byterian, unless he also illustrate and defend the doctrine in the same terms, and quote in its support the very texts quoted by the Westminster divines! In other words, he is not a Presbyterian unless, besides holding Presbyterian doctrine, he also hold that view of it which Mr. C. thinks most vulnerable. This is Mr. C.'s mode of ending controversy.

I am a Presbyterian, and yet I accord with the reviewer in thinking that the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" are generic names for the two classes of officers in question. The Presbyterian standards are not against me as Mr. C. alleges, since they state nothing definite, as to the meaning of bishop and presbyter, but recognize pastors, elders, and deacons, as the officers of the church. They do not assert the scriptural authority of the application of the term elders to ruling officers, since they say, "these are called elders by the Reformers !" I would be a Presbyterian, though the terms bishop and presbyter should be demonstrated to have less latitude of application than I assign to them, so long as I hold the three. offices asserted in the standards and Presbyterian writers. Mr. C.'s charge of ignorance of Presbyterian doctrines in the reviewer, is only a proof of his own ignorance of Presbyterianism, and of the nature of reasoning.

The

One scriptural authority usually quoted for ruling as a distinct office in the church, is Rom. xii. 6, 8. "Having then gifts according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." apostle is here speaking, not of extraordinary officers in the church: apostles, speakers with tongues, workers of miracles, &c. are not mentioned. Prophecy, ministering, teaching, exhortation, distribution, ruling, and showing mercy are the offices enumerated. These are evidently all permanent, for they are all necessary for the church's prosperity in all times and places. The only question is-how many of these are distinct from the rest? The London ministers maintain, that as prophecy and ministry in the passage are abstract terms, while the others are concrete, these are the distinct offices and include the others.

If ruling be not a distinct office, in which of the others is it included? It must be in the offices of giving and showing mercy, for it is placed between these; and to give it a new connexion for the purpose of moulding it to any particular in

terpretation, would be altogether gratuitous. But to include it in these, would be to make deacons rulers-a position held neither by Presbyterians nor Independents. It must be obvious that the term, "he that ruleth," (o gooтauevos,) includes something more than the ruling allowed by Independents to their pastors; for it is applied to express the authority of a father over his own house, 1 Tim. iii. 8. The term is here applied to bishops-it is reasonable to conclude that the ruler mentioned in Rom. xii. 8, possesses a power similar to that of bishops in 1 Tim. iii. 8, so far as ruling is concerned; and also that this power being of the same kind with that of a father, implies more than that of a mere president or chairman in an assembled congregation.

Another scriptural authority for the distinct office of ruling, is 1 Cor. xii. 28: "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, di-versities of tongues." Here we have a number of officers mentioned, some of which, according to the opinion of many, are temporary; and this opinion I do not mean to question. These are "apostles," "prophets," "miracles," "gifts of healing," "diversities of tongues." Mr. C. thinks he has demonstrated, by a quotation from Dr. Macknight, that all the officers here mentioned are temporary. The arguments are two:-1. Bishops and deacons, confessedly permanent officers, are not mentioned. 2. Officers confessedly extraordinary are méntioned." If such demonstration be conclusive, there are few things I will despair of proving. Mr. C. maintains, after Dr. Macknight, that bishops are not mentioned in the passage. Be it so teachers are mentioned. If there is meaning in words, it follows that teachers are not bishops, and bishops are not teachers!! Besides, since teachers are only temporary officers, it follows that all who, since the days of the apostles, set themselves up, or were instructed by the church to act as teachers, have been acting without any divine warrant. If Mr. C. admit, that, after all, teachers are and must be permanent officers, since he has proved them not to be bishops, he must allow they constitute a class of officers additional to bishops and deacons-a conclusion fatal to the constitution of Independent churches.

