fined to the same church. There is just as much reason for considering them a distinct order, and also the prophets, pastors, and teachers, as either of the three in your catalogue. Instead of three orders, you would then have six, besides deacons, namely, apostles, prophets, bishops, or presbyters, evangelists, pastors, teachers. And I am convinced, as strong arguments may be advanced for adopting this number, as the one you have chosen.

Another point, which you state with great confidence, is, that "it has been the faith of the universal church, without exception, until the period of the reformation, that to the order of bishops alone belongs the power of ordaining ministers." In the "universal church," I suppose you will embrace the first church of the apostolic age. Not only so, I suppose you will allow this to be the only authentic source, to which you can go for information on this subject. What our Saviour taught, and the apostles are said to have practised, will be good authority. This is the only authority on which we can with safety rely, notwithstanding what may have been the "faith of the universal church, without exception," since that time.

As Christ left no instructions about any particular kind of ministry in the church, so there are no words of his recorded on the subject of ordination. This alone is enough to prove, that the manner, in which it is performed, cannot be a thing of so much impor tance as you would imply, when you say, that ordinations performed by any other, than a bishop, "would be devoid of every degree of validity and efficacy, in conferring spiritual office and power." What was the practice in the time of the apostles?

Barnabas and Saul were ordained by "certain prophets and teachers at Antioch." Acts xiii. 1. Here, it seems, even the apostle to the Gentiles was ordained by officers of the church, who are not embraced in either of your orders of the ministry. Timothy was ordained by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv. 14. What can this mean, except, that the ceremony was performed by the elders, or presbyters, in a body?

On this subject, the examples of Timothy and Titus are usually quoted by the abettors of episcopacy with much apparent triumph. It is said, that they were commissioned by St. Paul, the one to be bishop of Ephesus, and the other to be bishop of Crete, and that to them was entrusted the sole power of ordina tion. It may first be remarked, that neither Timothy, nor Titus, is called a bishop in the scriptures. The postscripts, in which this title is given to them, were added to the epistles nearly four hundred years after they were written. No instructions were given to Timothy about ordinations, and he seems to have remained but a little more than a year at Ephesus. So far from being a bishop, St. Paul expressly charges him "to do the work of an evangelist."

Paul writes to Titus, "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." Tit. i. 5. In remarking on this text, you speak of the "acknowledged fact, that there were already many elders in those churches." Where is this fact acknowledged? Certainly not in the scriptures. On the contrary, before Titus went to Crete, as far as we know, there were neither elders,

nor churches in the island. We learn no particulars of this country from the New Testament, till the voyage of St. Paul to Rome, when the vessel, in which he sailed, is said to have put into a port in Crete. Inhabitants of Crete are mentioned among those, who, on the day of pentecost, received the gift of the Holy Spirit. These were Jews, who, after they returned, probably instructed the people in what they had learnt, but, as was customary with the Jewish converts, mingled many errors, in regard to the Mosaic institutions, with the christian doctrines. When St. Paul was there, finding what errors and evil practices they had fallen into, and that they had no authorized or well informed teachers among them, and being a prisoner, could not himself travel and preach, he left Titus, as he says, "to set in order the things, that were wanting, and to ordain elders." I am aware it is not particularly mentioned, that Titus accompanied St. Paul on this voyage; but neither have we any account, that the apostle ever again visited Crete. Dr. Paley thinks Titus was left in Crete by St. Paul, two years afterwards, on his return from Rome; but as there is no account of any such voyage, he acknowledges his opinion to be hypothetical.* Even if this were correct, it would not affect the argument. The object for which Titus was left would be the same.

From all that is known, therefore, there is no evidence of there being either elders or churches in Crete, before Titus visited the island; and a very strong probability that there were none. The office

*Horae Paulinae, chap. xiii.

of Titus seems to have been, in every respect, that of an evangelist. He was commissioned to travel from city to city, to form churches, and appoint suitable officers. Nor does it follow from any thing in his commission, that after he had organized churches, and ordained elders, these elders could not ordain others, in the same way as Paul and Barnabas had been ordained by "prophets and teachers," and Timothy by the presbytery. In short, it appears to me, if any thing can be proved by direct scriptural testimony, it is, that the ceremony of ordination was performed indiscriminately by apostles, prophets, presbyters, evangelists, teachers,-and for any thing that is known to the contrary, by all officers regularly appointed in the churches.

In examining the subject of the first part of your discourse, I have thus far confined myself to the sacred writings, because I think these constitute the only authority, on which we ought to rely, for the proof of the divine right of any institution. From this examination, I am convinced that the scriptures teach a doctrine on this subject, completely at variance with the one you have attempted to defend. By way of recapitulation, I will endeavour to express the grounds of this conviction, in as few words as possible.

First, our Saviour left no instructions in regard to the nature or form of the ministry; he never spoke of three orders, or any number of orders; he gave no directions about the ceremony of ordination, nor did he assign the duty of performing it to any particular class of men. Secondly, the apostles said nothing

of any number of orders in the ministry, nor have they left any rules or instructions on the subject of ordination. Thirdly, the first church at Jerusalem was governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren in concert. The apostles assumed no authority above the elders, nor the elders above the people. Fourthly, it is no where said in the whole New Testament, that the duty of conferring ordination was confined to any particular order of the ministry; but on the contrary, several examples are on record, which go to prove, that this ceremony was performed by any officer or officers of regular standing in the church. Fifthly, Timothy and Titus are never called bishops. Timothy is expressly called an evangelist; and the duties of Titus were such, as are usually assigned to an evangelist. Sixthly, the persons who were appointed by the apostles to assist in providing for the poor, and whom you call the "seven deacons," are never designated by this name in the scriptures. Their office was wholly of a temporal nature, and therefore could make no part of the ministry. Seventhly, the word deacon seems to have been applied at first as a general term, for a servant in the cause of the gospel, a minister, or teacher; and if it was afterwards appropriated to any particular office, no mention is made in the writings of the apostles respecting the nature or design of such an office. No instance is recorded, in which deacons, as officers of an exclusive character, are said to have taken a part in the government or concerns of any church. Lastly, the same reasons, by which you establish three orders in the ministry, would prove the ex