cient and true interpretation; such a deep insight also into the most recondite meanings of these scriptures, and such admirable reasonings founded thereon for the confirmation of the gospel revelation, as clearly point us to the most learned of the apostles, as being the writer. Although Apollos was mighty in the scriptures, when compared with his Alexandrian brethren, and eloquent in his manner of speaking; yet he needed to be more accurately instructed by Aquila: while Paul had profited in the Jewish religion, and the types explained in the epistle to the Hebrews above many of his fellow-students; had seen Jesus Christ, who called him to the apostleship; and had been caught up by Christ into the third heaven. In addition to this positive evidence, it may be observed, that there is no substantial objection against the opinion, that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. The want of Paul's name is no valid objection. The three epistles of John are universally acknowledged to be the production of his pen, notwithstanding his name is nowhere inserted in them. Paul indeed commonly introduced his epistles with his name, and the assertion of his apostleship; but there are important reasons for the deviation in the present case. 1. The doctrines, which he set forth in the epistle to the Hebrews, were wholly founded by him on the Jewish scriptures, and not on the authority of the writer. 2. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. In writing to the Hebrews, he did not assume his apostolic character, because the unbelieving Jews and Judaizing christians traduced him as an apòstate. His claim to apos

tleship would not have been admitted. For this reason, waving his claim to this high honor, he besought them to suffer the word of exhortation; (chap. xiii. 22.) which well became him, who professed to become all things to all men, so far as he could lawfully, that he might gain the more to christianity. For this reason he protested, that in the whole of the doctrine delivered to them, he had maintained a good con-, science, chap. xiii. 18. 3. This epistle was more likely to be read by many zealots, whom Paul desired to convince and convert, if sent forth without a name, than it would have been had Paul prefixed his own name. So many reasons cannot be adduced why Apollos should not have given his name to the performance, unless this be the first, that Apollos was not the writer of it; for the name of a popular preacher or writer often goes farther with mankind than his sentiments.

No passage in the epistle furnishes a valid objection. Candidus, or Venema, considers chap. xiii. 17, 18, 19, 22. as agreeing better with Apollos than Paul; but has not satisfied me that Paul might not exhort the Hebrews to obey their rulers, with as much propriety as Apollos: or with as much propriety say, "pray for us;" "we are confident that we have a good conscience;" "I the more earnestly beseech you to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner ;" and "suffer this word of exhortation."

In chap. ii. 3. the writer does not say that he received the doctrines of Christ from other wit nesses; nor does he disclaim an immediate revelation. He merely says, "how shall we escape if

we neglect so great a salvation, which beginning to be spoken by the Lord, was confirmed to us by them who heard him?" Now Paul often appeals to the testimony of eye-witnesses for the confirmation of things made known to himself by revelation. See Acts xiii. 30, 31. 1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7, 8. and 2 Tim. ii. 2. In the same manner Peter appealed to the testimony of the other apostles. See 1 Pet. i. 12. So did Jude, ver. 17. Paul may have called his epistle to the Galatians a large letter, because he rarely, on account of some infirmity or many avoca⚫tions, wrote so long a letter as that with his own hand: and in Heb. xiii. 22, Paul may have said, as the writer does in the original, "for indeed I have written to you briefly," on account of the importance of the subjects, which he had discussed in few words. Candidus says, "It is more than doubtful whether Paul would have freely conversed in Italy, where Timothy was imprisoned, which however this author asserts chap. xiii. 23. But who, will venture to accuse Paul of cowardice? Let his sufferings in his master's cause witness for him, against this charge. Besides, it is not certain that Timothy was imprisoned; for Heb. xiii. 23. may be literally rendered thus "Know that our brother Timothy is sent away, with whom, if he come soon, I will see you." The word απολελυμένον, is rendered in this manner, in Math. xiv. 15. "Send away the multitudes." Paul had probably sent Timothy away into Macedonia with an order to return and bring him an account of the state of the churches. See Philip. ii. 19,24. Had Timothy been im

prisoned, Paul would probably have intimated it in some of his epistles, for he was with the apostle the greater part of the time, while he was in bonds. See Philip. i. 1. Col.i. 1.and Philem. ver. 1.

