recommends them to the church, In the Epistle to the Romans this appears more clearly than in any other of St. Paul's Epiftles: for he not only beftows particular commendations on moft of thofe, whom he falutes, but in the midft of his falutations he introduces a warning against thofe, whose 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.

CHA P. XVII.

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

SECT. I.

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

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 Philemon, and alfo that to the Philippians. This circumftance of time it will be neceffary to prove.

That the Epiftle to the Coloffians was dispatched at the fame time with the Epiftle 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 mafler 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 purpofe, 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 ail 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 Epistle 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 must 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 fresh 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 objections, which in my opinion do not weaken its force.

1. It is likely that the Apostle 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 prin- . ciples, and exhortations to Christian 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 anfwered, defignedly to have used the fame expreffions in two different letters. Agreement in expreffions arifes feldom from a real intention, but generally from the circumftance, that thofe which we have used laft, prefent themselves unfought, and fometimes against our inclination, when we again write on the fame fnbject.

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

deal

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. O EYEVUNTA EV TO15 decμoss μx*, and that he was likewife a prifoner when he wrote his Epiftle to the Ephefians is certain from what the Apoftle himself fays, ch. iii. 1. iv. 1. vi. 20. But, what is ftill more decifive, the very fame perfon, namely Tychicus, who carried the Epiftle to the Ephe. fians, carried alfo the Epiftle to the Coloffians, as appears from Ephef. vi. 21. Col. iv. 7. As Ephefus lay on the sea coaft, and Coloffe at fome diftance from it, it is probable that Tychicus landed at Ephefus, and having delivered the Epiftle to the Chriftian community in that city, continued his route to Coloffe, in company with Onelimus, who went with him from Rome, and

is

deal longer than that to the Coloffians: and in' thofe 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 Epistle to the Ephefians any notice taken of Timothy, or Epaphras, or Mark, fo exprefsly mentioned in the Epifle 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 Ephefians 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 feveral other churches in Afia Minor, with which Timothy was unacquainted.

* See alfo ver. 13.

is mentioned in the Epiftle to the Coloffians, as the attendant of Tychicus on his journey thither.

I am fenfible that many commentators are of a different opinion but I hope their principal doubts are removed by what I have faid concerning the journey of Tychicus. Whoever wishes to be acquainted with what other writers have faid on this fubject, and with the grounds of their opinions, may confult the Prolegomena to the Epiftle to the Ephefians, in Wolfii Curæ philologicæ et criticæ.

SECT. II.

Examination of the question, whether St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome: and if he was, in which of the two imprisonments thefe Epiftles were written.

I

Tis the common opinion that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, that the firft ended with reftoration to his liberty, and the fecond with death, which he fuffered by the fword. If this be true, the queftion occurs, in which of the two imprisonments did St. Paul write thefe, and fome other Epiftles hereafter to be mentioned'? But before this queftion be examined, it is neceffary to inquire whether the opinion, that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, which many deny, is really grounded.

It must be admitted that no hiftorian contemporary with St. Paul has made the leaft mention of his having been twice in Rome, that is, of his having left Rome, at the end of the imprisonment recorded by St. Luke in the last chapter of the Acts, and his afterwards returning thither. The earliest writer, who has spoken of this journey,

This queftion particularly concerns the Epiftle to the Hebrews, as will be afterwards fhewn.

journey, is Eufebius, who lived in the fourth century; and even Eufebius gives it only as a report, for instead of relating it as an undoubted fact, he introduces it with the expreffion, λoyos Exe. It is true that he enλόγος έχει. deavours to corroborate the report by an appeal to 2 Tim. iv. 16.: but the argument, which he builds on this paffage, is without foundation. Omitting therefore his remarks, I will quote only what is to our prefent purpofem. Τοτε μεν εν απολογησαμένου αυθις επι την το κηρύγματος διακονιαν λόγος έχει ςειλασθαι τον Απος-ολον, δεύτερον δ' επιβαντα τη αυτή πόλει τῷ κατ' αυτον τελείω θηνας μαρτυρία, εν ώ δεσμοις εχομενος την προς Τιμόθεον δεύτερων επιστολήν συντάττει. There is a report, that the Apostle, after he had anfwered the charges, which had been laid to him", again went out to preach the Gofpel: but that, when he went up a fecond time to the fame city, he finished his life with martyrdom, and that at this time he wrote in bonds the fecond Epiftle to Timothy. Now a fact, recorded for the first time at leaft two hundred and fifty years, after it is fuppofed to have happened, and then given only as a report, cannot be faid to reft on very strong hiftorical evidence: and when we confider the extreme zeal and activity of St. Paul's life, it must appear very extraordinary, if he left Rome after the imprisonment recorded by St. Luke in the laft chapter of the Acts, took feveral journeys, and then returned thither again, that not even tradition fhould have preferved the remembrance of any one act, which he performed in this interval. It is true, that filence in regard to any fact is no proof that it did not happen: and in the prefent

m Hift. Ecclef. Lib. II. cap. 22.

Eufebius here means, in the imprisonment at Rome related in the laft chapter of the Acts.

Whither, this report of the fourth century does not fay. This chaẩm modern writers have filled up with various conjectures, and have tranfported St. Paul, not only to Greece, Afia, and Crete, but likewise to Spain, and even into Britain.