For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. V.

THE Remarks on the Jewish priesthood, I confess, surprised

me. They are, certainly, of a very singular nature; proving, if they prove any thing, that there is no sort of connection between the Old and the New Testament. This shall be fully shown when I come to the subject in the regular course of the investigation,

I proceed, in the meantime, to the observations on the Epistles to Timothy, upon which observations no little reliance appears to be placed. The writer would have it supposed that Episcopalians lay much stress on the passages in question. Not so. They rely upon the powers which Timothy exercised, not upon the manner of his ordination; and all they do on this point, is to show that there is no evidence from scripture of the ordination being after the Presbyterial mode. Our opponents, knowing full well that the state of things, in the Church of Ephesus, gives no sort of countenance to their doctrine, take care to be as silent as possible upon it; going always to the passage in the first Epistle to Timothy, and setting that up as the great bulwark of their cause. In this, they act wisely, since the structure of the passage gives them an opportunity of dwelling on the term Presbytery; it being on terms alone that their whole argument is grounded. The rules of just reasoning, then, obviously require the Presbyterians to prove that the passage in question establishes their mode of ordination. They rely upon it as proof. Episcopalians do not; resting their cause, in reference to Timothy, upon the powers which he exercised in that Church of which he was the spiritual governor. All that is incumbent upon us, therefore, is to show that the words of Paul to Timothy prove nothing for the opposite cause; and it will be recollected that I took this ground expressly in my first address to the public. Let our author prove, then, that the Presbytery spoken of were nothing more than Elders or Presbyters, in the sense in which these terms are now used. Until he does this, the passage will avail him nothing. True, we cannot prove absolutely, that they were Apostles, although we think this much the most rational interpretation; especially when it is considered 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. This is a strong, indeed I may say a conclusive circumstance to prove that the Presbytery spoken of were members of a superior order who laid their hands on Timothy, in connection with Paul; and such is, accordingly, the interpretation put upon the passage by some of the most judicious commentators. And here let it be briefly added, that there is not a single example to be produced from scripture, or from the whole history of the Church, before the days of Calvin, of an ordination by any but an order of Ministers superior to the Elders, who officiated in the clerical character at Ephesus and other places. While our Saviour remained upon earth, he alone commissioned persons to act in his name. This power, immediately

before his ascension, he gave to the Apostles; and, let it be recollected, that he gave it to them alone. They, accordingly, ordained the seven Deacons of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every city. In these cases, the Apostles who were the Governors of the whole Church, both Clergy and Laity, alone performed the act of ordination. No Presbyters or Elders were united with them. These circumstances, taken in connection with the late introduction of the practice of Presbyters joining with Bishops, in the imposition of hands, prove, as far as moral evidence can prove any thing, that the Presbytery, or Church officers mentioned in the Epistle to Timothy, were of the order of the Apostles. All that is necessary to us, however, is to show that there is no evidence of the Presbytery being mere Elders; for, until this point is unequivocally established, the cause of parity can receive no sort of support from the passage. And as to the word Presbytery, it signifies Church officers, Eldermen, or men of authority; and, therefore, may as well mean Apostles as an inferior order.

Again, Jerome and Calvin, both of whom the advocates of parity are fond of quoting, give a construction to the passage in question which completely puts down all that our author has said upon it. They understand the Apostle to say to Timothy, "Neglect not the gift of the Priesthood, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands;" making the term Presbuterion refer to the office of a Priest or Church Governor, bestowed on Timothy, not to the manner in which he was ordained. And the powers of office are to be ascertained from the Epistle of Paul to Timothy, in which he is addressed as the Spiritual Governor of the Clergy, as well as of the Laity of Ephesus. I barely mention the opinion of Jerome and Calvin here, to show how very feeble is the aid to be derived to the system of parity from the word so much relied upon in the passage under consideration.

