censurable for the separations which they made from other professing Christians. It may be alleged, that they have torn the church of Christ into parties, and so occasioned much evil: yet some of them did not separate from the church of Christ, but from a worldly community calling itself by that name; and those who did, pretended not to be the only people of God in the world, but considered themselves merely as withdrawing from brethren who walked disorderly. It is a melancholy fact, however that no sooner have a people formed themselves into a new denomination, than they are in the utmost danger of concentrating almost all their strength, influence, zeal, prayers, and endeavours, for its support; not as a part of Christ's visible kingdom, wishing all good to other parts, in so far as they follow Christ, but as though it were the whole of it, and as though all true religion were circumscribed within its hallowed pale. This is the essence of a sectarian spirit, and the bane of Christianity.

I am a Dissenter, and a Baptist. If I confine my remarks to the faults of these denominations, it is not because I consider them as greater sinners in this way than all others, but because I wish more especially to correct the evils of my own connexions.

Ifwe wish to promote the dissenting interest, it must not be by expending our principal zeal in endeavouring to make men dissenters, but in making dissenters and others, Christians. The principles of dissent, however just and important, are not to be compared with the glorious gospel of the blessed God; and if inculcated at the expense of it, it is no better than tithing mint and cummin, to the omitting of the weightier matters of the law. Such endeavours will be blasted, and made to defeat their own end. Those dissenters among whom the doctrines of the Puritans and Non-conformists have fallen into disrepute, are generally distinguished by this species of zeal; and it is principally from such quarters that complaints are heard of "the decline of the dissenting interest." Where they are believed and taught, and their progress, whether among dissenters or others, viewed with satisfaction, we hear of no such complaints. It is a curious fact, that while a certain description of dissenters are inquiring into the causes of the decline of the

dissenting interest, a certain description of the established clergy are inquiring into the causes of its increase!

If we wish to see the Baptist denomination prosper, we must not expend our zeal so much in endeavouring to make men Baptists, as in labouring to make Baptists and others, Christians. If we lay out ourselves in the common cause of Christianity, the Lord will bless and increase us. By rejoicing in the prosperity of every other denomination, in so far as they accord with the mind of Christ, we shall promote the best interests of our own. But if we be more concerned to make proselytes to a party than converts to Christ, we shall defeat our own end; and however just our sentiments may be with respect to the subjects and mode of baptism, we shall be found symbolizing with the pharisees, who were employed in tithing mint and cummin, to the neglect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God.

QUERIES RELATIVE TO ORDINATION.

Ir having been the practice of some dissenting ministers to receive ordination but once, it became a question at a meeting lately held in the country, whether a pastor, removing to another church should be re-ordained? The ministers about to engage in such a service, considering ordination not as a designation to the work of the ministry, (of which they find no examples in the New Testament,) but as a solemn appointment to office in a Christion church, were of opinion that a previous ordination had no influence on an appointment to office in another church. They allow

ed that re-ordination is unprecedented in the New Testament; and so also is the removal of a pastor from one church to another: if the latter were found, they supposed the former would accompany it.

Some conversation took place at the same meeting also, on the scriptural grounds, for the laying on of hands in ordination. In favour of this practice, it was alleged-1. That it appears to have been used in all ages of the church, where persons were set apart to sacred work. Numb. xxvii. 18-23. That though often connected with the communication of extraordinary gifts, yet it was not always so. It is not certain that it was for this purpose, that hands were laid upon the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 6.); and it is certain that when the church at Antioch laid hands on Saul and Barnabas, (Acts xiii. 3.) it was not for this purpose, seeing they were possessed of extraordinary gifts already. In this case, they were ordinary persons, who laid hands upon the extraordinary.-3. That when the laying on of hands was accompanied with the conferring of extraordinary gifts, it is doubtful whether they were not imposed, for that specific purpose only. See Acts viii. 17-19. xix. 5, 6.-4. That ordination is expressed by laying on of hands: Lay hands suddenly on no man, &c. But that which is used to express or describe a practice, would seem to be an important, if not an essential part of it,

ON ORDINATION.

MR. EDITOR,

Two of your correspondents have honoured me with their remarks on my few hints on ordination. If I add a few more, it is with no design to enter into any thing like contention on the subject. "Mr. Howe" was a great and good man; and while he considered ordination as a designation to the Christian ministry, it 1 is no wonder he should answer as he did. But I see no evidence deducible from Acts xiv. 23. that this is the scriptural idea of it. Paul and his companions, baving formed these believers into Christian churches, proceeded to organize them with proper officers. These elders, or presbyters, who were ordained by the suffrage of the churches, were officers in those churches, and not merely Christian ministers appointed to preach the gospel wherever a door might be opened. Your correspondent C. speaks of "other passages which he forbears to quote." I he can produce an instance of ordination being a designation to the Christian ministry, as such, his argument will be established; but not else.

Candour requires me to acknowledge, in reply to Amicus, that from what he has remarked on Acts xiii. 3. I suspect myself to have been under a mistake, in supposing that the laying on of hands, in that instance, was by the church. My reason for thinking prayer were not likely

so, was, that the exercises of fasting and to be confined to the prophets and teachers, and therefore not that of laying on of bands: but upon a review of the subject, I incline to think that the latter was done by the prophets and teachers in the name of the church. The point however which was there attempted to be proved, is not affected by this mistake. This was, that the laying on of hands, was not always for the purpose of conveying extraordinary gifts: but whoever they were that

laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, it could not be for this purpose, since it is pretty evident that they were possessed of them before. I may add, I do not consider this as an instance of ordination; but of the designation of two Christian missionaries to the Gentiles.

Amicus speaks of "Saul not being yet ordained an apostle." Surely he is here greatly beside the mark. Is not an apostle one immediately sent of Christ without any human authority? Did not Saul receive ordination to that office at the time of his conversion? See Acts xxvi. 16-18. Compared with Gal. i. 1. 12— 17. and 1 Cor. xi. 1.

With respect to the general question, On what grounds the practice of ordination rests among congregational churches; and wherein the essence of it consists? I am not prepared to enter into "a complete investigation of the subject ;" a close examination of the Acts and the Epistles, with this point in view, might possibly correct some of my ideas. At present, I can only offer a few brief hints.

Viewing the subject as I do, namely, as a designation of a person to an office in a Christian church, I find that in such cases the church made the election, and the apostles and other elders set him apart with prayer (as I suppose) and the laying on of hands. Acts vi. 3. xiv. 23. Titus i. 5. Such is the general ground of my practice, when I engage in an ordination. In doing this, I claim not to be a successor of the apostles, any otherwise than as every faithful pastor is such; nor pretend to constitute the party ordained a Christian minister, for this he was as being a teacher antecedent to his being ordained a pastor; nor to impart power or "authority to administer gospel ordinances." It appears to me, that every approved teacher of God's word, whether ordained the pastor of a particular church or not, is authorized to baptize; and with respect to the Lord's supper, though I should think it disorderly for a young man who is only a probationer, and not an ordained pastor to administer that ordinance, yet I see nothing objectionable, if when a church is destitute of a pastor, it were administered by a deacon or aged brother; I know of no scriptural authority for confining it to ministers. Nay, I do not recollect any mention in the scriptures, of a minister being employed in it,