no more than we can that he had the exclusive power of preaching and praying, because he received directions on these points. How, Sir, is it possible that you do not see the difference? Do we not know from other parts of Scripture, and from the very purpose for which Elders were ordained, that they both preached and prayed? Nay, do we not know from these very Epistles, that Elders preached? Does not St. Paul say to TimothyCharge them (the Presbyters) that they teach no other doctrine. But we do not know from any other part, and certainly not from these Epistles, that Presbyters had the power of ordaining, of rejecting heretics, and of censuring and excommunicating the guilty. Here again your parallel totally fails, and leaves you under the charge of weak and inconclusive reasoning. I conclude, therefore, in your words-' But there would be no end of such absurdities. It is really wonderful that a gentleman who appears to be serious should lay so much stress on arguments much better calculated to pour ridicule on his cause than to afford it efficient aid.'

But you are not done yet. Admitting,' you say,' that Timothy and Titus each acted as sole ordainers at Ephesus and Crete the probability is, that they did not; but supposing it proved that they did, it does not affect the question. Although Presbyterians, wishing to conform as perfectly as possible to scriptural example, require a plurality of ministers to be present, and to lay on their hands in ordination; yet I have no reason to suppose that any Presbyterian minister or Church would consider an ordination performed, in a case of necessity, by a single Presbyter, as null and void. Supposing it proved, therefore, that an inspired Apostle, in a new and unsettled state of the Church, sent forth Evangelists singly to preach, to ordain, and organize Churches, it would establish nothing, either way, material to the present controversy.'

This, Sir, is a totally different question from that which we are discussing. There can be no dispute that a single Presbyter, supposing presbytery to have been the government of the Church, or a single Bishop, supposing episcopacy to have been the government, might validly ordain: the question is, whether a Presbyter, where there was a number of Presbyters, as at Ephesus, could ordain singly, without being their superior? Whether a Presbyter in such circumstances could try an offending, could excommunicate an heretical Presbyter, without being his superior? It is evident to common sense that he could not, These exclusive acts would necessarily give him pre-eminence. All that you have said, therefore, about valid ordination by a single Presbyter, is foreign to the question. It is not calculated to prove the validity of Presbyterian ordination. You must first prove this, and then I shall have no dispute with you about the validity of an ordination by a single Presbyter. But when you take the point in dispute for granted, and then draw an inference

from it, which we would not deny, had you established the premise, your argument is good for nothing.

You conclude your observations on the cases of Timothy and Titus with increased confidence. You say, 'Every thing, therefore, Dr. B. has advanced to establish the prelatical character of Timothy and Titus is perfectly nugatory.' Every thing I have advanced is perfectly conclusive, if a power granted to Timothy to ordain Presbyters, to rebuke, censure, and excommunicate those Presbyters, to regulate the public worship, and all the spiritual affairs of the Church of Ephesus, be conclusive; and if these things be not conclusive in favour of episcopacy, there is not a Bishop on the face of the earth. All antiquity were ignorant, and all mankind at the present day are ignorant, in what the office of a Bishop consists.

And as to what you say about an unorganized Church at Ephesus, it is mere conceit; there not being a shadow to justify such a notion. That Church was completely organized upon your own principles. It had a numerous laity, a number of Presbyters and Deacons, and if you are right, Lay Elders also. Now if this be not an organized Church on Presbyterian principles, I would be glad to know what is?

