But it cannot be denied that all those, who act under the Commission, are obliged to fulfil its duties. This obligation is not to be assumed or discarded, at the pleasure of the agent. By an acceptance of the Commission, he is bound to a faithful discharge of all the duties required. He is not at liberty, where personal service is demanded, to resign to another the duties imposed upon him. He cannot excuse himself, by saying that he takes upon himself but part of the duties of his office. This is not at his option. By accepting the Commission, he has engaged to discharge, according to his best ability, all the duties which it requires. And this obligation is so indispensable, that the man, who should neglect to discharge all the duties which his Commission requires, would be liable to a forfeiture of it. He might, for such neglect, be cashiered from his office with disgrace.

He must then fulfil his Commission. But this it is impossible for him to do, without the powers necessary for that purpose. These powers then he cannot resign. He cannot surrender them upon the claim of any pretended superior. For he has the same right to neglect his duty as to surrender his powers.

But, my brethren, to illustrate the inconsistency of this supposed division of powers the more clearly, let us try it by a fair case. We have shown,* that this Commission was given to the Apostles as the first members and representatives of the permanent ministry, and that it was primarily given to them solely. For a time, therefore, they were the only part of the permanent ministry in existence.

*Serm. 1. Inquiry 4, 5, and 2,

Now, if the division of powers, for which the Episcopal advocate contends, were consistent with the Commission, it might have taken place among the Apostles themselves. For, their equality rests upon the same ground precisely as that of their successors. If the supposition before us be correct, some of the Apostles might have consistently claimed to themselves the whole authority of the Commission, and confined the other Apostles to a part of it, It might have been said by some of the Apostles, with the same propriety as it is said by some of their pretended successors: This Commission is not inconsistent with a division of its powers. The whole authority of the Commission is conferred upon some of us, and upon the rest a part only of that authority. We, Peter, and James, and John, for instance, have a right to the full powers of the Commission; but you, Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and the rest of you, have no claim to more than a part of them. You may indeed preach, and baptize, and administer the communion, by our permission. You must take no part in the government of the church, but in conformity to our special regulations. You must remember that you have no right at all to set others apart for the ministry. We admit that

you act under the same Commission that we do, and there is no difference made between us in that Commission. But it is not inconsistent with the Commission, as we have already told you, that we should have the whole authority of it, and you should be confined to a part of it.

Now, if this conduct, in any of the Apostles, would have been absurd and ridiculous in the extreme, it is no less so, in any of their successors pre

tending to act under the same Commission. And they must pretend to act under this Commission, or they must throw off the mask, and pretend to act ander no Commission whatever,

The advocates for prelacy are obliged to maintain that this Commission is in full force, because they can appeal to no other instituting the permanent ministry. At the same time, they are under a necessity of maintaining, that it confers, upon a very small portion of that ministry, its full powers, and, upon the great majority of the same ministry, no more than a subordinate authority. The former, as they contend, are made by the Commission a supe. rior order, whom they have dignified by the title of Bishops; the latter an inferior and subordinate one, whom they have been pleased to call priests. To the defence of these contradictory positions, they are compelled by the nature of their cause. For, if they cannot maintain this division of powers, Epis copacy is at an end.

But this supposed division of powers is fraught with such gross inconsistency, that some of the advocates for prelacy have seemed to be solicitous to avoid, at least in appearance, the palpable absurdity of it. For this purpose, they have resorted to another supposition, possibly more plausible, but equally groundless. It has been said in substance; that it must be admitted that the Commission designates no difference of clerical powers, and that it cannot be well denied that those, whom the Apostles first set over the churches, were vested with equal authority. But, in process of time, it was found that this arrangement exposed the churches to divisions.

In consequence of this, the Apostles, a little before their deaths, set one of the Presbyters over the rest, "that the seeds of schism might be taken away.” This has been called the divine institution of Epis copacy.

Now, in the view of a candid and reflecting mind, it would probably form at least a small objection to this statement, that the fact assumed cannot be proved. It cannot be shown that any such arrangemeat was made by the Apostles.

But, independent of this difficulty, if I could persuade myself that the Apostles made this arrangement, I should be compelled at the same time to believe, that they had been deprived of their divine inspiration, and left in a state of superannuation. For, only look at this hypothesis. They admit in the first place, what indeed it is impossible for any man to question, that the Commission remains in full force, and designates no difference of ministerial powers. They concede, that the arrangement first adopted by the Apostles was in exact conformity to it; for they do not deny that ministers were set over the churches with equal powers. But what next? They maintain that this ministry, formed exactly according to the institution of CHRIST, was in time found inadequate to the purpose, for which he had appointed it. It occasioned divisions. It was in fact found by experience so inadequate, that a new arrangement became indispensable. In consequence of this, the Apostles-without any authority, observe, for the original Commission remained in full force by their own principles-I say then, the Apostles, without any authority, made this new arrangement,

and deprived the great majority of the ministry of those powers and rights, which they possessed by the express institution of CHRIST.

But it may be said perhaps, that the Apostles introduced this arrangement, by the appointment of CHRIST, or the inspiration of his Spirit. If so, then CHRIST has so far revoked his express Commission instituting the permanent ministry. This is an inevitable consequence. For, we have seen that the division of powers, made in this arrangement, is utterly inconsistent with that Commission. The great majority of the ministry are deprived by it of several of those powers, to which they are equally entitled by their common Commission. And as these powers were given them by the express authority of CHRIST, they could not be deprived of them, except by the same express authority. A new Commission, therefore, must of necessity have been given, so far revoking the original Commission, and making and defining this supposed division of powers. For, every true minister of the gospel has a perfect right to claim and exercise, under the orig. inal Commission, its full powers, until a revocation of those full powers can be produced from the same High Authority. The advocates of prelacy are not entitled to be heard in their cause, till they produce this document. It is indispensable. No other than the express authority of CHRIST could change his own express institution.

But we go further. We say, that it is impossible that any such arrangement could have been sanctioned by the authority of our LORD. This cannot