1 1 ?¦£#* Brits i /-£ the /aifidift0g^ Coikgt;, inji^C ^^herthe Epifih, ^iJtrj ^ the Eplfile tQ the Ephfians, was really addrejfed to the Ephefians - - - - . _ _ „£ Sect* CONTEJTtS TO VOL.. IV. vil Sect^ II. — Whether this Epifile was an Epifile to the Lao- diceans - - •--> --- - ¦- - - *¦ - Page 134 Sect. III. — // was probably -confined to no Chrifiian com munity in particular : but was a circular Epifile, intended^ for the ufe of the Ephefians, Ldodiceans, and fome other churches of 'Afia Minor - - *¦ •- •-- - 139 Sect. TV. — Continuation of this SubjeB. - - - 142 Sect. V.- — Of the fituation of the Chrifiian community at Epkefus; and the contents and fiyle of the circular Epifile^ which they received from St. Payl - *¦ - - 146 CHAP. XXI. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILlPPlANS. Sect. I. — Of the city Philippi, and the Ji ate of the Chrifiian community there - *¦ - - - - -- - 152 Sect. II. — -St. Paul wrote the Epifile to -the Philippians during his firft imprifonmeni in Rome, at the lime when he expebled to befoon releafed : and perhaps about the begin ning of the year 65 - ------- igj CHAP; XXII. OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. .S&ct. l.^-Qf the place where Timothy was when St. Paul wrote to him his fecond Epifile - ,- - - 161 Sect... II.tr- Whether this Epifile was written, while St. Paul was pr if oner for the fir fi time in. .Rome, or during a ¦fecond imprifonment there - - - - - - "165 Sect. III. — Contents of this Epifile 178 a 4 CHAP. ,vili CONTENTS TO VOL. IV. "CHAP. -XXIII. op st. paul's character and mode of life. Sect/I. — Whether St. Paul was an Impofior, an Enthufiaft, ¦ or a MeJJenger from Heaven -- - -- - J 79 Sect. II.— Of St. Paul's profefiion, or trade - - 183 CHAP. XXIV. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Sect. I. — General remarks : and fiatement of the quefiions to be e,xamjne,d in this Chapter - • - - -, - 186 Sect. II. — Is that which we call the, Epifile to the He brews an Epifile, or a Differtation ? And, if it is an Epifile, what is the reafon that the initiatory formula is ¦wanting - ---------- 187 Sect. III. — Is the Epifile to the Hebrews quoted 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16 ----------- - 190 Sect. IV. — The Epifile to the Hebrews was written for the ufe of the Chrifiians in Jerufalem and Palefiine - 193 Sect. V. — Of the opinion of other writers, on the quefiion, who the Hebrews were, to whom this Epifile wasfent 201 Sect. VI. — Of the fituation of the perfons, to whom the Epifile to the Hebrews was addrejfed ---•-. 206 Sect. VII. — Of the time when, and the place where, this Epifile zvas written -----___ 209 Sect. VIII.- — Of the language, in which it was written 211 Sect. IX. — According to the moft ancient tradition) or opi nion, it was written originally in Hebrew - - 212 Sec t. CONTENTS TO VOL. IV. 'It Sect. X. — Arguments in favour of the opinion, that this Epifile was written in Hebrezv - - - - page 215 Sect. XI* — A nezv argument, to prove that the Epifile to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew, derived from the quotations which are made in it from the Old Tefta- ment - ----------- 221 Sectv XII. — Confutation of the arguments alleged in favour of the opinion, that it was written in Greek - - 226 Sect. XIII. — Examination of the quefiion, whether the Greek Epifile to the Hebrews is in all refpetJs an accurate tranfiation of the original ------- 234 Sect. X.YV .—Remarks on the Greek fiyle of the Epifile to^ the Hebrews --------- v- 242 Sect. XV. — Of the author of this Epifile ; zvhether it was written by St. Paul; firfi of the opinion of the ancients on this fubjeil ---------- 245 Sect. XVI. — Of the internal marks or characters in the Epifile itfelf, from which an inference may be drawn, either in favour of, or againfi the opinion, that St. Paul was the author ---------- %e,± Sect. XVII. — Examination of the opinion entertained by fome ofthe ancients, that Barnabas was the author 258 Sect. XVIII. — Of the canonical authority of this Epif- tle ------- i_ -"_--- _ 264 Sect. XIX. — Ofthe contents of this Epifile •» - 269 CHAP. XXV. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES - 1^ CHAP. x contents TO ;VOL.- IV. C H A P- XXVI, ' OF THE EPISTLE OT ST. 'JAMES. Sect. I. — Previous ohfervafions, relative .to the James who was called the brother of Jefus - - - - page '271 SzcT.il.— Whether the author of this Epifile was an Apofile ; and if he was, whether he was the elder or the younger Apofile James - - - - - - - - 277 Sect. III. — Whether the author of this .Epifile was James^ called the brother of Jefus ------ 284 Sect. IV. — Of the perfons, to whom this 'Epifile was . written - ¦ - --------- 292 Se-ct.-V. — Of the contents of this Epifile - - -- 296 Sect. VI.— Whether St. James' s doilrine, concerning faith and works, contraditJs St. Paul's doilrine of faith with out works - - - - - - --- - •'*- - 302 'Sect. VII.— Of the time when the Epifile of St. James was written --.---_,___ oq6 Sect. VIII — Of the canonical authority of this Epif- tle -,__-_--_ - - - - 308 CHAP. XXVII. OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. Sect. I.— Of the perfons to zvhom St. Peter addre/fed this E**U IH Sect. II.— Before St. Peter wrote this Epifile, he appears to have read St. Paul's Epifile to the Romans - 323 Sect. III.— Of the time when this Epifile -was writ ten -----... " * *" " ~ 3^5 1 Sect. IV. CONTENTS TO VOL. IV. Xl Sect. IV. — Babylon, the place whence St. Peter dates his firfi Epifile, is either the ancient Babylon on the Euphrates, or Seleucia on the Tigris : but more probably the for mer - - - - - - - v - . - - page 328 Sect. V. — Confutation of the arguments alleged in favour of a myftical interpretation of the word Babylon - 334 Sect. VI.— Of the contents and defign of this Epifile - 341 Sect. VII. — Of St. Peter's mode ofzvriting, and the pecu liarities of his Greek fiyle -------344 CHAP. XXVIII. OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. "PETER. Sect. I. — Of the authenticity of this Epifile - - 3*46 Sect. II. — Of the time when it was. written - - %$6 Sect. III. — Of the defign of this Epifile . - - - 36.7 CHAP. XXIX. OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE.- •• ¦">¦><¦¦ Sect. I. — Of the author of this Epifile, whether .he wms an Apofile, called jude, or whether he. was Jude the brother-in-law of Jejiis ----- - - 363 Sect. II. — Of the perfons to whonr, and of the time when, this Epifile was written : and whether the author of it . had read the fecond \Epifile of St. Peter - - '--T37i Sect. III. — Of the canonical authority of this Epifile : and firfi of the external evidence in its favour - ' '-'' 374 Sect. IV- Xn CONTENTS TO VOL; IVi Sect. IV.— The fame quefiion examined from internal evi dence ------- - - - - - P^ 378 vcr.Y.—Refultof the inquiry infiiiUted in ihe preceding^ fetlions; and the quefiion in debate brought to a final C-jpn Vions; and the quefiion in debate brought to a iffue - * - - - - 394 CHAP. XXX, r OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST- JOHN. Sect. L — Ofthe time when this Epifile was written 295 Sect. II. — Of the perfons lo whom it was written - 399 Sect. III. — Ofthe contents and defign of this Epifile 401 CHAP. XXXI. DISSERTATION ON I JOHN V, 7. Sect. I. — Previous remarks on this fubjeil - - - 41* Sect. H.—Five charges againft 1 John v.' 7, admitted by Bengel. ------------416 Sect. III. — Of the authorities which have been adduced in favour of 1 John v. 7. - - - - - - - - 419 Sect. IV.- — The Alogi did not rejetl the firfi Epifile of Stt John : confequently in their time, that is, in the fecond century, the Epifile did not contain the controverted paf- faie - • - 428 Sect. V. — Ofthe reafons alleged for retaining 1 John v. 7. though the evidence of manuscripts, fathers, and verfions is decidedly againfi it - - - <- - - - - 431 Sect. VI. CONTENTS TO VOL. IV. , ' X1H Sect. VI — In what manner i John v. 7. was firfi . intro- . duced into the Latin- verfion, and afterwards into our printed editions of the Greek Te/lament - page 434 Sect. VT. — Luther did not admit 1 John v. 7, into his German verfion of the Bible --?---- 438 CHAP. XXXII. OF THE TWO LAST EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. Sect. I. — Of the canonical authority of thefe two Epif- tles - --__-_____- 442 Sect. II.: — Of the time when thefe Epijlles were writ ten - - - - 445 Sect. III.— Whether the fecond Epifile was fent to a par ticular per f on, or to a whole church - - - - 448 Sect. IV. — Of the contents, and defign of the third Epif- tle -------------- - - 451 Sect. V .—Of the perfon of Gains, to whom the third Epif ile is addreffed - - ------- 4^4 CHAP. XXXIII. OF THE APOCALYPSE. Sect. I. — Previous apology for the -author' s uncertainty, in refpecl to the Apocalypfe -------457 Sect. II. — Tefiimonies of the earliefi ecclefiafiical writers, both for and againfi the Apocalypfe - - - - 461 Sect. lll.-r-Jnference deduced from' the preceding fee- lion ------------- 486 Sect. IV. XIV CAN TENTS TO VOL. IV. Sect. IV. — Ofthe. opinions of ecckfiafiical writers, zvho lived fince ihe time of Eufebius - - - - page 487, Sect. V.—Of the completion or non-completion of the pro phecies contained in the Apocalypfe, confidered in refpeel to the arguments which they afford in favour - of, or - againft its divinity -------- $01 Sect. VI. — Whether the contradictory explanations, which have been hithepo; given of the Apocalypfe, ought to be afcribed to the Apocalypfe itjelf, or to a want of know ledge in the commentators - - - - - - - 506 Sect. VII.- — Further, remarks on the different expofitions of the Apocalypfe '-------.---' jjii Sect. VIII. — The fame fubjecl continued - - - 515 Sect. IX. — Of the time when the Apocalypfe was writ ten - - - - - - - 518 Sect. X — Of the 'Greek fiyle ofthe Apocalypfe - 528 Sect. XI. — Whether the Apocalypfe was originally written ¦ in Hebrew ------------- 337 Sect. XII. — Remarks on the doclrine delivered in the Apocalypfe ----------- ^38 ERRATA. VOL. IV. Page 2. 1. 20. for « fe&ions of this chapter* read 'chapters.' 13. 1. 7. erafe « when." 49. 1. 27. for ' fads,' read feats.' 104. 1. 23. for « foretold,' read ' forfeited,' 112. 1. 27. for ' that,' read '¦ not.' 227. 1. 2 from the bottom, for « both,' read « by both.' 34.8. 1. 25. for ' 'E?g«n>»;,' read ' 'E?$aia;.' --,' ca, INTRODUCTION TO THE SACRED WRITINGS OF THE NEW COVENANT. CHAP. X. OF THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL IN GENERAL. SECT. I. Vf the order, in which St. Paul's Epijlles are placed in the New Tefiament. ST. PAUL's Epiftles are arranged in the New Tefla- ment, not according to the time, when they were written, but according to the fuppofed rank and im portance of the communities, or perfons, to which they were addrefied. Hence the,Epiftles, which were fent to whole bodies of Chriftians are placed before thofe, which were feht to individuals. Of the former, the Epifile to the Romans has the firft rank, beeaufe Rome was the capital of the world : and the two Epiftles to the Corinthians come next in order, because Corinth. was, at the time when St. Paul's Epiflle,s were arranged, the principal city of Greece, The Epifile to the Gala* tians. is placed in the third rank; beeaufe it was ad* drefled to a whole nation, which, though confidered as Vol. IV. A lef& % St. Paul's Epiftles in General. .chap. 3f- lefs important than the cities of Rome, and Corinth, was deemed higher in rank, than other fingle cities. The Epifile to the Philippians was placed before thofey which were fent to the Coloffians and ThefTalonians, not beeaufe Philippi was really a more important place, than either Colons or Theffalonica, -but beqaufe Philippi was miflakenly fuppofed to be the principal city of Mace donia; a fuppofition, which arofe from a falfe interpre tation of Acts xvi. 12. Of the Epiftles addreffed to individuals, thofe to Timothy have the firft rank, beeaufe he was a companion of St. Paul : and that to Philemon the lafl', beeaufe he does not appear to have been inverted with any fpiritual office. However in feveral Greek manufcripts, the Epiftles of St. Paul are not all ar ranged according to the common order : for inftance, in the Codex Vaticanus, the Epifile to the Galatians, and that, to the Hebrews, the latter of which is placed immediately after the fecond Epifile to the ThefTalo nians z. But in the following fections of this, chapter, I mall treat of St. Paul's Epiftles, not according to the order, in which they are placed in the New Teflament, but according to the time, when they were written. On the fubject of St. Paul's Epiftles, the reader may confult, Millii Prolegomena, § 4 - 34. Joach. Langii Com- mentatio' de vita et Epiftolis Pauli, Buddei Ecclefia apoflojica, Benfon's- Hiftory of the firft planting the Chriftian Church, and particularly Lardner's Supple ment to. his Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory. * See Vol. II. Ch. viii. Sett. 6. under the article Codex Vaticanus.! sect. il. 'St. Paul's Epiftles in General, $ SECT. II. St. Paul diclated 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 fhewn to be highly probable in his Epiftola de fcribis epiflolarum Paulk Dr. Hoffmann in his Introduclio in ledtionem. Epift. ad ColofTenfes, Seel, ii. § 3. objects, that in the two Epiftles to the ThefTalonians, both Timotheus and Silvanus are named after St. Paul. But the Apofile in dictating his Epiftles to the ThefTalonians may have ufed two amanuenfes, one of whom wrote one part, the other the other part of the Epifile : and the ThefTalo nians who knew the hand-writing both of Timotheus and Silvanus, had in that cafe a ftill ftronger proof that the Epifile was genuine. Or the one may have written the Epifile, and the other, either in confequence of his approbation of it, or in confequence of being in fbme refpect 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 Epifile to the Hebrews, is only fourteen. Now if we confider the long duration of St. Paul's apoftolic miniflry, and the great fluency of his lan guage, 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 poflerity, we have no more reafon 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 Epifile to the Corinthians, which we call the firft, alludes in. eh. v. 9. to an Epifile, which he had already fent to the » $ee Vol. I. Ch, vj. Sett. z. A 2 4 St. Pauls Epiftles in General. chap, x.- the Corinthians; but which is no longer extant. Fur ther, St. Peter in his fecond Epifile ch. iii. 15. appeals to an Epifile, which St. Paul had written to thofe Very perfons, to whom he himfelf was writing in confirma tion of the doctrine, that ' the day oT 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 ad- drefled to all thofe communities, to which St. Peter addrefTed 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 Epifile, which is now loft ". If the reading of the ancient Codex Laudanus 3. and of the Syriac verfion, at AdlS XVll. 5- **So!T£S iTrlfoKtjV «7r' «UT8 7Tf Of T6> 2*A«|/ X.Xi Ti/AoS'iov, were genuine, it would follow that St. Paul, during his flay at" Athens wrote an Epifile to Silas and Timotheus, which is likewife loft. But as this reading is fupported by only two, though very refpedtable autho rities, I fhall not infifl 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 quefiion, and have contended that the Epiftles of St. Paul, which are now extant are the only Epiftles, which the Apofile ever wrote. Their' arguments however have not convinced me of the truth of this pofition. Dr. Stofch endeavours in the firft place to invalidate the opinion* that St. Paul dictated his, Epiftles, and endeavours to fhew that the Apofile wrote b See the Introduction to the Epiftle to the Hebrews, § 3. c An objeaion however to this conclufion may be made from what ?t. Peter adds in the very next verfe ; < as alfo in all his Epi tiles, lpeakmg in them of thefe things.' _- In his effayDe Epiftolis Apoftolorum idio-jraphis, published at Wolfenbuttelm 1751 : and De Epiftolis Apoftolorum non deperditis, publiflied at Groningen in 1753. III. c^ "' Sl®leni6^ t0 the ^edibility of the. Gofpel Hiftory, Vol. sect. n. St. Paul's Epiftles in General. 5 wrote them all with his own hand. He thinks that the infpiration of thefe Epiftles would have fuffered, if they/ had been committed to writing by amanuenfes, whc* were not infpired. Now whether this be true or not, it is wholly foreign to the prefent purpofe : for we muft not conclude that a thing really did happen, beeaufe we fancy, ' that it would have been better, if at had fo hap pened. 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 Apofile probably examined them before he fent them away, and corrected whatever miftakes 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 himfelf, but by Baruch his fcribe f : yet we do not therefore fuppofe that either its infpiration or its Credibility is impaired. With refpedt to the pofition that St. Paul wrote more Epiftles, than thofe, which are now extant, I muft beg leave to obferve, that I do not ground , my opinion merely on the above quoted pafTages 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 flyle 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 compofi- tions 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 ex- preflion. The words, which he has ufed, appear to have prefented themfelvcs without being fought : yet (;hey are fo refined and elegant, that the language of St, f Jerem. xxxvi. 4. 17. 18. A 3 ' 6 St. Paul's Epiftles in General. chap, x, 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 fubflantial than thofe of Dr. Stofch, 1 cannot conclude this fection with out taking notice of them. i. Lardner argues, ¦ that we have only four genuine Gofpels, and only one hiftory of the Acts of the Apo- illes : and that we have no reafon to fuppofe that more Gofpels, or more ec-clefiaftical hiftories, were written by Apoftles, or Apoftolic men.' Anfw'er. Thefe premifes I grant : but I deny the ap plication of them to the Epiftles of St. Paul, There is a wide difference between writing books, and writing letters. No man of education panes hj,s life, without engaging in epiftolary correfpondence : but not every man ventures to write a book. We muft not therefore conclude, becaule only five or fix what may be called books g were written by Apoftles or Apoftolic men, that only fourteen letters were written by St. Paul. 2. ' If more Epiftles had been written, the, Ap'oftle or Apoftles, who wrote them, would have taken care that they fhould be preferved, arid tranfmitted to pofte- rity, as well as thofe which have actually defcended to Vs.' Anfwer. 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 poflerify,' is , by no means certain. Particular iriftructions might have been neceffary for certain communities or indivi duals at the time when they were given, and yet thofe very inftruftions might be totally ufelefs to thofe, who lived in latter ages, and under different cirqumftances. Nay, \J Jh fT ?ir^S.'«tbe Aas' and *e Apocalypfe : to which might ^rE^e!^ ^ °f St' ^ ^ » Krc properly' a 3^ sect. ii. St. Paul's Epiftles in General. J Nay, what is flill more, they might not only be ufelefs; but prejudicial: for, if an Epiftle be written to perfons in a petuliar fituation, with which we are unacquainted, we fhall not only be unable to comprehend it, but fhall be expofed to the danger of interpreting it falfely, and ofafcribing therefore to the author doctrines, which he never intended to deliver; It was no more neceffaiyj that all the Epiftles of the Apoftles fhould be preferved, than that all the difcourfes of Clirifl, which were cer tainly of not lets importance, fhould be recorded by the Evangelifts, who have thought proper to deliver only a feledt part of them. A Bible, or book of divine revela tion, which is intended as a rule of faith and manners, muft, at the fame time that it contains every neceflary 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 Apoftles, few perfons would read the whole of it ; and even of thofe, who gave themfelves the trouble, per haps not one would be able to retain in his memory the whole of its contents. This would be a very mate rial inconvenience. For theologians themfelves, who make the facred writings their particular fludy, would never be able to recollect, when a difpute arofe relative to a point of doctrine, whether that doctrine was deli vered in the Bible, or not, or at leaft 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, m'oderate as it is at prefent in its fize, is explained in commenta ries, which confift of many folios, what a mafs of com mentary would overwhelm us, if the Bible itfelf were ?is 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 A 4 Evangeljfts S The Epiftle to the Galatianst chap- x*. Evangelifts that »H the fpeeches of Chrift fhould be recorded, ,.,,-,• j 3. ' No Chrifiian community, which had received ;m Epiftle from an Apofile, would have fuffered that Epiftle to be loft,' ¦-•-. . ¦ . 1 Anfwer. This, argument is applicable only to men Epiftles, as were of importance : and it is not applicable even to thefe, if it be true, as I have endeavoured to. Ihew in a preceding volume \ that the Apoftles them,, felves were the editors of their own Epiftles. CHAP. XI. Of THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, SECT. I. The Epifile to, the Galatians is among thofe, which are new extant, the firfi which St. Paul wrote. ' T HAT the Epiftle to the Galatians is the firft of St. Paul's Epiftles is the moft ancient opinion. It was afferted in the fecond century by Marcion ', whofe opinion in refpe^t to a plain matter of fact is not to be rejected, beeaufe he was a heretic. Tertullian likewife reprefents St. Paul as a novice in Chriftianity, when he wrote his Epiftle to the Galatians k : (hough Tertullian does * Vol. I. Ch, vi. Sea. 2. » See Epiphan. Hares. XIII. § 9. k Tertullian, in his firft book againft Marcion, ch. xx. where the' inquiry relates to what St. Paul had written in his Epiftle to the Galatians,' arid particularly his cenfure- of St. Peter in the fecond chapter, afcribes St. Paul's zeal againft Judaifm to the recentnefs of his converfion, and to his want of that experience, by which he after wards learnt to become, as it were, a Jew to the Jews, as well as a Greek tp the Greeks. « {gitur ft fgrventer adhuc, ut Neophytus, ' adverfui Sect. i, The Epifile to the Galatians. 9 does not fay in pofitive terms that this Epiftle was the firft. But modern writers have in general rejected this opinion, as the reader will find 011 confulting Rumpsei Commentatio critica, p. 121 — 128. and Lardner's Sup-» plement,, p. 154 — 1.70, For this reafon1, it will be' neceflary to ftate at large the arguments by which I think it may be fupported. St. Paul's firft vifit to the Galatians was not long after the council, which had been held in Jerufalem, as apr- pears from Acts xvi. 4, 5, 6. 'and as they (namely, Paul and Silas) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, which were ordained of the Apoftles and elders, which were at Jerufalem: and fo were the churches eftablifhedin the faith, and in- dreafed in number daily. Now when they had gone through Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghofl to preach the word in Afia, &c.' From this pafiage we fee that St. Paul preached the Gofpel in Galatia; for the prohibition was confined to the'Reman Proconiular province of Afia, to which Galatia is here oppofed, This is further confirmed by Acts xviii. 33. where St. Luke relates, that St. Paul again vifited Galatia, ' ftrengthening the difciples;' fo that converts muft have been made on his firft vifit "\ Now let us follow St. Paul on his firft journey from Galatia to Bercea in Macedonia, where he ieems to have arrived in the fame year, and we fhall be convinced that he wrote his Epiftle to the Galatians upon this journey. " When adverfus Judaifmum aliquid in converfatione reprehendendum exifti- mavit, paflivum fcilicet , convidtum, poftmodum et ipfe ufu omnibus pmnia futurus, ut omnes lucraretur, 'Jud«eis quafi Judaus, et eis qui fub lege, tanquam fub lege: tu illam folius converfationis placiturae pofiea accufatori fuo reprehenfionem fufpe&am vis habeti etiam de praedicatiomis erga Deum prasvaricatione?' 1 Within thefe few years however, the opinion appears to have met with a more favourable reception. m That Chriftianity was totally unknown in Galatia, before St. Paul's firft vifit, I will not aflert: but, as St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Galatians treats them as his own, fpiritual children, we muft confider their converfion as owing in a great meafure, if not principally, to St. Paul.' lo the Epifile to ihe Galatians. chap; XL When he left the Galatians he was accompanied by feveral brethren, namely, by Silas (or Silvanus), ch. xv. 40. by Timothy, ch. xvi.' 3. and perhaps by others. This circumftance is particularly to be noted. They travelled through Myfia to Troas, ver. 8. where St. , Paul had a remarkable dream, which induced him to go into Macedonia. Before he left Troas St. Luke was added to St. Paul's other companions, and in their "company he travelled to Philippi, ver. 11. 12. where he preached the Gofpel, ver. 13 — 40. and. thence 'to Theft falonica,, ch. xvii, >i — 9, Here fome of the brethren appear to have left St. Paul, .and he travelled with' Silas alone to Bercea, ver. 10. When he was no longer in fafety here, he left Silas behind him and went to Athens, fo that when hearrived in that city, none ofthe brethren were with him? in whofe company he had travelled from Galatia. Now St. Paul's Epiftle to the Galatians is written not only in his own name, but in the name of all the bre thren, who were with him11. Who then were thefe brethren ? Were they known or unknown to the Gala tians ? St. Paul w!ould hardly have written to them in, the name of all the brethren, who were with him, with out determining who thofe brethren were,, unlefs they had been the fame, who attended him when he left Galatia, and who therefore were known to the Galatians without any further defcription. Confequently tins Epiftle muft have been written before St. Paul feparated from thefe brethren, that is, before he left Theffalonica, Whether it was written in this city, or before he arrived there, I will not attempt to determine0: but it certainly was written during the interval which elapfed between St. » Gal. I. 1. 2. 0 Perhaps on his journey. For it was his ufual praftice to fen3 falutations at the end of his Epiftles from the Chriftian communities eftablifhed' in the places where he wrote. But at the end of his Epif tle to the Galatians he has fent no falutations r and therefore it is pro-, ' fciable that he wrote heither at Philippi, nor at TheflalQnica, but in 3 place where no Chriftian fociety had been formed, • sect, i, The Epifile to the Galatians. %t St. Paul's departure from Galatia, and his departure from ThefTaloiiica. There are likewife other circumftances, which con firm, this opinion, and-fhew at leaft that St. Paul wrote to the Galatians foon after their converfion. For ch. i. 6. he fays, ' I marvel that ye 'are fo foon removed from him, that called you into the grace of Chrift, unto another Gofpel!' This Epiftle therefore was certainly not written fo late as Mill, or even fo late, as Benfon fuppofes. Further, it appears from Acts xv. i. that Afia Minor fwarmed at that time with zealots, who wifhed to impofe on the Chriftians the obfervance ofthe Levitical law : the feduction of the Galatians therefore, of which St. Paul complains in his Epiftle, maybe more eafily referred to that, than to a later period, Again, St. Paul in the two firft chapters gives the Galatians a gene ral review of his life and conduct from his converfion to {he Apoftolic council in Jerufalem, and at the furtheft to his return to Antioch, Here he breaks off his nar rative. It is probable therefore, that from that time to the time of his writing to the Galatians, nothing remarks able had happened except their converfion. Laftly, the fuppofition that St. Paul wrote to the Galatians at the period, which I have afligntd, accounts more eafily than any other, for St. Paul's mentioning to the Gala tians that he had not obliged Titus to undergo the rite of circumcifion : namely, beeaufe he had obliged Timo thy to fubmit to it, ^immediately before his firft vifit to the Galatiansp, and St. Paiifs adverfaries had appealed perhaps to this fact, in fupport of their doctrine, that the Levitical law fhould be retained. The particular year of the Chrifiian Era, in which the Epiftle to the Galatians was written, it is difficult to determine with precifion : though we are efpecially ih- terefled in the date of this Epiftle, beeaufe it appears from ch. iv. 10. that the Galatians were on the point of cele brating the Jewifh fabbatical year, and, in corifeqUerice of Ifheir fedu/6tiqh by the' Jewifh zealots, of leaving their lands ' Acts xvi. 3, 'j-j The Epiftle to the Galatians. chap. xi. lands uncultivated for a whole year, though the law of Me-fes on this article could not poffibly extend to Galatia, At the beginning of the fecond chapter, there is a date, from which fome commentators have attempted to fix the year, in which' this Epiftle was written. Namely, St. Paul fays, ch. ii, I. nrnrx Sia, Si\ux.rts(r«^u\i nw vnxXw ti.vitw u; 'l£fo and I ' have already fhewn ', that hetween his firft journey into Macedonia, on which he wrote his Epifile to the Galatians, and his imprifonment in Jerufalenv there muft have elapfed an interval of more than five years. Since therefore neither the year of St. Paul's, converfion can be, determined with any precifion, nor the period decided, from which he counted the fourteea years, which he has mentioned Gal. ii. 1. we fhall not fee able from this date to fix the time, when the Epiftle was written. I have obferved in the beginning of the preceding paragraph, that the Galatians, when St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to them, were on the point of celebrating the Jewifh fabbatical year. If therefore this fabbatical year could * See above, Ch. viii, Seft. 4. r JJ,, sect. t. The Epifile to the Galatians-. 13 could be determined, we might fettle at once the date' of our Epiftle. But here again a difficulty prefents if felf ; for we are not certain in what manner the Jews reckoned their fabbatical years s : whether they conftantly adhered to the feventh year, and' thus made the eighth fabbatical year fall in the 56th year from the time they began to count ; or whether, when they began a new reckoning with the year of Jubilee, or the 50th year* and placed the next fabbatical year in the 57th. Fur ther we know not with what year the Jews began their new feries after their return from the captivity : whether they began to reckon immediately from the time of their arrival in Paleftine, or whether they waited till their lands were in a flate of general cultivation. In the firft book of the Maccabees, ch. vi. 5*3. mention is made of a fabbatical year, the only one on record in the Jewifh hiftory. This fabbatical year correfponds to the , year 150 of the Greeks, and 161 before Chrift. Now if we begin to reckon with 160 before Chrift, and adopt the opinion that the Jews conftantly adhered to the feventh year, we fhall find that the year 50 after Chrift was a fabbatical year: for i6q and 50 make 210 which is exactly 30 times 7. But in fact we fhould begin to reckon a year earlier : for the paffage in the book of the Maccabees relates to the latter half of the fabbatical year, when the want of a harveft occafioned a famine. Confequently this fabbatical year began in the year i6z before Chrift : and, therefore the year 49 after- Chrift is properly tbe thirtieth fabbatical year from that time. Now the date 49 agrees with another calculation of the year when the Epiftle to the Galatians was written, as appears from the preceding paragraph: and the coinci dence of thefe two calculations is a circumftance in favour of both. The preceding calculation from fabba tical years will indeed fall to the ground, if it be true that the Jews began a new reckoning with each Jubilee : but as our prefent quefiion does not admit perhaps of an ' See the Orient. Bib. Vol. X. p. 17—25. 1 4 The Epifile to the Galatians ; Chap . xr. an abfolut-s decifion, the year 49 may be propofed, as the'moft probable date of the Epiftle to the Galatians'. I will not tire the reader with an examination of what'' other critics have advanced on this fubject, fince the? tafk has. been already performed by Lardner": but fhall mention only what the various opinions are. 1. The firft is, that it was written during St. Paul's vifit in Corinth, Acts xviii. 1. and (as is aflumed without au thority) in the year 51 or 52. This is the opinion, which Lardner adopts. 2dly. That it was written at Ephefus, Acts xviii. 23. 24. *3dly. At the fame time, that the Epiftle to the Romans was written, Adts xx, 2. 4. 4thly. That it was written at Rome. This lafl opinion is the moft improbable of any : for if St* Paul had deferred it till his arrival at Rome, he could not have complained in the Epiftle, that the Galatians had fo foon wavered in their faith, nor would he have been filent on his bonds in Rome, of which we find no traces in the whole Epiftle. Yet this opinion, ftrange as it is, is advanced in the fubfcription to this Epiftle in the Greek manufcripts", and in the Syriac and Arabic verfions, From this example alone we may learn, that the fub- fcriptions annexed to the Epiftles are entitled, to no credit. SECT. II. Of the Galatian Chrifiians, and their feducas. THE Galatians were defcended from a tribe of Gauls who had formerly invaded Greece, and afterwards fettled in the leffer Afia. Their original Gaulifh lan guage t,hey retained even fo late as the fifth century, as appears 1 Probably likewife in the autumn, or at the time, when in other years, the land was tilled ; but in the fabbatical year remained fallow. 0 Supplement, Vol. II. ch. xii. * rt§o; r«A«T«{ sy£«(p» aire Vupr,^ sect. ir. The Epifile to the Galatians. 15 appears from the teftimony of Jerom, who relates that their dialect was nearly the fame with that of the Treviri"., At the fame time they fpoke the Greek. lan guage, in common with almoft all the inhabitants of the lefler Afia: and therefore St. Paul's Greek Epiftle was perfectly -intelligible to them. John Joachim Schmidt, matter of the grammar fchool at Ufeld, has endeavoured, in his Prolufio de Galatis, ad quos Paulus literas mifit, to fupport the extraordinary opinion, , that the Galatians to whom St. Paul wrote, did not refide within the limits of the country of Gala tia, but were the inhabitants of Derbe and Lyftra, which, though really cities of Lycaonia, were confidered as an appendage to Galatia, beeaufe they had been prefented by Auguflus to Amyntas, King of Galatia. But fince St. Paul preached the Gofpel in Galatia itfelf, as well as at Derbe and Lyftra, I can fee no reafon for taking the term ( Galatians' in St. Paul's Epiftle, in any other than its proper acceptation. Schmidt indeed contends7, not only that St. Paul was never in Galatia before the council at Jerufalem, which I readily grant, but likewife that the perfons, whom St. Paul calls Galatians were already converted to Chriftianity, when that council was held. This pofition he endeavours to prove from Gal. ii. 5. where St. Paul fays, ' To whom we gave place by fub- jection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the Gofpel might continue with you.' But by the term ' you' St. Paul might mean the Heathens in general, whole caufe he pleaded at Jerufalem, in oppofition to thofe, who wifhed to enforce the Levitical law: at leaft he has frer quently ufed the term in this fenfe, and if this may be afcribed to it in the place in quefiion, the argument will * Galatas, excepto fermone Grasco, quo omnis loquitur Griens, propriam linguam eandem pene habere, quam Treviri: nee referre, (i aliqua exinde corruperint, quum et Aphri Phcenicum linguam non- nulla ex parte ' mutaverint, et ipfa Latinitas et regionibus quot^die mutet'ur, et tempore. T. IV. p. 256. ed. Benedict. On this fubject Jerom is very good authority : for he had fpent fpme time at Treves. and therefore was well able to judge of the language of the Treviri. r Sect. 6, 1 6 The Epifile to the Galatians: chap', xf. will prove nothing of any one community in particulate Further, that by the term 'you' St. Pad meaht the^ inhabitants of Derbe and Lyftra Is highly improbable* beeaufe it appears from Acts xvi. f. that he hot only vifited thofe cities foon after the council at Jetufalem^ but informed them verbally oftherefult of this council: consequently, he was under no neoefiity of giving them Written information. On the other hand; if he had judged it neceflary to write to them, after Verbal infor mation, he would at leaft have given fome hint in his Epiftle, that what he then wrote to them he had for merly delivered in perfon z. The feducers, againft whom St. Paul writes in his Epiftle to the Galatians, were men of a very different. defcription from the weak brethren, of whom he fpeaks in his Epiftle to the Romans ch; xiv. xv. and other places; and whofe errors he cenfures in fo gentle a manner, as even to recommend an abftinerlce iri then* prefence from whatever they imagined to be unlawful Thefe weak brethren anxioufly abftained from meats offered to idols, and from blood i confidering a partici pation of the former as a violation of natural, as well as ofthe Mofaic religion, and a participation of the latter, as an infringement on the command given not only to the Jews in particular^ but to the defcendants of Noall in general, Gen.ix. 4. It was out of tendernefs to thefe weak brethren, that the council in Jerufalem had com manded an abftinence from meats offered to idols, and from blood : and it was the.fame motive, which induced St. Paul in feveral paffages, for inftance, Rom; xiv. xvv 1 Cor. viii. x. to recommend the fame abftinence, when ever fuch perfons were prefent. Befide thefe two articles, it does not appear that they infilled on any other of the Mofaic inftitutions, except the obfervanee ofthe Jewifh fabbathj * To thefe objeaions Schmidt has replied in a Programmapublifhed in 1754 with the following title; Prolufionem fuam de Galatis— ab Objeftionibus doctiffimorum virorum vindicare conatur : which the reader may confult, if he wilhes to determine, whether the objections are fully anfwered. sect. n. The Epiftle to the Galatians. 17 - fabbath % which however, as far as we have any know ledge of this matter, they did not confider as indifpenfa'7 bly neceffary for the converts from Heathenifm. But the feducers or difturbers of the Galatians went much greater lengths, and maintained theneceffity of obferving the whole of the Levitical law, including not only cir- cumcifion, and an abftinence from all meats deemed unclean, but alfo an obfervance of all the Jewifh fefti- vals, and even of the fabbatical year, which was never defigned to be obferved in any other country than Pale- ftine. It appears that they began their reformation with exercifing the rite of circumcifion : and therefore St. Paul warns the Galatians, ch. v. 2. 3. not to fubmit to it, beeaufe by this ceremony they would profefs them felves to be Jews, and therefore lay themfelves under the obligations of the Jewifh law. Perfons of a fimilar defcription with thofe, who difturbed the Galatians, had difquieted the Chriftians in Antioch, till they were filenced by the Apoftles and Elders in Jerufalem. They were Jews of the New Pharifaic feet, founded by Judas Galilaeus, a feet which in various points differed from the ancient Pharifees b. The Apofile fpeaks of them not only in the Epiftle to the Galatians, ch. ii. 4. v. 10. 11. vi. 12. 13. but likewife in his Epiftle to the Philip- pians, ch. i. 16. iii. 2. 18. 19. : and he defcribes them as men of really bad characters, whofe principal object was to enrich themfelves at the expence of thofe, whom they pretended to convert. Nor is the picture which St. Paul has, drawn of them in the leaft exaggerated: for it appears from the accounts of Jofephus, that he might have juftly reprefented them in a flill more odious light. It was in fact this feet, which involved the Jewifh nation in that war, which ended with the deftruction of Jeru falem, for they incited their countrymen to difobedience againft the Roman Emperor, and to a refufal of the accuftomed tribute. Under the mafk of piety they committed • Rom. xiv. 4. 5. ^ >> See the Mofaic Law, § 184, where I have given an extract from Jofephus, relative to this feet. Vol.' IV. B 1 8 The Epifile to the Galatians. chap. xi. committed rapine and murder, even within the walls of the temple: and their impetuofity was fuch, that they reflected not the power of the Romans, but provoked them to open hoftilities. They not only introduced themfelves into the Chrifiian communities, but pretended to preach even the Gbriftian religion, as appears from the Epiftles to the Galatians and Ephefians. The old Pharifaic feet, as it exifted in the time of Chrift, encom* patTed fea and land to make one profelyte c, not beeaufe they wiflied to promote religion and virtue, but beeaufe they expected to be amply repaid for their miffion. Jofephus d has related a remarkable inftance of four Jews, who had perfuaded Fulvia, a Roman lady of, rank and fortune, to adopt their religion, and extorted from her confiderable fums, as prefents for the holy temple* which, inftead of fending to Jerufalem, they retained in their own coffers : till the matter became publickly known, and was at length reported to Tiberius, who immediately ordered the Jews to leave Rome, and fent four thoufand of them to Sardinia. As foon as the Chrifiian religion began to fpread itfelf among the Gen tiles, and every where met with a favourable reception, ~ they found their advantage jn preaching Chriftianity, which they taught, as if it were nothing more than a reformed Judaifm, and therefore they flrictly enjoined the rite of circumcifion. In this manner they endea voured to make the Chriftians become partly Jews, and by placing them as it were in the middle between the two religions, they acquired an opportunity of complet ing the converfion, as foon as circumftances, and their own profits, would permit. St. Paul therefore in his Epiftle' to the Galatians fpeaks of their feducers in feverer terms, than he has ufed on other occafions, efpecially in ch. i. 8. 9. It may be faid 'indeed that, as this Epiftle was the firft which St. Paul wrote, the fire of youth is more confpi- cuous in this, than in any other : and that, fince it was written with his own hand, not diftated according to his' - Math, xxviii. 15. * Aatiquit. xviii, 3, 5. sect. ii. The Epifile to the Galatians. 19 his fubfequent practice, the Apofile more eafily gave way to the fuggeftions of his naturally warm difpofition. But if we reflect' that the feducers ofthe Galatians were men of a different defcripti.on from the Weak brethren, whom he defcribes in other places, he might have ufed the fame feverity of expreffion, at whatever time, and under whatever circumftances he wrote. In fact: the propagation of Chriftianity could have met with no greater impediment, than that, which thefe perfons had thrown in its way : for they not only clogged the religion of Chrift with ceremonies which were become obfolete, but taught the obfervance of them as the true means of obtaining eternal falvation. Of thofe who thus adopt the Levitical law, St. Paul very properly fays, ch. v. 2. ' Behold, I Paul fay unto you that if ye be circumcifed, Chrift fhall profit you nothing, and ver. 4. Chrift is become of no effect, unto you, whofoever of you are juftified by the law ; ye are fallen from grace' e. Nor is the. Epiftle to the Galatians the only one, in which St. Paul has feverely reprimanded thofe, who infifled on the Levitical law as the means of falvation : for we find examples in the Epiftle to the Romans, ch. xvi. 17. 18. 20. and in that to the Philippians, ch. hi. 2. 18. 19. The Apoftles alfo and Elders affembled in council at Jerufalem, reprefented thofe, who taught the necefiity of circumcifing the Gentile converts, as men who fub- verted the Souls ofthe Chriftiansf. The principal arguments, ufed by the feducers of the Galatians, were the following. 1. c That the Apoftles at Jerufalem, efpecially St. Peter, and likewife the whole church at Jerufalem, con- fidered circumcifion as neceffary : that St. Paul was only a deputy from that church, and that his doctrine was authoritative only fo far, as it agreed with the doctrine of the church of Jerufalem.' That the former part of this affertion e It is, evident that St. Paul did not mean to include thofe, who retained circumcifion, merely through weaknefs of underftanding, or a falfe tendernefs of confcience. * AnxrKtvdfyiiTif T»; ^f^*? vpui. Acts XV. 24, B 2 £© The Epifile to the Galatians. chap. XI. affertion is falfe, appears both from Acts xv. 24. and from the two firft chapters of the Epiftle to the Gala tians. And that the latter part is equally falfe appears. from the fame Epiftle, where St. Paul fhews at large, that he was neither a mifiionary from the church at Jerufalem, nor a difciple of the Apoftles, but an im* mediate Apofile of Chrift himfelf, that the Gofpel, which he preached, was delivered to him by a divine revelation, and that its truth therefore by no means depended on its agreement with what the other Apoftles taught. It was abfolutely neceffary that St. Paul fhould be explicit on this fubjedt, beeaufe, Galatia being at fome diftance from Paleftine, the inhabitants of that country could be the more eafily deceived in refpeel to the doctrines, which were taught by the Apoftles and Elders in Jerufalem. a. ' That St. Paul had altered his opinion, and now preached the Levitical law.' Galat. i; 8. 10. v. 11. Perhaps they pleaded in fupport of this argument that St. Paul had ordered Timothy to be circumcifed fhortly before his firft vifit to the Galatians. Acts xvi. 3. com pared with Galat. ii. 3. , 3. ' That all the promifes of God were made to the pofterity of Abraham, and that whoever would partake of the blefiing upon Abraham, muft like , Abraham be circumcifed. This objection St. Paul anfwers, ch. iii. 7 — iv. 18. 4. ' That Ifaiah had foretold an approaching conver fion of the Gentiles, and had promifed children from among the Heathen to Jerufalem or Sion. If , therefore the Gentiles defired to be children of Jerufalem they ought to conform to the worfhip and ceremonies of that church.' In anfwer to this argument, St. Paul fhews ch. iv. 9—31. that thefe children were promifed, not to the Jewifh, but to the ancient Jerufalem, where the true God was worfhipped in the time of Melchifedek, , without either temple or Levitical law. There are two paffages in the Epiftle to the Galatians, ch.11. 14. iv. 12. which feem to imply, that not only St. sect. ii. The Epifile to the Galatians,. 21 , St. Paul, but even St. Peter, when they werain company with heathens totally difregarded the Levitical law, and partook- of meats, which the Jews confidered as unclean. It is true that this was no crime, fince.the. Levitical law had ceafed to be binding : yet it was contrary to St. Paul's practice at other times, for as a native Jew, he himfelf ftill obferved the law, He even made the Na- zarite vow, fhaved his head at Cenchrese, and then went up to Jerufalem to celebrate the approaching feftival and make the ufual offerings s : and a few years afterwards, when he was at Jerufalem for the laft time, he repeated the Nazarite ceremonies'1, in order to convince the Jews, as is exprefsly faid, Afts xxi. 24. that he ' walked Orderly and kept the law.' It may be afked therefore whether St. Peter and St. Paul obferved at one time, but difregarded at another, the Levitical law, according to the difference of the circumftances, in which they were placed \ Tertullian, as appears from the pafTage quoted at the beginning of the preceding fection, anfwers this quefiion in the affirmative. But I would rather anfwer it in the negative, and afl'ert that both ' St, Peter and St. Paul abftained in general from, unclean meats,, even when in company with heathens. In fact; I cannot fup- pofe, that any man, who had invited them into his houfe, could have violated the laws of hofpitajity in fuch a manner, as to prefent them with meats, of which they as native Jews were not accuftomed tq partake. St. Peter efpecially, who paid great refpedt to the Jewifh ceremonies'1, would have carefully avoided a participa tion, which muft have offended his countrymen, and confequentiy have diminifhed his own importance among them. And St. Paul had fo.many enemies among the Jews, that, if in his own conduct he had openly violated the f Acts xviii. 18. 20. 21. 28. * Acts xxi. 20 — 27. xxiv. 17. 18. i This queftion relates merely to the manner, in which themfelves, ailed on different occafions : and is very different from the queftion. whether they taught different doctrines at different times, ij Acts x. xi. »3 42 The Epifile to the Galatians. chap. xr. the Levitictl law, they would not have neglected to Charge him with this violation, when he was publickly accufed at Jerufalem and Catfarea. Yet in Afts xxiii. i — 10. xxiv. I — 21. we meet with no charge of any fuch kind. I believe therefore that the two paffages above quoted from the Epiftle to the Galatians imply, not that St.1 Peter and St. Paul partook of unclean meats in company, with heathens, but merely that they did not Srefufe to affociate at table with heathens, and to eat in their houfes, which the Jews in general avoided ', even if nothing was .produced which was contrary to their law. For the veffels themfelves, in which the food was prepared,' they confidered as unclean : nor were they certain that among the various ingredients there was no intermixture of fomething forbidden. Hence St. Paul himfelf fays, Galat. vi. 13. that the circumcifed them felves did not obferve every tittle of the law, fignifying, as I underftand the paffage, ,that the Jews neither did nor could obferve the ftrict letter of the law, when they refided in heathen countries. Some writers have concluded from the Epiftle to the Galatians, that St. Peter and St. Paul were not agreed as to the neceffity of retaining the Levitical law, but on the contrary, that they taught very different doctrines on this fubjedt. Now it is true, that in one inftance, St. Peter, to avoid giving offence to the Jews, withdrew himfelf from the Gentile converts at Antioch : yet the Epiftle to the Galatians is fo far from, proving that St, Peter thought differently from St. Paul in refpect.to the Levitical law, that it lhews they entertained the very fame fentiments. This further appears from Acts x. xi. xv. and from what St. Peter himfelf has written in his firft Epiftle. Acts X. 28. A9ij*ito» fj-iir athi lubxtu xoMao-flasi » •EreocrieY^k sect. i. The Epijlles to the Thejfalonians. 33 CHAP. XII, OF THE TWO EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. SECT, I. Of the time, when St. Paul wrote his firfi Epiftle to the Thejfalonians. THE two Epiftles to the ThefTalonians are the next in point of chronology to the Epiftle to the Gala tians. ThefTaJonica, originally called Thermae, till its name was changed by Philip in confequence of a victory Over the Theffalians, was in the time of St. Paul the capital of Macedonia, In this city was a very numerous colony of Jews, and their fynagogue was fo celebrated, that St. Lukem calls it by way of eminence « o-ui/a^yr,, or, the fynagogue : and even to this Very day Salonike, as the place is now called, abounds with Jewifh families. Now as the Jews were the firft perfecutors of chriftianity, we fee the reafon why the ThefTalonian community was more expofed to perfecutibn, than any other. St. Paul preached the Gofpel at ThefTalonica, after he had taught at Philippi", and in the fame year, in which he wrote his Epiftle to the Galatians. Some few among the Jews received the Gofpel, and the Apofile endea voured to prove to them 'the truth of Chriftianity from the prophecies of the Old Teftament "; But a great number of the heathens, who, though they had not been circumcifed, had learned to worfhip the one true God, and are therefore called o-iQo[acvoi 'Eaaw fhew in the chapter, which relates to the Epiftle to Titus. Further, in ch. ii. 17. 18. he fays, ' But we, brethren, being taken from you a Ihort time in prefence, and in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to fee your face with great defire. Wherefore, we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again, but Satan hindered us.' Since therefore St. Paul had feveral times formed a refolution of revifiting Theffalonica, and had feveral times been prevented *, it is evident that this Epiftle was written, neither foon after St. Paul's arrival at Corinth, nor even foon after Timothy had arrived there from Macedonia. The particular year of the Chrifiian Era I cannot pretend to determine : for thefe determinations, as I have already obfervedr, are very precarious. But, if the Epiftle to the Galatians was written at the end of the year 49, the firft Epiftle to the ThefTalonians was written probably about the year 51. z By what accidents he had been prevented St. Paul does not fay : but as during the courfe of his life he thrice fuffered fhipWreck (2 Cor. xi. 25.) it is not impofliblethat one of them happened in the interval, which elapfed between his departure from Theflklonica and the writing of his firft Epiftle to the Theflalonians. f Ch. xi. Seft. 1. '%S The Epiftles /o the Thejfalonians., chap, xtr, SECT. II. Of the circumfiances of the Ckuuh at Theffalonica, THE principal circumfiances of the Chrifiian com munity at Theffalonica, as far as is neeeffary to a right underftanding of St. Paul's two Epiftles, are the following. It confifted, as was mentioned in the preceding fec- tion, for the mofl part of Gentile, and of fome few Jewifh converts. As it is hardly credible, that St. Paul at his departure appointed thofe to be teachers, who only three weeks before were wholly unacquainted with revealed religion, it is probable that the teachers men-, tioned ch. v.- 12. were converts from Judaifm, or at leaft fuch Greeks, as had already embraced the Jewifh, religion. 2. The newly founded community had made indeed fome progrefs in the faith : but being ftill in an imperfect ftate,andoppreffed by the powerful Jews at Theffalonica, it was in fome danger, and flood in need therefore of frefh fupport, to enable them to fland firm in the doctrine, which they had embraced. This fupport the Apofile gives them in the three firft chapters of the firft Epiftle, and endeavours to convince them, both by his own conduct, and by the imparted gifts of the Holy Ghoft, that the Gofpel which he preached, was true in itfelf, and of divine origin. * 3. There prevailed an error, relative to the doctrine". of the laft judgement, which might have created great confufion in this community. The ThefTalonians, like mofl of the primitive Chriftians, fuppofed that the day ^ of judgement was not far diftant, and that it would happen in the age, in which they themfelves lived. Further, they imagined that they who furvived this day;, would have a great advantage over thofe, who were de- ceafed : which was probably to confift in their entering 7 immediately sect. n. The Epiftles to the Thejfalonians. i-j immediately into the Millennium, of which fome of the primitive Chriftians entertained very ftrange notions. And on this account they lamented the death of their friends, as they fuppofed that it deprived them of pri vileges to be enjoyed by thofe, who were alive and re mained on earth at the general judgement. This error -St. Paul endeavours to remove in tbe latter part of the fourth chapter. In the fecond Epiftle, ch. ii. 2. we find an intimation, that not only Epiftles were forged in St.' Paul's name, to propagate this error, but that cer tain calculations and falfe prophecies were alfo applied to. the fame purpofe. With refpect. to the falfe prophe cies, I fhall not venture to hazard even a conjecture, for it is very pbflible that they were merely verbal, and never committed to writing : and therefore all that F have faid in the firft edition, on the Revelation of Ce- rinthus, I here retract. But of the calculation, of wliich St. Paul fpeaks, and which he terms Aoyo?, 1 believe the true meaning to be, as follows. The Jews in general believed that the Meffiah would erect a tem poral kingdom, in which they were to enjoy liberty and reft: and of this kingdom they confidered their fabbath as a type ". Hence they concluded, that it muft com mence at leaft as early as the beginning of the fixth Millennium from the creation of the world : and they thought it not improbable, that it would begin much fooner. For as the mofl devout Jews did nor wait till fun let, but began their fabbath and abftinence from labour feveral hours before, fo they imagined that the Deity would begin the great fabbath feveral hours, that iscenturies, before the fix thoufand years from the crea tion were expired. It is true that according to the Chronology ofthe Hebrew Bible, as the text now Hands in our manufcripts, the end of the fixth Millennium was fo far removed, that even after a deduction of feveral centuries, x It would be foreign to the prefent purpofe, to inquire, whether this notion were grounded or not. It will be fufficientto obferve that the moft learned Jews of the prefent age reject.it, though feveral modern Chriftir.ns, efpefcially Vitringa, have retained it. 28 The Epiftles to the Theffalonians. chap. xn. centuries, no man in the time of St. Paul could expect to furvive it. But every one knows that there are confiderable Variations in refpect to the years mentioned in the book of Genefis : which make the creatioii of the world to have taken place at an earlier period, than it is made in our Hebrew Bibles. In the Septuagint, the number of years mentioned in the fifth and eleventh chapters of Genefis, is fuch as advance the duration of the world, in the time of St. Paul, far into the fixth Millennium : but how far I will not attempt to deter mine, for not all the copies even of the Septuagint have the fame numbers in the eleventh chapter of Genefis, as may be feen on comparing the editions of Grabe and Breitinger, which follow the Codex Alexandrinus, with the editions which contain the text of the Codex Vati- canus. Further, the very uncertainty, which attended the calculation, gave the greater fcope to the imagina tion of enthufiafts, to fix the commencement of the feventh Millennium, and of the temporal kingdom which they expected, at a period the mofl fui table to their wifhes, And, if the world at that time had really exifted above 5^00 years, they had , fome ground for concluding, according to their principles, that the grand Millennium was not far diftant. Thefe notions infi- nuated themfelves very early among the Chriftians : and they were received not only by the ThefTalonians, but by feveral of the ancient fathers. 4. Among the converts at Theffalonica, there were feveral, who refufed to fubject themfelves to the teachers, and, under the pretence of edifying others, behaved Themfelves diforderly. Thefe perfons St. Paul had in view, 1 Theff. v. n — 14. The fecond Epiftle to the ThefTalonians was occafioned by the fame motives, which induced the Apofile to write his firft Epiftle. As this had not produced its proper effecl, and feveral members ofthe Theffalonian commu nity ftill maintained that the day of judgement was at hand, and others continued their diforderly conduct, the Apofile thought it neceffary to write to them again very sect. ii. The Epijlles to the Thejfalonians. 29 very foon after he had written his firft Epiftle. In his fecond Epiftle therefore he endeavours to fhew from fome prophecies of the Old Teftament not then fulfilled, that the day of judgement was not fo foon to be ex pected : and at the fame time he cautions the ThefTalo nians againft idlenefs and irregularity. It was the opinion of Grotius, that what is called the fecond Epiftle to the ThefTalonians was in fact the firft Epiftle, which St. Paul wrote to them. This opinion he grounds on 2 Theff. iii. 1 7. where the Apofile fays,1 ' The falutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epiftle : fo I write.' Hence Grotius concluded that this was the firft Epiftle, which St. Paul wrote to the ThefTalonians, beeaufe he taught them in what manner they were to diflinguifh his genuine Epif tles from thofe, which were forged in his name. But this inference is ungrounded, for a writer does not always think it neceffary in the very rirft Epiftle to give the tokens of authenticity. On the contrary, it is more probable that he would do this, after letters had been forged in his name, than at the beginning of the cor- refpondence. CHAP. XIII. OF THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. SECT. I. Of the perfon and characler of Titus. ST. PAULs Epiftle to Titus might not improperly be called an Epiftle to the Cretans : for the defign of it was not fo much to inftrucl Titus in matters, which he muft have .known even without this Epiftle, as to put 5o The Epifile to Titus. chap. xi'n. put into his hands an order, which he might lay before the Cretans, and to which he might appeal whenever unworthy and unqualified perfons attempted to intrude into the epifcopal office. The contents of this Epiftle are nearly of the fame kind as thofe of the firft Epiftle to Timothy. The churches in Crete were hitherto without bifhops and minifters : Titus therefore was ordered to appoint them, and at. the fame time was cautioned againft fome, who were of the circumcifion, and who endeavoured to procure for themfelves the ecclefiaftical offices a. Of the perfon and character of Titus we have no further knowledge, than what is re-* lated in the New Tefta'ment : from which it appears that he was by birth a heathen, that he was not circum cifed b, as Timothy was, that he fometimes accompanied St. Paul, and was fometimes lent as deputy to Chrifiian communities. It is remarkable that St. Luke has not once mentioned the riame of Titus throughout the Acts of the Apoftles, though St. Paul makes frequent mention of him in his Epiftles. But St. Luke's filencewill ceafe to be extra ordinary, when we confider the period, in which Titus attended St. Paul. He was prefent with the Apofile at three different times. Firft, on that journey to Jeru falem, which is defcribed Adtsxv. as St. Paul himfelf in his Epiftle to the Galatians c relates in exprefs terms. But in this inftance, though St. Luke. has not mentioned him by name, he has included him under the general expreffion 'feveral other of them"1, namely of the Gentile converts. From this period, as far as we may judge from the Epiftles of St. Paul, fome time muft have elapfed, before Titus was again with him : but in the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians the name of Titus is frequently mentioned6, where it appears that he had been with St. Paul at Ephefus, and was fent from that city a Of thefe ecclefiaftical oftices, I wall treat in the Notes to the Epiftle to Titus, and to the firft Epiftle to Timothy. " Galjl 3- c Ch. ii. 1.3. d Aas xv> a> e Ch. ii. 13. vii. 6. 13. ,14. viii. 6. 16. 23. xii. 18. SECT. ii. The. Epifile to Titus. 3 1 city to Corinth. St. Paul, on his own departure from Ephefus, expected to meet Titus again at Troas : but in this expectation he was di.fappointed f, for he did not meet with him, till his arrival in Macedonia5, whence the Apofile fent Titus again with a new commiffion to Corinth. Now thefe engagements of Titus took place during the period in which St. Luke was abfent from St. Paul h ; and this is the reafon why he is filent in refpect to the tranfadtions of Titus, as alfo of many tranfaclions of St. Paul, which took place in this inter val. When St. Luke again joined company with St. Paul, Titus does not appear to have been with him, fo that thefe two Gentile converts attended perhaps the Apofile alternately. ¦ The third and lafl time, that we find Titus with St. Paul, was fhortly before the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written, in which St. Paul fays ch. iv. 10. that Titus was departed for Dalmatia. But this paffage is of little importance in determining the date of the Epiftle to Titus, which was certainly written long before the fecond Epiftle to Timothy. This quef- tioh, which will be examined in the following fection, muft be determined by the paffages above quoted; SECT. II. When and zvhere the Epifile to Titus was written. CHRISTIANITY had been very early planted in Crete, though we are not certain by whom it was firft introduced there : but as feveral Cretans were pre fent in Jerufalem on the day of Pentecofl, at the firft effufion ofthe Holy GhofV, it is not improbable that on their return they made known the Chrifiian religion. The only inftance, in Which St. Luke has made any mention f 2 Cor. ii. 12. 13. s Ch. vii. 6. 15, h See Vol. III. Ch. vi. Sect. 3, of this Introdu&ion. j Acts ii- 11. 32 The Epifile to Titus. chap. xnr# mention of a voyage of St. Paul to Crete is in Acts xxvii. 7. 8. But at that time St. Paul was on his voyage, as a prifoner, to Italy, and feems ouly to have touched at the ifland. It is true that St. Paul expreffed to the Romaii Centurion a with to pafs the winter there : but St. Luke has not mentioned that he went on fhore, nor is it proba ble that the Roman centurion would have given him permiffion, as he was then a prifoner. . With this voyage therefore of St. Paul to Crete the Epiftle to Titus has no connexion. But that' St. Paul not only had been in the ifland of Crete, but had preached the Gofpel there, not long be fore he wrote his Epiftle to Titus, is evident from its contents : for St. Paul fays, ch. i. 5. ' For this caufe left I thee in Crete, that thou fhouldeft fet in order the things, that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had 'appointed thee.' Now as St. Luke has taken no notice in the Acts of the Apoftles of the voyage un dertaken by St. Taul to Crete, when he appointed Titus to ordain elders, we have no other means of determining the time when it happened, than a comparifon ofthe facts mentioned in the Epiftle to Titus with what we know in general of St. Paul's travels. It is on this ac count that , commentators are fo much at variance in refpeft to the date of this Epiftle: and I my felf entertain at prefent a very different opinion from that, which I' formerly entertained. In the firft edition of this Intro duction, I defcribed the Epiftle to Titus, as written ^fter St. Paul's imprifonment at Rome : in the fecond edition I wavered in this opinion : when I publifhed the third edition, I thought it highly probable that this Epiftle was written long before St. Paul's voyage as a prifoner to Italy : and at prefent I have no doubt that it really was, and that in the chronological arrangement of St. Paul's Epiftles it fhould be placed between the fecond Epiftle to the ThefTalonians and the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians. St. Paul fays to Titus, ch. iii. 12. ' When I fhall fend Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come untq sect. u. The Epifile to Titus. 33 unto me to Nicopolis : for I have determined there to winter.' Now from this paffage, if we knew what Nicopolis St. Paul meant, and when he was there, the date of this Epiftle would be at once decided. For St. Paul muft have been either in Nicopolis, or in the neighbourhood of the place, when he wrote this Epiftle, beeaufe, as there were many cities of this name, it would have been totally ufelefs to have defired Titus to come to' him to Nicopolis, unlefs the place, where he wrote the Epiftle had determined what Nicopolis he meant. The quefiion therefore to be afked is : In what country did. this Nicopolis lie ? The Greek fubfeription to the Epiftle IS, Eygcctpv xtto NixottoAeco? T7i? MaxtSovuxs. But this is certainly a miftake: for by Nicopolis in Macedonia, is meant the Nicopolis which was fituateon the river Neffus, was diftinguifhed from other cities of this name by the title Nicopolis ad Neffum, and belonged in fact to Thrace. But this city was built by the Em peror Trajan, and confequentry did not exift in the time of St. Paul \ Further, when St. Paul wrote the Epiftle to Titus, he was juft returned from a voyage : and therefore the Nicopolis, where he wrote, could not have been at a confiderable diftance from the fea. Hence it appears, that neither Nicopolis ad Hasmum ', nor Nicopolis ad Iflrum m, could have been the place where he wrote, though the latter is underftood by Theophylact ". Still lefs, could the Nicopolis in Armenia, or any other city of this name, in the middle of Afia Minor. Nor could St. Paul mean the Nicopolis, which was fituate in Egypt, not far from Alexandria ° ; for, as it was contrary to St. Paul's cuftom to fpend a confiderable time in a fmall town, which would have circumfcribed the propagation of fc See Mill's Note on the fubfeription to this Epiftle. 1 Cellarii Geograph. Tom. I. p. 1327. ¦ lb. p. 583- n In his Note to Tit, iii. 1 2. he fays, *H h Ntxorr.xis th? Ogax.-.- 0 Cellarii Africa, p. 1 4. Vol, IV. C 34 -Tht Epifile to Titus. chap, xiii, of the Gofpel, he would have paffed the winter at Alexandria, if he had been in Egypt, rather than at a fmall town in its neighbourhood. Of all the cities, which bore the name of Nicopolis, the mofl celebrated is that which lay in Epire, oppofite '\ to the promontory of Actium, and was built by Auguf- tus in honour of his victory over Antony. This is the Nicopolis, which in my opinion St. Paul meant. But there were two other cities of this name, the one in Bitbyniap, the other in Ciliciaq, which were not incon veniently fituated, if St. Paul fet fail from Ephefus, when he went into' Crete, and relumed from Crete into Afia Minor : and, therefore thefe two cities muft not be paffed over in the prefent inquiry. Before I proceed, I muft obferve, that St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apoftles, is equally filent in refpect to Sr. Paul's vifit to' Nicopolis, as on his voyage to Crete. For this reafon many commentators have fuppofed, that both the one and the other happened at a period fubfe- quent to the clofe of St. Luke's hiftory, and confe-* quently after the. end of St. Paul's imprifonment in Rome. To this opinion however Lardner has made the following objection r, which I do not think of fufficient weight. > to overturn it, though I do not defend the opinion itfelf. Namely he objects, that St. Paul, after he 'was re'leafed from his imprifon ment in Rome, had attained too great an age to be able to undertake any new work, and that after that period he probably confined himfelf to the edification of thofe1 churches, which he had already eftablifhed. But to this objection it may be replied, that if St. Paul was able ' to travel into c .untries, where he had ~ already preached the Golpei, he -.as equally able to travel into countries Where he had not • -eached the Gofpel: and that, though g eater exertions are re-.:u':fite to convert heathens to Chriftiar.-ity, than to conliim in the faith thofe who are already Chriftians, yet, as St. Paul was endued with the - " power r Cellarii Geograph. Tom. II. p. 308. , c 3 38 The Epifile to Titus.. , h chap. xnr. polis, where he paffed the winter, rriuft be fought,^ not in Epire, but in Afia Minor; and the Nicopolis in Cilicia muft be preferred to that in Bithynia. For whoever fets fail from Crete, to return to Ephefus, can hardly be driven by adverfe winds fo-faras into the Black Sea, and land at* Nicopolis in Bithynia. The circumftance, that Apollos affifted St. Paul in convert ing the Cretans, is favourable alfo to the opinion that the voyage -to Crete was made in an excurfion from , Ephelus : for it appears from i Cor. xvi. 12. that Apoh los was then returned from Corinth to Ephefus. How ever, I think it verv improbable, that St. Paul would have paffed a whole winter at Nicopolis in Cilicia; for, fince his zeal for the propagation of Chriftianity induced him in general to prefer large towns, as affording him a more ample fcene of action, he would rather have fpent the winter in Tarfus, which was both the capital ofthe country, and the place of his birth. A further confuta tion of this hypothefis is unnecefiary at prefent : for, though I have mentioned it, as a poflihle one, 1 know of no commentator, who has adopted ir, 3. Lardner is of opinion that between St. Paul's de parture from Ephefus mentioned Acts xx. 1: and his laft vifit to Jerufalem a longer time elapfed, than is generally fuppofed, namely, almoft two years : arid in this period Lardner fixes St. Paul's voyage to Crete". ¦ But this hypothefis is attended with infuperable diffi culties. „ -y,v. The leaft important objection is, that Apollos, as far, as "we know, was then at Ephefus \ But, when St. ( Paul wrote his Epiftle to Titus, .Apollos was in Crete,' as appears from ch. iii. 13., and therefore muft either have accompanied St. Paul, or have been fent thither from Nicopolis. But the following objection is more decifive. It is evident from * Cor. i. 8. 9. 16. that the fecond Epiftle to " Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory, Vol. II. p. 101—118. 187—191. ' * See | Cor. xvi. 12. . ',, sect. ir. The Epiftle to Titus. 39 to the Corinthians was written very foon after St. Paul's departure from Ephefus : fo that it is impoffible to refer to .this very fhort interval St. Paul's voyage to Crete, and his refidence in Nicopolis. Nor could he have lately fuffered fhipwreck, when he wrote his fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians : for the misfortune the mofl frefh in his memory was the difturbance at Ephefus, which had obliged him to quit the plaCe. Further, it is evident from what St. Paul fays in the eighth and ninth chapters of this Epiftle in refpect to contributions for the poor, that after his departure from Ephefus he had vifited only the Macedonian churches. If then his voyage to Crete, and his fubfequent flay in Nicopolis are to be referred to Acts xx. 1 — 5. they muft have taken place, after he wrote his fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians. But in this cafe, neither of the three fhipwrecks, which St. Paul mentions, 2 Cor; xi. 25. can have happened oh the voyage either to or from Crete ; and then we fhall have five voyages made by St. Paul and omitted by St. Luke, , whereas according to the firft opinion nof only the num ber will be confined to three, but what St. Paul fay's, 2 Cor. xl 25. will harmonize with, and explain- what he fays, Tit. i. 3. Laftly, if we read, with attention Acts xx. 1 — 6. we fhall find if impoffible to infert in this interval a voyage to Crete and a refidence during a whole winter in Nico- ' po'lis, which together muft have taken up at leaft eight months- For, as it was not ufual in that age to under take a voyage after the month of September, St. Paul's return from Crete muft have happened at leaft before the clofe of September : and if we make his flay in Crete as fhort as poffible, we muft allow at leaft that his voyage to Crete was not later, than the beginning of Auguft. Before therefore his winter refidence in Nico polis was finifhed, an interval of at leaft eight months muft have ejapfed. Now let us keep this in view, and follpw St. Luke's narrative, Acts xx. 1 — 6. Ver. 1. St. Paul leaves Ephefus, foon after Eafter, and travels into "Macedonia. "In his journey from Ephefus ',- c 4 to 40 The Epifile to Titus. chap, x in to Macedonia, no one, will fuppofe, that he went by- the way of Crete and Nicopolis, and, after having paffed . a whole winter in Nicopolis, arrived the next year in Macedonia. This would have been a very extraordinary circuit. 'Befides, if St. Paul had made this circuit, he would have vifited Corinth before his arrival in Macedo nia : but his fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians, which was written in Macedonia, clearly fhews-, that he was then lately come from Afia Minor. This objection did not occur to Lardner, beeaufe he miftakenly fuppofed that Nicopolis, where St. Paul paffed the winter, was Nico polis in Macedonia. Ver. 2. St. Paul travels from Macedonia to Greece, and in particular to Corinth. To this journey the cir cuit of Crete and Nicopolis is likewife unfuitable. In Greece he flayed three months, ver. 3. which is much too fhort a time for an excurfion to Crete and Nicopolis." When he returned from Greece, ver. 3. 4. St. Luke ex- prefsly fays that he avoided going by fea, and that he again went through Macedonia, whence he embarked for Troas. Here again he could not have taken Crete in his way. Laftly, the voyage from Troas to Paleftine is defcribed fo very circumftantially by St. Luke, that- no one will venture to fuppofe in this voyage a vifit to the ifland of Crete. Ofthe three opinions therefore, in refpect to the time when St. Paul made a. voyage to Crete, the firft is cer* tainly the mofl eligible, and I believe the true one. SECT. III. Of the Jews in Crete, ST. PAUL's principal adverfaries in Crete were Jewsy. That, they were very numerous in that ifland appears from the Epiftle to Titus : but of their peculiar * See Ch. I. 10.14. r sect. in-. The Epiftle to Titus. 41 peculiar fituation and circumfiances at that time we have no certain accounts. Some centuries later, namely in the year 434, we know that the Cretan Jews became celebrated for their falfe Meffiah z : but on the circum fiances, which might tend to illuftrate the Epiftle to Titus, hiftory is filent. Perhaps however a part of what St. Paul fays, 2 Cor, xi. 24. ' Of the Jews five times received I forty ftripes fave one,' was inflicted on him by the Jews in Crete. It appears from Tit. iii. 9. that they not only engaged in various controverfies refpecting the Levitical law, which St. Paul declared to be abolifhed, but introduced ufelefs genealogies into their theology. Of what particular kind' thefe genalogies were, I am unable to determine: but perhaps they were not unlike to what we find in the Targum on the books of the Chronicles, publifhed by Beck and Wilkens, in which Anani, mentioned 1 Chron. iii. 24. is converted into the Meffiah. We fee from ch. iii. 13. that Apollos affifted Titus in the inftruction of the Cretans. Now as Titus was by birth a heathen, it is probable that Apollos was joined With him in the miniftry, as being an eloquent inter preter of the law, with which Titus could not have been acquainted. In none of his Epiftles does St. Paul fpeak in fuch fevere terms, as in his Epiftle fo Titus, of the Cretans, c- ii. 12 — 16. It is true that he ufes the words of their own poet Epimenides, in defcribing their falfity : but the very application implies that he thought the defcrip- tion juft, and that it was warranted by the actual ftate of the Cretans, efpecially of the Cretan Jews. * Bafnage Hift. des Juifs. Liv. VI. Ch. xv. p. 1281. 4Z The Epifiks to the Corinthians, c hap. xiv. CHAP. XIV. OF THE TWO EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. S E C T. I. Of (he city of Corinth: and when, and to whom, St. Paul wrote his firft Epiftle to the Corinthians. THE two Epiftles to the Corinthians appear to have been written about five or fix years after St. Paul's fecond Epiftle to the ThefTalonians, which was written at Corinth, while the Apofile was engaged in eftablifhing a Chrifiian community in that city. At Corinth he re sided a year and a half a : at the expiration of which period he took a journey into Afiab, vifited Ephefus, Jerufalem and Antioch % and then pafling through Galatia and Phrygia returned to Ephefus •", where he remained three years". During this refidence at Ephefus, and toward the clofe of it, St. Paul wrote his firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, as , appears from ch. xvi. 8. where he fays, 'I will tarry at" Ephefus until Pentecofl.' ' Further, that it was written at the Eafter preceding this Pentecofl appears from the expreffion ufed by St. Paul, ch. v. 7. ' ye are unleavened,' that is, ye are now cele brating the feafl of unleavened bread. Now St. Paul's departure from Ephefus after his'refidence of three years there, was about the year of Chrift 57 : confequently, about that time was written that Epiftle to the Corin thians, which is the firft of thofe, which are now extant. In the fubfcriptions to this Epiftle it is faid to have been written from Philippi, contrary to St. Paul's Own decla ration, which I havejuft quoted. This miftake arofe probably from a falfe interpretation of ch. xvi. 5. where the a Acts xviii. 1. 11. ¦> Ver. 18. c yer. 20 22. * Ch.xix. 1. e Ch.xx. 31. , sect. ii. The Epiftles to the Corinthians. 43 the Apofile fays, McweSoi/iuv yag Sn^ofjuai, which was underftood as denoting, ' I am now travelling through Macedonia;' though it evidently denotes nothing more than ' my route is through Macedonia.' The city of Corinth was fituated in Achaia, near the Ifthmus, which joins Peloponnefus with the reft of Greece. It had two harbours, which opened to the two neighbouring feas, one of them convenient for the Afiatic, the other for the Italian trade. This fitua- tion contributed greatly to the wealth of the city: and though the Roman general Mummius had levelled it to the ground, yet it rofe again, and gradually arrived at fuch a height of grahdeur, as to be entitled to the appel lation ofthe Capital of Greece. Julius Casfar had greatly contributed to its reftoratiOn, and had fent thither Ro man colonies. Near this city were celebrated the Ifthmian games ; and on this account St. Paul has many allufions to thefe games in his two Epiftles to the Corinthians. Thefe Epiftles were addreffed, not only to the inha bitants of Corinth, but likewife to the Chrifiian com munities throughout all Achaia, as appears from the beginning of the fecond Epiftle. There is a paffage in the firft Epiftle, ch. i. 2. from which one might almoft conclude that St. Paul's intention was, that they who conveyed this Epiftle to Corinth, fhould in their paffage fhew it to other communities. But an objection to this conjecture is, that St. Paul in many parts of this Epiftle feverely reproaches the Corinthians. To have fhewn it therefore to other communities would unavoidably, have provoked the Corinthians, which would have bten neither confiftent with St. Paul's general caution, nor with the profeffions, which he foon after made in his fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians f. I believe therefore that the paffage in quefiion, 1 Cor. i. 2. tm exhAho-jw t« ©£2 t»j sffn iv Kopti/S'tf, r)yi#flYA£i\u, therefore is here applicable, not to one, who> has fimply want of love, but to one, who has actual. hatred of Chrift, and who perfecutes his religion, fuch as St. Paul's principal adverfary, at Corinth. The very place likewife, in which this paffage is introduced, fhews that St. Paul alluded to a particular adverfary : for it is added immediately after the falutations to the brethren. In the fecond Epiftle, dh. xi> 4. is a remarkable paffage, in which St. Paul fays, * If he that cometh preacheth another Jefus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another fpirit, which ye have not re ceived, &c.' Perhaps therefore St. Paul's adverfary. pretended to be pofTefTed of the gifts of the Holy' Ghoft : and it is not improbable that, in order to feduce the Corinthians, he undertook limilar facts arid operations to thofe, which we have feen lately exhibited by Caglioftro and his affociates. I formerly fuppofed that Crifpus, mentioned Acts' xviii. 8. was St. Paul's principal adverfary. But this fuppofition is without foundation ; for St. Paul's prin cipal adverfary at Corinth was not originally an inha bitant of the place, but a ftranger, who carne thither after the foundation of the Chrifiian church there. Tli is /appears from 2 Cor. xi. 4. where he is called * sfX-jueMc : and the Apoftle probably alludes to hirn 2 Cor. iii. 1. where fpeaking of recommendatory let ters, he fays, that he flood not in need of them, as Voi. IV, D fomt 5© TfieEpifilSs to thrCdrinlhianT. chap, sta fome did. But if Crifpus was not St. Paul's principal -adverfary, he may have been one of thofe, who. oppofed the deligns of the Apoftle. Among the eminent teachers, above-mentioned, Crifpus Was the only one* W.ho ftill. remained in Corinth : and whoever ventured \6 oppofe himfelf to St. Paul muft , be fuppofed to havef. been a' man of fome eminence; ~ Now it was St. Paul's. ufual practice to falute by name all thofe* who parti cularly diftinguilhed themfelves in the community to' which he was writing ; but though Crifpus was- one of the few, which the Apoftle himfelf had baptized,! though he had occupied the eminent ftation of prefi dent of a fynagogue, and moreover was one of the earlieft converts to Chriftianity at Corinth, St. Paul not only fends no falutation to Crifpus at the end of this Epiftle, but particularly directs the attention of the Corinthians to the family of Stephanas1. St.- Paul's ; rejoicing, that he had baptized none, but Crifpus and Gaius, feems ftrangely placed in i Cor. i.t 14,' 15. For who would directly accufe him of having baptized in his own- name and not in that of Chrift? Perhaps he only intended to remind Crifpus in.an indirect: manner, that he was his immediate difciple, and had. been baptized by him. An objection to the fuppofi tion' that Crifpus was one of- St. Paul's adverfaries may be made from the circumftanee, that his name is mentioned in only two; inflances, in the whole New Teftament, that he, is mentioned in neither place with' the fmalieft mark of disapprobation* and in one of them b even in terms of applaufe, Yet it is ftill poffiblev that he afterwards became an adverfary. of St. Paul/ though. Stj Luke has. not mentioned it, efpecially«,as St. Luke has in moil cafes pafled oveF the hiftory' of- heretics in filencee.., It is fuppofed . by. many that the Nicolaus; mentioned Afts vi. 5. was the' founder- oi the heretical fed of the Nicplaitans ; yet St. Luke his .- mentioned.. -». 1 Cor. xvi. 15. "ASs xviii, ' ' * fee-above, Ch. viii. Sect. 2. sect. ii. The Epijlles to the Corinthians* ct mentioned, him there as a Chrifiian prOfelyte, and without giving the fmalleft hint, that he afterwards, became^ a heretic of the firft magnitude. It is there fore not impoffible that Crifpus likewife became a heretic, though it is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apoftles. St. Luke has in fact mentioned very few of St. PauPs adverfaries at Corinth, and of thofe iti particular, who denied the refurreclion of the dead, he has taken not the leaft notice. Nor muft we -forgefc that 'St. Luke did not accompany St. Paul to Corinth, but ftaid behind at Philippi: fo that many material events might have taken place in the Corinthian com munity, which never came to his knowledge. -5. A marriage of the moft abominable kind had? taken place in the Corinthian community, and approved by its members, to the great offence of the heathens. Namely, a man had married his father's wife, that is, his own flep-mother. Some. commentators, in order to aggravate the offence, pre-i tend that the lather was ftill alive, and that either the fbn had committed adultery, or that the father, had furrendered to him his wife. But as St. Paul has no 'where given the leaft intimation, that the father was ftill alive, this conjecture is without foundation : and therefore we muft take the expreflion ' father's wife* in the fenfe in which it is ufed in the marriage laws Of Mofes*, where it denotes ' a dowager .ftep-mother." They, who contend that the • father was ftill living,- appeal to 2 Cor. vii. 12. on .the fuppofitipn that he was ' the injured perfon' of whom St. Paul there fpeaks. But St. Paul might mean hunfelf, in the fame manner as in ch. ii. 5. he called himfelf aggrieved by the inceftuous perfon. Befides, if the father had been alive, when. the Ton married, he muft . have given his, content, and therefore no injury was done him. That he did not commit adultery againft the will of the ¦father, but that he was actually in poffeflion of the woman. £ Lev. xviii. $t The Epijlles to the Corinthians. CHa'p. xiv. tvoman, as his wife, appears from the phrafe yvmnut. *XttK According to the laws of the city of Corinth* this marriage would not have been permitted by the hea then magiftrate. For though the Athenian laws pet-; mitred marriage with very near relations, yet as foon as Greece became a Roman province, the Roman laws were introduced, and by thefe a marriage with a flep-i mother was ftridly prohibited. For want of autho rities I cannot ftridly determine what punifhment was1 annexed to a marriage of this kind under the reign of Nero, when St. Paul wrote this Epiftle. But in the time of Alexander Severus, the punifhment was De- portatio, or barfifhment to fome defblate ifland, when a man debauched a widow, who was too nearly related to him, to admit of a marriage with her. Marciafy who lived in the reign of Severus, fays, Inftitut. Lib. 1L Si quis viduam — cognatum, cum qua nuptias contra- here non poteft, corruperit, in,infulam deportandu> eft e. Hence ^6 may judge hdW fevere the laws would have been againft a man, who married his own ftep- mother ^ ' But how was" it poflible then under thefe circura* fiances to contract fuch a marriage at Corinth ? It could have been done only under the alleged fanctioii of the Jewifh law.- The Jews pretend thata profelytC by baptifm becomes a defcendant of Abraham, and' in fo ftrid a fenfe, that all former relations im mediately ceafe. Hence they drew this conclufion, * that a heathen was at liberty to marry his motheiy or his own fifler, as foon as fhe was regenerate by baptifm f.' Now the Jews were at that time permitted to live according fo their own laws 8 : and the Chrift tians were then eonfidered as a Jewifh fed. In par*' ticulal J « See the Digefl. L. xlviii. ; tit. i8.' 5. '* ' f-See>Maimonides in Iiffure Biah,. cap. iv.^Selden de oinrf Heb. Lib. II. cap. 18. and De jure nat. et gent. Lib. II. cap. 4. * Jofeph. Antiq. Lib, xvi. & *-, • sect. ii. The Epi files to the Corinthians. .; 53 ticular the privilege of marrying according to their Own cuftoms, and without any regard to the Roman civil law. they retained till the time of Theodoftus, who deprived them of it in the ftatute entitled De Judaris ¦ et Cffilicolis11 where we find the following claufe, * Nemo Judeeorum morem fuum in conjundionibus retineat, nee juxta legem fuam nuptias fortiatur.' The inceftuous marriage therefore, of which St. Paul com- p)ains? might be folemnized, to the great offence of the heathens, under the fanction of Judaifm Or1 Chrif- •tianity. And the Corinthian community had approved it, ^probably beeaufe the Jewifh teacher, who "oppofed St. Paul, had defended it by arguing from the jewifh dodrines of baptifm and regeneration. 6, It was uluat among the primitive Chriftians, in imitation of the Jews, to appoint arbitrators, when one Chrifiian had a complaint againft another. Vitringa, in' bis treatjfe De Synagqga vetere, Lib. III. P. i. c. 13. p. 816. has quoted a law of Arcadius and Honorius, by which the Jews were indeed forbidden to hold courts of judicature, but were permitted to have ar-. bjtrators elected with the opnfent of both parties, whofe decifion the Roman magiftrates were bound tq fupport and execute. ' Si qui vero ex his communi padione ad fimifitudinem arbitrorum apud Judzeos in civili duntaxat negotio putaverint litigandum,. fortiri eofum judicium jure publico non vetentur. Eorum etiam fententias j'udices exequantur, tanquam ex feri- tentia cognitoris arbitrj dati fperint". As the Jews •poffeffed this privilege fq long ^.fter the deftrudion of Jerufalem, we may conclude, that they enjoyed it before that time in ftill greater extent. And this in ference is confirmed by a much more ancient Refcript of Lucius Antonius to - th^ Sardinians, in which this privilege is reprefented as having been enjoyed by •* In the feventh book of the Theodolian code, • ' This law, which Vitringa has quoted inaccurately, is ;n Lib. 1„ / Cod. tit. g. leg. 8. de Judsis et Cslicolis. - ". " »3 j4 The Epiftles to the Corinthian's. Chap, xiv. by the Jews, and is further- fecured to them. The words of this Refcript, as" quoted by Jofephus11, are as follows. ' Trie Jews have reprefented to me that they have, had from the very beginning their own af- fembly ' according to the cuftom of their anceftors, and their own place, where they fettled difputes among 'themfelves. As they have now requefted that the fame be further granted, them, I determine that leave be given to them.' The Chriftians, as being, reckoned among the Jews^ had a right to exercife the fame privilege: fo that, the Apoftles did not infringe the power of the magiftrate, when they direded the Chrifiian communities to decide all civil contefts among them felves by Chrifiian arbitrators. But the Corinthian Chriftians, to the difgrace of their religion, brought ;. their complaints before the heathen magiftrate m, pro bably with the view of injuring the perfon accufed" either by the aid of fome unjuft laws, or by mifrepre- fenfation in the pleadings, which could not have beeti praftifed with fuccef6 before a Chrifiian arbitrator, who decided merely according. to equity. i From the expreflion ufed by St. Paul, i Cor. vi, i. ] ( Dare any of you,' we may conclude that the fault, which he cenfures in the Corinthians was new and unufual. It is probable therefore, that they were not Gentiles, but Jews, who, regard4efs of their own cuf- toms and privileges, had appealed to heathen judica tures. < 7. In mofl other Chrjftian communities, there was a diffenfion between the Jewifh and Gentile converts, beeaufe the former, though they had embraced Chrif tianity, ft;l! adhered to the Levitical law. But tbe Corinthian community is an exception. It is true,' that fome weak brethren at Corinth fcrupled f'o partake' ¦ of meats, which had been offered to idols, a§ appears from 1 Cor.. x:i24— -30. But as St. Paulrather' warns _ ,.-,. then) . k Antiq. Lib. XIV. 10. 