preposition of concurrence. Nor is this invalidated by the circumTM stance of meta being sometimes used as dia with the genitive case. The emphatical distinction between the two words lies in the first denoting a cause, the other concurrence. Why does St. Paul care fully use the word dia in the one case, and meta in the other. Why does he not use meta in both cases? It is to be recollected too, that the passages are, in his Epistles to Timothy, relating to the same subject; and, of course, the terms must be regarded as contrasted with one another. Surely the words dia and meta, as opposed, signify, the first, the cause of a thing; the last, nearness, concurrence, agreement. This is familiar to every Greek scholar, and I assert it on the authority of the best lexicons of the language. The circumstance, then, of the Apostle using a word in relation to himself, which denotes the instrumental cause, and with respect to the Presbytery, a word which, particularly as distinguished from dia, ex, presses agreement, shows, clearly, that the authoritative power was vested in him, and that the act, on the part of the Presbytery, was an act of mere concurrence.

Here it may be proper to take a very brief notice of what our author says relative to the two passages in the Epistles to Timothy, making one refer to the ministerial office, as well as to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, and confining the other to the supernatural gifts alone. This is attempted to be proved from the context. But the context is as silent about ordination in the first Epistle to Timothy as in the second; and, therefore, according to this mode of reasoning, the gift of office is not referred to in either of the passages. I have consulted the commentaries of Hammond, Burkitt, Guyse, and Pyle. They all consider both the passages as referring to the gift of office, as well as to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit; which shows how unfounded is the distinction attempted to be drawn on this occasion. In fact, there is just as much evidence of a reference to the ministerial gift in one passage as in the other, and the distinction laid down by this writer rests on nothing but his own arbitrary assertion. It is impossible to read his pieces without remarking, that they consist of hypotheses from beginning to end; hypotheses too which he very candidly acknowledges to be entirely his own, having consulted no commentator, lest, indeed, his mind should be biassed. This confession, I trust, the public will duly appreciate in judging of his strange imaginations. The prayer to the Holy Spirit for direction would have been much more likely to be effectual, had it been connected with that use of means which ought ever to accompany our petitions.

It is, however, very immaterial whether the distinction drawn in this case be correct or not; for, as has been already remarked, we rely on the superior powers which Timothy exercised, not on the manner of his ordination, although we think the evidence of scripture shows it, beyond all doubt, to have been Episcopal. The only question that can be fairly raised, is as to the propriety of Presbyters imposing hands in connection with the Bishop. This practice, however, can do no harm, as they lay on hands confessedly, by way of mere concurrence, not by way of conveying the sacerdotal authority.

I can readily believe this writer when he says he has read no com

mentator on the passages which he so strangely interprets. He has taken leave, indeed, not only of commentators, but of the plainest maxims of construction. Was there ever any thing more strange, or more absurd, than the manner in which he understands the words, "by prophecy," in the first Epistle to Timothy; making them mean the extraordinary gift of prophecy conferred upon Timothy at the time of his ordination. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." It might readily be referred to any man of discernment to say whether this mode of expression points at the gift of prophecy bestowed upon Timothy. No. It was by prophecy that Timothy was selected as a proper person. The words refer to the Apostle himself. It was by prophecy that he discerned Timothy to be a fit character for the ministerial office. If our author will consult the most judicious commentators, he will find this to be the interpretation which they unanimously give. But the arrangement of the sentence, with the manner in which the words are brought in, renders it perfectly plain that they do not allude to the gift bestowed on Timothy, but to the way in which he was distinguished as a fit object of the gift to be bestowed. The thing, however, is put out of all dispute by referring to another passage in the first Epistle to Timothy, first chapter, and eighteenth verse. "This charge I com mit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which wens before on thee." Here the charge is spoken of as committed to Timothy, in pursuance of prophecy relative to him; in other words, in consequence of his being discerned to be a fit character for the office, by means of a revelation on the subject to the Apostle, or by means of the power of prophecy given to the Apostle for the purpose of distinguishing fit characters for the sacred function. I have consulted several of the most respectable commentators in the language, two of them of the Presbyterian persuasion; and they all understand the passage in the manner I have stated. The interpre tation of this gentleman has, I believe, the merit of novelty; but it is as strange as it is novel.

