SO.

Bing under the inmediate guidance of the Holy Gost, they were to the primitive Churches what the New Testament is to us, the only infalli. ble 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 minis. ters, in the Christian Church, superior to Bishops, and invested with authority over them; thus mak. ing 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 found the names of Dr. Barrow, Mr. Dodwell, Bishop Hoadly, and others of equal eminence.

IV. A fourth argument urged by the advocates of Episcopacy, is—“ That Timothy and Titus were 's each appointed to the fixed superintendency of a “ large diocese, the former over Ephesus, the latter "over Crete; that the duties required of them, 66 and the

powers

vested in them were evidently su. perior 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

name.

ed 6

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

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, appoint

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 pass on to other countries 66 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 sta“tion; 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 satis“ factory 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,

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 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 print. ed in a different type from the inspired text, in order to show that they form no part of the sacred

Of course, as all Episcopal writers of respectability acknowledge, they afford no evidence which deserves the least attention in the case be.

canon.

fore 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 4th 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