rington, and others.1 The two passages may thus be both referred to ordination, and yet be perfectly reconciled with the interpretation for which we contend. Besides, 'these two passages,' says the Rev. T. Hartwell Horne,2 of St. Paul's epistles to Timothy, are of equal authority, and therefore prove, that the presbytery joined with the apostle in the imposition of hands.' It is hence evident, that the apostle would not ordain Timothy, even with the assistance of Barnabas, but having erected a presbytery, he hands him over to that body for ordination. Presbyters, therefore, even in this view, concurred in the ordination of Timothy, and were associated by the apostle as copartners in the work. The designed testimony of the apostle, is thus afforded to presbyterian ordination. Hence, as we have seen, it has ever been a rule, that at least three presbyters should unite with the bishop in laying on hands in the ordination of presbyters. This rule is distinctly prescribed by the church of England, where there is an evident reference to this passage in Timothy. Hence, too, the doctrine stated by Mr. Palmer, as held by Jewell, Hooker, and Field, 'that a mere presbyter might confer every order except the episcopate;' in other words, that the apostolic succession of the presbyters might be continued by presbyters, the episcopate being laid aside or lost. Besides, we have already shown, that Paul and Barnabas never received any christian ordination but that given by presbyters. And, therefore, if they did unite in this ordination, it was in their ordinary ministerial character, as presbyters, and for the purpose of communicating to Timothy that same presbyterian ordination they had themselves received. As to the attempt to prove that the prepositions 'by' and 'with,' here employed, are intended to convey different ideas; and to teach, that the ordination was conferred 'by' Paul, and that the presbyters only concurred 'with' him; it is equally puerile and useless. It is puerile, because these terms are employed promiscuously in the New Testament,' and in the best authorities, and both imply the instrumental or efficient cause. The preposition, therefore, translated 'with,' expresses the manner

1) Wks. vol. ii. pp. 88, 89. 2) The Conf. of the Ch. of Eng. to Apost. Precept, p. 11.

3) See Acts 14: 23; and Acts 16: 1; and 1 Tim. 4: 14.

4) Ordination Service and Canon, 35.

5) See Essays on the Church, p. 251.

6) Essays on the Church, p. 251. 7) 1 Tim. 1: 18; Acts 15: 4, 12; and 14: 27, 12; Acts 5: 26; and 17: 11, and 24: 3; 2 Cor. 7: 15; Titus 2: 1, 5, &c. &c.

8) Can any lexicographer be produced who denies that μETα, with a genitive, often signifies by, or by means of?

in which Timothy was ordained, that is, by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. Besides, imposition of hands never was used in the apostolic or proximate ages to signify mere assent or approbation, but some authoritative communication of power or office. And thus are prelatists driven to make new Greek grammars, and to annihilate the meaning of the ceremony in question, in order to support their assumptions. But puerile as is this theory, it is equally useless, both on their interpretation and our own. For if, as they say, these presbyters were apostles, then they had as good a right as Paul to impose hands, and as much power to communicate gifts; while on our view of the passage, the first preposition, whatever it means, refers to the gift, that is, the supernatural endowment; and the second, to the ordination, which is consequently referred to the presbyters alone, with no mention whatever of the concurrence of the apostle. But in neither case will the interpretation given substantiate prelatical ordination by a single individual, or by prelates alone; while it does manifestly authenticate the ordination of presbyters. And whether this is done 'by' their hands or 'with' their hands, is a scholastic nicety about which we have little concern, and which may be referred to the same category with that of Dr. Eck, the great champion of Rome, who at once silenced Luther, by declaring, that 'the pope was not universal bishop, but only bishop of the universal church.' If Paul presided, and the presbyters united in the act, then it follows, either that these presbyters did or did not possess the power of transmitting to Timothy a ministerial investiture of office. If they did, then, of course, the power of ordination is inherent in presbyters. If they did not, then was their concurrence, as Mr. Faber argues, an idle and inexplicable mockery, which, under such an aspect, might justly be pronounced to nullify the whole transaction."2

§ 5. The objection, that neither of these passages refer to ordination, answered, and the argument for the presbyterial ordination of Timothy concluded.

But prelatists will not be worsted. Conscious, therefore, of the weakness of these pleas, they have overwhelmed all

1) See this whole subject admirably treated in Dr. Mason's Wks. vol. iii. p. 154, &c. See also Owen on Ordin. p. 47. Dr. Rice in Evang. Mag. vol. ix. pp. 545 and

617; and Plea for Presbytery, ed. 2d, p. 19; and Presb. Defended.

