dressed to him, "these things write I unto thee"-he is afterwards admonished, in regard to the ordaining of these two inferior orders, "lay [thou] hands suddenly on no man"-and again, "the things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," i. e. to men who are both sound in the faith and apt to teach. Observe, moreover, that, while to the Elders of Ephesus Paul alludes to ministers who would "speak perverse things," yet gives not a hint of their exercising discipline upon such offenders, to Timothy he mentions that very error, and in terms entirely equivalent, as having occurred at Ephesus, calling it the "teaching of other or false doctrine," and desires him to check it" that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine”— and it is afterwards added, respecting the clergy who thus or otherwise were in fault, "them that sin, rebuke thou." Teach ing "other doctrine" and speaking "perverse things" are one and the same offence; the correction of it is no where committed to the Elders; to Timothy it is here expressly committed.

Is it not evident, abundantly evident, that Timothy had supreme power over the clergy at Ephesus, and the full right to ordain? Comparing these many passages, and the tenor and spirit of the entire epistles, with the before cited address to the Elders of Ephesus, can any one require stronger proof of episcopacy, or stronger disproof of parity? Did not the ministry at Ephesus consist of three orders-Timothy first, the Elders (or Presbyter-bishops) next, and Deacons last?-it clearly did.

Compare again that address, and all that is recorded of mere Elders, with the epistle to Titus. Examine his powers in the island of Crete. To him are specified the due qualifications of a Presbyter-bishop or Elder." His clear credential from the Apostle Paul is, "for this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and [that thou shouldest] ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"-and again, 66 a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, [do thou] reject:" ordination, admonition, and rejection, (or degradation and excommunication,) are all committed to Titus personally. The Elders, as already seen, had no power given them to “reject” those who should "speak perverse things" or "heresy ;" Titus had that power. All this agrees perfectly with the case of Timothy. Ând nothing like it can be shown, any where in Scripture, of any who are there distinctively called Elders or Presbyters. Is it not clear, then, that the recorded powers of Titus make him an officer of a grade superior to that which we must assign, resting only on the sacred record, to such Elders? This is episcopacy.

e Acts xx. 30.
h Tit i. 5; iii. 10

e 1 Tim. iii. 1—14. d 1 Tim. v. 22. 2 Tim. ii. 2. f 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 20. g Tit. i. 6-9 1 The expression "perverse things," the teachers of which the Elders had no power to condemn, agrees with that used respecting the heretic, "such is subverted," whom Titus had power to reject. The words are, διεστραμμενα and εξεστραπται.

Compare, yet again, all that is recorded of Elders, with the epistles to the "angels" of the seven Churches of Asia. Each of those Churches is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but through its "angel" or chief officer; this alone is a very strong argument against parity and in favour of episcopacy. One of those Churches was Ephesus; and when we read concerning its angel, "thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars," do we require further evidence that what Timothy, the chief officer there, was in the year 65, in regard to the supreme right of discipline over the clergy, the same was its chief officer when this book was written, in the year 96? Let us examine also other passages. In each of these small epistles, the "angel" is made responsible individually for the errors of the respective Churches, and is commended individually for their respective merits; and this, although there must have been several or many Elders in each of those Churches, as there were in Ephesus thirty or forty years before." Observe the emphatic use of the singular number in the address to each of the angels-"I know thy works," is the clear and strong language directed to them all successively, implying the responsibility, not of a Church at large, or of its clergy at large, but of the head or governor individually. To the same effect we read, as commendations of these angels" thou holdest fast my name"-" thou hast a few names which have not defiled their garments"-"I have set before thee an open door" "thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word" and, on the other hand, they are thus rebuked "I have a few things against thee""because thou hast them that hold the doctrine of Balaam"-" thou sufferest that woman Jezebel... to teach, &c."-" if thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief” "thou art neither hot nor cold." Similar to these are the warnings of CHRIST to these "angels," all implying their indi vidual responsibility for the faults of the Churches, "remember [thou] from whence thou art fallen, and repent [thou] and do [thou] the first works"-" repent [thou] or else I will come unto thee quickly"-"be [thou] watchful, and strengthen [thou] the things which remain"-"hold [thou fast that which thou hast" "be [thou] zealous, and repent [thou]. There are other like passages; indeed these seven epistles are nearly made up of them. The individual called "the angel" is, in each case, identified with his Church, and his Church with him. And in the few places where the language addressed to the Churches by the Saviour is in the plural number, it is addressed to them gene rally, no particular reference being made to their Elders, as if they shared the responsibility.

