ter, and to induce them faithfully to execute their duty in the relations they sustain. It does not invade the province of the civil ruler; nor does it permit human authority arbitrarily to define its doc. trines, to propagate its truths by the sword, or to enforce its peculiar laws by human sanctions. Its privileges are granted to all, and each individual is accountable to God, and to God only, for their improvement. But my particular design, under this branch of our subject, is, to state the condition of the priesthood, and to describe the form of ecclesiastical government, as these existed in the days of the apostles. Two systems can scarce differ more from each other, in these respects, than the Christian Church, in the times of the apostles, differs from the Church of Rome, at the commencement of the reformation.

The general method pursued by the apostles and evangelist, in the establishment of our religion, seems to have been this :-They first passed through Gentile countries, preaching the gospel, and performing miracles, in proof of their divine mission; and all who were endued with spiritual gifts were employed in propagating the Christian faith, and instructing those who were disposed to receive the word of life. On a second journey, as many of the proselytes to Christianity as could conveniently attend on the publick institutions of the gospel, in one place, were formed into distinct congregations or Churches. Church and congregation in primitive times, meant the same society; and particular pastors were ordained to officiate in the worship and instruction of the Lord's day.

New converts needed much instruction; and ministers were often interrupted in their official labours, by persecution, and other causes peculiar to that period: more than one pastor, therefore, was frequently appointed in the same Church. But there is, I believe, no proof from the New Testament, that the apostles instituted more than one order of ministers, or that one minister was invested with more power than another. The Greek terms gen erally used by the sacred writers, to designate the official character of a minister, are, Exoxomos and Пgeobulegos. In English, Bishop and Elder. One Πρεσβυτέρος. of these titles, we are told, was taken from the nature and duties of the ministerial office, and the other, from respect to the profession; both are descriptive of the same officer, and are indiscriminately used when his office and duties are defined. Two or three passages from the Acts of the Apostles, and from the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, will be sufficient to support this remark. In Acts (xx. 17) we read that Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church. In this place, the Greek word is weeσbulépus. In his address to these Church officers, when convened, Paul exhorts them, (verse 28)—" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers." Here the Greek is mixóns, bishops. No one can possibly doubt that these terms here refer to the same men, and that in the same communication they are denominated Elders and Bishops. In our text we are informed, that Titus was left at Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain

Elders in every city. In the subsequent verses, we have a description of the qualifications of the Christian minister. A Bishop must be blameless," &c. The usual Greek words are used in these passages Πρεσβυτέρος and Επίσκοπος, Elder and Bishop. Elder and Bishop, therefore, in the language of St. Paul, mean the same Church officer. To our present purpose I will cite one passage from the first epistle of Peter, (v. 1.)—“ The Elders, (ПgeσCuléges) among you, I exhort." And the exhortation immediately follows, (verse 2)-" Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof." In Greek, inoxоmales, that is, performing the duties of Bishops. This passage proves that Peter, as well as Paul, considered an Elder and a Bishop to be the same officer, and their duties to be one and the same.

Where is the authority found in the New Testament for the different orders of Christian ministers which are now constituent parts of many ecclesiastical establishments in Christendom? More especially, what authority can be derived from the directions of the apostles, or from the examples of the primitive age of our religion for the high dignity and the extensive powers with which Bishops in these establishments are now clothed? In the epistle to the Philippians, St. Paul thus addresses the united Christian community-"To all the saints at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons." Similar modes of address may be noted in other epistles. The distinction between the three classes here mentioned, we well know; their several characters are in the New Testament clearly described,

and their respective duties are fully explained. No Church was left destitute of a Bishop; and in some, several were appointed. The assembly of Christians, the apostle addressed in the following manner-" We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake."

Deacons, in the primitive age, were not considered as an order of the priesthood. They aided the pastor in some of his official services: in the exercises of publick worship, they distributed the elements to communicants, and provided the materials for baptism; but their general business was secular, and to them was committed the management of the prudential concerns of the Church.

The apostles fully explain the office of the minister of a particular Church: they clearly define his duty, and solemnly admonish him to its faithful execution. In the sacred witings, the distinct offices of Elders and Bishops are not described; nor / do we find directions which apply exclusively to an higher order of priests. If an higher order was appointed by the apostles, how shall we account for this neglect? Take, for example, a Bishop, as this ecclesiastical officer is acknowledged in the Church of England. In him the right of ordination is exclusively vested: he has the oversight of all the clergy of his diocese; and his jurisdiction is exercised over the whole number of Churches which compose it. There is not, I am satisfied, a passage in the New Testament which describes this office, nor one direction respecting the execution of its

duties. To the propriety of this remark, you, my Christian brethren, I believe, will assent, when you attend to the primitive government of the Christian Church.

It is unnecessary to bring into view the distinction between apostles who were supernaturally endued to execute their high commission, and the ordinary ministers of the gospel. Apostles and evangelists acted by divine authority; and our present inquiry is, What is the constitution of the Christian Church as they established it? Where does the right of election to office, the authority to ordain the pastor elect, and the power to discipline the members of the Christian society ordinarily rest?

On

In respect to discipline, it is apparent that neither Christ nor his apostles empowered either a single Bishop, or the presbytery to try members on a charge of conduct unworthy the Christian name, or to inflict censures on those convicted of offence. the contrary, this power was certainly lodged with the assembly of Christians. Examine the directions of our Saviour respecting measures to be adopted with an offending brother, contained in the 18th chapter of Matthew, and you will find that the authority to discipline is not committed to the pastor or to the presbytery, but to the brethren.“ If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shali

But if he