quotation from the Acts are those who accompanied him in that 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 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 nothing of the converts at Rome, nor were known by them. In like manner, several are joined in the salutation who are not mentioned 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.* But if any one shall still contend that a forger of the epistle, with the Acts of the Apostles before him, and having settled this scheme of writing a letter as from St. Paul, upon his second visit into Greece, would easily think of the expedient of putting in the names of those persons who appeared to be with St. Paul at the time as an obvious recommendation of the imposture: I then repeat my observations; first, that he would have made the catalogue more complete; and, secondly, that with this contrivance in his thoughts, it was certainly his business, in order to avail himself of the artifice, to have stated in the body of the epistle, that Paul was in Greece when he wrote it, and that he was there upon his second visit. Neither of which he has done, either directly, or even so as to be discoverable by any circumstance found in the narrative delivered in the Acts. his wife Priscilla, because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome." They were connected, therefore, with the place to which the salutations are sent. That is one coincidence; another is the following: St. Paul became acquainted with these persons at Corinth during his first return into Greece. They accompanied him upon his visit into Asia; were settled for some time at Ephesus, Acts xviii. 19-26, 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 shown, was written. We have therefore the time of St. Paul's residence 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 those 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 circumstances in writings like the present, how implicated they often are with dates and places, and that nothing but truth can preserve consistency. Had the notes of time in the Epistle to the Romans fixed the writing of it to any date prior to St. Paul's first residence 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 to Jerusalem, or during his second progress through the Lesser Asia, upon which he proceeded from Antioch, an equal contradiction would have been incurred; 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 incidental, fixed Of these Jason is one, whose presence upon this octhis epistle to be either contemporary with that, casion is very naturally accounted for. Jason was an or prior to it, a similar contradiction would have inhabitant of Thessalonica in Macedonia, and enter ensued; because, first, when the Epistle to the tained St. Paul in his house upon his first visit to that Corinthians was written, Aquila and Priscilla Country-Acts xvii. 7. St. Paul, upon this his second Visit, passed through Macedonia on his way to Greece, salutation of that church, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; and were along with St. Paul, as they joined in the and, from the situation of Thessalonica, most likely through that city. It appears, from various instances because, secondly, the history does not allow us to in the Acts, to have been the practice of many converts, suppose, that between the time of their becoming to attend St. Paul from place to place. It is therefore acquainted with St. Paul and the time of St. highly probable, I mean that it is highly consistent with Paul's writing to the Corinthians, Aquila and the account in the history, that Jason, according to that account a zealous disciple, the inhabitant of a city at Priscilla could have gone to Rome, so as to have no great distance from Greece, and through which, as been saluted in an epistle to that city; and then it should seem, St. Paul had lately passed, should have come back to St. Paul at Ephesus, so as to be accompanied St. Paul into Greece, and have been with him there at this time. Lucius is another name in the joined with him in saluting the church of Corinth. epistle. A very slight alteration would convert Auzios As it is, all things are consistent. The Epistle to into Avaz, Lucius into Luke, which would produce the Romans is posterior even to the Second Episan additional coincidence: for, if Luke was the author tle to the Corinthians; because it speaks of a conof the history, he was with St. Paul at the time; in-tribution in Achaia being completed, which the asmuch as, describing the voyage which took place soon after the writing of this epistle, the historian uses the first person-" We sailed away from Philippi." Acts xx. 6. 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 Jesus Christ, 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 certain Jew, named Aquila, lately come from Italy with 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. the two Epistles to the Corinthians show that the principal end of his coming into Greece, was to visit that city, where he had founded a church. Before we dismiss these two persons, we may Certainly we know no place in Greece in which take notice of the terms of commendation in which his presence was so probable; at least, the placing St. Paul describes them, and of the agreement of of him at Corinth satisfies every circumstance. that encomium with the history. My helpers Now that Erastus was an inhabitant of Corinth, in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down or had some connexion with Corinth, is rendered their necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, a fair subject of presumption, by that which is acbut also all the churches of the Gentiles." In the cidentally said of him in the Second Epistle to eighteenth chapter of the Acts, we are informed Timothy, chap. iii. 20. "Erastus abode at Cothat Aquila and Priscilla were Jews; that St. rinth." St. Paul complains of his solitude, and Paul first met with them at Corinth; that for is telling Timothy what was become of his comsome time he abode in the same house with them; panions: "Erastus abode at Corinth; but Trothat St. Paul's contention at Corinth was with phimus have I left at Miletum sick." Erastus was the unbelieving Jews, who at first "opposed and one of those who had attended St. Paul in his blasphemed, and afterwards with one accord raised travels, Acts xix. 22: and when those travels an insurrection against him;" that Aquila and had, upon some occasion, brought our apostle and Priscilla adhered, we may conclude, to St. Paul his train to Corinth, Erastus staid there, for no throughout this whole contest; for, when he left reason so probable, as that it was his home. I the city, they went with him, Acts xviii. 