The same period has seen a reasonable change in the critical treatment of the _Acts of the Apostles_. The "Tübingen School," represented in this case especially by Zeller, the author of well-known works on Greek philosophy, had treated the book as altogether a fancy picture of early church history designed to reconcile the two opposite parties of St. Paul and the elder Apostles by means of the compromise of Catholicism. That theory is now extinct, and recent research has gone a long way to vindicate the trustworthiness of the book, partly by showing the primitive character of the first half--especially as illustrated by the speeches of St. Peter and others,[46] and later by the collection of many evidences of the historicity of the second portion of the book, namely, that containing the missionary journeys of St. Paul. We owe it especially to the brilliant studies of Prof. Ramsay--the greatest living authority on the antiquities and history of Asia Minor in the first century--that many local and contemporary facts have been brought to light confirmatory of the accuracy of St. Luke as a historian.[47] [46] See Lechler, _Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times_. [47] See Ramsay, _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman citizen_. With regard to St. Paul's epistles the case stands thus: A few extremists reject them all, partly on the ground of their supposed inconsistency with the _Acts_--thus reversing Zeller's argument, but mainly because of the advanced condition of Christian experience which they illustrate, as though the pace of spiritual development in the white heat of the greatest religious "revival" the world has ever seen could be measured by the ideas of a Dutch professor in his chill lecture room! But the mass of critical opinion--British, German, and American--is tending toward a wider recognition of the genuineness of these writings than was allowed a generation ago. Baur's admittedly authentic group of four, which has been called "the great quadrilateral of Christianity," still stands--viz., _1 and 2 Corinthians_, _Galatians_ and _Romans_. Next come _Philippians_ and _I Thessalonians_ now accepted as virtually beyond question. Then _Colossians_ has been vindicated in schools of severe criticism.[48] If _Colossians_ is allowed, there can be no doubt as to receiving its companion epistle, the beautiful little letter to Philemon. There are still many who are unable to admit _2 Thessalonians_, chiefly because of its apocalyptic contents. But of late years it has been shown that the primitive church was possessed with the hope of the coming of Christ in glory to a remarkable extent, as a perfectly dominating idea. There remains _Ephesians_ as now the most questioned of all the epistles that bear the name of St. Paul, except the Pastorals. But when it is seen that one of the chief objections to it is that it is said to be "a _weak_" (!) imitation of _Colossians_ we may be allowed to regard this judgment as a matter of personal taste