66

with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained, to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”. Acts, i. 21, 22. They observe in the second place, that to qualify a man to be an Apostle, it was necessary that he should be possessed of miraculous powers, which the Apostle Paul calls the signs of an Apostle. Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders, and mighty deeds."-2 Cor. xii. 12. In the third place, inspiration was another gift necessary to the office of an Apostle, for as he was the messenger of God to the Churches, before there was any complete canon of Scripture, it was necessary that he should be possessed of those gifts which rendered him infallible in every point of doctrine. This our Saviour had promised to his Apostles previous to his death. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth."-John, xvi. 12, 13. When any of these qualifications, and certainly much more when all of them were wanting, they consider pretensions to the Apostleship, not only as defective, but as without even the appearance of right.—They do not contend that the number of the Apostles was always limited to twelve, the original number of which they consisted, but that they all possessed the qualification just mentioned. Epaphroditus, Titus, and some others, are indeed called the Apostles of the Church of Philippi, or of some other Church, or Churches. The word Apostle signifies messenger, and in this general sense it was applicable to any Presbyter who carried the message of Christ to any Church. But neither was Epaphroditus,

nor Timothy, nor Titus, an Apostle in that appropriate and distinguishing sense in which the term is applied to the twelve. Nor are they ever called the Apostles of Christ, but only the Apostles, or messengers of the Churches. In this lax sense of the word, Luther has been called the Apostle of Germany, and Knox the Apostle of Scotland; but none of them either possessed, or claimed apostolic powers in the strict sense of the word. Timothy and Titus, we cannot for a moment suppose to have been inspired men. The two epistles written by Paul to Timothy, and the epistle to Titus, evidently teach us to draw an inference directly opposite to their inspiration. A letter of directions to a man inspired is not only unnecessary, but absurd. It does not appear that either of them had conversed with our Saviour, or seen him after his resurrection. Paul was qualified to be an Apostle by an extraordinary and miraculous vision of him. "Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ?"—1 Cor. ix. 1. Nor is there any evidence that either Timothy, Titus, or Epaphroditus, were possessed of miraculous powers, or of the signs of an Apostle. But, (say the different advocates for the Presbyterian and for the Independent form of government,) supposing them all to have been Apostles, in the strictest sense of the word, no argument will have the smallest force, from this circumstance, for the Apostleship of men in these later times. No man for these last

sixteen hundred years has either been the witness of our Saviour's resurrection, or has possessed the inspiration that renders infallible, or the miraculous powers that accompanied the ministrations of the Apostles. If the qualifications remain in any persons, let them boldly ad

vance their claim to the office; but if they are gone, the Apostles have no successors.

To the argument from Timothy and Titus being invested with the powers of ordination, they answer that there is not the shadow of proof that either of them ordained, or were instructed to ordain, as individuals. They seem to have been selected, by the Apostle Paul, to preside in the ordination of Elders, as persons better instructed than others who were invested with the same office, in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, and therefore the directions were addressed to them, though by them they were to be communicated to the Churches.-The account given of Timothy's ordination, in the two epis tles addressed to him, they think supplies a key to the mode of ordination practised in the primitive church. Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the Apostle Paul's hands.-2 Tim. i. 6. But was the Apostle the only person who ordained Timothy? No. That Apostle presided, but the ordination, as well as the gifts communicated with it, was given with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery."-1 Tim. iv. 14. Timothy's Ordination, they observe, was therefore ordination by presbyters. There can be no reason to suppose that Titus was ordained in any other manner, or that either of them was to ordain in any other manner, than that in which they themselves had been ordained. They also observe that the Scripture does not represent either of these persons, as Bishops, or Elders of any particular church. The notes added to the second epistle to Timothy and the epistle to Titus, are no part of Scripture, and consequently can be of no use to

determine the question. These two appear to have been Evangelists, who travelled under the direction of the Apostles, sometimes planting churches, sometimes watering them, and reducing those not sufficiently established to correctness and regularity. Evangelists as well as Apostles were extraordinary Ministers, and are mentioned in Eph. iv. 11. In the second epistle to Timothy, written but a little before the Apostle's martyrdom, Titus is said to have left Crete, and to have gone into Dalmatia (ch. iv.); and Timothy is recalled from Ephesus, to wait on the Apostle at Rome (v. 9).

In the council at Jerusalem the Apostles and Elders acted with a parity of power, say the advocates of Presbytery and of Independency, which shows that in the exercise of Church Government even the former claimed no superiority.-That Elders, or Presbyters, and Bishops, are only different names for the same office, they think must appear incontrovertible to every unprejudiced mind, from the following declarations. The Elders of the Church of Ephesus, whom the Apostle Paul converted at Miletus, are all of them denominated Bishops, or Overseers, and he affirms that the Holy Ghost had made them such. But if they were all Bishops, or Overseers, this circumstance appears utterly incompatible with the idea of their being under the government of a Diocesan, and shows that Elders and Bishops are convertible terms, and applied to the same office.-Acts, xx. 28. The epistle to the Philippians is thus addressed, "Paul, and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons." In this Church there was a plurality of Bishops, a thing entirely inconsistent with the system of Episcopalians. If

Elders and Bishops be persons of different orders, in this Church there were no Elders; for the Saints, Bishops, and Deacons composed the only characters whom it recognised. But the Apostles commanded Elders to be ordained in every Church.-Acts, xiv. 23.-Titus, i. 5. It is therefore, they say, evident that the Bishops were the Elders of that Church, and were, like the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, from the superintendence they had, styled Bishops, or Overseers. This matter they think is placed beyond debate by the directions given to Titus in which the Apostle represents these as two names for the same office. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly: For a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God." -Titus, i. 5, 6, 7. The Apostle Peter also applies both the epithets to the same persons. "The Elders which are among you, I exhort who am also an Elder.". -"Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof," that is to say, discharging the office of Bishops.

To the arguments from the testimony of the fathers, for the existence of Bishops, as a distinct order from Elders, or Presbyters, and an order superior to them, they reply, that they do not dispute the matter of fact, that some time in the second century, Episcopacy prevailed almost universally, and that Bishops, from that time to the Reformation were considered, as a distinct order from Presbyters, and superior to them.* But, without con

* See Dr. Hill's Theological Institutes.