17. I Yvm^.. - ••Cor.vi. i. -'Ver. §. ~v v ; 5 •SECT. ir. The Epiftles to the Corinthians:. '^jj them againft an abufe of liberty, as will prefently ap pear, the majority of the Corinthian Chriftians. muft have been free from the common prejudices of the Jews, i ; I,t could not be unlawful ^n itfelf to eat what had been offered to idols; for the confecration of flefh orj ©f wine to an idol did not make it the property of the idol, an idol being in fad a non-entity, and incapable of property. This is the tlodrine taught by St. Paul, i Cor. x. 25. 26, 27. 19. 30. But fome of the'Co-- rinthians, not fatisfied with this liberty, thought.it lawful to yifit the heathen temples, which were fre quently places of riot and debauchery, and to partake* of the offered facfifice, amidft the praifes which were fung to the heathen gods0. This was an adual parti cipation of the idolatry; and fuch perfons were of courfe confidered by the heathens as having joined in- ' their worfhip. St. Paul therefore judged it necefiary to warn the Corinthians againft idolatry, which he has done efpecially 1 Cor. x. 7. 2 Cor. vi. 14 — 17. Whether an ad be a religious teft, or not, depends. on the circumfiances and place of its performance. If I eat a wafer in my, room, it fignifies nothing : but if I eat it before a Romifh altar, I avow myfelf a member of the church of Rome. , t The diffolute liberty of fome members of the Co rinthian community went ftill further. The majority of the heathen world confidered' the indulgence of fenfual appetites as a matter in itfelf indifferent. Venus had a temple at Corinth, in which a fhoufand women were kept,' in: honour of the goddefs, and for the gra tification of her adorers p. Some of the Corinthian Chriftians were difpofed to join in this worfhip: arid - the maxim ' that all things were lawful9,' which related p 1 Cor. viii. 10. x. 20. 21. 22. p See Strabo, Lib. II. c. 16. and Molhelrn's Expofitiori of th,e' firft Epiftle ta"the Corinthians,; p. 8-- lo. v ' * 1 Cor. vi. 12. 13. -- - ' '• B4 $6 The Epiftles to the Corinthians. - chap, xiv, only to clean and unclean meats, they extended like-* Dvife to fornication. St. Paul therefore judged it ne- ceffary to cenfure this vice, and to pronounce it un-. lawful. The fame fcandalous tenets had taken place at Pergamos, when St. John wrote t,he Apocalypfe, as appears from ch. ii. 14. 8. The public worfhip of the primitive Chriftians was very different from our own. In our churches the ' minifter only has a right to fpeak and explain the fcriptures: but in the primitive churches this privilege, tfV-as not confined to a particular order, every one having a liberty to fpeak in public, for generaledin% cation'. This regulation of the 'Chrifiian worfhip was, like other inftitutions, originally, derived from the jewifh fynagogue, in which every one, who was qualified for the talk, with the permiflion of the prefident. of the ^nagogue, might read and expound the law \ But as many ofthe primitive Chriftians had received extra ordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoift, it was their cufton^ to edify the congregation by fpeaking alternately'. Some, who had received the gift of tongues, fpake publickly in foreign languages, and by the exercife of this gift' proved the divine origin or the Chriftian re-: Jigion u : others again expounded what thefe had de livered w. This had likewife fome analogy to the cuftom * Altmann, in his Obfervationes in Epiftolas ad Ccyinthios, p. 14, denies this: and quotes the inftance of Alexander, who was blamed fqr permitting the celebrated Origen to fpeak publickly in the church, before he was ordained pried. But we mull not argue from thepraftice of the Chriftian church in the time of Origen, to its practice in the time of the "Apoftles. Before the clofe of the third century, the cuftoms of the Chriftian churches were materially altered, the authority of the clergy was increafed, and the extra^ ordinary gifts, with which even the illiterate laity were fometime! endowed, had long ceafed. ' Luke iv, 16. 17. Acts xiii. 15. 16. Vitringa de Syn. vet, Lib. III. cap. 7. p. 047. * 1 Cor. xiv. « yver. -, a, 4. 5. 13—19. * Ver. 13. . . , «ect. ii. The Epiftles to the Corinthians. 57 cuftom in the Jewifh fynagogues, of reading the law in the Hebrew, which was become a dead language, and of expounding it in the language underftood by the congregation. Some prophefied x, that is, they fpake in a known language, at the inftigation of the Holy Ghoft: others endeavoured to explain their prophecies, and to determine the time pointed at by the fpirit of Chrift? which was in them J. Some prayed, as they were immediately infpired by the fpirit of God z. The • Spirit which formerly animated David, when he cele brated in facred hymns the praifes of his creator, taught them likewife to praife God in fpiritual fongs\ If any one of the congregation felt an impulfe from the Holy Ghoft, to fpeak in public, he was permitted, and the reft were obliged to be filent while he fpake b. In thefe cafes even a woman was allowed to fpeak in public, as appears from 1 Cor. xi. 5. which at other times was prohibited*: for, when they fpake by infpiration, they were not properly the fpeakers, but the Holy Ghoft, If none of the congregation felt an impulfe from the Holy Ghoft, then probably in imitation of the Jewifh cuftom,. a portion of fcripture was read accompanied with an expofition' arid an exhortation d. What St. Paul has faid of prophecy in the Corinthian Church fome commentators underftand as denoting only an expofition of Scripture. But this ufe of the word ¦s?£Q ' 8ECT. ii. . The-Epiftles to the Corinthians.- y 59 the Jews'1: and from the Jews it was transferred to the Chriftians, who covered their heads whenever they fpake in the public congregation. This gave the Chrifiian church a ridiculous appearance in the eyes of the Greeks: and it was at the fame time a fuperftitious cuftom, though the Jews and feveral Romans gave it a fpecious- interpretation, by faying that they covered their faces, in reverence to the Deity whom they adored. 1 p. In the Eaftern countries, the women are obliged to live extremely referved, and they refide in the inner- moft part of the houfe, where no man is permitted fo approach them : and whenever they go out, they are obliged to cover themfelves with a veil, Among the Greeks, the Spartans only excepted, the women led folitary lives in the Gynaeconita;, as Cornelius Nepos relates in his Preface: and when they went out, they '•likewife veiled themfelves. When a .Grcok woman mar ried, the bridegroom had not aright to. take off her veil till the day after the wedding, for which reafon this day was called oivxux^vTrm^x '. But they relaxed from this feverity at the feftivals inftituted 'in honour uf their Deities, at which the Grecian women appeared with their faces uncovered : and this is the reafon, that in the Greek comedies love generally begins in a temple. Under thefe circumfiances, it was a difgrace for Chriftian women to uncover themfelves during the time of divine fervice, and to prefent themfelves not only in a manner unufual at other times, but like, women of -,, ? • bad h This has been fliewn by Lakemacher, in his Obfervationes philo logical, P. HI. Obf. z. i muft remark however one miftake, which he has made in his interpretation of the two following lines of Virgil's iEneid, Lib. 111. 406. Ne qua inter fanftos ignes in honore Deorum -Hojiilis fades occurrat, et omina turbet. By brflilis fades he underftands ' the face or fight of an enemy,' as of Diomedes or UlyfTes, as he himfelf inftances. But hoftilis fignifies here • inaufpicious,' and is a very ufual expreflion in Roman aUgury, as every one k.nows> wn0 's acquainted with Cicero's books, de pivinatione. ' 5 See this word in the Index to Hudfon's Longinus. 60 The Epiftles to the Corinthians. chap. xiv. bad charader among the Jews k. Yet the Chriftian, women at Corinth uncovered their heads, when they prophefied1. This again, was probably an imitation of heathen cuftoms : for not only the Bacch^e did the fame, but other pretended propheteffes uncovered their heads and difhevelled their hair, in order to fhew their facred fury and cnthufiaftic rage m. The reader therefore will. not think it extraordinary, that St< Paul in the eleventh chapter of the firfi Epiftle to the Corinthians fhould oppofe fo fuperftitious and offenfive a cpftom. n. In the exercife of extraordinary gifts many things' were done, which obftrueted general edification. Some, who were vain of their gifts, abufed them. in fuch a manner, as to prevent other members from fpeaking in the congregation". This was 'not pradicabje in the cafe of all gifts: no one, for inftance, could prophefy, if the Holy Gho'ft did not infpire him., But the gift of tongues was fo conferred, that whoever poffefied it could fpeak at all times in foreign languages, without waiting for a frefh infpiration. Confequently this gift was the mofl liable to abufe, and therefore St. Paul in the four- teenth chapter endeavours to regulate the ufe of it, and likewife to fhew that it is not the mofl important gift of the Holy Ghoft. Some commentators fuppofe that St. Paul's principal adverfary was a Jew, who was particu larly vain of fpeaking Hebrew. If this be true, we muft conclude that he was an impudent impoftor, who laid claim to gifts, which he did not poffefs, and endeavoured, to k See Numb. v. 18. 2 Sam. vi. 20. and Bayle's Dictionary. Art* Babylon. . ¦ ' ' 1 Cor. xi. 5. m Thus Virgil fays, JEueid. Lib. IV. 509. '¦ — '¦ Crines erfufa facerdos, Ter centum tonat ore Dcos. And Lib.VI. 46. 1 — — — ¦ Cui talia fantj Ante fores fubito non vultus non color unus, Non comtte -manfere coma. » 1 Cor. xiv. 30—33. sect. h. The Epijlles to the Corinthians. , jfii to make the credulous and illiterate believe, that a lan guage, which was learned by every well educated JeWj had been communicated to him by the fupernatural in tervention ofthe Holy Ghoft". ' 12. In the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians we find the plaineft indications, that they celebrated Sunday. They affembled on the firft day of the week (xxrx pinti <-*££«- tuvp) : and the expreflion kv^xXw Sunvov, i Cor. xi. 20. may be tranflated, as in the Syriac verfion, * a meal which is proper for the Lord's day,' or, ' a Sunday meal.' In the controverfy relative to the celebration of Sunday, it is extraordinary that this translation of xu^.axo* Sseifvot in fo ancient a verfion as the Syriac ftjould never have been quoted. On this fubjed the reader may confult Pliny's Epiftles, Lib. 3C Ep. Xcvii. yt and Bohmer's DifTertatio prima juris ecclefiaftici antiqui ad Plinium. On Sunday therefore it was the pradice of the primi tive Chriftians to celebrate the Lord's fupper: and this •Was preceded by their Agapse, or feafts of love. Boh- mef, in his Diflertatio quarta juris ecclefiaftici antiqui ad Plinium, has fo fully explained this matter, that it is Unneceflary to fay any thing further on it. The eleventh chapter of the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians fhews that thefe Agapje were cuftomary alfo at Coririth. 13. The Jews, who lived out of Paleftine, were chiefly engaged in trade, and were in general in more affluent circumfiances, than thofe, who refided in Judsea, to whom they ufually lent an annual relief. Now as the. Gentile Chriftians became brethren to the Jews, and partook of their fpiritual riches, St. Paul thought it equitable that the Greek Chriftians fhould contribute to, the fupport of their poorer brethren in Jud-ear. When he was at Jerufalem, he had promifed Peter, and James, that he would colled alms for this purpofe^' : and ac-! cordingly ' 8 See 1 Cor. xiv. 37. 38. * 1 Cor. xvi. 1. compared withMatth. xxviii. 1. 1 Vitringa de Syn. Vet. Lib. III. P. I. c. 13. ft Rom. xv. 36. 27,- 3 Gal. ii. iov 6i' The Epiftles fd the Corinthian's'; chap. XiV, cordinHy we find that he made a collection among the1 Chriftians at Corinth '. 14. Some of -the Corinthian Chriftians denied the refurredion of the dead". If St. Paul's principal adver fary at- Corinth, was a Sadducee, it is not extraordinary that the Apoftle fhould have met with oppofition on this dodrine. One ofthe mofl fpecious arguments againft the refurredion of the dead feems to have been founded On the u'nfitnefs of our grots body, and efpecially of fome of its member's, for eternal life : an argument, to which St. Paul has replied, 1 Cor. xv. 35. In like manner the Sadducees had attempted to filence Chrift w: but the adverfaries of this doctrine at Corinth made ufe perhaps of other arguments, and on the principle that evil derived ;ks origin from matter, contended that a re-union with finful matter could be of no advantage to a pure and intelledual foul. Sect. hi. Of the Epiftle of the Corinthians to St. Paul. THE more immediate occafion of St. Paul's firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, namely of thofe which are now extant, was an Epiftle which he had received from the Corinthians by the hands of Stephanas, Fortu- nafus, and Achaicus \ St. Paul had already warned. them in a former, Epiftle, ' not to company with forni cators V This Epiftle is now loft : for though we have an Epiftle of St. Paul to the Corinthians in the Arme-'' nian language, which was publifhed by the two Whifj tons, and annexed to their edition of Mofis Chorenenfis Hiftoria Armenica, yet Mofheim in his Expofition of the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians z rightly judges that this 1 1 Cor. xvi. 1 .—4. » 1 Cor.; xv. 12. » Matth. xxii. 24—28. * 1 Cor. vii. 1, xvi. 17. 1 Ch. v, 9. * Pag. 19. « ssct. ill; The EpiftleS to the Corinthians. 63 this is afpurious produdion.' That St. Paul had really written an Epiftle to the Corinthians before he wrote that, which we .call his firft Epiftle % is evident from' what- a Dr. Stofch in hisaboVe-qtfoted treatife, De Epiftolis Apoftolorum non deperditis, p. 75. has taken great pains to fhew, that St. Paul by B'yp*4'a vfjttw £v tn sTrrroAw, yM c-vvtxiva.iJi.syvvcrQctt •woptots, I Cor. v. g. meant no other than the Epiftie, which he was then writing. He- contends that the Aorift ty^a.-^a may1 be taken in the prefent, as well as in the pall time. But even if this be admitted, it will not be fufhV -dent for his purpofe : for in order to make typutya, applicable to whac we call the. firft Epiftle, it muft be explained of what St. Paul was ther*. going to write, an explanation of which an Indicative Aorift is furely incapable. Befides, if St. Paul had meant to fay, ' in this Epiftle/ he would hardly have uled e> t» tirtrohri. If we read the whole paffage, i Cor. v. 9— -n. in connexion, the matter will become ftill more certain. ' I wrote to you in an Epiftle, liot to company with fornicators : yet not.altogether with the fornica tors of this world, or with the covetou?, or extortioners, or'vvith idola-; ters ; for then muft ye needs go cut of the. world. But now have I written unto you, not to keep company, if any man, that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard : with fuch an one no not to eat/ It is evident therefore from what St. Paul himfelf fays, that it was his intention in the Epifile wnich he was then writing to give a clearer explanation of the words, *. not to company with fornicators,' which he had written elfewhere,- and which perhaps had been taken in a fenfe not meant by the Apoftle. . He explains therefore and fay6, that they. were not to be underftood of * fornicators of this world, &C. for then muft ye heeds go out of the world.' Confequently, all the paffages, which Dr. Stofchhasfelected from the firft (as it is called) Epiftle to the Corinthians, relative to un- thaftity, are foreign to the purpofe. The only part of the whole* Epiftle, which appears to be applicable to the prefent fubjectis 1 Gor. v. 1—8. the paffage immediately preceding that, with which we are now concerned. This paffage contains indeed St. Paul's command to expel from the community the inceftuous perfon : yet it cannot be the paffage, which he had in view, when he faid ver. 9. ' I wrote to you' in an Epiftle, not to company with fornicators.' For in the firft' placey it does not contain the words, of which St. Paul gave an explanation: and when a difficult or ambiguous expreflion is to be explained, the words in quefiion mult be retained, for if it be quoted in other terms, the explanation is nOthing« Nor does it contain them even in fub- llance : for it contains nothing, from which an inference can be drawn,"' that all intercourfe in civil fociety with perfons of unchalte character muft be avoided. We muft conclude therefore that the words; ' npt. t.o company with fornicators/ which are not in St. Paul's ftrft Epiftle now extantj .had be«i ufed by the Apoftle in- a preceding Epiftle, in; ^yhifih perhaps he had cautjqned them, in general terms,, and; without;, entering into.particulars, no^to 'Mermen whofe lives were„openJy ¦*?-. ¦ >. 1 ,.-¦».. ¦¦ .- - .. • '"vicious 64 The Epiftles to the Corinthian's. cuA*. xnr» what Mofheim has faid in his Note to i Cor. v. 9.. In this Epiftle were contained feveral things, which the! Corinthians did not' Undefftand, and of which they , defired an explanation. At the fame time1 thev defired that Apollos would come to them, to which St. Paul anfwers, ch. xvi. 12. On the general contents of tliis Epiftle I fhall not hazard a conjedure ; but of a part of it we may form fome judgement, from the queftions, which the Corin thians, in anfwer to it propofed to the Apoftle. Thqfe queftions were r 'i ,' 1. Whether it were, in general, good and commenda* ble to marry. 2. Whether it Were necefTary to feparata from an unbelieving contort. The former. of thefe queftions was divifible into two, each of which required a diftind anfwer, the one relative'; to virgins, the other to widows : for, when a widovtf married again, it was confidered by the heathens as a breach of propriety b. ¦:. But who was there at Corinth, that could entertain any doubt of the lawfulnefs of marriage ? The ruling' party of the Chriftian community in that city had cer-' iainly no fuch doubt : for they had approved even of an inceftuous marriage, and their condud was fuch, that- - the Apoftle had judged it necefTary to caution them Againft fornication. It. appears then, that only fome few members of the Corinthian community, whofe con sciences were tenderer, than their minds were ftrong, had fcruplesin regard to matrimony rand this is probably, the reafon why the , Apoftle anfwers the quefiion with |entlenefs, that he might not expofe to fhame thofe tyho had propofed ft. If the fame doubts had been •)' - ftarted, Kjciaus, like that ofthe inceftuous- perfon, to continue members ofthe Corinthian community. ' As the general expreflion, which he had ufed through motives of delicacy had not produced its proper effect, he was obliged in his next Epiftle to point out whom he meant in particular. At the fame time, he explained and limited the command in fuch a manner, that it fhould not be underftood , as containing an abfolute pre** ^bition to engage in common tranfacttons with men pf bad charafter, » Vittinga de Syn. Vet. iib. III. P. I. c. 4. p. 6j8— ^61, sect. in. The Epijlles to the Corinthians. 65 ftarted at Ephefus or Coloffe, where the adverfaries of matrimony grounded their objedions on principles, which were injurious to morality c, the anfwer of .St. Paul would probably have been different. On reading what the Apoftle has written, 1 Cor. vii. 6. one might conclude that the opponents of thefe fcrupulous perfons at Corinth had gone too far on the other fide, and main tained not only the lawfulnefs, but the abfolute neceffiry of matrimony, a pofition which may be fupported by fpecious arguments, and is agreeable to the dodrine of the Pharifees. If no one had gone thefe lengths, the Apoftle would not have thought it necefTary to fay, that he permitted, but did not command matrimony. The feventh chapter of St. Paul's firft Epiftle would be much more intelligible, if we had a precife know ledge of the objedions, which fome of the Corinthians had made to matrimony. The rejedion of a flate of life, which is necefTary for the propagation of the human fpecies, and the notion of a certain holinefs in celibacy, which began at an early age to infed the Chriftian church, undoubtedly took its rife in fome heathen phi- Jofophy. It certainly had not its origin in Jadaifm; for the Old Teftament is highly favourable to marriage, and reprefents a numerous progeny, as one of thegreateft ble'flings. It is true that the Effenes, who thought matrimony unworthy of a wife man, were a Jewifh fed : but this dodrine they derived from the Oriental ' philofophy, not from the Jewifh religion. Nor do any of the precepts of Chrift, reprefent matrimony in an un favourable light, or celibacy as a flate of greater holinefs. Egypt and the Eaft were the countries, which gave birth to thefe fuperftitious notions, and afterwards generated the race of monks. If we examine the principles on which the Effenes, and the ftill later Manichseans, ob jected to matrimony, we may, by comparing them with St. Paul's anfwers, form fome notion of the parti cular objedions, which had been made to matrimony at Corinth. Some * See Col. ii. and 1 Tim. iy. Vol, IV. E 66 The Epijlles to the Corinthians, chap. xiv. Some heretics, who made their appearance at a later age, but who derived their notions from a more ancient' Oriental philofophy d, not from the Chriftian religion, rejected matrimony as being ordained by the Creator of the world, whom they confidered either as an evil Spirit, or at leaft as a fpirit, who was not omnifcient. Such an objedion would affed the very foundation of Chriftianity, which reprefents the Creator as the fupreme and all-wife God. But it does not appear that this objedion had been made at Corinth : for St. Paul's anfwer contains nothing, which is diredly oppofed to it, He is equally filent on another objedion, which the Manichasans and others made to matrimony. Thefe confidered the foul as pure and innocent, and afcribed the origin of , fin to the grofs matter, of which the body was compofed, and which from its very nature was wholly incapable of being brought to a flate of perfedt. purity. Now fince the foul was imprifoned during the prefent life in this grofs body, and the procreation of children occafioned fuch imprifonments, it was the duty , of a wife man to abflain from it. This objedion would have again affeded the foundation of Chriftianity, and would have merited a' feverer anfwer than was given by St. Paul: for on the very fame principles the Refurrec-r tion of the Dead muft be confidered as a misfortune, and as a frefh imprifonment of the foul, which had been de-. livered by death from its former flate of confinement. Nor do the Corinthian aclverfaries of matrimony ap pear to have objeded to it on account of the fenfual pleafures, which attend it : an objedion, which would likewife have produced evil confequences, as it is the offspring of a. gloomy and unnatural fyflem of morality,; At leaft in St. Paul's anfwer there is nothing, which- ,; implies this objedion. Many ancient fathers, as well as the ancient heretics confidered fenfual enjoyments, and the pleafures even of the marriage bed, as a fin; and arguing therefore from the caufe to the effed, they afferteQ * See ?eaufqbre liiftoire de Manichee et du Manicheifme. Liv.vii* ch. 3. 4. sect. in. The Epijlles to the Corinthians. 6j afferted that every child was therefore a creature of the devil. But thefe notions were not entertained by the Corinthian adverfaries of matrimony, as appears from i Cor. vii. 14. For there the Apoftle anfwers the quef tions, whether children born of parents, of whom one only was a Chriftian, and the other a heathen, were holy : which implies that the Corinthians had no doubts on this fuhjed, when both the parents were Chriftians, and confequently that they did not believe that children, born of Chriftian parents were creatures of the devil. Further, it is evident from what St. Paul hasfaid, 1 Con, vii. 32 — 34. that the Corinthians did not confider the pleafures of matrimony as a crime. ' There remains therefore no objedion, which the Corinthian adverfaries of matrimony could have made, but one of the following kind, which is the moft inno cent, and has no bad effeds on the dodrines of faith and morality. ' Matrimony is a very precarious flate, in which we facrifice a part of our liberty and enjoyments, in which we muft exped to fuffer various inconveniences, and are expofed to the caprice and weaknefs of the per fon, with whom we are united. If the choice, which we have made, proves to be a bad one, the inconve niences, to which we have fubjeded ourfelves, increafe in proportion to the evil difpofition and condud of our confort. Whoever marries therefore places his hap- pinefs in a fcale, without knowing on which fide it will preponderate. Further, the fupport and education of children is frequently a heavy burthen, A moderate income, which would enable a fingle perfon to live with comfort, is infuffieient to fupply the exigencies of a family: and therefore matrimony may reduce us to dif- trefs, and even to mifery. Again, the conftant attention to economical concerns, and the necefTary labour in pro curing the means of fubfiftence, fo completely occupy our time in a flate of wedlock, that We have very little left for the exercife of private contemplation, and the performance of religious rites. Whoever is wife there fore will avoid entering into fuch a flate : or if he has e 2 entered 68 The Epijlles to the Corinthians. / chap, xiv, entered into it, will endeavour, if poffible, to obtain a feparation, efpecially if the other party is an unbeliever.' In this manner, the Eflenes objeded to matrimony " : and its adverfaries at Corinth objeded probably in the fame way, ¦ St. Paul, in his anfwer to them, acknowledges more than once, that it is prudent not to marry : and advifes therefore all thofe to abflain from it, who do not feel themfelves under a neceffity of marrying. But on the other hand, fince mofl men who are in health, and in the prime of their life, are inclined to indulge a pro- penfity, which, though it frequently leads to inconvenient cies, is necefTary for the continuance of the human fpecies, St. Paul aflures them that it is ' better to marry than to burn.' To thofe who are already married he fays that it is unlawful to feparate : and he adds, that for thefe he had the command of the Lord, to continue in wedlock. For, whatever may be the inconveniencies attending this flate, yet, when we have' once pledged , our faith, we are bound to fulfil our engagements, SECT. IV. Contents of the firfi Epifile to the Corinthians. THIS Epiftle may be conveniently divided into the following fedions. i. The Introdudion, ch. i. i — 9. St. Paul expreffeS his latisfadion at all the good, which he knew of them, particularly at their having received the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, for the confirmation of the Gofpel. , . 2- ™ re.bukes the fedaries among them, and defends himfelf againft his adverfary, to whom moft of the Co. nnthians adhered, ch. i. 10. iv. 21 3. He £ivenTtSpSS vni Tfich **" EffeneS 0bJefled *o matrimony are quoted tLv }'H:J- 633~634- ed. Mangey. I have not SbjSnlccoTdiZt^ Phi,,°' but have chofen rather to Itateth? vojecuon according to our modes of thinking. sect. iv. The Epiftles to-the Corinthians.- 69 3. He orders them to excommunicate the inceftuous perfon, and to acknowledge no public fornicator as a brother, ch. v. 1 — 13. 4. He rebukes thofe, who brought their accufations before heathen judicatures, ch. vi. 1 — 9. " 5. He teaches the Corinthians that fornication is not a matter indifferent, ch. vi. 10 — 20. 6. He anfwers their queries relating to marriage, ch. vii. 1 — 40. 7. He inftruds them how to ad, in regard to idol offerings. He judges it finful to go to an entertainment in the temple of an idol, but not fo, to partake at another place of meats, which had been offered to idols. However he advifes abftinence even from this, if a weak brother be prefent, who would take offence at it. He ijluftrates the cafe by his own example, faying that he abftained from many things, which in themfelves were lawful, beeaufe he would not excite a prejudice againft -the Gofpel even in weak minds. He takes this occafion alfo to fhew, why he had accepted no prefents from the Corinthians, ch. viii. 1. xi. 1. 8. He cenfures the unufual drefs adopted by both fexesin prophefying, ch. xi. 2 — 17. and 9. The irregularities committed at their loye-feafts Ver. 18 — 34* and alfo 10. Their abufe of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoft, ch. xii. 1. — xiv. 40. 11. He aflerts the Refurredion of the Dead, ch. xv. 1-58. 12. He gives rules for the colledion of alms, pro- ¦mifes a vifit to the Corinthian community, and falutes fome of its members. ;;\:: * 3 7a The Epijlles to the Corinthians, chap. xrr. S E C T. V. Ofthe effetls of this- Epifile on the, Corinthians. THIS Epiftle produced on the different members of the Corinthian community very different effects. Many of them amended their condud : and mofl of them had fuch refped for the Apoftle, that they excom municated the inceftuous perfon f. They requefted the Apoftle's return with tears s, and became zealous for him, that is, they vindicated him and his office againft the falfe teacher and his adherents \ In fhort, they fhewed ftrong marks of an earneft repentance. Yet the falfe teacher retained his party, which now began to go greater lengths than before. We fee from the tenth,, eleventh,, and twelfth chapters of the fecond Epiftle, that they denied St. Paul's apoftolical miniftry : and they grounded this denial on what the Apoftle him felf had written. In a former Epiftle, probably in that which is now loft, he had fignified his intention of coming from Ephefus to Corinth, of going thence into Macedonia, and from Macedonia of again returning to Corinth '. But the unhappy flate of the Corinthian , church altered his intention k : fince he found that he muft have treated them with feverity. He was willing therefore firft to fend them a written admonition, and to wait fome time for their amendment. Hence he tells them, i Cor. xvi.. 7. that he then intended logo from Ephefus into Macedonia, and that from Macedonia he would make them a vifit ; which intention- he put in execution, as appears from what St. Luke has faid Ads xx. 1—2. On this condud of St. Paul the party of his adverfary made the two following remarks. Firft, they faid that he was very irrefblute in his condud, that what he determined one day he rejededj the -next, and that ' bis word toward them was yea and ' nay '.' How then, they argued, could fuch a man be a Prophet, raCor. ii. 5— n. vii. 11. s Ch. vii.. 7. i> Ch. vii. 7— n. * 2 Cor. i. 15—16. k ver. 2Ji 1 2 Cor# ;. l8. ' BecT v. The Epi files to the Corinthians. 71 Prophet, or an Apoftle ? If he were inverted with this character, he would not contradid himfelf, and recal to morrow what he promifed to day. This was a very fpecious objedion, and St. Paul has given it its full force, 1 Cor. i. 17. The objedions of the ancients, againft the divine authority of the Apoftles, and of the Gofpel, are in fad the mofl material : and the reader perhaps will be anxious to know how this objedion may be anfwered. 1. It cannot reafonably be expected of a Prophet, that he fhould be omnifcient, and that his divine infpi ration fhould extend to all -poffible objeds. He is divinely infpired with what he is to deliver to men in the name of God, but not with all the circumfiances of human life or of his future conduct. He is infallible, and cannot contradid himfelf in thofe matters, which he knows by infpiration : but in other refpeds, and when he fpeaks not in the name of God, he is no more than a man. This is the rational notion of a Prophet : and he is fo defcribed in the Old Teftament. Mofes himfelf was fallible, till he confulted Godm : and Nathan anfwered the quefiion of David, whether he fhould build a temple, in the affirmative, when he followed his own human judgement, but he difluaded David from. the undertaking, after he had had a divine vifion \ It was therefore a falfe conclufion, that St. Paul was not an" Apoftle, and that his Gofpel was not divine, beeaufe he had changed a former refolution. This is the fubftance of what St. Paul himfelf anfwers. 2 Cor. i. 18— 2z. where he declares, that however he had altered his in tentions he had made no alteration in his Gofpel, which God had declared to be divine by the communication of fpiritual gifts. ' 2. It is poffible to predid a thing,' which never takes place, without incurring the charge of falfhood or jm- pofture : namely when certain conditions are either exprefled, or tacitly implied. When, for inftance, I promife any man* that I will frequently vifit him, the condition m Numb, xxxii. 6—15. " 2 Sam. vii./ E4 72 The Epiftles to the Corinthians, chap, xiv. condition that we continue friends, and that my vifits are acceptable, is neceflarily implied. If we ceafe to be friends,, he will not accufe me of falfhood for ceafing to vifit him.' , The Prophets of the Old Teftament themfelves fome times foretold things under certain conditions, as Jonas for inflance foretold the deftrudion of Niniveh, which did not take place, ~ beeaufe the conditions, which de pended on the will of men, were altered. Thus St. Paul had formerly promifed the Corinthians, while he was on amicable terms with them, to return before he went into Macedonia, that he might a fecond *time impart to them the gifts of the Holy Ghoft °. But when the face ofthe things was totally changed at Corinth, and the Corinthians themfelves did not fulfil the condi tions, which St. Paul's promife prefuppofed ; when they had fallen into errors and extravagancies, which rendered it impoffible for him to impart to them the gifts of. the Holy Ghoft, he thought it necefTary to alter his route, and not to vifit them again, till his Epiftles had produced fome amendment. The other conclufion drawn by St. Paul's adverfary was, that the Apoftle was afraid to return. In anfwer to this objedion St. Paul fays that he had hitherto fpared this falfe teacher and his party : but that, if he came again, and found no ' amendment, he fhould ufe the power committed to him as an Apoftle, and puriifh fome of the offenders in a miraculous manner. This would afford a proof of his apoftolical authority, which how ever hewifhed fo avoid. 0 a Cor. i. i 5, StCT. Vi. The Epifiles to the Corinthians. 73" SECT. VI. Of the fecond Epifile to the Corinthians. SUCH was the ftate of the Corinthian church, when St. Paul after his departure from Ephefus vifited the Chrifiian communities in Macedonia p, and received from Titus, whom he had fent to Corinth, the account that the Corinthians had amended their condud q. It was about this time, (that is about the year 58 of the Chriftian ,Era), that he wrote his fecond Epiftle, as ap pears from 2 Cor. viii. 1 — 5. He fent it by the hands of Titus, who was invefted alfo with power to forward the colledion for the faithful in Judzea r. The fubfcrip- • tion mentions that he fent Luke with Titus, which is grounded on 2 Cor. viii. 18. where St. Paul fays, ' and we fent with him the brother, whofe praife is in the Gofpel, throughout all the churches.' Now this brother is explained by many ancient commentators of St. Luke : but this is not only mere conjedure, but one that is difficult to be reconciled s with Ads xx. 3 — 16. That, Titus was accompanied by two brethren, when he car ried St. Paul's fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians, is cer tain r: but who they were I cannot pretend to determine. Of the effeds, which this Epiftle produced, we have no circumftantial accounts : for the journey which St. Paul took to Corinth, after he had written this Epiftle, St. Luke has mentioned only in a few words, Ads Xx. 2 — 3. We know however that St. Paul was at Corinth after he had written this Epiftle, that the contributions, which he had ordered to be made for the, poor brethren in Jerufalem, were brought to him thither frdm different parts u, and muft have been very confiderable, fince St. Paul himfelf carried them to Jerufalem v :- fur ther, * Acts xx. 1. < 2 Cor. vii. 5 — 6. r Ch. viii. 6. • See what was faid on this fubject, Ch. vi. Sect. 6. 1 2 Cor. viii. 18—24. u Rom. xv. 26. w 1 Cor. xvi. 3. y4 The Epijlles to the Corinthians. cHap. xrv.» tber, that St. Paul ftaid feveral months at Corinth, and that he was greatly refpeded by fome of the principal members of that church, from whom he fent falutations in his Epiftle to the Romans \ »From this time we hear' nothing more of the adverfe party : and when Clement of Rome wrote his Epiftle to the Corinthians,^ St. Paul was confidered by them as' a divine Apoftle, to whofe authority he might appeal, without fear of contradiction. The falfe' teacher therefore muft either have been filenced by St. Paul in virtue of his apoftolical powers, and by an ad of feverity, which he had threatened, 2 Cor. xiii. 2— -3. : or this adverfary ofthe Apoftle had voluntarily quitted the place. Whichever was the caufe, the effect produced muft operate as a confirmation of our faith, and as a proof of St. Paul's divine miffion. SECT. VII. • Contents of the fecond Epifile to the Corinthians* THE contents of this Epiftle are the following. 1. St. Paul gives the Corinthians an account of bis fufferings to the time of writing this Epiftle, and of the comfort, which he derived from meditating on the Re furredion of the Dead, ch. i. 1 — 11. 2. He vindicates himfelf againft thofe, whorefufed to acknowledge him as a true Apoftle, beeaufe he had altered his refolution of going immediately from Ephefus to Corinth, ch. i. 12. ii. 4. 3. He forgives the inceftuous perfon, ch. ii. 5— n. and on this occafion tells the" Corinthians, how earneflly . he wifhes to hear an account of their amendment, ver. 12 — 13. 4. He treats of the office committed to him of preaching redemption, and highly prefers it to the office of preaching the law, probably beeaufe his adverfary had pretended * Ch. xvi, 22 — 2%. sect, vir,, ' The Epiftles to the Corinthians. 74 pretended to be a teacher ofthe law. This falfe teacher he at the fame time rebukes for the innovation of reading the kw, with his face covered. Further, he fhews that the fufferings, which accompany the Gofpel, are no difgface either to the Gofpel or its minifters, and gives a fhort abftrad of the dodrine, which he preaches, ch. ii. 14, ¦ — v. 2 1 . 5. He fhews that it is his office not only to preach redenvption by Chrift, but likewife to inculcate certain? duties, efpecially that of renouncing idolatry, which duty he enforces againft thofe, who attended the idol feftivals, ch. vi. 1 — vii. 1. 6. He endeavours again to win the confidence of the Corinthians, by telling them how kindly he was affec- tioned towards them, and how greatly he rejoiced at their amendment, ch.vii. 2 — 16. 7. He exhorts them to a liberal colledion for the Chriftians in Judsea. 8. He vindicates himfelf againft thofe, who contended that there was not fufficient proof of his divine million, and who imputed his caution at Corinth to the confcioufnefs* of not being a true Apoftle, ch. x — xiii. CHAP. XV. OF THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. S E C T. I. Of the time, when St. Paul wrote his firfi Epiftle t& Timothy. ABOUT the fame time that St. Paul wrote his fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians, or rather a fhort time ¦before it, he wrote his firft Epiftle to Timothy, asBenfon. has very clearly fhewn in his Prolegomena to this Epif- 5 ' ' tle< y 76 The firfi Epiftle to Timothy. chap, xv, tie, to which opinion Lardner likewife upon the whole accedes. Other critics maintain, that it was written about the year of Chrift 65, after St. Paul had been difcharged from his firft imprifonment in Rome,, and again vifited the church of Ephefus. This opinion, which is patronifed by Pearfon, le Clerc, Mill, and others, who grounded it merely on an indudion made from the common 'Greek fubfeription to this Epiftle y, is not very eafy to be reconciled fc with the notion of St. Paul's infallibility or his divine infpiration : for when, he took leave of the elders at Ephefus in the year 58, he aflured them that they would fee his face no more*. Now it is hardly credible that all the Elders at Ephefus died within the fpace of five, or even feven years: and we know from 1 Tim. i. 3. that when St. Paul wrote to Timothy, he had left him at Ephefus only a fhort time before. The principal arguments, by which Dr. Benfon has proved his pofition, are the following. 1. It appears plainly from the third chapter of this Epiftle, that no bifhops had been then appointed at Ephefus. St. Paul inftruds Timothy in the choice of perfons y n§o; T^oSeo? lErpu-rr) lyputyw alto AaoJixEia;, »jt;. Now were it true, that this Epiftie was written at Laoaicea, it was certainly written after the expiration of St. Paul's imprifonment: for before that time he had neveribeert at Laodicea, as appears from Coloff. ii. i. But this fubfeription is un doubtedly,, erroneous : for when -St. Paul wrote his firft Epiftle to Timothy, he had lately left Ephefus, and was gone, not into Phry- gia, but into Macedonia, as the Apofile himfelf fays, -I Tim. i. 3. Wetftein has quoted other fubferiptions, in which different, and more probable places are afli^ned. Forinftance, the fubfeription in one of Stephens's MSS. has Macedonia, and that in the Coptic verfion, to which may be added the Arabic verfion publifhed by Erpeniusi has Athens. " 'In the firft edition I reprefented it as wholly irreconcileable, which I here change into a more moderate expreflion, beeaufe it may be ob- jedled that Actsxx. 25. ('Ye all fhall fee my face no more') is capable of being interpreted in fuch a manner, as to denote that St. Paul would not fee all the Elders at Ephefus again affembled together, not thathe would fee none of thein again. , a Acts xx. 25. sect. I. The firft Epiftle to Timothy. jy perfons to be appointed to that office, and exprefTes his defire and intention of foon returning to Ephefus. Now he could not have in view an office, which had been already filled, and was then ' vacant : and, as it was the ufual pradice of the Apoftles, when/ they had eftablifhed a Chriftian community, to w,ait till they were acquainted with the conduct of its feveral members, before they feleded perfons to be bifhops, it feems as if none had been appointed at Ephefus, when St. Paul firft wrote to Timothy. But it is not probable, that he left the Chriftian community at Ephefus for a long time without governors. Now he departed from Ephefus, when he travelled into Macedonia and Greece, as ap pears from Ads xx. i. : and we fee from ver. 17 — 28. that on his return to Ephefus bifhops had been already appointed. Confequently this Epiftle muft have been written on his journey, and even at the beginning of it : for Timothy left Ephefus not long after St, Paul, as appears from Ads xx. 4. where we find him at Corinth in company with St. Paul, when the Apoftle left that city to Ngo again to Ephefus. In fad Timothy muft have come ftill earlier to, St. Paul, when he was travelling through Macedonia to Corinth : for the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians, which was written in Macedonia, was fent in the joint names of Paul and Timothy b. The firft Epiftle to Timothy therefore was written, as I ob ferved at the beginning of this fedion, a fhort time before the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians. - 2. Timothy, when St. Paul wrote to him his firft ¦ Epiftle, was in danger of being defpifed on account of his youth0. But he became an aflbciate of St. Paul at Lyftra d, fo early as the year 50, according to the com mon calculation, and perhaps according to a more exad calculation, ftill earlier e. Now when he was chofen by St. Paul, as an affiftant in the propagation of the Gofpel, the leaft age, which we can afcribe to him is that of twenty. Confequently, if the firft Epiftle to him was , written * 2 Cor. i. 1. c 1 Tim. iv. 12. J» Acts xvi. 1. * See Ch. xi. Sect. 1, yS The firfi Epiftle to Timothy. chap.xv. written- fo late as the year 65, he was not only at leaft thirty-five years of age, but had been a preacher ofthe Gofpel not lefs than fifteen years. Under thefe circum- Itances he could have been in no danger of being defpifed on account of his youth : but he certainly was fo, be fore he had reached his twenty-feventh year. I therefore agree with Dr. Benfon in dating this Epiftle at the time of St. Paul's journey into Macedonia mentioned Ads xx. 1. : but in what particular town it was written I cannot determine, nor is it of any import ance to the underftanding of the Epiftle. Now, if St. Paul wrote during this journey to Timothy at Ephefus,,", Timothy muft have returned to the Apoftle at Ephefus, after he had taken the journey from that city into Greece, which is mentioned, Ads xix. 21 — 22. 1 Cor. iv. 17. St. Paul was obliged to leave the Ephefian community ' fooner than he intended, beeaufe Demetrius excited .an, infurredion againft him. He therefore left Timothy behind him at Epheiusf, to re-eftablifh order in the church, to fill the ecclefiaftical offices, and to oppofe the falfe teachers. Now as Timothy knew perfedly well the charge which was committed to him, an Epiftle like this was not necefTary merely for his fake. But as fome of the Ephefians would not fubmit to him; and others intruded themfelves as bifhops and minifters, St. Paul wrote this Epiftle, which he might lay before them as a document, in which the Apoftle in veiled him with full powers. It may be confidered therefore as an Epiftle to the Ephe fians, as well as to Timothy, See ch. i. 3. 18. iv. 6. 12, 13. v. 23.: which paffages, and likewife feveral others in the Epiftle, receive a light from this obfervation. Of the perfon and parentage of Timothy we read an account, Ads xvi. 1—3. : and from various parts of the New Teftament we learn that he was almoft the conftant companion of St. Paul. f 1 Tim, i. 3. sect. ii. The firfi Epifile to Timothy. jy SECT. II. General remarks on the feci of the Effenes, who had already inculcated their doilrines at Ephefus, zvhen St. Paul wrote his firfi Epifile to Timothy. IT is abfolutely necefTary to be acquainted with the flate of the Ephefian church, in order to underftand the Epiftles of St. Paul to Timothy, and to the Ephe- fians g. But before we can form a true judgement of the flate of the Ephefiaii church, we muft acquire fome knowledge of the EfTenes, a Jewifh fed which begau to fpread itfelf at Ephefus, and to threaten great mifchief to Chriftianity: for which reafon the Apoftle in the above-mentioned Epiftles, and likewife in that to the Coloffiahs declared himfelf openly againft them. Among ancient writers, there are four, who have given fome account of this fed. Philo mentions them in the treatife, where he proves the maxim, that every virtu ous man is free, and defcribes them more fully in his effay on contemplative life. He has likewife fpoken of them in a paffage of his Apology for the Jews, which is quoted by Eufebiush. The name, by which he has called them in Greek, is ©£f xwevrxi, which in the Greek language fignifies what, EfTene fignifies in Egyptian, and is in fad nothing more than a tranflation of it1. He defcribes -them in a very favourable manner, which in Philo is by no means extraordinary, for they united the philofophy of Egypt, where Philo both lived and had been educated, with the dodrines of the Jewsfc. But that s To thefe may be added likewife the Epiftle to the Coloffians, to jvhich they have a great refemblance, h Praspar. Evang. Lib. VIII. 10. 1 See the Thef. Epift. la Crozianus, Tom. III. p. 168. k It is not improbable that he had the Effenes in view in thofe places, where he' defcribes the perfectly wife and virtuous man, who retires from the buftle-of the world to enjoy private contemplation. a 80 The firfi Epifile to Timothy. chap. xv. that Jofephus, who was educated in the fchool of the Pharifees, judged likewife very favourably of the Effenes may afford matter of furprife. He was probably de ceived by the appearance of fandity, which they affected, a fandity extravagant and inconfiftent with a rational fyftem of morals, which St. Paul therefore, who had a greater fhare of penetration, very properly condemned,. The place in which Jofephus treats molt fully of the EfietJes is, Bell. Jud. Lib. II. cap. 8. : but he has like- wife given fome fhort accounts of them in the following paffages, Antiquit. Lib. XIII. c. 5. § 9. L. XV. c. 10. § 4—5. L. XVII. c. 12. § 3. and L. XVIII. c. 1. § 5, all which paffages deferve to be read. Pliny in his Hifl, natur.,Lib. V. c. 17. has alfo given an account of the Effenes, and has related fome circumfiances, which are noticed, neither by Philo nor by Jofephus. Solinus, in his Polyhiftor, cap. 35. has repeated what Pliny had faid, but with an intermixture of error, and a fabulous addition. It is unnecefTary to quote the modern writers, who have written on the fed of the Effenes ' : but I cannot pais over in filence the controverfy which was conducted on this fubjed by the Jefuit Nicolaus Serarius on the one fide, and Joh. Drulius, and Jofeph Scaliger, on the other. The fimilariry of the fentiments of the Effenes to thofe of the church of Rome induced Serarius to feek for them an honourable origin. He contended there fore that they were Afideans, and derived them from the Rechabites mentioned in the Old leftament: at the fame time he afferted that the firft Chriftian monks were Effenes. Both of the pofitions were denied by his.antagonifts : but in refpcd to the latter, Serarius was certainly 'in the right. The Effenes were indeed a Jewifh and not a Chriftian fed : but it is evident from, the above-mentioned Epiftles of St. Paul, that to the great mortification of the Apoftle they infinuated them felves very early into the Chriftian church, ' Eufebius has fully fhewnm, that the monaftic life was derived 1 t> I. ¦ •• r r, • ft001 I'abncn Lux falutarjs Evangelii, cap. IV. p. cc, » Hift. Ecclef. Lib. II. cap, 17. sect. ii. The firfi Epifile -to Timothy. $'t from the Effenes: and, beeaufe many Chriftians adopted 'the manners of the Effenes, Epiphanius " took the Effenes in general for Chriftians, and confounded them with the Nazarenes, a confuficn to which the fimilarity of this name to that of the Nazarites of the Old Teftament might in fome meafure contribute. However it does no honour to the monaftic life to derive it from the Effenes : for St. Paul cautions Timothy againft this feet, and in the fourth chapter declares, that it would be the caufe of that great apoftacy, which had been foretold by the Spirit. The controverfy, which has been conduded relative to the Therapeutje, whom fome Writers diftinguifh from the Effenes*, is related by Mofheim in his Inflitutiones hiftorije Chriftianas majores, Ssec. I. P. i. cap. 2. §'13. Montfaucon and Helyot have attempted to prove them Chriftians, but the former has been confuted by Bou- hier. The late Dr. Lange in his two differtations De Thereapeutis in .iEgypto et Effenis, contends that they were nothing more than circumcifed Egyptians : but this opjnion has been confuted by Dr. Heumann. FrorfT the Thefaurus Epift. la Crozianus, Tom. III. p. 170. it, appears, that La Croze alfo confidered the Therapeutas as circumcifed Egyptians : and that Jab- lonfky intended to write on this fubjed, which however* he did not put in execution. » Hxref. XXIX. Vol. IV, 8z The firfi. Epifife to Timothy. chap. xv. SECT. III. Of the principal dotlrines and cufioms of the Effenes, againft whom St. Paul wrote his firfi Epiftle to Timothy, as alfo thofe to the Ephefians and ColoJJians. THE fcattered accounts, - given by Philo and Jofephus, of the Effenes, may be all explained 'from the principles of that philofophy-, which may be termed the oriental or the Gnoftic, "and which I prefume the reader has already learnt from eccle* fiaftical hiftory. It muft be obferved however, that the Effenes did not adopt all the peculiarities of this philofophy, for they confined themfelves chiefly to the moral part of it, which they received in its moft gloomy and monaftic form. That they rejected the fpeculative parts of this philofophy, efpecially what related to the creation, we may conclude from the circumftance that Philo has fo highly extolled them : which he certainly would not have done, if they had reprefented the Creator as ' a Spirit, inferior to the Supreme Being, and capable of error, beeaufe this dodrine of the Gnoftics is reprobated by Philo in the ftrongefl terms. The Effenes held the names of their angels as facred, and therefore not to be uttered. -Thefe angels were probably confidered as their mediators with God, in which refped the other Egyptian Jews, and even Philo himfelf, concurred with them. They abftained from blood : and thofe, who lived in Egypt would hot even offer a facrifke, beeaufe they regarded the flaying of beafts as finful. They con fidered wine as a poifon, which deprives men of their fenfes: and partook of no other food than bread, fait, water, and at the utmoft of hyffop. " SolinuS indeed • pretends that they ate dates : but he feemj to have .2 mil- sect. . ii r. The firfi Epifile to Timothy. S3 mifunderftood Pliny, from whom he copied, and who calls the fed of the Effenes ' Socia pajmarum,' that is, ' who dwelt near palm trees.' They even thought it dangerous to the foul to fatisfy the body. Many of them ate only once in three days, and fome only once a week : and this in the flight, beeaufe they efteemed it a work fit only for darknefs to relieve the wants of the body. They thought themfelves greatly' defiled after touching oil, or a young man, and in order to remove tbe ftain they carefully wafhed the place of contad. Mofl of them abftained from marriage, and thought it an obftacle to the fearch after wifdom. The places, in which they purfued their meditations, and which they held facred, were called povxrr^ix. All ornamental drefs they detefted. They maintained a perfed community of goods, and an equality of external rank, confidering vaffalage as a violation of the laws of nature. They believed the foul would live for ever : but they feem to have denied the refur redion of the body, which according to their principles would only render the foul fihful by being reunited with it. They attributed a natural holinefs to the fabbath day, beeaufe it is the feventh: and the number "feven re- fults from adding the fides of a fquare to thofe of a triangle. They obferved the fabbath therefore more ftridly than other Jews, and avoided as much as pof fible on this day to perform the necefTary offices of nature. They fpent mofl of their time in contemplation, which they called philofophical, and boafted of a phi lofophy pretended to be derived from their anceftors, with which the pages in Philo and Jofephus quoted in the preceding fedion abound, After this ftatement of the dodrine and manner of the Effenes, the reader will eafily perceive from the contents of St. Paul's firft Epiftle to Timothy, and of thofe to the Ephefians and -Coloflians, that they were written with a view of confuting the errors of this fed. f 2 Thefe 84 The firfi Epifile to Timothy. chap. xv. Thefe three Epiftles have a finking affinity to each other. The Epiftle to the Coloffians refembles that to the Ephefians both in its contents, and in its lan- guage, fo that the one illuftrates the other. In all three the Apoftle fhews the fuperiority of Chrift to the angels, and warns the Chriftians againft the worfhip of angels. He cenfures the obfervation of fabbaths, rebukes thofe, who forbid marriage^ and the. touching of certain things, who deliver commandments of men concerning meats, and prohibit them. He per mits Timothy to drink wine, blames thofe, who abftain from nourifhing their bodies, and enjoin various bodily cxercifes. He cautions his readers againft a philofophy, which teaches, all thefe things, and againft perfons, who affume a great appearance of wifdom and virtue. Further, the Apoftle delivers Hymenals over to Satan, beeaufe he pretended, that there was no refur redion of the flefh. Laftly, the very words, which Philo has ufed in defcribing the tenets of the Effenes, are for the mofl part retained by St. Paul. It is ma.ni- feft therefore that the Apoftle wrote with a view of confuting this fed. The only objedion which could be made to this opinion is, that the Effenes lived, as is generally fup pofed, in deferts and not in towns: whence it might be concluded that the church at Ephefus could riot have been infeded by them. ' But if this fuppofition'- were true, it would ftill be poffible that their doc: trines fpread from the retirement of the Effenes into the neighbouring cities; for inftance, from the deferts of Egypt into Alexandria. But the notion that the Effenes never refided in towns is a miftake. There is a paffage in Jofephus, Bell. Jud. Lib. II. $ 4. which puts the matter out of doubt : Mia ax i?w xurav woAif, «AA' tv lx.xs-n xxTGixstrt zroWoi, and a few ' lines after, KridefAUv cv ixxry tsoXsi rx Tuypxros efcxipiruf rtav fyvuv airo- (Jstxcu-rai, rx^svuv lo-flura x«» t« eTrnyiux. This objection therefore is devoid of foundation. sect. iv. The firft Epifile to Timothy. 85 S E C'T. IV, Of the more immediate caufe of the propagation of the Effene errors at Ephefus. ST. PAUL's firft vifit to Ephefus was on the jour ney, which he made from Corinth to Syria, as ap pears from Ads xviii. 19. and was about four years before he wrote his firft Epiftle to Timothy. He had then preached' the Gofpel the firft- time, at Corinth, and was travelling to Jerufalem, to perform a vow, which he had made. When he left Corinth it does not appear that he had any -intention of going to Ephefus, for St. Luke writes, Acts xviii. 18. that he fet fail for Syria. Some accident therefore unknown to us muft have brought him , to Ephefus. At this firft vifit he feems not to have preached to the Gentiles, on account probably of the fhortnefs of his flay: St. Luke at leaft fays nothing of any converfation at that time with heathens, and mentions only that he taught in the fynagogue. Some of the Jews requefted him to remain there, with which requeft he could not comply, but he promifed that he would foon return to them. Thefe Jews were either well inclined to Chriftianity, or had adually received it. He left Aquilas and Prifcilla at Ephefus, and travelled himfelf to Jerufalem. St. Luke indeed does not mention Jerufalem by name : but having related the Apoftle's arrival at Casfarea, ver. 22. he adds that St. Paul c went up, and faluted the church,' which ' going up ' fignifies the going up to Jerufalem, as my father has fhewn in his Differtatio de notione inferi et fuperi in chorographiis facris, In the mean time, as we fee from ver. 24. the elo quent and learned Jew Apollos arrived at Ephefus. St. Luke fays in the following verfe, that he was ' in- ftruded in the way of the Lord ' (wT^x/ipim mv oSov i 3 T* 86 The firft Epifile to Timothy. chap-; xv. t-8 Ku-ta), by which he means the religion of Chrift, The word xesTtij/npfo- reprefents him as having then only juft imbibed the principles of Chriftianity, not as a perfon then qualified, to be a teacher: though I will' not affert that St. Luke intended to defcribe him as, a catechumen, according to the ecclefiaftical fenfe of the term. That his proficiency in Chriftianity was at that time not very great, appears likewife from whatSr. Luke has added in the fame verfe, namely, that though he fpake and taught of the Meffiah from a knowledge of the Old Teflament, he had been initiated only in the baptifm of John. But as John the Baptift had taught his difciples that he was only the forerunner of the Meffiah, who would baptize with the Holy Ghoft, Apollos muft have expeded the gifts ofthe Holy Ghoft, though he did not know that they had been adually communicated. It is true, that when St. Paul came foon after to Ephefus, he met with twelve other perfons,, who, like Apollos, had been baptized only accordingto. the baptifm of John, and when queftioned by St. Paul, whether they had received the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, anfwered, ' We have not To much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghoft0.' Yet I cannot fuppofe that either they or Apollos were totally ignorant of the exiftence of the Holy Ghoft, or that they had never heard the name mentioned : and therefore I underftand their anfwer to St. Paul as implying nothing more, than that they did not know whether the great prQihife, was already accomplifhed, that the Meffiah would bap tize with the Holy Ghoft. Now this deficiency of Apollos in the doctrines of Chriftianity Was fupplied- by Aquilas and Prifcilla, who, on their arrival rat Ephefus, gave him further inftrudionsp. But even before Apollos had received the inftructions' of Aquilas and Prifcilla, he taught publickly in the Jewifh fynagogue at Ephefus concerning the Meffiah ', Hence: e Acts xix. 1—7. p Aas xviii¥ 2k t « Ver. 25—26. sect. IV. The firft Epifile to Timothy. 87 Hence it is not improbable, that the Effenes introduced themfelves into the church of Ephefus by the means of Apollos, who came from Alexandria, in the neighbour hood of which city, according to Philo, the Effenes were not only very numerous, but were held in high eftimation at Alexandria itfelf. It is true that Apollos* is not exprefsly faid to have been an Effene : but as he had been a member of that fed, which took its name from the Baptift, and this fed in many refpeds refem- bled that of the Effenes, efpecially in their ftrid fafts, it is highly probable that Apollos, before he was better inftruded, had fuffered himfelf to be blinded by that external appearance of wifdom and fandity, by which the Effenes made fo many converts. I have already obferved that befide Apollos, twelve other- perfons, came to Ephefus, who had been bap tized only according to the baptifm of John. St. Paul on his arrival there baptized them in the name of Jefus, and imparted to them the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, of which till that time they had no knowledge. From this laft circumftance one might almoft conclude that thefe perfons had lived in fome defert place: for who ever has been baptized, and taught to exped the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, muft have heard of their adual communication within the courfe of twenty years after Chrift's afcenfion, unlefs a total retirement from the world had cut off all means of information. Perhaps thefe twelve difciples were Egyptian hermits : or poffi- bly they had fpent the former part of their lives- in the defert pf Judaea, where John had baptized. NoW the . defert of Judsea, as well as the defert of Egypt, was a place of refort for the Effenes, who, according fa Pliny, were very numerous in the neighbourhood of Engeddi, near the Dead fea. It is therefore very pro bable that they were either Effenes themfelves, or at leaft that they had imbibed the principles of this fed. -¦ Now fince Apollos and thefe twelve perfons were the- firft converts to Chriftianity at Ephefus, we fee in what manner the Eflene tenets were introduced into f 4 the 88 The firft Epiftle to Timothy. chap, x v. the Ephefian church. I will not accufe them of an adual defign of propagating herefy : on the contrary, I am perfuaded that, after they had been fully in- ftruded, and had received fpiritual gifts, they embraced Chriftianity with great fincerity. But, as it is extremely difficult to eradicate entirely the principles in which we have been educated, it is not extraordinary that Effene notions were dififeminated in a community, of which men attached to this fed were the earlieft and principal members. > Further, it is not impoffible, though till further proof be given, it cannot be afferted as a fad, that the Jewifh exorcifts mentioned Ads xix. 13. who, during St. Paul's refidence at Ephefus, attempted to caft out evil fpirits by invoking ' the Lord Jefus whom Paul preached,' were likewife Effenes. For it is well known that the, Effenes applied themfelves to fuperftitious arts, and pre tended to have converfe with fpirits. Some of them laid claim fo the gift of prophecy, of which we find many inftances in Jofephus : others healed difeafes, and as Jofephus exprefsly mentions, made ufe of herbs for that purpofe, with the virtues of which they thought themfelves better acquainted than others. Now we know that the Jews afcribed almoft all difeafes to the' influence of evil fpirits. To cure a difeafe therefore was, according T:o their notions, to expel an evil fpirit : and it appears from the relation of Jofephus ', that it was one of their modes of expulfion to apply a ring to the nofe of the difeafed perfon, and to ufe a certain root, fuppofed to poffefs a magic power. Such arts. are well fuited to the manner of life and principles of' the Effenes. On the other hand it is not impoffible, that thefe exorcifts were Pharifees, who likewife enters tained thefe ( notions of exorcifm, as appears from Matth. xii. 24—27, That the Jewifh exorcifts at Ephefus therefore were Effenes, I advance only as a, gonjedure, and as a fubjed of further confideration, * Pell. Jud. Lib. VII. 2—23. sect. i. The Epiftle to the Romans. go CHAP. XVI. - OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, \/S E C T. I.' Of the date and occafion of this Epifile : and of Tertius, who ailed as St. Paul 's amanuenfis in committing it to writing. THE Epiftle to the Romans was written after St. Paul's arrival at Corinth, and at the time, when he was preparing to go to Jerufalem with the fupplies, which had been colleded in Macedonia and at Corinth". It was written therefore toward the end of the year 58. The journey of Phoebe from Corinth to Rome afforded St. Paul an opportunity of writing to the Roman Chriftians : but the motive, which induced him to write,, was the confideration of his duty, as an Apoftle of the Gentiles, to inftrud in the principal doctrines of Chriftianity the Roman community, which had been hitherto vifited by no Apoftle. As it was the cuftom of the Jews to corrupt the Gofpel of Chrift by various additions, St. Paul had reafon to apprehend, that the Romans would be doubtful whom they fhould believe, fince they had not received the Gofpel from any Apoftle Immediately commifiioried by Chrift. He therefore found it necefTary to lay before them a fhort abftrad of the principal truths of the Gofpel, which were in danger of mifreprefentation, -He didated this Epiftle to an amanuenfis, whofe name was Tertius, as appears from ch. xvi. 22. Some commentators have conjedured that this Tertius was the fame perfon as Silas, beeaufe VLbv in Hebrew fignifies { three.' But this. Hebrew word would he expreffed 5 Rom. xv. 25— -27. xvi. i. -ja IJie Epifile to the Romans. . chap. xvt. expreffed in Greek by lx>.os, not by SiA** : nor does ufr® any where occur as a proper name. Befides, as Tertius is a well known Latin name, it is wholly foreign to the purpofe to feek for a Hebrew etymology. Silas appears likewife to be a Latin name, and a contraction of /Silvanus : fo that between Tertius and Silas there is no connexion whatever. In fad the attempt to identify Tertius either with Silas or with any other perfon^ is very extraordinary, fince no reafon can be affigned why Tertius fhould not be confidered as having had a feparate exiftence for himfelf. La Croze hazarded a different conjedure, though of a fimilar kind, and contended' that Tertius was nothing more than a name of St. Paul, who bore the three names of Saulus, Paulus, and Ter tius1. Irk ch. xvi. 22. is ' I Tertius, who, wrote this Epiftle, falute you in the Lord.' Now if St. Paul him felf had been here meant, it would have been fufiicient to have faid, 'I falute you,' without any name: or if it was necefTary to exprefs a name, furely that would have been ufed, by which the Apoftle was already known to the Romans, and the paffage would have run thus, ' I Paul falute you.' Befides, as St. Paul had already faluted the Romans, ver. 16. a falutation in his own name in ver. 22. would have been wholly fuper- fluous. We may reft fatisfied therefore with knowing that the perfon to whom St. Paul didated his Epiftle to; the Romans was called Tertius : and it jg totally ufelefs. to afk any further queftions about him, for they never can receive an anfwer. * Left the reader fhould doubt, whether fo great a man as La Croze could advance fuch a conjecture, I requeft him to confult F, W. Roloff's differtation, De tribus Pauli nominibus, -printed at Jena. in 1731. sect. II. The Epifile to tjie Romans. 91 SECT. II. Of the foundation of the church at Rome, and its firfi teachers. THE foundation of the church at Rome, appears not to have been laid by an Apoftle. St. Paul had never been at Rome, when he wrote his Epiftle to the Romans^ as he himfelf fays, ch. i. 13.: and that St. Peter converted the Romans to Chriftianity, and then refided among them as their bifhop, has in mo dern times been fufficiently exploded as an empty fable. It is impoffible that St. Peter could have been in Rome either before St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, or even before St. Paul himfelf came thither. For had he been there when St. Paul wrote to the Romans, his name would certainly have appeared in the lift of falutations to the principal members of the Roman community. And if he had been at Rome, when St, Paul arrived there, a falutation would have been fent from him, as an immediate Apoftle of Chrift, in the Epiftles, which St. Paul wrote from Rome. Befides, in Col. iv. 10 — -11. St, Paul mentions thofe of the circumcifion, who were his fellow-labourers at Rome, in preaching the Gofpel : but he fays not a fingle word of St. Peter, whofe name in that place efpecially could not have been omitted, if St. Peter had been in Rome. Among thofe who were prefent at the effufion of the Holy Gh6fl on the day of Pentecofl, which fol lowed Chrift's afcenfion, we find fome ' flrangers of Rome V That thefe perfons, who expreffed a devout admiration of what they had feen and heard, related the whole on their return to Italy, and made known the dodrines of Chriftianity in their own country is highly probable. " Acts ii.' 10. oa. The Epifile fo the Romans. chap, xvr.. probable. After this, many Chriftians, who had been converted elfewhere, may be fuppofed on their journey to the capital of the world fo have communicated ftill further knowledge of Chriftianity, and in this manner to, have laid the foundation of a Chriftian, community in Rome. Indeed it is certain, from the fixteenth.' chapter of St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans, that there were many firm Chriftians at that time in Rome, with whom St. Paul had been acquainted in other places. Among thefe are particularly to be noted, i. Aquilas and Prifcilla, who had attended St. Paul feveral years partly at Corinth, partly at Ephefus, who had inftruded Apollos in the dodrine of Chrift, and who, ; on their return to Rome, made their own houfe a place of affembly for a part of the Chriftian community in that city, ver. 3 — 5. 2. Andronicus and Junius, who had formerly been follow -prifoners with St. Paul on account of the Gofpel, and had been converted to Chriftianity before him, ver. 7. St. Paul calls them perfons * of note among the Apoftles,' by which he means not ' Apoftles of Chrift, but Apoftles, or envoys from Chriftian comT munities w. As they were Jews by birth, ' it is not im probable that they were deputed to Rome from the church at Jerufalem, in order to eflablifh the Jewifh , converts at Rome in the Chriftian dodrines, and to preach the Gofpel. 3. Rufus, ver. 13. whofe father had affifted in car-. rying the Crofs of Chrift, Mark xv. 21. 4. The Chriftian religion had been received in fome of the principal houfes in Rome, for inftance in thofe. ofAriftobulus and Narciffus, ver. 10 — n. It is true, that the mailers of the families are not faluted, but only thofe. of the houfhold: but under thefe we muft not reckon- merely abjed flaves according to the modern acceptation, of this term, for in the great houfes at Rome they, who. w See my firft Note to the Epifile to the Galatians. Compare ajfij z Cor. vni. 23. Philipp. ii, 25. Acts xv. 25. sect-, in. The Epiftle to the Romans. 93 who bore this "name were frequently men of great im portance. Of Ariftobulus we have no knowledge : but Narciflus, whofe houfhold St. Paul falutes, is perhaps the fame perfon as the freed man of Claudius of this name, who flood in high eftimation with the Emperor, and was appointed his cabinet-fecretary. The moral cha- rader of this man was not the belt, and therefore it was no lofs to Chriftianity, that he was not- among the mem bers of the Chriftian community in Rome. . Under thefe circumfiances, it is not extraordinary that, when St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, Chriftianity was in a flourifhing flate there. But, as they had hitherto received a vifit from no. Apoftle, none of them could have received the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, except thofe who had been either at Jerufalem, or in other places where Apoftles refided. For this reafon St. Paul' fays, ch. i. 11. that he longed to fee them, that he might impart to them fome fpintual gifts". SECT. III. Of the falfe notions, which fome of the Jezvs entertained concerning Jufiification. IN the Epiftle to the Romans St. Paul alludes very little to local circumfiances, beeaufe he had never been in Rome, .and was therefore lefs acquainted with their peculiar fituation, than with the fituation of thofe communities, which he himfelf had, founded. It is properly a didadic or doctrinal Epiftle, and will be belt underftood by knowing what erroneous notions the Jews had of jufiification, and of the eledion of their nation, and how they were affeded toward the Roman magis trates. x See my note to 2 Tim. i. 6. In the commentary on the Epifile to the Romans, which I intend to publifh, more! will be' faid on' this fub- 1 ject, in the note to the paffage in queltion. 94 The Epifile to the Romans. chap. xvt. trates. We are more concerned at prefent with the er roneous, than with the right notions of the Jews : yet 'we muft not confider the errors, which we have now to examine, as common to the whole nation, for even in the Talmud we fometimes find remains ofthe mofl orthodox theology. They were chiefly maintained by the mofl zealous among the Pharifees, efpecially by thofe who were attached to the party of Judas GalilsuSi , • In regard- to the dodrine of jufiification it muft be previoufly obferved, that not even the Pharifees or any Jew whatfoever who was confidered as orthodox, underr flood it in fuch -a manner, as to denote that a man could be juftified by a perfed obedience to the law. The whole Jewifh church unanimoufly confeffed that no man was exempt- from fin. This therefore could notpoffibly be the dodrine combated by St. Paul. Nor could any Jew, who paffed for orthodox in Paleftine, have imagined" that his former fins were forgiven, merely in confequence of his endeavours to lead a new life : for he. knew that God had appointed facrifice for fins, and had promifed forgivenefs in confequence of the facrifice. It could not therefore be the defign of St. Paul to fhew, that we may obtain remiffion of fins by a fubfequent courfe of piety, and obedience to. the moral law. Indeed, had this been his defign, he would have been at a lofs for arguments to prove it. The Jews affigned three grounds of jufiification. i. c The extraordinary piety and merits of their ancef- tors, and the covenant made by God with thofe holy men.' Among thefe holy anceftors "they reckoned not only Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, according to Scripture, but'likewife the twelve patriarchs, though the adions of' fome of thefe twelve pariarchs, according to the relation of Mofes,_ were of fuch a kind,, as would \ have been punifhed in the prefent age with imprifonment, or even with death. Very unreafonable terms were thus offered to the deity, in order to claim jufiification. Further, they thought the piety of their early anceftors fo very extraordinary, and confidered the painful circumcifion of Abraham sect. iii. The Epiftle to the Romans. 95 Abraham in his advanced age fo meritorious a work, without any obligation from the law of nature, that God could not hate the children of fuch pious parents. And, as God had made a covenant with Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and had promifed to blefs their profperity^ it was thought that this covenant obliged him to forgive their fins. I will quote a few paffages to. this purpofe, Which I have partly, collected myfelf, and partly have borrowed from Whitby. We read in Hof. iii. 2. 'I have bought her (the woman whom Hofea married, and who was fuppofed to be a type of the people of Ifrael) to me for fifteen pieces of filver, for a homer y of barley, and a half-homer of barley.' On this paffage Kimchi comments thus. x' Some interpret this of the merits of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs.' And of the homer and half-homer he fays, ' Thefe are fifteen ephahs, which denote Mofes, Aaron, Miriam, and the twelve patriarchs.' Pococke, in his Mifceilanea, p. 170, 227. has fhewn, that the Jews believed, that the fire of hell had no effed on any one of their nation, beeaufe Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob came down to deliver them. Thisfuperftitious notion has been adopted from the Jews by the Moham medans, who in contradidion to the Koran believe that at the day of judgement, Chrift, David, and Mofes, wil! by their interceffion deliver thofe from hell, who have believed in their dodrine, even after it had been abolifhed by Mohammed. One of the principal maxims of the Jews is Kan dfrtf> pbp orb ty ^ntwto, thatis, ' all Ifrael partakes of eternal life :' and with this maxim begins the book called Pirke Aboth. Another of the Jewifh dodrines is, ' God promifed to Abraham, that if his children were wicked, he would confider them as righteous on account of the fweet odour of his circunv ciied forefkinV The ¦T A homer contained ten epaphs. * Pugio fidei, ?• UI, Dif. Ill cap, 16, feft, 36—37. 9 6 The Epifile to the Romans. c h a p . x vi. The fame is objeded to the Jews by Juftin Martyr1; ' Your Rabbins deceive themfelves. and us in imagining that the kingdom of heaven is prepared for all thofe, who are the natural feed of Abraham, even though they be tinners and unbelievers.' The Jews even go fo far as to pray in the name of their anceftors, whofe merits they plead before God, The words of the Hebrew, Pfalm lxxxiv. 9. which fig- nify literally, ' Behold our fhield,' are rendered in the Chaldee paraphrafe ' Behold the merits of our fathers:' and the words of Ifaiah, ch. xliv. 5. ' another fhall call himfelf by the name of Jacob,' are tranflated both. by Jonathan and in the Septuagint ' He fhall pray in the name of Jacob.' See alfo what Wetftein has laid on this fubjed in his note to Matth. iii. 9. St. Paul, in the ninth chapter of his Epiftle to the Romans, has given a complete confutation of this erro neous notion, 'and has fhewn that the promifes of God were not made to all, but only to the faithful defcendants of Abraham. The latter half of the fifth chapter is like- wife to the fame purpofe, where St. Paul confirms the affertion, which, he made ch. iii. 29 — 30. that God was equally the God of the Jews and- of the Gentiles : and fhews that, as all men, both Jews and Gentiles, incurred death by the guilt of one common father, or head of his covenant with mankind, whom they did not eled, but receive from God, fo it isjuft that, when God deter mined to have mercy, he fhould reftore life both to Jews and Gentiles by the common head of the new covenant. 2. Another ground of jufiification, according to the- opinion of the Jews, was ' the knowledge, which they had of God through the law of Mofes, and their dili gence in the fludy' of that law.' Now it is true that in one refped the Jews had an advantage above the Gen tiles : but then they eftimated this advantage fo highly, as to make it a plea for the remiflion of their fins: St. Paul therefore found it necefTary to prove at large in the fecond chapter, that man isjuftified, not by the know--. ledge, but by the obfervance of the law. 3- A * Page 360. sect. iv. The Epifile lo the Romans. ' 97 3. A third ground of jufiification was f the works of the Levitical law,' which were to expiate fin. Among thefe .works they reckoned facrifices, to which God had promifed remiffion of fins, and circumcifion. In oppo- iition to this St. Paul teaches, that the Levitical law does not expiate, but only reveal fin ; and that it exem plifies on the facrificed beafts the punifhment, which is due to thefiriner, ch. iii. 20. v. 20. The inference, which the Jews deduced from the pre ceding dodrines, is obvious, namely, that they had much eafier accefs to jufiification, than the Gentiles j and that the Gentiles, if different from. that, which has engaged the attention of Chriftiansfrom the time of Auguflin, and feparates at prefent the Lutheran from the Calvinift church. The greateft confufion therefore would be occafioned in the ftudy of the Epiftle to the Romans, if we applied to the modern controverfy on predeftination and eledion what St. Paul has written in this Epiftle againft the Jewifh notions, which had no refemblance . to any of the opinions maintained by Chriftian polemics. God had promifed Abraham to blefs his feed, to give it not only the true and fpiritual bleffing, but likewife the land of Canaan, to fuffer it to dwell there in profperity, and to confider ' ' ' ' it as his church upon earth. This promife the Jews extended to their whole nation, and afferted that God was bound to fulfil it toward every Jew, as being a Vol. IV, - G defcendant o8 The Epifile to the Romans. chap. xvi. defcendant of Abraham, whatever his principles, or what-' ever his condud might be. This pretention was not only groundlefs, but inconfiftent : for the Ifhmaelites and the Edomifes were equally defcended from Abraham, and yet the Jews themfelves acknowledged that thefe had. no claim to the divine promifes, efpecially to the promifeof the land of Canaan. Nor could they deny, that in the time of Ifaiah the greateft part of their nation had been, deftroyed by the Affyrians, without any violation of the promifes which had been made to them. Hence St. Paul argues in the ninth chapter, that God would ftill adhere to his promifes, if he received only thofe as the chofen feed, who believed in Chrift, and condemned all thofe who "difbelieved. The Jews went eyen fo far as to affert that, if a pro- phet, were infpired with prophecies unfavourable to their nation, he ought not to pronounce them, and that he was bound to refill the will of- God, by praying, like Mofes, that his name might rather be expunged from the book of the living. It was on this account, that St. Paul, in the five firft verfe's of the ninth chapter, makes fo cautious and almoft timorous a tranfition to the quefiion, which he was going to difcufs. As it may appear incredible, that fuch dodrines could l' bet maintained by the Jews, I will briefly quote what Kimchi has written as an explanation of Hof. i. 2. -' Our Rabbles relate on occafion of the words, and,tk Lord faid to Hofea, that the Holy and Ever-bleffed faid fo Hofea, the Ilraelites have finned.' He ought to have anfwered, O Lord of the world, they are thy children, the children of thy chofen, the children of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob ; have mercy on them. But he not only neglededto fpeak thus, but even faid the whole world is thine, exchange-them for another people. _' Then the Holy and Ever-bleffed faid, what fhall I do with this old man ? I will fay to him, take thee a harlot;' and again I will fay to him, put her away from thee.' If he can do this, I will alfo feparate myfelf from Ifraelb. Now, b It is to be obferved that in the mean time Hofea prophefied for fome years againft the Ifraeli.es, till three children were born to him, - sect.^v. The Epifile to the Romans. 99 Now, after fhe had brought him forth two fons' and a daughter, the Holy and Ever-bleffed faid to him, Hofea, oughteft thou not to learn from thy matter, Mofes? After I had fpoken to him, he feparated himfelf from his wife : do thou alfo feparate thyfelf from thine. Hofea, anfwered, O Lord of the world, I have children by her, and cannot poflibly put her away. Then faid the Holy and Ever-bleffed, canft thou not do this, Hofea, though fhe is an harlot, and thy children are the children of an harlot ? So alfo is it with me : the children of Ifrael are my children, the children of my chofen, of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and they are one of my three poffef- fions, and yet thou haft faid, exchange them for another people. ' As foon as Hofea perceived that he had finned, he begged for mercy. But the .Holy and Ever-bleffed fpake : when thou prayeft for mercy, pray for mercy on Ifrael. From that moment he began to bjefs, and faid : the number of the children of Ifrael fhall be as the fand of the fea '.' Thefe Jewifh errors illuftrate at once the very difficult ninth chapter of the Epiftle to the Romans, in which St. Paul had no other objed in view, than to fhew, that ¦God was not obliged to beflow happinefs here and here after oh the unbelieving Jews : and that he could as well permit them to harden their hearts, and ' provoke his judgments, without violating his word, as he had for merly done in regard to Pharaoh. SECT. V. Of the fentiments of the Jezvs, concerning obedience to the Roman Emperor. IT is well known that the Pharifees, at leaft thofe of the party of Judas Galilasus, were not well affeded to foreign magiftrates, and that from a falfe interpretation of * This whole ftory is taken from the book qtidb, Chap. Haifha. G Z i op The Epifile to the Romans: _ chap. xyi. of Deut. xvii. 15. they thought it unlawful to pay tri bute to the Roman Emperor, and to acknowledge him for their fovereign d. And as the Jews in general ex- peded a Meffiah who would eftablifb a temporal king dom, and free them from the dominion ofthe Romans', this expedation made them ripe for rebellion, and ready at all times to throw of the yoke. Even the Jews • at Rome had already begun to create difturbances, which, occafioned the command of the Emperor Claudius, that all the Jews fhould leave Rome, of "which mention is briefly made by St. Luke, in Ads xviii. 2. Suetonius, in his Life of Claudius, ch. 25, writes, ' Judasos,- im,- pulfore Chrefto, affidue tumultuantesf Roma expulit.' By ' Chreftus' Suetonius meant ' Chriftus', not knowing the meaning of the word, and fuppofing, that it wns written in Greek Xftirec ¦ Yet he certainly did not fpeak of the Chriftians, and intend to accufe the followers of Jefus Chrift of fedition: for they fubmitted peaceably to the Roman magiftrates, and even if they had been inclined to fedition, they were not fufficiently numerous, nor fufficiently powerful at Rome in the time of Claudius to make the leaft oppofition. By ' Judari' therefore we muft underftand Jews in the ftrid fenfe of the word : and ' Chreftus' that is, ' Chriftus,' denotes, not the perfon of Jefus Chrift, but the Meffiah expeded by tbe Jews, and which they called in Greek Xjiro?, and in Latin ' Chriftus.' The Jews therefore being excited to (fedition from an expectation of fupport from their ' Chriftus,' Claudius and his minifters imagined that this was a real perfon then living in fome place out of Rome, who excited the Jews to infurredion. This is what Suetonius meant in defcribing them as ' impulfore Chrefto tumultuantes.' However the banifhment, which followed this infurredion, appears not to have lafted longj .. * Compare Matth. xxii. 15 — 22. with Jofeph. Antiq. Lib. XVII. c. ^. e Jofeph. Bell. Jud. Lib. VII. 31. Suetonius in Vefpaf. cap. 4.' Taciti Hift. Lib. II. 5. " ' f See Gefner's Thefaurus, under the word Tumujtus, ¦sect. v. The Epiftle to the Romans. ' 101 long, and it either terminated with the death of Clau dius, or the decree was revoked, during his life ': for Aquilas the Jew, who met St. Paul at Corinth, after he had left Rome in confequence of this decree, was already returned to Rome, when St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans. From what has been faid in this paragraph, it is obvious how necefTary thofe exhortations to obedi ence were, which the Apoftle has given in the thirteenth chapter. Whoever is converfant with the Roman hiftory, will be able to illuftrate many fingle paffages in this chapter. The city of Rome contained within itfelf the feeds of infurredion and civil war, and was frequently involved in troubles, even when the provinces were at peace. The Senate was fecretly jealous of the Emperor, and the Emperor in his turn fufpeded the Senate. The life of the. Emperor was feldom free from danger : Caligula had died a violent death, Claudius had been poifoned, and Nero, who was on the throne, when St. Paul wrote this Epiftle, did not meet with a more fortunate end. The inferior magiftrates afpired to the fupremacy : and as the Romans then believed in aflrology, which they had learned from the Chaldees, an aftrologer had only to predid fuccefs ro' the afpiring party, or to foretel the day, on which the Emperor would die, and the confe quence was a certain afiaflination. The imperial life guard, which confifted of foreigners, efpecially of Ger mans, and therefore was not interefted in the profperity of the Empire, was not only an objed of difguft to the Roman citizens, but became fo powerful after the time of Claudius, that the Emperors .were obliged to purchafe its favour by confiderable prefents. And in fad they had no other right to their fovereignty over the Romans,, than that which they derived either from force or intrigue. Under thefe circumfiances, St. Paul jndged it necefTary to exhort the Roman Chriftians to fubmit peaceably to the government, under which tbey lived. He tells them that ' the powers that be («i xo-xi «£««¦«*») are ordained of God :' he will not confent, that o 3 they 102 The Epiftle to the Romans. chap. xvi. they fhould enter into any inquiries on the origin of that right, which was exercifed by the Emperor, but com mands them to obey the conftituted authorities, as ap pointed agreeably to the divine will, and not to aflbciate with thofe, who endeavoured to effed a change in the government s. SECT; VI. Contents of the Epifile to the Romans. THE contents of the Epiftle to the Romans may be reduced to the following heads : i. The ufual falutation, with which the Greeks began their letters, ch. i. I — 7. On this occafion, St. Paul particularly defcribes his apoftolical office, beeaufe th» authority of this Epiftle depended on it. 2. St. Paul endeavours, ch. i. 8 — 16. to pave the way for the fubjed, which he is about to difcufs. He expreffes his joy at the flourifhing ftate of the Chriftian community in Rome, and his defire to come thither, and preach the Gofpel, of which he was not afhamed, in the face of the whole world. After this he infenfibly introduces the principal point, which he intended to prove, namely, 3. The fubjed of the Gofpel, ver. 16, 17. This re veals a righreoufnefs unknown before, which is derived folely from faith, and to which the Jews and Gentiles have an equal claim. 4. In order to prove this point he fhews, ch. i. 18.— iii. 20, that both Jews and Gentiles are under fin, that is, that God will impute their fins to Jews, as well as to Gentiles. Here, it muft not be imagined, that St. Paul meant. % Qui res novas moliuntur, according to the phrafe ufed by the Romans. sect. Vi. The Epifile to the Romans. 103 meant by a chain of conclufions to prove, what every man's experience will fuggeft to him, that Jews and Gentiles have finned : his intention was to prove that God will,call the Jews to an account for their fins, and con fequently* that they ftand in need of jufiification by faith. His proof of this pofition may be reduced to the fol lowing fyllogifms. ' The wrath ' of God is revealed againft thofe, who hold the truth in unrighteoufnefs, that is, who acknowledge the truth and yet fin againft it, ch. i. 18. ' The Gentiles acknowledged truths, but partly by their idolatry, and partly by their other deteftable vices they finned againft the truths, which they acknowledged, ch. i. 19 — 31. * Therefore the wrath of God is revealed againft the Gentiles, and punjfhes them. ' The Jews have acknowledged more truths than the Gentiles, and yet they fin, ch. ii. 1. 17 — 24. ' Therefore the Jewifh tinners are ftill more expofed to the wrath of God,' ch. ii. 1 — 12. -, Having thus proved his point he anfwers the following objedions, which might be made to it. Obj. 1. ' The Jews were well grounded in their knowledge, and fludied the law.' St. Paul anfwers; If a knowledge of the law, without the performance of it, could juftify, God would not have condemned the Gentiles, who knew the law by nature, ch. ii. 13 — 16. Obj. 2. ' The Jews were circumcifed.' Anfwer. That is, they were admitted by an outward fign to a covenant with God : but this fign will not -avail thofe, who violate the covenant, ch. ii. 25 — 29. " Obj. 3. ' According to this dodrine of St. Paul, the Jews have no advantages above the Gentiles, which is manifeftly falfe.' Anfwer. They ftill have advantages, for to them were committed the oracles of God : but their privileges do not extend fo far, that God fhould overlook their fins, which the Scripture earneftly con demns even in Jews, ch. iii. 1 — 19. g 4 Obj. 104 the Epiftle to the Romans. chapi xvi. Obj. 4. ' They had the Levitical law, and (acrifices.' Anfwer. Hence is no remiflion, but only the knowledge of fin \' ch. iii? 20. 5. From the preceding arguments St. Paul infers that Jews and Gentiles muft be juftified by the fame means, namely, without the Levitical law, through faith in Chrift: and in oppofition to the imaginary advantages of the Jews, he ftates the declaration of Zechariah, that God is not the God of the Jews only, but alfo of the Gentiles, ch. iii. 21 — 31. . , 6. As the whole bleffing was promifed to thofe, who were the faithful defcendants of Abraham, whom both Scripture and the Jews 'call his children, he proves his former affertion from the example of Abraham ; who was an idolater before his call, but was declared juft by God, on account of his faith, long before his circumci- fiqn. Hence St. Paul takes occafion to explain the nature, and the fruits of faith, ch. iv. 1. — v. 11. 