Chapter IV

CHAPTER IV.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SAVIOUR AND THE APOSTLES.

Having thus examined all the scriptural arguments which are adduced by Episcopalians in favour of the peculiar organization of their church, the argument might be left here, for, if the positions which have been taken are correct, the principal object contemplated is accomplished. If there is no scriptural authority for prelacy; none for an apostolical succession; none for confirmation; none for the right which the "bishop" claims for administering discipline,—then it follows that there is nothing in the system which makes it binding on the churches of the lledeemer, and that the whole arrangement of the Episcopacy is one of human origin.

But it is often objected by Episcopalians, that all the efforts of those who doubt the claims of the "Episcopate" are employed to demolish that system without proposing any substitute in its place; and that, while so much zeal is evinced to prove that their claims are not founded on the authority of Scripture, nothing is done to show what teas the plan on which the church in the New Testament was organized. It is proposed, therefore, to collect and arrange the scattered notices on this point in the New Testament, and to inquire whether it was the design of the Saviour to proscribe any form of church government which should bo universally binding on his church. The first point will relate to the officers referred to in the New Testament; the second, to the actual organization and government of the churches.

SECT. 1.— The Officers of the Church.

The officers referred to in the New Testament, in the organization of the church, may be divided into two great classes. 1. Those which were intended to be temporary; and, 2. Those which are so mentioned as to show that they were designed to be permanent.

I. Those which were designed to be temporary.

Under this class are to be ranked,

(1.) The apostles, properly so called, who were appointed by the Saviour to be his companions, to be Witnesses of what he taught, and to be WitNesses of his resurrection. This has been demonstrated in ch. ii. This office, from its nature, was temporary, and was confined to those who had been with him during his public ministry, and whom he had specially called for this purpose, with Matthias, who was chosen to fill the vacated place of Judas, (Acts i.,) and Paul, who was called to the special work of the apostleship among the Gentiles, and permitted to see the Saviour in a miraculous manner after his ascension, in order that he might have the appropriate qualification of an apostle. 1 Cor. ix. This office was one in which, from the nature of the case, there could be no succession, unless the "succession" was kept up by a miraculous manifestation of the Saviour to each one in the "succession," as in the case of the apostle Paul, to qualify him to be a "witness" that the Redeemer was risen from the dead. In reference to this point, I may briefly sum up all that has been shown to be contained in the New Testament. The case stands thus: (a.) There is no command in the New Testament to the apostles to transmit to others the peculiarity of the apostolic office. If the peculiarity of the office was to be transmitted, it was required that such a command should be given. But it has not been pretended that any such command has been discovered. (b.) There is no affirmation that it would be thus transmitted. No one has been able to find an affirmative on that point. And we may ask here whether it is credible that the apostles were bishops of a superior order, and that it was designed that all the church should be subject to an order of men " superior in ministerial rank and power," deriving their authority from the apostles, and yet not the slightest command thus to transmit it, and not the slightest hint that it would be done ? (c) It was impossible that the peculiarity of the apostolic office should be transmitted. I have shown, not by assumptions, but by a large array of passages of Scripture, what that peculiarity was: to bear witness to the great events which went to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he rose from the dead. The peculiarity of that office, as specified by Jesus Christ, by the chosen apostles, by Paul, and by the whole college, Could Not be transmitted; for no prelate is, or can be, a witness, in the sense and for the purpose for which they were originally designated, unless he can make the affirmation which Paul did in proof that he was an apostle : " Am I not an apostle ? Have Inot seen Jesus Christ our Lord? 1 Cor. ix. 1. (d) I have examined the case of Timothy, of Titus, of Barnabas, and of the " angels" of the churches—the slender basis on which, in the absence of direct command to continue the succession, and direct affirmation that it would be continued, the whole fabric of Episcopacy has been reared.

The conclusion to which we have come is, that, while this was a most important and wise arrangement in the organization of the church, there is not the slightest evidence that the Redeemer intended that it should be perpetual; that it is impossible to make out the fact of such a "succession;" and consequently that the whole claim that the "bishop" is the "successor" of the apostles is a usurpation of authority in the church. The organization of the Christian church is complete without any such "succession"—or such officers—as really as it is without the "order" of "deaconesses," and without the "order" of the "seventy disciples."

