one with another, and as there can be no fellowship between those who are brought together without consent, or likeness of character, (for how can two walk together except they be agreed?) it is manifestly fit and reasonable that new members should come in by consent of the brotherhood.

Again, as the brethren admit members, so it is for them to expel members, when their conduct requires it. In other words, as it was with them to say whether a person was worthy of their fellowship, at the first; it is with them to say whether he continues worthy, or has forfeited their confidence. That is; the power of admission, and of discipline, is properly in the brotherhood. Suppose it to be elsewhere, and to be exercised independently of them: it may force an unworthy and unwelcome member upon them, but it cannot force their confidence and love. He may be among them, but he is not of them.

6. If the right of admitting and excluding members be important to the brotherhood, much more is the right of choosing their own ministers. My edification, as dependent on my minister; the love and respect I am required to bear towards him; my concern for my children and friends, and for all who are to share with me in the influence of his ministrations; and many other things, make it exceedingly desirable to me, that I should have a voice in his election.

Nor let it be said that the brethren are not qualified

for such a trust. Our Savior virtually judges otherwise, where he says, the sheep know the shepherd's voice, and a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers. True Christians soon discern the spirit of their ministers; and are made to feel what occasion they have in them either to rejoice, or to mourn. Blind guides may satisfy the blind, but not the "children of the day." "Of such moment is the preservation of this power, [of choosing their officers] that the churches exercised it in the presence of the apostles. Acts xiv. 23,†

and vi. 3-5.

7. Of church officers we have but two kinds, because but two are recognized in the New Testament. But two kinds recognized, I mean, of permanent officers,— ministers and deacons. The apostolic office was not a permanent one, but expired with the twelve.

The words bishop, elder, pastor, and minister, are used in the New Testament to signify the same office, being applied to the same person. Hence the equality of ministers. It was not intended that some should be set up as overseers and lords over the others. "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." "Ye know that they which

*Camb. Plat.

This passage reads in our translation, "they ordained," &c. but the word in the original, means to elect by lifting up the hand. See Robinson's Lex. verb. Xɛigorovéw..

are accounted to rule over the gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so it shall not be among you."

The three grades of bishops, priests, and deacons, are not to be found in the New Testament. The chapter and verse cannot be named. Of course, as they are not in the Bible, they are not of divine right, whatever may be said for them from history or expediency.

Lay-presbyters, or ruling elders, are supposed, by Presbyterians, to be authorized by 1 Tim. v. 17. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine." But it is thought by very judicious critics that they have misapprehended the meaning of the passage. Let the elders (ministers) who rule well, especially those who are laborious in preaching, be counted worthy of double honor. Compare with 1 Thess. v. 12, 13, and Heb. xiii. 17. Reference is also made, in support of the office, to Rom. xii. 7, 8. and 1 Cor. xii. 28. These passages speak of ruling, and of helps and governments, but specify nothing as to a government by ruling elders.* The expediency, or lawfulness, of this

"This distinction between teaching and ruling elders, if it ever existed, (which I will neither affirm nor deny,) was certainly not of long continuance; for St. Paul makes it a quali\fication requisite in all presbyters, or bishops, that they be able to teach and instruct others 1 Tim. iii. 2, &c.-Mosheim, Bk. I. 1

method of government, is a separate question, which every one will settle for himself.

-as if

8. From our having no public Articles of religion to which we require subscription, it is sometimes objected to us, that we are a "church without a creed!". that were some grievous thing. But in this we are like the primitive churches. They had no confession, symbol, standard, or formulary whatever, that we are informed of, except the Bible. We have no other, and think that we need no other. We think that the Bible contains, in the form of express statute or recorded practice, not only all that is essential to the faith of churches, but all that is requisite to order and discipline; and that its instructions are sufficiently ascertainable without the medium of a human compend.

If it be supposed, from our having no standards, that we have therefore no distinctness or harmony of belief, or practice; or that our sentiments are uncertain, and not to be known; the supposition is a very mistaken one. The sentiments of no denomination are more widely or distinctly known,-gathered, it is true, not from Articles, numbered and stereotyped; but from the living pulpit, from lucid and laborious authors, and from thousands of tracts and periodicals. And the harmony of our churches has been proverbial. Notwithstanding their perfect and universal freedom, as to what they shall believe or practice, being bound by no creeds or canons, there has been a remarkable agreement both of faith and

practice among them, and a prevailing likeness of character, throughout New England; and for above two centuries. What churches have dwelt together in greater affection and unity? In what body of Christians have there been fewer defections from the faith? And not only here, but wherever the denomination is known. The following testimony of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, respecting the denomination in that country, may stand for all. They wish it to be observed, (they say,) that notwithstanding their jealousy of subscription to Creeds and Articles, and their general disapproval of the imposition of any human standard, they are far more agreed in their doctrines and practices, than any church which enjoins subscription, and enforces a human standard of orthodoxy."

Whatever may be said of the utility of creeds, we have, in the history of these churches, a practical demonstration that they are at least not indispensable, either to the being or well-being of churches.

There can be no objection to creeds, that is, to compends of doctrine, for certain purposes. They have their uses, and perhaps excellent uses. But Congregationalists object to their being imposed as tests, or set up as standards, to enforce uniformity. We deprecate the authority they are apt to grow to, to the prejudice of the rights of conscience, and of the word of God. As fences against heresy, experience does not prove them to be very effectual. As articles of peace, and bonds of union, we fear they create divisions as often as