occasionally perhaps admitted to express their concurrence, it does not appear that every thing was submitted to their judgment and vote, as well as to the judgment and vote of the overseers, before it was finally adopted. On the contrary, it is declared by Clemens Romanus, one of the earliest fathers, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, who had rebelled against their office-bearers, that the government of the church was vested in the latter. "Let us, my brethren," says he, "look to soldiers who fight under their "officers. With what regularity, meekness, and submis"sion, they execute their orders. All are not pretors, nor "rulers of thousands, or of hundreds, fifties, or smaller companies but every one, in his own rank, does what is "commanded by, the king and the rulers. The high can"not subsist without the low, nor the low without the "high: There is a certain variety, and it proves beneficial.

66

"Ye then," adds he, "who have laid the foundation of "this insurrection, return to the obedience of your presby"ters, and bending the knees of your heart, be instructed "to repentance. Laying aside the haughty arrogance of your tongues, learn subjection: for it is better with a good reputation to be esteemed little in the flock of Christ, "than appearing more eminent in our own eyes, to be de"prived of that hope which he hath given us *.” If every member, however, in the church of Christ, according to the opinion of this ancient father, was no more to be a ruler than every soldier in an army was to be a pretor, or commander of thousands, or hundreds, or fifties, or tens, in his view must it not have been in the highest degree reprehensible to grant to the people an equality of power with their ministers or office-bearers, the point of presidency alone excepted? And if he enjoins the whole of the members to be subject to their ministers with the same meekness and submission which are discovered by soldiers to those who are their officers, is it not obvious that in his time, or in his church at least, every measure must not have been submitted to their vote as much as to that of the office-bearers?— Here then seems to be one pointed and decisive testimony from a father, whose antiquity and high respectability entitle him unquestionably to the greatest regard, completely contradictory to the assertions of Independents. In his days

* See Mr. Robertson's Reply to Mr. Ewing's Animadversions on his Attack upon Lay-preaching, p. 21, and 23.

undoubtedly (and he lived immediately after the apostles of Christ) the people cannot have enjoyed the same authority in ecclesiastical government as their pastors and elders, or his reasoning would have been inapposite and inconclusive. Nay, had they possessed such power in all other congrega tions, though refused it in his, his argument would`still have been weak and nugatory; for it might have been replied by the Corinthians, that though the members of his church were obliged to be subject to their spiritual overseers as soldiers are to their officers, yet the appointment of Christ, and the practice of every other primitive church, warranted them to claim an equality of power, in judging and voting upon every measure, with their ministers and elders. But as we cannot suppose that such an argument would have been used by Clemens, had he known that this universally was the constitution of the church, it naturally follows, that at that period at least, the people must have been strangers to that degree of power which Independents contend should now be granted to them in ecclesiastical government.

Jerome also, who was not long posterior to Clemens, exhibits a testimony no less strong and explicit against Independency, in his remarks upon Titus, chap. i. "Antequam "(says he) diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et "diceretur in populo, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego ve"ro Cephæ, communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiæ gu"bernabantur," &c. i. e. " Before, through the suggestion "of the devil, factions arose in religion, and it was said "among the people, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and "I of Cephas, the churches were governed by a common "council of presbyters." Upon which the learned Chamier, in his Treatise de Ecumen. Pontif. Lib. x. cap. v. sect. xxii, in reply to Bellarmine, remarks, "Respondeo ad primum etiamsi aristocratia non sit totidem syllabis nomi"nata, tamen certo significatam his verbis communi presby"terorum consilio ecclesiæ gubernabantur," &c. And subjoins, "Bonam autem fuisse id regiminis formam, inde "sequitur, quod ab initio fuisse dicat (Hieronymus) cum "in ecclesia id sit optimum quod verissimum, id autem "verissimum quod primum:-Dicet enim (Hieron.) fuissi "ex institutionis Dominicæ veritate'.' But if, as is justly observed by Chamier, we are instructed by this father, that in the apostolic times, and in the ages which immediately succeeded that period, the churches were governed, agree

K

ably to the injunction of Christ himself, by a council of presbyters, is it not obvious that originally the people cannot have been admitted to parity of power, in every congregation, with their elders and office-bearers? Had it universally been the practice of the New Testament churches, and of the congregations at large in every country which were afterwards formed, to allow their members to judge and vote upon every cause; nay, as the members were more numerous, had it generally been known that every Christian society was more really governed by the former than by the latter; how could Jerome err so egregiously in a matter of . fact, and assert, in opposition to the knowledge of all, and at the risk of instant and universal contradiction, that, till factions had begun to arise. in the church, every congregation was governed by a council of elders? It would appear then, from this clear and striking declaration of one who, from antiquity and superior information, was eminently qualified to judge upon this subject, that, in the apostolic times as well as in subsequent ages, the people were not permitted to vote and determine in ecclesiastical matters, but that the churches were administered, as at present among Presbyterians, by a council of office-bearers.

