FOR an account of Corinth, the reader is referred to the preface to the first epistle, where every thing relative to the geographical, political, and religious situation of that celebrated city, as far as such subjects are proper for a work of this kind is amply detailed.

As I have borrowed from the learned and accurate Archdeacon Paley several arguments to prove the authenticity of the first epistle, and the same able writer having bestowed equal pains on the second, I shall make those extracts which bear particularly on the subject; referring my reader to the work itself for ampler information.

SECTION 1.

I will not say that it is impossible, having seen the First Epistle to the Corinthians, to construct a second with ostensible allusions to the first; or that it is impossible that both should be fabricated, so as to carry on an order and continuation of story, by successive references to the same events. But I say that this, in either case, must be the effect of craft and design: whereas, whoever examines the allusions to the former epistle which he finds in this, whilst he will acknowledge them to be such as would rise spontaneously to the hand of the writer, from the very subject of the correspondence, and the situation of the corresponding parties, supposing these to be real, will see no particle of reason to suspect, either that the clauses containing these allusions were insertions for the purpose, or that the several transactions of the Corinthian Church were feigned, in order to form a train of narrative, or to support the appearance of connection between the two epistles.

1. In the first epistle, St. Paul announces his intention of passing through Macedonia in his way to Corinth: “I will come to you when I shall pass through Macedonia.” In the second epistle we find him arrived in Macedonia, and about to pursue his journey to Corinth. But observe the manner in which this is made to appear: “I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago, and your zeal hath provoked very many: yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready; lest, haply, if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not you) be ashamed in this same confident boasting.” (2 Corinthians 9:2-4.) St. Paul’s being in Macedonia at the time of writing the epistle is, in this passage, inferred only from his saying that he had boasted to the Macedonians of the alacrity of his Achaian converts; and the fear which he expresses, lest, if any of the Macedonian Christians should come with him unto Achaia, they should find his boasting unwarranted by the event. The business of the contribution is the sole cause of mentioning Macedonia at all. Will it be insinuated that this passage was framed merely to state that St. Paul was now in Macedonia; and by that statement to produce an apparent agreement with the purpose of visiting Macedonia, notified in the first epistle? Or will it be thought probable that, if a sophist had meant to place St. Paul in Macedonia, for the sake of giving countenance to his forgery, he would have done it in so oblique a manner as through the medium of a contribution? The same thing may be observed of another text in the epistle, in which the name of Macedonia occurs: “Farthermore, when I came to Troas to preach the Gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus, my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.” I mean, that it may be observed of this passage also, that there is a reason for mentioning Macedonia, entirely distinct from the purpose of showing St. Paul to be there. The text, however, in which it is most strongly implied that St. Paul wrote the present epistle from Macedonia, is found in the fourth, fifth, and sixth verses of the seventh chapter. {2 Corinthians 7:4-6} Yet, even here, I think no one will contend that St. Paul’s coming to Macedonia, or being in Macedonia, was the principal thing intended to be told; or that the telling of it, indeed, was any part of the intention with which the text was written; or that the mention even of the name of Macedonia was not purely incidental, in the description of those tumultuous sorrows with which the writer’s mind had been lately agitated, and from which he was relieved by the coming of Titus. The first five verses of the eighth chapter, {2 Corinthians 8:1-5} which commend the liberality of the Macedonian Churches, do not, in my opinion, by themselves, prove St. Paul to have been at Macedonia at the time of writing the epistle.

2. In the first epistle, St. Paul denounces a severe censure against an incestuous marriage, which had taken place amongst the Corinthian converts, with the connivance, not to say with the approbation, of the Church; and enjoins the Church to purge itself of this scandal, by expelling the offender from its society, (1 Corinthians 5:1-5.) In the second epistle we find this sentence executed, and the offender to be so affected with the punishment, that St. Paul now intercedes for his restoration: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many; so that, contrariwise, ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow; wherefore I beseech you, that ye would confirm your love towards him.” (2 Corinthians 2:7, 8.) Is this whole business feigned for the sake of carrying on a continuation of story through the two epistles? The Church also, no less than the offender, was brought by St. Paul’s reproof to a deep sense of the impropriety of their conduct. Their penitence and their respect to his authority were, as might be expected, exceedingly grateful to St. Paul: “We were comforted not by Titus’s coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind towards me, so that I rejoiced the more; for though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent; for I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.” (2 Corinthians 7:7-9.) That this passage is to be referred to the incestuous marriage is proved by the twelfth verse of the same chapter: “Though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that had suffered wrong; but that our care for you, in the sight of God, might appear unto you.” {2 Corinthians 7:12} There were, it is true, various topics of blame noticed in the first epistle; but there was none, except this of the incestuous marriage, which could be called a transaction between private parties, or of which it could be said that one particular person had “done the wrong,” and another particular person “had suffered it.” Could all this be without foundation?

