No. I.

THE firſt paſſage I ſhall produce from this epiſtle, and upon which a good deal of obſervation will be founded, is the following:

"But now I go unto Jeruſalem, to mi⯑niſter unto the ſaints; for it hath pleaſed them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor ſaints which are at Jeruſalem." Rom. xv. 25, 26.

In this quotation three diſtinct circum⯑ſtances are ſtated—a contribution in Ma⯑cedonia for the relief of the Chriſtians of Jeruſalem, a contribution in Achaia for the ſame purpoſe, and an intended journey of St. Paul to Jeruſalem. Theſe circum⯑ſtances are ſtated as taking place at the ſame time, and that to be the time when the epiſtle was written. Now let us enquire whether we can find theſe circumſtances [21] elſewhere; and whether, if we do find them, they meet together in reſpect of date. Turn to the Acts of the Apoſtles, chap. xx. ver. 2, 3, and you read the following ac⯑count: "When he had gone over thoſe parts (viz. Macedonia), and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months; and when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to ſail into Syria, he pur⯑poſed to return through Macedonia." From this paſſage, compared with the ac⯑count of St. Paul's travels given before, and from the ſequel of the chapter, it ap⯑pears, that upon St. Paul's ſecond viſit to the peninſula of Greece, his intention was, when he ſhould leave the country, to proceed from Achaia directly by ſea to Syria; but that, to avoid the Jews, who were lying in wait to intercept him in his route, he ſo far changed his purpoſe as to go back through Macedonia, embark at Philippi, and purſue his voyage from thence towards Jeruſalem. Here therefore is a journey to Jeruſalem; but not a ſyllable of any contribution. And as St. Paul had taken ſeveral journeys to [22] Jeruſalem before, and one alſo immediately after his firſt viſit into the peninſula of Greece (Acts xviii. 21.), it cannot from hence be collected in which of theſe viſits the epiſtle was written, or, with certainty, that it was written in either. The ſilence of the hiſtorian, who profeſſes to have been with St. Paul at the time (v. 6.), concerning any contribution, might lead us to look out for ſome different journey, or might induce us perhaps to queſtion the conſiſtency of the two records, did not a very accidental reference, in another part of the ſame hiſ⯑tory, afford us ſufficient ground to believe that this ſilence was omiſſion. When St. Paul made his reply before Felix, to the accuſations of Tertullus, he alledged, as was natural, that neither the errand which brought him to Jeruſalem, nor his conduct whilſt he remained there, merited the ca⯑lumnies with which the Jews had aſperſed him. "Now after many years (i. e. of abſence) I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings; whereupon certain Jews from Aſia found me purified in the temple, nei⯑ther with multitude nor with tumult, who [23] ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought againſt me." Acts xxiv. 17-19. This mention of alms and offerings certainly brings the narrative in the Acts nearer to an accordancy with the epiſtle; yet no one, I am perſuaded, will ſuſpect that this clauſe was put into St. Paul's defence, either to ſupply the omiſſion in the preceding narrative, or with any view to ſuch accordancy.

After all, nothing is yet ſaid or hinted concerning the place of the contribution; nothing concerning Macedonia and Achaia. Turn therefore to the Firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, chap. xvi. ver. 1-4, and you have St. Paul delivering the following di⯑rections: "Concerning the collection for the ſaints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, even ſo do ye: upon the firſt day of the week let every one of you lay by him in ſtore as God hath proſpered him, that there be no gather⯑ings when I come. And when I come, whomſoever you ſhall approve by your letters, them will I ſend to bring your liberality unto Jeruſalem; and if it be [24] meet that I go alſo, they ſhall go with me." In this paſſage we find a contri⯑bution carrying on at Corinth, the capital of Achaia, for the Chriſtians of Jeruſalem; we find alſo a hint given of the poſſibility of St. Paul's going up to Jeruſalem himſelf, after he had paid his viſit into Achaia: but this is ſpoken of rather as a poſſibility than as any ſettled intention; for his firſt thought was, "Whomſoever you ſhall ap⯑prove by your letters, them will I ſend to bring your liberality to Jeruſalem:" and, in the ſixth verſe, he adds, "That ye may bring me on my journey whitherſoever I go." This epiſtle purports to be written after St. Paul had been at Corinth; for it refers throughout to what he had done and ſaid amongſt them whilſt he was there. The expreſſion therefore, "When I come," muſt relate to a ſecond viſit; againſt which viſit the contribution ſpoken of was deſired to be in readineſs.

But though the contribution in Achaia be expreſsly mentioned, nothing is here ſaid concerning any contribution in Mace⯑donia. Turn therefore, in the third place, [25] to the Second Epiſtle to the Corinthians, chap. viii. ver. 1-4, and you will diſcover the particular which remains to be ſought for: "Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God beſtowed on the churches of Macedonia; how that, in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality; for to their power I bear record, yea, and beyond their power, they were willing of them⯑ſelves; praying us, with much entreaty, that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowſhip of the miniſtering to the ſaints." To which add chap. ix. ver. 2: "I know the forwardneſs of your mind, for which I boaſt of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago." In this epiſtle we find St. Paul advanced as far as Macedonia, upon that ſecond viſit to Corinth which he pro⯑miſed in his former epiſtle; we find alſo, in the paſſages now quoted from it, that a contribution was going on in Macedonia at the ſame time with, or ſoon however fol⯑lowing, the contribution which was made [26] in Achaia; but for whom the contribution was made does not appear in this epiſtle at all: that information muſt be ſupplied from the firſt epiſtle.

Here therefore, at length, but fetched from three different writings, we have ob⯑tained the ſeveral circumſtances we en⯑quired after, and which the Epiſtle to the Romans brings together, viz. a contribu⯑tion in Achaia for the Chriſtians of Jeru⯑ſalem; a contribution in Macedonia for the ſame; and an approaching journey of St. Paul to Jeruſalem. We have theſe cir⯑cumſtances—each by ſome hint in the paſ⯑ſage in which it is mentioned, or by the date of the writing in which the paſſage occurs—fixed to a particular time; and we have that time turning out, upon examina⯑tion, to be in all the ſame; namely, to⯑wards the cloſe of St. Paul's ſecond viſit to the peninſula of Greece. This is an inſtance of conformity beyond the poſ⯑ſibility, I will venture to ſay, of ran⯑dom writing to produce. I alſo aſſert, that it is in the higheſt degree improbable that it ſhould have been the effect of con⯑trivance [27] and deſign. The imputation of deſign amounts to this, that the forger of the Epiſtle to the Romans inſerted in it the paſſage upon which our obſervations are founded, for the purpoſe of giving co⯑lour to his forgery by the appearance of conformity with other writings which were then extant. I reply, in the firſt place, that, if he did this to countenance his forgery, he did it for the purpoſe of an argument which would not ſtrike one reader in ten thouſand. Coincidences ſo circuitous as this anſwer not the ends of forgery; are ſeldom, I believe, attempted by it. In the ſecond place I obſerve, that he muſt have had the Acts of the Apoſtles, and the two Epiſtles to the Corinthians, before him at the time. In the Acts of the Apoſtles (I mean that part of the Acts which relates to this period) he would have found the jour⯑ney to Jeruſalem; but nothing about the contribution. In the Firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians he would have found a con⯑tribution going on in Achaia for the Chriſ⯑tians of Jeruſalem, and a diſtant hint of the poſſibility of the journey; but nothing con⯑cerning [28] a contribution in Macedonia. In the Second Epiſtle to the Corinthians he would have found a contribution in Mace⯑donia accompanying that in Achaia; but no intimation for whom either was intend⯑ed, and not a word about the journey. It was only by a cloſe and attentive collation of the three writings, that he could have picked out the circumſtances which he has united in his epiſtle; and by a ſtill more nice examination, that he could have deter⯑mined them to belong to the ſame period. In the third place I remark, what dimi⯑niſhes very much the ſuſpicion of fraud, how aptly and connectedly the mention of the circumſtances in queſtion, viz. the journey to Jeruſalem, and of the occaſion of that journey, ariſes from the context. "Whenſoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you; for I truſt to ſee you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if firſt I be ſomewhat filled with your company. But now I go unto Jeruſalem, to miniſter unto the ſaints; for it hath pleaſed them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain [29] contribution for the poor ſaints which are at Jeruſalem. It hath pleaſed them verily, and their debtors they are; for if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their ſpiritual things, their duty is alſo to miniſter unto them in carnal things. When therefore I have performed this, and have ſealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain." Is the paſſage in Italics like a paſſage foiſted in for an ex⯑traneous purpoſe? Does it not ariſe from what goes before, by a junction as eaſy as any example of writing upon real buſineſs can furniſh? Could any thing be more na⯑tural than that St. Paul, in writing to the Romans, ſhould ſpeak of the time when he hoped to viſit them; ſhould mention the buſineſs which then detained him; and that he purpoſed to ſet forwards upon his journey to them, when that buſineſs was completed?

No. II.

By means of the quotation which form⯑ed the ſubject of the preceding number, we collect, that the Epiſtle to the Romans was [30] written at the concluſion of St. Paul's ſe⯑cond viſit to the peninſula of Greece: but this we collect, not from the epiſtle itſelf, not from any thing declared concerning the time and place in any part of the epiſtle, but from a compariſon of circumſtances referred to in the epiſtle, with the order of events recorded in the Acts, and with re⯑ferences to the ſame circumſtances, though for quite different purpoſes, in the two Epiſtles to the Corinthians. Now would the author of a forgery, who ſought to gain credit to a ſpurious letter by congruities, depending upon the time and place in which the letter was ſuppoſed to be writ⯑ten, have left that time and place to be made out, in a manner ſo obſcure and in⯑direct as this is? If therefore coincidences of circumſtances can be pointed out in this epiſtle, depending upon its date, or the place where it was written, whilſt that date and place are only aſcertained by other circumſtances, ſuch coincidences may fairly be ſtated as undeſigned. Under this head I adduce

Chap. xvi. 21-23. "Timotheus, my [31] workfellow, and Lucius, and Jaſon, and Soſipater, my kinſmen, ſalute you. I Ter⯑tius, who wrote this epiſtle, ſalute you in the Lord. Gaius mine hoſt, and of the whole church, ſaluteth you; and Quartus, a brother." With this paſſage I compare Acts xx. 4. "And there accompanied him into Aſia, Sopater of Berea; and, of the Theſſalonians, Ariſtarchus and Secun⯑dus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and, of Aſia, Tychicus, and Trophimus." The Epiſtle to the Romans, we have ſeen, was written juſt before St. Paul's departure from Greece, after his ſecond viſit to that penin⯑ſula: the perſons mentioned in the quotation from the Acts are thoſe who accompanied him in that very departure. Of ſeven whoſe names are joined in the ſalutation of the church of Rome, three, viz. Soſipater, Gaius, and Timothy, are proved, by this paſſage in the Acts, to have been with St. Paul at the time. And this is perhaps as much coincidence as could be expected from reality, though leſs, I am apt to think, than would have been produced by deſign. Four are mentioned in the Acts who are not joined [32] in the ſalutation; and it is in the nature of the caſe probable that there ſhould be many attending St. Paul in Greece who knew no⯑thing of the converts at Rome, nor were known by them. In like manner ſeveral are joined in the ſalutation who are not men⯑tioned in the paſſage referred to in the Acts. This alſo was to be expected. The occaſion of mentioning them in the Acts was their proceeding with St. Paul upon his journey. But we may be ſure that there were many eminent Chriſtians with St. Paul in Greece, beſides thoſe who accompanied him into Aſia^*.

[33] But if any one ſhall ſtill contend that a forger of the epiſtle, with the Acts of the Apoſtles before him, and having ſettled his ſcheme of writing a letter as from St. Paul upon his ſecond viſit into Greece, would caſily think of the expedient of putting in the names of thoſe perſons who appeared to be with St. Paul at the time, as an ob⯑vious recommendation of the impoſture; I then repeat my obſervations: firſt, that he would have made the catalogue more com⯑plete; and ſecondly, that with this contriv⯑ance in his thoughts, it was certainly his buſineſs, in order to avail himſelf of the arti⯑fice, to have ſtated in the body of the epiſtle that St. Paul was in Greece when he wrote it, and that he was there upon his ſecond [34] viſit. Neither of which he has done, either directly, or even ſo as to be diſcoverable by any circumſtance found in the narrative de⯑livered in the Acts.

Under the ſame head, viz. of coincidences depending upon date, I cite from the epiſtle the following ſalutation: "Greet Priſcilla and Aquila, my helpers in Chriſt Jeſus, who have for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but alſo all the churches of the Gentiles." Chap. xvi. 3.—It appears, from the Acts of the Apoſtles, that Priſcilla and Aquila had originally been inhabitants of Rome; for we read, Acts xviii. 2, that "Paul found a cer⯑tain Jew, named Aquila, lately come from Italy with his wife Priſcilla, becauſe that Claudius had commanded all Jews to de⯑part from Rome." They were connected therefore with the place to which the ſaluta⯑tions are ſent. That is one coincidence; ano⯑ther is the following: St. Paul became ac⯑quainted with theſe perſons at Corinth during his firſt viſit into Greece. They accompanied him upon his return into Aſia; were ſettled for ſome time at Epheſus, Acts xviii. 19-26; [35] and appear to have been with St. Paul when he wrote from that place his firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Not long after the writing of which epiſtle St. Paul went from Epheſus into Macedonia, and "after he had gone over thoſe parts" proceeded from thence upon his ſecond viſit into Greece; during which viſit, or rather at the concluſion of it, the Epiſtle to the Romans, as hath been ſhewn, was written. We have therefore the time of St. Paul's re⯑ſidence at Epheſus after he had written to the Corinthians, the time taken up by his progreſs through Macedonia (which is indefinite, and was probably conſiderable), and his three months abode in Greece; we have the ſum of theſe three periods allowed for Aquila and Priſcilla going back to Rome, ſo as to be there when the epiſtle before us was written. Now what this quotation leads us to obſerve is, the danger of ſcattering names and circum⯑ſtances in writings like the preſent, how implicated they often are with dates and places, and that nothing but truth can pre⯑ſerve conſiſtency. Had the notes of time in the Epiſtle to the Romans fixed the writing [36] of it to any date prior to St. Paul's firſt reſi⯑dence at Corinth, the ſalutation of Aquila and Priſcilla would have contradicted the hiſtory, becauſe it would have been prior to his acquaintance with theſe perſons. If the notes of time had fixed it to any period during that reſidence at Corinth, during his journey to Jeruſalem when he firſt returned out of Greece, during his ſtay at Antioch whither he went down from Jeruſalem, or during his ſecond progreſs through the Leſſer Aſia upon which he proceeded from Antioch, an equal contradiction would have been in⯑curred; becauſe from Acts xviii. 2-18, 19- 26, it appears that during all this time Aquila and Priſcilla were either along with St. Paul, or were abiding at Epheſus. Laſtly, had the notes of time in this epiſtle, which we have ſeen to be perfectly incidental, compared with the notes of time in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, which are equally in⯑cidental, fixed this epiſtle to be either cotemporary with that, or prior to it, a ſimilar contradiction would have enſued; becauſe, firſt, when the Epiſtle to the Corin⯑thians was written, Aquila and Priſcilla were [37] along with St. Paul, as they joined in the ſa⯑lutation of that church, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; and becauſe, ſecondly, the hiſtory does not allow us to ſuppoſe, that between the time of their becoming acquainted with St. Paul, and the time of St. Paul's writing to the Corin⯑thians, Aquila and Priſcilla could have gone to Rome, ſo as to have been ſaluted in an epiſtle to that city; and then come back to St. Paul at Epheſus, ſo as to be joined with him in ſaluting the church of Corinth. As it is, all things are conſiſtent. The Epiſtle to the Romans is poſterior even to the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians; becauſe it ſpeaks of a contribution in Achaia being completed, which the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians chap. viii. is only ſoliciting. It is ſufficiently therefore poſterior to the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, to allow time in the interval for Aquila and Priſcilla's return from Epheſus to Rome.

Before we diſmiſs theſe two perſons, we may take notice of the terms of commenda⯑tion in which St. Paul deſcribes them, and of the agreement of that encomium with the hiſtory. "My helpers in Chriſt Jeſus, [38] who have for my life laid down their necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but alſo all the churches of the Gentiles." In the eighteenth chapter of the Acts, we are informed that Aquila and Priſcilla were Jews; that St. Paul firſt met with them at Corinth; that for ſome time he abode in the ſame houſe with them; that St. Paul's contention at Corinth was with the unbe⯑lieving Jews, who at firſt "oppoſed and blaſphemed, and afterwards with one ac⯑cord raiſed an inſurrection againſt him;" that Aquila and Priſcilla adhered, we may conclude, to St. Paul throughout this whole conteſt; for, when he left the city, they went with him, Acts xiii. 18. Under theſe circumſtances, it is highly probable that they ſhould be involved in the dangers and per⯑ſecutions which St. Paul underwent from the Jews, being themſelves Jews; and, by adhering to St. Paul in this diſpute, deſerters, as they would be accounted, of the Jewiſh cauſe. Farther, as they, though Jews, were aſſiſting to St. Paul in preaching to the Gen⯑tiles at Corinth, they had taken a decided part in the great controverſy of that day, [39] the admiſſion of the Gentiles to a parity of religious ſituation with the Jews. For this conduct alone, if there was no other reaſon, they may ſeem to have been entitled to "thanks from the churches of the Gentiles." They were Jews taking part with Gen⯑tiles. Yet is all this ſo indirectly intimated, or rather ſo much of it left to inference in the account given in the Acts, that I do not think it probable that a forger either could or would have drawn his repreſentation from thence; and ſtill leſs probable do I think it, that, without having ſeen the Acts, he could by mere accident, and without truth for his guide, have delivered a repreſentation ſo conformable to the circumſtances there re⯑corded.

The two congruities laſt adduced depended upon the time, the two following regard the place, of the epiſtle.

1. Chap. xvi. 23. "Eraſtus, the chamber⯑lain of the city, ſaluteth you"—of what city? We have ſeen, that is, we have infer⯑red from circumſtances found in the epiſtle, compared with circumſtances found in the Acts of the Apoſtles, and in the two Epiſtles [40] to the Corinthians, that our epiſtle was written during St. Paul's ſecond viſit to the peninſula of Greece. Again, as St. Paul, in his epiſtle to the church of Corinth, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, ſpeaks of a collection going on in that city, and of his deſire that it might be ready againſt he came thither; and as in this epiſtle he ſpeaks of that col⯑lection being ready, it follows that the epiſtle was written either whilſt he was at Corinth, or after he had been there. Thirdly, ſince St. Paul ſpeaks in this epiſtle of his journey to Jeruſalem, as about inſtantly to take place; and as we learn, Acts xx. 3, that his deſign and attempt was to ſail upon that journey immediately from Greece, properly ſo called, i. e. as diſtinguiſhed from Mace⯑donia; it is probable that he was in this country when he wrote the epiſtle, in which he ſpeaks of himſelf as upon the eve of ſet⯑ting out. If in Greece, he was moſt likely at Corinth; for the two Epiſtles to the Co⯑rinthians ſhew that the principal end of his coming into Greece was to viſit that city, where he had founded a church. Certainly we know no place in Greece in which his [41] preſence was ſo probable: at leaſt, the placing of him at Corinth ſatisfies every circumſtance. Now that Eraſtus was an inhabitant of Corinth, or had ſome connec⯑tion with Corinth, is rendered a fair ſubject of preſumption, by that which is accident⯑ally ſaid of him in the ſecond Epiſtle to Timothy, chap. iii. v. 20, "Eraſtus abode at Corinth." St. Paul complains of his ſoli⯑tude, and is telling Timothy what was become of his companions: "Eraſtus abode at Corinth; but Trophimus have I left at Miletum, ſick." Eraſtus was one of thoſe who had attended St. Paul in his travels, Acts xix. 22; and when thoſe travels had, upon ſome occaſion, brought our apoſtle and his train to Corinth, Eraſtus ſtaid there, for no reaſon ſo probable as that it was his home. I allow that this coincidence is not ſo preciſe as ſome others, yet I think it too clear to be produced by accident; for, of the many places which this ſame epiſtle has aſſigned to different perſons, and the innu⯑merable others which it might have men⯑tioned, how came it to fix upon Corinth for Eraſtus? And, as far as it is a coincidence, [42] it is certainly undeſigned on the part of the author of the Epiſtle to the Romans: be⯑cauſe he has not told us of what city Eraſtus was the chamberlain; or, which is the ſame thing, from what city the epiſtle was writ⯑ten, the ſetting forth of which was abſo⯑lutely neceſſary to the diſplay of the co⯑incidence, if any ſuch diſplay had been thought of: nor could the author of the Epiſtle to Timothy leave Eraſtus at Corinth, from any thing he might have read in the Epiſtle to the Romans, becauſe Corinth is no where in that Epiſtle mentioned either by name or deſcription.

2. Chap. xvi. 1-3. "I commend unto you Phoebe, our ſiſter, which is a ſervant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh ſaints, and that ye aſſiſt her in whatſo⯑ever buſineſs ſhe hath need of you; for ſhe hath been a ſuccourer of many, and of myſelf alſo." Cenchrea adjoined to Corinth; St. Paul therefore, at the time of writing the letter, was in the neighbourhood of the woman whom he thus recommends. But, farther, that St. Paul had before this [43] been at Cenchrea itſelf, appears from the eighteenth chapter of the Acts; and appears by a circumſtance as incidental, and as un⯑like deſign, as any that can be imagined. "Paul after this tarried there (viz. at Co⯑rinth) yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and ſailed thence into Syria, and with him Priſcilla and Aquila, having ſhorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow." xviii. 18. The ſhav⯑ing of the head denoted the expiration of the Nazaritic vow. The hiſtorian therefore, by the mention of this circumſtance, vir⯑tually tells us that St. Paul's vow was ex⯑pired before he ſet forward upon his voyage, having deferred probably his departure un⯑til he ſhould be releaſed from the reſtrictions under which his vow laid him. Shall we ſay that the author of the Acts of the Apoſtles feigned this anecdote of St. Paul at Cenchrea, becauſe he had read in the Epiſtle to the Romans that "Phoebe, a ſervant of the church of Cenchrea, had been a ſuccourer of many, and of him alſo?" or ſhall we ſay that the author of the Epiſtle to the Romans, out of his own imagination, created [44] Phoebe "a ſervant of the church at Cenchrea," becauſe he read in the Acts of the Apoſtles that Paul had "ſhorn his head" in that place?

No. III.

Chap. i. ver. 13. "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purpoſed to come unto you, but was let hitherto, that I might have ſome fruit among you alſo, even as among other Gentiles." Again, xv. 23, 24, "But now having no more place in theſe parts, and having a great deſire theſe many years ( [...], oftentimes) to come unto you, whenſoever I take my journey into Spain I will come to you; for I truſt to ſee you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you: but now I go up unto Jeruſalem, to miniſter to the ſaints. When therefore I have perform⯑ed this, and have ſealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain."

With theſe paſſages compare Acts xix. v. 21. "After theſe things were ended (viz. at Epheſus), Paul purpoſed in the ſpirit, when he had paſſed through Macedonia [45] and Achaia, to go to Jeruſalem; ſaying, After I have been there, I muſt alſo ſee Rome."

Let it be obſerved that our epiſtle pur⯑ports to have been written at the concluſion of St. Paul's ſecond journey into Greece; that the quotation from the Acts contains words ſaid to have been ſpoken by St. Paul at Epheſus, ſome time before he ſet forwards upon that journey. Now I con⯑tend that it is impoſſible that two indepen⯑dent fictions ſhould have attributed to St. Paul the ſame purpoſe, eſpecially a purpoſe ſo ſpecific and particular as this, which was not merely a general deſign of viſiting Rome, but a deſign of viſiting Rome after he had paſſed through Macedonia and Achaia, and after he had performed a voyage from theſe countries to Jeruſalem. The confor⯑mity between the hiſtory and the epiſtle is perfect. In the firſt quotation from the epiſtle, we find that a deſign of viſiting Rome had long dwelt in the apoſtle's mind: in the quotation from the Acts we find that deſign expreſſed a conſiderable time before the epiſtle was written. In the [46] hiſtory we find that the plan which St. Paul had formed, was to paſs through Mace⯑donia and Achaia; after that, to go to Jeru⯑ſalem; and, when he had finiſhed his viſit there, to ſail for Rome. When the epiſtle was written, he had executed ſo much of his plan, as to have paſſed through Mace⯑donia and Achaia; and was preparing to purſue the remainder of it, by ſpeedily ſetting out towards Jeruſalem: and in this point of his travels he tells his friends at Rome, that, when he had completed the buſineſs which carried him to Jeruſalem, he would come to them. Secondly, I ſay that the very inſpection of the paſſages will ſatisfy us that they were not made up from one another.

"Whenſoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you; for I truſt to ſee you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you: but now I go up to Jeruſalem, to miniſter to the ſaints. When, therefore, I have per⯑formed this, and have ſealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain."—This from the epiſtle.

[47] "Paul purpoſed in the ſpirit, when he had paſſed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jeruſalem; ſaying, After I have been there, I muſt alſo ſee Rome."—This from the Acts.

If the paſſage in the epiſtle was taken from that in the Acts, why was Spain put in? If the paſſage in the Acts was taken from that in the epiſtle, why was Spain left out? If the two paſſages were unknown to each other, nothing can account for their conformity but truth. Whether we ſuppoſe the hiſtory and the epiſtle to be alike ficti⯑tious, or the hiſtory to be true but the letter ſpurious, or the letter to be genuine but the hiſtory a fable, the meeting with this circumſtance in both, if neither borrowed it from the other, is, upon all theſe ſuppoſi⯑tions, equally inexplicable.

No. IV.

The following quotation I offer for the purpoſe of pointing out a geographical co⯑incidence, of ſo much importance, that Dr. Lardner conſidered it as a confirmation of the whole hiſtory of St. Paul's travels.

[48] Chap. xv. ver. 19. "So that from Jeru⯑ſalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the goſpel of Chriſt."

I do not think that theſe words neceſſa⯑rily import that St. Paul had penetrated into Illyricum, or preached the goſpel in that province; but rather that he had come to the confines of Illyricum ( [...]), and that theſe confines were the external boundary of his travels. St. Paul conſiders Jeruſalem as the centre, and is here viewing the circumference to which his travels had extended. The form of expreſſion in the original conveys this idea— [...]. Illyricum was the part of this circle which he mentions in an Epiſtle to the Romans, becauſe it lay in a direction from Jeruſalem towards that city, and pointed out to the Roman readers the neareſt place to them, to which his travels from Jeruſalem had brought him. The name of Illyricum no where occurs in the Acts of the Apoſtles; no ſuſpicion, there⯑fore, can be conceived that the mention of it was borrowed from thence. Yet I think it appears, from theſe ſame Acts, that St. Paul, [49] before the time when he wrote his Epiſtle to the Romans, had reached the confines of Illyricum; or, however, that he might have done ſo, in perfect conſiſtency with the ac⯑count there delivered. Illyricum adjoins upon Macedonia; meaſuring from Jeruſalem towards Rome, it lies cloſe behind it. If, therefore, St. Paul traverſed the whole coun⯑try of Macedonia, the route would neceſſari⯑ly bring him to the confines of Illyricum, and theſe confines would be deſcribed as the extremity of his journey. Now the account of St. Paul's ſecond viſit to the peninſula of Greece, is contained in theſe words: "He departed for to go into Macedonia; and when he had gone over theſe parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece." Acts xx. 2. This account allows, or rather leads us to ſuppoſe, that St. Paul, in going over Macedonia ( [...]), had paſſed ſo far to the weſt, as to come into thoſe parts of the country which were contiguous to Illyricum, if he did not enter into Illyricum itſelf. The hiſtory, therefore, and the epiſtle ſo far agree, and the agreement is much ſtrengthened by a [50] coincidence of time. At the time the epiſtle was written, St. Paul might ſay, in confor⯑mity with the hiſtory, that he had "come into Illyricum:" much before that time, he could not have ſaid ſo; for, upon his former journey to Macedonia, his route is laid down from the time of his landing at Philippi to his ſailing from Corinth. We trace him from Philippi to Amphipolis and Appollonia; from thence to Theſſalonica; from Theſſalonica to Beraea; from Beraea to Athens; and from Athens to Corinth: which track confines him to the eaſtern ſide of the peninſula, and therefore keeps him all the while at a conſiderable diſtance from Illyricum. Upon his ſecond viſit to Mace⯑donia, the hiſtory, we have ſeen, leaves him at liberty. It muſt have been, therefore, upon that ſecond viſit, if at all, that he ap⯑proached Illyricum; and this viſit, we know, almoſt immediately preceded the writing of the epiſtle. It was natural that the apoſtle ſhould refer to a journey which was freſh in his thoughts.

No. V.

Chap. xv. ver. 30. "Now I beſeech you, brethren, for the Lord Jeſus Chriſt's ſake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye ſtrive together with me in your prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea."—With this compare Acts xx. 22, 23:

"And now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jeruſalem, not knowing the things that ſhall befal me there, ſave that the Holy Ghoſt witneſſeth in every city, ſaying that bonds and afflictions abide me."

Let it be remarked that it is the ſame journey to Jeruſalem which is ſpoken of in theſe two paſſages; that the epiſtle was written immediately before St. Paul ſet for⯑wards upon this journey from Achaia; that the words in the Acts were uttered by him when he had proceeded in that journey as far as Miletus, in Leſſer Aſia. This being remembered, I obſerve that the two paſſages, without any reſemblance between them that could induce us to ſuſpect that they [52] were borrowed from one another, repreſent the ſtate of St. Paul's mind, with reſpect to the event of the journey, in terms of ſub⯑ſtantial agreement. They both expreſs his ſenſe of danger in the approaching viſit to Jeruſalem; they both expreſs the doubt which dwelt upon his thoughts concerning what might there befal him. When, in his epiſtle, he entreats the Roman Chriſtians, "for the Lord Jeſus Chriſt's ſake, and for the love of the Spirit, to ſtrive together with him in their prayers to God for him, that he might be delivered from them which do not believe in Judaea," he ſuffi⯑ciently confeſſes his fears. In the Acts of the Apoſtles we ſee in him the ſame appre⯑henſions, and the ſame uncertainty: "I go bound in the Spirit to Jeruſalem, not knowing the things that ſhall befal me there." The only difference is, that in the hiſtory his thoughts are more inclined to deſpondency than in the epiſtle. In the epiſtle, he retains his hope "that he ſhould come unto them with joy by the will of God;" in the hiſtory, his mind yields to the reflection, "that the Holy [53] Ghoſt witneſſeth in every city that bonds and afflictions awaited him." Now that his fears ſhould be greater, and his hopes leſs, in this ſtage of his journey than when he wrote his epiſtle, that is, when he firſt ſet out upon it, is no other alteration than might well be expected; ſince thoſe pro⯑phetic intimations to which he refers, when he ſays, "the Holy Ghoſt witneſſeth in every city," had probably been received by him in the courſe of his journey, and were probably ſimilar to what we know he received in the remaining part of it at Tyre (xxi. 4), and afterwards from Aga⯑bus at Caeſarea (xxi. 11).

No. VI.

There is another ſtrong remark ariſing from the ſame paſſage in the epiſtle; to make which underſtood, it will be neceſſary to ſtate the paſſage over again, and ſome⯑what more at length.

"I beſeech you, brethren, for the Lord Jeſus Chriſt's ſake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye ſtrive together with me in your prayers to God for me, that [54] I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea—that I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreſhed."

I deſire the reader to call to mind that part of St. Paul's hiſtory which took place after his arrival at Jeruſalem, and which employs the ſeven laſt chapters of the Acts; and I build upon it this obſervation—that ſuppoſing the Epiſtle to the Romans to have been a forgery, and the author of the forgery to have had the Acts of the Apoſtles before him, and to have there ſeen that St. Paul, in fact, "was not delivered from the unbelieving Jews," but, on the contrary, that he was taken into cuſtody at Jeruſa⯑lem, and brought to Rome a priſoner—it is next to impoſſible that he ſhould have made St. Paul expreſs expectations ſo contrary to what he ſaw had been the event; and utter prayers, with apparent hopes of ſucceſs, which he muſt have known were fruſtrated in the iſſue.

This ſingle conſideration convinces me, that no concert or conſederacy whatever ſubſiſted between the epiſtle and the Acts [55] of the Apoſtles; and that whatever coin⯑cidences have been or can be pointed out between them, are unſophiſticated, and are the reſult of truth and reality.

It alſo convinces me that the epiſtle was written not only in St. Paul's life time, but before he arrived at Jeruſalem; for the important events relating to him which took place after his arrival at that city, muſt have been known to the Chriſtian community ſoon after they happened: they form the moſt public part of his hiſtory. But had they been known to the author of the epiſtle—in other words, had they then taken place—the paſſage which we have quoted from the epiſtle would not have been found there.

No. VII.

I now proceed to ſtate the conformity which exiſts between the argument of this epiſtle and the hiſtory of its reputed au⯑thor. It is enough for this purpoſe to obſerve, that the object of the epiſtle, that is, of the argumentative part of it, was to place the Gentile convert upon a parity of ſituation with the Jewiſh, in reſpect of his [56] religious condition, and his rank in the divine favour. The epiſtle ſupports this point by a variety of arguments; ſuch as, "that no man of either deſcription was juſtified by the works of the law—for this plain reaſon, that no man had performed them; that it became therefore neceſſary to ap⯑point another medium or condition of juſtification, in which new medium the Jewiſh peculiarity was merged and loſt; that Abraham's own juſtification was an⯑terior to the law, and independent of it; that the Jewiſh converts were to conſider the law as now dead, and themſelves as married to another; that what the law in truth could not do, in that it was weak through the fleſh, God had done by ſend⯑ing his son; that God had rejected the unbelieving Jews, and had ſubſtituted in their place a ſociety of believers in Chriſt, collected indifferently from Jews and Gen⯑tiles." Soon after the writing of this epi⯑ſtle, St. Paul, agreeably to the intention inti⯑mated in the epiſtle itſelf, took his journey to Jeruſalem. The day after he arrived there, he was introduced to the church. [57] What paſſed at this interview is thus related, Acts xxi. 19: "When he had ſaluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his miniſtry: and, when they heard it, they glorified the Lord; and ſaid unto him, Thou ſeeſt, brother, how many thouſands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law; and they are informed of thee, that thou teacheſt all the Jews which are among the Gen⯑tiles to forſake Moſes, ſaying, that they ought not to circumciſe their children, neither to walk after the cuſtoms." St. Paul diſclaimed the charge; but there muſt have been ſomething to have led to it. Now it is only to ſuppoſe that St. Paul openly profeſſed the principles which the epiſtle contains; that, in the courſe of his miniſtry, he had uttered the ſentiments which he is here made to write; and the matter is accounted for. Concerning the accuſation which public rumour had brought againſt him to Jeruſalem, I will not ſay that it was juſt; but I will ſay that, if he was the author of the epiſtle before us, and if [58] his preaching was conſiſtent with his writ⯑ing, it was extremely natural; for, though it be not a neceſſary, ſurely it is an eaſy inference, that if the Gentile convert, who did not obſerve the law of Moſes, held as advantageous a ſituation in his religious intereſts as the Jewiſh convert who did, there could be no ſtrong reaſon for obſerving that law at all. The remonſtrance therefore of the church of Jeruſalem, and the report which occaſioned it, were founded in no very violent miſconſtruction of the apoſtle's doctrine. His reception at Jeruſalem was exactly what I ſhould have expected the author of this epiſtle to have met with. I am entitled therefore to argue that a ſeparate narrative of effects experienced by St. Paul, ſimilar to what a perſon might be expected to experience, who held the doctrines ad⯑vanced in this epiſtle, forms a proof that he did hold theſe doctrines; and that the epiſtle bearing his name, in which ſuch doc⯑trines are laid down, actually proceeded from him.

No. VIII.

This number is ſupplemental to the for⯑mer. I propoſe to point out in it two par⯑ticulars in the conduct of the argument, per⯑fectly adapted to the hiſtorical circumſtances under which the epiſtle was written; which yet are free from all appearance of contri⯑vance, and which it would not I think have entered into the mind of a ſophiſt to con⯑trive.

1. The Epiſtle to the Galatians relates to the ſame general queſtion as the Epiſtle to the Romans. St. Paul had founded the church of Galatia; at Rome he had never been. Ob⯑ſerve now a difference in his manner of treat⯑ing of the ſame ſubject, correſponding with this difference in his ſituation. In the Epiſtle to the Galatians he puts the point in a great meaſure upon authority: "I marvel that ye are ſo ſoon removed from him that called you into the grace of Chriſt, unto another goſpel." Gal. i. 6. "I certify you, bre⯑thren, that the goſpel which was preached of me, is not after man; for I neither re⯑ceived it of man, neither was I taught it but [60] by the revelation of Jeſus Chriſt" (ch. i. ver. 11, 12). "I am afraid leſt I have beſtowed upon you labour in vain" (iv. 11, 12). "I deſire to be preſent with you now, for I ſtand in doubt of you" (iv. 20). "Behold I, Paul, ſay unto you, that, if ye be circumci⯑ſed, Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing" (ch. v. 2). This perſuaſion cometh not of him that call⯑ed you" (ch. v. 8). This is the ſtyle in which he accoſts the Galatians. In the epiſtle to the converts of Rome, where his authority was not eſtabliſhed, nor his perſon known, he puts the ſame point entirely upon argument. The peruſal of the epiſtle will prove this to the ſatisfaction of every reader; and, as the obſervation relates to the whole contents of the epiſtle, I forbear adducing ſeparate ex⯑tracts. I repeat therefore that we have pointed out a diſtinction in the two epiſtles, ſuited to the relation in which the author ſtood to his different correſpondents.

