necessity of ordination to the governors of the church, and to all its officers, when the matter of fact is, that those who have the chief authority in the church of England are laymen. Legislation, which in every society is the supreme power, is not lodged in the bishops, but in the king and parliament. The bishops cannot make a single law, nor have they even a negative upon the legislative body. Nearly all the bishops voted for lord Sidmouth's bill, but it was lost; and nearly all the bishops voted against the bill which transferred the supremacy from the pope to Hen. VIII., but it was carried. The bishops are not even at the head of the executive power of the church. The king is supreme head; he has the nomination of all the bishops; and their lordships would incur all the penalties of a premunire, were they to deny consecration to the bishop elect. The clergy cannot meet together in convocation without the king's permission; nor are their canons obligatory without his sanction; and even then they bind none but the clergy, till they receive the authority of law from the parliament. The same authorities that employ ecclesiastics can put them out of office, just the same as a master, when he pleases, can dismiss a servant. Thus, at the reformation, the civil power put down various orders of monks, friars, etc. Queen Elizabeth deprived all the popish bishops, and this act was declared good and valid by the parliament.* It is as absurd in the church to consecrate the subordinate authorities, and deny the sacred rite to the supreme, as it would be in the state to crown justices and constables, instead of the sovereign. Either bishops, priests, and deacons, ought not to be or * 39 Eliz. c. 8. The case of a woman being supreme head of the church of England, and making and unmaking bishops at pleasure, is humbly submitted to the consideration of those clerical buffoons, who make themselves and others so merry at the expense of the Methodists and the Quakers, because they employ ladies as preachers. The Methodists suffer very few females to teach in their public assemblies, and allow them no authority in church government. dained at all, or holy hands ought not to be withheld from kings and parliaments. If Jesus Christ committed the government of the church to bishops exclusively, with a divine and independent right to exercise authority over it, then it must be impiety and sacrilege in kings and parliaments to invade their prerogatives. Upon these principles, bishops may legislate for the church, annex penalties to their laws, and appoint courts, judges, and officers to carry them into execution; they may excommunicate kings, and forbid the faithful to hold any communication with them, or to obey them; they may interdict all public worship, and play over again the abominable tricks of the popes, laugh at human authority, and plead that they are only responsible to that God for the exercise of their power who entrusted them with it. If it be replied, that the divine right extends no further than to the execution of the laws of Christ; it is asked, who is to judge when the clergy exceed their commission? If themselves; it must be recollected that they have been infallible for more than a thousand years, and consequently have never exceeded their powers. The protestant clergy are about as impeccable as the Romish. Archbishop Parker, in the days of queen Elizabeth, refused to make any alterations in the church service in favour of the puritans, lest it should be said, that the church of England had erred! And when the archbishop crowns the king he makes him swear, that he will maintain the church of England as by law established, which his grace surely would not do, if he could see in her a single corruption or imperfection. In fact there never was a pope wished for more power than to do what was right in his own eyes. The church has pleaded divine authority, to bind her kings with chains, and her nobles with fetters of iron. If the laity are to judge, then they can increase or diminish the power of the clergy as they see fit; and this conveyance of spiritual power by the people, reduces the ceremonies of ordination to mere farce. It has been shown, that the apostles ordained no spiritual officers but presbyters, and that, in churches which they could not personally visit, they advised aged, grave, and sober men to assume this office. They have said nothing about the necessity of ordination, nor who are to perform it, nor what rites and ceremonies are to be used in it; from which we may justly infer, that it is a matter of no great moment. Some indeed have contended, that Acts xiv. 23, should be rendered, "And when they had ordained presbyters by the suffrages of the people." In the old English Bible it is rendered thus: "And when they had ordained them elders by election." But Dr. Campbell has proved, in a very satisfactory manner, that, the common import of the word, cheirotonesantes, is no more than to constitute,' ordain,' or 66 6 *The deacons of the primitive church were not spiritual officers. The occasion of their appointment at first was this: in the distribution of the alms of the church among poor widows, the Hellenists (that is, the Jews who spoke the Greek language, and were strangers at Jerusalem) complained that their widows were neglected. To remedy this inconvenience, "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 tables. 