THAT TIMOTHY WAS AN EVANGEL

IST.

THE facts in the history of the church, which might aid us in deciding upon the nature of the offices mentioned in the New Testa ment, having been investigated; we are prepared to inquire into the written word, on the matters of church government. Although the particular form is but a mean to an end, and of no vital importance; yet it is expedient to defend the cause which God honors, against those exclusive pretensions which have been founded in usurpation.

Two things having been established; that episcopacy, whether parochial or diocesan, was not in existence at the commencement of the age which next followed the days of the apostles, but arose af terwards step by step; and that lay presbyters were never heard of till necessity drove Calvin to the expedient; they ought to have no place in the interpretation of the New Testament.

But it so happens, that the conformity in duties between the diocesan bishop and the apostle and primitive evangelist; and the contrast of the oversight of an individual church by its presbyters, with an episcopate in after ages; are now adopted as arguments to prove, contrary to the verity of facts, that diocesan bishops are actually the successors in office of the apostles VOL. II.-No. III.

15

[No. III.

and evangelists, and not of the presbyters in the churches. Thus Timothy and Titus are exhibited as scriptural examples of bishops, though never once designated by that name in the sacred records. Titus is described by Paul as his "partner" and "fellow-laborer."(a) Of Timothy he also speaks, as his "fellow-laborer," and an " evangelist."(b) Their work appears to have been to ordain bishops, in the sense of presbyters. Timothy was invested with the gift, "by prophecy with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery."(c) And in another epistle, Paul speaks of the 'gift of God, which was in him by the imposition of his hands."(d) These texts, we have seen, were differently understood in successive ages, according to the progressive advances of episcopacy.(e)

This commission was given him before Paul had visited Ephesus, and without relation to the people of one place more than another. It was in its nature universal, extending alike to the whole church,

(α) κοινωνος εμός και εις υμας συνερ70s. 2 Cor. viii. 23.

(1) ἔργον ποίησον ευαγίελισίου. 2 Tim. iv. 5.

(ε) δια προπέλειας μετα επιθέσεως των χειρων πρεσβυτερίου. 1 Tim. iv. 14. (α) χαρισμα του Θεου, ο εστιν εν σοι δια της επιθέσεως των χειρων μου. 2 Tim. i. 6.

(e) Christ. Spec. Oct. 1827. p. 507.

and conferring every power necessary to planting, watering, and governing the churches, wherever he should come, if not superseded by the presence of an apostle.

The office was like those of apostle and prophet, extraordinary and unconnected with any particular charge. Ephes. iv. 11. But in whatsoever church he preached, he could as evangelist ordain pastors, or bishops, or there was no propriety in the caution, "lay hands suddenly on no man." This office was superior to that of "pastors even teachers."(f)

Evangelists were not personally instructed and commissioned by Christ; nor had they the extraordinary gifts in equal extent, nor the unerring assistance, or inspiration of the apostles, for the writings of of Mark and Luke were received upon the authority of Peter and Paul.

That Paul and Timothy were to gether at Ephesus, and that Paul left him there when he went on some occasion into Macedonia, may be plainly inferred from 1 Tim. i. 3. "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia." The time to which there is here an allusion is the more easily ascertained, because the apostle is recorded to have been twice only at Ephesus; on the first occasion, he merely called on his voyage from Corinth and Jerusalem; on the second, he went from Ephesus into Macedonia, according to the words of the epistle.

That Timothy was left at Ephesus, when Paul, expelled by the riot, went into Macedonia, obtains satisfactory proofs. Before he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, but he himself remained in Asia for some time. Acts xix. 22. 1 Cor. iv. 17. xvi.

(f) Τους ποιμένες και διδασκάλους, denote the same officers,

10. In the first letter to the Corinthians, which he wrote at Ephesus, and sent by Titus to Corinth, he mentioned his purpose of coming to them, but not immediately; of which Luke also informs us, Acts xix. 21, and desired them, if Timothy came to them, 1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11, to conduct him forth in peace, that he might come to Paul, then at Ephesus, for he looked for him, with the brethren. When he closed that letter, he was expecting Timothy's return, which that letter might also have hastened. Paul remained at Ephesus, on this visit, the space of three years. Acts xx. 31. There is therefore no reason to suppose, that he was disappointed in his expectation of the arrival of Timothy from Corinth at Ephesus, before he went into Macedonia; and if so, he might have left him there, as he at some period certainly did. 1 Tim. i. 3. He had intended to go by Corinth into Macedonia, 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, but changed his mind and went by Troas thither. 1 Cor. xvi. 5; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. Whilst in Macedonia, he wrote his first letter to Timothy, for he proposed to him to remain at Ephesus until he should call there on his way to Jerusalem. 1 Tim. i. 3; iii. 14, 15. The words imply, that Paul might tarry some time; and that he did so before he went into Greece, is fairly implied in the expression, "And when he had gone over those parts, and given them much exhortation, he came into Greece." Acts xx. 2. Timothy was advised, solicited, or besought (apexaλnda) to abide still at Ephesus, which gave him liberty to exercise his discretion, but several motives must have influenced him to go to the apostle. The enemies at Ephesus were numerous and violent; Timothy was young; his affection for Paul ardent; the request of Paul that he should abide at Ephesus was not peremptory ; and Paul told him he expected to

tarry a long time. Also Timothy had been, from their commencement, familiarly acquainted with the churches in Macedonia and Greece. Accordingly we find Timothy in Macedonia when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. i. 1. The apostle went from Macedonia into Greece, Acts xx. 2, as he had promised in that letter, chap. xiii. 1, and abode there three months. Acts xx. 3. Timothy was with him at Corinth, for he sends his salutations to the Romans, Rom. xvi. 21, in that famous epistle written from thence.(g)

That there was sufficient time for Paul to have written from Macedonia to Timothy at Ephesus, and for Timothy to have spent some months at Ephesus, before he came to Paul in Macedonia, appears from the time he waited for Titus at Troas, 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13, his determination not to go to Corinth till he could do it without heaviness, 2 Cor. ii. 1, his distress in Macedonia before Titus arrived, 2 Cor. vii. 5, and his success in raising charities for the saints in Judea, 2 Cor. viii. 2, 3; ix. 4. He had intended to tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, but went sooner, Acts xx. 1. He passed on to Jerusalem at another Pentecost, Acts xx. 16; all which time he was in Macedonia, except three months. Acts xx. 3.

