is calmly assumed, and then rational men are denounced for refusing as coolly to assent to the monstrous assumption. It may be asked whether the apostle James was not put to death before the council at Jerusalem? (Acts xii. 2). If not, nothing is gained here by prelacy.

James was the diocesan bishop of Jerusalem. How does this accord with facts? Why was the contribution for the poor brethren in time of dearth forwarded, not to this diocesan, but to the presbyters? Why were the deputies from Antioch sent not to this local prelate, but to the apostles and elders? and why were no bishops mentioned in that assembly? Why was not the Epistle to the Hebrews addressed to this bishop? Why does the apostle therein speak of elders only as the proper rulers of the Churches of Judea? Why exhort the Hebrew Christians to give all respect and obedience to them, and not to this prelate ?

If this James were the apostle of that name, did he resign the apostleship? The two offices were incompatible. As an apostle, he dared not continually restrict himself to one locality. As a diocesan, he must. When, then? Was the one office given up, and the other adopted? James resided more at Jerusalem than the other apostles, and may have exercised an apostolic supervision over the Churches of Judea, as Paul at Antioch and elsewhere; but there is no proof that he exercised simply the functions of a diocesan bishop. Besides, there is full proof that the Church of Jerusalem was under presbyterial government. Some prelatists have admitted that the apostles governed that Church for twelve years as a presbytery, in conjunction with the elders. Amongst the apostles there was common

concert.

The assertion that the apostles were diocesan bishops is contrary to fact. Their diocese was the world to the uttermost parts. Their division of labour was not subject to their own arbitrary decision or other circumstances. All was arranged as the Spirit and providence of God indicated. Paul was recognized as the apostle of the Gentiles; Peter, of the circumcision. Notwithstanding, Paul writes by inspiration of the Spirit to the Hebrews, and Peter labours amongst the Gentiles. The supposition of settled dioceses is contrary to the express design

and practice of the apostles. This prop also fails the pre(See Jus Div. Regimini Ecc. Lon. 1646, and Smec

lacy. tymnuus.)

QUESTIONS.

1. What is asserted regarding the apostles?

2. How is this view disproved?

3. If allowed, what consequences would follow ?

4. Mention some instances adduced.

5. What is the nature of the evidence brought forward to show

that James was bishop of Jerusalem ?

6. Mention some facts that overthrow such a supposition.

CHAPTER XVII.

WERE TIMOTHY AND TITUS APOSTLE-BISHOPS?

'Do the work of an evangelist.'

THE qualifications of an apostle are not found either in Timothy or Titus, although they were partakers of extraordinary gifts. Still, it is asserted, that they occupied an apostolical position. Timothy, it is said, was apostle-bishop of Ephesus; Titus, of Crete. Some would even make Timothy archbishop of Asia Minor.

WAS TIMOTHY PRELATIC BISHOP OF EPHESUS?

Undoubtedly, it is replied; for Paul wrote thus to Timothy, 'I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine' (1 Tim. i. 3).

Three reasons, amongst others, may be given why this assertion is not only doubted but disproved :

1. The Ephesians had other bishops. These were presbyteroverseers, appointed by undoubted authority (Acts xx.) Why were these inferior bishops intrusted with the highest charge? Did Paul forget himself in calling the elders bishops? And why did he give no directions how they were to conduct themselves

towards their diocesan? Where was Bishop Timothy then? If absent, why no hint of his return? If yet to be installed, why this charge referring to the future without one word as to the essential officer? Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.' What' Where was Timothy? Was Tychicus another prelate of that See? Manifestly Timothy was not diocesan bishop of Ephesus. Many titles are given him, but never this title of bishop.

the

2. If any one, was not Paul diocesan bishop of Ephesus? By space of three years,' said he, 'I ceased not to warn everyone.' Why is Paul rejected and Timothy installed, after such long, anxious, and successful labours? Or, were Paul and Timothy coadjutor-bishops? Nay!

