Defense of Scripture Ordination, Chapter 4

Defense of Scripture Ordination · Chapter 4

p. 121CHAP. IV. The Firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was written before Paul's Impriſonment at Rome, acknowledged by the Ancients, and by the Learned Aſſertors of Epiſcopacy, Biſhop Hall, Dr. Hammond, &c. Deny'd by the Rhemiſts, Biſhop Pearſon, &c. Paul's Journey to Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1.3. conſidered. Jerom vindicated. Reaſons to prove that the Firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was written before Paul's Firſt Bonds. The Second Epiſtle written in his Firſt Bonds. An Objection Anſwered. Acts 20.25. conſidered.

ONE and the leading Argument for Timothy's being Biſhop of Epheſus,P. 79. ſaith he, is grounded on 1 Tim. 1.3. I beſought thee to abide ſtill at Epheſus, when I went to Macedonia.

p. 1221. To abide ſtill, doth not imply a continued reſidence. Timothy is ſaid to abide ſtill at Berea, where he made but a ſhort ſtay, Acts 17.14, 15. This Argument will as ſoon prove him Biſhop of Berea, as Biſhop of Epheſus.

2. His ſtay there was but ſhort, that is, until the Apoſtle came to him, 1 Tim. 3.14. and 4.13. Mr. G. himſelf allows in p. 90. That the Church of Epheſus was Govern'd by Presbyters under Paul, whilſt he was vigorous and active, and had opportunity to overſee both the Flock and the Elders themſelves. The Apoſtle was vigorous and active when he writ this firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, and he intended ſhortly to viſit the Flock and Elders of Epheſus. Therefore by his own Confeſſion Timothy could not be Biſhop of Epheſus when that Epiſtle was written.

3. He was not fixed as Reſident at Epheſus, for the Apoſtle afterwards calls him to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.9, 21. and ſends Tychicus the Evangeliſt to Epheſus. We do not read that Timothy ever return'd to Epheſus again.

Thus we ſee the Weakneſs of his Leading Argument, as he calls it, by which we may judge of the reſt.

He adds, That the Diſſenters, to avoid the Argument built upon 1 Tim. 1.3. and the reſt of the Epiſtle, ſay, That the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was written before the Meeting at Miletus, in which the Apoſtle committed the Flock to the Elders of Epheſus, and not to Timothy, Acts 20.17, 28.

Our Argument from Acts 20.17, 28. holds good, tho' that Epiſtle ſhould be written after, as we have proved already in Cap. 3.

2. It is not the Diſſenters only (as he unfairly ſuggeſts) that ſay that this Epiſtle was written before the Meeting at Miletus; It's the general and prevailing Opinion of the greateſt part of Chronologers, Ancient and Modern, the moſt Learned Aſſerters of Epiſcopacy not excepted. Biſhop Hall is of this Opinion**Vindic, p. 97. & Div. Right of Epiſcop. Part 2d. p. 38., ſo is Dr. Hammond and Grotius, Lud. Cap…llus, Dr. Lightfoot, Cary, &c, Gothofredus p. 123quotes Athanaſius, Baronius, &c. as of the ſame Opinion.

The Rhemiſts were ſenſible that this Opinion was prejudicial to the Cauſe of Epiſcopacy, and therefore they ſay, tho' not poſitively, That the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, was written after Paul's firſt Impriſonment at Rome, when he was ſet at Liberty **Rhem. Test. Arg. in 1 Tim.They are follow'd by Biſhop Pearſon and by Mr. G. only with this difference, That the Seminary at Rhemes deliver themſelves more modeſtly than the Rector doth; They ſay, it ſeemeth ſo; the Rector ſaith, He hath demonstrated it.

One that had not read Biſhop Pearſon, would think the Rector very ingenuous in acknowledging that he is beholden to the Biſhop for what he pretends to ſay on Paul's Journey to Macedonia, mentioned in 1 Tim. 1.3.

That Miracle of his Time (ſaith he,p. 80. meaning Biſhop Pearſon) in his Annales Paulini, has given us a plain Account and Proof thereof: All that I pretend unto is, to build on his Foundation, and to enlarge on what that excellent Prelate has demonſtrated, in a few words. Thus the Rector.

I will not diſpute whether the Learned Biſhop were the Miracle of his Time; if he were, Miracles are grown very Common in this laſt Age, for the Biſhop had many Equals, whoſe Learned Works are nothing inferiour to his.

I dare affirm that our Rector is no Miracle in Architecture, for he builds very ſorrily on the Biſhops Foundation. Inſtead of raiſing a Superſtructure, he has rather diſturbed the Foundation; The Learned Biſhop diſcourſes diſtinctly and clearly, the Rector confuſedly and darkly.

He refers to Dr. Pearſon's Annales Paulini, and pretends to enlarge on what the Biſhop had demonſtrated in few words; but takes no notice of the Biſhops enlarging on that Argument in his Diſſertations, whence he borrow'd what he pretends to ſay on Paul's Journey to Macedonia, but would have his Reader believe the Enlargements are his own. See p. 124Pearſ. Diſſert. 1. de Succeſſion. Rom. Epiſc. Cap. IX. S. 5. ad S. 10.

