of the hands of the Presbytery; Presbytery means Presbyterate and no body of men, and again it means a body of men and no Presbyterate; the body was made up of Apostles, and it was not made up of Apostles, but of Presbyters; the ordination was by the hands of the Presbytery, because perhaps an Apostle or Apostles might have been among them; and again it was not by the hands of the Presbytery, the virtue flowed from Paul, while the Presbytery only gave consent. Truly, Bishop Onderdonk must get out of his own net as he can. No man of his unquestionable capacity, in such a studied and deliberate treatise, would have taken so many inconsistent positions, had he seen any firm and inpregnable ground.

The "BY" and "WITH," two little particles which constitute the final ground for Prelacy to rest on here, are in two separate Epistles, 1 Tim. iv. 14, μeta sniðnows two prior (with the laying on of hands); and 2 Tim. i. 6, "That thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by (da) the putting on of my hands." Chapin puts the two passages together, and makes them read thus: "By the putting on of my hands, with the hands of the Presbytery. Nothing can be plainer than this," he says, "The ordination was by the Apostle, with the concurrence of the Presbytery." On this I remark

(1.) It admits the act to be an ordination, and the body to be composed of simple Presbyters; since they only concur.

(2.) It assumes that the two passages refer to the same act; whereas the gift of God by the putting on of Paul's hands might have been no appointment to office, but gifts of miraculous power; which Paul, again and again, was the instrument of conferring on others by the laying on of his hands.

(3.) Even admitting the two records to refer to the same act; Paul, in the first, deems it a sufficient account to speak of the laying on of the hands of Presbytery. Presbyters, therefore, are all that is needed. But:

(4.) The criticism about meta and dia (uera and dia) is both erroneous and contemptible; too weak a peg to hang a rush upon, and yet here it must bear the mountain weight of Episcopacy, or Episcopacy must tumble to the ground. Dr. J. M. Mason so thoroughly exploded this criticism, that it was forty years ere Episcopacy ventured to revive it again. "Be it so," says Mason, "be it so, that meta and dia are contrasted; the first simply denoting concurrence, and the last the efficient cause. Be it so. I open my New Testament and read that "Many signs and wonders were done by (dia) the Apostles. Proceeding in the narrative, I read that Paul and Barnabas rehearsed all things which God had done (meta) WITH them, i. e., in the case of miracles wrought by Peter and James, Peter and James

were the efficient cause, or the conductors of the Divine power: but in the case of miracles wrought by Barnabas and Paul, they only acted in concurrence; meta and dia being words used in contrast, to show that the first had power and authority to work miracles, the last only power to act in concurrence!"

I do not see but that the Prelatical argument, from the powers exercised, dies, though in the last ditch. It has veered and shifted, and finally betaken itself for shelter in the last resort to simple meta and dia, which turn out to be no shelter at all; but after every evasion and shift, the brethren of the Church ruled, and Presbyters ordained: nor is the receiving of a complaint against an elder, nor the act of ordaining, any mark of Apostleship at all.

XXVI.

DIOCESAN BISHOPS.

Timothy not Diocesan of Ephesus. The Angels of the Churches were no Diocesan Bishops. No change of official designation from Apostle to Bishop.

Ir is contended, that Timothy was Diocesan Bishop, that is, Apostle, of Ephesus. But the New Testament shows that Timothy was notoriously an itinerant, going from field to field, and not a stationary officer of any special district. To this, our Episcopal brethren reply that Timothy was a Missionary Bishop, at least so long as his journeyings continued. A Missionary Bishop! A Missionary Apostle! Does the New Testament recognize such a thing as a stationary Apostle-the Apostle of a single Church or Diocese?

Paul says to Timothy, "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus." The inference is inevitable: he was not by his peculiar office permanently stationed there. Daille has well remarked; "To beseech a man to abide in a place where his charge assigns him to be, and which he cannot forsake without offending God, and neglecting his duty, is, to say the truth, not a very civil entreaty; as it plainly supposes that he has not his duty much at heart."

There is, however, very plain proof from Scripture, that Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus at all. If he ever was so, it must have been when the first Epistle of Paul was written to him for the sole argument that he was so, is built upon the assumption that this Epistle was written to him in capacity of Bishop [Apostle] of Ephesus.

But some time after that Epistle was written, Paul (a little before his being sent prisoner to Rome) returns through Macedonia to Asia, "bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem" (Acts xx.). In the 4th verse, it is specially recorded that Timothy was with him. Coming to Miletus (v. 17), Paul sends to Ephesus for the elders of the Church, and when they are come, he gives them the solemn charge recorded in Acts xx. 18-35. In Timothy's presence, Paul sends for these elders: Paul charges them. He says not a word about Timothy, or any other Diocesan. This is alto

gether unaccountable on the notion that Timothy is their Bishop Apostle]. Why does not Timothy send? Why does not Timothy charge these elders? He is their Apostle! the equal of Paul. Why does not he greet his own Presbyters, from whom he has been so long absent? Why does Paul interfere in his brother Apostle's special Diocese ?

