& ii- 
 
 
 ^^. v'y 'W 
 
 
 ► ■ ^ 
 
 ^^ WW.. 
 
 
 O;^ 
 
 ^V^ 
 
 V''^'^'- 
 
 . '? 
 
 ' -'T 
 
 ?.^ 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 * 
 3 
 
 !•■'-' 
 
 
 «v 
 
 K>'-. 
 
 '\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 7 ' . i 
 
 -i 
 
 !> 
 
 'v..' • 
 
 ^ 
 
 ., r 
 
 M 
 
 •', 
 
 Si 
 
 L' 
 
 r:-ww" 
 
 VW^^ 
 
 ^■- c;, 
 
 .'^^'^•' 
 
 

Miscellaneous TcTim"^^^^'^^^'! 
 
 Va\ 
 
 o 
 
 L 
 
't -1 
 
 4 
 
<f 
 
"review 
 
 OP 
 
 Dr. R. J. BRECKINRIDGE'S LETTERS, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE RIGHTS OF RULING ELDERS. 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 PRINCETON REVIEW, 
 
 APRIL, 18t4. 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN T. ROBINSON. 
 
 1844. 
 
/• -i 
 
THE ELDER QUESTION. 
 
 It is truly mortifying that the Presbyterian Church, at 
 this period of her history, instead of "leaving the first prin- 
 ciples of the doctrine of Christ and going on unto perfec- 
 tion," should be employed in the juvenile task of laying 
 again the foundation of the "doctrine of laying on of 
 hands." We are utter disbelievers in the vaunted efficacy 
 of a perpetual recurrence in the spirit of sceptical inquiry, 
 to the first principles of our organization. The distinc- 
 tive features of the Presbyterian form of church govern- 
 ment have been known and settled for ages ; and yet there 
 are some who would persuade us that all who have hither- 
 to embraced this system have used it, as common people do 
 their watches, without comprehending at all the true prin- 
 ciples of its construction ; and who seek therefore to divert 
 the energy of the church from reaching forward unto those 
 things that are before, and waste it in the re-examination 
 of foundations that were long since well and securely laid. 
 
 It is a great evil, when a church, instead of acting with the 
 genial vigour of a well settled faith in the established prin- 
 ciples of her organization, is agitated with a perpetual in- 
 quiry as to what her principles really are. If the Pres- 
 byterian Church of this country after a century of well- 
 defined practice under a written constitution, needs to be 
 instructed in such elementary matters, as who ought to per- 
 form the work of ordination to the ministry, and what con- 
 stitutes a quorum of her ecclesiastical courts, we see no rea- 
 son to hope for any progress in all time to come. If these 
 matters have not been already settled beyond a rea- 
 sonable doubt, we see not how they can now be settled, 
 so as to prevent them from becoming the means of future 
 agitation. 
 
 It forms a part of the mortifying character of the present 
 agitation of our church, that it should touch upon ques- 
 tions that are in themselves of such little moment. How 
 many members shall be required to constitute a quorum of 
 a Presbytery, and whether among the designated number 
 there shall be one or more ruling elders are questions, that 
 
involving no principle of abstract truth or necessary order, 
 can be determined only by general considerations of expe- 
 diency. We know not what incessant and powerful ap- 
 peals to some of the worst principles of human nature 
 may effect in the end, but we are sure that no calm and 
 considerate argument will ever succeed in convincing the 
 sober judgment of the ministers and elders of the Presby- 
 terian church, that our fathers in establishing the quorum 
 clause in onr constitution, or their successors in their uni- 
 form practice under it, had any intention to encroach upon 
 the rights of the elders, or diminish in any degree their im- 
 portance, Tiie notion that the intent or the efl'ect of the 
 rule, or of the practice under it, is to establish a hierarchy, 
 or to take the initial step towards so monstrous a conclu- 
 sion, is simply farcical ; or at least it would be so, if no other 
 means than dispassionate argument were employed in sup- 
 port of it. Nor do we suppose that an attempt to show 
 that our fathers or ourselves in maintaining tliat ordina- 
 tion to the office of preaching tlie word, and administer- 
 ing the sacraments should be performed by those who 
 have themselves been authorized to discharge these func' 
 tions, did really disclose an implicit belief that ordination 
 was a mystical charm, would be deemed worthy a serious 
 thought, were this attempt made in the simple sincerity of 
 honest argument. That the whole Presbyterian church of 
 this and other lands have been for ages devoted to a super- 
 stitious belief, and need now to have some one, in the plen- 
 itude of his gifts, declare unto tliem the true meaning of 
 that which they have ignorantly worshipped, is too ])re- 
 posterous for grave argument. It will be impossible 
 by any ingenuity of argument to persuade the church, 
 that the belief that ruling elders ought not to impose 
 hands in ordination is a superstition, or that it involves 
 the injurious intents and consequences which are charged 
 upon it. The question is in itself of trilling moment. 
 It is a matter merely of fitness and propriety. If any 
 Presbytery had seen fit quietly to depart from presby- 
 terian usage in this matter, no one we presume would 
 have thought it expedient to call their conduct into ques- 
 tion, for no one believes that the act of ordination is ren- 
 dered invalid by the supererogatory addition of the hands of 
 the ruling elders. But when it is claimed that all Presby- 
 teries ought to, and shall ordain in this manner, upon the 
 ground that there is no distinction of order between the 
 bishop and the ruling elder, the question becomes one of prin- 
 ciple, and we are called upon to vindicate the ancient faith 
 
5 
 
 of the Presbyterian church when thus attacked through a 
 .proposed change in one of its ceremonial usages. 
 
 It is also worthy of consideration that the present agita- 
 tion of these questions has arisen from no practical griev- 
 ance under the operation of our system. No church has 
 complained that its interests have been shghted at meetings 
 of Presbytery held without the presence of ruling elders; 
 no elders have complained that at such meetings advan- 
 tage has been taken of their absence to encroach upon their 
 rights and privileges ; nor has any elder complained that 
 having offered to take part in the ceremony of ordination 
 he was hindered therein, and thus debarred from what he 
 deemed a rightful exercise of his authority. If the germ 
 of a hierarchical establishment is contained in the interpre- 
 tation which the church has always given to the quorum 
 clause in her constitution, it is strange that this germ should 
 have remained so long undeveloped. If the hierarcliy of 
 this rule has continued to this day constructive only, it 
 might have been permitted to slumber in its potential form 
 until it had passed into actual existence. And if the con- 
 finement of the imposition of hands in the rite of ordina- 
 tion to preaching elders, has resulted as yet in no further 
 encroachments of the spirit of priestly domination from 
 which it is said to spring, it might, we think, be safely 
 trusted a little longer. From the days of the Reformation 
 until now, every Presbyterian church of which we have 
 any knowledge has ordained its preachers by the hands 
 of preaching elders ; and though Milton, in the disordered 
 times of the English commonwealth, complained that 
 "new Presbyter was only old Priest writ large," it cer- 
 tainly is not among the Presbyterians of any age or land, 
 that we are to look for the reign of priestly usurpation. 
 The evils complained of in the practice of our church are 
 purely abstract. They have never yet taken on a concrete 
 form. Instead of the voice of complaint from parties who 
 feel themselves to be aggrieved, we have only the voices of 
 those who are endeavouring to make the ruling elders feel, 
 that in their ignorant simplicity they have long been im- 
 posed upon without knowing it, and that this imposition is 
 but the prelude to further strides of priestly power if it be 
 not met with timely resistance. It is a singular feature in 
 the championship of the cause of the ruling elders, that 
 the most difficult part of the duty of the champion consists 
 in persuading the body to be defended that they have been 
 ill used and are likely to be still further trampled upon. 
 
It remains to be seen wliether the valour exhibited in such 
 a cause will meet witli its reward or not. 
 
 In the pamphlet, the title of which we have placed at the 
 head of this article, we have the substance of two argu- 
 ments upon the ordination and quorum question, delivered 
 before the Synod of Philadelphia by Dr. R. J. Breckinridge, 
 a conspicuous defender of wiiat iie deems the rights and 
 privileges of Ruling l^^lders. It will be remembered that 
 the General Assembly of 1S42 decided by a unanimous vote 
 that it was not withm the intent of our constitutional rule 
 upon that subject, that ruling elders should join in the im- 
 position of hands in the rite of ordination. This vote was 
 subsequently re-considered, and the subject was referred to 
 the next Assembly. The last Assembly after a full argu- 
 ment of the case decided by a vote of 138 to 9 that the 
 constitution of our churcli does not authorize ruling elders 
 to impose hands in the ordination of ministers. This was 
 the deliberate judgment of the church expressed through 
 its highest court, upon a question not hastily brought before 
 it, nor hastily decided. If the church is capable of forming 
 its mind upon the meaning of its own elementary principles 
 and methods of proceeding, we have that mind distinctly 
 expressed in this decision. If the unanimous decision of 
 one Assembly, and the nearly unannnous decision of 
 another, after a year's reflection, ought not to be final, so 
 as to be an end of controversy, we can discern no means by 
 which such a question can ever be definitively settled ; and 
 for aught that we can see, our church must be reduced to 
 the humiliating attitude of ever learning what her own 
 simplest rudiments are, and never coming to the knowledge 
 of the truth. 
 
