will be ascribed to him, in not ordaining pastoral elders in that city, or the reviewer has committed an oversight of some magnitude, in "laying out of view" those elders, in his argument upon the case of the seven churches.

We frankly acknowledge that we do not understand what the reviewer means (p. 79) in recognising as a question, respecting the elders at Ephesus, mentioned in Acts xx., "whether they were ruling elders, or presbyters, ordained to preach as well as to rule." They are there called " 99 overseers or bishops; we regard such persons as presbyter-bishops, the second order, and Presbyterians give the name bishop to their only order of clergy proper. If ruling elders are bishops also, then they have two orders of bishops, which destroys parity.

66

Equally above our comprehension is it, that the reviewer, after thus recognising "ruling elders," should say in the next paragraph but one, "There are but two orders of ministers spoken of, or alluded to, in the epistles [to Timothy,] bishops and deacons." Are not ruling elders "spoken of" in those epistles, according to Presbyterian interpretation? If Presbyterian deacons are ministers," are not Presbyterian ruling elders, who rank above them, "ministers" also? Here again we are sadly in the dark. If the reviewer disallows the office of a ruling elder, disallowed also by his opponent, why recognise it in his argument? and why say that the epistles of Ignatius, full as they are of "bishop, presbyters and deacons," seem to [his] eyes to be a plain straight-forward account of the existence of Presbyterianism in his time?" If he allows that office, why intimate that it is not part of the "ministry" of his denomination, while that of a Presbyterian deacon is ?

The reviewer says that if our bishops, claiming to be the successors of the apostles, were to assume the name apostles," Episcopacy would soon be "shorn of its beams." Very likely. They have lost that name since the first century: those of the present day are not responsible for the change: yet it no doubt was wisely made. Let us try the converse of the proposition. Presbyterian ministers of the thorough sort claim likewise to be successors of the apostles; suppose then that they were to assume that name, what would become of the "beams" of Presbyterianism? Again, the reviewer favors the idea that the "angels' were pastors of the churches, presbyters on a parity with each other;" suppose then Presbyterian pastors were to assume the name of "angels," the Angel of the church in Archstreet, the Angel of the church in Pine-street, the Angel of the church in Washington-square, would the "beams" of their churches be less in jeopardy than those of our church would be from the titles, the Apostle of the church in Pennsylvania, the Apostle of the church in Virginia, the Apostle of the church in Tennessee?

The reviewer thinks that as presbyters lay on hands with the bishop when a presbyter is ordained, "it is in fact, a Presbyte

rian ordination." We think otherwise. When Presbyterians ordain, the theory is, so we understand their writers,* that the authority comes from that one of their presbyters who presides on the occasion, the others being present to express the consent of the Church, in other words, as a canonical or church regulation to prevent any one man from performing so important an act by himself alone. This is Presbyterian ordination; the authority flows, not from a presbytery, but from a Presbyterian presbyter. So precisely in the case of our ordinations. The authority flows from the bishop; the presbyters lay on hands to denote the consent of the Church, to show that the bishop acts canonically, and not according to the mere impulse of his individual will. And this is Episcopal ordination, because the act derives its virtue from the bishop. Ordination by one presbyter would be valid among Presbyterians, and the ordination of a priest by the bishop alone would be valid among Episcopalians; but neither would accord with church regulations.

One word more concerning the "burden of proof," as contrasted with the "presumptive argument." The tract claimed no presumption in its favor, in seeking for the scriptural proofs of Episcopacy. We do a presumption founded on common sense, as indicated by common practice. Set aside parity and Episcopacy, and then look at other systems of office, both religious and civil, and you find several grades of officers. In the Patriarchal Church there was the distinction of "high-priest" and "priest." (Heb. v. 10; vi. 20.) In the Jewish Church, (common sense being in this case unquestionably divinely approved,) there were the high-priest, priests, and Levites. Among Pagans and Mahommedans there are various grades in the office deemed sacred. Civil governments have usually governors, a president, princes, a king, an emperor, &c., as the heads of the general, or state, or provincial magistracies. In armies and navies there is always a chief. If the reviewer should claim exceptions,_we reply they are exceptions only, and very few in number. The general rule is with us. That general rule next to universal is, that among officers there is a difference of power, of rights, of rank, of grade, call it what you will. And this general rule gives a presumption that such will also be the case in the Christian Church. We go to Scripture then with the presumptive argument fully against parity. If we should find in Scripture neither imparity nor parity, still common sense decides for the former. If we find the tone of Scripture doubtful on this point, imparity has the advantage, common sense turning the scale. If we find there intimations, less than positive injunctions, in favor of imparity, common sense, besides the respect due to Scripture, decides for our interpretation of them. And if any thing in Scripture is supposed to prove or to justify parity, it must be very explicit to overturn the suggestion of common

* See Form of Government, chap. 14, sect. 12.

sense.

The "presumptive argument," then, is clearly with us,

and the "burden of proof" lies on parity.

We have exceeded the limits to which we intended to confine ourselves—and though there are some other points in the review which we are tempted to notice, we must be content with extracting part of its truly elegant and courteous tribute to the Episcopal Church.

"We remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the Church in England took its firm stand against the Papacy; and that this was its form when Zion rose to light and splendor from the dark night of ages. We remember Cranmer, - Cranmer first, in many respects, among the reformers; that it was by his steady and unerring hand, that, under GoD, the pure Church of the Saviour was conducted through the agitating and distressing times of Henry VIII. We remember that GOD watched over that wonderful man; that he gave this distinguished prelate access to the heart of one of the most capricious, cruel, inexorable, blood-thirsty, and licentious monarchs that has disgraced the world; that GOD, for the sake of Cranmer, and his Church, conducted Henry, as 'by a hook in the nose,' and made him faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, when faithful to none else."

