before long. He would probably remain in that neighbourhood, and await his arrival. But St. Paul had now paid his visit to Colosse, and crossed over into Europe, and it is probable that he would retain Tychicus for some time, after their long separation. The doubt as to the messenger might arise from his having been made the bearer of the letter to Timothy a few weeks before, so that the time of his return would be rather uncertain.

The commission about Apollos has been variously explained. Some, as Hug, refer it to his first journey from Ephesus to Corinth, which is clearly disproved by the history. Canon Tate has supposed that Apollos and Zenas might be the bearers of the letter to the Hebrews. But this involves clearly a great anachronism, since not only the letter must have reached Palestine before now, but St. Paul would have paid them his visit, and pursued his journey by Colosse and Philippi into Greece. Mr. Biley supposes that they were now with Titus, and that St. Paul desired him to bring them along with him, or help them on their way to join himself. It is far more simple to explain it thus, that they were the bearers of this letter to Titus, and then were about to proceed elsewhere; so that St. Paul seized the occasion of sending a letter by them, though a further message would be necessary before Titus could return. Now the last previous mention of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12) implied his fixed purpose of visiting Corinth again, and it has been shown that St. Paul was in or near Corinth at the date of this letter. Again, Apollos was a Jew of Alexandria and whether he were journeying to Palestine, to one of the national feasts, or returning to his native place, on either supposition Crete would be exactly in the line of his journey. The coincidence here, though inferential, has a high probability, and is certainly free from the remotest suspicion of design. It supplies also a beautiful lesson, that the last mention of Apollos shows him to have fulfilled his promise to the Corinthians; that he was there in fellowship with the apostle, where their names had once been the signal of unholy rivalry; that he willingly undertakes to be the bearer of the apostle's message to Titus; while the apostle, in his turn, commends him most affectionately to the care of his youthful friend, in providing for his comfort on his proposed journey.

CHAPTER XI.

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

THAT this letter was written during St. Paul's second imprisonment has been argued already, in the remarks on the epistle to the Ephesians, and is so generally allowed, that perhaps further proof is needless. It will be enough to trace at once, in succession, those secret harmonies of truth which are detected, when the epistle is thus referred to its proper date.

No. I.

2 Tim. i. 6. “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.'

In Acts viii. 18, 19, at the time when the gospel was preached by Philip in Samaria, we have a remarkable statement with regard to the conduct of Simon Magus.

"And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money."

We are thus taught by the history, before the date of Saul's conversion, that to communicate the gifts of the Spirit by imposition of their hands was a privilege peculiar to the apostles. Here, again, in the latest letter of the apostle, on the eve of his death, he reminds Timothy of the gifts of the Spirit he had received, and that it was by the imposition of his own hands he had received them. The coincidence is simple and complete. It is the more observable, because in the former letter he had mentioned Timothy's reception of these gifts, without any assertion of this important particular, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given by prophecy, with laying of the hands of the presbytery."

No. II.

2 Tim. i. 15. " This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me, of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes."

This passage, at first sight, may well occasion some per

plexity. How could the whole church of Ephesus, where St. Paul laboured with such zeal for nearly three years, have apostatized from the faith, or perseveringly renounced their friendship for the apostle? How is it that Timothy is informed thus briefly of the defection of the whole flock, where he had been appointed to labour, and to establish the disciples, not long before?

The first step towards a removal of the difficulty consists in a simpler and more exact version. "This thou knowest, that all they who are in Asia turned away from me. When St. Paul wrote to Timothy before, he was journeying, and at liberty, but now he is a prisoner at Rome. We are not told where he was apprehended, but the last town on his route to which we can trace him, is Miletus, where he left Trophimus sick. The words before us allude, when translated simply, to some particular occasion which had intervened, and was known to Timothy, though not stated fully in the letter. Hence we may infer that he was apprehended somewhere in the province of Asia, and examined by some provincial governor, before he was sent a prisoner to Rome. On this view we find an exact parallel to the present verse at the close of the letter. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear." (2 Tim. iv. 16.)

