, ^ , '■ .-A 
 
 V_- 
 
 iS 0/ ^ 
 
 Vv^ ;•. 
 
 Ui 
 
 'W'^ 
 
 ^'ff^^^ 
 
 
 ^\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^M 
 
 V v 
 
 
 i^r: 
 
 
 ^Ui! 
 
I 
 
 /^■^'' «^ Pr, 
 
 

 Vol , 2.1. 
 
i 
 
7 
 
 LETTERS ON THE ELDER QUESTION. 
 
 / 
 
 BY JOHN MACLEAN. 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN T. ROBINSON. 
 1844 
 
The letters on the Quorum Question were published originally in the Presby- 
 terian, and they bear the dates of the Nos. of that paper in which they appeared. 
 
LETTERS ON THE ELDER UUESTION. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 January 20. 
 
 jyiij Dear Sir. — With your permission it 
 is my design to present to the readers of your 
 paper some strictures upon the protests, com- 
 plaints, and appeals of Dr. R. J. Breckinridge 
 and others, and also upon the two speeches of 
 Dr. B. recently published in the Presbyterian. 
 
 Had (he Synod of Philadelphia re-affirmed 
 the decisions of the last General Assembly res- 
 pecting "a quorum of Presbytery" and "the im- 
 position of hands in ordination" the Rev. Dr. 
 and his friends might have had some pretext for 
 protesting againgt the decisions of the Synod; 
 but when the Synod did nothing more than 
 simply refuse to unite with Dr. B. in condemn- 
 ing the decisions of the last Assembly, to make 
 this refusal a ground for protest, complaint, 
 and appeal is certainly something new under 
 the sun. What are the simple facts in the 
 case 1 Dr. Breckinridge presented to the Syn- 
 od two papers condemnatory of two acts of the 
 last Assembly. Without affirming or denying 
 the truth or falsehood of the several positions 
 assumed by Dr. B. in his argumentative leso- 
 lutions, the Synod simply decided not to adopt 
 them. Whereupon the Rev. Dr. immediately 
 writes two protests against the decisions of the 
 Synod, and the first reason assigned in one of 
 them for protesting is that the decision is con- 
 trary to the word of God; and the second rea- 
 son is that the decision is contrary to the Con- 
 stitution of the Church. Now I am well 
 aware of the Dr.'s ingenuity, but I very much 
 question whether lie will be able to establish it, 
 that the refusal of the Synod to adopt a reso- 
 lution submitted by himself or by any body 
 
 else is contrary to the word of God and the 
 constitution of the Church. And should the 
 next Assembly sustain his complaint or appeal, 
 it will be an affirmation on the part of that 
 body that the Synod had no right to waive aa 
 expression of opinion on the sulject submitted 
 by Dr. B. or indeed upon any subject, which 
 Dr. B. may be pleased to bring before the Syn- 
 od. This once established, it follows that 
 every ecclesiastical body in our connexion is 
 bound to express an opinion directly on every 
 matter that any one belonging to the body may 
 choose to bring before it. 
 
 But let me next inquire, in virtue of what 
 „rovision in our Constitution does Dr. Bieck- 
 inridge make the refusal of the Synod to adopt 
 his views a ground for judicial proceedings ? 
 In making this inquiry I do not take the 
 ground, which if I am not deceived Dr. B. him- 
 self has taken, viz. that no complaint or appeal 
 can lie except in cases judicially decided. If 
 any individuals be personally aggrieved by 
 any decision of Session, Presbytery, or Syn- 
 od, such individuals have a right to seek re- 
 dress by complaint or appeal, and others may 
 complain of the wrong done. But of what 
 right or privilege has the refusal of the Synod 
 of Philadelphia to adopt Dr. B.'s propositions 
 deprived any one ? Whether the Constitution 
 of the church makes or does not make the pre- 
 sence of a ruling elder essential to a quorum of 
 Presbytery ; or whether it authorizes or docs 
 not authorize Ruling Elders to impose hands 
 in the ordination of ministers, is the refusal of 
 the Synod to express an opinion in conflict 
 with the constitution 1 If before the refusal of 
 the Synod to sanction Dr. B.'s propositions. 
 
there could be no quorum of Preslijtery with 
 out an elder being present, and if a ruling el- 
 der could impose hands ; this state of things is 
 not altered by the decision of the Synod. — 
 Where then is the ground of complaint or of 
 appeal ] 
 
 If these views are correct, it would be per- 
 fectly preposterous for the next Assembly to 
 listen to the complaint or appeal. That Dr. 
 B. felt the awkwardness «f his position, is evi- 
 dent from the fact that he was evidently at a 
 loss whether to enter a complaint or an appeal, 
 leaving it to the judgment of the next Assem- 
 bly to say, whether he should be permitted to 
 complain or appeal. He has no right to do the 
 one or the other. It would be a flagrant abuse 
 of the privilege of submitting overtures to Pres- 
 byteries and Synods, to make the rejection of 
 them a subject of judicial proceeding. 
 
 In my next communication, I shall enter up- 
 on a review of Dr. B.'s statements and reason- 
 ings in his speech on the Quorum Question ; 
 but as so much has already appeared on this 
 subject, I shall confine myself chiefly to the 
 points not handled by others. With the most 
 sincere respect and esteem, yours, 
 
 John Maclean. 
 
 II. 
 
 Jmuiarii 27. 
 •l/r. Editoi — Before entering upon an ex- 
 amination of Dr. Breckinridge's argument to 
 prove that the decision of the last Assembly, 
 respecting a quorum of Presbytery, is opposed 
 to the constitution of our church, I beg leave 
 to make a few prefitory remarks. 
 
 1. For the right decision of the matter in 
 dispute, we have nothing to do but to ascertain 
 the true import of the rule, in our " Form of 
 Government," which s;iys : "Any three minis- 
 ters, and as many elders as may be present 
 belonging to the Presbytery, being met at the 
 time and place appointed, shall be a quorum 
 competent to proceed to business." 
 
 2. If this rule is not in accordance with the 
 sarrcd Scriptures, or if it is in conflict with 
 
 that article of the constitution which defines 
 what a Presbytery is, or if it is found to be in- 
 jurious in its operation, let it be altered. Yea 
 further, if the rule is not acceptable to any con- 
 siderable number of our ministers and elders, 
 although they should be a decided minority, 
 let the rule be changed. It is but a mere mu- 
 nicipal rule which may be, at any time, modi- 
 fied so as to suit the convenience or inclina- 
 tion of ihose by whose consent it has the force 
 of law, 
 
 3. The Assembly has expressed no opinion, ji 
 in regard to the expediency or propriety of the 
 rule, but has simply said that in the judgment 
 
 of the Assembly it is perfectly consistent vi'ith 
 the rule as it now exists, for any three minis- 
 ters of a Presbytery being met at the time and 
 place appointed, to proceed to business. And 
 in the answer to the protest presented to the 
 Assembly against this decision, the Assembly 
 observes, " If our protesting brethren think 
 that the cause of truth and order would be pro- 
 moted by the practice which they wish to in- 
 troduce, let them propose a change in the lan- 
 guage of the Constitution. It would be an 
 easy matter to say, ' Any three ministers, and 
 one, two, or three Ruling Elders belonging to 
 the Presbytery, being convened at the time 
 and place fixed for meeting, shall be a quorum 
 competent to proceed to business.' " Would 
 not the most peacefid course, and the one most 
 likely to unite all concerned, have been, to 
 submit an overture to the Presbyteries, request- 
 ing them cither to modify the rule, or to give 
 it such an authoritative construction, as would 
 make it accord with the \Hevvs of those who 
 now maintain that the terms of the rule re- 
 quire the presence of one or more elders in or- 
 der to make a quorum of Presbytery 1 
 
 4. If in giving the judgment they did, the 
 Assembly erred, would it not have been sufii, 
 cient for the coircction of the error, to point 
 out clearly that there was an error 1 '1 here 
 surely could be no necessity for Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge to give utterance to the perfectly gratui- 
 tous charge against the clergy, of being under 
 " that unhappy and dangerous prepossession, 
 which Bcems to characterize the Icelings nnt' 
 
opinions of our ministers upon every question 
 touching the position and rights of the ruling 
 elders, and to threaten the church with the 
 terrible calamity of the permanent subjugation 
 of these last named officers, and as must inevi- 
 tably follow, the overthrow of the freedom of 
 the church." Need I characterize such an as. 
 persion in t!ic way it deserves? I presume 
 that there is very little reason to fear, I should 
 hope none, that Dr. Breckinridge will succeed 
 in his a 'tempt to excite the jealousy of the ci- 
 ders against the ministers of the church. 
 
 5. The decision of the Assembly prevents 
 no elder from bemg present at every meeting 
 of his Fresbylcry ; it interferes with the exer' 
 cise of no one of his rights, when piesent; and 
 without the concurrence of the elders them- 
 selves, there can never be a quorum of Pres- 
 bytery without one or more of them being 
 present ; for there can be no meeting of Pres- 
 bytery, unless every session within the bounds 
 of the Presbytery be apprised of the meeting, 
 and have an opportunity to commission one of 
 their number to attend it; and the last assem- 
 bly gave it as their judgment, that it was not 
 only the right and the privilege of the elders 
 when thus commissioned, but also their duty 
 to be present at the meetings of the Presbyte- 
 ry. But while the Assembly regarded it as 
 the duty of the elders when conmiissioned for 
 the purpose to attend the meetings of Presby- 
 tery, they recognized the fact that the constitu- 
 tion gave the Presbytery no power to compel 
 the elders to be present at their meetings; and 
 although Dr. Breckinridge treats the ideas as 
 absurd, and worthy only of contempt, yet it is 
 nevertheless a fact, as fully shown by Chan- 
 cellor Johns, in his communication to the 
 " Presbyterian," that the constitution has given 
 to the Presbyteriis no such control over the 
 elders as that for which Dr. B. contends. 
 Whether it should have given the power or 
 not, I shall not now undertake to discuss. 
 But is it not a little strange, that Dr. B. who 
 would fain have himself regarded as the groat 
 asserter of the rights of ruling elders, should 
 be for abridging t'.ie liberty of the elders, and 
 for making that compulsory, which in regard 
 
 to them the constitution has made voluntary ? 
 It may be well for the reader to compare chap- 
 ters X. 3, 5, and xii. 2, of our Form of Govern- 
 ment, and observe the difference in the form of 
 expression, when mention is made of churches 
 being represented in presbyteries, and of the 
 Presbyteries themselves in the General Assern- 
 bly. 
 
 Lest I trespass against the rules laid down 
 with respect to articles on this subject, I shall 
 defer my examination of Dr. Breckinridge's ar- 
 gument until next week. With the most sin- 
 cere respect, yours. 
 
 III. 
 
 Febrxiary 3. 
 J^Ii\ Editor — To show that the decision of 
 the Assembly, respecting a quorum of Pres- 
 bytery, is contrai-y to the constitution of our 
 Church, Dr. Breckinridge observes, " If ruling 
 elders are essential to the composition of a Pres- 
 bytery, and a quorum of Presbytery is actually 
 and potentially a Presbytery, then by the terms 
 of the proposition, ruling elders are essential to 
 the formatiom of a quorum." To prove that 
 ruling elders are essential to the composition of 
 a presbytery, he cites " Form of Government," 
 X. 2. " A Presbytery consists of all the minis- 
 ters and ruling elders from each congregation 
 within a certain district." The attentive read- 
 er cannot fail to perceive, that this argument 
 no more proves that both ministers and elders 
 are necessary to a quorum, than it does that 
 all the ministers and an elder from each con- 
 gregation are necessary to a quorum. If it 
 proves the latter, the other is a fair inference • 
 otherwise it is any thing else than a just in- 
 ference. Of all the men in our (Church, Dr. 
 Breckinridge, it seems to me, is the last who 
 should insist, that the presence of both minis- 
 ters and ruling elders is essential to a quorum 
 of Presbytery. Does he not hold, that when 
 they are ordained, it is not as ministers and as 
 ruling elders, composing two distinct orders, 
 but as presbyters of one and the very same or- 
 der, and on precisely the same footing ; so 
 
much so, that if a ruling elder should become 
 a preacher, he requires no other ordination 
 than that which he receircd, when he was set 
 apart to the oflice of ruling elder ? Does he 
 not also hold to the position, that the ministers 
 as well as the ruling elders are rightfully mem- 
 bers of Piesbytery only in virtue of their being 
 delegates from individual churches 1 If so 
 what reason can there be for his asserting that 
 both ministers and ruling ciders are essential 
 to a quorum ? They arc according to Dr. 
 Breckinridge equally presbyters, equally repre- 
 sentatives of the people, and as members of 
 Presbytery there is no distinction whatever be- 
 tween them. Why then needlessly make a 
 distinction ? "Would it not accord better with 
 Dr. Breckinridge's views of Presbyterian 
 church government, to maintain that the pro- 
 vision in our " Form of Government" requir- 
 ing a given number of ministers to make a 
 quorum is in violation of the rights of elders, 
 and that as the elders are competent to all the 
 duties of presbyters, they can be, and ought to 
 be of themselves a quorum, in case the minis- 
 ters are all absent? But I waive further re- 
 marks on this point, and without the least hes- 
 itation, I concede to Dr. Breckinridge that " a 
 quorum of a Presbytery is actually and poten- 
 tially a Presbytery," and that a quorum of any 
 
 no specific provision to regulate this matter, 
 then according to the law, as Dr. Rieckinridge 
 styles it, " of common sense, and of com- 
 mon practice of deliberative bodies," a majori- 
 ty of the whole number would be the quorum. 
 And if the ruling elders commissioned to at- 
 tend any given meeting of Presbytery were a 
 majority of the whole number of presbyters, 
 then in the absence of all specific provision on 
 the subject, according to the above named law 
 " of common sense and of the common prac- 
 tice," they, if met at the time and place ap- 
 pointed, would be a quorum, even in the ab- 
 sence of all ministers, unless certain duties 
 were by the constitution assigned to the Pres- 
 bytery, which implied, and which for their pro- 
 per discharge required, the presence of one or 
 more ministers ; for in the definition of the 
 term Presbytery there is nothing to prevent 
 their being, for the occasion, the Presbytery, 
 though there be not a minister present. So 
 on the other hand, there is nothing in the defi- 
 nition of a Presbytery which could prevent the 
 ministers, if they were a majority of all the 
 presbyters, from being for the occasion the 
 Presbytery, even in case all the ruling, elders 
 were absent. Nor is there any thing in the 
 definition of the term " Presbytery" which 
 makes it necessary to include both ministers 
 
 Presbytery, say that of Balliinorc, is that Pres- and ciders, in any specific provision regulating 
 
 bytery. But does this mean, that in all cases 
 a quorum is composed of " all the ministers 
 and a ruling elder from each congregation 
 within a certain district 1" No one will main- 
 tain this, and if so, then as a quorum of a 
 Presbytery is a Presbytery, there can be a 
 Presbytery without all the presbyters being 
 present. And if there can be a Presbytery 
 without all the presbyters being present, from 
 what does it appear, (hat all the ministers may 
 not be absent, and that yet there may be a 
 Presbytery ? Surely not from the definition, 
 which only designates the persons of whom 
 the Pre-bytery is composed. As to the point, 
 who and how many of the individuals thus 
 designated must be present in order that busi- 
 ness may be transacted, it determines absolute- 
 ly nothing. Were there in the constitution 
 
 how many and what presbyters shall be a 
 quorum ; and if all the duties assigned to the 
 Presbytery could be discharged by the presby- 
 ters indiscriminatelj', it might be sufficient to 
 fix merely the number requisite for a quorum. 
 What is the import of the rule we now have 
 on this subject, I shall discuss in a subsequent 
 number. 
 
 "The House of Lords" in Britain consists 
 of " the Lords spiritual and temporal," and 
 yet wc have the authority of the learned anno- 
 tator on the Commentaries of Elackstone, for 
 saying, " That unless precedents could be 
 found to the contrary, there seems to be no 
 reason to doubt, that any act at this day would 
 be valid, though all the temporal lords or all 
 the spiritual lords' were absent." From the 
 4th Book of Blackstone, chapter 19, we learn. 
 
that when the House of Lords sit as a court 
 for the trial of capital oficnces, the spiritual 
 lords always withdraw. " There is," says 
 Blackstone, " no instance of their sitting on 
 trials for capital offences," and although in 
 %ese cases they usually withdraw under pro- 
 test, and asserting their right, to sit as members 
 of the court, yet we never hear of their assert- 
 ing, or any body for them, that there can be 
 no quorum or no court in their absence. And 
 it is, I believe, a well known fact, that during 
 the transaction of the ordinary business of the 
 House of Lords, it is very often the case that 
 there is no bishop present. Here then we 
 have a case in which a house is composed of ] 
 two distinct classes of persons, and yet in the j 
 absence of one class any business whatever 
 may be transacted, to which the whole body is ^ 
 competent. Here then too we have a perfect | 
 illustration of the position we maintain, that 
 although a Presbytery consists of two distinct | 
 classes of persons, it by no means follows that , 
 no business can be done, unless some of both 
 classes be present. This depends entirely j 
 upon the fact whether or not there is in the I 
 Constilution, any specific provision requiring I 
 some of both classes to be present. Or in j 
 other words it brings us to the simple question [ 
 what is the true import of that section, which 
 says, " Any three ministers, and as many el- 
 ders as may be present belonging to the Pres- 
 bytery, shall be a quorum competent to proceed 
 to business." 
 
 As introductory to the argument on which I j 
 have been commenting. Dr. Breckinridge i 
 quotes from our Form of Government, VIIL 1 . | 
 to prove, what no Presbyterian has ever denied, ; 
 and which I beUeve as fully as Dr. Brcckin- i 
 ridge himself, that the church is to " be go- 
 verned by Congregational, Presbyterial, and 
 Synodical Assemblies," and that church go- 
 vernment is not in the hands " of church offi- 
 cers individually considered." For the same 
 purpose he cites the language of the West- 
 minster Assembly, of the Second Book of 
 Discipline, of the Scottish Assembly of 
 1647, of Henderson and the other Scottish 
 Commissioners to London, whose language 
 
 accords fully with the words of our Constitu- 
 tion, and which declares, to quote the words 
 which Dr. Breckinridge seems to regard as 
 strong as any other, if not the strongest, cited 
 by him, viz: those of the Assembly of 1647, 
 " That Ecclesiastical government is committed 
 and entrusted by Christ to the Assemblies a' 
 the Kirk, made up of ministers of the word and 
 Ruhng Elders." And after all what more is 
 here meatit than simply this, that all assemblies 
 having any thing to do with the government 
 of the Church consist both of ministers and 
 Ruling Elders. Nothing is determined as to 
 the point whether all the ministers or all the 
 Ruling Elders may be absent, and yet busi- 
 ness be transacted. The language may indeed 
 imply, that there can be no lawful assembly, if 
 either class be excluded from the meeting, but 
 it by no means implies that the voluntary ab- 
 sence of one class shall disqualify the other 
 from attending to the ordinary business of the 
 body, and more especially if the persons pres- 
 ent be a majority of the whole body. The 
 doctrine of the Scottish church is, that " an 
 Assembly is null, where no elders are commis- 
 sioned," not if none be present. See Steuart 
 of Pardovan, I. 15, 4. The voluntary absence 
 of the Elders does not vitiate an Assembly. Dr. 
 Breckinridge tells us, that " the Assembly of 
 1638, the most memorable except that of 1843, 
 annulled as utterly illegal, no less than six pre- 
 ceding and as they called them, pretended as- 
 semblies, to wit, those of 1606, 1608,1610, 
 1 6 ] 6, 1 6 1 7, and 1 6 1 8," and he adds, "Amongst 
 the reasons assigned for this immense stretch 
 of authority, in five cases out of six, one rea- 
 son is, that there were no Ruling Elders pres- 
 ent in these Assemblies, in some none being 
 lawfully commissioned, in others none lawfully 
 sent." From his own statement, it is evident 
 that it was not the absence of the Elders, that 
 vitiated the Assemblies, but the fact that those 
 present were not lawfully commissioned, or 
 lawfully sent as delegates to these Assemblies ; 
 and yet Dr. Breckinridge would have us regard 
 these entirely distinct propositions as one and 
 the same, just as in the case previously consi- 
 dered, he views it as the same thing to prove 
 
8 
 
 that a Presbytery consists of both ministers' 
 and elders, and to prove that there can be no 
 meeting of Presbytery, unless there be both 
 ministers and elders present. i 
 
 In both cases he proves one thing, and con- 
 siders this as proving another and an altogether 
 distinct thing. If the House of Lords should 
 resolve, that on a given day the bishops should 
 not attend, this would be an unconstitutional 
 act, and the house could not be legally consti- 
 tuted ; but if having full liberty to be present 
 the bishops choose to be absent, this could oc- 
 casion no impediment to the transaction of or- 
 dinary business. Who can fail to see that be- 
 tween the constrained and the voluntary ab. 
 sence of members there is the widest possible 
 distinction ? In the one case the absence 
 would render the acts of those present null ' 
 in the other the acts would be valid. If in 
 the Assemblies condemned by that of 1638, 
 there had been no ciders present, it would have 
 made an essential difference, whether their 
 absence was owing to their own free choice, 
 or to the fact that the Presbyteries were for- 
 bidden, or not permitted, to commission elders 
 to attend said Assemblies. Yet this obvious 
 distinction Dr. Breckinridge has entirely over- 
 looked. But in these Assemblies there were 
 elders present, not indeed freely chosen and 
 commissioned by the Presbyteries, but selected 
 by the king, who would not permit the Pres- 
 byteries to send such commissioners as they 
 thought best, and who, in the case of the el- 
 ders, summoned them to attend, and without 
 even requiring the Presbytciics to give them 
 commissions, as he did in the case of the min- 
 isters. 
 
 In Calderwood's History of the Church of 
 Scotland, a history " written at the appoint- 
 ment of the General Assembly, and by the 
 Assembly, revised and examined and ap- 
 proved for the press," and the author of which 
 was the associate and friend of both the Mel- 
 villes, and of Henderson, we have an account 
 of these condemned Assemblies, and we find 
 one of the objections to have been, not that 
 there were no ciders present, but that those 
 present, or a large proportion of them, had 
 
 been irregularly appointed. In his account 
 of the Asscnibly of 160G, Calderwood gives 
 the names of not less than twenty-seven lay- 
 men who were members of this Assembly. — 
 At the Assembly of 1608, he tells us, " There 
 were present above forty noblemen and gentle- 
 men directed by the king to be present." And 
 again he speaks of " the Earls, Lords, Ba- 
 rons, and Gentlemen, sent for by the king, 
 'ivautiu^ commissio7i," as voting for Mr. Jamea 
 Iiaw, the candidate " of the corrupt side," to 
 be moderator of the Assembly. The phrases 
 " wanting commission," and " sent for by the 
 king," clearly point out the nature of the ob- 
 jection to their being members of the Assem- 
 bly, and to the Assembly itself, the elders in 
 which had not been regularly and lawfully 
 commissioned by their respective Presbyteries. 
 Of the Assembly of 1610, he says, "Noble- 
 men, Barons, Bishops, and others, iv/io had no 
 commission from Presbytery or Synod, were 
 present to make all sure by plurality of votes, 
 if there had been need." He had previously 
 remarked, " Whereas the General Assembly 
 ought to consist not only of ministers but also 
 of Barons and commissioners from burghs, 
 freely chosen, &c. ;" and again, " This As- 
 sembly was intimate only by missives to such 
 Ministers and Barons, as it pleased the king 
 with the advice of the bishops, to call to that 
 meeting." Of the Assembly of 1616, Calder- 
 wood observes, " A number of Lords and Ba- 
 rons sat there, Imthaduot lawful commissioji." 
 Of the Assembly of 1617, nothing is said re- 
 specting the persons present, though it is men- 
 tioned, that at the Diocesan Synods, there 
 were commissioners chosen for the General 
 Assembly before it was indicted, and that 
 " there loas no freedom in the election." As 
 members of the Assembly of 1618, we have 
 given the names of sundry Lords, Barons, and 
 Burgesses ; and it appears that some of these 
 at the least, had not been " chosen with con- 
 sent of the Presbyteries." 
 
 From this statement taken from Calderwood, 
 the reader can see that it was not the volunta- 
 ry absence of ruling elders that vitiated the 
 Assemblies of 1G07, 1608, 1610, 1616, 1617 
 
and 1618, but the want of a regular commis- 1 "declares that neither the constitution of the 
 sion from the Presbyteries. The condemna- Church nor the law of the land, in Scotland, 
 tion therefore of these Assembhes, by that of j ' do authorize any other ecclesiastical judicato- 
 1638, has nothing to do with determining the i ries but Assemblies, Synods, Presbyteries, and 
 question whether in the Church of Scotland, Kirk Sessions, or their committees, consisting 
 
 the voluntary absence of ruling elders from the 
 regular meetings of Presbytery, Synod, or 
 General Assembly, is a bar to the transaction 
 of business by the ministers. To answer Dr. 
 
 of ministers and ruling elders ;' that ' no eccle- 
 siastical judicatory or committee thereof can be 
 lawful without consisting of both ministers 
 and elders,' and he expresses a doubt whether 
 
 Breckinridge's purpose, he must produce a the State would recognize or correspond with 
 case, in which the Church of Scotland has i any bodies not thus composed." This state- 
 condemned the proceedings of a Presbytery, j ment Dr. Breckinridge regards as establishing 
 
 Synod, or General Assembly, on the ground of 
 the voluntary absence of ruling elders. This I 
 am confident he cannot do. 
 
 In my next communication I shall have 
 
 his position ; but the fact that an Assembly, a 
 Synod, a Presbytery, or a committee of any- 
 one of these must always consist of ministers 
 and elders is no evidence that there cannot be a 
 
 lidence. 
 
 something further to say on the law and prac- 1 quorum of any of them, if either the ministers 
 ticeofthe Church of Scotland, to which Dr. : or the elders be absent. The only point in 
 Breckinridge has appealed with so much con- , vvhich this statement differs from those quoted 
 
 j by Dr. Breckinridge from the " Form of Go- 
 I vernment" agreed upon by the Westminister 
 i Assembly, from the " Second Book of Disci- 
 pline," from the Acts of the Assembly of 1647, 
 &c., considered in my third number, is simply 
 this, that committees are mentioned by Steuart 
 as also consisting of ministers and elders. 
 
 IV. 
 
 February 10. 
 JMr. Editor — In my last number I pointed 
 
 out two mstances in which Dr. Breckinridge Granting what I do not however believe to be 
 had taken the proof of one thing for the proof, the fact, that Steuart designed these remarks 
 of another. In the present number I shall j respecting committees to apply to other com- 
 
 give one or two more examples of the same 
 kind. 
 
