as ordainers, but merely to express their concurrence and approbation. But do Presbyters, even in this sense, unite in imposing hands in the consecration of a diocesan Bishop? Or were they ever known to do so in Episcopal Churches? Besides, after all, the whole idea of some laying on their hands in ordination, not as ordainers, but merely to express their approbation, is a conceit without any foundation in scripture; contradicted by the earliest and best records of the primitive Church; and manifestly invented to evade the force of an irresistible argument. I challenge any one to produce me a single passage from the word of God, or from any Christian writer within the first three hundred years after Christ, which gives the least countenance to this fanciful supposition.

But it is still urged, that the mode of expression is different with respect to the imposition of the Apostle's hands, and those of the Presbytery; that Timothy is said to have received his gift by the former, and with the latter. And accordingly much ingenious. criticism has been wasted on the prepositions dia and μɛva, in order to show, that the former expresses agency, while the latter more commonly signifies mere concurrence: from which it has been inferred that Paul alone was the real ordainer, or, in other words, conveyed the ministerial authority by the imposition of his hands; while the Presbyters laid on their hands only as witnesses, and for the purpose of giving their countenance to the transaction. I forbear to apply to this criticism those epithets which it has always appeared to me to deserve; nor shall I detain you by attempting to expose the weakness of that cause whose advocates fly for succour to a quibble, founded on the doubtful interpretation of two Greek particles. It is enough for me to assure such of you, my brethren, as are not able to judge for yourselves in this matter, that the criticism and quibble in question are wholly unworthy of your regard; that these words both frequently signify by as well as with, and express agency, as well as concurrence ;* and that the

It is remarkable that the learned Jerome, more than 1400 years ago, adopted the Presbyterian construction of this passage. He thus translates 1 Tim. iv. 14. Noli negligere gratiam quæ in te est, quæ tibi data est prophetia, per impositionem manuum Presbyterii: and expressly adduces the passage to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine right, equal. The same construction of the passage has been adopted by the most learned and judicious commentators ever since.

E

objection founded on any supposed difference of meaning in their application to this case, has not received the countenance of some even of the most learned and respectable advocates for diocesan Episcopacy.

Some Episcopal writers, in order to avoid the difficulties above stated, have taken the liberty of supposing, that by the word. Presbytery (geoCuregiov) in this passage is to be understood, not a council of Presbyters, but the College of the Apostles. But this supposition is adopted without the least proof or probability. No instance has been, or can be produced, either from the New Testament, or from any early Christian writer, of the Apostles, as a collective body, being called a Presbytery. On the contrary, this word is always used, in scripture, in the writings of the primitive fathers, and particularly in the writings of Ignatius, (who is of the highest authority with our opponents in this dispute,) to signify a council of Presbyters, and never in any other sense. But, allowing the word Presbytery to have the meaning contended for, and that Timothy was ordained by the bench of Apostles, how came the modest and humble Paul to speak of the whole gift as conveyed by his hands, and not so much as to mention any other name? Were all the rest of the Apostles mere concurring spectators, and and not real ordainers, as before pleaded? Then it must follow, not only that Paul claimed a superiority over his brethren, which was never heard of before; but also that one Bishop is sufficient for the regular ordination of another Bishop, which is opposed to every principle of Episcopal government, as well as to the established canons, so far as I know, of every Church on earth.

Finally, it has been urged by some, against this instance of Presbyterian ordination, that the word here translated Presbytery, signifies the office conferred, and not the body of ministers who conferred it. Though this construction of the passage has been adopted by some respectable names, it is so absurd and unnatural,

Among those names, that of the great and venerable Calvin appears, who, when he wrote his Institutes, adopted this unnatural sense, and expressed himself in the following terms--" Quod de impositione ma"nuum Presbyterii dicitur, non ita accipio quasi Paulus de seniorum collegio loquatur; sed hoc nomine ordinationem ipsam intelligo." Instit. lib. iv. cap. 3. sect. 16. Such an interpretation of a plain passage of scripture, even from so great a man, deserves little regard. But Calvin,

and so totally inconsistent with every rational principle of interpretation, that it scarcely deserves a serious refutation. Let us see how the text will read with this meaning attached to the word in question. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of thine office. If this be not nonsense, it is difficult to say what deserves that name. But suppose we make a monstrous inversion of the whole passage as no rule of grammar will justify, and read it thusNeglect not the gift of the Presbyterate which is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands. It will then follow, that the office conferred upon Timothy was the Presbyterate, or the office of Presbyter ; but this, while it entirely coincides with the Presbyterian doctrine, will prove fatal to the Episcopal scheme, which constantly takes for granted that Timothy was not a mere Presbyter, but a diocesan Bishop,

