confideration does not affect the eternal power of God over us, and that while we are under the law of Mofes, we become perpetually fubject to death, even for fins of inadvertency, ch. vii. 1-25.

10. From thefe premifes he concludes, that ali thofe, and those only, who are united with Chrift, and for the fake of this union live not according to the flesh, are free from the condemnation of the law, and have an undoubted right to eternal life, ch. viii. 1-17.

11. Having defcribed the happiness of all fuch perfons, he is aware that the Jews, who expected temporal bleffings, would object to him, that the Chriftians, notwithstanding what he had faid, ftill endured many fufferings in this world. This objection he obviates, ch. viii. 18-39.

12. He fhews, that God is not the less true and faithful, because he does not justify, but rather rejects and punithes the Jews, who would not believe in the Meffiah, ch. ix. x. xi. His difcourfe on this fubject is arranged as follows:

A. The introduction, in which he difplays the utmost caution, ch. ix. 1-5.

B. The differtation itself, which confifts of three principal parts.

a). St. Paul fhews that the promifes of God were never made to all the pofterity of Abraham: that God always referved to himself the power of choofing those fons of Abraham, whom for Abraham's fake he intended to blefs, and of punishing the wicked fons of Abraham: and that in refpect to temporal happiness or mifery, even their good or ill conduct did not determine his choice. Thus Ishmael, Efau, the Ifraelites in the defert in the time of Mofes, and the greater part of that nation in the time of Ifaiah, were rejected and made a facrifice of his juftice, ch. ix. 6-29.

b.) He fhews, that God had reafon to reject moft of the Jews then living, because they would not believe

believe in the Meffiah, though the Gospel had been plainly preached to them, ch. ix. 30.-x. 21.

). Yet God rejected not all his people, but was ftill fulfilling his promifes on many thoufand natural defcendants of Abraham, who believed in the Meffiah, and at a future period would fulfil them upon more, fince all Ifrael would be converted, ch. xi. 11-32.

C. The conclufion, in which the Apoftle expreffes his admiration of the wife counfels of God, ch. xi. 33-36.

13. From the doctrines hitherto laid down, and particularly from this, that God has in his mercy accepted the Gentiles, he argues that the Romans fhould confecrate and offer themselves wholly to God. This leads him to mention in particular fome Chriftian duties, ch. xii.

14. He exhorts them to be fubject to the magiftrates, ch. xiii. 1-7.

15. He recommends brotherly love, ver. 8-10.

16. He commands them to abstain from thofe vices, which the heathens confidered as matters indifferent, ver. 11-14.

17. He exhorts the Jews and Gentiles in the Chrif tian church to brotherly unity, ch. xiv. 1.-xv. 3. The Chriftian community in Rome appears to have been divided into parties, who purpofely affembled in separate places of worthip. But on this fubject I fhall fay inore, in my Notes to this Epiftle.

18. He concludes, with an apology for having ventured to admonish the Romans, whom he had not converted; with an account of his intended journey to Jerufalem; and with falutations to thofe perfons, whom he intended to recommend to public notice, ch. xv. 14.xvi. 27. In refpect to the falutations, it will be neceffary to make the following remark :

When St. Paul defires a Chriftian community to falute certain members in his name, he thereby infinuates that he esteems those perfons as his particular friends, and

recommends

recommends them to the church. In the Epiftle to the Romans this appears more clearly than in any other of St. Paul's Epiftles: for he not only beftows particular 'commendations on most of thofe, whom he falutes, but in the midst of his falutations he introduces a warning against those, whofe fociety was to be avoided, ch. xvi. 17-20. Hence we fee, that not even the falutations in St. Paul's Epiftles were unworthy of a divine infpiration, or the direction of the Holy Spirit.

GENERAL

CHAP. XVII.

REMARKS ON SOME OF THE EPISTLES WRITTEN BY ST. PAUL DURING HIS IMPRISONMENT IN ROME; AND ON THE IMPRISONMENT

ITSELF.

SECT. I.

The Epistles to the Ephefians, Coloffians, and Philemon, were written by St. Paul, while he was prifoner in Rome, and were dispatched at the fame time.

A

FTER St. Paul had written his Epiftle to the Romans, he went to Jerufalem, where he was apprehended by the Jews, and was with difficulty rescued by the Roman guard. On this occafion however he was deprived of his liberty, and after a tedious imprisonment was fent to Rome, where he arrived in the spring of the year 61. During his confinement in Rome, which was not a very clofe one, he wrote about the fame time his Epiftles to the Ephefians, to the Coloffians, to Phile mon, and alfo that to the Philippians. This circumftance of time it will be neceffary to prove.