 " According to the settled law of the Scot- 
 tish church," says Dr. Breckinridge, " every 
 church court, in which ruling elders do 7iot sit 
 is illegal, and all its acts are null." In sup- 
 port of this proposition laid down without any 
 qualification, and as I hope to show, without 
 any authority, he adduced the case of the con- 
 demned assemblies of 1606, 1608, 1610, 1616, 
 1617, and 1618. That the condemnation of 
 these assemblies affords no support to his asser- 
 tion respecting the law and the practice of the 
 Scottish Church, I showed from his own state. 
 ment of the case, and from the facts mentioned 
 by Calderwood in regard to these assemblies 
 
 mittees than those known also by the name cf 
 commissions, yet they come very far short of 
 proving what it is Dr. Breckinridge's aim to 
 prove, viz. that " according to the settled poli- 
 cy of the Scottish Church, every church court 
 is illegal in which ruling ciders do not sit." 
 All that Steuart says, and all that can be made 
 out of his language, even upon the admission 
 that all committees whatever are included in 
 his remarks, is no mJre than this, that every 
 Presbytery, Syno(?, and General Assembly, 
 and every comrpittee of these bodies is com- 
 posed of ministers and ruling elders, and that 
 their acts are illegal, if either ministers or el- 
 ders be excluded from them, and not as Dr. 
 Breckinridge would have us believe, if either 
 I shall now examine his other statements on ministers or elders of their own accord absent 
 this subject, and in as few words as possible, themselves. That I am correct in this state-. 
 " Steuart of Pardovan," says Dr. Breckinridge, I ment is evident from the fact, that when Steu- 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 art says, " But the ccmmission consisting of 
 both ministers and elders, without which no 
 ecclesiastical judicatory or committee can be 
 lawful," he refers for proof, and it is his only 
 authority, to the fourth section of the same 
 chapter. " An Assembly is null where no 
 ruling elders are commissioned." Had Dr- 
 Breckinridge taken the pains to refer to (his 
 section, he wou'd perhaps not have fallen into 
 the mistake he has, and confounded the phrase 
 "in which Ruling elders do not sit," which is 
 his own, with the phrase, " where no Ruling 
 Elders are commissioned," which is Stcuart's* 
 In Book I. 15. 1, speaking of Presbytery 
 Steuart says, " This judicature consists of all 
 *he pastors within the bounds, and one ruling 
 elder from each parish therein, who receives a 
 commission from the eldership to be a member 
 of the Presbytery, and to represent them there 
 until the next Synod be over. Thus twice a 
 year there are new elections of ruling elders.'' 
 As the Scottish Synods met twice in a year, 
 the Elders were chosen for six months, and for 
 this space of tin^e they were members of Pres- 
 bytery whetlier present or absent, for it was 
 not their presence at the meetings, which were 
 formerly required to be held every third week, 
 but their commission to represent their respec- 
 tive Kirk Sessions that made them members of 
 Presbytery, What more difficulty therefore 
 could there have been in naming them mem- 
 bers of committees, than, as is often done with 
 us, in naming as members of committees ab- 
 sent ministers, and, I may add, absent elders 
 too 1 Dr. Breckinridge, I presume, has hard- 
 ly reached the point of denying that a peison 
 can be appointed a member of a committee 
 unless he be actually present at the time such 
 appointment is made, if actual presence is 
 not essential to an appointment as a member of 
 a committee, there could be r.o practical diffi- 
 culty in the way of transacting tU the ordinary 
 business of a Presbytery, even upon the sup- 
 positions, that there were none of the regularly 
 commissioned elders present, and that no com- 
 mittee whatever can conisist of ministers alone. 
 Those absent might bo named members of 
 committees, and whenever they happened to 
 
 be present they could without further instruc- 
 lions act with the other members. That in 
 the earlier periods of the Scottish Church no 
 such doctrine was held as this, viz., that there 
 could be no committees of any ecclesiastical 
 court, except such as were composed of both 
 ministers and elders, is evident from the very 
 first sentence of the paragraph from which Dr. 
 Breckinridge makes his quotations, and which 
 is in these words ; " Some few years ago, the 
 Presbyteries of this church, co/i/brm ro -what 
 had been practised, did delegate one of their 
 number, being a minister, to repair to the city 
 where the parliament did sit, and during that 
 time attend and watch ne quid detrimcnti ca- 
 peret ecclesia." That committees consisting 
 of ministers only were frequently appointed 
 during the times of Knox and Melville, evi- 
 dence the most ample is furnished by Calder- 
 wood in his history. Both Knox and Mel- 
 ville were members of committees so composed. 
 Messrs. Knox and Craig, both ministers of 
 Edinburgh, were appointed by the General 
 Assembly of 156.5, a committee " to set down 
 the form of exercise which was to be used at 
 the public fast, and to cause print it, which 
 they did." Andrew Melville was a member of 
 a most important committtce consisting only 
 of ministers, and appointed by the Assembly 
 of 1575, and of another appointed by the As- 
 sembly of 1577. And in 1578, the verv year 
 that Melville was Moderator of the Genera' 
 Assembly, a committee of three ministers was 
 appointed to present to the King and to the 
 council copies of the " Second Book of Disci- 
 pline," and before presenting them to compare 
 them with the original, and to see that they 
 were correct. By the General Assembly o^ 
 1595, he was appointed one of a commission 
 consisting of nine ministers, and of these nine 
 only, to advise the King in regard to the choice 
 of chaplains, and his nephew Mr. James Mel- 
 ville is the first named in a commission of 
 eight persons, all ministers, to visit the colleges, 
 and to try the discipline, doctrine, 6ic.. of the 
 teachers ; and these appointments were made 
 at a time when Andrew Melville's influence 
 was at its height. If Melville was " as learned 
 
11 
 
 as Calvin, and as bold as Knox," and if the 
 •' Second Book of Discipline" is " the clearest 
 and noblest monument of church order," it can 
 be no very great aberration from Presbyterian 
 order, at least in Dr. Breckinridge's estimation. 
 I take it for granted, to conform to the prac- 
 tice of the Church of Scotland, when that book 
 was her law, and Melville her most influential 
 minister. That Steuart has reference chiefly 
 if not exclusively, to the committees which are 
 authorized to determine in matters committed 
 lO them, and not merely to report to the As" 
 semblies for their action, and which commit- 
 tees are otherwise called commissions, is evi. 
 dent, I think, from the connexion in which his 
 remark respecting the composition of ecclesias- 
 tical courts and their committees occurs. The 
 section, in which the passages cited by Dr. 
 Breckinridge are found, treats of " Delegates 
 appointed to Parliaments." But be this as it 
 may, and I am perfectly willing to concede to 
 Dr. Breckinridge, that Steuart has reference 
 to all committees and sub-committees whatev- 
 er ; yet he does not say, that no Assembly, 
 Synod, Presbytery or Committee cannot trans- 
 act business, unless Ruling Elders be present ; 
 but merely that these bodies must he composed 
 of both ministers and elders ; which is a very 
 diflferent thing from the other. Confounding 
 the composition of these bodies with the indi- 
 viduals requisite to a quorum, Dr. Breckinridge 
 argues, both against the fact in the case, and 
 the clear import of the terms, that according to 
 the Scottish rule, there can be no meeting of a 
 commission of a General Assembly, and no 
 meeting of a Presbytery, unless Ruling Elders 
 be present. Steuart tells us, page 44, " That 
 the Directory for Government saith, • That to 
 perform any classical act of government or or- 
 dination there must be present, at least, a ma- 
 jor part of the ministers of the whole classis' '' 
 (i. e. Presbytery,) and not one word about the 
 presence of Ruling Elders; and yet in the very 
 face of this statement. Dr. Breckinridge insists 
 that the meeting would be illegal, unless one 
 or more Ruling Elders be present, not because 
 Steuart, or any other authority, says so, but 
 because mistaking the import of Steuart's Ian. 
 guage, respecting tbe conaposition of a Prefsby- 
 
 tery he imagines that Steuart held this view 
 of the matter. 
 
 " In the printed Acts of the Scotch Assem- 
 blies" says Dr. Breckinridge, " I have before me 
 repeated acts of successive Assemblies from 
 16.38 to 1649 appointing their standing 'Com- 
 mission for the public afluirs of the Kirk.' 
 These acts name first a large number of minis- 
 ters, then a large number of Ruling Elders, 
 who are directed to meet on a day certain, at a 
 place fixed, and afterwards ' as they shall think 
 good,' and then ' gives and grants unto them, 
 or any ^f teen of them, there being txvelve mi- 
 nisters present, full power and commission, 
 &c.' " What is the plain and only meaning 
 of this language 1 Can it mean any thing 
 else than this, that if any fifteen commission- 
 ers, not less than twelve being ministers, meet 
 as directed, they have full power and commis- 
 sion ? If all the fifteen be ministers, the limi- 
 '•ations in the grant are complied with : and so 
 jhey are, if twelve of them be ministers, and 
 three of them be elders, which is all that Bail- 
 lie, another authority cited by Dr. Breckinridge, 
 Says or means, when in his journals of the As- 
 sembly of 1643, he states " an ample commis- 
 sion was drawn to a number of the ablest in 
 the whole land, whereof twelve ministers and 
 three elders are a quorum." This, however, is 
 not at variance with the obvious import of the 
 acts of the Assemblies, which fix the quorum 
 at fifteen, and require that of these fifteen at 
 least twelve shall be ministers, while it is evi- 
 dent that the whole fifteen may be ministers. 
 At the present day, the whole Assembly is the 
 Commission, and the number requisite to a 
 quorum has been enlarged ; of this number 
 twenty-one must be and all may be ministers. 
 
 After citing Steuart of Pardovan, Dr. Breck- 
 inridge says, " I have discovered a very curi- 
 ous fact, strongly illustrative of the subject 
 now before us, in which the commission of the 
 Scottish Assembly of 1643, in appointing a 
 special commission of itself had its attention di- 
 rected to the very principles for which I now 
 contend, and fully recognized them in one of 
 the most interesting acts, and in its issues one 
 of the most important ever performed by a 
 church court. It was on the occasion of ap- 
 
12 
 
 pointing commissionerg to the Westminster 
 Assembly." Baillie insisted, and finally suc- 
 ceeded in his effort, that with the ministers ap- 
 pointed commissioners, some elders should be 
 associated, and of the icasonsassianed by Bail- 
 lie in favour of this measure. Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge quotes the following: "The exclii(li?ig- 
 the ruling elders from a commission of this na- 
 ture, may call in question the validity of the 
 commission, may hazard the approbation of it 
 by the next General Assembly, may give just 
 offence to all ruling elders, may make all the 
 actions of these ministers more unpleasant, and 
 of less authority with the body of the nation.'' 
 "The result," says Dr. Breckinridge, "was 
 the recognition of the principle, that ruling el- 
 ders must regularly be members of all assem- 
 blies whose constituent parts are preaching and 
 ruling elders, and even of all commissions and 
 sub-commissions of them, whether general or 
 special, and three ruling elders, the Earl of 
 Cassilis, Lord John Maitland, and Johnston 
 of Waristoun were united with the ministers 
 Henderson, Douglass, Riuherford, Baillie, and 
 Gillespie, as commissioners on the part of the 
 Kirk of Scotland to the Westminster Assem- 
 bly." If by the ambiguous language "that 
 ruling elders must regularly he members of all 
 assemblies whose constituent pnrts svrc preach- 
 ing and ruling elders, and even of commis- 
 sions," Dr. Breckinridge means to say merely 
 that the principle was recognized, that all as- 
 semblies for the government of the church, and 
 all commissions of these assemblies must consist 
 of both ministers and elders, I object not to his 
 statement ; but if he means more than this> 
 and maintains that in the appointment of el- 
 ders on this occasion there was a recognition 
 of the principle, that no assembly, or commis- 
 sion, can transact the business committed to it 
 unless both ministers and elders be present, I 
 do object, and I will at once produce the evi- 
 dence that his inference is unfounded, and that 
 too from his own authority. In his journal of 
 the Assembly of 1643 — Baillie has the follow- 
 ing passage, "Friday, the ]8th, a committee 
 of eight were appointed for Jiondon, whereof 
 avy three, were a quorum. Mr. Henderson, 
 Mr. Douglas.s, Rutherford, Gillespie, I, (Bail- 
 
 lie,) Maitland, Cassilis, and Waristoun." 
 From this it is evident beyond all dispute, 
 that although the commission consisted of 
 both ministers and elders, the three elders 
 would have been a quorum,* or any three of 
 the five ministers ; and that this latter case ac- 
 tually occurred, is but beyond all dispute, by 
 Baillie's letter to Mr. David Dickson, of 
 the date of Oct. 27, 1646, in which letter 
 he urges Mr. Dickson to unite with Lord 
 Waristoun in obtaining his desire, and 
 that of Mr. Rutherford, to have permission 
 to return home, and in the course of the letter 
 he thus writes, " and we do think that the 
 matters are likely to draw out so extremely 
 long, that it will be enough for one to wait on, 
 and however Mr. Gillespie would be as gladly 
 loosed as any of us, yet if any stay, without all 
 question, all things well considered, he is the 
 meetest of the three. But the commission 
 possibly will leave to ourselves which of the 
 three shall be left, only I pray you to press a 
 dismissim for two." Now I conceive, we 
 have here a confirmation of what, in opposi- 
 tion, to Dr. Breckinridge, I contend for, viz, 
 that although a judicatory or a commission 
 consist of b(tth ministers and elders, it is no* 
 necessary on that account, that both ministers 
 and elders must be present in order to form a 
 quorum for the transaction of business. And the 
 only matter for surprise is, that if Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge was aware of the facts just stated in regard 
 to the quorum of the commission to the West- 
 minster Assembly, he should not have been led 
 to see the error which pervades his whole speech 
 and which is the foundation of all his false 
 reasonings and inferences, viz , that because an 
 assembly consists of two classes of persons, 
 there can be no quorum unless some of both 
 classes be present. 'J'hat this was not the 
 case in the Commission to the Westminster 
 Assembly, I think Dr. Breckinridge will hard- 
 ly ventuie to dispute ; and with as little rea- 
 son can he maintain, that under the law of 
 the Scottish Church, there can be no meeting 
 of a Presbytery, unless Ruling Elders be pres- 
 ent. We all agree that under the constitution of 
 
 * See letter of April 6th. 
 
13 
 
 the Scottish Church, as well as under our own a 
 Presbytery consists of both ministers anJ elJers- 
 That even Baillie did not consider it neces- 
 sary for all committees and sub-committees to 
 be composed of both ministers and elders is 
 evident, from the form of expression used by 
 him " commission of this natitre^^ and also 
 from the fact, that in his letter of the date of 
 October 1, 1647, he speaks of a declaration 
 which was committed to himself and another 
 minister, viz. Mr. Gillespie, and which he says 
 was approved by the Assembly of that year. 
 Other evidence, full and decisive on this point, 
 might be given from his letters, but as it is not 
 material to the decision of the matter in hand, 
 I shall omit it. 
 
 V. 
 
 February 17. 
 Mr. Editor — Having shown in the prece- 
 ding numbers that the law of the Church of 
 Scotland affords no countenance to the posi- 
 tion assumed by Dr. Breckinridge, viz. that no 
 assembly of the Church can lawfully transact 
 its regular business unless both ministers and 
 elders be present at its meetings ; I propose 
 now to give the evidence, that the views of Dr. 
 Breckinridge are equally at variance with the 
 express provisions of our own constitution. 
 But before doing this, let me remind the rea- 
 der that between Dr. Breckinridge and myself 
 there is no difference of opinion, as to these 
 three points, 1. That according to our consti- 
 tution every assembly of the Church, taken in 
 its widest sense as comprising all who belong 
 to the body and have a right to take part in its 
 proceedings, consists of both ministers and el- 
 ders. 2. That it is not necessary for the re- 
 gular and lawful transaction of business, that 
 all who are members of a session, Presbytery, 
 Synod, or General Assembly should be pres- 
 ent at the meetings of these bodies. 3. That 
 when a sufficient number for the regular trans- 
 action of business, commonly designated a quo- 
 rum, is met at the time and place appointed, 
 this number or quorum is for the occasion 
 " actually and potentially" the body, notwith- 
 
 standing the absence of some of the members. 
 The point as to which we differ is this. Dr, 
 Breckinridge atiirms that both a minister and 
 a ruling elder must be present at every meet- 
 ing, or else no business can be. lawfully done ; 
 and this he does not maintain in reference to a 
 Presbytery alone, and on the ground of a spe- 
 cial provision in the constitution, but as per- 
 taining to all church courts, and as an essen- 
 tial feature in their structure. This I deny ; 
 whether for sufficient reasons the reader can 
 judge. In chapter xii. 2, are these words, 
 " The General Assembly shall consist of an 
 equal delegation of bishops and elders from 
 each Presbytery, &c." In section 3, of the 
 same chapter-, are these words, " Any fourteen 
 or more of these commissioners, one half of 
 whom shall be ministers, being met on the 
 day and at the place appointed, shall be a quo- 
 rum for the transaction of business. By any 
 torturing of language, can these words be made 
 to mean, that of the fourteen or more commis- 
 sioners necessary to a quorum some must be 
 elders 7 Is not the evident meaning of these 
 two passages, one defining the composition, the 
 other the quorum of the General Assembly 
 this — that of the delegates chosen in equal 
 numbers from the ministers and elders, any 
 fourteen or more being met in the manner pre- 
 scribed, would be a quorum for the transaction 
 of business, provided that not less than half of 
 those thus met were ministers > If all the 
 fourteen or more commissioners were mi- 
 nisters, one half would be, and the only 
 limitations in this section defining a quorum 
 would be complied with, and so there would 
 be a quorum for the transaction of business 
 without an elder present. I am not now giving 
 an opinion that it ought to be so, but am 
 merely staling what is the plain and obvious 
 meaning of the rule respecting a quorum of 
 the General Assembly. It depends upon the 
 elders themselves, and upon them alone, to 
 say whether, under the rule we now have, the 
 case shall ever occur, that there shall be a 
 meeting of the General Assembly without an 
 elder being present. Of this I am persuaded 
 that the elders have no need for me to tell 
 
14 
 
 them, that so far from being desirous that the 
 elders should absent themselves from the meet- 
 ings of our Church courts, the ministers have 
 uniformly encouraged their attendance. The 
 case, I trust, will never occur, that we shall 
 have a General Assembly without the atten- 
 dance of a large number of ruling ciders, and 
 the nearer they approach to the m'nisters, in 
 point of numbers, the better. Yet it is obvi- 
 ous beyond dispute that those who framed and 
 ratified the Constitution, designed, that in this 
 highest court of our Church, the ciders should 
 never exceed the ministers in number, and 
 that in case the elders after being duly com- 
 sioned to attend, should from choice, or from 
 any personal engagements or hindrances, ab- 
 sent themselves from the Assembly, the minis- 
 ters should be at liberty to proceed with the 
 business of the body. 
 
 In the first or lowest of our Church courts, 
 viz. in the church session, there can be a quo- 
 rum without a minister present, as appears 
 from chapter ix. sections 3 and 4 of the "Form 
 of Government." This matter was discussed 
 in the very able communications of the Rev. 
 Wm. M. Hall, and I should not now dwell 
 for a moment upon it, were it not to take no- 
 tice of the mode in which Dr. Breckinridge 
 endeavours to evade the force of the argumen t 
 derived from it, when brought to bear against 
 his main position, viz. that as all our Church 
 courts consist of both ministers and elders, both 
 are essential to a quorum. •' If it be said," 
 remarks Dr. Breckinridge, " that inasmuch as 
 in extreme cases a session may be constituted 
 without the presence of a minister, (ch. ix. sec. 
 4.) it follows that in extreme cases a Presby- 
 tery may be constituted without elders, I an- 
 wer, as the first is by express law, the second 
 must be also, and there is no such law ; fur- 
 ther, the existence of clear law for the former, 
 and the total want of it for the latter, is conclu- 
 sive against it ; and further still, that the argu- 
 ment contradicts itself, since it argues from the 
 plenary powers of clilcrs to the total want of all 
 power, from their paramount importance in a 
 parochial Presbytery to their utter insignifi- 
 cance in a classical Presbytery, from their abil- 
 
 ity to act without ministers in one assembly, 
 to the ability of the ministers to act without 
 them in another assembly — all which is 
 absurd." Let us now examine the several 
 parts of this answer, and in the order in which 
 they occur. " As the first is by express law, 
 the second must be also, and there is no such 
 law." But the l\ict is, thnt what Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge is pleased to regard as an express law^ 
 dispensing in certain cases with the presence 
 of a minister, is nothing more than an excep- 
 tion to an express law making the presence of 
 ? minister and of two ruling elders necessary 
 to the quorum of a church session. Had there 
 been in the Constitution no specific provision re- 
 quiring the presence of both the minister and the 
 elders, and making the minister the moderator 
 of the body, there would have been no occa- 
 sion for the express law of which Dr. Breck- 
 inridge speaks, or to speak with more exactness 
 for this exception to an express law. In the 
 absence sf all specific provision, "the law o' 
 common sense and of the common practice of 
 deliberative bodies" to quote again the language 
 of Dr. Breckinridge, would determine that a 
 majority of the members of the session would be 
 a quorum, whether the minister were a member 
 or not of that majority. It is not then in vir- 
 tue of an express law that elders in given cases 
 may make a quorum of session, except so far 
 as there is in these cases a suspension of a 
 more general and express provision making 
 the presence of a minister necessary to a'quo- 
 rum, and without which more general and ex- 
 press provision, the presence of a minister would 
 not be neccssarj-. Henc£ it appears from this 
 case, that there can be a quorum of a church 
 court, without the presence of both ministers 
 and elders, and without any express provision 
 dispensing with the presence of either, the 
 common and well known practice of delibera- 
 tive bodies determining this matter. The next 
 division of Dr. B's answer is the same as the 
 first, with the simple difiercnce that it is couched 
 in different terms. The reply to the fiist is a 
 sufficient reply to the second. " And further 
 1 still," says Dr. B. " the argument contradicts 
 itself, since it argues from the plenary powers 
 
16 
 
 of elders to the total want of all power, from 
 their paramount importance in a parochial 
 Presbytery to their utter insignificance in a 
 dassical Presbytery, from their ability to act 
 ■without ministers in one assembly to the abili- 
 ty of the ministers to act without them in ano. 
 ther assembly ; all which is absurd," To say 
 nothing of the disingenuous statement, that 
 those who differ from him on this question 
 argue for the utter insignificance of the elders, 
 and their total want of all power, in Presbyte- 
 ry, I would call the reader's attention to the 
 fact that the argument has no respect whatever 
 to the relative powers of the ministers and el- 
 ders in the parochial and classical assemblies, 
 but is designed merely to show from the express 
 language of our Constitution that it is not a 
 tenable position, that there cannot be a quorum 
 of any church court, unless there be present a 
 minister or ministers, and an elder or elders. 
 That in certain cases there may be a quorum 
 of a Church Session, in the absence of the 
 minister, is not to be denied, and Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge does not venture to deny it, but endea- 
 vours to evade the force of the argument 
 drawn from it, in the way which has been 
 mentioned. 
 
 In a previous communication, I showed tha^ 
 in case the Elders commissioned to attend the 
 meetings of Presbytery exceeded the ministers 
 in number, they could in the absence of the 
 ministers make a quorum, unless there was 
 an express provision to the contrary : or unless 
 certain duties were by the Constitution as- 
 signed to the Presbytery which, for their pro- 
 per discharge, required the presence of one or 
 more ministers. In this letter I have underta. 
 ken to show that according to the plain im- 
 port of our Constitution, there can be a quo- 
 rum of the General Assembly without an el- 
 der being present, and a quorum of a Church 
 Session without a minister being present, and 
 yet these church courts or assemblies are said 
 to consist of ministers and elders just as much 
 as the Presbyteries are. These facts then af- 
 ford additional evidence that although a Pres- 
 bytery consists of both ministers and ruling el- 
 ders, this is no proof that there cannot bo a 
 
 quorum of Presbytery unless both ministers 
 and elders are present. 
 
 In the answer of the last General Assembly 
 to the protest against their decision respecting 
 the quorum of a Presbytery, the Assembly 
 state distinctly, that all the fourteen or more 
 commissioners necessary to a quorum of the 
 General Assembly may be ministers. Yet of 
 this statement Dr. Breckinridge takes no no- 
 tice, nor does he venture to allude to the pro- 
 vision in the constitution regulating the quo- 
 rum of this body. Why, I know not; but of 
 this I am confident, that the piovision, found 
 in chapter XIL section 3, of our " Form of 
 Government," gives no support to the views of 
 Dr. Breckinridge. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Fehrnary 24. 
 j\Ir, Editor — Without further remark on 
 the collateral matters handled by Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge, I will proceed at once to the examination 
 of the rule, respecting the quorum of a Pres- 
 bytery, laid down in our " Form of Govern- 
 ment," chap. X. 7, and to a comparison of this 
 rule with the resolution of the last Assembly 
 on the same subject. If upon a rigid examin- 
 ation of the terms of the rule, it shall ba found 
 that the Assembly gave no decision contrary 
 to their import, no fault should be found with 
 the declaration of the Assembly, that " any 
 three ministers being duly convened are a quo- 
 rum competent to the transaction of all busi- 
 ness." I need scarcely say that this declara- 
 tion does not imply that the three ministers, 
 to the exclusion of any elders who may be 
 present and who belong to Presbytery, are a 
 sufficient number of presbyters to proceed to 
 business, but that in the voluntary absence of 
 the elders, they are a sufficient number, or in 
 other words " a quorum." In this view, and 
 it is the only true one, I maintain that this de- 
 claration is in strict accordance with the rule 
 in our " Form of Government," chap. x. 7, 
 " Any three ministers, and as many elders as, 
 may be present belonging to the Presbytery, 
 
16 
 
 being met at the time and place appointed, 
 shall be a quorum competent to jiroceed to bu- 
 siness." 
 
 For the following reasons, I maintain the 
 opinion here expressed. 
 
 1. In declaring that the persons previously 
 mentioned " shall be a quorum," the rule sup- 
 poses three ministers to be present, and that, 
 without any allusion expressed or implied to 
 the possibility of less than that number being 
 present. It is indeed a thing quite possible, 
 and which sometimes actually happens, that 
 less than three ministers meet at the time and 
 place appointed for the meeting of Presbytery, 
 but this is a case not supposed here : on the 
 contrary it is assumed that there are three 
 ministers actually present. Nor, so far as I 
 am aware, is this denied. 
 
 2. In reference to the elders, the rule does 
 not suppose them to be certainly present, but 
 merely the possibility that one or more may 
 be present : and by consequence, the possibili- 
 ty, that one and all may be absent ; and it pro- 
 vides that in case any elders are present, be 
 they few or many, they are to be associated 
 with the ministers in making the quorum. 
 
 The words " may be present" imply an un- 
 certainty with respect to the presence of the 
 elders, just as clearly as if that doubt had been 
 fully and formally expressed. The doubt j 
 would not have been more cleaily expressed, if 
 the language had been as follows ; " And as 
 many elders as may be present belonging to I 
 the Presbytery, if any belonging to it be 
 present." The affirmation that they shall be ' 
 a part of the quorum rests, upon the condition 
 that they are present. If this condition be want- i 
 ing, they constitute no part of the quorum : 
 and this is the precise case concerning which ' 
 the last Assembly declared, that " any three 
 ministers being duly convened are a quorum 
 competent to the transaction of all business." 
 What conceivable reason can be suggested I 
 for employing a conditional form of expression, ' 
 on the supposition that it was the design of 
 those who framed the rule to require that in 
 every case there should be one or more elders 
 present ? Would it not have been the most ) 
 
 simple and natural course to have said, " Any 
 three ministers, and one or more elders belong- 
 ing to the Presbytery being met at the time, 
 ' and place appointed, shall be a quorum compe- 
 ' tent to proceed to business." 
 
 Again, had it been the object of the fiamers 
 of the constilulion to include in a single sen- 
 tence all these four cases : 1. That of the en- 
 lire absence of the elders ; 2. That of the 
 presence of a number of elders, less than the 
 number of ministers assumed to be present; 3. 
 That of the presence of an equal number ; and 
 4. That of a greater number, how could all 
 these have been better expressed, than by say- 
 ing "as many elders as may be present," 
 which implies the possibility that" there may be 
 7ione, or that there may be one, t~.uo, three, or 
 more, limited only by the number of church 
 sessions within the bounds of the Presbytery. 
 It is said by Dr. Breckinridge, that " many" 
 cannot mean " none ;" and in the same sense 
 that this is true, it is also true that ''many" 
 cannot mean " ojie," " two," or " threey It 
 is only on the possibility that a great number, 
 to speak comparatively, and not one or two» 
 may be present, that the use of the phrase, "as 
 many as," can here be regarded as at all ad- 
 missible. But the possibility that a thing may 
 be, is also the possibility that it may not be, 
 and if the phrase " as many as." is used, 
 merely because of the possibility of a great 
 number being present, it does not of necessity 
 imply the presence of any ; for it is just as 
 possible that there should be none present, as 
 that there should be " a great number," which 
 is the proper meaning of the term " many." 
 Let us suppose the following inquiries to be 
 made of a member of Presbytery : " Did your 
 Presbytery meet yesterday ? Xes. How 
 many ministers were present ? Three. How 
 many elders! IVot one." Is not the term 
 " many" used with just as much propriety in 
 the case where the answer ie " none" or " not 
 one," as in that where the answer is " three," 
 and might have boon " thirty?" If so, it is idle to 
 say that in a conditional proposition implying 
 the possibility merely of a great number being 
 present, there is not implied also the possibili- 
 
17 
 
 ty, that none may bo present. This being 
 established, it is equally idle to maintain that 
 " as many as may be present" implies that 
 there must be at least one or two present. — 
 And if this be so, then it is clear, that the 
 words of the rule relating to the quorum of a 
 Presbytery mean, that any three ministers be- 
 ing duly convened, with the elders belonging 
 to the Presbytery, if any be present, and with- 
 out them, if none be present, are a quorum 
 competent to proceed to business. The As- 
 sembly gave no decision contrary to this, but 
 m strict accordance with it. Their answer 
 to the overture submitted to them had reference 
 only to the case presented in said overture, 
 which proposed as a matter of inquiry, whe- 
 ther in the absence of all the elders, three min- 
 isters could make a quorum. To this the As- 
 sembly gave a reply in the affirmative, and in 
 doing so they gave an answer in strict accord- 
 ance with the letter and the spirit of the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 I shall now take notice of Dr.Breckinridge's 
 reasons for asserting that the terms of the rule 
 require that one or more elders should be pre- 
 sent at every meeting of Presbytery ; and of 
 his answers to some of the objections which 
 may be made to his exposition of the rule. — 
 This I shall do in his own order, passing over 
 entirely or but just touching upon those of 
 them whicn have been already considered in 
 the previous discussions. 
 
 The first, second, and third of these rest 
 upon the fact that the different church courts 
 consist of both ministers and elders, and from 
 this fact he deduces the perfectly gratuitous 
 inference, that the quorums of these several 
 courts must also consist of both ministers and 
 elders. He makes no discrimination between 
 the composition and the quorum of a Presby- 
 tery, the one having respect to the persons who 
 belong to the Presbytery, and who have a 
 right to take part in its proceedings ; aiid the 
 other having respect only to those who must 
 be present in order that business may be trans- 
 acted. It is only by an entire disregard of 
 this most obvious distinction between the com- 
 position and the quorum of this church court 
 
 that Dr. Breckinridge is enabled to present 
 even the shadow of an argument in favour of 
 his position, that there cannot be a quorum of 
 Presbytery, unless one or more elders be pre- 
 sent. But as the fallacy of this argument has 
 been sufficiently exposed, I shall dwell no lon- 
 ger upon it. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge's fourth reason in this — 
 " The words about the presence of Elders 
 must have some meaning given to them, if 
 there be any meaning they will bear." The 
 words about the presence of elders have a 
 meaning, and an important meaning, but not 
 the meaning which Dr. Breckinridge is pleased 
 to regard as the only one, viz. that some elders 
 must be present. They mean nothing more 
 nor less than this, that if any elders belonging 
 to Presbytery be present, they shall all be 
 members of the quorum, even if they outnum- 
 ber the ministers : and although this might be 
 considered sufficiently provided for in the sec- 
 ond section, which defines the composition of 
 a Presbytery, yet it was wise to put this mat- 
 ter beyond dispute, by a specific provision : 
 and the more so, as we learn from Steuart of 
 Pardovan, that it was a contested point, and 
 that in the Church of Scotland there were 
 those who were " against ruling elders their 
 being supernumerary to ministers in judica- 
 tures." That is, there were those who were 
 opposed to the elders outnumbering the minis- 
 ters in the church courts. And this too, not- 
 withstanding their rule was, as it respects the 
 elders at least, the very same with our own. 
 "Yet," says Steuart, " if once a judicature fix 
 upon a quorum, whereof ahvays so many are 
 to be ministers, though double their number of 
 elders should come and be present, there is 
 nothing as yet to hinder them all fiom voting," 
 This among other things is embraced in our 
 rule respecting a quorum of Presbytery ; and 
 it matters not how many or how few be pre- 
 sent, they are all entitled to a seat, and to a 
 vote ; and yet while this point is carefully se- 
 cured, the conditional form of the rule shows 
 that the absence of the elders is not to prevent 
 the transaction of business, if a sufficient num- 
 ber of ministers be present. 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 The fifth reason assigned by Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge is, that " The copulative a7id, plainly 
 shows that others besides the three ministers 
 were designed to be present." But may not 
 the copulative and, connect a conditional sen- 
 tence, as well as one that is not conditional ! 
 And in case the sentence connected be a con- 
 ditional one, and the condition itself be a nul- 
 lity, what is coupled but a mere form of words? 
 Thus if the elders be absent, the condition on 
 which any of them are to be united with the 
 ministers in making a quorum is wanting, and 
 of course the three ministers will be a quorum. 
 Were one man to say of another, " He is a 
 man of talent, and if he were as honest as he 
 is shrewd, he would be a most useful man," 
 would not the copulative a7id, connect a con- 
 ditional sentence ? And would it not be just 
 as correct a use of this copulative as if it were 
 to unite two simple and positive sentences ; 
 or as if the following form of words had been 
 used : " He is a man of talents, and a man of 
 integrity, and as might be expected he is a 
 most useful man ?" It is not correct then, 
 that " the copulative and, plainly shows that 
 others besides the three ministers were designed 
 to be present." It shows nothing more than 
 this, that if certain others be present they are 
 to constitute a part of the quorum. 
 
 The sixth reason given by Dr. Breckinridge 
 rests, like the first three, upon the fact that a 
 Presbytery is " composed of two distinct class- 
 es of persons, different in many important re- 
 spects ;" and it is argued from this that "some- 
 thing more than a mere indirection must be 
 necessary to exclude one entire class." But 
 who, let mc ask, insists upon the exclusioji of 
 the elders ] Who questions the fiict that the 
 ciders belonging to the Presbytery have a 
 right to be present at every meeting of the bo- 
 dy, and to take part in the proceedings, and 
 that it is their duty as well as their right and 
 privilege to attend > Why then, I ask, does 
 Dr. Breckinridge speak of the excluding of 
 one entire class 1 In my third letter I showed 
 that although a body consisted of two classes 
 of persons this was no evidence, that some of 
 both classes must be present, in order that there 
 
 may bo a quorum, and to that letter I refer the 
 reader for the proof of this position. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge's next and seventh remark 
 is an answer to the objection, that "may be 
 present can never be made to mean mnst be 
 present, and therefore there must be implied a 
 condition and a discretion." "I answer," says 
 Dr. Breckinridge, " that mariy can never be 
 made to mean 7ione." An odd answer this, 
 that if maif cannot mean must, many cannot 
 mean none ; and I presume Dr. Breckinridge 
 regards the one as balancing the other. But 
 as this answer was fully considered in discussing 
 the rule, I shall pass it over without further 
 comment. 
 
 As to " the implied discretion" respecting 
 the attendance of the elders of which he speaks 
 and which he denies, I know of no one, who 
 rests that discretion on this passage. 
 
 His eighth remark is, " Suppose the same 
 phraseology were used as to the ministers ne- 
 cessary in making a quorum, as is used in re- 
 gard to the elders, thus : ' a Presbytery con- 
 sists of all the ministers and one Ruling Elder 
 from each congregation within a particular 
 district, of whom (quorum) as many tnirusfers 
 and as many Elders as may be present, shall 
 be competent to proceed to business ;' in this 
 case would any human being doubt that both 
 ministers and elders must be present?" — 
 What is this but saying that if the rule were 
 different from what it is, and the language re- 
 specting the presence of the ministers as ex- 
 pressive of a contingency, as that respecting 
 the presence of the elders, the rule in that case 
 would mean what Dr. -Breckinridge says it 
 now means ? Were this the case, it would be 
 no proof that the rule, as it now stands, means 
 what Dr. Breckinridge maintairre it does ; for 
 in the three ministers supposed to be present, 
 the rule possesses for the formation of a quorum 
 an clement subject to no contingency, while 
 the form of words, suggested by Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge, makes the presence of the ministers 
 equally doubtful with that of the ciders, and 
 thus renders it a possible supposition that 
 neither ministers or elders may be present 
 a supposition altogether at variance with 
 
 I 
 
19 
 
 the terms of the rule, which assumes the 
 presence of three ministers as certain, and 
 the presence of one or more elders as possi- 
 ble. In the rule there is a provision for a 
 quorum, if the condition respecting the ciders 
 ^ail, but in the form given by Dr. Breckinridge, 
 and upon his understanding of it, there is no 
 such provision if the ci^ndition be wanting. — 
 As to Dr. Breckinridge's supposition, there 
 would be little or no difficulty in showing that 
 it is more vague than he imagines it to be, but 
 as it is not important to do so, I shall omit it. 
 
 Of his reasons and answers the ninth is an 
 argument derived from the fact that, " a meet- 
 ing of Presbytery /*ro re nata cannot be con- 
 vened unless two elders, and they of different 
 congregations, sign the requisition for it along 
 with two ministers." But the argument is al- 
 together fallacious. Does the fact here men- 
 tioned prove that the elders who unite with 
 the two ministers in requesting the moderator 
 to call a meeting pro re nata, or that any 
 other elders must be present at this or any 
 other meeting of the Presbytery 1 These very 
 elders who concurred in calling the meeting 
 could not attend it, unless after it was called, 
 they were chosen by their respective sessions 
 to represent them at said meeting, and in or- 
 der that there may be a special meeting, there 
 is no need that the moderator or any one of the 
 ministers or elders who requested him to call 
 the meeting should attend it. The fact that 
 two ministers and tvFo elders must unite in 
 making the request for a special meeting no 
 more proves that both ministers and elders 
 must be present at such meeting, than the fact 
 that all the ministers and all the sessions must 
 be informed of the meeting, and be summoned 
 to attend in person or by delegation, proves 
 that there can be no quorum unless all the 
 ministers and an elder from each congregation 
 be present. All have a right to attend, and all 
 must be informed of the meeting ; but should 
 there be but three ministers assembled in pur- 
 suance of the notice, they would be a quorum, 
 notwithstanding the meeting could not have 
 been called without the concurrence of two el- 
 ders. The three ministers indeed could not be 
 
 I a quorum without the concurrence of all the 
 elders, and that concurrence expressed by the 
 fact of their absence. As the several sessions 
 have a right to be represented in every meet- 
 ing of Presbytery, it is obviously proper that 
 some of the elders should be consulted, and 
 their consent be had, as well as the consent of " 
 a portion of the ministers, before a special meet- 
 ing should be called. And this doubtless is the 
 reason why the concurrence of two elders as 
 well as that of two ministers was made neces- 
 sary to the calling of a special meeting. 
 
 Why as introductory to this argument found- 
 ed upon the rule relating to special meetings of 
 Presbytery, Dr. Breckinridge should gravely 
 remark, " It is the settled doctrine of our 
 church, and of all other Reformed churches, 
 that the right to convene in church assemblies, 
 both stated and pro re nata, is divine, inher- 
 ent, and altogether independent of the civil 
 power," I can form no conjecture. Is it within 
 the bounds of possibility, that there is in our 
 church, or even in our whole land a single in- 
 dividual, who thinks that the permission of the 
 civil magistrate must be had, before a meeting 
 of a church court can be held ? If there is not 
 what call was there for this remark respecting 
 the civil power ? 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge's tenth remark is an answer 
 to the arguments drawn from the possible in- 
 convenience that might result in extreme cases 
 upon the construction of the rule for which he 
 contends, and fiom the possible inattention or 
 neglect of the elders. To his views on these 
 points I have no hesitation in expressing my 
 assent. Yet I may remark that while the ar- 
 guments drawn from the possible inconven. 
 ience in extreme cases are fallacious if designed 
 to show the import of the rule, they are not 
 fallacious if used to show what it is expedient 
 the rule should be. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge's eleventh remark is an 
 answer to an objection brought against his 
 construction of the rule, and founded upon the 
 fact that in Presbytery the ministers and elders 
 vote jointly, and not by classes. This point 
 has been fully considered in the previous num- 
 bers, and if I am not greatly deceived, the ob- 
 
20 
 
 jection has been shown to be a valid one, and 
 the argument to which he objects, has been 
 proved to be consistent with the general prin- 
 ciples of the constitution ; and further, it would 
 be true, as shown in my third letter, that a suf- 
 ficient number of ruling elders might make a 
 quorum, were it not that this very provision, 
 now under consideration requires three minis- 
 ters to be present, or that some of the duties 
 assigned to^he Presbytery required for their 
 proper discharge the presence of one or more 
 ministers. The mere fact that a body consists 
 of two classes, presents no dillicully in the way 
 of a sufficient number of either class being a 
 quorum. Nor does it follow on the ground 
 here taken, that Ruling Elders have a right to 
 impose hands in the ordination of ministers, 
 any more that it does that they have a right 
 to preach the sermon, to give the charge, or to 
 make the ordaining prayer. In the Church of 
 Scotland, the Presbyteries consist of ministers 
 and elders, and quorums may be composed of 
 ministers alone, and yet it is undeniable, that, 
 in the Church of Scotland, none but ministers, 
 take part in the imposition of hands. 
 
 The twelfth and last remark made by Dr. 
 Breckinridge, in sujiporl of his construction of 
 the rule relating to the quorum of a Presbyte- 
 ry is an answer to an objection to his interpre- 
 tation of the rule, and derived from the fact, 
 that in a church session the ciders alone could 
 in given cases make a quorum. As this point 
 was fully discussed in my last letter, I shall 
 say nothing more in regard to il. 
 
 I have now examined the rule in our "Form 
 of Government," ch. x. 7, and have compared 
 it with the resolution of the last Assembly 
 touching the points embraced in this rule, and 
 I have shown that there is no discrepance be- 
 tween the rule and the decision of the Assem- 
 bly. I have also examined all Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge's arguments in favour of his exposition of 
 the rule, and whether I have succeeded in 
 showing that each one is defective, and fails 
 to establish what it was Dr. Breckinridge's aim 
 to prove by it, I leave to the judgment of the 
 reader. 
 
 VII. 
 
 JUarch 2. 
 ►!/;•. Editor — Having shown in my last com- 
 munication, that according to the true intent 
 and meaning of the rule, in our Form of Gov- 
 ernment, adjusting the quorum of a Presbvtery, 
 any three ministers regularly convened are, in 
 the absence of the elders, competent to proceed 
 to business, I propose now to suggest some 
 considerations which, at the time the Constitu- 
 tion was adopted, would have made it inexpe- 
 dient to have a rule rendering the presence of 
 ruling elders absolutely necessary to a quorum. 
 
 1. In not a few instances there were Pres- 
 byterian churches scattered throughout the 
 wide extent of our land, probably distant from 
 all other churches from lifty to a hundred miles, 
 and even more, in which it would have been 
 necessary for one Presbytery or another to 
 meet, if for no other purpose than to instal the 
 pastors of these several churches. Should 
 these churches in every case have had an el- 
 der, it might have often happened, that from 
 sickness, absence from home, the pressing na- 
 ture of his engagements, or by unforeseen hin- 
 drances, the elder of the church at which the 
 Presbytery were to meet, would be absent, and 
 then the ministers called from their homes and 
 met according to appointment would be obliged 
 to separate without accomplishing the purpose 
 for which they had been called together. The 
 case here supposed that there may be but one 
 elder belonging to a church able to support a 
 pastor, is not a case made for the present oc- 
 casion ; it is one supposed in our Form of 
 Government itself. See, ch. ix. 2. " Of this 
 judicatory, (the church session) two elders, if 
 there be as many in the congregation," &c. 
 
 2. While it is obviously proper, and in ac- 
 cordance with the system of government re- 
 ceived by our Church, that the ruling elders, 
 properly the representatives of the people, 
 should have the right to be present at all the 
 n)eetings of our church courts, yet it is as obvi- 
 ously proper that they should not be compelled 
 to attend t em. The services rendered by 
 them to the church are wholly gratuitous ; 
 they receive no compensation for the time de- 
 
21 
 
 voted to an atlenJance upon the meetings of 
 our church judicatures ; and not unfrequently 
 is it the case, that their duties to their famihes 
 forbid their absence from home. With the 
 ministers it is in some of tlic respects just men- 
 tioned otherwise. They are paid for their time 
 and services ; they have engaged to devote 
 themselves to the business of the church, and to 
 attend to the vawous calls that may be made up- 
 on their time and purse. While therefore min- 
 isters and elders should be equally at liberty to 
 attend all meetings of Presbytery and other 
 church courts and when present be equally at li- 
 berty to give their opinions and their votes in 
 all matters that may come before them, it is 
 clearly proper that the elders should be left, as 
 by the Constitution they are left, to do in this 
 matter just as judgment and conscience shall 
 direct. 
 
 3. If the views here presented be just, it 
 would be expecting too much to expect of the 
 elders to leave their homes, at a sacrifice of 
 their time, of their funds, and in some cases of 
 their very means of subsistence, and to be ab- 
 sent from their families for days together, to do 
 that which the ministers were fully compet ent 
 to do, and which in the churches of Scotland 
 and Ireland, ministers alone often did. It is 
 not then to be presumed, that those who framed 
 our constitution would lequire of the elders 
 that which in given circumstances would be 
 oppressive and clearly unjust to them ; and, on 
 the other hand, it is not to be presumed, that 
 they would permit the interests of the churches 
 to suffer from the absence of men whose atten- 
 dance upon meetings of Presbyteries they 
 could not with propriety enforce. That they 
 did not make the attendance of the elders obli- 
 gatory is evident from the words of the law ; 
 and the design of these remarks is to show 
 that there were good and sufficient reasons for 
 making the law on this subject just what they 
 did. 
 
 4. In framing a law in reference to any 
 matter, it is the part of common sense so to ad- 
 just the terms of it, that they shall be adapted 
 to all the cases which can reasonably be ex- 
 pected to occur ; and if these cannot all be 
 
 embraced under one general provision, the next 
 best thing is to make a special provision for the 
 cases not included in the general one, and 
 which it is clearly foreseen will occur, as was 
 done in our rules respecting the quorum of 
 a church session ; the general provision in re- 
 gard to which is that two elders, if there be so 
 many, with the pastor, shall be the quorum, 
 and yet there is also a special provision for the 
 case in which the elders alone may be a quorum. 
 But in regard to a quorum of Presbytery we 
 have no special provision, as an exception to one 
 more general, and it is therefore obvious that the 
 rule was intended to include all the cases that 
 could possibly arise, on the supposition that 
 there were three ministers present ; and upon 
 the interpretation given to the rule by the last 
 Assembly, the extreme as well as the ordinary 
 cases are provided for. 
 
 With respect to the expediency of modify- 
 ing the rule so as to make the presence of ru- 
 ling elders necessary to a quorum, I have very 
 little to say ; and should the elders desire such 
 an alteration, for one I shall make no objection 
 to it, especially if provision be made to meet 
 the exigencies of the churches and Presbyte- 
 ries in new settlements, where a rule of this 
 kind would operate severely upon the elders 
 themselves as well as upon the interests of the 
 church. For if the attendance of the elders 
 is made essential to a quorum, then it follows 
 that a further change must be made so as to 
 compel the elders as well as the ministers to at- 
 tend, and to censure them if they do not, and 
 which Dr. Breckinridge contends it is, under 
 our present rules, the duty of the Presbytery 
 to do. If the ciders are desirous to submit to 
 this yoke, which Dr. Breckinridge says they 
 are bound to bear, and to relinquish the liberty 
 they now enjoy of attending the meetings of 
 Presbytery or not, as they deem it best, the 
 ministers, I am persuaded, will not resist their 
 wishes in this respect, whatever they may think 
 of the wisdom of such a choice, a choice, how- 
 ever, which I am persuaded the elders will 
 never make. Those who maintain that, under 
 our rules, the elders cannot be compelled to at- 
 tend the meetings of Presbytery, and that even 
 
oo 
 
 in the absence of the elders there may be a 
 quorum, are no less desirous than those who 
 maintain opinions opposite to these, that there 
 should always be a full attendance of the el- 
 ders at the meetings of our church courts, and 
 I will not concede to Dr. Breckinridge one par- 
 ticle more of zeal for the rights and jirivileges 
 of the elders than is possessed by those oppo- 
 sed to his views. 
 
 Before closing this communication, I wish to 
 correct an error that occurred in my last letter 
 in citing the resolution of the last Assembly 
 respecting the quorum of a Presbytery, sub- 
 stituting the word " duly" for the word " regu- 
 larly." I was led into the error by copying 
 the resolution from the protest presented to 
 the Assembly against it, in which protest the 
 resolution was not copied verbatim, though it 
 was given with the marks of quotation. I 
 had not then a copy of the minutes at hand, 
 but had a copy of the protest in a newspaper. 
 The substitution of the one term for the other 
 does not affect in the least the argument, and 
 I should not advert to it were it not that the i 
 substitution was made in a quotation, and 
 might argue carelessness on my part in copy- 
 ing the resolution, if the source of the error 
 were not pointed out. In no other case have 
 I made a quotation at second hand, and shall 
 make none other unless I give my authority at 
 the time. 
 
 P. S. When I wrote my reply to Dr. Breck- 
 inridge's remarks respecting the six Scottish 
 Assemblies condemned by the General Assem- 
 bly of 1G38, 1 had not at hand the acts of this 
 General Assembly, and yet I produced evi- 
 dence sufficient to show that he had misappre- 
 hended the facts in the case, and that the six 
 Assemblies had not been condemned because 
 there were no elders in attendance upon them, 
 but because among other defects, no Elders 
 had been commissioned or sent from the Pres- 
 byteries: the king not permitting the Presby- 
 teries to send any with the ministers whom he 
 had instructed them to send. There were el- 
 ders present, but by order of the king, not by 
 appointment of the presbyteries, and it was 
 
 this in part that vitiated these assemblies, and 
 not the mere absence of elders regularly com- 
 missioned or sent. And had there not been 
 an elder present, the case of these assemblies 
 would have had no analogy to the case of a 
 church court to which elders were regularly 
 commissioned, but from the meetings of which 
 they chose to absent themselves, as is evident 
 from a mere statement of the fsfct that to these 
 Assemblies, the Presbyteries were not permit- 
 ted to send any elders. How Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge, with the acts of the General Assembly 
 of 1638 in his hands, should ever have thought 
 of adducing the case of the condemned As- 
 semblies, as affording any countenance to his 
 position that no business can be lawfully done 
 in any church court in the absence of the el- 
 ders, and that too without any respect to the 
 cause of their absence, I am utterly at a loss to 
 conceive. In not a single instance is the fact 
 of their absence mentioned as a reason for con - 
 demning these Assemblies, but the fact that 
 they had no commission from Presbytery to 
 attend. 
 
 I will now cite in proof of what I say every 
 thing in these acts pertaining to the elders. 
 Among the reasons assigned for annulling the 
 Assembly of 1606, Elders are not once men- 
 tioned, although from the form of expression 
 used in the beginning of the fourth reason, it 
 may be inferred that none but ministers were 
 commissioned by the Presbyteries to attend, 
 yst this is not mentioned as a reason for an- 
 nulling this Assembly. The words to which 
 I allude are the following : " From the power 
 of these ministers who vvere present. Their 
 Presbyteries did not limit them." 
 
 From the reasons assigned for annulling the 
 Assembly of lOOS, I give the following pas- 
 sages. " Many of the voters in that pretended 
 Assembly had no lawful commission from the 
 Kirk, to wit, forty-two noblemen, officers of 
 estate, counsellors, and barons. . . . The 
 noblemen were as commissioners from the 
 King." — " In a lawful Assembly there should 
 be none but commissioners from Presbyteries, 
 Burghs and L'niversities, and but three minis- 
 ters at most, with one elder, commissioners 
 
23 
 
 from every Presbytery, according to the act 
 made at Dundee, 1597. But in that pretend- 
 ed Assembly, there were four ministers from 
 
 the several Presbyteries, &c 
 
 whereas (here were no ruling elders sent from 
 Presbijteries, according to the book of policy 
 and act of Dundee." 
 
 From the reasons for annulling the Assem- 
 bly of 1610, I give the following passages. 
 " And whereas there were no ruling ciders 
 sent from the Presbyteries to that pretended 
 Assembly, as the roll of commissioners show- 
 eth." " There were thirty voters of noblemen 
 and barons, beside the pretended bishops, who 
 had no commission from any piesbytcry. In 
 the fourth session of this pretended Assembly 
 it is plainly said, that the noblemen and barons 
 came to it by the King's direction." 
 
 From the reasons for annulling the Assem- 
 bly of J 61 6, 1 cite the following. " There were 
 twenty-five noblemen and gentlemen voters 
 without commission from the Kirk . . . j 
 whereas there were no ruling elders having ! 
 commission from their Presbyteries at that As- 
 sembly." 
 
 In showing the nullity of the Assembly of 
 1617, the word elder is not mentioned. 
 
 From the reasons assigned for annulling 
 the Assembly of 1618, I give the following 
 passages. " There were nineteen noblemen 
 and barons, eleven bishops that had no com- 
 mission from the Kirk. . . . And for ru- 
 ling elders, there were none at all with com- 
 mission from their Presbyteries." 
 
 I have now given in the very words of the 
 acts everything in them pertaining to the el- 
 ders. And from these extracts it is evident 
 beyond dispute, that where elders are men- 
 tioned, regard is had to the fact that they had 
 not been commissioned or sent to these As- 1 
 semblies by their Presbyteries, and yet the case j 
 of these Assemblies Dr. Breckinridge brings '• 
 forward as evidence that in the Scottish Church 
 the mere absence of the elders was regarded I 
 as a reason for declaring an Assembly null, j 
 What most distant resemblance is there be- j 
 tween the case of these condemned Assemblies, 
 and the case of a church court to which every 
 
 session within its bounds is at perfect liberty 
 to send an elder as their representative, and in 
 which every elder who has a commission to do 
 so, can take his seat without let or hindrance, 
 and speak and vote in all matters that may 
 come before the body.* 
 
 VIII. 
 