3. In the sixteenth chapter of the first epistle, a collection for the saints is recommended to be set forwards at Corinth, (1 Corinthians 16:1.) In the ninth chapter of the second epistle, such a collection is spoken of, as in readiness to be received: “As touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you, for I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago, and your zeal hath provoked very many.” (2 Corinthians 9:1, 2.) This is such a continuation of the transaction as might be expected, or, possibly it will be said, as might easily be counterfeited; but there is a circumstance of nicety in the agreement between the two epistles, which I am convinced the author of a forgery would not have hit upon, or which, if he had hit upon it, he would have set forth with more clearness. The second epistle speaks of the Corinthians as having begun this eleemosynary business a year before: “This is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.” (2 Corinthians 8:10.) “I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago.” (2 Corinthians 9:2.) From these texts it is evident that something had been done in the business a year before. It appears, however, from other texts in the epistle, that the contribution was not yet collected or paid; for brethren were sent from St. Paul to Corinth, “to make up their bounty.” (2 Corinthians 9:5.) They are urged to “perform the doing of it.” (2 Corinthians 8:11.) “And every man was exhorted to give as he purposed in his heart.” (2 Corinthians 9:7.) The contribution, therefore, as represented in our present epistle, was in readiness, yet not received from the contributors; was begun, was forward long before, yet not hitherto collected. Now this representation agrees with one, and only with one, supposition, namely, that every man had laid by in store-had already provided the fund, from which he was afterwards to contribute-the very case which the first epistle authorizes us to suppose to have existed; for in that epistle St. Paul had charged the Corinthians, “upon the first day of the week, every one of them, to lay by in store as God had prospered him.” (1 Corinthians 16:2.)

SECTION 2.

In comparing the Second Epistle to the Corinthians with the Acts of the Apostles, we are soon brought to observe, not only that there exists no vestige either of the epistle having been taken from the history or the history from the epistle, but also that there appears in the contents of the epistle positive evidence that neither was borrowed from the other. Titus, who bears a conspicuous part in the epistle, is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles at all. St. Paul’s sufferings, enumerated 2 Corinthians 11:24, “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one; thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned; thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep,” cannot be made out from his history as delivered in the Acts; nor would this account have been given by a writer, who either drew his knowledge of St. Paul from that history, or who was careful to preserve a conformity with it. The account in the epistle, of St. Paul’s escape from Damascus, though agreeing in the main fact with the account of the same transaction in the Acts, is related with such difference of circumstance as renders it utterly improbable that one should be derived from the other. The two accounts, placed by the side of each other, stand as follows:—

2 Corinthians 11:32, 33. In Damascus, the governor, under Aretas the king, kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me; and through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Acts 9:23-25. And after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him; but their laying in wait was known of Saul, and they watched the gates day and night to kill him: then the disciples took him by night and let him down by the wall in a basket.

Now, if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him, then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their Common foundation.

SECTION 3.

The opening of this epistle exhibits a connection with the history, which alone would satisfy my mind that the epistle was written by St. Paul, and by St. Paul in the situation in which the history places him. Let it be remembered, that in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, St. Paul is represented as driven away from Ephesus; or as leaving, however, Ephesus, in consequence of an uproar in that city, excited by some interested adversaries of the new religion. “Great is Diana of the Ephesians-And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.” When he was arrived in Macedonia, he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which is now before us; and he begins his epistle in this wise: “Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort, who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God, etc. For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life; but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God, which raiseth the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we trust that He will yet deliver us.” Nothing could be more expressive of the circumstances in which the history describes St. Paul to have been, at the time when the epistle purports to be written; or rather, nothing could be more expressive of the sensations arising from these circumstances, than this passage. It is the calm recollection of a mind emerged from the confusion of instant danger. It is that devotion and solemnity of thought which follows a recent deliverance. There is just enough of particularity in the passage to show that it is to be referred to the tumult at Ephesus: “We would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia.” And there is nothing more; no mention of Demetrius, of the seizure of St. Paul’s friends, of the interference of the town-clerk, of the occasion or nature of the danger which St. Paul had escaped, or even of the city where it happened; in a word, no recital upon which a suspicion could be conceived, either that the author of the epistle had made use of the narrative in the Acts; or, on the other hand, that he had sketched the outline, which the narrative in the Acts only filled up. That the forger of an epistle, under the name of St. Paul, should borrow circumstances from a history of St. Paul, then extant; or, that the author of a history of St. Paul should gather materials from letters bearing St. Paul’s name, may be credited: but I cannot believe that any forger whatever should fall upon an expedient so refined, as to exhibit sentiments adapted to a situation, and to leave his readers to seek out that situation from the history; still less that the author of a history should go about to frame facts and circumstances, fitted to supply the sentiments which he found in the letter.

