people, has been found empowered to enter upon the work of the ministry. In both cases, the power or authority proceeds directly from the constitution, and not from the electors; and thus do we regard the ministry as authorized, not by men, but by God. In both cases, the exercise of preëstablished authority is given by the call and election of the people. In both cases does the form of introduction, (that is, in the case of the ministry, ordination,) suppose the ascertained right and title to the office, and is, therefore, no more than a solemn and becoming form of investiture. Now as ministers are, by their office, servants of the whole church, and not of any one portion of it merely, it is necessary that the whole body of that church should have a voice in their admission to their trust. Were they to become the servants of other ministers only, then might they be elected, as among prelatists, by the ministry alone. Or were they to become the pastors of a single congregation, as on the original plan of the system of independency, then might one single church elect and ordain their pastor. But as christian ministers are to become ministers of the church at large, that church should have a voice in their ordination. And as they cannot manifestly have this in person, or in mass, they must, as in the analogous case of civil presidents, or legislators, exercise it through representaNow this the church at large does on the plan of presbyterianism, and on no other. By this the people, whom the minister is immediately to serve, try, examine, and prove him; while the presbytery, composed of lay and ministerial delegates, act on behalf of the church at large; represent their interests in the case; try, examine, and prove the candidate, in the place of the whole people; and when satisfied, induct him into office, in the name, and for the benefit, of the whole church. There is, therefore, in the whole doctrine concerning the ministry, as laid down in the system of presbyterianism, a catholicity, a beauty, and a republicanism, which will be in vain looked for in any other. Our clergy are the ministers of the people, and empowered by them to serve them in the gospel. They are all of them sustained by the ennobling thought, that they are chosen by the people, and clothed by them with all the dignity and authority they possess. They all, too, stand upon the same platform of official equality. None of them are 'inferior,' and, as such, insulted, as in England, by the mockery of an election;' nor as within the Roman jurisdiction, required to receive a master who is himself a slave.**

Is it objected, that the clergy have a certain aristocratical influence in the church, resulting from their character, studies, and relations? Grant, that the ministry do constitute a check to the unreflecting passions and revolutionary spirit of the multitude; is there nothing analogous to this in our republic? The *The Churchman's Monthly Rev. June, 1841, p. 313.

*

magistrates, judges, and all the other officers of government, our representatives, senators, and lawyers, who share in its stability and wealth, serve also as a kind of aristocracy, to break off the wild deluge of fierce and anarchical democracy in the state, and as the connecting link and bond between the two great classes of society, the governing, and those for whom they govern. And it is by the possession of these aristocratic elements, this elective and responsible nobility, not of wealth, but of office and dignity, that both the civil government of the land, and the ecclesiastical government of our church, are constituted REPUBLICS, and are distinguished from PURE DEMOCRACIES.

SECTION VII.

Presbytery eminently republican in its office of ruling elders. Objections answered.

Let us now pass on to the consideration of the office of ruling elders in the presbyterian church. This office may be shown to be eminently republican, either as divinely instituted, or as having resulted from the principle of representation, the power of the church having been originally vested in the people. Republican society is based on the principle, that arbiters, magistrates, or representatives, chosen by the consent of the people, in all the several districts, shall judge and determine the causes of wrong and injury, whether public or private. And thus does the free and solemn consent of the church, in the election of elders, give authority unto such persons, in subordination to the laws of the church. 'Hence,' says our Form of Government, 'ruling elders are properly the representatives of the people, chosen by them for the purpose of exercising government and discipline.'

As to the necessity for some such officers, who, that reflects, can doubt. Does the church, we ask, or does it not, consist of ministers only? If it does not-and we deny that in any one passage in the New Testament, the term can be understood of ministers merely-then by what rule of equity, human or divine, are the laity to be excluded from a share in the government of the church? Or if, as we have proved, the power of the church was vested by Christ, in the whole body of the church,† who shall dare to exclude the laity from the proper exercise of that power.

†See Presbytery and not Prelacy the Scriptural and Primitive Polity, B. i. ch. iii.

*See Tocquev. vol. i. pp. 298, 300, 304, and vol. ii. p. 325. See Paget's Def. of Presb. Ch. Govt. pp. 4, 5.

+Ch. v.

Now this undeniable fact, that the laity compose the great body of the church of Christ, was the chief ground upon which the necessity of the eldership has been ever urged. 'Our divines,' says Mr. George Gillespie, in his assertion of the government of the church of Scotland,‡ 'prove against papists, that some of these, whom they call laicks, ought to have a place in the assemblies of the church, by this argument among the rest; because, otherwise, the whole church could not be thereby represented. And it is plain enough, that the church cannot be represented, except the hearers of the word, which are the far greatest part of the church, be represented. By the ministers of the word, they cannot be represented, more than the burghs can be represented in parliament by the noblemen, or by the commissioners of shires; therefore, by some of their own kind must they be represented, that is, by such as are hearers, and not preachers. Now some hearers cannot represent all the rest, except they have a calling and commission. thereto; and who can these be but ruling elders? And again, when the council of Trent was first spoken of in the Diet at Wortimberg, Anno. 1522, all the estates of Germany desired of pope Adrian VI., that admittance might be granted, as well to laymen as to clergymen, and that not only as witnesses and spectators, but to be judges there. This they could not obtain, therefore they would not come to the council, and published a book, where they allege this for one cause of their not coming to Trent, because none had voice there but cardinals, bishops, abbots, generals, or superiors of orders, whereas laicks also ought to have a decisive voice in councils. If none but the ministers of the word should sit and have a voice in a synod, then it could not be a church representative; because the most part of the church (who are the hearers and not the teachers of the word) are not represented in it. A common cause ought to be concluded by common voices. But that which is treated of in councils, is a common cause, pertaining to many particular churches. Our divines, when they prove against papists, that the election of ministers, and the excommunication of obstinate sinners, ought to be done by the suffrages of the whole church, make use of this same argument; that which concerneth all, ought to be treated of and judged by all.'

