and pious divines, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, had observed the new models set up in Geneva and other places, for the censuring of scandalous persons, by mixed judicatories of ministers and laity; and these, reflecting on the great looseness of life which had been universally complained of in King Edward's time, thought such a platform might be an effectual way for keeping out a return of the like disorders But certain wise politicians of that age demonstrated to the Queen that these models would certainly bring with them a great abatement of her prerogative; since, if the concerns of religion came into popular hands, there would be a power set up distinct from hers, over which she could have no authority." And that this opinion still prevails in the English church we might prove from many sources. We quote, however, the opinion of Archbishop Whately.‡

It may be needful to add, that if in a church thus constituted, or in any other, the laity are admitted to a share in the government of it, and to eccleiastical offices, this would be, not only allowable, but wise and right. That laymen-that is, those who hold no spiritual office-should take part in legislating for the church, and should hold ecclesiastical offices, as in the Scotch kirk, and in the American Episcopalian church, (always supposing, however, that they are MEMBERS of the church; not as in this country, belonging to other communions,) is far better than that the whole government should be in the hands of men of one profession, the clerical. That this has nothing of an Erastian character, it would be unnecessary to mention, but that I have seen the observation-in itself perfectly truemade in such a manner as to imply what is not true; i. e., so as to imply that some persons do, or may, maintain that there is something of Erastianism in such an arrangement. But who ever heard of any such charge being brought? Who, for instance, ever taxed the Scotch kirk, or the American Episcopalian, with being Erastian, on account of their having layelders? Erastianism has always been considered as consisting in making the State, as such-the civil magistrate by virtue of his office-prescribe to the people what they shall believe, and how worship God.

The Episcopal church in this country at the time of its constitution gave very emphatic proof of its adherence to this feature of primitive and reformed Presbyterian discipline, by adopting, in some limitel measure, the sentiments of its

†Burnet's Hist. of the Reformation, preface to the second volume of Nare's edition, pp. 24, 25.

See Kingdom of Christ, p. 285, Eng. ed. Dr. Hinds' opinion in his Hist. of the Rise and Progress of Christianity, has been already given. See, also, Christianity Independent of the Civil Gov't, p. 105. Spiritual Despotism, pp. 200, 205, 208, 210, 156, 199. See Eng. ed. Warburton's Alliance of Church and State, p. 197. Mem. of Prot. Ep. Ch. p. 79.

founder, Bishop White, and not those of Bishop Seabury, its first corrupter, and the first in the line of succession in the order of Puseyite high-churchmen. The introduction of the laity into all their councils, Bishop White urged on the following ground:* From what he has read of primitive usage, he thinks it evident that in very early times, when every church, that is, the Christian people in every city and convenient district round it, was an ecclesiastical commonwealth, with all the necessary powers of self-government, the body of the people had a considerable share in its determinations. The same sanction which the people gave originally in a body, they might lawfully give by representation. In reference to very ancient practice, it would be an omission not to take notice of the council of Jerusalem, mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Acts. That the people were concerned in the transactions of that body, is granted generally by Episcopalian divines. Something has been said, indeed, to distinguish between the authoritative act of the apostles, and the concurring act of the lay brethren; and Archbishop Potter, in support of this distinction, corrects the common translation, on the authority of some ancient manuscripts, reading (Acts 15: 23) "elders brethren," a similar expression, he thinks, to "men brethren," in chapter 2: 29, where the and is evidently an interpolation, to suit the idiom of the English language. It does not appear, that our best commentators, either before or since the time of Archbishop Potter, have followed his reading. Mills prefers, and Griesbach rejects it. The passage, even with the corrections, amounts to what is pleaded for the obtaining of the consent of the laity-which must have accompanied the decree of Jerusalem, nothing less being included in the term "multitude,” who are said to have "kept silence;" and in that of "the whole church," of whom, as well as of the apostles and elders, it is said, that "it pleased" them to institute the recorded mission. On no other principle than that here affirmed, can there be accounted for many particulars introduced in the apostolic epistles. The matters referred to are subjects, which, on the contrary supposition, were exclusively within the province of the clergy, and not to be acted on by the churches, to whom the epistles are respectively addressed." Bishop White's views are fully developed in his "Case of the Episcopal Churches considered," and to which in the above work and to the very end of life he expressed his unshaken adherence † In this work he gives the outline of a form of government, evidently suggested by the form and order of our Presbyterian courts

*Memoirs of the Prot. Ep. Ch. pp. 76, 77. On what grounds Bishop Seabury opposed it may be seen at p. 344, &c., of do.