SECTION 4.

It has already been remarked, that St. Paul’s original intention was to have visited Corinth in his way to Macedonia: “I was minded to come unto you before, and to pass by you into Macedonia.” (2 Corinthians 1:15, 16.) It has also been remarked, that he changed his intention, and ultimately resolved upon going through Macedonia first. Now upon this head there exists a circumstance of correspondency between our epistle and the history, which is not very obvious to the reader’s observation; but which, when observed, will be found, I think, close and exact. Which circumstance is this: that though the change of St. Paul’s intention be expressly mentioned only in the second epistle, yet it appears, both from the history and from this second epistle, that the change had taken place before the writing of the first epistle; that it appears however from neither, otherwise than by an inference, unnoticed perhaps by almost every one who does not sit down professedly to the examination.

First, then, how does this point appear from the history? In the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, and the twenty-first verse, {Acts 19:21} we are told that “Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem. So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus: but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.” A short time after this, and evidently in pursuance of the same intention, we find (Acts 20:1, 2) that “Paul departed from Ephesus for to go into Macedonia; and that, when he had gone over those parts, he came into Greece.” The resolution, therefore, of passing first through Macedonia, and from thence into Greece, was formed by St. Paul previous to the sending away of Timothy. The order in which the two countries are mentioned shows the direction of his intended route, “when he passed through Macedonia and Achaia.” Timothy and Erastus, who were to precede him in his progress, were sent by him from Ephesus into Macedonia. He himself, a short time afterwards, and, as hath been observed, evidently in continuation and pursuance of the same design, “departed for to go into Macedonia.” If he had ever, therefore, entertained a different plan of his journey, which is not hinted in the history, he must have changed that plan before this time. But from the seventeenth verse of the fourth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, {1 Corinthians 4:17} we discover that Timothy had been sent away from Ephesus before that epistle was written: “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son.” The change, therefore, of St. Paul’s resolution, which was prior to the sending away of Timothy; was necessarily prior to the writing of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Thus stands the order of dates as collected from the history, compared with the first epistle. Now let us inquire, secondly, how this manner is represented in the epistle before us. In the sixteenth verse of the first chapter of this epistle, {2 Corinthians 1:16} St. Paul speaks of the intention which he had once entertained of visiting Achaia, in his way to Macedonia: “In this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit; and to pass by you into Macedonia.” After protesting in the seventeenth verse {2 Corinthians 1:17} against any evil construction that might be put upon his laying aside of this intention, in the twenty-third verse {2 Corinthians 1:23} he discloses the cause of it: “Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.” And then he proceeds as follows: “But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness; for, if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me? And I wrote this same unto you, lest when I came I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all, for out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you; but if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me but in part, that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment; which was inflicted of many.”

In this quotation let the reader first direct his attention to the clause marked by Italics, “and I wrote this same unto you,” and let him consider, whether from the context, and from the structure of the whole passage, it be not evident that this writing was after St. Paul had “determined with himself that he would not come again to them in heaviness?” whether, indeed, it was not in consequence of this determination, or at least with this determination upon his mind? And in the next place, let him consider whether the sentence, “I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness,” do not plainly refer to that postponing of his visit to which he had alluded in the verse but one before, when he said, “I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth:” and whether this be not the visit of which he speaks in the sixteenth verse, {2 Corinthians 1:16} wherein he informs the Corinthians, “that he had been minded to pass by them into Macedonia;” but that, for reasons which argued no levity or fickleness in his disposition, he had been compelled to change his purpose. If this be so, then it follows that the writing here mentioned was posterior to the change of his intention. The only question, therefore, that remains, will be, whether this writing relate to the letter which we now have under the title of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, or to some other letter not extant. And upon this question I think Mr. Locke’s observation decisive; namely, that the second clause marked in the quotation by Italics, “I wrote unto you with many tears,” and the first clause so marked, “I wrote this same unto you,” belong to one writing, whatever that was; and that the second clause goes on to advert to a circumstance which is found in our present First Epistle to the Corinthians; namely, the case and punishment of the incestuous person. Upon the whole, then, we see that it is capable of being inferred from St. Paul’s own words, in the long extract which we have quoted, that the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written after St. Paul had determined to postpone his journey to Corinth; in other words, that the change of his purpose with respect to the course of his journey, though expressly mentioned only in the second epistle, had taken place before the writing of the first; the point which we made out to be implied in the history, by the order of the events there recorded, and the allusions to those events in the first epistle. Now this is a species of congruity of all others the most to be relied upon. It is not an agreement between two accounts of the same transaction, or between different statements of the same fact, for the fact is not stated; nothing that can be called an account is given; but it is the junction of two conclusions deduced from independent sources, and deducible only by investigation and comparison.

