U. C. 815; and that he was again deposed, and Albinus, being sent after midsummer, arrived in the province before the feast of Tabernacles, October 6, U. C. 815, at the close of the eighth or at the beginning of the ninth of Nero: we make no supposition which is not both possible in itself, and entirely consistent with the accounts of Josephus. It is true that Festus, on this principle, must have been three years and upwards of six months in office prior to his death; but it is also true that Felix was upwards of eight years in office, before Festus; and that Albinus, who must have been appointed at midsummer, U. C. 815, was not superseded by Gessius Florus before U. C. 817. at the earliest, and possibly not before U. C. 818: for Poppæa, to whom the latter is said to have owed his appointment, did not die much before the close of the first six months of U. C. 818*; soon after which event Nero put the consul Atticus Vestinus to death, and married Messalina his wifes. The war is said to have broken out in the second year current of the administration of Florus; which might still be true of the first part of U. C. 819. when the war broke out, though that administration had begun only in U. C. 818t.

The propriety then of the allusion at Hebrews xiii. 7. though we should understand it to refer to the death of St. James—if the Epistle was written in U. C. 816, a year after the event, must be apparent; and I think this coincidence between the matter of fact, and the allusion to it in the Epistle, is a strong argument that the latter was then written. The reference to the bonds

* Poppea died at the time of the Neronea which (Tacitus, Annales, xiv. 20. xvi. 6. 2.4. 12.) were celebrated between April

and June. The Fasti exhibit the name of a consul suffectus in the room of Vestinus, ex Kal. Jul.

s Tacitus, Annales, xvi. 6. 12, 13. Suetonius, Nero, 35. §. 4. 15. §. 6. 12. §. 8. t Ant. Jud. xx. xi. 1.

of the writer" is clearly an allusion to some past, and not to any present circumstance of his personal history; which also would be in character in reference either to the confinement of St. Paul at Cæsarea, six or seven years before, or to his imprisonment at Rome, three or four. The same conclusion is implied by x. 25. and x. 37; which can be understood of nothing except the approaching visitation of the Jews; for that was also the period of deliverance to their Christian brethren and in the spring of U. C. 816. the visitation, which began about the same time U. C. 819, was only three years remote. And having arrived at these conclusions respecting the preceding Epistles, we will pass to the remaining ones, which are three in number; the two Epistles to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus.

I. If these Epistles were really written the last of all, they must each of them have been written between the date of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the time of the death of St. Paul; concerning which more will be said hereafter.

W

II. The Second to Timothy was unquestionably the last of the three, and was written in the year of Paul's second imprisonment, and very probably just before his death; first, because it was written when the writer was again in chains ; and when he either was, or had been again in Rome : secondly, because it was written when the writer had a strong and lively presentiment in his mind, that the time of his departure was come; that is, that his martyrdom was at hand *; under which presentiment, and as consoled by the pleasing reflection that his part had been

*This appears particularly in his use of the term épéστnke, verse 6; for that does not de

u x. 34.

note, is at hand-however nearbut, is come, or actually arrived.

v 2 Tim. i. 8. 12. 16. ii. 9, 10, 11, 12.

w 2 Tim. i. 17.

faithfully and successfully fulfilled, he exults accordingly *.

III. The resemblance perceptible both in the general design, and in the particular structure of the Epistle to Titus, and of the First Epistle to Timothy, is a satisfactory proof that they must have been written either together, or within a short time of each other; so that the time and the place of the one are presumptively to be considered the time and the place of the other. Now when St. Paul wrote to Titus, Titus was in Crete ; when he wrote to Timothy, Timothy was at Ephesus; and St. Paul had left them in each of these places respectively himself. St. Paul then had both visited Crete, and passed through Ephesus before he wrote to either of them. When however he left Timothy in person at Ephesus, he was himself on his way to Macedonia; and when he wrote his Epistle to him afterwards, his business in that country was at an end; for he hoped to rejoin him shortly. We may infer, then, that he wrote to Timothy either from Macedonia, or from some other quarter in its vicinity.

IV. Now when he wrote the Epistle to Titus, as Titus himself was in Crete, so was St. Paul in the neighbourhood of some Nicopolis"; for that he was not at that time in this Nicopolis appears from his language, ἐκεῖ γὰρ κέκρικα παραχειμάσαι; not, ἐνταῦθα Yap KékρIKа Tαрaxeuára. The winter, too, which he proposed to spend there, must still have been at some distance; for Titus was to come to him while he was wintering there; and Titus was still in Crete and St. Paul was to send him a message, even after the reception of the Epistle, to tell him at what time to come. It is clear, then, that he must have written to

x 2 Tim. iv. 6. 8. b Tit. iii. 12.

y Tit. i. 5.

z 1 Tim. i. 3.

1 Tim. iii. 14.

him on the present occasion either in the summer season, or at the latest early in the autumnal quarter of the year.

V. There was no Nicopolis, in the neighbourhood of Macedonia, at which St. Paul could propose to winter, if he was now any where in that quarter; except the well-known city, founded by Augustus to commemorate his victory at Actium *. Nicopolis, situated on the confines of Thrace and of the first division of Macedonia, and known by the name of Nicopolis ad Nesum or Nessum, Nestum or Mestum; though otherwise a central city, and very likely to be selected for a winter residence by one who was previously in Macedonia, being founded by Trajan was not as yet in being © †. The same thing is true of Nicopolis ad Iatrum or ad Istrum; and very probably of Nicopolis ad Hæmum. Nor, besides the Actian Nicopolis, was there any city of note so called, and contemporary with St. Paul, except Nicopolis in Armenia, founded by Pompey, U. C. 688, and Nicopolis in Egypt, founded by Augustus, U. C. 724et.

