SECTION XII. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 1. Account of Timothy.-II. Date of this Epistle.-III. Genuineness and authenticity of the two Epistles to Timothy.-IV. Scope and synopsis of the first Epistle.-V. Observations on the use which the church is to make in every age of Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus. On the contrary, in behalf of the LATER DATE. which supposes this Epistle to have been written after Saint Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, a. D. 64 or 65, it is insisted, 1. That it appears from Saint Paul's Epistles to Philemon (22.) and to the Philippians (ii. 24.), that he evidently designed, when he had a prospect of being released, to go both to Colossa and into Macedonia. Now it is admitted, that these two Epistles were written towards the close of Saint Paul's first imprisonment at Rome; and, if he executed his intention of going to Colossa immediately after his release, it is very probable that he would visit Ephesus, which was in the vicinity of Colossæ, and proceed thence to Philippi. 1. TIMOTHY, to whom this Epistle was addressed, was a native of Lystra, a city of Lycaonia, in Asia Minor. His father was a Greek, but his mother was a Jewess (Acts xvi. 1.), and, as well as his grandmother Lois, a person of excellent character. (2 Tim. 1. 5.) The pious care they took of 2. We further learn from the first Epistle to Timothy, that his education soon appeared to have the desired success; for he was left at Ephesus to oppose the following errors: 1. Fables we are assured by Saint Paul, that from his childhood, Timo- invented by the Jewish doctors to recommend the observance of thy was well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. (2 Tim. the law of Moses as necessary to salvation;-2. Uncertain iii. 15.) It is generally supposed that he was converted to genealogies, by which individuals endeavoured to trace their dethe Christian faith during the first visit made by Paul and scent from Abraham, in the persuasion that they would be saved, Barnabas to Lystra. (Acts xiv.) From the time of his con- merely because they had Abraham to their father;-3. Intricate version, Timothy made such proficiency in the knowledge of questions and strifes about some words in the law ;--4. Perverse the Gospel, and was so remarkable for the sanctity of his disputings of men of corrupt minds, who reckoned that which manners, as well as for his zeal in the cause of Christ, that produced most gain to be the best of godliness; and oppositions he attracted the esteem of all the brethren in those parts. of knowledge falsely so named. But these errors had not taken Accordingly, when the apostle came from Antioch in Syria place in the Ephesian church before the apostle's departure; for, to Lystra the second time, they commended Timothy so in his charge to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he foretold that highly to him, that Paul selected him to be the companion false teachers would enter among them after his departing, Acts of his travels, having previously circumcised him (Acts xvi. xx. 29., I know that after my departing, shall grievous wolves 2, 3.) and ordained him in a solemn manner by imposition enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30. Also of your of hands (1 Tim. iv. 14.; 2 Tim. i. 6.), though at that time own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw he probably was not more than twenty years of age. (1 Tim. away disciples after them. The same thing appears from the iv. 12.) From this period, frequent mention is made of Ti- two Epistles which the apostle wrote to the Corinthians; the mothy, as the attendant of Paul in his various journeyings, one from Ephesus before the riot of Demetrius, the other from assisting him in preaching the Gospel, and in conveying his Macedonia after that event; and from the Epistle which he wrote instructions to the churches. When the apostle was driven to the Ephesians themselves from Rome, during his confinement from Thessalonica and Berea by persecution, he left Silas there. For in none of these letters is there any notice taken of and Timothy there to strengthen the churches in the faith. the above mentioned errors as subsisting among the Ephesians (Acts xvii. 13, 14.) Thence they went to Paul at Corinth (xviii. 5.), and from Ephesus he again sent Timothy to Thes- at the time they were written, which cannot be accounted for salonica (Acts xix. 22.; 1 Thess. iii. 2, 3.) to comfort the on the supposition that they were prevalent in Ephesus, when Delievers under their tribulations and persecutions. Timothy the apostle went into Macedonia after the riot. We conclude, returning to the apostle, next accompanied him into Asia therefore, with Dr. Macknight, that the first Epistle to Timothy, (Acts xx. 4.), and was left at Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 3, 4.) to in which the apostle desired him to abide at Ephesus for the instruct the church in that city, the care of which was con- purpose of opposing the judaizers and their errors, could not be fided to Timothy. How long he governed the Ephesian written, either from Troas, or from Macedonia, after the riot, as church is not known; and we are equally uncertain as to the those who contend for the early date of that Epistle suppose: but time of his death. An ecclesiastical tradition relates that he it must have been written some time after the apostle's release suffered martyrdom, being slain with stones and clubs, A. D. from his confinement in Rome, when, no doubt, he visited the 97, while he was preaching against idolatry in the