them all. This could not possibly have been the case, if there had been any distinction in their of fice or authority. For that distinction could not have been understood or expressed without a distinct name or title.

Nor are the most usual terms, presbyters or elders and bishops, used in this manner alone, but all the expressions for their office and duties. Thus the Apostle observes to the Thessalonians, "We be seech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the LORD, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake."* The Apostle carefully preserves the same style in his epistle to the Hebrews. "Remember them which have the rule over you, and have spoken unto you the word of God." "O

bey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." "Salute all them that

have the rule over you."+

Now, this uniform language of scripture is a complete demonstration, that there was no official dis

1 Thess. v. 12, 13. To an English reader there will appear no reasonable doubt that these duties all belong to the same officers. But every scholar, by turning to the Original, may readily satisfy himself that this is the only construction admissible, because the article is not repeated, and because the term for "work" is in the singular number. It was, therefore, their common business.

tHeb. xiii. 7, 17, 24.

tinction in the powers or duties of those ministers, who were placed over the churches. It would be au imputation upon the HOLY SPIRIT, by whom the scriptures were given for the instruction of all ages, to suppose that he was so negligent or improvident, that he has not marked and defined, for the information of mankind, the official distinction between the ministers, if any such distinction existed. On the contrary, one would be naturally led to conclude, that the HOLY GHOST has preserved this uniform style in scripture, on purpose to exclude the supposition-of any official distinction in the ministry. And to guard against this supposition still more strongly, if possible, than could be done by common titles and names of office and duty, he directed St, Paul, in his farewell address, to commit the church of Ephesus expressly to the "presbyters" or "bishops," with equal or co-ordinate authority.*

Now this, my brethren, goes to the entire exclu sion of Episcopacy. As the ministers were universally set over the churches with equal or co-ordinate authority, they were all bishops and all presbyters.

And by this likewise, all the clouds of sophistry, which the advocates of prelacy have accumulated upon the word "Congregation," are dissolved into thin air. It is to us of no manner of consequence, whether one of these churches consisted of fifty, or fifty thousand, people; or whether they usually met, for social worship, in one, or a hundred different places. The simple fact, that the pastors had an

*Acts XX.

equal relation to the whole church, and were placed ●ver it with co-ordinate authority, determines all for which we contend.

Now, my brethren, let me request you to review the train of evidence, which has been laid before you. Consider the precise terms of the Commis sion, and the absurdity of any distinction of order or powers; consider the series of facts and circumstances, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, establishing the same truth; and is it possible that a doubt can remain in a candid mind, that the permanent ministry are all of one order and Tested with equal powers?

By what authority, then, is Presbyterian ordina. tion denied and discarded? Where is the precept, express or implied, which requires Episcopalians to treat Congregational ministers as intruders into the sacred office? What is the foundation, upon which Episcopalians place their pretensions to the exclusive character of the visible church and people of God? Where is the proof that all those ordinances, which are not sanctified by the blessing of the bishop, or of the priest as his deputy, are sacrilegious, and offensive to the Supreme Head of the Church?

These things are not to be found in that HOLY Book, which is the charter of our salvation; but in the opinions of uninspired and fallible men-in formularies established by human authority-in the Constitutions, canons, and decrees of EPISCOPAL COUNCILS.

SERMON V.

PROV. Xviii. 17.

"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; buť his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.”

This sacred maxim probably has primary refer, ence to causes of a private nature. No one, before he has ascertained the facts on both sides, can be considered a competent judge of a question of this kind. The statement of one party may often be obviated, or materially altered, by the statement of the other.

The spirit of the remark may perhaps be equally applicable to other questions, which depend upon a competition of opposite probabilities. A candid and prudent man will be disposed to give an impartial attention to the evidence, which may be adduced on each side of an interesting question of this nature, before he will form his opinion. He will, therefore, be solicitous to weigh in an equal balance the arguments in confirmation or refutation of the proposition. But the result in this case can be no

more than a probable opinion.

The maxim may be applied with equal propriety to those matters, which are merely incidental to Divine Revelation. An opinion may frequently be formed, by a careful comparison of circumstances, concerning things, which it is not a particular design of Revelation to make known. But on these opinions, no essential part of faith or practice is made to depend.

The case is materially different in relation to those truths, which are essential parts of the gospel as an economy for the salvation of men. Those doctrines, precepts, and institutions, which are necessary for this purpose, are not left in obscurity. GOD has given us a Revelation with the design of making known to us these truths, which it is of so much importance for us to understand. It would be a reflection surely upon the Divine character to say, that this Revelation is inadequate to the very pur pose, for which it was given. It would be absurd. to suppose, that it will lead a candid and faithful inquirer, not into the truth, but into error, upon the very subjects in which it professes to instruct us. No reasonable doubt can be entertained, that these important points are made sufficiently clear to satisfy those, who are contented with scriptural truth. We have no occasion to wander in pursuit of human opinions and human authorities, where God has undertaken to instruct us. Here we may rest upon a sure foundation. By receiving and obeying the truth which GoD has revealed, we shall be "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of GOD; and built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed togeth er, groweth unto an holy temple in the LORD."*

In relation to these subjects of Divine Revelation, the maxim of the wise man is liable to be misapplied. We are frequently disposed to excuse our

*Ephes. ii, 19-21.