have seen already, Titus is said to have left Paul and gone into Dalmatia. In none of these cases is there any thing to indicate that Titus was superior in rank to presbyters, the proof of which, if it exist at all, must be derived from Paul's epistle to himself.

In the title of that epistle, Titus is addressed, not as an Apostle, but as Paul's "own son after the common faith," and as one whom he had left in Crete, to regulate Tà Xíπovтα, the things which Paul himself had left undone. One of his duties is particularly mentioned, that of ordaining presbyters in every city (v.5.) From this some infer, as in the case of Timothy, that Titus held an office superior to that of presbyter. Now let it be observed that no other proof of this is even. alleged. The truth of the allegation, therefore, rests on the assumption that a presbyter, as such, could not ordain, which is the very point in controversy. There is no proof that Titus was more than a presbyter, unless we are forced to infer it from the fact that he ordained. But how can such an inference be necessary, when we may suppose that he ordained as a member of a presbytery, or as an evangelist, by virtue of a special commission? It is not asserted that he must have done so, but merely that he may have done so, and consequently that his ordaining.presbyters does not of itself prove that he was an Apostle. Since, then, we are as much entitled to assume that presbyters ordained, as that Titus was not a mere presbyter, let the question between us be determined by inquiring which hypothesis agrees best with the whole drift and tone of the epistle. Is Titus spoken of in such a manner as would naturally lead us to regard him as Paul's official equal and a "supreme Apostle," or as his in

ferior, subject to his orders, and with no permanent rank or authority above that of a presbyter?

After giving the qualifications of presbyters or bishops (Tit. 1: 6-9), which are the same as those prescribed to Timothy (1 Tim. 3: 2-7), Paul exhorts Ti tus to rebuke "gainsayers," "unruly and vain talkers and deceivers ;" to "rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith" (vs. 9-13). This any presbyter was competent to do. In opposition to such, he commands Titus (ch. 2: 1) to "speak the things which become sound doctrine," and especially to urge upon the different classes of the people their relative duties (vs. 2-6). These things he was to teach, not only by precept but example (v. 7), “in all things showing thyself a pattern of good works, in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you" (v. 8). There is not a duty here enumerated which is not incumbent, at the present moment, upon every Christian presbyter. The same is true of the concluding exhortation in this chapter (v. 15), "these things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority; let no man despise thee." The only way in which these counsels can be made to have any bearing upon Titus's apostolical dignity, is by assuming that the persons whom he was to teach, rebuke, etc. were all presbyters. Not only is there no intimation of this fact, but the contrary is evident from the whole context, in which the subjects of this discipline are particularly mentioned, not as elders in the church, but as aged men and women (ch. 2: 2, 3), young men and women (4-6), servants (9, 10), etc. The same thing is

true of the directions in the last chapter, where Titus is commanded to affirm constantly the duties of life and the doctrines of grace (v. 8), but exhorted to avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law, as unprofitable and vain (v. 9). All this would be perfectly appropriate, if addressed to any presbyter.

Titus 3: 10. “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject." The power to judge heretics is certainly ascribed to Titus; but in what capacity? Our opponents say, in that of an apostle; we say in that of a presbyter. The only ground of their conclusion is the twofold assumption, that Titus was to be the sole judge of religious teachers; and that he could not judge them without holding a superior office. The same answers may be given here as in the case of ordination, but with still more force, because it is not even certain in the case before us, that any other heresy is meant but that of private Christians. Granting, however, that heretical teachers are specially referred to, and that rejecting them means refusing to ordain them (which is far from being evident), or to excommunicate them; these are acts which, according to the Presbyterian theory, are competent to presbyters, and cannot therefore be assumed as proofs of apostolical authority. The question is whether Titus performed acts which presbyters, as such, could not perform. The adverse party answer yes, for he judged heretical presbyters, and therefore could not be a presbyter himself. We answer no, because presbyters being the highest order in the permanent organization in the church, if judged at all, they must be judged by presbyters.

We have now gone through these three epistles in detail, and the results of the examination may be stated thus.

1. Timothy and Titus are nowhere addressed or described, in Paul's epistles to them, as apostles.

2. A large part of the admonitions and instructions given to them are such as might have been given to mere presbyters.

3. The powers of ordination and discipline are certainly ascribed to them, but without determining in what capacity they were to exercise them.

4. The supposition of an extraordinary commission to these two men as evangelists, and the supposition that they acted as mere presbyters, are at least as probable as the supposition that they acted as apostles.

5. No proof, therefore, can be drawn from these epistles, of the apostolical authority of either.

ESSAY V.

ON THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES AND THE FALSE

APOSTLES.

BESIDES the case of Timothy and Titus, an attempt has been made to prove that the apostolic office was perpetual or permanent, from certain passages of the Apocalypse. The first is that containing the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia (Rev. 1: 20. 2:1, 8, 12, 18. 3: 1, 7, 14). The argument founded upon these epistles is, that the "angel" of each church is ́addressed in the singular number, as if personally responsible for the faith and practice of the church; from which it is said to follow, that each of these churches must have had an official head, possessing exclusively the power of government, and as we know from Acts 20: 17, that in one of them, at least, there was a plurality of presbyters, this official head must have been an apostle or apostle-bishop.

This argument assumes without proof, that the "angels" here addressed were the regular official rulers of the churches, although the word "angel" is employed, throughout the book, in another sense, and although the supposition that they were guardian angels is in perfect keeping with the language of Scripture else