after that, the church had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the church; which, by what negligence it grew into disuse, I know not, unless perhaps by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, while they alone wished to appear something."

Upon these authorities gentlemen-authorities drawn from sources which cannot be disputed, the scriptures and the best Episcopal writers, I risk the argument. If this charge be sustained, one grade of Episcopal regimen, of course, falls to the ground, and Episcopacy itself is lost.

Doct. Bishop. I have been waiting a moment in order to hear what further may be said by the gentlemen upon the charge, but as none of them rise, I proceed to examine the Rev. Gentleman's authorities, in which he so proudly triumphs. Before I proceed to consider the arguments themselves, however, I must observe, that were Episcopalians to admit such an order in the church as Ruling Elders, it could in no sense be the cause of Episcopacyfalling to the ground." As Bishops have not the sole power in ecclesiastical affairs--as Presbyters are their counsellors and assistants in the administration of church discipline-so Ruling Elders, supposing them to have an equal share in

the government with preaching Presbyters, would by no means invade the negative power of Bishops. Episcopacy then, is safe, whatever may be the decision of the question.

The Rev. Gentleman draws his first argument from the necessity of the case; and I must confess, if not drawn, it never would have appeared. He thinks he "can hardly have a better comment on this necessity," than the practice of those churches which reject Ruling Elders." Here he brings in his Episcopal brethren with their Vestry and Church-Wardens, and the Independents with their committee. Is the Gentleman ignorant, how wide a difference there is, between his Ruling Elders, and our Vestry and Wardens? Let us examine and compare them.

His "Church Session consists of the minister, or ministers and elders of a particular congregation." "The Church Session is competent to the spiritual government of the congregation." Sec. 1 and 2, chap. 8. Is this the business of our Vestries, and of Independent Committees ? No such thing. They have nothing at all to do with spiritual matters. Their business relates solely to temporalities. They cannot admonish, "rebuke, suspend, or exclude from the sacraments, those who

are found to deserve the censures of the Church," as the Ruling Elders can, for whom the gentleman pleads. Their business is totally different; and therefore, if necessity requires Ruling Elders, it requires spiritual ones in the Presbyterian, and temporal ones among Episcopalians and Independents. The necessity of having Laymen, to take care of the temporalities of the church, is evident to every man. But until it can be proved, that Jesus Christ did not establish a competent priesthood, there can be no necessity of having Laymen to administer in spiritual things.

The next argument which the Rev. Gentleman produces is from the Holy Scriptures. "Let the Elders that rule well. be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine." On these words the Gentleman remarks, that every man of plain good sense, who had never heard of a controversy on the subject, would conclude, on reading this passage, that when it was written, there were two kinds of Elders, (this happens to be the very point to be determined) one whose duty it was to labour in the word and doctrine, and another, who did not thus labour, but only ruled in the Church." I hope the Rev. Gentleman will confess that there is a

great deal of plain good sense in the Christian world, and yet by far the greater part of it is against him. I hope the Gentleman will allow that Ignatius, Ireneus, Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome, and many other eminent writers, have enumerated the orders of the Church repeatedly, and yet have not a sentence to support his favourite system of Ruling Elders-I hope he will also allow, that these men had plain good sense. I should also hope he will allow, that Baxter, Vines, and the greater part of the English Presbyterian Divines in their day, besides numbers of foreign Presbyterians, who have distinguished themselves by their writings, and yet were professed enemies to Ruling Elders, were men of plain good sense. Surely, Chamius, Salmasius, Blondell, Ludovicus, Capellus, Moyses, Amiraldus, all Presbyterians, were not novices--still they all testified against Ruling Elders. The Rev. Gentleman proceeds upon this text and rests the whole explanation of it, upon Dr. Whitaker, whom he calls a "zealous and learned Episcopal divine." But for what, I ask, was Dr. Whitaker zealous? Certainly not for Episcopacy. He was zealous for the peculiar doctrines of Presbyterians. Learned he was; but an

Episcopalian he never was, although a minister of the Church of England; for it is not every one who wears her garb, that adopts her principles. But it matters not what he was. We have nothing to do with him, but with his reasoning. Let us try it, and I presume we shall find it insufficient to answer the purpose for which the Rev. Gentleman quoted it.

The fact which the gentleman would wish to have proved, by the text quoted from Timothy is, that those who ruled well, and those who laboured in the word and doctrine, held distinct offices. Now this fact is contended for by Dr. Whitaker, and of course by the Rev. Gentleman who last addressed you. Those who ruled well, might for aught any man knows, have been ordained to preach also, and might, in consequence, have frequently preached; but they were not laborious in preaching. This is the distinction marked by the word especially; a distinction not of office but of industry in the same office. Some elders were more concerned in ruling: others in preaching: but it is miserable logic to infer from this, that those who ruled, had not also a right to preach as miserable logic as it would be to infer, that those who preached, had not a right to rule. The word eş