I shall conclude the present address with briefly noticing the unfair point of view in which the writer endeavours to place the general subject before the public. He would have it supposed that Episcopalians refer to names and words in support of their doc trine. Not so. We contend that subordinate orders, with distinct powers, were established in the Church by the Apostles themselves; and this we prove not by the names used, but by the authorities exercised. For example, Timothy ruled the whole Church of Ephesus, both Clergy and Laity. The Apostle addresses him, and him alone, as the supreme Governor of the Church, calling upon him to see that his Presbyters preach no strange doctrine, to receive accusations against them, to try and to punish them, if found guilty. In all this the Apostle addresses Timothy alone, and recognizes in him a spiritual control over the Elders or Presbyters, and Deacons of Ephesus. To say, after this, that the Elders thus ruled by Timothy had as much power over him as he had over them, because Timothy may be called Presbuteros, an elder man, or man of authority, is indeed paying more attention to words than things. It is flying from the question, and endeavouring to

create obscurity by dwelling on the ambiguity of names. What if Timothy is styled Presbuteros, or man of authority, and the Elders whom he ruled are called so too! Timothy exercised powers which they could not exercise. Timothy governed them. They were subject to his jurisdiction.

As to the business of ordination, St. Paul says to Timothy, "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.” To Titus the Apostle says, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Here, let it be observed, in passing along, that Titus is spoken of as having been ordained by the Apostle. "As I had appointed thee." Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case. Paul appointed Titus to his office; and this is a conclusive circumstance for believing that the case was the same in relation to Timothy, as it is not reasonable to suppose that they were commissioned in different ways.

In whom was the power of ordination vested in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete? Clearly in Timothy and Titus alone. Them alone the Apostle addresses, and them alone he speaks of as ordaining Elders, or as committing the things they had received from him to faithful men, capable of teaching others. Is not this utterly inconsistent with the Presbyterian system? What individual among them could with propriety be addressed as the Apostle addresses Timothy and Titus? Not one. The power among them is in a numerous body of equals, lest there should be "lords over God's heritage." The power, in Ephesus and Crete, was in Timothy and Titus, to whom the Presbyters were subject, liable to be tried and punished for misconduct. It is on this plain statement of facts, relative to Ephesus and Crete, as well as to other Churches, taken in connection with the uniform and uninterrupted testimony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred years, that Episcopalians rest their cause. They have never endeavoured to derive arguments from the names made use of. This has been the practice, exclusively, of the advocates of parity. Driven from the ground of fact, not able to deny that Timothy and Titus were supreme Governors in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, possessing alone the power of ordination, they say that Timothy is called a Presbyter, and was therefore upon a level with those very Elders whom he ruled, whom he could control as to the doctrines they preached, whom he had power to try and to punish!

Episcopalians having established their cause upon the firm ground of Scripture fact, follow the advocates of parity to the argument which they attempt to build on words, and show that it avails them nothing. Driven from this ground also, they turn round and say, Episcopalians can derive no support from the words. They never pretended to derive argument from such a source. They would give up their cause at once if reduced to the necessity of placing it on such a basis. They rely upon the evident state of the Churches of Ephesus, Crete, Jerusalem, and other places, as detailed to us in scripture, taken in connection with the decided and unequivocal evidence of primitive history. And all they say about names is simply to show that they furnish no aid to the system of parity.

The writer has introduced, from an address which he ascribes to Bishop Seabury, certain passages for the purpose of showing the sentiments entertained by Episcopalians on the subject of Presbyterial ordination. In this business, it is unnecessary that he should quote authors, or multiply observations, for the validity of that mode of ordination our Church finds herself constrained most explicitly to deny. She believes that a particular method of conveying the sacerdotal power was instituted by the Apostles, and that man has no more right to change this method of conveying a divine authority, than he has to change the holy supper, which is the appointed method of conveying a divine gift. And if it be objected that so much importance ought not to be attached to the external polity of the Church, I answer, that what God has joined together no man should put asunder; and, that the same mode of reasoning would lead to speaking lightly of the ordinances of the gospel. Can it be so important, the Quaker may ask, to sprinkle water, or to take bread and wine? The fact is, all these things derive their importance from the command of God, and man has nothing to do with inquiring into the propriety or impropriety of institutions established in the scriptures of truth. They are objects of faith, not subjects of metaphysical investigation.

