tended, that, at the time of Timothy's admission to the priesthood, the right of conferring orders belonged to certain colleges of Presbyters, by whom it was regularly exercised: but there are several decisive reasons why this allusion of St. Paul will not bear out the hypothesis in behalf of which this text is adduced.

1. For first of all the learned Calvin affirms, that the word Presbytery does not, in this passage, refer to any college or assembly of Presbyters as conferring the gift on Timothy; but to the gift itself, namely, the function of a Presbyter, which Timothy received. According to that able interpreter the passage should be thus translated: "Neglect not the gift (or honour) which by prophecy, with the laying of hands, was conferred upon thee, of priesthood:" and he alleges that this is the only interpretation compatible with the Apostle's language elsewhere on the same subject'.

2. Again, supposing that, contrary to the opinion of Calvin, the word translated Presbytery, should mean a College of Presbyters; a question immediately arises as to the rank of those Presbyters in the Church: for, as we have already noticed, and as the adversaries of Episcopacy are continually reminding us, the highest officers of the Church are often spoken of under the denomination of Presbyters; oftener, perhaps, than those of lower degrees 2. It would consequently be unwarrantable to conclude, because a company of Apostles, in other words an assembly of the highest Church officers, acting in solemn synod, laid their hands on Timothy; that therefore a company of inferior officers, in other words an assembly of Presbyters, properly so called, might have done the same, and might, unsanctioned by the presence and co-operation of their Diocesan, have conferred the same orders.

3. Further, granting all that the anti-Episcopalian advocate can contend for; granting him that the word translated Presbytery meant a college of Presbyters; and granting that those Presbyters were merely Elders or Pastors of con

1 2 Tim. i. 6.

2 "I betook myself," says St. Ignatius, "to the Apostles, as to the Presbytery of the Church."-Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. Coteler. ed. sect. v. See also the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. ii. cap. 28. and Chrys. in loc.

gregations; what would these concessions amount to? No more than this, that Presbyters, in subordination to an Apostle, possess the power of conferring orders: for to this effect we find St. Paul elsewhere declaring, that he himself was the person by whom Timothy was ordained. "Stir up," says he, "the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." In conformity with this high example, ordination by a Bishop, and his assistant Presbyters, is the very form appointed in the Church of England. I may here remark, that the preposition dia by which St. Paul signifies his own share in Timothy's ordination, denotes the instrumental cause, whereas the concurrent cause only is expressed by perd, which he employs with reference to the laying on of hands by the Presbytery.

Among the examples from Holy Scripture of a church officer fixed by Apostolical appointment in a local Episcopate, none is more important than that of St. James, the brother of our Lord. This Apostle seems to have enjoyed a pre-eminence, and to have exercised an authority in the parent Church at Jerusalem, not otherwise to be accounted for than by admitting, in conformity to the suffrages of all antiquity, that he was constituted Bishop of that city. Proofs are frequent, both in the Book of Acts, and in the Apostolical Epistles, of the peculiar influence possessed by St. James at Jerusalem; as well as of his constant residence in that metropolitan see. Thus the first direction given by St. Peter, when delivered out of prison, was, "Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren 1." Again St. Paul declares to the Galatians, that on his first arrival at Jerusalem, after his conversion, he saw, besides Peter, none other of the Apostles save James the Lord's brother 2." At a later period, when the same Apostle returned to the holy city, he mentions "James, Peter, (Cephas)," and "John," as the acknowledged "pillars of the Church," assigning the priority to James. St. Luke, also, recording the journey in which he accompanied St. Paul to Jerusalem, gives this account :- "The brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto

1 Acts xii. 17.

2 Gal. i. 19.

3 Gal. ii. 9.

James, and all the Elders were present'." On this passage St. Chrysostom observes, that St. James determined nothing by his sole authority as a Bishop with regard to the important question then in debate; but, in conjunction with his assistant Presbyters, took Paul into counsel with him. The learned Father adds, that the Presbyters conducted themselves, on this occasion, with all" due reverence" towards their ecclesiastical superior2.

It is further very remarkable respecting the local Episcopate of St. James, that in the celebrated assembly, entitled the first general council, held by the whole Apostolic college, together with the Elders and Brethren of the Church in Jerusalem, St. James, the resident local Bishop, presided in the conclave. We read that there was much earnest discussion that St. Peter first addressed the assembly: that Paul and Barnabas next expressed their opinion, contending for the exemption of the Gentiles from the Mosaic law and that finally, St. James, as president, summed up the arguments and the evidences advanced on all sides, and delivered his sentiments in authoritative terms as follows:-"My sentence is, that we trouble not them, who from among the Gentiles are turned to God." In this sentence the whole council unanimously concurred and yet it is remarkable that the other members, even those of Apostolic dignity, are passed over in silence; and that when messengers were sent to notify this decree among the Churches, they are reported by St. Paul as having "come from James 1. On this peculiar expression of the Apostle, St. Augustin has observed that the " coming" of the messengers "from James" denoted their being sent by the Church of Jerusalem, over which James presided.

