Many, Indeed, of the modern Independents in England maintain, that ordination fhould not now be performed before a perfon is appointed to the charge of a congregation; that the impofition of hands was used only for the communication of miraculous gifts; and that the paftoral relation is formed fimply by the invitation of the people. Some of them, who invite minifters to a fettlement, expressly discard the idea of ordination, and say it is only a meeting for prayer and exhortation, And Dr. Prieftley, one of the most zealous of modern Independents, to prevent the people from forming any other opinion of it, recommended that before this fettlement actually takes place, the young minifter fhould difpenfe the facraments to the church.

To affirm, however, that ordination is now unneceffary, and that an invitation from the people is all that is requifite to form a paftoral relation, and to constitute him whom they elect a regular paftor, feems to be contrary at once to reafon and to fcripture. Simple election may declare the qualification of a perfon who is approved of by the electors, for discharging the duties of his office, but it cannot by itself inveft him with that office. When Mofes faid to the Ifraelites (Deut. i. 13.), "Take ye wife "men and understanding, and known among your tribes, " and I will make them rulers over you," he plainly intimates, that the choice of the people was not fufficient of itself to constitute those whom they elected rulers, unless accompanied by an official appointment from himself. Deacons, alfo, when firft appointed in the Chriftian church, after being elected by the people (Acts vi. 3.), were folemnly ordained with prayer, and the impofition of hands, by the Apostles. But if this was necessary in an office so inferior as that of the deacon, even after the election of the people, much more muft it be requifite in an office fo fuperior as that of the paftor. We are informed also, that Paul, together with Barnabas (Acts xiv. 23.),

notwithstanding the choice of the people (if fuch a choice was exercised), ordained elders in every church, in Lyftra, and Iconium, and Antioch; that Titus (Tit. i. 5.) was left in Crete, "to ordain elders," though chosen by the churches," in every city, as Paul had appointed "him;" that this Apoftle enjoined Timothy (1 Tim. v. 22.)" to lay hands fuddenly upon no man," i, e. not to ordain him rafhly, which appears unaccountable, if popular election alone had been fufficient to make the object of it a paftor. If the choice of the people, moreover, conftitutes a person the pastor of an Independent congregation, it feems neceffarily to follow, that fince no act performed by one Independent church is binding on another, if the congregation which chofe him withdraw from his miniftry, or oblige him to leave them, his miniftry muft cease with it, and he must again be reduced to the station of a private member. Befides, though the obfervance of the impofition of hands was occafionally employed as an emblem of the communication of miraculous powers, it cannot be demonftrated that this was its uniform ufe, or that, from its being the medium at times of the communication of these powers, it should now be difcontinued. Prayer too, we know (Acts viii. 14.—17. and ix. 40. &c.), was occafionally a mean of imparting thefe powers; but would any Independent prefume, from this circumftance, to argue, as fome do refpecting the impofition of hands, that prayer fhould now be discontinued in the church? This ufage then, when employed in ordination, was intended merely as an emblem of the fupplications of those who were engaged in performing it, that all neceffary, common, and ordinary endowments might be beftowed on the perfon on whom they laid their hands.

This laying on of hands is mentioned by Paul (Heb. vi. 2.) as one of the first principles of the doctrine of

Chrift. This, furely, cannot denote a communication of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, for all the other articles of Chriftian faith which he specifies as primary or fundamental, do not relate to what was peculiar to the primitive church, but are of equal importance to every age. It appears difficult alfo to conceive how this particular miracle fhould have been of fuch uncommon moment as to merit being confidered in this interefting light, and that the knowledge and belief of it, whatever other information a perfon might poffefs, was effential to his being received as a member. By the impofition of hands then, as Amefius observes in his refutation of Bellarmine (tom. ii. p. 76.), feems unquestionably to be defigned the Christian ministry, of the communication of which this obfervance was a fign. In confirmation of this, as well as in refutation of the fentiments of Epifcopalians and Papifts, nothing appears more just than the words of Cartwright, in his Treatise against the Rhemifts." By "imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no facrament, ❝ much lefs confirmation after baptifm; but by a trope "and borrowed fpeech the miniftry of the church, "upon the which hands were laid, which appeareth in "that whofoever believeth that there ought not to be a "ministry in order to teach, and govern the church, "overthroweth Chriftianity; whereas if confirmation ❝of children were a facrament, as it is not, yet a man "holding the reft, and denying the use of it, might not"withstanding be faved."

We perceive likewife, that Timothy is commanded by Paul (1 Tim. iv. 14.), " not to neglect the gift which ❝ was in him, and which was given him by or ac"cording to prophecy, with the laying on of the

* It would seem that certain predictions had been delivered concerning Timothy, that he would be an eminent and useful minister; in confequence of which it is here declared, that in the ufual way he had been fet apart to that office.

hands of the Prefbytery." But if the laying on of the hands of the Prefbytery on Timothy had imparted to him any miraculous gift of the Spirit, how could he have neglected diligently to exercise it, fince being entirely under the guidance of his extraordinary influence, and directed by his fupernatural irresistible energy, he could not have withftood this inftinctive impulfe to employ thofe endowments which he had received, whenever and wherever the Spirit fuggefted. And if the impofition of hands, when used even in ordaining an Evangelift to his office, does not appear in the present inftance to have been the fign of the communication of miraculous gifts, may it not be the emblem of the communication only of common gifts alfo to ordinary minifters? In fine, this fame Apoftle, in this Epiftle (chap. v. ver. 22.), enjoins this Evangelift “to lay hands ❝ fuddenly 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 fupernatural gifts to those who were unfit or unworthy to receive them? or could he err, as to the proper persons who fhould obtain them? The fuppofition is certainly inadmiffible. From this reasoning we may therefore conclude, that fimple election, without ordination, cannot conftitute a man a Christian minister, and that the impofition 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 obferved, who are the persons that are authorized to perform it? Is it the people alone, or in conjunction with the elders? or is it thofe only who are minifters? That it is com

mitted to the latter alone, appears to be the general opinion of your churches, for miniflers alone, as far as I know, ordain your paftors. That fuch alfo is the determination of scripture appears evident from a very curfory perufal of the facred 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 confequently that it would be dangerous to intruft them with such power; and not only is it ridiculous to imagine that those who can neither preach nor dispense the facraments, can impart an office while they have none themfelves, but it is never affirmed in any part of fcripture that the people are to ordain. On the contrary, we are informed, that when the first deacons were chofen by the difciples, they were ordained by the Apostles (Acts vi.)-that when Timothy was invefted with the office of a minister, it was by the laying on of the hands of the eldership or prefbytery, 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 alfo," were invefted with the miniftry 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-minifters, 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-minifters, 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 miniftry, not a fyllable should be mentioned of their being invefted with this truft, or exercifing this power, and that it fhould be reprefented uniformly as committed to the minifters?