in virtue of ecclesiastical office, any act which it cannot be proved from Scripture, that Christ has connected with his office. And under the guidance of this principle, let every act of church government mentioned or implied in Scripture, be examined with the strictest scrutiny. The result will be found to accord entirely with the position we have taken. If there is any exception, we may expect to find it, either in the first epistle to Timothy, or in the epistle to Titus. This expectation is fully justified by the circumstances in which these epistles were written, and the special purposes for which they were intended.

The first epistle to Timothy was intended to direct him in a very important work, which he had undertaken at Paul's request. A prominent part of the work is described in the phrase, "that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine;" but from other portions of the epistle, it is evident that this was by no means the whole. He was to correct such evils as already existed in the Church of Ephesus, take measures for preventing further evils with which she was threatened, and to do whatever it might be needful for him to do, to bring her to a healthy and orderly condition. As an extraordinary officer, he possessed all the authority that he could possibly find any reasonable occasion to exercise, in fulfilling this special and extensive commission; and the epistle before us was intended to afford him the necessary instructions, including, of course, such as related to the ordinary work of the ministry. What then, were his instructions? The epistle contains a prescription for his health, and some brief exhortations to exemplary conduct, and diligence in cultivating knowledge and piety. These, of course, have no bearing on our subject. The epistle, then, contains six chapters. The first, fourth, and sixth relate to the doctrines and duties to be inculcated, special reference being had to the maintaining of the purity of the gospel, in opposition to false teachers; the second to the order which must be preserved in the worship of God; the third to the qualifications of bishops, (or elders,) and deacons; the fifth to ecclesiastical censures, to ordination, and to the distribution of alms, or the duties of deacons. This last,

it will be observed, is entirely distinct from government, and pertains to a different office. But, whoever considers the extraordinary nature of work assigned to Timothy, will not be surprised that instructions as to the qualifications and duties of deacons were addressed to him. No part of this epistle, it is now evident, implies any greater authority for ecclesiastical rulers, than we have already deduced from the nature of the church.

Let us examine the Epistle to Titus. Titus, like Timothy, was an extraordinary officer, who, at Paul's request, had undertaken to complete the organization of certain churches, and to bring them to an orderly, regular and settled course of action. "For this cause left I thee in Crete," says the apostle, "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." And this epistle was intended to give him the necessary instructions for his own work. The epistle contains three chapters. The first relates to the qualifications of elders, the second and most of the third to the doctrines and duties to be inculcated (specially in opposition to false teachers;) we have next a few words on the discipline of the church; and the epistle closes with some matters of a personal nature. It will be observed that no ecclesiastical matter is treated of in this epistle, which is not treated of in the epistle to Timothy, already examined, a fact of no little importance in determining what are the subjects with which the church, as a visible and organized society, has to do.

Thus we have examined those portions of the word of God which treat of ecclesiastical affairs, professedly and at large. We have found that they clearly recognize the power of ruling the church to the extent previously specified, but afford no warrant for extending it further. Now, add to this, the numerous texts already noticed to which the same remark applies, and the argument deduced from the nature of the church; and, we imagine, the candid reader will think that we might safely stop here; the point is established, unless some passage of Scripture can be produced, which we have not yet noticed, and which clearly extends the power in question beyond the limits we have assigned: meanwhile the pre

sumption against the existence of such a passage is violent.

