the authority of young Timothy, that he enjoins them; "take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you ETLOKOTOVS bishops, to feed the church of God," &c. But as not a word is said of leaving Timothy at Miletus, so it is improbable that he should have parted from Paul there, because he appears to have been of the company of the apostle, when he arrived at Rome, where he is joined with him in the letters which have been mentioned.

"Others allege, that Paul visited Ephesus after his first imprisonment, left Timothy there, went into Macedonia, and from thence wrote to him his first letter. They build upon the circumstances, that whilst at Rome he had written to Philemon to prepare him lodgings at Colosse; and that he had told the Philippians, by letter, he trusted he should shortly come to them.

"This opinion is much more respectable than either of the former; and although several of the fathers have positively asserted what is incompatible with it, that Paul went into Spain, after his first imprisonment, according to his purpose expressed Rom. xv. 28, yet, however credible these holy men were, their conjectures deserve often but little regard. That Paul was at Philippi after his imprisonment is probable, because he left Erastus at Corinth, 2 Tim. iv. 20. Also he may have been at Colosse, if he left Trophimus at Miletus; but the place was Miletum. ibid. He entertained a purpose subsequent to those, of visiting Judea with Timothy.

Heb. xiii. 23. This may have been first accomplished, and Timothy left in the neighborhood of Troas, where he remained till the second epistle was sent to him. But if these purposes were effectuated, which is a matter of uncertainty, there is not a word to prove even an intention to visit Ephesus. The letter to the Ephesians neither mentions Timothy, nor any coming of Paul. But Tychicus, a faithful minister of the Lord, and companion of the apostle, was named as sent to them. Ephes. vi. 21. To the Ephesians Paul had said, that he knew they should " see his face no more," and it is no where shown that he did. The supposition that nevertheless Paul afterwards went to Ephesus with Timothy, Jeft him there, with the request to tarry till he should return to him, and then went into Macedonia, and wrote his first epistle to Timothy, is entirely gratuitous, and without the least reason appearing in any exigencies of the Ephesian church; which had had three years of Paul's labors, and had been afterwards long blessed with the regular administration of the ordinances by pastors of their own, besides help from Tychicus, and perhaps others.

"If Paul constituted Timothy bishop of Ephesus, it is an affirmative, and ought to be proved. But Paul tells the presbyters of Ephesus at Miletus, that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops (ETICKOTOVS) of that church. Those elders had previously received the powers which were necessary to ordaining others; on Timothy a similar presbytery laid

their hands at his ordination. If this circumstance will not show that a presbytery could have ordained an evangelist, an apostle not being present, because evangelists were extraordinary officers of a higher grade; yet it must prove that a presbytery have some power to ordain. They were the highest fixed officers in a church, and the power of ordination was necessary to their succession. They could not have been appointed coadjutors to Timothy, in the ordination of themselves. And it does not appear they were ordained before the riot, when he was left at Ephesus. If thus there were no officers in that church when Paul left it, the direction to Timothy, who was an evangelist, to ordain bishops, that is, elders in Ephesus, was to do no more than his duty; which, when accomplished in any church, gave such bishops or elders, power to continue the succession. If the presbyters of particular churches had not the power of ordination, there has been no succession in the church of Christ since the deaths of the apostles and evangelists; for their offices expired with them, and there were no officers of a higher order. The office of Timothy was given to him prior to his visiting Ephesus. The duty assigned him was afterwards declared to be the work of an evangelist. 2 Tim. iv. 5. His appointment to Ephesus was temporary, being limited, at the farthest, to the time when Paul should come to him; but an earlier period of its termina. tion was evidently left to his discretion, which he

exercised by coming to Paul into Macedonia. Thus there was a disruption of the connection, if any had been fixed; but none such was intended; the epistle was neither a commission, nor an ordination, but a mere letter of instruction, directing him in the discharge of his high and important office of evangelist.

"If Timothy returned to Ephesus from Rome, which is not recorded in the Scriptures, and died there, it will not establish that he ever exercised, or had any other office, than that of an evangelist.”*

5. The claim that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, is one that must be made out by Episcopalians from the New Testament. But this claim has not been made out, nor can it ever be.

6. The epistle to the Ephesians shows further, that at the time of writing that, there was no such bishop at Ephesus. Though the apostle herein. gives the church various instructions about the relations which existed, there is not the slightest hint that Timothy was there; nor is there the least intimation that any such officer ever had been, or ever would be, set over them.

Now, if it cannot be made out, that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus; if the point is not established beyond a doubt, then in reading Paul's charge to the elders at Miletus, we are to regard them as intrusted with the care of the church at Ephesus. It is not necessary to our argument to inquire whether

* Dr. Wilson.

they were ruling elders, or presbyters, ordained to preach as well as to rule. All that is incumbent on us, is to show that the New Testament does not warrant the assumption, that they were subject to a diocesan bishop. We affirm, therefore, simply, that Paul addressed them as intrusted with the spiritual instruction and government of the church at Ephesus, without any reference whatever to any person, either then or afterwards placed over them, as superior in ministerial rights and powers. And this point is conclusively established by two additional considerations; first, that they are expressly called bishops, ¿Loкóпovs, themselves, a most remarkable appellation, if the apostle meant to have them understand that they were to be under the administration of another bishop of superior ministerial powers and rights; and secondly, that they are expressly intrusted with the whole spiritual charge of the church, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κ. τ. λ. But every thing in this case is fully met by the supposition, that they were invested with the simple power of ruling. Dr. Onderdonk himself admits that the word translated “feed,” noiμaívɛiv, may be rendered to "rule." p. 37. And if this point be conceded, the idea that they were elders in the Presbyterian sense, is all that can be proved from the passage. It is essential to the argument of Episcopalians, that they should be able to make out that these elders not only ruled, but also preached the gospel, and performed the other functions of their "second order" of clergy.