the Romans, was considered as youth, the apostle, with propriety, might say to him, Let no man despise thy youth.

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.

macher, Professor Eickhorn, and others, and vindicated by Professor Hug; the following is an abstract of the objections and their refutation:

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 Epistle, as compared with that of the preceding Epistles, is accounted for by new adversaries arising, by the difference of 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."1 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. 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 Judea. (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 actu-affairs of the church in that city, Saint Paul wrote this Epis IV. Timothy, having been left at Ephesus, to regulate the ally 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.'

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. Rosenmaller, Scholia in N. T. tom. v. pp. 1-4.; Hug's Introd. vol. ii. pp. 393-102. Larduer's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 316-320.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 292-294. Doddridge and Whitby's Prefaces to 1Tim. Macknight's Preface to 1 Tim. sect. ii. Dr. Paley has advocated the late date of this Epistle by arguiments similar to those above stated. Horæ Paulinæ, pp. 286-294.

Lardner's Works. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 38, 39.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 298, 299.
Ibid. 8vo. vol. i. pp. 96, 97.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 330, 331.

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

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

Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 224.; 4to. vol. i. p. 401.

Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 264, 265.; 4to. vol. i. p. 424.

Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 374.; 4to. vol. i. p. 483.

Ibid. 8vo. vol. il. p. 471.; 4to. vol. i. p. 535.

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 xxxws, 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

the chiefly to instruct him in the choice of proper officers in
Another and very important part of the apostle's design was
the church, as well as in the exercise of a regular ministry.
false teachers (Michaelis thinks they were Essenes), who, by
to caution this young evangelist against the influence of those
their subtle distinctions and endless controversies, had cor-
rupted 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 Ad-
ministration 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 con-
troversies, 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.
11 Cellerier, Introd. au Nouv. Test. p. 432.
19 Cellérier, Introd. au Nouv. Test. p. 432.

19 Hug, vol. ii. p. 405. 14 See p. 343. supra.

evident from his own declaration in ii. 1. where he says that | principalities or powers-that he alone was the head of the neither the Colossians nor the Laodiceans had then "seen church, and had reconciled men to the Father. (15-20.) The his f ce in the flesh." But though Paul had never been in inference from this description is evident, that Jesus was superior Colossæ when he wrote this Epistle, yet Christianity had to angels; that they were created beings, and ought not to be evidently been taught, and a church planted there. Rosen- worshipped. In verse 21. Paul returns from this digression to m ller is of opinion, that the Gospel was introduced into that the sentiments with which he had introduced it in the thirteenth city by Epaphras. It is not improbable that Epaphras, who and fourteenth verses; and again expresses his joy, that the is mentioned in i. 7. iv. 12, 13., was one of the earliest Colossians remained faithful to the Gospel, which was to be "eachers; but it does not necessarily follow that he was the preached to the Gentiles, without the restraints of the ceremonial person who first planted Christianity there. Indeed, it is law. From this view of the excellency of Christ's person, and not likely that the Colossians would send away the founder the riches of his grace, the apostle takes occasion to express the of their church while it was yet in an infant state. As it ap- cheerfulness with which he suffered in the cause of the Gospel, pears from Acts xix. 10. that, during Paul's residence at and his earnest solicitude to fulfil his ministry among them in Ephesus, many persons, both Jews and Greeks, came from the most successful manner; assuring them of his concern for various parts of Asia to hear the Gospel, Michaelis supposes them and for the other Christians in the neighbourhood, that that several Colossians, particularly Philemon, were of this number. He also thinks that Timothy might have taught they might be established in their adherence to the Christian them the Christian faith; as Paul subjoins his name to his faith. (i. 21-29. ii. 1—7.) own (i. 1.), and throughout the first chapter speaks in their joint names, except where the subject relates to his own imprisonment, and where Timothy of course could not be included.

II. But though it is impossible now to ascertain the founder of the church at Colossæ, the Epistle itself furnishes us with a guide to its date. In Col. iv. 3. the apostle alludes to his imprisonment, from which circumstance, as well as from its close affinity to the Epistle addressed to the Ephe.sians, it is evident that it was written nearly at the same time. Accordingly most commentators and critics refer it to the year 62. Its genuineness was never disputed.

III. At the time of writing this Epistle, Paul was "an ambassador in bonds," for maintaining the freedom of the Gentile converts from all subjection to the law of Moses.

