them and the Apostles; and as much prove them to have held this latter office, as that of Evangelists.

MILNER (Vol. I. p. 56, 59) thinks that Philip, the Evangelist, resided in Cesarca twenty or thirty years, from the time he reached there after baptizing the Ethiopian, (Acts viii. 40.,) till Paul lodged at his house, as mentioned in Acts xxi. 8.

In fine: There is no scriptural proof that Evangelists, as such, were migratory or itinerant; nay, that sort of proof favours the opposite opinion, that they did not travel merely in the fulfilment of their evangelizing function. And we therefore assert, that, so far as appears from the inspired record, Timothy might have "done the work of an Evangelist," without being in any sense a missionary Bishop, but exclusively a diocesan. We say this, only because it is due to truth and accuracy, not because our argument requires it. That Timothy was a proper Bishop we have proved in the essay; and it is of no consequence whether he exercised that office as a missionary, or a diocesan, or both. It is expedient, probably in the highest degree, that every Bishop, whatever extra duties he may perform as a missionary, be a diocesan or coadjutor; but this is not essential. In the first found ing of Christianity, the apostolical or episcopal labours of almost every indi vidual in the office were necessarily diffused widely. Yet the docile student of Scripture will not fail to remark, that it leaves Timothy in Ephesus, and the seven angels" connected with their respective Churches; to which the case of James is to be added, in the Church of Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 13, 19; xxi. 18.) Thus much may be securely claimed, in addition to the revealed argument for episcopacy in itself, in favour of diocesan arrangements.

THE END.

No. 47.

TIMOTHY AN APOSTLE.

IN the essay entitled, "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," it was noticed that Timothy is called an "apostle" in that sacred volume. Almost no use, however, was made of that fact in the main argument of the essay, as it was believed to be new matter, and indeed was not discovered by the author till his piece was written. It was chiefly adduced to show the fallacy of ascribing Timothy's superior power to his being an evangelist, when he had supreme power as an apostle. The grounds on which it was asserted that Timothy has this title in Scripture, were briefly given in a note :

'See 1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with 1 Thess. 1. 1. Paul, Silvanus (or Silas,) and Timothy, are all included as "apostles." In verse 18, Paul speaks of himself individually, not probably before. It is not unusual, indeed, for St. Paul to use the plural number of himself only; but the words "apostles" and "our own souls," (verse 8,) being inapplicable to the singular use of the plural number, show that the three whose names are at the head of this epistle are here spoken of jointly. And thus Silas and Timothy are, with Paul, recognised in this passage of Scripture as 66 apostles."

....

The passage thus referring to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, is-" we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of CHRIST; but we were willing to have imparted unto you our own souls." The words "apostles" and "souls" are obviously plural in the plural sense, and show that Paul was not speaking of himself alone, but of all the three who joined in the epistle.

A writer in the Connecticut Observer (February 14th) denies the application of this language to the three individuals mentioned, and asserts that these plural words have the singular sense, and are meant of Paul only. His remarks are as follows:

"The proof adduced is a comparison of 1 Thess. ii. 6, with the same, i. 1. The writer says, 'Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, are all included as apostles.' Paul unites Silvanus, or Silas, and Timothy, in the salutation with himself, 1 Thess. i. 1; and in the next chapter, verse 6, he says, ' We might have been burdensome to you as apostles of CHRIST.' The question is, did Paul, mean to include the others with himself in this passage? The writer in the Protestant Episcopalian affirms that he did. We say he did not-at least, it cannot be proved that he did. The use of the plural'we' does not prove it. For Paul often uses 'we' when he intends only himself; and in letters too in which others are joined with him in the salutation. To mention no other, we ( 47 )

have an instance in this very chapter, verse 18. Compare, also, 1 Thess. iii. 1, with the same, verse 6. Neither do the plural expressions, 'apostles' and ' our own souls' prove it. We have instances of similar modes of expression in other parts of his writings, when he himself only is intended. For example of the first, apostles,' compare 2 Cor. i. 24, with the same, i. 23, where 'helpers' is used to denote the singular, as 'we' is to denote the same. For parallel example to 'our own souls,' as denoting the singular, vide 2 Cor. vii. 3, compared with verse 7, where in our hearts' refers to Paul solely."

On this extract several observations may be made in reply. The note from "Episcopacy," &c., allows that St. Paul often uses the plural for the singular in speaking of himself. So far we all agree.

The reference to 2 Cor. i. 23, 24, will not help the cause of parity; it only shows a transition from the singular to the plural in the plural sense, which is very usual where the writer alludes to both himself and others bearing any similar relation to the persons addressed; "to spare you I came not as yet . . . not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy." 1. Surely common sense will suggest that if more 'helpers" than Paul can be found, that expression would be sounder than if applied to him alone. Hence it would be competent to say, without express proof, that by "we" he here means apostles or ministers in general. 2. We find, however, only five verses before, the persons specially alluded to as 66 we;" they are Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus," (verse 19.) These, then, are the "helpers" of the passage; and thus that word is proved by the context to have, not a singular, but a plural meaning. 3. McKnight gives a general plural sense; not that "we apostles" lord it over you, but are joint workers of your joy. 4. Doddridge gives another general plural sense, "but we, even I, and all the faithful ministers of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, are joint helpers of your joy." Instead, therefore, of weakening the argument that Timothy was an apostle, the Observer has rather strengthened it, by pointing to an additional case of Paul's using the plural number without giving it the meaning of the singular.

