all the advocates of parity seem to be quite at a loss. You have recourse, as some of them had, to the supposition, or probability, that several of them were ruling Elders. But you should first have fully proved by evidence, either from Ignatius himself or some writer or writers contemporary with him or before him, that there ever was any such character in the Christian Church. This you have attempted to do from a text of Scripture of a very ambiguous nature, in the opinion of some very great men, even of your own persuasion. This subject I shall discuss in my next letter, with as much brevity as I possibly can. REV. SIR: LETTER VIII. I SHALL now enter upon the discussion of the question, Whether there were lay Elders in the primitive Church? I do not undertake to examine this point because I think it of consequence to episcopacy. Were I to admit such an order, still the government of the Church might be placed under Diocesans. 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, even supposing them to have an equal share in the government with preaching Presbyters, would by no means invade the negative power of Bishops. Every congregation in this diocese might have two or three men of that order, to assist the Rector of the church with their advice in matters of discipline, and yet all be subject to the Bishop's supremacy. Episcopacy, then, is not at all affected by the decision of this question. Why, then, you may ask me, do I give myself any trouble about it? To wrest from you the pretence that some of the Presbyters, if not all of them, mentioned by Ignatius, were ruling Elders. My first observation, with respect to this order of Church officers, is, that nine-tenths of the Protestant world are opposed to the notion of such an institution. I know it does not follow logically from this circumstance, that the order is unfounded; but it affords a strong presumption against it. Nor do we find this order in the Roman, Greek, or Coptic Churches. Nay, even Presbyterians are greatly divided upon this subject. Some of the most learned amongst them, and the most strenuous for presbytery, have entirely given it up. Bishop Sage observes, that "Chamier, Salmasius, Blondel, Ludovicus Capellus, Moyses Amiraldus, and many others, are against it. The whole tribe a Vind. &c. p. 442. of the Belgic Remonstrants (keen parity men) are against it in their confession of faith." Mr. Baxter, in his preface to his Five Disputations of Church Government, says expressly, that "as far as he could understand, the greater part, if not three for one of the English Presbyterian ministers, were as far against Lay-Elders as any Prelatists of them all." He confesses himself to be one, and he cites Mr. Vines for another. Now, Sir, if almost the whole Christian world may be marshalled against you, and even a great part of your own persuasion, and they as learned, at least, as those who are advocates for LayElders, I cannot but think and say, that you ought not to have been so positive upon this point. It will strike every candid mind at once, that there can be but little said in favour of an order of men, when almost the whole Christian world condemn it, and will not admit it into their Churches. This consideration, you will, I presume, duly appreciate; not considering it as a logical argument, but as argumentum ad verecundiam, and as affording a very strong presumption against you. 6 The text of Scripture which you have quoted in favour of Lay-Elders, is, to say the very least of it, quite ambiguous. Let us examine it. Let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour; especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. Now, it certainly does no violence to the words, or to the construction of the sentence, or to any other part of the Scripture, to interpret this passage thus: Let the PRESBYTERS that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour; especially if they labour much in preaching the word and propagating sound doctrine.' There is evidently no necessity upon any ground or principle whatever, to extract from this passage the double order of preaching and ruling Elders. Neither the words, nor the context require it. Is it not, then, unjustifiable to found an order of men upon a text of Scripture so completely ambiguous? What would you not say against Episcopalians, were they to found the order of Bishops upon such uncertainty? I declare, that I should be ashamed to say or write one word in favour of it. No, Sir; if I cannot give ten times the evidence from the holy Scriptures, in favour of Bishops, that you can in favour of Lay-Elders, I will then acknowledge, that our cause rests entirely upon the testimonies of the primitive writers. This, indeed, I deem proof quite sufficient; and if you can give me the same proof for Lay-Elders, in the first three centuries, I will then acknowledge them, notwithstanding the ambiguity of this text, to be of apostolical institution. For I subscribe freely to the assertion of Vincentius Lirinensis, that whatever has been believed" always and every where, and by all, ought to be held fast; for that is truly catholic." I find, Sir, by consulting Dr. Campbell's Ecclesiastical Lectures, that he considers the text in question, altogether insufficient to support the institution of Lay-Elders. He says, that b Vol. I. p. 178. b the word especially "is not intended to indicate a different office, but to distinguish from others those who assiduously apply themselves to the most important as well as the most difficult part of their office, public teaching; that the distinction intended, is, therefore, not official, but personal; that it does not relate to a difference in the powers conferred, but solely to a difference in their application. It is not to the persons who have the charge, but to those who labour in it. And to this exposition, as far the more natural, I entirely agree." Indeed, it is altogether inadmissible, that two officers, so essentially different, should invariably be confounded under one common name. And it is a most extraordinary instance of attachment to a hypothesis, that you, who make a community of names an argument in favour of parity, (which, by the way, is a mere fallacy, as I shall show hereafter,) should insist, that two essentially different officers are designated by the same title. A capacity for teaching appears to be essential to the character of an Elder. St. Paul tells Timothy and Titus, that Elders must be apt to teach, able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers; and we never once in the Scriptures find the epithets ruling and preaching given to Elders, by way of distinction. I know that names are not always to be depended upon; but in such cases, the thing signified must be characterized, or we shall remain in the dark. That, in the instance before us, such distinctive characters are given to Elders, as to make it clear or in any degree probable, that some preach and some rule, cannot, in the opinion of the generality of divines, ever be made out. But, although the mere construction of the sentence will not enable us to establish our sense of