of its intrinsic excellence nor of its scriptural authority. They certainly cannot regard, with any high degree of veneration, the memory of our pious forefathers. Why was it that our predecessors, the Presbyterian Ministers of Ulster, were driven from their flocks and from their homes? Why was it that Scotland, in the short space of twenty-eight years, was stained with the blood of twenty thousand martyrs? I need not tell you, that it was because they refused to conform to an ecclesiastical system which they deemed tyrannical, and to a ritual which they loathed as superstitious. Let it not be said that our forefathers were narrow-minded and ill-informed. Let it not be said that they suffered for their stubborn bigotry. In point of general literature and of theological acquirements, some of them had but few compeers. Melville and Buchannan, for instance, were amongst the most learned men in Europe. The Scottish Ministers who contended so nobly for the establishment and the maintenance of Presbytery, were, as a body, in every respect incomparably superior to the men who wished to intrude into their places. Their zeal and their steadfastness were the result of matured and of enlightened conviction -they believed that Christ is the sole King of Zion-that he alone has a right to frame laws for the regulation of his church-and that every attempt to deface the simplicity of his worship, by the addition of human forms, is an infringement on his divine prerogative.

But

Whilst some of the politicians of the present day seem to think that every system of ecclesiastical polity is equally good, I have often looked on with wonder as they struggled so perseveringly for a change in our civil government. We hear, indeed, much of a contemplated reform in the church. do our statesmen purpose to alter the framework of the English and Irish establishments? Do they purpose to set up a cheaper and a more effective species of machinery? In the appointment of Ministers of religion, do they intend to bestow the franchise upon the Protestants of England, and thus to infuse into the British Church the free spirit of the British constitution? No such thing. They are still disposed to allow every part of the structure of our religious establishment to remain, and they are merely prepared to sacrifice a few of its appendages to the popular outcry. Whilst many care not what may be the constitution of the church, they act as if they could scarcely be sufficiently scrupulous in modelling the constitution of the state. Whilst they will not tamely part with one of their privileges as the citizens of this world, they

will ingloriously surrender their rights as the Lord's freemen. Whilst they will burst asunder the fetters of civil domination, they will quietly bear the yoke of spiritual thraldom.

These observations, Mr. Editor, lead me to direct the attention of your readers to some of the excellencies by which Presbyterianism is distinguished. In the first place, it entrusts the election of church officers to the people. It is deeply to be deplored that the Established Church of Scotland has departed from this principle, and has recognised the system of patronage. It should, however, be remembered, that this is an anomaly in her constitution-that she was forced to make this concession by political intrigue-and that the right of the people to choose their pastors is still inculcated in her acknowledged standards. There is perhaps no point connected with the government of the church which can be more clearly ascertained, than that every congregation should nominate its ecclesiastical officers. The New Testament supplies us with several cases of popular election. See Acts i. 23, and vi. 5, and 2 Cor. viii. 19. It is admitted by candid ecclesiastical historians of all parties, that for the first three hundred years of the Christian era, this practice generally prevailed. We have indeed heard much of the evils of popular election. We have heard how it has separated chief friends, and convulsed a peaceable and industrious community. But may not our best blessings be abused? The Gospel itself has been so perverted through the corruption of our nature, that a man has been set at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother. A whole city or country is often agitated for months by the fermentations of a political canvass, and the hustings often present a scene of indescribable uproar and confusion; but will our patriots say that the mischief counterbalances the good-will they consent to resign their votes as a grievanceand will they, in disgust, fold their arms, and yield themselves up to the good pleasure of an oligarchy? I trust it is unnecessary to pursue this objection farther. I cannot, however, pass from the subject without expressing my conviction, that the evils resulting from the popular mode of appointing ministers have been greatly over-rated. Owing to various circumstances, the public usually hear of the distractions of our vacant congregations, whilst many peaceful settlements occur without exciting observation. On examining the records of the Presbytery with which I am connected, I find that the seven ministers who have been last ordained have all been unanimously chosen. I have reason to believe, that in seve

Р

ral other Presbyteries the same harmony has prevailed. There is just one other feature of our Presbyterian elections to which I would at present advert. I refer to the discrimination which the people generally discover in the selection of their pastors. With few exceptions, the most efficient minister is appointed to the most important charge. A man of sterling talent and of true piety is almost uniformly placed in a sphere of extensive usefulness.