"She [the Episcopal Church] is consolidated; well marshalled; under an efficient system of laws; and pre-eminently fitted for powerful action in the field of Christian warfare. We desire to see her what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient army; with her dense, solid organization, with her unity of movement, with her power of maintaining the position which she takes; and with her eminent ability to advance the cause of sacred learning, and the love of order and of law, attending or leading all other churches in the conquests of redemption in an alienated world. We should even rejoice to see her who was first in the field, at the Reformation in England, first, also, in the field, when the Son of GoD shall come to take to himself his great power," &c.

A truly splendid eulogium on our Church,-and one which does credit to the candor, the benevolence, the superiority to prejudice, of the elevated mind that conceived it, and the honorable frankness which gave it public utterance. With the feelings of such a heart as that of the author of these paragraphs, we have, we can have, no controversy whatever we rather desire to copy them more perfectly ourselves, and be taught more of the grand duty of love by an opponent who so nobly and so delightfully exemplifies it. We would only ask-It Episcopacy is to be found the "first" in the Church, at the second advent of the Son of Man, is it probable that he left no Episcopacy in the Church, when his first advent terminated.

H. U. O.

ON THE QUESTION,- When did Paul place Timothy over the Church at Ephesus?

THE date of this event is of some interest to those who examine the controversy between Episcopacy and parity. It is very far, however, from being essential to the Episcopal cause, as a few remarks will show. Parity alleges, such at least is its usual and most advantageous view of the case,—that Timothy was placed at Ephesus before there were any clergy there, and that his functions were to ordain a supply of them, and settle the new church. To this Episcopacy replies, that, even granting there were no clergy there at the date assumed, it is evident, from the epistles to Timothy, that he individually had supreme power, both in governing and ordain ng, and that there is no evidence that this supreme power of that individual chief officer passed afterward to the body of clergy, or was in any respect modified or restricted; and that besides this want of evidence that parity took the place of this arrangement equivalent to Episcopacy, the second epistle affords positive proof that it did not, since in that epistle, when there certainly were clergy at Ephesus, Timothy is still addressed individually, and as the head of its church. Episcopacy further declares, that it is not to be taken for granted that there were no clergy at Ephesus, at even the earliest date of Timothy's being placed there by St. Paul; and moreover, that the proper date of this event is later, when there were at that place the elders addressed by Paul, (in Acts xx.,) with others to keep up or increase their number. And an irrefutable argument for Episcopacy is drawn from comparing that address to the Ephesian elders, which contains not a hint of their right to ordain and exercise clerical discipline, with the epistles to Timothy individually, as connected with the same church, which recognise those rights as existing in him in all fulness and perfection.

It will thus be seen, that the question concerning the proper date of the placing of Timothy at Ephesus, though not vital in this controversy, is yet one of much interest.

Three dates of this event have been suggested, and, as far as the present writer's information extends, three only. St. Paul writes, "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia," (1 Tim. i. 3;) of course the date to be assigned must be consistent with some journey of that apostle into Macedonia. Of Paul's journeys into that region, after the founding of a church at Ephesus, there were three. The first was after a riot had driven him from that city.* The second was soon after,

*Acts xx. 1. This journey had been intended by Paul, (1 Cor. xvi, 5, 6,) but the riot hastened his departure. ( 114 )

when having been in Greece, he returned to Syria circuitously, through Macedonia, on account of the machinations of the Jews, (Acts xx. 3.) The third was still later, after his first imprisonment in Rome, when he again visited the eastern churches, as will be shown under the proper head of this essay. We shall borrow a portion of the following remarks from Macknight's preface to the First Epistle to Timothy, and from several pieces entitled "Timothy at Ephesus," in the Church Register, for March and April, 1827.

And

1. Presbyterian controvertists generally, as also many other writers of high authority, favor the opinion, that Paul placed Timothy at Ephesus when he fled from that city, and went into Macedonia, after the riot mentioned in Acts xix. 23–41. they allege, in behalf of parity, that there were then no clergy in the Ephesian church, and that Timothy was to ordain a supply of them, in his supposed temporary relation to that church as an evangelist.

As to Timothy's having had supreme power in Ephesus, or any where else, merely as an evangelist, a full refutation of that opinion will be found in the postscript to 66 Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," contained in the Protestant Episcopalian for December, 1830; that essay is now circulating as a tract.

As to there having been no clergy in Ephesus when Paul fled thence, after the "uproar," into Macedonia, it is an assertion infinitely improbable. He had now been there "three years." He had previously made a short stay in that city; after which, Apollos "taught diligently there the things of the LORD," having Aquila and Priscilla to help him, and so advanced the great cause, that some were called "the brethren." (Acts xviii. 19-28.) When Paul reached them again, some who had received only John's baptism, were baptized in the name of JESUS, with a willingness which showed that Christianity had taken root among them, (Acts xix. 1-5.) After three months, Paul "separated the disciples" from the synagogue, (Acts xix. 9:) and when Jewish converts would bear any thing like such a separation, they certainly were past the most difficult part of their noviciate, and some of them either were, or could soon be, prepared for the ministry. Shall we believe, then, that Paul would leave this Christian church, now fully severed from the synagogue, for two years, or nearly three, without providing it ministers, when he knew the dangers to which he was constantly exposed? Shall we believe that, when "the word of God had mightily grown and prevailed" in that city, he would send away Timothy and Erastus, (Acts xix. 22,) without having ordained others, or else doing it without delay? The supposition is not credible. Nor is it countenanced by other parts of the holy record: for that apostle and Barnabas had ordained elders, in other Asiatic cities, in much less than two years, (Acts xiv. 23.) Long before Paul fled from Ephesus, clergymen must have been appointed for that church; if not, he made less provision for the numerous converts in that