2. it iS objected that after the church at Ephesus had enjoyed the apostle's instructions and presidency for three years, it could not have been, at the time this epistle is supposed to have been written by Paul, in such ignorance of ecclesiastical arrangements as the injunctions here given would lead us to suppose. But what is there in the epistle that necessitates such a supposition ? It con tains many directions to Timothy how he should conduct himself in a church, some of which are certainly of an elementary character, but there is nothing that leads to the conclusion that they were all intended for the benefit of the church at Ephesus, or that the state of that church was such as to require that injunctions of this kind should be given for its sake alone. Timothy's sphere of evangelistic effort extended greatly beyond Ephesus ; and this epistle was designed at once to guide him as to what he was to do in the churches which he might be called to regulate, and to supply his authority for so doing. Besides, does it not natur ally occur that such minute injunctions are just such as a person forging this epistle at a later period in Paul's name would be most likely to avoid ? 3. The absence of allusions to events in Ti mothy's history has been alleged against the Pauline origin of this epistle. A strange objection l—and as untenable as strange. This may be seen by a reference to the following passages : IS ; iv. 14 ; v. 23 ; vi. 12.
4. It is alleged that the writer of this epistle has made such a mistake as Paul could not have made when he classes Alexander with Hymenxus (r Tim. i. 2o) as a false Christian, whereas we know from 2 Tim. iv. 14 that he was not a Christian at all. But where is the shadow of evi dence that the Alexander mentioned in s Tim. 1. 20 is the same person with the Alexander men tioned in 2 Tim. iv. 14 ? Was this name so un common in Ephesus that we must needs suppose a blunder, where a writer speaks of one so called as a heretic, simply because in other passages mention is made of one so called who was not a heretic ? Nothing can be more obvious than that there were two Alexanders, just as there might have been twenty, known to the apostle and Ti mothy ; and that of these two one was a heretic and troubler of the church at Ephesus, and the other probably a heathen and an enemy of the apostle.
5. In I Tim. i. 20, mention is made of Hy menmus as a heretic, whom the writer makes l'aul say he had excommunicated ; but this is a mis take, for in 2 Tim. ii. 17, we find Ilymenus still a member of the church at Ephesus, and such a mistake could not have been made by Paul. Here, however, it is assumed without proof, (I) that the Hymenreus of the one epistle is the same as the Hymenzeus of the other ; (2) that being the same, he was still a member of the same church ; and (3) that it was impossible for him, though excom municated, to have returned as a penitent to the church, and again to have become a plague to it. Here are three hypotheses on which we may account for the fact referred to, and until tbey be all excluded it will not follow that any blunder is chargeable upon the writer of this epistle.
6. In I Tim. vi. 13, the writer refers to our Lord's good confession before Pontius Pilate.
Now of this we have a record in John's Gospel ; but as this was not written in Paul's time, it is urged that this epistle must be ascribed to a later writer. It is easy to obviate any force that may appear to be in this remark by the consideration that all the prominent facts of our Lord's life, and especially the circumstances of his death, were familiarly known by oral communication to all the Christians before the Gospels were written. Though, then, John's Gospel was not extant in Paul's time, the facts recorded by John were well known, and might therefore be very naturally referred to in an epistle from one Christian to another. Of our Lord's confession before Pilate vire may readily suppose that Paul, the great advo cate of the spirituality of the Messiah's kingdom, was especially fond of making use.
7. It is alleged that I Tim. iii. 16 bears marks of being a quotation from a confession or symbol of the church, of whith there were none in Paul's day. But what marks of this does the passage present ? The answer is, the use of the word ino Xcryoupbws, a technical word, and the word used by the ecclesiastical writers to designate something in accordance with orthodox doctrine. This is true ; but as technical words are first used in their proper sense, and as the proper sense of dp.oXo-you. "Limas perfectly suits the passage in question, there is no reason for supposing any such later usage as De \Vette suggests. Besides, his argument tells both ways, for one may as well assert that the ecclesi astical usage arose from the terms of this passage, as affirm that the terms of this passage were bor rowed from ecclesiastical usage.
8. The writer of this epistle quotes as a part ey" Scripture a passage which occurs only in Luke x. 7 ; but as Luke had not written his Gospel at the time Paul is supposed to have written this epistle, and as it is not the habit of the N. T. writers to quote from each other in the way they quote from the O. T., we are bound to suppose that this epistle is the production of a later writer. But does this writer quote Luke x. 7, in the manner alleged ? The passage referred to is in ch. v. 18, where we have first a citation from Dent. xxv. a. introduced by the usual formula, The Scripture saith ;' and then the writer adds, as further confirmatory of hi: position, the saying of our Lord, which is supposed to be quoted from Luke's Gospel. Now we are not bound to conclude that this latter was adduced by the writer as a part of Scripture. It may be regarded as a remark of his own, or as some pro verbial expression, or as a well-known saying of Chrises, by which he confirrns the doctrine Ile is establishing. We are under no necessity to extend the formula with which the verse is commenced so as to include in it all that the verse contains. The Kat by itself will not justify this ; indeed we may go further, and affirm that the use of Kat alone rather leads to an opposite conclusion, for had the writer intended the latter clause to be regarded as a quotation from Scripture as well as the former, he- would probably have used some such formula as xal irdXtv (comp. Heb. t3).