LECTURE VIII.

I

SHOULD not have thought it necessary to be so particular as I have been, in ascertaining the nature of that polity which obtained in the primitive church, both in the simple form wherein it was first settled by the apostles, and in that which it soon after assumed, and almost universally retained, till the expiration of the third century, were not this a matter that is made a principal foundation of dissent by a pretty numerous sect in this country. I do no here allude to those amongst us, who barely prefer the episcopal form of government, whom, in general, as far as I have had occasion to know them, I have found moderate and reasonable in their sentiments on this subject. Such do not pretend that the external model of the church (whatever they may think of the antiquity of theirs) is of the essence of religion. They are sensible, that an ecclesiastical polity, however necessary, is but a subsidiary establishment, totally distinct from the spiritual and vital principle, or the religion, properly so called, for whose preservation and advancement it is calculated; that the merits of any form can be judged of only from its fitness for answering the end; that in this as in all other matters of experience, different times and different places may require some differences.

The notion that it was the intention of the apostles, that the particular mould which they gave the church should be held inviolable, or that it was their doctrine, that the continuance of the same mould is essential to the being of the church, appears to me not indeed problematical, but utterly incredible. One might have justly expected in that case (the matter being of such infinite consequence) a fuller and clearer account not only of what they did in this way, but also of their doctrine in relation to its importance. I shall add a few observations for the further support of the general point in regarding the merits of the question.

As to the origin of one of the offices, that of deacon, it is related in such a manner as bears all the marks of a prudential expedient, suggested by a present inconvenience. The office too, on its first erection, was a trust in things merely temporal; or what Jerome, not unjustly, though perhaps too contemptuously, called, the service of tables and windows. They were no other than what, in modern language, we should call the church's almoners. Nor is it any objection to this representation, that we find both Stephen and Philip, who were among the seven deacons, that were first presented by the people to the apostles, exercising spiritual functions, such as preaching and baptizing. This power they certainly did not derive from the superintendency of the people's charities, to which alone they were chosen, with which they were intrusted, and which the apostles, in the very institution of the office, expressly distinguish from the ministry of the word. "It is not reason," said they, when harassed by the murmurs of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, on account of the supposed neglect of their widows, "that we should leave the word of God, and "serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you "seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wis“dom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will "give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of "the word." Here the dianova TpaTgwv, and the dianova oys, are manifestly contrasted to each other. Stephen and Philip, on the contrary, derived their spiritual functions either from that title with which, according to Tertullian and the deacon Hilarius, every qualified person, in that state of the church, was invested for promoting the common cause, or from the supernatural gifts they had received for the advancement of the faith, before the election to the deaconry, or (as some have thought most probable) from their being called of God to the office of evangelists. Philip is, in another place, but at a later period, expressly called an evangelist, Acts xxi. 8. It is worthy of notice, that his office of deacon is there also named, that we may not confound them, or ascribe to the one what belonged to the other. We entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven. Though it might be unsuitable, when the number of believers was greatly increased, to an

office of so much weight as the apostleship, to be encumbered. with a charge of this nature, it might not be incompatible with any office (like that of evangelist) of less importance. But soon after the apostolic age, (or perhaps sooner) though, by the way, we have no direct information concerning it, the deacons were admitted to assist in the inferior parts of the sacred service. At present, indeed, in almost all the churches where the three orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, are found, the last mentioned has no sort of charge in that particular which at first was his whole charge, and which alone gave occasion for the institution of the office; insomuch that we cannot say that the modern deacon is in any respect the same with the apostolic. deacon, unless it be in the name. Properly the original charge of the institution, of which we are informed, Acts vi. 1. is abolished, though the name be retained, and applied to an office totally distinct. At present, the oversight of the poor belongs, in England, to the church-wardens, who are annually elected in each parish by the vestry. The deacons have no concern in it. In other churches, other methods are adopted.

