It is deeply to be deplored that in the common English version of the scriptures there are to be found so many outlandish words, which to the common reader can convey no definite signification whatever. Had every word been translated into plain English, and the "laity" been permitted to hear the truth in their own mother tongue, the creedmakers would have been in a great measure defeated; and the "clergy" would have been deprived of one of their most successful methods of imposing on the ignorance and credulity of mankind. Had Bishops, which in England has no meaning, except what the reigning Priesthood choose to give it, been translated Overseer, then every body would have known, that, in the New Testament, Bishops meant nothing more than the associate Elders or Overseers of one Christian congregation. Had Minister been translated servant, as it should have been, then the distinctions between servants of Christ and Ministers of Christ would have been unknown.

How fatal must the base translation of this word have proved to the dominion and arrogant pretensions of the Clergy, who impiously dare to lay an exclusive claim to the rank of Ministers of the Gospel, and to the right of performing certain parts of the service under the New Constitution-such, especially, as preaching the gospel and "administering its ordinance;" thereby disfranchising the great mass of God's "royal Priesthood," and degrading them to the rank of mere menials in the Kingdom.

In like manner, if ordination had been translated into English, it would have been simply appointment. Every appointment, then, no matter to what duty or office, or in what manner it might have been made, would have been an "ordination." But by anglicising the Latin word ordinatio, instead of using the English term appointment, "ORDINATION" easily comes to have a cabalistic meaning. An ambitious and self-constituted Priesthood can easily attach to the word a signification favorable to their exclusive pretensions, and persuade the laity' that it means consecration to the "HOLY MINISTRY" by the laying on of the hands of a duly "ORDAINED MINISTRY."

Oh! for the day when faithful translations of the scriptures into every tongue under heaven shall enable us all, every member of the human family, to learn the truths of scripture, in that language in which we were born." May God hasten its advent!

When a peculiar meaning, no matter how erroneous, has thus been appropriated to an outlandish word, and that meaning has been extensively incorporated with religious prejudices, it becomes a Herculean task to disabuse the public mind, and restore the word to its true signification.

Ordain, aud its derivative ordination, fall within the scope of these remarks. So soon as ordain is heard with reference to religious matters, it is immediately and almost irresistibly inferred that hands were imposed; and he who would question this inference would be regarded as questioning the fact of ordination, and doubting the veracity of the historian. But is this a correct view of the subject? Let us examine a few passages where ordain occurs, and see what is the scriptural meaning of the term:

Quere.-Is there not also, in many cases, the act of instalment?-The ordaining act?

T.C.

Isaiah xxvi. 12. "Lord, wilt thou ordain peace for us?" Psalm viii. 2. "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength." Psalm viii. 3. "The moon and the stars which thou hast ordained." Psalm cxxxii. 17. "I have ordained a lamp for mine Anointed," Acts xiii. 48. "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed." Acts xvi. 4. "The decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders." Romans vii. 10. "The commandment which was ordained to life." Galatians iii. 19. "The law was ordained by angels." 1 Tim. ii. 7. "Good works, which God hath before ordained." Jude 4. "Ungodly men, who were of old ordained to this con.. demnation."

In all the foregoing passages (and similar ones might be multiplied almost ad infinitum) it is manifest to the intellect of a child, that to interpret ordain so as to include the laying on of hands, would make sad havoc alike of scripture and of common sense.

Let us now examine a few passages where ordained is used with reference to official appointment, and see whether even then it includes imposition of hands:

Mark iii. 14. "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach," &c.

Luke records the same transaction thus: "And when it was day he called unto him his disciples; and of them he chose twelve, whom he also named Apostles." Luke vi. 13

Thus we see that the bare choice of the twelve in this instance constituted their ordination.

Acts i. 22. "Of these, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." Peter is here speaking of the ordination of Matthias; and every body knows that he was ordained not by the laying on of hands, but by the casting of lots.

Acts x. 42. In this passage Jesus is said to have been "ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead"-not, certainly, by the laying on of God's hands.

