found among missionaries, who preached Christ where he was not before preached. Indeed, both the words are of the same import; as the word missionary, through the French, may be traced to mitto, to send, as the word añоσтоhos, apostle, comes from ɑñoorɛλ2w, to send or send forth. Whatever name the person may go by who is sent to uncultivated fields, and who imitates apostolic example in preaching the Gospel, is properly the apostolic man. But in the sense in which the apostles proper are so denominated, it is nothing less than the height of arrogance for any to claim to be their

successors.

St. Chrysostom says, "The apostles were constituted of God rulers; not each over a separate nation or city, but all were intrusted with the world in common." To have limited themselves to any thing less than the whole world, would have been disobedience to the commission. If, through age or infirmities, any of them were confined to one place, that place might naturally fall under their inspection. And even this, if it did happen, is all that gave rise to the tradition, (for there is no historical evidence that it was so,) that any of them were bishops or pastors of particular Churches. And in some instances, the tradition has originated from the circumstance that the first pastors in such a Church were appointed by such an apostle.

(6.) On the death of an apostle no one was ever substituted in his room. When the original college was extinct, the title became extinct with it. The election of Matthias in the room of Judas, is no exception, as it was previous to their entering on their charge. It was Christ's intention that twelve missionaries of those who had attended his ministry on earth should be employed as ocular witnesses of his resurrection, as appears from the passage already quoted, (Acts i, 22, 23.) But afterward, when James, the brother of John, was put to death, there is no mention made of a successor. Nor does the admission of Paul and Barnabas to the apostleship form any exception from what has been advanced; for they were introduced, not as successors to any one, but were especially called by the Holy Spirit, as apostles, particularly to the Gentiles. And in them also were found suitable qualifications for the apostolate.

Upon the whole, we may safely conclude that the apostles, in their special character as persons who had an immediate call from Christ himself, were eye witnesses of his resurrection, possessed the power of conferring spiritual gifts, were Divinely inspired with the knowledge of all truth, were commissioned to go with plenary powers throughout the world, and who, at their death, had no proper successors, either in name or office. Therefore, neither diocesan bishops, nor any other bishops, nor any class of clergy whatever, constituted an order, or does now constitute an order that can properly be such a one as the apostolate was.

The apostles, however, did exercise a general authoritative superintendency over the universal Church, ordering the conduct of ministers and the affairs of Churches. In the infancy of the Church this was necessary. Being under the immediate guidance of the Holy Ghost, they were to the primitive Church what the New Testament is to us. But it does not follow that they must have successors in the extensive jurisdiction which they undoubtedly

exercised over ministers and Churches. Among others this apostolic authority was exercised over Timothy, Titus, and Epaphroditus, whom high Churchmen call diocesan bishops. The exercise of this power must be ordinary or extraordinary. If it was an extraordinary power, then 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, this was the exercise of an ordinary power; then it must follow, that there is a warrant for the permanent order of ministers in the Church, superior to diocesan bishops, invested with authority over them; thus making four, instead of three orders. Such are the consequences of loosely inferring from assumed scriptural examples the ordinal distinctions of the clergy. In this, as in other matters, the truth lies in a sober mean; equally distant from both these extremes. A general superintendency may be both scripturally and usefully maintained, under suitable restrictions and under the guidance and control of the body of presbyters, upon whom its authority reposes, and to whom its incumbents are accountable as to their creators and peers.

What has been said does not affect the lawfulness, expediency, or Scripture authority of the episcopal model. It only exposes the arrogance of those who pretend to a jus Divinum or Divine right to establish a novel order of ministers, proclaim them the successors of the apostles, and pronounce the sentence of excommunication upon every religious body which refuses to act on an assumption so profanely arrogant. Such are the style and language of the self-constituted, or irregularly constituted high Church clergy, who claim apostolic succession for a class of men, whom, by a strange misnomer, they call bishops, but who preach little, and are confined to the narrow limits of a diocess. Is it at all likely that the dignified prelates of the English and Roman Churches can as reasonably claim the apostolic character, as the laborious, self-denying men who toil and suffer for the benefit of their flocks, without any of these pretensions to an exclusive priesthood?

12. In support of diocesan episcopacy it has been asserted that Timothy and Titus were bishops of Ephesus and Crete, whose business it was to exercise such extraordinary acts of jurisdiction as are now claimed by diocesan bishops.

