CHAP. XV.

THE SUBSCRIPTIONS OF THE EPISTLES.

ST

IX of thefe fubfcriptions are false or improbable; that is, they are either abfolutely contradicted by the contents of the epiftle, or are difficult to be reconciled with them.

I. The fubfcription of the first epistle to the Corinthians ftates that it was written from Philippi, notwithstanding that, in the fixteenth chapter and the eighth verfe of the epiftle, St. Paul informs the Corinthians, that he will "tarry at Ephesus until Pente"coft;" and notwithstanding that he begins the falutations in the epiftle, by telling them "the churches of Afia falute you;" a pretty evident indication that he himself was in Afia at this time.

II. The epiftle to the Galatians is by the fubfcription dated from Rome; yet, in the épistle itself, St. Paul expreffes his surprise

that

"that they were fo foon removing from him "that called them;" whereas his journey to Rome was ten years pofterior to the converfion of the Galatians. And what, I think, is more conclufive, the author, though fpeaking of himself in this more than any other epistle, does not once mention his bonds, or call himself a prisoner; which he had not failed to do in every one of the four epiftles written from that city, and during that imprisonment.

III. The first epistle to the Theffalonians was written, the fubfcription tell us, from Athens; yet the epiftle refers expressly to the coming of Timotheus from Theffalonica (ch. iii. ver. 6); and the history informs us, Acts xviii. ver. 5, that Timothy came out of Macedonia to St. Paul at Corinth.

IV. The second epistle to the Theffalonians is dated, and without any discoverable reason, from Athens alfo. If it be truly the fecond; if it refer, as it appears to do (ch. ii ver. 2), to the first, and the first was written from Corinth, the place must be erroneoufly affigned, for the history does

not

not allow us to fuppofe that St. Paul, after he had reached Corinth, went back to Athens.

V. The first epistle to Timothy the fubscription afferts to have been fent from Laodicea; yet, when St. Paul writes, “I befought thee to abide ftill at Ephefus,

66

66

πορευομενος εις Μακεδονιαν (when I fet out "for Macedonia)," the reader is naturally led to conclude, that he wrote the letter upon his arrival in that country.

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

The use, and the only ufe, which I make of these observations, is to fhow, how eafily errors and contradictions fteal in where the writer is not guided by original knowledge. There are only eleven diftinct affignments of date to St. Paul's epiftles (for the four written from Rome may be considered as plainly cotemporary); and of these, fix feem I do not attribute any authority to thefe fubfcriptions. I believe them to have been conjectures founded fometimes upon loofe traditions, but more

to be erroneous.

1

generally upon a confideration of some par-
ticular text, without fufficiently comparing
in with other parts of the epiftle, with diffe-
rent epistles, or with the hiftory. Suppofe
then that the subscriptions had come down
to us as authentic parts of the epistles, there
would have been more contrarieties and dif-
ficulties arifing out of these final verses, than
from all the reft of the volume. Yet, if the
epistles had been forged, the whole must
have been made up of the fame elements as
thofe of which the fubfcriptions are com-
pofed, viz. tradition, conjecture, and infe-
rence and it would have remained to be
accounted for, how, whilst so many errors
were crowded into the concluding claufes of
the letters, fo much confiftency should be
preferved in other
parts.

The fame reflection arifes from obferving the overfights and mistakes which learned men have committed, when arguing upon allufions which relate to time and place, or when endeavouring to digeft scattered circumstances into a continued ftory. It is indeed the fame cafe; for thefe fubfcriptions must be regarded as ancient scholia,

and

and is nothing more. Of this liability to error I can present the reader with a notable inftance; and which I bring forward for no other purpose than that to which I apply the erroneous fubfcriptions. Ludovicus Capellus, in that part of his Hiftoria Apoftolica Illuftrata, which is entitled De Ordine Epift. Paul. writing upon the second epistle to the Corinthians, triumphs unmercifully over the want of fagacity in Baronius, who, it seems, makes St. Paul write his epiftle to Titus from Macedonia upon his fecond vifit into that province; whereas it appears from the history, That Titus, instead of being in Crete where the epiftle places him, was at that time sent by the apostle from Macedonia to Corinth. "Animadvertere eft," fays Capellus, magnam hominis illius

66

66

abλeav, qui vult Titum a Paulo in Cre"tamabductum, illicque relictum, cum inde Nicopolim navigaret, quem temen agnof"cit a Paulo ex Macedoniâ miffum effe Co"rinthum." This probably will be thought a detection of inconfiftency in Baronius. But what is the moft remarkable, is, that in the fame chapter in which he thus in

dulges