the same great doctrines were in the apostle's mind when he wrote to both. This consideration explains the similarities which strike the reader; while the differences spring not from difference of doctrine, but from the wholly different and independent point of view from which the same doctrines are looked at in each epistle. Thus Col. i. 14 is much the same as Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 20 as Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 16 as Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 18, 19 as Eph. i. 22, 23; Col. ii. 13 as Eph. ii. 5; Col. ii. 11 as Eph. ii. 11; Col. i. 20 as Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 25, 26 as Eph. iii. 2, 3; but a comparison of these passages will show that, whatever the resemblance be, they have in each epistle a distinct purpose of their own: in that to the Colossians to set forth the glory of Him in whom the whole church lives; in that to the Ephesians to show that this glory cannot be fulfilled except by the bringing of all into unity in His one church, so that there cannot be two separate communities, but only one body in Christ. In short, the epistle to the Colossians is occupied with Christ himself. In opposition to the Judæo-Gnostic errors prevailing in Colossæ; and doubtless in Laodicea also, the apostle sets forth in it Christ in His person, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation in heaven. He is the true solution of their religious perplexities. He is the one and only Mediator between God and humanity, the one and only principle of the divine life to which humanity is to be brought. The epistle to the Ephesians is occupied with the church. In opposition to the arrogance of Jewish and the fears of Gentile Christians prevailing in Laodicea, and doubtless in Colossæ also, the apostle sets forth in it the church in its unity. It is the one body of Christ, and the Gentiles must be a constituent part of the body if the body is to be complete,-a part of the fulness of the pleroma, of Christ, if that pleroma is to be reached. They are not therefore to suppose that, because they were once far off, they are not now nigh, as nigh as those who claimed, and might appear, to have been always nigh in a sense peculiar to themselves. Ephesians and Colossians complementary. It will thus be observed that the two epistles of which we speak are in the strictest sense complementary to one another; and we thus better understand how it was that St. Paul directed that the two should be read together (Col. iv. 16). Without the other each was incomplete. But together they make up the complex thought, "I am the vine, ye are the branches;" "Abide in me, and I in you." Nor is it without interest to notice that this is not a solitary instance of such a relation between two different books of the New Testament written by the same pen. A similar relation exists between the gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, and between the gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse, In the first of each of the three pairs we have Christ the head, in the second His body which is the church. It will thus be seen, too, that, in the absence of direct historical evidence, we may be spared the inquiry as to which of the two epistles was written first. All inquirers allow that the interval between them was extremely short. The chief point of interest is that in this short interval the epistle to the Colossians is first in order of thought, though not necessarily in order of time. The inference of Harless from iv. 16 (Eph. Brief, Einl., p. 51) that, supposing the Ephesian epistle to be "that from Laodicea," it must have been written before the epistle to the Colossians, an order of writing which he rejects, may be weakly founded, but it may also be correct. There is nothing to hinder the supposition that with two aspects of the truth in his mind, one of which is logically prior to the other, the apostle might first transfer to paper the last of the two. The circumstances calling for it might at the moment seem to be the most urgent. The priority of the Colossian epistle in every respect worth speaking of will still remain, although we allow the correctness of the inference drawn by Harless from the verse referred to, and the argument for the identity of the epistle to the Ephesians with that "from Laodicea" will be unaffected by the admission. Authenticity. IV. Authenticity of the Epistle.-It is only in comparatively recent times that doubts have been entertained upon this point. Usteri, in his 1 A distinct intimation of the arrogance with which the Jewish looked down upon the Gentile Christians and of the contemptuous language which they used concerning them, is afforded by Eph. ii. 11 (comp. Meyer in los.). Paul Lehrb., 1824, appears to have been the first to express them, although he did not hesitate to use the epistle for the purpose of his book. The same doubts were afterwards more fully expressed by Schleiermacher, in his Einleitung ins N. T., from whose oral lectures, according to Bleek (Introd. Clark's Translation, ii. p. 39), Usteri had received his views. De Wette followed in successive editions of his Einleitung, from 1843 onwards, not, however, deciding against the epistle, but only questioning its authenticity on the ground of its want of specific purpose, its dependence on the epistle to the Colossians, its poverty of thought, and its divergence both in teaching and