3. The Scriptures also represent presbyters as empowered to ordain, and as actually exercising this power. Of this we can produce at least three instances of the most decisive kind.

The first is recorded in Acts xiii. as follows: "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, aud Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Sanl for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." This is the most ample account of an ordination to be found in Scripture; and it is an account which, were there no other, would be sufficient to decide the present controversy in our favour. Who were the ordainers on this occasion? They were not apostles. Lest this should be supposed, their names are given. They were not bishops, in the modern sense of the word; for there were a number of them ministering together in the same church. They were the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch. With respect to these teachers, no higher character has ever been claimed for them than that of presbyters, labouring in the word and doctrine. And as to the prophets, though the precise nature of their endowments and office be not certainly known; yet there is complete evidence that they did not sustain that particular ecclesiastical rank, with which Episcopalians contend that, in the days of the apostles, the power of ordaining was connected. Still these ministers ordained; and they did this under the immediate direction of the

Holy Ghost, who cannot be supposed to have sanctioned any departure from an essential principle of church government.

To invalidate this reasoning, some Episcopal wri ters have suggested that the ordination here recorded was performed not by the teachers, but by the prophets only. But nothing like this appears in the sacred text. On the contrary, its plain and simple import forbids such a construction. The command to ordain Paul and Barnabas was directed both to the prophets and teachers; and we are told that they proceeded immediately to the performance of the solemn act to which they were called. To suppose, therefore, that the teachers either did not engage in this ordination; or that, if they did participate in the transaction, it was rather as witnesses expressing consent, than as ordainers conveying authority, or ratifying a commission, is a supposition as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is repugnant to the sacred narrative.

Another plea urged against this example is, that it is not to be considered as an ordination at all; that both Paul and Baruabas had been recognised as ministers of the gospel several years before this event; and that it is rather to be regarded as a solemn benediction, previous to their entering on a particular mission among the Gentiles. It is readily granted that Paul and Barnabas had been engaged in preaching the gospel long before this time. But there is no evidence that either of them had ever before been set

apart by human ordainers. It seemed good, therefore, to the Holy Ghost, that before they entered on their grand mission to the Gentiles, they should receive that kind of ordination, which was intended to

be perpetual in the church. No example of such an ordination had yet been given. If the practice were ever to be established, it was necessary that a beginning should be made. And as these missionaries were about to travel among a people, who were not familiar with the rite of ordination by the imposition of hands, so well understood by the Jews, it was judged proper by Infinite Wisdom to set this example for imitatior. in all subsequent periods. And as if to give the strongest practical declaration of ministerial parity, Paul, with all the elevation of his gifts, and all the lustre of his apostolic character, submitted to be set apart, together with his brother Barnabas, agreeably to the regular principles of church order, by the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch.

It may further be observed, that if this be not an ordination, it will be difficult to say what constitutes one. Here were fasting, prayer, the imposition of hands, and every circumstance attending a formal investiture with the ministerial office, as particularly stated as in any instance on record. And accordingly Dr. Hammond, one of the most able and zealous advocates for Episcopacy, does not scruple to pronounce it a regular ordination; though for the sake of maintaining his system, he falls into the absurdity of supposing that Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen, were dioce san bishops; a supposition wholly irreconcilable with the diocesan scheme, since they were all ministering in the church at Antioch. Bishop Taylor, another eminent Episcopal writer, considers this transaction as a regular ordination; for speaking of Paul, he says "He had the special honour to be chosen in ar extraordinary way; yet he had something of the ordinary too; for in an extraordinary manner he was sent

to be ordained in an ordinary ministry. His designa tion was as immediate as that of the eleven apostles, though his ordination was not." This also was the judgment of the learned Dr. Lightfoot. "No better reason," says he, "can be given of this present action, than that the Lord did hereby set down a platform of ordaining ministers to the church of the Gentiles in future times." And, finally, Chrysostom, one of the early fathers, delivers the same opinion. He asserts that "Paul was ordained at Antioch," and quotes this passage in the Acts of the Apostles in support of his assertion.

But, after all, it does not destroy the argument, even if we concede that the case before us was not a regular ordination. It was certainly a solemn separation to the work to which the Holy Ghost had called them. This is the language of the inspired writer, and cannot be controverted. Now it is a principle which pervades the Scriptures, that an inferior is never called formally to pronounce benediction on an official superior. It is evident, therefore, that those who were competent to set apart ecclesiastical officers to a particular ministry, were competent to set them apart to the ministry in general. So far, then, as the office sustained by Paul and Barnabas was ordinary and permanent in its nature, the presbyters in Antioch were their equals. Paul, indeed, considered as endowed with inspiration, and with miraculous powers, was their superior; but as a regular officer of the church of Christ, sent forth on established and ordinary service, he was not their superior; and he embraced frequent opportunities of testifying that this was his own view of the subject.

The next instance of an ordination performed by

presbyters, is that of Timothy, which is spoken of by the apostle Paul, in the following terms. 1 Tim. iv. 14. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." The greater portion of Episcopal writers, and all Presbyterians, agree that the apostle is here speaking of Timothy's ordination; and this ordination is expressly said to have been performed with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery that is, of the eldership, or a council of presbyters.

To this instance of Presbyterian ordination it is objected, by some Episcopal writers, that although a council of presbyters appear, from this passage, to have laid their hands on Timothy upon this occasion, yet the ordination was actually performed by the apostle alone, who elsewhere addresses Timothy in this language" Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." 2 Tim. i. 6. They contend that, as Paul speaks of the ordination as being performed by the putting on of his hands, and with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, we are to infer that the power was conveyed by him only, and that the presbyters only imposed their hands by way of concurrence, and to express their approbation.

If we suppose that the apostle, in both passages, is speaking of the ordination of Timothy, and that he and the presbytery both participated in the transaction, the supposition will be fatal to the Episcopal cause. For let it be remembered, that all Episcopalians, in this controversy, take for granted that Timothy was, at this time, ordained a diocesan bishop. But if this were so, how came presbyters to lay their