“An assertion in the Epistle to the Colossians, _viz._ that ‘Onesimus was one of them,’ is verified by the Epistle to Philemon; and is verified, not by any mention of Colosse, any the most distant intimation concerning the place of Philemon’s abode, but singly by stating Onesimus to be Philemon’s servant, and by joining in the salutation Philemon with Archippus, for this Archippus, when we go back to the Epistle to the Colossians, appears to have been an inhabitant of that city, and, as it should seem, to have held an office of authority in that church. The case stands thus. Take the Epistle to the Colossians alone, and no circumstance is discoverable which makes out the assertion, that Onesimus was ‘one of them.’ Take the Epistle to Philemon alone, and nothing at all appears concerning the place to which Philemon or his servant Onesimus belonged. For any thing that is said in the epistle, Philemon might have been a Thessalonian, a Philippian, or an Ephesian, as well as a Colossian. Put the two epistles together and the matter is clear. The reader perceives a _junction_ of circumstances, which ascertains the conclusion at once. Now, all that is necessary to be added in this place is, that this correspondency evinces the genuineness of one epistle, as well as of the other. It is like comparing the two parts of a cloven tally. Coincidence proves the authenticity of both.” PALEY. Footnote 23: See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 22. Footnote 24: Lardner, vol. ii. p. 598. Footnote 25: See Lardner’s Recapitulation, vol. xii, p. 53. Footnote 26: See Lardner’s Recapitulation, vol. xii. p. 53. Footnote 27: Lardner, vol. ii. p. 808. Footnote 28: Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 455. Footnote 29: Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 458. Footnote 30: Lardner, vol. i. p. 313. Footnote 31: Iren. advers. Haer. quoted by Lardner, vol. xv. p. 425. Footnote 32: Lardner, vol. viii. p. 106. Footnote 33: See the tracts written in the controversy between Tunstal and Middleton upon certain suspected epistles ascribed to Cicero. Footnote 34: I believe that there is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lardner’s observations, that comparatively few of those books, which we call apocryphal, were strictly and originally forgeries. See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 167. Footnote 35: Lardner, vol. x. p. 103. Footnote 36: Lardner, vol. xi. p. 88. Footnote 37: לך שבע שנים are wanting only in 85 and 112 of Kennicott. Footnote 38: _See Ques._ 154. Footnote 39: ῾Υπερανω αὐτῆς. Footnote 40: [ἐν ἡ] εν _oftentimes signifies_, Cum, ad, prope, juxta, _as well as in_. Footnote 41: