§ 1. 1 TIM. i. 1, 2.

The Salutation.

1 Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commanddemonstrate the truth of the Gospel, See 2 Tim. i. 6, 7. Yet it is not probable that Timothy had two ordinations; one by the elders of Lystra, and another by the apostle; as it is most probable that St. Paul acted with that peobvreptov, or eldership, mentioned 1 Tim. iv. 14. among whom, in the imposition of hands, he would undoubtedly act as chief.

Macedonia.

Timothy, thus prepared to be the apostle's fellow-labourer in the Gospel, accompanied him and Silas, when they visited the Churches of Phrygia, and delivered to them the decrees of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, freeing the Gentiles from the law of Moses, as a term of salvation. Having gone through these countries, they at length came to Troas, where St. Luke joined them, as appears from the phraseology of his history, Acts xvi. 10, 11, &c. In Troas a vision appeared to St. Paul, directing them to go into Macedonia. Loosing therefore from Troas, they all passed over to Neapolis, and from thence went to Philippi, where they converted many, and planted a Christian Church. From Philippi they went to Thessalonica, leaving St. Luke at Philippi; as appears from his changing the phraseology of his history at verse 40. We may therefore suppose that, at their departing, they committed the converted at Philippi to the care of St. Luke. In Thessalonica they were opposed by the unbelieving Jews, and obliged to flee to Berea, whither the Jews from Thessalonica followed them. To elude their rage, St. Paul, who was most obnoxious to them, departed from Berea by night, to go to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy at Berea. At Athens Timothy came to the apostle, and gave him such an account of the afflicted state of the Thessalonian converts, as induced him to send Timothy back to comfort them. After that St. Paul preached at Athens, but with so little success, that he judged it proper to leave Athens, and go forward to Corinth, where Silas and Timothy came to him, and assisted in converting the Corinthians. And when he left Corinth they accompanied him, first to Ephesus, then to Jerusalem, and after that to Antioch, in Syria. Having spent some time in Antioch, St. Paul set out with Timothy on his third apostolical journey; in which, after visiting all the churches of Galatia and Phrygia, in the order in which they had been planted, they came to Ephesus the second time, and there abode for a considerable period. In short, from the moment Timothy first joined the apostle, as his assistant, he never left him, except when sent by him on some special errand. And by his affection, fidelity, and zeal, he so recommended himself to all the disciples, and acquired such authority over them, that St. Paul inserted his name in the inscription of several of the letters which he wrote to the Churches, to shew that their doctrine was one and the same. His esteem and affection for Timothy, the apostle expressed still more conspicuously, by writing to him those excellent letters in the canon, which bear his name, and which have been of the greatest use to the ministers of Christ ever since their publication; by directing them to discharge all the duties of their function in a proper manner.

The date of this epistle has been a subject of much controversy, some assigning it to the year 56, 57, or 58, which is the common opinion; and others to 64 or 65. I have adopted, with Dr. Doddridge, the hypothesis which seems to have prevailed most generally, that it was written about the year of our Lord

Julian Pe- ment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which Macedonia. is our hope;

riod, 4770. Vulgar Era,

57.

57 or 58, when St. Paul bad lately quitted Ephesus on account of
the tumult raised there by Demetrius, and was gone into Mace.
donia, Acts xx. 1. This is the opinion of many learned critics,
ancient and modern, particularly of Athanasius, Theodoret,
Baronius, Ludovic, Capellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius,
Salmasius, Lightfoot, Benson, Lord Barrington, Michaelis,
and others. On the other hand, Bishop Pearson, and after him
Rosenmüller, Macknight, Paley, Bishop Tomline, &c. endea-
vour to prove, that it could not be written till the year 64 or
65, between the first and second imprisonment of St. Paul at
Rome; and l'Enfant, without any hesitation, goes into this
hypothesis. It is universally allowed that St. Paul must have
written this first Epistle to Timothy at some journey which he
made from Ephesus to Macedonia, having in the mean time
left Timothy behind him at Ephesus; for he expressly saith to
Timothy, Tim. i. 3. "I besought thee still to abide at Ephe-
sus, when I went into Macedonia." Bishop Pearson accord-
ingly, in order to prove that the date of this epistle was as late
as he supposes, having observed that we read only of three
journies of St. Paul through Macedonia, (viz. Acts xvi. 9,
10. xx. 1. 3.) endeavours to show, that it could not be
written in any of these, and must consequently have been
written in some fourth journey, not mentioned in the history,
which he supposes was about the year 65, after St. Paul was re-
leased from his imprisonment at Rome. That it was not written
at the first or third of these journics is readily allowed, and it
appears from the whole series of the context in both places;
but it is the second that is generally contended for. The
Bishop supposes that the epistle was not written at this second
journey, because it appears from Acts xix. 22. that St. Paul
did not leave Timothy then at Ephesus, having sent him before
into Macedonia, and appointed him to meet him at Corinth.
See 1 Cor. iv. 17. xvi. 10. To this it is answered, that
though St. Paul did not indeed send Timothy from Ephesus,
yet, as we are told that St. Paul made some stay there after that,
(Acts xix. 22.) Timothy might be returned before the tumult,
and so the apostle might, notwithstanding, leave him behind at
Ephesus, when he himself set out for Macedonia. (For, it
should be observed, that he changed his scheme, and, before
he went to Corinth, where he had appointed Timothy to meet
him, spent some time in Macedonia; from whence he wrote his
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in company with Timothy,
who came to him in his return from Corinth, and continued with
him while he remained in these parts.) Now that Timothy return.
ed to Ephesus before the apostle departed will indeed appear
very probable, if, (as Mr. Boyse argues from Acts xx. 31. com-
pared with xix. 8. 10.) St. Paul spent three years at Ephesus,
and in the neighbouring parts, and sent Timothy away nine
months before the tumult: which would leave him time enough
to perform his commission, and return to Ephesus before the
apostle had left it. (See Family Expos. vol. iii. sect. 43. note,
p. 189.) To which it may be added, that it appears from 1 Cor.
xvi. 10, 11. which epistle was written from Ephesus, that St.
Paul expected Timothy, after his journey to Macedonia and
Corinth, would return to him at that city.

