write the Greek, but in large and crude characters-a supposition to which we see very considerable objection. Imperfect vision also explains, much more satisfactorily, the undoubted fact that Paul almost invariably wrote his epistles by the hand of others. This practice of his was known to all those whom he addressed, as we should expect in the case of a person labouring under defective vision.

We know that Paul was blind for three days at Damascus ; and, as we hinted in considering that event, it may be doubted whether his sight was ever perfectly restored. It is true, that he seems to fix the commencement of his infirmity at a date some years later; but it may be merely that the affection of his eyes then became more intense than it ever had been before; or, still more probably, that this contrasting disqualification became more burdensome to him in his state of spiritual exaltation, and he was then excited to pray for its removal.

It further appears, from the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles, that Paul was almost never alone; and never appears, after the date indicated, to have taken the shortest journey by himself. He seems to have been always in the hands and under the inspection (if we may so speak) of his friends and followers. We find him continually attended from place to place by parties of his hearers and disciples, and he seems always to count upon and wish for such attendance. All this becomes exceedingly natural in the case of a person rendered much dependent upon the kind attention of friends, by bodily infirmities of any kind, but especially by partial blindness.

Taken separately, the circumstances we have mentioned do not perhaps amount to much in the way of proof or evidence ; but, taken together, the argument they furnish is more than can be advanced in favour of any other suggestion which has been offered.

I shall add a few words here regarding the occasion and date of the Epistle to the Galatians, because they will serve at the same time to illustrate some expressions in the body of the epistle, and to throw light on the life and labours of the apostle.

Luke mentions two visits of Paul to the Galli; and besides these, in a previous missionary tour, Paul must have passed through the northern border of the Roman province of Galatia in going from Antioch of Pisidia to Iconium, and back to Perga (Acts xiii. xiv.). His first missionary visit, however, to 'the district of the Galli,' is recorded in Acts xvi. 6; but no particulars are given. Luke merely says that when Paul and Silas'had gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of the Galli, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,' etc. No city is mentioned; but the probability is, Paul visited Ancyra, and was successful in founding a church. This visit was made about A.D. 51. Of Paul's second visit, Luke just says, 'he went over all the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order' (Acts xviii. 23). It took place about three years after the former.

Paul writes to the Galatians in such a way that it is evident he had preached the gospel to them before he sent the epistle. He says, 'Ye know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you at the first' (iv. 13). The final clause implies that he had paid a second visit before the epistle was written; and we may infer that it was written after that second visit mentioned by Luke, and therefore after A.D. 54. But it also appears, as Dr. Kitto has said, that the preaching to the Galli during the first visit was accidental. Paul does not seem to have had any intention of preaching, or of staying at all. He was anxious to pass on to a more promising, because more civilised district-Proconsular Asia. But he was detained by illness; and it was 'through, or because of this infirmity in the flesh,' that he at that first visit preached to them. Probably it may be the same afflictive providence which is referred to in another way in Acts xvi. 6: 'Now, when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,' etc. May not the prohibition of the Holy Spirit have been indicated by the sudden attack of illness? May not Paul have thus been detained among the wild Galli ?

It would appear that, on his second visit, Paul found some of the Galli falling off, not merely from the doctrines, but from the moral precepts of the gospel, and he had then occasion to use words of warning and rebuke; for he writes concerning 'drunkenness, revellings,' etc., . . . ' of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, etc. So also in chap. i. 9, there is a reference to backslidings during a visit of the apostle. It is thus evident that,

almost immediately after the apostle's first visit, the Galatian converts began to decline. His second visit was made mainly to re-establish them; but, subsequent to the latter, false Judaizing teachers went among them, and led them astray. The tidings of this sad apostasy were conveyed to the apostle, and this epistle was written to reclaim an apostatizing church.

The exact date of the epistle is disputed. The postscript of the English version has no authority. The whole weight of evidence is against the statement that it was 'written from Rome.' The only historical data for the date are the two visits to Jerusalem (about A.D. 51), and the two to Galatia (A.D. 51 and 54 respectively). Consequently the epistle must have been written subsequently to the latter date. But it was written before the imprisonment of the apostle at Cæsarea, and consequently before A.D. 58. The close resemblance in style, thought, and expression, between this epistle and those to Rome and Corinth, favours the belief that they were all written about the same period. The probability is, that the Epistle to the Galatians falls chronologically between Corinthians and Romans, and only a few months at most before the latter.

