the X

you that believe." A person who reads this pas-I This is the difficulty. The answer may be sage is naturally led by it to suppose, that the assisted by the following observations: The writer had dwelt at Thessalonica for some con- Alexandrian and Cambridge manuscripts read (for siderable time : yet of St. Paul's ministry in that | των σεβομένων Ελλήνων πολυ πλήθος) των σεβομένων city, the history gives no other account than the ** Env ̈v modu #anos in which reading they are following that he came to Thessalonica, where also confirmed by the Vulgate Latin. And this reading is, in my opinion, strongly supported by was a synagogue of the Jews: that, as his manner was, he went in unto them, and three Sabbath the considerations, first, that ... alone, i. e. days reasoned with them out of the scriptures: without EXA, is used in this sense in the same that some of them believed, and consorted with chapter-Paul being come to Athens, keysto op TH συναγωγή τοις Ιουδαίοις και τοις σεβομενοις : Paul and Silas." The history then proceeds to tell us, that the Jews which believed not, set the city secondly, that Coμ and Exs no where in an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, The ... must be 'EXAMS. Thirdly, that come together. The expression is redundant. where Paul and his companions lodged; that the is much more likely to have been left out consequence of this outrage was, that "the bre-incuriâ manûs than to have been put in. Or thren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by after all, if we be not allowed to change the night unto Berea," Acts, ch. xvii. 1-10. From the mention of his preaching three Sabbath days present reading, which is undoubtedly retained in the Jewish synagogue, and from the want of by a great plurality of copies, may not the pas any further specification of his ministry, it has sage in the history be considered as describusually been taken for granted that Paul did not ing only the effects of St. Paul's discourses during the three Sabbath days in which he preached continue at Thessalonica more than three weeks. in the synagogue? and may it not be true, as we This, however, is inferred without necessity. It have remarked above, that his application to the appears to have been St. Paul's practice, in al- Gentiles at large, and his success amongst them, most every place that he came to, upon his first was posterior to this? arrival to repair to the synagogue. He thought himself bound to propose the Gospel to the Jews first, agreeably to what he declared at Antioch in Pisidia: "it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you," Acts, ch. xiii. 46. If the Jews rejected his ministry, he quitted the synagogue, and betook himself to a Gentile audience. At Corinth, upon his first coming thither, he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath; "but when the Jews opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he departed thence, expressly telling them, "from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles; and he remained in that city a year and six months," Acts, ch. xviii. 6-11. At Ephesus, in like manner, for the space of three months he went into the synagogue; but "when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way, he departed from them and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus; and this continued by the space of two years," Acts, ch. xix. 9, 10. Upon inspecting the history, I see nothing in it which negatives the supposition, that St. Paul pursued the same plan at Thessalonica which he adopted in other places; and that though he resorted to the synagogue only three Sabbath days, yet he remained in the city, and in the exercise of his ministry amongst the Gentile citizens, much longer; and until the success of his preaching had provoked the Jews to excite the tumult and insurrection by which he was driven away.

Another seeming discrepancy is found in the ninth verse of the first chapter of the epistle; "For they themselves show of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God." This text contains an assertion, that, by means of St. Paul's ministry at Thessalonica, many idolatrous Gentiles had been brought over to Christianity. Yet the history, in describing the effects of that ministry, only says, that "some of the Jews believed, and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few," ch. xvii. 4. The devout Greeks were those who already worshipped the one true God; and therefore could not be said, by embracing Christianity, "to be turned to God from idols."

CHAPTER X.

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

No. I.

IT may seem odd to allege obscurity itself as an argument, or to draw a proof in favour of a writing from that which is naturally considered as the principal defect in its composition. The present epistle, however, furnishes a passage, hitherto unexplained, and probably inexplicable by us, the existence of which, under the darkness and difficulties that attend it, can be accounted for only by the supposition of the epistle being genuine; and upon that supposition is accounted for with great ease. The passage which I allude to is found in the second chapter: "That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalted himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not that WHEN I WAS YET WITH YOU I TOLD YOU THESE THINGS? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time; for the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he that now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way; and then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." It were superfluous to prove, because it is in vain to deny, that this passage is involved in great obscurity, more especially the clauses distinguished by Italics. Now the observation I have to offer is founded upon this, that the passage expressly refers to a conversation which the author had previously holden with the Thessalonians upon the same subject: "Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth." If such conversation actually passed; if, whilst "he was yet with them, he told them those things," then it follows that the epistle is

authentic. And of the reality of this conversation it appears to be a proof, that what is said in the epistle might be understood by those who had been present to such conversation, and yet be incapable of being explained by any other. No man writes unintelligibly on purpose. But it may easily happen, that a part of a letter which relates to a subject, upon which the parties had conversed together before, which refers to what had been before said, which is in truth a portion or continuation of a former discourse, may be utterly without meaning to a stranger who should pick up the letter upon the road, and yet be perfectly clear to the person to whom it is directed, and with whom the previous communication had passed. And if, in a letter which thus accidentally fell into my hands, I found a passage expressly referring to a former conversation, and difficult to be explained without knowing that conversation, I should consider this very difficulty as a proof that the conversation had actually passed, and consequently that the letter contained the real correspondence of real persons.

