have a right to ordain ministers and organize churches: but Timothy and Titus were sent to perform services of this kind: therefore Timothy and Titus were diocesan bishops." In this syllogism the major proposition, which asserts that none but bishops, as a superior order, can ordain, is taken for granted. But does not every one see that this is precisely the point to be proved? Until this fundamental proposition be first established, the whole argument is such as all logicians agree in stigmatizing as deceptive and worthless-a mere begging of the whole question in dispute."

We verily think, after all that Dr C. has said with so much positiveness and show of reasoning on this branch of the controversy, that Dr M.'s position, above stated, remains unshaken, nay, untouched. And our only wonder is, that a writer of so much natural shrewdness as Dr C. is not ashamed to multiply words on so plain a point. Surely that cause must be sadly lacking in solid support which can recur so frequently, and cleave so firmly, to testimony so perfectly fanciful and paltry!

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church has been in the constant habit, for more than thirty years, of sending out missionaries to preach the gospel, ordain elders and deacons, and organize churches in the frontier settlements. For the performance of this work they are regularly authorized and commissioned under the direction of that judicatory, and receive instructions, in many respects similar to those given to Timothy and Titus. Now, suppose some ignorant ecclesiastical annalist, knowing this fact, and unacquainted with the constitution of our church, were to write thus in reference to the practice in question: "The general assembly, every year, sends forth ministers, whose duty it is to preach, ordain elders and deacons, and set in order what may be wanting' in parts of the country heretofore destitute of christian privileges and order; but these are duties to which none but prelatical bishops are competent; therefore, these presbyterian missionaries are, of course, all prelates." Every body sees, at once, that this would be a statement unsound in logic, and false in fact. Yet there is just as much reason for coming to this conclusion as for supposing that Timothy and Titus must have been prelates, because they were sent to Ephesus and Crete to perform similar work. It is as plain as the light of day, that they might have done all that they did upon strictly presbyterian

6

principles. We know not, indeed, that either Timothy or Titus ever ordained a single elder alone, as we think Dr Miller and others have often demonstrated. But even if this were granted, it would not alter the case. For, although it be admitted that, while a single minister of the presbyterian church may, and often does, ordain ruling elders and deacons, a plurality is required by the constitution of our church to ordain a teaching elder; yet this is regarded rather as a prudential rule than as a divine law of necessary obligation. There are presbyterian churches who consider the ordination of a pastor by a single pastor as valid, and act accordingly. So that, after all, under whatever aspect the mission of Timothy and Titus be viewed, there is no fact stated, or instruction given, or allusion made to those ministers of the gospel, in the whole New Testament, but what might have been exhibited just as it is, if they had gone to Ephesus and Crete as presbyterian evangelists, and had acted, while there, rigidly upon presbyterian principles. This may be regarded by those who take Dr C. for their guide as a strong assertion; but we make it with fearless confidence; and, although it has been, and may be again denied, we are very sure it can never be refuted.

In 1 Timothy, iv. 14, we find the following exhortation : "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." And again, in 2 Timothy, i. 6, we find the following: "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." The common interpretation given of these two passages is, that they both relate to the same event, viz. the one ordination of Timothy; that on this occasion a body, or plurality, of presbyters were present and took a part in the transaction; and that the apostle himself presided as the head of the presbytery. Dr C. however, if we understand him, refuses to acquiesce in these views. He thinks that these passages refer to two ordinations, the first as presbyter, the second as bishop. That when the first epistle was written, Timothy had consented to become a bishop, but had not actually been made such; and, of course, that the laying on of the hands of the presbytery took place at his first ordination, as presbyter, a number of years before: And that he had, after this, and before the second epistle was

written, a second and higher ordination as bishop, in which Paul himself presided.

On these representations our first remark is, that they differ entirely from the opinions of the great majority of the most learned writers on Dr C.'s own side; and, we are persuaded, have not even a shadow of evidence on which to And yet he asserts them with quite as much boldness and confidence as would become the most mature and profound master of the subject.

rest.

Our second remark is, that Dr Cooke's mode of exhibiting the prelacy of Timothy and Titus appears to us to be attended with difficulties, which we should think he could hardly have adequately considered, and which cannot fail to prostrate his whole theory.

