mitted by Marcion in his canon of Scripture; and it is alluded to by name in the very antique fragment ascribed to the Latin Presbyter Caius 9; the author of which, whosoever he was, was contemporary with Pius, the tenth Bishop of Rome, and flourished early in the second century. The name of Laodicea occurs five times in the Epistle to the Colossians; and once it is classed with Colossæ and Hierapolis also; both cities of Phrygia, as well as Laodicea, and both contiguous to each other, and to it. It is clearly implied of this city, as well as of Colossæ, and of Hierapolis, that it had never seen Paul's face in the flesh: nor do we know that during the whole of his residence at Ephesus he ever preached in the province of Asia, distinct from Ephesus, or out of Ephesus itselfs. It is also implied that, to whomsoever he wrote in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he had only just heard of the reception of the gospel, and of its success, among them; and the same thing is true of the Epistle to the Colossians, concerning whose faith and gospel proficiency he had lately received information from their fellow-townsman, or fellow-citizen, Epaphras: and it was the pleasure which these tidings gave him that produced * I consider it no objection to this assertion that Philemon, in the Epistle which bears his name, is told that he owed even himself to St. Paul (19.): though this should imply that he had been converted by St. Paul: and though it should also be conceded that Philemon belonged to Colossæ. It would not follow of necessity that he was converted at Colossæ it would be equally probable that he might have been converted at Ephesus. My opinion, however, is that he was converted at Rome; after Onesimus, who was his slave, and had accompanied him thither, had run away from him there; and when he was gone back to Colossæ, Onesimus, who might be already acquainted with St. Paul, by some fortunate coincidence was also reclaimed to a sense of his duty by St. Paul; and was sent home again, a convert to the gospel, with this intercessory letter to his master. 9 Rel. Sacræ. iv. 5. xx. 18. 20. 31. 34. iv. 12. Acts xix. 10-26. r Col. ii. 1. iv. 13. 15. 16. Ephes. i. 15-iv. 20. 21. Col. i. 4—9. i. 23. ii. 6—8. the Epistles to each. All this is very conceivable of an Epistle addressed to Laodicea, but perfectly incredible of an Epistle addressed to the Ephesians. It is much more reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the present Epistle to the Ephesians is miscalled, than to suppose an Epistle to the Laodicenes, which once did exist, but has since been lost. The mistake, which assigns it to Ephesus, though undoubtedly an ancient one, might have been produced by this fact, that it was sent by Tychicus, whom 2 Tim. iv. 12. appears to describe as an Ephesian; though whether he was so, or not, must always be doubtful; for Acts xx. 4. describes him merely as one of the province of Asia, and by a comparison with xxi. 29. and 2 Tim. iv. 20. would just as much imply that he was a Milesian. It might contribute to the same mistake, that the Second Epistle to Timothy, which was certainly written from Rome, and speaks of Tychicus' being sent from Rome, as it seems, to Ephesus, may have been supposed by many anciently, as well as in modern times, to have been written during St. Paul's first imprisonment; at which time the Epistle to the Ephesians was certainly both written and sent. It is possible, indeed, that the Epistle might have been sent originally both to Hierapolis and Laodicea in conjunction, and that the name of either in particular was not at first inserted, because it was intended for each; though, as to conjecturing that it was a circular Epistle, designed for a number of churches, if Ephesus was one of that number, and they were not exclusively Hierapolis, Laodicea, and Colossæ, the conjecture can never resolve the difficulty, but leaves it open to as many perplexities as before. I shall conclude, then, with one more remark. Laodicea of Phrygia was one of the cities, which in the first half of the seventh of Nero, A. U. 813. were overthrown by an earthquake"; from the effects of which however it recovered of itself. If there is no allusion to any such event in the Epistle, it is because, as we have already had reason to conclude, the Epistle must have been written before it happened. Again, with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which has been ascribed to so many authors—to Barnabas, to Clement, to Luke, to Apollos-it is the most reasonable of all suppositions, and the most in unison with both internal and external testimony, to conclude that it was itself the authentic production of St. Paul, composed, like the Gospel of St. Matthew, as was naturally to be expected, originally in the vernacular language of the Hebrew Church, to which it was addressed, and, like St. Matthew's Gospel also, afterwards translated into Greek: which translation, if we must acquiesce in some one of the various conjectures which have been, or may be, formed concerning its author, I should be more inclined to ascribe to St. Luke, than to any other source. I find nothing in the Epistle, which might be considered to militate against the supposition that it was the work of St. Paul, except