bers, to elect officers, and to do such other acts, as do not require office rule and office power."-"Although destitute of officers, it hath in it a radical or virtual pow er, whereby it may call forth such officers, as may administer all those acts of office rule or power, which, of itself without them, it could not exercise."

Although it is a principle of the Congregational system, that a church may exist for a time, under certain circumstances, without officers; the appointment of officers is, nevertheless, rightly considered essential to its permanent and perfect organization. The dictates of reason, (in other words, that Light of nature, of which we have already had occasion to speak,) approve of, and require officers in the church. Churches are from their very nature corporations, and have been considered such in law; but no corporation, whether civil, literary, or commercial, or formed for other purposes, would expect to flourish, or even to exist permanently, without them. Every church member without doubt has duties to perform; but there are other duties, the performance of which no individual would feel himself at liberty to assume, except it devolved upon him by vote, or in some other way. But evidently the devolving on an individual by vote or in some other authorized way, the right and duty to do that, which he would not otherwise be at liberty to do, is conferring an office, and constituting the individual, for the time being, an officer.

Messrs. Baylie and Rutherford, quoted in the text, he wrote on the subject of the Congregational system, A Letter in answer to Objections made against the New England Churches, with the Questions proposed to such as are admitted to Church fellowship, 1641; The true Constitution of a particular visible Church, 1643; The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, 1645; and a work, printed in 1650, on the Holiness of Church Members, proving, that visible saints are the matter of a Church.

Accordingly it is very reasonably and properly said in the Platform of 1648, (commonly called the Cambridge Platform,) "A church being a company of people combined together by covenant for the worship of God, it appeareth thereby, that there may be the essence and being of a church without any officers, seeing there is both the form and matter of a church; which is implied, when it is said, the Apostles ordained elders in every church, Acts 14: 23. Nevertheless, though officers be not absolutely necessary to the simple being of churches, when they be called; yet ordinarily to their calling they are, and to their well being." See Camb. Plat, Chap. vi. §§ 1, 2.

§ 37. Church officers recognized in the Scriptures.

The selection of persons to sustain offices in the church, is not more conformable to reason, than it is to the Scriptures. The Jewish Church had its officers, its high priest, its priests, and its Levites. They were especially and formally set apart for the purpose of superintending such ceremonies and regulations, as had respect to the instituted mode of worship. To them it belonged to announce the festival days, to select the victims for sacrifice, to burn the incense, to change the shew-bread on the Sabbath, to tend the fire on the altar for burnt offerings. Happily for us, who live under a more merciful as well as a more effective dispensation, we have no need of officers for these purposes; and still Christian Churches cannot exist for any length of time without officers of some kind.

Christ is the head; holding the highest office in the Christian Church. He is our high priest; he continueth forever, and hath an unchangeable priesthood; and yet needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice. And there are other officers under Christ; approved by his infinite wisdom, and destined, in an emphatic manner, to forward

those plans of mercy, for which he was willing to give up his life.-Paul and Barnabas, acting according to the mind of Christ, ordained elders in every Church, Acts 14: 23. Paul directed Titus to ordain elders or presbyters in the towns of Crete, Tit. 1: 5. The Apostle, speaking of the Saviour, says, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4: 11, 12.

Although the appointment of Church officers is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, and is warranted by the history of the Church in all ages, it is well known, that the different sects in religion do not agree as to the requisite number of them, their names, or their powers. Nor is there reason to doubt, that this disagreement, although it is at times attended with collisions, and with dissatisfaction, is permitted for various wise and beneficial ends.

§ 38. Number of Officers in Congregational Churches.

Ruling Elders.

There are but two officers, known at the present time in the Congregational churches; MINISTERS, (otherwise called pastors,) and DEACONS.

Formerly there was another class of officers, a sort of intermediate grade between pastors and deacons, called RULING ELDers. It was considered as falling to these officers, to call together and to dismiss the church; to prepare business in private, in order that it might be more speedily acted on in public; to feed the flock with a word of admonition, and to do any other duties which were appropriate to their peculiar position.-That this office existed in the time of the Apostles, was supposed to be evident, in particular, from the first Epistle of Timothy, 5: 17; "Let the elders, that rule well, [or who discharge

their office of ruling well,] be counted worthy of double honor, [that is, as the connexion seems to require, of double compensation,] especially those, [i. e. those Elders of a higher class,] who labor in the word and doctrine." This passage was thought to imply, that, besides the teaching elders or those that labored in the word, there were officers in the church, called RULING ELDERS, whose business ordinarily was not to teach or communicate by laboring in word and doctrine, although this duty sometimes fell to them; and of course the office was a kind of intermediate one between that of ministers and deacons. Accordingly, Ruling Elders are fully recognized in the Cambridge Platform, and the duties, pertaining to them, are particularly pointed out.

But it was questioned by some even from the beginning, as no other passage of evident weight was brought forward, Whether the office was JURE DIVINO, that is, appointed and required by the Scriptures. It was early objected, that the last clause of the passage in Timothy might be rendered thus; Especially they laboring in word and doctrine; or in this way, Especially as they labor in word and doctrine; which, as it reduces the two supposed classes of Elders to one, gives very essentially a new turn to the passage. At any rate, the office, and the reasons, by which it was supported, were not generally satisfactory. That there were great doubts in regard to it and that it was never at any period fully sanctioned and approved by the churches, is fully evident from the ecclesiastical history of the country.*

*See Joshua Scottow's Old Men's Tears for their own Declensions, published in 1691; as quoted in an interesting Note at p. 32, vol. 1. of Winthrop's New England by Savage; also Mather's MAGNALIA, bk. v; Wise's Church's Quarrel Espoused, PETIT. iv. ₫ 3. pr. 1772; and Home's ECCLESIASTICA METHERMENEUTICA, Ques. x.; Mass. Historical Collections, vol x, p. 91.

75

§ 39. Further remarks on the office of Ruling Elders. The disposition, which has been mentioned, on the part of the churches, not to sanction and put in force the part of the Platform of Cambridge, relative to Ruling Elders gained strength by time; and that for various reasons. -(1) One reason, beside the alleged want of full and decisive Scripture authority, was the difficulty of finding men in all the churches, suitable for the office. It was highly important, that the Deacons should be men of piety and of respectable character, but for the of fice of Ruling Elders there was need of men of a higher grade; and it was not always easy to obtain them.

(2) It was further thought, that the duties, allotted to the Ruling Elders, might be performed to good purpose by the ministers and deacons, and perhaps in some respects by committees, chosen for a time from among the private members of the churches; and if so, it would be altogether desirable to avoid those strifes and jealousies, which are very apt to arise from the multiplication of dignities and titles. (3) And among other things, as the office of these Elders was of an executive nature, implying no small degree of authority in the admission, exclusion, and general government of members, it was found to interfere at times with that of the Pastor himself; especially when it happened to be associated, as might sometimes be the case, with an undue share of conceit or of pertinacity.*

*There is reason to believe, it would be no difficult matter, to glean from our ecclesiastical annals sufficient proofs of dissatisfaction and uneasiness, arising between the Pastors and the Ruling Elders. One of the most unhappy religious disputes, that existed in the early periods of the country, that of the church of Hartford in Connecticut, seems to have originated from this cause, viz. the mutual distrust and dissatisfaction of the Pastor and the Ruling Elder. See Trumbull's History of Connecticut, chap. xiii.

7