This passage shows that the charge was for an unlimited time, during which Timothy exercised the Episcopal powers of governing the clergy as well as the laity, and of ordaining; (11, 12, 13) and in conformity with this he was called Bishop of Ephesus by the ancient Fathers, who also say that those who after the death of the Apostles were called Bishops, were in their life time called Apostles. (56)

92. Dr. Miller objects to the Episcopal character of Timothy that Presbyters participated in his ordination; a thing never admitted in the ordination of a Bishop. (Miller's Letters p. 54.) There is however no evidence that Presbyters imposed hands on him when he was ordained Bishop. The passage in which "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery" is mentioned, is in the first Epistle to Timothy, (iv, 14.) This Epistle was written by Paul immediately after Timothy had consented to take charge of the Church at Ephesus. They were then about to sail from Greece to Asia, and Paul was suddenly compelled to leave the company and go through Macedonia, intending to rejoin them at Troas in Asia where they landed; which he afterwards did. (18 to 21.) While in Macedonia, having in contemplation the important office that Timothy was about to assume, he wrote this Epistle to him, (21;) in which we find the following strong and appropriate language: "Till I come give attendance to reading, to exhortation, (or prayer) to doctrine; (or learning; erudition.) Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may be manifest in all."*

93. In this passage Timothy is spoken of as having then possession of the gift; the gift that was given thee: But this was before hé took charge of the Church at Ephesus, and refers to an event which had then passed. Now, Timothy had been many years preaching before that time. He is mentioned as having preached at Philippi and Thessalonica, when Paul and he were there together immediately after he went forth. (I. Thessalonians, i, ii.) He is also mentioned as a minister of God in Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, (iv, 17; xvi, 10,) which was written before Paul left

Ephesus. Timothy therefore was ordained a Presbyter long before the first Epistle was written to him: and this ordination Paul refers to in the passage in question. (I. Tim. iv, 14)

94. It is proposed in the next place to show that Timothy had successors with the same powers we find him possessing in the Church of Ephesus.

95. It may be observed that Paul evidently contemplated his having successors, because he not only says to him, "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus;" but also says, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."(II. Tim. i, 13; ii, 2.)

96. Let it be remembered that the evidence to be brought forward relates to the practice of the Church; to the matter of fact question, whether there were in the Apostolick times one or three orders of ministers; and that the witnesses are those venerable men who succeeded the Apostles in the charge of the Church, some of them having been the disciples of the Apostles; men who valued the order of the Church and its doctrines more than life, who freely delivered themselves up to cruel deaths in defence and maintenance of the truth; men who have been emphatically called martyrs, that is witnesses of the truth of the Gospel; the Greek word MARTUR signifying

a WITNESS.

97. It is alleged, however, that by calling in the testimony of these ancient Fathers, Episcopalians admit that their system is not directly laid down in the word of God; but assert that the facts stated in scripture taken in connexion with the writings of the early Fathers, decidedly support their claim. (Miller's Letters, p. 119.)

98. The Episcopalians assert, that the scriptures show that the Apostles were over the Presbyters and Deacons, and appointed, ordained, and ruled them: (12, 13,) and therefore that there were in the Apostolical Church three orders of ministers-the Apostles, the Presbyters, and the Deacons.

99. Having shown this, they appeal to those contemporaries of the Apostles to whom the government of the Church was committed by them, and to their successors, for their testimony as to the question of fact, whether there were in the Church one or three orders of ministers in their time. They also appeal to them for the reason why the title of Apostle ceased in the Church, and to

explain the difficulty that has been made by those who wish to confound the offices of Bishop and Presbyter, by showing when and why the first order assumed the title of Bishop in place of that of Apostle.

100. This is the only possible mode of deciding these points. In the very nature of things there can be no other. If men who depart from the established order of the Church, endeavour to justify themselves by alleging that the practice of the Church was originally as they wish to have it, to whom can they go for evidence respecting that practice, if not to such as lived in those days? some of whom had even been conversant with the Apostles. Did not these men know what was the order of the Church? Are not they, men who gave up their lives for the truth, to be trusted to say what it was?

101. These witnesses say, that when the Church was every where established, the name of Apostle was left to those who were truly Apostles, (or messengers, apostoloi,) and the name of Bishop was restrained (or confined) to those who were anciently called Apostles. Thus Titus and Timothy are called by some Apostles and by others Bishops; more commonly Bishops, because most of the writers who mention them lived after this change of title was made.(45, 46, 47, 56.)

It may also be remarked that in the Acts, chap. i, 20, 25, both in the original and in the English translation, the words Bishoprick and Apostleship, Episkope and Apostole, are used as synonym

ous terms.

