over this business." Their office, therefore, relat ed entirely to secular objects. On the other hand, the ministers of the word were required, as their peculiar service, to labor in "the word of God." This they must not "leave" or neglect "and serve tables." Their office required them to "give" themselves "continually to prayer, and the ministry of the word." Their office, therefore, related, entirely to sacred objects. If any two offices could be made distinct, and marked with precision and discrimination, they are the offices of the deacon and the min. ister of the word. There is not a single circumstance, in which their appropriate duties coincide. And yet, in the face of all this evidence, we are told that a deacon, by virtue of his office, has a right to a part of the peculiar functions of the sacred office. But if these offices may be confounded, com fusion surely cannot be prevented by the language of inspiration.

But some Episcopalians have attempted to defend the right of a deacon to preach and baptize, because the Apostles "prayed and laid their hands on them." This, say they, was an ordination. An ordination to what? most clearly, to the office and duties to which they were chosen. It was an ordination to " serve tables."

But it is asserted that Stephen preached.-There is no proof, however, of this. 66 Stephen," we are informed, "full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people." He disputed with the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians; " and they were not able to resist the wisdom and

the spirit by which he spake." He defended him. self, when accused, before the Council.* But there is no proof that he preached. This must be taken for granted.

But if it were possible to prove this, it would not follow, that he preached by virtue of the deacon's office. On the contrary, we should be absolutely certain from the precise terms of the institution, that he did not preach by the authority of a deacon, but by a distinct and superior authority. For we know that deacons, by the terms of their institution, had no more authority to preach than any private brother. The office had no manner of relation to that object; except, by relieving the ministers of the word from those secular avocations, which prevented them from attending to their ministry.

But we frequently hear it insisted that Philip preached and baptized.-But we are likewise expressly informed, that Philip, "who was one of the seven," was an evangelist." Now, can it be proved, that he preached and baptized as a deacon, and not as an evangelist? If not, the argument is gone.

*Acts, vi. 8-10, vii. 2, &c.

Acts, xxi. 8. The language of the historian is, "we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist (which was one of the seven) and abode with him." Though Philip was first introduced to our acquaintance as one of the seven deacons, and therefore that circumstance is noticed to identify the person, yet it is

But some may be disposed to think that the qualifications, which the Apostle* requires for the office of deacon, are so high, that he must be entitled to some portion of the ministerial functions. But surely it will not be pretended that qualifications alone are sufficient. He must be placed in the proper offiee. But if the Apostle intended the deacon to preach, why did he omit that indispensable and distinguishing qualification "aptness to teach!"

The truth is, that the qualifications required are appropriate to the office of deacon, without any ref erence to this supposition. We should recollect that this office was of great importance to the church. The civil institutions of modern times, which have grown out of the prevalence of christianity, have in a measure superseded some of the great duties of this office. But, in ancient times, deacons were obliged to take care of the poor, provide for the ministers of the word, and transact as the agents of the church all its secular concerns. It was indispensable, therefore, that the "deacons” should

no less certain from the manner in which he is mentioned here, that " Philip the evangelist" was his common appellation. By this title he was designated as a preacher of the gospel. But it is incumbent upon Episcopalians to prove, not to conjecture, that he preached and baptized as a deacon simply, before he was an evangelist. For, if he did not preach and baptize as a deacon simply, the fact is nothing to their purpose.

#1 Tim. iii. 8-10.

be grave," discreet men; "not double-tongued,* but men of veracity; "not given to much wine," but men of temperate habits; "not greedy of filthy lucre," but men of strict probity and public spirit. And as, from the nature of their duties, they must have had much intercourse with the brethren, they possesse prculair opportunities to corrupt the church, if they entertained false doctrines and were disposed to make parties. The Apostle, therefore, wisely added that they must "hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." And as so much confidence must be reposed in them, it was necessary that sufficient time and proper means should be taken to "prove" them, and ascertain their real characters before they were inducted into the office. Thus it appears, that the qualifications required were appropriate to an officer for transacting the secular concerns of the church, and give no countenance to the supposition that he was entitled to any of the functions of the sacred office.

But we are reminded that the Apostle informs us, that "they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in CHRIST JESUS." Now, it is contended, that the Apostle means good degree" in the sacred ministry," and great boldness" in preaching the gospel.

This certainly cannot be proved to be the Apos tle's meaning. But it may be granted with perfect safety. For, we must observe, that when deacons "have used the office well," they "purchase" or procure to themselves this preferment. It is repre

sented by the Apostle simply as a reward for their faithfulness in the office of deacon. It is nothing which they possess in this office. But if the interpretation above be admitted, it will follow that a faithful deacon in consideration of this service, might be admitted to the office of a bishop or presbyter. In this way, he might obtain eventually “ good degree" in the sacred ministry, and, by the unblemished reputation, which he had preserved in the office of deacon, he would become entitled in the pastoral office to use "great boldness" in preaching the gospel. The Apostle's language directly implies that these were no part of the office of dea

con.

There is nothing mentioned in the scripture to obscure, in the least degree, the clear line of distinction, marked between these offices in their respective institutions. There is not a single circumstance, properly understood, that gives the least countenance to the assumed right of the deacon to preach and baptize. On the contrary, the express institutions, both of the sacred ministry and the of fice of deacon, exclude him from these functions. If then, he presumes to intrude himself into the sacred office, how is it possible to show, that he does not take "his censer and offer strange fire before the LORD?"

2. The spiritual or supernatural gifts, conferred upon the Apostolic Church, form likewise a preliminary, which demands our attention.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians,* the Apor *Chap. xii.