The two laft-quoted paffages afford a ftrong argument in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, and confequently, that the Epiftle to the Philippians was written during the first imprisonment. The strong expreffion writes oida, ch. i. 24. especially as St. Paul had immediately before deliberated, whether it were better for him to live or to die, appears to imply, that he spake in the fpirit of prophecy, and with an actual affurance of being releafed. Whoever therefore believes that St. Paul was infpired, muft conclude that his expectations were fulfilled, that he was actually releafed, that his martyrdom therefore did not take place at the end of this imprifonment, and confequently that he underwent a fecond. On the other hand, they who affert that St. Paul ipake in this paffage merely from the fuggeftions of human wifdom, may contend that, though he had every reafon to expect, when he wrote to the Philippians, that he fhould foon be released, his profpects might have fuddenly changed; for before the clofe of the year, in which this Epiftle was written, namely, in the year 65, the Chriftians really underwent a fevere perfecution from Nero, who charged them with having fet fire to Rome, in order to remove the fufpicion of his having been himlelf the perpetrator.

That the Epistle to the Philippians was written at the beginning of the year 65, appears from various circumtances. It could not have been written before the year 65, because it was written after the period, with which St. Luke clofes the Acts of the Apoftles. Nor could it haye been written after the year 65, or even fo late as the end of that year, becaufe in that year the conflagration of Rome happened, which was followed by a fevere perfecution of the Chriftians: and an Epiftle written after that perfecution would certainly have reprefented both the profpects of St. Paul himself, and the ftate of Christianity at Rome, in a different manner from that, which we find in the Epistle to the Philippians. Nor ... would Jewish impoftors have ventured after that perfe

Taciti Annal. Lib, XV. c. 44.

cution to preach the Chriftian religion, though they preached it in a manner, which provoked St. Paul '.

The more immediate occafion of this Epiftle was the return of Epaphroditus, by whom St. Paul fent it, as a grateful acknowledgement of the money, which he had received. At the fame time he gave them an account of his confinement in Rome, and warned them against the feductions of the Jews.

CHAP. XXII.

OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

SECT. I.

Of the place, where Timothy was, when St. Paul wrote to him his fecond Epifle.

I

is generally supposed that Timothy was at Ephefus, when St. Paul wrote to him the second Epiftle, as he was, when St. Paul wrote to him the firft: but as this admits of fome doubt, it will be neceffary to examine it more clofely. That Timothy was at leaft fomewhere in Afia Minor, when St. Paul wrote to him the fecond Epiftle, appears to be probable from ch. iv. 13. where Timothy is requested to bring with him fome things, which St. Paul had left in Troas. But that Timothy paffed through Troas in his way to St. Paul is not a neceffary confequence, fince he might have fent to Troas for the things, which St. Paul requested him to bring. Still lefs can we infer from this paffage, that Timothy was then in Ephefus: and the only probable inference, which we can deduce, is, that Timothy was Somewhere in Afia Minor,

The

VOL. IV.

• Ch. i. 15-18,

L

The advocates for the opinion, that Timothy was then in Ephefus, allege, that St. Paul fpeaks in this Epiftle of feveral perfons, who refided in Ephefus, and relates to Timothy in what manner he had been treated by them, on their meeting in Rome: whence it is inferred, that Timothy was then in Ephcfus. But this inference is very precarious. For, as Timothy was particularly acquainted with the Ephefian community, and had even appointed bishops there, he would have been interested in the conduct of the Ephefians, even if he had not been then refident among them and St. Paul therefore, even in this cafe, might have thought proper to inform Timothy that all the Chriftians of Afia Minor had deferted him, and that Alexander the copper-fmith was one of his principal adverfaries.

Further, appeal is made to the following paflages.

1. St. Paul falutes, ch. iv. 19. the house of Onefiphorus; and from ch. i. 16-18. is inferred that Onefiphorus was an inhabitant of Ephefus.

