Chapter XXXIII: Part 33

The philosopher Seneca, after having been for many years banished from Rome by Claudius, was at length recalled by that emperor in the ninth year of his reign, corresponding to A. D. 49. He was immediately made a senator, and was still further honored by being intrusted with the education of Domitius, the son of Agrippina, afterwards adopted by Claudius as heir to the throne, to which he succeeded on the emperor’s death, under the name of NERO, by which he has now become so infamous wherever the Roman name is known. Being thus elevated to authority and great influence with the emperor, Seneca made use of his power, to procure for his brother Gallio such official honors as his talents and character justly claimed. In the eleventh year of Claudius he was made consul, as is recorded in the Fasti Consulares; and was soon after sent into Greece, as proconsul of Achaia. Arriving at Corinth in the year 53, he was immediately addressed by the Jewish citizens of that place in behalf of their plot against Paul; for they naturally supposed that this would be the best time for the attempt to bend the new governor to their purposes, when he was just commencing his administration, and would be anxious to please the subjects of his power by his opening acts. But Gallio had no disposition to acquire popularity with any class of citizens, by any such abuse of power, and by his conduct on this occasion very fairly justifies the high character given him by his brother Seneca. When the Jews came dragging Paul before the proconsular tribunal, with the accusation――“This fellow persuades men to worship God in a manner contrary to the ritual,”――before Paul could open his mouth in reply, Gallio carelessly answered――“If it were a matter of crime or misdemeanor, ye Jews! it would be reasonable that I should bear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and of your ritual, look ye to it; for I do not wish to be a judge of those things.” With this contemptuous reply, he cleared the court of them. The Jews thus found their fine scheme of abusing Paul under the sanction of the Roman tribunal, perfectly frustrated; nor was their calamity confined to this disappointment; for all the Greeks who were present at the trial,――indignant at the scandalous character of the proceeding,――took Sosthenes, the ruling elder of the synagogue, who had probably been most active in the persecution of Paul, as he was the regular legal chief of the Jews, and gave him a sound threshing in the court, before he could obey the orders of the Proconsul, and move off from the tribunal. Gallio was so far from being displeased at this very irregular and improper outbreak of public feeling, that he took no notice of the action whatever, though it was a shameful violation of the dignity of his tribunal; and it may therefore be reasonably concluded that he was very much provoked against the Jews, and was disposed to sympathize with Paul; otherwise he would have been apt to have punished the outrage of the Greeks upon Sosthenes.

“The name of this proconsul was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, but
being adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of his
adopted father; he was brother to the famous Seneca, tutor to
Nero. That philosopher dedicated to Gallio his book, ‘De Vita
Beata.’ The Roman historians concur in giving him the character
of a sweet disposition, an enemy to all vice, and particularly a
hater of flattery. He was twice made proconsul of Achaia, first
by Claudius, and afterwards by Nero. As he was the sharer of his
brother’s prosperity, so he was of his misfortunes, when he fell
under Nero’s displeasure, and was at length put to death by the
tyrant, as well as his brother.” (Calmet’s Commentary. Poole’s
Annotations. Williams on Pearson.)

“In Acts xviii. 12‒16, we find Paul is brought before Gallio by
the Jews, but this proconsul refused to judge any such matters,
as not coming within his jurisdiction. The character for justice,
impartiality, prudence, and mildness of disposition, which this
passage gives to Gallio, is confirmed by Seneca, his brother, in
these words:――Solebam tibi dicere, Gallionem fratrem meum (quem
nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest,) alia
vitia non nosse, hoc etiam, (i. e. adulationem,) odisse.――Nemo
enim mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus. Hoc quoque
loco blanditiis tuis restitit, ut exclamares invenisse te
inexpugnabilem virum adversus insidias, quas nemo non in sinum
recipit. (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Natural Questions, lib. iv.
in preface, op. tom. iv. p. 267, edited by Bipont.) In our
translation Gallio is styled the _deputy_, but the real Greek
word is Ανθυπατευοντος, _proconsul_. The accuracy of Luke
in this instance is very remarkable. In the partition of
the provinces of the Roman empire, Macedonia and Achaia were
assigned to the people and Senate of Rome. In the reign of
Tiberius they were, at their own request, made over to the
emperor. In the reign of Claudius, (A. U. C. 797. A. D. 44,)
they were again restored to the Senate, after which time
proconsuls were sent into this country. Nero afterwards made the
Achaians a free people. The Senate therefore lost this province
again. However, that they might not be sufferers, the emperor
gave them the island of Sardinia, in the room of it. Vespasian
made Achaia a province again. There is likewise a peculiar
propriety in the name of the province of which Gallio was
proconsul. The country subject to him was all Greece; but the
proper name of the province among the Romans was Achaia, as
appears from various passages of the Roman historians, and
especially from the testimony of Pausanias. Καλουσι δε ουχ’
Ἑλλαδος, αλλα’ ♦Αχαιας ἡγεμονα οἱ Ῥωμαιοι διοτι εχειρωσαντο
Ἑλληνας δε Αχαιων, τοτε του Ἑλληνικου προεστηκοτων. (Pausanias
Description of Greece. lib. vii. p. 563. Lardner’s Works, 4to.
vol. I. p. 19.)

