of these Ministers was long stationary in any one place. They appear to have been almost constantly itinerating, to preach the Gospel, and organize Churches. With respect to Timothy, we find him at one period with Paul at Philippi, and Thessalonica, a little afterwards at Athens; then at Thessalonica again. Some years after this, we find him successively at Ephesus, Macedonia, and Corinth ; then returning to Ephesus ; soon afterwards re-visiting Corinth and Macedonia ; then going to Jerusalem ; and, last of all, travelling to Rome, where the sacred history leaves him. In like manner, we may trace Titus in his successive journies, from Syria to Jerusalem ; thence to Corinth ; from Corinth to Macedonia; back again to Corinth; thence to the Island of Grete ; afterwards to Dalmatia, and, as some suppose, back again to Crete. Does this look like a fixed Episcopal charge ? Nothing more unlike it.

Finally-If Timothy and Titus were diocesan Bishops, then the Apostles sustained a still higher office. It is evident from the whole tenor of Scripture, that the Apostolic character was superior to that of the Evangelists : and Paul, especially, always addresses Timothy and Titus in a style of authority. But if this be so, then we have, by divine right, Archbishops as well as Bishops ; that is, four orders of Clergy, instead of three. I know that the advocates of Episcopacy disclaim this consequence. They tell us that there is no divine warrant for more than three orders; and that Archbia

;;

shops and Metropolitans are only different grades of the same order, resting, not on Divine appointment, but human expediency. But are they consistent with themselves in saying this? They are not. On the one hand, they contend, that the Apostles held a station of superiority and government over all other ministers; and this, not on the ground of their extraordinary gifts and circumstances; but in virtue of a power which was ordinary and perpetual, and in which they had successors.

On the other hand, the same persons contend, that Timothy and Titus, though subject themselves to the Apostles, possessed, in their turn, an Episcopal superiority and government over the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete : and this, not founded on any peculiar occasion or exigency, but on essential and permanent principles, and transmitted to Bishops in all succeeding ages. Here, then, are two grades of Episcopal power; both equally founded on divine right; both superior to Presbyters, yet unequal to each other ; running parallel with each other for a number of years before the decease of the Apostles ; both resting on principles ordinary and perpetual ; both transmitted to successors ; both essential to the well-being of the Church. On this principle Episcopalians are driven to the necessity of contending for two orders of Bishops, as indispensable in the organization of every Church*.

a

If, to avoid this difficulty, they grant, either that the authority of the Apostles over Timothy and Titus was extraordinary ; or that the authority of Timothy and Titus over other ministers was so, they instantly surrender one of their boasted arguments for å settled prelacy. But a principle which either proves too much, or leads to absurdity, is

, false, and of course inadmissible.

In short, when the advocates for diocesan Epis: copacy prove, that Timothy and Titus were sent to Ephesus and Crete to remain longer, and on a more important errand than to several other Churches which they visited: when they prove that these ministers went to those Churches in a higher character than that of itinerant Presbyters: when they prove that each of them ordained, and exercised other Episcopal powers, alone, that is, without the presence or aid of colleagues : when they prove that there were Presbyters regularly ordained, residing at Ephesus and Crete, before these Missionaries went thither, who might have performed the rite of ordination, supposing Pres. byters to possess this power: when they prove that Timothy and Titus ordained, not as Presbyters, but in virtue of some superior inherent character ; and that, for the purpose of clothing them with this character, they received a new and appropriate

ordination : when they prove these things, the argument under consideration will be of some value. Even then, several essential links in the chain of proof for establishing an indispensable and unalterable divine right, will be wanting. But, until these leading facts are established, the argument is absolutely worth nothing; and, after all the changes that may be rung upon it, and all the decorations with which it may be exhibited, it amounts only to a gratuitous assumption of the whole point in dispute.

V. Another argument frequently adduced in favor of diocesan Episcopacy, is founded on the ad. dresses in Rev. ii. and iii. to the Angels of the Asiatic Churches. “ These Angels,” say the advocates of prelacy, “ were individuals, who pre“ sided over the Seven Churches, which are ad“ dressed in those chapters; and who, of course, “ could be no other than Bishops.”

On this argument, also, much stress is laid. But, really, its sole merit, as in several preceding cases, consists in confident assertion, and in begging the whole question.

Is it certain that by these Angels were meant individual ministers? Some, and, among the rest, very respectable episcopal commentators, have thought that by this word collective bodies of pastors were intended. Again; supposing individuals to be meant, what is there in the word Angel which ascertains its meaning to be a diocesan Bishop?

Angel signifies a messenger ; and accordingly, some able Episcopal writers have conjectured (and no mortal can do more than conjecture) that the Angels referred to in this passage of Scripture were a kind of itinerant legates, or special missioraries to the several Churches mentioned in connexion with them. But, admitting that they were resident ministers; perhaps they were Pastors of single congregations; or perhaps they were the Moderators* or Chairmen of the respective Presbyteries of Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. Or, perhaps, in each of those cities, the eldest and most conspicuous Pastor was selected as the medium for addressing the Church of the city in which he lived. I say perhaps, for each of these opinions has had its advocates, among Episcopalians, as well as others; and it is impossible to be certain which of them approaches nearest to the truth; or, whether they are not all erroneous. Amidst this total uncer. tainty, then, is it not abusing the credulity of men, to the last degree, to take the whole question in controversy for granted; to pronounce with confidence that no other than diocesan Bishops could have been intended ; and to represent as blinded with prejudice all who do not see and acknowledge this to be the case ?