SECTION 5.

But if St. Paul had changed his purpose before the writing of the first epistle, why did he defer explaining himself to the Corinthians concerning the reason of that change until he wrote the second? This is a very fair question; and we are able, I think, to return to it a satisfactory answer. The real cause, and the cause at length assigned by St. Paul for postponing his visit to Corinth, and not travelling by the route which he had at first designed, was the disorderly state of the Corinthian Church at the time, and the painful severities which he should have found himself obliged to exercise if he had come amongst them during the existence of these irregularities. He was willing therefore to try, before he came in person, what a letter of authoritative objurgation would do amongst them, and to leave time for the operation of the experiment. That was his scheme in writing the first epistle. But it was not for him to acquaint them with the scheme. After the epistle had produced its effect; (and to the utmost extent, as it should seem, of the apostle’s hopes;) when he had wrought in them a deep sense of their fault, and an almost passionate solicitude to restore themselves to the approbation of their teacher; when Titus (2 Corinthians 7:6, 7, 11) had brought him intelligence “of their earnest desire, their mourning, their fervent mind towards him, of their sorrow and their penitence; what carefulness, what clearing of themselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what revenge,” his letter, and the general concern occasioned by it, had excited amongst them; he then opens himself fully upon the subject. The affectionate mind of the apostle is touched by this return of zeal and duty. He tells them that he did not visit them at the time proposed, lest their meeting should have been attended with mutual grief; and with grief to him embittered by the reflection that he was giving pain to those from whom alone he could receive comfort: “I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness; for, if I make you sorry, who is he that maketh me glad but the same which is made sorry by me?” (2 Corinthians 2:1, 2;) that he had written his former epistle to warn them beforehand of their fault, “lest when he came he should have sorrow of them of whom he ought to rejoice:” (2 Corinthians 2:3:) that he had the farther view, though perhaps unperceived by them, of making an experiment of their fidelity, to know the proof of them, whether they are obedient in all things.” (2 Corinthians 2:9.) This full discovery of his motive came very naturally from the apostle after he had seen the success of his measures, but would not have been a seasonable communication before. The whole composes a train of sentiment and of conduct resulting from real situation, and from real circumstance; and as remote as possible from fiction or imposture.

SECTION 6.

2 Corinthians 11:9: “When I was present with you and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me, the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied.” The principal fact set forth in this passage, the arrival at Corinth of brethren from Macedonia during St. Paul’s first residence in that city, is explicitly recorded, Acts 18:1, 5. “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.”

SECTION 7.

The above quotation from the Acts proves that Silas and Timotheus were assisting St. Paul in preaching the Gospel at Corinth; with which correspond the words of the epistle, (2 Corinthians 1:19:) “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me, and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.” I do admit that the correspondency, considered by itself, is too direct and obvious; and that an impostor, with the history before him, might, and probably would, produce agreements of the same kind. But let it be remembered that this reference is found in a writing which, from many discrepancies, and especially from those noted sec. ii., we may conclude, was not composed by any one who had consulted, and who pursued the history. Some observation also arises upon the variation of the name. We read Silas in the Acts, Silvanus in the epistle. The similitude of these two names, if they were the names of different persons, is greater than could easily have proceeded from accident; I mean, that it is not probable that two persons placed in situations so much alike should bear names so nearly resembling each other. On the other hand, the difference of the name in the two passages negatives the supposition of either the passages, or the account contained in them, being transcribed from the other. That they were the same person is farther confirmed by 1 Thessalonians 1:1, compared with Acts 17:10.

SECTION 8.

2 Corinthians 2:12, 13: “When I came to Troas to preach Christ’s Gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit because I found not Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.”

To establish a conformity between this passage and the history, nothing more is necessary to be presumed than that St. Paul proceeded from Ephesus to Macedonia upon the same course by which he came back from Macedonia to Ephesus, or rather to Miletus, in the neighborhood of Ephesus; in other words, that in his journey to the peninsula of Greece he went and returned the same way. St. Paul is now in Macedonia, where he had lately arrived from Ephesus. Our quotation imports that in his journey he had stopped at Troas. Of this the history says nothing, leaving us only the short account, that “Paul departed from Ephesus for to go into Macedonia.” But the history says that, in his return from Macedonia to Ephesus, “Paul sailed from Philippi to Troas! and that when the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, Paul preached unto them all night; that from Troas he went by land to Assos; from Assos, taking ship, and coasting along the front of Asia Minor, he came by Mitylene to Miletus.” Which account proves, first, that Troas lay in the way by which St. Paul passed between Ephesus to Macedonia; secondly, that he had disciples there. In one journey between these two places the epistle, and in another journey between the same places the history, makes him stop at this city. Of the first journey he is made to say, “that a door was in that city opened unto me of the Lord;” in the second, we find disciples there collected around him, and the apostle exercising his ministry with what was even in him more than ordinary zeal and labor. The epistle, therefore, is in this instance confirmed, if not by the terms, at least by the probability, of the history; a species of confirmation by no means to be despised, because, as far as it reaches, it is evidently uncontrived.

