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 beasts in a Roman amphitheatre, as feveral Christians had already been, and that in a very cruel manner P. As fentence was not paffed on his first 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 1. falutations, which St. Paul fends in this Epiftle, are from perfons, whofe names he had not mentioned before: and he is totally filent on Clement, and on other perfons, whofe names we fhould expect to find in this Epiftle. Perhaps they had already fuffered martyrdom, or, if not, had fled from Rome.

ས་

The

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

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

VOL. IV.

M

SECT.

SECT. III.

Contents of this Epiftle.

HIS Epiftle contains, for the moft part, advice to Timothy to oppofe with all his power the falfe teachers, and to propagate the Gospel. As falfe teachers, Hymenæus and Philetus are particularly mentioned, ch. ii. 17, 18. of whom St. Paul fays, Who, concerning the truth, have érred, faying, that the refurrection is paft already.' What they meant, in faying, that the refurrection is paft 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 Christianity. They denied the refurrection of the body at the day of judgement as taught by St. Paul: but they ftill retained the term refurrection,' that the oppofition might not be too glaring, and afcribed to it fuch 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, because Chrift himself 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.

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 most intimate friend, and was not defigned for the use 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.

CHA P. 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 Jewish 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

G

though he triumphed over his enemies, and filenced them during his life, yet fome later heretics have refufed to acknowledge him as a meffenger from Christ. But his divine miffion is fufficiently proved by his miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghoft. I have not room to enlarge, as I could with, on this fubject: but I will take notice of the principal objections, which in modern times have been made to St. Paul's divine miffion. That he wilfully and malicioufly impofed upon the world is an affertion almost too abfurd to be made: for it is impoffible to conceive what advantage he could have propofed to himself from the impofture. He fubfifted by the labour of his own hands; he lost his credit among the Jews by preaching the Gospel; he involved himself in troubles and difgrace; and was at laft obliged to feal his doctrine with his blood. If we confider further the undiffembled calmness of mind, confpicuous throughout the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, at a time when his death was impending, he cannot poffibly be taken for a wicked deceiver, who was dif appointed in his hope. According to Epiphanius', the Ebionites propagated the following ridiculous ftory. St. Paul, they faid, who acknowledged himself to be a native of Tarfus, was born a heathen: but that on coming to Jerufalem he was captivated with the daughter of a Jewish high prieft, and in order to obtain her in marriage underwent the rite of circumcifion. His expectations however, they fay, were difappointed, and on that account St. Paul became fuch an enemy to the Jewish religion, that he refolved to preach Chriftianity as the fureft means of undermining it. This story is fo abfurd, that it carries with it its own confutation.

Others pretend, that St. Paul was an enthufiaft, and that he was not fo much an intentional deceiver of others, as one, who was himself deceived. It is faid,

• Hæref. XXX. § 16.

that

• The name of the high priest is very prudently not mentioned.

that the appearance of Chrift to St. Paul on his journey to Damafcus was merely an imaginary vifion, and the refult of St. Paul's heated imagination: that it was merely thunder, which he took for the voice of Chrift, and which he fancied to be a call from Heaven: and that his own gift of miracles, as well as his power of imparting it to others, was wholly ideal. The common anfwer to this objection is, that his former zeal for the law and againft Chrift rendered it impoffible for him to perfuade himself falfely that Chrift had appeared to him, and called him to be an Apoftle. But this anfwer is not fatisfactory: for enthufiafts always run into extremes, and are very apt in certain circumftances to imagine things directly oppofite to their former fentiments. I would propofe therefore the following questions.

1. If the appearance of Chrift to St. Paul, related in the ninth chapter of the Acts, was a mere imaginary vifion, and only a phantom which prefented itfelf to St. Paul's agitated mind, what is the reafon that his companions likewife faw and heard any part of what paffed?

2. How could St. Paul imagine to the end of his days, that he wrought certain miracles, which were never wrought? Were not his fenfes evidences to him of the contray? How could he imagine that he communicated to others the gift of tongues, if they did not fpeak languages, with which they were before acquainted? Was St. Paul himfelf, were the Chriftian communities, to which he wrote, were his fellow-labourers, fo deprived both of their fight and hearing, as to imagine these things, if they had never happened? The prophets of the Cevennes in the prefent century were the greatest enthusiasts in the world: yet they did not imagine the contrary of what they faw and heard. And though they were fanguine in prophefying, that they should raise the dead, they never ventured to make the experiment. But St. Paul, it is pretended, perfuaded himself almost twenty fucceffive years, that he was working what he