upon the platform. Others gifted more with wisdom in practical details assist with counsel and management. So the Christian minister must be 'apt to teach,' both wise and able, but to others with less capacity for exposition it belongs to rule. The ruling elder ought not to be termed lay elder. No insinuation should be permitted that this office is more secular then that of the pastorate. Both are branches of one spiritual office—that of overseeing the flock of God. It is an office in a spiritual house, with spiritual duties, to be discharged adequately only by spiritual men. The one object is to feed the flock. Therein all must be ensamples. The ruling elder must be the true yoke-fellow of the pastor in the vineyard of the Lord.

2. THE DEACONS

ought not then to be substituted in place of ruling elders. The particular duty of the deaconship was 'to serve tables,' as distinguished from prayer and the ministry of the Word. Thus widows were no longer to be neglected in the daily ministrations, and murmuring was to be allayed. It had reference evidently to the temporal concerns of the Church.

In Congregational Churches this office is extended and elevated. This is confessed by some. The late Rev. Mr James says, 'By the usage of our Churches many things have been added to the duties of the office beyond its original design, but this is matter of expediency.' So Dr Campbell, This scheme is without any express Scripture authority. They permit if they do not require an arrangement somewhat different.' Another explains. wherein this office has been added to. 'Among Congregationalists, the deacons, besides attending to the temporal concerns of the Church, assist the minister with their advice, take the lead at prayer-meetings when he is absent, and preach occasionally to smaller congregations.' This addition of counsel, leading of prayers, occasional exhortation, is all spiritual. These are the very duties that are prescribed by the Divine Word to the ruling elder. This usage of Congregational Churches being destitute of scriptural authority, and founded only on expediency, ought

surely to be reconsidered and reformed. The ruling elder has by authority of Scripture that position which the Congregationalist deacon claims merely from human expediency. A much firmer footing is thus obtained, and much more abundant may be the blessing expected. This acknowledged defect manifests that the entire Congregationalist scheme is defective. Faithful and beloved brethren in Congregational Churches may well weigh this matter. Is it not a substituting of 'genius and circumstances' -a determining for themselves-rather than an implicit following of the Word and will of Christ?

The ruling eldership cannot be dispensed with. The allocation of spiritual duties to the deacon proves that the necessity is felt. If the means of comfortable assistance to the poor are to be accompanied with words of consolation, encouragement, admonition, prayer, and thanksgiving; if he is to prepare matters of judgment for the final sentence, examine applicants for admission to fellowship, announce the hour of meeting, give out hymns in public worship, as Dr Bradlaw declares,-the work of a ruling elder is confessedly allocated. The description given, that the deacons are worthy of the confidence of the pastor, and also of the people, more strongly confesses that these deacons are but ruling elders under another name. Why then deprive them of the title and authority which Scripture awards?

3. EMINENT INDEPENDENTS

contend for the scriptural usage. Dr Thomas Goodwin says"Though to rule is a pastor's office as well as an elder's, yet the elder is more especially said to rule, because he is wholly set apart to it. It is his proper calling, which he is wholly appointed to mind.' Dr John Owen-'Elders not called to teach ordinarily, or administer the sacraments, but to assist and help in the rule and government of the Church, are mentioned in Scripture Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28, and 1 Tim. v. 17.' 'Differing gifts are required unto the differing works of pastoral teaching on the one hand, and practical rule on the other, is evident— (1.) From the light of reason, the nature of the works themselves

being so different; and (2.) From experience. Some men are fitted for the dispensation of the Word and doctrine who have no ability for the work of rule, and some are fitted for rule who have no gifts for the discharge of the pastoral work in preaching. Yea, it is very seldom that both these sorts of gifts do concur in any eminency in the same person, or without some notable defect. Those who are ready to assume all things unto themselves are, for the most part, fit for nothing at all.' 'The nature of the work requires that there should be more elders than one.'

