Page images
PDF
EPUB

the present he hath "forfaken him, and is gone to Theffalonica." The oppofition alfo of fentiment, with refpect to the event of the perfecution, is hardly reconcileable to the fame imprisonment.

The two following confiderations, which. were first fuggested upon this question by Ludovicus Capellus, are still more conclufive.

1. In the twentieth verfe of the fourth chapter, St. Paul informs Timothy, "that "Eraftus abode at Corinth," EpaσTOS EμEIVED Ev Kopivo. The form of expreffion implies, that Eraftus had ftaid behind at Corinth, when St. Paul left it. But this could not be meant of any journey from Corinth which St. Paul took prior to his first imprifonment at Rome; for when Paul departed from Corinth, as related in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, Timothy was with him: and this was the last time the apostle left Corinth before his coming to Rome; because he left it to proceed on his way to Jerufalem, foon after his arrival at which place he was taken into custody, and continued in that cuftody till he was carried to Cæfar's

24

Cæfar's tribunal. There could be no need therefore to inform Timothy that "Eraftus "ftaid behind at Corinth" upon this occafion, because, if the fact was fo, it must have been known to Timothy who was prefent, as well as to St. Paul.

2. In the fame verse our epistle alfo states the following article: Trophimus have Į "left at Miletum fick." When St. Paul paffed through Miletum on his way to Jerufalem, as related Acts xx. Trophimus was not left behind, but accompanied him to that city. He was indeed the occafion of the uproar at Jerufalem, in confequence of which St.Paul was apprehended; for "they "had feen," fays the hiftorian, "before "with him in the city, Trophimus an "Ephefian, whom they fuppofed that Paul "had brought into the temple." This was evidently the last time of Paul's being at Miletus before his firft imprisonment; for, as hath been faid, after his apprehenfion at Jerufalem, he remained in custody till he was fent to Rome,

In these two articles we have a journey referred to, which must have taken place fubfequent

fubfequent to the conclufion of St. Luke's history, and of course after St. Paul's liberation from his first imprisonment. The epiftle therefore, which contains this reference, fince it appears from other parts of

it to have been written whilft St. Paul was a prifoner at Rome, proves that he had returned to that city again, and undergone there a fecond imprisonment.

I do not produce these particulars for the fake of the support which they lend to the teftimony of the fathers concerning St. Paul's fecond imprisonment, but to remark their confiftency and agreement with one another. They are all refolvable into one fuppofition and although the fuppofition itself be in fome fort only negative, viz. that the epistle was not written during St. Paul's first refidence at Rome, but in fome future imprisonment in that city; yet is the confistency not lefs worthy of observation; for the epiftle touches upon names and circumstances connected with the date and with the history of the firft imprisonment, and mentioned in letters written during that imprisonment, and fo touches upon them,

as

[ocr errors]

as to leave what is faid of one confiftent with what is faid of others, and confiftent also with what is faid of them in different epiftles. Had one of these circumstances been so described, as to have fixed the date of the epiftle to the first imprisonment, it would have involved the reft in contradiction. And when the number and particularity of the articles which have been brought together under this head are confidered; and when it is confidered also, that the comparisons we have formed amongst them, were in all probability neither provided for, nor thought of, by the writer of the epistle, it will be deemed fomething very like the effect of truth, that no invincible repugnancy is perceived between

them.

No. II.

In the Acts of the Apoftles, in the fixteenth chapter, and at the firft verfe, we are told that Paul" came to Derbe and

66

Lyftra, and behold a certain disciple was "there named Timotheus, the fon of a cer

❝tain

[ocr errors]

"tain woman, which was a Jewess, and be"lieved; but his father was a Greek." In the epiftle before us, in the firft chapter and at the fifth verfe, St.Paul writes to Timothy thus: "Greatly defiring to fee thee, be'ing mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled "with joy, when I call to remembrance the ،، unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt "first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy "mother Eunice; and I am perfuaded that "in thee alfo." Here we have a fair unforced example of coincidence. In the hiftory Timothy was the "fon of a Jewels "that believed:" in the epiftle St. Paul applauds "the faith which dwelt in his mother "Eunice." In the history it is faid of the mother," that she was a Jewefs, and be"lieved;" of the father, that he was a

"Greek." Now when it is faid of the mother alone that the believed," the father

being nevertheless mentioned in the fame sentence, we are led to fuppofe of the father that he did not believe, i. e. either that he was dead, or that he remained unconverted. Agreeably hereunto, whilst praife is bestowed in the epiftle upon one parent, and upon

her

« EelmineJätka »