perfectly parallel; and, therefore, it must not be said, they had the power of single and individual ordination, because they simply are spoken of as individually engaged in the act, any more than the Apostle (who was higher than both or either) was singly engaged in conferring offices in an extraordinary form upon Timothy. Because in one passage it is said, that the gift he enjoyed was by the laying on of his hands, and in the other, from the same reason: we see at once that he was only one who, upon this occasion, laid hands upon Timothy. I take it, therefore, that Timothy and Titus, when spoken of in connexion with ordination, are not individuals moving about like bishops, personally to ordain, as the exclusive function of their own office, as the exclusive prerogative of their own office, even although that was extraordinary: but they are represented as about to direct and guide the Church, being extraordinarily set apart, and inspired, and gifted for that purpose. And hence they appear to have been aiding and assisting with them in this consecration of the assembly, and this ordination of its officers.

Taking these, then, as the views that I find in the Word of God of officers, I would just glance at one or two passages referring to THE SUPPORT of the CHURCH for this is an important part to be considered also.

If we take 1 Corinthians, ix. 9, we shall find there the mode of support strongly brought before us: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless, we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar, are partakers of the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel." Now, it is quite obvious from this, that, although the Gospel should be supported by those who enjoy the blessing of its ordinances, there was no mode of exacting this support: it is connected with the enjoyment of spiritual benefits, and the individuals refusing to give it were responsible only to God. If we take again 1 Corinthians, xvi. 1, we shall find how they were supported. "Now concerning the collection for the saints," the Apostle observes, "as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." In Galatians, ii. 10, we find precisely the same subject brought forth, namely, the care of the poor. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do." Scattered through the whole of the epistles, indeed, we find injunctions on this matter.

If, therefore, I take, as I have done, in the first place, the meaning of the term Church; and, in the second place, the government and constitution of the Church, with the admission and dismission of its members, the appointment of all its officers, and the management of all its affairs; and if I take, in the third

place, the way in which the Church was supported, at the period when the Church "walked in the fear of God, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost," and were "edified" and "multiplied;" and if I find, that in connexion with these Churches and these benefits, there were no symptoms of any system but the Independent, to which I have been referring; I am shut up to the inference, that Independency originated in the Word of God; and I am shut up to the farther inference, that there is nothing but Independency there.

It may be said, "Are you prepared to assert that you are right, and every one that in this instance may differ from you is wrong?" I should say, I am prepared to assert this with regard to my opinion—and I should say, that every man ought to say this with regard to every opinion-It is very possible that in this I may be wrong; and this is admitted at once: but while I am fully satisfied by evidence, of the truth of anything, must I not, under the influence of this satisfaction, aver that I am right, and that those who differ from me are wrong? For would you have us to go back again to the school of a philosophic scepticism, and doubt every thing for ever? Are we to be thrown upon a system that would make us ignorant whether we are called on to go to the right hand or to the left? And are we to refuse to avow principles the most sacred, the most high, and the most holy, lest we should be guilty of an offence against taste, or lest we should be guilty of touching the delicacy with which any individual is ready to feel his pleasure affected, when we tell him he is wrong? If we are disposed to hold truth, we must hold the principle I have stated, that we are right; and this we must hold while we are convinced that we are right, and that those who agree not with us are wrong. If we were to adopt the principle of doubt and mutual concession, with regard to the great truths of the Gospel, what would be the result? Am I quite sure that I am right in the views that I adopt of the way of salvation, and that every one else is wrong? Must I say, No, I am not; and thus leave the whole ground of a sinner's hope uncertain under him, and convey to him no distinct idea of the foundation on which he should stand before God? I do not say but there are more important matters: more important or less important will not affect the principle; I am to circulate the truth: I cannot circulate it, if I do not believe it; I do not circulate it if, when I believe it, I do not tell others they are mistaken. I have no right to be arbitrary, assuming, or dogmatical: these are moods of temper, sinful in themselves, that we have no right to indulge on any subject, whatever that subject may be. I have no right to call forth feelings of malignity, or feelings of indignation. If any man were disposed to tell me this is night, when I know it is day, I must only meet him on the absurdity of his assertion, and tell him he is wrong: and if he should tell me, that I have no right to say that I am right, any more than that he is right; I tell him I have, on the ground of my conviction: and if he refuse to believe the assertion that I make, he has an equal right with me to aver that he is right, and that I am mistaken. But truth must perish from the earth, and must so blend with error, that we cannot feel its influence or enjoy its benefits, unless we really come into the position 1 have taken, and make our averment on our conviction, and hold that, if we are right, on the evidence that we have before us, others are wrong.

