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 never exercised. In the much controverted passage, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, wITHн 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 pre-eminence 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..

I am gratified however in being able to present you, with yet more conclusive evidence of the apostolick character of this eminent servant of God. Most persons in perusing the epistles, appear to overlook the fact, that some of those, bearing the name of Paul, are not exclusively his own; that others unite with him in these admirable expositions of sound doctrine, and were equally inspired and authorized to address the Churches. The first epistle to the Thessalonians is of this description. It was not written by Paul alone. It commences in this manner; Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the Church of the Thessalonians.' Nor is this to be regarded as a mere matter of form, unless we are disposed to impute formality to those words, which the Holy Ghost teacheth. It rather clearly demonstrates, that this epistle was

6

the joint production of the three individuals, recorded as its authors. In the former part of it, plural pronouns are constantly used. We give thanks to God always for you all.' 'Ye became followers of us." "They themselves show of us, what manner of entering in, we had unto you.' 'As We were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth OUR hearts.'

Neither at any time used we flattering words.' And now comes the passage to which your attention is particularly directed; Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the APOSTLES of Christ.'

Plainly and directly then is Timothy pronounced to be an Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ. By our opponents the name is denied him. They feel that it would be the death blow to their whole system. But Paul and Silvanus had no human device to sustain, and therefore they apply it to him. Timothy knew the office, with which he was invested, and therefore he appropriated its proper appellative to himself, and thus classed himself with the Apostles. The word is plural and not singular, as it would have been, if Paul only had written the epistle. It is even remarkable, that in the same chapter, he distinguished himself from his brethren, as having been more particularly desirous of visiting the Thessalonians. 'Wherefore we would have come unto you (even I Paul) once and again; but Satan hindered us.' So evidently does he discriminate between the two pronouns, we and I; and so undeniably do I show you, from the highest of all authority, the apostolick character of Timothy. It ought to silence every objection. It is the precise testimony we have been long challenged to produce, as that which would decide the whole controversy, in our favour; and I am only astonished that it should hitherto, so far as my knowledge extends, have escaped the observation of the eminent theologians, who have maintained the divine right of episcopacy.

For the present, I defer the scarcely 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 Revelation, 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 Apostle; that it is expressly appropriated to Timothy; that he exercised the highest and peculiar duties of the office itself, and must 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 ordination 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,