 By the same Assembly it was decided that any three 
 ministers regularly convened are a quorum competent to 
 the transaction of all business. A resolution to this effect 
 was adopted by a vote of 83 to 35, nearly three fourths of 
 the body voting in the affirmative. Considering the true 
 insignificance of the question at issue, affecting not in any 
 sense the constitution of a presbytery, but only the defini- 
 tion of a competent quorum of the body, this vote was suf- 
 ficiently decided to set the question at rest. We shall make 
 ourselves a by-word among the churches, if our General 
 Assembly is to consume its time year alter year in discuss- 
 ing such minor points of order, and disgrace its character 
 as a right-judging and stable court by the utterance of con- 
 tradictory judgments concerning them. Should the next 
 Assembly reverse the decision of the last, we see not why 
 
the succeeding one may not be called upon again to review 
 and annul. The decision of our highest court upon a ques- 
 tion of the interpretation of the constitution, when calmly 
 and decisively pronounced, ought in all ordinary cases, to 
 be held final and conclusive. It were far better that they 
 who are dissatisfied should receive the interpretation as au- 
 thoritative, and seek to obtain such an amendment to the con- 
 stitution as would meet their wishes, than to impeach the 
 wisdom or probity of the Assembly that rendered the de- 
 cision, and attempt to move succeeding ones to set it aside. 
 How can this venerable body retain its hold upon the con- 
 fidence of the churches, how can its counsels be received 
 with respect, or its mandates obeyed with cheerful zeal, if 
 upon questions affecting the interpretation of the constitu- 
 tion, the decisions of one year are continually annulled by 
 those of the next ? 
 
 Dr. R. J. Breckinridge, dissenting from the decision of 
 these two questions by the last Assembly, moved the Sy- 
 nod of Philadelphia, at their meeting in October last, to 
 adopt two several minutes condemning the resolutions of 
 the Assembly, and proposing to the next Assembly to re- 
 peal these obnoxious resolutions and adopt others in their 
 stead of a contrary tenor. The Synod refused to adopt the 
 proposed minutes, whereupon Dr. Breckinridge gave notice 
 of an appeal or complaint to be taken to the next General 
 Assembly, in the trial of which appeal or complamt he 
 should insist upon the exclusion of the Synod from the 
 right of voting upon any question connected therewith. 
 There can be no doubt that if the General Assembly enter- 
 tain this protest against the decision of the Synod of Phila- 
 delphia under the character of an appeal or complaint, and 
 mstitute the proceedings directed in such cases, the inferior 
 judicatory must be debarred from the right to vote upon 
 any question connected with the issue of the matter. And 
 this of itself would be sufficient to show that this was not 
 a case in which either an appeal or complaint could with 
 propriety be taken, and that the proper course for the As- 
 sembly to pursue would be to dismiss it at once from consi- 
 deration as irrelevant. If this appeal is to be ^o construed as 
 to bring up the merits of the main questions for argument and 
 decision, then surely the Synod of Philadelphia ought to be 
 upon the floor. The questions at issue, not having relation 
 to the wise and just administration of law, but to the deter- 
 mination of what the law itself is, can with propriety be set- 
 tled only by the united voice of the whole church. The pre- 
 posterous character of this appeal may be sufficiently illus- 
 
8 
 
 trated by a very supposablo case. The Synod of Kentucky 
 has within the past year passed a resohition to the effect 
 that in their judgment ruling elders ought to impose hands 
 in the ordination of ministers. Let us suppose that some 
 member of the minority had appealed from this decision to 
 the next Assembly, and that that body issue this appeal. 
 It is possible that the state of opinion in the next Assem- 
 bly might be such that with tlie Synod of Kentucky off 
 the floor, as it must be in the trial of this appeal, the deci- 
 sion would be adverse to the claim set up on behalf of the 
 ruling elders, and with the Synod of Philadelphia excluded 
 upon the issue of Dr. Breckinridge's appeal, a contrary de- 
 cision might be rendered. We should thus have the church 
 perplexed by two contradictory decisions of the same ques- 
 tion by the same General Assembly. There can obviously 
 be no fixed law or settled constitution in a church, if its 
 highest court, in the exercise of its prerogative as an inter- 
 preter of the law and the constitution, may thus be broken 
 into fractions by the conversion of abstract questions into 
 personal wrongs. 
 
 The utter irrelevancy of Dr. Breckinridge's appeal will 
 be further apparent, upon a moment's consideration of the 
 nature of the decision appealed from. The Synod of Phila- 
 delphia passed no affirmative resolution. They neither 
 affirmed or denied the doctrines put forth by the last As- 
 sembly. They simply refused to adopt certain private 
 opinions held by Dr. Breckinridge, and by him embodied 
 in writing and presented for their acceptance. Was this 
 refusal a personal grievance of which Dr. Breckinridge has 
 a right to complain ? The Synod pronounced no judgment 
 on the soundness or unsoundness of his opinions, but for 
 reasons which they have not seen fit to assign, they de- 
 clined to entertain them. Who was injured or aggrieved by 
 this declared unwillingness of the Synod to take any action 
 in the matter ? A delay to act, may in some cases, where 
 personal rights and interests are involved, be unjust and in- 
 jurious, but in this matter we see not how any allegation of 
 wrong can be sustained except upon the ground that Dr. 
 Breckinridge has an inherent right to demand that any 
 Synod to which he may be attached, shall entertain what- 
 ever opinions he may see fit to offer. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive upon what ground other than 
 the existence of some such unqualified right, the Synod of 
 Philadelphia could have been expected to adopt all the 
 opinions that were on this occasion offered for their accep- 
 tance. In the minute touching the quorum question which 
 
Dr. Breckinridge, " with a profound conviction of its truth 
 and a deep sense of its timeliness" submitted to the Synod, 
 this body is called upon among other things, to express its 
 belief that "the principle here involved is practically the 
 question between an aristocratical hierarchy, and a free 
 Christian commonwealth." That Dr. Breckinridge should 
 believe this is not perhaps surprising, for nothing is more 
 common than for men who find themselves out of sympathy 
 with the community to which they belong, to manifest a 
 certain extravagant tendency of opinion as well as of feeling. 
 The calmness which measures the exact nature and precise 
 relations of the question at issue is not to be expected from a 
 man who feels himself to be in the position of Jeremiah, when 
 Jerusalem was beleaguered by the army of aliens, and he him- 
 self imprisoned, denounced as a traitor, and threatened with 
 death, unless with the prophet's doom he possesses also the 
 prophet's qualifications and supports. That Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge's convictions and feelings should run out into great 
 exaggeration, that matters in themselves of small import 
 should be magnified into vital principles, and things that 
 are totally dissimilar be confounded as identical, was no- 
 thing more than was to be expected from any uninspired 
 man occupying the position in wliich he feels himself to 
 stand. But if a complaint should be entertained against a 
 deliberative body, because they refused to express their 
 belief, that an economical rule, which affirms nothing 
 respecting the constitution of a Presbytery, which debars 
 no one entitled to partake in its deliberations and votes 
 from attendance upon its meetings, which restrains no right 
 and curtails no privilege, and which moreover has been in 
 practical operation for more than a century, without having 
 led to any evil, involves " practically the question between 
 an aristocratical hierarchy and a free commonwealth," — this 
 we confess would surprise us. 
 
 There are other methods than by appeal or complaint by 
 which these questions may be brought before the next As- 
 sembly, under such a form as may provide for the utterance 
 of the deliberate judgment of the entire body ; and in some 
 one of these methods we suppose they will be brought up 
 and discussed anew. We have therefore examined Dr. 
 Breckinridge's arguments to ascertain what new light they 
 have shed upon the subjects of which they treat. The many 
 imputations of bad motives and sinister designs to those 
 who are of a contrary opinion, which these speeches con- 
 tain, as well as their confident prophecies, we shall pass 
 
10 
 
 without further remark. It is impossible to refute a sneer, 
 a vituperation, or a prophecy. Honest deeds are the only 
 lit answer to dishonest words, and time, in the absence of 
 miracles, is the only test of the prophet. But what they 
 offer of argument or of fact, bearing upon the proper dis- 
 cussion of the subject, we propose briefly to examine. 
 
