that it is a regular

teristics of a true christian church namely spiritual community-that it derives all its efficacy from its connection with our Lord-and that it possesses a ministry of different orders and functions. These things being true, the reverse cannot -viz. that christians may live without any government-that they may erect themselves into self-created societies-or that they may all become ministers without distinction.

When I assert, that the constitution of the christian church is of divine origin, I do not mean, that it was completely organized by our Lord. The apostles, it seems, received many directions from him, that are not recorded.-After his resurrection he was seen of them forty days, during which time he spoke of " the things pertaining to the kingdom of God," (4) Before his crucifixion he told them that his father would send the Holy Spirit the Comforter. (5.)—When he gave the apostles their commission, he breathed on them and said unto them," receive ye the Holy Ghost." (6) This constituted their complete ordination to the ministry of his gospel. And the subsequent powers conferred on the day of Pentecost, were only to enable them to carry their commission fully into effect. (7)

The Apostles then must be admitted to have had divine power, and of consequence, whatever they did either in preaching the gospel or forming the church must be received as of divine authority. Our Saviour thus far formed his spiritual community. He instituted the sacrament of Baptism, by which members should be admitted into this community. He appointed the Eucharist as a perpetual memorial of his atonement. He vested his apostles with authority to govern this community. And all this they faithfully carried into effect. They admitted no members without Baptism, they regularly administered the holy Eucharist, and they governed the church with strictness and uniformity.

Our Saviour appointed, first, the twelve apostles and then the seventy disciples. Thus was a ministry formed of three orders. Christ himself, the great high priest; the apostles; and the disciples. During his life, he was the source of all authority; and it was not till after his resurrection that he conferred power upon the apostles to govern his church or to ordain ministers. After his ascension, the apostles were the source of all authority in the visible church, and this authority they communicated to others as their divine master had communicated it to them. During the time of the apostles, elders or priests and deacons were the other orders of the ministry. But we find no instances of any ministers but those of the highest order, ever presuming to confer ordination. And by our Saviour's confining the right of ordination to the apostles, it is evident that that right was to be transmitted through their order. It is true, it has been contended, that Timothy was ordained by (4) Acts (1.) 3. (5) John xiv. 16. (6) John xx. 22.

(7) It is evident, that to bestow a commission, and to grant powers to carry this commission into effect, may in many cases be very different. A general may have a commission or orders to take a city, but without troops and implements of war he cannot accomplish it. The Apostles had a commission to propagate the gospel and to govern the church, but without extraordinary gifts they were inadequate to the task. The commission was granted by our Lord; the gifts were conferred by the Holy Ghost.

the presbytery; and for proof of this, the following text has been quoted; "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." (8) But it also appears from another text that he was ordained by St. Paul: I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." (9) Here it is to be remarked that the charisma, or gift is not said to have been conferred by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, in the first text: but in the second, it is ascribed to the laying on of the hands of the apostle. These texts then taken together prove, that Timothy was ordained by St. Paul, and that the Presbyters present, laid on their hands as a testimony of their approbation.

In some of the declarations of St. Paul, we have strong additional proof of the divine origin of the constitution of the christian church. "God says he hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (10) Here, although we have not a distinct enumeration of the offices and functions of the ministry, yet I think this text is a strong proof of its divine ap pointment. "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." (11) And when the apos tles were combating that disposition to schism, which appeared even in their time, they always exhorted the people to look upon them as the ministers of Christ, and upon Christ as the original source of all authority.

The apostles, careful to preserve the Church of Christ, in the manner designed by their Lord, consecrated successors with the same power as themselves. Of these, among others, were Ti mothy and Titus. There can be no reasonable doubt, from the directions given them with regard to ordination and church government, that they were vested with authority equal to the apostles. (12) And although in deference to the apostles, the name was discontinued, yet the authority and functions were all the same. After their time bishops, priests and deacons, constituted the ministry of the church; bishops always retaining and transferring the power of ordination.

That this form of church government was transmitted by the (8.) 1 Tim: iv. 14. (9.) 2 Tim: 1. 6.

