at once of knowledge and of character exist also among Prefbyterians, among them too, even on your own principles, you muft grant it to be neceffary; while at the fame time I contend, that for the reasons which have been mentioned, or may yet be mentioned, it should be committed to the rulers, and to the rulers alone, without admitting the members to be their advisers. I conceive it befides to be a very evident truth, that whatever is delivered by any clafs of rulers, even though fubordinate, whether facred or civil, must be much more regarded when clothed with authority, than when communicated fimply as an advice or admonition. It is true, that, till previously convinced of its propriety, in many cafes, in civil, and always in facred matters, no man can rightly perform any obedience to any government, whether civil or ecclefiaftic. But what would we think of the man who fhould affirm, that because it is requifite to ftate to the people, very often in civil, and always in facred matters, the reasons for which they are called to yield their obedience, it is unnecessary and improper for the rulers to clothe their communications to them, requiring this obedience, in the language of authority, and that they ought fimply to enforce it by advice and perfuafion? Would not fuch an affertion be rejected with contempt, as not only fubverfive of one of the strongest preservatives of public order and social peace, but as repugnant even to the common fenfe of mankind, which, by uniform practice, has conftantly declared that advice is infufficient, and that the exercise of authority, in every government, is abfolutely effential to fecure the fubordination and obedience of the subjects?

The authority, then, for which I argue, I wish it to be remembered, is not intended to fuperfede but to promote inquiry; is not defigned to compel men, as you maintain (p. 47.), without conviction to believe and obey their ecclefiaftical rulers, but to present to them more com

manding incitements to examine, and more powerful though fecondary enforcements and obligations to obey the truth. For this purpose, it invests the governors of the church with a power, not merely to declare to her members what appears to be the mind and will of Chrift, and to advise them to obey it, but with a power to inform them, that if, upon examination and reflection, they are not difpofed to fubmit to it, they can no longer be entitled to the privileges of his people. The exercife of this power in every church, whether Independent or Prefbyterian, either by the many or the few, I apprehend is effential to its very exiftence; for it requires but little obfervation to perceive that neither the purity nor the government of any fociety could long be preferved, where advices only were delivered to the members. And, in fhort, I must remark, that while Independents themfelves, though they affect to reject it, grant to the majority, in each of their congregations, the very fame authority which Prefbyterians claim for their ecclefiaftical rulers, were they to lay afide this authority, and act fimply by advice and perfuafion, the moft awful confequences muft enfue from it to their churches. Ancient chaos, in a more fearful form, would once more resume her horrid reign; confusion and anarchy would univerfally prevail; and order and government, in their lawless focieties, would be completely annihilated.

In fine, I would obferve that the various terms also employed in fcripture to exprefs the power conferred upon church-rulers, feem plainly to intimate that they are entitled to govern those over whom they are placed, not merely by advice and perfuafion, but by authoritative rule; and to govern them thus authoritatively, without previously confulting them as to their opinion and concurrence. As an examination of these terms will enable us the better to afcertain at once either

the fallacy or the force of the preceding reafoning, let us proceed, though briefly, to confider a few of them; together with fome others, descriptive of that obedience which is due from the members of a church to their rulers; and, with an examination of their import, conclude this Letter.

In reviewing, then, the terms employed in scripture to denote the former, we fee that it is compared to the power of a parent over his family; for fays Paul (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5.)," a bishop," or overfeer, " muft be one who "rules well his own houfe, having his children in fub"jection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how "to rule his own house, how fhall he take care of the "church of God?") Now it is evidently here affirmed, that a power, correfponding in fome meafure to that which is poffeffed by a parent, or mafter over his family, is vefted in the rulers of the Chriftian church, and that the latter must be exercised by them with judgment and prudence, if they are parents or mafters, before they can be admitted to enjoy the former. But it is evident, that the power of a parent over his family is in the stricteft fense authoritative, as well as persuasive; that while he should employ persuasion, he is invested also with authority, and can lawfully exercise it whenever it is requifite; and that it is the duty of his children to be subject to his commands, without waiting till their opinion be asked and adopted. Unlefs, then, the power which fhould be exercised alfo by church-rulers is authoritative, as well as perfuafive, the reasoning of the Apoftle, in the paffage before us, would be totally inconclufive. It would be faying in effect, that before a man can be qualified for the exercise of a lower degree of power, a power of advice, he must have exercised aright a much higher degree of it, or a power of authority. As fuch a species of argumentation however is utterly unworthy of the infpired Apostle, we must certainly reject the interpretation which

