been so far lost, within two hundred years of the Apostolic age, as to subject one who pleaded in favour of it to the universal charge of insanity? When it is recollected too, that the different Churches had their records, and could trace up their officers, in regular succession, to the Apostles themselves? No; it is impossible. A wilder idea never took possession of the human imagination. But I forbear to enter upon this part of the subject at present, reserving what I may have to say on it for a future address.

It may be well, before proceeding to state the evidence on which Episcopacy rests, to take a rapid review of the numbers of the Miscellaneous writer, presenting, in as short a space as possible, the whole strength of the Presbyterian cause, that the public may be enabled to perceive, at once, what degree of support it may be justly considered as deriving, from the plain declarations, or from the fair construction of scripture.

Upon what, then, does this gentleman ground the defence of his system? He grounds it on the address of our Saviour to his Apostles, recorded in the twentieth chapter of Matthew. He grounds it on the promiscuous use of names. He grounds it on the manner of ordination of Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy.

Let us see how far these things support his position.

And it is proper, here, to remark, that the burthen of proof lies entirely on the advocates of parity. Calvin found the whole Christian world in possession of the Episcopal form of government. The most learned supporters of the opposite doctrine scruple not to admit that Bishops existed, universally, in the Church, as distinct from, and superior to Presbyters, within forty or fifty years after the last of the Apostles. Such is the concession of Blondel, of Salmasius, of Bochartus, of Baxter, of Doddridge. Some of them, indeed, carry it up to a much earlier period; Salmasius going so far as to admit that Episcopacy prevailed shortly after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, and long before the death of St. John.

It is surely incumbent on those who advocate a form of government admitted to be thus new, and thus opposed to the early, universal, and uninterrupted practice of the Church, to give us the most convincing and unequivocal proof of the divinity of their system. More especially when it is recollected that they can produce no record of a change; but are obliged to imagine one, in opposition to the uniform testimony of the primitive Fathers of the Church. The age in which they suppose a change to have taken place was a learned age, abounding in authors of the first eminence. The most minute events are recorded, and yet not a word is said of the revolution, which some men talk of, so fundamental in its nature, and so interesting in its consequences. The change, too, which they imagine, must have been both instantaneous and universal; and this at a time when there were no Christian princes to promote it; when no general council had met, or could meet to establish it; and when the fury of persecution cut off all intercourse between distant Churches; leaving their Clergy, also, something else to attend to than projects of usurpation. Such are the strange and almost incredible absurdities into which men will run, rather than give up a system to which they have become wedded by education and by habit.

I say, then, the burthen of proof lies upon our opponents. Let them show that Presbyterial government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word. It is not sufficient to cite passages, or to state facts, from scripture, which simply favour their idea. Where probability is opposed to probability, the practice of the Church universal, for so long a period of time, ought in all reason to decide. Should it even be admitted, contrary to every sound rule of construction, that the scriptures determine, neither in favour of Episcopacy nor parity, the Presbyterian cause must inevitably perish; for, under this idea, that firm and universal possession of the ground which Churchmen maintained, from the time of St. John to the sixteenth century, must be admitted to decide the dispute. I trust, however, I shall be able to show that the evidence of Episcopacy, from scripture, is irresistible; and that there are not circumstances strong enough to furnish even a remote probability in favour of that doctrine of parity, flattering, indeed, to the pride of man, on which a small portion of modern Christians insist with so much pertinacity.

The Miscellaneous writer, following the example of those who have laboured, before him, in the same cause, produces the address of our Saviour to his Apostles, called forth by the application in favour of James and John, that they should sit, the one on the right hand, the other on the left, in his kingdom. This address has been relied upon, as excluding the idea of subordination among the governors of the Church. Surely the advocates of parity, in thus acting, have been very much off their guard, or have been driven to extremities for argument. I trust I have completely shown that the application, in favour of James and John, related to temporal eminence, and that our Saviour, in his address, only inculcated upon his disciples the principle of Christian condescension and humility. Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." The plain design of all which is to recommend to superiors a mild and condescending deportment, and to preserve themselves humble amid the exercise of authority. Take the interpretation for which our opponents contend, and Jesus Christ himself is effectually deprived of all spiritual power. Nay, this interpretation not only destroys subordination as between Clergy and Clergy; but, also, as between Clergy and Laity. It annihilates the whole order of the Priesthood, as consisting of "Lords in God's heritage," to whom free men ought to be too proud to submit. A mode of reasoning that might have been expected from the illuminated philosophists of the age; but, surely, could not have been looked for from a venerable Divine. I forbear to say any thing more on the point, as it was fully considered in the last address, and my design now is, simply to take a brief review of all that the Miscellaneous writer has advanced.

