expedient and for edification for brethren to enjoy the benefit of mutual counsel and advice; but claim not for it a power as of Divine right, unless you have other evidence that what Acts xv. furnishes.

LETTER III.

INDEPENDENCY WHAT IT IS-RULING ELDERS RECOMMENDED BY DR. OWEN AS A PART OF IT-COUNTY ASSOCIATIONS-HOW NEAR THEY COME TO PRESBYTERY-FALSE VIEWS OF THE POWERS COMMITTED TO PASTORS-THE IMPORTANCE OF MUTUAL CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PASTOR AND THE FLOCK.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

When in my last, I presented you with a short statement of the Presbyterian system, you may perhaps be surprised that I omitted to notice the office of ruling elder. I did so because this is not peculiar to Presbytery, though it is now unknown in our congregational churches. Though among independents, every church manages its own affairs, this is no way inconsistent with their choosing ruling elders as well as teaching elders, and it is perhaps not generally known that Dr. Owen is decidedly in favour of this class.

According to him the complete staff of officebearers for an independent church, is a Teaching Elder, Ruling Elders, Deacons, and a Catechist for instructing the young. The argument in favour of ruling is the following: Ruling and teaching are spoken of as distinct gifts in Scripture. Thus Rom. xii. 6, " Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophecy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness." Again, 1 Cor. xii. 28, "God hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Here then ruling and teaching are distinct gifts, and to these add the well-known passage in 1 Tim. v. 17, “ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." From these passages it is argued that as teaching and ruling are separate gifts, both ought to be called into exercise for the benefit of the church. The objection made to this last passage is this, that as

in the instructions given to Timothy for choosing a bishop or elder, it is required that he be apt to teach, none ought to be chosen for this office but such as are thus qualified. Besides, as honour from the context here denotes maintenance, it would require double maintenance be given to every ruling elder, rather a serious matter for a church. The reply to this is, that though every bishop must to some extent be apt to teach, many intelligent ruling elders are well qualified to explain clearly the great doctrines of the gospel, though they cannot give a continuous discourse, or what we call a sermon; and with regard to the double honour to a ruling elder, if he is exposed to expense in serving the church, it is proper he should be remunerated. The ground of remuneration to the teaching elder is, that his time is devoted to the public service. Again, it is argued that while all are called to teach, the distinction referred to here turns on the word labour, referring to those who were pre-eminent in these public services. But I must not forget I am not writing a dissertation, but merely suggesting these thoughts for your consideration.

On this subject Dr. Brown remarks, in the work formerly alluded to, "That such a distinction as that between elders who taught and ruled,

and elders who only ruled, existed from the beginning, is made probable by the reasonableness, and almost the necessity of the arrangement, and its obvious tendency to secure the gaining in the best way, and in the greatest degree, the ends of the Christian eldership; and appears to me proved by the passage in 1 Tim. i. 7, of which after all that has been said for the purpose of reconciling it to the episcopal or independent order of church polity, I am disposed to say with Dr. Owen, that on the first proposal of this text, that the elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine, a rational man who never heard of the controversy about ruling elders can hardly avoid an apprehension that there were two sets of elders, some of whom labour in word and doctrine, and some who do not so.""

Though I do not think the subject altogether free of difficulties, I confess I am favourable to the system of ruling elders. It accords with the general injunction, "Let all things be done to edifying." Observe some of the advantages connected with it. All societies are influenced by a few individuals directly or indirectly, either by their talents or their weight of character or weight of purse. Unhappy is that church where the latter prevails, apart from the former. Suppose then

a young preacher is called to the pastoral office. He may have good gifts for public teaching, but no experience in conducting the affairs of a church. He is introduced to some of the leading members, some of the deacons it may be, and much of his own comfort and that of the church, depends on falling into good hands. But if he consults one class more than another, this creates jealousy. This is prevented if there are ruling elders. These are supposed to be chosen by the church; being thus chosen indicates their confidence in them, and then it is his duty to consult with them in what regards the management of whatever is connected with the church. This is often done with the deacons ; but as they have nothing to do with ruling, but exclusively with the poor and pecuniary matters, jealousy sometimes arises if they step beyond their own province. Dr. Owen's representation of what an independent church requires for the full compliment of its office-bearers, seems worthy of its author. The office of catechist may be considered so far supplied by our modern Sabbath schools, especially if these are properly associated with domestic instruction.

I formerly mentioned my objections to the power exercised by Presbytery. If it be asked, what is the difference between a presbytery and a