vicinity church at Ephesus, and found the judaizing teachers there busily of the temple of Diana at Ephesus. His supposed relics employed in spreading their pernicious errors. were translated to Constantinople, with great pomp, a. D. 356, in the reign of Constantius. II. The date of this Epistle has been much disputed. Dr. Lardner refers it to the year 56; Dr. Benson, Michaelis, and Hug (after Cappel, Grotius, Lightfoot, and several other critics), date it in A. D. 58; Bishop Pearson, Le Clerc, Dr. Mill, and Rosenmüller, in a. D. 65; Drs. Whitby, Macknight, and Paley, and Bishop Tomline, in 64. In favour of the EARLY DATE it is argued, 1. That it appears from the third chapter of this Epistle, that no bishops had been then appointed at Ephesus. Saint Paul instructs Timothy in the choice, as of an appointment to a new office, and "hopes to return to him shortly.' And it is not probable the apostle would suffer a community to be long without governors. Now he departed from Ephesus when he travelled into Macedonia (Acts xx. 1.), and we see from v. 17. 28. that on his return bishops had been appointed. Consequently this Epistle must have been written at the beginning of his journey; for Timothy soon left Ephesus, and was at Corinth with Paul. (Acts xviii. 5.) He even joined him in Macedonia, for the second Epistle to the Corinthians, written in Macedonia, was in the joint names of Paul and Timothy. This Epistle, therefore, was written a short time before the second to the Corinthians. 2. It is further contended, that Timothy, at the time this Epistle was written, was in danger of being "despised for his youth." (1 Tim. iv. 12.) As he became an associate of Paul at Lystra (Acts xvi. 1.) so early as A. D. 50, he must then have been, as an assistant in the Gospel, at least twenty years of age. If this Epistle was written A. D. 65, he must have been of the age of thirty-five years, and could not have been less than fifteen years a preacher of the Gospel. He could not in that case have been depised for his youth; though he might, before he had reached his twenty-seventh year. 3. In the first Epistle to Timothy, the same persons, doctrines, and practices are reprobated, which are condemned in the second. Compare 1 Tim. iv. 1-6. with 2 Tim. iii. 1—5., and 1 Tim. vi. 20. with 2 Tim. i. 14., and 1 Tim. iv. 7. and vi. 20. with 2 Tim. ii. 16. The same commands, instructions, and encourage. ments are given to Timothy in the first Epistle as in the second Compare 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14. with 2 Tim. iv. 1-—5. The same remedies for the corruptions, which had taken place among the Ephesians, are prescribed in the first Epistle as in the second. Compare 1 Tim. iv. 14. with 2 Tim. i. 6, 7. And as in the second Epistle, so in the first, every thing is addressed to Timothy, as superintendent both of the teachers and of the laity in the church at Ephesus: all which, Dr. Macknight justly thinks, implies that the state of things among the Ephesians was the same when the two Epistles were written. Consequently, the first Epistle was written only a few months before the second, and not long before the apostle's death. To the late date of this first Epistle, however, there are three plausible objections which admit of easy solutions. 1. It is thought, that if the first Epistle to Timothy was written after the apostle's release, he could not, with any propriety, have said to Timothy, iv. 12. Let no man despise thy youth.— But it is replied, that Servius Tullius, in classing the Roman people, as Aulus Gellius relates,' divided their age into three periods. Childhood, he limited to the age of seventeen: youth, from that to forty-six; and old age, from forty-six to the end of life. Now, supposing Timothy to have been twenty years old, A. D. 50, when he became Paul's assistant, he would be no more than 34, A. D. 64, two years after the apostle's release, when it is supposed this Epistle was written. Since, therefore, Timothy was then in that period of life, which, by the Greeks as well as 1 Noctes Atticæ, lib. x. c. 28 the Romans, was considered as youth, the apostle, with propriety, | macher, Professor Eickhorn, and others, and vindicated by might say to him, Let no man despise thy youth. Professor Hug; the following is an abstract of the objections and their refutation: 2. When the apostle touched at Miletus, in his voyage to Jerusalem, with the collections, the church at Ephesus had a number of elders, that is, of bishops and deacons, who came to him at Miletus, Acts xx. 17. It is therefore asked, What occasion was there, in an Epistle written after the apostle's release, to give Timothy directions concerning the ordination of bishops and deacons, in a church where there were so many elders already? The answer is, the elders who came to the apostle at Miletus, in the year 58, might have been too few for the church at Ephesus, in her increased state, in the year 65. Besides false teachers had then entered, to oppose whom, more bishops and deacons might be needed than were necessary in the year 58. Not to mention, that some of the first elders having died, others were wanted to supply their places. 