inquirer would hesitate; and like Philip he would look for satisfaction: like Philip he will be informed with regard to the state of the man's mind; and like Philip he will then yield to the evidence the man has given of his knowledge, and of his sincerity, so far as he can judge either of the one or of the other; and hence will admit him into communion with the church. So far as this case, then, is concerned, we have obviously a specimen of the mode of admission.

If we take, further, Acts, ix. 26, we shall find another illustration. We are told that "when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple." He had made a profession of Christianity to them, and he comes and is desirous to unite himself with them. Now, had they belonged to churches of a different description from Independent churches, he would have been admitted at once, and asked no questions, for conscience sake; there would have been no inquiry about his character, his conduct, his information, his spiritual views of things; there would have been an open fellowship for him. Not so, however, with the churches of Christ at that period. He assayed to join himself to the disciples; but they hesitated: again: they were like Philip with the eunuch they were not convinced; they wanted farther information and a stronger conviction upon the case: "they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple:" not because he did not profess it, for he did; they rejected his profession; they did not believe it. And no one will doubt that the apostle Paul, who had previously to this period received the vision of the Lord at Damascus-no one will doubt that the apostle Paul, who previously to this period had forsaken all for Christ, and counted it loss-no one could doubt the sincerity, the emotion, the earnestness, and the gravity with which he would make the Christian profession; yet all this is doubted, all this is disbelieved. It would not do to say, that they were trying the man-that were uncharitable; they were doubting the profession of a man who had come to them, for the purpose of uniting himself to their fellowship, and they were justified in doubting him, on the principle, until they had farther evidence. Now that evidence they had in the testimony of Barnabas, in the twenty-seventh verse: "But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles"-when they had rejected him" and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem." Then he was united to their fellowship; he was received. Now this is precisely the Independent method of admitting to the fellowship of the Gospel of Christ. And, therefore, it appears to me, that we have in this instance a proof, that the mode adopted by Independents in the admission of church members, is precisely that which belonged to the church of old.

If it should be asked, however, have we nothing more on this subject? I should say, Yes. On this subject we have the fact, that all the churches are spoken of as churches" called to be saints;" as the "faithful in Christ Jesus ;' as "the spiritual body of Christ." Under such epithets, scattered through the whole of the apostolical epistles, they will give you at once to perceive, that the apostles, who employed these epithets, regarded the parties to whom they were

addressed, as having given this credible evidence of their Christianity, and as having been thus received: therefore, expressing the judgment of charity towards them, they spoke of them just as we should speak of persons that had given this description of evidence.

Taking this view, then, of the mode of admission, supported as it is by the general ideas I have thrown out, I come, in the next place, to inquire, how they dismissed the individuals who were unworthy, or proved themselves to be unworthy, members of the church. And here again I take, 1 Corinthians, v. 9, as a guide upon the subject. If we take that epistle we shall find, that from the ninth verse it reads thus: "I wrote unto you," says the apostle, "in an epistle, not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then ye must needs go out of the world." He is letting them know, that his directions referred to the fellowship of the church, and are not general rules to keep in society. "But now," says he, "I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth." Now, here you perceive the rule is laid down. They are to judge all within: they have nothing to do with those who are without, but to endeavour to teach them, and bring them to the knowledge of the truth: to exercise any discipline amongst them is not their province. They are not to pronounce judgment concerning them, for the purpose of carrying that into effect; because they are beyond their pale, and beyond their power: they have nothing to do with them beyond the simple obligation to endeavour to teach them, and enlighten them, upon the salvation of their souls.

