And let it also be observed, that notwithstanding | son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my the close and circumstantial agreement between bonds." There is something certainly very melting the two epistles, this is not the case of an opening and persuasive in this, and every part of the epis 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 supply the loss, in like manner as, because St. Paul was supposed, Colos, chap. iv. 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' servile condition is no where hinted at, any more than his crime, his flight, or the place or time of his conversion. The story, therefore, of the epistle, if it be a fiction, is a fiction 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. 8; Ephes. chap. i. 15; Col. chap. i. 3, 4. Toward those churches and persons, with whom he was previously acquainted, he employed a different phrase; as, "I thank my God always on your behalf," Cor. chap. i. 4; 2 Thess. chap. 1. 3; or, "upon every remembrance of you," Phil. chap. i. 3; 1 Thess. chap. i. 2, 3; 2 Tim. chap. i. 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 inquire 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 Colossians, that St. Paul had never been in that city: "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," Col. ch. ii. 1. Although, therefore, St. Paul had formerly met with Philemon at some other place, and had been the immediate instrument of his conversion, 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 long been 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 an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ; I beseech thee for my

son your fellow-traveller imports that you are then upon your travels. If he had, upon any former occasion, travelled with you, you might afterwards speak of him under that title. It is just so with the term fellow.

prisoner.

tle. Yet, in my opinion, the character of St. Paul prevails in it throughout. The warm, affectionate, authoritative 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 ardour and sensibility of his own mind. Here also, as every where, he shows himself conscious of the weight and dignity of his mission; nor does he suffer Philemon for a moment to forget it: "I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient." He is careful also to recall, 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, therefore, the apostolic character, our author softens the imperative style of his address, by mixing with it every sentiment and consideration that could move the heart of his correspondent. Aged and in prison, he is content to supplicate and entreat. Onesimus was rendered dear to him by his conversion and his services: the child of his affliction, and "ministering unto him in the bonds of the Gospel." This ought to recommend 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: "Without thy mind would I do nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly" trusting nevertheless 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. 11-20; to the Philippians, chap. i. 29chap. ii. 2; the Second to the Corinthians, chap. vi. I-13; and indeed some part or other of almost every epistle, exhibit examples of a similar application to the feelings and affections of the persons whom he addresses. And it is observable, 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.

CHAPTER XV.

The Subscriptions of the Epistles.

Six of these subscriptions are false or improbable; that is, they are either absolutely contradicted by the contents of the epistle, or are difficult to be reconciled with them.

I. The subscription of the First Epistle to the Corinthians states that it was written from Philippi, notwithstanding that, in the sixteenth chapter and the eighth verse of the epistle, St. Paul informs the Corinthians that he will "tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost;" and notwithstanding that he begins the salutations in the epistle by

telling them "the churches of Asia salute you;" as nothing more. Of this liability to error I can

a pretty evident indication that he himself was in Asia at this time.

II. The Epistle to the Galatians is by the subscription dated from Rome; yet, in the epistle itself, St. Paul expresses his surprise "that they were so soon removing from him that called them;" whereas his journey to Rome was ten years posterior to the conversion of the Galatians. And what, I think, is more conclusive, the author, though speaking of himself in this more than any other epistle, does not once mention his bonds, or call himself a prisoner; which he had not failed to do in every one of the four epistles written from that city, and during that imprisonment.

IV. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is dated, and without any discoverable reason, from Athens also. If it be truly the second; if it refer, as it appears to do, ch. ii. 2, to the first, and the first was written from Corinth, the place must be erroneously assigned, for the history does not allow us to suppose that St. Paul, after he had reached Corinth, went back to Athens.

