of ruling elders can be shown from the Scriptures, it is sufficient. But they show, that two orders only were constituted by the apostles, presbyters or bishops, and deacons. The form of government at present used in the Presbyterian church has retained the alternative; the churches have their election of two, or of three orders, and thus give to neither side just ground of of fence. In it we cheerfully acquiesce. These outlines of the reasons upon which three orders have been refused, in, we believe, a majority of our churches, have been reluctantly given; but the confident style of several recent publications, of opposite sentiments, has rendered the defence of our own opinion, and that of our fathers, a duty. The question is extremely simple. Did such a distinct intermediate order exist in the apostolic churches? Until it be shown, either by fact or Scripture, we may safely adopt the negative, both as to the lay presbyter, and the diocesan bishop. But we have found nothing for either, except hearsays, opinions, and some forged writings. The presbyter in each society, with a president at its head, passed into the pastoral form, or parochial episcopacy, by degrees scarcely perceptible. The ulterior transition into diocesan episcopacy, followed, as the necessary result of the restriction of each city to one set of church officers; and so long as promotion was exposure to persecution, power accumulated without jealousy. Afterwards when Constantine substituted the Christian for the Pagan hierarchy, of which he was, by virtue of his office, the pontifex maximus, the church did not so much acquiesce in the change, as exult at the establishment of Christianity. The western portion advanced by slow, but certain, steps unto papal domination. It was not till the Reformation, that the ground-work was laid of those various forms of church government, which at present appear among protestants. They were deemed then to be, as they really are, of minor importance; and, in fact, received their characteristic features, less from the diversity of the hypotheses of the reformers in different countries, than from the political circumstances of the respective nations. They awaken research, without dividing the faithful; and what right views can obscure, perfection will eventually obliterate. THE following numbers were first published in the "Philadelphian," of the year 1828, as answers to some remarks under the same title, which appeared in the "Church Register." LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. NUMBER I. THIS title is taken from the Church Register. It, at the same time, points to the cause, and expresses the subject of our inquiries. The alternative being tendered, "Prayer may be called the making known of our wants to a superior being, and our desire to be relieved from them; or, it is "the offering the heart to God;" we accept the latter, because neither angels nor glorified saints can help us, or become mediators. To the objection, that "the Omniscient knows our wants long before they existed," the anonymous writer answers in terms suited to his own creed. We prefer to say the author of all good governs with equal particularity in the kingdoms of providence and grace: in both he adopts means, among which are often the duties assigned to moral agents. Their liberty, being essential to their responsibility, is secure; whilst their voluntary actions are constituents of the general scheme of events. If the prayer of faith be thus a mean to ensure a promised blessing, the grace is certain, and consequently the duty; and the purpose, the fore-knowledge, and the event are equally sure, whilst the duty of praying is not the less incumbent ; and as in every other case, absolute contingency is wholly excluded. When he says that "private prayer, is that pouring out of the heart, which holds the soul in rapt communion with spiritual things;" and afterwards that "this (order) is best effected in public prayer by the use |