adds, generally concerning the whole argument-"I confess that "these two instances, absolutely taken, afford us no convincing 66 arguments in favour of a settled diocesan episcopacy, because "there is nothing which proves they did or were to exercise these "acts of government rather as bishops than as Evangelists."

But it is still urged, that some of the powers represented in Scripture as given to Timothy and Titus clearly indicate a superiority of order. Thus Paul besought the former to abide still at Ephesus, and gave him directions with regard to the selection and ordination of ministers. And he also appointed the latter to ordain elders in every city of Crete, giving him, at the same time, particular instructions as to the manner in which he should exercise his ordaining power, and set in order the things that were wanting. "Here," say the advocates for episcopacy," we "find in fact the pre-eminent powers of diocesan Bishops vested "in these men; and as long as they possessed the powers of "bishops, it is of small moment by what name they were called."

"the fourth chapter of his third book, he speaks as follows: "That “Paul, preaching to the Gentiles, planted the Churches from Jerusalem "to Illyricum, is manifest both by his own words, and the testimony of "Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Also in what provinces Peter preached "to those of the circumcision, and delivered the doctrine of the New "Testament, appears, most evidently, by the Epistle universally ascribed "to him, which he addressed to the Hebrews that were scattered "throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But "how many, and what sincere imitators of the apostles, governed the "churches planted by them, it is not easy to say, except so far as may "be gathered from the words of the apostle himself. Timothy is "reported to have been the first Bishop of the Parish of Ephesus, and Titus of the Churches of Crete," &c. Language of this kind plainly shows that Eusebius had very few and uncertain guides after he left the New Testament. He lived in a day when clerical imparity had made considerable progress; and, of course, tradition would be apt to attach the same ideas to the character of a Bishop in the apostle's days, as actually belonged to it in the fourth century. But still, though the title of Bishop meant one thing in the day's of Timothy, and quite another in the days Eusebius; he and others thought themselves warranted in applying the popular language to those primitive ministers. Let it never be forgotten, however, that Episcopalians with one voice admit that the title of Bishop is applied in Scripture to the Pastors of particular churches.

But on this argument several remarks immediately occur, which entirely destroy its force.

The first is, that even if we allow Timothy and Titus to have held such a superior ecclesiastical rank, as that for which Episcopalians contend, still no certain argument can be drawn from their case in favour of an established arrangement in the church. That they sustained a character in some respects extraordinary, and were called to act on occasions in some respects out of the common course, none will deny. Are we sure that, in these respects, their mission is to be a precedent for us? Because officers of a certain character were sent, on a particular occasion, to organize churches, and to ordain ministers, in Ephesus and Crete, does it follow, upon any principle of legitimate reasoning, that officers of precisely the same character are indispensably necessary in all countries and in all ages to perform a similar service? Because the Apostle Paul in fact partook with other ministers in several ordinations, are we to infer that no ordination was valid, while the apostles lived, unless one of them was present, and participated in the transaction? By no means. We know that the inference would be false. For we read that Timothy and Titus, who were certainly subordinate to Paul, and who received commands and instructions from him as their superior, were sent on an ordaining tour. We read that certain Prophets and Teachers, at Antioch, such as Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen, who were of a different description of ministers from either of the former, still possessed the ordaining power; and that Timothy himself was ordained by the laying on of the hands of Presbyters. In short, they are four classes of of Gospel ministers, ordinary and extraordinary, mentioned in the New Testament, viz. Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, and Teachers, or Presbyters. These different titles, it is granted on all hands, were intended to indicate some diversity of station and employment in the Apostolic age. But however they differed among themselves with respect to their endowments and qualifications, we find that they all possessed alike the power of setting apart others to the work of the ministry, and actually ordained. Nay, an instance precisely in point occurs in the history of the Episcopal Church in the United States. In the consecration of the first bishops for that church, the Archbishop of Canterbury presided. Yet we all know that the presence and

co-operation of the primate were not necessary, either to the validity or regularity of the consecration. Three ordinary bishops would have done just as well. Yet if some zealous hierarchist, a thousand years hence, should insist, that because he was present, the consecration could not have taken place without him; the argument would have just as much force as that which we are now considering. Yielding the whole fact, then, concerning the character of Timothy and Titus, for which our episcopal brethren contend, it does not afford the least help to their cause. It no more proves that precisely such officers are necessary to the performance of every valid ordination, in every subsequent age, than the consecration of the first High Priest, under the Old Testament dispensation, by Moses, rendered it necessary that every succeeding induction of the same officer should be performed by a similar person, and with similar ceremonies; which we know was neither required nor done.*