V. The First Epistle to Timothy the subscription asserts to have been sent from Laodicea; yet, when St. Paul writes, "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, gevoμeves 115 Maxidoviny (when I set out for Macedonia,") the reader is naturally led to conclude, that he wrote the letter upon his arrival in that country.

present the reader with a notable instance; and which I bring forward for no other purpose than that to which I apply the erroneous subscriptions. Ludovicus Capellus, in that part of his Historia Apostolica Illustrata, which is entitled De Ordine Epist. Paul., writing upon the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, triumphs unmercifully over the want of sagacity in Baronius, who, it seems, makes St. Paul write his Epistle to Titus from Macedonia upon his second visit into that province; whereas it appears from the history, that Titus, instead of being at Crete, where the epistle places him, was at that time sent by the apostle from Macedonia to Corinth.-" Animadvertere III. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians est," says Capellus, "magnam hominis illius was written, the subscription tells us, from Athens;, qui vult Títum a Paulo in Cretam abyet the epistle refers expressly to the coming of ductum, illicque relictum, cum inde Nicopolim Timotheus from Thessalonica, ch. iii. 6, and the navigaret, quem tamen agnoscit a Paulo ex Macehistory informs us, Acts xviii. 5, that Timothy donia missum esse Corinthum." This probably came out of Macedonia to St. Paul at Corinth. will be thought a detection of inconsistency in Baronius. But what is the most remarkable is, that in the same chapter in which he thus indulges his contempt of Baronius's judgment, Capellus himself falls into an error of the same kind, and more gross and palpable than that which he reproves. For he begins the chapter by stating the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and the First Epistle to Timothy to be nearly contemporary: to have been both written during the apostle's second visit into Macedonia; and that a doubt subsisted concerning the immediate priority of their dates: "Posterior ad eosdem Corinthios Epistola, et Prior ad Timotheum certant de prioritate, et sub judice lis est; utraque autem scripta est paulo postquam Paulus Epheso discessisset, adeoque dum Macedoniam Nico-peragraret, sed utra tempore præcedat, nonliquet." Now, in the first place, it is highly improbable that the two epistles should have been written either nearly together, or during the same journey through Macedonia; for, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, Timothy appears to have been with St. Paul; in the epistle addressed to him, to have been left behind at Ephesus, and not only left behind, but directed to continue there till St. Paul should return to that city. In the second place it is inconceivable, that a question should be proposed concerning the priority of date of the two epistles; for, when St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, opens his address to him by saying, "as I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia," no reader can doubt but that he here refers to the last interview which had passed between them; that he had not seen him since; whereas if the epistle be posterior to that to the Corinthians, yet written upon the same visit into Macedonia, this could not be true; for as Timothy was along with St. Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians, he must, upon this supposition, have passed over to St. Paul in Macedonia after he had been left by him at Ephesus, and must have returned to Ephesus again before the epistle was written. What misled Ludovicus Capellus was simply this,-that he had entirely overlooked Timothy's name in the superscription of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Which oversight appears not only in the quotation which we have given, but from his telling us, as he does, that Timothy came from Ephesus to St. Paul at Corinth, whereas the superscription proves that Timothy was already with St. Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians from Macedonia.

VI. The Epistle to Titus is dated from polis in Macedonia, whilst no city of that name is known to have existed in that province.

The use, and the only use, which I make of these observations, is to show how easily errors and contradictions steal in where the writer is not guided by original knowledge. There are only eleven distinct assignments of date to St. Paul's Epistles (for the four written from Rome may be considered as plainly conteinporary ;) and of these, six seem to be erroneous. I do not attribute any authority to these subscriptions. I believe them to have been conjectures founded sometimes upon loose traditions, but more generally upon a consideration of some particular text, without sufficiently comparing it with other parts of the epistle, with different epistles, or with the history. Suppose then that the subscriptions had come down to us as authentic parts of the epistles, there would have been more contrarieties and difficulties arising out of these final verses, than from all the rest of the volume. Yet, if the epistles had been forged, the whole must have been made up of the same elements as those of which the subscriptions are composed, viz. tradition, conjecture, and inference: and it would have remained to be accounted for how, whilst so many errors were crowded into the concluding clauses of the letters, so much consistency should be preserved in other parts.

