as well as ordained them, and elected them without obtaining, or even seeking, the concurrence of the people. No cautious man will, however, venture to affirm this. How can he be sure of it? The historian merely gives an account of the solemn induction of these individuals into office. There may have been a previous formal election, by each church, of the men who were afterwards ordained; or some other visible manifestation of the approval of the church previous to ordination, even if the apostles first suggested them. We do not say that our history asserts this: but neither does it assert, or even imply, the contrary. But we maintain that, taking the considerations already adduced into the account, no reasonable doubt can be entertained that the ordained persons were such as had the confidence and approbation of the church, and that, if this had not been the case, even the apostles would not have inducted them into office.*

I have built my conclusion, that the individuals ordained by Paul and Barnabas were, at least, virtually elected by the church, on these general considerations, rather than on an argument deduced by many, from the Greek word employed by the sacred writer here. I ought, however, to apprise the reader, who may not be already aware of it, that that word, viz. (XELPOTOVεW,) translated ordain,' is derived from a verb which means to extend, or stretch out, and a noun signifying the hand; so that its proper signification is to elect or choose to office by the lifting up of the hand. When the apostles are said, then, to have ordained elders, the writer using this word, some have thought that he

"It is not less absurd," says one, "to maintain that because we have no direct example of a church choosing its own elders, that this matter is left undetermined, than it would be to argue, that since the word of God has not declared that the marriage union is to be entered into by mutual choice, it is doubtful whether this be required. Such obvious principles as necessarily result from our nature and circumstances, are frequently taken for granted in Scripture."

ordained them by calling up a show of hands in their favour. Now candour obliges me to say, that, though no one can disprove this, we cannot be sure that this process took place; both because the word is sometimes used for appointment to office when there could be no show of hands; and, further, because a different word is employed by Paul, in his Epistle to Titus, in reference to the ordinations in which the latter officiated.

The second step in the process by which a bishop or pastor becomes invested with office, is his solemn induction into it, by fasting and prayer, and the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. This is to be carefully distinguished from the previous step; and it is in this second step, consequent upon the former, that the essence of ordination is to be found. There are, indeed, certain ultra-Independents who maintain that the choice of the people is ordination, and is not merely a previous step to it. Averse from ultraism in every thing, I cannot be reconciled to it here. The New Testament doctrine manifestly is, that the people elect, but not ordain. The distinction, thus briefly glanced at, is so distinctly marked that one cannot but wonder how any should be able to overlook it. 66 Wherefore, brethren," said the twelve to the multitude, "look YE out among you seven men," &c. "whom we may appoint over that business." It was Paul and Barnabas, and Timothy and Titus, that ordained; though, as we believe, subsequently to the virtual election by the church of the persons to be ordained. If, indeed, it could be proved that the two former were ordained by merely collecting the suffrages of the people, then it would, of course, follow that the church's choice of an individual to be over them in the Lord is ordination; and that the solemn services which generally succeed election to office are only to be considered in the light of appendages to it. But this, as we have seen, cannot be proved. It may be added, also, that, if this notion of the essence of the rite were the correct one, it is difficult to see what necessity existed

for Titus to be left in Crete for the express purpose of ordaining elders. The people could surely have collected the suffrages of the body themselves. Why appoint an evangelist for this purpose, when, as it cannot but appear to us, he might have been far better employed.

