conventum agere P, and to our own of holding a court; it occurs pars in a rescript of Publius Servilius Galba preserved by Josephus, and, what is almost the same, ràs ayopaíoUS TOLsirdas, is to be met with in Strabo 9; by the help of which, it seems to be requisite that we should correct ἄγοντι τὸν ἀγόραιον, in Josephus, by ἄγοντι τὴν ἀγόραιον. Now we may infer from Strabo, (and the supposition itself is but reasonable,) that the governors of particular provinces, though they had one stated place of residence, which place was the metropolis or principal city of the province, were accustomed to be travelling up and down, during a certain part of the year, and holding these courts, or ayopalovs, in other quarters, not in the metropolis. For this purpose, a country was divided into oxo-which would so far answer to shires or counties-and one court, forum, conventus, ¿yópaιoi, was commonly held for the inhabitants of every dioixnois, at some principal city within the diocese; which would therefore answer to the assize court for the shire or county, in the county towns. We may infer also, from Cicero, locis citatis, that the times for these annual circuits were from the spring to the summer quarter of the year: that is, from March to May or June: after which period, consequently, it is to be expected the regular governor would not be found in his regular place of residence, but elsewhere.

Ephesus was, certainly, the metropolitan city of the province of Asia "; though that province, if Josephus and Philostratus are to be believed, contained five hundred cities; nor was it without reason that it claimed to itself the title of Пpúτn, or Princeps, so frequently, upon its coins. The privilege of the xaтanλous, that is, the right of receiving the proconsul, upon his entry into his government, in their city first, was conceded to the Ephesians by law w. The ordinary place of the proconsul's residence was, consequently,

P Ciceron. Ep. ad Att. v. 21. vi. 2. Suet. Jul. 30. 56. 9 Ant. Jud. xiv. X. 21. Strabo xiii. 90s. riii. 229. • Plin. H. N. iii. 1. 3. 21. v. 29.30. u Ant.

t

* Vide also Suet. Jul. 7. Galb. 9. compared with Neron. 40. and 34. Jud. xiv. X. 11. B. ii. xvi. 4. p. 478. Philost. Vit. Soph. Herod. Att. 3.

Ephesus: but, after the month of February, or March, it is probable he would not be found even there. Servilius was holding a court at Tralles, when he issued the edict before quoted; and Julus Antonius was doing the same at Ephesus still, but on the ides of February, when he issued that which on another occasion also is recited by Josephus x.

Now the language of the townclerk implies neither that any courts of law were then open, nor any proconsul then on the spot; but quite the contrary; his words should be rendered, There are courts held, and there are proconsuls— not, The courts are open, and deputies are present; which would have required, αἱ ἀγόραιοι ἄγονται, καὶ ὁ ἀνθύπατος πάρεστιν. He asserts, therefore, merely what was commonly the practice, but not what was then going on. Nor, if he had meant that the proconsul was on the spot, and not simply that there were such persons as proconsuls, would he have expressed himself in the indefinite manner, avúлaтoí ἀνθύπατοί eio-for proconsular Asia, including Ephesus, was never governed by more than one such deputy at a time. And though, as the title of an office, the name of the Тpauμateùs is recognized upon the coins of Ephesus, and, consequently, the office itself is proved not only to have been an actual one, but an office of dignity and authority, something like that of the first civil magistrate among them-still had the supreme Roman governor been in the city at the time, it is not likely that the duty of quelling the disturbance, or dismissing the assembly, which Acts xix. 39. demonstrates to have taken place at an irregular time, and not on one of the stated days of such meetings, would have been left exclusively to him. When all Ephesus was in an uproar, the Roman governor, it might be presumed, would naturally have interfered. The proconsul of Asia, at the time of the accession of Nero, was Junius Silanus; and he had been put to death immediately upon that accession 2; nor can it be said with certainty by whom he was succeeded a. But this ought to constitute no difficulty, for the province would

× Ant. xvi. vi. 7.

y Eckel. ii. 519. 2 Tac. Ann, xiii. 1.

a Ib. 33.

not be left long without a governor; and Silanus was made away with in a very short time after October 13. the day of the accession of Nero, A. U. 807.

