Paul remained longer at Ephesus than he did at any other one place preaching the gospel. He seems to have set himself' deliberately to work to establish a church there, which would ultimately overthrow idolatry. Several reasons may have led him to depart so far from his usual plan, by labouring so long in one place. One may have been that this was the principal seat of idolatry then in the world. The evident aim of Paul in his ministry was, to reach the centres of influence and power. Hence he mainly sought to preach the gospel in large cities, and thus it was that Antioch, and Ephesus, and Corinth, and Athens, and Philippi, and Rome, shared so largely in his labours. Not ashamed of the gospel any where, he yet sought mainly that its power should be felt where wealth, and earning, and genius, and talent were concentrated. The very places, therefore, where the most magnificent temples were erected to the gods, and where the worship of idols was celebrated with the most splendour and pomp, and where that worship was defended most strongly by the civil arm, were those in which the apostles sought first to preach the gospel. Ephesus, therefore, as the most splendid seat of idolatry at that time in the whole Pagan world, particularly attracted the attention of the apostle, and hence it was that he was willing to spend so large a part of his public life in that place. It may have been for this reason that John afterwards made it his permanent abode, and spent so many years there as the minister of the church which had been founded by Paul. See § 3. 8 Another reason why Paul sought Ephesus as a field of labour may have been, that it was at that time not only the principal seat of idolatry, but was a place of great importance in the civil affairs of the Roman empire. It was the residence of the Roman Proconsul, and the seat of the courts of justice in Asia Minor, and consequently was a place to which there would be attracted a great amount of learning and talent. Macknight. The apostle, therefore, seems to have been anxious that the full power of the gospel should be tried there, and that Ephesus should become as important as a centre of influence in the Christian world, as it had been in Paganism and in civil affairs.

3. Notices of the History of the Church at Ephesus.

The church at Ephesus was one of the seven churches of Asia, and the first one mentioned to which John was directed to address an epistle from Patmos. Rev. ii. 1-7. Little is said of it in the New Testament from the time when Paul left it until the book of Revelation was written. The tradition is, that Timothy was a minister at Ephesus, and was succeeded by the apostle John; but whether John came there while Timothy was living, or not until his removal or death, even tradition does not inform us. In the subscription to the sacred epistle to Timothy, it is said of Timothy that he was "ordained the first Bishop of the church of the Ephesians;" but this is of no authority whatever. All that can be with certainty learned about the residence of Timothy at Ephesus, is what the Apostle Paul says of him in his first epistle to Timothy. Ch. i. 3. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine." From this it would appear that the residence of Timothy at Ephesus was a temporary arrangement, designed to secure a result which Paul wished particularly to secure, and to avoid an evil which he had reason to dread

"As

would follow from his own absence. That it was a temporary arrangement, is apparent from the fact that Paul soon after desired him to come to Rome, 2 Tim. iv. 9. 11. The second epistle of Paul to Timothy was written but a few years after the first. According to Lardner, the first was written in the year 56, and the second in the year 62; according to Hug, the first was written in the year 59, and the second in the year 61; according to the Editor of the Polyglott Bible, the first was written A. D. 65, and the second A. D. 66. According to either calculation the time of the residence of Timothy in Ephesus was brief. There is not the slightest evidence from the New Testament that he was a permanent Bishop of Ephesus, or indeed that he was a Bishop at all in the modern sense of the term. Those who may be disposed to look further into this matter, and to examine the relation which Timothy sustained to the church of Ephesus, and the claim which is sometimes set up for his having sustained the office of a Bishop, may find an examination in the Review of Bishop Onderdonk's Tract on Episcopacy, published in the Quarterly Christian Spectator in March 1834, and March 1835, and republished in 1843 under the title of "The Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church," pp. 99–107.

Whatever was the relation which he sustained to the church in Ephesus, it is agreed on all hands that John the apostle spent there a considerable portion of his life. At what time he went to Ephesus, or why he did it, is not now known. The common opinion is, that he remained at or near Jerusalem for some fifteen years after the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, during which time he had the special charge of Mary the mother of the Saviour; that he then preached the gospel to the Parthians and the Indians, and that he then returned and went to Ephesus, in or near which he spent his latter days, and in which, at a very advanced age, he died. It was from Ephesus that, under the Emperor Domitian, A. D. 95, he was banished to the island of Patmos, from which he returned A. D. 97, on the accession of Nerva to the crown, who recalled all who had been banished. John is supposed at that time to have been about ninety years of age. He is said to have died at Ephesus in the third year of Trajan, A. D. 100, aged about ninety-four years. For a full and interesting biography of the Apostle John, the reader may consult the "Lives of the Apostles," by David Francis Bacon, pp. 307-376.