style from the genuine epistles of St. Paul. He was followed by Baur in his Paulus, 1845, and by Schwegler in his Nachap. Zeitalt, 1845, these two critics connecting the language of the epistle with the Gnostic and Montanist heresies of the 2d century, and for the first time unhesitatingly rejecting it Ewald agrees with Baur and Schwegler in denying the Pauline authorship of the epistle, but takes the date of its composition further back, ascribing it to "an unnamed disciple and friend of the apostle" desirous to speak in his spirit and name truths which St. Paul himself had been too much occupied with other things to utter (Ge schichte d. V. I., 1859, vii. p. 246-7). Lastly, Hilgenfeld may be mentioned, who, in his Einleitung, p. 669, etc., 1875, gathering together the objections of his predecessors, and adding one or two minor ones of his own, assigns the epistle to the Gnostic times of the 2d century, and supposes it to have been written by a Christian of Asia belonging to the Pauline school, who was desirous at once to regain for the apostle the alienated affections of the Asiatic Christians, and to compose the differences between the Jewish and Gentile sections of the church. Such being the state of the argument against Objections the authenticity of the epistle, it will be seen answered. that the more important objections have been already, by anticipation, met in the previous positive statements of the article. Want of specific purpose. (1.) In particular, it ought to be necessary to say little more upon what has been generally felt to be the most powerful of these, the want of specific aim betrayed by the epistle, and its dependence upon the epistle to the Colossians. A specific aim, however erroneously conceived, is distinctly attributed to it by its later opponents; and we have only to compare it a little more closely with the epistle to the Colossians in order to see that, so far from merely containing the teaching of that epistle in an extended form, it exhibits thorough independence. Its very resemblance to the Colossian epistle makes this the more striking, because it shows us not something entirely new, but that new use of old truths which is often more difficult to produce than what is wholly new. It is not thus that the imitator or forger discovers himself. To be able to wield a great doctrine in this way, to present it to one's self and others in different lights, to apply it to varying circumstances, indicates a full and original possession of it. An imitator would of necessity have repeated what had been said before. He would have shown no originality or power in his treatment of the doctrine, and we should have received at his hands nothing but broken and imperfect of such weakness meet us here. We are in the presence of a fragments of what he had not himself assimilated. No traces master who has felt the fulness of the truth proclaimed by him, and who can see with his own eyes the different applications of which it is susceptible. Careful attention, again, to the pas sages quoted in support of the assertion that the Ephesian is not merely a reproduction of the Colossian epistle, but one indicating comparative poverty both in ideas and words (such as Eph. iii. 15 compared with Col. ii. 19; Eph. i. 17, 18 compared with Col. i. 9) will show that the richness of thought and language But the true is often on the side of the former of the two. answer to the objection is to be found not in any attempt to exalt either epistle at the expense of the other, so much as in marking the independent handling by both of the closely related truths with which they deal. Both will then appear in the light in which even Baur was disposed to regard them, "twin brothers coming together into the world" (Paulus, p. 455); and the question will no longer be one of copying, but of authorship later than the apostolic age. meets us. (2.) This, accordingly, is the objection that next It is urged that the epistle to the Ephe- Relation to sians bears evident marks of having sprung up in Gnosthe midst of the Gnostic heresies of the second cen- ticism. tury. The peculiar phraseology of many parts of the epistle is supposed to confirm this. Thus we are prepared by the words of iv. 14 to suppose that the writer has false teachings in his eye; and when we find him speaking as he does of "the mystery" of God's will (i. 9, comp. iii. 4, 9, v. 32, vi. 19), esp. John x.), and which is nowhere more strenuously insisted on than in the acknowledged epistles of St. Paul (Rom. xii., 1 Cor. x. xi. xii.). The peculiarity here is not in the thought itself, but in the mode in which the thought is presented; and the cxplanation of this is to be found in the considerations already adduced. words of the "pleroma," that favorite term of the Gnostic systems (i. 23, iii. 19, iv. 13; comp. iv. 10, v. 18), of the "on" of this world (ii. 2), the "ons" (ii. 7, iii. 9, 11), the "æon of the mons" (iii. 21), of "the prince of the power of the air" (ii. 2), of "the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly places" (iii. 10, comp. i. 21, vi. 12), of the "knowledge" (iii. 19) and the "full knowledge" (i. 17, iv. 13) to which Christians are to come, and of the "manifold wisdom of God" (iii. 21), the conclusion is considered irresistible, that we have in all this an opposition to Gnosticism, and a date later than the first century. We shall not attempt to deny the probability that there is a reference to Gnostic