No. II.

Chap. iii. 8. "Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but wrought with labour night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: not because we have no power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to fol

low."

In a letter, purporting to have been written to another of the Macedonian churches, we find the following declaration :

was the very same as that which the history attributes to St. Paul in a discourse, which it represents him to have addressed to the elders of the church of Ephesus: "Yea, ye yourselves also know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how, that so labouring ye ought to support the weak," Acts, ch. xx. 34. The sentiment in the epistle and in the speech is in both parts of it so much alike, and yet the words which convey it show so little of imitation or even of resemblance, that the agreement cannot well be explained without supposing the speech and the letter to have really proceeded from the same person.

No. III.

Our reader remembers the passage in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which St. Paul spoke of the coming of Christ: "This we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep: for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, and so shall we be ever with the Lord. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief," 1 Thess. iv. 15-17, and ch. v. 4. It should seem that the Thessalonians, or some however amongst them, had from this passage conceived an opinion (and that not very unnaturally) that the coming of Christ was to take place instantly, οτι ανέστηκεν ; and that this persuasion had produced, as it well might, much agitation in the church. The apostle therefore now writes, amongst other purposes, to quiet this alarm, and to rectify the misconstruction that had been put upon his words:-"Now The conformity between these two passages is we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our strong and plain. They confine the transaction Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together to the same period. The Epistle to the Philip- unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or pians refers to what passed "in the beginning of be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by the Gospel," that is to say, during the first preach-letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at ing of the Gospel on that side of the Egean sea. The Epistle to the Thessalonians speaks of the apostle's conduct in that city upon "his first entrance in unto them," which the history informs us was in the course of his first visit to the peninsula of Greece.

"Now, ye Philippians, know also that in the beginning of the Gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving but ye

only."

As St. Paul tells the Philippians, "that no church communicated with him, as concerning giving and receiving, but they only," he could not, consistently with the truth of this declaration, have received any thing from the neighbouring church of Thessalonica. What thus appears by general implication in an epistle to another church, when he writes to the Thessalonians themselves, is noticed expressly and particularly; "neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but wrought night and day, that we might not be chargeable

to any of you.'

The texts here cited further also exhibit a mark of conformity with what St. Paul is made to say of himself in the Acts of the Apost. s. The apostle not only reminds the Thessalonians that he had not been chargeable to any of them, but he states likewise the motive which dictated this reserve: "not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us," ch. iii. 9. This conduct, and, what is much more precise, the end which he had in view by it,

hand." If the allusion which we contend for be admitted, namely, if it be admitted, that the passage in the second epistle relates to the passage in the first, it amounts to a considerable proof of the genuineness of both epistles. I have no conception, because I know no example, of such a device in a forgery, as first to frame an ambiguous passage in a letter, then to represent the persons to whom the letter is addressed as mistaking the meaning of the passage, and lastly, to write a second letter in order to correct this mistake.

I have said that this argument arises out of the text, if the allusion be admitted; for I am not ignorant that many expositors understand the passage in the second epistle, as referring to some forged letters, which had been produced in St. made to say that the coming of Christ was then at Paul's name, and in which the apostle had been hand. In defence, however, of the explanation which we propose, the reader is desired to observe,

1. The strong fact, that there exists a passage in the first epistle, to which that in the second is capable of being referred, i. e. which accounts for the error the writer is solicitous to remove. Had no other epistle than the second been extant, and

* OTI SVEOTHXv, nempe hoc anno, says Grotius, v. T his dicitur de re præsenti, ut Rom. viii. 38. 1 Cor. iii. 22. Gal. i. 4. Heb. ix. 9.

had it under these circumstances come to be considered, whether the text before us related to a forged epistle or to some misconstruction of a true one, many conjectures and many probabilities might have been admitted in the inquiry, which can have little weight when an epistle is produced, containing the very sort of passage we were seeking, that is, a passage liable to the misinterpretation which the apostle protests against.

2. That the clause which introduces the passage in the second epistle bears a particular affinity to what is found in the passage cited from the first epistle. The clause is this: "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him." Now, in the first epistle, the description of the coming of Christ is accompanied with the mention of this very circumstance of his saints being collected round him. "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air," 1 Thess. chap. iv. 16, 17. This I suppose to be the " gathering together unto him" intended in the second epistle: and that the author, when he used these words, retained in his thoughts what he had written on the subject before.