♦ “Ααχιων” replaced with “Αχαιων”

“The words Γαλλίωνος δε ἀνθυπατεύοντος ought to be rendered,
with Heumann, Walch, Antiquities, Corinth, p. 35., and Reichard,
(as indeed is required by the context,) ‘when Gallio had been
made Proconsul,’ or ‘on Gallio’s entering on the Proconsulship.’
(Kuinoel.) In the same sense it was also taken by Beza and
Piscator; and this appears to be the true one. The Jews, it
seems, waited for the arrival of a new Proconsul to make their
request, as thinking that they should then be less likely
to meet with a refusal.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV.
p. 600.)

“‘_Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the
synagogues._’ verse 17. In the 8th verse we read that Crispus
was the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. And from this
we may suppose that there were more than one synagogue in that
city, or that there might be more than one ruler in the same
synagogue; or that Crispus, after his conversion to Christianity,
might have been succeeded by Sosthenes; but then we are at a
loss to know who the people are that thus beat and misused him;
the Greek printed copies tell us that they were the Gentiles;
and those that read the text imagine, that when they perceived
the neglect and disregard wherewith the proconsul received the
Jews, they, to insult them more, fell upon the ruler of their
synagogue, whether out of hatred to them, or friendship to St.
Paul, it makes no matter. But others think, that Sosthenes,
however head of the synagogue, was nevertheless the friend of
St. Paul, and that the other Jews, seeing themselves slighted
by Gallio, might vent their malice upon him; for they suppose
that this was the same Sosthenes, whose name St. Paul, in the
beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, written about
three years after this time, joins with his own. This opinion,
however, was not universally received, since, in the time of
Eusebius, it was thought the Sosthenes mentioned in the epistle
was one of the seventy disciples, and, consequently, could not
be the chief of the synagogue at Corinth, twenty years after
the death of Jesus Christ.” (Beausobre’s Annotations. Calmet’s
Commentary and Dictionary.)

“‘xviii. 17. ἐπιλαβόμενοι δὲ πάντες οἱ Ἕλληνες There is here
some variation of reading, and no little question raised as
to the true one; which consequently leaves the interpretation
unsettled. Two ancient MSS. and versions omit οἱ Ἕλληνες, and
others read οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. As to the latter reading, it cannot be
tolerated; for why should _the Jews_ have beaten him? Neither
is it likely that they would have taken such a liberty before
so solemn a tribunal. The words οἱ Ἕλληνες are thought by
many critics, as Grotius, Mill, Pierce, Bengel, and Kuinoel,
to be derived from the margin, like the last. Now those were
_Gentiles_ (say they) who beat Sosthenes; and hence some one
wrote οἱ Ἕλληνες. As to the reason for the beating, it was to
make the Jews go away the faster; and to this they were actuated
partly by their hatred towards the Jews, and partly by a desire
to please the Procurator.’ But this appears to be pressing
too much on the word ἀπήλασεν, which has by no means any such
meaning. Besides, it is strange that the words Ἕλληνες should
have crept into nearly all the MSS; even into so many _early_
ones. And, supposing Ἕλληνες to be removed, what sense is to be
given to παντες? None (I think) satisfactory, or agreeable to
the style of the New Testament. It must therefore be retained:
and then the sense of πάντες will be as follows: ‘all the Greeks,
both Gentiles and Christians:’ which is so evident, that I am
surprised the commentators should not have seen it. Some explain
it of the Gentiles, and others of the Gentile Christians. _Both_
indeed had reason to take umbrage at the intolerance and bitter
animosity of the Jews. It is not likely that any should have
joined in the beating, merely to please the Proconsul, who
was not a man to be gratified by such a procedure. So that the
gnomes brought forward by Grotius on the base _assentatio_ of
courtiers, are not here applicable.

“By ἔτυπτον is merely to be understood _beating_, or _thumping
him with their fists_, as he passed along. Anything _more_ than
that, we cannot suppose they would have ventured upon, or the
Proconsul have tolerated.”

“By τούτων, (verse 17,) we may, I think, understand both the
accusation brought forward, and the cuffs which followed; to
neither of which the Proconsul paid much attention; and this
from disgust at the litigious conduct of the Jews; as also from
the custom, mentioned by Pricaeus, of the Roman governors, to
pass by any conduct which did not directly tend to degrade the
dignity of the Roman name, or weaken its influence, in order
that the yoke might be as easy as possible to the provincials.”
(Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 603‒605.)

Illustration: CORINTH――CENCHREA.
Romans xvi. 1. Acts xviii. 18.