There is still another way in which all support to the Presbyterian cause, from this passage, is destroyed. Paul was present at the ordination. Well, then, according to the hypothesis even of this writer himself, superior and inferior orders united in the ordination of Timothy, which is very different from the Presbyterian system. Here, however, we are again assailed with the artillery of words. True, Paul laid his hands on Timothy; but he did it as a Presbyter. Yes, he laid on his hands as a Church Governor, which is the meaning of Presbyter; but that he laid on his hands as an officer, on a perfect level with the Elders of Ephesus, is an assertion which I utterly deny, and which has never been even attempted to be proved by the only evidence worth attending to, the evidence of facts. How, then, is it proved? Why, the term Presbytery is used; which is, doubtless, demonstration itself. It is high time that this sort of reasoning were given up. Paul is nothing more than an Elder of Ephesus, at the ordination of Timothy, because a general term, signifying elder, or grave men, or men of authority, is used. What will not this mode of reasoning prove? Christ is called Diakonos, which is translated a Deacon, or Minister. Therefore, Christ was on a level with the Deacons of Jerusalem. Presbuteros signifies an elder man; whence comes the term Alderman. By this new species of logic, it might be proved that the Apostles were,

to all intents and purposes, Aldermen, in the civil acceptation of the term; and that every Alderman is, really and truly, an Apostle. Eliezer, the steward of Abraham's house, is called Presbuteros, and, of course, was a Presbyter, in the same sense in which the term is applied to the Elders, whom Paul and Barnabas ordained. The Judges appointed by Moses with power over thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens, are called Presbiteroi, and must, therefore, have been Apostles. Cicero was saluted by the Roman army with the title of Imperator. Therefore Cicero held the same office with Augustus Cæsar. And we might he told, in the same way, that the three consuls of France, before the establishment of the empire by Bonaparte, were nothing more than commercial agents. How vain, how superlatively vain is this reasoning from names! Surely a word cannot be mentioned that is not used in different senses; and the sense which it is designed to convey in a particular case, must ever depend upon the circumstances of that case. The howers, not the titles of office, are the great objects of attention. Paul, in laying hands on Timothy, did it as a mere Elder of Ephesus, or of any other place, because he is sometimes called Presbuteros, that is, a ruler, an elder, or grave man, or man of authority. Let this be remembered.

To admit that Paul laid on his hands at the ordination of Timothy, is to admit that it was not a Presbyterial ordination. For Paul was an Apostle, and exercised power over Elders. In other words, he was of a superior order. And this is not to be answered, let me assure the gentleman, by saying that the term Presbytery, signifying Church officers, is used. I would submit it to any candid man of the denomination to which this writer belongs, whether the perpetual attempt to darken the subject, by dwelling on terms of a general signification, does not completely prove that the cause of parity has nothing but words to rest on. Paul, in laying hands on Timothy, is on a level with that order of Elders which he was in the continual habit of directing and governing, because he is called Presbuteros, that is, a Church officer, a grave man, or man of authority. I repeat it, let this be remembered.

We perceive the same mode of proceeding in what our author says relative to the Greek terms dia and meta, an attempt to cover the weakness of his cause under the ambiguity of words. It is known to every Greek scholar, that dia signifies, emphatically, the cause of a thing; while meta denotes, emphatically, nearness of situation, relation, connection, agreement. It need not be observed that words are used sometimes more loosely, and sometimes more strictly. A term is often introduced in a sense different from its original and primary meaning. The two words dia and meta are opposed in the Epistles to Timothy. Well, then, the two words being opposed, and the first, as every Greek scholar knows, denoting, emphatically, the cause of a thing; the latter conveying, particularly, the idea of relation, connection, agreement, it follows, obviously, that they are to be taken in these their appropriate senses. Our author will not venture to say that the Greek word meta is as appropriate an one as dia to express the cause of a thing. He will not so far hazard his reputation as a scholar. I assert, then, that dia signifies, particularly, the cause of a thing, and that meta is the

preposition of concurrence. Nor is this invalidated by the circum 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 carefully 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, expresses 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 au thor 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 pas sages. 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 commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went 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 doctrine. 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