7. He proceeds to prove from the equity of God, that the Jews had no advantages above the Gentiles, in refoed to justification. Both Jews and Gentiles had forl[faiW life and immortality, through the common father of the human race, whom they themfelves had not chofen as their reprefentative. If therefore it was the will of God to reflo re immortality by a new fpiritual head of a covenant, which was Chrift, it was equitable •that Jews and Gentiles fhould have an equal (hare in the advantages to be derived from this new reprefentative of the human race, ch. v. 12 — 21. 8. He fhews, that the dodrine of jufiification, as he had flared ir,_ lays us under the ftrideft obligations to, holinefs, ch.'.vi. 1 — 23. 9. He fhews that fince the death of Chrift we are no longer concerned with the law of Mofes. For our jus tification arifes from our appearing in the fight of God, as if we were adually dead with Chrift on account of our fins : but the law of Mofes was not given to the dead. On this occafion he evinces at large, that the preceding confideration * See my Note -to Gal. iii. 19. sect. vi. The Epiftle to the Romans. 105 confideration does not affed the eternal power of God over us, and that while we are under the law of Mofes, ¦ we become perpetually fubjed to death, even for fins of inadvertency, ch. vii. 1 — 25. 10. From thefe premifes he concludes, that all thofe, and thofe only, who are united with Chrift, and for the fake of this union live not according to the flefli, are free from the condemnation of the law, and have an undoubted right to eternal life, ch. viii. 1 — 17. * 1 1 . Having defcribed the happinefs of all fuch per fons, he is aware that the Jews, who expeded temporal bleffings, would objed to him, that the Chriftians, not- withftanding what he had faid, ftill endured many fuf- ferings in this world. This objedion he obviates, ch. viii. 18 — 39. 1 2. He fhews, that God is not the lefs true and faith ful, beeaufe he does not juftify, but rather rejeds' and punifhes the Jews, who would not believe in the Mef fiah, ch. ix. x. xi. His difcourfe on this fubjed is arranged as follows : A. The introdudion, in which he difplays the utmoft caution, ch. ix. 1 — 5. B. The diflertation itfelf, which confifts of three principal parts. a). St. Paul fhews, that the promifes of God were never made to all the pofterity of Abraham : that God always referved to himfelf the power of choof- ing thofe fons of Abraham, whom for Abraham's fake he intended to blefs, and of punifhing the wicked fons of Abraham: and that in refped to temporal happinefs or mifery, even their good of ill condud did not determine his choice. Thus Ifhmael, Efau, the Ifraelites in the defert in the time of Mofes, and the greater part of that nation in the time of Ifaiab, were rejeded and made a facrifice of his juftice, ch. ix. 6 — 29. b.) He fhews, that God had reafon to rejed mofl: of the Jews then living, beeaufe they would not. , believe -(o6 The Epiftle to the Romans. chap. xvi. believe- in the Meffiah, though the Gofpel had beeft plainly preached to them, ch.ix. 30. — x. 21. c). Yet God rejeded not all his people, but was ftill fulfilling his promifes on many thoufand natural defcendants of Abraham, who believed in the Mef fiah, and at a future period would fulfil them upon more, fince all Ifrael would be converted, ch. xi. 11—32. C. The conclufion, in which the Apoftle exprefles his admiration ofthe wife counfels of God, ch. xi. 33 — $. 13. From tbe dodrines hitherto laid down, and par ticularly from this, that God has in his mercy accepted the Gentiles, he argues- that the Romans fhould eonfe- crate and offer themfelves wholly to God. This leads him to mention in particular fome Chriftian duties, ch. xii. 14. He exhorts them to be fubjed to the magiftrates, ch. xiii. 1 ---7. 15. He recommends brotherly love, ver. 8-^-10. 16. He commands them to abftain from thofe vices, which the heathens confidered as mattefs indifferent, ver. 11 — 14. 17. He exhorts the Jews and Gentiles' in the Chrif tian church to brotherly unity, ch. xiv. 1. — xv. 3. The Chriftian community in Rome appears to have been divided into parties, ftood. The place might be eafily found, font i- cleariy determined by bcKg ftt- th.e conflux of the Lycus aud tne Meander, H 3 1 1 8 The Epifile to the Coloffians. chap. xix. what manner the name be written, I write at prefent ' Epiftle to the Coloffians.' . The Chriftian community in Coloflk, Laodicea, and Hicrapoiis, cities which lay in the neighbourhood of each other, but winch have been long fince deftroyed, were clofely conneded, as may be naturally fuppofed from their fnuation, and as appears from Col. iv. 13. where all three are mentioned together. From Col, ii. 1. we fee that St. Paul, when he wrote this Epiftle, had been neither at Coloflk, nor at Laodicea : and therefore he was concerned for their fafety,:on hearing that they were in danger of being feducec by falfe teachers. It is true that he had twice travelled through Phrygia8: but, as this was a very extenfive country, we muft not infer, that he vifited every city in it. Coloflk efpecially, as being only a fmall town, he might very eafily have left unnoticed ; and if we have any reafon to wonder, it is that he did not vifit Laodicea, beeaufe this was the capital of Phrygia., But if we examine a good map of Phrygia, efpecially that of D'Anviile, we fhall not think it extraordinary that St. Paul in neither of his two journies through Phrygia went even to Laodicea : for it appears from the two paffages juft quoted from the Acts of the Apoftles tbat'his route lay each time through the north of Phrygia, whereas Laodicea, as well as Coloffs and Hierapolis, were fituate in the foufhernpart of that country. The firft time that he went through Phrygia, (Acts xvi. 6. 7.) he came from Derbe, wi-ich was about four degrees to the eaft of Colotfas, and travelled through Phrygia and Galatia, the boundary of which countries is between the 39th and 40th- degrees of latitude : thence he came into Mjfia, which lay nearly in the fame lati tude, and intended to go into Bithynia, which lay to the north of Phrygia. The route therefore, which he took from Derbe, muft have been through the northern part of Phrygia. On his fecond journey (Ads xviii. 23.) he likewife travelled through Galatia, as well as Phrygia. We muft conclude therefore, that his route lay then alfo through the northern parts : and this is confirmed by what s Acts xvi. 6. xviii, 23. sect. i. The Epifile to the Coloffians. 119 what St. Luke fays, ch. xix. 1, where he exprefsly relates that St. Pauf travelled through the upper parts, (t« avmi^xx pspn), that is, the northern diflrids of Afia Minor. But the latitude of Coloflk was about 38, and therefore one or two degrees to the fouth of St. Paul's road:, whence it appears, that St. Paul's having twice travelled through Phrygia by no means implies that he vifited Coloflie. St. Paul himfelf fays in his Epiftle to the Coloffians, ch, ii. 1. as plainly, I think, as words can imply, that when he wrote this Epiftle, he had never been either at Coloffa?, or at Laodicea. But Lardner, and before him Theodoret, have endeavoured to interpret this paffage, fo as to make it imply the contrary h. The words of St. Paul are, ®t/\q yag UjU,a? ciSivxi flAixoi* ayiavx tyjfi ¦sre^t upuv, nan, Ttpv iv Axodixttcc, . jtasi po"oi aj£ I'jpxKaq-t to ¦ns-poqruirov us iv fxpxi. It is obvious therefore, as it appears to me at leaft, that the Coloffians and the Laodiceans were reckoned by St. Paul among thofe, who had never feen him in. perfon, But Lardner confiders the latter claufe as an antithefis, and as oppofed to the Coloffians and Laodiceans : whence he argues that thefe had really feen St. Paul in perfon, Now this interpretation does violence, not only to the grammatical conftrudion, but likewife h In the Supplement to his Credibility ofthe Gofpel Hiftory, yol, II. ch. 14. Lardner has brought feveral arguments to prove, that St, Paul had been at Coloft'ae, long before he wrote this Epiftle, and that he himfelf founded the church there. His arguments have not con vinced me ofthe truth of this opinion : but whether it be right, or not, I leave to the decifion ofthe reader. I muft make however one pbfervation on his ninth argument, which he deduces from Col. iii. 16, where St. Paul fays : ' teaching and admonifhing one another in pfalms, and hymns, and fpiritual fongs, fmging with grace in your hearts to the Lord.' This fhews, as Lardner fays, that the Coloffians were endowed' with fpiritual gifts : and that as fpiritual gifts could be com-, jnunicated only by Apoitlef, the Coloffians muft have received them from St. Paul, But this paffage really fhevvs no fuch thing : it fhews that fhe Coloffians had the power, not ofrriaking, but only of finging, fpiritual fongs : arid if this requires a fupernatural endowment, every man who fings the pfalms of David muft have a fupernatural endowment, Befides, if the paffage really implied what Lardner fuppofes, it would nor. prove that St. Paul had been at Colofi'a: : for fome individuals of tha Coloffian community might have feen St. Paul in other plates, and, have there received from him fpiritual gifts, H 4 120 - TheKEpifile to the. Coloffians. chap, xix/ likewife to the whole tenor of the paffage. St.. Paul expreffes his anxiety for the fafety of thofe Chriftians, who had not been taught by him in perfon,, and con firmed by him in faith. How thenxould he exprefs an anxiety for the Coloffians and Laodiceans, if he himfelf had actually inftruded them in Chriftianity ? But though St. Paul had never been at Coloffie, when he wrote this Epiftle, yet Chriftianity had long been taught, and a community of Chriftians eftablifhed there. Who it was, that introduced it, I cannot pretend to determine : but it is not improbable that Epaphras1, mentioned, ch. i. 7. iv. 12, 13. was one of the earlieft teachers k. Further, as it appears from Ads xix. 10. that during St. Paul's refidence at Ephefus, many, both Jews and Greeks, came from, various parts of Afia to hear the Gofpel, we may fuppofe that feveral Coloffians, efpecially Philemon, were of this number. SECT. II. Contents, defign, and occafion, of the Epifile to the Coloffians: THIS Epiftle is chiefly direded againft falfe moral dodrines, which appear to be Effene, and of which I have already treated, Ch. xiv. Sed. 2, 3. The opi nion 1 Epaphras muft not be confounded with Epaphroditus, who was deputy from the Chriftian community at Philippi. k In the preceding editions of this Introduction, I defcribed Epa phras as the founder of the church at Coloflje ; but though he was one of the earlieft, and one of the principal teachers of Chriftianity in that city, it does not neceflarity follow, ' that he was the perfon who firft introduced it.. As St. Paul jubjoins the name of Timothy to his own, ch. i. 1. it is not improbable, that Timothy had taught Chrifti&< nity at Coloflje. Throughout the whole of the firft chapter St. Paul fpeaks in their joint names, ami ufes the' plural number ' we,' except where the fubject relates to his own imprifonment, and where Timothy therefore could not be included. From ch. ii! 1. he proceeds in the firft perfon fingular. Here again therefore he diftinguifhes what concerned only himfelf, from that, in which Timothy was likewife Concerned. sect. ii. The Epifile to the Coloffians. 121 nion of other commentators, that it was written againft the Gnoftics, may likewife, in fome refpeds, be true. If we take the word ' Gnoftic' in the fenfe'in which it is ufed by many of the fathers, to denote one who re- jeded the law of Mofes, who permitted the eating of meat offered to idols, and fornication, and taught fhe dodrine, that the world was created by a being of inferior order, it is certain that the perfons, whom' St. Paul op- pofes in his Epiftle to the Coloffians, were the very reverfe of Gnoftics. But if the word ' Gnoftic' be taken to denote in general terms an adherent to the Oriental philofophy, the Effenes themfelves may in this fenfe be called Gnoftics. In ch. ii. 8. St. Paul calls the dodrine of thofe, who attempted, to feduce the Coloffians, by the name of tptXoa-otpix. Now the dodrine,1 by 'which the Coloffians were in danger of being perverted, the necefiity of circumcifion, related to the obfervance of the fabbath, abftinence from unclean meats, and the worfhipping of angels. But this was the dodrine of the Effenes : and their dodrine. is called by Jofephus likewife by the name of Philofophy : for in his hiftory of the Jewifh war, B. II. ch. 2. § 8 — 13. he fays, Tptx tsapd I&Suioit; non QiXovotpiirxi rpttov Etrt which the Coloffians were to procure a copy from Laodicea, there was no neceffity for St. Paul to repeai, in the particular Epiftle to the Colof fians, what Ik had laid in the circular Epiftle, except what elpeciaily related to the neceffities of the church of Coloffe. Another difference between the two. Epiftles c-opfifts in this that in the Epiftle to the Ephefians St. Paul not on'y recommends unanimity among the members of the Chriftian community at Ephefus whether Jews or Gentiles, but likewife dif- tinguiihes them from each other, where he reprefents them as being equal in the kingdom of God, by ' ye' and ' we ' This 1 have not obferved in the Epiftle to the Coloffians. Perhaps therefore the Coloffian com munity confifted wholly of Gentile converts, which is not impoffible, even though Jewifh Effene dodrines had been introduced there: or, if it confifted of Jewifh as well as of Gentile converts, perhaps lefs diftindion>was' made at Coloffie between the two parties, than in other cities of Afia Minor. It i* remarkable that in the. two Epiftles to the Ephefians and Coloffians, and in thefe" only, St. Paul warns his reac.ers againft lying. Ephef. iv. 25. Col. iii. 9. Hence we may conclude, that this vice prevailed more at Ephefus and Coloffa?, than in other places to which St. Paul fent Epiftles : and as both of thefe cities lay in Afia Minor, it is not improbable, that it was the vice of .the Country, for this vice is often national, "as the love of truth is often a national virtue. Were I an Apoftle, and had to fend an apoftolical Epiftle to England, I fhould think it wholly unneceffary to give any ? 24 The Epifile to the Coloffians. chap. xix. any directions .againft lying, beeaufe this vice is held, in great abhorrence in England ' : but there are countries jn Europe, to which, if a paftoral Epiftle were add reffed, the mention of this vice would not be fuperfluous. , SECT. III. Of the Epifile, for zvhich St. Paid defines the Coloffians, Ch. iv. 16. to fend from Laodicea. ¦¦ ST. PAUL defires the Coloffians, ch. iv. 16. to fend to Laodicea the Epiftle/which they themfelves had received, and to fend for another from Laodicea, which was to be read alfo at Coloffie. The words of St. Paul are : Kai orxv xvxyvuo-fy stup' u^ik y\ «nr°ty, TB-otno-ecn Ivx x/ni ev rn AxaStxtuv £xxAri Xf.r'l? ^I/TOTE EK TflTlf TSpcVW* /"^ °T» ^"WTJC "*• ar£o£i? £r£ ew' £fyw xaAwi/, -ff-eo-^o/AW-i tw rtrxyyiXixv iv rjp-z xfik «i«w».' Ka» vup ipxvigoi tyivovto hi JW^oi pa, » oic Sio-poif ei^i £» XfifU, *«» £" tstm Xa'?w" aAAa xat X*?"fl'0rta'' '°'^* Va?» on tsto jiaoi a7rog»i(r£Tai £ij o-ftiT«i-ia» a.w.jo*, o cyo'TO Jios T-if upwi/ Swims xxi tiriyo^yixs ra ¦5rv£i;/*«T0c ayia, £it£ Six Cams, etri Six Sxvutx, i[*oi yxp to Cr,v X-ifOf, jmi ts m- S-osveik yxox. Autc? & 0 Kuf ioj yip&v IV Uftll/ tv3Ui!7£l TO fA«f «-jTa |Ue9 upwir, tux tr,v xvrw xyxirnv t^ovtn? cvy.^v^oi to auto (ppomn. Aia TaTo, xyxvnroi, xaflwj nxno-xtt t*ii/ srajii- -r»au Ta Kuflia. 'sjtwj i8 Ijitra Xpira juetuj ts zivivfAxtos vpav. *A(awv., IloiniTxrt ivx n £7riroA'<) xxi tv tr, KoXoo-(r this Epiftle". Tl examples are fo'numerous, that it is unneceffary to quo them, which I rather omit for this reafon, that the whc Epiftle fhould be read, in order that their full effect mi be perceived. The advocates for the opinion that tl Epiftle was addreffed to the Laodiceans, and not the Ephefians, have no other method of avoiding tl force of this argument, (unlefs they declare at once th the Epiftle of Ignatius is a forgery), than an alteratic in the words of Ignatius, as well as in thofe of S Paul, and the changing, for the fake of their hypothef tAWrpovivti, which applies to St. Paul, to (j.v%i*(ivt\iu the firft perfon, in order to make it apply to Ignatiu But this alteration was not admitted by Wetftein, wl capdidly confefTes : ' Ignatius in Epiftola ad Ephefr non obfcure fignificat hanc Epiftolam a Paulo 1 Ephefios fuiffe fcriptam ; § 12. refpicit- ad i. 16. § 1. ad v. 2. The other expreflion of Ignatius, n«uA» tn^vn implies that St. , Paul had defcribed the Ephefians t 0 This obfervation, which Is of great confequence in explain! the words of Ignatius, efcaped the notice both of Ptarfon in 1 Vindicia? Epiftolarum Ignatii, I\ II. c. to. and of Latdner, p. 4c 401. sect. i. The Epifile to the Ephefians. 131 his Symmyftse, or as perfons initiated in the fame myf- teries with himfelf. Now in the Epiftle, which we call the Epiftle to the Ephefians, there is really a paf fage, on which this expreflion of Ignatius appears to be grounded. For in ch. iii. 3, 4. he ufes the word (j-vs-tipiov, and then ver. 6. calls the perfons, to whom he IS writing, GvyxXypovopoi, xxi v, y.cct £o-w was omitted. But Bafil, at the very beginning of the paffage, calls the Epiftle, from which he quotes, an Epiftle to the Ephefians, and there-, fore we muft fuppofe that tv Ep£ vrxpuStSwitxGi : confequently he makes the common reading and the reading of thefe ancient manuferipts the fame. That Bafil therefore omitted tv Eftcra by defigrt, and by authority, I do not believe. On the contrary; as s his whole attention was direded to the word se-tv, and his whole argument is built upon it, I would rather conclude, that BafiTs appeal to Greek manuferipts had reference only to bo-i, which to him was of fo much im portance. For, it is not improbable, that, in fhe fame manner as we find in Col. i. 2. tbi? £* KoAoc-o-at- «y»oj?, without sa-jf, fome few copies alfo ofthe Epiftle to the Ephefians, in the time of Bafil, omitted the fignificaht word, and had only tois dyiois tvEtpttra. Dr. Koppe ', if I underftand him rightly, propofes to omit, both tv E p. 287, 28$. Vol. IV. K 146 . The Epifile lo the' Ephefians. chap. xx. mention was made of Ephefus. But cannot the authen* tic fuperfcription of an Epiftle, for iijftance, Cicero S. D. Pompeio, or Trajanus Plinio, with equal reafon have the name of * titulus ?' Befides, the authority of Ter tullian, in whatever manner the paffage be explained1, cannot be oppofed to the united evidence of all the Greek manuferipts and all the ancient verfions- If we were warranted to draw any inference, the only one would be this, that there were Latin, copies in Africa, where Tertullian lived, in which the name of Ephefus was omitted : for as Tertullian was a Latin father, we cannot argue from what he fays to Greek manuferipts. But even this inference would be very precarious, becaufs all the Latin manuferipts, of which we have any know ledge, read c qui fust Ephef*,' in Ephef. i- b- S E C T. V. Of the fituation ofthe Chrifiian community at Ephefus : and the contents and ftyle of the circular Epifile, which they received Jrom St. PauL THE fituation of the Chrifiian community at Ephefus I have already defcribed in the fourteenth chapter^ which relates to St. Paul's firft Epiftle to Timothy :; to which place therefore I refer the reader, as containing all that is necefTary on this fubjed n, fince the Epiftle .was not written folely to the Ephefians,. but fent to them. jointly with other Chriftian communities. On this account it contains nothing, which can diftlngnilh it as an Epiftle addreffed to the inhabitants of Ephefus,. as, the two 01 Seft. 2. j. 4. . / * Whoever wiflies for more information, on tfie city and1 cfiurcn o( Ephefus, may confult the Introduction to this Epiftle by Salomon vani Til, and G. Gude.De efeclefis Ephefina ftatu. Sfec-T. V. The Epijlle to the Ephefians . ' 147 two Epiftles to the Corinthians for . inflance diftinguifli themfelves from all Other of St. Paul's Epiftles by their allufions to local circumfiances; Lardner indeed fup- pofes", that St. Paul 'has in feveral inftances made ufe of the architedural flyle, beeaufe the Ephefians valued them felves on the. beautiful ftrudure of the temple of Diana, and as examples he quotes, ch. ii. 1 9— -22. iii. 18. But this corijedure is too artificial, and it appears tome to be without foundation: nor indeed is it to be ex- peded, that St. Paul, even in an Epiftle intended folely for the Ephefians, fhould ufe the technical terms of ar- chitedure, any more than I fhould exped, that an Epiftle on theological fubjeds addreffed to perfons, who lived in a fortified town, fhould contain allufions to ravelins ahd baftions. Some Commentators have fuppofed that this Epiftle was addreffed only to heathen Converts. But this is hardly credible, beeaufe the Chriftians both at Ephefus, and in other Cities of Afia Minor, for which it was de- figned, donfifted not only of heathen, but likewife of Jewifh converts. Neither the commencement nor the clofe of the Epiftle warrants the conclufion : for both are Cxpreffed in general terms, fo as to include converts of every defcription, efpecially the latter, which is, ch. vi. 24. ' Grace be with all them, that love our Lord Jefus Chrift in fincerity.' The advocates for this opinion allege that St. Paul very frequently ufes the fecond per fon plural ' Ye;' by which, they fay, he underftands only heathen converts in oppofition to himfelf who was a Jewifh convert. But it muft be obferved that St. Paul ufes alfo in this Epiftle the firft perfon plural, ' We,' and in thefe cafes we muft conclude on the fame ground that he meant to include the Jewifh converts. In ch. i. 3—12. he conftantly ufes ' We;' and ver. 13. he adds ' Ye alfo.' In like manner, ch. ii. 1. ,2. he addreffes the heathen converts in the fecond perfon plural, a» having been formerly idolaters: and ver. 3. 1-e changes the perfon, faying, ' we alfo had our cbnverfation in times • Supplement, Vol. II. p. 393. K 2 14$ the Epiftle hfjie Ephefians, __ ch^p. w,, times paft in the luft of our flefh, fulfilling the defires of the flefh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.-' I admit however, that this Epiftle is addreffed' principally to heathen con- Verts,- whom St. Paul means, where he fpeaks in the fecond perfon, reminding them of their former fituation,- and of the happinefs, which they had attained by their cphverfion- from heathenifm to Chriftianity. We tnuft conclude therefore, that from the; accounts, which St. Paul had reeeived Concerning the fituation of the Chrif tian communities, to which he fent this, Epiftle, he did hot think it fo necefTary to give particular inftnictions for the converts from Judaifm.- In the three firft chapters, St, PauFs principal object is to fhew, that Jews and Gentiles partake of equal pri vileges and bleffings in the kingdom of Chrift, and that they are limited in one1 church, oi> as he expreffes it, * an holy 'Temple in the Lord.' He defcribes Jefus Chrift as being ' the chief corner ftone:' and ch.iii. 18, he again alludes to this temple, fpeaking of its length, breadth, height, and depth. Now if I und'erftand St- Faul rightly, he means that the temple, of which Chrift was ^he head corner ftone,. comprehended the length and' brealdth of the whole earth,, that in its height it ex tended to heaven, and in its- depth to the regions of the" dead.p^ This- dodrine was, very proper for mixed com munities corififting, partly of Jewifh and partly, of Gentile' converts: and, if we attend to the diftindion, which St. Paul makes in this Epiftle between ' we' and 'ye/ we ftfall more eafily perceive its application. From this- dodripe he makes a tranfiria>n in the fourth chapter t» ljhe unity of the church : which, he fays, muft not be difturbed by the difference, wEich fubfifted between the fpiritual gifts, and by a fuperiority, which they who1 had a greater flwe, claimed over the reft:. St. Paul affiles them, that thefe fpiritual gifts, various as they were, Were given for one common purpofe, and that . - - thf' * I lhall fay more ©n 'this paffage. in the Expofition of the Epiftle to the Ephefians, - sect. v. The Epifile to the Ephefians. 14-/ the members of every Chriftian community, however different their talents, were members of the fame body. This affords him an opportunity of explaining the nature and defign of fpiritual gifts, from which it appears, that fuch as were fupernatural were not intended to laft for ever, but only during the infancy of the church, or as long as it was in danger of being overturned by * every word of dodrine, and the Height of men." But on this fo'bjed I fhall fay more in the Expofition of this Epiftle. Another objed, which St. Paul had in view, was to fhew that the advantages, which both the Jewifh and Gentile converts received from the Chriftian religion, were to be attributed to Chrift alone, and not to the, intervention^of any other fuperior Beings, by whatever names they are called, whether Archangels according to ¦our language, or iEons according to the language of the Gnoftics. In the communities therefore, to which this Epiftle was addreffed, the Gnoftic and Effene notions of intermediate fpirits muft have prevailed- for St. Paul not only alludes, in this Epiftle, much morse than in the Epiftle to the Coloffians, to the dodrinesof the Gnoftics, but ufes even the technical terms of their philofophy, efpecially in ch. ii. 2. vi. 1. and this ufe of Gnoftic terms is fo remarkable, that I once heard a man cele brated for his learning, and abilities, exprefs a doubt on this very account, whether St. Paul was the author of this Epiftle. But St. Paul adopted the Gnoftic terms, in 'order to combat their dodrines, which, as appears from the contents of this Epiftle, muft have been intro duced in the Chriftian communities, to which he fent it. That this is true of the Ephefian church we fee from 1 Tim. yi. 20. 21. : and mariy other cities of Afia Minor were probably infeded with the fame notions. Whoever reads with attention Ephef. ii. 1— -12. which is the firft paffage of this Epiftle, where St. Paul makes ufe of Gnoftic expreffions, muft obferve, that the fubjed relates toheathenifm and idolatry, to which the greateft part of thofe, to whom the Apoftle wrote, were formerly addided: and even the other paffage, k 3 ch. I ) \ St. Luke therefore, -who fpent a long time' at Philippi, and was well acquainted witlv * In Boze's .differtation on a coin of the city of Smyrna, printed in the 17th volume of the Memoires de l'Acad*raie des Infcriptions et.. Belles Lettres, are quoted fever.J examples, though they are not ap plied there to the prefent queftion. Fur inflance, on the medajs ftruck at Nicxa in Bis-hynia, this ci'y was called IIPfiTH T.HS EIJAP- XlAS, (lee p. 3. of this diflertation); yet the tide tapaTti was likewife affjmed by Nicomedia, on a coin of which city we find NIKOMHAEIA- H MHTPOnOAIS KAI flPiiTH BI0TNIAZ. Another coin of Nico media ftruck in the time of Trajan, has NIKOMHAErA H MHTPOno- AIE KAI nPIlTH nONTOT KAI BI0YNIA2. (p. 4) Now fince the coriciferiefs ofinferiptions on medals does not ulually permit an unne- ceflary repetition of the fame thing in different words, we muft con clude that St. Paul's /general pradice, bifhops and deacons men tioned in the general falutation : z:cc"$> *«? y&<* 'Eiza.^poiirot itri^ay iira.yofn.ttm ta trp ""tto'ij'- It may at the" fame time be^ obferved that this very addrefs to the bifhops and deacons in the exor dium to the Epiftle to the Philippians, and its being a deviation from the addrefs in all St. PauUs pther Epiftles, is fufficient to confute the opinion maintained by Dr. Sender 'that St. Paul's Epiftles were all defigned for the exclufive ufe of the clergy'. 156 The Epifile to the Philippians. CHAP.xxr. private houfes. Where the Chriftians were numerous, thefe meetings, and confequently -the infpedors, or biftiops, who prefided in them,, were multiplied in pro portion : for no room in a private hOufe could hold -4 ' very numerous congregation. This order of things continued, till by degrees the jurifdidion of Chriftian bifliops extended itfelf to whole cities, to whole dioCefes, afrd at, length to whole principalities. In ch. iv/2. St. Paul fpeaks of Evodia and Syntyche, as two very* excellent women, but who unfortunately . were at variance: and the difference, which fubfifte4 between them, appears to have occafioned likewife a divifion in the whole community. If we judge from their names, they, were not Jewifh, but Greek women, who before their converfion to. Chriftianity, had adopted perhaps tbe Jewifh religion, and therefore, according to tbe language of the Ads of the Apoftles were yvvwi; „ «-E£oju.£iJoii, like Lydia, mentioned Ads xvi. 14,. As per fons of rank and fortune, they muft have had material influence on the other members of the community. whom St. Paul defcribes, 2 Cor. viii. 2. as being in ' general poor. Whether they had an office in tbe church, or not, no one at prefent can determine. It is indeed not impoffible, that they were deaconeffeSj and made their houfes places of aflembly : but no one can affert it, fince we have no knowledge on this fubjed. Both- Evodia and Syntyche appear to have been in the wrong: St. Paul therefore advifesthem to be reconciled to each other, and requefts a friend, whofe name he has not mentioned, to take upon him the office of mediator". w Egvra xea o-s, trvCpye yir,ait, avh7^apxxm ocvrenf, i»Ti*s; tt TU icayythtui t7vn&wc-a.v f*oi, fi.no. xm KAnfii»To; xeit rut teiirut avtsrym P-u, i» ta ovo/tara. n QJoXu ^cjn?- Ch. iv. 3. Betide the mediator there fore, who!e name St. Paul has not mentioned, it might be thought that Clement was alfo requefted to co-operate in effecting a reconcilia**'. tion. But inftead of conllruing far* tu K7i»f*Errej with ittnu xai a, I would rather cpnftrue it with B-fmOAscav pai, and fuppofe that St. Paul meant t6 hy, ' that Evodia and Syntyche had combated for the Gof pel, together with Clement (by whom I underfland Clement of Rome): and. sect. IT. The Epifile to the Philippians. itf SECT. II. St. Paul zvrote the Epifile lo the Philippians, during' his firfi imprifonment in Rome, at a time, zvhen he expeiled to be foon re leafed. THAT St. Paul was prifoner in Rome, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, appears from ch. i. 13. where he fays that his bonds were known to the whole pnetorian guard : and ph. iv. 22. he fends a falutation from ' Csefar's houfhold.' Mr. Oeder, in a Prdgramma publifhed in r 73 1, has indeed attempted to fhew, that this Epiftle was written at a much earlier period, and not long after fhe converfion of the Philip pians to Chriftianity : but his arguments have been fo completely anfwered by Wolf in his Prol'egemena to this Epiftle, that it is unneceffary to fay any thing fur ther on this fubjed. I muft make however one obfer- vation on what Oeder fays of xouwvm r»- to tyxyytXiov* ch, i. 5. which he explains of the contribution of the Philippians toward the propagation of the Gofpel. Now I grant, that the Philippians fent to St. Paul an annual prefent, to affift hirrt in propagating the Gofpel : but I do not admit that this paffage warrants the conclufion* that St. Paul wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, foon after he received the firft contribution i for he adds ' from the firft day until now,' from which we fee that thefe contributions , had been repeated feveral times. In fad, from thefe annual contributions we may conclude that fome years had elapfed between the converfion of the Philippians and the writing of this Epiftk. St. Paul himfelf and the Apoftle's other fellow-labourers, whofe names are in the book of life.' If this- be true we molt conclude that Evodia and Syntyche ^ad been with St. Paul in Rome : whither he had fent for them per- haps,.in order to bear teftimcny to his conduct in Macedonia, where he had been accufed of preaching fedition, Act,s xvi. 20. 2 1 . xvii. 6. 7. •——What I have faid in this, note, I give, only a* conjecture, and not as fact. i j8 The Epifile to the Philippians. chap. xxf. himfelf acknowledges, ch. iv. 16. that he had twice received this annual prefent, befide that which the Philip^ pians had fent to him at Theffalonica, and what I grant was foon after their converfion. When -he returned to Philippi on his journey .through Macedonia mentioned Ads xx. 1. he undoubtedly returned them thanks in perfon for the prefents, which he had already received : and the imprifonment of St. Paul in Csefarea and Rome, ¦ which happened fhortly after, muft have prevented the fending of their annual bounty during fome years, to which Sr. Paul alludes, ch. iv. io, 11. If it be objected, that between the converfion of the Philippians and the year 60*, more than four payments muft have been made, I anfwer that in thofe times there was not that regular and eafy communication between diftant coun* tries, which there is at prefent, in confequence of the eftablifhment of pofls, and the circulation of mercantile drafts: and therefore the Philippians had it not in their power to remit their annual contribution at a flared pe riod, but were obliged to wait, till they met with a con venient opportunity. It is evident that the Epiftle to the Philippians was not written at the fame time with thofe to the Ephefians and Coloffians: and I think it equally clear that it was written later than thofe Epiftles. St. Luke accompanied St. Paul to Rome, and ftaid with him there at leaft two years. Now St. Paul wrote his Epiftles to the Ephe fians and the Coloffians while St. Luke was with him, as appears from Col. iv. 14. Philem. 24. But St. Luke had certainly left him, before he wrote his Epiftle to the Philippians: for fince St. Luke fpent many years at Philippi*', and was therefore well known to the Chriftian community there, St. Paul woqld not have omitted to fend a falutation from him to the Philippians, if he had been ftill in Rome. Befides, as St. Paul wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, not only in his own name bus ' * See above, Ch. viii. Sect. 4. 1 He ftaid at Philippi during the time of St, PauPs travels, related Acts xvi. i— xx. 5. 6- See the laft paragraph of Ch. vi. Sect, 3. £ect. Ii. Ihe Epifile to the Philippians. 159 but likewife in that of Timothy, beginning thus,ch. 1. f. Paul and Timothy fervants of Jefus Chrift, &o: 1 think, that if St. Luke had likewife been prefent, his name alfo would have been added in the exordium, to which he had certainly as good a claimi if not abetter, than1 Timothy. But, what is ftill rnore decifive, St. Paul fays, ii. 19, 20. ' I truft in thjb Lord Jefus to fend Timothy fhortly unto you, that j. alfo may be of good comfort, when I know your flate. For I have no man like-minded,, who will naturally care for your flate.' Surely St. Paufcould not. have written thus, if his fel low-labourer St. Luke-had been with him. The fituation of St. Paul, as a prifoner, was likewife different, when he wrote his Epiftle to the Philippians. from that, in which he wrote to the Ephefians, and Coloffians. It is true, that even when he wrote to the Ephefians and Coloffians, his confinement was not fevere, nor his profpeds gloomy : but when he wrote to the . Philippians, his fituation was greatly improved, and his expectations much more favourable. He fays, ch. i. 12 — 14. ' My bonds in Chrift are manifeft in all the palace, and in all other places : and many of the bre thren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to fpeak the word without fear*.' And ch. iv. 22. he fays,- * All the faints falute you, chiefly they that are of Csefar's houfhold :' whence }t appears that the Chriftian religion had been introduced into the imperial palace. That he expeded, and was even confident, that he fhould be foon releafed, is evi dent from what he fays, ch. i. 25. 26. * Having this confidence I know (tuto -5rf-ro»8wr otSx) that I fhall abide and continue with you all, for your furtherance and joy of faith : that your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jefus Chrift for me, by my coming to you again.* And he is fo confident of his releafe, that he fays, ch. ii. 24. ' I truft in the Lord, that I alfo myfelf fhall come: fhortly.' The • ¦ He adds likewife ver. ic. that foffle Jewifh-minded perfons preached Chrift alio of envy and ftrife. 160 The Epifile to the Philippians. Chap. xxi, tThe two laft-quoted paffages afford a ftrong argument in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, and confequently, that the Epiftle to the Philippians was written during the firft imprifonment. The ftrong expreflion arttro^us oiSx, ch. i. 24. efpecially -as St. Paul had immediately before deliberated, whether it were better for him to live or to die, appears to imply, that he fpake in the fpirit of prophecy, and with an adual affurance of being releafed. Whoever therefore .believes that St. Paul was infpired, muft conclude that his expedations were fulfilled, that he was actually releafed. that his martyrdom therefore did not take place at the end of this imprifonment, and confequently that he underwent a fecond. On the other hand, they who affert that St. Paul fpak^ in this paffage" merely from the fuggeftions of human 'wifdom, may contend that, though he had every reafon to exped, when he wrote to the Philippians, that he fhould foon be releafed, his profpeds might have fucklenly changed ; for before the cjofe of the year, in which this Epiftle was written, namely, in the year 65, the Chriftians really underwent a fevere perfecution from Nero, who charged them with having fet fixe to Rome, in order to remove the fufpi* cion of his having been himfelf the perpetrator. That the Epiftle to the Philippians was written at the beginning of the year 65, -appears from various circum* ftauces. It could not have been written before -the year 65, beeaufe it was written after the period, with which St. Luke clofes the Ads of the Apoftles.. Nor could it have been written after the year 65, Or even fo late as the end of that year, beeaufe in that year the ponflagra* tion of Rome happened, which was followed by a fevere perfecution of the Chriftians " : and an Epiftle written after that perfecution would certainly have feprefented both the profpeds of St. Paul himfelf, and the flate of Chriftianity at Rome, in a .different manner from that, which we find in the Epiftle to the Philippians. Nor. would Jewifh impoftors have ventured after that perfe- i ... _ cution » Taciti Annal. Lib. XV. c. 44. seer. I. , The fecond Epiftle to Timothy. ifji. cution to preach the Chriftian religion, though they preached it in a manner,- which provoked St. Paul". " The more immediate occafion-of this Epiftle was the return of Epaphroditus, by whom St. Paul fent it, as a grateful acknowledgement of the money, which he had received. At the fame time he gave them an account, of his confinement in Rome, and warned them againft; the fedudions of the Jews. CHAP. XXII. OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. SECT. I. Of the place, where Timothy was, when St. Paul wrote to him his fecond Epifile. IT is generally fuppofed that Timothy was at Ephefus, when St. Paul wrote to him the fecond Epiftle, as he was, when St. Paul wrote to him the firft : but as this admits of fome doubt, it will be necefTary' to examine it more clofely. That Timothy was at leaft fornewhere in Afia Minor, when St. Paul wrote to him the fecond Epiftle, appears to be probable from ch. iv. 13. where Timothy is requefted to bring with him fome things, which St. Paul had left in Troas. But that Timothy paffed through Troas in his way to St. Paul is not a necefTary confequence, fince he might have fent to Troas for the things, which St. Paul requefted him to bring. Still lefs can we infer from this paffage, that Timothy was then in Ephefus : and the only probable inference, which we can deduce, is> that Timothy was fornewhere in Afia Minor. The » Ch. i. 15—18. Voi„ IV. L jo's!: The fecond Epifile lo Timothy, chap. xxn. The advocates for the opinion, that Timothy was then in Ephefus, allege, that St. Paul fpeaks in this Epiftle of feveral perfons, who refided in Ephefus, and relates to Timothy in what manner he had been treated by them, on their meeting in Rome : whence it is in ferred, that Timothy was then in Ephefus. But this -inference is very precarious. For, as Timothy was' particularly acquainted with the Ephefian community, and had even, appointed bifhops there, he would have been interefled in the condud of the Ephefians, even if he had not been then refident among them : and St. Paul therefore, even in this 'cafe, might have thought proper to inform Timothy that all the Chriftjans of "Afia Minor had deferted htmc, and that Alexander the copper-fmith was one of his principal adverfaries. Further, appeal is made to the following paffages, i. St. Paul falutes, ch. iv. 19. the houfe of One- fiphorus j. .and from ch. i. 16—18. is inferred that One- fiphorus was an inhabitant of Ephefus. Now it is true, that St. Paul in the laft-quoted- paffage, after having mentioned the favours, which he had received from Onefiphorusv when he was in Ronle, adds, ' and in how many things he miniftered unto me at Ephefus r.hou knoweft very well/ But this is no proof that Onefiphorus was an inhabitant of Ephefus : for, in the fame manner, as he was a ftranger in Rome, when he miniftered to St. Paul there, he might havd- foeen likewife a ftranger at Ephefus, when he fhewed to St. Paul a fimilar kindnefs. 2. Lardner alleges, that St. Paul in the very- fame verfe, in which he falutes the houfe of Onefiphorus, falutes alfo Aquilas and Prifcilla^ who refided feme time at Ephefus,, as appears from Ads xviii. iS, 19. 26. Now that they had -refided fome time at Ephefus, I grant: but it does not therefore follow, that they, were- there, when St. Paul wrote his fecond Epiftle to Ti mothy". That they had left Ephefus> and were re turned 4 Ch. i. rj. sect. I. The fecond Epifile to Timothy. '1 6*3 turned to Rome, before St. Paul Wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, is evident from Rom. xvi. 3. : and whi ther they went, when they again left Rome, is a matter wholly uncertain. As Aquilas was a native of Pontus*, he may as well be fuppofed to have gone to fome city in that country, as. to any other part of Afia Minor. Befides, as Aquilas was by profeffion an inftrument- maker, as I fhall fhew in the following chapter, it is probable ihat he frequently changed the place of his abode, in order to promote the fale of his wares. 3. St. Paul advifes Timothy to be on his guard againft Alexander the copper-fmith, ch. iv. 15. who is fuppofed to be the fame as the Alexander mentioned Ads xix. 33. who was an Ephefian, and at the infti- gation of the" Jews, aded the part of an orator, in ftirring up the people againft St. Paul. Now I admit that the Alexander, againft whom St. Paul warns Ti mothy, and who had lately taken an adive part againft St. Paul, was the fame as the Alexander, who had formerly oppofed St. Paul at Ephefus : but I do not therefore admit, that Timothy was neceffarily at Ephe fus, when St. Paul wrote to him. For, even if Timothy had been in fome other town of Afia Minor, the Apoftle might have thought it necefTary to guard him againft fo dangerous and adive an adverfary, who did not confine his perfecution to one plape, but after having accufed St. Paul at Ephefus, had followed him fome years, afterwards as far as Rome. However, though no one of the preceding arguments, taken by itfelf, is fufficient to prove, that Timothy was at Ephefus, when S,t. Paul wrote to him his fecond Epiftle, yet their united force will render the opinion not improbable, till pofitive arguments can be brought on the other fide of the quefiion. Now there are really two arguments againft the opinion that Timothy was at Ephefus. 1. St. Paul fays, ch. iv. 12. ' Tychicus have I fent to Ephefus/ Hence we may argue, that Timothy was not d Afts xviii. 2. 164 The fecond Epifile to Timothy. chap. xxii. not at Ephefus; for, if he had been there, he would have known, of the arrival of Tychicus, without being informed of it by St. Paul. ,. Lardner has endeavoured to anfwer this objedion : but he did not perceive its full force.- For he attempts Only to fhew, what no one will deny, that, if Timothy Was at Ephefus,' it was the fame thing, whether St. Paul faid, T have' fent Tychicus to thee, or I have fent Tychicus to Ephefus, ., , 2. St. Paul fays, ch. iv. 20. ' Trophimus have I left at Miletus fick.' Now, if Timothy had been at Ephefus, he muft have known this circumftance, with out having been informed by St. Paul, as Miletus was not far diftant : efpecially fince Trophimus was an Ephefian, as we fee from Ads xxi. 29. The arguments therefore on each fide of the ques tion appear to me to counterpoife each other in luch a manner, as- to leave the quefiion undecided. In fact, it is not improbable, that St. Paul himfelf did not ex- adly know in what city of Afia Minor Timothy would receive the Epiftle, which he was writing to him : for, as Timothy was very adive in propagating the Gofpel, we may conclude that he frequently removed from one towii to another. And as Afia Minor was not only at fome ' diftance from Italy, but feparated from it by two feas, the communication. between St. Haul and Timothy cannot be fuppofed to have been fo regular, that the former always knew where the latter refided; Though St. Paul knew not exadly, where Timothy was, he might have written to him an Epiftle, and have entrufted it to a fafe perfon, who was travelling into Afia Minor, with an order to deliver it to him, where- ever he found him. sect. n. The fecond Epifile to Timothy. 16^ SECT. II. Whether this Epifile was written, while St. Paul was prifoner for the firfi time, in Rome, or during a fecond imprifonment there. , , . THAT St. Paul was a prifoner, when he wrote this- (Epiftle, is evident from ch. i. 8. 12. 16. ii. 9. and that his imprifonment was in Rome appears from: ch. i. 17. But the quefiion to be afked is, whether he wrote it during the imprifonment recorded by St. Luke. in the laft chapter of the Ads: or whether he wrote it during a fecond imprifonment there. This quefiion will likewife involve another, namely, whether the old tradition, that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, be really true. ¦ ¦ It is obvious from the contents of this Epiftle, that at the time, when St. Paul wrote it, his fituation was very different from that, in which he wrote the Epiftfes; to the Ephefians, Coloffians, Philemon, and the Philippians. For thefe Epiftles difcover very advan tageous profpeds, and fhew that the Apoftle expeded to be foon releafed ; whereas the fecond Epiftle to Timothy plainly indicates, that he had then no other- expedation, than that of an approaching death. When he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, his caufe had taken fo favourable a turn, that many, even interefted Jews, had been induced to preach the Gofpel. But, when he wrote his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, his fitua tion was fuch, that every one of thofe, who were for merly his friends, had deferted him, excepting St. Luke e. Further, St. Luke was not with him, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians : and again, the perfons, from whom he fends falutations in the fecond e Ch. iv. 11. *>3 1.66 Thefecond Epifile to. Timothy, chap. xxij. fecond Epiftle to Timothy, ch. iv, 11. are not men tioned in any of St. Paul's former Epiftles, and appear therefore to have been perfons, with- whom Timothy, who was in Rome, when St. Paul wrote his Epiftles to the Coloffians and Philippians, had then made, an acquaintance. Hence it is evident, that tbe fecond Epiftje to Timothy was written under different cir cumfiances, and at a different time from the above- mentioned Epiftles. It muft likewife appear highly probable, merely from this ftatement, that it was written later. But from this ftatement alone,- we muft not immediately cpnclude, that it was written during a fecond imprifonment : for it ftill remains poffible, that St. Paul was only once prifoner in Rome? and that the favourable expedations, and the hopes of a releafe, which he had in the former part of it, were changed before he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, efpecially in the year 65, when the Chriftians under went a fevere perfecution from Nero. But, if this be true, and St. Paul remained prifoner in Rome from the time of his firft arrival there to the time of his martyrdom, it muft at leaft be admitted, that the Apoftle wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy toward the clofe of this imprifonrrrent, and fhortly before his death. Tardner f, on the fuppofition that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, has taken great pains to prove, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during* St, Paul's firft imprifonment there. But though Lardner's arguments on_ this 'fubjed are very numerous, they are totally ineffective. However, as he has colleded- almbft every thing, which can be faid on this fide of the quefiion, the reader will do well \o confult him, The qther fide of the quefiion, namely, that this Epiftle was written during a fecond imprifonment in Rome, is very ably, and very impartially fupported by Mofheim f Supplement to the Credibility of the Qofpel Hiftory, yd.lL. p. 226 — *74«. sect. n. The fecond Epifile to Timothy. 167 Mofheim in his Expofition of the two Epiftles to Timothy5. The main quefiion, for the fake of greater perfpicuity, may be divided into tbe four following parts. 1. Was this Epiftle written during St. Paul's firft imprifonment in Rome ? 2. Or during a fecond imprifonmeat there?- 3. If St. Paul was only once prifoner in Rome, was it written in the former part of this imprifonment ? 4. Or toward the clofe of it ? , * Before I proceed to the examination of thefe quef tions, 1 muft obferve, what Mofheim indeed has al ready noticed, that the firft quefiion in fome meafure involves an abfurdity. For the opinion that St. Paul was 'twice prifoner in Rome is fupported by no hifto- rical evidence h, and the fecond Epiftle to Timothy alone can fufnifh a proof, tha,t he was adually releafed the firft time, that he left Rome, that he afterwards returnee) thither, and was again imprifoned. It is true, that an exception may be made for the argument, which I de duced in the fecond fedion of the preceding chapter, from Phil. i. 25. (where St. Paul confidently fpeaks qf an.approaching releafe) in favour of the opinion, that he was adually releafed, on the fuppofitipn, that the confident expectations of an infpired man poujd f^ot be difappointed. But, as theologians both in anpienjt and in modern times have doubted, whether St. Paul was endued, with a prophetic fpirit, in matters relating to his own life and fortune, it may be difputed, whe ther his expedatigns were fulfilled. Inftead therefore of inquiring, whether the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, was written during St. Paul's firft imprifonment in Rome, we fhould afk whether it was written in the former part of his imprifonment there. Now that this is highly improbable appears from what has been already faid in this feclion. What * Pag. 609—632. * See CJfcXvii. Seel, z. I.4 1 6 8 The fecond Epifile to ' Timothy, chap; xxn. What I have to advance on this fubjed, I fhall de liver in the ten following arguments, the fix firft of which are not decifive; but the four laft, I think, fhew beyond a doubt, that St. Paul was really a prifoner in Rome at two different times, and that this Epiftle was written during the fecond imprifonment. i. When St. .Paul, wrote to the Coloffians,' and ftill later, when he wrote to the Philippians, Timothy was with him, as appears from Col. i. i. Phil. i. i. But Timothy was abfent, and in Afia M>nor,. when, he re ceived, his fecond. Epiftle from St. Paul. Now this argument fhews, that thefe Epiftles were "written at different periods : but it does not determine which' of them was written firft. As far as we can judge from the Ads of the Apoftles, Timothy did not accompany St. Paul on his voyage from Czefarea to Italy, nor even on his journey to Jerufalem, where St. Paul was firft apprehended : for the name of Timothy does not once occur from the twenty-firft chapter of the Ads to the end of the book. St. Paul therefore might have written the fecond Epiftle to Timothy immediately" after his arrival in Rome, and have re quefted him to come thither before the winter1: con fequently, Timothy came to Rome after the 'receipt of -St. Paul's fecond Epiftle to him. On the other hand, St. Paul fays in his Epiftle to the Philippians, ch. ii. 19. -he hopes foon to fend Timothy to them : whence it follows^ that Timothy was abfent from Rome, foon after -St. Paul wrote to the Philippians. Now if we affumronly one imprifonment of St. Paul' in Rome, it is not impoffible, that after Timothy's departure, : the Apoftle requefte'd him to come again to Rome ;';btrt if St. Paul was prifoner there at twO different times, we have no ground for the fuppofition, that Timothy, who was with St. Paul in the middle of the firft impri fonment, was again with him at the beginning of the fecond. 2. When ¦* *Ch.iv. 9. 21. sIct. ii. . The fecond Epiftle to Timothy. 169 2. When St. Paul wrote the Epiftle to the Coloffians, 'St. Mark Was with him, as appears from Coloff. iv. 10. Philem. 23.: but St. Mark was abfent from St. Paul, when he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, as we fee from ch. iv. 1 1. where he requefts Timothy to bring St. Mark with him. This argument is again indecifive, and may be applied on the other fide of the quefiion. St. Mark may ,very poffibly have been abfent from Rome in the firft year of St. Paul's imprifonment, have come thither before the Winter, and confequently have been with St. Paul, when the Apoftle wrote to the Coloffians. On the other hand, it is equally poffible that St. Mark was with St. Paul, at the commencement of the imprifonment: but it muft not therefore be inferred, that he was there likewife at the beginning of the fecond imprifonment, and confe quently St. Paul, during the fecond imprifonment, may, by means of Timothy, have requefted St. Mark to come again to Rome, where he, had before been fo ferviceable to the Apoftle. 3. St. Luke, who accompanied St. Paul from Csefa- rea to Rome, and remained probably two years there, was with St. Paul, when he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, as well as, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Coloffians, as appears from 2 Tim\ iv. 11. Col. iv. 14. : but St. Luke was hot with him when he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, as I have already fhewn, Ch. xxi. Sed. 2. This argument rnay be likewife applied on both Tides of the quefiion. St, Luke, who was his .ufual companion, may have been with him at Rome in a fecond, as well as in the firft imprifonment. And, during the two years imprifonment mentioned Ads xxviii. 30, 31. St. Paul's fituation was. far from being fo dangerous, as it is reprefented in the fecond Epiftle to Timothy. 4. When St. Paul wrote to the Coloffians and to Philemon, Demas was with him, as we find in Col. iv. 14. Philem. 24; : but when he wrote the fecond Epiftle tjo The fecond Epifile to Timothy, chap, xxn. Epiftle to Timothy, Demas had left him, and was gone to Theffalonica. This circumftance makes it probable, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written later, than that to the Coloffians: but it is not decifive, be eaufe it is poffible, that Demas, though he deferted St. Paul,' might repent and afterwards return to him. The argument however is at leaft a prefumptive one. 5. It appears from Ephef. vi. 21, 22. and Col. iv, 7, 8. that St. Paul, when he had written thefe Epiftles, fent Tychicus with them to Ephefus, Coloflje^ and other. places in Afia Minor : and at this very time, Timothy was with St. Paul in Rome. Again, St. Paul in his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, ch. iv. 22. tells him, that he has fent Tychicus to Ephefus. Tychicus therefore was- fent by St. Paul from Rome to Ephefus at two dif ferent times: and if we confider the diftance between the places, and the time requifite for executing his com- miffion, it is not unreafonable to fuppofe, that a year elapfed between his firft departure from Rome, and his return thither. Hence we may infer, that there was an interval of a year between the writing of the Epiftle to1 the Coloffians, and of the fecond Epiftle to Timothy : but whether the former or the latter was firft written, ftill remains a quefiion. Several commentators have applied this argument in fo confufed a manner, that it is difficult to determine what inference they intend to draw from it : but Mofheim, whom I have followed, ,has fet it in a clearer light. 6. It appears from 2 Tim. iv. 6, 7, 8.. that when St. Paul wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, his profpects Were fo unfavourable, that he expeded foon to fuffer martyrdom : but he had the flrongeft expedations of being foon releafed, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, as we fee from Phil. i. 25. This argument Mofheim1' confidered as decifive in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was releafed after he wrote his Epiftle , to the Philippians, and that he wrote k Pag. 615. of his Expofition of the Epiftles to Timothy. sect. II. The fecond Epifile to Timothy. 171 wrote his fecond Epiftle to Timothy during a fecond imprifonment, only a fhort time before his death. But, as this argument refts on the fuppofition, that St. Paul had, from infpiration, fuch a knowledge of future events, as to be incapable of a miftake in what he con fidently expeded, which not every critic of the prefent age will admit j and, as queftions of hiftoriCal fad ought properly to be determined by hiftorical argu ments, or fuch as men of all defcriptions muft admit, I ,do not reckon the prefent argument among the decifive ones. Befides, the expedation of martyrdom, which St. Paul expreffes, 1 Tim. iv. 6 — 8. are not couched in fuch ftrong terms, as his expedation of releafe, Phil, i, 25. where he fays -re-roiOwc qiSx: and they appear to have been built on no other foun dation than the appearance of things, which were liable to change. Further, an Apoftle may be infpired by the Deity when he is writing on matters of dodrine and faith: and yet that very Apoftle may remain _as ignorant, as other men, in regard to the good or ill fortune, which awaits himfelf. And, as it would be de trimental to men in general to know with certainty their future defliny, we may fuppofe, that St. Paul himfelf could judge of his own fate only, from prefent proba bilities. In his Epiftle to \he Romans, ch. 24, 28, 30 — 33. he fpeaks of plans and defigns, which he in tended to put in execution: but as we do not know that they ever were, we muft not confider thefe declarations as prophecies. On the fix preceding arguments therefore I fhall lay no particular flrefs: but the four following are decifive, and clearly fhew, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written, not only later than thofe to the Coloffians and Philippians, but during a fecond imprifonment of St. Paul in Rome. 7. Whether the expedations of St, Paul, that he fhould foon fuffer martyrdom were fulfilled, or not, it is certain, that his fituation, when he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, was extremely dangerous. This appears, 1J2 The fecond Epifile to Timothy.' chap, xxir, appears, not only from the above-quoted paffage, ch. iv. 6, 7, 8; but likewife from ver. 16. where St. Paul fays, that at his firft anfwer all men forfook-him. This is quite the reverie of his fituation when he wrote to the Philippians: for at that time the gentle treatment of StV Paul had emboldened many to preach the Gofpel, and had induced even feveral Jews to teach Chriftianity, in the hopes of gain1. Further, St. Paul fays, a Tim. iv. 17. that though every man deferted him on' his firft hearing, the Lord flood by him, and he wasv' delivered from - the mouth of the iion.' This ftrong expreffiori indicates, that St. Paul had been in very great danger. Again, the Apoftle fays in the following verfe, he hopes, the Lord will deliver him from every evil work, that is,' as he himfelf explains it, not in a temporal fenfe, but • unto his heavenly kingdom.' Thefe circumfiances fhew, not only that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written at a different time from the Epiftles to the Coloffians, to Philemon, and the Phi lippians, in which he expreffes his hopes of being foon releafed, and even defires Philemon to prepare for him a lodging, but determine likewife" the quefiion, which the preceding arguments, left unfettled, whether it was written fooner or later, and clearly decide in favour of the latter opinion. During the two years, when St. Pauf was firft prifoner in Rome, his confinement and treat ment were extremely mild, as St. Luke relates, Acts xxviii. 16 — 31. faying, that St. Paul lived in his own lodging, guarded only by a fingle foldier, and received vifits urimolefted. This indulgence would not have been granted him, had he been at that time perfecuted in fuch a manner, as to warrant the ftrong expreflion of a deliverance from the mouth of the lion, and an expeda tion of fuffering death. [ This feventh argument therefore clearly fhews, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written at a later period than the two years imprifonment mentioned by St. Luke, during which were written the Epiftles to the , Coloffians, 1 Phil. i. 14—17. s e c t , 1 1 . The fecond Epiftle to Timothy. 173 Coloffians, to- Philemon, and the Philippians. But this feventh argument alone does not decide the quef- tion, whether Sti Paul was adually releafed at the end of the two years, and .therefore wrote this Epiftle in a fecond imprifonment in Rome, or whether he was not releafed, and therefore wrote it, in the fame imprifon ment continued. As we have no hiftorical data on this fubjed, it ftill remains poffible therefore, that the latter is true, and, that at the clofe of the fecond year, St. Paul's fituation was altered materially for the worfe in confequence of the perfecution, which the Chriftians underwent in the year 65; after the conflagration of Rome. But the following arguments fhew, that St. Paul was adually releafed, and that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during a fecond imprifonment in Rome.8. Tt appears from 2 Tim. iv. 13. 20. that, when St. Paul wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, he had lately been in Troas, Miletus, and Corinth. He had therefore taken at that time a very different route to Rome, from that, which St. Luke has defcribed in the two laft chapters ofthe Acts. ' In 2 Tim. iv. 13. he defires Timothy to bring with him a trunk, and efpecially fome books, which he had left behind at Troas. But St. Paul, on his voyage from Casfarea to Italy, defcribed in the two laft chap ters of the Ads, did not come near Troas, for he failed only along the fouthern coaft of Afia Minor. It is true, that he vifited Troas on his way to Jerufalem, previous to his imprifonment, and his fubfequent voyage/to Italy, as we find from Ads xx. 4, 5, 6, 7. But as this vifit to Troas happened in the year 60, and the fecond Epiftle to Timothy could not have been written before the year 65, I cannot fuppofe that St. Paul then left behind at Troas what he defired to Timothy to bring, beeaufe he would hardly have deferred the fending for thefe things fo long as five years. " In this cafe, he would rather have fent for them to Csfarea, where he continued not lefs than two years in prifon : or, if he 2 had 174 The fecond Epifile to Timothy. chap.xxh. had defired Timothy to bring them to Rome, he would have made the requeft on his firft arrival there. 9. When St. Paul wrote his fecond Epiftle to Ti- mothy, he had lately left Trophimus fick at Miletus, as appears likewife from ch. iv. 20. But this could not have happened on the journey to Jerufalem, beeaufe Trophimus was with St. Paul in. Jerufalem, -Acts xxi. 29. And on his voyage from Csefarea to Italy, St. Paul did not touch at Miletus : confequently, he could not at that time have left him fick there, even if Tro phimus had accompanied St. Paul on this voyage,'of which, however we have no knowledge. Lardner in deed afferts m, that Trophimus might have accompanied St. Paul on his voyage, though St. Luke has not men tioned it: and that, as the (hip, in which St. Paul failed, paffed along the coaft of Afia Minor, he might then have fet Trophimus on fhore at Miletus. But, if we attend to St. Luke's narrative, we fhall find this to be utterly impoffible. For St. Luke fays, ch. xxvii. 8. * When we had failed flowly many days, and fcarce were come over againft Cnidus, the wind not fuffering us, we failed under Crete, over againft Salmone.' The wind therefore was north, and Cnidus was the mofl northerly place, which they could reach : confequently, they could not have reached Miletus, which lay two-thirds, of a degree ftill more to the north. Beza and Gro tius have endeavoured to remove this objedion,- which is a ftrong argument againft their hypothefis, by pro- pofing to read tv MeAitw, 2 Tim. iv. 20. inftead of tv Mi\vra: and Lardner likewife has no objedion to this alteration. But as it is fupported by no Greek manu- fcript, and no ancient verfion, and is adopted with no other view, than to ftrengthen a previoufly affumed opinion, it is certainly not admiffible. Other commentators have endeavoured to free them felves from this difficulty by faying, that St. Paul's affertion, ffl Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory, Vol. II. p. 237— a39 sect. ii. The fecond Epifile to Timothy. 175 affertion, ' I have . left Trophimus fick at Miletus/ means only, ' I have put Trophimus fick on fhore, that he might go to Miletus.' But this is a forced and unnatural explanation : for if St. Paul had fet Tro phimus on fhore at any other place than Miletus, 'he would have mentioned that place, and not the place, Where, according to this explanation, he really did not leave him. Befides, if Trophimus was fick, it would have been as fatiguing to have travelled to Miletus from the place, where he landed, as to have remained in the fhip : and, if he was able to travel, he would have gone not to Miletus, but to Ephefus, for Tro phimus was an Ephefian. This therefore is a mere evafion, which has no other objed, than to prove at any rate, let the difficulties be what they will, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during St. _ Paul's firft imprifonment in Rome. 10. St.. Paul fays, ch. iv. 20. that Eraftus ftaid behind in /Corinth. Confequently, St. Paul muft have paffed through Corinth on that journey to Rome, after which he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy. But when he went from Csefarea to Italy, it is evident from St. Luke's narrative, Ads xxvii. xxviii. that he could not have paffed through Corinth. To this important argument Lardner has endeavoured to anfwer, by faying", that Eraflus ftaid behind at Corinth, when St. Paul left that city to go to Jerufalem. But at that time Timothy left Corinth in company with St. Paul, and therefore flood in no need of information in refped to what Eraftus then did. This Lardner admits: but he anfwers, though very unfatisfadorily, that the Apoftle reminded Timothy of this circum ftance, in order to fhew him that his prefence was fo much the more necefTary. Further, Lardner's argu-» ment in favour of the opinion, that Eraftus was adually at Corinth, when St. Paul left that city to go to Jeru falem, is very infufficient. Eraftus, he fays, was fent by St. Paul from Ephefus into Macedonia, Ads xix. 22. Soon • Pag. 435. lj6 - The fecond Epifile to Timothy, ch-ap. xxn. Soon after, St. Paul himfelf went into Macedonia: and when he returned into Afia Minor, Eraftus did not return with him, for his name is not mentioned among St. Paul's attendants, Ads xx. 4. Now, if from thele premifes we may draw any inference, it can be no other than this, that Eraftus ftaid behind in Macedonia: but Lardner infers, that Eraftus ftaid behind in Co rinth. The preceding arguments, I think, clearly ihew, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during a fecond imprifonment of St. Paul in Rome. With refped to the more minute circumfiances of the time, it appears to 'have been written about the month of July, or at the lateft in the month of Auguft; for St. Paul requefts Timothy, who was then in Afia Minor, to come to him before the winter," and the Epiftle was probably a month on its paffage. The year, in which it was written, I would rather fuppofe to be 66 than 65. For in the beginning of the year 65 St. Paul was releafed from his firft imprifonment : and between his releafe and his fecond imprifonment he had taken a very long journey, having vifited Corinth, Troas, Miletus, and, fince it was his intention to do fo, probably likewife Philippi and Coloflk. When St. Paul returned to Rome after this journey, and became again a prifoner, he found the fituation of affairs totally changed, which it is very eafy to conceive, and the conflagration of Rome, and the fubfequent perfecutipn of the Chriftians happened in the latter half of the. year 65. St. Paul however could not have been in Rome during the violence of the perfecution, neither as prifoner, nor as free : for the proeefs againft him would then have been much fhorter0, than that which he defcribes in the fecond Epiftle to Timothy. Nor would Demas, Crefcens, Titus, and Tychicus, whom St. Paul mentions, ch. iv. 10, 12. as having left Rome, have been fuffered to depart unmolefted. But if we fuppofe, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written ia 0 Correpti qui fatebantur, fays Tacitus. Sect. ii. . The fecond Epifile to Timothy. 177 in the fumtner of the year 66, we may explain various phenomena in this Epiftle. The violence of the perfe cution had then fubfided, yet the fear of a renewal of it prevented St. Paul's former friends from taking his part in public. Hence he fays, ch. iv. 16. that at his firft anfwer, no one ventured to fland with him; but he adds, ver. 17. that he was delivered for that time out of the ' mouth of the' lion,' From this expreflion we may conclude,, that the danger, which St. Paul ap prehended, was not that of fuffering death by the fword, but that of being expofed to wild beafts in a Roman amphitheatre, as feveral Chriftians had already- been, and that in a very cruel manner p. As fentence was not paffed on his firft hearing, a nondum liquet, according to ' the forms of the Roman law, muft have- been de clared, and his profecutors direded to continue the fuit. An opportunity therefore was offered him of making a fecond defence; and, as the games of the amphitheatre were then over, he might conclude, that he would furvive^he following winter11. The falutations, which St. Paul fends in this Epiftle, are from perfons, whofe names he had not mentioned before : and he is totally filent on Clement, and on other Perfons, whofe names we fhould exped to find in "this •Epiftle. Perhaps they had already fuffered martyrdom, or, if not, had fled from Rome. * Pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecli laniatu earum interirent. Tacit. Annal. xv. 44. 1 On this fubjecl the reader may confult Cicero, Procemium Aft. I. in Verrem cap. 10. and recollect that the prolongation of the charge and .defence might make it necefTary to wait for evidence from diftant parts. Vol. IV. M 178 The fecond Epifile to Timothy* chap. xxij. SECT. lit. Contents of this Epifile. THIS Epiftle contains, for the mofl partr advice to Timothy to oppofe with all his power the falfe teachers, and to propagate the Gofpel. As falfe teach ers, Hymenasus and Philetus are particularly mentioned', ch. ii. 17, 18. of whom St. Paul fays, ' Who, con cerning the truth, have erred, faying, that the refur redion is paft already.' What they rheant, in faying, ' that the refurredion is paft already,' it is difficult exadly to determine. But it is highly probable, that they aded in the fame manner, as many perfons in the prefent age, who endeavour to alter the dodrines of Chriftianity. They denied the refurredion of the body at the day of judgement as taught by St. Paul : but they ftill retained the term ' refurredion,' that the: oppofition> might not be too glaring, and afcribed to it fuch a meaning, as they thought proper. They were unwilling to forfeit their title as Chriftians, and there fore would not fay in pofitivc terms, that there was no fuch thing as a refurredion, beeaufe Chrift himfelf had. fpoken of it. Yet they denied the fad in their hearts, beeaufe it was not to be reconciled with their philo fophy. In this refped, they argued differently' from modern fceptics, who refufe their affent to the doctrine of a refurredion of the body, beeaufe they thinkjhat the proofs of it are not fufficiently ftrong to procure convidion; and who affert, not- fo much that the doc* trine is abfolutely falfe, as that no • one can prove it to be true. But the fceptics in the time of St. Paul at tempted to bring a pofitive proof of its falfhood : and arguing on the principles of the oriental philofophy, which derived all fin from matter, they contended, that the pure and, fpiritual foul, when once delivered from its body or earthly imprifonment, would, inftead of chap, xxiii. Character of St. Paul. 179 of deriving any advantage, materially fuffer from being again attached to it. Perhaps, Hymenjeus and Philetus, who retained the name of ' refurredion,' though they in fad denied the thing, afcribed to it a figurative meaning, and made it equivalent to ' regeneration :' for in this fenfe they might truly fay of every good Chriftian, that refurredion had already taken' place. Or, as the dodrine' of tranfmi- gration of fouls was at that time not uncommon, they might have taken the word ' refurredion' in this fenfe, and fay, that a refurredion took place, a!s often as -a child was born. As this Epiftle was written to St. Paul's mofl inti mate friend, and was not defigned for the ufe of others, it may ferve to exhibit to us the temper and charader of St. Paul, and to convince us, that he was no de ceiver, but that he fincerely believed the dodrines, which he preached. This fubjed however, as it is of fome importance, I fhall examine at large in the following chapter. C Ff A P. XXIII. of st. Paul's character ANb mode of. life. SECT. I. Whether St. Paul was an impofior, an enthufiaft, or a meffenger frtim heaven. AS St. Paul was not a difciple of Chrift during his miniftry, and as many Jewifh zealots and other heretics were offended at his dodrine, his right to the name and dignity of an Apoftle of Chrift was dilputed by many, efpecially in Galatia, and at Corinth. And M 2 though i So Char abler of St. Paul- chap, xxiii. though he triumphed over his enemies, and filenced them during his life, yet fome .later heretics have re- fufed to acknowledge -him as a meflenger from Chrift. But his divine miffion is. fufficiently proved by his miracles,, and gifts of the Holy Ghoft.. I have not room to enlarge, as I could with, on this fubjecf : but I will take notice of the' principal objedions, which in modern times have been made to St. Paul's divine miffion. That he wilfully and malicioufly impofed upon the world is an affertion almoft too abfurd to be made : for it is impoffible to conceive what advantage he could have propofed to himfelf from the impofture. He fubfifted by the labour of his own hands ; he loft his credit among the Jews by preaching the Gofpel; he involved. himfelf in troubles and difgrace ; and was at laft obliged to leal his dodrine with his blood. If we eonfider further the undiffembled-calmnefs of mind, confpicuous throughout the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, at a time when his death was impending, he cannot poffibly be taken for a wicked deceiver, who was dif- appointed- in his hope. According to Epiphanius', the Ebionites" propagated the following ridiculous flory. St- Paul, they faid, who acknowledged himfelf to be a native of Tarfus, was born a heathen : but that on coming to Jerufalem he was captivated with the daugh ter of a Jewifh high prieft% and in order to obtain her in marriage underwent the rite of circumcifion.. His expedatidns however,, they fay, were difappointed, and on that account St. Paul became fuch an enemy to the Jewifh region, that he refoived to preach Chriftianity as the fureft means of undermining it. This ftbry is fo abfurd, that it carries with, it its own confutation. 'Others pretend, that St. Paul was an enthufiaff, and that he was not fo much' an intentional deceiver of others, as one, who was himfelf deceived. It is faid, that ' Haeref. XXX. § 16. s The name of the high prieft is Very prudently not mentioned. sect. r. Charatler of St. Paul. 181 that the appearance of Chrift to St. Paul on his journey to Damafcus was merely an imaginary vifion, and the refult of St. Paul's heated imagination : that it was merely thunder, which he took for the voice of Chrift, and which he fancied to be a call from Heaven : and that his own gift of miracles, as well as his power of imparting it to others, was wholly ideal. The common anfwer to this objedion is, that his former zeal for the law and againft Chrift rendered it impoffible for him to perfuade himfelf falfely that ChrjfT had appeared to him, and called him to be an Apoftle, But this anfwer is not fatisfadory : for enthufiafts always run into extremes, and are very apt in certain circumfiances to imagine things directly oppofite to their former fentiments. I would propofe therefore the following queftions. I. If the appearance of Chrift to St. Paul, related in the ninth chapter of the Ads, was a mere imaginary vifion, and only a phantom which prefented itfelf to St. Paul's agitated mind, what is the reafon that his companions likewife faw and heard any part of what paffed ? 2. How could St. Paul imagine to the end of his days, that he wrought certain miracles, which were never wrought ? Were not his fehfes evidences to him ofthe contrary ? How could he imagine, that he com municated to others the gift of tongues, if they did not fpeak languages, with which they were before unacquainted? Was St. Paul himfelf, were the Chriftian communities, to wdiich he wrote, were his fellow-labourers, fo deprived both of their fight and hearing, as to imagine thefe things, if they had never happened ? The prophets of the Cevennes in the prefent century were the greateft enthufiafts in the world : yet they did not imagine the contrary of what they faw "and heard, And though they were fanguine in prophefying, that they fhould raife the dead, they never ventured to make the experiment. But St. Paul, it is pretended, perfuaded himfelf almbft twenty focceffive years, that he was working what he . M 3 did 182 Character of St. Paul, chap, xxiii. did not work ; and that many thoufands joined with him in believing the contrary of what they faw.' Is this pof fible ? 3. What enthufiaft, or fanatic, evgr ventured upon morals, without being milled by his imagination to invent an extravagant lyftem ? Whereas in the morality taught by St. Paul we meet with nothing, but what is rational, and confiftent with philofophical ethics. - 4. When a man of frantic and difordered "brain fuffers • the heat of his imagination to carry him fo far, as to feal his error by "his death, his refolution is generally accom panied with ,a wild irrational vehemence and defpair. The joyfulnefs of the martyrs in the fecond and -third centuries, and the eagernefs, with which they plunged into fufterings, frequently bordered on this kind of phrenfy.' But, when St. Paul faw death approaching, his temper of mind was calm and rational. He went with fortitude, to meet death, but he did not feek it: on the contrary he defended himfelf, as well as he was able, and felt the ufual and natural apprehenfions of a man, who expects to forfeit his life. Laftly, fome have contended that St. Paul was not an enthufiaft, but a cool and deliberate free-thinker, whofe objed was to deliver, by a well-intended fraud,, both the world in general, and the Jews in particular, from the yoke of fuperftition. But to this objedion I fhall not reply at- prefent, beeaufe it belongs rather to deiftical controverfy, than to an Introduction to the New Tefta ment. sect. ii. St. Pauls mode of Life. 183 SECT. II. Of St. Paul's profeffion, or trade. ST. PAUL frequently fays in his Epiftles, that he received no pay from the Chriftian communities, except from that of Philippi, and that he earned his bread by the labour of his own hands : though at the fame time lie declares, that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that the teacher deferves to be recompenfed by thofe who are taught. He even ordained, that other teachers fhould be paid by the churches, and excluded only himfelf from a participation of the pay'. He fays' in exprefs terms to the elders of the church at Ephefus, where he had refided three years, - I have coveted no man's filver, or gold, or apparel ; yea, ye yourfelves know, that thefe hands have miniftered unto my necef-? fities, and to them, that were with me V Now St. Paul had generally feveral affiftants with him '• and, when he was at Ephefus, he by no means lived in a narrow or fparing manner. For he hired a public auditorv, where he daily taught the dodrines of Chrifr tianity w, and where every one was permitted to enter without fee or reward. And among his Ephefian friends he reckoned feveral Afiarchs, who were opulent annual magiftrates, and who were certainly not Chriftians, as it was their office, efpecially of one of their body, to pre- fide over- the religious games, of which the prefident defrayed the greateft part of the expence \ Nor does St. Paul appear to have been in narrow circumfiances during his two years imprifonment at Ciefarea : for the 1 See 1 Cor. ix. 2 Cor. xi. 7— n. Gal. vi. 6— tip. Phil, iv, io—> j6. i Tim. v. 17, 18. * Acls xx. 33, 34. w Acts xix. 9. ? See Bpze's Eflay on this fubjeft, in the 17th Volume of the Me- moires de V Academiedes Infcriptions et Belles Lettres. H 4 184 St. Paul's mode of. Life. chap. xxur. the Roman governor, Felix, frequently fent for him and converfed with him, expeding that money would be offered for his releafe. That among the Jews, even men of learning, (as St. . Paul certainly was, who had been educated under Ga maliel), gained their livelihood by the labour of their own hands, is a matter which is well known. But the quefiion is, by what kind of labour was St. Paul, who devoted fo much time to the exercife of his Apoftolical office, enabled to provide fo plentifully both for himfelf and his companions. The Greek term ufed by St. Luke, Ads .xviii. 3. where he fays that St. Paul and Aquilas exercifed the fame art, is o-xrwovoios. This word, which does not occur in other Greek authors, is fup pofed to be equivalent to o-xwoppxtpo;, and is taken by fome commentators to denote a worker in leather, either a faddler, or a maker of leather chairs which were ftrapped on the back of a camel y. But no man can exercife the trade of a faddler, who leads fuch a wandering life, as St. Paul did : for a faddler has fo many materials necefTary for his bbfinefs, that they cannot conveniently be tranfported. from town to town. Whoever therefore reads with at tention the fixteenth and feventeenth chapters of the Ads of the Apoftles, and obferves how fhort a ftay St. Paul made in each place, and how frequently he was forced to depart fuddenly, muft perceive that the notion of St. Paul's being a travelling faddler is wholly abfurd, Befides, the very employment of a faddler is by no means calculated for a travelling trade ; for fince faddlers in every town have generally their fixed cuftomers, • a man of this trade, who came a ftranger to any place, might wait there. a twelvemonth, before he found employment. And even if this objedion were removed, it is ftill diffi cult to Comprehend, how any man' who devoted the greateft part of his time to fpiritual purpofes, and had, only a few hours leifure every day for the labour of his hands, 1 See my edition of Caftelli Lexicon Syriacum, p.- 454. under the article jj.Aoii : and I. Helfrich's Short account of a journey to Je rufalem in 1 58 1, under the date, 11 October. sect. ii. St. Paul's mode of Life. 185 hands, could earn enough as a faddler to fupply, in an ample manner, the neceffities both of himfelf, and of his friends. If we explain o-jsjikottc-io- as denoting ' a maker of leather chairs to be ftrapped on the backs of camels/ the difficulty will be ftill increafed ; for St. Paul was very frequently in places, where there were no camels; and confequently where no fuch chairs were wanted. Other commentators take c-x-ive-roio- in the fenfe of a ' tent-maker ;' but the fame objedions, which I have made to the other applications of the word, may be /made likewife to this. And if Aquilas, who was of the fame trade with St. Paul, was a tent-maker, it muft feem extraordinary, that a man, who was a native of Pontus, in the neighbourhood of which country there were nations who lived in tents, fhould come to Corinth and Ephefus, where tents were not wanted. But the preceding difficulties are entirely removed by the following paffage in Julius Pollux, from which it appears that c-jwotgio? has properly a very different meaning from either of thofe already mentioned. This learned writer fays in his Onomafticon, Lib. VII. § 18-9. that o-xr.vowoio; in the language of the old comedy Was equivalent to fthxxvoirous z. Now jU.y\^a.voTroios fignifies a ' maker of mechanical inftruments.' Confequently St. Paul and Aquilas were neither faddlers, nor tent-makers, but mechanical inftrument makers. And this profeffion fuited. extremely well their mode of life: for, whoever pofleffes ability in the art can earn, in 21 few hours every day, as much as is necefTary for his fuppOrt, and can eafily travel From place to place, beeaufe the apparatus is eafily tranfported. It is therefore extraordinary that no commentator has hitherto taken o-jMino-r-,!--, Ads' xviii. 3. in this fenfe : and ftill more extraordinary that Julius Pollux has been adually quoted for a very differentpurpofe, 1 T«s is [AV}%(ztoiroiyq y.Ofi cv.vttoitoi^ n tsoCKectot. xvuwdia 6>to[Act£e. Though Julius Pollux fays that trxytoTroios was thus ufed in the old comedy, and does not quote any Jiving authors, yet it muft be obferved that the words ufed in comedy are the words of common con variation, though not always ufed by authors. 1 86 The Epifile to the Hebreivs. chap. xxiv. purpofe, namely, to caution the reader againft afcribing to o-xWoio?, Ads xviii. 3. the fenfe, which is given it in tbe Onomaflicon of Julius Pollux-. Such commentators mofl furely have never refleded on .the advantages, which attend this fenfe, and the difficulties, which attentj the others. CHAP. XXIV. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. SECT. I. General remarks : and ftatement of the queftions to be ex amined in this chapter. HAVE deferred *to this place the examination of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, beeaufe it is a matter of difpute, which perhaps will never be finally determined, whether it was written by St. Paul, or not. In the pre-. ceding editions of this Introdudion, I wholly negle&ed to treat of this Epiftle, and contented myfelf with re ferring the reader to other authors : though, when I publifhed the third edition I had already written a par ticular Expofition of this Epiftle, which I quoted as well as Lardner's Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory". But, fince an Introdudion to the New Teftament ought to contain a differtatipn on every part of it, I think it necefTary to fupply, in the prefent, the deficiency of the preceding editions. And I am the more ftrongly urged to, the undertaking, firft, as I have lately made feveral obfervations on this fubjed, which had formerly efcaped my notice, as well as the notice » Vol. II. Ch. 12. sect. n. The Epiftle to the Hebrews. 187 of other commentators, and fecondly, as I entertain at prefent much-ftronger doubts, both as- to the author of this Epiftle, and its canonical authority, than Lardner, to whom I referred the reader in the laft edition. I fhall have frequent occafion, in the courfe of this chapter, to quote my Difl'ertation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews prefixed to the Expofition of this Epiftle : and it muft be obferved, that I always, mean the new and improved edition, publifhed in 1780. The queftions to be examined in the feveral fedions of this chapter are the following. 1 . Is that, which we call the Epiftle to the Hebrews, really an Epiftle ? 2. Is it quoted by St. Peter? 3. If it is an Epiftle, to what community was it fent ? 4. What was the fituation of this community ? ' 5. At what time was it written ? 6. In what language was it written ? 7. If it was written in Hebrew, by whom was it tranflated into Greek ? 8. What is the cha'rader of its Greek ftyle ? 9. Who was the'author of this Epiftle? 10. Is it canonical ? 1 1 . What are its contents ? SECT. II. Is that, which we. calf the Epiftle to the Hebrews, an Epifile, or a Differ taiion? And, if it is an Epiftle, what is the reafon, that the initiatory formule is wanting ? AS the initiatory formule, ufual in Greek Epiftles, is wanting in that which we call -the Epiftle to the Hebrews!, the quefiion occurs, notwithftanding the fuperfcription i88 The Epiftle to the Hebrews, chap, xxiv, fuperfcription 11 wpos 'Etpxuss twieoXn,. whether it was really an Epiftle fent to a particular, community or com munities, or only a Differtation intended for general readers, efpecially as- many topics are difcuffed in it in the fame diffufive manner,, as in a work which the author propofed to lay before the public. But there are feveral arguments, which decide in favour of the former,- and fhew that it was really an Epiftle addreffed to particular perfons. For not only the fecond perfon plural ' ye' inceffantly occurs in it, which alone indeed would be no proof, but likewife we find fpecial circum fiances, to which the author alludes, ch. v. 11, 12. vi. 9, 10. x. 32 — 34. and above all, ch. xiii. 23, 24, which contains the promife of a vifit, and falutations. - The next quefiion therefore to be afked is : fince this is an Epiftle, what is the reafon, that the initiatory formule, is wanting. Several ancient writers, who have under taken to anfwer this quefiion, pre-fuppofe, what is far from being certain, that St. Paul was the author of it, and on this fuppofition they ground their anfwers.'- For inflance, Clement of Alexandria fays, that the name of Paul was odious to the Hebrews, and that for this reafon the Apoftle did not mention his name at the beginning of it, as in his other Epiftles, that the Hebrews might not be prejudiced againft itb. Jerom is of the fame opinion with Clement, for in his Treatife of illuftrious men, he fays ' propter invidiam fui nominis titulum amputavit :' and this affertion is related by commentators to this very day. But this explanation is fo very extra ordinary, that it appears to me unaccountable, how it could occur to fuch men, as Clement and Jerom. For at the very fame time, that it afcribes to St. Paul the greateft caution, it afcribes to him the greateft fimplicity. The author of this Epiftle fays, eh. xiii. 18, 19. ' Pray for us, for we truft we have a good conference, in all things willing to live honeftly. But I befeech you the rather to do this, that I may be reftored to you the fooner.' And ver. 23. « Know ye that our brother Timothy h Eiifebii Hiltor. Ecclef. Lib. VI. cap. 16. sect, ii, ' The Epiftle to the Hebr'ezvs. 189 Timothy is fet at liberty, with whom, if he come fhortly, I will fee you.' Surely no man of common fenfe would clofe an "Epiftle in this manner, if he intended that no one. fhould know from whom it came. In another place, namely, in his Expofition of the Epiftle to the Galatians % Jerom fuppofes, that St. Paul did not mention his name at the beginning of this Epif tle, beeaufe he was unwilling to name himfelf Apoftle in an Epiftle, in which this title is given to Chrift, through fear of placing himfelf on an equality with Chrift. On the other hand, Theodbret fays, that St. Paul did not commence the Epiftle to the Hebrews with the formule, ' Paul an Apoftle, &c.' beeaufe he was the Apoftle, not of the Hebrews, but of the Gentiles. But neither of thefe reafons is in the leaft fatisfadory : for they account merely for the omiffion of the word ' Apoftle,' and not of the name of the author. And if St. Paul was really its author, and was yet unwilling to affume in this Epiftle the title of Apoftle, he might have mentioned his name without this title, fince he has adually done it in four other Epiftles. The real reafon, why the initiatory formule, ufual in ancient Epiftles, is wanting in the Epiftle to the Hebrews,, is at prefent therefore not eafy to be affigned, fince we are entirely deftitute of hiftorical information on this fubjed. But as others have ventured to conjedure, the fame liberty may be granted likewife to me. As the Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews is, only a tranflation, an initiatory formule might have been ufed in the original, but omitted by the tranflator, either beeaufe he thought the name of the author of no great importance d, or beeaufe he was apprehenfive that the name of the author" might preju dice Greek readers againft the Epiftle, which, as being, a very valuable and inftrudive work, he wifhed to put into their , hands. If either of thefe motives operated, St. Paul could not have been the author. £ Tom. IV. p. 225. < Jf this was the motive, the tranflator certainly erred. ¦ ¦!