that that power was supreme, absolute, or final; such power was given by Christ to the Apostles only"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.” 1. Now the proper question as tending to throw light on the nature of their office, and the extent of their commission, is, did the Elders exercise a supreme rule over any portion of the church at large, and over other ministers? Were they a court of final appeal—“ Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained"—i. e. the power of excommunication? Could they "receive an accusation (as Timothy was empowered to do by his commission) against an Elder"? Was it their duty to inspect the conduct of Elders and assign a double honor to those who ruled well'? This would be a clear absurdity, making every Elder an official superior to every other Elder! Was it their prerogative to "see that the Deacons used their office well" as it was Timothy's? Obviously, this supreme government of the ministers and churches, did not belong to them. There is not a shadow of evidence, or the fragment of a fact, on which to erect an argument in favor of such a claim for Elders. The line of demarcation between Timothy, Titus, and all the Apostles, in this particular, and the Elders, is as broad as it possibly can be. He that runneth may read. 2. The second important question at issue is, was their commission like the Apostles, self-perpetuating? Was the order self-existent? In other words, had they the right to ordain ministers!

In the first place, we no where, in any description of their office, read that they had such a right. In all the charges delivered, either directly to them or through others, such as Timothy (1st iii. and iv.) or Titus, (i. 6-9,) not a word of direction or caution is given as to exercising the function of ordaining ministers. Timothy is warned to "lay hands suddenly on no man." Titus is reminded that he was left in Crete to "ordain Elders in every city." But not so the Elders. They are to be ordained; not to ordain. So far, then, as their office is developed in scripture, the presumption is strong that they did not possess this power. At all events there is

the total absence of all proof express or implied, direct or indirect, in the description of their office, and the exhortations delivered to them that they were vested with the ordaining power.

Let us now inquire what may be inferred, in this question, from the accounts we have in scripture of the actual exercise of their office. Did Elders ever ordain? It is said "the ordination of Timothy is attributed to the whole body of Presbyters or Elders, who united in his ordination." Whatever opinions may be entertained on this subject, it certainly is not the fact that Timothy's ordination "is attributed" to the Elders. In one place (11. Tim. i. 6,) it is expressly ascribed to St. Paul," by the laying on of his hands ;" and in the other, it is as clearly imputed to prophecy-"by prophecy"-let this be explained or understood as it may. Many eminent commentators suppose it to refer to Paul himself who when he ordained Timothy was enabled to prophecy concerning him. A spirit of prophecy may have directed Paul in the selection of Timothy for the Apostolic office.* Now if this were so, it is strictly correct to say he was ordained by prophecy, i. e. by the inspired and prophetic Paul. However, we are not required by our general argument on the text to explain this phrase. But we may remark, by the way, that the view which we have taken of it, is agreeable to a sound rule of interpretation, i. e. when there are two passages of scripture on the same subject, one doubtful and the other obvious and certain, we are so to explain the former that it shall agree with the latter. All that is said of the presbytery, on this occasion, is, that they united not as the efficient cause of the ordination, but as agreeing or consenting thereto. By prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the Presbytery." How then can it be truly affirmed that the act is attributed to the Elders? On the mind of the candid reader this point need not be urged. If indeed the text had read, as it is sometimes erroneously quoted, "By prophecy and the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,"

*I. Tim. i. 18, "This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare.”

then truly there would have been room for argument; and it would have been difficult indeed to reconcile this with the positive declaration, that Timothy was ordained by Paul. But no such difficulty exists, for no such text is found in scripture. And will the reader (who may not be familiar with this subject) believe it, when we say, that, by the advocates for presbyterian ordination, this is regarded as the strong case-the sufficient warrant from the word of God, for Elders to ordain? One other case is alledged of Presbyterian ordination, (Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3,) upon which it would be a misspending of time, and a trifling with the reason of men, to dwell. For the parties concerned in the transaction are named, "Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manæn, and Saul." Were any of these Elders? This point has never been, and never can be determined. And until it is—until we are assured beyond a doubt that they were Elders, what has the case to do with Presbyterian ordination? Plainly nothing. It might be adduced with equal propriety, that is with no propriety at all, in support of any other kind of ordination. The transaction, however, it is certain was not an ordination of any kind.*

