whence they derive the idea that diocesan bishops peculiarly succeed the apostles in their apostolic character, (for this supposition alone is to their purpose,) they refer us to no passages of Scripture asserting or even hinting it; but to some vague suggestions, and allusions of a few of the early Fathers. Now, on such a subject, even if the Fathers were unanimous, we might and ought to hesitate, if nothing like what they intimate were to be found in the word of God. But it ought to be known and remembered, that the Fathers contradict one another, and the same Fathers contradict themselves on this subject. Several of them expressly represent presbyters as the successors of the apostles. Among others, Ignatius, than whom no Father is more highly esteemed, or more frequently quoted as an authority by Episcopalians, generally represents presbyters as standing in the place of the apostles. The following quotations are from his far-famed Epistles. "The presbyters succeed in the place of the bench of the Apostles." "In like manner let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and "the bishop as the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of "God, and college of the apostles." "Be subject to your presbyters "as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope." "Follow the "Presbytery as the apostles," &c.* Other quotations from the Fathers might easily be adduced, equally pointed and decisive against the argument in question; but these are reserved for a subsequent letter.

But still the advocates of diocesan episcopacy ask: "Do not "the Apostles, in many passages of the New Testament, mani"festly assert their superiority over other ministers? Do we not "find them exercising jurisdiction over uninspired pastors; direct"ing them how to behave themselves in the house of God; and, "in short, authoritatively ordering the conduct of ministers, and "the affairs of the Churches? Now, say they, if the Apostles "had any successors in the exercise of this general jurisdiction "over other ministers, these successors can be no other than our "diocesan Bishops, who are constituted governors of the inferior "clergy; which is precisely the point for which we contend." To this reasoning I answer, the Apostles did possess, and did

The testimony of Ignatius will hereafter be noticed. The single object of these quotations is to show that he represents the presbyters as successors of the apostles.

exercise the general power of jurisdiction and superintendency which has been stated. In the infancy of the Church it was necessary that they should do so. Being under the immediate guidance of the Holy Ghost, they were to the primitive Churches. what the New Testament is to us, the only infallible standard. But does it follow that they must have successors in this paramount authority over other ministers, after the sacred canon was completed, and the reason of their extraordinary powers had ceased ? Besides, let us attend to the consequences to which the Episcopal reasoning on this subject will conduct us. The Apostles, it is granted, gave authoritative instruction, or, if you please, exercised jurisdiction over the Churches and ministers which they had constituted. Among others, this apostolic authority was exercised over Timothy, Titus, and Epaphroditus, whom all Episcopalians consider as diocesan Bishops. In fact it would be difficult to select individual ministers over whom apostolic authority and direction were more remarkably exercised than over these. Now, we ask the advocates of episcopacy, Was this authoritative control over these Bishops, the exercise of an ordinary, or of an extraordinary power? If they say, of an extraordinary power, then they give up the argument; for, on the same principles, we may and do contend, that the whole jurisdiction of the Apostles over other ministers of the Gospel, arose from their extraordinary character, and the particular situation of the Church, and expired with them. If, on the other hand, they say, that this was the exercise of an ordinary power, then it must inevitably follow, that there is a divine warrant for a permanent order of ministers, in the Christian Church, superior to bishops, and invested with authority over them; thus making four instead of three orders of clergy. It is not possible to avoid one or the other of these conclusions; and they are equally destructive to the episcopal system.

Accordingly, the whole argument for the superiority of Bishops drawn from their being considered as the proper and exclusive successors of the apostles in their official pre-eminence, has been pronounced invalid, and wholly abandoned by some of the most distinguished writers of the Church of England. In this list are the names of Dr. Barrow, Mr. Dodwell, Bishop Hoadly, and others of equal eminence.

The judgment of the very learned and able Episcopalian, Dr.

Barrow is too decisive to pass unnoticed. The following quotation is from his celebrated treatise on the Pope's supremacy; and although his main object is to refute the Papists; yet it is remarkable that the very same reasoning by which the Popish claim of apostolical succession is set aside, is also fatal to a claim substantially similar, advanced by Protestant high-churchmen. The Doctor speaks thus: "The apostolical office, as such, was personal "and temporary; and therefore, according to its nature and design, "not successive, nor communicable to others, in perpetual de"scendence from them. It was, as such, in all respects extraor"dinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special 66 purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with special "privileges, as was needful for the propagation of Christianity, "and founding of churches. To that office, it was requisite that "the person should have an immediate designation and com"mission from God: that he should be endowed with miraculous "gifts and graces, enabling him both to assure his authority, and "to execute his office: that he should be able, according to his "discretion, to impart spiritual gifts: and that he should govern in 66 an absolute manner, as being guided by infallible assistance, to "which he might appeal, &c.-Now such an office, consisting of "so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the foundation of the Church, and the diffusion "of Christianity, against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages "which it then needs must encounter, was not designed to continue by derivation; for it contained in it divers things, which appa66 rently were not communicated, and which no man without gross "imposture and hypocrisy could challenge to himself." P. 79, &c.