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, etc., whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." Serving tables, which was the business of the deacons, is here opposed to the ministry of the word; the ordination of a deacon, therefore, cannot possibly be an ordination to the ministry;- it is properly an ordination to the office of overseer of the poor. The clergy would have more scripture on their side, were they to insist that none can be qualified to relieve the needy who are not episcopally ordained, by persons who can trace their spiritual descent from the apostles, than they have when they make a ceremonious consecration necessary to a preacher of the gospel. It will avail nothing to say, that Stephen and Philip were both preachers afterwards; for this ordination, we are expressly told, was to the business of serving tables. Every overseer of the poor has a right to preach the gospel, if he can, as well as Stephen and Philip. ' appoint' any how."* The imposition of hands is considered, by almost all parties, as necessary to an ordination. But though we read of the apostles laying hands on persons recently baptized, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, and on the overseers of the poor, when elected to serve tables, we nowhere read of laying on of hands at the ordination of presbyters. The modesty of bishops has permitted them to usurp the exclusive prerogatives of Jesus Christ, and to say, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost;" they ought therefore to convey this invaluable gift, by the same ceremony which he used, and instead of imposition of hands, they should breathe upon the candidates for holy orders.† Objection: "The apostle exhorts Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man."" (1 Tim. v. 22.) He does; but he is not there speaking on the ordination of ministers, but on the exercise of church discipline upon offenders: "Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear." And as using the rod is a very ungrateful task, and to use it judiciously a very difficult task, the apostle exhorted Timothy to discharge this duty faithfully and impartially: "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." The injunction immediately follows, "Lay hands suddenly on no man ;" which, as it is connected with the exercise of discipline, undoubtedly relates to it. Timothy had now been at Ephesus long enough to be intimately acquainted with the brethren; there could, therefore, be no reason why he should defer ordaining presbyters for that church, if any were wanted; but there were the strongest reasons why he * Preliminary Dissertation x., part vi, sect. vii. Certainly this attack on all truly christian bishops might well have been spared, as Titus i. 5-7, compared with 1 Tim. v. 22, clearly shows that men were ordained by the laying on of hands to be elders and bishops: and no such overseers will pretend either to have right or power to give the Holy Ghost.-EDIT. should not suddenly take off church censures, and restore the immoral to the privileges of the faithful; (which was done in the primitive church by the imposition of hands ;) for this, instead of making others fear, and thereby operating as a restraint upon them, would have exposed discipline to ridicule, and emboldened transgressors. In such a case, Timothy would have been implicated in their guilt; on which account it is added, "Neither be partakers of other men's sins; keep thyself pure." 66 It is not denied that the members of the church of England have a right to model their church as they please, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of other christian churches; but when they call their own the most pure and apostolic church in Christendom," and pronounce all other churches heretical and schismatic, which the state ought to watch with an eye of suspicion, it is high time to humble their pretensions and expose their extravagance. All the churches in this country have omitted some things which were deemed important by the primitive christians, and have added others for which they can find no authority in the New Testament. The apostle Paul required women to wear a veil in the church, instituted an order of deaconesses, and commanded christians to salute one another with an holy kiss. One of our Lord's last commands to the apostles, was to wash one another's feet; and James commanded the presbyters to anoint the sick with oil. What church attends to all these things, or supposes the observance of them to be of perpetual obligation? And who can find in the New Testament, archbishops, archdeacons, deans, proctors, surrogates, prebends, chancellors, etc.? We have seen that, in constituting churches, the apostles were guided by circumstances; they admitted of diversity, and never dreamed about uniformity hence in some churches they appointed presbyters, in others they advised the aged to assume the office, in others they left the exercise of discipline to all the members in a general meeting; and the office of the |