(2.) There were special ministers sent out for a temporary purpose by the Lord Jesus himself: " After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." Luke x. 1. These persons were (a) evidently appointed for a different purpose from the apostles. The apostles, as has been shown, were to be with him, to hear his instructions, to be witnesses of his miracles, his sufferings, his death, and his resurrection, and then to go and proclaim those things to the world; and, having done this, the apostolic office was to cease. The object of the appointment of the " seventy" is expressed, and we have no right to go beyond that in interpreting their commission. They were to " go two and two into every city and place, whither he himself would come." This was the extent of their commission. It was to proclaim the coming of JesUs of Nazareth, and prepare the way for his personal preaching there, evidently by calling the minds of the people to his claims, to the remarkable character of his preaching, to his power in working miracles, and to the evidence that he was the Messiah. There is no commission to go out of Judea, as the Saviour evidently did not design himself to go out of Judea; and there is no commission to the appointment as a permanent office. (6) Thej' were appointed to a temporary office. This appears from the nature of the commission, and from the fact that there is no reference in the New Testament to any persons who claimed to be the " successors" of the " seventy." There is no record of their number having been filled up when one of them died, nor is there any intimation whatever of the permanency of their office. We never hear them alluded to as having a fixed office in the church; nor in the appointment of any class of ministers is there any intimation that they were to succeed the " seventy" disciples. In the accounts of the churches which were organized by the apostles there is no allusion to them, nor does it appear to have ever occurred that any reference was to be had to them in the organization of a church.

If this be so,—and that it is, no one acquainted with the New Testament will deny,—then the appointment of the "seventy disciples" should not be urged as an argument to prove that the ministry wap established in " three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons." Between the appointment of the seventy, as the record is made in Luke, and the office of a "priest" in the Episcopal Church, there is no resemblance whatever. There is no evidence, as has been remarked, that it was to be permanent; there is no intimation that they were to be subject to the "bishops"—the apostles; or that they might not ordain, or might not administer the rite of confirmation, or that they might not administer discipline, or that they might not take the oversight of a "diocese." All this is language unknown to the New Testament ; and the simple and obvious account of the appointment of the " seventy" is, that they were employed by the Saviour to prepare the way for his personal ministry in the places where he proposed to go. (3.) There were in the apostolic church, also, "prophets," who, unless they were classed under the denomination of " teachers," were designed only to be temporary in the duration of their office. Acts xiii. 1: " There were in the church at Antioch certain prophets and teachers;" xv. 32 : "And Judas and Silas being prophets also themselves." 1 Cor. xii. 28: " God hath set some in the church—secondarily—prophets." Ver. 29: " Are a,\\ prophets?" Eph. iv. 11: " And he gave some prophets." 1 Cor. xiv. 3 : " He that prophcsieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." Ver. 5: " I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied ; for greater is he that prophesieih than he that speaketh with tongues." Ver. 22: " Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe

but to them that believe not; but prophecy serveth. not for them that believe not, but for them that believe." Ver. 29: " Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge." There is some evidence that the persons here referred to were under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that they were therefore appointed in an extraordinary manner in the circumstances in which the church was placed when newly founded, and when it needed special guidance and direction. There is no evidence whatever that the office of " prophet" was intended to be permanent.

(4.) Under this denomination of officers that were not designed to be permanent, may be ranked also the office of deaconess. Horn. xvi. 1: " I commend unto you Phebe, our sister, which is a servant— Sidxmuv—of the church which is at Cenchrea." Comp. 1 Tim. v. 3, 9-11; Titus ii. 3, 4. Deaconesses appear to have been commonly aged widows, sustaining a fair reputation, and qualified to guide and instruct those who "were young and inexperienced. The " apostolical constitutions" say : " Ordain a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministries toward the women." Book iii. Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, says, when speaking of the efforts which he made to obtain information respecting the opinions and practices of Christians: " I deemed it necessary to put two maid-servants, who are called ministrse, [deaconesses,] to the torture, in order to ascertain what is truth." The reason for their appointment in the early churches of the Gentiles was probably the fact, that in the East, females are kept secluded from men, and are not permitted to mingle freely in society, as is the case in the Western nations. It became necessary, therefore, to appoint aged and experienced females to instruct the young of their sex, to visit the sick, and to distribute to them the alms of the church. From the nature of the case, however, the necessity of this office would not exist in those countries where these customs did not prevail; and there is no reason to suppose that it was designed to be permanent in the church.*

II. Permanent officers mentioned in the organization of the church in the New Testament. These officers are:

(1.) Those designated by various terms, denoting that they were set apart or appointed to preach the gospel, to impart instruction, and to take the oversight of the flock. This class of persons is mentioned under different appellations—as preachers, bishops, pastors, teachers, evangelists; but all of them in such a connection and form, that it is evident that the arrangement was intended to be permanent.