errors in expressions such as these. To say that they were originally employed by the apostle in order to unfold after his own manner the truth that he had to proclaim, and that they were then, in speculative abuse, made the foundation of, or essential elements in, Gnostic systems is unnatural. They are too peculiar, too different from the language of St. Paul in his earlier epistles, to permit such an ex-ciple rather than St. Paul himself before us in iii. 8, "the least planation. Reference to what is known to us as Gnostic error there must be in them; and could it be shown that such terms came first into existence with the Gnostics of the second century we should at once give up the argument. The whole question is thus one of date. Had such ideas or words existence in the apostolic age or had they not? Answer must be made in the affirmative. Some of the expressions referred to, "mystery," "æon,” “knowledge," "full knowledge," "wisdom," occur with remarkable frequency in St. Paul's undisputed epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. "The prince of the power of the air" combined with "the world-rulers of this darkness" (Eph. vi. 12) presents only an unmistakable parallel to "the prince of this world" in the gospel of St. John (xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11), a gospel which, in the present state of criticism upon the point, it would be absurd to bring down to the middle of the second century. Speculations, again, regarding the different orders of the celestial hierarchy, in regard to its thrones and dominions and principalities and powers, in regard also to the worshipping of angels, can be traced to the very confines of the apostolic age; and from the masterly dissertation on the word pleroma attached by Canon Lightfoot to his epistle to the Colossians, it will be seen what a high probability there is that that word belonged to the apostolic age itself (comp. Burton's Lectures on the Gnostic Heresies, Lect. v.). It thus appears that these Gnostic ideas were in circulation before the apostolic age was out. That it was later before they were combined and elaborated into the systems now known as the Gnostic systems, and that the elaboration of these systems may itself have been promoted by the use in the sacred writings of the terms mentioned, is no doubt true; but that is no proof that the ideas themselves did not possess at the earlier date a powerful hold over the minds of men. If so, then the province of Asia was one of the great centres of their influence. Its cities were the meeting place of all eastern as well as western thought; and in them, far more than in Rome or Corinth or Thessalonica or Galatia, Gnosticism found at once a home and a starting-point for further progress. What, then, was an apostle to do when he went to places where such thoughts prevailed, and where they were injuriously affecting the life of the church? Exactly what St. Paul did in the epistles to Laodicea and Colossæ. The new terms used by him came from the new teaching made necessary by the places and the time. As he thought of the wants of those to whom he wrote, he saw that the truth committed to him could meet their more speculative errors, could satisfy their more speculative wants, as fully as it had met and satisfied necessities of a still earlier and simpler kind. He learned to see more clearly, to estimate more highly, the grandeur of his trust. He hastened, therefore, with it to the rescue; and, like any one on whom a new vision of divine truth has dawned, he did it with an exuberance of language, with a power of expression, with a swing of exultation, such as he had only on rare occasions exhibited before. Nor only so. The very form of his teaching was modified, and took traces of the speculations it was designed to counteract. The spectacle is a most interesting one, and ought to be most encouraging and quickening to Christian faith. The truth does not differ in the epistles to which we allude from what it was in earlier epistles by the same author. But there is growth, development. There is a theology in the proper sense of the term even in the New Testament itself-a spur to theologians of every age to adapt in like manner the eternal truth to the wants of their own times, and to construct a theology which shall be living, because, while founded on the great facts of the gospel, it is cast in the mould which their times demand. Harmonizing tendency. (3.) Hilgenfeld's view as to the harmonizing tendency of the epistle, as to its effect in uniting opposing parties into one catholic church, has also been substantially met. The epistle is throughout addressed to one class of persons, not to two classes; and there is no allusion whatever to any factious spirit exhibited by the former. That the church of Christ is one was surely a truth which sprang, not out of the controversies of hostile parties, but out of the teaching of Christ Himself in the gospels (comp. (4.) Other objections to the authenticity of our epistles, such as its äraş deyópera and its un-Pauline Peculiar statements, may be passed over in a few words. and The former are certainly not more numerous than thoughts. may be expected when we remember the peculiar state of circumstances to which the apostle addresses himself. The most important examples of the latter are-ii. 20, "apostles and prophets" as the foundation, the citation in v. 14, which it is said cannot be identified, and the mode