"not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? "And if the ear fhall fay, 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 hear

❝ing? if the whole were hearing, where were the smell

ing? But now hath God fet the members in the body, "as it hath pleafed him. And if they were all one "member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye "cannot fay to the hand, I have no need of thee; nor, "again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you, &c." After which he informs us (ver. 27.), that believers are the body of Chrift; and obferves, that in this body (ver. 28.) God hath fet a variety of offices for its edifi cation, as ftriking, and diftinct, and neceffary, as the different members of the natural body. Thefe offices he enumerates, and mentions among them, firft, "apoftles ;" fecondarily," prophets;" thirdly, "teachers;" then "miracles," i. e. as is plain from ver. 29. workers of miracles; then "gifts of healing," i. e. as is evident from the 30th verfe, perfons who have the gifts of healing; then helps," i. e. perfons who are helps; and then "" governments," i. e. perfons who are governors. Now, as he himfelf remarks, in ftating this comparison (ver. 17. 18.), that every member of the natural body is not an eye, nor an ear, nor endowed by its Creator with the fense of smelling, is it not equally incontestable that when he alfo tells us, that in the church of Chrift, which is his body, there is a diverfity of offices no lefs ftriking, and that God hath fet in it only fome governments or governors, every member of that church cannot be entitled to the privilege of being a governor, whether this governor is to rule, as Independents fay, by advice and perfuafion, or, as Prefbyterians contend, by the exercise of authoritative though fubordinate power? On the whole, is it not manifeft, that if the Apostle denies in

the 29th verfe, that all were to be apoftles, because he had faid in the 28th verfe, that only fome were to be apoftles; and that all were to be prophets, because God hath fet in the church only fome to be prophets; and that all were to be teachers, because he had faid before that only fome were to be teachers; is it not alfo manifeft upon the very fame principle, that as he had faid before too, that God had fet in the church only some governments or governors, all who are members of Chrift's fpiritual body are not to be admitted to be governors in his church, whatever may be the nature and degree of that power which these governors fhould exercife?

Is it affirmed, in answer to this, according to the ideas of fome Independents, that the Apoftle, when speaking here of governments, intends not an office, but fimply a gift or qualification for government, and that no argument of course, for excluding the members of the church in general from being ecclefiaftical rulers, can be deduced from its being faid, that "God hath set in "the church only fome governments?" We reply, that the argument against this first principle of Independency feems equally conclufive, whether the Apostle is fpeaking of an office, or of a gift; for, if he intends not an office, but merely a gift, will it not equally follow upon their mode of reasoning, that fince those alone are to rule in the church on whom God has bestowed qualifications or gifts for government, and fince, by their own confeffion, it is here declared that he has bestowed thefe gifts only upon fome, all cannot be entitled to be rulers in his church? Befides, that the Apostle is here speaking of an office, and not fimply of endowments, appears, among other things, from the original word here tranflated "fet" or "conftituted" in the church, which always, in fuch a connection as this, when the cafe admits it, denotes the appointment of perfons to an office. It is fo underftood in this very paffage, when it is faid, that God hath

fet in the church, fome apostles, and fome prophets, and fome teachers; and fince by governments, as was before attempted to be proved, is here intended governors, there appears to be no reason for understanding it in a different fense when applied to them. It is the fame word too which is used (Acts xx. 28.) to exprefs the appointment of the Ephefian elders, and not merely their gifts, to the official overfight of that Chriftian church: "Take heed "therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the "which the Holy Ghoft hath made" (sro), or fet, or appointed “you overfeers:" and is the very word which is employed (2 Tim. i. 11.) to denote the appointment of the Apostle Paul to his office: "Whereunto I am "appointed (Tony) a preacher, and an apoftle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." Is it contended, moreover that even allowing that an office is here intended by governments, it is deacons who are referred to? To this it is answered, that the Apostle feems already to have mentioned thefe under the name of helps; and that, at any rate, it is not the province of deacons, as such, to govern, but merely to ferve tables, a meaning undoubtedly too limited and inadequate for the ftrong word which is here used by the Apoftle to fignify governments. Or is it alleged †, that admitting the word to fignify properly ecclefiaftical rulers, what is here intended by it may have now ceased, as well as workers of miracles, perfons endowed with the gift of healing and of tongues, and apoftles and prophets, who are mentioned along with them? To this it is anfwered, that even upon the principles of Independents themfelves, while miracles have ceafed, and tongues and prophecies have failed, government will for ever continue in the church: and that if we are to infer, from its being here joined with the gifts of miracles and tongues, that it must now be laid aside,

* See Chandler on Joel, p. 150.

See Dr. Ifaac Watts on the Christian Church, p. 73.

we contend that it must be laid afide by Independents as well as by Presbyterians; and upon the fame principle it may be proved, that fince teachers also are here mentioned along with them, the office of a teacher should no longer be continued in the church of Chrift.

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

In the 3d place, The terms employed in feripture to express the various characters and relations of members and their elders, feem alfo to intimate that every Chriftian is not warranted to claim an equal fhare of ecclefiaftical government. While the rulers, as has been obferved, are distinguished in the New Teftament by the ftrongest titles expreffive of the office and authority of governors, the members, as has been faid, are pointed out at the same time as governed by them, and are enjoined to obey them. But if every Chriftian among those who are governed (the point of prefiding as moderator in their affemblies, and announcing the decifion, alone excepted) be as much a governor as the governors themselves, how can the diftinction which we have mentioned be preserved? Must not all be governors, and all be governed? and muft not the kingdom of Jefus be diftinguished by a circumstance not only peculiar to itself, but which would be confidered as impolitic and contra

dictory in every wife and well-regulated human government; namely, that all its subjects should not only be fubjects, but rulers, and as much, or rather more entitled, on account of their number, to the character of rulers than the governors themselves? While the former, too, are affirmed (Acts xx. 28.) to be authoritative overseers of the church, as the captains of hundreds and thousands were of their men *, and as the rulers of cities were of the inhabitants of these cities t, the members of the church are faid to be officially overseen by them in government as well as in doctrine. But if every member, as Independents affert, be not only as much an overfeer of the church at large as the overfeers themselves, but, as was before evinced, from their fuperior number, poffeffed of a far greater share of the overfight-nay, if, as was alfo noticed, they can completely overturn the propofals of the overfeers, and dictate to them what they are to receive and obey, is not the diftinction which we have ftated completely destroyed? and are not all not only overseers as well as overseen, but are not the very men who are appointed to be overfeen, more worthy of being dignified with this honourable name, than the men who are officially characterized by it? While the former are described as the flock, the latter are reprefented in fcripture as the paftors, a name often bestowed upon authoritative civil rulers and officers ‡, and are enjoined to per

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

+ See 1 Maccab. chap. i. where this fame term is fo used; Και εποίησεν επισκοπους επι παντα τον λαόν, " And made them "overfeers of the whole people."

See Ifaiah xliv. 28. where it is given to Cyrus, king of Perfia; 2 Sam. v. 2. where it is bestowed upon David, because, as a military officer under Saul, he had led out and brought in Israel; and to the judges of Ifrael, 1 Chron. xvii. 6. whom God is there faid to have commanded to feed or govern his people. See also Homer's Iliad paffim, where the common name for Agamemnon,