omitted his name. another.

Paul might have a reason for fuch filence, as well as

Lightfoot (d) fays: "Paul's not affixing his name to this, as "he had done to his other epiftles, does no more deny it to be "his, than the first epiftle of John is denied to be John's upon that

"account."

a

Tillemont fays: "Poffibly (e) Paul confidered it as a book, rather than letter fince he makes an excufe for it's brevity. ch. xiii. 22. "For indeed it is fhort for a book, but long for a letter." The fame thought is in (f) Eftius. This may induce us to recollect an obfervation of Chryfoftom to the like purpose, formerly (g) taken notice of.

It is, I think, obfervable, that there is not at the begining of this epiftle any falutation. As there is no name of the writer, fo neither is there any description of the people to whom it is fent. It appears from the conclufion, that it was fent to fome people, in a certain place. And, undoubtedly, they to whom it was fent, and by whom it was received, knew very well, from whom it came. Neverthelefs there might be reafons for omitting an infcription, and a falutation, at the begining. This might arife from the circumstances of things. There might be danger of offence in fending at that time a long letter to Jews in Judea. And this omiffion might be in part owing to a regard for the bearer, who too is not named. The only perfon named throughout the epiftle is Timothie. Nor was he at that time prefent with the writer.

Indeed I imagine, that the two great objections against this being a genuine epiftle of the Apoftle: the elegance of the ftile, and the want of a name, and infcription: are both owing to fome particular circumftances of the writer, and the people, to whom it was fent. The people, to whom it was fent, are plainly Jews in Judea: and the writer, very probably, is Paul. Whofe circumflances at the breaking up of his confinement at Rome, and his fetting out upon a new journey, might be attended with fome peculiar embaraffments, which obliged him to act differently from his ufual method.

IV. Thus we are brought to the fourth and last part of our inquirie concerning this epiftle, the time and place of writing it.

The Time and Place

of Writing.

Mill was of opinion, that (b) this epiftle was writ by Paul in the year 63. in fome part of Italie, foon after he had been released from his imprifonment at Rome. Mr. Wetstein (i) appears to have been of the fame opinion. Tillemont (k) likewife placeth this epiftle in the year 63. immediatly

(d) See his Works. Vol. i. p. 339. (e) S. Paul. art. 46. Mem. T.

(f) Sed poft hæc omnia, an vera ratio omiffæ falutationis eft, quod hæc epiftola fcripta eft per modum libri, non per modum epiftolæ ? Unde in fine dicit: Etenim perpaucis fcripfi vabis. Quod de epiftola non erat dicturus, cum fit epiftola prolixa. Eft. de Auct. Ep. ad Hebr. p. 893.

(g) See Vol. x. p. 322.

(b) Interea, mox ut e carcere evafit Apoftolus, rece.it in ulteriorem aliquam Italie partem, ibique fcripfit epiftolam ad Hebræos. Proleg. num. 83. (i) Weth, N. T. Tom. 2. p. 387. in. (k) S. Paul. art. 46.

mediatly after the Apoftle's being fet at liberty. Who, as he fays, was ftill at Rome, or at left in Italie. Bafnage (1) fpeaks of this epiftle at the year 61. and fuppofeth it to be writ, during the Apoftle's imprisonment. For he afterwards fpeaks of the epiftle to the Ephefians, and fays, it (m) was the last letter, which the Apoftle wrote during the time of his bonds. Lenfant and Beaufobre, in their general preface to St Paul's epiftles, obferve," that (n) in the subscription at the end of the epiftle it is said to "have been writ from Italie. The only ground of which, as they add, is "what is faid ch. xiii. 24. They of Italie falute you. This has made "fome think, that the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews, after he had been "fet at liberty, and when he was got into that part of Italie, which bor"ders upon Sicilie, and in ancient times was called Italie. Neverthe"lefs there is reafon to doubt of this. When he requests the prayers of "the Hebrews, that he might be restored to them the fooner, he intimates, "that he was not yet fet at liberty." Accordingly, they place this epiftle in the year 62.

