, as has been already said, no reason is 
 
 * Ife is worthy of remark that our Independent brethren, at 
 early periods of their history, adhered more closely to the 
 scriptural method of ordaining ruling elders and deacons than 
 even Presbyterians. See the Cambridge Platform, chapters 
 vii. and ix. See also a Confession of Faith adopted by some 
 Anti-psedobaptists, (to the amount of 100 congregations) in 
 England and Wales in 1689 ; and ratified and adopted by a 
 Baptist Association, met at Philadelphia in 1742, chapter 27. 
 Also a " Short Treatise on Church Discipline," appended to> 
 it by the latter, chapters 3, 4. 
 
243 
 
 formally assigned, or even hinted, in the writings of 
 the reformers, for laying aside the imposition of hands 
 in the ordination of ruling elders ; it is not, perhaps, 
 difficult to conjecture how it happened. One mistake 
 I suspect naturally led to another. They began by 
 considering the office as a temporary one, or rather 
 allowing those who bore it, if they saw fit, to decline 
 sustaining it for more than a single year. There was 
 a new election of these elders annually. The same 
 individuals indeed, if they were acceptable to the peo- 
 ple, and were willing to continue to serve the church, 
 might be re-elected for a series of years, or, if they 
 consented, even for life. But this seldom occurred. 
 There was, for the most part, annually a considerable 
 change in the individuals, and annually a new ordina- 
 tion. The tenure of the office being thus temporary, 
 and in many cases but for a single year, no wonder 
 that there should seem to the discerning and pious men 
 who took the lead in organizing the reformed churches, 
 some incongruity between this annual renewal of the 
 official investiture and obligation, and setting apart men 
 to the office in question, each time with the very same 
 formalities which attended the ordination of ministers 
 of the gospel, whose tenure of office was for life. This 
 incongruity, it is probable, struck them with so much 
 force, that they could not reconcile it with their feelings 
 to set apart to their office these temporary incumbents 
 with the same rites and solemnity which they employed 
 in ordaining ministers of the word and sacraments.* 
 Nor is it matter of wonder that such feelings should 
 have had an influence on their minds. Those who 
 take such a view of the tenure of the office in question 
 
 * This representation is not wholly gratuitous. It appears 
 from the Compendium Theologian Christiana? of Marck, and 
 from the opinion of Frederick Ibpanheim, quoted with approba- 
 tion by De Moor, the Commentator on Marck, that all three of 
 these divines of the reformed church had no other objec- 
 tion to the laying on of hands in the ordination of ruling 
 elders, than that which I have suggested. De Moori, Com. 
 Perpet. vol. vi. p. 330. 
 
244 
 
 as they did, will never be very cordial or decisive either 
 in addressing those who bear it, or in setting them 
 apart, as men consecrated for life to the service of the 
 church. But that in the Church of Scotland,* and in 
 the Presbyterian church in this country, where it is 
 believed correct views of the office of ruling elder as 
 perpetual are universally received, the scriptural mode 
 of setting apart to this office should have been so long 
 and so generally disused, is a fact for which it is not 
 easy to assign a satisfactory reason. 
 
 We are now prepared to take a brief survey of the 
 arguments by which the propriety of ordaining elders 
 by the imposition of hands may be maintained. They 
 are such as the following : 
 
 1. We find throughout the whole Jewish history, that 
 solemnly laying the hands on the head of a person who 
 was in tented to be particularly honoured, blessed, or 
 devoted to sacred functions was a rite of frequent, not 
 to say constant use ; and even in cases in which the 
 conveyance of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
 could not possibly have been designed. 
 
 2. The inspired apostles, in organizing the New 
 Testament Church, took as their model the synagogue 
 system of government, to which the first Christians had 
 been all their lives accustomed. 
 
 3. It is certain that in every Jewish synagogue there 
 was a bench of ruling elders ; and it is just as certain 
 that these elders were always ordained by the impo- 
 sition of hands. 
 
 4. There is not a single instance of an ordination to 
 any ecclesiastical office whatever, of which we have any 
 account in the New Testament, in which the ceremony 
 
 * At what period in the History of the Church of Scotland 
 it was that the annual election of elders was laid aside, and the 
 office made permanent, it has not fallen in the author's way to 
 obtain information. He is disposed to believe, however, that 
 the change took place either late in the sixteenth, or early in 
 the seventeenth century. 
 
245 
 
 of the laying on of hands does not appear to have 
 been used. 
 
 5. The first deacons, though not intrusted with an 
 office so purely spiritual or so arduous as that of rul- 
 ing elder, were yet, as all acknowledge, set apart to 
 the diaconate by the imposition of hands. Of course 
 those who bear a superior office ought not to be intro- 
 duced to it with less solemnity. 
 
 6. To imagine that there is any peculiar meaning or 
 mystical influence in the laying on of hands, which is 
 above the dignity of the ruling elder's office, involves 
 at once a superstitious estimate of a simple emblemati- 
 cal act, and an unworthy degradation of an important 
 order in the Christian family. 
 
 Accordingly, it is observable that almost all classes 
 of writers whose judgment in reference to this matter is 
 worthy of particular notice, freely concede the propriety 
 of setting apart both ruling elders and deacons in the 
 manner for which I contend, and scarcely offer any 
 other reason for omitting it, than that such has been 
 " long the custom" of the reformed churches, and that 
 the ceremony is not " essential'* to a valid ordination. 
 The following specimen of the manner in which the 
 subject is treated by such writers, will be quite sufficient 
 to establish my position. 
 
 The very learned authors of the " Theses Leydenses," 
 who were zealous Presbyterians, in speaking of the 
 biennial election of ruling elders and deacons in the 
 Church of Holland, acknowledge that in the apostolic 
 church those offices were both perpetual, and concede 
 that the different plan adopted among themselves was 
 an imperfection,* plainly intimating that their mode 
 of ordaining these officers had grown out of this im- 
 perfection. 
 
 The foreign Protestants who established themselves 
 in London, during the reign of Edward the sixth, 
 not only had ruling elders and deacons in all their 
 
 * Synopsis Purioris Theologicae, Disput. 42. p 62J 
 x2 
 
246 
 
 churches, but also uniformly ordained them by the 
 imposition of hands, as we have seen in the preceding 
 chapter. 
 
 The Rev. John Anderson, of Scotland, the able 
 and zealous defender of Presbyterianism against Rhind, 
 who lived a little more than a century ago, speaking of 
 the ordination of ruling elders by the imposition of 
 hands, has the following passage: — " Nobody doubts it 
 is very lawful, and for my own part, I heartily wish it 
 were practised ; but I deny that it is absolutely neces- 
 sary, there being no precept enjoining it."* 
 
 The Rev. Archibald Hall, also of Great Britain, 
 and a thorough-going advocate for presbyterian order, 
 speaks on the same subject in the following terms: 
 " The call of ruling elders, like the call of the elders 
 who < labour in the word and doctrine,' consists in 
 two things, viz. election and ordination. Their elec- 
 tion should be popular, and their ordination judicial, 
 and performed with laying on of hands." And, in a 
 subsequent page, he expresses an opinion that deacons 
 ought to be ordained in the same manner, f 
 
 The Rev. John Brown of Haddington, one of the 
 most decisive, consistent, and devoted presbyterians 
 that ever lived, after giving an account of the nature 
 and warrant of the office of ruling elders, observes — 
 " Their ordination ought to be transacted in much the 
 same manner as that of teaching elders or pastors.":): 
 
 The learned and pious Dr. Cotton Mather delivers 
 the following opinion on the subject before us. " The 
 imposition of hands in the ordination of a church officer, 
 is a rite not only lawful to be retained, but it seems by 
 a divine institution directed and required; so that, al- 
 though the call of a person to church office may not 
 become null and void where that rite may have been 
 
 * Defence, &c. Chap. ii. Sect. vi. p. 179. 
 -j* Scriptural View of the Gospel Church, chapters xii. and xv. 
 p. 67, 102. 
 J Compendious View, Book vii. chap. ii. p. 640. 
 