The Monarch of this kingdom claims the service of His subjects according to capacity. If no wise men are to be found among the members, then the office cannot be filled, and the congregation must be indebted to the assistance of others. If there are men able to judge between brethren, noted for wisdom, prudence, sanctified ability-surely these gifts of God ought to be employed. There must be some niche in the great spiritual Temple which they might profitably occupy. If cases constantly occur requiring the united exercise of wise counsel and judgment-if the pastor is not to be overburdened, harassed, and hindered in the work of the ministry, then this want ought to be supplied out of the material prepared and suited for the purpose. The voice of reason echoes the voice of God-Set them to judge,' that they may 'rule with diligence,' and, ruling well, 'be counted worthy of double honour.'

Well may Congregationalists, in view of these facts, declare with Dr Vaughan-The existence of such a practice in all the early Churches whose usage in this respect has become known to us, is a remarkable fact, and enough to justify suspicion as to the wisdom of our own prevalent usage.'

QUESTIONS.

1. What opposing parties agree in rejecting the ruling elder? 2. Wherein do the Congregationalist and the Apostolic Churches diverge?

3. Prove that ruling elders who did not preach existed in New Testament times.

4. What officers are substituted by Congregationalists in the place of elders? Prove this.

5. Name some eminent Independent writers who contend for the scriptural usage, and say what is the force of this.

CHAPTER XIII.

§ 3. THE EXTENT OF OFFICIAL POWER.

With all authority.'

Do the elders possess any more authority than the people? Are they simply presidents to preserve order, having no more authority than any member of the congregation? or, being the representatives of the people, are they alone entitled to administer the government?

The latter alternative is established, if it is found that authority to rule is committed solely to the elders, and if the exercise of that authority is incompatible with rule by all the members in

common.

I. THE ELDERS ALONE ARE AUTHORIZED TO RULE.

The power committed to them is not absolute. They have no power to enact whatever laws they wish. The laws of Christ, the King, alone can bind the consciences and conduct of His subjects. The duty of the elders is rather to explain and enforce the execution of the laws of Christ: One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren' (Matt. xxiii. 8). They are commanded to feed, and to take the oversight of the flock of God; but not as being lords over God's heritage' (1 Pet. v. 2, 3). And this, as accountable to the Chief Shepherd, at His appearing in His kingdom.

This delegated power is compared to that of a parent over his

family. A bishop must be 'one who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?' (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5). That power is not only persuasive, it is also strictly authoritative, guided by judgment and prudence. It would be absurd for a parent to wait for the opinions of his children, and merely to exercise what their wishes allowed. The reasoning of the apostle is only conclusive ir bishops are clothed with equal authority. Elders are overseers or bishops. They not only preside and advise, but authoritatively direct (Acts xx. 28). Such a superintendence entitles them to prescribe acts of service and obedience without waiting for the opinion of the members. The word is used in the Septuagint to denote the authoritative superintendence of military officers. They did not merely give advice, or wait for the consent of their soldiers. The very name elder or presbyter, given to the officers of the Church, shows that, as the ancient elder who judged Israel in the gates, so they are not to be destitute of power to rule. Thrice over are they described as rulers (yeoves) in one chapter (Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24). Though originally signifying guides, almost uniformly in the New Testament the word is put for authoritative governors (Matt. x. 18; 1 Pet. ii. 14). Besides, a stronger term is employed to point out the elders as rulers, who are placed over Christians by the Holy Ghost (goorausvo) (Rom. xii. 8; 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, and v. 17). This term is used for civil magistrates and governors, and also for the command which a Christian should have over himself.

Most express are the injunctions laid upon the people to yield obedience. Not only are terms employed which signify both yielding to persuasion and submission to power (TE1000, Heb. xiii. 17); others also are used which imply obedience with submissive respect (vw); and further, entire subjection (Toraσow, 1 Cor. xvi. 16). As children to their parents, servants to their masters, subjects to civil governors, do not simply yield acquiescence in their counsels, but subjection to their authority, so are Christians called to yield, not only to the advice, but also to the authoritative regulation of the elders who are set over them in the Lord.