There is not any great difference in any of thefe opinions concerning the time, or place of this epiftle: all fuppofing, that it was writ by the Apostle, either at Rome, or in Italie, near the end of his imprisonment at Rome, or soon after it was over, before he removed to any other countrey.

I cannot perceive, why it may not be allowed to have been writ at Rome. St. Paul's first epiftle to the Corinthians was writ at Ephefus. Nevertheless he fays ch. xvi. 19. The churches of Afia falute you. So now he might send falutations from the Chriftians of Italie, not excluding, but including those at Rome, together with the reft throughout that countrey.

The argument of Lenfant and Beaufobre, that Paul was not yet fet at liberty, because he requested the prayers of the Hebrews, that he might be reftored to them the fooner, appears not to me of any weight. Though Paul was no longer a prifoner, he might request the prayers of those to whom he was writing, that he might have a profperous journey to them whom he was defirous to vifit: and that all impediments of his intended journey might be removed. And many fuch there might be, though he was no longer under confinement. Paul was not a prisoner, when he wrote the epiftle to the Romans. Yet he was very fervent in his prayers to God, that he might have a profperous journey, and come to them. ch. i. 10.

For determining the time of this epiftle, it may be obferved, that when the Apostle wrote the epiftles to the Philippians, the Coloffians, and Philemon, he had hopes of deliverance. At the writing of all those epiftles Timothie was prefent with him. But now he was abfent, as plainly appears from ch. xiii. 23. This leads us to think, that this epiftle was writ after them. And it is not unlikely, that the Apostle had now obtained that liberty, which he expected, when they were writ.

(1) Ann. 61. num. ii.... vi.

Moreover

(m) Epiftolarum omnium, quas primis in vinculis exaravit Apoftolus, ea ad Ephefios, ultima effe videtur. Ibid. num. vii. (a) Pref. gen. fur les epiftres de S. Paul. num. lii.

quæ

Moreover in the epiftle to the Philippians he speaks of fending Timothie to them. ch. ii. 19 But I trust in the Lord Jefus, to fend Timo23. thie fhortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. Timothie therefore, if fent, was to come back to the Apostle. Him therefore I hope to fend presently, fo foon as I fhall fee, how it will go with me. It is probable, that Timothie did go to the Philippians, foon after writing the above mentioned epiftles, the Apoftle having gained good affurance of being quite releafed from his confinement. And this epiftle to the Hebrews was writ, during the time of that abfence. For it is faid Hebr. xiii. 23. Know ye, that our brother Timothie is fet at liberty. With whom, if he come shortly, I will fee you. Know ye, that our brother Timothie is fet at liberty: or has been fent abroad. The () word is capable of that meaning. And it is a better, and more likely meaning, because it suits the coherence. And I suppose, that Timothie did foon come to the Apostle, and that they both failed to Judea, and after that went to Ephefus: where Timothie was left, to refide with his peculiar charge.

Thus this epiftle was writ at Rome, or in Italie, foon after that Paul had been released from his confinement at Rome, in the begining of the year 63.

And I suppose it to be the laft written of all St. Paul's epiftles, which have come down to us, or that we have any knowledge of.

Who was the bearer of it, is not known. At the end of the epistle, in fome manuscripts, is a subscription to this purpose: that it was carried from Italie by Timothie. But that fubfcription is esteemed of no authority by all learned men in general, Beza, in particular. I put below (p) a part of what he fays. It is inconfiftent with what is faid of Timothie ch. xiii. 23. Timathie was to accompany the writer. The epiftle was fent before.

CHAP XIII.

That the epiftle, infçribed to the Ephefians, was writ to them.

THE epiftle to the Ephesians is one of the acknowledged epiftles of St. Paul. There never was any doubt among Chriftians, who was the writer. But there has been, especially of late, a difpute concerning the perfons, to whom it was fent: fome thinking, that

(0) Et quidem paullo poft miffas hafce [ad Philippenfes] literas, libertatem adeptus, Timotheum in Macedoniam mifit, uti liquet ex Hebr. xiii. 23. Neque enim verbis iftis fignificatum vult Apoftolus, Timotheum tum temporis, fecum una vinculis liberatum fuiffe, sed a se ob certa negotia fuiffe dimiffum, Mill, Proleg. num, 68.