102. This evidence does not, however, satisfy men who are loth to yield; and they demand express warrant "that Bishops are an order of Clergy superior to Presbyters; that their superiority rests on the appointment of Christ: and that with this superior order alone, are deposited all the treasures of ministerial order and succession." (Miller's Letters p. 71.)

103. To this demand it is answered, that we have express warrant for saying, that there was an order of clergy superior to Presbyters; that their superiority rests on the appointment of Christ, and that with this superior order alone, were deposited all the treasures of ministerial order and succession. (See sec. 12, 13, 39-41; and Acts xiv, 23; Titus i, 5.) Moreover that we have the positive testimony of those to whom this superior order committed the Church, as their successors, that they, when the Church was settled, dropped the name

of Apostles, messengers, and, now that they were confined to the oversight of the Church in one city and the district of country surrounding it, assumed to themselves the more appropriate name of OVERSEERS or Bishops, and continued to exercise the powers of the superior order, viz. the Apostolic order. [56.]

104. After having answered the demand, it certainly is not improper to remark upon the modesty of those, who, being by their own acknowledgment innovators upon the settled order of government for 1300 or 1400 years, and setting up a claim to be the first and sole order of ministers instead of the second, instead of showing express warrant for their innovation, turn about upon those from whom they derived their ordination to the second order, and demand of them express warrant for continuing in the authority which they had had from the beginning, derived from the Apostles who constituted them their successors. [44 to 56.] 105. What reply have they to make, to the demand of express warrant for a Presbyter's assumption of the whole ministerial pow. er? for presbyters being the only order of ministers, the successors of the Apostles? or for instituting the two lay-orders of Ruling Elders and Deacons? What is their express warrant, for instance, for a Presbyter's power to ordain? They do not pretend to bring any; but in support of the claim to the power of ordaining, offer a defective argument as has been shown, and three cases in which it is pretended that presbyters ordained; in one of which the ordainers are not shown to have been presbyters, and the ordained were both Apostles, one of them for seventeen years before; in another, the ordained is expressly said to have received the gift by the laying on of the hands of Paul and with those of the presbyters; and in the third the pretended ordaining presbyter is expressly called an Apostle in the Acts. [p. 6 to 16.]

106. Let us carry this a little further. What reply do they make to the demand for express warrant for baptizing infants? for baptizing by pouring, or sprinkling with water? for the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week? They have none to give: and having, on the question of church government, denied that facts which are mentioned in the sacred history, taken in connexion with the writings of the early Fathers, are sufficient authority; having demanded a warrant which would be indubitable and satisfactory, if all books, excepting the Bible, were banished from the Church, [Miller's Letters, p. 119, 72] they are without any

authority but what they can infer from the facts of scripture: and When asked for his express warrant "We can prove from scripture, with

to this Dr. Miller is driven. for Infant Baptism, he says, absolute certainty, the divine right of INFANT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP; and we can prove, from the same source, and with equal certainty, the divine right of BAPTISM TO ALL CHURCH MEMBERS. This is warrant as express as could be desired." [Miller's Letters p. 121.]

No man in his senses, however, can be induced to believe, that there is an express warrant for that which requires for its establishment a long argument in two parts; 1st. to prove the right of infants to church membership, and 2ndly to prove that all members of the Church have a right to Baptism. The presbyterian writers have, accordingly, not thought proper to rest the doctrine of the Baptism of Infants on this argument, but have, with one consent, proved it to have been the practice of the Church by the testimony of these very Fathers, whose evidence they have endeavoured to discredit on the subject of Church Government.

107. Thus Dwight quotes in support of this practice, "Justin Martyr, born near the close of the first century;" "Irenæus, born about the year 97, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John;" ;" "Clemens Alexandrinus, born about the middle of the second century;" "Tertullian, born about the same time with Irenæus;" ;” “Origen, born about the year 184, and a man of more information than any man of his time;" "Cyprian, who was contemporary with Origen;" "Gregory Nazianzen, born in the early part of the fourth century;" "St. Augustin, born in the middle of the fourth century;" and "Pelagius, a contemporary with Augustin." [Dwight's Theology, vol. 5, p. 318, 319.]

It follows beyond the possibility of question with disinterested men, that they would not have objected to the testimony of the Fathers on this subject, had it not been in their way.

108. The Father who has expressed himself as positively and as clearly as any other whose writings have been preserved, is Ignatius. Accordingly, the greatest efforts have been made to set aside his testimony.

109. There are two editions of his epistles, called the larger and the smaller. Dr. Lardner, who was an English dissenter, and therefore a Presbyterian in doctrine, and whose work on "The Credibility of the Gospel History" is a standard production, says in that