intimation of any meeting of the members together with the pastors, to consider the propriety of receiving him as a disciple. All that is stated is simply this-that all of them, both Apostles and members, were afraid that he was not, as he professed, a disciple in reality, but intended to deceive them; and consequently, that as so general a fear of him was entertained by the church, he could not be received by those whose prerogative it was to admit him. Accordingly, we are informed that when he was at last received, it was in consequence of his being taken and introduced by Barnabas "to the Apostles," and of their being satisfied with the account of his conversion and sincerity which was delivered to them by that Christian minister, ver. 27.

Is it objected, that though it may be proved from these examples that ministers may baptize without consulting the church, they cannot admit to any other ordinance, or communicate to applicants the full privileges of members, without soliciting and obtaining their approbation? I answer by demanding in the first place, whether all Independents allow their pastors to receive adults to baptism without consulting their churches? whether, in the next place, it can be proved from the word of God that adults, when baptised, are not entitled to every other Christian privilege? and whether the three thousand who were baptised at Pentecost are not declared to have been added to the Church as members, (Acts ii, 41), while it is evident that there was not sufficient time for calling the members, and interrogating in their presence each of these converts, and requesting their judgment on the propriety of admitting them? Is it contended, that this scheme is adverse to the principle of Christian liberty, as it enables the pastors to impose whom they please on the communion of the church? It is replied, that it is unjust to affirm that any pastor of a Presbyterian church is warranted by Presbytery to exercise such a power. tain qualifications are required in the standards of his church before any person can be received into fellowship, and till he obtains satisfactory evidence that those who apply to him have these qualifications, he cannot lawfully receive them *.

Since writing the above, I have looked into Pardovan, book ii. title iv. sect. iv. and find, that by the constitution of Presbyterian churches, no minister, though he may examine, can admit any person to the privilege of membership, till the whole of his Session, as well as himself, are satisfied both as to his knowledge and piety.

:

If, through mistake, an improper person be occasionally admitted, the members are permitted to communicate what they know of the applicant to the pastors; and if, after remonstrance, he be continued in communion, the lowest individual in the congregation is allowed to call these pastors to an account, with the whole of their Session, before a superior court; and if that court should decide amiss, to summon even it, with these pastors and elders, to a still higher tribunal; and even that to a higher, till the obnoxious member be at last excluded. Among Independents however, with all their boasted liberty and purity of principle, this is impossible for if an unworthy applicant be received as a member by a majority of any of their churches, there is no supe rior court, on earth at least, before whom a conscientious minority can arraign them, and procure the expulsion of that member from their society; however unfit, he must continue in fellowship, while no alternative is left to them but immediate separation, or patient submission amidst obvious corruption. Nor will their separation terminate here; for if the same inconsistency shall be manifested by the majority of the other congregation to whom they may attach themselves, from their want of any court superior to that congregation, they must again separate and join a third, and so on, in a continued course of change and separation, till, like some individuals of them, they be excluded from the fellowship of every church upon earth. In fine, if Independents object to the principles of Presbyterians because their members must confide, as to the character of an applicant, in the word of the pastor, on what principle do they themselves trust, in the account which is given of him by any of their members when the majority are ignorant of him? May not the pastors and elders obtain in private, all the information which is furnished to the majority by these members in public; and if that majority are disposed to give credit to the latter in an Independent church, why should not the congregation give credit to their pastors in a Presbyterian? Besides, if the members of a Presbyterian congregation are not allowed to state their sentiments and vote before an applicant is received, it is because the scriptures seem to vest that power solely in the pastors. And it certainly appears more consistent with that tenderness and justice which are due to such applicants, that their qualifications should be examined in private by the ministers of

the church, and that all necessary inquiries should be made concerning them by him and by the elders, than that every particular the most delicate and important, respecting their character, should be laid open at large to the scrutiny and review of a whole congregation; or that they should wait till each of the members be personally satisfied respecting them. It would thus seem that the pastors alone, without soliciting the judgment of the members, are authorised by scripture to perform this part of ecclesiastical government, and that this constitution is also better fitted than that of Independency to promote the ends of Christian edification *.

Next to the power of admitting members to religious fellowship, and superior to it undoubtedly in point of magnitude, is that of ordaining office-bearers to the exercise of their function. This power likewise appears to belong exclusively to the pastors of the church, and neither solely nor conjointly to the Christian people.