 March 9, 
 Mr. Editor. — Among the other strange as- 
 sertions in his speech on the Quorum Question, 
 Dr. Breckinridge has the following, in relation 
 fo the Presbyteries and the Synod declared by 
 the General Assembly of 1 837 to be out of 
 our connexion — " The churches, the Pres- 
 byteries, and the Synods were declared to be 
 not Presbyterian mainly upon the very points 
 this day involved ;" and, as if it were evidence 
 of the truth of this most singular assertion, he 
 adds, " They had no ruling elders, and there- 
 fore were not Presbyterian." And yet after a 
 few more sentences he says, " It is in vain to 
 say, the disowned Synods had no elders ap- 
 pointed in any of their churches, the fact is 
 otherwise — there were elders, more or less, in 
 many churches, and as it regards the Pres- 
 byteries and Synods, the fact of presence, not 
 the fact of existence, is the sole fact in the case." 
 
 * Not having access to any collection of the 
 acts of the General Assembly of the Church 
 of Scotland, and learning that there was such 
 a collection in the library of the Theological 
 Seminary at Newburgh, I requested the Rev. 
 Dr. Forsyth to furnish me with a copy of the 
 reasons, set forth in the acts of 1638, for con- 
 demning the six preceding Assemblies. As the 
 collection in this library did not include the 
 acts for 1638, Dr. Forsvth was unable to com- 
 ply with my request, yet he very kindly fur- 
 nished me with a statement of the reasons for 
 annulling the assemblies, which he translated 
 from a work of Spong's, and also with some 
 extracts from Stevenson's Histoiy, which con- 
 firm the views presented in my third letter. 
 Of the information thus furnished I should 
 have gladly availed myself, had I not soon after 
 obtained from my friend Dr. McLeod of New 
 York, a copy of the acts themselves, fronr 
 which I have made the above extracts. 
 
24 
 
 A comparison of these sentences brings to [ selves in a situation in which the government 
 recollection the words of Flaccus — " Quando- and order of the Presbyterian Church cannot 
 que bonus dormitat Homcrus," and 1 think in the nature of things, be fully carried into 
 the Doctor himself will idmit that in writincr cfTcct, in relation either to themselves or to the 
 this part of his speech, he has not been as wide people of whom they have charge, this General 
 awake as usual. In the first place he tells us, Assembly feel it to be indispensable to declare 
 that the Churches, Presbyteries, and Synods that this is an evil which ought to be corrected 
 had no ruling elders, and in the next place, as speedily as circumstances will permit: 
 that " there were elders more or less, in many therefore. Resolved, That it be referred to the 
 churches," and that as it regatds the Presby- ' next General Assembly to correct the evil here- 
 teries and Synods, the fact of presence, not the in submitted, this General Assembly being 
 fact of existence, is the sole fact in the case." willing that the interval of a year should be 
 If this last clause has any meaning, it must allowed to tlie parties concerned, to correct for 
 mean that the four Synods, and their Piesby- themselves the evil in question, if such shall 
 leries, and their churches too, were declared to be their choice." (See printed minutes.) 
 bo not Presbyterian mainly for the reason, that | The original resolution required the Presby- 
 at the meetings of the Presbyteries and Synods teries to correct the evil with as little delay as 
 no elders were present. Of the truth of this | possible ; the one moved by Dr. Green referred 
 assertion, I venture to say that he cannot pro- the matter to the next General Assembly, with 
 duce a single sentence in any one of the reso- the view of giving the parties concerned a year 
 lutions of the General Assembly of 1837, or in to correct for themselves the evil in question, 
 any one of the papers a[)proved by that body, Both were warmly opposed by Dr. Breckin- 
 which affords the least countenance to it. i ridge, and the one by Dr. Green was adopted 
 And I venture to say further, that it was not so contrary to his wishes and to his vote, and by 
 understood at the time by Dr. Breckinridge a large majority. Among the reasons urged 
 himself, nor as late as when the General As- by Dr. Breckinridge against these resolutions, 
 sembly of 1838 held its sessions. On the I distinctly recollect his mentioning, that it was 
 afternoon of Thursday the 30lh of May, 1838, ; not inconsistent with Presbyterianism that 
 " A resolution was ollered by Dr. Baxter rela- i Presbyterian ministers should be ppstors of 
 tive to Presbyteries composed in part of pastors Congregational churches, and that it was no 
 of Congregational churches, which was con- I part of the objection to the four exscinded Sy- 
 sidered and laid on the table." (Sec printed I nods, that their ministers were in many in- 
 Minutes of the Assembly.) This motion to ! stances pastors of Congregational churches, but 
 lay on the table was made, if I mistake not, by I that in virtue of the plan of union men who 
 Dr. Breckinridge, who strenuously opposed the j were neither ministers nor elders were per. 
 resolution. On the next morning, and " on ! mitted to sit in our church courts. And in 
 motion of Dr. Green, the resolution of Dr. I proof, that it was perfectly consistent with 
 Baxter, laid on the table yesterday, was taken Presbyterianism for Presbyterian ministers to 
 up, and postponed. A substitute was offered be at the same time members of Presbytery^ 
 by Dr. Green, which was considered and and pastors of Congregational churches, he re- 
 adopted, as follows, viz. Considering that it is j ferrcd to the church of Geneva, and added, that 
 manifestly incongruous and unreasonable that in the meetings of the venerable company of 
 the government of the Presbyterian Church pastors, no ruling elders ever took part, that the 
 should be administered by those who do not j ministers alone constituted the Prosliytery, and 
 submit to it for themselves ; and whereas, there I that the churches were congregational. This 
 arc, in this Church, certain brethren in the [ was the ground taken in 1838 by this strenuous 
 ministry, who, by taking the pastoral charge of ■ asscrter, ns he would feign represent himself. 
 Congregational churches, have placed them- j of the divine rights of ruling ciders, and ho was 
 
25 
 
 just as infallible then as he is now.* Having 
 in his change of views gone to the opposite 
 extreme, he maintains not only that ciders 
 must be delegated to all the meetings of Pres- 
 bytery, but that some elders must be present at 
 every meeting of Presbytery, or that no busi- 
 ness can be lawfully done, and further that even 
 Presbyterian ministers in a settled state of the 
 chuich " are not in strict right entitled to ap- 
 pear in them (Presbyteries or other church 
 courts,) except as they are ministers of the 
 
 * Since the above letter appeared in the 
 Presbyterian, Dr. Breckinridge has denied that 
 he said that the churches of Geneva were con- 
 gregational ; and it is possible that as to this 
 and to the statement in the preceding clause, 
 " that the ministers alone constituted the Pres- 
 byteiy." I may have associated the only fair 
 inference from his remarks respecting the 
 Church of Geneva with the remarks them- 
 selves ; and thus possibly have reported him 
 in these two clauses inaccurately. In the 
 course of his observations he adduced the 
 " Venerable Company of Pastors" as fur- 
 nishing a corroboration of his position, that it 
 was consistent with Presbyterianism, for the 
 ministers of a Presbytery to be pastors of con- 
 gregational churches, and he stated then, what 
 he does not now deny, that in this venerable 
 body no elder ever had a seat. If he did not 
 intend to convey the impression that this Com- 
 pany corresponded to a Presbytery composed 
 of ministers, and ministers who were pastors 
 of churches, which bore to the Company a re- 
 lation like to that between one of our Presby- 
 teries and the congregational churches whose 
 pastors were members of the Presbytery, why 
 did he cite this case '' For any other purpose, 
 the reference was utterly irrelevant, and could 
 have no other eflect than to deceive. And I 
 have the more distinct recollection of this re- 
 ference, from the circumstance that it was the 
 first statement of the kind respecting the Ven- 
 erable Company I had ever heard. As I am 
 unwilling that the coarseness of his reply 
 should prevent my correcting an error into 
 which it is possible I may have fallen, in sta- 
 ting a matter that occurred six years ago, and 
 which I only professed to give from memory, 
 I have thought it proper to add this note : and 
 this is the only notice I shall in all probability 
 ever take of his reply to my strictures on his 
 speeches, fully persuaded that the character of 
 his remarks is such as to render an answer to 
 them unnecessary. 
 
 particular churches which made up the Pres- 
 bytery." Was it as delegates from their re- 
 spective churches that the pastors of the Con- 
 gregational churches were, according to the 
 views of Dr. Breckinridge in 1838, to be en- 
 rolled as members of Presbytery ? If in 1837, 
 four Synods, each comprising several Presby- ■ 
 teries, were declared not to be Presbyterian, 
 because no elders attended the meetings of these 
 bodies, is it not marvellous that, in 183S, Dr. 
 Breckiniidge, who reminds us as it is not un- 
 usual for him to do, that he " was an actor in 
 those scenes," and who speaks of " all my 
 elTjrt?, and no man made more to reform the 
 Church at that period," should have thought 
 of urging as a reason against removing the evil 
 complained of in the resolution adopted by the 
 Assembly, that it was consistent with Presby- 
 terianism that there should be a Presbytery 
 without ruling elders ever belonging to the 
 body, and, of course, without ruling elders ever 
 being present at its meetings .'' Again I ask, 
 is it not marvellous, that he should have taking 
 this ground, when, according to his present 
 version of the matter, the Assembly of 1837 
 had declared the Presbyteries connected with 
 the four disowned Synods to be out of our con- 
 nexion, not because very many of the churches 
 under thecare of these Presby teries where either 
 wholly or in part Congregational, and were 
 represented in our church courts by men who 
 had never adopted our standards, but because 
 no ruling elders attended the meetings of these 
 bodies ? I ask these questions because Dr. 
 Breckinridge says explicitly, " the fact of pre- 
 sence, and not of existence, is the sole fact in 
 the case." And to make the action in regard 
 to the four Synods of any avail to his argument 
 it must be so, that it was the non-attendance of 
 the elders upon the meetings of the exscinded 
 Synods and Presbyteries, and not the non-ex- 
 istence of elders, and the substitution of Con- 
 gregational government for that of the elder- 
 ship that mainly induced the Assembly of i 837 
 to declare the four Synods to be no part of the 
 Presbyterian Church. But where is the proof 
 of all this? There is none. It is a mere figment 
 of Dr. Breckinridge's fancy. The Plan of 
 
26 
 
 Union was annulled and declared void from the 
 beginning, because its provisions were at vari- 
 ance with the constitution, and because an ex- 
 tension had been given to it never designed. 
 It permitted men who were not Presbyterians, 
 men who had never received our Confession of 
 Faith, men who did not approve our Form of 
 Government, to be members of our church 
 courts, and to vote in all matters pertaining to 
 our doctrine, our discipline, and our measures 
 for the extension of the church. In virtue of 
 this plan. Congregational churches were ena- 
 bled to exert no inconsiderable influence in 
 deciding our course of action in regard to mat- 
 ters deemed of vital consequence to our system. 
 These were the reasons why the Plan of Union' 
 as it is usually called, was declared null and 
 void, and why the four Synods, which owed 
 their existence in no inconsiderable degree to 
 this very plan were declared to be not Presby- 
 terian, and to be out of our connexion. That this i 
 is a true statement of the facts in the case, I 
 will prove at once by evidence which Dr. } 
 Breckinridge, at least, will not venture to im- 
 pugn, as it is taken from a circular letter, re- 
 ported by Dr. Bieckinridge himself, and ap- 1 
 proved by the Assembly of 1S37. j 
 
 " In the course of an attempt at reform we 
 have thought it our duty to annul the Plan of 
 Union, between the Presbyterian and Congre- 
 gational churches in new settlements, formed 
 in ] 801, and evidently intended as a temporary i 
 system to meet a temporary exigency. By that I 
 plan Congregational churches were brought! 
 into comj)lete union with the Presbyterian 
 Church ; and their delegates, without having 
 adopted our public standards, were introduced 
 into our judicatories, and vested with the power 
 of giving authoritative, and, in some cases, 
 decisive votes on most important questions of 
 doctrine and discipline, and thus, in reality, of 
 governing our church. And it has happened 
 in fact, in a number of instances, that some of 
 the most important decisions, in their bearing 
 on the truth and order of our body, have been 
 decided by votes of those who had not sub- 
 scribed to our ecclesiastical constitution and 
 stood aloof themselves from its authority. 
 
 Thus Congregationalists were found, in effect, 
 to control the Presbyterian Church, and to pro- 
 hibit her carrying into execution our appropriate 
 system, while we had no more authority over 
 them than they chose to recognise. 
 
 " If it were obviously equitable and impor- 
 tant that the Plan of Union alluded to should 
 be annulled, it was in our view no less equita- 
 ble and important that the ecclesiastical bodies 
 to which that Plan had given existence, and 
 which were animated and governed by its spirit, 
 should be declared to be no longer connected 
 with our Church." 
 
 Such were the reasons assigned by Dr. 
 Breckinridge himself, and by the Assembly of 
 1837, why the Plan of Union was annulled, 
 and why the four Synods were declared to be 
 no part of the Presbyterian Church. In the 
 whole letter, from which the above extracts are 
 given, there is not one word about the absence 
 of elders from the meetings of the Synods or of 
 their Presbyteries: — and there is no evidence 
 that it was more common for the exscinded 
 Presbyteries to meet without elders being pre- 
 sent, than for the others to do so. Drs. Green 
 and Baxter, men as zealous acd as efficient in 
 the reform of the Church as any others in it, 
 did not give as a reason for the adoption of the 
 motion made by them, in regard to Presbyteries 
 composed in part of pastors of Congregational 
 churches, and made too with the view of com- 
 pleting that reform, that no elders attended the 
 meetings of these Presbyteries, which doubtless 
 they would have done, had they understood 
 the resolutions of 1837, in the sense now as- 
 signed to them by Dr. Breckinridge, but be- 
 cause these pastors " had placed themselves in 
 a situation in which the government and order 
 of the Presbyterian Church cannot, in the na- 
 ture of things, be fully carried into elfect, either 
 in relation to themselves or to the people of 
 whom they have charge." 
 
 ! In the decision given by the Assembly of 
 18-13, there is nothing that comes in conflict 
 with the decision of the Assembly of 1837. 
 j The decisions of 1 837 had respect to the com- 
 ' position of Presbyteries and Synods ; the de- 
 cision of 1 843 to the quorum of Presbytery, 
 
a? 
 
 and Dr. Breckinridge may quiet his fears, lest, 
 if the decision of 1843 stand, all his struggles 
 in 1837 should prove fruitless. The decision 
 of 1S43 reaches not thus far. " All my efforts" 
 will not be lost should the decision of 1843 
 stand as a true declaration of what our rule 
 now is. If Dr. Breckinridge would follow the 
 advice, " Let another man praise thee and not 
 thine own mouth," he would no doubt receive 
 all the credit to which he is entitled,without him 
 telling us, on every occasion, what he has done, 
 what he has endured, and what he is ready to 
 bear. And he should the rather abstain from 
 these things, as it seems an ungracious task to 
 expose the errors of a man who is ready to un- 
 dergo "the pains of an incendiary and the pen- 
 alties of a church disturber" in defence of his 
 views. But why are we told all this.-* Has 
 any one threatened Dr. Breckinridge for hold- 
 ing the views he does in regard to this sub- 
 ject 1 Or is it all said for the sake of exciting 
 sympathy on the one hand and prejudice on 
 the other? With the offensive style in which he 
 has advanced his opinions, I doubt not many 
 have been displeased, for although not as cen- 
 surable as some of the language in his letters to 
 Ruling Elders, yet it is disrespectful to the As- 
 sembly whose decision he impugns. He hesi- 
 tates not to charge men who, to say the least, 
 are as deeply interested as himself in the wel- 
 fare of our Church, with advocating principles 
 and practices which have a tendency to subvert 
 the liberties of the Church, to degrade the 
 Eldership, and to establish a hierarchy. 
 
 The assertion of Dr. Breckinridge that the 
 last Assembly decided that ministers were not 
 members of the Church is any thing but a cor- 
 rect representation of the fact. The Presbyte- 
 ry of Miami submitted to the Assembly an 
 overture, the plain and obvious meaning ofi 
 which was — Are pastors and stated supplies to 
 be considered members of the individual 
 churches which they serve, and to be enrolled 
 on the sessional records ? I do not say, that 
 another construction cannot be given to the 
 words " church members" which occur in the 
 first clause of the overture ; but who can sup- 
 pose the Presbytery of Miami, or any other 
 
 Presbytery in the land, to be guilty of the folly 
 of asking whether ministers were members of 
 the Church at large? Or who can doubt, that 
 in using the phrase church members, in the 
 first clause of the overture, they intended to in- 
 quire whether pastors and stated supplies were 
 to be regarded as members of the individual 
 churches in which they ministered ? The 
 words of the overture are " Whether ordained 
 ministers of the gospel ought not to be consi- 
 dered church members, and to have their names 
 enrolled on the sessional records of the church 
 where they are settled as pastors or stated sup- 
 plies !" The latter clause is evidently exege- 
 tical of the first, and the whole overture con- 
 tains but one inquiry, viz. Whether pastors 
 and stated supplies are to be entered as mem- 
 bers upon the sessional records of the particu- 
 lar churches which they serve ? Yet Dr. 
 Breckinridge would make the reader believe, 
 that the Assembly decided that the Church is 
 to be governed by ministers " in effect irre- 
 sponsible, connected with the church only by 
 an undefined dominion over it, not being even 
 members of it." 
 
 This is but a specimen of the candour with 
 which Dr. Breckinridge treats the last Assem- 
 bly, against which he seems to be strongi)' em- 
 bittered — of the probable reasons for which I 
 shall not now at least venture to express an 
 opinion 
 
 IX. 
 
 jyiarch 1 6. 
 J\Ir. Editor — The argument in favour of the 
 decision of the last Assembly respecting the 
 quorum of Presbytery, derived from the prac- 
 tice of our oldest Presbyteries, both before and 
 after the adoption of the constitution in 1788, 
 has been so fully and ably presented by your- 
 self and the Rev. William M. Hall, that I have 
 abstained from dwelling upon it, in my com- 
 munications already published in the Presby- 
 terian. I now advert to the subject to meet 
 one or two objections to this argument. The 
 first of these is, that a practice even long con- 
 
28 
 
 tinued is not conclusive as to the import of the 
 rule, under which the practice has risen. This 
 is readily granted, and, if I am not mistaken, 
 the practice in question has not been referred 
 to, for the purpose of showini); what is the ex- 
 act import of tiio terms of the rule, but with 
 the view of letting it be seen, what construc- 
 tion was given to it by those who framed and 
 adopted the rule, and who were first called 
 upon to act under its provisions. For this 
 purpose it is of great avail, as it must settle, 
 especially if the practice be uniform, what was 
 understood to be its meaning in the judgment 
 of those, who may safely be regarded as the 
 best judges of the design of the rule, whether 
 that design be clearly expressed or not. 
 
 If the uniform practice be found to accord 
 best with the plain meaning of the terms, the 
 argument is irrefragable, that conformity to the 
 practice is conformity to the rule ; and in case 
 the terms are ambiguous, and yet will fairly 
 admit of a construction in accordance with the 
 practice of those who from their very position 
 must be supposed to understand the design of 
 the rule, if any do; it is to be presumed, that 
 the practice is not at variance with the provi- 
 sions of the rule, and may be followed with 
 safety. So strong indeed is this presumption 
 rendered by the absence of all complaint 
 against the practice itself, that it has almost 
 the force of direct evidence, that the practice 
 and the rule agree. 
 
 2. To show that no dependence is to be 
 placed upon the practice of our older Presby- 
 teries, reference is made to the Plan of Union, 
 which was permitted to exist, for moie than 
 thirty years, and which was formed with the 
 concurrence and active labours of some who 
 took part in framing the constitution of our 
 Church ; and yet after so many years this very 
 plan was declared to he null and void, as being 
 contrary to the provisions of the constitution. 
 But between these two cases, it will readily 
 bo perceived that there is a great dillerence. 
 For the one provision was made in the consti- 
 tution at the time of its adoption. It was a 
 matter in regard to which all the Presbyteries 
 would be constantly called upon to act, and 
 
 with which they were familiar before the con- 
 stitution was adopted. It was no new sub- 
 ject to them, and it was usual for them to con- 
 sider a given number of ministers, met accor- 
 ding to appointment, as a quorum of Presby- 
 tery : and if it was the design of those who 
 made the constitution, to change the practice, 
 would not this purpose have been more clearly 
 expressed, and no room left for doubt on this 
 point 1 In the whole constitution a rule could 
 scarcely be named in regard to the design of 
 wliich the Presbyteries in existence in 1788 
 would be less likely to fall into error, than with 
 respect to this very rule relative to a quorum 
 of Presbytery. And the uniformity of the 
 practice is conclusive as to the design of the 
 rule, whatever may be the fact in regard to its 
 import. 
 
 With respect to the Plan of TTnion the case 
 is altogether different. No such plan was 
 thought of when the constitution was ratified 
 and adopted. No provision was made for any 
 case analogous to it. It grew out of a lauda- 
 ble desire to enable Christian brethren of two 
 different denominations, who agreed in the 
 great doctrines of the gospel, and who were 
 few in number and feeble in resources, by a 
 temporary union of their strength, to sustain 
 among them the regular ministrations of the 
 gospel, until they should be brought to embrace 
 one system of government, or be able sepa- 
 rately to make adequate provision for the due 
 maintenance of their religious teachers. It is 
 therefore not to be wondered at, that, in a mat- 
 ter of this kind, the General Assembly of 1 SO 1 , 
 not foreseeing the evil winch eventually arose 
 from the plan, and regarding the whole as a 
 mere temporary arrangement, and as confined 
 in its operation to the churches in the new set- 
 tlements, should have felt itself authorized to 
 enter into such an arrangement, under that 
 provision in the constitution, which clothes 
 the Asscmbl)'^ with power to determine the 
 terms of correspondence with other religious 
 denominations, nor is it a matter for surprise, 
 that before the evils of this arrangement had 
 developed themselves, the provisions of tho 
 plan were extended, and for many years littlo 
 
29 
 
 or no attention was given to the scheme. — 
 Confined in its operation to the extreme limits 
 of our Church, where but few, to speak coin- 
 piuatively, of the more rigid adherents to Prcs- 
 byterianism were to be found, the Plan of Un- 
 ion failed for a long time to attract to itself the 
 attention of the older Presbyteries in our 
 Church, and especially of those which existed 
 prior to the formation of the first General As- 
 sembly. Fifteen years ago, I am confident 
 that not only many of the ministers of our 
 Church, but even some whole Presbyteriesi 
 were ignorant of the existence of the Plan of 
 Union ; the operation of which was almost 
 wholly confined to the Synods in northern 
 and western New York, and in the Western 
 Reserve, Ohio. What propriety is there then 
 in comparing the toleration of this unconstitu- 
 tional arrangement, with a practice contin- 
 ued from a period antecedent to the adoption 
 of the constitution to the present day, and in 
 reference to a matter which was made the sub- 
 ject of a special provision in the constitution, 
 the design of which provision, whatever be 
 its import, was to perpetuate the existing cus- 
 tom? 
 
 From the nature of the case the Plan of 
 Union could not show the design of those who 
 framed the rules in our constitution, in confer- 
 ring upon the General Assembly power to regu- 
 late all correspondence with foreign bodies, for 
 no such thing as the Plan of Union was thought 
 of ; but with respect to the design of the rule 
 concerning the quorum of Presbytery, the uni- 
 form practice of the Presbyteries coeval with 
 the constitution itself, does show, and that most 
 clearly, the intent of the rule. And here by 
 the way I observe that a similar remark may 
 be made with respect to the rule which speaks 
 of the imposition of hands, in the ordination of 
 ministers. It was left to the discoverers of the 
 present day to find out a hidden meaning in 
 these rules which had escaped the notice of 
 our fathers, and of the meaner minds of our 
 own times. 
 
 I have in my possession a statement of the 
 meetings of the Presbytery of New Castle, 
 from 1717 to 1791, at which no Ruling Elders 
 
 were present. This statement was kindly 
 furnished by the Rev. Mr. Du Bois, Clerk of 
 the Presbytery, at the request of a friend to 
 whom I had written on the subject, asking 
 him to examine the records of that Presbytery 
 for me. I hope to obtain like statements from 
 the Clerks of several other Presbyteries, and 
 in case I do, I will send them to you for inser- 
 tion in the Piesbyterian. 
 
 X. 
 
 April 6. 
 
 J\Ir. Editor — That those who take an inte- 
 rest in the discussion of the Quorum Ques- 
 tion, may have a connected view of all the 
 matters handled in my letters on the subject, I 
 propose to give, in this communication, an 
 outline of the evidence and argument present- 
 ed in favour of the decision of the last Assem- 
 bly. For a full discussion of the several points 
 involved, I must refer the reader to my pre- 
 vious communications. 
 
 The rule, the right interpretation of which 
 is the matter in controversy, is in these words : 
 " Any three ministers, and as many elders as 
 may be present, belonging to the Presbytery, 
 shall be a quorum competent to proceed to 
 business." See Form of Government, ch. x^ 
 sec. 7, 
 
 Under this rule, can three ministers form a 
 quorum ? This question the General Assem- 
 bly of 1843 decided in the aflirniative. That 
 the answer is in strict accordance with the 
 terms of the rule, I maintain for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 1. It agrees with the plain meaning of tha 
 words. 
 
 Those words which relate to the ministers 
 suppose three ministers to be present; but 
 with respect to the presence of the elders, the 
 form of expression is conditional, and the 
 words imply only the possibility that one or 
 more elders may be present, and by conse- 
 quence that one and all may be absent. The 
 affirmation that the elders shall be a part of 
 the quorum, rests upon the condition that they 
 
30 
 
 are present ; and if this condition be wanting, 
 they constitute no part of the quorum. No 
 conceivable reason can be suggested, for em- 
 ploying a conditional form of expression, on 
 the supposition, that it was the design of those 
 who framed the rule to require that, in eveiy 
 case, one or more elders should be present. 
 Had this been their design, the most simple 
 and natural course would have been to say, 
 " Any three ministers and one or more elders 
 belonging to the Presbytery, being met at the 
 time and place appointed, shall be a quorum 
 competent to proceed to business." Had the 
 rule been expressed in these words, could it 
 have the meaning it now has ? 
 
 In case any elders be present, be they few or 
 many, the rule provides, that they shall all be 
 associated with the ministers in making a quo- 
 rum : and although this might in the opinion 
 of some be con?idcied as sufficiently provided 
 for in the definition of a Presbytery, yet it was 
 wise to put this matter beyond dispute by a 
 specific provision; and the more so, as we learn, 
 from Steuart of Pardovan, that in the Church 
 of Scotland, it was a contested point, and that 
 there were those who were opposed to the elders 
 out-numbering the ministers in the Church 
 Courts. See the Presbyterian for February 
 24, 1844. 
 
 2. The answer given by the Assembly ac- 
 cords with the practice of our Church, from its 
 first existence as a Presbytery, in 1705, to the 
 present day. There is no record to show that 
 the propriety of the practice was ever called in 
 question. Tradition has not handed down the 
 name of a single objector. Under the constitu" 
 tion of 1788, the practice remained the same it 
 ever had been. In the absence of the elders, 
 the ministers continued to form a quorum for 
 business. No protest — no complaint, Our 
 fathers were all well satisfied with the prac- 
 tice and with the rule, between which they 
 discovered no discrepancy. Had it been the 
 design of the rule to change the practice, could 
 the facts here mentioned have occurred ? See 
 Presbyterian for March 15, 1844. 
 
