« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
come shortly.” Philemon he bids to prepare for him a lodging ; - “ for I trust,” says he, “ that through your prayers I shall be given unto you,” (ver. 22.) In the epistle before us he holds a language extremely different : “ I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith : henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day.” (ch. iv. 6—8.).
II. When the former epistles were written from Rome, Timothy was with St. Paul; and is joined with him in writing to the Colossians, the Philippians, and to Philemon. The present epistle implies that he was absent.
III. In the former epistles Demas was with St. Paul at Rome : “ Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.” In the epistle now before us : “.Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is gone to Thessalonica."
ly. In the former epistle, Mark was with St. Paul, and joins in saluting the Colossians. In the present epistle, Timothy is ordered to bring him with him,“ for he is
profitable to me for the ministry.” (ch. iv. 11.)
jsi jedin : The case of Timothy and of Mark might be very well'accounted for, by supposing the present epistle to have been written before the others; so that Timothy, who is here exhorted “ to come shortly unto him," (ch: iv. 9.) might have arrived, and that Mark, “ whom he was to bring with him," (ch. iv. 11.) might have also reached Rome in sufficient time to have been with St. Paul when the four epistles were written; but then such a supposition is 'inconsistent with what is said of Demas, by which the pos=; teriority of this to the other epistles is strongly indicated : for in the other epistles Demas was with St. Paul, in 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 conclusive." · 1. In the twentieth verse of the fourth chapter, St. Paul informs Timothy, “ that. Erastus abode at Corinth,” EXACTOS ELEIVED EN
Kogsvēm. The form of expression impliese 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 imprisonment 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 Timon thy that “ Erastus staid behind at Corinth," upon 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 also states the following article: “ Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.” When St. Paul passed through Miletum on his way to Jerusalem, as related Acts, xx., Trophimus was not left be. hind,' 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, i before with him in the city, Trophimús an Ephesian, 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 appréhension at Jerusalem, he remained in custody' till he was sent to Rome. I wissens
In these two articles we have a journey referred to, which must håve taken place subsequent to the conclusion of St. Luke's histofy, and of course after St. Paul's liberation from his first imprisonment. The epistle, therefore, which contains this reference, since it appears froń other parts of it to have been written while 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 sort only negative, viz. that the epistle. was not written during St. Paul's first resi
dence 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 epistles. 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 considered; 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