present inftance we may account for the filence of hiftory, becaufe St. Luke, the only Chriftian hiftorian of that age, clofes his accounts with the end of the fecond year of that imprisonment, which St. Paul underwent at Rome, on coming from Cæfarea and after that period we know nothing of what happened to the Chriftians during many years, at leaft not with any certainty, except from the fcattered accounts of Tacitus and other heathen hiftorians. Another objection to the opinion that St. Paul went a fecond time to Rome, may be made in the following manner. If St. Paul was acquitted, when he was firft prifoner there, what could have induced him to expofe himself again to the fame danger, efpecially if he was acquitted in the year 65, as I fhall fhew in the chapter on the Epiftle to the Philippians, for at the end of that year the Chriftians underwent a fevere perfecution?? But to this. objection may be answered, that St. Paul had too much courage to be afraid of perfecution, and that on the contrary this very circumftance would rather have in'duced him to return to Rome, in order to comfort and fupport the brethren. Or he might come again to Rome, with a defign of putting the plan in execution, which he had once formed, of going to Spain . In fhort, I will not deny that St. Paul really did undertake a second journey to Rome, either because I know that the motive, by which he was induced to it, or because he would have done it at the hazard of his life.

What I have hitherto faid on this fubject leaves the queftion undecided; and if no other arguments could be brought, either on the one fide or the other, we fhould be obliged to confefs our ignorance whether St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, or not. But though hiftorical documents fail in this inquiry, there are certain internal marks in the Epiftle to the Philippians, and in the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, which fhew

P Tacit. Annal. xv. 44.

9 Rom. xv. 24.

fhew that St. Paul muft have been confined in Rome at two separate periods. In the Epiftle to the Philippians, which was written from Rome, St. Paul fays, ch. i. 25. 26. και τοτο πέποιθως οίδα, ότι μενω και συμπαρα μενω πασιν ὑμιν, εις την ύμων προκοπην και χαραν της πίσεως ένα το καύχημα ύμων περισσεύη εν Χριστώ Ιησε εν εμοί, δια της εμης παρεσίας παλιν προς ύμας. Here St. Paul affures the Philippians that he intended to vifit them, and fpeaks fo confidently, ufing the ftrong expreffion werOLOWS oida, that whoever admits St. Paul's divine infpiration must conclude, that the Apoftle fpake here with a prophetic fpirit, and confequently, that he was afterwards released from that imprisonment, in which he was then writing. The fecond Epiftle to Timothy furnishes a ftronger proof: for there are feveral paffages in it, from which real hiftorical arguments may be deduced. But the confideration of these arguments I fhall referve for Ch. xxii. Sect. 2.

Before I conclude this article, I must take notice. however of an objection, which may be made to the opinion, that St. Paul left Rome after his first arrival there, because this objection, like the argument in the preceding paragraph, is founded on St. Paul's gift of prophecy. When the Apostle took leave of the elders of the church of Ephefus, on that journey to Jerufalem, which ended with his imprisonment, and his removal to Cæfarea, and afterwards to Rome, he said to them, Now behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, fhall fee my face no more':' on which they burst into tears, ' forrowing for the words, that they should fee his face no more'. Now this pathetic declaration St. Paul appears to have made in a fpirit of prophecy: and therefore we must conclude, that he never did fee the elders of the church of Ephefus again. But in his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, which was written from Rome, St. Paul fpeaks ch. iv. 13. 20. of his having been lately in Afia Minor. Confequently, if we affume a fecond imprisonment in Rome, and fup

VOL. IV.

r Acts xx. 25.

