part of a Church system, and the Kirk-Session has a relation to Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies; and it is important that the elders should be men competent to take part in the general government of the Church, along with the ministers. I agree that it would be a mistake to demand of every elder that he should take part, of necessity, in every duty that it is competent for an elder to attend to. If we insist on having elders who can do everything, our choice must be very limited. If we used the different gifts of different men we should have the Church better served. I believe that when a man undertakes the duty with only a limited promise as to what he is able to do, it will generally be found, if he is really in earnest, that his sphere of usefulness will gradually increase, and he will become a much more useful elder in the end than he had the least thought of when he entered upon the office.

The Rev. Dr. BROWN, Aberdeen (Free Church of Scotland).-I think we are more agreed on the point than a previous speaker supposes. We are not bound to John Calvin's interpretation of a particular passage in one of the Epistles, that there is an essential difference between the two classes of elders, and I do not believe in it. The distinction of elders, as preaching and ruling, has been naturally fallen into, but there is no essential distinction between the two.

The Council now proceeded to the second department of the subject, viz. How best to work the Presbyterian system as promoting Co-operation, and fostering Activity, Harmony, and Spiritual Life in Congregations.

The first paper was read by the Rev. PRINCIPAL RAINY, D.D., Edinburgh (Free Church of Scotland).

PRINCIPAL RAINY.-The theme prescribed is a little wide and vague. We shall narrow it by dismissing the discussion of those church activities which apply as well to other systems as to the Presbyterian. For example, in regard to every ecclesiastical system one might say that its importance, as a system, should not be overrated. The body is more than raiment; the Society of Christ's people is more than the organisation by which their affairs are carried on. Also, of any system we may say, that the successful working of it presupposes spiritual life in the community. A good system tends to promote life; but it does itself require life to inspire and guide it. Again, of any system one may say that it will not do to work it pedantically. The system may be Scriptural, and may be reasonable. Yet no system as organised by men is ideal; none provides perfectly for all the interests that are at stake; and therefore every system must be worked with an allowance for its weaker side. Again, in

connection with every system much will depend on good sense and tact in attaching to it, in practice, all those rich resources of Christian service which the living Church of Christ affords, but which have not been labelled and regimented as pertaining to Church government. Of this, many kinds of lay work, and specially female work, are examples. Right aims, worthy conceptions of what Church-life may be and what it is for, and good sense, are, in short, the conditions of good working under all systems. Under these general heads a multitude of topics occur, which are so far the common ground of all churches and all schools: and I refrain from entering upon them. I will endeavour to keep to matters suggested by the special genius of our own system.

Previous papers have referred to the place held among us by the eldership. Men engaged in the ordinary business of life, not committed to employ their whole time in pastoral care, or in ministration of word and sacraments, have a fixed authoritative place among us. Far outnumbering the minister in the Kirk-Session, they have an equal place with the ministry in all our other courts up to the highest, and take responsible part in all our acts. There have been, and there continue to be, some interesting discussions as to the precise theory of the eldership. I observe now that, practically, two characteristics are happily combined in the office, as it exists among us. On the one hand, the permanence of the office, in most of our Churches as an office held for life, the fact that men are chosen to it as gifted men and men of God, and their ordination to office, all these circumstances give to the elders official weight, as having with the ministry authority and oversight over the flock. On the other hand, their position as men engaged in ordinary callings, and the way in which they are brought into office, are circumstances which make them to be, really and in effect, representatives of the people. They carry into all our courts the mind and sentiment of the body of the people, the hearers of the Word.

I should be very slow to entertain any theory under which either of these aspects of the eldership should run the hazard of being excluded. I regard it as a great point of practical prudence in regard to the eldership, to combine happily, and maintain steadily, the two features of the office; on the one hand, the separation of men, recognised as men of God and gifted, to exercise authoritative oversight; and, on the other hand, representation through them of the existing mind of the congregation, especially on its graver and better side.

If we compare our system with the working of the earliest Churches, and also with that of our Congregational brethren, we may probably be led to the conclusion that the point, in this connection,

which most deserves our attention is to secure and maintain adequately the representative aspect of the eldership-the just expression through them of the mind of the Christian people throughout our ecclesiastical action. The point is how to do this without impairing Presbyterial authority, but so as rather to strengthen and secure it by rendering it reasonable and safe.

There are Churches in which this is provided for by making the office of elder tenable for a term of years only, the holders of the office retiring unless re-elected. With the example of the First Book of Discipline before his eyes, no Scotsman can say that such an arrangement lacks ancient and high authority. But in most of our Churches, probably, the adoption of it would involve a change, which, so far as the individual congregation is concerned, is hardly necessary for the purpose now under consideration. That purpose would seem to be adequately provided for, if some pains are taken to secure that, relatively to the materials existing in, the congregation, the Session shall be rather a numerous body. In that case the changes and vacancies are more numerous, elections are more frequent, and touch with the congregation is more fully maintained.

