428

A General Introduction

Usefulness, and could not fail of recommending him to the pcculiar Regard of the Apoftle, who from that Time feems to have fixed upon him as his Companion and Affiftant in his Labours. But as he was a few on the Mother's Side, he judged it prudent that he fhould be circumcifed, before he entered upon his Minifterial Office After which, he did not fcruple to ordain him in a folemn Manner by the Impofition of Hands, (1 Tim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6.) tho' he was at that Time probably not much more than twenty Years old. (Com. 1 Tim. iv. 12.) From this Time, we often hear of him as attending the Apostle in his Travels, and affifting him in preaching the Gofpel; and from Heb. xiii. 23. we may gather, that he fhared with him in his Sufferings as well as his Labours; to which we may add, that St. Paul has thought fit to join his Name with his own in the Infcription to feveral of the Epiftles, viz. 2 Cor. Philip. Colofs. 1 and 2 Theff. and Philem. He appears in every Respect to have been eminently qualified for the important Office with which he was invefted; and the honourable Terms, in which the Apostle always mentions him to the Churches, and the Confidence, which, notwithstanding his Youth, he repofed in him upon all Occafions, are fufficient to give us a very high Idea of his Character. And perhaps there was no one of all his Companions and Fellow-Labourers, whofe Sentiments and Views of Things fo exactly correfponded with his own. He appears from their first Acquaintance with each other, to have been particularly concerned to form him for Usefulness; and no Doubt his principal View, in taking him at firft as the Companion of his Travels, was, that he might be more immediately under his Infpection, and enjoy the Advantage of his more free and familiar Inftructions. No Wonder then, if the Apoftle looked upon his Pupil with peculiar Complacency and even Parental Affection, when he faw him anfwer his fondeft Expectations, and fill up with fo much Honour the Station he had affigned him. No Wonder, on the other Hand, that Timothy fhould difcover a filial Reverence for a Perfon of St. Paul's venerable Character, with whom he had been fo intimately. connected, and from whom he had received fo many and fuch important Favours.

It is well known, that the Date of this Epiftle hath been greatly difputed: To enter largely into the Controverfy, would far exceed the Limits allotted to thefe Introductions. However, as, in a Work of this Kind, the Reader may expect fome Notice should be taken of a Question, which is of fome Importance; and as he may not

to the First Epistle to Timothy.

be furnished with thofe Authors*, who have treated it more fully, I fhall here give fome Account of the principal Hypothefes relating to it, and state the Evidence with which they are refpectively attended.

And

The Hypothefis, which feems to have prevailed most generally, is, That it was written about the Year of our Lord 58, when Paul had lately quitted Ephesus, on Account of the Tumult raised there by Demetrius, and was gone into Macedonia, Acts xx. 1. this is the Opinion of many learned Criticks, antient and modern; particularly, of Athanafius, Theodoret, Baronius, Ludovic. Capellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius, Salmafius, Lightfoot and Benfon. On the other Hand, Bishop Pearfon endeavours to prove, that it could not be written till the Year 65, between the first and fecond Imprisonment of Paul at Rome; and L'Enfant without any Hefitation goes into this Hypothefis.

It is univerfally allowed, that St. Paul muft have written this. first Epistle to Timothy, at fome Journey which he made from Ephefus to Macedonia, having in the mean Time, left Timothy be-hind him at Ephesus; for he exprefsly faith to Timothy, 1 Tim. i. 3. I befought thee ftill to abide at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia. Bishop Pearfon accordingly, in order to prove that the Date of this Epistle was as late as he supposes, having observed that we read only of three Journeys of Paul through Macedonia, (viz. A&ts xvi. 9, 10. Acts xx. 1. and ibid. Ver. 3.) endeavours to show, that it could not be written in any of thefe, and muft confequently have been written in fome fourth Journey, not mentioned in the History, which he supposes was about the Year 65, after Paul was released from his firft Imprisonment at Rome.--That it was not written at the first or third of these Journeys is readily allowed, and it appears from the whole Series of the Context in both Places; but it is the fecond that is generally contended for.

