New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-01-31
VOL. HEE. NO. 253.

any sacramental and mysterious virtues which he
did not before possess Is it possible that in your
estimation this is the whole force, intention and
efficacy of ordination The Presbyterian stand
ards say that it is a calling Of God, rs Aaron uds
called Of God. No, says DR.. Potts, 1t is simply
+" a public recognition. A newspaper paragraph
duly signed by the proper person would be "a
public recognition" Would this be an ordlna-
ton A handful at the corner Of the streets is in
like manner ga public recognition" In what
hercsy that ever cursed the earth have not the
leaders been favored with "a public recognition y
by their adherents7 And is this equivalent to or
dination to the "laying on of the hands of the
Presbytery 2 I"
| affirm and you cannot deny that the Presby-
terrain standards teach that neither the inward
CALL nor intellectual gifts and qualifications
Qhis is the Quaker doctrine nor the voice Of the
people inviting to exercise their qualifications, IN
their behalf, (his is the Congregational doctrine
constitute gospel minister; and that ordination
is not merely the public recognition of such an
Individual as the possessor Of such CALL (this
is the whole import of Congregational ordnatlon,)
but that ordination does invest the individual
with authority which he did not before possess,
and which he could possess solely and exclusively
by the laying on Of the hands of other ministers,
who have themselves been externally ordained
and this is the Presbyterian doctrine.)
That this is the Presbyterian doctrine I will
not attempt TO strengthen the proof by quoting
more largely from your standards, than | have
done in my last letter, lest | should fatigue orr
readers, but will refer TO what may beof some
interest to them, and what will greatly fortfy my
position, | will refer TO the doings of the Gen
eral Assembly held in June last.
This very point now between us then came
up, and was fully discussed, on the question Of
the rights of ruling elders to impose hands at or
dinaton. On one side 1t was argued that they
had the right, on the ground that ''they were
members of the Presbytery, and ordination was
to be by the laying on of the hands Of the Pres
bytery." On the other side it was contended that
they had no such authority, inasmuch as g min
isterlal acts could be performed only by minis
ters.'' ministers were the representatives of
the head of the Church. the elders the representa-
tives of the body" .The ministers are Christ's
representatives, the elders the Churchs. We
have here then the two elements ofotfice-clecton
by the people through their rep resentatives the
elders, and ordination by Christ through his rep
resentatives or minister's" "And what power
does the Church give him q. c. the ruling elder
Not the power of ordinations for the Church her.
sell, aSlGe from the ministry, uoeS not possess
that power. Independents sometimes ordain
without preaching elders, but that is not Presby-
terianism. And here is the very point in ques-
ton. The Church has power to deliberate, adj
wise and decide, but not to impose hands. This
significant act Of very ancient origin is an en-
blem of the transfer of ministerial power. But
the Church is not the depository of this power,
and therefore she cannot delegate it to her repre-
sentative" These were some of the arguments
used, and sound arguments they were, and they
prevailed, and they were sustained by your Gene
raj Assembly, by the following overwhelming
vote
Yeas 1871 Excused .........