Another adaptation, and ſomewhat of the ſame kind, is the following:

2. The Jews we know were very nume⯑rous at Rome, and probably formed a princi⯑pal part amongſt the new converts; ſo much [61] ſo, that the Chriſtians ſeem to have been known at Rome rather as a denomination of Jews, than as any thing elſe. In an epiſtle conſequently to the Roman believers, the point to be endeavoured after by St. Paul was, to reconcile the Jewiſh converts to the opinion, that the Gentiles were admitted by God to a parity of religious ſituation with themſelves, and that without their being bound by the law of Moſes. The Gentile converts would pro⯑bably accede to this opinion very readily. In this epiſtle, therefore, though directed to the Roman church in general, it is in truth a Jew writing to Jews. Accordingly you will take notice, that as often as his argument leads him to ſay any thing derogatory from the Jewiſh inſtitution, he conſtantly follows it by a ſoft⯑ening clauſe. Having (ii. 28, 29) pro⯑nounced, not much perhaps to the ſatisfaction of the native Jews, "that he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither that cir⯑cumciſion which is outward in the fleſh," he adds immediately "what advantage then hath the Jew, or what profit is there in cir⯑cumciſion? much every way." Having in the [62] third chapter, ver. 28, brought his argument to this formal concluſion, "that a man is juſ⯑tified by faith, without the deeds of the law," he preſently ſubjoins, ver. 31, "do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we eſtabliſh the law." In the ſe⯑venth chapter, when in the ſixth verſe he had advanced the bold aſſertion, that "now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held;" in the very next verſe he comes in with this healing queſtion, "What ſhall we ſay then? Is the law ſin? God forbid; nay, I had not known ſin but by the law." Having in the following words inſinuated, or rather more than inſinuated, the inefficacy of the Jewiſh law, viii. 3, "for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the fleſh, God ſending his own Son in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, and for ſin, condemned ſin in the fleſh;" after a di⯑greſſion indeed, but that ſort of a digreſſion which he could never reſiſt, a rapturous con⯑templation of his Chriſtian hope, and which occupies the latter part of this chapter; we find him in the next, as if ſenſible that he [63] had ſaid ſomething which would give offence, returning to his Jewiſh brethren in terms of the warmeſt affection and reſpect. "I ſay the truth in Chriſt Jeſus; I lie not; my conſcience alſo bearing me witneſs, in the Holy Ghoſt, that I have great heavineſs and continual ſorrow in my heart; for I could wiſh that myſelf were accurſed from Chriſt, for my brethren, my kinſmen ac⯑cording to the fleſh, who are Iſraelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the ſervice of God, and the promiſes; whoſe are the fathers; and of whom, as con⯑cerning the fleſh, Chriſt came." When, in the thirty-firſt and thirty-ſecond verſes of this ninth chapter, he repreſented to the Jews the error of even the beſt of their nation, by telling them that "Iſrael, which followed after the law of righteouſneſs, had not attained to the law of righteouſ⯑neſs, becauſe they ſought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, for they ſtumbled at that ſtumbling-ſtone," he takes care to annex to his declaration [64] theſe conciliating expreſſions: "Brethren, my heart's deſire and prayer to God for Iſrael is, that they might be ſaved; for I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." Laſtly, having, ch. x. ver. 20, 21, by the applica⯑tion of a paſſage in Iſaiah inſinuated the moſt ungrateful of all propoſitions to a Jewiſh ear, the rejection of the Jewiſh nation, as God's peculiar people; he haſtens, as it were, to qualify the intelli⯑gence of their fall by this intereſting expoſ⯑tulation: "I ſay, then, hath God caſt away his people (i. e. wholly and entirely)? God forbid; for I alſo am an Iſraelite, of the ſeed of Abraham, of the tribe of Ben⯑jamin. God hath not caſt away his people which he foreknew:" and follows this thought, throughout the whole of the eleventh chapter, in a ſeries of reflections calculated to ſoothe the Jewiſh converts, as well as to procure from their Gentile brethren reſpect to the Jewiſh inſtitution. Now all this is perfectly natural. In a real St. Paul writing to real converts, it is what [65] anxiety to bring them over to his perſuaſion would naturally produce; but there is an earneſtneſs and a perſonality, if I may ſo call it, in the manner, which a cold forgery, I apprehend, would neither have conceived nor ſupported.

No. I.

BEFORE we proceed to compare this epiſtle with the hiſtory, or with any other epiſtle, we will employ one number in ſtating certain remarks applicable to our argument, which ariſe from a perſual of the epiſtle itſelf.

By an expreſſion in the firſt verſe of the ſeventh chapter, "now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me," it appears, that this letter to the Corinthians was writ⯑ten by St. Paul in anſwer to one which he had received from them; and that the ſeventh, and ſome of the following chapters, are taken up in reſolving certain doubts, and regulating certain points of order, concern⯑ing which the Corinthians had in their letter conſulted him. This alone is a circum⯑ſtance conſiderably in favour of the authen⯑ticity [67] of the epiſtle: for it muſt have been a far-fetched contrivance in a forgery, firſt to have feigned the receipt of a letter from the church of Corinth, which letter does not appear; and then to have drawn up a ficti⯑tious anſwer to it, relative to a great variety of doubts and enquiries, purely oeconomi⯑cal and domeſtic; and which, though like⯑ly enough to have occurred to an infant ſociety, in a ſituation and under an inſti⯑tution ſo novel as that of a Chriſtian church then was, it muſt have very much exerciſed the author's invention, and could have an⯑ſwered no imaginable purpoſe of forgery, to introduce the mention of at all. Particulars of the kind we refer to, are ſuch as the fol⯑lowing: the rule of duty and prudence re⯑lative to entering into marriage, as applicable to virgins, to widows; the caſe of huſbands married to unconverted wives, of wives having unconverted huſbands; that caſe where the unconverted party chooſes to ſeparate, where he chooſes to continue the union; the effect which their converſion produced upon their prior ſtate, of circumciſion, of ſlavery; the eating of things offered to idols, as it was in [68] itſelf, as others were affected by it; the joining in idolatrous ſacrifices; the decorum to be obſerved in their religious aſſemblies, the order of ſpeaking, the ſilence of women, the covering or uncovering of the head, as it became men, as it became women. Theſe ſubjects, with their ſeveral ſubdiviſions, are ſo particular, minute, and numerous, that, though they be exactly agreeable to the cir⯑cumſtances of the perſons to whom the letter was written, nothing, I believe, but the exiſtence and reality of thoſe circum⯑ſtances, could have ſuggeſted to the writer's thoughts.

But this is not the only nor the principal obſervation upon the correſpondence be⯑tween the church of Corinth and their apoſtle, which I wiſh to point out. It appears, I think, in this correſpondence, that although the Corinthians had written to St. Paul, requeſting his anſwer and his directions in the ſeveral points above enu⯑merated, yet that they had not ſaid one ſyllable about the enormities and diſorders which had crept in amongſt them, and in the blame of which they all ſhared; [69] but that St. Paul's information concerning the irregularities then prevailing at Corinth, had come round to him from other quarters. The quarrels and diſputes excited by their contentious adherence to their different teachers, and by their placing of them in competition with one another, were not mentioned in their letter, but communi⯑cated to St. Paul by more private intelli⯑gence: "It hath been declared unto me, my brethren, by them which are of the houſe of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I ſay, that every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Chriſt" (i. 11, 12). The inceſtuous marriage "of a man with his father's wife," which St. Paul repre⯑hends with ſo much ſeverity in the fifth chapter of our epiſtle, and which was not the crime of an individual only, but a crime in which the whole church, by tolerating and conniving at it, had rendered themſelves partakers, did not come to St. Paul's know⯑ledge by the letter, but by a rumour which had reached his ears: "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and [70] ſuch fornication as is not ſo much as named among the Gentiles, that one ſhould have his father's wife; and ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you" (v. 1, 2). Their going to law before the judicature of the country, rather than arbitrate and adjuſt their diſputes among themſelves, which St. Paul animadverts upon with his uſual plain⯑neſs, was not intimated to him in the letter, becauſe he tells them his opinion of this conduct, before he comes to the contents of the letter. Their litigiouſneſs is cenſured by St. Paul in the ſixth chapter of his epiſtle, and it is only at the beginning of the ſeventh chapter that he proceeds upon the articles which he found in their letter; and he proceeds upon them with this pre⯑face: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me" (vii. 1); which intro⯑duction he would not have uſed, if he had been already diſcuſſing any of the ſubjects concerning which they had written. Their irregularities in celebrating the Lord's ſup⯑per, and the utter perverſion of the inſtitu⯑tion [71] which enſued, were not in the letter: as is evident from the terms in which St. Paul mentions the notice he had received of it: "Now in this that I declare unto you, I praiſe you not, that ye came to⯑gether not for the better, but for the worſe; for firſt of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be diviſions among you, and I partly believe it." Now that the Corinthians ſhould, in their own letter, exhibit the fair ſide of their conduct to the Apoſtle, and conceal from him the faults of their beha⯑viour, was extremely natural, and extremely probable: but it was a diſtinction which would not, I think, have eaſily occurred to the author of a forgery; and much leſs likely is it, that it ſhould have entered into his thoughts to make the diſtinction appear in the way in which it does appear, viz. not by the original letter, not by any expreſs obſervation upon it in the anſwer, but diſ⯑tantly by marks perceivable in the manner, or in the order, in which St. Paul takes [...] of their faults.

No. II.

Our epiſtle purports to have been written after St. Paul had already been at Corinth: "I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of ſpeech or of wiſdom" (ii. 1): and in many other places to the ſame effect. It purports alſo to have been written upon the eve of another viſit to that church: "I will come to you ſhortly, if the Lord will" (iv. 19); and again, "I will come to you when I ſhall paſs through Ma⯑cedonia" (xvi. 5). Now the hiſtory relates that St. Paul did in fact viſit Corinth twice; once as recorded at length in the eighteenth, and a ſecond time as mentioned briefly in the twentieth chapter of the Acts. The ſame hiſtory alſo informs us, Acts xx. 1, that it was from Epheſus St. Paul proceeded upon his ſecond journey into Greece. There⯑fore, as the epiſtle purports to have been written a ſhort time preceding that jour⯑ney; and as St. Paul, the hiſtory tells us, had reſided more than two years at Epheſus before he ſet out upon it, it follows that it muſt have been from Epheſus, to be con⯑ſiſtent [73] with the hiſtory, that the epiſtle was written; and every note of place in the epiſtle agrees with this ſuppoſition. "If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beaſts at Epheſus, what advantageth it me, if the dead riſe not?" (xv. 32). I allow that the apoſtle might ſay this, where⯑ever he was; but it was more natural and more to the purpoſe to ſay it, if he was at Epheſus at the time, and in the midſt of thoſe conflicts to which the expreſſion re⯑lates. "The churches of Aſia ſalute you" (xvi. 19). Aſia, throughout the Acts of the Apoſtles and the epiſtles of St. Paul, does not mean the whole of Aſia Minor or Ana⯑tolia, nor even the whole of the proconſular Aſia, but a diſtrict in the anterior part of that country, called Lydian Aſia, divided from the reſt, much as Portugal is from Spain, and of which diſtrict Epheſus was the capital.—"Aquila and Priſcilla ſalute you" (xvi. 19). Aquila and Priſcilla were at Epheſus during the period within which this epiſtle was written (Acts xviii. 18. 26).—"I will tarry at Epheſus until Pentecoſt" (xvi. 8). This, I apprehend, is in terms al⯑moſt [74] aſſerting that he was at Epheſus at the time of writing the epiſtle.—"A great and effectual door is opened unto me" (xvi. 9). How well this declaration correſponded with the ſtate of things at Epheſus, and the pro⯑greſs of the Goſpel in theſe parts, we learn from the reflection with which the hiſtorian concludes the account of certain tranſactions which paſſed there: "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed" (Acts xix. 20); as well as from the complaint of Demetrius, "that not only at Epheſus, but alſo through⯑out all Aſia, this Paul hath perſuaded and turned away much people" (xix. 26).—"And there are many adverſaries," ſays the epiſtle, xvi. 9. Look into the hiſtory of this period, "when divers were hardened and believed not, but ſpake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and ſeparated the diſciples." The conformity therefore upon this head of compariſon, is circumſtantial and perfect. If any one think that this is a conformity ſo obvious, that any forger of tolerable cau⯑tion and ſagacity, would have taken care to preſerve it, I muſt deſire ſuch a one to read [75] the epiſtle for himſelf; and, when he has done ſo, to declare, whether he has diſco⯑vered one mark of art or deſign; whether the notes of time and place appear to him to be inſerted with any reference to each other, with any view of their being com⯑pared with each other, or for the purpoſe of eſtabliſhing a viſible agreement with the hiſtory, in reſpect of them.

No. III.

Chap. iv. ver. 17-19. "For this cauſe I have ſent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved ſon and faithful in the Lord, who ſhall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Chriſt, as I teach every where in every church. Now ſome are puffed up, as though I would not come unto you; but I will come unto you ſhortly, if the Lord will."

With this I compare Acts xix. 21, 22: "After theſe things were ended, Paul pur⯑poſed in the ſpirit, when he had paſſed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jeruſalem; ſaying, after I have been there, [76] I muſt alſo ſee Rome: ſo he ſent unto Macedonia two of them that miniſtered unto him, Timôtheus and Eraſtus."

Though it be not ſaid, it appears I think with ſufficient certainty, I mean from the hiſtory, independently of the epiſtle, that Timothy was ſent upon this occaſion into Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital city, as well as into Macedonia; for the ſending of Timothy and Eraſtus is, in the paſſage where it is mentioned, plainly connected with St. Paul's own journey; he ſent them before him. As he therefore purpoſed to go into Achaia himſelf, it is highly probable that they were to go thither alſo. Nevertheleſs they are ſaid only to have been ſent into Macedonia, becauſe Macedonia was in truth the country to which they went immediately from Epheſus; being directed, as we ſup⯑poſe, to proceed afterwards from thence into Achaia. If this be ſo, the narrative agrees with the epiſtle; and the agreement is attended with very little appearance of deſign. One thing at leaſt concerning it is certain: that if this paſſage of St. Paul's hiſtory had been taken from his letter, it [77] would have ſent Timothy to Corinth by name, or expreſsly however into Achaia.

But there is another circumſtance in theſe two paſſages much leſs obvious, in which an agreement holds, without any room for ſuſpicion that it was produced by deſign. We have obſerved that the ſending of Ti⯑mothy into the peninſula of Greece was connected in the narrative with St. Paul's own journey thither; it is ſtated as the effect of the ſame reſolution. Paul pur⯑poſed to go into Macedonia; "ſo he ſent two of them that miniſtered unto him, Ti⯑motheus and Eraſtus." Now in the epi⯑ſtle alſo you remark that, when the apoſtle mentions his having ſent Timothy unto them, in the very next ſentence he ſpeaks of his own viſit: "for this cauſe have I ſent unto you Timotheus, who is my be⯑loved ſon, &c. Now ſome are puffed up, as though I would not come to you; but I will come to you ſhortly, if God will." Timothy's journey we ſee is mentioned in the hiſtory, and in the epiſtle, in cloſe con⯑nection with St. Paul's own. Here is the ſame order of thought and intention; yet [78] conveyed under ſuch diverſity of circum⯑ſtance and expreſſion, and the mention of them in the epiſtle ſo allied to the occaſion which introduces it, viz. the inſinuation of his adverſaries that he would come to Co⯑rinth no more, that I am perſuaded no at⯑tentive reader will believe, that theſe paſſages were written in concert with one another, or will doubt but that the agreement is un⯑ſought and uncontrived.

But, in the Acts, Eraſtus accompanied Timothy in this journey, of whom no men⯑tion is made in the epiſtle. From what has been ſaid, in our obſervations upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, it appears probable that Eraſ⯑tus was a Corinthian. If ſo, though he ac⯑companied Timothy to Corinth, he was only returning home, and Timothy was the meſ⯑ſenger charged with St. Paul's orders. At any rate, this diſcrepancy ſhews that the paſſages were not taken from one another.

No. IV.

Chap. xvi. ver. 10, 11. "Now, if Timo⯑theus come, ſee that he may be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of [79] the Lord, as I alſo do: let no man therefore deſpiſe him, but conduct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me, for I look for him with the brethren."

From the paſſage conſidered in the pre⯑ceding number, it appears that Timothy was ſent to Corinth, either with the epiſtle, or before it: "for this cauſe have I ſent unto you Timotheus." From the paſſage now quoted, we infer that Timothy was not ſent with the epiſtle; for had he been the bearer of the letter, or accompanied it, would St. Paul in that letter have ſaid, "if Timothy come?" Nor is the ſequel conſiſtent with the ſuppoſition of his carrying the letter; for if Timothy was with the Apoſtle when he wrote the letter, could he ſay, as he does, "I look for him with the brethren?" I conclude therefore that Timothy had left St. Paul to proceed upon his journey before the letter was written. Farther, the paſſage before us ſeems to imply, that Timothy was not ex⯑pected by St. Paul to arrive at Corinth, till after they had received the letter. He gives them directions in the letter how to treat him when he ſhould arrive; "if he come," [80] act towards him ſo and ſo. Laſtly, the whole form of expreſſion is moſt naturally applicable to the ſuppoſition of Timothy's coming to Corinth, not directly from St. Paul, but from ſome other quarter; and that his inſtructions had been, when he ſhould reach Corinth, to return. Now, how ſtands this matter in the hiſtory? Turn to the nine⯑teenth chapter and twenty-firſt verſe of the Acts, and you will find that Timothy did not, when ſent from Epheſus, where he left St. Paul, and where the preſent epiſtle was written, proceed by a ſtraight courſe to Co⯑rinth, but that he went round through Ma⯑cedonia. This clears up every thing; for, although Timothy was ſent forth upon his journey before the letter was written, yet he might not reach Corinth till after the letter arrived there; and he would come to Corinth, when he did come, not directly from St. Paul at Epheſus, but from ſome part of Macedonia. Here therefore is a circumſtantial and critical agreement, and unqueſtionably without deſign; for neither of the two paſſages in the epiſtle mentions Timothy's journey into Macedonia at all, [81] though nothing but a circuit of that kind can explain and reconcile the expreſſions which the writer uſes.

No. V.

Chap. 1. ver. 12. "Now this I ſay, that every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Chriſt."

Alſo, iii. 6, "I have planted, Apollos wa⯑tered, but God gave the increaſe."

This expreſſion; "I have planted, Apollos watered," imports two things; firſt, that Paul had been at Corinth before Apollos; ſecondly, that Apollos had been at Corinth after Paul, but before the writing of this epiſtle. This im⯑plied account of the ſeveral events, and of the order in which they took place, correſponds exactly with the hiſtory. St. Paul, after his firſt viſit into Greece, returned from Corinth into Syria by the way of Epheſus; and, drop⯑ping his companions Aquila and Priſcilla at Epheſus, he proceeded forwards to Jeruſalem: from Jeruſalem he deſcended to Antioch; and from thence made a progreſs through ſome [82] of the upper or northern provinces of the Leſſer Aſia (Acts xviii. 19. 23): during which progreſs, and conſequently in the interval between St. Paul's firſt and ſecond viſit to Corinth, and conſequently alſo before the writing of this epiſtle, which was at Ephe⯑ſus two years at leaſt after the apoſtle's re⯑turn from his progreſs, we hear of Apollos, and we hear of him at Corinth. Whilſt St. Paul was engaged, as hath been ſaid, in Phrygia and Galatia, Apollos came down to Epheſus; and being, in St. Paul's abſence, in⯑ſtructed by Aquila and Priſcilla, and having obtained letters of recommendation from the church at Epheſus, he paſſed over to Achaia; and when he was there, we read that he "helped them much which had believed through grace, for he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly." Acts xviii. 27, 28. To have brought Apollos into Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital city, as well as the principal Chriſtian church; and to have ſhewn that he preached the goſpel in that country, would have been ſufficient for our purpoſe. But the hiſtory happens alſo to mention Corinth by name, as the place [83] in which Apollos, after his arrival in Achaia, fixed his reſidence; for, proceeding with the account of St. Paul's travels, it tells us, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having paſſed through the upper coaſts, came down to Epheſus (xix. 1). What is ſaid there⯑fore of Apollos, in the epiſtle, coincides ex⯑actly, and eſpecially in the point of chrono⯑logy, with what is delivered concerning him in the hiſtory. The only queſtion now is, whether the alluſions were made with a re⯑gard to this coincidence. Now, the occa⯑ſions and purpoſes for which the name of Apollos is introduced in the Acts and in the epiſtles, are ſo independent and ſo re⯑mote, that it is impoſſible to diſcover the ſmalleſt reference from one to the other. Apollos is mentioned in the Acts, in im⯑mediate connection with the hiſtory of Aquila and Priſcilla, and for the very ſin⯑gular circumſtance of his "knowing only the baptiſm of John." In the epiſtle, where none of theſe circumſtances are taken notice of, his name firſt occurs, for the purpoſe of reproving the contentious ſpirit of the Co⯑rinthians; and it occurs only in conjunction [84] with that of ſome others: "Every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Chriſt." The ſecond paſſage in which Apollos appears, "I have planted, Apollos watered," fixes, as we have obſerved, the order of time amongſt three diſtinct events; but it fixes this, I will venture to pronounce, without the writer perceiving that he was doing any ſuch thing. The ſentence fixes this order in exact conformity with the hiſtory; but it is itſelf introduced ſolely for the ſake of the reflection which follows: "Neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that wa⯑tereth, but God that giveth the increaſe."

No. VI.

Chap. iv. ver. 11, 12. "Even unto this preſent hour we both hunger and thirſt, and are naked, and are buffetted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and labour, working with our own hands."

We are expreſsly told, in the hiſtory, that at Corinth St. Paul laboured with his own hands: "He found Aquila and Priſcilla; and, becauſe he was of the ſame craft, he abode [85] with them, and wrought; for by their oc⯑cupation they were tent-makers." But, in the text before us, he is made to ſay, that "he laboured even unto the preſent hour," that is, to the time of writing the epiſtle at Epheſus. Now, in the narration of St. Paul's tranſactions at Epheſus, delivered in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, nothing is ſaid of his working with his own hands; but in the twentieth chapter we read, that upon his return from Greece, he ſent for the elders of the church of Epheſus, to meet him at Miletus; and in the diſcourſe which he there addreſſed to them, amidſt ſome other reflections which he calls to their remembrance, we find the following: "I have coveted no man's ſilver, or gold, or apparel; yea, you yourſelves alſo know, that theſe hands have miniſtered unto my neceſſities, and to them that were with me." The reader will not forget to remark, that though St. Paul be now at Miletus, it is to the elders of the church of Epheſus he is ſpeaking, when he ſays, "Ye yourſelves know that theſe hands have miniſtered to my neceſſities;" and that the whole diſ⯑courſe [86] relates to his conduct, during his laſt preceding reſidence at Epheſus. That manual labour therefore, which he had ex⯑erciſed at Corinth, he continued at Epheſus; and not only ſo, but continued it during that particular reſidence at Epheſus, near the concluſion of which this epiſtle was written: ſo that he might, with the ſtricteſt truth, ſay, at the time of writing the epiſtle, "Even unto this preſent hour we labour, working with our own hands." The correſpondency is ſufficient then, as to the undeſignedneſs of it. It is manifeſt to my judgment, that if the hiſtory, in this article, had been taken from the epiſtle, this cir⯑cumſtance, if it appeared at all, would have appeared in its place, that is, in the direct account of St. Paul's tranſactions at Ephe⯑ſus. The correſpondency would not have been effected, as it is, by a kind of reflected ſtroke, that is, by a reference in a ſubſequent ſpeech, to what in the narrative was omitted. Nor is it likely, on the other hand, that a circumſtance which is not extant in the hiſtory of St. Paul at Epheſus, ſhould have been made the ſubject of a factitious alluſion, [87] in an epiſtle purporting to be written by him from that place: not to mention that the alluſion itſelf, eſpecially as to time, is too oblique and general to anſwer any pur⯑poſe of forgery whatever.

No. VII.

Chap. ix. ver. 20. "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law."

We have the diſpoſition here deſcribed, exemplified in two inſtances which the hiſ⯑tory records; one, Acts xvi. ver. 3: "Him (Timothy) would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and circumciſed him, becauſe of the Jews in thoſe quarters; for they knew all that his father was a Greek." This was before the writing of the epiſtle. The other, Acts xxi. ver. 23, 26, and after the writing of the epiſtle: "Do this that we ſay to thee: we have four men which have a vow on them: them take, and purify thyſelf with them, that they may ſhave their heads; and all may know that thoſe things, whereof they were informed con⯑cerning [88] thee, are nothing; but that thou thyſelf alſo walkeſt orderly, and keepeſt the law.—Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himſelf with them, entered into the temple." Nor does this concurrence between the character and the inſtances look like the reſult of contrivance. St. Paul, in the epiſtle, deſcribes, or is made to deſcribe, his own accommodating conduct towards Jews and towards Gentiles, towards the weak and over-ſcrupulous, towards men indeed of every variety of character; "to them that are without law as without law, being not without law to God, but under the law to Chriſt, that I might gain them that are without law; to the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men, that I might gain ſome." This is the ſequel of the text which ſtands at the head of the preſent num⯑ber. Taking therefore the whole paſſage together, the apoſtle's condeſcenſion to the Jews is mentioned only as a part of his general diſpoſition towards all. It is not probable, that this character ſhould have been made up from the inſtances in the [89] Acts, which relate ſolely to his dealings with the Jews. It is not probable that a ſophiſt ſhould take his hint from thoſe inſtances, and then extend it ſo much beyond them: and it is ſtill more incredible, that the two inſtances in the Acts, circumſtantially re⯑lated, and interwoven with the hiſtory, ſhould have been fabricated in order to ſuit the character, which St. Paul gives of himſelf in the epiſtle.

No. VIII.

Chap. i. 14-17. "I thank God that I baptized none of you but Criſpus and Gaius, leſt any ſhould ſay that I baptized in my own name; and I baptized alſo the houſe⯑hold of Stephanas: beſides, I know not whether I baptized any other; for Chriſt ſent me not to baptize, but to preach the goſpel."

It may be expected that thoſe whom the apoſtle baptized with his own hands, were converts diſtinguiſhed from the reſt by ſome circumſtance, either of eminence, or of con⯑nection with him. Accordingly, of the three [90] names here mentioned, Criſpus, we find, from Acts xviii. ver. 8, was a "chief ruler of the Jewiſh ſynagogue at Corinth, who believed in the Lord, with all his houſe." Gaius, it appears from Romans xvi. 23, was St. Paul's hoſt at Corinth, and the hoſt, he tells us, "of the whole church." The houſehold of Stephanas, we read in the ſix⯑teenth chapter of this epiſtle, "were the firſt fruits of Achaia." Here therefore is the propriety we expected: and it is a proof of reality not to be contemned; for their names appearing in the ſeveral places in which they occur, with a mark of diſtinc⯑tion belonging to each, could hardly be the effect of chance, without any truth to direct it: and, on the other hand, to ſup⯑poſe that they were picked out from theſe paſſages, and brought together in the text before us, in order to diſplay a conformity of names, is both improbable in itſelf, and is rendered more ſo, by the purpoſe for which they are introduced. They come in to aſſiſt St. Paul's exculpation of himſelf, againſt the poſſible charge, of having aſſumed the cha⯑racter [91] of the founder of a ſeparate religion, and with no other viſible, or, as I think, imaginable deſign^*.

No. IX.

Chap. xvi. ver. 10, 11. "Now, if Timo⯑theus come, let no man deſpiſe him."—Why deſpiſe him? This charge is not given [93] concerning any other meſſenger whom St. Paul ſent; and, in the different epiſtles, many ſuch meſſengers are mentioned. Turn to 1 Timothy, chap. iv. ver. 12, and you will find that Timothy was a young man, younger probably than thoſe who were uſually em⯑ployed in the Chriſtian miſſion; and that St. Paul, apprehending leſt he ſhould, on that account, be expoſed to contempt, urges upon him the caution which is there in⯑ſerted, "Let no man deſpiſe the youth."

No. X.

Chap. xvi. ver. 1. "Now, concerning the collection for the ſaints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even ſo do ye."

The churches of Galatia and Phrygia were the laſt churches which St. Paul had viſited before the writing of this epiſtle. He was now at Epheſus, and he came thither immediately from viſiting theſe churches: "He went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia, in order, ſtrength⯑ening all the diſciples. And it came to paſs that Paul having paſſed through the [94] upper coaſts" (viz. the above-named coun⯑tries, called the upper coaſts, as being the northern part of Aſia Minor); "came to Epheſus." Acts xviii. ver. 23; xix. 1. Theſe therefore, probably, were the laſt churches at which he had left directions for their public conduct during his abſenc. Although two years intervened between his journey to Epheſus, and his writing this epiſtle, yet it does not appear that during that time he viſited any other church. That he had not been ſilent when he was in Galatia, upon this ſubject of contribution for the poor, is farther made out from a hint which he lets fall in his epiſtle to that church: "Only they (viz. the other apoſtles) would that we ſhould remember the poor, the ſame alſo which I was forward to do."

No. XI.

Chap. iv. ver. 18. "Now, ſome are puffed up, as though I would not come unto you."

Why ſhould they ſuppoſe that he would not come? Turn to the firſt chapter of the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians, and you [95] will find that he had already diſappointed them: "I was minded to come unto you before, that you might have a ſecond benefit; and to paſs by you into Mace⯑donia, and to come again out of Mace⯑donia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way toward Judea. When I, therefore, was thus minded, did I uſe lightneſs? Or the things that I purpoſe, do I purpoſe according to the fleſh, that with me there ſhould be yea, yea, and nay, nay? But, as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay." It appears from this quotation, that he had not only intended, but that he had promiſed them a viſit before; for, otherwiſe, why ſhould he apologize for the change of his purpoſe, or expreſs ſo much anxiety, leſt this change ſhould be imputed to any culpable fickleneſs in his temper; and leſt he ſhould thereby ſeem to them, as one whoſe word was not, in any ſort, to be depended upon? Beſides which, the terms made uſe of plainly refer to a promiſe: "Our word toward you was not yea and nay." St. Paul therefore had ſignified an intention which he had not [96] been able to execute; and this ſeeming breach of his word, and the delay of his viſit, had, with ſome who were evil affected towards him, given birth to a ſuggeſtion that he would come no more to Corinth.

No. XII.

Chap. v. ver. 7, 8. "For even Chriſt, our paſſover, is ſacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feaſt, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedneſs, but with the unleavened bread of ſincerity and truth."

Dr. Benſon tells us, that from this paſſage, compared with chapter xvi. ver. 8, it has been conjectured that this epiſtle was writ⯑ten about the time of the Jewiſh paſſover; and to me the conjecture appears to be very well founded. The paſſage to which Dr. Benſon refers us is this: "I will tarry at Epheſus until Pentecoſt." With this paſ⯑ſage he ought to have joined another in the ſame context: "And it may be that I will abide, yea and winter with you:" for, from the two paſſages laid together, it follows that the epiſtle was written before [97] Pentecoſt, yet after winter; which neceſſa⯑rily determines the date to the part of the year, within which the paſſover falls. It was written before Pentecoſt, becauſe he ſays, "I will tarry at Epheſus until Pen⯑tecoſt." It was written after winter, be⯑cauſe he tells them, "It may be that I may abide, yea and winter with you." The winter which the apoſtle purpoſed to paſs at Corinth, was undoubtedly the winter next enſuing to the date of the epiſtle; yet it was a winter ſubſequent to the enſuing Pentecoſt, becauſe he did not intend to ſet forwards upon his journey till after that feaſt. The words "let us keep the feaſt, not with old leaven, neither with the lea⯑ven of malice and wickedneſs, but with the unleavened bread of ſincerity and truth," look very like words ſuggeſted by the ſeaſon; at leaſt they have, upon that ſuppoſition, a force and ſignificancy which do not belong to them upon any other; and it is not a little remarkable, that the hints caſually dropped in the epiſtle, concerning particular parts of the year, ſhould coincide with this ſup⯑poſition.

No. I.

I WILL not ſay that it is impoſſible, having ſeen the firſt Epiſtle to the Co⯑rinthians, to conſtruct a ſecond with oſten⯑ſible alluſions to the firſt; or that it is im⯑poſſible that both ſould be fabricated, ſo as to carry on an order and continuation of ſtory, by ſucceſſive references to the ſame events. But I ſay, that this, in either caſe, muſt be the effect of craft and deſign. Whereas, whoever examines the alluſions to the former epiſtle, which he finds in this, whilſt he will acknowledge them to be ſuch, as would riſe ſpontaneouſly to the hand of the writer, from the very ſubject of the correſpondence, and the ſituation of the cor⯑reſponding parties, ſuppoſing theſe to be real, will ſee no particle of reaſon to ſuſpect, either that the clauſes containing theſe allu⯑ſions [99] were inſertions for the purpoſe, or that the ſeveral tranſactions of the Corinthian church were feigned, in order to form a train of narrative, or to ſupport the appear⯑ance of connection between the two epiſtles.

1. In the firſt epiſtle, St. Paul announces his intention of paſſing through Macedonia, in his way to Corinth: "I will come to you when I ſhall paſs through Macedonia." In the ſecond epiſtle, we find him arrived in Macedonia, and about to purſue his jour⯑ney to Corinth. But obſerve the manner in which this is made to appear: "I know the forwardneſs of your mind, for which I boaſt of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago, and your zeal hath provoked very many: yet have I ſent the brethren, leſt our boaſting of you ſhould be in vain in this behalf; that, as I ſaid, ye may be ready, leſt haply, if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we, that we ſay not you, be aſhamed in this ſame confident boaſting" (chap. ix. 2, 3, 4). St. Paul's being in Macedonia at the time of writing the epiſtle, is, in this paſſage, in⯑ferred [100] only from his ſaying, that he had boaſted to the Macedonians of the alacrity of his Achaian converts; and the fear which he expreſſes, leſt, if any of the Macedonian Chriſtians ſhould come with him into Achaia, they ſhould ſind his boaſting un⯑warranted by the event. The buſineſs of the contribution is the ſole cauſe of men⯑tioning Macedonia at all. Will it be in⯑ſinuated that this paſſage was framed merely to ſtate that St. Paul was now in Mace⯑donia; and, by that ſtatement, to produce an apparent agreement with the purpoſe of viſiting Macedonia, notified in the firſt epi⯑ſtle? Or will it be thought probable, that, if a ſophiſt had meant to place St. Paul in Macedonia, for the ſake of giving coun⯑tenance to his forgery, he would have done it in ſo oblique a manner as through the medium of the contribution? The ſame thing may be obſerved of another text in the epiſtle, in which the name of Macedo⯑nia occurs: "Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach the goſpel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no reſt in my ſpirit, becauſe I found not [101] Titus, my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Mace⯑donia." I mean, that it may be obſerved of this paſſage alſo, that there is a reaſon for mentioning Macedonia, entirely diſtinct from the purpoſe of ſhewing St. Paul to be there. Indeed, if the paſſage before us ſhew that point at all, it ſhews it ſo obſcurely, that Grotius, though he did not doubt that Paul was now in Macedonia, refers this text to a different journey. Is this the hand of a forger, meditating to eſtabliſh a falſe con⯑formity? The text, however, in which it is moſt ſtrongly implied that St. Paul wrote the preſent epiſtle from Macedonia, is found in the fourth, fifth, and ſixth verſes of the ſeventh chapter: "I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribula⯑tion; for, when we were come into Mace⯑donia, our fleſh had no reſt; without were fightings, within were fears; neverthe⯑leſs God, that comforteth thoſe that are caſt down, comforted us by the coming of Titus." Yet even here, I think, no one will contend, that St. Paul's coming to Macedonia, or being in Macedonia, was the [102] principal thing intended to be told; or that the telling of it indeed, was any part of the intention with which the text was written; or that the mention even of the name of Macedonia was not purely incidental, in the deſcription of thoſe tumultuous ſorrows with which the writer's mind had been lately agitated, and from which he was relieved by the coming of Titus. The ſive firſt verſes of the eighth chapter, which commend the liberality of the Macedonian churches, do not, in my opinion, by themſelves prove St. Paul to have been in Macedonia, at the time of writing the epiſtle.

