A third objection

at the time of the ordination of the deacons, but was possessed by "the seven,"-probably in common with many of their Christian brethren-previously to their ordination. It was, undoubtedly, that full and constant enjoyment of the Divine presence which rendered them eminently holy and wise; and in other respects, peculiarly fitted them for the service assigned them.

But, it is said, that Philip and Stephen certainly exercised the prerogatives of eldership; that they preached the gospel, and one of them administered the rite of baptism.

As it respects Stephen, this is not asserted by the sacred historian. It is said, indeed, that "Stephen did great wonders and miracles among the people;" and, that he disputed" with various opposers of the gospel, Acts 6:

so it was, also, from the earliest ages, a rite of institution to office, which is conferred by symbol."

The Cambridge Platform, which contains the articles of" Church discipline, agreed upon by the elders and messengers of the churches, assembled in the synod at Cambridge in New England, Anno 1648"-expressly recognizes the propriety and duty of ordaining deacons. "Church officers," says the Platform, chap. 9,

§ 1, are not only to be chosen by the church, but also to be ordained by imposition of hands and prayer." In the 6th and 7th chapters of the Platform, the officers of the church are designated; and among them, is the deacon. Its language is as follows: "The office of deacon is instituted in the church by the Lord Jesus. ** The office and work of a deacon is to receive the offerings of the church and gifts given to the church, and to keep the treasury of the church, and therewith to serve the tables which the church is to provide for."

The practice of ordaining these officers has, to some extent, gone into disuse among Congregational churches. It is an important question, however, whether we have not, in this particular, departed from "the right way;" from the doctrine of our fathers, and the example of the apostles.

answered.

8, 9; but all this he might have done while employed in the work of distributing to the necessities of the poor saints.

As he went from house to house on these works of mercy, he was quite as likely to fall in with these Libertines and Cyrenians, and them of Cilicia, and of Asia, with whom he disputed, as he would have been in publicly preaching the gospel.

is somewhat different.

went down to Samaria But this will not prove

In respect to Philip, the case "Philip," we are told, Acts 8: 5, and preached Christ unto them." that even Philip was ordained "to this business." If the fact, that he went down to Samaria and preached the gospel, proves that he was an ordained preacher of the gospel, by the same argument we can prove that the whole church at Jerusalem were ordained preachers of the gospel; for it is expressly said, that all the brethren of the church at Jerusalem, when driven abroad by the persecution which followed Stephen's martyrdom, preached the gospel. "At that time," says Luke, (Acts 8: 1—4,) "there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. * * * Therefore they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word." Thus we see that every disciple was a preacher of the word. But who supposes that they were all ordained preachers?

It is said, however, that Philip administered the ordinance of baptism; which, even on Congregational principles, a deacon is not authorized to do.

It is true, that Philip did baptize the converts of Samaria and the eunuch of Ethiopia; and it is equally true, that the Holy Ghost authorized him so to do, by the special di

rections given to him.

Answer continued.

He was endowed with the power of working miracles in Samaria, (see Acts 8: 6, 7) and was especially commissioned to disciple the eunuch, as we n from Acts 8: 26-28.

This being the state of the case, could Philip doubt that he was authorized to baptize the converts? especially, since Christ had enjoined upon all those whom he had commissioned to "teach," the duty of baptizing also: "Go ye and teach (or disciple) all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matt. 28: 19.

It is not at all unlikely that others of the scattered brethren of the church at Jerusalem performed the same ministerial acts. Wherever they went preaching the word, and the Holy Ghost accompanied their labors, it is highly probable that they administered baptism, and gathered the converts into churches; and, under similar circumstances, any layman of our churches would be authorized to do the same things. This, however, would by no means sanction this course of procedure under ordinary circumstan

ces.

Mosheim says: "At first, all who were engaged in propagating Christianity, administered this rite [baptism]; nor can it be called in question, that whoever persuaded any person to embrace Christianity, could baptize his own disciple." Murdock's Mosh. Vol. I. pp. 105—6.

Eusebius, speaking of the eunuch of Ethiopia, says: "Returning into his own country, he is reported to have been the first publisher of the knowledge of the great God, and of the comfortable advent of our Savior in the flesh. And so by him was really fulfilled that prediction of the prophet: Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God.'' Ecc. Hist. Lib. II. chap. 1.

Answer continued.

There is the fullest testimony from ecclesiastical writers, that this eunuch established a flourishing church in Ethiopia. (See Doddridge's Exposition on Acts 8:39, note M.) But we have no intimation that he was ordained to preach the gospel or to administer the ordinances.

Waddington says: "The fairest supposition respecting this question (the separation of the clergy from the laity) appears to be, that the first converts, those who spread the earliest tidings of redemption before the apostles themselves had quitted Judea, were commissioned to preach the name and diffuse the knowledge of Christ indiscriminately.' Harper's Ed. p. 43.

Dr. Campbell gives a very satisfactory account of the division of the churches into clergy and laity. Lect. 9. pp. 151–155. He also shows most conclusively, that all the early disciples deemed themselves authorized to preach, and, if necessity required, to baptize, and probably to administer the eucharist. This state of things continued, as he supposes, down to the beginning of the third century. He quotes Tertullian, a writer of the third century, and Hilary, of the fourth century, in proof of this. Lect. 4. pp. 62-65.

In addition to what has been already said upon this subject, it ought perhaps to be remarked, that the Scriptures warrant the supposition that Philip, subsequently to his ordination as a deacon, had been set apart to the work of an evangelist. That this was not unfrequently done by the primitive churches, is intimated by the apostle (1 Tim. 3: 13): "They that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree;" that is, a higher degree, or office, in the church.

That Philip had been thus promoted, appears from Acts

Elders and Deacons, the only church officers.

21: 8. **“We that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Cesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven”—dea

cons.

From whatever point of view we contemplate this subject, we can see no evidence that the primitive deacons were an order of the clergy; but rather, that they were substantially like Congregational deacons, chosen and set apart to serve tables."

66

That elders and deacons are the only officers which Christ designed to have permanently connected with his churches, and that their authority should extend no further than to the particular church which elects them, may readily be inferred from the nature of the case, and from the considerations which have been offered upon the general topics already discussed.

Further confirmation of these doctrines is derived from the address of Paul to the Philippians, 1: 1; "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

Now, had there been, in the church at Philippi, any other officers than bishops and deacons, would they not have been mentioned by the apostle? And if there were no

*

other officers in that church, what reason have we to suppose there were in any of the primitive churches? And, if in none of the primitive churches, why should there be any of our modern churches?

in

* It is worthy of remark, that Polycarp writing to this church more than fifty years after the apostle, mentions the same two officers, and only the same, viz. presbyters and deacons. See extracts from the Apostolic Fathers in this work.