or did the apostle and presbyters concur in making him a minister? If the former, then presbyters may ordain without the presence of a bishop; if the latter, then bishops have no more right to ordain without presbyters, than presbyters without bishops. In this case the power of ordination is divided equally betwixt them, and the union of both is necessary to confer holy orders.

Supposing this to have been an ordination, what office was it to ? Our high churchmen hold that though a bishop and presbyters are sufficient to ordain presbyter, yet three prelates are necessary to confer the episcopal office; upon their own principles, therefore, Timothy, at most, could only be made a presbyter.

The truth of the matter appears to be this: on one of Paul's visits to Lystra, the presbyters recommended to him Timothy, a lad who had lately joined their society, as a travelling companion. (Acts xvi. 1—3.) At parting, the brethren recommended their young friend to the favour and protection of Heaven, as was common in those days of piety and simplicity, by prayer and imposition of hands: "And when they had fasted and prayed, and layed their hands on them, they sent them away." (Acts xiii. 3.) The apostle assisted at the holy exercise, and Timothy received a blessing to his soul. The gift which Heaven imparted to him at this time could not be the episcopal office, because it is expressly stated to be "the spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind."

If Timothy was made a bishop, it was either of the church universal, or of a particular church. If the former, he was a pope, clothed with supreme and independent power. But each of the other apostles had as much right as Paul to make such an officer: and this supposes that they might have made twelve governors of the universal church, each exercising a jurisdiction independent of the others; which is as absurd as to suppose that twelve kings might reign over this nation at the same time, each exercising the kingly power separately and independently.

But it is generally supposed that Timothy was made bishop of Ephesus. This pretence, however, is completely refuted in the following extract: "It appears that the apostle Paul left in the church of Ephesus, which he had planted, no other successors to himself than presbyter-bishops, or presbyterian ministers, and that he did not devolve his power upon any prelate. Timothy, whom the episcopalians allege to have been the first bishop of Ephesus, was present when this settlement was made; (Acts xx. 4, 5;) and it is surely not to be supposed that, had he been their bishop, the apostle would have devolved the whole episcopal power upon the presbyters before his face. If ever there was a season fitter than another for pointing out the duty of this supposed bishop to his diocese, and his presbyters' duty to him, it was surely when Paul was taking his final leave of them, and discoursing so pathetically concerning the duty of overseers, the coming of ravenous wolves, and the consequent hazard of the flock. In this farewell discourse he tells them, that he had not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God.' But with what truth could this have been said, if obedience to a diocesan bishop had been any part of their duty, either at the time of the apostle's speaking, or at any future period? He foresaw that ravenous wolves would enter in among them, and that even some of themselves should arise speaking perverse things; and if, as the episcopalians allege, diocesan episcopacy was the remedy provided for those evils, is it not strange, passing strange, that the inspired preacher did not foresee that Timothy, who was standing beside him, was destined to fill that important office? or if he did foresee it, that he omitted to recommend him to his future charge, and to give him proper instructions for the discharge of his duty?

But if Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus, what, it may be asked, was his office in that city? For that he resided there for some time, and was by the apostle invested with authority to ordain and rebuke presbyters, are facts about which all parties are agreed;

and which indeed cannot be controverted by any reader of Paul's epistles. To this the presbyterian replies, with confidence, that the power which Timothy exercised in the church of Ephesus was that of an evangelist, and not a fixed prelate. (2 Tim. iv. 5—9.) But, according to Eusebius, the work of an evangelist was, to lay the foundations of the faith in barbarous nations, and to constitute among them pastors; after which he passed on to other countries.' Accordingly we find that Timothy was resident for a time at Philippi and Corinth, (Phil. ii. 19; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10, 11,) as well as at Ephesus; and that he had as much authority over those churches, as over that of which he is said to have been the fixed bishop. 'Now, if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear, for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do. Let no man, therefore, despise him.' This text might lead us to suppose that Timothy was bishop of Corinth as well as of Ephesus; for it is stronger than that upon which his episcopacy of the latter church is chiefly built. The apostle says, 'I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.' (1 Tim. i. 3.) But had Timothy been the fixed bishop of that city, there would surely have been no necessity for beseeching him to abide with his flock. It is to be observed too, that the first epistle to Timothy, which alone was written to him during his residence at Ephesus, was of a date prior to Paul's meeting with the elders of that church at Miletus; for in the epistle he hopes to come to him shortly; whereas he tells the elders at Miletus that they should see his face no more. This being the case, it is evident that Timothy was left by the apostle at Ephesus, only to supply his place during his temporary absence at Macedonia; and that he could not possibly have been constituted fixed bishop of that church, since the episcopal powers were afterwards committed to the presbyters by the Holy Ghost in his presence."* * Buck's Theological Dictionary, Art. Presbyt.

