Jefs important than the cities of Rome, and Corinth, was deemed higher in rank, than other fingle cities. The Epistle to the Philippians was placed before those, which were sent to the Coloffians and Theffalonians, not because Philippi was really a more important place, than either Coloffa or Theffalonica, but because Philippi was mistakenly supposed to be the principal city of Macedonia; a fuppofition, which arofe from á false interpretation of Acts xvi. 12. Of the Epistles addreffed to individuals, those to Timothy have the firft rank, because he was a companion of St. Paul: and that to Philemon the last, because he does not appear to have been invefted with any fpiritual office. However in several Greek manufcripts, the Epiftles of St. Paul are not all arranged according to the common order: for inftance, in the Codex Vaticanus, the Epiftle to the Galatians, and that to the Hebrews, the latter of which is placed immediately after the fecond Epiftle to the Theffalo nians. But in the following fections of this chapter, I fhall treat of St. Paul's Epiftles, not according to the order, in which they are placed in the New Teftament, but according to the time, when they were written. On the fubject of St. Paul's Epiftles, the reader may consult, Milli Prolegomena, § 4-34. Joach. Langii Commentatio de vita et Epiftolis Pauli, Buddei Ecclefia apoftolica, Benfon's Hiftory of the firft planting the Chriftian Church, and particularly Lardner's Supplement to his Credibility of the Gofpel History. See Vol. II. Ch. viii. Sect. 6. under the article Codex Vaticanus. SECT. SECT. II. St. Paul-dictated his Epiftles, and wrote a greater number, than thofe which are now extant. T 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 Apoftle 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 Epiftle: and the Theffalonians who knew the hand-writing both of Timotheus and Silvanus, had in that case a still stronger proof that the Epiftle was genuine. Or the one may have written the Epistle, and the other, either in confequence of his approbation of it, or in confequence of being in some respect 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 ministry, and the great fluency of his language, it is wholly incredible that thefe 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 reason to complain of the lofs of his other Epiftles, than that feveral of Chrift's fpeeches, all of which contained the words of God, were not committed to writing. St. Paul in that Epiftle to the Corinthians, which we call the firft, alludes in ch. v. 9. to an Epiftle, which he had already fent to a See Vol. I. Ch. vi. Sect. 2. the 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 thofe communities, to which St. Peter, addreffed his two Epiftles: 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 Adts xvii. 5. λαβοντες επιστολην απ' αυτά προς τον Σίλαν και Todov, 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 refpectable 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 queftion, and have contended that the Epiftles of St. Paul, which are now extant are the only Epiftles, which the Apoftle 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 verfe; as alfo in all his Epiftles, speaking in them of these things'. In his effay De Epiftolis Apoftolorum idiographis, published at Wolfenbüttel in 1751: and De Epiftolis Apoftolorum non deperditis, published at Gröningen in 1753. e In his Supplement to the Credibility of the Gospel History, Vol. III. ch. 25. wrote them all with his own hand. He thinks that the inspiration 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 so 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 circumftance that they have been fince copied and printed by uninfpired perfons. Befides, 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 refpect 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 conftruction 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 business 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 themfelves without being fought: yet they are fo refined and elegant, that the language of f Jerem, xxxvi. 4. 17. 18, St. St. Paul, though not claffic Greek, may be confidered 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 Gospels, and only one hiftory of the Acts of the Apoftles and that we have no reafon to fuppofe that more Gofpels, or more ecclefiaftical hiftorics, were written by Apoftles, or Apoftolic men.' Answer. These 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 epistolary correfpondence: but not every man ventures to write a book. We muft not therefore conclude, because 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 Apoftle or Apoftles, who wrote them, would have taken care that they fhould be preferved, and tranfmitted to pofterity, as well as thofe which have actually defcended to us.' Answer. That it was the will of the Apoftles, 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 individuals at the time when they were given, and yet thofe very inftructions might be totally useless to thofe, who lived in later ages, and under different circumftances. Nay, The four Gofpels, the Acts, and the Apocalypfe: to which might be added, the first Epiftle of St. John, which is more properly a book, than an Epistle. |