XXVI.

DIOCESAN BISHOPS.

Timothy not Diocesan of Ephesus. The Angels of the Churches were no Diocesan Bishops. No change of official designation from Apostle to Bishop.

IT is contended, that Timothy was Diocesan Bishop, that is, Apostle, of Ephesus. But the New Testament shows that Timothy was notoriously an itinerant, going from field to field, and not a stationary officer of any special district. To this, our Episcopal brethren reply that Timothy was a Missionary Bishop, at least so long as his journeyings continued. A Missionary Bishop! A Missionary Apostle! Does the New Testament recognize such a thing as a stationary Apostle-the Apostle of a single Church or Diocese?

Paul says to Timothy, "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus." The inference is inevitable: he was not by his peculiar office permanently stationed there. Daillé has well remarked; "To beseech a man to abide in a place where his charge assigns him to be, and which he cannot forsake without offending God, and neglecting his duty, is, to say the truth, not a very civil entreaty; as it plainly supposes that he has not his duty much at heart."

There is, however, very plain proof from Scripture, that Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus at all. If he ever was so, it must have been when the first Epistle of Paul was written to him for the sole argument that he was so, is built upon the assumption that this Epistle was written to him in capacity of Bishop [Apostle] of Ephesus.

But some time after that Epistle was written, Paul (a little before his being sent prisoner to Rome) returns through Macedonia to Asia, "bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem" (Acts xx.). In the 4th verse, it is specially recorded that Timothy was with him. Coming to Miletus (v. 17), Paul sends to Ephesus for the elders of the Church, and when they are come, he gives them the solemn charge recorded in Acts xx. 18-35. In Timothy's presence, Paul sends for these elders: Paul charges them. He says not a word about Timothy, or any other Diocesan. This is alto

gether unaccountable on the notion that Timothy is their Bishop [Apostle]. Why does not Timothy send? Why does not Timothy charge these elders? He is their Apostle! the equal of Paul. Why does not he greet his own Presbyters, from whom he has been so long absent? Why does Paul interfere in his brother Apostle's special Diocese ?

It is so plain that Timothy is not, at this time, their Diocesan Bishop, that even Bishop Onderdonk concedes it; "Ephesus," says he (p. 25), "was without a Bishop when Paul addressed the elders; Timothy not having been placed over that Church, till some time afterwards." But if Timothy was not at this time their Diocesan, he never was. If you turn to 1 Tim. i. 3., you will see that Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, when he himself went into Macedonia; and in chap. iii. 14, we learn that Paul expected to return. "These things I write, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, &c." And chap. iv. 13, "Till I come, give attendance to reading, &c." The evidence is conclusive that the Epistle was written when Paul expected to return to Ephesus. But how was it, when, being at Miletus (Acts xx.), he sends for the Ephesian Elders and gives them their charge? It is his final charge. "And now behold I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more" (Acts xx. 17). "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake that they should see his face no more." And they did see him no more. He went to Jerusalem; was apprehended; sent as a prisoner to Rome, and died a martyr.

This renders it certain, that his interview with the Ephesian Elders recorded in Acts xx. was after the Epistle to Timothy was written. But it is both proved and conceded, that at the time of that interview with the Ephesian Elders, Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus. The conclusion is inevitable: Timothy never was Bishop of Ephesus: and nothing in the Epistle to Timothy can bear the slightest possible allusion to the work of a Diocesan Bishop. This main prop and pillar of Episcopacy must needs tumble to the ground.*

The search after Diocesan Bishops in Apostolic times, now

"Theodoret and Athanasius among the Fathers affirm this early date of the First Epistle to Timothy. Baronius, Ludovic, Capellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius, Lightfoot, Benson, Doddridge, and Michaelis affirm it. Townsend says, "I can ad mit no theoretical argument to overthrow what seems to me the unforced deduction from Scripture, that the Epistle was written after St. Paul went from Ephesus, and left Timothy there when he went into Macedonia."

"Episcopalians have been challenged to produce a single passage from the writings of the Fathers for the first three centuries, in which Timothy or Titus are recognized as Bishops in the prelatical sense; and the challenge remains unanswered to this day." "Chrysostom acknowledges them to be Evangelists." (Puseyite Episcopacy, by J. Brown, D.D.)

comes to a narrow corner of the field. Bishop Onderdonk, the modern Goliath of Episcopacy, first bids us look for veritable Apostles, other than the Twelve, bearing the Apostolic name; Apostle Andronicus, Apostle Junia, Apostle Epaphroditus; we have looked, and find no Apostles there. He next bids us look for Apostles without the name, and independently of any name at all; we have looked, and they are not there. Where now shall we look for men bearing the Apostolic office after the death of the Twelve?

Shall we look for them under the name of Bishops? No: it is conceded that they are not yet to be found under that name. Every Church, in city and in country, has its Bishop, who is everywhere known by that name; but he is admitted to be a simple pastor, and no successor of the Apostles in their peculiar office.

Shall we look for them under the name of Apostles? There is no man, bearing that name, anywhere on the face of the earth. Where then, in the name of wonder, are they? It is passing strange that this office, on which the very existence of the Church depends, should be known by no distinctive name! Why, every poor pastor, every deacon and deaconess, bears a well known official title. Is there none for that first order in the Church? Do they move about, in every province and city, bearing the burden and rule of all the Churches, and while Deacons and Bishops are every day referred to by name, is there no trace extant, upon the whole earth, of any reference to this high order of functionaries?