The same reflection arises from observing the oversights and mistakes which learned men have committed, when arguing upon allusions which relate to time and place, or when endeavouring to digest scattered circumstances into a continued story. It is indeed the same case; for these subecriptions must be regarded as ancient scholia, and

CHAPTER XVI.

The Conclusion.

In the outset of this inquiry, the reader was directed to consider the Acts of the Apostles and the thirteen epistles of St. Paul as certain ancient manuscripts lately discovered in the closet of some celebrated library. We have adhered to this view of the subject. External evidence of every kind has been removed out of sight; and our endeavours have been employed to collect the indications of truth and authenticity, which appeared to exist in the writings themselves, and to result from a comparison of their different parts. It is not however necessary to continue this supposition longer. The testimony which other remains of contemporary, or the monuments of adjoining ages afford to the reception, notoriety, and public estimation of a book, form, no doubt, the first proof of its genuineness. And in no books whatever is this proof more complete, than in those at present under our consideration. The inquiries of learned men, and, above all, of the excellent Lardner, who never overstates a point of evidence, and whose fidelity in citing his authorities has in no one instance been impeached, have established, concerning these writings, the following propositions:

I. That in the age immediately posterior to that in which St. Paul lived, his letters were publicly read and acknowledged.

churches, in which their very authentic letters are recited, ipsæ authenticæ literæ eorum recitantur." Then he goes on: "Is Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus; but if you are near to Italy, you have Rome."* I adduce this passage to show, that the distinct churches or Christian societies, to which St. Paul's epistles were sent, subsisted for some ages afterwards; that his several epistles were all along respectively read in those churches; that Christians at large received them from those churches, and appealed to those churches for their originality and authenticity.

Arguing in like manner from citations and allusions, we have, within the space of a hundred and fifty years from the time that the first of St. Paul's epistles was written, proofs of almost all of them being read, in Palestine, Syria, the countries of Asia Minor, in Egypt, in that part of Africa which used the Latin tongue, in Greece, Italy, and Gaul.t I do not mean simply to assert, that within the space of a hundred and fifty years, St. Paul's epistles were read in those countries, for I believe that they were read and circulated from the beginning; but that proofs of their being so read occur within that period. And when it is considered how few of the primitive Christians wrote, and of what was written how much is lost, we are to account it extraordinary, or rather as a sure proof Some of them are quoted or alluded to by almost of the extensiveness of the reputation of these every Christian writer that followed, by Clement writings, and of the general respect in which they of Rome, by Hermas, by Ignatius, by Polycarp, were held, that so many testimonics, and of such disciples or contemporaries of the apostles; by Jus- antiquity, are still extant. "In the remaining tin Martyr, by the churches of Gaul, by Irenæus, works of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and by Athenagoras, by Theophilus, by Clement of Tertullian, there are perhaps more and larger quoAlexandria, by Hermias, by Tertullian, who oc- tations of the small volume of the New Testament, cupied the succeeding age. Now when we find a than of all the works of Cicero, in the writings of book quoted or referred to by an ancient author, all characters for several ages." We must add, we are entitled to conclude, that it was read and that all the epistles of Paul come in for their full received in the age and country in which that au- share of this observation; and that all the thirteen thor lived. And this conclusion does not, in any epistles, except that to Philemon, which is not degree, rest upon the judgment or character of the quoted by Irenæus or Clement, and which probaauthor making such reference. Proceeding by this bly escaped notice merely by its brevity, are seve rule, we have, concerning the First Epistle to the rally cited, and expressly recognised as St. Paul's Corinthians in particular, within forty years after by each of these Christian writers. The Ebionthe epistle was written, evidence, not only of its ites, an early though inconsiderable Christian sect, being extant at Corinth, but of its being known rejected St. Paul and his epistles; that is, they and read at Rome.-Clement, bishop of that city, rejected these epistles, not because they were not, writing to the church of Corinth, uses these words: but because they were St. Paul's; and because, "Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed adhering to the obligation of the Jewish law, they Paul the apostle. What did he at first write unto chose to dispute his doctrine and authority. Their you in the beginning of the Gospel? Verily he suffrage as to the genuineness of the epistles does did by the Spirit admonish you concerning him- not contradict that of other Christians. Marcion, self, and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even an heretical writer in the former part of the second then you did form parties."* This was written at century, is said by Tertullian to have rejected a time when probably some must have been living three of the epistles which we now receive, viz. the at Corinth, who remembered St. Paul's ministry two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. there and the receipt of the epistle. The testimony It appears to me not improbable, that Marcion is still more valuable, as it shows that the epistles might make some such distinction as this, that no were preserved in the churches to which they apostolic epistle was to be admitted which was not were sent, and that they were spread and propa-read or attested by the church to which it was gated from them to the rest of the Christian community. Agreeably to which natural mode and order of their publication, Tertullian, a century afterwards, for proof of the integrity and genuineness of the apostolic writings, bids "any one, who is willing to exercise his curiosity profitably in the business of their salvation, to visit the apostolical