2. In the firſt epiſtle, St. Paul denounces a ſevere cenſure againſt an inceſtuous mar⯑riage, which had taken place amongſt the Corinthian converts, with the connivance, not to ſay with the approbation, of the church; and enjoins the church to purge itſelf of this ſcandal, by expelling the of⯑fender from its ſociety: "It is reported commonly, that there is fornication among you, and ſuch fornication, as is not ſo much as named amongſt the Gentiles, that one ſhould have his father's wife; and ye [103] are puffed up, and have not rather mourn⯑ed, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you; for I, verily, as abſent in body, but preſent in ſpirit, have judged already, as though I were preſent, concerning him that hath ſo done this deed; in the name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, when ye are gathered toge⯑ther, and my ſpirit, with the power of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, to deliver ſuch a one unto Satan for the deſtruction of the fleſh, that the ſpirit may be ſaved in the day of the Lord" (chap. v. ver. 1-5). In the ſecond epiſtle, we ſind this ſentence executed, and the offender to be ſo affected with the puniſhment, that St. Paul now in⯑tercedes for his reſtoration: "Sufficient to ſuch a man is this puniſhment, which was inflicted of many; ſo that, contrariwiſe, ye ought rather to ſorgive him and comfort him, leſt perhaps ſuch a one ſhould be ſwallowed up with over-much ſorrow; wherefore I beſeech you, that ye would confirm your love towards him" (2 Cor. chap. ii. ver. 7, 8). Is this whole buſineſs feigned for the ſake of carrying on a conti⯑nuation [104] of ſtory through the two epiſtles? The church alſo, no leſs than the offender, was brought by St. Paul's reproof to a deep ſenſe of the impropriety of their conduct. Their penitence, and their reſpect to his au⯑thority, were, as might be expected, exceed⯑ingly grateful to St. Paul: "We were com⯑forted not by Titus's coming only, but by the conſolation wherewith he was com⯑forted in you, when he told us your earneſt deſire, your mourning, your fervent mind towards me, ſo that I rejoiced the more; for, bough I made you ſorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did re⯑pent; for I perceive that the ſame epiſtle made you ſorry, though it were but for a ſeaſon. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made ſorry, but that ye ſorrowed to re⯑pentance; for ye were made ſorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive da⯑mage by us in nothing" (chap. vii. 7-9). That this paſſage is to be referred to the inceſtuous marriage, is proved by the twelfth verſe of the ſame chapter: "Though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cauſe that had done the wrong, nor for his cauſe [105] that ſuffered wrong; but that our care for you, in the ſight of God, might appear unto you." There were, it is true, various topics of blame noticed in the firſt epiſtle; but there was none, except this of the in⯑ceſtuous marriage, which could be called a tranſaction between private parties, or of which it could be ſaid that one particular perſon had "done the wrong," and another particular perſon "had ſuffered it." Could all this be without foundation? or could it be put into the ſecond epiſtle, merely to furniſh an obſcure ſequel to what had been ſaid about an inceſtuous marriage in the firſt?

3. In the ſixteenth chapter of the firſt epiſtle, a collection for the ſaints is recom⯑mended to be ſet forwards at Corinth: "Now, concerning the collection for the ſaints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, ſo do ye" (chap. xvi. ver. 1). In the ninth chapter of the ſecond epiſtle, ſuch a collection is ſpoken of, as in readineſs to be received: "As touching the miniſtering to the ſaints, it is ſuperfluous for me to write to you, for I know the forwardneſs of your mind, for which I [106] boaſt of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago, and your zeal hath provoked very many" (chap. ix. ver. 1, 2). This is ſuch a continuation of the tranſaction as might be expected; or, poſſibly it will be ſaid, as might eaſily be counterfeited: but there is a circumſtance of nicety in the agreement between the two epiſtles, which, I am convinced, the author of a forgery would not have hit upon, or which, if he had hit upon it, he would have ſet forth with more clearneſs. The ſecond epiſtle ſpeaks of the Corinthians as having begun this eleemoſynary buſineſs a year be⯑fore: "This is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but alſo to be forward a year ago" (chap. viii. ver. 10). "I boaſt of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago" (chap. ix. ver. 2). From theſe texts it is evident, that ſomething had been done in the buſineſs a year before. It appears, however, from other texts in the epiſtle, that the contribu⯑tion was not yet collected or paid; for bre⯑thren were ſent from St. Paul to Corinth, "to make up their bounty" (chap. ix. ver. 5). [107] They are urged to "perform the doing of it" (chap. viii. ver. 11). "And every man was exhorted to give as he purpoſed in his heart" (chap. ix. ver. 7). The contribution therefore, as repreſented in our preſent epiſtle, was in readineſs, yet not re⯑ceived from the contributors; was begun, was forward long before, yet not hitherto collected. Now this repreſentation agrees with one, and only with one ſuppoſition, namely, that every man had laid by in ſtore, had already provided the fund, from which he was afterwards to contribute—the very caſe which the firſt epiſtle authoriſes us to ſuppoſe to have exiſted; for in that epiſtle St. Paul had charged the Corinthians, "up⯑on the firſt day of the week, every one of them to lay by in ſtore as God had pro⯑ſpered him"^* (1 Cor. chap. xvi. ver. 2).

No. II.

In comparing the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians with the Acts of the Apoſtles, we are ſoon brought to obſerve, not only that there exiſts no veſtige either of the epi⯑ſtle having been taken from the hiſtory, or the hiſtory from the epiſtle; but alſo that there appears in the contents of the epiſtle poſitive evidence, that neither was borrowed from the other. Titus, who bears a conſpi⯑cuous [109] part in the epiſtle, is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apoſtles at all. St. Paul's ſufferings enumerated, chap. xi. ver. 24, "of the Jews five times received I forty ſtripes ſave one; thrice was I beaten with rods; once was I ſtoned; thrice I ſuffered ſhipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep," cannot be made out from [110] his hiſtory, as delivered in the Acts, nor would this account have been given by a writer, who either drew his knowledge of St. Paul from that hiſtory, or who was care⯑ful to preſerve a conformity with it. The account in the epiſtle, of St. Paul's eſcape from Damaſcus, though agreeing in the main fact with the account of the ſame tranſaction in the Acts, is related with ſuch difference of circumſtance, as renders it ut⯑terly improbable that one ſhould be derived from the other. The two accounts, placed by the ſide of each other, ſtand as follows:

Now if we be ſatisfied in general concern⯑ing theſe two ancient writings, that the one [111] was not known to the writer of the other, or not conſulted by him; then the accor⯑dances which may be pointed out between them, will admit of no ſolution ſo probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.

No. III.

The opening of this epiſtle exhibits a connection with the hiſtory, which alone would ſatisfy my mind, that the epiſtle was written by St. Paul, and by St. Paul in the ſituation in which the hiſtory places him. Let it be remembered, that in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, St. Paul is repreſented as driven away from Epheſus, or as leaving however Epheſus, in conſequence of an uproar in that city, excited by ſome inte⯑reſted adverſaries of the new religion. The account of the tumult is as follows: "When they heard theſe ſayings," viz. Deme⯑trius's complaint of the danger to be appre⯑hended from St. Paul's miniſtry to the eſta⯑bliſhed worſhip of the Epheſian goddeſs, "they were full of wrath, and cried out, ſaying, Great is Diana of the Epheſians; [112] and the whole city was filled with confu⯑ſion; and having caught Gaius and Ariſ⯑tarchus, Paul's companions in travel, they ruſhed with one accord into the theatre; and when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the diſciples ſuffered him not; and certain of the chief of Aſia, which were his friends, ſent unto him, deſiring that he would not adventure him⯑ſelf into the theatre. Some, therefore, cried one thing, and ſome another; for the aſſembly was confuſed, and the more part knew not wherefore they were come to⯑gether. And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward; and Alexander beckoned with his hand, and would have made his de⯑fence unto the people; but, when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice, about the ſpace of two hours, cried out, Great is Diana of the Epheſians.—And after the uproar was ceaſed, Paul called unto him the diſciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Mace⯑donia." When he was arrived in Mace⯑donia, he wrote the ſecond Epiſtle to the [113] Corinthians which is now before us; and he begins his epiſtle in this wiſe: "Bleſſed be God, even the father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the father of mercies, and the God of all comfort, who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourſelves are comforted of God. For, as the ſufferings of Chriſt abound in us, ſo our conſolation alſo aboundeth by Chriſt: and whether we be afflicted, it is for your conſolation and ſalvation, which is ef⯑fectual in the enduring of the ſame ſuffer⯑ings, which we alſo ſuffer; or whether we be comforted, it is for your conſolation and ſalvation; and our hope of you is ſteadfaſt, knowing that, as ye are partakers of the ſufferings, ſo ſhall ye be alſo of the conſolation. For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Aſia, that we were preſſed out of meaſure, above ſtrength, inſo⯑much that we deſpaired even of life; but we had the ſentence of death in ourſelves, that we ſhould not truſt in ourſelves, but [114] in God which raiſeth the dead, who de⯑livered us from ſo great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we truſt that he will yet deliver us." Nothing could be more expreſſive of the circumſtances in which the hiſtory deſcribes St. Paul to have been, at the time when the epiſtle purports to be written; or rather, nothing could be more expreſſive of the ſenſations ariſing from theſe circum⯑ſtances, than this paſſage. It is the calm recollection of a mind emerged from the confuſion of inſtant danger. It is that de⯑votion and ſolemnity of thought, which fol⯑lows a recent deliverance. There is juſt enough of particularity in the paſſage, to ſhew that it is to be referred to the tumult at Epheſus: "We would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Aſia." And there is nothing more; no mention of Demetrius, of the ſeizure of St. Paul's friends, of the interference of the town-clerk, of the occaſion or nature of the danger which St. Paul had eſcaped, or even of the city where it happened; in a word, no recital from which a ſuſpicion could be conceived, either that the author of the [115] epiſtle had made uſe of the narrative in the Acts; or, on the other hand, that he had ſketched the outline, which the narrative in the Acts only filled up. That the forger of an epiſtle, under the name of St. Paul, ſhould borrow circumſtances from a hiſtory of St. Paul then extant; or, that the author of a hiſtory of St. Paul ſhould gather materials from letters bearing St. Paul's name, may be credited: but I cannot believe that any forger whatever ſhould fall upon an expedient ſo reſined, as to exhibit ſentiments adapted to a ſituation, and to leave his readers to ſeek out that ſituation from the hiſtory; ſtill leſs, that the author of a hiſtory ſhould go about to frame facts and circumſtances, fitted to ſup⯑ply the ſentiments which he found in the letter. It may be ſaid, perhaps, that it does not appear from the hiſtory, that any danger threatened St. Paul's life in the uproar at Epheſus, ſo imminent as that, from which in the epiſtle he repreſents himſelf to have been delivered. This matter, it is true, is not ſtated by the hiſtorian in form; but the perſonal danger of the apoſtle, we cannot doubt, muſt have been extreme, when the [116] "whole city was filled with confuſion;" when the populace had "ſeized his com⯑panions;" when, in the diſtraction of his mind, he inſiſted upon "coming forth amongſt them;" when the Chriſtians who were about him "would not ſuffer him;" when "his friends, certain of the chief of Aſia, ſent to him, deſiring that he would not adventure himſelf in the tumult;" when, laſtly, he was obliged to quit imme⯑diately the place and the country, "and, when the tumult was ceaſed, to depart into Macedonia." All which particulars are found in the narration, and juſtify St. Paul's own account, "that he was preſſed out of meaſure, above ſtrength, inſomuch that he deſpaired even of life, that he had the ſentence of death in himſelf;" i. e. that he looked upon himſelf as a man condemned to die.

No. IV.

It has already been remarked, that St. Paul's original intention was to have viſited Corinth in his way to Macedonia: "I was minded to come unto you before, and to paſs by you into Macedonia" (2 Cor. [117] chap. i. ver. 15, 16). It has alſo been remarked that he changed this intention, and ulti⯑mately reſolved upon going through Mace⯑donia firſt. Now upon this head there exiſts a circumſtance of correſpondency between our epiſtle and the hiſtory, which is not very obvious to the reader's obſervation; but which, when obſerved, will be found, I think, cloſe and exact. Which circum⯑ſtance is this: that though the change of St. Paul's intention be expreſsly mentioned only in the ſecond epiſtle, yet it appears, both from the hiſtory and from this ſecond epiſtle, that the change had taken place before the writing of the firſt epiſtle; that it appears however from neither, otherwiſe than by an inference, unnoticed perhaps by almoſt every one who does not ſit down profeſſedly to the examination.

Firſt, then, how does this point appear from the hiſtory? In the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, and the twenty-firſt verſe, we are told, that "Paul purpoſed in the ſpirit, when he had paſſed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jeruſalem. So he ſent into Macedonia two of them that [118] miniſtered unto him, Timotheus and Eraſ⯑tus; but he himſelf ſtayed in Aſia for a ſeaſon." A ſhort time after this, and evi⯑dently in purſuance of the ſame intention, we find (chap. xx. ver. 1, 2) that "Paul departed from Epheſus for to go into Macedonia; and that, when he had gone over thoſe parts, he came into Greece." The reſolution therefore of paſſing firſt through Macedonia, and from thence into Greece, was formed by St. Paul previouſly to the ſending away of Timothy. The or⯑der in which the two countries are men⯑tioned, ſhews the direction of his intended route, "when he had paſſed through Mace⯑donia and Achaia." Timothy and Eraſtus, who were to precede him in his progreſs, were ſent by him from Epheſus into Mace⯑donia. He himſelf a ſhort time afterwards, and, as hath been obſerved, evidently in continuation and purſuance of the ſame de⯑ſign, "departed for to go into Macedonia." If he had ever therefore entertained a diffe⯑rent plan of his journey, which is not hinted in the hiſtory, he muſt have changed that plan before this time. But, from the ſeven⯑teenth [119] verſe of the fourth chapter of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, we diſcover, that Timothy had been ſent away from Epheſus before that epiſtle was written: "For this cauſe have I ſent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved ſon." The change therefore of St. Paul's reſolution, which was prior to the ſending away of Timothy, was neceſſarily prior to the writing of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians.

Thus ſtands the order of dates, as collected from the hiſtory, compared with the firſt epiſtle. Now let us enquire, ſecondly, how this matter is repreſented in the epiſtle be⯑fore us. In the ſixteenth verſe of the firſt chapter of this epiſtle, St. Paul ſpeaks of the intention which he had once entertained of viſiting Achaia, in his way to Macedonia: "In this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a ſe⯑cond benefit; and to paſs by you into Macedonia." After proteſting, in the ſe⯑venteenth verſe, againſt any evil conſtruc⯑tion that might be put upon his laying aſide of this intention, in the twenty-third verſe he diſcloſes the cauſe of it: "Moreover I [120] call God for a record upon my ſoul, that, to ſpare you, I came not as yet unto Co⯑rinth." And then he proceeds as follows: "But I determined this with myſelf, that I would not come again to you in heavi⯑neſs; for if I make you ſorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the ſame which is made ſorry by me? And I wrote this ſame unto you, leſt when I came I ſhould have ſorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all: for, out of much affliction and anguiſh of heart, I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye ſhould be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you; but if any have cauſed grief, he hath not grieved me but in part, that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to ſuch a man is this pu⯑niſhment, which was inflicted of many." In this quotation, let the reader firſt direct his attention to the clauſe marked by Italics, "and I wrote this ſame unto you;" and let him conſider, whether from the context, and from the ſtructure of the whole paſſage, it [121] be not evident that this writing was after St. Paul had "determined with himſelf, that he would not come again to them in hea⯑vineſs?" whether, indeed, it was not in conſequence of this determination, or at leaſt with this determination upon his mind? And, in the next place, let him conſider, whether the ſentence, "I determined this with myſelf, that I would not come again to you in heavineſs," do not plainly refer to that poſtponing of his viſit, to which he had alluded in the verſe but one before, when he ſaid, "I call God for a record upon my ſoul, that, to ſpare you, I came not as yet to Corinth;" and whether this be not the viſit of which he ſpeaks in the ſixteenth verſe, wherein he informs the Corinthians, "that he had been minded to paſs by them into Macedonia;" but that, for reaſons which argued no levity or fickleneſs in his diſpoſition, he had been compelled to change his purpoſe. If this be ſo, then it follows that the writing here mentioned was poſte⯑rior to the change of his intention. The only queſtion, therefore, that remains will be, whether this writing relate to the letter [122] which we now have under the title of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, or to ſome other letter not extant? And upon this queſ⯑tion I think Mr. Locke's obſervation deci⯑ſive; namely, that the ſecond clauſe marked in the quotation by Italics, "I wrote unto you with many tears," and the firſt clauſe ſo marked, "I wrote this ſame unto you," belong to one writing, whatever that was; and that the ſecond clauſe goes on to advert to a circumſtance which is found in our pre⯑ſent firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians; namely, the caſe and puniſhment of the inceſtuous perſon. Upon the whole then we ſee, that it is capable of being inferred from St. Paul's own words, in the long extract which we have quoted, that the firſt Epiſtle to the Co⯑rinthians was written after St. Paul had de⯑termined to poſtpone his journey to Corinth; in other words, that the change of his pur⯑poſe, with reſpect to the courſe of his jour⯑ney, though expreſsly mentioned only in the ſecond epiſtle, had taken place before the writing of the firſt; the point which we made out to be implied in the hiſtory, by the order of the events there recorded, and [123] the alluſions to thoſe events in the firſt epi⯑ſtle. Now this is a ſpecies of congruity of all others the moſt to be relied upon. It is not an agreement between two accounts of the ſame tranſaction, or between different ſtatements of the ſame fact, for the fact is not ſtated; nothing that can be called an account is given; but it is the junction of two concluſions, deduced from independent ſources, and deducible only by inveſtiga⯑tion and compariſon.

This point, viz. the change of the route, being prior to the writing of the firſt epiſtle, alſo falls in with, and accounts for, the man⯑ner in which he ſpeaks in that epiſtle of his journey. His firſt intention had been, as he here declares, to "paſs by them into Mace⯑donia;" that intention having been previ⯑ouſly given up, he writes, in his firſt epiſtle, "that he would not ſee them now by the way," i. e. as he muſt have done upon his firſt plan; "but that he truſted to tarry awhile with them, and poſſibly to abide, yea and winter with them" (1 Cor. chap. xvi. ver. 5, 6). It alſo accounts for a ſingula⯑rity in the text referred to, which muſt ſtrike [124] every reader: "I will come to you when I paſs through Macedonia; for I do paſs through Macedonia." The ſupplemental ſentence, "for I do paſs through Macedonia," imports that there had been ſome previous communication upon the ſubject of the jour⯑ney; and alſo that there had been ſome vacil⯑lation and indeciſiveneſs in the apoſtle's plan; both which we now perceive to have been the caſe. The ſentence is as much as to ſay, "this is what I at laſt reſolve upon." The expreſſion " [...]," is ambi⯑guous; it may denote either "when I paſs, or when I ſhall have paſſed, through Ma⯑cedonia:" the conſiderations offered above fix it to the latter ſenſe. Laſtly, the point we have endeavoured to make out, confirms, or rather indeed is neceſſary to the ſupport of a conjecture, which forms the ſubject of a number in our obſervations upon the firſt epiſtle, that the inſinuation of certain of the church of Corinth, that he would come no more amongſt them, was founded in ſome previous diſappointment of their expecta⯑tions.

No. V.

But if St. Paul had changed his purpoſe before the writing of the firſt epiſtle, why did he defer explaining himſelf to the Co⯑rinthians, concerning the reaſon of that change, until he wrote the ſecond? This is a very fair queſtion; and we are able, I think, to return to it a ſatisfactory anſwer. The real cauſe, and the cauſe at length aſ⯑ſigned by St. Paul for poſtponing his viſit to Corinth, and not travelling by the route which he had at firſt deſigned, was the diſ⯑orderly ſtate of the Corinthian church at the time, and the painful ſeverities which he ſhould have found himſelf obliged to exer⯑ciſe, if he had come amongſt them during the exiſtence of theſe irregularities. He was willing therefore to try, before he came in perſon, what a letter of authoritative ob⯑jurgation would do amongſt them, and to leave time for the operation of the experi⯑ment. That was his ſcheme in writing the firſt epiſtle. But it was not for him to ac⯑quaint them with the ſcheme. After the epiſtle had produced its effect (and to the [126] utmoſt extent, as it ſhould ſeem of the apo⯑ſtle's hopes); when it had wrought in them a deep ſenſe of their fault, and an almoſt paſſionate ſolicitude to reſtore themſelves to the approbation of their teacher; when Ti⯑tus (chap. vii. ver. 6, 7, 11) had brought him intelligence "of their earneſt deſire, their mourning, their fervent mind towards him, of their ſorrow and their penitence; what carefulneſs, what clearing of themſelves, what indignation, what fear, what ve⯑hement deſire, what zeal, what revenge," his letter, and the general concern occa⯑ſioned by it, had excited amongſt them; he then opens himſelf fully upon the ſub⯑ject. The affectionate mind of the apoſtle is touched by this return of zeal and duty. He tells them that he did not viſit them at the time propoſed, leſt their meeting ſhould have been attended with mutual grief; and with grief to him embittered by the reflec⯑tion, that he was giving pain to thoſe, from whom alone he could receive comfort: "I determined this with myſelf, that I would not come again to you in heavineſs; for if I make you ſorry, who is he that mak⯑eth [127] me glad but the ſame which is made ſorry by me?" (chap. ii. ver. 1, 2) that he had written his former epiſtle to warn them beforehand of their fault, "leſt when he came he ſhould have ſorrow of them of whom he ought to rejoice" (chap. ii. ver. 3); that he had the farther view, though perhaps unperceived by them, of making an experiment of their fidelity, "to know the proof of them, whether they were obe⯑dient in all things" (chap. ii. ver. 9). This full diſcovery of his motive came very natu⯑rally from the apoſtle, after he had ſeen the ſucceſs of his meaſures, but would not have been a ſeaſonable communication before. The whole compoſes a train of ſentiment and of conduct reſulting from real ſituation, and from real circumſtance, and as remote as poſſible from fiction or impoſture.

No. VI.

Chap. xi. ver. 9. "When I was preſent with you and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me, the brethren which came from Ma⯑cedonia ſupplied." The principal fact ſet [128] forth in this paſſage, the arrival at Corinth of brethren from Macedonia during St. Paul's firſt reſidence in that city, is explicitly re⯑corded, Acts, chap. xviii. ver. 1, 5: "After theſe things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedo⯑nia, Paul was preſſed in ſpirit, and teſtified to the Jews that Jeſus was Chriſt."

No. VII.

The above quotation from the Acts proves that Silas and Timotheus were aſſiſting to St. Paul in preaching the goſpel at Corinth. With which correſpond the words of the epiſtle (chap. i. ver. 19): "For the Son of God, Jeſus Chriſt, who was preached among you by us, even by me, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea." I do admit that the correſpondency, conſidered by itſelf, is too direct and obvious; and that an impoſtor with the hiſtory before him might, and pro⯑bably would, produce agreements of the ſame kind. But let it be remembered, that this reference is found in a writing, which from [129] many diſcrepancies, and eſpecially from thoſe noted No. II. we may conclude, was not compoſed by any one who had conſulted, and who purſued the hiſtory. Some obſer⯑vation alſo ariſes upon the variation of the name. We read Silas in the Acts, Silvanus in the epiſtle. The ſimilitude of theſe two names, if they were the names of different perſons, is greater than could eaſily have proceeded from accident; I mean that it is not probable, that two perſons placed in ſitu⯑ations ſo much alike, ſhould bear names ſo nearly reſembling each other^*. On the other hand, the difference of the name in the two paſſages negatives the ſuppoſition of the paſſages, or the account contained in them, being tranſcribed either from the other.

No. VIII.

Chap. ii. ver. 12, 13. "When I came to Troas to preach Chriſt's goſpel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, [130] I had no reſt in my ſpirit, becauſe I found not Titus, my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia."

To eſtabliſh a conformity between this paſſage and the hiſtory, nothing more is ne⯑ceſſary to be preſumed, than that St. Paul proceeded from Epheſus to Macedonia, upon the ſame courſe by which he came back from Macedonia to Epheſus, or rather to Miletus in the neighbourhood of Epheſus; in other words, that, in his journey to the peninſula of Greece, he went and returned the ſame way. St. Paul is now in Macedonia, where he had lately arrived from Epheſus. Our quotation imports that in his journey he had ſtopped at Troas. Of this, the hiſtory ſays nothing, leaving us only the ſhort account, "that Paul departed from Epheſus, for to go into Macedonia." But the hiſtory ſays, that in his return from Macedonia to Ephe⯑ſus, "Paul ſailed from Philippi to Troas; and that, when the diſciples came together on the firſt day of the week to break bread, Paul preached unto them all night; that from Troas he went by land to Aſſos, from [131] Aſſos, taking ſhip and coaſting along the front of Aſia Minor, he came by Mytelene to Miletus." Which account proves, firſt, that Troas lay in the way by which St. Paul paſſed between Epheſus and Macedonia; ſecondly, that he had diſciples there. In one journey between theſe two places, the epiſtle, and in another journey between the ſame places, the hiſtory makes him ſtop at this city. Of the firſt journey he is made to ſay, "that a door was in that city opened unto him of the Lord;" in the ſecond we find diſciples there collected around him, and the apoſtle exerciſing his miniſtry, with, what was even in him, more than ordinary zeal and labour. The epiſtle therefore is in this inſtance confirmed, if not by the terms, at leaſt by the probability of the hiſtory; a ſpecies of conſirmation by no means to be deſpiſed, becauſe, as far as it reaches, it is evidently uncontrived.

Grotius, I know, refers the arrival at Troas, to which the epiſtle alludes, to a dif⯑ferent period, but I think very improbably; for nothing appears to me more certain, than that the meeting with Titus, which St. Paul [132] expected at Troas, was the ſame meeting which took place in Macedonia, viz. upon Titus's coming out of Greece. In the quo⯑tation before us, he tells the Corinthians, "When I came to Troas, I had no reſt in my ſpirit, becauſe I found not Titus, my brother; but, taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia." Then in the ſeventh chapter he writes, "When we were come into Macedonia our fleſh had no reſt, but we were troubled on every ſide; without were fightings, within were fears; nevertheleſs God, that comforteth them that are caſt down, comforted us by the coming of Titus." Theſe two paſ⯑ſages plainly relate to the ſame journey of Titus, in meeting with whom St. Paul had been diſappointed at Troas, and rejoiced in Macedonia. And amongſt other reaſons which fix the former paſſage to the coming of Titus out of Greece, is the conſideration, that it was nothing to the Corinthians that St. Paul did not meet with Titus at Troas, were it not that he was to bring intelligence from Corinth. The mention of the diſap⯑pointment [133] in this place, upon any other ſuppoſition, is irrelative.

No. IX.

Chap. xi. ver. 24, 25. "Of the Jews five times received I forty ſtripes ſave one; thrice was I beaten with rods; once was I ſtoned; thrice I ſuffered ſhipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep."

Theſe particulars cannot be extracted out of the Acts of the Apoſtles; which proves, as hath been already obſerved, that the epi⯑ſtle was not framed from the hiſtory; yet they are conſiſtent with it, which, conſider⯑ing how numerically circumſtantial the ac⯑count is, is more than could happen to arbi⯑trary and independent fictions. When I ſay that theſe particulars are conſiſtent with the hiſtory, I mean, firſt, that there is no article in the enumeration which is contra⯑dicted by the hiſtory; ſecondly, that the hiſtory, though ſilent with reſpect to many of the facts here enumerated, has left ſpace for the exiſtence of theſe facts, conſiſtent with the ſidelity of its own narration.

Firſt, no contradiction is diſcoverable be⯑tween [134] the epiſtle and the hiſtory. When St. Paul ſays, thrice was I beaten with rods, although the hiſtory record only one beating with rods, viz. at Philippi, Acts, chap. xvi. ver. 22, yet is there no contradiction. It is only the omiſſion in one book of what is related in another. But had the hiſtory contained accounts of four beatings with rods, at the time of writing this epiſtle, in which St. Paul ſays that he had only ſuffered three, there would have been a contradiction pro⯑perly ſo called. The ſame obſervation ap⯑plies generally to the other parts of the enumeration, concerning which the hiſtory is ſilent: but there is one clauſe in the quo⯑tation particularly deſerving of remark; be⯑cauſe, when confronted with the hiſtory, it furniſhes the neareſt approach to a contra⯑diction, without a contradiction being ac⯑tually incurred, of any I remember to have met with. "Once," ſaith St. Paul, "was I ſtoned." Does the hiſtory relate that St. Paul, prior to the writing of this epiſtle, had been ſtoned more than once? The hiſtory mentions diſtinctly one occaſion up⯑on which St. Paul was ſtoned, viz. at Lyſ⯑tra [135] in Lycaonia. "Then came thither cer⯑tain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who perſuaded the people; and, having ſtoned Paul, drew him out of the city, ſuppoſing he had been dead" (chap. xiv. ver. 19). And it mentions alſo another occaſion in which "an aſſault was made both of the Gentiles, and alſo of the Jews with their rulers, to uſe them deſpitefully, and to ſtone them; but they were aware of it," the hiſtory proceeds to tell us, "and fled into Lyſtra and Derbe." This happened at Iconium, prior to the date of the epiſtle. Now had the aſſault been completed; had the hiſtory related that a ſtone was thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to ſtone Paul and his com⯑panions; or even had the account of this tranſaction ſtopped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were "aware of their danger and ſled," a contradiction between the hiſtory and the epiſtle would have enſued Truth is neceſ⯑ſarily conſiſtent; but it is ſcarcely poſſible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, ſhould thus advance to the [136] very brink of contradiction without falling into it.

Secondly, I ſay, that if the Acts of the Apo⯑ſtles be ſilent concerning many of the inſtances enumerated in the epiſtle, this ſilence may be accounted for, from the plan and fabric of the hiſtory. The date of the epiſtle ſyn⯑chroniſes with the beginning of the twentieth chapter of the Acts. The part, therefore, of the hiſtory, which precedes the twentieth chapter, is the only part in which can be found any notice of the perſecutions to which St. Paul refers. Now it does not ap⯑pear that the author of the hiſtory was with St. Paul until his departure from Troas, on his way to Macedonia, as related chap. xvi. ver. 10; or rather indeed the contrary ap⯑pears. It is in this point of the hiſtory that the language changes. In the ſeventh and eighth verſes of this chapter the third perſon is uſed. "After they were come to Myſia, they aſſayed to go into Bithynia, but the ſpirit ſuffered them not; and they paſſing by Myſia, came to Troas:" and the third perſon is in like manner conſtantly uſed throughout the foregoing part of the hiſtory. [137] In the tenth verſe of this chapter, the firſt perſon comes in: "After Paul had ſeen the viſion, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia; aſſuredly gathering that the Lord had called us to preach the goſ⯑pel unto them." Now, from this time to the writing of the epiſtle, the hiſtory occu⯑pies four chapters: yet it is in theſe, if in any, that a regular or continued account of the apoſtle's life is to be expected; for how ſuccinctly his hiſtory is delivered in the preceding part of the book, that is to ſay, from the time of his converſion to the time when the hiſtorian joined him at Troas, ex⯑cept the particulars of his converſion it⯑ſelf which are related circumſtantially, may be underſtood from the following obſerva⯑tions.

The hiſtory of a period of ſixteen years is compriſed in leſs than three chapters; and of theſe, a material part is taken up with diſcourſes. After his converſion, he conti⯑nued in the neighbourhood of Damaſcus, according to the hiſtory, for a certain con⯑ſiderable, though indefinite length of time, according to his own words (Gal. ch. i. ver. 18), [138] for three years; of which no other account is given than this ſhort one, that "ſtraight⯑way he preached Chriſt in the ſynagogues, that he is the Son of God; that all that heard him were amazed, and ſaid, Is not this he that deſtroyed them which called on his name in Jeruſalem? that he increaſed the more in ſtrength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damaſcus; and that, after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took coun⯑ſel to kill him." From Damaſcus he pro⯑ceeded to Jeruſalem; and of his reſidence there nothing more particular is recorded, than that "he was with the apoſtles, coming in and going out; that he ſpake boldly in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and diſputed againſt the Grecians who went about to kill him." From Jeruſalem, the hiſtory ſends him to his native city of Tarſus^*. It ſeems probable, from the order and diſ⯑poſition of the hiſtory, that St. Paul's ſtay at Tarſus was of ſome continuance; for we hear nothing more of him, until, after a long apparent interval, and much interjacent nar⯑rative, [139] Barnabas, deſirous of Paul's aſſiſtance upon the enlargement of the Chriſtian miſ⯑ſion, "went to Tarſus for to ſeek him^*." We cannot doubt but that the new apoſtle had been buſied in his miniſtry; yet of what he did, or what he ſuffered, during this period, which may include three or four years, the hiſtory profeſſes not to deliver any information. As Tarſus was ſituated upon the ſea coaſt, and as, though Tarſus was his home, yet it is probable he viſited from thence many other places, for the purpoſe of preaching the Goſpel, it is not unlikely, that in the courſe of three or four years, he might undertake many ſhort voyages to neighbouring countries, in the navigating of which we may be allowed to ſuppoſe that ſome of thoſe diſaſters and ſhipwrecks befel him, to which he refers in the quotation before us, "thrice I ſuffered ſhipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep." This laſt clauſe I am inclined to interpret of his being obliged to take to an open boat, upon the loſs of the ſhip, and his continuing [140] out at ſea in that dangerous ſituation, a night and a day. St. Paul is here recounting his ſufferings, not relating miracles. From Tarſus, Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch, and there he remained a year; but of the tranſactions of that year no other deſcription is given than what is contained in the four laſt verſes of the eleventh chapter. After a more ſolemn dedication to the miniſtry, Barnabas and Paul proceeded from Antioch to Cilicia, and from thence they ſailed to Cyprus, of which voyage no particulars are mentioned. Upon their return from Cyprus, they made a progreſs together through the Leſſer Aſia; and though two remarkable ſpeeches be preſerved, and a few incidents in the courſe of their travels circumſtan⯑tially related, yet is the account of this progreſs, upon the whole, given profeſ⯑ſedly with conciſeneſs: for inſtance, at Ico⯑nium it is ſaid that they abode a long time^*; yet of this long abode, except con⯑cerning the manner in which they were driven away, no memoir is inſerted in the [141] hiſtory. The whole is wrapped up in one ſhort ſummary, "they ſpake boldly in the Lord, which gave teſtimony unto the word of his grace, and granted ſigns and won⯑ders to be done by their hands." Having completed their progreſs, the two apoſtles returned to Antioch, "and there they abode long time with the diſciples." Here we have another large portion of time paſſed over in ſilence. To this ſucceeded a journey to Jeruſalem, upon a diſpute which then much agitated the Chriſtian church, concern⯑ing the obligation of the law of Moſes. When the object of that journey was com⯑pleted, Paul propoſed to Barnabas to go again and viſit their brethren in every city where they had preached the word of the Lord. The execution of this plan carried our apoſtle through Syria, Cilicia, and many provinces of the Leſſer Aſia; yet is the ac⯑count of the whole journey diſpatched, in four verſes of the ſixteenth chapter.

If the Acts of the Apoſtles had under⯑taken to exhibit regular annals of St. Paul's miniſtry, or even any continued account of his life, from his converſion at Damaſcus [142] to his impriſonment at Rome, I ſhould have thought the omiſſion of the circumſtances referred to in our epiſtle, a matter of rea⯑ſonable objection. But when it appears, from the hiſtory itſelf, that large portions of St. Paul's life were either paſſed over in ſilence, or only ſlightly touched upon, and that nothing more than certain detached in⯑cidents and diſcourſes are related; when we obſerve alſo, that the author of the hiſtory did not join our apoſtle's ſociety till a few years before the writing of the epiſtle, at leaſt that there is no proof in the hiſtory that he did ſo; in comparing the hiſtory with the epiſtle, we ſhall not be ſurpriſed by the diſcovery of omiſſions; we ſhall aſcribe it to truth that there is no contradiction.

No. X.

Chap. iii. ver. 1. "Do we begin again to commend ourſelves; or need we, as ſome others, epiſtles of commendation to you?"

"As ſome others." Turn to Acts xviii. 27, and you will find that, a ſhort time before the writing of this epiſtle, Apollos had gone [143] to Corinth with letters of commendations from the Epheſian Chriſtians; "and when Apollos was diſpoſed to paſs into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the diſciples to receive him." Here the words of the epiſtle bear the appearance of alluding to ſome ſpecific inſtance, and the hiſtory ſupplies that inſtance; it ſupplies at leaſt an inſtance as oppoſite as poſſible to the terms which the apoſtle uſes, and to the date and direction of the epiſtle, in which they are found. The letter which Apollos carried from Epheſus, was preciſely the letter of commendation which St. Paul meant; and it was to Achaia of which Corinth was the capital, and indeed to Corinth itſelf (Acts, chap. xix. ver. 1), that Apollos carried it; and it was about two years before the writing of this epiſtle. If St. Paul's words be rather thought to refer to ſome general uſage which then obtained among Chriſtian churches, the caſe of Apol⯑los exempliſies that uſage; and affords that ſpecies of confirmation to the epiſtle, which ariſes from ſeeing the manners of the age, in which it purports to be written, faithfully preſerved.

No. XI.

Chap. xiii. ver. 1. "This is the third time I am coming to you" ( [...]).

