therefore, to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour."-Supplies for the necessities of government are therefore to be willingly and faithfully furnished. Rulers are also to be treated with respect and reverence: "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." They are to be honoured both by external marks of respect, and by being maintained in dignity; their actions are to be judged of with candour and charity, and when questioned or blamed, this is to be done with moderation, and not with invective or ridicule, a mode of "speaking evil of dignities," which grossly offends against the Christian rule. This branch of our duties is greatly strengthened by the enjoined duty of praying for rulers, a circumstance which gives an efficacy to it which no uninspired system can furnish. "I exhort, therefore, that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." This holy and salutary practice is founded upon a recognition of the ordinance of God as to government; it recognises, also, the existing powers in every place, as God's "ministers;" it supposes that all public affairs are under Divine control; it reminds men of the arduous duties and responsibility of governors; it promotes a benevolent, grateful, and respectful feeling towards them; and it is a powerful guard against the factious and seditious spirit. These are so evidently the principles and tendencies of this sacred custom, that when prayer has been used, as it sometimes has, to convey the feelings of a malignant, factious, or light spirit, every well disposed mind must have been shocked at so profane a mockery and must have felt that such prayers "for all that are in authority," were any thing but "good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." Connected as these reciprocal rights and duties of rulers, and of their subjects, are with the peace, order, Jiberty, and welfare of society, so that were they universally acted upon, nothing would remain to be desired for the promotion of its peace and welfare; it is also evident that in no part of the world have they been fully observed, and, indeed, in most countries they are, to this day, grossly trampled upon. A question then arises, How far does it consist with Christian submission to endeavour to remedy the evils of a government? On this difficult and often controverted point we must proceed with caution, and with steady respect to the principles above drawn from the word of God; and that the subject may be less entangled, it may be proper to leave out of our consideration, for the present, all questions relating to rival supreme powers, as in the case of a usurpation, and those which respect the duty of subjects, when persecuted by their government on account of their religion. Although government is enjoined by God, it appears to be left to men to judge in what FORM its purposes may, in certain circumstances, be most effectually accomplished. No direction is given on this subject in the Scriptures. The patriarchal or family governments of the most ancient times were founded upon nature; but when two or more families were joined under one head, either for mutual defence, or for aggression, the [government] was one of choice, or it resulted from a submission effected by conquest. Here, in many cases, a compact might, and in some instances did, come in, though differing in principle from "the social compact" of theoretical writers; and this affords the only rational way of interpreting that real social compact which in some degree or other exists in all nations. In all cases where the patriarchal government was to be raised into a government common to many families, some considerable number of persons must have determined its form, and they would have the right to place it upon such fundamental principles as might seem best, provided that such principles did not interfere with the duties made obligatory by God upon every sovereign power, and with the obligations of the subject to be governed by justice in mercy, and to be controlled from injuring others. Equally clear would be the right of the community, either en masse, or by their natural heads or representatives, to agree upon a body of laws, which should be the standing and published expression of the will of the supreme power, that so the sovereign will on all main questions might not be subject to con stant changes and the caprice of an individual; and to oblige the sovereign, as the condition of his office, to bind himself to observe these fundamental principles and laws of the state by solemn oath, which has been the practice among many nations, and especially those of the Gothic stock. It follows from hence, that while there is an ordination of God as to government, prior to the establishment of all governments, there is no ordination of a particular man or men to govern, nor any investment of families with hereditary right. There is no such ordination in Scripture, and we know that none takes place by particular revelation. God "setteth up one, and putteth down another," in virtue of his dominion over all things; but he does this through men themselves, as his controlled and often unconscious instruments. Hence, by St. Peter, in perfect consistency with St. Paul, the existing governments of the world are called "ordinances of men."