In the second place, reliance is put upon the promiscuous use of names. This sort of argument has, I trust, been sufficiently exposed. Men may quarrel for ever about terms. The true inquiry is not concerning words, but things. Episkopos, Presbuteros, Diakonos, are all appellatiye. Each of them is capable of being applied, and is actually applied to all the orders of the Priest

1

hood. Diakonos is applied to Christ, to the Apostles, to the seven Deacons of Jerusalem. And very properly, for they were all Ministers. The same observation may be made of Episkopos. It is applied to our Saviour, to his Apostles, to the Elders of Ephesus. They were all overseers. Presbuteros is a name indiscriminately given to the Apostles, and those whom they governed. Very justly too; for Presbuteros signifies a ruler, and there may be ru.ers of an inferior as well as of a superior order. To say that Episkopos and Presbuteros are sometimes used, the one for the other, is nothing to the purpose. The point is to prove that each of them is used in an invariable sense; Episkopos always denoting, in one part of scripture, precisely the same office that it denotes in every other part of scripture, and Presbuteros always implying, in one passage, the very same powers which it implies in every other passage. And when it can be proved that Episkopos, as applied to Christ, as applied to his Apostles, as applied to the Elders of Ephesus, denotes precisely and exactly the same officer, I will give up this controversy. The question is, as to the orders of Ministers that were established in the Church, and this question is to be determined, not by the names used, but by the powers exercised. In the third place, as to the manner of ordination of Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy. This has been pretty fully considered. Paul and Barnabas were not ordained at all by the prophets and teachers of Antioch. It was a mere benediction which they received upon departing, according to the direction of the Holy Spirit, on a temporary mission. That mission they are represented, in the succeeding chapter of the Acts, as having fulfilled, and as returning to Antioch, "from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work," to give an account of such fulfilment. This completely proves that it was not to the apostolic office they were set apart, and that the laying on of hands was merely a solemn invocation of the Divine blessing on their labours. Such is the idea even of Dr. Doddridge, a very conspicuous dissenter from the Church of England.

The ordination of Timothy was certainly Episcopal. At all events, there is no proof that it was after the Presbyterial mode. The two passages in the Epistles of Paul are to be taken together. Most commentators consider the text, in the second Epistle, as referring to ordination, as well as to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Of the six writers whom I have consulted, four are decidedly of this opinion. If the two passages are taken together, the natural construction is that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of Paul, with the laying on of the hands of Presbyters; the former conveying power, the latter expressing concurrence in the selection of character. But let us lay aside the passage in the second Epistle. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Take this text alone. Does it give any support to the system of parity? I am persuaded that it does not. Some commentators, among whom are Jerome and Calvin, consider Presbuteriou, the Greek term which is here rendered Presbytery, as referring to the gift bestowed on Timothy, not to the manner of his ordination. "Neglect not the gift of Presbytery, that is, the office of Priesthood,

which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands." This interpretation of Calvin destroys all support which the pas sage has been supposed, by some gentlemen, to yield to Presbyterial ordination. But let us pass by this construction, and give the advo cates of parity an opportunity of viewing the passage in every point of light in which it can possibly be considered.

