presbyter of Ephesus under Timothy. He was the very same in every duty, but derived all his authority from the Bishop. The same is true of the deacon. These all, according to Ignatius, were still, as in Ephesus, ministers in the word. There was no change whatever in the constitution of the Church. The princi pal minister had adopted another name, perfectly appropriate, Bishop or overseer of the Church: and this, which in the beginning belonged to the second order of ministers, they no longer retained; but with the name of presbyter, they retained all the duties of the presbyter of Ephesus.

51. It is, moreover, admitted by the Presbyterians, that Timothy exercised authority over the elders in the Church at Ephesus, but they allege that it ceased with him. Of this, however, there is not the slightest evidence. The scriptures say nothing about it, To the Fathers only can they go for evidence, and they are decidedly against them. Ignatius in his epistle to the Ephesians speaks of Onesimus their Bishop-of course such a Bishop as he continually alludes to, exercising all the power that Timothy did.

52. It may also be remarked that the manner in which Ignatius speaks of the three orders of ministers, shows that the change in the name of two of them had been made some time: for there is not, I think, one syllable of allusion to the change in all his epistles: it was therefore not a recent one; and the whole tenor of the epistles shows that it had become the settled practice of the Church.

53. In these epistles, then, we observe the fact, that that man who exercised the authority in the Church, which the Apostles in their lifetime exercised, was called Bishop.

54. It is also to be observed that there is only one Bishop spoken of in one church at a time, but many presbyters - Bishop always in the singular, Presbyters always in the plural-and often men tioned together, the Bishop and presbyters, or the Bishop and his presbytery or council of presbyters (sect. 4 of the epistle to the Philadelphians) so as to show as perfectly as language can show the difference between them.

55. The same state of things existed in one of the Churches to which Ignatius wrote an epistle, in which he, for obvious reasons, was not led to say any thing of their ministers, I mean the Romans. This we learn from a passage from Irenæus, book third, chapter third.

"The Apostles, founding and instructing that Church, (the

Church of Rome,) delivered to Linus the Episcopate; Anacletus succeeded him; after him Clemens obtained the Episcopate from the Apostles. To Clement succeeded Evaristus; to him Alexander; then Sixtus; and after him Telesphorus; then Hugynus; after him Pius; then Anicetus; and when Soter had succeeded Anicetus, then Eleutherius had the Episcopate in the twelfth place. By this succes sion, that tradition in the Church, and publication of the truth, which is from the Apostles, is come to us."

This passage, extraordinary as it may seem, with the words marked in Italics, is taken from Miller's Letters, p. 151. It will be noticed again hereafter.

56. Others of the Fathers state distinctly that Timothy was Bishop of the Ephesians, as appears from the following quotations from Dr. Bowden's Letters to Dr. Miller, vol. 1, p. 257.

"1. From a fragment of a treatise by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, towards the close of the second century. This fragment is preserved in Photius's Bibliotheca, and quoted by Archbishop Usher in his discourse on Episcopacy. In that fragment it is said, that "Timothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by the great Paul.” 2. It appears from Eusebius, who says, "it is recorded in history that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus." 3. From the Commentary under the name of Ambrose. He says, "Being now ordained a Bishop, Timothy was instructed by the epistle of Paul, how to dispose and order the church of God." 4. From Epiphanius, who says, "The Apostle, speaking to Timothy, being then a Bishop, advises him thus,-" Rebuke not an Elder," &c. 5. By Jerome, who, in his tract of ecclesiastical writers, says, that "Timothy was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians by the blessed Paul." 6. By Chrysostom, who says, "Paul directs Timothy to fulfil his ministry, being then a Bishop; for that he was a Bishop appears from Paul's writing thus to him, " Lay hands suddenly on no man."7. By Leontius, Bishop of Magnesia, one of the Fathers in the great council of Chalcedon, who declared, that "from Timothy to their time, there had been twenty-six Bishops of the church of Ephesus." 8. By Primasius, who says, "Timothy was a Bishop; and had the gift of prophecy with his ordination to the Episcopate." 9. By Theophylact, who gives this reason for St. Paul's writing to Timothy, "because that in a church newly constituted, it was not easy to inform a Bishop of all things incident to his place by word of mouth;" and in his Commentary on the fourth chapter of the first

epistle, he styles Timothy, Bishop. 10. By Occumenius, who, on these words, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, gives this gloss," He ordained him Bishop."

In remarking on Dr. Miller's omitting the striking passages in favour of Episcopacy, in his quotations from the Fathers, Dr. Bowden says, "Thus, you do not exhibit the following pointed testimonies from Hilary. The Bishop is the chief; though every Bishop is a Presbyter, yet every Presbyter is not a Bishop. He declares that James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles, and that the Apostles were Bishops.' He affirms, that Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Asiatic churches were Bishops'-Bishops in the appropriate sense of the word.. He says, 'In the Bishop all orders are contained, because he is the Prince, or Chief of the Priests." He affirms that 'the Bishop is the Vicegerent of Christ, and represents his Person; and that 'he decreed every church should be governed by one Bishop, even as all things proceed from one God the Father.' And in several other places this author affirms, that in a church there were several Presbyters and Deacons, but never more than one Bishop, even in the Apostle's times."" [See p. 37 of Bowden's Letters, vol. 1.] He asks Dr. Miller, " "Why, Sir, did you not inform your Christian brethren that Theodoret maintains, that those who had the appropriate title of Bishop in his day, and for ages before, were called Apostles in the first age of the Church? Why did you not lay before them the following passage? Epaphroditus was called the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was entrusted with the Episcopal government, as being their Bishop. For those now called Bishops, were anciently called Apostles; but in process of time, the name of Apostle was left to those who were truly Apostles, and the name of Bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called Apostles; Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Asiatics." [See p. 41 of the same.]

