he says-Though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of, for necessity is laid upon me. Yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel. For if I do this thing willingly, I have my reward; but if against my will, A DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL IS COMMITTED UNTO ME. (1 Cor. ix. 16, 17.) And again:-Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand: by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you; unless ye have believed in vain: FOR I DELIVERED UNTO YOU, FIRST OF ALL, THAT WHICH

ALSO I RECEIVED. (1 Cor. xv. 1, &c.)

The same account of the apostle's commission is given to the other churches: for thus he instructs the Galatians:-I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not of man: for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. i. 11, 12.) In like manner he certifies the Colossians:Wherefore I am made a minis-" ter, according to the dispensation of God, which is given to me, for you, to fulfil the

word of God. (Col. i. 25.) And again, he writes to Titus,-God hath, in due times, manifested his word, through preaching, which is committed unto me, according to the commandment of God our Saviour. (Tit. i. 3.)

The meaning of these passages is so plain and express, that it cannot easily be evaded or misunderstood. They clearly prove, that St. Paul was so far from assuming an arbitrary and optional dominion over the faith of the church, that he did not obtrude himself at all into the ministry, till it was duly committed to his hands by a higher power: and that, when he was thus constituted a minister of the Gospel, he did not deem it lawful to teach what he pleased by the weight of his own authority; or, in a deliberative capacity, to form and modify his doctrine by the suggestions of his own mind, and the selection of private judgment. In this sense, the apostle did not assert a dominion over the faith of the church. He acknowledged the duty of receiving the Gospel as it had been given to him, and of teaching it as he had received it. He is invested with a deputed authority, under a definite and limited commission, the terms

of which he has no power to alter ;-short of which, he claims no right to stop and hesitate; and beyond which he durst not proceed.

It is true, that examples of more despotic and arbitrary pretensions may be produced amongst professed teachers of Christ's religion, both in ancient and modern times. The prerogative of station, the secret direction of the Spirit, or the rights of private judgment, have been urged, as justifying the introduction of various tenets, and divers rules of practice, which have no authentic support in the apostolical com mission, or the canon of holy Scripture.

Such was the authority assumed by the pope, and by the councils of the church of Rome, to impose the doctrine of transsubstantiation, of purgatory, of the efficacy of indulgences, masses for the dead, works of supererogation, and the like. These are doctrines not officially taught by virtue of the apostolical commission, and authenti cated by the Gospel of Christ, but enjoined by that arbitrary authority which a corrupt hierarchy assumed to itself.

Such, also, is the authority claimed by

various teachers of modern times, who have invested themselves with the ministerial office. Of these there are multitudes who persuade their disciples, that it is no sin to withdraw from the unity of a church, which has been established upon apostolical principles, and the model of the primitive and purer ages of Christianity. And this they do, under the pretence of the rights of private judgment:-I call it a pretence; for it is nothing more. When the sect is once formed, the right of judging is taken from the individual, and lodged in the society at large, under the controul of its teachers. The same tenets, however irregular, must characterise the whole fraternity; otherwise that fraternity has to divide again, under the direction of the same Spirit which tore it asunder from the established church.

Thus, in one conventicle the assembly is taught, that the sacraments and ordinances of the Gospel may be safely dispensed with, or that they ought to be wholly rejectedin another, that salvation is to be obtained by faith alone, without works of righteousness-in a third, that the Scripture is not to

be received as a certain rule of faith, or even that Christ is to be regarded only in the light of a prophet, or of a moral in structor. And wherever these tenets prevail, they must be acknowledged, throughout the society, as the sacred badge of brotherhood. This is not, therefore, private judgment, but the judgment of faction. It is a mere adoption of the notions of men, who assume an arbitrary dominion over the faith of their followers, and teach, not the Gospel of peace, but the vague suggestions of insubordinate minds. To become the founder of a single sect, upon such principles, the teacher must assume to himself powers far more extensive than those which were committed to the apostles of Christ. The work which he undertakes demands an exercise of authority which those apostles neither claimed to themselves, nor conceded to the churches. They never asserted an authority to mix their own judgment and speculation in the doctrine which they taught they acted under a limited commission. The terms of this commission they deemed it their sacred duty faithfully to execute, and strictly to enforce