that the Apostles called themselves Presbyters, and acted only as such in the ordination of Timothy. If Apostles, why was it necessary that more than one of them should lay on his hands?* Why does Paul particularize his own hands? Had not all the Apostles equal authority and power? Since then it is certain that there were more hands imposed than those of Paul, the conclusion is natural, that if Apostles, they considered themselves in this transaction only as Presbyters, and therefore all of them laid on hands. The argument then turns against Episcopalians, and in favour of Presbyterians.

I apprehend that the obvious interpretation of the texts, and the way in which they are easily reconciled is this; that the imposition of hands to which the Apostle refers in his second Epistle, was at a different time from the ordination of Timothy, or if at the same time, was for a different purpose. The setting Timothy apart, or giving him authority to exercise the office of a Minister in the Church, was "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" the gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred upon him "by the putting on" of Paul's hands. This I verily believe to be the true meaning.

It is very immaterial whether Paul put his hands twice upon Timothy; once at his ordination, and again when the Holy Ghost was given him; or whether both purposes were answered at the same time. The latter seems the more probable of the two from the words in the first Epistle-" The gift which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" that is, together with, or at the time of thine ordination to the ministry. At least if this gift of prophecy was not conferred upon Timothy in the act of his ordination, it would appear to have been conferred immediately afterwards, by the imposition of Paul's hands alone. In this way the word meta has its just force. When it governs the genitive case, as in the place before us, it signifies together with, and may be thus translated. See Matt. ii. 3 and 11. "He was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." They saw the with Mary his mother." In this sense it is used by the purest Greek young child writers. Take only one instance from Plato: "Geeras meta penias;" that is, old age with, or together with poverty.

σε Το

A careful attention is to be paid to the word prophecy, by which is to be understood one of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. another," says the Apostle," the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits." This is the gift which the Apostle exhorts Timothy to exercise, as well as all the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and which were conferred upon him when he was set apart to be an officer in the Church.

If any incline to think, that prophecy means here only authority to perform the ministerial office, and that this was conveyed by

ously applied. The absurdity and fallacy of the singular interpretation which this author gives of these texts, are so ably exposed by the Layman in his fifth number, that any observations here are unnecessary. Ed.

* As the Layman very properly observes, " One of them may have conveyed the sacerdotal authority, while the rest may have imposed hands to give additional solemnity to the transaction, and as an expression of Concurrence in the selection of character."

Ed

"the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," the word meta will bear them fully out. It signifies not only with, but by, by means of, and has the same sense as dia with the genitive case. It is thus used in Acts xiii. 17. “With an high arm brought he them out of it." Acts xiv. 27. "They rehearsed all that God had done with them." Who does not see that it signifies in these places by, and might have been thus translated? It could be shown that it is used in this way by Demosthenes, Thucydides, and Xenophon, who will surely be allowed to have understood Greek. The laying on of the hands of the Presbyters was more than concurrence, than approbation, or than consent. It was an actual conveyance of ministerial authority. So that in whatever way the text is explained, it does not serve the Episcopalians. To say that meta has never the same meaning with dia, and that it may not, on examples from the New Testament, and from the greatest Grecian orators and historians in the world, be construed as synonymous, is to show ignorance of the nature of the language.

I prefer, however, the interpretation which I have given, that by prophecy is meant an extraordinary gift, which was conferred upon Timothy at the time the Presbytery ordained him. This is the gift to which the Apostle refers in both texts. In his second Epistle, where he says, "by the putting on of my hands," he does not allude to the ordination at all. Let any one read the verses foregoing, and following the text, and he may see that ordination was not there intended. The Apostle had wholly a different object in view, as will be shown before this subject is dismissed. Indeed it appears to me, that he had the same object in view in both places, and the manner of the ordination is mentioned to show the time when the gift was conferred, and to bring to remembrance a very solemn transaction. If the words are not taken in this sense, we cannot collect from them that Paul was even present at the ordination of Timothy, which will be still worse and worse for the Episcopalians. If they have no other proof than his saying, that he put his hands on Timothy, it is not sufficient; because this was for a quite different purpose. Not to give them unnecessary trouble, I will admit, in the mean time, that he was present; that he presided at the ordination; that he laid on his hands as a Presbyter; and his fellow Presbyters laid on hands with him. This is exactly Presbyterian ordination. The subject will be continued in my next number.