But when we pass from the Kirk-Session to the Superior Courts, I venture to doubt whether, in many of our Churches, we succeed in deriving from the eldership the benefit, which, in theory, we ought to have. Speaking generally, in presbyteries and synods the elders are as numerous as the ministers. But the ministers are permanent members, while the elders, commonly, are birds of passage. They are not able to acquire a firm hold of current business, and to become at ease with their surroundings, before they are displaced. Hence the special influence which elders might impress on the proceedings, and the effect on the Church of knowing that such influence is exerted, are impaired.

In certain Presbyterian Churches arrangements exist which go some way to restore the balance. For example, elders, who are to sit in the Supreme Court, may be allowed to be selected, by the inferior court which sends them, from any kirk-session in the Church. In this way a certain number of very superior men are frequently sent to the Supreme Court, because thoroughly familiar with its business, and these exert a powerful influence on the proceedings. It is also usually the case that elders have a full share of the membership of standing committees, and take a very efficient part in their work.

But, in spite of these compensations, it is still, in my opinion, a practical question how to reinforce the influence of the eldership in Presbyteries and Synods, so as to make it more adequate in fact to what it ought to be in theory. I observe that of late some suggestions

have been made pointing towards a representation of elders in those courts, double or triple in strength as compared with the ministerial membership. I cannot say that I like a suggestion which departs so boldly from the general and ancient practice, which has been, at the same time, on the whole the beneficial practice of Presbyterian Churches. I do not know any principle which could exclude such an arrangement as unpresbyterian. But I see some difficulty in limiting change in that direction if it once set in.

I pass now to another subject. Presbyterianism recognises and embodies in organic form the unity of the Church as extending beyond the individual congregation. The congregations bind themselves together, as recognising a common life which they share, common principles which regulate their fellowship, a great whole of which they are parts. Their common affairs, therefore, are regulated by courts in which all are represented. Their controversies and causes are arbitrated by an authority which all have recognised.

Hence, in addition to the oversight of members in each flock by their own office-bearers, there is also an oversight of flocks in the interest of the whole Church, including an inspection of the manner in which official duty is done in each. This is the immediate sphere of the Presbytery; while superior courts ought to see that Presbyteries duly perform their functions.

In not a few of our churches the working of Presbyterianism is weak on this side. The function referred to is not adequately discharged, and a tendency exists to slide into a very unsatisfactory congregationalism-very unsatisfactory for this reason, among others, that in our system the power of the individual congregation to right its own wrongs, at its own hand, has been limited in the interest of a power lodged in the higher courts. If this power is not adequately exercised the whole system becomes a feeble one, inadequate to meet its own wants in a regular and efficient way.

The Presbyterian system is well capable of exerting in this department all the power that is needed. It is inherently capable of doing this far more freely than the Episcopal system can venture to do in any Protestant society: for the One-man power must always be carefully limited, if it is not to prove intolerable. But, under the Epicopal system, the bishop has, or may have, an indefinitely large power of inspection. If he cannot act very freely on what he sees, at least he can see; and he is under no special temptation beyond those which human indolence suggests to all men to abstain from inspecting. Rather it is his only and proper business to see, and to put forth some kind of influence according to what he sees.

The Presbytery, which has a much freer hand for action, has, of

course, an equal right of inspection to that which any Episcopal Church commits to the bishop; but it is, perhaps, more liable to fail in the use of it. For every member of Presbytery-every ministerial member has enough to do with his own work: to arouse others does not occur to him as an especial part of his duties. Then those whose flocks are in question-those whose failings or misfortunes in some cases a man might observe-are brethren, with whom his relations are friendly and confidential, so that one is not willing to be driven to the attitude of a censor. Finally, it is not officially the business of one more than another to stir the Presbytery to the presbyterial oversight, and force them to the "conjunct view," which makes the vision of the court as distinguished from the vision of the separate members. Hence it can happen that Presbyterianism, with grace enough, and of the most edifying kind, may sometimes fail to be vigilant and fail to be prompt.

At this point I will not deny that, whatever may be said of superintendence and inspection, a good measure of independence on the part of ministers and congregations is a good thing. It is well that congregations should feel that they are managing their own work with unimpeded vigour. It is well that ministers should retain their individuality, should give free play to their proper gifts, should not be constrained to do all their work after some one pattern set for them by others. A large practical independence exists in our Presbyterianism; it will always be claimed; it is a healthy and good thing. And it would not be well that it should be interfered with by Presbyteries using even legitimate power in a meddlesome and harassing way. But yet laisser faire may be carried too far. The proper benefit of Presbyterianism may be sacrificed; and while some vigorous ministers and prosperous congregations, even if they experience loss, do not feel it, yet when things are weak, defective, or astray, evils may accumulate for want of timely remedy. To strengthen the system at this point of weakness it is a good thing that Presbyteries should make regular and close inspection, at fixed intervals, of all flocks under their charge a part of their system in some form of Presbyterial visitation. For to be confronted with the facts, whatever they are, at fixed times, tends to fasten in the Presbyterial mind the sense of its responsibilities. But, besides, it helps the system at this point, that some kind of friendly visitation directed from the superior courts should be part of the public and constant system of the Church. Such visitation in its main intention is not critical, but friendly, and is directed to edification. But it affords opportunities to discerning men to see what is to be seen. They ought not to be clothed with any proper jurisdiction, nor be allowed to