SECTION 9.

2 Corinthians 11:24, 26: “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one; thrice was I beaten with rods; once was I stoned; thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep.”

These particulars cannot be extracted out of the Acts of the Apostles; which proves, as hath been already observed, that the epistle was not framed from the history: yet they are consistent with it, which, considering how numerically circumstantial the account is, is more than could happen to arbitrary and independent fictions. When I say that these particulars are consistent with the history, I mean, first, that there is no article in the enumeration which is contradicted by the history; secondly, that the history, though silent with respect to many of the facts here enumerated, has left space for the existence of these facts, consistent with the fidelity of its own narration.

First, no contradiction is discoverable between the epistle and the history. When St. Paul says, thrice was I beaten with rods, although the history record only one beating with rods, viz. at Philippi, Acts 16:22, yet is there no contradiction. It is only the omission in one book of what is related in another. But had the history contained accounts of four beatings with rods, at the time of writing this epistle, in which St. Paul says that he had only suffered three, there would have been a contradiction properly so called. The same observation applies generally to the other parts of the enumeration, concerning which the history is silent: but there is one clause in the quotation particularly deserving of remark; because, when confronted with the history, it furnishes the nearest approach to a contradiction, without a contradiction being actually incurred, of any I remember to have met with. “Once,” saith St. Paul, “was I stoned.” Does the history relate that St. Paul, prior to the writing of this epistle, had been stoned more than once? The history mentions distinctly one occasion upon which St. Paul was stoned, viz. at Lystra in Lycaonia. “Then came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people; and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.” (Acts 14:19.) And it mentions also another occasion, in which “an assault was made, both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them; but they were aware of it,” the history proceeds to tell us, “and fled into Lystra and Derbe.” This happened at Iconium, prior to the date of the epistle. Now, had the assault been completed; had the history related that a stone was thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul and his companions; or even had the account of this transaction stopped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were “aware of their danger and fled,” a contradiction between the history and the epistle would have ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent; but it is scarcely possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it.

Secondly, I say, that if the Acts of the Apostles be silent concerning many of the instances enumerated in the epistle, this silence may be accounted for, from the plan and fabric of the history. The date of the epistle synchronizes with the beginning of the twentieth chapter of the Acts. The part, therefore, of the history which precedes the twentieth chapter, is the only part in which can be found any notice of the persecutions to which St. Paul refers. Now it does not appear that the author of the history was with St. Paul until his departure from Troas, on his way to Macedonia, as related Acts 16:10; or rather indeed the contrary appears. It is in this point of the history that the language changes. In the seventh and eighth verses of this chapter {Acts 16:7, 8} the third person is used. “After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not; and they passing by Mysia, came to Troas:” and the third person is in like manner constantly used throughout the foregoing part of the history. In the tenth verse of this chapter {Acts 16:10} the first person comes in: “After Paul had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia; assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them.” Now, from this time to the writing of the epistle, the history occupies four chapters; yet it is in these, if in any, that a regular or continued account of the apostle’s life is to be expected: for how succinctly his history is delivered in the preceding part of the book, that is to say, from the time of his conversion to the time when the historian joined him at Troas, except the particulars of his conversion itself, which are related circumstantially, may be understood from the following observations:—