3. Because the apostle wrote to Timothy, that he hoped to come to him soon, 1 Tim. iii. 14., it is argued, that the letter, in which this is said, must have been written before the apostle said to the Ephesian elders, Acts xx. 25., I know that all ye, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. But if, by this, the first Epistle to Timothy is proved to have been written before the apostle's interview with the elders at Miletus, his Epistles to the Philippians, to the Hebrews, and to Philemon, in which he promised to visit them, must likewise have been written before the interview: for his declaration respected the Philippians, the Hebrews, and Philemon, as well as the Ephesians: for they certainly were persons among whom the apostle had gone preaching the kingdom of God: yet no commentator ever thought the Epistles above mentioned were written to them before the apostle's interview with the Ephesian elders. On the contrary, it is universally acknowledged, that these Epistles were written four years after the interview; namely, during the apostle's first imprisonment at Rome. When, therefore, he told the Ephesian elders, that they and his other converts, among whom he had gone preaching the kingdom of God, should see his face no more, as it was no point either of faith or practice which he spake, he may well be supposed to have declared nothing but his own opinion resulting from his fears. He had lately escaped the rage of the Jews who laid wait for him in Cenchrea to kill him. (Acts xx. 3.) This, with their fury on former occasions, filled him with such anxiety, that, in writing to the Romans from Corinth, he requested them to strive together with him in their prayers, that he might be delivered from the unbelieving in Judæa. (Rom. xv. 30, 31.) Further, that in his speech to the Ephesian elders, the apostle only declared his own persuasion, dictated by his fears, and not any suggestion of the Spirit, Dr. Macknight thinks, is plain from what he had said immediately before, verse 22. Behold I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things which shall befall me there: 23. Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. Wherefore, although his fears were happily disappointed, and he actually visited the Ephesians after his release, his character as an inspired apostle is not hurt in the least; if in saying, he knew they should see his face no more, he declared his own persuasion only, and no dictate of the Holy Spirit.1 We conclude, therefore, that Saint Paul wrote his first Epistle to Timothy about the end of the year 64. III. But whatever uncertainty may have prevailed concerning the date of this Epistle, it has always been acknowledged to be the undisputed production of the apostle Paul. Both the first and second Epistles to Timothy are cited or alluded to by the apostolical fathers, Clement of Rome,2 and Polycarp; and the first Epistle by Ignatius and in the following centuries by Irenæus; Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Caius, Origen, and by all subsequent ecclesiastical writers without exception. Decisive as these testimonies confessedly are, the authenticity of this Epistle has been denied by Dr. Schleier 1 Dr. Benson's Preface to 1 Tim. (pp. 220-222.) Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 75-78. Rosenmüller, Scholia in N. T. tom. v. pp. 1-4.; Hug's Introd. vol. ii. pp. 393-402. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 316-320.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 292-294. Doddridge and Whitby's Prefaces to 1 Tim. Macknight's Preface to 1 Titn. sect. ii. Dr. Paley has advocated the late date of this Epistle by arguments similar to those above stated. Hora Paulinæ, pp. 286-294. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 38, 39.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 298, 299. p. 424. 1. The language of the Epistle cannot be that of Saint Paul, because (it is alleged) expressions occur which are either not to be found in his other Epistles, or at least not with the same signification. But this is more or less the case in other Epistles; and some of the words alluded to are found in the New Testament, "while the composition of others betrays the apostle, who, unshackled by the laws of grammatical authority, either compounds his own words and forcible expressions, or derives them in a manner in which tragic authors would scarcely have indulged themselves." If, however, "independently of this peculiarity, we examine the whole of the diction, we shall find it assuredly Paul's. The accumulation of words of allied significations, or false synonymes, the enumerations, the short instantaneous bursts, the parentheses, particularly the long parenthesis in i. 5—18., an imitation in the use of certain words, in which any one then the animation which pervades the whole;-all is not might easily succeed, but the fac-simile of his peculiar mode of communication."10 Besides the difference of style in this accounted for by new adversaries arising, by the difference of Epistle, as compared with that of the preceding Epistles, is the times when the several Epistles were written, and also by the diversity of the subjects discussed, all which circumstances would necessarily produce a diversity of expression." 