* It may be a question, however, whether it would not ho well to revive this order in the church. There is a large claps of females in most churches, especially in cities, who cannot, in any proper sense and to any suitable degree, be under the supervision of a pastor. They are those who have had little early training in religion, who are not connected with pious families, many of whom are employed as domestics, and who peculiarly need instruction in the doctrines and duties of religion. Sorno of them are too old to be in Sabbath-schools, and many of them could not be well collected in Bible classes; but they could with great propriety be placed under the care of more aged and experienced females in the church, whose special duty it should bo to visit them, to counsel them, to instruct them, and to aid them in the divine life.

(a) The office of preacher was designed to be permanent, for the Saviour gave direction to his apostles to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," assuring them that he would be " with them alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. Comp. Rom. x. 14,15; 2 Tim. iv. 2. That the office was designed to be permanent, is made certain from the instruction which Paul gives to Timothy: " And 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." 2 Tim. ii. 2.

(Z>) The office of bishop, or overseer of the flock, in the true scriptural sense—as a pastor of a particular church—was designed to be permanent also. " The name ' bishop,' which now designates the highest grade in the ministry," says Dr. Onderdonk, (Tract, p. 12,) " is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. That name is given to the middle office or presbyters; and ALL that we read in the New Testament concerning 'bishops' is to be regarded as appertaining to that middle grade. It was after the apostolic age that the name ' bishop' was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first." The »ffice of "bishop," as it was used in the "apostolic age,"—denoting an "overseer,"—is designed to be permanent in the church. This is evident from the fact that instructions were given which implied this: " If a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop, then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine." 1 Tim. iii. 1-7; Titus i. 7-9; Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1. The appointment of bishops in the churches by the apostles, and the instructions to Timothy in regard to their qualifications, prove that it was understood that the arrangement was to be permanent. No such instructions are given in regard to the qualifications of " apostles," or of prelates, as the "successors of the apostles," or of those who were to succeed the " seventy disciples," or of those who were to succeed the "prophets." Those things were, therefore, of a temporary character; this was a fixed arrangement.

(c) The office of pastor—another name for the office of " bishop"—was designed to be permanent, for the same reason that instructions are given which imply this, and that the office is mentioned in such a connection as to show that this was designed : " And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangeliste; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man." Eph. iv. 11, 12. This passage proves that some, at least of these offices were to be permanent in the church. That it was designed that the pastoral office should be one of them, is apparent from the fact that the word is applied to the office in such a way as to show that it was a permanent arrangement. The word "pastor," indeed, in the sense in which it is used in Eph. iv. 11, does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament, nor have our translators rendered the same word pastor elsewhere. It occurs often in the sense of shepherd, and is uniformly elsewhere so rendered. Matt. ix. 36; xxv. 32; xxvi. 31; Mark vi. 34; xiv. 27; Luke ii. 8, 15, 18, 20; John x. 2, 11, 12, 14, 16; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 25. But the verb (-i/i/mivoi) is so used as to denote that the office was to be of a permanent character. John xxi. 16: "He saith to him, Feed—xol/xatve—my sheep." This was indeed addressed to Peter; but that he understood it as contemplating a permanent arrangement in the church, is apparent from his own instructions given to the elders of the church : " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, feed— ,ninijAvare—the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof [exercising the office of a bishop—i-iGzaxiiui'Tes]—not by constraint, but willingly." 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 7.

(d) The office of teacher was designed to be permanent. Eph. iv. 11: " He gave some teachers." "And God hath set some in the church—thirdly, teachers." 1 Cor. xii. 28; Gal. vi. 6: "Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheih in all good things." Rom. xii. 7 : "Or he that teacheth on teaching." Comp. Acts xiii. 1 ; ICor. xii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. 1.

(e) The office of an evangelist, or of a publisher of the gospel, was designed to be permanent in the church. Eph. iv. 11: "He gave some evangelists." 2 Tim. iv. 5: " But watch thou in all things, do the work of an evangelist." Comp. Acts xxi. 8.

All these offices relate to the preaching of the gospel, and to the proper care and oversight of the church, and might evidently be united in the same person. There is no incompatibility in the offices themselves which would prevent this, and there is every reason to suppose that they were thus united. Nay, there is positive evidence that in the case of Timothy and of some of the apostles they were thus united. They are not incompatible now; and there is the same evidence that they were intended to be permanent that there is that the church itself was designed to be permanent.

