Their rights, therefore, were perfectly equal. Each furnished whatever quota he could to the general edification, and each was charged to give to every brother an equal sa opportunity for the manifestation of his gift. And the feast of love, and even the Eucharistic commemoration, were not denied them at these seasons, only they were solemnly cautioned to examine themselves before they presumed to eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, and to tarry for each other, and to eat and drink with reverent devotion, that they might no longer come together unto condemnation.

But was this state of things intended for a continuance? Manifestly not. It was only a temporary allowance, suited to the necessity of the case, and to cease as soon as men could be ordained to a permanent and official ministry. Hence we see, that even with the directions given, the Apostle does not consider the order of things complete, for he expressly says, ' And the rest will I set in order when I come.' These directions, then, were suited to the imperfect condition of things at that time. They only apply to Churches under similar circumstances. And the taking them, as some sects have strangely done, for a perfect rule at the present day, is much as if one should examine a building when it was but half done, with its scaffolding around it, neither roofed nor floored, and should make that his pattern for a finished structure.

The completion, then, of the ecclesiastical edifice, like every other work, was a work of time. It had its beginning, its progress, and its consummation. St Paul's epistles to the Corinthians exhibit it in its first stage, before it had any settled ministry: his epistles to the Philippians and others, shew it in its second stage, when it had presbyters and deacons, to oversee its congregations and administer the sacraments with regard to the sacred principles of

order; and his epistles to Timothy and Titus exhibit it in its third stage, when presidents were appointed over districts as permanent officers with Apostolic powers, when a form of sound words was prepared for it, and a code of ecclesiastical law was committed to the administration of its governors.

It is worthy of consideration, whether we do not here see the true source of the allowance of a lay-administration of the sacraments in cases of necessity? For although we are accustomed to make a serious and important distinction between baptism and the eucharist, committing the first to the deacon, but the second to the presbyter alone, yet it must be remembered that this distinction cannot be demonstrated by the New Testament, (a) and that a commission by ordination is as essential to the regular administration of the one sacrament, as it is to that of the other. Assuredly this furnishes no justification for those who disregard the perfect system which the Apostles completed before their work was done. As well might the man justify his voluntary follies by the licence allowed to his childhood, as a Church enjoying the privileges of Gospel maturity defend its irregularities by adopting imperfections only tolerated in the first stage of Gentile Christianity. Still, does not the fact as recorded, amply sustain the theory, which admits the essence of the sacraments to be independent of ministerial qualification? And does it not account for the early introduction of that lay-baptism in cases of necessity, which, on any other hypothesis, seems almost inexplicable?

Of course, I hold the Church bound by the last acts of its legislators—the Apostles-for it is an indisputable prin

(a) It is supported from the analogy of the Aaronic priesthood, under which, circumcision might be administered by every hand, but sacrifices could only be offered by the priests.

ciple of all government that the latter regulation supersedes the former. We are obliged to take the system, not as it was when the apostles began their undertaking, but as they left it to be transmitted- -A FINISHED WORK-to the end of the world. While therefore, I should maintain that the substance of the sacraments may be had, without a regular ministry, and that under precisely similar circumstances, the case of the Corinthians might be a very proper model, yet I cannot but believe that a wanton or a needless departure from the apostolic order of sacramental ministration involves a sin of the nature of sacrilege, of which no conscientious and enlightened mind would ever risk the commission.

CHAPTER VI.

If the non-episcopal Churches have a ministry and the substance of the sacraments, along with the general truth of the Gospel, what advantage hath episcopacy?

To this enquiry, I answer, in the words of the Apostle, 'MUCH, EVERY WAY;' the advantage of a perfect over an imperfect system-of manhood over childhood—of a body with all its members over a body maimed or mutilated-of a building finished and complete over one in progress-of best over good or better-in a word, the advantage which men desire in all other things, when they seek to carry them to the highest point of which they are capable. Is it necessary to possess a greater advantage over other denominations, in order to determine our choice? Is it necessary to tell men, in order to recommend episcopacy, that there is no other true Church of Christ in being?

But men may say, and men do say, that the only use of the Church is to be a nursery for heaven. If therefore, we can be saved in all the various denominations of Christendom, what more do we want? And what care we for the difference?

By this kind of argument we can prove, that the only use of food, shelter and clothing, is to nourish and protect our lives: what care we for the differences in these things so long as life can be preserved? The Esquimaux Indian and the wealthiest inhabitant of New York are therefore equally provided for. The only use of civil government is

to guard the rights and property of the people. This is done more or less by all governments, and of what importance is the difference? The subject of the Grand Turk and the citizen of our Republic are therefore on a level. But any one who should reason thus in the affairs of this world, would be called a fool. And yet it is the very same principle in another shape, which prevents the search of so many good men after the best system of religion.

That ours is the best, I conceive to result inevitably from the fact, that it is the form in which the inspired Apostles left the ecclesiastical edifice, when their great and peculiar work was completed. I shall not pause to demonstrate the various points of its superiority, because I wish not to say aught that should look like an attempt to disparage the claims of my Christian brethren. If any man thinks he can improve the Apostles' work, let him argue that subject with their Master. If any man thinks that the plan adopted at the commencement of their labors, from necessity, is a safer pattern than that which they ultimately perfected, let him settle the controversy with the Apostles, and tell them that they made their arrangements worse instead of better, as they proceeded towards the close. And let the same arguer demonstrate, that the ancient Israelites were at liberty to abandon the fulness of the Mosaic system, and revert to the condition of things when they had just left Egypt. Let him say that Abraham had the rite of circumcision and offered acceptable sacrifices, and therefore the Aaronic Priesthood was no advancement in the divine dispensations, and might be forsaken and despised. Let him say that the order of the work of God is of no consequence to the Church, and that we are authorised to invert it as we think fit; so that whether we take our pattern from the beginning, or the middle, or the end,

IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE WHATEVER!