2. The great doubts which have been raised against this Epistle, because the apostle (i. 26.) has so very briefly mentioned Hymenæus and Alexander, are of no moment. He mentions them incidentally, as well-known examples of erring self-conceit, and for no other purpose besides, as he has also done in other passages, at this period of his life, viz. 2 Tim. i. 15., and ii. 17., where he also points out wellknown examples of error, as a warning to others, and this he also does incidentally.12 3. It has been asserted, that there is a contradiction between 1 Tim. i. 20. where Alexander is mentioned as a heretic, and 2 Tim. iv. 14. where he is an enemy of St. Paul But the apostle carefully distinguishes the individual in the second Epistle from him who is noticed in the first, by the epithet of xaxxws, the worker in metals, or the smith. Beza and Bolton have conjectured that he was the person who appeared at the Roman tribunal among the accusers of Paul. This, however, is of little moment, as from this name being very common, there must have been hundreds of persons who bore the name of Alexander.12 In short, whoever carefully and impartially examines the style of this Epistle, will find that the language and genius of the apostle of the Gentiles pervades it throughout; and that the animating, urgent, and affecting motives which it presents, are such as proceeded from the heart, and such as no impostor could imitate.13 affairs of the church in that city, Saint Paul wrote this Epis IV. Timothy, having been left at Ephesus, to regulate the the church, as well as in the exercise of a regular ministry. tle chiefly to instruct him in the choice of proper officers in Another and very important part of the apostle's design was to caution this young evangelist against the influence of those false teachers (Michaelis thinks they were Essenes), who, by their subtle distinctions and endless controversies, had corrupted the purity and simplicity of the Gospel; to press upon him, in all his preaching, a constant regard to the interests of practical religion; and to animate him to the greatest diligence, fidelity, and zeal, in the discharge of his office. The Epistle, therefore, consists of three parts; viz. PART I. The Introduction. (i. 1, 2.), PART II. Instructions to Timothy how to behave in the Administration of the Church at Ephesus; in which, SECT. 1. After reminding Timothy of the charge which had been committed to him, viz. To preserve the purity of the Gospel against the pernicious doctrines of the false teachers (enumerated above 4) whose opinions led to frivolous controversies, and not to a holy life, Saint Paul shows the use of the law of Moses, of which these teachers were ignorant. This account of the law, he assures Timothy, was agreeable to the representation of it in the Gospel, with the preaching of which he was intrusted. (i. 3-11.) Having mentioned the Gospel, the apostle, in the fulness of his heart, makes a digression to express his gratitude to God in calling him 10 Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 403, 404. 1 Cellerier, Introd. au Nouv. Test. p. 432. 1 Cellerier, Introd. au N iv. Test p. 432. 12 Hug, vol. ii. p. 405. See p. 343. supra. who had been a persecutor, to the Christian faith and minis | for the learned; and if his secret views and expectations had terial office; and observes, that his favour was extended to him, though so unworthy, as an encouragement to all that should believe in every future age. (12--20.) SECT. 2. Paul then proceeds to give Timothy particular instructions, $i. Concerning the manner in which divine worship was to be performed in the Ephesian church. (ii.) $ii Concerning the qualifications of the persons whom he was to ordain 2. How to adinonish aged men and women (v. 1, 2.), and in what man- (20, 21.) Annexed are some instructions to Timothy himself. (22-24.) 3. Concerning the duties of slaves. (vì. 1, 2.) SECT. 3. condemns trifling controversies and pernicious disputes, censures the excessive love of money, and charges the rich to be rich in good works. (vi. 3—19.) PART III. The Conclusion. (20, 21.) been different from those which he publicly professed to the world, he would have given, without all doubt, some in sinuation thereof in letters written to such intimate friends. Yet, throughout the whole of these Epistles, no discovery of that kind is made. The doctrine contained in them is the same with that taught in the Epistles designed for the inspection and direction of the church in general and the views and hopes which he expresses are the same with those which he uniformly taught mankind to entertain. What stronger proofs can we desire of the apostle's sincerity and faithfulness than these ?"? On the undesigned coincidences between this Epistle and the Acts of the Apostles, see Dr. Paley's Hora Paulina Chap. XI. V. Although the errors of the judaizing teachers at Ephe-I. sus, which gave rise to Saint Paul's Epistles to Timothy, have long disappeared, yet "the Epistles themselves are still of great use, as they serve to show the impiety of the principles from which these errors proceeded. For the same Drinciples are apt in every age to produce errors and vices, which, though different in name from those which prevailed in Ephesus in the apostle's days, are precisely of the same kind, and equally pernicious.-These Epistles are likewise of great use in the church, as they exhibit to Christian bishops and deacons, in every age, the most perfect idea of the duties of their function; teach the manner in which these duties should be performed; describe the qualifications necessary in those who aspire to such holy and honourable offices, and explain the ends for which these offices were originally instituted, and are still continued in the church. The very same things, indeed, the apostle, about the same time, wrote to Titus in Crete; but more briefly, because he was an older and more experienced minister than Timothy. Nevertheless the repetition of these precepts and charges, is not without its use to the church still, as it maketh us more deeply sensible of their great importance: not to mention, that in the Epistle to Titus, there are things peculiar to itself, which enhance its value. In short, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, taken together, containing a full account of the qualifications and duties of the ministers of the Gospel, may be