Its immediate OCCASION was, some difficulties that had arisen among the Colossians, in consequence of which they sent Epaphras to Rome, to acquaint the apostle with the state of their affairs; to which we may add the letter (Col. iv. 16.) sent to him by the Laodiceans, who seem to have written to him concerning the errors of the false teachers, and to have asked his advice. Paul, therefore, replies in the present Epistle, which he sent to the Colossians as being the larger church, and also because the false teachers had probably caused greater disturbances among the Colossians; but desired that they would send the same Epistle to the Laodiceans, and ask them for a copy of their letter to Paul, in order that they might the better understand his answer. Who the false teachers were, is a point not satisfactorily determined. Michaelis is of opinion that this Epistle was directed against the tenets and practices of the Essenes, of which sect an account has been given in the early part of this volume. But it is more probable that they were partly superstitious judaizing teachers, who diligently inculcated not only the Mosaic law, but also the absurd notions of the rabbins, and partial converts from Gentilism who blended Platonic notions with the doctrines of the Gospel. It is well known that the Platonists entertained singular ideas concerning demons, whom they represented as carrying men's prayers to God, from whom they brought back the blessings supplicated; and the doctrines of the Jews concerning angels were nearly the same as that of the Platonics concerning demons. It appears from Col. ii. 16-23. that the false teachers inculcated the worship of angels, abstinence from animal food, the observance of the Jewish festivals, new moons and Sabbaths, the mortification of the body by long-continued fastings, and, in short, the observance of the Mosaic ritual law, as absolutely necessary to salvation.

IV. The SCOPE of the Epistle to the Colossians is, to show that all hope of man's redemption is founded on Christ our Redeemer, in whom alone all complete fulness, perfections, and sufficiency, are centered: to caution the Colossians against the insinuations of judaizing teachers, and also against philosophical speculations and deceits, and human traditions, as inconsistent with Christ and his fulness for our salvation; and to excite the Colossians, by the most persuasive arguments, to a temper and conduct worthy of their sacred character. The Epistle, therefore, consists of two principal parts besides the introduction and conclusion.

I. After a short inscription or introduction (i. 1, 2.) Paul begins with expressing great joy for the favourable character which he had heard of them, and assures them that he daily prayed for their further improvement. (3-14.) He then makes a short digression in order to describe the dignity of Jesus Christ, who, he declares, created all things, whether thrones or dominions,

directly to caution them against the vain and deceitful philosophy II. Having given these general exhortations, he proceeds of the new teachers, and their superstitious adherence to the law; shows the superiority of Christ to angels, and warns Christians against worshipping them. He censures the observations of Jewish sabbaths and festivals, and cautions the Colossians against those corrupt additions which some were attempting to introduce, especially by rigours and superstitions of their own devising. (ii. 8-23.) To these doctrinal instructions succeed precepts concerning the practical duties of life, especially the relative duties of husbands and wives, parents and children, servants and masters. (iii. iv. 1-6.) The Epistle concludes with matters chiefly of a private nature, except the directions for reading it in the church of Laodicea, as well as in that of Colossæ. (iv. 7—18.) For an illustration of iv. 16. see Vol. I. p. 58.

Whoever, says Michaelis, would understand the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, must read them together. The one is in most places a commentary on the other; the meaning of single passages in one Epistle, which, if considered alone, might be variously interpreted, being determined by the parallel passages in the other Epistle. Yet, though there is a great similarity, the Epistle to the Colossians contains many things which are not to be found in that to the Ephesians; especially in regard to the worship of angels, and many single points, which appear to be Essene, and might prevail at Colossæ.

The following Table exhibits the corresponding passages of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians.

EPHESIANS.

COLOSSIANS.

EPHESIANS. COLOSSIANS. CHAP. iv. 22-25. CHAP. iii. 9, 10. iv. 17-21.

On the undesigned coincidences between this Epistle and the Acts of the Apostles, see Dr. Paley's Hora Paulinæ, Chap. VIII.

SECTION X.

ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

I. Account of the Christian church there.-II. Genuineness of this Epistle.-III. Its occasion and scope-Synopsis of

its contents.

I. CHRISTIANITY was first planted at Thessalonica by Saint Paul, A. D. 50, who formed a church, composed both of Jews and Gentiles, but the latter were most numerous. (Acts xvii. 2-4.) The unbelieving Jews, however, having stirred up a persecution against him and his company, they were forced to flee to Berea, and thence to Athens (xvii. 5 -15.), from which city he proceeded to Corinth. Being thus prevented from visiting the Thessalonians again as he Epitre à les Colossiens; Michaelis's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 116-124.; Hug's Introd. vol. ii. pp 433-435.; Macknight's Preface; Rosenmuller, Scholia, tom. iv. pp. 134-136. In instituting a collation of these two epistles the student will find a very valuable help in M. Van Bemmelen's Dissertatio Exegetico-Critica, de epistolas Pauli ad Ephesios et Colossenses inter se collatis. 8vo. Lugd. Bat. 1903.