247 
 
 omitted (as it is in the seniors and deacons in most of 
 the reformed churches), yet we cannot approve the 
 omission of it. A ceremonial defect may be blame- 
 worthy."* 
 
 Our excellent and eloquent countryman, the Rev. 
 President Dwight, gives an opinion concerning the 
 ordination of deacons, which is decisive of his opinion 
 concerning that of ruling elders, in favour of which 
 latter class of officers he very explicitly, as we have 
 before seen, declares his judgment. He speaks thus : — 
 " Deacons are to be ordained by the imposition of 
 hands, and by prayer." 
 
 " When the brethren had set these men before the 
 apostles," St. Luke informs us, " they prayed, and 
 laid their hands upon them." 
 
 " This, also, is an authoritative example of the man- 
 ner in which deacons are to be introduced into every 
 church. It is the example of inspired men; and was, 
 therefore, the pleasure of the Spirit of God. There is 
 no hint in the New Testament, nor even in ecclesias- 
 tical history, that they were ever introduced in any 
 other manner. At the same time, there is no precept 
 revoking or altering the authority or influence of this 
 example. It stands, therefore, in full force, and re- 
 quires that all persons chosen by the church to this 
 office, should be consecrated to the duties of it in the 
 same manner." 
 
 " It is to be observed, further, that if any such alte- 
 ration had existed in periods subsequent to the apos- 
 tolic age, it would have been totally destitute of any 
 authority to us. This mode of consecration has, in 
 fact, been disused in New England to a considerable 
 extent. For this, however, there seems to have been 
 no reason of any value. So far as I have been able to 
 gain information on the subject, the disuse was origi- 
 nated at first, and has been gradually extended, by mere 
 
 Magnalia, vol. ii. p. 218. 
 
248 
 
 inattention: nor is it capable, so far as I know, of any 
 defence."* 
 
 These are a few of the authorities which might be 
 quoted in favour of the same general position. In fact, 
 I have met with no Presbyterian or Independent writer 
 who believed in the propriety of the imposition of 
 hands in any case of ordination, who did not, either 
 explicitly or virtually, grant that there was no reason 
 for withholding this ceremony in the case of ruling 
 elders, but the custom of the church, or some similar 
 consideration. 
 
 On the supposition, then, that the imposition of 
 hands ought always to be employed in the ordination 
 of ruling elders, the question naturally arises, Whose 
 hands ought to be laid on in such ordinations? And 
 here, if we attend to the simplest principles of all 
 government, it would seem that we could scarcely be 
 at a loss for a satisfactory answer. 
 
 It seems to be a fundamental principle in every de- 
 partment, both of the natural and moral world, that 
 every thing must be considered as capable of begetting 
 its like. If this be so, does it not follow as a plain 
 dictate of common sense, that, in ordaining ruling 
 elders, the members of the session already in office 
 should lay on hands with the pastor, in setting apart an 
 additional number to the same office? In other words, 
 if there be such a body already in existence in the 
 church, the hands of the parochial presbytery ought to 
 be laid on in adding to its own number, and the " right 
 hand of fellowship" given, at the close of the service, 
 by each member of the session to each of his newly- 
 ordained brethren. This appears to me equally agree- 
 able to reason and scripture, and highly adapted to 
 edification. And if there be no eldership already in 
 the church in which the ordination takes place — then 
 the presbytery, upon proper application being made to 
 them, ought to appoint at least one minister and two 
 
 * Theology Explained and Defended, vol. iv. p. 291. 
 
249 
 
 or more ruling elders to attend, at the time and place 
 most convenient, to perform the ordination. How 
 much more impressive and acceptable would be such a 
 scene, than the cold and naked manner in which this 
 service is too often performed ! 
 
 A question may here arise in the minds of some, 
 whether those elders who, when ordained, had no hands 
 laid on them, may, without impropriety, join in the im- 
 position of hands on the heads of their younger brethren 
 who may be ordained in this manner? To this ques- 
 tion, beyond all doubt, we may confidently return an 
 affirmative answer. They may unite in the imposition 
 of hands without the least scruple, and with the utmost 
 propriety. All reasonable men grant that the rite in 
 question, though rational and scriptural, is not essen- 
 tial to a valid ordination. Our venerable fathers of 
 the Scotch Reformation did not deem the imposition 
 of hands necessary even in the ordination of ministers 
 of the gospel, and, therefore, in their First Book of 
 Discipline did not prescribe it. Elders, therefore, who 
 have been regularly set apart to their office, agreeably 
 to the formula prescribed in the presbyterian church, 
 have received an ordination completely valid. They 
 are fully invested with the office, and with all the powers 
 and privileges which it includes. It is contrary to the 
 whole genius of the gospel to make a mere ceremonial 
 defect fatal to the substance of an otherwise regular 
 investiture. If elders who have been thus ordained be 
 deemed competent to any part of their official work, 
 they are competent to every part, and, of course, to 
 partake in the solemnity which I am here endeavouring 
 to recommend. 
 
 If the foregoing principles be correct, then ruling 
 elders ought also to lay on hands with the pastor in the 
 ordination of deacons — their office as rulers vesting 
 them with full power for this act, and rendering it 
 strictly proper. But inasmuch as deacons make no 
 part of the parochial presbytery, and are not vested 
 
250 
 
 with any portion of the function of spiritual govern- 
 ment, it does not seem proper that they should lay on 
 hands in any case of ordination. In that of ruling 
 elders, it would be manifestly incongruous, since their 
 office is altogether unlike. But even in the ordination 
 of deacons, it would be inconsistent with regular order. 
 Ordination is an act not only official, but also authori- 
 tative. It is an act of government; but to no partici- 
 pation in this are deacons appointed. This office, as 
 we have seen, is highly important, and requires much 
 wisdom, piety, prudence, and diligence; but their 
 sphere of duty is entirely different from that of those 
 who are " set over the flock in the Lord," and who are 
 appointed to " watch for souls as they that must give 
 account." 
 
 If, after this whole discussion, any should be disposed 
 to ask what additional advantage may be expected to 
 flow from ordaining our elders by the imposition of 
 hands, and with similar external solemnities, to those 
 which are employed in setting apart ministers of the 
 gospel, — I answer — it will be a return to scriptural 
 example and primitive usage, which is always right, 
 and will, we have reason to hope, by the grace of God, 
 be connected with a blessing. It will be doing war- 
 ranted and appropriate honour to a class of officers too 
 long deprived of their due estimation and authority. 
 When the people see those whom they have elected to 
 this office devoutly kneeling before the Lord, and the 
 hands of the parochial presbytery laid on their heads, 
 with fervent prayer, and with a solemn charge and 
 benediction, they will naturally attach to the office itself 
 more importance, and to those who bear it more reve- 
 rence. Nay, perhaps it is not unreasonable to believe 
 that such solemnities may be made the means of salutary 
 impressions on the minds even of their immediate sub- 
 jects. If the writer of these lines does not greatly 
 mistake, he has known the solemnities attending the 
 ordination of pastors productive of deep and lasting 
 
251 
 
 impressions, both on the ordained and the spectators. 
 But he has no recollection of ever witnessing any such 
 result from our comparatively cold and lifeless mode 
 of setting apart the official rulers in Christ's house. 
 " This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamen- 
 tation." 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 OF THE RESIGNATION OF RULING ELDERS — THEIR 
 REMOVAL FROM ONE CHURCH TO ANOTHER — AND 
 THE METHOD OF CONDUCTING DISCIPLINE AGAINST 
 THEM. 
 