That Paul expected to spend so much time in Macedonia and Greece, may be collected from his intimation, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, that he might spend the winter with the Corinthian church. The apostle's purpose of sailing from Corinth was disappointed by the insidiousness of his own countrymen; he therefore went up into Macedonia again, that he might pass over to Troas with his companions. Timothy was among those who crossed first. Acts xx. 3, 5. Paul's disappoint

(g) Compare Acts xviii. 2, with Rom. xvi. 3. Vide Acts xviii. 19, 26. 1 Cor.

xvi. 19.

ment in sailing from Corinth, and his wish to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, prevented the call he intended at Ephesus, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, but he landed at Miletus, and sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus.

The directions of the apostle in the third chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, fairly imply that he had left the church at Ephesus, according to his usual practice, without officers; for he gives this evangelist, not a new commission, he already had power to ordain, but instructions as to the choice of bishops, that is presbyters, and deacons. These had been complied with before he landed at Miletus. Acts xx. 17. This record of the exististence of elders at Ephesus, compared with the directions given to Timothy, not only renders it probable that Timothy had ordained them, but fortifies the presumption that the first epistle to Timothy was written in Macedonia, before this visit to Jerusalem, and consequently before his imprisonment.

The language "I going (TopsUoLLEVOS) into Macedonia, besought thee to abide still at Ephesus," did not form a permanent connexion between Timothy and Ephesus. At the very greatest extent, the instructions given in this letter were of a continuance only till Paul should come to him (ews pxouai) 1 Tim. iv. 13; iii. 14. But it is certain, that Timothy did not remain at Ephesus, till Paul passed on his way to Jerusalem.

The second epistle of Timothy will prove itself written by Paul when a prisoner at Rome; and at least establishes the absence of the evangelist from his spiritual father, at the time it was written. But he was at Rome in the time of the first imprisonment, as has been proved by his having been joined with Paul in the letters to the Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. Demas and Mark were also there in the

first imprisonment, Col. iv. 10. 4, but absent at the writing of the second to Timothy. 2 Tim. iv. 10,

11.

It is therefore an error to suppose it to have been written before the epistle to the Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, during the first imprisonment. Also in 2 Tim. iv. 20, Paul tells him, Erastus abode at Corinth; but this needed not to have been told to Timothy, if Paul meant that Erastus abode at Corinth, when he went to Jerusalem, and so to Rome, for Timothy was then with him, and must have known the circumstance, had it been so. In like manner he says, ibid. "Trophimus have I left at Miletum, sick." But Trophimus was not left at any place on the voyage to Jerusalem, for he was there and the occasion of the jealousies of the Jews. Acts xxi. 29.

These two facts, compared with this, which appears in the epistle, that it was written by Paul a prisoner at Rome, afford sufficient certainty, that there was a second imprisonment when this letter was written.

But it by no means follows, that Timothy was at Ephesus when the second epistle was written. This ought not to be assumed, but shown. If Timothy was then at Ephesus, why should he have been told, "I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus?" 2 Tim. iv. 12. He must have arrived at that place before the letter, and the fact could have been then known. Also Tychicus needed no introduction to Timothy. Had Timothy been at Ephesus, Paul would not have sent him to Troas, for articles he had left there. It appears more probable, that Timothy was, at the time the epistle was sent to him, at Troas, or in the neighborhood of that place. The salutations will not establish the destination of the epistle. Onesiphorus resided in Asia, but the particular place of his abode

is not known. He helped Paul both at Ephesus, and Rome. Also Aquila, who had resided at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, and again at Rome, was a native of Pontus, on the margin of the Euxine. Trophimus, whom Paul had left at Miletum, was an Ephesian. Acts xxi. Miletus was near Ephesus,

29. and Timothy would have known the facts, unless Miletum in Crete was the place.

If Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second letter was written to him, there is no evidence of his being in that city, after Paul's first imprisonment. But if he had been at Ephesus, he must have then left it, the letter calling him to Rome, and the sacred records speak not of his return to that city. The second epistle assigns to Timothy no other duties than those proper to his general office of Evangelist; and bears no relation to a particular oversight of any church or churches.

Some writers suppose that Paul, when he landed at Miletus on a subsequent voyage to Jerusalem, left Timothy with the elders of the church at Ephesus, "to govern them in his absence." But nothing of the kind was spoken on the occasion; and instead of a temporary absence, Paul assured the elders they should "see his face no more." In 1 Tim. i. 3, it is not said, "when I went to Jerusalem," but expressly, "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia." Also it has been asserted, that the apostle, having placed Timothy at Ephesus prior to his first imprisonment, "wrote both his epistles to Timothy while a prisoner at Rome." But Timothy was with Paul at Rome during a part of the first imprisonment, for he is joined in the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Salutations also might have been expected in the first epistle to Timothy, had it been written from