The appeal to 2 Cor. vii. 3, is not more fortunate; the word "hearts" has there unquestionably its natural plural signification, including other "hearts" beside that of Paul, "for I have said before, that ye are in our hearts." 1. Common sense, as before urged, requires us to give plural meanings to such plural words, if it can be done consistently, which is the case here, making our hearts" to allude to ministers generally. 2. St. Paul, in this passage, refers to a previous expression used by him, "I have said before." This reference carries us* to verses 11, 12, of the sixth chapter, "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open

unto you, our heart is enlarged." Well, the Observer may say, the "hearts" plural of the one passage, must mean the "heart" singular of the other, and both refer to Paul's affection only. No, we reply, "our heart" is a general or collective phrase, (see Rom. xv. 6,) equivalent to "our hearts;" and thus others than Paul are included. What, then, shall decide between these opposite assertions? the context. From the words "our heart," (vi. 11,) back to the beginning of the chapter continuously (except one verse in a parenthesis,) Paul is speaking of the "ministry." To that body he alludes every time the first person plural is used throughout the passage. Most certainly, then, " our mouth and our heart" relate not to St. Paul alone, but to "the ministry" spoken of, with a special reference to those of that sacred order connected with the Corinthians, or perhaps to himself and Timothy, who address this epistle to them. Now, what this passage means, the other quoted by the Observer means, since Paul refers from the latter to the former. Of course the words "our hearts" have a plural signification, applying not to Paul alone, but in conjunction with others. And thus falls the Observer's remaining objection to the scriptural proof of the apostleship of Timothy.

In the Connecticut Observer of September 17th, there is the following passage respecting the apostleship of Timothy; it is comprised in a reply to a writer in the Episcopal Watchman, under the signature of Ignatius.

"Ignatius insists upon it that Timothy was an apostle in the same sense in which Paul was an apostle. This argument is so wrought into the texture of some modern treatises on Episcopacy, that it deserves a passing remark. The claim has been but lately made by Episcopalians, and rests solely on 1 Thess. i. 1, compared with chapter ii. 6. In our remarks on the reviewer of the Tribute to the Memory of the Pilgrims,' a few months ago, we introduced the opinion of a biblical critic second to none in this country, that the use of the plural 'apostles' in 1 Thess. ii. 6, and of 'our own souls,' verse 8, does not prove that Timothy was an apostle. Moreover, according to the author of 'Episcopacy tested by Scripture,' who first, so far as we know, urged these passages in proof of the apostleship of Timothy, this epistle was written ten years, at least, before Paul admonished Timothy, 'Let no man despise thy youth.' If he had been at least ten years an apostle, he was admitted to that office very young, probably at about the age of twenty. And how shall we account for it that when Paul joins Timothy with himself in salutation to churches, he calls himself an 'apostle,' and Timothy only a 'brother?-vide 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1'; Philemon verse 1. He speaks of Timothy just as he does of Sosthenes, who, we believe, was never supposed to be an apostle; vide 1 Cor. i. 1. At this very time, too, when it is now claimed that Paul calls Timothy an apostle, according to Archbishop Potter, Timothy was attending on Paul as a deacon."

:

On this passage the following remarks suggest themselves:The fact that Timothy was an apostle, may, perhaps, be said to be "wrought into the texture of the treatise" entitled "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," but it is not wrought into the texture" of the main argument therein contained. All that relates to that fact might be struck from the "treatise" without essential injury. Still it is a fact, and is therefore adduced with perfect propriety in its bearings on the controversy between our cause and that of parity.

This is the second time the Connecticut Observer has" wrought into the texture" of its columns the opinion of "a biblical critic, second to none in the country," that Timothy was not an apostle. Is this reasoning? Who can answer a name? Let the critic's arguments be given, and it may be seen whether they are sound. If the remarks in the Observer of February 14, were the arguments of this eminent critic, they were answered in the Protestant Episcopalian for March, which answer has never, so far as known, been replied to. And if what is now added, in the above extract, be also his, may it not be feared that his fund of reasoning on this subject is running low? At all events, these additional observations, whether his or not, are peculiarly weak, as will now be shown."

First among these new objections to the apostleship of Timothy, at the time 1 Thessalonians was written, is the remark, that he must have been made an apostle very young. The answer is easy, being nothing more than the objection itself—he was an apostle at a very early age. Does this fact prove or disprove any thing? Certainly not. Timothy, we know, was very early pious and versed in the Scriptures; whether this was one of St. Paul's reasons for placing him so soon in the apostleship, cannot now be determined, and is of no consequence; it is enough that Scripture calls him an apostle in the year 54, the date of the epistles to the Thessalonians, when he may have been no more than twenty years old, but was probably twentytwo or three.

Next objection: Why does Paul, in some places, call himself an apostle, and Timothy only a brother? asks the Observer. 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 brethen of 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.

Next: Paul's calling Sosthenes a brother, proves just as much as his giving Timothy that appellation.

Lastly: As to Archbishop Potter's opinion, that Timothy was but a deacon at the time St. Paul terms him an apostle, in 1 Thess. ii. 6, it is obviously a mistake, since that passage decides against him. The cause of the mistake of this able