I HAVE

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. IV.

HAVE said that the extracts from the works under examination are not given in such a manner as to present a fair view to the reader; and that the conclusion to which they are calculated to conduct him, is wide of the truth. The author of the Companion for the Altar, and of the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, has only exercised that right of judgment which the Presbyterians take very good care to exercise themselves. It is not necessary to say any

thing relative to the character of this gentleman, in reference to those who have the happiness of knowing him; but I feel it to be a duty which I owe to the cause of truth, to observe, that he possesses qualifications both of mind and of heart that are rare indeed, and that cannot be too highly valued or admired. Far, very far from his temper is the spirit of censoriousness. To be acquainted with him is always to esteem and love him.* Let his works be candidly examined, and it will be seen that, while he maintains the doctrines of his Church, in their full extent, he undertakes not to judge the members of other denominations. In proof of this, I would beg leave to submit to the reader a few passages, which ought, in candour, indeed, to have been presented by the gentleman who has thought proper to complain in a style of so much bitterness: "The Judge of the whole earth, indeed, will do right. The grace of God quickens and animates all the degenerate children of Adam. The mercy of the Saviour is co-extensive with the ruin into which sin has plunged mankind. And, in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." Again," Separation from the prescribed government and regular Priesthood of the Church, when it proceeds from involuntary and unavoidable ignorance or error, we have reason to trust, will not intercept, from the humble, the penitent, and obedient, the blessings of God's favour." Still further, "The important truth which the universal Church has uniformly maintained, that, to experience the full and exalted efficacy of the sacraments, we must receive them from a valid authority, is not inconsistent with that charity which extends mercy to all who labour under involuntary error. Once more, "But though we presume to judge no man, leaving all judgment to that Being who is alone qualified to make allowance for the ignorance, invincible prejudices, imperfect reasoning, and mistaken judgments of his frail creatures; yet, it must not from hence be concluded, that it is a matter of indifference, whether Christians communicate with the Church or not; or that there is a doubt upon the subject of schism, whether it be a sin or not."

Such is the language of the works under examination; and such," also, is the language of the Episcopal Church. Will the writer in question require more? Is he ready to express sentiments of greater charity? Will he admit that the grace necessary to repentance is given to all men? and that even the virtuous heathen will be saved?

Are we to give up the divinity of Jesus Christ because the Socinians have denied it? Are we to lay aside baptism and the holy supper because the Quakers have discarded them? Are we to renounce the doctrine of the corruption of man, and of the absolute necessity of the operations of the divine Spirit to begin, to carry on, and to perfect the work of sanctification, because some of the followers of Arminius, departing from the tenets of their master,

* These remarks appear evidently dictated by the too partial spirit of friendship. The author of the works in question however ought certainly to consider himself much indebted to the Layman for the able vindication of these works from the charges brought against them.

Ed.

have denied the principle, asserting the capacity of man to turn, of himself, unto God, and be saved? We shall continue to declare the necessity of receiving the ordinances of the gospel at the hands of a Priesthood, which has derived authority from Christ by succession, in which way alone it can be derived, whatever abuse may be heaped upon us for so doing. While we undertake to judge no man, we shall persist in thinking for ourselves, and in inculcating, in decent language, whatever we suppose to be a part of the whole counsel of God.

Let it be supposed, for one moment, that a secession should take place from the Presbyterians; the Seceders setting up an adminis tration of ordinances by mere laymen. Would not our author oppose this, and represent it as a departure from the plan of salva tion detailed in the scriptures of truth? Would he not warn his people against being concerned in the schism? Surely he would It would be his duty to do so. And how unjustly would he think himself treated, if assailed by a newspaper invective, for exercising an undoubted right, or rather for discharging an important obligation? If this gentleman then considered it necessary to defend the opinion which he holds on the subject of ecclesiastical government, what course of conduct did propriety require him to pursue? I answer; he should have given the subject a regular ex amination, respecting in others that right of judgment which he claims for himself. In this Episcopalians would have seen no cause of complaint; but, in the place of this, he commences a vindictive attack in the public prints; a measure that can be defended on no principle either of policy or justice.

