labouring to impeach their canonical authority, and by the real difficulties of adjusting their chronology, occasioned, 1. By the want of formal references in the Epistles and Acts to each other; 2. By reason of the few distinguishing characters of time, thinly and incidentally scattered through both; insomuch that 3. Even the fundamental dates of Paul's conversion, his first voyage to Rome, and his martyrdom, are undecided among chronologers and critics hitherto, even the most eminent: Usher, Lloyd, Petavius, Pearson, Wells, Whitby, Barrington, Benson, Lardner, Paley, Michaelis, &c. &c. Quot homines, tot sententiæ; furnishing a choice of difficulties to Biblical students, and of objections to Sceptics.

THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.

These, in the canon, are not ranged in chronological order, but according to the rank and importance of the several Churches to which they were addressed, the Romans, Corinthians, &c. then follow the private Epistles to Timothy, Titus, &c. and lastly, the Epistle to the Hebrews, or converted Jews of Palestine, probably because it is anonymous.

Paul's Epistles, in former times, were rejected by the Judaizing Christians, the Ebionites, who called him an Apostate from THE LAW. Lardner, Vol. VII. p. 20.

And treading in their steps, (if we recollect right,) some leading writers of the Unitarian school, Evanson, &c. have questioned their genuineness; but there are none whose canonical authority is better ascertained, both by external, or historical, and by internal evidence, than his inimitable writings (in the strictest sense of the word), which it would be impossible to forge, or counterfeit.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

This may rank among the earliest of Paul's Epistles. It was reckoned the first by the primitive heretic, Marcion, (whose heresy does not invalidate his testimony as to a matter of fact,) and also by his opponent, Tertullian.

The Galatians were originally a tribe of Gauls, who had invaded Greece, and afterwards settled in the upper, or northern part of Asia Minor. They were among the Apostle's earliest

converts, and had been converted probably during his ministry at Antioch, for a whole year, Acts xi. 26, Gal. i. 6.

This Epistle must have been written soon after their conversion: for he complains in it of their speedy apostacy from his doctrine, Gal. i. 6. And he warns them, in the strongest and most forcible terms, against the Judaizing teachers, with which Syria and Asia then swarmed, who wished to subject the Gentile Churches to circumcision and the yoke of the Law, i. 7—9. And he reproaches them, O foolish Galatians, &c. iii. 1. The warmth of this Epistle, indeed, led Tertullian to conclude that Paul was then a "Neophyte," or a novice in Christianity himself, Cont. Marcion. I. 20. He thus reproaches them for their Judaizing spirit.

"Formerly, when ye knew not GOD, [in your pagan state,] ye served them, which, by nature, are not Gods, [idols,] and now, after ye have known GOD, (or rather have been known by HIM,) how can ye turn again to those weak and beggarly elements [of the Levitical law] which ye desire to serve again anew? Ye keep days and months, and seasons and years. fear for you, lest somehow I have laboured as to you in vain," Gal. iv. 8-11.

I

By a very ingenious conjecture, Michaelis reckons that these years meant Jewish Sabbatical years; and that the Galatians were then on the point of keeping such a year, by leaving their lands uncultivated, though the Mosaical law designed for the Holy Land certainly did not extend to Galatia. But the year A.D. 49, the year of the first Apostolical council held at Jerusalem, on the question whether the Gentile Church was bound to observe the law of Moses, he suspected was a Sabbatical year, and the same in which the Epistle itself was written. Michaelis' Introduction to New Test. Vol. IV. p. 11. Marsh's Translation.

What Michaelis conjectured, but was not able to establish from the discordant systems of chronology in his time, may be proved by the present. The first year of our Lord's public ministry, A.D. 28, was a Sabbatical year, and also a jubilee. (See note, p. 87.) Therefore, A.D. 49, which was 3 x 7 12 years after, was also a Sabbatical year.

It is more probable, however, that the Epistle was not written during the Sabbatical year itself in which Paul attended the

council at Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 1, but rather the year after, A.D. 50*, during the Apostle's circuit through the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, to confirm them in the faith, and to communicate to them the Apostolical decree, Acts xvi. 36-41, xvi. 4.

The superscription at the end of this epistle represents it as written from Rome. But this is a mistake, for Paul did not visit Rome till A.D. 62, twelve years after. The superscriptions, indeed, are of no authority, unless so far as they are supported by internal evidence.

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.

Thessalonica was the capital of one of the four districts into which Macedonia was divided by the Romans, after the conquest of that country. The Jews were extremely numerous here, and their synagogue was called by way of eminence ǹ ovvaγωγή, "the Synagogue," Acts xvii. 1.

During his first circuit Paul formed a Church here, composed of Jews and Gentiles, of whom the latter were most numerous, Acts xvii. 2-4. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up a persecution against him and his company, and they were forced to fly to Berea, and from thence to Athens, Acts xvii. 5-15. These persecutions prevented the Apostle from visiting them again, as he had intended, 1 Thess. ii. 17, 18; so he sent Silas and Timothy to visit them in his stead, 1 Thess. iii. 6. On their return to him at Corinth, Acts xvii. 14, 15, xviii. 5, he wrote, in conjunction with Silas and Timothy, his two Epistles to them, 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1, to correct some errors they entertained respecting the speedy approach of the general judgment, which they expected in that age; and to rectify some misconceptions of the meaning of his first letter.

We may rank the first Epistle next to that to the Galatians, written most probably about A.D. 51; and the second soon after, about the beginning of A.D. 52, with Whitby and Michaelis +.

