affertion, I have left Trophimus fick at Miletus," means only, I have put Trophimus fick on fhore, that he might go to Miletus.' But this is a forced and unnatural explanation: for if St. Paul had fet Trophimus on fhore at any other place than Miletus, he would have mentioned that place, and not the place, where, according to this explanation, he really did not leave him. Besides, if Trophimus was fick, it would have been as fatiguing to have travelled to Miletus from the place, where he landed, as to have remained in the fhip and, if he was able to travel, he would have gone not to Miletus, but to Ephefus, for Trophimus was an Ephefian. This therefore is a mere evafion, which has no other object, than to prove at any rate, let the difficulties be what they will, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during St. Paul's first imprisonment in Rome.

10. St. Paul fays, ch. iv. 20. that Eraftus staid behind in Corinth. Confequently, St. Paul must have paffed through Corinth on that journey to Rome, after which he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy. But when he went from Cæfarea to Italy, it is evident from St. Luke's narrative, Acts xxvii, xxviii. that he could not have paffed through Corinth.

To this important argument Lardner has endeavoured to answer, by faying", that Eraftus ftaid behind at Corinth, when St. Paul left that city to go to Jerufalem. But at that time Timothy left Corinth in company with St. Paul, and therefore stood in no need of information in refpect to what Eraftus then did. This Lardner admits: but he answers, though very unfatisfactorily, that the Apostle reminded Timothy of this circumftance, in order to fhew him that his prefence was fo much the more neceffary. Further, Lardner's argument in favour of the opinion, that Eraftus was actually at Corinth, when St. Paul left that city to go to Jerufalem, is very infufficient. Eraftus, he fays, was fent by St. Paul from Ephefus into Macedonia, Acts xix. 22. Soon

a Pag. 235

Soon after, St. Paul himself went into Macedonia: and when he returned into Afia Minor, Eraftus did not return with him, for his name is not mentioned among St. Paul's attendants, Acts xx. 4. Now, if from thele premises we may draw any inference, it can be no other than this, that Eraftus flaid behind in Macedonia: but Lardner infers, that Eraftus ftaid behind in Corinth.

The preceding arguments, I think, clearly fhew, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during a fecond imprisonment of St. Paul in Rome. With refpect to the more minute circumftances of the time, it appears to have been written about the month of July, or at the latest in the month of Auguft; for St. Paul requefts Timothy, who was then in Afia Minor, to come to him before the winter, and the Epiftle was probably a month on its paffage. The year, in which it was written, I would rather fuppofe to be 66 than 65. For in the beginning of the year 65 St. Paul was released from his firft imprisonment: and between his release and his fecond imprisonment he had taken a very long journey, having vifited Corinth, Troas, Miletus, and, fince it was his intention to do fo, probably likewife Philippi and Coloffa. When St. Paul returned to Rome after this journey, and became again a prifoner, he found the fituation of affairs totally changed, which it is very eafy to conceive, and the conflagration of Rome, and the fubfequent perfecution of the Chriftians happened in the latter half of the year 65. St. Paul however could not have been in Rome during the violence of the perfecution, neither as prifoner, nor as free; for the process against him would then have been much shorter, than that which he defcribes in the fecond Epiftle to Timothy. Nor would Demas, Crefcens, Titus, and Tychicus, whom St. Paul mentions, ch. iv. 10, 12. as having left Rome, have been fuffered to depart unmolefted. But if we fuppofe, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written

• Correpti qui fatebantur, fays Tacitus.

