ment of the Churches. Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus; Titus was the first Bishop of Crete ;† Polycarp, ordained by St. John, the first Bishop of Smyrna ;‡ Linus, ordained by St. Paul, the first Bishop of Rome ;§ Dionysius, ordained by St. Paul, the first Bishop of Athens; James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem; Anianus, ordained by St. Mark, the first Bishop of Alexandria ;** Philip, one of the twelve, Bishop of Hierapolis;tt Thomas, one of the twelve, Bishop of Parthia; Andrew, one of the twelve, Bishop of Scythia; and Evodius, ordained by St. Peter, the first Bishop of Antioch. Inasmuch, then, as all the Churches of which we possess any account, did, in the first century, have a Bishop, and only one Bishop, and as all had under them a plurality of Presbyters, or, as we have called them, Presbyterbishops and Deacons, the inference is irresistible, that these officers existed in all the other Churches; for if they did not exist in all the Churches, the organization was not uniform, and our inquiries are fruitless. And if they did exist, then the Angels of the Churches in Asia Minor must have belonged to the first class or order of ministers; that is, must have been Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles, in their places as governors of the Churches.

That there could be only one Bishop in a city, is evident from what Ignatius says in his Epistles. But there is still stronger evidence of this fact, in St. Cyprian's Treatise on the Unity of the Church; TT where he expressly declares, that "the Episcopate is one and indivisible." And Cornelius, Bishop

AN APOSTOLIC BISHOP AT EPHESUS.

225

of Rome, in an epistle to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 252, speaks of the rule of "the Catholic (orthodox) Church," that there should be "but one Bishop in a Church.”*

It has been objected to the position here established, by those who deny the original superiority of Bishops, that inasmuch as there is no mention made of Timothy, nor of any other Apostolic Bishop at Ephesus, in the epistle to that Church, that there could have been no such officer there at that time. But it will be seen upon a moment's consideration, that this inference by no means follows. The admitted uniformity of the Apostolic Churches, enables us to infer the existence of a particular office in one Church, from its known existence in another Church. But, on the other hand, the omission to mention a particular office, in a general epistle, on another subject, does not even raise a presumption against its existence. Now it was evidently no part of St. Paul's design in his Epistle to the Ephesians, to say any thing of the ministry of the Church, except in so far as it tended immediately to spiritual edification. Consequently, he has scarcely any thing on the subject in this epistle. Now if the omission to mention Timothy's residence there, and authority in that Church, proves that he was not an officer in that Church; the omission to mention either Bishops or Deacons would also prove that none of these existed there, and that there were no officers at all in that Church.

any

But further, the assumption that there is no mention of Apostle as existing in the Church at Ephesus, is opposed to the fact. In chapter second, St. Paul assures the Ephesians that CHRIST had broken down the wall of partition which had before his death separated the Gentiles from the Church of GOD, and that then the Gentiles also were fellow-citizens with the children of Israel, in the Christian Church, which

*Euseb. iii. 43.

he assures them is "built upon the Apostles and Prophets, JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph. ii. 20.) Here, then, is an express recognition of the two superior orders mentioned in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 28,) accompanied by an unequivocal declaration, that these are the frume-work of that Church, which, resting upon the divine authority of CHRIST himself, for its sure foundation stone, contains and supports "the Church of the living God." Now it would be marvelous indeed, if St. Paul should thus publicly and solemnly assure the Ephesian Christians, that "the Apostles and Prophets" were the very frame-work of the Church, when at the same time there was no such thing as an Apostle in the Church he was addressing. Such a conclusion can not be admitted without strong proof.

