they show the existence in the Church of spiritual gifts on a large scale and with many well-defined variations, that were commonly regarded as the result of supernatural influence (1 Cor. xii.-xiv.)

We are thus in a great measure independent of the four Gospels for our knowledge of the original truths and principles of Christianity; and we have in the epistles a practical refutation of the mythical theories which would attribute the supernatural elements in our Gospels to the gradual growth of legend in the Church.

The evidence derived from the epistles is all the more valuable because it is indirect, the letters having manifestly been written without any such object in view. It has to be noted too that they are addressed to several independent communities far removed from one another. One of these communities (the Church in Rome) had received its Christianity from another source than the apostle, while in the two others (Corinth and Galatia) there were opponents to criticise his statements, as well as friends to sympathise with him. In these circumstances falsehood or error with reference to important matters of fact was extremely improbable. To this we may add that the letters are evidently the productions of a man whose sincerity is as great as his intellectual acuteness and sobriety of judgment, and who, from his early association with the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem, was in a position to know all that could be said against the alleged facts of Christianity.

Altogether, it is not too much to say that a study of these epistles leads inevitably to the conclusion that Paul's gospel had the same historical groundwork as the gospel preached at the present day-that groundwork consisting of the same essential and well-attested facts regarding Christ's life and teaching as we find recorded in the four Gospels.

His previous History.-Regarding the previous life of the author, the following brief statement may suffice. Paul (originally called Saul) was born within a few years after our Lord's nativity, in the city of Tarsus

His

in Cilicia, a famous seat of classical learning. father, though a Roman citizen, was of Hebrew descent, and brought up his son in the strictest observance of the Jewish law. Trained at Jerusalem under the renowned Pharisaic teacher Gamaliel, Saul became thoroughly versed in Rabbinical literature, and was equally distinguished for his learning and his zeal. He was among the earliest and fiercest persecutors of the Christians, whom he regarded as apostates from the religion of their fathers; and it was while he was on his way to Damascus in the execution of a warrant from the high priest that he was suddenly converted (about 37 A.D.) by the direct interposition of the Risen Christ. From Him he received a special commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and in His service he continued with unflinching courage and devotion, in spite of calumny and persecution, to the last hour of his life. After about eight years, spent partly in retirement, partly in preaching in Syria and Cilicia, he joined (about 44 A.D.) his old friend Barnabas, a liberal-minded evangelist, at Antioch, which was soon to become the great centre of missionary enterprise for the early Church. In company with Barnabas, Paul made his first missionary journey (about 48 A.D.), through Cyprus and part of Asia Minor, and attended the Council at Jerusalem (about 50 A.D.), to advocate the cause of the Gentile converts in their struggle against the bigotry of their Jewish brethren. In the following year he started on his second and more extensive missionary tour, in the course of which, under the divine guidance, he crossed over to Europe, founding a number of Churches there, among others that of Thessalonica. He reached Corinth in 52 A.D., from which, as we shall presently see, he wrote the first of his epistles that have been preserved to us, namely I and 2 Thessalonians.

CHAPTER IX

I AND 2 THESSALONIANS

"THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

TO THE THESSALONIANS

WHO wrote it. There is ample external evidence

to prove that this epistle was acknowledged to be a genuine writing of St. Paul in the second quarter of the second century, while expressions apparently borrowed from it are to be found in writings of a much earlier date.

The few critics who have called its genuineness in question have done so on internal grounds, alleging against it both its likeness and its unlikeness to the other epistles of Paul. But its unlikeness is satisfactorily accounted for by the comparatively early date of its composition, and the very exceptional nature of the occasion on which it was written; while its likeness is largely due to the habit of repetition which is a marked characteristic of the apostle, and to the germination of ideas more fully developed in his subsequent writings. Moreover, the resemblance between this and other writings of St. Paul is often so subtle and minute-depending on the play of personal feeling, or on peculiarities of style,2- --as to preclude the idea of forgery.