Candidus asserts that the common reading, in Heb. x. 34. is incorrect. I know not why the pre-: sent reading may not be correctly and most literally rendered thus: "for ye even suffered with me in my bonds."

This implies that

they jointly sympathized in his afflictions. The Alexandrian and Clermont MSS. two of Stephen's MSS. the Syriac version, the St. German, and the Vulgate support the reading which Candidus deems correct; but the common reading is supported by the greatest number of ancient MSS. and therefore ought to be retained. The Alexandrian, St. German, and some other copies, were early corrected by the Vulgate, and therefore cannot have much credit with a biblical critic.

The salutations from the christians of Italy, show that the writer of this letter was either in Italy, or had some Italian brethren with him, which agrees with the supposition, that Paul was the author of it. He had been two years a prisoner at Rome, but had now obtained his liberty, (ver. 23, of xiii. chap.) by means, as is supposed, of the persons converted under his ministry in the emperor's family. See Philip, iv. 22.

These arguments, which I have compiled from Macknight's literal translation of the apostolical epistles, and nearly in the words of that learned man, appear to me, to afford conclusive evidence that St. Paul, and not Apollos, was the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews.

If Candidus will candidly consider them, I think he will be constrained, at least, to admit, that when he said there were "mighty exceptions" to his and Venema's opinion, he ought to have given the name of MACKNIGHT a place, beside the names of MILL and MICHAELIS.

TIMOTHY.

QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO CHURCH GOVERNMENT, PROPOSED AND

ANSWERED.

Question I. "IF a council, called by a church for the purpose of ordaining a man to be her pastor, find him to be in their opinion heretical, and therefore refuse to ordain him; do they, by such refusal, leave him under an ecclesiastical censure."

Answer. To a right solution of this question, we must consider the design for which an ordaining council is convened, and the authority with which such council is invested. When a church, after due trial, has elected one to be their pastor, it is incumbent on them to convene a council of the elders and delegates of the churches, with which they are in near and intimate connexion, to examine the man of their choice, and provided he be found quali fied, to consecrate him to the work of the gospel ministry. The calling of delegates, to constitute a part of the council, is proper and necessary to maintain the communion, order, and edification of the churches.

The churches of a particular neighborhood are more immediately connected, and are more deeply interested in each other's ecclesiastical concerns,than churches at a distance. On these accounts,

ordaining councils should be composed of elders and delegates from the vicinity of the church, over which the pastor is to be ordained. When there are churches of the same faith and order in the neighborhood, ordaining councils should be selected from them, in order more effectually to preserve christian faith, purity, and love.

The church put their candidate upon trial before the ordaining council. The candidate puts himself upon trial, whether he be duly qualified to receive the office of a gospel minister, and whether it be suitable, that he should be ordained over that particular church. The candidate may object to the appointment of a certain church, as a part of the council, and in case his objections are reasonable, they should prevent such appointment. But it is the duty of the church to appoint the council. It appears unsuitable, that a candidate, who is to be examined with respect to his qualifications, should choose his own judges. Such a practice would lay the foundation of error and disorder in the church of God. The claim of the candidate extends no farther, (unless by the indulgence of nominating one, two or three of his particular acquaintance) than to determine for himself, whether he will submit his character and standing to such council, as the church shall appoint.

The council being convened with the consent of the candidate are, under Christ, invested with authority to examine the state of the church, and to consult their spiritual interests; and to them it belongs, as an ecclesiastical ju dicatory, to examine the regularity of the call given to the candi

date. When they find the call conformable to gospel order, they are empowered and directed by Christ to enquire and decide, Whether the candidate be duly qualified to receive ordination, as a gosfel minister; whether he be of good report, and furnished with such literary and gracious attainments, as to enable him to take up on him the guidance of souls; and whether his religious doctrines are conformable to the essential articles of the christian faith. Until these enquiries be diligently made, they cannot proceed to approve and consecrate the candidate without great neglect of duty, and a treacherous dereliction of the cause of the Redeemer. Christ, by his apostle, has given to his ministers the power of ordination under this indispensable injunc tion, "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." None can be accounted faithful, who are not well instructed in the christian faith, who embrace not the main articles of that faith, and will not pledge themselves to preach the true doctrines of Christ and to live in conformity to them. Therefore the council must, with candor, fully enquire of the candidate, what are his religious sentiments; and he also is bound to make a full and honest disclosure of his religious sentiments.