it, yet, if we attend to the meaning of one word in it, and to the sentence following, I think we shall be able to decide the point. The word I mean, is honour. What idea are we to attach to this word? The next words show: For it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Here it is evident, that the word honour means maintenance. Then the passage, according to your interpretation, will run thus: Let the Lay-Elders who rule well, be accounted worthy of double maintenance, especially the Elders that are laborious in preaching as well as ruling. Here, then, it seems, both kinds of Elders are to have an ample maintenance; there is the same Scriptural ground for maintaining the one, as for maintaining the other. Now, Sir, what is there in the employment of a ruling Elder, who now and then meets his Bishop in Presbytery, perhaps once a month, to regulate matters of discipline, or to "set in order the things that may be wanting," to entitle him to a maintenance? It is obvious to every reflecting mind, that the ministers of the word and sacraments, who devote all their time to their profession, and, therefore, cannot at the same time, be employed in secular callings, ought to have a liberal support. But, to put a ruling Elder, in this respect, upon a footing with a minister of the word, is altogether preposterous; and I am convinced, that your congregations would think it so, were it proposed to allow the ruling Elders as ample a salary as they do their ministers, or any salary at all. Let the experiment be made universally in your churches, and I will commit myself, that we shall never see the face of a ruling Elder again. If, then, the words and construction of the passage, do not necessarily establish the notion of ruling Elders; and if, upon every fair principle of interpretation, they may be viewed as holding up a different idea; and, particularly, if it follows from your sense of the passage, that ruling Elders are entitled to an ample maintenance, as well as the ministers of the word and sacraments; I think I may safely leave it with Presbyterians themselves to determine, whether that order of men can be of apostolical institution. If it be determined in the affirmative, then the order may claim by apostolical precept, a liberal maintenance; for Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. There is, however, another way of determining whether an institution be apostolical or not; and that is, as I have already mentioned, by applying the rule of Vincentius. Do the father's of the first three centuries, say any thing about this lay order? You have not quoted a single father, within that period, to prove it, except Cyprian, whose words, however, prove quite the contrary. It was the case of Numidicus, which was fully considered in a former letter. The express words of Cyprian are, that he placed himself in the Presbytery that he might be added to the number of the Priests, who had been reduced by the persecution. Now, here I set my foot. The rule of Vincentius, upon your hypothesis, fails in every respect. The fathers of those best and purest ages of Christianity, although they repeatedly enumerate the different orders of the Church, never give us the least hint of ruling Elders. Deacons we hear of in great plenty; but not the shadow' of a ruling Elder, ever crosses our path.' This is an officer, according to your system, superior to Deacons, and yet he is never so much as mentioned. Who can believe this? It is impossible, upon any received principle of evidence upon any solid ground of reasoning, to admit it. For if the text, upon which you found this order, is ambiguous, as it evidently is; if there is no other text of Scripture which can throw light upon the one in dispute, as you yourself must acknowledge; if your sense of the passage imposes upon the Church the duty of making as ample provision for Lay-Elders, as for the ministers of the word and sacraments; and, lastly, if the writers of the three first ages make no mention of the order, as they certainly do not; then we may safely place it among the inventions of men; and, therefore, at best, but matter of expediency. 6 But if we cannot find any testimony for it in the first three hundred years, is there no evidence from two or three writers of the fourth century, that the order had existed in more primitive times, although it was in their time entirely out of use? I answer, if such testimony could be produced, it would be to no purpose. For, in that case, we may be sure, that the Bishops of the Church were well satisfied that it was but a temporary expedient. It is not every institution of the Apostles that is binding. Some, in their very nature, are mere circumstances of convenience, as all parties allow; and ruling Elders, if they ever existed, must have been, in the judgment of the Church, of that number. But let us put the matter beyond contradiction, by examining the testimonies in the fourth century which you have produced. Your first testimony is from Hilary, in his explication of 1 Tim. v. 1. You ought to have begun your quotation thus-" For, indeed, among all nations, old age is honourable. Hence it is, that both the synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had Seniors, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church; which practice, or custom,d by what negligence it grew into disuse I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather pride of the teachers, while they wished to appear something." The sense of this whole passage is very evident. Hilary says, "old age is honourable among all nations." Hence the elderly men of the Church used to be consulted, which custom is now laid aside. Pray, Sir, what is there in this passage that implies the apostolical institution of ruling Elders? He must be keen sighted that can perceive any thing like it. He says nothing more than that it was formerly customary to consult the aged; no doubt in difficult situations of the Church, which frequently occurred in the first three centuries, while persecution lasted. And certainly, this was all very natural and very proper; for who are better qualified to give advice than the aged? But to bring this as a proof of an order of men concerned in the discipline of the Church, and superior to that of the Deacons, and by apostolical appointment too, is one of the many instances which we daily see, of a zeal for opinions, which spurns every check from common sense, and every remonstrance from reason. This whole matter has, I think, been fairly stated in a short compass by the learned Bingham. He says, "As to the Seniores Ecclesia, they were a sort of Elders who were not of the clergy, yet had some concern in the care of the Church. The name often occurs in Optatus and in St. Austin, from whom we may easily learn the nature of their office. Optatus says, when Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, was forced to leave his Church, in the time of the Diocletian persecution, he committed the ornaments and utensils of the Church to such of the Elders as he c Nam apud omnes quidem gentes honorabilis est senectus, &c. VOL. I.-9. |