SECT. II. Whether this Epiftle was written, while St. Paul was prifoner for the first time in Rome, or during a fecond imprisonment there. TH HAT St. Paul was a prifoner, when he wrote this Epiftle, is evident from ch. i. 8. 12. 16. ii. 9. and that his imprifonment was in Rome appears from ch. i. 17. But the queftion to be afked is, whether he wrote it during the imprisonment recorded by St. Luke in the laft chapter of the Acts: or whether he wrote it during a fecond imprisonment there. This question. will likewife involve another, namely, whether the old tradition, that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, be really true. It is obvious from the contents of this Epiftle, that. at the time, when St. Paul wrote it, his fituation was very different from that, in which he wrote the Epiftles to the Ephefians, Coloffians, Philemon, and the Philippians. For thefe Epiftles difcover very advantageous profpects, and fhew that the Apoftle expected to be foon releafed whereas the fecond Epiftle to Timothy plainly indicates, that he had then no other. expectation, than that of an approaching death. When he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, his caufe had taken fo favourable a turn, that many, even interested Jews, had been induced to preach the Golpel. But, when he wrote his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, his fituation was fuch, that every one of thofe, who were formerly his friends, had deferted him, excepting St. Luke. Further, St. Luke was not with him, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians: and again, the perfons, from whom he fends falutations in the fecond Ch. iv. 11. fecond Epistle to Timothy, ch. iv. 21. are not mentioned in any of St. Paul's former Epiftles, and appear therefore to have been perfons, with whom Timothy, who was in Rome, when St. Paul wrote his Epistles to the Coloffians and Philippians, had then made an acquaintance. Hence it is evident, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written under different circumstances, and at a different time from the abovementioned Epiftles. It must likewife appear highly probable, merely from this statement, that it was written later. But from this ftatement alone, we must not immediately conclude, that it was written during a fecond imprisonment: for it still remains poffible, that St. Paul was only once prifoner in Rome, and that the favourable expectations, and the hopes of a release, which he had in the former part of it, were changed before he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, efpecially in the year 65, when the Chriftians underwent a fevere perfecution from Nero. But, if this be true, and St. Paul remained prifoner in Rome from the time of his first arrival there to the time of his martyrdom, it must at leaft be admitted, that the Apostle wrote the fecond Epistle to Timothy toward the clofe of this, imprisonment, and fhortly before his death. Lardner, on the fuppofition that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, has taken great pains to prove, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during St. Paul's first imprisonment there. But though Lardner's arguments on this fubject are very numerous, they are totally ineffective. However, as he has collected almost every thing, which can be faid on this fide of the queftion, the reader will do well to confult him. The other fide of the queftion, namely, that this Epiftle was written during a fecond imprifonnent in Rome, is very ably, and very impartially fupported by Mofheim f Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory, Vol. II. p. 226-274. Mofheim in his Expofition of the two Epiftles to Timothy *. The main question, for the fake of greater perfpicuity, may be divided into the four following parts. 1. Was this Epiftle written during St. Paul's firft imprisonment in Rome? 2. Or during a fecond imprisonment there? 3. If St. Paul was only once prifoner in Rome, was it written in the former part of this imprisonment? 