considered as a complete body of divinely-inspired ecclesiastical canons, to be observed by the Christian clergy of all communions, to the end of the world. "These Epistles, therefore, ought to be read frequently, and with the greatest attention, by those in every age and country, who hold sacred offices, or who have it in view to obtain them: not only that they may regulate their conduct according to the directions contained in them, but that, by meditating seriously on the solemn charges delivered to all the ministers of the Gospel, in the persons of Timothy and Titus, their minds may be strongly impressed with a sense of the importance of their function, and of the obligation which lieth on them to be faithful in discharging every duty belonging to it. "It is of importance also to observe, that, in these Epistles, there are some explications of the Christian doctrines, and some displays of Saint Paul's views and expectations as an apostle of Christ, which merit our attention. For if he had been, like many of the Greek philosophers, a hypocrite who held a double doctrine, one for the vulgar, and another In using this expression-Great is the mystery of godliness (iii. 16.), the apostle is generally supposed to allude to the heathen mysteries. As those mysteries have always a reference to some deity, this circumstance greatly favours-not to say, confirms-the common reading of this text, which has been so much controverted for if no mention had been made in this case of a God, such an omission wouldre maimed the apostle's description in a most essential point, and obscured theauty of his fine allusion. (Brekell's Discourses, p. 424. note.) On the much litigated question respecting the reading of es in 1 Tim. iii. 16. the reader will find a perspicuous statement of the evidence in Mr. Holden's Scripture Testimonies to the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, pp. i8i-i68. There is an elaborate essay on this passage in the Christian Observer for 1809, vol. i. pp. 271-277. See also Dr. Berriman's Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim: iii. 16. Svo. London, 1741. Velthusen's Observations on various Subjects, Ep. 49--104. Svo. London, 1773. Dr. Hales's Treatise on Faith in the Holy Trinity, vol. ii. pp. 67-101. and Mr. Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 274-276. But the fullest view of the evidence, both external and internal, will be found in the Rev. Dr. Henderson's Great Mystery of Godliness inconti vertible (London, 1830), who has DEMONSTRATED THE GENUINENESS OF THE READING 105, from the united and indisputable testimonies of manuscripts, ancient versions, quotations in the writings of the fathers, and the best printed editions of the Greek Testament, both early and recent, as well as from internal evidence. 2 X VOL. II SECTION XIII. ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. Date.-II. Of the place where Timothy was, when Paul wrote this Epistle to him.-III. Its scope.-IV. Synopsis of its contents.-V. Observations on this Epistle. I. THAT Paul was a prisoner when he wrote the second Epistle to Timothy, is evident from i. 8. 12. 16. and ii. 9.; and that his imprisonment was in Rome appears from i. 17., and is universally admitted. But, whether he wrote it during his first imprisonment, recorded in Acts xxviii., or during a second imprisonment there (which was the uniform tradition of the primitive church), is a point that has been much disputed. The former opinion is advocated by Drs. Hammond, Lightfoot, Lardner, and Hug; and the latter, by Drs. Benson, Macknight, and Paley, Bishop Tomline, Michaelis, Rosenmuller, and others. That the last-mentioned opinion is most correct, we think will appear from the following considerations: Philippians, and Philemon (which are known to have been writ- Again, when the former Epistles were written from Rome, Timothy was with Paul; and he is joined with him in writing to the Colossians, the Philippians, and to Philemon. The present Epistle implies that he was absent. Further, in the former Epistles, Demas was with Paul at Rome: "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." In the Epistle now before us: "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is gone to Thessalonica.' Once more in the former Epistle, Mark was with Paul, and joins in saluting the Colossians. In the present Epistle, Timothy is ordered to bring him with him, "for he is profitable to me for the ministry." (iv. 11.) 2. The circumstances of Paul's imprisonment, as referred to in this Epistle, are widely different from the imprisonment related in Acts xxviii. 30, 31. Then he was permitted to dwell alone in his own hired house, and receive all who came to him, and publicly to preach the Gospel, being guarded only by a single soldier. But it appears from 2 Tim. i. 16-18., that the apostle was in close confinement, so that Onesiphorus, on his coming to Rome, had considerable difficulty in finding him out. And that crimes were now laid to his charge very different from those formerly alleged against him, appears from ii. 9.; where he says that he suffers evil, even unto bonds, as a malefactor; plainly imply ing that he was not only abridged of all liberty, but also that he was bound, hands and feet, in a close dungeon. Dr. Macknight thinks this was probably under the pretence that he was one of those Christians whom Nero accused of having set Rome on fire, Hence the word malefactor (xaxcupyos), which in this passage Dr. Macknight's Pref. to 1 Tim. sect. iv may mean that the apostle was treated as one of the worst of riminals. 