•• ,' 190 The Epiftle to the' Heb'rewsi , chap. xxrv. SECT. III. Is the Epifile to the Hebrews quoted 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16? ST. PETER, in his fecond" Epiftle, ch.' iii. 15, 16. fays, ' And account that the long fuffering of our Lord is our falvation : even as our beloved brother Paul alfo, according to the wifdom given unto him, hath written unto you, as alfo in all his Epiftles, in which are fome things hard to be underftood.' In this paffage it has been very generally fuppofed, efpecially in modern times, that St. Peter by the words, ' as our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you,' meant the Epiftle to the Hebrews.; and hence the inference has b$en drawn, not only that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was fent to the fame communities,, as the fecond Epiftle of Peter, namely to thofe in Pontus, (Galatia,, Cappadociaj Afia, and Bithynia, but likewife that; St. Paul was the author of it. Now they who argue in this manner' manifeftly argue in a circle : for, as St. Peter fpeaks in exprefs terms of an Epiftle- written by St. Paul, we can not apply the paffage to the Epiftle to the Hebrews, without previoufly afiurning that St. Paul was the author of it. But this is the thing to be proved. Further, if it could be proved even to a demonftrafron, that St. Paul was the author of the Epiftle to the He brews,, yet as he. was the author of fo many other Epiftles, we cannot conclude, that St. Peter meant the Epiftle to the Hebrews in particular, unlefs'it can be fhewn, that the fubjed, for which St. Peter quotes St. Paul, is difcuffed in this Epiftle. But this is fo far from being true, that of the matter, on which St. Peter dif- courfes in the place, where he makes the quotation, not a fyllable is to be found in the Epiftle to the Hebrews. For St. Peter does not fpeak in this place, as many imagine, of the jufiification of a finner before God for the fake of Chrift, a fubjed which is certainly difcuffed 5 «• sect. in. The Epifile to the Hebrews. 191 in the Epiftle to the Hebrews: but on the contrary, he treats of a very different matter. The words, ; account that the long fuffering of our Lord is our falvation,' (rriv T8 Ku^iis J1//W1/ pxn^vpixv crarri^ixv %yiio-§i), are ex plained by what St. Peter had faid, ver. 9. ' The Lord is not flack .concerning his promife, as fome men count ' flacknefs, but is long fuffering to us-ward, not willing that any fliould perifh, but that all fhould come to re pentance.' It is evident therefore that St. Peter fpeaks, not of jufiification through Chrift, but of the prolonga tion of the day "of judgement, on which many Chriftians in the firft century entertained very extraordinary notions. For they imagined, that, according to Chrift's prophecy, it would take place in the age, in which they lived: and finding that it did not take place, they began to doubt of the truth of the Chriftian religion. Hence St. Peter affures them that ' one day is with the Lord' as a thou- fand years, and, a thoufand years as one day :' that they ought neither to be impatient nor incredulous, beeaufe the day of judgement was poftponed, fince this very pro longation afforded them an opportunity of repenting, and might be regarded therefore as the means of their falva tion. On this fubjed not a fyllable is to be found in the Epiftle to the. Hebrews. Onthe contrary, we find in it affurances of the coming of the Lord, which they, to whom the Epiftle was written, would furvive: not in deed to judge the world, but to judge Jerufalem". Other commentators, who acknowledge that St. Peter in the paffage in quefiion is fpeaking of .the day of judgement, appeal to Heb. xii. 25 — 29. where the fubjed likewife relates to the general judgement and the end of the world. But this argument is likewife infuffi- cient ; for though, in this paffage of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, as well as in 2 Pet. iii. 15. the fubjed relates to the day of judgement, yet the modes of reafoning on it in the two paffages are very different. St. Peter fpeaks of the prolongation of the day of judgement, and argues from it to the mercy and long fuffering of God : but we find « Heb. x. 25. 35, 36, 37. I92 The Epifile to- the Hebreivs. chap. xxiv. find nothing of this kind in Heb. xii. 25 — 29. Befides, St. Peter adds in the paffage in quefiion, ' as alfo in all his Epiftles;' the fubjed therefore, which he dhcuffes, muft not be confidered as particularly diftinguifhingany one of St. Paul's Epiftles from the reft. The claufe { in which are fome things hard to be underftoodr has like- wife been applied in proof of the opinion, that St. Peter meant the Epiftle to the Hebrews, beeaufe this is a dif ficult and obfcure Epiftle. But, not to mention that the Epiftles to. the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephe fians, and the-Coloffians, are equally difficult, St. Peter did not make this affertion of any of St. Paul's Epiftles in particular. The two claufes in connexion are, ' As alfo in all his Epiftles, fpeaking in them of thefe things, in which are fome things hard to be underftood.' Here the relative £ which,' if it refers to ' Epiftles,' according to the reading of many Greek manuferipts, which have tv xls, refers to St. Paul's Epiftles in general; and if it refers to ' things' according to the reading of other ' Greek manuferipts, which have tv ols, it has no reference whatever to St. Paul's Epiftles f. Befides, the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter was not written to Hebrews, or cir cumcifed Jews, but to uncircumcifed Jewifh profelytes, as will be fhewn in a fubfequent chapter: and therefore by the expreflion ' as our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you' St. Peter muft have meant a different Epiftle from the Epiftle to the Hebrews. f See my DiiTertatiori on the Epiftle to the Hebrews, § 3, 4. sect, IV.. The Epifile to the Hibreivs. 193 SECT. IV. The Epiftle to the Hebrews was written for the ufe of the Chriftians m Jerufalem and Palefiine. AMONG the various opinions relative to. the com munity or communities, to which this Epiftle was fent, the mofl ancient is,, that it was defigned for the ufe of the Jewifh converts, either at Jerufalem, or in Palefiine at large. And this opinion I fhall adopt as preferable to every other, without entering into the minute difcuffion of the quefiion, whether it was fent to Jerufalem alone, or to other cities in Palefiine : for this is a quefiion of little or no importance, fince an Epiftle, intended for the ufe of Jewifh converts in Jerufalem, muft have equally concerned the other Jewifh converts in that country. It is true, that there is no initiatory formule in this Epiftle, which perhaps was omitted through the negli gence of the tranflator : and therefore in the Epiftle itfelf there is no title, to which we can appeal. But the fuperfcription in all the manuferipts is 'H -nr^o? 'ES-aiaj ETnroAi: and the fuperfcriptions to the feveral Epiftles of the Apoftles have hitherto remained free from that fufpicion of fpurioufnefs, to which the fubferiptions are very juftly expofed. Now in the language of the New .. Teftament, the Hebrews are Jews, who ufed the Hebrew language, and the term is ufed to diftinguilh them from thofe who fpake Greek, and were called Hellenifts?: But Hebrew- fpeaking Jews, to whom this Epiftle was addreffed, cannot well be any other than the Jews of Palefiine. It is true, that the Jews, who were fcattered through the Parthian Empire, likewife fpake Hebrew, or more properly, Chaldee : but as no man can fuppofe, that this Epiftle was fent to perfons, who lived beyond fhe Euphrates, it would be a wafte of time, to-fhew that "the/ * Compare A&s vi. 1. with my Diflertation on the Epiftle t° tttte. Hebrews, § 8, Yol.JV, ¦ N 194 The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap, xxw,, the word ' Hebrews' does not denote the Parthian Jews\ That the Epiftle was written to Hebrews, is agreed on by all antiquity. Clement of Alexandria fays that it was written for the, Hebrews in the Hebrew language': on which words no other meaning can be put, as far as I am able to judge, than that it was written in Hebrew, for the benefit Of thofe, whofe native language was He brew, And in this manner I underftand all the ancient writers, who fay that the Epiftle was written in Hebrew. But where are we to feek for Hebrewrfpeaking Jews, to whom this Epiftle could be fent, except in Palefiine ? This queftionf I will not anfwer decidedly in the affirma, tive, as an indubitable hiftorical fad, but only as a pro? bable opinion, efpecially fince Chryfoftom delivers it only as fuch. For he fays in "his Preface or Hypothefis to his Expofition of this Epiftle, ' Why did he write to the Jews, whofe teacher he was not ; And where were they to whom he wrote ?' In my opinion at Jerufalem, and in Palefiine k. This mofl anciept opinion or report is corroborated by the contents of the Epiftle itfelf, In other Epiftles, which were addreffed to mixed communities, we meet with frequent exhortations to brotherly love and unity between the converts from Judaifm and Heathenifm, who are reprefenjed as equals, and as brethren : but in the Epiftle to the Hebrews are no fuch exhortations, which agrees with the hypothefis, that it was fent to Chriftian communities in Palefiine, beeaufe thefe were not mixed communities, but confifted wholly of Jewifh converts, It is true that the authbr fpeaks of brotherly • ' , love,, b I will obferve however, that if this Epifile had .been fent to Par thian Jews, who became converts to Chriftianity, the Hebrew original- would hardly have been loft ; for in the countries, which bordered on the Euphrates, the Chriftian religion was propagated at a very ear-lyage, And in this cafe likewife, the author of the Svriac verfion would have translated this Epiftle, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. ,*¦ 4 Eufeb. Hid. Ecclef. Lib. VI. cap. 14. Tr,t mpo^ "eSjwib? Hriro?w HafAa fj.tt titui (pyo-t, yiypaipu'ftt is 'ECgatoi? 'E^csiki) Toi{; fflS ™ Wit ilfffiXXtt ; E/*oi Joxei, "C 'lsgoc-oXvpatf v.pi ilfiAxirifi). sect. iv. The Epiftle lo the Hebrews. 19$ love, ch. xiii. 1. where he fays, ' Let brotherly love con tinue,' But he fpeaks here only in general terms, and fays nothing of unity between Jewifh and Heathen con verts in particular. Befides, as the author ufes the word ' continue,' we may conclude that in the community, to which he was writing, no difunion had adually taken place among its members. Another argument, derived from the contents of the Epiftle, in favour of the opinion, that it was written for the Chriftians in Palefiine, is, as appears from the whole tenor of it, that the perfons, to whom it was addreffed, were in imminent danger of falling back from Chriftianity to Tudaifm, induced partly by a fevere per fecution, and partly by the falfe arguments of the Rabbins. This could hardly have happened to feveral communities at the fame time, in any other country than Palefiine, and therefore we cannot fuppofe it of feveral communities of Afia Minor, to which, in the opinion of fome commentators, the Epiftle was addreffed. Chrif tianity, as Lardner has obferved in the firft book of his Credibility of tbe Gofpel Hiftory, ch. viii., and as plainly appears from the Ads of the Apoftles, enjoyed from the tolerating fpirit of the Roman laws and the Roman magiftrates, throughout the Empire in general, fo much religious liberty, that out of Palefiine it would have" been difficult to have effeded a general perfecution. But, through the influence of the Jewifh Sanhedrim in Jerufalem, the Chriftians in that country underwent feveral fevere perfections, efpecially during the High- priefthood of the younger Ananus, when St, James and other Chriftians fuffered martyrdom. Further, if we examine the Epiftles of St. Paul, efpecially thofe to the Ephefians, Philippians, and Coloffians, with the two Epiftles of St. Peter, which were addreffed to the Chriftians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Afia, and Bithynia, we fhall find, though mention is made of feducers, not- the fmalleft traces of imminent danger of an apqftacy fo Judaifm, and ftill lefs of blafphemy againft Chrifh as we find in the fixth and tenth chapters of the. .iq.6 - The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. Epiftle to the Hebrews. The two paffages of this Epiftle, ch. vi. 6. x. 29. which relate to blafphemy ' againft Cbrifl, as a perfon juftly condemned and crucified, are peculiarly adapted to the fituation of communities in Palefiine; and it is difficult to read thefe paffages without inferring that feveral Chriftians had really apof- tatized arid openly blafphemed Chrift ; for it appears from Ads xxvi. ij. that violent meafures were taken in Palefiine for this very purpofe, of which we meet with no traces in any other country at that early age. Neither the Epiftles of St. Paul, nor thofe of St. Peter, furnifh 1 any inflance of a public renunciation of Chriftianity and return to Judaifm : and yet, if any fuch inftances had happened in the communities, to which they wrote, thefe Apoftle? would hardly have paffed them oyer in filence, . or without cautioning other perfons againft following fuch examples. The circumftance likewife, to which the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews alludes, ch. xf ££. that feveral, who ftill continued Chriftians, forfook the places of public worfhip, does not occur in any other Epiftle, and implies a general and continued perfecution,, which deterred the Chriftians from an open confeffiqn of flieir faith. In this melancholy fituation, the Hebrew? almoft reduced tQ defpair are referred, ch. x. 25. 35 — 38. to ' the promifed coming of Chrift, which they are requefted to await with patience, as being not far^diftant. This can be no other, than the promifed deftrudion, of Jenw falem, MatthYxxiv. of which Chrift himfelf faid, Luke- xxi. 28, ' When thefe things begin to come to pafs, fheq look up,- and lift up yoyr heads, for your redemp tion draweth nigh!' Now this coming of Chrift was to ' the .Chriftians in Palefiine a deliverance from the yoke, with "which they were oppreffed : but it had ho fuch Influence on the Chriftians of other countries. On the Contrary, the firft perfecution under Nero happened in the year 65, about two years before the commencement pf the Jewifh, war, and the fecond under Domitian, about five and twenty years after the deftrudion of Jerufalem. from, SECT. iv. The Epiftle to ihe Hebrews: ' 197 From ch'; xiii. 7., though no" mention is made in ex- prefs terms of martyrs, who had fuffered iruthe caufe of Chriftianity, we may with great probability infer that feveral perfons had really fuffered, and afforded a noble example to their brethren '; If this inference be juft, - the .Hebrews* to whom this Epiftle was written, muft " have been inhabitants of Palefiine ; for in no other part of the Roman Empire, before the year 65, bad the enemies of Chriftianity the power of perlecuting its pro* feffors in fuch a manner as to deprive them of their lives, beeaufe no Roman court of juftice would have con demned a man to death merely for religious opinions ; and the pretence of the. Jews, that whoever acknow ledged Jefus for the Meflias was guilty of treafon againft the Emperot, was too fophiftical to be admitted by a Roman magiftrate. But in Palefiine, Stephen and the elder James had already fuffered martyrdom m ; both St. Peter and St. Paul had been in imminent danger of Undergoing the ia~me fate n ; and according to Jofephus' feveral other perfons were put to death, during the High- pr left ho'od ofthe younger Ananus about the year 64 or 65. The words of Jofephus arc a's follow0.- i The younger Ananus, who had obtained the office of High Prieft, was a man of defperate character, of the' fed of the Sadducees, who, as I have obferved in other places, were in general fevere in their punifhments. This Ananus embraced the opportunity of ading ac cording to his inclination, after the' death of Feftus, and before the arrival of his 'fuccefibr. Albinus.-' In this interval he eonftituted a court of juftice; and brought before it James, a brother of Jefus, who was called Chrift, and feveral others, where they were accufed of having violated the law, and were condemned to beftoned to death. But the more moderate part ofthe city, and they who flnctly adhered to the law,.difapproved highly of this meafure.' The 1 See my notes to this paffage. m Ails vii. xii. * Acts xii. 3—6, xxiii, 11 — 21. 26. 30, ° Antiquit,' xx. 9s 1. le/g The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap, xxiv. The preceding arguments, which J have here ftated in a fhort eompafs, the reader will find delivered more at large in my Differtation on the Epiftle to the He brews m.. There are likewife other circumfiances men* tioned in this Epiftle, which, though, lefs important and lefs decifive, ftill lead to the opinion, that it was written for the ufe of Chriftians in Jerufalem or Palefiine. For inflance, ch. xiii. 9. appears to allude to offerings, which at that time were confidered as a part of the Jewifh, and even of the Chriftian fervice : for that- this paffage has no reference to unclean meats, I think T have clearly/ fhewnin my note to it. But if the paffage really alludes fo offerings, the Epiftle muft have been written to per fons, who lived where offerings were made. Now this was pradicable only in Jerufalem, for it' was unlawful to offer facrifices any where but in the temple. Again, ch. xiii. 12, 13, 14. * Wherefore Jefus alfo, that he might fandify the people with his own blood, fuffered without the gate : let us go forth therefore unto him without the- camp, bearing the reproach, for here we have no continuing city, but feek one to come,' is very difficult to be explained on the fuppofition that the Epiftle was written to Hebrews, who lived out of Palef- tine : for neither in the Ads of the Apoftles, nor in the Other Epiftles, do we meet with an inflance of expulfion from the fynagogue merely for a belief in Chrift, on the contrary the Apoftles themfelves were permitted to teach openly in the Jewifh affemblies. But if v/e fuppofe that the Epiftle was written to Jewifh converts in. Jerufalem, this paffage becomes perfe'dly clear, efpecially if it was written only a fhort time before the commencement of the Jewifh war, about the year 65 or 66. The, Chrif tians namely on this fuppofition, are exhorted to endure their fate with patience, if they fhould be obliged to retire, or even' be ignominioufly expelled from Jerufa lem, fince Chrift himfelf had been forced out of this very city, and had fuffered without its walls. It was a city devoted to deftrudion, and they who fled from it had to m Sea. 8-, BfccTi iv. The Epifile to the Hebrezvs. 199 to exped a better in heaven. The difciples of Chrift had been already warned by their matter to flee from Jerufalem n, and the time affigned for their flight could, when this Epiftle was written, be not far diftant. That they adually followed. his advice; appears from the relation of Eufebius ° : and according to jofephus p, the mofl fenfible inhabitants of Jerufalem took fimilar mea-. fures, after the retreat of Ceftius Gallus, which happened in. November 66, and likewife left the city. If we fup pofe therefore, that the Epiftle was written to the Hebrews of Jerufalem, the paffage in quefiion is clear: but on the hypothefis, that it was written'to Hebrews, who lived in any other place, the Words t^sp^/j-tdx zipos xvrov i%u •Hi? sfajsjuSoA-]?, tm ovtiSi&(Jbov xvm lofe their mean ing. Further, ch. x. 25. ' Not forfaking the affembling of ourfelves together, as the manner of fome is, but ex horting one another, and fo much the more, as ye fee the day approaching,' is an additional confirmation of my Opinion. The 'approaching day' can mean only the day appointed for the deftruction of Jerufalem, and the downfall of the Jewifh nation : but this event immediately concerned only the Hebrews of Palefiine, and could have no influence, in determining the inha* bitants of other countries, fuch as Afia Minor, Greece, and Spain, either to forfake or to frequent the places of public -worfhip. The objedions, which have been made to. the opinion, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written to the Hebrews of Palefiine, I have anfwered at large in the ninth fedion of my Diflertation on this Epiftle. Some of them are extremely weak : for inftaftce, that which was made by Wall from ch. xiii. 18, 19. ' Pray for us, for we truft we have a good cohfeience, in all things willing to live honeftly : but I befeech you the rather to do thiSj that I may be reftored to you the fooner,' a paf- fa°e, which, in Wall's opinion, would notfuit an Epiftle written to a community, in which St. Paul had not paffed » Matth.'xxiv. 15— ai. * HUh Ecelef. Lib, III.«ap. zy f Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 1. jsr - 4 soo ¦ The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap1, xxit', paffed fourteen days. But this objedion implies, what is a matter of very great' doubt^ that St. Paul was the author of it. ' Even were this matter certain, inftea'd of being doubtful, yet St. Paul had been feveral times at Jerufalem, he had colleded alms in diftant countries for the Chriftians of that city, and brought them in perfon:- and even if the cafe were otherwile, ftill ft might be' faid of an Apoftle,- who had been releafed from difficulty and danger, that he was reftored to the Chriftians of every country. Nor is Wetftein's argument, which is founded on ch. xiii. 24. ' they of Italy falute you,' of greater weight. Wetftein namely contends, that the brethren of Italy could have had no acquaintance with the Jewifh converts, in Jerufalem, by which, if I underftand him rightly, he means perfonal acquaintance. But that tbey really had, is furely not improbable, fince the Jews, who lived in countries at a diftance from Palefiine, fometimes went up to Jerufalem to celebrate the grand feftivals : and even if Wetftein's affertion admitted of no doubt, yet it frequently happens that mutual lalutations are fent from thofe,- who are not .perfonally known to each other. But there is an objedion, which is really of fome im-* portance. It appears from ch. xiii. 23. that St. Paul intended to pay a vifit to thofe Hebrews, to whom he 'addreffed the Epiftle. But it may be thought impro bable, that he would take another journey to Jerufalem, which was not only at a confiderable diftance from Rome,- but was the place where he had firft fallen into the cap tivity, which had faffed feveral years: It is true, that before his laft vifit to Jerufalem he forefaw the danger which would attend him there, and that this danger did not deter him- from the profecution of his journey * : and Lardner has obferved, that fince St. Paul had been finally acquitted in Rome* he had lefs reafon to apprehend any future moleftation from the Jews. But on' the other hand, it may be afked-, whether it would not have been. imprudent in St. Paul to have returned to a city,- where the ¦' Acls xx. Z2—25. xxi. io-**i4.. , e sfCT. v. The Epifile to the Hebrew:. 201 the captain of the Roman guard, to fecure him from open violence, had judged it necefTary to give him an efcort of four hundred and feventy'men : and, whether the Roman magistrates, at the time of his acquittal, #6uld not have cautioned him againft going to a place; where the fafety of his perfon would occafion difficulty fo the government, and perhaps the fhedding of blood. The objection delivered in this form appears to be of fome weight : but then it prefuppofes that St. Paul was the author ofthe Epiftle to the Hebrew?, which is very far from being certain; I fhall therefore confider it in a*. fubfequent fedion.- SECT. V. Of the opinion of other zvriters on the quefiimi, who the Hebreivs were, to whom this Epiftle zvas fent. IT is necefTary at prefent, that I fhould give at leaft a fhort account ofthe opinions of other writers on this fubjed : but a particular confutation of them muft nor be expeded, fince I have already affigried, in the preced ing fection, the reafons which induce me to diflent, and which it would be ufelefs to repeat. From the lift of opinions, which I am .going to enumerate, I exclude how ever that, which makes the Epiftle written to the Hebrews in general, difperfed throughout the world ; for in fuch a general Epiftle, the author of it, whether St. Paul, or any other perfon, could certainly not have written,- ch. xiii. 23. that as foon as Timothy arrived he intended to pay them a vifit. The following then are the feveral opinions, relative to the Hebrews, to. whom this Epiftle was addreffed. 1. That they were Hebrews in Afia Minor, namely,- m> 'Pont us, Galatia, Gappadocia^ Afia, and Bithynia; to which 202 The Epifile to the Hebrezvs. ' Chap. xxiv< which fome writers likewife add Achaia and Macedonia* This opinion is grounded on the fuppofition, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews is quoted by St. Peter : but as I have already (hewn jn the third fedion of, this chapter, that fuch a fuppofition is incapable of defence, the opi nion, which refts -fen it, lofes all fupport. Other objec tions to this opinion have been delivered in the laft fedion.' 2. That they were Hebrews in Afia Minor, ,who had fled into that country from Jerufalem, a fhort time be fore its deftrudion. This opinion was advanced by the great Newton, in his Obfervations on the Apocalypfe. p. 244 : but this likewife fuppofes that the Epiftle td the Hebrews was, quoted ' by St. Peter, and therefore likewife falls with that fuppofition. Befides, there is no hiftorieal evidence for the affertion, that Jews fled to Afia Minor from Jerufalem, before the deftrudtion of the city : for the accounts on record make mention of no other flight, than that to Pelia. 3. Wetftein' in his Preface to this Epiftle, Vol. IL -p. 386. of his Greek Teftament, contends that it ¦'was addreffed to Hebrews in Rome. 4, Others, for inflance the late Ludwig, fuppofe that it was fent to Hebrews in Spain,, This conjecture 'took its origin from the circumftance that in ch. xiii. 23, a vifit was promifed to the Hebrews, and St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Romans, ch. xv. 24- expreffed an inten tion, after he had been in Italy, of going to Spain. But this conjedure is' again founded -on the fuppofition, that St. Paul was the author of the Epiftle, and moreover takes for granted, that the intention was adually put in execution, though we have no knowledge of it, and though five years muft have elapfed, before it could have been executed. Befides,, th'e paffage itfelf* to which appeal is made in the Epiftle to the Ro mans, is unfavourable to the opinion, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was addreffed to Flebrews in Spain: for St. Paul intended to go to Spain beeaufe the Gofpel had not been preached there; whereas the -^ Hebrews, $ect. V. The Epiftle to the Hebrews, , 203 Hebrews, to whom the Epiftle in quefiion was addreffed, already formed very flourifhing Chriftian communities, which were in danger of falling back from Chriftianity to Judaifm, Further, the whole Epiftle' has the ap pearance of being written to perfons, with whofe cir cumfiances the author was intimately acquainted : but the circumfiances of Chriftian communities in Spain could not have been fo well known to St. Paul, before he had ever been in that country. 5. In the opinion of Dr. Noeffelt, this Epiftle was fent to the ThefTalonians, and likewife to. the Macedo nians in general, and was the firft which St. Paul wrote ; for this opinion alfo is founded on the fuppofition that St. Paul was the author. It is delivered in. a treatife entitled, De tempore, quo fcripta fuefit Epiftola ad Ebraos, deque Ebraris, quibus fcripferit, publifhed in the firft volume of his Opufcula, printed in 177 1, and . reprinted in 1785. And as the arguments, by Which it js fupported, are delivered in fuch a manner, as to render it very plaufible, it will be necefTary to give a fhort ftatement of 'them, with references to the fections ofthe treatife, in which they are contained. Dr.. Noeffelt con tends then, that it was the firft Epiftle, which was written by St. Paul, that he wrote it at Corinth, and fent it to the Macedonians, efpecially to thofe at Theffalonica. (§ 11.) In Macedonia were many Jews, and likewife- as appears from the Ads of the Apoftles, many profelytes 'to Judaifm, who were alfo included under .the name of Hebrews. {§ 12. 13.) ' They of Italy,' mentioned, ch. xiii. 24. are Aquilas and Prifcilla, with other Jews, who were lately arrived at Corinth, in confequence of their banifhment from Rome by Claudius, Acts xviii. 2. Aquilas had a Jewifh fchool in his houfe in, Rome (t*]k xxt oixov au-rui/ ejocXmriai-jRom. xvi. 5.) inconfequence of which he was known to the Jews of Macedonia. From Hebr. xiii. 23. it appears, that Timothy had been fent away : .this St. Paul had done at Corinth. Compare 1 Theff. ii. 18. iii. 1. Ads xviii. 8. The Epiftle to the Hebrews was written- -before the firft to the ThefTa lonians, 204 The Epiftle to the Hebrews, chap1.' xxiv? Idnians, which is the reafon why the latter contains none of the melancholy of the former, for five Theffaloniah community had been amended by it. (§ 8.) In ch. x,-; 34. Dr. Noeffelt adopts the common reading, tots Sio-potq which other critics rejed, and underftands thefe bonds," on which the Hebrews had pity, as denoting St; Paul's imprifonment at Philippi, Acts xvi: 24. 26, (,§9.10.) At Theffalonica likewife St. Paul Was in danger, and was refcued by his friends there. - Jafon was deprived of his property, beeaufe the avaricious, magiftrates of Theffalo.iica had demanded, of htm bail for St. Paul, Ads xvii. 9. Which he forfeited 'in confe quence of St. Paul's not appearing : moreover his houfe' was plundered, and he himielf was forced to quit. Thef falonica, for it appears from Rom. xvi. 21. that he was with St. Paul at Corinth r. (§ 14). ¦ Thefe are the outlines uf what Dr. Noeffelt has ad-1 vanced on this fubjed-: but I think his reorefentation of the matter rather improbable.. That Macedonian Jews, who fpake only Greek, fhould be called Hebrews; is hardly credible, and ftill lefs fo, that uncircumciled heathen profelyles fhould receive this appellation : at leaft, 1 cannot admit this application of the word, till examples have been produced of its having been actually ufed in this extraordinary fenfe. The bonds of St. Paul,- or his imprifonment at Philippi, were not of a nature to excite much pity : for en the day after his imprifonment,1 the. magiftrates aifcmbied in a bod}', and requefted him to leave the prifon, by which meaiare they made him ample fatisfadion, fo that their proceedings, in (lead of raifing pity, muft rather excite a fmile. The cafe would be different, if the quefiion related to the ftripes which had been infiided on St. Paul at Philippi : but in the prefent inquiry we are concerned only with the word ' bonds.' If Jafon gave bail for St. Paul5, and the Apoftle- r That Jafon was with St. Paul at Coiinth-, is no proofy that he was obliged to quit Theffalonica. • The term ' avaricious,' which D. Noeffelt applies to the rjiagif- trates at Philippi 'is without foundation ; nor' can this epithet be juftty applied to any ofthe Greek or Roman magilh'ates mentioned in the Afts of the Apollles. sect. v. The Epiftle to the Hebrews. 2o£ Apoftle negleded to appear before the court, the for feiture of the bail ca'nnot be confidered as an inflance of fuffering for the fake of Chrift: and a mean's being obliged to make good his engagements cannot properly be termed a confifcation of his 'property. But it ap pears to me, that the fecurity, which the magiftrates of Philippi demanded of Jafon, was by no means for the appearance of St. Paul before the court, as commen tators generally fuppofe, but that he would not admit the Apoftle in future into his houfe : for Jafon could hardly give fecurity for St. Paul's appearance, fince the Apoftle had already 'efcaped from Jafon's houfe, and was no where to be found at Philippi. Further, a com- parifon of the Epiftle to the Hebrews with thofe to the ThefTalonians clearly fhews, that they were written to' perfons of a very different defcription. And laftly, if the Epiftle» called the Epiftle to the Hebrews, was an Epiftle to the inhabitants of Theffalonica, it was without doubt written in Greek:. but if it was written originally in Greek, it could not have been written by St. Paul. whofe Greek ftyle is very different from that, which ap pears in the Epiftle to the Hebrews. I might add, that the ThefTalonians, when St. Paul wrote to them, had been only a fhort time converted to Chriftianity, which cannot be affirmed- of the perfons, to whom the Epiftle fo the Hebrews was addreffed. But what I have already faid qn this fubjed is fufficient. ¦20 6 The Epiftle-to the Hebrews, . chap, xxivy SECT. VI. Of the fituation of the community, to which the Epiftle to the Hebrews was addreffed. THE fituation of the perfons, to whom this Epiftle was addreffed, is evident from its 'contents, whence it appears, that they had endured fevere perfections, which had begun with the commencement of Chrif tianity (ch. x. 32.), and had . fince increafed, fo that feveral of their principal teachers, among whom we may probably reckon St. James, had been put to death, ch. vi. x. xi. xii. 1 — 12. xiii. 7. 13. Hence the com munity was brought into imminent danger of apofta- tizing from the faith: fome of its members appear to have adually returned to Judaifm, and. even to have blafphemed Chrift, of whofe amendment the author entertains very little hopes, ch. vi. 4 — 8. x. 26—31. Others wavered in the faith, while others again continued Chriftians in their hearts, but were afraid to frequent the aflemblies of public worfhip, ch. x. 24, 25. At the fame time it appears from the whole Epiftle, that the Adverfaries of the Chriftian religion endeavoured to recall its converts back again to Judaifm by arguments, fimilar to thofe, which the Jews in modern times have advanced, though in a fomewhat different fhape : they contended namely, that the Mofaic - religion was de livered and confirmed in a manner fuperior to the Chriftian, that the former was certainly. a divine reli gion, and -therefore not to be abandoned. The author of the Epiftle is fo very diffufe in his anfwers, and has introduced fo much learning, efpecially in refpecf to the priefthood of Melchifedec, as implies, that many of the perfons, to whom it was addreffed, were well ac quainted with rabbinical literature : at leaft no Epiftle in the whole New Teftament is fo learned, as that in quefiion. Apart sect. vi. • The Epiftle to the Hebrews, 207 A part of the hiftory of this community, to which allufion is made, ch, xiii. 8, 9, 10. entirely fails us, which, if we were acquainted with it, would throw great light on the Epiftle, efpecially on this obfcute paffage. From the words, ' Jefus Chrift, the fame yefterday, and to day, and for ever,' taken in their connexion with the feventh verfe, ' Remember them which have the rule over you, who have fpoken unto "you the word of God, whofe faith below, confidering the end of their converfation,' I can draw no other coriclufion, than that feveral members of the commu nity had endeavoured to introduce into Chiftianity fome dodrines different from thofe,- which had been taught by their former teachers, efpecially by St. James. This appears more plainly, when we read further, ' Be not carried about with divers and ftrange dodrines,' The quefiion cannot here relate to the retaining of the Levitical law, as a fyftem of unchangeable and eternal commands ofthe Deity ;-for this was no new dodrine among the Chriftians at Jerufalem, all of whom, even after they had become converts to Chriftianity, re mained zealoufly attached to the law of Mofes, Ads xxi. 20. Immediately after (Heb, xiii. 9,), the. fubjed relates to offerings : ' It is a good thing that the heart be eftablifhed with grace, not with meats, which have not profited them, which have been occupied therein. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to- ear, which ferve the tabernacle,' This likewife was nothing new at Jerufalem; and when St. Paul, Ads xxi. 23 — , 26. defrayed the expenees necefTary for the performance of fome Nazarite vows, the ceremonies were accom panied with offerings. See Numb. vi. 14, 15. where a- ram is ordered for a meat-offering, and ver. 20. where the Nazarite, after the fulfilling of his vow, is permitted again to drink wine. I am inclined therefore to fuppofe, that attempts had been made to introduce offerings as a part of the Chriftian fervice, perhaps general offerings in the name of the whole community : * " but, 208, ¦ The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap, xxi'v, but, as we have no hiftorical evidence for the affertion, I advance the opinion merely as conjedure. That the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews be-r lieVed in the divinity of Chrift, is manifeft from what he fays, ch. i. 2, 3. But,, when I confider what pains he has taken, ver. 4 — 14. to prove that .Chrift is greater than the angels, and in the third chapter that he is greater than Mofes, I conclude, that the perfons, to whom it was fent, were, not univerfally convinced, that Chrift was God : for if they were, they were of' courfe convinced, that he was greater than Mofes and' the angels, a point therefore, which it would haye been ufe? lefs to have proved by fo many quotations. But on this fubjed I muft requeft the reader to examine my Notes to this part of the Epiftle, where it will appear, that the: author of if has taken his proofs, not from the divinity Of Chrift, of which the quoted paffages cannot be ex plained without the utmofl violence and perverfidn, but from the facerdotal office of Jefus, and the biblical as well as the Jewifh dodrine of angels. That many of the Jewilh Chriftians, the Ebionites for inflance, con fidered Chrift as a mere man, is a known fad. If there*. fore a writer, in order to obviate the arguments for a, return to Judaifm, undertook to convince fuch perfons, that the Chriftian religion was not inferior to the Mofaic, either in fublimity or in the divinity of its origin, nor to be lefs valued than the law, which was given by the mi-, niftration of angels, it was necefTary to argue from data5 which they already granted, and not to found his rea- foning on principles, of which they would not have ad^ mitted the truth. sect. vii. The Epifile to the Hebrews. 409 SECT. VII. Of the time when, and the place, where, this Epifile was written. AFTER that, which I have already faid on the perfecution of the Chriftians under the younger Ananus, and the martyrdom of St. James, I muft conclude, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was not written till after the death of the Procurator Feftus, in the year 64, which was immediately followed by fhe perfecution under Ananus, the author of the Epiftle having already experienced its effeds on the Hebrews, who began to waver in the faith, to forfake the places of public worfhip, and fome of them even to apofta- tize. This date agrees likewife with the circumftance, that in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, ch. x. 28. 37 — 39. the coming of the Lord, namely to hold judgement over Jerufalem,, is defcribed ' as being at hand : for the Jewifh war commenced in the year 67, and in 70 Jerufalem was taken and deftroyed. But I apprehend, that it was written before the troubles adually com menced, and therefore not during the government^ 'Ceftius Gallus : for though I believe, that the Chriftians in Palefiine, at leaft thofe, who deferved the name, (for I do not include thofe, who expeded the coming of the Meffiah to overthrow the Roman power, and eftablifh a temporal kingdom l)* did not entertain any rebellious principles, yet I think, if it had been written fo late as the year 66, when matters were ripe for rebellion, it would have contained fome allufion to the exifting troubles, with advice to the Chriftians, not to take part in the public difturbances. Nearly the fame date, has been affigned to this Epiftle by other commentators, who" argue from ch. xiii. 23. where * Mark xiii. 6. Luke xxi. 8. Vol. IV. O aio' The Epifile to the Hebrews. chap. xxiv. where the author expreffes his intention of yifiting the perfons, to whom he is writing : and it was about this time, that St. Paul was releafed from his firft. imprifon ment in Rome, or at leaft had expedations of a fpeedy releafe. But the quoted paffage is rather too obfcure, to warrant an inference in refped to the date of the Epiftle '. and as the argument entirely refts on the flip- pofition, that St. Paul was the author, it can have no force, till this point has been eftablifhed. With refped to the place, it is lefs eafy to determine where it was, than where it was not written. Mofl commentators fuppofe, that it was written in Italy, be eaufe the author fays, cb. xiii. 24. Ae-irxfyvtxi C/j.x; 01 ¦ano tris ItxXixs: but the inference, which I deduce from this paffage, is the very reverfe. If the author had written in Rome, he would have fent falutations from the Romans, who cannot be meant by the expreflion o» xwo tns lixXtxs : for whoever writes in Rome, and ufes this expreflion, can mean only perfons, who came from other parts of Italy. But it is incredible, that fa lutations fhould be fent in an Epiftle written in Rome from unknown perfons in the Italian provinces to the Hebrews in Palefiine, and none from the Romans themfelves. Indeed, I am of opinion, that the Epiftle was written no where in Italy, for the phrafe ol x-no --? ItxXixs implies, that thefe perfons were out of Italy, and cannot fignify perfons, who were then in Italy. Confequently, the author of the Epiftle, who commu nicated1 thefe falutations from perfons, who perhaps had accompanied him from Italy, was likewife abfent from that country, perhaps in Greece. Further, it ap pears to have been written in a place, which had little or no connexion with , Jerufalem, for otherwife the' author would haye fent falutations at leaft from, fome of the principal members of the Chriftian community in that place. Any thing further on this fubjed J am unable to determine, and candidly confefs my ignorance, as to the place, where the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written. Nor do I envy any man, who pretends to know more 6 on sect. viii. The Epifile to the Hebrews. 211 on this fubjed, unlefs he has difcovered fburces of in telligence, which have hitherto remained unknown. It is better to leave a quefiion in a ftate of uncertainty, than, without foundation, to adopt an opinion, which may lead to material errors. SECT. VIII. Of the language, in which this Epifile was written. I NOW come to the point, which has occafioned the greateft debate relative to this Epiftle, namely, in what language it was written. On this head there are two principal opinions: 1. That it was written in Greek. " This opinion has been very generally adopted in modern times; at leaft, if we may judge from the authors, who have written on the fubjed, for perhaps many readers think diffe rently. a. That it was written in Hebrew, and trariflated into Greek. This was the general opinion of the an cients; and it is that, which I adopt. Before we proceed to the examination of this quef- tion, we muft examine what is meant by the word ' Hebrew.' When ancient writers affert, that this Epiftle was written in Hebrew, we muft not' immedi ately conclude, that they meant the language, which we call by this name. For this term may denote, 1. Either the language, in which the greateft part of -the Old Teftament was written, and to which we give the appellation of Hebrew. It is, true, that this was no longer a living language, when the New Teftament was written, yet the; Jews ftill ufed it as the language of prayer, both in Palefiine and in the Eaftern Afia, and it was underftood by every man ,of education. ;.¦> 02 , The ^iia The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. The earlier part of the Talmud, the Miflina, was like- wife written iii this language. 2. Or Chaldee, that is, the Aramjean dialed fpoken in Babylon and Affyria. This was the language fpoken by the Jews of Jerufalem and Judzea, in the time of Chrift, as the Jews . of Galilee fpake Syriac, another Aramasan dialed, though very corruptly. Which of the two explanations ought to be adopted I cannot at, prefent determine, and therefore I fhall take the word ' Hebrew' in its mofl extenfive fenfe, as in cluding both Chaldee and Syriac, as well as that, which is commonly called Hebrew. SECT. IX. According to the mofl ancient tradition, or opinion, the Epifile to the Hebrews was written originally in ifo- b'rew. THE mofl ancient tradition, or opinion, relative to the language of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is, that its original was Hebrew, and that what we have at prefent is a Greek tranflation of it. We have no accounts of it, which reach fo far as the firft century: but in the fecond century, Clement of Alexandria, who lived a hundred .years, or three generations, after St. Paul, has, in a paffage quoted by Eufebius from a work, which is now loft, given the following relation : ' That it was written by St. Paul in the Hebrew lan guage for the ufe of the Hebrews, and that St.' Luke tranflated it for the benefit of the Greeks, whence there is a fimilarity obfervable between the tranflation of this Epiftle sect. ix. The Epifth to the Hebrews. 213 Epiftle and the Ads of the Apoftles ".' I quote the words of Clement preferved 'by Eufebius, not as hif- torical evidence, but merely to fhew what was the mofl ancient tradition or opinion. That part, which relates to St. Luke, as the tranflator, is' undoubtedly falfe ; for inftead of there being a fimilarity between the ftyle of the Epiftle to the Hebrews and that of the Ads of the Apoftles, there is really fo confiderable a difference, that they cannot have proceeded from the fame writer. And the claufe, which immediately follows the words, which have been juft quoted, ' St. Paul did not call himfelf an Apoftle, that he might not make a difagreeable impreffion on the Hebrews, and beeaufe he was not the Apoftle of the Jews," is fo far from being hiftorically true, that it is nothing more than a very weak conjedure w. Eufebius himfelf, where he delivers his own opinion, agrees in the main point with Clement of Alexandria : for fpeaking of Clement of Rome *, who had quoted whole paffages from this Epiftle, though without naming it, Eufebins firft argues in favour of fts an tiquity, and then proceeds as follows. ' As St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews in their own language {Six rns ¦srxrpiu yXuttns), fome fuppofe that St. Luke, others that our Clement tranflated the Epiftle, which latter fuppofition, on account of the fimilarity of ftyle, ap pears to me the mofl probable.' Jerom likewife, though he doubts, whether St. Paul was the author, fays hypothetically, after he had noticed the difference in the language, * Scripferat ut Hebraeis Hebraice, id eft, fuo eloquio difertiffime,. ift ea qua? eloquepter fcrip- ferat 1 n«tAa Eiiai puo-i, ysy£«p6«' it "Effgauoi-. *E.Gpauui (put*' A«xa» is tpi^orifiiii; uvrr,t fA.titPfji.rittvtrarra sxintxi toij IMumi, &&st TO" CCVTOt XPUTX. SVPlO-KSO-Q.Xt y.ccTX TW SP[A7jtSiat TfltUTJ)? it T*)f «7Tiro^$| zxi rut mpa.^tut. Eulebii Hilt. Ecclef. Lib. VI. C. 14. w See Seel. 2. of this Chapter. } ftift. Ecclef, Lib- HI. c. 38. 214 T/fe Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiy. ferat in Hebraeo, verterentur in Grzecum : et hanccaufam effe aiunt, quod a ceteris Pauli Epiftolis difcrepare vide atur.' It is manifeft therefore, that thefe accountsarenot hiftory, but opinion : it was taken for granted, that St. Paul was the author, whofe mode of writing being different from that obfervable in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, it was inferred, that the Greek was not the original : but of the tranflator they had no knowledge, and delivered merely their own conjedures. Further, the accounts of , ancient writers on this fabjed are at' variance with each other : for Origen, though a dif- ciple ' of Clement of Alexandria, makes no mention whatever of a Hebrew original, but fays only : ' In my opinion- the matter was from St. Paul, but the language and conftrudion of the words from another, whore- corded the thoughts of the Apoftle, and made notes, as it were, of what was faid by his matter Y.' The quefiion therefore muft be decided without an appeal to hiftorical evidence, fince it appears, that we haye in fad none : and, it is really to be lamented, that Clement of Rome, though he has frequently produced paffages from this Epiftle, lias not once mentioned, who was the author of it. External evidence then being defedive, we muft have recourfe to internal. y AirofttriiAOtevo-cctTot; ta uiroroXiXK, xcu iisittpti o-^ohioypafvrcntoi t» tipviy.s»x in-? ta iiiao-y.a.\a. sect. x. The Epifile to the Hebrews. 215 sect! X. Arguments in favour of the opinion, that this Epifile was zvritten in Hebrezv. THE firft argument, which induces me to believe, that this Epiftle was written in Hebrew, is, that it was written for the ufe of the Hebrews (as fome of the ancients, quoted in the preceding paragraph, haye related), by which I underftand Jewifh Chriftians in Jerufalem. Now as Chaldee was the language generally fpoken by the people in Jerufalem, and Hebrew, or, as I would rather call it, Talmudic, was the language of the learned, and alfo the language of the church, and of prayer, I cannot fuppofe, that a man, who was mafter of the Hebrew, would write to a community at Jerufalem in any other language. When .St. Paul fpake in public before the Jews in Jerufalem, he ad dreffed them in Hebrew, as St. Luke exprefsly relates,' Ads xxi. 40. xxii. 2. : if then St. Paul was the author of the Epiftle, it is incredible, that he fhould have written to them in Greek. It is true, that there were many individuals in Jerufalem, who underftood Greek, for inflance the Romans, the men of .the higheft rank among the Jews, with fuch of the - Hellenifts as were fettled there, and who \xe diftinguilhed, Ads vi. 1, from the Hebrews : but the greateft part of the inha bitants were certainly unacquainted with Greek, and therefore the author of an Epiftle, containing matters of fo much confequence as the Epiftle to the Hebrews, would have hardly written in this language, efpecially as the Jewifh converts at Jerufalem were for the mofl part perfons of inferior rank. Nay, I believe, that not all the teachers of the Chriftian community in Jerufa lem, and very few among the Rabbins, would have undgrftood a Greek Epiftle. 04 , The 216 The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. , The preceding argument would indeed be deprived of its force, were it true (what Ifaac Voflius has af- ferted),that Greek was the native language of the Jews of Jerufalem. But tins affertion, which is contrary to all our hiftorical and philological knowledge, I have confuted at large in the eleventh fedion of my Differ- tation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews. Lardner like- wife objeds, that Greek, if not the native language of the Jews of Jerufalem, was at leaft underftood by many of them. But this objedion is of no value whatfoever. Let us take an inflance in modern times, and the thing will fpeak for itfelf. In Hamburg for inflance, the Englifh language is underftood by a very confiderable part of the' inhabitants ; yet if the cafe fhould occur, that apprehenfions were entertained of an apoftacy from the Chriftian religion, and that too among the lower claffes, no man, who was able to write German, would think of addreffing to the people of Hamburg a paf- toral letter written in Englifh. The tradition, therefore recorded by Clement of Alexandria in the fecond cen tury is confirmed by its own internal probability. It is true, that this argument refls on the fuppofition, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was defigned for the Hebrews in Jerufalem : and therefore neither Dr, Noeffelt, who contends, that it was fent to the ThefTa lonians, nor they, who. affert, that it was intended for the Chriftians in Afia Minor, wift allow the argument to be valid. But fince the advocates for both of thefe opinions maintain, that St. Paul was the author,' they muft admit, that the following argument is valid, which I deliver indeed only hypothetically, but which no man can confute, if it be true, that this Epiftle was written by. St. Paul2, The Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews, in the form in which we haye it at prefent, cannot poflibly be St. Paul's * In my Differtation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews, Sefl. I J. I have made fome other obfervations, which tend to confirm the following argument, and to confute flie objections to it. sect. x. The. Epifile to the Hebrews. 217 Paul's original : for his manner of writing Greek is totally different, whether we regard the choice of fingle words, the mode of conneding them, or the con- ftrudion and rotundity of the periods. Origen, whom every one will admit to be a competent judge on this fubjed, fays % 'This Epiftle has not that peculiarity, which belongs to the Apoftle, and which immediately difcovers his writing, but in the conftrudion of the language is better Greek (o-w&eo-ei t*»- Xt^tus 'Exx-nvixuapx). This every one will admit, who is able to diftihguifh the difference of ftyles. Other critics in the time of Jerom perceived likewife the fame difference : for this learned father, in his Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers'', fays : ' Epiftola, qua? fertur ad Hebneos, non ejus cre- ditur propter ftyll fermonifque diffonantiam.' When ever I read therefore this Epiftle, I cannot avoid feeling an aftonifhment, that fo many modern writers on this fubjed, fome of whom undoubtedly are judges of the Greek language, fhould miftake the Greek of the Epiftle to the Hebrews for the Greek of St. Paul. This miftake arifes perhaps, partly from the early im bibed prejudice, that all the canonical books of the New Teftament were written in Greek, and partly from the circumftance, that we read the' Greek Tefta ment at fchool, at a time when we are unable to judge of the difference of ftyle, and thus become fo accuf- tomed to it, that we are rendered unable at a later age to diftinguifh between the modes of compofition, which are vifible in the feveral parts of it. Carpzov, one of the , mofl learned advocates for the opinion, that the Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul, has made. the following conceflion, in his Exercitationes in Epiftolam ad Hebrasos, p. 91. 'Si quis .orationem Pauli adcurate notavit, flilum in hac ad Hebraos dif- fimilem aliquanto cognofcet effe illius, quo Apoftolus in reliquis epiftolis ufus eft. Nam caftitas Gracse, lingua, « Eufeb. Hill. Ecclef. Lib. VI. cap. 25. * Hieron. Op. Tom. IV. p. ii. p. 103. 2i8 The Epifile to the' -Hebrews, chap. xxiv. lingua*;, pauciores Hebraifmi, phrafefque CJilicum aut Tarfenfium, particularum ufus elegantior, pofitus ver- borum valde venuftus; flOres hinc inde infperfi, alias virtutes bene multse, epiftote huic vel eo nomine pras ceteris Paufinis prserogativam videntur concedere.' Yet this learned writer, notwithftanding all thefe dif ferences,' ftill contends, p. 81. that the Greek Epiftle to fhe Hebrews was written by St. Paul, and that its fuperiority to St. Paul's- other Epiftles arofe from the circumftance, 'that the Apoftle had refolved to exhibit a fpecimen" of fine writing, and to fhew how well" he was able to write Greek, whenever he chofe it. Now, that St. Paul ever wrote an Epiftle, as a kind of fchool exercife in the Greek language, and that the Epiftle, which he chofe for this purpofe, was an Epiftle, not to Greeks, but to Hebrews, appears, I think, highly improbable. Still more improbable is the Opinion of Cramer % who afcribes the difference in quefiion to St. Paul's intercourfe with the Greeks, and a confequent improvement in the Apoftie's Greek ftyle. Strange, that a native of Tarfus, where Greek and good Greek was fpoken, whom we find al mofl conftantly in Greek cities, in the accounts, which are given of him from Ads xi. to xx. fhould, after the four years and an half imprifonment, which he. fpent out of Greece, namely two years at Calarea in Palefiine, where he was under a Roman guard, half a year at Tea and in the ifland, of Malta, and two years at Rome, make fech a proficiency in the Greek language, as to be able to write in it much better than before. That there are fome, though very few Hebraifms, in this Epiftle, to which Cramer appeals, will not in validate the argument derived from its ftyle ; and he feems to nave miftaken Origen and Jerom, who do not fay, that it is written in perfedly pure Greek, but only, that it is written in better Greek than that, which was ufed by St. Paul. . And if the Hebraifms were ftill more c Pag. 37. of the Introdudion prefixed to his Differtation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews. sect. x. Tbe Epifile to the Hebrews. 219 more numerous, than they really are, they would no more prove, that S". Paul was the author of the Epiftle, than the Hebraifms, which are vifible in Cramer's own Odes and Pfalms, would prove the;.? to be the work of the Apoftle. It muft be expsded, not only that every Jewifh, but every Greek writer, who was daily accuftomed to the Septuagint, would occafionally in troduce Hebraifms,' unfefs, like Jofephus, who wrote, not for Jews, but for Greeks and . Romans, he made pure and claffie Greek his particular ftudy. Carpzov has colleded in his Prolegomena to this Epiftle, 76 — 78. expreffions, which, in his opinion, betray the ftyle of St. Paul: but whoever examines them, will find, that inftead of proving the point, for which they are quoted, they rather lhew the weak- nefs of the caufe, which this learned advocate under took to fupport. For inflance, he compares Heb. ix. 14. OtTTO vtxouv tpyuv, us to XXTglUEtV ®t(f £«i/t», With I Theff. 1. Q. X7T0 tUV tlS(ii?o7roiriTOi ftands in the Greek, the author had ufed either the Hebrew D'Tl ab, or tbe Chaldee p-pl N1? S and the explanation, which was added, was" probably .clearer, than that which is given in the Greek. Again, if the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written in Greek, and confequently the wordY quoted from the Septuagint were quoted by the author himfelf, it is very extraordinary, that in the eleventh chapter, where he quotes from the Old Teftament fo many examples of faith, he fhould have omitted to have mentioned in ver. 4, 5. between Abel and Enoch, the name of Enofh, of whom it is faid in the Septuagint, Gen. iv. 26. Outo? riXirio-tv nrixxXtta-Qxi to ovopx Kujis ts ®ts, words, which are fo obvioufly to the writer's purpofe1". On the h Philo has twice made, ufe of this paffage, in defcribing the hope, which we ought to place in the Supreme Being. The lirft inflance is in Vol. IV. P 226 The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. the other hand, if we affume a Hebrew original of this Epiftle, the caufe of this omiffion is eafily affigned : for the Hebrew text in Gen. iv. 26. at leaft in the copies, which are now extant, expreffes a different meaning from the text of the Septuagint. It may be faid how ever, in anfwer to this argument, that the author of the Epiftle confulted the Hebrew text, and finding that the Greek differed from it, omitted the quotation. SECT. XII. Confutation of the arguments alleged in favour of the opinion ^ that it zvas written in Greek. TFIE arguments, which have been alleged to prove ' that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written ori ginally in Greek, are very numerous, but for the moll part in the book called Abraham (T. II. p. 2, ed. Mangey), and is as follows. EtteioN) «£%>? fitrnaiaq ayaSut srit tXms,' xui ruvvtp, ota. Xtutyopov biot, *i (piXapsrot; a.ta.S>a.itti Hai atoiyti i^t'^Tj, o-iruoaQiQ'a rvysit Ttf -C7£Q? ct^riosia.v xcChu, rov ts^urot shiriioq tpa-^^t i&poosiirsi' atBguorot, to xoitot ra yttn; otof/.U oupv^xf/.tto^ auru, XaMcaot yctp ' rot a.t§puirot Etuq xaXe<7it' u; pot* otro<; xoor aXyiQticct u.t§pwiiH, T8 Ta ctytxMa. tspoGSov-uvro^ xcti tXirto-i ^f-zj^-a-n; sfpiigvpttov. Ef « drjAop, on rot ovtrtkmt bo avUpajTroVt «AA ccvbpwitosi&st; yiytiraa S^toi,, r'o otiiEioTa- rot atBguiritvis -i]/-j^vj;, eAttioo;, u(pr,pnu:t>ot. Oiist xai «cayka,Xv$ ipi)C«i ftzKojAitof rot svi\7rm, m^ottirut, OTTOS HAHIXEN till tov rut oluiv «v«- rspv. xxi i&omrrjv, cirtAtytt' kvrti 'n |3i£aoc ytnatui atipwnm, zaiTOi rsu.rtQut xui tnair-nut V)Sr\ ytyotorut. The other place is in the book of rewards and punifhments (T. II. p; 410. ed Mangey), where Philo, after having fpoken of hope in general, and the abufe of it, proceeds as follows, 'fvamot it wa-nv, olroi, ftoto<; it uwoioyrri; cc£io; b ava^ti; rnt tXviHa Sew, oh; amu T"( •yttto-tuq^ avrr,:;, y.ai u; Miri xai aoiatpba^ot ixatu fj.otu hatpv^a^at. Tl tit «6Ao» ^poy.tira.i ru rtlpcctuiari rot ccytoicn rsrot ; To f/Axrot tx $v»tij{ xai a&cctam tyvasu; (uot , b xtSguwo;. Tstoh XaAo^osiot ptt 'apoaotofunfyavi Etas, 05 sis EAAaiV yhurrut ^.ETctAijipflEi? ej-ii> Atfyu-ro;, to xottot otopa ru ytteq litot KszGwt' aOAoi, t^atptrot, u<; itot priotva, ?o|«,i^ec-6«i to 'csapatmi at&puirot. 0; Kt f/.n mi Stov eAtti^. Immediately after Philo mentions Enoch, whom the author of the Epiftle to Hebrews, ver. 5. of the Chapter in qutftion, has quoted as a'n inflance of faith. It is true that the author of this Epiftle would have not made fuchmyftical-ufeof Gen. iv. 26. as Philo has done : but if he had quoted from the Sep tuagint, he would hardly .have paffed it over in filence. SECT. xn. The Epifile to the Hebrews. 227 part extremely weak. Indeed the mofl learned advo cates in favour of this opinion, efpecially Carpzpv, have granted that many of them prove nothing. 1. The mofl fpecious argument is that, which is founded on Sixinxn, as ufed in ch. ix. 16. 17. This word admits of two fenfes, and may' denote either * Covenant,' or ' Teftament.' In the former fenfe it correfponds to the Hebrew iTTO, but not in the latter, for this Hebrew word never fignifies « Teftament.' The author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews has fometimes ufed Sixfax-n in the fenfe of ' Covenant,' in the fame manner as Mofes, whom he quotes, had ufed 1^12 : but in ch. ix. 16. 17. Sixhxy neceffarily fignifies 'Teftament,' that is, a deed which operates only after, the death of the maker : for the author of this Epiftle fays in the quoted paffage, '07ra yx^ SixQyxn, Srxvxtov xvxyx-n (ptPtnQxi Ta SixQtptva. This application, it is faid, could not. have taken place in Hebrew, beeaufe Jim does not admit of this fenfe, and could have taken place only in the Greek, in which StxQwn admits of a two-fold meaning. Confequently the Epiftle was written in Greek. Anfwer. This argument, if it proves any thing, will prove that the Epiftle was not infpired : for it implies that tHe author of it has reafoned fophiftically, and argued not from things, but from the double meaning of a word. In fad, whether the author of this Epiftle was infpired or nor, I find fuch excellent arguments in general ufed by- him, that I cannot fuppofe he would any where have recourfe to the arts of fophiftry. I would transfer the charge therefore to a tranflator, who perhaps made a niiftake in thefe two verfes : and I think it not improbable that the original conveyed a different fenfe, namely, * that the death and blood of offered animals were requifite for the formal confirmation of a covenant.' At any rate the argument will not . prove that the Epiftle was written in Greek : for the woid Sixfaxy was adopted .both by the Syrians and the Rabbins. In Syriac, it was written r-a-A«*:, and ufed both in the fenfe of p 2 ' * Covenant 228 The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. 'Covenant' and that of 'Teftament,' as Caftell and Schaaf have clearly fhewn from many paffages of the Syriac verfion. In the Talmud it, is written ipVtH, where it is likewife ufed in both thefe fenfes, as may be feen in Buxtorf 's-Lex. Talm. p. 534. Mr. Neidel, in a Thefis entitled, Quod Grace epiftolam ad Hebraos Paulus fcripferit, on which he publickly difputed under Dr.- Semler, has faid p. 24. in reply to this anfwer, that though the word Stxfaxn was adopted in the Syriac, ftill it remains to be proved, that this word had been already adopted, when the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written, which cannot be inferred from its ufe among the Syrian Chriftians, beeaufe they may have borrowed it, as they did many other word,s, from the Greek Teftament., Now the proof, which Mr. Niedel requires, it is wholly impof fible to give, for the works of no Syriac heathen writer, who lived in the firft century, are now extant : and therefore r-cuA-.? can be quoted from none. But who* ever is acquainted with the Syriac language, knows that it contains a confiderable number of Greek words, which do not exift in the Greek Teftament, and which were introduced into the Syriac, after the time of Alexander, during the reigns of the Macedonian kings of Syria. But even if it were certain, that the word in quefiion did not exift in Syriac in the firft century, and -the Syrian writers borrowed it from the New Teftament, ftill its introdudion in the Talmud cannot be afcribed to the fame caufe, fince no one will affert^ that the Talmudifts derived their terms from the writings of the Chriftians. More may be feen on this fubjed in my Explanation of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, p. 51 — 53. 2. The Hebrew name MsX^io-tSix is interpreted. Heb. vii. 2. by the Gaeek words (ixo-iXtvs e!i>£aiea-uw,.and the Hebrew word ZaA^x by upwn. Now, if the Epiftle had been written in Hebrew, the interpretation of a Hebrew word would have been wholly fuperfluous : and a tranflator would hardly have added of his own autho rity, zrgutov [Atv iPfAYivwoptvov j3«irjA£vc Sixxioo-vvns, and i w , Anfwer. sect. xn. The Epifile to the Hebrews. 229 Anfwer. I can fee no reafon, why a tranflator fhould not have added this interpretation. 1 myfelf have taken a fimilar liberty in my tranflation of the Hebrew Bible» and have rendered Ifaiah vii. 14. 'A virgin fhall con ceive and bear a fon, and fhall call his name Immanuel (that is, God with us).' Nor is it true, that an explana tion of Melchifedek and of Salem would have been fuperfluous in the Hebrew : for Melchifedek is written ITEMED, whereas ' King of juftice ' is pix ^jSp or \~\VVi ihn and Salem is written CD1?© whereas ' Peace' is 01*74). In Syriac and Chaldee the difference is ftill greater '. 3. A third argument, which has been alleged in favour of a Greek original, but not admitted by Carpzov, is, that in c,h. v. 8. 14. vii. 3. 19. ix. 10. x. 34. xi. 37. xiii. 40. are inftances of the figure, called Paronomafia. Hence, it is faid, the Greek muft be the original, be eaufe it is not eafy in a tranflation to retain a Parono mafia. . Anfwer. The exiftence of a Paronomafia in any work is no proof of its being an original, for examples of this kind may take place in a tranflation, where there are none in the language, from which the tranflation was made. Nor is it true, that a Paronomafia in an original is incapable of being transferred into a tranflation; for it fometimes happens, that more than one language admits of a play of words on the very fame fubjed. I remember that I once trahflated, and that too without defigningto retain the paronomafia, the Hebrew words nnn ~EK *1N2, Ifaiah lxi. 3. by ' cidaris pro cinere :' and Luther's German tranflation of Ifaiah vii. 9. ' glaubet ihr nicht"" fo bleibet ihr nicht ' preferv'es likewife the paronomafia of the original, TONn xb O TOttn xb OH, which Luther probably imitated by defign. But whether they. are imitations'of the original or not, inftances of this kind occur fo frequently in tranflations, that they cannot p 3 poffibly 5 See p. 53. 54, ofmy Differtation on the Epiftle to the Hebrews. 230 The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. poffibly warrant the inference, which has been drawn from them. In my Differtation on tbe Epiftle to the Hebrews, p. 60. 62. 63. I have filled more than two whole pages with examples taken merely from tranfla- tipns, to which I now add a few more, which have fince occurred to me. In Jeremiah vii. 32. the Greek tranf lation in the Septuagint is, S-a^Wii* tv tic Txao ,cu-io fco, where the Greek is woXu- p.tpws xxt tvoXvtpottus. The fame argument therefore, which is ufed to prove a Greek original, may be applied with equal force in favour of a- Syriac original. Again, in Galat. vi. 9. the Syriac verfion has <^--* 14-= *-°°i V, where the Greek is sx txxxxuptv, and ---* <^o|*- 11°, where the Greek is ju.» txXvoptvoi ; and Ver. 16. ofthe fame chapter, where the Greek, ho-oi t« xxvovt tutu wxywxTiv, ttpy,vn tir xvmc, is likewife without any traces of a paro nomafia, the Syriac has the following very remarkable one5 ^oou^-. UoX» t-Ax±* VV-5* I-joi---.! ^J^-i. In the Old Teftament likewife, the Syriac verfion, in Jerem, xlviii. 36. has o-^io ^r^^ 1^*°, and the Hexaplat Syriac verfion, in Jerem, xlix. 33. i?--0- A-^-- \^'r- ~°> l001*- r-2-^a-\ where the Greek, trxi n xvXn SixtptGv rgafiw, has no paronomafia whatfoever. Befides, the examples, which have been quoted from the Epiftle to the Hebrews, are for the mofl part in ftances, not of fludied, but of unavoidable fimilarity of found kj and that which is taken from ch. xi. 37. is founded on a reading, the authenticity of which is not -certain. One example, I grant, is an inflance of a real paronomafia, and that too, a paronomafia in common ufe among the Greeks '. Namely, when they intended, to fav, that we learn from adverfity, they faid proverbially ¦mx^nfj.xrx /j.xhfj-xtx, Now in Heb. v. 8. we find £/*a(b, cup' dv t7rxQt,mv vttxxow. But admitting that the author, of k See my Differtation.on the Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 63 — 65. 1 See Carpzov on this paffage. sect, xui The Epifile to the Hebrews. 231 Of the Epiftle had the Greek proverb in view, when he wrote this paffage, it does not neceffarily follow that the paffage itfelf was originally Greek : for a proverbial expreflion in one language may occur to an author, when he is writing in another. It is likewife very poffible, that a perfon, who wrote in Hebrew, might have the fame thought, without any knowledge, of the Greek proverb, and the circumftance therefore, that the tranflation con tained a paronomafia, might be matter of mere accident : in the fame manner as the Latin ' docendo difco' is, when tranflated into German a real paronomafia, ' durch lehren lerne'ich.' 4. It is faid, that if the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written originally in Hebrew, it is very extraordinary, .that the original fo fuddenly difappeared, that no eccle-; fiaftical writer, even of the third or fourth century, ever faw a copy of it. This argument I will ftill ftrengthen by adding : What is the reafon likewife, that tbe Naza- renes and the Ebionites, who made ufe of the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, are not mentioned either by Jerom or Epiphanius, as having had a copy of the He brew Epiftle to the Hebrews : and, what muft appear ftill more extraordinary, why did the author of the Syriac verfion tranflate this Epiftle from the Greek, if its' ori ginal was Hebrew. Anfwer. We cannot argue from the non-exiflence of a book in the third or fourth century to its non- exiflence in the firft. It cannot be denied, that of the numerous works of antiquity, many had only a fhort duration : and of the early extindion of a Hebrew Epiftle to the Hebrews it is by no means difficult to affign the caufe. The Greek tranflation, which muft have been made at a very early age, Tupplied the place of the original, which was unintelligible, except to the Chriftians of Pale.ftine. But the Jewifh war, and the deftrudipn of Jerufalem, obliged a greater part of the' Chriftians in that country, to feek a fettlement in other places, where they gradually intermixed with the natives, and of courfe adopted their language. The Nazarenes and the Ebionites, who remained in Palefiine, and con- p 4. fequently 232 The Epifile to'the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. fequently retained their native language, were the only perfons therefore who Gan be fuppofed to have ufed a Hebrew Epiftle. But it is well known that they were declared enemies, both of St." Paul, and of his writings, If then St. Paul was the author. of the Epiftle, it is not extraordinary that they rejeded it. On the other hand, if he was not the author, and the Epiftle proceeded from a perfon unknown, its early lofs can afford to no man jufl matter of furprife. 5. A fifth argument in favour of a Greek original, is, that the quotations in this Epiftle from the Old Tefta ment, are made in the words of the Septuagint.' Anfwer. This may be afcribed to a tranflator, as eafily as to the author. And that we ought rather toafcribe this circumftance to a tranflator, appears from what I have already faid in the former part of this fedion, where I have fhewn, that the paffages, quoted in the words of the feptuagint, are fometimes lefs fuitableto the purpofe, for which they were produced, than they would have been, if quoted, as they are worded in the Hebrew. , 6. This Epiftle is more free from Hebraifms, than mofl other books of the New' Teftament, which would hardly have happened, had it been a tranflation of a Hebrew original. Anfwer. It is furely poffible for a tranflator, who is matter of the language," in which he writes, to produce a tranflation p"WJ"l, ]T"KMTK, as may be feen on confulting Buxtorf and Schaaf. , In the prefent inflance however the Syriac. tranflator has ufed a pure Syriac word and written i-oov-*. SECT. XIII. Examination of the quefiion, whether the Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews is in all ref peels an accurate tranflation of the original. AS the Greek Epiftle to the Hebrews is only a tranf* lation, it proceeded from a perfon, who was not infallible, and was confequently expofed to the danger of miftaking the fenfe of his author. It is necefTary therefore, as far as can be done without a comparifon with the original, to examine whether the tranflation be every where free from error. That the "tranflator has executed ¦ 1 Maecab. xiv. 5. - Jofeph. Antiq. xv. 9. 6, * Jofeph. Antiq. xv. 8. 1. s lb. xv. 9. 6. sect. xiii. The Epiftle to the Hebrews. 235 executed his tafk with ability, muft be obvious to every one who underftands Greek : for, in general, his lan guage is perfpicuous, his fentences are well-arranged, and the Epiftle is more eafy to be underftood, than any of thofe, which were written by St. Paul. Yet I think fome few exceptions muft be made, where the tranflator appears to have rendered inaccurately. The following are examples of this kind. Ch. i. 2. Si a xxi tk; xiojvxs ntotiwt. Here the expref lion ms xtmxs, which again occurs in the fame fenfe, ch. xi. 3. is, I think, exceptionable. Of xtuvts is con ftantly ufed by the Greek writers as a word expreffive of' time, or. as denoting a fucceffion of ages : but in the prefent inflance the context requires for it a different fenfe, namely that of ' worlds.' Now the Jews ufed their pbty in both fenfes ; for though it literally denotes ' fteculum,' yet they frequently applied it in the fenfe of ' mundus.* For inflance, they called the Earth Dbiy ^Styn, that is, the lower world ; to the middle regions they gave the name of pD\m tb)y, and the upper regions, or the heavens, they denoted by p^yrr D^y '. It is therefore not improbable, that where -raj xiuvxg ftands in the tranflation, the Hebrew word Cf>d}V was ufed, by which the author intended to exprefs the notion of ' worlds.' But as it fignifies at other times ' ages,' this fenfe fuggefled itfelf to the tranflator, which induced him to render it, and that too improperly in the prefect inflance, by t«« osimux? : for in no other inflance, either in the New Teftament, or in the Septuagint is. this word ufed in the fenfe of ' worlds.' If we rejed the opinion that the Epiftle was written in Hebrew, it will be almoft ' impoffible to give a fatisfadory explanation of this fin gular ufe of ol xnavts. Ch. ii. I. SlX T3T0 Sll Zu-EfKTo-OTE'W- */"¦«? ZT^OITt^tlV T41C axuo-QtHTi, /*n inott •5r«-«--uw/*£i'. Here pn -btote •nxgxppvn foil. r See Buxtorf Lex, Talm. p. 1620., 236 The Epiftle to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. foil, xx axxa-Qtvtx, ne effluant audita a nobis," would agree much better with the context than p? -sro.-rE tuxpxppw^v, which all the commentators have found it difficult to explain. Perhaps, this is another inflance of inaccuracy in the tranflator: and if the -original was not , pure Hebrew, but Syriac, the caufe of the miftake may be very eafily affigned. In Syriac, the Verb has the fame form in the firft perfon plural, as in the third perfon fingular : and in this very example, the Syriac verfion has ^-2>-J V?, which denotes both /*u tsott Tsxpxppwptv and fAti Tsott zrx^x^pvri. Ch. 11. 9. ovus yxani Sta U7T£* zixvtos ytvrritxi Sxvum, Inftead of p^m £e8, fome authorities have yu^ 1- S-sa. It is true that this variation might eafily take place by mere accident in a Greek manufcript : but when I wrote the note to this verfe in my Commentary on the Epiftle I ventured the conjedure that both of thefe readings were tranflations from the Hebrew. For TDni fignifies 3£«ftTi, and "iDnn, which differs only in the turn of a letter denotes -£&>-»?. At prefent, this conjedure appears fo me to be lefs probable, than if did formerly : I note it however as a fubjed for future inquiry. Ch. iii. 3. 4. as worded in the Greek gives a fenfe, which could hardly have been meant by a writer fo rational, as the author of this Epiftle : but as foon as we reprefent the paffage in Hebrew the difficulty vanifhes. It is probable, that where 0 xxtxo-xevxo-xs xvtov ftands in the Greek, 132 was ufed in the original, which according to the defign ofthe author fhould have been pronounced i 13 and tranflated 0 J»o- au-ra : but the tranflator pro nounced it 132, and accordingly rendered it 0 xxrxo-xtw- exs uvtov. The reader will find a further illuftration of this example in my Note to the paffage. Ch. v. 13. nsxs yxo 0 ^ttt^uv yxXxxtos, xtteipos, Xoys -TiJcasjoo-uj|*rj, vnTrios yxp es-j, is extremely harlh and obfcure. In the 10th verfej the fubjed related to the 'Prielt after the order of Melchifedek,' in Hebrew, p-K":to tfrqi % after which the author argues thus : ' of whom I have much to fay, but ye are at prefent not fufficiently 3 advanced sect-, xiii-- The Epifile to the Hebrews. 237 advanced to comprehend it, ye are ftill children, for whoever partakes of milk, &cc.' When 1 confider there fore the whole of the author's argumentation, I think it probable that where^the tranflator has ufed Xcyx Stxxioo-u- i/*)?, the author had ufed pt* "Q7, which ought to have been pronounced p"lX ~\37, and taken in the fenfe of ' the true place of holinefs.' Or perhaps he wrote "ill pT-tf-fe, fignifying ' the dodrine of Melchifedek :' and that copy of the original, which fell into the hands of the tranflator, was in this paffage defedive. Ch. vi. 4. yt\ivxjj.tv}ss tns. Swpixs tr,s tTrxjixvrs, appears to relate to the facrament of the Lord's fupper. Perhaps r- vnmn jq was ufed in the original, by which the author meant to exprefs ' the heavenly manna,' a meaning well fuited to the context. But the tranflator took ,p in the fenfe of ' gift %' and rendered it, improperly in the prefent inflance, by Suptx. Compare my Note to this paffage with John vi. 31 — 2>S- Ch. vi. 19, 20. 'Hi/ (foil. tXittSx) us xyxv^xv vyopn •"Iff ^/fff * ?>», ' where wok ought, in my Opinion, to be pointed ijn^s as it is in the Caffel manufcript, The Hebrew will then fignify ' Jehova faid to the Lord, (that is, to the Lord of the unjverfe). But the author of the Septuagint verfion of the Pfalms pointed and pronounced \)"IK*?, which fignifies to my Lord, and rendered the paffage, tnrtv o xv^tos tw jcu*(w y.s. See p. 477 — 4^2- °f -my critical ledure on this Pfalrn. Ch. ix. 2, 3, 4. Of this paffage I have already fpoken in the nth fedion of this chapter. The reader may likewife confult my note to it, in the Expofition of this Epiftle. Ch. ix. 14, 15, 16, 17. Of this paffage I have fpoken at, the beginning of the preceding fedion. According to the Greek text, the mode of arguing is fo very extraor* dinary, that I cannot afcribe it to a writer, fo rational, as the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, I conclude therefore, that the tranflator has made a miftake. Ch. ix. 19. As this verfe is worded in the Greek, Mofes is faid to have fprinkled with blood, both the book of the law, and the children of Ifrael. But it is a miftake, that the book of the law was fprinkled with blood. I conclude therefore, that this verfe conveyed a different meaning in the original, and that the fenfe ex preffed by the author was, ' he took blood mixed with water, fearlet wool, and hyflbp, with the book of the law, and fprinkled all the people :' and not as the Greek tranflation expreffes, ' he fprinkled both the ,book and all the people.'' Ch. X. I . "Lxtxv yxp tyuv 0 vou.os twv fU.tXXovtuov xyxwv, xx xvtnv tnv ttxovx tuv -mpxy^xriov. Here the antithefis requires in the latter claulea word expreffive of ' fubftance' in oppofition to , that is, ' they reftored to women their fons from the refurredion of the dead.' This would be in Greek, with exception to -the verb, on which I will not hazard a conjedure, — ywxixxs e£ xvxrxo-tus vtxguv ms xiiruv (foil. viae). Now one part of this reading, namely ywxtxxs, is really found in the Alexandrine, and Clermont manu feripts. The meanjng, which the paffage there conveys, I will not now examine ; but perhaps it is fomething to this s • See my Arabic Grammar § 66. p. 2I3. and my Syriac Grammar §91. p. 215. '' 240 The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap, xxiv. this purpofe, * they, married again, after they were rifen from the dead.', At any rate however I think that ywxtxxs is a remnant of the old reading preferved in the Syriac verfion. But the difficulty is, to find a Greek verb, which could be ufed before ywxtxxs in the a.ccufative, and at the fame time was capable of being conftrued with ywxtxts in the nominative. The com mon reading tXxGov will not fuit this two-fold purpofe, unlefs thcpaffage fignifies, that perfons married, who had arifen from the dead. Now that examples of this kind took place I will not'deny : but there are none on record among the inftances of faith, which are quoted in the Epiftle to tbe Hebrews from the Old Teftament. Be this as it will, ywxtxxs in the accufative gives a fenfe in this paffage fo very different from that of ywxtxts in the nominative, that I cannot fuppofe it had its origin merely as a various reading in the Greek:, and I think it therefore not improbable, that they are different tranfla-- tions ofthe Hebrew text, and that the one was intended as a corredion of, or an improvement on, the other. The Hebrew verb npb, which fignifies properly cepit, has been taken in the fenfe of dedit : and in Pfalm Ixviii. 19. this fame verb has been tranflated both ways". It is therefore not improbable that the author, of the Epiftle to the Hebrews ufed mpb, which' was capable of being rendered either by tXxQov the common Greek reading, or by tSuxxv the reading expreffed in the Syriac Verfion. Ch. Xll. 15. y.ri ti? fit^x ¦crixfios." asi/w pw-atra tvo)(Xy, xm Six txMtns [mxvQuo-i zioxxoi. Here is a notion expreffed, which is wholly inconfiftent with the Jewifh mode of thinking. According to the laws of Mofes various' meats were unclean, and defiled thofe, who ate them ; but no herbs, not even thofe which were poifonous, were confidered as polluting thofe, who partook of them. The original therefore muft have conveyed, a different fenfe, but what that fenfe was, it is difficult to determine, * -See the Supplem, ad Lexica Hebraica. Skct. xiii. Tki Epifile to the Hebrezvs. 241, determine. But, if I may be allowed to form a con jedure on the paffage in Deuteronomyw, to which allufion is here made, I think it not impoffible, that- the words ufed in the original were iZTSn IBD1! ' et addantur multi.' Now in Arabic (-jl^*, fignifies an infedious difeafej and therefore a tranflator might eafily miftake the meaning of the Hebrew verb, and render thefe words by xxt fMtxvQuie-i tsoxXoi, ufing /mxivw, not in the Mofaic fenfe of defiling by unclean meats, but in a medical fenfei However, this is a conjedure, on which I will not infift ; but whatever was the caufe of the miftake, (Aixivta is at any rate an inaccurate tranf lation. Ch. xii. 18. a y~xp ¦wgoo-tXiiiXvQxTt i}jnXxwf.Ei«jj, monti palpabili, which is oppofed to 2»«» opii is certainly a very extraordinary one: and I am wholly unable to give a fatisfadory account of, it, except on the fuppofition, that the Epiftle was written in Hebrew. But on this fuppofition the caufe of the inaccuracy may be eafily affigned. Sinai, or the moun tain of Mofes, is that, which is here oppofed to mount Siom Now the expreflion ' to the mountain of Mofes' is in Hebrew nvn TT7* The word 'rwQ the tranf lator mifunderftood, and inftead of reading it nttfO and v taking it for a proper name, either read by miftake t90 palpatio, or pronounced by miftake nfuo palpatio. Hence, inftead of rendering ' to the mountain of Mofes,' he rendered ' to the tangible mountain.' Heb. xii. 2 C. BXt7rttt, u.i\ isxpxifn^^i ro'v XHXavtx-' tt yxp txtivot ax ttpvyov tov tirt tns yns isx^xity\o-x[kivoi "xgnp&ti^evtXi woXXu pxXXev %^.tts 01 tov xv zgxvwv XTrorp^tfpofAivott On the difficulties attending the word Tsx^xity\o-x^ivot in this paffage, I have fpoken at large in my Commentary on the Epiftle, to which I refer the reader, efpecially to p. 407, * Ch. xxlx. 18, 10. Vol. IV. Q 24* The Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. XtfiVV p. 407. It has fihce occurred to me, that zrxpxttwxfittm, which I confider as incorred, may be explained as a fault of the tranilator. Where the Greek words r« tm t-as yns ¦bfugxltiio-xp.ivii ^fip^xtt^ovtx are ufed, the Hebrew original was perhaps to the following purport, c die fich den von der Erde redendeh erbaten, und den vom Himmel verbaten ;' and the wOrris, which I have printed in. Italics, were either overlooked by the tranflator, or had been omitted by accident in the copy, from which he tranflated, Ch. xiii. 9. BtSxiisAxi tnv xxpStxv appears to be a too literal and confequently obfcure tranflation of 2b 1>n, which, literally taken, fignifies ' to ftrengfhen the heart,' but is ufed as denoting ' to invigorate the body by food,' or ' to partake of a meal,' as in Judges xix. 5. and Pfalm civ. 15. See the 491ft Note in my Commentary. , ¦ Ch. xiii. 15. See the 501ft Note. SECT. XIV. Remarks on the 'Greek ftyle of the Epiftle to the Hebrews. .** THE "Greek ftyle of this Epiftle is different from that of every other book of the New Teftament. It is likewife fuperior to that of every other book *, with the exception perhaps of the fpeeches of St. Paul recorded in Ads xvii. 22 — 31. xxiv. 10—21. xxvi. 1 — 21. But though the language of. thefe fpeeches is equally good and fluent with that of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, it is ftill of a very different kind. Among the peculiarities of the Greek ftyle of this Epiftle may be reckoned the particular ufe of certain words. * See the words of Origen quoted above, in the 10th feclionof this chapter. &ect. xiv. The Epiftle to the Hebrews •; 243 vVords. For inflance, the appellation of A-roroXo-. is given to Chrift, ch. iii. 1. The ufe of xiro^aXas in this fenfe may be afcribed perhaps to the circumftance, that it is a tranflation of the Hebrew word rT^. For in John ix. 7. rfrty appears to be the name of the Meffiah, in fupport of which fenfe Wetftein in his Note to John ix. 7. has quoted a paffage from Debarim Rabba : and in the books of the Sabians, Jefus is faid to have called himfelf l-.-o.-o j.^A*^ that is, ' the firft Apoftle.' Nw§£0(, ch. v. ii. vi. 12. an elegant Greek word, occurs in no other inflance in the whole New Teftament ; and in the Septuagint it is ufed only in the Proverbs of Solomon, which are tranflated into better Greek, than any other part of the Old Teftament. In the Epiftle to the Hebrews, vuhoi is probably the tranflation of '"DO. Av.ooQtvtx, ch. vii. 4. occurs in no other inflance, either in the New Teftament, or in the Septuagint. It is here an admirably chofen word, for it literally denotes that part of the*fpoil, which was allotted to the commander* The expreflion a* xv Stv- ttpxs egtTtito toivos, ch. viii. 7. is really elegant Greek. In quoting paffages, without mentioning the place, from which they were taken, the tranflator makes ufe of fuch terms as were agreeable to the manner of the Greeks; for inflance, ch. ii. 6. Supxprv^xtb St -?« t»cy, and ch." iv. 4. tipwe yx% v». In the original was pro bably ufed the common rabbinical expreflion TDW, which a tranflator, lefs acquainted with the Greek mode of writing, would have rendered by xxi uirt z, or xxi Xtyti. Alfo the plural number ' we,' inftead of the fingular 'I,' occurs in ch. v. 11. and is continued almoft throughout the next chapter : it occurs again ch. y Carpzov in his Note to this paffage obferves, that Philo often quotes in his manner. " As in Matth. xix. 5. where stirs can have no other meaning. than ' the fcripture fays,' or ' it is thus written.' Q 2 444 *$* Epifile to the Hebrews, chap. xxiv. ch. x. 15.; and perhaps ch. xiii. 18. may be added as an inflance of the plural for the fingular, though in the verfe, which immediately follows, the fingular is ufed. Laflly, fhe frafifiatot has feVeral favorite words, which diftinguifli him from other writers, and occur more frequently iri this Epiftle, than in any other part of the New Teftament. For inflance xx^ovopas and xXvpavopuv, where the fubjed does not relate to inheri tance, as in ch. h 2. 4. 14. xi. 7. Again, xptirtm, in the fenfe of ' fuperior,* or ' nobler,' or * more excel lent,' ch. i. 4. vii. 7. 19. 22.- viii, 6. ix. 23. xi. 40. Xii. 24. On the whole, this word occurs thirteen times in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, though in all the other books of the New Teftament -put together it occurs only fix times, and is ufed Amply iii the fenfe of ' better.' Mtttyttv is ufed, ch. ii. 14. vii. 13, to denote relationfhip, or participation of blood or tribe. It is ufed however, ch. v. 13. to denote' participation of food, in the fenfe, in which St. Paul has ufed it, in whofe Epiftles, it occurs on the whole five times. To the preceding examples may be added the parti* cular ufe of •am-ax XapGxvtiv, ch. xi. 29. 36. Whether the tranflator had read the works of Philo* » with whom he fometimes agrees in his expreffionsj as in -£«-«x-ni-, ch. i. 3. I will not undertake to deter mine. But for the opinion, that the author had ever read Philo, there is no ground whatfoever : fince their mode of arguing on the fame fubjed, and on the fame paffages of the Old Teftament, is totally different. It was Philo's objed to adapt the dodrines of Mofes to the precepts of Plato, for which purpofe he interprets his quoted paffages allegorically, and involves fimple fads in the moft profound and often ridiculous myf- tery. but the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews does not quote and argue in this manner. And, as the two writers have fo little connexion with each other, I do not fee how this Epiftle can be confidered even as a confutation of the allegorical dreams of Pliilb. M Neither bect. xv. The Epiftle to the Hebrews, -445 Neither in any other book of the New Teftament, nor in the works of any Chriftian writer of the firft cen. tury, is there any refemblance to the ftyle of this Epiftle : it muft have proceeded therefore from a perfon, of whom we haye no other writings now extant. The notion, that St. Paul didated the Epiftle in Hebrew, and that an amanuenfis committed it imme diately to writing in Greek, is highly improbable : for in fuch an hafty tranflation the words would not have been fo well chofen, nor the fentences fo well ar ranged. SECT- XV, Of the author of the, Epifile to the Hebrews : whether it was written by Si. Paul : and firft, of the opinion of the ancients on this fubjebl* " THE quefiion, which we have now to examine, is of very great importance," beeaufe the canonical authority of this Epiftle, which' will be confidered in a following fedion, entirely depends upon it. Hiflorical evidence, in the ftrict fenfe pf the word, or confidered as teflimony to a matter/ of fad, we have none on this fubjed ; and the opinion^ of 'the mofl celebrated ecclefiaftical writers are fo far, from being uniform, that while fome received it, others, nay whole churches rejeded it, as not being the work of St. Paul. The mofl ancient writer, who has afcribed this Epiftle to St. Paul, but who at the fame time obviated the objedion, derived from the difference of ftyle, by faying, that the Apoftle 'wrote it in Hebrew, and that the Greek is only a tranflation, is Clement of Alexan dria, whofe words are quoted by Eufebius, ,in his q 3 , Eccle- 546 The Epiftle to the Hebrews, c h a p . x x 1 v, Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, B. VI. Ch. 14. Now as Cle-. ment lived at the end of the fecond, and at the begin* ning of the third century, he cannot be confidered in this inflance as bearing tefti'mony to a matter of fad, which indeed he does not pretend to do. But at the fame time it muft be obferved, that Clement quotes the authority of his matter Pantamus: for after having delivered his own opinion, he proceeds, as follows*. HiSii St, us 0 i»,xxxpitr[S tXtyt •n-££ The Epifile to the Hear ezt)s._ chap* xxiv. fenfe, which has been afcribed to them, ftill they would not apply to St. Paul alone : for Barnabas, to whom Tertullian afftgns the Epiftle, might have written in this manner; Ch. x. 33. SteotgtgoiMvoi is an expreflion perfectly agreeable to St. Paul's mode of writing; as appears* from 1 Cor. iv. 9. : but fince other writers may like- wife have ufed the fame metaphor, the application of it in the prefent inflance fhews only, that St; Paul might have written the Epiftle to the Hebrews, not that he really did write it. Ch. x. 30. tfjioi taSixrxrit,. tyta avrx-rroSuo-u} is a quotation from Deuf. xxxii. 