"tery." But if the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery on Timothy had imparted to him any miraculous gift of the Spirit, how could he have neglected diligently to exercise it, since being entirely under the guidance of his extraordinary influence, and directed by his supernatural irresistible energy, he could not have withstood this instinctive impulse to employ those endowments which he had received, whenever and wherever the Spirit suggested. And if the imposition of hands, when used even in ordaining an Evangelist to his office, does not appear in the present instance to have been the sign of the communication of miraculous gifts, may it not be the emblem of the communication only of common gifts also to ordinary minieters? In fine, this same Apostle, in this Epistle, (chap. v. ver. 22), enjoins this Evangelist "to lay hands suddenly upon no man. But if the gifts which were to be conferred, in the ordination referred to, were altogether extraordinary, how could this injunction have been delivered? Could Timothy, when under the miraculous guidance of the Spirit, impart precipitately his supernatural gifts to those who were unfit or unworthy to receive them? or could he err, as to the proper persons who should obtain them? The supposition is certainly inadmissible. From this reasoning we may therefore conclude, that simple election, without ordination, cannot constitute a man a Christian minister, and that the imposition of hands, employed in ordination, was not an emblem of the communication of miraculous gifts, but of ordinary endowments; and of course, that it, as well as ordination, must be a standing. ordinance in the church of God?!

But granting that ordination should still be observed, who are the persons that are authorised to perform it? Is it the people alone, or in conjunction with the elders? or is it those only who are ministers? That it is committed to the latter alone, appears to be the general opinion of your chur ches, for ministers alone, as far as I know, ordain your pastors. That such also is the determination of scripture, ap. pears evident from a very cursory perusal of the sacred volume. Not only is it obvious that the majority of the people are totally unfit to examine the qualifications of a man for the important and arduous work of the ministry, and consequently that it would be dangerous' to intrust them with such power; and not only is it ridiculous to imagine that those who can neither preach nor dispense the sacraments,

can impart an office while they have none themselves, but it is never affirmed in any part of scripture, that the people are to ordain. On the contrary, we are informed, that when the first deacons were chosen by the disciples, they were ordained by the Apostles, (Acts vi.)-that when Timothy was invested with the office of a minister, it was by the laying on of the hands of the eldership or presbytery, of which Paul was a member, (compare 1 Tim. iv. 14, with 2 Tim. i. 6), that "when faithful men, "and men who were "found able to teach others also," were invested with the ministry in the places where he was labouring, it was to be committed to them by him and his fellow-elders, (2 Tim. ii. 2),—that when hands, as was before said, were to be laid upon any, to set them apart to this office, it was he alone, and his fellow-ministers, who were required to do it, (1 Tim. v. 22), and that when elders were to be ordained in every city in Crete, it was only Titus, and his fellow-ministers, who were to devote them to their work. Is it not wonderful, however, that if it be the prerogative of the people, either with elders or without them, to ordain others to the work of the ministry, not a syllable should be mentioned of their being invested with this trust, or exercising this power, and that it should be represented uniformly as committed to the ministers ?

Robinson, indeed, with some ancient English and American Independents, and Lockier, one of the ancient, with some of our modern Scotch Independents, have not scrupled to maintain that Matthias, who was chosen in place of Judas, was ordained by the hundred and twenty disciples, who were partly composed of the eleven apostles, partly of the seventy disciples, and partly of the private members of the church. All who were present could not, however, be admitted to ordain Matthias, for among these "were the wo6 men, and Mary the mother of Jesus ;" and it has never yet been alledged by any Independent, as far as I have heard, that women are to be allowed the honour of ordaining a minister. It is evident also, that no account is given of his ordination, but simply of his election, and there is nothing very decided to lead us to suppose that he was even chosen by lot by any but the Apostles. "Wherefore of "these men," says Peter," that have companied with us, (the Apostles), all the time that the Lord Jesus went in

"and out among us, must one be ordained to be a wit"ness with us (undoubtedly the Apostles) of his resur"rection." Besides, it merits our particular notice, that there was not properly even an election, either by the apostles or the people. Two men were named as fit for the apostleship; and the Lord himself, in a supernatural manner, as they drew out the lots, pointed out to them the individual. The word cuyarrison, (ver. 26), which is rendered by our translators," he was numbered" with the Apostles, and by the Vulgate, "annumeratus est cum unde"cim Apostolis," does not intimate that he was ordained by the people, as Lockier contended; but as the learned Mr. Caudrey, in his Vindiciæ Clavium, p. 29, says, "That "seeing God had chosen and ordained him, they accepted "him by orderly subjection to the revealed will of Christ." Accordingly, we find the verb pia, of which this is a compound, in Luke xiv. 28, signifying to count or reckon the cost of a thing; and in Rev. xiii. 18, it is employed to denote the counting of the number of the beast; from which it would seem, that cuyuerenpion is properly rendered by our translators, and he was numbered," not ordained, with the Apostles, and simply means that he was henceforth counted or reckoned by the church as one of them.