But let's conſider what the Rector has to offer out of Dr. Pearſon. Thus he goes on.

The Characteriſtick of the preciſe time of Paul's beſeeching Timothy to abide at Epheſus, is ſet down by Paul himſelf,P. 80. 1 Tim. 1.3. When I went into Macedonia: This was not, ſaith he, at any of thoſe times of Paul's going into Macedonia, remembred in the Acts, and therefore it was after the Apoſtle bad the Epheſians farewel at Miletus. Here he ſpends ſeveral Pages to ſhew it was none of the times mention'd by St. Luke.

1. Tho' Luke doth not mention (in Acts 20.) Timothy's being left at Epheſus, it is enough that Paul mentions it, 1 Tim. 1.3. In Acts 19.21.22. Paul ſends Timothy into Macedonia, appointing him to call at Corinth by the way, and intends himſelf to ſtay at Epheſus, until he ſhould come thither again to him, 1 Cor. 16.10, 11. He chargeth the Corinthians to Conduct him forth in Peace, that he might come to him, for he looked for him with the Brethren. It's moſt likely then, he return'd from Macedonia to Epheſus, unto Paul. The diſturbance there, occaſion'd Paul's departure before the time he had fix'd, 1 Cor. 16.8. And ſo he ſetteth for Macedonia, as he intended, 1 Cor. 16.5. Acts 20.1.

At his departure from Epheſus, he leaves Timothy there behind, not as a Reſident, but in his▪ abſence to ſupply the preſent Neceſſity, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4. until he return'd again, which he intended ſhortly to do, 1 Tim. 2.3, 14.

2. Nothing can be concluded from Luke's ſilence in this point: for it is certain that he does not mention all the Journeys either of Paul or Timothy, In Acts 20.1, 2. he ſaith that Paul departed from Epheſus to go into Macedonia, but ſpeaks nothing of his ſtay at Troas, which tho' but ſhort, was not without ſome Succeſs: Yet this Omiſſion of Luke, 2 Cor. 2.12, 13. doth ſupply.

Where doth Luke mention Paul's preaching the p. 125Goſpel in Illiricum, which we are ſure he did, before his Impriſonment at Rome, Rom. 15.19. Nor doth he mention his preaching in Arabia, which is ſpoken of in Gal. 1.17.

Nor doth Luke mention Timothy's Journey to the Theſſalonians, to confirm them in the Faith. In Acts 17.13, 14. we find him at Berea with Paul and Silas, who were driven from Theſſalonica by Perſecution. Paul experts him ſpeedily at Athens, verſ. 15. And we hear no more of him till Paul came to Corinth. Acts 18.15. But what's omitted by Luke, is mention'd by Paul, in 1 Theſ. 3.1, 2. (viz.) That Timothy was ſent to Theſſalonica, while Paul ſtaid at Athens.

Now becauſe I find Timothy in Berea, a Town of Macedonia, Acts 17.13, 14. and ſometime after coming from Macedonia, to Corinth, Acts 18.5. Shall I therefore conclude that he was in Berea all that time? When I find Paul expecting him in Athens, and ſending him from thence to Theſſalonica, between thoſe times, as is mention'd by himſelf in 1 Theſſ. 3.1, 2. With as much reaſon may the Rector conclude, that becauſe he finds Timothy in Macedonia, Acts 19.21, 22. And there again about half a year after, Acts 20.4. That therefore he was not out of Macedonia in all that time; Tho' we find the Apoſtle expecting him at Epheſus, 1 Cor, 16.10, 11. And leaving him there, 1 Tim. 1.3. when he went into Macedonia. He may as rationally affirm, That the firſt Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians was written after Paul's Impriſonment at Rome, (which all acknowledge to be written before) becauſe it mentions a Journey of Timothy's to Theſſalonica, which Luke, in the Hiſtory of the Acts of the Apoſtles, takes no notice of.

As the Epiſtle to the Corinthians, Romans, and Theſſalonians, ſupply ſome Paſſages in the Travels of Paul and Timothy, omitted by Luke in the Acts of the Apoſtles, even ſo doth the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, Chap. 1.3, ſupply what's omitted in Acts 20.

It is uſual in all Hiſtories, for one Author to ſupply It what's omitted by another: And in Scripture-Hiſtory, what's omitted in the Books of Kings, is inſerted p. 126in the Chronicles, which are therefore call'd foreign, Things omitted, by the Lxx. What's omitted by one Evangeliſt, is reported by another.

So what's omitted by Luke, is mentioned by the Apoſtle to Timothy, to wit, That he beſought him to ſtay at Epheſus, 1 Tim. 1.3. Luke no where mentions Titus, Paul's▪ Companion, whom the Apoſtle ſo often mentions in his Epiſtles.

Paul, after his Releaſe from his firſt Impriſonment at Rome, (continues our Author) went back to viſit the Eaſtern Churches,P. 87. as he intended, Phil. 1.25, 26. and 2.24. Philem. 22. Heb. 13.23. He went from Italy to Crete, and ſo to Judea. In his paſſage by Crete (which was his way by Sea to Judea) he planted a Church there: For no other time can be aſſign'd for it but this.

