place. The success of his preaching was so great as to cause many hundreds, apparently of those who practised the magical arts for which Ephesus was noted, to abjure their employment and give up the gains arising from it.

And now the Apostle began to form the resolution of visiting Macedonia and Achaia again, when suddenly a fierce outbreak arose, which probably hastened his departure. It was not an outbreak of the Jews this time; but the first opposition made by the Idolatry of the world-the first presage of the great persecutions by the heathen. The record is a very remarkable and important one. The Romans up to this time had not interfered with the Christians; they had regarded them as a sect of Jews, concerning whom they never troubled themselves. Neither Jews nor heathens expected or cared to change the opinions of the other. But it became evident now that the Christians were something very different; that they were not disposed to let things be quiet, that they meant nothing less than the total overthrow of idolatry. Their religion was not the narrow selfishness which the Jews had made of theirs; but a belief in God who called Jews and Gentiles to be one family in Him, and to turn to Him from dumb idols. Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen took the alarm, and raised a great tumult against the Apostle (see p. 12). St. Paul hereupon left the city for Macedonia.

On his return he sailed round the coast, and came to Miletus, the port of Ephesus. Hither he summoned the elders of the city, and gave them a most solemn farewell charge (Acts xx. 18-end). He was bidding them farewell, as he thought, for ever.* But although he was parted from them, he bore them very close to his heart, and now takes the opportunity of stirring them up to faith and obedience by this Epistle.

There are two or three remarkable questions concerning the Epistle which may be noticed at once. Thus, how comes it to pass that St. Paul, writing to persons among whom he had spent three years, speaks of himself as having heard of their faith (i. 15), and as being uncertain whether they had heard of the dispensation which was given to him (iii. 2)? And he refers not to his converse with them, but to the Epistle, as a proof of his deep insight into the mystery of Christ (iii. 4). There is also a total absence of those touching salutations which we find in other Epistles (e. g. Rom. xvi.), and not a single passing indication that he was known to any of them. The most satisfactory solution was first suggested by Archbishop Ussher, namely, that this is an Encyclic (or circular) Epistle, addressed to Ephesus as the chief Church of the region, and also to all the Churches round about, Tychicus bearing several copies. On this account everything was excluded which was local and particular. And this explanation is rendered probable by another curious fact. The words "in Ephesus" (i. 1) are not found in the best copies. An early Father, Basil, says that the words are wanting in the copies which he has inspected, though he does not doubt that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians. We may assume that there were blanks left in the various copies to be filled up with the name of the particular Church to which each was sent.

There is a great similarity between this Epistle and that to the Colossians greater in the Greek than in our translation. "In many passages the same piece of heavenly music is played over again with variations" (Trench). One work

*See hereafter, p. 25.

being written immediately after the other, the writer's thoughts would naturally take the same sequences. With all this apparent and real similarity, there are differences showing the perfectly independent character of the two. That to the Colossians is polemical: this is not; but is a free outpouring of the Apostle's heart, rejoicing, and calling on them to rejoice, in the great truths of their common faith. The style, too, is more free and flowing; sentence is piled and accumulated upon sentence, thought upon thought. St. Paul is not girt up as for conflict, not rapid, controversial; but he enlarges freely, as having no false opinion to combat, no evil teacher whose mouth must be stopped. Grandeur of thought and fervour of diction characterise the whole book. The leading idea seems to be that expressed in ii. 11, 12, namely, the nearness of all men to the Father in Christ. With this glorious and blessed theme always in his view, he dwells first on the Eternal Purpose of the Father to bring all things to Himself in Christ; then, on the Atoning Work of the Son; and thirdly on the Sanctifying Work of the Holy Ghost (i.-iii.). He founds his great exhortation to unity on the same doctrine (iv. 1-6), and draws a divine picture of the final destinies of the Catholic Church (iv. 7-16). Thence he proceeds to dwell on the obligations of purity and holiness, seeing that we are thus brought near; and of love to all men, seeing that God has made us His children, and therefore brethren of one another. Finally, he shows how all earthly relationships are blessed and holy, seeing that they rest not upon institutions of men, but are Divine in their origin and nature; that the holiness of the marriage-bond is a reflection of the union of Christ with His Church; that the sacred tie which binds every family in earth and heaven is the relation of God the Father to His Only-Begotten Son (iii. 14, 15).