It is so plain that Timothy is not, at this time, their Diocesan Bishop, that even Bishop Önderdonk concedes it; "Ephesus," says he (p. 25), "was without a Bishop when Paul addressed the elders; Timothy not having been placed over that Church, till some time afterwards." But if Timothy was not at this time their Diocesan, he never was. If you turn to 1 Tim. i. 3., you will see that Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, when he himself went into Macedonia; and in chap. iii. 14, we learn that Paul expected to return. "These things I write, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, &c." And chap. iv. 13, "Till I come, give attendance to reading, &c." The evidence is conclusive that the Epistle was written when Paul expected to return to Ephesus. But how was it, when, being at Miletus (Acts xx.), he sends for the Ephesian Elders and gives them their charge? It is his final charge. "And now behold I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more" (Acts xx. 17). "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake that they should see his face no more." And they did see him no more. He went to Jerusalem; was apprehended; sent as a prisoner to Rome, and died a

martyr.

This renders it certain, that his interview with the Ephesian Elders recorded in Acts xx. was after the Epistle to Timothy was written. But it is both proved and conceded, that at the time of that interview with the Ephesian Elders, Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus. The conclusion is inevitable: Timothy never was Bishop of Ephesus: and nothing in the Epistle to Timothy can bear the slightest possible allusion to the work of a Diocesan Bishop. This main prop and pillar of Episcopacy must needs tumble to the ground.

The search after Diocesan Bishops in Apostolic times, now

"Theodoret and Athanasius among the Fathers affirm this early date of the First Epistle to Timothy. Baronius, Ludovic, Capellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius, Lightfoot, Benson, Doddridge, and Michaelis affirm it. Townsend says, "I can ad mit no theoretical argument to overthrow what seems to me the unforced deduction from Scripture, that the Epistle was written after St. Paul went from Ephesus, and left Timothy there when he went into Macedonia."

"Episcopalians have been challenged to produce a single passage from the writings of the Fathers for the first three centuries, in which Timothy or Titus are recognized as Bishops in the prelatical sense; and the challenge remains unanswered to this day." "Chrysostom acknowledges them to be Evangelists." (Puseyite Episcopacy, by J. Brown, D.D.)

comes to a narrow corner of the field. Bishop Onderdonk, the modern Goliath of Episcopacy, first bids us look for veritable Apostles, other than the Twelve, bearing the Apostolic name; Apostle Andronicus, Apostle Junia, Apostle Epaphroditus; we have looked, and find no Apostles there. He next bids us look for Apostles without the name, and independently of any name at all; we have looked, and they are not there. Where now shall we look for men bearing the Apostolic office after the death of the Twelve?

Shall we look for them under the name of Bishops? No: it is conceded that they are not yet to be found under that name. Every Church, in city and in country, has its Bishop, who is everywhere known by that name; but he is admitted to be a simple pastor, and no successor of the Apostles in their peculiar office.

Shall we look for them under the name of Apostles? There is no man, bearing that name, anywhere on the face of the earth. Where then, in the name of wonder, are they? It is passing strange that this office, on which the very existence of the Church depends, should be known by no distinctive name! Why, every poor pastor, every deacon and deaconess, bears a well known official title. Is there none for that first order in the Church? Do they move about, in every province and city, bearing the burden and rule of all the Churches, and while Deacons and Bishops are every day referred to by name, is there no trace extant, upon the whole earth, of any reference to this high order of functionaries?

O certainly, replies Bishop Onderdonk; you will find them under the name of ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES. Hear him (p. 262): "The dignitaries in question were addressed when it was somewhat too late to call them Apostles, and too soon to call them Bishops, particularly as the latter word had a different meaning in the Scriptures already written. Another designation therefore is given them; they are called angels; and the kind of office is left to be inferred from the powers and distinctions given them." "The name Bishop was in transitu from the second order to the first."

This is

To this I reply (1.) That there is no proof that the name Bishop was undergoing a change. The allegation that it was so, is entirely gratuitous and untrue. About A.D. 100 Clemens Romanus uses the word Bishop as it is used in the New Testament; to signify the simple Pastor of a congregation. admitted by Slater (p. 18), who maintains that a different use of the word Bishop was first made by Ignatius in the second century. We do not admit that it was made even then; but the proof is complete, that the name Bishop was not now in a pro