 3. The practice in our own church agrees 
 with the practice of the Church of ycotland. 
 
 Although this fact is no proof that the last As- 
 sembly gave a just interpretation to the rule in 
 chap. X. sec. 7., yet it is of avail to show that 
 the interpretation given to it is not m conflict 
 with the principles of Presbyterian Govern- 
 ment. Steuart of Pardovan, speaking of Pres- 
 bytery, tells us " that the Directory for Gov- 
 ernment saith that to perform any classical act 
 of government or ordination, there shallbepre- 
 sent at least a major part of the ministers of the 
 classis (Presbytery.)" Not one word respect- 
 ing the necessity of a ruling elder being pre- , 
 sent. In the Church of Scotland at the pre- 
 sent day three ministers can make a quorum of 
 Presbytery. 
 
 At the Assembly of 1582, of which Andrew 
 Melville was moderator, the following acts, as 
 we learn from Calderwood, were passed in re- 
 ference to " Presbyterial meetings." " Con- 
 cerning such Elders as labour not in the word, 
 their resort to|the Presbytery shall be no further 
 urged strictly, than the weighliness and the oc- 
 casion, uporu intimation and advertisement 
 made by the Pastors and Doctors, shall require; 
 at which time they shall give their concurrence; 
 yet such as may conveniently resort are ex- 
 horted to be present at all times. Such of the 
 ministry as do not resort to the exercise and 
 Presbytery, shall be subject to the penalty ar- 
 bitrary, which shall be appointed at the discre- 
 tion of every particular Presbytery." From 
 this it is evident that in time of Melville, the 
 attendance of the Elders upon the meetings of 
 Presbytery, was, for the most part, if not al- 
 ways, optional ; while the ministers were re- 
 quired to be present, and were liable to censure 
 in case of neglect. This rule was renewed by 
 the Assembly of 1G33, of which Alexander 
 Henderson was moderator, and was in forco 
 for some lime after the revolution of 16SS, as 
 appears from Steuart, who speaks of the rule as 
 yet in exislencc. Wc. read of no censure in- 
 flicted upon the elders in case of their absence. 
 As under our own rules, the ministers were 
 required to attend, the elders were at liberty to 
 attend. When present, the elders made a part 
 of the quorum, even if they out-numbered the 
 minbters. See Steuart, I. IG, ;5. When the 
 
31 
 
 elders were all absent, the ministers if present 
 in sufficient numbers made a quorum. Sec 
 the authorities above cited, and the Presbyte- 
 rian for February 10, 1844. 
 
 4. The practice of other bodies composed of 
 two distinct classes of persons. The House of 
 liOrds in Britain consists of the lords spiritual 
 and temporal, and yet, for the transaction of 
 the ordinary business of the House, three tem- { 
 poral lords constitute a quorum ; and in the 
 opinion of Edward Christian, Esq., the learned 
 annotator on Blackstone, the spiritual lords are 
 competent to discharge the ordinary business [ 
 of the body, in the absence of all the temporal i 
 lords. With this high authority furnished by 
 the practice of the highest civil court and de- 
 liberative Assembly in all Britain, agrees the 
 uniform practice of the Church of Scotland, not 
 only in her Presbyterial, but also in her Sy- 
 nodical and General Assemblies, and in the 
 commissions of the General Assembly. See i 
 the Presbyterian for February 3, and 10, and 
 for March 2, 1844. j 
 
 5. Any fourteen or more ministers may 
 form a quorum of our General Assembly 
 though there be not an elder present. See 
 chap. xii. sec. 3. This fiict though no proof 
 that, under the rule in the case, there can be 
 a meeting of Presbytery in the absence of all 
 the elders, yet is conclusive as to this point, 
 that the presence of both ministers and elders 
 is not essential to a quorum of a body consist- 
 ing of these two classes of church officers ; 
 and of course it subverts the main objection to 
 the interpretation given by the last Assembly 
 to the rule respecting the quorum of Presby- 
 tery. See the Presbyterian for February 17, 
 1844. 
 
 6. In certain given cases, the elders alone 
 can form a quorum of Church Sessions. See 
 chap. ix. sec. 3, 4. This fact also shows con- 
 clusively, that the presence of both ministers 
 and elders is not essential to a quorum of each 
 and all of our church courts, because they con- 
 sist of both ministers and elders. See Presby- 
 terian for February 17, 1844. 
 
 If then the answer given by the last Genei - 
 
 al Assembly is sustained by the plain meaning 
 of the words in which the rule is expressed, by 
 the practice of our own Church from its first 
 existence to the present time, by the uniform 
 practice of the Church of Scotland, by the prac- 
 tice of other bodies similarly composed, by our 
 own rule respecting a quorum of the General 
 Assembly, and also by the rule in regard to the 
 quorum of a church session : can more evi- 
 dence be needed, that under the rule given in 
 chapter x, sec. 7, three ministers may be a quo- 
 rum of Presbytery ? 
 
 Against the decision in question the follow- 
 ing objections have been urged : 
 
 1. That the Church is to be governed by 
 Congregational, Classical, Synodical, and Ge- 
 neral Assemblies, composed of ministers and 
 ruling elders. But this is maintained as strenu- 
 ously by those who approve, as by those who 
 oppose, the decision of the Assembly; and it 
 has nothing to do with determining the ques- 
 tion, whether ministers alone may form a quo- 
 rum of a church court. Were there no express 
 law on the subject, nor usage, to determine, 
 how many and what persons shall constitute a 
 quorum of Presbytery ; " the law of common 
 j sense and of the common practice of delibera- 
 I tive bodies," to use the language of Dr. Breck- 
 inridge, would decide that a quorum must be 
 I composed of a majority of all the members. — 
 And then in case the elders present were a 
 majority of all the members, and were compe- 
 tent to the proper discharge of all the duties 
 assigned to the Presbytery, ihcy would be a 
 \ quorum, though not a minister were present; 
 I and on the other hand, in the absence of the 
 I elders, the ministers present, if a majority of 
 I the whole number belonging to the body, would 
 be a quorum. 
 
 2. That it is an adjudicated case, that there 
 
 j can be no lawful meeting of a church court 
 
 unless one or more elders be present ; and that 
 
 the decision of the last Assembly is completely 
 
 aside from the whole current of decisions. 
 
 " According to the settled law of the Scottish 
 Church," says Dr. Breckinridge, " every 
 church court, in which ruling elders do not sit 
 
32 
 
 is illegal, and all its acts aro null." That this 
 is not the case, is abundant'y evident, from 
 what was said above respecting the law and 
 practice of this Church. 
 
 3 The commission to attend the Westmin- 
 ster Assembly was composed of ministers and 
 elders. Upon this Dr. Breckinridge lays much 
 stress, but from some cause or other he omits 
 to mention, that according to the terms of the 
 act passed by the General Assembly of 1643 
 confirming the appointment of the General 
 Commission, " Any three of them whereof two 
 shall be ministers"were a quorum of the com- 
 mission ; and also another fact of much im- 
 portance mentioned by his own authority, 
 Baillie, that at one time the commission or its 
 quorum consisted of Rutherford, Gillespie, and 
 Baillie, all three ministers. In stating the 
 number requisite to a quorum, Baillie makes 
 no mention of the limitation that two at least 
 of the three must be ministers, and this omis- 
 sion led me, in my remarks on this point, to 
 say that the three elders could have been a 
 quorum. 
 
 4. The four exscinded Synods, their Pres- 
 byteries, and their churches, were declared to 
 be not Presbyterian, mainly upon the points 
 involved in this question respecting a quorum 
 of Presbytery. 
 
 To sustain this objection. Dr. Breckinridge 
 cannot adduce a particle of evidence from any 
 
 of the Acts of the Assembly of 1837, or from 
 any paper approved by that body. 
 
 The reason assigned for annulling the Plan 
 of Union, and for declaring the four Synods no 
 part of the Prcsbj terian Church was, that in 
 virtue of this plan, the Congregationalists con- 
 nected with these Synods were enabled to in- 
 terfere with our doctrine and discipline, and in 
 some cases had actually done so. 
 
 In this communication I have presented the 
 proposed outline of the argument in favour of 
 the decision of the last Assembly respecting 
 the quorum of Presbytery ; also an outline of 
 the principal objections to that decision : and 
 although my communications may have proved 
 as tiresome to the reader as to myself, I indulge 
 the hope that they will in some degree sub- 
 serve the interests of the Church. 
 
 As to the question whether it is expedient 
 or inexpedient to alter the rule, I have no zeal 
 whatever ; and for one I am perfectly willing 
 to yield in this matter to the wishes of even a 
 minority, deeming it in itself a question of but 
 little moment, and important only bectuse it 
 has been laid hold of as the occasion for a vio- 
 lent assault upon the last Assembly, and for 
 denouncing that body in no very measured 
 terms, as countenanciiig views which have a 
 tendency to establish a hierarchy, to degrade 
 the eldership and to destroy the liberties of the 
 church. 
 
33 
 
 IMPOSITION OF HANDS. 
 
 No. XL 
 
 Jjjril 13. 
 In this communication I shall enter upon an 
 examination of Dr. Breckinridge's argument 
 to prove that the decision of the last Assembly, 
 respecting the imposition of hands, is contrary 
 to the Constitution of our church. What 
 was that decision 1 In reply to an overture 
 from the West Lexington Presbyteiy, the As- 
 sembly adopted the following minute : •' Re- 
 solved, That it is the judgment of this Gene- 
 ral Assembly, that neither the constitution nor 
 the practice of our church authorizes Ruling 
 Elders to impose hands in the ordination of 
 ministers." 
 
 The first reason assigned bj"- Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge for seeking to have this judgment set 
 aside is this. That by the Constitution, the 
 power of ordaining ministers is lodged in the 
 Presbytery, and that the Presbytery consists 
 of ministers and ruling elders. 
 
 " Where," says Dr. Breckinridge, " is the 
 power of ordaining ministers of the word 
 lodged under our constitution 1 ' The Pres- 
 bytery has power ... to ordain, install, re- 
 move and judge ministers, (Form of Govern- 
 ment, ch. X. sec. 8.) What Presbytery ! Why, 
 sir, beyond all doubt, that Presbytery which is 
 
 . . . . declared to consist of ministers 
 and ruling elders. (Ch. x. sec. 1,2.)" But 
 why did not Dr. Breckinridge, in this reference 
 to the Form of Government, give us the very 
 words of the sections referred to 1 Would an 
 exact quotation spoil his argument? After 
 setting forth "the importance and usefulness of 
 presbyterial and s)'nodicaI assemblies,"it is said, 
 " A Presbytery consists of all the ministers, 
 and one ruling elder from each congregation 
 within a certain district." And let the reader 
 bear this in mind, when Dr. Breckinridge asks, 
 " Why, sir, would you stultify our fathers 1 
 JDid Uiey first define with the utmost clearness 
 
 the term Presbytery, then invest the bsdy 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 do- 
 zen times in its defined sense, and then with- 
 out notice or motive, use the same word in 
 the same chapter, and touching the same busi- 
 ness, in a sense not only inconsistent with 
 their definition of it, and their constant use of 
 it, but in a sense flatly contrary to both 1 The 
 tiding is supremely absurd." From this it is 
 evident that Dr. Breckinridge maintains that 
 the framers of our constitution always use the 
 term Presbytery in the sense assigned to it in 
 ch X. 2, and that to deny this is to stultify 
 our fathers, and is also perfectly absurd. Be 
 it so then: and of course no man can be or- 
 dained except by the imposition of the hands 
 of the Presbytery, that is, " of all ministers 
 and one ruling elder from each congregation 
 within a certain district." This, according to 
 Dr. Breckinridge's logic, must be the case, for 
 the framers of the constitution according to 
 his own showing always use the term Presby- 
 tery agreeably to the above definition. Upon 
 this construction of the rule, how many regu- 
 larly ordained ministers are there in the whole 
 Presbyterian church 1 Is there one } If not, 
 how "supremely absurd" is Dr. Breckinridge's 
 gratuitous assumption that in the chapter on or- 
 dination the teim Presbytery is constantly used 
 in its defined sense as given in ch. x. sec, 2., 
 which defines merely how many and what 
 persons may be members of a Presbytery. 
 
 The same mistake is made in this part of 
 his argument that pervades his whole speech 
 on the quorum question ; viz., because a Pres- 
 bytery is said, in our Form of Government, to 
 consist of all the ministers, and one ruling elder 
 from each congregation within a certain district, 
 he assumes that the ministers alone can never 
 in any case be spoken of as a Presbytery. But 
 
34 
 
 what is a Presbjtery ? It is nothing more or 
 less than a body of presbyters regularly asso- 
 ciated, and invested with certain powers. 
 
 tery, than the absence of sundry ministers and 
 elders belonging ro the Presbyter}' proves that 
 it is not the act of the Presbytery. The ar- 
 
 This is the simplest and at the same time the j gument of Dr. Breckinridge, that the laying 
 
 most comprehensive definition of the term. 
 It includes the parochial, the classical, the sy- 
 nodical, and the general assemblies, all of 
 which are bodies of presbyters regularly asso- 
 ciated, and invested with cettain powers. The 
 first of these may be constituted for business 
 of elders alone, the others of ministers alone, 
 when thus conslituted they are nevertheless 
 and undeniably bodies of presbyters. But it 
 is the classical presbytery only to which the 
 present discussion has respect, and which, in 
 our standards and in popular language, is 
 spoken of as the Presbytery. According to 
 ch. X. sec. 2, of our Form of Government this 
 body of presbyters " consists of all the minis- 
 ters and one ruling elder from each congrega- 
 tion within a certain district." This section, 
 as already observed, merely points out all who 
 belong to the body and have a right to take 
 part in its proceedings ; and determines nothing 
 as to the fact whether the ministers alone are 
 ever spoken of as the Presbytery. 
 
 Had Dr. Breckinridge said that the framers 
 of our constitution constantly used the term 
 Presbytery to denote the same body of pres- 
 byters, he would have stated the fact precisely 
 as it is. For it is the same body, whether, at 
 any given meeting, or upon any given occa- 
 sion, " all the ministers and one luling elder 
 from each congregation within a certain dis- 
 trict" be present ; or only a quorum, or a suf- 
 ficient number of these presbyters to proceed 
 to business, though those present should not 
 be a tithe of the whole number belonging to 
 the body. 
 
 Again, it is the same body, when the minis- 
 
 on of the hands of the ministers is not the lay- 
 ing on of the hands of the Presbytery, to make 
 jt valid, requires two assumptions, 1. that there 
 can be no meeting of Presbytery without both 
 ministers and elders being present, and 2. that 
 nothing can be said to be done by the Presby- 
 tery unless both ministers and elders take part 
 in the doing of it, as well as in deciding that 
 it shall be done. His mode of sustaining the 
 first of these assumptions involves the absurdi- 
 ty, that there can be no meeting of Presbytery 
 unless all who belong to it be present : not in- 
 deed that Dr. Breckinridge admits this to be 
 the case, yet it is the legitimate inference from 
 his position that the framers of the constitution 
 constantly uso the term Presbytery in the 
 sense defined in ch. x. 2. " A Presbytery 
 consists of all the ministers and one ruling el- 
 der from each congregation within a certain 
 district." Without the second assumption he 
 could not for a moment take the ground that 
 in the phrase, " with the laying on of the hands 
 of the Presbytery," the term Presbytery must 
 mean both ministers and elders. The form of 
 government agreed upon by the Westminster 
 Assembly says " Ordination is the act of a 
 Presbytery," it also says, "The Presbytery. . 
 . . . shall solemnly set him (i. e. the can- 
 didate,) apart to the office and work of the min- 
 istry, by laying their hands on him." And yet 
 again it says, " Every minister of the word is to 
 be ordained by imposition of bands and prayer, 
 with fasting, by those preaching elders to whom 
 it doth belong." The Presbytery of this Form 
 of Government, from which our own is chiefly 
 derived, consists of ministers and ruling elders, 
 
 ters alone, in the presence, and with the con- and yet while by this Form of Government 
 
 currence of the ruling elders, solemnly declare, 
 by the laying on of their hands upon the head 
 of a candidate for the holy ministry, that such 
 candidate is set apart to this sacred office. The 
 fact that ruling ciders take no part in this cer- 
 emony of imposing hands, no more proves 
 that the act itself is not (he act of the Presby- 
 
 the imposition of hands is in express terms 
 limited to preaching elders, it is also said in 
 express terms " the Presbytery or the minis- 
 ters sent for the purpose, shall lay their hands 
 on the candidate to be ordained," and moreover 
 ordination itself, of which the imposition of 
 hands is one of the ceremonies, is called " the 
 
35 
 
 act of a Presbytery." In these passages does 
 the term Presbytery denote different bodies or 
 the same body ? If the same body, then we 
 may safely admit tliat throughout the whole 
 chapter on ordination, in our own formulary, 
 the term "Presbytery" always means the same 
 body, and yet be able to maintain that " the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," is 
 to be confined to the ministers, acting with the 
 concurrence of the ruling elders who may be 
 present. Calderwood, in his " Altare Damas- 
 cenum" a standard work in the Scotch Church, 
 and a work written in defence of Presbyterian 
 government, and published in 1623, says, 
 " For the imposition of hands can be called 
 the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, 
 although all and each in the Presbytery have 
 not the power of imposing hands." Steuart 
 of Pardovan says, " Ordination is the solemn 
 act of the Presbytery, setting apart a person 
 to some church office." Again he says, " A 
 Presbytery consists of all the pastors within 
 the bounds and one ruling elder from each 
 parish therein." And in the usual or pre- 
 scribed form for recording the ordination, these 
 words occur, " the said Presbytery did deter- 
 mine to meet at the Kirk of ... . the 
 brethren met presbyterially, taking the whole 
 matter to consideration, as said is, did then and 
 there, in due order and with all requisite for- 
 malities, solemnly ordain, admit and set apart, 
 by imposition of hands and prayer, the said 
 
 Mr. ." Who ordained the candidate by 
 
 the imposition of hands i* the Presbytery. And 
 is this the same Presbytery before which he 
 underwent his trials for ordination, and by 
 which he is adjudged to be qualified to be a 
 minister of the gospel ? Yes, beyond all ques- 
 tion. Then it follows that " the laying on of 
 the hands of the ministers is the laying on of 
 the hands of the Presbytery," for beyond all 
 possibiUty of disputing the fact, the ministers 
 alone, according to Steuart, or rather accord- 
 ing to the law and practice of the Church of 
 Scotland, as stated by Steuart, imposed hands. 
 (See Steuart, 1. 124.) 
 
 So then we see that it was not without mo- 
 tive the framers of our constitution introduced 
 
 into the Directory for Ordination, the words, 
 " the laying on of the hands of the Presbyte- 
 ry," understanding thereby the hands of the 
 ministers, who acting together, in the perform- 
 ance of ministerial and doing so by order of 
 the entire Presbytery, are to be accounted 
 for the occasion the Presbytery, 
 
 With respect to the person to be ordained. 
 Dr. Breckinridge asks and answers the ques- 
 tion. "Who shall ordain him? ^ The pre- 
 siding minister,' in the name, by the authority 
 with the concurrence, in the bosom of the con- 
 stituted Presbytery, as its moderator — and not 
 otherwise." Be it so; that ordination by the 
 presiding minister is ordination by the Pres- 
 bytery. Why then may not the laying on of 
 the hands of the ministers, with equal propri- 
 ety be called, as it always has been called, " the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery ?" 
 
 When after the ordination of a minister his 
 co-presbyters say to him, " We give you the 
 right hand of fellowship, to take part of this 
 ministry with us," Dr. Breckinridge, unmind- 
 ful of the canon laid down by himself for the 
 right understanding of the word Presbytery, 
 finds no difficulty in maintaining that the term 
 ministry does not mean simply the ministry 
 of the -word, in which sense alone it is ever 
 used in our Form of Government : and he as- 
 serts that it is here to be taken in a large sense, 
 as including the ruling as well as the preach- 
 ing elders. And because those from whom he 
 dissents as to the meaning of the term in this 
 passage, maintain that it is here limited to the 
 ministers of the word : he asks, " And has it 
 really come to this, that the ministry is no 
 longer a service, vunister no longer a ser- 
 vant.''" But what means this question ? Is it 
 intended to fmake the reader beheve, that those 
 who do not agree with him deny that the min- 
 isters of the word are the servants of Christ 
 and his Church ? I would hope that this is 
 not its design. But at the best it is an absurd 
 question, and the more so, as those whom he 
 thus assails maintain that the ministers alone 
 are called servants, and that the ruling ciders 
 are never thus designated. Dr. Breckinridge 
 admits that the word ministry is no doubt, in 
 
36 
 
 its popular use often, perhaps generally .applied 
 to the ministers of the word ; and that it is so 
 used in the very chapter which treats of the | 
 ordination of ministers is a fact beyond all dis- 
 pute. To adopt then Dr. Breckinridge's mode 
 of reasoning, will you stultify our fathers, by 
 supposing, that in a long chapter treating of 
 ordination, they have used the terms ministrij 
 and 7ninisters, the one three and the other fif- 
 teen times, in their popular and generally re- 
 ceived meanings, and that, " without notice or 
 motive," they have used the word ministry in 
 the same chapter and touching the same busi- 
 ness, in a sense different from its n^eaning in 
 every other part of the Form of Government ? 
 That the term ministry in the salutation ad- 
 dressed to the newly ordained minister denotes 
 the ministry of the word is evident also from 
 the following facts: 1. That the use of the 
 pronoun this limits the term ministry to the 
 very ministry to which the person addressed is 
 ordained. 2. That the words " take part of 
 this ministry" are borrowed from Acts i. 25, 
 where they are used in reference to the ordi- 
 nary ministry of the Apostles, which was the 
 ministry of the word, 3. That our fathers 
 were wont to use this very expression, " to 
 take part of this ministry with us," when, as 
 is^conceded by all, only ministers gave the right 
 hand of fellowship. 
 
 From the circumstance that our directory 
 for ordination does not absolutely and uncon- 
 ditionally enjoin the use of the words, " Wc 
 give you the right hand of fellowship to take 
 part of this ministry with us, but only of words 
 to this purpose, it is argued by Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge and others, that although the term min- 
 istry is to be understood as limited to the min- 
 istry of the word, yet under the provisions of 
 the rule, some other suitable word could be 
 substituted for the word ministry which the 
 ruling elder might use. As to the " suitable 
 word" which might be substituted, Dr. Breck- 
 inridge ventures no suggestion : and he would, 
 I apprehend, find it to be no easy task to sug- 
 gest a form of words, which a ruling elder 
 might with propriety use, and which would be 
 of the same purport with the words given in 
 
 the rule itself. These show that those who 
 welcome the newly ordained minister to their 
 fellowship as their fellow-servant must be them- 
 selves ministers of the word. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge, and several others who 
 could be named, were ruling elders before they 
 were ordained ministers of the word. Would 
 it have been anything better than an idle cere- 
 mony for the elders present to have said to such 
 an one, " We give you the right hand of fel- 
 lowship to take part of this ministry with us," 
 or as they are authorized to say to a newly 
 ordained elder, " of this office with us," when 
 the person thus addressed had been for a 
 greater or less length of time in the very office 
 to which he is now welcomed, and upon which 
 he is supposed to have just entered •* I need 
 scarcely add, that the entirely different forms 
 prescribed in our constitution, for the ordination 
 of ministers and ruling elders, show most con- 
 clusively, that it is no part of the theory of 
 government set forth in our standards, whatev- 
 er connexion it may have with Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge's own peculiar views, that if a ruling el. 
 der should be called to be a preacher, he re- 
 quires no new ordination, before entering upon 
 his new office : and the fact that under our 
 Form of Government a ruling elder must bo 
 again ordained, and that too by the laying on 
 of the hands of the Presbytery, and the ad- 
 ditional fact that after his ordination his co- 
 presbytcrs are required to welcome him to 
 this ministry, which can be no other than the 
 gospel ministry, are of themselves sufficient to 
 establish the position, that in giving this salu- 
 tation none but ministers are to take part ; 
 and unless the rule is made to contradict itself, 
 " all the members of the Presbytery" who give 
 this salutation must mean only those whom 
 Steuart speaks of as ilie radical members of the 
 body. His words are " Presbyteries are radi- 
 cal as to the pastors, delegate as to the ruling 
 elders." 
 
 Some scehi to imagine that the use of the 
 words "all the members of the Presbytery," 
 in ch. XV. 14, is sufficient to settle th; ques- 
 tion in favour of ruling elders having a right 
 to take part in the ceremonies of ordination. 
 
37 
 
 A sufficient answer to this is the fact that in 
 other parts of the Form of Government, min- 
 isters alone are spoken of as members of the 
 Piesbytery, (see cb. x. 9, xv. 12, xvi. 6,) and in 
 the Boole of Discipline, ch v., " Of process 
 against a bishop or minister." The ministers 
 of a Presbytery are spoken of as being " all its 
 members." If in the passage here referred 
 to, " all its members" mean only all the minii" 
 ters, as beyond all possibility of dispute is the 
 fact, what is to hinder the words "all the 
 members" in the first cited passage from mean- 
 ing only the ministers ? 
 
 It has also been urged, that in the old Scot- 
 tish form, as found in Pardovan, the words are, 
 " all the ministers of the Presbytery take the 
 person ordained by the right hand," &c., and 
 that in our Form of Government the word 
 members was substituted for the very purpose 
 of allowing ruling elders to give the righl 
 hand of fellowship. But was not precisely the 
 same change made in the case of the person who 
 is appointed to recite to the people the pro- 
 ceedings of the Presbytery preparatory to the 
 ordination T In Steuart the language is^" the 
 minister from the pulpit," &c. In our Form 
 of Government, the words are, " The same or 
 another member shall briefly recite from the 
 pulpit." In making this change was there any 
 purpose to authorize a ruling elder to perform 
 this part of the ordination service and to make 
 the ordaining prayer ? The fact is that the 
 framers of our constitution frequently use the 
 term members as synonimous wifh ministers 
 and that they were accustomed to speak of the 
 laying on of the hands of the ministers as the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, and 
 to account for the change in the terms requires 
 no such violent hypothesis as the one above- 
 mentioned, viz., that the word members was 
 substituted for ministers, for the purpose of 
 enabling ruling elders to exercise what Dr. 
 Breckinridge insists is their right and duty in 
 relation to the imposition of hands, in the or- 
 <lin3tioR of ministers. 
 
 XII. 
 