Another feature of our church government is, that whilst it maintains the perfect parity of its ministers, it provides that all must be responsible to the Presbytery. Some have ignorantly asserted that Presbyterianism is an incomplete system -that it leaves its Ministers without restraint-that it places them under no spiritual oversight. It is, however, the only perfect form of ecclesiastical polity. It is thus distinguished both from the laxity of independency and the slavery of prelacy. According to the Independent scheme, every worshipping society is in itself a distinct body, connected with others by no ecclesiastical bond. The sole 'power of government is vested in the congregation. Its decisions are not subject to appeal. Hence when a Minister offends his people, he is completely at their mercy. They are at once his accusers and his judges. They cannot be controlled by any unprejudiced tribunal. Besides, according to this system, there is no ecclesiastical body to guard against the introduction of improper teachers into the church. Prelacy, on the other hand, usually deprives the people of all power. Episcopalians are permitted neither to elect nor to control their Ministers. Their congregations contain no court before which transgressors may be cited and tried. The laity have no ecclesiastical influence. They are simply permitted to wait upon their teacher, and to receive the ordinances at his hand. The inferior clergy are equally dependent on their superiors. They are ordained, and presented to livings, and suspended according to the will of the bishop. In every system of prelacy, however, the individual who is first in rank may act as he pleases. He is not amenable to any ecclesiastical overseer. Не may be a bishop, or an archbishop, or a primate, or a patriarch, or a pope, or a king; but as he acknowledges no spiritual superior, he cannot be controlled. Thus prelacy usually begins and ends in despotism. It commences by stripping the people of all power, and it terminates by freeing the highest dignitary from all responsibility. Our system aroids all these evils. It establishes a session in every con

gregation, before which the guilty may be easily brought to trial, and it organizes a Presbytery, to which the Ministers themselves are accountable. No Minister can pretend to dictate to another, and yet every one is subject to his brethren. Hence we may see the efficiency of Presbyterian guardianship. Every pastor may be said to be acting under the eye of as many overseers as there are members in his Presbytery; as his conduct must, however, be submitted to the judgment of the whole body, he is at once subjected to a system of the most watchful superintendence, and sheltered against the unwarrantable ebullitions of individual jealousies and antipathies.

ar

From what has been said, we may learn why it is that bitrary governments are invariably hostile to the spread of Presbyterianism. Our ecclesiastical system recognises popular rights, and is consequently the friend of civil liberty. By placing the election of all its officers in the hands of the people, it releases the church from the trammels of court patronage. Prelacy, even in its least ostentatious form, may, with much greater ease, be made subservient to the purposes of ambitious and domineering statesmen. It must always be much more practicable to conciliate a few bishops, whose power with the inferior clergy must be necessarily great, than to secure the support of a whole multitude of Ministers, who neither dread the displeasure nor hope for the favours of any ecclesiastical dignitary. According to an arrangement by which the bishops, who appoint the parochial teachers, are themselves nominated by the crown, the Government must possess a direct and commanding influence over all ranks of ecclesiastical officers. In fact the church thus becomes the mere creature of the state. Rulers have found that Presbytery is not so accommodating and manageable a machine. We would not by any means insinuate that Ministers of the Gospel should suffer themselves to be drawn aside from the high duties of their calling, that they may promote the purposes of any political party; but we utterly repudiate the doctrine, that they have nothing to do with the measures of statesmen. We hold that

they are bound by the most sacred obligations to watch over all the interests of religion, and honestly to bear their testimony against the unrighteous acts of their legislators. We hold that they are guilty if they do not lift up their voice like a trumpet against every attempt to exclude the Bible from our schools, or to arrest the progress of the Gospel amongst our countrymen.

I cannot conclude this article without adverting to the responsibility of Ministers as members of Presbytery. In this capacity they are entrusted not only with the charge of candidates for license and ordination, but also with the oversight of their brethren. If they are accessary to the introduction of teacher's who are either tainted with heresy or chargeable with immoral practices, they participate in their sins. If they do not take strict cognizance of the delinquencies of unworthy members, they suffer the church to be scandalized, and are themselves guilty of Presbyterial unfaithfulness. A single Minister of ability, and piety, and fearlessness, may be instrumental in the regeneration of a whole Presbytery. Whilst the pastor of our church possesses no arbitrary power, he is, in fact, invested with all that is valuable in the prerogatives of prelacy. He may say with Paul, that there cometh upon him the care of all the churches. By sanctified zeal combined with Christian prudence, he may contribute in imparting a higher tone to the character of the whole Presbyterian body. Above all, it becomes him to abound in prayer for himself, his people, his brethren in the ministry, and the church at large. I may, perhaps, in some future communication, trouble you with a few additional observations upon this subject. Meanwhile I am, &c. &c., PRESBYTER.

RULING ELDERS.

Ar a late ordination of ruling Elders in the Presbyterian Church, Fisherwick-place, Belfast, the following questions were addressed to the candidates, and answered in the affirmative:

1. Do you believe that the doctrines contained in the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly are founded upon and agreeable to the word of God? and as such, do you confess them to be your faith?

2. Do you believe that the Presbyterian Church government and discipline are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and do you resolve to maintain and promote them?

3. Do you promise faithfully and impartially to exercise the government which Christ has established in his church, as you shall have opportunity, in this congregation?

4. Do you promise to conduct all the meetings of your session with gravity and a sense of accountability to Jesus Christ, the King and Head of the church-beginning and closing them with prayer?

5. Do you promise to visit the sick of the congregation when called on to do so, and when not hindered by any necessary calling, praying with them and exhorting them?

6. Do you promise to maintain the daily worship of God in your own households, judging such to be a Christian duty and a becoming example in the Elders of the church?

7. Do you promise to seek and embrace opportunities of furthering the interests of religion in this congregation, as God may enable you?