There are two remarks to be made on this passage:

1. The ceremony performed at Antioch, before their departure, is here called a recommendation to the grace of God. Now, if this be an ordination, then was Paul again ordained some short time afterwards, on setting out on a similar tour through the country to visit the Churches:-And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being RECOMMENDED BY THE BRETHREN TO THE GRACE OF GOD. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches.

2. It is said in the passage above quoted, that they had FULFILLED the work for which they had been recommended to the grace of GoD. This work was, therefore, certainly not that of the ministry that they had not fulfilled: they continued long afterwards in it, and Paul died a martyr to the cause."

Stress has likewise been laid on the laying on of hands on this occasion. That ceremony was performed on many other occasions besides ordination. Paul laid his hands on twelve disciples whom he found at Ephesus, immediately after baptizing them, and they received the HOLY GHOST.Z Peter and John laid their hands on the new disciples in Samaría, and they received the HOLY GHOST; and some of these were women.a And long before this, Ananias, by the express command of GOD, laid his hands on Saul or Paul, while sitting blind in Damascus, and he received the HOLY GHOST.

These several considerations render it manifest that this was not an ordination. But even if it could be shown to be so, it would remain to be proved that the persons ordaining were presbyters, before Dr. Miller could derive any benefit from the case. This cannot be done. There were five persons concerned, including Paul and Barnabas. They are called prophets and teachers. These words are not used in Scripture as names of office. They are so general in their nature as to embrace all the orders. Private Christians were sometimes thus employed. Our SAVIOUR was a prophet and teacher.a Of the persons named in the transaction in question, one (Paul) was sent to the Gentiles, to open their eyes and turn them from the power of Satan to GOD, seventeen years before that time; another (Barnabas) had been for some time engaged with Paul in the same work they had both, before that time, in a conference with the Apostles James, Peter, and John, at Jerusalem, agreed with them to divide, as it were, mankind among them; the Apostles James, Peter and John going to the Jews, and the Apostles Barnabas and Paul going to the Gentiles. Here then two of these five prophets and teachers, were Apostles-what the other three were we do not know: we do know however, that they were not superior to Paul and Barnabas.

Another consideration is, that the order of Apostles must

y Acts xv. 40, 41. Acts ix. 17.

z Acts xix. 6. a Acts viii. 12, and 14 to 17 compared. d John iii. 2.

c Acts xix. 6, xx. 9.

commence with laying on of hands by apostolic men. The first must derive their authority from God alone. Paul did so. He tells us expressly, that he was AN APOSTLE NOT OF MEN, NOR BY MAN, BUT BY JESUS CHRIST, AND GOD THE FATHER, and that the Apostles, while he was in Jerusalem IN CONFERENCE ADDED NOTHING TO HIM.f

e

66 The second instance of an ordination performed by Presbyters, (says Dr. Miller,) is that of Timothy, which is spoken of by the Apostle Paul in the following terms: Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. All agree, (he says) that the Apostle is here speaking of Timothy's ordination; and this ordination is expressly said to have been performed with the laying on of the hands of THE PRESBYTERY-that is, of the Eldership, or a council of Presbyters." MILLER'S Letters, p. 53. [p. 31, 2d ed.]

It is obvious indeed in the passage quoted, that the gift is said to have been given by prophecy and with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. By prophecy of whom? In the second epistle to Timothy (i. 6.) it is said that the gift was in Timothy by putting on of the hands of Paul. PAUL therefore BY prophecy and By laying on his hands ordained Timothy, as he had before done in many instances, in company with Barnabas, without mention of the laying on of the hands of Presbyters.

h

Of the reference to the precise meaning of the words by and with, in this case, in order to understand the passage, Dr. Miller speaks very contemptuously. But I know no other way of get: ting at the meaning, than by weighing well the signification of the words in which it is conveyed. It is to be observed that in the Greek, the word dia precedes both the words which signify prophecy and hands, and the word μera precedes the word which signifies presbytery. What was this difference for, if it was not to express a difference? The word da signifies by; the word pera signifies with, or together with. There is no other signification given of pera, in the folio Lexicon of Scapula, when it is used with the genitive case, as is done in the passage in question.

