clerical elders. Such is not, however, the reading. The apostle says, Let the elders that rule well, be counted, &c. &c., especially they that," &c. The word 'especially' refers to the whole of the preceding clause, and, consequently, the elders that labour in the word and doctrine must be understood as included in the class of good ruling elders; while presbyterianism takes them from it, and makes them clergymen. Let the reader examine the following illustrations :-Suppose the command were addressed to a church, "Let those men who have grown old be supported by the church, and especially those who have laboured in its service;" would the word especially' be understood as referring to men merely, or to the whole clause, "men that have grown old?' and would any one regard the whole as an injunction to support all who had laboured for the church's benefit? Surely not. The obvious command is, to support the old who have laboured. Add to this the following illustration from Scripture, occurring in the eighth verse of the same chapter: "But if any provide not for his own, and cially for those of his own house," &c. &c. Here those of his own house are manifestly included in his own. How can it, then, be doubted that the elders who labour in the word and doctrine are comprehended in, or form a part, of the same class with those elders that rule well? i. e., in other words, that preaching and lay elders are not different classes of officers, (as presbyterianism contends,) the two clauses of the verse merely pointing to different departments and duties of the same office. espe - Secondly. If the mention of ruling as well as teaching proves that ruling and teaching are distinct offices,the argument of Dr. Dick,-then it follows that the mention of teaching and exhorting would prove that they also are distinct,-which no one believes. Thirdly., The supposition of the division of labour among the pastors, to which reference has been made, each addicting himself to that particular branch of the pastoral office for which his talents most eminently fitted E him, sufficiently accounts for the language of the apostle. Some pastors (I take it for granted there were, generally at least, in each church, more pastors than one, for which especial reasons existed in the infancy of the religion,) were preeminently adapted to guide the deliberations and decisions of the church, but not so eminently fitted for preaching the word: these are the elders who ruled well. Other pastors there were, whose versatility and plenitude of gifts preeminently qualified them for both departments of the pastoral office: these are they who both ruled well, and laboured in the word and doctrine, and who were to be accounted worthy of double honour. Fourthly. It is manifest from the epistles to Timothy, and Titus, and from that to the Philippians, that bishops and deacons are the only standing office-bearers of the church. Dr. Dick's argument against the Episcopalians may be turned with irresistible force against himself: "In Timothy the apostle makes no mention of presbyters, but only of bishops and deacons." Presbyters are not, therefore, he concludes, distinct from bishops. We reply, he makes no mention of ruling elders, but only of bishops and deacons. Ruling elders and bishops are not, then, distinct. The conclusion to which the previous discussion has conducted us is, that the class of officers appointed to conduct the spiritual affairs of the church, does not consist of different orders; that the terms, bishop, elder, pastor, teacher, &c., do not denote distinct offices, or gradations of rank in one general office, but different branches of the duty of the same office. It may be expedient, before proceeding to describe the deacon's office, to refer to the mode in which bishops or pastors become invested with office; and the nature and extent of the authority with which it endows them. I. The process of investiture with office. Here there are two steps: First, their election to the office; and, secondly, their ordination, or orderly and solemn induc tion into it, by fasting and prayer, and "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." The first step in the process by which the bishop or pastor becomes invested with office, is his election to that office by the suffrages of the members of the church over which he is called to preside. I have not joined the congregation with the church, as possessing in common with them the right of election, for more reasons than one. In the first place, because the new relation into which ordination brings the minister, is a relation specifically between him and the body of Christian communicants. He is the pastor of the church; others may acknowledge him as their minister; but he is not, properly speaking, their pastor. Secondly, because the New Testament does not recognise such a body as that to which we now give the name of congregation, to distinguish it from the church. In fact, the distinction did not, in primitive times, exist. The church was then the congregation; the congregation was the church. Though a few stragglers might occasionally mingle with the Christian assembly, to hear what the babblers had to say, all who remained as permanent attendants joined the body; and thus it should be now. Every Christian member of a congregation ought to be a member of the church. If he refuse or neglect to join it, he has surely no reason to complain that, in not being called upon to give his suffrage in the election of a pastor, he is made to suffer the consequences of the unscriptural position in which he chooses to remain. The peculiar privileges of a body ought not even to be coveted by those who, it may be, disdain to ally themselves with that body. Thirdly, because it would be dangerous to the interests of evangelical truth to extend generally the right of election beyond the boundaries of the church. The choice of ministers can never be confided with safety to irreligious men, though they may form a part of a Christian congregation. I have spoken openly and strongly on this subject, because practical attention to the principles just stated will be found greatly conducive to the spiritual welfare of our body. At the same time, it cannot be wrong in a church to consult the opinions and wishes of the more stable and serious (I will not say the richer) members of the congregation. The purest of all principles,-desire that such members may receive spiritual benefit,—will sanction, and, indeed, require this mode of proceeding : yet, when it is adopted, the church must take especial care not to convey the notion that it can, for a moment, sanction the anomalous and unscriptural position of those who profess to have received the Gospel, while they stand aloof from the visible body of the Lord's people. It has been denied, however, that the election of the pastor should be confided to the members of the church, -denied on the ground of expediency, and on the ground of Scripture. Its members are unable, it is said, to decide who is best fitted to take the oversight of them in the Lord; and, in the cases of election to the pastoral office, of which we have any record in the New Testament, the appointment was made by the apostles, or by others who did not belong to the body over which the pastor was called to preside. The first argument I am disposed to meet with a direct negative. Provided Christian churches preserve the purity of the body, by retaining in their fellowship those only who give evidence of the possession of real religion, I would trust the election of pastors to them rather than to any king, or prime minister, or patron in the world. The latter argument overlooks the distinction, which is to be immediately illustrated, between election to the pastoral office, and induction into it. The latter was not, as we shall presently see, by the church itself, though we have every ground for confidence that the former was so, and that it ought, accordingly, to be so in the present day: for, first, no society brought and held together by voluntary consent and we have seen that such is the nature of a Christian church,-can be rendered subject to any but by its own volition. What power on earth has a right to force a pastor upon such a body? or, if the force should be attempted, and even prove successful, how could the members of the body voluntarily obey the minister whom their judgment and conscience disapprove ?—and if they could not voluntarily obey him, how could their obedience, if extorted, be acceptable to God? Every thing in religion-in social religion-must be voluntary, or it is worthless. The pastor must choose the flock,-the flock the pastor. The former must take the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ;-the latter must cheerfully submit to that oversight, or the Great Head of the Church cannot be expected to approve and bless the union. Secondly. The members of a church, being responsible to God for the religious sentiments they hold, must have the liberty of rejecting those teachers whom they consider likely to lead them into error, and of electing such as may appear to them best adapted to instruct them in the ways of God more thoroughly. This liberty must, we say, be enjoyed; for how could a man be responsible to God for his health, who was compelled to swallow poison? The Apostle John directed the elect lady not to receive into her house any teacher who brought a doctrine different from that which he had taught: and he added, For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds," 2 John 10, 11. Now what can be more monstrous than to suppose that a number of Christians, who, in their private capacity, must act in this manner towards a minister who brings "another gospel which is not another," may be lawfully compelled, as an associated body, to admit this very minister into their pulpit, and to officiate there permanently; and thus expose themselves and families to the risk of error, apostacy, and damnation ? Thirdly. The members of a church are commanded to know those who are over them in the Lord, "and |
