« ForrigeFortsæt »
repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me." The seizing, therefore, of St. Paul's person, from which he was never discharged till his final liberation at Rome; and of which, therefore, his imprisonment at Rome was the continuation and effect, was not in consequence of any general persecution set on foot against Christianity ; nor did it befall him simply as professing or teaching Christ's religion, which James and the elders at Jerusulem did as well as he (and yet, for any thing that appears, remained at that time unmolested); but it was distinctly and specifically brought upon him by his activity in preaching to the Gentiles, and by his placing them upon a level with the once-favoured and still self-flattered posterity of Abraham. How well St. Paul's letters, purporting to be written during this imprisonment, agree with this account of its cause and origin, we have already seen.
Chap. iv. 10. “ Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth
and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments : If he come unto you, receive him); and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision.”
We find Aristarchus as a companion of our apostle in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, and the twenty-ninth verse: “And the whole city of Ephesus was filled with confusion; and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre." And we find him upon his journey with St. Paul to Rome, in the twenty-seventh chapter, and the second verse: “ And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus's band : and, entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coast of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.” But might not the author of the epistle have consulted the history; and, observing that the historian had brought Aristarchus along with Paul to Rome, might he not for that reason, and without any other foundation, have put down his name amongst the salutations of an epistle purporting to be written by the apostle from that place ? I allow so much of possibility to this objection, that I should not have proposed this in the number of coincidences clearly undesigned, had Aristarchus stood alone. The observation that strikes me in reading the passage is, that together with Aristarchus, whose journey to Rome we trace in the history, are joined Marcus and Justus, of whose coming to Rome the history says nothing. Aristarchus alone appears in the history, and Aristarchus alone would have appeared in the epistle, if the author had regulated himself by that conformity. Or if you take it the other way, if you suppose the history to have been made out of the epistle, why the journey of Aristarchus to Rome should be recorded, and not that of Marcus and Justus, if the groundwork of the narrative was the appearance of Aristarchus's name in the epistle, seems to be unaccountable.
Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas." Does not this hint account for Barnabas's adherence to Mark in the contest that arose with our apostle concerning him ?. “And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do; and Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark; but Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work ; and the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other : and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed unto Cyprus.” The history which records the dispute has not preserved the circumstance of Mark's relationship to Barnabas. It is nowhere noticed but in the text before us. As far, therefore, as it applies, the application is certainly undesigned.
“Sister's son to Barnabas." This woman, the mother of Mark, and the sister of Barnabas, was, as might be expected, a person of some eminence amongst the Christians of Jerusalem. It so happens that we hear of her in the history. “When Peter was delivered from prison, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying.” Acts, xii. 12. There is somewhat of coincidence in this; somewhat bespeaking real transactions amongst real persons.
No. III. The following coincidence, though it bear the appearance of great nicety and refinement, ought not, perhaps, to be deemed imaginary. In the salutations with which this, like most of St. Paul's epistles, concludes, “we have Aristarchus and Marcus, and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision,” iv. 10, 11. Then follow also,
Epaphras, Luke the beloved physician, and Demas.” Now, as this description, “who are of the circumcision,” is added after the first three names, it is inferred, not without great appearance of probability, that the rest, amongst whom is Luke, were not of the circumcision. Now can we discover any expression in the Acts of the Apostles, which ascertains whether the author of the book was a Jew or not? If we can discover that he was not a Jew, we fix a circumstance in his character, which coincides with what is here, indirectly indeed, but not very uncertainly, intimated concerning Luke: and we so far confirm both the testimony of the primitive church, that the Acts of the Apostles was written by St, Luke, and the general reality of the persons and circumstances brought together in this epistle. The text in the Acts, which has been construed to show that the writer was not a Jew, is the nineteenth verse of the first chapter, where, in describing the field which had been purchased with the reward of Judas's iniquity, it is said, “ that it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch as, that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.” These words are by most commentators taken to be the words and observation of the historian, and not a part of St. Peter's speech, in the midst of which they are found. If this be admitted, then it is argued that the expression, “ in
their proper tongue,” would not have been used by a Jew, but is suitable to the pen of a Gentile writing concerning Jews *. The reader will judge of the probability of this conclusion, and we urge the coincidence no farther than that probability extends. The coincidence, if it be one, is so remote from all possibility of design, that nothing need be added to satisfy the reader upon that part of the argument.
No. IV. Chap. iv. 9. “ With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you.”
Observe how it may be made out that Onesimus was a Colossian. Turn to the Epistle to Philemon, and you will find that Onesimus was the servant or slave of Philemon. The question therefore will be, to what city Philemon belonged ? In the epistle addressed to him this is not declared. It appears only that he was of the same place, whatever that place was, with an eminent Christian named Archippus. Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved and fellow-labourer; and to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in thy house." Now turn back to the Epistle to the Colossians, and you will find Archippus saluted by name amongst the Christians of that church.
“ Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it,” (iv. 17.) The necessary result is,
Vide Benson's Dissertation, vol. i. p. 318, of his Works, ed. 1756..