6

Here, therefore, we have a perfectly satisfactory account of the reason why the names Bishop and Presbyter were no longer applied to the same office as they had been in the scripture-the name of Apostle was dropped-and the name of Bishop was now strained to those who were anciently called Apostles."

66

re

"There is another writer who was contemporary with Theodoret, that deserves to be noticed-I mean Isidore, Bishop of Pelusium,

of whom Mosheim gives the following character. He was a man of uncommon learning and sanctity. A great number of his epistles are yet extant, and discover more piety, genius, erudition and wisdom, than are to be found in the voluminous productions of many other writers.' Isidore says, 'The Bishops succeeded the Apostles-they were constituted through the whole world in the place of the Apostles.' He then says, that 'Aaron, the high priest, was what a Bishop is,' and that Aaron's sons prefigured the Presbyters."" [See p. 46 of the same.]

57. Having thus established, by abundant evidence drawn from scripture, that Timothy exercised all the powers of a Bishop in the Church at Ephesus, the presbyters and deacons deriving their authority from him, and being subject to his superintendence and government, receiving from him honour when honour was due, and rebuke before all when deserved, in order that the rest might be influenced by fear of punishment to avoid like offences; and that the Fathers who succeeded the Apostles in the care of the Church, called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, it is proposed in the next place to show that he continued in that charge, certainly five years and a half; and longer, but how much longer is uncertain.

58. Paul in his first epistle to Timothy gives him charge "until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ;" which is evidently for an unlimited time.

When the second epistle to Timothy was written, he was still in Ephesus. This is not questioned, and appears evident from several circumstances.

1. Paul in his first epistle, relative to the affairs of Ephesus, speaks of Hymeneus having made shipwreck of faith; (i, 19, 20) and in the second epistle, (ii, 17, 18) speaks of the same person as still being in the way of the truth, "saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrowing the faith of some."

He also speaks in the first epistle of Alexander making shipwreck of faith; (I. Tim. i, 20;) and in the second, tells Timothy to beware of him. (II, Tim. iv, 15.)

2. In the second epistle he informs Timothy that Onesiphorus when he was in Rome sought him out diligently; and adds "in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well;" (II. Tim. i, 16, 17, 18;) and towards the close of the epistle he says, "salute Prisca and Aquilla, and the household of Onesiphorus." (II. Tim. iv, 19.) The former of these passages.

shows that Onesiphorus was an inhabitant of Ephesus who ministered to Paul during the long residence of himself and Timothy in that town; and the latter that Timothy was his fellow-townsman, because Paul desires him to salute his household.

59. It being thus established that the first epistle to Timothy was written a few weeks before he took charge of the Church at Ephesus, (21, 22) and that he was still at Ephesus when the second was written; (58) he must, during the intermediate time, have governed the Church in that city. This interval was above five years and a half, of which positive evidence shall now be stated from scripture: and very strong evidence, that a longer time elapsed.

60. That the second epistle to Timothy was written above five years after the first, is completely established by the following considerations.

61. We have seen that Paul wrote his first epistle to Timothy in Macedonia, immediately before his voyage to Jerusalem and Rome. (21) From Philippi in Macedonia he sailed to Troas, remained there a week, went on to Miletus, and would not visit Ephesus, because he was anxious to reach Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost. [Acts xx, 6-16.] From Miletus he passed on to Jerusa lem. [Acts xxi, 1-17.] In this city he was imprisoned, in consequence of a clamour raised against him by the Jews of Asia, and confined two years by Felix the Governor of Judea. [Acts xxi, 33; xxiii, 10, 35; xxiv, 27.] Having appealed to Cæsar, [Acts xxv, 10–12] he was at length sent to Rome. [Acts xxvii, 1, &c.]

As he went to Jerusalem to the feast of Pentecost, which was in the spring of the year, and was imprisoned by Felix two years, and sent to Rome by Festus soon after his entrance on the government, it must have been at least the summer of the third year when he left Judea for Rome.

The voyage to Rome was interrupted by various accidents and by shipwreck on the coast of the island of Melita, now called Malta. [Acts xxvii, 7-44.] It was then cold weather, [Acts xxvii, 12; xxviii, 2, 3] and Paul and the ship's company wintered in the island, and in the spring of the year arrived at Rome. [Acts xxviii, 11-14.] Three years therefore had now elapsed since Paul left Timothy in charge of the Church at Ephesus.

Paul having arrived at Rome in the spring, was suffered to hire a house and dwell with a soldier to guard him; [Acts xxviii, 16;] and

he continued two whole years "in his own hired house, and receiv

G