(p) Puto igitur hanc fubfcriptionem non fatis confiderate adfcriptam fuiffe a quopiam, qui occafionem ex eo arripuerit, quod Timothei et Italorum mentio facta fuerat. Nam etiam et in Claromontano codice, et in Syra interpretatione non exftat. Bez, ad cap. xiii. in fin.

that the common infcription is falfe, and that this is either a general epiftle, or that it was fent to the Laodiceans. Of this opinion is (a) Mill, in his Prolegomena to the New Teftament, who has had many followers. Some of whom must be here mentioned by me. Mr. James Peirce (b) who likewife fpeaks of Mr. Whiston, as of the fame opinion. The (c) Author of a Latin Letter or Differtation in the third volume of Mr. La Roche's Literarie Journal, published in the year 1731. That Letter is anonymous. But the writer is Artemonius, otherwife Samuel Crellius, author of Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apoftoli reftitutum. This I was affured of by Mr. La Roche, the editor. W. Wall in his critical Notes upon the New Teftament. Dr. Benfon (d). The author of a letter at the end of the second volume of Dr. Benfon's Hiftorie of the first planting the Chriftian Religion. Which learned Author has alfo fince published a Poftfcript to that letter, which is at the end of the third volume of the fame work of Dr. Benfon. The unknown Author of an edition of the New Teftament, in Greek and English, in two volumes octavo, publifhed at London in 1729. Campegius Vitringa, the Son, Profeffor of Divinity in the Univerfity of Franequer, wrote a Differtation on the fame fide of the queftion. And not having therein finished his defign, his fucceffor, Mr. Venema, added another Differtation, both together making more than one hundred and thirty pages in (e) quarto. Laftly, Mr. J. J. Wetstein in his notes upon the begining of this epiftle. Who alfo has put a mark under the text, fhewing Laodicea to be, in his opinion, the right reading, instead of Ephefus. I here mention no more. But perhaps fome others may be taken notice of hereafter.

The common reading however has been defended by (f) feveral. I

mention

(a) Quidni igitur fcripta fuerit ad Laodicenfes? Proleg. num. 74. vid, ib, num.71...79. et num. 237.

(b) See an Advertisement at the end of his Paraphrafe upon the Ep. to the Philip pians. p. 114. &c.

(c) See La Roche's Literary Journal for April, May, and June. 1731, Vol. 3. p. 165... 183. Et Conf. Artemonii Initium Evangel. S. Joan. reflitutum. p. 212, edit. Londini. 1726.

(d) See Dr. Benfon's Hiftorie of the firft planting the Chriftian Religion. Vol, ii, p. 270-276. first ed. p. 290—297. 2d ed.

(e) Differtat. de genuino titulo epiftolæ D. Pauli, quæ vulgo inscribitur að Ephefios. Ap. Campeg. Vitring, Fil. Diff, Sacr. Franequera, 1731. p. 247

379:

(f) Vid. J. C. Wolf. Cure in N. T. T. 4. p. 1—13. I may be allowed likewife to take notice of a Commentarie upon the epifle to the Ephefians, published in the Dutch language, by Peter Dinant, a learned Minifter at Rotterdam, in the year 1721. Of which an honourable account is given in the Bibliotheca Bremenfis, where we are affured, Ampla operi præmifit Prolegomena, in quibus primo loco Apoftolum Paulum vere epiftolæ ad Ephefios fcriptorem effe demonftrat.-Agit deinde de Ephefo, ejufque, cum Apoftolus hanc epiftolam confcriberet, ftatu: de Dianæ cultu.Hinc re futat Grotium, qui Marcionem fecutus non ad Ephefios, fed Laodicenfes fcriptam hanc epiftolam credidit. Sententia quoque Ufferii, qui non ad folos Ephefios, fed plures ecclefias deftinatam, adeoque pro encyclica habendam putat, examinatur, ac rejicitur. Bibliotheca. Hift. Phil. Theolog. Claffis quinte Faft. tertius. p. 533. 534. Breme 1721.