 As it is a fundamental principle of the presbyterian 
 church that the office of ruling elder is permanent — 
 that when a man is once set apart to it, he is always an 
 elder while he lives, unless deposed by regular consti- 
 tutional process — a variety of questions naturally re- 
 sulting from this principle claim our notice. Among 
 these, some of the more obvious and important will be 
 briefly considered in the present chapter. 
 
 A ruling elder, after being regularly and solemnly 
 set apart to this office, with, perhaps, as full an inten- 
 tion of faithfully performing its duties to his life's end 
 as ever man had, may lose his health, and thus become 
 physically and permanently unable to perform those 
 duties. Or he may become, unavoidably, so situated 
 with regard to his temporal business as to render the 
 regular fulfilment of his duties altogether impracticable. 
 In this case, the individual supposed may resign his 
 place in the session; in other words, he may cease to 
 be an acting overseer, or inspector and ruler of that 
 church. He will, of course, still retain his place and 
 
253 
 
 privileges as a regular member of the church; but he 
 will no longer take any part in its spiritual government. 
 This is so reasonable a provision that it can scarcely 
 be thought to require either illustration or defence. 
 We all know that a teaching elder, or minister of the 
 word and sacraments, after being for a time a pastor, 
 may, if the state of his health or any other circumstance 
 should imperiously demand it, resign his pastoral charge, 
 and retire, as long as the cause of his resignation con- 
 tinues to operate, to private life. He who does this, 
 it is well known, though he ceases to be a pastor, still 
 continues to be a minister, fully invested with the 
 powers of an " ambassador of Christ." He may still, 
 if he think proper, reside within the bounds of the con- 
 gregation which he formerly served; and he may occa- 
 sionally, if mutually convenient and agreeable, minister 
 to them in sacred things. But he is no longer their 
 minister, and he may never think proper again to take 
 a pastoral charge. 
 
 All these principles apply to the ruling elder. If he 
 verily think that he cannot any longer perform the duties 
 of his office in a manner acceptable either to the Head 
 of the Church or to his people, he may withdraw from 
 active service. When he does this, however, he does 
 not lay down his office, — he does not cease to be an 
 elder: he only ceases to be an acting elder. If his 
 health should ever be restored, or his temporal circum- 
 stances undergo a favourable alteration, he may resume 
 the duties of his office, and again take his place in the 
 session from which he withdrew, or some other, with- 
 out a new ordination. When an elder thus wishes to 
 resign his station, he is to give official notice of his de- 
 sire to the session — they are to declare, if they think 
 proper, their acceptance of his resignation — the whole 
 transaction is to be distinctly recorded in the sessional 
 book — and report made to the presbytery that the 
 individual in question has ceased to be an acting mem- 
 ber of that session. 
 
254 
 
 Again; an elder may become wholly incapable of 
 serving the church with which he is connected, by the 
 entire loss of his popularity. He may not have become 
 either heterodox in his theological opinions, or so irre- 
 gular in any part of his practice, as to render himself 
 liable to process or deposition from office, and yet he 
 may, by indiscretions or by undignified conduct, so lose 
 the respect and confidence of the people — or, in a 
 moment of prejudice or passion, the popular feeling, 
 without any just ground of blame on his part, may be 
 so strong against him, that he may be no longer able 
 to serve the church, either acceptably or to edification, 
 as a spiritual ruler. In either of these cases, he ought 
 voluntarily to resign his place in the session, as stated in 
 the preceding paragraph; and the session, after taking 
 a vote of acceptance on the resignation, ought distinctly 
 to record the same in the minutes of their proceedings, 
 and make regular report of it for the information of 
 the presbytery. In all this there will be recognized an 
 almost exact similarity to the usual course of proceed- 
 ing when a pastor is sensible that he has become unpo- 
 pular, and wishes to resign his charge. 
 
 It may be, however, that the elder whose popularity 
 is thus prostrated may not be sensible of his real situa- 
 tion, may be unwilling to believe that he is not popular, 
 and may therefore refuse, even when requested, to 
 resign his station. In this case, the course prescribed 
 in our form of government is, that the session make 
 due report of the whole matter to the presbytery, giving 
 due notice to the elder in question of the time and 
 place at which it is intended to make the report; and 
 that the presbytery decide, after due inquiry and deli- 
 beration, whether he ought to resign or continue his 
 connexion with the session. On the one hand, no 
 church ought to be burdened by the incumbency of an 
 unpopular and obstinate elder, who, instead of edifying, 
 is injuring it; and, on the other hand, no innocent and 
 really exemplary elder ought to be abandoned to the 
 
255 
 
 fury of popular prejudice, and permitted to be trampled 
 under feet, when, perhaps, he ought to be sustained 
 and honoured for his fidelity. 
 
 Further — ruling elders, like other church members, 
 may find it their duty to remove their residence from 
 the bounds of the church which called them to office to 
 another. Such cases not un frequently arise. The 
 question is, when they do occur, how is the official 
 standing of such a removing elder to be disposed of? 
 He, of course, when he goes, ought to take with him a 
 regular certificate of good standing as a private Chris- 
 tian, and a dismission and recommendation to the 
 church to which he removes. The certificate ought 
 also to bear an attestation of his regular standing as an 
 elder, and of his official as well as personal dismission 
 from his former church. With this certificate he will 
 repair to the church to which he is recommended, and 
 will, of course, be received as a private member in good 
 standing. If the existing eldership and members of the 
 church to which he removes think it for their edifica- 
 tion that he be introduced into their session, he may 
 be elected in the manner " most approved and in use 
 in that congregation" — that is, either by a nomination 
 by the session, or by a popular vote of the church mem- 
 bers, and, if thus elected, introduced to an official rela- 
 tion to that people — not by a new ordination, which 
 ought never to be repeated, but by being regularly 
 installed as their elder. This is effected by the can- 
 didate appearing in the face of the congregation as one 
 about to be ordained, answering in the affirmative the 
 fourth question directed to be put to candidates for 
 the eldership at their ordination — the members of the 
 congregation publicly professing to receive him as their 
 spiritual ruler, agreeably to the last question in the 
 same formula, declaring him one of the ruling elders 
 of that church, and closing with prayer for the divine 
 blessing on the transaction. 
 
 It may be, however, that when an individual who has 
 served one congregation as an elder removes into the 
 
%56 
 
 bounds of another, that other may not, on the whole, 
 think best to elect him as one of their elders. They 
 may already have as many as they think there ought 
 to be in one church. Or his character, though unex- 
 ceptionably good, may not be such as to promise great 
 benefit by taking him into their parochial presbytery. 
 In this case, they are under no obligation to elect him 
 one of their elders. And if they do not think best to 
 employ him in his character, he may live among them 
 as a private member of the church. At this he ought 
 to take no offence. It would be a hard case, indeed, 
 if churches were not left at liberty to act agreeably to 
 their own views of propriety and duty in such cases. 
 If a preaching elder or pastor be liberated from his 
 pastoral charge, and remove his residence within the 
 bounds of another church, however excellent his cha- 
 racter, that church is not bound to employ him. To 
 suppose it bound, would indeed be ecclesiastical slavery. 
 A preacher inferior to him in every respect might be 
 preferred. Every church must be left to its own un- 
 biassed choice. Still the elder, as well as the minister, 
 in the case supposed, though in retirement and with- 
 out official employment, retains his office, and is capable 
 of being employed in that office whenever the judica- 
 tories of the church think proper to avail themselves of 
 his services. 
 
