He first doubts, whether this transaction was an ordination. (Tract, pp. 18, 19.) To this we 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,' ἐπιθέσις τῶν χειρῶν, 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 favor, 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) we ask, why we have no other mention of this transaction? (b) We ask, how it is 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 labor? 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 behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, etc. (chap. iii.) In order to impress this more deeply on you, to fix these great duties in your mind, 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." We need only observe here, that this is not a strain of argument that looks like Paul. But,

Secondly. Dr. O. supposes, that this was not a Presbyterian ordination. (Tract, pp. 19-21.) His first supposition is, that the word "presbytery" does not mean the persons, but the office. (p. 19.) This we have 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, that 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," it might be made up of "apostles ;" or, "there may have VOL. VII.

9

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. O. 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," "a body of elders," 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. Dr. O's argument, here, is such as a man always employs, when he is pressed by difficulties which he cannot meet, and when he throws himself, as it were, 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 either 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 this office, and designated"the bishop of Ephesus" to his field of labor. Such a transaction would scarcely meet with Episcopal approbation in the nineteenth century.

But in regard to the other suppositions, that a part of all the "presbytery" was composed of apostles, we remark, (1.) That it is a merely 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 we ask, how it happens, 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 their 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 susperseded bishop Timothy, in the exercise of dicipline, in Corinth, and in his own diocese at Ephesus: we have now an instance, in which he claims all the virtue of the ordaining power, 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," we would make the following inquiries: (1.) Was he 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 Rome downward, has come through the hands of humble presbyters,-just as we believe, and just as history affirms. (2.) 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 of Dr. O., he is disposed to receive as the true one, we are unable to say. All of them cannot be true; and whichever he chooses, is, as we have seen, equally fatal to his argument, and involves a refutation of the claims of prelacy.

The only other reply, with which Dr. O. meets the argument for Presbyterian ordination, from this passage, is, by the supposition, that the virtue of the ordaining act was derived from the apostle Paul. The passage on which he rests the argument, 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 we 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 the ministry, and in 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, we admit ; that others also had a part, the "presbytery," —we have proved. (4.) The expression which is here used, is just such as an 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 would endeavor 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 ?

66

Dr. O. remarks on this case, (Tract, p. 22.) that, if Paul was engaged in the transaction, it was the work of an apostle, and was an apostolic ordination." We admit, that it was an "apostolic ordination;" but when will Episcopalians learn to suppose it possible, that an "apostolic ordination" was not a prelatical ordination? Did not Dr. O. see, that this was assuming the very point in debate, that the peculiarity of the apostolic office was, the power of ordaining? We reply further, that whoever was engaged in it, a "presbytery" was concerned, and it was a Presbyterian ordination. We have now considered all the objections, that have been made to the obvious interpretation of this passage; and we are prepared to submit it 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,-which 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 plain and common-sense exposition of the passage, as decisive in favor of Presbyterian ordination.

Having thus shown, that there was one Presbyterian ordination, in the case of Timothy, claimed by Episcopalians as a prelate, and this too, in perhaps the only instance of ordination to the ministry, recorded in the new testament; we now proceed to adduce the case of a church, that was not organized on the principles of Episcopalians, with three orders of clergy. We refer to the church at Philippi. "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops. and deacons." σuv &TIOXOTIS xai diaxóvois. In regard to this church, we make the following observations. (1.) It was organized by the apostle Paul himself, in connection with Silas, and was, therefore, on the truly primitive and apostolic' plan. (Acts, xvi.) (2.) It was in the center of a large territory, the capital of Macedonia, and not likely to be placed in subjection to a diocesan of another region. (3.) It was surrounded by other churches; as we have express mention of the church at Thessalonica, and the preaching of the gospel at Berea. (Acts, xvii.) (4.) There is mention made of but two orders of men. What the deacons were, we know from the appointment in Acts, vi. 1-6. They were designated, not to preach, but to take care of the poor members of the church, and to distribute the alms of the saints. As we have there, in the original appointment of the office, the express and extended mention of its functions, we are to infer, that the design was the same at Philippi. If we admit, however, the supposition of the Episcopa

lians, that the deacons were preachers, it will not at all affect our argument. The other class, therefore, the "bishops," constitute the preaching order, or the clergy,—those to whom were committed the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and of the discipline of the church. Now, either these bishops were prelates, or they were the pastors, the presbyters of the church. If Episcopalians choose to say, that they were prelates, then it follows, (a) that there was a plurality of such prelates in the same diocese, and the same city, and the same church; which is contrary to the fundamental idea of Episcopacy. It follows, also, (6) that there is entirely wanting, in this church, the second order' of clergy; that an Episcopal church is organized, defective in one of the essential grades, with an appointment of a body of prelates, without presbyters; that is, an order of 'superior' men, designated to exercise jurisdiction over "priests" who had no existence. If it be said, that the "presbyters," or " second order," might have been there, though Paul did not expressly name them; then we are presented with the remarkable fact, that he specifics the deacons, an inferior order, and expresses to them his christian salutations; that he salutes and addresses also the saints, and yet entirely disregards those who had the special pastoral charge of the church. Paul thus becomes a model of disrespect, and incivility. In the epistles to Timothy, he gives him directions about every thing else, but no counsel about his brother prelates: in the epistles to the churches, he salutes their prelates, and their deacons, but becomes utterly regardless of the second order of clergy,' the immediate pastors of the churches.

But if our Episcopal brethren prefer to say, that the "bishops" here mean, not prelates, but presbyters, we, so far, shall agree with them; and then it follows, (a) That here is an undeniable instance of a church, or rather a group of churches, large enough to satisfy the desire of any diocesan bishop for extended jurisdiction, organized without any prelate. None is mentioned; and there are but two orders of men, to whom the care of the "saints at Philippi" is intrusted. (b) If there was a prelate there, then we ask, why Paul did not refer to him, with affectionate salutations? Why does he refer to the second and the third orders of clergy,' without the slightest reference to the man who was 'superior to them in ministerial rank and power?' Was Paul jealous of the prelate? or have we here another instance of indecorum and incivility? (c) If they had had a prelate, and the see was now vacant, why is there no reference to this fact? why no condolence at their loss? why no prayer, that God would send them a man to enter into the vacant diocese? (d) Episcopalians have sometimes felt the pressure of these difficulties to be so great, that they have supposed the prelate to have been absent, when this epistle was