I

filenc) Beza, and Dr. Hammond tell us this fair ftory; they fay The Orator Alexander was St. Pauls most pernitions enemy, mentioned 1 Tim. 1. 14. and delivered by him to Sathan, 1 Tim. Ambo in loc. 1. 20. which Alexander, the Jews at this time carry forth of the croud into a fit place, where by an invective Oration he might appease the inraged people,rele them to the Jews, and derive all their malice upon St. Paul and the Chriftians.

Our Judgment of this ftory briefly is, 'tis but a Tale,

For.

Firfty Thofe who put Alexander forward, are plainly differenced in the text from thofe that drew him forth; the words in the original areἘκ δὲ τὸ ὀχλε, προεβίβασαν τον Αλέξανδρον, προβάλλοντων αυτὸν τῶν Ιεδάρων. This Beza himself thus tranflates, Ex turba vero produxerunt quidam Alexandrum propellentibus eum Judæis. And all other tranflations obferve the difference, except the Syriack, which rather paraphrafeth, then tranflates.

Secondly, The Gentile Ephefians were equally incenfed both against Jews and Chriftians; Particularly they were fo far inraged against the Jews, as perceiving Alexander to be a Jew, they would not fuffer him to speak, ver. 34. But when they knew that he was a few, all with one voice, about the space of two hours eryed out Great is Diana of the Ephefians. Befides had not the Ephefians heen offended both against Jews and Chriftians, the Jews needed not to have thrust Alexander forward to make any A Apology for them; because Demetrius took his firft diftaft aafdiana i In loco gainst the Chriftianis, and had threwn the contempt upon them. We are therefore with Bezalgood leave yet to feek for the true expofition oftherext, and shall not be able to find it, till we can affign the difference betwixt thofe who drew Alexander 19 1A pithim forth, and Jews who put him forward. 9. -zylgist Doctor Hammond agreeing with Beza in the reft, faw this, hobnog and sochelp: Dun out of the mire, he adds. Thefe by diew A

Lexander forth were Serjeants, those who tht him forward were Few malicious tolSt. Pauly is questioned and examined him, Id ubi fupra and then he was ready to Apologize, to avert the danger from himfelf, and taturn it upon others. This Expofition he grounds upon feculau ufage of the words namely, that it fignifres to examia judicially a fufpected, or impleaded delinquent.

rɔbButs

01 ni odma TohBreslas well: this, as Helychius his glofs must be mended. Fortron Constal, and sluts out

-Firft, 'Tis utterly improbable, that the
thouid fuffer the Jews to examin their Prisoner.
(Hol

Town Officers

Secondly,

Secondly

po hath no fuch Scripture Signification, nor if it had elsewhere would this text admit it, till it were proved, that the Magiftracy of Ephefis confifted of Jews.

Thirdly, 'Tis fomewhat too confident (though animated by our tranflation) to fay, that Alexander would have made fis own defence, for the word 'Amoxyl ufed abfolutely as here, equally fignifies a general as a particular Apology: And when the Pen-man of this Hiftory (or St.Luke) ufeth it for a particular Apology, he joyns it in conftruction with fome limiting expreffions; thus A&t. 24. 10. Then Paul after the Governour bad beckned unto him to speak; answered; for as much as I know that thou hast been of many years a Judge unto this Nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for my felfe (ra mei quarë «ronsyra.)

ད་

Fourthly, 'Tisyet more confident to say that Alexander intended to accufe others, for no word properly fignifying to accufe, appears in the text. Neither will the word

(which is the only word looking that way) bear it in St. Lukes Dialect, becaufe elsewhere he placeth Alas, or to make a defence in oppofition unto motiv, or to accufe. Act.24.2. with 10.

The errors whereunto thefe Authors draw themselves, and confiding Readers, proceed (I dare fay it) from want of due confideration of the feveral words rendred drew forth, and put forward; the former is, rendred drew forth, although in our Dialect it import a manual violence, yet originally both in Scripture, and Greek Authors, it fignifies a forcelels drawing, by reafon, inftruction, or intreaty; h. Scripture 'tis fed of a Parents inftructing her Child, Mat. 14, 8. And he being be fore inftructed of her mother, He poßißation. In Authors 'tis used of a Clients procuring, or inftructing of his Patron, or Coun cellor. Take we it in either of thefe fenfes in this text, it leads us prefently to afcertain Beza's quidam, namely the Chriftians, who were the parties in danger; They drew Alexander the Orator forth to make a publick defence.