From the way in which this writer speaks, a stranger would be lead to suppose that the doctrine maintained in the works under examination is perfectly novel. How great his surprise, upon being informed that the Church has contended for it in every period of her history! This has been the case particularly in the United States. Let me beg leave here to refer the reader to a very instructive account of the life of Doctor Samuel Johnson, the first President of Columbia College, in New-York, written by the late worthy and learned Dr. Thomas B. Chandler, of New-Jersey.* In this work will be seen a most interesting exhibition of the effect produced by a regular investigation of the subject of Episcopacy, with a single view to the discovery of truth. Dr. Johnson was, perhaps, the most learned man that this country has produced. In him was eminently united profound genius, with the most laborious and persevering application to study. He was educated as a Congregational Minister, and officiated in that capacity for some time; but his attention being called to the subject of ecclesiastical government, he entered upon it, under a deep conviction of duty, persevering in the inquiry until he had viewed the matter in every point of light, and had collected all the information which the scriptures, or books could supply. The result was a most decided belief in the divine institution of Episcopacy, and of the consequent invalidity of Presbyterial ordination. Several other Congregational Clergymen, of great talents, and distinguished worth, were engaged in

* This work was lately published by T. & J. Swords, New-York.

the investigation with Dr. Johnson. It terminated in the same way with them. They renounced their offices, went to England for holy orders, and continued, through life, most warmly attached to the Episcopal Church. Their example was afterwards followed by others; and I persuade myself that the same sincere investigation would terminate in the conviction of almost all who should engage in it.

Would it have been just or decent to have commenced a bitter attack in the newspapers against these men, for renouncing, under a sense of duty, the ordination which they had received, and taking orders in the Episcopal Church? Every correct and ingenuous mind must immediately perceive that such conduct would have been improper and violent in the extreme. And where is the difference between this and the course which the writer in question has thought proper to pursue? There is no difference, and the conduct now is as intolerant and unjust as it would have been in the case I have mentioned.

The divine institution of Episcopacy has been strenuously maintained in this country, from the time of Dr. Johnson to the present day, by the most able writers of the Episcopal Church. In fact, the validity of Presbyterial ordination has been denied from its very origin. Calvin himself, the French Hugonots, and other reformers, justified their departure from Episcopacy on the principle of necessity alone.

The primitive Fathers of the Church are most pointed and express on this subject, and every reproach cast upon the author of the publications in question recoils with tenfold force upon these venerable men. Hear the words of Ignatius" He that doeth any thing without the Bishop, and Presbyters, and Deacons, is not pure in his conscience." "Therefore, as Christ did nothing without the Father, so neither do ye, whether Deacon, Presbyter, or Laick, any thing without the Bishop." "He that doeth aught without the Bishop serves the devil." What says Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, in the second century? "We can reckon up those whom the Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several Churches, and to whom they committed their own apostolic authority." Listen to Tertullian of the same age-"The power of baptising is lodged in the Bishop, and it may also be exercised by Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's commission." What says St. Cyprian of the third century?" The Church is built on the Bishops, and all the acts of the Church are governed and directed by them its Presidents.” What will our author say to all this? I am afraid, were he carefully to go through the primitive Fathers, he would often find it necessary to pause, and compose himself, and "take breath."

These considerations, then, I submit to an impartial public. I submit them to the gentleman whom I oppose. If the Episcopal Church, in supporting doctrines which have ever distinguished her, and which never, as she thinks, were departed from, till the days of Calvin, is obliged to draw conclusions, that nearly affect the members of other persuasions, she can only regret the consequence of what her convictions of duty command her most firmly to maintain. She wishes well to all men. She undertakes to judge none. Believing sincerely that Episcopacy is a divine institution, and that all are bound