1 Cf. ii. 18, iii. 6-10, and Rom. i. 13, 2 Cor. i. 16, xiii. 1. 2 E.g. a cursory sequence of thought (i. 2-8); the combination of seeming contraries (i. 6, cf. 2 Cor. viii. 1, Col. 11-12); verbal contrasts (ii. 17; iv. 7, cf. 1 Cor. v. 3, 2 Cor. v. 1, 2). The force of these arguments cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of the original (Jowett, vol. i. pp. 19-25).

The language of the epistle with reference to the second coming of Christ is also at variance with the supposition of forgery. It seems to imply an expectation on the part of the apostle that he would live to see that event (iv. 15-17). But such an expectation was not likely to be introduced by a forger when it had already been falsified by the apostle's death,—as it must have been, long before forgery could have been successfully attempted. In this connection we may also note the apparent discrepancy between Acts xviii. 5 and 1 Thess. i. 3, into which a forger depending for his information on the Book of Acts would not have been likely to fall, and which can only be accounted for by supposing a journey of Timothy (from Athens or Bercea to Thessalonica) left unrecorded in the Book of Acts. There is a similar discrepancy between chapter i. 9, which speaks of the converts as having "turned from their idols," and Acts xvii. 4, which would lead us to suppose that the Church of Thessalonica was largely Jewish.1 In ii. 17-18 there is a reference to the apostle's disappointment in not being able to carry out his intention of revisiting his converts, but such an intention is nowhere mentioned in the Book of Acts. All the three variations may be regarded as a proof that the epistle was written independently of the Acts, and that their general harmony is due to their common fidelity to facts.

To whom written.-" Unto the Church of the Thessalonians." Thessalonica was then, as it is still (under the name of Saloniki), an important mercantile emporium, with a considerable proportion of Jewish inhabitants sharing in its general prosperity. It is now the second city of European Turkey; in the time of the apostle it was the capital of Macedonia. It lay in the neighbourhood of Mount Olympus, the fabled home of the gods, and was a place of exile for Cicero, who

1 The difficulty may be met by adopting a reading of Acts xvii. 4 that is found in some MSS., namely, "of the devout (proselytes) and the Greeks a great multitude," or by supposing that the apostle preached to the Gentiles after the three Sabbathdays mentioned in Acts xvii. 2

tells how he gazed up at the sacred summit, but saw nothing but snow and ice.

The Church of Thessalonica was planted by St. Paul in the course of his second missionary tour in 52 A.D. (Acts xvii. 1-11), after his memorable visit to Philippi. His stay in the city seems to have been short, owing to a rising of the mob, stirred up against him by the Jews; but it was long enough for the Philippians to send " once and again" unto his need (Phil. iv. 16). Previously he had been earning his own bread (ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 7-8)-doubtless in the exercise of his calling as a tentmaker (Acts xviii. 3), as "one of the staple manufactures of the city was and is goats'-hair cloth. The sound that follows the ear as one walks through the streets of Saloniki to-day is the wheezing and straining vibration of the loom and the pendulum-like click of the regular and ceaseless shuttle." Paul paid a second visit to the place shortly before his last journey to Jerusalem. The Church was mainly Gentile in its composition, as we may infer not only from i. 9 but also from the fact that the epistles addressed to it do not contain a single quotation from the Old Testament.

Thessalonica played a great part in the history of Christendom, as a bulwark against the Turks, whence it was known as the Orthodox city. Its modern population (about 90,000) consists chiefly of Mohammedans and Jews, and includes but a small number of Christians.

Where and when written.-The epistle itself supplies us with an answer. From iii. 6-8 we learn that it was written on the return of Timothy, whom Paul had sent (apparently from Athens) to revisit the Thessalonian Church (iii. 1-2). But Acts xviii. 5 informs us that Silas and Timothy rejoined the apostle during his stay of a year and a half at Corinth. We conclude

therefore that the epistle was written from that city,— not long after the apostle's arrival, as we may infer from ii. 17. This would be about 53 A.D., probably early in that year.

Its Character and Contents.-This epistle is an