I

Now the Bishop supposes, that the Epiftle was not written at this fecond Journey, because it appears from Acts xix. 22. that Paul did not leave Timothy then at Ephefus, having fent him before into Macedonia, and appointed him to meet him at Corinth. See 1 Cor. iv. 17. xvi. 10. To this it is anfwered, that though Paul did indeed send Timothy from Ephesus, yet, as we are told that Paul made fome Stay there after that, (Acts xix. 22.) Timothy might be

See Pearfon Op. Poft. Diff. 1. C. 9 §. 5. pag. 75, &c.
Benfon's Propag. of Christianity, Vol. ii. pag. 167,-70.
Witfii Meletem. C. ix. §. 3-5.

Boyle's Works, Vol. ii. pag. 292,-297.

returned

429

430

A General Introduction

returned before the Tumult, and fo the Apostle might, notwith-
standing, leave him behind at Ephefus, when he himself fet out on
his Journey for Macedonia. (For it fhould be observed, that he
changed his Scheme, and, before he went to Corinth, where he had
appointed Timothy to meet him, fpent fome Time in Macedonia;
from whence he wrote his fecond Epifle to the Corinthians in Com-
pany with Timothy, who came to him in his Return from Corinth,
and continued with him, while he remained in thefe Parts.) Now
that Timothy returned to Ephefus before the Apostle departed, will
indeed appear very probable, if, (as Mr. Boyfe argues from Acts
XX. 31. compared with Chap. xix. 8, 10.) St. Paul spent three
Years at Epbefus and in the neighbouring Parts, and fent Timothy
nine Months before the Tumult; which would leave him
Time enough to perform his Commiffion, and return to Ephefus
before the Apostle had left it. (See Family Expof. Vol. III. Sect.
Note (e) pag. 305.)--To which it may be added, that it appears
from 1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11. which Epiftle was written from Ephefus,
that Paul expected Timothy, after his Journey to Macedonia and
Corinth, would return to him at that City.

away

I

The Bishop further objects to the Epistle's being written at this Second Journey, mentioned Acts xx. 1. that when the Apostle fet out he proposed to go into Macedonia, and vifit the Churches there and in Greece, which muft neceffarily take up a confiderable Time; whereas in his Epistle to Timothy, he fpeaks of his Intention to return very foon. (1 Tim. iii. 14. iv. 13.)--But it is natural to fuppofe, that fome unforeseen Accident might detain him longer than he defigned; and being difappointed of fome Affiftance he expected from Macedonia, he might afterwards fend for Timothy to come to him, who, as the Paffage by Sea might be dispatched in a few Days, might arrive at Macedon before the Apostle wrote his fecond Epistle to the Corinthians.

The Bishop further argues, that it appears from the Epiftle to Titus, as well as from fome Paffages in his Epiftle to the Philip pians, and to Philemon, that Paul actually made another Journey into thofe Parts after his firft 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 Suppofition which Salmafius makes, is not at all likely, that Paul touched at Crete when he was going from Achaia to Macedonia, for then he carried a Collection with him, (1 Cor. xvii. 1-5. Acts xxiv. 17.) and therefore it was not probable he would go fo much out of his Way; and when he was about to fail into

to the First Epistle to Timothy.

Syria, and heard that Snares were laid for him, (Acts xx. 3.) it is not to be fuppofed, that he would go into the Mouth of them; or that he would take up his Time in preaching at Crete, when he was in Hafte to be at Jerufalem; (Acts xx. 16.) or that he would winter at Nicopolis, (Tit. iii. 12.) when Winter was paffed, and he defired to be at Jerufalem before the Paffover.But then it hath been obferved, that perhaps the Epiftle to Titus might be among the firft Paul wrote, and his Voyage to Crete, one of the many Events before his going up to the Council at Jerufalem, which in the Hiftory of the Acts, Luke, not being in Company with him when they occurred, hath entirely paffed over; and of which there are, notwithstanding, fome Traces in St. Paul's Epiftles; particularly, 2 Cor. xi. and Rom. xv. 19. Or if it be allowed, that the Epiftle to Titus was written by Paul after his firft Imprisonment, it will not follow from thence, that the first Epiftle to Timothy muft have been written at the fame Time. This is a brief Account of the Arguments for Bishop Pearfon's Hypothefis, that this Epiftle was written about the Year 65, with their respective Answers.