Many, indeed, of the modern Independents in England maintain, that ordination should not now be performed before a person is appointed to the charge of the congregation; that the imposition of hands was used only for the communication of miraculous gifts; and that the pastoral relation is formed simply by the invitation of the people. Some of them, who invite ministers to a settlement, expressly discard the idea of ordination, and say it is only a meeting for prayer and exhortation. And Dr. Priestley, one of the most zealous of modern Independents, to prevent the people from forming any other opinion of it, recommended that before this settlement actually takes place, the young minister should dispense the sacraments to the church.

To affirm, however, that ordination is now unnecessary, and that an invitation from the people is all that is requisite

It might also have been added, that were it judged expedient, even upon the Presbyterian system, when any person applies for the privilege of membership, it could be announced to the congregation, and any member who could substantiate any objections to his admsssion, as in the case of election to the office of elders, be invited to state them to the minister or session. And it is known to be consistent with our Presbyterian constitution, that the first time a person receives a token for admission to the supper, it may be delivered to him in the presence of the whole congregation, so that being solemnly pointed out to those of the members at large, who choose to attend, as a fellow-member, they may re cognize him in that light, and treat him as such.

to form a pastoral relation, and to constitute him whom they elect a regular pastor, seems to be contrary at once to reason and to scripture. Simple election may declare the qualification of a person who is approved of by the electors, for discharging the duties of his office, but it cannot by itself invest him with that office. When Moses said to the Israelites, (Deut. i. 13), «Take ye wise 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 sufficient of itself to constitute those whom they elected rulers, unless accompanied by an official appointment from himself. Deacons also, when first appointed in the Christian church, after being elected by the people, (Acts vi. 3), were solemnly ordained with prayer, and the imposition 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 must it be requisite in an office so superior as that of the pastor. We are informed also, that Paul, together with Barnabas, (Acts xiv. 23), notwithstanding the choice of the people (if such a choice was exercised), ordained elders in every church, in Lystra, 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 Apostle enjoined Timothy, (1 Tim. v. 22), " to lay hands suddenly upon no man,' 2. e. not to ordain him rashly, which appears unaccountable, if popular election alone had been sufficient to make the object of it a pastor. If the choice of the people, moreover, constitutes a person the pastor of an Independent congregation, it seems necessarily to follow, that since no act performed by one Independent church is binding on another, if the congregation which chose him withdraw from his ministry, or oblige him to leave them, his ministry must cease with it, and he must again be reduced to the station of a private member. Besides, though the observance of the imposition of hands was occasionally employed as an emblem of the communication. of miraculous powers, it cannot be demonstrated that this was its uniform use, or that, from its being the medium at times of the communication of these powers, it should now be discontinued. Prayer too, we know, (Acts viii. 14—17, and ix. 40, &c.), was occasionally a mean of imparting these powers; but would any Independent presume, from this

circumstance, to argue, as some do respecting the imposition of hands, that prayer should now be discontinued in the church? This usage then, when employed in ordination, was intended merely as an emblem of the supplications of those who were engaged in performing it, that all necessary, common and ordinary endowments might be bestowed on the person 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 Christ. This, surely, cannot denote a communication of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, for all the other articles of Christian faith which he specifics 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 also to conceive how this particular miracle should have been of such uncommon moment as to merit being considered in this interesting light, and that the knowledge and belief of it, whatever other information a person might possess, was essential to his being received as a member. By the imposition of hands then, as Amesius observes in his refutation of BelJermine, (tom. ii. p. 76), seems unquestionably to be designed the Christian ministry, of the communication of which this observance was a sign. In confirmation of this, as well as in refutation of the sentiments of Episcopalians and Papists, nothing appears more just than the words of Cartwright, in his Treatise against the Rhemists. "By impo"sition of hands the Apostle meaneth no sacrament, much "less confirmation after baptism; but by a trope and bor"rowed speech the ministry of the church, upon the which "hands were laid, which appeareth in that whosoever believeth that there ought not to be a ministry in order to "teach, and govern the church, overthroweth Christianity;

whereas if confirmation of children were a sacrament, as it " is not, yet a man holding the rest, and denying the use of "it, might notwithstanding be saved."

We perceive likewise, 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 according to pro"phecy *, with the laying on of the hands of the Presby

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