Of the reference to the precise meaning of the words by and with, in this case, in order to understand the passage, Dr. Miller speaks very contemptuously. But I know no other way of getting at the meaning, than by weighing well the signification of the words in which it is conveyed. It is to be observed that in the Greek, the word DIA precedes both the words which signify prophecy and hands, and the word META precedes the word which signifies presbytery. What was this difference for, if it was not to express a difference? The word DIA signifies by; the word META signifies with, or together with. There is no other signification given of META, in the folio Lexicon of Scapula, when it is used with the genitive case, as is done in the passage in question.

The plain meaning is therefore, that the gift was communicated by Paul, by phrophecy and by laying on his hands, together with the laying on the hands of the presbytery; and this is the mode in which the ceremony of ordination of presbyters is performed in the church at this day. The office is conferred by the bishop by the laying on of his hands, the presbyters laying on their hands together with his. It is therefore evidently absurd to insist upon this case as decisive of the question, as Dr. Miller has done; especially as the construction he puts upon it, compels him to translate different Greek words DIA and META, by the same English word by; when the use of the two different words in the same sentence, shows that a difference was intended. If Paul had intended no difference, he would have said, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy and the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

The last instance mentioned by Dr. Miller, as a presbyterian ordination of the most decisive kind," is that of PAUL and BARNABas, who, after having been regularly set apart to the work of the ministry themselves, proceeded through the cities of Lystra, Iconium, &c. And when they had ordained them Elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed. Our adversaries (says Dr. Miller) will perhaps say, that PAUL alone performed these ordinations, in his Apostolic or episcopal character; and that BARNABAS only laid on hands to express his approbation of what PAUL did." [Miller's Letters, p. 59.]

Dr. Miller here insinuates that the Episcopalians must admit that Barnabas was nothing more than a presbyter, and therefore

they will perhaps say that Paul alone performed these ordinations; and that Barnabas only laid on his hands to express his approbation, as a presbyter, of what Paul did. Truth will not however, allow them to admit this of Barnabas: they certainly will not call him any thing less than an Apostle, when he is in the Acts called an Apostle, and together with Paul exercised, as fully as he did, the Apostolic office. This cannot be reasonably questioned after reading the history of Barnabas; his constant connexion and fellowship with Paul; his receiving with Paul the right hand of fellowship from the Apostles James, Peter and John in Jerusalem, and the agreement that James, Peter and John should go to the Jews, and Barnabas and Paul to the Gentiles; the extensive travels of Barnabas and Paul through Asia preaching to the Gentiles, related in the 11th to the 15th chapters of the Acts, in the 14th and 15th verses of the 14th chapter of which, we read as follows; "Which when the Apostles BARNABAS and PAUL, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things?" [Acts, xiv, 14, 15.] Here Barnabas is called an Apostle by Luke, the writer of the Acts. Dr. Miller, indeed, makes an attempt to shew that Barnabas was only a messenger and that he is called Apostle in a vague sense. No more need be said of this attempt, desperate it surely may be called, than this, that whatever Paul was Barnabas must have been; the words of scripture are, THE APOSTLES PAUL and BarNABAS. So much for these three cases, represented by Dr. Miller as instances of ordination by presbytsrs "of the most decisive kind."

It is proposed next to show in what manner Dr. Miller has answered some arguments of the Episcopalian writers. It is not my purpose to go through these arguments one by one. That would occupy more space and time than I have to devote just now to this subject. It is only intended to give the reader a specimen of the manner in which Dr. Miller is compelled to proceed in order to sustain the eause he is contending for.

One of the arguments of the Episcopalian writers is, Dr. Miller states, "That the Apostles, while they lived, held a station in the Church superior to all other ministers; that Bishops are the proper successors of the Apostles; and that they hold a corresponding superiority of character and office." Of this he says, "If this argument be examined, it will be found to have no other force than that

which consists in a mere gratuitous assertion of the point to be proved." [Miller's Letters, p. 88.]

"Accordingly (he says) when we ask those who adduce this argument, whence they derive the idea that diocesan Bishops peculiarly succeed the Apostles in their Apostolic character, (for this supposition alone is to their purpose,) they refer us to no passages of Scripture asserting or even hinting it; but to some vague suggestions and allusions of a few of the early fathers." [Miller's Letters, p. 90.]

1. Dr. Miller says, they refer us to no passages of Scripture asserting or even hinting that diocesan Bishops peculiarly succeed the Apostles in their Apostolic character.

How can the scripture assert before-hand that a thing is done? (that they succeed, in the present tense.) What Episcopalians therefore would be simple enough to expect to find a passage in scripture, asserting that the Bishops do succeed the Apostles in their Apostolic office? In the nature of things they can only show that the scriptures ascribe certain powers to the heads of the Churches. We must look to the subsequent records of the Church for knowledge of what followed the time of the Apostles; and in them we find that these powers have been exercised by the Bishops throughout the world ever since-and that there is no departure from this, in any quarter of the world except among the followers of a few who broke off from the Church, and, not having that Episcopal ordination which to this period was universal in the Church, which they had themselves always revered, which had given them all the authority they possessed, made up their mind to do without it, and perpetuate their party by ordaining others, alleging, in justification of themselves for this known and acknowledged departure from the practice of the Church, the necessity of the case.

