All which evidently relates to ordination, and not to instruction in doctrine or practice; because these things were to be committed, not to the ignorant and vicious pagan of Ephesus, in the hope of producing his conversion; but to such as were already Christians; "to faithful men," who in virtue of this commission were to do that, which they had not power to do before, to preach the gospel and "teach others also."

With this explanation agrees that other admonition of Paul, "Lay hands suddenly on no man." Wherein you perceive, that the full power of ordination is granted to Timothy, and the greatest caution enjoined, lest there should be others, than the truly faithful, to obtain the ministry of holy things. But when or where, were such charges ever conveyed to the mere elders of the scriptures? Some of that order were at this identical period resident at Ephesus, and Paul on his journey to Jerusalem, long before the epistle was written, had sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church; and when they came, instead of charging them, as he charged Timothy, on the subject of ordination, he never referred to it; he addressed them altogether upon the subordinate duties of the ministry. And how are we to account for this, if elders were in reality entitled to ordain? How can we possibly account for this strange omission, on the part of Paul, in a particular, upon which he was afterwards, so very solicitous and so very minute? Especially, when he had sent for those elders from Miletus, for the express purpose of giving them his last advice, and had pressed it home upon their hearts with such power and affection, that "they all wept sore, and fell upon Paul's neck, and kissed him; sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more." You cannot believe that he had previously counselled them on the subject, when they were admitted to the eldership. It would involve the absurdity, if Timothy was only an elder like themselves, of sending him to Ephesus to ordain, where elders already existed, having equal authority, and equally explicit directions from Paul, as to the manner in which they were to discharge this important act of their ministry. I am therefore persuaded that they never had such counsel. I am persuaded on this ground; and for the additional reason, that elders never had such power conferred upon them. It is never attributed to them in the scriptures, in the Acts or in the epistles, and it was

F

never exercised. In the much controverted passage, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, WITH the laying on of the hands of the presbytery;" the preposition "with," at most, merely implies concurrence, and not the creative power asserted in the parallel passage, already quoted, "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee By the putting on of my hands." Timothy, on the other hand, evidently possessed the right to ordain. It is ascribed to him in the solemn charge, "Lay hands suddenly on no man." It was this, that constituted his Apostolick, character, and that gave him preeminence over the inferiour order of elders.

On no other principle can we satisfactorily account for another class of duties, as solemnly urged upon his attention. "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." For how can these charges comport with the opinion, that he was only an elder himself? How can this obvious superiority and right to govern, to put upon trial, and rebuke the elders of Ephesus, how can it consist with his holding the same office, and of course possessing no higher authority in the Church of Christ? Nothing could be more absurd; nothing more clearly evince, in those who maintain such ground, a palpable sacrifice of reason and argument on the altar of prejudice and schism.

For the present, I defer the no less striking example of Titus, to whom Paul writes, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." I defer also the case of the seven Angels, presiding over the seven Churches of Asia Minor, who are addressed by St. John in the book of Revelations, and for whose Apostolick character there is abundant testimony. I defer them, because they will be better understood, when taken in connexion with the testimony of the primitive fathers of the Church, to which I have so frequently referred, and with which I propose to make you acquainted in my next discourse. It will fully corroborate the construction I have given to the scriptures, and establish it on their imperishable basis.

On the review of what has been already submitted, it appears to me, that nothing is hazarded, no liability to the imputation of reasoning from false statements, or of drawing false conclusions, when the whole current of scriptural evidence is asserted to bear strongly and incontrovertibly in favour of these three orders of Christ's ministers, deacons, presbyters or elders, and Apostles. In relation to the last and highest, I have shown you, what no one disputes, inasmuch as the Apostles appointed by Christ were the latest writers of the new testament, that this office continued in existence throughout the period included in the divine records, I have also shown you, that Barnabas and Epaphroditus were each honoured with the title of Apostles, and if it is not expressly appropriated to Timothy, that he yet exercised the highest and peculiar duties of the office itself, and must therefore upon every fair and equitable construction be enrolled on the catalogue of its incumbents.