-"Submit to every ordinance of man," or to every human creation or constitution, "for the Lord's sake! whether to the king as supreme," &c: Again, as the wisdom to govern with absolute truth and justice is not to be presumed to dwell in one man, however virtuous, so, in this state of things, the better to secure a salutary administration, there would be a right to make provision for this also, by Councils, Senates, Parliaments, Cortes, or similar institutions, vested with suitable powers, to forward, but not to obstruct, the exercise of good government. And accordingly, we can trace the rudiments of these institutions in the earliest stages of most regular governments. These and similar arrangements are left to human care, prudence, and patriotism; and they are in perfect accordance with the principles of sovereign right as laid down in Scripture. It is not, however, in the forming of a new state, that any great difficulty in morals arises. It comes in when either old states, originally ill constituted, becomeinadapted to the purposes of good government in a new and altered condition of society, and the supreme power refuses to adapt itself to this new state of affairs; or when, in states originally well constituted, encroachments upon the public liberties take place, and great misrule or neglect is chargeable upon the executive. The question in such cases is, whether resistance to the will of the supreme power is consistent with the subject's duty? To answer this, resistance must be divided into two kinds,-the resistance of opinion, and the resistance of force. As to the first, the lawfulness, nay, even the duty of it must often be allowed; but under certain qualifying circumstances. As, 1. That this resistance of opposing and inculpating opinion is not directed against government, as such, however strict, provided it be just and impartial. 2. That it is not personal against the supreme magistrate himself, or his delegated authorities, but relates to public acts only. 3. That it springs not from mere theoretical preference of some new form of government to that actually existing, so that it has in it nothing practical. 4. That it proceeds not from a hasty, prejudiced, or malignant interpretation of the character, designs, and acts of a government. 5. That it is not factious; that is, not the result of attachment to parties, and of zeal to effect mere party objects, instead of the general good. 6. That it does not respect the interests of a few only, or of a part of the community, or the mere local interests of some places in opposition to the just interests of other places. Under such guards as these, the respectful, but firm expression of opinion, by speech, writing, petition, or remonstrance, is not only lawful, but is often an imperative duty, a duty for which hazards even must be run by those who endeavour to lead up public opinion to place itself against real encroachments upon the fundamental laws of a state, or any serious maleadministration of its affairs. The same conclusion may be maintained under similar reserves, when the object is to improve a deficient and inadequate state of the supreme government. It is indeed specially requisite here, that the case should be a clear one; that it should be felt to be so by the great mass of those who with any propriety can be called the public; that it should not be urged beyond the necessity of the case; that the discussion of it should be temperate; that the change should be directly connected with an obvious public good, not otherwise to be accomplished. When these circumstances meet, there is manifestly no opposition to government as an ordinance of God; no blameable resist-country to be in some progress; that the evils of bad ance to the powers that be," since it is only proposed to place them in circumstances the more effectually to fulfil the duties of their office; nothing contrary, in fact, to the original compact, the object of which was the public benefit, by rendering its government as efficient to promote the good of the state as possible, and which therefore necessarily supposed a liability to future modifications, when the fairly collected public sentiment, through the organs by which it usually expresses itself as to the public weal, required it. The least equivocal time, however, for proposing any change in what might be regarded as fundamental or constitutional in a form of government originally ill settled, would be on the demise of the sovereign, when the new stipulations might be offered to his successor, and very lawfully be imposed upon him. Resistance by force may be divided into two kinds. The first is that milder one which belongs to constitutional states, that is, to those in which the compact between the supreme power and the people has been drawn out into express articles, or is found in well understood and received principles and ancient customs, imposing checks upon the sovereign will, and surrounding with guards the public liberty. The application of this controlling power, which, in this country, is placed in a Parliament, may have in it much of compulsion and force; as when à Parliament rejects measures proposed by the ministry, who are the organs of the will of the sovereign; or when it refuses the usual supplies for the army and navy, until grievances are redressed. The proper or improper use of this power depends on the circumstances; but when not employed factiously, nor under the influence of private feelings, nor in subservience to unjustifiable popular clamour, or to popular demagogues; but advisedly and patriotically, in order to maintain the laws