(2.) There were rulers, or ruling elders, in the church, who are so mentioned as to make it probable that it was designed that there should be in every church such officers to direct and govern its affairs. That the permanent officers already referred to were authorized to exercise government over the church, in addition to the duty of preaching, of pastoral supervision, and of teaching, is evident from many places in the New Testament, as well as by the names by which they are designated; but there is also evidence that there was, in some churches at least, a distinct class of men to whom the government of the church was especially confided. In cases where a church was established where there had been a synagogue, it seems most probable that the apostles would make use of the existing organization in its government, and engraft the Christian church on that religious community which they found already in existence. On this point, the following remarks of Archbishop Whately seem so well founded, that they must commend themselves to every one as founded in truth :—

"It appears highly probable—I might say morally certain—that wherever a Jewish synagogue existed that was brought—the whole or the chief part of it—to embrace the gospel, the apostles did not there so much form a Christian church (or congregation ; ecclesia) as make an existing congregation Christian; by introducing the Christian sacraments and worship, and establishing whatever regulations were requisite for the newly-adopted faith; leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of government unchanged; the ' rulers of synagogues,' elders, and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both) being already provided in the existing institutions. And it is likely that several of the earliest Christian churches did originate in this way; that is, that they were converted synagogues, which became Christian churches as soon as the members, or the main part of the members, acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah.

" The attempt to effect this conversion of a Jewish synagogue into a Christian church seems always to have been made, in the first instance, in every place where there was an opening for it. Even after the oall of the idolatrous Gentiles, it appears plainly to have been the practice of the apostles Paul and Barnabas, when they came to any city in which there was a synagogue, to go thither first and deliver their sacred message to the Jews and ' devout (or proselyte) Gentiles,' according to their own expression, (Acts xiii. 16,) to the ' men of Israel and those that feared God;' adding, that 'it was necessary that the word of God should first be preached to them.'

"And when they found a church in any of those cities in which (and such were, probably, a very largo majority) there was no Jewish synagogue that received the gospel, it is likely that they would still conform, in a great measure, to the same model."*

* Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. 9.

But there is also express mention in the New Testament of permanent officers appointed to rule the church, as distinct from the teachers and pastors. 1 Cor. xii. 28: "And God hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles;" that is, those who had the power of working miracles; " then gifts of healing," or those who had the power of healing the sick; " helps, governments, diversities of tongues." The idea here is, undoubtedly, that there were those who were appointed in the church to the business of ruling—as there were for prophesying, or for teaching, or for healing the sick. Whether it refers to a distinct class of men who were set apart to this work, and who were to be a permanent " order" in the church, cannot, from this passage, be determined with certainty, and is not now material. All that is necessary to be observed is, that there were those who were distinct from the "apostles," and the " prophets," and the " teachers," whose office it was to administer the government of the church. The same thing is apparent from 1 Tim. v. 17 : " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." The plain meaning of this passage is, that while there were "elders" who laboured in "the word and doctrine," that is, in preaching, there were also those who did not labour in " word and doctrine," but who yet were appointed to " rule" in the church.

(3.) There were in the church, as it was organized by the apostles, those who administered the office of deacons; and this office is so mentioned as to make it evident that it was designed to be permanent. Acts vi. 1-6. The office, as there designated, was to take the charge of the poor, and to administer to them the alms of the church. This office is subsequently referred to in such a way as to show that it was not designed to be a temporary appointment. Thus, the church of Philippi was organized with such a class of officers, and that class remained at the time when the apostle addressed them from Eome : " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Phil. i. 1. So in 1 Tim. iii. 8-10, the qualifications of " deacons" are so mentioned as to show that this was to be a permanent office in the church : " Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also be first proved, then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless." " Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that use the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." Verses 12,13.

It is to be remembered that, in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, the apostle was addressing those who were ministers of the gospel, and who were especially and expressly intrusted with the organizingof churches, and the appointment of Officers over them, (1 Tim. i. 3, 4; Titus i. 5;) and it will contribute to illustrate what has been said about the permanent offices of the church, to remark that in these epistles there are no instructions given about appointing any to be the " successors of the apostles" or to the apostolic office; none in regard to the appointment of those who should succeed the "seventy disciples ;" none in reference to the institution of " prophets;" and none in reference to the appointment of "deaconesses;" unless 1 Tim. v. 3, 9-11, and Titus ii. 3, 4, should be regarded as such. This circumstance is an additional consideration to show that those were not designed to be permanent offices in the church, but that they were temporary in their nature. It is scarcely conceivable that in formal letters to two ministers of religion, occupied mainly with instructions respecting the officers and the government of the church, there should have been such an omission if those offices had been designed to be of a permanent character.

(4.) There is evidence in the New Testament that it was intended that there should be a pernianent relation between a minister of the gospel and a particular church; or that the pastoral relation should exist. The evidence of this is found in the following considerations:—

(a) The name pastor, already adverted to, which naturally implies the existence of the correlative pastoral charge—as the name "shepherd" naturally implies that there is a, flock.

