the term, and rendering the kingdom of Jesus more a matter of geography than of religion. The sacred writers, when speaking of the Christians of a whole province, never employ the term in the singular number; but with great precision of language speak of the churches of Galatia, Syria, Macedonia, Asia, &c.

A church of Christ, then, in the latter and more usual acceptation of the term, means "a number of professing Christians, united to each other by their own voluntary consent, having their proper officers, meeting in one place for the observance of religious ordinances, and who are independent of all other control than the authority of Christ expressed in his word." This company of professing Christians may be few or many in number, rich or poor in their circumstances, and may meet either in a mean or magnificent building, or in no building at all. These things are purely adventitious; for provided they answer to the above definition, they are still to all intent and purpose a church of Christ.

I. The members of the church should be such as make a credible profession of their faith in Christ; ar, in other words, such as appear to be regenerated by the Spirit of God, to have believed in the Lord Jesus for salvation, and to have submitted themselves in their conduct to the authority of his word. To these the Head of the church has limited the privileges of his kingdom; they alone can enjoy its blessings and perform its du

ties; and to such the Epistles are uniformly addressed, Romans i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 2. &c. If these passages are read, it will be found that the members of the first churches are not merely admonished to be saints, but are addressed as such; which is a circumstance of great weight in determining the question about the proper subjects of fellowship. But who is to judge in this case? I answer, the church; for although no instance can be brought from the New Testament in which any one of the primitive churches can be proved to have exercised this power, yet as it is a voluntary society, founded on the principle of mutual affection, it seems reasonable that the church should judge of the existence of those qualifications which are necessary to the enjoyment of communion. The very act of obtruding upon them any one without their own consent, whether by a minister or by elders, is destructive of one purpose of Christian association,-i. e. the fellowship of the brethren. Nor is the power of searching the heart requisite for those who exercise the right of admitting others, since we are to judge of each other by outward conduct.

II. This company of professing Christians must meet in one place for the observance of religious institutes. A society that cannot associate, an assembly that cannot assemble, are perfect solecisms. When, therefore, a church becomes too large to communicate at one table, and di

vides to eat the Lord's supper in two distinct places of worship, each having its own pastor, there are two churches, and no longer one only.

III. These persons must be formed into a society upon the principle of mutual, voluntary consent. They are not to be associated by act of civil government, by ecclesiastical decree, by ministerial authority, or by any other power than that of their own unconstrained choice. They are to give themselves first to the Lord, and then to each other. No authority whatever of an earthly nature, is to constrain them to unite themselves in fellowship, nor to select for them any particular company of believers with whom they shall associate. All is to be the result of their own selection. Parochial limits, ecclesiastical divisions of country, together with all the commands of ministerial authority, have nothing to do in regulating the fellowship of the saints. The civil power, when employed to direct the affairs of the church of Christ, is manifestly out of place. It is as much at a man's own option, so far as human authority is concerned, to say with whom he will associate in matters of religion, as it is to decide who shall be his fellows in philosophical or literary pur

suits.

IV. A church of Christ has its scriptural officers. Here two questions arise:-First, How many kinds of officers does the New Testament mention? Secondly, How are they to be chosen?

As to the kinds of office bearers in the primitive churches, there can be neither doubt nor difficulty with any one who will impartially consult the Word of God. With all that simplicity which characterizes the works of God, which neither disfigures his productions with what is excrescent, nor incumbers them with what is unnecessary, he has instituted but two kinds of permanent officers in his church, bishops and deacons; the former to attend to its spiritual affairs, and the latter to direct its temporal concerns. That there were but two, is evident, because we have no information concerning the choice, qualifications, or duties of any other. The bishops of the primitive churches correspond exactly to the pastors of modern ones. That bishop, elder, and pastor, are only different terms for the same office, is evident from Acts xx. 17, compared with the 28; Titus i. 5, 7, and 1st Peter v. 1, 2. They are called bishops, which signifies overseers, because they overlook the spiritual concerns, and watch for the souls of their brethren, Acts xx. 28, 1st Tim. iii. 1. Pastors or shepherds, because they feed the flock of God with truth, Ephes. iv. 11. Rulers, because they guide the church, Heb. xiii. 7. Elders, because of their age, or of their possessing those qualities which age supposes, Tit. i. 5. Ministers, because they are the servants of Christ and the gospel. Ephes. vi. 21.

The Deacon is appointed to receive and distrib ute the funds of the church, especially those

which are raised for the relief of the poor. All other kinds of officers than these two, are the inventions of men, and not the appointment of Christ; and which, by intending to add splendour to the kingdom of Jesus, have corrupted its simplicity, destroyed its spirituality, and caused it to symbolize with the kingdoms of this world.

On the mode of electing them to their office the Scripture is sufficiently explicit, to justify the practice of those denominations who appeal to the suffrages of the people. If the Acts of the Apostles be studied with care, a book which seems given us more for the regulation of ecclesiastical practices, than the revelation of theological opinions, we shall find that nothing was done in the primitive churches without the cooperation of the members; no, not even when the apostles themselves were present. Even the election of a new apostle was made by the brethren and not by the ministers exclusively. Acts i. 21, 26. The deacons were chosen by the same persons. Acts vi. The decrees of the council at Jerusalem were passed also by them, and went forth with their name. Acts xv. 23. From hence we infer, that although no case occurs in the inspired history, where it is mentioned that a church elected its pastor, yet it so entirely accords with the practice of the church in other respects, that an exception in this particular would have been a singular anomaly which nothing could justify but the plainest and most