 When ruling elders become chargeable with heresy 
 or immorality, and, of course, liable to the discipline 
 of the church, they are amenable to the bar of the 
 church session. By that body they are to be arraigned 
 and tried. Process against them is to be conducted 
 according to the same general rules which regulate the 
 trial of private members of the church, excepting that 
 as their character is in some respects more important 
 and their example more influential than the character 
 and example of those who bear no office in the church, 
 so there ought to be particular caution, tenderness, and 
 care in receiving accusations and in commencing pro- 
 cess against them. " Against an elder," says the inspired 
 
257 
 
 Paul, " receive not an accusation but before two or 
 three witnesses." If, therefore, any person observe or 
 hear of any thing in a ruling elder which he considers 
 as rendering him justly liable to censure, he ought by 
 no means immediately to spread it abroad, but to com- 
 municate what he has observed or heard to the pastor 
 of the church, and take his advice as to the proper 
 course to be pursued; and if the pastor cannot be seen 
 and consulted, then similar consultation and advice 
 should be had with one, at least, of the brother elders 
 of the supposed delinquent: and all this before any 
 hint respecting the alleged delinquency is lisped to any 
 other human being. 
 
 As the church session is the tribunal to which the 
 ruling elder is, at least in the first instance, always 
 amenable, so it is generally proper that he should be 
 tried by that judicatory. Yet, where there is any thing 
 peculiar or delicate in the case of process against an 
 elder, a presbytery should be consulted. 
 
 There are cases, however, so very peculiar as to pre- 
 clude the possibility of an impartial trial, and some- 
 times, indeed, of any trial at all before the session. A 
 few T such cases may be specified. 
 
 An instance occurred a few years since, in which 
 there were only two elders in a certain church session, 
 and the moral conduct of both these elders became 
 impeached. It was, of course, impossible to try them 
 in the usual manner. 
 
 In another case, the session was composed of two 
 elders beside the pastor. These elders were own 
 brothers. One of them was charged with immoral 
 conduct, and it was judged altogether improper that 
 any attempt should be made to try the delinquent in 
 that session. 
 
 In a third class of cases, when process against mem- 
 bers of church session had been commenced, it was 
 found that so many of the brother elders of the delin- 
 quents were cited as witnesses, that there was no pros- 
 
 y2 
 
258 
 
 pect of a dispassionate and impartial trial by the re- 
 mainder. 
 
 In all these cases, it was wisely judged proper to 
 apply immediately to the presbytery, to take the seve- 
 ral causes in hand, and to commence and issue process. 
 
 It has been sometimes proposed, in exigencies simi- 
 lar to those which have been stated, without applying 
 to the presbytery, to call in the aid of the eldership of 
 a neighbouring church, and to submit the case to their 
 decision. To this course there are two objections. 
 First, the constitution of the presbyterian church 
 knows of no such body. It has no where provided for 
 the formation of a parochial tribunal in such a manner. 
 And secondly, the adoption of this plan would be to 
 set one church as a judge over a neighbouring sister 
 church. 
 
 To avoid this incongruity, it has been sometimes 
 proposed to form a tribunal for the trial of delinquent 
 elders, by selecting one or two of the same class of 
 officers from each of several neighbouring sessions. This 
 was intended as an expedient to avoid the impropriety 
 of setting one church in judgment over another. But 
 this expedient, besides that it is unauthorized by any 
 constitutional provision, is liable to the charge of a 
 selection of judges which may nut always be fair and 
 impartial. It is far better on every account, and espe- 
 cially more in harmony with the nature of the case, 
 and with the spirit of our general principles, to go 
 immediately to the Presbytery. That body is the 
 natural resort in all cases in which the church session 
 is unable, in its ordinary structure and situation, to 
 perform the contemplated work. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 ADVANTAGES OF CONDUCTING DISCIPLINE ON THE 
 PRESBYTERIAN PLAN. 
 
 It is not forgotten in entering on this chapter, that 
 most denominations of Christians are so far prejudiced, 
 and sometimes so blindly prejudiced in favour of their 
 own particular government and formularies, that their 
 judgment in reference to this matter, can seldom be 
 regarded as impartial. The writer of this essay, though 
 he does not allow himself to indulge in such prejudices, 
 yet does not claim to be wholly free from them. Instead, 
 therefore, of troubling the reader with his bare impres- 
 sions and preferences in regard to the Presbyterian mode 
 of conducting discipline, which would of course go for 
 nothing; it is proposed to present such a series of 
 principles and reasonings as will enable the intelligent 
 inquirer to judge for himself, how far the conclusions 
 of the writer are sustained by solid argument. 
 
 I. And in the first place, the plan of discipline for 
 which we plead, is founded essentially on the principle 
 of representation, which in a greater or less degree, 
 prevades all human society. When a community of 
 any extent wishes to frame laws for its own govern- 
 
260 
 
 ment, by whom is this service usually performed ? By 
 the whole body of citizens wise and unwise, orderly and 
 disorderly, coming together and debating on the pro- 
 priety and the form of every proposed enactment? No, 
 never. An attempt of this kind would soon show the 
 plan to be equally foolish and impracticable. Again, 
 when a court is to be formed for applying the laws 
 already in force to human actions, of what materials is 
 this tribunal commonly composed ? Does any one ever 
 think of summoning the whole mass of the male popula- 
 tion excepting the culprit, or the complainant, whose 
 cause is to tried to come together, and decide on the 
 case ? Who would ever expect either a tranquil or a 
 wise decision from such a judicial assembly ? In both 
 these cases, the good sense of men in all civilized society, 
 dictates the choice of a select number of individuals 
 representatives of the whole body, and supposed to pos- 
 sess a competent share of knowledge, wisdom, and integ- 
 rity, to form the laws of the community ; and another 
 body smaller indeed but constituted upon similar 
 principles, judicially to apply them when enacted. And 
 so in every department of society. The representative 
 system was one of the earliest that appeared in the pro- 
 gress of mankind. It is recommended by its reason- 
 ableness, its convenience, its wisdom, and its efficiency. 
 In fact, the more deeply we look into the history and 
 state of the world, the more clearly we shall see that 
 large bodies of men cannot take a step without it. 
 
 And as this system prevades all civil society, so we 
 may say without fear of contradiction, that it equally 
 prevades the whole economy of redemption and grace. 
 Is it not reasonable then, that we should find it in the 
 visible Church ? If we did not, it would indeed be a 
 strange departure from a general principle of Jehovah's 
 kingdom. 
 