Do not theſe words import that the writer had been at Corinth twice before? yet, if they import this, they overſet every con⯑gruity we have been endeavouring to eſta⯑bliſh. The Acts of the Apoſtles record only two journeys of St. Paul to Corinth. We have all along ſuppoſed, what every mark of time except this expreſſion indicates, that the epiſtle was written between the firſt and ſecond of theſe journeys. If St. Paul had been already twice at Corinth, this ſuppoſi⯑tion muſt be given up; and every argument or obſervation which depends upon it, falls to the ground. Again, the Acts of the Apoſtles not only record no more than two journeys of St. Paul to Corinth, but do not allow us to ſuppoſe that more than two ſuch journeys could be made or intended by him within the period which the hiſtory com⯑priſes; for, from his firſt journey into Greece to his firſt impriſonment at Rome, [145] with which the hiſtory concludes, the apo⯑ſtle's time is accounted for. If therefore the epiſtle was written after the ſecond journey to Corinth, and upon the view and expecta⯑tion of a third, it muſt have been written after his firſt impriſonment at Rome, i. e. after the time to which the hiſtory extends. When I firſt read over this epiſtle with the particular view of comparing it with the hiſtory, which I choſe to do without con⯑ſulting any commentary whatever, I own that I felt myſelf confounded by this text. It appeared to contradict the opinion, which I had been led by a great variety of cir⯑cumſtances to form, concerning the date and occaſion of the epiſtle. At length however it occurred to my thoughts to enquire, whe⯑ther the paſſage did neceſſarily imply that St. Paul had been at Corinth twice; or whether, when he ſays "this is the third time I am coming to you," he might mean only that this was the third time that he was ready, that he was prepared, that he intended to ſet out upon his journey to Corinth. I recollected that he had once before this purpoſed to viſit Corinth, and [146] had been diſappointed in his purpoſe; which diſappointment forms the ſubject of much apology and proteſtation, in the firſt and ſecond chapters of the epiſtle. Now, if the journey in which he had been diſappointed was reckoned by him one of the times in which "he was coming to them," then the preſent would be the third time, i. e. of his being ready and prepared to come; al⯑though he had been actually at Corinth only once before. This conjecture being taken up, a farther examination of the paſſage and the epiſtle, produced proofs which placed it beyond doubt. "This is the third time I am coming to you:" in the verſe following theſe words he adds, "I told you before, and foretel you, as if I were preſent the ſecond time; and being abſent, now I write to them which heretofore have ſinned, and to all other, that if I come again, I will not ſpare." In this verſe, the apoſtle is declaring beforehand what he would do in his intended viſit: His expreſſion there⯑fore, "as if I were preſent the ſecond time," relates to that viſit. But, if his future viſit would only make him preſent amongſt them [147] a ſecond time, it follows that he had been al⯑ready there but once. Again, in the fifteenth verſe of the firſt chapter, he tells them, "In this confidence, I was minded to come unto you before, that you might have a ſecond benefit." Why a ſecond, and not a third benefit? why [...], and not [...], if the [...], in the fifteenth chapter, meant a third viſit? for, though the viſit in the firſt chapter be that viſit in which he was diſappointed, yet, as it is evident from the epiſtle that he had never been at Corinth, from the time of the diſ⯑appointment to the time of writing the epiſtle, it follows, that if it was only a ſecond viſit in which he was diſappointed then, it could only be a ſecond viſit which he pro⯑poſed now. But the text which I think is deciſive of the queſtion, if any queſtion remain upon the ſubject, is the fourteenth verſe of the twelfth chapter: "Behold the third time I am ready to come to you" ( [...]). It is very clear that the [...] of the twelfth chapter, and the [...] of the thirteenth chapter, are equivalent ex⯑preſſions, [148] were intended to convey the ſame meaning, and to relate to the ſame journey. The compariſon of theſe phraſes gives us St. Paul's own explanation of his own words; and it is that very explanation which we are contending for, viz. that [...] does not mean that he was coming a third time, but that this was the third time he was in readineſs to come, [...]. I do not apprehend, that after this it can be neceſſary to call to our aid the reading of the Alexandrian manuſcript, which gives [...] in the thir⯑teenth chapter as well as in the twelfth; or of the Syriac and Coptic verſions, which follow that reading; becauſe I allow that this reading, beſides not being ſufficiently ſupported by ancient copies, is probably paraphraſtical, and has been inſerted for the purpoſe of expreſſing more unequivocally the ſenſe, which the ſhorter expreſſion [...] was ſuppoſed to carry. Upon the whole, the matter is ſufficiently certain; nor do I propoſe it as a new interpretation of the text which contains the difficulty, for the ſame was given by Grotius long [149] ago; but I thought it the cleareſt way of explaining the ſubject, to deſcribe the man⯑ner in which the difficulty, the ſolution, and the proofs of that ſolution, ſucceſſive⯑ly preſented themſelves to my enquiries. Now, in hiſtorical reſearches, a reconciled inconſiſtency becomes a poſitive argument. Firſt, becauſe an impoſtor generally guards againſt the appearance of inconſiſtency; and ſecondly, becauſe, when apparent incon⯑ſiſtencies are found, it is ſeldom that any thing but truth renders them capable of re⯑conciliation. The exiſtence of the difficulty proves the want or abſence of that caution, which uſually accompanies the conſciouſneſs of fraud; and the ſolution proves, that it is not the colliſion of fortuitous propoſitions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preſerves every circumſtance in its place.

No. XII.

Chap. x. ver. 14-16. "We are come as far as to you alſo, in preaching the Goſpel of Chriſt; not boaſting of things without our meaſure, that is, of other [150] men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increaſed, that we ſhall be enlarged by you, according to our rule, abundantly to preach the Goſpel in the regions beyond you."

This quotation affords an indirect, and therefore unſuſpicious, but at the ſame time a diſtinct and indubitable recognition of the truth and exactneſs of the hiſtory. I con⯑ſider it to be implied by the words of the quotation, that Corinth was the extremity of St. Paul's travels hitherto. He expreſſes to the Corinthians his hope, that in ſome future viſit he might "preach the Goſpel to the regions beyond them;" which imports that he had not hitherto proceeded "beyond them," but that Corinth was as yet the fartheſt point or boundary of his travels. Now, how is St. Paul's firſt journey into Europe, which was the only one he had taken before the writing of the epiſtle, traced out in the hiſtory? Sailing from Aſia, he landed at Philippi; from Philippi, tra⯑verſing the eaſtern coaſt of the peninſula, he paſſed through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Theſſalonica; from thence through Berea [151] to Athens, and from Athens to Corinth, where he ſtopped; and from whence, after a reſidence of a year and a half, he ſailed back into Syria. So that Corinth was the laſt place which he viſited in the peninſula; was the place from which he returned into Aſia; and was, as ſuch, the boundary and limit of his progreſs. He could not have ſaid the ſame thing, viz. "I hope hereafter to viſit the regions beyond you," in an epiſtle to the Philippians, or in an epiſtle to the Theſ⯑ſalonians, inaſmuch as he muſt be deemed to have already viſited the regions beyond them, having proceeded from thoſe cities to other parts of Greece. But from Corinth he returned home; every part therefore, beyond that city, might properly be ſaid, as it is ſaid in the paſſage before us, to be unviſited. Yet is this propriety, the ſpontaneous effect of truth, and produced without meditation or deſign.

No. I.

THE argument of this epiſtle in ſome meaſure proves its antiquity. It will hardly be doubted, but that it was writ⯑ten whilſt the diſpute concerning the cir⯑cumciſion of Gentile converts was freſh in men's minds; for, even ſuppoſing it to have been a forgery, the only credible motive that can be aſſigned for the forgery, was to bring the name and authority of the apoſtle into this controverſy. No deſign could be ſo inſipid, or ſo unlikely to enter into the thoughts of any man, as to produce an epiſtle written earneſtly and pointedly upon one ſide of a controverſy, when the contro⯑verſy itſelf was dead, and the queſtion no longer intereſting to any deſcription of read⯑ers whatever. Now the controverſy con⯑cerning the circumciſion of the Gentile [153] Chriſtians was of ſuch a nature, that, if it aroſe at all, it muſt have ariſen in the begin⯑ning of Chriſtianity. As Judaea was the ſcene of the Chriſtian hiſtory; as the author and preachers of Chriſtianity were Jews; as the religion itſelf acknowledged and was founded upon the Jewiſh religion, in contra⯑diſtinction to every other religion then pro⯑feſſed amongſt mankind; it was not to be wondered at, that ſome of its teachers ſhould carry it out in the world rather as a ſect and modification of Judaiſm, than as a ſeparate, original revelation; or that they ſhould invite their proſelytes to thoſe obſervances, in which they lived themſelves. This was likely to happen: but if it did not happen at firſt; if, whilſt the religion was in the hands of Jewiſh teachers, no ſuch claim was advanced, no ſuch condition was attempted to be impoſed; it is not probable that the doctrine would be ſtarted, much leſs that it ſhould prevail in any future period. I likewiſe think, that thoſe pretenſions of Judaiſm were much more likely to be inſiſted upon, whilſt the Jews continued a nation, than after their fall and diſperſion; whilſt Jeruſalem and [154] the temple ſtood, than after the deſtruction brought upon them by the Roman arms, the fatal ceſſation of the ſacrifice and the prieſthood, the humiliating loſs of their country, and, with it, of the great rites and ſymbols of their inſtitution. It ſhould ſeem therefore, from the nature of the ſubject, and the ſituation of the parties, that this controverſy was carried on in the interval between the preaching of Chriſtianity to the Gentiles, and the invaſion of Titus; and that our preſent epiſtle, which was undoubtedly intended to bear a part in this controverſy, muſt be referred to the ſame period.

But, again, the epiſtle ſuppoſes that cer⯑tain deſigning adherents of the Jewiſh law had crept into the churches of Galatia; and had been endeavouring, and but too ſucceſsfully, to perſuade the Galatic converts, that they had been taught the new religion imperfectly and at ſecond hand; that the founder of their church himſelf poſſeſſed only an infe⯑rior and deputed commiſſion, the ſeat of truth and authority being in the apoſtles and elders of Jeruſalem; moreover, that whatever he might profeſs amongſt them, [155] he had himſelf at other times, and in other places, given way to the doctrine of cir⯑cumciſion.—The epiſtle is unintelligible without ſuppoſing all this. Referring there⯑fore to this, as to what had actually paſſed, we find St. Paul treating ſo unjuſt an at⯑tempt to undermine his credit, and to intro⯑duce amongſt his converts a doctrine which he had uniformly reprobated, in terms of great aſperity and indignation. And in or⯑der to refute the ſuſpicions which had been raiſed concerning the fidelity of his teach⯑ing, as well as to aſſert the independency and divine original of his miſſion, we find him appealing to the hiſtory of his conver⯑ſion, to his conduct under it, to the man⯑ner in which he had conferred with the apo⯑ſtles when he met with them at Jeruſalem; alledging, that ſo far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from ex⯑erciſing any ſuperiority over him, that they had ſimply aſſented to what he had already preached amongſt the Gentiles, and which preaching was communicated not by them to him, but by himſelf to them; that he had maintained the liberty of the Gentile [156] church, by oppoſing, upon one occaſion, an apoſtle to the face, when the timidity of his behaviour ſeemed to endanger it; that from the firſt, that all along, that to that hour, he had conſtantly reſiſted the claims of Judaiſm; and that the perſecutions which he daily underwent, at the hands or by the inſtigation of the Jews, and of which he bore in his perſon the marks and ſcars, might have been avoided by him, if he had con⯑ſented to employ his labours in bringing, through the medium of chriſtianity, converts over to the Jewiſh inſtitution, for then "would the offence of the croſs have ceaſed." Now an impoſtor who had forged the epi⯑ſtle for the purpoſe of producing St. Paul's authority in the diſpute, which, as hath been obſerved, is the only credible motive that can be aſſigned for the forgery, might have made the apoſtle deliver his opinion upon the ſubject, in ſtrong and deciſive terms, or might have put his name to a train of rea⯑ſoning and argumentation upon that ſide of the queſtion, which the impoſture was in⯑tended to recommend. I can allow the poſ⯑ſibility of ſuch a ſcheme as that. But for a [157] writer, with this purpoſe in view, to feign a ſeries of tranſactions ſuppoſed to have paſſed amongſt the Chriſtians of Galatia, and then to counterfeit expreſſions of anger and re⯑ſentment excited by theſe tranſactions; to make the apoſtle travel back into his own hiſtory, and into a recital of various paſſages of his life, ſome indeed directly, but others obliquely, and others even obſcurely bearing upon the point in queſtion; in a word, to ſubſtitute narrative for argument, expoſtu⯑lation and complaint for dogmatic poſitions and controverſial reaſoning, in a writing pro⯑perly controverſial, and of which the aim and deſign was to ſupport one ſide of a much agitated queſtion—is a method ſo intricate, and ſo unlike the methods purſued by all other impoſtors, as to require very flagrant proofs of impoſition to induce us to believe it to be one.

No. II.

In this number I ſhall endeavour to prove,

1. That the Epiſtle to the Galatians, and the Acts of the Apoſtles, were written with⯑out any communication with each other.

[158] 2. That the epiſtle, though written with⯑out any communication with the hiſtory, by recital, implication, or reference, bears teſti⯑mony to many of the facts contained in it.

I. The epiſtle and the Acts of the Apo⯑ſtles were written without any communica⯑tion with each other.

To judge of this point, we muſt examine thoſe paſſages in each, which deſcribe the ſame tranſaction; for if the author of ei⯑ther writing derived his information from the account which he had ſeen in the other, when he came to ſpeak of the ſame tranſac⯑tion, he would follow that account. The hiſtory of St. Paul, at Damaſcus, as read in the Acts, and as referred to by the epi⯑ſtle, forms an inſtance of this ſort. Ac⯑cording to the Acts, Paul (after his conver⯑ſion) was certain days with the "diſciples which were at Damaſcus; and ſtraight-way he preached Chriſt in the ſynagogues, that he is the ſon of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and ſaid, is not this he which deſtroyed them which called on this name in Jeruſalem, and came hi⯑ther for that intent, that he might bring [159] them bound unto the chief prieſts? But Saul increaſed the more in ſtrength, con⯑founding the Jews which were at Damaſ⯑cus, proving that this is the very Chriſt. And after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counſel to kill him; but their laying in wait was known of Saul, and they watched the gates day and night to kill him; then the diſciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a baſket; and when Saul was come to Jeruſalem, he aſ⯑ſayed to join himſelf to the diſciples." Acts, chap. ix. ver. 19-26.

According to the epiſtle, "when it pleaſed God, who ſeparated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to re⯑veal his own ſon in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with fleſh and blood, neither went I up to Jeruſalem to them which were apoſtles before me: but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damaſcus; then, after three years, I went up to Je⯑ruſalem."

Beſide the difference obſervable in the terms and general complexion of theſe two [160] accounts, "the journey into Arabia," men⯑tioned in the epiſtle, and omitted in the hiſ⯑tory, affords full proof that there exiſted no correſpondence between theſe writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the epiſtle, it is impoſſible that this journey ſhould have been paſſed over in ſilence; if the epiſtle had been compoſed out of what the author had read of St. Paul's hiſtory in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it ſhould have been inſerted^*.

The journey to Jeruſalem related in the ſe⯑cond chapter of the epiſtle ("then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jeruſalem") ſup⯑plies another example of the ſame kind. Either this was the journey deſcribed in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barna⯑bas [161] were ſent from Antioch to Jeruſalem, to conſult the apoſtles and elders upon the queſtion of the Gentile converts; or it was ſome journey of which the hiſtory does not take notice. If the firſt opinion be followed, the diſcrepancy in the two accounts is ſo conſiderable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the ſame tranſaction: ſo that, upon this ſuppoſition, there is no place for ſuſpecting that the writers were guided or aſſiſted by each other. If the lat⯑ter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jeruſalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumſtantially related in the epiſtle, and entirely omitted in the Acts: and we are at liberty to repeat the obſervation, which we before made, that the omiſſion of ſo ma⯑terial a fact in the hiſtory is inexplicable, if the hiſtorian had read the epiſtle; and that the inſertion of it in the epiſtle, if the wri⯑ter derived his information from the hiſtory, is not leſs ſo.

St. Peter's viſit to Antioch, during which the diſpute aroſe between him and St. Paul, is not mentioned in the Acts.

[162] If we connect, with theſe inſtances, the general obſervation, that no ſcrutiny can diſ⯑cover the ſmalleſt trace of tranſcription or imitation either in things or words, we ſhall be fully ſatisfied in this part of our caſe; namely, that the two records, be the facts contained in them true or falſe, come to our hands from independent ſources.

Secondly, I ſay that the epiſtle, thus proved to have been written without any communication with the hiſtory, bears teſ⯑timony to a great variety of particulars con⯑tained in the hiſtory.

1. St. Paul in the early part of his life had addicted himſelf to the ſtudy of the Jewiſh religion, and was diſtinguiſhed by his zeal for the inſtitution and for the traditions which had been incorporated with it. Up⯑on this part of his character the hiſtory makes St. Paul ſpeak thus: "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarſus, a city of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught accord⯑ing to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers; and was zealous towards God, [163] as ye all are this day." Acts, chap. xxii. ver. 3.

The epiſtle as follows: "I profited in the Jews religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceed⯑ingly zealous of the traditions of my fa⯑thers." Chap. i. ver. 14.

2. St. Paul, before his converſion, had been a fierce perſecutor of the new ſect. "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church; entering into every houſe, and haling men and women, committed them to pri⯑ſon." Acts, chap. vii. ver. 3.

This is the hiſtory of St. Paul, as deliver⯑ed in the Acts; in the recital of his own hiſtory in the epiſtle, "Ye have heard," ſays he, "of my converſation in times paſt in the Jews religion, how that beyond meaſure I perſecuted the church of God." Chap. i. ver. 13.

3. St. Paul was miraculouſly converted on his way to Damaſcus. "And as he jour⯑neyed he came near to Damaſcus: and ſud⯑denly there ſhined round about him a light from heaven; and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice ſaying unto him, Saul, Saul, [164] why perſecuteſt thou me? And he ſaid, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord ſaid, I am Jeſus, whom thou perſecuteſt: it is hard for thee to kick againſt the pricks. And he, trembling and aſtoniſhed, ſaid, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Acts, chap. ix. ver. 3-6. With this com⯑pare the epiſtle, chap. i. ver. 15-17: "When it pleaſed God, who ſeparated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his ſon in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with fleſh and blood, neither went I up to Jeruſa⯑lem, to them that were apoſtles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damaſcus."

In this quotation from the epiſtle, I deſire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears, that the affair paſſed at Damaſcus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his con⯑verſion at all; a caſual expreſſion at the end, and an expreſſion brought in for a dif⯑ferent purpoſe, alone fixes it to have been at Damaſcus: "I returned again to Damaſ⯑cus." [165] Nothing can be more like ſimplicity and undeſignedneſs than this is. It alſo draws the agreement between the two quotations ſomewhat cloſer, to obſerve that they both ſtate St. Paul to have preached the goſpel immediately upon his call: "And ſtraight⯑way he preached Chriſt in the ſynagogues, that he is the ſon of God." Acts, chap. ix. ver. 20. "When it pleaſed God to reveal his ſon in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I con⯑ferred not with fleſh and blood." Gal. chap. i. ver. 15.

4. The courſe of the apoſtle's travels after his converſion was this:—He went from Da⯑maſcus to Jeruſalem, and from Jeruſalem into Syria and Cilicia. "At Damaſcus the diſciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a baſket; and when Saul was come to Jeruſalem, he aſſayed to join himſelf to the diſciples" (Acts, chap. ix. ver. 25). Afterwards, "when the brethren knew the conſpiracy formed againſt him at Jeruſalem, they brought him down to Caeſarea, and ſent him forth to Tarſus, a city in Cilicia" (chap. ix. [166] ver. 30). In the epiſtle, St. Paul gives the following brief account of his proceed⯑ings within the ſame period: "After three years I went up to Jeruſalem to ſee Peter, and abode with him fifteen days; after⯑wards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia." The hiſtory had told us that Paul paſſed from Caeſarea to Tarſus: if he took this journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his viſit at Jeruſalem, "into the regions of Syria and Cilicia," in the very order in which he mentions them in the epiſtle. This ſuppoſition of his going from Caeſarea to Tarſus by land, clears up alſo ano⯑ther point. It accounts for what St. Paul ſays in the ſame place concerning the churches of Judea: "Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was un⯑known by face unto the churches of Judea, which were in Chriſt: but they had heard only that he which perſecuted us in times paſt, now preacheth the faith, which once he deſtroyed; and they glorified God in me." Upon which paſſage I obſerve, firſt, that what is here ſaid of the churches of [167] Judea, is ſpoken in connection with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the paſſage itſelf has little ſig⯑nificancy, and that the connection is inexpli⯑cable, unleſs St. Paul went through Judea^* (though probably by a haſty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppoſe him to have paſſed by land from Caeſarea to Tarſus, all this, as hath been obſerved, would be pre⯑ciſely true.

5. Barnabas was with Paul at Antioch. "Then departed Barnabas to Tarſus, for to ſeek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to paſs that a whole year they aſſem⯑bled themſelves with the church." Acts, chap. xi. ver. 25, 26. Again, and upon another occaſion, "they (Paul and Barnabas) [168] ſailed to Antioch; and there they conti⯑nued a long time with the diſciples." Chap. xiv. ver. 26.

Now what ſays the epiſtle? "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withſtood him to the face, becauſe he was to be blamed; and the other Jews diſſembled likewiſe with him; inſomuch that Barnabas alſo was carried away with their diſſimula⯑tion." Chap. ii. ver. 11. 13.

6. The ſtated reſidence of the apoſtles was at Jeruſalem. "At that time there was a great perſecution againſt the church which was at Jeruſalem; and they were all ſcat⯑tered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apoſtles" (Acts, chap. viii. ver. 1). "They (the Chriſ⯑tians at Antioch) determined that Paul and Barnabas ſhould go up to Jeruſalem, unto the apoſtles and elders, about this queſtion" (Acts, chap. xv. ver. 2). With theſe accounts agrees the declaration in the epiſtle: "Neither went I up to Jeruſalem to them which were apoſtles before me" (chap. i. ver. 17): for this declaration im⯑plies, or rather aſſumes it to be known, that [169] Jeruſalem was the place where the apoſtles were to be met with.

7. There were at Jeruſalem two apoſtles, or at the leaſt two eminent members of the church, of the name of James. This is di⯑rectly inferred from the Acts of the Apoſtles, which in the ſecond verſe of the twelfth chapter relates the death of James, the bro⯑ther of John; and yet in the fifteenth chap⯑ter, and in a ſubſequent part of the hiſtory, records a ſpeech delivered by James in the aſſembly of the apoſtles and elders. It is alſo ſtrongly implied by the form of expreſ⯑ſion uſed in the epiſtle: "Other apoſtles ſaw I none, ſave James, the Lord's brother;" i. e. to diſtinguiſh him from James the bro⯑ther of John.

To us who have been long converſant in the Chriſtian hiſtory, as contained in the Acts of the Apoſtles, theſe points are obvious and familiar; nor do we readily apprehend any greater difficulty in making them appear in a letter purporting to have been written by St. Paul, than there is in introducing them into a modern ſermon. But, to judge correctly of the argument before us, we muſt diſcharge [170] this knowledge from our thoughts. We muſt propoſe to ourſelves the ſituation of an author who ſat down to the writing of the epiſtle without having ſeen the hiſtory; and then the concurrences we have deduced will be deemed of importance. They will at leaſt be taken for ſeparate confirmations of the ſeveral facts: and not only of theſe parti⯑cular facts, but of the general truth of the hiſtory.

For what is the rule with reſpect to cor⯑roborative teſtimony which prevails in courts of juſtice, and which prevails only becauſe experience has proved that it is an uſeful guide to truth? A principal witneſs in a cauſe delivers his account: his narrative, in certain parts of it, is confirmed by witneſſes who are called afterwards. The credit de⯑rived from their teſtimony belongs not only to the particular circumſtances in which the auxiliary witneſſes agree with the principal witneſs, but in ſome meaſure to the whole of his evidence; becauſe it is improbable that accident or fiction ſhould draw a line which touched upon truth in ſo many points.

[171] In like manner, if two records be produced, manifeſtly independent, that is, manifeſtly written without any participation of intelli⯑gence, an agreement between them, even in few and ſlight circumſtances (eſpecially if, from the different nature and deſign of the writings, few points only of agreement, and thoſe incidental, could be expected to occur) would add a ſenſible weight to the authority of both, in every part of their contents.

The ſame rule is applicable to hiſtory, with at leaſt as much reaſon as any other ſpecies of evidence.

No. III.

But although the references to various par⯑ticulars in the epiſtle, compared with the di⯑rect account of the ſame particulars in the hiſtory, afford a conſiderable proof of the truth not only of theſe particulars, but of the narrative which contains them; yet they do not ſhew, it will be ſaid, that the epiſtle was written by St. Paul: for admitting (what ſeems to have been proved) that the writer, whoever he was, had no recourſe to the Acts of the Apo⯑ſtles, [172] yet many of the facts referred to, ſuch as St. Paul's miraculous converſion, his change from a virulent perſecutor to an indefatigable preacher, his labours amongſt the Gentiles, and his zeal for the liberties of the Gentile church, were ſo notorious, as to occur rea⯑dily to the mind of any Chriſtian, who ſhould chooſe to perſonate his character, and counterfeit his name: it was only to write what every body knew. Now I think that this ſuppoſition—viz. that the epiſtle was compoſed upon general information, and the general publicity of the facts alluded to, and that the author did no more than weave into his work what the common fame of the Chriſtian church had reported to his ears—is repelled by the particularity of the recitals and references. This particularity is obſer⯑vable in the following inſtances; in peruſing which, I deſire the reader to reflect, whether they exhibit the language of a man who had nothing but general reputation to proceed upon, or of a man actually ſpeaking of him⯑ſelf and of his own hiſtory, and conſequently of things concerning which he poſſeſſed a [173] clear, intimate, and circumſtantial know⯑ledge.

1. The hiſtory, in giving an account of St. Paul after his converſion, relates "that, after many days," effecting, by the aſſiſtance of the diſciples, his eſcape from Damaſcus, "he proceeded to Jeruſalem" (Acts, chap. ix. ver. 25). The epiſtle, ſpeaking of the ſame period, makes St. Paul ſay that "he went into Arabia," that he returned again to Damaſcus, that after three years he went up to Jeruſalem. Chap. i. ver. 17, 18.

2. The hiſtory relates, that, when Saul was come from Damaſcus, "he was with the diſciples coming in and going out" (Acts, chap. ix. ver. 28). The epiſtle, deſcribing the ſame journey, tells us "that he went up to Jeruſalem to ſee Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." Chap. i. ver. 18.

3. The hiſtory relates, that, when Paul was come to Jeruſalem, "Barnabas took him and brought him to the apoſtles" (Acts, chap. ix. ver. 27). The epiſtle, "that he ſaw Peter; but other of the apoſtles ſaw he none, ſave James, the Lord's brother." Chap. i. ver. 19.

[174] Now this is as it ſhould be. The hiſto⯑rian delivers his account in general terms, as of facts to which he was not preſent. The perſon who is the ſubject of that account, when he comes to ſpeak of theſe facts him⯑ſelf, particularizes time, names, and circum⯑ſtances.

4. The like notation of places, perſons, and dates, is met with in the account of St. Paul's journey to Jeruſalem, given in the ſecond chapter of the epiſtle. It was four⯑teen years after his converſion; it was in company with Barnabas and Titus; it was then that he met with James, Cephas, and John; it was then alſo that it was agreed amongſt them, that they ſhould go to the circumciſion, and he unto the Gentiles.

5. The diſpute with Peter, which occupies the ſequel of the ſecond chapter, is marked with the ſame particularity. It was at An⯑tioch; it was after certain came from James; it was whilſt Barnabas was there, who was carried away by their diſſimulation. Theſe examples negative the inſinuation, that the epiſtle preſents nothing but indefinite allu⯑ſions to public facts.

No. IV.

Chap. iv. ver. 11-16. "I am afraid of you, leſt I have beſtowed upon you la⯑bour in vain. Brethren, I beſeech you, be as I am, for I am as ye are. Ye have not injured me at all. Ye know how, through infirmity of the fleſh, I preached the goſ⯑pel unto you at the firſt; and my temptation, which was in the fleſh, ye deſpiſed not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Chriſt Jeſus. Where is then the bleſſedneſs you ſpake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been poſſible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them unto me. Am I therefore become your enemy, becauſe I tell you the truth?"

With this paſſage compare 2 Cor. chap. xii. ver. 1-9: "It is not expedient for me, doubtleſs, to glory; I will come to viſions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Chriſt above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I cannot tell, or whether out of the body I cannot tell; [176] God knoweth); ſuch a one was caught up to the third heaven: and I knew ſuch a man (whether in the body or out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth), how that he was caught up into Paradiſe, and heard unſpeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of ſuch an one will I glory, yet of myſelf will I not glory, but in mine infirmities: for, though I would deſire to glory, I ſhall not be a fool; for I will ſay the truth. But now I forbear, leſt any man ſhould think of me above that which he ſeeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And leſt I ſhould be exalted above meaſure, through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the fleſh, the meſſen⯑ger of Satan to buffet me, leſt I ſhould be exalted above meaſure. For this thing I beſought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he ſaid unto me, My grace is ſufficient for thee; for my ſtrength is made perfect in weakneſs. Moſt gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Chriſt may reſt upon me."

[177] There can be no doubt but that "the temptation which was in the fleſh," men⯑tioned in the Epiſtle to the Galatians, and "the thorn in the fleſh, the meſſenger of Sa⯑tan to buffet him," mentioned in the Epiſtle to the Corinthians, were intended to denote the ſame thing. Either therefore it was, what we pretend it to have been, the ſame perſon in both, alluding, as the occaſion led him, to ſome bodily infirmity under which he laboured; that is, we are reading the real letters of a real apoſtle; or, it was that a ſophiſt, who had ſeen this circumſtance in one epiſtle, contrived, for the ſake of cor⯑reſpondency, to bring it into another; or, laſtly, it was a circumſtance in St. Paul's perſonal condition, ſuppoſed to be well known to thoſe into whoſe hands the epiſtle was likely to fall; and, for that reaſon, in⯑troduced into a writing deſigned to bear his name. I have extracted the quotations at length, in order to enable the reader to judge accurately of the manner in which the men⯑tion of this particular comes in, in each; be⯑cauſe that judgment, I think, will acquit the authors of the epiſtle of the charge of [178] having ſtudiouſly inſerted it, either with a view of producing an apparent agreement between them, or for any other purpoſe whatever.

The context, by which the circumſtance before us in introduced, is in the two places totally different, and without any mark of imitation; yet in both places does the cir⯑cumſtance riſe aptly and naturally out of the context, and that context from the train of thought carried on in the epiſtle.

The Epiſtle to the Galatians, from the beginning to the end, runs in a ſtrain of angry complaint of their defection from the apoſtle, and from the principles which he had taught them. It was very natural to contraſt, with this conduct, the zeal with which they had once received him; and it was not leſs ſo to mention, as a proof of their former diſpoſition towards him, the indul⯑gence which, whilſt he was amongſt them, they had ſhewn to his infirmity: "My temptation which was in the fleſh ye de⯑ſpiſed not, nor rejected, but received me as an angel of God, even as Chriſt Jeſus. Where is then the bleſſedneſs you ſpake [179] of, i. e. the benedictions which you be⯑ſtowed upon me? for I bear you record, that if it had been poſſible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me."

In the two Epiſtles to the Corinthians, eſpecially in the ſecond, we have the apoſtle contending with certain teachers in Corinth, who had formed a party in that church againſt him. To vindicate his perſonal au⯑thority, as well as the dignity and credit of his miniſtry amongſt them, he takes occaſion (but not without apologizing repeatedly for the folly, that is, for the indecorum of pro⯑nouncing his own panegyric^*) to meet his adverſaries in their boaſtings: "Wherein⯑ſoever any is bold (I ſpeak fooliſhly) I am bold alſo. Are they Hebrews? ſo am I. Are they Iſraelites? ſo am I. Are they [180] the ſeed of Abraham? ſo am I. Are they the miniſters of Chriſt? (I ſpeak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abun⯑dant, in ſtripes above meaſure, in priſons more frequent, in deaths oſt." Being thus led to the ſubject, he goes on, as was natural, to recount his trials and dangers, his inceſſant cares and labours in the Chriſtian miſſion. From the proofs which he had given of his zeal and activity in the ſervice of Chriſt, he paſſes (and that with the ſame view of eſtabliſhing his claim to be conſidered as "not a whit behind the very chiefeſt of the apoſtels") to the viſions and revelations which from time to time had been vouch⯑ſafed to him. And then, by a cloſe and eaſy connection, comes in the mention of his inſirmity: "Leſt I ſhould be exalted," ſays he, "above meaſure, through the abund⯑ance of revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the fleſh, the meſſenger of Satan to buffet me."

Thus then, in both epiſtles, the notice of his infirmity is ſuited to the place in which it is found. In the Epiſtle to the Corin⯑thians, the train of thought draws up to the [181] circumſtance by a regular approximation. In the epiſtle, it is ſuggeſted by the ſubject and occaſion of the epiſtle itſelf. Which obſervation we offer as an argument to prove that it is not, in either epiſtle, a circumſtance induſtriouſly brought forward for the ſake of procuring credit to an impoſture.

A reader will be taught to perceive the force of this argument, who ſhall attempt to introduce a given circumſtance into the body of a writing. To do this without abrupt⯑neſs, or without betraying marks of deſign in the tranſition, requires, he will find, more art than he expected to be neceſſary, cer⯑tainly more than any one can believe to have been exerciſed in the compoſition of theſe epiſtles.

No. V.

Chap. iv. ver. 29. "But as then he that was born after the fleſh perſecuted him that was born after the ſpirit, even ſo is it now."

Chap. v. ver. 11. "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumciſion, why do I yet ſuffer [182] perſecution? Then is the offence of the croſs ceaſed."

Chap. vi. ver. 17. "From henceforth, let no man trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jeſus."

From theſe ſeveral texts, it is apparent that the perſecutions which our apoſtle had undergone, were from the hands or by the inſtigation of the Jews; that it was not for preaching Chriſtianity in oppoſition to heatheniſm, but it was for preaching it as diſtinct from Judaiſm, that he had brought upon himſelf the ſufferings which had at⯑tended his miniſtry. And this repreſentation perfectly coincides with that which reſults from the detail of St. Paul's hiſtory, as deli⯑vered in the Acts. At Antioch, in Piſidia, the "word of the Lord was publiſhed through⯑out all the region; but the Jews ſtirred up the devout and honourable women and the chief men of the city, and raiſed perſecution againſt Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coaſts" (Acts, chap. xiii. ver. 50). Not long after, at Iconium, "a great multitude of the Jews "and alſo of the Greeks believed; but the [183] unbelieving Jews ſtirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected againſt the brethren" (chap. xiv. ver. 1, 2). "At Lyſtra there came certain Jews from An⯑tioch and Iconium, who perſuaded the people; and having ſtoned Paul, drew him out of the city, ſuppoſing he had been dead" (chap. xiv. ver. 19). The ſame enmity, and from the ſame quarter, our apo⯑ſtle experienced in Greece: "At Theſſalo⯑nica, ſome of them (the Jews) believed, and conſorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few: but the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baſer ſort, and gathered a company, and ſet all the city in an uproar, and aſſaulted the houſe of Jaſon, and ſought to bring them out to the people" (Acts, chap. xvii. ver. 4, 5). Their perſecutors follow them to Beraea: "When the Jews of Theſſalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of St. Paul at Beraea, they came thither alſo, and ſtirred up the people" (chap. xvii. ver. 13). And laſtly at Corinth, [184] when Gallio was deputy of Achaia, "the Jews made inſurrection with one accord againſt Paul, and brought him to the judgment-ſeat." I think it does not ap⯑pear that our apoſtle was ever ſet upon by the Gentiles, unleſs they were firſt ſtirred up by the Jews, except in two inſtances; in both which the perſons who began the aſ⯑ſault were immediately intereſted in his ex⯑pulſion from the place. Once this happened at Philippi, after the cure of the Pythoneſs: "When the maſters ſaw the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the market-place unto the rulers" (chap. xvi. ver. 19). And a ſecond time at Epheſus, at the inſtance of Demetrius a ſilverſmith which made ſilver ſhrines for Diana, "who called together work⯑men of like occupation, and ſaid, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth; moreover, ye ſee and hear that not only at Epheſus, but almoſt throughout all Aſia, this Paul hath perſuaded away much peo⯑ple, ſaying, that they be no gods which are made with hands; ſo that not only this our craft is in danger to be ſet at nought, [185] but alſo that the temple of the great god⯑deſs Diana ſhould be deſpiſed, and her magnificence ſhould be deſtroyed, whom all Aſia and the world worſhippeth."

No. VI.

I obſerve an agreement in a ſomewhat peculiar rule of Chriſtian conduct, as laid down in this epiſtle, and as exemplified in the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians. It is not the repetition of the ſame general pre⯑cept, which would have been a coincidence of little value; but it is the general pre⯑cept in one place, and the application of that precept to an actual occurrence in the other. In the ſixth chapter and firſt verſe of this epiſtle, our apoſtle gives the follow⯑ing direction: "Brethren, if a man be over⯑taken in a fault, ye, which are ſpiritual, reſtore ſuch a one in the ſpirit of meek⯑neſs." In 2 Cor. chap. ii. ver. 6-8, he writes thus: "Sufficient to ſuch a man" (the inceſtuous perſon mentioned in the firſt epiſtle) "is this puniſhment, which was in⯑flicted of many; ſo that, contrariwiſe, ye [186] ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, leſt perhaps ſuch a one ſhould be ſwallowed up with over-much ſorrow; wherefore I beſeech you that ye would confirm your love towards him." I have little doubt but that it was the ſame mind which dictated theſe two paſſages.

No. VII.

Our epiſtle goes farther than any of St. Paul's epiſtles; for it avows in direct terms the ſuperſeſſion of the Jewiſh law, as an inſtrument of ſalvation, even to the Jews themſelves. Not only were the Gentiles exempt from its authority, but even the Jews were no longer either to place any dependency upon it, or conſider themſelves as ſubject to it on a religious account. "Be⯑fore faith came, we were kept under the law, ſhut up unto the faith which ſhould afterwards be revealed; wherefore the law was our ſchoolmaſter to bring us unto Chriſt, that we might be juſtified by faith; but, after that faith is come, we are no longer under a ſchoolmaſter" (ch. iii. ver. 23-25).