t

To these quotations might be added the words of Ignatius, an apostolic father, (Epist. ad Trallianos, edit. Oxen. p. 66), who calls the presbyters or elders of his times, the Cuvedgiev Osov, or the sanhedrin or council of God: “ 'O, di πρεσβύτεροι ὡς συνεδριον Θεου,” &c. But upon what ground could he distinguish them by the name of the sanhedrin, the common appellation of the Jewish ecclesiastical judicial court, if they did not constitute a corresponding court in the Christian church? With this, too, might be mentioned the words of Origen, who, in his Seventh Homily upon Joshua, orders "one who had been thrice admonished, and was unwilling to repent, to be cut off from the church by its presidents or elders:-Tertio admonitum resipiscere no"lentem jubet ab ecclesiæ corpore desecari, per ecclesiæ "præsides." And to this might be subjoined the declaration of the authors of the Magdeburgen. Centuria, a work of the highest credit and authority for its accurate representations of ecclesiastical antiquity: "Jus (say they, Cent. iii. cap. vii. p. 151), tractandi de excommunicandis, aut recipiendis publice lapsis, penes seniores ecclesiæ erat ;" i. e. The right of deciding respecting such as were to be

66

66

"excommunicated, or of receiving, upon their repentance, “such as had fallen from the profession of Christianity, was "vested in the elders of the church." and, in proof of this they refer us to Tertullian's Apology. They indeed remark, (Cent. ii. cap. vii. p. 134), « Ceterim si quis probatos au"tores hujus seculi perspiciat, videbit formam gubernatio"nis propemodum Anuoxgarias similem fuisse ;" but in the following words, they sufficiently explain their meaning :"Singulæ enim ecclesiæ (say they), parem habebant potes"tatem verbum Dei pure docendi, sacramenta administrandi, absolvendi et excommunicandi hæreticos et sceleratos, "et ceremonias ab apostolis acceptas exercendi, aut etiam pro ratione ædificationis novas condendi, ministros eligen"di, vocandi, ordinandi, et justissimas ob causas iterum de"ponendi." From this it is evident, that though, in the former sentence, they had said that the government of the Christian church, in the second century, was almost like a democracy, they intended only that it resembled it in this individual circumstance, that all its congregations had an equality of power; and, as Wood observes, p. 383, "that no particular church was to have any authoritative and "juridical superioritie over other particular churches, as the "Prelaticall men pleaded for authoritative superioritie in "their cathedrall churches, over all particular churches in "the diæcese, and the Papalins for an universall superioritie "and supremacie in the church of Rome, over all other "churches in the world." "Besides," as he adds, "it is "to be observed that among other things which they rec"kon up as parts of the church-government, which they say was much like democracie, they put in the preaching “of the word, and administration of sacraments, which "themselves before say (and no man of sound judgment "will deny) are acts proper to the called ministers of Christ: "Whence also, it is manifest that they mean not a demo"cracie properly so called, which putteth the formall power and exercise of government in the hands of all and every one of the multitude, which the Independent bre"thren plead for."

kk

66

On the whole, even Cyprian, whom Independents have so frequently represented as affirming that the government of the church was purely popular, uses expressions by no means consistent with such a supposition. He tells us for instance, in his Epistle to Quintus, de Hæreticis Baptizandis, p. 140,

go

that the persons who "governed the church of the Lord in "the province of Africa and Numidia, at the period to "which he refers, were Agrippinus, a man of worthy me"mory, and his fellow bishops or ministers. Quod quidem "et Agrippinus, bonæ memoriæ vir, cum cæteris coepiscopis ejus, qui illo tempore in provincia Africæ et Numidiæ "ecclesiam Domini gubernabant, statuit, et librato consi"lii communis examine firmavit." That the power of ordination also, that most important act of ecclesiastical vernment, was intrusted only with the ministers, in the days of this father, is no less evident. In his Fifty-second Epistle, for example, while he says that Cornelius was chosen to be a bishop by the vote of the people, he declares most expressly, that he was ordained only by the ministers or clergy. Et factus est, (says he, p. 75), episcopus a plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Roma aderant qui ad nos "literas honorificas, et laudabiles, et testimonio suæ prædi"cationis illustres de ejus ordinatione miserunt. Factus "est autem Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus ju"dicio, de clericorum pene omnium testimonio, de plebis, quæ tunc affuit suffragio, et de sacerdotium et bonorum "virorum collegio *;" i. e. in substance, " He was made a bishop by many of my colleagues who were then in "Rome, according to the judgment of God and Christ, "the testimony of almost all the clergymen (who belonged "to that church), the vote of the people who were present, and the college of ancient priests and worthy men." And says of Novatian, (p. 81), that " he was made a bishop "by sixteen of his fellow ministers or bishops." "Nisi si episcopus tibi videtur, qui episcopo in ecclesia a sedecim "coepiscopis facto, adulteratque extraneus episcopus fieri

66

he

*See also Epist. lxxv. p. 159, "Sed et cæteri quique hæretici, "si se ab ecclesia Dei sciderint, nihil habere potestatis aut gratiæ possunt, quando omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta "sit, ubi præsident majores natu, qui et baptizandi et manum in"ponendi et ordinandi possident potestatem;" i. e. “But the other "heretics also, if they separate from the church, can have no << power or grace, since all power and grace are placed in the "church, where elders preside, in whom is vested the power of "baptizing, and imposition of hands, and ordination.” And it is obvious that these elders must have been the ministers of the church, and not merely laymen advanced in,age, for they are said also to baptize as well as ordain, and none we know could perform that act, but such as were recognized as office-bearers or presbyters.