Let me, in the last place, direct your attention, which I shall now do very briefly, to THE CLAIMS OF THIS INDEPENDENCY.

I hold, my friends, that Independency has high claims upon us, because it is of divine origin. It has sometimes been said, that absurd doctrines have been entertained as doctrines of divine right; for example, the divine right of kings to govern wrong; the divine right of prelacy; the divine right of the presbytery; the divine right, in a variety of instances, applied to human affairs. And hence, to speak of any thing as a "divine right," appears to me to adopt a phraseology that the world and the Church have agreed to banish from their vocabulary.

Now let me, for a moment, look at this readiness to throw away this phrase. It is not because there is no divine right, that it is absurd to apply it to certain things; it is just because it has been improperly applied. And if we are to run down every phrase that has been improperly applied, we shall find ourselves utterly destitute of a vocabulary that can convey just views of our feelings and sentiments to one another. But I hold that the Bible stands on the ground of divine right no one can question this. The Bible has a divine right to demand our obedience; it has a divine right to assert its doctrines; it has a divine right to urge its precepts. The Saviour, when he appeared, had a divine right to introduce a new economy: the Apostles had a divine right to diffuse the knowledge of the economy thus introduced. And hence, under these circumstances, we find divine right constantly illustrated, and very properly applied.

Now whatever has the divine sanction, has a divine right to the extent of its demands upon the conviction, and the feelings, and the practices of all. Unless we are to throw away divine right from the Bible, divine right from the Redeemer, and from the Apostles, we must not deny any thing merely because divine right is connected with it. And hence I have no hesitation in speaking, according to my conviction, a sketch of which I have laid before you—in speaking of the divine right of Independency. I call it a divine right, because I find nothing else in the New Testament. It has a divine right, therefore, I would say, to claim your homage. It does not appear to me that anything else is contained in the Oracles of Truth; and therefore I am bound to admit these oracles; inasmuch as I conceive the system comes directly from God: for the field over which I have been travelling, is a field which the Holy Ghost has planted; and the fruits that grow up in it are of the right-hand planting of God. Whether I may be right in the view I have taken of the Word of God on this question, is another thing: but let me assert that this system is in the Word of God, or any other system, and I am bound to accompany that assertion by a corresponding one, that that system is a system founded on divine right.

But again: I would urge the claims of Independency, because I think Independency best suited to the moral constitution of man. My friends, we cannot, upon the grand question of religion, yield to the veto of any individual, or the authority of any individual, and so give up our conviction or knowledge. Whether those convictions may be groundless or not, and whether that knowledge may be correct or erroneous, our faculties are not at our bidding, like the

limbs of our body. We cannot stretch out the understanding to receive that which is obviously unsuited to its conceptions, as we can stretch out the hand to accept of punishment to which we may be compelled to submit. We have no power over our understandings; opinions have power over them; and where we come in contact with these opinions, we must yield to them: if those understandings are enlightened in a proposition, they dare not refuse it. Take a man whose understanding has thus been enlightened, whose judgment has been convinced bring him to the stake; threaten him with all the punishment which persecuting invention can possibly discover as applicable to the tormenting of his body; bring that punishment to bear upon him: but you have not touched the understanding: that dwells, shielded from your vengeance, within the tabernacle that you are taking down, and which, when you have succeeded in taking down that tabernacle, will ascend with its convictions to heaven. You cannot touch the powers and faculties of the human mind: you may compel the individual to profess what he does not believe; you have the word of his lips; but his thoughts are not with you. You may compel the individual, either by bribes, or by torture, or by some other improper influence, to turn away from the opinions that would enlighten him, and thus keep him in darkness, and so carry his mind with you. But you succeed in this just because you do it at a certain stage; you prevented it going farther in inquiry and in its progress towards development; you satisfied it, because it was ignorant, at that moment to be a slave; a slave it became : it acts henceforth in the chains in which you at that time enclosed it. And you succeed, in exercising your dominion over it, not because you are capable of touching its faculties, but because you have taken them before they were informed and matured, and prevented their being informed and matured. And if you glory in the homage done by faculties thus paralyzed in the outset of their intellectual career, your glory is not good. But this system requires no such trammelling of the powers of the intellect: all are free; every one acts under the influence of the principles of the Gospel the Word of God is the common fountain of information for all: and hence, when to that Word of God all come, if some should have one interpretation of a passage, and some another; the Independent system admits of forbearance in this instance; and unless there is a direct violation of the recorded decisions of the God of Truth, that forbearance will be extended to the parties.

