3. None but preaching elders ordain by the imposition of hands, when a presbyterial ordination occurs. The layelders form a part of the presbytery, and yet in an ordination, professedly done by presbytery, they are not allowed to take any part. How is this? By what scripture authority is this distinction made?-The whole thing, in all its forms, answers one practical purpose, which has already been stated.

This

Such then are some of the points of difference. They all arise from the introduction of lay-elders into the church; which must be considered as a pure piece of superfluous invention, that the scriptures have not warranted. office is a mere human contrivance; or, as some tell us, a figment of the Genevan church, never heard of before. -But this has scarcely been suspected; for we have all been in the habit of supposing that our fathers were such good and holy men, that they never did any thing wrong;-these fathers, while we have been smiling so complacently at papal infallibility, have been our infallible men.-These things I say, not for the pleasure of finding fault, but my subject has been interlinked with them; and I could not pass them by on an occasion like the present, so interesting to a church which has been involved in such peculiar circumstances.

As to the habits of the ages after the apostles, I shall merely quote a few sentences, in relation to our present subject, from the writings of others who have professedly inquired into those habits."And as in those churches," one says, "where there were presbyters, both they and the bishop presided together, so also they ordained together, both laying on their hands in ordination, as Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery; i. e. by the hands of the bishop and presbyters of that parish where he was ordained, as is the constant signification of the word presbytery, in all the writings of the ancients."* *Kings' Inq. Part. I. p. 62.

And again. "So likewise we read in Timothy,* of a presbytery; which in all the writings of the fathers, for any thing I can find to the contrary, perpetually signifies the bishop and presbyters of a particular church or parish."+ Another writer, remarking on the "shorter epistles" of Ignatius, from which he had made several quotations, observes, "It is equally evident, that the presbyters and presbytery so frequently mentioned in the foregoing extracts, together with the deacons, refer to officers which, in the days of Ignatius, belonged, like the bishop, to each particular church. Most of the epistles of this father are directed to particular churches; and in every case, we find each church furnished with a bishop, a PRESBYTERY, and deacons. But what kind of officers were those presbyters? The friends of prelacy, without hesitation, answer, they were the inferior clergy, who ministered to the several congregations belonging to each of the dioceses mentioned in these epistles; an order of clergy subject to the bishop, empowered to preach, baptize, and administer the Lord's supper; but having no power to ordain or confirm. But all this is said without the smallest evidence. On the contrary, the presbyters or PRESBYTERY are represented as always present, with the bishop and his congregation, when assembled; as bearing a relation to the same flock equally close and inseparable with its pastor; and as being equally necessary in order to a regular and valid transaction of its affairs. In short, to every altar, or communion table, there was ONE PRESBYTERY, as well as one bishop."‡

These things being so, you may ask, how came the presbyterian churches to depart so widely from them, and to construct a presbytery upon different principles? Have they any good reason for calling the presbytery of each particular church a session, or for reducing the eldership below Miller's letters, pp. 146-7.

* 1 Tim. iv. 14.

Inq. p. I. p. 78.

their own proper level, as though presbyters were not integral parts of a presbytery? Or why have they remodelled the presbytery, and substituted sectarian for scriptural law? There, brethren, is the difficulty. But am I under any obligation to meet it? If you have been furnished with scriptural truth, can you ask any thing more?-Perhaps, however, you may press the question. Then, that difficulties may not be all on one side, suffer me to offer one to your consideration.-Presbyterians tell us, that the account given in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, records the ordination of deacons. If so, those deacons were ordained by the imposition of hands. But presbyterians do not now ordain deacons by the imposition of hands; and why do they not? The answer to the one question, will fully meet the other.

Still this does not assign the reason: what is it? The explanation is as follows:-The clergy have been generally, and but too justly, censured for love of power. The Redeemer charged the jewish rulers with this detestable passion. The apostle John has penned the history of Diotrephes in few words, "who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them." The scriptures have been very particular in exhorting all Christ's ministers, not to seek superiority. And any one, who is acquainted with the annals of the church, after the apostles had gone to their rest, will find Paul's prophecy but too true,-that from among the elders themselves should men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them:-grievous wolves who did not spare the flock. The papal and protestant churches, exemplify our views in a most melancholy manner; while Europe, Asia, and America are the degraded examples of the effects of clerical domination. A controversy about the difference between the clergy and laity early began, in which the clergy triumphed: and ordination was soon

thought to be something exceedingly mysterious;-consisting, not simply in the recognition of particular men as appointed to particular work, but as imprinting a sacred character upon individual persons, as though they had been exalted above the race of mortals, for the mere purpose of being adored and obeyed.-It is a gloomy subject, and we leave it with the half and more untold.

But perhaps many may suppose that the peculiarities of our circumstances are not fairly and fully met, without replying to a fourth inquiry.

ARE NO QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED WHEN ELDERS ARE OR

DAINED?

When men are

For my own part, I see no use in them. nominated by the existing officers, and elected by the people, it is supposed that their qualifications and integrity are already ascertained or conceded. After this it devolves on, the presbytery to ordain them as soon as possible, unless some good reason can be assigned for delay, and without stopping to catechise them. What can be gained by multiplying vows, or decking a divine ordinance with human appendages? If men will disregard their responsibilities to God, how shall we secure their fidelity by substituting their responsibilities to men?

We have no

I see no scriptural precedent for them. formula on the sacred page, drawn out by an apostolic pen, nor the least hint given that such precise documents are requisite. When seven men were chosen to preside over "the daily ministration," their qualifications were previously specified; and when elected in consequence of the peculiar excellence of their spiritual character, no suspicions were started, no hesitation was betrayed, no questions were asked; but they were immediately ordained as chosen. It is true the Redeemer asked Peter some questions; but

Peter had fallen, had denied his Lord, and had shaken that confidence in himself which he should have preserved entire. Then the master interrogated him, and that concerning their personal relations. How simple! how touching! Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? This we may not imitate. And if we should; as far as imitation could possibly be allowed, how many things now a days asked, would be left out?

I see much harm to result from them. Men learn to shift their obligation from the requisitions of divine law, and to measure it by some personal promises,—warily guarded, perhaps, by some mental reservation, or by a mutual understanding, which puts ideas and words at war with one another.-A door is opened which human authority may enter with all her stateliness; or by degrees she may force the human conscience into a submission to the ordinances of men.-Sectarian pledges are demanded and given. Church officers may be required to swear hostility to the errors of ages past, which exist not in the community where they may be called to labour, or exist only in name: or they must proclaim their militant pretensions against those, who,-sprung from a different parentage, placed in different circumstances, and animated by the esprit-du-corps of a different sect, are equally armed for contest,-may yet be his brethren in Christ. And all this will be called purity of doctrine, zeal for the faith, &c. The master would ask,lovest thou me?

I would admit that a set of questions might be framed, which would be stripped of all these offensive qualities; or being divested of the most of them, would neutralize the rest. At least, the questions to be proposed this morning, have been framed under these impressions: they embrace nothing but the simple laws of official life, which every one understands; they may soothe long cherished feelings,