His character having been thus vindicated, and his safety thus assured him by the supreme civil authority, Paul resided for a long time in Corinth, steadily pursuing his apostolic work, without any direct hindrance or molestation from the Jews. There is no reason to suppose that he confined all his labor entirely to the city; on the contrary, it is quite certain, that the numerous smaller gospel fields throughout the adjacent country, must have attracted his attention, and it appears, from the commencement of his second epistle to the Corinthians, that many throughout all Achaia had received the gospel, and had been numbered among the saints. Corinth, however, remained the great center of his operations in Greece, and from this place he soon after directed another epistle to one of his apostolic charges in Macedonia,――the church of Thessalonica. Since his former epistle had been received by them, there had arisen a new occasion for his anxious attention to their spiritual condition, and in his second letter he alludes distinctly to the fact that there had been misrepresentations of his opinion, and seems to imply that a letter had been forged in his name, and presented to them, as containing a new and more complete account of the exact time of the expected coming of Christ, to which he had only vaguely alluded in the first. In the second chapter of his second epistle, he renews his warning against these delusions about the coming of Christ, alluding to the fact, that they had been deceived and disturbed by misstatements on this subject, and had been led into error, both by those who pretended to be _inspired_, and by those who attempted to show by _prediction_, that the coming of Christ was at hand, and also by _the forged epistle_ pretending to contain Paul’s own more decisive opinions on the subject. He exhorts them to “let no man deceive them by any of these means.” He warns them moreover, against any that exalt themselves against the doctrines which he had taught them, and denounces all false and presumptuous teachers in very bitter terms. After various warnings against these and all disorderly persons among them, he refers to his own behavior while with them, as an example for them to follow, and reminds them how blamelessly and honestly he behaved himself. He did not presume on his apostolic office, to be an idler, or to eat any man’s bread for naught, but steadily worked with his own hands, lest he should be chargeable to any one of them; and this he did, not because his apostolic office did not empower him to live without manual labor, and to depend on those to whom he preached for his means of subsistence, but because he wished to make himself, and his fellow-laborers, Silas and Timothy, examples for their behavior after he was gone. Yet it seemed that, notwithstanding the pains he had taken to inculcate an honest and industrious course, several persons among them had assumed the office of teaching and reproving, and had considered themselves thereby excused from doing anything for their own support. In the conclusion, he refers them distinctly to his own signature and salutation, which authenticate every epistle which he writes, and without which, no letter was to be esteemed genuine. This he specifies, no doubt, for the sake of putting them on their guard against the repetition of any such deception as had been lately practised on them in his name.

HIS VOYAGE BACK TO THE EAST.

Soon after Paul had written his second epistle to the Thessalonians, he left Corinth, in the spring of A. D. 56, as it is commonly calculated, and after bidding the brethren farewell, journeyed back to Asia, from whose shores he had now been absent not less than three years. On his return journey, he was accompanied by his two acquaintances and fellow-laborers, Aquilas and Priscilla, who were now his most intimate friends, and henceforth were always esteemed among the important aids of the apostolic enterprise. Journeying eastward across the isthmus, they came to Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth, and at the head of the great Saronic gulf, about seven miles from the city itself. At this place Paul discharged himself of the obligation of a vow, which he had made some time before, in conformity with a common Jewish custom of thus giving force to their own sense of gratitude for the accomplishment of any desired object. He had vowed to let his hair grow until some unknown end was attained, and now, having seen the prayers which sanctioned that vow granted, he cut off his hair in token of the joyful completion of the enterprise on which he had thus solemnly and formally invoked the blessing of heaven. The actual purpose of this vow is not recorded,――but when the occasion on which he thus exonerated himself is considered, it seems most reasonable to suppose that now, embarking from the shores of Europe, after he had there passed so many years of very peculiar labor and trials, he was thus celebrating the prosperous and happy achievment of his first great western mission, and that this vow had been made for his safe return, when he first sailed from the eastern coast of the Aegean, at Alexandria Troas.

He sailed from Cenchreae to Ephesus, a great city of Ionic Asia, which had never been the scene of his apostolic labors, though he had traversed much of the country around it; for it will be remembered, that on his last journey through Asia Minor, when he had passed over Galatia and Phrygia, he was about to enter Asia Proper, but was hindered by a special impulse of the Spirit, which sent him in a different direction. But having thus achieved his great western enterprise, there was now no longer any more important commission to prevent him from gratifying his eyes with a sight of this very interesting region, and making here an experimental effort to diffuse the knowledge of the gospel through the numerous, wealthy, refined and populous cities of this, the most flourishing and civilized country in the world. He did not intend, however, to make anything more than a mere call at Ephesus; for the great object of his voyage from Europe was to return to Jerusalem and Syria, and give to his brethren, a full statement of all the interesting particulars of his long and remarkable mission in Macedonia and Greece. But he took occasion to vary this eastern route, so as to effect as much good as possible by the way; and therefore embarked first for Ephesus, where he landed with Aquilas and Priscilla, whom he left there, while he continued on his journey, southeastwards. He stopped with them however, a few days, with a view to open this new field of labor with them; and going into the synagogue, discoursed with the Jews. He was so well received by his hearers, that he was earnestly besought to prolong his stay among them; but he excused himself for his refusal of their kind invitation, by stating the great object which he had in view in leaving Europe at that particular time:――“I must by all means keep this coming feast at Jerusalem; but I will return to you,――God willing.” And bidding them farewell, he sailed away from Ephesus to Caesarea, on the coast of Palestine, where he landed. Thence he went up to Jerusalem, to salute the church. In this part of the history of Paul, Luke seems to be exceedingly brief; perhaps because he was not then with him, and had never received from him any account of this journey. There is therefore no way of ascertaining what was the particular motive or design of this visit. It would appear, however, from the very hurried manner in which the visit was noticed, that it was exceedingly brief, and his departure thence may, as Calvin conjectures, have been hastened by the circumstance, that possibly the business on which he went thither did not succeed according to his wishes. At any rate, there seems to have been something very mysterious about the whole matter, else there would not have been this very studied concealment of the motives and details of a journey, which he announced to the brethren of the church at Ephesus, as _absolutely necessary_ for him to perform. This also may have been concealed for the same reason, which has been conjectured to have caused the visit to be so short, as would seem from the manner in which it is noticed. From Jerusalem he went down to Antioch, by what route is not specified,――but probably by way of Caesarea and the sea.

