5. The request of Paul to Philemon (ver. 22), that he would provide him a lodging at Colossm, as he hoped to visit that place shortly, agrees better with the supposition that this epistle was written at Cmsarea, whilst yet hopes might be entertained of his liberation, than that it was written at Rome, when his expectations of freedom must have be come faint, and whence, according to his avowed purpose (Rom. xv. 28), he was more likely, in case of being liberated, to travel westwards into Spain than to return to Asia. The answer to this is, that though the Apostle had originally designed to journey from Rome to Spain, the intelligence he received of the state of things in the churches of Asia Minor may have determined him to alter his resolution ; and upon the whole, we know so little of the Apostle's relations during his imprisonment at Rome, that it is not safe to build much upon any such allusions. In a very able article in the Studien and Kritiken for 1838, the whole question has been subjected to a new investigation by Dr. Julius Wiggers of the University of Rostock, who comes to the conclusion, that of the facts above appealed to, none can be regarded as deci sive for either hypothesis. He inclines, however, to the opinion of Schulz, chiefly on the grounds that Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, makes no mention of Onesimus, who accompanied Tychicus, the bearer of his epistle to that church, and that both in this epistle and in that to the Colossians, he states that he had sent Tychicus els aura Tar°, Zpe 714TE 711 rept rat rapakaltlov Tas impalas bp'cbv (Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8 [ac cording to the best MSS.]) The former of these, Wiggers thinks, can be accounted for only on the supposition that Tychicus and Onesimus having to set out from Cmsarea, would reach Colossre first, where the latter would tarry, so that he did not need to be commended to the church at Ephesus ; the latter of these, he thinks, indicates that the place where Tychicus was to set out was one from which he might proceed either to Colossre or to Ephesus first, not one from which he had, as a mere matter of course, to pass through Ephesus in order to reach Colossx ; and hence he infers that Caesarea, and not Rome, was the place whence these epistles were dispatched (Stud. u. Krit. 1841, sec. 436). We cannot say that these two con siderations appear to us so cogently decisive of this question as they do to Dr. Wiggers. For, not to insist upon the obvious incoherence of the one with the other, it does not by any means appear neces sary that Paul should have commended Onesi mus to the care of the church at Ephesus in case of his passing through that city, seeing he was the companion of one whose introduction would he enough to secure their kind offices on his behalf ; and surely there is nothing improbable in the sup position that Paul should have sent Tychicus on the same errand both to Colossse and to Ephesus, even though he must needs pass through the one to reach the other. A recent writer has urged some chronological difficulties, which he thinks decisive of the question in favour of Cmsarea. If,' says he, these epistles are genuine, and also Philip pians and 2 Timothy, it is impossible to reduce all chronologically to the time of Paul's imprisonment at Rome. This appears from the following dates : --I. Paul narrates, 2 Tim. iv. 12, that he has sent Tychicus to Ephesus ; now, since in Eph. vi. 21, and Col. iv. 7, he announces this mission, 2 Tim.
must have been written after these. 2. When Paul wrote to the Colossians, etc., Timothy was with him (Col. i. i ; Philem. 1) ; consequently 2 Tim., by which Timothy was summoned to Rome, was written before these. 3. According to Col. iv. 14, Demas is with Paul, but, according to 2 Tint. iv. to, he has already left him, so that the latter epistle is the later. 4. Timothy is commanded to bring Mark (iv. xi) ; but, according to Col. iv. to, he is already with him ; consequently, 2 Tim. was writ ten earlier' (Reuss, G'esch. der Heil. Schr. des N. T. p. 97, 3d edit.) These chronological difficulties, he thinks, will be all avoided if we suppose Eph., Col., and Philem., to have been written at Caesarea, when the persons mentioned were present with him, and that they, having separated from him, he on his arrival at Rome sent for Timothy. There is certainly considerable weight in this, and on the supposition that 2 Tim. was written during St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, recorded in Acts xxiv., we do not see how it is to be got over. But
these chronological difficulties may be avoided as well by supposing that 2 Tim, was written during a second imprisonment of the apostle at Rome ; and as there are many considerations which lead to this conclusion, we are free to prefer this solution of the difficulties to that proposed by Reuss. There thus appears to be no reason strongly urging us to be lieve that these epistles were written at Cresarea ; and, as in such a case, the testimony of tradition may be fairly admitted as adequate to decide the ques tion, we abide by the conclusion, that Paul wrote these epistles at Rome during his first imprison ment there. Nor are there wanting notices in the epistles themselves which favour this conclusion, as s. The fact, that whilst writing these epistles Paul was at liberty to preach the gospel (Eph. vi. to, 20 ; Col. iv. 3, 4, I I), a statement which we know to be true in respect of his imprisonment at Rome, but which we do not know to be true of his im prisonment at Cmsarea; 2. The fact, that whilst writing these epistles he was a prisoner in chains (Eph. vi. 20 ; Col. iv. 3 ; Philem. to), which is true of his imprisonment at Rome, but is apparently not true of his imprisonment at Cresarea, where he seems to have been a prisoner in czatodia libera (Acts xxiv. 23).
In what order these three epistles were written it is not possible clearly to determine. Between that to the Colossians and that to the Ephesians the coincidences are so close and numerous (see Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 38i ; Davidson, ii. 344) that the one must have been written imme diately after the other, whilst the mind of the Apostle was occupied with the same leading train of thought. By the greater part the priority is as signed to the Epistle to the Ephesians ; though for this no more convincing argument has been ad duced than that urged as conclusive by Lardner, viz., the omission of Timothy's name in the saluta tion of the Epistle to the Ephesians, from which it is inferred that this epistle was written before the arrival of Timothy, and consequently before the writing of that to the Colossians, in which his name occurs along with that of the Apostle's. But this assumes that the only possible reason for the omis sion was the absence of Timothy from Rome, an assumption which can hardly be granted, as other reasons besides this may be supposed ; and more over, even supposing the arrival of Timothy took place in the brief interval between the writing of the two epistles, yet, as the two were sent off to gether, we can hardly say it was the absence of Timothy which caused the omission in that to the Ephesians, for had the Apostle thought it neces sary, he would have inserted it before sending off the epistle. For the priority of the Epistle to the Colossians, it has been argued that this supposition best explains the force of the conjunction Kai be fore in Eph. vi. 21, which seems to imply that the same knowledge had been conveyed to others ; and as Paul makes the same statement to the Colossians, but without the Iced irktfis, it is argued that the recollection of having made that statement being in his mind when he was writing to the Ephesians, he expressed himself in the man ner above noted. This, it must be allowed, is not very satisfactory ; for, as an argument, it holds good only on the supposition either that the Epistle to the Colossians was to be read also and first by the Epliesians, or that the Apostle fell uncon sciously into the mistake of supposing, that be cause what he had written to the Colossians was fresh in his own recollection, it must be as well known to the Ephesians. There is much more force in the argument based on the different tone and train of sentiment in the two epistles ; that to the Colossians having much more the appearance of what would be called forth on the first contem plation of the subject, while in that to the Ephe sians there seems to be more of the fulness, ma tureness, and elevation, which flow from greater familiarity with the subject (see Neander, Apostol. Age, I. 329 ; Alford, N. T. iii. Proleg. 41). This, however, is a subjective reason, of the force of which different persons might judge very diffe rently. The Epistle to Philemon being a mere friendly letter, intended chiefly to facilitate the reconciliation of Onesimus to his master, was pro bably written immediately before the departure of the party by whom it was to be carried.