SECT. II.

St. Paul dictated his Epiftles, and wrote a greater number, than those which are now extant.

was the ufual practice of St. Paul to dictate his Epiftles *; and in fome of them he has mentioned after his own name the name of his amanuenfis, Timotheus or Silvanus for inftance, as Dr. Heumann has shewn to be highly probable in his Epiftola de fcribis epiftolarum Pauli. Dr. Hoffmann in his Introductio in lectionem Epift. ad Coloffenfes, Sect. ii. § 3. objects, that in the two Epiftles to the Theffalonians, both Timotheus and Silvanus are named after St. Paul. But the Apostle in dictating his Epiftles to the Theffalonians may have ufed two amanuenfes, one of whom wrote one part, the other the other part of the Epistle: and the Theffalonians who knew the hand-writing both of Timotheus and Silvanus, had in that cafe a still stronger proof that the Epiftle was genuine. Or the one may have written the Epiftle, and the other, either in confequence of his approbation of it, or in confequence of being in some relpect concerned in it, may have deferved to have his name mentioned with that of the amanuenfis.

The whole number of St. Paul's Epiftles now extant, even if we include the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is only fourteen. Now if we confider the long duration of St. Paul's apoftolic miniftry, and the great fluency of his language, it is wholly incredible that these are the only Epiftles, which he ever wrote. But, as Divine Providence has thought proper, that only fourteen fhould defcend to pofterity, we have no more reafon to complain of the lofs of his other Epiftles, than that feveral of Christ's Speeches, all of which contained the words of God, were not committed to writing. St. Paul in that Epistle to the Corinthians, which we call the firft, alludes in ch. v. 9. to an Epiftle, which he had already sent to the

* See Vol. I. Ch. vi. Sect. 2.

Fur

the Corinthians, but which is no longer extant. ther, St. Peter in his fecond Epiftle ch. iii. 15. appeals to an Epistle, which St. Paul had written to thofe very perfons, to whom he himself was writing in confirmation of the doctrine, that the day of general judgement was deferred only, to give finners an opportunity of repenting.' But among thofe Epiftles of St. Paul, which are now extant, there is none, which was addreffed to all those communities, to which St. Peter addreffed his two Epistles: and in none of them does St. Paul enter into a particular examination of that doctrine in fupport of which St. Peter had made his appeal. It is probable therefore that St. Peter meant an Epiftle, which is now loft. If the reading of the ancient Codex Laudanus 3. and of the Syriac verfion, at Acts xvii. 5. λαβοντες επιςολήν απ' αυτό προς τον Σίλαν και Totov, were genuine, it would follow that St. Paul, during his stay at Athens wrote an Epiftle to Silas and Timotheus, which is likewife loft. But as this reading is fupported by only two, though very respectable authorities, I fhall not infift upon it: and I mention it rather, for the fake of curiofity, than for the fake of argument.

Dr. F. Stofch, and Dr. Lardner, have argued on the other fide of the question, and have contended that the Epiftles of St. Paul, which are now extant are the only Epiftles, which the Apostle ever wrote. Their arguments however have not convinced me of the truth of this pofition. Dr. Stofch endeavours in the first place to invalidate the opinion, that St. Paul dictated his Epiftles, and endeavours to fhew that the Apostle

wrote

See the Introduction to the Epiftle to the Hebrews, § 3. An objection however to this conclufion may be made from what St. Peter adds in the very next verse; as also in all his Epistles, fpeaking in them of these things.'

d In his effay De Epiftolis Apoftolorum idiographis, published at Wolfenbüttel in 1751: and De Epiftolis Apoftolorum non deperditis, published at Gröningen in 1753.

In his Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel History, Vol. III, ch. 25.

wrote them all with his own hand. He thinks that the infpiration of these Epiftles would have fuffered, if they had been committed to writing by amanuenfes, who were not infpired. Now whether this be true or not, it is wholly foreign to the prefent purpose: for we must not conclude that a thing really did happen, because we fancy, that it would have been better, if it had fo happened. But I really fee no greater injury, which could arife from the circumftance that St. Paul's Epiftles were committed to writing by perfons not infpired, than from the circumstance that they have been fince copied and printed by uninfpired perfons. Besides, the Apostle probably examined them before he fent them away, and corrected whatever mistakes had been made by his amanuenfis; which amounts nearly to the fame, as if he had written them with his own hand. The book of the Prophet Jeremiah was not committed to writing by the Prophet himself, but by Baruch his fcribe: yet we do not therefore fuppofe that either its infpiration or its credibility is impaired.