“xviii. 22. _Caesarea._ A town on the sea-coast. [See the
note on p. 173.] Ἀναβὰς, ‘and having gone up.’ Whither? Some
commentators, as Camerarius, De Dieu, Wolf, Calov., Heumann,
Doddridge, Thaleman, Beck, and Kuinoel, refer it to _Caesarea_.
But this requires the confirmation of examples. And we must
_take for granted_ that the city was built high above the port,
(which is not likely,) or that the _church_ was so situated;
which would be extremely frigid. Neither is it certain
that there _was_ a church. Besides, how can the expression
καταβαίνω be proper, as used of traveling from a seaport-town,
like Caesarea, to Antioch? I therefore prefer the mode
of interpretation adopted by some ancient and many modern
commentators, as Beza, Grotius, Mor., Rosenmueller, Reichard,
Schott, Heinrichs, and others, who supply εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. This
may indeed seem somewhat harsh; yet it must be remembered that
not a few things are so in the New Testament; and ἀναβαίνω
is there often used absolutely of going up to Jerusalem, and
καταβαίνω of going from thence. Nor is this unexampled in the
classical writers. Xenophon uses the word in the very same
sense, of those going from Greece to the capital of Persia. See
Anabasis 1, 1, 2. Hist. 2, 1. 9, 10. Anabasis 1, 4, 12. Hist. 4,
1, 2. 1, 5, 1. 1, 4, 2. and many other passages referred to by
Sturz in his Lexicon Xenophon in voce. Besides, as the words εἰς
Ἱεροσόλυμα have just preceded, it is not very harsh to repeat
them. Kuinoel, indeed, and some others, treat those words as not
genuine; but their opinion rests on mere suspicion, unsupported
by any proof.” (Bloomfield Annotations. Vol. IV. p. 607.)

From the very brief and general manner in which the incidents of this visit of Paul to the eastern continent are commemorated, the apostolic historian is left to gather nothing but the most naked circumstances, of the route pursued, and from the results, it is but fair to conclude that nothing of consequence happened to the apostle, as his duties consisted merely in a review and completion of the work he had gone over before. Luke evidently did not accompany Paul in this Asian journey, and he therefore only states the general direction of the apostle’s course, without a single particular. He says that Paul, after making ♦some stay in Antioch,――where, no doubt he greatly comforted the hearts of the brethren, by the glad tidings of the triumphs of Christ in Europe,――went in regular order over the regions of Galatia, and Phrygia, everywhere confirming the disciples. Beyond this, no incident whatever is preserved; yet here great amplification of the sacred record might be made, from the amusing narrative of that venerable monkish story-teller, who assumes the name of Abdias Babylonius. But from the specimens of his narrative already given, in the lives of Andrew and John, the reader will easily apprehend that they contain nothing which deserves to be intruded into the midst of the honest, authentic statements, of the original and genuine apostolic history; and all these with many other similar inventions are wholly dismissed from the life of Paul, of whose actions such ample records have been left in the writings of himself and his companions, that it is altogether more necessary for the biographer to condense into a modernized form, with proper illustrations, the materials presented on the authority of inspiration, than to prolong the narrative with tedious inventions. In this part of the apostolic history, all that Luke records is, that Paul, after the before-mentioned survey of the inland countries of Asia Minor, came down to the western shore, and visited Ephesus, according to the promise which ♠he had made them at his farewell, a few months before. Since that hasty visit made in passing, some events important to the gospel cause had happened among them. An Alexandrine Jew named Apollos, a man of great Biblical learning, (as many of the Jews of his native city were,) and indued also with eloquence,――came to Ephesus, and there soon distinguished himself as a religious teacher. Of the doctrines of Jesus Christ and his apostles, indeed, he had never heard; but he had somewhere been made acquainted with the peculiar reforming principles of his great forerunner, John the Baptist, and had been baptized, probably by some one of his disciples. With great fervor and power, he discoursed learnedly of the things of the Lord, in the synagogue at Ephesus, and of course, was brought under the notice of Aquilas and Priscilla, whom Paul had left to occupy that important field, while he was making his southeastern tour. They took pains to draw Apollos into their acquaintance, and found him, like every truly learned man, very ready to learn, even from those who were his inferiors in most departments of sacred knowledge. From them he heard with great interest and satisfaction, the peculiar and striking truths revealed in Jesus, and at once professing his faith in this new revelation, went forth again among the Jews, replenished with a higher learning and a diviner spirit. After teaching for some time in Ephesus, he was disposed to try his new powers in some other field; and proposing to journey into Achaia, his two Christian friends gave him letters of introduction and recommendation to the brethren of the church in Corinth. While he was there laboring with great efficiency in the gospel cause, Paul returning from his great apostolic survey of the inland and upper regions of Asia Minor, came to Ephesus. Entering on this work of perfecting and uniting the results of the various irregular efforts made by the different persons, who had before labored there, he found, among those who professed to hold the doctrines of a new revelation, about a dozen men, who knew very little of the great doctrines which Paul had been in the habit of preaching. One of his first questions to them, of course, was whether they had yet received that usual convincing sign of the Christian faith,――the Holy Spirit. To which they answered in some surprise, that they had not yet heard that there was any Holy Spirit;――thus evidently showing that they knew nothing about any such sign or its effects. Paul, in his turn considerably surprised, at this remarkable ignorance of a matter of such high importance, was naturally led to ask what kind of initiation they had received into the new dispensation; and learning from them, that they had only been baptized according to the baptism of John,――instantly assured them of the incompleteness of that revelation of the truth. “John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people that they must believe on him that should come after him,――that is on Christ Jesus.” Hearing this, they consented to receive from the apostle of Jesus, the renewal of the sign of faith, which they had formerly known as the token of that partial revelation made by John; and they were therefore baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,――a form of words which of course had never been pronounced over them before. Paul, then laying his hands on them, invoked the influence of the Holy Spirit, which was then immediately manifested, by the usual miraculous gifts which accompanied its effusion.