18. Un- allow that this coincidence, is not so precise as der these circumstances, it is highly probable that some others, yet I think it too clear to be prothey should be involved in the dangers and per-duced by accident: for, of the many places, which 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 Gentiles at Corinth, they had taken a decided part in the great controversy of that day, 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 Gentiles. 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 recorded. The two congruities last adduced, depended upon the time, the two following regard the place, of the epistle. 1. Chap. xvi. 23. "Erastus, the chamberlain of the city, saluteth you"-of what city? We have seen, that is, we have inferred from circumstances found in the epistle, compared with circumstances found in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the two epistles 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 collection 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 Macedonia; 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 setting out. If in Greece, he was most likely at Corinth; for this same epistle has assigned to different persons, and the innumerable others which it might have mentioned, how came it to fix upon Corinth for Erastus? And, as far as it is a coincidence, it is certainly undesigned on the part of the author of the Epistle to the Romans: because he has not told us of what city Erastus was the chamberlain; or, which is the same thing, from what city the epistle was written, the setting forth of which was absolutely necessary to the display of the coincidence, 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 nowhere 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 whatsoever 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 been at Cenchrea itself, appears from the eighteenth chapter of the Acts; and appears by a circumstance as incidental, and as unlike design, as any that can be imagined. "Paul after this tarried there (viz. at Corinth,) yet a good while, and then took his leave of his 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 shaving of the head denoted the expiration of the Nazaritic vow. The historian, therefore, by the mention of this circumstance, virtually tells us that St. Paul's vow was expired before he set forward upon his voyage, having deferred probably his departure until he should be released from the restrictions under which his vow laid him. Shall we say that the author of the Acts of the Apos tles 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 Phoebe "a serrant 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. 13. "Now I would not have you ig norant, 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 (AA, 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 performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain." With these passages compare Acts xix. 21. "After these things were ended, (viz. at Ephesus,) 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." Let it be observed that our epistle purports 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 contend that it is impossible that two independent 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 after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, and after he had performed a voyage from these countries to Jerusalem. The conformity 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 history, we find that the plan which St. Paul had formed was, to pass through Macedonia and Achaia; after that to go to Jerusalem; 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 Macedonia 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 performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain."-This from the epistle. "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 can account for their conformity but truth. Whepassages were unknown to each other, nothing ther we suppose the history and the epistle to be alike fictitious, 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 suppositions equally inexplicable. No. IV. The following quotation I offer for the purpose of pointing out a geographical coincidence, of so much importance, that Dr. Lardner considered it as a confirmation of the whole history of St. Paul's travels. Chap. xv. 19. "So that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ." I do not think that these words necessarily 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, (μizei Te Ikλugixs,) 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 extended. The form of expression in the original conveys this idea-απο Ιερεσαλημ και κύκλω μέχρι Ts Ives. 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 nowhere occurs in the Acts of the Apostles; no suspicion, therefore can be received that the mention of it was borrowed from thence. Yet I think it appears, from these same Acts, that St. Paul, 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 account there delivered. Illyricum adjoins upon Macedonia; measuring from Jerusalem towards Rome, it lies close behind it. If, therefore, St. Paul traversed the whole country of Macedonia, the route would necessarily 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 (ków т μsen xv,) 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 coincidence of time. At the time the epistle was written, St. Paul might say, in conformity 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 172 to the First Etime in the int. turn from Epi Before we take notice of St. Paul desc that encomiu in Christ Jes their necks; but also all t eighteenth c that Aquila Paul first! some time !: that St. P the unbeli blaspheme an insurr Priscilla throughou the city, t der thes they sho secution Jews, be St. Paul be accou they, the preachin taken a that da parity o this co they m from tl. Jews t so indi to infe that I could from t that, v mere have the cir The upon of the 1. CASEŃ wowel in dat rist This he two pas ween them * Ley were her strong remark arising from n the epistle; to make which i wil be necessary to state the pasgun, and somewhat more at length. o, brethren, for the Lord Jesus send for the love of the Spirit, that etter with me in your prayers to God I may be delivered