1 Thess. iv. 11.

No. V.

"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you."

2 Thess. iii. 10-12, 14. "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly (áráкrws) working not at all, but are busy bodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.-And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."

In both letters we have the same thing affirmed, that St. Paul, before he left Thessalonica, had given the converts a strict charge to work with their own hands. Yet there is a marked difference between the two passages. In the first letter, he repeats his command in general terms, and rather implies than asserts their partial neglect of it. When he urges the duty of brotherly love, he also praises them for fulfilling it already. "And indeed ye do it, . . . but we beseech you to abound more and more.' When he proceeds to enforce industry, though he refrains from direct censure, there is no similar commendation. In the next chapter, amidst several general instructions, he implies more clearly that some were neglecting this duty, by the brief caution, 'warn the disorderly." In the second epistle the tone is different. The same command is repeated once more, with an authority that resembles sternness. The disobedience of some among them is distinctly affirmed. The duty of industry is enforced at length, and instructions are given how to treat any one who should persevere in this fault. "Note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."

66

How can this difference be explained? Simply by the facts themselves. At the time of the first letter, he had just learned their state from Timothy; and though signs of the evil had appeared, amidst such causes of joy for their fidelity under persecution, he contents himself with a general and indirect admonition. Since then, messengers who carried the first letter had brought later intelligence. The evil had

increased, and even his own letter seems to have been one occasion of its growth; since they had been "shaken in mind, and troubled" by a false impression that the day of Christ was close at hand. Hence the greater urgency of the exhortation in the second letter.

This incidental agreement, in the fact of St. Paul's,admonition while at Thessalonica, and this diversity and contrast of tone between the second and third repetition of the command, form a clear token that the letters are authentic, and founded in each instance on the actual wants of the Thessalonian church.

It is worth observing, that while St. Paul gave these earnest admonitions, the history proves that he enforced them by a bright example. "Because he was of the same craft" with Aquila and Priscilla," he abode with them, and wrought : for by their occupation they were tent-makers,” Acts xviii. 3.

CHAPTER II.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

THERE is no epistle, on the date of which there has been so great a diversity of opinion, as on this Epistle to the Galatians. Some have placed it as early as St. Paul's residence at Antioch, before his journey with Silas; while Theodoret and the Subscription place it after his imprisonment, during his stay at Rome. Michaelis supposes it to be written from Thessalonica on his first visit, with whom Canon Tate agrees; Dr. Benson and Lardner a little later, during his stay at Corinth; Capellus, Witsius, Bishop Pearson, and Dr. Burton, during his abode at Ephesus; others after leaving Ephesus, in Macedonia; and others again on his return from Corinth. It is desirable, then, to delay this inquiry, till those coincidences have been considered, which are less open to dispute.

The book of Acts records two visits of Paul to Galatia, xvi. 6, xviii. 23. The former was on his route from Antioch, before he entered Europe; and the latter, after his return to Jerusalem and Antioch, before his abode of two years at Ephesus. The object of the latter visit was to confirm and strengthen the disciples. It is certain that the letter was written after the former visit; but whether before or after the

second, is a controverted question, which will be examined at the close of the chapter. A question still more vital to the present argument, is the reference of the journey, Gal. ii. 1; whether it was the visit to the council, in Acts xv., or some earlier or later visit to Jerusalem.

No. I.

Gal. i. 18. “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter; and abode with him fifteen days."

Paley has remarked the seeming incongruity between this statement and the passage in Acts ix. 28, and the indirect manner in which they are reconciled by the statement in Acts xxii. 17, 21, where St. Paul himself explains the shortness of his visit. In this comparison it is assumed, however, that the same visit is referred to in the letter and in the public apology. Mr. Biley, in his valuable Supplement, has questioned their identity, and endeavoured to show that St. Paul refers there to his second visit, Acts xi., which was also of short duration. Dr. Lardner adopts the same view.

Now this very doubt is enough to show that, in either case, the reference was spontaneous, and not for an artificial purpose. But a closer view of the text will establish Paley's opinion, and leave the coincidence he has pointed out, which is very curious and indirect, its entire weight in the proof of authenticity.

After mentioning the recovery of his sight, the apostle continues his narrative in these words: "And it came to pass, that when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."

There are several things in this statement which prove that the apostle refers to his first visit. It was then only that he "returned back" (vñоσтρé↓avτi) from that absence, which he has described just before; and the journey to Damascus, and the return from Damascus, are here in evident contrast.

The other return was from quite a different place. It was not properly a return at all, but a journey, from which he returned to Antioch, his actual abode. (Acts xii. 25.)

Again, the apostle is explaining why he did not labour at home among his own countrymen, but at a distance among the Gentiles. It was the most natural and simple answer, that he had desired so to do, as soon as the Lord had appeared to him, and had been charged by a vision to depart. But this would be no apology for his first long absence, if the account refers to the second visit. The emphasis of his defence will then be lost.

Again, the vision must have been at some visit, when the apostle was bearing an actual testimony to the Jews, with some clear proofs of their rejection of the message. But this applies only to the first visit, when "he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, but they went about to slay him." Nothing similar appears on the second visit. Its express object was not to preach the gospel, but to convey a contribution, and the apostles seem to have confined themselves to this immediate duty. When James was martyred, and Peter was in prison with the prospect of death, it was not a likely hour for one still more hated to begin a public testimony, and no hint of it occurs.

Lastly, the appeal of St. Paul to the notoriety of his former conduct as a persecutor, and to its probable effect on the minds of the Jews, in giving power to his message, would be far more natural and striking after an interval of three, than of six or seven years. On all accounts, therefore, the view of Paley is just, and the coincidence which he has founded upon it is beautiful and impressive.

No. II.

Gal. i. 19. "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

There is here a minute feature of historical consistency, which Paley has not noticed. The apostle James is named three times in the letter, but only here with this distinctive title. The history supplies a full key. For this visit is evidently the same as in Acts ix. 26-30, while the one in the next chapter was much later, at or near the time of the council, Acts xv. Hence the first was before the death of James the son of Zebedee, and the other long after it. A

distinctive addition to the name was thus as natural in the one case, as it would be superfluous and even suspicious in the other.

The same distinction is observed in the book of Acts. In the earlier part, each has his own title, the brother of John, or the son of Alpheus. But after the elder James was martyred, the other is three times called James simply, without any addition. This minute propriety is too delicate and refined to be easily accounted for, except by the fact that Luke and Paul were contemporary with the events they record.

There is another coincidence in the present verse, and it reconciles the previous statement with the history. St. Paul has told us that he went up to see St. Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. The historian tells us, that Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles. Now, the statements, if completed here, would be opposite; but when we learn that he met with a second apostle, though it were one only, they are reconciled; since the plural term requires more than one apostle to have been present, but cannot with certainty imply a still greater number. It is true, that the history represents most or all of the apostles to have been at Jerusalem, about the time of Saul's conversion, when Peter and John were sent down to Samaria; but the letter teaches us, what we do not learn from the history, that there was an interval of at least three years; and in the next verses it exhibits Peter on a kind of circuit in Judæa. There is thus

nothing improbable in the absence of the other ten apostles during those fifteen days. Indeed, the circuit of Peter just afterwards, and the mention of James as the only other apostle present, seems to imply that his designation to a special charge over the mother church had now taken place, and that the others had begun to leave Jerusalem, agreeably with our Lord's own instructions, not long after the martyrdom of Stephen, and the persecution which followed.

No. III

Gal. i. 21-24. "Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia: and was (continued) unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ: but they had heard only, (kept hearing, ȧkovovτes hoav) That he which persecuted