§ 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 Bishop further objects to the epistle's being written at 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 Again, in the first Epistle it is said, the same persons, doc- 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. 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I 2. When the apostle touched at Miletus, in his voyage to Je- Dr. Paley defends the later date from the superscription of Macknight has argued at great length that St. Paul spoke his Macedonia |