shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."*

Authority to rule in the church is likewise, in the first epistle to Timothy, expressly ascribed to elders or presbyters. "Let the elders" or presbyters "that rule well be counted worthy of double hor our."t

Presbyters possess the power of ordination. From this power they are expressly excluded by Episcopalians, So strenuous indeed are the advocates for prelacy upon this point, that they utterly deny and discard the validity of Presbyterian ordination. They earnestly contend that this is one of the prerogatives of the bishop.

stowed upon them by Divine authority, must have bocome universally established with the office, through all the extensive countries, into which christianity had been introduced. This appellation for the superior order of the ministry must have been a matter of universal popular usage. It was not, therefore, in the power of the bishop to change his title as he did his robe. A change of titles must have been concerted by all bishops in all countries in the christian world. And this would have been but a small part of the task. All christian people must have been induced to lay aside a usage, which they derived from the Apostles. The pious and modest disciple, who had been taught from his infancy to approach the loved and respected superior of the ministry, and salute him with the ven

But our proposition may be proved to the exclu sion of any reasonable doubt. Omitting other instances which have been thought to establish the point conclusively, we shall, at this time, place our reliance upon one only, which we deem sufficient. St. Paul, in his first epistle, expressly charges 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.”* Timothy was a

minister; he must not neglect his office; and that office was given him not merely by prophecy, but with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

If this gift had been conferred by the imposition of the Apostle's hands, it might have been contended that it meant the gift of the HOLY GHOST. For,

* 1 Tim. iv. 14.

erable title of Apostle, must have been persuaded to offer him a kind of insult, by addressing him with the degrading name of bishop. This change of titles, contray to usage so universal and so popular, could not, with the least appearance of probability, have been ef fected in a number of centuries. Yet the advocates

of prelacy would fain persuade us, not merely that the superior order universally prevailed, but were universally and invariably called bishops in the second century.

On the other hand, if one of the presbyters or bishops, in the churches respectively, gradually acquired an ascendancy, a corresponding change in the appli cation of the titles would succeed as a matter of course.

the power to confer this gift was one of the prerogatives of the Apostles." * But no such thing can be pretended in this case, because presbyters had no such power. It can be referred to nothing but Timothy's ordination to the ministry. The fact, therefore, is expressly asserted, that Timothy was ordained by the presbytery.

Nor can it be pretended, with any appearance of reason, that the presbytery was any other than a number or council of presbyters or elders. The original term does not frequently occur in scripture but it appears to be uniformly used for a council or order of men, who were denominated elders or presbyters. There can be no question, in particular, that this is the sense, in which it was used by the Apostle. In his defence to the people at Jerusalem,

Vide Sermon 3, Prelim. 3.

A change of names naturally follows the change of things. As it came by degrees to be observed, that there was a difference between one of the ministers and the rest, a division and appropriation of the titles would come into use for the sake of marking the distinction. This would be unavoidable in the common intercourse of life, because men could not otherwise readily understand each other. Either the distinction between the officers must, therefore, have been abolished, or this usage in the application of the titles must have prevailed. The acknowledged change, in the application of the title of bishop sometime after the Apostles' days, is, therefore, an equal proof corresponding change in the office.

he observes to them, "I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prison both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished." In this passage, the original term, translated "the estate of the elders," is the same that he employs in his account of Timothy's ordination. And no man can pretend that the Apostle meant, in this place, any other than the council or order of elders among the Jews, from whom he received his commission and official letters to persecute the Christians. When, therefore, he applies the same term to the christian ministry convened for the ordination of Timothy,

†Acts xxii. 4, 5.

At the same time, it was a matter of policy in those who were acquiring an ascendancy, to content themselves with the customary appellation, and affect no distinction of title. It is an acknowledged maxim, that men are governed more by names than things. The plain title of bishop, which was before given to all pastors, and to which the people had been long accustomed, would be the very title which they would still wish to employ. For, whilst they were modestly contented with the old name, the gradual increase of their powers, as circumstances and opportunity would permit, would excite no alarm. This slow ascendancy› whilst it was concealed by the common name, would pass almost unnoticed, till each successive step became firmly established by familiar usage. And when an

there can be no question, that he means a council or number of christian elders or presbyters. It would be no less absurd to assert, that the presbytery was superior to a council of presbyters, than to say, that a presbyter is superior to a presbyter.

St. Chrysostom, who lived near the close of the fourth century, in order, if possible, to reconcile this decisive fact to his darling system of prelacy, which had then become prevalent, was pleased indeed to assert, that this presbytery was a bench of bishops. For this opinion he was pleased to assign this reason, so satisfactory in the view of Episcopalians; "For presbyters did not ordain Timothy a bishop." In this reason, however, the good Saint,* without the least shadow of proof that can be discovered, takes it for granted, that Timothy was a bishop similar to those of the fourth century, and that the Canonical usage of his own time must have been observed in his ordination. But how does it appear, because, by the canons of the fourth century, none but bishops could ordain a bishop, that

*As he has been canonized in the Romish Callendar.

individual has once acquired an almost insensible dis tinction, power has a natural tendency to accumulate in the same hand. Its increase indeed can scarcely be prevented, if no particular alarm be excited, and the process be facilitated by well adapted pleas of expedi ency, or necessity, and other plausible pretences. There is therefore, nothing strange or unaccountable in the superiority, which the bishops had attained by the fourth century.