66

IV. A fourth argument urged by the advocates of Episcopacy, is: "That Timothy and Titus were each appointed to the fixed "superintendency of a large diocese, the former over Ephesus, the "latter over Crete; that the duties required of them, and the 66 powers vested in them, were evidently superior to those of ordinary Presbyters: in a word, that they were no other than proper "diocesan Bishops."

This argument is a corner stone of the Episcopal fabric, adduced with much zeal, and relied on with the utmost confidence, by most of the advocates of prelacy.

It is unfortunate, however, that all the premises from which the conclusion is drawn, are assumed, without any satisfactory, or even plausible evidence. How does it appear that Timothy and Titus were Bishops, in the Episcopal sense of the word? They are no where, in Scripture, called by this name. Timothy, on the contrary, is expressly styled an Evangelist. 2 Tim. iv. 5. And it is probable, that Titus, being called to similar duties, bore the same character. Now what is meant by an Evangelist? He was an officer, says Eusebius, appointed “to lay the foundations of the "faith, in barbarous nations, to constitute them pastors, and having "committed to them the cultivating of those new plantations, to 66 pass on to other countries and nations."* No description can apply more perfectly to the work assigned to Timothy and Titus, as every one who looks into the sacred history must instantly perceive. They were not settled pastors, but itinerant missionaries. They sustained no fixed or permanent relation to the Churches of Ephesus or Crete; and amidst their numerous and almost constant travels, were probably as long, and perhaps longer, in other places than in these. As for Titus, Dr. Whitby himself acknowledges, that he was only left at Crete to ordain elders in every city, and " to set in order the things that were wanting; and that, having "done that work, he had done all that was assigned him in that "station; and, therefore, St. Paul sends for him the very next "year to Nicopolis. Titus iii. 12." And with respect to Timothy, the same learned Episcopal writer also confesses, that "there is no "satisfactory evidence of his having resided longer at Ephesus, "than was necessary to execute a special and temporary mission "to the Church in that place." Preface to his Comment. on Titus.

66

Some Episcopalians, of slender information, have triumphed, because in our common Bibles, at the close of the second epistle to Timothy, there is a Postscript, in the following words: The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was

After quoting an authority so often referred to by Episcopalians, and so high in their estimation as that of Eusebius, I will add, that the word Evangelist is still used in the Presbyterian Church, and with the same sense attached to it as in the days of Eusebius. Among us, an ordained minister, who has no pastoral charge, and who itinerates to preach the gospel in regions which are destitute of it, is called an Evangelist.

brought before Nero the second time. And, also, at the close of the epistle to Titus, a similar postscript, importing that Titus was the first bishop of Crete. But it is well known that these postscripts make no part of the sacred text. It is acknowledged, by all learned men, that they were interpolated, by some officious transcribers, more than 400 years after the Christian æra. They are not to be found in any of the oldest and most authentic copies of the original. They are not the same in all the copies in which they are found. They were solemnly excluded from the earliest English translations; and, for a long time after their introduction, they were generally printed in a different type from the inspired text, in order to show that they form no part of the sacred canon. Of course, as all Episcopal writers of respectability acknowledge, they afford no evidence which deserves the least attention in the case before us.

But if there be no evidence that Timothy and Titus were diocesan Bishops, either in the sacred text, or in the spurious interpolations, which, by ignorant persons, have been sometimes mistaken for it; whence, you will ask, has this notion, so confidently maintained by episcopal writers, taken its rise? It seems to have been first suggested by Eusebius, in the fourth century, as a thing which tradition "reported" in his day, but of which he found no certain record;* and after him this tradition has been servilely copied, and assumed as a fact by a succession of writers. Dr. Whitby, notwithstanding all his zeal for episcopacy, speaks on the subject in this manner. "The great controversy concerning "this, and the epistles to Timothy is, whether Timothy and Titus "were indeed inade bishops, the one of Ephesus, and the procon"sular Asia; the other of Crete. Now of this matter I confess I can find nothing in any writer of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they bore that name." And afterwards he

Eusebius, in the first chapter of his History, speaking of the difficulties of his undertaking, and of the small assistance he could gain from any preceding writers, expresses himself thus: "Being the first who have "taken in hand this work, we enter on a solitary and untrodden way, "praying that God may be our guide, and the power of our Lord and "Saviour our help; yet we cannot find even the bare footsteps of any "who have trodden this path before us. We find only a few small and "scattered narratives of which we can avail ourselves, &c." Again, in