[187] This was undoubtedly ſpoken of Jews and to Jews. In like manner, chap. iv. ver. 1-5: "Now I ſay that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a ſervant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father: even ſo we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world; but, when the fulneſs of time was come, God ſent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of ſons." Theſe paſſages are no⯑thing ſhort of a declaration, that the obliga⯑tion of the Jewiſh law, conſidered as a reli⯑gious diſpenſation, the effects of which were to take place in another life, had ceaſed, with reſpect even to the Jews themſelves. What then ſhould be the conduct of a Jew (for ſuch St. Paul was) who preached this doctrine? To be conſiſtent with himſelf, either he would no longer comply, in his own perſon, with the directions of the law; or, if he did comply, it would be for ſome other reaſon than any conſidence which he [188] placed in its efficacy, as a religious inſtitution. Now ſo it happens, that whenever St. Paul's compliance with the Jewiſh law is mentioned in the hiſtory, it is mentioned in connection with circumſtances which point out the motive from which it proceeded; and this motive appears to have been always exoteric, namely, a love of order and tranquillity, or an un⯑willingneſs to give unneceſſary offence. Thus, Acts, chap. xvi. ver. 3: "Him (Timothy) would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and circumciſed him, becauſe of the Jews which were in thoſe quarters." Again (Acts, chap. xxi. ver. 26), when Paul conſented to exhibit an example of public compliance with a Jewiſh rite, by purifying himſelf in the temple, it is plainly intimat⯑ed that he did this to ſatisfy "many thou⯑ſand of Jews who believed, and who were all zealous of the law." So far the in⯑ſtances related in one book, correſpond with the doctrine delivered in another.

No. VIII.

Chap. i. ver. 18. "Then, after three years, I went up to Jeruſalem to ſee Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

The ſhortneſs of St. Paul's ſtay at Jeruſa⯑lem, is what I deſire the reader to remark. The direct account of the ſame journey in the Acts, chap. ix. ver. 28, determines no⯑thing concerning the time of his continu⯑ance there: "And he was with them (the apoſtles) coming in, and going out, at Je⯑ruſalem; and he ſpake boldly in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and diſputed againſt the Grecians, but they went about to ſlay him; which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caeſarea." Or rather this account, taken by itſelf, would lead a reader to ſuppoſe that St. Paul's abode at Jeruſalem had been longer than fifteen days. But turn to the twenty-ſecond chap⯑ter of the Acts, and you will find a reference to this viſit to Jeruſalem, which plainly in⯑dicates that Paul's continuance in that city had been of ſhort duration: "And it came [190] to paſs, that when I was come again to Jeruſalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance, and ſaw him ſaying unto me, Make haſte, get thee quickly out of Jeruſalem, for they will not receive thy teſtimony concerning me." Here we have the general terms of one text ſo explained by a diſtant text in the ſame book, as to bring an indeterminate expreſſion into cloſe conformity with a ſpecification de⯑livered in another book: a ſpecies of con⯑ſiſtency not, I think, uſually found in fabu⯑lous relations.

No. IX.

Chap. vi. ver. 11. "Ye ſee how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand."

Theſe words imply that he did not always write with his own hand; which is conſonant to what we find intimated in ſome other of the epiſtles. The Epiſtle to the Romans was written by Tertius: "I Tertius, who wrote this epiſtle, ſalute you in the Lord" (chap. xvi. ver. 22). The firſt Epiſtle to [191] the Corinthians, the Epiſtle to the Coloſ⯑ſians, and the ſecond to the Theſſalonians, have all, near the concluſion, this clauſe. "The ſalutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand;" which muſt be underſtood, and is univerſally underſtood to import, that the reſt of the epiſtle was written by another hand. I do not think it improbable that an impoſtor, who had remarked this ſubſcrip⯑tion in ſome other epiſtle, ſhould invent the ſame in a forgery; but that is not done here. The author of this epiſtle does not imitate the manner of giving St. Paul's ſig⯑nature; he only bids the Galatians obſerve how large a letter he had written to them with his own hand. He does not ſay this was different from his ordinary uſage; that is left to implication. Now to ſup⯑poſe that this was an artifice to procure cre⯑dit to an impoſture, is to ſuppoſe that the author of the forgery, becauſe he knew that others of St. Paul's were not written by him⯑ſelf, therefore made the apoſtle ſay that this was: which ſeems an odd turn to give to the circumſtance, and to be given for a pur⯑poſe, which would more naturally and more [192] directly have been anſwered, by ſubjoining the ſalutation or ſignature in the form in which it is found in other epiſtles^*.

No. X.

An exact conformity appears in the man⯑ner in which a certain apoſtle or eminent Chriſtian, whoſe name was James, is ſpo⯑ken of in the epiſtle and in the hiſtory. Both writings refer to a ſituation of his at Jeruſalem, ſomewhat different from that of the other apoſtles; a kind of eminence or preſidency in the church there, or at leaſt a more fixed and ſtationary reſidence. Chap. ii. ver. 12, "When Peter was at Antioch, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles." This text [193] plainly attributes a kind of pre-eminency to James; and, as we hear of him twice in the ſame epiſtle dwelling at Jeruſalem, chap. i. ver. 19, and ii. 9, we muſt apply it to the ſituation which he held in that church. In the Acts of the Apoſtles divers intimations occur, conveying the ſame idea of James's ſituation. When Peter was miraculouſly delivered from priſon, and had ſurpriſed his friends by his appearance among them, after declaring unto them how the Lord had brought him out of priſon, "Go ſhew," ſays he, "theſe things unto James, and to "the brethren" (Acts, chap. xii. ver. 17). Here James is manifeſtly ſpoken of in terms of diſtinction. He appears again with like diſtinction in the twenty-firſt chapter and the ſeventeenth and eighteenth verſes: "And when we" (Paul and his company) "were come to Jeruſalem; the day following, Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were preſent." In the debate which took place upon the buſineſs of the Gentile converts, in the council at Jeruſalem, this ſame perſon ſeems to have taken the lead. It was he who cloſed the debate, and pro⯑poſed [194] the reſolution in which the council ultimately concurred: "Wherefore my ſen⯑tence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God."

Upon the whole, that there exiſts a con⯑formity in the expreſſions uſed concerning James, throughout the hiſtory, and in the epiſtle, is unqueſtionable. But admitting this conformity, and admitting alſo the un⯑deſignedneſs of it, what does it prove? It proves that the circumſtance itſelf is founded in truth; that is, that James was a real perſon, who held a ſituation of eminence in a real ſociety of Chriſtians at Jeruſalem. It confirms alſo thoſe parts of the narrative which are connected with this circumſtance. Suppoſe, for inſtance, the truth of the ac⯑count of Peter's eſcape from priſon was to be tried upon the teſtimony of a witneſs who, amongſt other things, made Peter, after his deliverance, ſay, "Go ſhew theſe things to James and to the brethren;" would it not be material, in ſuch a trial, to make out by other independent proofs, or by a com⯑pariſon of proofs drawn from independent [195] ſources, that there was actually at that time, living at Jeruſalem, ſuch a perſon as James; that this perſon held ſuch a ſituation in the ſociety amongſt whom theſe things were tranſacted, as to render the words which Peter is ſaid to have uſed concerning him, proper and natural for him to have uſed? If this would be pertinent in the diſcuſſion of oral teſtimony, it is ſtill more ſo in appre⯑ciating the credit of remote hiſtory.

It muſt not be diſſembled that the com⯑pariſon of our epiſtle with the hiſtory pre⯑ſents ſome difficulties, or, to ſay the leaſt, ſome queſtions, of conſiderable magnitude. It may be doubted, in the firſt place, to what journey the words which open the ſecond chapter of the epiſtle, "then, fourteen years afterwards, I went unto Jeruſalem," relate. That which beſt correſponds with the date, and that to which moſt interpreters apply the paſſage, is the journey of Paul and Bar⯑nabas to Jeruſalem, when they went thither from Antioch, upon the buſineſs of the Gen⯑tile converts; and which journey produced the famous council and decree recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. To me this [196] opinion appears to be encumbered with ſtrong objections. In the epiſtle Paul tells us that "he went up by revelation" (chap. ii. ver. 2). In the Acts, we read that he was ſent by the church of Antioch: "After no ſmall diſſenſion and diſputation, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, ſhould go up to the apoſtles and elders about this queſtion" (Acts, chap. xv. ver. 2). This is not very reconcileable. In the epiſtle St. Paul writes that, when he came to Jeruſalem, "he com⯑municated that Goſpel which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation" (chap. ii. ver. 2). If by "that Goſpel" be meant the im⯑munity of the Gentile Chriſtians from the Jewiſh law (and I know not what elſe it can mean), it is not eaſy to conceive how he ſhould communicate that privately, which was the ſubject of his public meſſage. But a yet greater difficulty remains, viz. that in the account which the epiſtle gives of what paſſed upon this viſit at Jeruſalem, no notice is taken of the deliberation and decree which are recorded in the Acts, and which, ac⯑cording [197] to that hiſtory, formed the buſineſs for the ſake of which the journey was un⯑dertaken. The mention of the council and of its determination, whilſt the apoſtle was relating his proceedings at Jeruſalem, could hardly have been avoided, if in truth the narrative belong to the ſame journey. To me it appears more probable that Paul and Barnabas had taken ſome journey to Jeruſa⯑lem, the mention of which is omitted in the Acts. Prior to the apoſtolic decree, we read that "Paul and Barnabas abode at Antioch a long time with the diſciples" (Acts, chap. xiv. ver. 28). Is it is unlikely that, du⯑ring this long abode, they might go up to Je⯑ruſalem and return to Antioch? Or would the omiſſion of ſuch a journey be unſuitable to the general brevity with which theſe memoirs are written, eſpecially of thoſe parts of St. Paul's hiſtory which took place before the hiſtorian joined his ſociety?

But, again, the firſt account we find in the Acts of the Apoſtles of St. Paul's viſiting Galatia, is in the ſixteenth chapter, and the ſixth verſe: "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Ga⯑latia, [198] they aſſayed to go into Bithynia." The progreſs here recorded was ſubſequent to the apoſtolic decree; therefore that de⯑cree muſt have been extant when our epiſtle was written. Now, as the profeſſed deſign of the epiſtle was to eſtabliſh the exemp⯑tion of the Gentile converts from the law of Moſes, and as the decree pronounced and confirmed that exemption, it may ſeem extraordinary that no notice whatever is taken of that determination, nor any appeal made to its authority. Much however of the weight of this objection, which applies alſo to ſome other of St. Paul's epiſtles, is removed by the following reflections.

1. It was not St. Paul's manner, nor agree⯑able to it, to reſort or defer much to the au⯑thority of the other apoſtles, eſpecially whilſt he was inſiſting, as he does ſtrenuouſly throughout this epiſtle inſiſt, upon his own original inſpiration. He who could ſpeak of the very chiefeſt of the apoſtles in ſuch terms as the following—"of thoſe who ſeemed to be ſomewhat (whatſoever they were it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's perſon) for they who [199] ſeemed to be ſomewhat in conference added nothing to me"—he, I ſay, was not likely to ſupport himſelf by their deciſion.

2. The epiſtle argues the point upon principle; and it is not perhaps more to be wondered at, that in ſuch an argument St. Paul ſhould not cite the apoſtolic decree, than it would be that, in a diſcourſe deſigned to prove the moral and religious duty of obſerving the ſabbath, the writer ſhould not quote the thirteenth canon.

3. The decree did not go the length of the poſition maintained in the epiſtle; the decree only declares that the apoſtles and elders at Jeruſalem did not impoſe the ob⯑ſervance of the Moſaic law upon the Gen⯑tile converts, as a condition of their being admitted into the Chriſtian church. Our epiſtle argues that the Moſaic inſtitution itſelf was at an end, as to all effects upon a future ſtate, even with reſpect to the Jews themſelves.

4. They whoſe error St. Paul combat⯑ted, were not perſons who ſubmitted to the Jewiſh law, becauſe it was impoſed by the authority, or becauſe it was made part [200] of the law of the Chriſtian church; but they were perſons who, having already become Chriſtians, afterwards voluntarily took upon themſelves the obſervance of the Moſaic code, under a notion of attaining thereby to a greater perfection. This, I think, is pre⯑ciſely the opinion which St. Paul oppoſes in this epiſtle. Many of his expreſſions apply exactly to it: "Are ye ſo fooliſh? having begun in the ſpirit, are ye now made perfect in the fleſh?" (chap. iii. ver. 3). "Tell me, ye that deſire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" (chap. iv. ver. 21.) "How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, where-unto ye deſire again to be in bondage?" (chap. iv. ver. 9). It cannot be thought extraordinary that St. Paul ſhould reſiſt this opinion with earneſtneſs; for it both changed the character of the Chriſtian diſpenſation, and derogated expreſsly from the complete⯑neſs of that redemption which Jeſus Chriſt had wrought for them that believed in him. But it was to no purpoſe to alledge to ſuch perſons the deciſion at Jeruſalem, for that only ſhewed that they were not bound to [201] theſe obſervances by any law of the Chriſtian church: they did not pretend to be ſo bound. Nevertheleſs they imagined that there was an efficacy in theſe obſervances, a merit, a re⯑commendation to favour, and a ground of acceptance with God for thoſe who com⯑plied with them. This was a ſituation of thought to which the tenor of the decree did not apply. Accordingly, St. Paul's ad⯑dreſs to the Galatians, which is throughout adapted to this ſituation, runs in a ſtrain widely different from the language of the decree: "Chriſt is become of no effect unto you, whoſoever of you are juſtified by the law" (chap. v. ver. 4); i. e. whoſoever places his dependance upon any merit he may apprehend there to be in legal obſer⯑vances. The decree had ſaid nothing like this; therefore it would have been uſeleſs to have produced the decree in an argument of which this was the burthen. In like manner as in contending with an anchorite, who ſhould inſiſt upon the ſuperior holineſs of a recluſe, aſcetic life, and the value of ſuch mortifications in the ſight of God, it would be to no purpoſe to prove that the [202] laws of the church did not require theſe vows, or even to prove that the laws of the church expreſsly left every Chriſtian to his liberty. This would avail little towards abating his eſtimation of their merit, or to⯑wards ſettling the point in controverſy^*.

[203] Another difficulty ariſes from the account of Peter's conduct towards the Gentile con⯑verts at Antioch, as given in the epiſtle, in the latter part of the ſecond chapter; which conduct, it is ſaid, is conſiſtent neither with the revelation communicated to him, upon [204] the converſion of Cornelius, nor with the part he took in the debate at Jeruſalem. But, in order to underſtand either the diffi⯑culty or the ſolution, it will be neceſſary to ſtate and explain the paſſage itſelf. "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withſtood him to the face, becauſe he was to be blamed; for, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and ſeparated himſelf, fearing them which were of the circumciſion; and the other Jews diſſembled likewiſe with him, in⯑ſomuch that Barnabas alſo was carried away with their diſſimulation: but when [205] I ſaw they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Goſpel, I ſaid unto Peter, before them all, If thou, being a Jew, liveſt after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelleſt thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Now the queſtion that produced the diſpute to which theſe words relate, was not whether the Gentiles were capable of being admitted into the Chriſtian covenant; that had been fully ſettled: nor was it whether it ſhould be accounted eſſential to the profeſſion of Chriſtianity that they ſhould conform themſelves to the law of Moſes; that was the queſtion at Jeruſalem: but it was, whether, upon the Gentiles becoming Chriſtians, the Jews might thenceforth eat and drink with them, as with their own bre⯑thren. Upon this point St. Peter betrayed ſome inconſtancy; and ſo he might, agree⯑ably enough to his hiſtory. He might con⯑ſider the viſion at Joppa as a direction for the occaſion, rather than as univerſally abo⯑liſhing the diſtinction between Jew and Gentile; I do not mean with reſpect to final [206] acceptance with God, but as to the manner of their living together in ſociety: at leaſt he might not have comprehended this point with ſuch clearneſs and certainty, as to ſtand out upon it againſt the fear of bringing upon himſelf the cenſure and complaint of his brethren in the church of Jeruſalem, who ſtill adhered to their ancient prejudices. But Peter, it is ſaid, compelled the Gentiles [...]—"why compelleſt thou the Gen⯑tiles to live as do the Jews?" How did he do that? The only way in which Peter appears to have compelled the Gentiles to comply with the Jewiſh inſtitution, was by with⯑drawing himſelf from their ſociety. By which he may be underſtood to have made this declaration: "We do not deny your right to be conſidered as Chriſtians; we do not deny your title in the promiſes of the Goſpel, even without compliance with our law; but if you would have us Jews live with you, as we do with one another, that is, if you would in all reſpects be treated by us as Jews, you muſt live as ſuch yourſelves." This, I think, was the com⯑pulſion [207] which St. Peter's conduct impoſed upon the Gentiles, and for which St. Paul reproved him.

As to the part which the hiſtorian aſcribes to St. Peter, in the debate at Jeruſalem, be⯑ſide that it was a different queſtion which was there agitated from that which pro⯑duced the diſpute at Antioch, there is no⯑thing to hinder us from ſuppoſing that the diſpute at Antioch was prior to the conſulta⯑tion at Jeruſalem; or that Peter, in conſe⯑quence of this rebuke, might have afterwards maintained firmer ſentiments.

No. I.

THIS epiſtle, and the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, appear to have been tranſ⯑mitted to their reſpective churches by the ſame meſſenger: "But that ye alſo may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful miniſter in the Lord, ſhall make known to you all things; whom I have ſent unto you for the ſame purpoſe, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts" (Eph. chap. vi. ver. 21, 22). This text, if it do not expreſsly declare, clearly I think intimates, that the letter was ſent by Tychicus. The words made uſe of in the epiſtle to the Coloſſians are very ſimilar to theſe, and afford the ſame implication that Tychicus, in conjunction with Oneſimus, was the bearer of the letter [209] to that church: "All my ſtate ſhall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved bro⯑ther, and a faithful miniſter, and fellow ſervant in the Lord, whom I have ſent unto you for the ſame purpoſe, that he might know your eſtate, and comfort your hearts; with Oneſimus, a faithful and be⯑loved brother, who is one of you: they ſhall make known unto you all things which are done here" (Coloſ. chap. iv. ver. 7-9). Both epiſtles repreſent the writer as under impriſonment for the goſpel; and both treat of the ſame general ſubject. The epiſtle therefore to the Epheſians, and the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, import to be two letters written by the ſame perſon, at, or nearly at, the ſame time, and upon the ſame ſubject, and to have been ſent by the ſame meſſenger. Now, every thing in the ſenti⯑ments, order, and diction of the two writings correſponds with what might be expected from this circumſtance of identity or cogna⯑tion in their original. The leading doctrine of both epiſtles is the union of Jews and Gentiles under the Chriſtian diſpenſation; and that doctrine in both is eſtabliſhed by [210] the ſame arguments, or, more properly ſpeak⯑ing, illuſtrated by the ſame ſimilitudes^*: "one head," "one body," "one new man," "one temple," are in both epiſtles the figures, under which the ſociety of be⯑lievers in Chriſt, and their common relation to him as ſuch, is repreſented^†. The an⯑cient, and, as had been thought, the indelible diſtinction between Jew and Gentile, in both epiſtles, is declared to be "now aboliſhed by his croſs." Beſide this conſent in the ge⯑neral [211] tenor of the two epiſtles, and in the run alſo and warmth of thought with which they are compoſed, we may naturally expect, in letters produced under the circumſtances, in which theſe appear to have been written, a cloſer reſemblance of ſtyle and diction, than between other letters of the ſame per⯑ſon, but of diſtant dates, or between letters adapted to different occaſions. In particular we may look for many of the ſame ex⯑preſſions, and ſometimes for whole ſentences being alike; ſince ſuch expreſſions and ſen⯑tences would be repeated in the ſecond let⯑ter (whichever that was) as yet freſh in the author's mind from the writing of the firſt. This repetition occurs in the following ex⯑amples^*:

Epheſ. ch. i. ver. 7. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive⯑neſs of ſins^†."

[212] Coloſ. ch. i. ver. 14. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the for⯑giveneſs of ſins^*."

Beſide the ſameneſs of the words, it is farther remarkable that the ſentence is, in both places, preceded by the ſame intro⯑ductory idea. In the Epiſtle to the Ephe⯑ſians it is the "beloved" ( [...]); in that to the Coloſſians it is "his dear Son" ( [...]), "in whom we have redemption." The ſentence appears to have been ſuggeſted to the mind of the writer by the idea, which had accompanied it before.

Epheſ. ch. i. ver. 10. "All things both which are in heaven and which are in earth, even in him^†."

Coloſ. ch. i. ver. 20. "All things by him, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven^‡."

[213] This quotation is the more obſervable, becauſe the connecting of things in earth with things in heaven is a very ſingular ſentiment, and found no where elſe but in theſe two epiſtles. The words alſo are in⯑troduced and followed by a train of thought nearly alike. They are introduced by de⯑ſcribing the union, which Chriſt had effected, and they are followed by telling the Gen⯑tile churches that they were incorporated into it.

Epheſ. ch. iii. ver. 2. "The diſpenſation of the grace of God, which is given me to you ward^*."

Coloſ. ch. i. ver. 25. "The diſpenſation of God which is given to me for you^†."

Of theſe ſentences it may likewiſe be obſerved, that the accompanying ideas are ſimilar. In both places they are imme⯑diately preceded by the mention of his pre⯑ſent ſufferings; in both places they are im⯑mediately followed by the mention of the [214] myſtery which was the great ſubject of his preaching.

Epheſ. ch. v. ver. 19. "In pſalms and hymns and ſpiritual ſongs, ſinging and making melody in your heart to the Lord^*."

Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 16. "In pſalms and hymns and ſpiritual ſongs, ſinging with grace in your hearts to the Lord^†."

Epheſ. ch. vi. ver. 22. "Whom I have ſent unto you for the ſame purpoſe, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts^‡."

Coloſ. ch. iv. ver. 8. "Whom I have ſent unto you for the ſame purpoſe, that he might know your eſtate, and comfort your hearts^§."

In theſe examples, we do not perceive a cento of phraſes gathered from one compo⯑ſition, [215] and ſtrung together in the other; but the occaſional occurrence of the ſame expreſſion to a mind a ſecond time revolving the ſame ideas.

2. Whoever writes two letters, or two diſcourſes, nearly upon the ſame ſubject, and at no great diſtance of time, but with⯑out any expreſs recollection of what he had written before, will find himſelf repeating ſome ſentences, in the very order of the words, in which he had already uſed them; but he will more frequently find himſelf employing ſome principal terms, with the order inadvertently changed, or with the order diſturbed by the intermixture of other words and phraſes expreſſive of ideas riſing up at the time; or in many inſtances re⯑peating not ſingle words, nor yet whole ſentences, but parts and fragments of ſen⯑tences. Of all theſe varieties the examina⯑tion of our two epiſtles will furniſh plain examples: and I ſhould rely upon this claſs of inſtances more than upon the laſt; be⯑cauſe, although an impoſtor might tran⯑ſcribe into a forgery entire ſentences and phraſes, yet the diſlocation of words, the [216] partial recollection of phraſes and ſentences, the intermixture of new terms and new ideas with terms and ideas before uſed, which will appear in the examples that fol⯑low, and which are the natural properties of writings produced under the circumſtances in which theſe epiſtles are repreſented to have been compoſed would not, I think, have occurred to the invention of a forger; nor, if they had occurred, would they have been ſo eaſily executed. This ſtudied va⯑riation was a reſinement in forgery which I believe did not exiſt; or, if we can ſup⯑poſe it to have been practiſed in the inſtances adduced below, why, it may be aſked, was not the ſame art exerciſed upon thoſe which we have collected in the preceding claſs?

Epheſ. ch. i. ver. 19, ch. ii. ver. 5. "Towards us who believe according to the working of his mighty power which he wrought in Chriſt, when he raiſed him from the dead (and ſet him at his own right hand, in the heavenly places, far above all prin⯑cipality, and power, and might, and domi⯑nion, and every name that is named, not only in this world but in that which is [217] to come. And hath put all things under his feet; and gave him to be the head over all things, to the church, which is his body, the fulneſs of all things that filleth all in all): and you hath he quickened, who were dead in treſpaſſes and ſins (wherein in time paſt ye walked according to the courſe of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the ſpirit that now worketh in the children of diſobedience; among whom alſo we had all our converſation, in times paſt, in the luſts of our fleſh, fulfilling the deſires of the fleſh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us), even when we were dead in ſins, hath quickened us together with Chriſt^*."

Coloſ. ch. ii. ver. 12, 13. "Through the faith of the operation of God, who hath [218] raiſed him from the dead, and you being dead in your ſins and the uncircumciſion of the fleſh, hath he quickened together with him^*."

Out of the long quotation from the Ephe⯑ſians, take away the parentheſes, and you have left a ſentence almoſt in terms the ſame as the ſhort quotation from the Coloſ⯑ſians. The reſemblance is more viſible in the original than in our tranſlation; for what is rendered in one place the "working," and in another the "operation," is the ſame Greek term [...]; in one place it is, [...]; in the other, [...]. Here therefore we have the ſame ſentiment, and nearly in the ſame words; but, in the Epheſians, twice broken or interrupted by incidental thoughts, which St. Paul, as his manner was, enlarges upon by the way^†, and then returns to the thread of his diſcourſe. It is interrupted the firſt time by a view which [219] breaks in upon his mind of the exaltation of Chriſt; and the ſecond time by a de⯑ſcription of heathen depravity. I have only to remark that Grieſbach, in his very ac⯑curate edition, gives the parentheſes very nearly in the ſame manner, in which they are here placed; and that without any re⯑ſpect to the compariſon, which we are pro⯑poſing.

Epheſ. ch. iv. ver. 2-4. "With all low⯑lineſs and meekneſs, with long-ſuffering, forbearing one another in love; endea⯑vouring to keep the unity of the ſpirit, in the bond of peace, there is one body and one ſpirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling^*."

Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 12-15. "Put on there⯑fore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindneſs, humbleneſs of mind, meekneſs, long-ſuffering, for⯑bearing one another and forgiving one an⯑other, if any man have a quarrel againſt [220] any, even as Chriſt forgave you, ſo alſo do ye; and, above all theſe things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectneſs; and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which alſo ye are called in one body^*."

In theſe two quotations the words [...], occur in exactly the ſame order; [...] is alſo found in both, but in a diffe⯑rent connection: [...] an⯑ſwers to [...] to [...]; yet is this ſimilitude found in the midſt of ſentences otherwiſe very dif⯑ferent.

Epheſ. ch. iv. ver. 16. "From whom thè whole body ſitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint ſup⯑plieth, according to the effectual working [221] in the meaſure of every part, maketh in⯑creaſe of the body^*."

Col. ch. ii. ver. 19. "From which all the body, by joints and bands, having nouriſhment miniſtered and knit together, increaſeth with the increaſe of God^†."

In theſe quotations are read [...] in both places, [...] anſwering to [...] to [...] to [...]; and yet the ſentences are conſiderably diverſified in other parts.

Epheſ. ch. iv. ver. 32. "And be kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for Chriſt's ſake, hath forgiven you^‡."

Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 13. "Forbearing one another and forgiving one another; if any [222] man have a quarrel againſt any, even as Chriſt forgave you, ſo alſo do ye^*."

Here we have "forgiving one another, even as God, for Chriſt's ſake ( [...]), hath forgiven you," in the firſt quotation, ſubſtantially repeated in the ſecond. But in the ſecond the ſentence is broken by the interpoſition of a new clauſe, "if any man have a quarrel againſt any:" and the lat⯑ter part is a little varied; inſtead of "God in Chriſt," it is "Chriſt hath forgiven ye."

Epheſ. ch. iv. ver. 22-24. "That ye put off concerning the former converſation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful luſts, and be renewed in the ſpirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteouſneſs and true holineſs^†."

[223] Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 9, 10. "Seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him^*."

In theſe quotations, "putting off the old man, and putting on the new," appears in both. The idea is further explained by calling it a renewal; in the one, "renewed in the ſpirit of your mind;" in the other, "renewed in knowledge." In both, the new man is ſaid to be formed according to the ſame model; in the one, he is "after God created in righteouſneſs and true holineſs;" in the other, "he is renewed after the image of him that created him." In a word, it is the ſame perſon writing upon a kindred ſubject, with the terms and ideas which he had before employed ſtill floating in his memory^†."

[224] Epheſ. ch. v. ver. 6-8. "Becauſe of theſe things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of diſobedience: be not yet therefore partakers with them; for ye were ſome⯑times darkneſs, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk therefore as children of light^*."

Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 6-8. "For which things ſake the wrath of God cometh on the chil⯑dren of diſobedience; in the which ye alſo walked ſometime, when ye lived in them; but now you alſo put off all theſe^†."

Theſe verſes aſſord a ſpecimen of that partial reſemblance which is only to be met with when no imitation is deſigned, when no ſtudied recollection is employed, but when the mind, exerciſed upon the ſame [225] ſubject, is left to the ſpontaneous return of ſuch terms and phraſes, as, having been uſed before, may happen to preſent themſelves again. The ſentiment of both paſſages is throughout alike: half of that ſentiment, the denunciation of God's wrath, is expreſſed in identical words; the other half, viz. the admonition to quit their former converſa⯑tion, in words entirely different.

Epheſ. ch. v. ver. 15, 16. "See then that ye walk circumſpectly; not as fools, but as wiſe, redeeming the time^*."

Goloſ. ch. iv. ver 5. "Walk in wiſdom towards them that are without, redeeming the time^†."

This is another example of that mixture which we remarked of ſameneſs and variety in the language of one writer. "Redeeming the time" ( [...]) is a li⯑teral repetition. "Walk not as fools, but as wiſe" ( [...]) anſwers exactly in ſenſe, and nearly in [226] terms, to "walk in wiſdom" ( [...]). [...] is a very dif⯑ferent phraſe, but is intended to convey preciſely the ſame idea as [...]: [...] is not well rendered "circumſpectly." It means what in mo⯑dern ſpeech we ſhould call "correctly;" and when we adviſe a perſon to behave "correctly," our advice is always given with a reference to "the opinion of others," [...]. "Walk correctly, redeeming the time," i. e. ſuiting yourſelves to the difficulty and tickliſhneſs of the times in which we live, "becauſe the days are evil."

Epheſ. ch. vi. ver. 19, 20. "And (pray⯑ing) for me that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the myſtery of the Goſpel, for which I am an ambaſſador in bonds, that therein I may ſpeak boldly, as I ought to ſpeak^*."

[227] Coloſ. ch. iv. ver. 3, 4. "Withal praying alſo for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance to ſpeak the myſtery of Chriſt, for which I am alſo in bonds, that I may make it manifeſt as I ought to ſpeak^*."

In theſe quotations, the phraſe "as I ought to ſpeak" ( [...]), the words "utterance" ( [...]), "myſtery" ( [...]), "open" ( [...] and [...]), are the ſame. "To make known the myſtery of the Goſ⯑pel" ( [...]), anſwers to "make it manifeſt" ( [...]); "for which I am an ambaſſador in bonds" ( [...]), to "for which I am alſo in bonds" ( [...]).

Epheſ. ch. v. ver. 22. "Wives, ſubmit yourſelves to your own huſbands, as unto the Lord; for the huſband is the head of the wife, even as Chriſt is the head of the church, and he is the ſaviour of the body. Therefore, as the church is ſubject unto [228] Chriſt, ſo let the wives be to their own huſbands in every thing. Huſbands, love your wives, even as Chriſt alſo loved the church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might ſanctify and cleanſe it with the waſhing of water by the word; that he might preſent it to himſelf a glorious church, not having ſpot or wrinkle, or any ſuch thing; but that it ſhould be holy and without blemiſh. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himſelf; for no man ever yet hated his own fleſh, but nou⯑riſheth and cheriſheth it, even as the Lord the church; for we are members of his body, of his fleſh, and of his bones. For this cauſe ſhall a man leave his father and his mother, and be joined unto his wife, and they two ſhall be one fleſh. This is a great myſtery; but I ſpeak concerning Chriſt and the church. Nevertheleſs, let every one of you, in particular, ſo love his wife even as himſelf; and the wife ſee that ſhe reverence her huſband. Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honour thy father and thy mo⯑ther [229] (which is the firſt commandment with promiſe), that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayeſt live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Servants, be obedient to them that are your maſters according to the fleſh, with fear and trembling, in ſingleneſs of your heart, as unto Chriſt; not with eye ſervice, as men pleaſers, but as the ſervants of Chriſt, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing ſervice, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatſoever good thing any man doeth, the ſame ſhall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye maſters, do the ſame things unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing that your maſter alſo is in heaven, neither is there reſpect of perſons with him^*."

^†Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 18. "Wives, ſubmit yourſelves unto your own huſbands, as it [230] is fit in the Lord. Huſbands, love your wives, and be not bitter againſt them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleaſing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to an⯑ger, leſt they be diſcouraged. Servants, obey in all things your maſters according to the fleſh; not with eye ſervice, as men pleaſers, but in ſingleneſs of heart, fearing[231]God; and whatever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men, know⯑ing that of the Lord ye ſhall receive the reward of the inheritance, for ye ſerve the Lord Chriſt. But he that doeth wrong ſhall receive for the wrong which he hath done; and there is no reſpect of perſons. Maſters, give unto your ſervants that which is juſt and equal, knowing that ye alſo have a maſter in heaven."

The paſſages marked by Italics in the quo⯑tation from the Epheſians, bear a ſtrict reſem⯑blance, not only in ſignification but in terms, to the quotation from the Coloſſians. Both the words and the order of the words are in many clauſes a duplicate of one another. In the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, theſe paſſages are laid together; in that to the Epheſians, they are divided by intermediate matter, eſpeci⯑ally by a long digreſſive alluſion to the myſ⯑terious union between Chriſt and his church; which poſſeſſing, as Mr. Locke hath well obſerved, the mind of the apoſtle, from being an incidental thought, grows up into the principal ſubject. The affinity between theſe two paſſages in ſignification, in terms, [232] and in the order of the words, is cloſer than can be pointed out between any parts of any two epiſtles in the volume.

If the reader would ſee how the ſame ſubject is treated by a different hand, and how diſtinguiſhable it is from the produc⯑tion of the ſame pen, let him turn to the ſecond and third chapters of the firſt epiſtle of St. Peter. The duties of ſervants, of wives and of huſbands, are enlarged upon in that epiſtle, as they are in the Epiſtle to the Epheſians; but the ſubjects both occur in a different order, and the train of ſentiment ſubjoined to each is totally unlike.

3. In two letters iſſuing from the ſame perſon, nearly at the ſame time, and upon the ſame general occaſion, we may expect to trace the influence of aſſociation in the order in which the topics follow one ano⯑ther. Certain ideas univerſally or uſually ſuggeſt others. Here the order is what we call natural, and from ſuch an order nothing can be concluded. But when the order is arbitrary, yet alike, the concurrence indi⯑cates the effect of that principle, by which ideas, which have been once joined, com⯑monly [233] reviſit the thoughts together. The epiſtles under conſideration furniſh the two following remarkable inſtances of this ſpecies of agreement.

Epheſ. ch. iv. ver. 24. "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteouſneſs and true holineſs; wherefore, putting away lying, ſpeak every man truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another^*."

Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 9. "Lie not one to another; ſeeing that ye have put off the old man, with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge^†."

The vice of "lying," or a correction of that vice, does not ſeem to bear any nearer relation to the "putting on the new man," than a reformation in any other article of [234] morals. Yet theſe two ideas, we ſee, ſtand in both epiſtles in immediate connection.

Epheſ. ch. v. ver. 20, 21. "Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father, in the name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; ſubmitting yourſelves one to ano⯑ther, in the fear of God. Wives, ſub⯑mit yourſelves unto your own huſbands, as unto the Lord^*."

Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 17. "Whatſoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jeſus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Wives, ſubmit yourſelves unto your own huſbands, as it is ſit in the Lord^†."

In both theſe paſſages, ſubmiſſion follows giving of thanks, without any ſimilitude in the ideas which ſhould account for the tranſition.

[235] It is not neceſſary to purſue the compari⯑ſon between the two epiſtles farther. The argument which reſults from it ſtands thus: Now two other epiſtles contain a circumſtance which indicates that they were written at the ſame, or nearly at the ſame time. No two other epiſtles exhibit ſo many marks of correſpondency and reſemblance. If the original which we aſcribe to theſe two epi⯑ſtles be the true one, that is, if they were both really written by St. Paul, and both ſent to their reſpective deſtination by the ſame meſſenger, the ſimilitude is, in all points, what ſhould be expected to take place. If they were forgeries, then the mention of Tychicus in both epiſtles, and in a manner which ſhews that he either carried or accompanied both epiſtles, was inſerted for the purpoſe of accounting for their ſimilitude; or elſe the ſtructure of the epiſtles was deſignedly adapted to that cir⯑cumſtance; or, laſtly, the conformity be⯑tween the contents of the forgeries, and what is thus indirectly intimated concerning their date, was only a happy accident. Not one of theſe three ſuppoſitions will gain [236] credit with a reader who peruſes the epiſtles with attention, and who reviews the ſeveral examples we have pointed out, and the ob⯑ſervations with which they were accom⯑panied.

No. II.