and customs of the kingdom, there is in it no infringement of the laws of Scripture as to the subjects' obedience. A compact exists; these are the established means of enforcing it; and to them the sovereign has consented in his coronation oath. government are not only beginning to be felt, but to be extensively reflected upon; and that the circumstances of a country are such that these considerations must force themselves upon the public mird, and advance the influence of public opinion in favour of beneficial changes. When this is the case, the existing evils must be gradually counteracted, and ultimately subdued by the natural operation of all these circumstances. But if little impression has been made upon the public mind, resistance would be hopeless and, even if not condemned by a higher principle, impolitic. The elements of society are not capable of being formed into & better system, or, if formed into it, cannot sustain it, since no form of government, however good in theory, is reducible to beneficial practice, without a considerable degree of public intelligence and public virtue. Even where society is partially prepared for beneficial changes, they may be hurried on too rapidly, that is, before sufficient previous impression has been made upon the public mind and character, and then nothing but mischief could result from a contest of force with a bad government. The effect would be that the leaders of each party would appeal to an ignorant and bad populace, and the issue on either side would prove injuricus to the advancement of civil improvement. If the despotic party should triumph, then, of course, all patriotism would be confounded with rebellion, and the efforts of moderate men to benefit their country be rendered for a long time hopeless. If the party seeking just reforms should triumph, they could only do so by the aid of those whose bad passions they had inflamed, as was the case in the French Revolution; and then the result would be a violence which, it is true, overthrows one form of tyranny, but sets up another under which the best men perish. It cannot be doubted but that the sound public opinion in France, independent of all the theories in favour of republicanism which had been circulated among a people previously unprepared for political discussions, was sufficient to have effected, gradually, the most beneficial changes in its government; and that the violence which was excited by blind passions threw back the real liberties of that country for many years. The same effect followed the parliamentary war, excited in our own country in the reign of Charles the First. The resistance of arms was in neither case to be justified, and it led to the worst crimes. The extreme case of necessity was not made out in either instance; and the duty of subjects to their sovereigns was grossly violated. The second kind is resistance by force of arms; and this at least must be established before its lawfulness, in any case, however extreme, can be proved, that it is 50 necessary to remedy some great public evil that milder means are totally inadequate, a point which can very seldom be made out so clearly as to satisfy conscientious men. One of three cases must be supposed-either that the nation enjoys good institutions which it is enlightened enough to value-or that public liberty and other civil blessings are in gradual progress; but that a part only of the people are interested in maintaining and advancing them, while a great body of ignorant, prejudiced, and corrupt persons, are on the side of the supreme power, and ready to lend themselves as instruments of its misrule and despotism-or, thirdly, that although the majority of the public are opposed to infringements on the constitution, yet the sovereign, in attempting to change the fundamental principles of his compact, employs his mercenary troops against his subjects, or is aided and abet-ment, and that of the constitutional authorities, is no ted by some foreign influence or power. In the first case we have supposed, it does not seem possible for unjust aggressions to be successful. The people are enlightened, and attached to their institutions; and a prompt resistance of public opinion to the very first attempt of the supreme power must, in that case, be excited, and will be sufficient to arrest the evil. Aecordingly, we find no instance of such a people being bereft of their liberty by their rulers. The danger in that state of society often lies on the other side. For as there is a natural inclination in men in power to extend their authority, so in subjects there is a strong disposition to resist or evade it; and when the strength of public opinion is known in any country, there are never wanting persons, who, from vanity, faction, or interest, are ready to excite the passions, and to corrupt the feelings of the populace, and to render them suspicious and unruly; so that the difficulty which a true patriotism will often have to contend with, is, not to repress, but to support a just authority. Licentiousness in the people has often, by a reaction, destroyed liberty, overthrowing the powers by which alone it is supported. The second case supposes just opinions and feelings on the necessity of improving the civil institutions of a The third case supposed appears to be the only one in which the renunciation of allegiance is clearly justifiable; because when the contract of a king with his people is not only violated