All this is confidently affirm'd, after the Rector's uſual way. But,

1. Here is no expreſs proof that he viſited the Church of Epheſus, after his Impriſonment at Rome. He might viſit the Philippians, Coloſſians, and the Churches of Judea, without ever ſeeing Epheſus, as he had poſitively ſaid he ſhould not, Acts 20.25.

2. It is not certain whether he viſited the Philippians and Coloſſians, after his Impriſonment at Rome, for he doth not poſitively promiſe it. He ſeems uncertain what would become of him, Phil. 2.23, 24. He had ſome hopes of ſeeing them, but was not certain, Philem. 22. Nay, had he paſs'd a Promiſe of ſeeing them again, it doth not neceſſarily follow he did ſee them. Many things might happen to divert his Intentions▪ as it happen'd with reſpect to the Promiſe he made of Viſiting the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 1.15, 16, 17.

3. The Learned Dr. Lightfoot aſſigns another time**Vol. 1. p. 309. for Paul's viſiting of Crete, and that was when he return'd from Macedonia to Greece, Acts 20. 2. And then he left Titus there, Tit. 1.5. thinking that he ſhould preſently after a little ſtay in Greece, have ſet towards Jeruſalem; As he was about to fall p. 127into Syria, the Jews laid wait for him, which made him to return through Macedonia, Acts 20.3. About that time, as Dr. Lightfoot conceives, he writ the Epiſtle to Titus, in which he calls him to Nicopolis, where he intended to winter, Tit. 3.12. It is certain he winter'd in thoſe Parts, for the Spring following he ſails into Aſia, Acts 20.6. He had ſome thoughts of wintering in Corinth, 1 Cor. 16.6. But It ſeems, altering his Reſolution, he determined to winter in Nicopolis a City in Epirus, not very far diſtant from Corinth. Titus, according to appointment, came to him, and was ſent by him to Corinth, to haſten the Collection for the Saints in Judea, 2 Cor. 8.16, 17.

We do not deny but St. Paul might go into Spain, and perhaps to Britain alſo, as ſome affirm, but no Man ever affirm'd ſo palpable an untruth, as that all the Fathers ſhould ſay ſo, before this man, whoſe aſſertions are ſo crude and indigeſted,P. 90. that it would require a juſt Volume to make a Collection of them.

He would make Jerom ſay, That it was decreed in the Apoſtles time, that one elected out of the Preſbyters (who before Govern'd the Church in common) was ſet over the reſt,P. 91, 92. and that the Decree was occaſion'd by the Corinthian Schiſm.

Here he abuſes Jerom and his Reader, for Rerom no where ſaith, that the ſuperiority of Biſhops was decreed in the Apoſtles time, Jerom proves the Identity of Biſhops and Preſbyters not only from the Epiſtles of Paul, but from the Epiſtle of John, the laſt of the Apoſtles. Then he adds, quod autem postea, &c. That afterwards one was choſen, and ſet over the reſt, as a Remedy againſt Schiſm.

Jerom's afterwards muſt refer to the Writing of John's Epiſtle, and ſo his meaning muſt be, that after the Apoſtles time this Decree was made, for he proves that Preſbyter s and Biſhops were the ſam in the Apoſtles time.

'Tis true, he alludes to the Corinthian Schiſm, but it's evident, That Paul's Epiſtles to the Church of Corinth contain no ſuch Remedy againſt Schiſm, as p. 128the Superiority of Biſhops. The Corinthian Schiſm was a moſt proper occaſion for the Inſtitution of Biſhops, if they were the apteſt remedy againſt Schiſm. But there is not a word of it in Paul's Epiſtles to that Church; Nor in Clemens's his Epiſtle written long after. What he ſaith of Ignatius agreeing with Jerom in his account of Biſhops, we have conſidered before.

The Rector adds, That the Apoſtle was as much concern'd at the Corinthian Schiſm, as any other, and that ſeeing Diviſions ariſing every where, (not only at Corinth) he weighed the matter well, and aſk'd counſel of God, what he ſhould do. And in the end concluded, to ſet one Preſbyter over the reſt, to prevent the miſchief of Schiſm, God ſo appointing it, 1 Tim. 1.18.

1. Doubtleſs the Apoſtle was concern'd at the Corinthian Schiſm, as it was a diſhonour to God and Religion, but not ſo much as it was againſt him and his authority, which is the reaſon Mr. G. aſſigns: He dare not ſay, he appointed the remedy at this time, he knew that would be too groſs: But he cunningly ſaith, in the end he concluded to ſet up one Presbyter over the rest, and refers us to 1 Tim. 1.18.

The firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians which mentions the Schiſms there, was written about the year of Chriſt 55, as Dr. Lightfoot calculates**Vol. 1. p. 299. The firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was written about the year 69, according to the Rector's Hypotheſis. So that he makes the Apoſtle to provide the Remedy about fourteen years after the Diſeaſe. Was the Apoſtle weighing the matter all thoſe years? Or did he ask Counſel of God, and was not heard? Or did he neglect Conſulting God, till about the time he wrote to Timothy?

