necessary to establish a succession, then there is none at all. Either of these conclusions would be fatal to the adverse argument, which cannot have the slightest force, except on two conditions; first, that the apostolic powers, shown to have been exercised by persons not of the original thirteen, be such as are not acknowledged to have ceased; and then, that they be such as were not exercised by Presbyters. For if they were powers possessed by Presbyters, their exercise proves nothing but the continuance of that office, which is not disputed; and if they were powers which have ceased, their exercise in apostolic times proves nothing as to the rights and powers of any office now existing in the church.

ESSAY IV.

ON THE OFFICIAL RANK OF TIMOTHY AND TITUS.

I HAVE endeavoured to show that the Apostolic office was not meant to be perpetual; first, because the continuance of the office is nowhere explicitly asserted; secondly, because the name Apostle, in its strict and proper sense, is not applied in the New Testament to any who were not of the original thirteen; thirdly, because the qualifications for the Apostleship, as a permanent office in the church, are nowhere stated.

A fourth argument against the perpetuity of the Apostolic office is, that no peculiar apostolic powers are said in Scripture to have been exercised by any person, who was not either an original Apostle or a Presbyter.

The only cases commonly alleged by controversial writers on this subject are those of Timothy and Titus, and the allegation, even with respect to them, is not founded on the historical statements of the New Testament, but on the instructions given them by Paul, in his epistles addressed to them respectively. Let this fact be duly noted and borne in mind, when we examine the proof from the epistles. If, in the Acts of

the Apostles, Timothy and Titus appeared as the equals and colleagues of Paul, this would create a presumption in favour of their having been Apostles; and this presumption would materially influence the interpretation of his epistles to them; that is to say, expressions of a dubious import might be fairly interpreted so as to agree with the presumption afforded by the history. But what is the true state of the case in this respect?

The first mention of Timothy is in Acts 16: 1, where we read that Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, and found a certain disciple there, named Timotheus, the son of a believing Jewess and of a Greek or heathen father. The son was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. "Him would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."

In the subsequent narrative it is hard to tell whether Timothy is represented as performing even ordinary ministerial functions, as Silas was also in Paul's company, and the plural forms of speech employed may be restricted to these two. In the account of the persecution at Philippi (Acts 16: 19-40), Timothy is not mentioned, and in ch. 17: 4, 10, "Paul and Silas" are mentioned without Timothy, who was still in their company, however, as appears from Acts 17:14, 15. 18:5. The omission of his name seems to show that he was not so intimately related to Paul, at this time, as Silas was. The office of Timothy would indeed appear to have been precisely that which John Mark sustained in Paul's first mission, namely, that

ων

of an vπηρéτηs, a personal attendant (Acts 13:5). And accordingly we find Timothy and Erastus afterwards described by an equivalent expression, dúo râv Siaкovoúvτwv avt♣ (Acts 19:22). They are called ministers, not of God (2 Cor. 6:4), not of Christ (2 Cor. 11 : 23), not of the gospel (Eph. 3:7), not of the New Testament (2 Cor. 3: 6), not of the church (Col. 1:52), but of Paul, i. e. personal attendants on him. Or if they were ministers in a higher sense, their relative position, with respect to Paul, was that of diákovo to an official superior. Timothy next appears as the fifth in the list of Paul's companions on his return from Greece to Syria (Acts 20:4), in which list Silas, Paul's colleague in the mission, is not included. These are all the traces which we find of Timothy in the Acts of the Apostles; and in these, he acts no other part than that of an attendant upon Paul.

That he became a minister, a diákovos in the higher sense, a presbyter, a preacher of the gospel, is admitted. Hence in the epistle to the Romans (16:21), Paul speaks of him as his "work-fellow," a title, however, which would not have been inapplicable to him, even as a lay attendant. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, he mentions him twice, once as his "beloved son and faithful in the Lord" (ch. 4:17), and again as one that worketh the work of the Lord as I also do" (ch. 16:10). That this does not imply official equality between them as Apostles, is clear, because the terms are perfectly applicable to the ordinary work of the ministry; because the phrase "worketh the work of the Lord" is more applicable to the ordinary work of the ministry than to peculiar apostolic functions; and because in this very epistle (ch. 4: 17.

16: 10, 11), Paul directs the movements of Timothy, as those of an inferior.

In the second epistle to the Corinthians, Timothy is mentioned in the title as follows: "Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy the brother." If Timothy had been then an Apostle, could there have been a more appropriate occasion so to call him? Could it well have been avoided? And if the mention of his apostolic character had been neglected once, could the omission be repeated as it is in the title of Colossians? It may indeed be said that in the title of the epistle to Philemon, Paul is called “a prisoner of Jesus Christ" and Timothy "a brother," whereas both were prisoners. But in Heb. 13: 23, an epistle of the same date, it is said, "know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty. Besides, déoμos is no title of office like ἀπόστολος.

This argument from the use of the word "brother," where "Apostle" might have been expected, has been very summarily set aside as follows. "Why does Paul in some places call himself an Apostle, and Timothy only a brother? . . . . Really it is too late to inquire; but the fact has not the least bearing on the point in question. The Apostles were brethren to each other, the elders were brethren to the Apostles, so were the deacons; so were the laity. The circumstance, therefore, of Paul's calling Timothy a brother, while he calls himself an Apostle, proves no more that Timothy was not an Apostle, than it does that he was not a clergyman at all, but only a layman."*

This explanation takes for granted, that the argument, to which it is an answer, depends for its * Episcopacy Examined and Re-examined, p. 50.