 In the discussion of the question, who ought to impose 
 hands in the ordination of ministers, we do not find that 
 Dr. Breckinridge has added anything to the argument as 
 delivered before the last Assembly. The whole stress of this 
 question turns, of course, upon the interpretation to be given 
 to the direction contained in our form of government, that /^ 
 
 " the presiding minister shall by prayer, and with the laying 
 on of the hands of the Presbytery, according to the apostohc 
 example solemnly ordain him to the holy oflice of the gos- 
 pel ministry ;" and the whole force of the reasoning, upon 
 the side of those who would change our established customs, 
 resides in the assumption that the presbytery herein named 
 must of necessity, mean the Presbytery previously defined 
 as consisting of ministers and ruUng elders. " Presbytery 
 imposes hands in ordination ; elders are of right members 
 of that body ; therefore they must necessarily impose 
 hands." This is the whole argument. To assert that the 
 Presbytery that imposes hands is not the entire Presbytery 
 Dr. Breckhiridge declares to be '•' utter folly." " Why," he 
 asks, " would you stultify our fathers ? Did they first define 
 with the utmost clearness the term Presbytery ; then invest 
 the body so called with the power of ordaining ministers of 
 the word ; then in a long chapter treating of this ordination 
 in detail use the word a dozen times in its defined sense ; 
 and then without motive or notice, use the same word in 
 the same chapter and touching the same business, in a sense 
 not only inconsistent with their own definition avjd their con- 
 stant use of ir, but in a sense flatly contrary to both ? The 
 thing is supremely absurd." Here is the whole case on the 
 other side. And we are willing to grant that the prima 
 facie meaning of the language is in favour of the interpre- 
 tation here given to it. But we find suflicient evidence that 
 this is not the true explanation, in the historical fact, altogeth- 
 er unexplained and inexplicable, upon tlie contrary hypothe- 
 sis, that in the actual practice of our church with few and un- 
 important exceptions, ministers have been ordained by the 
 imposition of the hands of ministers. The language of the 
 written constitution, it is aflirmed, is clear and explicit ; it 
 can have but one meaning; to attempt to give it any other 
 is to stultify our fathers, is utter folly, is supremely absurd. 
 
11 
 
 How then came it to pass that our fathers stultified them- 
 selves, for it is undeniable that they ordained by the imposi- 
 tion of the hands of preaching elders ? If the language of 
 the constitution is so unequivocal and explicit that it can, 
 bear but one meaning, how happens it that it was, as a 
 matter of fact, understood and applied in a different mean- 
 ing by our fathers and by all who have succeeded them, 
 even until the present day ? This fact is in truth decisive 
 of the controversy. It is perfectly futile for men to write 
 and speak, however plausibly or ably, to prove that certain 
 languagecan have butone meaning, when it isanotoriousfact 
 that they who indited that language and the whole church 
 after them for a period of fifty years, have actually attached 
 to it a different meaning. No attempt has been made to 
 explain this fact. Our fathers, whom we are urged in filial 
 tenderness not to stultify, are left in the extraordinary pre- 
 dicament of having formally laid down a proposition in 
 terms too explicit to be misunderstood, and then instantly 
 reduced to action one that is not only inconsistent with it, 
 but flatly contrary thereto ; that is, through incredible ig- 
 norance they were incapable of comprehending their own 
 language, or through wilful dishonesty they perverted it. 
 We have said that no attempt has been made to explain this 
 fact, for we do not reckon as such Dr. Breckinridge's argu- 
 ment to show " the absurdity of talking about a practice that 
 elders should not impose hands." If there be any other 
 man than one of straw who has ever talked thus, we con- 
 gratulate Dr. Breckinridge upon his triumphant victory over 
 him. Nor do we consider the force of the argument drawn 
 from the practice of the fathers of our church as impaired in 
 any degree by Dr. Breckinridge's denial that the practice of 
 ordaining by the imposition of the hands of preaching elders 
 has been strictly universal. What may have been done in 
 one or two western Presbyteries, of late years, we know not, 
 but it is beyond all doubt, that at the establishment of our 
 church, the practice was universal, and that from that day 
 to this, the same practice has prevailed throughout the church. 
 Under such circumstances it is a truly desperate attempt, to 
 show that the framers of our constitution intended to estab- 
 lish a rule which was flatly contradicted by every act to 
 which that rule was applicable. The plain palpable force 
 of the concurrent practice of the church from its commence- 
 ment until now is not to be evaded. It is conclusive as to 
 the meaning which our fathers who established the constitu- 
 tion attached to the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. 
 Whether these words can properly bear this meaning or not, 
 
12 
 
 it is certain that this was the meaning Avhich they actually- 
 affixed to them when they inserted them in the Form of 
 Government ; it was in this sense that the church received 
 them in adopting the constitution ; it is in this sense that 
 they have ever since been interpreted ; and it is in this sense 
 that we are bound by them. Of what avail is it, in dispar- 
 agement of this conclusion, to tell us of other practices of 
 this same church, such as the disuse of the office of deacon, 
 and the establishment and tolerance of the Plan of Union, 
 that were clearly unconstitutional? Who needs to be 
 taught the distinction between a corrupt practice that has 
 crept into the church, however insidiously, at some definite 
 period of her liistory, and one that is co-eval with its consti- 
 tution and necessarily interpretative of it ? 
 
 The conclusion to which we are thus forced by the lan- 
 guage of the constitution, as illustrated by the practice of 
 its founders, derives additional strength from every quarter. 
 The terms of the constitution are not only susceptible of the 
 interpretation for which we contend, but they do of them- 
 selves, when properly collated, compel us to adopt this as 
 their only consistent meaning. More than one instance 
 occurs in our Form of Government, in which the terms Pres- 
 bytery, and member of the Presbytery are used, where it is 
 apparent that ministers only are meant, the duties being 
 such as could be properly discharged only by them. Now 
 we maintain that in the ordination service itself, there is 
 evidence that the whole ceremonial part of the ordination 
 was judged to be a Avork which could be fitly performed 
 only by ministers. This is sufficiently clear from the direc- 
 tion given that " the minister who presides shall first, and 
 afterward all the other members of the Presbytery in their 
 order, take him by the right hand, saying, in words to this 
 purpose. We give you the right hand of fellowship to take 
 part of this ministry with us." Here the language, all the 
 other members of the Presbytery, is express and peremptory, 
 and yet it is obviously limited to those members who have 
 already partaken of the ministry to which the candidate is 
 ordained. Dr. Breckinridge indeed asserts that this argu- 
 ment is a sophism, which chiefly rests on an error of fact ; 
 and the error of fact which he elaborately overthrows 
 consists in an alleged misapprehension of the word 
 ministry, which restricts it to the ministry of the word. 
 He succeeds in proving what no one has ever denied, 
 that the word ministry, in its etymological sense, means 
 service, and minister a servant ; but he has not succeeded 
 in finding a single instance in our form of government where 
 
13 
 
 these words are employed to denote any other kmd of ser- 
 vice than that which is discharged by preacliing elders. 
 And if he had found any number of such instances, this 
 sophism, as he is pleased to call it, would still remain a 
 strong and impregnable argument in the judgment of all 
 who can rightly appreciate the meainng of words. As if to 
 forestal the very objection raised, this salutation defines 
 with the utmost precision the kind of ministry, or service 
 intended. They who take the newly ordained minister by 
 the hand, receive him not to the ministry, but to this min- 
 istry. What ministry ? Beyond all dispute, that to which 
 the candidate is receiving his ordination, and which they 
 who take him by the hand share with him. And is this the 
 ministry of rule over the church, or the higher ministry in- 
 clusive of the other, of preaching the word and adminis- 
 tering the sacraments ? When, as has not unfrequently oc- 
 curred, a ruling elder has been ordained, as a preacher, to 
 what ministry did the right hand of fellowship welcome 
 him ? The theory of Dr. Breckinridge would demand that 
 ill this case there should be no second ordination ; and the 
 contrary judgment of our constitution shows conclusively 
 that whatever may be in other respects the merits of his 
 system, it is not the presbyterianism of our standards. 
 When one who is already a ruling elder is ordained to the 
 ministry of the word, with what propriety can an elder of 
 the Presbytery, welcome him " to take part of this ministry 
 with us V^ It is clear that these words limit the perform- 
 ance of this act to the preaching members of the Presbytery ; 
 and it is equally clear that it was intended that they who 
 welcome the newly ordained minister to his office should 
 be they who induct him into it. 
 