*The foundation in question is thus celebrated in an epigram of Antipater of Thessalonica, a contemporary poet: Aevκάδος ἄντι μὲ Καίσαρ, ἰδ ̓ ̓Αμβρα κίης ἐριβώλου, | Θυῤῥείου τε πέλειν, ἀντί τ ̓ ̓Ανακτορίου, [ "Αργεος ̓Αμφιλόχου τε, καὶ ὁππόσα ῥαίσατο κύκλῳ | ὥστε ἐπιθρώσκων δουρομανής πόλεμος, | εἴσατο Νικόπολιν, θείην πόλιν· ἀντὶ δὲ νίκης | Φοίβος ἄναξ ταύτην δείκνυται ̓Ακτιάδος. Anthologia, ii. 104. Antipatri xxxiii.

where he tells us Trajan founded this Nicopolis, Indicium victoriæ contra Dacos: consequently either U.C. 856. or U. C. 859.d

The name of Nicopolis was given to many ancient cities ; and besides those enumerated, Appian, De Rebus Syriacis,57, speaks of one founded in Armenia by Seleucus Nicator: there was another in Judaa, built on the site of an Emmaus: (Reland, Palæstina,426.758-760. Cf. Sozomen, v. 21. 629. D. 630. B:) which, however, was not in being before

+ Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus xxvii. 4. and xxxi. 5. p. 628, c Cellarii Geographia, ii. xv. 857. viii. 370. xv. 859. d It is, however, to be observed, that Cellarius locis citatis, and Eckhel, ii. 16. describe this Nicopolis as the same with Nicopolis ad Istrum or Iatrum. e Dio, xxxvi. 31-33. li. 18. Strabo, xii. 3. §. 28. 122. xvii. 1. §. 10. 510. Appian, De Bello Mithridatico, 105: Suetonius, Augustus, 18: Josephus, De Bello, iv. xi. 5: Orosius, vi. 4. Procopius, De Ædificiis, iii. 4, 58. A.

Let us suppose that St. Paul means the Nicopolis of Epirus. He was not there when he wrote to Titus; he might be there when he wrote to Timothy: and wheresoever he was when he wrote to either, it was somewhere not far from where he was when he wrote to the other. Before he wrote to Timothy, he had been in Macedonia; and when he wrote to Titus, he was in the neighbourhood of Nicopolis; and each of these things would be the case, if he left Titus in Crete before he proceeded to Ephesus, and Timothy in Ephesus when he proceeded to Macedonia; and wrote to the time of Antoninus, surnamed Elogabalus, or Alexander Mamææ; that is, A.D. 221.e A Nicopolis in Bithynia is mentioned by Stephanus Byzantinus, and by Pliny, H.N. v. 43; whose words, however, appear to me to imply, that in his time, and, consequently, as we may presume in that of St. Paul, it was not in existence. Deinde Nicopolis (sc. fuit) a qua nomen etiamnum

sinus retinet.

Besides these, there was a Nicopolis noticed by Stephanus, under the article 'looòs, and by Eustathius ad Dionysium Periegetem, 119: which was founded to commemorate Alexander's victory over Darius: and another, not far from its vicinity, in the region of Syria called Seleucis, which is mentioned by Strabo, xiv. 4. §. 19. 715: and by Ptolemy, Geographica, iv.148f. Neither of these, however, was a city of note or consequence at the present time, in comparison

of the Actian Nicopolis; concerning which Strabo observes, vii. 7. §. 6. 460: ý μèv ovv Niκόπολις εὐανδρεῖ, καὶ λαμβάνει καθ' pépaveidoσiv: whereas the other two had fallen in great measure into obscurity. Cf. Dio, 1. 12. Nor is it to be supposed that St. Paul, writing from Macedonia, or its immediate vicinity, would think or speak of passing the winter at any Nicopolis, but that which was close at hand, viz. the Epirote or Actian. Hieronymus, iv. Pars ia. 407, 408. Præfatio in Titum: Scribit igitur Apostolus... de Nicopoli, quæ in Actiaco littore sita, &c. This city was still in being in the reign of Justinian; see Procopius, De Ædificiis, iv. 1. 68. C. Cf. Socrates, E. H. vii. 10. 346. C. and Evagrius, E. H. ii. 18. 322. D. who mentions Atticus, bishop of Nicopolis, as one of those who were present at the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.

e If this was the Emmaus, mentioned by Josephus, De Bello, vii. vi. 6. it will appear that something like a colony was planted there, U. C. 826, though the name of the place was not changed. This might be the city in behalf of which Julius Africanus undertook the embassy, in the reign of Elogabalus, which led to the foundation of Nicopolis on that site, A. D. 221. See Eusebius and Jerome, in Chronicis: and the other authorities cited by Reland. f The site of this Nicopolis is doubtful, whether in Cilicia or in Seleucis. Its coins would shew it in the latter, see Eckhel, iii. 322. Strabo places it in Cilicia: so does Ptolemy.