4 "

Another conclusion has been very appositely drawn from Scripture, that because St. James addresses his canonical epistle "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad ":" he must have conceived those Hebrew Christians, who came up annually from various quarters and worshipped at Jerusalem, to be under his peculiar charge as Bishop in the city and neighbourhood to which they annually resorted.

1 Acts xxi. 18.
3 Acts xv. 19.

2 Chrys. Comm. in Act. xxi.
4 Gal. ii. 12.
5 James i. 1.

C

The fact, however, that St. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, must be admitted by every person at all conversant with scriptural or ecclesiastical authorities. It is a fact to which, as Heylyn remarks, "there is almost no ancient writer but bears witness'." Ignatius, a contemporary of St. James, mentions the proto-martyr Stephen as Deacon under the latter Bishop. Hegesippus, the earliest of uninspired ecclesiastical historians; Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius' of Cæsarea, Theophylact, Epiphanius, Ecumenius, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, St. Jerome 10, St. Chrysostom ", St. Augustine 12, (to whom we may subjoin the assembled Fathers, to the number of two hundred and eighty-nine, in the sixth general council (A.D. 680) held at Constantinople;) all unite in affirming James, the brother of our Lord, to have been Bishop of Jerusalem. St. Cyril himself, Bishop of that city (A.D. 351,) speaks of James as the first of his predecessors 13: Epiphanius not only describes him as the earliest of Bishops, but as occupant of " the Lord's own throne by the Lord's own appointment:" and lastly, Eusebius even particularizes the chair or seat (cathedra episcopalis) on which St. James sat as Bishop, to have been carefully preserved as an interesting memorial, and readily shown to all visitors.

Whether the person whom we have now proved to have filled the Episcopal chair in Jerusalem, and who was certainly our Lord's kinsman, was or was not one of the twelve Apostles, is a fact much disputed. But this fact is not essentially connected with our argument. For, in either case, we have a Church officer placed over Presbyters, and fixed in a local Episcopate. If, however, St. James was not one of the twelve Apostles originally chosen by Christ himself, the circumstance would be still more decisively in

1 Peter Heylyn's Reformation Justified, part i. c. 2. p. 199. 2 Ignat. Epist. ad Trall.

3 Heges. in Hieron. vide etiam apud Euseb. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 21. 4 Apud Euseb. lib. ii. cap. 1.

• Comment. in Gal. ii.

8 Comm. in Gal. ii.

10 De Scriptor. eccles.

12 Advers. Cresconium, lib. ii.

Euseb. lib. vii. cap. 14.

7 Advers. Hæres. xxix. n. 3.
9 In Gal. i.

11 Hom. ult. in Joann.

13 Catech. iv. cap. de cibis, & catech. xiv.

1 Epiph. advers. Hæres. 78, n. 7.

our favour. The elevation of a disciple of inferior rank to a station so dignified, that he pronounced sentence as the local, and, therefore, presiding Bishop, in an assembly of Apostles would not only be remarkable, but would show the weight and importance attached to Episcopacy, locally, fixedly, and regularly established.

:

There were two of this name in the number of the "twelve." James, the son of Zebedee, and James, the son of Alpheus. The son of Zebedee was martyred soon after our Lord's ascension1, and could not, therefore, have been the Bishop of Jerusalem. If the son of Alpheus held that office, we must suppose Alpheus to be another name for Cleophas. Cleophas was, we know, the father of that James, who, under the appellation of "the Lord's brother," held the Episcopate of Jerusalem. But, that Cleophas and Alpheus were the same person, there are several good reasons for disputing, drawn both from Scripture and from ancient uninspired writers 2.

Passing over other less important proofs from Scripture in favour of Episcopacy, we shall terminate this part of our discussion, with an argument arising from the book of Revelations ; where we find our blessed Saviour sending messages or epistles by the Apostle John, to the Angels of the Seven Churches of Asia 3. Who these Angels were, is a point for careful consideration. That they were, in our popular sense, Angels, that is heavenly spirits, is too absurd to be maintained. A second supposition might be, which

1 Acts xii. 2. "And he (Herod) killed James the brother of John with the sword."

2 See note (E) at the end of the volume, for Bishop Taylor's enumeration of them. We may add to their testimony the concessions of the more modern authorities, Salmasius and Calvin, held in the greatest reverence by our opponents. Salmasius, speaking of James, says: "Certum est, non fuisse unum ex duodecim." It is certain that James was not one of the twelve, v. Wal. Messalin. p. 20. Calvin's words are "Non ego alium, (alium scilicet, non Apostolum) fuisse ecclesiæ Hierosolymitanæ præfectum et quidam ex discipulorum collegio. Nam Apostolos non oportuit certo loco alligari." I do not deny that some person, and that person not an Apostle, but merely one of the Disciples, presided over the Church at Jerusalem; for no Apostle could be fixed to one definite place.--Vide Præf. ad comm. in Jacobi Epist. 3 Rev. i. 20.