35. which differs both from the Hebrew text and from the Septuagint : and this paffage is again quoted in the very fame words, in Rom. xii. 19, This agreement in a reading, which has hitherto been difcovered in no other place v, might form a prefumptive argument, that both quotations were made by the fame perfon, and confequently, that the Epiftle to the He brews was written by St. Paul. But the argument is not decifive : for it is very poffible, that in the firft cen tury there ilvere manuferipts of the Septuagint with this leading in Deut. xxxii. 35. from which St. Paul might have copied in Rom. xii. 19. and the tranflator of this Epiftle, in Heb. x. 30. LaftLy, the Epiftle to the Hebrews is dodrinal in , the former part, as far as ch. x. 19. and the remaining part is exhortatory. This is agreeable to St. Paul's manner. Likewife the dodrines themfelves, and the literature difplayed in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, are in every fenfe worthy of St. Paul. But on the other hand, in the mode of treating the fame fubject, there is a vifible difference between the Epiftle to the He brews, and St. Paul's Epiftles. In the former the matter is dilated, in the latter compreffed : in the one the arguments are drawn out at full length, and arr> eafier to be underftood, in the other they are fo con tracted-- * See the New Orient. Bibl. Vol. V. p. 231—236. sect. -xvi. The Epiftle- fo the Hebrews. 257" traded, and fo much is left to be fupplied by the reader, that it is fometimes difficult to difcover the Apoftle's meaning. Five chapters efpecially of the Epiftle to the Hebrews q difplay a copioufnefs of argument, which, appears to be inconfiftent with the concife manner of St. Paul. '. The arguments therefore on both fides of the ques tion are nearly of equal weight : but if there is any preponderance, it is in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was not the author. For the defign of vifiting Jerufalem, which the author of this Epiftle expreffes, would hardly have been 'formed by St. Paul on his releafe from imprifonment. And if St. Paul was really the author, it is difficult to account for the omiffion of his name at the opening of the Epiftle, fince the dmiffion cannot well be afcribed to a tranflator, who would pot have negleded to retain a name, which gave authority to the Epiftle '.- After all then, we muft confefs, that we do not know, whether St. Paul wrote this Epiftle, or not. An ab- folute decifion on this fubjed is indeed to be wifhed, but, in my opinion, not to be obtained. 1 Chap, vi — x. , r See Sect. a. of this Chapter. Vol. IV. R 258 The Epifile to the. Hebrews, chap. xxiv. SECT. XVII. Examination of the opinion entertained by fome of the an cients, that Barnabas was the author. THAT Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews was formerly a not unufual opinion in the Latin church. Now this Opinion in itfelf contains nothing improbable : for Barnabas was by birth a Levite, and well acquainted with the Jewifh laws, and with the Jewifh literature. Confequently a learned Epiftle, Jike that to the Hebrews, is fuch as might be expeded from his hand. And, if that which is commonly called the Epiftle of Barnabas, is, as many critics believe, a for gery under his name, we have no writings of Barnabas now extant, which we can oppofe to the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and thence argue againft this opinion from a difference of ftyle. On this ground, therefore it would be difficult to confute the opinion, fince no one can prove that Barnabas was unable to write as good Greek, as that which is contained in the Epiftle to the He brews. But, if on the other hand the Epiftle afcribed 'to Barnabas -be really genuine, as other critics affert, the flate of the quefiion will be materially altered. The mofl ancient writer, who has mentioned Barna bas, as author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is Tertul lian: and this Latin father fpeaks, not in dubious terms, but agreeably to his ufual manner in a decifive tone. In his treatife entitled, De Pudicitia, c. 20. he quotes the Epiftle to the Hebrews in' fupport of the Montaniftic dodrine, that they who had fallen after baptilm could not again exped remiffion of their finst He quotes it however not as fcripture, in the ftricteft fenfe of the word, but as a work of deutero-canonicali authority, and as affording only collateral proof*. His words ' Moft of the Latin fathers confidered the Epiftle to the Hebrews in the lame light. sect. xvii. The Epifile to the Hebrews. 259 words are as follow. Volo ex abundantia alicujus co- mitis apoftolorum teftimonium fuperinducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure difciplinam magiftrorum. Extat enim et Barnabas titulus ad Hebraos', adeo fatis audoritatis viri, ut quern Paulus juxta fe pofuerit in abftinentize tenore, ' aut ego folus et Barnabas non faabemus hoc operandi poteftatemV Et utique receptior apud ecclefias Epiftola Barnaba?w illo apocrypho Paftore majchorum. Monens igitur difcipulos, omiffis omnibus initiis, ad perfedionem magis tendere, ilec rurfum fun- damenta pcenitentisejacere operibus mortudrum : impof fible enim eft, inquit, illos, qui.femel inluminati font, et donum ccelefle guflaverunt, et participarunt fpiritum fandum, et verbum Dei dulce guftarunt, occidentejam Sevo, cum exciderint rurfus revocari in poenitentiam, refigentes cruci in femetipfis filium Dei et dedecorantes. This opinion of Tertullian, that Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, muft have been entertained in the following centuries by many members of the Latin church, though it does appear to have been adopted by the Greek writers. For Jerom in his Epiftle to Dardanus x fays : Noftris dicendum eft, hanc epiftolam qua infcribitur ' ad Hebraos,' non folum ab ecclefiis Orientis, fed ab omnibus y retro ecclefiafticis Gneci fermonis fcriptoribus quafi Pauli apoftoli fufcipi, licet plerique* earn vel Barnabffi vel dementis arbitren- tur\ But 1 That is, the Epiftle with the title, « ad Hebrsos.' u 1 Cor.ix. 16. w Here Tertullian means the Epiftle of Barnabas, commonly fo called. "\Ve fee likewife from this paffage, that the Epiftle afcribed to Barnabas was greatly preferred by the African churches to the Shepherd of Hermas. * Tom. II. p. 608. v Jerom fhould not have faid * omnibus,' for Origen at leaft makes an exception. See SecL 15. of this chapter. * PUrique applies here to the members of the Latin church Only, who are oppofed to thofe of the Greek church mentioned-in the for mer part of the fentence. v'^ a Lardner in his Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory/ P. If. Vol. x. p. 123, is-4. expreffts a doubt, whether they who afcribed the Epiftle r a *o 260 . The Epifile to jhe Hebrews: chap. xxiv. But how great fo ever the number may have been among the members of the Latin church, who afcribed this Epiftle to Barnabas, their affertions can be received only as private opinion, not as hiftorical evidence, be eaufe the report is wholly unknown to the mofl ancient Greek fathers. Neither Tertullian, nor Jerom has advanced any argument in its fupport, and therefore it is difficult at prefent to affign the caufe, which gave it birth. It is however . not improbable, that the opinion took its rife in. the following manner. Though the Epiftle to ,the Hebrews was not received as a Work of St. Paul, on account of the difference of its ftyle, it was ftill held, as it juftly deferves, in veneration, Cle ment of Rome, for" inflance, having quoted from it whole paffages. But of a work, which we efteem, we always endeavour to difcover the author, and if we cannot obtain certainty we have recourfe to conjedure, and often affign to an anonymous work, a name, which we think it deferves. Now between the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and that which is called the Epiftle of Barna bas b, notwithftanding their diffimilarity in other refpects, there is a refemblance in the feledion of the materials, and fometimes in the. choice of the words. The two Epiftles agree likewife in this refpecl, that the author neither of the one, nor of the other, has mentioned his name at the beginning0, though it was ufual in Greek Epiftles. Further, both of them abound with explana tions to Barnabas, or to Clement, did not mean, that thefe were only the fcribes, who wrote what St. Paul dictated. But I cannot fuppofe that this was their meaning. In the whole Epiftle there is no .falutation either from Barnabas, or from Clement : we have no reafon to fup pofe that Barnabas was with St. Paul when he was releafed from im prifonment : and, as Barnabas was not only the colleague of St. Paul, - but likewife greatly his fenior, it is not probable that Barnabas was employed merely as an amanuenfis. ' b I here leave the quefiion undecided, whether this Epiftle be genuine or not. c The Latin tranflation of the Epiftle of Barnabas (ifor the two fuft chapters of the Greek are lolt) begins thus, Avete filii et filias in nomine domini noftri Jefu Chrifti. sect. xvii. The Epiftle to the Hebrews. 26r tions of paffages from the Old Teftament. . It is there- 'fore not at all extraordinary that both of thefe anony mous Epiftfes have been afcribed to the fame author. Yet notwithftanding thefe Epiftles in fome refpedts .agree, a more minute comparifon of them will (hew that they cannot well have been written by the fame author. As Barnabas however may ftill have written the one, if he did not write the other, we muft previoufly examine, whether the Epiftle, which is commonly called the Epiftle of Barnabas, be genuine. Eufebius refers it to the clafs of fpurious writings'1 : and I am inclined, to accede to this opinion, though I will not decide on the fubjed, beeaufe this would require an examination of all the arguments on both fides of the quefiion. My chief reafon for thinking that Barnabas was not the author of the Epiftle, which goes under his name, is, not that it contains fome very extraordinary interpreta tions of the Old Teftament, though even thefe are in my opinion unworthy of Barnabas, but that it contains a paffage, which betrays fuch ignorance in regard to the Hebrew letters, as can hardly be expeded from a Jewifh. teacher of Chriftianity, who had long refided in Jerufa lem. Surely Barnabas muft have known that Jefus was written in Flebrew j*w», with y, and not n, and that D (which in fome Alphabets has the fhape of the crofs) denoted, as a numeral, not 300, but 400. Yet there is a paffage in this Epiftle, which betrays an ignorance in both thefe refpeds e. x But *¦ NoSa. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. III. 25. c The paffage, which I mean is in § 7. where the author, fpeaking ofthe three hundred and eighteen fervants of Abraham, fays that the number 318 denotes jefus arid the Crofs. This he makes out in the following manner. MaflsTE rac, itxaon.ru The Epifile of St. James. .273; yet have been convinced after his death and refur redion. 2. That. they were the fons of Jofeph by Mary the mother of Jefus". In this fenfe they were own brothers of Jefus, but younger than he. It is true, that, this opinion is not confiftent with the notion formerly enter tained of the fuppofed perpetual virginity, But this notion is wholly' incapable of fupport : and, even if ic had been poffible for jofeph and Mary to have lived after their marriage in a flate of perpetual continency, a life of this kind would not only have, been inconfiflent with found reafon, but, according to the precepts deli vered by St. Paul in 1" Cor. vii. would have merited cen- fure. On this ground therefore no objedion can be made. But there are other reafons, which render this opinion improbable. For, if thefe four perfons were the fons of Mary, and the fifters mentioned by St. Matthew were likewife her daughters, which we muft fuppofe agreeably to this hypothefis, it cannot be imagined that fhe had loft all her children, when Jefus was crucified : for if all the reft were dead, which however is not probable, James and Judas were ftill alive. Yet from the account given by St. John, ch. xix. 26, 27. it feems as if Mary was without children, and without fupport : for Jefus re commends her to the care of St. John, and commands him to regard her as a mother, on which St. John takes her to his own houfe. On this account it is improbable that Mary, the mother of Jefus, was likewife the mother of James and Judas. I do not mean to affert, that Mary never had children by Jofeph, for it appears from Matth. i. 25. that the contrary is probable : but, if fhe had, they muff have died young, or at leaft have been no longer alive, when Chrift was crucified. If ¦"¦ This opinion, which is by no means new, has been lately fup ported with great warmth by Herder in his * Epiftles of two brothers of Jefus in our Canon,' publilhed in 1775. But Herder's arguments have been combated by Gabler, in a differtation entitled, De Jacobo epiflola; ei attribute auftore, publilhed in 1787, Vol. IV. S 274 The Epifile of St. James. chap. xxvr. 'If either the one, or the other, of the two preceding opinions be true x, and James and Judas, the authors of the Epiftles, were literally brothers of Chrift y, it fol lows that they were not Apoftles : for the elder Apoftle James was the fon of -Zebedee, and the younger Apoftle James and his brother Judas were fons of Alphsils, Nor do the titles, which the authors of thefe Eprflles have given themfelves, indicate that they were Apoftles: for they call themfelves, not Apoftles of Jefus Chrift, but fervants of Jefus Chrift. But if they were not Apoftles, their writings can lay no claim to canonical authority. In refped to the Epiftle of. St. Jude, this inference' is in fome meafure warranted by its contents, which are not of fuch a nature, as to imply divine infpi ration. To the Epiftle of St. James I have no objections to make, and I fee nothing in the contents of .it, Which might form a bar to its canonical authority : but others have thought differently on this fubjed, and the ancients were very much divided about it, as will appear in one of the following fedions. 3. A third opinion relative to James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas, is, that they were fons of Jofeph ' by the widow of a brother, who had died without children, and to whom therefore Jofeph by the lawspf Mofes Was obliged to raife iffue. In this fenfe, James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas Would be again half-brothers of Jefus. But this opinion I think extremely improbable : for the law which obliged the Jews to take the widows of their brothers, who had died without children, affeded thofe only who were fingle, and was not extended to thofe, who were already married2. Befides, as foon as one heir x The former I think preferable, for the reafons already afligned. y An objection however may be made from the circumftance, that in neithet the Epiftle of St. James, nor in that of St. Jude, has the author called, himfelf brother of Jefus. In the former, the authorcall» himfelf James the fervant of Jefus :. and in the latter the author gives himfelf the fame title, with the addition of « brother of James,' whereas if he had been really brother of Jefus, he would probably have pre ferred this more diftinguilhed appellation. z See my Mofaic law, § 98. • ' sect. r. « 'the Epiftle of St. James. 27^5 heir was born of the brother's widow, all was done, which the law required : but according to this opinion Jofeph had four fons, and feveral daughters by his bro-- ther's widow, and that too at a time, when his own wife Was alive, by whom according to the fame opinion he had no children. 4. The preceding opinion may be delivered, with fome alteration, in the following manner : that Jofeph*s deceafed brother, to whom the laws required, that he fhould raife iffue, was Alphaus. In this cafe, James and judas who are called brothers of Jefus, will be the fame as the Apoftles James and Judas, who are called fons of Alpheeus, Matth> x. 3. But, if this reprefenta- tion be true, Alphzeus cannot be the fame perfon with Clopas, as is frequently fuppofed : for Clopas had in marriage the filler of Jofeph's wife. 5. According to the fifth opinion, which was firft advanced by Jerom, and has been very generally re ceived, James, Jofeph, Simon, and Judas, were bro thers of Chrift, not in the ftrid fenfe of the word * brother,' but in a more lax fenfe, namely, in that of coufin, or relation in general, agreeably to the ufage of this word in the Hebrew language. And the relation- fhip of thefe four perfons to Jefus is derived according to this opinion, not from the fide of Jofeph, but from that of Mary, and in the following manner. James and Judas ,. are the fame as the Apoftles, James and Judas, who were fons of Alphseus : confequently, Alphsus was the father alfo of Simon and Jofes. Fur ther, Alphasus is the fame perfon with Clopas % for the Hebrew name 'fiVn may be expreffed in Greek either by Ax> 001 ooqv.„. Iaoo^ h,*-^*- Tte « Publifhed at Marburg,, in 1767, sect. ii. TJie. Epiftle of St. James. 2-79 The authorities (if fubfcriptions deferve the name) which I have quoted in the beginning of the preceding paragraph, in favour of the opinion, that the elder Jatnes,, the fon of Zebedee, was the author of our Epiftle, I have alleged, not with a view of prepoffefling the reader in its favour, but merely to fhew what the ancients have thought on this fubjed. However, I do not agree with many modern writers, who think, that the opinion is abfurd. For this reafon Lardner confidered it as unworthy of a confutation : but Ben- fon, who likewife rejeded the opinion, did not think it fo contemptible, for he has brought the following arguments againft it, to each of which 1 will make a reply. 1. c James the elder was beheaded about the year 43 or 44. If therefore he was the author of our Epiftle, it muft havev been the firft written of all the apoftolic Epiftles. But this is not probable, beeaufe- it was the ufual pradice of the Apoftles, firft to preach the Gofpel verbally, then to pay one or more vifits to the Chriftian communities, and laft of all to write to them.' Anfwer. If we admit, that St. Paul followed'' this rule, from whofe Epiftles Dr. Ben fon appears to have derived it, it is no necefTary confequence, that other Apoftles obferved it, and that none of them wrote an Epiftle to a Chriftian cqmmunity, in which he had not verbally taught, or to wlfich he had not already paid one or more vifits: for if an Apoftle was prevented from going in- perfon, this very circumftance might induce him to communicate inflrudions by letter. But this rule is npt true, even when applied to St. Paul. For he wrote to the Romans and Coloffians, before he had ever feen them : and the Epiftles to the Galatians and the ThefTalonians were written almoft immediately after their converfion, or at leaft as foon as we may fuppofe, that the elder James wrote, after the converfion of another community. s 4 2. ' Before 280 The Epifile of St. James, chap, xxv i. 2. ' Before the death of the elder James, the preach*. ing of the Gofpel was chiefly confined within the limits of Palefiine: but our Epiftle was written to Chrif-, tians of the difperfion, that is, to Chriftians out of Paleftine.' , Anfwer. That the Gofpel was not preached without the limits of Paleftine before the death of the elder James, is a pofition, which is grounded only on the filence of the Ads of the Apoftles. But this inference is hardly defenfible : for it was not St. Luke's object to give a complete hiftory of all the tranfadions, which took place in the Chriftian church f, and therefore his filence in refped to the propagation of Chriftianity out of Paleftine within the firft ten years after the crucifixion, will not warrant the inference, that , it was preached during this interval in Paleftine alone. On the contrary, there is reafon. to believe, that it adually was propagated in diftant countries within a very few- years after the death of Chrift. For not to mention, that St. Paul preached the Gofpel in Arabia, and that the eunuch of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, was bap-. tized by Philip, on which I will not infift, beeaufe into neither of thefe countries would a Greek Epiftle have been fent, there were Jews prefent at Jerufalem from Cappadocia, Pontus, Afia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt,' Cyrene, and Rome, when the gifts of the Holy Ghoft were firft communicated to the Apoftles on the day of Pentecofl, and they acknowledged the wonderful powers, which the Apoftles had received8. Now it cannot be fuppofed, that thefe perfons negleded, on their return to their own countries, to make known the Chriftian religion : and we know, that in Alexan dria, and in Rome, there were Chriftians before any Apoftle came thither. At Damafcus there were likewife Chriftians h, though perhaps they did not fpeak Greeks bu| f See what was faid on this fubjeft, Ch. viii. Sett. ?» ; * Aftsii. 5— ii. h A^six, , sect, n. The Epiftle of St. James. 281 but Tarfus, where Greek was fpoken, had been vifited by St. Paul, between the time of his converfion and the death of the elder James' ; and St. Paul hardly fpent his time there without making converts. Chriftians from Cyprus and Cyrene were aheady become preachers of the Gofpel, and by their means a very flourifhing community had been eftablifbed at Antioch, which attraded the particular notice of the Apoftles at Jeru-> falem k. There was a fufficient number of Jewifh con verts to Chriftianity out of Paleftine before the death of the elder James, to occafion an Epiftle addreffed to *' the twelve tribes, which are feattered abroad.' Nay, the communities in Antioch and its neighbourhood were alone almoft fufficient to have occafioned fuch an Epiftle, 3. ' Among the Jewifh converts, to whom the Epiftle of St.- James was addreffed, there prevailed a great corruption of morals, and of dodrines, efpecially in the article of Jufiification, which arofe from a per- verfion of the precepts delivered by St. Paul on this fubjed. Now the perverfion of a dodrine, which is in itfelf clear and intelligible, feldom takes place, till fome time has elapfed after the firft delivery of that dodrine, and till it has gone through a great variety of hands. Confequently, an Epiftle, like that of St. James, in which the falfe notions, which prevailed in regard to Jufiification, are eorreded, could not have beert written fo early, as during the life of the elder James.'. Anfwer. This argument is founded on a miftake : for the Jufiification, of which the , author of our Epiftle fpeaks, is a very different kind of Jufiification from that, of which St. Paul fpeaks. It is the old Jewifh dodrine of Jufiification, and not a mifunder- ftood dodrine of St, Paul, which fhe author of this Epiftle combats ' ; confequently, the argument deduced from. 1 Acls ix. 30. k Ads xi. 20—30. ] This will be fully proved in the fixth feftion of this chapter. 282 The Epiftle of St. James, chap. xxvr. from it in regard to the time, when the Epiftle was written, falls at once to the ground. And as to the fins, againft which the author of this Epiftle warns, they were fuch, as were common among the Jews, and were brought by the Jewifh converts into the Chriftian church : for we muft not imagine, that the firft Chriftian com munities confifted wholly of members, who were in a flate of perfed regeneration. Further, this argument not only proves, that the Epiftle of St. James was written at a late period, but may really be applied to prove the very reverfe. The author of our Epiftle combats the Jewifh notion, that they would be juftified or faved merely by their faith in the one fupreme Godm. Hence, it may be inferred, that St. Paul had not yet preached in thofe communities, to which this Epiftle was addreffed, and that his tropus pjedis was not known to them : for if it were, our au thor would probably have avoided the apparent contra- didion, which neceffarily arifes from his having ufed the term Jufiification in a different fenfe from that, which St. Paul afcribed to it. Befides, if St. Paul had already taught in thofe communities, -to which the Epiftle of St. James was addreffed, it is probable, that they would have been better inftruded, than from this Epiftle they appear to have been. On thefe accounts therefore I am really inclined to afcribe a very early date to this Epiftle. 4. 'In ch. v. 8. the coming of the Lord to judge Jerufalem is reprefented as being near at hand : confe quently, the Epiftle could not have been written by a perfon, who was beheaded not lefs than feven-and-twenty years before the deftrudion of Jerufalem. Anfwer. Without entering into the quefiion, whe ther allufion is made in James v. 8. to the deftruction of Jerufalem, which however is a matter of doubt, I. will only obferve, that the terms, ¦' near,' and ' diftant/ are merely relative, and may denote a greater or fmaller portion of time, according to the rule or mea- : fure, " See the fixth fection of this chapter. sect. ii. The Epiftle of St. James. 283 fure, by which they are eftimated. More than twenty- feven years muft elapfe before the prefent century ex pires": and yet, if I expeded that a great revolution would take place in Europe before the clofe of this century, I might, without impropriety, defcribe it as not far diftant. In lhort, the deftruction of a flate, which has lafted many centuries, may be faid to be near at hand, if it fhall happen within the prefent generation, and the half of thofe, who are now alive, furvive it. This argument therefore is indecifive. > All things confidered then, I fee no ground for the affertion^ that the elder James was not the author of this Epiftle : though on the other hand, I will not pofitively affirm, that he was. One circumftance how ever affords at leaft a pfefumptive argument in favour of the opinion, that it was really written by the elder James, and at a time when the Gofpel had not been propagated among the Gentiles ; namely, that it con tains no exhortations to harmony between the Jewifh. and Gentile converts, which, after the time that the Gentiles were admitted into the church, became abfo- lutely necefTary. Had it been written after the apoftolic council at Jerufalem, mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Ads, and by the younger James, we might have expeded that at leaft fome allufion would be made in it to the decree of this council, which was propounded by the younger James in favour of the Gentile converts, and that the Epiftle would contain an admonition to the Jewifh converts, to confider the Gentile converts" as their brethren, On a fecond confideration however I perceive that this argument applies rather to the time> when the Epiftle was written, than to the author of it : for the younger James might have written it as early, as it is fuppofed that the elder James wrote it, and either of the fuppofitions will account for the circum ftance, that the Epiftle contains no exhortations to harmony between the Jews and Gentiles. To * This I wrote in 1766. 4o*4 Ihe Epifile of St. James. chap. xxvi. To the argument, which I have here ufed in favour of an early date, may be oppofed another argument in favour of a late date, and confequently in favour of the opinion, that the Epiftle was not written by the elder James. Namely, it may be laid, that if this Epiftle had been written before the apoftolic council at Jerufalem was held, it would hardly have remained unknown to St. Paul. But if St. Paul had feen this Epiftle, he would have probably ufed fuch terms in his Epiftles to the Romans and Galatians, as would have- prevented all appearance of contradidion between this Epiftle and his own writings. I mention this as an argument, which may be produced on the prefent quefiion, though I by no means think it a decifive one. After all then I muft confefs my uncertainty, and muft leave the quefiion undecided. SECT; III. Whether the author of this Epiftle was St. James, called the brother of Jefus. IN the firft fedion of this chapter, where I have enumerated the five different opinions relative to James, Jofes, Simon, and Judas, who are called bro thers' of Jefus, Matth. xiii, 55. I have fhewn, that the mofl ancient opinion is, that they were fons of Jofeph by a former wife, and brothers in law of Chrift. Now there is_ no improbability in the fuppofition, that a brother in law of Chrift wrote the Epiftle in quefiion; and that this was a very common opinion in the four firft centuries, appears from what Jerom has faid in his Catalogue sect. iii. The' Epiftle of St. James'; 2"8^ Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers0, thotigh Jerom himfelf did not fubfcribe to it. The Epiftle itfelf however contains nothing, which warrants the inference, that the author of it was a brother of Chrift, for the author calls himfelf only ' the fervant of Chrift :' and St. Jude, though he exprefsly calls himfelf ' brother of James, names him felf in like manner ' fervant,' and not ' brother of Chrift.' Hence it may be objeded, that if the James and the Jude, who wrote thefe Epiftles, had been brothers as well as fervants of Chrift, they would not have affumed merely the latter title : for the appella tion of ' brother and fervant of Chrift, would not only have been more honourable, but more charaderiftic, and would more eafily have diftinguifhed them from other difciples of the fame name, than the bare appel lation of ' fervant.' Now if the expreflion ' brother of Chrift,' as applied to James, Jofes, Simon and Judas, Matth. xiii. $$. be explained, according to the fecond opinion delivered in the firft fection of this chapter, as denoting, that they were the Ions of Jofeph and Mary, I think that the objedion is hardly capable of an anfwer : for in that cafe, fince the mother of Chrift, was likewife their mother, the appellation of ' brother of Chrift' was due to them in the ftrifteft fenfe. But the objedion will lofe its force, if we adopt the firft ^opinion, namely, that thefe four perfons were fons of Jofeph, not by Mary, but by a former wife. For in this cafe, though their father Jofeph was the reputed father t>f Chrift, and he is named as fuch in Chrift's genealogy, - yet if James and Jude believed in Mary's fupernatural conception of Chrift, they muft have been confcious to themfelves, that they were really not his brothers, and therefore that they could not without impropriety affume the title. James, called the brother of Chrift, had likewife the appellation of James the Juft, and flood in very high reputation among the Jews. This is confirmed by a paffage » Tom. IV, P. ii. p. 101. ed Benedict ¦af&jS The Epifile of St. James, cHap. Xxvf. ;paffage of Jofephus p, which I fhall prefently quote.- Further, he is faid to have been bifhop of Jerufalem ; _and (if we diftinguifh James the brother of Jefus from the Apoftle James) he is that important perfon, by whofe opinion fhe Apoftolic council at Jerufalem, de* fcribed Ads xv. 13 — 29. abided, who again appears as a .principal perfon in the church of. Jerufalem, Acts xxi. 18 — 26. He is likewife mentioned by St, Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 7. Gal. i. 19. ii. 9. 12, : among which ¦paffages, Gal. ii. 9. deferves particularly to be noticed, rbecaufe he is not only there called one of the pillars of -the church, but, is ranked even before St. Peter, on account of his great authority in Jerufalem. He every where appears as the friend of St. Paul, with whofe : fentiments his own coincide. At the fame time he was -extremely cautious not to give offence to the Jews, on .whofe account he propofed, that the heathen converts .fhould be admonifhed to abftain from blood and from : meats offered to idols ; which dodrine St. Paul not only adopted and delivered to the church of Antioch, , by virtue of the apoftolic decree, but likewife recom- : mended and explained in his Epiftles, efpecially Rom. ,xiv. 1 Cor. viii. x. Now the contents of the Epiftle .of St. James are fuch as might be expeded from a .writer of this description ; and if he was the author, we have an additional argument, in favour of the opinion, .that it contains nothing contradidory to St. Paul's. . dodrines q. Though it would be foreign to the prefent purpofe to colled all the circumfiances, which have been re corded of St. James, called the brother of Chrift, yet I think it necefTary to quote two paffages concerning him, the one from the work of Jofephus, the other from the works of Hegefippus, who lived in the time t Namely, if the James, of whom Jofephus fpeaks, be the fame perfon as James, the brother of Chrift, and not the younger ApoiUe James, according to the fifth opinion, 9 See the fixth feftion of this chapter. 2 sect. iii. The Epifile of St. James. 287 of Hadrian' : beeaufe thefe two paffages exhibit fuch a charader of him, as the Epiftle itfelf fuggefts of its au thor, and have likewife material influence on the ques tion, whether the Epiftle was intended for the ufe of Chriftians only, or of Jews as well as of Chriftians. ^ The account, which Jofephus has given, relates to the death of St^ James, which muft have happened during St. Paul's imprifonment, and is delivered in the following words'. ' The emperor, being informed of the death of Feftus, fent Albinus to be prefed of Judsea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we faid before, was made high prieft, was haughty in his behaviour, and very enterprifing. He was alfo of the fed of the Sad- ducees, who, as we have alfo obferved before, are above all other Jews fevere in their judicial fentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, he thinking he had a convenient opportunity, beeaufe Feftus was dead, and Albinus was not yet arrived, called a council, and brought before it James, brother l of Jefus, who was called Chrift", with feveral others, where they were accufed of being tranfgreffors of the law, and ftoned to death. But the mofl moderate men of the city, who ' Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. Lib^, IV. c. 8. ' Antiquit. Lib. XX. cap. 9. 1 In the writings of Jofephus the word uitXQos can hardly admit of any other meaning, than that in which it was ufed by the Greeks. Here therefore it cannot well fignify ' coufin,' and confequently it implies, that James was the fon of Jofeph. * As Jefus was not an uncommon name among the Jews, Jofephus adds the title of Chrift merely as a mark of diftinftion ; and this expreflion affords no ground for the fuppofition, that Jofephus him felf believed, that the perfon, of whom he fpake, was the expefled Mefliah, What his, real opinion was, is a quefiion foreign to the prefent inquiry : but from his manner of fpeaking of' the death of St. James in this place, and from the excellent character, which he gives of John the Baptift in another, he feems to have been at leaft no enemy to Chriftianity, whether the celebrated paffage, Antiquit. XVIII. 3. 3. relative to Chrift and his miracles, be genuine (as I jnyfelf believe), or not. 288 - The Epifile of St. JamCS. chap, xxvi. who were alfo the mofl learned in the laws'7, were offended at this proceeding. They fent therefore pri vately to the king, and intreated him to give orders to Ananus to abftain from fuch condud in future. And fome went to meet Albinus, who was coming from Alexandria, and reprefented to him, that Ananus had no right to call a council without his permiffion. • Albinus, approving of what they faid, wrote a very fevere letter to Ananus, threatening to punifli him for what he had done. And king Agrippa* took away from him the priefthood, after he had pofleffed it three months, and appointed in his flead Jefus, the fon of Damnasus.' From this account of Jofephus we learn, that %tv James, notwithftanding he was a Chriftian, was fo far from being an objed of hatred to the Jews, that he was rather beloved and refpeded. At leaft his death excited very different fenfations from that of the elder James y ; and the Sadducean high prieft, at whofe infti- gation he fuffered, was punifhed for his offence by the lofs of his office./ 'The account given by Hegefippus* contains an in termixture of truth and fable, and in fome material points * Here Jofephus meant probably the Pharifees, who were much lefs inimical to the Chriftians, than tfrte Sadducees were, as appears from Afts v. 34 — 39. xxiii. 6 — 9. The high prietts Annas and Caiaphas, who had been the chief inftruments in bringing Chrift to the crofs, were likewife Sadducees ; and, as appears from Acls v. 28. they confidered thofe, who afferted the refurre&ion of Chrift, and confirmed by it his divine miffion, as perfons, who endeavoured to bring Chrift's blood on their heads. Now the younger Ananus was fon of Annas, and brother in law of Caiaphas ; and James was not only a teacher of Chriftianity, and highly refpefted by the Jews, but was likewife a fpecial witnefs to the truth of Chrift's refurredlion, ai St. Paul relates, 1 Cor. xv. 7. 1 That Agrippa did not entertain unfavourable fentiments of Chriftianity, and that in his opinion a teacher of the Gofpel by no means defer ved to fuller death, is evident from A£b xxv. 23 — xxvi. 32. efpecially from the two laft verfes of the twenty-fixth chapter. r Acls xii. 1 — 3. ¦ Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. II. cap. 23. sect. iii. The Epifile of St. -James* 289 points contradids the relation of Jofephus, to which no objedion can be made. It confirms however the affertion, that St, James was in great'repute among the Jews, even among thofe, who did not believe in Chrift ; and that they paid him much greater deference, than we might fuppofe they would have '(hewn to a Chriftian bifhop, and- a brother of Chrift, whom they, had crucified. ^The words of Hegefippus, as quoted by -Eufebius/ are the following. ' James, the brother of our Lord, undertook, together with the Apoftles a, the government of the church. . He has been called the Juft by all, from the time of our Saviour to the prefent > time. Many have borne the name of James ; but this man was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine, nor ftrong* drink, nor did he eat any animal food b. There came no razor on his head. He neither anointed himfelf with "oil, nor did he ufe a bath. To him alone was it .lawful to enter the fane*- tuary. He wore no woollen, but only, linen garments. He entered into the temple alone, where he prayed upon his knees : fo that his, knees were become like the knees; of a camel, in confequence of his being con tinually upon them, worfhipping God, and praying for the forgivenefs of the people* . On account of his vir tue he was called the Juft, and Oblias, that is, the defence of the people, and righteoufnefs, as the pro phets fpeak of him. Some therefore of the feven feds, which were among the Jews, of whom I fpake in the former part of thefe commentaries, afked him, Which • was 8 Here James, the brother of Jefus, is diftinguifhed in exprefs terms from the Apoftles. Hegefippus therefore does not fpeak of an Apoftle James: Nor did Eufebius confider James, the brother of Jefus, as one of the Apoftles, from whom he plainly diftinguifhes him, faying in the beginning of the third chapter, in which he quotes this paffage of Hegefippus, ' James, the brother of our Lord, whom the Apoftles appointed bifhop of Jerufalem.' b Hegefippus reprefents St. James as being more holy than Chrift himfelf, wrio ate meat, drank ¦ wine, and was more than once anointed. Vol, IV. ' T 296 The Epiftle of St. James. cha'?.* xxvk was the gate of Jefus c ? and he faid, This is our Sa* Viour. Some of them therefore believed, that Jefus was the Chrift. But the feven feds did not believe a refurredion, nor that any one would come, to reward Cvery man according to his works. They however, 1 Who believed, did it for the fake of James. And fince many of the chief men believed, a difturbance atofe among the Jews, among the Scribes and Pharifees, who apprehended there was danger, that -all the people would think Jefus to be the Chrift. Coming therefore to James, they faid, We befeech thee to reftrain the error of 'the people. We intreat thee to perfuade all that come hither at the time of the pafiove-r, to think rightly concerning Jefus : for all the people, and all of us place confidence in thee, and teftify that thou 'art Juft, and art no refpeder of perfons. • Place-thyfetf therefore on the battlement of the temple, that being placed on high thou mayeft be confpicuous, ^and that thy words may be eafily heard by all the people : for on account of the paflbver all the tribes are come hither, and many Gentiles. Therefore the Scribes and Pha rifees placed James upon the battlement of the temple, and cried Out to him and faid, O thou juft man, whom we ought all to believe, the people are in error following Jefus, who was crucified : tell' us therefore, what is the gate of Jefus the crucified. And he anfwered with a loud voice, Why do you afk me concerning Jefus the Ton of man? He fitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the great Power, and will come in the clouds of heaven. Many therefore believed, and were well pleafed with the teftimony of James, faying, Hofanna to the fon of David! But the Scribes and " Pharifees faid to one another, We have done wrong in procuring fuch c Mofheim (be Rebus Chriftian. ante Conftant. M. p. 95.) dtp- pofes, and I think his fuppofition highly probable, that the queftidn propofed to St. James was, • Which is the gate of falvation (nsw') ?' and that Hegefippus confounded mw with W and thus converted the quefiion into, ' Which is the gate of Jefus i ' sect. in. The Epifile of St. James. 29.1 fuch a teflimony to Jefus. Let us go up and throw him down, that the people may be terrified from giving credit to him.' Hegefippus then relates, what is" of lefs confequence to the prefent purpofe, the circurri- ftanees attending his death, that he was thrown dowh from the temple, floned, and finally killed by the ftroke of a fuller's club. (^Now many parts ,of the prer ceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, efpecially that part, which relates to the requeft of the Jews, that^&t. James would openly declare from the battle ments of the temple, that jefus was not the Meffiah. Indeed if this were true, it would not redound to his honour: for it would imply, that he hadaded with duplicity, and not taken a decided part in favour of Chriftianity, or the Jews could never have thought of making fuch a requeft. But that a perfon, who was the head of the church in Jerufalem, fhould have aded fuch a double part, as to leave it undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years after the afcenfion, is in itfelf almoft incredible. It is in- confiftent likewife with the relation of Jofephus, and is virtually contradided both byNSt. Paul and by St. Luke, who always fpeak of him with the utmofl re fped, and have no where given the fmalleft hint, .that he concealed the principal dodrines of the Chriftian religion "?.\ From what has been faid, in this fedion, it appears, that the opinion entertained in the early ages of Chrif tianity, that St. James, called the brother of Jefus, was the author ofthe Epiftle in quefiion, is by no means improbable >. and the more I confider it, the more I am inclined to prefer it to that, which prevailed in the time of Jerom. A perfon, who was brother, that is, brother in law, of the founder of the Chriftian religion, who prefided many years over the Chriftian community in Jerufalem, who was confidered as one of the pillars . of d See 1 Cor. xv. 7. Gal. i. 19. ii, 6—9. Acts xv. 13—29. *xxi. 18—&6". T 2 292 The Epifile of St. James. chap. xxvi. of the church, and who at the fame time was fo de licate in his condud toward the Jews, that even they, who did not believe, refpeded him, is exadly fuch a perfon, as the author of our Epiftle, as far as we may judge from its contents, appears to have been. Abfo- :lute certainty however is hardly to be obtained, beeaufe our hiftorical information is here defedive. We have no writer to whohi we can appeal, on this fubjed ; and Hegefippus, who lived in the former part of the fecond Century, and who therefore had the means of procuring intelligence, has fo blended his account with fable, that no dependence can be placed on it. SECT. IV. Of the perfons, to whom this Epifile was written. ST. JAMES, the author of this Epiftle (whether the elder or the younger James, or whether he, /was a brother of Chrift, I leave here undecided), be gins in the following manner : ' James, a fervant of God, and of the Lord Jefus Chrift, to the twelve tribes, which are fcattered abroad, greeting.' He addreffed therefore his Epiftle, not to heathen converts, but to native Jews c, who lived out of Paleftine f, and (fince the e That the ten tribes really returned from the Babylonian capti vity, is fhewn iri Benfon's Prolegomena; and I have confirmed it in my effay entitled, De exfilio decern tribuum, printed in the Cpm- mentatiohes focietati regiae Goettingenfl per annos 1758 — 176*, obktse. f The opinion of Beza, relative to the word itacwopa., which however is inconfiftent with the ufe of this wotd among the Hellenilts, may be feen in Lardner's Supplement, Vol. III. Ch. xvii. § 3. S2CT. IV. The Epifile of St. James. 293;. the Epiftle is written in Greek) who fpake the Greek, language. The quefiion however ftill remains to be afked ; Did he addrefs it to Jews in general, including unbelievers as well as believers, or only to thofe, who were already converted ? Many writers, among whom is Lardner15, have adopted the former opinion. Now this opinion would be thought very extraordinary, if it were not in fome meafure coun tenanced by the charader, which has been given of James, the brother of Jefus, whom Lardner confiders as the fame with the younger Apoftle James, For a writer, who was the head of the Chriftian church in Jerufalem, or an Apoftle of -Chrift,- could hardly expect that an Epiftle full of exhortations would have influence on the condud of unbelieving Jews. And if he had thought it necefTary to write to men of this defcription, we might have expeded, that he would endeavour to convince them, of the truth of Chriftianity, rather than admonifh and reprimand them in the tone of an eftablifhed teacher. But, as I have already obferved, the character, of St. James makes the opinion lefs improbable, and renders it worthy of examination. Some of the arguments, which have been alleged in its fupport, are however incapable of defence. For in flance, appeal has. been made to ch. v. 1 — 6. where St. James fays, ' Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for the miferies, that fhall come upon you, &c.': and hence "it has been inferred, that St. James addreffed himfelf to perfons, who were not Chriftians. Now this argument refts entirely on the fuppofition, that none of the primitive Chriftians could have deferved this cenfure, and that they were all in a flate of perfed regeneration, a fuppofition, which is abfolutely inconfiftent with the defcription, which St. Paul has given of the, Corinthians in his two Epiftfes to them. It will be faid perhaps in reply, that St. James could hardly mean Chriftians, when he wrote ver. 6. ' Ye have killed the juft one..'' But are there no examples of impious Chriftians, as weft asof * Supplement, Vol. III. Ch, xviii. § 3, T 3 294 ^ Epifile of St. James, chap. xxvi. of impious Jews, and are there not murderers among the former, as well as among the latter? In this paffage however, I wouid not underftand the word ' kill' 'in its literal fenfe, beeaufe both Chriftians and Jews were fubjed to the Roman laws, and could not take away the life of another, without forfeiting their own. I would afcribe to it therefore the fenfe of, ' to take away from another all that he has,' in the fame manner as Cicero has ufed it in his Oration for Quintiush, though with a variation in the words and expreffions. Befides, it is really a matter of doubt, whether St. James in ch. v, 6. though he there, fpeaks in the fecond perfon, meant thofe to whom he was writing. He made ufe perhaps of the figure called Apoftrophe, and thus addreffed the rich in ver. 6. in order to reprefent in more lively colours the confolation, which he adminifters to the poor in the next verfe. It. is true, that this figure is not very fuitable to the familiar epiftolary ftyle : but the Epiftle of St. James has in many other places terms of expreflion, which are more ufual in poetry than in letter- writing. . Another argument for the opinion, that the Epiftle of St. James was addreffed to unbelieving, as well as to be lieving Jews, is derived from the circumftance, that St. James warns his readers againft grofs and ungodly be* haviour. But if this argument proved any thing, it would prove too much : for it would prove with equal force, that the two Epiftles to the Corinthians were not . written to Chriftians. The h Examine the following expreffions in this oration, in their con nexion with the quefiion of law, which was the fubjecl of debate. C. 2. quorum in alterius manu vita pofita eft, and in the fame chapter, qui caput alterius, famam, fortunafque omnes defendarm C. 7. ifte caput petere non definebat, that is, the objed of the-profecution was to obtain, not a certain fum, but the whole fortune of Quintius. C. 8. fe de capite fuo priore loco caufam dicturum. C. 9. 11. fanguinem vitamque eripere, interficere. C. 12. 13. ne numeretur inter vivos? decernat de vita et ornamentis fuis omnibus ? — jugulare--contra caput -dicere — ut hominis propinqui caput incolumeeffe patiamur : and many other expreffions of the fame kind in C. 14, 15, 16. 22. 29. 31. Bect. tv. The Epifile of St. James. 295 The only argument of any confequence is, that St. James addreffes his Epiftle in general terms", ch. i. 1. * to the twelve tribes which are feattered abroad,' without any reftriding claufe, which might confine the meaning to believers only ; and that in ch. ii. 2. he calls their plaqe of public worfhip by the name of vwxyuyn, which denotes not a Chriftian, but a Jewifh affembly. How ever to this argument may be oppofed others, which are more decifive On the other fide of ihe quefiion. 1. St. James fays, ch.'i. 3. ' the trying of your faith worketh patience.' He could hardly mean any other than Chriftian faith : for though the Jews, who believed in Mofes, had their fufferings, as well as they who be-- lieved in Chrift, yet the fufferings of the Jews in the time of St, James could not be called trials of their faith, beeaufe no one compelled them to renounce it. But the cafe of the Chriftians was different ; for they really had trials of their faith, fince the perfecutions, which they Underwent, were on account of their faith. 2. In ch. ii. 1. St. James fpeaks in exprefs terms of faith in Jefus Chrift, which he cautions his, readers not to hold fv -n-'ofl-wTroAnvJ/iai- t«c Sofcvs'. Now this admonU tion necefTarily implies that his readers already believed in Chrift, at leaft to all outward appearance, or St. James could not have cautioned them againft an abufe of their faith in Chrift, It is certain therefore that St. James wrote to perfons, who were already converted from Judaifm to Chriftianity. At the fame time I believe, as St. James was highly re*. ipeded by the Jews in general, that it was his wifh and intention*, that unbelieving Jews alfo fhould read jt, and be converted, and that this wifh and intention had fome. influence on the: choice of his materials. 1 I here ufe the words of the original, beeaufe I think the common. tranflation feulty^ T4 2-96 The Epifile of St. James, chap. xxvi. S E C T. V. Of the contents of this Epifile. FROM the character, which Hegefippus has1 given of St. James, though his defcription is highly ex aggerated, it appears that St. James was more a mofalift, than adogmatift; and this charader is vifible throughout the whole of his Epiftle, which contains rather moral precepts, than points of doctrine. It is extraordinary, that on this very account fome commentators have objeded to the Epiftle, and doubted of its divine in fpiration. Luther for this reafon called it an Epiftle of ftraw : but we might with equal reafon apply this term to Chrift's ferrnon on the mount. The moral part of the New Teftament is necefTary, as well as the doctrinal : and an Epiftle is not to be defpifed, beeaufe it is chiefly moral, and contains no difquifitions on the death and facrifice of Chrift. In each of St. Paul's Epiftles the former part is for the mofl part dodrinal, and only the latter part exhor- tatory. On the contrary, where St. James has introduced points of dodrine, as for inflance, that God is not the caufe of our temptation to evil, or that faith without works is infufficient for falvation, he does it only occa- fionally, and by way of illuftration. I conclude therefore that in the feattered communities, for which he defigned his Epiftle, no material errors generally prevailed : for in this cafe St. James would have had the fame motive for writing on points of dodrine, as St. Paul and other Apoftles, who were induced to be explicit on doctrinal ' matters, beeaufe errors on thefe fubjeds prevailed in the communities, to which they wrote. That St. James has no where taught the abolition of the Levitical lawk, is to be afcribed, to the circumftance, that he addreffed k He' fpeaks indeed Ch. i. 25. ii. 12. of the « law of liberty:' but this cannot be conftrued into an aflertion that the Levitical law ceafed to be in force. \ sect. v. The. Epifile of St. James. 297 addreffed his Epiftle to native/Jews, who were permitted to retain the laws and cuftoms of their anceftors, till they dwindled away of themfelves. That he lias no where even mentioned the duties, which Jewifh converts owe to heathen converts in the Chriftian church, I have already obferved in the fecond fedion of this chapter, where I deduced from this omiffion an argument in favour of the early date of this Epiftle. The precepts and exhortations, which are arranged, not fyflematically, but fo as they occafionally occurred to the writer, may be reduced to the following heads. 1. St. James exhorts his readers, to bear with patience the misfortunes and perfecutions, which they endured on' account of their faith : and cautions them not to mur mur againft God, or to afcribe to him their temptations to a renunciation of their faith, ch. i. 2 — 21. The fix laft verfes of this chapter, which may be fummed up in the following words, ' if ye know thefe things, happy are ye, if ye do them,' form the conclufion of this ex hortation. 2. In the next place he exhorts them to a contempt of riches (on which fubjed he had briefly touched, ch. i. 11, 12), as being the fureft means of fortifying them felves againft afflidion. He knew probably that the Jews, ' to whom he wrote, , fet a high value on riches, and confidered worldly profperity as a mark of divine favour. He warns them therefore, not to be admirers of a brilliant exterior, nor to imagine, that wealth and honours are alone worthy of efteem, which he probably means-by w"-<-M-ro*-nJ/»aj t-ic Sofas, ch. ii. 1. And, to ren der this precept more intelligible, he fuppofes the cafe of two ftrangers coming at the fame time into the fyna gogue, tbe one poorly, the other richly dreffed !. If the value of their clothes determined the refped to be paid to them, the one might be treated with much lefs, the other with much greater honour than he deferred. The poor man might be a valuable and fincere member jpf the Chriftian church, and though indigent in this world, ,' Ch. ii. 2 — 9. 198 The Epifile of St. Jantes. chap, xxvi, world, might be deftined to be rich in the world to come. The rich man on the contrary might be an enemy of the ' Chriftians, an oppreffor of the poor, and might have vifired the fynagogue, not to fet an example pf devotion, but merely to gratify his curiofity, or perhaps to find an pbjed for the exercife of his ridicule"1. St. James then proceeds, ch. ii. io — 26. to fome general reflexions on the neceffity of ading agreeably to our convidion, and afferts, that whoever wilfully tranfgreffes one point of the law, fhews a contempt for the whole law. This leads hifri to the confideration of the neceffity of good works in general : and he concludes by faying, that faith withT out works is like a body without a foul". In the fourth chapter he refumes the fubjed of love for worldly poffeflions and enjoyments, and cenfures thofe, who form to themfelves imaginary fchemes of hap-* pinefs, without confidering, that every thing depends on the will of providence, and that all their plans may be defeated in a moment °. This confideration leads him, ch. v. 1 — 6. to addrefs the rich, who are too frequently oppreffors of the poor, in fevere, and at the fame time poetical, language. The whole paffage is a kind of apof- trophej for he addreffes and threatens thofe, to whom he does not immediately write. In ver. 7 — 11. he returns from the rich to the poor, whom he comforts, and ex-. horts to bear adverfity wifh patience. I believe likewife that the 12th verfe of the fifth chapter (which appears to be a fragment of Chrift's fermon on the mount) belongs to the fame fubjed, and that it is conneded with ch. iv. 13, 14. where St. James had faid, ' Go to now, ye that fay, to day or to morrow we M We muft not however fuppofe that St. James meant to give rules. for the arrangement pf feats in a Chriftian church, and that a diftinc- tion of ranks is unlawful. " It muft be obferved that St. JamesVdoclrine, relative to faith and, works, is introduced only in an illuftration of the preceding difcourfe. But many commentators, not attending to the occafion of its introduc tion, have taken it for an effential part of this Epiftle, • Ch. iv. 13 — 17. sect, v.- The Epifile of St, -James. 299- we will go into fuch a city, and continue there a year, and buy and fell and get gain, whereas ye know not, what fhall be on the morrow.' If this fuppofition be true, ch. v. 12. contains not a prohibition of ferious oaths, by which we bind ourfelves to the performance of certain duties, but only of wanton oaths, by which we endeavour in common conversation to give energy to an affertion, that we will do this or that, that we will go to this or that city, &c. St. James then concludes, ch. v. 13 — 18. with an exhortation to confide in the Supreme Being, whether in profperity or in adverfityp. 3. In the third chapter St. James cenfures the great defire, which many had to teach publicly in the place of worlhip, This muft not be underftood of a defire to obtain the office of a minifter or bifhop, for this ex planation renders the paffage obfcure. We muft make a diftindion between holding an ecclefiaftical office, and teaching in the place of public worfhip, for among the Jews, and likewife among the primitive Chriftians, the latter did not neceffarily imply the former. In the Jewifh fynagogues, after a chapter had been read from_ the Bible, every man who had fufficient learning and ability, was permitted to expound and to exhort ; and the fame cuftom prevailed in the primitive church. St. James therefore warns his readers againft the abufe of this liberty, and advifes them to be cautious how they fpake in public, beeaufe it was extremely difficult to perform this tafk with propriety. St. James had probably been informed, that many of thofe who were fo forward to deliver their fentiments, harangued only to gratify their vanity, and that they cenfured others, not fo much to promote piety, as to gratify private hatred and envy. For this reafon, after having cenfured th^e abufes of public fpeaking, he proceeds to the fource of thofe abufes, P What St. James fays ver. 14. relative to the anointing of the fick, I do not think necefTary to explain at prefent : and I will only obferve, that he ufed perhaps the word atettpu, not merely in the confined fenfe of anointing, but in the more extenfive fenfe of adminiftering medicine in general. joo'i The Epifile of St. JameS. chap. xxvi. abufes, namely, hatred and envy : and concludes, ch. iv. ii, 12. with an exhortation, not to calumniate and un- juftly judge our brethren. Whether the Jewifh converts, to whom St. James wrote his Epiftle, had places of worfhip apart from the fynagoguej and in thefe places the abufes prevailed, which St. James cenfures; or whether they ftill met in the fynagogue, and certain Chriftians abufed the privi lege of fpeaking, fo as to create diforder, is a quefiion, which has not yet been examined, and which I propofe for future confideration. The latter is at leaft not im-» poffible : for it ' appears from the Ads of the Apoftles, that in the age, in which the Epiftle of St. James was written, Chriftians, and even the Apoftles themfelves, were permitted to teach in the Jewifh fynagogues. I will conclude this fection with the following remarks. , i. Though St. James lived in Jerufalem, he has quoted the Old Teftament, not according to the Hebrew text, but according to the Septuagint, whence it appears that he was very converfant with the Greek Bible. How ever there is one paffage, namely, that quoted in Ch. iv. 5. which has not yet been difcovered in the Septuagint. I formerly made an attempt in my Latin notes to this Epiftle to point out the place : but I now perceive that the attempt was unfuccefsful. , 2. The ftyle of this Epiftle is not more unclaffical, than that of other books of the New Teftament ; and the thoughts, efpecially fuch as are figurative, are elegant and lively, fo that St. James appears to have been endued with a poetical genius. 3. The language is more figurative, than that of a Greek Epiftle written by a claffic author would be. It is fometimes poetical,, fometimes oratorical, and has the ufual marks of oriental compofition. 4. There occur fometimes words, which a correct Greek writer would not have ufed in thofe places, for inflance ssopnxi q, ch. i. i,i, and BxXnQtis, ch. i. 18. v This 1 Here St. James ufes this word to denote career, or courfe of life., imwhich fenfe it is not ufed even in the Septuagint. sect. v. The Epiftle of St. James. got This perhaps may be afcribed to the circumftance, that the author was not much accuftomed to write Greek. 5. The materials are not methodically arranged : there are frequent tranfitions from one fubjed to another : and even where the fame fubjed is continued, the con* nexion of one period with another is not always obvious. Sometimes St. James quits a fubjed, which he appears to have finifhed, and after he has' difcuffed fome other topic, returns to the fubjed,which he had before quitted. This arrangement is very different from that of St. Paul's Epiftles. 6. It is remarkable, that in this .fhort Epiftle two paf fages occur, which are' perfed hexameters, namely in ch. i. 17. iv. 4. Was St. James, who lived in Paleftine, accuftomed to read Greek verfes : did he quote from Chriftian hymns in the Greek language : or what was the origin of thefe hexameters ? 7. Wetftein in his Note to ch. iv. 5. has drawn a parallel between feveral paffages in this Epiftle, and paffages in the Wifdom of Solomon, which in Wetftein's opinion warrant the conclufion that St. James borrowed from this book. 1 wifh that this quefiion were examined more minutely, efpecially as I, have hardly ever met with a paffage in other parts of the New Teftament, which was taken from the Wifdom of Solomon. However, it is not improbable, that St. James, as he lived in Jerufa lem, where Chaldee was fpoken, endeavoured to fami- liarife himfelf with the Greek language by ftudying the Greek Apocrypha more diligently, than the other writers of the New Teftament appear to have done '. r Compare Ch. i. 19. with Ecclefiafticus v. 11. 3P3 The Epifile of St. James. chap, xxvi* SECT. VL Whether St. James's doctrine, concerning faith and works, contradicts St. Paul's doctrine of faith without works, ST. PAUL in his Epiftle to the Romans, ch. iii. 28. afferts, ' that a man is juftified by faith, without the deeds of the law:' and this doctrine he delivers in many other places. St. James, on the contrary, afferts, ch. ii. 17. 20. ' that faith without works is dead,' and ver. 22. fays that ' Abraham our father was juftified by works.' The quefiion therefore is, how are thefe affer- tions, which apparently contradid each other, to be reconciled ? The ufu'al methods of reconciling them I think are unfatisfadory, beeaufe they aferibe to the words of St. Paul and St. James meanings, of which they are hardly capable. But the contradiction will vanifh immediately, if we only attend to the different fenfes, in which the two Writers have ufed fhe words ' faith,' and 'jufiification.' When St. Paul afferts, that we are juftified by faith, it is evident that he means faith in the death and facrifice of Chrift. He has fully explained his own meaning in the very chapter, from which the preceding quotation was made. For he fays, Rom. iii. 22. ' the righteouf- nefs of God, which is by faith of Jefus Chrift :' ver. 25. ' whom God hath fet forth, to be a propitiation^- through faith in his-blood :' and ver. 26. ' that he might be juft, and thejuftifier of him, which believeth in Jefus.' St. James, on the contrary, in the place, where he has been fuppofed to differ from St. Paul, does not fpeak of faith in Chrift, and his facrifice, but of faith in the one true God s. This appears from ch. ii. 19. where he fays 8 I do not mean to fay that St. James has in no part of his Epiftle fpoken of faith in Chrift, for he fpeaks of it in expfefs terms, Ch.ii. I. I mean only to affert, that in that particular place, with which we are- now concerned, he does not mean faith in Chrift. -SECT. VI. The Epiftle of St. James. -303 •fays ' thou believetfl that there is one God ; thou doeft well : the devils alfo believe and tremble.' This ex ample St. James quotes, as a proof that a belief alone in the one true God is not fufficient for falvation. We fhall more clearly perceive the meaning of St. James, and the force of his proof, if we recoiled, that according to the Jewifh notions of idolatry, which St. Paul had delivered, 1 Cor. x. 19, 20, 21. devils or evils fpirits Were worfliipped in the gods of the heathens. For the heathens confidered their gods only as intermediate fpirits between themfelves and the infinite, eternal Being, who was above all things : and they likewife called their gods Sxtpovix. But fpirits, who fuffer themfelves to be adored by men, muft be evil fpirits, and difobedient to the Supreme" Being, to whom alone adoration is due. Now thefe evil fpirits, or devils, fays St. James, though they are worfhipped as gods, are convinced, that there is only one God : they have in this refped as much faith as Abraham ; but their works do not harmonize with their faith, fince they take delight in being worfhipped by men. Their faith therefore in the one true God, inftead of procuring them happinefs, tends only to their con demnation : and they tremble before that God, who will annihilate their affumed divinity, and punifh them for being the feducers of mankind. That men are juftified by faith in the one true God, and that every Jew, who believed in this fundamental article, would be faved, is a dodrine, which St. Paul has never delivered. But fome perfons, who were known to St. James, muft have taught this dodrine, or he would not have taken ,fo much pains to confute it : and thefet perfons were certainly Jews', not difciples of St. Paul. For Jewifh writers in their comments on Gen. xv. 6. and likewife on other occafions, affert, that they obtainedfalvation 1 To quote paffages from Rabbinic writings would be fuperfluous : but I will quote one from the works of Philo, who vvasacontemporary of St. James, Tom. II.' p. 442. Mangey. 'Therefore he is faid to have been the firft, who believed in God : for he was the firft, who maintained the firm and unchangeable pofition, that there is one fu- preme caufe, which protects the world and every thing in the world.' 304 The Epifile of St. JameS, ' chap. xxvs. falvation^by faith a ; but the faith, of which they fpeak, is only faith in the one true God, or at the utmoft,- faith alfo in a future flate. Now St. James, in denying that this faith, if unaccompanied by works, would procure falvation, has faid nothing more than St. Paul himfelf has faid, though in other words, in the fecond chapter of his Epiftle to the Romans, where he combats the fame Jewifh error, and:aflerts, that not the hearers, but the doers only of the law will be juftified, and that a knowledge of God's will without the performance of it, ferves only, to increafe our condemnation. Further the word ' jufiification,' which is a very material term in the two fuppofed contradictory doc trines, is ufed by St. James in a different fenfe from that in which it is ufed by St. Paul. In the third chap* ter of the Epiftle to the Romans, where St. Paul fays that we are juftified through faith in Chrift, he ufes the term 'juftified' to, denote -' pronounced juft and exempt from punifhment, or, pardoned in refped to our former fins.' Now it is evident, that if we have trefpaffed in the former part of our lives, fubfequent good works, which it is our duty at all times to perform, will not render us innocent in refped to our paft offences, and indeed no human court of Juftice would admit of this plea. Equally evident is it, that the works of the Levitical law, fuch as the offering of animals, cannot produce a remiffion of fins, or jufiification, in .St, Paul's fenfe of the word. But thisterm maybe ufed in other fenfes, though we are accuftomed in our fyftems of divinity to give it that fenfe only, which was afcribed to it by St. Paul. For inflance, jufiification may denote a declaration of the Deity that a particular perfon is morally good, virtuous, and holy : as it is faid of Job, that he was no hypocrite, that he had not his equal on earth, u Mohammed likewife has taught this doclrine, which he learnt from the Jews. The Koran promifes eternal falvation to the, faithful. Now by the faithful, in the Koran, are underftood they who believe' in the unity of the Godhead, a'nd in the refurredion of the dead: and by trie unfaithful, they who deny thefe articles, j sect, vi, The Epifile of St. James.' 305 .earth, that he feared God, and fled from evil. And that St. James really ufed the word jufiification in this fenfe appears from what he adds, ch. ii. 23. ' and he was called the friend of God.' Now if we take the term jufiification in this fenfe, it is clear that Abraham's jufiification muft be afcribed, not to his faith only, but likewife to his works, as St. James afferts, ch. ii. 21 — 23. For if Abraham, with all his faith in God, had refufed to offer his fon Ifaac, he would not have been juftified. And on the other hand, works alone without faith would not have j uftified him. For, if he had offered his fon without faith in God, without believing in God's infinite power, and ability to raife Ifaac from the dead, he would not Only have been a murderer, and a defiler of the altar, but in his heart muft have accufed God of a violation of his word, in firft promifing to blefs Ifaac's pofterity, and then commanding him to be facrificed before he had children. From what has been already faid in this fedion, it appears, that it was by no means St. James's intention, as many fuppofe, to prevent St. Paul's dodrine on the efficacy of faith from being falfely underftood : for it is not a mifinterpretation of St. Paul's dodrine, againft which St. James argues, but an erroneous dodrine of the Jews, which St. Paul combats, as well as St. James. Nor is the confutation of this dodrine the principal objedof the Epiftle, for St. James introduces it merely to enforce what he had faid relative to certain offences, fuch as complaining againft God, and opprefling the poor; and to convince his readers, that a knowledge of the law, if they did not follow it, would not avail them. In fad the fuppofition, that St. James intended to prevent a mifinterpretation of St. Paul's dodrine is in itfelf almoft incredible : for no man, whofe objed was merely to prevent the dodrine of another from being falfely underftood, would exprefs himfelf in fuch a manner, that his readers might fuppofe he meant to combat the dodrine itfelf. Whoever fubfcribes to the dodrine advanced by another, but'is apprehenfive that it may be Vol.. IV. U falfely 306 The Epifile of St. James. chap. xxvi. falfely underftood, will limit and explain that dodrine ; and will not make ufe of terms, which have the appear ance, rather of a confutation, than of an explanation. But whether the author" of this Epiftle was the elder or the younger James, I think no one, who has read the Ads ofthe Apoftles, can fuppofe, that he meant really to combat St. Paul's dodrine., and that he defignedly made ufe of expreffions, which might counteract what St. Paul had afferted. Laftly, I think k highly probable, that St. James, when he wrote his Epiftle, had not feen St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans. For if he had, he would pro bably have delivered his dodrine relative to faith and Works in other words, and would have avoided the ufe pf terms, which St. Paul had adopted in his dodrine of faith without works: fince he. muft have been. aware, that the ufe of the fame terms would unavoidably create at leaft an apparent contradidion to the dodrine of St< Paul. SECT. VII. Of the time, when the Epifile of St. James was written. MOST commentators w fuppofe that this Epiftle was written about the year 60 or 61. But the arguments, which have been advanced in favour of this late date, are very unftable. Appeal has been made to ch. iv. 4 — 6. where St. James is faid to have quoted from Rom. viii. 6. j. , Gal. v. 6. and i Pet. v. y. and thence it has been inferred, that this Epiftle was written later, than St. Paul's Epiftles to the Romans and the Galatians, w See for inflance Jo. Henr. Michaelis Introd. in Ep. Jacobi, § 8. Milln Prolegomena, § 56. and Lardner's Supplement, Vol. III. Ch. xvii. $ 2. sect. vii. The Epifile of St. James. 307 Galatians, and the firft Epiftle of St. Peter. But one of the two paffages, which St. James quotes, ch. iv. 4—6. is in the Old Teftament, in Prov. iii. 24. from which place St. James probably took it : and the other quota tion, which has not yet been difcovered in the Old Teftament, could not have been made' either -from the Epiftle to the Romans, or frpm that to the Galatians, for I have never been able to find the paffage in either of them. Another argument in favour of a late date is derived from the fuppofition that St. James intended to prevent a mifconftrudion of St. Paul's dodrine of faith in the Epiftle to the Romans : but, as I have fheWn in the preceding fedion, that this fuppofition is falfe, the inference derived from it falls of itfelf to the ground. A -third argument has been derived from ch. v. 8. : but this I have already anfwered in the fecond fedion of this chapter. In fad, the arguments, which I have ufed in the latter part of the fecond fedion, render it probable that the Epiftle was written long before the Epiftle to the Romans, and even before St. Paul had preached the Gofpel to the Gentiles ; fince it was addreffed to Jews, and no mention is made in it of brotherly love toward Gentile converts. I conclude therefore, that this was written before the events, which are recorded in Ads xiii., took place, and even before the death of the elder James, whether he, or the younger James was the author of it. The only objedion to this early date is, that St. Paul, if he had written his Epiftle to the Romans, after th© Epiftle. of St. James had been written, would have avoided in the third and fourth chapters an appearance of contradiction to St. James. But as the Epiftle of St. James was fent perhaps to the Jews of Egypt, Cyrene, Syria, and Cyprus, countries in which the Chriftian religion was foon propagated, it was probably unknown in Rome, when St. Paul wrote to the Ro mans, and therefore he had no reafon to apprehend that the Romans would fuppofe he contradided St. James: 17 2 and 308 The Epifile of St. James. chap. xxvr. and if they did fuppofe fo, a more minute examination muft convince them, that fhe contradidion was only apparent, and that St. Paul fpake of faith in the death and facrifice of Chrift, but St. James of faith in the one true God. Or the Epiftle of St. James, though it exifted when St. Paul wrote to the Romans, might have re mained unknown to him. They who afcribe the Epiftle to the elder James, of courfe agree with me in refped to its early date.. Bede x likewife, though he afcribes it to the James, of whom- St. Paul fpeaks, Gal. ii. 12. is ftill of opinion that it was written foon after the death of the martyr Stephen, and addreffed to thofe converts, of whom it is faid, Ads viii. 4. that they were fcattered abroad. SECT. VIII. Of the canonical' authority of this Epifile. ON the canonical authority of this Epiftle the ancients were very much divided ; nor do modern writers agree on this fubjed. I confefs likewife, that I myfelf am greatly in doubt, though I confider the quefiion in a different light from 'mofl; other authors. But before I deliver my own fentiments, I will flate and examine what has been advanced on this head, both in ancient, and in modern times. -• In the earlieft ages of Chriftianity the Epiftle was rejeded by many, not only as uncarfonical, but as fpuri- ous. Eufebius in the celebrated chapter of his Ecclefi aftical Hiftory, B. III. ch. 25. where he treats of the writings of the New Teftament, which he divides into ilt.oXoysfV.tvx, xvtiXtyofAtvx, and »o6«, places the Epiftle of St. * In his Expofition of the Epiftle of St. James, Ch. i. 1. Vol. V. ,_£. 67-. ofthe Cologne edition of his works. sect. viii. The Epifile of St. James. 309 St. James in the fecond clafs, faying ; c among the con troverted, but yet approved by many, are, the Epiftle afcribed to James, and that of Jude, and the fecond of Peter, and the fecond and third of John.' And in B. II. ch. 23. where Eufebius fpeaks of the James, who was ftoned to death at the inftigation of Ananus, he fays toward the end of the chapter, ' It is reported that the firft among the Catholic Epiftles, as they are called, was written by him. But it muft be obferved that this Epifile is now confidered as fpurious; for not many ancient writers have noticed it, any more than the Epiftle of Jude, which is another of the feven Epiftles called Catholic. We know however that thefe alfo, together with the reft, are publicly read in mofl churches.' From thefe two paffages it appears that Eufebius himfelf doubted, whether the Epiftle was genuine. Jerom alfo feems to have remained in doubt, though he does not deny the opinion which others entertained of its fpuri- oufnefs. For he fays in his catalogue of ecclefiaftical writers y, * Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cog- nomento Juftus — unam tantum fcripfit epiftolam, quse de catholicis eft : qu£e et ipfa ab alio quodam fub nomine ejus edita afferitur, licet paullatim, tempore procedente, obtinuerit autoritatem.' From this confeflion of Jerom we fee, that the Epiftle was in much lefs repute in the fecond and third centuries, than at the end of the fourth. The ecclefiaftical writers before the time of Eufebius, as well thofe who have noticed, as thofe who have not noticed this Epiftle, are enumerated by Lardner, in his Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory, Vol. III. ch. 17. ; whence it appears, that, if we except a few uncertain and only imaginary allufions, the Epiftle is not quoted in a fingle inflance either by Irenasus, Tertullian, or Clement of Alexandria, that it is quoted twice by Origen, though only as a book of uncertain authority, and in both places in reference to the dodrine, that faith without works is dead. And jthaf Origen's doubts in refped to this Epiftle did' not proceed r Tom. IV. P. II. p. 102. ed. Benedict. V3' 310 The Epifile of St. James, chap., xxvi. proceed from any objedion to its contents, will appear from his own words which I will fubjoin in the margin*. Here I beg leave to make the following remarks. i. As the' ancients are'To divided in regard to this Epiftle, its canonical authority cannot be founded on the teftimony of the church, which indeed can in no quefiion of this kind be confidered as decifive a. In ¦fad, the teftimony of the mofl ancient Chriftian church, according to the reprefentation of Eufebius,. if it decided any thing, would decide againft the canonical authority of this Epiftle. 2. Though Eufebius places the Epiftle of St. James in the fame clafs with that of St. Jude, the fecond of St. Peter, and the fecond and third of St. John, it has in fome refpeds a better claim to canonical authority, than thefe. For neither of thefe four laft mentioned Epiftles were admitted into the Syrian canon, but the Epiftle of St. James was admitted into it, and the Syriac verfion of this Epiftle appears to have been made by the fame perfon, who tranflated the other Epiftles : at leaft no difference of ftyle has hitherto been difcovered, as in the tranflation of the Epiftle to the Hebrews \ We muft conclude therefore that, when the Syriac verfion was made, which was at the clofe of the firft century, the tranflator found this Epiftle in the Greek colledion of canonical writings, and that the Syrian church received it as canonical, with the firft Epiftle of St. Peter ahd the firft of St. John. And this authority it conftantly retained in the Syrian church : for Ebed Jefu, a Syrian writer * Comment, in Johannem. Tom. XIX. p. 284. ed. Colon. ' But if that be called faith, it is dead without works, as we read in the Epiftle, which is fuppofed to have been written by James (« t-, f),ttut to, Tliris Xu?^ teym vsxga srt). &C. a See what was faid on this fubject, in the firft volume of thi? In- troduclion, Ch. iii. Seel. 2. 6 See Vol. I. Ch. vii. Seft. 2. sect. viii. The Epifile of St. James. 3 1 1 writer of the thirteenth century, in his catalogue of the books of the New Teftament, diftinguifhes thefe three from the other four, by calling them ' the three Epiftles, which are afcribed to Apoftles in all books1- and in all languages V Ephrem, a Syrian writer of the fourth century, has in feveral .paffages of his Greek works quoted the 'Epiftle, of St. James, two of which I will tranfcribe, beeaufe they fhew that Ephrem confidered this Epiftle as holy feripture, and as written by James the brother of the Lord, Tom. I. p. 18. tipyxt yxp -f Stux yp^xtprC EfcopoXoytiffvi xXXtjXois txs a'pxpnas, xxi ¦srpoa-tvyto'Qs u-n-f- xXXri^uv, ottus txQtitt °. Tom. III. p. 51. lxxuQos St o T8 xujoisj xStXtpos Xtyti' Uivfj-zia-xtt xxi xXxva-xtt, 0 ytXus u/*&jj> US TStvbos [jottxr^xptitu, xxt r\ yxpx us xxrn$tixvf. 3. The circumftance, which in my opinion makes it doubtful, whether the Epiftle of St. James ought to be received as canonical, namely, the want of certainty that the author was an Apoftle, appears, as far as I have been able to difcover, to have had no influence on the judge ment of ancient writers on this fubjed ; which is the more extraordinary, beeaufe on that very ground they doubjed whether the Epiftle to the Hebrews was a divine work. If we may judge from the reprefentations of ' He means MSS. of the N. T. d In the preceding edition of this Introduction I obferved, that, if the Manicheans, according to Beaufobre Hiftoire des Manicheens, Tom. I. p. 292, 293., received the Epiftle of St. James, it might probably be afcribed to the circumftance, that the Epifile was received by the Syrian church, ' which was extended over a great part of the Eaft. In confirmation of this affertion may be added, that the Mani cheans in general did not underftanjd Greek, but that they underftood Syriac; confequently, they read the Syriac and not the Greek New Teftament. However, left the circumftance that this Epiftle was re ceived by the Manicheans mould appear of greater weight than it really is, I will add the words of Auguftin (contra Fauftum L. XXXII. c. 15), beeaufe they do not diftinguifh the three Catholic Epiftles, which the Syrian church received, from the four which it rejected : quod quidem in Evangelio, vel in Epiftolis Canonieis, quo adjuvari hsrefin fuam putent, id effe a Chrifto et Apoftolis diflum teneant. * This is a quotation from James v. 16, f James iv. 9. M 312 The Epiftle of St. James, chap, xxvr, of Eufebius and Jerom, they who rejeded the Epiftle, rejeded it beeaufe they believed it to be fpurious. Now I wifh that Eufebius and Jerom had mentioned what reafons they, who rejeded this Epiftle, had for fuppofing that it was fpurious, or a forgery in the name of James the brother of Chrift. The Epiftle itfelf con tains no marks whatfoever of fpurioufnefs, whether we confider its contents, or its language ; and whichever of the three fuppofitions we adopt, that it was written by the elder Apoftle James, or by the younger Apoftle James, or by James the brother of Chrift, the fuppofi-i tion will by no means involve an abfurdity, Befides, it is difficult to comprehend, what motive could have in duced an impoftor to forge fuch an Epiftle, and afcribe it to either of thefe three perfons. It may be afked, whether the apparent contradidion between the dodrine contained in this Epiftle, and that of St. Paul, in refped to the efficacy of faith, did not induce the ancients to rejed it, and pronounce it fpu-r rious. But I much doubt whether this was the caufe of its rejedion, fince no ancient writer who fpeaks doubtfully of the Epiftle, affigns this apparent contra didion as* a reafon for doubting of its authenticity : and Origen in particular, as I have already obferved, appears, to have had no objedion whatfoever to the doctrines contained in it. If however this apparent contradiction was really the caufe of Jts rejedion, it was rejeded with-, out reafon, as appears from what has been faid in the fixth fedion. Nay, what is ftill more, this apparent contradidion may be alleged as an argument m favour °f its antiquity and authenticity, For had it been fabri cated by a Chriftian impoftor after the Apoftolic age, at a time when the Epiftle to the Romans was known in general to the Chriftian communities, the impoftor would, have taken care to avoid even the fmalleft appearance of contradidion to an Epiftle, which every Chriftian received as divine. Befides, if the Epiftle had been written after the Apoftolic age, it could hardly have occurred to the author to combat the Jewifh dodrine, that faith in the z one sect. viii. The Epiftle of St. fames'. 313 one true God was alone fufficient for falvation. And, fince it is direded immediately to Jews, the author of it, if he had meant to exercife a pious fraud, and promote the caufe of Chriftianity by inventing an Epiftle in the name of St. James, would furely have introduced fome arguments for the truth of the Chriftian religion, or have at leaft exhorted them to embrace it : but of fuch argu- .ments and exhortations the Epiftle contains no traces. I have no doubt therefore that it is ancient and genuine. Later critics who have objeded to this Epiftle, and have thought it undeferving a place in the facred canon, have grounded their objedions merely on its contents. Now this is a very precarious mode of determining whether a book is canonical: for when we have a divine revelation, we muft believe and do what it contains, and not expunge any part of it, merely beeaufe that part difpleafes us. But 1 think there is no ground whatfoever for being difpleafed with the Epiftle of St. James, and in my opinion its contents are highly rational and well worthy of an Apoftle. Ths only difficulty is to prove that an Apoftle was the author. That its contents are more moral than dodrinal, cannot furely form a feriouS ground for objedion : and the epithet which Luther very unjufly applied to it, might as well be applied to the fermon on the mount, That the members of the church of Rome prove their doctrine of con- feflion and extreme undion from ch. v. 14 — 16. is no reafon, why proteftants fhould rejed this Epiftle:. for in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of mofl proteftant commentators, this paffage does not contain any fuch dodrine. At tbe time when this Epiftle was written, the pradice of phyfic was attended with great ftiperftition : and confeientious Jews were apprehenfive that, if they fent for an heathen phyfician, he would either invoke fome idol in the adminiftration pf his medicines, or exercife magic arts. The author of this Epiftle therefore advifes thofe, who are fick, to fend for the, elders pf the church, that they may pray over the 314 The Epifile of St. James, chap. xxvi. the medicines, and then adminifter them to the fick. In like manner St. Paul fays, that, if they who partake of the flefh of animals offered to idols, pray over it, and thank God for his bounty,, they may partake of it with a good confcience. The contents therefore of this Epiftle afford no ground whatfoever for objeding to it : and the quefiion, whether it is canonical, that is, whether we ought to receive it as a divine and infallible work, muft, according to the prin ciples which I have laid down in Vol. I. ch. iii. feet. z. depend on the previous quefiion, whether the author was an Apoftle. If the James who wrote this Epiftle, .was either the elder Apoftle James, the fon of Zebedee, or the younger Apoftle James, the fon of Alphasus, it is canonical. But if it was written by the James, who was brother in law of Chrift, and not an Apoftle, we can have ho proof of its infpiration and infallibility. Super natural afliftance was promifed by Chrift to the Apoftles alone: and therefore, though James, the brother in law of Chrift, was a man of great eminence in the church ©f Jerufalem, though he took a principal part in the firft council, which was held there, though he is called by St. Paul a pillar of the church, and is mentioned Gal. ii. 9. even before St. Peter and St. John, yet all thefe circum fiances put together are not fufficient to prove that his writings were divinely infpired. I conclude therefore by repeating the affertion that, if the James, who wrote this Epiftle, was either the one or the other of the twelve Apoftles, who bore this name, it is canonical : but if not, it is not canonical. ' The firfi Epifile of St. Peter. 3 1 5 CHAP. XXVII. OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. ,*. S E C T. I. Of the perfons to whom St. Peter addreffed this Epifile. ST. PETER begins his firft Epiftle with the following addrefs: IIrr*oj cnrcroXos Imcs Xjira txXtxtois ¦srapnriSn- f-Ol{ SlXO"!TOBXS Il0Vt8, TxXxtlXS, KxTTTTxSoXlXS, Ax tuv twuv can have no other meaning than ' the Jews dif perfed among the Gentiles.' Other examples, where cT»« ij-so-asif uTTOTflnrffEirflw. The expreflion ifysa-ixts viriptxzo-xiz is in general falfely underftood, being ufually tranflated * higher powers,' as if inferior powers, or inferior ma giftrates had not likewife a right to command obedience.. But this was certainly not St. Paul's meaning j and I have no doubt, that he ufed uVe-s^w in the fenfe of ' protego ',' and that he intended to exprefs, ' Let every man be obedient to the power, which proteds him.' -Now this is a rule, which is founded on equity, and is univerfally applicable, whether that power had been acquired juftly or unjuftly. Obedience and pro- tedion are reciprocal: and as long as we enjoy the latter, we are bound to perform the former. Even in the cafe of conqueft, the conqueror, as long as he pro teds us, has . a right to command our obedience : and we muft either quit the country, or fubmit to his laws. The fame equitable rule, though not ufually found in fyftems of morality, is given by St. Peter, ch. ii. 13, iirotxyntt — fixeiXn, us uirtp^tyovn. Further, St. Paul fays, Rom. xiii. 3. where he fpeaks of the authority of magiftrates, to xyx%ov tsom, xxi t^tis tirxtvov t%, xvtitis, : and in * When lirsptxu fignifies « protego,' fome fuch word as is!;ixi or. VtXmt is underftood. The former is fupplied by Jofephus, Antiquit. VI. 2. 2. vragaxccXtt Tq"_ Ssov, virtqsxfn avrut tm it$,\&\ it Tjl mPVi, x z 324 The firft Epiftle of St. Peter, chap.xxvii. in like manner St. Peter, ch. ii. 14. defcribes magiftrates as being conftituted, us tirxivov xyxfanotuv. This is likewife an agreement in an affertion, which, though perfedly true, is not common : for magiftrates do not ufually beftow commendations, but fimply acquit or condemn, and the greateft praife, which a man can have in this refped is, never to have appeared before them. Laftly, St. Paul, Rom. xiii. 4. defcribes a magiftrate as being ixStxos us opynv tu to xxxov ¦a-pxa-e-ovti : St. Peter, ch. ii. 14. fays of the feme, that he is ap pointed fi? txStxrio-iv xxxoTTOtav s. This remarkable agreement, in the compafs of two verfes, affords fufficient proof, that either St. Peter had read St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans, or St. Paul the firft Epiftle of St. Peter. But the latter is not pro bable, beeaufe St. Paul's writings fo abound with original thoughts, that he hardly derived any of his materials from St. Peter. I conclude therefore, that the former is true : and this conclufion is confirmed by what St. Peter fays in his fecond Epiftle, ch. iii. 15, 16. where he fpeaks of the contents of St. Paul's Epiftles in general. Further, St. Peter's ftyle, though it has many peculiarities, comes nearer to the ftyle of St. Paul, than that ofany other writer of the New Tefta ment. Now no one can fuppofe, that the writings of • There are other inftances of agreement between the Epiftle to the Romans and the firft Epiftle of St. Peter, though they are not fo decifive as the preceding. St. Peter, ch. i. 21. fpeaks of faith, as being • a belief, that God raifed Chrift from the dead :' and the fame explanation is given by St. Paul, Pom. iv. 24. x. 9, St. Paul defcribes at large, Rom. vi. the nature and effects of baptifm, and fhews, that we obtain by it a participation of the benefits of Chrift's refurreclion : and St. Peter alfo fays, though in more concife terms, ch. iii. 20. that baptifm faves us through the refurreclion of Chrift. What St. Peter fays, ch. iv. 10, 11. is the fame as what St. Paul fays more fully, Rom. xii. 3 — 8. The following paffages may likewife be compared, 1 Pet. i. a. 14. 