66

It may, however, be said, as it has been before, that by Prophets" in this place, the Apostle meant the Prophets of the Old Testament. This position can not be allowed, since it would overturn the whole of the Apostle's argument concerning the Christian faith. For, (1,) the Prophets are placed posterior and inferior to Apostles, which would not have been done, had men of previous times been referred to. (2.) Because in no sense can it be said that the Prophets of the Old Testament are the frame-work, or foundation of the Christian Church, unless we suppose that, by a figure of speech the Apostle put the men, for the doctrine. But if we assume that by Prophets, is meant the doctrine of the Prophets, consistency requires us to construe the Apostles, to signify the doctrine of the Apostles; and JESUS CHRIST, to signify the doctrine of JESUS CHRIST; making, therefore, as the Socinians do, the Church to rest for its foundation, NOT on the atonement and mediatorial sacrifice of CHRIST, but merely on the doctrine he preached. And (3) it is clear, that by Prophets St. Paul did not mean the Prophets of the Old Testament, from what he has said in the same epistle. Thus he tells us, (Eph. iii.

IN THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

5,) that "the mystery of the Christian dispensation,

was NOT, in other ages, made known to the sons of men, as it is Now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit." The Prophets here spoken of, must be considered as the same mentioned only seven verses before, and which with the Apostles compose the frame-work of the Church; and these Prophets were living when St. Paul was writing. If there could be, after this, any doubt concerning the persons designated by "Prophets," they would be entirely removed by what is said in chapter iv. 11, 12, where it is said that these very" Apostles and Prophets" were created " for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the MINISTRY, for the edifying of the body of CHRIST-the Church." So far, therefore, from there being any thing in the Epistle to the Ephesians opposed to the idea that Timothy was the Apostle of that Church, we are obliged to infer, that if he was not, somebody else was. But there is yet another consideration connected with this epistle, which deserves to be noticed in this place. It is allowed by all, that the superintendence of the inspiring Spirit over the Apostles, is a perfect safeguard against their committing any error relative to the gospel or the Church, and that whatever was necessary to be done, that they did, and what they did, that was their duty to do. Hence, we are not al

lowed to suppose, that any thing was omitted by the Apostles in any Church, which was necessary to the existence or wellbeing of the Church. Consequently, when we find the Apostle assuring a Church in any place, that the Church is "built on the Apostles and Prophets," we are compelled to conclude, that both Apostles and Prophets must have existed in all those Churches to which such an epistle was sent.

Now it will be no news to many of our readers, that the Epistle to the Ephesians is believed by many learned men, to have been an Encyclical or Circular Epistle to the Churches of Asia Minor, and was entitled, " to the Ephesians," on ac

count of the priority or pre-eminence of that city. The reasons for this opinion are, briefly: (1,) the words "at Ephesus" (c. i. ver. 1) are wanting in some of the best manuscripts; (2) the same words appear to have been wanting in the manuscript copies of this epistle, used by the commentators of the primitive Church; (3,) some of the persons to whom this epistle was addressed, had never seen Paul, as is evident from what he says, (c. iii. 1, 2, 3,) although he had resided at Ephesus two years before he wrote this epistle. (Acts xix. 10.) (4.) Paul wrote an epistle, which was sent to the Church at Laodicea, and from thence to the Church at Colosse, (Col. iv. 16,) which is lost, if this be not the very same, as many learned men have supposed.* (5.) This is rendered probable, also, by the fact, that the epistle to the Ephesians seems to have been written at the same time, and we know it was sent by the same person, as that to the Colossians.

(Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7.) And (6) this is still further evident, from the identity of thought and expression, occurring in both; especially in Ephesians v. 19-vi. 9, compared with Colossians iii. 16-24. The most reasonable conclusion, therefore, is, that the Epistle to the Ephesians was originally an Encyclical Letter, addressed to all the Churches of Asia Minor, and if so, it proves the existence of Apostles and Prophets in all the Churches within that territory.t

It has been asked, in answer to this conclusion, "who was Bishop of Philippi, when Polycarp wrote his epistle to that Church?" And because it does not clearly appear from the epistle itself, that there was a Bishop at Philippi at that very time, it has been inferred, that there were no Bishops in the

*Hug. Intr. N. T., Par. ii. § 121-126.

† Another view is, that Timothy was not simply Bishop of Ephesus, but Metropolitan Bishop of Asia Minor, and hence the reason why he is not mentioned in the epistle. (Ussher Codex. Can. c. v. Bev. Cod. Can. L. c. 5. Ham. Præf. Com. Ep. Titus.)