3. The second epistle is written in the joint name of Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, and it cautions the Thessalonians against being misled by letter as from us" (dv.) Do not these words, &, appropriate the reference to some writing which bore the name of these three teachers? Now this circumstance, which is a very close one, belongs to the epistle at present in our hands; for the epistle which we call the First Epistle to the Thessalonians contains these names in its superscription.

4. The words in the original, as far as they are material to be stated, are these: 15 TO μN TOXING onλευθήναι υμας απο του νοός, μήτε θροεισθαι, μητε δια πνευ. ματος, μήτε δια λόγου, μήτε δε επιστολης, ως δε ημών, ως ότι ενέστηκεν η ημέρα του Χριστου. Under the weight of the preceding observations, may not the words μητε δια λόγου, μητε δε επιστολής, ως δε ημων, be construed to signify quasi nos quid tale aut dixerimus aut scripserimus,* intimating that their words had been mistaken, and that they had in truth said or written no such thing?

CHAPTER XI.

The First Epistle to Timothy. FROM the third verse of the first chapter, "as I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I

Should a contrary interpretation be preferred, I do not think that it implies the conclusion that a false epistle had then been published in the apostle's name. It will completely satisfy the allusion in the text to allow, that some one or other at Thessalonica had pretended to have been told by St. Paul and his companions, or to have seen a letter from them, in which they had said, that the day of Christ was at hand. In like manner as, Acts, xv. 1, 24, it is recorded that some had pretended to have received instructions from the church at Jerusa lem, which had been received, " to whom they gave no such commandment." And thus Dr. Benson interpreted the passagents Sposiosai, MYTH SIX VEUμATOS, μYTE SIX λόγου, μήτε δε επιστολής, ως δε ημών, " nor be dismayed by any revelation, or discourse, or epistle, which any one shall pretend to have heard or received from us."

went into Macedonia," it is evident that this epistle was written soon after St. Paul had gone to Macedonia from Ephesus. Dr. Benson fixes its date to the time of St. Paul's journey recorded in the beginning of the twentieth chapter of the Acts: And after the uproar (excited by Demetrius at Ephesus) was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia." And in this opinion Dr. Benson is followed by Michaelis, as he was preceded by the greater part of the commentators who have considered the question. There is, however, one objection to the hypothesis, which these learned men appear to me to have overlooked; and it is no other than this, that the superscription of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians seems to prove, that at the time St. Paul is supposed by them to have written this epistle to Timothy, Timothy in truth was with St. Paul in Macedonia. Paul, as it is related in the Acts, left Ephesus "for to go into Macedonia." When he had got into Macedonia, he wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Concerning this point there exists little variety of opinion. It is plainly indicated by the contents of the epistle. It is also strongly implied that the epistle was written soon after the apostle's arrival in Macedonia; for he begins his letter by a train of reflection, referring to his persecutions in Asia as to recent transactions, as to dangers from which he had lately been delivered. But in the salutation with which the epistle opens, Timothy was joined with St. Paul, and consequently could not at that time be "left behind at Ephesus." And as to the only solution of the difficulty which can be thought of, viz. that Timothy, though he was left behind at Ephesus upon St. Paul's de parture from Asia, yet might follow him so soon after, as to come up with the apostle in Macedonia, before he wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians; that supposition is inconsistent with the terms and tenor of the epistle throughout. For the writer speaks uniformly of his intention to return to Timothy at Ephesus, and not of his expecting Timothy to come to him in Macedonia: “ These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself," ch. iii. 14, 15.

exhortation, to doctrine," ch. iv. 13.
"Till I come, give attendance to reading, te

Since, therefore, the leaving of Timothy behind at Ephesus, when Paul went into Macedonia, suits not with any journey into Macedonia, recorded in the Acts, I concur with Bishop Pearson, in placing the date of this epistle, and the journey referred to in it, at a period subsequent to St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, and consequently subsequent to the æra up to which the Acts of the Apostles brings his history. The only difficulty which attends our opinion is, that St. Paul must, according to us, have come to Ephesus after his liberation at Rome, contrary as it should seem, to what he foretold to the Ephesian elders, "that they should see his face no more.' And it is to save the infallibility of this prediction, and for no other reason of weight, that an earlier date is assigned to this epistle. The prediction itself, however, when considered in connexion with the circumstances under which it was delivered, does not seem to demand so much anxiety. fifth verse of the twentieth chapter of the Acts: The words in question are found in the twenty"And now, behold, I know that ye all, among

No. II.