4. Or toward the close of it? Before I proceed to the examination of thefe queftions, I must obferve, what Mofheim indeed has already noticed, that the first queftion in fome meafure involves an abfurdity. For the opinion that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome is fupported by no historical evidence, and the fecond Epiftle to Timothy alone can furnish a proof, that he was actually releafed the first time, that he left Rome, that he afterwards returned thither, and was again imprifoned. It is true, that an exception may be made for the argument, which I deduced in the fecond fection of the preceding chapter, from Phil. i. 25. (where St. Paul confidently fpeaks of an approaching release) in favour of the opinion, that he was actually releafed, on the fuppofition, that the confident expectations of an infpired man could not be disappointed. But, as theologians both in ancient and in modern times have doubted, whether St. Paul was endued with a prophetic fpirit, in matters relating to his own life and fortune, it may be difputed, whether his expectations were fulfilled. Inftead therefore of inquiring, whether the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during St. Paul's firft imprisonment in Rome, we should ask whether it was written in the former part of his imprisonment there. Now that this is highly improbable appears from what has been already faid in this fection. What Pag. 609-622. See Ch. xvii. Sect. 2. What I have to advance on this fubject, I fhall deliver in the ten following arguments, the fix first of which are not decifive; but the four laft, I think, fhew beyond a doubt, that St. Paul was really a prifoner in Rome at two different times, and that this Epistle was written during the fecond imprisonment, 1. When St. Paul wrote to the Coloffians, and still later, when he wrote to the Philippians, Timothy was with him, as appears from Col. i. 1. Phil. i. 1. But Timothy was abfent, and in Afia Minor, when he received his fecond Epiftle from St. Paul. Now this argument fhews, that thefe Epiftles were written at different periods: but it does not determine which of them was written firft. As far as we can judge from the Acts of the Apoftles, Timothy did not accompany St. Paul on his voyage from Cæfarea to Italy, nor even on his journey to Jerufalem, where St, Paul was first apprehended: for the name of Timothy does not once occur from the twenty-firft chapter of the Acts to the end of the book. St. Paul therefore might have written the fecond Epiftle to Timothy immediately after his arrival in Rome, and have requefted him to come thither before the winter': confequently, Timothy came to Rome after the receipt of St. Paul's fecond Epiftle to him. On the other hand, St. Paul fays in his Epiftle to the Philippians, ch. ii. 19. he hopes foon to fend Timothy to them: whence it follows, that Timothy was abfent from Rome, foon after St. Paul wrote to the Philippians. Now if we affume only one imprisonment of St. Paul in Rome, it is not impoffible, that after Timothy's departure, the Apostle requested him to come again to Rome; but if St. Paul was prifoner there at two different times, we have no ground for the fuppofition, that Timothy, who was with St. Paul in the middle of the first imprifonment, was again with him at the beginning of the fecond. Ch. iv. 9. 21, 2. When 2. When St. Paul wrote the Epiftle to the Coloffians, St. Mark was with him, as appears from Coloff. iv. 10. Philem. 23. but St. Mark was abfent from St. Paul, when he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, as we see from ch. iv. 11. where he requests Timothy to bring St. Mark with him. This argument is again indecifive, and may be applied on the other fide of the queftion. St. Mark may very poffibly have been abfent from Rome in the firft year of St. Paul's imprifonment, have come thither before the winter, and confequently have been with St. Paul, when the Apoftle wrote to the Coloffians. On the other hand, it is equally poffible that St. Mark was with St. Paul, at the commencement of the imprisonment: but it must not therefore be inferred, that he was there likewife at the beginning of the fecond imprisonment, and confequently St. Paul, during the fecond imprisonment, may, by means of Timothy, have requested St. Mark to come again to Rome, where he had before been fo ferviceable to the Apostle. 3. St. Luke, who accompanied St. Paul from Cæfarea to Rome, and remained probably two years there, was with St. Paul, when he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, as well as, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Coloffians, as appears from 2 Tim. iv. 11. Col. iv. 14.: but St. Luke was not with him when he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, as I have already fhewn, Ch. xxi. Sect. 2. This argument may be likewife applied on both fides of the queftion. St. Luke, who was his ufual companion, may have been with him at Rome in a fecond, as well as in the firft imprisonment. And, during the two years imprisonment mentioned Acts xxviii. 30, 31. St. Paul's fituation was far from being fo dangerous, as it is reprefented in the second Epiftle to Timothy, 4. When St. Paul wrote to the Coloffians and to Philemon, Demas was with him, as we find in Col. iv. 14. Philem. 24.: but when he wrote the second Epistle |