It is argued farther, that the people must be admitted along with the pastors to ordain ministers, because when it is said of Paul and Barnabas, (Acts xiv. 23), that "they ordained elders in every city," the word χειροτονήσαντες, in their opinion, properly signifies that they chose them by suffrage or vote; and as there were only two of them, they think that they could not themselves choose them, but simply presided at an election of them by the people. But on this it may be remarked, that if their translation were adopted, it would only shew that the people elected, but not that they ordained the elders, two things which are extremely different; for, in any of your congregations, for example, though the members elect, it is the ministers of other churches alone who ordain a pastor. Besides, though the word, as applied to the customs of ancient Greece, literally signifies the election by sufferage, expressed by lifting up the hand of the elector, it never denotes to preside at an election. We know, too, that it means often to constitute or appoint to an office without suffrage or vote. Thus Josephus, in his Antiquities, book vi. chap. iv, speaks of "a

46

« a king appointed by God, Βασιλευς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ χαριτο ";" and thus, too, Acts x. 40, 41, "Him God rais "ed up the third day, and shewed him openly, not to all "the people, but to witnesses chosen before of God, goxXigorovnμevos. Since, then, it must be plain to every person who looks for a moment at the grammatical arrangement of Acts xiv, 23, that it was Paul and Barnabas who did what is expressed by ugotoncaves, in ver. 23, as much as it was they who, according to ver. 22, confirmed the souls of the disciples, and exhorted them to continue in the faith; since this word never signifies, as far as has been yet ascertained, to preside at an election, where the choice is made by those who vote by lifting up the hand; since it means to constitute or ordain, as well as to elect; since it is never taken in the latter sense, but where it is used to express the act of at least more than two; and since there were only two, in the present instance, who did what is intended by it; it appears naturally to follow that it cannot denote in the place in question, that the Apostles themselves elected elders by vote in every city, and much less that they presided at the election of them by others, but simply, as our venerable translators have rendered it, that they themselves ordained them." And with this idea the version of the Vulgate or Old Latin, which formerly was so generally received by the churches, accurately coincides: "Et "cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros;" i. e. "And when they had constituted or ordained elders to "" them in every church." But what argument can be deduced from this, for admitting the people to join with their pastors in ordaining ministers * ?

*It is objected farther by them, that the Presbytery who ordained Timothy to the office of an Evangelist could not be ordinary pastors, because they were greatly inferior to him, but Apostles or Prophets; and of course, that no argument can be drawn from his ordination by such a Presbytery, for the exclusive right of our present ministers to ordain. To this it is replied, that if, according to the spirit of this objection, only superior ministers could ordain Timothy, how can it be argued that the people, who are greatly inferior to a minister, can ordain a minister -that even though it were granted that the Presbytery which ordained Timothy was composed of extraordinary ministers, they did not act as such, but merely in the ordinary capacity of elders, as the word presbytery or eldership suggests-and that for any thing that we know, there may have been among them ordinary ministers, who might have been admitted with as much propriety, as they were already ministers, to ordain an Evangelist, as teachers, who certainly were

Thus, then, it would seem that we have no authority from scripture for allowing the people to ordain pastors, and that it is the ministers of the gospel, and they alone, who are warranted by the word of God, as well as by the expli cit declaration of your churches, to perform this important act of ecclesiastical government.

Farther, while it is undeniable that the power of exercising discipline is committed to those who are office-bearers of the church, it does not appear that it is vested also indiscriminately in all who are members.

ye

That the power of discipline is conferred upon the officebearers must be evident to us, on reading with impartiality the following passages. "Then said Jesus to them again, "(the eleven Apostles), Peace be unto you: as my father "hath sent me, even so send I you. Whose soever sins "remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, "they are retained :" John xx. 21, 23. Against an el"der receive not an accusation, but before two or three "witnesses :" 1 Tim. v. 19. And that it is ministers alone who are to receive this accusation, and examine these witnesses, seems manifest from this, that it is they alone who are to do it that are commanded in the next verse," to re"buke before all such as sinned, that others might fear," by whom we are certainly to understand the ministers. And again, says Paul to Titus, (chap. iii. 10), "A man that is "an heretic, after a first and second admonition, reject." While such however are the repeated declarations of scripture respecting the commission of this power to the ministers, not a single instance has yet been produced where it is explicitly affirmed to be intrusted with the people. Passages have indeed been induced by independents, from the eighteenth of Matthew, and the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, to demonstrate that this power has been vested also in the people. But we trust it will appear from the following Letters, that it cannot be proved from either of these passages, that the people personally are to exercise this power; and that, agreeably to our common modes of speaking, all that is there affirmed to be done by them, may be done by them solely by means of their representatives. On the contrary, however, while not a single instance

but ordinary ministers, were allowed with prophets, (Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3), to set apart, by prayer and imposition of hands, Paul and Barnabas, one of whom was an Apostle and the other an Evangelist, to a particular work in the city of Antioch,