There is ſuch a thing as a peculiar word or phraſe cleaving, as it were, to the me⯑mory of a writer or ſpeaker, and preſenting itſelf to his utterance at every turn. When we obſerve this, we call it a cant word, or a cant phraſe. It is a natural effect of habit; and would appear more frequently than it does, had not the rules of good writing taught the ear to be offended with the itera⯑tion of the ſame ſound, and oftentimes cauſed us to reject, on that account, the word which offered itſelf firſt to our recollection. With a writer who, like St. Paul, either knew not theſe rules, or diſregarded them, ſuch words will not be avoided. The truth is, an ex⯑ample of this kind runs through ſeveral of his epiſtles, and in the epiſtle before us abounds; and that is in the word riches ( [...]), uſed metaphorically as an aug⯑mentative [237] of the idea to which it happens to be ſubjoined. Thus, "the riches of his glory," "his riches in glory," "riches of the glory of his inheritance," "riches of the glory of this myſtery," Rom. ch. ix. ver. 23, Epheſ. ch. iii. ver. 16, Epheſ. ch. i. ver. 18, Coloſ. ch. i. ver. 27; "riches of his grace," twice in the Epheſians, ch. i. ver. 7, and ch. ii. ver. 7; "riches of the full aſſurance of underſtanding," Coloſ. ch. ii. ver. 2; "riches of his goodneſs," Rom. ch. ii. ver. 4; "riches of the wiſdom of God," Rom. ch. xi. ver. 33; "riches of Chriſt," Epheſ. ch. iii. ver. 8. In a like ſenſe the adjective, Rom. ch. x. ver. 12, "rich unto all that call upon him;" Epheſ. ch. ii. ver. 4, "rich in mer⯑cy;" 1 Tim. ch. vi. ver. 18, "rich in good works." Alſo the adverb, Coloſ. ch. iii. ver. 16, "let the word of Chriſt dwell in you richly." This figurative uſe of the word, though ſo familiar to St. Paul, does not oc⯑cur in any part of the New Teſtament, ex⯑cept once in the epiſtle of St. James, ch. ii. ver. 5, "Hath not God choſen the poor of this world, rich in faith?" where it is ma⯑nifeſtly ſuggeſted by the antitheſis. I pro⯑poſe [238] the frequent, yet ſeemingly unaffected uſe of this phraſe, in the epiſtle before us, as one internal mark of its genuineneſs.

No. III.

There is another ſingularity in St. Paul's ſtyle, which, wherever it is found, may be deemed a badge of authenticity; becauſe, if it were noticed, it would not, I think, be imitated, inaſmuch as it almoſt always pro⯑duces embarraſſment and interruption in the reaſoning. This ſingularity is a ſpecies of digreſſion which may properly, I think, be denominated going off at a word. It is turning aſide from the ſubject upon the oc⯑currence of ſome particular word, forſaking the train of thought then in hand, and en⯑tering upon a parenthetic ſentence in which that word is the prevailing term. I ſhall lay before the reader ſome examples of this, collected from the other epiſtles, and then propoſe two examples of it which are found in the epiſtle to the Epheſians. 2 Cor. ch. ii. ver. 14, at the word ſavour: "Now thanks be unto God, which always cauſeth us to triumph in Chriſt, and maketh ma⯑nifeſt [239] the ſavour of his knowledge by us in every place (for we are unto God a ſweet ſavour of Chriſt, in them that are ſaved, and in them that periſh; to the one we are the ſavour of death unto death, and to the other the ſavour of life unto life; and who is ſufficient for theſe things?) For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God, but as of ſincerity, but as of God; in the ſight of God ſpeak we in Chriſt." Again, 2 Cor. ch. iii. ver. 1, at the word epiſtle: "Need we, as ſome others, epiſtles of commendation to you, or of commendation from you? (ye are our epiſtle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; foraſmuch as ye are ma⯑nifeſtly declared to be the epiſtle of Chriſt, miniſtered by us, written not with ink, but with the ſpirit of the living God; not in tables of ſtone, but in the fleſhly tables of the heart." The poſition of the words in the original, ſhews more ſtrongly than in the tranſlation that it was the occurrence of the word [...] which gave birth to the ſentence that follows: 2 Cor. chap. iii. ver. 1. [...].

[240] Again, 2 Cor. ch. iii. ver. 12, &c. at the word vail: "Seeing then that we have ſuch hope, we uſe great plainneſs of ſpeech: and not as Moſes, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Iſrael could not ſtedfaſtly look to the end of that which is aboliſhed. But their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the ſame vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Teſtament, which vail is done away in Chriſt; but even unto this day, when Moſes is read, the vail is upon their heart: nevertheleſs, when it ſhall turn to the Lord, the vail ſhall be taken away (now the Lord is that ſpirit; and where the ſpirit of the Lord is, there is liberty). But we all, with open face, beholding as in a glaſs the glory of the Lord, are [241] changed into the ſame image from glory to glory, even as by the ſpirit of the Lord. Therefore, ſeeing we have this miniſtry, as we have received mercy, we faint not."

Who ſees not that this whole allegory of the vail ariſes entirely out of the occurrence of the word, in telling us that "Moſes put a vail over his face," and that it drew the apoſtle away from the proper ſubject of his diſcourſe, the dignity of the office in which he was engaged: which ſubject he fetches up again almoſt in the words, with which he had left it; "therefore, ſeeing we have this miniſtry, as we have received mercy, we faint not?" The ſentence which he had before been going on with, and in which he had been interrupted by the vail, was, "ſeeing then that we have ſuch hope, we uſe great plainneſs of ſpeech."

In the epiſtle to the Epheſians, the reader will remark two inſtances, in which the ſame habit of compoſition obtains; he will re⯑cognize the ſame pen. One he will find, chap. iv. ver. 8-11, at the word aſcended: "Wherefore he ſaith, When he aſcended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave [242] gifts unto men. (Now that he aſcended, what is it but that he alſo deſcended firſt unto the lower parts of the earth? He that deſcended is the ſame alſo that aſcended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things). And he gave ſome, apo⯑ſtles," &c.

The other appears, chap. v. ver. 12-15, at the word light: "For it is a ſhame even to ſpeak of thoſe things which are done of them in ſecret: but all things that are reproved, are made manifeſt by the light; (for whatſoever doth make manifeſt, is light; wherefore he ſaith, Awake, thou that ſleepeſt, and ariſe from the dead, and Chriſt ſhall give thee light:) ſee then that ye walk circumſpectly."

No. IV.

Although it does not appear to have ever been diſputed that the epiſtle before us was written by St. Paul, yet it is well known that a doubt has long been entertained concerning the perſons to whom it was ad⯑dreſſed. The queſtion is founded partly in [243] ſome ambiguity in the external evidence. Marcion, a heretic of the ſecond century, as quoted by Tertullian, a father in the beginning of the third, calls it the epiſtle to the Laodiceans. From what we know of Marcion, his judgment is little to be relied upon; nor is it perfectly clear that Marcion was rightly underſtood by Tertullian. If, however, Marcion be brought to prove that ſome copies in his time gave [...] in the ſuperſcription, his teſtimony, if it be truly interpreted, is not diminiſhed by his hereſy; for, as Grotius obſerves, "cur in eâ re mentiretur nihil erat cauſae." The name [...], in the firſt verſe, upon which word ſingly depends the proof that the epiſtle was written to the Epheſians, is not read in all the manuſcripts now extant. I admit, however, that the external evidence preponderates with a manifeſt exceſs on the ſide of the received reading. The objection therefore principally ariſes from the contents of the epiſtle itſelf, which, in many reſpects, militate with the ſuppoſition that it was written to the church of Epheſus. Accord⯑ing to the hiſtory, St. Paul had paſſed two [244] whole years at Epheſus, Acts, chap. xix. ver. 10. And in this point, viz. of St. Paul having preached for a conſiderable length of time at Epheſus, the hiſtory is confirmed by the two epiſtles to the Corinthians, and by the two epiſtles to Timothy: "I will tarry at Epheſus until Pentecoſt," 1 Cor. chap. xvi. ver. 8. "We would not have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Aſia," 2 Cor. chap. i. ver. 8; "As I beſought thee to abide ſtill at Epheſus, when I went into Macedonia," 1 Tim. chap. i. ver. 3. "And in how many things he miniſtered to me at Epheſus thou knoweſt well," 2 Tim. chap. i. ver. 18. I adduce theſe teſtimonies, becauſe, had it been a competition of credit between the hiſtory and the epiſtle, I ſhould have thought myſelf bound to have prefer⯑red the epiſtle. Now, every epiſtle which St. Paul wrote to churches, which he him⯑ſelf had founded, or which he had viſited, abounds with references, and appeals to what had paſſed during the time that he was pre⯑ſent amongſt them; whereas there is not a text in the epiſtle to the Epheſians, from which we can collect that he had ever been [245] at Epheſus at all. The two epiſtles to the Corinthians, the epiſtle to the Galatians, the epiſtle to the Philippians, and the two epi⯑ſtles to the Theſſalonians, are of this claſs; and they are full of alluſions to the apoſtle's hiſtory, his reception, and his conduct, whilſt amongſt them; the total want of which, in the epiſtle before us, is very difficult to ac⯑count for, if it was in truth written to the church of Epheſus, in which city he had reſided for ſo long a time. This is the firſt and ſtrongeſt objection. But farther, the epiſtle to the Coloſſians was addreſſed to a church, in which St. Paul had never been. This we infer from the firſt verſe of the ſe⯑cond chapter: "For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not ſeen my face in the fleſh." There could be no propriety in thus joining the Coloſſians and Laodiceans with thoſe "who had not ſeen his face in the fleſh," if they did not alſo belong to the ſame deſcription^*. [246] Now, his addreſs to the Coloſſians, whom he had not-viſited, is preciſely the ſame as his addreſs to the Chriſtians, to whom he wrote in the epiſtle, which we are now con⯑ſidering: "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, praying always for you, ſince we heard of your faith in Chriſt Jeſus, and of the love which ye have to all the ſaints," Col. chap. i. ver. 3. Thus he ſpeaks to the Coloſſians, in the epiſtle before us, as follows: "Wherefore I alſo, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jeſus, and love unto all the ſaints, ceaſe not to give thanks for you in my prayers," chap. i. ver. 15. The terms of this addreſs are obſervable. The words "having heard of your faith and love," are the very words, we ſee, which he uſes towards ſtrangers; and it is not probable that he ſhould em⯑ploy the ſame in accoſting a church in which he had long exerciſed his miniſtry, and whoſe "faith and love" he muſt have perſonally known^*. The epiſtle to the Romans was [247] written before St. Paul had been at Rome; and his addreſs to them runs in the ſame ſtrain with that juſt now quoted: "I thank my God, through Jeſus Chriſt, for you all, that your faith is ſpoken of throughout the whole world," Rom. chap. i. ver. 8. Let us now ſee what was the form in which our apoſtle was accuſtomed to introduce his epiſtles, when he wrote to thoſe with whom he was already acquainted. To the Corin⯑thians it was this: "I thank my God al⯑ways on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Chriſt Jeſus," 1 Cor. chap. i. ver. 4. To the Philippians: "I thank my God upon every remembrance of you," Phil. chap. i. ver. 3. To the Theſ⯑ſalonians: "We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in [248] our prayers, remembering without ceaſing your work of faith, and labour of love," 1 Theſſ. chap. i. ver. 3. To Timothy: "I thank God, whom I ſerve from my fore⯑fathers with pure conſcience, that without ceaſing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day," 2 Tim. chap. i. ver. 4. In theſe quotations, it is uſually his remembrance, and never his hearing of them, which he makes the ſubject of his thankfulneſs to God.

As great difficulties ſtand in the way of ſuppoſing the epiſtle before us to have been written to the church of Epheſus, ſo I think it probable that it is actually the epiſtle to the Laodiceans, referred to in the fourth chapter of the epiſtle to the Coloſſians. The text which contains that reference is this: "When this epiſtle is read among you, cauſe that it be read alſo in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewiſe read the epiſtle from Laodicea," chap. iv. ver. 16. The "epiſtle from Laodicea" was an epiſtle ſent by St. Paul to that church, and by them tranſmitted to Coloſſe. The two churches were mutually to communicate the epiſtles [249] they had received. This is the way in which the direction is explained by the greater part of commentators, and is the moſt probable ſenſe that can be given to it. It is alſo probable that the epiſtle alluded to was an epiſtle which had been received by the church of Laodicea lately. It appears then, with a conſiderable degree of evidence, that there exiſted an epiſtle of St. Paul's nearly of the ſame date with the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, and an epiſtle directed to a church (for ſuch the church of Laodicea was) in which St. Paul had never been. What has been obſerved concerning the epiſtle before us, ſhews that it anſwers per⯑fectly to that character.

Nor does the miſtake ſeem very difficult to account for. Whoever inſpects the map of Aſia Minor will ſee, that a perſon pro⯑ceeding from Rome to Laodicea would pro⯑bably land at Epheſus, as the neareſt fre⯑quented ſea-port in that direction. Might not Tychicus then, in paſſing through Ephe⯑ſus, communicate to the Chriſtians of that place the letter, with which he was charged? And might not copies of that letter be mul⯑tiplied [250] and preſerved at Epheſus? Might not ſome of the copies drop the words of de⯑ſignation [...] ^*, which it was of no conſequence to an Epheſian to retain? Might not copies of the letter come out into the Chriſtian church at large from Epheſus; and might not this give occaſion to a belief that the letter was written to that church? And, laſtly, might not this belief produce [251] the error which we ſuppoſe to have crept into the inſcription?

No. V.

As our epiſtle purports to have been writ⯑ten during St. Paul's impriſonment at Rome, which lies beyond the period, to which the Acts of the Apoſtles brings up his hiſtory; and as we have ſeen and acknowledged that the epiſtle contains no reference to any tranſaction at Epheſus during the apoſtle's reſidence in that city, we cannot expect that it ſhould ſupply many marks of agreement with the narrative. One coincidence how⯑ever occurs, and a coincidence of that mi⯑nute and leſs obvious kind, which, as hath been repeetedly obſerved, is of all others the moſt to be relied upon.

Chap. vi. ver. 19, 20, we read, "praying for me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the myſtery of the goſpel, for which I am an ambaſſador in bonds." "In bonds," [...], in a chain. In the twenty-eighth chapter of the Acts we are in⯑formed, that Paul, after his arrival at Rome, was ſuffered to dwell by himſelf with a ſoldier, [252] that kept him. Dr. Lardner has ſhewn that this mode of cuſtody was in uſe amongſt the Romans, and that whenever it was adopted the priſoner was bound to the ſoldier by a ſingle chain; in reference to which St. Paul, in the twentieth verſe of this chap⯑ter, tells the Jews, whom he had aſſembled, "For this cauſe therefore have I called for you to ſee you, and to ſpeak with you, becauſe that for the hope of Iſrael I am bound with this chain," [...]. It is in exact conformity there⯑fore with the truth of St. Paul's ſituation at the time, that he declares of himſelf in the epiſtle, [...]. And the exactneſs is the more remarkable, as [...] (a chain) is no where uſed in the ſingular number to expreſs any other kind of cuſtody. When the priſoner's hands or feet were bound to⯑gether, the word was [...] (bonds), as in the twenty-ſixth chapter of the Acts, where Paul replies to Agrippa, "I would to God that not only thou, but alſo all that hear me this day, were both almoſt, and altogether ſuch as I am, except theſe bonds," [...]. When the priſoner [253] was confined between two ſoldiers, as in the caſe of Peter, Acts, chap. xii. ver. 6, two chains were employed; and it is ſaid, upon his miraculous deliverance, that the "chains" ( [...], in the plural) "fell from his hands." [...] the noun, and [...] the verb, being general terms, were applicable to this in common with any other ſpecies of per⯑ſonal coercion; but [...], in the ſingular number, to none but this.

If it can be ſuſpected that the writer of the preſent epiſtle, who, in no other parti⯑cular, appears to have availed himſelf of the information concerning St. Paul delivered in the Acts, had, in this verſe, borrowed the word, which he read in that book, and had adapted his expreſſion to what he found there recorded of St. Paul's treatment at Rome; in ſhort, that the coincidence here noted was effected by craft and deſign; I think it a ſtrong reply to remark, that, in the parallel paſſage of the epiſtle to the Co⯑loſſians, the ſame alluſion is not preſerved: the words there are, "praying alſo for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance to ſpeak the myſtery of Chriſt, [254] for which I am alſo in bonds," [...]. After what has been ſhewn in a preceding number, there can be little doubt but that theſe two epiſtles were written by the ſame perſon. If the writer, therefore, ſought for, and fraudulently inſerted, the correſpondency into one epiſtle, why did he not do it in the other? A real priſoner might uſe either general words, which com⯑prehended this amongſt many other modes of cuſtody; or might uſe appropriate words which ſpecified this, and diſtinguiſhed it from any other mode. It would be acci⯑dental which form of expreſſion he fell upon. But an impoſtor, who had the art, in one place, to employ the appropriate term for the purpoſe of fraud, would have uſed it in both places.

No. I.

WHEN a tranſaction is referred to in ſuch a manner, as that the re⯑ference is eaſily and immediately underſtood by thoſe who are beforehand, or from other quarters, acquainted with the fact, but is obſcure, or imperfect, or requires inveſtiga⯑tion, or a compariſon of different parts, in order to be made clear to other readers, the tranſaction ſo referred to is probably real; becauſe, had it been fictitious, the writer would have ſet forth his ſtory more fully and plainly, not merely as conſcious of the fiction, but as conſcious that his readers could have no other knowledge of the ſub⯑ject of his alluſion than from the informa⯑tion of which he put them in poſſeſſion.

[256] The account of Epaphroditus, in the epiſtle to the Philippians, of his journey to Rome, and of the buſineſs, which brought him thither, is the article to which I mean to apply this obſervation. There are three paſſages in the epiſtle, which relate to this ſubject. The firſt, chap. i. ver. 7, "Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, becauſe I have you in my heart, inaſ⯑much as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the goſpel, ye all are [...], joint contributors to the gift which I have re⯑ceived^*." Nothing more is ſaid in this place. In the latter part of the ſecond chap⯑ter, and at the diſtance of half the epiſtle from the laſt quotation, the ſubject appears again: "Yet I ſuppoſed it neceſſary to ſend to you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labour, and fellow ſoldier, [257] but your meſſenger, and he that miniſtered to my wants: for he longed after you all, and was full of heavineſs, becauſe that ye had heard that he had been ſick: for indeed he was ſick nigh unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not on him only, but on me alſo, leſt I ſhould have ſorrow upon ſorrow. I ſent him therefore the more carefully, that when ye ſee him again ye may rejoice, and that I may be the leſs ſorrowful. Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladneſs; and hold ſuch in reputation: becauſe for the work of Chriſt he was nigh unto death, not re⯑garding his life to ſupply your lack of ſervice toward me." Chap. ii. ver. 25-30. The matter is here dropped, and no farther mention made of it till it is taken up near the concluſion of the epiſtle as follows: "But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the laſt your care of me hath flouriſhed again; wherein ye were alſo careful, but ye lacked opportunity: not that I ſpeak in reſpect of want; for I have learned in whatſoever ſtate I am, there⯑with to be content. I know both how to [258] be abaſed, and I know how to abound; every where and in all things I am in⯑ſtructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to ſuffer need. I can do all things through Chriſt which ſtrengtheneth me. Notwithſtanding ye have well done that ye did communicate with my affliction. Now ye, Philippians, know alſo that in the beginning of the goſpel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as con⯑cerning giving and receiving, but ye only: for even in Theſſalonica ye ſent once and again unto my neceſſity: not becauſe I deſire a gift; but I deſire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all, and abound; I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were ſent from you." Chap. iv. ver. 10-18. To the Philippian reader, who knew that contributions were wont to be made in that church for the apoſtle's ſubſiſtence and re⯑lief, that the ſupply which they were ac⯑cuſtomed to ſend to him had been delayed by the want of opportunity, that Epaphrodi⯑tus had undertaken the charge of conveying [259] their liberality to the hands of the apoſtle, that he had acquitted himſelf of this com⯑miſſion at the peril of his life, by haſtening to Rome under the oppreſſion of a grievous ſickneſs; to a reader who knew all this beforehand, every line in the above quota⯑tions would be plain and clear. But how is it with a ſtranger? The knowledge of theſe ſeveral particulars is neceſſary to the perception and explanation of the references; yet that knowledge muſt be gathered from a compariſon of paſſages lying at a great diſtance from one another. Texts muſt be interpreted by texts long ſubſequent to them, which neceſſarily produces embarraſſment and ſuſpenſe. The paſſage quoted from the beginning of the epiſtle contains an ac⯑knowledgment, on the part of the apoſtle, of the liberality which the Philippians had exerciſed towards him; but the alluſion is ſo general and indeterminate, that had nothing more been ſaid in the ſequel of the epiſtle, it would hardly have been applied to this occaſion at all. In the ſe⯑cond quotation, Epaphroditus is declared to have "miniſtered to the apoſtle's wants," [260] and "to have ſupplied their lack of ſervice towards him:" but how, that is, at whoſe expence, or from what fund, he "miniſtered," or what was the "lack of ſervice" which he ſupplied, are left very much unexplained, till we arrive at the third quotation, where we find that Epaphroditus "miniſtered to St. Paul's wants," only by conveying to his hands the contributions of the Philip⯑pians; "I am full, having received of Epa⯑phroditus the things which were ſent from you:" and that "the lack of ſervice which he ſupplied" was a delay or inter⯑ruption of their accuſtomed bounty, occa⯑ſioned by the want of opportunity; "I re⯑joiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the laſt your care of me hath flouriſhed again; wherein ye were alſo careful, but ye lacked opportunity." The affair at length comes out clear; but it comes out by piece⯑meal. The clearneſs is the reſult of the re⯑ciprocal illuſtration of divided texts. Should any one chooſe therefore to inſinuate, that this whole ſtory of Epaphroditus, of his journey, his errand, his ſickneſs, or even his exiſtence, might, for what we know, [261] have no other foundation than in the in⯑vention of the forger of the epiſtle; I an⯑ſwer, that a forger would have ſet forth his ſtory connectedly, and alſo more fully and more perſpicuouſly. If the epiſtle be authen⯑tic, and the tranſaction real, then every thing which is ſaid concerning Epaphroditus and his commiſſion, would be clear to thoſe into whoſe hands the epiſtle was expected to come. Conſidering the Philippians as his readers, a perſon might naturally write upon the ſubject, as the author of the epiſtle has written; but there is no ſuppoſition of for⯑gery with which it will ſuit.

No. II.

The hiſtory of Epaphroditus ſupplies an⯑other obſervation: "Indeed he was ſick, nigh unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not on him only, but on me alſo, leſt I ſhould have ſorrow upon ſor⯑row." In this paſſage, no intimation is given that Epaphroditus's recovery was mi⯑raculous. It is plainly, I think, ſpoken of as a natural event. This inſtance, together [262] with one in the ſecond epiſtle to Timothy ("Trophimus have I left at Miletum ſick"), affords a proof that the power of perform⯑ing cures, and, by parity of reaſon, of working other miracles, was a power which only viſited the apoſtles occaſionally, and did not at all depend upon their own will. Paul undoubtedly would have healed Epa⯑phroditus if he could. Nor, if the power of working cures had awaited his diſpoſal, would he have left his fellow traveller at Miletum ſick. This, I think, is a fair ob⯑ſervation upon the inſtances adduced; but it is not the obſervation I am concerned to make. It is more for the purpoſe of my argument to remark, that forgery, upon ſuch an occaſion, would not have ſpared a miracle; much leſs would it have intro⯑duced St. Paul profeſſing the utmoſt anxiety for the ſafety of his friend, yet acknow⯑ledging himſelf unable to help him: which he does almoſt expreſsly, in the caſe of Trophimus, for he "left him ſick;" and virtually in the paſſage before us, in which he felicitates himſelf upon the recovery of Epaphroditus, in terms which almoſt ex⯑clude [263] the ſuppoſition of any ſupernatural means being employed to effect it. This is a reſerve which nothing but truth would have impoſed.

No. III.

Chap. iv. ver. 15, 16. "Now ye, Philip⯑pians, know alſo that in the beginning of the goſpel, when I departed from Ma⯑cedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only: for even in Theſſalonica ye ſent once and again unto my neceſſity."

It will be neceſſary to ſtate the Greek of this paſſage, becauſe our tranſlation does not, I think, give the ſenſe of it accurately.

[...]

The reader will pleaſe to direct his atten⯑tion to the correſponding particles [...] and [...], which connect the words [...], with the [264] words [...], and denote, as I inter⯑pret the paſſage, two diſtinct donations, or rather donations at two diſtinct periods, one at Theſſalonica, [...], the other after his departure from Macedonia, [...] ^*. I would render the paſſage, ſo as to mark theſe different pe⯑riods, thus: "Now ye, Philippians, know alſo that in the beginning of the goſpel, when I was departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giv⯑ing and receiving, but ye only; and that alſo in Theſſalonica ye ſent once and again unto my neceſſity." Now with this ex⯑poſition of the paſſage compare 2 Cor. chap. xi. ver. 8, 9: "I robbed other churches, [265] taking wages of them to do you ſervice: and when I was preſent with you and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me the bre⯑thren which came from Macedonia ſup⯑plied."

It appears from St. Paul's hiſtory, as re⯑lated in the Acts of the Apoſtles, that upon leaving Macedonia he paſſed, after a very ſhort ſtay at Athens, into Achaia. It ap⯑pears, ſecondly, from the quotation out of the epiſtle to the Corinthians, that in Achaia he accepted no pecuniary aſſiſtance from the converts of that country; but that he drew a ſupply for his wants from the Macedo⯑nian Chriſtians. Agreeably whereunto it appears, in the third place, from the text which is the ſubject of the preſent number, that the brethren in Philippi, a city of Ma⯑cedonia, had followed him with their muni⯑ficence, [...], when he was departed from Macedonia, that is, when he was come into Achaia.

The paſſage under conſideration affords another circumſtance of agreement deſerving of our notice. The gift alluded to in the epiſtle [266] to the Philippians is ſtated to have been made "in the beginning of the goſpel." This phraſe is moſt naturally explained to ſignify the firſt preaching of the goſpel in theſe parts; viz. on that ſide of the Aegean ſea. The ſuccours referred to in the epiſtle to the Corinthians, as received from Mace⯑donia, are ſtated to have been received by him upon his firſt viſit to the peninſula of Greece. The dates therefore aſſigned to the donation in the two epiſtles agree; yet is the date in one aſcertained very incident⯑ally, namely, by the conſiderations which fix the date of the epiſtle itſelf; and in the other, by an expreſſion ("the beginning of the goſpel") much too general to have been uſed, if the text had been penned with any view to the correſpondency we are re⯑marking.

Farther, the phraſe, "in the beginning of the goſpel," raiſes an idea in the reader's mind, that the goſpel had been preached there more than once. The writer would hardly have called the viſit to which he refers the "beginning of the goſpel," if he had not alſo viſited them in ſome other ſtage [267] of it. The fact correſponds with this idea. If we conſult the ſixteenth and twentieth chapters of the Acts, we ſhall find, that St. Paul, before his impriſonment at Rome, during which this epiſtle purports to have been written, had been twice in Macedonia, and each time at Philippi.

No. IV.

That Timothy had been alongwith St. Paul at Philippi is a fact which ſeems to be im⯑plied in this epiſtle twice. Firſt, he joins in the ſalutation with which the epiſtle opens, "Paul and Timotheus, the ſervants of Jeſus Chriſt, to all the ſaints in Chriſt Jeſus which are at Philippi." Secondly, and more di⯑rectly, the point is inferred from what is ſaid concerning him, chap. ii. ver. 19: "But I truſt in the Lord Jeſus to ſend Timo⯑theus ſhortly unto you, that I alſo may be of good comfort when I know your ſtate; for I have no man like minded, who will naturally care for your ſtate; for all ſeek their own, not the things [268] which are Jeſus Chriſt's: but ye know the proof of him, that as a ſon with the father, he hath ſerved with me in the goſpel." Had Timothy's preſence with St. Paul at Philippi, when he preached the goſpel there, been expreſsly remarked in the Acts of the Apoſtles, this quotation might be thought to contain a contrived adaptation to the hiſ⯑tory; although, even in that caſe, the aver⯑ment, or rather the alluſion in the epiſtle, is too oblique to afford much room for ſuch ſuſpicion. But the truth is, that in the hiſ⯑tory of St. Paul's tranſactions at Philippi, which occupies the greateſt part of the ſixteenth chapter of the Acts, no mention is made of Timothy at all. What appears concerning Timothy in the hiſtory, ſo far as relates to the preſent ſubject, is this: "When Paul came to Derbe and Lyſtra, behold a certain diſciple was there named Timotheus, whom Paul would have to go forth with him." The narrative then proceeds with the account of St. Paul's pro⯑greſs through various provinces of the Leſſer Aſia, till it brings him down to Troas. At Troas he was warned in a viſion to paſs [269] over into Macedonia. In obedience to which he croſſed the Aegean ſea to Samothracia, the next day to Neapolis, and from thence to Philippi. His preaching, miracles, and perfecutions at Philippi follow next; after which Paul and his company, when they had paſſed through Amphipolis and Apol⯑lonia, came to Theſſalonica, and from Theſ⯑ſalonica to Beraea. From Beraea the bre⯑thren ſent away Paul; "but Silas and "Timotheus abode there ſtill." he iti⯑nerary, of which the above is an abſtract, is undoubtedly ſufficient to ſupport an in⯑ference that Timothy was along with St. Paul at Philippi. We find them ſetting out together upon this progreſs from Derbe, in Lycaonia; we find them together, near the concluſion of it, at Beraea, in Macedonia. It is highly probable, therefore, that they came together to Philippi, through which their route between theſe two places lay. If this be thought probable, it is ſufficient. For what I wiſh to be obſerved is, that in comparing, upon this ſubject, the epiſtle with the hiſtory, we do not find a recital in one place of what is related in another; [270] but that we find, what is much more to be relied upon, an oblique alluſion to an im⯑plied fact.

No. V.

Our epiſtle purports to have been written near the concluſion of St. Paul's impriſon⯑ment at Rome, and after a reſidence in that city of conſiderable duration. Theſe cir⯑cumſtances are made out by different inti⯑mations, and the intimations upon the ſub⯑ject preſerve among themſelves a juſt con⯑ſiſtency, and a conſiſtency certainly unme⯑ditated. Firſt, the apoſtle had already been a priſoner at Rome ſo long, as that the re⯑putation of his bonds, and of his conſtancy under them, had contributed to advance the ſucceſs of the goſpel: "But I would ye ſhould underſtand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the goſpel; ſo that my bonds in Chriſt are manifeſt in all the palace, and in all other places; and many of the brethren in the Lord waxing conſident by my bonds, are much more [271] bold to ſpeak the word without fear." Secondly, the account given of Epaphrodi⯑tus imports, that St. Paul, when he wrote the epiſtle, had been in Rome a conſiderable time: "He longed after you all, and was full of heavineſs, becauſe that ye had heard that he had been ſick." Epaphro⯑ditus was with St. Paul at Rome. He had been ſick. The Philippians had heard of his ſickneſs, and he again had received an ac⯑count how much they had been affected by the intelligence. The paſſing and repaſſing of theſe advices muſt neceſſarily have occu⯑pied a large portion of time, and muſt have all taken place during St. Paul's reſidence at Rome. Thirdly, after a reſidence at Rome thus proved to have been of conſiderable duration, he now regards the deciſion of his fate as nigh at hand. He contemplates ei⯑ther alternative, that of his deliverance, ch. ii. ver. 23, "Him therefore (Timothy) I hope to ſend preſently, ſo ſoon as I ſhall ſee how it will go with me; but I truſt in the Lord that I alſo myſelf ſhall come ſhortly:" that of his condemnation, ver. 17, "Yea, and [272] if I be offered^* upon the ſacrifice and ſer⯑vice of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all." This conſiſtency is material, if the conſideration of it be confined to the epiſtle. It is farther material, as it agrees, with re⯑ſpect to the duration of St. Paul's firſt im⯑priſonment at Rome, with the account deli⯑vered in the Acts, which, having brought the apoſtle to Rome, cloſes the hiſtory by telling us "that he dwelt there two whole years in his own hired houſe."

No. VI.

Chap. i. ver. 23. "For I am in a ſtrait betwixt two, having a deſire to depart, and to be with Chriſt; which is far better."

With this compare 2 Cor. chap. v. ver. 8. "We are confident and willing rather to be abſent from the body, and to be preſent with the Lord."

The ſameneſs of ſentiment in theſe two quotations is obvious. I rely however not ſo much upon that, as upon the ſimilitude [273] in the train of thought which in each epiſtle leads up to this ſentiment, and upon the ſuitableneſs of that train of thought to the circumſtances under which the epiſtles purport to have been written. This, I conceive, beſpeaks the production of the ſame mind, and of a mind operating upon real circumſtances. The ſentiment is in both places preceded by the contemplation of imminent perſonal danger. To the Philippians he writes, in the twentieth verſe of this chapter, "According to my earneſt expectation and my hope, that in nothing I ſhall be aſhamed, but that with all boldneſs, as always, ſo now alſo, Chriſt ſhall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by death." To the Co⯑rinthians, "Troubled on every ſide, yet not diſtreſſed; perplexed, but not in deſpair; perſecuted, but not forſaken; caſt down, but not deſtroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jeſus." This train of reflection is continued to the place from whence the words which we compare are taken. The two epiſtles, though written at different times, from dif⯑ferent [274] places, and to different churches, were both written under circumſtances which would naturally recal to the au⯑thor's mind the precarious condition of his life, and the perils which conſtantly await⯑ed him. When the epiſtle to the Philip⯑pians was written, the author was a pri⯑ſoner at home, expecting his trial. When the ſecond epiſtle to the Corinthians was written, he had lately eſcaped a danger in which he had given himſelf over for loſt. The epiſtle opens with a recollection of this ſubject, and the impreſſion accompanied the writer's thoughts throughout.

I know that nothing is eaſier than to tranſplant into a forged epiſtle a ſentiment or expreſſion which is found in a true one; or, ſuppoſing both epiſtles to be forged by the ſame hand, to inſert the ſame ſentiment or expreſſion in both. But the difficulty is to introduce it in juſt and cloſe connection with the train of thought going before, and with a train of thought apparently gene⯑rated by the circumſtances under which the epiſtle is written. In two epiſtles, purport⯑ing to be written on different occaſions, [275] and in different periods of the author's hiſ⯑tory, this propriety would not eaſily be ma⯑naged.

No VII.

Chap. i. 29, 30; ii. 1, 2. "For unto you is given in the behalf of Chriſt, not only to believe on him, but alſo to ſuffer for his ſake, having the ſame conflict which ye ſaw in me, and now hear to be in me. If there be, therefore, any conſolation in Chriſt, if any comfort of love, if any fellowſhip of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies: fulfil ye my joy; that ye be like minded, having the ſame love, being of one accord, of one mind."

With this compare Acts xvi. 22: "And the multitude (at Philippi) roſe up againſt them (Paul and Silas); and the magiſtrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them; and when they had laid many ſtripes upon them, they caſt them into priſon, charging the jailer to keep them ſafely; who having received ſuch a [276] charge, thruſt them into the inner priſon, and made their feet faſt in the ſtocks."

The paſſage in the epiſtle is very remark⯑able. I know not an example in any writ⯑ing of a juſter pathos, or which more truly repreſents the workings of a warm and affec⯑tionate mind, than what is exhibited in the quotation before us^*. The apoſtle reminds his Philippians of their being joined with himſelf in the endurance of perſecution for the ſake of Chriſt. He conjures them, by the ties of their common profeſſion and their common ſufferings, to "fulfil his joy;" to complete, by the unity of their faith, and by their mutual love, that joy with which the inſtances he had received of their zeal and attachment had inſpired his breaſt. Now if this was the real effuſion of St. Paul's mind, of which it bears the ſtrongeſt internal character, then we have in the [277] words "the ſame conflict which ye ſaw in me," an authentic confirmation of ſo much of the apoſtle's hiſtory in the Acts, as relates to his tranſactions at Philippi; and through that of the intelligence and ge⯑neral fidelity of the hiſtorian.

No. I.