in

in the fummer of the year 66, we may explain various phænomena in this Epiftle. The violence of the perfecution had then fubfided, yet the fear of a renewal of it prevented St. Paul's former friends from taking his part in public. Hence he fays, ch. iv. 16. that at his first answer, no one ventured to ftand with him; but he adds, ver. 17. that he was delivered for that time. out of the mouth of the lion.' From this expreffion we may conclude, that the danger, which St. Paul apprehended, was not that of fuffering death by the fword, but that of being expofed to wild beafts in a Roman amphitheatre, as feveral Chriftians had already been, and that in a very cruel manner. As fentence was not paffed on his firft hearing, a nondum liquet, according to the forms of the Roman law, must have been declared, and his profecutors directed to continue the fuit. An opportunity therefore was offered him of making a fecond defence; and, as the games of the amphitheatre were then over, he might conclude, that he would furvive the following winter. The falutations, which St. Paul fends in this Epiftle, are from perfons, whose names he had not mentioned before: and he is totally filent on Clement, and on other Perfons, whose names we should expect to find in this Epiftle. Perhaps they had already fuffered martyrdom, or, if not, had fled from Rome.

▸ Pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu earum interirent. Tacit. Annal. xv. 44.

↑ On this fubject the reader may confult Cicero, Proœmium A&t. I. in Verrem cap. 10. and recollect that the prolongation of the charge and defence might make it necessary to wait for evidence from diftant parts.

TH

SECT. III.

Contents of this Epiftle.

HIS Epiftle contains, for the most part, advice to Timothy to oppofe with all his power the false teachers, and to propagate the Gofpel. As falfe teachers, Hymenæus and Philetus are particularly mentioned, ch. ii. 17, 18. of whom St. Paul fays, Who, concerning the truth, have erred, faying, that the refurrection is past already.' What they meant, in faying,

that the refurrection is part already,' it is difficult exactly to determine. But it is highly probable, that they acted in the fame manner, as many perfons in the prefent age, who endeavour to alter the doctrines of Chriftianity. They denied the refurrection of the body at the day of judgement as taught by St. Paul: but they still retained the term 'refurrection,' that the oppofition might not be too glaring, and afcribed to it such a meaning, as they thought proper. They were unwilling to forfeit their title as Chriftians, and therefore would not fay in pofitive terms, that there was no fuch thing as a refurrection, becaufe Chrift himfelf had fpoken of it. Yet they denied the fact in their hearts, because it was not to be reconciled with their philofophy. In this refpect, they argued differently from modern fceptics, who refufe their affent to the doctrine of a refurrection of the body, because they think that the proofs of it are not fufficiently, ftrong to procure conviction; and who affert, not fo much that the doctrine is abfolutely falfe, as that no one can prove it to be true. But the fceptics in the time of St. Paul attempted to bring a pofitive proof of its falfhood: and arguing on the principles of the oriental philofophy, which derived all fin from matter, they contended, that the pure and fpiritual foul, when once delivered from its body or earthly imprisonment, would, instead

of

of deriving any advantage, materially fuffer from being again attached to it.

6

Perhaps, Hymenæus and Philetus, who retained the name of refurrection,' though they in fact denied the thing, afcribed to it a figurative meaning, and made it equivalent to regeneration :' for in this fenfe they might truly fay of every good Chriftian, that refurrection had already taken place. Or, as the doctrine of tranfmigration of fouls was at that time not uncommon, they might have taken the word refurrection' in this fenfe, and fay, that a refurrection took place, as often as a child was born.

As this Epiftle 'was written to St. Paul's moft intimate friend, and was not defigned for the ufe of others, it may ferve to exhibit to us the temper and character of St. Paul, and to convince us, that he was no deceiver, but that he fincerely believed the doctrines, which he preached. This fubject however, as it is of fome importance, I fhall examine at large in the following chapter.

CHAP. XXIII.

OF ST. PAUL'S CHARACTER AND MODE OF LIFE.

SECT. I.

Whether St. Paul was an impoftor, an enthufiaft, or a messenger from heaven.

S St. Paul was not a difciple of Chrift during his

A miniftry, and as many Jewifh zealots and other

heretics were offended at his doctrine, his right to the name and dignity of an Apostle of Chrift was difputed by many, especially in Galatia, and at Corinth. And

M 2

though