3. The situation of Paul, when he wrote this Epistle, was extremely dangerous. This appears from 2 Tim. iv. 6, 7, 8. and from verse 16. where, at his first answer, all men forsook him. Further, (verse 17.) The Lord delivered him from the mouth of the lion, or the cruelty of Nero. And in verse 18. he hopes the Lord will deliver him from every evil work, by preserving him unto his heavenly kingdom. This was totally different from the gentle treatment recorded in Acts xxviii., and shows that this epistle was written at a later period than the two years' imprisonment mentioned by Luke. haq befallen him during his second imprisonment at Rome, and to request him to come to him before the ensuing winter. But, being uncertain whether he should live so long, he gave him in this letter a variety of advices, charges, and encou ragements, for the faithful discharge of his ministerial functions, with the solemnity and affection of a dying parent; in order that, if he should be put to death before Timothy's arrival, the loss might in some measure be compensated to him by the instructions contained in this admirable Epistle. With this view, after expressing his affectionate concern for him, he exhorts him to stir up the gift which had been conferred upon him (2 Tim. i. 2-5.); not to be ashamed of the 4. It appears from 2 Tim. iv. 13. 20. that when the apostle testimony of the Lord, nor of Paul's sufferings (6-16.); to wrote, he had lately been at Troas, Miletus, and Corinth. This hold fast the form of sound words, and to guard inviolable was a different route from that described in the Acts. Also in that good deposit of Gospel doctrine (i. 13, 14.), which he 2 Tim. iv. 13. he desires Timothy to bring with him a trunk and was to commit to faithful men who should be able to teach sone books which he had left at Troas. others (ii. 1, 2.); to animate him to endure, with fortitude But in his journey to Italy in Acts xxvii. he did not come near Troas. It is true he persecutions for the sake of the Gospel (ii. 3-13.); to supvisited that place on his way to Jerusalem. (Acts xx. 5-7.) press and avoid logomachies (14. 23.); to approve himself But as this visit to Troas happened in the year 57, and the pre-him of the perils of the last days, in consequence of wicked a faithful minister of the word (15-22.); and to forewarn sent Epistle was not written before the year 65, these articles hypocritical seducers and enemies of the truth, who even were not then left there; for he would hardly have delayed then were beginning to rise in the church. These Saint Paul sending for them for seven or eight years. He would rather have admonishes Timothy to flee, giving him various cautions sent for them to Cæsarea, where he was in prison two years; or against them. (iii.) more early on his first coming to Rome. 5. When he wrote this Epistle, he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus. (iv. 20.) But this could not have happened on the journey to Jerusalem, because Trophimus was with Saint Paul at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 29.), and in his voyage from Cæsarea to Italy he did not touch at Miletus. It is obvious, contrary to Dr. Lardner's hypothesis, that the north wind would not suffer them to proceed further north from Cnidus along the coast of Asia. (Acts xxvii. 7.) 6. Paul says (2 Tim. iv. 20.) that Erastus stayed behind at Corinth. The apostle must therefore have passed through Corinth on that journey to Rome, after which he wrote this Epistle. But from Cæsarea to Italy, in Acts xxviii. he did not pass through Corinth. Dr. Lardner's two objections to this argument are not satisfactory. For he says that Erastus stayed behind at Corinth when Saint Paul left that city to go to Jerusalem, though Timothy, who was then with Saint Paul, must have known that circumstance, but Saint Paul only wished to remind him of it, or he mentions his stay, because he was sent by Paul from Ephesus into Macedonia (Acts xix. 22.); and when Paul, going there also, returned to Asia Minor, he did not return with him, not being mentioned in Acts xx. 4. IV. The Epistle therefore consists of three parts; viz. SECT. 1. To diligence, patience, and firmness in keeping e SECT. 2. To fortitude under afflictions and persecutions, to deliver the uncorrupted doctrine of the Gospel to others, and to purity of life. (ii.) SECT. 3. To beware of false teachers in the last times (whose practices are described), to be constant in his profession of the Gospel, and to be diligent in his ministerial labours (iii. iv. 1—8.) PART III. The Conclusion, containing the Apostle's Request to Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, together with various Salutations for the Brethren in Asia Minor. (iv. 922.) V. As this Epistle was written to Saint Paul's most intimate friend, under the miseries of a jail, and the near prospect of death, and was not designed for the use of others, it may serve to exhibit the temper and character of the apostle, The result of the preceding observations is, that this Epis-believed the doctrines which he preached. "This excellent and to convince us that he was no deceiver, but sincerely tle was written by Paul at Rome, and during an imprison- writing, therefore, will be read by the disciples of Christ, to ment different from that recorded in Acts xxviii. Paul, we have seen, was released from his confinement A. D. 63, and, the end of the world, with the highest satisfaction. And the after visiting several churches, returned to Rome early in 65; impression which it must have on their minds, will often be where, after being confined rather more than a year, it is recollected by them with the