Obj. But may fome fay, what have the Jews to do with Chriftians? for if the Chriftians drew Alexander forth, the Jews put him forward.

T

Obj.

I answer,Chriftians and Jews, had then more to do one with Sol. another then they have now, and in this very cafe there was a special reafon for their unity, and joynt acting; for the cause and danger was the common concernment both of Jews and Chriftians; both of them were profeffed enemies to Diana; Gg.

both

In loc.

In loc.

both of them were for the, molt part originally Jews; and perhaps the enraged Ephefians knew not before, much lefs would they in their prefent rage make any difference betwixt Jews and Chriftians; fure I am, the men of Thyatyra did not, but complaining to their Magiftrates againft St. Paul and Sylas, they fay Ad. 16. 29. The men being fems, do exceedingly trouble our Ci

i

Therefore the cause, and danger both of Jews and Chriftians being the fame, there is no reason why they might concur in the election on a common advocate to make their joynt defence, leaft both fhould be fwallowed up promifcuoufly in thofe tempeftuous waves of popular fury. To this Expolition good Authors affent, namely Aretius, Pifcator, and 4 Lapide; neither is it any whit discountenanced by the following words, or what is faid of the Jews, that they put him forward for that word doth not alwaies fignifie a violent haling, and thrusting out of a malicious intent In Scripture it is ufed of trees, budding or Sprouting, Luke 21. 30. Among Authors 'tis ufed, as well of a parties producing his witneffes in Court, as of the Judges examination ofthem; In which cafes the Party is ofttimes enforced to ufe all violences of intreaty, promifes of reward, Sulpana's, and threatnings of hazard to his witnelles, if they neglect their appearance to put them forward, leaft the caufe fhould be heard in his abfence, and go against him; the result of what hath been faid is this, that the Chriftians drawing Alexander forth by instruction, the Jews might put him forward,haften and encourage him to proceed in the common Apology. And certainly any one in his cafe would have needed both Spurs.

20.

This I am perfwaded is the true meaning of the place, and I wonder that Beza and Doctor Hammond neither took notice of it, nor of fome as learned as themselves, to wit, Cajetane, and Arias Montanus who deny the Alexander named in this Text to be the same named, and excommunicated by St. Paul, 1 Tim.1. Calvin upon the place leaves it with an incertum eft, or it is incertain whether they were bothlone man, or divers. This is modeft, but the other opinion feems trueft. But grant both Texts fpeak of one and the fame Alexander, this in the Acts gives no 12 colourable reason why an excommunication hould pro ceed, against him, but he was actually, excommunicated I Tim. I. 20.0

Wherefore again and again, we affirm and repeat, that the charge given to the Ephefine Elders at Miletum was prophetical

of

Vix certo col

of those future mifchiefs, which falle teachers fhould do unto that Church, unless they were watcht againft with all diligence: And that the Prophefie had in part its accomplishment in St. Pauls delivery of Hymenews, and Alexander unto Satban, ere he directed the firft Epiftle unto Timothy: Suffice this for the fourth rea fon against the affigned date of the first Epiftle unto Timothy. Fifthly, The former reafons are I truft convictive to inge-vin doubts of Fifthly, Calnuous Readers of the equity of our oppofing the affigned date the validity of of that Epiftle; but if any more morofe come a thwart this the affigned difcourfe, we beseech him to obferve what Calvin faith in this date. matter, ere he fhoot the bolt of his cenfure, he faith, It cannot ligi poteft ex be gathered with any certainty out of St. Lukes biftory, when the biftoria Luce first Epistle was written. What! cannot Calvin certainly col- quando fcriplect it, whom, and whose cause it so much concerned, fince the tu fuit prior greatest ftrefs of Timothies Evangelizate bears upon it? Doth epiftola. Calv. the Master builder fear the downfal of his Fabrick, fince 'tis proem in a founded upon vix certo, or a ticklish foundation? Are not we rather excufable in refufing to build thereupon, then venturoufly to attempt the reedification of that Babel whole builders are confounded in their language, and either raze their Tower with their own hands, or prepare Engines, wherewith others may do it. Besides, St. Lukes hiftory hath been confulted and confidered, where not only we cannot find the date, but do find the Presbyterian affignation of it to be of all others the moft incertain, and improbable.

