It was suggested in one of the overtures, that ministers holding collegiate charges should participate in the benefits of the scheme, and the claims of such fathers and brethren were affectionately urged.

Surely there was nothing in the resolutions of the Synod to hinder the consideration of their claims, and their enjoyment of the benefits of the scheme from the beginning. Whatever the peculiarities of such cases, they cannot be such as to justify the neglect of them altogether. We trust they have been attended to since the meeting of Synod; and, in the hope that it is so, we shall not express the condemnation we would be prepared to

We would submit, once more, whether the Mission Board, under the terms of their commission, might not feel themselves at liberty, in certain cases where the circumstances of the minister's family, and the sphere of his labours, are very peculiar, to raise the supplement to the extent of L.100 in addition to the manse, or its value. If there are admitted exceptions at the one extremity, might there not be exceptions admitted also at the other? If this were to exceed either the powers which the committee now possess, or the funds placed at their disposal, we indicate at least, by their suggestion, that enlargement of the committee's powers of which we could! approve, and the mode according to which we think the growing liberality of the church may be most advantageously dispensed. I

B.

scription which he gives of the Inde pendent form of church government, is contained in the following passage

"That distinctive polity consists in the two particulars; first, that each church is entrusted with its own government; and, second, that that government is to be conducted, not by the office-bearers alone as its representatives, but by the office-bearers and the congregation conjointly."P. 234. Why Dr Wardlaw should have mentioned the first of these par ticulars as distinctive of the Indepen dent form of church government, I am at a loss to conceive; seeing it does not necessarily follow, that a con gregation is what is usually called In dependent, because it is entrusted with its own government. A congregation may be entrusted with its own go vernment, and yet may not be Inde pendent; it may, in the strict and

that, in the Independent Churches, the eldership rule. But it appears also that the brethren rule along with them. "For," says Dr Wardlaw, the rule "will not be in the hands of the eldership apart from the brethren;" and, according to the same authority, the government is conducted by them conjointly.

In ordinary circumstances, when a certain number of persons are represented as conducting a government conjointly, they are all considered as ruling: For what is ruling but conducting the government of a society? The legitimate inference, then, from Dr Wardlaw's own statements is, that all the members of the Independent Churches rule along with the eldership-that is, with the pastorate. This inference appears to be fairly drawn from Dr Wardlaw's own premises, when he affirms that the officebearers and the congregation conduct the government of the church conjointly and when he affirms, further, that "they have a joint concern in the discipline and government of the house of God." I have not attempted to extract from my friend's language a meaning which it will not bear. I understand his words in their plain and literal import, and such certainly is the conclusion which they suggest to an ordinary reader.

After perusing these statements, my readers will scarcely be prepared to learn that Dr Wardlaw maintains stoutly, that all the members of the Independent Churches are not rulers. His gentle temper seems to get ruffled at the very idea of any person maintaining that they are rulers. He states, in the form of a question, the following objection for the purpose of answering it" If all are rulers,

who and where are the ruled?" His answer to this objection is in the following terms: Our reply to this question is, at once, that ALL ARE NOT RULERS. We disown the hypothetical premise, from which the inconsistency and absurdity are thus, some

7

6

Over

what tauntingly, inferred. That the elders, bishops, or pastors, are ordained in the churches of Christ, to have the rule over them, to be them in the Lord, and admonish them,'-to feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof,'-we maintain as distinctly, and insist upon as firmly, as our brethren who differ from us."-P. 310. Strange! All are not rulers; and yet all conduct the government of the church conjointly with the office-bearers; all have a joint concern in the discipline and government of the house of God. I confess that to reconcile these apparently jarring statements is beyond

my power.

In the Essay on the Office of Ruling Elder, recently published by the writer of these strictures, there is an objection stated to the Independent form of church government, similar to the one now mentioned; and Dr Wardlaw honours the author with a foot-note, by way of replying to the objection. I trust I shall be excused for here taking some notice of the answer which the Doctor gives, as it bears upon that part of the subject now under discussion. The objection, made by the author of the essay, is to the following effect :- "If in each congregation all the members have the power of ruling, then the question presents itself, whom are they to obey? According to the doctrine which I am combating, all rule, and yet they are commanded to obey. Obey whom? The only answer that can be given to this question, on the supposition that all rule, is, that they are to obey themselves. If this be not a contradiction in terms, it sounds very like one to speak of all ruling and all obeying,-ruling themselves and obeying themselves. I do not see how such a conclusion as this (absurd though it be) can be avoided, if we are to receive the doctrine, that all the members of the church are invested equally with the power of government. They would, according

6

to this supposition, have the double character of rulers and subjects." This objection Dr Wardlaw meets in the following manner:-"My good friend' does not see how the conclusion can be avoided;' and no more can I. But then his premises are false. He ascribes to Independents what no Independent holds-that all the members of the church are invested,' and invested equally' with "the power of government.' Was Dr M'Kerrow not aware that we have pastors over our churches, and that we regard them as, in scripture phrase, having the rule over them;' and consequently, that the true and only question between us is, not whether or not there are rulers in the churches distinct from the members, -but what is the nature and extent of the power lodged in them; and whether it is to be exercised, in its judicial and executive functions, independently of the people, or with the people's presence and concurrence."-P. 310 and 311.