k Rev. ii. iii.

m Acts xx. 17.

o Rev. ii. 13; iii. 4, 8.

q Rev. ii. 5, 16; iii. 2, 11, 19. See Note C

On the contrary, we find this

1 Rev. ii. 2.

n Rev. ii. 2, 9, 13, 19; iii. 1, 8, 15

p Rev. ii. 14, 20; íii. 3, 15.

r Rev. ii. 10, 23-25.

peculiarly strong expression in the admonition to the angel of the Ephesian Church, where, as has been fully shown, there were many Elders or Presby ters, "I will remove thy candlestick [thy Church] out of his place, except thou repent"-not the Church of the presbytery, nor even of thy presbytery, but "thy Church." Surely a diocesan is here!

Test then by these seven epistles, by each of them and all of them, the episcopal and presbyterian theories, and see which best agrees with their letter and their spirit: most assuredly they are episcopacy from beginning to end. Connect these epistles with those to Timothy and Titus; and decide whether they do not all proclaim episcopacy. Compare this entire connected evidence with all that is recorded concerning the powers of mere Elders; and let the spirit of candour and impartiality determine whether episcopacy does not even triumph in the abundance of its scriptural proofs."

And let it be observed, that we have made no use of those scriptures which merely agree with episcopacy, or tend to illus trate the affairs of the apostolic Church according to that theory, but only of those which are its demonstration. And this, we think, is complete.

All minds, however, do not appreciate evidence equally. Let then our argument be rated at its lowest value, and it will still be sufficient. Is there any thing like positive proof in Scripture, that mere Elders [or Presbyter-bishops] had the power of supreme discipline over the clergy, or ordained without the cooperation of a minister of higher authority? there certainly is not, as we have fully shown. Is there not, however, in Scripture, proof absolutely positive that persons of higher authority than Elders did ordain, and did possess the supreme right of clerical discipline? there certainly is, as we have most abundantly demonstrated. Is there not, moreover, positive scriptural proof that these high powers, superior to those ascribed to mere Elders, existed in other individuals than the original Apostles, and continued in the possession of such officers to the latest date of the inspired volume? it cannot be reasonably questioned. Now, let the reader stimate all this evidence as low as he pleases, it is evidence enough for episcopacy. A hint concerning the will of GoD should be imperative with every humble and conscientious believer, The slightest preponderance of proof, when all has been investigated, should be sufficient for a candid mind.-Let then such considerations have their due weight with those who may think that our argument comes short of demonstration.

We are persuaded, however, that to strict and severe reasoners it will appear a very close approximation to demonstrative proof.

t Rev. ii. 5. In Rev. i. 20, the candlesticks are said to be the Churches. u For further remarks on the permanent obligation of episcopacy, see Note D And concerning the plea of necessity for departing from that ministry, sce Note E

Of such reasoners we ask-can a single step be made in applying Scripture to the support of parity, without taking something for granted? if there be an argument for parity free from this objection, the present writer does not recollect to have seen it. On the other hand, is not the scriptural argument for episcopacy a regular induction from scriptural facts? we are persuaded that no impartial mind will answer in the negative.

We assert, therefore, in conclusion, that the episcopal ministry alone has the authority of the inspired writers. All the facts, all the examples they record, without one clear exception, show that such was the ministry of the apostolic age. We therefore now add this other assertion-that such was the ministry alluded to by the Apostle when he wrote, "remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account." Whether such an injunction, taken in connexion with what has been proved in this essay, does not amount to an inspired command to conform to the episcopal ministry, is left, with prayer for their right direction and decision, to the con sciences respectively of our readers.

