views of Presbyterians. Some tell us, that his rule is over his family; but this is nothing to the purpose, and is a shift to get rid of a difficulty, because the Apostle is obviously speaking of the church. Others say, that he rules over the church stock; but they confound him with the deacon, who gives; and, besides, in this sense the expression would be indefinite and improper, there being nothing to determine the kind of rule to which the Apostle refers; and surely it will not be supposed that a deacon was held in such estimation in the primitive times, as to be called & poïorausvos by way of eminence. There is another mode of evading the argument, by saying that the Apostle is not speaking of offices and office-bearers but of gifts. Some pains have been taken to obviate this opinion, but without any necessity, because it is manifestly unfounded; and, at any rate, it does not answer the design of those who have adopted it. Paul does indeed make mention of gifts; but he immediately proceeds to consider them as bestowed upon particular persons, and speaks of those persons as plainly as one man can speak of another. Besides, although he were speaking of gifts, the argument is of the same force as if he were speaking of persons, for gifts are bestowed upon persons for particular purposes; and if there are gifts which qualify for ruling, as there are gifts which qualify for ' teaching, it follows, that to rule or govern is the exclusive duty of those upon whom the former are conferred. Every unprejudiced man must perceive the truth of this reasoning, and consequently must think that the evasion mentioned above is not worthy of notice.

The next passage to which I shall direct your attention, is in the twelfth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians: "God hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."* It does not follow, because some of the offices and ministrations enumerated in this place were miraculous and extraordinary, that they were all of that description; for we have already found apostles and prophets in the same catalogue with pastors and teachers; and we cannot be justly charged with wresting the passage from its design, when we consider it as specifying, in part, the ordinary office-bearers of the church. There are no persons who may be so reasonably supposed to be meant by helps, as deacons; and thus the word has been often explained. They were instituted for the express purpose of helping the Apostles, for the purpose of relieving them from the care of the poor, that they might devote themselves exclusively to the ministry of the word. If helps signify helpers, governments must signify governors, the abstract being in both cases put for the concrete. The question then is, Who were the governors to whom the Apostle referred? They were not the apostles, nor the prophets, nor the teachers, because they are mentioned as distinct classes. They were not helpers, because they are distinguished from them also; and besides, if deacons were intended, they could with no propriety be called governors, for deacons have no rule over the church. There is no other class of persons to whom this title, used as it is in contra-distinction to other officebearers, will apply, but the ruling elder of Presbyterians; and it is with obvious propriety that they are designated governors, as the sole business of their office is to govern the congregation over which they are appointed. God has set some governors in the church. He has not lodged the power, as Independents suppose, in the people at large, but has ordained that a few should be invested with authority to take order that the members should walk in the ordinances and commandments of the Lord.

The last passage which I shall quote, is in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine." Many attempts

have been made to evade the evidence of this passage in favour of the point which we are endeavouring to establish. It has been explained in various ways; and learned men have employed their ingenuity to prove one thing at least, that it ought not to be understood of ruling elders; but who are meant by the elders who rule well, as distinguished from those who labour in word and doctrine, they are not agreed. Their different opinions can be viewed in no other light than as conjectures. Some say that the elders who rule well are diocesan bishops, and that those who labour in word and doctrine are preaching presbyters; but besides that, contrary to their own system, they thus assign greater honour to presbyters than to bishops, we have seen that there were no such bishops in the apostolic church; and this hypothesis must be abandoned. Others tell us that the former are ordinary bishops and presbyters, and the latter evangelists; as if it had been the business of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church to rule, and of evangelists to preach, without having any concern in the government of the church. Again, it has been supposed that the rulers here mentioned are deacons; and the labourers in word and doctrine, the ministers of the word; but we have seen that deacons have nothing to do with the government of the church. Some have fancied two kinds of elders, of whom some preached the word, and administered the sacraments; while others were employed in reading the Scriptures to the people, and performing other inferior offices. But this is a gratuitous assumption, unworthy of further attention. The most extravagant idea of all, is that of the learned Mr. Mede, who contends that the elders who rule well are civil magistrates, and those who labour in word and doctrine are ministers of the Gospel.* These evasions being quite unsatisfactory, some have recourse to criticism, in order to wrest the passage out of our hands. First, They affirm that the adverb panora, translated especially, is not here distinctive, but descriptive; that is, it does not point out a different class, but describes with greater particularity the class mentioned in the beginning of the verse, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, particularly because they labour in word and doctrine." But the word, both in sacred and profane writers as it would be easy to show, uniformly serves to distinguish, and may be rendered, most of all, chiefly, especially. There is no reason why it should be translated differently in this verse, but one, which every honest critic will reject,the interest of a party. Secondly, It has been said that the Apostle does not distinguish two classes, but refers, in the end of the verse, to those of the same class, who distinguish themselves by their diligence; and this is signified by the use of the word xoxes, which they affirm implies labouring with our utmost strength. It happens unfortunately for this criticism, that the word is employed in the New Testament to express simply the duty of the servants of Christ, and not the degree of it; and, on one occasion, when Paul intended to express greater activity, he did not consider the verb xoxtaw as sufficient to convey this idea, but joined another with it, representing Tryphena and Tryphosa as xoxusas, labouring, but saying of Perses, that she "laboured much in the Lord,”† ήτις πολλα εκοπίασεν εν κυριῷ. As no word is added in the verse under consideration to xoxurres, it is plain that the Apostle is not speaking of uncommon diligence; and besides, it is somewhat strange to suppose that he would command the members of the church to give equal honour to all the ministers of the Gospel, although some of them were more, and others less diligent in performing their duty. Degrees of diligence certainly call for degrees of honour.

I have endeavoured to clear this passage from the attempts which have been made to pervert its meaning, and from the exceptions against our application of it. The result is, that it ought to be understood in its plain and natural * Mede's Works, Disc. xix. P. 71. † Rom. xvi. 12.

meaning; and that thus viewed, it points out two classes of office-bearers who have distinct functions. It belongs to one class to rule, and in ruling their whole duty consists. They are required to do nothing more than to administer the laws of Christ for the regulation of the conduct of his followers. Those of the other class are joined with them in the rule of the church; but there is an additional duty incumbent upon them, in which the former have no concern, namely, to labour in word and doctrine, to preach the gospel, and administer the sacraments. The argument may be stated in the following manner:There are elders, who, although they rule well, are not worthy of double honour, unless they labour in word and doctrine. But there are elders who are counted worthy of double honour, because they rule well, although they do not labour in the word and doctrine. Therefore, there are elders who are not teaching or preaching elders, that is, they are ruling elders only. The premises are clearly laid down in the passage, and the conclusion is therefore legitimate.

If there were any office in the church manifestly useless, we might confidently affirm that it is not of Divine institution. We could not, with equal confidence, pronounce an office, which appeared to us to be useful, to be divinely instituted, because we may err in our notions of utility. But the advantages resulting from the office of ruling elders are a subsidiary argument in its favour. As there can usually be only one preaching elder in a congregation, he could not perform his peculiar duties, and at the same time undertake the superintendence of the conduct of the members. Elders are his assistants in this work. Living among the people, and associating familiarly with them, they have opportunities of knowing their conduct, and can personally interpose with their counsels and admonitions; and under the joint care of the pastor and the rulers, the people grow in faith and holiness, and walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord.

LECTURE CI.

ON THE CHURCH.

Church Power.-Nature of It.-Independence of the Church.-Its relation to the State.Church Power distinguished into POTESTAS Scquarien, POTESTAS daraxt, and POTESTAS JianpiTinn.-The Extent and Limits of these Several Kinds.

We have seen that Jesus has established a particular form of government in the church, and has appointed certain persons to administer it. They have been distinguished into two classes; the first comprehending the extraordinary office-bearers, who ceased when the purpose of their institution was accomplished; and the second comprehending pastors and elders, who are to continue to the end of the world. I proceed to inquire with what power they are invested, and to finish what I have to say on the subject of the church.

Some have maintained that the church possesses no power, and that the office of her rulers consists solely in instructing and persuading the people. They merely propose to them truths to be believed, and duties to be practised, which they may enforce by motives calculated to impress their consciences and hearts; but they have no authority to call them to account for their conduct, and to deprive such as they deem unworthy, of their privileges. If any power of this kind is exercised in a particular church, it is conferred, according

to them, by the civil magistrate, who may appoint censures to be inflicted in particular cases for the maintenance of good order, and the advancement of the interests of morality. The author of this opinion was Erastus, a physician of the sixteenth century; from whom the doctrine, which makes the church subject to the state, and places the civil magistrate at its head, has received the name of Erastianism. It found friends and advocates; and, to a certain extent, is acted upon in the Church of England, which acknowledges the supremacy of the king in causes ecclesiastical as well as civil. It was brought forward by Erastus, and defended by his followers, as the only effectual method of putting an end to the extravagant and tyrannical power which had been claimed by the Church of Rome. This was a clumsy expedient for remedying the evil, requiring no wisdom or ingenuity; and upon the same principle, many a good thing should be destroyed because it has been abused. But, in such cases, enlightened zeal will content itself with reform; and leaving the power in existence, will employ itself in so defining it, and placing such checks upon it, as shall henceforth prevent the excesses which are the subject of complaint.

It is unnecessary to engage in the refutation of an opinion, which no person will adopt who entertains just notions of the nature and design of the church, and does not consider it merely as an appendage of the state, and a political engine. As we have already shown that a form of ecclesiastical government is appointed in the Scriptures, and that certain offices have been instituted for the management of the affairs of the church, we have virtually proved that power is committed to it; and nothing is now necessary but to ascertain what t is, and how far it extends.