But when they have judged those who are within, when this was laid down as the constant practice of the church, that all should judge those who are within-let us ask, What were they to do in consequence of the judgment they were to pronounce concerning those who were within? He tells us in the last words of the chapter-"Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Exclude him, dismiss him. A case, therefore, is here brought before us; the prerogatives of the church are laid down: they are constantly to judge those who are within; for this is laid down as the habit of the church, and not as a prerogative only, to be exercised, on this occasion; and they are to apply habitually this prerogative exercised in the case of this individual: having inquired into this case, and having pronounced judgment, they are to put him away from among them. The Apostle says here, that they were not to keep company with those who were covetous. Now, I ask any, individual, how a covetous man is to be held up on evidence connected with his covetousness, but by looking to his character generally, to ascertain his disposition. Here then the mind is to be judged, but judged by the outward conduct-its true, its proper index. And, let me add, if any one should say this should be rigid judgment, (although it is not necessary that I should defend what the Oracles of God so clearly lay down)—I would say, that it is the species of judgment on which we all act; we judge every man by his outward appearance. We may

refuse, it is true, (for we have something to do with the question of judges,) to admit that we are judges of the heart; and we may tell others that they should not judge it. But in every thing else we do judge it, and, when this is not the way, we do judge it in this instance too; that is, we judge the heart from the outward conduct, taking the one as the form and index of the state and condition of the other. This is the way it always acts in all its movements; it is the way it ever will act; it is the way it must act; and if it acts not in this way, it acts not at all. There is, it is true, injustice in judging where there is not proper ground, but I protest against the imputation of injustice in a judgment that has ground to proceed upon. Consequently, if we find this to be the case, there is nothing rigid or severe in judging, where a Christian body acts up, in our humble judgment, to those states and conditions of mind which the word of God tells us are essential to the right of uniting in Christian fellowship with a Christian church.-So much for the mode of admission.

Let me now-as I have shewn you how the Word of God admits members, and disciplines members, and that this is quite in the Independent method, and not in any other let me now direct your attention to the OFFICERS GOVERNING THESE CHURCHES, and see whether we cannot here again find, that Independency has its origin in the New Testament.

The officers of the Church are in the first place designated "bishops," and in the next place "deacons." Now, if it should be said that there are other officers-the apostles, the men that had the gift of tongues, the men that had the gift of healing, the men that had the gift of prophecy, the individuals that possessed a variety of superintendence over the general Church of God-the evangelists, like Titus, and like Timothy; if it should be said, "These men appeared amongst the apostolical Church of Christ, therefore they also must be regarded as its officers; and if you adhere strictly to the New Testament, you must have men representing these as their successors, as well as men representing the bishops and deacons you are now about to describe;" I should say, in reply to all this, It does so happen that the bishops and deacons are distinctly prescribed as the standing officers of the Church. The bishops and deacons are not only prescribed as of apostolical authority, as the standing officers of the Church; but their qualification is given for the purpose of discharging this office. Now, no evangelist, no individual possessing the gift of tongues, or healing, or any of the other offices that I consider extraordinary, and intended for the first diffusion of the Gospel-none of these had their qualifications laid down, nor is there any direction about the appointment of any one of them. They appeared for the purpose of meeting the circumstances under which Christianity was at first diffused; but there is no appointment of any other. We are nowhere told, that "if any man desire the office of an apostle," as he does that of "a deacon," "he desireth a good work." We are nowhere told, that "the man that desires the office" of a prophet, the office of one that speaks in different languages, or of one that has the gifts of healing, "desires a good work;" neither are the qualifications laid down in connexion with such a direction as shew us that he is to stand in the Church. They appear in the Church, and do the duty of the particular and extraordinary period in which they lived. We have the history of their appearance, and we have the history of the discharge of the

duties that devolved upon them: we have nothing respecting the appointment of the men; nothing respecting the appointment of their successors; nothing that would direct us in making such a choice: and therefore they passed away amongst the first instruments God employed, just as he employed angels in establishing the Gospel of Christ.