 In reply to the question, why the unrestricted language, 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, is employed, if 
 it was intended that it should be limited to preaching elders, 
 we answer that it was doubtless for the same reason that 
 when it is said that " a member of the Presbytery" shall 
 preach a sermon, it was not deemed necessary to qualify 
 the designation of the person any farther than was done by 
 the nature of the duty assigned. There never was a Chris- 
 tian church upon the face of the earth, excepting the Ana- 
 baptists, the Brownists, and such like, which did not or- 
 dain its preachers by the hands of those who were them- 
 selves preachers. There is no account in the New Testa- 
 ment of an ordination that was not performed by those who 
 were themselves possessed of the office conferred. It was 
 thus that all ordinations had been performed in the Presby- 
 
14 
 
 terian church of our own country, prior to the adoption of 
 our present constitution. Tlie Form of Government pre- 
 viously recognised as authority in the church, that drawn 
 up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines and adopted 
 by the Church of Scotland, expressly limits the imposition 
 of hands to the preaching elders, and yet it speaks familiar- 
 ly elsewhere of ordination as performed by tlie Presbytery, 
 the whole Presbytery, and by the laying on of the liands 
 of the Presbytery. It was to have been expected that, in 
 settling a Form of Government in opposition to one that 
 had previously prevailed, the Westminster Assembly would 
 be precise and full in their exposition of the n)inor details 
 of the organization established ; and on the other hand it 
 was not to be expected that in drawing up our briefer di- 
 rectory, its authors would be equally careful to define words 
 and phrases which had been settled in their meaning and 
 usage for a hundred and fifty years. At the time that our 
 standards were framed there was no doubt as to who ought 
 to lay on hands in ordination. There never had been any 
 question respecting this matter. It was altogether natural, 
 therefore, that in compiling the rule for ordination, the au- 
 thors of it should quote the scriptural phrase, 'Maying on of 
 the hands of the Presbytery," without dreaming of the 
 necessity of imposing a limit upon the general term Pres- 
 bytery, which had been already affixed to it by the univer- 
 sal consent of the church in all ages, and by the unbroken 
 and unquestioned practice of our own church in ]mrticular. 
 And had the danger of misapprehension occurred to them, 
 they doubtless would have supposed that they had suffi- 
 ciently guarded against it, by the direction subsequently 
 given that '• all the members of the Presbytery in their 
 order" shall utter certain words, \vhich words would be 
 perfect nonsense coming from the mouth of any other than 
 a preaching elder. If the ministry to which the preacfieris 
 ordained is a different ministry from that exercised by the 
 ruling elder, then it is evident that " the Presbytery," and 
 " all the members of the Presbytery" refer exclusively to 
 preaching elders. 
 
 This is the law of our book, consistent with itself, with 
 the practice of the church, with right reason, with scriptural 
 authority, and with universal custom. Not one instance 
 has been produced, from apostolic example or from the 
 history of any Presbyterian church that has ever existed, 
 in which a man was ordained to the oflicc of a preacher, 
 by the imposition of the hands of those who were not them- 
 selves preachers. It has always been recognised as fitting 
 
16 
 
 and right, that the distinction which exists between the 
 teacher and the ruler should be made apparent in the act 
 of ordination ; and it will accordingly be found that they 
 who have undertaken what they are pleased to call the 
 defence of the ruling elders, plead for their participation in 
 the act of ordination upon principles that are utterly sub- 
 versive of the true distinction between the preaching and 
 the ruling elder. 
 
 We do not enter at present more particularly into the 
 argument founded upon the use of the term presbyter in 
 the New Testament ; for this argument so far as it has any 
 bearing upon the question under discussion has no force 
 except as it tends to obliterate all distinction between the 
 two classes of elders. The same reasoning which proves 
 that ruling elders ought to impose hands in ordination, 
 proves also that they ought to teach. The ruling elder, it 
 is contended is a scriptural presbyter, a scriptural bishop, 
 and as presbyters and bishops ordain, by the impositon of 
 hands, therefore ruling elders must impose hands. So also 
 the scriptural presbyter or bishop must be apt to teach; 
 they that had the rule over the church were also they who 
 spoke unto them the word of God. It is easy therefore, by 
 the change of the middle term of the above syllogism, to 
 construct one which would prove that it was one of the 
 functions of the ruling elder to preach the word. When 
 they who are now seeking their ends through the distortion 
 of our standards, shall seek to change the standards them- 
 selves upon the ground that they are not consistent with 
 scriptural teaching, we shall be ready to enter with all mi- 
 nuteness into this discussion. In the mean time the single 
 question before us now is, what is the presbyterianism of 
 our constitution ? And the language of the instrument it- 
 self, interpreted by the collation of one part with another, 
 and illustrated by other formularies from which it was com- 
 piled, and by the undoubted practice of its founders, leaves 
 no room for doubt in an unprejudiced mind, that it was not 
 within the intent of the rule upon that subject, that ruling 
 elders should unite in the imposition of hands in the ordina- 
 tion of ministers. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge has attempted to invalidate the histori- 
 cal argument, drawn from the practice of other churches, 
 and this, as might have been expected, is much the weakest 
 part of his essay. He who sets out to find in history that 
 which never existed, is very apt to lose his way. Dr. Breck- 
 inridge, " the course of whose studies," as he informs us, 
 " has not left him ignorant of the sentiments of God's people 
 
16 
 
 in past times," avows his belief that the teaching of other 
 reformed churches furnishes more in favour of his position 
 than against it. How well he has sustained this belief, our 
 readers may judge for themselves. 
 
 He refers, in the first instance to the Reformed churches 
 of France and Geneva. In these churches he admits that 
 ordination was performed by ministers, but attempts to 
 show, by an argument that may be safely left to do its 
 work unhindered, that the authority of this example is in 
 favour of the participation of ruling elders in this service 
 among us. 
 
 He then passes to what he terms " the most remarkable 
 confession to which the Reformation gave birth," the second 
 or latter Helvetic confession. In the eighteenth chapter of 
 this confession, which treats of the ministry of the church, it 
 is said that "they who are chosen shall be ordained by elders, 
 with public prayers and imposition of hands." But before 
 the meaning of this can be comprehended it must be under- 
 stood who are meant by elders. In a preceding paragraph, 
 after giving and defining the terms applied to the ministers 
 of the church in the New Testament, it adds, " Ucebit ergo 
 nunc ecclcsiariim tninisiros nuncupare Episcopos, PreS' 
 hyteros^ Pastores^ at que Doctores ;^^ it is therefore proper 
 now to call the ministers of the churches, Bishops, Presby- 
 ters, Pastors, and Teachers. The term elders or presbyters 
 is, therefore, one of several terms that may be appropriately 
 employed to designate the ministers of the church. What 
 then were the peculiar functions of ministers? This is 
 made perfectly apparent. In page 510 of the same chapter, 
 it is said: '■'■ Data est omnibus in ecclesia minist?ns una 
 et aequalis potestas sive functio,'' to ail m,inisters of the 
 church, one and the same power or function is given. 
 And again, ^'officia ministoj-um. sunt varia, quae tanien 
 plerique ad duo rcstringunt, in quibus omnia alia compre- 
 henduntur, ad doctrinam Christi evangclicam et ad legi- 
 tim,am sacramentorum administrationem f the duties of 
 ministers are various, though they are generally restricted 
 to tiuo, in luhich all the rest are comprehended, namely, 
 teaching the evangelical doctrine of Christ, and the lawful 
 administration of the sacramejits. Through tiie whole 
 chapter it is apparent tliat the ministers of the church, of 
 whom it treats, are such, and such only, as are authorized to 
 preach the word, and administer the sacraments. It says not 
 one word, directly or indirectly, respecting any other class of 
 ministers or rulers. The existence of ruling eiders is not 
 
17 
 
 once hinted at throughout the document. It affirms that 
 ordination shall be by the imposition of the hands of the 
 elders — that elders is one of the terms appropriately applied 
 to ministers — and that ministers are they whose chief func- 
 tions are to preach the evangelical doctrine of Christ and 
 administer the sacraments. It must require optics peculiarly 
 constituted, to discern in all this any evidence in favour of 
 the participation of ruling elders in the imposition of hands. 
 It teaches the same doctrine that is found in the standards 
 of our own, and of all other churches, that induction into the 
 office to preach and administer the sacraments, should be 
 performed by those who are themselves incumbents of the 
 same office. 
 