(10.) 1 Cor xii. 28. (11.) Eph: iv. 11. (12.) That both Timothy and Titus were vested with the right of ordination appears from these texts. Lay hands suddenly on no man.' 1 Tim: v. 22. 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.' Titus 1. 5. It is also certain that they were vested with authority over the Presbytery. Let the elders or Presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they that labor in the word and doctrine.' Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 1 Timo: v. 17. 19. That Elder, or Presbyter and Bishop were names indiscriminately applied to the second order, at this time, I think certain from the 1st chap. of the Epistle of Titus. The qualifications there required, as also in the III. chap. of the 1 Epistle to Timothy, are the qualifications of that order, that Timothy and Titus were to govern.

apostles to their successors, and continued by them, we have the uniform testimony of the primitive fathers. (13) St. Ignatius, who was consecrated bishop of Antioch by the apostles themselves, in his epistles to the Smyrneans, says, "Avoid divisions as the origin of all evil; and all of you follow your Bishops, and the Presbyters, and reverence the Deacons. Let no man do any thing of what appertains to the church without the Bishop." Many other quotations to the same effect might be adduced from this venerable father. (14) St. Ireneus, who was Bishop of Lyons, in the second century, a disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of St. John, says, "We can reckon those bishops, who have been constituted by the apostles, and their succesors, all the way to our times." (15) And

(13.) From the 1 Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, which, in my opinion, is one of the best pieces that were written by the Apostolic Fathers, I might have drawn strong evidence, that the christian ministry was founded upon the plan of the Jewish, with three orders; yet as I could only admit a few quotations, I wished them to be the least liable to misconstruction.

(14.) The authenticity of the seven epistles of St. Ignatius is now so well ascertained, that I should imagine, it would cease to be called in question. I shall give the reader a concise view of the evidence of this authenticity, as it now stands. There are passages of them quoted by Irenaeus and Origen. They are mentioned as genuine by Eusebius, and admitted by St. Jerome. Theodoret uses them as of established authority against the heretics of his day. These are all authors of the first character among the fathers. It is true, before the time of Abp: Usher, the epistles of this venerable father were greatly corrupted, and some spurious ones added. Usher found in England three manuscripts of these epistles, in which the passages quoted by the fathers were found, word for word. Of these he published an edition in 1644. Not long after this the learned Vossius found in the library of Florence, a Greek manuscript of the same epistles, that perfectly agreed with the edition of Usher. Stronger evidence then, I am persuaded, cannot be found to establish the authenticity of any work of the fathers. Usher himself however, doubted the genuineness of the epistle to Polycarp, from a supposed difference in the manner and style. Of this epistle, I have made no use. But to question the authenticity of the epistles of St. Ignatius, with a view to remove one of the most clear and explicit assertors of episcopacy, in that age of the church, as it has been supposed some have done, will not avail. For while we have abundance of other testimony to the same effect, we cannot admit, that episcopacy must stand or fall with the epistles of St. Ignatius. Still it seems, that an objection remains against these epistles, on account of the manner in which he speaks of the ministers of Christ. This objection must be considered as arising either from inattention or from a want of knowledge of the style of this venerable father. If instead of saying, reverence the Deacons as Jesus Christ,' he had said, reverence the deacons, as a certain order of the ministers of Jesus Christ, which was evidently his meaning, no objection could have been made to the mode of expression.

(15.) It has been contended that Irenæus is contradictory in his account of the primitive church. A careful perusal of this Father will remove all such imputations from the mind of the fair and intelligent reader. It is said, that he maintains there was a succession of Presbyters from the Apostles. But what is to be inferred from this, when he declares that those Presbyters, ⚫with the succession of the episcopate, received the gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.' Nor should I imagine, that much could be concluded against episcopacy, because among the names of the Presbyters of Rome, some are found, who were afterwards Bishops. That Irenæus was a Bishop, when he was sent on a message from Lyons to Rome, is entirely a mistake. He was then a Presbyter, and Pothinus was Bishop of Lyons.

Tertullian, in the third century, tells us,
is the bishop, has the power of conferring baptism, and under him
"The high priest, who
the Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the authority of the
Bishop."-From Origen, St. Cyprian, Optatus Milevitanus, St.
Ambrose and St. Jerome (16) many passages might be brought to
the same effect.

With regard to the fathers, I think it may be observed in general, that they afford no proof of any other form of church government existing in their time, but one embracing three orders in the ministry, Bishops, Priests and Deacons: and that ordination in particuclar, was never performed, but by the Bishops. I know of no passage in which it is either explicitly declared, or from which it may be fairly inferred, that ordination by a presbyter or any number of Presbyters was deemed correct. And so much has the subject been canvassed, that had any information to this effect existed, it could Upon his return from Rome, after the death of Pothinus, he was made Bishop. For this we have the positive testimony of St. Jerome, with some others.