 .ipril 20, 
 Another reason urged by Dr. Breckinridge 
 with much earnestness, why the decision of 
 the last Assembly, respecting the imposition, 
 should be rescinded, is this, that the imposi- 
 tion of hands, with every other part of ordi- 
 nation is a Presbyterial, that is a joint power. 
 If by ^'- joint power" be understood a power 
 which in ordinary circumstances is not to be 
 exercised by an individual minister, in the or- 
 dination of ministers, without the concurrence 
 of his brethren already in the ministry, the 
 power in question is undoubtedly a joint power. 
 And again, if by "joint power" be understood 
 a power, which under a presbyterian form o^ 
 government, and in a settled state of the church 
 is not to be exercised by the ministers of a 
 classical Presbytery, for the ordination of a 
 minister of the gospel, without the implied 
 consent at least, of " the representatives of the 
 people, usually styled ruling elders," (see Form 
 of Government, ch. iii. 4, and ch. v. 3,) the 
 power to ordain with the imposition of hands 
 is a "joint power." But in no other sense 
 than those given above, is it a joint power, 
 nor has it been so regarded by presbyterian 
 writers who make the distinction, to which Dr. 
 Breckinridge refers, between a joint and a sev- 
 eral power, and who include in the power of 
 regimen both "the power of order," which 
 Dr. Breckinridge calls "a several power," 
 and " the power of discipline or jurisdiction" 
 which is "a. joint power." In the second 
 Book of Discipline they are called, one " po- 
 testas ordinis," and the other " potestas juris- 
 dictionis." And in the treatise entitled "Jus 
 Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiasticae," or.' " The 
 Divine Right of Church Government," pub- 
 lished first in 1646, the same distinction is 
 made, and the same and analogous forms of 
 expression are used to denote that distinction. 
 According to this treatise the power exercised 
 by ministers only, and in virtue of their office 
 as ministers of the word, is called " the power 
 of order" or the " key of doctrine" &c., and 
 the power exercised by them with the concur- 
 rence of the ruling elders is called " the power 
 
38 
 
 of jurisdiction," or the "key of Jiscipline." In 
 making this distinction between joint and seve- 
 ral power, these works do not teach, that in all 
 matters pertaining to the joint power of min- 
 isters and ruling elders, these two classes of 
 officers have equal powers, hut merely this, 
 that the power coinniilted to the ministers, for 
 certain purposes, and among these is the ordi- 
 nation of ministers, is not to be exercised un- 
 less with the express or implied consent of the 
 ruling elders, who, to use the language of our 
 own Form of Government, " arc properly the 
 representatives of the people, chosen by them 
 for the purpose of exercising government and 
 discipline, in conjunction with pastors or min- 
 isters." — (Ch. V.) The fact, therefore, that 
 the power of ordination is " a Joint power" 
 furnishes no ground for the conclusion, that 
 the ruling elders, who at any given meeting of 
 the Presbytery may concur in a vote to ordain 
 a candidate for the ministry, have a right to 
 take part in the ordination. This is the doc- 
 trine of our standards, in reference to the or- 
 dination of ministers not indeed in formal and 
 express terms, but couched in language which 
 clearly implies it. And this too, is the doc- 
 trine of the Form of Government agreed upon 
 by the Westminster Assembly. 
 
 " Ordination is the act of a Presbytery." 
 
 " The power of ordering the whole work of 
 ordination is in the whole Presbytery," &c. 
 
 " Ordination is the solemn setting apart of 
 a person to some public church office." 
 
 " Every minister of the word is to be or- 
 dained by the imposition of hands, and prayer, 
 with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to 
 whom it doth belong." — (See Form of Gov- 
 ernment agreed upon by the Westminster As- 
 sembly—" Of the Ordination of Ministers.") 
 
 According to tho Westminster Assembly 
 then, the power to ordain pertains to "the 
 whole Presbytery ;" or in other words, it is a 
 joint power, and yet this hinders not, that the 
 imposition of hands should be by the ministers 
 
 only. 
 
 The second book of Discipline, so much 
 lauded by Dr. Breckinridge, teaches the same 
 ^doctrine in reference to matters which pertain 
 
 to " the joint power" of ministers and elders. In 
 this work we find the following language, " It 
 appertains to the minister, after lawful pro- 
 ceeding by the eldership, to pronounce the sen- 
 tence of binding and loosing upon any person, 
 according unto the power of the keys granted 
 unto the kirk." " And generally all public 
 denunciations that are to be made in the kirk 
 before the congregation concerning ecclesiasti- 
 cal affairs, belong to the oflice of a minister ; 
 for he is as a messenger between God and the 
 people in all these affairs. See 2d Book of 
 Discipline, chap. iv. 
 
 Steuart of Pardovan says, " Ordination is 
 the solemn act of the Presbytery setting apart 
 a person to some public church office." And 
 again, " The duties of elders which are more 
 public are these which lie upon them in the 
 Assemblies of the church; in which ruling 
 elders have a right to reason and vote in all 
 matters coming before them even as ministers 
 
 have Howbeit, by the practice 
 
 of the church the execution of some decrees of 
 the church doth belong to the pastors only, 
 such as the imposition of hands, the pronounc- 
 ing the sentences of excommunication and 
 absolution, the receiving of penitents, the inti- 
 mation of sentences and censures about minis- 
 ters and such like." Here then we see that 
 though " to ordain" pertains " to the power of 
 jurisdiction," yet that it was the practice of the 
 Church of Scotland to confine the imposition 
 of hands to the ministers; and this shows that 
 the argument of Dr. Breckinridge fails to estab- 
 lish his point, foi although ordination pertains 
 to the power of jurisdiction, called by Dr. Breck- 
 inridge the " power of regimen," the ceremony 
 of imposing hands appertains to the power of 
 order. 
 
 In a work published at London, in 1654, by 
 the Provincial Assembly of London, and evi- 
 dently written in support of the views main- 
 tained by the Westminster Assembly, wc 
 find the following propositions maintained. 
 " Ordination of ministers ought to be by the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 
 
 " By the Presbytery is meant a College or 
 company of Presbyters." 
 
39 
 
 "That the power of ordering the whole 
 work of ordination belongs to the whole Pres- 
 byterj, that is, to the Teaching and Ruling El- 
 ders. But Imposition of hands is to be always 
 by the Preaching Presbyters, and the rather, be- 
 cause it is accompanied with prayer and ex- 
 hortation, both before, in, and after, which is 
 the proper work of the teaching elder." See 
 "Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici," or "the 
 Divine Rights of the Gospel ministry," chap, 
 xiii. 
 
 Agpin speaking of the purpose for which 
 imposition of hands is used, the members of 
 the Provincial .\ssembly say, " We use it not 
 as an operative ceremony but as a moral sign, 
 to declare publicly who the party is, that is 
 solemnly set apart to the work of the minis- 
 try." 
 
 Thus we see, that while the members of the 
 Provincial Assembly disclaim all idea of im- 
 posing hands as " an operative ceremony" the 
 "opus operatum" of Dr. Breckinridse, they 
 maintain that ordination "ought to be by the 
 laying on of the hands of Piesbytery," and at 
 the same time they hold that the imposition of 
 hands pertains to ministers only. 
 
 We have the same doctrine in the " Jus 
 Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici," or " the 
 Divine Right of Church Government," the de- 
 sign of which is to prove that " The Presbyte- 
 rial government by preaching and ruling pres- 
 byters, in Congregational, Classical and Sy- 
 nodical Assemblies may lay the truest claim 
 to a Divine right according to the scriptures." 
 This work is the production of" sundry minis- 
 ters of Christ in the city of London, and as pre- 
 viously mentioned was published iirst in 1646. 
 It is highly commended by Baillie in a letter, 
 of the date of Jany. 26, 1647, to his corres- 
 pondent Mr. Spang.* 
 
 In this work we find the following passages, 
 "Ordinances appertaining to the Key of Juris- 
 diction or of Discipline, viz : 
 
 • This letter not only shows the high esteem 
 in which this work was held, but also that the 
 " Form of Government" agreed upon at West- 
 minster was the form desired by the Scottish 
 Commissioners. 
 
 1. The Ordination of Presbyters with the im- 
 position of the hands of the Presbytery," &c. 
 
 " The Apostles themselves thus sent forth 
 by Christ, did themselves send forth others into 
 the Mirdstry with imposition of hands." 
 
 " Now the Apostles having ordained some, 
 gave them commands and directions for ordain- 
 ing others after them," &c. 
 
 " So then it is plain, that the scripture way, 
 the Apostolical course of separating men unto 
 the Ministerial Function was by Ordination 
 with imposition of the liands of the Apostles 
 upon Presbyters, and oi these Presbyters upon 
 other Presbyters and so on successively." 
 
 From these passages it is evident that the 
 authors of this work leach, 1. That Ordination 
 pertains to the joint power of Ministers and 
 Ruling Elders, for it is the first ordinance 
 assigned by them to " the Key of Jurisdiction," 
 the name given by them to that power in the 
 exercise of which "Ruling Elders may act 
 with Ministers. 2. That Ministers are to be 
 ordained by the imposition of the hands of 
 Presbyters, who were themselves ordained by 
 imposition of hands to the work of the minis- 
 try." That none of the Presbyters here spo- 
 ken of are Ruling Elders, is farther evident 
 from the following passage, " For though it is 
 not the custom of the Reformed Churches to 
 impose hands upon Ruling Elders, (which is 
 a rite observed in the ordination of Pastors 
 after the example of the Apostolical churches,) 
 yet they have the substance of ordination and 
 mission, being examined and approved by a 
 Presbytery," &c. 
 
 Do not the works cited above teach in as 
 strong terms as our own form of government, 
 that the power to ordain is " a joiiit power?" 
 and yet it is evident, they utterly repudiate the 
 idea that any others than the preaching Pres- 
 byters are to take part in imposition of hands. 
 I have dwelt the longer on this part of Dr. 
 Breckinridge's argument because it is the only 
 part that has much plausibility,— a plausibility 
 arising solely from the fact, that in a settled 
 state of the church like our own, the power to 
 ordain cannot be exercised by the ministers 
 without the implied consent at least, of the 
 
40 
 
 Ruling Elders, and in this sense alone under ( This view of the source of their power, and 
 our Form of Government is the power to or- of its first receptacle in ordinary cases is con- 
 dain "a Joint power." ! firmed by " The Second Book, of Discipline," 
 
 In a settled state of things no Presbyterian 6cc. 
 would for a moment think of claiming for the \ " The kirk of God sometimes is taken large- 
 members of a single church, or for several ly for all them who profess the evangel of Je- 
 churches combined, the right to ordain a man sus Christ. . . . Other limes it is taken 
 to the gospel ministry, either by their direct for the godly and elect only, and sometimes 
 act, or mediately through their representatives, /or those ivho exercise spiritual function in 
 
 be they even Ruling Elders. How then can 
 
 the delegation of these represcniatives to a' members of Presbytery in virtue of their office, 
 
 meeting of Prcshyterv add to their powers as but only in virtue ol their being delegated by 
 
 - , ' , . . 1 , . ■. u the individual churches of swhich they are 
 
 representatives of the people ? And let it be ^^j^j^^^.^^ ,^„j 1^^ contends that " Presbyte- 
 
 remembered, that by whatever name they are ^jgg ^^^ properly composed of parishes, con- 
 called, Ruling Elders appear in our church j gregations, particular churches, and not of min- 
 courts only in their distinctive character as asters," and he undertakes to show that this 
 •' ^ , , „ , . V is the doctrine of our own constitution. Uut 
 
 « representatives of the people, (see ch. v.) ^,^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ p^^^^ of Government— "A Pres- 
 
 a most honourable distinction indeed, but one bvtery consists of all the ministers and one 
 which confers upon them no ministerial pow- 1 ruling elder from each congregation within a 
 
 . , .„ , , 1 • V. • .1, certain district." And it is worth one's while 
 
 er. And if the power to ordain be in the ceridin uui.ili. .i.m p^^Hn 
 
 . . to notice how, m one instance, JJr. tJrecKin- 
 Presbytery, and to this I fully assent, it is I jj^^ ^^^jp^^^^^g ^^PQ^hj^g his own " proper" 
 there because it belongs to the ministers, the Jefinilion of the term Presbytery, with the de- 
 permanent or radical members of the body ; I finition given in our Form of Government. 
 * , . . , . .V , I, „,u„„ .u„ Having cited the words " The Presbytery has 
 
 they being the presbyters through "'hom the j ^^^^^"^^ ^^^^.^^ „ ,^^^^,^^ „ ^^.^^^^ p^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 church is to exert her power to ordain ministers i^l^y gjrjjgyon J all joul,t that 
 
 as they may be found qualified and be needed. ! Presbytery defined in the same chapter which 
 With respect to the exercise cf this power, the \ declares its power to ordain, as being lomposed 
 „,._,,,, • u . .u ;. of manii seharate congregations, .... 
 
 Ruling Elders have a voice, but the power it- , J^^ ^JJ^ ^^ ^^^^J^ of ministers and rn- 
 
 sclf they cannot exert. In a given case, if i //„^ e/,/e,.s._(Ch. x. sec. 1,2,3.)" Pray tell 
 they outnumbered the ministers of a presby- us, if "to consist" does not mean in this con- 
 tery, they might require the ministers to or- , nexion, "to be composed of," and does Dr. 
 •^ , . . , J Breckinridge expect to fasten upon the Ira- 
 
 dain a man contrary to their own judgment i ^^^^ ^^ ^^'^^ constitution, the absurdity of giv- 
 ofwhat is expedient; but still the power to i j^^jg. ^^ ^^^^ jjl|-grent definitions in two conligu- 
 ordain would be confined to the ministers, who - ous sections of our Form of Government, the 
 would be bound to comply with the vote of ! first of which merely points out the importance 
 *•'.., ,, , :and usefulness of Piesbyteries and Synods, 
 
 the body unless for reasons which would ob- ^^^ ^j^^ ^^^^^j ^^^^^^^^ who and how many are 
 
 •viously justify a refusal and an appeal to a j^ compose a Presbytery? 'J'he wants of the 
 higher court. A case not indeed to be looked i several churches may require the formation of 
 for, but yet one that is possible. Presl^teries, as stated in section 1 of ch. x 
 
 ' . ; , , , , , . . , 1 ! but this IS very far from aflirming that Pres- 
 
 If It be asked, whence do the ministers dc- ,,^,^^1^,^ ^^^ proper!,/ composed of parishes, 
 rive their power, I answer directly fiom the i (.(jporegations, particular churches," nor is any 
 Head of the Church. Their election by the i such thing atlirniod in section 1. When a 
 
 . , .-...• 4i I nnrticular church has need of council and as- 
 
 peop e does not give them their power, though pnriii-ui.ii "-"u.^ . /r,„„,, „.„ 
 
 i"'"y"' ^ 1 ' " ! sislance beyond that which is own ofTicers can 
 
 ordinarily it precedes the conferring of the 
 power bestowed upon them at their ordina- 
 tion.* 
 
 give, by means of a Presbytery it may obtain 
 the counsel and assistance of the ministers and 
 ruling ciders of which the Presbytery consisU. 
 And were we to grant that the term Presbyte- 
 ♦In his speech on the Quorum Question, ry is sometimes used to denote the several 
 Dr. Breckinridge insists that ministers are not churches, connected wit^ it, and whoso rcpre- 
 
41 
 
 the^^congresation of them ^vho profess the ( It assigns to the elders the rank and duties 
 
 ' ... I assigned to them in the Form of Government. 
 
 i he knk ^« //.-, last sense has certain po^- ; For proof, see eh. iii. 2. " The ordinary and 
 
 er granted by God, according to the which it perpetual officers in the church are the bishops, 
 
 uses a proper jurisdiction and government ex- i or pastors, the representatives of the people, 
 
 ercised to the comfort of the whole kirk." . . | usually s,y led /..//..o- ^W,,., and the dea- 
 
 The pohcy of the kirk flowing from this eons." " Ruling Elders are properly there- 
 
 firLieW."- ■;:' r;'""^^'^^-'^ ^« '^^ 0. I 3entativesofthe people, chosen by them for 
 
 rp> .,, T^- • r.' . ' purpose of e.xercising government and 
 
 ine "Jus Divmum KeEimmis ErcIesiatitiVi" i: • r • • ■ 
 
 ,„, . ,. , . «""""* ^cciesiastici discipline, in conjunction with pastors or 
 
 eaches the same doctrine, (see ch. xi. sec. 2.) | ,i„i,ters. This office has been understood, 
 Of the first receptacleof the power of Church^by a great part of the Protestant Reformed 
 uovernment, viz. Christ's own officers." i rhnr^i,„c . k j • ■ i • u , , 
 
 rp. . . , , ' ^iuirches, to be designated in the holy scrip- 
 
 i He ministers though chosen by the neonle tnm^ i„r .i,« <-.i e r^ , - 
 
 ,, , ^ "'^l^t^opie tuics, by the title of Governments, and of 
 
 are never called representatives of the people, 
 either in our own or any other form of Pres- 
 byterian government. But' in our own, it is 
 
 those who rule well, but do not labour in word 
 and doctrine."— (See ch. v.) Here, as before 
 remarked, it is most distinctly affirmed that 
 
 ^;m:„„,i re 1 L T, ,. ^ - - 1 icmuiKtru, ic is mosi distinctly attirmed that 
 
 distinctly affirmed that Ruhng Elders are /j;o- ti,„„ , , 
 
 . . ,, . . , 8 ^i"t-rsare/j;o -they are properly the representatives of the 
 
 /'e;V^ the representatives of the peonle audi n '„„^ I im • xi ' • , ' . . 
 
 ,„ _ „ ... , . . ,. I^POP'^' and in people. 1 his then is their distinctive charac- 
 
 ailmatterswithinthejurisdiction of our church tor Th„ . ,. i i ■ l 
 
 ^^„„,,.„ , •' . ""r cnurcn [ ter. They are not called bishops, pastors, min- 
 
 court. they have asrepresentatives of the peo-listers, angels of the churches, ambassadors, 
 
 pie an equal right ..th the ministers to delib-! nor stewards of the mysteries of God, all 
 
 erate and to vote But this does not imply a i which titles are given to those in the 
 
 perfect equahty of power in all matters per- 1 pastoral office; nor are they called elders, ia 
 
 taming to the power or Key of Jurisdiction, ,he full import of this term as ministers are. 
 
 tjjat . the jomt power of ministers and ruling , For proof, compare sec. 1 of ch. iv. with sec. 
 
 This view of the subject is the only one ! p ^ 'Vn '"? "'f^^^'""' ""'"^"^ ''y^''^ 
 which gives a consistent construction to our I ^ ^"^ "^^"^ "'" '''°''" ^°' '^" P"^' 
 
 I pose of exercising government and discipline 
 I in conjunction with pastors or ministers, 
 j This office has been understood, .... 
 sentatives, viz., the ruling eiders, have a right i '° '^e designated ... by the title of gov- 
 
 Tr, Z ZT' r' "' '"'"r"' """"^ '" '"-'' P^"-' ' '•^"'"^"^^ ^"J °f 'h°^e who rule well." 
 in Its deliberations, might we not art^ue as Di- a 
 
 Breckinridge does, in reference to°lhete7m! '"eP'-escniatives of the people, they are, 
 
 ministry ? The word Presbytery is no doubt, I '^^^^^ delegated by their respective church ses- 
 in its popular use, sometimes applied to the' i ^'^'""s, permitted to take seats in Presbytery 
 n:ZS^:^e^;S^:^t^^;^:J::,-rt'^-^ V^^^; -^^hberate and votel ^J 
 and those of other Presbyterian cCches use ' '°"'™' *** '^' Presbytery. 
 
 It techmcallij to mean" a college or body ofP"'°^ *^'^ *^°"''* *^^y 3^"® ""ly members in 
 presbyters. Whether all the ministers and all ^'''•tue of their being delegates from their seve- 
 
 S^^h^:'^^:^;^;^^ -^ti' v!:i:^;:st' ^'"t" f r I' '-'"''''' -- -- 
 
 mgs of the body must depend upon the rule. ' '" "''''"' °^ ^^^'' ''^'''' ^" ^ ^^nce, both 
 
 of each church. As to what is the imnort of ^" PoP^lar language and in our Form of Gov. 
 
 oiir rnlpo nn fV.i'c ^«;.,. .i , ' I ... . . 
 
 constitution, and this fact furnishes conclu- 
 sive evidence that it is the correct view. 
 
 our rules on this point there can be no room 
 for doubt The doctrine of the VVeslminster 
 1-orm of Government respecting the compo- 
 sition of a Presbytery is the same as our own, 
 and lor two centuries it has been the Form of 
 Government of the Scottish Church 
 
 ernmenf, the ministers are alone spoken of as 
 members of the Presbytery, being the only 
 permanent or radical members of the body.— 
 See ch. X. 9.—" It shall be the duty of the 
 the Presbytery ... to report to the Sy- 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 nod every year, licenses, ordinations, the re- i 
 ceiving or dismissing of members, the remo- ! 
 val of members by death,'' &c. (See also ch. 
 XV. 12, and ch. xvi. 6, Book of Discipline, ch. 
 V, 1 and 2.) "As the honour and success of I 
 the gospel depend in a great measure on the 
 character of its mitastevs, each presbytery 
 ought, with the greatest care to watch over the 
 personal and prufessional conduct of all its 
 members. But as on the one hand, no minister 
 ought, on account of his office, to be screened 
 from the hand of justice, nor his offences to 
 be slightly censured ; so neither ought scan- 
 dalous charges to be received against him, by 
 any judicatory on slight grounds. Process 
 against a gospel minister shall always be en- 
 tered before the Presbytery of which he is a 
 member," Who are the persons embraced in 
 the phrase "all its members 1" Will any body 
 pretend that they are any others than the min- 
 isters, the permanent members of the body, 
 and who in certain connexions arc spoken of 
 as the Presbytery ? This view of the subject 
 removes all difficulty in regard to the rules re- 
 lating to the ordination of ministers. For it 
 enables us to reconcile at once all apparent 
 discrepancies, and it makes our rules to speak 
 a language consistent with the practice of our 
 own church, and of all other Presbyterian 
 churches, in confining the imposition of hands, 
 and the other ceremonies of ordination, to the 
 ministers of the Presbytery, and in styling 
 those who perlbrm these ceremonies the Pres- 
 bytery. If in our Book of Discipline, all the 
 members of a Presbytery can mean the min- 
 isters of the Presbytery, as beyond all dispute 
 is a fact, what, I again ask, is to hinder their 
 having the same meaning in our Form of Go- 
 vernment 1 
 
 The simplest idea of a Presbytery is, as has 
 been remarked, that of a convention of Pres- 
 byters, with these may be associated for cer- 
 tain purposes, in our classical presbyteries, 
 and other church courts, the representatives of 
 the people, who are, as our Form of Govern- 
 ment says, " usually styled ruling ciders." 
 Conjointly with the Piesbyters to whom is 
 committed the power of preaching the word,ad- 
 
 ministering the sacraments,ordaining ministers, 
 and administeiing discipline, ruling elders have 
 for matters pertaining strictly to government 
 and discipline a right to deliberate and vote in 
 all decisions made by the Presbytery, but here 
 their power ends. They have no power to 
 ordain, though jointly with the ministers, they 
 have a right to say whether a candidate shall 
 or shall not be ordained. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge maintains that ministers 
 ordain only as rulers, and that as rulers they 
 are on precisely the same footing with the ru- 
 ling elders, and further that they are both of 
 the same order of Presbyters, and that one 
 ordination is sufficient for both offices whether 
 the man be ordained a minister or a ruling el- 
 der. And not only so, but as ordination is a 
 joint power, an individual minister can in no 
 case ordain. What says our constitution res- 
 pecting the ordination of ruling elders. Who 
 ordains them, or in other words who sets them 
 apait to their office? "The minister shall 
 proceed to set apart the candidate by prayer to 
 the office of ruling elder." Where is Dr. 
 Breckinridge's joint power in this oidination ; 
 an ordination that in his view renders any other 
 ordination for the ministry unnecessary ? In 
 the revision made in 1821, a section was add- 
 ed to the chapter " Of electing and ordaining 
 ruling elders and deacons," in these words, 
 " Where there is an existing session, it is pro- 
 per for the members of that body, at the close 
 of the service, and in the face of the congre- 
 gation, to take the newly-ordained elder by the 
 hand saying in words to this purpose, We 
 give you the right hand of fellowship to take 
 part of this office with us." But not one word 
 respecting their taking part in the ordination 
 service, or their assenting to it, except as part 
 of the congregation. Dr. Breckinridge may, 
 if he chooses, contend that it ought to be 
 otherwise, I shall content myself with taking 
 the fact as it is. There is need, indeed, that 
 in the ordination of ministers, the ordaining 
 power should be exercised with greater caution 
 than may be requisite in the ordination of ru- 
 ling elders, for in virtue of his office the min- 
 ister himself is invented with the power of or- 
 
43 
 
 daining others, and becomes also a joint ruler 
 of the different churches connected with his 
 ''resb^'tery, and therefore in relation to the 
 ordination of ministers, it is highly expedient 
 that the power to ordain should be restricted 
 somewhat in its exercise, so that not only the 
 consent of the individual church, of which the 
 candidate may have been chosen pastor, 
 should be had, but also the consent of all 
 the other churches of the Presbytery should 
 be given through their representatives, the 
 ruling elders ; and further, it is altogeth- 
 er proper, that this power should not be 
 exercised by one individual minister, unless by 
 the appointment of all his fellow-ministers, each 
 one of whom possesses the same power that 
 he does, and who ought to share in its exer- 
 cise. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 April 20. 
 " Our Form of Government," says Dr. 
 Breckinridge, " ch. viii. sec. 1 and 2, quotes Acts 
 XV. 6, to prove the government of the church 
 to be^Mre divino in assemblies congregational, 
 classical, and synodical ; and then in ch. x. 
 sec. 1, and ch. xi. on the title, it quotes 
 the same passage to prove that, jure divino, 
 classical and synodical assemblies are composed 
 of Pastors and Ruling Elders." A mistake by 
 the way, for the object of the references is to 
 show the scriptural warrant for Presbyteries 
 and Synods, and not to show how they are to 
 be composed. He then says, " In ch. xv. sec. 
 14, 1 Tim. iv. 14 is quoted to prove that in 
 ordination the hands of the Presbytery ought to 
 be imposed ; and in ch. x. sec. 1. the same pas- 
 sage is quoted to prove that many congrega- 
 tions are united in one Presbytery composed 
 of Pastors and Ruling Elders." The same 
 mistake as before. I'hen after a few remarks, 
 he adds, " Here, sir, I may boldly take my 
 stand. These marginal citations clearly prove 
 by scripture, that the doctrine asserted in our 
 standards is that which I assert before you 
 now : and that the men who put them there 
 
 and have kept them there understood these 
 standards to teach this doctrine." Has Dr. 
 Breckinridge really persuaded himself that this 
 last assertion is true, and that the framers of 
 our " Form of Government" understood it to 
 teach the doctrine for which he contends? 
 Would it not be a thing most marvellous, that 
 they cited these texts to prove that it is the light 
 and duty of both ministers and ruling elders 
 to take part in the ordination of ministers, and 
 yet that their practice should have been in all 
 cases at variance with their own understanding 
 of our Form of Government and the word of 
 God 1 What cannot a man believe that be- 
 lieves this ? 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge was probably ignorant of 
 the fact, that these very texts of scripture of 
 which he speaks, as being cited in our stan- 
 dards, had been previously cited in the West- 
 minster Form of Government for the identical 
 purposes for which they are cited in our own. 
 That the reader may compare the citations in 
 the one work with those in the others, I will 
 give such parts of the different passages referred 
 to by Dr. Breckinridge, as the texts mentioned 
 by him are designed lo establish, and then the 
 corresponding ones in the Westminster Form 
 of Government. 
 
 Ch. viii. 1,2. " And we hold it to be expe- 
 dient, and agreeable to scripture and the prac- 
 tice of the primitive Christians, that the church 
 be governed by congregational, presbi/terial, 
 and syjiodical assemblies." Reference, Acts 
 XV. 6. 
 
 Their power is vi'holly moral or spiritual, and 
 that only ministerial [and declarative. Acts 
 XV. G. • 
 
 Ch. X. 1 . " Hence arise the importance and 
 usefulness oi Presbyterial and Synodical Ks- 
 semblies. Acts xv. 6. 1 Tim. iv. 14. 
 
