Fourthly: It speaks of one order only of ecclesiasti cal persons-those who rule: of which order, they who labour in the word and doctrine are a part. The Greek word* translated "they who labour," denotes a considerable degree of exertion; and therefore implies entire devotion to the work, involving inability to pay attention to any ordinary mean of maintenance: For that the place speaks of provision for this, is agreed on both sides, and appears evidently from the verse immediately following. Probably also, the labouring spoken of may have been with an especial relation to those who travelled from their homes and from their private concerns, for the enlargement of the Christian Church: for St. Paul uses the same Greek word, where he says "I laboured more abundantly than they all," and again where he says" Help those women who laboured with me in the gospel"-doubtless in the providing of his accommodations in travel; to which the mention of his own labouring also has a reference.

Some episcopalian authors seem to have been misunderstood, when they notice the distinction made between those who taught and those who ruled. Different men may be employed in different departments; for each of which they are all alike qualified, by their grade of character: as at present, both in episcopal and in anti-episcopal communions, there are not a few who derive their subsistence from literary instruction; and yet are not on that account excluded from their respective shares in the exercise of discipline. And there are not wanting instances, in which they afford a like concurrence; while, from allowable causes, they subsist on other means, ministering seldom or not at all. Besides these things, it is evident a man may be relieved from labouring in the word and doctrine, by the weight of years, or by bodily complaint; and yet not be thought disqualified for ecclesiastical counsel.

* Κοπίωντες.

† 1 Cor. xv. 10.

Philip iv. 3.

The opposite theory has been thought to be countenanced by the constitution of the synagogue: in which there were two sorts of elders-those who ruled, and those who taught. But the former held a species of civil magistracy, begun under the captivity, and indulged to the Jews by their superiours of succeeding times. This is stated by Dr. Whitby on the place; although he gives it the turn, of countenancing the idea of imitation in the Christian Church. But the two cases are dissimilar in this respect: for in the synagogue, the departments of those different descriptions of persons were divers also; whereas the opposite theory does not allege, nor would the text in question countenance the notion, that in the Church, they who labour in the word and doctrine are not entitled to any share in the administration of the discipline.

In favour of this scheme of ruling elders, there are but two other passages brought from scripture; so far as is here known.

One of them, is the term "government," in 1 Cor. xii. 23. The apostle had noticed, as set in the Church, first, Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Teachers. Varying his language, he goes on-"After that, miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Here is an enumeration, first of descriptions of persons; and afterwards of endowments and offices, which might belong to any or all of them. To make each article the note of a different sort of ecclesiastical character, would be a multiplying of orders, far beyond what the opposers of parity contend for.

The other place is "He that ruleth, with diligence." But this also appears in an enumeration of offices, which may be performed at different times, by a person of the same grade of character, and therefore cannot mark a distinct order. The apostle premises-"He that teacheth" (let him

* Rom. xii. 8.

wait) on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity." Then comes in "he that ruleth, with diligence;" and there follows" he that showeth mercy with cheerfulness." Doubtless, the person who teaches may also exhort, and may also give: and why not also rule? The sense is, that whoever is at any particular time engaged in any one of these acts, should perform it in its proper spirit. Any other interpretation of the two passages makes them inconsistent even with the theory, in the support of which they are produced. For it would follow, that the government of the Church requires a special order of persons, to be devoted to the object; and that pastors should have no concern therein. The passages, according to the construction on the other side, prove too much and therefore nothing.

There having been reference to the government of the synagogue; this may be a proper place to express the opinion, that if there should be admitted the position of its having suggested the plan on which the Christian Church was modelled, nothing would be thereby gained to the opinion of congregational Episcopacy. For in such a case, there might still be expected a diversity, accommodated to the different characteristick properties of the Jewish and the Christian Churches. Among the Jews, there were in each large city many synagogues, each of which had its distinct regimen: but their common centre of unity was the temple, with its priesthood. It was therefore a deviation called for by existing circumstances, that although the angel and the presbyters of the synagogue were congregational; the bishop and the presbyters of the Church of Christ should be diocesan. Accordingly, as well in scripture as in primitive authors, we always read of the Church-not of the Churches-of any particular city, and its neighbourhood. In Jerusalem especially-it will be acknowledged-there

were more congregations than could have been accommodated in one house; at the time when St. Paul and St. Barnabas were received in that city, "by the Church"* and when it was said" Tidings of these things came unto the ears of the Church which were in Jerusalem."+ Under this head of unity, there occurs another consideration. On the ground of congregational Episcopacy and of ministerial parity, it is difficult to know in what way the presbyters in any city, with their flocks, constituted one Church: for as to any organized presbytery, no such matter appears.

In regard to the other congregational schemethe Episcopacy of one minister in office, and the presbytery of other ministers equal to him in grade

-as in the case of a rector and assistant ministers, to which it has been sometimes compared-while the present writer does not allow himself to speak with disrespect of opinions professed by grave and learned men; he knows of no sentiment on the present subject, which, proceeding from such a source, has so little to support it. In the evidences offered, there is always implied-for it is essential to the scheme that during the whole of the first three centuries, there were in no city more Christians, than could assemble in one house, and communicate at one table. Let it here suffice to state a few facts, utterly irreconcileable with the position.

When we read‡ of the many thousands who believed in the city of Jerusalem, and this in the infancy of the propagation of the gospel; we cannot surely believe, that they were comprehended in a congregation, and not they merely, but the Christians of that city in succession, for ages afterwards.

We read concerning another great city-Ephesus-of St. Paul's continuing there "two whole years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, heard Acts, xxi. 20.

* Acts, xv. 4. t xi. 22.

the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks."* After mention of miraculous works performed and the effects of them, it is added-" So mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed." A congregational flock is not answerable to the zeal and the exertion committed to this record.

It may be presumed, that there was no small body of converts in the great city of Antioch, when there was first bestowed on them the name of Christians; and when the difficulty occurred concerning circumcision. After the settlement of the succeeding controversy, Paul and Barnabas continued with them-"teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also." On the contrary hypothesis, the fruit of their labours must have been very small.

In the case of this Church it is alleged, that about sixty years after, there are evidences in the epistles of Ignatius, of the existence of one congregation only, under his Episcopacy. This is thought to be testified by his exhorting of his people, to adhere to one altar. It is overlooked, that not the word "Altar," but the word "Table," denoted the place of the Eucharistick sacrifice. Accordingly, the former word must have been applied by him figuratively; to accord with the unity of spirit and of worship which he inculcates, in contrariety to schismatical assemblies. The same Ignatius has used a phrase,‡ which has been mistranslated for him to signify assembling in one place. Ample authorities, however, are produced to prove a very different signification of the terms: so as to justify the anti-episcopal translator Beza, in interpreting them where they occur in Acts, ii. 42, as signifying" the common assembling of the Church, with their mutual agreement in the same doctrine, and the great union of their hearts."

Another form of expression of the same father, Acts, xix. 10. † Acts, xv. 35. * Επι το αυτό.