22. with Rom. i. 5. vi. 16.— 1 Pet. i. 7. with Rom. ii. 6. — 1 Pet. i. 14. with Rom. xii. 2. — 1 Pet^ i. 18. with Rom.i. 11.— and 1 Pet. ii. z. Xoymot with Rom. xii. 1. .sect. iii. The firft Epifile of St. Peter. 325 of St. Peter had any influence on the Greek ftyle of a man, who was born at Tarfus : but the reverfe of this fuppofition is not at all improbable. SECT. III. Of the time, when this Epifile was written. IF St. Peter, as I have endeavoured to fhew in the preceding fedion, had read St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans before he wrote his firft Epiftle, it was written after St. Paul's journey from Corinth to Jerufalem, defcribed in Ads xx. xxi. for the Epiftle to the Romans was written from Corinth. How much later than the time of this journey the firft Epiftle of St. Peter was written, it is very difficult, for want of fufficient data, to determine. The Epiftle itfelf has hardly any marks, which can guide us in deciding the year of its com petition, and we know nothing of the hiftory of St. Peter from the time of the Apoftolic council in Jerufa lem, Ads xv. which is the laft place, where St. Luke mentions him, till his arrival many years afterwards. in Rome, where, according to. the accounts of ecclefiaftical writers, he fuffered martyrdom. However, a comparifon of the firft with the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter will enable us to form at leaft an opinion on this fubjed. St. Peter fays in his fecond Epiftle,, ch. iii. 1. txvrw nSv, xyxirntoi, Stvrt^xv vptv ygxthe author thus gives us to underftand, that he was the perfon who wrote the firft Epiftle, that is, the Apoftle Teter. He calls himfelf, likewife, ch. i. 1. Zu^-w* IIet-o?, SaXos xxi xicos-oXas hbr° r-^i \°=*— •**-**-¦ I***" The paffage quoted by Affeman from the Ledionary is, Q_a_.| w*/j h-x& *>-ro:i* «*-->:. Here ipjOi^ is nothing more than an abbreviation for .rxa^rOi., or, as Affeman fuppofes, is a mere erratum of the copyift. sect. r. The fecond Epifile of St. Peter. 3*49; It appears then, that, if the authenticity of this Epiftle, were to be determined by external evidence, it would have lefs in its favour, than it would have againft it. But, on the other hand, the internal evidence is greatly in its favour, and indeed fo much fo, that the Epiftle gains in this refped more, than it lofes in the former. Wetftejn indeed ' fays, that fince the ancients themfelves were in doubt, the moderns cannot exped to arrive at certainty, beeaufe we cannot obtain more information on the fubjed, in the eighteenth, than ecclefiaftical writers were able to obtain in the third and fourth centuries.' Now this is perfedly true, as far as relates to hiftorical knowledge, or to the teftimony of others, in regard to the matter of fad, whether St. Peter was the author or not. But when this quefiion is to be decided by an examination of the Epiftle itfelf, it is furely poffible, that the critical fkill and penetra tion of the moderns may difcover in it proofs of its having been written by 'St. Peter, though thefe proofs efcaped the notice of the ancients. After a diligent comparifon^ of the firft Epiftle of St. Peter with that, which is afcribed to him as his fecond, the agreement between them appears to me to be fuch, that, if the fecond was not written by St. Peter, as well as the firft, the perfon, who forged it, not only poffefled the power of imitation in a very unufual de gree, but underftood likewife the defign of the firft Epiftle, with which the ancients do not appear to have been acquainted. Now, if this be true, the fuppofi tion that the fecond Epiftle was not written by St. Peter himfelf involves a contradidion. Nor is it credible, that a pious impoftor of the firft or fecond century fhould have imitated St. Peter fo fuccefsfully as to betray no marks of a forgery : for the fpurious produdions of thofe ages, which were fent into the world under the name of Apoftles, are for the mofl part very unhappy imitations, and difcover very evident marks, that they were not written by the perfons, to whom they were afcribed. Other predudions of this kind betray their origin 350 The fecond Epifile of St, Peter, chap, xxvur. origin by the poverty of their materials, or by the eircumftance, . that inftead of containing original thoughts, they are nothing more than a rbapfody of fentiments colleded from various parts of the Bible, and put together without plan or order. This charge cannot poflibly be laid to the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, which is fo far from containing materials derived from other parts of the Bible,, that the third chapter exhibits the difcuflion of a totally new fubjed. Its refemblance to the Epiftle of St., Jude will be hardly ¦ urged, as an argument againft it : for no doubt can be made, that tbe fecond Epiftle of St. Peter was, in re fped to the Epiftle of St. Jude, the original, and not the copy. Laftly, it is extremely difficult even for a man of the greateft talents, to forge a writing in the name of another, without fometimes inferring, what the pretended author either would not, or could not have faid ; and to fupport the impofture in fo complete a manner, as to militate in not. a fingle inflance, either againft his charader, or againft the age, in which he lived. Now in the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, though it has been a fubjed of examination full feventeen hundred years, nothing has hitherto been difcovered, which is unfuitable, either to the Apoftle, or to the Apoftolic age. Objedions indeed have been made on account of its ftyle : but thefe objedions I fhall pre- fently anfwer, and fhew that the ftyle of the fecond Epiftle, when compared with that of the firft, warrants rather the conctufion, that both were written by the fame perfon. We have no reafon therefore to believe, that the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter is fpurious, efpe cially as it is difficult to comprehend what "motive could have induced a Chriftian, whether orthodox, or heretic, to attempt the fabrication of fuch an Epiftle, and then falfely afcribe it to St. Peter. Having fhewn, that the fuppofition, that this Epiftle is fpurious, is without foundation, I have in the next place to fhew, that there are pofitive grounds for be lieving it to be genuine. The argumeats in favour of * ' its sect. i. The fecond Epiftle- of 'St. Peter. ¦ "' 35 r its genuinenefs are of two kinds, being founded on the fimilarity of the two Epiftles, either in refped to their materials, or in refped to their ftyle. The arguments of the former kind are as follow : 1 . The defign of the firft Epiftle was to affure the uncircumcifed Chriftians, that they flood in the. grace of God, as I have (hewn in the preceding chapter. Now it was not generally known, that this was the defign of it, and therefore we cannot fuppofe, that any perfon, whofe objed was to forge an Epiftle in St. Peter's name, fhould have obferved it. But the defign of the fecond Epiftle was certainly the fame as. that of the firft, as appears from the addrefs, ch. i. 1. Tots 10-ori^ov %pw x-xyjiQi ¦wtsiv tv Stxxioa-wn tx ®t&. If we explain yptv as denoting ' us Apoftles,' the addrefs will imply what was wholly unneceflary, fince no one could doubt that the faith of other Chriftians might be as good, as the faith of the Apoftles: and it will found likewife rather haughty and affuming. But if we explain r^iv as de noting ' us who were born Jews,' and confider, that the fecond Epiftle, as well as the firft, was direded to per fons who were born heathens, the addrefs becomes clear and confiftent. kixxioa-wn- ™ ®us will then fignify * the impartiality of God' in eftimating the faith of native heathens as highly as the faith of native Jews, which St. Peter has extolled in other places1. We fhall likewife' be able to explain ch. i. 8 — 10. which appears to contain the tautology, that they who are diligent in good works, are not idle : whereas, if this Epiftle be explained from the defign of the firft, we fhall perceive the meaning of the paffage to be thisj that they, who" are diligent in good works, need not fear the reproach, that they ob* ferve not the Levitical law, fince their good works, which are the fruits of their religious knowledge, will make their calling and eledion fure. The deluge, which is not a common fubjed in the Apoftolic Epiftles, is mentiqned both in 1 Pet. iii. 20. and in 2 Pet. ii. 5. and in both places the circumftance is 1 Ads x. 34, 35. xv. 8, 9. 1 Pet. i. 17. %$z • The fecond Epifile of Si. Peter, chap, xxvin. is noted, that eight perfons Only were faved, though,- in neither place does the fibbjed require that the number? fhould be particularly fpecifi'ed; Now it is truethat St.- Peter was not the only Apoftle* who knew how many perfons were" faved in the ark: but he only,- who by nabifhad acquired a familiarity with the1 fubjed, would' afcertain the precife number, where his argument did not depend upon it. 3. The author of the firft Epiftle had read St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans, as I have fhewn in the fecond fedion" of the preceding Chapter: and the author of the fecond Epiftle fpeaks in exprefs terms, ch. iii. 15, 16; of the Epiftles of St. Paul. Now no other writer ofthe New Teftament has quoted from the New Teftament ! confequently we have in thefe Epiftles a criterion, from which we may judge that they were written by the fame author. Before I confider the arguments which are derived from the ftyle of thefe Epiftles, I muft obferve that feveral commentators have, on the contrary, contended that the ftyle is very different, and hence have inferred tliat they were written by different, authors. Jerom likewife, in his treatife on Illuftrious Men, fays that on this very ac count it was believed, that the fecond Epiftle was not written by St. Peter. Now I will not deny that the ftyle of the fecond Epiftle in feme places, efpecially in the fecond chapter, is fomewhat different from the ftyle of the firft Epiftle ; but if tbey .agree in other places, thefe exceptions will not prove, that the Epiftles we're not written by the fame author. It is extremely difficult to form from a fingle Epiftle fo complete a judgement of the author's, ftyle and manner, as to enable us to pro nounce with- certainty, that he was not the author of another Epiftle, which is afcribed to him. The ftyle of the fame writer is not .always the fame at every period of his life, efpecially when he compofes, not in his native, but in a foreign language. Let us examine however in what the difference between thefe Epiftles confifts. Camerarius, SECT. I. The fecond Epifile of St. Peter. 3^3 Camerarius, in his note on 1 Pet. v. 12. fays of the firft Epiftle, Hoc diffimulandum non ptitavimus, hanc epiftolam bonis et fignificantibus verbis refertam, atque adeo ipfam compofitionem ejufmodi effe, qua;, ut in negledione hujus fludii, praclara videri poflit ; ut dili- genter et accurate iftam epiftolam perfcriptam effe ap parent. But of the fecond Epiftle he fays in his note on 2 Pet- i. 3. Sunt autem in hac epiflola et verba, et figurse fermonis ejufmodi in plerifque locis^ ut fententia ambigua atque obfcura reddatur, magis quam ufpiam alibi in fcriptis apoftolicis. Now every one will allow that on this fubjed Camerarius was a competent judge; and I readily grant that he had fome foundation for his cenfure of the fecond Epiftle, in the place where he has given it, namely in ch. i. 1 — 7. But he has carried the matter too far in adding ' in plerifque locis,' and in ex-- tending his cenfure to the whole Epiftle. For after the 1 2th verfe of ch. i. to the end of the Epiftle, the words are very intelligible, and very properly chofen : and in refped to the ftrudure of the periods, the paffage" ch. ii. 4—10. is more judicioufly arranged and is better rounded, than any fentence of the fame length in the firft Epiftle. If there is any obfcurity in it, this muft be afcribed partly to our own want of knowledge, beeaufe, the erroneous dodrines combated in the fecond chapter are not fufficiently underftood, and partly to the cir cumftance, that the author has not given Us to under ftand, till toward the clofe of the Epiftle, that he wrote againft the deniers of a day of judgement. But this very circumftance affords a ftrong argument, that both Epiftles were written by the fame author : for in the firft Epiftle likewife the purport of it is not declared before the end of the laft chapter1, fo that the demonftration precedes the propofition, whence this Epiftle alfo was not thoroughly underftood even by Camerarius, though he thought it perfedly intelligible. With k This paflkgs ends with the word xxraipgctatrus ver. io.---To?i/*))t*» begins a new fentence. 1 Ch. v. i3. Voz,. IV. Z 354 The fecoiid Epifile of St. JPeter. chap.xxviii. With refped to the paffage in the fecond Epiftle, ch. i. 3. where Camerarius complains, and not wholly with out foundation, of obfcurity, it may be obferved that Alberti's remarks on it have rendered it lefs obfcure than it appeared to Camerarius, and that the difficulty, which attends it, is owing to the two following caufes : 1. To the reading Six Sofa xxi «-et«-, which is that of our common printed editions, and for which Camerarius did not know that there was a better. But fince his time, it has been difcovered that very good authorities, inftead of this reading, have *Six Soty xxt xptt-n. Now if we adopt the latter reading, and conftrue in the following manner, 'through the knowledge of God in his glory,' we fhall no longer have reafon to complain of obfcurity. 1. To the circumftance, that the fame word apvrn is ufed, ver. 3. and ver. 5. in two different fenfes, and that its common meaning ' virtue* is applicable in neither place. But this very word is ufed likewife in the firft Epiftle in a peculiar fenfe, though few commentators have obferved it; and confequently the obfcurity, which attends a-rrrj, 2 Pet. i. 3. is rather an argument, that both Epiftles were written by the fame perfon. In 2 Pet. i. 5. this favourite word of St. Peter fignifies * glory;' and ver. 5. it denotes ' courage,' efpecially that kind of courage, which muft attend the faith of a true Chriftian, but which at the fame time muft be ac companied with knowledge, that they, who po'ftefs it, may not become undaunted martyrs of error and preju dice. Thus, in anfwering the objedions, which have been made to the ftyle of the fecond Epiftle, I have likewife fhewn fome inftances of agreement with that of the firft. To thefe may be added the following : 1. The fentences in the fecond Epiftle are feldom fluent and well rounded, but have the fame extenfionas thofe in the firft. . 2. Avxs-potpn, the word fo peculiar to the firft Epiftle, occurs likewife in the fecond m, though not fo frequently as m Ch. ii. 7. iii. u. sect. r. The fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. , 355 as in the former. On the other hand we fometimes find in the fecond Epiftle repetitions of the fame word, which betray a poverty of language: for inflance tvn^nytu, ch. i. 5. 11. o-tttsSx^u, ch. i. 10, 15. From what has been faid in the courfe of this fedion, it appears, that even the fecond chapter of the fecond Epiftle has fome refemblance, both in its ftyle and its contents, to the firft Epiftle. This is particularly to be noted, beeaufe even the advocates for the fecond Epiftle have in general granted, that the ftyle of this chapter is not the ufual ftyle of St. Peter. Bifhop Sherlock for inflance acknowledges it : nor, though I contend that there is fome fimilarity, as in ver. 5. 7., will I affert that there is no difference. But it will not therefore follow that the whole Epiftle was not written by St. Peter: and if it is allowable to draw a conclufion from one Or two pages, it will be no other than this, that the fecond chapter is fpurious, beeaufe the ftyle of it is faid to be as different from the firft and third chapters, as it is, from the firft Epiftle. This conclufion however no bne will draw, who has examined the connexion of the whole Epiftle11. In fad the difference in quefiion is rather of a negative kind : for though I am unable to difcover any remarkable agreement in ftyle between the firft Epiftle and the fecond chapter of the fecond Epiftle, I do not per ceive any remarkable difference. This fecond chapter has indeed feveral words, which are unufual in other parts of the New Teftament : but the fame may be faid of the firft Epiftle. And fome of the expreffions, which to us appear extraordinary, were borrowed perhaps from the Gnoftics, whofe doctrines are here confuted: for it is not unufual, in combating the opinions of a particular fed, to adopt their peculiar terms. Thus in 2 Pet. ii. 17. the Gnoftics are called ' clouds agitated by a tern-, peft:' and we know that the Manicheans, who had many dodrines in common with tbe Gnoftics, taught that there were five good, and five bad elements, and that one * This fubjed will be particularly examined in the laft fedion of this chapter. Z 2 356 The fecond Epifile of St. Peter, chap, xxvur. one of the latter was called ' tempeft0'. In like man ner, they frequently fpeak of darknefs under the name of Zotpos, which occurs more than once in this chapter. The Epiftle of St. Jude has a ftill greater number of unufual figurative expreffions; and it is not impoffible, that thefe alfo were borrowed from the Gnoftics. SECT. II. Of the time, when this Epifile was zvritten. THE fecond Epiftle of St., Peter muft have been written only a fhort time before his death: for he fays, ch. i. 14. ' fhortly I muft put off this my taber nacle, even as our Lord Jefus Chrift hath fhewed me.' St.0Peter .here alludes to his converfation with Chrift after the refurredion, recorded in John xxi. 18 — 22. where Chrift had foretold his death in the following words, ' when thou flialt be old, thou fhalt ftretch forth thy hands, and another fhall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldeft not.' Hence St. Peter might very eafily conclude, that he would not furvive the coming of Chrift to judge Jerufalem. But Chrift has declared that Jerufalem would be deftroyed before one generation paffed away. St. Peter therefore after a lapfe of thirty years, that is in the year 64, neceffarily confidered his "death, as an event not far diftant. On the place, where this Epiftle was written I fay nothing : for it is wholly uncertain, whether St. Peter wrote it before, 01 after his arrival in Rome. 0 Beaufobre Hift. des Manicheens. Tom. II. p. 300, 301. se c t. in. The fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. 357 SECT, III. Of the defign of this Epifile. I HAVE already obferved in the firft fedion of this chapter, that the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter was addrefied to Chriftians, who were born heathens. The purport of it is chiefly polemical; and it is evident, efpecially from the laft chapter of the Epiftle, that St. Peter wrote againft certain perfons, who, though mem bers of the church, denied the dodrine of a general judgment, and a diffolution of the worldp. They in ferred ' This is not admitted by Wetftein, who contends that the laft chapter of this Epiftle relates, not to the end of the world, but to the deftrudion of Jerufalem. That this however is not true, will appear from the following confiderations. Firft, St. Peter reprefents the fad, for which he argues,, as poffible, by appealing to the deluge. Now no man would appeal to the deluge, to (how the poflibility, that a city may be taken and deftroyed : but we may very properly argue, that, as the earth has already undergone a material change, fo it may undergo another change equally great. And what St. Peter fays, is confonant to the Jewifh theology, in which was taught the dodrine, that the earth was deftined to fuffer two grand revolutions, the one effeded by water, the other to be effeded by fire. See Jofeph. Antiq. I. 3. 3. Secondly, no one could doubt, that Jerufalem would be deftroyed, merely beeaufe the deftrudion was deferred longer than he expeded, and ftill lefs, beeaufe ' all things continued as th*y were from the beginning of the creation,' ch. iii. 4. This ground of doubt manifestly implies, that the quefiion related to a revolution of the earth. Thirdly, I know of no heretics, who called in quefiion Chrift's prophecy of the deftrudion of Jerufalem. And, even if there were fuch, it is hardly credible that St. Peter fhould write an Epifile to perfons, who were born heathens, and lived in the northern part of Afia Minor, to prove an event, with which they had little or no con cern. Fourthly, what St. Peter fays ch. iii. 8. ' that one day is with the Lord as a thoufand years, and a thoufand years as one day,' is not very applicable to an event, which was to take place within ii*. or feven years after St. Peter wrote. Laftly, if we explain what St. Peter fays, as relating to the deftrudion of Jerufalem, we muft take Ms expreffions in a figurative fenfe: but figurative language, though it is well adapted to a prophecy, fuch as that which is recorded Matth. xxiv., is not very fuitable to a. plain dodrinal differtation, efpecially to one delivered in the form of an Epiftle. 23 358 The fecond Epifile of St. Peter. *• chap, xxviii. ferred that this event, beeaufe it had been long delayed, would never take place : to which objedion St. Peter replies, by faying ; that one day "is with the Lord as a thoufand years, and a thoufand years as one day; that the Lord is not flack concerning his promife, as fome men count flacknefs, but is long fuffering, not willing that any man fhould perifh, but that all fhould come to repentance. Further, St. Peter argues that, as the earth has already undergone a great revolution at the. deluge, another revolution equally great, is not incredible: and that, fince the former event was at the time, when it happened, as uriexpeded, as the latter will be, we ought to believe in God's declaration that the world will one day "be totally deftroyed. This deftruction St. Peter fays, will be effeded not by water, as at the deluge, but by fire : ' the elements fhall melt with fer vent heat, the earth alfo, and the works that are therein fhall be burned up.' Now a general conflagration will be more eafily admitted by thofe who are acquainted with the flate of the earth, than an univerfal deluge: for though it may be difficult to comprehend, whence a fufficient quantity of water could be brought to cover the whole earth, yet no one can deny that the bowels of the earth abound with inflammable matter, and that fiery eruptions may fpread themfelves throughout the furface of the globe. It muft be obferved that St. Peter's appeal to the deluge in the time of Noah, implies that the adverfaries, whom he combats, admitted that the Mofaic account of it was true, fince it would have been ufelefs to have argued from a fad, which they denied. This muft be kept in view, beeaufe it will affift us in determining who thefe adverfaries were. The polemical part of this Epiftle is not confined wholly to the third or laft chapter, for it begins in the fecond, where St. Peter argues ver. 4 — 10. from the punifhment already inflided and hereafter to be inflicted on the fallen angels, as well as from the deftrudion of the antediluvian world, and of Sodom and -Gomorrah, 9 that sect. iii. The fecond Epifile of St. Peter. 359 that God is juft, and that he will hereafter punifh fin- ners. This again implies, that the perfons, whofe opi nions St. Peter combats, not only believed the Mofaic hiftory, but likewife the account of the fallen angels, their prefent banifhment from heaven, and the more fevere punifhment which ftill awaited them. Hence therefore we have a fecond criterion, to affift us in deter mining St. Peter's adverfaries. If we go back to the firft chapter, the end of which is clofely conneded with the beginning of the fecond, we fhall perceive that thefe falfe teachers afferted, either that the Chriftian dodrine was only an inftrudive fable (jttuffoc populus. 362 The fecond Epifile of St. Pet em. chap, xxviii. denied it virtually by maintaining principles, which are inconfiftent with it. For they believed in a metempfy- chofis, and afferted, that the fouls of men would tranfmi- grate from their prefent bodies, in which they were confined as it were in a prifon, into other fucceffive bodies, till at laft they would return to the fource from which they had derived their origin. They maintained therefore a general reftoration of the fouls of men, and confequently could not believe in the dodrine, that there would be. a general judgment, at which the fouls of the wicked would be condemned to eternal punifhment. If they admitted the influence of an evil fpirit on the fouls of the wicked, as fome of the Manicheans did, ftill this influence was only temporary, was exerted only in an intermediate flate, and in order to produce amendment, that all men might be finally happy. However it was not inconfiftent with the Gnoftic principles, to fuppofe, that the fallen angels, who according to their own fyftem were the caufe of all the evil in the world, and were wholly incapable of amendment, were at prefent in a flate of mifery, and would receive ftill greater punifh ment hereafter. It is certain that the Manicheans fup pofed fo s, though they believed that the fouls of men, with the exception only of the perfecutors of the truth, would be perfectly happy: and though Manes, the founder of this feet, lived long after St. Peter, yet he ' was not the inventor of his whole fyftem, for he had adopted many tenets which had been maintained by the Gnoftics. The other difficulty is, that St. Peter's adverfaries denied* that the world would one day be deftroyed by a general conflagration, and we have no authority for fay ing, that this was denied by the Gnoftics. On the contrary the Manicheans admitted this dodrine, and it is perfedly confonant to the fyftem of the Gnoftics. For, as on the one hand they, who maintained the eternity of the world, argued from the wifdom and the perfedion of the Creator, the Gnoftics on the other band, * Beaufobre Hill, des Manicheens. Liv. viii. ch. 5. chap. Xxix. The Epifile of St. Jude. 363 hand, who afferted that the world was created by a being, who had neither wifdom nor benevolence, might reafonably conclude, that it was fo imperfed, as to be ' incapable of eternal duration. However, as the dif ferent feds of the Gnoftics maintained fuch different principles, it is not impoffible that fome of them believed in the eternity of the world, fince their notions of its imperfedion did not neceffarily imply a ceffation af duration1. Laftly, fome of the Gnoftics had a fevere, others a loofe fyftem of morality. And that St. Peter's adverfaries belonged, not to the firft, but to the fecond daft, is evident from what he fays againft them in the fecond chapter. CHAP. XXIX. OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE". SECT. I. J§jf the author of this Epifile, whether he was an Apofile, called Jude, or whether he zyas Jude the brother-in-law of Jefus. IN the firft fedion of the twenty-fixth chapter I have flated at large the various opinions, which have been entertained relative to the James and the Jude, whom the 1 Philo, who was contemporary with St. Peter, wrote a treatife, De incorruptibilitate mundi, in which he defended a dodrine contiary to that delivered by St. Peter. But Philo was not a Gnoftic: nor was he one of thofe ' fcoffers,' of whom St. Peter complains. 0 Though the Epiftle of St. Jude is placed the laft among the Catholic Epiftles, I introduce it here immediately after the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, on account of the great refemblance, which thefe two Epiftles bear to each other. 364 The Epifile of St. Jude. chap. xxix. the Evangelifts * call brothers of Jefus. To that fedion therefore 1 muft refer the reader, beeaufe the-'queftioni - which was there examined, has very material influence on the decifion of our prefent quefiion". If, according to one of the opinions flated in the fedion juft men tioned, James and Jude, whom the Evangelifts call brothers of Jefus, were in fad only coufins, or relations, and were fons, not of Jofeph, but of Alphseus, thefe two perfons were the fame as the two brothers James and Jude, who were Apoftles y. And in this cafe Jude, the author of our Epiftle, was the fame as the Apoftle Jude, the brother of James, who was fon of Alpha?us : or, at leaft, if the Epiftle be a forgery, if was^a forgery in his name. On the other hand, if the James and the Jude, whom the Evangelifts call brothers of Jefus, were not the two brothers of this name, who were Apoftles, but were the fons of Jofeph, the reputed father of Jefus, we have then two different perfons of the name of Jude, either of which might have written this- Epiftle. And in this cafe we have to examine, whether the Epiftle was written by an Apoftle of the name of Jude, or by Jude the brother-in-law of Chrift. The author of the Epiftle himfelf has affumed neither the title of Apoftle of Jefus Chrift, nor of brother of Jefus Chrift, but calls himfelf only ' Jude the fervant of Jefus Chrift, and brother of James.' .Now as the author diftinguifb.es himfelf by the title ' brother of James,' w Matth. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3. * In our prefent inquiry there is alfo another quefiion involved, relative to Adjeus, or Thaddasus, the Apoftle ofthe Syrians, as will appear in the fequel. y To prevent miftakes on this fubjed, it is necefTary to obferve, that in the lift of the twelve Apoftles given by St. Matthew, ch. x. 2—4. and St. Mark, ch. iii. r6 — 19. the name of Jude, a brother of James, who was fon of Alphxus, does not occur. It occurs however in both of the lifts which are given by St. Luke, in his Gofpel, ch. vi. 16. and in the Ads, ch. i. 15. : for in both places we find laias IaxaCa, by which is meant !«&*< *hx(po$ laxuGa. And though St. Matthew and St. Mark have not mentioned this Apoftle by the name of iaiuu they have ftill mentioned him, but under a different name. St. Mark ch. iii. 18. calls him Gaiiaw, and St. Matthew, ch. x. 3. names him AeSSaiog, 0 nrty.\r,Qtn Gxiiaies. sect. i. The Epiftle of St. Jude. 36$ James,' and this was a common name among the Jews, he undoubtedly meant fome eminent perfon of this name, who was well known at the time when he wrote, or the title ' brother of James' would have been no mark of diftindion. We may infer therefore, that the author of this Epiftle, was brother either of the Apoftle James, the fon of Alpha^us, or of James called the brother of Jefus, or of both, if they were one and the fame perfon. The firft quefiion to be afked therefore is, Was the author of this Epiftle the Apoftle Jude, who was bro ther of James the fon of Alphaeus. Now I have already obferved, that this quefiion muft be anfwered in the affirmative, if James and Jude, who were called bro thers of Jefus, were the fame as the two brothers, James and Jude, who were Apoftles. And it may be anfwered ' in the affirmative, even if they were different perfons : for Jude, the author of our Epiftle, had in either cafe a brother of the name of James, and therefore might in either cafe call himfelf, ' Jude the brother of James.* I fay the quefiion may be anfwered in the affirmative, even if the Apoftle Jude was a different perfon from Jude called the brother of Jefus. But whether it ought, in this cafe, to be anfwered in the affirmative, is another matter: and I really believe, that it ought not. For, if the Jude, who wrote this Epiftle, had been himfelf an Apoftle, and brother of an Apoftle, he would hardly have called himfelf, in an Epiftle written to Chriftians, limply ' Jude the brother of James' without adding the title Apoftle. It is true, that the Apoftle Jude, who was brother of James, is called by St. Luke fimply laSxs IxxuZx : but St. Luke gives him this title merely to diftinguifh him from another Apoftle of this name, who was called Ifcariot. Now the author of this Epiftle could have no motive for diftinguifhing himfelf from Judas Ifcariot, who had hanged himfelf many years before this Epiftle was written. The name of Jude was very common among the Jews, and therefore the author of this Epiftle wiflied to dif tinguifh 366 The Epifile of St. Jude. chap. xxrx. tinguifh himfelf from other perfons, who were fo called. But James was likewife a very common namej and therefore, if the author had been an Apoftle, he furely would have preferred an appellation, which would have removed all doubt, to an appellation, which left it at leaft uncertain, whether he was an Apoftle or not, I grant, that the omiffion of this title does not neceffarily prove, that the author of our Epiftle was not an Apoftle: for St. Paul has omitted it in four of his Epiftles2. But St. Paul was fufficiently known without this title: whereas the author of the Epiftle in quefiion felt the neceffity of a diftinguifhing appellation, as ap pears from the very title, which he has given himfelf of ' brother of James.' Befides, at the time, when this Epiftle was written, only one Apoftle, of the name of James, was then alive, for the elder James, the fon of Zebedee, had been beheaded many years before. If then the author of our Epiftle had only given to his brother James the title of Apoftle, he would thus likewife have clearly afcertained who he himfelf was. But, fince he has no more given to his brother, than to himfelf, the title of Apoftle, I think it highly probable, that neither of them were Apoftles. The next queftion to be afked therefore is, Was the* Jude, who wrote our Epiftle, the fame perfon, as the Jude, whom the Evangelifts call brother of Jefus, and who, according to the opinion, which I think the mofl: defenfible % was in this fenfe ' brother of Jefus,' that he was fon of Jofeph by a former wife, and therefore not own brother, but only brother in law of Jefus.. Now that our Epiftle was written by a perfon of this defcription, appears to me highly probable. And on this fuppofition we may affign the reafon, why the author called himfelf ' brother of James:' for if he was the brother in law of Jefus, his brother James was the—.. perfbn- * In the Epiftle to the Philippians, in both Epiftles to the ThefTa lonians, and in that to Philemon. , * See Ch. xxvi. Sedi 1, sect. i. The Epiftle of St. Jude. 367 perfon, who during fo many years had prefided over the church at Jerufalem, was well known both to Jews and to Chriftians, and appears to have been more celebrated than either of the Apoftles, who were called James. It will be objeded perhaps, that the very fame reafons, which I have alleged, to fhew that an Apoftle, of the name of Jude, would have affumed his proper title* will likewife fhew that a perfon, who was called brother of Jefus, would have done the fame, and have flyled himfelf Jude the brother of Jefus. To this I anfwer, that if he was the fon of Jofeph, not by Mary, but by a former wife, and Jude believed in the immaculate conception, he muft have been fenfible, that, though to- all outward appearance he was brother in law of Jefus, fince his own father was the hufband of Jefus's mother, yet in reality he was no relation of Jefus. On the other hand, if Jude, called the brother of Jefus, was the fon of Jofeph, not by a former wife, but by Mary, as Herder afferts, I do not fee how the pre ceding objedion can be anfwered. For, if Jefus and Jude had the fame mother, Jude might, without the leaft impropriety, have flyled himfelf ' brother of Jefus,T or ' brother of the Lord :' and this would have been a much more remarkable and diflinguifhing title, than that of ' brother of James.' A third quefiion ftill remains to be afked on this fubjed. , The Apoftle, whom St. Luke calls Jude, is called Thadda:us by St. Matthew and St. Mark, as J have already obferved. But the Apoftle of the Syrians, who firft preached the Gofpel at Edeffa, and founded a church there, was named Thaddsus cr Adseus. It may be afked therefore, whether the author of our Epiftle was Thaddsus the Apoftle of the Syrians, though indeed it is not very probable that he was,, fince this Epiftle is not in in the old Syriac verfion. Eufebius b relates, that the inhabitants of the city- of Edeffa were converted to Chriftianity by a difciple- named Thaddseus, who went thither immediately after Chrift's VHift. Ecclef. Lib. I. c. 13. 36S The Epiftle of St^ Jude. chap. xxix. Chrift's afcenfion. It is true, that in the accounts, which Eufebius has given of the converfion of the Syrians, there are feveral circumfiances, fuch as the correfpondence of king Abgarus with Chrift, and others of a like nature, which are probably fabulous. But the principal fad, that Thaddsus preached the .Gofpel at Edeffa, and converted -the Syrians to Chrif tianity foon after the afcenfion, will hardly admit of a doubt, fince the Syrian writers themfelves are unanimous in the affertion, that Thaddams was their Apoftle c. They call him in general Adai* (w?j)» and relate, that he came to Edeffa foon after the afcenfion, healed king Abgarus of the Ieprofy, converted him to Chrif tianity, and founded a church. From Edeffa he went into Affyria, where he likewife preached the Gofpel ; he then returned to Edeffa, and died there in the twelfth year of his preaching, that is, in the twelfth year after the afcenfion. In refped to the manner of his death, Syrian authors are not agreed. Some fay, that he died a natural death, while Abgarus was ftill living; but others relate, that he fuffered martyrdom under Maanus, who, though fon and fucceflbr of Abgarus*1, was not, like his father, a convert to Chriftianity. But whatever death he died, the city of Edeffa has always claimed the honour of his burial place. Mofl Syrian writers, as well as Eufebius, reckon this Thaddaeus, or Adseus, as the Syrians call him, not as one ofthe twelve Apoftles, but as one ofthe feventy difciples. But according to Jerom, he was the Apoftle Thaddaeus f, confequently the Apoftle, whom St. Luke calls / >- "See Affemani Bibl. Orient. T. I. p. 317 — 319. T. II. p. 391— 394. Tom. III. P. i. p. 299. 302. 306. T. 111. P. ii. p. 4 — 15. and Bayer's Hiftaria Ofrhoena et Edeffena, p. 104 — 120. d The reafon, why they omit the Th at the beginning, may be feen in my Syriac Grammar, * Maanus fucceeded Abgarus, in the month of March, A. C. 45. f In his Commentary on Matth. x. Tom. IV. p. 37. he fays,Thad- d^um apoflolum ecclefiaftica tradit hiitoria miffum Edeffam ad Ab*- garum regem Ofrhoenae. sect. r. The Epiftle of St. Jude. 360 calls Jude the brother of James : and Affeman 8 quotes Jefujabas, who lived indeed fo late as the twelfth cen tury, and therefore is of no great authority, in favour of the fame opinion. Jacob, bifhop of Sarug, who was born in the year 452, defcribes Adsus as brother of Chrift : for in a work, which he has written ' on the Apoftle Adseus, and king Abgarus,' he expreffes him felf thus, ' After the ever-bleffed bridegroom was ex alted to heaven,, he refolved, as he had'prOmifed, to fend, out of love, fome one to Abgarus, and. he chofe for that purpofe Adai, one of his brothers V Now if the Apoftle Jude, the brother of James, is the fame, as tbe Jude, who was called brother of Chrift, the word Apoftle,. as ufed by Jacob, bifhop of Sarug, muft be taken in its proper fenfe : but if the Apoftle Jude, and Jude called the brother of Chrift, were different perfons, or, at leaft, if Jacob confidered them as fuch, the title Apoftle applied by him to Ada?us, muft denote, not one of the twelve, but fimply an Apoftle, or converter of the Syrians. According to fome Syrian writers, two perfons of the name of Thaddzeus were employed in their converfion, the one an Apoftle, the other one of the feventy difci- ples. The latter, they fay, was fent by the Apoftle Thomas to king Abgarus, immediately -after Chrift's afcenfion : but the former, according fo their accounts, went fome years later to Edeffa, whence he travelled into Affyria, and thence returned into Phoenicia, in which country he died a martyr, either at Baruth, or at Arad, for on this head they are not agreed '., This Apoftle Thaddasus they generally k call, not the brother, but s Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P. i. p. 299. 302. h «cia„»,j A»o _^o w!\l wcx-j..:-^. Affemani Bibl. Orient. Tom. I. p. 318. ' Affemani Bibl. Orient, Tom. III. P. ii. p. 13—15. k But not. univerfally, for according to Haffencamp, p. 43, 44. fome Syrian writers call him ' Jude the brother of James, who was brother of the Lord.* Vol. IV. A a 370 The Epiftle of St. Jude. chap. xxix, but the fon of James, (oai\-^i), a miftake, which arofe from a falfe , interpretation of the words USue IxxuCx : and this very miftake has been made in the Syriac verfion, for in both places where this title occurs, namely, Luke vi. 16. Ads i. 13. it is rendered ' Jude the fon of James1.' Now this miftake in the Syriac verfion could not have taken place, if the Syriac tranf lator had ever feen the Epiftle of St. Jude, in which the author exprefsly calls himfelf ' brother of James.' Bur. this Epiftle is not contained in the old verfion, and con fequently it was unknown to the tranflator1". From thefe confradidory and uncertain accounts of the Syrians we can form little or no judgement, in v.v refped to the author of our Epiftle. Adai (*-:|)> who was the firft Apoftle of the Syrians, and one of the feventy difciples, could not be the author; for he died in the twelfth year after the afcenfion, whereas our Epiftle was written, as will appear from a following fedion, after the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, and there fore long after the death pf Adai. Nor do we know, whether this Adai, the firft Apoftle of the Syrians, was alfo called Jude, as well as the other Adai their fecond Apoftle : unlets it be faid, that Adai, Thaddai, Juda, are one and the fame name differently pro nounced. And, what is the mofl decifive, the old Syriac verfion does not contain this Epiftle. Confe quently, 1 However in the Arab'e verfion publilhed by Erpenius, it is properly rendered in the latter place by « Jude the brother of James.' m Even without having feen the Epiftle of St. Jude, one might fuppofe, that the old Sy-iac tranflator, who lived in fo very early an age, could hardly have made a miftake in refped to the Apoftle, whom St. Luke calls Ib&z, laxuQa, efpecially as this very Jude, or Thadda?us, as St. Matthew and St*. Mark call him, was fo inftru- mental in the converfion of the Syrians, who muft have known - therefore, whether he was brother, or fon of James. I wifh that they, wjio have accefs to MSS. ofthe Syriac verfion, would examine, whether in fome of them i»fc,s UxuSa, Lake vi, 16. Ads i. 13. is not differently rendeied. sect. it. The Epifile of St. Jude. r 371 quently, it is highly probable, that Adai, or Adams, was not the author : for an Epiftle, written by the great Apoftle of the Syrians, would furely have been received into the canon of the Syrian church. SECT. II. Of the perfons to whom, and of the time when, this Epiftle was written : and zvhether the author of it had read the fecond Epifile of St. Peter. I AM really unable to determine, who the perfons were, to whom this Epiftle was fent. For no traces are to be difcovered in it, which enable us to form the leaft judgement on this fubjed.: and the addrefs, with which the Epiftle commences, is fo indeterminate, that there is hardly any Chriftian community, where Greek was fpoken, which might not be denoted by it. Though this Epiftle has a very great fimilarity to the fecond > Epiftle of St. Peter, it cannot have been fent to the fame perfons, namely, the Chriftians, who refided in Pontus, Cappadocia, &c beeaufe no mention is made of them in this Epiftle. Nor can it have been fent to the Chriftians of Syria and Affyria, where St. Jude preached the Gofpel, if he is the fame perfon as the Apoftle of the Syrians : for in this cafe, the Epiftle would not have been written in Greek, but in Syriac or Chaldee, and would certainly have been received into the old Syriac verfion. With refped to the date of this Epiftle, all that I am able to affert is, that it was written after the fecond Epiftle of St, Peter. But how many years after, whe ther between 64 and 66, as Lardner fuppofes, or be tween 70 and 75, as Beaufobre and L'Enfant believe, a a 2 or, 37a The Epifile of St. Jude. chap. xxix. or, according to Dodwell and Cave, in 71 or 72, or fo late as the year 90, which is the opinion of Mill, I confefs, that I am unable to determine, .at leaft from any certain data. The expreflion c in the laft time,' which occurs, ver. 18. as well as in 2 Pet. iii. 3. is too indeterminate to warrant any conclufion refpeding the date of this Epiftle. For, though on the one hand, it may refer to the approaching deftrudion of Jerufalem, it may, on the other hand, refer to a later period, and denote' the clofe of the Apoftolic age : for in the firft Epiftle of St. John a fimilar expreflion occurs, which muft be taken in this latter fenfe. The inference there fore, that the Epiftle of St. Jude was written before the deftrudion of Jerufalem, which fome commentators have deduced from the above-mentioned expreflion, on the fuppofition, that it alluded to that event then approaching, is very precarious, beeaufe it is drawn from premifes, which are themfelves uncertain. How ever there is fome reafon to believe, on other grounds, that this Epiftle was not written after the deftruction of Jerufalem. For as the author has mentioned, ver. 5- — 8. feveral well-known inftances of God's juftice, in punifhing finners, which St. Peter had already quoted in his fecond Epiftle to the fame purpofe, he would probably, if Jerufalem had been already de ftroyed, at the time when he wrote, have not negleded to add to his other examples this mofl remarkable in flance of divine vengeance, efpecially as Chrift himfelf had foretold it. I faid in the preceding paragraph, that the Epiftle of St. Jude was written after the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. This appears from a comparifon of the two Epiftles, which are fo fimilar to each other both in fentiments and in expreffions, as no two Epiftles could well be, unlefs the author of the one had read the Epiftle of the other. It is evident therefore, that St-.- Jude borrowed from St. Peter both expreffions and arguments, to -which he himfelf has made fome few additions. sect. H. The Epifile of St. Jude. 373 additions. Lardner" indeed, though he admits the fimilarity of the two Epiftles, ftill thinks it a matter of doubt, whether St. Jude had ever feen the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. ^Lardner's reafon is, ' that if St. Jude had formed a defign of writing, and had met with an Epiftle of one of the Apoftles, very fui table to his' own thoughts and intentions, he would have forborne to write.' To this argument I anfwer : 1. If the Epiftle of St. Jude was infpired by the Holy Ghoft, as Lardner admits, the Holy Ghoft. cer tainly knew, while he was didating the Epiftle to St. . Jude, that an Epiftle of St. Peter, of a like import, already exifted. And if the Holy Ghoft, notwith- ftanding this knowledge, ftill thought, that an Epiftle of St. Jude was not unneceffary, why fhall we fuppofe, that St. Jude himfelf would have been prevented from' writing by the fame knowledge. On the other band, if the Epiftle of St. Jude is not genuine, but is a forgery in his name, there is no im probability in the fuppofition, that the author derived his materials from an Epiftle of St. Peter, in the fame manner, as the perfon, who forged the Epiftle to the Laodiceans in the name of St. Paul, copied from Apoftolic writings. 2. Tne fecond Epiftle of St. Peter was addreffed to the inhabitants of fome particular countries: but. the addrefs of St. Jude's, Epiftle is general.. St. Jude therefore might think it necefTary to repeat for general ufe, what St. Peter had written only to certain com munities. 3. The Epiftle of St. Jude is not a bare copy of the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter : for in the former, not only feveral thoughts are more completely unravelled than in the latter, but feveral additions are made to what St. Peter had faid, for inflance in ver. 4,- 5. 9 — 16. » Supplement, Vol. III. p. 352. A A 3 374 The Epifile of St. Jua\ ch a r- xxi x. SECT. III. Of the canonical authority of this* Epifile ¦: and firfi of the external evidence in its favour. EUSEBIUS in his Catalogue of the books of the New Teftament0 places the Epiftle of St. Jude among the xvriXtyoptvx, in company with the Epiftle of St. James, the.lecond Epiftle of St. Peter, and the fecond and third of St. John. • But Origen, who lived in the third century, though he fpeaks in dubious terms of the fecond Epiftle of St, Peter, has feveral times quoted the Epiftle of St. Jude, and. has fpoken of it as an Epiftle, on which he enter tained no doubt. In his Commentary on St. Matthew, when he comes to Ch. xiii. 55. where James, Jofes, Simon, and Jude, are mentioned, he fays, ' Jude wrote an Epiftle, of few lines indeed, but full of the power ful words of the heavenly grace, who, at the beginning fays, " Jude the fervant of Jefus Chrift and brother of James p." This is a very clear and unequivocal decla ration of Origen's opinion0 : and it is the more re*. matkable, beeaufe he fays nothing of the Epiftle of St. James, though the paffage Matth. xiii, 55. afforded him as good an opportunity of fpeaking of this Epiftle, as it did of the Epiftle of St. Jude. Nay, Origen carries his veneration for the Epiftle of St. Jude fo far, that in his treatife De principiis, Lib. III. cap. 2. he quotes an apocryphal book called. The Affumption of Mofes, • Hift. Ecclef. Lib. III. c. 25. * IbJ«{ syga-^/st sniroMt, ohiyorixpt fist, BsirXngupttyit it rut tk aqutia ;£«£»to; tpgupitut hoyut, on? it ru Gtgootftiu tt^xsv' laias, Ii)er*r Xjir« £tAo«» aitXlpoi h I«m£a. 1 Other quotations from Origen, of a like import, may be feen in Lardner's Supplement, Vol. 111. p. 33a, 33 3, and in his Credibility, P. II. Vol. 111. Ch. xxviii. . sect. ill. The Epifile of St. Jude, 37$ Mofes, as a work of authority, beeaufe a paffage from this book had been quoted by St. Jude. In ohe in flance however, in his Commentary on St. Matthew, Origen fpeaks in lefs pofitive terms, for he there fays, ' If any one receive the Epiftle of St. Jude ', &c.' Tertullian, in whofe works Lardner could difcover no quotation from the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, de fcribes the Epiftle of St. Jude as the work of an Apoftle: for in his treatife De cultu feminarum, c. 3, he fays, ' Hence it is, that Enoch is quoted by the Apoftle Jude.' Clement of Alexandria, in whofe works likewife Lardner could find no quotation from the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, has three times quoted the Epiftle of St. Jude 3, without expreffing any doubt whatfoever. It appears then, that the three ancient fathers, Cle ment of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, as far as we may judge from their writings, which are now ex tant, preferred the Epiftle of St. Jude to the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. However I think it not impoffible, that, if all the writings of thefe authors were now ex tant, paffages might be found in them, which would turn the fcale in favour of the latter: and it may be owing to mere accident, that in thofe parts of their works, which have defcended to us, more paffages, in' which they fpeak decidedly of the Epiftle of St. Jude, are to be found, than fuch as are favourable to the fecond Epiflfe of St. Peter. For I really cannot com prehend how any impartial man, who has to choofe between thefe two Epiftles, which are very fimilar to each other, can prefer the former to the latter, or re ceive the Epiftle pf Stf Jude, the contents of which labour under great difficulties, and at the fame time confider a's dubious, or even rejed, the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, the contents of which labour under no fuch * Et is xxi tdji laia mptiraito ris tyirtjknt*. f See Lardner's Supplement, Vol. III. p. 326—328. A A 4 376 The Epifile of St. Jude. chap. xxix. fuch difficulties. Whoever ads in this manner muft have fome prejudice againft one or more of the doc- ¦ trines delivered in the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. Now that Origen, and likewife his preceptor Clement, had fuch a prejudice, I will endeavour to fhew in the fol lowing paragraph '. One of St. Peter's dodrines, in his fecond Epiftle, ch. iii. was, that the world would be finally deftroyed. This is abfolutely denied by Philo, in his treatife de incbrruptibiiitate mundi: and I think, that Origen, who isas an Alexandrine writer, as well as Philo, enter tained the fame notions. At leaft, what he has written" on Matth. xxiv. 29, 30. amounts to this, that the violent diffolution of the, world, there defcribed, is a matter replete with difficulty, and to be left to the faith of the weak and the unphilofophical. In his treatife De principiis, Lib. I. cap. 6. where- we might exped to find his real fentiments in refped to a day of judgement and a diffolution of the world, he cau- tioufly avoids the giving of any decifive opinion on this fubjed, and fays, that he argues only,* and does not determine". That the world will undergo a change", he admits without referve, though not, that it will be totally annihilated, for which indeed no rational man will contend. But the manner, in which this change is to take place, is that, which he leaves undetermined-, and ' What I am now going to fay, I fubmit to the decifion of thofe, who are better acquainted with the works of Origen than myfelf : and 1 fhall be ready to retrad my opinion, as foon as paffages fhall be pro duced, which fhew, that my fufpicions are without foundation. ¦ Ccmmentariorum feries in Matthaeum, Sed. 48, 49. Tom. TIL p. 865, 866. ed. Benedid. v Quae quidem a nobis cum magno metu et cautela dicentur, difcutientibus magis ac pertradantibus, quam pro certo ac definite ftatuentibus. Indicatum namque a nobis in fuperioribus eft, qua fint, de quiHus manifefto dogmate terminandum fit:— nunc autem difputandi fpecie, magis quem definiendi, prout poffumus, exercemus, oed. 1. Tom. I. p. 6g. z Immutationem qualitatis, et habitus transformationem, Sed. 4. sect. in. The Epifile of St. Jude. 377 and he has taken no notice in the whole chapter of the fecond Epiftle of St, Peter, in which it is faid, that this change will be effeded by fire. He ufes indeed the expreflion c a new heaven and a new earth' which occurs in this Epiftle, but he quotes it from Ifaiah, and not from St. Peter r. Though Origen does not pofitively deny a general conflagration, he does not pofitively grant' it: and it is obvious, that" the new heaven and the new earth, of which he fpeaks, might denote, in his opi nion,- nothing more than an improvement of their pre fent flate, and not a totally new world, which fhould rife out of the ruins of the old. Origen's principles therefore appear to differ from the dodrine delivered by St. Peter on this fubjed in his fecond Epiftle : and this is probably the reafon, why he efteemed this Epiftle lefs than the Epiftle of St. Jude. One of them he thought it necefTary to retain, beeaufe thefe are the only two Epiftles, in which the hiftory of the rebellious angels is recorded, and this hiftory was at that time of very great . importance. After the time of Eufebius, the Epiftle of St. Jude was received both by the Greek and by the Latin church: but it does not enter into my plan, to appeal to the decifion of councils, or to the fentiments of ecclefiaftical writers, who lived in the fifth and following centuries. The ancient Syrian church -did not receive it : at leaft it has no place in the old Syriac verfion, any more than the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, and the two laft Epiftles of St. John. What later Syrian writers have thought of it, I know not : nor has Haffencamp in his Remarks on the firft edition of this Introdudion been able to produce paffages from Syrian authors, as de cidedly in favour of this Epiftle, as he has done in favour of the other Epiftles,, which are not contained in the old Syriac verfion. * Efaias quoque, cum per prophetiam dixit, • quia erit ccelum novum, et terra nova,' fimilem fuggerit intelleftum. 378 The Epifile of St. Jude. chap. xxix. SECT. TV. The fame quefiion examined from internal evidence. IT appears from the preceding fedion, that the ex* ternal evidence is more in favour of this Epiftle than againft it : but if we examine its contents, we fhall find, that there is lefs .reafon to believe it to be a work of divine authority, than Origen fuppofed. However not every objedion, which has been made to it, is un- anfwerable. The. very firft objection, for inflance, which is made to ver. 6, 7. may be eafily removed. It has been faid, that in the expreflion opotov tstojc t^oxov, ver. 7. the pronoun tutoj- refers to ctyytXas, ver. 6. Now if this were true, the author of our Epiftle would fay, that Sodom and Gomorrha, and other neighbouring cities, committed fornication, in the fame manner as the fallen angels, and would thus appear to relate, as a real fact, the fable of the angels committing fornication with the daughters of men. But there is no neceffity for referring T8T01- to xyytXxs, fince it may be referred, without vio-> lating the grammatical conftrudion, to ZoSopx, which i§ a neuter plural, and had been ufed at the beginning of ver. 7. Or it may relate to the falfe teachers, mentioned in the next verfe, whom the author of this Epiftle ex- prefsly compares with the inhabitants of Sodom, on ac count of their licentious behaviour. But it is much more difficult to vindicate the ninth verfe, in which the Archangel Michael is faid to have difputed' with the devil about the body of Mofes, The whole hiftory of this difpute, which has the., ap-r pearance of a Jewifh fable1, it is not' very eafy at pre fent * Herder, in his Effay on the two Epiftles of St. James and St. Jude, p. 81, 82. afferts, that this ftory was derived by St. Jude, not from sect, iv. The Epifile of St. Jude. 379.- fent to difcover, beeaufe the book, from which it is fuppofed to have been taken by the author of our Epiftle, is no longer extant : but; I will here put together fuch fcattered accounts of it, as I have been able to colled. Origen found in, a Jewifh Greek book, called the ' Affumption of Mofes1,' which was extant in his time, though it is now loft, this very flory related concerning the difpute of the Archangel Michael with fhe devil about the body of Mofes. And from a comparifon of the relation in this book with St. Jude's quotation, he was thoroughly perfuaded, that it was the book, from which St, Jude quoted. This he afferts without the leaft hefitation : and in confequence of this perfuafion he himfelf has quoted tbe Affumption of Mofes, as a work of authority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the devil b. But as he has quoted it merely for this purpofe, he has given us only an imperfed account of what this book contained, relative to the difpute about the body of Mofes. One circumftance however he has mentioned, which is not found in the Epiftle of St. Jude, namely, that Michael reproached the devil with having poffeffed the ferpent, which feduced Eve. In what manner this circumftance is conneded with the difpute about the body of Mofes will appear from the following confideration. The Jews imagined, the perfon of Mofes was fo holy, that God could find no reafon for permitting him to die ; and that nothing, but the fin committed by Adam from a Jewifh legend but from a Zoroaftric dodrine in the Zend- Avefta. Now whether the paffage, which Herder, who every where difcovers Zoroaftric dodrines, has quoted from the Zend-Avefta, or the well-known Jewifh legend, is beft adapted to the place in quefiion, I think no man vyill long hefitate in determining. But even if Herder's opinion were true, no advantage could accrue from.it to the Epiftle of St. Jude: for what he has quoted from the Zend-Avefta is certainly a fable, nor can he himfelf fuppofe it to be otherwife. a AtaXtt^iis ra Mutrtuf. k De principiis, Lib. III. cap. 2. ' Et primo quidem in genefi fer- pens Evam feduxiffe defcribitur, de quo in Afcenfione Mofis, cujus libelli mem nit in Epiflola fua Apoftolus Judas: Michael archangelus, cum diabolo difputans de ccrpore Moyfi, ait, a diabolo infpiratum fer- pentern cauffam extitiffe praevaricationis Adas et Eva.'' 380 The Epifile of St. Jude. chap, x x ix. Adam and Eve in paradife, which brought death into the world, was the caufe, why Mofes did not live for ever. The fame notions they entertained of fome other very holy perfons-, for inflance, of lfai, who, they fay, was delivered to the, angel of death merely on account of the fins of our firft parents, though he himfelf did not deferve to die. Now in tbe difpute between Michael and the devil about Mofes, the devil was the accufer, and demanded the death of Mofes. Michael therefore replied to him, that he himfelf was the caufe of that fin, which alone could occafion the death of Mofes. — How very little fuch notions, as thefe, agree either with the Chrifiian theology, or with Mofes' s own writings, it is unneceffary for me to declare. ^ ¦ Lardner' indeed contends that Origen was miftaken in his affertion, that St. Jude quoted from a book called the Affumption of Moles, and fays, there is reafon to believe, though this book exifted in the time of Origen', that it was not written till after the time of St. Jude. But Lardner affigns no reafon for this affertion ; and fince he himfelf never faw the book, and therefore could form no judgement of it, I think it very extraordinary, that he fhould venture to contradid fuch an eminent critic as Origen, who had adually feen it, and who lived within two hundred years after the time of St. Jude. If the Affumption of Mofes had not been written before the fecond century, the age in which Origen's preceptor, Clement of Alexandria lived, it is wholly incredible that Origen, whofe particular talent was criticifm, fhould have fuffered himfelf to be foimpofed upon, in refped to the time of its compofition, as to imagine that St. Jude quoted it in the firft century. Nor is Lardner the only perfon who afferts, that St. Jude did not quote from the Affumption of Mofes, for feveral other writers, in order to remove the reproach of a quotation from an apocryphal book, have maintained that this very book, inftead of having been quoted by St- Jude, was a later forgery of fome Chriftian, and that the c Supplement, Vol. III. p. 344. sect. iv. The Epifile of St. Jude. 381, the paffage in St. Jude's Epiftle relative to Michael and the devil gave rife to the fabrication. Now this is a mere conjecture: and it is a very improbable one, be eaufe we know that fimilar, though not the fame accounts, relative to a converfation of Michael and the devil at the death of Mofes, are contained likewife in Hebrew writings of the Jews. But no one can fuppofe that the Jews would fabricate a work, out of compliment to an Epiftle written by a Chriftian author. Befide the account given by Origen, there is a paffage in the works of Oecumenius, which likewife contains a part of the (lory related in the Affumption of Mofes, and which explains tbe reafon of the difpute, which St. Jude has mentioned concerning Mofes's body. Ac cording to this paffage, Michael was employed in burying Mofes ; but, the devil endeavoured to prevent- it, by faying that he had murdered an Egyptian, and was therefore unworthy of an honourable burial a. Hence it appears, that fome modern writers are miftaken, who have imagined, that in the ancient narrative, the difpute was faid to have arifen from an attempt of the devil to reveal to the Jews the burial place of Mofes, and to in cite them to an idolatrous worfhip of his body. There is ftill extant a Jewifh book, written, in He brew, and entitled TWO JTTB3, that is, ' The death of Mofes,' which fome critics, efpecially De la Rue % fup pofe to be the fame work, as that which Origen faw in Greek. Now if it were, this Hebrew book, entitled Phetirath Mofhe, would throw a great light on our prefent inquiry : but I have carefully examined it, and can * The words of Oecumenius, Tom. II. p. 629. are, 'H is ¦mipt ts Muvmus cufjiatof xpto-is snt avrri' Xsytrai to» M>^;ai)A rot a^ayytXo* Tp ru Muvo-tus ratpri hinixotixitai. T« it iia.QoXu tbto fj.it xaraisyji- fttta aX\' fiript^otros syy.Xi)faa ita. tot t« Aiyvvrta (potot, u; ha. rare ttoyp ot.ros Muvtrsus, xai ft» o-vyx^^tj-iai rvysi* rns stripa rapni;. A more full account of this fable is contained in a Greek fcholion on Jude 9. in the Codex Lambecii 34. of which a tranfeript may be feen in the Orient. Bib. Vol. XXIII. p. 153. c See his' note on the above-quoted paffage in Origen de principiis, *Lib. III. c.s. ' - 384 The Epifile of St. jude* CHAP. XXIX. can affert, that it is a modern work, and that its con* tents are not the fame as thofe of the Greek book quoted by Origen. , Of the Phetirath Mofhe we have two editions, which contain very different texts'. The one was printed at Conftanrinople in 1518, and reprinted at Venice in 1544 and 1605. The other was publilhed from a manufcript by Gilbert Gaulmyn, who added a tranflation of both texts, with notes8. This is- the edition' which I have ufed, and for which I am indebted to.Profeffor Reimarus in 'Hamburg. Though the two texts are in many refpeds different, -they are ftill texts of the fame work, and their difference arofe merely from the liberties taken by tranfcribers, who have aded here, as t hey have done in regard to other Jewifh legends, and have made alterations and additions in the copies, which they wrote, with as much freedom as the author himfelf had ufed in the original compofition. Both texts agree in the main with the book called Debarim Rabba, which is likewife a fabu* lous narrative of the death and burial of Mofes. ¦ But this Hebrew book, Phetirath Mofhe, is not the fame as the Greek book, AvxX^tt m Muo-tus, which Origen read, and which he fays was quoted by St. Jude : much lefs is the latter a tranflation of the former. The Phetirath Mofhe was undoubtedly written in a later age: for it contains frequent quotations from the Talmud, and in p. 109, even Abenefra is quoted11. And the ftory which r They are defcribed. in Wolfii Bibliotheca Rabbkica, Torn. II., p. 1278, 1279, 1394. * The title of this edition is nwo hw irrvtosi Q>n»n Hn nsi, De vita et morte Mofis, libri tres. Gilbertus Gaulmyn, Molinenfis, ex MSS. excmplaribus primus Htbraice edidit, Latina interpretations et notis illuftravit. Parifiis, apud Tuffanum du Bray, via Jacobsea,. fub fpicis maturis, 1629. h It is therefore extraordinary that Gaulmyn, the editor of this bock, fhouid exprefs a doubt whether it were ancient or modern. . He fays, p. 375, Edimus, nefcio an illos (libros) prorfus, quos ante Chriftum Judaicae plebi cognitiflimos fcimus. Certe, ut eft traditiorium fiiarum gens peitinricifiima, omnino, fi hiftoriam fpedes, eofdem habes : quod plenius ottendemus in diatriba de apocryphis Hebrseorum libris, < sect. iv. The. Epifile of St. Jude. 383 which it contains, though probably an ancient one, is not the fame, as that which is contained in the AvxX^n tz Muo-ws : for feveral material circumfiances quoted by Origen and Oecumenius from the latter, are not men tioned in the former. In the Phetirath Mofhe for inflance, 1. The devil, who is there called Samael, does' not difpute about the burial of Mofes. 2. Michael does not reproach the devil with having pofleffed the ferpent, which feduced Eve. 3. Michael does not fay to him, ' The Lord rebuke thee.' 4. But he himfelf rebukes the devil, and calls him 5«n, that is, thou wicked w,retch. A_nd Mofes fays the fame to the devil, when he comes by God's com mand to fetch his foul. — This is the very reverfe of that ' which St. Jude relates concerning the difpute of Michael with the devil. The fubftance of the ftory related in this book, as far as concerns the prefent inquiry, is as follows. Mofes requefts of God under various pretences, either that he may not die at all, or at leaft that he may not die before he comes into Paleftine. This requeft he makes in fo froward and petulant a manner, as is highly unbecoming not only a great prophet, but even any man, who has expedations of a better life after this. In fhort Mofes is here reprefented in the light of a defpica- ble Jew, begging for a continuance of life, and devoid both of Chriftian faith, and of heathen courage : and it is therefore not improbable, that the inventor of this fable made himfelf the model, after which he formed the charader of Mofes. God argues, on the contrary, with great patience and forbearance, and replies to what Mofes had alleged relative to the merit of his own good works. Further, it is God, who fays to Mofes, that he muft die on account of the fin of Adam: to which Mofes anfwers, that he ought to be excepted, beeaufe he was fuperior in merit to Adam, Abraham, Ifaac, &c. In the mean time, Samael, that is, the angel of death, whom 384 The Epifile of St. Jude. CHAP. xxix. whom the Jews defcribe as the chief of the devils, re joices at the approaching death of Mofes. This is obferved by Michael, who fays to him, ' Thou wicked1 wretch, I grieve, and thou laughed.' Mofes, after his requeft had been repeatedly refufed, invokes heaven and earth, and all creatures around him, to intercede in his behalf. Jofhua attempts to pray for him : but the devil flops Jofhua's mouth, and reprefents to him, really in fcripture ftyle, the impropriety .of fuch a prayer. The elders of the people, and with, them all the children of Ifrael then offer to intercede for Mofes: but their mouths are likewife flopped by a million eight hundred and forty thoufand devils, which on a moderate calculation, make three devils to one man. After this, God com mands the angel Gabriel, fo fetch the foul of Mofes : but Gabriel excufes himfelf, faying that Mofes was too ftrong for him. Michael receives the fame order, and excufes himfelf in the fame manner, or, as other accounts fay, tinder pretence that he had been the inftriidor of Mofes, and therefore could not bear to fee him die. But this laft excufe, according to the Phefirath Mofhe, was made by Zinghiel, the third angel, who received this command. Samael, that is, the devil, then offers his fervices; but God afks him, how he would take hold of Mofes, whether by his Mouth, or by his hands, or by' his feet, faying that every part of Mofes was too holy for him to touch. The devil however infills on bringing the foul of Mofes : yet he does not accufe him, for, on the contrary, he prizes him higher than Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. The devil then approaches towards Mofes to execute this voluntary commiflion : but, as foon as he fees the fhining countenance of Mofes, he is feized with . a violent pain, like that of a woman in labour. Mofes,. inftead of ufing the oriental falutation, ' Peace be with thee,' fays to him in the words of Ifaiah, ch. lvii. 21. (for in this work Mofes frequently quotes Ifaiah and the Pfalms), ' There is no peace to the wicked.*' The devil replies', that he was come by the order of God, to fetch his foul : but Mofes deters him from the attempt by * reprefenting sect. iv. The Epiftle of St. Jude. 385 reprefenting his own ftrength and holinefs : and faying, * Go thou wicked wretch, I wijl not give thee my foul,' he affrights the devil in fuch a manner that he immedi ately retires. The devil then returns to God, and relates what had paffed : and receives an order to go a fecond time. The devil anfwers, that he would go every where God commanded him, even into bell, and into fire, but not to Mofes. This remonftrance however is of no avail, and he is obliged to go back again. But Mofes, who fees him coming with a drawn fword, meets him with his miraculous rod, and gives him fo fevere a blow with it, that the devil is glad to efcape. Laftly, God himfelf comes : and Mofes, having then no further hopes, re quests only that his foul may not be taken out of his body by the devil. This requeft is granted him. Zinghiel, Gabriel, and Michael then lay him on a bed : and the foul of Mofes begins to difpute with God, and objeds to its being taken out of a body, which was fo pure and holy, that no fly dared to fettle on it. But God kiffes Mofes, and with a kifs extrads his foul from his body. Upon this, God utters a heavy lamentation : and thus the ftory in the Phetirath Mofhe ends, without any mention of a difpute about the burial of Mofes's body. This laft fcene therefore, which was contained in the Greek book feen by Origen, is wanting in the He brew* But in both of thefe works, Michael, as well as the devil, expreffes the fame fentiments in refped to Mofes : in both works the fame fpirit prevails : and the concluding fcene which was contained in the Greek book, is nothing more than a continuation of the feme ftory, which is contained in the Hebrew. After what I have reported in the precedihg paragraph, I ferioufly afk every impartial judge, whether that perfon could be an infpired writer, or an immediate difeiple of him, who made a manifeft diflindion between the hif tory of the Old Teftament and the fabulous traditions of the Jews; who has quoted fuch a Ipook as that, which I have juft defcribed, and felected from it a paffage fo ap- ¦ Vot. IV. B b parenfly 38"6 . Th'e Epifile of St: Jude. chap.xxix. pare'ntly "fabulous. Various attempts- have been made to remove this difficulty, but with very little fuccefs. Origen removed it in the fhorteft way by pronouncing the ' Affumption of Mofes' a work of authority, and by quoting this book in proof of the opinion,' that the ferpent, who feduced Eve, was poffeffed by the devil. But the example of Origen, who could eafily explain away its abfurdities by the aid of his allegorical interpre tation, will hardly Induce any modern critic to receive as divine a book not contained in the Hebrew canon, for which, and for which alone, we have the atteftation of Chrift. Some other commentators fay, that a quotation from an apocryphal book no more proves that St. Jude, who quoted it, believed it was a divine work, than St. Paul's . quotations from Greek poets, or from the apocryphal ' books of Jannes and Jambres, from which hchas taken the names of the Egyptian magicians, 2 Tim. iii. 8. But this argument is not in point: for the quotation in the Epiftle of St. Jude is of a very different kind from thofe in the Epiftles of St. Paul, not excepting that which he has made in 2 Tim. iii. 8. That 'Egyptian magicians oppofed themfelves to Mofes we know from the account which Mofes himfelf has given in the book of Exodus : and though their names are not recorded by him, the remembrance of them might have been pre ferved by the Jews through other means. That two of them were called Jannes and Jambres is a matter not incredible : and not only various Jewifh writers fpeak of them, but likewife Numenius. The mention therefore of their names by St. Paul, even though his knowledge of them was derived from a book, which was not cano nical, is nothing extraordinary; for that two of the Egyptian magicians, who endeavoured to counterad Mofes, were called Jannes and Jambres, is a matter, which may be credited on mere human teftimony. But fhe converfation of Michael with the devil, which is quoted in the Epiftle of St. Jude, is a fact, of a very different sect. iv. The Epiftle of St. jude. 387 different kind: for it lies without the circle of human experience, and therefore it cannot be attefted by any man, unlets he has either divine infpiration, or has inter- courfe with beings of a fuperior order. Confequently, whoever was the author of the apocryphal book, from- which the quotation was made, his account cannot pof- fibly command affent. Even if Jannes and Jambres were not the real names of two Egyptian forcerers, but were invented by the Jews of later ages, ftill St. Paul might have ufed the names, by which they were known in his time, in "the fame manner as we call the Greek verfion made at Alexandria by the name of Septuagint, though we do not believe in the fable of the feventy interpreters. No man could fay that I aded ¦¦•with, impropriety, if in converfation with Arabians I- called Alexander the Great by the ,name of Dulcarnain, though that title was not given bim till after his death; But if I quoted the travels of Mofes, or the fall of the devil, as they are related in the Koran, and quoted them not only as facts, in which I believed, but as fads on which theological dodrines might be grounded, it is not probable that any man would affent to my argumentation. Other commentators endeavour ro remove the dif ficulty by laying that St. Jude took his account perhaps, _not from the Greek book quoted by Origen, but from fome authentic Hebrew book which is now loft, or from fome refpedable and credible tradition of the Jews. But the difficulty is to make it even probable, that any fuch authentic Hebrew book, or any fueli credible tra dition exifted in the firft century. At that time the Jews hac^ no other books, befide thofe contained in the Bible, which were antecedent to the Baby lonifh capti vity: and mere oral tradition, relative to a fad fuppofed to have happened fo many hundred years before the cap tivity, no rational man will confider as credible. If therefore St. Jude, inftead of quoting a Greek book .called the Affumption of Mofes, had quoted a Hebrew book, in which the fame ftory was related, ftill that Hebrew book would have been no better authority, than b 2 2 the 388 The Epifile of St. jude. chap. xxtx. the Greek. The language can make no difference iii this cafe : and, unlefs we grant with Origen, that the A»*x»nJ/»- -ra Muo-tus was canonical, we cannot fuppofe, that a Hebrew book with this title was written by a prophet. But if it was not written by a prophet, or by a man who had fupernatural information, we cannot give him ctedit for a relation of what is faid and done in the region of fpirits, efpecially when that relation fo ftrongly favours of fable, and fo ill agrees with the laft chapter of Deute ronomy. Finally, it is faid, that in the apocryphal writings, and in the oral tradition of the Jews, fome true accounts were intermixed with the fabulous, and hence it is in ferred that St. Jude, by the aid of divine ihfpiration, might have known, that the ftory of the difpute, between Michael and the devil about Mofes, was a pearl which lay buried in an heap of rubbifh. Now that the Jewifh fables were intermixed with fome true fads, and that a writer, if he has divine infpiration, will diftinguifh them from the fabulous parts, no one will deny. But the difficulty is to make this principle apply to the prefent cafe. The difpute, between Michael and the devil- about the body of Mofes, has by no means the appearance pf a true hiftory : and the author of our Epiftle has not even hinted that he knew it to be true by the aid of divine infpiration, or that he diftinguifhed it from other Jewifh traditions. On the contrary, he has introduced it as part of a ftory, with which his readers were already acquainted ; he does not appear to have had any other authority for it, than they themfelves had : nor does the part, which he has quoted, at all imply, either that he himfelf doubted, or that he wifhed his readers fhould doubt, of the other parts of it. The truth of thefe arguments has been perceived by more than one commentator on the Epiftle. of St. Jude. In order therefore, to remove at once all objedions to a quotation from'an apocryphal book, they have given to Jude 9, a myftical interpretation ; and by thus diftorting its meaning have endeavoured to fhew, that the quota- 9 . . tion sect, iv. The Epiftle of St. Jude. 389 tion was taken from a part of the Old Teftament. According, to their explanation the 'body of Mofes' denotes the whole Jewifh nation, in the fame manner as the whole affemblage of Chriftians is fometimes called the body of Chrift : and Jude 9, is nothing more than an41lufion to the vifion, in the third chapter Of Zecha riah, in^ which they fay the whole Jewifh , nation is accufed before the Lord in the perfon of Jofhua, the high prieft. And Vitringa, on the fuppofition, that St. Jude really alluded to this vifion, propofes to alter the body of Mofes to the body of Jofhua, and inftead of tstpi ts Munriws orufjixtos to read tstpi ts Ino~x as the third century. The preceding anfwer is fufficient to invalidate Cy prian's authority, in eftablifhing the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. on the fuppofition, that Cyprian really quoted it. But that he did fo, is more than any man can prove. The words ' tres iinum font' are contained not only in the feventh, but likewife in die eighth verfe, which is a part of the ancient and genuine text of St. John: and therefore it is at leaft poffible, that Cyprian took them, not from the feventh, but from the eighth verfe. It is true that he fays, thefe words are written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, whereas ' tres unum font' in the eighth verfe relates only to the fpirit, the water, and the blood. But it muft be obferved that the Latin fathers interpreted fpiritus, aqua, et fanguis, not literally but myftically, and fome of them really underftood by thefe words, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus fandus, taking aqua in the fenfe of Pater, fanguis in the fenfe of Filius, and fpiritus in the fenfe of Spiritus fandus. This is exprefsly afferted by Eucherius, in his Quseftiones N. T. difficiliores ; for after having quoted 1 John v. 8. thus, Tria funt, quae teftimonium perhi- bent, aqua, -fanguis', et fpiritus, he adds foon after, plures tamen hie ipfam interpretatione myftica intelligere Trinitatem; aqua Patrem, fanguine Chriftum, fpiritu Spiritum fandum manifeftante. Eut if C)fprian really thought that aqua, fanguis, et Spiritus 1 John v. 8. de noted Pater, Filius, et Spiritus fandus, he might fay of tres unum funt ver. 8. that it was written ' de patre et filio, et lpiritu fando.' And that he. adually did fo, that he quoted not ver. 7.- but underftood ver. 8. ^myf tically, appears from the following paffage of Facundus ', 1 Defenfio trium capitulorum concilii Chakedo'aenfis, Lib. I. cap. 3, 9 D 4 424 Diflertation en i John v. 7. chap. xxxi. who lived in the neighbourhood of Carthage, and con fequently ufed the fame Latin verfion, as Cyprian. ' Johannes Apoftolus In epiflola fua, de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu fando fie dicit ; Tres funt qui teflimoniutn dant in terra rt, Spiritus, aqua, et fanguis, et hi tres unum funt : in. Spiritu fignificans Patrem, &c. ..... quod Johannis Apoftoli teftimonium beatus Cyprianus, in epif- fola, five libro, quern de Trinhate fcripfit, de Patre, et Fiho, et Spiritu fancto dictum inlelligit.' Facundus then quotes the words of Cyprian, which are the fubjed of our prefent inquiry. From the preceding paffage, it is manifeft, that 1 John v. 7. was unknown to Facundus; for he proves the dodrine of the Trinity, by a myftical interpretation of ver. 8., and appeals to the authority of Cyprian, who, he fays, gave the fame interpretation. But if 1 John v. 7. was unknown to Facundus, who lived in the fame country as Cyprian, ufed the fame Latin verfion, and wrote afmoft three centuries later, it is incredible that 1 John v. 7, was already introduced in the Latin manuferipts, which Cyprian ufed. Con fequently we muft conclude, that the affertion of Facun dus is true, and that the words, of Cyprian contain, not a quotation from, 1 John v, 7. but a myftical application of 1 John v. 8. This is further confirmed by Auguftin, who was likewife an African bifhop, lived an hundred years later than Cyprian, and ftill knew nothing of 1 John v. 7.: for he has never quoted this paffage, not even where he fpeaks of the Trinity", but he has myftically applied the eighth verfe". With m ' In terra' is probably an addition made by later tranferibers of the works of Facundus, who copied I John v. 8, as they found it in the Vulgate. For the controverted paffage was unknown to Facun dus, and therefore it is hardly credible that in his MS. of the Latin verfion, ver, 8. had the words ' in terra.' n Bengel however -will not therefore allow that I John v, 7. was unknown to Auguftin, for he fays in his Apparatus Criticus, p. 465. cd. 2d. Auguftinus p'otius diffimulanter tractavit hoc dictum, quara ignoravit: to which Semler has very properly replied, p. 388. of his Hiftorucal Collections. 0 What I have here faid in a fhort compafs, the reader will find delivered at large in Seroler's Hiftorical Collections, p. 275. 353- ' 382-- sect. iii. TJiffertation on i John v. 7. 425 With refped to the teftimony of Phcebadius, Mar'ms Vidorinus Afer, Vigilius Thapfenfisp, and other ftill later Latin writers, which are produced by Bengel, as evidence for I John v. 7 . their evidence is of no value whatfoever. For, even if no objection could be made to it, and it were abfolutely certain that all thefe late Latin writers quoted 1 John v. 7., the only inference to be drawn would be this, that from the time of the fourth century, the paffage flood in feveral copies of tbe Latin verfion. But will any man therefore conclude -that it was not an interpolation in thofe copies, when Auguftin, a Latin bifhop of the fourth century, and Facundus another Latin bifhop, who lived fo late as the fixth century, were either fo ignorant of it,, or fo perfuaded of its fpurioufnefs, that tbey were reduced to the neceffity of proving the dodrine of the Trinity, by a myftical in terpretation of the eighth verfe ? It is really immaterial, whether the paffage was interpolated into the Latin ver fion, in the fourth, or in a later century; for an inter polation it certainly is. In fhort, though the advocates of 1 John v. 7. derive their -chief fupport from the Latin fathers, they really injure their caufe by producing them. I know not whether my readers will excufe my noticing a very frivolous objedion made by Mr. Wagner, in the treatife, which I mentioned in the preceding fedion. He fays, I have taken for granted, without proving it, that thofe Latin fathers, who have quoted the con troverted paffage, quoted it, not from the Greek original, but from the Latin verfion. Now I really thought it unneceffary to give any fuch proof, beeaufe I imagined, that every man, who had ftudied theology, had learnt enough of ecclefiaftical hiftory, to know the Lathi fathers in general did not underftand Greek, and con fequently, 382. 398. To Semler's arguments, Knittel has made feveral learned and fpecious objections in his New Criticifms, p. 32, &c. But learned and fpecious as they are, they haye not convinced me that Semler is. rnift-aken. P I omit Eueheriiis, for reafons, which are afiigned by Semler, 42$ Dijfertation on i John v. 7. chap. xxxi. fequently, that they could ufe only the verfion of their country. Jerom indeed makes an exception, for he was well acquainted with the Greek language : but Jerom is not one of thofe Latin fathers, who have quoted 1 John v. 7. for he has taken no-notice of it in any part of his very voluminous works, as Bengel himfelf ac knowledges'5. It is true, that in the Prologue to the Catholic Epiftles, which has been afcribed to Jerom, the paffage is both mentioned and defended': but this Prologue is falfely afcribed to Jerom, as Martianay has very clearly fhewn s, and as Bengel, with his ufoal can dour has admitted. Laftly, the advocates of 1 John v. 7. lay great ftrefs on the Confeffion of Faith, which was drawn up by Eugenius at the end of the fifth century, and prefented by the orthodox bifhops of Africa to Hunerich, King of the Vandals, who had been converted to Arianifm. In this confeffion, which is recorded by Vidor Vitenfis, in his Hiftoria perfecutionis Vandalicte, is the following paffage'. Ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis effe cum Patre et Filio Spiritum fandum doceamus, Joannis Evangelifts teftimonio comprobatur. Ait namque : Tres funt qui tefiimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Ver bum, et Spiritus functus, et hi tres unum funt. Numquid ait, tres in differenti squalitate fejundi, aut quibuflibet diverfi- tatum gradibus longo feparationis intervallo divifi? Sed tres, inquit, unum funt. Here 1 John v. 7. is clearly and diftindly quoted : but this proves nothing in refpecl to * However, notwithftanding Jerom's total filence, Bengel is un willing, to admit Jerom's ignorance of it : for he fays, § 20. Hiero- nymus potius diflimulanter tractavit dictum, quam ignoravit. 1 The words of the Prologue relative to this paffage are, In qua etiam ab infidelibus tranflatoribus multum erratum effe, fidei veritate comperimus: trium tantum vocabula, hoc eft, aquae, fanguinis, et Spiritus, in fua editione ponentes, et Patris, Verbique, ac Spiritus teftimonium omittentes : quo maxime fides Catholica roboratur, et Patris, et Filii, ac Spiritus fancti una divinitatis fubftantia compro-. batur. * In his edition of Jerom's Works, Vol. I. p. 1670 — 1675. * See p. 29. of Ruinart's edition. Sect. iii. Difertation on i John v. j. 427 to its authenticity, for the only inference which we can deduce is, that the paffage was contained in the Latin .manuferipts, then ufed in Africa. We may infer that Eugenius, who drew up the confeffion, found the paf fage in his Latin manufcript ; but that all the bifhops, who figned this confeffion, found the quoted paffage likewife in their manuferipts, is a very unwarrantable inference. For, when a formulary of religious articles is compofed, however numerous the perfons may be, who fet their names to it, it is in fad the work only of him, who drew it up : and a fubfeription to fuch a for mulary, though it convey§ a general affent to the doc trines contained in it, by no means implies, that every fubferiber has, previous to his fubfeription, examined every argument adduced, or every quotation, that is alleged in it, and obtained a thorough convidion, that not one of them is' exceptionable. I believe no man would venture to affirm this of all thofe, who fubferibe to the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran church : and yet our Symbolic Books were certainly drawn up with full as much care and accuracy, as the Confeflion of Faith, which the orthodox bifhops of Africa prefented to Hunerich. But, it is faid, the Ariarts themfelves, who were pre fent, when this Confeflion .was delivered, made no ob jedion to the quotation, ' Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in ccelo, he. :' that they acknowledged therefore by their very filence, that the paffage was not fpurious. Now this is a very weak and even abfurd argument. For, in the firft place, we have no further knowledse of this tranfadion, than what the orthodox themfelves have, given of it : and therefore it is not fair, to conclude, that the Arians made no objedions, merely from the circumftance, that no objedions are 011 record. Secondly, if tbe conclufion were admiflible, nay, were it abfolutely certain, that the Arians, who were prefent at this conference, admitted, ' Tres funt qui teftimonium perhibent in cselo, &c.' it would fol low only, that' the paffage was in their Latin manu feripts, 42 8 Difertation on i John V. J. chap. xxxi. fcripts, as the quotation of if fhews, that it was in the Latin manufcript of Eugenius, who drew up the Con feflion, For thefe Arians were Vandals, who had been driven out. of Spain into Africa, who read the Bible only in the Latin tranflation, and were totally unac quainted with Greek. Confequently their filence on the quotation of a paffage from the Latin tranflation, at the end of the fifth century, affords no prefumptipn whatfoever, that the paffage exifled in the Greek ori ginal. Laftly, tbe whole tranfadion between Hunerich with his Arian Vandals, on the one fide, and the ortho dox bifhops of Africa on the other, was of fuch a pa-r ture, as was very ill adapted to the decifion of a critical quefiion. For thefe Vandals did not combat by argu ment, but by force : and they brought their adverfaries to filence, not by reafoning with them, but by cutting out their tongues. To argue therefore from the filence of fuch men to the authenticity of i John v. 7. is nearly the fame, as an appeal in its favour to the tefti mony of a Ruffian corporal. S E C T. IV. The Alogi did not reject the firft Epiftle of St. John : con fequently in their time, that is, in the fecond century, tin Epifile did, not contain the controverted paffage. N the fecond' century there arofe a fed, to' which Epiphanius has given the title of Alogi", beeaufe they would not admit the application of the term Aoyos " That the Alogi appeared fo early as the fecond century is certain. For Theodotus, whom Epiphanius (Haercf. 54. al."^.) defcribes as, ctwoo"iruov (At\ Si%optvoi Six tx tv fit AiroxxXv^/u fixQt'us xxt cxorttvus tt^fV.tvx. O tj-ote St x St- %ovtai fvo-ti tx j3iSAtflt tx X7ro tx xyik luxvvs xtxtigvypivx, •nxvti ru SnXov tin, on xrot uo-t, xxi 01 opttot tztots, tsipi uv tnrtv 0 xyios luxvvtis tv txis xxQoXtxats tirtroXxiS, on to-^xtti upx ts~i, xxi tixxo-xtt oti xvnyptzos tpyttxi, xxi vvv tSa avn^ifoi zroXXoi, xxt tx t%ns. Here Epiphanius twice fpeaks in indefinite terms of the writings of St John, as if the Alogi rejeded 'them all : yet, when he'fpecifies thofe, which they rejeded, he names only the Gofpel^ and the Apocalypfe, as lie does alfo, Hzeref. LIV. § 1. where he fays, that the Alogi rejeded to xxtx luxvynv 'EvxyytXiov, xxi tov tv avtu tv oep^Yi ovtx ®tov Xoyov, xxi tnv uvtx AnoxaXv^tv, but fays nothing of the Epiftles. And the following paffage, Haeref. LI. § 34. puts the matter out of doubt; where likewife fpeaking of fhe Alogi he fays, E-xxiPovrxi St rsxXiv ty Sixvoix el xvtoi Xtjri-* Sripxvtts xirtifius, tvx So^utri uxpix^xXXtiv tx tx xytx AirofoXH (3i£Aia, ipij/At St luxvvx tott EvxyytXiov, xxt tyv AiroxxXvtytv' rx^x St xxi txs Ettis-oXxs, o-wocSxa-i yxp xxt aCrxt tu Eu«y* ytXtu, >cat t-ji A~sx%xvtyu. Hence it appears, 1. That Epiphanius, by his own confeffion, means only the Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe, when he fays, that the Alogi rejeded the writings of St. John. 2. That he is inclined indeed to excite a fufpicion, that they rejeded perhaps the Epiftles alfo; but that he is not able to bring any evidence in fupport of this fufpicion, or any confeffion from the Alogi themfelves. ,. Further, Epiphanius, who writes as a man well ac quainted with the works of the Alogi, delivers, at full length » sect. v. Difertation on i John v. 7. 