2. In Acts xiii. 1-3, it is related that "there were in the church at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers and as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul 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 represented as an instance of Presbyterian ordination; but with how little reason will appear from a few remarks.

That Paul and Barnabas were not on this occasion invested with the Apostolic office may be gathered from this, that it was conferred by immediate delegation from Christ, not by imposition of hands. The twelve were called and ordained by Christ himself; and when a place became vacant in the Apostolic college by the apostacy of Judas, the appointment of Matthias was from the Lord. St. Paul, moreover, had been an Apostle long before, Acts ix.; and that, too, "not of man, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father," Gal. i. 1, 15, 16, 17., where he says, that "immediately” after his conversion he "went to them which were apostles before him;" of course he considered himself as an apostle from the period of Christ's appearance to him. He frequently asserts his apostolical commission to have been from Christ, Rom. i. 5; 1 Cor. i. 17; 1 Tim. i. 1. Barnabas, whatever designation we may choose to give

him, for he is called a "prophet,” Acts xiii. 1; and an "apostle," ch. xiv. 14; was in the ministry previous to this transaction, as is evident from Acts ix. 26, 27.—xi. 21. et seq.; Gal. ii. 1, 9. Paul and Barnabas, then, were invested with the sacred commission both before, and independently of, the ceremony in question; if, therefore, it were a real ordination, we must admit the absurd supposition that St. Paul was twice ordained. Nay, as it is called the being "recommended to the grace of God," ch. xiv. 26, and Paul is shortly afterwards said to be “ commended by the brethren unto the grace of God," ch. xv. 40., we must admit that he was thrice ordained. These reasons sufficiently prove that the ceremony performed was not an ordination in the appropriate sense of investiture to a sacred office.

re

Supposing it however, to have been strictly speaking an ordination, it was to a particular mission of an extraordinary kind, and by the special command of the Holy Ghost, which said, "Separate me Barnabas and Paul for the work whereunto I have called them." It can, therefore, be no precedent for others to ordain, who have not such an extraordinary commission from the Spirit. Besides, if even it were an ordination, where is the evidence that the persons performing it were presbyters? The five persons concerned in the transaction, including Paul and Barnabas, are called "prophets and teachers ;"

titles not descriptive of a particular office, but of a general import, and applied to all orders, to Christ for instance, John iii. 2.; to apostles, Acts xv. 32; 1 Thess. i. 1. compared with ch. ii. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11; and to private Christians, Acts xix. 6; xx. 9. As Paul and Barnabas were apostles, Acts xiv. 14, it should rather seem that the three others, whose names are joined with them, were also of apostolic rank. There is not, however, an atom of proof that they were presbyters. Upon the whole, the imposition of hands in this case appears to have been nothing more than a solemn benediction, or recommendation to the grace of God, as it is called, ch. xiv. 26; but whatever was its purport, it cannot in any point of view afford the least countenance to Presbyterian ordination.

3. Another argument is raised upon St. Paul's exhortation 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," 1 Tim. iv. 14. Whether this relates to an ordination, is involved in some uncertainty. The word "gift," xápioua, can scarcely here mean the ministerial office, as its usual acceptation is a favor, a gift; and as the accompanying expression" that is in thee" cannot be correctly spoken of an office: a man may be put into an office, but it cannot be said to be in him. The term "presbytery" is by some referred to the office, and according to this view

the passage will mean "neglect not the gift of presbytery or priesthood, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands." Again, taking it as denoting a number of presbyters, yet, as this word is sometimes applied to apostles, by "presbytery" may be meant a college of apostles and bishops. To say the least, then, the passage is of doubtful application.

Still the scope of this part of the epistle, and the expressions in the text itself, give probability to its reference to the ordination of Timothy. In the apostolical age the persons proper to be invested with offices in the church were sometimes pointed out by revelation of the Spirit, Acts xiii. 2; xx. 28: and this seems to be intended in the expression, "by prophecy," as compared with ch. i. 18. "Presbytery," also, probably, though not certainly, means an assembly of Christian elders, or presbyters: and the gift is not said to be conferred By, dià, but WITH, mera, the putting on of their hands, evidently pointing them out as concurring, not conferring the gift. The meaning may, therefore, be, Neglect not to exercise the spiritual gifts and graces which were given thee by the imposition of my hands at thy ordination, according to the prophecy delivered concerning thee, as a fit person for the episcopal office, together with the laying on of the hands of the college of presbyters. This is the most natural construction, as agreeing best

with the probable meaning of the terms, and as being the only one which reconciles it with 2 Tim. i. 6, where the Apostle exhorts his beloved son to "stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands.” The gift was conveyed by imposition of the Apostle's hands, and the presbytery, acting in subordination to him, signified their concurrence. This is the real force and import of the passage.

The weakness of the alleged grounds for presbyterian ordination must now be apparent. No instance is to be found in the New Testament of an ordination performed merely by presbyters. Though their duties are pointed out with distinctness and particularity, not a single precept is addressed to them respecting the imposition of hands, nor any text occurs from which their right to grant orders can be inferred. Whatever directions are given on the subject of ordination, are given to persons superior to presbyters. The only remaining opinion, then, that of the Episcopalians, is, as it should seem, sufficiently established by the rejection of all other claims. If neither individual laymen, nor a congregation of believers, nor mere presbyters, have the power to ordain, it follows that this right must belong to the highest of church officers, the episcopal order. Though nothing more is in strictness required, some direct evidence shall now be adduced.

1. Our Saviour took not upon himself the