(J) The duty enjoined on the churches to provide for the wants of the ministers of religion, also, naturally implies the existence of this relation. It could scarcely be inculcated as a duty to support the ministry in general, or those to whom they sustained no special relation; and the duty is, in fact, enjoined on them to support those who laboured especially for their benefit. Gal. vi. 6: " Let him that is taught in the word communicate [impart] unto him that teacheth in all good things." 1 Cor. ix. 7 : " Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges ? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock 1" Ver. 11: " If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things ?" Ver. 14: " Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

(c) Such permanent officers or pastors were appointed in the church at Ephesus. In the discourse of the apostle Paul to the " elders" of the church there, when assembled at Miletus, he addresses them as appointed to watch and guard and govern the church, evidently with the understanding that they had been appointed to their office as a permanent relation between them and the church there. " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock. over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Acts xx. 28, 29.

(i?) The church at Philippi was likewise organized with those who are addressed as sustaining a permanent relation to the church. "Paul and Tiniotheus—to the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the BISHOPS (abv i-taxdmns—comp. the account of the " elders" of Ephesus, Acts xx. 28, "over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops"—txiaxdxous,) and deacons." Phii. i. 1. The office of " bishop," or pastor, therefore, in the churches at Philippi and Ephesus, was a permanent office.

(c) The same thing evidently existed in the churches in Crete. Thus Paul says to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Tit. i. 5. This relation, therefore, was to be constituted in every city where there was a church, and as this instruction was given to one who was himself a minister of religion, and who was set apart for the purpose of aiding in the organization of Christian churches, it follows that this was designed to be a permanent relation.

It is clear, therefore, that it was contemplated that there should be permanent officers in the church, and it is not difficult to determine what they were;

nor to ascertain from the New Testament what officers were appointed only for a temporary purpose.

Sect. 2.— The actual organization and government of the church, as described in the Mew Testament.

If the above views are correct, then but one inquiry now remains. It is, in what way was the government and discipline of the church actually administered ? Who appointed and ordained to the office of the ministry? Who administered discipline? Was this done solely by the "prelate"? Was ordination performed by him alone ? Had he alone the right to admit members to the church, and to exclude them from it ?—The positions which have been already taken on this subject will be strengthened by a brief view of the actual statements in the New Testament. I observe, then,

1. That presbyters had the right of ordaining.

If this can be made out, then it will be an additional consideration to show that the main point claimed for the superiority of bishops is unfounded. I proceed now, therefore, to show that there is positive proof that presbyters did, ordain. I have shown, in the course of the argument, that they exercised the office of discipline—one of the things claimed peculiarly for bishops; and I now proceed to prove, that the office of ordaining was oue which was intrusted to them, and which they exercised. If this point is demonstrated, then it will follow still further, that the peculiarity of the office of the apostles was not that they ordained, and that the clergy of the New Testament are not divided into " three orders," but are equal in ministerial rank and power. The argument is indeed complete without this; for, unless Episcopalians can show, by positive proof, the claims of their prelates to the right of ordination and discipline, the parity of the clergy follows as a matter of course.

I am a Presbyterian. But my argument does not require that I should go largely into a defence of the form of church government which I regard as most in accordance with the principles of the New Testament. The leading object of this " Inquiry" is to disprove Episcopacy; and the conclusion which will be reached on this point is one in which all who are not Episcopalians will coincide. All Protestant denominations, with the single exception of the comparatively small sect of Episcopalians, are agreed in maintaining the doctrine of the parity of the clergy, and the maintenance of this is the essential feature in which they differ from the advocates of Prleacy. If the claims of Episcopacy in regard to the "three grades" are disproved, it follows that the clergy are on an equality. If it is shown that the doctrine of the New Testament is that presbyters are to ordain, it is a sufficient disposal of the " feeble claims of lay-ordination," and of all other claims. It will follow, that a valid ordination is that which is performed in accordance with the direction that presbyters should ordain. It will follow also, as has been remarked, that Episcopal ordination is valid, not because it is performed by a prelate, but because it is in fact a mere Presbyterian performance. See pp. 123-126.

In proof of the point now before us, therefore, I adduce 1 Tim. iv. 14: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the jiresbylcry." This passage, which, to the common sense of mankind, affirms the very thing under discussion, it is evidently material for Episcopalians to dispose of, or their claim to exclusive rights and privileges are forever destroyed. I shall, therefore, examine the passage, and then notice the objections to its obvious and common-sense interpretation, alleged by Episcopalians.

