hands of an individual? And how could the imposition of Paul's hands bestow the ministerial gift, while others, possessing the same authority, did, by the very same act, at the very same time, merely declare their assent?

If the former, i. e. if those who concurred with Paul in the imposition of hands were simple Presbyters, then,

4. What ordination did Timothy receive? Was he ordained a Presbyter or a Prelate? If the former, his Episcopal character, in so far as it depends upon his ordination, is swept away; and we have not a single instance of the consecration of a prelate in all the New Testament. If the latter, then,

5. How came simple Presbyters to impose hands upon the head of a Bishop at his consecration ? Or supposing these Presbyters to have been Prelates, where was Timothy's commission? By the terms of the argument, he was ordained by Paul alone; but according to the Episcopal order, which we are assured is the apostolical order, two or three bishops are necessary to ordain a bishop.*

* Επίσκοπος υπο επισκοπων χειροτονείσθω ΔΥΟ η ΤΡΙΩΝ. Can. Apos. I. Apud PP. App. Tom. I. p. 442. Ed. Clerici. On this canon, Bishop Beveridge thus comments. "This right, therefore, used by the apostles themselves, and prescribed, by apostolical men, our church," meaning the church of England, “most religiously observes; and, as far as possible, it ought, beyond all doubt, to be observed every where. But when necessity, that most unrelenting mistress, shall require it, the rigour of the canon may be so far relaxed, as that a bishop may be ordained by two." Ibid p. 457.

And so poor Timothy was not ordained a bishop at all. If, in order to give him his mitre, we make the Presbytery to consist of Apostles, or men of apostolic rank, we not only prostrate the Layman's famous criticism about dia and meta, but are left without the vestige of an ordination by a prelate alone, in so far as that point is to be made out by the ordination of Timothy.* There remains nothing but an example of ordination by a Presbytery, which is all that the Presbyterians desire.

We cannot dismiss this point without remarking how our prelatical friends shift their ground.

Two things are to be proved: that Timothy was a Bishop; and, that a Bishop alone ordains. For the first, according to our Episcopal brethren, the Presbytery, who joined with Paul in laying hands on Timothy, were bona fide prelates, who, jointly with the apostle, imparted the Episcopal dignity; and so Timothy is a bishop without any more ado. But for the second, the Presbytery were not prelates; or if they were, they did not ordain jointly with the apostle; they merely expressed their approbation.

The legs of the lame are not equal." If we adopt the first, we lose the proof of ordination by a Bishop alone. If the second, we lose the ordination of bishop Timothy. The latter makes dia

* Ordination performed by Titus shall hereafter be considered. Vol. III. 22

"

show clearly, that the authoritative power was vested in Paul," and meta, that "the act on the part of the Presbytery, was an act of mere concurrence." The former shows, with equal clearness, that the authoritative power was not vested in Paul alone; that the act on the part of the Presbytery, was not an act of mere concurrence; and that there is nothing in dia and meta to establish the contrary. When a circle and a square coincide, then shall these two arguments for prelacy be consistent with each other.

So much for Timothy's ordination. Now for that of Titus. Him, too, the Layman has ordained Episcopally.

"To Titus the apostle says, For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee. Here let it be observed, in passing along, that Titus is spoken of as having been ordained by the apostle: As I had appointed thee. Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case. Paul appointed Titus to his office. And this is a conclusive circumstance for believing that the case was the same in relation to Timothy, as it is not reasonable to suppose that they were commissioned in different ways.' 99*

We agree that the office of Timothy and Titus was the same, and that they were commissioned in the same manner. But the Layman has overshot his mark. For, as we have already stated, the advocates for the divine right of Episcopacy maintain that the ordination of a bishop by two or

* LAYMAN, No. V. Collec. p. 56.

three others, is an apostolical institution: and that even in cases of the hardest necessity, two bishops are essential to the ordination of a third. One of two consequences is inevitable; either that Paul exercised, on this occasion, his extraordinary power, and so has set no precedent; or, if he set a precedent for ordination by a single prelate, Titus was no more than a presbyter, and could not by himself, ordain other presbyters. All this rests upon the assumption that the expression, as I had appointed thee, refers to the ordination of Titus. Another blunder. There is not a syllable about his ordination in the text. It pre-supposes his authority, and relates solely to the directions which the apostle had given him for the application of it. The word rendered, "appointed," frequently occurs in the New Testament, but always, with the construction before us, in the sense of prescribing, enjoining, commanding: and never in the sense of setting apart to an office-Thus,

He COMMANDED (diɛtažaτo) a centurion to keep Paul. Acts xxiv. 23. Surely Felix did not then give the centurion his military commission.

As God hath distributed to every man; as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk and so ORDAIN I, (diaτaooouai) direct, enjoin I, in all churches. 1 Cor. vii. 17.

In the very same manner does Paul speak to Titus.

As I had APPOINTED (dietažaμnv) instructed, enjoined, thee.

The word which expresses investiture with office is quite different, as this very verse shows; and the author of Miscellanies* had remarked: but this circumstance, Dr. Hobart, though not sparing of his notes, passes over in profound silence.

We come, at length, to the decisive argument for diocesan Episcopacy-the powers exercised by Timothy and Titus. This is to silence the last battery of the Presbyterians, and reduce them to the humiliating necessity of surrendering at discretion! Really one would imagine, that the powers of Timothy and Titus are a new discovery: and that the epistles written to them by Paul, had been in the custody of the prelates alone as containing the precious charter of their rights. But the world may believe us, upon our word of verity, that we have actually read those epistles long ago; and that the demonstration, said to be therein contained, of the apostolical institution of the "sacred regiment of Bishops," has been questioned, yea and, in our judgment, confuted some handful of years before our grandfathers were born. However, Ecce iterum Crispinus! Here it is again. We shall give unto thee, reader, as Cyprian and the Layman have given it unto us. But we entreat thy patience to some preliminary matter. We think that when the Episcopal writers ap

* CLEMENS, No. 1. Collec. p.