obviously, repeatedly, and in opposition to petition and remonstrance, but a mercenary soldiery is employed against those whom he is bound to protect, and the fear of foreign force and compulsion is also suspended over them to compel the surrender of those rights which are accorded to them both by the laws of God, and the fundamental laws of the kingdom, the resistance of public feeling and senti longer available; and such a sovereign does, in fact, lose his rights by a hostile denial of his duties, in opposition to his contract with his people. Such a case arose in this country at the Revolution of 1688; it was one so clear and indubitable, as to carry with it the calm and deliberate sense of the vast majority of all ranks of society; and the whole was stamped with the character of a deliberate national act, not that of a faction. This resistance was doubtless justifiable. It involved no opposition to government as such, but was made for the purpose of serving the ends of good government, and the preservation of the very principles of the constitution. Nor did it imply any resistance to the existing power in any respect in which it was invested with any right, either by the laws of God or those of the realm. It will, however, appear that here was a concurrence of circumstances which rendered the case one which can very rarely occur. It was not the act of a few individuals; nor of mere theorists in forms of government; nor was it the result of unfounded jealousy or alarm; nor was it the work of either the populace on the one hand, or of an aristocratic faction on the other; but of the people under their natural guides and leaders, the nobility and gentry of the land: nor were any private interests involved, the sole object being the ance on these grounds would, for the foregoing reasons, stand on a very different basis. public weal, and the maintenance of the laws. When other, as in the case of the Waldenses, then the persesuch circumstances and principles meet, similar acts cution, if carried to the violation of liberty, life, and may be justified; but in no instance of an equivocal property, would involve the violation of political rights character. also, and so nullify the compact which has guaranteed The question of a subject's duty in case of the exist-protection to all innocent subjects. A national resistence of rival supreme powers, is generally a very difficult one, at least for some time. When the question of right which lies between them divides a nation, he who follows his conscientious opinion as to this point is doubtless morally safe, and he ought to follow it at the expense of any inconvenience. But when a power is settled de facto in the possession of the government, although the right of its claim should remain questionable in the minds of any, there appears a limit beyond which no man can be fairly required to withhold his full allegiance. Where that limit lies, it is difficult to say, and individual conscience must have considerable latitude; but perhaps the general rule may be, that when continued resistance would be manifestly contrary to the general welfare of the whole, it is safe to conclude that He who changes the "powers that be" at his sovereign pleasure, has in his providence permitted or established a new order of things to which men are bound to conform. Whether men are at liberty to resist their lawful princes when persecuted by them for conscience' sake, is a question which brings in additional considerations; because of that patience and meekness which Christ has enjoined upon his followers when they suffer for his religion. When persecution falls upon a portion only of the subjects of a country, it appears their clear duty to submit, rather than to engage in plots and conspiracies against the persecuting power; practices which never can consist with Christian moderation and truth. But when it should fall upon a people constituting a distinct state, though united politically with some No questions of this kind can come before a Christian man, however, without placing him under the necessity of considering the obligation of many duties of a much clearer character than, in almost any case, the duty of resistance to the government under which he lives, can be. He is bound to avoid all intemperance and uncharitableness, and he is not, therefore, at liberty to become a factious man; he is forbidden to indulge malignity, and is restrained therefore from revenge; he is taught to be distrustful of his own judgment, and must only admit that of the wise and good to be influential with him; he must therefore avoid all association with low and violent men, the rabble of a state, and their designing leaders; he is bound to submission to rulers in all cases where a superior duty cannot be fairly established; and he is warned of the danger of resistance "to the power," as bringing after it Divine "condemnation," wherever the case is not clear, and not fully within the principles of the word of God. So circumstanced, the allegiance of a Christian people is secured to all governors, and to all governments, except in very extreme cases, which can very seldom arise in the judgment of any who respect the authority of the word of God; and thus this branch of Christian morality is established upon principles which at once uphold the majesty of [government,] and throw their shield over the liberties of the people; principles which in the wisdom of God beautifully entwine ( delity,] freedom, and peace. PART FOURTH. THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAPTER I. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. THE church of Christ, in its largest sense, consists of all who have been baptized in the name of Christ, and who thereby make a visible profession of faith in Lis Divine mission, and in all the doctrines taught by him and his inspired apostles. In a stricter sense, it consists of those who are vitally united to Christ, as the members of the body to the head, and who, being thus imbued with spiritual life, walk no longer "after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Taken in either view, it is a visible society bound to observe the laws of Christ, its sole Head and Lord. Visible fellowship with this church is the duty of all who profess faith in Christ; for in this, in part, consists that "confession of Christ before men," on which so much stress is laid in the discourses of our Lord. It is obligatory on all who are convinced of the truth of Christianity to be baptized; and upon all thus baptized frequently to partake of the Lord's Supper, in order to testify their continued faith in that great and distinguishing doctrine of the religion of Christ, the redemption of the world by the sacrificial effusion of his blood; both of which suppose union with his church. The ends of this fellowship or association are, to proclaim our faith in the doctrine of Christ as divine in its origin, and necessary to salvation; to offer public prayers and thanksgivings to God through Christ, as the sole Mediator; to hear God's word explained and enforced; and to place ourselves under that discipline, which consists in the enforcement of the laws of Christ (which are the rules of the society called the church) upon the members, not merely by general exhortation, but by kind oversight, and personal injunction and admonition of its ministers. All these flow from the original obligation to avow our faith in Christ, and our love to him. The church of Christ being, then, a visible and permanent society, bound to observe certain rites, and to obey certain rules, the existence of government in it is necessarily supposed. All religious rites suppose ORDER, all order DIRECTION AND CONTROL, and these a DIRECTIVE AND CONTROLLING POWER. Again, all laws are nugatory without enforcement, in the present mixed and imperfect state of society; and all enforcement supposes an EXECUTIVE. If baptism be the door of admission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates, and administrators of the rite must be appointed; if the Lord's Supper must be partaken of, the times and the mode are to be determined, the qualifications of communicants judged of, and the administration placed in suitable hands; if worship must be social and public, here again there must be an appointment of times, an order, and an administration; if the word of God is to be read and preached, then readers and preachers are necessary; if the continuance of any one in the fellowship of Christians be conditional upon good conduct, so that the purity and credit of the church may be guarded, then the power of enforcing discipline must be lodged somewhere. Thus government flows necessarily from the very nature of the institution of the Christian church; and since this institution has the authority of Christ and his apostles, it is not to be supposed that its government was left unprovided for; and if they have, in fact, made such a provision, it is no more a matter of mere option with Christians whether they will be subject to government in the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by becoming its members. The Nature of this government, and the Persons to whom it is committed, are both points which we must briefly examine by the light of the Holy Scriptures. As to the first, it is wholly spiritual:-"My kingdom," says our Lord, "is not of this world." The church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for the personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the religious benefit of the world. The nature of its government is thus determined;-it is concerned only with spiritual objects. It cannot employ force to compel men into its pale; for the only door of the church is faith, to which there can be no compulsion," he that believeth and is baptized," becomes a member. It cannot inflict pains and penalties upon the disobedient and refractory, like civil governments; for the only punitive discipline authorized in the New Testament, is comprised in "admonition," "reproof," "sharp rebukes," and finally "excision from the society." The last will be better understood if we consider the special relations in which true Christians stand to each other, and the duties resulting from them. They are members of one body, and are therefore bound to tenderness and sympathy; they are the conjoint instructers of others, and are therefore to strive to be of "one judgment ;" they are brethren, and they are to love one another as such, that is, with an affection more special than that general good will which they are commanded to bear to all mankind; they are, therefore, to seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, and, except in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to keep themselves separate from the world; they are enjoined to do good unto all men, but "specially to them that are of the household of faith ;" and they are forbidden "to eat" at the