The history of a period of sixteen years is comprised in less than three chapters; and of these a material part is taken up with discourses. After his conversion he continued in the neighborhood of Damascus, according to the history, for a certain considerable though indefinite length of time, according to his own words (Galatians 1:18) for three years; of which no other account is given than this short one, that “straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God; that all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem? that he increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus; and that, after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him.” From Damascus he proceeded to Jerusalem: and of his residence there nothing more particular is recorded, than that “he was with the apostles, coming in and going out; that he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, who went about to kill him.” From Jerusalem, the history sends him to his native city of Tarsus, (Acts 9:30.) It seems probable, from the order and disposition of the history, that St. Paul’s stay at Tarsus was of some continuance; for we hear nothing of him until, after a long apparent interval and much interjacent narrative, Barnabas, desirous of Paul’s assistance upon the enlargement of the Christian mission, “went to Tarsus for to seek him,” (Acts 11:25.) We cannot doubt that the new apostle had been busied in his ministry; yet of what he did or what he suffered during this period, which may include three or four years, the history professes not to deliver any information. As Tarsus was situated upon the seacoast, and as, though Tarsus was his home, it is probable he visited from thence many other places, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel, it is not unlikely that in the course of three or four years he might undertake many short voyages to neighboring countries, in the navigating of which we may be allowed to suppose that some of those disasters and shipwrecks befell him to which he refers in the quotation before us, “Thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep.” This last clause I am inclined to interpret of his being obliged to take to an open boat upon the loss of the ship, and his continuing out at sea in that dangerous situation a night and a day. St. Paul is here recounting his sufferings, not relating miracles. From Tarsus, Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch, and there he remained a year: but of the transactions of that year no other description is given than what is contained in the last four verses of the eleventh chapter. {Acts 11:27-30} After a more solemn dedication to the ministry, Barnabas and Paul proceeded from Antioch to Cilicia, and from thence they sailed to Cyprus, of which voyage no particulars are mentioned. Upon their return from Cyprus they made a progress together through the Lesser Asia; and though two remarkable speeches be preserved, and a few incidents in the course of their travels circumstantially related, yet is the account of this progress, upon the whole, given professedly with conciseness; for instance, at Iconium it is said that they abode a long time, (Acts 14:3,) yet of this long abode, except concerning the manner in which they were driven away, no memoir is inserted in the history. The whole is wrapped up in one short summary: “They spake boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” Having completed their progress, the two apostles returned to Antioch, “and there they abode long time with the disciples.” Here we have another large portion of time passed over in silence. To this succeeded a journey to Jerusalem, upon a dispute which then much agitated the Christian Church, concerning the obligation of the law of Moses. When the object of that journey was completed, Paul proposed to Barnabas to go again and visit their brethren in every city where they had preached the word of the Lord. The execution of this plan carried our apostle through Syria, Cilicia, and many provinces of the Lesser Asia; yet is the account of the whole journey despatched in four verses of the sixteenth chapter.

SECTION 10.

2 Corinthians 3:1: “Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you?”

“As some others.” Turn to Acts 18:27, and you will find that, a short time before the writing of this epistle, Apollos had gone to Corinth with letters of commendation from the Ephesian Christians: “And when Apollos was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him.” Here the words of the epistle bear the appearance of alluding to some specific instance, and the history supplies that instance; it supplies at least an instance as apposite as possible to the terms which the apostle uses, and to the date and direction of the epistle in which they are found. The letter which Apollos carried from Ephesus, was precisely the letter of commendation which St. Paul meant; and it was to Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital, and indeed to Corinth itself, (Acts 19:1,) that Apollos carried it; and it was about two years before the writing of this epistle. If St. Paul’s words be rather thought to refer to some general usage which then obtained among Christian Churches, the case of Apollos exemplifies that usage, and affords that species of confirmation to the epistle, which arises from seeing the manners of the age, in which it purports to be written, faithfully preserved.

SECTION 11.