2. Dr. Miller further says, they refer us to some vague suggestions and allusions of a few of the early Fathers." [Miller's Letters, p. 90.]

As a specimen of what Dr. Miller calls vague suggestions and allusions, let the reader turn to the appendix to these pages, and take a look at the epistles of Ignatius, one of the disciples of John, who was thrown into the amphitheatre at Rome by the order of the emperor Trajan, and devoured by lions, after forty years of service in the Church, because he would not deny the Saviour. Being acquainted personally with some of the Apostles, and the disciple

C

of one of them, he certainly knew the order of the Church. He writes in very intelligible terms and does not make a few vague suggestions and allusions. Nothing can be more clear and distinct than his language. He mentions, in the course of his epistles to the Christians of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia and Smyrna, and to Polycarp, the different orders of ministers in the Church above thirty times; of which twenty-nine passages are contained in the epistles in the appendix, printed in Italic letters.

In every instance the Bishop is mentioned in such terms as show that he was the only one in the Church addressed; and some of the cities in which these Churches were, were very populous, with great numbers of Christians. Thus the Church at Ephesus was very large more than fifty years before this epistle was written.

In twelve of these passages, the Bishop is mentioned alone, viz. in the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th sections of the epistle to the Ephesians; in the 4th of that to the Magnesians; in the 2nd and 7th of that to the Trallians; in the 1st, 3rd, 7th and 8th of that to the Philadelphians; and in the 9th of that to the Smyrneans.

In these passages the Bishop is represented as chief or principal in the Church, over all, without whose consent nothing is to be done; particularly in the first Italic lines in the 2nd and 7th sections of the epistle to the Trallians; in the first Italic lines of the 3rd section, and the last of the 7th section of the epistle to the Philadelphians; and in the Italic lines in the 9th section of the epistle to the Smyrneans. There is, however, very little choice, if we except the 1st and 2nd sections to the Ephesians and the 1st and 3rd to the Philadelphians.

The presbyters are not mentioned at all except in connexion with the Bishop.

They are mentioned together seventeen times in the epistles in the appendix. In eight passages the language shows, in the clearest manner, the inferiority and subordination of the presbyters; viz. in the Italic lines of the 4th section of the epistle to the Ephesians; of the 3rd and 6th to the Magnesians; of the 2nd, 3rd and 12th to the Trallians; of the 4th to the Philadelphians; and of the 8th to the Smyrneaus: and in the other seven instances the Presbyters are invariably mentioned second to the Bishop, and the deacons, when -they are mentioned with the rest, third in order (in every instance except one) which happens seven times in the epistles in the appendix. [See the appendix for these statements.]

Language cannot easily be devised to express more strongly than these passages in Italics, that the Bishop is chief in the Church, the source of all authority, without whose consent nothing is to be done; that the presbyters are subordinate to him, derive their authority from him, are bound to reverence him and under a special obligation, more than others, to refresh him or support him; that the deacons are third in office, and are ministers of the word of God, ambassadors of God, &c. [Appendix, see epistle to the Magnesians, section 6; Trallians, sect. 2; Philadelphians, sect. 4, 10, 11; and to the Smyrneans sect. 12.] and lastly THAT WITHOUT THESE THREE ORDERS THERE IS NO CHURCH. (Appendix, epistle to the Trallians, sect, 3.)

Dr. Miller goes on to observe, after speaking of the vague suggestions and allusions of a few early Fathers, "Several of them expressly represent Presbyters as the successors of the Apostles. Among others, Ignatius, than whom no Father is more highly esteemed, or more frequently quoted as an authority by Episcopalians, generally represents Presbyters as standing in the place of the Apostles." (Miller's Letters, p. 90.) The reader may easily determine how far this assertion is correct by turning to the passages in Italic letters in the appendix to these pages.

Dr. Miller goes on to support this assertion respecting Ignatius's sentiments, by some quotations from his epistles. He says, "The following quotations are from his far-famed Epistles. "The Pres, byters succeed in the place of the bench of the Apostles."

These words are taken from the 6th section of the epistle to the Magnesians, and are detached from their connexion with what precedes and follows them. Take the whole together and the meaning is precisely the reverse of that which Dr. Miller represents it to be. The whole passage runs thus, the words in Italics and inclosed in a parenthesis, being those only which Dr. Miller quotes; "Forasmuch therefore as I have in the persons before mentioned, seen all of you in faith and charity; I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord: YOUR BISHOP PRESIDING IN THE PLACE OF Gop, (your Presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles;) AND YOUR DEACONS MOST DEAR TO ME, BEING ENTRUSTED WITH THE MINISTRY OF JESUS CHRIST; who was with the Father before all ages, and appeared in the end to us." [Sce the appendix, epistle to the Magnesians, 6th section.]

Dr. Miller's next quotation is in the following words: "In like