ble in them, if they had believed the knowledge of this article so indispensable as Mr. Dodwell did.

Of the first kind, or extraordinary ministers, were the apos-> tles, prophets, and evangelists. These at least were the chief. For, from some passages in Paul's writings, it appears very probable, that all those who were endowed, in an eminent degree, with any of the χαρισματα, or supernatural gifts, were considered as a sort of extraordinary ministers. Compare 1 Cor. xii. 28, &c. with Eph. iv. 11, &c. But it is not with that extraordinary and temporary arrangement, supported by the power of working miracles, which was calculated chiefly for the founding of the church, that we are here concerned. It is with the ordinary and permanent establishment, to the suitable discharge of the duties of which, it is not the but the xapes, not the miraculous and shining gifts of the spi rit, but the less conspicuous, though more important, graces of knowledge, faith, and charity, which are requisite.

χαρίσματα,

In regard to these, it is from the acts of the apostles and the epistles, that we principally derive our information. Thence we learn, that the apostles regularly established churches, and settled therein proper ministers in every city and village, where they had made as many proselytes as might form a congregation. I do not say that the settlement of pastors, and other officers, took place immediately, on the conversion of the people, but on the first convenient occasion afterwards. The converts every where seem, for some time, to have been instructed chiefly by such of their number as were endowed with supernatural gifts, those called prophets in particular, who also had the principal part in conducting the publick offices of religion. Of these mention is made in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts. This was the footing on which the apostles commonly left the places they travelled to, on their first visit. It was not till afterwards, either by messengers sent on purpose, or on a second or third visit, that they gave them fixed teachers. It has been said, that in the extraordinary and unsettled state of the church, the sacred offices were not so much appropriated to the ministers, as to exclude private christians from occasionally exercising them, especially in the absence of the former. The first order given to the eleven to make converts (for such is the import of rarı) to baptize and to teach, carries in it nothing from which we can discover, that it was a commission intrusted to them exclusively as apostles or ministers, and not given them also as christians; and that the apostles were particularized, because best qualified, from their long attendance on Christ's ministry, for pro moting his religion in the world; but not with a view to

exclude any christians, who were capable, from co-operating with them in the same good cause. That this last was the construction then put upon that charge, appears not improba ble, from the subsequent part of the scripture history. Philip, though no apostle, and probably at that time no more than a deacon, (that is, a trustee for the poor in matters purely secular) did all to the Ethiopian eunuch, which the apostles had in charge with regard to all nations. He converted, baptized, and taught him. No reasonable man can doubt that any private christian was then, and is still, warranted if he can, to convert an infidel, and to teach him the principles of christianity. Yet these are two important parts of the apostolical commission. If I should say the most important parts, I should not speak without warrant. Our Lord himself made proselytes, and instructed them, but baptized none, leaving this merely ministerial work to his disciples. Peter was sent to open the door of faith to the Gentiles, by the conversion of Cornelius and his family. But the charge of baptizing them he trusted entirely to the christian brethren who attended him. Ananias, a disciple, was employed to baptize Paul, And Paul says himself of his own mission, that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, denoting thereby, according to the import of the Hebrew idiom, that baptizing compared with preaching, though a part, was but an inferiour and subordinate part of his charge. Nothing here advanced can justly be understood to combat the propriety of limiting, for the sake of discipline, the power of baptizing to fewer hands than that of preaching, when once a fixed ministry is settled in a church, and regulations are adopted for its government.

The doctrine I have been illustrating, so far from being, as some romanists ignorantly pretend, one of the many novelties sprung from the protestant schism, was openly maintained at Rome without censure, about the middle of the fourth century, by Hilary, a deacon of that church, a man of erudition and discernment, of whom I shall have occasion to speak afterwards. This commentator, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians iv. 11, 12, has these words "Postquam om“nibus locis ecclesiæ sunt constitutæ, et officia ordinata, aliter "composita res est, quam cœperat; primum enim omnes do"cebant, et omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel tem"poribus fuisset occasio." A little after, "Neque Petrus "diaconos habuit quando Cornelium cum omni domo ejus bap"tizavit; nec ipse, sed jussit fratribus qui cum illo ierant ad "Cornelium ab Joppe." Again: "Ut ergo cresceret plebs, "et multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est et ❝evangelizare, et baptizare, et scripturas in ccclesia expla

"nare.” "9 Such were the sentiments of a respectable member of the Roman presbytery in those days; for conclave, both in name and thing, was as little known at Rome then as it is with us at present. Now though the gradual settlement of a regu lar ministry throughout the church, would gradually abolish an usage of this kind, it is natural to conclude, that wherever there happened to be a return of the like exigencies, through want of licensed pastors, every private christian would not only be entitled, but bound, if capable, to supply the defect. So thought the christians, who were dispersed on the persecution mentioned Acts viii. For "they that were scattered abroad," the historian makes no distinction, "went every where, "preaching the word." Now the apostles remained in Jeru salem, and ordinary pastors were not yet appointed. This is agreeable to what appears to have been the general opinion, and even the practice where circumstances required, as far down as Tertullian's time, about the beginning of the third century. This author, the first of the Latin fathers, in his Exhortatio ad castitatem, wherein he inveighs against second marriages, having urged that Paul made it necessary in a bishop that he be the husband of one wife, introduces an antagonist replying, that the prohibition to pastors implies a permission to others to marry oftener. He answers, that the distinction among christians, between the priesthood and the people, who, by the evangelical law, are all priests, is of the church's making, that is, as I understand him, is not of divine original; referring to what appears to have been the approved practice of laymen even then, who, when none of the clerical order could be had, celebrated the eucharist, and baptized, and served as priests to themselves. "Three persons," says he, though laymen, make a church." "Ubi ecclesiastici ordi"nis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi "solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici." It matters nothing to the present question, that his doctrine of the unlaw fulness of second marriages is unreasonable; it matters nothing, that his argument is inconclusive; we are concerned only with the fact, to which he refers as notorious.