♦ removed duplicate word “some”

♠ removed duplicate word “he”

“xviii. 24. _Apollos._ A name contracted from _Apollonius_,
(which is read in the Cod. Cant.) as Epaphras from Epaphroditus,
and Artemas from Artemonius. Of this Apollonius, mention is also
made in 1 Corinthians i. 12. iii. 5 seq. where Paul speaks of
the labor he underwent in the instruction of the Corinthians.
(1 Corinthians iv. 6. xvi. 12.) Γένει, _by birth_, i. e. country;
as in 18, 2. The Jews of Alexandria were eminent for Biblical
knowledge. That most celebrated city of Egypt abounded with men
of learning, both Jews and Gentiles.” Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s
Annotations, Vol. IV. p. 608.)

“The _Baptism of John_ is put, by synecdoche, for the _whole of
John’s ordinances_. See the note on Matthew xxi. 25. (Kuinoel.)
It is generally supposed that he had been baptized by John
himself: but this must have been twenty years before; and it is
not probable that during that time he should have acquired no
knowledge of Christianity. It should rather seem that he had
been baptized by one of John’s disciples; and perhaps not very
long before the time here spoken of.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations,
Vol. IV. p. 610.)

“With respect to the _letters_ here mentioned, they were written
for the purpose of encouraging Apollos, and recommending him
to the brethren. This ancient ecclesiastical custom of writing
letters of recommendation, (which seems to have originated in
the necessary caution to be observed in times of persecution,
and arose out of the interrupted and tardy intercourse which,
owing to their great distance from each other, subsisted
between the Christians,) has been well illustrated by a tract
of Ferrarius de Epistolis Ecclesiasticis, referred to by Wolf.”
(Bloomfield. Vol. IV. p. 611.)

“Ephesus was the metropolis of proconsular Asia. It was situated
at the mouth of the river Cayster, on the shore of the Aegean
sea, in that part anciently called Ionia, (but now Natolir,)
and was particularly celebrated for the temple of Diana, which
had been erected at the common expense of the inhabitants of
Asia Proper, and was reputed one of the seven wonders of the
world. In the time of Paul, this city abounded with orators and
philosophers; and its inhabitants, in their gentile state, were
celebrated for their idolatry and skill in magic, as well as
for their luxury and lasciviousness. Ephesus is now under the
dominion of the Turks, and is in a state of almost total ruin,
being reduced to fifteen poor cottages, (not erected exactly
on its original site,) and its once flourishing church is now
diminished to _three_ illiterate Greeks. (Revelation ii. 6.)
In the time of the Romans, Ephesus was the metropolis of Asia.
The temple of Diana is said to have been four hundred and
twenty-five feet long, two hundred and twenty broad, and to have
been supported by one hundred and twenty-seven pillars of marble,
seventy feet high, whereof twenty-seven were most beautifully
wrought, and all the rest polished. One Ctesiphon, a famous
architect, planned it, and with so much art and curiosity, that
it took two hundred years to finish it. It was set on fire seven
times; once on the very same day that Socrates was poisoned,
four hundred years before Christ.” (Horne’s Introduction.
Whitby’s Table. Wells’s Geography. Williams on Pearson.)