I observe then, (1.) That the translation is fairly made. Much learned criticism has been exhausted, to very little purpose, by Episcopalians, to show that a difference exists between " with" (/-terd) in this place, and " by" (did) in 2 Tim. i. 6. It has been said, " that such a distinction may justly be regarded as intimating, that the virtue of the ordaining act flowed from Paul, while the presbytery, or the rest of that body, if he were included in it, expressed only consent." Tract, p. 22. But it has never been shown, nor can it be, that the preposition "with" does not fairly express the force of the original. The same observation may be applied to the word " presbytery," (jcpeaporipim.) It denotes properly an assembly or council of elders, or presbyters— Versammluwj od. Rath dcr Aelteren. Passow. In Luke xxii. 66, it is applied to the body of elders which composed the Sanhedrim, or Great Council of the Jews, and is translated " the elders of the people:" To izpeaftuTipwv Too kaoo. See also, Acts xxii. 5: "the estate of the elders." The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in the passage under consideration. Dr. Onderdonk has endeavoured to show, that it means " the office to which Timothy was ordained, not the persons who ordained him ; so that the passage would read, 'with the laying on of hands to confer thepresbyterate,' or presbytership, or the clerical office;" and appeals to the authority of Grotius and Calvin, in the case. Tract, pp. 19, 20. In regard to this interpretation, I observe, (a) That if this be correct, then it follows, that Timothy was not an apostle, but an elder,—he was ordained to the office of the presbyterate, or the eldership. Timothy, then, is to be laid out of the college of apostles, and reduced to the humble office of a presbyter. When prelacy is to be established by showing that the office of apostles was transmitted, Timothy is an apostle; when it is necessary to make another use of this same man, it appears that he was ordained to the presbyterate, and he -becomes an humble presbyter,— a " nose of wax" of great convenience to the argument of Episcopacy. But, (b) If the word " presbytery" (,xpeafioTipiov) here means the presbyter ate, and not the persons, then it doubtless means the same in the two other places where it occurs. In Luke xxii. 66, then, we receive the information that "the presbyterate," "the presbytership," or "the clerical office" of the people, that is, the body by which the people conferred " the presbyterate," came together with the scribes. In Acts xxii. 5, we are informed, that the " presbyterate," or " the clerical office," would bear witness with the highpriest to the life of Paul. Such absurdities show the propriety of adhering, in interpretation, to the obvious and usual meaning of the words, (c) The word is fixed in its meaning, in the usage of the church. Suicer (Thesaurus) says, it denotes " an assembly, congregation, and college of presbyters in the Christian church." In all the instances which he quotes from Theodoret, (on 1 Tiin. iv. 14,) from Chrysostom, (Homil. xiii. on this epistle,) from Theophylact, (in loc.) and from Ignatius, (Epis. to Antioch, and to the Trallians,) there is not the slightest evidence that it is ever used to denote the office, instead of the persons, of the presbytery. ((I) As the opinion of Grotius is referred to by Dr. Onderdonk, I will quote here a passage from his commentary on this place. " The custom was, that the presbyters who were present placed their hands on the head of the candidate, at the same time with the presiding officer of their body," cum ccetus sui principe. " Where the apostles, or their assistants, were not present, ordination took place by the presiding officer (Praesidem) of their body, with the concurrence of the presbytery,"—consent ienlc prcsbytcrio. It is particularly surprising that the authority of Calvin should have been adduced as sanctioning that interpretation which refers the word presbytery to office, and not to persons. His words are, " They who interpret presbytery, here, as a collective noun, denoting the college of presbyters, are, in my judgment, right." Myfirst argument, then, is, that the word "presbytery," denoting the persons who composed the body, or college of elders, is the proper, obvious, and established sense of the passage. (2.) It is evident, from this passage, that whoever else might have been engaged in this transaction, a material part of it belonged to the presbytery or eldership concerned. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy; WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF THE PRESBYTERY." Hero

it is evident, that the presbytery bore a material part in the transaction. Paul says, that the gift which was in Timothy was given him by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. That is, that some prophecies relating to Timothy (comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, "according to the prophecies which went before in thee") had designated him as a proper person for the ministry, or that it had been predicted that he would be employed in the ministry; but the prophecy did not invest him with the office—did not confer the gift. That was done—that formal appointmcnt fulfilling the prophecy—by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. It was necessary that that act of the presbytery should thus concur with the prophecy, or Timothy would have remained a layman. The presbyters laid their hands on him, and he thus received his office. As the prophecy made no part of his ordination, it follows that he was ordained by the presbytery.

(3.) The statement here is just such a -one as would be given now in a Presbyterian ordination; it is not one which would be made in an Episcopal ordination. A Presbyterian would choose these very words to give an account of an ordination in his church; an Episcopalian would not. The former speaks of ordination by a presbytery; the latter, of ordination by a bishop. The former can use the account of the apostle Paul, here, as applicable to ordination, without explanations, comments, new versions, or criticisms; the latter cannot. The passage speaks to the common understanding of men, in favour of Presbyterian ordination—of the action of a, presbytery in the case; it never speaks the language of Episcopacy, even after all the torture to which it may be subjected by Episcopal criticism. The passage is one, too, which is not like that which speaks of the "apostles and elders," "the apostles, and elders, and brethren," the only direct passage on which Episcopacy relies, and which has no perceptible connection with the case; but it is one which speaks on the very subject—which relates to the exact transaction, and which makes a positive affirmation of the very thing in debate.

