Whichever of the half-dozen suppositions-assuming a hue, chameleon-like, from the nature of the argument to be refuted -which Episcopalians are compelled to apply to the passage, is adopted, we have seen that they involve them in all the difficulties of an unnatural interpretation, and conduct us, by a more circuitous route, only to the plain and common-sense exposition of the passage, as decisive in favour of Presbyterian ordination.

Having thus shown that there was one Presbyterian ordination, in the case of Timothy, claimed by Episcopalians as a prelate, and this, too, in perhaps the only instance of ordination to the ministry recorded in the New Testament; we now proceed to adduce the case of a church that was not organized on the principles of Episcopalians, with three orders of clergy. We refer to the church at Philippi. "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." (ùv èñioxò, Tots xai diaxóvots.) In regard to this church, we make the following observations: (1.) It was organized by the Apostle Paul himself, in connection with Silas, and was, therefore, on the truly "primitive and apostolic" plan. (Acts xvi.) (2.) It was in the centre of a large territory, the capital of Macedonia, and not likely to be placed in subjection to a diocesan of another region. (3.) It was surrounded by other churches; as we have express mention of the church at Thessalonica and the preaching of the gospel at Berea, (Acts xvii.) (4.) There is mention made of but two orders of men. What the deacons were, we know from the appointment in Acts vi. 1-6. They were designated, not to preach, but to take care of the poor members of the church, and to distribute the alms of the saints. As we have there, in the original appointment of the office, the express and extended mention of its functions, we are to infer that the design was the same at Philippi. If we admit, however, the supposition of the Epis

copalians, that the deacons were preachers, it will not at all affect our argument. The other class, therefore, the "bishops," constitute the preaching order, or the clergy,-those to whom were committed the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and of the discipline of the church. Now, either these bishops were prelates, or they were the pastors, the presbyters of the church. If Episcopalians choose to say that they were prelates, then it follows, (a) that there was a plurality of such prelates in the same diocese, and the same city, and the same church; which is contrary to the fundamental idea of Episcopacy. It follows, also, (b) that there is entirely wanting, in this church, the "second order" of clergy; that an Episcopal church is organized, defective in one of the essential grades, with an appointment of a body of prelates, without presbyters; that is, an order of "superior" men, designated to exercise jurisdiction over "priests" who had no existence. If it be said that the "presbyters," or "second order," might have been there, though Paul did not expressly name them, then we are presented with the remarkable fact, that he specifies the deacons, an inferior order, and expresses to them his Christian salutations; that he salutes and addresses also the saints, and yet entirely disregards those who had the special pastoral charge of the church. Paul thus becomes a model of disrespect and incivility. In the Epistles to Timothy, he gives him directions about every thing else, but no counsel about his brother prelates: in the epistles to the churches, he salutes their prelates and their deacons, but becomes utterly regardless of the "second order of clergy," the immediate pastors of the churches.

But if our Episcopal brethren prefer to say that the "bishops," here, mean, not prelates, but presbyters, we, so far, shall agree with them; and then it follows, (a) That here is an undeniable instance of a church, or rather a group of churches, large enough to satisfy the desire of any diocesan

bishop for extended jurisdiction, organized without any prelate. None is mentioned; and there are but two orders of men to whom the care of the "saints at Philippi" is intrusted. (b) If there was a prelate there, then, we ask, why Paul did not refer to him, with affectionate salutations? Why does he refer to "the second and the third orders of clergy," without the slightest reference to the man who was "superior to them in ministerial rank and power?" Was Paul jealous of the prelate? or have we here another instance of indecorum and incivility? (c) If they had had a prelate, and the see was now vacant, why is there no reference to this fact? why no condolence at their loss? why no prayer that God would send them a man to enter into the vacant diocese? (d) Episcopalians have sometimes felt the pressure of these difficulties to be so great, that they have supposed the prelate to have been absent when this Epistle was addressed to the church at Philippi; and, that this was the reason why he was not remembered in the salutation. Of this solution, we observe only, that, like some other of their arguments, it is mere assumption. And even granting this assumption, it is an inquiry of not very easy solution, why Paul did not make some reference to this fact, and ask their prayers for the absent prelate. One can scarcely help being forcibly reminded, by the ineffectual efforts of Episcopalians to find a prelate at Philippi, of a remarkable transaction mentioned 1 Kings xviii. 27, 28, to which we need only refer our readers. It is scarcely necessary to add, that if a single church is proved to have been organized without the "three orders of clergy," the parity of the ministry is made out by apostolic appointment, and the Episcopal argument is at an end.

