own distorted brain; and should we not equally pity and pray for those religionists, who are continually exhibiting, in their devotions, feelings and excitements for which they can assign no good reason.

The Athenians erected an altar to the unknown God. Acts xvii. 23. But, because their devotions were very much mixed with superstition, the apostle Paul condemned their worship. Here we have an example presented to our view of the kind of converts that the apostle Paul wished to make. In his address to the Athenians he tells them, that he declared unto them that God, "whom they ignorantly worshipped." Acts xvii. 23. Thus he shows us plainly that no worship can be acceptable to the Supreme Being, except that which springs from a correct knowledge of his perfections. There may be groaning and violent agitation no doubt, connected with a scriptural revival of religion; but they constitute no part of experimental godliness; and ought to be repressed by the discreet disciple of Jesus, because they disturb the devotion of many, and cause our good to be accounted evil.

The foundation of all true religion then, must be conceived to consist in a proper knowledge of the perfections of that God whom we profess to worship. The first commandment is, "That we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind." This will naturally teach us what part, in our religious profession, our affections should occupy. We must know, surely, something respecting the Being that we are called on to love, before we can love him. To profess love towards God, therefore, while we do not know what we really love, is just to act over again the part of the Athenians, who, in consequence of their ignorance of the Supreme Being, became very much addicted to superstitions.

A correct knowledge of the per

fections and law of God, must be regarded also, as the true source of that sorrow and contrition for sin, which Christianity requires in all its genuine professors. To profess sorrow for a crime, of which we are not certain whether we are guilty, certainly indicates the height of folly. How then can any one know that he is guilty of the transgression of any law, until he knows what the law is? We may tell a man, in general terms, that he is a sinner; but we are convinced, judging according to the principles of human nature, that we shall never impress upon his mind a conviction of guilt, unless we can clearly show him that he has really transgressed the acknowledged standard of duty, and thereby incurred the just displeasure of his God. For if we cannot convince the man that he has broken, in any respect, the divine law, he will necessarily continue impenitent. No one will sincerely repent or feel sorrow for sin, until he really is convicted of transgression. Hence the necessity of laying clearly before mankind, the nature and extent of the divine law, in order to show them how far short they may have come in fulfilling its requisitions. This must be regarded as the only rational way in which we may expect God to grant unto men repentance unto life. A feeling for sin, produced in any other way than by enlightening the understanding and conscience, will be but short in its duration, and unfruitful in its consequences.

But, should the conviction of sin be produced in the mind of any one, by the Spirit of God, in consequence of his having obtained a correct idea of the perfections of God, and of the requisitions of the divine law, we may naturally suppose that such a conviction will lead him, in good earnest, to inquire after that remedy which has been provided for the restoration of fallen man. This is not the effect of a mere slavish fear, excited by horrible descriptions of

a future place of torment; but of a sense of guilt, arising from a consciousness of having violated a just and holy law; and of having offended against a kind and merciful God, who has an undeniable claim to the services of all his creatures. Hence, perceiving the justice of that sentence which the law pronounces upon all transgressors, he rejoices to be informed, in the gospel, that mercy and pardon may be obtained through the peace-speaking blood of Jesus Christ.

This information, when believed, will, no doubt, produce in his mind joy; but, in consequence of his mind being properly enlightened, and his feelings duly regulated, his joy will be orderly and temperate, not wild and extravagant.

This joy, produced in his mind by a right view of the scheme of gospel salvation, will naturally excite in his bosom love to God, who sent his Son into the world to redeem mankind; and also love and gratitude to Jesus Christ, who thus, on their behalf, presented himself a willing sacrifice. This love and gratitude will necessarily lead him to forsake sin, and to enter upon a new mode and course of actionwhich must be regarded as the true and natural results of his faith and repentance.

Thus would we have the feelings and emotions, which professors, in the school of Christianity, exhibit, traced to their source and tried by their fruits, before we would be disposed to denominate them the offspring of religion. Let every one, then, who has experienced such emotions and feelings, compare them carefully with that standard of truth which God has given us as a guide to our experience, that he may know whether the Spirit of God is really witnessing with his spirit that he is a child of God, or whether he may be under the influence merely of a heated and disordered imagination. T. G. MI, VOL. I.

