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, q Paul directs Timothy

8

to fulfil his ministry, being then a Bishop; for that he was a Bishop, appears from Paul's writing this 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 Oecumenius," who, on these words, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, gives this gloss: "He ordained him Bishop." The evidence upon this point is so complete, that it obliged even Beza" to confess that Timothy was president (poεσTws) of the Ephesine Presbytery, and that he had authority to receive accusations and complaints against a Presbyter, and to judge accordingly." But how childish is this! As if the name would alter the thing. This is a very different statement from yours. Ah, my good Sir! how easy is it to withhold evidence, to assert roundly, and to give a specious turn to almost any thing!

But, Sir, notwithstanding the positiveness with which you assert, that Timothy and Titus had no permanent relation to the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, I shall take the liberty of asking you, who told you so ?- The Scriptures. We find Timothy travelling with Paul to Philippi and Thessalonica,' &c. That is very true; but had you considered that all these journeys were finished before Timothy was appointed Bishop of Ephesus, you would never have made the objection. There is not the least evidence from Scripture, nor from the fathers, that Timothy ever left Ephesus for any length of time, except when St. Paul sent for him to Rome, a little before his martyrdom. After that event, we hear no more of Timothy. His short absence at Rome, till the fate of his spiritual father was determined, can never be considered by any impartial person as an objection to his permanent residence.

I have said that Timothy's journeys, as an Evangelist, were finished, before he was settled at Ephesus. To prove this, and, at the same time to show that there were Elders at Ephesus

q Hom. 1 ad Tim. et in Præfat.

s In Tim. 1 Ep. i. c. 4.

w Annot, in 1 Tim. c. v. ver. 19.

r Conc. Chal. Act. ii.

t In Præfat. 1 Tim.

u 1 Tim. c. i.

x See HEYLIN on Episcopacy, p. 219, 220,

when Timothy was appointed Bishop, it will be necessary to determine when that appointment took place. This will appear with sufficient evidence from St. Paul's first epistle to Timothy, in which we find these words: I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia. Now, St. Paul's journey into Macedonia, is not that mentioned Acts xvi., for then there was no Church of Ephesus existing. Paul did not visit that city till a good while after. Nor could it be when he left Ephesus to go the second time into Macedonia, of which mention is made in the twentieth chapter; for then he sent Timothy and Erastus before him. But it was after he had stayed three months in Greece, when hearing that the Jews laid wait for him as he went about to sail into Syria, he changed his course, and determined to return through Macedonia. Then it was, (so far as we can judge from the very short accounts we have,) that he besought Timothy to undertake the government of the Church of Ephesus. To which, when Timothy agreed he went forward with Aristarchus and the rest, waiting at Troas in expectation of the Apostle's coming. Then it was, most probably, that Timothy received the Apostle's first epistle, being written not from Laodicea, as the subscription pretends, but from Macedonia, as you observe, after Athanasius and Theodoret among the ancients, and several eminent modern commentators. For, however the Apostle hoped to be with him shortly; yet, well knowing that untoward accidents might prevent it, he thought proper to send that letter of instructions to him, that he might know how to behave himself in the house of GOD. After that there is not the least appearance that St. Paul ever employed Timothy in any general business of the Church; or, that he was ever absent from Ephesus, except as before mentioned, during the short time he spent with the Apostle at Rome. So little support have you from Scripture, that Timothy had no permanent relation to the Church of Ephesus.

By settling the time of Timothy's appointment to the see of Ephesus, we have secured another point, which you represent as assumed by us without any proof; that is, that there were Elders at Ephesus before Timothy's appointment. I should suppose, that no one could possibly doubt of that, if there was no mention made of it, when he considers that Paul assures us, that he had spent three years preaching the Gospel throughout that region. To suppose that there were no Presbyters ordained during that time, when there were so many thousands converted to the faith, is one of those monstrous presumptions, which candid and impartial men will not admit. But, Sir, we have no need to have recourse to a priori reasoning. The fact is clear enough. Timothy, after he was commissioned by St. Paul to govern the Church of Ephesus, went before him to Troas, at which place Paul arrived from Philippi, in five days. They stayed there seven, Timothy going by water, and Paul by land, to Assos, where Paul embarked, and proceeded to Miletus.

At

that place, the Apostle sent for the Presbyters of Ephesus and the neighbouring region. Here, then, we find Elders, before Timothy had entered upon his charge; and we find St. Paul left Miletus without Timothy, and proceeded on his voyage to Jerusalem, where he was apprehended, and sent a prisoner to Rome. After some time, he sent for Timothy, who, by the second letter, we see, was at Ephesus. After Paul's death we hear no more of Timothy in the Scriptures; and but little in the fathers; but that little reports him to have been martyred at Ephesus. And we have just produced abundant evidence from the ancients, that he had his successors. Here, then, we have such a degree of proof on the episcopal side of this question, as could hardly be expected, considering the very short accounts we have in Scripture concerning the first settlement of Churches.