The last instance that I shall mention of ordination performed by Presbyters, is that of Paul and Barnabas, who, after having been regularly set apart to the work of the ministry themselves, proceeded through the cities of Lystra, Iconium, &c. And when they had ordained them. Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed. Our adversaries will perhaps say, that Paul alone performed these ordinations in his apostolic or episcopal character; and that Barnabas only laid on hands to express his approbation of what Paul did. But the inspired writer, as usual, speaks a different language. He declares that they, both of them, ordained. Perhaps it will be said, that Barnabas was himself an Apostle, as he is so styled, Acts xiv. 14. and that he joined with Paul in ordaining Presbyters, in virtue of this superior character. We all know that he was not one of the Apostles, strictly so called, and, of course, that none of that pre-eminence which belonged to their character can be claimed for him. The word Apostle signifies

66

soon afterwards, when he came to write his Commentary, and when his judgment was more mature, gave a very different opinion. Presby"terium.] Qui hic collectivum nomen esse putant, pro collegio Presbytero"rum positum, recte sentiunt meo judicio." Comment. in loc. The truth is, the word Presbyterium is borrowed from the Synagogue, and was in familiar use to express the bench of Elders or Presbyters, ever found in the Synagogue system.

simply a Messenger, a person sent. It was in use among the Greeks, and also among the Jews, before the time of Christ. The Jewish Apostles were assistants to the High Priest in discussing questions of the law; and were sometimes employed in inferior and secular duties. Barronii Annales, An. 32. Accordingly, besides the twelve apostles appointed by Christ himself, there were, in the primitive Churches, apostles, or messengers, chosen either by the twelve, or by the Churches themselves, to go to distant places, on special services. In this vague and general sense, the word apostle is repeatedly used in Scripture. In this sense Barnabas and Epaphroditus are called Apostles. In this sense John the Baptist is called an apostle by Tertullian. And in the same sense this name is applied by early Christian writers to the seventy disciples, and to those who propagated the Gospel long after the apostolic age. From this name, then, as applied to Barnabas, no pre-eminence of character can be inferred.* Besides, the supposition that he bore an ecclesiastical rank above that of presbyter, is effectually refuted by the fact that he was himself ordained by the presbyters of Antioch. As a Presbyter, therefore, he ordained others; and the only rational construction that can be given to the passage, renders it a plain precedent for Presbyterian ordination.

IV. A fourth source of direct proof in favour of the Presbyterian plan of Church Government, is found in the model of the Jewish Synagogue, and in the abundant evidence which the Scriptures afford, that the Christian Church was formed after the same model.

At Jerusalem alone, where the Temple stood, were sacrifices offered, and the Mosaic rites observed. But in almost every town and village in Judea, Synagogues were erected, like parish Churches of modern times, for prayer and praise, for reading and expounding the Scriptures. The Temple worship, as will be afterwards shown, was, throughout, typical and ceremonial, and of course was done away by the coming of Christ. But the Synagogue worship was

* The translators of our Bible very clearly recognize this distinction between the appropriate and the general sense of the word Apostle. Thus in 2 Cor. viii. 23, they render the phrase arosonos exxanov, the messengers of the Churches. And in Philip. ii. 25, they translate the word 50s as applied to Epaphroditus, messenger.

altogether of a different nature. It was that part of the organized religious establishment of the Old Testament Church, which, like the decalogue, was purely moral and spiritual, or at least chiefly so; and, therefore, in its leading characters, proper to be adopted under any dispensation. Accordingly we find that our Lord himself frequented the Synagogues, and taught in them; and that the apostles, and other Christian (ministers in their time, did the same. It is well known, also, that in the city of Jerusalem, where the Gospel first began to be preached, after the resurrection of Christ, and where the New Testament Church was first organized, there were, if we may believe the best writers, several hundred Synagogues. It is equally certain that the first converts to Christianity were Jews; that they came into the Christian Church with all the feelings and habits of their former connexions, and mode of worship strongly prevalent; and that they gave the apostles much trouble by their prejudices in favour of old establishments, and against innovation. It was probable, therefore, beforehand, that, under these circumstances, the apostles, who went so far as to admit circumcision, in particular cases, for the sake of keeping peace with some of the first converts, would make as little change, in converting Synagogues into Christian Churches, as was consistent with the spirituality of the New dispensation. To retain the ceremonial worship of the Temple, they could not possibly consent. To join the Priests in offering up sacrifices, when the great Sacrifice had been already offered up once for all; to attend on the typical entrance of the High Priest, once a year, with the blood of the sacrifice, into the Holy of Holies, while they were, at the same time, teaching that all these things were done away, and that the great High Priest of our profession had finally entered into the holiest of all, even into heaven for us; would have been an inconsistency not to be admitted. But no such inconsistency could be charged against a general conformity to the Synagogue model. And, therefore, as might have been expected, we find that this conformity was actually adopted. This will appear abundantly evident to every impartial inquirer, by attending to the following considerations.

1. The words Synagogue and Church have the same signification. They both signify an Assembly or Congregation of people convened for the worship of God; and they both signify, at the