431 length, their objedions to the writings of St. John : but among all thefe objedions, there is not one, which is direded againfi St. John's Epiftles, for they relate en tirely to the Gofpel and the Apocalypfe. Laftly, the other ecclefiaftical writers, who fpeak of the Alogi, namely, Auguftin5, John of Damafcush, and the anonymous author of the work called, Przedeftinatus, five pr^deftinatorum hasrefis1, agree in the affertion, that they rejeded St. John's Gofpel, and the Apocalypfe : but not one of them has afferted, that the Alogi rejeded his firft Epiftle. The premifes therefore, laid down in the title of this fedion, being thus eftablifhed, the inference follows of courfe. SECT. V. Of the reafons alleged for retaining 1 John v. 7. though the evidence of manuferipts, fathers, and verfions is ¦decidedly againfi it. ONE fhould fuppofe, that no critic, efpecially if a proteftant, would hefitate a moment to condemn as fpurious, a paffage, which is contained in no ancient Greek manufcript, is quoted by no Greek father, was unknown to the Alogi in the fecond century, is want ing * Ha;ref. XXX. h Joannis Damafceni Opp. Hasref. LI. p. 88. of to "Evxyy&tot to Kara luanvt ahravns, ««' tin Avtox«.%viyiv aura, ita to w tXbona sx TS i of Brtinfwick.' 44° * Difertation on i John v. 7. chap, xxxl Hamburg. In the feventeenth century, ifowe except the Wittenberg edition of 1607, which remained true to Luther's text, the infertion was general : and of the editions, which have been printed in the prefent century, I know of none, which does not contain it. Later editors however are much more excufable, than the firft corrupters of Luther's text. For not every one knows at prefent, that the paffage was never admitted into any of Luther's own editions : and they, who do know it, would not be permitted perhaps in every uni verfity, to print Luther's tranflation,' which is the efta- blifhed verfion of our country, without the paffage, ; Knittel x has endeavoured to fhew, that Luther .altered his opinion, and in the latter part of his life allowed, that the paffage was genuine : whence Knittel rnfers, that Luther muft- have feen fhe paffage in a -Greek manufcript. But I cannot admit the premifes, and ftill l'efs the conclufion y. It is true, that Luther rejeded in pofitive terms 1 John v. 7. in a public lec ture delivered in 1522 beeaufe (to ufe his own words) ' it was not contained in the Greek Bibles :' but that 'in a ledure delivered many years afterwards, at leaft after the year 1532, he did not repeat this affertion, on the contrary, that he read 1 John v. 7. from the Greek Teftament, and even explained it. But this argument proves nothing. For the affertion, which Luther had made in 1522, that the paffage was not contained in the Greek Bibles, though true at that time, was not true ten years, afterwards, and confequently Luther ' could not repeat it after the year 1532. Namely, the editions of the Greek Teftament publilhed before 1522 did not contain the paffage : but in almoft all the edi tions publilhed after that year, it was inferted. As to the circumftance, that Luther in his latter ledure, explained 1 John v. 7. after he had read it from the Greek * NewCriticiffns on 1 John v. 7. p. 132—133. y See the Neue-Orient. Bibl. VoL II. p. 132— .137. where I hav^ reviewed Knittel's work. /"' sect. vii. Difertation on I John v. 7. 441 Greek Teftament, without entering into any critical inquiry in refped to its authenticity, it fhews nothing more, than that Luther diftinguifhed exegetical from critical ledures, and that in explaining the Greek Tef tament, he interpreted what he and his hearers had before them. That he then received it as genuine, is an inference, which we are not warranted to make : and indeed it would be inconfiftent with his unremitting refolution to rejedit from his German tranflation, and with his laft requeft, in the preface to that very edition, during the printing of which, he died. Before I conclude this fedion, I muft make the fol lowing remarks. 1. Whether it be granted, that 1 John v. 7. is fpurious, or whether it be not, it is no part of Luther's verfion, and they, who have inferted it have been guilty of an ad of inj office to the author. 2. It is not only unjuft, but injudicious, to infert 1 John v. 7. iii Luther's catechifm. For children are thus accuftomed to confider this paffage as the chief proof of the dodrine of the Trinity : the confequence of which is, that, when they are grown up, and have been informed, that the paffage is fpurious, they natu rally conclude, that the dodrine itfelf is ungrounded. • 3. It is uncandid in the extreme, when one proteftant condemns another for rejeding 1 John v. 7. fince it was rejeded by the author of our reformation. Nor can it be faid, that Luther, were he now alive, would be of a different opinion, fince every inquiry, which has been inftituted fince the age of Luther, has brought to light frefh evidence, not in favour of the paffage, but againft it. 442 The two lafi Epiftles of St. John. chap, xxxii* 'CHA P. XXXII. bt THE TWO LAST EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. SECT. L Of the canonical authority of thefe two Epiftles. IN the fourth century, when Eufebius wrote his Eccle» fiaftical Hiftory, the fecond and, third Epiftles of St. John were not reckoned among the opoXoyxptvx, but were in the number of the xvnXtyo^tva., or books received by fome, and rejeded by others. Nor have they been admitted into the ancient Syriac verfioD, which is the eftablifhed verfion of the Syrian churches. Yet they are fo fimilar to the firft Epiftle, both in the thoughts, and in the ftyle, that in my opinion, they were certainly written by the fame perfon, who wrote the firft, that is, by St. form the Apoftle. Nor is it eafy to comprehend what ceuld have induced an impoftor to forge two fuch Epiftles, or what advantage he could have propofed by fhe introdudion of them. For they contain nothing, which had . not been already faid in the firft Epiftle,. except commendation or cenfure either of unnamed perfons, or of Demetrius and Diotrephes, of whom no one knows what they were. They could not have been forged during St. John's life, for the impofture muft have been immediately deteded : and, if they had been forged after his death, it is not very probable that the impoftor would have made the pretended author promife at the end of each Epiftle, that he would fhortly pay $ vifit to thofe, to whom the Epiftles were addreffed. The reafon, why thefe two Epiftles were not univer fally admitted, in the early ages of Chriftianity, intothe colledion of writings, called the New Teftament, has not -h been sect. i. The two laft Epiftles of St. John. 443 been hitherto afcertained. It may be afked, whether they were written after the canon was already formed : or whether it was thought unneceffary to retain two Epiftles, which were of a confined and perfonal nature- or whether the addrefs, with which each of them begins, occasioned the fuppofition that they were not written by St. John the Apoftle. The laft mentioned caufe appears to me the moft probable. The author neither calls himfelf John, nor affumes the .title of an Apoftle : but names himfelf fimply ' the elder,' (0 t»*----£ut£-"c). Now St John might with the fame propriety call himfelf ¦srpsa-Qvttpo.s, as St. Peter has called himfelf The two laft Epiftles of St. John. chap, xxxii. unto the church, but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not.' Hence it appears that St. John, before he wrote to Caius, had already fent a letter of recommendation to the church of which Caius was a member, but that Diotrephes had refuted to receive thofe, whom St. John had recom mended. Now if this were the fecond Epiftle, we fhould certainly find it in thofe recommendations, to which St. John alludes, and probably fome mention of Diotrephes. But in the fecond Epiftle no mention is made, either of Diotrephes, or of any recommendations whatfoever: confequently it cannot be the Epiftle, to which St John alludes in the third c. However I think it probable that the place, to which the fecond Epiftle was fent, was not far diftant from the place where Caius refided, and that the travelling brethren, whom St. John recommends to Caius, intended to vifit both places. That thefe two Epiftles were written at a time, when St. John was no longer young, appears from the title o ¦mpt<7%vrtpos, which he has given himfelf in each of them. But this title will not warrant the conclufion that he was in a very advanced age. From the time of St. Peter's death, which happened- in 66, St. John was ftrictly fpeaking, the elder or father of the church: and even before St. Peter's death, he might have called himfelf ¦nrpto-QvTtpos with the fame propriety, as St. Peter has called himfelf c-vy.^pto-Qutt^osi. There is no neceffity therefore for affigning to thefe Epiftles fo late a date as 82 or 83, as Whitby has done, and ftill lefs, fo very late a date as 91 or 92, which is afligned them by Mill. Befides, if St. John had written thefe Epiftles, when he was upwards of eighty, he would hardly have promifed, as he did in each of them, that he would foon under take c Hence it follows that St. John wrote an Epiftle, which is no longer extant. But fome commentators, who will not admit, that any Epiftle could be loft, which was written by an Apoftle, tranflate s^pa-^a n txxM-=j ?nd in the Arabic of Erpenius Lj-*-=-* Vol. IV. Ff 450 The two laft Epiftles of St. John." chap, xxxii, St. John not only greets the children of the eled lady, who were then with her, but fpeaks likewife, ver. 4. of feveral other of her children, whom he ' found walking in the truth.' This implies, that her children were very nume* rous. Laflly, St. John fpeaks of her children, as if they were all of them fons, and fays nothing of daughters. For, though he ufes both ver. 1. and ver. 4. the neuter • rtxvx, which when ufed by itfelf may include daughters as well as fons, yet, fince he adds in the former inflance is tyu xyx-n-u, and in the latter inflance w£-it«t2kt«- it axrftux, the mafculine relative and participle reftrid the fenfe to fons alone h. Now in a numerous family, it is very feldom that We find all fons, and no daughters :. but when we fpeak of a church the word ' fons' includes perfons of both fexes. It appears then, that the literal interpretation of txXtxrn xufia is attended with difficulty, as well as its metapho rical interpretation. I would explain therefore this ex preflion elliptically, by which means it may be made to denote a church, as well as by its metaphorical interpre tation ; and at the fame time the inconvenience attending the metaphor will be avoided. I conjedure that xu-»« is ufed elliptically for ku-i« mxXwix, which among the ancient Greeks fignified an affembly of the people held at a ftated time, and at Athens was held three times in every month l. Now fince the facred writers adopted the term txxXwtx from its civil ufe among the Greeks, j«f »« txxXno-tx, if ufed in the facred writings would fignify the ftated affembly of the Chriftians held every Sunday : and t}i, txXtxr-n xvpix, with txxXna-ia underftood, would fignify ' to the eled church or community, which comes together on Sundays.' The only difficulty attending this interpretation is, that I know of no inflance, in which txxXmrix, as belonging to xvgtx, is fuppreffed. k St. John here ufes, what is called conftructio ad fenfum. * See Suidas, under the article exxXwix xvpix. sect. iv. The tzvo laft Epiftles of St. John. 45-t SECT. IV. Of the contents and defign of the third Epifile. THE objed of the third Epiftle was to recommend to Caius, certain Chriftians, who were travelling to preach the Gofpel to the heathens ; and St. John wrote to Caius in particular, beeaufe his hofpitality to the Chriftian brethren was already known, and St John had reafon to apprehend, that a former Epiftle, which he had addreffed to the community, of which Caius was a member, had produced little effed. The recommendation is properly ¦ contained in the fixth, feventh, and eighth verfes. In the fixth verfe, St. John fays to Caius, thou will do well (xxxhs votyo-usk) if thou forwardeft the brethren on their journey. Thefe brethren he defcribes in the feventh verfe, as perfons, who ' went forth for God's fake, taking nothing of the Gentiles.' Now whether thefe perfons went forth vo luntarily to preach the Gofpel to the Gentiles, and would not receive from them any reward for their labours, or whether they had been compelled by a perfecution to quit their own country, and refufed to accept alms in their diftrefs from benevolent heathens, is a quefiion, on which the commentators are not agreed. But the former is the mofl probable, beeaufe it is attended with no inconvenience, whereas to the latter may be made the three following objedions. 1. In the age, in which this Epiftle was written, there were very few exiles for the fake ofthe Gofpel, efpecially in Grecian countries. And if any Chriftians had been banifhed from Ephefus, St. John himfelf, as the principal perfon, muft likewife have been banifhed. a. If k The expreflion xa%*s w-iwi 1- denotes a civil requeft, and is equi valent to, ' 1 intreat thee' See 1 Maccab. xi. 43. xii. 18. 22. At any rate, as St. John here ufes the future tenfc, he muft mean fome expected, and not any paft act of hofpitality. -" F F 2 452 The tWo laft Epiftles of St: John. CHAP, Xxxii. 2. If the perfons, whom St. John recommended, had been exiles, he would not have requefted Caius to fhew them a mere temporary hofpitality, and then forward them on their way. To exiles, who fland in need of pecuniary affiftance, we render very little fervice by fop- plying them with the means of travelling further : for whither at laft are they to travel? The greateft favour which we can beftow on fuch perfons is to procure for them employment in the place where they are, and thus enable them to provide for themfelves. 3. It appears from ver. 7. that the perfons, whom St. John recommended, would accept of no prefent from an heathen. Now an exile in diftrefs, who carries his religious hatred fo far, as to rejed the benevolent offers of thofe, who entertain different fentiments from himfelf, is entitled to no commiferation. Such a man, if he had it in his power, would be the mofl intolerant perfecutor: and therefore every favour conferred on him is an ill bellowed ad of liberality, fince it confirms him in his hatred of all thofe who have a different religion. A man of this defcription muft be left to himfelf,' till poverty and hunger have brought him to his fenfes, and have changed the imaginary faint into a rational being. In the 12th verfe St. John highly commends Deme trius, faying, ' Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itfelf: yea, and we alfo bear record, and ye know, that our record is true.' Now whether this Demetrius was one of the travellers, whom the Apoftle recommended, or whether he lived in the fame place with Caius, is uncertain. But the former is the mofl probable, for in the latter cafe, he muft have been well known to Caius, and therefore St. John would not have thought it necefTary to bear witnefs to his good charader. In the Chriftian community, of which Caius was a member, there was a perfon, called Diotrephes, who aflumed to himfelf very great authority. Whether he was orthodox, or an heretic, whether a bifhop or a deacon, whether a Jewifh or an heathen convert, it is wholly SECT. IV. The tzvo lafi Epiftles of St. John. 453 wholly impoffible to determine, for we know no more about him, than what is mentioned in this Epiftle. It ' , is ufelefs therefore to form any conjedure, fince we have- no ground, on which either this or that fuppofition can be built. Equally uncertain is it, what his motive was for objeding to the reception of the Chriftian travellers whom St. John had recommended': whether he difap- proved of their dodrine, or whether he was inimical to them, as being heathen converts, or according to the opinion of others, as being Jewifh converts, or whether, as Heumann fuppofes, he objeded to their entertain ment, on account of tbe impoverifhed flate of the public cheft. We have no foundation for any one of thefe ftippofitions : and, if I choofe to indulge conjedure, I could augment the lift by as many more, for inflance, that Diotrephes was afraid the Chriftians might incur the difpleafure of the magiftrates, by the reception of miffionaries, or that the miflionaries themfelves were ill chofen, or that the heathens, to whom they preached, and not the Chriftians, fhould provide for their fob-, fiftence, or laftly, that Diotrephes himfelf delivered falfe dodrines, and therefore objeded to thofe, who propa gated the true faith. This laft conjedure is the mofl fpecious, and beft accords with the contents of the Epiftle. Yet, as we have a total want of hiftorical in formation on this fubjed, it is better to confefs our ignorance, than to pretend to know, what we really do not. Of this Diotrephes, St. John fays ver. xtt xvros nrtSt- yttxt txs xStXQxs, xxi txs fixXojjitvxs xuXvti, xxt tx tris txxXy- xs, which is applicable only to thofe, who were adual members of that church. SECT. V. Of the perfon of Caius, to whom the third Epifile is a,ddreff'ed, SEVERAL, perfons of the name of Caius occur in the New Teftament. i- In the Epiftle to the -Romans, ch. xvi. 23. St. Paul mentions a Caius who lived at Corinth, and whom 4 St sect. iv. The two laft Epiftles of St. John. 455 St Paul calls ' his hoft, and the hoft of the whole church.' 2. In the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians, ch. i, 14. St. Paul likewife mentions a Caius, who lived at Corinth, and who had been baptized by St, Paul. This is pro-. bably the fame perfon with the preceding. 3. In the Ads of the Apoftles, ch. xix. 29. is men tioned a Caius, who was a native of Macedonia, who ac companied St Paul, and fpent fome time with him at Ephefus. This is probably a different perfon from the preceding: for the defcription given of the Caius, who lived in Corinth, and was the hoft of the whole church there, does not accord with the defcription given of the Macedonian Caius, who in the very fame year travelled with St. Paul, and was with him at Ephefus, 4. In Ads xx. 4. we meet a Caius of Derbe, who was likewife a fellow traveller of St. Paul, This perfon cannot well be the Corinthian Caius, for the hoft of the whole church at Corinth hardly left the place to travel into Afia. And he is clearly diftinguifhed from the Macedonia Caius by the epithet Atptxtos. Now whether the Caius to whom St. John wrote his third Epiftle, was one of the perfons juft mentioned, or whether he was different from them all, it is at prefent difficult to determine, beeaufe Caius was a very common name. Yet if we may judge from the fimilarity of cha racter, it is not improbable that he was the Caius, who lived at Corinth, and who is called by St. Paul ' the hoft of the whole church :' for hofpitality to his Chriftian brethren was the leading feature in the character of that Caius, to whom St. John wrote, and on that very account he is commended by the Apoftle. Further, St. John's friend lived in a place, where the Apoftle had in Diotrephes a very ambitious and tyrannical adverfary : and that there were men of this defcription at Corinth, is evident from the two Epiftles to the Corinthians, though St. Paul has not mentioned their names. If the third Epiftle of St. John was really fent to. Corinth, the fecond Epiftle muft have been fent to fome p f 4 place 456 The two laft Epiftles of St. John. chap, xxxii. place in the neighbourhood of Corinth, or even to Corinth itfelf, fince the miffionaries did not intend to preach in the community, but to travel further '. Perhaps, the thought will fuggeft itfelf, that the bre-. thren who were gone forth to preach the Gofpel, and would accept of nothing from the Gentiles were St. Paul and his companions ; for they aded in this manner at Corinth. But this is not probable, beeaufe fo remarkable a brother as St Paul would have been mentioned in this Epiftle by name, if he had really been one of them. Befides, St. Paul did not accept of any prefent, even from the Chriftians at Corinth. Laftly, St. John promifes Caius at the clofe' of the Epiftle,, that he will fhortly come to vifit him. ft is true, that in the ecclefiaftical annals of the firft century no journey or voyage of St John to Corinth is now on record. But we muft not therefore conclude that he never was there : for we hardly know any thing of the travels of any other of the Apoftles than St. Paul, and confequently can draw no conclufion from the filence of their hiftory. We know that St. John lived during a confiderable time at Ephefus : and fince Corinth lay almoft oppofite to Ephefus, and St. John from his former occupation, before he became Apoftle, was accuftomed to the fea, it is not improbable that the journey, or voyage, which he propofed to make, was by fea from Ephefus to Corinth. ' ' 1 Ver. 6. «{ jca^w; otodkteij wj oirE^aj. sect, i. Of the Apocalypfe, 457. CHAP. XXXIII. OF THE APOCALYPSE. SECT. I. Previous apology for the author's uncertainty, in refpett to the Apocalypfe, I COME now to an important, but at the fame time the mofl difficult and the mofl doubtful book in- the whole New Teftament. The various queftions, which here prefent themfelves for examination, whether they relate to the ftyle of the Apocalypfe, or the year in which it was publifhed, or the qualifications, which every man muft neceffarily poffefs, who attempts to expound ft, depend entirely on the main quefiion, whether it is a genuine work of St John the Evangelift, or not. And pn the main quefiion I candidly confefs, that I have not been able to obtain that certainty, which I have ob tained in refped to other books of the New Teftament : confequently I fhall be frequently obliged to fpeak of the dependent queftions in a manner merely conditional and hypothetical. In the whole of this inquiry therefore J will accompany the reader as far as I think we can go with fafety: I will point out to him likewife all the profpeds which lie before him: but when we are arrived at the place, where the path divides, I fhall think proper to halt, and leave it to his own choice to take that road, which appears to him the belt. As it is not improbable, that this cautious method of proceeding will give offence to fome of my readers, I muft plead in my behalf the example of Luther, who thought and aded precifely in the fame manner. His, fentiments on this fubjed are delivered, not in an occa-* ffonal differtation op the Apocalypfe, but in the preface to 458 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii, to his German tranflation of it, a tranflation defigned not merely for the learned, but for the illiterate, and even for children. In the preface prefixed to that edi tion, which was printed in 1522, he expreffed himfelf in very ftrong terms m : ,but in that which he printed in 1534, he ufed milder and lefs decifive expreffions. Still however he declared, he was. not convinced that the Apocalypfe was canonical, and recommended the inter pretation of it to thofe, who were more enlightened than himfelf". If Luther then, the author of our reforma tion, m In this preface he fays : « In this book of the Revelation of St, John, I leave it to every man to judge for himfelf: I will bind no man to my fancy or opinion : I fay only what I feel. Not one thing only fails in this book, fo that I hold it neither for apoftolical, nor prophetical. Firft and chiefly, the Apoftles do not prophefy in vifions,, but in clear and plain words, as St. Peter, St. Paul, and Chrift in the Gofpel do : it is moreover the Apoftle's duty to fpeak of Chrift and his actions in a fimple way, not in figures and vifions. Alfo no prophet ofthe Old Teftament, much lefs ofthe New, has fo treated through out his whole book of nothing but vifions :. fp that I put it almoft in . the fame rank with the fourth book of Efdras, and cannot _atyv_JKay find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghoft. Befides, I think it too. much, that in his own book, more than in any other of the holy books, which are of much greater importance, he commands and threatens, that, if any man fhall take away from the words of this book, God fhall take away his part out of the book of life ; and more over declares, that he who keepeth the words of this book, fhall be bleffed, though np one is able to underftand what they are, much lefs to keep them : alfo there are much nobler books, the words of which we have to keep. In former times likewife many of the fathers re, jetted this book, though St. Jerom talks in high words, and fays it is above all praife, and that there is much myftery therein. Laftly, let every one think of it what his own fpirit fuggefts. My fpirit can make nothing out of this book ; and I have reafon enough not to efteem it highly, fince Chrift is not taught in it, which an Apoftle is above all things bound to do, as he fays, Ads i. ye fhall be my wit neffes. Therefore I abide by the books which t;each Chrift clearly and purely.' a In the preface to the edition printed in 1534, he divides prophe-: cies into three claffes, the third of which contains vifions, without explanations of them, and of thefe he fays-': *As long-as a prophecy remains unexplained and has no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden filenfprophecy, and is deftitute of the advantages, which it ought to afford to Chriftians. This has hitherto happened,. to the Apocalypfe : for though .many haye ma4e the attempt, no one to the prefer^ 9FCT. r. Of the Apocalypfe. 455 tion, thought and aded in this manner, and the divines of the two laft centuries ftill continued, without incur ring the charge ofherefy, to print Luther's preface to the Apocalypfe, in the editions ofthe German Bible of which they had the fuperintendence, furely no one of the prefent age ought to cenfure a writer for the avowal of fimilar doubts. Should it be objeded, that what was excufable in' Luther would be inexcufable in a modern divine, fince more light has been thrown on the fubjed than there had been in the fixteenth century, I would afk in what this light confifts. If it confifts in newly difcovered teftimonies of the ancients, they are rather unfavourable to the caufe : for the canon of the Syrian church, which was not known in Europe, when Luther wrote, decides againfi it. On the other hand, if this light confifts in a more clear and determinate ex planation of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypfe, which later commentators have been able to make out by the aid of hiftory, I would venture to appeal to a fynod of the lateft and mofl zealous interpreters of it, fuch as Vitringa, Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from all fufpicion, and I have not the leaft doubt that at every interpretation, which T pronounced unfatisfadory, I fhould have at leaft three voices out of the five in my favour, At all events they would never be unanimous againft me, in the places where I declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is fuppofed to have been thrown on the fubjed fince the time of Luther. I admit that Luther ufes too harfh expreffions, where he fpeaks of the Epiftle of St. James, though in a preface prefent day has brought any thing certain out of it, but feveral have made incoherent fluff but of their own brain. On account of thefe uncertain interpretations, and hidden fenfes, we have hitherto left it to itfelf, efpecially fince fome of the ancient fathers believed that it was not wrtiten by the Apoftle, -as is related in Lib. III. Hift. Ecclef. In this uncertainty -we for our part ftill let it remain : but do not prevent others from taking it to fa the wcrk of St. John the Apoftle, if they c hoof e. And beeaufe 1 fhould be glad to fee a certain interpretation of it, I will afford to other and higher fpirit/ occafion to reflecl. 460 Of the Apocalypfe. chapl xxxiii. preface "not defigned for Chriftians of every denomina tion : but his opinion of the Apocalypfe is delivered in terms of the utmoft diffidence, which are well worthy of imitation. And this is fo much the more laudable as the Apocalypfe is a book, which Luther's oppofition to the church of Rome muft have rendered highly acceptable to him, unlefs he had thought impartially and had refufed to facrifice his own doubts to polemical confiderations. Before I proceed in this inquiry, I think proper to acknowledge, that in the following introdudion to the Apocalypfe P have derived feveral important remarks from a treatife, which was communicated to me in manufcript, bearing the following title, Difeours hiftorique et criti que fur T Apocalypfe par Mr. d' A- — t °. The author of this treatife is indeed fometimes too fevere in his cenfure of the fathers, and conduds the controverfy in a tone, which is too fatirical : yet it cannot be denied that the objedions, which he has made to the Apoca lypfe, are of great importance. I have likewife made ufe of a compofition delivered to me by one of my former pupils, when he quitted the univerfity, whofe name however I have not the liberty to mention, con taining various cjoubts refpeding the Apocalypfe, with a requeft that, if poffible, I would remove them. In the removal of fome them I have been fuccefsful, though not in the removal of them all : but, as notice will be taken of them in the following fedions, perhaps other critics will be able to anfwer what lies not within my power. * Mr; D'Abaugit, Public Librarian at Geneva, sect. ii. Of the Apocalypfe. 461, SECT. II. 'Teftimonies of the earlieft ecclefiaftical writers, both for and againfi the Apocalypfe. EUSEBIUS, whom I mention firft, beeaufe he is the principal ancient writer, who has colleded ac counts of the Canon, expreffes himfelf, after having mentioned the unqueflionable books of the New Tefta ment, namely, the four Gofpels, the Ads ofthe Apoftles, the Epiftles of St Paul, the firft Epiftle of St. Peter, and the firft Epiftle of St. John, in the following man ner with refped to the Apocalypfe. ' To thefe may be added, if one choofes, the Revelation of St. John, on which I fhall mention the opinions of the ancients in their proper places. And thefe are the Homologou- menaV He afterwards adds a lift of the fpurious books (voQx) of the New Teftament, as the Hiftory of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, &c. which he diftinguifhes from an intermediate clafs containing books of only doubtful authority: and this clafs of fpurious books he clofes with the following words. ' Further, if one choofes, the Revelation of St. John, which, as I have faid, fome rejed, others reckon among the Homolo- goumena V It appears then, that Eufebius, after all his inquiries into the Canon, had not been able to difcover any thing decifive in refped to the Apocalypfe, and confequently remained in doubt. But there is another paffage in his Ecclefiaftical hiftoryr, where he feems to deliver his own opinion, and in which he comes more to the point. In this paffage, after having fliewn from the writings r Hift. Eccles. Lib. III. cap. 25. 1 The whole paffage, which is fomewhat obfcure, I have already quoted at length in Vol. 111. ch. iv. feet. 9. of this Introduction. * Lib. III. cap. 39. Mfiz Ofthe Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. writings of Papias, that befide St. John the Apoftle, there lived at Ephefus a Prefbyter of the fame name, he adds : ' This latter John was probably the perfon who faw the Revelation, unlefs it, be infilled on, that it was the former.' Upon the whole therefore Eufebius, who had not been able to obtain any hiftorical certainty on this fubjed, took a middle road, and neither pronounced it a forgery, nor afcribed it to St. John the Apoftle. It is not to be expeded, that we in the prefent age fhould be able to obtain the teftimony of a greater number of ancient witneffes in refped to the Apocalypfe than this firft and great colledor of materials for eccle fiaftical hiftory : and in general we muft reft fatisfied with the minutes, which he has taken. But as various circumfiances may appear to us to be more decifive, than they did to Eufebius, and it is better, wherever we can, to examine for ourfelves, than to truft to the re port of others, we will inquire into the evidence of ecclefiaftical writers prior to the time of Eufebius, who have either received the Apocalypfe, or have openly rejeded it, or have paffed it over in fuch filence, that their filence amounts to a rejedion of it The molt ancient evidence, and who belongs perhaps to the laft mentioned clafs of writers, is Ignatius. For he wrote Epiftles to the Chriftian communities at Ephefus, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, which are three of the feven churches, to which the feven Epiftles in the book of Revelation are addreffed in the name of Chrift. "Yet Ignatius, though he particularly reminds the Ephe fians of the praifes bellowed on them by St. Paul, is totally fifent both in his Epiftle to the church of Ephefus, and his Epiftles to the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia, of the praifes, which according to Rev. ii. i — 7, 8 — 11, iii. 7 — 12. their bifhops had re ceived from Chrift himfelf Under thefe circumfiances may we not conclude, either that the Apocalypfe was unknown to Ignatius, or that, if it was known to him, he did not believe it to be genuine ? And may we not likewife SECT. ii. Ofthe Apocalypfe. 463 likewife infer, that if it was a genuine work of St John the Apoftle, it could not have remained unknown to Ignatius' ? The old Syriac tranflator, whom I mention imme diately after Ignatius, beeaufe in my opinion he lived in the firft century, did not tranflate the Apocalypfe : con fequently, he either knew nothing of it, or did not believe it to be genuine. It is true, that the Apocalypfe was afterwards tranflated into. Syriac1: but it never was ad mitted into the Pefhito, or Syriac Vulgate, which forms the Canon of tbe Syrian church. Papias, who is reprefented by Eufebius as a man of great credulity, would be an evidence of the utmoft importance againft- fhe Apocalypfe, if it could be clearly and indifputably proved, that he had never quoted it For his very credulity, how great foever it might have been, would, in cafe he rejeded the Apocalypfe, in- creafe the weight of his teftimony. Papias, who lived in the beginning of the fecond century, was, as is well known, the founder of the Millennarian fyftem among the orthodox ". His opinion was, that after the general refurredion, Chrift would reign upon earth a thoufand years with the faithful : and it was this opinion, which induced Eufebius to afcribe to him the charader of credulity". Now it is certain, that in not any one book of the whole Bible the dodrine of the Millennium is taught in exprefs terms, though many Millennarians have pretended, that feveral of the ancient prophets have fpoken of it. But in the Apocalypfe, and the Apo calypfe alone, this dodrine is difcoverable, if we take all the expreffions ufed in the twentieth chapter in a ftridly s Knittel has endeavoured to obviate the force of this objection, in his Criticifms on the Revelation of St. John, p. 15. to which place I refer the reader. « See Vol. II. ch. vii. fecty 10. of this Introduction. u A very full account of Papias is given by Eufebius, Hift. Eccles. Lib. iii. cap. 39. '« See what I have faid on this fubject, Vol. III. ch. iv. feet. 4. 464 Of the Apocalypfe. chap. xxXim ftridly literal fenfe : and this is the chapter on which all the Millennarians of modern ages have principally grounded their opinions. If then Papias, the father of the Millen narians, who made it likewife his particular bufinefs, to inquire into what had been faid and done by the Apof-1 ties, has never quoted the Apocalypfe, this filence muft imply, that at the beginning of the fecond century the Apocalypfe was unknown in Afia Minor, which is equi valent to its not then exifting. For Papias was bifhop of Hierapolis, a town not far from Laodicea, to the angel of which church one of the feven apocalyptical Epiftles was addreffed. Could then this prophetical book have remained unknown to him, if it had then exifted ? And if he had known it, would he have re* jeded a work, which would have been the beft fupport of his favourite dodrine? And would not his very cre dulity have contributed to his acceptance of it, without fufficient examination of it, even though it had not been genuine. If Papias then never quoted the Apocalypfe, I do not fee in what manner its authenticity can be defended, However, that he never did quote it is not quite focer*- tain, as fome critics have fuppofed, though every one, who reads the account given by Eufebius, will naturally" draw this conclufion, and for the two following reafons. 1. After Eufebius has fhewn from the writings of Papias, that befide St. John the Apoftle there lived at Ephefus a Prefbyter of the fame name, he hazards a conjecture of his own, that this John the Prefbyter was the perfon who faw the Revelation. Confequently Eufebius found in the writings of Papias this opinion neither aflerted nor contradided. But it is very extra ordinary, that Papias, who made it his particular bufi- - nefs to inquire of the elder Chriftians into every thing, which had been faid and done by the Apoftles, and who efpecially noted the difference between John the Apoftle, and John the Prefbyter, (hould have left wholly unno ticed, which of thefe two perfons faw the Revelation, if the book itfelf had been known to him. 2. Eufebius sect. Ii. Of the Apocalypfe. 465' a. Eufebius reprefents Papias as grounding his doc trine of the Millennium, not on the Bible, but on certain expreffions of Chrift and his Apoftles, handed down by oral tradition, which Papias underftood in a too literal fenfe. But if Papias had been acquainted with the Apocalypfe, he could have been under no ne ceffity of having recourfe to' oral tradition, fince the , twentieth chapter of this book, when literally interpreted, would have much better fuited his purpofe. The words which Eufebius has ufed on this occafion are as follow. * This writer (Papias) has mentioned feveral things, which he fays, he learnt by oral tradition, fuch as para bles and dodrines of our Saviour not contained in the Gofpels, and alfo fome things, which are fabulous. Among thefe may be reckoned the affertion, that, after the refurredion of the dead, Chrift will reign in perfon a thoufand years on earth. I fuppofe, that he acquired this notion from his inquiring into the fayings of the Apoftles, and his not underftanding what they had de livered figuratively.' On the other hand, if we may credit the account given by Andrew, bifhop of Casfarea in Cappadocia, in the fifth century, Papias gave even teftimony in favour of the Apocalypfe. For Andrew fays exprefsly in the preface to his commentary on the Apocalypfe : ' Of the divine infpiration of this book I need not treat at large, fince fo many holy men, Gregory the divine, Cyril, and be fore them, Papias, Irenasus, and Hippolitus have given their teftimony to it.' To reconcile thefe two contradidory accounts, we muft affume, either, that Andrew confidered Papias's defence of the Millennium as a virtual fupport of the Apocalypfe, and that he therefore haftily afferted that Papias had borne teftimony to this book, or that Eufebius had not read with fufficient attention the writings of Papias, for whom he had no great refped, and that he" Overlooked thofe paffages, in which Papias perhaps quoted the Apocalypfe in fupport of his millennarian principles. Either of thefe cafes is poffible : but which is the true one, it is impof- Vol. IV. G g fible. 466 Ofthe Apocalypfe. chap, xxxin. fible to determine with' abfolute certainty, as the writings of Papias are no longer extant. It will appear however from what will be faid in the fourth fedion of this chap ter relative to Gregory of Nazianzurif, that the error is probably on the fide of Andrew. If Papias really knew;. and received the Apocalypfe, he is by no. means an im portant witnefs in its favour, beeaufe it is a book, to which his' millennarian principles muft have made him. partial : if he knew it not, or if he had received it not, he is a decifive evidence againfi it. If he knew it not, it could not have been written even by John the Prefbyter: but on the other, hand, this will afford no argument in favour of the opinion, which fome have maintained, that the Apocalypfe was a forgery of Cerinthus : for if Cerinthus had. been the author of it, Papias would undoubtedly have heard of it. The only jnference to be deduced from Papias's total want of knowledge of it, would be, that it was forged by fome unknown perfon about the, year 120, between the time when Papias wrote, and the time when Juftin Martyr wrote, for the latter was well acquainted with it, and received it alfo. as a facred work. The words, in which Juftin Martyr fpeaks of the Apocalypfe, are the following r. ' A man among, us, tohofe, name, was John, one" of the Apoftles of Chrift,, has in a Revelation, which was made to him, prophefied that the faithful in Chrift fhall live a thoufand years, in Jerufalem, and that afterwards, the general and eternal refurredion and judgment of all men fhall follow.' Melifb," who lived about the year 170, wrote a trea tife entitled, '.On, the devil, and the Revelation of St. John2.' Eufebi.us indeed does not declare whether Melito wrote for or againft the Apocalypfe, and it is not impoffible, ' that Melito, as fome other ancient writers have done, wrote in order to confute it. But. as I think itnot improbable, that this laft work was an. explanation of the vifions in the Apocalypfe, I reckon Melito-among tfie witneffes in its favour. Irenseus * Page 308, of the Cologne edition.. -*.Euieb. Hilt Eccles. Lib. iy. cap. 26. SECT. ii. * Of the Apocalypfe.' 46* Irensus undoubtedly received the Apocalypfe as a genuine work of St.Jdlin the Apoftle; and likewife. afferted, at leaft according to the common interpretation of his- words, that the vifions were feen by St. John, in the reign of Domitian*. This laft affertion would,, in my opinion, extremely weaken the teftimony of Irenajus, beeaufe for reafons, which will be delivered hereafter, the Apocalypfe can hardly be a canonical work, if it was written fo late as the time of Domitian. But according to the very probable explanation, which Knittel, in his Criticifms on the Revelation of St. John, has given of this paffage of Irenasus, the objedion falls to the ground. Indeed the whole teftimony of Irenasus in favour of the Apocalypfe has been placed by Knittel in fo very advan tageous a light, that I muft recommend to my readers, to confult what he has faid on this fubjed, though he has advanced feveral opinions, which are direded againft -thofe, which I myfelf have fupported. From the writings of Athenagoras b, the Teftament of the twelve Patriarchs ', as it is calledj and the Clemen tine Recognitions'1, Lardner has produced fingle allufions to the Apocalypfe, which prove that the authors of thofe, books were acquainted with it, but do not warrant the conclufion that they confidered it, as a genuine work of St. John the Apoftle. On the other hand, it was un doubtedly received as fuch by Theophilus of Antioch^, Clement of Alexandria f, and Tertullian6: and with their evidence ends the fecond century. But in the fame century there exifted a fed, called the Alogi, who were acquainted with the Apocalypfe, yet denied that it was genuine h. It is true, that a con* tradidion » Lardner, Vol. II. B. I. p., 277, 278. 304. » lb. p. 338. - ' lb. p. 653, 654. - lb. p. 677. e lb. p. 366. 1 lb. p. 423. * lb. p. 523. , , k On this fubject the reader will find much valuable information in Korner's differtation entitled, De Auftpritate canonica Apocalypfeos ab Alogis impugnata et ab Epiphanio defenfa, publifhed at Leipzig 10 G G 2 46S Of the Apocalypfe. ~ xiXiovtettnxs, tv yxuu ioptvis, StXuv tsXx- vxv, Xtyu yivio~6xt. Here Caius condemns in very warm terms an Apocalypfe, which he defcribes as a forgery of Cerinthus. But the quefiion is ; does the fhort deferh> tion, which Caius gives of this work, warrant the conclufion, that he meant the Apocalypfe, whfeh we afcribe to St. John, and confequently that he attributed our canonical Apocalypfe to Cerinthus : or muft we con clude, that he fpake of fome other work, bearing the fame title, which he reprefented as a work forged by Cerinthus in the name of St. John ? In the Apocalypfe, of which Caius fpeaks, was taught th? dodrine that Chrift would reign' a thoufand years on, SECT. II. Of the Apocalypfe. 473 on earth, and that Jerufalem would be the chief feat of his kingdom. Now that Chrift will reign, a thoufand years with the faithful, is faid in our Apocalypfe, ch. xx. 4. : and, though no mention is made of Jerufalem by name in this chapter, yet ' the beloved city' ver. 9. which Gog and Magog fhould encompafs, might from a comparifoii of Ezek. xxxviii, xxxix, where Gog is re- prefented as encompaffing the land of Ifrael, be eafily explained of Jerufalem. Juftin Martyr really underftood it in this fenfe : and in ch. xxi. a city called exprefsly Jerufalem, is defcribed as the feat of God and of the Lamb after the fecond refurredion. Of feftivities and the indulgence of carnal appetites, which, according to the Apocalypfe, of which Caius fpeaks, were to take place in this kingdom of a thoufand years, no exprefs mention is made in our Apocalypfe : but interpreters in their explanation of a book frequently "difcover what is not literally contained in it. Befides, there is no necef fity for taking the expreflion ' indulgence of carnal appetites' in its very worft fenfe, for it denotes, not folely the unlawful gratifications of promifcuous concu-- binage, but likewife the legitimate pleafures of the mar riage flate : and commentators do not ufually reprefent the kingdom of a thoufand years, which is to take place after the firft refurredion; as a kingdom, in which the marriage flate will be forbidden. Further, the expreflion yxpos tx xpvix, ch. xix. 7. 9. though we confider it, as denoting the marriage of the lamb with the church, might fuggeft to a reader of the Apocalypfe, the notion of feftivities and enjoyments, which were to attend the celebration ofthe marriage. It appears then, that Caius in the paffage, of which he fpeaks of an Apocalypfe, has fome things, which are not literally contained in our canonical Apocalypfe : and we ' muft therefore conclude, either that he fubfti- futed interpretation for text, or that he fjnke of a different Apocalypfe from that, which is contained in our canon. Mr. Hartwig, in his excellent * Apology for 47 4 Of the Apocalypfe: . chap, xxxm, for the Apocalypfe Y fupports the latter part of the alternative, and with great perfpicuity of reafoning en deavours to fhew, that Caius could not have fpoken of our Apocalypfe in the manner in which he has done. I confefs however, that I am ftill in doubt. For, in the firft place, it is evident, that whatever was the Apocalypfe of which Caius fpake, he was ftrongly pre judiced againft it, and afcribed it to Cerinthus. Con fequently, it is not at all extraordinary, that' he fhould be unjuft in the explanation of ;it, and afcribe to it dodrines, which it did not literally contain. And it will prefently appear,- that fome others of the ancients, of whom no doubt can be made, that they meant our Apocalypfe, were as unjuft in their explanations of it, as Caius can be fuppofed. to have been, and reprefented dodrines as really contained in it, which were in fad the invention of the Millennarians. Secondly, if Caius really meant an Apocalypfe different frorti that, which is contained in our canon, it inuft afford juft matter of furprife, that he fhould be the only writer of all an tiquity, to whom this other Apocalypfe appears to have been known ; for not only no fragments of another Apocalypfe are now extant, but no other writer has made the leaft mention of it. I . own then, that I am difpdfed to accede to the opinion of thofe, Who main tain, that the Apocalypfe, which Caius attributed to Cerinthus^ was no other than.fhat, which we afcribe to St. John: and this opinion is ftrongly corroborated by the circumftance, that other perfons, who were con temporaries of Caius, afcribed to Cerinthus that very Apocalypfe, which is contained in our canon. An ab* folute decifion is not to be obtained, fince the writings of Caius are no longer extant, and other ancient au thors, who had accefs to his writings, are not fuffici ently explicit on this fubjed. Mr. Hartiwig has indeed endeavbured * Vol. T. p. 33-— Z2S. In my review of this work in the Orient, Biblioth. Vol. XXI. N°3i2, I have delivered my fentiments at targe, efpecially on what the author fays relative to Caius. sect. iii. Of the Apocalypfe. 4^ endeavoured to fhew, that the ancients did not under ftand Caius, as if he meant our canonical Apocalypfe: but, though I grant, that Mr. Hartwig's Apology is in general a very admirable work, his arguments on this point have left me without conviction '. Having examined the. fentiments of Caius, I have in the next place to confider the opinion of the ' certain perfons in Egypt,' who undoubtedly afcribed our Apo calypfe to Cerinthus. The account of them is con tained in the Ecclefiaftical Hiftory of Eufebius, B, vii. ch. 25. where he has given a. very important extrad, from tbe ' books on the promifes,' written by Dionyfius, bifhop of Alexandria. At Arfinoe in Egypt the dodrine of the Millennium had. gained fuch ground among the Chriftians, that it banifhed from their thoughts the mofl important pre cepts of their religion. The principal work, which had been written in that country in defence of the Millen nium, was entitled EXty%os xXXyyopiruv (Confutation of the Allegorifts), and had Nepos, an Egyptian bifhop, for its author, who endeavoured to prove this dodrine from the Revelation of St. John. Nepos was already deceafed, when Dionyfius, in the year 247, was appointed bifhop of Alexandria: he lived therefore about the beginning of the century, and confequently at this period the Revelation of St. John was already received in Egypt. Dionyfius openly oppofed the dodrine of the Millennium, not indeed with that vehemence, which we have fometimes occafion to cenfure in the ancient fathers, but with a moderation and gentlenefs, which would do honour to the prefent age. In a dialogue, written in a very friendly tone m, he confuted the above mentioned work of Nepos in fo fuccefsful a manner, 1 See what I have faid in the review mentioned in the preceding note. m An account of this dialogue is given by Eufebius at the end of the 24th chapter ofthe feventh book of his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. 476 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxii r; a manner, that he convinced every one, who had adopted the principles of Nepos, that they were erro neous. He then wrote his two ' books on the promifes,' from which I will quote the following paffage,. preferved in the above-mentioned chapter of Eufebius, beeaufe it affords a proof of the mild charadef of Dionyfius. ' Since they appeal to a work of Nepos, and ground their opinions upon it, as if it indifputably proved a future kingdom of Chrift on earth, I will grant indeed, that in many refpeds I follow Nepos, and that I efteem him on account of his faith, his labours, his diligence in expounding the Bible, and alfo on account of his Iiymns, which many of our brethren ftill ufe to their edification ; and I have fo much the more refped for iiim, as he is gone to his reft before us; but the truth is dearer and more valuable to me than every thing elfe.* He then proceeds to mention the great repute, in which this work of Nepos then flood, and after having obferved, what injury millennarian principles had done, he: concludes with the following words, * I felt myfelf therefore under the neceffity of difputing with my brother Nepos in the fame manner, as if he were ftill alive.' The opinion, which Dionyfius him felf entertained of the Apocalypfe, will be delivered in its proper place, when the order of time brings us to him. At prefent I fhall add only the paffage preferved by Eufebius ", in which Dionyfius relates how fome perfons, who lived before his time, and therefore pro bably about the beginning of the third century, con* demned the Apocalypfe. * Some, who lived before our time", have totally rejeded this book. They find fomething ¦ B. vii. Ch. 25. 0 Tin? tut mpo ifiut. The obvious interpretation of thefe words is,' fome teachers of Chriftianity in Egypt, who lived at the be ginning of the third, or at the end of the fecond century.' Whether, Dionyfius had the Roman prefbyter Caius likewife in view, is a ijueftion not eafily to be determined. As to the word ti»es, Mr, Hartwig confiders it, as denoting perfons very inconfiderable both in number sect. ii. Of the Apocalypfe. 477 fomething to cenfure in every chapter : they endeavour to fhew, that the whole is obfcure and unconneded i and they accufe even the title of it of containing falfe- hoods, fince it is neither a work of St. John, nor can be called a Revelation, beeaufe every thing in it is concealed under a thick covering of darknefs. They confider, not only no Apoftle, but no pious member of the church whatfoever, as the author of this book ; but afcribe it to Cerinthus, who falfely prefixed a refpedable name to a work, which he himfelf had forged. What this man, fenfual and drunken in carnal indulgencies, himfelf defired, this (they fay) he pro- phefied, namely the fatiating of the belly, and the gratification of flefhly lulls, by eating, drinking, mar rying, «and, in order to render the matter lefs offenfive, by feafts and feaft-offerings.' From the preceding de fcription it appears, that fome of the reafons afligned by thefe perfons for rejeding the book of Revelation were weak ; for inflance, the argument, that it cannot be called a Revelation, beeaufe it is obfcure, which is a mere difpute about words: and moreover, that they found in it what it does not literally contain. But the fad itfelf," namely, that certain adverfaries of the Mil lennium, at the end of the fecond and the beginning. of the third century, denied, that St; John was the author of the Apocalypfe, is a matter not to be difputed. They pufhed however their objedion beyond the bounds of probability in afcribing it to Cerinthus. Before I conclude this paragraph, I muft recommend to the reader to confult what Lardner p has faid on this paffage of Dionyfius, as he has made fome very excel lent remarks. I now number and in confequence. But for my own part, I fee nothing contemptible in this expreflion: at leaft I myfelf have frequently ufed the term « fome fay,' when the perfons, whom I had in view, were men of great reputation, or not inconfiderable as to their number. » Credibility, P. II. Vol. ii. p. 620—684. 47$- Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiit. I now come to an advocate for the Apocalypfe, whofe authority contributed perhaps more, than is commonly fuppofed, to its reception in the church,'- namely the bifhop and martyr Hippolytus, who lived, as is generally believed, in the beginning of the third century, and is fuppofed, though this is not' quite cer tain, to have been bifhop of Aden' in Arabia Felix. The whole tendency of his writings appears to have been apocalyptical : at leaft the title of the books, ' on the Song of Solomon, on Zacharias, on Daniel, on fome paffages in Ezekiel, on Antichrifl,' difcover contents, which are clofely allied to trie Apocalypfe. In his book on Antichrifl he fays exprefsly, ' St John. faw in the ifland of Patmos dreadful myfteries, which he taught to others without envy:' and immediately after he addreffes St. ' John in the following words, * Tell me, holy John, thou Apoftle and Difciple of Chrift, what thou haft feen of Babylon.' Among the writings of Hippolytus, Jerom mentions one, which was entitled, ' on the Apocalypfe :' and on the flatue of Hippolytus, difcovered at Romein 15-51, on which are engraved the titles of his writings, one of them is, * on St. John's Gofpel and the ApocalypfeV Lardner fuppofes, that it was a defence of thefe two books, beeaufe Ebedjefu exprefsly' mentions, that Efippolytus wrote fuch a work. Lardner however at the fame time obferves, that Andrew of Casfarea has feveral times' quoted a commentary on the Apocalypfe, afcribed to Hippolytus*. This Ebedjefu, in the feventh chapter of his metrical catalogue of ecclefiaftical writings, men tions among other works of Hippolytus, Chapters againft Caius : And a defence of the Apocalypfe, And the Gofpel of St. John. The Apoftle and Evangelift. 1 ntpi ra xara luattvis tvayyt\m xat aproxaXv-^stif.. ' Lardner's Credibility, P. II. Vol. ii. ch. 3 -. This sect. n. Of the Apocalypfe. 479 This defence muft have been -oppofed to the Alogr, beeaufe it relates to the Gofpel as well as to the Apo calypfe, and the Alogi were the only perfons, who, rejeded both. The Caius, againft whom he wrote cer tain chapters, is commonly fuppofed to be the heretic Caius, mentioned by Irenajus. But as the Apocalypfe was the favourite fubjed of Hippolytus, it is not im probable, that thefe chapters were written againft the Roo-an prefbyter Caius, and contained likewife a defence of the Apocalypfe, perhaps alfo of the Millennium, and of the dodrine concerning Antichrifl. If this re- prefentation bejuft^ Hippolytus wrote two defences of the Apocalypfe, me one againft Caius, the other againft. the Alogi, who rejected, befide the Apocalypfe, the Gofpel of St. John. Further, Jacob, the Syrian, who was bifhop of EdefTa from the year 65 1 to the year 710, has quoted in terms of the higheft commendation, a commentary on the Apocalypfe by Hippolytus. This quotation is in the Syriac works of Ephrem, Vol. I. p. 192, of the edition printed at Rome, where there is a commentary on Genefis, formed partly from the writings of Ephrem, and partly from thofe of Jacob. In the place in quef*. tion Jacob explains Gen. xlix. 17. of Antichrifl, and fays ; ' The Spirit, which is in the faints, interprets this power as denoting the Roman empire. This was made known by the Spirit, who fpake by the mouth of the holy bifhop and martyr Hippolytus, when he explained the Revelation of St. John the Divine'.' Whether this expofition or commentary on the Apo-? calypfe was a leparate work, or only interwoven with his defence of the Apocalypfe, or his book on Anti chrifl, it is difficult at prefent to determine : but this evidently appears, that Hippolytus was highly efteemed by fome of the Syrian writers. _ His works, of which fome perhaps were written in Syriac, and tranflated into Greek, 480 Of the Apocalypfe. chap. xxxitU' Greek, muft have remained many ages' in the Eaft, before they were loft: for they were ftill quoted, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries by Barfalibfcus and Barhebrasus '. The next writer after Hippolytus is Origen, who, notwithftanding his warm oppofition to the dodrine of the Millennium, received likewife the Apocalypfe as a work of St. John the Apoftle. The words of Origen, as quoted by Eufebius", are as follow. ' What (hall we fay of John, who leaned on the breaft of Jefus? -He has left us a Gofpel, and has affured us, that he could write more, than the whole world could contain. He wrote likewife a Revelation, in which he was or dered to feal up thofe things, which the feven thunders uttered : alfo an Epiftle, of a moderate length, and per haps a fecond and a third.' Here every one muft be defirous to know what reafons induced Origen, who took fo decided a part againft the dodrine of the Mil lennium, to receive the Apocalypfe, without exprefling any doubt of its authenticity : but thefe reafons he has no where affigned. Did the example and authority of Hippolytus, who ferved in fome refpeds as a pattern to Origen, influence his opinion ? or was he actuated by other, motives ? or did he condud himfelf in the fame manner, as we have reafon to believe his difciplc Dionyfius did, whofe opinion will be examined in the following paragraph ? Dionyfius, the modeft adverfary of the Millennarians* was a difciple of Origen, and furvived his matter only ' eleven or twelve years1. I have already related what Dionyfius has laid concerning the opinion of certain adverfaries of the Apocalypfe: at prefent we have to examine, what his own opinion was. . This was a medium between the opinion of thofe, who afcribe the Apoca- * Affemani Bibl. Orient. Tom. II. p. 158, 283—314. » Hift.- Ecclef Lib. VI. cap. 25. More paffages to this purpofe are collected by Lardner, P. II. Vol. ii. * Origen died in 253, Dionyfius in 264 or 265. - SECT. it. Of the Apocalypfe. 481 Apocalypfe to St. John the Apoftle, and the opinion of thofe, who confider it as a forgery of Cerinthus. He affigns very important reafons, which difcover a found critical judgment, for not believing that St. John the Apoftle was the author of it : but he does not rejed it as a forgery, for he adds, that it was written perhaps by fome other John, who was likewife an holy infpired man.* Now this decifive mode of expreffing himfelf on the one fide, and his dubious mode of expreffing him felf on the other, renders' it a matter of doubt, whether Dionyfius believed in his heart, that the Apocalypfe was really a divine work. In his ' two books on the promifes,* his great objed was to confute the dodrine of the Mil lennium : if then the Apocalypfe was at that time received in Egypt as a divine work, he would have defeated his -own purpofe if he had openly rejected it. The only plan, which he could adopt with fafety, was to argue from premifes admitted by bis adverfaries, and granting the authority of the Apocalypfe, to fhew, that not even this book, when properly explained, contained a proof of their dodrine, fince the paffages to which they appealed, were capable of a different interpretation from that of a thoufand years kingdom of Chrift on earth, all which, according to Eufebius, he did very fully and completely.' This plan was perfedly confiftent with the gentle charader of Dionyfius, and deferves not fo much the name of a pious fraud, as that of an hypothetical confutation. At leaft I' am certain, that if in a controverfy between a catholic and a proteftant, relative to a point of dodrine, the catholic appealed to a book of the Apocrypha, which the church of Rome re ceives as canonical, but the reformed church does not, and the proteftant, inftead of refufing to admit the appeal, fhould concede it to his adverfary, without entering into its merits, but fhew at the fame time, that not even the paffages appealed to contained a proof of the dodrine in quefiion, no one would accufe the pro teftant of diffimulation or difhonefty. In fad, Dionyfius takes great pains to prove that the Apocalypfe was not Voi. IV. H h written 4S2, Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxttte written by St John the Apoftle, and his arguments are of great weight : but this point being once proved, the canonical authority of the Apocalypfe muft totter of itfelf. For though it fhould be granted, that the author of it was not an impoftor; but that he was a refpectabie man, and had no intention to deceive, yet what fecurity can we have that he was not deceived himfelf;- and that he was not hurried away by the force' of his* own imagination. I accede therefore, to' the opinion of Lardner, who fays, that Dionyfius undoubtedly knew what he was -doing, and that it was not without reafon, that he took fo much pains to fhew, that the Apoca lypfe was not written by an Apoftle. On the other hand, the reafons, which Dionyfius affigns for his not venturing to rejed the Apocalypfe, are wholly devoid of importance. One of them is, c beeaufe many of his, brethren highly efteemed it :' but this is a motive. of mere delicacy, and may be a reafon why an author fhould not openly rejed a book, left his brethren fhould be offended, but it affords no ground of private convidion. His other reafon is ftill more extraordinary,' namely, that he was unable to explain the Apocalypfe, ' and therefore could not rejed it, but muft admire it the more, the lefs he. underftood it. Now I grant, that a book containing prophecies is not immediately to be rejected, . merely beeaufe we do not underftand it : for the fault may lie with us, and a prophecymay be unintelligible till it is fulfilled. But when the quefiion is in agitation, whether a book, which lays claim to prophecy, ought to be received or not, the circumftance that we do not underftand it cannot poffibly afford a pofitive argument for its reception. For at that rate every obfcure fanatical composition of the prefent age, fuch as Oettinger's terreftrial and celeftial philofophy, would be entitled to the appellatiorivof a divine work, Dionyfius's own words, in which he affigns the two preceding reafons, are as follow. ' I will not however venture to rejed the Apocalypfe, beeaufe many of the brethren highly e'fteem it. On the contrary, I appre- .. . . * K hend, sect. ii. Of the Apocalypfe. 482 hend, that this book furpaffes my comprehenfion, and that it is full of myfterious things. And as I do not underftand it, I fuppofe, that the words have a certain hidden meaning, which I do not pretend to meafure, or to judge according to my capacity; but I behold them in faith as things above my comprehenfion. 1 do, not rejed what I do not comprehend, but admire it the more the lefs I underftand it.' Now I have not the leaft doubt, that, if any modern writer fhould affign thefe reafons, and thefe reafons only, for not re- jeding the Apoealypfe, every man would immediately conclude that in reality he did not believe it. Much more then are we warranted to draw this inference of one of the ancient fathers, who were accuftomed to ar gue, as it is called, fecundum ceconomiam : and d'A— t obferves, in his above-mentioned Difcours fur TApo- calypfe, that even Athanafius has taken notice of this ceconomical mode of apgumentation in Dionyfius. All that we can fay then of the fentiments of Dionyfius, is, that they were a medium between the opinion of thofe, who afcribed the Apocalypfe to St. John the Apoftle, and the opinion of thofe, who declared it to be a forgery of Cerinthus. That it was not written by St, John he pofitively afferts; and that he did not in his heart believe it to be a divine work, is at leaft highly pro bable, though I grant that in one inflance, namely, in an Epiftle to Hermammon, he quotes a paffage of it as fulfilled in the reign of Valerian1. But whatever was the opinion of Dionyfius in refped to the Apocalypfe, we muft recoiled that his reafons for not aforibing it to St. John are not hiftorical, but cri tical a ; confequently their importance depends, not on the antiquity ofthe writer who affigned them, but merely on their own internal ftrength. Further, fince Dio nyfius * Eufeb. Hifh Ecclef.. Lib. VII. c. 10. - On this account I referve them for the fection in which I fhall examine the language of the Apocalypfe. H H 2 484 Of the Apocalypfe. CHAP, xxxlif. nyfius has quoted no hiftorical evidence, or teftimony ofany more ancient writer againft the Apocalypfe^ this circumftance is in fome meafure in' its favour. For* if it were not written by St. John, we have reafon to1 wonder that neither Dionyfius, nor his predeeeffors, neither the Alogi, nor Caius fhould have alleged againft a work, fuppofed to have been firft ufhered into, the world about the year 120, any arguments" like the fol lowing : it is not preferved in the archives of the feven Afiatic churches : the oldeft perfons in thofe cities have no knowledge of its having been fent thither: no one ever faw it during the life of John ; it was introduced in' fuch and fuch a year, but was contradided as foon as k appeared. Arguments like thefe would have at 'once determined the quefiion in difpute : but fince we meet with no fuch arguments in the writings of the ancient adverfaries of the Apocalypfe, its very adverfaries have- given it, I will not fay a decifive advantage1", but cer tainly an advantage, which merits confideration. After the age of Dionyfius, the number of ecclefiaftical writers who quote the Apocalypfe as a divine work, efpecially the members of the Latin church, begins to inereafe. But as they are of lefs importance than the more ancient writers, and I have little or nothing to remark on their quotations, I fhall content myfelfwith barely mentioning their names, and referring to Lardner, by whom their quotations are colleded. According to Lardner then the Apocalypfe is quoted by Cyprian % by the anonymous author of a work againft the Novatians d-. by the Novatians themfelves0, by Commodian f, by Victorinus8, who was a very zealous advocate for the dodrine b The advantage is for two reafbfis not decifive : firft, beeaufe only a few extracts from the writings of the ancient adverfaries -of the Apocalypfe are no* extant, the- writings themfelves being loft : and fecondly, beeaufe the ancient advocates of the Apocalypfe have like- wife not alleged any hiftorical arguments in its defence. c See Lardner's Credibility ofthe Gofpel'Hiflory, Part II. Vol. IX. p. 777' 77%- Mb. p. 812, e P. II. Vol. III. p. 100. 1 lb. p. 127. * lb. p. 202. 216, 217. sect, ii, Ofthe Apocalypfe. 485 dodrine of the Millennium, and likewife wrote an Ex pofition of the Apocalypfe, by Methodius h, the Mani cheans s, Amobius k, the Donatifts ', and by Ladantius m, who was a contemporary of Eufebius, but by no means equal to him in a critical inquiry like the prefent. On the Manicheans however J muft make one remark, beeaufe Beaufobre and Lardner are of different opinions in refped to their reception of the Apocalypfe. The reafon affigned by Lardner for his opinion, that the Manicheans received the Apocalypfe as a canonical book, is that their adverfaries fometimes confuted them 'by quotations from it. Beaufobre " on the contrary contends that the Manicheans could not have received the Apo calypfe, beeaufe, when their fed was founded, it had not been tranflated into Syriac, and Manes, the founder of their fed, whofe native language was Syriac or Chaldee, did not underftand Greek. But though I grant that the Syriac verfion of the Apocalypfe, which we have at prefent, was made long after the time of Manes, ft is poffible that a ftill more ancient verfion of \t exifted, frorn which perhaps Ephrem quoted ; and in this more ancient verfion, Manes, who was, born in the year 240, might have read the Apocalypfe, though it made no part of the Syrian Vulgate. Further, as it is faid that Hippolytus, the moft ancient advocate of the Apocalypfe, was bifhop of Aden in A^bia- and as Scythian, the predeceflbr of Manes, was a native Ara bian, it muft appear ftill lefs iniprqbable that the Manw- cheans were acquainted with the Apoca-ypfe' On the ' other hand, if they received it merely in confequence of the" defence of .Hippolytus, their reception of it can hardly he alleged as an additional proof of its divinity. We now return to Eufebius, with whofe opinion I began this fedion : but I much doubt, whether all the evidence, >> Part II. Vol. III. p. 356, 257. i lb- p. 688. *P, II. Vol. IV. p. 53. Ub. p. 233. •Mb. p. 183. » Hiilories des Manicheens, L. I. Ch.y. §. 3, H H 3 '486 Of ihe Apocalypfe. chap, xxxur. evidence, which we have examined has brought us a ftep nearer to the decifion of the main quefiion, than we were when' we fet out, or whether we are better .able to form a determinate opinion, than Eufebius. That Ori gen, notwithftanding his diflike to the doctrine of the Millennium, received the Apocalypfe as canonical, is a circumftance greatly in its favour: but that Papias, the father of the Millennarians, knew nothing of it, is a cir cumftance which operates at leaft as ftrongly againft it. And upon the whole, when we place in one feale the few, but important writers, who either knew nothing 'of it or rejeded it, and in the other feale the more nume rous but lefs important writers, who received it, the balance will remain in the fame equipoife, in which Eufebius himfelf appears to have regarded it ' o ' , SECT. III. Inference deduced from the preceding fiction. HAVING examined the evidence for and againft the Apocalypfe, I muft now propofe the quefiion ; How is it poffible, that this book, if really written by St. John ,the Apoftle, fhould have either been wholly unknown, or confidered as a work of doubtful authority, in the very earlieft ages of Chriftians ? The other Apoft tolical Epiftles are addreffed only to fingle communities or churches: but the Apocalypfe, according to its own contents, was exprefsly ordered by Chrift himfelf, in a command to St. John the Apoftle,- to be fent to feven churches : and not only thefe feven churches were in that part of Afia Minor, where Chriftianity was in the moft flourifhing fituation, but one of them was Ephefus, where St. John fpent the latter part of his life, and con fequently pECT. IV. Of the Apocalypfe. ' 487 fequently where every work of St. John muft have been perfedly well known. If St. John then had adually fent the Apocalypfe to thefe feven churches, and that too, not as a private Epiftle, but as a Revelation made to him by Jeius Chrift, one fhould fuppofe that its authenticity could not have been doubted, efpecially at a time, when there were the beft means of obtaining information. We cannot fay .that the book was kept fecret, or was concealed in the archives, left the pro phecies ag-ainft Rome fhould draw a perfecution qn the Chriftians ; for fecrecy is contrary to the tenor of the book, and the author of it enjoins that it fhould be both read and heard". Under thefe circumfiances the authenticity ofthe Apocalypfe appears to me very doubt ful, and I cannot avoid entertaining a fufpicion, that it is a fpurious production, introduced probably into the world after the death of St. John. SECT. IV. Of the. opinions of ecclefiaftical zvriters who lived fince the time of Eufebius. EUSEBIUS, who was in poffeflion of almoft all the ¦ information, which has been communicated, in the preceding fedions, remained, as we have feen, in, doubt Some centuries later, thefe doubts confiderably abated, efpecially among the members of the Latin church, who at laft received the Apocalypfe almoft unanimoufly. Here we may juftly afk : What new difcoveri.es were made by the church of Rome precifely in the ages of ignorance and barbarifm, which enabled it to fee clearly what remained obfcure to Eufebius ? We cannot fuppofe that » Ch. i. 3, H H 4 488 Of the Apocalypfe.. chap, xxxii i. that the members of this church had accefs to ancient documents, which were unknown to Eufebius: nor is it credible that they had fo much more critical fagacity, as to enable them from the documents and evidence, which they had in common with Eufebius, to draw a decifive inference, where he remained in doubt, and to deted a truth, to which he was unable to penetrate. I admit that cafes may occur, in which later and even lefs enlightened ages may be better able to determine, whether a book which lays claim to prophecy, be really a divine work, .or not, than former and more enlightened ages,, beeaufe tbe fulfilling of prophecies affords the beft proof of their being divine, and this can be known only to pofterity. But then the prophecies muft be fo clear and determinate, as to leave no room for doubt that they really relate to the events to which they are referred. Now this is fo far from' being the cafe in regard to the Apocalypfe, that to this very day the commentators are not agreed as to its meaning : and the events, which proteftants fuppofe are predided in it, could never enter into the imagination of the members of the Latin church, when they admitted it into the canon, As. it would be ufelefs to enumerate all the later wri-. ters, who have either received or rejeded the Apocalypfe, fince the time of its compofition is fo far removed from the ages in which they lived, that they cannot be cops fidered as evidence, I fhall merely .refer to the writings of Lardner. ' That mofl of the later Latin fathers received the Apocalypfe has been already obferved: I will proceed therefore at prefent to examine what was faid by the Greek writers after the time of Eufebius, from whom we may reafonably exped more fatisfactory information relative to a book^addreffed to feven churches in' Afia Minor. Epiphanius, who on account of the diligence which he beftowed on ecclefiaftical hiftory, deferves to be men-; tioned the firft after Eufebius, though he had neither the fame calm judgment, nor the fame critical penetra tion, received the Apocalypfe, and defended it, in his * ' fifty-. sect. iv. Of the Apocalypfe. 489 fifty-firft Herefy, againft^the Alogi, who rejeded both, the Apocalypfe and St. John's Gofpel. But Epiphanius himfelf does not appear to have been fo • thoroughly perfuaded of tbe divinity of the former, as he was of the divinity of the latter: for he fays, that, if the Alogi received tbe Gofpel of St. John, he would aferibe their rejedion of the Apocalypfe to their caution not to admit an apocryphal book p. Now, when we confider that this declaration was made by a writer, who was at other times accuftomed to fpeak in rather ungentle terms againft heretics, his defence of the Apocalypfe as a divine book muft appear fomewhat inconfiftent with fo dubious an opinion refpeding thofe who rejeded it. In the catalogue of facred writings annexed to the canons of the council of Laodicea, which was held in the year 363, the Apocalypfe is totally omitted. Now, if this catalogue be genuine, it is very unfavourable to the Apocalypfe, beeaufe one of the apocalyptical Epiftles js addreffed to the bifhop of Laodicea, and therefore a council of bifhops afiembled in that city maybe fuppofed to be competent judges of the quefiion, whether the Apocalypfe was fent by St. John to the bifhop of Lao dicea, or not. But Profeffor Spittler has, as I think, very clearly fhewn, that the whole of the fixteenth canon, which contains this catalogue is a forgery'': and therefore this catalogue cannot be alleged in future as evidence againft the Apocalypfe'. Cyril of Jerufalem, who was bifhop of that city from the year 350 to 386, not only omitted the Apocalypfe in his catalogue of canonical writings, but concluded this catalogue by warning every one not to read even in his own houfe the books which he had omitted, as being books not read in the church'. And he himfelf, in the yery place where he treats of the dodrine relative to Antichrifl, P Tbe words of Epiphanius have been already quoted in this volume, Ch. xxxi. Sect. 4. 1 See his ' Critical Inquiry into the fixteenth canon of the council of Laodicea,' publifhed at Bremen in 1777. < Lardner, P. II. Vol. VIII. p. 270. #9$ Of the 'Apocalypfe.. \ , chap.ksxii^' Antichrifl, appeals to the book of Daniel"/ to Matth. xxiv., and 2 Theff. ii., without even naming the Apor palypfe". . Gregory of Nazianzff is of great importance in the prefent, inquiry, not fo much on his own account, as on Recount' of an inference which may be drawn from him in refped to Papias. Gregory in his metrical catalogue pf canonical writings mentions the feven Catholic Epiftles, including therefore even thofe of which the authenticity had been cajled in quefiion, Yet he wholly omits the Apocalypfe : and concludes his catalogue by faying, that the books, which he has not mentioned are fpurious. But notwithftanding this, Andrew of Caffarea in the preface, to his Expofition ofthe- Apocalypfe has men tioned Gregory among the advocates for the Apocalypfe. If Andrew then has made fo grofs a miftake in refped to Gregory, his affertion that Papias likewife was an, advocate for the Apocalypfe is entitled fo no credit : ?nd we may infer from the arguments advanced in the fecond fedion of this chapter, that Papias neither quoted; por even knew of the Apocalypfe. How ftrongly this operates againft the Apocalypfe has been already noticed in its proper place. On the other hand, though Gregory has rejeded the Apocalypfe from his." catalogue of cano-, nical books, yet according to Lardner ' he has quoted it fo two inftances. Since therefore it may be doubted, whether Andrew was fo grofsly miftaken in refped to Gregory, and confequently whether he made a fimilar miftake in refped to Papias, I will rather leave the .quefiion undecided, that every man may draw the infe rence which he thinks, the beft. Gregory of Nyffa places the Apocalypfe among the apocryphal writings u. Amphilochius, who was bifhop of Iconiu.m about the year 370, fays in his metrical catalogue of canonical books, ' Some afcribe the Apocalypfe to St, John, but mofl perfons confider it as fpurious51.' In fad, it was -almoft * Lardner, P. II. Vol. VIII. p. 274. 1 Vol. IX. p. 133—136. » lb. p. 157. _ *. lb, p. 148. sect. iv. Of the Apocalypfe. 491 almoft univerfally confidered as fuch by the members of the Greek church at the end of the fourth century. Hence Jerom, in an Epiftle to Dardanus, fays that the Greek church rejeded tbe Apocalypfe with the fame freedom as the Latin church rejeded the Epiftle to tbe Hebrews, though he himfelf regarded tbe rejedion of both of them as an innovation, which he d ifapproved Y : and Junilius, an African bifhop of the fixth centuty, fays, ' cseterum de Johannis Apocalypfi apud Orientales admodum dubitaturV The authority of the Apocalypfe therefore, inftead of gaining, loft ground among the Greeks : and Lardner acknowledges, not only that the two celebrated Greek commentators, Chryfoftom in the fourth, and Theophylad in the eleventh century, have not quoted it in a fingle inflance, but that Nicephorus, Patriarch of Conftantinople, about the year 8q6 exprefsly rejeded it *. All the Greek writers however, after the time of Eufebius did not rejed it: for Cyril of Alex andria fpeaks of it in doubtful terms, and Athanafius, Dionyfius falfely called the Areopagite, Andrew of Csefarea, Aretas, CEcumenius, and Nicephorus Callifti, received it. Before I clofe the catalogue of Greek authorities for the Apocalypfe, I muft fay a few words relative to the Greek manuferipts. Some of them contain the Apo*- calypfe alone. Now from fuch manuferipts we are not authorifed to conclude, that at the time when they were written, tjfis book was received as canonical in the Greek church of which the copyift was a member: nor does even the title, or fubfeription, in which the Apocalypfe is afcribed- to St. John tbe Evangeiift prove any thing, 'fince in the copies of fpurious, as well as of genuine works Y Quod fi earn (fcil. epift. ad Hebraeos) Latinorum confuetudo non recipit inter fcripturas canonicas, nee Grsecorum ecclefia: Apocalypfin eadem libertate fufcipiunt, et tamen nos utiamque fufcipimus, nequa- quam hujus temporis confuetudinem, fed veteium auctoritatem fequen- tes. Hieronymi Opp. Tom. If. p. 608. *• Lardner, Vol. XI. p. 298. ' * Vol. X. p. 340. Vol. XI. 249. 2J2. 428. 49?* Of the Apocalypfe. chap. xxxni, works it is ufoal to retain the titles unaltered. There are other manuferipts, which contain no other book than the Apocalypfe, but have it accompanied with a commen tary: fuch for inflance is the Codex Reuphlini?, which contains the text of the Apocalypfe, together with the commentaries of Andrew of Csefarea, and Aretas, Such manuferipts prove^no more than the preceding, that the Apocalypfe was received 3s canonical in the Greek church, at the time when they were written. To a third clafs may be referred fuch as the Codex Alexan*. drinus, which contains the whole Bible, and with it the Apocalypfe. But then the Codex Alexandrirjus contains likewife other books, which are certainly not canonical, for inflance, tbe firft Epiftle of Clement to the Corin thians, and alfo feveral hymns. Confequently we cannot infer, that the writer of this manufcript confidered the Apocalypfe as canonical : for if we draw this conclufioq of the Apocalypfe, we muft draw the fame in refped tq the firft Epiftle of Clement, and the other uncanonicaj books which this manufcript contains. The fourth, and laft clafs confifts of" fuch manuferipts as contain the Apocalypfe in company with books undoubtedly cano-, nical, of which the Codex Seidelianus b is an inftance. That the writers of fuch manuferipts confidered the Apocalypfe as canonical, is very probable: but then thefe manuferipts are for the mofl part modern. An enume ration of the feveral manuferipts, which belong to each of thefe four claffes, would take up at prefent#too much room : and indeed it would be attended with fome dif*. ficulty as our accounts of feveral manuferipts of the Apocalypfe are very defedive. The fate of the Apocalypfe in the Latin church wa§ very different from that, which it met with in the Greek. Both churches deviated from the medium adopted ¦ See N°. 221, in the catalogue pf Greek MSS. given in thefts cond volume of this Introduction. * See N°. 228, of the above-mentioned catalogue. ifcct'. IV. . Of the Apocalypfe. 49 J adopted by Eufebius. The Greek church became lefs favourable to.it than he was, though we cannot tell by what arguments unknown to Eufebius the members of this church were fwayed : and the Latin church, which was certainly lefs able to make new difcoveries relative to a book addreffed to feven communities in Afia'Minor^ and after the death of Jerom was not very well qualified for critical inquiries, received the Apocalypfe as a work undoubtedly canonical. We muft conclude therefore that its reception in the church of Rome was rather the effed of accident, than the refult of an impartial and deliberate examination. At that time, the Popes and Councils little imagined that fhe Apocalypfe would one day become a repertory, in which the rebels againft their authority would find weapons to attack the church from which they had apoftatized, or they. would hardly have canonized a work, from which the Pope was to be proved the Antichrifl, and Rome the apocalyptical whore. Though it would be tedious to enumerate all the Latin fathers who received the Apocalypfe, I cannot pafs over in filence the celebrated names of Jerom and Auguftin. Jerom received it c, without doubt after a more cautious examination than was inftituted, by moft of his fucceffors : and he appealed in fupport of its authenticity to ancient teftimonies, which certainly ex ifted, and which have been already mentioned in the fecond fedion of this chapter. Auguftin d probably examined the quefiion much lefs critically than Jerom : yet his authority was fo great, not only in the African church, but in the Latin church in general, that his reception ofthe Apocalypfe was what chiefly contributed to its almoft wniverfal admiffion both in Africa, and in the Weft of Europe. During tbe life of Auguftin, was held in the year 397 the third council of Carthage; and this was the firft council, in which the Apocalypfe was pronounced c Lardner, Vol. X. Pv77- loo. I2j, *Ib. p. 211. 251, 25*. 4#4 Ofthe Apocalypfe. chap, xxxirr, pronounced canonical*. But this fame council, which upon the whole did ubtdifplay the mofl acute judgment, placed the following apocryphal books, the Wifdom of Solomon, Ecclefiafticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Macca bees, in the facred canon : and therefore proteftants cannot with propriety appeal to the decrees, of this council, not even to that in favour of the Apopalypfe. Innocent 1. who was eleded Pope in the year 402; declared likewife that this book, from which his fuccef- fors were to be proved the Antichrifl, was canonical. Some few perfons however, even in the Latin- church ftill doubted of its authority, as appears from the twenty- feventh 'decree of the fourth council of Toledo which was held in the year 633. In this decree, complaint is made- of certain ecclefiaftics, who refufed to read the Apocalypfe in divine fervice; and^they who perfift in their refufal, are threatened with excommunication. At the fame time the Apocalypfe is declared to be a genuine and divine work: and the reafon affigned for this declaration is, that it had been pronounced fuch by fever?l councils, and by feveral Popes. But the good bifhops affembled at Toledo would have, been reduced to great diftrefs, if they had been required to name the feveral councils, in which the Apocalypfe had been pro nounced canonical : for no other is known, than the above-mentioned third council of Carthage. A fhort time after the fourth council of Toledo, all doubts in refped to the Apocalypfe vanifhed in the Latin church : and it remained unimpeached till the time of the Refor mation, when Luther called in quefiion the -authority of this book, though it is fuppofed to. prophefy in his favour, and to denounce vengeance againft that very church of which he was an enemy. But in his opinion of the Apocalypfe Luther had very few followers. Having related' the fate of the Apocalypfe in the Greek and Latin churches, I muft now mention the reception with which it met in the Syrian church, a church fo very extenfive that it comprehended not only ,aft • Lardner, Vol, X. p. 132,' 195'v SBct. IV; Of the Apocalypfe. 49 j. all the Chriftians, who refided in Syria, Affyria, and Me- fopotamia, but likewife all thofe, who were difperfed in Arabia; Perfia, Tartary, and China. It has been already noted, that the Apocalypfe is not contained in the old Syriac verfion, which is the Vulgate ofthe Syrian church in general : and yet, as I have like- wife obferved, the Manicheans., whofe original founder; Scythian, was a native of Arabia, and whofe fecond and proper founder, Manes, fpake Syriac, but underftood no' Greek, confequently could read the* Apocalypfe only in a Syriac verfion, appear to have received the Apocalypfe. In this cafe we may conclude, that though the Apocalypfe made no part of the Syrian Vulgate, it was tranflated in an early age into that language. But fhall we therefore conclude, that the Syrian church admitted, that St. John the Apoftle was the author of it : and if they had been perfuaded that he was, would not the Apocalypfe have made a part of the Syrian Vulgate, or facred canon ? Haffencamp e fays in 'reply, that the Apocalypfe was written after the old Syriac verfion was already made* the former being in his opinion written in the year 96, the latter before that period: and confequently that the Syrian canon omits the Apocalypfe, beeaufe it was written after that canon - was formed. But even if this reply \be admitted, we fhall render by it no fervice to the Apocalypfe : for on the hypothefis, that the Apo calypfe was written fo late as the year 96, very material objedions may be made to its divinity, as will be fhewn in the fedion relative to the time when this book was written. Ephrem, the Syrian, has not only quoted the Apo calypfe, but has quoted, it as a divine work, of which the following pafl'age in his Syriac works f is a proof. ' John faw in revelation a great and wonderful hook, which God had written, and which was feated with feven feals.' „ Other, paffages of alike import, efpecially fome from thofe works of Ephrem, which exift in a Greek e In his Remarks on the latter part of my Introduction, p. 24, -.&.. fVol. II. p. 33z. . • ' 49** Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxnr. Greek tranflation, are colleded by Haffencamp in the above-mentioned treatife. From the opinion of Ephrem we may argue to that of the Syrian church in general in his time, and conclude that the Apocalypfe, of Which a Syriac tranflation muft already have been made, was- not only known to the members of that church, but received. by them as a divine work. In the feventh centary a new and very literal Syriac tranflation was made ofthe Apocalypfe, and taken into the Philoxenian verfion, which was chiefly ufed by the Monophyfites. Of this verfion I have treated at large in the fecond volume of this Introdudion s : and there fore I fhall only obferve at prefent, that as this verfion was ufed by the Monophyfites, they did not reject the Apocalypfe. In the latter half of the fame century, and in the beginning of the next, lived Jacob, the Monophyfite bifhop of Edeffah. He has quoted the Apocalypfe in his commentary on Genefis, at ch. xlix. 17. The paffage is in the firft volume of ' Ephrem's Syriac. works, where is a Catena on Genefis, formed of the commentaries of Ephrem and Jacob. The text of the Apocalypfe, which Jacob quotes, I have already collated with the text of the Philoxenian verfion k. In the fecond edition of this Introdudion I obferved that Jacob afcribed the Apocalypfe to ' one of the faints,' beeaufe the words, which he has ufed, were ' this is the kingdom, of which one of the faints has fpoken in a revelation from God :' and I declared that I was in doubt, whether he meant St. John the Apoftle, or whether he entertained theTame fentiments, as Dipnyfius of Alexandria1. Haffencamp however contends that he really meant St. John the Apoftle, g Ch.vii. Seft. 10. h It appears from Aftemani Bibl. Oriaint. Tom. If. p. 3,37, that he died in the year 10 19 of the Greek era, that is, in the year of Chrrtt 708. 1 Pag. 192. * Ch.vii. Sect- 10. 1 See Sect. 2. of this Chapter. sect. IV; Of the Apocalypfe. 