THIS Epistle was written at a somewhat later period than those to the Ephesians and Colossians. That it was written during the Roman imprisonment appears from the following verses :-i. 7, 13, 14, 16, 20, 24, iv. 22. That it was of comparatively late date appears from this, that he has lost the companions and fellow-helpers who are spoken of as being with him in Col. iv. 10; Philem. 23.

Timothy alone is with him now (ch. ii. 19), Moreover, i. 12-17 and ii. 25 imply that he has been in bonds a considerable time.

Philippi stands on the western coast of the Ægean Sea, at the foot of Mount Hamus. At first it was called by a name signifying “fountains," from the abundance of springing waters there. Philip of Macedon enlarged and beautified it, and changed its name to Philippi (358 B.C.). The commerce of the town was considerable, and the gold-mines gave it importance. In B.C. 42 it obtained a permanent place in history, in consequence of the great and bloody battle won by Mark Antony and Octavius (Augustus Cæsar) over Brutus and Cassius; the result of which was the destruction of the ancient Roman Republic and the establishment of the Empire. A large number of persons who were thrust out of Rome to make room for the officers of the conquering army, settled here; and so the city became a Roman colony, and had certain privileges in consequence. It is first mentioned in Holy Scripture in Acts xvi. 12, where it is called "the chief city of that part of Macedonia." The words are not free from difficulty, for Amphipolis was the capital of Macedonia. Probably the favour bestowed on the city by Augustus may have encouraged it to assume the honour, and to rival the capital. It was entirely consistent with Greek vanity to do so. This serves to illustrate St. Paul's warning against a desire after pre-eminence.

The circumstances under which the Church was founded are recorded at length in Acts xvi. 13, and in the highest sense it was given to Philippi to be the "first city." It was the first city in Europe in which the banner of the Cross was lifted up, the firstfruits of the Western world unto God. There St. Paul bore witness that God's blessed Son was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil, by casting out the spirit of divination. He tarried there only a few days; but he employed his time so well, that he left germs which unfolded themselves into a goodly plant, and the Church thus founded ever seems to have held the foremost place in the Apostle's affections. More than once he visited it. After the troubles at Ephesus (Acts xx. 21), he “came into the parts of Macedonia ”—Philippi, no doubt, among them. And after his three months' residence at Corinth (Acts xx. 3), he returned the same way.

Twice or thrice he accepted a gift from them-a mark of special favour-for in other Churches he refused (compare Phil. iv. 15, 16 with 2 Cor. xi. 9). In ch. iv. 1, too, he uses the most affectionate words of joy over them; every line is full of love and tenderness. Bengel beautifully says that the whole letter may be summed up in two words-gaudeo, gaudete (“I rejoice-rejoice ye"). Some have attributed this to an absence of a Jewish element. There was no synagogue there, though there may have been a small "prayer-house" by the riverside.*

It would seem that this is not the only Epistle addressed by St. Paul to the Philippians (see ch. iii. 1).† The immediate occasion of it was this. Epaphroditus had brought favourable tidings to St. Paul of the state of the Church. It was standing firm in the faith. There were no crying scandals as at Corinth. Judaizing teachers, indeed, had tried to creep in, and the Apostle feels it needful to warn against them, though he does so shortly and contemptuously

So some translate Acts xvi. 13.

+ Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians says, "the blessed and illustrious Paul.....being gone from you, wrote Epistles to you." This, however, is not conclusive.

(iii. 2-7). He, however, warns the Philippians that there are other dangers to be avoided the spirit of vainglory still lurked within them (ii. 34). There were many evil men, whose example might ruin them (iii. 17 ff). They were bidden not to be impatient of their brethen who lagged behind in the Christian course, And the exhortation is repeated again and again, to "think the same thing." The Epistle is not a systematic statement of doctrine, or of Church discipline, though one of the most important passages in Scripture as regards doctrine occurs, as it were, incidentally, in ch. ii. 5-11 (Epistle for Sunday before Easter.)

THE sacred history now deserts us. The Acts of the Apostles ends abruptly with the notice of St. Paul's two years' imprisonment at Rome. Our knowledge of the Apostle is henceforth derived either from his own writings or from ecclesiastical traditions.