2. Had not Paul weighed the matter of Schiſm, and conſulted God, when he wrote to the Corinthians? Doubtleſs he had: If ſo, we may expect a Remedy againſt Schiſm, in thoſe Epiſtles; but there is no mention of the Superiority of Biſhops, in either of thoſe Epiſtles; therefore that is not the Remedy againſt Schiſm.

p. 1293. The Church of Epheſus was in danger of being broken with Schiſms, when the Apoſtle left them without any thoughts of ſeeing them any more, Acts 20.25. What Remedy doth he provide? Not a Superiour Biſhop, but he commits the Flock in common to the Presbyters, Acts 20.17, 28. Perhaps the Rector will ſay he had not weigh'd the matter well at this time, nor conſulted God in the caſe. For our parts we are ſatisfied he was infallibly guided by the Spirit of God, in all the Rules of Government he left the Church, and as ſuch we receive them.

He has ſeveral Pages to prove that Paul was twice impriſon'd at Rome: It is very probable he was. Euſebius ſaith, There was a Tradition in his days, of his being Acquitted the firſt time, and that he went to ſeveral places preaching the Goſpel; and coming to Rome the ſecond time, he ended his Days with a bleſſed Martyrdom**Eccleſ. Hist. 11, 21.. Several Ancient W…iters ſpeak t… …e ſame purpoſe. But our Author will prove it by Sc…pture; nay, he'll demonſtrate it beyond all farther Controverſie.

This Gentleman is ſingular at Demonſtrations; but let's ſee the ſtrength of them.

1. Paul left Trophimus at Miletus ſick,P. 95. 2 Tim. 4.20. This was not when he met the Epheſian Elders; for then he went with him to Jeruſalem, Acts 21.29.

It's moſt likely that he touch'd at Miletus, when he return'd from Jeruſalem in Bonds to Rome; 'tis evident he intended to ſail by the Coaſts of Aſia, Acts 27.2. and might touch at Miletus (which was a part of thoſe Aſian Coaſts) tho' Luke doth not mention it. Or if Miletum. were a City of Crete, as Heylin thinks, he might leave him there when he touched upon thoſe Coaſts, as he ſail'd for Rome, Acts 27.7, 8.

But if this Miletum be Malta (antiently Melita)as Grotius and Beza affirm, 'tis certain Paul was there in his Voyage from Judea to Rome, Acts 28.1. and might leave Trophimus ſick behind him, as he ſaith he did, 2 Tim. 4.20.

p. 1302. It is pretty plain,P. 96. Paul was once releas'd from Priſon, Heb. 13.24. ſaith the Rector.

I thought a Demonſtration, which he promis'd us, made things very plain.

3. That which will put the matter out of all queſtion, is, the vaſt difference between that his Impriſonment, in Acts 28. and that in the ſecond Epiſtle to Timothy.

He was in little or no danger, but held Liberâ Custodià, in his firſt Confinement; but in his ſecond, he was a cloſe Priſoner, in Chains, 2 Tim. 1.16. Expected no Deliverance,P. 98. 2 Tim. 4.6, 7, 8.

1. He was in ſome danger in his firſt Impriſonment, Phil, 2.23.

2. And bound with a Chain, Acts 28.20.

3. He mentions his Deliverance, that he might preach the Goſpel to the Gentiles, 2 Tim. 4.17.

Thus we have ſeen the Invalidity of his Demonstrations, as he calls them; and how improbable his Conjectures are, (which paſs for Demonſtrations with him) that the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was written after the Congreſs at Miletus, and after Paul's Impriſonment at Rome.

For the farther ſatisfaction of the Impartial Reader, I will vindicate the Ancient Chronologers, and prove that the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was written before Paul's firſt Impriſonment at Rome, and conſequently before that Meeting at Miletus, in which the Apoſtle commits the Government of the Church of Epheſus to the Presbyters thereof, and not to Timothy their pretended Biſhop; and if he was no Biſhop when that Epiſtle was written, he was none at all. If that Epiſtle was writ before the Meeting at Miletus, all the Arguments from that Epiſtle to prove him Biſhop of Epheſus, are impertinent: For the Government of that Church was committed to the Presbyters in common, and not to Timothy who was an Evangeliſt, and not the fixed ordinary Governour of any one Church, Acts 20.17, 28. 2 Tim. 4, 5.

p. 131That Paul left Timothy at Epheſus, and wrote his Firſt Epiſtle to him, before his Impriſonment at Rome, appears,

1. From his Journey to Macedonia, mention'd 1 Tim. 1.3. which can be no other than that in Acts 20. as moſt of the Learned agree, and as is proved already.

2. From his Excommunicating Alexander the Copper-Smith, 1 Tim. 1.20. who is the ſame Perſon that is mention'd Acts 19.33**Vid. Grot. in 1 Tim. 1.20. and Eſtium, & Lightfoot, Vol. 1. p. 306.1 Tim 1:20.