2 Corinthians 13:1: “This is the third time I am coming to you;” triton touto ercomai.

Do not these words import that the writer had been at Corinth twice before? Yet, if they import this, they overset every congruity we have been endeavoring to establish. The Acts of the Apostles record only two journeys of St. Paul to Corinth. We have all along supposed, what every mark of time except this expression indicates, that the epistle was written between the first and second of these journeys. If St. Paul had been already twice at Corinth, this supposition must be given up; and every argument or observation which depends upon it, falls to the ground. Again, the Acts of the Apostles not only record no more than two journeys of St. Paul to Corinth, but do not allow us to suppose that more than two such journeys could be made or intended by him within the period which the history comprises; for, from his first journey into Greece to his first imprisonment at Rome, with which the history concludes, the apostle’s time is accounted for. If, therefore, the epistle was written after the second journey to Corinth, and upon the view and expectation of a third, it must have been written after his first imprisonment at Rome, i.e. after the time to which the history extends. When I first read over this epistle with the particular view of comparing it with the history, which I chose to do without consulting any commentary whatever, I own that I felt myself confounded by the text. It appeared to contradict the opinion which I had been led by a great variety of circumstances to form, concerning the date and occasion of the epistle. At length, however, it occurred to my thoughts to inquire whether the passage did necessarily imply that St. Paul had been at Corinth twice; or, whether, when he says, “This is the third time I am coming to you,” he might mean only that this was the third time that he was ready, that he was prepared, that he intended to set out upon his journey to Corinth. I recollected that he had once before this purposed to visit Corinth, and had been disappointed in this purpose, which disappointment forms the subject of much apology and protestation in the first and second chapters of the epistle. Now, if the journey in which he had been disappointed was reckoned by him one of the times in which “he was coming to them,” then the present would be the third time, i.e. of his being ready and prepared to come, although he had been actually at Corinth only once before. This conjecture being taken up, a farther examination of the passage and the epistle produced proofs which placed it beyond doubt. “This is the third time I am coming to you:” in the verse following these words, he adds, “I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present the second time; and being absent, now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare.” In this verse the apostle is declaring beforehand what he would do in his intended visit; his expression therefore, “as if I were present the second time,” relates to that visit. But, if his future visit would only make him present among them a second time, it follows that he had been already there but once. Again, in the fifteenth verse of the first chapter, {2 Corinthians 1:15} he tells them, “In this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit.” Why a second, and not a third benefit? why deuteran, and not trithn carin, if the triton ercomai in the thirteenth chapter {2 Corinthians 13:1} meant a third visit? for though the visit in the first chapter be that visit in which he was disappointed, yet, as it is evident from the epistle that he had never been at Corinth from the time of the disappointment to the time of writing the epistle, it follows that, if it were only a second visit in which he was disappointed then, it could only be a second visit which he proposed now. But the text which I think is decisive of the question, if any question remain upon the subject, is the fourteenth verse of the twelfth chapter: {2 Corinthians 12:14} “Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you:” idou triton etoimwv ecw elqein. It is very clear that the triton etoimwv exw elqein of the twelfth chapter, and the triton touto ercomai of the thirteenth chapter, are equivalent expressions, were intended to convey the same meaning, and to relate to the same journey. The comparison of these phrases gives us St. Paul’s own explanation of his own words; and it is that very explanation which we are contending for, viz. that triton touto ercomai does not mean that he was coming a third time, but that this was the third time he was in readiness to come, triton etoimwv ecw. Upon the whole, the matter is sufficiently certain; nor do I propose it as a new interpretation of the text which contains the difficulty, for the same was given by Grotius long ago; but I thought it the clearest way of explaining the subject, to describe the manner in which the difficulty, the solution, and the proofs of that solution successively presented themselves to my inquiries. Now, in historical researches, a reconciled inconsistency becomes a positive argument: First, because an impostor generally guards against the appearance of inconsistency; and, secondly, because, when apparent inconsistencies are found, it is seldom that any thing but truth renders them capable of reconciliation. The existence of the difficulty proves the want or absence of that caution which usually accompanies the consciousness of fraud; and the solution proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preserves every circumstance in its place.

SECTION 12.

2 Corinthians 10:14-16: “We are come as far as to you also in preaching the Gospel of Christ, not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men’s labors; but having hope, when your faith is increased that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel in the regions beyond you.”

This quotation affords an indirect, and therefore unsuspicious, but at the same time a distinct and indubitable recognition of the truth and exactness of the history. I consider it to be implied, by the words of the quotation, that Corinth was the extremity of St. Paul’s travels hitherto. He expresses to the Corinthians his hope that in some future visit he might “preach the Gospel to the regions beyond them;” which imports that he had not hitherto proceeded “beyond them,” but that Corinth was as yet the farthest point or boundary of his travels. Now, how is St. Paul’s first journey into Europe, which was the only one he had taken before the writing of the epistle, traced out in the history? Sailing from Asia, he landed at Philippi; from Philippi, traversing the eastern coast of the peninsula, he passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica; from thence through Berea to Athens, and from Athens to Corinth, where he stopped; and from whence, after a residence of a year and a half, he sailed back into Syria. So that Corinth was the last place which he visited in the peninsula; was the place from which he returned into Asia; and was, as such, the boundary and limit of his progress. He could not have said the same thing, viz. “I hope hereafter to visit the regions beyond you,” in an epistle to the Philippians, or in an epistle to the Thessalonians, inasmuch as he must be deemed to have already visited the regions beyond them, having proceeded from those cities to other parts of Greece. But from Corinth he returned home; every part therefore beyond that city might properly be said, as it is said in the passage before us, to be unvisited. Yet is this propriety the spontaneous effect of truth, and produced without meditation or design.

For St. Paul’s journeys, the reader is referred to the map which accompanies the Acts of the Apostles.

Dr. Lightfoot, in his Chronology of the New Testament, has made some good observations on the date of this epistle, and the circumstances by which that date is ascertained; collating, as Dr. Paley has done, the epistle with those parts of the history in the Acts, which refer to it.