So argued one of Scotland's noble sons, and a representative in the Westminster Assembly of Divines. And such, also, are the general views of the presbyterian church.* In nothing, therefore, does she proclaim her republican character more fully and undeniably, than in her ruling elders. They are not ministers. They are not presbyters. But they are delegates

Part i. cap. 4.

*See Professor Jameson's Cyp. Isot. pp. 554-556, and 517, 540-544.

from the people, officers chosen by them; and representatives, to whom they have transferred their power, to whom they have committed their interests, and who are expected to act for the best good of the whole body of the christian people. They constitute, therefore, with the pastor of every church, the senate, or the house of representatives of that church. They also sit, vote, and act, in full terms of equality, with the ministers, in all the other courts; so that, in them all, the people are fully and freely represented.

But it may be said, that in the presbyterian form, ruling elders usurp the power of the people at large, and, in fact, constitute another privileged class.* But these elders are elective. They are chosen by the people, and from among themselves, and have no power but that intrusted to them under the laws. Now the purest republic may delegate legislative, executive, and judicial power to certain individuals, or bodies, leaving to the community no more than the choice of these ruling officers, and still the government remain purely republican, and not at all mixed.† It has only delegated its power o representatives. No individual in the community has power independent of the people. Nor have the people shared their powers with others, but only deputed to others the power of exercising their authority. And in like manner, ruling elders, being the chosen deputies of the people, and exercising their powers in full responsibility to the people, are perfectly accordant with our republican institutions, and to the supreme power of the body of the church.

SECTION VIII.

Presbytery eminently republican, also, in its various ecclesiastical judicatories.

We come now to notice the various ecclesiastical courts by which the laws of the presbyterian church are administered.

In the most free states, it is common for persons to be deputed by the people, who together constitute an assembly, representing the whole; and it is usual for the whole, in such cases, to consider themselves bound by the decision of this general body. Such are the town councils, the state legislatures, and the congress in these United States. ance of such bodies cannot be over estimated. usually fall a sacrifice to impotence or tyranny.

*Hooker, B. v. Decl. § 8, vol. ii. p. 8, Keble's ed. †Polit. Phil. p. 77, Lond. 1842.

The importGovernments These are the

Scylla and Charybdis, against which they have to watch. And their free assemblies are the pilots by whom they are to be kept awake to danger, and guided safely through it.* With free deliberative, legislative assemblies, liberty, civil and religious, has coexisted or expired. It has also been shown by president Adams,† from a review of the history of all the mixed and free governments which have ever existed from the earliest records of time, that single assemblies, without check or balance, or a government with all authority collected into one centre, according to the notion of Mr. Turgot, were visionary, violent, intriguing, corrupt, and tyrannical dominations of majorities over minorities, and which have uniformly and rapidly terminated their career in a profligate despotism. It is most clear, that tyranny would unavoidably increase with equality, unless the members of the community are protected by such associations, as will enable them to resist a power, against which, singlehanded, they could never prevail. Every wealthy, talented, and powerful individual, forms in reality the head of a body, composed of all under his influence, and by which he rules the

And it is only by having around them the shield of such legal assemblies, the poor and less influential members of society can stand upon their rights.

Look now at the presbyterian form of church government. Its fundamental principle is, that the government of the church rests upon delegated bodies, composed of clerical and lay members.§ It demands, therefore, congregational, district, provincial, and general assemblies of such members; that is, church sessions, presbyteries, and a general assembly. By these local associations, and general confederations, national, as well as local freedom, are promoted and secured. In our churches, and church sessions, we see, that parish system of local government, to which Tocqueville looks as the unquestionable germ and model of our American institutions.*** our presbyteries we have the district system, the townships, and municipal bodies by which the public spirit is preserved, and which constitute the strength of free nations.' In our synods, we find the legislatures of our several states, which are justly regarded as the bulwarks of their liberty. And in our general assembly, we have the national ecclesiastical congress. Each of these courts is bound to regulate itself by the laws of the great community; while not one of those laws is to be entered on the statute-book, till the consent of those whom it is to con

*See Kent's Comment. vol. i. p. 233.

In ibid, p. 223.

In

See the analogy between these, and republican principles, drawn out by Brown, in his Vind. of Presb. Ch. Govt. Edinb. 1812, pp. 15, 174, 175. **Tocquev. i. pp. 28, 40, 85.

Tocquev. i. 62, and ch. 5, generally.