Forty-ninth Week-Sixth Day.

LUKE. ACTS XVI. II.

THE western portion of Asia Minor, confronting the Ægean Sea, was composed of the three provinces of Mysia, Lydia, and Caria. The first was the northernmost of the three, and the other two were comprised under the designation of 'Asia,' that is, Asia Proper, or at least popular. This is the 'Asia' of the apostolic history, but is not co-extensive with the Roman proconsular province so named.; for that included Phrygia and Mysia, which the sacred writer distinguishes from it. As thus limited, 'Asia' has the same geographical relation to Asia Minor which Portugal has to Spain; and Mysia has the same relation to this 'Asia' as that portion of western coast belonging to Spain, being the province of Gallicia, has to Portugal, which it overlaps.

This territory comprised, at a later period, 'the seven churches

VOL. VIII.

Y

that are in Asia.' It was at first the intention of Paul and Silas to turn their steps south-westward into this region, and preach the gospel in its many rich and populous cities. But they learned, perhaps by direct revelation, that it was not the mind of the Spirit that they should as yet labour in this field, probably because other fields were more ripe for the harvest. They therefore turned their faces northward, to go into Bithynia. But here also the Spirit suffered them not.' By this time it must have been guessed, if not distinctly intimated, that Europe was to be their destination; and they therefore proceeded westward through Mysia, and reaching the coast at Troas, awaited there for more distinct intimations of the divine will. In Troas was preserved the name of old Troy, the site of which lay about fifteen miles to the north; and now, in their march for spiritual conquests, the apostolical party were upon the theatre of a strife which the genius of poetry has made the source of a farspread and long-enduring education in images of blood, and pride, and passion-very different from those doctrines of peace, and love, and self-negation, which, from this same point, Paul and Silas stand ready to bear away to the nations of the

west.

Troas, or more fully Alexandria Troas, was intended as a sort of memorial of ancient Troy, and received its name and origin from the successors of Alexander. It was favoured by the Romans, who liked to trace their origin to the Trojans; but it had not at this time acquired the importance which it at length attained; and it is probable that few of the ruins which now, embowered in a thick wood of oaks, attest that importance, belong to buildings that had any existence when Paul was there. Still it was a considerable and prosperous place, and had a good harbour, the resort of vessels arriving from or departing for the coasts of Thrace and Macedonia. That Paul went to this place, may therefore indicate that he expected that he should have to take a passage here, though he knew not yet precisely for what quarter. This reminds one of the case of Abraham, who went forth not knowing, till after he had set forth, whither he was to go. But the apostle was not long

left in any doubt of his destination.

In visions of the night

he beheld a man, whom, from his garb, and perhaps from his dialect, he knew to be a Macedonian, draw near to him, and standing before him in an attitude of entreaty, implore him to come to the aid of his countrymen, in words simple and few, but deeply emphatic in their earnestness: 'COME OVER INTO MACEDONIA AND HELP US.' Paul knew how to interpret this summons, and we may be sure that it was most promptly obeyed. We cannot doubt that the next morning saw the friends down at the harbour among the shipping, inquiring for the vessel that was soonest to sail for Europe. But before their departure, an addition was made to their number in the person of the author of the apostolic history, Luke, 'the beloved physician,' who at this point indicates his presence with the party, not only by quietly exchanging the third person for the first in his narrative, but by a transition from the historical to the autoptical style of narration, as shown in the much fuller statement of details.

Luke had probably known Paul before at Antioch, of which place he is supposed to have been a native, and where he seems to have been early converted, perhaps by Paul himself. Whether he had come over direct from Gentilism, or had intermediately passed through Judaism as a proselyte, does not appear; but it is clear that he was not a born Jew, as Paul himself distinguishes him in Col. iv. 14 from disciples of Jewish descent. His name, indeed, indicates not only that he was of Gentile descent, but that he was either a slave or a freedman. That name Lucas is a contraction of Lucanus; and in this contracted form it frequently occurs as a name given to slaves. The fact that Luke was a physician strengthens the impression derived from his name respecting his condition as a freedman. The higher ranks of Romans were averse to the practice of medicine, which they left rather to their slaves. Many of these were highly educated, and only such as showed the requisite talent were trained to the liberal arts. In Luke, then, we behold an educated and well-informed Greek, versed in the medical sciences. That