into mistakes of judgment, and into an improper way of maintaining their own sentiments. We have no doubt that both were very soon sorry for what they said and did. As they could not agree exactly whether it was right to take John Mark, they determined to go different ways, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed to Cyprus. Paul, as he needed a companion also, took Silas, and went through Syria and Cilicia.

In the next chapter, we shall give some account of this missionary tour; but before we close this, we must make a remark on the wisdom and goodness of God's overruling Provi dence, which in various ways brings good out of evil. This very dispute between Paul and Barnabas, wrong as it was, became the means of enlarging the church, and promoting the salvation of many souls. We can easily see this, when we remember that, in consequence of this misunderstanding, Barnabas went one way and Paul another, so that the glad tidings of the Gospel were carried to two different parts, instead of being confined to one. The misunderstanding was soon made up, for we find Paul speaking of Barnabas as his "be

loved Barnabas ;" and he also took John Mark to assist him. Christians, even the best, are sometimes led astray, but if they are sincere, they soon show their penitence and sorrow, and rectify the error.

CHAPTER VI.

Some account of Paul's second missionary tour, in which he suffers a great deal, but has much success-He preaches in several cities before visited-Directed to go to Macedonia-Visits Philippi-Dreadfully treated there.

ST. PAUL is supposed to have commenced his second missionary tour about the year of our Lord 53, and as Barnabas, with Mark, went another way, Paul took Silas with him; and being recommended by the brethren to the grace of God, they went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. Nothing very remarkable is related of them until they came to Lystra, the place where Paul before had been so barbarously treated. Here he

met with a young convert named Timothy, with whom he appears to have been particularly delighted; and to have remained so during the whole of his life. As St. Paul was desirous of taking him with him as an associate in, his further progress, and as he wished also to set him apart for the work of the ministry, he saw fit to have him circumcised according to the law of Moses.

The conduct of the Apostle on this occasion has given rise to a variety of conjectures. He opposed circumcision on some occasions; why, therefore, did he yield to it on this? This is easily explained. St. Paul objected to the circumcision of Titus, because those who wanted Titus circumcised, insisted on it as necessary to salvation. On this ground St. Paul would not consent to it, lest he should thereby appear to deny or renounce the great doctrine of justification by faith. In the case of Timothy there was no danger. St. Paul had that rite performed with Timothy's own consent, in order that his ministry might be more acceptable to the prejudices of the Jews. His mother also was a Jewess, although his father was a Greek, and as a Jew by birth, his not

having been circumcised before, was an omis. sion. Being a Jew he would no doubt be better received as a minister and teacher by his countrymen; and as they knew his father was a Greek, they would not receive him as a Jew unless he was by this ceremony brought into their ranks. This was a mark of wisdom and meekness, and had a tendency to do away objections which otherwise would have hindered the progress of the Gospel. It is never right, under any circumstances whatever, to do evil that good may come; but it is right sometimes to yield, in matters of comparative indif. ference, for the sake of benefiting others.

It seemed in the providence of God, that this second missionary tour of St. Paul should extend to places very remote from where he had ever been before. In company with Timothy and Silas, he visited the cities of Phrygia and Galatia, which are provinces in Asia Minor, and carried the decision of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, in relation to the controversy before alluded to. This letter and decision were very acceptable to the people.

When the Apostles had gone through that

country, they received intimations from the Holy Spirit, that this part of the world was not to be the scene of their labours. With his beloved companions Silas and Timothy, Paul then thought he would go through Mysia, and Bythinia, the very extreme provinces of Asia Minor; but this also he was forbidden to do. Directed by the Spirit of God, he and his companions went through the province of Mysia, to a town called Troas, a sea-port town on the Egean sea. This is supposed to be not far from that celebrated place called Troy, which has been rendered so famous by the ancient poet, Homer.

One thing is worthy of notice here. It will be seen by any one who attentively reads the 11th verse of the 16th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that there is a remarkable change in the method in which the journeying of the Apostle is spoken of. In all the preceding history, the writer of the Acts, speaking of St. Paul, says, "he went from this place to that," &c. "he departed," &c.; and speaking of the others, with Paul, he says, "they departed,"

66

66

they came,' they went," &c. But in this verse he says, "we came," &c. Now what does