Romans xii. 1. "The powers that be are ordained of God." Did he lay his hands on the civil officers when he thus ordained them?

1 Tim. ii. 7. "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an Apostle." That Paul was neither ordained a preacher nor an Apostle by the laying on of human hands, was proved in the former essay, both by the record of his conversion and by the express testimony of Paul himself in the first chapter of his letter to the Galatians.

Titus i. 5. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee."

The word used here in the original is kataeteses, from kathistemi, which denotes simply to constitute or appoint-no matter in whet manner that appointment may be made. If Titus, as Paul's agent, had done no more than tell the Cretans what were the necessary qualifications of Elders, and they had elected such in any way, every thing would have been done that is implied in this passage, so far as the import of the terms are concerned. And we are not to learn our duty from what scripture does not say, but from what it does say.

Acts xiv. 23. represents Paul and Barnabas, in their tour through Asia Minor, as having "ordained Elders in every church.”

The word used in the original is cheirotoneo, which means primarily to extend, or lift up the hand, but commonly to elect in that way. It is also used in a still more general sense to denote appointment to office, without any reference to the manner in which it is made. Thus in 2 Cor. viii. 19., Titus is said to have been chosen (cheirotonetheis) by the churches of Macedonia to carry their contribution to the poor saints. There is no proof that hands were laid on him for that purpose. The supposition of such a thing would be highly unreasonable. A compound of this same verb is used in Acts x. 41., (and translatad "chosen before") to express God's choice of the Apostles to be witnesses of the resurrection of Christ. The laying on of hands is obviously excluded here by the necessity of the case.

There is, then, no evidence, nor even intimation, that the persons spoken of as ordained in Acts xiv. 23., had any hands laid on them, but rather presumptive evidence to the contrary; since a phraseology very different from that, which is used on this occasion, is employed invariably to express the laying on of hands.

Dr. Doddridge, although an advocate for Presbyterial ordination by the laying on of hands, paraphrases the foregoing passage thus: "And when they had, by the concurrent suffrages of the people," (he might with more propriety have said disciples,) constituted presbyters for them in every city."

In the primitive churches, before the New Testament was written, nothing could be done but by inspiration, or as inspired men directed. The New Testament stands in the same relation to us, as inspired men stood to them. Hence, Paul ordains Elders as truly in our congregations as 'he did in theirs, when the congregations themselves ordainthat is, simply elect (cheirotoneo) or appoint them to office in accordance with his instructions. Any other view subverts the independence of the churches, and the right of each to govern itself according to the scriptures.

To sum up what has been proved in this essay:-1st. Ordain means simply appoint, and should have been so rendered. 2d. In most cases where it is used in the common version, the laying on of hands is manifestly excluded. 3d. In none of the cases that have been ex-, amined (and I have omitted no official case in the New Testament that I could find) is the laying on of hands ever included.

I would not be understood to say, that the laying on of hands never accompanied appointment to office in the New Testament. What I meant to say is, that imposition of hands is not included in the terms ordain and ordination, and that where they occur in the common version there is not the slightest evidence that the appointment was ever made by the laying on of hands. So far from it, that as we have seen in all the foregoing cases, there is presumptive evidence, and in one of them positive evidence against the practice.

Your fellow-servant in the gospel,

JAMES SHANNON.

COLLEGE OF LOUISIANA, Jackson, April 29, 1839.

REMARKS UPON THE ABOVE.