Of the subsequent history of the church at Ephesus, little is known, and it would not be necessary to dwell upon it in order to an exposition of the epistle before us. It is sufficient to remark, that the "candlestick is removed out of its place," (Rev. ii. 5,) and that all the splendour of the temple of Diana, all the pomp of her worship, and all the glory of the Christian church there, have alike faded away.

4. The time and place of writing the Epistle.

It has never been denied that the Apostle Paul was the author of this epistle, though it has been made a question whether it were written to the Ephesians or to the Laodiceans. See 5. Dr. Paley (Hora Paulina) has shown that there is conclusive internal proof that this epistle was written by Paul. This argument is derived from the style, and is carried out by a comparison of this epistle with the other undoubted writings of the apostle. The historical evidence on this point also is undisputed.

It is generally supposed, and indeed the evidence seems to be clear, that this epistle was written during the imprisonment of the apostle at Rome; but whether it was during his first or his second imprisonment, is not certain. Paul was held in custody for some two years in Cesarea, (Acts xxiv. 27,) but there is no evidence that during that time, he addressed any epistle to the churches which he had planted. That this was written when he was a prisoner, is apparent from the epistle itself. "The two years in which Paul was imprisoned at Cesarea," says Wall, as quoted by Lardner, "seem to have been the most inactive part of St. Paul's life. There is no account of any proceedings or disputations, or of any epistles written in this space." This may have arisen, Lardner supposes, from the fact that the Jews made such an opposition that the Roman governor would not allow him to have any intercourse with the people at large, or procure any intelligence from the churches abroad. But when he was at Rome, he had more liberty. He was allowed to dwell in his own hired house, (Acts xxviii. 30,) and had permission to address all who came to him, and to communicate freely with his friends abroad. It was during this period that he wrote at least four of his epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon. Grotius, as quoted by Lardner, says of these epistles, that though all Paul's epistles are excellent, yet he most admires those written by him when a prisoner at Rome. Of the epistle to the Ephesians, he says it surpasses all human eloquence-rerum sublimitatem adæquans verbis sublimioribus, quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana-describing the sublimity of the things by corresponding words more sublime than are found elsewhere in human language. The evidence that it was written when Paul was a prisoner, is found in the epistle itself. Thus in ch. iii. 1, he says, "I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ- déowios rou XpOTOÙfor you Gentiles." So he alludes to his afflictions in ch. iii. 13. "I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you." In ch. iv. 1, he calls himself the "prisoner of the Lord," or in the margin, "in the Lord"8 décμios iv kupíw. And in ch. vi. 19, 20, there is an allusion which seems to settle the inquiry beyond dispute, and to prove that it was written while he was at Rome. He there says that he was an "ambassador in bonds”—év áλvou-in chains, manacles, or shackles; and yet he desires (ver. 19, 20) that they would pray for him, that utterance might be given him to open his mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, that he might speak boldly, as he ought to speak. Now this is a remarkable circumstance. A man in custody, in bonds or chains, and that too for being an "ambassador," and yet asking the aid of their prayers, that in these circumstances he might have grace to be a bold preacher of the gospel. If he was in prison this could not well be. If he was under a strict prohibition it could not well be. The circumstances of the case tally exactly with the statement in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that Paul was in custody in Rome; that he was permitted to "dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him," (ver. 16;) that he was permitted to call the Jews together, and to debate with them freely, (vs. 17-28;) and that Paul dwelt in his own hired house for two years, and "received all that came in with him, preaching the kingdom of God," &c. (vs. 30, 31.) So exactly do these circumstances correspond, that I have no doubt that was the time when the epistle was written. And so unusual is such a train of circumstances so unlikely would it be to

occur to a mar. to forge such a coincidence, that it furnishes & striking proof that the epistle was written, as it purports to be, by Paul. An impostor would not have thought of inventing such a coincidence. If it had occurred to him to make any such allusion, the place and time would have been more distinctly mentioned, and not have been left as a mere incidental allusion. The Apostle Paul is supposed to have been at Rome as a prisoner twice, (Comp. Intro. to 2 Tim.,) and to have suffered martyrdom there about A. D. 65 or 66. If the epistle to the Ephesians was written during his second imprisonment at Rome, as is commonly supposed, then it must have been somewhere between the years 63 and 65. Lardner and Hug suppose that it was written April 61; Macknight supposes it was in 60 or 61; the Editor of the Polyglott Bible places it at 64. The exact time when it was written cannot now be ascertained, and is not material.

