was St Paul's custom to "ordain Presbyters in every church," (Acts. xiv. 23.) and if these could have ordained others, as the number of converts increased, it was unnecessary to set any person over them to perform that office. Suppose, (says Mr William Law*) when Timothy was sent to Ephesus to ordain Presbyters, the church had told him,-we have chosen Presbyters already, and laid our hands on them,-would such a practice have been allowed of in the Ephesians, and would ministers so ordained have been received as the ministers of Christ? And (observes Dr Brett,) had any such authority belonged to the whole body of christians in any church, or to the Presbyters,-can we think, that among so many epistles in the New Testament, sent to several churches, we should not have one word concerning ordination in any of them, but only in the two epistles to Timothy, and in that to Titus? This, I think, is a reasonable argument.

I shall now consider the arguments against the apostleship or Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus :

I. It is objected, that "they were a kind of itinerant officers, called evangelists, who were assistants to the apostles," Doddridge's Lectures II. p. 343 †.— With respect to Titus, there is not in scripture the least pretence for such an assertion. And that Timothy had not this power committed to him as an evangelist, is most certain, because mere evangelists had not such power; for then Deacons might have ordained and governed Priests. Philip the evangelist was a deacon,—yet it is certain that he pretended not to any such authority, (Act. xxi. 8. vi. 5.)

* Second Letter to the Bishop of Bangor, p. 97. 10th edit. + See Dr Graves' remarks on this head, expressly in answer to Doddridge's objection. Consecration Sermon, 1806, p. 12.

*

"But is not Timothy called an evangelist ?" (2 Tim. 5 .iv. 5.) I answer, no; for the text does not say, do the office, but the work of an evangelist, which no more makes him a mere evangelist, than the words following make him a mere deacon, for he is commanded "to fulfil his deaconship+.”—But he might be, at the same time, both Bishop, Evangelist, and Deacon.-What this work of an evangelist was, may be seen in the second verse of this chapter; "preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke," &c. All which every Bishop is obliged to perform; therefore this can be no proof that Timothy was an evangelist, and that his office was temporary; --and there is not a single duty which Timothy, as a minister of Christ, was obliged to perform, that was temporary.

II. Their occasional attendance on St Paul in his travels, can be no objection to their Episcopacy.For granting that they did not continually reside, yet it is evident that they were invested with Episcopal power, a right to ordain and exercise those acts of government in the churches to which they were sent, which Presbyters have no right to exercise, and which Bishops now justly challenge, as appropriated to their order. For (as Mr Hoadly remarks,) it is to the office of Timothy (whether fixed at Ephesus during life or not,) that the Episcopal function, for which we contend, answers. It is not essential to a Bishop that he should be fixed at one place during life, but that he manage the business of ordination and government over whatsoever church he is placed, and for whatever length of time.-These frequent removals, there

fore, cannot deprive them of that power, which they had superior to other Presbyters; and they might, nay, if we give any credit to antiquity, they certainly did return to Ephesus and Crete, and died there, as the reader will find sufficiently proved by Dr Cave, in his Lives of the Fathers, p. 51. 63.

Timothy and Titus then, had that authority in the church which our Bishops now challenge; wherefore St Paul, writing to the Philippians, joins Timothy with himself, as a person of the same order and degree, "Paul and Timotheus the servants of Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons," (Phil. i. 1.) In this verse we find mentioned the three distinct orders, viz. Paul and Timothy of the first order, that is, the order of Bishops, as they are now called; the Priests or Presbyters then called Bishops, of the second order; and lastly, the Deacons For, as I intimated before, those whom we now call Bishops, were then styled apostles; so says Theodoret expressly, (Com. in 1 Tit. iii. 1.)" the same persons were anciently called Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously, whilst those who are now called Bishops were styled apostles. But in process of time, the name of apostle was appropriated to such only as were more strictly apostles (viz. the twelve,) and then the name of Bishop was given to those who succeeded them." Thus he says, "Epaphroditus was the apostle of the Philippians, Titus the apostle of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Asiatics;" and this he repeats in several other places, (Com. in Phil. i. 1. ii. 25.) In like manner, Clemens Bishop of Rome, who was a disciple of the original apostles, is called

Clemens Alexandrinus, " Clemens the apostle, (Strom. lib. 4.) Ignatius Bishop of Antioch is called

by St Chrysostom "apostle and bishop ;" and Thaddeus, who was sent by St Thomas to the Prince of Edessa, " apostle Thaddeus," by Eusebius; and so are also St Mark and St Luke by Epiphanius. And as the Bishops were styled apostles by St Paul, so they are called Angels by St John, which is another Greek word signifying a messenger: for it is evident that the angels of the seven churches were the apostles or Bishops of those churches, their office being such as we now call Episcopal, and the same which is exercised by our present Bishops. Episcopal authority is intimated in the rebuke given to the angel of the Church of Thyatira, for permitting a false prophetess to seduce the people; and this would not surely have been done, unless this angel had the power and authority of a Bishop, to exclude such a person from church communion. The angel of Ephesus, (Rev. ii. 2.) is particularly commended for " trying those who called themselves apostles and were not so,” i. e. who pretended to have authority to preach without a commission; and this seems to imply that he had judicially convicted them of being impostors. The angel of Pergamus, (ii. 14.) is reproved for having in his church those that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, and he is severely threatened unless he repented, which shows that he had authority to correct these disorders, otherwise he could not justly have been punished for them. And the angel of Sardis is commanded to be watchful, and to strengthen those who are ready to die, otherwise our Lord threatens to come on him, as a thief, at an hour which he should not know; plainly alluding to what he says in the gospel to "his stewards," i.e. his apostles and other ministers whom he made "rulers over his household the church.”

It is pretended by some of our adversaries, that "these angels of the churches held their office for a limited time, 'as mere chairmen or moderators of the Presbyters." But we may justly infer the contrary to be true, from what is said to the angel of the Church of Smyrna, "be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life," (Rev. ii. 10.) which must surely be understood of being faithful in his office, since he is here spoken to, not as a private man, but as an angel or Bishop of the church, and if his office had not been for life, then this precept had been nugatory. It will likewise be hard to shew, (says Mr Hoadly) how a prime Presbyter, by being only chosen president or moderator of the college of Presbyters, for the more orderly management of their joint counsels, should become chargeable with the faults of their churches, with which, according to this supposition, he had nothing to do. For it is manifest he could be no more accountable for any congregation but his own, than any of the other Presbyters, had he not the eare of others committed to him in some peculiar manner: and this he could not have, if he were only moderator in the college.-It cannot, with any show of reason, be alleged, "that these angels were but simple Presbyters or parish priests in their several congregations," as Doddridge pretends, (Lectures II. p. 344.) for such eminent cities as these seven could not be supplied by a single Presbyter. Nay, it is certain that in Ephesus there were several Presbyters, whom St Paul sent for to attend him at Miletus, (Acts xx. 17.) consequently the angel of Ephesus cannot signify the Presbyter of that church, because the angel was but one, and the Presbyters were many. It may be farther observed, that the angels are every where spoken