Hardly could any attentive reader, who is a stranger to the disputes that in latter ages have arisen about holy orders, think the passage susceptible of any other meaning than that I have given it, and which indeed Rigaltius, a romanist, and Grotius, a protestant, had given before me. I know the pains which have been taken by some learned men, who cannot conceive a kingdom of Christ, that is not a kingdom of priests, totally to disguise this passage. The French jesuit Petavius admits, indeed, according to the obvious meaning of the

words, that Tertullian argues from the known practice in the specified; and as the Romish church acknowledges the validity of lay-baptism, he admits also, that tinguis means, you bap tize; but adhering sacredly to the principles of his party, does not admit that offers can be interpreted, you consecrate the eu charist. The Irish nonjuror Dodwell, of whose system laybaptism and lay-consecration are equally subversive, not only admits, but proves, that unless offers refer to the priestly of fice, as well as tinguis, there can be no meaning in the argument. At the same time he affirms, that this author does not argue from a known practice, but from his own opinion of the rights of laymen in such emergencies, explaining offers et tinguis, you have a right to celebrate the eucharist and to baptize. The impartial inquirer, who has no hypothesis to serve, will readily agree with Dodwell, that the only interpretation of of ferre, as connected with tinguere, is to celebrate the eucharist; and no less readily agree with Petavius, that the only natural import of the present of the indicative here used, is, you do, and not, you have, in my judgment, a title to do. The argument drawn from an allowed and known custom, in support of his opinion, was confessedly of some weight, but an argument in support of his opinion, drawn from another opinion of his equally questionable, and, as Dodwell thinks, contradicted by the universal practice of the age, was of no conceivable weight, and could not have been adduced by any person of common understanding. Tertullian, like Dodwell, held some extravagant tenets, but was incapable of arguing so ridiculously as this critick would represent him. That laws, declarative of right, are sometimes expressed in the present of the indicative, is true, but never when the common practice is in contradiction to the law. Dodwell's quotations from the apostolical constitutions are so far from answering his purpose, that they are a confirmation of what was just now observed. They are not more declarative of the canons than of the customs which then obtained. If the prevailing practice had been repugnant to those canons, no writer of common sense, who did not intend to deceive, would have expressed himself in that manner. The words which conclude the argument, Igitur si habes jus sacerdotis, &c. show no more than that the author inferred the right from the practice. Is there any incoherence in saying, In an urgent case, when no priest can be found, you baptize, you give the eucharist, and you alone serve as priest to yourself. If, then, you have the right of priesthood in yourself in a case of necessity, you ought to have the discipline of a priest, wherever it may be necessary to exercise the right. This is literally Tertullian's argument.

.. But to return from this digression to those fixed officers or ministers, whom the apostles assigned to the churches which they planted; beside some general names used promiscuously in Scripture, such as ήγεματος, διδάσκαλοι, ύπηρεταί, λειτεργοι, guides, teachers, ministers, officers, and perhaps a few others, there are three terms more frequently applied to them, which are, επίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, διακονοι, bishops or overseers, presbyters or elders, and deacons or attendants. Now the doubts that have arisen are chiefly concerning the two first of these names, επίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι; and the question is, whether they are names for the same office, or for different offices. This, at least, is the first question; for it must be owned, that there have been some strenuous advocates for the apostolical origin of episcopacy, who have entirely given up the argument founded on the names. As to the last title of the three, daxavor, it is allowed on all hands, that it is the name of a different office, though commentators are not entirely agreed as to the nature and extent of that office.

That the terms επίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος, are sometimes used promiscuously in the New Testament, there is no critick of any name who now pretends to dispute. The passage, Acts xx. is well known. Paul, we are told, v. 17, "from Miletus "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church" HE πρεσβυτέρες της εκκλησίας. In the speech he made to them, when they were convened, he has these words, v. 28: "Take heed, "therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the "Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," Ros, bishops, is the term in the Greek. Here there can be no question that the same persons are denominated presbyters and bishops. Pretty similar to this is a passage in the epistle to Titus, ch. i. The apostle says, ver. 5, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, "that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, "and ordain elders, perpless, in every city." Ver. 6, “If any be blameless," &c. Ver. 7,"For a bishop must "be blameless," WITXOTOV. Here, unless we will say that the apostle argues very incoherently, he must mean the same thing by elder, at the fifth verse, and bishop, at the seventh. In like manner the apostle Peter: 1 Peter v. 1. "The "elders, peßuleps, which are among you, I exhort," &c. Ver. 2. "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the "oversight thereof," is discharging the office of bishops. The truth is, the word IXOTOs was properly the name of office, and peoßulep was a title of respect, borrowed from the Jewish custom, (which was, indeed, analogous to that of other nations) of calling not only the members of the sanhedrim perBulepo, elders or senators, but also the members of the city councils.