departed from the original institution, and consequently the church at the present day possesses not only no successors of the apostles, but not even their counterparts or resemblance. An episcopalian may be permitted to say, that the changes which have taken place are not essential, that they are only such as the church had authority to make, from time to time, and that, therefore, they furnish no argument against his favourite form of church_government. But here, though he may be firm, he must be modest. In the due exercise of moderation, and of a love of truth, peace, and concord, he cannot but allow that the matter may easily appear in a different light to the mind of another man, and that such an one may be more than justified in preferring a church constructed differently from our own. The duties of bishops in the early part of the second century were not confined, either in theory or practice, to the office of ordaining and governing presbyters, and of administering confirmation; but such bishops were the ordinary ministers of divine offices in the congregation. And it is remarkable that St. Paul, in his addresses to Timothy and Titus, lays greater stress upon their qualifications as ministers of the gospel, that is, expounders of God's word, and teachers of christian truth, than upon those which related to their duties of superintendence and government. Besides this, the bishops of the primitive churches were immediately concerned with the administration of discipline; and they were expected to possess a personal acquaintance with all the individual Christians of their diocese, whether ministers or people. The shadow of all this remains to the present day; although it is true that our bishops, as such, are not the fixed ministers of any parish or congregation; and that they do not personally watch over the morals and conduct of laymen. To the mind of an episcopalian, however, the identity of their office with that of earlier bishops may satisfactorily appear. But can we, consistently with christian charity and love of truth, contest the point very strongly with any man who may say that, in his judgment; our bishops are not bishops according to the primitive pattern? Is not this a point on which, while we may claim the right of retaining our own opinion and practice, we are also bound to concede to any other man the liberty of thinking or acting differently?" It would be easy to add to these extracts several others, of similar character, from the preface whence they are taken; these, however, must suffice, as I wish to make an extract of a somewhat different nature, on which to build a few remarks, relative to what appears to me to be an illogical argument, into which the truly estimable writer has fallen. The extract is as follows, from pages lx. and lxi. Speaking of the commissions which were given to Timothy and Titus, his words are, "It is probable that those commissions were only of temporary duration; but whether temporary or permanent, they prove, beyond all dispute, that presbyters and deacons, as the ordinary ministers of churches, were required by the apostles to submit to certain persons, appointed as their superiors or superintendents. We should weaken our ground exceedingly, if we were to contend that Timothy and Titus were in all respects bishops, according to our present ideas of the office. But the point in their history which is certain, and which alone is of real importance, is this:—that an apostle invested Timothy and Titus with (at least a temporary) authority over the pastors of several churches, during his own absence from those churches. It is probable, too, that although the appointment of those individuals was only temporary, yet the office of delegated superintendent in Ephesus and Crete was perpetual even in the apostle's time, or at least as permanent as his absence; for successors appear to have been provided when Timothy and Titus were recalled. At all events, such an arrangement, whether in force for a longer or a shorter time, was substantially a commencement of episcopacy." A little lower, page lxi. Mr. Riddle asserts, "the facts which have been stated, (relative to Timothy and Titus) few and simple as they are, form a sufficient ground for the defence and recommendation of an episcopal form of church government." Now, Sir, with all the respect which I most gladly exercise towards this modest and candid apologist for episcopacy, I am unable to defer to the argument which he here employs; and when I reflect upon the acumen which is displayed in many portions of his work, I am surprised at the paralogism which is involved in the last three sentences that I have quoted. I can account for the ineffective reasoning only by recollecting the strong hold which early prepossessions, and long-continued associations exert oftentimes upon the intelligence and penetration of many of the wisest and best of men, and I should be ashamed to ascribe the hallucination in question to a less honourable source. Passing over, then, the many concessions which are made to the opponents of episcopacy, in several parts of the preface which is before us; leaving out of consideration the contrast almost inconceivable between the primitive ToкоTOL, whose office and duties Mr. Riddle pourtrays, in terms little less express than those which the writers of the New Testament employs and the modern prelates to whom the Church of England exclusively confines the right of ordination, consecration, and confirmation; and taking no farther notice of the sounding titles, the splendid orders of subordinate associates; and the vast multitudes which are comprehended within the several dioceses which are conferred on some twenty or thirty dignified ecclesiastics, I shall confine my remarks to the argument that is embodied in the three or four sentences which terminate the preceding extracts. Mr. Riddle says, "it is probable, too, that although the appointment of those individuals (scil. Timothy and Titus,) was only temporary, yet the office of delegated superintendent in Ephesus and Crete was perpetual even in the apostle's time, or at least as permanent as his absence; for successors appear to have been provided when Timothy and Titus were recalled. At all events, such an arrangement, whether in force for a longer or shorter time, was, substantially, a commencement of episcopacy." Disregarding, for the present, the assumptions that are here gratuitously made, I wish the progress of the argument, as it appears in the next quotation, to be distinctly noticed. Only a few lines below the passage which I have just cited, and which states the office of perpetual superintendent to be probable, we find the words, "the facts which have been stated, few and simple as they are, form a sufficient ground for the defence and recommendation of an episcopal form of church government." So soon, certainty is substituted for probability; and that which is first said to be probable, is, without any additional evidence, assumed to be the fact; and fact so palpable, as to form a sufficient ground for the defence and recommendation of an episcopal form of church government. If this be not a clear case of the logical fallacy which is denominated petitio principii, we shall, I think, look in vain for an exemplification of it. Had the respectable writer said, instead of the "facts," the probable facts, his logic would have been correct, but "a sufficient ground for the defence and recommendation" of episcopacy would have