This Excommunication was not long after his Apoſtacy, as we may rationally ſuppoſe, and ſo is mention'd as a late thing.

3. That place in 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. where the Apoſtle ſaith, That he hopes to come ſhortly unto Timothy, agrees well with the time of his ſtay in Macedonia and Greece, mention'd in Acts 20.1, 2. He deſign'd to ſtay in Epheſus until Pentecoſt, 1 Cor. 16.8. but was driven away ſooner by the Tumult there, Acts 20.1. and ſpent very near a whole Year in Macedonia, Greece, and thoſe parts, and return'd for Aſia after Eaſter in the following Year, Acts 20.6. having Winter'd in Nicopolis, Tit. 3.12. Sometime this Year, while he was in Macedonia, or the parts thereabouts, he writes his firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, telling him, He deſign'd to be ſhortly with him, 1 Tim. 3.14. Accordingly, not long afterwards, he Sail'd for Aſia, and came to Miletus, the time being far ſpent, that he could not conveniently go to Epheſus, Acts 20.15, 16.

Obj. But Timothy was with Paul in Macedonia, when he ſet out for Aſia, Acts 20.4, How comes he to leave Epheſus, ſeeing the Apoſtle deſir'd him to ſtay there till he came?

Anſw. The Learned Dr. Lightfoot conceives it very probable, That Paul deſigning to have Sail'd for Syria, Acts 20.3. came near to Timothy, and there diſcovering the danger that was laid in his way by the Jews, which alſo might have involv'd Timothy, he brought him away back again with him, and ſo both return'd again into Macedonia, p. 132and when Winter was over, they ſet for Aſia again**Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 312..

4. Tiie Firſt Epiſtle to Timothy muſt be Written before Paul's firſt Impriſonment, becauſe the Second Epiſtle was Written in his firſt Bonds, as the Famous Dr. Lightfoot affirms††Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 324.; and ſo doth the Learned Dr. Hammond §§Ham. in 2 Tim., a Zealous Aſſertor of Epiſcopacy, to whoſe Opinion I Subſcribe for theſe Reaſons;

1. When the Second Epiſtle was written to Timothy, he was a Young Man; therefore Paul bids him flee youthful luſls, 2 Tim. 2.22. For the ſame reaſon he ſaith, 1 Tim. 4.12. Let no Man deſpiſe thy Youth. See 1 Cor. 16.11.

Suppoſe Timothy was about 24 or 25 Years old when Paul took him into the Miniſtry, Acts 16.34. which was about the Year of Chriſt, LI.**Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 294.; from this time to Paul's Second Bonds and Martyrdom, (which happen'd A. D. LXX.††Euſeb., or LXVIII. ſay others‖‖Lightf.) there paſs'd near XX Years; ſo that by the loweſt Computation, Timothy muſt be above XL. when the Apoſtle was under his Second Confinement at Rome. It is not likely the Apoſtle ſhould caution him againſt youthful luſts, 2 Tim. 2.22. at three or four and fourty Years old, eſpecially being a ſickly man, 1 Tim. 1.23.

Therefore he wrote this Second Epiſtle to Timothy, many Years before his laſt Confinement, i. e. in his firſt Bonds, when Timothy was indeed a young Man, about 33, or 34, or perhaps Younger, not much Elder than when he wrote his firſt Epiſtle to him, in which he ſaith, let no man deſpiſe thy youth, 1 Tim. 4.12. Or when he ſent his Firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians (which all confeſs to be Penn'd before his firſt Bonds) that chargeth them not to deſpiſe him for the ſame Reaſon, 1 Cor. 16.11**Vid. Piſe & Grot. in Loc..

For the ſame Reaſon he calls him Son, 1 Tim. 1.2.18. 2 Tim. 2.1.

2. Paul ſends for Timothy to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.9. His Letter finds him ſome where near Epheſus, 2 Tim. 4.19. & 1.16, 18. & 4.13. Accordingly Timothy p. 133came to Rome, and it doth not appear that he came thither before this time that he was ſent for. The laſt mention we have of him in the Acts is, That he accompanies Paul into Aſia, Acts 20.4. We read nothing of him in Paul's Voyage to Rome, therefore 'tis moſt likely, he parted with Paul at Miletus, and ſtaid among the Aſian Churches, until he was ſent for by Paul to Rome. After his coming thither, the Epiſtle to the Philippians, Coloſſians, and Philemon, were written, for his Name is Prefixed to them, as well as Paul's: Now theſe Epiſtles were written in his Firſt Bonds at Rome, Phil. 1.26. & 2.23, 24. Philemon. 22. This will not be deny'd: therefore the Second Epiſtle to Timothy was written in his firſt Bonds, though ſometime before theſe.

3. Timothy is deſir'd to bring Mark with him to Rome, 2 Tim. 4.11. Accordingly he went to Rome, and was with Paul at Rome, when he wrote his Epiſtles to the Coloſſians and to Philemon, Col. 4.10. Philem. 24. which Epiſtles were undoubtedly written in his firſt Bonds. It cannot be pretended that Mark went with Paul to Rome; there is not the leaſt mention of him, either in Scripture, or any other approved Author, as Paul's Companion to Rome. He was ſent for in this Second Epiſtle to Timothy, to come along with him to Rome, and it is certain he was with Paul in his firſt Bonds.