mention two authors of great note. One is Le Clerc (g) in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie, whofe words I have placed below. He had feen Mill's argument, and flighted it. He thought, that few would be moved by it. However, he briefly considers, and anfwers the principal objections, taken from Eph. i. 15. iii. 2. and 4. As for any other arguments, he fays, they are of too little moment to be opposed to the general confent of Chriftian writers. So that, fays he, there is no reason, why we should doubt, whether this epiftle was writ to the Ephefians.

The other writer is Whitby, in his preface to this epiftle. A part of which I chearfully transcribe here. "That this epiftle to the Ephefians "was indeed written by St. Paul, and directed to them, and not to "any other church, we cannot doubt, if we believe either the epiftle, or "Paul himfelf. For, firft, it begins thus: Paul an Apostle of Fejus Chrift "to the faints which are at Ephefus. And in this reading all the verfions, "and all the manufcripts agree. Secondly, in the clofe of the epiftle he "fpeaks thus to them: That you may know my affairs, and how I do, Ty"chicus, a beloved brother, and faithful minifter in the Lord, fhall make "known unto you all things. Whom I have fent unto you for the fame pur"pofe.... Ch. vi. 21. 22. And in the fecond epiftle to Timothie he “ fays: Tychicus have I fent to Ephesus. 2 Tim. iv. 12. Moreover, third"ly, all antiquity agrees, that this epiftle was writ by Paul to the Ephe"fans." And what follows.

Thofe arguments appear to me a fufficient defense of the prefent reading. Nevertheless the other opinion, contrarie to Le Clerc's expectation, has of late much prevailed: as appears from the number of the patrons of it, above named. And as the arguments of thofe two learned men, whose writings are well known, have not been judged fatisfactorie; there can be little reafon to expect, that any thing faid by me fhould be of much weight. And indeed, it has fometimes happened, that certain opinions have had a run, and it has been in vain to oppose them: though afterwards they have fallen of themselves, being unfupported by any good evidence.

However,

(g) Poftea fcripfit epiftolam ad Ephefios, quam viri quidam docti [Joan. Millius, in Prolegom. ad N. T. cujus conjectura paucis credo probabitur :] fufpicantur ad Laodicenos datam, fed fine ullo fat_firmo argumento. Volunt quidem in hac epiftola quædam effe, quæ Ephefiis non conveniunt, ut cum cap. i. 15. Paulus fe audiffe fidem et caritatem Ephefiorum ait, quas ipfe per fe norat, non ex auditu. Sed nihil vetat, quin Romæ audiverit, Ephefios conftanter eas virtutes coluiffe, ex quo ipfe eos viderat, eoque in hifce verbis refpexerit. Similiter, et quæ habet cap. iii. 2. Si tamen audiftis dif penfationem gratia Dei, qua data eft mihi in vobis, in Ephefios optime quadrant, fi ita intelligantur, ut fi, Græce se, non fit dubitantis, fed adfirmantis, et fignificet quandoquidem, ut cap. iv. 21. et alibi. Ejufdem cap. iii. 4. ait Paulus poffe eos, ad quos fcribit, legentes intelligere prudentiam ejus in myflerio Chrifti: quam non tam lectione eorum, quæ in hac epiftola antecefferunt, quam ex præfentis fermonibus intellexerant Ephefii. Sed nihil nos cogit eo confugere. Nam revera poterat hoc intelligi, vel ex iis quæ fuperioribus capitibus leguntur. Alia argumenta, leviora multo, et omnium Chriftianorum confenfui oppofita, non adtingam. Quare an ad Ephefios fcripta fit hæc epiftola, nihil eft cur dubitemus. Cleric, H. E. Ann. 62, num, vili.