No sensible man requires to be informed, that where inspired history terminates, we must necessarily resort to that which is uninspired, in order to prosecute the inquiry upon the subject of Church government. The principles upon which that inquiry should be conducted are very important and even essential. To be understood they should be explained with the utmost clearness and precision; but as my remaining limits would scarcely afford the opportunity to exhibit them in their true aspect, they must likewise be reserved to the succeeding sabbath. In the meantime, as the object is to prove the continuance of the Apostolick office, after the death of its original holders, and that to this office alone belongs the power of ordination, it will not be amiss to vindicate the course I am pursuing, with a few closing remarks,

And here Brethren, permit me to observe, that I rest every thing upon the basis of the scriptures, and repair to antiquity, for the sole purpose of proving, that I give them a fair and legitimate interpretation. If Christ had not said, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you;" if he had not promised to the Apostles in particular, "Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world;" if there had been no other Apostles, but the original twelve, with Matthias and Paul; I should not be so strenuous in maintaining, that their office exists at the very moment, I am speaking. Or, if there could be found one solitary example of presbyterian or

dination in the sacred volume; I should be well pleased to ascribe to it, the same force and authority, which now attaches to that which is episcopal. Under such circumstances, I would not hesitate to discard the unvarying testimony of antiquity, as either mistaken in its facts or spurious in its origin. But when upon every candid and impartial investigation of the word of inspiration, I am forced to consider the reverse of all this, as eminently true, nothing can satisfy my conscience; nothing, my internal sense of the divine right to institute and prescribe all things necessary for the welfare and prosperity of Zion; nothing, but a sacred regard for and an obedient following of holy oracles. As in them, the Church appears to me, to be constituted one and indivisible, with a ministry that is not to be changed in part or abolished entirely; I can never consent to coincide with human views, or to repose my confidence in Churches of human construction.

If this be bigotry, inasmuch as it is the bigotry of the scriptures, disclosed by our Saviour and his evangelists, it is mine, and I am perfectly willing to bear its reproach. "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake." It is only refusing to others, the same right of private judgment, which they vehemently claim for themselves, and since we must all give an account of the things done in the body, where there will preside a judge, unbiassed by the denunciations of separatists, it is some consolation to be accused of bigotry, with the grateful consciousness pervading the soul, that it is for adhering closely to the pattern of heavenly things. But if we "sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for us?" If we knowingly reject his institutions, and in preference suffer ourselves to float upon the tide of popular prejudice; "who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth?”

I allude not to the mere errour of ignorance; where there is sincerity of heart to obey the will of God, whenever it is clearly perceived and understood. But for myself, having attentively studied and found out what I firmly believe to be the divinely instituted Church of Christ, I will not yield it up, though all men should forsake it, as all the disciples once forsook their Lord in his extremity and fled. I will not yield it up, because it would be highly criminal in me, however venial and pardonable in others, regarding it with

different eyes, and imbibing different impressions. For wherever there is wilful schism, there, there is sin. Wherever there is a known illegal assumption of the ministerial functions, or a known usurpation of the higher offices, by such as only enjoy the subordinate, there also, there is sin. And that these sins are not of the most venial complexion, in the sight of God, is readily admitted by the deeply skilled in sacred history.

Take for example, the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. They were the sons of Levi, a component part of the Jewish hierarchy, who, not contented with their inferiour station, aspired to the high priesthood itself. "And they," with two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, "gathered themselves together against Moses, and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" But Moses replied, "Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them? And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?" And what were the consequences attending this rebellion, this criminal ambition for sacerdotal pre-eminence? By the judgment of the Lord," the ground clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation." The case of Uzzah is still more remarkable, for it even embraces the inanimate things of the priesthood, and perhaps corresponds with every present unlawful consecration of the elements used in the Christian sacraments. Inconsiderately and without any evil design, he "put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his errour; and there he died by the ark of God."

I am not therefore to be deluded with the modern cry, that bishops "take too much upon them," when claiming to be successors