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.

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

a

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 taikers, and deceivers, especially they of the cir. cumcission ; 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 differen. ces 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 dily 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 had 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 Grete; as means of commanding their respect and obedience to these missionaries; and, after answering this occasional purpose, to be placed on record in the sacred Canon, to serve as a guide to the Church in every age. Considering the subject in this light, the mere fact of these Missionaries being sent to Ephe. sus and Crete does not afford even the shadow of ground for ascribing to them the high Episcopal powers, of which so much is said. No reason that deserves to be called even plausible can be

urged, for supposing they had any higher character than that of Presbyters.

A fifth remark, which invalidates the argument under consideration is this. We know not that ei. ther Timothy or Titus, alone, ordained a single

Presbyter, at Ephesus or Crete. The Epistles giying directions with respect to those Churches are, indeed, addressed to the individual Ministers whose names they bear. But this might have been done merely because they were the most conspicuous and able of the Ministers called to act in those departments of the Church. It is evident that some parts of these Epistles were intended to guide the Churches, as well as the Ministers to whom they were sent. Besides, in all the particular instances of ordination which are recorded in the New Testament, we find a plurality of ordainers present and officiating. And though we are not formally told, that any other ordainers accompanied Timothy and Titus, in visiting the Churches to which they were respectively sent; we cannot undertake to affirm that there were none such. Yet the whole force of the Episcopal argument depends upon taking for granted that each of those Missionaries was alone vested with the whole ordaining and governing power, in the diocese supposed to be assigned him.

In the sixth place-With respect to Timothy, there is a fact which militates strongly against the argument in question. It is this. If he were ever Bishop of Ephesus, it must have been when Paul's first Epistle to him was written: for it is in this Epistle alone that the supposed evidence of his Episcopal powers is found. But this Epistle, as the most learned and judicious commentators agree, was written from Macedonia, about the vear of Christ 58; a short time before the ce

a

lebrated interview of Paul with the Elders of Ephesus, at Miletus. This is the date assigned to it by Athanasius and Theodoret, among the ancients; and by Dr. Hammond, the learned "Grotius, Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Benson, Dr. Doddridge, Professor Michaelis, and other modern critics of equal reputation. Now if Timothy were constituted Bishop of Ephesus at this period, how came the Apostle Paul, a short time afterwards, in his conference with the Elders whom he met at Miletus, to stile them the Bishops of that Church, and to commit to them its government, as we have seen in a former letter? Was Timothy, after holding this office a few months, so soon displaced? Or, if he still bore the office, is it credible that the Apostle should have totally forgotten the circumstance ; that he should declare the Presbyters of that Church to be its Bishops, and charge them to execute episcopal duties; and that, when predicting divisions and heresies which were about to arise among them, he should say nothing of any superior officer, as their spiritual guide, and bond of union? It is not credible. No impartial reader can believe that Timothy, at this time, bore any such fixed relation to the Church of Ephesus as that for which the friends of prelacy contend.

A seventh remark on this argument, also, deserves attention. Timothy and Titus are considered by Episcopalians as diocesan Bishops ; the former of Ephesus, the latter of Crete. But it is evi. dent from the New Testament history that neither