 We are next referred to the second book of discipline of 
 the Scottish church, which affirms that " ordination is the 
 separation and sanctifying of the person appointed to God, 
 and his kirk, after he is well tried and found qualified," and 
 that "the ceremonies of ordination, are fasting, earnest 
 prayer, and imposition of the hands of the eldership." 
 " Such," Dr. Breckinridge adds, " is ordination according to 
 the doctrine of that venerable church whose standards have 
 furnished so large a portion of our own ; and such it is, 
 essentially as held by all the Reformed churches — and I may 
 add by the primitive and apostolic church." And this is, 
 as we maintain, precisely the doctrine of our standards. 
 The same language in substance is employed, and the same 
 question arises here as in the interpretation of our own di- 
 rectory ; what does this language mean ? what is the doc- 
 trine taught ? It sheds less light upon the subject, than 
 upon the difficulties by which the reasoner feels himself to 
 be environed, when he attempts to fortify his interpretation 
 of an ambiguous phrase by reference to one of precisely 
 equivalent import. "The laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery," and "the imposition of the hands of the elder- 
 ship," inasmuch as they differ from each other only in 
 sound, undoubtedly mean the same thing : but what is this 
 one thing which they bath mean ? What was intended by 
 the " hands of the eldership," in the second book of disci- 
 pline, is clearly made known by cotemporary writers who 
 treat expressly of the subject. Calderwood, in the Altare 
 Damascenum, pubUshed in 1623 says that the imposition of 
 hands "is confined to pastors or teaching elders only," and 
 expressly justifies the consistency of this usage with the lan- 
 guage of the directory. Samuel Rutherford in his " Peace- 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 able Plea for Paul's Presbytery in Scotland," published in 
 1642, says, "everywhere, in the word, where pastors and 
 elders are created, there they are ordained by pastors. . . 
 
 . . Ordination of pastors is never given to people or 
 believers, or to ruling elders, but still to pastors." To the 
 same effect is the testimony of Alexander Henderson, and 
 of James Guthrie.* 
 
 There is no room left for doubt as to the doctrine of the 
 second Book of Discipline, that venerable standard which 
 " was drawn up by Andrew Melville, adopted by all the 
 civil and ecclesiastical authorities of the kingdom, and 
 made the basis of more numerous and solemn national 
 acts than any other paper, perhaps, of merely human ori- 
 gin." This book teaches the exact doctrine which we 
 maintain, that ordination is to be performed by the impo- 
 sition of the hands of the eldership, meaning thereby 
 preaching elders. We have thus, not only the example of 
 the Scottish Church, ccnfirming us by the conclusions to 
 which the ablest men of the day arrived, at a period which 
 peculiarly called for a thorough sifting of the principles of 
 church organization ; but what is still more important in its 
 bearing upon the precise question before us, we find that in 
 the standards which are admitted to " have furnished a 
 large portion of our own," the phrase "imposition of the 
 hands of the eldership" had acquired a settled mean- 
 ing as early as the year 1578. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge declares that it seems to him " the very 
 height of absurdity and an absolute contempt of common 
 sense, for any one to contend, that according to the princi- 
 ples and the very terms of this instrument, ruling elders 
 are not permitted to impose hands in the ordination of min- 
 isters of the word." And yet, in the light of the authori- 
 ties above cited, it would be so plain an affront to common 
 sense to deny that the principles and the terms of this in- 
 strument were intended to exclude ruling elders from taking 
 part in the act of ordination, that no one we suppose will 
 henceforth presume to call it in question. It was univer- 
 sally understood by the men who framed, adopted, and 
 used this instrument, that it confined the imposition of 
 hands to preaching elders. If men who use language are 
 not to be denied the privilege of explaining what sense 
 
 * Sec thcsp authors cited in the appendix to Dr. Miller's Sermon on the 
 oiGcc of the ruling elder, p. 126. 
 
19 
 
 they attach to their own terms, then the " imposition of the 
 hands of the eldership," in the Book of Discipline refers 
 exclusively to preaching elders. It was in this sense that 
 the church understood these words ; in this sense they 
 passed into the Westminster Directory, and into our own 
 standards. Through a period of two hundred and sixty- 
 five years, during which this language has been employed, 
 in the rite of ordination, no doubt has existed as to its true 
 meaning. And are we now to be told that during all this 
 time the men who compiled and used the church standards 
 wliich have prevailed, did not understand the meaning of 
 their own words ? Is a purely verbal argument, founded 
 upon nothing higher or deeper than a mere jingle of words, 
 to be considered as of weight in determining that the true 
 intent of language is one which they who employed that 
 language, have disavowed by all their writings and in all 
 their acts ? 
 
 Greater violence even, than in the cases already reviewed, 
 is needed so to torture the standards of the Westminster As- 
 sembly as to make them utter the desired response. There is 
 of course no doubt as to the judgment of the Westminster As- 
 sembly respecting the point in debate. They have expressly 
 decided that ordination shall be "by imposition of hands, and 
 prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom 
 it doth belong." They have made this matter so clear that 
 there is no room left for a play upon words. The Directory 
 for the ordination of ministers states, in general terms, an- 
 alogous to the language employed in our book, that " the 
 Presbytery, or the ministers sent from them for ordination, 
 shall solemnly set him apart to the office and work of the 
 ministry, by laying their hands on him," but this is else- 
 where and more than once, limited to preaching presbyters. 
 " The preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in 
 cities or neighbouring villages are those to whom the impo- 
 sition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations 
 within their bounds respectively." To evade the force of 
 this example. Dr. Breckinridge contends that this Directory 
 teaches an entirely different doctrine respecting ordination 
 from that which we maintain. Citing the declaration that 
 " every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposi- 
 tition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching 
 presbyters to whom it doth belong," he asserts tliat this re- 
 quires us to go nmch further than has yet been contended 
 for, for not only imposition of hands, but ordination itself 
 
20 
 
 is here explicitly declared to belong to preaching presbyters ; 
 and he adds the significant hint, that it will not be long be- 
 fore this authority will be quoted to prove that preaching 
 elders only, have any concern with the whole process of or- 
 dination. " Is that," he asks," the doctrine of our church." 
 Again he quotes the declaration of tbc Directory, that "the 
 power of ordering the whole work of ordination is in the 
 whole Presbytery," vv^ith the subsequent qualification that 
 " the preaching presbyters . . . are those to whom the 
 imposition of hands doth appertain ;" and from this he 
 infers that the business of the whole Presbytery is only to 
 order the work of ordination, and that it is the preaching 
 presbyters who ordain. And again he demands, " is this 
 our system ?" We answer, that the system of the West- 
 minster Directory, according to the clear and palpable 
 meaning of the instrument itself, is undoubtedly our pre- 
 cise system, neither more nor less. The " ordering of the 
 whole work of ordination" which it gives to the whole 
 Presbytery, will not be lessened in its meaning by the dis- 
 paraging "o;i/y" which Dr. Breckinridge has prefixed to 
 it. The whole Presbytery are to order or to determine 
 the entire work, to judge of the qualifications of the can- 
 didate, and decide whether he shall be ordained ; but the 
 executive acts by which their decision is actually carried 
 into effect, the prayers, the exhortations, the imposition of 
 hands, are to be performed by the preaching presbyters. 
 Such is the plain doctrine of this directory, and such pre- 
 cisely is the doctrine of our standards. The intent of the 
 instrument itself is so clear, that it needs no elucidation. 
 If any confirmation were necessary, it could be found abun- 
 dantly in the debates of the Assembly, attending the forma- 
 tion of the Directory ; and in contemporary expositions and 
 defences of the form of government which they established. 
 In the Jus Divinum Ministeri Evangelici, or the divine 
 right of the gospel ministry, we find the whole matter of 
 ordination, in its substantive and formal part, treated at 
 length. This work was published in 1654, by the Pro- 
 vincial Assembly of London ; it was subscribed, Novem- 
 ber 2, 1653, in the name and by the appointment of the 
 Assembly, by the Moderator, Assessors and Scribes, one of 
 the latter of whom was Matthew Pool. In the Xlllth 
 chapter of this work, entitled, " Wherein the fourth asser- 
 tion about ordination is proved, viz., that ordination of 
 ministers ought to be by the laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery," we find the following question and answer : 
 
21 
 
 " Question 4. What part hath the ruHng elder in ordina- 
 tion. 
 
