fication, to choose by common suffrages; from which it is inferred that votes were taken on this occasion. Yet, if it were possible to take the word here in its primary sense of election, it would refer, as is plain from the context, to God's choice of Matthias, by disposing the lot to fall upon him. But that it means to count with, to number with, in the place before us, is agreed by the best lexicographers and commentators, and is evident upon the slightest examination; for if it be rendered, "he was chosen by suffrages, together with (uerà) the eleven Apostles," it would lead to the absurd inference, that the people elected the eleven, as well as Matthias, into the apostolic college. So far, then, from any popular election having taken place, the whole matter is referred to, and determined by, the decision of the Almighty. 3. The seven deacons mentioned in the sixth chapter of the Acts are instanced as having been elected by the laity. But, waiving the doubt whether their office was merely secular, to "serve tables," which will be examined in the sixth section of this chapter, the part which the people took in the transaction was extremely limited. The Apostles said to them, "Look YE out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business," v. 3. The Apostles determined that the deaconate should be instituted; they fixed the number of the officers, and the qualifications required from them: and they alone bestowed the ecclesiastical authority, whatever was its nature, secular or spiritual. All that the people did was to recommend such persons as they knew possessed the requisite qualifications; but recommendation and ordination are quite different things. 4. The church which was at Jerusalem, we are told, "sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch," &c., Acts xi. 22, 23. But why may we not understand that by the church is intended its spiritual rulers and governors, for such a mode of speaking is not unusual'? Certainly it cannot be proved that the laity are only meant, exclusive of the clergy; but if they are, their act conferred no new authority upon him, gave him no fresh power, no commission to preach. This he enjoyed before and his being sent by the church for a particular business, made him neither more nor less a minister than he was before: it only gave him an opportunity of exercising an office, which he possessed already, in a new place. In no point of view can it be regarded as an instance of lay-ordination. Besides, if Barnabas received his mission from the laity, it proves too much for the Dissenting cause, since it will prove that a congregation have not only a right to choose and appoint their own ministers, but 1 See P. ii. ch. ii. p. 183. likewise to elect and send ministers to other congregations. 5. Paul and Barnabas, in their second visit to Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Antioch in Pisidia, "ordained them elders in every church," Acts xiv. 23, where it is said the word xaporovεiv, rendered by the word to ordain, literally signifies to choose by lifting up the hands, and therefore that the elders were appointed, not by the Apostles, but by the people, who voted by holding up their hands. This might be the primary meaning of the verb, but it unquestionably denotes also any sort of appointment to an office; and in whatever sense it be here received, the only grammatical, the only rational construction of the passage is, that none but Paul and Barnabas ordained or elected. By them exclusively, and not by the people, the elders were chosen, ordained, and instituted in every church in those regions. 6. The people, it is alleged, appointed companions and assistants to St. Paul in his travels, whom he calls the "apostles" of the churches, and "the glory of Christ," 2 Cor. viii. 23. St. Paul, however, was, on the occasion adverted to in this chapter of his epistle, as much appointed by the people as his companions, who, therefore, received no ministerial privilege from the people any more than St. Paul did. Their being sent about a business of charity cannot be considered an ordination. Diverse churches sent alms by diverse persons; but this is so evidently foreign from an appointment to an ecclesiastical office, that nothing further need be said in refutation. Such and so irrelevant are the precedents appealed to for lay-ordination. It is acknowledged by Dissenters themselves that "no case occurs in the inspired history where it is mentioned that a church elected its pastor, no one instance of a mere popular ordination'." It would be strange indeed, if there did; for how can a power be derived from the people, which the people do not possess themselves? All subordinate authority must be derived from Christ, the Head of the church, either immediately, or by special delegation from him; but we nowhere find that he has given the people a commission to appoint to the ministerial office; and as the pretended precedents for lay-ordination, which have been above examined, afford no countenance to it, we may without hesitation conclude that it is an assumption of power by the laity entirely unauthorized. Those who advocate the third opinion, that the right to ordain ministers belongs to presbyters, endeavour to support it by the following arguments. 1. The ministerial commission given by Christ to the Apostles, empowered them to ordain suc 1 James, Christian Fellowship, p. 10. Turner of Abing., Compend. p. 69. cessors in the sacred ministry; which power, it is urged, must be conveyed with the ministerial office, to all whom they invested with it by virtue of this commission; and therefore all who are fixed in the ministry by virtue of the same commission, are empowered by it to ordain others also. Now the commission to the Apostles is general, empowering them to disciple all nations, and to incorporate them into a spiritual society; but they were left to their own judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in regard to the particular means of effecting it; and, if they saw fit, they might make a distinction of officers in the church, and invest them with different powers. Such being the real intent and purport of the commission, it forms no proof whatever for the affirmation, that presbyters who are duly called and commissioned, must likewise, by virtue of the same commission, have a right to ordain others 1." 1 1 See P. ii. ch. iii. § ii. 2. This argument is ingeniously put by Calamy, Reas. of Nonconf. vol. ii. p. 91. et seq.; and most ably refuted by Hoadly, Defence of Episcop. Ordinat. ch. ii. § 2. The identity of bishops and presbyters was a favourite argument with the older Presbyterians; which identity has been freely acknowledged, but shown in § ii. 3. of this chapter, p. 200, not to conclude against an order of ministers above them, and with higher powers. Presbyteral ordination has also been defended from the fact that in Acts i. 26; xiv. 23; there were more than one ordainer. But the ordainers were apostles; and therefore, it certainly is not in favour of ordination by presby ters. T |