submitted to the reader, Dr. Lightfoot has expressed himself with
an amount of confidence which may well excite astonishment. It
would not be difficult to show that his speculations as to the
development of Episcopacy in Asia Minor and Syria in the early
years of the second century, as presented in the Essay to which he
refers, are the merest moonshine. On what grounds can he maintain
that Timothy exercised what he calls a "moveable episcopate" in
Ephesus? Paul besought him to abide there for a time that he might
withstand errorists, and he gave him instructions as to how he was
to behave himself in the house of God; [60:2] but it did not
therefore follow that he was either a bishop or an archbishop.
He was an able man, sound in the faith, wise and energetic;
and, as he was thus a host in himself, Paul expected that
meanwhile he would be eminently useful in helping the less
gifted ministers who were in the place to repress error and keep
the Church in order. That Paul intended to establish neither a
moveable nor an immoveable episcopate in Ephesus, is obvious from
his own testimony; for when he addresses its elders,--as he
believed for the last time,--he ignored their submission to any
ecclesiastical superior, and committed the Church to their own
supervision. [61:1] And if he left Titus in Crete to take
charge of the organization of the Church there, he certainly
did not intend that the evangelist was to act alone. In those days
there was no occasion for the services of a diocesan bishop,
inasmuch as the Christian community was governed by the common
council of the elders, and ordination was performed "with the
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." [61:2] Titus
was a master builder, and Paul believed that, proceeding in
concert with the ministers in Crete, he would render effectual aid
in carrying forward the erection of the ecclesiastical edifice.