« EelmineJätka »
the present he hath “ forsaken him, and is
gone to Thessalonica.” The opposition also of sentiment, with respect to the event of the persecution, is hardly reconcileable to the same imprisonment.
The two following considerations, which . were first suggested upon this question by Ludovicus Capellus, are still more conclu. five.
1. In the twentieth verse of the fourth chapter, St. Paul informs Timothy, “ that “ Erastus abode at Corinth," Epactos Eleivev Ev Kopovw. The form of expression implies, that Erastus had staid 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 Jerusalem, soon after his arrival at which place he was taken into custody, and continued in that custody till he was carried to
Cæsar's tribunal. There could be no need therefore to inform Timothy that “ Erastus “ (taid behind at Corinth"
this occasion, because, if the fact was so, it must have been known to Timothy who was present, as well as to St. Paul.
2. In the same verse our epistle alfo states the following article: “ Trophimus havę į “ left at Miletum fick.” When St. Paul passed through Milecum on his way to Jerusalem, as related Acts xx. Trophimus was not left behind, but accompanied him to that city. He was indeed the occasion of the uproar at Jerusalem, in consequence of which St.Paul was apprehended; for “they “ had seen,” says the historian, “ before " with him in the city, Trophimus an
Ephefian, whom they supposed that Paul “ had brought into the temple.” This was evidently the last time of Paul's being at Miletus before his first imprisonment; for, as hath been said, after his apprehenfion at Jerusalem, he remained in custody till he was sent to Rome.
In these two articles we have a journey referred to, which must have taken place
fubsequent to the conclusion of St. Luke's
of it to have been written whilst St. Paul was a prisoner at Rome, proves that he had returned to that city again, and undergone there a second imprisonment.
I do not produce these particulars for the sake of the support which they lend to the testimony of the fathers concerning St. Paul's second imprisonment, but to remark their consistency and agreement with one another. They are all resolvable into one supposition : and although the supposition itself be in some fort only negative, viz. that the epistle was not written during St. Paul's first residence at Rome, but in some future imprisonment in that city ; yet is the consistency not less worthy of observation ; for the epistle touches upon names and circumstances connected with the date and with the history of the first imprisonment, and mentioned in letters written during that imprisonment, and so touches upon them,
as to leave what is said of one consistent with what is said of others, and consistent also with what is said of them in different epiftles. Had one of these circumstances been so described, as to have fixed the date of the epistle to the first imprisonment, it would have involved the rest 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 considered 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 something very
like the effect of truth, that no invincible repugnancy is perceived between them.
In the Acts of the Apostles, in the sixteenth chapter, and at the first verse, we are told that Paul 66 came to Derbe and “ Lystra, and behold a certain disciple was " there named Timotheus, the son of a cer
“tain woman, which was a Jewels, and be“ lieved; but his father was a Greek.” In the epistle before us, in the first chapter and at the fifth verse, St.Paul writes to Timothy thus: “Greatly desiring to see thee, be
ingmindful of thy tears, that I may be filled “ with joy, when I call to remembrance the “unfeigned faith thatisin thee, which dwelt “ first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy s mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that ( in thee also.” Here we have a fair unforced example of coincidence. In the history Timothy was the “ son of a Jewels " that believed :" in the epistle St. Paul applauds“the faith which dwelt in his mother “ Eunice." In the history it is said of the mother, " that she was a Jewels, and be“ lieved;" of the father, “ that he was a “Greek.” Now when it is said of the mother alone that she believed,” the father being nevertheless mentioned in the same sentence, we are led to suppose of the father that he did not believe, i. e. either that he was dead, or that he remained unconverted. Agreeably hereunto, whilst praise is bestowed in the epistle upon one parent, and upon