On Timothy and Ephesus. The sacred scriptures, the genuineness and authenticity of which are supported by the most ample proofs, evince their divine authority by their spirituality, majesty, simplicity of style, by the accordance of the parts, the design of the whole, and their effects upon the consciences and lives of men. They give us the truths and precepts essential to faith and practice; but, without addition or diminution, they must be studied with diligence and humility. If the facts they exhibit concerning Timothy and Ephesus, afford " a pattern of the order of the primitive church in the times of the apostles," the example must be of high obligation. But it unfortunately happens, that the example always supports the views, with which we enter upon the investigation.

To that writer, Timothy furnishes a pattern of a modern diocesan bishop; but to us, the thing is as defective as the name, and we find neither the one, nor the other, in the word of God.

If Timothy was as long resident at Ephesus, as this writer imagines; and ordained the original elders, that is, presbyters or bishops over that church, which we suppose; yet nothing was there accomplished by him different from "the work of an evangelist." His 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, and conferring every power necessary to planting, watering and governing the church, wherever he should come, if not superseded by the presence of an apostle. If therefore he became fixed at Ephesus, it was either so far a repeal of that commission, which he had received, or an abandonment of the exercise of its powers.

* The Christian Observer, republished in the Episcopal Magazine, March, 1821. 0

It is nevertheless desirable to know, with precision, the facts.

That Paul and Timothy were together 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 Ma cedonia." 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 to Jerusalem, on the second, he went from Ephesus into Macedonia.

This writer assigns a later period, and supposes 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." 99 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." It is 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 Rome, as in those to the Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, the Hebrews, and the second to Timothy. He was indeed absent from Rome during a part of the time of the first imprisonment, but Paul expected his return (Heb. xiii. 23.), and so far was he from hoping to come unto Timothy, shortly, as expressed in 1st

Tim. iii. 14, he promises, if Timothy come shortly to Rome, with him to visit the Hebrews. Also it seems strange, if Timothy had been at Ephesus, when the epistle to the Ephesians was sent by Tychicus (Ephes. vi. 21.), that no notice whatever should have been taken of the beloved youth.

*

Another hypothesis is, that Paul, when the Jews deterred him from sailing from Corinth, and he determined to go through Macedonia to Jerusalem, besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus: to which, when Timothy agreed, he went forward to Troas, with Aristarchus and the rest; and whilst waiting there for Paul, Timothy received the first epistle from the apostle, written in Macedonia. But this is a departure from the correct meaning of the passage, which implies, that Paul besought Timothy to abide still (gooμeva, to continue, or remain,) at the place where Timothy was, at the time he was thus entreated. Those, who went before with Timothy to Troas, are represented to have accompanied Paul into Asia. Acts xx. 4. This circumstance renders it an improbable supposition, that Paul should write so long and important a letter to his fellow traveller, whom he must overtake in a few days; and wholly unaccountable that he should the letter (ch. iii. 14, 15.) "these things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long," &c. That Paul should have thus purposed to come to Timothy unto Ephesus, but really at Troas; and in a few weeks afterwards, without any apparent cause for a change of views, should have

say

in

* Προσμένω occurs only in Matt. xv. 32, Mark viii. 2. Acts xi. 23. xviii. 18. 1 Timothy, i. 3. v. 5. If Paul and Timothy had been both absent from Ephesus, when he besought him to abide still, &c. instead of προσμείναι, he would have adopted goμEVEIV, and instead of saying πορευόμενος εις Μακεδονίαν, his lan. guage would have been exOMEVOS, &C.

said at Miletus to the elders of the church of Ephesus, "I know that ye all-shall see my face no more," (Acts xx. 25.) exhibits a fluctuation approximating versatility. If Timothy was on this occasion left with the officers of the church of Ephesus, and especially, if he was to become thenceforth their diocesan bishop, it is strange, that not a word of either of those circumstances should have been mentioned to those elders. But so far was the apostle from mentioning their subordination unto, or support.of the authority of young_Timothy, that he enjoins them: "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (ε¡σxonove, bishops), to feed the church of God," &c. But as not a word is said of leaving Timothy at Miletus, so it is improbable, that he should have parted from Paul there, because we find him with that apostle, when he arrived at Rome, where he is joined with him in the letters which have been mentioned.