4. He mentions, in 2 Tim. 3.11. his Sufferings which befel him at Ieonium, at Lyſtra and Antioch, of which we have an account in Acts 14. Now this Perſecution happen'd about the Year of Chriſt, 49, or 50**Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 291. Paul's Second Impriſonment at Rome, was in the Year of Chriſt 68, or as others, 69, which was the Year in which he wrote this Epiſtle, according to this new Hypotheſis: So that his Perſecutions at Antioch, Lyconium, and Lyſtra, were near 20 years before his laſt Impriſonment at Rome. Now it is not likely that the Apoſtle would mention an Event ſo long paſt, when there were▪ other latter Sufferings of his that were much freſher in his Memory.

Therefore we may rather think, that he mentions p. 134his Sufferings at Antioch, &c. as a late thing, not very many Yeats paſt, and if ſo, this Second Epiſtle was written much earlier than is pretended.

5. The Epiſtle to the Epheſians was written in Paul's firſt Bonds, (as Mr. G. confeſſeth, p. 86, 87.) and was ſent by Tychicus, Eph. 6.21. who was alſo the Bearer of the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians, Col. 4.7. which was written at the ſame time with that to Epheſus, as he obſerveth, p. 87. Tychicus had gone along with Paul for Rome, Acts 20.5. This ſending of Tychicus to Epheſus is mention'd in 2 Tim. 4.12. Therefore this Second Epiſtle to Timothy, which mentions this Journey of Tychicus to Epheſus, was written about the ſame time.

6. It is agreed by all, That Paul was not ſet at Liberty in his laſt Impriſonment at Rome, but he was delivered from the Confinement mention'd in the Second Epiſtle to Tim. Chap. 4.17. Therefore that Epiſtle was not written in his laſt Bonds. He was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion, that all the Gentiles might hear the Goſpel. That is, that he might go about, and preach the Goſpel to many Nations▪

This is agreeable to the account that the Fathers give of his Preaching the Goſpel to ſeveral Nations after his Impriſonment. Hence it's evident, ſaith Estius ††Est. in Loc.That this Epiſtle was not written in Paul's Last Bonds.

7. It is undeniable that Luke accompanied Paul to Rome, Acts 27. & 28. He includes himſelf all along in the Narrative he gives of their dangerous Voyage to Rome, and ſpeaks in the firſt Perſon plural, Chap. 28.16. When we came to Rome. He was at Rome with Paul when he wrote the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians, which was written in his Firſt Bonds, as is confeſs'd, Col. 4.14. And ſo he was when Paul ſent the Second Epiſtle to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.11. Therefore this Epiſtle was Penn'd during his Firſt Bonds.

8. He mentions his Cloak, &c. which he left at Troas with Carpus, 2 Tim. 4.13. Theſe were left p. 135there, as it ſeems, as he was going among his Nation in Judea, Acts 20.16. where he had no occaſion for his Roman Habit, which might have proved inconvenient in Judea, among his own Countrey-Men, who were too much prejudiced againſt him already, Acts 21.21. and to whom he was deſirous to render himſelf acceptable by all Lawful Compliances, Acts 21.26. But now he was at Rome, he had need of his Roman Garb, which was the Pallium, or Cloak. There is no Evidence of his paſſing by Troas to Rome, in his laſt Journey thither, nor can any reaſon be given why he ſhould leave his Cloak there, as he went to Rome and Roman Colonies: but it looks Rational enough that he ſhould do ſo, when he was going into Judea, and that he ſhould ſend for it in his firſt Impriſonment at Rome, whither he was carried Priſoner from Judea. And therefore this Second Epiſtle was Written in his firſt Bonds.

9. It ſhould ſeem he was under a favourable Confinement, when he writ the Second Epiſtle to Timothy, for he mentions only one Chain, 2 Tim. 1.16. and ſo doth Luke, in Acts 28.20. which ſpeaks of his firſt and favourable Confinement, Eph. 6.20. In his Second Impriſonment he was more ſeverely handled, as all agree. Now ſuch as were in ſtrict Cuſtody were bound with two Chains, Act. 12.6. Hence it ſhould ſeem to follow, that this Second Epiſtle to Timothy, which ſpeaks but of one Chain, was Written in Paul's Firſt Impriſonment, which was more favourable than the Second.

10. Demas was with Paul at Rome, in his Firſt Impriſonment, Col. 4.14. but the tediouſneſs of Paul's Confinement, and the love of this preſent world, which is inconſiſtent with patient Suffering, tempted him to forſake the Apoſtle, 2 Tim. 4.10. We read nothing of his being there in his Second Impriſonment, but we are ſure he was there in his firſt Impriſonment, and that he left him in his Bonds, 2 Tim. 4.10. which we may rationally conclude were his firſt Bonds.

I will not mention Paul's leaving Trophimus at Miletus p. 136ſick, 2 Tim. 4.20. which might well be when he went in Bonds from Judea to Rome, as we obſerv'd before.