The fictions gathered from the ancients, to prove that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, do not merit a serious confutation. It is said he governed that church thirty years: "A. D. 97, the pagans of Ephesus, we are told, made a great feast, in which they carried in procession the images of their gods, being masked and armed with great clubs. Timothy rushed in among them to prevent this idolatrous superstition, but they killed him with stones and with their clubs."* It is the generally received opinion that the apostle John wrote his Revelation in the year 96; if, therefore, the above story be true, Timothy must have been the angel of the church of Ephesus, to whom the apostle addressed an epistle from Jesus Christ; the one account charges him with apostacy, the other celebrates him as a martyr. The apostle Paul represents Timothy as prudent, steady and uniform; how utterly improbable that such a man should, in old age, lose his religion, and almost immediately after be inspired with fanaticism, and throw away his life by an act of indiscretion!

The case of Timothy has been examined the more closely, because the whole cause of prelatical ordination rests upon it. It may, therefore, be safely affirmed, that neither precept nor example can be produced from the New Testament to support the opinion, that the apostles ordained an order of men superior to presbyters, and vested in them the exclusive privilege of ordaining all church officers.

It is admitted, however, that the scriptures afford proof of the ordination of bishops; but these bishops were not of an order superior to presbyters. To make this subject clear to the comprehension of the illiterate, it is only necessary to explain the terms. The literal import of presbuteros," presbyter," is an elder; in respect of age, an aged person. This term is, in the New Testament, applied to the members of the Jewish Sanhedrim, because they were principally old men. The aged were anciently much venerated for *Calmet, Art. Timothy.

their wisdom and experience, and, therefore, were generally chosen to fill places of honour and trust; hence this term in process of time was applied to magistrates, and then it imported not only the wisdom and gravity of age, but the dignity and power of office. Our translators have very properly rendered this word elder. We call a man who is far advanced in life, an elderly man; and a member of a corporation who has civil jurisdiction, an alderman, or elder-man, which word was used by our Saxon ancestors to denote both an aged person and a magistrate.

The word presbyter, when applied to an officer in the christian church, signifies governor; but, as this officer had no civil jurisdiction, like the Jewish presbyters, it was necessary to explain his duty by some qualifying term; christian presbyters are therefore called episcopous, "overseers, 99 66 inspectors." Hence the apostle Peter (1 Peter v. 1-3) exhorts presbyters, that is, old men, to take the oversight (episcopountes, "to act as bishops") of the flock, and forbids them to act as lords over God's heritage.* It is well known that the Jewish presbyters were lords over God's heritage, and that the appointment of presbyters in the christian church was borrowed from the Jewish

"The word cleros, 'clergy,' properly signifies, a lot. But because the land of Canaan was divided among the Israelites by lot, the word came to signify an heritage. Wherefore, believers being God's pecple, or portion, the different churches or congregations for worship, are called here God's heritages. In process of time the word cleros, 'clergy,' was appropriated to the ministers of the gospel, because, being considered as the successors of the Levitical priests, they were regarded as God's lot or portion. From this prohibition it would seem, that, in the apostles' days, the bishops were beginning to assume that dominion over their flocks, which in after times they carried to the greatest height of tyranny. Or St. Peter, by inspiration, foreseeing what was to happen, condemned in this prohibition the tyranny which in after time the clergy exercised."-MACKNIGHT in loco.

Here we see the impudence of church officers in appropriating to themselves exclusively a term which, in primitive times, was common to all christians. All good men are in the scripture sense of the word, clergymen. They are God's lot, or heritage; or, in a more modern phrase, the people of God.

H