6

With all due deference to my learned brother, I submit that this answer is not satisfactory. The question between us is not, "what is the nature and extent of the power lodged" in the rulers of the church,--but who are the persons in whom this power is lodged? Dr Wardlaw indeed affirms, that they have pastors over their churches, who are regarded “as, in scripture phrase, having rule over them." But he has affirmed much more than this. He has stated as plainly as language can make it, that "the government is to be conducted not by the office-bearers (the pastors) alone" as the representatives of the church," but by the officebearers and the congregation conjointly." To make the matter, if possible, still more plain, he repeats the statement in another form, by telling us, that "the rule will not be in the hands of the eldership (the pastors) apart from the brethren." It does not appear, then, that the premises are false, when it is affirmed that all the

members have the power of ruling; for this is what Dr Wardlaw himself substantially affirms. Seeing that this is the case, the question must still be asked, how are they to yield obedience to the scripture command, "Obey them that have the rule over you?" They conduct the government of the church along with their pastors. The pastor, strictly speaking, does not rule over them, but they rule along with him over each other; and, if they yield obedience at all, it is not yielded to rulers who are distinct from themselves, but to their own government. In other words, they sustain the double character of rulers and subjects. Dr Wardlaw admits this conclusion to be fairly drawn from the premises; and he will not surely question the correctness of the premises when they are furnished by his own statements.

So

But Dr Wardlaw must not be angry with me when I go a little further, and venture to express a doubt, whether the pastors of the Independent churches can be said to rule at all, in the scriptural sense of that term. Ruling, in the scriptural sense of the term, I take to be, administering those laws which Christ has laid down for the government of his church. far as I have been able to glean from Dr Wardlaw's book what is the practice of the Independent churches, it does not appear that the pastors have the power of administering those laws. The power of administration lies, apparently, not with the pastor, but with the people. I appeal to Dr Wardlaw himself on this point; and my readers will agree with me in thinking, that I cannot produce better authority. He states both what the business of the pastorate is, and what the duties of the people are, in reference to the government of the church. Concerning the former, he says-" The business of the pastorate or eldership we take to be this:-To preside in the church; to see that all things be done decently, and in order; to point out the law of

Christ in its application to particular cases; to have these cases so matured for statement, as to make both their own nature, and the bearing of the law of Christ upon them, as clear and simple as possible; to urge upon the brethren a faithful adherence, not to the letter of the law only, but also to the spirit in which all the discipline of the house of God ought to be conducted," &c.—P. 317. Concerning the duties of the people, he says "The submission enjoined is submission to the presiding pastor, or pastors, as the divinely authorized organ, by whom, in each case, the law is to be pointed out, and, with the concurrent judgment and voice of the church, to be carried into execution."-P. 318. Again, he says-" Their setting a pastor over them to teach, does not imply a surrender of the right, or a dereliction of the duty, to judge of his doctrine; so neither does their setting a pastor over them to rule, imply a surrender of the right, or a dereliction of the duty, to judge of his administration. It is their right and their duty to judge his doctrine by the instructions of Christ; and it is equally their right and their duty to judge his administration by the laws of Christ. If it belongs to them to see that they are taught according to Christ's doctrine, it must belong to them, on the very same principle, to see that they are governed according to Christ's laws. This right and duty of God's people may serve as a salutary check to the abuse of power, to which the temptation in the human mind is even stronger than that to the perversion of liberty. That a case is supposable, in which a church, taken collectively, may differ from its pastor or pastors respecting the application of the law of Christ, who will deny?" -P. 321.

According to the statements contained in the extracts now made, the share that the pastor has in conducting the government of the church, is, to preside in the church meetings,

and to see that order is observed; to have the cases" matured for stated ment;" to point out the law of Christ in its application to these cases; to urge upon the brethren a faithful adherence to the law; and to show them in what spirit the discipline of the church ought to be administered. The peo ple, on the other hand, are to judge whether the pastor has given a proper exposition of the law of Christ, and a correct statement of the case. They are further to judge, how far the law is applicable to the case under consideration, and whether the person whose conduct is under review, be an offender or not and, according to their suffrages-and their suffrages alone is the case determined. For Dr Wardlawadmits, that "the church, taken collectively, may differ from its pastor respecting the application of the law of Christ." He must also admit, that it may differ from its pas-tor as to the view which it takes of the facts of the case; and seeing that, as conscientious men, they must judge according to the view that they take of the law and of the facts-and not according to the view that the pastor takes, when there is a difference of opinion between them-it will follow, in all such instances, that the sentences, which they pronounce will be opposed to the judgment of their pastor. These sentences he has it not in his power to nullify or reverse. He must submit, whether his judgment approves of the proceedings or not. Where, then, is his power? How can it be affirmed of him, with truth, that he rules? The brethren, after hearing their pastor state the case, and expound the law, deliberate, and judge, and decide. Their decision may be. in accordance with the mind of the pastor; but it may also be opposed to his judgment. In such a state of things as this, to talk of submission on their part, or of rule on his, is language without meaning: for it may as frequently happen that the pastor is under the necessity of sub