* See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 22.

sent; for it is remarkable that, together with these epistles to private persons, he rejected also the catholic epistles. Now the catholic epistles and the epistles to private persons agree in the circumstances of wanting this particular species of attest

Lardner, vol. ii. p. 595.

See Lardner's Recapitulation, vol. xii. p. 53.
Ibid. vol. xii. p. 53.
Lardner, vol. ii. p. 808.

ation. Marcion, it seems, acknowledged the | Epistle to Philemon, and is upbraided for his inconsistency in doing so by Tertullian, who asks "why when he received a letter written to a single person, he should refuse two to Timothy and What Eusebius hath left upon the subject is one to Titus composed upon the affairs of the directly to the purpose of this observation. Eusechurch?" This passage so far favours our account bius, it is well known, divided the ecclesiastical of Marcion's objection, as it shows that the objec-writings which were extant in his time into three tion was supposed by Tertullian to have been founded in something which belonged to the nature of a private letter.

III. When the genuineness of some other writings which were in circulation, and even of a few which are now received into the canon, was contested, these were never called into dispute. Whatever was the objection, or whether in truth V. It cannot be shown that any forgeries, prothere ever was any real objection, to the authen-perly so called, that is, writings published under ticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second the name of the person who did not compose them, and Third of John, the Epistle of James, or that made their appearance in the first century of the of Jude, or to the book of the Revelation of St. John; the doubts that appeared to have been entertained concerning them, exceedingly strengthen the force of the testimony as to those writings about which there was no doubt; because it shows,

† See the tracts written in the controversy between Tunstal and Middleton upon certain suspected epistles ascribed to Cicero.

I believe that there is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lardner's observation, that comparatively few of those books which we call apocryphal were strictly and origi. Iren. advers. Hær. quoted by Lardner, vol. xv. p. 425.nally forgeries.-See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 167.

Christian era, in which century these epistles un- Beside these, I know not whether any ancient doubtedly existed.-I shall set down under this writer mentions it. It was certainly unnoticed proposition the guarded words of Lardner him- during the first three centuries of the church; and self: "There are no quotations of any books of when it came afterwards to be mentioned, it was them (spurious and apocryphal books) in the mentioned only to show, that, though such a apostolical fathers, by whom I mean Barnabas, writing did exist, it obtained no credit. It is proClement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Poly-bable that the forgery to which Jerome alludes, is carp, whose writings reach from the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108. I say this confidently, because I think it has been proved."-Lardner, vol. xii. p. 158.

the epistle which we now have under that title. If so, as hath been already observed, it is nothing more than a collection of sentences from the genuine epistles; and was perhaps, at first, rather the exercise of some idle pen, than any serious attempt to impose a forgery upon the public. Of an Epistle to the Corinthians under St. Paul's name, which was brought into Europe in the present century, antiquity is entirely silent. It was unheard of for sixteen centuries; and at this day, though it be extant, and was first found in the Armenian language, it is not, by the Christians of that country, received into their Scriptures. I hope, after this, that there is no reader who will think there is any competition of credit, or of external proof, between these and the received Epistles; or rather, who will not acknowledge the evidence of authenticity to be confirmed by the want of success which attended imposture.