Nor will I inſiſt upon Eraſtus abiding at Corinth, 2 Tim. 4.20. Rom. 16.23. Acts 19.22. when Paul ſent for Mark from thence unto him. That he was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Second Epiſtle thither, may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19**Vid. Lightf. Vol. 1. p. 311.. who was choſen of the Churches to travel — Mark was choſen by the Church of Jeruſalera, Acts 12.25. and by the Church at Antioch, Acts 13.5. It's true, Paul had taken ſome diſtaſte at Mark; Acts 15.39. but he was reconciled to him again, as appears from 2 Tim. 4.20. We have prov'd already, that Mark was ſent for in Paul's Firſt Impriſonment, therefore his Reaſon that Eraſtus abode at Corinth, to ſupply Mark's Abſence, refers to the ſame time.

Theſe Reaſons put together, may be ſufficient to ſatisfie any unbiaſs'd Man (for nothing will convince Prejudiced and Intereſſed Perſons) that the Second Epiſtle to Timothy was Written in Paul's firſt Bonds, and therefore his Firſt Epiſtle muſt be written before his Firſt Bonds, when he was in Macedonia, or thereabouts, 1 Tim. 1.3. Acts 20.1, 2. Unleſs any will ſay, That his Second Epiſtle was Written before the Firſt.

It is remarkable that this Epiſtle has more Characters, and all concurring, of the Time in which it was written, than any one of Paul's Epiſtles, the Holy Ghoſt ſo ordering the Matter, for the Conviction of ſuch as are willing to receive the Truth.

There is one Paſſage in this Epiſtle, which hath occaſioned ſome Doubt about the time of it, viz. 2 Tim. 4.6. I am now ready to be offer'd, and the time of my departure is at hand. Which ſome have underſtood of his approaching Martyrdom. foreign, I am prepared, or ready for death▪ as the Sacrifices were for Offering: this ſeems to reſpect his Martyrdom as near at hand.

But if we compare this with other Scriptures, it will be evident that he ſpeaks not of an approaching p. 137Martyrdom, but that he was grown old, and worn with Travels and hard Labour, and could not now laſt long: And beſides all this, in Bonds at preſent, and ſo in continual danger.

Thus Lightfoot, Hammond, and others underſtand the place, and that this is the meaning of it will further appear:

1. He uſeth the ſame Words in the Epiſtle to the Philippians, which was written in his firſt bonds, Phil. 2.17. foreign, if I be offered upon the Sacrifice of your Faith.

2. He ſpeaks the ſame thing in different Expreſſions ſome Years before, Acts 21.13. I am ready to dye at Jeruſalem. 1 Cor. 4.9. God hath ſet us forth to be as it were, foreign, appointed to death. 1 Cor. 15.31. I dye daily. So in 2 Cor. 4.11. foreign, we are always delivered unto death.

3. That a ſudden Martyrdom is not intended in 2 Tim. 4.6. appears from v. 17, 18. I was delivered— and the Lord ſhall deliver me. Much like that in 2 Cor. 1.10. Who delivered us from ſo great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we truſt that He will yet deliver us.

4. Suppoſe the words ſhould imply ſome apprehenſions of his approaching Death; that he had long before, 2 Cor. 1.8, 9. We deſpaired even of life, but had the ſentence of death in our ſelves.

5. The Apoſtle was now grown aged, as is evident in the Epiſtle to Philemon, Written in his firſt Bonds, Philem. v. 9.22. and a Priſoner, not knowing how God would diſpoſe of him, Phil. 2.23. As he was aged he lived in conſtant expectations of Death; as he was a Priſoner, in danger of being made a Sacrifice, he could not but think his diſſolution was approaching, 2 Cor. 5.2, 3, 4. — Acts 20.23.

Being ſtricken in Years, and wasted with indefatigable Labours, and hard Sufferings, and in Expectation of the Fiery Tryal, he might well ſay he had finiſhed his courſe, 2 Tim. 4.7.

p. 138But yet he did not expect to dye very ſuddenly, for he ſends a Letter from Rome to Timothy, at, or near Epheſus, to deſire him to come to him, before Winter, 2 Tim. 4.21. It wou'd require a conſiderable time to ſend a Letter from Rome to Epheſus, and for Timothy to return from Epheſus to Rome, and to take Mark with him, who it ſhould ſeem was at Corinth: all this could not be done under three or four Months, and perhaps a longer time, conſidering the ſeveral Winds that were neceſſary for ſuch a Voyage.

Had Paul been under a Sentence of Death at this time, he could not have made an appointment for Timothy to come unto him at a diſtant time. Priſoners in conſtant Expectations of Death, do not uſe to make appointments for a remote Time to come.

Thus we have Vindicated the Ancient and Received Opinion, That the Firſt Epiſtle to Timothy was Written before Paul's Impriſonment at Rome, and have alſo proved that the Second Epiſtle to him was Written in his Firſt Bonds; and therefore the Journey to Macedonia mention'd in 1 Tim. 1.3. muſt be that in Acts 20.1, 2.

