Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

requested them to 'strive together with him in their prayers, that he might be delivered from the unbelieving in Judea.' (Rom. xv. 30, 31.) Further, that in his speech to the Ephesian elders, the Apostle only declared his own persuasion, dictated by his fears, and not any suggestion of the Spirit, I think plain from what he had said immediately before Behold, I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things which shall befall me there; save that the HOLY GHOST Witnesseth in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me.' Wherefore, although his fears were happily disappointed, and he actually visited the Ephesians after his release, his character as an inspired apostle is not hurt in the least, if, in saying 'he knew they should see his face no more,' he declared, as I have said, his own persuasion only, and no dictate of the HOLY GHOST." Macknight, iv. p. 160.

[ocr errors]

In regard to this latter objection, that Paul was to see the elders of Ephesus no more, it is further to be remarked that he may have never seen them again, or have been in Ephesus itself, although he visited other eastern churches, and other parts of the Egean coasts. He may, when he "was going into Macedonia," have been in a vessel which but touched at Ephesus; and so have left Timothy there, while he continued his voyage. Or, Timothy may, at that time, have been at Ephesus, and rejoined him in those parts, when Paul requested him to abide" there "still." Or, without Timothy's thus rejoining him, Paul may have despatched a messenger or a letter to him, beseeching him to continue in that city; the first epistle being afterward sent, as his full credentials in his high office. That Paul and Timothy revisited those regions after being in Rome, has, we think, been abundantly shown; and either of the above suppositions, each of them being perfectly natural, will meet the objection that Paul was to see the Ephesian elders no more. Doddridge, on this passage, observes-"I conclude that the Apostle had received some particular revelation, that, if he should ever return to these parts of Asia again, (as from Philem. 22, I think it probable he might,) yet that he should not have an opportunity of calling at Ephesus, or of seeing the ministers whom he now addressed."

As on the one hand there is good authority for interpreting the above declaration of Paul, (that he knew he would see those elders no more,) as being the mere suggestion of his apprehensions, (see Macknight, Hammond, Poole's Synopsis and Poole's Annot.) it is perfectly fair to suppose that both he and Timothy were now again in Ephesus, when he besought him to abide there as the head of its church. But if it be alleged, on the other hand, that this impression of Paul was prophetic and inspired, it is sufficient to say that he met Timothy or sent him a message, while somewhere near Ephesus, on his way to Macedonia, when, at the late period mentioned, he made this request of him.

We shall add one more valuable extract from Macknight. (IV. 157.)

"When the Apostle wrote his first epistle to Timothy, 'he hoped to come to him soon.' (iii. 14.) But from the history of the Acts, it is certain that in no letter written to Timothy after the riot, till his first confinement in Rome, could the Apostle say that he hoped to 'come to him soon.' He could not say so in any letter written from Troas, the first place he stopped at after leaving Ephesus: for at that time he was going into Macedonia and Achaia to receive the collections [for the poor brethren in Jerusalem] from the churches in these provinces. [Acts xx. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4, 5.] Neither could he say so after writing his second to the Corinthians, from Macedonia: for in that epistle he told the Corinthians he was coming to them with the Macedonian brethren, who were commissioned to attend him in his voyage to Jerusalem with the collections, (2 Cor. xi. 4,) and that he meant to sail directly from Corinth to Judea. (2 Cor. i. 16.) [See also Rom. xv. 25, 26, written at Corinth.] As little could he write to Timothy, that he hoped to come to him soon,' when he altered his resolution on occasion of the lying in wait of the Jews, and returned into Macedonia; (Acts xx. 3) for he was then in such haste to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, that when he came to Miletus, instead of going to Ephesus, he sent for the elders of that church to come to him. (Acts xx. 16, 17.) When he arrived in Judea he could not write that he hoped to come to Ephesus soon:' for he was imprisoned a few days after he went up to Jerusalem. And having continued two years in prison at Cæsarea, he was sent bound to Rome, where likewise being confined, he could not, till toward the conclusion of that confinement, write to Timothy that he hoped to come to him soon. And even then he did not write his first epistle to Timothy for Timothy was with him at the conclusion of his confinement. (Philip. ii. 19-23.)"

[ocr errors]

We feel confident that no ingenuity can overturn the mass of argument now adduced. And we therefore do not hesitate to answer finally the question, When did Paul place Timothy over the church at Ephesus? He did so when they both were among the eastern churches after his first imprisonment in Rome, and not before, the date being A. D. 65, according to Bishop Lloyd's chronology.*

At that time there was a body of clergy in Ephesus, for there had been five years or more previously, (Acts xx. 17;) and over these Timothy was placed as the supreme officer, soon afterward called a bishop. It matters little indeed in reference to the Episcopal argument whether Timothy found clergy in

* Of modern authorities, besides Macknight, T. Scott, A. Clarke, Bishop, Tomline, G. Townsend, and T. Hartwell Horne, agree that the date of this epistle was after Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, and about the year we have assigned,

Ephesus, when he took charge of the church with the power of ordaining and governing; or whether there were none there as yet, and he was to ordain all that were required. In either case he would have the ordaining power, such as the apostles had, and such as presbyters (alone) are nowhere in Scripture said to possess. As, however, the truth is that there were clergy ("teachers") in Ephesus when Timothy was placed there, we have deemed it proper in the present article to illustrate and confirm this only sound view of the subject.