But, secondly-We utterly deny that Timothy was sent to Ephesus, and Titus to Crete, in any such character as our episcopal brethren claim for them. We have seen that the fact, if admitted, would be useless to their cause. But it is not admitted, and cannot be proved. To say, that the very circumstance of being sent to ordain ministers, and to organize churches, shows that they acted in virtue of a superior episcopal character, every discerning reader will perceive is not proof, but merely taking for granted the whole point in dispute. In truth, the whole argument, drawn from the mission of Timothy and Titus, when carefully analysed, and distinctly stated, amounts to this-" None but diocesan bishops, as 66 a superior order of clergy, have a right to ordain ministers, and 66 organize Churches: but Timothy and Titus, were sent to perform "services of this kind: therefore Timothy and Titus were diocesan "bishops." In this syllogism, the major proposition, viz. that which asserts that none but bishops, as a superior order, can ordain, is taken for granted. But does not every one see that this is precisely

* Perhaps it will be objected that this argument proves too much, and may be made, by pressing it a little further, to support the cause of layordinations. By no means. For though different descriptions of ministers, both ordinary and extraordinary, ordained in the days of the apostles, yet we read of no ordination but what was performed by 'ministers of some kind.

the point to be proved? Until this fundamental proposition, then, be first established, the whole argument is such as all logicians agree in stigmatizing as deceptive and worthless.

Thirdly-We know not that there were any Church officers ordained, either at Ephesus or Crete*, previous to the mission of Timothy and Titus to those Churches. The advocates for Episcopacy, I know, take the liberty of supposing that there were Presbyters already ordained and residing at both those places, before the period in question. And hence they conclude that Presbyters were not considered by the Apostle as lawfully vested with the power of ordaining, " or else," say they, he would not have. "thought it necessary to send superior officers so great a distance, "to perform this work." But this supposition is made wholly without evidence. The probability is, that there were no such Presbyters prior to the arrival of Timothy and Titus: and until the friends of Episcopacy prove that there were, the whole argument on which they build so much, falls to the ground. The Gospel had, indeed, been preached, and great numbers converted, both at Ephesus and Crete, a considerable time before; but we have no evidence that any ecclesiastical organization or appointments had, as yet, taken place,† and if so, then it was surely necessary to send special missionaries, to commence ecclesiastical order, where every thing was in a rude and unorganized state: If there were no Presbyters already ordained and residing in those Churches, it is obvious that sending others to perform what was necessary, does not afford the slightest presumption against the ordaining power of Presbyters.

Archbishop Potter, one of the highest authorities among Episcopalians, concedes that we have no reason to believe there were any ministers ordained at Crete, prior to the mission of Titus to that place, See Discourse of Ch. Gov. p. 91, 92, &c. This simple concession, when traced to its legitimate consequences, amounts, so far as Titus is concerned, to a surrender of the whole argument.

"One qualification for a Bishop was, that he should not be a novice "that is, one newly converted; time being required to prove men "before they could be intrusted with the care of the church: and "therefore the apostles used not to ordain ministers in any place "before the second time of their coming thither." Potter's Disc. of Ch. Gov. p. 91.

But, fourthly-Admitting, for the sake of argument, that there were Presbyters ordained, and residing, both at Ephesus and Crete, previous to the respective missions of Timothy and Titus, still no advantage to the Episcopal cause can be derived from this concession. We learn from the Epistles directed to these Evangelists, that divisions and difficulties existed in both the Churches to which they were sent. Among the Christians at Ephesus there had crept in ravenous wolves, who annoyed and wasted the flock; and also some who had turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding what they said, or whereof they affirmed. And, in the church of Crete, it appears, that there were many unruly and vain talkers, and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision; who gave heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men that turned from the truth. Under these circumstances, the pious and benevolent Paul, who had laboured so much in those churches, would naturally feel himself called upon to do something for their relief. But what was to be done? He was not able, or he did not think proper, to go himself to direct their affairs. He could not send them copies of that sacred charter, with which the churches are now furnished, viz. the New Testament, a considerable portion of which was not then in existence. The ministers residing there were probably themselves involved in the disputes and animosities which prevailed; and, therefore, could not be considered as suitable persons to compose tumults, and to settle differences in which they had taken a part. There was no alternative, but to send special missionaries, immediately empowered by a person of acknowledged authority, to act in the various exigencies which might arise; to curb the unruly; to reclaim the wandering; to repress the ambition of those who wished to become teachers, or to thrust themselves into the ministry, without being duly qualified; to select and ordain others, of more worthy character; and, in general, to set in order the affairs of those churches. Now, as both Timothy and Titus bad been recently with the Apostle, when they set out on their respective missions, it is not to be supposed that the epistles which we find directed to them, were written solely, or even principally, for their instruction. It is probable that they were rather intended as credentials, to be shown to the churches of Ephesus and Crete ; as means of commanding their respect and obedience to these