THERE is a circumſtance of conformity between St. Paul's hiſtory and his letters, eſpecially thoſe which were written during his firſt impriſonment at Rome, and more eſpecially the epiſtles to the Co⯑loſſians and Epheſians, which, being too cloſe to be accounted for from accident, yet too indirect and latent to be imputed to deſign, cannot eaſily be reſolved into any other original than truth. Which circum⯑ſtance is this, that St. Paul in theſe epiſtles attributes his impriſonment not to his preaching of Chriſtianity, but to his aſ⯑ſerting the right of the Gentiles to be ad⯑mitted into it without conforming them⯑ſelves to the Jewiſh law. This was the doctrine to which he conſidered himſelf as a martyr. Thus in the epiſtle before us, [279] chap. i. ver. 24. (I Paul) "who now rejoice in my ſufferings for you"—"for you," i.e. for thoſe whom he had never ſeen; for a few verſes afterwards he adds, "I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them in Laodicea, and for as many as have not ſeen my face in the fleſh." His ſufferings therefore for them was, in their general capacity of Gentile Chriſtians, agreeably to what he explicitly declares in his epiſtle to the Epheſians, iv. 1. "For this cauſe, I Paul, the priſoner of Jeſus Chriſt, for you Gen⯑tiles." Again in the epiſtle now under conſideration, iv. 3. "Withal praying alſo for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance to ſpeak the myſtery of Chriſt, for which I am alſo in bonds." What that "myſtery of Chriſt" was, the epiſtle to the Epheſians diſtinctly informs us; "whereby when ye read ye may underſtand my knowledge in the myſtery of Chriſt, which, in other ages, was not made known unto the ſons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apoſtles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gen⯑tiles [280] ſhould be fellow-heirs, and of the ſame body, and partakers of his promiſe in Chriſt by the goſpel." This, therefore, was the confeſſion for which he declares himſelf to be in bonds. Now let us enquire how the occaſion of St. Paul's impriſonment is re⯑preſented in the hiſtory. The apoſtle had not long returned to Jeruſalem from his ſe⯑cond viſit into Greece, when an uproar was excited in that city by the clamour of certain Aſiatic Jews, who, "having ſeen Paul in the temple, ſtirred up all the people, and laid hands on him." The charge advanced againſt him was, that "he taught all men every where againſt the people, and the law, and this place; and farther brought Greeks alſo into the temple, and polluted that holy place." The former part of the charge ſeems to point at the doctrine, which he maintained, of the admiſſion of the Gen⯑tiles, under the new diſpenſation, to an in⯑diſcriminate participation of God's favour with the Jews. But what follows makes the matter clear. When, by the interference of the chief captain, Paul had been reſcued [281] out of the hands of the populace, and was permitted to addreſs the multitude who had followed him to the ſtairs of the caſtle, he delivered a brief account of his birth, of the early courſe of his life, of his miracu⯑lous converſion; and is proceeding in his narrative, until he comes to deſcribe a vi⯑ſion which was preſented to him, as he was praying in the temple; and which bid him depart out of Jeruſalem, "for I will ſend thee far hence unto the Gentiles." Acts xxii. 21. "They gave him audience," ſays the hiſtorian, "unto this word; and then lift up their voices, and ſaid, Away with ſuch a fellow from the earth." No⯑thing can ſhew more ſtrongly than this ac⯑count does, what was the offence which drew down upon St. Paul the vengeance of his countrymen. His miſſion to the Gen⯑tiles, and his open avowal of that miſſion, was the intolerable part of the apoſtle's crime. But although the real motive of the proſecution appears to have been the Apo⯑ſtle's conduct towards the Gentiles; yet, when his accuſers came before a Roman magiſtrate, a charge was to be framed of a [282] more legal form. The profanation of the temple was the article they choſe to rely upon. This, therefore, became the imme⯑diate ſubject of Tertullus's oration before Felix, and of Paul's defence. But that he all along conſidered his miniſtry amongſt the Gentiles as the actual ſource of the en⯑mity that had been exerciſed againſt him, and in particular as the cauſe of the inſur⯑rection in which his perſon had been ſeized, is apparent from the concluſion of his diſ⯑courſe before Agrippa: "I have appeared unto thee," ſays he, deſcribing what paſſ⯑ed upon his journey to Damaſcus, "for this purpoſe, to make thee a miniſter and a wit⯑neſs, both of theſe things which thou haſt ſeen, and of thoſe things in the which I will appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I ſend thee, to open their eyes and to turn them from dark⯑neſs to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveneſs of ſins, and inheritance among them which are ſanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O King Agrippa, [283] I was not diſobedient unto the heavenly viſion; but ſhewed firſt unto them of Damaſcus, and of Jeruſalem, and through⯑out all the coaſts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they ſhould 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 impri⯑ſonment at Rome was the continuation and effect, was not in conſequence of any ge⯑neral perſecution ſet on foot againſt Chriſ⯑tianity; nor did it befal him ſimply, as profeſſing or teaching Chriſt's religion, which James and the elders at Jeruſalem did as well as he (and yet for any thing that appears remained at that time unmo⯑leſted); but it was diſtinctly and ſpecifically brought upon him by his activity in preach⯑ing to the Gentiles, and by his boldly placing them upon a level with the once⯑favoured and ſtill ſelf-ſlattered poſterity of Abraham. How well St. Paul's letters, [284] purporting to be written during this im⯑priſonment, agree with this account of its cauſe and origin, we have already ſeen.

No. II.

Chap. iv. ver. 10. "Ariſtarchus my fel⯑low-priſoner ſaluteth you, and Marcus ſiſ⯑ter'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 circum⯑ciſion."

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 [285] Paul and certain other priſoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Auguſtus's band; and, entering into a ſhip of Adra⯑myttium, 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 ſoun⯑dation, 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 objec⯑tion, that I ſhould not have propoſed this in the number of coincidences clearly unde⯑ſigned, 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 [286] 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 Ari⯑ſtarchus's name in the epiſtle, ſeems to be unaccountable.

"Marcus, ſiſter's ſon to Barnabas." Does not this hint account for Barnabas's adhe⯑rence 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 [287] the diſpute has not preſerved the circum⯑ſtance of Mark's relationſhip to Barnabas. It is not where noticed but in the text before us. As far, therefore, as it applies, the ap⯑plication is certainly undeſigned.

"Siſter's ſon to Barnabas." This woman, the mother of Mark, and the ſiſter of Bar⯑nabas, 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 re⯑ſinement, ought not, perhaps, to be deem⯑ed imaginary. In the ſalutations with which this, like moſt of St. Paul's epiſtles, con⯑cludes, we have "Ariſtarchus and Marcus, [288] 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 de⯑ſcription, "who are of the circumciſion," is added after the three firſt 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 diſ⯑cover 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 in⯑deed, 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 toge⯑ther in this epiſtle. The text in the Acts, which has been conſtrued to ſhew that the writer was not a Jew, is the nineteenth verſe of the firſt chapter, where, in deſcrib⯑ing the field which had been purchaſed with [289] 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 expreſ⯑ſion, "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 pro⯑bability of this concluſion, and we urge the coincidence no farther than that proba⯑bility extends. The coincidence, if it be one, is ſo remote from all poſſibility of de⯑ſign, that nothing need be added to ſatisfy the reader upon that part of the argument.

No. IV.

Chap. iv. ver. 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 Phile⯑mon. The queſtion therefore will be to what city Philemon belonged. In the epiſtle addreſſed to him this is not de⯑clared. 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 Ti⯑mothy 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 [291] heed to the miniſtry which thou haſt received in the Lord that thou fulſil it" (iv. 17). The neceſſary reſult is, that Oneſimus alſo was of the ſame city, agree⯑ably to what is ſaid of him, "he is one of you." And this reſult is the effect, ei⯑ther of truth which produces conſiſtency without the writer's thought or care, or of a contexture of forgeries confirming and falling in with one another by a ſpecies of fortuity of which I know no example. The ſuppoſition of deſign, I think, is ex⯑cluded, not only becauſe the purpoſe to which the deſign muſt have been directed, viz. the verification of the paſſage in our epiſtle, in which it is ſaid concerning One⯑ſimus, "he is one of you," is a purpoſe which would be loſt upon ninety-nine readers out of a hundred; but becauſe the means made uſe of are too circuitous to have been the ſubject of affectation and contrivance. Would a forger, who had this purpoſe in view, have left his readers to hunt it out, by going forward and back⯑ward from one epiſtle to another, in order [292] to connect Oneſimus with Philemon, Phi⯑lemon with Archippus, and Archippus with Coloſſe? all which he muſt do before he arrive at his diſcovery, that it was truly ſaid of Oneſimus, "he is one of you."

No. I.

IT is known to every reader of ſcripture, that the firſt epiſtle to the Theſſalonians ſpeaks of the coming of Chriſt in terms which indicate an expectation of his ſpeedy appearance: "For this we ſay unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord ſhall not prevent them which are aſleep. For the Lord himſelf ſhall deſcend from heaven with a ſhout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Chriſt ſhall riſe firſt; then we which are alive and re⯑main, ſhall be caught up together with them in the clouds—But ye, brethren, are not in darkneſs, that that day ſhould overtake you as a thief" (chap. iv. 15, 16, 17. chap. v. ver. 4).

[294] Whatever other conſtruction theſe texts may bear, the idea they leave upon the mind of an ordinary reader, is that of the author of the epiſtle looking for the day of judgment to take place in his own time, or near to it. Now the uſe which I make of this circumſtance, is to deduce from it a proof that the epiſtle itſelf was not the production of a ſubſequent age. Would an impoſtor have given this expectation to St. Paul, af⯑ter experience had proved it to be erroneous? or would he have put into the apoſtle's mouth, or, which is the ſame thing, into writ⯑ings purporting to come from his hand, ex⯑preſſions, if not neceſſarily conveying, at leaſt eaſily interpreted to convey, an opinion which was then known to be founded in miſtake? I ſtate this as an argument to ſhew that the epiſtle was cotemporary with St. Paul, which is little leſs than to ſhew that it actually proceeded from his pen. For I queſtion whether any ancient forge⯑ries were executed in the life-time of the perſon whoſe name they bear; nor was the primitive ſituation of the church likely to give birth to ſuch an attempt.

No. II.

Our epiſtle concludes with a direction, that it ſhould be publickly read in the church to which it was addreſſed: "I charge you by the Lord, that this epiſtle be read unto all the holy brethren." The ex⯑iſtence of this clauſe in the body of the epiſtle is an evidence of its authenticity; becauſe to produce a letter purporting to have been publickly read in the church of Theſſalonica, when no ſuch letter in truth had been read or heard of in that church, would be to produce an impoſture deſtruc⯑tive of itſelf. At leaſt, it ſeems unlikely that the author of an impoſture would vo⯑luntarily, and even officiouſly, afford a handle to ſo plain an objection. Either the epiſtle was publickly read in the church of Theſ⯑ſalonica during St. Paul's life-time, or it was not. If it was, no publication could be more authentic, no ſpecies of notoriety more unqueſtionable, no method of preſerving the integrity of the copy more ſecure. If it was not, the clauſe we produce would re⯑main [296] a ſtanding condemnation of the for⯑gery, and, one would ſuppoſe, an invinci⯑ble impediment to its ſucceſs.

If we connect this article with the pre⯑ceding, we ſhall perceive that they com⯑bine into one ſtrong proof of the genuine⯑neſs of the epiſtle. The preceding article carries up the date of the epiſtle to the time of St. Paul; the preſent article ſixes the pub⯑lication of it to the church of Theſſalonica. Either therefore the church of Theſſalo⯑nica was impoſed upon by a falſe epiſtle, which in St. Paul's life-time they received and read publickly as his, carrying on a communication with him all the while, and the epiſtle referring to the continuance of that communication; or other Chriſtian churches, in the ſame life-time of the apo⯑ſtle, received an epiſtle purporting to have been publickly read in the church of Theſ⯑ſalonica, which nevertheleſs had not been heard of in that church; or laſtly, the con⯑cluſion remains, that the epiſtle now in our hands is genuine.

No. III.

Between our epiſtle and the hiſtory the accordancy in many points is circumſtan⯑tial and complete. The hiſtory relates, that, after Paul and Silas had been beaten with many ſtripes at Philippi, ſhut up in the inner priſon, and their feet made faſt in the ſtocks, as ſoon as they were diſcharged from their conſinement they departed from thence, and, when they had paſſed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, came to Theſ⯑ſalonica, where Paul opened and alledged that Jeſus was the Chriſt, Acts xvi. 23, &c. The epiſtle written in the name of Paul and Sylvanus (Silas), and of Timotheus, who alſo appears to have been along with them at Philippi, (vide Phil. No. iv.) ſpeaks to the church of Theſſalonica thus: "Even after that we had ſuffered before, and were ſhamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to ſpeak unto you the goſpel of God with much contention" (ii. 21).

The hiſtory relates, that after they had been ſome time at Theſſalonica, "the [298] Jews who believed not ſet all the city in an uproar, and aſſaulted the houſe of Jaſon where Paul and Silas were, and ſought to bring them out to the people." Acts xvii. 5. The epiſtle declares, "when we were with you, we told you before that we ſhould ſuffer tribulation; even as it came to paſs, and ye know" (iii. 4).

The hiſtory brings Paul and Silas and Timothy together at Corinth, ſoon after the preaching of the goſpel at Theſſalonica: "And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia (to Corinth), Paul was preſſed in ſpirit." Acts xviii. 5. The epiſtle is written in the name of theſe three perſons, who conſequently muſt have been together at the time, and ſpeaks throughout of their miniſtry at Theſſa⯑lonica as a recent tranſaction: "We, bre⯑thren, being taken from you for a ſhort time, in preſence not in heart, endeavour⯑ed the more abundantly to ſee your face with great deſire" (ii. 17).

The harmony is indubitable; but the points of hiſtory in which it conſiſts, are ſo expreſsly ſet ſorth in the narrative, and [299] ſo directly referred to in the epiſtle, that it becomes neceſſary for us to ſhew, that the facts in one writing were not copied from the other. Now amidſt ſome minuter diſ⯑crepancies, which will be noticed below, there is one circumſtance which mixes it⯑ſelf with all the alluſions in the epiſtle, but does not appear in the hiſtory any where; and that is of a viſit which St. Paul had in⯑tended to pay to the Theſſalonians during the time of his reſiding at Corinth: "Where⯑fore we would have come unto you (even I Paul) once and again, but Satan hindered us" (ii. 18). "Night and day praying exceedingly that we might ſee your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith. Now God himſelf and our Father, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, direct our way unto you" (iii. 10, 11). Concerning a de⯑ſign which was not executed, although the perſon himſelf, who was conſcious of his own purpoſe, ſhould make mention in his letters, nothing is more probable than that his hiſtorian ſhould be ſilent, if not igno⯑rant. The author of the epiſtle could not [300] however have learnt this circumſtance from the hiſtory, for it is not there to be met with; nor, if the hiſtorian had drawn his materials from the epiſtle, is it likely that he would have paſſed over a circumſtance, which is amongſt the moſt obvious and pro⯑minent of the facts to be collected from that ſource of information.

No. IV.

Chap. iii. 1-7. "Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone, and ſent Timotheus, our brother and miniſter of God, to eſtabliſh you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:—but now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings of your faith and charity, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and diſtreſs by your faith."

The hiſtory relates, that when Paul came out of Macedonia to Athens, Silas and Ti⯑mothy ſtaid behind at Beraea: "The bre⯑thren ſent away Paul to go as it were to [301] the ſea; but Silas and Timotheus abode there ſtill: and they that conducted Paul brought him to Athens," Acts, ch. xvii. ver. 14, 15. The hiſtory farther relates, that after Paul had tarried ſome time at Athens, and had proceeded from thence to Corinth, whilſt he was exerciſing his miniſtry in that city, Silas and Timothy came to him from Macedonia, Acts, ch. xviii. ver. 5. But to reconcile the hiſtory with the clauſe in the epiſtle which makes St. Paul ſay, "I thought it good to be left at Athens alone, and to ſend Timothy unto you," it is neceſſary to ſuppoſe that Timothy had come up with St. Paul at Athens; a circumſtance which the hiſtory does not mention. I remark therefore, that, although the hiſtory do not expreſsly notice this arrival, yet it contains intimations which render it extremely pro⯑bable that the fact took place. Firſt, as ſoon as Paul had reached Athens, he ſent a meſſage back to Silas and Timothy "for to come to him with all ſpeed." Acts, chap. xvii. ver. 15. Secondly, his ſtay at Athens was on purpoſe that they might join him there: "Now whilſt Paul waited for [302] them at Athens, his ſpirit was ſtirred in him" Acts, ch. xvii. ver. 16. Thirdly, his departure from Athens does not appear to have been in any ſort haſtened or abrupt. It is ſaid, "after theſe things," viz. his diſ⯑putation with the Jews, his conferences with the philoſophers, his diſcourſe at Are⯑opagus, and the gaining of ſome converts, "he departed from Athens and came to Corinth." It is not hinted that he quitted Athens before the time that he had intended to leave it; it is not ſuggeſted that he was driven from thence, as he was from many cities, by tumults or perſecutions, or becauſe his life was no longer ſafe. Obſerve then the particulars which the hiſ⯑tory does notice—that Paul had ordered Ti⯑mothy to follow him without delay, that he waited at Athens on purpoſe that Ti⯑mothy might come up with him, that he ſtaid there as long as his own choice led him to continue. Laying theſe circum⯑ſtances which the hiſtory does diſcloſe to⯑gether, it is highly probable that Timothy came to the apoſtle at Athens, a fact which the epiſtle, we have ſeen, virtually aſſerts, [303] when it makes Paul ſend Timothy back from Athens to Theſſalonica. The ſending back of Timothy into Macedonia accounts alſo for his not coming to Corinth till after Paul had been fixed in that city for ſome conſiderable time. Paul had found out Aquila and Priſcilla, abode with them and wrought, being of the ſame craft; and rea⯑ſoned in the ſynagogue every ſabbath-day, and perſuaded the Jews and the Greeks. Acts, ch. xviii. ver. 1-5. All this paſſed at Corinth before Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia. Acts, ch. xviii. ver. 5. If this was the firſt time of their coming up with him after their ſeparation at Beraea, there is nothing to account for a delay ſo contrary to what appears from the hiſtory itſelf to have been St. Paul's plan and ex⯑pectation. This is a conformity of a pe⯑culiar ſpecies. The epiſtle diſcloſes a fact which is not preſerved in the hiſtory; but which makes what is ſaid in the hiſtory more ſignificant, probable, and conſiſtent. The hiſtory bears marks of an omiſſion; the epiſtle by reference furniſhes a circum⯑ſtance which ſupplies that omiſſion.

No. V.

Chap. ii. ver. 14. "For ye, brethren, be⯑came followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Chriſt Jeſus; for ye alſo have ſuffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews."

To a reader of the Acts of the Apoſtles, it might ſeem, at firſt ſight, that the perſe⯑cutions which the preachers and converts of Chriſtianity underwent, were ſuffered at the hands of their old adverſaries the Jews. But, if we attend carefully to the accounts there delivered, we ſhall obſerve, that, though the oppoſition made to the goſpel uſually originated from the enmity of the Jews, yet in almoſt all places the Jews went about to accompliſh their purpoſe, by ſtirring up the Gentile inhabitants againſt their converted countrymen. Out of Ju⯑dea they had not power to do much miſ⯑chief in any other way. This was the caſe at Theſſalonica in particular: "The Jews which believed not, moved with envy, ſet all the city in an uproar." Acts, ch. xvii. [305] ver. 5. It was the ſame a ſhort time after⯑wards at Beraea: "When the Jews of Theſſalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Be⯑raea, they came thither alſo, and ſtirred up the people." Acts, ch. xvii. ver. 13. And before this our apoſtle had met with a like ſpecies of perſecution, in his progreſs through the leſſer Aſia: "In every city the unbelieving Jews ſtirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected againſt the brethren." Acts, ch. xiv. ver. 2. The epiſtle therefore repreſents the caſe accu⯑rately as the hiſtory ſtates it. It was the Jews always who ſet on foot the perſecu⯑tions againſt the apoſtles and their follow⯑ers. He ſpeaks truly therefore of them, when he ſays in this epiſtle, "they both killed the Lord Jeſus and their own pro⯑phets, and have perſecuted us—forbidding us to ſpeak unto the Gentiles" (ii. 15, 16). But out of Judea it was at the hands of the Gentiles, it was "of their own coun⯑trymen," that the injuries they under⯑went were immediately ſuſtained: "Ye have [306] ſuffered like things of your own country⯑men, even as they have of the Jews."

No. VI.

The apparent diſcrepancies between our epiſtle and the hiſtory, though of magnitude ſufficient to repel the imputation of con⯑federacy or tranſcription (in which view they form a part of our argument), are nei⯑ther numerous, nor very difficult to recon⯑cile.

One of theſe may be obſerved in the ninth and tenth verſes of the ſecond chapter: "For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travel; for labouring night and day, becauſe we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the goſpel of God. Ye are witneſſes and God alſo, how holily and juſtly and un⯑blameably we behaved ourſelves among you that believe." A perſon who reads this paſſage is naturally led by it to ſup⯑poſe, that the writer had dwelt at Theſſa⯑lonica for ſome conſiderable time; yet of St. Paul's miniſtry in that city, the hiſtory [307] gives no other account than the following: "that he came to Theſſalonica, where was a ſynagogue of the Jews; that, as his manner was, he went in unto them, and three ſabbath-days reaſoned with them out of the ſcriptures; that ſome of them be⯑lieved and conſorted with Paul and Silas." The hiſtory then proceeds to tell us, that the Jews which believed not ſet the city in an uproar, and aſſaulted the houſe of Jaſon, where Paul and his companions lodged; that the conſequence of this outrage was, that "the brethren immediately ſent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beraea." Acts, ch. xvii. ver. 1-10. From the men⯑tion of his preaching three ſabbath-days in the Jewiſh ſynagogue, and from the want of any farther ſpecification of his miniſtry, it has uſually been taken for granted that Paul did not continue at Theſſalonica more than three weeks. This, however, is in⯑ferred without neceſſity. It appears to have been St. Paul's practice, in almoſt every place that he came to, upon his firſt arrival to repair to the ſynagogue. He thought [308] himſelf bound to propoſe the goſpel to the Jews firſt, agreeably to what he declared at Antioch in Piſidia; "it was neceſſary that the word of God ſhould firſt have been ſpoken to you." Acts, ch. xiii. ver. 46. If the Jews rejected his miniſtry, he quitted the ſynagogue, and betook him⯑ſelf to a Gentile audience. At Corinth, upon his firſt coming thither, he reaſoned in the ſynagogue every ſabbath; "but when the Jews oppoſed themſelves, and blaſphemed, he departed thence," expreſsly telling them, "from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles; and he remained in that city a year and ſix months." Acts, ch. xviii. ver. 6-11. At Epheſus, in like manner, for the ſpace of three months he went into the ſynagogue; but, "when divers were hardened and believed not, but ſpake evil of that way, he departed from them and ſeparated the diſciples, diſputing daily in the ſchool of one Tyrannus; and this continued by the ſpace of two years." Acts, ch. xix. ver. 9, 10. Upon inſpecting the hiſtory, I ſee nothing in it which nega⯑tives [309] the ſuppoſition, that St. Paul purſued the ſame plan at Theſſalonica which he adopted in other places; and that, though he reſorted to the ſynagogue only three ſab⯑bath-days, yet he remained in the city, and in the exerciſe of his miniſtry amongſt the Gentile citizens, much longer; and until the ſucceſs of his preaching had provoked the Jews to excite the tumult and inſurrection by which he was driven away.

Another ſeeming diſcrepancy is found in the ninth verſe of the firſt chapter of the epiſtle: "For they themſelves ſhow of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to ſerve the living and true God." This text contains an aſſertion, that, by means of St. Paul's miniſtry at Theſſalonica, many idolatrous Gentiles had been brought over to Chriſtianity. Yet the hiſtory, in deſcribing the effects of that miniſtry, only ſays, that "ſome of the Jews believed, and of the de⯑vout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few" (ch. xvii. ver. 4). The devout Greeks were thoſe who already [310] worſhipped the one true God; and there⯑fore could not be ſaid, by embracing Chriſti⯑anity, "to be turned to God from idols."

This is the difficulty. The anſwer may be aſſiſted by the following obſervations. The Alexandrian and Cambridge manu⯑ſcripts read (for [...]). In which reading they are alſo confirmed by the Vulgate Latin. And this reading is in my opinion ſtrongly ſupported by the conſiderations, firſt, that [...] alone, i. e. without [...], is uſed in this ſenſe in this ſame chapter, Paul being come to Athens, [...]: ſecondly, that [...] and [...] no where come together. The expreſſion is redundant. The [...] muſt be [...]. Thirdly, that the [...] is much more likely to have been left out incuriâ manus than to have been put in. Or, after all, if we be not allowed to change the preſent reading, which is undoubtedly retained by a great plurality of copies, may not the paſſage in the hiſtory be conſidered [311] as deſcribing only the effects of St. Paul's diſcourſes during the three ſabbath-days in which he preached in the ſynagogue? and may it not be true, as we have remarked above, that his application to the Gentiles at large, and his ſucceſs amongſt them, was poſterior to this?

No. I.

IT may ſeem odd to alledge obſcurity it⯑ſelf as an argument, or to draw a proof in favour of a writing, from that which is uſually conſidered as the principal defect in its compoſition. The preſent epiſtle, how⯑ever, furniſhes a paſſage, hitherto unex⯑plained, and probably inexplicable by us, the exiſtence of which, under the darkneſs and difficulties that attend it, can only be accounted for upon the ſuppoſition of the epiſtle being genuine; and upon that ſup⯑poſition is accounted for with great eaſe. The paſſage which I allude to is found in the ſecond chapter: "that day ſhall not come, except there come a falling away firſt, and that man of ſin be revealed, the ſon of perdition, who oppoſeth and ex⯑alteth himſelf above all that is called God, [313] or that is worſhipped; ſo that he as God ſitteth in the temple of God, ſhewing himſelf that he is God. Remember ye not, that WHEN I WAS YET WITH YOU I TOLD YOU THESE THINGS? And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time; for the myſtery of iniquity doth already work, only he that now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way; and then ſhall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord ſhall conſume with the ſpirit of his mouth, and ſhall deſtroy with the brightneſs of his coming." It were ſu⯑perfluous to prove, becauſe it is in vain to deny, that this paſſage is involved in great obſcurity, more eſpecially the clauſes diſtin⯑guiſhed by Italics. Now the obſervation I have to offer is founded upon this, that the paſſage expreſsly refers to a converſation which the author had previouſly holden with the Theſſalonians upon the ſame ſub⯑ject: "Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you I told you theſe things? And now ye know what withholdeth." If ſuch converſation actually paſſed; if, whilſt he was yet with them, "he told them thoſe [314] things," then it follows that the epiſtle is authentic. And of the reality of this con⯑verſation it appears to be a proof, that what is ſaid in the epiſtle might be underſtood by thoſe who had been preſent to ſuch conver⯑ſation, and yet be incapable of being ex⯑plained by any other. No man writes un⯑intelligibly on purpoſe. But it may eaſily happen, that a part of a letter which relates to a ſubject, upon which the parties had converſed together before, which refers to what had been before ſaid, which is in truth a portion or continuation of a for⯑mer diſcourſe, may be utterly without meaning to a ſtranger, who ſhould pick up the letter upon the road, and yet be per⯑fectly clear to the perſon to whom it is di⯑rected, and with whom the previous com⯑munication had paſſed. And if, in a letter which thus accidentally fell into my hands, I found a paſſage expreſsly referring to a former converſation, and difficult to be ex⯑plained without knowing that converſation, I ſhould conſider this very difficulty as a proof that the converſation had actually paſſed, and conſequently that the letter con⯑tained [315] the real correſpondence of real per⯑ſons.

No. II.

Chap. iii. ver. 8. "Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but wrought with labour night and day, that we might not be-chargeable to any of you: not becauſe we have not power, but to make ourſelves an enſample unto you to follow."

In a letter, purporting to have been writ⯑ten to another of the Macedonic churches, we find the following declaration:

"Now ye, Philippians, know alſo that in the beginning of the goſpel, when I de⯑parted from Macedonia, no church commu⯑nicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only."

The conformity between theſe two paſ⯑ſages is ſtrong and plain. They confine the tranſaction to the ſame period. The epiſtle to the Philippians refers to what paſſed "in the beginning of the goſpel," that is to ſay, during the firſt preaching of the goſpel on that ſide of the Aegean ſea. The epiſtle to the Theſſalonians ſpeaks of the apoſtle's con⯑duct [316] in that city upon "his firſt entrance in unto them," which the hiſtory informs us was in the courſe of his firſt viſit to the pen⯑inſula of Greece.

As St. Paul tells the Philippians, "that no church communicated with him, as concerning giving and receiving, but they only," he could not, conſiſtently with the truth of this declaration, have received any thing from the neighbouring church of Theſſalonica. What thus appears by ge⯑neral implication in an epiſtle to another church, when he writes to the Theſſalonians themſelves, is noticed expreſsly and parti⯑cularly: "neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but wrought night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you."

The texts here cited farther alſo exhibit a mark of conformity with what St. Paul is made to ſay of himſelf in the Acts of the Apoſtles. The apoſtle not only reminds the Theſſalonians that he had not been chargeable to any of them, but he ſtates likewiſe the motive which dictated this re⯑ſerve; "not becauſe we have not power, but [317] to make ourſelves an enſample unto you to follow us" (chap. iii. ver. 9). This con⯑duct, and what is much more preciſe, the end which he had in view by it, was the very ſame as that which the hiſtory attri⯑butes to St. Paul in a diſcourſe, whichit re⯑preſents him to have addreſſed to the elders of the church of Epheſus: "Yea, ye your⯑ſelves alſo know that theſe hands have miniſtered unto my neceſſities, and to them that were with me. I have ſhowed you all things, how that ſo labouring ye ought to ſupport the weak." Acts, ch. xx. ver. 34. The ſentiment in the epiſtle and in the ſpeech is in both parts of it ſo much alike, and yet the words which convey it ſhow ſo little of imitation or even of reſemblance, that the agreement cannot well be explained without ſuppoſing the ſpeech and the letter to have really procceded from the ſame perſon.

No. III.

Our reader remembers the paſſage in the firſt epiſtle to the Theſſalonians, in which St. Paul ſpoke of the coming of Chriſt: [318] "This we ſay unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, ſhall not prevent them which are aſleep; for the Lord himſelf ſhall deſcend from heaven, and the dead in Chriſt ſhall riſe firſt; then we which are alive and remain, ſhall be caught up together with them in the clouds, and ſo ſhall we be ever with the Lord.—But ye, brethren, are not in dark⯑neſs, that that day ſhould overtake you as a thief." 1 Theſſ. iv. 15-17. and ch. v. ver. 4. It ſhould ſeem that the Theſſalonians, or ſome however amongſt them, had from this paſſage conceived an opinion (and that not very unnaturally) that the coming of Chriſt was to take place inſtantly, [...] ^*; and that this perſuaſion had produced, as it well might, much agitation in the church. The apoſtle therefore now writes, amongſt other purpoſes, to quiet this alarm, and to rectify the miſconſtruction that had been [319] put upon his words: "Now we beſeech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not ſoon ſhaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by ſpirit nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Chriſt is at hand." If the alluſion which we contend for be admitted, namely, if it be admitted, that the paſſage in the ſecond epiſtle relates to the paſſage in the firſt, it amounts to a conſiderable proof of the genuineneſs of both epiſtles. I have no conception, becauſe I know no example, of ſuch a device in a forgery, as firſt to frame an ambiguous paſſage in a letter, then to repreſent the perſons to whom the letter is addreſſed as miſtaking the meaning of the paſſage, and laſtly to write a ſecond letter in order to correct this miſtake.

I have ſaid that this argument ariſes out of the text, if the alluſion be admitted; for I am not ignorant that many expoſitors un⯑derſtand the paſſage in the ſecond epiſtle, as referring to ſome forged letters, which had been produced in St. Paul's name, and in which the apoſtle had been made to ſay that [320] the coming of Chriſt was then at hand. In defence, however, of the explanation which we propoſe the reader is deſired to obſerve,

1. The ſtrong fact, that there exiſts a paſſage in the firſt epiſtle, to which that in the ſecond is capable of being referred, i. e. which accounts for the error the writer is ſolicitous to remove. Had no other epiſtle than the ſecond been extant, and had it un⯑der theſe circumſtances come to be conſi⯑dered, whether the text before us related to a forged epiſtle or to ſome miſconſtruction of a true one, many conjectures and many probabilities might have been admitted in the enquiry, which can have little weight, when an epiſtle is produced, containing the very ſort of paſſage we were ſeeking, that is, a paſſage liable to the miſinterpretation which the apoſtle proteſts againſt.

2. That the clauſe which introduces the paſſage in the ſecond epiſtle bears a particu⯑lar affinity to what is found in the paſſage cited from the firſt epiſtle. The clauſe is this: "We beſeech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and by our gathering together unto him." Now in [321] the firſt epiſtle the deſcription of the com⯑ing of Chriſt is accompanied with the men⯑tion of this very circumſtance of his ſaints "being collected round him." "The Lord himſelf ſhall deſcend from heaven with a ſhout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Chriſt ſhall riſe firſt; then we which are alive and remain ſhall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." 1 Theſſ. chap. iv. ver. 16, 17. This I ſuppoſe to be the "ga⯑thering together unto him" intended in the ſecond epiſtle; and that the author, when he uſed theſe words, retained in his thoughts what he had written on the ſub⯑ject before.

3. The ſecond epiſtle is written in the joint name of Paul, Sylvanus, and Timo⯑theus, and it cautions the Theſſalonians againſt being miſled "by letter as from us" ( [...]). Do not theſe words ' [...]' appropriate the reference to ſome writing which bore the name of theſe three teach⯑ers? Now this circumſtance, which is a very cloſe one, belongs to the epiſtle at pre⯑ſent [322] in our hands; for the epiſtle which we call the firſt epiſtle to the Theſſalonians contains theſe names in its ſuperſcription.

4. The words in the original, as far as they are material to be ſtated, are theſe: " [...]. Under the weight of the preceding obſervations may not the words [...] be conſtrued to ſignify quaſi nos quid tale aut dixerimus aut ſcripſerimus^*, intimating that their words had been miſtaken, and that they had in truth ſaid or written no ſuch thing.

No. I.

But can we ſhow that St. Paul viſited Epheſus after his liberation at Rome? or rather, can we collect any hints from his other letters which make it probable that he did? If we can, then we have a coinci⯑dence. If we cannot, we have only an unau⯑thorized ſuppoſition, to which the exigency of the caſe compels us to reſort. Now, for this purpoſe, let us examine the epiſtle to the Philippians and the epiſtle to Philemon. [329] Theſe two epiſtles purport to be written whilſt St. Paul was yet a priſoner at Rome. To the Philippians he writes as follows: "I truſt in the Lord that I alſo myſelf ſhall come ſhortly." To Philemon, who was a Coloſſian, he gives this direction: "But withal, prepare me alſo a lodging, for I truſt that through your prayers I ſhall be given unto you." An inſpection of the map will ſhow us that Coloſſe was a city of the Leſſer Aſia, lying eaſtward, and at no great diſtance from Epheſus. Philippi was on the other, i. e. the weſtern ſide of the Aegean ſea. If the apoſtle executed his purpoſe; if, in purſuance of the intention expreſſed in his letter to Philemon, he came to Coloſſe ſoon after he was ſet at liberty at Rome, it is very improbable that he would omit to viſit Epheſus, which lay ſo near to it, and where he had ſpent three years of his miniſtry. As he was alſo under a pro⯑miſe to the church of Philippi to ſee them "ſhortly;" if he paſſed from Coloſſe to Philippi, or from Philippi to Coloſſe, he could hardly avoid taking Epheſus in his way.

No. II.

Chap. v. ver. 9. "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threeſcore years old."

This accords with the account delivered in the ſixth chapter of the Acts: "And in thoſe days, when the number of the diſ⯑ciples was multiplied, there aroſe a mur⯑muring of the Grecians againſt the He⯑brews, becauſe their widows were neglected in the daily miniſtration." It appears that, from the firſt formation of the Chriſtian church, proviſion was made out of the pub⯑lic funds of the ſociety for the indigent wi⯑dows who belonged to it. The hiſtory, we have ſeen, diſtinctly records the exiſtence of ſuch an inſtitution at Jeruſalem, a few years after our Lord's aſcenſion; and is led to the mention of it very incidentally, viz. by a diſpute, of which it was the occaſion, and which produced important conſe⯑quences to the Chriſtian community. The epiſtle, without being ſuſpected of borrow⯑ing from the hiſtory, refers, briefly indeed, [331] but deciſively, to a ſimilar eſtabliſhment, ſubſiſting ſome years afterwards at Epheſus. This agreement indicates that both writings were founded upon real circumſtances.

But, in this article, the material thing to be noticed is the mode of expreſſion: "Let not a widow be taken into the num⯑ber." No previous account or explana⯑tion is given, to which theſe words, "into the number," can refer; but the direction comes conciſely and unpreparedly: "Let not a widow be taken into the number." Now this is the way in which a man writes, who is conſcious that he is writing to per⯑ſons already acquainted with the ſubject of his letter; and who, he knows, will readily apprehend and apply what he ſays by vir⯑tue of their being ſo acquainted: but it is not the way in which a man writes upon any other occaſion; and leaſt of all, in which a man would draw up a feigned let⯑ter, or introduce a ſuppoſitious fact^*.

No. III.

Chap. iii. ver. 2, 3. "A biſhop muſt be blameleſs, the huſband of one wife, vigi⯑lant, [333] 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 co⯑vetous; one that ruleth well his own houſe."

"No ſtriker: " That is the article which I ſingle out from the collection as evincing the antiquity at leaſt, if not the genuineneſs, of the epiſtle, becauſe it is an article which no man would have made the ſubject of caution who lived in an advanced aera of the church. It agreed with the infancy of the ſociety, and with no other ſtate of it. After the government of the church had acquired the dignified form which it ſoon and naturally aſſumed, this injunction could have no place. Would a perſon who lived under a hierarchy, ſuch as the Chriſtian [334] hierarchy became when it had ſettled into a regular eſtabliſhment, have thought it neceſ⯑ſary to preſcribe concerning the qualification of a biſhop, "that he ſhould be no ſtriker?" And this injunction would be equally aliene from the imagination of the writer, whether he wrote in his own character, or perſonated that of an apoſtle.

No. IV.

Chap. v. ver. 23. "Drink no longer water, but uſe a little wine for thy ſto⯑mach's ſake, and thine often infirmities."

Imagine an impoſtor ſitting down to forge an epiſtle in the name of St. Paul. Is it credible that it ſhould come into his head to give ſuch a direction as this; ſo remote from every thing of doctrine or diſcipline, every thing of public concern to the reli⯑gion or the church, or to any ſect, order, or party in it, and from every purpoſe with which ſuch an epiſtle could be written? It ſeems to me that nothing but reality, that is, the real valetudinary ſituation of a real [335] perſon, could have ſuggeſted a thought of ſo domeſtic a nature.