Lord's table with immoral persons, that is, with those who, although they continue their Christian profession, dishonour it by their practice. With these relations of Christians to each other and to the world, and their correspondent duties, before our minds, we may easily interpret the nature of that extreme discipline which is vested in the church. "Persons who will not hear the church" are to be held "as heathen men and publicans," as those who are not members of it; that is, they are to be separated from it, and regarded as of " the world," quite out of the range of the above-mentioned relations of Christians to each other, and their correspondent duties; but still, like "heathen men and publicans," they are to be the objects of pity and general benevolence. Nor is this extreme discipline to be hastily inflicted before "a first and second admonition," nor before those who are "spiritual" have attempted "to restore a brother overtaken by a fault ;" and when the "wicked person” is put away," still the doce is to be kept open for his reception again upon repentance. The true excommunication of the Christian church is, therefore, a iner ciful and considerate separation of an incorrigible offender from the body of Christians, without any in fliction of civil pains or penalties. "Now we com mand you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received from us," 2 Thess. iii. 6. "Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump," 1 Cor. v. 5. "But now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no, not to eat," 1 Cor. v. 11. This, then, is the moral discipline which is imperative upon the church of Christ, and its government is criminally defective whenever it is not enforced. On the other hand, the disabilities and penalties which established churches in different places have connected with these sentences of excommunication have no countenance at all in Scripture, and are wholly inconsistent with the spiritual character and ends of the Christian association. As to the second point,-the persons to whom the government of the Church is committed, it is necessary to consider the composition, so to speak, of the primitive Church, as stated in the New Testament. the same office by these two convertible appellations. "Bishops and Deacons" are the only classes of Ministers addressed in the Epistle to the Philippians; and if the Presbyters were not understood to be included under the term "Bishops," the omission of any notice of this order of Ministers is not to be accounted for. As the Apostles, when not engaged in their own extraordinary vocation, appear to have filled the office of stated Ministers in those Churches, in which they occasionally resided for considerable periods of time, they sometimes called themselves Presbyters. "The Elder," Presbyter, "unto the elect lady," 2 John i. 1. "The Elders (Presbyters) which are among you, I exhort, who am also an Elder," (Presbyter,) and from what follows, the highest offices of teaching and government in the Church are represented as vested in the Presbyters. "Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof." There seems, therefore, to be the most conclusive evidence from the New Testament, that after the extraordinary ministry vested in Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, as mentioned by St. Paul, had ceased, the feeding and oversight, that is, the teachorder of men indiscriminately called "Pastors," "Presbyters," and "Bishops," the two latter names growing into most frequent use; and with this the testimony of the Apostolical Fathers, so far as their writings are acknowledged to be free from later interpolations, agrees. A full enunciation of these offices we find in Eph. iv. 11: "And he gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Of these, the office of Apostle is allowed by all to have been confined to those immediately commissioned by Christ, to witness the fact of his miracles and of his resurrection from the dead, and to reveal the complete system of Christian doctrine and duty; confirming their extraordinary mission by miracles wrought by themselves. If by "Prophets" we are to understand persons who foretold future events, then the office was from its very nature extraordinary, and the gift of prophecy has passed away with the other miraculous endowments of the first age of Christianity. If, with others, we understand that these Prophets were extra-ing and government, of the Churches devolved upon an ordinary teachers raised up until the churches were settled under permanent qualified instructers; still the office was temporary. The "Evangelists" are generally understood to be assistants of the Apostles, who acted under their especial authority and direction. Of this number were Timothy and Titus; and as the Apostle Paul directed them to ordain Bishops or Presbyters in It is not indeed to be doubted, that at a very early the several Churches, but gave them no authority to period, in some instances probably from the time of the ordain successors to themselves in their particular Apostles themselves, a distinction arose between Bishops office as Evangelists, it is clear that the Evangelists and Presbyters; and the whole strength of the cause must also be reckoned among the number of extraor- of the Episcopalians lies in this fact. Still this gives dinary and temporary Ministers suited to the first age not the least sanction to the notion of Bishops being a of Christianity. Whether