(16) The opponents of episcopacy have often adduced St. Jerome's ac count of the church of Alexandria, as a proof of the existence of Presbyterian ordination, in the primitive church. He has also been quoted by Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, in their notes on the Methodist doctrine and discipline, page 46, as declaring that in the church of Alexandria the college of Presbyters not only elected a Bishop, on the decease of the former, but consecrated him by the imposition of their own hands solely, from the time of Mark their first Bishop, to the time of Dionysius, which was a space of about two hundred years. Now, how it was possible to find any such doctrine in the passage alluded to, I shall leave the reader to judge, when I have transcribed from him the passage. 'Nam et Alexandria, Marco Evangilista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex seelectum, excelsiore gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat aut diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint, et archidiaconum vocent. Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat.' I appeal to any scholar, for the correctness of the following transla tion. For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist even to Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishops, the Presbyters always chose one of themselves, placed him in a higher station, and named him bishop, in the same manner that an army chooses an Emperor, or that deacons choose one of themselves, whom they know to be industrious, and call him Arch-deacon. For what does a Bishop, that a Presbyter cannot do, except ordination.' A more explicit declaration, that Presbyters had not the power of ordaining, I think could hardly be found. And even if this last part of the passage had not existed, it could not be concluded from the former part, that the Presbyters undertook to ordain. For all that is said is, that they choose one of themselves, that they placed him in a higher station, and that they named him Bishop. Now I appeal to the candor of any man to say, whether any of these expressions were ever used to denote ordination. From the time of the Apostles to the present day, ordination was always performed in the church, by prayer and the imposition of hands, and I am sure that no such thing is implied in any of these expressions. And as to their calling him Bishop, what is to be drawn from that? The Protestent Episcopal Church in Maryland, in the absence of the Bishop or during a vacancy in the Episcopal office, choose a priest, place him in the chair, and call him President. Suppose they were to call him Bishop, what difference would that make? I should imagine no man would contend, that he of course would be vested with the powers of a Bishop. Besides had the Presbyters conferred orders, and had this been admitted by the Church, St. Jerome, who was himself only Presbyter, in his zeal to magnify the office of the Priest, would not have omitted mentioning it in explicit terms. But when he had exalted the Priest as much as possible, and brought instances, where he was called Bishop, truth obliged him to deelare, that as to the right of ordination the Priest was inferior.

hardly have been overlooked. This then being the form of government prevailing as far back as the apostles, yields a strong proof, in addition to the information we derive from scripture, that this was the form established by the apostles, and of consequence must be admitted to be of divine origin. We have no account of the Fathers ever forming or changing the government of the church. I know Dr. Mosheim, who is neither very clear nor consistent in his account of the Apostolick Church, says, "If it is true that the apostles acted by divine inspiration, and in conformity with the com mands of their blessed Master, and this no christian can call in question, then it follows, that that form of government which the primitive churches borrowed from that of Jerusalem, the first chris tian assembly established by the apostles themselves, must be es teemed as of divine institution. But from this, it would be wrong to conclude that such a form is immutable.' That any thing of divine institution can be changed by a less authority, is an opinion to which I cannot subscribe. He says, farther, the rulers of the church were called either Presbyters or Bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men.' But he afterwards admits, that a higher order than this was instituted, who were first called Angels. Now supposing his account to be correct, this was before the death of the apostles; for we find in the Revelations, the Bishops of Asia Minor called Angels. And this comes up exactly to our doctrine, that whatever was done by the apostles is of divine appointment. It is not contended that there was an apostle, or an angel, or one of the highest order, whatever he may have been called, in every church at first, During the life time of the apostles, they went about among the churches performing all the duties that are now called episcopal. Still before their death, we find some Bishops assigned to particular churches; as Timothy, Titus, and others. And even Dr. Mosheim admits that episcopacy was completely established in the first century.

Of all the different parts of the constitution of the church, it cannot be expected, that I should give a particular account in an essay intended for a public print. There are only two things more, then, that I shall notice: the one, that none were permitted to minister in the church, unless they were regularly ordained; the other, that a considerable share of learning was required in the ministry. Our Saviour admitted none of his followers to preach or work miracles but those that were ordained for the purpose. His commission was given to the apostles only; and we have no instance in their time of any persons assuming the ministerial office, without ordination. Indeed St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, expressly says, "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (17) No man can be deemed " called of God.”. but in the way that God has appointed:

I think it is evident from our Saviour's declaration, "That every Scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth (18) out of his trea(17.) Heb. v. 4. 18. Matth. xiii. 52.