in their strict and proper sense, do not convey that idea; and shall we be content, on a question of this kind, to receive the traditions of men who would have us believe, without giving their authority, that John was cast by order of Nero or of Domitian into a vessel of boiling oil, and came out unhurt?

Michaelis thus states the second objection that had been made [viz. by Vitringa, Lenfant and Beausobre, and Lardner]: "That the seven "flourishing Christian communities at Ephesus,

Smyrna, &c. existed so early as the reign of "Claudius, is an opinion not easy to be recon“ciled with the history given, in the Acts of the

66

66

Apostles, of the first planting of Christianity "in Asia Minor. Besides it is hardly possible "that St. John resided at Ephesus, from which place it is pre-supposed that he was sent into "banishment, so early as the time of Claudius: "for the account given, Acts xix, of St. Paul's stay and conduct at Ephesus, manifestly implies that no apostle had already founded and "governed a church there. And when St. Paul "left the place, the Ephesians had no Bishop:

66

66

for, in an Epistle to Timothy, written for that 66 purpose, he gave orders to regulate the church "at Ephesus, and to ordain bishops. This argument (he adds) may perhaps be strengthened "by observing, that the second Apocalyptical

66

Epistle, ch. ii. 1, is addressed to the angel of "the church of Ephesus, that is, as is commonly "understood, to the bishop."

The objection just stated rests on mere assumptions and on false facts. It is first assumed that John was banished to Patmos; secondly, that he resided at Ephesus before his banishment; thirdly, that he could not have been in Patmos but in consequence of such banishment; fourthly, that there was no bishop (or elder) at Ephesus when Paul left that city; because, fifthly, an epistle was written to Timothy to ordain bishops there. Now it is singular enough, that so many facts should be assumed, without offering proof of the truth of any one of them: no, nor can any one of them be proved. We learn from the 18th chapter of the Acts, that when Paul left Athens he came to Corinth, and found there a certain Jew named Aquila; and that this was in the reign of Claudius,-a fact which deserves particular notice; for the decree of Claudius, which commanded all Jews to depart from Rome, and which was the cause of Aquila and his wife Priscilla leaving Italy and proceeding to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1, 2), was issued in the eleventh year of that Emperor's reign, answering to A. D. 51. We also learn from the Acts of the Apostles, that his stay at Corinth was one year and six months in all, (for the account of

B

the insurrection which dragged Paul before Gallio is only episodical,) and that immediately after this he sailed into Syria, with Priscilla and Aquila, and came to Ephesus, where he left them; but not till after he had himself entered into the Synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Here we are made acquainted with the fact that the Apostle Paul himself had been preaching at Ephesus, some time before the events that are recorded in ch. xix. had taken place. How long this was I will not presume to decide positively: but thence he sailed to Cesarea (on his way to Jerusalem), after which he went down to Antioch, where he spent some time, and afterwards went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening the disciples. With these facts staring Michaelis in the face, it is difficult to imagine what could have led him to express himself as he has done in the foregoing quotation, when he says, that "the account given Acts xix. "of Paul's stay and conduct at Ephesus, mani"festly implies that no Apostle had already "founded and governed a church there; and "that when St. Paul left the place the Ephe"sians had no bishop." It is impossible to account for this inaccurate statement, but by ascribing it to mere inadvertence and haste. Paul's visit to Ephesus, spoken of in Acts xix, was in fact his second visit to that city. When this

Apostle quitted Ephesus, after his first visit, he had left Aquila and Priscilla there; who of course did not remain idle, as we see by the care they took to instruct Apollos. But even had we not been informed that an Apostle had been at Ephesus,-and that Apostle Paul himself, before the visit mentioned in xix. 1,-the inference of Michaelis would be inadmissible; the presence of an Apostle not being necessary to the founding of a Church of Christ: for wherever men are congregated in his name, should there be only two or three of them, there is he in the midst of them (Mat. xviii. 20). When Paul came to Ephesus (Acts xix), instead of meeting no Christian converts he found disciples there (v. 1), and congregated together too-that is, they were a Christian church. The male members then amounted to twelve (v. 7): and they were a "flourishing Christian community" also, if we may judge from their being thought worthy to receive the miraculous gifts conferred by the Holy Spirit; of which visible manifestation of the divine power they had not even heard till Paul now visited them. When arrived at Ephesus this second time, he continued his visits to the Synagogue for three months, reasoning with the Jews concerning the reign of God; after which he separated the disciples-that is, organised them as a complete church-and continued at

66

Ephesus two years longer, disputing daily in the school of Tyrannus; so THAT ALL THEY THAT DWELT IN ASIA HEARD THE WORD OF THE LORD. Paul himself, then, was the founder of the churches in Asia, as he was of a great number of other Gentile churches, and this too chiefly in the reign of Claudius. Michaelis's statement-and others have stated the same thing-that in his first epistle to Timothy, "he gave orders to him "to regulate the church at Ephesus, and to ordain bishops," is not warranted by any thing in that Epistle. Such an order is indeed stated respecting Titus, when left in Crete (Tit. i. 5); but the reason for Timothy being desired to abide, on some occasion, at Ephesus, is expressly stated to have been, that he might charge them to maintain the doctrine delivered to them by Paul (1 Tim. i. 3), in opposition to the fooleries of the Judaizing teachers; who began to trouble the churches almost as soon as they were established. The instructions given to Timothy (and by means of the Epistle addressed to him, to all Christian churches, in all ages), respecting the character that ought to be found in persons appointed to be bishops, offers no evidence that this was written with an eye to his appointing them for the first time at Ephesus. Timothy was in fact an Evangelist, and was often sent by Paul to assist in arranging matters in different