But if the peculiarity of the advice be obſervable, the place in which it ſtands is more ſo. The context is this: "Lay hands ſuddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's ſins; keep thyſelf pure; drink no longer water, but uſe a little wine for thy ſtomach's ſake, and thine often infirmities: ſome men's ſins are open before hand, going before to judg⯑ment; and ſome men they follow after." The direction to Timothy about his diet ſtands between two ſentences, as wide from the ſubject as poſſible. The train of thought ſeems to be broken to let it in. Now when does this happen? It happens when a man writes as he remembers; when he puts down an article that occurs the mo⯑ment it occurs, leſt he ſhould afterwards forget it. Of this the paſſage before us bears ſtrongly the appearance. In actual letters, in the negligence of a real corre⯑ſpondence, examples of this kind frequently take place; ſeldom I believe in any other production. For the moment a man re⯑gards [336] what he writes as a compoſition, which the author of a forgery would, of all others, be the firſt to do, notions of order, in the arrangement and ſucceſſion of his thoughts, preſent themſelves to his judgment, and guide his pen.

No. V.

Chap. i. ver. 15, 16. "This is a faithful ſaying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Chriſt Jeſus came into the world to ſave ſinners, of whom I am chief. How⯑beit, for this cauſe I obtained mercy, that in me firſt Jeſus Chriſt might ſhew forth all long-ſuffering, for a pattern to them which ſhould hereafter believe in him to life everlaſting."

What was the mercy which St. Paul here commemorates, and what was the crime of which he accuſes himſelf, is ap⯑parent from the verſes immediately preced⯑ing: "I thank Chriſt Jeſus, our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the miniſtry, who was before a blaſphemer, and a perſe⯑cutor [337] and injurious; but I obtained mercy, becauſe I did it ignorantly in unbelief" (ch. i. ver. 12, 13). The whole quotation plainly refers to St. Paul's original enmity to the Chriſtian name, the interpoſition of provi⯑dence in his converſion, and his ſubſequent deſignation to the miniſtry of the goſpel; and by this reference aſſirms indeed the ſubſtance of the apoſtle's hiſtory delivered in the Acts. But what in the paſſage ſtrikes my mind moſt powerfully, is the obſervation that is raiſed out of the fact: "For this cauſe I obtained mercy, that in me firſt Jeſus Chriſt might ſhew forth all long-ſuffering, for a pattern to them which ſhould hereafter believe on him to life everlaſting." It is a juſt and ſo⯑lemn reflection, ſpringing from the circum⯑ſtances of the author's converſion, or rather from the impreſſion which that great event had left upon his memory. It will be ſaid, perhaps, that an impoſtor, acquainted with St. Paul's hiſtory, may have put ſuch a ſen⯑timent into his mouth; or, what is the ſame thing, into a letter drawn up in his name. But where, we may aſk, is ſuch an impoſ⯑tor [338] to be found? The piety, the truth, the benevolence of the thought ought to pro⯑tect it from this imputation. For, though we ſhould allow that one of the great maſ⯑ters of the ancient tragedy could have given to his ſcene a ſentiment as virtuous and as elevated as this is, and, at the ſame time, as appropriate, and as well ſuited to the particular ſituation of the perſon who deli⯑vers it; yet whoever is converſant in theſe enquiries will acknowledge, that to do this in a fictitious production is beyond the reach of the underſtandings which have been employed upon any fabrications that have come down to us under Chriſtian names.

No. I.

IT was the uniform tradition of the pri⯑mitive church, that St. Paul viſited Rome twice, and twice there ſuffered im⯑priſonment; and that he was put to death at Rome at the concluſion of his ſecond impriſonment. This opinion concerning St. Paul's two journeys to Rome, is confirmed by a great variety of hints and alluſions in the epiſtle before us, compared with what fell from the apoſtle's pen in other letters purporting to have been written from Rome. That our preſent epiſtle was written whilſt St. Paul was a priſoner, is diſtinctly intimated by the eighth verſe of the firſt chapter: "Be not thou therefore aſhamed of the teſtimony of our Lord, nor of me his pri⯑ſoner." And whilſt he was a priſoner at Rome, by the ſixteenth and ſeventeenth [340] verſes of the ſame chapter: "The Lord give mercy unto the houſe of Oneſiphorus; for he oft refreſhed me, and was not aſham⯑ed of my chain: but when he was in Rome he ſought me out very diligently, and found me." Since it appears from the former quotation that St. Paul wrote this epiſtle in confinement, it will hardly admit of doubt that the word chain, in the latter quotation, refers to that conſinement; the chain by which he was then bound, the cuſ⯑tody in which he was then kept. And if the word chain deſignate the author's con⯑finement at the time of writing the epiſtle, the next words determine it to have been written from Rome: "He was not aſhamed of my chain; but when he was in Rome he ſought me out very diligently." Now that it was not written during the apoſtle's firſt impriſonment at Rome, or during the ſame impriſonment in which the epiſtles to the Epheſians, the Coloſſians, the Philip⯑pians, and Philemon, were written, may be gathered, with conſiderable evidence, from a compariſon of theſe ſeveral epiſtles with the preſent.

[341] I. In the former epiſtles the author conſi⯑dently looked forward to his liberation from confinement, and his ſpeedy departure from Rome. He tells the Philippians (ch. ii. ver. 24), "I truſt in the Lord that I alſo myſelf ſhall come ſhortly." Philemon he bids to prepare for him a lodging; "for I truſt," ſays he, "that through your prayers, I ſhall be given unto you" (ver. 22). In the epiſtle before us he holds a language extremely different: "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finiſhed my courſe; I have kept the faith: hence⯑forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteouſneſs, which the Lord, the righte⯑ous judge, ſhall give me at that day" (ch. iv. ver. 6-8).

II. When the former epiſtles were writ⯑ten from Rome, Timothy was with St. Paul; and is joined with him in writing to the Coloſſians, the Philippians, and to Phile⯑mon. The preſent epiſtle implies that he was abſent.

III. In the former epiſtles Demas was [342] with St. Paul at Rome: "Luke, the belov⯑ed phyſician, and Demas, greet you." In the epiſtle now before us: "Demas hath forſaken him, having loved this preſent world, and is gone to Theſſalonica."

IV. In the former epiſtle, Mark was with St. Paul, and joins in ſaluting the Co⯑loſſians. In the preſent epiſtle, Timothy is ordered to "bring him with him, for he is profitable to me for the miniſtry" (ch. iv. ver. 11).

The caſe of Timothy and of Mark might be very well accounted for, by ſuppoſing the preſent epiſtle to have been written be⯑fore the others; ſo that Timothy, who is here exhorted "to come ſhortly unto him" (ch. iv. ver. 9.) might have arrived, and that Mark, "whom he was to bring with him" (ch. iv. ver. 11), might have alſo reached Rome in ſufficient time to have been with St. Paul when the four epiſtles were written: but then ſuch a ſuppoſition is in⯑conſiſtent with what is ſaid of Demas, by which the poſteriority of this to the other epiſtles is ſtrongly indicated; for in the other epiſtles Demas was with St. Paul, in [343] the preſent he hath "forſaken him, and is gone to Theſſalonica." The oppoſition alſo of ſentiment, with reſpect to the event of the perſecution, is hardly reconcileable to the ſame impriſonment.

The two following conſiderations, which were firſt ſuggeſted upon this queſtion by Ludovicus Capellus, are ſtill more conclu⯑ſive.

1. In the twentieth verſe of the fourth chapter, St. Paul informs Timothy "that Eraſtus abode at Corinth," [...]. The form of expreſſion implies, that Eraſtus had ſtaid behind at Corinth, when St. Paul left it. But this could not be meant of any journey from Corinth which St. Paul took prior to his firſt impri⯑ſonment at Rome; for when Paul departed from Corinth, as related in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, Timothy was with him: and this was the laſt time the apoſtle left Corinth before his coming to Rome; becauſe he left it to proceed on his way to Jeruſalem, ſoon after his arrival at which place he was taken into cuſtody, and con⯑tinued in that cuſtody till he was carried to [344] Caeſar's tribunal. There could be no need therefore to inform Timothy that "Eraſtus ſtaid behind at Corinth" upon this occaſion, becauſe, if the fact was ſo, it muſt have been known to Timothy who was preſent, as well as to St. Paul.

2. In the ſame verſe our epiſtle alſo ſtates the following article: "Trophimus have I left at Miletum ſick." When St. Paul paſſed through Miletum on his way to Je⯑ruſalem, as related Acts xx. Trophimus was not left behind, but accompanied him to that city. He was indeed the occaſion of the uproar at Jeruſalem, in conſequence of which St. Paul was apprehended; for "they had ſeen," ſays the hiſtorian, "before with him in the city, Trophimus an Epheſian, whom they ſuppoſed that Paul had brought into the temple." This was evidently the laſt time of Paul's being at Miletus before his firſt impriſonment; for, as hath been ſaid, after his apprehen⯑ſion at Jeruſalem, he remained in cuſtody till he was ſent to Rome.

In theſe two articles we have a journey referred to, which muſt have taken place [345] ſubſequent to the concluſion of St. Luke's hiſtory, and of courſe after St. Paul's libe⯑ration from his firſt impriſonment. The epiſtle therefore, which contains this refe⯑rence, ſince it appears from other parts of it to have been written whilſt St. Paul was a priſoner at Rome, proves that he had re⯑turned to that city again, and undergone there a ſecond impriſonment.

I do not produce theſe particulars for the ſake of the ſupport which they lend to the teſtimony of the fathers concerning St. Paul's ſecond impriſonment, but to remark their conſiſtency and agreement with one another. They are all reſolvable into one ſuppoſition: and although the ſuppoſition itſelf be in ſome ſort only negative, viz. that the epiſtle was not written during St. Paul's firſt reſidence at Rome, but in ſome future impriſonment in that city; yet is the conſiſtency not leſs worthy of obſervation; for the epiſtle touches upon names and circumſtances connected with the date and with the hiſtory of the firſt impriſonment, and mentioned in letters written during that impriſonment, and ſo touches upon them, [346] as to leave what is ſaid of one conſiſtent with what is ſaid of others, and conſiſtent alſo with what is ſaid of them in different epiſtles. Had one of theſe circumſtances been ſo deſcribed, as to have fixed the date of the epiſtle to the firſt impriſonment, it would have involved the reſt in contradic⯑tion. And when the number and particu⯑larity of the articles which have been brought together under this head are con⯑ſidered; and when it is conſidered alſo, that the compariſons we have formed amongſt them, were in all probability neither pro⯑vided for, nor thought of, by the writer of the epiſtle, it will be deemed ſomething very like the effect of truth, that no invin⯑cible repugnancy is perceived between them.

No. II.

In the Acts of the Apoſtles, in the ſix⯑teenth chapter, and at the firſt verſe, we are told that Paul "came to Derbe and Lyſtra, and behold a certain diſciple was there named Timotheus, the ſon of a cer⯑tain [347] woman, which was a Jeweſs, and be⯑lieved; but his father was a Greek." In the epiſtle before us, in the firſt chapter and at the fifth verſe, St. Paul writes to Timo⯑thy thus: "Greatly deſiring to ſee thee, be⯑ing mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy, when I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt firſt in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mo⯑ther Eunice; and I am perſuaded that in thee alſo." Here we have a fair unforced example of coincidence. In the hiſtory Timothy was the "ſon of a Jeweſs that believed:" in the epiſtle St. Paul ap⯑plauds "the faith which dwelt in his mother Eunice." In the hiſtory it is ſaid of the mother, "that ſhe was a Jeweſs, and be⯑lieved;" of the father, "that he was a Greek." Now when it is ſaid of the mo⯑ther alone "that ſhebelieved," the father being nevertheleſs mentioned in the ſame ſentence, we are led to ſuppoſe of the father, that he did not believe, i. e. either that he was dead, or that he remained unconverted. Agreeably hereunto, whilſt praiſe is beſtow⯑ed in the epiſtle upon one parent, and upon [348] her ſincerity in the faith, no notice is taken of the other. The mention of the grand⯑mother is the addition of a circumſtance not found in the hiſtory: but it is a cir⯑cumſtance which, as well as the names of the parties, might naturally be expected to be known to the apoſtle, though overlook⯑ed by his hiſtorian.

No. III.

Chap. iii. ver. 15. "And that from a child thou haſt known the holy ſcrip⯑tures, which are able to make thee wiſe unto ſalvation."

This verſe diſcloſes a circumſtance which agrees exactly with what is intimated in the quotation from the Acts, adduced in the laſt number. In that quotation it is recorded of Timothy's mother, "that ſhe was a Jew⯑eſs." This deſcription is virtually, "though, I am ſatisfied," undeſignedly, recognized in the epiſtle, when Timothy is reminded in it, "that from a child he had known the holy ſcriptures." "The holy ſcriptures" undoubtedly meant the ſcriptures of the Old Teſtament. The expreſſion bears that [349] ſenſe in every place in which it occurs. Thoſe of the New had not yet acquired the name, not to mention, that in Timothy's childhood, probably none of them exiſted. In what manner then could Timothy have known "from a child" the Jewiſh ſcrip⯑tures, had he not been born, on one ſide or on both, of Jewiſh parentage? Perhaps he was not leſs likely to be carefully inſtructed in them, for that his mother alone profeſſed that religion.

No. IV.

Chap. ii. ver. 22. "Flee alſo youthful luſts, but follow righteouſneſs, faith, cha⯑rity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."

"Flee alſo youthful luſts." The ſuitable⯑neſs of this precept to the age of the perſon to whom it is addreſſed, is gathered from 1 Tim. ch. iv. ver. 12: "Let no man de⯑ſpiſe thy youth." Nor do I deem the leſs of this coincidence, becauſe the propriety reſides in a ſingle epithet; or becauſe this one precept is joined with, and followed by, a train of others, not more applicable to Ti⯑mothy, [350] than to any ordinary convert. It is in theſe tranſient and curſory alluſions that the argument is beſt founded. When a writer dwells and reſts upon a point in which ſome coincidence is diſcerned, it may be doubted whether he himſelf had not fa⯑bricated the conformity, and was endea⯑vouring to diſplay and ſet it off. But when the reference is contained in a ſingle word, unobſerved perhaps by moſt readers, the writer paſſing on to other ſubjects, as un⯑conſcious that he had hit upon a correſpond⯑ency, or unſolicitous whether it were re⯑marked or not, we may be pretty well aſſured that no fraud was exerciſed, no im⯑poſition intended.

No. V.

Chap. iii. ver. 10, 11. "But thou haſt fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpoſe, faith, long-ſuffering, charity, pa⯑tience, perſecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lyſtra; what perſecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me."

The Antioch here mentioned was not [351] Antioch the capital of Syria, where Paul and Barnabas reſided "a long time;" but An⯑tioch in Piſidia, to which place Paul and Barnabas came in their firſt apoſtolic pro⯑greſs, and where Paul delivered a memora⯑ble diſcourſe, which is preſerved in the thir⯑teenth chapter of the Acts. At this Antioch the hiſtory relates, that "the Jews ſtirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raiſed perſecution againſt Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coaſts. But they ſhook off the duſt of their feet againſt them, and came unto Iconium. . . . . And it came to paſs in Iconium, that they went both together into the ſynagogue of the Jews, and ſo ſpake that a great multitude both of the Jews and alſo of the Greeks believed; but the unbelieving Jews ſtirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil-affected againſt the brethren. Long time therefore abode they ſpeaking boldly in the Lord, which gave teſtimony unto the word of his grace, and granted ſigns and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided; [352] and part held with the Jews, and part with the apoſtles. And when there was an aſſault made both of the Gentiles and alſo of the Jews, with their rulers, to uſe them deſpitefully and to ſtone them, they were ware of it, and fled unto Lyſtra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about, and there they preached the goſpel . . . . And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who perſuaded the people, and having ſtoned Paul, drew him out of the city, ſuppoſing he had been dead. Howbeit, as the diſciples ſtood round about him, he roſe up and came into the city; and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe: and when they had preached the goſpel in that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lyſtra, and to Ico⯑nium, and to Antioch." This account compriſes the period to which the alluſion in the epiſtle is to be referred. We have ſo far therefore a conformity between the hiſ⯑tory and the epiſtle, that St. Paul is aſſerted in the hiſtory to have ſuffered perſecutions in the three cities, his perſecutions at which [353] are appealed to in the epiſtle; and not only ſo, but to have ſuffered theſe perſecutions both in immediate ſucceſſion, and in the order in which the cities are mentioned in the epiſtle. The conformity alſo extends to another circumſtance. In the apoſtolic hiſtory Lyſtra and Derbe are commonly mentioned together: in the quotation from the epiſtle Lyſtra is mentioned, and not Derbe. And the diſtinction will appear on this occaſion to be accurate; for St. Paul is here enumerating his perſecutions: and al⯑though he underwent grievous perſecutions in each of the three cities through which he paſſed to Derbe, at Derbe itſelf he met with none: "The next day he departed," ſays the hiſtorian, "To Derbe; and when they had preached the goſpel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lyſ⯑tra." The epiſtle, therefore, in the names of the cities, in the order in which they are enumerated, and in the place at which the enumeration ſtops, correſponds exactly with the hiſtory.

But a ſecond queſtion remains, namely, how theſe perſecutions were "known" to [354] Timothy, or why the apoſtle ſhould recal theſe in particular to his remembrance, ra⯑ther than many other perſecutions with which his miniſtry had been attended. When ſome time, probably three years, af⯑terwards (vide Pearſon's Annales Paulinas), St. Paul made a ſecond journey through the ſame country, "in order to go again and vi⯑ſit the brethren in every city where he had preached the word of the Lord," we read, Acts, chap. xvi. ver. 1. that, "when he came to Derbe and Lyſtra, behold a certain diſciple was there named Timo⯑theus." One or other therefore of theſe cities was the place of Timothy's abode. We read moreover that he was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lyſtra and Iconium; ſo that he muſt have been well acquainted with theſe places. Alſo again, when Paul came to Derbe and Lyſtra, Ti⯑mothy was already a diſciple: "Behold a certain diſciple was there named Timo⯑theus." He muſt, therefore, have been converted before. But ſince it is expreſsly ſtated in the epiſtle, that Timothy was con⯑verted by St. Paul himſelf, that he was "his [355] own ſon in the faith;" it follows that he muſt have been converted by him upon his former journey into thoſe parts; which was the very time when the apoſtle underwent the perſecutions referred to in the epiſtle. Upon the whole then, perſecutions at the ſeveral cities named in the epiſtle are ex⯑preſsly recorded in the Acts; and Timo⯑thy's knowledge of this part of St. Paul's hiſtory, which knowledge is appealed to in the epiſtle, is fairly deduced from the place of his abode, and the time of his conver⯑ſion. It may farther be obſerved, that it is probable from this account, that St. Paul was in the midſt of theſe perſecutions when Timothy became known to him. No won⯑der then that the apoſtle, though in a letter written long afterwards, ſhould remind his favourite convert of thoſe ſcenes of affliction and diſtreſs under which they firſt met.

Although this coincidence, as to the names of the cities, be more ſpecific and di⯑rect than many which we have pointed out, yet I apprehend there is no juſt reaſon for thinking it to be artificial; for had the writer of the epiſtle ſought a coincidence [356] with the hiſtory upon this head, and ſearched the Acts of the Apoſtles for the purpoſe, I conceive he would have ſent us at once to Philippi and Theſſalonica, where Paul ſuffered perſecution, and where, from what is ſtated, it may eaſily be gathered that Timothy accompanied him, rather than have appealed to perſecutions as known to Timothy, in the account of which perſecu⯑tions Timothy's preſence is not mentioned; it not being till after one entire chapter, and in the hiſtory of a journey three years fu⯑ture to this, that Timothy's name occurs in the Acts of the Apoſtles for the firſt time.

No. I.

A VERY characteriſtic circumſtance in this epiſtle, is the quotation from Epimenides, chap. i. ver. 12: "One of themſelves, even a prophet of their own, ſaid, the Cretians are always liars, evil beaſts, ſlow bellies."

I call this quotation characteriſtic, be⯑cauſe no writer in the New Teſtament, ex⯑cept St. Paul, appealed to heathen teſti⯑mony; and becauſe St. Paul repeatedly did ſo. In his celebrated ſpeech at Athens, preſerved in the ſeventeenth chapter of the Acts, he tells his audience, that "in God we live, and move, and have our being; as certain alſo of your own poets have ſaid, for we are alſo his offspring."

[358] The reader will perceive much ſimilarity of manner in theſe two paſſages. The re⯑ference in the ſpeech is to a heathen poet; it is the ſame in the epiſtle. In the ſpeech the apoſtle urges his hearers with the authority of a poet of their own; in the epiſtle he avails himſelf of the ſame advantage. Yet there is a variation, which ſhows that the hint of in⯑ſerting a quotation in the epiſtle was not, as it may be ſuſpected, borrowed from ſeeing the like practice attributed to St. Paul in the hiſtory; and it is this, that in the epiſtle the author cited is called a prophet, "one of themſelves, even a prophet of their own." Whatever might be the reaſon for calling Epimenides a prophet; whether the names of poet and prophet were occaſionally con⯑vertible; whether Epimenides in particular had obtained that title, as Grotius ſeems to have proved; or whether the appellation was given to him, in this inſtance, as hav⯑ing delivered a deſcription of the Cretan character, which the future ſtate of morals amongſt them verified; whatever was the reaſon (and any of theſe reaſons will ac⯑count for the variation, ſuppoſing St. Paul [359] to have been the author), one point is plain, namely, if the epiſtle had been forged, and the author had inſerted a quotation in it merely from having ſeen an example of the ſame kind in a ſpeech aſcribed to St. Paul, he would ſo far have imitated his original, as to have introduced his quotation in the ſame manner, that is, he would have given to Epimenides the title which he ſaw there given to Aratus. The other ſide of the al⯑ternative is that the hiſtory took the hint from the epiſtle. But that the author of the Acts of the Apoſtles had not the epiſtle to Titus before him, at leaſt that he did not uſe it as one of the documents or materials of his narrative, is rendered nearly certain by the obſervation that the name of Titus does not once occur in his book.

It is well known, and was remarked by St. Jerome, that the apothegm in the fifteenth chapter of the Corinthians, "evil communi⯑cations corrupt good manners," is an Iam⯑bic of Menander's: ‘ [...]’

Here we have another unaffected inſtance of the ſame turn and habit of compoſition. [358] [...] [359] [...] [360] Probably there are ſome hitherto unnoticed; and more, which the loſs of the original authors render impoſſible to be now aſcer⯑tained.

No. II.

There exiſts a viſible affinity between the epiſtle to Titus and the firſt epiſtle to Ti⯑mothy. Both letters were addreſſed to per⯑ſons left by the writer to preſide in their re⯑ſpective churches during his abſence. Both letters are principally occupied in deſcribing the qualifications to be ſought for, in thoſe whom they ſhould appoint to offices in the church; and the ingredients of this deſcrip⯑tion are in both letters nearly the ſame. Timothy and Titus are likewiſe cautioned againſt the ſame prevailing corruptions, and, in particular, againſt the ſame miſdirection of their cares and ſtudies. This affinity obtains, not only in the ſubject of the let⯑ters, which, from the ſimilarity of ſituation in the perſons to whom they were ad⯑dreſſed, might be expected to be ſomewhat alike, but extends, in a great variety of in⯑ſtances, to the phraſes and expreſſions. The writer accoſts his two friends with the ſame [361] ſalutation, and paſſes on to the buſineſs of his letter by the ſame tranſition.

"Unto Timothy, my own ſon in the faith, grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father, and Jeſus Chriſt our Lord: as I be⯑ſought thee to abide ſtill at Epheſus, when I went into Macedonia," &c. 1 Tim. chap. i. ver. 2, 3.

"To Titus, mine own ſon after the common faith, grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour: for this cauſe left I thee in Crete." Tit. chap. i. ver. 4, 5.

If Timothy was "not to give heed to fables and endleſs genealogies, which mini⯑ſter queſtions," 1 Tim. chap. i. ver. 4; "Ti⯑tus alſo was to avoid fooliſh queſtions, and genealogies, and contentions" (chap. iii. ver. 9); "and was to rebuke them ſharply, not giving heed to Jewiſh fables" (chap. i. ver. 14). If Timothy was to be a pattern ( [...]), 1 Tim. chap. iv. ver. 12; ſo was Titus (chap. ii. ver. 7). If Timothy was to "let no man deſpiſe his youth," 1 Tim. chap. iv. ver. 12; Titus alſo was to "let no man deſpiſe him" (chap. ii. ver. 15). This verbal conſent is alſo obſervable in [362] ſome very peculiar expreſſions, which have no relation to the particular character of Timothy or Titus.

The phraſe "it is a faithful ſaying" ( [...]), made uſe of to preface ſome ſentence upon which the writer lays a more than ordinary ſtreſs, occurs three times in the firſt epiſtle to Timothy, once in the ſecond, and once in the epiſtle be⯑fore us, and in no other part of St. Paul's writings; and it is remarkable that theſe three epiſtles were probably all written to⯑wards the concluſion of his life; and that they are the only epiſtles which were writ⯑ten after his firſt impriſonment at Rome.

The ſame obſervation belongs to another ſingularity of expreſſion, and that is in the epithet "ſound" ( [...]), as applied to words or doctrine. It is thus uſed, twice in the firſt epiſtle to Timothy, twice in the ſecond, and three times in the epiſtle to Titus, beſide two cognate expreſſions [...] and [...], and it is found, in the ſame ſenſe, in no other part of the New Teſtament.

The phraſe "God our Saviour" ſtands [363] in nearly the ſame predicament. It is re⯑peated three times in the firſt epiſtle to Ti⯑mothy, as many in the epiſtle to Titus, and in no other book of the New Teſtament oc⯑curs at all, except once in the epiſtle of Jude.

Similar terms, intermixed indeed with others, are employed, in the two epiſtles, in enumerating the qualifications required in thoſe, who ſhould be advanced to ſta⯑tions of authority in the church.

"A biſhop muſt be blameleſs, the huſband of one wiſe, vigilant, ſober, of good beha⯑viour, given to hoſpitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no ſtriker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that ruleth well his own houſe, having his children in ſub⯑jection with all gravity^*." 1 Tim. chap. iii. ver. 2-4.

"If any be blameleſs, the huſband of one wife, having faithful children, not ac⯑cuſed of riot, or unruly; for a biſhop muſt [364] be blameleſs as the ſteward of God, not ſelf-willed, 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, temperate^*." Titus, ch. i. ver. 6-8.

The moſt natural account which can be given of theſe reſemblances, is to ſuppoſe that the two epiſtles were written nearly at the ſame time, and whilſt the ſame ideas and phraſes dwelt in the writer's mind. Let us enquire therefore, whether the notes of time, extant in the two epiſtles, in any man⯑ner 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 ac⯑corded with the circumſtance of leaving "Timothy behind at Epheſus." The jour⯑ney of St. Paul from Crete, alluded to in the [365] epiſtle before us, and in which Titus "was left in Crete to ſet in order the things that were wanting," muſt, in like man⯑ner, be carried to the period which inter⯑vened between his firſt and ſecond impriſon⯑ment. For the hiſtory, which reaches, we know, to the time of St. Paul's firſt impri⯑ſonment, 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 epi⯑ſtle to Timothy from Macedonia: "As I beſought thee to abide ſtill at Epheſus, when I went (or came) into Macedonia." And that he was in theſe parts, i. e. in this peninſula, when he wrote the epiſtle to Ti⯑tus, is rendered probable by his directing Titus to come to him to Nicopolis: "When I ſhall ſend Artemas unto thee or Tychi⯑cus, be diligent (make haſte) to come unto me to Nicopolis; for I have determined [366] 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 Ephe⯑ſus, as he went into Macedonia;" and to write to both not long after from the penin⯑ſula of Greece, and probably the neighbour⯑hood of Nicopolis: thus bringing together the dates of theſe two letters, and thereby accounting for that affinity between them, [367] both in ſubject and language, which our re⯑marks 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 cir⯑cumſtances without contradiction.

No. I.

THE ſingular correſpondency between this epiſtle and that to the Coloſſians has been remarked already. An aſſertion in the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, viz. that "One⯑ſimus was one of them," is verified by the epiſtle to Philemon; and is verified, not by any mention of Coloſſe, any the moſt diſtant intimation concerning the place of Philemon's abode, but ſingly by ſtating One⯑ſimus to be Philemon's ſervant, and by join⯑ing in the ſalutation Philemon with Archip⯑pus; 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 [369] "one of them." Take the epiſtle to Phile⯑mon alone, and nothing at all appears con⯑cerning the place to which Philemon or his ſervant Oneſimus belonged. For any thing that is ſaid in the epiſtle, Philemon might have been a Theſſalonian, a Philippian, or an Epheſian, as well as a Coloſſian. Put the two epiſtles together and the matter is clear. The reader perceives a junction of circum⯑ſtances, which aſcertains the concluſion at once. Now, all that is neceſſary to be add⯑ed in this place is, that this correſpondency evinces the genuineneſs of one epiſtle, as well as of the other. It is like comparing the two parts of a cloven tally. Coin⯑cidence proves the authenticity of both.

No. II.

And this coincidence is perfect; not only in the main article of ſhowing, by implica⯑tion, Oneſimus to be a Coloſſian, but in many dependent circumſtances.

1. "I beſeech thee for my ſon Oneſimus, whom I have ſent again" (ver 10-12). It appears from the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, [370] that, in truth, Oneſimus was ſent at that time to Coloſſe: "All my ſtate ſhall Tychi⯑cus declare, whom I have ſent unto you for the ſame purpoſe, with Oneſimus a faith⯑ful and beloved brother." Coloſ. chap. iv. ver. 7-9.

2. "I beſeech thee for my ſon Oneſimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds" (ver. 10). It appears from the preceding quota⯑tion, that Oneſimus was with St. Paul when he wrote the epiſtle to the Coloſſians; and that he wrote that epiſtle in impriſonment is evident from his declaration in the fourth chapter and third verſe: "Praying alſo for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to ſpeak the myſtery of Chriſt, for which I am alſo in bonds."

3. St. Paul bids Philemon prepare for him a lodging: "For I truſt," ſays he, "that, through your prayers, I ſhall be given unto you." This agrees with the expecta⯑tion of ſpeedy deliverance, which he ex⯑preſſed in another epiſtle written during the ſame impriſonment: "Him" (Timo⯑thy) "I hope to ſend preſently, ſo ſoon as I ſhall ſee how it will go with me; but I [371] truſt in the Lord that I alſo myſelf ſhall come ſhortly." Phil. chap. ii. ver. 23, 24.

4. As the letter to Philemon, and that to the Coloſſians, were written at the ſame time, and ſent by the ſame meſſenger, the one to a particular inhabitant, the other to the church of Coloſſe, it may be expected that the ſame, or nearly the ſame, perſons would be about St. Paul, and join with him, as was the practice, in the ſalutations of the epiſtle. Accordingly we find the names of Ariſtarchus, Marcus, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas, in both epiſtles. Timothy, who is joined with St. Paul in the ſuperſcription of the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, is joined with him in this. Tychicus did not ſalute Phi⯑lemon, becauſe he accompanied the epiſtle to Coloſſe, and would undoubtedly there ſee him. Yet the reader of the epiſtle to Philemon will remark one conſiderable di⯑verſity in the catalogue of ſaluting friends, and which ſhows that the catalogue was not copied from that to the Coloſſians. In the epiſtle to the Coloſſians, Ariſtarchus is called by St. Paul his fellow-priſoner, Coloſ. chap. iv. ver. 10; in the epiſtle to Philemon, Ariſ⯑tarchus [372] is mentioned without any addition, and the title of fellow-priſoner is given to Epaphras^*.

And let it alſo be obſerved, that notwith⯑ſtanding the cloſe and circumſtantial agree⯑ment between the two epiſtles, this is not the caſe of an opening left in a genuine writing, which an impoſtor is induced to fill up; nor of a reference to ſome writing not extant, which ſets a ſophiſt at work to ſup⯑ply the loſs, in like manner as, becauſe St. Paul was ſuppoſed, Coloſ. chap. iv. ver. 16, to allude to an epiſtle written by him to the Laodiceans, ſome perſon has from thence taken the hint of uttering a forgery under that title. The preſent, I ſay, is not that caſe; for Philemon's name is not mentioned in the epiſtle to the Coloſſians; Oneſimus's ſervile condition is no where hinted at, any [373] more than his crime, his flight, or the place or time of his converſion. The ſtory there⯑fore of the epiſtle, if it be a fiction, is a fic⯑tion to which the author could not have been guided, by any thing he had read in St. Paul's genuine writings.

No. III.

Ver. 4, 5. "I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers; hearing of thy love and faith, which thou haſt toward the Lord Jeſus, and toward all ſaints."

"Hearing of thy love and faith." This is the form of ſpeech which St. Paul was wont to uſe towards thoſe churches which he had not ſeen, or then viſited: ſee Rom. chap. i. ver. 8; Epheſ. chap. i. ver. 15; Col. chap. i. ver. 3, 4. Toward thoſe churches and perſons, with whom he was previouſly ac⯑quainted, he employed a different phraſe; as, "I thank my God always on your behalf," 1 Cor. chap. i. ver. 4; 2 Theſſ. chap. i. ver. 3; or, "upon every remembrance of you," Phil. chap. i. ver. 3; 1 Theſſ. chap. i. ver. 2, [374] 3; 2 Tim. chap. i. ver. 3; and never ſpeaks of hearing of them. Yet, I think, it muſt be concluded, from the nineteenth verſe of this epiſtle, that Philemon had been converted by St. Paul himſelf: "Albeit, I do not ſay to thee, how thou oweſt unto me even thine own ſelf beſides." Here then is a peculiarity. Let us enquire whether the epiſtle ſupplies any circumſtance which will account for it. We have ſeen that it may be made out, not from the epiſtle itſelf, but from a compariſon of the epiſtle with that to the Coloſſians, that Philemon was an inhabitant of Coloſſe; and it farther appears, from the epiſtle to the Co⯑loſſians, that St. Paul had never been in that city: "I would that ye knew what great con⯑flict I have for you and for them at Laodi⯑cea, and for as many as have not ſeen my face in the fleſh." Col. ch. ii. ver. 1. Al⯑though, therefore, St. Paul had formerly met with Philemon at ſome other place, and had been the immediate inſtrument of his con⯑verſion, yet Philemon's faith and conduct afterwards, inaſmuch as he lived in a city which St. Paul had never viſited, could only be known to him by fame and reputation.

No. IV.

The tenderneſs and delicacy of this epiſtle have been long admired: "Though I might be much bold in Chriſt to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet for love's ſake I rather beſeech thee, being ſuch a one as Paul the aged, and now alſo a priſoner of Jeſus Chriſt. I beſeech thee for my ſon Oneſimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." There is ſomething certainly very melting and perſuaſive in this, and every part of the epiſtle. Yet, in my opinion, the character of St. Paul prevails in it throughout. The warm, affectionate, au⯑thoritative teacher is interceding with an abſent friend for a beloved convert. He urges his ſuit with an earneſtneſs, befitting perhaps not ſo much the occaſion, as the ar⯑dour and ſenſibility of his own mind. Here alſo, as every where, he ſhows himſelf con⯑ſcious of the weight and dignity of his miſ⯑ſion; nor does he ſuffer Philemon for a mo⯑ment to forget it: "I might be much bold in Chriſt to enjoin thee that which is [376] convenient." He is careful alſo to recal, though obliquely, to Philemon's memory, the ſacred obligation under which he had laid him, by bringing to him the knowledge of Jeſus Chriſt: "I do not ſay to thee, how thou oweſt to me even thine own ſelf beſides." Without laying aſide, there⯑fore, the apoſtolic character, our author ſof⯑tens the imperative ſtyle of his addreſs, by mixing with it every ſentiment and conſi⯑deration that could move the heart of his correſpondent. Aged and in priſon, he is content to ſupplicate and entreat. Oneſi⯑mus was rendered dear to him by his con⯑verſion and his ſervices; the child of his affliction, and "miniſtering unto him in the bonds of the goſpel." This ought to re⯑commend him, whatever had been his fault, to Philemon's forgiveneſs: "Receive him as myſelf, as my own bowels." Every thing, however, ſhould be voluntary. St. Paul was determined that Philemon's compliance ſhould flow from his own bounty: "With⯑out thy mind would I do nothing, that thy benefit ſhould not be as it were of neceſſity, but willingly:" truſting never⯑theleſs [377] to his gratitude and attachment for the performance of all that he requeſted, and for more: "Having confidence in thy obedience, I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt alſo do more than I ſay."

St. Paul's diſcourſe at Miletus; his ſpeech before Agrippa; his epiſtle to the Romans, as hath been remarked (No. VIII.); that to the Galatians, chap. iv. ver. 11-20; to the Phi⯑lippians, chap. i. ver. 29-ch. ii. ver. 2; the ſecond to the Corinthians, chap. vi. ver. 1- 13; and indeed ſome part or other of almoſt every epiſtle, exhibits examples of a ſimilar application to the feelings and affections of the perſons whom he addreſſes. And it is ob⯑ſervable, that theſe pathetic effuſions, drawn for the moſt part from his own ſufferings and ſituation, uſually precede a command, ſoften a rebuke, or mitigate the harſhneſs of ſome diſagreeable truth.