to have been already preached and received at Rome, declared themselves totally ignorant concerning it, except that it was every where spoken against, and were desirous to be informed of its doctrines by him.'

"

In all this argument, Mr. Evanson takes for granted a thing which is far from appearing to be fact, viz. that no other than apostles could plant Christian churches. But were not the Samaritans, and also the eunuch of Ethiopia, converted by Philip? And did not Barnabas and Mark go upon a progress to preach the gospel independently of Paul and Silas? What could be necessary to make converts to Christianity but a credible account of the doctrines and miracles of Christ, though the imparting the gift of the Holy Spirit was useful to confirm such converts ? And can Mr. Evanson think it at all probable, that when the metropolis of the empire was constantly visited by persons from all parts of the known world, no Christians should have any occasion to go thither, or that they would be silent on a subject that interested themselves and others so much as the new religion, which they had just embraced, did? Is it at all credible, then, that there should be no Christian church at Rome before the year 62, when Paul was sent thither?

Besides, whatever Mr. Evanson may fancy to the contrary, it is evident that they were Christians who met Paul at Puteoli and Appii Forum; for they are styled brethren, a well-known appellation of Christians, and he received from them that consolation which no other persons could have given him in his circumstances. Acts xxviii. 13-15: "And we came the next day to Puteoli, where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days, and so we went towards Rome. And from thence when the brethren heard of us, they met us as far as Appii Forum, and the Three Taverns, whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage." It is very extraordinary that Mr. Evanson should imagine that those brethren were any other than Christian brethren. That Paul should desire to have a conference with the Jews of Rome, was very natural. As he had been sent to Rome on an accusation of the chiefs of the nation, he would wish to have his case understood by those of his countrymen who were at Rome. These Jews were unacquainted with Christianity, and Paul took that opportunity of explaining it to them; but it by no means follows

* Dissonance, p. 259. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 309.

from this, that there were no Christians then at Rome, and a church, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.

From very early times, the epistles of Paul were publicly read in Christian churches, and among others, in those very churches to which they were addressed, where it could not but have been known whether such epistles had been written to them or not. It is hardly possible to imagine any circumstance that would so effectually preclude all possibility of any imposition of the kind. And yet Mr. Evanson seems never to have attended to it. The canon of the New Testament may be said to have been completed long before the memory of such epistles having been received or not, could be lost. If Paul, for instance, wrote so large an epistle as that which now bears that title, to the Church of Rome, whatever became of that particular copy, yet, as it had been read to the whole church at the time that it was received, it could never have been forgotten that he had written such an epistle. And if any epistle had at any time afterwards been brought to that church, and respect been claimed for it as written by the apostle, it would have been rejected with indignation; and the knowledge of this fact would have caused it to be rejected in all other Christian churches. The same may be said of the epistles addressed to other churches.

2. Mr. Evanson objects to the authenticity of this epistle, because when Paul wrote it he signified his intention of going by way of Rome into Spain. Now," says he, "whoever has read, with proper attention, the history of St. Paul's travels, written by his friend and fellow-traveller, Silas or Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, must be convinced, that St. Paul never had the least idea of travelling into Spain." But does the writer of that book mention every thing that Paul intended to do, when it is evident that he relates only a small part of what he actually did?

3. So differently do the same things strike different persons, that the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, which are so like those with which the other epistles of Paul terminate, that they furnish one of the clearest proofs of their genuineness, are with Mr. Evanson marks of forgery. "I cannot forbear," he says, "remarking farther, the inconsistency of this writer, which, indeed, must generally be discernible in all falsifiers, in making St. Paul personally acquainted with so long a list of members of the

VOL. XX.

* Dissonance, p. 257. (P.) Ed. 2, p. 308.
2 G

church of Rome, where he had never been, amongst whom we find Aquila and Priscilla, and even his own mother, to whom he sends his salutation, in the last chapter, ver. 13. Of the two first, St. Luke tells us that, about, or rather before, the pretended date of this epistle, they had left Rome, being Jews, in obedience to an edict of Claudius. And if there is any reason to believe that St. Paul's mother was then living, is it credible that an old woman of Tarsus, in Cilicia, whose son was so wonderfully appointed to preach the Gospel, and who was occupied in that commission in Asia and Greece, should leave her native country and such a son, and ramble after other preachers of the gospel, at so advanced an age, to the far distant metropolis of Italy ?"*

Mr. Evanson, however, will find, that when this epistle was written, Claudius, by whose edict the Jews had been banished from Rome, was dead, and therefore many of those who had left the place would take the opportunity of returning. It is evident from the clearest circumstances, that the Epistle to the Romans was written in the beginning of the year 58, which was the fifth of Nero. As to Paul's mother, it was, probably, some aged matron to whom he was under particular obligation, and to whom he might, on this account, give such an endearing appellation. Or if it was his natural mother, improbable as, no doubt, it was, it was not absolutely impossible but that she might be at Rome.