The Bishop further objects to the epistle's being written at
this second journey, mentioned Acts xx. 1. that when the
apostle set out he proposed to go into Macedonia, and visit the

324

Julian Period, 4770. Vulgar Æra,

57.

2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, Ephesus. Churches there and in Greece, which must necessarily take up a considerable time, whereas, in his Epistle to Timothy, he speaks of his intention to return very soon. (1 Tim. iii. 14. iv. 13.) But it is natural to suppose that some unforeseen accident might detain him longer than he designed, and being disappointed of some assistance he expected from Macedonia, he might afterwards send for Timothy to come to him, who, as the passage by sea might be dispatched in a few days, might arrive at Macedonia before the apostle wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

The Bishop further argues, that it appears from the Epistle to Titus, as well as from some passages in his Epistle to the Philippians and to Philemon, that St. Paul actually made another journey into those parts after his imprisonment at Rome, in which journey he left Titus behind him at Crete, which lay in his way from Rome, (Tit. i. 5.) Now it must be allowed the Bishop, that the supposition that Salmasius makes is not at all likely, that St. Paul touched at Crete when he was going from Achaia to Macedonia, for then be carried a collection with him, (1 Cor. xvi. 1.5. Acts xxiv. 17.) and therefore it was not probable he would go so much out of his way; and when he was about to sail into Syria, and heard that snares were laid for him, (Acts xx. 3.) it is not to be supposed he would go into the mouth of them, or that he would take up his time in preaching at Crete, when he was in haste to be at Jerusalem, (Acts xx. 6.) or that he would winter at Nicopolis, (Tit. iii. 12.) when winter was passed, and he desired to be at Jerusalem before the pas sover. But then it had been observed, that perhaps the Epistle to Titus might be among the first St. Paul wrote, and his voy. age to Crete, one of the many events before his going up to the council at Jerusalem, which, in his history of the Acts, Luke not being in company with him when they occurred, had entirely passed over, and of which there are notwithstanding some traces in St. Paul's Epistle, particularly 2 Cor. xi. and Rom. xv. 19.; or if it be allowed that the Epistle to Titus was written by St. Paul after his first imprisonment, it will not follow from thence, that the first Epistle to Timothy must have been written at the same time. This is a brief account of the arguments for Bishop Pearson's hypothesis, that this Epistle was written about the year 65, with their respective answers.

In favour, however, of the later date assigned to this Epistle, it has been farther observed, that Timothy was left in Crete, to oppose the following errors.

1. Fables invented by the Jewish doctors, to recommend the observance of the law of Moses, as necessary to salvation.-2. Uncertain genealogies, by which individuals endeavoured to trace their descent from Abraham, in the persuasion that they would be saved, merely because they had Abraham for their father.-3. Intricate questions, and strifes about some words in the law; perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, who reckoned that which produced most gain, to be the best kind of godliness; and 4. Oppositions of knowledge, falsely so named. And these errors, it is said had not taken place in the Ephesian Church, before the apostle's departure; for, in his charge to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he foretold that the false teachers were to enter in among them after his departing (Acts xx. 29, 30.) I know that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your ownselves, shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. The same thing, it is said,

Julian Pe- mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ Ephesus. riod, 4770. our Lord. Vulgar Æra,

57.

appears from the two Epistles which the apostle wrote to the
Corinthians, the one from Ephesus, before the riot of Deme-
trius, the other from Macedonia, after that event; and, from
the Epistle which he wrote to the Ephesians themselves, from
Rome, during his confinement there. For in none of these let-
ters is there any notice taken of the above-mentioned errors, as
subsisting among the Ephesians at the time they were written,
which cannot be accounted for, on the supposition that they
were prevalent in Ephesus when the apostle went into Mace-
donia, after the riot. It is inferred, therefore, that the first
Epistle to Timothy, in which the apostle desired him to abide
in Ephesus, for the purpose of opposing the Judaizers and their
errors, could not be written either from Troas or from Mace-
donia, after the riot; but it must have been written some time
after the apostle's release from confinement in Rome, when no
doubt he visited the Church at Ephesus, and found the Judaiz.
ing teachers there busily employed in spreading their pernicions
errors. But it may be answered, that it is not certain what
errors were alluded to in Acts xx. 29, 30. ; and the errors alluded
to in 1 Tim. every where prevailed.