 The Presbyterian plan then, of conducting the 
 government of each congregation, is recommended by 
 its conformity with this almost universal principle. It 
 deposits the power of applying the laws which Christ 
 
261 
 
 has enacted and given to his people, not with the 
 whole professing population of the church, but with a 
 select body of the communicants, most distinguished 
 for their piety, knowledge, judgment, and experience. 
 It does not make judges indiscriminately of the young 
 and old, the enlightened and the ignorant, the wise and 
 the unwise. It selects the exemplary, the pious, the 
 prudent, the grave, and the experienced, for this impor- 
 tant work. " It sets those to judge who are most es- 
 teemed in the house of God." This is the theory, and 
 in most cases, we may suppose the actual practice. 
 And where it is really so, who does not see that there 
 is every security which the nature of the case admits, 
 that the judgment will be most calm, judicious, and 
 edifying, that the amount of wisdom and of piety in 
 that church could pronounce ? 
 
 The inconvenience, nay, the positive mischiefs of 
 committing the judgment in the most delicate and diffi- 
 cult cases of implicated Christian character, to the 
 whole mass of Christian professors, have been alluded 
 to in a preceding chapter. And the more closely they 
 are examined, the more serious will they appear. No 
 confidential precaution, no calm, retired inquiry, no 
 deliberate consultation of sensitive feelings with fidelity, 
 and yet with fraternal delicacy, can possibly take place 
 in ordinary cases, but by the adoption of an expedient, 
 which amounts to the temporary appointment of elders. 
 On the contrary upon any other plan, the door is wide 
 open for tale-bearing, for party heat, for the violation 
 of all those nicer sensibilities, which in Christian society 
 are of so much value ; and after all, for a decision with 
 which perhaps no one is satisfied. It would truly, be 
 passing strange, if a sober, wise, and consistent decision 
 should be pronounced by such a tribunal. We are 
 surely then warranted in setting it down as one of 
 the manifest advantages of conducting discipline on the 
 Presbyterian plan, that by the adoption of the repre- 
 sentative system, it provides in all ordinary cases, for 
 
262 
 
 the purest, the wisest, and the most edifying decisions 
 of which the nature of the case admits. 
 
 II. Further, as was hinted in a preceding chapter, 
 this method of conducting discipline, presents one of 
 the firmest conceivable barriers against the ambition 
 and encroachments of the clergy. It is not intended 
 again to enlarge on the liableness of ministers of the 
 gospel to feel that love of power which is natural to 
 man. Very few of them it is believed in this land of 
 religious liberty, have ever really aimed at ecclesiastical 
 encroachment. But as laws are made for the dis- 
 obedient, and as ministers are but men, so that system 
 of ecclesiastical polity may be considered as the best, 
 which, while it is attended with the greatest amount of 
 positive advantage, is adapted most effectually to 
 obviate those evils to which human nature is exposed. 
 
 Now it is evident that the method of conducting dis- 
 cipline at present under consideration, assigns to every 
 pastor a council, or senate of pious, wise, prudent men, 
 chosen from among the body of the communicants; and 
 though not strictly lay-men, yet commonly so viewed, 
 and at any rate, carrying with them the feelings of the 
 mass of their brethren. He is simply the chairman of 
 this body of six, eight or ten men, who are charged 
 with the whole spiritual rule, and " without whose 
 counsel nothing is done in the church." He can carry 
 no measure but with their consent. He can neither 
 admit nor exclude a single member, without their 
 concurrence. If he engage in any sinister or foul plan, 
 as many are fond of supposing the clergy inclined to 
 attempt, he certainly cannot accomplish it either in his 
 own church, or in neighbouring churches, unless he 
 can prevail on these men to join with him in conspiring 
 to elevate himself at their own expense. Will he be 
 likely to work such a wonder as this ? At any rate, 
 there seems to be the best barrier against it, that the 
 nature of human society admits. 
 
 The same general safeguard pervades all the judi- 
 catories of the Presbyterian church. In all of them 
 
263 
 
 ruling elders have a place, and in all of them ex- 
 cepting the General Assembly, the elders, if the theory 
 of our system were carried into perfect execution, would 
 be a majority. In the General Assembly alone, if com- 
 pletely full, they would stand on an equality in votes 
 with the pastors. And these ruling elders are not 
 merely present in all these bodies. They mingle in all 
 the business; are appointed on all committees, and 
 have every possible opportunity of becoming acquainted 
 in the most intimate manner, with all that is proposed 
 or done. There can be no concealment. The pro- 
 ceedings of all our judicatories excepting the church 
 session, where the elders form an overwhelming 
 majority, are open and public as the light of day. And 
 every ruling elder has at his disposal a vote as potent, 
 as that of his most eloquent and learned neighbouring 
 pastor. 
 
 It may be asked then, whether there is not here a 
 barrier against clerical ambition and encroachment as 
 fixed and firm as can well be conceived or desired? It 
 is undoubtedly, a far more firm barrier than is pre- 
 sented by the popular plan in use among our Indepen- 
 dent brethren. For as in every church, a majority of 
 the members have but little discernment, and are, of 
 course, easily influenced and led ; so an artful design- 
 ing pastor, if such an one should appear in a church 
 thus constituted, might generally succeed in concilia- 
 ting to his own person and schemes a majority of the 
 votes, to the utter discomfiture of the more wise, pious, 
 and prudent portion of the members. But upon the 
 Presbyterian plan, it is precisely this best class of his 
 church members who are associated with him in 
 authority and counsel, who are with him ecclesiastically 
 speaking, abroad and at home, in the house and by the 
 way, in going out and in coming in, from whose notice 
 he cannot escape, aud without whose co-operation he 
 can do nothing. Truly this is the very last method 
 that designing ambitious ministers would adopt to 
 forward their projects ! Nothing could be conceived 
 
264 
 
 more unfriendly to corrupt schemes, than such a band 
 of official colleagues. And accordingly, as we have 
 more than once seen in the foregoing chapters, the 
 honest and pious old Ambrose, of the fourth century, 
 expressly tells us, that it was a wish to get rid of such 
 colleagues on the part of the teaching elders, that 
 first led to the gradual disuse of ruling elders in the 
 church, after the first three centuries. 
 
 III. Again, as the Presbyterian plan of administering 
 discipline is adapted to present one of the strongest con- 
 ceivable barriers against clerical ambition, so it also 
 furnishes one of the best securities for preserving 
 the rights of the people. And here nothing will 
 be said on the supposed congeniality between the 
 Presbyterian form of church government, and the 
 republican representative systems under which we live, 
 and the alleged tendency of the former to prepare men 
 for understanding, prizing, and maintaining the latter 
 — I say, on these allegations I shall not dwell — not 
 because I do not consider both as perfectly well founded, 
 but because the discussion might be deemed by some 
 readers invidious, and because it forms no necessary 
 part of my argument. Independently of these consi- 
 derations, it may be confidently maintained that the 
 presbyterian plan of administering discipline furnishes 
 far better security for preserving unimpaired the rights 
 of private Christians than any plan with which we are 
 acquainted. It is not forgotten that this assertion will 
 appear a paradox to many, but it rests, nevertheless, on 
 the most solid grounds. 
 