in which justification is alluded to in ii. 8, while Hilgenfeld, not satisfied with these examples from Baur, finds a proof that we have a Pauline disof all saints," instead of "the least of the apostles" as in 1 Cor. XV. 9. It is hardly possible to follow such minute objections here. For the first compare 1 Cor. xii. 28; for the second we may compare Isa. lx. 1, 2, and may remember the freedom with which the Old Testament is often quoted in the New; for the third it may be noticed that in a statement which Baur finds unfavorable to Pauline authorship, Hilgenfeld finds a clear proof of Pauline discipleship (p. 677); and for the fourth that, in the verse in Corinthians immediately preceding that referred to, the apostle designates himself "an abortion," a much more humbling expression than "the least of all saints." Those who allow force to what has been said on the first three objections will not be stumbled by such minor difficulties. Those who refuse it will feel that what they consider their unanswered objections are sufficient to justify their position. We may omit further notice of them, and may simply urge upon the point before us that, the field being thus cleared of the objections, we are thrown back upon what is really the main ground upon which the New Testament books are to be accepted, the tradi tion of the church. It is quite a possible thing that in a particular case, whether relating to the Old or New Testament, that tradition may be incorrect. All fair criticism, therefore, is to be welcomed; but, when no good objection to an accepted opinion of the church has been established, there is everything to lead us to acquiesce in it with confidence. The early church was not so thoughtless upon these points as she is often said to have been. She guarded her treasures with great care, and was very watchful lest anything should be placed amongst them in whose genuineness she had not every confidence. What the tradition of the church is in the present instance is not doubted; and it is unnecessary to enter here into detail. The ordinary introductions to the New Testament and the prolegomena of the different commentators on the epistle contain all the facts. V. Occasion, Place, and Date of the Epistle.It will not be necessary to say much upon these Occasion, points. The occasion was evidently afforded place, and by the despatch of Tychicus and Onesimus to Colossa (Col. iv. 7-9; comp. Eph. vi. 21). By them St. Paul would send letters to the Colossian church and to Philemon, one of its members. He embraced the opportunity of writing also to the Gentile converts of Laodicea, and of the neighboring church at Colossæ; and that epistle, not being written to a church, but being primarily intended for a section of the Christian communities of the two cities, had no name of a place inserted in it as the object of its destination. In this respect it resembles, and may be regarded as a counterpart of, the epistle to the Hebrews. date. As to the place where it was penned, the question lies between Rome and Casarea, for St. Paul was a prisoner at the time (iii. 1, iv. 20), and his imprisonment in one or other of these two cities must be referred to. The question has been decided by some in favor of Cæsarea on such grounds as the following:-that Cæsarea was nearer Asia the Asiatic churches would be more easily known to the than Rome was, and that thus the spiritual condition of apostle at the former than the latter city; that for the same reason Onesimus, who we know from the epistle to Philemon was met by the apostle in the place of his imprisonment, would be more likely to flee from his master to Cæsarea than to Rome; that the words of the epistle to Philemon "departed for a season" (v. 15) imply a shorter absence than is involved in the thought of Rome, and therefore point to Cæsarea, because it is not likely that St. Paul would have so many of his friends beside him at Rome as he had when he wrote the three letters of which the epistle to the Ephesians is one-Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Luke (see the epistles); because if the apostle wrote from Rome, Tychicus and Onesimus would pass through Ephesus or Laodicea on their way to Colossæ, and we ought therefore to find Onesimus commended to the church there, whereas, if the apostle wrote from Cæsarea, his two friends would be at Colossæ first, and Tychicus, leaving Onesimus behind, would proceed thence alone; because the words "that ye also may know" (vi. 21) lead to the inference that others had been told of the apostle's state, who can only be the Colossians, visited on the way between Cæsarea and Ephesus; because it would seem that the apostle intended at the close of his imprisonment to visit Phrygia (Philemon i. 22), whereas we learn from Phil. ii. 24 that at the close of the Roman imprisonment he intended to visit Macedonia. In so far as these considerations relate to the thought of a place where information as to the state of distant churches could most easily be had, where friends would be most likely to congregate, or in which fugitives would most readily seek refuge, it is obvious that they are better fulfilled by Rome than by Cæsarea. The idea again of visiting Macedonia might be fulfilled by its being taken on the way to Asia. No stress can be laid on the omission of the name of Onesimus, and the meaning of vi. 21 does not seem to be that ye "also," in addition to the Colossians, of whom nothing had been said, "may know," but that ye, of whose state I have spoken freely as one thoroughly acquainted with it, may "also" know my state. The decisive argument, how ever, for Rome rather than Cæsarea, as the place whence the epistle was written, arises from the fact that all the epistles known as those of the imprisonment must have been written from the same place, and that this epistolary activity is more naturally connected with Rome than with Caesarea. In the former city the apostle had much greater freedom than in the latter, both to receive intelligence and to write to friends (Acts xxviii. 