was it necessary that Titus should ordain Elders in every city? After the ordination of a few, would not his exertions have become useless, if they were able to complete the work which he had begun?

"In short, Titus seems to be entrusted with all the authority of a supreme ruler of the Church. He is directed to ordain Presbyters-to rebuke with all authority-to admonish hereticks, and in case of obstinacy, to reject them from the communion of the Church. These circumstances infallibly designate the presence of a Bishop. Accordingly we find that the united voice of ancient writers declares him to have been the first Bishop of Crete. Eusebius informs us 'that he received Episcopal authority over the Church of Crete.' So also says Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose. If these considerations united do not show that Titus possessed in Ephesus powers superior to those which were held by the Presbyters of those Churches, I know not what considerations would."*

And again:

"The case of Timothy alone, had we no other evidence from Scripture, would, when taken into connexion with the testimony of ancient writers, be perfectly satisfactory to me. This alone demonstrates all that we can desire. He was placed by St. Paul to superintend the Church of Ephesus. This case is even stronger than was that of Titus in Crete. It cannot be denied that there had long been Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus. Listen then to the language which St. Paul speaks in his Epistles to him, and see if it is possible that he possessed no superiority over the Presbyters of that Church. I besought thee,' says he to Timothy, to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.' Would Timothy have been commissioned to charge

* CYPRIAN, No. II. Collec. p. 64, 65.

the Presbyters to teach no other doctrine had he possessed no superiority over them? Would they not have had a right to resist any attempts at a control of this kind as an encroachment on their privileges? Again, Timothy is directed to try and examine the Deacons, whether they be blameless or not. If they prove themselves worthy, he is to admit them into the office of a Deacon; and upon a faithful discharge of that office, they are to be elevated to a higher station. 'Likewise,' says he, 'must the Deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.' 'Let these also be first proved, and then let them use the office of a Deacon, being found blameless.' Here we find no mention made of the Presbyters of Ephesus, in the ordination of Deacons. They are not associated with him at all in the work. Does not this indicate, does it not demonstrate a superiority of power on the part of Timothy? Timothy is also exhorted to 'lay hands suddenly on no man.' There is no such thing as a recognition even of the co-operation of Presbyters with him. He seems to be the supreme and the only agent in the transaction of these affairs.

"Now, I appeal to the common sense of mankind, had the Presbyters of Ephesus possessed an authority equal to that of Timothy; had they, like him, possessed the power of ordination, would not St. Paul have recognized their agency in connexion with his? Would it not have been to treat them with improper neglect not to mention them? But what consummates our evidence on this point, and places the subject beyond all doubt, is the charge which St. Paul gives to Timothy in relation to the penal discipline he was to exercise over his Presbyters. Timothy is required to 'receive an accusation against an elder or Presbyter, only before two or three witnesses.' Them, (that is, those amongst the Presbyters,) that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear.' Can any one imagine that Timothy would have been com

6

missioned to listen to accusations made against Presbyters, openly to rebuke them, had not his authority transcended theirs? Does not this single circumstance unquestionably establish the point of his superiority? The man,' says a learned and ingenious writer of our country, who shall not find a Bishop in Ephesus, will be puzzled to find one in England." "I cannot conceive of a case that could be more clear and unequivocal, that could speak more loudly to the common sense of mankind, than the case of Timothy in Ephesus. He is obviously intrusted with apostolic authority. Every thing which the Apostle could do in his own person, he commissions Timothy to perform during his absence. He is to adjust the affairs of the church; he is to prove and examine Deacons ; he alone is to ordain them; he alone is recognized in the performance of the task of ordaining Elders or Presbyters; he possesses perfect control over these Presbyters. If they are guilty of any offences or misdemeanours, he is to inflict punishment upon them. I cannot conceive of a case more satisfactory in proof of the apostolic original of the Episcopal form of Church government. Had Timothy been of the same order with the Presbyters of Ephesus, can it be imagined that the Apostle would, by elevating him to such high privileges amongst them, have endangered the peace of the Church, have taken a step so well calculated to excite discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the remaining Presbyters or Elders? This cannot be imagined. Timothy was then undeniably intrusted with Episcopal authority in the Church of Ephesus; he was the Bishop of that place. This is provEusebius tells

ed by the concurring voice of ancient writers.

us that he was the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus.' The anonymous author of his life in Phocius says, that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephesus, and that he was ordained Bishop of the metropolis of Ephesus by the great St. Paul.' In the council of Chalce* Dr. Bowden, in his answer to Dr. Stiles.

don twenty-seven bishops are said to have succeeded in that chair from Timothy. To prove the same point goes the tesmony of St. Chrysostom and Theodoret; and in the apostolical constitutions we are expressly told, that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul."

The Layman speaks to the same purpose.

"In whom was the power of ordination vested in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete? Clearly in Timothy and Titus alone. Them alone the apostle addresses, and them alone he speaks of as ordaining Elders, or as committing the things they had received from him to faithful men, capable of teaching others. Is this not utterly inconsistent with the Presbyterian system? What individual among them could with propriety be addressed as the apostle addresses Timothy and Titus ? Not one. The power among them is in a numerous body of equals, lest there should be lords over God's heritage.' The power, in Ephesus and Crete, was in Timothy and Titus, to whom the Presbyters were subject, liable to be tried and punished for misconduct. It is on this plain statement of facts, relative to Ephesus and Crete, as well as to other churches, taken in connexion with the uniform and uninterrupted testimony of the church universal for fifteen hundred years, that Episcopalians rest their cause. They have never endeavoured to derive arguments from the names made use of. This has been the practice, exclusively, of the advocates of parity. Driven from the ground of fact, not able to deny that Timothy and Titus were supreme Governors in the churches of Ephesus and Crete, possessing alone the power of ordination, they say that Timothy is called a Presbyter, and was therefore upon a level with those very elders whom he ruled, whom he could control as to the doctrines they preached, whom he had power to try and to punish !"t

* CYPRIAN, No. III. Collec. p. 74, 75.
LAYMAN, No. V. Collec. p. 536.

"It is very easy," says he," to see why the advocates of parity would exclude from view the situation of Timothy in the church of Ephesus, since it carries absolute death to their cause. Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy ruled the whole church of Ephesus, both clergy and laity, the Elders or Presbyters being subject to his spiritual jurisdiction? Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy alone exercised the power of ordaining Ministers, and thus of conveying the sacerdotal authority? What then becomes of the doctrine of parity? Destroyed, utterly destroyed. The Church of Ephesus, planted by St. Paul, and placed, by that Apostle, under the government of Timothy, was constructed upon a totally different principle. It had, in Timothy, a Bishop, possessing jurisdiction over the other clergy, and exercising all the powers which are claimed for the Bishops of the church now. Is it of no consequence that the ancients, who speak on the subject, unanimously represent Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus? What says Eusebius? • He was

the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus.' Eccl. Hist. Bib. iii. chap. 4. What says Chrysostom? • It is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a whole nation, viz. Asia.' Hom. 15th in 1 Tim. v. 19. Theodoret calls him the Apostle of the Asiatics. The Apostolical constitutions expressly tell us that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul; and in the council of Chalcedon, twenty-seven Bishops are said to have succeded him in the government of that Church.

"We are perfectly safe, then, so far as relates to Timothy, in resting our cause upon the situation which he occupied at Ephesus, and on the powers which he exercised there. The constitution of the Church of Ephesus was undeniably Episcopal. This part of the subject the advocates of parity do not choose to meddle with, running off constantly to the term Presbytery, that poor word being the chief basis of their

* Proscript to the LAYMAN, NO. VIII. Collec. p. 81.