5. To whom was the Epistle written?

The epistle purports to have been written to the Ephesians-"to the saints which are at Ephesus,”-i. 1. But the opinion that it was written to the Ephesians, has been called in question by many expositors. Dr. Paley (Hor. Paul.) supposes that it was written to the Laodiceans. Wetstein also maintained the same opinion. This opinion was expressly stated also by Marcion, a "heretic" of the second century. Michaelis (Intro.) supposes that it was a "circular epistle,' addressed not to any church in particular, but intended for the Ephesians, Laodiceans, and some other churches of Asia Minor. He supposes that the apostle had several copies taken; that he made it intentionally of a very general character, so as to suit all; that he affixed with his own hand the subscription, ch. vi. 24, to each copy-"Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity;" that at the beginning of the epistle the name was inserted of the particular church to which it was to be sent~~ as "to the church in Ephesus"—“in Laodicea,” &c. When the several works composing the New Testament were collected into a volume, he supposes that it so happened, that the copy of this epistle which was used, was one obtained from Ephesus, containing a direction to the saints there. This is also the opinion of Archbishop Usher and Koppe. It does not comport with the design of these Notes, to go into an extended examination of this question; and after all that has been written on it, and the different opinions which have been entertained, it certainly does not become any one to be very confident. It is not a question of great importance, as it involves no point of doctrine or duty; but those who wish to see it discussed at length, can be satisfied by referring to Paley's Hore Paulina; to Michaelis' Intro., vol. iv. ch. xx., and to the Prolegomena of Koppe. The arguments which are alleged to prove that it was addressed. to the church at Laodicea, or at least not to the church at Ephesus, are summarily the following:-(1.) The testimony of Marcion, a heretic of the second century, who affirms that it was sent to the church in Laodicea, and that instead of the reading (ch. i. 1) "in Ephesus," in the copy which he had it was "in Laodicea." But the opinion of Marcion is now regarded as of little weight. It is admitted that he was in the habit of altering the Greek text to suit his own views. (2.) The principal objecion to the opinion that it was written to the church at Ephesus, is found

in certain internal marks, and particularly in the want of any allusion to the fact that Paul had ever been there, or to any thing that particularly related to the church there. This difficulty comprises several particulars. (a) Paul spent nearly three years in Ephesus, and was engaged there in deeply interesting transactions and occurrences. He had founded the church, ordained its elders, taught them the doctrines which they held, and had at last been persecuted there and driven away. If the epistle was written to them, it is remarkable that there is in the epistle no allusion to any one of these facts or circumstances. This is the more remarkable, as it was his usual custom to allude to the events which had occurred in the churches which he had founded, (see the epistles to the Corinthians and Philippians,) and as on two other occasions at least he makes direct allusion to these transactions at Ephesus. See Acts xx. 18-35, 1 Cor. xv. 32. (b) In the other epistles which Paul wrote, it was his custom to salute a large number of persons by name; but in this epistle there is no salutation of any kind. There is a general invocation of "peace to the brethren," (ch. vi. 23,) but no mention of an individual by name. There

is not even an allusion to the "elders" whom, with so much affection, he had addressed at Miletus, (Acts xx.,) and to whom he had given so solemn a charge. This is the more remarkable, as in this place he had spent three years in preaching the gospel, and must have been acquainted with all the leading members in the church. To the church at Rome, which he had never visited when he wrote his epistle to the Romans, he sends a large number of salutations, (ch. xvi.); to the church at Ephesus, where he had spent a longer time than in any other place, he sends none. (c) The name of Timothy does not occur in the epistle. This is remarkable, because Paul had left him there with a special charge, (1 Tim. i. 3,) and if he was still there, it is singular that no allusion is made to him, and no salutation sent to him. If he had left Ephesus, and had gone to Rome to meet Paul as he requested, (2 Tim. iv. 9,) it is remarkable that Paul did not join his name with his own in sending the epistle to the church, or at least allude to the fact that he had arrived. This is the more remarkable, because in the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the name of Timothy is joined with that of Paul at the commencement of the epistle. (d) Paul speaks of the persons to whom this epistle was sent, as if he had not been with them, or at least in a manner which is hardly conceivable, on the supposition that he had been the founder of the church. Thus in ch. i. 15, 16, he says, "Wherefore also after I heard of your faith in Christ Jesus," &c. But this circumstance is not conclusive. Paul may have been told of the continuance of their faith, and of their growing love and zeal, and he may have alluded to that in this passage. (e) Another circumstance on which some reliance has been placed, is the statement in ch. iii. 1, 2. 66 For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given to youward," &c. It is argued (see Michaelis) that this is not language which would have been employed by one who had founded the church, and with whom they were all acquainted. He would not have spoken in a manner implying any doubt whether they had ever heard of him and his labours in the ministry on account of the Gentiles. Such are the considerations relied on to show that the epistle could not have been written to the Ephesians.