him, sufficiently accounts for the language of the apostle. Some pastors (I take it for granted there were, generally at least, in each church, more pastors than one, for which especial reasons existed in the infancy of the religion,) were preeminently adapted to guide the deliberations and decisions of the church, but not so eminently fitted for preaching the word: these are the elders who ruled well. Other pastors there were, whose versatility and plenitude of gifts preeminently qualified them for both departments of the pastoral office: these are they who both ruled well, and laboured in the word and doctrine, and who were to be accounted worthy of double honour.

Fourthly. It is manifest from the epistles to Timothy, and Titus, and from that to the Philippians, that bishops and deacons are the only standing office-bearers of the church. Dr. Dick's argument against the Episcopalians may be turned with irresistible force against himself: "In Timothy the apostle makes no mention of presbyters, but only of bishops and deacons." Presbyters are not, therefore, he. concludes, distinct from bishops. We reply, he makes no mention of ruling elders, but only of bishops and deacons. Ruling elders and bishops are not, then, distinct.

The conclusion to which the previous discussion has conducted us is, that the class of officers appointed to conduct the spiritual affairs of the church, does not consist of different orders; that the terms, bishop, elder, pastor, teacher, &c., do not denote distinct offices, or gradations of rank in one general office, but different branches of the duty of the same office.

It may be expedient, before proceeding to describe the deacon's office, to refer to the mode in which bishops or pastors become invested with office; and the nature and extent of the authority with which it endows them.

I. The process of investiture with office. Here there are two steps: First, their election to the office; and, secondly, their ordination, or orderly and solemn induc

tion into it, by fasting and prayer, and “the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.'

The first step in the process by which the bishop or pastor becomes invested with office, is his election to that office by the suffrages of the members of the church over which he is called to preside. I have not joined the congregation with the church, as possessing in common with them the right of election, for more reasons than one. In the first place, because the new relation into which ordination brings the minister, is a relation specifically between him and the body of Christian communicants. He is the pastor of the church; others may acknowledge him as their minister; but he is not, properly speaking, their pastor. Secondly, because the New Testament does not recognise such a body as that to which we now give the name of congregation, to distinguish it from the church. In fact, the distinction did not, in primitive times, exist. The church was then the congregation; the congregation was the church. Though a few stragglers might occasionally mingle with the Christian assembly, to hear what the babblers had to say, all who remained as permanent attendants joined the body; and thus it should be now. Every Christian member of a congregation ought to be a member of the church. If he refuse or neglect to join it, he has surely no reason to complain that, in not being called upon to give his suffrage in the election of a pastor, he is made to suffer the consequences of the unscriptural position in which he chooses to remain. The peculiar privileges of a body ought not even to be coveted by those who, it may be, disdain to ally themselves with that body. Thirdly, because it would be dangerous to the interests of evangelical truth to extend generally the right of election beyond the boundaries of the church. The choice of ministers can never be confided with safety to irreligious men, though they may form a part of a Christian congregation.

I have spoken openly and strongly on this subject,

because practical attention to the principles just stated will be found greatly conducive to the spiritual welfare of our body. At the same time, it cannot be wrong in a church to consult the opinions and wishes of the more stable and serious (I will not say the richer) members of the congregation. The purest of all principles,-desire that such members may receive spiritual benefit,-will sanction, and, indeed, require this mode of proceeding: yet, when it is adopted, the church must take especial care not to convey the notion that it can, for a moment, sanction the anomalous and unscriptural position of those who profess to have received the Gospel, while they stand aloof from the visible body of the Lord's people.

It has been denied, however, that the election of the pastor should be confided to the members of the church, -denied on the ground of expediency, and on the ground of Scripture. Its members are unable, it is said, to decide who is best fitted to take the oversight of them in the Lord; and, in the cases of election to the pastoral office, of which we have any record in the New Testament, the appointment was made by the apostles, or by others who did not belong to the body over which the pastor was called to preside. The first argument I am disposed to meet with a direct negative. Provided Christian churches preserve the purity of the body, by retaining in their fellowship those only who give evidence of the possession of real religion, I would trust the election of pastors to them rather than to any king, or prime minister, or patron in the world. The latter argument overlooks the distinction, which is to be immediately illustrated, between election to the pastoral office, and induction into it. The latter was not, as we shall presently see, by the church itself, though we have every ground for confidence that the former was so, and that it ought, accordingly, to be so in the present day: for, first, no society brought and held together by voluntary consent and we have seen

that such is the nature of a Christian church,-can be rendered subject to any but by its own volition. What power on earth has a right to force a pastor upon such a body? or, if the force should be attempted, and even prove successful, how could the members of the body voluntarily obey the minister whom their judgment and conscience disapprove ?—and if they could not voluntarily obey him, how could their obedience, if extorted, be acceptable to God? Every thing in religion-in social religion-must be voluntary, or it is worthless. The pastor must choose the flock,-the flock the pastor. The former must take the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ;-the latter must cheerfully submit to that oversight, or the Great Head of the Church cannot be expected to approve and bless the union.

Secondly. The members of a church, being responsible to God for the religious sentiments they hold, must have the liberty of rejecting those teachers whom they consider likely to lead them into error, and of electing such as may appear to them best adapted to instruct them in the ways of God more thoroughly. This liberty must, we say, be enjoyed; for how could a man be responsible to God for his health, who was compelled to swallow poison? The Apostle John directed the elect lady not to receive into her house any teacher who brought a doctrine different from that which he had taught: and he added, "For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds," 2 John 10, 11. Now what can be more monstrous than to suppose that a number of Christians, who, in their private capacity, must act in this manner towards a minister who brings "another gospel which is not another," may be lawfully compelled, as an associated body, to admit this very minister into their pulpit, and to officiate there permanently; and thus expose themselves and families to the risk of error, apostacy, and damnation ?

Thirdly. The members of a church are commanded to know those who are over them in the Lord, "and

to esteem them very highly in love, for their work's sake." 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. But how could such a precept have been given?—for how can it, in all cases, be obeyed, unless the right of electing the pastor be in the church, and it be thus competent to its members to select an individual for that office, possessed of those intellectual and spiritual qualifications without which no being can regard him with either esteem or love?

Fourthly. The approbation and choice of the Christian people were sought previously to appointment to the inferior office of deacon, and to the superior office of apostle, when, in the last case, man had any concern in the appointment; it may, accordingly, be presumed with confidence, that their consent and sanction would be obtained before ordination to the pastorate. "The twelve," we read, Acts vi. 2—6, "called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables; wherefore, brethren, look ye out among yourselves seven men of good report," &c. &c." And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen,

&c.

Again, when Peter, standing up in the midst of the disciples, had unfolded the accomplishment of prophecy in the destruction of Judas, he added, “Wherefore, of those men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out before us," "must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." And as the saying pleased the whole multitude, "they appointed two; Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Acts i. 15, 21, 23.

66

Now it is not expressly affirmed, we grant, that the election or choice of the Christian people thus preceded ordination to the pastorate. All that is said is, that Paul' and Barnabas ordained elders in every church," Acts xiv. 23; hence some have been rash enough to maintain that there was no previous election of the individuals to be ordained,—or that the apostles elected