497.. Apoftle, beeaufe prefently after, Jacob adds, « that this relates to the Roman Empire, as the Holy Ghoft* has -faught by the bifhop and martyr Hippolytus, where he explains the Revelation made to John, who fpeaks the Word of God.' But this argument is in my opinion by no means fatisfadory : for the expreflion ' John who fpeaks the words of God' denotes nothing more than Johannes theologus, as Affeman has rightly tranflated it. But whether Johannes theologus was the fame perfon as Johannes apoftolus, is a quefiion on which the ancients were-dividcd : and they who received the Apocalypfe as a facred book, but denied that St. John the Apoftle was the author of it, carefully obferved this diftindion. Befides, if Jacob had really meant St. John the Apoftle, he would hardlv have called him, as in the firft of the preceding quotations, by fo indeterminate a title, as that of ' one of the faints.' That the Syrians of the Neftorian party received likewife the Apocalypfe in the eighth century, appears from an ancient monument, which was dug up at Sanxuen in the Chinefe province of Xenfi in the year 1625. This monument has two inferiptions, the one in Chinefe charaders, the other in Syriac, from which it appears that it was ereded in the year of the Greeks 1092, that iSj in the year of Chrift 781 :/ at which period, as well as fome centuries later, was a very nume rous colony of Neftorian Syrians in China, who regu larly received their bifhops from the Neftorian Patriarch. And on this monument mention is made of the New Teftament as containing twenty-feven books : confe quently the Apocalypfe muft have been included in the number. It was formerly fufpeded to have been a for gery of the Jefuits ; but Haffencamp has in my opinion fatisfadorily fhown that the monument is really ancient and genuine". Dionyfius \ m See § 7, of his remarks, where the hiftory of this remarkable monument is related, and fo much of its infcription quoted as is ne cefTary for the prefent. Vol. IV. 1 1 498 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii* Dionyfius Barfalibsus, a celebrated Monophyfite bifhop of Amida at the end of the 'eleventh century, wrote an Expofition of the Apocalypfe, as Haffencamp has fhown from Pococke's preface to his edition of the Syriac verfion of the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, the fecond and third Epiftles of St. John, and the Epiftle of St. Jude. And this is further confirmed by Affeman, Bibl. Orient. Tom. II. p. 210. On the other hand, Gregorius Barhebrajus, or, as he is likewife called Abulpharagius, who was Primate of alt the Monophyfites of the Eaft in the thirteenth century \ and was by far the mofl learned of all the Syrian writers,, appears, as Affeman'" has obferved, to have rejededsthe Apocalypfe : for where he fpeaks of it in his Nomocanon, he does nothing more than quote the opinion of Diony fius of Alexandria, and in the following words: 'The Apocalypfe, which bears the name of the Apoftle John, is not his work, but the work either of Cerinthus, who taught that there would be eating and drinking upon earth after tbe refurredion, or of another John* for two perfons of the name of John lie buried i.n Ephefus.* The Monophyfites or Jacobites therefore did not receive the Apocalypfe unanimoufly p. Ebedjefu, Metropolitan of Armenia, who died in the year9 1318, has in his catalogue of the facred books, which compofe the New Teftament, entirely omitted the Apocalypfe r, though he afterwards takes notice of the work, which Hippolytus had written in its defence. Affeman relates alfo, that neither the Jacobites nor the Neftorians read the Apocalypfe in their churches, and that " He died in the year 1286. • Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P.I. p. j*. not. 5". 9 Haffencamp replies, p. 17, that the paffage quoted from Dio nyfius is ambiguous, and that Dionyfius may poflibly mean fome Apo calypfe different from that which is in our canon. Whether he does, or does not, I leave the reader to determine. * Affemani Bibl. Orient. Tom. III. P. I. p. 3. not. 3. r lb. p. 12. sect. iv. Of the Apocalypfe. 499 that it is not contained in their manuferipts of the New Teftament. He adds, however, that this is no certain proof that the Neftorians wholly rejeded the Apocalypfe, fince it may arife merely from the circumftance, that it is not contained in the Syrian Vulgate. Of the Maronite Syrians it is unneceffary to mention that they receive the Apocalypfe : for as they acknowledge the fupremacy of the Pope, they of courfe can rejed no book which has been canonized fjy the church of Rome. The Egyptian Chriftians likewife receive the Apocalypfe. I now come to the opinion of the Lutheran church, which, though it is much too modern, to be of any weight in determining tbe main quefiion, is in other refpeds pf importance to thofe who are members of the .church. Luther, though accuftomed from his childhood to confider the Apocalypfe, as one of the canonical books of the New Teftament, rejeded it in pofitive terms in the preface ' to his edition of 1522. This pre face Luther afterwards omitted, and in the later editions fubftituted a preface f, in which he expreffed himfelf in •- lefs decifive terms, and left it to others, who, he fays, were better qualified than himfelf, to determine whether it merited a place in the facred canon, or not It does not appear that Luther difcovered new arguments in favour of the Apocalypfe after he had written the firft preface ; at leaft a comparifon of the two prefaces affords no reafon to think fo. He was probably influenced by the fame motives as thofe which were avowed by Diony fius of Alexandria" : and, as the Apocalypfe was highly efteemed by the generality of his brethren, who, like himfelf had renounced the church of Rome, he would not abfolutely rejed it, but fubftituted a dubious for a more decifive tone, that he might give the lefs offence to * Ati extract from this preface has been already given in the firft fection of this chapter. ' An extract from this preface likewife has been given in the fame fection. ° Sect. 2 of this chapter. 112 _5ocf Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxnr. to the reft of ,his party. Who the perfons were, on Whofe account in particular Luther altered his preface, I do not know : and I wifh that the records of our re formation were more clofely examined with a view to this fubjed. In general however we may affert as an indifputable fad, that almoft all the profelytes to Luther's dodrine had been accuftomed from their childhood to confider the Apocalypfe as a prophetical book, and that the Francifcans in particular, many of whom embraced "Lutheranifm, had- begun fo early as the thirteenth cen tury to teach the dodrine, that the enemy ofthe faints, foretold in the Apocalypfe, was the Pope. But, whatever alterations Luther thought proper to make in his original preface, he deviated only foTar from it, that he left the matter in doubt : nor do I know 'ofany paffage in any of his works, in which he has given it as his opinion, that the Apocalypfe was canonical'. Our Symbolic books likewife leave the quefiion unde cided. It is true, that at the beginning of the Formula Concordiae, ' tbe prophetical and apoftolical writings of the Old and New Teftament ' are commanded to be believed, and to be received as the only rule of faith i but fince it is a matter of doubt,. whether the Apocalypfe was written by an Apoftle or not, and this very doubt is expreffed in the preface prefixed to it in our Lutheran Bibles, it is evident that the Formula Concordia enjoin6 no rule in regard to its reception. Should' any one" objed that the authors of the Formula Concordia: meant by the term ' apoftolical writings,' fuch writings as the ancient councils had declared canonical, I would anfwer that even in that cafe the term does not neceffarily include the Apocalypfe, beeaufe the ancient councils were not una nimous in refped to its canonical authority. The coun cil of Laodicea itfelf may be here alleged as an inflance : for, though the fixtieth canon of this council has lately been called in quefiion, yet at that time when the For mula Concordia? was drawn up, no one had the leaft doubt of its authenticity. Further, the Apocalypfe is not once quoted in the Formula Concordise, as every one •be c T . v. Of the Apocalypfe. 50 1 one will find on confulting the index annexed to it in Rechenberg's edition. When therefore the greater part of the Lutheran divines refer the Apocalypfe, without doubt or fcru.ple, to the clafs of canonical writings of the New Teftament, this is the refult only of private opinion, and not of any decifion made by the church. For the Lutheran church, as a law-giving body, has enaded no decree, which enjoins a belief in the Apocalypfe : and therefore, if any of its members fhould doubt, or even deny the .authenticity of the Apocalypfe, it would be higbly unjuft to accufe them of heterodoxy. On the. contrary, if it were allowable to argue from inferences, which may be drawn from the Symbolic books, the authority of the Apocalypfe would be rather diminifhed than increafed ; for in the Symbolic books the dodrine of the Millennium is exprefsly condemned, and yet the Apocalypfe, if we explain it literally, certainly contains this dodrine. But as it would be unfair to argue either on the one fide or on the other, where nothing is ex prefsly determined, we muft reft fatisfied that our Sym bolic books, like Luther's laft preface, leave the deci fion of the quefiion to every man's private judgment. SECT. V. Of the completion or non -completion of the prophecies con tained in the Apocalypfe, confidered ,in refpett to the argu- , ments which they afford in favour of, or againfi its divinity. THOUGH the teftimonies of the ancients muft decide the quefiion, whether a book afcribed to any particular perfon, was really written by . that perfon or not, yet when a book lays claim to prophecy, and the 1 1 3 quefiion ^02 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. quefiion is agitated, not whether this or that Apoftle wrote it, but in general whether it was infpired by the Deity, there is another method of coming to a decifiori, which we in the eighteenth century may apply, but, which was not applicable in the earlieft ages of Chrif tianity. We have only to inquire, whether the prophe-; cies contained in it have been fulfilled. If they have not been fulfilled, we muft confider the work as a mere, pro- dudion of the human imagination : but on the other' hand, if it be certain that they have been fulfilled, we have an infallible criterion, from which we may at once, and without any further ditical inquiries', pronourice in favour of its divinity. Here however an almoft infoperable difficulty prefents itfelf at the very outfet, and that is, the difficulty of de termining what the prophecies in the Apocalypfe really mean : for that which by one commentator is confidered as fulfilled, and is accordingly quoted as a proof that the Apocalypfe is divine, has according to another commen tator not yet received \ti completion. For inflance, Vitringa contends that certain prophecies are completed, which Lange abfolutely denies : and Bengel again differs from both. Nor is this the cafe with thefe three only;' for- among one hundred commentators hardly any one is fatisfied with the explanations of his predeceffors. Each man imagines that he alone has difcovered the true meaning, which had efcaped the penetration of thofe who had gone before him : and after having read the various commentaries, which have been written on the Apocalypfe, one is almoft inclined to believe that, each commentator is fo far in the right, when he fays that all others are in the wrong. I remember foon after the foundation of the Univerfity of Gottingen, thatHeumann and Oporin read lectures there at the fame time on the Apocalypfe. Oporin, a man of great modefty and dif fidence, fpoke of Heumann's "learning and general gpod fenfe in terms of the higheft approbation : but always made an exception to the ledures on the Apocalypfe, faying, ' that is Heumann's weak fide.' Heumann, on the sect. v. Ofthe Apocalypfe. 503 the other hand, in many refpeds did juftice to Oporin : but when he came to fpeak of the Apocalypfe, he lamented that Oporin fhould attempt to read ledures on a book, of which he did not comprehend the meaning. About the fame time, in the Univerfity of Halle, Dr. Lange, a friend of Heuraann, had again a very different fyftem, of the truth of which he was fo perfuaded, that he ufed to affure his pupils, he was the firft commenta tor who had delivered the" Apocalypfe from the torture. It is unneceffary to mention more names : for every man may eafily convince himfelf merely by confulting the different commentaries, that the commentators in general are at variance". In fad he have no conneded and un forced commentary on the Apocalypfe, in which the agreement between hiftorical events and the predidions of the Apocalypfe have been clearly and diftindly ex plained. Even the immortal Newton, the greateft genius of modern ages, who with powers almoft divine difcovered the eternal laws which the Almighty had prefcribed to his creation, has afforded in his attempt on the Apocalypfe, in which he was not more fuccefsful than his predeceflbrs, a mortifying proof of the weaknefs of human nature. If it be objeded, that the prophecies in the Apocalypfe are not yet fulfilled, that they are therefore not fully underftood, and that hence arifes the difference of opinion in refped to their meaning, I anfwer, that if thefe prophe cies are not yet fulfilled, it is wholly impoffible that the "Apocalypfe fhould be a divine work, fince the author exprefsly declares, ch. i. 1, that it contains ' things, which muft Jhortly come to pafs.' Confequently, either a great part of them* I will not fay all, muft have been , fulfilled, or the author's declaration, that they fhould fhortly w I mean original commentators, or thofe who have acted for them- ' felves, and cannot be fuppofed to include all thofe who implicitly adopt the fyftems delivered in fchools, in which they have been edu cated. That the clergyman in the Dutchy of Wurferberg, for inflance, who maintained that the angel flying in the midft of heaven, Apoc. xiv. denoted Bengel, adopted Bengel's fyftem, is a- thing of courfe, II 4 504 Of the Apocalypfe. chap.xxxiu; fhortly be completed is not confiftent with matter of fad. It is true, that to the Almighty a thoufand years are as one day, and one day as a thoufand years : but if we therefore explain the term ' fhortly' as denoting a period longer, than that which has elapfed fince the timeN when the Apocalypfe was written, we facrifice. the love of truth to the fupport of a preconceived opinion. For when the Deity condefcends to communicate information to mankind, he will of courfe ufe fuch language as is intelligible to mankind, and, not name a period fhort, which all men confider as long ; or the communication will be totally ufelefs. Befides, in reference to God's eternity, not only feventeen hundred, but feventeen thou fand years are nothing. But the author of the Apocalypfe himfelf has wholly precluded any fuch evafion by explain ing, ch. i. 3, what he meant by the term ' fhortly :' for he there fays, ' Bleffed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophefy, and keep thofe things which are written therein, for the time is at hand.* According therefore to the author's own declaration, the Apocalypfe contained prophecies, with which the very perfons to whom it was fent were immediately concerned. But if none of thefe prophecies were defigned to be com pleted till long after their death, thofe perfons were not immediately concerned with them; and the author would furely not have faid, that they were bleffed in reading prophecies, of which the time was at hand,, if thofe prophecies were not to be fulfilled till after a lapfe,, of many ages, spCT. vi. Of the Apocalypfe, 505 SECT. VI. Whether the contradictory explanations, which have been hitherto given of the Apocalypfe, ought to be afcribed to the Apocalypfe itfelf, or to a want of knowledge in the commentators, WHEN a work which lays claim to prophecy, and of which the author declares, that the prophecies contained in it will fhortly begin to be completed, ftill remains after a lapfe of feventeen centuries fo difficult to be underftood, that, commentators cannot agree as to its meaning, it is difficult to avoid fufpeding, that the claim of fuch a book is ungrounded : and I confefs that thefe very contradidions in the explanation of it are ftill more unfavourable to it, than the ancient teftimonies before, the time of Eufebius, On the other hand it muft be admitted, that, even when it is certain that a work contains divine prophecies, our own ignorance may be fuch that we are unable to explain them. For inflance, die prophecies of Ifaiah and Jeremiah relating to Edom, Moab,..and Ammon, we are unable to explain from real hiftory: but this circumftance excites no fufpicion againft their divinity, beeaufe the hiftory ofthe Edomites, the Moabites, and the Ammonites, for feveral centuries, is totally unknown to us. And that the commentators on the Apocalypfe, even the molt learned of them, have been deficient in qualifications, which every commenta tor on this book ought to poffefs, muft likewife be granted. In the. firft place every man, who attempts to comment pn a work, muft be complete mafter of the language in which it is written, Now the Apocalypfe, though written in Greek, is at the fame time full of Hebraifms" : its * No book in the whole New Teftament has fp many Hebraifms as the Apocalypfe, 506 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. its language is figurative, and the figures have reference to' Jewifh cuftoms: and the whole work has manifeftly the form and manner of an oriental compofition. Con fequently an interpreter of the Apocalypfe muft, with a knowledge of. the Greek, unite a knowledge both of the oriental languages and of oriental antiquities : for mere Hebrew philology, or fuch as is derived only from the ftudy ofthe Hebrew Bible, and the ufe of a Hebrew Lexicon, is infufficient. But the commentators on the Apocalypfe, efpecially thofe who have taken the lead, and have fef the fafhion to others, have for the mofl part been very deficient in this necefTary qualification, and moreover have been biaffed with prejudices, which are not well adapted to adifcovery of the truth. Thus- the Francifcans in the middle ages explained many paf fages of the Apocalypfe as denouncing vengeance to the Pope, beeaufe they were profcribed by Papal authority; the Lutherans difcovered in it, prophecies againft the church, from which they had withdrawn : and in the laft century the reformers in France irritated by the revbea-/ tion of the edid of Nantes found the means of confolation in the Apocalypfe, by explaining it to the difadvantage of their perfecutors. Hence have arifen commentaries, in which others have implicitly confided, But to return to the necefTary philological qualifications in an interpreter of the Apocalypfe, which, it is certain, have fallen to the lot of very few. The late Dr. Lange for inflance, though a very zealous commentator on the Apocalypfe, was pof- fefled of very little knowledge ofthe oriental languages; and Bengel, though upon the whole a very accurate and very refpedable critic, had never made oriental philology his particular ftudy. An exception may perhaps be made in favour of Vitringa: but even Vitringa did not poflefs oriental philology in its full extent, for he was unac quainted with Arabic, without which it is impoffible to be~complete matter of the Hebrew. Yet his merits are very great: and, if he had not been adifciple of Cocceius, might -B©t- have known more of the Apocalypfe than moft other interpreters. Lately, however, Wetftein and 5 Harenberg sect. vi. Of the Apocalypfe. 507 Harenberg have applied a very confiderable fund of Jewifh literature to the explanation of the Apocalypfe: the former in his edition of the Greek Teftament, the latter ftill more amply in his Expofition of the Revelation of St. John, publifhed at Brunfwick in 1759, a work, in which the quoted paffages, and the translations given, of thofe paffages, betray however a few inftances of par- 'tiality for the author's fyftem. But Wetftein and Ha renberg have not fet the fafhion to others : on the con trary, the latter, if I am not miftaken, is very little read. As to mofl other commentators and tranflators of the Apocalypfe, it muft be confeffed that they have been frequently guilty of almoft inconceivable abfurdities : nor do I except even thofe, who, fetting afide all prophetical explanations; have confined themfelves to literal and grammatical interpretation. But whoever fails in the grammatical interpretation of a book will hardly fucceed in difcovering the author's meaning y. A fecond qualification, which an interpreter of the Apocalypfe ought to poflefs, is a tafte for poetry and painting; for in the Apocalypfe, notwithstanding its uncouth Greek, we meet with very fine defcription. But when a vifion is well reprefented, the rules of poetry and painting are ufually obferved,' and confequently fome knowledge of thefe arts is requifite, in order to under ftand the reprefentation. Thus, if a painter defigned to reprefent a dream, occafioned by the particular inter- pofition of Divine Providence, he would paint an angel {landing by the bed of the- perfon who bad the dream : and this he might do, without intending to fignify, as a dog- 7 To mention only one inflance of falfe tranflation. Each of the twelve gates of the New Jerufalem confifted (according to the common tranflation) of one pearl. Now a pearl, whether we confider the rotundity of its figure, or The foftnefs of. its mafs, is very ill qualified to become'the gate of a pity, even if that city exifts-only in poetical defcription. The word ufed in the Greek is papyaptr-K, and this ought to be rendered ' precious ftone,' for this is the meaning afcribed to the-word iri Chaldee, jn which language it was' adopted and written jUi^Jiio. > A gate built of precious ftones prefents an image both of ftrength, and of magnificence, Mapyuptrns is ufed perhaps in the 'fame fenfe, Matth, xiii. 45, 46. £oS , Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxui. a dogmatical truth, that an angel in a bodily fhape really defcended to that perfon, and infpired the dream. In like manner the angels, which ad fo confiderable a part in the Apocalypfe, may be confidered as poetical imagery, unlefs we fuppofe that its author intended to convert into articles of faith the fabulous notion of the Jews, that every land and every element had its pe culiar angel. This is only one inflance out of many, which might be alleged. But among the conimentators on the Apocalypfe, where fhall we find one, who had a proper tafte for the explanation of poetical reprefenta- tion ? It is true, that Peterfen poffeffed a poetical ge nius ; but then he, was a poet who did not underftand the rules of the art, and interpreted the Apocalypfe much more literally than he himfelf ever wrote. When an ancient poet fays, » Euphrates ibat jam mollior undis/ or a modern poet, ' At thy approach the Rhine withdrew it's waves, ' And left its bed, to let the conqu'ror pafs,' no one would take this paffage in a ftrid and literal fenfe: but Peterfen always underftood Apoc. xvi. 12. as fignifying that the waters of the Euphrates were really and literally dried up, The .firft time I heard of this literal explanation was, when I was a boy at Halle, and happened to be one day in company with Peterfen : but even at that time, though I had no very clear and dif- tind notions on the fubjed, trie drying up of the Eu phrates, that thp kings of the Eaft might pafs it, ap peared to me at leaft an unneceffary miracle. The third and mofl important requifite is a complete knowledge of hiftory, efpecially the hiftory of Afia. A general knowledge of hiftory is by no means fufficient ; it muft be a knowledge which defcends to the -moll minute particulars ; for a prophefy, in which neither perfon nor place is named, we can underftand only by knowing the diftinguifhing circumfiances of thofe events to which it relates. Great events, fuch as battles, po- ; litical SECT. VI. Of the Apocalypfe. $&} litical revolutions, religious perfecutions, when examined only at large, are for the mofl part fo fimilar to each other, that, without names and dates, it is difficult to diftinguifh them. At leaft there is hardly any. great event, to which there is not fomething in hiftory which. bears refemblance, and with which, therefore, k might poffibly be confounded, when all diftinctions of geography and chronology are fet afide, unlefs we know the more minute circumfiances, which diftinguifh the one from the other. Two battles fought by the French, the one in 1513, the other in 1757, have a great re femblance to each other, though in importance they were very unlike. Suppofe, then, that thefe two battles were reprefented in painting, and that fome ages hence, when the prefent military drefs, modern tadics, and plans of attack, which to us would eafily diftinguifh the one engagement from the other, the two paintings fhould be put into the hands of a perfon unacquainted with thefe particulars, he would be at a lofs to deter mine which of the two, paintings reprefented the one, and which the other engagement And every one who ' has vifited galleries of hiftorical paintings, knows how difficult it is, without a very particular knowledge of hiftory, to pafs through the gallery, without being at a lofs in difcovering the meaning of the fubjeds. But the commentators on the Apocalypfe are fo far from having poffeffed a complete knowledge of hiftory, that the greateft part of them have difplayed only a moderate fhare of it. Vitringa, perhaps, will here like- wife be mentioned as an exception ; but among the commentators on the Apocalypfe we can reckon only one Vitringa, and even Vitringa's hiftorical knowledge was not fufficiently extenfive. The ancient hiftory be fore the birth of Chrift is foreign to our prefent purpofe ; and the hiftory of the feventeen laft centuries was un derftood by Vitringa, in its full extent, only fo far as it relates to Europe. But we' cannot expect that pro phecies, addreffed to feven communities in Afia Minor, fhould. be1 fulfilled only in Europe, or in the Latin church: 510 Of the Apocalypfe, chap, xxxni. church. Chriftianity flourifhed under the Eaftern, as well as under the Weflern Emperors : it was propa gated likewife in Arabia, in Perfia, in the great Tartary from the Cafpian Sea to the borders of China, and even in China itfelf. Afia has been the feat of the mofl im portant revolutions with which the hiftory of Chrif tianity is clofely conneded. In Afia was founded the re ligion of Mohammed ; and out of Afia emerged the Saracens, the Turks, and the Tartars. Whoever, therefore, is not acquainted with the Conftantinopolitan and Afiatic hiftories of thefe nations, is by no means qualified to become an interpreter of the Apocalypfe. But among all who have ventured to interpret it, not one can boaft of this thorough acquaintance ; and the principal reafon is, that the beft accounts of the Sa racens, the Turks, and the Tartars, are contained in Syriac and Arabic authors, which very few hiftorians can read in the original, and of which we have either no tranflations at all, or not fuch as an , hiftorian can appeal to as to an original document ". Further, as mofl men are acquainted with the hiftory of their own country, and this hiftory always appears of". fo much the more importance, in proportion as we know the lefs of the hiftory of other countries, the in terpreters of the Apocalypfe have fought at home for the completion of its prophecies : and as prophetical de scriptions, without either names or dates, are applicable to various events, each interpreter has found, in a great part pf the Apocalypfe, the hiftory of his own country. And when we confider that the paffion for this mode of interpretation has been varioufly modified, fometimes by religious. zeal and a fpirit of perfecution, at other times by x It muft be admitted, however, that even they who were better ac quainted with the Conftantinopolitan and Arabic hiftories than we are, did not meet with better fuccefs. For Barhebrasus., themoft celebrated hiftorian of the Eall, who lived in the reign of the great Tartarian con queror Hukc, and was himfelf a witnefs of very important revolutions, doubted the divinity of the Apocalypfe. Confequently he did not perceive anycorrefpondence between the prophecies of the Apocalypfe and the Afiatic hiftory. ' sect. vii. Of the Apocalypfe. 51 § by a fenfe of oppreflion and enmity to the ruling church, we need not wonder that the commentaries on the Apo calypfe have affumed fuch various fhapes, that what is affirmed as indifputably true in the one, is as flatly coa- tradided in the other. SECT, VIE Further remarks on the different Expofiiions »f the Apocalypfe, THE compafs of the prefent work does not permit me to examine in detail the various expofitions, which have been given of the Apocalypfe : but this I will'affirm in general terms, that of all the commentaries on it, which I have hitherto feen, not one has given me fatisfadion. Iconfefs likewife,1 that out of all the com mentaries put together, I am unable to make one which is better. Thus much, however, I perceive, that if the Apoca- lypfe is a divine book, the beginning of its prophecies mttfi relate to the deftrudion of Jerufalem : and that it may relate to that event, provided the work^was written before the Jewifh war. In this cafe the fixth chapter may be explained as a prophefy, both of the kingdom Ofthe Meffiah (ver. 2.), and of the deftrudion of Je- tufalem itfelf: but then the fecond, third, and fourth feals cannot denote events, which followed each other, but events which happened at the fame time, each of which is feparately reprefented, in order to make out the myftical number feven. The feventh feal may relate to the deliverance of the faithful among the Jews, who fled to Pella : and ch. viii. 1 , may denote the confequent fecurity which the church enjoyed in that city. On the" "512 Of the Apocalypfe. dHAP. xxxuf. the other hand, if the fixth and feventh chapters be fup pofed to refer to later events, the firft readers of the Apocalypfe, to whom the work was immediately fent, muft have been fo very little interefted in them, that the author could hardly have faid, ch. i. 3, ' Bleffed is he that readeth,'and they that hear the words of this prophefy, and keep thofe things which are. written therein : for the time is at hand.' What follows from ch. viii. 1, to ch. ix. iz, is to me fo obfcure, that I cannot even hazard a conjedure : but ch. ix. 13 — 17, contains a defcription which maybe very well applied to the irruption of the Saracens, the Turks, and tbe Tartars, and to thofe ages, in which one horde of barbarians after another emerged from the Eaft, and with irrefiftible fury over-ran the Weft. I think it likewife not improbable, that the mofl ancient expla nation of the myftical number 666 is the true one, ac cording to which the word AATEINOS is denoted ; the Greek letters in this name, when taken as numerals, making out precifely ¦ the number in quefiion. Nor will I affert that proteftant commentators are miftaken, in explaining the c whore drunken with the blood of the martyrs,' not of heathen Rome," which was con verted, and became not a heap of ruins according to the defcription given in ch. xviii, but of the church of Rome, the capital of which may one day, perhaps, meet with this fate. At the fame time, however, I muft oon- fefs, that in all the chapters which relate to the beaft and the whore, I can difcover no marks, which indicate that .the beaft and the whore are to be fought in the church : on the contrary, if we may judge from the defcription given of them in the Apocalypfe, one fhould fuppofe that they related to an heathen city and empire. But if it be admitted that certain chapters ofthe Apo calypfe are capable of the mofl fatisfadory explanation, there are other intermediate chapters, which are fo ob fcure, that to me, at leaft, the chain of prophecy is broken. It is not fufficient, that we difcover a refem- blance between a few detached paffages and fome fingle * hiftorical SECT. vil. Of the Apocalypfe. 513; hiftorical events: for any prophecy, however falfe upon the whole, (take that of Drabicius for inflance) may have fomething in it, which has the appearance of being fulfilled. Befides, the fourteenth chapter itfelf affords a ftrong argument, that the explanation above given of the feventh chapter is inaccurate. For the hundred and forty-four thoufand, mentioned in the four teenth chapter as having the Father's name written on their foreheads} appear to be the very fame 2% the hun dred and forty-four thoufand, who are defcribed as fealed in the feventh chapter i and we have no reafon to con clude, from the fourteenth chapter, that they were per fons whofe jufiification was completed, and who were become inhabitants of heaven. But the Jews, who fled. to Pella, did not live fo late as the time to which I fhould be obliged to refer the fourteenth chapter : nor did their pofterity fo long continue to be a feparate community. Further, if the fixth and feventh chapters of the Apo calypfe really relate to the deftrudion of Jerufalem, it will be found, on examination, 1. That they contain nothing which had not been already foretold by Chrift and the prophet Daniel. Con-> fequently, though it were true that the Apocalypfe was written before the commencement of the Jewifh war, the completion of this prophecy would afford no argu ment that the Apocalypfe was written by infpiration, be eaufe the author of it might have derived his informa tion from preceding prophecies. Thus, if any man in the prefent age fhould foretel the converfion of the Jews, the completion of that prophecy would not prove that he was a real prophet, fince he might have taken it from the Epiftles of St. Paul. 2. That, though the defcription in the Apocalypfe is much more pompous, it is not fo circumflantial as thofe of Chrift and Daniel. It takes no notice of the attack of Ceftius Gallus, to which Chrift, with a warning voice to his faithful difciples, very clearly alludes : it contains nothing about Titus Vefpafian, who is charaderized by Vol. IV. K x, Daniel, 5-1-4 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxhi. Daniel, and nothing of the cifcumftances likewife fore told by Daniel, that the war would laft.feven years, and that in the midft of this period thefacrifices would ceafe. Now in a revelation made by Chrift hjmfelf, a fhort time only before the deftrudion of Jerufalem, one might rea- fonably pxjped that the defcription of this event would contain more circumfiances than the prophecy. which he had formerly delivered : but fince this is not the cafe with the prophecy in the Apocalypfe, one cannot avoid doubting whether, it really did proceed from Chrift. . 3. That, in order to make out the myftical number feven, events, which happened nearly at the fame time, are divided into the fecond, third, and fourth feals. Now this feems wholly unneceffary for a writer "who was acquainted with the circumtbances of the Jewifh war, whether his information was prophetical, or only hiftorical. And an author, who was determined to ad here to the number feven, might very properly have fought it in the feven years prophefied by Daniel. The hiftory of the war itfelf likewife furnifhes feven remark able dates, which are well adapted to the purpofe. — 1. The offering of birds at the entrance into a fynagogue at Csefarea, made in order to irritate the Jews, an event, which, though trifling in itfelf, afforded an occafion for the breaking out ofthe Jewifti war. 2. The feizure of the principal fortrefs Mafada by the banditti. 3. The campaign of Ceftius Gallus. 4. The irruption of the greater army under Vefpafian. 5.. The fiege and con- queft ,of Jerufalem, with the, famine a which preceded it's furrender. 6. The retaking of Mafada, or rather the * Ch. vi. 6, can have no reference to the famine in Jerufalem : for when a chcenix of wheat coft a denarius, it may be faid that wheat was dear, but not that there was a famine. A chcenix contained as much wheat as was necefTary for the fupport of one day, and a common la bourer could earn a denarias every day: the account, therefore, con fined in this verfe, may be applied to the fcarcity which happened in the reign of Claudius (Jofeph. Antiq. xx. 2. 6. Acts xi. 28, 29. Matth. xxiv. 7), but it is wholly inapplicable to the dreadful famine, which preceded the furrender of Jerufalem. It was faid likewife, in ch. vi. 6, that the oil and the wine fhould not be hurt : but this was hardly rhe cafe, when Jerufalem was reduced to the utmoft diftrefs. sect. viii. Ofthe Apocalypfe. 515 the felf-murder of the whole Jewifh garrifon contained in it, which Jofephus confiders as the clofe of the war. 7. The laft remains of the war in Egypt and Libya. But of thefe events, what is very extraordinary, no ufe is made in the Apocalyfe. SECT. VIII. The fame fubjebl continued. IT would really be worth while to write a particular hiftory of the expofitiorts of the Apocalypfe, and to fhew in what manner the mofl ancient interpretation of it was gradually forfaken, in what manner the modern interpretation of it took its rife among Proteftants, and how this interpretation has fpread into fo many dif ferent branches. But as this would be an Undertaking too extehfive for the prefent work, I will briefly obferve, that the various expofitions of the Apocalypfe may be arranged under the following claffes. 1. To the firft clafs may be referred all thofe com mentaries, which are fafhionable among proteftants, and 'according to which the Apocalypfe contains prophecies againft the Pope and the church of Rome. In the com mentaries belonging to this clafs, the prophecies in the Apocalypfe are confidered as ftill fulfilling. They have found, however, two powerful adverfaries in Webfter and Harenberg, whofe objedions, efpecially thofe of the latter, merit confideration. It is true, that not all Webfter's arguments on this fubjed are fatisfac- tory : for inflance, that in which he fays, that the Fran- cifcahs, perfecuted by papal authority, were the firft perfons who difcovered in the Apocalypfe prophecies' againft the Pope ; but that it is very improbable, that k K 2 ignorant 51 6 Of the Apocalypfe,) cHAPl'xx'xiif. ignorant monks ofthe middle ages fhould have been the firft to find the true key to fo difficult a bobk. I grant, that as, the- monks of the middle ages had little or no. knowledge of hiftory, they could not have explained prophecies which were fulfilled, long before their' time: but if a prophecy was completed in their own time, they might have underftood it better than the mofl learned men of former ages. The very preffure under which the Francifcans, and other diflatisfied members of the church, at that time laboured, added to the corruption of the church, muft have rendered fuch a prophecy more intelligible to them, than it could have been to the > mofl enlightened commentators before it was fulfilled. Another of Webfter's objedions is, that whoever follows the Francifcans, in interpreting the beaft of the Pope, ought, in order to be confiftent, to follow them alfo in believing that the fratres fpiritiiales formed the only true church. Now this objedion is unreafonable ; for it is furely allowable to adopt one part of an interpretation, and rejed the other. But a very material objedion to the commentaries of this clafs may be founded on the -third part of the firft chapter. The greateft part of the ' prophecies in the Apocalypfe relate to the fufferings of the church and the punifhment of its adverfaries : and in the twentieth chapter is defcribed the happy kingdom of a thoufand years, which was to put an end to all former forrows. When, therefore, the prophet fays, at the beginning of his work, ' Bleffed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep thofe things which are written therein, for the time is at hand,' everyman would fuppofe, unlefs he were already biaffed by com mentators, that fome at leaft of thofe readers to whom the book was delivered and recommended, would live to fee the happy period of the prophecy or the millen nium. For how can a reader be called bleffed, who fees nothing but the perfecution of the faithful, and the downfall of ftates ? Yet, on a comparifon of the twentieth v/ith the preceding chapters, it appears evident sect. viii. Of the Apocalypfe. 517 evident that the deftrudion of Babylon, and of the beaft, was to take place before the commencement of the millennium. 2. To the fecond clafs belong thofe commentaries, which confine the prophecies of the Apocalypfe to the three firft centuries, at leaft fuch as relate to perfecution and punifhment ; . for the happy Millennium may, ac cording to thefe commentaries, be made to commence with the converfion of Conftantine the Great'. , The objedion grounded on ch. i. 3, and. on the Mil lennium, may be made likewife to the commentaries of this clafs. 3. A third clafs of commentators find in the Apoca lypfe nothing but the deftrudion of Jerufalem, and the flight ofthe Chriftians from that city to Pella before the commencement of the fiege. This interpretation has been fupported by Harenberg, in his Expofition of the Apocalypfe, publifhed in 1759: and, in order to avoid the objection, that a prophecy relating only to Jeru falem was not a proper work to be dedicated to feven churches in Afia Minor, he contends that the feven churches mentioned in the Apocalypfe denoted feven fynagogues in Jerufalem, which were called the fyna gogue of Ephefus, the fynagogue of Smyrna, of Lao*- dicea, &c. beeaufe they were refpedively built by the inhabitants of thofe cities, who frequented Jerufalem. Now as, according to this interpretation, the prophecies were fulfilled in a fhort time, agreeably to ch. i. 3, I fhould be difpofed to adopt it, if difficulties of another kind did not prefent themfelves as obftacles to its recep tion. To mention only one : ' That great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth,' mentioned ch. xvii. 18, can hardly denote Jerufalem; for it clearly charac terizes Rome, and is, as it were, the name of that great capital. • Laftly, if the Apocalypfe were explained without previously fuppofing that it was a divine work, an inter pretation might be made of a totally different turn from any of the preceding. In this cafe, as it is not taken 1 K k 3 for 5 1 8 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii: for granted, that the Apocalyyfe contains prophecies which have been really fulfilled, we fhould have to in- 'quire, not what eyents in hiftory had refemblance to vifions in the Apocalypfe, but merely what the author of this work propofed to himfelf in the de fcription of the vifions, what events he himfelf fuppofed would happen, and what expedations the readers of this work, in'thc-age when it was written, probably formed from it. But this is an inquiry which I have never in ftituted, and therefore I cannot fay what would be the reful t SECT. IX. Of the time when the Apocalypfe was written. FROM what has been already faid in the fixth fee-* tion of this chapter, it appears that the quefiion, at what time the . Apocalypfe was written, very mate rially concerns the quefiion, whether it be a divine work. For if its firft prophecies relate to the deftruc- tion of Jerufalem, it muft have been written before the \ Jewifh war: but if the author of it wrote after the Jewifh war, and, as is commonly fuppofed, in the reign of Domitian, the fixth chapter of the Apocalypfe can not poffibly predid the deftrudion of Jerufalem, and in this cafe I do not fee how we can vindicate the affurance given in ch. i. 3, ? the time is at hand,' and, ch. xxii. 20, ' he that teftifieth thefe things, faith, Surely I come quickly, Amen.' If the Apocalypfe was written before the deftrudion of Jerufalem, this coming of Chrift may be underftood of his coming to judge Jerufalem, to which the expreflion, f till I come,' ufed in St. John's Gofpel, ch: xxi. 22, likewife refers. On the other hand, if the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Do- I mitian, sect. IX. Of the Apocalypfe. 519 mitian, the coming of Chrift admits of no other expla nation than his coming to judge the world, or at leaft to put an end to the reign of the beaft, and to eftablifh his thoufand years kingdom. But in the courfe of feven teen hundred years, neither of thefe events has taken place : and to affert that the term ' quicklyi-is confift ent with fo long a duration, beeaufe feventeen centuries are nothing in comparifon of God's eternity, is a mere fubterfuge, in which the love of truth is facrificed to the fupport of a pre-affumed opinion. As Lardner has already given a very full and very excellent examination of the quefiion, when the Apoca lypfe was. written b, it is the lefs necefTary for me to be diffufe on this fubjed : and on two points I may refer the reader entirely to Lardner, namely, the examination of the fentiments of thofe ancient writers, who on the authority of Irenseus affert, that the Apocalypfe was writ ten in the reign of Domitian, and the inveftigation of Newton's hypothefis, which refers it to a much earlier period. Knittel likewife in his ' Criticifms on the Re velation of St. John,' has admirably written on this fub-* jed, and has introduced much new matter, which is of importance in eftimating the various opinions, which have been maintained in refped to the time when the Apocalypfe was written. Six different opinions have been advanced. 1. It has been afferted, that the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of the Emperor Claudius. 2. Others refer it to the reign of Nero. 3. Others leave it undetermined whether it was written under Claudius or Nero, but contend, that it was written before the reign of Domi tian, and before the Jewifh war. 4. According to the ufual opinion, it was written in the reign of Domitian. 5. It has been referred to the reign of Trajan. 6. To that of Hadrian. ; I. The opinion, that the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Claudius, has no other teftimony in its favour than > Vol. ijc. § 3, N ,K K 4 520 Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. than that of Epiphanius c, who in his fifty firft herefy ufes the expreflion 'after his (St. John's) return from Patmos under the Emperor Claudius,' and prefently after fays, ' when St John prophefied in the days of the Emperor Claudius, while he was in the ifland of Patmos.' To this fingle teftimony of a writer, who lived three hundred years later than St. John, two very material objedions have been made. In the firft place, no traces are to be difcovered of any perfecution of the Chriftians in the reign of Claudius : for though he commanded the Jews to quit Rome, yet this command did not affed the Jews who lived out of Italy, and ftill lefs the Chrif tians. Confequently the baraifhment of St. John to the ifland of Patmos, can hardly be referred to the reign of Claudius. Secondly, that the feven flourifhing Chrif tian communities at Ephefus, Smyrna, &c. to which the Apocalypfe is addreffed, exifted fo early as the reign of Claudius, is an opinion not eafy to be reconciled with the hiftory which is given in the Ads of the Apoftles, of the firft planting of Chriftianity in Afia Minor. Befides, it, is hardly credible, that St. John refided at Ephefus, (from which place it is pre-fuppofed that he was fent into banifhment) fo early as the time of Clau dius : for the account given, Ads xix, of St. Paul's flay and condud at Ephefus, manifeftly implies that no Apoftle had already founded and governed a Chriftian church there. And when St. Paul left the place, the Ephefians had no bifhop ; for in an Epiftle- to Timothy written for that purpofe, he gave orders to regulate the church at Ephefus, and to ordain bifhops. This argu ment may perhaps be ftrengthened by obferving that the fecond apocalyptical Epiftle ch. ii. i, is addreffed to the angel of the church of : Ephefus, that is, as is commonly underftood, to the bifhop of that church. It has been doubted however, whether the expreflion xfytXos tns ixxXno-txs, ufed in the Apocalypfe, really denotes the bifhop of the church : and I remember to have read in an * See Lardner, Vol. J. p, 356, 3BCT. IX. Of the Apocalypfe. 521 an Englifh periodical publication, a fhort effay by an anonymous author, in which this expreflion is rendered by ' Meffenger of the church,' the author being of opinion, that the feven churches, to which the feven Epiftles in the Apocalypfe are addreffed, had fent mef fengers to St. John while he was in banifhment in the ifland of Patmos. But as each of thefe Epiftles is ad dreffed tw xfytXu Tnc ixxXyo-ixs, the word aJyiAe- cannot denote a meffenger fent to St. John, for with fuch a perfon the Apoftle had a verbal communication, and was therefore under no neceffity of writing to him. 2. The fecond opinion, that St. John was banifhed to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypfe there, in the reign of the Emperor Nero, is not liable to fhe objedions, which are made to the preceding opinion. It has how ever only one evidence in its favour : and this evidence, as Lardner obferves d, is not only without name, but without date. I mean the fubfeription to the Syriac verfion of the Apocalypfe, which is, ' The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelift in the ifland of Patmos, whither he was banifhed by the Em peror Nero.' But fince the Syriac verfion of the Apocalypfe is now known to be a part of the Philoxenian verfion, which was made by Polycarp at the beginning of the fixth cen tury, and afterwards correded by Thomas of Harkel % the fubfeription 'to it cannot be faid to be whplly ano nymous, and it may be regarded as the evidence of a writer, who lived in the beginning of the fixth century. If the fame fubfeription was annexed to the more anci ent verfion of the Apocalypfe, ufed by Ephrem and the Manichees, it might be called indeed anonymous, but then its importance would be increafed on another ac count, by its being fo much more ancient. The opinion that the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Nero has been ftrongly fupported by Newton, and Harenberg, whofe arguments . have been ably exa mined * Supplement, Vol. I. p. 374. . ' See this Introduction, Vol. II. ch. vii, feet. xi. ti% Of the Apocalypfe. chap* xxxiii," mined by Lardner, to whom I refer everyone whqwifhes to know what may be faid for and againft the queftioh* And as the inquiry is of fuch a nature, that an abfolute decifion is not fo be expeded, I fhall only obferve that feveral arguments in favour of this opinion, efpecially thofe ufed by Ha'renberg, prove nothing more, than that the Apocalypfe, if it is a divine work, cannot have been written later than the reign of Nero. Confequently, unlefs the divinity of the Apocalypfe be taken for granted, fuch reafoning is without force. 3. According to the third opinion, the Apocalypfe was written before the time of Domitian, and before the Jewifh war, but whether in the reign of Claudius or in the reign of Kero, is left undetermined. Now, when the words of an evidence are fo indecifive as to be ca pable of a two-fold interpretation, it is confiftent with equity to admit that which is the mofl probable ; and,; fince for the reafons above-mentioned, it is hardly pof fible that the Apocalypfe fhould have been written in the / reign of Claudius, I will fuppofe that according to this opinion likewife, the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Nero, Arethas, who according to fome critics lived in the fixth, according to others in the tenth century, wrote a commentary on the Apocalypfe, in which he exprefsly refers it to a period, prior to the commencement of the Jewifh war. Lardner indeed obferves, and not without reafon, that Arethas is not a writer of fufficient antiquity to be here regarded as a witnefs- : but as what Arethas fays feems to imply really ancient teftimony, I will exa mine his account more minutely f. In his explanation ofthe fixth feal ch, vi. 12— 17, Arethas fays, that fome underftood it figurately, and explained it of the conqueft of Jerufalem by Titus,1 though r The edition of Arethas's Commentary, which I here quote, is that which is printed at the end of the fecond, volume of the Paris edition of CEcumenius, SECT, ix; Of the Apocalypfe. 523 though moft perfons referred it to Antichrifl s. Now whoever explains ch. vi. 12 — 17, as a prophecy of the deftrudion of Jerufalem, muft pre-foppofe that the Apocalypfe was written before that event, for otherwife fuch an explanation would be an inconfiftency. But I will not pufh this inference too far, beeaufe Lardner ob- ferves h, that Arethas might have believed the vifions in the fixth chapter were reprefentations not of future, but of paft events. However there is another paffage in the commentary of Arethas, which puts the matter out of doubt, and clearly, fhews that in his opinion the Apocalypfe was written before the Jewifh war. For after he has explained what is faid of the four angels, which flood on the four corners of the earth, ch. vii, I- — 3, as relating to what happened to the Jews as a punifhment for their condud toward Chrift, and has in terpreted the hundred and forty four thoufand, who were fealed ch. vii, 4 — 8, of the Jews, who believed in Chrift, and had no part in the unhappy fate of Jeru falem ', he adds, ' For deftrudion by the arms of the Romans was not yet come upon the Jews, when he received thefe prophecies.' Here it mult be remarked that Arethas was not an original commentator, but that he exhibited in his own work a fynopfis of the commen taries of Andrew of C£efarea,who lived about theyear 500, and of otherswho had written on the Apocalypfe. But the explanation ofthe fixth chapter, as referring to the deftruc- tion of Jerufalem was not taken from Andrew : for though Andrew quotes it in his commentary as an explanation, which had been given, yet he himfelf rejects it k. We muft t Pag. 709. ch. xviii. Titts is ravra it? rut viro Ovs/rvracrtutii yttoftsw > Supplement, Vol, I. p. 372, s lb. p. 713. fr Ch, xviii, xix. p. 27. 29. Ed. Syllburg. £2.4 Ofthe Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. muft conclude therefore, that Arethas borrowed this explanation, and confequently the previous fuppofition, that the Apocalypfe was written before the Jewifh war, from fome more ancient writer. But we know of no other commentator on the Apocalypfe before Andrew of Caffarea, than Hippolytus, who lived at the end ofthe fecond century. It is therefore not improbable that Arethas borrowed it from Hippolytus : and if he did, it is fupported by the authority of a very ancient writer. Perhaps alfo Irenaeus may be quoted in favour of the fame opinion, at leaft, if the conflrudion which Knittel has put upon his words be the true one. This how ever is a quefiion which will be examined in the next article. At prefent I will only obferve, that if Iraeneus, the fcholar of Polycarp really referred the Apocalypfe to a period prior to the reign of Domitian, and \{ he thus ceafes to be the grand fupport of the oppofite opinion, that it was written during the reign of Domitian, an opinion adopted by his fucceffors on his authority, we may with fafety affume, that the Apocalypfe was written before the time of Domitian, before the Jewifh war, and probably in the reign of Nero. 4. The common opinion that St. John was banifhed to Patmos, and faw the vifions related in the Apocalypfe, during the reign of Domition, is grounded on a paffage in the works of Irenasus ', the Greek text of which is thus quoted by Eufebius m, Tpxtpuv yttoi 0 Etpyvxtos w*-i thj J/rjps tfis xxtx toi/ Avtiyaiftov •arpo interpretari de apocalipfi vifa, aut cum interprete Latino Irensi de nomine vifo, cum commodiflime et verif- \ lime de ipfo Joanne dici poflit, eum fub exitum imperii Domitiani confpectum fuiffe. Wetftein, N. T. Tom. II. p. 746. 0 Pag. 6, 7. 64. of his Expofition of the Apocalypfe. t He likewife takes the name Domitian in a figurative fenfe, and fuppofes that it denotes, not the emperor, who properly bore that name, but either Marcus Aurelius or Septimus Severus, to each of whom, on account of their perfecution of the Chriftians, he fays the name -of Domitian was applicable. Now the only reafon, which can be affigned for this very forced interpretation is, that Irenseus ufes the expreflion a-^eiot em tjj? ifj-en^ds ystias* which Harenberg tranflates • within the laft thirty years,' afcribing to ystsx the fenfe, which gene- alogifts afcribe to the very word ' generation,' and at the fame tim£ wholly overlooking -^a-. Now though I grant that in genealogical computations 526 Of the Apocalypfe. chap.xxxiiij However there is a third interpretation given by Knittel, which is lefs liable to objedion, and which though it is the mod new, may in fome meafure be faid to be the moft ancient : According to this interpreta tion, ttsfjxfa is referred to -to ovopx, that is, to the name of the beaft, whofe number is 666 : for on this number Irenseus is difcourfing in the paffage in ques tion, and explains it as denoting Titan, which, when written in Greek TEITAN, contains fix letters, which makes out the number 666. This name Knittle con-« fiders as an illufion to thepraenomen of Domitian, which was Titus, and fays, that the name of Titan was juftly applicable to Domitian, beeaufe toward the clofe of his reign he infifted on divine honours being paid him, and was therefore a Stopxyos, as the Titans were. It is true that ovopx is not fo fuitable to *'m-*9*i, as it would be to ujcsa-iln : but even this difficulty will be removed, if we only fupply the word ' Titan.' According to this ex planation then, the meaning of Irenasus will be, ' Titan fhewed himfelf not long before our time, toward the clofe of the reign of Domitian ;' for this emperor exhi bited his bad qualities, chiefly in the latter part of his reign, when he conduded himfelf in fuch a manrter as might be expeded from the Antichrifl, or the threatened Titan. Irenaeus indeed did not believe that Domitian was the real Antichrifl predided in the Apocalypfe, whofe coming he ftill expeded : yet he might regard Domitian computations the word ystsa may be taken in this reftricted fenfe, yet when an author fays in indefinite terms a^tlot en-i ms fifAertects ystsus, he can mean only ' not long before our time,' that is, not long be* fore I, or at leaft many perfons now living were born.' And fince Irenaeus himfelf was born in the year 130, he might without impro*- priety apply the expreflion to an event which happened at the end of Domitian's reign, efpecially as he fpeaks in the plural number, and there were undoubtedly many perfons alive when he wrote, who were born ftill earlier than himfelf. I might furely fay, in the prefent year 1786, that Pruffia was erected into a monarchy almoft in our own time : for, though this event took place feventeen years before 1 was born, yet the ufe of the particle ' almoft,' and ofthe plural number, many, perfons being now alive, who were born before that event, ren ders the expreflion perfectly admiffible. sect. ix. Of the Apocalypfe. 527 Domitian as a forerunner and type ofthe true Antichrifl. Such is Knittel's- opinion: and this at leaft muft be admitted, that his conftrudion of twj «9*j with ovopx is fup ported by the authority of the old Latin tranflator of Irenams's works, who has rendered the paffage in quefiion in the following manner : Si oporteret manifefle prafenti tempore prseconari nomen ejus, per .ipfum utique edidum fuiffet, qui et Apocalypfin viderat. Neque enim ante multum temporis vifum eft, fed pene fub noflro feculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii. Further, Knittel appeals to the context of the Latin tranflation, and fup- ports his opinion by very plaufible arguments. If he is in the right, the Apocalypfe was not only written before, the reign of Domitian, but contains prophecies, which relate to him. 5. In a Latin work, containing the lives of the Apof tles, afcribed to Dorotheus, who lived at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, and 'who is faid to have been bifhop of Tyre, the banifliment of St. John to the ifland of Patmos is placed in the reign of Trajan : but at the fame time it is obferved, that in ' the opinion of others he was banifhed in the reign of Domitian9- Of thefe Latin lives there exifts a Greek tranflation, made by a perfon unknown : and this Greek tranflation, as publifhed by Cave, mentions like- wife Trajan. 6. On the other hand, according to another copy, which Knittel found in a Wolfenbuttel manufcript of the Apocalypfe, ' St. John was banifhed to Patmos by the Emperor Hadrian '.' Thefe two laft dates are fup ported by only one evidence, and it is moreover uncer tain whether he meant Trajan or Hadrian. For this reafon I barely mention thefe dates, without inquirinc- into their probality. Among thefe different opinions relative to the time iwhen the Apocalypfe was written, our choice muft in a •great meafure depend on the opinion which we entertain of 1 Bibliotheca Patrum maxima, Tom. VII. 122. ' See Knittel, p. 88, 89. 5*8 Of the Apocalypfe. chap. XxXtlf. of the work itfelf, whether we confider it as an infpired book, or regard it only as a human' compofition. If we confider the Apocalypfe as a divine work, I think we muft. confine our choice to thofe dates which precede the commencement of the Jewifh war ; for thus only fhall we be enabled to fhew that its firft prophecies were fulfilled in a fhort time. And I grant that if it is referred to the reign of Claudius, the explanation of it is ftill eafier, than when it is referred to the reign of Nero : for the fcarcity predided, chap. vi. 6, is defcriptive of that which took place in the time of Claudius. If it be confidered as a mere human invention, it may be either afcribed to Cerinthus, or attributed to fome unknown writer, who lived between the time of Papias and that of Juftin Martyr" : in the latter cafe it might have been written in the reign of Hadrian. But if it be really a forgery, if it contains prophecies Of the Jewifh war made after the events themfelves had taken place, we have reafon to wonder that the author did not pro- phefy more circu.mftantially, and that he appears fb little acquainted with the events of that war1. SECT. X. Of the Greek ftyle of the Apocalypfe. IN examining the quefiion, whether St. John t\\t Apoftle was the author of the Apocalypfe, its Greek ftyle, which differs from that of every other book in the New Teftament, deferves particular attention. But the application of the remarks to be made on this fubjed will depend on the quefiion examined in the preceding fedion, _ • See what was faid of Papias and Juftin Martyr in the fecond fec tion of this chapter. « See the latter part of the feventh fection. 8ECT. X. '¦> - Of 'the Apocalypfe. $ify fedionj namely, at what time the Apocalypfe was written : for it cannot be denied, that the fame author may at one period of his life make ufe of a ftyle, which is very different from that which he has ufed at another. That the ftyle of the Apocalypfe is very unlike that of any other book of the New Teftament5 is a fadf which no man, who underftands Greek, and is capable of judging impartially, will deny. Nor is this differences Of fuch a kind only, that we might afcribe it to the peculiarity of the fubjed, and fay, that the fame author, when he wrote in the charader of a prophet, would Ufe different modes of expreflion from thofe which he had adopted as an hiftorian : whence might be explained the contrail between the fimple unadorned ftyle of St. John's Gofpel, and. the rich figurative language of the Apo->- calypfe. But when the rules of the Greek grammar are accurately obferved in St. John's Gofpel, and are fre quently violated in the Apocalypfe, we have a difference, which cannot be afcribed to the diffimilitude of the fub jed : for the farrie author, who wrote corredly as an hiftorian, would not be guilty of folecifms even in writ ing prophecies. Dionyfius of Alexandria, whofe modefty and gentle- nefs of temper I commended in the fecond fedion of this chapter, was well aware Of the difference between the ftyle of the Apocalypfe,* and that of St. John's ge nuine writings : and for this very reafon, though he did not venture -to deny that the Apocalypfe was a. facred book, yet he afferted that St. John the Apoftle was not the author of it. The difference in quefiion may be re duced to the following heads : i. The Apocalypfe' abounds with harffi conftrudions, in which a nominative is placed, where another cafe ought to have been ufed. Of this fort the following inftances have been alleged by Bengel" : ch. i. 5. «s-« Iijo-s Xeifg, 0 (/.xotvs 0 'srisos '. 11. 20. rnv yvvxix-x r\ Xtyxsxi ill. 12. tns xxivris hpxo-xXnf*., n xxto&xtvxo'K : vin. 9. to r^nov tuv xtKr^xtw tx tyvvix i^up^ass : IX, 14. tio styytXuo * Apparatus Criticus : Fundam, crif. Apoc. § 5. , Vol. IV, L t 530 Of the Apdcalypfe. chap, xxxiii. iyuv rnv cxXirtyyx : xiv. 12. tuv dyiuv 01 tnpxvtts : xviii. II, 12. tov yopov xvtuv xSus xyogxtyi ovxttiy yoftos yjpvax : XX. 2. tov Spxxovtx, 0 otpis oxpyxtos: XXI, IO. 12. tw ¦tsoXiv—fxxo-x. He further adds : nee longe abeunt ilia, xiv. 5. tw §i\piu, xxt tnv ttxovx xvtx: XVII. 4. (ZStXvypxtuv, xxt tx xxx^xpta. : vel etiam, iv. 4. vii. 9, xiii. 3. To thefe examples feleded by Bengel may be added the following: In ch. i, 6, fhe reading of mofl manu feripts is nroino-tv y[/.xs fixctXuxv Itpus, which is taken from the Hebrew text ofExod. xix. 6, 'a kingdom of priefts,' though the.feventy have rendered.it in a different man ner, namely, -|3*;» xai 0 ap^tairoicotoi;. sect. X. Of the Apocalypfe. $$ i But before I proceed, I muft acknowledge, that ths examples of harfh conflrudion above-quoted from the Apocalypfe, if we except that which was taken from ch. i. 5; though they are found in good manuferipts are not contained in all, and that they have been adopted in very few printed editions, in mofl of which the no minative is converted into a cafe more fuitable to the Context Here then- it may be objeded, that when we have the choice of two readings* one of which is gram matically corred, while the other contains falfe gram mar, we ought to afcribe the latter, not to the incor* rednefs of the. author, but to the inaccuracy of a tran scriber. Now if a grammatical error was found in a manufcript of Cicero's works, no doubt could be enter tained that the ungrammatical reading did not proceed from the pen of the author : but that the ungrammatical conftrudiohs in the manuferipts of the Apocalypfe can not be afcribed wholly to the copyifts x, will appear from the following arguments. Firft, though an illiterate tranferiber may fometimes Copy falfely, and convert an accurate expreflion into a folecifm, yet it is incredible that feveral tranfcribers fhould agree not only in copying falfely in the very fame places, but likewife in fubftituting the fame miflaken readings, and in converting the true cafe into a nomir native without any affignable reafon. Secondly, thefe unufual Conftrudions occur too fre quently in the Apocalypfe to be imputed wholly to tranfcribers : for, if they arofe merely from the inaccu racy of tranfcribers, we fhould as frequently meet with fuch examples in the other books of the New Teftament, as in the Apocalypfe, many ofthe tranfcribers of which have not copied this book alone. Since then thefe un grammatical conftrudions occur fo frequently in the Apocalypfe, but not in other books of the New Telia-, ment written by the fame tranfcribers, the Only inference tq.*be drawn is that they proceeded from the author himfelf. Thirdly, x Bengel fays ofthe examples above-quoted, Singulatim haec exfi- bilare facile eft ; univerfa nemo convellet. 5J2, Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. Thirdly, it is certain that thefe ungrammatical con ftrudions exifted in the Apocalypfe long before our mofl ancient manuferipts were written : and therefore they cannot be afcribed to the ignorance of c6pyifts in the middle ages. For even in the third century, when ancient Greek was ftill a living language, and when therefore it cannot be fuppofed that Greek tranfcribers would in copying make grammatical miftakes, Diony fius of Alexandria delivered his opinion of the language of the Apocalypfe in the following words y : 'I find the language ufed by the author not good Greek ; for it is disfigured by barbarifms and fometimes by folecifms, which I do not think it necefTary to quote, as it is my in tention not to ridicule, but only to fhew that the ftyle of thefe writings z is not the fame \ (i 2. The Apocalypfe abounds with Hebraifms much more than the writings of St. John. It is true that fome critics have gone too far with this affertion, and have reprefented St. John's Gofpel as per fectly pure Greek b, while the Apocalypfe has been charged with Hebraifms in places where there really are. none. But that the Hebraifms in the Apocalypfe .are more numerous and more harfh, than thofe in the Gof pel and the Epiftles of St. John, is a fad which muft be fo vifible to every one who has only a moderate knowledge of Hebrew, that I think it unneceffary to quote examples. 3. Though y Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. VII. cap. 25. ¦ Name'y St. John's Gofpel and the Apocalypfe. * It is not improbable that many ofthe folecifms of which Diony fius fpeaks in the third century were gradually corrected by tranfcrib ers. See Vol. I. Ch. VI. Seft. XL of this Introduction. The number ofthe MSS. of the Apocalypfe hitherto collated is inconfiderable: and* it is poffible that, into all of thefe the grammatical corrections have found their way. Attention therefore muft be paid to whatever fole cifms may be found in fingle manuferipts of the Apocalypfe, for they may be remnants of the ancient reading : for inflance that ofthe Wolfenbiittel manufcript, Ch. viii. %. jJoQij uvms tirra o-uXvvyyts. b For inflance Dionyfius of Alexandria, at the end of the paffage quoted by Eufebius. sect, x. Of the Apocalypfe. 532 3. Though the figurative language ofthe Apocalypfe, when compared with the fimple-ftyle of St. John's Gof pel, cannot be alleged as an argument that the two books were written by different authors, fince the fame author, when animated by a fpirit of prophecy will write in a different manner from that in which he had written as an' hiftorian, yet there is a certain charader in the lan guage in the Apocalypfe which is hardly to be recon ciled with the manner, which is vifible in St. John's Gofpel. Throughout almoft the whole of the Apo ¬calypfe we' find the author an imitator of the ancient prophets, from whom he borrows his images, and renders them more beautiful than .they were in the originals : but St. John's Gofpel has a foft and gentle charader fo peculiar to itfelf, as to exhibit no trace of imitation. Further, the author of the Apocalypfe (whom from the title of the book I will call St. John the Divine, in con- tradiftindion to St. John the Apoftle,) has not borrowed his imagery merely from the canonical books of the Old Teftament, for he has taken a great part of it from the Jewifh antiquities, and the theology of the Rabbins, fo that his work has almoft a cabaliftic appearance. And he not only feems himfelf to be intimately acquainted with thefe fubjeds, but to prefuppofe the fame intimacy in his readers, and to have written for thofe only who- were initiated in the abftrufeft dodrines, which were taught in the fchools of the Rabbins : nor does it even once occur to him, that what he fays may appear foreign or obfcure. But St. John the Apoftle feems to have been well aware that not all his readers had this kind of knowledge : for he has frequently explained circum fiances relative to the city of Jerufalem, and the cuftoms of the Jews, with more hiftorical perfpicuity, than we find even in the other Evangelifts. ¦ ,4. On the other hand, the language ofthe Apocalypfe is both beautiful and fublime, isaffeding and animating; and this not only in the original, but in every, even the worft, tranflation of it. Who can read, if he reads without prejudice, the following addrefs of Jefus to 11-3 John 534 Of the Apocalypfe. chap.xxxiii,- John finking to the ground through fear, and iiot be affeded by the greatnefe of the thoughts and the expref fions. ' Fear not, I am the firft and the laft ; I am he that was dead, but now liveth : behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen ; and have the keys of hell and of death ¦ ,' The Apocalypfe has fomething in it, which enchants, and infenfibly infpires the reader with the fob- lime fpirit of the author. When future bleffednefs is, promifed, or the New Jerufalem defcribed, a man muft be devoid of feeling, who is not affeded : and when; the author denounces judgment to the wicked, and repre- ¦> fents the fmoke of their torment afcending up for ever and ever, before the throne of God and his angels, one muft be either prejudiced before one reads, or one can-;' not read without terror. A great part of the imagery is borrowed from the ancient prophets: but the imitation, is for the mod part -more beautiful and more magnificent than the original, which is particularly true of what is borrowed from Ezekiel. And the imagery which is taken from the theology of the Rabbins, acquiresin the Apocalypfe a tafte and eloquence, of which the Rabbi nical writings themfelves are wholly deftitute. , .- St. John's Gofpel has likewife its beauties, but then they are beauties ;of a very different kind. For while the Author, of the Apocalypfe hurries us away to en chanted ground, and refembles a torrent which carries every thing before it, St. John the Apoftle is plainnefs and gentienefs, and is like a clear rivulet, which flows without rapidity and violence. Is it poffible therefore that St. John the Apoftle, and the author of the Apo calypfe, .called St. John the Divine,- were one and the fame perfon ? 5. Dionyfius of Alexandria, remarks, that St. John the Apoftle has not mentioned his own name either in his Gofpel, or in any of his Epiftles, but that, when he has occafion to fpeak of himfelf he makes ufe of a cir cumlocution. On the other hand, St. John the Divine mentions his own name, not only in places, where it was requifitejf * Ch.i. 17, 1 a. sect. x. Of the Apocalypfe. $3$ requifite, as in the addrefs to the feven churches, ch.-i. 4, but likewife in places where the fingle pronoun ' I,' or the expreflion ' he who faw this,' would have been full as proper as the term ' I John.' The one appears to have an exceffive modefty, and to avoid even the fhadow of egotifm : the other avoids it fo little, -that he is lavifh in the ufe of his name. And what renders this differ ence the more remarkable, is, that the circumlocution by which St. John the Apoftle denotes himfelf, namely, ' the difciple whom Jefus loved,' is not once ufed by St. John the Divine. It is an undeniable fad therefore that the ftyle of the Apocalypfe is. very "different from that of St. John's Gof pel. It is true 'that -'fome" commentators, in order to fhew a fimilarity between the language of the Apocalypfe and that of St. John's Gofpel and Epiftles, have feleded expreffions from the former, which refemble thofe that occur in the latter. This has been particularly done by Leonard Tvvells, whofe defence of the Apocalypfe is in ferted in Wolfii Curse V But. in Lardner's ^opinion, to whofe judgment I fully accede, the examples feleded by Twells are by no means fufficient to prove a fimilarity of ftyle: and, even if they were feleded' with more judg ment, and the refemblance in thofe particular inftances, admitted of no doubt f, ftill the diffimilarity will remain in e Vindicia; Apoc'alypfeos, p. 399 — 404. f I will mention one or two examples, which have occurred to me in reading the Apocalypfe. The word apttot which occurs fo fre quently in the Apocalypfe, (a word feldom ufed in the LXX) is found no where elfe in the whole N. T. except in the Gofpel of St. John, ch. xxi. 15. The expreflion «o(si» aXn&ttat and ¦woistt -^tvtog is ufejd Apoc. xxii. 15, and in the firft Epiftle of St. John, ch. i. 6. Further in Apoc. i. 7, there is a quotation from Zech. xii. vo,- not according to the text of the Septuagint, but with' a different reading, as in St. John's Gofpel, ch. xix. 37. : and it is remarkable that this paffage from Zechariah, which occurred to St. .John, when he faw Chrift pierced.on the* crofs, is quoted by no other of the facred writers. This laft example has been already noted by Twells, but he has not given it the force of which it is capable. See my Hiftory of the kefurrec- tion, p. 31. However thefe inftances will not prove that the Apoca lypfe was written by St. John the Apoftle: for the author of it may in fome cafes have imitated St. John's manner, in order to make his work pafs the more eafily for the compofition of St, John, IL4 53^ Of the Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. in other places; and will remain fo. great, that they who have thence inferred, that the Apocalypfe was not writ ten by St. John. tlie> Apoftle, have' drawn an inference which is not devoid of probability. To this inference however it may be objeded, that a eourfe of years might have made a material alteration in St. John's ftyle, fince the manner of writing which we have adopted in the early part of life, . is frequently changed in a later part of ft, efpecially when the former manner was imperfed, and flood in need of improve ment. It is poffible, therefore, that St John in the earlier part of his life, might have written with the fire , which is vifible in the Apocalypfe, and, being.- at that time lefs converfant with Greek, ; wrote intorredly, and retained alfo much of the oriental, manner, but that in his old age he wrote with that gentlenefs which is vifible in his Gofpel, and likewife, r in confequence of his long refidence at Ephefus, more coned Greek. All this may be inferred on the fuppofition that, the Apocalypfe was written in the reign of Claudius or of Nero: but if it' was written in the reign of Domitian, its ftyle is an irrefiftible argument that St, John the Apoftle^ was not the author. For in a work written by St. John in his. old age, after he had long refided among the Greeks, he would hardly have violated thofe very rules of gram mar which he had obferved in his Gofpel : his ftyle would -hardly haye become more oriental : nor would he have difplayed that fire of compofition which he had not exhibited in his earlier works. The quefiion therefore whether the Apocalypfe is a divine book, depends again on the time when it was written, whether fo early as the reign of Claudius or of Nero, or fo late as the reign of Domitian, If according to tbe common opinion, it was written in the reign of Domitian, I do not fee ip what manner its divinity can be fupported, SECT. XI . Ofthe Apocalypfe. 537 SECT. XI, Whether the Apocalypfe was originally zvritten in Hebrew. SOME commentators have fuppofed that the Apo calypfe was originally written in Hebrew, and that our Greek text is only a tranflation. Now it cannot be denied, that the mode of writing is quite oriental : but fince the teftimony of no ancient writer can be produced in favour of the opinion that it was written originally in Hebrew, and its oriental ftyle may be eafily explained on the fuppofition, that the author of it was a Hebrew by birth, and though, in his native language, he wrote in Greek, to which he was lefs accuftomed, the . notion of a Hebrew original appears to be without foundation. But that I may not be unjuft to an opinion which I do not think proper to adopt, I will obferve that one might allege in favour of it feveral various readings, which have the appearance of being different tranflations of the fame Hebrew word. For inflance, inftead ofthe very improbable jeadingg Svo pvgixSts y,vgixSuv {two hun dred millions) ch. ix. 16, feveral manuferipts have, as I think more properly, pvpixSis pvptxSuv, which is an inde terminate expreflion, 'and nothing more than an hyper bole, denoting a very great number in general. Here if the Hebrew, word DTill") had been ufed in the ori ginal, it might have been taken by one perfon for the plural and rendered pvpixSts pv^ixSuv, by another for the dual and rendered Svo p.v%txSis pvgtxSuv, in the fame .manner as qvrcn, Pf. Ixviii. 18, is by fome explained ' two myriads,' — Inftead of xxt Xtyu pot, ch. x. 1 1, nine MSS. quoted by Wetftein, to which may be added the Wolfenbiittel MS, have xxt xtyxm y.oi, Thefe may be s The reafon why I confider this reading as very improbable is *!Egned in the Orient. Bib. Vol. VJII. p. 158, 159. 538 Of the. Apocalypfe. chap, xxxnr. be two different tranflations of the Hebrew, 'b ")DK1, one tranflator rendering literally, the. other taking "iqn *im- perfonally in the fenfe Of ' one fays,' or ' they fay,' in which manner the, word is frequently ufed by modern rabbins^— Inftead of xxtoixxvtxs, ch, xiv. 6, 'the Com plutenfian edition, fixteen MSS. quoted by Wetftein, the Wolfenbuttel MS. Origen, Andrew, Arethas, and the Vulgate, have xxh^vxs. Thefe two readings may be different tranflations of the Hebrew D'Q.VY1. However fuch examples are by no means fufficient to prove a pofition, which is wholly unfupported by hif torical evidence. For thefe variations may be eafily explained on other fuppofitions : the laft variation, for inflance xxhpuxs, which is a harfh Hebraifm, is pro bably the genuine reading, and xxtoixxvtxs, added in the margin as an explanation of it, was afterwards in fome manuferipts inferted in'the text. SECT. XII. Remarks on' the doctrine delivered in the Apocalypfe. LUTHER in his preface to the Apocalypfe pre fixed to the edition, 'which was printed in 1522, objeds, that Chrift. was not taught in the Apocalypfe, which an Apoftle is above all things bound to do, fince Chrift himfelf fays, Ads i, ' Ye fhall be my witneffes.* Now this objedion, delivered in fuch general terms, is, I think, without foundation: and I cannot conceive how Luther could fey, that Chrift is not taught in a book, in which fo frequent mention is made, and that too in very affeding terms, of our redemption by Chrift's blood and death; But the true and eternal Godhead of Chrift is certainly not taught in the Apocalypfe fo clearly as in St. John's Gofpel, though the author 4 - fpeaks. SICT. xii. Of the Apocalypfe* 539 fpeaks in enthufiaftic language of the greatnefs of Chrift's miniftry, and the glory communicated to his human nature. At the very beginning ofthe book Chrift is placed after the feven. fpirits,, who fland near the throne of God ; nor is he ever called God, or the creator of the world, throughout the whole work. Even the form under which Chrift appears, ch. i. 13 — 15, is, with only a few alterations,. borrowed from Pan. x. 5, 6, where is given the defcription of an angel. It is true, that Chrift is called a Aoyos tx ®tx, ch> xix.' 13, : but this appellation is not decifive, for it. appears from the antithefes, ;which-St. John in the beginning of his. Gofpel makes againft Cerinthus, that even falfe teachers could give to Chrift the title of tWord of God,' without acknowledging, that he was, God fiimfelf. Anc* on account of this very appellation ufed ch. xix. 13, the fufpicion arofe, that Cerinthus was the author of the Apocalypfe, beeaufe it is ufed by no other of the facred writers than St. John, but was the common appellation of Chrift's divine nature . among the Gnoftics. St John in his Gofpel was under the neceffity of retaining this expreflion, beeaufe he makes antithefes againft the Gnoftics: but in the Apocalypfe no fuch motive could have taken place, and if this book was written in the time of Nero, be fore the breaking out ofthe Cerinthian herefy, and long before St; John's Gofpel was written, it is difficult to comprehend how St. John, at fo early a period, came to apply the appellation of ' Word of God ' to Chrift's divine nature. Further, it is true, that Chrift is called in the Apocalypfe, ch. i. 17, 'the firft and the laft.:' and this expreflion, if taken, in the fame fenfe, as that in which it is ufed, Ifaiah xii. 4. xliv. 6. xlviii. 12, may denote Chrift's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not abfolutely decifive : for. the meaning of ch, i. 17, may be, ' Fear -not, I am the firft (whom thou knewefl as mortal), and the- laft (whom thou now feeft immortal), ftill the fame, whom thou knewefl from the beginning.' The fame -explanation may be given of ch. ii. 8, where the 54° Of the 'Apocalypfe. chap, xxxiii. the expreflion ' the firft and the laft ' again occurs and is ufed in connexion with Chrift's refurredion from the dead. On the other hand, in ch. ix. 1 1, where the words are lefs dubious, «--£-/ xxi ttXos, is a fpurious addition. In the twelfth chapter "of the Apocalypfe is delivered an extraordinary dodrine relative to an heavenly mo ther, who bare in heaven a child who " was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. This is a dodrine- which is taught in no other part ofthe Bible: but it refefn- bles what was taught by feveral heretics, concerning the mother of life, who bare the firft heavenly man, that is, the heavenly Jefus. And as, according to their dodrine, the prince of darknefs devours a part ofthe armour of the firft man, fo in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypfe, the dragon endeavours to devour the new born child, who is caught up to God and his throne, as the firft man was according to the heretics.J The 15th verfe refembles likewife what the heretics fay of the drowned Jefus, with only this difference, that what they faid of Jefus is here faid of the mother. The -whole of this chapter may be explained indeed in fuch a manner, as to remove all offence : yet it is difficult to read it, without thinking of certain cabaliflic, Gnoftic, and what in later ages were Manichean doc trines, efpecially if one has examined what Beaufobre has written in his Hiftoire des Manicheens, Liv. VI. ch. 3. Liv. VIII. ch. 4. The feven fpirits of God, from whom a falutation is fent, ch. i. 4, and who are placed before Chrift himfelf, create likewife a difficulty, which commentators en deavour to remove by faying, that nothing more is meant than the fingle perfon- of the Holy Ghoft : but as the Jews really fpeak of feven archangels, who had accefs to the throne of God, the feven fpirits before, the throne of God, mentioned ch. i. 4, can hardly be interpreted of the Holy Ghoft. One may imagine, that infpiration is afcribed to thefe feven fpirits, and that hence they are called in the Apocalypfe, not angels, but fpirits. The image of the feven lamps, under which they sect. xii. Of the Apocalypfe. 541 they are reprefented, ch. iv. 5, is very fuitable to this notion : and the expreflion * he hath the feven fpirits of God,' ch. iii. 1, may denote the higheft degree of infpiration. But the mofl important paffage is, ch. xxii, 6, according" to the reading, Kvpios 0 ®tos tuv srvtv- pxruv tuv tspofyy\tw xtrtfuXt tov xyyiXov xvtx, where feve- ' ral fpirits are mentioned, who infpired the prophets, and one of them appears to be the fpirit who fhewed to the author of the Apocalypfe the principal vifions. . In no book of -the New Tefiament is fo frequent mention made of angels as in the Apocalypfe, in which they appear to be appropriated to particular countries and elements. This however may be confidered as mere imagery, and explained according to the principles laid down in the fixth fedion of this chapter. The worfhipping of angels is clearly forbidden in the Apo calypfe: but in ch. viii. 2, 3, a high facerdotal office is affigned to an angel, which we are accuftomed to affign only to our Redeemer. ' The dodrine of the Millennium is that which created the greateft number of adverfaries to tbe Apo calypfe in the early ages of Chriftianity, and excited the fufpicion that it was a -forgery of Cerinthus. They were particularly difpleafed with the reprefentation, that after the refurredion of the dead a worldly kingdom fhould be eftablifhed on earth for a thoufand years. Even to-us this dodrine appears ftrange and incredible : but to the ancient fathers, who, agreeably to the com monly received philofophy in thofe days, derived all fin from the grofs particles of matter of which the body is corripofed, it neceffarily gave more offence. And jf in this kingdom marriages were to be celebrated, and feftivals held, which however is not exprefsly af- ferted in the Apocalypfe, all thofe fathers, who de claimed againft bodily pleafures, and regarded the flate of celibacy as a flate of holinefs, of courfe difapproved pf the life to be led in this kingdom, as being, according to their notions, much too fenfual, even if the mar riages and feftivals were confined wholly to thofe, who fhould 54& &f the Apocalypfii ChAp. Xxxnn fhould be alive at the general refurredioni The doc* ' trine of the Millennium was rejeded by the reformers in the fixteenth century on a very different account ;and was condemned, not merely as a fpeculative, but as a dangerous pradical error. For the expedation of a kingdom in which pure faints fhould. rule over the unregenerate children of the world began to excite a fpirit of fedition, as it is very eafy for the unruly mem bers of a difcontented party to fancy, that they themfelves are the faints, and their opponents the unregenerate r and for this very reafon the Augfburg Confeflion" con demns the dodrine of the Millennium in exprefs terms* Further, according to the reprefentation of the ancient Chiliafts, offerings and offeping-feftivals were to be celebrated in this kingdom : but fuch notions are in confiftent with St Paul's doctrine concerning the im- perfedion and abolition of the Levitical law. Qn the other hand it muft be granted, that the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypfe, in which is de fcribed the kingdom of a thoufand years, does not contain all that the. ancient Chiliafts affigned to their Millennium. It contains nothing of offerings and of- a Jewifh temple, and this addition was made by the Chiliafts from the nine laft chapters of Ezekiel, which they interpreted literally. Nor is mention made of marriages in ..the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypfe ; but in" the defcription which Ezekiel makes of his temple, are given laws for the marriage of priefts, to which the Chiliafts probably appealed in fupport of their opinion. That the faints' fhould rule over the unregenerate, is a dodrine, which flands more plainly in the Apocalypfe : but by the faints we may under ftand either the church of God, or the Jewifh nation- returned to their own country. The firft refurrecfion, which is to precede tbe kingdom of a thoufand years, is clearly taught in this chapter, if we take the words as they are, and do not have recourfe to figutative explanations : and though they, who rife from the dead, are, b Art. XVII. de reditu Chriftu ad judicium. seC,t. xir. Of the Apocalypfe, 543 are, according tp , this chapter, not to be the only in-, habitants of the kingdom, it appears, that they, are to take part in it as princes and magiftrates, and to return from a better life, which their fouls enjoyed, to this earthly one, which is a humiliation. In order to re move this difficulty, thofe commentators, who are not Chiliafts, explain the firft refurredion as a mere figure. The twentieth chapter of the Apocalypfe, which oc casioned the greateft part of the objedions made by the Antichiliafts, feems to have been formed from the thirty-feventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel ; only what Ezekiel had faid is fhortened, and the pidurefque beauties, as in other parts of the Apocalypfe, greatly improved. Ezekiel proprieties an hyvafion of Magog, which was certainly not fulfilled when the Apocalypfe was written, and, if we take his words literally, feems to threaten the Jews, who lived in the promifed land, with a long interruption of their profperity.- Immediately before, in the thirty-feventh chapter, Ezekiel had feen a refurredion of the dead, which however is to be interpreted, not literally of The coming of dead bodies to life, but according to Ezekiel's own explanation, of the refurredion of the Jewifh flate after the captivity, though many of the Jewifh commentators themfelves have taken Ezekiel in a ftrict fenfe. In like manner the author of the Apo calypfe proprieties a firft refurredion which is to take place before the profperity of tbe church is interrupted by Magog. Whether that firft refurredion is to be underftood literally or figuratively is a quefiion, into which I cannot enter at prefent. Whoever regards the Apocalypfe as a mere human compofition, ' may fay, that the author of it mifunderftpod Ezekiel,' and in terpreted him more literally than the prophet himfelf intended. On tbe other hand, they, who receive the Apocalypfe as a divine work, will find in a comparifonof the Apocalypfe with' Ezekiel the beft means of freeing the dodrine of a firft refurreftion of its improbability; for they need only fay, that the author of the former- treats 544 Of' the Apocalypfe. , chap, xxxrir,, treats the fame fubjed, which Ezekiel had prophefied more clearly, and that he took for granted his readers would underftand him in fuch a manner as Ezekiel intended to be underftood. - The defcription given in the Apocalypfe of the king* dom of the beaft is taken from Daniel, but is aug mented by the addition of various circumfiances. It ihuft be remarked however, that in .the Apocalypfe the beaft is never called Antichrifl, a name, which occurs no where, but in the Epiftles of St. John, and is there ufed in a fenfe which has no relation to the apocalyp tical beaft or harlot. If the term Antichrifl therefore be taken in its biblical fenfe; the dodrine relative, to' Antichrifl cannot be proved from the Apocalypfe. Thus much have I thought it necefTary to fay, rathet hiftorically than dogmatically concerning the dodrines delivered in the Apocalypfe,- beeaufe it is- of importance to know, whether they contradid the other dodrines of the New Teftament. I confefs, that during this inquiry, my belief in the divine authority of the Apo calypfe has received no more confirmation than it had before : and I muft leave the decifion of this important quefiion to every man's private judgement. FINIS. Luke Hanfard, Print"-*, Great Turnftil*., Lincoln's-Inn Field*. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 05346 3445