O certainly, replies Bishop Onderdonk; you will find them under the name of ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES. Hear him (p. 262): "The dignitaries in question were addressed when it was somewhat too late to call them Apostles, and too soon to call them Bishops, particularly as the latter word had a different meaning in the Scriptures already written. Another designation therefore is given them; they are called angels; and the kind of office is left to be inferred from the powers and distinctions given them." "The name Bishop was in transitu from the second order to the first."

To this I reply (1.) That there is no proof that the name Bishop was undergoing a change. The allegation that it was so, is entirely gratuitous and untrue. About A.D. 100 Clemens Romanus uses the word Bishop as it is used in the New Testament; to signify the simple Pastor of a congregation. This is admitted by Slater (p. 18), who maintains that a different use of the word Bishop was first made by Ignatius in the second century. We do not admit that it was made even then; but the proof is complete, that the name Bishop was not now in a pro

cess of change, from pastors to those who were formerly called Apostles. For the first century of the Christian era, there is no evidence that the name, Bishop, meant anything else than it did in the days of the Apostles; and four hundred years passed away before any one ventured to assert that those were called Bishops who were once called Apostles.

(2) The supposition is absurd. In the process of a gradual change of name, there will be, for a time, an intermingling of the old name with the new; but never in such a gradual change was it heard, that for a while it is too early to use the new name and too late to use the old; and that, therefore, a third name, distinct from either, is introduced to soften down the process of the change.

But the case is still worse in the case supposed by Bishop Onderdonk. He will have it that the Christian world is studded

all over with real Apostles, bearing that name. There is Apostle Timothy, Apostle Epaphroditus, Apostle Andronicus, Apostle Junia, and Apostle who not, besides. While this is so, every congregation in every city, village and hamlet, has its pastor, who, the world over, is styled a Bishop. Presently, and ere the volume of revelation closes, the Apostles are all gone; all, save the last of the Twelve in Patmos. No man anywhere bears the name Apostle. It is "too late" to call any man an Apostle; but unfortunately for the argument of Bishop Onderdonk, the world is full of Bishops, who are all simple Pastors; and it is too early to call an Apostle by the name of Bishop.

Now how is this double change effected? How is it that the Apostles everywhere give up their own name, and everywhere filch away the names of the Bishops, and yet no trace or fragment of this double change can be found, in the history of the whole world for four hundred years? If the process of change is so universally going on, it must somewhere appear. But it does not. Writings are abundant: a trace of almost everything else appears in them: but no trace or fragment of such a change can anywhere be found. The very life of Episcopacy hangs upon the certainty of such a change; but it brings no proof; it is obliged to rest upon a baseless, unreasonable, impossible assumption.

(3.) It is alleged that during this process of change, Apostles are designated neither as Apostles nor as Bishops, but under the style of " Angels of the Churches." If this were so, then "Angels of the Churches" would be very common affairs: we should find mention made of them at every turn. But the word Angel is in no other instance used in this sense in any writing sacred or profane. Episcopacy is driven here to find an Apostle in the angel of the Church. If an Apostle is not here he is confessedly

nowhere. He is nowhere called Apostle; he is nowhere called Bishop. It is too late for the one, and too early for the other. Episcopacy, therefore, as a last resort, fastens upon the angels of the Church. She guesses that they are Diocesan Bishops, for if not there, where can they be? She guesses, that each one of these seven Churches must be a Diocese of several congregations; and that the angel presided over the clergy of the several congregations! It is all guess-work, without a particle of proof; but with the acknowledged fact that "angel of the Church" nowhere else means a bishop, in all the writings of man! Other people guess that these angels were Presbyters; others again guess that they figuratively represent the whole body of the church; since the Spirit says to one of these angels, Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison." Lightfoot guesses that the angel of the Church was something answering to the Chazan of the Jewish Synagogue, who took care of the reading of the iaw, and who sometimes preached; but who was far enough from being the type of a Diocesan Bishop. If I might be allowed to add my guess, I should guess that the angel of the Church is no officer at all; but that the use of the word is figurative;-one of the images in that highly figurative book. We have an angel in the sun; an angel standing on the sea and on the earth; angels coming down with chains. I should guess, that the addresses to angels of the Churches are only figurative modes of addressing the Churches themselves. Indeed, after these messages to the angels, it is added, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto THE CHURCHES." And in making this guess, I do it in very good company, for Stillingfleet says (Irenicum, p. 315), "Why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body itself? either of the whole Church, or, which is far more probable, of the consessus or order of Presbyters in that Church? We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are, which are brought for any form of government from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously used, which may be interpreted in different senses? What certainty, then, can any rational man find, what the form of government was in the primitive times, when only those arguments are used which may be interpreted in different senses. And without such certainty, with what confidence can men speak of a divine right to any one particular form?"

what

Here Episcopacy again hangs her whole weight upon Stillingfleet well calls, "a miserably unconcluding argument." She has conceded that if her Diocesan Bishops are not, at this time, found under the name of angels of the Churches, they are not to be found under any name upon the face of the earth.

It