been wanting. When I say a sufficient ground would have been wanting, I intend a ground consisting of real facts; and this is the ground on which Mr. R. manifestly means to place his episcopal form of church government. I can very readily believe, that Mr. R. was unconscious of the fallacy which escaped from him, as a very candid and upright man, when warmly contending for a favourite project, may easily transform what is merely probable into a certain verity. This concession appears to me to be due to a writer generally so candid; but while conscious that, through the infirmity which belongs to man, I may be betrayed into similar mistakes, I cannot allow myself to be seduced by candour and courtesy, so far as to esteem probability and fact to be identical. Conceding, then, at present, the probability of the hypothesis, on which the episcopal form of church government is placed, it can be regarded merely as a form which is probably coincident with the superintendence that is ascribed to Timothy and Titus: no element of certainty is combined with it. I shall now, however, attempt to show that the probability which the estimable writer asserts, is itself built on conjectures that derive no support from the instances of Timothy and Titus, as they are represented to us in the epistles of St. Paul, which were addressed to those individuals. The first position is," that the office of delegated superintendent was perpetual even in the apostle's time, or at least as permanent as his absence." This position is said to be probable: it consists of two members, both of which, on inspection of the instructions given by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, will, or I am greatly mistaken, show to be altogether improbable. The words of the apostle, 1 Tim. i. 3, are," as I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, &c. so do." In ver. 18, he says, "this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy." Chap iii. 14, “These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God." Chap. iv. 13, "Till I come, give attendance to reading," &c. These are all the passages in the first epistle to Timothy which P p N. S. VOL. IV. relate to the subject in discussion. In the second epistle, chap. i. 4, the apostle says, "greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy." Chap. ii. 2, "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Chap. iv. 9. "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me." Ver. 21, "Do thy diligence to come before winter." In the epistle to Titus, i. 5, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Chap. iii. 12, " When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter." We have now before us all the passages in these epistles from which any information on the present subject can be extracted. Mr. Riddle's position, as has been said, consists of two members: the first is," that the office of delegated superintendent was perpetual even in the apostle's time;" the second is, "or at least as permanent as his (scil. the apostle's) absence." The statement of the apostle, in relation to Timothy is, that he was left at Ephesus, when St. Paul went to Macedonia, whence he hoped to return shortly, though he might possibly be detained long. 1 Tim. i. 3; and iii. 14. In the second epistle to Timothy, which was written about four or five years subsequently to the first, no express indication is given that Timothy was then at Ephesus; nor can we, by any means, conclude that he resided there during the entire interval which elapsed between the writing of the two epistles. All that appears from the second epistle is, that Timothy was instructed to join the apostle, with the utmost expedition, after the receipt of the epistle. 2 Tim. iv. 9, "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me." From the epistle to Titus it appears that he had been left in Crete, and was instructed to join the apostle at Nicopolis as soon as Artemas or Tychicus were sent to him. Tit. i. 5, and iii. 12. Now, Sir, the result of this brief induction is fatal to the probability of Mr. Riddle's position; since it is most apparent," that the office of delegated superintendent" was not perpetual, during the apostle's time, neither was it as permanent as his absence. I beg it further to be observed, that there is a latent fallacy in the application of the terms "the office of delegated superintendent." Neither Timothy nor Titus were invested with such an office, in any sense that implies habitual or fixed delegation. Nothing can be clearer than that they both were attendants upon the apostle; they accompanied him upon his journies, assisted him in the performance of his arduous labours, and were occasionally employed by him in supplying the various necessities of the infant churches, as occasions arose, which rendered it requisite for him to be distant from them. I have, finally, to notice Mr. Riddle's remarks, that, “successors appear to have been provided when Timothy and Titus were *The first epistle was written A.D. 56; the second A.D. 61, according to Dr. Lardner. recalled. At all events, such an arrangement, whether in force for a longer or a shorter time, was, substantially, a commencement of episcopacy." I have carefully looked over the three epistles to Timothy and Titus, but am utterly at a loss to conjecture from what part or parts of them it appears that, "successors were provided when Timothy and Titus were recalled." Possibly, however, the reference may be to 2 Tim. ii. 2: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." This verse has not unfrequently been urged to afford support to that "apostolic succession" which Mr. Riddle so expressly repudiates; and I shall not feel guilty of a breach of christian charity in observing, that the champions for diocesan episcopacy must have found themselves in great penury of evidence, to be induced to elaborate so portentous a conclusion as that which they have attempted to derive from a text so little recondite, and which bears upon its face a meaning most obvious, simple, and useful. As, however, I do not know that Mr. Riddle referred to this text, I shall merely add that, until stronger evidence is produced for the appointment of successors to Timothy and Titus, I must demur to the conclusion that "such an arrangement was substantially a commencement of episcopacy." The motive which has produced this communication to the Congregational Magazine is by no means to dissuade its readers from the perusal of the Manual of Christian Antiquities," but, on the contrary, to recommend it to their notice, as a book whence they may derive much useful and correct information; it is written with great perspicuity, and ornamented by "a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." I might easily write more than the limits of a miscellany permit to be inserted in it, on the estimation in which I hold the probable facts," and the astute reasonings of ancient and modern polemics, relative to hierarchical constitutions, offices, and dignitaries: but I may be permitted to say that I am utterly incredulous to the reports of the "Fathers," in all that concerns ecclesiastical powers and principalities; and while I yield explicit respect and submission to the authority of the apostle of Christ, I feel no reverence, and will practise no submission towards any traditions of later origin than those which are contained in that code which constitutes "the religion of Pro testants." Uxbridge Common. I am, Sir, respectfully yours, |