 Ch. xi. " on the title." The proofs adduced 
 in favour of a Presbytery are said to be equally 
 valid for a synod, but are not repeated. 
 
 Ch. XV. 14. Then the presiding minister 
 shall, by prayer and luith the laying on of the 
 hands of the Presbytery, .... solemnly 
 ordain. 1 Tim. iv. 14. 
 
 The reference to sec. 2 of ch. viii. is iirele- 
 
44 
 
 ant to the matter in hand, and the verse cited 
 is but one of 32 verses referred to, and of itself 
 does not prove the doctrine contained in the 
 above extract from sec. 2 of ch. viii. 
 
 Extracts from the Westminster Form of 
 Government. 
 
 "It is lawful and agreeable to the -.cord 
 of God, that the church be governed by sev- 
 eral sorts of Assemblies which are congrega. 
 tional, classical, and synodical." 
 
 Of classical assemblies. — The Scrip- 
 tures doth hold out a Presbytery in the church." 
 ] Tim. iv. 15, Acts xv. 6. and other verses 
 in the same chapter. 
 
 Of Synodica I ^h-semblies. — The Script ure 
 doth hold out another sort of Assemblies, . . 
 which we call synodical." Reference, Acts xv. 
 6, and the verses of the same chapter. 
 
 " Ordination is the Act of Presbytery." 1 
 Tim. iv. 14. 
 
 These two " Forms of Government" agree as 
 to the composition of a Presbytery, and if the 
 marginal citations in our own Form prove that 
 Dr. Breckinridge's doctrine is the doctiine of 
 our standards, they also prove that his doc- 
 trine is the doctrine of the Form agreed upon 
 by the Westminster Assembly, for they are 
 cited for the very same purpose, in both. But 
 unfortunately for his argument, the texts of 
 scripture referred to are cited, neither in our 
 own nor in the Westminster Form of Govern- 
 jnent to make good the definitions they respec- 
 tively give of the composition of a Presbytery ; 
 and more unfortunately yet, the Westminster 
 Form expressly declares that "Preaching Pres- 
 byters orderly associated, either in cities or 
 neighboring villages, are those to whom the 
 imposition of hands doth appertain." 
 
 Farther comment on this part of his argu- 
 ment mviiit be unnecessary, as no one, it is 
 presumed, can fail to see that his statement is 
 erroneous and his conclusion false, notwith- 
 .standing the confidence with which he makes 
 the one and maintains the other. 
 
 That before the adoption of our constitution in 
 1 788, itwas the uniform practice for ministers a- 
 lone to ordain, is a fact not questioned, and that 
 the satne practice has brcn continued from 
 
 that time with like uniformity, until within 
 a comparatively recent period, is a fact equal- 
 ly certain. Evidence of this the most abund- 
 ant could be furnished, but as it is not likely 
 in the present stage of the controversy to be 
 called seriously into question, I will content 
 myself with referring to the columns of the 
 Presbyterian, and with inserting in this com- 
 munication an extract from a letter written 
 by the Rev. Dr. Green, in answer to certain 
 inquiries which I made of him in relation to 
 this and other matters: 
 
 Philadelphia, Jany. 25, 1844. 
 
 My Dear Sir : 
 
 Your communication of the date of yester- 
 day is before me. without repeating your 
 questions, I will answer them numerically. * 
 
 1. I was a member of the Synod of 1788, 
 which ratified the constitution of our church, 
 and am the only member of that Synod who 
 is now in life. 
 
 2. I never heard a suggestion from any 
 member of that body, that the directory for 
 ordination should be altered, so as to admit el- 
 ders to impose hands in a minister's ordina- 
 tio'i. 
 
 3. I never heard of ruling elders imposing 
 hands in ordination, before the adoption of the 
 constitution of our church. 
 
 4. The imposition of hands in ordination 
 by ruling elders is, with me, a perfect novelty. 
 I never heard of it, or thought of it, till it was 
 advocated by Dr. Robert Bieckinridge. If he 
 did not first start the subject I cannot tell who 
 did. 
 
 Very sincerely and affectionately 
 
 Yours, 
 ASIIBEL GREEN. 
 Ri:v. Dii. John- Maclkan. 
 
 • The questions to which the above answers 
 were criven by Dr. Green, were the foilowitia : 
 
 1. Were you not a memiier of the Synod of 
 1788, whicli ratilicd and adopted the constitu- 
 tion of our Church ? 
 
 2. Did you ever hear the suggestion made 
 in that body, or by any of the meml'crs of 
 said Synod, that the Directory for ordination 
 should be so altered as to admit of ruling el- 
 crs imposing hands .^ 
 
45 
 
 After reading the statement of Dr. Green ! mittee to ordain, over that of having a meeting 
 ■can any one believe that it was the of the Presbytery itself was entirely taken away> 
 intention of the Synod of 1 788 to make any as in most if not in every case at least three min- 
 change whatever in reference to the persons to isters were required to take part in the ordina- 
 take part in ordinations. But the fact that it : tion services : and there was a decided advan- 
 was no unuiual thing, before the adoption of, tage gained in requiring the Presbytery to as- 
 the constitution in 1788, for a Presbytery to semble ; for in the first place there was the 
 ordain by a committee of ministers, and that greater probabiity of always securing the at- 
 after 178S, this practice was discontinued, Dr. tendance of a sufficient number of ministers 
 Breckinridge regards as evidence that it was ^ to take part in the ordination, and in the 
 the design of the framers of our Form of Gov- i second place the ministers met to ordain could, 
 ernment in requiring all ordinations to be by [ whenever there should be a call for it, attend 
 a Presbytery, and in no case by a committee \ to any other presbyterial business that might 
 of the body, to recognise the right and duty j be brought before them, which in a Presbyte- 
 of ruling elders to take part in ordination it- 1 ry composed of ministers scattered over a wide 
 self, as well as in deciding whether the candi- ; extent of country and but few in number 
 date shall be ordained. Could no other pos- \ would often be a matter of great convenience 
 sible reason be given for the discontinuance to all concerned. 
 
 of the practice of ordaining by a committee Much has been said by Dr. Breckinridge 
 than the one assigned by Dr. Breckinridge, we and others to convey the idea that those who 
 could allow that there was some weight in his favour the views of the last Assembly, rely al- 
 conjecture, although it contradicts all tradition most exclusively upon the practice of the 
 
 in regard to this point, and not only so, but 
 it involves a necessity for our believing that to 
 
 church, and they do this because they are not 
 supported by the language of the constitution. 
 
 attain an end, and an end too, in the estima- i On the contrary, we maintain that the words 
 tion of Dr. Breckinridge, of vital importance I of the constitution fairly and justly interpreted, 
 to the Presbyterian system, the framers of our I according to their true intent and meaning, 
 constitution, of set purpose, so worded our Di- ' teach the doctrine asserted by the Assembly 
 rectory for ordination as to allow ruling eld- ! and we appeal to the practice of the church to 
 ers to impose hands in ordination, and yet in :' show that our fathers who framed our directo- 
 no one instance did they ever pay the least j ry for ordination understood these words in 
 attention to the rule which they themselves the very same way in which they were under- 
 had made, and made with design of bringing stood by the Assembly of 1843. Were we t& 
 
 about a change. 
 
 By making the quorum of a Presbytery so 
 
 grant, which we do not, that the words of the 
 Book would admit of the construction given 
 
 email as to require the presence of only three to them by Dr. B., it would not follow as 
 ministers, instead of a majority of the whole : matter of course that his interpretation was the 
 number as directed in Pardovan, the advantage ■ true one ; for it might arise from the ambigui- 
 on the ticoreofconvenience of appointing a com- 1 ty of the terms, and in this case, though 
 hy themselves, or in given connexions, they 
 
 o -D r ,, , . ^ , . . might bear the signification assigned by Dr 
 
 3. Betore the adoptron of the constitution I t, ,• -i , ■ , . ,. ' 
 by the Synod of 1788, did you ever hear ^f I ^'"'^ckmndge, yet in the connexion m which 
 ruhng elders taking part in the imposition of! ^^"^7 actually occur this interpretation might 
 ^i^'nds 1 be farthest possible from the truth. Of one 
 
 4. What is the earliest period in the history I thing I feel confident, that it will be very cif- 
 of our church, when so tar as ycu know, it I ^ ,. ^ t. tj . ■ • i •, . 
 
 was ever maintained that it was'the right and ' ^''^"'^ ^"^ ^'- Breckinridge to persuade the mem. 
 duty of ruling elders to take part in the impo- 1 ^^^^^ elders, and ministers of our churches that 
 siiion of hands > { our fathers who framed and adopted our stand- 
 
46 
 
 nrds (3i(I not understand the import of their ' 
 own language, or that having a correct appre- 
 hension of its meaning, they all of them acted ] 
 in direct opposition to the intent and meaning ! 
 of the rules which they had made for the govern- 1 
 ment of the church. Nor will the disrespect- ; 
 ful tone in which he speaks of the practice of: 
 the church serve his purpose. When he imag- 
 ines, however erroneously, that the practice of; 
 our own or of other churches will help his cause, ' 
 he is ready to refer to it ; and it is not a little cu- 
 rious to observe how, like the guest of the syl- j 
 Tan god in the fable, he can blow hot and blow 
 cold, with the same breath, according as it is 
 important for him to do the one or the other. 
 In his speech on the Quorum Question, when 
 he conceits that the annulling of the " Six pre- 
 tended General Assemblies," by the General 
 Assembly of 1638, and the appointment of 
 Ruling Elders as members of the commission 
 to the Westminster Assembly, sustain his 
 •views respecting the Quorum of a Presbytery, 
 he appeals with confidence to these cases, 
 having previously remarked that the whole 
 matter is "res adjudlcata ;" a matter of 
 course that admits of no further dispute. 
 
 But when knowing enough of the practice 
 of our own and other Presbyterian Churches, to 
 know that the weight of authority is against 
 him, respecting the imposition of hands in or- 
 dination, and had he known more of it, he 
 would have known that it was all against him ; 
 he thus speaks : " The practice of other church- 
 es I do not pretend to have sufficiently exam- 
 ined into, to speak with confidence about it." 
 "If we had certain information and a uniform 
 practice, there might be some inducement to 
 look into this idlest, vaguest, weakest part of 
 the most uncertain of all rules of duly, — the 
 opinions of men as weak, as ignorant, and as 
 simple as ourselves." And yet after this 
 sweeping assertion, he occupies not less than 
 five columns of the Presbyterian witli discus- 
 sions to ihow that the testimony of the older 
 Reformed Chuclies is in itself considered more 
 for him than against him. 
 
 To make good this assertion, he begins 
 with the Reformed Church of France, upon j 
 
 which he bestows a just and glowing eulogy; 
 and among other statements respecting the rules 
 and practice of this church, he makes the fol- 
 lowing : " The confession of this church was 
 drawn up, as is generally supposed, by John 
 Calvin himself, and was adopted by several of it« 
 National Synods, including the first of the 
 tWfcUiy-nine which met at Paris on the 1 5th of 
 May, 1569. By it ministers of the -word 
 ■were ordained by committee, tvlnch always 
 consisted of two pastors deputed by a provin- 
 cial Synod ora Colloquy (^Presbytery).^' A ve- 
 ry good beginning this, to prove that " this tes- 
 timony is not only more for me than against 
 me." I shall not detain the reader by a review 
 of the sophistry and special pleading by which 
 Dr. B. endeavors to evade the force of the fact 
 which he could not deny, that in the Reformed 
 Church of France, ordination of ministers 
 of the word was always by ministers of 
 the word, and that in no case did ruling elders 
 ever unite with the ministers in the ordination 
 services.* The testimony of the Church of 
 Geneva Dr. Breckinridge mentions in connex- 
 ion with that of the Reformed Church of 
 France, and admits that they agree. 
 
 The next testimony to which Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge refers, is that of the second or latter 
 Helvetic Confession. From the xviii. chap- 
 ter of this confession, which treats of ministers, 
 Dr. Breckinridge quotes the following pas- 
 sage : " Et qui electi sunt, ordinentur a 
 senioribus cum orationibus publicis el impo- 
 sitione manuiim. And those who are cho- 
 sen ought to be ordained by Elders, with pub- 
 lic prayers and imposition of hands." 
 
 But who, let mc ask, arc the Elders spo- 
 ken of in this section? The ministers of the 
 word, and only these. In the whole confcs. 
 sion there is not one word about any other 
 Presbyters or Elders than those who are aUo 
 
 *Frorn arr enactment of the 1 7th Gen- 
 eral Synod, wliich met in KiO.'}, it appears 
 that to the ceremonies directed to be used 
 in the ordination of Ruling Elders, the im- 
 position of hands had in some of the churches 
 lieen added, and this the Synod strictly pro- 
 hibited. See Quick's Synodican, vol. I., p. 229. 
 
47 
 
 called Pastors and Doctors. These are " the 
 senators and fathers of the Church," mention- 
 ed in this confession, as " governing it with 
 wholesome counsel," and the term, " Elders," 
 like the terms " Bishops," " Pastors," and 
 " Doctors," is given as a suitable appellative 
 of the ministers, all vrhose offices, it is said, 
 are suni'red up in these two, viz; preaching 
 " the evangelical doctrines of Christ," and the 
 lawful administration of the sacraments. " Of- 
 ficia ministrorum sunt varia, quse tamen ple- 
 rique ad duo restringunt, in quibus omnia alia 
 confunduntur, ad doctrinam Christi evan- 
 gelicam, etad legitimam sacramentorum admin- 
 istrationem." Under these two are included 
 among many others, " the rebuking of those 
 who do amiss, the calling back of those that 
 err ;" " the driving away of wolves from the 
 Lord's sheep fold," " the prudent and earnest 
 reproving of acts of wickedness and of those who 
 commit them," the preventing ofschisms, &c, — 
 " corripere peccantes, revocare in viam errantes 
 lupos denique ah ovili dominico abigere," &c. 
 "As if to put the matter out of dispute," says 
 Dr. Breckinridge, " the subject is closed with 
 the declaration, that those who depose and those 
 who ordain are the same." Very good. I 
 will now cite the passage, a thing not done by 
 Dr. Breckinridge. " Inquirendum enim diligen- 
 ter in doctrinam et vitam ministrorum, in Sy- 
 nodis. Corripiendi sunt peccantes a serdori- 
 bus, et in viam reducendi, si sunt sanabiles, 
 aut deponendi, et veluti lupi abigendi sunt pet 
 veros pasiores a grege dominico, si sunt incu- 
 rabiles." " In the Synods, careful inquiry is 
 to be made into the doctrine and hfe of the 
 ministers. Those who do amiss are to be re- 
 buked by the Elders, if curable, or to be de- 
 posed, and as wolves to be driven away, by the 
 true shepherds from the Lord's flock, if they 
 be incurable." Who in this passage are the 
 Elders by whom erring itinisters are to be 
 rebuked ? Are they any others than the 
 " true shepherds," the pastors of the Lord's 
 flock, by whom they are to be deposed and 
 treated as wolves if they continue obstinate ? 
 When in the xviii. ch. it is said of Presbyters 
 " They are elders (senioies) and as it were sen- 1 
 
 ntors and fathers of the Church governing it 
 with wholesome counsel," the term is applied 
 to ministers of the word just in the very same 
 way that the term Presbyter, or Elder is ap- 
 plied to ministers of the word in our Form of 
 Government, ch. iv. " Of Bishops and Pas- 
 tors." "The pastoral office is the first in the 
 church both for dignity and usefulness. The 
 person luho Jills this office, hath, in scripture, 
 obtained different names expressive of his va- 
 rious duties. As he has the oversight of the 
 flock of Christ, he is termed bishop, as he 
 feeds thenf with spiritual food, he is termed 
 pastor, as he serves Christ in his church he 
 is termed minister. As it is his duty to be 
 grave and prudent, and an example of the 
 flock, and to govern well in the house and 
 kingdom of Christ, he is termed presbyter or 
 elder," &c. " Do the terms bishop, pastor, 
 minister, presbyter, designate the same per- 
 son or different persons .' Compare this ex- 
 tract with the following passage from the xviii. 
 ch. of the Helvetic confession, " Licebit ergo 
 nunc ecclesiarum ministros nuncupare Epis- 
 copos, Presbyteros, Pastores atque Doctores." 
 " We may therefore call the mi^iisters of the 
 churches Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors and 
 Doctors," and this sentence is the very next 
 one in order after those in which these several 
 terms are defined, and among which is the 
 definition o( presbyters cited by Dr. Breckin- 
 ridge, viz. "That they are Elders (seniores) 
 and as it were senators and fathers of the 
 church, governing it with wholesome counsel." 
 Is more evidence needed, that in giving this 
 definition of the term Presbyters, the design is 
 merely to define one of thetei-ms by which min- 
 isters may be designated, and not to point out 
 the different officers in the church 1 Take the 
 following passage from Calvin, " Caeterum 
 quod Episcopos, et Presbyteros, et Pastores, et 
 Ministros promiscue vocavi qui ecclesias re- 
 gunt, id feci ex Scripturae usu, quae ista vo- 
 cabula confundit." 
 
 Had there been ruling elders in all the 
 churches of Switzerland, this would come far 
 short of being proof that ruling elders were 
 included in the term " elders" in the first sen- 
 
48 
 
 tcnce cited from this confession, viz/'And those 
 who are chosen, ouglit to be ordained by the 
 ciders with public prayers and imposition of 
 hands." It would still be an open question 
 whether in this connexion, the term elders 
 includes onlj- ministers, or both ministers and 
 those " usually styled ruling elders," for if the 
 ordination were by the ministers alone, the 
 rule would be fully complied with, inasmuch 
 as according to the universal consent of all 
 Presbyterians, ministers are cldcis. But as 
 already remarked, no other elders are men- 
 tioned in this confession than the elders who 
 are 7ni7iisters, and the conclusion, therefore, is ! 
 irresistible that, according to this confession, i 
 in the ordination of a minister not only the 
 making of the ordaining prayer, but also the 
 imposition of hands appertained to ministers 
 only.* 
 
 " It would be easy," says Dr. Breckinridge, 
 to show the same doctrine from other confes- 
 sions, for example those of the Bohemian 
 churches of 1535, and of 1575, and various 
 Professions of Polish and Lithuanian church- 
 es of the following century." When he shall 
 undertake to show how easy a task it would 
 be to prove what he says, it may become ne- 
 cessary to show that he understands as little 
 about these as he does about those already ex- 
 amined. By assuming the very point in de- 
 bate, viz., that, whenever elders are spoken of 
 
 * We are told 'indeed that in the ancient 
 church excommunication was practised, and 
 that the people of God had ecclesiastical trials 
 in which discipline was exercised by prudent 
 and pious men. These doubtless are the pro- 
 totypes of our ruling elders, but in the Helvetic 
 Confession they are not elsewhere alluded to, 
 and in this place they are spoken of merely as 
 " prudent and pious men," to whom was en- 
 trusted tlic discipline of the church, under the 
 guidance of the miiiist(!rs. 
 
 " Cumquc omnino operteat esse in ccclesia 
 disciplinam, et apud vetercs quondam usitata ; 
 fuerit Excommunicatio, fucrint que judicia ec- 
 clesiastica in populo iJei, in quibus per viros 
 prudentes ct pios cxerccbatur haec disciplina, 
 ministrorum quoque fuerit, ad edificationcm, 
 disciplinam moderaii banc, pro conditiono tem- 
 porum, status publici, ac necessitate." — Ch" 
 xviii. 
 
 in connexion with the ordination of ministori;, 
 ruling elders are included, he doubtless can 
 make good his assertion. But this preliminary 
 step he will find to be no easy task. Why did 
 not Dr. Breckinridge introduce into his speech 
 the testimony of ihcBclgic Confession to which 
 he appealed with so much confidence in his 
 '' Spirit of the XIX Century" in answer to 
 some remarks in the Princeton Review ? Did 
 he discover his gross blunder before it was 
 pointed out to him in the last number of the 
 same Review ? and wisely include this testi- 
 mony among that of the other churches he 
 would pass over, with the testimonies of the 
 Bohemian and Polish churches. With the 
 Doctor's consent, I will give him some evi- 
 dence respecting the Church of Holland, taken 
 from the Rules of Church Government estab- 
 lished in the National Synod held in Dor- 
 drecht, in the years 1618 and 1619 — which» 
 in a matter of this kind, ought not to be passed 
 over. " A lawful call to persons not heretofore 
 engaged in the ministry of the word consists ; 
 \. Jn a free choice, 2. Jn uii. examinatioif 
 3. In the approbation, &c. 4. In public or- 
 dination, in the presence of the congregation, 
 according to the form adopted for that purpose, 
 accompanied with suitable engagements, ex- 
 hortations, prayers, and imposition of hands 
 by the minister xuho presides at the ordina- 
 tion, and such other ministers as may be pre- 
 sent" 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge's next appeal is to the tes- 
 timony of the Kirk of Scotland. 
 
 It is on all hands conceded that in the time 
 of Knox and of the first Book of Discipline, 
 ministers were not ordained with imposition of 
 hands. Nevertheless a candidate was admit- 
 ted to the ministry by the chief minister de- 
 claring that he was appointed to serve the 
 church by which he had been previously 
 elected. In this ceremony of admission, the 
 ruling eklcr, as such, took no part, but as one 
 of the people, he no doubt united with them 
 in expressing in a public manner their appro- 
 bation of the person chosen to be their min- 
 ister, 
 
 " The Second Booh of Disciplined^ says 
 
4a 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge, " puts the whole subject of 
 church order and discipline in the clearest 
 light." It must of course then sustain Dr. 
 Breckinridge's views ; and so confident is he 
 of this, that he concludes his observations on 
 this book in these words, " It does seem to me 
 to be the very height of absurdity, and an ab- 
 solute contempt of common sense, for any one 
 to contend, that according to the principles and 
 the very terms of this instrument ruling elders 
 are not permitted to impose hands in the ordi- 
 nation of ministers of the word." As doubtless 
 in Dr. B.'s estimation, I have long ago ar- 
 rived at this very height of absurdity, he will 
 scarcely expect anything else of me than to 
 deny that under the provisions of this " Second 
 Book of Discipline," ruling elders are per- 
 mitted to impose hands in ordination. But 
 not only do I deny this, but I will go one step 
 fu'-ther, and maintain that during the time 
 that this book was the law of the Scotch 
 Church, ruling elders had no vote in deciding 
 whether a candidate was qualified on the score 
 of theological attainments to be a minister of 
 the word, though they had a vote on the 
 question whether or not he should be or- 
 dained. 
 
 As to the first point, it depends, as Dr. Breck- 
 inridge justly remarks, on the meaning of the 
 term Eldership in the following passage: 
 " The ceremonies of ordination are fasting, 
 earnest prayer, and imposition of the hands of 
 the elderMp." There are four sorts of as- 
 semblies or elderships mentioned in this Second 
 Book of Discipline. " For they are either of 
 particular kirks and congregations one or 
 more, or of a province, or of a whole nation, 
 or of diverse nations professing one Jesus ' 
 Christ." j 
 
 Notwithstanding, "the Second Book of Dis- 
 cipline," according to Dr. Breckinridge, " puts 
 the whole subject of church order and disci- 
 pline in the clearest light," Dr. Breckinridge 
 is unable to say to which of the different elder- 
 ships, treated of in ch. vii, the power of ordina- 
 tion belongs. « There is," he says, « no direct 
 statement in the instrument as to ivhich elder- 
 ship it especially appertains to ordain all per- 
 
 sons who bear ecclesiastical functions ; per- 
 haps it might by its terms appertain to every 
 church assembly lawfully called and constitu- 
 ted." So much for the clearest light. Dr. Breck- 
 inridge next remarks, " But the evident burden 
 of the whole places the power in the hands of 
 the particular eldership." Very good. But 
 what is a particular Eldership 1 It is the first of 
 the four above named, viz. an Eldership com- 
 mon to several diuerent kirks. "When we 
 speak of the Elder's of the particular con- 
 gregations," says the Second Book of Disci- 
 pline, "we mean not that every particular 
 parish kirk can, or may have their own 
 particular elderships, specially in landward ; 
 but we think three, four, more or fewer 
 particular kirks, may have one eldership 
 common to them all, to judge their ecclesias- 
 tical causes." This was at that time, their 
 lowest church court, consisting of the ministers 
 and elders of several associated churches.* 
 And it is about as clear as anything in the 
 book that this Eldership had the power of ordi- 
 nation, and that the several Elderships in 
 actual existence at that period, had also the 
 power to ordain, yet it is probable that for the 
 most part, it was exercised chiefly by the par- 
 ticular eldership. Speaking of this eldership, 
 the authors of this book say, in ch. vii. " The 
 power of election of them who bear ecclesiasti- 
 cal charges pertains to this kind of Assembly 
 within their own bounds, being well erected 
 and constituted of many pastors, and elders of 
 suflicicnt ability." From a comparison of the 
 above with the two following sentences in ch. 
 iii. it is evident that " the particular elder- 
 ship" had the right to impose hands in ordi- 
 nation. " This outward and ordinary calling 
 hath two parts, election and ordination. Elec- 
 tion is the choosing out of a person or per- 
 sons .... by the judgment of the eWe;-- 
 
 * And this fact is sufllcient to account for 
 the ground taken by Caldcrwood, in the As- 
 sembly of 1617, that the session of an indivi- 
 dual Church was only a commission, with a 
 doIcRated power, from a Presbytery, the in- 
 dividual churches not having at the first sepa- 
 rate sessions. See Baillic's Letters. JXo. 175. 
 
^ 
 
 ship. The ceremonies oi ordination are fasting, 
 earnest prayer and imposition of the hands of 
 the eldership." The same eldership is evi- 
 dently meant in both sentences. 
 
 Now since the imposition of hands appertains 
 to the particular eldership, constituted of many 
 pastors and elders of suflicicnt ability, are not 
 the elders to take part in the imposition of 
 hands ? I answer confidently, No. And now 
 or the proof. 
 
 Among the powers expressly conferred upon 
 the particular eldership is the " power to ex- 
 communicate the obstinate" and it is express- 
 ly said, " It pertains to the eldership to take 
 heed, that .... the discipline be rightly 
 maintained :" see ch. vii. in which these pas- 
 sages occur ; and compare them with the fol- { 
 lowing in ch. iv. " It appertains to the minis- 
 ter, after lawful proceeding by the eldership, to 
 pronounce the sentence of binding and loosing 
 upon any person, according unto the power of 
 the keys granted unto the kirk." " And gene- 
 rally all public denunciations that are to be 
 made in the kirk before the congregation con- 
 cerning ecclesiastical afTairs belong to the office 
 of a minister, for he is a messenger and herald 
 betwixt God and his people in all these affairs.' 
 
 From these passages it is evident that accor- 
 ding to the principles of the " Second Book of 
 Discipline," it appertains to the entire elder- 
 ship to decide all matters within the compass 
 of its jurisdiction, but when the decision is 
 made, the declaration or executioTi of the de- 
 cision belongs to the office of a minister, and it 
 matters not whether it be done by words or by 
 signs, and this too is the doctrine of the 
 Second Book of Discipline, for it expressly 
 teaches, in ch. iv. that instruction may be ad- 
 dressed to the eye as well as to the ear, and 
 assigns this as the reason why the adminis- 
 tering of the sacraments as well as the preach- 
 ing of the word, appertains unto the pastors 
 only.* 
 
 * " Unto the pastors appertain the teaching 
 of God's word," &c. 
 