 ^'Answer. Supposing that there is such an officer in the 
 church (for the proof of which we refer the reader to our 
 vindication) we answer, that the power of ordering of the 
 whole work of ordination belongs to the whole Presbytery, 
 that is, to the teaching and ruling elders. But imposition of 
 hands is to be always by preaching presbyters, and the 
 rather because it is accompanied with prayer and exhorta- 
 tion, both before, in, and after, which is the proper work of 
 the teaching elder." Here is the same phraseology that is 
 employed in the Directory, and its meaning is placed be- 
 yond the reach of cavil. The system here taught is, we 
 repeat it, our system. The decision of every question con- 
 nected with each particular case of ordination is vested in 
 the whole Presbytery, and the formal act or acts by which 
 the decision is declared and carried into effect, is placed in 
 the hands of the teaching elders. 
 
 But, in the second place, Dr. Breckinridge attempts to in- 
 validate the authority of the Westminster Directory on the 
 ground that its provisions for ordination were extemporane- 
 ous, devised confessedly to meet the exigencies of a particu- 
 lar crisis and of course not adapted to a different state of 
 things. We prefer quoting his own words upon this head, 
 fearful that any paraphrase which we might make of them 
 would necessarily pass with the reader for a caricature. 
 After citing from the Directory the passages to which we 
 have already referred, he adds : « The two heads of Doc- 
 trine and Power under which the foregoing statements 
 occur, are then thrown together; and under the 11th and 
 12 th sections of this united head we have these two impor- 
 tant propositions, ' In extraordinary cases something ex- 
 traordinary may be done There is at this 
 
 time, an extraordinary occasion for a way of ordination 
 for the present supply of ministers.'' True enough, sir; 
 but it sets the whole matter on a new foundation. Are we 
 in a state of civil war ? Have we no church courts in Ame- 
 rica as there was not one in England, when this Directory 
 was drawn up ? Do our fifteen hundred ministers, and 
 two thousand churches furnish no present supply of minis- 
 ters to constitute a single Presbytery ?" This has no mean- 
 ing unless it be to disparage the directions, already quoted, 
 respecting ordination, on the ground that they were framed 
 to meet a special exigency, there being at that time no eccle- 
 
22 
 
 siastical court, regularly constituted in England. Bnt were 
 there no courts, with ruling elders a constituent portion of 
 them, in Scotland, to which no less than to England, regard 
 was had in the compilation of these directions ? Do they 
 not in their own nature, and in express terms, contemplate 
 a Presbytery fully formed ? It is true that this instrument un- 
 der the Doctrinal part of Ordination, which precedes the 
 Directory, after laying down ten principles or rules, among 
 which is one limiting the imposition of hands to teaching 
 elders, adds that, " in extraordinary cases, something extra- 
 ordinary may be done, until a settled order may be had, yet 
 keeping as near the rule as possible." It is evident that 
 the rule befitting a settled order, and to which, in the mean 
 tmie, as near an approximation as possible is to be made, is 
 that contained in the ten preceding principles. The Direc- 
 tory then follows, giving minute directions as to the manner 
 in which this rule is to be carried out in practice, under a 
 settled order of things. At the close of this, it adds, — 
 " Thus far of ordinary rule and course of ordination, in the 
 ordinary way ; that which concerns the extraordinary way, 
 requisite to be now practised, followeth," — and it then pro- 
 ceeds to explain what it may be allowable to do under the 
 present exigency. Had the restriction of the imposition of 
 hands to teaching elders been found among these extraor- 
 dinary tilings, which were allowed on account of the pre- 
 sent distress, we should not of course cite the authority of 
 this venerable standard in favour of the interpretation 
 which has always been given to our constitution. We are 
 seeking realities, and not playing with the mere sounds and 
 shows of things. The only two points that have any con- 
 ceivable relation to the question under discussion with us, 
 that the power of ordering the work of ordination was en- 
 trusted to the whole Presbytery, and that the authority to 
 execute the work, when ordered, was committed exclusively 
 to teachuig elders, are not alluded to among the extraordi- 
 nary allowances that were to be permitted because no Pres- 
 byteries "could be immediately formed up to their whole 
 power and work." This, on the contrary, was the perfect 
 theory and practice of ordination, the complete rule, which 
 might, in certain particulars, be varied to suit the necessities 
 of the times, " until a settled order might be had." 
 
 And yet Dr. Breckinridge, after specifying some of the 
 allowable dejiartures from the rule, which arc all given 
 under the distinct head of the extraordinary way which may 
 
now be practised, asks, " Is it not equally manifest, that the 
 whole Directory contemplates the extraordinary posture of 
 affairs then actually existing around them?" We answer 
 that this is about as manifest, as that the Constitution of the 
 United States in prescribing the method now pursued in the 
 election of President,contemplated the adopting act of the seve- 
 ral States and other provisional measures, which were neces- 
 sary to carry the constitution into operation. No man can 
 read the Directory without seeing at once, that upon the 
 points undei* discussion, and upon all other matters, except- 
 ing the few that are touched upon in the appendix upon 
 " the extraordinary way," it contains the matured and deli- 
 berate judgment of the body respecting what is orderly and 
 right under a perfect state of the church. 
 
 But in the third place, Dr. Breckinridge attempts a higher 
 strain. He aims not only to deprive the positive teaching 
 of the Assembly of its due weight, but to make them utter 
 a contrary doctrine. To effect this, must of course require 
 peculiar powers of ventriloquism. By a comparison of dates 
 he finds that the Directory for Church Government was 
 sent in to the Parliament seven months after the Directory 
 for Ordination. Hence he infers that this work contains 
 " the more matured decisions of the body — their advice for 
 a permanent and not for an extraordinary church state." 
 He then selects from this work certain general principles of 
 church government, such as, that the government of the 
 church is in the hand of Assemblies, that these Assemblies 
 are composed of teaching and ruling elders, and that many 
 congregations are under this presby terial government ; and 
 from these he argues that the Westminster Assembly, in its 
 matured judgment, by deciding that ruling elders are of 
 divine right a constituent portion of the governing assem- 
 blies of the church, have decided " ex vi termini, that they 
 must unite in ordinations." If by uniting in ordinations, 
 is meant, that ruling elders must have some share in the 
 work, then all this talk about the matured decisions of the 
 body, after seven months study, is devoid of meaning ; since 
 the Assembly had already decreed in their immature direc- 
 tory for ordination, that the power of ordering the whole 
 work was in the hands of teaching and ruling elders. If it 
 means that ruling elders must unite in executing, as well 
 as ordering, the whole work, then we say, that the Assem- 
 bly have decided no such thing, ex vi termini, unless ter- 
 mini means a determination to force upon their language 
 
 r\. 
 
 '.■#VA.* 
 
24 
 
 a construction which it was never intended to bear, and 
 which it does not legitimately admit. The supposed ad- 
 vance in knowledge made by the Westminster Assembly 
 during the seven months which elapsed after the establish- 
 ment of the directory for ordination, upon which this argu- 
 ment rests, is of course destitute of the shadow of a founda- 
 tion. There is nothing in their later work, which contra- 
 dicts or supersedes any thing in the former. They were 
 combined together and adopted as the form of government, 
 in England and Scotland. The decision of the Assembly 
 that ruHng elders are of right governors of the church, did 
 not, in their own judgment of it, decide that ruling elders 
 must therefore impose hands in ordination. Nor does it, 
 ex vi termini, include this, any more than the right which 
 every member of congress has to deliberate and vote upon 
 any question brought before them, includes the right to join 
 his signature to that of the speaker, in attestation of the 
 bills passed. This matter is really too plain for argument. 
 The doctrine which the Westminster Assembly intended to 
 teach respecting ordination, the doctrine which they do 
 teach, is as explicit and clear as it is within the compass of 
 language to make it ; and the alleged inconsistency between 
 placing the whole work of ordination in the hands of all the 
 governors of the church, and restricting certain formal 
 parts of the execution of the work to one class of those 
 governors, does not seem to us worth an argument. 
 
 By the process which Dr. Breckinridge employs to ex- 
 tract historical evidence in favour of his position, we could 
 prove any doctrine or practice whatever. He first deter- 
 mines that the work of ordination in all its parts and pro- 
 cesses, in its decision, declaration, and attestation, belongs 
 of necessity to the governors of the church. Hence if the 
 government of the church is vested in teaching and ruling 
 elders, he infers that ruling elders must impose hands in or- 
 dination. In whatever standards he finds that the work of 
 ordination in general is committed to the governing body 
 in the church, whatever that may be, he sees the proof of his 
 doctrine, even when those standards in other parts expressly 
 contradict it. History thus furnishes more that is for him 
 than against him, because he forces upon historical docu- 
 ments his own inconsequent reasoning, and determines 
 what the facts of history actually were from his opinion of 
 •what they ought to have been. 
 