After this successful effort to confirm and complete the conversions already effected, Paul went about his apostolic labors in the usual way,――going into the synagogue, and speaking boldly, disputing the antiquated sophistry of the Jews, and urging upon all, the doctrines of the new revelation. In this department of labor, he continued for the space of three months; but at the end of that time, he found that many obstacles were thrown in the way of the truth by the stubborn adherents of the established forms of old Judaism, who would not allow that the lowly Jesus was the Messiah for whom their nation had so long looked as the restorer of Israel. Leaving the hardened and obstinate Jews, he therefore, according to his old custom in such cases of the rejection of the gospel by them, withdrew from their society, and thenceforth went with those who had believed among the more candid Greeks, who, with a truly enlightened and philosophical spirit, held their minds open to the reception of new truths, even though they might not happen to accord with those which were sanctioned to them by the prejudices of education. After leaving the synagogue, his new place of preaching and religious instruction was the school of one Tyrannus,――doubtless one of those philosophical institutions with which every Grecian city abounded. This continued his field of exertion for two years, during which his fame became very widely established,――all the inhabitants of Ionic and Aeolic Asia, having heard of the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. Among the causes and effects of this general notoriety, was the circumstance, that many miraculous cures were wrought by the hands of Paul; and many began even to attach a divine regard to his person;――handkerchiefs being brought to the sick from his body, which, on application to those afflicted, either with bodily or mental diseases, produced a perfect cure. This matter becoming generally known and talked of, throughout Ephesus, became the occasion of a ludicrous accident, which occurred to some persons who entertained the mistaken notion, that this faculty of curing diseases was transferable, and might be exercised by anybody that had enterprise enough to take the business in hand, and say over the form of words that seemed to be so efficacious in the mouth of Paul. A set of conjurers of Jewish origin, the seven sons of Sceva, who went about professedly following the trade of casting out devils, straightway caught up this new improvement on their old tricks, (for so they esteemed the divinely miraculous power of the apostle,) and soon found an opportunity to experiment with this, which they considered a valuable addition to their old stock of impositions. So, calling over the miserable possessed subject of their foolish experiment, they said――“We exorcise you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches.” But the devil was not slow to perceive the difference between this second-hand, plagiaristic mode of operation, and the commanding tone of divine authority with which the demoniacal possessions were treated by the apostle of Jesus. He therefore quite turned their borrowed mummery into a jest, and cried out through the mouth of the possessed man,――“Jesus I know, and Paul I know:――but who are ye?” Under the impulse of the frolicsome, mischievous spirit, the man upon whom they were playing their conjuring tricks, jumped up at once, and fell upon these rash doctors with all his might, and with all the energy of a truly crazy demoniac, beat the whole seven, tore their clothes off from them, and threshed them to such effect, that they were glad to stop their mummery, and make off as fast as possible, but did not escape till they were naked and wounded. The affair of course, was soon very generally talked of, and the story made an impression, on the whole, decidedly favorable to the true source of that miraculous agency, which, when foolishly tampered with, had produced such appalling results. Many, among both Jews and Greeks, were thereby led to repentance and faith, and more particularly those who had been in the way of practising these arts of imposition. A very general alarm prevailed among all the conjurers, and many came and confessed the mean tricks by which they had hitherto maintained their reputation as controllers of the powers of the invisible world. Many who had also, at great expense of time and money, acquired the arts of imposition, brought the costly books in which were contained all the mysterious details of their magical mummery, and burned them publicly, without regard to their immense estimated pecuniary value, which was not less than nine thousand dollars. In short, the results of this apparently trifling occurrence, followed up by the zealous preaching of Paul, effected a vast amount of good, so that the word of God mightily grew and prevailed.

Illustration: EPHESUS.――RUINS OF THE TEMPLE OF DIANA.
Ephesians i. 1. Revelation ii. 1, 7.

“In Acts xx. 31, the apostle says, that for the space of three
years he preached at Ephesus. Grotius and Whitby hold that these
three years are to be reckoned from his first coming to Ephesus,
xviii. 19; that he does not specify his being in any other
city; and that when it is said here, ‘So that all Asia heard the
word,’ xix. 40, it arose from the concourse that, on a religious
account, continually assembled in that city. The Jews also, from
different parts of Asia, were induced by commerce, or obliged
by the courts of judicature, to frequent it. Other commentators
contend that, as only two years, with three months in the
synagogue, are here mentioned, the remaining three-quarters of
a year were partly engaged in a progress through the neighboring
provinces. (Elsley, from Lightfoot and Doddridge.)

“While he was at Ephesus, ‘God wrought special miracles by the
hands of Paul; so that from his body were brought unto the sick,
handkerchiefs or aprons,’ &c. &c. Acts ♦xix. 11, 12. Σιμικίνθιον,
_aprons_, is slightly changed from the Latin _semicinctum_,
which workmen put before them when employed at their occupations,
to keep their clothes from soiling. The difference which
Theophylact and Oecumenius make between these and σουδάρια, is,
that the latter are applied to the head, as a cap or veil, and
the former to the hands as a handkerchief. ‘They carry them,’
says Oecumenius, ‘in their hands, to wipe off moisture from
their face, as tears,’” &c. &c. (Calmet’s Commentary.)