+ Pearson, Barrington, Benson, Lardner, date both....A.D. 52.

The Bible Chronology

54.

THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.

Titus was a Greek, and one of Paul's early converts, who attended him and Barnabas to the first council of Jerusalem, A.D. 49, and afterwards on his ensuing circuit, Gal. ii. 1-3; Acts xv. 2.

During Paul's stay at Corinth for a year and a half, the first time about A.D. 51 and A.D. 52, it is most likely that he made a voyage to the island of Crete, in order to preach the Gospel there, and took with him Titus as an assistant, whom he left behind him to regulate the concerns of that Church, Tit. i. 5. Shortly after his return, probably to Corinth, he wrote this letter of instructions to Titus how to conduct himself in his episcopal office, with directions to come back to him at Nicopolis, where he meant to winter, Tit. iii. 12. The superscription supposes that this was "Nicopolis, a city of Macedonia;" and Michaelis has shewn that there were several of the name both in Asia and Europe; but it was more probably the city of that name in the neighbourhood of Corinth, built by Augustus, in Epirus, near the promontory of Actium, in honour of his victory over Anthony and Cleopatra.

The Acts of the Apostles are totally silent respecting Titus and this voyage to Crete. Whence we may collect with Michaelis that it took place in the early part of Paul's ministry, which is very briefly noticed in the Acts. This is much more probable than the later period assigned by Lardner *, namely, during Paul's second visit to Greece; or the latest, by Paley, (following the Bible Chronology,) during Paul's third visit, between the time of his leaving Rome the first time until his return and martyrdom there. For the second circuit is described so

Lardner, as usual, states his opinion with diffidence. "It appears to me very probable, that at this time Paul was in Illyricum and Crete. But I cannot digest the order of his journeys, since St. Luke has not related them,” vi. p. 287. And Michaelis has well described the gradual change of his own opinion from the received, till the last, in which he rested.

"In the first edition of the Introduction I described the Epistle to Titus, as written after St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome. In the second edition I wavered in this opinion. When I published the third edition, I thought it highly probable that the epistle was written long before St. Paul's voyage as a prisoner to Italy, [when he only touched at Crete, and the Centurion rejected his advice of wintering there, Acts xxvii. 7-21,] and at present [in the fourth edition, 1780.] I have no doubt that this Epistle was written long before St. Paul's voyage as a prisoner to Italy," iv. p. 32. Marsh's Translation.

particularly in the Acts, that there does not seem to be time or place for this voyage and wintering at Nicopolis; and still less in the last circuit, as we may collect from the incidental account of it in the second Epistle to Timothy, written by Paul during his second imprisonment at Rome, shortly before his death *.

Paley, in his admired Hora Paulina, gives the following "hypothetic route," as he terms it, of the Apostle's last journey.

"If we may be allowed to suppose that St. Paul, after his liberation at Rome, sailed into Asia, taking Crete in his way; and that from Asia, and from Ephesus, the capital of that country, he proceeded into Macedonia; and crossing this 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, (Philemon, ver. 22.) and Philippi, (Phil. ii. 24,) as soon as he should be set at liberty at Rome. It allows him to leave Titus at Crete,' (Tit. i. 5,) and Timothy at Ephesus, as he went into Macedonia,' (1 Tim. i. 3;) 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 at," p. 366, 367.

It is really a pity that so simple and consistent an hypothesis throughout, "including a great number of independent circumstances without contradiction," should be destitute of solid foundation.

The second Epistle to Timothy, (which Paley acknowledges was written during Paul's second imprisonment,) in the last chapter, completely overturns his hypothesis. 1. There is no notice taken therein of any voyage by sea to Asia. But not to rest on this negative argument, let us trace the actual route through Corinth, Troas and Miletus, and probably through Colosse and Philippi.

2. Titus could not then be left in Crete, for he was actually in Dalmatia, near Illyricum, ver. 10.

3. Timothy was not left at Ephesus, because the Apostle did not visit Ephesus; he sailed by it on his last journey to Jerusalem, Acts xx. 16, though he stopped at Miletus, in its neighbourhood, and there told the Presbyters of Ephesus, whom he sent for, that they should see his face no more, which afflicted them with great grief, Acts xx. 17-38. Paley supposes that the Apostle said this rather "despondingly," than " by THE SPIRIT," p. 326. But we can see good reason for the contrary; for what inducement could he have to revisit a city where he had been already so ill treated and persecuted, only to provoke fresh persecution? When he was forced to quit Ephesus in the uproar raised by the shrine makers of Diana, Acts xix. 23—40, he seems to have taken a final farewell of the disciples there, (aoñaoaμɛvoc,) Acts xx. 1.

Paul, it is true, left Trophimus sick at Miletus, the last time, ver. 20. But why should he communicate this intelligence, if Timothy was now at Ephesus, in that neighbourhood? especially as Trophimus himself was an Ephesian, Acts xxi. 29, and must have had intercourse with his friends there. But Timothy was not at Ephesus, he was rather in the northern part of Asia, in Pontus perhaps, with Aquila and Priscilla, ver. 11, who were of that country, Acts xviii. 21. And from Pontus, Timothy's route to Corinth, where Paul left Erastus, ver. 20, lay directly through Troas, whence he was commissioned to bring with him the letter case or trunk, the books, and especially the parchments which the Apostle had left behind him there, ver. 13.

4. Nicopolis, near Actium, was quite out of the route to Rome from Corinth; therefore the Apostle did not visit it, and certainly had not time to winter there on his last journey.