Our Argument then holds good, That Timothy was no Biſhop of Epheſus, becauſe he was no Biſhop there when the Firſt Epiſtle was Written to him, for Paul commits the whole Government of the Church of Epheſus unto the Preſbyters of it, after the Writing of that Epiſtle, and at a time when Timothy was preſent, or not far off. Acts 20.4.17, 18—28. And when the Apoſtle knew he ſhould never ſee their faces more, Acts 20.25.

To this laſt Scripture the Rector oppoſeth two Things.

1. He Corrects the Tranſlation, and ſaith it ſhould be rendred — I know that ye ſhall no more ſee my face all of you; P. 107.— 'tis in no wiſe probable that all of them ſaw his face any more, Death, and other Caſualties would doubtleſs hinder it.

The Elders, to whom he ſpake thoſe Words, we p. 139may preſume underſtood Paul's meaning a little better than the Rector. They all wept ſore, and ſorrow'd most of all for the Words which he ſpake, that they ſhould ſee his Face no more, Acts 20.37, 38. The Words All of you are here omitted, which ſpoils the Parſon's gloſs. It cannot be imagin'd they wou'd all have wept ſo paſſionately, had they expected to have ſeen him again. It's Pity but our Critical Author had been there to explain Paul's Words, and to mitigate their ill grounded ſorrow, by telling them, they ſhou'd ſee his Face again, tho perhaps ſome of them might Dye before he came again. But he himſelf is ſenſible of the impertinency of this new Criticiſm, and therefore adds that he will not inſiſt on it.

2. When Paul ſaith, P. 108.he knew they ſhou'd ſee his Face no more, 'tis to be underſtood of a conjectural Knowledge only, as he ſaith.

1. It is enough to confirm our Argument, that he thought he ſhou'd ſee their Faces no more, 'tis undeniable he had no Hopes of ſeeing them again, and wou'd not be wanting to ſettle the Government of this Church at this Time: And it is as undeniable, he ſettled the Government in the Presbyters, and not in a Dioceſan Biſhop, Acts 20.17, 28.

The Aſſertors of Epiſcopacy, and among others, Mr. G. ſaith, That the Apoſtles ſettled the Government by Biſhops, when they were leaving the Churches, and could not overſee them any longer: This was the Caſe here. The Apoſtle is leaving the Church of Epheſus, without any thoughts of ſeeing it again, and at this Time commits the Government of the Church to the Presbyters. Nor was this Conſtitution Temporary or Prudential, but Divine, Acts 20.17, 28. It was an appointment of the Holy Ghoſt, Take heed to your ſelves and the ſtock, ſaith the Apoſtle, over which the Holy Ghoſt made you Biſhops, to feed the Church of God, but of this we have ſpoken before.

2. Paul doth not uſe to expreſs himſelf ſo poſitively, when he ſpeaks conjecturally. It wou'd look like p. 140raſhneſs, if not worſe, in any of us, to ſay poſitively, I know I ſhall never ſee ſuch a Place, or People, and afterwards to excuſe it, by ſaying it was only a conjectural Knowledge. The Holy Apoſtle did not uſe Lightneſs in his Speech, 2 Cor. 1.17, 18. he ſaith in Acts 20.29. I know that grievous Wolves ſhall enter in among you. Was this alſo a conjectural Knowledge? If this was a certain Knowledge, as it is evident by the Event, it was, why ſhou'd we not underſtand, ver. 25. of a certain Knowledge?

3. In the Form of Ordaining Prieſts, the Words are thus rendred. And now behold, I am ſure, that henceforth yea all (through whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God) ſhall ſee my Face no more **Form of Ordaining Pr. Lond. Edit. for Bl. Pawlet, 1684..

4. It has not been yet proved that Paul was at Epheſus after this Time. One wou'd expect a very clear Proof that he was afterwards there, from thoſe that dare Charge the Apoſtle with raſhneſs in his Expreſſions. All the Proof we have is but a qualified Promiſe of viſiting Macedonia and Coloſs again, Phil. 2.24. Philem. 22.

1. But what is this to Epheſus? Here is not a Promiſe of ſeeing the Church of Epheſus again. It will be ſaid it is likely he did, I ſay, it is more likely he did not, becauſe he himſelf ſaid, he knew he ſhou'd never ſee them again.

2. He doth not poſitively Promiſe to ſee Macedonia and Coloſs again, Phil. 2.24. Philem. 22. I truſt, &c. Here he ſpeaks more doubtfully and not ſo poſitively as in Acts 20.25. I know, &c. This Gentlemans way of arguing is very ſingular, when the Apoſtle ſpeaks doubtfully, I truſt, he is ſure he performed: But when he ſpeaks poſitively, I know, he is ſure he was miſtaken. He expounds his Conjectural Expreſſions for Abſolute, and his Abſolute Expreſſions for Conjectural.

I overlook his confident Triumphs, and weak Reflections with which he ſtuffs the concluding Pages of this Chapter, as having nothing of Argument in them, and therefore not worthy my Notice.

I will follow him to his next Chapter, which Treats.