♦ removed spurious “v.”

“‘And they counted the price of them, [the books,] and found
it to be fifty thousand pieces of silver,’ verse 19――αργυριον
is used generally in the Old Testament, LXX. for the shekel,
in value about 2s. 6d., or the total 6250l. as Numbers vii. 85.
Deuteronomy xxii. 19. 2 Kings xv. 20. _Grotius._ If it means the
drachma, as more frequently used by the Greeks at 9d. each, the
sum will be 1875l.” [$9000.] Doddridge. Elsley’s Annotations.
(Williams on Pearson, pp. 53‒55.)

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

There is hardly one of the writings of Paul, about the date of which there has been so much discussion, or so many opinions as this; but the results of all the elaborate investigations and argumentations of the learned, still leave this interesting chronological point in such doubt, that this must be pronounced about the most uncertain in date, of all the Pauline epistles. It may however, without any inconsistency with the historical narrative of the Acts, or with any passages in the other epistles, be safely referred to the period of this residence in Ephesus, probably to the later part of it. The epistle itself contains no reference whatever, direct or indirect, to the place in which he was occupied at the time of writing, and only bare probabilities can therefore be stated on it,――nor can any decisive objection be made to any one of six opinions which have been strongly urged. Some pronounce it very decidedly to have been the first of all the epistles written by Paul, and maintain that he wrote it soon after his first visit to them, at some time during the interval between Paul’s departure from Galatia, and his departure from Thessalonica. Others date it at the time of his imprisonment in Rome, according to the common subscription of the epistle. Against this last may, however, perhaps be urged his reproof to the Galatians, that they “were _so soon_ removed from him that called them to the grace of Christ,”――an expression nevertheless, too vague to form any certain basis for a chronological conclusion. The great majority of critics refer it to the period of his stay in Ephesus,――a view which entirely accords with the idea, that it must have been written soon after Paul had preached to them; for on his last journey to Ephesus, he had passed through Galatia, as already narrated, confirming the churches. Some time had, no doubt, intervened since his preaching to them, sufficient at least to allow many heresies and difficulties to arise among them, and to pervert them from the purity of the truth, as taught to them by him. Certain false teachers had been among them since his departure, inculcating on all believers in Christ, the absolute necessity of a minute and rigid observance of Mosaic forms, for their salvation. They also directly attacked the apostolical character and authority of Paul,――declaring his opinion to be of no weight whatever, and to be opposed to that of the true original apostles of Jesus. These, Paul meets with great force in the very beginning of the epistle, entering at once into a particular account of the mode of his first entering the apostleship,――showing that it was not derived from the other apostles, but from the special commission of Christ himself, miraculously given. He also shows that he had, on this very question of Judaical rituals, conferred with the apostles at Jerusalem, and had received the sanction of their approbation in that course of open communion which he had before followed, on his own inspired authority, and had ever since maintained, in the face of what he deemed inconsistencies in the conduct of Peter. He then attacks the Galatians themselves, in very violent terms, for their perversion of that glorious freedom into which he had brought the Christian doctrine, and fills up the greater part of the epistle with reproofs of these errors.

His argument against the doctrines of the servile Judaizers is made up in his favorite mode of demonstration, by simile and metaphor, representing the Christian system under the form of the offspring of Abraham, and afterwards images the freedom of the true believers in Jesus, in the exalted privilege of the descendants of Sara, while those enslaved to forms are presented as analogous in their condition to the children of Hagar. He earnestly exhorts them, therefore, to stand fast in the freedom to which Christ has exalted them, and most emphatically condemns all observance of circumcision. Thus pointing out to them, the purely spiritual nature of that covenant, of which they were now the favored subjects, he urges them to a truly spiritual course of life, bidding them aim at the attainment of a perfect moral character, and makes the conclusion of the epistle eminently practical in its direction. He speaks of this epistle as being a testimony of the very particular interest which he feels in their spiritual prosperity, because, (what appears contrary to his practice,) he has written it with his own hand. To the very last, he is very bitter against those who are aiming to bring them back to the observance of circumcision, and denounces those as actuated only by a base desire to avoid that persecution which they might expect from the Jews, if they should reject the Mosaic ritual. Referring to the cross of Christ as his only glory, he movingly alludes to the marks of his conformity to that standard, bearing as he does in his own body, the scars of the wounds received from the scourges of his Philippian persecutors. He closes without any mention of personal salutations, and throughout the whole makes none of those specifications of names, with which most of his other epistles abound. In the opening salutation, he merely includes with himself those “brethren that are with him,” which seems to imply that they knew who those brethren were, in some other way,――perhaps, because he had but lately been among them with those same persons as his assistants in the ministry.

