« AnteriorContinua »
“ A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetoux, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity*.” 1 Τim. chap. ii. 2-4.
“ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly; for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God, not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperatet.” Titus, chap. i. 6-8.
The most natural account which can be given of these resemblances, is to suppose that the two epistles were written nearly at
* ** Δει 8ν τον επισκοπον ανεπιληπτον είναι, μιας γυναικός ανδρα, νηφαλιον, σωφρονα, κοσμιον, φιλοξενον, διδακτικον, μη παροινον, μη πληκτην, μη αισχροκερδη: αλλ' επιεικη, αμαχον, αφιλαργυρον και τα ιδια σικά καλως προϊσταμενον, τεκνα εχοντα εν υποταγη μετά πασης σεμνότητος.”
* « Ει τις εςιν ανεγκλητος, μιας γυναικος, ανηρ, τεκνα έχων πιςα, μη εν κατηγορια ασωτίας, η ανυποτακτα. Δει γαρ του επισκοπον ανεγκλητον ειναι, ως Θεου οικονομον, μη αυθαδη, μη Φργιλον, μη παρόνον, μη πληκτην, μη αισχροκερδη: αλλα φικαξενον, φιλαγαθον, σωφρονα, δικαιον, οσιον, εγκρατη.”
the same time, and whilst the same ideas and phrases dwelt in the writer's mind. Let us inquire therefore, whether the notes of time, extant in the two epistles, in any manner favour this supposition.
We have seen that it was necessary to refer the First Epistle to Timothy to a date subsequent to St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, because there was no journey
into Macedonia prior to that event, which accorded with the circumstance of leaving “ Timothy behind at Ephesus.” The journey of St. Paul from Crete, alluded to in the epistle before us, and in which Titus “ left in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting," must, in like manner, be carried to the period which intervened between his first and second imprisonment. For the history, which reaches, we know, to the time of St. Paul's first imprisonment, contains no account of his going to Crete, except upon his voyage as a prisoner to Rome; and that this could not be the occasion referred to in our epistle is evident from hence, that when St. Paul wrote this epistle, he appears to have been at liberty ; whereas after that voyage, , he continued for two years at least in confinement. Again, it is agreed that St. Paul wrote his First Epistle to Timothy from Ma. cedonia :-“ As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went (or came) into Macedonia.” And that he was in these parts, i. es in this peninsula when he wrote the Epistle to Titus, is rendered probable by his directing Titus to come to him to Nicopolis : 66 When I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus, be diligent (make haste) to come unto me to Nicopolis ; for I have determined there to winter.” The most noted city of that name was in Epirus, near to Actium. And I think the form of speaking, as well as the nature of the case, renders it probable, that the writer was at Nicopolis, or in the neighbourhood thereof, when he dictated this direction to Titus.
Upon the whole, if we may be allowed to suppose that St. Paul, after his liberation at Rome, sailed into Asia, taking Crete in his way; that from Asia and from Ephesus, the capital of that country, he proceeded into Macedonia, and crossing the peninsula in his progress, came into the neighbourhood of Nicopolis ; we have a route which falls in with every thing. It executes the intention expressed by the apostle of visiting Colosse and Philippi as soon as he should be set at
liberty at Rome. It allows him to leave “ Titus at Crete,” and “ Timothy at Ephesus, as he went into Macedonia :” and to write to both not long after from the peninsula of Greece, and probably the neighbourhood of Nicopolis: thus bringing together the dates of these two letters, and thereby accounting for that affinity between them, both in subject and language, which our remarks have pointed out. I confess that the journey which we have thus traced out for St. Paul, is, in a great measure hypothetic : but it should be observed, that it is a species of consistency, which seldom belongs to falsehood, to admit of an hypothesis, which includes a great number of independent circumstances without contradiction.
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
The singular correspondèncy between this epistle and that to the Colossians has been remarked already. An assertion in the Epistle to the Colossians, viz. that “ Onesimus was one of them," is verified, not by any mention of Colosse, any the most distant intimation concerning the place of Philemon's abode, but singly by stating Onesimuś to be Philemon's servant, and by joining in the salutation Philemon with Archippus ; for this Archippus, when we go back to the Epistle to the Colossians, appears to have been an inhabitant of that city, and, as it should seem to have held an office of authority in that church. The case stands thus. Take the Epistle to the Colossians alone, and no circumstance is discoverable which makes out the assertion, that Onesimus was one of them.” Take the Epistle to Philemon alone, and nothing at all appears concerning the place to which Philemon