It is observable also that, in the same speech, the epithet of exópos is applied to the city of Ephesus b; and this title, so expressed, begins to appear on the coins of Ephesus first in the reign of Nero. In the course of time afterwards it came to designate itself δις, τρις, and even τέτρακις, νεωκόρον. It is apparent, likewise, that the time, when this uproar took place at Ephesus, was some time when the Asiarchs were assembled in that cityd. This name is descriptive of an office which was annual and elective; and of a body of men returned by a number of cities, though, probably, not more than one might be so returned for each; the purpose of whose appointment being purely religious, and especially connected with the annual solemnities in honour of the Ephesian Diana, they would not have been found collected in Ephesus, except at a time when those solemnities were going on. The existence of games called Ephesia, and celebrated at Ephesus in honour of Diana, is a well-attested facts; and concerning the time of the year when they were celebrated, it seems to be certain that it coincided with the spring, or the summer. There is a coin of Ephesush which relates to the games there celebrated, and bears the inscription, ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ. ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ. ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑ. ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕNIKA. from which title we may infer that their proper time synchronized with the same part of the year, as the recurrence of the Olympiads; that is, the first full moon after the summer solstice. This full moon, A. D. 55. or A. U. 808. when the moon was eclipsed on July 27. at 5. 30. in the morning, could not fall earlier than June 27. previously: about which time we have shewn, upon other grounds, it is probable St. Paul must still have been in Ephesus. To proceed, then, with the course of our subject.

b xix. 35.

c Eckel. ii. 519. 520. iv. 288–306.

* Strabo. xiv. 929. Philos. De Vit. Soph. Scopelianus. 2.

d xix. 31.

f Eckel. iv.

h Eckel. ii. 521. Vide

After his departure from Asia, there is mention made of a residence in Macedonia, before the next visit to Greece; and after the arrival in Greece, of a three months' residence there, before the return to Macedonia again; and after this return, of the spending the days of unleavened bread at Philippi, before the departure, finally, to Troas, on the way to Jerusalemi. This Passover spent at Philippi is, consequently, the Passover next after the departure from Ephesus, or just one year from the Passover of A. U. 808. in the first of Nero alluded to above; and therefore just three years from the first Passover, since the arrival originally, A. U. 806. It is, consequently, the Passover of A. U. 809. the middle of the second of Nero. How the time between this Passover and the departure from Ephesus, A. U.808. was spent will appear presently from the Epistles. By the ensuing Pentecost St. Paul was in Jerusalem; he was, consequently, in Jerusalem at the Pentecost of A. U. 809; and in A. U. 809. at the Pentecost of that year, the midsummer of the second of Nero, I have already determined, on other and independent data, that he must have been there.

All these conclusions I shall further establish, and place beyond a question, by shewing their agreement with the internal evidence furnished by the Epistles of St. Paul, such as I consider to have been written before this visit to Jerusalem; which are, in my opinion, the following six, stated in their order of succession; the First and the Second to the Thessalonians; the First and the Second to the Corinthians; the Epistle to the Romans, or the Epistle to the Galatians. Each of these I shall consider in its turn.

I. On the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. It must be evident, from those parts of this Epistle, which mention the preaching of the Gospel in Macedonia in general, and also at Philippi in particulark, that it could not have been written before St. Paul's visit to Philippi1, and to other parts of Macedonia, A. U. 802; and from iii. 1. ixx. 1. 2. 3. 6. * i. 7. 8. ii. 2.

1 Acts xvi. 12.

that it could not have been written before his arrival at Athens, even after that m; and from i. 1. 7. 8. (compared with 2 Cor. i. 18. 19.) which mentions Achaia as well as Macedonia, that it could not have been written before the visit to Corinth, A. U. 803." of which it must be superfluous to prove that it was the first, which St. Paul had yet made to the peninsula of Greece.

Notwithstanding, therefore, the prima facie evidence of 1 Thess. iii. 1. compared with Acts xvii. 15. 16. which proves that St. Paul both came to, and for a time was left at, Athens, the Epistle could not have been written from Athens; and the allusion in it to his being in Athens would still be true, if he had been there, and had sent Timothy to Thessalonica from thence, though he afterwards wrote the letter in which he speaks of these things, from some other place.

Now, when he was first brought to Athens, he was brought alone; but he sent back a message, by those who brought him, to Silas (or Sylvanus) and Timothy, whom he had left at Beroa, that they should come and join himn without delay. We may justly suppose they would comply with this wish, especially as it is said that he waited for them accordingly. Yet it is not mentioned that they did; on the contrary, they are first said to have joined him only when he was at Corinth P. In order to have reconciled these different intimations together, even in the Acts, we might have been obliged to suppose that, after rejoining St. Paul at Athens, according to his desire, either Timothy, or Sylvanus, or both, must have been sent out by him somewhere again, before his own departure thence, and did not return to him a second time save at Corinth. This is precisely that state of the case which the first Epistle proves to have happened; for Timothy had actually rejoined Paul at Athens, and actually been sent again from thence to Thessalonica, before he himself left it; and Timothy had rejoined him alone; or, what is equally probable, Sylvanus