4." But in the eleventh chapter," Mr. Evanson says, "the author clearly betrays himself to be, not St. Paul, but some person who lived and wrote some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the Jews; for to these events alone can the following sentences refer: Ver. 12: If the fall of them' (the Jews) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness?' Again, ver. 15: If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be?' Again, vers. 21, 22: If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off,""&c. +

This objection goes upon the principle that Paul could

Dissonance, p. 260. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 310, 311.

+ See Vol. XIII. p. 195.

Dissonance, pp. 260, 261. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 811, 312.

have no idea of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the subsequent dispersion of the Jews, but after the events. But if this was the case, as the same rule must apply to all other writers as well as Paul, Luke not excepted, his Gospel must have been written after those events. But had Paul never heard of our Saviour's prophecies, and if so, might he not allude to the events predicted by him? Besides, he himself saw so much of the incredulity of the Jewish nation, that he might be well satisfied that the time of their general conversion was at a great distance, and their casting away means nothing more than their general unbelief.

If the writer of this epistle could not allude to any events but such as he was witness to himself, how could he allude, as he evidently does, to the general conversion of the Jews, and the effect it would have upon the Gentiles, which has not taken place even yet? This is certainly a prophecy, and, therefore, might have been expected to recommend this epistle to Mr. Evanson. Or, if we consider it as nothing more than a probable conjecture, might he not suppose the allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem to be a conjecture too, and therefore no proof of the epistle having been written after the event?

LETTER XI.

I am, &c.

Of Mr. Evanson's Objection to some other Epistles in the New Testament.

DEAR SIR,

ONE Letter more relating to Mr. Evanson's objections to some other epistles in our canon of the New Testament, shall close all that I have to observe of this kind.

1. "The Epistle to the Ephesians," he says, "is also written in the name of St. Paul, but under a supposition that a Christian church was settled at Ephesus, before Paul himself preached the gospel there; for, chap. i. 15, 16, the writer makes him say, Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you,' &c.; and, chap. iii. 1, &c., For this cause, I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given to me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery, (as I wrote afore in few words,) whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ. This

supposition, however, cannot possibly be allowed by any one who credits the history of the Acts of the Apostles; for in that we are expressly told, chap. xviii., xix., that St. Paul himself preached the gospel at Ephesus, first, in the synagogue of the Jews at two different times, and afterwards in the school of Tyrannus, for the space of two years; and to read over his valedictory discourse to the elders of the church of Ephesus, at Miletus, recorded Acts xx., is amply sufficient to convince every impartial mind, that St. Paul could never have written to the Ephesians in the abovequoted language of this epistle. Some critics, indeed, without the least proof, suggest that this epistle was ori ginally inscribed to the church of Laodicea, and not of Ephesus; but if there was really any satisfactory evidence, that, notwithstanding the great dissimilarity of the names, the transcribers of all the existing copies had conspired to make so extraordinary a change, still the difficulty would not be removed; because, according to the Acts, St. Paul was the first preacher of the gospel at Laodicea also, and every other part of Asia Minor."

Now, it by no means appears from the Acts of the Apostles, that Paul could be said to have planted the Christian church at Ephesus, though he greatly promoted the Christian cause in that city. Paul visited Ephesus for the first time on his way from Corinth to Jerusalem, whither he was making all the haste that he could. He, therefore, only preached in the Jewish synagogue, and immediately left thè place. It is not said either that he was the first Christian who had preached there, or that he then made any converts. Acts xviii. 18-21.

After this, we find Apollos preaching at Ephesus, where he was farther instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, vers. 24 -28. When, after this, Paul came to reside at Ephesus, [xix. 1,] he found some persons, twelve men in all, who were only acquainted with the baptism of John; but it is not said that these were the only disciples in the place. If so, the preaching of Apollos had produced no effect, the contrary of which is strongly intimated. After this, Paul continued two years in this city. How, then, is it any just objection to the genuineness of this Epistle to the Ephesians, which has the unanimous testimony of all antiquity, confirmed by many internal marks, that Paul should mention his hearing of their faith?

* Dissonance, pp. 261, 262. (P.) Ed. 2, pp. 312, 313.