from them that do are in Judea—that I may come unto you the will of God, and may with you be sire the reader to call to mind that part of Ta's history which took place after his arJerusalem and which employs the seven pters of the Acts; and I build upon it this sera-that supposing the Epistle to the mans to have been a forgery, and the author ime forgery to have had the Acts of the Apos zes before him, and to have there seen that St. Faui, in fact, "was not delivered from the unbeleving Jews," but on the contrary, that he was taken into custody at Jerusalem, 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 Do concert or confederacy whatever subsisted between the Epistle and the Acts of the Apostles; and that whatever coincidences 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 writsent the state ten not only in St. Paul's life-time, but before he y the event of arrived at Jerusalem; for the important events reLa agreement. lating to him which took place after his arrival at in the ap that city, must have been known to the Chrisve express than community soon after they happened: they 28 Deze con- form the most public part of his history. But When in had they been known to the author of the episte-in other words, had they then taken placethe passage which we have quoted from the episte would not have been found there. No. VII. I now proceed to state the conformity which Prats between the argument of this epistle and THE DISTORT NË IS reputed author. It is enough for us ise & serve, that the object of the eresce that is of the argumentative part of it, vis par de Gentile convert upon a parity of semien wel the Jewish, in respect of his reICTUS VOLÍQVE, and his rank in the divine faVALD. The fosse supports this point by a variety a irmens set as that no man of either deSTIQUES UStated by the works of the lawhis tea sa that no man had performed THE INCLI therefore necessary to ap NITO UN CIET MEdian or concition of justification, IT WITH TAltum the Jewish peculiarity was TE TU 18 That Atraman's own justificaAI VIS LAYOUT 2 the law and independent of Thất The Just certs were to consider the AVIS DE 2, and throselves as married to JEW INCher that what the iw in truth could not do, In the re-, in that it was weak through the flesh, God had Another adaptation, and somewhat of the same kind, is the following: done by sending his Son; that God had rejected brethren, that the gospel which was preached of the unbelieving Jews, and had substituted in their me, is not after man; for I neither received it of place a society of believers in Christ, collected in- man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation differently from Jews and Gentiles. Soon after of Jesus Christ."-ch. i. 11, 12. "I am afraid, the writing of this epistle, St. Paul, agreeably to lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”the intention intimated in the epistle itself, took iv. 11, 12. "I desire to be present with you now, his journey to Jerusalem. The day after he ar- for I stand in doubt of you."-iv. 20. “Behold. I, rived there, he was introduced to the church. Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, What passed at this interview is thus related, Christ shall profit you nothing "-v. 2. "This Acts xxi. 19: “When he had saluted them, he de- persuasion cometh not of him that called you.”— clared particularly what things God had wrought v. 8. This is the style in which he accosts the among the Gentiles by his ministry and when Galatians. In the epistle to the converts of Rome, they heard it, they glorified the Lord and said where his authority was not established, nor his unto him, thou seest, brother, how many thou- person known, he puts the same points entirely sands of Jews there are which believe; and they upon argument. The perusal of the epistle will are all zealous of the law; and they are informed prove this to the satisfaction of every reader: and, of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are as the observation relates to the whole contents of among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that the epistle, I forbear adducing separate extracts. they ought not to circumcise their children, nei- I repeat, therefore, that we have pointed out a disther to walk after the customs." St. Paul distinction in the two epistles, suited to the relation claimed the charge: but there must have been in which the author stood to his different corressomething to have led to it. Now it is only to pondents. suppose that St. Paul openly professed the principles which the epistle contains; that, in the course of his ministry, he had uttered the senti- 2. The Jews, we know, were very numerous ments which he is here made to write: and the at Rome, and probably formed a principal part matter is accounted for. Concerning the accusa- amongst the new converts; so much so, that the tion which public rumour had brought against Christians seem to have been known at Rome him to Jerusalem, I will not say that it was just; rather as a denomination of Jews, than as any but I will say, that if he was the author of the thing else. In an epistle consequently to the Roepistle before us, and if his preaching was con- man believers, the point to be endeavoured after sistent with his writing, it was extremely natural: by St. Paul was to reconcile the Jewish converts for though it be not a necessary, surely it is an to the opinion, that the Gentiles were admitted by easy inference, that if the Gentile convert, who God to a parity of religious situation with themdid not observe the law of Moses, held as advan-selves, and that without their being bound by the tageous 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 advanced in this epistle, forms a proof that he did hold these doctrines; and that the epistle bearing his name, in which such doctrines are laid down, actually proceeded from him. No. VIII. This number is supplemental to the former. I propose to point out in it two particulars in the conduct of the argument, perfectly adapted to the historical circumstances under which the epistle was written; which yet are free from all appearance of contrivance, and which it would not, think, have entered into the mind of a sophist to contrive. 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 Romne, he had never been. Observe now a difference in his manner of treating 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, law of Moses. The Gentile converts would pro- |