CHAPTER VIII.

PRESBYTERS ARE, BY DIVINE RIGHT, CLOTHED WITH THE POWER OF ORDINATION. THE SUBJECT CONTINUED, AND PROOF GIVEN, THAT THE ORDINATION OF TIMOTHY WAS CONFERRED BY PRESBYTERS.

§ 1. The passage in Tim. 4: 14, explained, and its manifest proof of presbyterian ordination argued.

BUT we have another example of presbyterian ordination, which, the more it is examined, will be found the more conclusive and satisfactory, and that is, the ordination of Timothy, recorded in 1 Tim. 4: 14. 6 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbyters.' It would seem to us, that no possible language could more unequivocally testify to the fact, that a plurality of presbyters ordained Timothy to the work of the ministry; and that here, also, we are most positively taught that presbyterian ordination is the true, original, divine, and apostolical order. That Timothy was endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, all parties admit. These, as was usually the case, were conferred by the hand of an apostle, St. Paul, (2 Tim. 1: 6.) In thus endowing Timothy, the apostle was guided by the opinion of those prophetic men, who had pointed him out as a fit and chosen recipient, and foretold his entrance upon the ministry, and his eminence in it. (1 Tim. 1: 18.) And in confirmation of this divine call, Timothy, we are told, had been publicly ordained to the work of the ministry, by the imposition of the hands of a presbytery, that is, by a plurality of presbyters. We have here, therefore, a description of the ministerial office, which is called a gift;1 the remarkable manner in which

1) Your gift, o, being a periphrasis for your, the substantive being employed for the adjective.

Timothy had been prepared for it; the eminence to which he should aspire; the mode in which he had been solemnly inducted into the office; and the whole, is, therefore, an exhortation to Timothy to discharge faithfully and fully these ministerial duties. Such, to any unbiased mind, would be the teaching of this passage. The conclusion, would also be inevitable, that, under the immediate sanction of the inspired apostle, ordination was originally conferred by the imposition of the hands of presbyters. And hence, as no change of order was subsequently made by divine authority, it must have been the purpose of Christ, that ordination should always be performed through the ministry of presbyters. Presbyterian ordination, therefore, is not only valid, but is the only ordination sanctioned by the word of God.

§ 2. The objection, that the ordainers of Timothy were prelates, answered.

But such a conclusion as this never could be admitted by prelatists, and it was, of course, necessary to find some objections by which its force might be obviated. By noticing these, and exposing their weakness and futility, we will substantiate the view taken of this passage, by the mass of the reformed churches.

The earliest objection to this interpretation was, that those engaged in this ordination were all prelates, and not presbyters, and that it is an argument, therefore, for prelatical and not for presbyterian ordination. This view was first presented by Chrysostom, and from him adopted by the fathers generally.1 But this interpretation cannot possibly be admitted. It is a contradiction, and not an explanation, of scripture. It might as well be said, that when Paul here speaks of Timothy he meant Titus, as that when he names presbyters he intended prelates. No church or commmentator can pretend to translate the Bible, while he exchanges its terms for words of an opposite meaning. In this way the Bible might be turned into the Koran, and our republican constitution become the basis of a despotism. Paul affirms, that Timothy was ordained by the hands of presbyters, while Chrysostom avers, that 'he does not here speak of presbyters at all, (лE QËσBUIεQOV,) but of prelates, (лεi 80×п.)2 The ignorance of Paul must thus be corrected by the wisdom of Chrysostom; and the corruptions and prelatical usurpations of the fourth cen2) Comm. in loco.

1) See Jameson's Sum of the Episc. Controv. pp. 11, 12.

188

6

tury, interpret for us the truth and order of apostolic christianity. Besides, where could so many prelates come from, to Derbe or Lystra, where this ordination probably took place? The presbytery, therefore, must have been composed of all the presbyters belonging to one or other of the places mentioned. This was the view advocated by Aerius, and by Jerome, in his epistle to Evagrius, who, from this very passage, infers that bishops and presbyters were the same. Ambrose also candidly admits, that 'the writings of the apostle do not, in every point, answer the ordination now used in the church. The Rhemist translators accordingly render it, with imposition of the hands of priesthood,' and justify their translation by the canon of the ancient council of Carthage, requiring all the priests to lay their hands on the head of the priest taking orders, along with the bishop's hand.1 Chrysostom found that in his day, prelates had confined the power of ordination exclusively to their own order, and hence he was driven to the profane stratagem of making the Bible speak in accordance with that custom, though contrary to common sense; just as, for the same reason, he and others endeavored to give to the word bishop the sense of prelate, because there was no other word in the scriptures by which such an office could possibly be sustained. The word presbytery never can mean a single prelate, or any number of such officers; and as Timothy was ordained by a church court, composed of presbyters, and not by any single individual or president, he was presbyterially and not prelatically ordained. Even, however, were we to translate presbytery by a court of prelates or apostles,' what would be the conclusion? Evidently this-that in apostolic times, the term presbyter was a general title for all ministers of the gospel; and that while the twelve, considered in reference to their extraordinary endowments, were called apostles; as ordinary ministers, and the exemplars of all future ministers, they were, and were known as, presbyters. In order to make this point clear, these apostles are careful, when officiating at ordination, (supposing now that Paul did preside on this occasion,) to do so as presbyters, and not as apostles; as a presbytery, and not as an apostolate. This act was an ordi

1) It was after Barnabas and Saul had parted asunder, that Paul met with Timothy, at Lystra, and circumcised him, and resolved to take him as his companion, upon the good report of the brethren, (Acts, 15: 39.) So that, when he was ordained, there was, it

would seem, no other apostolic man
present, much less a college of apos-
les.