With respect to Titus, whom the ancients make the first Bishop of Crete, it may not be so easy a matter to determine when his appointment took place; nor is it of any consequence to our cause, after settling the point with respect to Timothy. For this purpose, says the Apostle, left I thee in Crete, &c.' Baronius' conjecture is very probable. He thinks it was when St. Paul went from Macedonia to Greece, through the Egean Sea. If so, Titus' travels were nearly over. We find him, indeed, afterwards at Nicopolis, and after that at Rome, for the purpose of seeing the Apostle before his death. There he left St. Paul, and went into Dalmatia; whether for the purpose of returning by a rather circuitous route to Crete, or for whatever purpose, it is impossible to say. One thing, however, we are assured of by the ancients, that he was the first Bishop of Crete. So says Eusebius. Ambrose also says, "The Apostle consecrated Titus a Bishop, and, therefore, admonishes him to be solicitous for the Church committed to him." Jerome, writing on these wordsFor this cause left I thee in Crete, thus applies them : "Let Bishops, who have the power of ordaining Presbyters, attend to this." Hence it is evident, that Jerome must have deemed him a Bishop, with such powers as Bishops had in his day; the chief of which was ordination. And in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, he says, that "Titus, the Bishop of Crete, preached the Gospel both in that and the neighbouring_islands." doret says, "Titus, a famous disciple of St. Paul, was by him ordained Bishop of Crete; being a place of great extent; with a commission also to ordain Bishops under him." Theophylact, in his preface to this epistle, affirms the same. Oecumenius upon the text, says, "St. Paul gave Titus authority to ordain Bishops, having first made him a Bishop." "d Here, then, is sufficient evidence, that Titus was the first Bishop of Crete; and that he had successors to the same pre-eminence which he possessed, will admit of no dispute.

b

z Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. c. 4.
c See HEYLIN of Episcopacy, p. 221.

Theo

a Præfat. ad Tit. d Ibid.

With respect to there being Presbyters at Crete, when Titus was set over the Church in that island, we may very reasonably suppose it; yet, as the Scripture does not mention it, you are determined not to allow it; nor is it, Sir, of any consequence whether you do or not. It is proved with respect to Timothy; but if it had not been, it would make no difference with respect to his office. We have produced abundant evidence, that Timothy and Titus were the first Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and that they had their successors; and from the epistles it appears, that after they had ordained Elders, they were to govern them, and all orders in their respective Churches. This is the point we wish to establish, and I think it is completely established. Your other objections shall be considered in my next letter.

REV. SIR:

LETTER X.

I SHALL now resume my answers to your objections. Previously, I would observe, that there is nothing more easy than to start difficulties with respect to the best authenticated facts, and the most universally received opinions. There is not a single principle of religion, whether natural or revealed, to which plausible objections may not be made; nor is there any fact around which ingenuity may not spread a mist. It is unnecessary for me to give a detail of the instances of this kind: Nay, Sir, you yourself are a proof of what ingenuity can do in this sort of management. I have given sufficient evidence of the correctness of this assertion. I have shown, that what you very positively call facts, have not the least pretension to that character; and that what you object to the evidence of episcopacy, in the second and third centuries, is mere cavil and evasion. You give us another proof of this in the quotation which follows. You say, 'Admitting, for the sake of argument, that there were Presbyters ordained and residing both at Ephesus and Crete, previous to the respective missions of Timothy and Titus, still no advantage to the episcopal cause can be derived from this concession. We learn from the epistles directed to those Evangelists, that divisions and difficulties existed in both the Churches to which they were sent. Among the Christians at Ephesus there had crept in ravenous wolves, who annoyed and wasted the flock; and also some who had turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to become teachers of the law without understanding what they said, or whereof they affirmed.' And nearly the same account is given of the Church of Crete; from which you think it a probable inference, that the Presbyters themselves were involved in the disputes and animosities which

prevailed; and that it was, therefore, necessary to send special missionaries to set in order the affairs of those Churches.' Now, if the necessity of sending missionaries arose from the Presbyters being involved in the contentions, (which, however, is altogether supposition,) you pay presbyterian government but a very poor compliment; for it seems, according to your account of the matter, that such a mode of government is by no means adequate to the exigences of the Church. This was your friend. Jerome's opinion, and it appears that you have at length discovered his meaning, and made it your own. Well, Sir, I have no objection.

Further: It seems, when there were Presbyteries completely organized in those Churches, that the Apostle sent persons invested with superior powers to curb the unruly Presbyters, to reclaim the wandering among them, 'to repress the ambition of those who wished to become teachers, or to thrust themselves into the ministry, without being duly qualified; to select and ordain others of more worthy character; and, in general, to set in order the affairs of those Churches.' If all this does not prove the superiority of those special missionaries over the Presbyteries of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, it is hard to say what does.

But these are not the only difficulties in which your theory involves you. By your hypothesis, presbyterian government is of divine institution. Yet it seems, very shortly after the Apostles, under the influence of divine inspiration, had established that government, it became totally inadequate to the purposes for which it was instituted. If this be not a severe censure upon the wisdom of inspired Apostles, I do not know what is.

Still further: Timothy and Titus, if we may believe the unanimous testimony of the ancients, had successors in the authority which they exercised in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete. Then the authority which they exercised over the presbyteries of their respective Churches was conveyed to others; and consequently episcopacy is an apostolic institution.

It is a very natural reflection from all this, that when men leave the plain path of truth, palpable error and inextricable difficulties are the inevitable consequence.

Your fifth remark, which, you say, 'invalidates the argument under consideration,' is the following: 'We know not that either Timothy or Titus alone ordained a single Presbyter, at Ephesus or Crete.' Is it possible that this should have come from your pen ? You tell us, that there is no evidence that there were Presbyters at Ephesus or Crete; and yet that Timothy and Titus were sent upon an ordaining tour. In the name of common sense, how could they have had any Presbyters to assist them, when, if you are right, there were none at Ephesus or Crete? A man, when he deals much in surmises, ought to have, at least, a good memory; otherwise, the probability is that he will run himself into gross and palpable inconsistencies.

.