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. 28, yet, however credible these holy men were, their conjectures deserve often but little regard. That Paul was at Philippi after his imprisonment is probable, because he left Erastus at Corinth. 2 Tim. iv. 20. Also he may have been at Colosse, if he left Trophimus at Miletus; but the place was Miletum. ibid. He entertained a purpose subsequent to those, of visiting Judea with Timothy. Heb. xiii. 23. This may have been first 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. Ephes. vi. 21. To the Ephesians Paul had said, that he knew they should "see his face no more," and it is no where shown that he did. The supposition that nevertheless Paul afterwards went to Ephesus with Timothy, left him there, with the 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; which had had three years of Paul's labors,and had been afterwards long blessed with the regular administration of the ordinances by pastors of their own, besides help from Tychicus, and perhaps others.

If Paul constituted Timothy bishop of Ephesus, it is an affirmative, and ought to be proved. But Paul tells the presbyters of Ephesus at Miletus that the Holy

Ghost had made them bishops (exoxonovs) of that church. Those elders had previously received the powers which were necessary to ordaining others; on Timothy a similar presbytery laid their hands at his ordination. If this circumstance will not show that a presbytery could have ordained an evangelist, an apostle not being present, because evangelists were extraordinary officers of a higher grade; yet it must prove that a presbytery have some power to ordain. They were the highest fixed officers in a church, and the power of ordination was necessary to their succession. They could not have been appointed coadjutors to Timothy, in the ordination of themselves. And it does not appear they were ordained before the riot, when he was left at Ephesus. If thus there were no officers in that church when Paul left it, the direction to Timothy, who was an evangelist, to ordain bishops, that is, elders in Ephesus, was to do no more than his duty; which, when accomplished in any church, gave such bishops, or elders, power to continue the succession. If the presbyters of particular churches had not the power of ordination, there has been no succession in the church of Christ since the deaths of the apostles and evangelists; for their offices expired with them and there were no officers of a higher order. The office of Timothy was given to him prior to his visiting Ephesus. The duty assigned him was afterwards declared to be the work of an evangelist. 2 Tim. iv. 5. His appointment to Ephesus was temporary, being limited, at the farthest, to the time when Paul should come to him; but an earlier period of its termination was evidently left to his discretion, which he exercised by coming to Paul into Macedonia. Thus there was a disruption of the connexion, if any had been fixed; but none such was intended; the epistle was neither a commission, nor an ordination, but a mere letter of instruction, directing him in the

discharge of his high and important office of evangelist.

If Timothy returned to Ephesus from Rome, which is not recorded in the Scriptures, and died there, it will not establish that he ever exercised, or had any other office, than that of an

gelist.

evan

SECTION XXVL.

TITUS WAS, ALSO AN EXTRAORDINARY OFFICER, AND NOT A BISHOP OF CRETE.

He was Paul's attendant or evangelist, before the Gospel was carried to Crete. -Apollos is named in the epistle to Titus, but as they first saw Apollos on Paul's last visit to Ephesus, it was written after that visit.-Every movement of Paul, from the riot at Ephesus unto his first imprisonment, is given, and events show he did not leave him in Crete before he went to Rome.-His letters from Rome discover that Titus was not with him during his first imprisonment, and of course he could not have left him in Crete on his return from Rome.-Titus had been with Paul at Jerusalem, but after separating from Barnabas, he was no more with Paul till his second visit to Ephesus ; probably he was sent with the letter to the Galatians, and met Paul at Ephesus on his last visit there, from whence Paul sent him to Corinth, and he came to Paul in Macedonia, and was sent back to Corinth.-At some period after his first imprisonment, they may have gone to Crete; and Titus being left there, received this letter as a discharge from thence, when a substitute arrived. He was at Nicopolis one winter with Paul; and the Scrip tures leave him in Dalmatia.

WHEN Paul and Titus first went to Crete, before any church had been planted on the island, Titus must have been an attendant upon Paul, and a preacher, without any relation unto, or connexion with, the Cretans. Some have been of opinion, that Paul, after his liberation, sailed from Rome into Asia, and taking Crete in his way, left Titus there. But it does not appear, that Titus went to Rome with Paul, when he was carried a prisoner to be tried by Cæsar. Nor do any of the letters written from Rome, during that imprisonment, to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, or Philemon, mention Titus, or even imply that he was at Rome. On the contrary, his presence with

Paul is excluded by Colossians iv. 11, "These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me;" and Titus is not named as one of them.

That Paul purposed to visit Colosse, soon after his liberation, appears from his letter to Philemon, ver. 22. But the bespeaking of lodgings there would have been premature, if it had been intended consequent upon the arduous labors of planting churches in Crete. The epistle to Philemon preceded the letter to the Hebrews; in that, Timothy was joined; in this, he is mentioned as absent; "with whom if he come shortly," xiii. 23, Paul promised to see those to whom the letter was sent. He had gone, probably, to Philippi, Phil. ii, 19. This purpose of visiting Judea was, therefore, after his direction to Philemon to procure him lodgings at Colosse. Accordingly, some have imagined, that Paul went, with Timothy and Titus, to Crete, where he left Titus, and proceeded to Judea, returned through Syria and Cilicia, tarried some time at Colosse, wrote from thence to Titus in Crete to meet him at Nicopolis, came to Ephesus, left Timothy there, and proceeded to Macedonia. But neither does Titus appear to have been with Paul at Rome, during his imprisonment, nor is there the least evidence that such a journey was ever undertaken or accomplished. It was the opinion of Pool, that Paul left Titus in Crete, when he touched there a prisoner, on his passage to Rome. But as Titus is not named in the enumeration of either of the companies who left Macedonia for Jerusalem; nor mentioned in the history of their going to, remaining at, or coming from Jerusalem; nor spoken of in the account of the voyage, two years afterwards accomplished from Cæsaria to Rome, this opinion seems unfounded. It does not even appear, that Paul landed at Crete on that voyage.

Many have thought Paul, at or prior to the period of his separation from Barnabas, sailed with Silas and Titus from Cilicia to Crete, and returning to the