H

• Ver. 38.

pofe

pose, that he was not only fet at liberty at the end of the imprisonment related by St. Luke', but that he returned thither fome years afterwards, was again imprifoned, and in that imprisonment wrote his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, it neceffarily follows, that in the interval, which elapfed between the two imprisonments, St. Paul had taken another journey into Afia Minor, after his folemn farewell of the Ephefian elders. But this objection will ceafe to be of importance, as foon as we reflect, that a return into Afia Minor does not neceffarily imply a return to the city of Ephefus in particulár. Among

the cities of Afia Minor, which St. Paul in the fourth chapter of his fecond Epiftle to Timothy mentions as having lately vifited, Ephefus is not named, as one of them. He speaks only of Troas, and Miletus": if we conclude therefore that he was likewife at Ephefus, the conclufion is without foundation. In his Epistle to the Ephefians, which was written from Rome, he gave them no promise that he would return to them: though in his Epistle to Philemon, which was written at the fame time, he expreffed his intention of vifiting the church at Coloffe, for which he was under fome anxiety, because he had never been there in perfon, and for that purpose defired Philemon, ver. 22. to prepare for him a lodging. Further, in his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, ch. iv. 20. he fpeaks of Trophimus, who was an Ephefian, and whom he had left fick behind him; but Trophimus was left at Miletus, not at Ephefus. We have no reason whatever therefore for fuppofing that St. Paul in travelling from Rome into Afia Minor went to Ephefus and confequently his folemn farewell of the Ephefian elders is no argument that he never returned into any other part of that country.

:

* Acts xxviii.

2 Tim. iv. 13. 20.

CHAP.

CHAP XVIII

OF THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

PHILEMON appears to have been a man of fubftance

at Coloffa, who had a fpacious house, in which not only a part of the Chriftian community in that city affembled, but likewife travelling Chriftians were entertained. He had therefore an ecclefiaftical office, and was deacon, whence St. Paul calls him, ver. 1. his fellow-labourer. From this title, Hoffmann, in his Introduct. ad Lection. Ep. ad Coloffenfes, § 18. concludes that Philemon was bithop of Coloffa, as fome of the ancients pretend, efpecially the author of the work called the Apoftolic Conftitutions. But Philemon, even as deacon, was a fellow-labourer of St. Paul: and therefore there is no neceffity, on account of this appellation, for making him a bifhop. The affertion of the fathers is in this cafe of no value: for thofe, whom they called the first bishops of the Chriftian churches, were generally bishops of their own creation. But, fetting this title afide, he appears to have been one of the firft converts in the Coloffian community, and to have learnt the doctrines of Chriftianity, not from Epaphras, as the other Coloffians had done, but from St. Paul himself. As St. Paul had not been at Coloffe, it is probable that Philemon came to him, while he refided at Ephefus. Archippus, the fon of Philemon, to whom this Epiftle, which is of the familiar kind, is likewife addreffed, had fhortly before been appointed deacon in the church of Coloffæ, as we see from Col. iv. 17. but not bishop, as Jerom pretends. St. Paul makes honourable mention. of him, and calls him, not merely his fellow-labourer, but his fellow-foldier.

See my third Note to this Epiftle. y Conftit. Apoft. Lib. VII. c. 46.

What

* See ver. 22. 2 Ver. 19.

What became of Onefimus is not known: but whoever wishes to know what has been conjectured by various writers on this fubject may confult the remarks on the tenth verfe of this Epiftle in Wolfii Curæ.

CHA P. XIX.

OF THE EPISTLE TO THE COLLOSSIANS.

SECT. I.

Of the fituation of Coloffa, and the circumftances of the Chriftian community in that city.

COLO

NOLOSSEÆ was a city of Phrygia, fituate at the conflux of the Lycus and the Meander. By what name it is called at prefent, I know not: for Chonus, or Konus, which is supposed to be the fame as Colossæ, is more probably the fame as Conium mentioned by Pliny, and clearly diftinguished by him from Coloffa. In the time of Herodotus it was a large city, and it is described as fuch alfo by Xenophon; but in the time of St. Paul it muft have loft much of its ancient greatnefs, for Strabo reckons it among the whispaτa, or fmall towns of Phrygia, in oppofition to the great cities, among which he places the neighbouring city Laodicea. Pliny indeed reckons it among the oppida celeberrima Phrygiæ:" but by but by oppidum' Pliny

hardly meant a great city, and if he did, his authority

in

* In D'Anville's map of Afia Minor, it will be found, as well as Laodicea and Hierapolis, which are mentioned in this Epistle, near the place where the 47th degree of longitude croffes the 38th degree of latitude. • Lib. V. § 41.

b Pag. 290. lin. 1.

Pag. 864, or 576.