had rejoined him also, and been sent again to some other quarter, while Timothy was despatched to Thessalonica1; (otherwise St. Paul could not have said he had thought proper, or rather consented, to be left at Athens alone;) and Timothy had rejoined him a second time only recently, either at Athens-or, if not there, at some other place, whither St. Paul had proceeded in his absence-after this very errand to Thessalonica, and before the Epistle was written1. The same thing is implied of Sylvanus also; for both Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timothy, who are all joined in the salutation at the head of the Epistles, must all have been together when it was written.

Now, after Acts xviii. 5. when both of these last are said to have come to him at Corinth, it is manifest they would be together in that place at least; where also it is proved by the Second Epistle to the Corinthians they all continued throughout and they are there said to have rejoined him from Macedonia generally; as the Epistle itself proves that Timothy in particular rejoined him from Thessalonica, which is the same thing. And if we compare 2 Cor. xi. 9. with Philipp. iv. 15, 16. we shall consider it more than probable that, when Timothy rejoined Paul from Thessalonica, Sylvanus also rejoined him from Philippi; which too would be from Macedonia.

These coincidences place it beyond a question, that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written after the arrival of St. Paul at Corinth, and after the return of Timothy and of Sylvanus to him there; and, consequently, from Corinth itself; for there is no proof that St. Paul, during this visit, preached in any other part of Achaia. Moreover, if 1 Thess. iii. 6. 7. be compared with Acts xviii. 5. xviii. 11. we shall conclude that it must have been written at the very beginning of the visit, and not at some later riod, when the year and nine or ten months, during which we supposed it to have lasted, were more or less advanced in their progress. Nor is ii. 18. any objection; for the em

a jii. I.

iii. 6.

• i. I.

tj. 19.

pe

phasis laid on the y μèv Пaõλos clearly implies that he had wished this once or twice to have rejoined them in person, and not merely by a messenger; and coming between ii. 17. which speaks of a separation-pòs xaιpòv åpas (that is, a very recent, and as it might be supposed about to prove, a very brief, separation) and iii. 1. 2. which speaks of the mission of Timothy, as the substitute of Paul, it shews that he means some wish which he had formed since his departure from Thessalonica indeed, but before his departure from Athens also.

We may venture to pronounce, therefore, with confidence, that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Corinth, A. U. 803. soon after St. Paul's arrival, which we placed about the spring of the year; and the time of the first determines presumptively the time of the second; which being written apparently to correct a very important mistake, produced by the first", must have been written in a short time after, and, consequently, in A. U. 803. also. In fact, iii. 2. of the Second Epistle may probably allude even to Acts xviii. 6-10. It follows, consequently, that these two Epistles were the earliest of St. Paul's Epistles in general; and there are passages in each of them which might have led of themselves to such a conclusion".

II. On the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Asia, that is, from the province of that name in Asia Minor; and it was written from Ephesus within that province. It could not, therefore, have been written before the commencement of the residence at Ephesusy, in the thirteenth of Claudius, A. U. 806.

Again; It could not have been written before Apollos had visited and preached at Corinth2, to which place it is evident he proceeded from Ephesus; nor yet before he was

come back again thence to Ephesusb. Now when Paul first arrived at Ephesus, A. U. 806. he was still at Corinth: if so, we may take it for granted that the Epistle was not written immediately after the arrival, nor until some time in the course of the first year of the residence at least; a conclusion which is implicitly confirmed by 1 Cor. iv. 11— 13. compared with Acts xx. 31. 34; for St. Paul must have been some while at Ephesus, for this description of his mode of employment daily to have been natural and just.

Again; The Epistle was written either at, or just before, the recurrence of the period of the Passover, and before the ensuing Pentecost; and it was written after Timothy had been sent to Corinth, and while he was still absent-but when St. Paul was waiting for his return at Ephesus, and for his return in company with others; which implies that others also had been sent with hime. And that after this Timothy did actually rejoin him, before he wrote any second Epistle at least, appears from the Second to the Corinthians. If, then, the Epistle had been written before the point of time specified at Acts xix. 22. which mentions the fact of a mission of Timothy and of Erastus into Macedonia this mission, as concerns the former, and perhaps as concerns the latter too, must have been a second mission, yet nothing at variance with the Epistle, nor impossible in the nature of things; and this I believe to have been actually the case.

For, first, at a time posterior to the mission of Timothy, alluded to in the Epistle, St. Paul had not yet decided upon going up to Jerusalem, much less upon visiting Rome; but before the mission specified in the Acts he had already made up his mind to do both 5.

Secondly, when he wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians, he had not yet determined, though he might have given some reason to expect he would determine, on passing through Macedonia, and so on to Achaia; much less upon making

b 1 Cor. xvi. 12. e iv. 17. xvi. 12. Acts xix. 21.

c Acts xix. 1. 2.
f 2 Cor. i. 1.

xvi. 10. 11.

d 1 Cor. v. 7. 8. xvi. 8.

8 1 Cor. xvi. 3. 4. 6.

any stay there; but at the time of the mission in the Acts he had decided on doing both h.

Thirdly, after the mission of Timothy in the Acts, there is no mention of his ever rejoining St. Paul, either at Ephesus, or any where else, before they set out together from Greece to go into Asiai; which seems to imply that, after that mission, St. Paul joined Timothy, and not Timothy St. Paul. And this might easily have been the case; for Timothy had been sent into Macedonia, and Paul left Ephesus to go to Macedonia, and wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians (as we shall see by and by) when Timothy was certainly with him, from thence.

Fourthly, St. Paul's original intention had been to pass through Corinth into Macedonia, and back from Macedonia to Corinth, and thence to set out for Judæa1: the plan which he actually adopted was just the reverse of this; passing to Corinth through Macedonia, and back again from Corinth to Macedonia".

Fifthly, he had never been at Corinth since his first visit"; yet he tells them this was the third time he was coming to them, that is, the third time he had promised to come to them. Now there is one such promise here, and another in various places of the First Epistle P, but no instance of a third, unless it had been sent by Timothy at the mission specified in the Acts, or at some other mission, such as we are supposing, prior to, and distinct from, that. And this is much the more probable; for there is no proof in the Acts 9 that Timothy had been sent any where into Achaia; but there is proof in the Epistle, that he had been sent to Corinth; that St. Paul expected he would arrive there; and that he would correct some belief, which had given occasion to the mistaken presumption that St. Paul never intended to visit Corinth again'; and that to rectify this mistake, as well as for other purposes, had been one great motive of

his mission itself. And 1 Cor. xvi. 5. the emphasis laid on Μακεδονίαν γὰρ διέρχομαι is another presumptive intimation that he had sent them a message to that effect already; which message some among them might perhaps affect to disbelieve. Moreover, from 1 Cor. xvi. 10. it appears Timothy had not been sent long before the Epistle itself was written; and St. Paul considered it possible the Epistle might arrive at Corinth before him.

The drift of all these considerations is to shew that the First to the Corinthians was written before the point of time specified at Acts xix. 22: and consequently before the expiration of the two years' and three months' residence, as mentioned at xix. 10. and xix. 21. at least. If it was written, therefore, about a Passover, it was probably written before its actual arrival; nor, in fact, could it have been said with propriety, wσre ogтálwμevs, unless the feast had been still to come.

Now, when he should visit Corinth, the writer considers it probable he might spend a winter there'; which could not be the winter of the year then current, because it would be later than both the Passover, and the Pentecost, of that year". The Epistle, then, was written a year at least before the time when this winter would arrive; and if this winter was the winter which St. Paul actually did spend in Greece, after he left Ephesus, and before the Passover spent at Philippi, it was the winter of the second of Nero, A. U. 809. ineunte; and, consequently the Epistle, written one year at least before it, was written in or before the winter of the first, A. U. 808. ineunte: and this conclusion may be rendered almost indubitably certain by the following considerations.

The Epistle was written at a time when a collection for the Church of Jerusalem either had been only recently begun, or was still incomplete and going on, at Corinth ". The same collection had previously been going on among the churches of Asia, where its origin could not have been ▾ Acts xx. 3.6.

s I Cor. v. 7. W 1 Cor. xvi. 1.

t Ib. xvi. 6.

" Ib. xvi. 8.