The plain meaning is therefore, that the gift was communicated by Paul, by prophecy and by laying on his hands, together with the laying on the hands of the presbytery; and this is the mode in which the ceremony of ordination of presbyters is performed in the Church at this day. The office is conferred by the Bishop by the laying on of his hands, the Presbyters laying on their hands together with his. It is therefore evidently absurd to insist upon this case as decisive of the question, as Dr. Miller has done; especially as the construction he puts upon it, compels him to translate different Greek words dia and ET by the same English word by; when the use of the two different words in

g 1. Tim. iv. 14.

h Acts xiv. 23

the same sentence, shows that a difference was intended. If Paul had intended no difference, he would have said, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy and the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

The last instance mentioned by Dr. Miller, as a presbyterian ordination of the most decisive kind, " 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 (says Dr. Miller) 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." MILLER's Letters, p. 59, [p. 35, 2d ed.]

Dr. Miller here insinuates that the Episcopalians must admit that Barnabas was nothing more than a Presbyter, and therefore they will perhaps say that Paul alone performed these ordinations; and that Barnabas only laid on his hands to express his approbation, as a Presbyter, of what Paul did. Truth will not, however, allow them to admit this of Barnabas: they certainly will not call him any thing less than an Apostle, when he is in the Acts called an Apostle, and together with Paul exercised, as fully as he did, the apostolic office. This cannot be reasonably questioned after reading the history of Barnabas; his constant connexion and fellowship with Paul; his receiving with Paul the right hand of fellowship from the Apostles James, Peter, and John, in Jerusalem; and the agreement that James, Peter, and John should go to the Jews, and Barnabas and Paul to the Gentiles; the extensive travels of Barnabas and Paul through Asia preaching to the Gentiles, related in the 11th to the 15th chapters of the Acts-in the 14th and 15th verses of the 14th chapter of which, we read as follows: Which when THE APOSTLES BARNABAS and PAUL, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? Here Barnabas is called an Apostle by Luke, the writer of the Acts. Dr. Miller, indeed, makes an attempt to shew that Barnabas was only a messenger, and that he is called Apostle in a vague sense. No more need be said of this attempt

desperate it surely may be called-than this, that whatever Paul was, Barnabas must have been; the words of Scripture are, THE APOSTLES PAUL AND BARNABAS. So much for these three cases, represented by Dr. Miller as instances of ordination by presbyters' of the most decisive kind.'

It is proposed next to show in what manner Dr. Miller has an swered some arguments of the Episcopalian writers. It is not my purpose to go through these arguments one by one. That would occupy more space and time than I have to devote jus

i Acts xiv. 14, 15.

now to this subject. It is only intended to give the reader a specimen of the manner in which Dr. Miller is compelled to proceed in order to sustain the cause he is contending for.

One of the arguments of the Episcopalian writers is, Dr. Miller states, "That the Apostles, while they lived, held a station in the Church superior to all other ministers; that Bishops are the proper successors of the Apostles; and that they hold a corresponding superiority of character and office." Of this he says, "If this argument be examined, it will be found to have no other force than that which consists in a mere gratuitous assertion of the point to be proved." MILLER'S Letters, p. 88, [p. 56, 2d ed.] "Accordingly (he says) when we ask those who adduce this argument, whence they derive the idea that diocesan Bishops peculiarly succeed the Apostles in their Apostolic character, (for this supposition alone is to their purpose,) they refer us to no passages of Scripture asserting or even hinting it; but to some vague suggestions and allusions of a few of the early fathers." MILLER'S Letters, p. 90, [p. 58, 2d ed.]