 There is no oppression more heavy, no tyranny more 
 unrelenting, than that of an excited, infuriated popu- 
 lar assembly, — no body with which the rights and 
 privileges of an inculpated individual are less safe, 
 especially when headed and controlled by an eloquent, 
 artful, and highly popular pastor who has taken part 
 against that individual. Suppose, then, as the annals 
 of Independency have too often exemplified, that a 
 member is on trial for some alleged delinquency before 
 
265 
 
 a church of that denomination, — suppose the alleged 
 offence to be one which has deeply alienated from him 
 his pastor and all the particular friends of the pastor, 
 — suppose these as one man rise up against him, and 
 resolve to crush him, — and suppose this pastor to be so 
 generally admired and beloved by his people, that he is 
 able to command an overwhelming majority of their 
 votes in support of all his favourite measures, — what 
 chance would such an accused person stand of an im- 
 partial trial before such a tribunal ? Not the smallest. 
 He might be guilty, indeed, and deserve the heaviest 
 sentence; but, even if innocent, his acquittal in such 
 circumstances could be anticipated by none. He must 
 become the victim of popular resentment, and, if he 
 thus fall, he has no remedy— there is no tribunal to 
 which he can appeal: he must lie down under the 
 oppressive sentence — and there he must lie as long as 
 he lives. He cannot regularly (that is, according to 
 that ecclesiastical rule which pervades all religious de- 
 nominations) go to another church; for the supposition 
 is that he is excommunicated, and cannot be recom- 
 mended as in "good standing" to any other ecclesiastical 
 body. He must submit to the operation of the sentence, 
 however unjust, until the excited and impassioned body 
 which laid it upon him shall be disposed to relent, and 
 consent to remove the deadly weight. 
 
 It is not denied that there may be moments of pre- 
 judice and passion, in the Presbyterian church, in which 
 even the grave and experienced elders may be so 
 wrought upon by different sorts of influence as to dis- 
 pense justice very imperfectly, or even in a particular 
 case to refuse it entirely. But then, in every such 
 case, upon the Presbvterian plan, there is an immediate 
 and perfect remedy. An individual who supposes him- 
 self wronged may appeal to a higher tribunal, where his 
 cause will be heard by judicious, enlightened, impartial 
 men who had no concern in its origin, and who, if 
 wrong have been done, may be expected to afford 
 prompt and complete redress. The oppressive sentence 
 z 
 
266 
 
 may be reversed — he may be reinstated, in spite of 
 popular excitement, in all his Christian privileges, and 
 even where his own reluctance or that of his former 
 connections may forbid his return to the bosom of the 
 same congregation in which he recently received such 
 treatment, yet he may easily and regularly be at- 
 tached to a neighbouring one of the same denomina- 
 tion, and thus find the whole difficulty satisfactorily 
 removed. 
 
 It is not asserted, then, that other churches, in the 
 exercise of discipline, do in fact more frequently injure 
 and oppress the subjects of their discipline than the 
 Presbyterian church. Such an assertion, indeed, might 
 perhaps be made without invidiousness, inasmuch as 
 decisions formed and pronounced by the popular voice 
 may be deemed, without disparagement to the indivi- 
 duals who form them, less likely to be wise and impar- 
 tial than when formed by a select body of enlightened 
 and pious judges. But on this point no comparative 
 estimate will be attempted. It is, however, confidently 
 asserted, that when such wrong as that of which we 
 speak unhappily occurs, the Presbyterian system affords 
 more complete relief from oppression, and therefore 
 furnishes more fixed security for the rights of the people 
 than is found in any other denomination. No single 
 man in our church, whatever title he may bear, can, 
 by his single, perhaps capricious veto, deprive a pro- 
 fessing Christian of his privileges as a church member, 
 nor can it be done by a feverish popular assembly, 
 impelled by its own prejudice or passion, or held under 
 the sovereign control of one man. The best array of 
 piety, wisdom, and knowledge which the society affords 
 must sit in judgment in the case, and even if this judi- 
 catory should give an unjust sentence, the religious 
 rights of the individual are not prostrated or foreclosed, 
 but may be reviewed by an impartial tribunal, and 
 every privilege which he ought to enjoy secured. 
 
 IV. Further, the plan of conducting church govern- 
 ment with the aid of ruling elders, secures to ministers 
 
'267 
 
 of the Word and sacraments counsel and support, in all 
 their official proceedings, of the best possible kind. 
 Supposing ministers of the gospel to be honest, pious, 
 disinterested, and zealous in their appropriate work — 
 to have no disposition at any time to encroach on the 
 rights of others — and to be above the reach of that 
 passion and prejudice which are so apt to assail even 
 the honest, and which need a check in all, — even sup- 
 pose ministers of the gospel to be above the reach of 
 these evils, still they need counsel, information, and 
 support in a multitude of cases, and cannot, with either 
 safety or advantage, proceed without them. In all the 
 affairs of the church, it is of the utmost importance 
 that the interests of the whole body be constantly con- 
 sulted, and that the whole body act an appropriate part 
 in conducting its affairs. As there are no privileged 
 orders to be aggrandized and elevated, so there are no 
 ecclesiastical secrets to be kept, no private or selfish 
 schemes to be tolerated. The more completely every 
 plan is laid open to public view, understood and appre- 
 ciated by every member, sustained by unanimous and 
 willing effort, and made to promote the knowledge, 
 purity, and order of the whole, the better. Of course, 
 that plan of ecclesiastical regimen which is best adapted 
 to attain these ends, and to attain them in the most 
 certain, direct, quiet, and comfortable manner, is 
 most worthy of our choice. 
 
 Such a plan, it is firmly believed, is the presbyterian. 
 In every department of official dut}', the pastor of this 
 denomination has associated with him a body of pious, 
 wise, and disinterested counsellors, taken from among 
 the people — acquainted with their views — participating 
 in their feelings — able to give sound advice as to 
 the wisdom and practicability of plans which require 
 general co-operation for carrying them into effect — and 
 able also, after having aided in the formation of such 
 plans, to return to their constituents, and so to advo- 
 cate and recommend them as to secure general con- 
 currence in their favour. 
 
268 
 
 This is an advantage, strictly speaking, peculiar to 
 Presbyterianism. For although other forms of church 
 government provide for associating laymen with the 
 clergy in ecclesiastical business, yet, according to them, 
 there is no divine warrant for it. It is a mere human 
 expedient to meet an acknowledged exigency, for 
 which those who make this acknowledgment suppose 
 that the law of Christ makes no provision. And 
 the human provision which they thus make is mani- 
 festly liable to many objections. It consists either in 
 constituting the whole body of the communicants the 
 pastor's counsellors (which is liable to all the objections 
 stated at large in a former chapter), or in providing 
 for him a committee, or small delegation of laymen, who 
 may be changed every year or oftener, and, of course, 
 may have very little experience; and in some churches 
 these lay delegates are not required to be communicants, 
 or even baptized persons, and consequently may have 
 no real ecclesiastical responsibility for their conduct. 
 
 V. The method of conducting discipline under con- 
 sideration has also the advantage on the score of dis- 
 patch an energy, as well as of wisdom and the security 
 of equal rights. 
 
 Where all the discipline that is exercised is in the 
 hands of a single individual, without appeal, it must be 
 confessed that in this case provision for dispatch and 
 energy cannot be, at least in theory, more perfect; but 
 where it is in the hands of the whole body of the church 
 members, there is no saying how long litigation may 
 be protracted, or in what perplexities and delays the 
 plainest case may be involved. There are so many 
 minds to be consulted, and every case upon this plan 
 is so open to capricious or malignant interposition, that 
 it is impossible, in ordinary circumstances, to calculate 
 results or to forsee an end. 
 
 Even on the Presbyterian plan, there is'no doubt 
 that delay and perplexities may in some cases arise; 
 but where the whole management of discipline, from 
 its inceptive steps to the consummation of each case, is 
 
269 
 
 entirely committed to a select body of pious, intelligent, 
 prudent, and experienced men, accustomed to the work 
 and aware of the dangers to which their course is ex- 
 posed, we may reasonably calculate on their decisions 
 being as speedy, as unembarrassed, and as much lifted 
 above the temporizing feebleness, or the tempestuous 
 irregularity and confusion incident to popular manage- 
 ment, as human infirmity will allow. 
 