If

3. Timothy was sent thither as an evangelist. Having work elsewhere, he was besought to abide for the discharge of important duties in the absence of and on the behalf of Paul. Otherwise, why beseech the bishop to remain? Was he not bound to remain? He might more readily be besought to go elsewhere, if his prelatic services were absolutely essential. not, to leave would be neglect of duty. Long after his supposed instalment, Paul exhorts him- Do the work of an evangelist' (2 Tim. iv. 5). Again, after these Epistles to Timothy were written, Paul, a prisoner at Rome, about the year 61, wrote to the Ephesian Church. Why is it addressed, not to the bishop, but to the saints and faithful brethren? and why is there no mention of Timothy? Why no instructions there to submit to his sole jurisdiction? Surely this was needful, seeing he must have been absent when Paul gave his solemn charge to the elders of that Church. Was it not unfriendly, if not insulting, that Paul should thus interfere with his diocese, and not so much as notice his existence as diocesan ? There is only one supposition that can render this conduct of Paul reasonable-viz., that Timothy was an extraordinary officer, and occupied no such prelatic position. Timothy acted everywhere as commissioned by and under the immediate direction of an apostle. Ordained by presbyters, Timothy could only possess the rank of a presbyter. As justly might he be termed diocesan bishop of Corinth or of Thessalonica as of Ephesus. For a time the superintendence of these churches was committed to him. Was Timothy, on that

account, bishop of all the three? When Paul wrote the first Epistle to the Corinthians, A.D. 67, from Ephesus, Timothy was absent on a mission to Macedonia and Achaia, and was then expected at Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 10). The year following, Paul wrote the second Epistle to the Corinthians from Macedonia. Timothy was then with the apostle, and Titus was one of the bearers of the epistle. Afterwards, when Paul at Corinth wrote the Epistle to the Romans, Timothy was with him there. When the Epistles to the Thessalonians were written, Timothy was with Paul at Corinth.

6

This typical instance of an apostle-bishop has also met with a decided negative from candid prelatists. It is most like that Timothy had the place and calling of an evangelist, whose office was to second the apostles in their ministry, and to water that which the apostles had planted' (Willet). Many things prove that the office of Timothy was not fixed, but itinerary,' as 'his work as an evangelist' (Dodwell). The same Philip was called an evangelist; so was Timothy. Such was Titus, Silas, and many others' (Bridges).

6

WAS TITUS PRELATIC BISHOP OF CRETE?

Most certainly, is the reply. Paul wrote thus to him-'For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee' (Tit. i. 5).

Alas! that word left. What more unfortunate word could be employed to prove a diocesan bishop? If the entire rule had already been allocated to Titus, why should he be left? That one little word shows that no such instalment had taken place. The only meaning is, that he was left for a season. Titus, by the appointment of Paul, was left at the island 'for this cause -to perform a particular piece of duty which was prescribed to him. Then, having performed it, Titus is enjoined to come to Paul to Nicopolis and elsewhere. Titus travelled too much to be a diocesan. The selection is very unfortunate. He went from Syria to Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1), to Antioch again, to Syria and Cilicia, to Corinth, to Macedonia, to Crete and to Dalmatia. It is

uncertain whether he ever returned to Crete. How then could he be diocesan prelate of that island? As Paul's assistant he was left to complete the organization of the Church, ordaining elders in every city.

It has been too hastily assumed by prelatists that Titus performed this duty without the co-operation of others. In every other case recorded, ordination was by a plurality of elders. This epistle indicates that Zenas and Apollos were present with Titus. Bring Zenas the lawyer, and Apollos, on their journey diligently' (Tit. iii. 13). That Titus was alone is a mere assumption. But if alone, the extraordinary circumstances of that period could not furnish an example for ordinary times.

Paul was the master issuing his commands. Timothy and Titus were the servants rendering obedience. These things I write unto thee, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.' 'Do thy diligence to come unto me.' 'Take Mark, and bring him with thee' (1 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 9, 11). Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine, showing thyself a pattern' (Tit. ii. 1, 7). 'Put them in mind to be subject, to obey, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man. When I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto him to Nicopolis' (iii. 1, 12). Remove from Timothy and Titus their subordination to and attendance upon the apostle in his work, and their office vanishes. They go forth and perform duties as they are directed. They rejoin him at his command, sharing in all his duties, privileges, and trials. When these instructions were issued the foundations of the Church were being laid. It was only in the course of formation; and these extraordinary officers were necessary until churches were fully constituted. So extraordinary superintendents were employed to plant and water in certain districts, until the Reformation in Scotland was fully established. Then, as a distinct office, they ceased to exist. The same thing must to some extent be carried out wherever Christianity begins to take root.

The postscripts to the epistles which give countenance to the prelatic theory, are mere interpolations, added centuries after these epistles were written. Let this be noted.

They form no