1. Dr. Miller says 'they refer us to no passages of Scripture asserting or even hinting that diocesan Bishops peculiarly succeed the Apostles in their apostolical character.'

How can the Scripture assert before-hand that a thing is done? (that they succeed, in the present tense.) What Episcopalians therefore would be simple enough to expect to find a passage in Scripture, asserting that the Bishops do succeed the Apostles in their apostolic office? In the nature of things they can only show that the Scriptures ascribe certain powers to the heads of the Churches. We must look to the subsequent records of the Church for knowledge of what followed the time of the Apostles, and in them we find that these powers have been exercised by the Bishops throughout the world ever since-and that there is no departure from this, in any quarter of the world, except among the followers of a few who broke off from the Church, and not having that episcopal ordination which to this period was universal in the Church-which they had themselves always revered-which had given them all the authority they possessed, made up their mind to do without it, and perpetuate their party by ordaining others; alleging, in justification of themselves for this known and acknowledged departure from the practice of the Church, the necessity of the case.

2. Dr. Miller further says, they refer us to some vague suggestions and allusions of a few of the early fathers,' MILLER's Letters, p. 90, [p. 58, 2d ed.]

As a specimen of what Dr. Miller calls vague suggestions and allusions, let the reader turn to the appendix to these pages, and take a look at the epistles of Ignatius, one of the disciples of John, who was thrown into the amphitheatre at Rome by the order of the emperor Trajan, and devoured by lions, after forty years of service in the Church, because he would not deny the SAVIOUR. Being acquainted personally with some of the Apos

tles, and the disciple of one of them, he certainly knew the order of the Church. He writes in very intelligible terms, and does not make a few vague suggestions and allusions.' Nothing can be more clear and distinct than his language. He mentions, in the course of his epistles to the Christians of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, and to Polycarp, the dif ferent orders of ministers in the Church above thirty times; of which twenty-nine passages are contained in the epistles in the appendix, printed in italic letters.

In every instance the Bishop is mentioned in such terms as show that he was the only one in the Church addressed; and some of the cities in which these Churches were, were very populous, with great numbers of Christians. Thus the Church at Ephesus was very large, more than fifty years before this epistle was written.

In twelve of these passages, the Bishop is mentioned alone, viz. in the 1st, 2d, 5th and 6th sections of the Epistle to the Ephesians; in the 4th of that to the Magnesians; in the 2d and 7th of that to the Trallians; in the 1st, 3d, 7th and 8th of that to the Philadelphians; and in the 9th of that to the Smyrneans.

In these passages the Bishop is represented as chief or principal in the Church, over all, without whose consent nothing is to be done; particularly in the first italic lines in the 2d and 7th sections of the epistle to the Trallians; in the first italic lines of the 3d section, and the last of the 7th section of the epistle to the Philadelphians; and in the italic lines in the 9th section of the epistle to the Smyrneans. There is, however, very little choice, if we except the 1st and 2d sections to the Ephesians, and the 1st and 3d to the Philadelphians.

The Presbyters are not mentioned at all except in connexion with the Bishop.

They are mentioned together seventeen times in the epistles in the appendix. In eight passages the language shows, in the clearest manner, the inferiority and subordination of the Presbyters; viz. in the italic lines of the 4th section of the Epistle to the Ephesians; of the 3d and 6th to the Magnesians; of the 2d, 3d and 12th to the Trallians; of the 4th to the Philadelphians; and of the 8th to the Smyrneans: and in the other seven instances the Presbyters are invariably mentioned second to the Bishop, and the Deacons, when they are mentioned with the rest, third in order (in every instance except one) which happens seven times in the epistles in the appendix.

Language cannot easily be devised to express more strongly than these passages in italics, that the Bishop is chief in the Church, the source of all authority, without whose consent nothing is to be done; that the Presbyters are subordinate to him, derive their authority from him, are bound to reverence him, and under a special obligation, more than others, to refresh him or

k See the Appendix for these statements,