Again, if "governments" be only temporary, it follows, in a manner equally irresistible, that since the days of the apostles there cannot have been any government exercised in the church with a divine warrant; and, con

sequently, that the Indpendent pastors who rule in the church, as Mr. C. contends, can in these times have no instruction from heaven for so doing. This conclusion no less than the other levels the Independent system in irretrievable ruin. The only way for Mr. C. to save it, is by admitting the permanency of the offices of teaching and governing, though it should be at the expense of preconceived opinions. Oh! but he will say, if these be permanent, so must the apostles, &c. No: this does not follow. The inspired writer speaks of the state of the church at the time when he wrote, "God hath set," &c. The church at that time

possessed the offices Paul enumerates: some of these, I admit, were temporary; but I distinctly maintain the perpetuity of the offices of teaching and governing, because without them it would be impossible for the church to exist, because the commission of teaching given by Christ was to continue to the end of the world, because the keys were to continue in the church, and because teaching is enumerated, in Rom. xii. 8, among offices, none of which is alleged to be temporary. The attempt to do away with the authority for ruling elders, found in this passage, is perfectly idle. Whatever is necessary to the prosperity and even the existence of a church at all times. and in all places must be permanent. Let Mr. C. prove, if he can, that all the offices mentioned are alike, as to duration. The conclusion would be, that all are permanent. This, however he will not be able to accomplish.

I come now to notice Mr. C.'s criticisms on the instructions of Paul to Timothy and Titus. It must be obvious to any attentive reader, that in these the general qualifications of church officers are laid down, in the manner best suited to the circumstances in which Timothy and Titus were placed, and in other cases must, in some degree, be suited to circumstances. This appears from some of the qualifications of a bishop that are mentioned. "A bishop must be the husband of one wife."-1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 6. Is this considered absolutely necessary by any in the present day? It will not do to explain it, as is sometimes done-that he must not have a plurality of wives; for this would imply, that the apostle sanctioned polygamy in all except bishops. "Having faithful children." Tit. i. 6. Is this considered necessary? Before a man can become a bishop, in addition to his own qualifications for the office, must the character of his children be ascertained? If these qualifications be essential to the office of a bishop, I fear many who hold that office in all churches, not excepting the Independent, must dwindle down into the rank of mere laymen. These considerations show how necessary it is to guard against supposing that we can gather a system of church government from these two epistles, without attending to the good rule of collating Scripture with Scripture. When we find different offices and qualifications mentioned in different places, we ought obviously to consider how far they coincide or are distinct. By neglecting this, we shall be led into perpetual errors,

In this erroneous manner, it appears to me, Mr. C. has reasoned on the subject of the eldership. In reasoning on Phil. i. 1, he maintains there can be but two officers in the church-bishops and deacons,—because only these are addressed; just as we might argue there was no rural dean in Philippi, because he was not addressed. But I have to inform Mr. C., that to reason in any such manner, would be perfectly puerile. On the same principle, we must say, there were no deacons in the seven churches of Asia, at the time in which the Apostle John wrote the Revelations, because only the angel of each church is addressed. Will Mr. C., as an advocate for the perpetuity of the deacon's office, admit this? If so, what he builds with the one hand, he pulls down with the other. Mr C. has reasoned from particulars to generals-nay, from an individual fact to a universal conclusion; and this is known, in logic, by the name of the illicit process. Besides he begs the question when he alleges we can find no other authority for ruling elders and none of their qualifications, in the New Testament. We might as well reason from Acts xx. 28, that because Paul addressed only the elders of the church at Ephesus, therefore there are no qualifications of deacons given in Scripture, and that they are not to be appointed in any church, The qualifications of either church ministers or church officers, are not to be drawn from any one passage of Scripture: God has given line upon line on this, as on all subjects of essential importance to his church. Diligence is a qualification of ruling elders, Rom. xii. 8. Watching for souls as they that must give an account, contains both the duty and the qualification; for surely such a duty, performed under the consciousness of accountability to God, implies knowledge, zeal, faithfulness, and whatever else is necessary for its performance.-Heb. xiii. 17. In this verse, and in the 7th verse of this chapter, Paul exhorts the Hebrews to observe a certain demeanour towards the rulers of the church. In the one place, these rulers are mentioned as speaking the word of God; and the people are required to remember and to follow their faith. In the other, the rulers are those that, in a general sense, watch for souls; and the correlative duty enjoined is simply submission. Here, therefore, we have two offices, with their respective qualifications.