Boehmer, Isagoge in Epistolam ad Colossenses; Calmet, Preface sui

2. Saint Paul's Thanksgiving and Prayer for them. (i. 3-
12.)

3. The Rectification of their Mistake concerning the day of judg
ment and the doctrine concerning the man of sin. (ii.)
4. Various advices relative to Christian virtues, particularly

i. To prayer, with a prayer for the Thessalonians. (iii. 1—5.)
ii. To correct the disorderly. (iii. 5-16.)

I. Date, occasion, and scope of this Epistle.-II. Analysis of 5. The Conclusion. (iii. 17, 18.)
its contents.-III. Observations on this Epistle.

I. THE Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was evidently written soon after the first (A. D. 52), and from the same place; for Silvanus or Silas, and Timothy, are joined together with the apostle in the inscription of this Epistle as well as that of the former. The Epistle was occasioned by the information communicated to Paul by the person who had conveyed his first letter to the Thessalonians, respecting the state of their church. Among other things he was informed, from some expressions in it, that many of them expected that the day of judgment would happen in that age; and that such

SECTION XII.

ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

I. 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.

I. 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 Loïs, a person of excellent character. (2 Tim. 1. 5.) The pious care they took of his education soon appeared to have the desired success; for we are assured by Saint Paul, that from his childhood, Timothy was well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. (2 Tim. iii. 15.) It is generally supposed that he was converted to the Christian faith during the first visit made by Paul and Barnabas to Lystra. (Acts xiv.) From the time of his conversion, Timothy made such proficiency in the knowledge of the Gospel, and was so remarkable for the sanctity of his manners, as well as for his zeal in the cause of Christ, that he attracted the esteem of all the brethren in those parts. Accordingly, when the apostle came from Antioch in Syria to Lystra the second time, they commended Timothy so highly to him, that Paul selected him to be the companion of his travels, having previously circumcised him (Acts xvi. 2, 3.) and ordained him in a solemn manner by imposition of hands (1 Tim. iv. 14.; 2 Tim. i. 6.), though at that time he probably was not more than twenty years of age. (1 Tim. iv. 12.) From this period, frequent mention is made of Timothy, as the attendant of Paul in his various journeyings, assisting him in preaching the Gospel, and in conveying his instructions to the churches. When the apostle was driven from Thessalonica and Berea by persecution, he left Silas and Timothy there to strengthen the churches in the faith. (Acts xvii. 13, 14.) Thence they went to Paul at Corinth (xviii. 5.), and from Ephesus he again sent Timothy to Thessalonica (Acts xix. 22.; 1 Thess. iii. 2, 3.) to comfort the believers under their tribulations and persecutions. Timothy returning to the apostle, next accompanied him into Asia (Acts xx. 4.), and was left at Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 3, 4.) to instruct the church in that city, the care of which was confided to Timothy. How long he governed the Ephesian church is not known; and we are equally uncertain as to the time of his death. An ecclesiastical tradition relates that he suffered martyrdom, being slain with stones and clubs, A. D. 97, while he was preaching against idolatry in the vicinity of the temple of Diana at Ephesus. His supposed relics 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 Rosenmiller, in A. D. 65; Drs. Whitby, Macknight, and Paley, and Bishop Tomline, in 64.

In favour of the EARLY DATE it is argued,

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 Coloss 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.

2. We further learn from the first Epistle to Timothy, that he was left at Ephesus 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 to their father;-3. Intricate questions and strifes about some words in the law;--4. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, who reckoned that which produced most gain to be the best of godliness; and oppositions of knowledge falsely so named. But these errors 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 false teachers would enter among them after his departing, Acts xx. 29., I know that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. The same thing appears from the two Epistles which the apostle wrote to the Corinthians; the one from Ephesus before the riot of Demetrius, 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 letters 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 Macedonia after the riot. We conclude, therefore, with Dr. Macknight, that the first Epistle to Timothy, in which the apostle desired him to abide at Ephesus for the purpose of opposing the judaizers and their errors, could not be written, either from Troas, or from Macedonia, after the riot, as those who contend for the early date of that Epistle suppose : but it must have been written some time after the apostle's release from his confinement in Rome, when, no doubt, he visited the church at Ephesus, and found the judaizing teachers there busily employed in spreading their pernicious errors.

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.

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 encouragements 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. 1. That it appears from the third chapter of this Epistle, that Compare 1 Tim. iv. 14. with 2 Tim. i. 6, 7. And as in the no bishops had been then appointed at Ephesus. Saint Paul second Epistle, so in the first, every thing is addressed to Timothy, instructs Timothy in the choice, as of an appointment to a new church at Ephesus: all which, Dr. Macknight justly thinks, imas superintendent both of the teachers and of the laity in the office, and "hopes to return to him shortly." And it is not pro-plies that the state of things among the Ephesians was the same bable 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.

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 Attica, lib. x. c. 28.