Barrington. Wks. vol. ii. p. 89.
2) Such is the opinion of Lord
3) In Ephes. 4.
4) See in loco.

nary exercise, therefore, of their ministerial functions, and not peculiar to them, or to their order as apostles. This subterfuge, then, to which Bellarmine and some modern prelatists have retreated, will not help the cause of prelacy at all. 'There was,' says archbishop Potter, 'a presbytery or college of elders, in the place where Timothy was ordained, for it was by the imposition of their hands he received his orders.'1 Such also 'is the opinion of Mr. Hinds, and of Dr. Willet. The word presbytery, here, cannot refer to prelates, else, as Whitaker teaches, there would be more than one bishop in one place; and because, to make it a council of bishops, is to beg the question in dispute, which is, whether there was any distinction between presbyters and bishops in scripture.5 But of this, more anon.

§ 3.

The objection, that the word presbytery does not refer to a company of presbyters, but to the office, answered, and Calvin vindicated.

Prelatists, being driven from this position, were led to advance the preposterous idea, that the word presbytery does not refer to the individuals, by whom Timothy was ordained, but to the office to which he was introduced. They, therefore, translate the passage, 'neglect not the gift of presbytery, that is, the office of priesthood, which was given thee by prophecy, with,' &c. Now, it must be admitted, that the word rendered presbytery, might be translated in this way. This, no one will dispute. But, this being admitted, the question is, whether the word, in this place, can be understood in this sense. A word, simply and abstractly, may have a very dif ferent meaning from the same word when conjoined with others; and a word which may have two or more senses singly, when found in connection with others, must have that meaning attached to it, which will give us a proper and intelgible sense, and not that which will convert the passage into nonsense. Now, we affirm, that the word presbytery, in this place, does not mean the office of presbyter, but must mean the assembly of presbyters, and in proof of our assertion we offer the following reasons:

In the first place, the word geoẞUTEQIOV, presbytery, does not

1) On Ch. Govt. pp. 105, 67, 267.
2) Hist. of Rise and Progress of

Christ. vol. ii. pp. 34, 35.

3) Syn. Pap. pp. 273, 81.
4) Prælect. Controv. 2. c. 5. p.

284, in Ayton's Constit. of the Ch. p. 366.

5) See this objection handled by Dr. Mason, Wks. vol. iii. pp. 167-169. 6) Archbp. Potter on Ch. Govt. p. 267.

properly refer to the office, but to an assembly of officers. The former meaning is conveyed by the word geo Bor, which means munus seniorum, the office of presbyter. No authority, therefore, can be found for attaching such a sense to the word abstractly considered.1 In the second place, when we inquire into the meaning of the term as used in scripture, we find, that it uniformly means, an assembly of presbyters. The only exception is in the apochryphal book of Susannah, 5: 50, where some few editions read geoẞUTE QIov, presbyters, instead of geoev, the presbyterate, the office being certainly understood.2 Wolfius, Vitringa, Koppe, and Pfaffius, allege, that the sense of 'a senate of presbyters' is the only meaning which can, in all cases, answer to the Hebrew words, and to the Jewish customs.3 In the New Testament, this term is used to characterize the council of elders or presbyters, that is, the senate or sanhedrim, in Luke, 22: 26, and Acts, 22: 5. To this opinion, Dr. Bowden has been constrained to give his adherence, allowing, that the term presbytery' signi fies an ecclesiastical council.' 4 This was also admitted by bishop Beveridge, who says, St. Paul says Timothy received the Spirit by the laying on of his hands, notwithstanding the presbytery joined with him in it.' We are under the necessity, therefore, according to all the rules of interpretation, to understand the word in its ordinary meaning, as it was employed by the Jews, in their ecclesiastical usages, and as it was familiar to the apostles, in the passage before us. the third place, this prelatical interpretation is equally contrary to the opinion of the fathers. According to Suicer, the word in the Greek fathers, denotes an assembly, congregation, or college of presbyters. Ignatius frequently uses the word, and very explicitly defines it, saying, 'what else is the presbytery than a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop." Irenæus, speaking of these officers, says, they were those, 'who, with their succession, received a certain charisma of truth.'8 Theodoret says, 'he here calls those a presbytery who had received the apostolical grace. Thus did the divine scriptures call those who were honored

5

1) See Stephanus, Scapula, Donnegan, and all the Lexicographers, in verbo.

2) Bretschneider Lex. in Nov. Test. in verbo.

3) Wolfii Curæ Phil. vol. iv. p. 465. Vitringa de Syn. Vet. p. 597. Pfaffius, 1. c.

4) See Wks. on Episc. vol. ii. p.

6

In

86, very doubtful, p. 116, no easy matter, p. 117.

5) Wks. vol. ii. pp. 121, 122. 6) Suicer Thesaurus Eccl. ex Patr. Groec. tom. ii. p. 824.

7) Ep. ad Trallianos and to Ephes. See Usher's Episc. and Presb. Govt. Conjd.

8) L. iv. c. 43, in Whitby's Comment. in loco.