But again, without dwelling further on this point, I would say, that Independency has its claims upon all, because it is suited to extend the Gospel of Christ throughout the universe. Other systems, my friends, may for a moment be glanced at in this department of the discussion before us; but without at all attempting to go into their frame-work, or their working.

Let me suppose a nation to create a Christian machinery, for the purpose of extending the truth throughout the earth; and that nation has identified its efforts with its revenues, with its laws, with its diplomacy, with all its movements; then what would be the connexion thus established between that nation, and the nation on whose religion it was going to make a national attack? Could you say that connexion were a friendly connexion, grounded on the common principles of international law? Could you attack, for example, the empire of Turkey, by a mission, sustained by the national revenues, the national power,

and

the national religion of England? Would it be possible to begin a mission upon such a principle? Should we not have immediately from the Divan a most solemn protestation against this contempt of the religion of the empire? Should we not have from the ambassador at our court the most solemn notifications of his high displeasure, and the instructions he had received from his master to put a period to this national crusade upon the religion of Turkey? Would it be possible to interfere with the religion of France, any more than with the religion of Turkey, under those circumstances? Would it be possible to interfere with the religion of any nation, if nations only were to manage the means of Christian instruction? Would not the world remain ignorant and untutored to the last? Would it not be fair to say, "We give you the opportunity of trading with us; we give you full scope for commerce and political relationship; but we do not desire you to take on yourselves to issue the fiat of your government, and sustain with the weight of your finances and the weight of your power, to overthrow the principles which we have chosen to profess." But let Independency take the place of a nation on such an occasion; and let the humble follower of Christ go forth, as they do, with their lives in their hands; let them meet all the consequences of opposition and persecution; let them raise the standard of the cross where they involve no national policy, and excite no popular jealousy; and let them hold up the spiritual things, and go out and speak to sinners perishing for lack of knowledge, and not stand by the might of any arm but the arm of God; and here is the very way in which the leaven may be cast into the meal, and extend its leavening power, until the whole lump is leavened. I know no system which can thus operate, except the system to which I have referred you; and therefore I press its claims on this groundthat it can go out into any land to carry out the Gospel, and provide a spiritual machinery for its ornament and defence, which no other system can accomplish. If it should be said, this might be done by a religious body in the land, unconnected with the nation-I here again deny it might be done. Some good. might be done in either of the ways I have been referring to: but still this assembly would be looked to by the nation to which it had sent out its ministry, and regarded as an active body of men, exercising the judicial and executive power over those that represented them among the heathen. That body, could it really be known in its character, would be an object of jealousy; not so much as the nation; but still in the degree and in the extent to which it would become an object of jealousy it must be powerless.

If we go farther, and take the Independent system again, and regard it as establishing itself, without looking to any judicial body, without looking to any executive; if every church and spiritual community has its own administration; if there is no connexion in the whole Word of Truth, which forms the basis of all its movements, that would establish anything like apprehension or fear on the part of others, or jealousy either; it could take its stand where no fraud could possibly operate, and where jealousy would not be perceived. But if any should say, it wants union for this, I should here answer again, It has all the union that is efficient, and nothing of the union that paralyzes. If you look into the apostolical epistles, you will find messengers from this church, and messengers from that-fellowship amongst the large congregational communions