The only circumstance that enables them to make the passage give even a colour of support to their mode of ordination, is the use of the term Presbuteriou: and here they have recourse to the old mode of arguing from names, a mode of arguing which is, literally, good for nothing. Presbuteros, as we have already observed, is an appellative term, and is applied to the Apostles as well as to the inferior Clergy. And, in respect to the particular word here used, Presbuteriou, it is more applicable to the Apostles than to any subordinate order. It occurs in Luke, twenty-second chapter, sixty-sixth verse; and in the Acts, twenty-second chapter, fifth verse; denoting the Jewish Sanhedrim, or Great Council. In the Latin translation it is rendered senatus, which exactly answers to the Greek term. Upon what possible principle, then, can it be con-sidered as particularly applicable to such an association, as an assembly of modern Presbyters? Surely, if we are to judge from the tribunal to which it is annexed, in the passages that have been cited, there is the strongest reason for supposing that it denotes, in the text under consideration, the Apostles themselves. The conclusion from the words, even, is directly against the doctrine of parity; and the gentleman can get over this only by dwelling on the modern use of the term Presbytery, keeping out of the view of his people, as much as possible, the important circumstance that the Greek term is applied to the Great Council at Jerusalem, and is rendered into Latin by a word which designates the chief officers of the Roman Commonwealth. But the true meaning of the Greek word Presbuteriou, is put out of all doubt by referring to ecclesiastical history, which informs us that the practice of Presbyters, uniting with Bishops in the imposition of hands, has never prevailed in the Greek Church, and was not introduced into the Western, until the latter part of the fourth century. In the fourth council of Carthage it was decreed, that "in the ordination of Presbyters, all the Presbyters present should lay on their hands, near the Bishop's hand;" the design being to give to the ordination of Presbyters all possible solemnity, and to increase the security against an improper selection of characters for the sacred office. The validity of orders, however, was not considered to depend on the Presbyters imposing their hands. And by the very same council it was provided that the Bishops alone should impose hands in the ordination of Deacons. All this proves, completely, that the primitive Church, universally, considered the term Presbuteriou, in the first Epistle to Timothy, as referring to the Apostles, or members of their order.

Our author says that Paul, and those who acted with him, in the ordination of Timothy, laid on their hands, as Presbyters, in the modern sense of the word. And why so? Because, to be sure, the term Presbutcriou is used. The gentleman had better tell us at once, that they laid on their hands as members of the Jewish San

hedrim, or as Roman Senators; for, thus is the Greek term applied. It is a noble way of reasoning this, for there is nothing on earth that you may not prove by it.

It is rendered certain, then, as far as moral evidence can render any thing certain, that the ordination of Timothy was completely Episcopal. Let it now be observed, that none of the other cases of ordination, recorded in the scriptures, can be made, even by ingenious construction, so much as to look towards the Presbyterial mode. The Apostles alone ordained the seven Deacons of Jerusalem. Paul alone ordained Titus. Paul and Barnabas alone ordained Elders in the different cities which they visited. Ignatius, as Chrysostom tells us, was ordained by the Apostle Peter; and Ireneus informs us that Linus was constituted the first Bishop of Rome by St. Peter and St. Paul. But why need I cite particular examples? Not a single case can be produced from ecclesiastical history, of Presbyters being united with Bishops in imposition of hands, or of their having any sort of concern with the business of ordination, until the time of the fourth council of Carthage.

Again. In whom do the scriptures represent the general power of ordination as vested? In single persons. Timothy possessed it at Ephesus; Titus in Crete. Not a word is said of an union of Presbyters with them in the business.

I have now gone through the reasoning of the Miscellaneous writer. I trust I have shown it to be entirely insufficient to establish the doctrine for which he contends. How striking the resemblance as to mode of proof, between the advocates of papal supremacy and of Presbyterian parity! The champions of the Romish Church build the superiority of the Pope upon one or two texts, in opposition to the general evidence of scripture, and to the uniform testimony of ecclesiastical history. So act the advocates of the Presbyterian cause. The address, in favour of Zebedee's children, with the ordination of Timothy, and the pretended ordination of Barnabas and Paul, connected with the promiscuous use of names, form the basis on which rests the system of parity. Surely it is too weak a basis to support any system, much less one that ecclesiastical history tells us never existed till the days of Calvin, and which the Scripture, in the account of every Church that it particularly notices, most completely disowns.

A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

For the Albany Centinel.

DETECTOR. No. II.

CLEMENS, and his friend, who, from the decisive ground which

he takes against Episcopacy, exhibits very curious pretensions to the character of an "Umpire" in this controversy, charge "Cyprian" with dealing only in unsupported assertions. The most superficial readers of his numbers will perceive that he enters into a minute and laborious investigation of the subject of Church government, and supports, by cogent argument, whatsoever he advances;