In his letter to Philemon he expressed a hope of speedy liberation (22), and he was not disappointed; he was soon afterwards "delivered out of the jaws of the lion." Clement of Rome, a contemporary of St. Paul, relates that the Apostle came "to the bounds of the west" (i. e., probably to Spain; perhaps, though it is hardly probable, to Britain). There is no period in the Apostle's life in which we can place this journey, except that which followed the Roman imprisonment. To this period the Pastoral Epistles belong. They are so called because they are addressed to Bishops of the Church, and are intended to be used by them as manuals of Church government and organization.

Before considering them in detail, it will be well to gather up the few notices which the early part of the New Testament gives us of the origin and growth of the Church. It has already been noticed (see p. 1, Summary of the Acts) that the Church was at first a Jewish family. The disciples were held together by the memory of Him in whom they believed as the hope of Israel, the fulfiller of the promises made to their fathers. The Temple worship, the Jewish ordinances, were as sacred to them as ever. But Christ had told them that the Holy Ghost the Comforter should guide them into all truth (John xvi. 13). His teaching, therefore, they followed. By degrees they learned that the Gentiles were indeed "fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of God's promise in Christ by the Gospel." They who were true to Christ accepted

this; they who clung to the "weak and beggarly elements" fell away. Thus Christianity insensibly grew out of Judaism as a plant out of the seed, until at length the plant had become fully grown, and the seed had mouldered away. When the separation was complete, the Church was found to have an organization of her own, which had in part grown out of her necessities, partly was formed after the model of the Jewish Church. There was evidently no complete artificial system from the first. The appointment of deacons, and the reason thereof, is narrated in the plainest manner (Acts vi.). The Apostles, as they went about in their journeys, founded churches, and appointed men to rule them, subject to the general supervision of the Apostles themselves. The men thus appointed were sometimes called presbyters (of which our word "priest" is but a shortened form), i. e. elders, sometimes bishops, i. e. overseers. Thus we have at once a threefold order distinctly traceable-analogous to that of the High Priest, Priests, and Levites-viz., Apostles, Presbyters (or Bishops),* and Deacons. As the Apostles were one by one taken away by death, while it was needful to supply their places as rulers over the Church, it was tacitly agreed that the name "Apostle" should be left as the designation of the great Twelve, and that the word Bishop should henceforth be the title held by the general rulers and overseers of the Church. In this sense of the word, Timothy and Titus were Bishops. The commission to ordain was delivered by the Apostle specially to them. Questions concerning the nature of ordination, and the powers it confers, and questions again concerning the exact definition of “succession,” I pass by: they are practically oftentimes only differences about words, and do but gender strife and contention. English Churchmen can surely afford to leave them alone, and to rejoice that God has planted within their home an Apostolic Church, and the means for a pure offering. But one cannot but feel that the Protestant bodies on the Continent, though there was a breach of order in their loss of Episcopal ordination, yet bore noble and faithful witness for · Christ, in relinquishing this Ordination rather than the pure Gospel. They were forced to make a choice; they had no alternative: they did so with sorrow for their loss, and magnified God's Word and His Truth above all things.

What has been said concerning the connexion of the Christian with the Jewish Church will apply to the early Christian Worship. It was at first identical with that of the Temple. There certainly has been no break in the use of the Psalms from the time of their first use until now. Independently of what we know of the services of the Temple and the synagogue, there is little to be gathered concerning the worship of the Apostolic Church. The incidental notices in 1 Cor. xiv. are the most definite which we have. There are liturgies in existence, dating about the fifth century, to which it has been attempted to give an Apostolical origin.

But though we cannot say whether any parts of our Liturgy, beyond those which are taken from the Scripture, are really Apostolic, we may infer, from the similarity existing among the ancient liturgies, the probable existence of some more primitive "directory" drawn up for adaptation to the wants and circumstances of various churches. The first “Creed ” rehearsed before baptism is recorded in Acts viii. 37. We may suppose that just as afterwards it became necessary for the Church to define more and more exactly concerning the

See Phil. i. 1; Acts xx. 28 (Gr. "bishops"); Eph. iv. 11.