Ordination is, then, the orderly and solemn induction of an individual into the pastoral office subsequent to the election of the church, and dependent upon it. A question then arises here, viz. by whom is the pastor to be thus inducted? By the bishop, of course, says the Episcopal church: how can there be ordination without a bishop? It is quite impossible to state the amount of gratitude which sophistry owes to ambiguous terms. Here is a fallacy resting upon an ambiguity,—the ambiguity of the term bishop; for, is it intended to denote a diocesan bishop, or a scriptural bishop?-two very different things. A scriptural bishop is the pastor of a particular church; a diocesan, or a lord bishop, is one who has no especial connexion with any congregation, but authority given by the state (remember!) over a number of congregations, together with their pastors and deacons. When an Episcopalian asserts that there can be no ordination without a bishop, he ought to mean, of course, without a diocesan, or lord bishop; or he proves nothing against us, at whose ordinations scriptural bishops invariably officiate. But how can he establish that? Paul and Barnabas ordained. Were they diocesan bishops? Certainly not. They were apostles, not bishops, either in the Congregational or Episcopalian sense of the word. Should it be replied, though the reply would, we apprehend, give up the argument,—that the higher office possessed all the right and authority of the lower, we would add, that Timothy and Titus or dained. Were they diocesan bishops? This has indeed been affirmed, but not proved; nor can it be proved. They were extraordinary officers, endowed with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, required by the emergency

of the times, and ceasing with that emergency. Hence, when the character and qualifications of the permanent office-bearers of the church are described by Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus, they are not even alluded to. Their principal office, as we gather from the name which designates it, was to preach the Gospel in places to which the personal labours of the apostles could not be extended. That office, it is obvious, far more nearly resembles that of Christian missionaries, than of diocesan bishops. Besides, how were Timothy and Titus ordained? Our answer is, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. "Neglect not," said Paul to Timothy, "the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with (μɛrà) the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," 1 Tim. iv. 14. Now, as we learn from 2 Tim. i. 6, that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit were conferred upon Timothy by the imposition of the apostle's hands exclusively, the easiest mode, if not the only mode, of reconciling the two apparently conflicting passages, is to suppose that supernatural gifts were imparted to Timothy by the apostle, but that he was set apart, or ordained to the work of an evangelist, by the accompanying imposition of the hands of the Presbytery.

Here, then, we have ordination without the presence of any diocesan bishop, for the presbyters were ordinary pastors. Indeed, the office of a diocesan, or lord bishop, is a creature of the imagination, to be met with in works of fiction, but not in the Scriptures of truth. In the ordinations by Timothy and Titus themselves, there was induction into office without the presence of a bishop in any proper sense of the term; yet not without the presence of an office-bearer in the church; and the whole facts of the case lead to the general conclusion, that newly elected pastors should be inducted into office by those who already sustain it. If there be an aged pastor, with whom a young minister is to be associated in office, he ought, I apprehend, to bear the principal part, at least, of the service. If the young minister is to stand

alone, the neighbouring pastors will officiate; and thus, while the junior brother is favourably introduced into the pastoral fellowship, the unity of the one body, formed by the churches of Christ, though there are many members, is very strikingly exhibited.

II. The nature and extent of the authority with which it invests him.

That the bishop or pastor is, by ordination, actually invested with authority, is manifest from the exhortation of the apostle, Heb. xiii. 17. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account," &c. It becomes, then, especially desirable to ascertain, if it can be done, the precise kind and degree of this authority. Few things are more to be deprecated than disputes, or even differences of opinion, between a minister and his people, on this exceedingly delicate subject; yet, when right and authority remain in any degree undefined, there is obviously great danger that misunderstandings on this point may arise. The wholesome desire, on the one hand, of repressing democracy, and, on the other, of resisting unlawful efforts to lord it over God's heritage, may place, and have sometimes actually placed, both minister and people in a false position. Each party may possibly suspect that it is not altogether right; but as the other cannot prove it to be decidedly wrong, both persist in their course; and the unhappy result is, that mutual coolness and suspicion increase, till a violent rupture terminates the unseemly strife, and breaks the ill-assorted union. If, then, any additional light can be thrown on this subject, considerable service will be rendered to the Church of God. With some hope that the following remarks may not be altogether useless, they are respectfully laid before the reader.

It is conceived, then, to be of some consequence to remember, and it may be of advantage to our ministerial brethren to remember, that their authority, whatever it may be, does not extend to any thing not coming fairly