certain that Colosse would receive the gospel from them, and partake in their prejudice against Mark, as a deserter from the work of the Lord. In this local relation of Colosse to Perga, and to the theatre of those two early circuits throughout Pisidia and Phrygia, we have a coincidence as real as it is evidently undesigned. A third question arises, how and when could the Colossians have received this commandment, reversing the sentence against Mark, and recognising his return to the favour and confidence of the apostle? It is quite possible that such a message might have been sent from Rome, as soon as the apostle had found the comfort of Mark's help in the gospel. Yet we have no hint in the letters of such a previous message to Asia, and it seems rather unlikely that St. Paul should have sent one before to Colosse for such a purpose. Nor is it natural to suppose that ten years elapsed before the reconciliation. But the history itself supplies a simpler and more probable key to this passage. After the separation and first journey of Paul and Silas through Pisidia and Phrygia they passed into Europe and stayed long at Corinth. The apostle then returned to Jerusalem at some feast, probably that of Pentecost. On this visit, he would be likely to meet with Mark and Barnabas, at Cæsarea or Jerusalem, returning to the same feast; or if not, at least he would be sure to hear of the consistent labours of the evangelist since they parted. Soon afterwards, St. Paul went down to Antioch, and then passed through Galatia and Phrygia, before he came down to the coast, and resided at Ephesus. It is therefore most likely that he would instruct the churches of Phrygia respecting his change of feeling towards Mark, and give them a charge to receive him with due honour whenever he should visit them as an evangelist of Christ. Now Colosse, though St. Paul had not visited it, belonged to the province of Phrygia. And if Mark was now proposing to visit Asia, and St. Paul had still fuller experience of his worth, it was very natural that he should enforce his general instruction to the Phrygian churches some years before, by a special admonition to Colosse, "Touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him." The coincidence here is, to a certain extent, inferential and. constructive. But it can scarcely be denied that the expla nation just proposed is highly probable; that it brings to light a beautiful and concealed harmony, and that it lies far removed from all suspicion of design. No. IV. Col. iv. 18. "The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen." Philem. 19. "I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides." These two letters were sent by the same messenger, one to the church of Colosse, and the other to Philemon. Yet we learn from these verses that, while in one letter St. Paul merely added the subscription, he wrote the other entirely with his own hand. Nothing can be more natural than the mention of the circumstance in the second case, to confirm the truth of his promise respecting Onesimus. And yet how appropriate and delicate the compliment to Philemon, that the apostle who wrote to the church by an amanuensis, should in his case deviate from his own ordinary practice, and prove his interest in the reconciliation of Onesimus to his master, by writing the whole letter with his own hand. CHAPTER VII. THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. THIS epistle, as it appears from the internal evidence, was written near the close of St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, almost at the same point of time where the narrative in the book of Acts comes to an end. Short as it is, Paley has detected in it seven distinct marks of reality, which are developed very clearly in the Hora. Enough still remain to reward our further inquiry. No. I. Phil. 1. 1. "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." This is the earliest letter of St. Paul where bishops and deacons are mentioned, and the only one where they are separately addressed in the salutation. N Now, here we may trace an agreement with the probable course of events, deduced alike from the letters and the history. While the apostles were constantly visiting the young churches, whether in person or by messengers, the appointment of regular pastors would either be delayed, or be felt of less importance. But when some of them were removed by death, and others removed to a distant sphere, or shut up in prison, it would be needful to provide for the permanent order of the various churches. Hence the three letters, which come later than the present one, are mainly occupied with instructions on these points, or warnings of the evils that would assail the church after the departure of the apostle. The previous letter to Colosse implies also that a pastoral appointment had recently occurred in that place. Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it." and It agrees exactly with this new want of the church, when other apostles had been martyred or removed far away, St. Paul imprisoned for two years, in doubt of his life, and was now already "Paul the aged," that bishops and deacons should be prominent, for the first time, in the opening salutation. It is like an admonition of the Spirit, that the churches were to acquire the habit of looking up with reverence to their own pastors and teachers, now that the miraculous gifts were beginning to pass into God's ordinary providence, and the presence of the inspired apostles, the immediate dispensers of those gifts, was to be speedily withdrawn. No. II. Phil. ii. 19, 23-25. "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly. Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my me. wants. Here three visits to Philippi are proposed in a distinct order. Epaphroditus was to set out at once, and plainly to be the bearer of the letter. Timothy was to follow immediately after the apostle's liberation was decided, but not before. St. Paul himself hoped also to revisit them before long. But why, we may ask, this complex arrangement? Was it not more natural that Epaphroditus should delay till Timothy could accompany him, or that Timothy should hasten his journey to travel with Epaphroditus, or delay it, so as to accompany the apostle? The brief statement in the text, though rapid and condensed, supplies a full key to the arrangement. Epaphroditus had been delayed by sickness beyond the natural time of his absence, and thus had caused great anxiety to the Philippians. On his recovery, the apostle did not think it right to detain him still longer, to go with Timothy, and therefore dismissed him with the present affectionate letter. But why should not the journey of Epaphroditus spare the need of another of Timothy? Because he was to stay at Philippi, and what the apostle desired was more recent tidings of their prosperity. Then why should not Timothy go at once, along with Epaphroditus? Because he was to rejoin the apostle, while on a journey. If he had set out before the apostle knew the decision of his cause, and the time of his freedom, he must either have lost time in waiting for Timothy at Rome, or Timothy have been ignorant where to proceed, so as to bring tidings at once from Philippi. But why should not the apostle, if his deliverance was near, proceed at once to Philippi, and spare Timothy this separate journey? We shall see, from the later epistles, that he had decided on a much wider circuit, by Crete, Jerusalem, and Asia, before he could reach Macedonia. Finally, if St. Paul had heard of them so lately by Epaphroditus, why this urgent desire to hear from them again by Timothy? First, the letter implies that they were actually exposed to fierce opposition; and next, an illness of considerable length had intervened, so as to make the actual interval considerable. It is very probable that he would be sent from Philippi in the spring or summer of the second year. His illness would delay his return until the winter season rendered his departure unadvisable, and then the apostle, as soon as navigation became easy, sent him back to Philippi. Hence nearly a year might have passed since he sent out to Rome, and the apostle be desirous of later information. Thus every feature of the arrangement, though tried by these various tests, approves itself to the judgment, and becomes a pledge of the historical reality of the whole. No. III. St. Paul, when Phil. ii. 20. "For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." This verse, at first sight, appears startling. he wrote to Colosse, had Mark, Aristarchus, Jesus Justus, and Epaphras, all with him. here to condemn the fellow-prisoner and companion, who had partaken in all the perils of his voyage, and who seems to have stood before so high in his esteem? Or does he intend, when Timothy was about to visit Philippi, to teach him on his arrival his superiority to Luke and Mark, and Aristarchus, all probably his superiors in age, and apparently not less constant in their love to the apostle in this imprisonment? On turning to the close of the epistle, this doubt is removed. Neither Mark, Luke, nor Aristarchus are there named as present, though two of them, at least, were well known at Philippi, and their greeting was sent to Colosse, which they probably had never visited. This is in itself a strong presumption that they had left him before this time and this is confirmed by other reasons. Before this time, at the date of the letter to the Colossians, Mark seems to have purposed returning to Asia. The book of Acts, again, was most probably written about the close of St. Paul's imprisonment, and it is not unlikely that St. Luke would leave Rome, and return to Cæsarea or Antioch, before he began its composition. Aristarchus, having been detained so much longer with the apostle than was contemplated at the outset of the journey, might also very probably have already left Rome, on his return to Thessalonica. It is a further presumption for this view, that none of their names appear in the Epistle to the Hebrews, written soon after from Italy, though all of them were well known to the Christians of Cæsarea and Jerusalem. This coincidence is imperfect, from the want of fuller evidence; but so far as the evidence extends, it is satisfactory and complete. The expression used in praise of Timothy would seem invidious and perplexing, if Mark, Luke, and Aristarchus were with St. Paul at the time, as we know that they were a little before. But the absence of their names, both at the close of this letter and of that to the Hebrews, the hint respecting Mark in Colossians, the probable time and |