Chap. v. 9. "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old." sixth chapter of the Acts. This accords with the account delivered in the when the number of the disciples was multiplied, "And in those days, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." It appears that, from sion was made out of the public funds of the societhe first formation of the Christian church, provi

whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more." In the twenty-second and twenty-third verses of the same chapter, i. e. two verses before, the apostle makes this declaration: "And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." This "witnessing of the Holy Ghost" was undoubtedly prophetic and supernatural. But it went no farther than to foretell that bonds and afflictions awaited him. And I can very well conceive, that this might be all which was community for the indigent widows who belonged to it. cated to the apostle by extraordinary revelation, existence of such an institution at Jerusalem, a The history, we have seen, distinctly records the and that the rest was the conclusion of his own few years after our Lord's ascension; and is led mind, the desponding inference which he drew to the mention of it very incidentally, viz. by a from strong and repeated intimations of approaching danger. And the expression "I know," which dispute, of which it was the occasion, and which St. Paul here uses, does not, perhaps, when ap community. The epistle, without being suspected produced important consequences to the Christian plied to future events affecting himself, convey an of borrowing from the history, refers, briefly inassertion so positive and absolute as we may at first sight apprehend. In the first chapter of the deed, but decisively, to a similar establishment, Epistle to the Philippians, and the twenty-fifth subsisting some years afterwards at Ephesus. verse, "I know," says he, "that I shall abide and This agreement indicates that both writings were founded upon real circumstances. continue with you all, for your furtherance and joy of faith." Notwithstanding this strong declaration, in the second chapter and twenty-third verse of this same epistle, and speaking also of the very same event, he is content to use a language of some doubt and uncertainty: "Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly." And a few verses preceding these, he not only seems to doubt of his safety, but almost to despair; to contemplate the possibility at least of his condemnation and martyrdom: "Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all."

No. I.

ticed is the mode of expression: "Let not a widow But, in this article, the material thing to be nobe taken into the number."-No previous account or explanation is given, to which these words, "into the number," can refer; but the direction widow be taken into the number." Now this is comes concisely and unpreparedly. "Let not a the way in which a man writes, who is conscious with the subject of his letter; and who, he knows, that he is writing to persons already acquainted will readily apprehend and apply what he says by virtue of their being so acquainted: but it is not occasion; and least of all, in which a man would the way in which a man writes upon any other draw up a feigned letter, or introduce a suppositious fact.*

No. III.

Chapter iii. 2, 3. "A bishop then must be

* It is not altogether unconnected with our general purpose to remark, in the passage before us, the selection and reserve which St. Paul recommends to the governors of the church of Ephesus in the bestowing relief been insinuated, that the liberality of the first Christians upon the poor, because it refutes a calumny which has was an artifice to catch converts; or one of the temptations, however, by which the idle and mendicant were drawn into this society: "Let not a widow be taken inthe wife of one man, well reported of for good works; to the number under threescore years old, having been if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse,"

But can we show that St. Paul visited Ephesus after his liberation at Rome? or rather, can we collect any hints from his other letters which make it probable that he did? If we can, then we have a coincidence. If we cannot, we have only an unauthorised supposition, to which the exigency of the case compels us to resort. Now, for this purpose, let us examine the Epistle to the Philip pians and the Epistle to Philemon. These two epistles purport to be written whilst St. Paul was yet a prisoner at Rome. To the Philippians he writes as follows: "I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly." To Philemon, who was a Colossian, he gives this direction: "But withal, prepare me also a lodging, for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you." An inspection of the map will show us that Cov. 9, 10, 11. And in another place, "If any man or losse was a city of the Lesser Asia, lying eastward, woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve and at no great distance from Ephesus. Philippi them, and let not the church be charged; that is may was on the other, i. e. the western side of the relieve them that are widows indeed." And to the same Egean sea. If the apostle executed his purpose; writes in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians: effect, or rather more to our present purpose, the apostle if, in pursuance of the intention expressed in his "Even when we were with you, this we commanded letter to Philemon, he came to Colosse soon after you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat," he was set at liberty at Rome, it is very improba-i. e. at the public expense. "For we hear that there are ble that he would omit to visit Ephesus, which lay all, but are busy bodies. Now them that are such we some which walk among you disorderly, working not at so near to it, and where he had spent three years command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his ministry. As he was also under a promise with quietness they work, and eat their own bread." to the church of Philippi to see them "shortly;" Could a designing or dissolute poor take advantage of if he passed from Colosse to Philippi, or from bounty regulated with so much caution; or could the mind which dictated those sober and prudent directions Philippi to Colosse, he could hardly avoid taking be influenced in his recommendations of public charity Ephesus in his way. by any other than the properest motives of beneficence?

Imagine an impostor sitting down to forge an epistle in the name of St. Paul. Is it credible that it should come into his head to give such a direction as this; so remote from every thing of doctrine or discipline, every thing of public concern to the religion or the church, or to any sect, order, or party in it, and from every purpose with which such an epistle could be written? It seems to me that nothing but reality, that is, the real valetudinary situation of a real person, could have sug-person who delivers it; yet whoever is conversant gested a thought of so domestic a nature.