Did Elders ever ordain? There is no evidence in scripture, either express or implied, that they did. But had they not a right to ordain? This question has been answered. We read nothing of such right; no allusion to it, not even the remotest hint, in all that is said of them by St. Paul in his epistles to Timothy, or Titus, or by St. Peter in his epistle. The assertion is sometimes broadly made, "all ministers of the gospel bear the Apostolic commission!" Did the Deacons bear it when they were set apart as assistants of the Apostles? Did the Elders to whom Timothy gave "double honor" and ruled, and tried, (when accused) and ordained, bear it? Did the Elders whom Titus "ordained in every city of Crete," and whose conduct he was commanded to inspect, bear it? Did the Elders whom Paul and Barnabas ordained in every church in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch,† bear it? If they bore it, what right had Timothy, or Titus, or

* See the controversy between Bishop H. U. Onderdonk and Dr. Barnes.

+ See Acts, XIV. 21-23.

Paul himself thus to govern and judicially inspect and discipline his equals under Christ their one master? Could Paul have exercised, or have invested Timothy with such a power over James, or Peter, or John, or any Apostle? Surely not. The Elders then, were not equal to Apostles; and therefore, did not bear this commission.

And here is concluded our remarks on the office of Elder or Presbyter in the Apostolic church. If they have been brief, this only shows how easily the subject is disposed of by the broad and clear light of Holy scripture.

THE DIRECT ARGUMENT FOR EPISCOPACY.

SECTION SIXTH.

What may be called the data of the question of Episcopacy having been discussed in the foregoing remarks, we are now prepared to enter into a direct examination of the question itself. Little remains for us to do but to bring together the materials, (abundant and scriptural,) and show the force of the arguments which the facts of the case furnish to every candid and inquiring mind.

First, in regard to the word Episcopacy. It is derived, as all know, from the Greek Episcopos, an overseer or superintendent. In the present instance the rule applies —usus norma loquendi-and no argument can be raised on the mere word, either for or against Episcopacy. The word Bishop signifies, merely, as we have said, an overseer, and in this natural sense is it used in scripture; not to denote the grade in the ministerial office, but as applicable to all or any grade. Deacons, Elders, and Apostles, were overseers each in his own sphere. And it is even true that the word in the New Testament is generally applied to Elders. It is mere peurility to dwell on these terms, as though they were essential ele

E

ments in the question about the grades of the ministerial office. It is granted, nay it is urged upon the recollection of our opponents, that the grade of ministry which we now designate by the term Bishop, is known in the New Testament by the term Apostle; and the grade which we call Presbyter or Elder, is often styled in the New Testament Bishop. We would wish to be distinctly understood, then, in the scriptural argument, to adopt this transposition of the terms. If the cause for this be asked, we can only reply, custom is the law of language." The name Apostle, from the peculiar reverence attached to it, (the first Apostles being inspired,) seems to have been dropt,* at an early period, and the term Bishop taken in its place; while the term Presbyter was alone retained by the second order of ministers.

66

I. The argument for Episcopacy, by which we mean the three-fold ministry, 1. Bishops, (successors to Apostles), 2. Presbyters or Elders, and 3. Deacons, is as follows-resting, of course, upon the premises already established from the scriptures:

a.) The Apostolic ministry had its origin in Christ personally. Their institution and commission, as we have proved, were direct from him, and were designed to continue "always, even unto the end of the world." But, inasmuch as the Divine Founder of that ministry withdrew his visible presence from the church on earth, that ministry, if it continue always, as it was designed to do, must perpetuate themselves.

b.) The Elders had their origin from the Apostles. "They ordained them Elders in every church." So now must the successors of the Apostles or Chief Pastors ordain Elders; but Elders cannot ordain other Elders. The act is utterly without warrant of scripture, and contrary to the law of Christ.

The

c.) The same is true in respect to Deacons. three orders, then, distinct in their origins and commissions, can never be merged into one another.

II. Again the argument for Episcopacy stands thus: a.) It has been proved that the Apostles possessed the right to ordain and send others in the ministry: 1. from * See page 41, note.