Others have supposed, that Paul visited Ephesus after his first imprisonment, left Timothy there, went into Macedonia, and from thence wrote to him his first letter. They build upon the circumstances, that whilst at Rome, he had written to Philemon to prepare him lodgings at Colosse; and that he had told the Philippians by letter, he trusted he should come shortly to them.

This opinion is much more respectable, than either of the former; and although several of the fathers have positively asserted, what is incompatible with it, that Paul went into Spain, after his first imprisonment, according to his purpose expressed, Rom. xv. 29.; yet, however credible these holy men were, the writings, which bear their names, deserve often but little regard. That Paul was at Philippi, after his imprisonment, is probable, because he left Erastus at Corinth. Also

he may have been at Colosse, if he left Trophimus at Miletus; but the place is uncertain. He entertained a purpose subsequent to those, of visiting Judea, with Timothy. Heb. xiii. 18, 19. This may have been previously accomplished, and Timothy left in the neighbourhood of Troas, where he remained till the second epistle was sent to him. But if these purposes were effectuated, which is matter of uncertainty, there is not a word to prove even an intention to visit Ephesus. The letter to the Ephesians neither mentions Timothy, nor any coming of Paul. But Tychicus, a faithful minister of the Lord, and companion of the apostle, was named as sent to them. To the presbyters of Ephesus Paul had said, that he knew they should "see his face no more," (Acts xx. 25.) and it is nowhere shown that they did. The supposition, that nevertheless Paul afterwards went to Ephesus with Timothy, left him there with a request to tarry till he should return to him, and then went into Macedonia, and wrote his first epistle to Timothy, is entirely gratuitous, and without the least reason appearing in any exigencies of the Ephesian church; who had had three years of Paul's labours, and had been more than five years afterwards blessed with the regular administration of ordinances by pastors of their own, and some help from Tychicus and perhaps others.

That Timothy was left at Ephesus, when Paul, expelled by the riot, went into Macedonia, is the opinion, which is most obvious, and best supported. Before he wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia (ch. iv. 17.); but he himself remained in Asia for some time. Acts xix. 22. 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 his first letter to the Corinthians, he was expecting Timothy's return; which that letter might also have hastened. Paul remained at Ephesus, on this occasion, 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. 2 Cor. ii. 12. 13. Whilst in Macedonia, he wrote, we suppose, to Timothy his first letter (1 Tim. i. 3.), and proposed to him to remain at Ephesus, until he should call there on his way to Jerusalem. 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15. The words imply, that Paul might tarry some time; and that he was some time there before he went into Greece, is fairly implied in the expression, "And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece." Acts xx. 2. Timothy, who is nowhere represented as with him until he came into Macedonia, probably came to him there. After Paul had besought him to abide still at Ephesus, which gave him liberty to exercise his discretion, 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 still abide at Ephesus was not peremptory; and Paul tarried a long time. Also Timothy had been, from their commencement, familiarly acquainted with the churches in Macedonia

and Greece. Accordingly we find him in Macedonia, when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians, ch. i. Î. The apostle went from Macedonia into Greece (Acts xx. 2.), as he had promised in that letter (ch. 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.*

That it may be seen, 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, it is necessary only to advert to 1 Cor. xvi. 8, where he mentions his purpose of remaining at Ephesus till Pentecost; of which, if Timothy did not leave Corinth before this letter reached the Corinthian church, he would receive information by the epistle itself. Luke tells us (Acts xx. 6.), that they sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread or Easter, and (ver. 16.) that Paul hoped to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, which were, at the least, of the following year. 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, that he might pass over to Troas, with his companions. Timothy was among those who crossed first. Acts xx. 3-5. Paul wishing to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, did not call, as he had intended, at Ephesus (1 Tim. iii. 14, 15.), but landed at Miletus, and sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus.

The directions of the apostle in

* Compare Acts xviii. 2. with Rom. xvi. 3.