Now it is true, that St. Paul in the laft-quoted paffage, after having mentioned the favours, which he had received from Onefiphorus, when he was in Rome, adds, and in how many things he miniftered unto me at Ephefus thou knoweft very well.' But this is no proof that Oneliphorus was an inhabitant of Ephefus: for, in the fame manner, as he was a ftranger in Rome, when he miniftered to St. Paul there, he might have been likewife a ftranger at Ephefus, when he fhewed to St. Paul a fimilar kindness.

2. Lardner alleges, that St. Paul in the very fame verfe, in which he falutes the houfe of Onefphorus, falutes alfo Aquilas and Prifcilla, who refided fome time at Ephefus, as appears from Acts xviii. 18, 19. 26.

Now that they had refided fome time at Ephefus, .I grant: but it does not therefore follow, that they were there, when St. Paul wrote his fecond Epiftle to Timothy. That they had left Ephefus, and were re

* Ch. i. 15.

turned

turned to Rome, before St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, is evident from Rom. xvi. 3.: and whither they went, when they again left Rome, is a matter wholly uncertain. As Aquilas was a native of Pontus", he may as well be supposed to have gone to fome city in that country, as to any other part of Afia Minor. Befides, as Aquilas was by profeffion an inftrumentmaker, as I fhall fhew in the following chapter, it is probable that he frequently changed the place of his abode, in order to promote the fale of his wares.

3. St. Paul advises Timothy to be on his guard against Alexander the copper-fmith, ch. iv. 15. who is fupposed to be the fame as the Alexander mentioned Acts xix. 33. who was an Ephefian, and at the inftigation of the Jews, acted the part of an orator, in ftirring up the people against St. Paul. Now I admit that the Alexander, against whom St. Paul warns Timothy, and who had lately taken an active part against St. Paul, was the fame as the Alexander, who had formerly opposed St. Paul at Ephefus: but I do not therefore admit, that Timothy was neceffarily at Ephefus, when St. Paul wrote to him. For, even if Timothy had been in fome other town of Afia Minor, the Apostle might have thought it neceffary to guard him against fo dangerous and active an adverfary, who did not confine his perfecution to one place, but after having accused St. Paul at Ephefus, had followed him fome years afterwards as far as Rome.

However, though no one of the preceding arguments, taken by itself, is fufficient to prove, that Timothy was at Ephefus, when St. Paul wrote to him his fecond Epiftle, yet their united force will render the opinion not improbable, till pofitive arguments can be brought on the other fide of the queftion. Now there are really two arguments against the opinion that Timothy was at Ephesus.

1. St. Paul fays, ch. iv. 12. Tychicus have I sent to Ephefus.' Hence we may argue, that Timothy was

d Acts xviii. 2.

not

not at Ephefus; for, if he had been there, he would have known of the arrival of Tychicus, without being informed of it by St. Paul.

Lardner has endeavoured to answer this objection: but he did not perceive its full force. For he attempts only to fhew, what no one will deny, that, if Timothy was at Ephefus, it was the fame thing, whether St. Paul faid, I have fent Tychicus to thee, or I have fent Tychicus to Ephefus.

2. St. Paul fays, ch. iv. 20. Trophimus have I left at Miletus fick.' Now, if Timothy had been at Ephefus, he must have known this circumftance, without having been informed by St. Paul, as Miletus was not far diftant: efpecially fince Trophimus was an Ephefian, as we fee from Acts xxi. 29.

The arguments therefore on each fide of the queftion appear to me to counterpoife each other in fuch a manner, as to leave the question undecided. In fact, it is not improbable, that St. Paul himfelf did not exactly know in what city of Afia Minor Timothy would receive the Epistle, which he was writing to him for, as Timothy was very active in propagating the Gospel, we may conclude that he frequently removed from one town to another. And as Afia Minor was not only at fome diftance from Italy, but feparated from it by two feas, the communication between St. Paul and Timothy cannot be fuppofed to have been fo regular, that the former always knew where the latter refided. Though St. Paul knew not exactly, where Timothy was, he might have written to him an Epiftle, and have entrufted it to a fafe perfon, who was travelling into Afia Minor, with an order to deliver it to him, whereever he found him.