To the clear and decisive proofs from Scripture of Timothy's prelatical character, I have added the testimony of a number of the fathers of the fourth century; Jerome, that man of learning and research,' being amongst them. I have given also the testimony of the whole Council of Laodicea, which enumerates twenty-seven Bishops from Timothy to their day. I have quoted Eusebius, who mentions Polycrates, as Bishop of Ephesus, in the second century, and says that seven Bishops of his kindred preceded him. Now, supposing these Bishops to have presided but fifteen years on an average, reckoning back from 180, when Polycrates governed the Church of Ephesus, we ascend to the year 75; so that probably the first of his race was the immediate successor of Timothy. I have also shown from Ignatius, that when he was on his journey to Rome, to suffer martyrdom, Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus. And if all these proofs will not convince you that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus, it is in vain to think that any proofs will. Much less has satisfied you that there were Ruling Elders in the Church in the apostolic age. Two or three fathers of the fourth century, although their testimonies are nothing to the purpose, and even contradictions, speak clearly and decisively; while ten times their number, in a case where no interpretation is wanting, are set aside as nugatory. Dean Swift has given a solution of this difficulty. "That was excellently observed, say I, when I read a passage in an author where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him mistaken!" "

The prelatical character of Timothy has, I think, been so fully established, that it is needless to say one word more upon s Thoughts on Various Subjects.

the subject. It is also needless to say any thing on the case of Titus; the reasonings and proofs being pretty similar in both instances. All the fathers who speak of the latter, with one voice pronounce him to have been the first Bishop of Crete. And it is sufficiently evident from the Scripture, that he had the same authority committed to him that was put into the hands of Timothy. There is not the least appearance of an equality of power between them, and their Presbyters. If this be not the meaning of the Epistles directed to them, then they are utterly unintelligible; and all the ancients were in a gross error concerning them. If this will not go to the point of unsettling the canon of Scripture, I am at a loss to say what will. An uninterrupted train of evidence is applicable to both cases.

I will now conclude this part of the debate, nearly in the words of Bishop Bilson. Speaking of a single Bishop presiding over a plurality of Presbyters, and a plurality of congregations in every city, he says, "This is a certain rule to distinguish between Bishops aud Presbyters-the Presbyters were many in every Church; Bishops were always singular; that is, one in a city, and no more, except another intruded, (which the Church of CHRIST Counted a schism, and would never communicate with any such; or else an helper were given in respect of extreme and feeble age.) And this singularity of one pastor descended from the Apostles and their scholars, in all the famous Churches of the world, by a perpetual chain of succession, and doth to this day continue. Of this there is so perfect a record in all the stories and fathers of the Church, that it may inevitably be proved, if any Christian persons or Churches deserve to be credited.

I should now dismiss the scriptural instance of Timothy's prelatical character, were it not that I find in the Christian's Magazine some observations which are made with much confidence, and with a very triumphant air. After producing the two texts in question, Dr. Mason observes, 'From these texts one thing is clear, viz. that both Paul and the Presbytery imposed hands on Timothy. But several questions have been started about the rest. Who constituted the Presbytery? Why were hands imposed on Timothy ? Was this his consecration to the evangelical ministry? If so, what share had the Apostle in the transaction, and what the Presbytery?" Now, Sir, to be as short as possible, I will admit for the sake of argument that your sense of the word Presbytery is perfectly correct, and that the Elders had as much to do in Timothy's ordination as St. Paul; then it follows, upon your and Dr. Mason's principles, that lay Elders were concerned in the ordination. The words are express, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; and a Presbytery is maintained both by your Church and his, to be composed of both lay and clerical Elders. There is no

t Vol. II. No. 2. p. 187.

possibility of escape from this conclusion. A true presbyterian ordination then, on your own principles, requires the imposition of both lay and clerical hands; but you take care, in practice, to keep the lay Elders out of sight. Never will you suffer them to lay on their hands with yours; and yet you say, 'we wish to conform as nearly as possible to Scripture examples.' What palpable inconsistency!

Nor will either you or Dr. Mason, for shame, have recourse to the distinction between dia and μeтa. You certainly will not say, that lay Elders laid on their hands merely to express approbation; for then your own observations will stare you in the face. You are therefore fairly and inevitably reduced to the necessity of confessing that all your ordinations are unscriptural. This is merely argumentum ad hominem; and therefore does not affect Churches (the Independents for instance) which do not maintain the apostolic institution of lay Elders. But against you and Dr. Mason it is perfectly conclusive.