30, 31). Upon the whole, the commonly entertained belief that our epistle was written at Rome may be received without hesitation. If so, it was written towards the close of the apostle's captivity in that city, 63 A.D. Litera Literature. In dealing with an epistle such as this it is unnecessary to devote much space to the ture. literature of the subject. Any one desirous to study the epistle will gradually become acquainted with it as he pursues his task. But references may be made to the various Introductions to the New Testament by such writers as De Wette, Bleek, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Gloag, and to the leading commentaries, those of Rückert, Harless, De Wette, Stier, Meyer, Eadie, Ellicott, Shenkel in Lange's B. Werk, Ewald, in an appendix to his Sieben Sendschreiben d. N. T., Bleek. The student will not fail to consult Baur in his Paulus, and the Nachapost. Zeitalter of Schwegler. Nowhere will a larger amount of valuable matter bearing on the epistle be found than in Canon Lightfoot's Commentary on the Colossians, with its introduction and appendices. (W. MI.) EPHESUS, a very ancient city on the west coast of Asia Minor. It was situate on some hills which rose out of a fertile plain near the mouth of the river Cayster, while the temple and precincts of Artemis, or Diana, to the fame of which the town owed much of its celebrity, were in the plain itself, at the distance of about a mile. The situation of the city was such as at all times to command a great commerce. Of the three great river basins of western Asia Minor, those of the Hermus, Cayster, and Mæander, it commanded the second, and had ready access by easy passes to the other two, besides being the natural port and landing-place for Sardes, the capital of the Lydian kings. The earliest inhabitants assigned to Ephesus are the mythical Amazons, who are said to have founded the city, and to have been the first priestesses of the Asiatic Artemis. With the Amazons we hear of Leleges and Pelasgi as in possession. In the 11th century B.C., according to tradition, Androclus, son of the Athenian king Codrus, landed on the spot with his Ionians, and from this conquest dates the history of the Greek Ephesus. But here the Ionians by no means succeeded in absorbing the races in possession or superseding the established worship. Their city was firmly established on Coressus and Prion, between which hills lies the city harbor; but the old inhabitants still clustered in the plain around the sanctuary of Artemis. When, however, we call the deity of Ephesus Artemis, we must guard against misconception. Really she was a primitive Asiatic goddess of nature of the same class as Mylitta and Cybele, the mother of vegetation and the nurse of wild beasts, an embodiment of the fertility and productive power of the earth. She was represented in art as a stiff erect mummy, her bosom covered with many breasts, in which latter circumstance Guhl sees allusion to the abundance of springs which arise in the Ephesian plain. The organization of her worship, too, of which more below, was totally unlike anything Hellenic. It was only by reason of their preconceived ideas that the Ionians found in this outlandish and primitive being a form of Artemis their conductor. The entire history of Ephesus consists of a long series of struggles between Greek and Asiatic manners and religions, between the ideas of the agora and the harbor and those of the precincts of the goddess. This struggle can be traced throughout in the devices of the Ephesian coin, the type of the goddess which appears in it becoming at times Asiatic, at times Hellenic, according to the predominant influence of the period. For centuries after the foundation of Androclus. the Asiatic influences waxed and the Greek waned. Twice in the period 700-500 B.C. the city owed its preservation to the interference of the goddess,-once when the swarms of the Cimmerians overran Asia Minor, and once when Croesus besieged the town, and only retired after it had solemnly dedicated itself to Artemis, the sign of such dedication being the stretching of a rope from city to sanctuary. Croesus was eager in every way to propitiate the goddess, and as at this time her first great temple was building on the plans of the architect Chersiphron, he presented most of the columns required for the building as well as some cows of gold. It is probable that policy mingled with his piety, his object being to make Ephesus Asiatic in character, a harmonious part of the empire he was forming in hither Asia, and then to use the city as a port, and by such means counterbalance the growing power of Miletus and other cities of the coast. The mother-city of Ephesus, Athens, seems to have counterworked his projects by despatching one of her noblest citizens, Aristarchus, to restore law on the basis of the Solonian