On the other Hand, it is pleaded in Favour of the first-mentioned Hypothefis, namely, its being written in the Year 58,

(1.) That when Paul wrote his first Epistle to him, Timothy was a young Man; (1 Tim. iv. 12. Let no Man defpife thy Youth.) which is alfo referred to, I Cor. xvi. 10, II. Now fuppofing he. were only 16 Years old, when he was converted to Chriftianity, which was in the Year 46, he would in the Year 58, be about 28 Years of Age; but in 65, the Time when Bishop Pearfon fuppofes the Epiftle was written, he would be 35, and paft a Youth, 30 being the Age, at which the Levites were, according to the Law, to enter upon their Office. And whereas it hath been objected to this Obfervation, that even in his fecond Epiftle, which is fuppofed to be written fome Years after his first, he is cautioned to flee youthful Lufts; it may be replied, that though he were indeed at that Time in the Meridian of Life, yet he was not out of the Reach of fuch Temptations, though the Seafon of Youth be more peculiarly liable to them. Befides, the Admonition might be intended to fuggeft this Thought, that having outgrown Youth, he ought to be fo much the more fuperior to them.

(2.) It is obferved, that the State of Things in the Church of Ephefus in 58, better fuits the Contents of the first Epistle, than it does in 65. For Inftance, it appears from Chap. i. 3, 4, 6, 7, and other Paffages, that thofe Corruptions, which the Apostle

Speaks

431

2

432

A General Introduction

fpeaks of as greatly encreafed and rifen to a confiderable Height,
when he met the Elders of Ephefus at Miletus, and when he wrote
his fecond Epiftle, were just beginning to creep into the Church at
the Time of his writing the firft.To which it may be added,
that, from the particular Inftructions Paul, in his firft Epiftle, gives
Timothy about Ordination, it seems as if the Church of Ephefus,
and those in the Neighbourhood, had few or no Bishops at the
Time it was written; from whence it appears extremely pro-
bable, that the Meeting between Paul and the Elders, or Bishops
of Ephefus, at Miletus, muft have been after the writing of this
Epifle. Mr. Drury, on the other Hand, hath pleaded, that when
Paul addreffed the Elders at Miletus, he fpeaks of thefe Things as
future, (Acts xx. 29.) which when he wrote his first Epifle to
Timeby, were actually accomplished; fuch as the Trouble they'
met with from judaizing Teachers, &c. which are the Perfons he
fuppofes we are to understand by grievous or ravening Wolves,
in the forecited Paffage in the Acts: And therefore the Epiftle
must be written after that Interview. But to this it is replied,
that the ravening Wolves, of which
the Apostle there fpeaks, were
Heathen Perfecutors, and not fuch Seducers as fhould arife among
themselves. Some have further objected, that even in his
Epistle to the Ephefians, the Apostle does not fpeak of those Evils,
as having rifen to fuch a Height in the Church, as he does in his
firft Epifle to Timothy, though the Epistle to the Ephefians was
undoubtedly written after the Interview at Miletus: Therefore the
firft Epiftle to Timothy must be written fome Length of Time after
that Interview. To this it may be justly replied, that, without fup-
pofing the Apostle to intimate in his first Epistle, that the Evils re-
ferred to had actually prevailed fo far, it is certain, from that Part
of Luke's Hiftory which precedes Acts xx. that there was fuch a
bigotted Zeal for the Mofaic Law, among fome profeffing Chriftians,
as would justify the Caution given to Timothy; especially, con-
fidering, that a great many Jews were always refident in Ephefus.
And though, in the Epistle to the Ephefians, Paul fays nothing of
judaizing Teachers, (nor of the Wolves and perverfe Men, who
hould arife, against whom, it is certain, he had before the Date
of it, cautioned the Elders at Miletus,) yet many of the Advices he
gives in that Epiftle, as well as in this to Timothy, would be of
great Ufe in preferving Chriftians from fuch Dangers. But,

(3.) The Argument, on which the principal Strefs hath been laid, in order to prove the Date of this Epiftle to be about the Year 58, is taken from the folemn prophetic Declaration, which Paul