That the Epistle to the Coloffians was dispatched at the fame time with the Epistle to Philemon, is evident from

from Col. iv. 9. Onefimus, a flave who had deferted his mafter Philemon, was converted by St. Paul then a prifoner in Rome, and fent back to his mafter with a letter from the Apoftle. Now St. Paul fays to the Coloffians, ch. iv. 7-9. All my ftate fhall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minifter and fellow fervant in the Lord: whom I have fent unto you for the fame purpose, that ye might know your eftate, and comfort your hearts, with Onefimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They fhall make known unto you all things, which are done here.' It is certain therefore that St. Paul wrote the Epiftle to the Coloffians immediately before the departure of Onefimus from Rome, and therefore at the fame time, that he wrote to Philemon. Between the Epiftle to the Coloffians and that to the Ephefians there is fo great a fimilarity, not only in the fentiments, but in the very expreffions, that we muft conclude they were written about the fame time, or fo near to each other, that the expreffions, which the Apoftle had ufed in the former, were freth in his memory, when he wrote the latter'. Further, the circumftances attending both Epiftles

To this argument, which other commentators have used before me, Dr. Lardner in his Supplement, Vol. II. p. 214-216 makes the three following obje&ions, which in my opinion do not weaken its force.

1. It is likely that the Apofle kept copies of his letters. If fo, it might be eafy for him to write after the fame manner at different times, to people not very remote from each other, and whofe circumftances were much alike. Indeed without keeping copies of his letters, it would be no difficult matter for St. Paul to repeat the Chriftian principles, and exhortations to Chriftian virtues, in like expreffions, if the circumftances required it.

Anf. That this would have afforded no difficulty to St. Paul, if he had actually defigned it, I readily grant: but I cannot conceive what end it .could have answered, defignedly to have ufed the fame expreffions in two different letters. Agreement in expreffions arifes feldom from a real intention, but generally from the circumftance, that those which we have used laft, prefent themfelves unfought, and fometimes against our 'inclination, when we again write on the fame fubject.

2. Though there is a refemblance between thefe two Epiftles, they are very different. For the Epistle to the Ephefians is a good

Epiftles are precifely the fame. Both of them were written by St. Paul as a prifoner. That this is true of the Epistle to the Coloffians is evident, because in his Epiftle to Philemon, which was written at the fame time, he fays of Onefimus, ver. 10. Ον εγέννησα εν τοις δεσμοις μεk, and that he was likewife a prifoner when he wrote his Epistle to the Ephefians is certain from what the Apostle himself fays, ch. iii. 1. iv. 1. vi. 20. But, what is ftill more decifive, the very fame person, namely Tychicus, who carried the Epiftle to the Ephefians, carried alfo the Epiftle to the Coloffians, as appears from Ephef. vi. 21. Col. iv. 7. As Ephefus lay on the fea coast, and Coloffe at fome diftance from it, it is probable that Tychicus landed at Ephefus, and having delivered the Epistle to the Chriftian community in that city, continued his route to Coloffa, in company with Onefimus, who went with him from Rome, and

is

deal longer than that to the Coloffians: and in those places, where there is an agreement, there are differences.

Anf. This objection is foreign to the purpose: for when it is faid that expreffions ufed in one Epiftle occur in writing another, which is fent at the fame time, it is not meant that these two Epiftles will be in all respects alike, or copies of each other.

3.

Nor is there in the Epiftle to the Ephefians any notice taken of Timothy, or Epaphras, or Mark, fo exprefsly mentioned in the Epistle to the Coloffians: which must be reckoned a very ftrong, and even demonftrative argument, that these two Epiftles were not written and fent away at the fame time.'

Anf. But this argument is no more demonftrative, than the preceding. For St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Ephefian's has fent no falutations whatever, and therefore no inference can be drawn from the omiffion of any one name in particular. It is true, that he might have mentioned the name of Timothy after his own, at the beginning of the Epiftle: but various caufes might have contributed to this omiffion, even though Timothy were then in Rome: for inftance, that Timothy was not the perfon to whom St. Paul dictated the Epistle to the Ephefians, or that Timothy had written to them him felf, or (what is probably the true caufe) that this Epiftle was intended, as will appear in the fequel, not only for the Ephefians, but for several other churches in Afia Minor, with which Timothy was unacquainted.

See alfo ver. 13.