true of Tychicus, but was certainly true of Trophimus only; and therefore it is likely that Trophimus was the second companion of Titus now, as well as his sole companion on the former visit, a year before.

It is true that the brief hints do not allow us to decide, in this case, with absolute certainty. Yet it is a strong sign of truth that we find two characters in the history in whom all these various hints, as to the second brother, would be satisfied, while there is one, and only one, who fully satisfies the more definite description of the brother whose praise in the gospel was throughout all the churches.

No. IV.

2 Cor. xi. 32, 33. "In Damascus, the governor (or ethnarch) under Aretas the king guarded 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."

Let us compare the passage in Acts: "And after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: but their laying await 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.”

Paley has observed on these passages, that they agree in the main fact, but with such a difference of circumstances, as to make it utterly improbable that one was derived from the other. Hence their agreement can be explained only by the reality of the fact to which they refer as their common foundation.

This general remark admits of further confirmation. For these very differences, when closely examined, present new points of coincidence. The plot is ascribed to the Jews in the history; but in the epistle, to the governor or ethnarch under Aretas the king. Now the ethnarch, we may learn from other authorities, was a Jewish officer, to whom the heathen rulers gave separate authority over the Jews, in the large cities, where they were numerous, like Damascus and Alexandria. Also the ambush of the Jews, in Acts, is referred to a ovμßovλn, or deliberate consultation, which almost implies a public or official, though a secret conspiracy.

Again, the historian says nothing of the window, nor the epistle, of its happening in the night. Yet it is equally

natural that a time of darkness should be chosen for his escape, and that a window in the upper part of the wall should be preferred, as less exposed to observation, than an attempt to let him down over the parapets.

The passage in the epistle appears like an after thought. It is added, when he has already given a rapid sketch of his sufferings, and confirmed it by that solemn declaration: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for ever, knoweth that I lie not." Now the event itself was soon after his conversion, before the commencement of his labours as the apostle of Christ. It was the most remote instance of the persecutions he endured, and stood alone. How natural that it should have been omitted at first in this brief and condensed catalogue; and that the apostle, after a pause of thought, reviewing his whole course a second time, should then revert to this earliest persecution, the pattern and warning of so many that were to follow. Any one writing later, or deriving his knowledge at second hand, would have mentioned the occurrence, if introduced at all, in its historical order, and have placed it at the head of the list.

66

No. V.

2 Cor. xii. 12, 13. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. For what is it wherein you were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong."

The former verse contains a distinct assertion, that St. Paul had wrought many miracles during his stay at Corinth. Yet the very next verse, when closely examined, discloses marks of historical reality beyond the reach of imitation.

First, it is implied that the Corinthians had not contributed to his support. And this is confirmed by the history, which says, that he abode with Aquila, and wrought there at tentmaking; by the letter to the Philippians, where he says, that no other church contributed to his support at that time, "in the beginning of the gospel, when he departed from Macedonia;" and by the former epistle: "Have we not power to eat and to drink? But I have used none of these things."

Next, it is further implied that a claim to such support was one privilege of the apostolic office. The turn of thought can only be explained by this key. Every other sign, he tells

them, was given them, except this one only. Now this view agrees with his own statement to the Thessalonians-"We might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ." Next, in the former epistle: "Am I not an apostle? Have we not power to eat and to drink?" Lastly, with the principles he has twice or three times laid down, Rom. xv. 27; 1 Cor. ix. 11.

Finally, it is here implied, that his refusal of such support from the Corinthians was really the denial of a privilege, and a mark of their spiritual inferiority. Now that this was really the view of the apostle appears, first, from his words to the elders at Miletus, Acts xx. 35: "I have showed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Next, from his statement to the Philippians: "No church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only .... Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account." Thirdly, from the reason before assigned for his own conduct: "As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion." It was the readiness of some among them to view his conduct with suspicion, which compelled him to withhold this mark of his full confidence. The same view of their spiritual backwardness appears also 1 Cor. iii. 1–4.

Now it is only when these various hints are combined, that the exact meaning of the second verse comes to light, and the mingled justice and delicacy of the reproof. They ought to have felt it the denial of a privilege, and a mark of spiritual nonage, that St. Paul refused so perseveringly to borrow any part of his own support from them. In their actual state, Christian wisdom prescribed this conduct to him. But he felt it, as the more spiritual among them would also feel it, not so much the relieving them from a burden, as the denial of one sign of his apostleship, a natural result and open badge of their spiritual weakness. Hence the same words, which are a serious excuse for his conduct, as addressed to the more faithful among them, are a refined and delicate irony to the selfish and suspicious. "Wherein were ye inferior to other churches," what other sign of my apostleship was withheld,

"except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong." Such a stroke of mingled satire and pathos, confirmed in the fact it assumes and the principles on which the appeal is founded, by such a variety of coincidences, is inimitably real. Yet its whole force depends on the fact being notorious to all the Corinthian believers, that every other sign of apostleship had really been exhibited among them, “in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."

CHAPTER V.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

THIS letter of St. Paul, being addressed to a church he had never visited, is naturally less fertile in historical allusions than those to the Corinthians. Paley, however, has traced out, in eight distinct articles, many indirect coincidences with the history and the other letters, and most of them are peculiarly striking and impressive. Those which remain to be noticed are rather to be viewed as supplementary to his remarks than as opening fresh topics which had not been already touched Yet some of them may perhaps deserve to be ranked as distinct arguments.

upon.

No. I.

Rom. xiv. 1. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."

The whole passage, which begins with these words, has a remarkably close resemblance to another in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 1–13, ix. 1–20). Let us compare them with each other.

The general subject, in both cases, is certain scruples of conscience with regard to particular kinds of food. In both, the apostle lays down the same principle, the lawfulness of these meats in themselves, and the duty of regarding the consciences of weak brethren. But the very phrases and succession of thought are nearly the same.

66

Ch. xiv. 14. “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

1 Cor. viii. 8. "But meat commendeth us not to God: for

neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse."

Ch. xiv. 15. "But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died."

1 Cor. viii. 9-11. "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols? And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?”

Ch. xiv. 19. "Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

1 Cor. x. 32, 33. "Give none offence, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

Ch. xiv. 21. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

1 Cor. viii. 13. "Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

Ch. xv. 2.

"Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification."

1 Cor. x. 24. another's wealth."

"Let no man seek his own, but every man

A view of the entire passage, in each case, will render the comparison still more striking. Now the circumstances of time and place, when combined together, render this agreement very natural. The interval of the letters was not great, being. about nine or ten months, from April or May in one year until February in the year following. What explains it still more completely is, that the second letter was written from the very place to which the former was addressed; so that the apostle, for three months before, had doubtless been repeating his written instructions, by word of mouth, to the very parties for whom the letter was written. It is therefore doubly natural that, in writing to the Romans from Corinth, the same train of thought on this practical subject should reappear.