The following is the substance of what he says on this subject:—

A new year being now entered, and Paul intending for Syria, as soon as the spring was a little up, he sends Titus beforehand to Corinth, to hasten their collections for the saints in Judea, that they might be ready against Paul should come thither. And with Titus he sends two other brethren, and by them all, he sends the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The proof that it was written and sent at this time, and in this manner, is plain, by these places and passages in it:-2 Corinthians 9:2-4: “I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia: yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain; lest haply they of Macedonia come with me,” etc. 2 Corinthians 12:14: “Behold, the third time I am coming to you.” 2 Corinthians 13:1: “This is the third time I am coming to you.” And, 2 Corinthians 8:16: “But thanks be unto God, who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you.” 2 Corinthians 8:17: “Being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.” 2 Corinthians 8:18: “And with him we have sent the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel.” 2 Corinthians 8:22: “And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have often times proved diligent in many things,” etc.

The apostle, in this second epistle to Corinth, first excuses his not coming to them, according as he had promised in his first epistle, 1 Corinthians 16:5, clearing himself from all lightness in making, and from all unfaithfulness in breaking, that promise; and fixing the principal reason upon themselves and their present condition; because he had not yet intelligence, when he went first into Macedonia, of any reformation among them of those enormities that he had reproved in his first epistle; therefore he was unwilling to come to them in heaviness, and with a scourge. This, his failing to come according to his promise, had opened the mouths of several in his disgrace, and false teachers took any other occasion to vilify him, which he copiously satisfies, and vindicates himself all along in the epistle. His exceeding zealous plainness with them, and dealing so home and thoroughly against their misdemeanors as he did, was one advantage that his enemies took to open their mouths against him, and to withdraw the hearts of the Corinthians from him; and chiefly because he was so urgent against the works of the law as to justification, and those rites which the Jews, even the most of those that were converted to the Gospel, too much doated on.

After he had sent away this epistle by Titus, Erastus, and Mark, if our conjecture fail not, and had given notice to the Corinthians of his speedy coming to them, and warning them to get their collections ready against, he came, he provided for his journey into Syria, which he had intended so long: partly to visit the Churches in these parts, and partly to bring up the collections he had got for the poor of Judea; of which he had promised to the three ministers of the circumcision, Peter, James, and John, that he would be careful, Galatians 2:10.

Acts 20:4: “And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.” Acts 20:5: “These going before tarried for us at Troas.” Acts 20:6 “And we sailed away from Philippi, after the days of unleavened bread.”

But when Paul, and this his company, are all going for Asia together, why should they not set out together; but these go before, and tarry at Troas, and Paul and some other of his company come after? Nay, they were all to meet at Troas, as it appeareth, Acts 20:6. Why might they not then have gone altogether to Troas?

The reason of this was, because Paul himself was to go by Corinth; and not minding to stay there but very little, because he hastened to Jerusalem, he would not take his whole train thither, but send them off the next way they could go to Troas, himself promising and resolving to be speedily with them there. He had promised a long time to the Church of Corinth to come unto them, and he had newly sent word in that epistle that he had lately sent, that now his coming would be speedy, 2 Corinthians 12:14 “Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you;” and 2 Corinthians 13:1: “This is the third time that I am coming to you.” Not that he had been there twice before, for since his first departing thence, (when he had stayed a long time together, at his first planting of the Gospel in that place,) there is neither mention nor probability of his being there again; but this was the third time that he was coming, having promised and intended a journey thither once before, but was prevented, 2 Corinthians 1:15-17. But now he not only promises by the epistle that he will come, but staketh the three brethren that he had sent thither for witnesses and sureties of that promise, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 2, that in the mouth of these witnesses his promise might be established and assured. See the Introduction, section xi.

Now the time is come that he makes good his promise; and whilst the rest of his company go directly the next cut to Troas, he himself and Luke, and whom else he thought good to retain with him, go about by Corinth.

And now, to look a little farther into the reason of their thus parting company, and of Paul’s short stay at Corinth when he came there, we may take into our thoughts, (besides how much he hastened to Jerusalem,) the jealousy that he had, lest he should not find all things at Corinth so comfortable to himself, and so creditable to them, before those that should come with him, as he desired. He has many passages in the second epistle that he wrote to them that glance that way; for though, as to the general, there was reformation wrought among them, upon the receiving his first epistle, and thereupon he speaks very excellent things of them; yet were there not a few that thought basely of him, 2 Corinthians 10:12, and traduced him and his doctrine, 2 Corinthians 11, and 12, and gave him cause to suspect that this boasting of that Church to the Churches of Macedonia might come off but indifferently, if the Macedonians should come with him to see how all things were there, 2 Corinthians 9:4. And therefore it was but the good policy of just fear, grief, and prudence to send them by another way, and he had very just cause to stay but a little while when he came there. — Lightfoot’s Works, vol. i. p. 310, etc.