There was another office also in the primitive church, from the times of the apostles, which was conferred on elderly women, commonly widows, that of deaconess. Like the former, it did not belong to the ministry of the word, but to that of tables, and seems to have been devised for the discharge of certain charitable services to strangers and to the female poor, which could not be so properly performed by the deacons. That it was of apostolic institution, though we be not informed of the occasion and manner, there is no ground to doubt, since mention is made of it in the New Testament. Phebe is denominated by Paul, Rom. xvi. 1. "a deaconess, av diaxovov, of the "church in Cenchrea." And the directions given in the fifth chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, have always been considered, and with great appearance of reason, as regarding those women who were proper to be admitted to this function. Yet this is an office which has now, for many centuries, been universally disused.

What is truly of divine right in this whole matter of polity is, in my judgment, plainly this,-that those important and divine lessons, which have been transmitted to us by the pas

tors who preceded us, should by us be committed to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also; and that, as much as possible, every thing should be done for the advancement of the knowledge, the faith, and the obedience of the gospel. This is, doubtless, a duty incumbent on the church and her governors to the end of the world.

But though it be admitted, that a ministry is essential to the church, there are many things regarding the form of the ministry which must be accounted circumstantial. For my own part, I acknowledge it to be my opinion, that there is not a church now in the world which is on the model of that formed by the apostles. The circumstances of men and things are perpetually varying, in respect of laws, civil polity, customs, manners: these, in every society, give rise to new regulations, arrangements, ceremonies :-these, again, insensibly introduce changes in the relations of different classes and ranks of men one to another, exalting some, and depressing others. Sometimes alterations arise from a sort of necessity. A particular measure may be expedient at one time, and in certain circumstances, which is inexpedient at another time, and in different circumstances. But it is equally certain, on the other hand, that changes do not always spring from prudential considerations of fitness. As little can we say that they are always for the better. They more frequently result from the unbridled passions of men, favoured by circumstances and opportunity.

From what hath been said above, therefore, let it not be imagined, that I consider the outward form of polity, because not of the essentials of religion, as a matter absolutely indifferent. That, I imagine, would be an error in the other extreme. To recur to an illustration I formerly employed, though the house in which a man lodges, make no part of his person, either of his body or of his soul, one house may prove a very comfortable and convenient lodging, and another so incommodious as to be scarcely habitable. Under whatever form of ecclesiastic polity a man lives, it will still hold an infallible truth, that if he believe and obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, he shall be saved. But certain it is, that one model of church-government may be much better calculated for promoting that belief and obedience than another. Nay, it is not impossible that

such changes may be introduced, as are much more fitted for obstructing the influence of true religion than for advancing it; nay, for inspiring a contrary temper, and nourishing the most dangerous vices. How far this proved the case with the Christian community, is submitted to every judicious student of ecclesiastic history.

In

I now proceed to the brief detail of changes which ensued.— last discourse on this subject, I brought the history of my the ecclesiastic polity as far down as the end of the third century. I observed, that the government which then very generally prevailed, might justly be denominated a parochial episcopacy. The bishop, who was properly the pastor, had the charge of no more than one parish, one church or congregation, the parishioners all assembling in the same place with him for the purposes of public worship, religious instruction, and the solemn commemoration of the death of Christ; that in all these the bishop commonly presided; that each congregation, almost universally, had also a college of presbyters, who were more or less in number, as the exigencies of the parish required; that these constituted the bishop's council in judicial and deliberative matters, and his assistants in the performance of religious functions, both in public and in private. And when the bishop was detained by sickness, or was otherwise necessarily absent, they supplied his place. He was also attended by those called deacons, who, beside the care of the public charities, assisted in some of the inferior offices of religion, as in distributing the sacramental elements in the eucharist, in making the preparations necessary for baptism, and other the like services. Sometimes these also were specially empowered by the bishop to baptize, and even to preach. The pastor, with his colleagues the presbyters, (for so Cyprian frequently denominates them) and the deacons, constituted the presbytery, with the assistance of which, but not entirely without the people, in matters of principal concernment, he conducted the affairs of his church.

Fra Paoli Sarpi, of whom I gave you a character in a former lecture, speaking of the ancient government of the churches, affirms, after Jerome, that in the beginning they constituted so many aristocracies, governed by the council of their respective presbyteries, among the members whereof there subsisted a per