 VI. The plan of conducting discipline by means of 
 a succession of judicatories, admitting of appeal, pro- 
 vides for redressing many grievances which do not 
 appear otherwise to admit of a remedy. According 
 to the Independent, or strictly congregational system, 
 as suggested in a preceding page, when a member of a 
 church has been unjustly censured or cast out, he has 
 no appeal, there is no tribunal to which he can apply 
 for relief: yet his case may be an exceedingly hard 
 one, loudly calling for redress; the cause of religion 
 in his neighbourhood may be suffering severely by the 
 situation in which he is placed. Ought there not to 
 be some regular and adequate method of meeting and 
 removing such a difficulty? In such of the churches 
 of Connecticut as have entered into the plan of conso- 
 ciational union, such a method has been to a certain 
 extent provided, but it has been by adopting, to pre- 
 cisely the same extent, a leading principle of Presby- 
 terianism. When difficulties arise in a particular church, 
 a tribunal is formed by a number of neighbouring 
 ministers, together with one or more lay delegates from 
 each of the churches represented, who may review, 
 and, if need be, redress the alleged grievance. This is 
 a Presbyterian feature in their system, and, so far as it 
 goes, excellent and effectual. In the judgment, how- 
 ever, of the venerable president Dwight, this plan is 
 still defective, and defective precisely in the point at 
 which it stops short of Presbyterianism. The opinion 
 which this distinguished congregational minister has 
 expressed, in reference to the subject before us, will best 
 
 z2 
 
270 
 
 appear by presenting it in its connection. It is as 
 follows: — 
 
 " There are many cases in which individuals are 
 dissatisfied on reasonable grounds with the judgment 
 of a church. It is perfectly obvious that in a debate 
 between two members of the same church, the parties 
 may in many respects stand on unequal ground. One 
 of them may be ignorant, without family connections, 
 in humble circumstances, and possessed of little or no 
 personal influence; the other may be a person of dis- 
 tinction, opulent, powerfully connected, of superior 
 understanding, and of great personal influence, not 
 only in the church, but also in the country at large. 
 As things are in this world, it is impossible that these 
 persons should possess, in any controversy between 
 them, equal advantages. Beyond all this, the church 
 itself may be one party, and a poor and powerless 
 member the other. In this case, also, it is unnecessary 
 to observe, the individual must labour under every sup- 
 posable disadvantage to which a righteous cause can be 
 subjected. To bring the parties in these or any similar 
 circumstances as near to a state of equality as human 
 affairs will permit, it seems absolutely necessary that 
 every ecclesiastical body should have its tribunal of 
 appeals, a superior judicature, established by common 
 consent, and vested with authority, to issue finally all 
 those causes which, before a single church, are obviously 
 liable to a partial decision." 
 
 " Such a tribunal, in all the New England states 
 except this (Connecticut), is formed by what is called a 
 select council; that is, a council mutually chosen by the 
 contending parties. This has long appeared to me a 
 judicatory most unhappily constituted. The parties 
 choose, of course, such persons as they suppose most 
 likely to favour themselves; if, therefore, they commit 
 no mistake in the choice, the council may be considered 
 as divided in opinion before it assembles, and as fur- 
 nishing every reason to believe that it will not be less 
 
271 
 
 divided afterwards. Its proceeding will frequently be 
 marked with strong partialities, and its decision, if made 
 at all, will not unfrequently be those of a bare majority. 
 Coming from different parts of the country, it will 
 have no common rules of proceeding, — after its deci- 
 sions, its existence ceases. Its responsibility vanishes 
 with its existence, as does also the sense of its authority. 
 As the members frequently come from a distance, it 
 can have no knowledge concerning those numerous 
 particulars which respect the transactions to be judged 
 of, and the characters, interests, views, and contri- 
 vances of those who are immediately concerned. As 
 individuals, these members may in some instances have 
 much weight, and, in certain circumstances, may by 
 their wisdom and piety do much good. But all this must 
 arise solely from their personal character. As a coun- 
 cil, as a judicatory, they can scarcely have any weight 
 at all; for, as they disappear when the trial is ended, 
 they are forgotten in their united character — and 
 having no permanent existence, are regarded with no 
 habitual respect, and even with no prejudice in their 
 favour. Very often, also, as they are chosen on par- 
 tial principles, they are led, of course, to partial deci- 
 sions, and leave behind them very unhappy opinions 
 concerning ecclesiastical government at large." 
 
 " In this state (Connecticut) a much happier mode 
 has been resorted to for the accomplishment of this 
 object. The tribunal of appeal is here a consociation 
 — a standing body composed of the settled ministers 
 within an associational district, and delegates from the 
 churches in the same district — a body always existing, 
 of acknowledged authority, of great weight, possessed 
 of all the impartiality incident to human affairs, feel- 
 ing its responsibility as a thing of course — a court of 
 record, having a regular system of precedents, and, 
 from being frequently called to business of this nature, 
 skilled to a good degree in the proper modes of pro- 
 ceeding." 
 
272 
 
 " The greatest defect in this system, as it seems to 
 me, is the want of a still superior tribunal to receive 
 appeals in cases where they are obviously necessary. 
 These, it is unnecessary for me to particularise. Every 
 person extensively acquainted with ecclesiastical affairs 
 knows that such cases exist. The only remedy pro- 
 vided by the system of discipline established in this 
 state for those who feel aggrieved by a consociational 
 judgment, is to introduce a neighbouring consociation 
 as assessors with that which has given the judgment, 
 at a new hearing of the cause. The provision of this 
 partial, imperfect tribunal of appeals, is clear proof 
 that those who formed the system perceived the abso- 
 lute necessity of some appellate jurisdiction. The judi- 
 catory which they have furnished of this nature is 
 perhaps the best which the churches of the state would 
 at that, or any succeeding period, have consented to 
 establish. Yet it is easy to see that, were they disposed, 
 they might easily institute one which would be incom- 
 parably better." 
 
 " The only instance found in the scriptures of an 
 appeal actually made for the decision of an ecclesiasti- 
 cal debate, is that recorded in the fifteenth chapter of 
 the Acts, and mentioned for another purpose in a 
 former discourse. A number of the Jews in the church 
 at Antioch insisted that the Gentile converts should 
 be circumcised and be obliged to keep the law of Moses. 
 Paul and Barnabas strenuously controverted this point 
 with them. As no harmonious termination of the 
 debate could be had at Antioch, an appeal was made 
 ' to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem;' but, as I 
 observed in the discourse mentioned, it was heard and 
 determined by the apostles, elders, and brethren. As 
 this judicatory was formed under the direction of the 
 apostles themselves, it must be admitted as a precedent 
 for succeeding churches; and teaches us, on the one 
 hand, that an appellate jurisdiction is both lawful and 
 necessary in the church, and, on the other, that it is 
 
273 
 
 to be composed of both ministers and brethren, neces- 
 sarily acting at the present time by delegation."* 
 
 In this quotation and in the remarks which pre- 
 ceded it, a reference, it will be perceived, is principally 
 had to cases in which individual private members have 
 considered themselves as aggrieved by the decisions of 
 particular churches; but the same remarks, in sub- 
 sance, are applicable to those cases in which difficulties 
 arise between ministers and their congregations, or 
 between two neighbouring congregations of the same 
 name. No form of church government provides for 
 the settlement of such difficulties so promptly or so 
 well as the Presbyterian. Independency, strictly so 
 called — that is, Independency, in strict adherence to 
 its essential principles — furnishes for such evils no 
 remedy whatever. Other sects furnish a nominal or 
 partial remedy by investing some official individual 
 with power to constitute a tribunal for settling such 
 controversies; but the choice of the members of this 
 tribunal is usually committed entirely to that indivi- 
 dual, and it is, of course, in his power to make it like 
 a " packed jury" in the hands of a corrupt returning 
 officer, a mere instrument of oppression. But in the 
 Presbyterian church every difficulty of this kind is com- 
 mitted for adjustment to a permanent responsible body 
 — a body whose proceedings may be reviewed and 
 examined, whose organization or members cannot be 
 changed at the will of a corrupt individual who may 
 choose to tamper with them, and whose decisions are 
 not merely advisory, but authoritative. 
 
