to explain the Scriptures, and teach and exhort the people. And so, in the case above stated, the rulers of the synagogue called upon Paul and Barnabas, though perfect strangers. And so it was, among other things, that the Christian church, when it seceded from the synagogue, took with it the custom of permitting every one to speak and to teach, who by wisdom, or` piety, or learning, was qualified to edify the brethren. All were permitted to speak except the women. And hence it is, that teaching did not create a distinct order. As far as teaching was concerned, the whole church were the successors of the apostles.

This

We next come to the power of ordination. was necessarily a part of the power of organizing churches. Every missionary of the new religion went abroad prepared, not only to make converts, but so to establish them, as that they might perpetuate their own existence. This involved the power of ordination. If they could admit into the church by baptism, much more should they have the power of ordination, by which the whole number of the baptized might continue to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel after the departure of the missionary. We accordingly read that the power of planting and organizing churches, was not confined to the apostles. It was likewise exercised by other teachers, for we read in the Acts: "And at that time there was a great persecution against the church, which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution which arose about Ste

phen, travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the band of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord;" that is, made a profession of their faith. This could be done. only by forming churches and participating in the ordinances. Here, then, at Antioch, was the Gospel preached, converts made, and a church formed, without the presence of any of the apostles, by other Christians, who were on their way to Cyprus and Cyrene from Jerusalem, where they themselves had been converted. Whence could the elders or bishops of this church have derived their apostolic succession? They certainly could have had none. Thus we have the facts to interpret the language of the New Testament. To some churches, "Christ gave apostles, to some prophets, to some pastors and teachers," for the work of the ministry, and all were equally competent to its duties. To plant churches, involved the power of ordination, or, in other words, of organizing the churches they had planted.

The only official function of the apostles which remains, is the administration of the ordinances. And here we are in utter ignorance, as to one of them, how it was done. We do not know how the supper was administered, or by whom. We have no record of its having been administered by the apostles. Paul says expressly, that he did not usually baptize even his own

converts, for he says, but to preach the Gospel." It was considered a subordinate office. Peter did not baptize Cornelius and his companions, but "commanded them to be baptized."

Christ sent me not to baptize

Here, then, are enumerated all the functions of the apostles, except the intransmissible power of conferring the Holy Ghost,-teaching, ordination, and the administration of the ordinances, and not one of them was exclusively appropriated by the apostles, but all possessed in common with other teachers. If they pos

sessed no monopoly, no order could possibly succeed to their exclusive rights. The pretensions, then, of bishops to do anything in the church, which other ministers cannot do, are totally groundless.

That elders and bishops were the same, is clearly proved from the twentieth chapter of Acts. When Paul was on his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, we read, that he stopped at Miletus, and sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they were come to Miletus, he made them a long speech concerning their duties and responsibilities. Among other things, he said to them, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops." And here, let me observe, is a most remarkable instance of disingenuousness on the part of the Episcopal translators of our Bible. They did not render the word episcopus, bishop, here, as they have done in other cases, for two obvious reasons. One was, that it would show that bishops and elders were the same. For Paul sent to Ephesus for the

elders of the church, and when they were come, he addressed them as bishops, proving that bishops and elders were the same, which is ruinous to the claims of exclusive Episcopacy. The other reason was, that this text shows, that there were more bishops than one in the church of Ephesus. The admission that there were more bishops than one in a single church, or even a single city, is as fatal to the cause of exclusive Episcopacy, as the admission that bishop and elder, or presbyter, were originally the same.

And yet, we are told, that "there cannot be a church without a bishop." If the above representation is true, the primitive churches had not one, but several. If it be meant by this, that there cannot be a church without an officer precisely corresponding with the ancient elder or bishop, then there is no church on earth. The circumstances of the church have changed, and the organization of the church has changed with them. This being the case, the question whether there can be a church without a bishop, is a dispute about "words and names" of no sort of importance. We are told, too, that the ministrations of all church officers are invalid, except of those who have been ordained by a person called a bishop, which name has been transmitted in direct line from the apostles; whereas we have shown, that churches were formed and organized by ordination, where no apostle had ever been.

We are told, moreover, that there is an intrinsic efficacy in the ordinances, that certain persons, called by certain names, have the power to communicate a peculiar, spiritual virtue to the elements of communion,

whereas we do not find that the apostles themselves claimed any such faculty, or even with their own hands administered the communion at all. And as to baptism, for which so much is now claimed, it does not seem that any office in the church was necessary to its administration. The apostles appear to have delegated it to inferior hands.

I have said, that the organization of the primitive churches, appears to have been the result of circumstances. Most particularly so was it with a class of officers, of which I am now about to speak, the dea

cons.

Soon after the formation of the church at Jerusalem, a charity sprung up in it, which the apostles had not time to manage, without neglecting what was of much greater importance, the preaching of the word. They therefore requested that others might be appointed to this trust. "It is not meet," said they, "that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you, seven men, of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may set over this business." Seven men were accordingly chosen, and ordained to this office. Is it not plain, that this office was created for the occasion? Is it not plain, that the charity gave birth to the office, and not any previous plan or foresight of Christ or his apostles ? The plan was adopted by other churches, because the custom was universal in the first ages, of providing for the poor. And yet we have an order, in some of our churches, who claim to be the lineal successors of these deacons, whose office