not think that any human custom forms a conclusive argu ment against a scriptural principle, a scriptural statute, or a scriptural precedent.

In describing and defending the form of ordination, on which the elders of this church have determined, the body of the following argument shall be taken from the scriptures themselves; though in commencing and finishing the reasonings, to which your attention is now solicited, considerations, derived from other sources, may be briefly stated.

་

We have already had occasion to remark, that the new testament eldership appears to have been a transcript of the old testament eldership: i. e. that the apostles, in organizing the new economy, instead of going to the temple for models, where all was typical, turned to the synagogue, whose institutions were moral or spiritual, and derived their constitutional principles thence. If so, then it may be no unimportant matter to ascertain how the old testament elder was ordained? On the authority of those who have studied jewish antiquities, and who have made not a little use of their researches in sustaining the presbyterian cause, I state, that the old testament elder was ordained by the imposition of hands; and that those who laid their hands upon his head, when so ordained, were a plurality of elders already in office. If then our view is correct, that the new testament eldership is a transcript of the old, surely, unless there has been some special precept forbidding it, it follows, that the elders, already in office in the church, are required to ordain those who are set before us by the imposition of hands. If the premises are correct, the conclusion is irresistible.-An ancient custom may not always be out of place in a theological argument; and they who are prone to make up the materials of their controversial reasonings out of the writings and opinions of the fathers, will respectfully listen to such an appeal.

Whatever may be the value of the foregoing argument, our instructions, on the present occasion, must be derived from the scriptures. In commencing this inquiry, however, we must remark, that they have not said much on the subject; and that we, in arranging an ecclesiastical sect, or framing a voluntary association, are reduced to the necessity of making laws for ourselves. The scriptures have rather embodied what it was thought necessary to say in a recital of facts, than in any distinct or positive precepts; for they seem much more concerned to make us christians, than to make us governors. "He that desireth the office of a bishop," says Paul, "desireth a good work."-he is not coveting official honours, but wants employment; he seeks to be useful; his love for Jesus and the souls of men leads him to action; his honours and reward are reserved for him

in the upper sanctuary.

The first passage to which you are referred, is in the Acts of the Apostles; and is expressed in the following words: "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve ta bles. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased;

and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."* The state of the case appears to have been simply this. Christianity began to grow in her influence upon society, the church was much enlarged, and the apostles were unable to meet the increased demand for official labour.Complaints were soon made of neglect of duty; and as men are always hunting after motives, partialities were suspected. There was some foundation for complaint, for some things were neglected; but the apostles were innocent, for they could not attend to every thing, neither was it "reason that they should leave the word of God and serve tables." To meet the emergency, they proposed that seven men should be chosen, of sufficient qualification and approved integrity, who should be appointed over that particular business; to which proposition the whole multitude readily acceded. A very plain and simple transaction, which the church, under like necessities, might do again, and defend it, as Peter did, upon the reasonableness of the thing itself.

Presbyterians generally suppose, that the apostles ordained these seven men as deacons. This opinion has been founded, I presume, upon the facts, that the Jews had deacons in the synagogue, whose business it was to attend to the poor, so that it was very natural that the apostles should create a corresponding office on the present occasion; that these individuals were appointed to protect the poor from injustice; that an officer, called a deacon is recognized in the New Testament; and that in the early ages of christianity, the church did commit this particular business to a class of men so denominated. Let this be conceded for a moment. These deacons were ordained by the imposition of hands; but presbyterians do not now ordain deacons by *Acts, ch. vi. 1—7.

the imposition of hands; and can any one assign a good reason why they have abandoned this scriptural precedent? Or, if to-day, instead of ordaining elders, we were called to ordain deacons, by the imposition of hands, would not the scene be equally novel, and create equal suspicion about its correctness?

This conclusion might be admitted to us, that deacons should be ordained by the imposition of hands; and then we might be asked, what has all this to do with the ordination of elders? I reply, that if deacons, whose office is not on the same level with that of the elders, were so ordained, why should not elders be ordained in like form? And the question is asked here, merely to take away any superstitious idea about the solemnity of the ceremony, as though it were above the present occasion.

But it might be doubted whether these individuals were ordained deacons at all. There was a heavy pressure of circumstances, created by the dread of persecution, which might be adduced to show that the whole thing was a pure anomaly, and that more than a few poor widows were to be attended to. They had all things in common. As many as were possessors of houses or lands, sold them, and laid down the proceeds at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to every man according as he had need. It was over this daily ministration, where no fraud could be practised without lying to the Holy Ghost, that these men were ordained to preside. Then, as the case does not fall within the range of the deacon's office as ordinarily understood, perhaps they were not deacons. What were they? Shall we call them lay-elders? If we may, it will follow that layelders should be ordained by the imposition of hands. If they were neither lay-elders, nor deacons, then they were evidently set apart to this particular work; as we would call them in modern language, trustees, or a special committee,

created for a present purpose. Then our argument will turn our attention from their office to their work; in that case we should find it something of a secondary character, which the apostles would not bring into comparison with the higher services involved in preaching the word; and we would have a double inference in our favour-men set apart to serve on a special occasion by imposition of hands, and men set apart to serve in an humbler capacity than that of an elder, by the imposition of hands.-The question returns upon us, why should not elders be so ordained?

Again, Overstepping the ordinary office of the eldership for a little, you are referred to the following charges which Paul gave to his son Timothy:-"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God that is in thee, by the laying on of my hands."† Here then is Timothy, a superior officer, as he is generally supposed to have been; an evangelist, or, as some would make him, a diocesan bishop;-ordained by the imposition of hands. But suppose that the idea of the superiority of Timothy's office be a mere conceit; still we should have a man, whose business it was to labour in word and doctrine, ordained by the imposition of hands. And if he had no superiority of office, then he was a mere elder, detached from a particular church and commissioned to meet changing circumstances;-and so we would have an elder ordained by the imposition of hands.-This varied argument returns the question upon us, with growing interest, why is not the elder ordained by the imposition of hands?

It may be asked, by what presbytery was Timothy ordained? I reply that I do not know. The scriptures have not informed us, and we must be satisfied with the general *Tim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6.