 VII. Finally; the Presbyterian method of conduct- 
 ing the government of the church is most friendly to 
 the spread of the gospel, and furnishes peculiar facili- 
 ties for union and efficiency of action in promoting the 
 great objects of Christian benevolence. 
 
 It has been sometimes, indeed, alleged in opposition 
 to this, that Presbyterianism is naturally, and almost 
 
 * Theology Explained and Defended, vol. iv. 399, 401. 
 
274 
 
 necessarily cold and formal, and that congregational- 
 ism has been found, in fact, more favourable to zeal 
 and activity in spreading the gospel. It is by no means 
 intended to depreciate either the zeal or the activity 
 of our congregational brethren; justice demands that 
 much be said in commendation of both; and it will be 
 no small praise to any other denomination to be found 
 successfully emulating the intelligence, enterprize, and 
 perseverance which they have often manifested in pur- 
 suing the best interests of the Redeemer's kingdom. 
 But when the organization of the Presbyterian church 
 is examined, one would think that prejudice itself could 
 scarcely deny its peculiar adaptedness for united, har- 
 monious, and efficient action in every thing which it 
 might become convinced was worthy of pursuit. 
 
 In order to enable this church to act with the utmost 
 energy and uniformity throughout its entire extent, 
 there is no need of any new organization. It is orga- 
 nized already, and in a manner as would seem as 
 perfect as possible for united and harmonious action. 
 A delegation from every church meet and confer 
 several times in each year, as a matter of course, in 
 presbytery. What opportunity could be imagined 
 more favourable for forming and executing plans of 
 co-operation among all the churches thus united and 
 statedly convening? They have the same opportunity 
 and every advantage of meeting at pleasure that can 
 be enjoyed by a voluntary association, with the addi- 
 tional advantage that they act under a system of eccle- 
 siastical rules and authority which enable them to go 
 forward with more energy and uniformity in their 
 adopted course. If a more extended union of Presby- 
 terian churches than of those which belong to a single 
 presbytery be desired for any particular purpose, the 
 regular meetings of the synods, each comprising a 
 number of presbyteries, afford the happiest opportunity, 
 without any new or extra combination, of effecting 
 the object. The representatives of perhaps one hun- 
 dred and fifty churches, assembled in their ecclesiasti- 
 
T15 
 
 cal capacity, and in the name of Christ, could hardly be 
 conceived to convene in circumstances more perfectly 
 favourable to their co-operating in any worthy and hal- 
 lowed cause, with one heart, and with the most perfect 
 concentration of effort. And when we extend our 
 thoughts to the General Assembly, the bond of union, 
 counsel, and co-operation, for more than two thousand 
 churches, all represented and combined in the same 
 cause; we see a plan which, in theory at least, it would 
 seem difficult to adapt more completely to union of heart 
 and hand in any good work. The most admirable 
 combination, with every possible advantage, exists be- 
 forehand. Nothing is in any case wanting but the 
 animating spirit necessary for applying it to the proper 
 objects. The machinery, in all its perfection, is already 
 constructed, and ready to be set in motion. Only let 
 the impelling principle, which is necessary to set all 
 moral conbinations into vigorous movement, be present, 
 and operate with due power, and it may be asserted 
 that a more advantageous system for ecclesiastical 
 enterprise was never devised. 
 
 It is not a sufficient reply to this statement to say, 
 that the Congregational Churches of New England, 
 have in fact, done more within the last thirty years in 
 the way of contribution and effort for extending the 
 Redeemer's kingdom, than any equal number of 
 churches of the Presbyterian denomination in the 
 United States. It is impossible to contemplate the in- 
 telligence, harmony of feeling, and pious enterpise of 
 the mass of our congregational brethren, without sen- 
 timents at once of respect and gratitude. But is not 
 the general fact alluded to, chiefly referable to other 
 causes than the form of their church government? No 
 one, it is believed, can doubt for a moment that this is 
 the case. Their church government is manifestly less 
 adapted to promote union and effective co-operation, 
 than most others. But their intelligence, their piety, 
 their common origin, their homogenous character, their 
 compact situation, and the sameness of the instruction, 
 
276 
 
 the excitements, and the agencies which they enjoy, 
 have all tended to prepare them for united and har- 
 monious co-operation. Only give to the members of 
 churches organized on the Presbyterian plan, the same 
 advantages, the same natural principles of cohesion, 
 the same intellectual and moral stimulants, and the 
 same pervading spirit, and can any one believe that 
 there would be found less union and less energy in pur- 
 suing the best interests of man? We must deny the 
 connection between cause and effect, before we can 
 doubt that there would be more of both. It has been 
 sometimes, indeed, said as a supposed exemplification 
 of the unfavourable influence of Presbyterianism, that 
 the churches called Presbyterian in South Britain have 
 generally declined, both in orthodoxy and piety, within 
 the Jasthundred years, while the Independents havegen- 
 erally and happily maintained their character for both. 
 But the fact is, that when the English Presbyterians 
 gradually fell into those errors for which the greater 
 part of them are now distinguished, they at the same 
 time gradually renounced the Presbyterian form of 
 government, although they retained the name. There 
 are not now, and have not been for many years, any 
 real Presbyterians in England, excepting those who 
 are directly or indirectly connected with churches in 
 Scotland. After all, it is not pretended that the Pres- 
 byterian form of church government can of itself 
 infuse spiritual life and activity into an ecclesiastical 
 body; but that where vitality, and zeal, and resources 
 exist, there is no form of ecclesiastical organization in 
 the world so well adapted to unite counsels, and 
 invigorate efforts, as that under which we are so happy 
 as to live. 
 
 It makes no part however, of the design of the 
 author of this volume to assail or to depreciate the 
 ecclesiastical order of other denominations. On the 
 contrary, wherever he finds those who evidently bear 
 the image of Christ, and who appear to be engaged in 
 advancing his kingdom, whatever form of church order 
 
277 
 
 they may prefer, he can hail them with unqualified 
 affection as Christian brethren. The truth is, he would 
 not have alluded to any other portion of the Christian 
 Church than that with which he is more immediately 
 connected, had it appeared possible without doing so, 
 fully to illustrate the character and advantages of our 
 own form of government. His ardent wish is, not to 
 alienate by high claims, or unkind language, but 
 rather to conciliate and bind together by every thing 
 that can minister to brotherly love. And his daily 
 prayer is, that all the Evangelical churches in our land 
 may be more and more united in principle and effort, 
 for extending that "kingdom which is not meat and 
 drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost.' , 
 
 BELL AND BAIN PRINTERS, GLASGOW. 
 
)J