It

pecially will not warrant either conclusion. undoubtedly implies a difference, not in the powers conferred, but solely in their application. When Doct., Whitaker infers from this word, a distinction of office, he merely begs the question. He ought to have proved that the word specially, necessarily implies a distinction of office. This he does not prove. His conclusion then is unwarranted—and the text by no means supports the notion of Ruling Elders.

I shall next proceed to examine the Rev. Gentleman's quotation from Hilary, an early writer. Had Hilary said that the seniors, in his day, were Ruling Elders-that they formed a component part of the Presbytery; that they with the Pastors, had the power of examining and licensing candidates for the gospel ministry, of ordaining, settling, removing or judging ministers of resolving questions of doctrine or discipline, of condemning erroneous opinions"-in short, of ordering whatever pertained to the spiritual concerns of the Churches under their charge,* he would to be sure make out for us a sampie of Ruling Elders in his day, answerable to those contended for in the present. But he has not a syllable in support of one of these * Presbyterian form of gov.

particulars.

He says no more than that seniors,

or elderly men, were consulted, but that the custom was grown into disuse in his time. And can we from such declaration, draw the conclusion, that there were Ruling Elders at that time; such as are now contended for? To do so would be strange logic. Elderly men were consulted: therefore, there were Ruling Elders in the Church, who shared her spiritual government.

Gentlemen, it is incontestibly true, that in the different situations of the Church, which frequently occurred, in the first three centuries, while persecution lasted, it was customary to consult aged men, not as officers however, but as laymen. Surely from this custom we can upon no principle, infer a warrant for the establishment of a grade of Church officers.

Presbyter Independent. The office of Ruling Elders, gentlemen, is so unreasonable a thing— is supported by such superficial inferences, from texts of Scripture, and such vague expressions of ancient writers, that it is really unaccountable how any set of men can continue so tenacious upon the subject. I could wish that the sense of the whole Christian world could be consulted, for almost all Christendom is against it. The Ro

man, Greek, and Coptic Churches are against it. The Churches of England, Sweden and Denmark, are against it. Our numerous sects of Independents in this country and in Great Britain are against it. Nay, even Presbyterians themselves, are divided upon this subject. Bishop Sage informs us, that," the whole tribe of the Belgic remonstrants, are against it in their Confession of Faith.

Baxter in his preface to his Five Disputations of Church Government, says expressly that," as far as he could understand, the greatest part, if not three for one, of the English Presbyterian Ministers, were as far against Lay Elders as any Prelates of them all."

It is in vain for Gentlemen to set up their reasoning, against the understandings and the good sense of almost all the Christian world upon this subject The fact is, that amongst the hundreds of ancient writers extant, there is not an individual of them all, who in enumerating the grades in the ministry and the officers in the Church, says any thing of Ruling Elders. The most that can be said from the Scriptures, are the illogical inferences of Dr. Whitaker; and all that can be drained from the ancients, is, that old men were consulted

And may

in cases of distress and emergency. God grant us prudence, to appeal to the same source for knowledge, and cool deliberation, in every tribulation in the Church, and in the day of persecution and affliction.

Chairman. Gentlemen we are prepared to hear whatever may be further urged upon this question. Presbyter Tertius. We submit the question.

Chairman. We proceed to the fifth charge viz. That Episcopacy grew out of, and is an error of Popery.

Presbyter Tertius. Gentlemen, I have taken the trouble of investigating this charge laboriously and conscientiously, and after the most mature deliberation, find it well founded. Popery, strictly speaking, is the ecclesiastical supremacy assumed by the Bishop of Rome, and involves in it that system of corruption, as well in doctrine and government, as in practice, which characterizes that Church. Hence Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Auricular Confession, the Worship of Images, the Invocation of Saints, Adoration of the

L

Cross, and Prelacy, are all spoken of as Romish errors. And if the Roman Pontiff be not their immediate author he is their immediate supporter. In this sense Clerical imparity is a Popish error, nearly coeval in its rise, with the commencement of Papacy itself. It originated from the same source, and tends to the same mischief. All my enquiries have more and more confirmed me in the persuasion, that it is a real mischievous departure from Apostolic simplicity. That this charge is not unfounded, may be further argued, not only from the Popish and Episcopal Churches supporting the same views upon the subject, but their adhering to each other with great tenacity, almost acknowledging that they must stand or fall together. It is needless to cite authorities upon this point; for it is well known that all Roman Catholics claim the Protestant Episcopal Church as a daughter who rebelled against her mother, and having stole away from her, abused her who begot her. Indeed Episcopalians hesitate not to acknowledge, that the Church of Rome is valid in her ministry, and Apostolic in her priesthood. The Protestant Episcopal Church to be sure is a Reformed Church-reformed from many of the most awful errors of Popery but