ment of Rome, and Polycarp; and the first Epistle by Ignatius ;3 and in the following centuries by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria,5 Tertullian, Caius, Origen, and by all subsequent ecclesiastical writers without exception.

IV. Timothy having been left at Ephesus, to regulate the affairs of the church in that city, Saint Paul wrote this Epistle chiefly to instruct him in the choice of proper officers in the church, as well as in the exercise of a regular ministry. 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) 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, who had been a persecutor, to the Christian faith and ministerial office; and observes, that this favour was extended to him, though so unworthy, as an encouragement to all that should believe in every future age. (12-20.) SECT. 2. Saint Paul then proceeds to give Timothy particular in

structions,

§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 bishops and deacons of that church. (iii.)10

1 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 38, 39.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 298, 299

2 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 96, 97.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 330, 331.

3 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 78, 79.; 4to. vol. i. P. 321.

4 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 164; 4to. vol. i. p. 368.

5 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 224.; 4to. vol. i. p. 401. 6 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 264, 265.; 4to. vol. i.

p. 424.

7 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 374.; 4to. vol. i. p. 483. 8 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 471.; 4to. vol. i. p. 535. 9 See pp. 372, 373. supra.

10 On the much litigated question respecting the reading of Ocos 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. 181-188. 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. 8vo. London, 1741. Velthusen's Observations on Various Subjects, pp. 49-104. 8vo. London, 1773, Dr. Hales's Treatise on Faith in the Holy Trinity, vol. ii. pp.

iii. After foretelling the great corruptions which were to prevail in the church in future times (iv. 1-5.), the apostle instructs Timothy,

1. How to support the sacred character. (6-16.)

2. How to admonish aged men and women (v. 1, 2.), and in what manner he should treat widows (3-16.), elders (17-19.), and offenders. (20, 21.) Annexed are some instructions to Timothy himself. (22-24.)

3. Concerning the duties of slaves. (vi. 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.)

V. Although the errors of the judaising teachers at Ephesus, 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 principles 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

67-104. and Mr. Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 274-276.

merit our attention. For if he had been, like many of the Greek philosophers, an hypocrite who held a double doctrine, one for the vulgar, and another for the learned; and if his secret views and expectations had been different from those which he publicly professed to the world, he would have given, without all doubt, some insinuation 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 Horæ Paulinæ, pp. 323-838.

SECTION XIII.

ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

scope.

1. Date. II. Of the place where Timothy was, when Saint Paul wrote this Epistle to him. — III. Its IV. Synopsis of its contents.-V. Observations on this Epistle. 1. THAT Saint 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, and Lardner; and the latter, by Drs. Benson, Macknight, and Paley, Bishop Tomline, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and others. That the last mentioned opinion is most correct, we think will appear from the following considerations.

1. A collation of the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon (which are known to have been written during Saint Paul's first imprisonment), with the second Epistle to Timothy, will show that this Epistle was not written during the time when those Epistles were written. In the former Epistles, the author confidently looked forward to his liberation from confinement, and his speedy departure from Rome. He tells the Philippians (ii. 24.) "I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly. Philemon he bids to prepare for him a lodging; "for I trust," says he, "that through your prayers I shall be given unto you." (ver. 22.) In the Epistle before us, he holds a language extremely different: "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of 1 Dr. Macknight's Pref. to 1 Tim. sect. iv. 48

VOL. IV.

righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day." (iv. 6—8.)

Again, when the former Epistles were written from Rome, Timothy was with Saint 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 Saint 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 Thessa Jonica." Once more: in the former Epistle, Mark was with Saint 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 St. 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 Saint Paul 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 implying 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 (xazovgyos), which in this passage may mean that the apostle was treated as one of the worst of criminals.

3. The situation of Saint 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 Saint Luke.

4. It appears from 2 Tim. iv. 13. 20. that when the apostle wrote, he had lately been at Troas, Miletus, and Corinth. This was a different route from that described in the Acts. Also in 2 Tim. iv. 13. he desires Timothy to bring with him a trunk and some books which he had left at Troas. But in his journey to Italy in Acts xxvii. he did not come near Troas. It is true he visited that place on his way to Jerusalem. (Acts xx. 5-7.) But as this visit to Troas happened in the year 57, and the present Epistle was not written before the year 65, these articles were not then left there; for he would hardly have delayed sending for them for seven or eight years. He would rather have sent for them to Cæsarea, where he was in prison two years; or more early, on his first coming to Rome.

5. When he wrote this Epistle, he had left Trophimus sick a Mi

letus. (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. Saint Paul says (2 Tim. iv. 20.) that Erastus staid 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 staid behind at Corinth when St. 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 Saint Paul from Ephesus into Macedonia (Acts xix. 22.); and when Saint Paul, going there also, returned to Asia Minor, he did not return with him, not being mentioned in Acts xx. 4.

The result of the preceding observations is, that this Epistle was written by Saint Paul at Rome, and during an imprisonment different from that recorded in Acts xxviii. Saint Paul, we have seen,1 was released from his confinement A. D. 63, and, after visiting several churches, returned to Rome early in 65; where after being confined rather more than a year, it is generally agreed that he suffered martyrdom A. D. 66. Now, as the apostle requests Timothy to come to him before winter (2 Tim. iv. 21.), it is probable that this Epistle was written in the month of July or August a. D. 65.2

II. It is generally supposed that Timothy was at Ephesus when Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint 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

III. The immediate design of Saint Paul, in writing this Epistle to Timothy, was to apprise him of the circumstances that had befallen

1 See p. 319. supra.

2 Paley's Hora Paulina, pp. 303-305. Macknight's Preface to 2 Tim. sect. i. Dr. Benson's Preface to 2 Tim. pp. 501-517. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 165-177. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 338-375.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 303–321.

3 Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 161-164.