†See Lectures on the Apost. Succ. pp. 41 and 412, and Mem. of Prot. Ep. Ch. p. 81.

with their clerical and lay delegates.† So that whatever popųlar representation is now enjoyed by this church, is literally and truly adopted from the Presbyterian church, which had been established long before it in this country. By the veto, however, given to the bishop, and the vote by orders, which enables a majority of the clergy to outvote all the laity-the popular representation of the Episcopal church is but in name, and amounts to nothing in reality.

The fact is as plainly authenticated that all the Puritans from Cartwright downwards, and all the Independents until a recent date, agreed upon the same general principles, and had ruling elders in their churches.*

†See ch. ii. and quotations given in the above.

See Presbytery and Prelacy, p. 538, &c.

*See Dr. Miller, as above, where their Platforms and Confessions and standard writers are all quoted.

A large proportion, at least, of the first settlers of New England regarded the office of Ruling Elders as of Divine institution, and appealed to 1 Cor. 12: 28, and 1 Tim. 5: 17, as warranting this persuasion. The title of these officers is descriptive of their rank and work in the church. They were Elders, in common with the Pastor and Teacher: and as it was their duty to assist the teaching officers or officer in ruling, or conducting the spiritual affairs of the church, (in admitting, for instance, or excluding members, inspecting their lives and conversations, preventing or healing offences, visiting the sick, and administering occasionally a word of admonition or exhortation to the congregation,) they obtained the name of Ruling Elders. Whereas, Pastors and Teachers, by way of distinction, were sometimes called Teaching Elders, because it was eminently their duty to teach, or minister the word.

Ruling Elders were anciently ordained, (see Notes, Cambridge Ch.) and were sometimes addressed by the appellation of Reverend. In a letter, for instance, of Rev. Sol. Stoddard, communicating his acceptance of the call of the church at Northampton to be their pastor, the Ruling Elder, to whom it was addressed, was styled, the "Rev. John Strong," &c. The place of the Ruling Elders in the congregation was an elevated seat, between the Deacon's seat and the pulpit. They seem to have been more generally employed, and longer retained in the churches of New England, than teachers were, as distinct from Pastors. The Old South Church, Boston, for example, had never a Teacher, in the distinctive sense of the term; but at its foundation had its Ruling Elder, Mr. Rainsford, ordained at the same time with its first Pastor, Mr. Thacher. In the First Church, Boston, Ruling Elders were continued at least to the death of Elder Copp, in 1713; in York, Me., till the death of Elder Sewall, in 1769, and perhaps longer; in First Church, Ipswich, till after 1727; and in the Second Church of that town, Chebacco Parish, now Essex, till the death of Elder Crafts, in 1790. In Salem, the office was sustained for a great length of time; and can hardly be said to have yet become extinct. In the First Church in that city, which had Ruling Elders, at its foundation, in 1629, choice was made of one to fill that office in 1782. In the Third Church, there was an election to the same office, then recently vacated by death in 1783. And in the North Church, which had had Ruling Elders from its beginning, the late venerable Dr. Holyoke was appointed one in 1783, and Hon. Jacob Ashton in 1826.

In the county of Middlesex, eight churches appear to have had Ruling Elders; and of these eight, two afterwards removed beyond it. In the meeting-house, in South Reading, built about 1744, there was an Elder's seat, till removed in 1837; but it is not known to have been ever occupied by the appropriate officer. In August, 1630, the church of Charlestown, now First Church, Boston, chose Mr. Increase Nowell as its Ruling Elder, but he resigned in 1632, after he had been elected Secretary of the Colonyit being decided incompatible to hold both offices at the same time. In

7-VOL IV.

While, however, all the Reformed churches did thus agree in justifying the concurrence of the people in the government of the church, they appear evidently to have abstained from any such title as would identify their representatives even in name, with the ministers of the word. Some distinctive appellation was therefore chosen, such as "assistants," which was the term in use among the English Puritans as late as the year 1606.* And as the titles of bishop, pastor, and minister, came to be used as the official and regular names for preachers of the gospel, the word elder, as the translation of the Latin word senior, was appropriated to the representative of the people. But it was necessary to justify the office from Scripture, and the present First Church, Charlestown, there was, according to Johnson, one Ruling Elder at the time he wrote, 1651. This was doubtless Elder Green, who kept the Church Records till his death, about 1658; and he seems to have had no successor in office. Elder Brown of Watertown Church, gathered in 1630; and Elder Goodwin of the Church gathered at Cambridge, 1633, and removed to Hartford, Ct., 1636, were both prominent characters in some of the theological questions and controversies of their day.