 The discussion into which Dr. Breckinridge enters touch- 
 
25 
 
 ing the influence of the Westminster standards upon the 
 Cliiirch of Scotland, has no relation to the question in de- 
 bate. We have shown that the doctrine of the Scottish and 
 the Westminster standards respecting ordination was pre- 
 cisely the same. The second ijoolc of Discipline, and the 
 Westminster Directory, alike place the power of ordination 
 in the Presbytery, and reserve the imposition of hands to the 
 preaching elders. It is of no avail therefore to depreciate 
 the modern Scottish church as compared with the ancient, 
 seeing that upon this point she has never varied her doc- 
 trine or her practice, since the establishment of the second 
 Book of Discipline. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge asserts that, "it would be easy to estab- 
 lish the same doctrine from other confessions — for example, 
 those of the Bohemian churches of 1535 and 1575, and va- 
 rious professions of the Polish and Lithuanian churches of 
 the following century." Of the Bohemian Confessions 
 here referred to, the second contains not one word respect- 
 ing ordination ; and the first has only the following sen- 
 tence : " Praeterea vitae consuetudinem honestam, atqve 
 ut hi probentur prius, turn dernum a seyiioribus facta 
 precatione, per manuum imposilionem ad hoc muiius in 
 caetu confirmentur.'' There is nothing to inform us who 
 the seniores were, except that throughout the article in 
 which this occurs, entitled, De ordine ecclesiastico, seu 
 praefectis vel mijiistris ecclesiae, there is not one word 
 said of any other class of rulers or ministers of the church 
 than those whose duty it was to preach the word and ad- 
 minister the sacraments; and the conclusion hence is irre- 
 sistible, that they were the seniores, who were to offer up 
 prayer and impose hands, in setting others apart to the same 
 ofiice. 
 
 No other confession is specially designated as lending 
 aid to the new theory ; but we find, in the October number 
 of the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century, that Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge has pressed the Belgic confession into his service. 
 He says, "In Art. XXXI, De Vocatione Ministrorum 
 Ecclesiae, of the last-named confession, it is explicitly de- 
 clared that the work of holy ordination, as to manner and 
 form, is prescribed in God's word, and appertains ' verbi 
 ministris et senioribus ecclesiae,' and that by it ministers, 
 elders and deacons ought to be, ' conjirmari in muneribus 
 suis per imposilionem manuiwi.' '' There is nothing in 
 his article, or in the whole confession, which bears the re- 
 
 4 
 
26 r—^^ 
 
 motest resemblance to the affirmation which Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge has extracted from it. The first sentence is as fol- 
 lows. Credimus Ministros, Seniores. et Diaconos debere 
 ad functiones illas suas vocari et promoveri legitima ec- 
 clesiae vocatione, adhibita ad earn seria Dei hivocatione , 
 atque adhibitis ccclesiae siiffragiis, ac postea confirmari 
 in mjcneribus suis per ivipositionevi mamnim. eo ordine 
 et modo, qui nobis in Verbo Dei ]jrescribitur. The only 
 other sentence in which the word seiiiores occurs, is that 
 from which Dr. Breckinridge has excerpted the phrase, ver6i 
 ministris et senioribits ecclesiae. Porro ne saiicta haec 
 Dei ordif2atio, ant violetnr aut aheat in contemjitum, de- 
 bent omnes de verbi ministris etsenioribns eeclesiae propter 
 opns ctii incimibiiut, honorijice sentire : That this holy or- 
 dination of God may not bevndervahied or contemned, all 
 Tncn ought to esteem, highly the m,inisters of the word and 
 the elders of the church, on account of the work to ichich 
 they apjyly them^selves. By what curious process this has 
 been transformed into an explicit declaration, that ordina- 
 tion appertains to the ministers of the word and the elders 
 or the church, we leave the reader to surmise. After this 
 exposition of the manner in which Dr. Breckinridge has 
 dealt with the historical documents which he has underta- 
 ken to expound, we need not fear to leave his assertion, 
 that he could easily sustain his position from certain other 
 Polish and Lithuanian confessions, to be rated at its just 
 weight. 
 
 The attempt to extract aught from history in favour of 
 the innovation urged upon us, is a signal failure. It re- 
 mains a fact, to which nothing contrary has been shown, 
 that through all time, in all countries, and by all Christian 
 churches, the ordination of ministers has ever been ratified 
 and attested by the imposition of the hands of ministers. 
 The Presbyterian churches of England and Scotland, from 
 whose formularies ours have been compiled, practised no 
 other mode of ordination. Our fathers, who drew up our 
 constitution, knew of no other; and the constitution itself, ac- 
 cording to the only consistent interpretation which can be 
 given to its language, admits of no other. 
 
 In maintaining what has always been believed to be the 
 doctrine of our standards, we have not felt it necessary to 
 interpolate any professions of our sense of the importance 
 of the office of ruling elder, or of high regard for the in- 
 telligence and worth of the present incumbents of this 
 
27 
 
 office in our church. We feel that we shall best manifest 
 our true respect for the heads and hearts of the body of our 
 elders by believing them to be inaccessible to the arguments 
 and motives addressed to them, by some of those who claim 
 to be their peculiar friends. 
 
 We have but little to say in reply to Dr. Breckinridge's 
 argument in opposition to the decision of the last Assembly 
 respecting the constitutional quorum of a Presbytery.* 
 The constitution of the church declares, that " Any three 
 ministers, and as many elders as may be present belonging 
 to the Presbytery, being met at the time and place ap- 
 pointed, shall be a quorum competent to proceed to busi- 
 ness." The decision of the last Assembly was, " That any 
 three ministers of a Presbytery, being regularly convened, 
 are a quorum competent to the transaction of all business;" 
 and it is alleged that this decision is in direct conflict with 
 the constitutional provision. 
 
 It is argued, in the first place, that the language of the 
 book implies that at least one ruling elder must be present 
 to constitute a quorum; since as "many elders as may be 
 present" can never be construed to mean no elders. But 
 the advantage of the argument from the apparent meaning 
 of the terms in which the rule is expressed, is clearly in 
 favour of the construction given by the last Assembly. 
 « As many elders as may be present belonging to the Pres- 
 bytery," is a contingent expression, which leaves the num- 
 ber of elders unlimited in either direction, except by 
 their right to sit in that body. All belonging to it may be 
 present, which is the limit, in one direction ; and none may 
 be present, which is the limit, in the other direction ; and 
 in either case, if three ministers are present, there is 
 a quorum of the body. The quorum shall not be hindered 
 by the voluntary absence of all the elders in the one case ; 
 nor by their outnumbering the ministers in the other. This 
 is the apparent intent of the rule; it is the natural, un- 
 forced meaning of its terms. In defining the quorum, it 
 makes it to consist of two parts, one constant and the other 
 variable ; and the variable element may evidently vary 
 from nothing to the entire number, who may lawfully be 
 present. This is to us, the obvious construction of the rule ; 
 
 ♦ This question has been so largely discussed through the press, that it is the 
 less necessaiy to enter into at length. Dr. Maclean, in a number of essays in 
 the Presbyterian, has examined in detail, and refuted every position taken by 
 Dr. Breckiniidge. 
 