a

The validity of Presbyterial ordination, as I have shown in preceding numbers, has been denied from its origin. And I believe I have made it appear that those men who complain so much of the Episcopal Church, have indulged in a mode of expression to wards her, quite as free as that which she has herself exercised. What if Bishop Seabury has expressed himself in a manner somewhat severe? It has nothing to do with the present controversy. Surely our author does not mean to go back to so distant a period for a justification of the bitter newspaper attack which he has thought proper to commence. Besides, the whole address of Bishop Seabury must be read before a proper judgment can be formed of detached passages. These may be greatly softened and explained by the general spirit, and the obvious design of the discourse. And since the gentleman has thought proper to bring this matter up, let it be observed, that the Episcopalians of Connecticut had been treated in the most intolerant manner; which circumstance ought certainly to be considered in determining on the propriety of the style which Bishop Seabury uses. Our adversaries will find it their interest, probably, to let these matters rest.

The writer whom I oppose continues to employ a language much better calculated to excite passion than to elucidate truth. After solemnly invoking, in one of his numbers, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he descends, in a succeeding address, to a mode of expression which even the most strenuous advocates of his doctrines will not justify. There is something in the style of several numbers of the Miscellanies, calculated to excite the warm indignation, not only of every member of the Episcopal Church, but of every friend of decorum and of truth.

A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XVII.

SINCE my explanation of the two texts in the Epistles of Paul to

Timothy, I have read a few writers upon them. Two of these interpret the gift mentioned in the first Epistle, to mean the office of the ministry, and that prophecy refers to Timothy being chosen and foretold by the revelation of the spirit. Thus, in chap. i. 18. it is said, "according to the prophecies which went before on thee." I shall not contend for the interpretation given by myself; nor is it essential in the argument. Admitting that Timothy was chosen to his office by the "discerning of spirits," and that the gift which he was exhorted not to neglect was ordinary, still his ordination was Presbyterian. It may serve, however, to corroborate my interpretation to mention, that the Greek word" charisma" is generally used to signify an extraordinary gift, and that an ordinary one is expressed by "dorea" and "charis." The gift is also said to be "en soi," in thee, which cannot be properly said of the office of the ministry. Should any still insist that the verse is to be interpreted in connection with chap. i. 18. they will remark that the expression there is "epi se," on or concerning thee; and therefore prophecy in the one place may refer to what was foretold concerning him, and, in the other, to the exercise of the same gift in himself. Whichsoever of the two interpretations is preferred, my argument remains in equal force.

One writer says, "It is, at least, highly probable that the impo sition of Paul's hands upon Timothy, mentioned in the second Epis tle, was not for ordination; but at a different time, upon a different occasion, and for a different purpose, viz. to confer on him the extraordinary powers of the Holy Ghost; and that these powers are the gift which the Apostle exhorts Timothy to stir up, i. e. dili gently to use for the end for which it was conferred upon him. This interpretation will make the two different accounts perfectly consistent, which perhaps no other will. And that this was in fact the case, may be further argued from the different subjects treated of in the two places under consideration." Dr. Whitby, a learned commentator of the Episcopal Church, is of the same opinion. "The gift here mentioned," says he, "being the gift of the Holy Ghost, was usually conferred by laying on of the hands of an Apostle Vain therefore is the inference of Esthius from these places, that ordination is a sacrament, seeing the grace here mentioned is no ordinary grace, but an extraordinary gift, conferred only in those times by the hands of an Apostle, and now wholly ceased.”

As then, "by the putting on" of Paul's hands, mentioned in this place, an extraordinary gift was conferred, which was conferred only by the hands of an Apostle, and this power is now wholly ceased; and as, at the ordination of Timothy, there was, undeni ably, the "laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," so no argument whatever can be drawn in favour of the Episcopal mode. Whoever ordained Timothy, it is plain that they did it not as persons of a superior and extraordinary character; but as ordinary