For example, if Timothy had not been ordained a bishop at the time when the first epistle was addressed to him, but was only a presbyter, then what becomes of all the muchtalked of and vaunted evidence which that epistle is said to contain, that he was actually invested with that office? The great body of writers on the side of Dr C. contend that the whole style of the epistle, the charges given, and the powers recognized in addressing Timothy, all plainly imply that he was already clothed with episcopal authority. This, however, so far as the first epistle is concerned, Dr C. appears to give up. This cannot be implied, according to him, in any thing that the epistle contains, for the young preacher was not then, in fact, clothed with any such power. And if the first epistle contains no internal evidence of the existence of any such power before it was written, we may, surely, with equal confidence, say the same of the second; for there is decisively less that looks like high ecclesiastical authority in the second than in the first. And thus Dr C. though he does not tell us so, in so many words, abandons for himself, and for all his partizans, this whole branch of evidence for the prelatical character of Timothy and Titus. We have long, indeed, thought that evidence perfectly worthless to the cause of the prelatists; but we did not expect so soon to see one of their number, who is certainly distinguished by zeal, if not by knowledge, unceremoniously take a stand which amounts to a virtual abandonment of this whole department of testimony. We doubt the policy of this. For humble as this branch of testimony is, and it is

very humble indeed, we think that prelacy can scarcely afford to part with it.

Another difficulty, upon Dr C.'s plan, here is worthy of notice. He is confident that the apostle in that injunction in 1 Timothy, iv. 14, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," refers, not to Timothy's ordination as bishop, but to his first ordination as presbyter. Be it so. Timothy's ordination, then, as a presbyter, was performed by a presbytery; we read of no other ordainers. We do not forget, indeed, that Dr C. elsewhere contends that the expression "with the laying on the hands of the presbytery" merely implies the assent or concurrence of the presbytery, and not their real participation in the ordaining act, as an authoritative transaction; and that he considers Timothy as having been really and effectively ordained by the laying on of Paul's hands. But this cannot be. The reference to the laying on of Paul's hands is found in the second epistle, and not in the first; and refers, according to Dr C. not to the first, but to the second ordination, which he received as bishop. Unless, therefore, he is determined at all hazards to take for granted, without a shadow of evidence, that the first ordination for which he contends was performed, not by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, but by the hands of Paul himself, and to assume it from the passages already quoted (and there are no others in the New Testament which speak of the subject at all) the discerning reader will be at no loss to see how far he is consistent with himself, or what his reasoning is worth. The truth is, so far as all that is said about Timothy and Titus. by this writer has even the semblance of plausibility, it proceeds on a petitio principii throughout. This may be a very convenient method of reasoning with those who are but scantily provided with solid proofs; but its fairness, and especially its force, are quite other matters. Low as we had estimated Dr Cooke's acquaintance with the subject on which he undertook to write, we were hardly prepared to expect from him in so many instances such a barefaced. resort to this mode of reasoning.

It is notorious that Timothy is no where called a bishop by Paul, in either of the epistles written to him; and even if he had been, it would have decided nothing, as it is granted on all hands that the titles bishop and presbyter were then

common, that is, interchangeably applied to the same office. But he is called an evangelist, that is, a minister of the word and sacraments, sent forth to preach, and organize churches in cities and regions destitute of such organizations. Nor is there a particle of evidence that we have ever seen, either in or out of the Bible, that he ever resided at Ephesus, in any capacity, for twelve months at a time. We hear of him in Lystra, in Phrygia, in Galatia, in Troas, in Macedonia, in Samothracia, in Neapolis, in Philippi, in Thessalonica, in Berea, in Athens, in Corinth, in Jerusalem, in Rome, back again in Thessalonica, &c.; so that we have nearly as good evidence that he was bishop of half a dozen other places as of Ephesus. As to Dr Cooke's assertion, repeatedly and confidently made, that we have satisfactory evidence that Timothy was at least five years and a half resident in Ephesus, it is not only made without proof, but is so diametrically contrary to the judgment of the best writers on the subject, episcopal as well as others, that we can find no apology for his reckless presumption but in his want of mature knowledge and reflection on the subject.

Accordingly, the manner in which Dr Whitby, a very able and learned divine of the church of England, speaks in reference to the cases of Timothy and Titus, is worthy of particular notice. In his preface to his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, he expresses himself thus: "The great controversy concerning this, and the epistle to Timothy, is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops, the one of Ephesus and the other of Crete. Now, of this matter I confess I can find NOTHING in any writer of the FIRST THREE CENTURIES, nor ANY INTIMATION that they bore that name. To pass my judgment in this case, I assert that, if by saying Timothy and Titus were bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, we understand that they took upon them those churches, or dioceses, as their fixed and peculiar charge, in which they were to preside for term of life, I believe Timothy and Titus were not thus bishops. For, first, both Timothy and Titus WERE EVANGELISTS, and therefore were to do the work of an evangelist. Now the work of an evangelist, saith Eusebius, was this-to lay the foundations of the faith in barbarous nations; to constitute them pastors; and having committed to them the cultivating of those new plantations, they passed on to other countries and nations. Secondly, as for Titus, he was only left in