Respected brother Shannon,

Attending, pro tem., to my son's editorial business for a few weeks in his absence, I take the liberty to offer a few remarks upon your two

essays respecting ministerial ordination, now republished in the Millennial Harbinger according to your request. I may add, that I am the rather encouraged so to do, seeing you express a desire, that we should "point out wherein, if in any thing, at all, they do not accord with the holy scriptures." However this may be, I must say, in the mean time, that son Alexander clearly and fully expresses my views of church order, in his late publication called "The Christian System," page 85, sections 14 and 15; which read as follows:

"While the Christian system allows every man 'as he has received a gift to minister as a good steward of the manifold grace of God,' it makes provision for choosing and setting apart qualified persons for all its peculiar services, necessary to its own edification and comfort, as well as to its usefulness in the world. It provides for its own perpetuity and its growth in the wisest and most practical manner. Its whole wisdom consists in four points:-1st. It establishes the necessary offices for its perpetuity and growth. 2d. It selects the best qualified persons for those offices. 3d. It consecrates or sets those persons apart to those offices. 4th. It commands them to give themselves wholly to the work, that their improvement may keep pace with the growth of the body, and be apparent to all. Can any person point out an imperfection in this plan?

"All its officers, whether for its services at home or abroad, when fully proved, are to be formally and solemnly set apart by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery or eldership of the church. The whole community chooses: the seniors ordain. This is the apostolic tradition. Let those unacquainted with the volume examine the apostolic law and usage, Acts vi. 2-6. So the Christian system in its elections and ordinations began. It is immutable Therefore this system obtains in all cases. 99

Now if all this be scripturally right, as I believe it is, it would appear that there is, at least, a shade of difference between this view of the matter and some of the sentiments expressed in the essays under consideration. The first of which comes to this conclusion;That "there is, in short, not a single passage in the New Testament, which records the fact, that any disciple ever had hands laid on him to authorize him to preach the gospel and baptize believers." And "that if no such limitation of the commission is expressly taught, no such limitation could have been intended.”—That "to proclaim the good news for the salvation of sinners is so manifestly a moral duty, as to need no positive statute to make it obligatory on all the disci ples." And the second essay comes to this conclusion: 1st. That "ordain means simply appoint; and should have been so rendered." 2d. That "in most cases where it is used in the common version the laying on of hands is manifestly excluded." 3d. That "in none of the cases that have been examined, (and I have omitted no official case in the New Testament. that I could find,) is the laying on of hands

ever included." Yet you tell us, you would "not be understood to say, that the laying on of hands never accompanied appointment to office in the New Testament;" but only, that you "meant to say, that imposition of hands is not included in the terms ordain and ordination; and, that where they occur in the common version, there is not the slightest evidence that the appointment was ever made by the laying on of hands."

Well, all this being true, still leaves the matter open to investigation: for the question is not about the propriety of the translation, nor yet whether the laying on of hands be found in connexion with the word "ordain," when used in the common version with respect to official appointments; but only whether evangelists, bishops, and deacons were not ordinarily so appointed. We say ordinarily; that is, according to the settled order of the apostolic churches. We know there must be churches, before there can be any church order; and also, that whatever the Apostles practised or ordered for accomplishing the object of their mission, before any churches were formed, or where there were none, was perfectly just and right. To return, to the ques tion at issue-that is, Were not Evangelists, Bishops, and Deacons ordinarily appointed by the imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer? We say, Yes, in so far as the churches were immediately concerned in their ordination: that is, when they either received or sent them. It is true, they could only send forth evangelists, nut bishops and deacons; for these always bore a special official relation only to the churches wherein they were appointed.

Now for the proof. See Acts vi. 6. for the first appointment of deacons; and Acts xiv. 23. for the first recorded ordination of Elders or Bishops. But here there is no mention made of the imposition of hands, but only of an election by suffrage, with the stretching forth of hands; cheirotonesantes;—accompanied with fasting and prayer. And what then? The very persons that did this business, were set apart for it by the imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer, by the church of Antioch, whence they were sent. But to this it is objected, that "the church at Antioch, as a church, had nothing to do with the transaction, so far as the record gives us any information. It was not an act of the body, but of inspired men-'certain prophets and teachers' appertaining to the body." Well, certainly in every organized body, the official members transact the special business for which they are set apart in the body. Consequently, when there are prophets and teachers in any church, it behooves them to take the lead in the public social exercises in the church to which they belong. Nor, indeed, do we ever find any, in the New Testament, taking the lead in the public