If the Christians at Rome all forsook the apostle in this crisis, it is not surprising that the same should be true of those in Asia, whatever the town where he was seized, and brought for his defence before the Roman deputy. The time of Nero's cruelty was now begun, and hence the danger was far greater than in the former imprisonment. The fact, that two names only are specified, out of the whole number of believers, implies that some special occasion was meant, already known to Timothy, and that the charge has an important limitation. All those of Asia who were near at hand, and had it in their power to befriend him in his hour of danger, drew back through fear, and two are named, as more guilty than the rest, whether from their special opportunities of helping him, or from their station in the church. The comparison, then, removes the strangeness of the declaration, while it reveals a secret harmony between the two des

sriptions of the guilty timorousness of the Christians, both in Asia and at Rome.

Still, if Timothy were now at Ephesus, it seems unnatural that he should be informed in this manner of facts which would seem to involve him in a share of the guilt, and to have passed under his own eyes. Now if we examine the rest of the letter, this difficulty will also be removed. Timothy, it seems, was not at Ephesus, but at some distance to the east or north. For he is told of the mission of Tychicus to Ephesus, and of Trophimus having stayed at Miletus, and is charged to bring the cloak from Troas. Hence it seems pretty clear that he was not actually in any of those cities, though he might have to pass through them on his journey to Rome. This absence of Timothy from Ephesus, which is obscurely implied, completes the explanation of a verse which at first sight is almost inexplicable. Long before the letter arrived, Timothy would have learned the place and time of the apostle's apprehension, and the conduct of the Christians around him, when he was thus arraigned. Hence the notice of the fact is so brief, that it now appears almost hopelessly obscure.

No. III.

2 Tim. iv. 9, 10. "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: for Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia; Titus unto Dalmatia."

Two of these names are familiar to us in the letters, but Crescens is mentioned here only. This is the kind of coincidence which we should look for in a history of real occurrences. St. Paul had several constant, and others, more numerous, who were occasional companions in his journeys.

The mention of Titus supplies a very circuitous coincidence, of the reality of which, on close inquiry, there is little doubt. In his letter, the apostle requested him to rejoin him at Nicopolis. This has been shown to be Nicopolis in Epirus, and the letter to be from the neighbourhood of Corinth. Hence the purpose of the direction was clearly that Titus might be with the apostle in Epirus during the winter, and resume his labours along with him up the western coast of the Adriatic early in the next spring. If time was pressing, and other churches to the north required a visit, St. Paul would naturally send Titus, one of his most faithful and trusty helpers,

to fulfil the same office as in Crete the previous year. On crossing over to Troas, he seems to have been arrested in Asia, and sent off at once a prisoner to Rome. Since Timothy was absent elsewhere in Asia Minor, this letter might give him the first account of that absence of Titus which made his own return the more necessary. The intervals of time will quite agree with this view. Titus might leave the apostle in April for Dalmatia, possibly near Dyrrachium. St. Paul might reach Miletus towards the end of May, and, after his arrest, be conveyed to Rome by the beginning or middle of July, and examined in the same month. He might write to Timothy in August, who was then in Asia, and not at the sea coast; and since he had several commissions to fulfil on the way, he would require diligence to rejoin the apostle at Rome before the winter was set in.

To detect the secret coincidence in this case, how many steps are necessary! We have first to ascertain carefully the true date of both letters, and the neighbourhood where the one to Titus was written, all of them points that require the most careful examination, as is proved by the mistakes of so many learned men. We have next to infer, from the message to Titus, the probable route of the apostle after that winter was over, and from this letter to Timothy, the place of his apprehension, and the fact of his return to Rome. We have also, by minute observation, to discover the absence of Timothy from Ephesus and Miletus, and, by a complex estimate of the journeys, to ascertain that the two winters, in the two letters, are those of two successive years. Thus, by this complicated inquiry, where every link, however, seems to be firm, we obtain a result which not only clears Titus from the suspicion of wilfully deserting the apostle, but accounts for his absence in Dalmatia, a province never once named elsewhere either in the history or the other letters.

No. IV.

2 Tim. iv. 11. "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

The last mention of Mark was in the Epistle to Colosse, from which it appeared that he was intending to visit that neighbourhood about the close of the former imprisonment, which was probably about two years before the present message.