leads to it, and admit that the rulers of the Christian church, like the parent of a family and the mafter of a houfe, have a power not only of advice, but of authority.

Their power is reprefented likewife as refembling that of an overfeer, who does not merely prefide and advise, but authoritatively directs what he wishes to be done by thofe over whom he is appointed; for in Acts xx. 28. all the elders of the church of Ephefus, and they alone, in the fenfe there intended, are affirmed to have been made overfeers of the fock, επισκοποι *. But if fuch an overfight as that which we have mentioned, in government as well as doctrine, be here afferted to be committed to the elders, and the elders exclusively, it feems naturally to follow, that, like all other official overseers, they muft have an authoritative fuperintendence of those over whom they are placed, and a fuperintendence which entitles them to preferibe to church-members particular acts of service and obedience, without previously confulting their opinion and advice. This idea is ftrongly confirmed, by reflecting that this very word is ufed in a celebrated Greek tranflation of the Old Teftament (Numb. xxxi. 14. and 2 Kings xi. 15.) to denote the authoritative fuperintendence of military officers, the captains of hundreds, and the captains of thousands, over their men; a clafs of governors who were not accustomed merely to give advices to their foldiers, or to requeft their confent before they delivered their orders.

Their power, befides, is described as fimilar to that of the elders who judged in the gates of the cities of Ifrael,

Compare 1 Tim. iii.: from which paffage it is manifeft, that it is an oversight, not as that of one Chriftian over another, but official and authoritative, and which is entirely peculiar to the minifters of the church, that is here intended; for it is afferted in that place, that only those Chriftians who were already overfeers in the former fenfe, and had the particular qualities there specified, were fitted for the overfight there mentioned.

for they are frequently in the New Teftament diftinguished by their name. See 1 Tim. v. 17. &c. Now, fince the name elder when applied to the judges of ancient Ifrael, and fince the correfponding terms, fenators and aldermen in modern times, uniformly denote authoritative officers, muft not the very fame name when given to the rulers of the Chriftian church, import in them too a title to authority * ?

In short, not only are they diftinguished by these names, but they are characterized by others, if poffible, ftill more expreffive of this authority. Thrice are they described in the very fame chapter (Heb. xiii. 7. 17. 24.) by the title of rulers, nyeuoves, which, though the weakest of the appellations beftowed upon them, and.. though it originally denotes merely guides or conductors, fignifies very frequently in the Septuagint, and the best claffic authors, civil rulers, and almoft uniformly. in the New Testament, authoritative governors. It is applied by Peter (1 Epiftle ii. 14.) to fubordinate governors, to whom Chriftians are to submit, as well as to the king, who is fupreme; by Matthew (chap. x. 18.), to denote those governors and kings before whom they were to be brought for their adherence to the truth; by the celebrated Greek tranflators, in their verfion of Micah iii. 9. to the political heads of the house of Jacob; in their version of Deut. i. 13. to the civil rulers, whom Moses appointed over the hundreds and thousands of the children of Ifrael; and in their verfion of Dan. iii. 2. to the go

* We know also, that the rulers of the Jewish synagogue were commonly distinguished by the name of elders. Hence, in Acts xiii. 15. and Mark v. 22. what is rendered in our verfion "the rulers of the fynagogue," the old Syriac verfion translates by a word fignifying elders or feniores. And hence, most probably, from a fimilarity of power between them and the rulers of the Christian church, the scripture has transferred to the latter their

name.