We may add, that our view of the organization of the church in Philippi, is confirmed by an examination of the organization of the church in its immediate neighbourhood, in Thessalonica. In the two epistles which Paul directed to

that church, there is not the slightest reference to any prelatical bishop; there is no mention of "three orders of clergy;" there is no hint that the church was organized on that plan. But one order of ministers is mentioned, evidently as entitled to the same respect, and as on an entire equality. They were men, clearly of the same rank, and engaged in discharging the functions of the same office: "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love, for their work's sake." 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. Will our Episcopal friends be kind enough to inform us why there is no mention of the prelate, whether present or absent?

We are here prepared to estimate the force of the undeniable fact that there is no distinction of grade or rank by the names which are given to the ministers of the gospel in the New Testament. It is admitted by Episcopalians themselves that the names bishop, presbyter, etc. in the Bible, do not denote those ranks of church officers to which they are now applied, but are given indiscriminately to all. On this point we have the authority of Dr. Onderdonk. "The name

'bishop,'" says he, "which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to this office in Scripture. That name is given to the middle order, or presbyters; and ALL THAT WE READ IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCERNING 'BISHOPS,' (including, of course, the words 'overseers' and 'oversight,' which have the same derivation,) IS TO BE REGARDED AS PERTAINING TO THIS MIDDLE GRADE." (Tract, p. 12.) "Another irregularity of the same kind occurs in regard to the word 'elder.' It is sometimes used for a minister, or clergyman of any grade, higher, middle, or lower; but it more strictly signifies a presbyter." Tract, p. 14.

In accordance with this fact, which is as remarkable as it is true, we have seen that Peter applies to himself the name of presbyter, and puts himself on a level with other presbyters:

"The presbyters which are among you I exhort, (not, I command, or enjoin, as a prelate would do,) who am also a presbyter." 1 Pet. v. 1. And in the very next verse, he exhorts them (the elders or presbyters) to "feed the flock of God, taking the oversight, (Encoxonõuvres, exercising the office of bishop,) not by constraint," etc.

Now let these conceded facts be borne in mind. The term presbyter is applied to the apostles: "All that we read of in the New Testament concerning 'bishops,' is applied to the middle grade." The apostles address each other, and their brethren, by the same terms-by no words or names that indicate rank, or grade, or authority. We maintain that this fact can be accounted for, only on the supposition that they regarded themselves as ministers, as on a level. If they meant to teach that one class was superior in rank and power to others, we maintain that they would not have used terms always confounding such distinctions, and always proceeding on the supposition that they were on an equality. It will not be pretended that they could not employ terms that would have marked the various grades. For if the term "bishop" can now do it, it could have done it then; if the term presbyter can now be used to denote "the middle grade," it could then have been so used. We maintain, too, that if such had been their intention, they would have thus employed those That the sacred writers were capable of using language definitely, Dr. Onderdonk will not doubt. Why, then, if they were capable, did they choose not to do it? Are Episcopal bishops, now, ever as vague and indefinite in their use of the terms "bishop" and "presbyters," as were the apostles? Why were the latter so undesirous of having "the pre-eminence?" 3 John, 9.

terms.

It is remarkable that the mode of using these terms in the New Testament is precisely in accordance with the usage in Presbyterian and Congregational churches. They speak, just