Timothy and Titus are denominated evangelists, which literally means preachers of the Gospel, or bearers of good news. The writers of the four Gospels are called after this name. Philip, the deacon, is so called. Such was Timothy, and such probably was Titus, though not so named in the New Testament. Such also were Mark and Luke, not merely as writers of their gospels, as this name was given them in modern times; but because they assisted the apostles. Luke was long the companion of St. Paul. Mark is said to have attended Peter. Mr. Wesley, in his preface to the First Epistle of Timothy, says, "While he (Timothy) was yet but a youth, he was taken by St. Paul to assist him in the work of the Gospel, chiefly in watering the Churches which he had planted. He was, therefore, properly (as was Titus) an itinerant evangelist; a kind of secondary apostle, whose office was to regulate all things in the Churches to which he was sent; and to inspect and reform whatsoever was

amiss, either in the bishops, deacons, or people." Dr. George Campbell says, "The work of an evangelist appears to have been to attend the apostles in their journeys for the promulgation of the Gospel; to assist them in the office of preaching; especially in places which the Gospel had not reached before. The evangelists assisted also in settling the Churches; always acting under the direction of the apostles, and bearing messages from them to those congregations which the apostles could not then personally visit, serving to supply their places in reforming abuses, and settling order," (Lectures on Eccl. Hist. p. 78.) Evangelists, according to Eusebius, were persons appointed "to lay the foundations of the faith in barbarous nations, to constitute them pastors, and having committed to them the cultivation of those new plantations, to pass on to other countries and nations." This description of evangelists exactly corresponds to what is said respecting them in the New Testament. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, says, "They were not settled pastors; but itinerant evangelists."

But the great controversy concerning Timothy and Titus, is, whether they were diocesan bishops, the one of Ephesus and proconsular Asia; and the other of Crete. Against the opinion that Timothy and Titus were settled diocesan bishops, according to the views of Romanists and high Churchmen, we furnish the following

reasons:

(1.) Timothy and Titus, as evangelists, were to do the work of evangelists. According to Eusebius, just quoted, this work was utterly inconsistent with the character of a local diocesan bishop.

(2.) They had no authority given them to ordain successors to themselves, in their particular office as evangelists. They ordained elders in every city; but we have no account that they ordained fixed bishops, or persons of the same jurisdiction with diocesan bishops. In this respect, then, these pious evangelists differed from all diocesan bishops, who are fixed to one place, and generally preach very little.

(3.) The appointments for Timothy and Titus, the one at Ephesus, and the other in Crete, were not permanent but temporary.

As for Titus, he was left in Crete to set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city. Having therefore done that work, he had done all that was assigned him in that station. St. Paul sends for him, the next year, to Nicopolis, (Tit. iii, 12) And so, according to Bishop Pearson's Chronology, he was left at Crete only in A. D. 64; and departed thence in A. D. 65. Indeed, Titus appears to have been almost constantly itinerating and organizing Churches. We may trace him in his successive journeys from Syria to Jerusalem; thence to Corinth; from Corinth to Macedonia; back again to Corinth; thence to the island of Crete; afterward to Dalmatia; and, as some suppose, back again to Crete. This is very unlike the Churchman's bishop.

As for Timothy, St. Paul exhorted him to abide at Ephesus when he went into Macedonia. Now, as he writes to the Church of Philippi, in Macedonia, in the year 62, and that he should be shortly with them, (Phil. i, 25, 26, and ii, 24,) so he went thither in 64, and wrote his first epistle to him in 65. Two years after this he sends for Timothy to Rome, (2 Thess. iv, 9, 21) where he continued,

according to the ancient writers, till the death of St. Paul. We find him at one period with Paul, at Philippi and Thessalonica; a little afterward at Athens; then at Thessalonica again. Some years after this we find him successively at Ephesus, Macedonia, and Corinth; then returning to Ephesus; soon after revisiting Corinth and Macedonia; then going to Jerusalem; and last of all travelling to Rome, where the sacred historian leaves him.

(4.) The postscripts to the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle of Titus, in which the former is called bishop of Ephesus and the latter of Crete, are of no authority in deciding this question. These postscripts make no part of the sacred text. They are not found in some of our best and most ancient manuscripts. They are not the same in all copies, and some of them are evidently false. They were introduced later than the end of the fourth century, by careless or ignorant transcribers. They were excluded from the earliest English translations; and for a long time after their introduction they were printed in italics, to show that they were without authority. Indeed almost all recent, sober critics acknowledge that these postscripts are no part of Scripture.