Again, in the first Epistle it is said, the same persons, doc-
trines, 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. ii. 14. and 1 Tim. vi. 4. 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 superintendant both of the teachers and of the
laity, in the Church at Ephesus; all which imply, that the
state of things among the Ephesians was the same when the two
Epistles were written: consequently, that the first Epistle was
written only a few months before the second, and not long be-
fore the apostle's death.-It is answered, that the Church at
Ephesus might require a repetition of the same remonstrances,
though many years elapsed between the sending of the two
Epistles.

To the late date of this first Epistle there are three objections, which appear to me to be decisive.

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 (chap. iv. 12.) "Let no man despise thy youth." In reply to which it is said, that Servius Tullius, in classing the Roman people, as Aulus Gellius relates, (lib. x. c. 28.) divided their age into three periods: childhood, he limited to the age of seventeen; youth, from that to forty-six; and old age, from that to the end of life. Now, supposing Timothy to have been eighteen years old, A.D. 50, when he became Paul's assistant, he would be no more than 32, A.D. 64, two years after the apostle's release, when it is supposed this Epistle was written. Wherefore, being then in the period of life which, by the Greeks, as well as the Romans, was considered as youth, the apostle with propriety might say to him, "Let no man despise thy youth."-It is not however probable, that St. Paul alluded to the artificial distinctions of the Roman law, instead of the actual age of Timothy.

Julian Period, 4770. Vulgar Æra,

57.

1 TIM. i. 3, 4.

§ 2.
St. Paul reminds Timothy of the Causes for which he had
left him at Ephesus-To oppose the Jewish Zealots, who
endeavoured to intermix Genealogies and Traditions with
the Christian Doctrines.

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I

2. When the apostle touched at Miletus, in his voyage to Je-
rusalem, 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.) what occasion was there, in an
Epistle written after the apostle's release, to give Timothy di-
rections concerning the ordination of bishops and deacons, in a
Church where there were so many elders already?-It is an-
swered, the elders who came to the apostle at Miletus, in the
year 58, may 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. Of this, however, there is no scriptural
proof, and the positive assertion of the Epistle is needlessly set
aside.

Dr. Paley defends the later date from the superscription of
the second Epistle to the Corinthians, which is spurious-from
the apparently short interval between St. Paul's leaving Ephe-
sus, to go into Macedonia, and the writing the second Epistle
to the Corinthians, in the beginning of which Timothy is joined
with St. Paul; to which it may be answered, that Timothy might
have left Ephesus for a short time only, and soon returned. He
endeavours to overcome the insuperable difficulty in the opi-
nion that the Epistle was written so late-that it necessarily
implies that St. Paul visited Ephesus after his liberation at
Rome, which appears so contrary to what he said to the Ephe-
sian Church, that they should see his face no more.
Dr. Paley
finds only some presumptive evidences, that the apostle must
have visited Ephesus-the Epistles to the Philippians and to
Philemon were written while the apostle was a prisoner at Rome:
to the former he says, "I trust in the Lord, that I also myself
shall come shortly:" and to the latter, who was a Colossian, he
gives this direction-" But withal, prepare me also a lodging,
for I trust that, through your prayers, I thall be given unto
you." An inspection of the map will shew us, that Colosse was
a city of Asia Minor, lying eastward, and at no great distance
from Ephesus; Philippi was on the other, i. e. the wes-
tern side of the Egean Sea. Now, if the apostle executed his
purpose, and came to Philemon at Colosse, soon after his libe-
ration, it cannot be supposed, says Dr. Paley, that he would
omit to visit Ephesus, which lay so near it, and where he had
spent three years of his ministry. As he was also under a pro-
mise to visit the Church at Philippi shortly, if he passed from Co-
losse to Philippi he could hardly avoid taking Ephesus in his way.
Arguments of this theoretical nature ought to weigh but
little, when they defend a proposition which seems opposed to
the plain and literal meaning of Scripture. When St. Paul told
the elders of Ephesus that they should see his face no more, it
was so solemnly announced, that it may be considered as spoken
by the spirit of prophecy with which he was gifted.

Macknight has argued at great length that St. Paul spoke his
strong persuasion only. Dr. Paley, in adopting the same hy-

Macedonia