(4.) The supposition that this was not a.presbytcrial transaction renders the passage unmeaning. Here was present a body of men called a presbytery. We ask Episcopalians, why they were there ? The answer which they give is, not for the purpose of ordination, but for "concurrence." Paul, the prelate, say they, is the sole ordainer. We see Timothy kneeling before the presbytery. We see them solemnly impose their hands on him. We ask, Why is this? "Not for the purpose of ordination," the Episcopalian replies, " but for concurrence. Paul is the ordainer." But we ask, further, Had they no share in the ordination ? "None at all." Had they no participation in conferring the gift designated by prophecy? "None at all." Why, then, are they present ? Why do they lay their hands on him ? For "concurrence"—for form, for nothing! It was empty pageantry, in which they were mistaken when supposing that their act had any thing to do in conferring the gift; for their presence really meant nothing, and the whole transaction could as well have been performed without as with them.

(5.) If this ordination was the joint act of the presbytery, we have here a complete Scriptural account of a Presbyterian ordination. It becomes then, a very material question, how Episcopalians dispose of this passage of Scripture. Their difficulties and embarrassments in relation to it will still further confirm the obvious interpretation which Presbyterians suggest and hold. These difficulties and embarrassments are thus exhibited by Dr. Onderdonk: He first doubts whether this transaction was an ordination. Tract, pp. 18, 19. To this I answer, (1.) That, if it were not, then there is no account that Timothy was ever ordained; (2.) That there is no specific work mentioned in the history of the apostles to which Timothy was designated, unless it was ordination; (3.) That it is the obvious and fair meaning of the passage; (4.) That, if this does not refer to ordination, it would be easy to apply the same denial to all the passages which speak of the " imposition of hands," and to show that there was no such thing as ordination to the ministry, in any case; (5.) That it accords with the common usage of the terms—" imposition of hands"—1-cOlats Twv yupibv—in the New Testament. The phrase occurs but four times:—Acts viii. 18; 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6; Heb. vi. 2. In all these places, it evidently denotes conferring some gift, office, or favour, described by the act. In 2 Tim. i. 6, it denotes, by the acknowledgment of all Episcopalians, ordination to the ministry. Why should it not here? (6.) If, as Dr. Onderdonk supposes, it refers to " an inspired designation of one already in the ministry to a particular field of duty," (Tract, p. 19,) then, (a) I ask, why we have no other mention of this transaction ? (i) How is it to be accounted for, that Paul, while here evidently referring Timothy to the duties and responsibilities of the ministerial office in general, should not refer to his ordination, but to a designation to a particular field of labour? His argument to Timothy, on such a supposition, would be this: " Your office of a minister of the gospel is one that is exceedingly important. A bishop must be blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, etc. (Chap, iii.) In order to impress this more deeply on you, I refer you—not to the solemnity of your ordination-vows—but, I solemnly remind you of an inspired separation of one already in the ministry to a particular field of duty." I need only observe here, that this is not a mode of argument which looks like Paul. But,

Secondly. Dr. Onderdonk supposes that this was not a Presbyterian ordination. Tract, pp. lfl21. His first supposition is, that the word " presbytery" does not mean the persons, but the office, p. 19. This has been already noticed. He next supposes (pp. 20, 21,) that if " the presbytery" here means not the office given to Timothy, but a body of elders, it cannot be shown " of whom this ordaining presbytery was composed," p. 21. And he then proceeds to state, that there are " seven modes" in which this " presbytery" might be composed. It might be made up of "ruling elders;" or, it might be composed of the "grade called presbyters;" or, as Peter and John called themselves "elders," might be made up of "apostles;" or, " there may have been ruling elders and presbyters; or, presbyters and one or more apostles; or, ruling elders and one or more of the apostles; or, ruling elders, and presbyters, and apostles," p. 21. Now, as Dr. Onderdonk has not informed us which of these modes he prefers, we are left merely to conjecture. We may remark on these suppositions, (1.) That they are mere suppositions. There is not the shadow of proof to support them. The word "presbytery"—xpeapuTiputv—does not appear to be such a difficult word of interpretation, as to make it necessary to envelop it in so much mist in order to understand it. The argument here is such as a man always employs when he is pressed by difficulties which he cannot meet, and when he throws himself into a labyrinth, in the hope, that amidst its numerous passages, he may escape detection, and evade pursuit. (2.) If this " body of elders" was made up of " ruling elders," or, " of the grade called presbyters," then the argument of Episcopacy is overthrown. Here is an instance, on cither supposition, of Presbyterian ordination, which is fatal to the claims that bishops only ordain. Or, if it be supposed that this was not an ordination, but " an inspired separation of one already in the ministry to a particular field of duty," it is an act equally fatal to the claim of prelates to the general " superintendence" of the church; since it is manifest that these " elders" took upon themselves the functions of thisoffice, and designated " the bishop of Ephesus" to his field of labour. Such a transaction would scarcely meet with Episcopal approbation in the nineteenth century.