We again, therefore, desire the reader to compare St. Paul's address to the elders of Ephesus, (Acts xx. 18-35,) with the epistles to Timothy, when afterward placed over them as their bishop. While the elders had no bishop, nothing was hinted of any ordaining or supreme clerical power in Ephesus. When, however, a bishop was afterward resident with them, those powers are fully recognised as existing there in the person of Timothy he is to "lay on hands;" he is to "receive accusations against elders;" he is to "charge them to teach no false doctrine;" "this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy." The elders are never once mentioned as having these rights, or as sharing them. If our opponents say that he superseded the elders for a time, we first ask the proof that the latter had such powers before he came among them; we next ask the proof that they resumed such powers on his relinquishing that church, if he ever did but no proof can be found for either of these points. Why should there not be scriptural evidence for Presbyterian ordination, and that evidence as strong and as clear as for the (so called) evangelical right of ordination existing in Timothy? How is it, if evangelical ordination (so called) was but temporary, while Presbyterian ordination was to be permanent, that the former stands broadly and for ever on record, while the latter has not one particle of proof positive in the New Testament?

The Episcopal solution of these questions is the only sound one. 1. Ordination did not belong to evangelists merely as such, but to ministers of a fixed grade superior to elders or presbyters. 2. Ordination by these superior officers was not to be temporary, but permanent; and therefore this right, as possessed by such officers, of apostolical or Episcopal rank, stands broadly and for ever on record. 3. Ordination by inferior clergymen was never designed by CHRIST or the Apostles; and therefore the New Testament affords it not a particle of proof positive. So clear is the Episcopal interpretation and view of these parts of Scripture.

And it is worthy of note that the chief officer and the elders of the same church are thus set in contrast. Had indeed the address of Paul been to the elders of Antioch or Philippi, of Pontus or Illyricum, while the epistles were to Timothy in Ephesus, our argument would have been strong enough; as showing that the office of the latter was superior to that of the

former. But as both belonged to the one church of Ephesus, we have the stronger argument, that that identical officer Timothy, was superior to that identical body of elders, and exercised his powers over the very church to which they belonged.

In the full enjoyment of these powers, ordaining and supreme government, and fixed at Ephesus, with the exception of a visit to the venerable Paul when expecting martyrdom, the holy record completes its notice of Timothy, his eminent and most beloved son in the Gospel. The functions of the apostles and of their first Episcopal brethren were sometimes diocesan and sometimes excursive; a bishop may perform Episcopal duty either way. Timothy appears to have often performed excursive Episcopal offices. But, from the tone of the two epistles, from the charge to him to oppose false teachers, while it yet is intimated that false teaching would continue even to the "latter times,"-from the warning given him respecting Alexander when he should return from Rome to Ephesus,-from the admonition to be faithful in his trust "till the appearing of CHRIST," i. e. till Timothy's own death,-from the intimation that his functions were to continue should Paul "tarry long," and its not being revoked in the second epistle, when he fully expected martyrdom,—from all these considerations, added to Paul's original request that he would remain indefinitely at Ephesus, we conclude, that from the time of that request, and when Scripture takes its leave of him, he was the diocesan bishop of the church in that city.

H. U. O.

From the Quarterly Christian Spectator.

REVIEW.

ANSWER TO A REVIEW (in the Quarterly Christian Spectator) of 'Episcopacy Tested by Scripture;" first published in the Protestant Episcopalian for May, 1834. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding. 1834.

Pp. 19.

WHEN the review of the tract, "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," was prepared,* it was not our design to engage in a controversy on the subject there discussed. We well knew how unprofitable and how endless such a controversy might become; and we felt that we had more important business to engage our attention, than that of endeavoring to defend the external order of the Church. The subject attracted our notice, because, on two different occasions, the tract which was the subject of the review, had been sent to us, in one instance accompanied with a polite request,-evidently from an Episcopalian,-to give to it our particular attention; because, too, the tract had been published at the "Episcopal Press," and it was known that it would be extensively circulated; because it had been the subject of no small self-gratulation among the Episcopalians, and had been suffered, notwithstanding the manifest complacency with which they regarded it, to lie unanswered; but mainly, because it made an appeal at once to the Bible, and professed a willingness that the question should be settled by the authority of the Scriptures alone. This appeared to us to be placing the subject on new ground. The first emotion produced by the title of the tract was one of surprise. We had been so accustomed to regard this controversy as one that was to be settled solely by the authority of the fathers; we had been so disheartened, and sickened by the unprofitable nature, the interminable duration, and the want of fixed bounds and principles, in that investigation; we had seen so little reference made to the Bible, on either side of the question, that it excited in us no small degree of surprise to learn, that a bishop of the Episcopal Church should be willing to make a direct, decisive, and unqualified appeal to the New Testament. It was so unusual; it gave so new a direction to the controversy; it promised so speedy an issue, and one so little auspicious to the cause which the bishop was engaged in defending, that we were not unwilling to turn aside from our usual engagements, and to examine the proofs adduced in this somewhat novel mode of the Episcopal controversy.

* Christian Spectator, vol. vi.

( 130 )

« VorigeDoorgaan »