by "Pastors and Teachers" superior order of Ministers to Presbyters, invested, in two offices be meant, or one, has been disputed. The virtue of that order, and by Divine right, with powers change in the mode of expression seems to favour the of government both over Presbyters and people, and latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Jerome possessing exclusively the authority of ordaining to the and St. Augustine; but the point is of little conse-sacred offices of the Church. As little, too, will that quence. A Pastor was a Teacher, although every ancient distinction be found to prove any thing in faTeacher might not be a Pastor; but in many cases be vour of diocesan Episcopacy, which is of still later inconfined to the office of subordinate instruction, whe- troduction. ther as an expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even a Could it be made clear that the power of ordaining more private instructer of those who as yet were un- to the Ministry was given to Bishops to the exclusion acquainted with the first principles of the Gospel of of Presbyters, that would indeed go far to prove the Christ. The term Pastor implies the duties both of in- former a distinct and superior order of Ministers in struction and of government, of feeding and of ruling their original appointment. But there is no passage in the flock of Christ; and as the Presbyters or Bishops the New Testament which gives this power at all to were ordained in the several Churches, both by the Bishops, as thus distinguished from Presbyters; while Apostles and Evangelists, and rules are left by St. Paul all the examples of ordination which it exhibits are as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that confined to Apostles, to Evangelists, or to Presbyters, in these are the Pastors" spoken of in the Epistle to the conjunction with them. St. Paul, in 2 Tim. i. 6, says, Ephesians, and that they were designed to be the per- "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir manent Ministers of the Church; and that with them up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on both the government of the Church, and the perform- of my hands;" but in 1 Timothy iv. 14, he says, ance of its leading religious services, were deposited." Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given Deacons had the charge of the gifts and offerings for charitable purposes, although, as appears from Justin Martyr, not in every instance; for he speaks of the weekly oblations as being deposited with the chief Minister, and distributed by him. Whether Bishops and Presbyters be designations of the same office, or these appellatives express two distinct sacred orders, is a subject which has been controverted by Episcopalians and Presbyterians with much warmth; and whoever would fully enter into their arguments from Scripture and antiquity, must be referred to this controversy, which is too large to be here more than glanced at. The argument drawn by the Presbyterians from the promiscuous use of these terms in the New Testament, to prove that the same order of Ministers is expressed by them, appears in controvertible. When St. Paul, for instance, sends for the "Elders," or Presbyters, of the Church of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, he thus charges them: "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers," or Bishops. That here the Elders or Presbyters are called "Bishops" cannot be denied; and the very office assigned to them, to "feed the Church of God," and the injunction to "take heed to the flock," show that the office of Elder or Presbyter is the same as that of "Pastor," in the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Ephesians. St. Paul directs Titus to "ordain Elders (Presbyters) in every city," and then adds, as a directory of ordination, "a Bishop must be blameless," &c.; plainly marking Da thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" which two passages, referring, as they plainly do, to the same event, the setting apart of Timothy for the ministry, show that the Presbytery were associated with St. Paul in the office of ordination, and farther prove that the exclusive assumption of this power, as by Divine right, by Bishops, is an aggression upon the rights of Presbyters, for which not only can no scriptural authority be pleaded, but which is in direct opposition to it. The early distinction made between Bishops and Presbyters may be easily accounted for, without allowing this assumed distinction of ORDER. In some of the Churches mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles the Apostles ordained several Elders or Presbyters partly to supply the present need, and to provide for the future increase of believers, as it is observed by Clemens in his Epistle. Another reason would also urge this:-Before the building of spacious edifices for the assemblies of the Christians living in one city, and in its neighbourhood, in common, their meetings for public worship must necessarily have been held in different houses or rooms obtained for the purpose; and to each assembly an Elder would be requisite for the performance of worship. That these Elders or Presbyters had the power of government in the Churches cannot be denied, because it is expressly assigned to them in Scripture. It was inherent in their pastoral office; and "the Elders that rule well" were to be "counted worthy of double honour." A number of Elders, therefore, being |