Tim.

the fame is

2

Those clamours then evaporate as fmoke into ayre, where- A Presbyteriwith Presbyters fo cloy our ears in this controverfie, to wit: an cavil obviThat Bishop Timothy is altogether neglected by St. Paul, when he corollary. ated by way of gave the Ephefine Elders thein charge at Milet fince they are 1. Paper of yet to prove that Timer was fettled at befer the first E- the Minifters piltle was fent unto TinyBefides, the charge doth not commit at Wight the fame works unto the Elders, as the Epiftle doth to Timothy, manifeft. ifit did, fuch conceffion might rather be received with preju- 2. Paper dice that they got it no fooner, then with thanks that it was to that which now allowed them, fince they were Presbyters of a long ftan- your Majefly. ding, ere the fuppofed date of that Epiftle; and fince Timothy one reafon gihad all the while ufurped upon their priviledges. Indeed the ven by your charge at Miletum allows the Ephefine Elders the feeding, and Majefty. overfight of their particular flocks in fuch fubordination as the Epiftle to Timothy purs them under their fuperiour Officers, which was never denyed them, under the Epifcopal Go

vernment.

Gg 2

Obj.

.

And the

affign another date.

Anf. 1. We

are not neceffitated to do

it.

Some may

Obj. We are fighed date telly obect and fay, fince you have denyed the af the Epiftle was written. required to I anfwer. Firft, the holy Ghoft not revealing it, perhaps rather directs to our filence with him, then our enquiry without him; efpecially, because when we have wearied Our eyess and hearts in feeking it, we fhall find no more then Calvins vix certo, what whereof an it may, of it may not be true, may with equal probability be pronounced: I will not fay the holy Ghoft hath hid it from our obfervation as he buried Mofes his body, because we should not find it, but I will fay, if finding it, had been neceffary, he would not have concealed it;befides, when vever it was written,, it concerns one Timothy at Ephesus, hich Rate val was a Church having fettled Officers ere he came thither, fince one of his firft trufts after his coming, was to examin and cenfure delinquent Presbyters. 1 Tim. 5. 19.

"

I

Secondly, Will not this fatisfie,but my Reader expects that I 2. Auf. Con- fhould rove at the date, as others have done before me. I fay jectured to be probably St. Paul, after his releafe from his firft imprisonment written after at Rome, returning to vifit his formerly planted Churches, St. Pauls de- and yet under his own Jurisdiction, came to Epbeli, where he from his first found the Garden overrun with weeds,the Church miferably imprisonment corrupted with herefies and falfe doctrines (his Prophefie, A&t.

liverance

at Rome.

20. being then in foms meafure fulfilled) to occur to which mifcheifs, give a check to their further encreafe, and proceed according to his purpofe in vifiting the remaining part of his Vineyard in Macedonia, &c. he fettles Timothy at Ephefis, and. writes this Epistle to him. This is all conjectural and probable, I give it my Reader for no more; but

Firft, 'Tis a probability not lyable to the like abfurdities do with the former affignation of the date. 197511Secondly, Tis much favoured, both by the Apoftles former practife: Act. 15. 36. And Jome dayes after Paul faid to Barnabas, let us go again and visit our brethren in every City where we kave preached the word of the Lord, and fee how they do; 1 Cor.11. 34. And the reft will I fet in order when I come. 2 Cor. 11. 28. Befides thofe things that are without, that which cometh upon me dayly, the care of of all the Churches. And by a text in the latter 2 Tim. 4. 20. Epiftle to Timothy, which mentions St. Pauls being at Miletum expounded. long after the charge. Act. 20. It is 2 Tim.4. 20. Tropbimus bave I left at Miletum fick; The expofition of this text will be ufeful, and the readieft way to do it, is to compare the opini ons of expofitors, find it interpreted three wayes.

*