2) On the Albigenses, p. 554, on the case of Pelagius.

opposition by declaring, that, after all, neither passage has any reference to ordination at all, but to something else.1 Well! let this also pass, and what then? Why then, truly, we must find our authority for ordination in some other quarter than the Bible, and one theory is quite as good as another, and neither, by divine authority. Either ordination is not enjoined or required; or otherwise we must conclude that the only ordination revealed to us in the New Testament, is presbyterian ordination. For if the accounts of the ordination of Paul and Barnabas, and of Timothy, are not records of ordination, then is there no information as to the form, or order, of this work in the whole Bible. But on the other hand, if fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands, are the elements which constitute ordination, and if these are combined in no other ecclesiastical act connected with the ministry, then were these occurrences both cases of ordination. We have in the New Testament, other statements which clearly imply the existence of some form or order of ordination; but in no other passages than these, have we any examples given, of what that form and order actually is. Now on the supposition that Christ and his apostles had designed that there should be three orders in the ministry of the church, with distinct and different powers and forms of consecration, as in the theory of the prelacy, we cannot but think there would have been preserved to us formal directions as to each of these orders; so that by one form and order prelates should be consecrated; by another, presbyters; and by a third, deacons. And the very fact, that in the New Testament we either find no such models, or only those before us, and, therefore, only one form or order of ordination, and that strictly presbyterian, irresistibly forces upon us the conclusion, that there was in the first age of the church, and as constituted by the apostles, but one order of ministers, to wit, presbyters, and but one mode of ordination, that is, the presbyterian.

This inference follows, whether we regard these passages as distinct or as referable to the same occasion. In the former case, the inference is plain. In the latter case, it is equally clear that the power of transmitting the ministerial office resides in presbyters, since the apostle is, in this view, made to approve of their independent exercise of this power, or at least to associate presbyters with himself, as his successors in the ministry, in the solemn act.

1) Bishop Onderdonk, Wks. on Episcop. pp. 426, 427.

CHAPTER IX.

PRESBYTERS ARE CLOTHED WITH THE POWER OF ORDINATION. THE SUBJECT CONTINUED.

§ 1. The ordinations referred to in Acts 14: 23, were presbyterial.

A THIRD instance of presbyterial ordination may be found in the record, in Acts 14: 23, where it is said of Paul and Barnabas, 'and when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed, with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.' Now this Barnabas, who was a candidate with Matthias, for the vacant apostleship, (Acts 1: 23,) was no more than an ordinary minister. If the opinion of several of the ancient fathers, as Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Dorotheus is to be held, then he was one of the seventy disciples, who were, as we have seen, and as Hooker expressly calls them, presbyters.1 Or, if the opinion is to be entertained, which was urged by the venerable Bede, that his conversion is related in the fourth chapter of the book of Acts, then Barnabas was first ordained to the ministry by the presbyters of Antioch, as already noticed. In either case, he could be only a presbyter, or ordinary minister, however extraordinarily endowed. And yet did the apostle associate him with him in the frequent ordination of other presbyters, in the various churches, which they visited together. Indeed, it would seem evident, that, in the performance of this ministerial rite, the apostle acted as an exemplar to the church in all future time, and that, for this end, he submitted, to be himself formally set apart by presbyters, as a presbyter, or minister, (although, already an apostle by the will of Christ,) that, together with Barnabas, he might institute the order of presbyters as the standing min

1) See in Du Pin, Ecc. Hist. vol. i. p. 6.

istry of the church. That this was the case, would appear from the fact, that Paul generally had two or more ministers in company with him, so that they could at any time act as a presbytery.1

But did not, it is asked, the apostles alone, to the exclusion of the elders, ordain the deacons, as recorded in the sixth chapter of Acts? To this we reply, that at this time there had not been any other ministers, or presbyters, set apart, by whom this duty could have been discharged. The apostles then took the first step towards introducing the regular organized form of the government of the church, and the question is, whether in that established form there is any recognition of an order of ordainers in distinction from an order of preachBut, even in thus setting apart the order of deacons, and while thus showing, that in conferring ordination, the people could not, properly, unite, the apostles, nevertheless, acted as presbyters, and not as prelates. For they were all together. They constituted a presbytery. They took common oversight of the church of Jerusalem. And it was as a presbytery they exercised the power of ordination.2

ers.

§ 2. The ordinations conferred by Timothy and Titus were presbyterial, nor is there provision made, in the epistles addressed to them, for any other than presbyterial ordination.

The same conclusion must be drawn, also, from the recorded examples of Timothy and Titus. These individuals were specially deputed by the apostle, to visit the churches, to see that every thing was carried on in an orderly manner, and to ordain presbyters in every city. For this cause,' says Paul to Titus, (1:5,) 'left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (or presbyters) in every city, as I had appointed thee.' So, also, Timothy is enjoined 'to lay hands, suddenly, on no man.' 1 Tim. 5:22.

It is not to be denied, that Timothy and Titus were deputed by the apostle, on an extraordinary embassy, arising out of the condition and circumstances of the infant church. But they performed this mission in that ministerial character which they already possessed. Titus was left in Crete, just as he was, without any additional consecration; and Timothy was

1) See 1 Thess. 1: 1, and 2 Thess. 1: 1; See Pierce's Vind. of Presb. 231. Ord. part ii. p. 79.

2) See Boyse's Anct. Episcop. p. 231.