tween two, Fenius Rufus, and Sofonius Tigellinus, as it had been, even before his appointment, between Lusius Geta, and Rufius Crispinus. Had the command been divided at the time of St. Paul's arrival, the extreme accuracy of St. Luke, I am persuaded, would have induced him to write τοῖς στρατοπεδάρχαις, not τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῃ. Nor is it improbable that the centurion Julius was a centurion of one of these cohorts; and that the σπείρη Σεβαστής, to which he belonged, is but a Græcised form of expression for the Latin, Cohors Prætoria. I do not deny that Augusta, which would be in Greek Barry, was one of the commonest names for both legions and cohorts; but if we compare this description of Julius and his cohort with that of Cornelius and hist, ἐκ σπείρης τῆς καλουμένης Ἰταλικῆς, it becomes an argument, that if St. Luke had meant there a particular cohort, which bore the name of ZeßaoT, as he certainly meant here a particular cohort, which bore, or once bore, the name of 'Iraλixn, he would have expressed himself accordingly, éx σπείρης τῆς καλουμένης Σεβαστής.

During the whole of St. Paul's imprisonment, the command of these cohorts would still rest with Burrhus; which, from the personal character of Burrhus himself, may account both for the lenity of his imprisonment previously, and for his release at last. The character of his successors, and especially of Tigellinus, the more influential of the two, was of a very different kind. Not but that the character of Nero himself, before the death of his mother, in his fifth year, and of Burrhus, in his eighth, was far from being developed in all its atrocity; but as yet stood fair and unsullied; so much so, that it is an observation of later times upon his reign, as it appeared for some years at first, Distare cunctos reges Neronis quinquennio; and within this favourable period it was so ordered by Providence that the two chief of the Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, should, for the first time, both come to, and depart again from, Rome. And here, having arrived at the end of the history

in the Acts, I might also make an end of the history of St. Paul, as well as of the present Dissertation. But there still remain some of his Epistles, concerning the times of which I have hitherto said nothing; and yet the determination of whose times, when we consider the very different opinions which are entertained with respect to some of them, may justly be regarded as necessary even to the confirmation of our previous conclusions. For the sake, then, of completing a subject, the importance of which it is not easy to overrate, and which would otherwise be manifestly imperfect, I will take the liberty of dwelling on these points a little longer.

The Epistles which St. Paul wrote from Rome, during any part of his two years' imprisonment, I believe, were only the following four, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon; the Epistles which he wrote at any time, between the close of that imprisonment and his death, must consequently have been the remaining four: Hebrews, the First to Timothy, Titus, and the Second to Timothy. And all these, I think, were written in the order in which they are here recited. The proof of these positions may be made out as follows.

I. Each of the four first of these Epistles contains internal evidence of two facts respecting the situation of the writer when he wrote them; first, that he was in confinement; secondly, that he was in confinement at Rome".

II. The remarkable coincidence, both of sentiments and of language, between the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Epistle to the Colossians, would be sufficient to demonstrate that both were written together; and the identity of the person, by whom they were sent, is a still more decisive intimation that they must have been sent together v.

III. If it is reasonable to suppose that Epaphras, who is mentioned by that name in the Epistle to the Colossians, and Epaphroditus, who is mentioned by that name in the Epistle to the Philippians, are one and the same person,

Ephes. iii. 1. 13. vi. 19. 20. Col. i. 24. ii. 1. iv. 3. 9. 10. 18. Philem. 9. 10. 13. Philipp. i. 7. 12. 13. 14. 20. 26. 30. ii. 12. 23. 24. 27.

(which I think cannot well be disputed,) then this Epaphras, or Epaphroditus, was one of the Church of Colossæ, and he had come to Rome before the Epistle to the Colossians was written; and he was left at Rome when that Epistle was sent w. Nor is there any reason to suppose he had yet been taken ill. But before the Epistle to the Philippians was written he had certainly fallen sick, and, on recovering from his sickness, was sent back with the Epistle to Philippix. If so, and if Epaphroditus in the Epistle to the Philippians is the same person with Epaphras in the Epistle to the Colossians, the former Epistle was both written and sent some time or other after the former. Epaphroditus, it is true, came to Rome charged with the contributions of Philippi for the relief of Paul's pecuniary wants; but he seems to have done this as a voluntary commissiony, which any one, if he was so inclined, might have undertaken; and he seems to have been on his way through Philippi somewhere else when he undertook it, as even a native or inhabitant of Colossæ might be. Nor is there any expression, respecting Epaphroditus, in the Epistle to the Philippians, which would identify him with that Church, as there is concerning Epaphras, in the Epistle to the Colossians, which proves him to have belonged to that 2.

IV. For the same reason, the Epistle to the Philippians was later than the Epistle to Philemon also; for Onesimus, himself a member of the Church of Colossæ, was sent to Colossa along with Tychicus, as joint bearer of the Epistle; and he was sent at the same time with the Epistle to Philemon also; and the mention of Archippus in both these Epistles alike, with the allusion to the Church in his house, is a proof that all these parties, Onesimus, Philemon, and Archippus, belonged to the Colossian Church alike. These two Epistles, then, Colossians, and Philemon, were certainly written and sent together; and the name of Timothy is premised to them both; and the names of Epaphras, Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, and Lucas, are all subjoined

w Col. i. 7. iv. 12. 13. * Philipp. ii. 25. 26. 30. iv. 18. y Philipp. ii. 25. 29. 30. z Col. iv. 12. Col. iv. 9. 17. Philem. 2. 10.

to them both. If so, they were both written before the Epistle to the Philippians; and the only question remaining is first, whether they were both written before, or both written after, the Epistle to the Ephesians, or both at the same time with that; and secondly, at what period of the two years' imprisonment they must each have been written respectively.

Now there are two or three reasons more particularly, which may incline us to place the Epistle to the Ephesians at the head of the rest; first, because the Epistle to the Colossians resembles an epitome of that, or, in those parts where they most agree together, is shorter and conciser than that; secondly, because there is no mention of Epaphras in the Epistle to the Ephesians, as there is in the Epistle to the Colossians; and thirdly, there is no mention of Timothy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, as there is in every other of the Epistles, now written from Rome, besides. In the Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians, 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 outset 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 St. Paul's writing the Epistle to the Ephesians, and 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 have come in conjunction. They seem to have both been at Philippi together, before the mission of Epaphroditus in particular from thenced.

It is clear that Timothy did not accompany St. Paul to b Col. i. 1. Philem. 1. Col. iv. 10. 12. 14. Philem. 23. 24. i. 2. 7. 8.

d

Philipp. ii. 19-24.

< Col.

Rome, but only Aristarchus of Thessalonica, and St. Lukee. It is clear also that, when the last of these Epistles, that to the Philippians, was written, Timothy was free and at large; and yet, from the Epistle to the Hebrewsf, it seems equally clear, he must some time 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 expected immediately to return to Asia, yet, I think, it must imply that, humanly speaking, he believed he should soon be set at liberty; and, consequently, might return in the course of time. The same kind of anticipation is also expressed in the Epistle to the Philippians h. It implies, therefore, that his two years' imprisonment was drawing to a close: and if this was actually the case when he addressed these words to Philemon, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that all these Epistles were written within the last twelve months of his imprisonment, or A. U. 813: the Epistle to the Ephesians, probably, about midsummer, just before the time when Timothy and Epaphroditus might 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 this 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 also been since heard from them. They might have had one account from Rome,

e Acts xxvii. 2.

fxiii. 23.

5 22.

bi. 26. 27. ii. 29.

ii. 26.