this one passage-Пs μeïs expeutóμεθα, τηλικαύτης αμελήσαντες σωτηρίας; ἥτις, ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λα λεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθην -in which the writer, whosoever he was, appears to identify himself with the hearers only of the Apostles. But even St. Paul might express himself in this way συγκαταβητικῶς especially as one who was not by his office, and no where represents himself as, an Apostle of the Circumcision; but, on the other hand, was both by his office, and according to his own uniform representation of himself, the Apostle, xat' ¿¿0X, of the Uncircumcision. In this way too it is that the Apostles themselves may often be found identifying themselves with their converts, and expressing sentiments as applicable to both in common, which, strictly construed, apply only to the parties addressed and it is still true that St. Paul, though he might receive his commission from our Lord himself, and be made acquainted with Christian facts and doctrines by direct inspiration from above, had yet never heard our Lord, or seen him, while he was conversant in his ministry upon earth. The same considera ii. 3. tion of what he himself was by his office, and what they were whom he was about to address, might produce also the absence of his name, and of the usual form of his salutations, from the head of the Epistle; but, as to supposing that he was writing anonymously, and that the Hebrew Christians did not very well know from what source the Epistle emanated, it is both absurd in itself, and directly contradicted also by the Epistle. The time, and the circumstances, when, and under which, it was written, are a more uncertain, and so far a more important, point, than the question of its author: and yet, with respect to these, we may safely collect first, that it was written from some part or other of Italy, but not, as it appears, from Rome; secondly, when the author himself was at large, but before he had returned to Judæa; thirdly, just after the release of Timothy, who must consequently have been previously in confinement; and while the writer was waiting somewhere or other in Italy, expecting that he would come to him shortly, but not without some degree of uncertainty as to whether he would, or not, before the time when he himself must be departing ". Now, if our conjecture, before stated, with respect to the first arrival of Timothy at Rome, was correct, he did not arrive there before the middle of A. U. 813-or the last half of the sixth of Nero; and, when he arrived there, he certainly did not arrive as a prisoner. But if there be any meaning in this allusion of the writer to the Hebrews to the fact of his being released, or set at liberty, it must imply that he had previously been in confinement; it is absolutely impossible that he could otherwise have been released. It follows, then, 'that between the time of the arrival of Timothy at Rome, (soon after which the Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians, were all written, and at the moment of writing which Timothy was at large,) and the time of writing the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he had been just released, he must have been imprisoned, or someway or other put under restraint at Rome. It is no objection to the fact of such imprisonment that we have no account of it in the Acts; for the history of the Acts had probably expired before it had yet taken place; nor, indeed, is there any mention in the Acts of any thing, which happened at Rome, during St. Paul's two years' sojourn there, excepting the little which transpired at the very beginning of the period. For the same reason, neither can any objection to this fact be taken from Philippians ii. 19— 24. and much less from Philemon 22. The actual imprisonment of Timothy, if it ever happened, must have happened after each of these Epistles; and it is manifestly possible that St. Paul, who was still uncertain about the issue of things as it concerned himself *, might labour under a similar uncertainty respecting the disposal of Timothy. It is by no means certain that, much as might be revealed, upon some subjects, to the Apostles, they yet were aware beforehand of every thing which should happen to themselves, and much less to their friends or followers. That perfect knowledge of his future destiny was the prerogative of our Saviour only. We have St. Paul's assurance to the elders of the Ephesian Church that he was then going up to Jerusalem, not knowing the things which should happen to him there; and, though he adds, Save that the Holy Ghost witnessed in every city that bonds and tribulations awaited him, this does not alter the truth of the assertion; for it is abundantly clear, from a comparison with other passages, that he means, by this witnessing, no revelations made to himself, but communications made to others, in different cities, and through them, to himself. And this, in defect of any other, would still be a sufficient answer to the inference deducible from Acts xx. 25; as though, after such a declaration, St. Paul never could have visited Ephesus again. The inference, however, goes on the supposition that the words are to be rendered; And now, behold, I know that none of you, among whom I |