The present First Church, Cambridge, gathered in 1636, chose Ruling Elders at the beginning, and retained them above sixty years. The Ruling Elder of First Church, Concord, gathered in 1636, is noted for the "unhappy discord" which he occasioned in that church, and the trouble which he caused the teacher, Mr. Bulkeley, which may be the reason why, after the Elder's "abdication," no successor appears to have been appointed. In First Church, Newton, Thomas Wiswall, (styled in Cambridge Town Records, Rev. Thomas Wiswall,) was ordained a Ruling Elder in 1664, at the ordination of its first pastor. And finally, in the church at Hopkinson, gathered in 1724, two Ruling Elders were ordained in 1732. But in this church, it is believed, and in all the above churches in this county, the office has long been extinct. The following is a notice of the death of a Ruling Elder, who was probably the last to sustain the office in the church of Cambridge. "Lord's day, January 14, 1699-1700. Elder James Clarke of Cambridge dies; a good man in a good old age, and one of my first and best Cambridge friends. He quickly follows the great patron of Ruling Elders, Tho. Danforth, Esq.

Proposals were made in 1727, but without success, to revive the office of Ruling Elders in the Old South Church, Boston. "1727, March 31 Propos'd to the Chh. to take it into yr Consideration whether the Scripture did not direct to the choice of Ruling Elders-nam'd yt. text, 1 Tim. v. 17. Ld. shew us yy mind and will in ys matter." A like attempt for the same purpose was made shortly after in the New Brick Church, now Second Church, Boston. "In 1735, after much debate, it was determined to have two Ruling Elders in the church; an office which has become almost obsolete, and which after this attempt to revive it, sunk for ever." "This matter of the Ruling Elders was debated at numerous church meetings, from March 17, 1735, to November 11, 1737; at which time only one person (Deacon James Halsy) had been found to accept the office, and the church at last voted not to choose another."-Am. Quarterly Register.

*About the year 1606, Mr. Bradshaw published a small treatise, entitled, "English Puritanism, containing the main opinions of the rigidest sort of those that went by that name in the realm of England," which Dr. Ames translated into Latin for the benefit of foreigners. As to government, this treatise says, "They hold that by God's ordinance the congregation should choose other officers as ASSISTANTS to the ministers in the government of the church, who are jointly, with the ministers, the overseers of the manners and conversation of all the congregation, and that these are to be chosen out of the gravest and most discreet members, who are also of some note in the world, and able, if possible, to maintain themselves."-Neal, vol. i. p. 434.

as the passage in 1 Tim. 5: 17, appeared, when translated by the term elders instead of presbyters, to designate two kinds of elders, the term ruling elder came to be very generally used as an appropriate title for these assistants or seniors. Nor do we now object to the name, inasmuch as both the word elder and the word ruling are now understood only in their adopted and conventional meaning, and not in their Scriptural and derivative sense. The term elder is grave and honorable, and well suited to express the character and estimation in which its possessor should be held; while the epithet ruling as happily denotes the duty to which he is appointed. But when we refer to the passage on which the name is founded, and by which it is sustained, nothing could be more unfortunate than such an appropriation of its terms. For as we have seen, the one word πреσ BUтEρоL, i. e. presbyters, is never used in the New Testament, or in the fathers, for any other officer than the one who might preach and administer sacraments; while the other term πроεσтws (prоestos), i. e. presiding, alludes to an official duty in the public congregation, to which the ruling elder has never been deemed competent. And it is therefore our opinion that had this passage been rendered as it ought to be in accordance with the usage of Scripture-"Let the presbyters who preside" over fixed and organized churches, and minister to them in word and doctrine, "be counted worthy of double honor, but especially those presbyters who act as evangelists," in carrying that "word and doctrine" into frontier and destitute regions,the use of the title "ruling elder" in its present sense, never would have been suggested, and all the confusion and obscurity which have been thrown around the question of the nature and duties of the office for ever prevented.