On this very doubtful point, I have taken the views adopted by
Witsius, Louis Cappel, Pearson, Wall, Hug and Hemsen. The notion
that it was written at Rome is supported by Theodoret, Lightfoot,
and Paley,――of course making it a late epistle. On the contrary,
Michaelis makes it the earliest of all, and dates it in the year
49, at some place on Paul’s route from Troas to Thessalonica.
Marcion and Tertullian also supposed it to be one of the
earliest epistles. Benson thinks it was written during Paul’s
first residence in Corinth. Lenfant and Beausobre, followed by
Lardner, conjecture it to have been written either at Corinth or
at Ephesus, during his first visit, either in A. D. 52, or 53.
Fabricius and Mill date it A. D. 58, at some place on Paul’s
route to Jerusalem. Chrysostom and Theophylact, date it before
the epistle to the Romans. Grotius thinks it was written
about the same time. From all which, the reader will see the
justice of my conclusion, that nothing at all is known with any
certainty about the matter.

THE EPHESIAN MOB.

Paul having now been a resident in Ephesus for nearly three years, and having seen such glorious results of his labors, soon began to think of revisiting some of his former fields of missionary exertion, more especially those Grecian cities of Europe which had been such eventful scenes to him, but a few years previous. He designed to go over Macedonia and Achaia, and then to visit Jerusalem; and when communicating these plans to his friends at Ephesus, he remarked to them in conclusion――“And after that, I must also visit Rome.” He therefore sent before him into Macedonia, as the heralds of his approach, his former assistant, Timothy, and another helper not before mentioned, Erastus, who is afterwards mentioned as the treasurer of the city of Corinth. But Paul himself still waited in Asia for a short time, until some other preliminaries should be arranged for his removal. During this incidental delay arose the most terrible commotion that had ever yet been excited against him, and one which very nearly cost him his life.

It should be noticed that the conversion of so large a number of the heathen, through the preaching of Paul, had struck directly at the foundation of a very thriving business carried on in Ephesus, and connected with the continued prevalence and general popularity of that idolatrous worship, for which the city was so famous. Ephesus, as is well known, was the chief seat of the peculiar worship of that great Asian deity, who is now known, throughout all the world, where the apostolic history is read, by the name of “DIANA OF THE EPHESIANS.” It is perfectly certain, however, that this deity had no real connection, either in character or in name, with that Roman goddess of the chase and of chastity, to whom the name Diana properly belongs. The true classic goddess Diana was a virgin, according to common stories, considered as the sister of Apollo, and was worshiped as the beautiful and youthful goddess of the chase, and of that virgin purity of which she was supposed to be an instance, though some stories present an exception to this part of her character. Upon her head, in most representations of her, was pictured a crescent, which was commonly supposed to show, that she was also the goddess of the moon; but a far more sagacious and rational supposition refers the first origin of this sign to a deeper meaning. But when the mythologies of different nations began to be compared and united, she was identified with the goddess of the moon, and with that Asian goddess who bore among the Greeks the name of ARTEMIS, which is in fact the name given by Luke, as the title of the great goddess of the Ephesians. This ARTEMIS, however, was a deity as diverse in form, character and attributes, from the classic Diana, as from any goddess in all the systems of ancient mythology; and they never need have been confounded, but for the perverse folly of those who were bent, in spite of all reason, to find in the divinities of the eastern polytheism, the perfect synonyms to the objects of western idolatry. The Asian and Ephesian goddess Artemis, had nothing whatever to do with hunting nor with chastity. She was not represented as young, nor beautiful, nor nimble, nor as the sister of Apollo, but as a vast gigantic monster, with a crown of towers, with lions crouching upon her shoulders, and a great array of pictured or sculptured eagles and tigers over her whole figure; and her figure was also strangely marked by a multitude of breasts in front. Under this monstrous figure, which evidently was no invention of the tasteful Greeks, but had originated in the debasing and grotesque idolatry of the orientals, Artemis of the Ephesians was worshiped as the goddess of the earth, of fertility, of cities, and as the universal principle of life and wealth. She was known among the Syrians by the name of Ashtaroth, and was among the early objects of Hebrew idolatry. When the Romans, in their all-absorbing tolerance of idolatry, began to introduce into Italy the worship of the eastern deities, this goddess was also added there, but not under the name of Diana. The classic scholar is familiar with the allusions to this deity, worshiped under the name of Cybele, Tellus and other such, and in all the later poets of Rome, she is a familiar object, as “the tower-crowned Cybele.” This was the goddess worshiped in many of the Grecian cities of Asia Minor, which, at their first colonization, had adopted this aboriginal goddess of those fertile regions, of whose fertility, civilization, agricultural and commercial wealth, she seemed the fit and appropriate personification. But in none of these Asian cities was she worshiped with such peculiar honors and glories as in Ephesus, the greatest city of Asia Minor. Here was worshiped a much cherished image of her, which was said to have fallen from heaven, called from that circumstance the DIOPETOS; which here was kept in that most splendid temple, which is even now proverbial as having been one of the wonders of the ancient world. Being thus the most famous seat of her worship, Ephesus also became the center of a great manufacture and trade in certain curious little images or shrines, representing this goddess, which were in great request, wherever her worship was regarded, being considered as the genuine and legitimate representatives, as well as representations of the Ephesian deity.