 " Unto the pastors only appertains the ad- 
 ministration of the sacraments, in like manner 
 as the administration of the word ; for both 
 
 In deciding the question whether a man 
 shall be ordained by the imposition of hands, 
 the whole eldership voted, but the actual im- 
 position being a public declaration of the fact 
 that the man is set apart to the office of the 
 ministry pertained to the ministers alone, 
 just as in the cases of excommunication, 
 and in the milder forms of discipline, it apper- 
 tamcd to the entire eldership to decide whether 
 an individual should be cut off from the 
 church or otherwise censured, but when the 
 decision was once made, it was the oflice of 
 the pastor alone to pronounce the sentence, 
 whatever that might be. And whether the 
 rules laid down in the Second Bosk of Disci- 
 pline gave rise to the practice of which Steuart 
 speaks in the following passage, or whether 
 these rules merely rendered obligatory, what 
 previously had been customary and optional* 
 it is evident, that from the very time in which 
 imposition of hands began to be practised in 
 the Reformed Church of Scotland, it was prac- 
 tised by the ministers alone. " In the Assem- 
 blies of the church . . ruling elders have right 
 to reason and vote in all matters coming before 
 
 them ... as ministers have Howbeit 
 
 by the practice of the church the execution of 
 some decrees doth belong to pastors only, such 
 as the imposition of hands, the pronouncing 
 the sentences of excommunication and absolu- 
 tion, the receiving of penitents, the intimation 
 of sentences and censures about ministers and 
 such like." See Steuart I. vii. 9. 
 
 This explanation of the words, "imposi- 
 tion of the hands of the eldership," in the Second 
 Book of Discipline, is confirmed by the use of 
 an anaolgous form of expression in the West- 
 minister Form of Government, in which, be- 
 
 are appointed by God, as means to teach us, 
 the one by the ear, and the other by the eyes 
 and other senses, that by both knowledge may 
 be transferred to the mind." 
 
 In accordance with this is the language of 
 the authors of the " Jus Divinum Ministerii 
 Evangelici," respecting the imposition of hands. 
 " We use it not as an operative ceremony, but 
 as a moral sign to declare publicly who the 
 party is that is set apart to the work of the 
 Ministry." ch. xii. 
 
51 
 
 yond all dispute, ministers only are meant, i he would not consent to submit to any mea- 
 when it is said : " The Presbytery . . shall sol- j sure that would call into question the va- 
 emnly set him apart to the office and work of lidity of his ministry. As a confirmation 
 
 the ministry, by laying their hands upon him," 
 &c. Under the Westminster Form of Gov- 
 
 of his ministry, and not as a new ordination, 
 he consented to receive, and did receive 
 
 ernment, the Presbytery or eldership consisted imposition of hands. The persons appoint- 
 
 ofboth ministers and ruling elders, as was 
 the case under the second Book of Discipline, 
 and yet in imposing hands, the ministers alone 
 are spoken of as the Presbytery. Why shall 
 we, then, not only without evidence, but con- 
 trary to evidence, maintain, that by the term 
 " eldership," in the phrase above cited, we are 
 to understand the entire body composed of 
 both ministers and elders? The explanation 
 which I have given of the clause in dispute 
 is farther confirmed by the fact, that there 
 is no evidence that while the econd Book of 
 Discipline was the law of the Scottish Church, 
 Ruling Elders ever imposed hands, in ordina- 
 tions. While the current of testimony as to the 
 practice of the church, and as to the construc- 
 tion given to the rules respecting ordination, 
 is against the position taken by Dr. Breck- 
 inridge. 
 
 For eleven years before he received imposi- 
 tion of hands, Mr. Robert Bruce, a pupil and 
 intimate friend of Melville, was one of the pas- 
 tors of the Church in Edinburgh, and that too 
 
 ed to attend upon this business, were- 
 Robert Pont, James Nicholson and Thomas 
 Buchanan, all ministers. It was probably 
 about this time that the several churches be- 
 gan to have their respective sessions. Years 
 before this, and while the Second Book of Dis- 
 cipline,called also the Book of Policy ,was in fra- 
 ming, according to Calderwood, or just after it 
 was ratified, according to James Melville, Pat- 
 rick Adamson, archbishop of St. Andrews, to 
 satisfy Andrew Melville and his friends that he 
 was fully with them, signed ceitain proposi- 
 tions, from which I extract the following pas- 
 sage: " The ordaining and appointing of pas- 
 tors, which^is also called the laying on of hands, 
 appertaineth not to one bishop only, so being 
 lawful election pass before, but to those who 
 are of that same Province or Presbytery, and 
 with the like jurisdiction and authority minis- 
 ter at their kirks." 
 
 In no one of the standards of the Scottish 
 Church, and by none of the Presbyterians of 
 Scotland, were ruling elders ever called bishops. 
 
 during the veiy time when the Second Book \ Adamson, therefore, in the above sentence. 
 
 of Discipline was the law of the church, and 
 was held in the highest repute. The ceremo- 
 ny of imposing hands was yet held to be a 
 matter of indifference, and being so regarded it 
 was probably often omitted in the admission 
 
 speaks of the ministers of the Presbytery as 
 those to whom appertained the imposition of 
 hands. Had it been the doctrine of the Sec- 
 ond Book of Discipline, that it was the right 
 and the duty of ruling elders to impose hands, 
 
 of Pastors, because the Romanists and Epis- i and that to limit imposition of hands to min- 
 copalians held it to be a rite essential to ordi- isters tended to degrade the office of ruling el- 
 
 nation, and to be practised by prelates alone. 
 But be this as it may, Bruce became a Pastor, 
 without receiving the imposition of hands, 
 and when he was required, by the King and 
 the Commissioners of the General Assembly, 
 to receive it, under penalty of being dismissed 
 from his post, he made no objection on the 
 ground that none but ministers were appoint- 
 ed to receive him, and impose hands, but sim- 
 ply on the ground that he was already a pas- 1 
 
 der, and was the oflfspring of hierarchical senti- 
 ments, as is maintained by Dr. Breckinridge, 
 Adamson sutely would never have expected 
 Melville and the other friends of the Second 
 Book of Discipline to be satisfied with any 
 such declaration as the one above cited. 
 
 In a letter addressed to " the Pastors of the 
 Kirk of Geneva and Tigurie," (Zurich) An- 
 drew Melville has these and like words, " . 
 . . concerning matters of discipline, seeing 
 
 tor without the impositioa of hands, and ! whatsoever we have in that matter, we willing- 
 
52 
 
 ly and plainly confess to have received it of you; 
 and that we altogether agree with you in all 
 points, so marvellously do our minds and wills 
 by the virtue of God's Spirit, consent in an liar- 
 naony." See James Melville's Tiography, p. 
 157. Who has any doubt as to the course 
 pursued at Geneva in the ordination of minis- 
 ters 1 What then are we to infer from this 
 declaration of Melville ? Shall we believe that 
 in the Church of Scotland, contrary to the rule 
 and practice of the Church of Geneva, and of 
 Zurich, and in short, of all the reformed 
 churches, ruling elders imposed hands in the 
 ordination of ministers, or that the Second 
 Book of Discipline, in giving merely the heads 
 of policy, designed to teach any such doctrine. 
 
 In his controversy with Tilenus, Calder- 
 wood maintains that there is no impropriety in 
 calling the imposition of hands, the laying on 
 of the hands of the Presbytery, though all the 
 members of Presbytery may not have the right 
 to impose hands," and he admits the fact 
 charged by Tilcnus, that ruling elders did not 
 take part in the imposition of hands, and 
 which was urged by Tilenus as an acknow- 
 ledgment that ruling elders should not be 
 members of Presbytery, and he further admits 
 that " the imposition of hands which is joined 
 with prayer and the benediction is to be con- 
 fined to the pastor or teaching elder." He held 
 indeed, that " as a sign of consent and assis- 
 tance. Ruling Elders could impose hands," as 
 is done by the Pr€sb3;tcrs in prclatical ordina- 
 tions, and not only so, but intimates very clear- 
 ly, that in his opinion, private members of the 
 church might do the same. See his Altare 
 Damascenum, pp. G89--G90. Whether his 
 opinions be well or ill-founded in regard to 
 ihese points, and it is a matter of little mo- 
 ment whether they be or not, one thing is 
 certain from his testimony, viz., that in the 
 time of McWille, ruling elders in Scotland did 
 not impose hands in the ordination of min- 
 isters. And would this have been the case if 
 their statute book taught that imposition of 
 hands belonged equally to ministers and ru- 
 ling eldeis? 
 
 To the testimony t'lrcady adduced to the 
 
 proper construction of the Second Book of 
 Disci[)Iiiie respecting the imposition of hands 
 in ordination, I will add the Ibllowing passa- 
 ges from Henderson, Rutherford, and Guthiie, 
 given in the appendix to the Rev. Dr. Miller's 
 Sermon on " The Warrant, Nature, and Du- 
 ties of the oflice of ruling elder." Hender- 
 son's treatise was published in 1641, Ruther- 
 ford's in 1642 and Guthrie's about 1650. Speak- 
 ing of the practice observed at the ordination of 
 ministers, Henderson says, "The minister com- 
 eth from the pulpit, and with as many of the 
 ministers present as may conveniently come 
 near, lay their hands upon his head, and in the 
 name of Jesus, do appoint him to be pastor of 
 that people." In his treatise, entitled " A 
 Peaceable Pica for Paul's Presbytery in Scot- 
 land," Rutherford says, " Everywhere, in the 
 word, where pastors and elders are created, they 
 are ordained by Pastors." — p. 27. " Ordination 
 of pastors is never given to people, or believers, 
 or to Ruling Elders, but still to pastors, as is 
 clear from I Tim. v. 22, Titus i. 5, Acts vi. 6, 
 Actsxiii.3,2Tim. i. 6, 1 Tim.iv. 14."— p 190. 
 In his treatise of Elders and Deacons, Guth- 
 rie says, " Ilowbeit the execution of some de- 
 crees of the Church AsscmbUes, such as the 
 imposition of hands — the pronouncing the 
 sentence of excommunication — the receiving 
 penitents — the intimation of the deposition of 
 ministers, and such like, do belong to minis- 
 ters alone" The accomplished antiquary 
 to whom Dr. Miller acknowledges himself in- 
 debted for the communication from which the 
 above extracts have been made, says in his 
 letter to Dr. M. : " Guthrie follows through- 
 out the rules laid down in the First and Se- 
 cond Books of Discipline." IVow is it to be 
 believed that these men would have written 
 thus, if it had been the law or practice of the 
 Church under the Second Book of Discipline for 
 Ruling Elders to unite with ministers in im" 
 posing hands .'' Is it credible that Henderson 
 should have done so, who was moderator of 
 the Assembly of 1638, which one or two years 
 before he wrote his treatise, entitled "The Gov- 
 ernment and Order of the Church of Scotland," 
 passed an act respecting the Assemblies of 
 
53 
 
 the Church, including Kirk Sessions, Provin- 
 cial and National Assemblies, from which I 
 extract the following passage : " The Assem- 
 bly findeth it necessary to restore, and by these 
 presents restoreth all these Assemblies unto 
 Ihcir integrity in numbers, privileges, powers 
 and jurisdictions, as they were constituted by 
 the aforesaid Book of Policy." 
 
 Would it not have been a most singular 
 restoring of them to their integrity by abridg- 
 ing the rights of one of the classes of which 
 these Assemblies were composed ? If then, a 
 comparison of the dilferent rules laid down in 
 the Second Book of Discipline, leads to the 
 conclusion that, according to the true meaning 
 and intent of the clause, " imposition of the i 
 hands of the eldership," ministers alone were ' 
 to take part in this c2remony ; and if this con- 
 clusion is fortified, by the constant and uni- 
 form practice under the rules laid down for ! 
 the ordination of ministers in said Book, as ev- 
 idenced by the authorities above cited, and if 
 too, this practice corresponds with the uni- 
 form practice of the Kirk of Geneva, after | 
 which, Melville says, that of Scotland was 
 modelled, and with which it perfectly corres- 
 ponded, %vhat are we to think of the judgment 
 of Dr. Breckinridge in this matter, who with- 
 out producing one single authority, or citing 
 a single instance to sustain his construction 
 of the rule, ventures to say, « it does seem to 
 me to be the very height of absurdity and an 
 absolute contempt of common sense, for any 
 one to contend that according to the princi- 
 ples and very terms of this rule, Ruling Elders 
 are not permitted to impose hands in the ordi 
 nation of ministers of the word."* 
 
 I Dr. Breckiniidge's next appeal is to the 
 I Westminster Directory for Ordination, in re- 
 , gard to which I should deem it unnecessary to 
 ; say a single word in this connexion, having 
 already shown fully the doctrine of this work, 
 had it not been for Dr. Breckinridge's most 
 unwarrantable assumption that the whole Di- 
 j rectory was devised for an unsettled and ex- 
 traordinary state of the Church, and that it 
 " contemplates the extraordinary state of af- 
 fairs actually existing." How Dr. Breckin- 
 ] ridge could make such a statement as this, I 
 cannot venture to form a conjecture ; having 
 before his eyes the clearest evidence to the 
 I contrary, in a sentence immediately preceding 
 one which he quotes. The sentence to which 
 I refer is the following and it occurs near the 
 close of the Directory. " Thus far of ordina- 
 ry rule, and the course of ordination, in the 
 ordinary way ; that which concerns the extra- 
 ordinary way requisite to be now practised, 
 foUoweth;" and then follows a sentence. 
 
 *Vl hen James was laboring to subject the 
 Church wholly to the Civil Power, he caused 
 to be drawn up certam questions to be resolved 
 at the Convention of the Estates and General 
 Assembly, appointed to be held at Penh the 
 last of February, 1596. To these questions 
 answers were proposed by sundry ministers 
 ot the Synod of Fife, and strenuous defenders 
 of the Second Book of Discipline. 'J'hc ques- 
 tions and answers are given in James Mel- 
 ville s Diary, and the Synod is much commend- 
 ed by him for their fidelity in this matter. 
 
 , From these questions and answers I select 
 the following, and they will show that accord- 
 . ing to the construction then given by these 
 I most strenuous advocates of the Second Book 
 jOf Discipline, Ruling Elders possessed less 
 I power in Presbytery than under our own sys- 
 j tem of Church Government. 
 I '-Qucsdon 1. Is not the consent of most 
 { part of the flock, and also of the Patron, ne- 
 cessary in the election of the Pastors ] 
 
 "Answer. The election of Pastors should 
 be made by them who are Pastors and Doc- 
 tors lawfully called, and who can try the gifts 
 necessarily belonging to Pastors by' the Word 
 of (I'od, and to such as are so chosen, the flock 
 and the Pastors should give their consent and 
 protection." 
 
 "Question 17th. Should not the Elders and 
 Deacons of each particular session have vote 
 ! m the Presbyteries, or the Pastors only i 
 I "Answer. Elders also having commission 
 trom their sessions in matters of manners 
 hke as also Deacons in the Poor's affairs, and 
 I patrimony of the Kirk." 
 I "Question 21. Should all who have vote in 
 the Presbyteries, and also in the particular 
 sessions, have vote in Synodical Assembhes >" 
 "Answer. The Pastors and Doctors, and 
 such as have commission from particular ses- 
 sions of Congregations have vote, except in 
 matters of Doctrine, wherein only thev that 
 labour in the Word may vote and judV" 
 
64 
 
 which he has quoted, beginning with these! questions, 1. That the power to ordain does 
 words, " In these present exigencies," &c. i not belong to a diocesan bishop. 2. That it 
 And were there no such sentence in the Di- does belong to a presbytery. 3. That it " be- 
 rectory, as the one cited above, the very de- 1 longs to ministers in general." Then after a 
 sign in drawing up a system of Church Gov- record of the questions proposed to the candi- 
 ernment including a Directory for Ordination, dates, arc the following words : " Here Mr. 
 \iz. to secure a uniformity in this whole mat- Patillo and Mr. Richardson kneeled down, and 
 ter, in the united kingdoms of England and [ the Presbytery laid their hands upon them, and 
 Scotland, would be conclusive as to the fact i he that presided offered up a solemn prayer 
 that the Directory was designed for a perma- over them agreeably to the materials recom- 
 nent state of things. I need scarcely say that ! mended in the Westminster Directory on this 
 the testimony of this Directory is directly op- 1 head." ' 
 
 posed to his views. I " And as a token of our receiving you into 
 
 With respect to the Westminster Directory, he i ministerial communion as members of this pres- 
 has some remarks, the apparent design of which j bytery, we give you the right hand of fellow- 
 is to produce the impression that the forms di" hip." Then follow these words ; " Here each 
 ,ected by it to be observed in the ordination of member of the Presbytery gave Messrs. Patillo 
 a candidate to the ministry, were not observed ] and Richardson his right hand }" What Pres- 
 by the Church of Scotland ; and as if it really bytery ! " a collective body of ministers of the 
 furnished any countenance to these remarks, he same rank and order," is President Davies's 
 
 refers to the Act passed by the Assembly of 
 1649, which merely directs %vhat measures are 
 to be pursued in the election of a Pastor, and 
 says not one word respecting the mode of in- 
 
 own definition of the term Presbytery. And 
 in the sermon referred to he tells us, " To 
 the office of a gospel minister then, it belongs 
 to preach the word ; to administer the sacra- 
 
 vesting him with the pastoral office. The very j ments ; to concur in the ordination of persons 
 
 duly qualified to this oflkc, pnd to rule the 
 church of God." Do preaching and the admi- 
 nistration of the sacraments pertain to the office 
 of the Ruling Elder .> If not, then Ruling 
 Elders do not belong to the " coUectve body of 
 ministers" of which President Davies speaks- 
 If then thirty years before the adoption of our 
 Constitution, ministers weie spoken of as the 
 
 title of the Act is " Directory for the Election 
 of Ministers." 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge concludes his appeal to 
 the testimonies of the different Presbyterian 
 Churches by a reference to that of our own- 
 As I have already said so much on this branch of 
 the subject, I will detain the reader but a mo- 
 ment longer than may be sufficient for him to 
 
 peruse the following extracts from an account [ Presbytery in the ceremonies of ordination, 
 given by the late Rev. Samuel Davies, of the and each member meant only each minister, 
 ceremonies observed at the ordination of the have we not here a strong confirmation of the 
 
 Rev. Messrs. Patillo and Richardson in Cum- 
 berland Co., Virginia, July 13th, 1758, and 
 
 ground I have taken in these letters, that in ch. 
 XV. 14 of our present Directory for ordination, 
 
 from a sermon preached by President Davies viz, that " the laying on of the hands of the 
 at Hanover, Virginia, June the 9th, 1557, all Presbytery" means the laying on of the hands 
 the ordination of the Rev. John Martin. of the ministers, and that the phrase " all the 
 
 " But here a question lies in our way which members" means all the ministers, just as in 
 has been much agitated in the world, to whom the passage cited from the form given by 
 does the power of ordination belong ? To a j President Davies " each member" meant each 
 Presbytery, that is, to a collective body of ; minister. Shall we then to please Dr. Breck- 
 rainisters of the same rank and order 1 or to a inridge cease to follow the practice of the fathers 
 Bishop, that is to a minister of superior order of our own Church, and the example of all the 
 to the rest of the clergy >" He answers these different branches of the Presbyterian Church 
 
65 
 
 in our own and other lands ? How long shall we 
 continue to enjoy quiet, and our church be left 
 at liberty to devote all her energies to the 
 direct advancement of the interests of religion, 
 if she yield to his present demands ? Will 
 his agitations cease if we now give up ? Of 
 this we can have but little hope, for he has 
 told us, that all churches require frequent refor- 
 mations. How many more we are to have 
 yet, if Dr. Breckinridge is to have his way, is 
 of course a matter unknown to any mortal 
 mind. 
 
 I have now brought to a close the strictures 
 which I proposed to make upon the arguments 
 and statements of Dr. Breckinridge, as presented 
 in his two speeches before the Synod of Phila- 
 delphia. As I believed the speeches to be of a 
 mischievous tendency to the interests of the 
 Church, and the spirit pervading them to be 
 anything but what it should be, I have not 
 hesitated to expose as fully as I could the un- 
 sound reasonings and the inaccurate state- 
 ments of Dr. Breckinridge. Occasionally, too, 
 I have animadverted upon some of the more 
 exceptionable language employed by him when 
 speaking of those opposed to his views. Dr. 
 Breckinridge has probably yet to learn, 
 that positive assertion, great pretensions to 
 minute and extensive research, and a contemp- 
 tuous style in speaking of those who venture 
 to call into question his opinions or his 
 schemes, are not the best weapons with 
 which to assail an adversary, or to defend him- 
 self. Without the least call for it, he charged 
 a majority of the ministers in the last Assem- 
 bly with being prejudiced against the rights of 
 the Elders, and a majority of the Elders with 
 being blind as to their own rights and privileg- 
 es. He also charged the same Assembly with 
 
 countenancing views which have a tendency 
 to subvert the libeniea of the Church and to 
 prepare the way for a hierarchy ; and he has 
 warned the coming Assembly, that if they do 
 not adopt his views and condemn those of the 
 last, it will be owing to the circumstance that 
 " God is angry with us for our sins." " Mis- . 
 erable sophistry," " supremely absurd," "stark 
 nonsense," " utter folly," "idle professions of 
 respect," "open deserters of their covenanted 
 calling," and such like, are the phrases which 
 he has applied to the persons and to the real 
 or supposed sentiments of some of his oppo- 
 nents. Had his speeches been printed as soon as 
 they were delivered, considerable allowance 
 might be made on the score of temporary ex- 
 citement occasioned by the circumstance that 
 he was aware that a large majority of those to 
 whom his remarks were addressed were oppos- 
 ed to his views. But they were, delivered, one on 
 the 20th, and the other on the 23d of October 
 last, and were not published, the first until the 
 9th of December, and the second until the 30th 
 of December and 6th of January. 
 
 Dr. Breckinridge, it seems to me, speaks 
 and writes of others, as if he regarded him- 
 self at liberty to say of them just what he 
 pleases and just in what way he pleases, per- 
 fectly regardless of their feelings or those of 
 their friends, and yet he expects nothing 
 but the utmost deference to be paid to his per- 
 son and opinions. If this gentleman does not 
 always receive measure for measure for the un- 
 bridled license in which he sometimes induc- 
 es, he ought to know that it arises in some 
 cases at least, much more from the respect 
 which those assailed have for themselves and for 
 the ordinary courtesies of life, and above all, 
 for the proprieties of Christian intercourse 
 than from any deference to his person or opin- 
 ions, or from any fear of his abuse. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 No. I. — Kcmarks on the Protest of Dr. Breckinridge and others, and on his complaint or ap- 
 peal to the next Genera] Asfcnildy. 
 
 No. II. — Remarks ])refatory to an cxanimation of Dr. Breckinridge's argument respecting the 
 Quotum Question. 
 
 No. III. — 'I'he fallacy of Dr. Brockinridae's argument founded upon the fact that a Presbytery 
 is composed of two distinct classes of church oHicers. Error of Dr. Breckinridge, 
 respecting the six Ciencral Assemblies, of the Church of Scotland, condemned and an- 
 nulled by the General Assembly of 1638. 
 
 No. IV. — Error of Dr. Breckinridge in regard to the statemei;ts of Steuart of Pardovan, con- 
 cerning the Assemblies, Synods, Presbyteries, and Kirk Sessions of the Church of 
 Scotland, and of their committees. Error also of Dr. Breckinridge in relation to the 
 Commission appointed to meet and confer with the Westminster Assembly of Divines. 
 
 No. V. — The main position assumed by Dr. Breckinridge at variance with the provisions of 
 our constitution, with respect to the quorums of the General Assembly and of a 
 Church Session. 
 
 No. VI. — ."^n examination of the terms of the rule relating to a quorum of Presbytery. An 
 examination of Dr. Breckinridge's reasons for asserting that the terms of the rule re- 
 quire one or more ciders at every meeting of Presbytery. 
 
 No. VII. — Certain considerations which would have rendered it inexpedient to make the pre- 
 sence of Ruling Elders essential to a quorum of Presbytery, at the time the constitu- 
 tion was adopted. .? Postscript, giving the very words of the Acts, passed by the 
 General Assembly of 1638, annulling the six preceding Assemblies, so far as these 
 acts refer to Ruling Elders. 
 
 No. VIII. — Error of Dr. Breckinridge in assigning the reasons for annuliingy the Plan of 
 Union, and for the exscinding of four Synods by our General Assembly of 18.37. 
 These acts have no bearing upon the decision of the quorum question. 
 
 No. IX. — Answer to two ol'jcctions to the argument, in favour of the decision of the Assembly 
 of 1843, derived from the uniform practice of our oldest Presbyteries. 
 
 No. X. — A sunmiary of the arguments in favour of the decision of the last Assembly, and al- 
 so a summary of the jirincipal objections to that decision. 
 
 No. XI. — An examination of the first reason assigned by Dr. Breckinridge in favour of set- 
 ting aside the decision of the last Assembly respecting the imposition of hands in the 
 ordination of ministers, viz : That by the Constitution the power to ordain ministers 
 of the word is lodged in the Presbytery, and that the Presl ytery consists of minis- 
 ters and Ruling Elders. This reason is shown to be of no force, by an examination 
 of the language of our own Form of Government, and by a comparison of this lan- 
 guage with similar expressions in the Westminster Form of Government and ii» 
 Pardovan's collections. Import of the terms, Presbytery, ministers, and members, as 
 used in the directory for ordination. 
 
 No. XII. — An examination of Dr. Breckinridge's position that the power to impose hands is a 
 joint Tpower , In what sense this is true, and in its true sense shown to constitute 
 no objection to the Assembly's decision. This view confirmed by quotations from 
 the Westminster Form of Government — the Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, the 
 Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici. The source of ministerial power. Ruling El- 
 ders properly the representatives of the people. In the exercise of their joint power, 
 the ministers and ruling elders have equal right to deliberate and to vote, but in other 
 respects there is not a perfect equality. This view of the subject is the only one which 
 gives a consistent construction to our constitution. Ordination of Ruling Elders. 
 
 No. XIII. — Remarks of Dr. Breckinridge on the texts of scripture cited in our Form of Gov- 
 ernment, chap. X., chap, xi., chap, xv., shewn to be erroneous. The uniform practice 
 in our own Church until within a few years. — Letter on this subject from the Rev. 
 Dr. Green. The discontinuance of ordinations by committees no evidence that it was 
 the design of the framers of our Constitution to allow Ruling Elders to lake jiart in the 
 imposition of hands. The testimony furnished by the Confessions, Directories and 
 Practice of other (Churches. French Churcli, Helvetic Church and Helvetic Con- 
 fession ; the Dutch Church, and Directory of the Synod of Dort. Bohemian and Po- 
 lish Churches. 'J'he Kirk of Scotland and the First and Second Books of Discipline. 
 Calderwood — .Andrew Melville — Herrderson — Rutlierford — Guthrie. Westminster 
 Form of Government. 'l\:stimony of President Davies. Conclusion. 
 
i 
 
'^ATE DUF=" 
 
 \ 
 
^w 
 
 w^ 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 
 y^^; 
 
 ^y^rJ?>«:y^: 
 
 tixVS3K 
 
 
 a l it liS t ilB -* ' '"V