greatest effect, for the confirgenerally agreed that he suffered martyrdom A. D. 66. Now, mation of their faith in the Gospel, and their consolation as the apostle requests Timothy to come to him before winter under all the evils which their adherence to the Gospel may (2 Tim. iv. 21.), it is probable that this Epistle was written bring upon them." in the month of July or August A. D. 65.2 II. It is generally supposed that Timothy was at Ephesus when Paul wrote his second Epistle to him. This opinion is advocated by Drs. Lardner, Benson, and Macknight, but is opposed by Michaelis; who has shown that Timothy was most probably somewhere in Asia Minor when Paul sent this letter to him, because the apostle, towards the close of the first chapter, mentions several persons who dwelt in that region, and also because (2 Tim. iv. 13.) he requests Timothy to bring with him the cloak, books, and parchments, which he had left behind him at Troas; and because Troas does not lie in the route from Ephesus to Rome, to which city Timothy was desired to "make haste to come to him before winter.' (iv. 21.) Michaelis concludes, therefore, that Paul, not knowing exactly where Timothy was, wrote to him this Epistle, which he intrusted to a safe person (whom Dr. Benson supposes to have been Tychicus) that was travelling into Asia Minor, with an order to deliver it to him wherever he might find him.3 "Imagine," says Dr. Benson, "a pious father, under sentence of death for his piety and benevolence to mankind, writing to a dutiful and affectionate son, that he might see and embrace him again before he left the world; particularly that he might leave with him his dying commands, and charge him to live and suffer as he had done :-and you will have the frame of the apostle's mind, during the writing of the whole Epistle."3 On the undesigned coincidences between this Epistle and the Acts of the Apostles, see Dr. Paley's Hora Paulinæ, Chap. XII. Gal. ii. 1-3. Acts xv. 2.) Some years after this we find that Paul sent him to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 18.), to investigate and report to him the state of the church in that city, and particularly to report what effect had been produced by his first Epistle to the Corinthians. The intelligence brought to the apostle by Titus afforded him the highest satisfaction, as it far exceeded all his expectations. (vii. 6-13. And as Titus had expressed a particular regard for the Corinthians, the apostle thought proper to send him back again, with some others, to hasten the collection for the poor brethren in Judæa. (viii. 6.) After this we meet with no further notice of Titus; except that he is mentioned in this Epistle as having been with Paul in Crete (Tit. i. 5.), and in 2 Tim. iv. 10. (shortly before that apostle's martyrdom) as being in Dalmatia. How highly he was esteemed by the great apostle of the Gentiles, is evident from the affectionate manner in which he has spoken of him to the Corinthians. Whether Titus ever quitted Crete we know not: neither have we any certain information concerning the time, place, or manner of his death; but, according to ancient ecclesiastical tradition, he lived to the age of ninety-four years, and died and was buried in that island. II. We have no certain information when or by wnom Christianity was first planted in Crete. As some Cretans were present at the first effusion of the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem (Acts ii. 11.), Bishop Tomline things it not improbable, that, on their return home, they might be the means of introducing the Gospel among their countrymen.2 But Michaelis, Dr. Hales, and many other critics are of opinion that Christianity was first planted there by Paul, during the year and a half that he spent at Corinth, between the latter part, of A. D. 51, and the former part of A. D. 53. It appears from 2 Cor. xii. 14. and xiii. 1. that the apostle did make an excursion during this interval, and returned to Corinth. In this excursion it is supposed that he made a voyage to Crete, in order to preach the Gospel there, and took Titus with him as an assistant, whom he left behind to regulate the concerns of that church. (Tit. i. 5.) Josephus informs us that there were many Jews in this island at the time Paul wrote this Epistle to Titus; and the apostle seems to have considered them a more dangerous people than the Cretans themselves, who were formerly notorious for piracy, luxury, debauchery, and especially for lying. So infamous were they for their habitual practice of falsehood, that grey, to act like a CreJan, was a proverbial term for telling a lie. With these vices they were charged by Epimenides, one of their own poets; and Paul has quoted him as expressing their true character. (Tit. i. 12.) III. No date is so controverted as that of the Epistle to Titus. Michaelis, who thinks it was written soon after his supposed visit to Crete, is of opinion, that, in the chronological arrangement of Paul's epistles, it should be placed between the second Epistle to the Thessalonians (A. D. 52) and the first Epistle to the Corinthians (A. D. 57). Hug places it between the two Epistles to the Corinthians; Dr. Hales dates this Epistle in A. D. 52; Dr. Lardner in 56; Lord Barrington in 57; Dr. Benson and Bishop Tomline in 64; and Bishop Pearson, Drs. Whitby and Paley, and the Bible chronology in A. D. 65. The subscription states this Epistle to have been written from Nicopolis of Macedonia, probably because Saint Paul desired to meet him at a city called Nicopolis, but which could not be the place intended by the author of the subscription; for