Mr. C. makes the following very logical remarks, in illustration of 1 Tim. v. 17. "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." "I must now remind you, that the grammatical construction of these

passages, confirms our interpretation of its meaning. The προεστωτές ('who rule') necessarily includes the o KOTIWITES EV NOYW ('who labour,'' &c.) This is one of the plagiarisms from Carson, with which I have already charged Mr. C., and its grossness deserves to be particularly pointed out. Mr. Carson says, 'I contend then,' &c. Mr. C. changes it into the second person, "I must now remind you," &c. thus making the whole his own. Mr. Carson has omitted the article before goσTTES, and inserted it before xoTIVTs, though both words have the article in the original: Mr. C. has done the same, In Mr. Carson's book προεστωτες is printed with a compound στ. Mr. C. evidently not knowing the difference between this character and ç, has copied the word thus:-TOESWTE. Mr. Carson has omitted the aspirate of the article oi; Mr. C. has done the same. These, however, are not the only instances in which Mr. C. appears to be ignorant even of the Greek alphabet.

In some instances he has the final in the middle of a word. He

has ouvndgrov for ouvεdgrov, p. 20. He has also followed Dr. Campbell in erroneously substituting Iogasλ for Ioganλ.. Such an humbling specimen as this, shows the wisdom of the Presbyterian Church, in maintaining a learned ministry, that it may at all times be supplied with men, able to defend the outworks of the church in such a manner, as shall both secure it against every hostile attack, and shed around it a dignity, and a lustre, worthy of its exalted principles and venerable institutions.

Mr. C. informs us, that those who rule include those who labour according to the grammatical construction of the terms. His conclusion is, that "all of them are appointed to rule and to labour in word and doc. trine." But is Mr. C. so ignorant of the nature of universal terms, as not to know that a term which includes another, must be more general than that which it includes?—that the former must be the genus and the latter the species? Does he not know, also, that all the qualities of the genus are predicable of the species; but that all the qualities of the species are not predicable of the genus? If, therefore," those who rule" include "those who labour in word and doctrine,❞—and Mr. C. is strictly correct in that part of his statement-the conclusion is inevitable, that the comprehensions of the two terms are not identical, and, therefore, that all that is predicable of those who labour, is not predicable of those who rule. Labouring in word and doctrine, then, being that which constitutes the difference of the terms, cannot apply to all. Mr. C. has first included the one class in the other, and again asserted their identity, by maintaining, that what is said of the one applies also to the other, that is, he makes a part equal to, or identical with, the whole !! All this fallacy, however, lies in his inference: his premises we admit and contend for; and from thence our conclusion follows with as much certainty as any inference in Euclid. Dr. Campbell may tell us the word par IOTA (especially) denotes a personal, not an official distinction. It matters not for my present purpose which it denotes. The one term including the other, something is asserted of the one which is not asserted of the other. The reasoning of the London ministers respecting the word μaλora, I think, is completely untouched by the assertion of Dr. Campbell, "Here is an eminent discretive particle set betwixt these two kindes of elders, evidently distinguishing the one from the other, viz. paλora, especially they that labour in the word, &c. intimating, that as there were some ruling elders that did labour in the word and doctrine, so there were others that did rule, and not labour in the word: both were worthy of double honour, but especially they that both ruled and laboured in the word also. And wheresoever this word μaλiora (especially) is used in all the New Testament, it is used to distinguish thing from thing, person from person, that are spoken of, as let us doe good to all but (uaλora) especially to them of the houshold of faith, Gal. vi. 10; therefore there were some of the houshold of faith and some that were not; and, accordingly, we must put a difference in doing good to them. All the saints salute you, especially (uaλiora) those of Cesar's houshold.-Phil. iv. 22. Therefore there were some saints of Cesar's houshold, some saints not of his houshold; and all saluted them, but especially those of Cesar's houshold. Hee that provides not for his owne (maλora) especially for them of his owne house, hec hath denyed the