But in regard to the other supposition, that a part or all the " presbytery" was composed of apostles, I remark, (1.) That it is a gratuitous supposition. There is not an instance in which the term " presbytery," or " body of elders," is applied in the New Testament to the collective body of the apostles. (2.) On the supposition that the "presbytery" was composed entirely of apostles, then how does it happen that, in 2 Tim. i. 6, Paul appropriates to himself a power which belonged to every one of them in as full right as to him ? How came they to surrender that power into the hands of an individual ? Was it the character of Paul thus to assume authority which did not belong to him ? We have seen, already, how, on the supposition of the Episcopalian, he superseded " Bishop" Timothy in the exercise of discipline, in Corinth, and in his own "diocese" at Ephesus; we have now an instance in which he claims all the virtue of the ordaining act where his fellow-apostles must have been equally concerned.

But if a, part only of this " presbytery" was composed of apostles, and the remainder presbyters either ruling elders, or " the second grade," I would make the following inquiries:—Was Timothy ordained as a prelate ? So the Episcopalians with one voice declare—prelate of Ephesus. Then it follows, that Timothy, a prelate, was set apart to his work by the imposition of the hands of elders. What was then his prelatical character ? Does the water in the cistern rise higher than the fountain ? If laymen were concerned, Timothy was a layman still; if presbyters, Timothy was a presbyter still. And thus all the power of prelates, from him of Home downward, has come through the hands of humble presbyters—just as all non-Episcopalians believe, and just as history affirms. Or was he ordained as a,presbyter? Then his Episcopal character, so far as it depends on his ordination, is swept away; and thus we have not a solitary instance of the consecration of a prelate in all the New Testament.

Which of these suppositions Episcopalians would be disposed to receive as the true one, is not known. All of them cannot be true; and whichever is preferred is equally fatal to the argument, and involves a refutation of the claims of prelacy.

The only other reply with which Episcopalians meet the argument for Presbyterian ordination from this passage, is the supposition that the virtue of the ordaining act was derived from the apostle Paul. The passage on which they rest the argument for this is 2 Tim i. 6, " That thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of My hands." On this passage I observe, (1.) Paul does not deny that other hands were also imposed on Timothy, nor that his authority was derived also from others in conjunction with himself. (2.) That by the supposition of Episcopalians, as well as Presbyterians, other hands were, in fact, imposed on him. (3.) It was perfectly natural for Paul, in consequence of the relation which Timothy sustained to him as his adopted son, (1 Tim. i. 2;) as being selected by him for the ministry, (Acts xvi. 3;) and, as being his companion in his travels, to remind him, near the close of his own life, (2 Tim. iv. 6,) that he had been solemnly set apart to the work by himself—to bring his own agency into full view—in order to stimulate and encourage him. That Paul had a part in the act of the ordination is admitted; that others also had a part—the " presbytery"—has been proved. (4.) The expression which is here used is just such as the aged Presbyterian minister would now use, if directing a farewell letter to a son in the ministry. He would remind him, as Paul does in this epistle, (2 Tim. iv. 6,) that he was about to leave the ministry and the world; and if he wished to impress his mind in a peculiarly tender manner, he would remind him also, that he took part in his ordination; that under his own hands he had been designated to the work of the ministry; and he would endeavour to deepen his conviction of the importance and magnitude of the work, by the reflection that he had been solemnly set apart to it by a, father. Yet who would infer from this,- that the aged Presbyterian would wish to be regarded as a , prelate?

I have now considered all the objections that have been made to the obvious interpretation of this passage, and it may now be submitted to any candid mind as a full and unqualified statement of an instance of Presbyterian ordination. Whichever of the half-dozen suppositions—assuming a hue, chameleon-like, from the nature of the argument to be refuted—that Episcopalians are compelled to apply to the passage is adopted, we have seen that they involve them in all the difficulties of an unnatural interpretation, and conduct us, by a more circuitous route, only to the plfin and common-sense exposition of the passage, as decisive in favour of Presbyterian ordination.