But we have more to say. It has been shown that the power to rule is clearly recognized in the word of God, and that ecclesiastical rulers are solemnly warned against attempting to exercise any greater power than Christ has connected with their office. Of course, there must be some sure method of determining the extent of their legitimate authority. Now, what is that method? We have in Scripture no formal definition of their powers, and it would be clearly irrelevant to argue from the authority held by ecclesiastical officers under the former dispensation. We mean to say, that no office under the Christian dispensation is identical with the priesthood under the Mosaic dispensation. An appeal to the nature of the church is evidently relevant; and that appeal we have made. For further light we now go to the apostolic commission. It will be admitted, no doubt, that no mortal has any rightful power for the government of the church, which the apostles did not possess; and it seems equally clear, that they held no power for that purpose, which was not derived from their commission. Hence, so far as church government is concerned, no man can lawfully claim any authority not fairly deducible from that commission. It runs thus: "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." This commission is to remain in force "unto the end of the world;" of course, it was not intended to be confined to the apostles or to inspired men. It contains not a word on the subject of church government; hence it can convey the power to rule, so far only as its exercise can be shown to be necessary and proper, as a means of performing the duties specified. The gospel must be proclaimed, in order that men may become disciples; when properly qualified, they must be admitted by baptism into the visible relation of disciples; and, in that character, they must be taught to observe all things that Christ has commanded. These things must be done

officially; and they are all the duties specified in the commission. In connexion with these duties, there are various authoritative acts, which must be done by mortals, unless direct communications are to be constantly received from Heaven. Various things must be done bearing direct relation to the office itself; as, for example, inducting men into it. There is need for arrangement in reference to various matters connected with their teaching; such, for example, as relate to the public worship of God. An authoritative answer, favourable or the reverse, must be given to every one who applies for admission to the visible relation of a disciple. Those who sustain that relation must be subject to discipline, so far as that shall be needful to the end for which the relation was formed,-that they may learn to observe all things that Christ has commanded. To each and all of these subjects the principle is, of course, applicable, that every duty includes all the necessary and proper means of its performance. The degree of authority here described, is clearly and irresistibly implied in the commission itself; and to common sense we appeal for the correctness of the assertion, no greater power to rule can be legitimately derived from it.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

ARTICLE VII.

NECROLOGY.

A BRIEF MEMOIR OF THE REV. JAMES EDMONDS, OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.

The Rev. James Edmonds was born in the city of London, in or about the year 1720, and died in the city of Charleston, S. Carolina, in April, 1793, aged 73 years. It has often been a matter of regret and surprise to the writer, as well no doubt to others of the present generation, that so little has been left on record of the lives and characters of those eminent men, especially the

Pastors of the Presbyterian Church of our country, who have long since gone, as it is confidently hoped, to their resting places on high, and their memories left to perish in oblivion. Whether this lamentable occurrence may have arisen from a mere indifference on the part of their ministerial brethren, or false delicacy, in those whose special duty it was, it would at this time, be unavailing to inquire. The writer might here introduce a long list of names of those who have lived in his day, such as Drs. Hollingshead, Keith, Flinn, Palmer, Stephenson, John Brown, R. W. James, &c., of neither of whom he has yet seen any satisfactory account, and whose memoirs, as he thinks, would enhance the value of any well-written Church History of our country: still, it is to be hoped, that this may not be the fate or destiny of all, but that some noble effort, like that of the Synod of So. Carolina, as I have been informed, will yet be made to rescue from oblivion the memories of some of those worthies who still live in the remembrance and affection of their co-labourers of the present day. Among those who have long since gone, as it is sincerely to be hoped, to their eternal rest on high, the writer would willingly, endeavor to revive, though in his feeble and imperfect way, the memory of that eminent servant of the Most High, whose name stands at the head of this brief article, with whom he was well acquainted in his early life, he being for several years an inmate in his father's family, and where all loved him. To what particular denomination Mr. Edmonds was attached in England, is not certainly known, but it is most probable, to that of the independent Church. On reference to the valuable History of South Carolina, by the venerable Dr. David Ramsay, vol. ii., page 29, it will be seen that he became the Pastor of the Independent or Congregational Church, in Charleston, S. C., December 15th, 1754, and resigned his Pastorship of the same, about the year 1767, but from what cause it is not stated. But from that period, it is believed he retired into the interior part of the State, for the purpose of establishing or organizing new churches in vacant places, as in Williamsburg, Indian Town, Pee Dee, Jeffries' Creek, &c.; and in riding about as a missionary, literally doing all the good he could in the