respectively, his name is combined with St. Paul's at the outset of the Epistles themselves. It is morally certain then that, had he been present when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written, his name would have appeared at the head of that likewise. And with respect to Epaphras, it was from him that St. Paul heard of the faith of the Colossians ; and this fact appears in the Epistle: and it was from some quarter or other that he heard of the faith of the parties addressed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, but not as it appears from Epaphras. I infer, then, that between the time of St. Paul's writing the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that of his writing the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon respectively, both Epaphras and Timothy came to Rome; and I see no reason to suppose that they might not come in conjunction. They seem both to have been at Philippi together, before the mission of Epaphroditus in particular from thence d. It is clear that Timothy did not accompany St. Paul to Rome, but only Aristarchus of Thessalonica and St. Lukee. It is clear also that, when the last of these Epistles, viz. that to the Philippians, was written, Timothy was free and at large; and yet, from the Epistle to the Hebrews f, it seems equally clear that he must sometime have been in confinement at Rome. The Epistle to the Ephesians then was written just before Timothy and Epaphroditus arrived from Philippi; and the Epistles to Colossæ, and to Philemon, just after. Now Philemon is told to provide Paul a lodging; and though this does not imply that he was then at liberty, or might be expected immediately to return to Asia, yet I think it must imply that humanly c Col. i. 4. 7, 8, 9. d Philipp. ii. 19—24. g 22. e Acts xxvii. 2. f xiii. 23. speaking he believed he should soon be set at liberty; and consequently might be expected to return in the course of time. The same kind of anticipation is expressed in the Epistle to the Philippians ". It is hereby implied, therefore, that St. Paul's two years' imprisonment was drawing to a close: and if this was actually the case when he addressed the words in question to Philemon, it follows as a necessary consequence, that all these Epistles were written within the last twelve months of the imprisonment, U. C. 813: the Epistle to the Ephesians probably about midsummer, just before the time when Timothy and Epaphroditus were most likely to arrive in Italy from Asia; the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon just after that time; but all three early enough to be sent to their respective destinations by a common bearer: and the Epistle to the Philippians last of all, after Epaphroditus had fallen sick and recovered; which sickness, if we may hazard a conjecture, is a proof that it was written and sent about the autumnal quarter of the year. For it is by no means improbable that his sickness was a fever, due to the peculiar unhealthiness of Rome at the close of the summer quarter*. Nor is it any objection that the Philippians are supposed to have heard of his illness before the Epistle was written. This might easily be the case; nor is it said or implied that any thing had since been heard from them. They might have had one account from Rome, sent or carried by some persons who left it while Epaphroditus was sick; which account upon his recovery was speedily followed by the Epistle; but it is not said that either St. Paul or he had had any account in return from them. The anxiety of Epaphroditus was naturally produced by the circumstance that he knew they might already have heard of his illness: (an illness too to which he had exposed himself, though not a Philippian, for their sake; to supply the lack of their service; that is, in performing what was necessary to the completion and effect of the service which they wished to render to St. Paul;) but that they could not yet have heard of his recovery. It follows, consequently, that St. Paul wrote no Epistles in the first year of his imprisonment; nor perhaps was it a priori to be expected that he would do so. The practice of corresponding by letter with the churches, especially those of their own planting and where they had preached in person, was not the familiar usage of the Apostles: nor do we find them resorting to it, except upon grave and even unavoidable occasions. Now such occasions were not likely to occur in the first year of St. Paul's imprisonment; particularly if, as I think there is reason to be Hac oriente maximi calores et ex his graves morbi: ideoque Romæ omnibus annis sacrum Canarium fit per publicos sacerdotes. Servius, ad Æneid. iii. 141: Syrius stella est in ore Canis posita: quæ annis omnibus oritur circa octavum Kalendas Ju lii: quæ orta plerumque pestilentiam toto anno facit; plerumque paucis diebus; interdum innoxia nascitur. Cf. Æneid. x. 273, and Servius in loc. Scholia, ad Arati Phænomena, 333. and ad Germanici Aratea Phænomena, 282. 332. f Chap. ii. 26. lieve, all the letters which he wrote to parts beyond the sea, or to churches in remote situations, for the convenience and facility of transmission, were written and dispatched in the spring or summer quarter of the year. Before we dismiss the consideration of these four Epistles, we may make some observations on the Epistle to the Ephesians in particular. The internal evidence of that Epistle, without any other proof, ought to satisfy every one who is acquainted with the previous history of St. Paul, that it is improperly so entitled. The language addressed to the persons for whom it was intended, could not be the language in which St. Paul would naturally address the church of Ephesus above all others; a church of his own planting, and where three years of his personal ministry day and night had been spent not long before; to whose elders he delivered a parting address, in the course of that very journey to Jerusalem, which ended in his imprisonment at Rome; and who were doubtless well aware of every thing which had befallen him since. The Epistle to the Ephesians, in these and other respects, is absolutely a twin Epistle to the Epistle to the Colossians; and that Epistle, as we have the writer's own assurance for knowing, was written to a church which had never seen his face in the flesh1. Let the strain of each of these Epistles be carefully contrasted with that of the Epistle to the Philippians; written soon after them both, but confessedly to a church, (like that of Ephesus,) which St. Paul himself had planted. Every thing in the one is in character with that fact; every thing in the other two is out of character as referred to it. There is not a syllable in the Epistle to the Philippians which is not strictly ap k Ephes. i. 13, 14, 15. iii. 1—9—iv. 21. 1 Col. ii. I. plicable to the preceding and existing relations of the writer and of the parties addressed; or rather, which without that knowledge of the past and the present history of each, supplied to us by the Acts, would not be almost unintelligible at the present day, instead of appearing as it does so apposite and natural, so beautiful and pathetic, and yet so unstudied and inartificial. Not so the Epistle nominally addressed to the Ephesians. Every thing passes there not as between teachers and converts, bound together by mutual ties of acquaintance, good offices, and endearment; but as between strangers in the flesh, though brethren in Christ and every thing there also is just and natural on that supposition, but quite the reverse upon the contrary. If the words, év 'Epéow, did not appear in the front of the Epistle, no one would suspect its relation to that church in particular: and as to the right of the words to stand where they do, we may be satisfied with referring the reader to the critical editions of the Epistle. It is sufficient for us to observe that, in an Epistle designed to be catholic whether in a more or a less extended sense, and consequently not meant to be confined to one community of Christians more than another; the words of the exordium, without ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, viz. τοῖς ἁγίοις, τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, Το the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus, who are, would be as appropriate as any which could have been chosen. There were persons in the time of Jerome, who understood Tois our accordingly. The grounds of this opinion are ascertained by Basil against Eunomius; viz. in the absence of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ and the presence of τοῖς oûσw, áñλŵs, in ancient copies, which he himself had seen. It is manifestly absurd to understand his testimony in any other sense; since he declares that it had |