and composes speeches for Peter and Paul, not with the view of recording exactly what they said on any occasion (to a Greek that would seem blundering realism), but to give light and shade to the portrait which he wishes to draw. And Luke is a writer of such skill, and so richly endowed with dramatic talent, that his speeches, though not strictly historic, are of the greatest possible value to the historian. They show, not indeed what was uttered on a particular occasion, but what ought to have been uttered, to set forth the true bearing of the occasion and to embody the character of the speaker.

Fresh study constantly increases one's admiration for the skill with which Luke modifies his speeches, alike as regards matter and style, to suit the occasion. As in the works of some of the greatest novelists, one sees cause and effect working in human life without the accidents and friction which in the world as it exists would be intervening at every turn; so does Luke eliminate the unessential and give us the typical. Sometimes, as when he reports the speech of the fussy, self-important orator Tertullus, we may even see humorous exaggeration, though the humour may be

unconscious.

Luke inserts six longer speeches as by Paul. In the first, that addressed to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia,1 he sets forth Paul's manner of addressing the Jews: how he appealed to Hebrew history and to Scripture, and tried to show how the life and death of Jesus were the

1 Acts xiii. 16-41. I have treated of these speeches in greater detail in a paper published in the volume of Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909.

crown and consummation of the history of the chosen race. In the second discourse, that at Athens (where Paul was alone, with no Christian to report him), the Hellenistic side of Paul's training and teaching is brought into a strong light. Luke here goes a little too far; for it is scarcely possible to imagine the Paul of the Epistles taking so academic and philosophic a line. The pupil is carried away by the magic of the name of Athens, and attributes to Paul too much of his own astonishing versatility. The third discourse, that uttered at Miletus to the Ephesian Presbyters,1 is an address of Paul to his own disciples and friends. Here we are very far nearer to the Paul who wrote the letters to the Thessalonians and Corinthians. But in this case there would naturally be much less of the composition of the historian, since Luke was present on the occasion; and if he listened to the actual words of his master with sympathetic emotion, he could scarcely refrain from allowing them to dominate his report, though obviously that account is the mere outline of a long discourse. It is a consequence of the fact that this speech in Acts depends more on memory, and is less of a composition, that it is defective in arrangement. Commentators have regarded the way in which the writer goes backward and forward, returning to points on which he has already touched, as an argument against the authenticity of the report. In reality it is the best proof of its authenticity. Anyone who tries to repeat from memory the outlines of a discourse heard long ago will be sure to wander somewhat at random, taking up one point

1 Acts xx. 18-35.

after another as they arise out of the mists of the past. In this speech we have a reflection of the real Paul: warm-hearted, impulsive, generous, at one moment dwelling in delight on what he had been able to do for the Churches; in the next falling back on the profound conviction that himself and the Churches alike were absolutely in the hands of God, with whom rested all the future.

The fifth speech, that uttered before Felix, shows us Paul in a novel attitude: as one accused before a Roman tribunal, and determined to defend himself by any legitimate means. It is a forensic discourse, such as any pleader in the courts might have uttered, and with little belonging to Paul as a personality.

The fourth and sixth discourses, those uttered at Jerusalem, and at Cæsarea before King Agrippa, take a line almost identical. They are autobiographic, giving a brief history of the conversion of the speaker and his call to missionary work. With the facts of Paul's early biography, which his historian gives in somewhat inconsistent detail in various passages, I must deal later. I need here only observe that nothing is more likely or more in accord with psychology than that a great religious leader, when on trial for his life, should fall back on autobiography, and give his reasons for believing that the course he had taken was the course laid down for him by the Power which had sent him into the world. The apologia pro vita sua of a missionary must almost necessarily take the form of a narrative of religious experience, and of a trust conferred by God.

But even the speech at Miletus does not add much to our knowledge of the inwardness of Paul. It gives valuable historic evidence to the effect that the Pauline Epistles are really by the Apostle; but it is too brief and generalising to be of much value to such investigations as that on which we are at present engaged. Let us turn rather to the Epistles, and try from them to discern what is the nature of the Pauline teaching, and what was the spring of energy which led to a life of such spiritual transport, and such suffering, of such enthusiasm for humanity, and such wisdom in counsel, of such high passions, which yet never broke away from the controlling power of a will which depended on a continuous divine inspiration.

II

I propose to use the Epistles generally as evidence for the Pauline views, excluding only those to Titus and Timothy, which are not doctrinally important. The Epistles fall naturally into three groups. The earliest are probably those to the Thessalonians, which, however, are less important in relation to the Pauline thought. In the second group come the great central documents, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. In the third group we must place the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Between the second and the third group we may notice certain changes of opinion, especially in regard to the Second Coming; but the general scheme of belief is not greatly altered, though it shows a certain amount of development.

Twenty years ago it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to embark upon an essay like the present without a preliminary examination of the question which Epistles and which chapters are really Pauline. But recently the tendency of criticism has set so strongly in the direction of conceding the authenticity of all that is important in the extant letters, that it has become possible to absolve oneself from this task. If one accepts the attitude and the general results of such writers as Harnack, Moffatt, and Jülicher, one has a firm basis on which to build. It is true that a number of important questions in regard to the Pauline writings remain unsolved. For example, many critics regard the Roman Epistle as a document made up of more than one letter, and think that the last chapter really belongs to an Epistle to the Ephesians. The authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is disputed; and Ephesians is supposed by many to be not addressed to the Church at Ephesus, but rather to that at Laodicea, or (more probably) to be a sort of circular letter addressed to various Churches. But these questions are of subordinate importance. Not having time myself to go into such inquiries, I am ready generally to accept the decisions in regard to them reached by one of the most judicious of New Testament critics, Professor Jülicher, whose great work, translated into English, is easily accessible. Jülicher does not reject as unauthentic any part of the Epistles which is at all important to the present work.

If it could be shown, as was held, e.g. by Pfleiderer, that the whole of the third group of Epistles was non1 Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 32-200.