....

POSTSCRIPT.

On the plea of Parity—that Timothy acted as an "Evangelist.”

Parity alleges that Timothy exercised supreme authority in the Church at Ephesus as an "Evangelist ;" and that that office, like (on their theory) the entire apostolic supremacy, was but temporary; and that thus, in a short period, the whole clerical power rested in the one grade of Elders or Presbyters.

To this allegation, in all its parts, we have several conclusive answers. 1. Timothy is called an "Apostle" as well as an evangelist;" and as he thus had the highest ecclesiastical power in virtue of the apostolic office, the appellation "evangelist" could add nothing to it. Neither, of course, can any inference bearing on the episcopal controversy be drawn from that appellation. 2. It does not appear that evangelists had, as such, any particular rank in the ministry. Philip, the Deacon, was an "evangelist ;" in Ephes. iv. 11. "evangelists are put after "prophets;" in 1 Cor. xii. 28. they are not included at all; i*

▾ See Note F.

w Heb. xiii. 7, 17. See also Note G. for a refutation of the objection, that monarchy has as good scriptural authority as episcopacy. e Aets xxi. 8.

a See 2 Tim. iv. 5. b 1 Thess. ii. 6., compared with i. 1.

appears also that some of the laity did the work of evangelizing ; and yet Timothy, an Apostle, is directed, we see, to do the same work. To rely therefore on the mere title "evangelist" in proof of any thing which is to affect our controversy, is futile; no argument can be built upon it without taking for granted that evangelists had, as such, these high clerical powers, which is the very allegation in dispute.-3. There is no proof whatever that Titus and the "angels" of the seven Churches were evangelists. If, therefore, we should surrender the case of Timothy, these other cases of supreme ecclesiastical authority would still contradict parity, and be evidence for episcopacy. Sound reasoning, however, will rather yield up the claims founded on the application to Timothy of the mere title "evangelist ;" it would rather retain the case of Timothy for the episcopal cause, independently of other considerations, from its perfect analogy with these cases, which obviously and unavoidably belong to that cause.-4. If we should allow that the superior rights of the Apostles and of this evangelist came soon to a close, there would yet be no evidence (or no clear evidence) that mere Elders either had or acquired the power of ordaining and of executive clerical discipline. We should but find that the Church was left without an order of men who could show positive inspired credentials for exercising these high functions. And this demonstratio ex absurdo is of itself almost sufficient for episcopacy. The superior office of the Apostles, and of Timothy, Titus, and the seven "angels," must have been intended to be permanent, whatever was the name of that office, and however its name might be changed. For, be it not forgotten, that, as it cannot be proved, it ought not to be allowed, that any but those who held this apostolical or episcopal office, superior to that of mere Presbyters, either performed the ordinations mentioned in Scripture, or are there said to have the right to perform such acts.

No certain and precise definition can be found for the word 46 evangelist," as used in Scripture; the mere name decides nothing more than it would in the more thoroughly English form gospeller. Etymologically, its only meaning is "a person occupied with or devoted to the gospel ;" and as the gos pel means the "good message," the idea contained in the latter word may be extended to "evangelist," and that title be defined" a messenger of the good message," i. e. one who proclaims the gospel. Applied in this sense to a minister, it seems equivalent to the word preacher; it may also mean, but not

d Acts viii. 4. and xi. 19, 20.; see the Greek. In Acts viii. 1. the "church" at Jerusalem is said to be scattered abroad; the Apostles are excepted; with that exception "they were all scattered," saith the passage; meaning, doubtless, that so many fled as to break up their assemblies; of course, the scattering applies to the laity chiefly and some of these are thus, we think, included among those who were engaged in "evangelizing." The word "preach" in these passages is of course, in this view, used by our translators with some latitude; as will also be seen on exam ining the Greek-dadew and evayyed being the words thus translated.