With respect to the pofition that St. Paul wrote more Epiftles, than thofe, which are now extant, I must beg leave to obferve, that I do not ground my opinion merely on the above quoted paffages from the Epiftles of St. Paul and St. Peter: and therefore, even if it could be fhewn, that they admit of a different construction from that, which I have put upon them, the opinion would not be confuted. I argue likewife from St. Paul's ready ftyle and flowing language, which is that of an author, who makes writing his bufinefs and his daily practice, not that of a man, who fuffers whole years to elapfe, without writing a fingle epiftle. The compofitions of St. Paul are of a very remarkable kind: for though they are replete with matter, the author feems never to have been at a lofs for the proper turns of expreffion. The words, which he has used, appear to have presented themselves without being fought: yet they are fo refined and elegant, that the language of

Jerem. xxxvi. 4. 17. 18,

St.

St. Paul, though not claffic Greek, may be considered as a pattern of epiftolary writing. An author, who could write in this manner, muft certainly have written more than fourteen Epiftles during the whole courfe of his miniftry.

But as Dr. Lardner has brought arguments to prove the contrary, and they are really more fubftantial than thofe of Dr. Stofch, I cannot conclude this fection without taking notice of them.

1. Lardner argues, that we have only four genuine Gofpels, and only one hiftory of the Acts of the Apoftles: and that we have no reafon to fuppofe that more Gofpels, or more ecclefiaftical hiftories, were written by Apoftles, or Apoftolic men.'

Anfwer. Thefe premifes I grant: but I deny the application of them to the Epiftles of St. Paul. There is a wide difference between writing books, and writing letters. No man of education paffes his life, without engaging in epiftolary correfpondence: but not every man ventures to write a book. We must not therefore conclude, becaufe only five or fix what may be called books were written by Apoftles or Apoftolic men, that only fourteen letters were written by St. Paul.

2. If more Epiftles had been written, the Apostle or Apoftles, who wrote them, would have taken care that they should be preferved, and tranfmitted to pofterity, as well as thofe which have actually descended to us.'

Anfwer. That it was the will of the Apostles, or the defign of divine Providence, that every Epiftle written even by divine infpiration fhould defcend to pofterity, is by no means certain. Particular inftructions might have been neceffary for certain communities or indivi duais at the time when they were given, and yet, thofe very inftructions might be totally utelefs to thofe, who lived in latter ages, and under different circumstances.

Nay,

The four Golpels, the Acts, and the Apocalypfe: to which might be added, the first Epifle of St. John, which is more properly a book, than an Epifle.

Nay, what is ftill more, they might not only be useless, but prejudicial: for, if an Epiftle be written to perfons in a peculiar fituation, with which we are unacquainted, we fhall not only be unable to comprehend it, but shall be expofed to the danger of interpreting it falfely, and of afcribing therefore to the author doctrines, which he never intended to deliver. It was no more neceffary, that all the Epiftles of the Apoftles thould be preferved, than that all the difcourfes of Chrift, which were certainly of not lefs importance, fhould be recorded by the Evangelifts, who have thought proper to deliver only a select part of them. A Bible, or book of divine revelation, which is intended as a rule of faith and manners, muft, at the fame time that it contains every neceffary precept, contain them likewife in a moderate compafs. If the Bible confifted of many folios, as it probably would, if it contained an account of all the actions and fpeeches of Chrift, and all that was written by the Apostles, few perfons would read the whole of it; and even of thofe, who gave themfelves the trouble, perhaps not one would be able to retain in his memory the whole of its contents. This would be a very material inconvenience. For theologians themfelves, who make the facred writings their particular ftudy, would never be able to recollect, when a difpute arofe relative to a point of doctrine, whether that doctrine was delivered in the Bible, or not, or at least would be unable to pronounce with certainty, that it were not in the Bible: and to thofe, who are neither enabled by their education, nor permitted by their temporal occupations, to engage in theological inquiries, the inconvenience would be ftill greater. Laftly, as the Bible, moderate as it is at prefent in its fize, is explained in commentaries, which confift of many folios, what a mafs of commentary would overwhelm us, if the Bible itself were as large! Inftead therefore of fuppofing with Lardner, that it was the will of the Apoftles, that all their Epiftles fhould be preferved, I would conclude that this was no more their intention, than it was the intention of the Evangelifts

A 4