(5.) Committing the charge of ordaining presbyters and deacons to Timothy and Titus, was no evidence that there was no such power in the presbyters or bishops, who. had been ordained in those places before. Indeed it is doubtful whether any were ordained in Crete and Ephesus, before Timothy and Titus were appointed to visit these places. The directions given to both Timothy and Titus show that they relate to the planting of Churches, by supplying them, for the first time, with regular pastors. And this seems to be one part of an evangelist's duty. It is more than probable there were no ministers ordained at Crete before the arrival of Titus there. One qualification for a bishop or minister in charge was, that he should not be a novice, or one newly converted; time being required to prove men before they could be intrusted with the care of the Church; therefore the apostles used not to ordain ministers in any place till their second or subsequent coming. The first mention that we have of the ordination of elders in every city, is in the fourteenth of the Acts; whereas, many thousands were converted to Christianity, in different places, long before. Therefore, although the Gospel had been preached at Ephesus and Crete some time before the deputations of Timothy and Titus to these places; yet we have no proof that any regular ecclesiastical organization had taken place, and they, as special missionaries, were appointed to organize in form the yet unorganized Churches. But admitting there had been numbers ordained in Crete and Ephesus, which is possible, this does not prove that the body of presbyters could not ordain. Indeed, there is no decisive proof that either of these ministers of Christ formally and individually ordained any ministers; for in all or most instances of ordination recorded in the New Testament, a plurality of ordainers were present and officiating. And though we are not informed that any ordainers accompanied Timothy and Titus, we cannot affirm there were none such. Yet the whole force of the high Churchman's argument depends upon the assumption that these two evangelists were singly invested with the whole ordaining and governing power, in the diocesses supposed to be assigned to each.

Ordination to the ministry does not suppose a higher order. Aaron, the first high priest under the former dispensation; and after him Eleazar, his son, were solemnly consecrated by Moses, who was the sole steward and superintendent over the house of God. But all succeeding high priests were consecrated by persons of an 'inferior grade to Moses and the high priest ordained. It seems necessary that the foundation of the Church should be laid by Moses; but the superstructure was committed to meaner hands. The priesthood, once established, was sufficient of itself for filling up vacancies. And it is reasonable that the case in this respect should be similar in the Church of Christ. Whatever then of extraordinary power the evangelists possessed, as those that laid the foundation of Churches, the inference that a higher order of clergy, independently of the other grades, possess solely the right of ordination in the Christian Church, is neither scriptural, reasonable, or salutary.

(6.) If Timothy and Titus were diocesan bishops, then the apostles sustained a higher office. It is evident that the apostolical character was superior to that of the evangelists; and Paul always addresses Timothy and Titus in a style of authority. And these themselves, though subject to the apostles, possessed, in their turn, an episcopal authority over the presbyters of Crete and Ephesus. Thus, again, four orders of clergy are created, according to the sys-. tem of high Churchmen, instead of three. If, to avoid this difficulty, they grant either that the authority of apostles over Timothy and Titus was extraordinary; or that the authority of Timothy and Titus over other ministers was so; they surrender their principal argument for diocesan episcopacy. Indeed the instructions given to Timothy and Titus do not exactly quadrate with any ordinary ministry that ever obtained in the Church. But if we must have corresponding successors to these extraordinary ministers, we should retain their number and their titles. Why have we not still our apostles and evangelists, and prophets, and governments, and helps, and tongues, and interpreters, and miracles, and discerners of spirits, as well as they?

(7.) Timothy and Titus received no ordination to their work. Now, as bishops, in the modern and ecclesiastical sense of the term, receive an especial ordination, by which they are constituted bishops, they differ materially from the character of Timothy and Titus. We learn that Timothy received ordination by the presbytery; but there is no account of his receiving more than one ordination, and that by presbyters associated with St Paul. Whether Titus was ordained at all by the imposition of hands, is nowhere stated. Now, as no person could be a bishop, according to high Episcopalians' views, without an especial ordination for the purpose, the example of Timothy and Titus is quoted without success, to authorize the modern diocesan plan..

(8.) During the three first centuries, neither Timothy nor Titus was called bishop. It is enough to quote, on this point, Dr. Whitby, who was a high Churchman. In his preface to the Epistle to Titus, he says, "The great controversy concerning this, and the Epistles to Timothy, is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops; the one of Ephesus and the proconsular Asia; and the other of Crete. Now, of this matter, I confess I can find nothing