the Nicopolis referred to by him was situated on the river Nessus in Thrace, and was not built till after this period by the emperor Trajan. As Luke is totally silent concerning Saint Paul's preaching at Crete, though he has noticed that he touched at the Fair Havens and Lasea in his first voyage to Rome, it is most probable that this Epistle was written after his liberation from his first mprisonment, A. D. 64. And this opinion is strengthened by the verbal harmony subsisting between the first Epistle to Timothy and the letter to Titus; which cannot be naturally accounted for, but by supposing that they were both written about the same time, and while the same ideas and phrases were present to the writer's mind. Among other instances that might be adduced, compare 1 Tim. I. 1—3. with Tit. i. 4, 5.; 1 Tim. i. 5. with Tit. i. 14.; 1 Tim. iv. 12. with Tit. ii. 7. 15., and 1 Tim. iii. 2-4. with Tit. i. 6-8.4 1 See particularly 2 Cor. ii. 13. vii. 6. 7. 13–15. viii. 16-23. and xii. 18. Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 446. Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 12. §1. De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 7. §1., &c. Calmet, Preface sur l'Epitre de S. Paul à Tite; Dr. Benson's Preface to his Paraphrase and Commentary on this Epistle; Lardner's Works, Svo. vol. vi. pp. 320-324.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 294-296.; Michaelis's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 29-41.; Hug's Introd. vol. fl. pp. 354-360. Dr. Macknight's Prefase to T.us. The genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle to Titus were never questioned.5 IV. Titus having been left in Crete to settle the churches in the several cities of that island according to the apostoli cal plan, Paul wrote this Epistle to him, that he might dis charge his ministry among the Cretans with the greater success, and to give him particular instructions concerning his behaviour towards the judaizing teachers, who endeavoured to pervert the faith and disturb the peace of the Christian church. The Epistle, therefore, consists of three parts. PART I. The Inscription. (i. 1—4.) PART II. Instructions to Titus, SECT. 1. Concerning the ordination of elders, that is, of bishops and deacons, whose qualifications are enumerated. (5—9.) Further, to show Titus how cautious he ought to be in selecting men for the sacred office, Paul reminds him of the acts of the judaizing teachers. (10—16.) SECT. 2. That he should accommodate his exhortations to the respective ages, sexes, and circumstances of those whom he was commissioned to instruct; and, to give the greater weight to his instructions, he admonishes him to be an example of what he taught. (ii.) SECT. 3. That he should inculcate obedience to the civil magistrate, in opposition to the Jews and judaizing teachers, who, being averse from all civil governors, except such as were of their own nation, were apt to imbue Gentile Christians with a like seditious spirit, as if it were an indignity for the people of God to obey an idolatrous magistrate; and also that he should enforce gentleness to all men. (1. 1-7.) SECT. 4. That he should enforce good works, avoid foolish questions, and shun heretics. (iii. 8—11.) PART III. An Invitation to Titus, to come to the Apostle at Nicopolis, together with various Directions. (iii. 12—15.) V. From a comparison of the Epistle of Titus with the two Epistles to Timothy, Dr. Macknight remarks, we learn that the judaizing teachers were every where indefatigable in propagating their erroneous doctrine concerning the necessity of obedience to the law of Moses, as the only means of obtaining salvation; that in the most distant countries they uniformly taught the same doctrine, for the purpose of rendering the practice of sin consistent with the hope of salvation: and that in order to draw disciples after them, they en themselves followed, in the persuasion that they would be couraged them in sin by the vicious practices which they pardoned by the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices. That eminent critic thinks it probable, from the apostle's commanding Titus in Crete, and Timothy in Ephesus, to oppose those errors, that the judaizing teachers were more numerous and successful in Ephesus and Crete than in other places. As, however, Titus was a Gentile convert, whose interest it was to maintain the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses, and also a teacher of long standing in the faith, Paul was not so full in his directions and exhortations to him, as to Timothy neither did he recommend to him meekness, lenity, and patience in teaching, as he did to Timothy, br rather sharpness. (Tit. i. 13. ii. 15.) Dr. Macknight ac counts for this difference in the apostle's letters to those two evangelists, by supposing that Titus was a person of a soft and mild temper; whereas Timothy, being a young man, might have been of a more ardent spirit that stood in need of some restraint.6 SECTION XV. ON THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Account of Philemon.-II. Date.-III. Genuineness and authenticity.-IV. Occasion and scope of this Epistle.V. Observations on it. I. PHILEMON was an inhabitant of Colossæ, as appears from Paul's mentioning Onesimus in his Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 9.) as one of them, and also from his saluting Archippus in this Epistle (ver. 2.), who appears from Col. It is cited or alluded to by all the fathers who have quoted the two Epistles to Timothy. See the references to them in p. 344.'supra Dr. Macknight's Preface to Titus, sect. 4. fine. |