their titles, in settling questions of rank and precedence among them, or in guarding the immunities and honors of their office. The necessity of knowledge, piety, zeal, diligence, self-denial, meekness, patience, fortitude, and eminent holiness, in ministers of the Gospel, is urged with a frequency, a minuteness, and a force, which evince that, in the estimation of infinite Wisdom, they are regarded as of primary importance. While questions respecting priority, and grades, and privileges, are never once formally discussed, only occasionally alluded to, and then in a manner so indistinct and cursory as to show that they were considered as objects of inferior moment. What are we to infer from this want of absolute explicitness in the sacred writings ? Not that Church Government is a matter of small importance. It would be easy to prove that this is a very dangerous extreme. But we certainly must infer, that the Spirit of God does not teach us to lay so much stress on points of ecclesiastical order, as on those precious doctrines which relate immediately to the Christian character and hope, which “ form the essence, and fill " the volume of the sacred records.”

But while the scriptures present no formal or explicit decisions on this subject, we find in them a mode of expression and a number of facts, from which we may, without difficulty, ascertain the outlines of the apostolic plan of Church order. By a careful attention to this language, and to these facts, if I mistake not, it will be easy to show

That Christ gave but one commission for the office of the Gospel ministry, and that this office, of course, is one.

That the words Bishop, and Elder, or Presbyter, are uniformly used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same office.

That the same character and powers which are ascribed, in the sacred writings, to Bishops, are also ascribed to Presbyters ; thus plainly establishing the identity of order, as well as of name. And finally,

That the Christian Church was organized by the apostles after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, which was unquestionably Presbyterian in its form*.

If these four positions can be established, there will remain no doubt on any candid mind how the question in dispute ought to be decided,

I. It is evident that Christ gave but one commission for the office of the Gospel ministry, and that this office, of course,

is one. The Commission which our Lord gave to his apostles, and in them to his ministers in every age, is expressed in the following words>-And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of

the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded yuu: and lo I am with you always, , even unto the end of the world*. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost-whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained f. These passages form the grand commission under which all lawful ministers have acted from the moment in which it was delivered to the present time; and under which they must and will act to the end of the world.

This commission, it is confessed on all hands, was originally given to one order of ministers only, viz. the eleven Apostles. The Seventy disciples had been employed on a temporary service, and that, strictly speaking, under the Jewish dispensation. For as the Christian Church did not receive its distinct constitution till after the resurrection of Christ; as the Apostles were made fixed officers of the Church, by virtue of this new commission, and not of any former appointment; and as no such new commission was given to the Seventy discia ples, it is manifest that they are not to be consider. ed as ministers of the New Testament dispensation at all. The Saviour, then, in this last solemn interview, addressed the Eleven only. To them he committed the whole ministerial authority in his kingdom. The commission, therefore, when it was first delivered, certainly constituted no more than one order of Gospel ministers.

That this commission embraces the highest and fullest ecclesiastical power, that has been, is, or can be possessed by any of the ministers of Christ, all Protestants allow. And that it conveys a right to preach the word, to administer sacraments, and to ordain other men to the work of the ministry, Episcopalians, as well as others, grant. Now this commission either expired with the apostles, to whom it was originally delivered, or it did not.

If it did expire with them, then no ministers of the Gospel, since their day, have had any commission, for there is no other left on record. But if it did not expire with them, then it is directed equally to their successors in all ages. But who are these successors ? Demonstrably all those who are authorized to perform those functions which this commission recognizes, that is, to preach, and to administer the sealing ordinances of the Church. Every minister of the Gospel, therefore, who has these powers, is a successor of the apostles, is authorized by this commission, and stands on a footing of official equality with those to whom it was originally delivered, so far as their office was ordinary and perpetual.

It is remarkable, that, in this commission, dis pensing the Word of life, and administering Saoraments, are held forth as the most prominent, important, and solemn duties of Christian ministers. The power of ordaining others is not mentioned at all ; and we only infer that it is included, because the commission recognizes the continuance of the office and duties of ministers to the end of the world. Must we not infer then, that all who have a right to preach and baptize, have a right, of course, to ordain? Does it comport with the spirit of this commission, to represent the former functions, which are mentioned with so much distinctness and solemnity, as pertaining to the lowest order in the Church; and the latter, which is only included by inference, as reserved for a higher order? Those who are confessed to have the most important and distinguished powers conveyed by a commission, must be considered as possessing the whole. What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There seems to be no method of evading the force of this argument, but by supposing, that the ministerial powers conveyed by this commission, were afterwards divided ; and that, while some retained the whole, others were invested with only a part of these powers. In other words, that the same commission, since the days of the apostles, makes some Bishops, clothed with the highest powers, and others Presbyters, with powers of a subordinate kind. But does not this supposition carry with it its own refutation? Can one form of investiture constitute different orders ? Formal reasoning cannot be necessary to set aside such an ab