If the council, after an impartial and deliberate examination, find the candidate, in their opinion, essentially erroneous, or in any respect materially defective, they must declare what they find, and refuse to ordain him. Ordination must ever proceed upon the council's finding the candi

date correct in his opinions, and established in the gospel faith. Never may they proceed upon the hope, that he will change and adopt more correct sentiments in future. To be inducted into the ministry, he must be now sound in the faith. When the council have made their result, and refused to ordain on account of heresy, their determination is decisive, and should be obligatory upon the church, which called them; upon the candidate, whose opinions were investigated by them: and upon all ministers and churches in communion with the council. They were a christian judicatory, instituted under Christ for this very purpose, to determine the qualifications of the candidate; and until by a revision, or by the results of some superior judicatory, their result is corrected, or superceded, it must be holden valid. The candidate, while under this imputation, cannot be ordained to the christian ministry, so as to be acknowledged a regular minister by any in communion with the council. The result of council has not simply laid him under suspicion, but has decided against his good report with respect to his christian faith. No person may be ordained unless he be of established good report both in faith and morals. Before he can be ordained, the disqualifying results of council must be set aside, as formed either in ignorance, in prejudice, or in corruption. To set aside this result, there must be a regular ecclesiastical process.

But one will ask, "Have the church and candidate no remedy against a decision, which may have been founded in error or corruption?" They have one. Do they believe the result dictated by

corruption? They will call in a council of churches of their neighborhood, of established faith, for the avowed purpose of exposing that corruption. When they have provedit, they have a complete remedy, and may have their pastor elect for their minister. Do they suppose that the result was founded in honest mistake, or misapprehension. They may invite the council to a review of their proceedings, and may ask a number of other churches of their faith and of their acquaintance, to unite in ⚫the review? If there were an error it may be easily remedied; if no error, the church will feel themselves happily relieved from spiritual danger.

But, is the candidate to be view ed as a heretic? He is. For every ordaining council is of necessity to determine, whether the candidate be sound in the faith. This is essential to the preservation of purity in the church, and of orthodoxy in the ministry. So far as his ministerial character is concerned, he must lie under the imputation, until a regular investigation of the result shall show the fact to be different. As a christian brother, he is entitled to the same process in the church, to which he belongs, as other private christians, when charged with corrupt opinions.

But may not the church call another council to ordain their candidate? May not such council proceed to ordain? And should not the person ordained be viewed as a regular gospel minister?

I answer, That every church has a civil right to choose, and to have appointed over them such ministers, as they please, let his opinions be ever so diverse from those of other ministers and

churches. They may call a council of such ministers and churches, as will accord with their views. No compulsory or coercive pro

can be taken by sister churches to prevent it. But is the enquiry, What have they a right to do in the sight of God, and agreeably to the laws of Christ? It is plain, that they have no right to procure the ordination of their candidate, until the decision of the council has been proved to be corrupt, or faulty, and has been set aside by a regular ecclesiastical proceeding. Should they procure such ordination, they could not justly expect that their minister would be viewed, as a regular minister, and entitled to the intercourse and communion of those churches, with whom they had before walked. The ministers, who have attempted to liberate him from the suspicion and imputation of heresy, and have proceeded to ordain him, and those, who countenance and commune with him afterwards, are guilty of acting the part of separatists. In its nature such conduct is schismatical, tending to subvert order, and to introduce discord and confusion into the churches of Christ. However, if the church forsake their former faith, and select men, who will agree with them and encourage them in their schism; other churches can only regret it, and labor to persuade them into a more correct course. They may not attempt coercion, but they may manifest their grief and disapprobation, by refusing to commune with the minister thus appointed, and with his supporters, and then leave the issue to Jesus, the witness of the truth. Christians should have no fellow