But to shew farther that these individuals were not intended to be permanent -before we proceed to consider the proper officers, to shew the proper functionaries, of the Church of Christ-we may remark, that the extraordinay gifts which they enjoyed were, in the first instance, communicated to the Apostles directly by the Spirit of God; and, secondly, communicated to those who exercised them amongst the different Churches by the laying on of the Apostles' hands. No one had the power of laying on of hands to convey the gifts of the Holy Spirit, except the Apostles. Hence, though Philip himself performed wonders, though he performed miracles that astonished Simon Magus himself in Samaria, he could not convey the gifts of the Holy Ghost to any one whatever, until Peter and John went down to Samaria, and there laid their hands upon the people, and communicated to them the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And Simon Magus wondered when he saw this yet higher exercise of power: if he was astonished at Philip in the miraculous working he displayed before, he was much more so when he found there were others far greater than Philip, who could communicate the gift that Philip enjoyed to others: then he desired the supreme exercise of agency in the bestowment of spiritual gifts; he desired this should be purchased by money for himself. There is only one instance to the contrary; and that is the case of Ananias, who laid his hands on the Apostle Paul. And here I would say, that, in the case of Paul, I find in his reasoning in the beginning of the Galatians, how anxious he was that he should not be considered an Apostle at second hand, or dependent on those that were Apostles before him. And hence, lest it should be said that he held an inferior part, and received the gifts of the Spirit from the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, we find God employing this individual instead of them. And hence you will find, that Ananias bestowing these gifts upon Paul, will furnish an exception to the ordinary rule, namely, that it should be conferred by the Apostles. Not that there was anything inconsistent with the economy of Christianity in extending them to any numbers, but the fact is that it was not so extended. And hence, when the Apostles died, and all those on whom they laid their hands, we can easily conceive, without entering on the discussion of the question about the cessation of miracles-we can easily conceive when miracles ceased to be performed-just when the last of those persons expired on whom the Apostles laid their hands. Thus, then, persons could not possess these extraordinary gifts after the death of the Apostles, except those that had received these gifts from them; consequently they could not; for there were no Apostles constantly to apply the miraculous power they had for the communication of gifts; and these functionaries could not, therefore, as I have stated, be permanent; nor could miracles, or gifts of tongues themselves.

But let me now draw your attention to the officers that are appointed to be ordained in the Church, and whose qualifications are given, since we cannot look to those whom we have already noticed as permanent officers. In 1 Timothy,

iit from the beginning, we have some directions that will guide our inquiries upon this subject: "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection in all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." In the next place, the deacons are described in the eighth to the thirteenth verse of this same chapter. "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let those also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For 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." We have, therefore, the office of a deacon distinctly defined, and the qualifications connected with the exercise of his functions laid down, as well as the qualifications connected with a bishop. If it should be said, we do not find bishops connected with modern Independency; I answer, that we do: we do not find the word, but we find the man: and I am not, at the present moment, attaching importance to terms, any farther than as they may throw light upon things. It is possible to have names without the realities signified; and it is possible, in the change of language, to have the reality signified without the names. Hence, under these circumstances, if we do not find the term "bishop" among the Independent Churches, we are not to suppose that on this account there are no bishops. Nor are we to suppose, that even the term might not be, legitimately and fairly, in its true and proper meaning, applied to the pastors amongst the Independent Churches. It will appear that "bishops" and "elders," or, as they are sometimes called, "presbyters," are sometimes employed, as terms occurring in the New Testament: hence it is said " They had bishops, they had presbyters, they had deacons ; you have, even granting your right to the term bishop-you have only bishops and deacons." I should say, in reply to this, that there were not three orders described by these three terms. There are some single realities described by a double designation indicating something respecting the reality itself. The term "bishop" signifies an overseer; the term "elder," signifies an officer made such usually, though not always, on account of his judgment and his experience. And hence it will be found, that the term, whether it may signify an officer or an overseer, carries with it precisely the same idea.

Let us look at some passages, for the purpose of ascertaining this. Take Acts, xx. 17, and you will find an illustration of the statement I have made. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church;" the "presbyters" of the church, that is. Now, this refers to the second order of clergy; that is, it is referred to that order of clergy which we are said to have left out in our arrangement. If, however, we look to other parts of the