:;02 HORiE PAULINA. 



«vheu endeavoring to digest scattered, circumstances into a 

 continued story. It is indeed the same case ; for these sub- 

 scriptions must be regarded as ancient scholia, and as noth- 

 ing more. Of this liability to error I can present the reader 

 with a notable instance ; and which I bring forward for no 

 other purpose than that to which I apply the erroneous sub- 

 scriptions. Ludovicus Capellus, in that part of his " His- 

 torica Apostolica Illustrata," which is entitled De Ordine 

 Epist. Paul., writing upon the second epistle to the Corinthi 

 ans, triumphs unmercifully over the M^ant of sagacity in Ba- 

 ronius, who it seems makes St. Paul write his epistle to Titus 

 from Macedonia upon his second visit into that province ; 

 whereas it appears from the history, that Titus, instead of 

 being at Crete, where the epistle places him, was at that 

 time sent by the apostle from Macedonia to Corinth. " An- 

 imadvertere est,"" says Capellus, "■ magnam hominis ilius 

 u(3XEiluav, qui mdt Titum a Paulo in Cretam abductum, 

 illicque rclictum, cuon hide Nicopolivi navigaret, quern 

 tamen ag?ioscit a Paido ex Macedo7iia missum esse Coriyi- 

 tlium'' This probably will be thought a detection of incon- 

 sistency in Baronius. But what is the most remarkable is, 

 that in the same chapter in which he thus indulges his con- 

 tempt for Baronius' judgment, Capellus himself falls into an 

 error of the same kind, and more gross and palpable than 

 that which he reproves. For he begins the chapter by 

 stating the second epistle to the Corinthians and the first 

 epistle to Timothy to be nearly contemporary ; to have been 

 both written during the apostle's second visit into Macedo- 

 nia ; and that a doubt subsisted concerning the immediate 

 priority or their dates: ''Posterior ad eo&dem CorintJiios 

 Episiola, et prior ad Timotheum certant de prioritate, et 

 mb judice lis est ; utraque autem scripta est paulo post- 

 quam Paulus Epheso discessisset, adeoque diim Macedo- 

 niam peragraret, sed utra tempore pracedat, non liquet ^ 

 Now, in the first place, it is highly improbable that the two 

 epistles should have been written either nearly together, or 