Yet the Doctor goes on to observe on the words, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery-"A plain reader would certainly say, that Timothy was presbyterially ordained : as he could not well imagine that a Presbyterian himself would have chosen to word the account differently." Then the Doetor's argument stands thus-St. Paul asserts that Timothy was ordained with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, which consisted of lay and clerical Elders. But in our ordina

tions we do not admit the agency of lay Elder. Therefore, our ordinations are perfectly scriptural, and exactly conformable to the example which St. Paul has given us. I wish the Doctor joy of his logic.

Whatever then may be the meaning of the texts in question, it is very certain that you explain them in one way, and practise in another. Correct your inconsistency, and then, perhaps, you may have something to say for yourselves.

There has undoubtedly been much speculation on the words of St. Paul to Timothy. One thing is certain, that the Apostle (if it was an ordination) ordained Timothy-by the laying on of my hands. It is also certain that a Presbytery did concur in some way or other-With the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. But the great difficulty is to determine what is meant by a Presbytery. I admit that it signifies a number of Elders; but what sort of Elders I want to know? Can we determine by the modern acceptation of the word 'Presbyter?' Certainly not. No man of sound judgment will admit such a rule of interpretation. Can we determine it by the Scripture? I apprehend not; for the word is used but once in the New Testament to signify an Ecclesiastical council. How then are we to determine it? The Apostles called themselves Elders. A plurality of Apostolic Elders might then have ordained Timothy; or if the word 'Presbytery' mean a plurality of mere Elders, the Apostle was at their head, and ordained Timothy

By the imposition of my hands. For what end then did the Elders lay on their hands? Was it merely to express their approbation, or to convey at the same time with the Apostle, the ministerial function? If the former, we gain our point. If the latter, the Elders ordained an Evangelist, who, if you and Dr. Mason be right, was an extraordinary officer; and then inferiors ordained a superior, which is an absurdity. If to avoid this absurdity, you say, that Timothy was ordained to the Eldership, and not to the office of an Evangelist; then the passage must be translated, neglect not the gift of the Eldership, which was given thee by the imposition of hands; and in this case no hands were imposed but St. Paul's. So that here you have no warrant for Elders imposing their hands. This is the sense given to the passage by some of the ancients, and by several eminent moderns, among whom we find Calvin. You indeed tell us, that when his judgment became more mature, he corrected his error. And to prove this, you quote him saying"Those who think the name (Presbytery) is collective, and is put for the College of Presbyters, in my judgment think right;" but you take care not to add the words which immediately follow-"Tametsi, omnibus expensis, diversum sensum non male quadrare fateor, ut sit nomen officii." "Although, all things considered, I confess a different sense agrees well (with the words) that it should be a name of office." So that Calvin, with mature judgment, thought either sense good. I have not given the latter passage from his Commentary, because I think it of any consequence; but merely to show how unfairly you quote authors.

The construction however which Calvin approves, you think, destroys the cause of prelacy; for according to this sense, Timothy was ordained to the office of Presbyter, and not to that of a Bishop. But no such consequence follows. To be ordained to the presbyterate, is to be ordained to the priesthood, and this comprehends the higher and lower orders of Priests; that is, the office of both Bishop and Presbyter; for both are Priests. In this way, our claim for Timothy's prelatical character is easily supported; while yours, for his character as an Evangelist, cannot be supported at all; it being impossible for inferiors to convey superior powers; an Evangelist, in your opinion, being a superior officer in the Church of CHRIST.

But notwithstanding the great names, both ancient and modern, that have adopted this interpretation, and which would effectually deprive you of even a shadow in all the New Testament, for the right of Presbyters to ordain; yet, I candidly confess, that it does not appear to me so easy and natural as our vulgar translation. To this I adhere (supposing the passages to relate to ordination, of which I have strong doubts.) The meaning of the word Presbytery then is the only thing to be determined, and this is no easy matter. Your idea of it, that it was composed of lay and clerical members, can never be admitted; for