Let it be observed, that it is a spiritual power, totally distinct from the civil power which is exercised in the government of cities and nations. The rule according to which it is exercised is the word of God, and not the laws of the state. The law of Jesus Christ supersedes every other law; and when these happen to interfere, the members are bound to obey God rather than men. Its object is the conscience; and its end is not gained, as in human governments, by the external obedience of the subjects, unless it proceed from a sense of the Divine authority. The means which it employs to secure obedience are, commands, entreaties, promises, threatenings, and censures; which, however, are all calculated to affect the mind only, and not the outward state. The church does not resort to confiscation of goods, imprisonment, banishment, stripes, and death, to enforce its decrees; it leaves men in full possession of their temporal privileges. The matters about which civil government is concerned, are property, liberty, personal security; the power of the church relates to instruction in heavenly mysteries, excitement to the cultivation of holiness, and preparation for the world to come. The end of civil government is to promote the peace and happiness of the present life; the end of ecclesiastical government is the edification of the body of Christ, the building up of the Saints in faith and holiness to life everlasting. Civil governments can compel their subjects to obey the laws, but the church uses no compulsion, and employs only moral means to work upon the heart.

Hence you perceive that the church is a society totally distinct from and independent of the state. Its constitution, its laws, its administration, and its objects, are different; and, although its members and the subjects of the state are the same individuals, yet they are considered as sustaining different characters, in relation to the state, as rational beings who have certain duties to perform to society; in relation to the church, as the worshippers and servants of God. The alliance of church and state, of which so much has been said, and which has been represented as necessary to the welfare of both, is always injurious to the former, when the state encroaches upon the prerogatives of the

church, or the church barters any portion of her power to secure the patronage of the state. The separate provinces of both are clearly defined; and each may exercise its peculiar functions without interfering with the other. The state can accomplish all the ends of civil government, without any other aid from the church than the influence of the doctrine which it teaches, upon the tempers and manners of the people; and the church is so far from needing the assistance of the state, that its interference would defeat the design of its institution, which is to prevail upon men by persuasion, and not by force; to inspire them with a sincere attachment to religion, not to extort a hypocritical profession of it.

When we affirm that the power of the church is not derived from the state, or dependent upon it, we do not plead for the exemption either of the members, or of the rulers, from civil authority. The Church of Rome, indeed, contended for this privilege in behalf of the clergy, and succeeded in establishing it. They were not amenable to the magistrate, even when they had committed crimes, and were accountable only to the ecclesiastical tribunals. Protestants advance no such claim; and acknowledge that church-men, as well as lay-men, are subject to the civil jurisdiction. The objection, therefore, which has been raised against the intrinsic power of the church,—that it establishes imperium in imperio,-is not applicable to our principles; although it bears with all its force against those of papists, by which the clergy, in all the nations of Europe, were incorporated into a body, independent of the states which protected them, and owing obedience solely to bishops and archbishops, and the pope at their head. Thus two rival powers were erected, with opposite interests; and we learn from history what fatal conflicts sometimes ensued, involving nations in destructive wars, and terminating in the degradation and dethronement of monarchs. The church, indeed, even upon our principles, may be called imperium in imperio; because it is a society subsisting in the bosom of a state, distinct from it with respect to its internal jurisdiction, and governed by its own laws; but it threatens no danger to the state, and gives it no disturbance in carrying on its proper functions, because it does not intermeddle with civil and political affairs, and confines itself to claims and operations purely spiritual.

The power of the church is commonly divided according to the nature of the objects about which it is employed, into three parts. The first is called potestas doyμarixn, or its power respecting articles of faith; and under this head some comprehend the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, the ordination of ministers, &c. The second is potestas diataxtıxŋ, or the power of the church to make laws and constitutions. The third is potestas diaxpirixn, or the power of the church to censure and excommunicate offenders, and to restore the penitent to communion.

The first in order is the potestas doyuatixn, or the power of the church in reference to dogmas or articles of faith. That the church has power to make such articles, Protestants deny, upon this ground, that the Scriptures contain all the truths which it is necessary to know and believe; and they justly condemn the Church of Rome, which, admitting another rule of faith called tradition, has introduced into her creed human dogmas and grossly erroneous tenets, and anathematised all who do not implicitly receive them. In order to determine how far this part of the power of the church extends, I shall lay before you the following observations.

First, The church is the depository of the Scriptures. Under the former dispensation, the sacred oracles were committed to the Jews; but the honour of being their guardians is now transferred to the disciples of Christ. The church having received them as containing the whole revelation of the will of God, she is bound to keep them as a precious treasure, and to transmit them from