convene in larger or smaller councils or synods, for the purpose of discussing and deciding great questions, and making general and particular arrangements, for the good and effectual governing of the Church.

This Sir, we conceive to be the precise constitution and order of the visible Church of Christ, as settled and practised on by the apostles. Hence saith St. Paul, "God hath set some in the church

-first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps governments, diversities of tongues." Here Sir, are set forth a variety of orders, the three first, forming its whole economy and government, and precisely answering to the familiar statement I have already given; so that in the ministry, considered as such, there is a perfect equality of power and office; and these subordinate officers, ruling elders and deacons, are no more than a spiritual court for the advice and direction of the bishop, or pastor of the congregation.

I rest the question here Sir, not because I have exhausted the arguments it suggests, but because those I have stated are to my mind conclusive.

Doct. Bishop. It is with regret Sir, that I feel constrained, after concurring with the learned

I am

gentleman who has just set down, in the sentiments he expressed on the two preceding questions, to differ with him on the present occasion. sorry to say I cannot conscientiously subscribe to the doctrines which he has just now advanced; not merely because they are opposed to those held by the venerable church to which I have the happiness to belong, but because I am under the full conviction, that they are not supported by scripture or antiquity. It appears to me Sir, (I wish to say it with all deference, and in the fulness of charity and decorum) it appears to me Sir, that the gentleman, however clear upon other subjects, labours under an honest error in this. But I am happy to hear him state the question to be discussed, so fully and fairly. I am pleased to hear him say, that the question is not "whether there be a priesthood; or whether it has been continued by succession ;" but "what is the precise regimen of the Christian priesthood? Are there grades of power in it, or does it consist of one order?" This Sir, is the precise question.

The gentleman seems to be very positive that the apostolic regimen of the Church was a parity in the ministry-He intimates that the Church of

Rome introduced an imparity, and that others have followed her example; but as he does not insist upon this, it will not be necessary at present, to go into an investigatiou of the subject.

*

The Rev. gentleman thinks" there was indisputably an equality as it respects authority among the apostles, and that Timothy was in nothing below the apostle St. Paul"-All this Sir, is readily granted-Nay, it has never been questioned by any man. But that Timothy was not ordained by a bishop, is a point which I shall not so readily grant. The gentleman could not have quoted a text from the Bible, more unfortunate for his cause than the one he has chosen. The case of Timothy, fairly understood, is a palpable fact, proving the imparity of the ministry in the apostolic age. But before we proceed to examine it as such, let us notice the specious argument which the Rev. gentleman has used, to prove that Timothy was a Presbyterian. He was ordained, not by a bishop, says he," but with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Very true, he was. In this case I request my learned friend to remember what he said respecting the "community. of names." I readily grant, that it proves noth

ing for his cause, nor for mine. Episcopalians lay no stress upon the term Bishop, as used in the Scriptures. They freely confess, that Bishops

We say

are there sometimes called Presbyters, and Presbyters Bishops. It is alt ether a mistake, that we contend for Episcopal regimen upon that ground. It is the powers which we find exclusively lodged in the highest order of the ministry, on which all our arguments are founded. that there was in the apostolic age, and has been ever since, a grade in the ministry, superior to two others, possessing the power of ordaining and of governing the Church-that this grade of officers were sometimes called Bishops, at others Presby. ters; and so they may be Sir, in the present day. Every Bishop is necessarily a Presbyter, and performs all the functions of Presbyters; but every Presbyter is not a Bishop.

Let us now apply the argument of the gentle

man.

Bishops were called Presbyters: St. Paul says to Timothy, "neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." What is the inference? Why, that St. Paul, with several other Bishops or Presbyters, had consecrated

с

10.

Timothy to the c fice of Bishop or Presbyter, and. made him an oficer like themselves. Still the gentleman says he was not ordained by a Bishop, but by Presbytery. Here he condemns us, by accusing us of using this mmunity of names, to support our position; an immediately takes the same refuge himself, as the only support of his own cause. The gentleman says, Timothy was not ordained by a Bishop-surely he will not deny but that St. Paul was a Bishop; and this same St. Paul expressly enjoins Timothy, "stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." From which the inference is undeniable, that St. Paul was himself the chief agent; the actual ordainer of Timothy. The Presbytery, whoever they were, whether Bishops in the peculiar sense, or mere Presbyters, only associated with the apostle, as concurring in the work.

But Sir, I have other evidence to offer, that Timothy was a Bishop, in the peculiar sense of the word, and superior to other Presbyters, who were at Ephesus. There certainly were Presbyters at Ephesus, before Timothy was sent there. At least five years before Paul wrote his epistle to Timothy, he sent from Miletus to Ephesus, for the "Elders of the Church." Let this fact be re