Nor when they did appear were they much used by the primitive Christians. "Irenæus quotes not any of these books. He mentions some of them, but he never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian: he has mentioned a book called 'Acts of Paul and Thecla :' but it is only to condemn it. Clement of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned and quoted several such books, but never as authority, and sometimes with express marks of dislike. Eusebius quoted no such books in any of his works. He has mentioned them indeed, but how? Not by way of approbation, but to show that they were of little or no value; and that they never were received by the sounder part of Christians." Now if with this, which is advanced after the most minute and diligent examination, we compare what the same cau- When we take into our hands the letters tious writer had before said of our received Scrip- which the suffrage and consent of antiquity tures, "that in the works of three only of the hath thus transmitted to us, the first thing that above-mentioned fathers, there are more and larger strikes our attention is the air of reality and buquotations of the small volume of the New Tes-siness, as well as of seriousness and conviction, tament, than of all the works of Cicero in the which pervades the whole. Let the sceptic read writers of all characters for several ages;" and if them. If he be not sensible of these qualities in with the marks of obscurity or condemnation, them, the argument can have no weight with which accompanied the mention of the several him. If he be; if he perceive in almost every apocryphal Christian writings, when they hap-page the language of a mind actuated by real pened to be mentioned at all, we contrast what Dr. Lardner's work completely and in detail makes out concerning the writings which we defend, and what, having so made out, he thought himself authorized in his conclusion to assert, that these books were not only received from the beginning, but received with the greatest respect; have been publicly and solemnly read in the assemblies of Christians throughout the And here, in its proper place, comes in the arworld, in every age from that time to this; early gument which it has been the office of these pages translated into the languages of divers countries to unfold. St. Paul's epistles are connected with and people; commentaries writ to explain and il- the history by their particularity, and by the nulustrate them; quoted by way of proof in all ar- merous circumstances which are found in them. guments of a religious nature; recommended to When we descend to an examination and comthe perusal of unbelievers, as containing the au-parison of these circumstances, we not only obthentic account of the Christian doctrine; when serve the history and the epistles to be indepenwe attend, I say, to this representation, we per-dent documents unknown to, or at least unconceive in it not only full proof of the early notoriety of these books, but a clear and sensible line of discrimination, which separates these from the pretensions of any others.

The epistles of St. Paul stand particularly free of any doubt or confusion that might arise from this source. Until the conclusion of the fourth century, no intimation appears of any attempt whatever being made to counterfeit these writings; and then it appears only of a single and obscure instance. Jerome, who flourished in the year 392, has this expression: "Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses; sed ab omnibus exploditur;" there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by every body. Theodoret, who wrote in the year 423, speaks of this epistle in the same terms.t

occasions, and operating upon real circumstances, I would wish it to be observed, that the proof which arises from this perception is not to be deemed occult or imaginary, because it is incapable of being drawn out in words, or of being conveyed to the apprehension of the reader in any other way, than by sending him to the books themselves.

sulted by, each other, but we find the substance, and oftentimes very minute articles, of the history. recognized in the epistles, by allusions and references, which can neither be imputed to design, nor, without a foundation in truth, be accounted for by accident; by hints and expressions, and single words dropping as it were fortuitously from the pen of the writer, or drawn forth, each by some occasion proper to the place in which it occurs, but widely removed from any view to consistency or agreement. These, we know, are effects which reality naturally produces, but which, without reality at the bottom, can hardly be conceived to exist.

When therefore, with a body of external evidence, which is relied upon, and which experience proves may safely be relied upon, in appreciating the credit of ancient writings, we combine charac