•28 
 
 and we are confirmed in it, becanse with this construction 
 we can see a reason why the language used was selected, 
 but none at all, it' it was intended to express, that at least, 
 one elder must be present. The language, as it now stands, 
 leaves the number of elders to vary I'rom zero upwards ; if 
 it had been intended to fix unity as the lower limit, it 
 would have been altogether easy and natural to have ex- 
 pressed this intent. The rule could liave been slated so as 
 to express this with absolute precision, in as few or fewer 
 terms than it now contains. That the purpose of the rule 
 was as construed by the Assembly is further apparent from 
 the practice under it. Abundant evidence, such as cannot 
 be called into dispute, has been furnished ironi the records 
 of our Presbyteries, that meetings have been held and busi- 
 ness transacted, witliout the presence of any ruling elder. 
 But few such meetings can occur now in our old Presby- 
 teries. The facilities for attendance upon their meetings are 
 such that in all ordinary cases one or more ruling elders will 
 be present. Tiie practical interests involved in the settle- 
 ment of this question, which are magnified by Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge into the wide diflerence " between an aristocratical 
 hierarchy and a free Christian commonwealth," are literally 
 nothing at all ; except that for our frontier settlements, and 
 for missionaries in foreign lands, the received construction 
 of the rule might often be convenient and sometimes neces- 
 sary, to enable them to obtain a meeting of the Presbytery. 
 If a change in the rule were sought, in the mode prescribed 
 by the constitution, except for the cases named, we do not 
 suppose that much, if any, practical inconvenience would 
 result from making it. But if the change is demanded ou 
 such grounds as are urged in opposition to the Assembly's 
 decision, and if made, is to be considered as sanctioning the 
 principles contended for, then the question before us is 
 nothing less than a radical revolution in our whole system. 
 The free Christian commonwealth of Dr. Breckinridge 
 is nothing else than parochial presbyierianisni — the go- 
 vernor or ruling elder of the church being the chief offi- 
 cer, the only one requiring ordit)ation, who may also be 
 designated and employed as a teacher, if in addition to his 
 gifts for ruling, he be judged to possess also the gift of 
 teaching, — and the bench of ruling elders of each particular 
 church being fully empowered to license, ordain, and trans- 
 act all other business that a Presbytery may lawfully do. 
 This is a distinct and intelligible system. It is that to which 
 
29 
 
 all the distinctive principles advocated by Dr. Breckinridge 
 plainly lead. But it is not our system; and the church, we 
 trust, will pause and deliberate long before she will be 
 ready to adopt it. 
 
 The necessary presence of ruling elders to constitute a 
 quorum is argued, in the second place, from the definition 
 of a Presbytery, which makes it to consist both of minis- 
 ters and ruling elders. Ruling elders are, therefore, held 
 an essential element, not only of a Presbytery, but of a le- 
 gal quorum of Presbytery. The only force of the reason- 
 ing under this head, resides in the confusion of these two 
 perfectly distinct things. If a meeting of Presbytery could 
 be held under the compulsory exclusion of ruling elders 
 commissioned to attend, if the received construction of the 
 rule involved this, there could be no doubt that it would be 
 in conflict with the principles of our constitution. And it 
 will be found that every plausible argument upon the other 
 side, and all the fanfaronade about hierarchy, and freedom, 
 and priestly usurpation, are founded upon the quiet assump- 
 tion that such is the effect of the interpretation given to this 
 rule. Ruling elders, if there be any within the district 
 covered by the Presbytery, constitute a portion of that body, 
 and no lawful meeting can be held, no business of what- 
 ever kind transacted, without an opportunity afforded, to 
 all who may lawfully partake in its deliberations and acts, 
 to be present and assist ; but if they choose voluntarily to 
 absent themselves, then, that the business of the church may 
 not suffer through their absence, it is provided that the 
 ministers who may be assembled may proceed to business 
 without them. It will be perceived at once that there is 
 here no restraint imposed, no subjection established, and, of 
 course, no power bestowed. Ruling elders, one from each 
 congregation, have a right to be present at every meeting 
 of the presbytery. That right is left untouched. And this 
 is a hierarchy ! These are slight materials out of which to 
 compose the horrid picture of the church, subjected to the 
 rule of " three ministers without charge, who, it may be, 
 have forsaken their covenanted calling." 
 
 If it could be shown that there was anything in our book, 
 in the nature of the case, or in reason, requiring that the 
 quorum of a body, which, when fully form.ed, was com- 
 posed of different classes, must of necessity embrace some 
 members of all those classes, the question would be decided 
 that our rule ought to have been made to mean what Dr. 
 
30 
 
 Breckinridge maintains that it does mean. But this has 
 not been shown. On the contrary, our book, in providing 
 for the action of a chuch session when no minister may be 
 present, and for a quorum of the General Assembly when 
 no ruUng elders may be present, distinctly sanctions the 
 principle, that a quorum of a body composed of two classes 
 may be formed entirely of one of those classes. The ex- 
 pediency of the case furnishes no argument against our in- 
 terpretation, inasmuch as there nev^er have been any diverse 
 interests betweeen the ministers and elders of our church, 
 nor is it easy to conceive how any such can legitimately 
 arise. They are not adverse parties, nor is there anything 
 in the practical working of our system which could ever 
 make them so. And if this were not so, if they were an- 
 tagonistic parties, the quorum rule would still be harmless, 
 as the elders would, in that case, take care to exercise the 
 privilege which they possess of being always present, and 
 thus prevent their priestly adversaries from taking advan- 
 tage over them. It has also been shown, that in the com- 
 mon judgment of men, as manifested in the constitution and 
 rules of other analogous bodies, it has never deemed 
 essential to the constitution of a quorum that it should em- 
 brace some of all the classes represented in the body ; as in 
 the English House of Lords, which can transact business 
 in the absence of all the spiritual Lords. 
 
 In the last place, it is argued that the authority of pre- 
 cedent is opposed to the authorized interpretation of the 
 quorum rule. Dr. Breckinridge quotes under this head the 
 authority of Steuart of Pardovan, who declares that nei- 
 ther the constitution of the church nor the law of the land, 
 « do authorize any other ecclesiastical judicatory but As- 
 semblies, Synods, Presbyteries, and Kirk Sessions, or their 
 committees, consisting of ministers and ruling elders." It 
 ■will be seen at once that this does not touch the question 
 in debate. This, and all the other authorities cited by Dr. 
 Breckinridge refer only to the proper constitution of church 
 courts, and we are all agreed that these must be composed 
 of ministers and ruling elders. They allirm nothing 
 respecting the formation of a quorum of these courts. This 
 is apparent from the language itself; and it is placed beyond 
 all doubt by the fact that Steuart himself quotes from the 
 Directory, " That to perform any classical act of govern- 
 ment or ordination, there must be present, at least, a major 
 part of the ministers of the whole classis." So that the 
 
31 
 
 quorum of a classis, or Presbytery of the Scottish church 
 did not require the presence of any ruling elders. This fal- 
 lacy of confounding the composition of a body with the 
 quorum of that body, runs through the whole of Dr. Breck- 
 inridge's historical argument, and vitiates every one of his 
 conchisions. A proper regard to this distinction rescues 
 from him every instance which he has adduced, excepting 
 that of the condemnation, by the General Assembly of 
 1638, of six preceding Assemblies. And every one ac- 
 quainted with the rudiments of the ecclesiastical history 
 of Scotland knows that the grounds of this condemnation 
 were utterly wide of the question which we are discussing. 
 It was not because there were no ruling elders present in 
 those Assemblies that they were set aside, but because there 
 were elders present and voting, who had no lawful com- 
 missions. This case is too irrelevant to Avaste words upon. 
 If anything can be established by testimony, it is clear that 
 the doctrine and practice of the Scottish church are in agree- 
 ment with the decision of our last Assembly. In addition 
 to other authorities which have been abundantly given to 
 this etfect, we refer to the correspondence of Robert Wodrow, 
 the celebrated historian of the kirk. Vol. I. p. 181. In a 
 letter, dated Nov. 29, 1710, we find the following passage. 
 " Thirdly, The rule of the church, though elders have a 
 share in it, is principally committed to pastors. The 
 keys of the kingdom are given to them. They are 
 such as rule over the people, and speak the word, Heb. xiii. 
 7, and watch for souls as they that must give account, ver. 
 1 7 ; none of which places to me have any relation to the 
 ruling elder; and therefore they can act in absence or 
 under the loant of elders, though I cannot see how elders 
 can act without pastors." 
 
 We have thus in favour of the Assembly's decision, the 
 obvious meaning ofthe language of the rule ; the sanction 
 by our book, of the principle involved, by its provision, 
 for the action of a church session, and of the General As- 
 sembly, in the entire absence of one of the classes that com- 
 pose these courts :the practice of our own church in times past; 
 the concurrent practice of the Scottich church ; and the 
 analogies of other bodies constituted in like manner. We 
 have opposed to it, certain abstract notions about the rights of 
 ruling elders, which, if fairly carried out, are destructive of 
 our whole system ; and certain exaggerated fears about the 
 establishment of a hierarchy, by means of a harmless rule 
 
32 . 
 
 t 
 
 of convenience, which, restraining no right, confers no power. i 
 
 We cannot doubt that the next Assembly will, if need be, j 
 
 affirm the decisions of the last. There are some thmgs \ 
 
 which the church ought to be presumed to know, and among ; 
 these surely should be numbered her first principles of truth, 
 
 and order. j 
 
{ 
 
'3 
 i 
 
 I 
 
'^^TE DUF:" 
 
 i 
 
W * ^s^. 
 
 
 t/ u 
 
 i^tj;:.- 
 
 '^^"^«^Sl'^ 
 
 
 ^•'^^