constitution. The labors of Aristarchus seem to have borne fruit. It was an Ephesian follower of his, Hermodorus, who aided the Decemviri at Rome in their compilation of a system of law. And in the same generation Heraclitus, probably a descendant of Codrus, quitted his hereditary magistracy in order to devote himself to philosophy, in which his name became almost as great as that of any Greek. Poetry had long flourished at Ephesus. From very early times the Homeric poems had found a the earliest elegiac poems of Greece, the war songs of home and many admirers there; and to Ephesus belong Callinus, who flourished in the 7th century B.C., and was the model of Tyrtæus. And yet that on the whole Croesus was successful in his schemes seems certain. When the Ionian revolt against Persia broke out in the year 500 B.C. under the lead of Miletus, Ephesus remained submissive to Persian rule; and when Xerxes returned from the march against Greece, he honored the temple of Artemis, and even left his children behind at Ephesus for safety's sake. After the great Persian defeat, Ephesus for a time paid tribute to Athens, with the other cities of the coast, and Lysander first and afterwards Agesilaus made it their head quarters. In the year 356 B.C., on the same night on which Alexander the Great was born, an incendiary named Herostratus, wishing only to make his name famous, if even by a monstrous crime, set fire to that temple of Artemis which Chersiphron had planned, and which had been later enlarged or even rebuilt by Pæonius in the 5th century. With the greatest eagerness the Ephesians set about its reconstruction on a still more splendid scale. The ladies of the city sold their jewelry, and neighboring cities sent contributions, many of the massive columns being the gift of kings. Though Alexander the Great, after his victories, offered to pay the whole cost of reconstruction, on condition that he might inscribe his name as dedicator on the pediment, his offer was refused. The temple was rapidly completed, and was considered in after times the most perfect model of Ionic architecture, and one of the seven wonders of the world. The recent excavations of Mr. Wood have enabled us to form a fairly exact notion of its details, as will be seen below. The architect employed was Dinocrates, and Scopas was one of the sculptors employed in the decoration. Alexander established a democratic government at Ephesus. Soon after his death the city fell into the hands of Lysimachus, who determined to impress upon the city a more Hellenic character, and to destroy the ancient barbarizing influences. To this end he compelled, it is said by means of an artificial inundation, the people who dwelt in the plain by the temple to migrate to the Greek quarter on the hill now identified as Coressus, which he surrounded by a solid wall. He recruited the numbers of the inhabitants by transferring thither the people of Lebedus and Colophon, and finally, in order to make the breach with the past complete, renamed the city after his wife Arsinoë. But the former influences soon reasserted themselves, and with the old name returned Asiatic superstition and Asiatic luxury. The people were again notorious for wealth, for their effeminate manner of life, and for their devotion to sorcery and witchcraft. After the defeat of Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, by the Romans, Ephesus was handed over by the conquerors to Eumenes, king of Pergamus, whose successor, Attalus Philadelphus, worked the city irremediable harm. Thinking that the shallowness of the harbor was due to the width of its mouth, he built a mole partway across the latter; the result, however, was contrary to his wishes, the silting up of the harbor with sand proceeding now at a greater pace than before. The third Attalus of Pergamus bequeathed Ephesus with the rest of his possessions to the Roman people, when it became the capital of the province of Asia, and the residence of the proconsul. Henceforth Ephesus remained subject to the Romans until the barbarian invasions, save for a short period, when, at the instigation of Mithridates, the cities of Asia Minor revolted and massacred their Roman residents. The Ephesians even dragged out and slew those Romans who had fled to the precincts of Artemis for protection, notwithstanding which they soon returned from their new to their former masters, and even had the effrontery to state, in an inscription preserved to this day, that their defection to Mithridates was a mere yielding to superior force. Sulla, after his victory over Mithridates, brushed away their pretexts, and after inflicting on them a very heavy fine, told them that the punishment fell far short of their deserts. In the civil wars of the 1st century B.C. the Ephesians were so unfortunate as twice to support the unsuccessful party, giving shelter to, or being made use Plan of Ephesus (copied by permission from Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus, Longmans, 1876). of by first Brutus and Cassius and afterwards Antony, for which partisanship or weakness they paid very heavily in fines. All this time the city was gradually growing in wealth and in devotion to the service of Artemis, a devotion which had become quite fanatical at the time of St. Paul's visit. The story of his doings there need not be repeated; the supplement of them is, however, very suggestive, the burning, namely, of books of sorcery to a great value. Addiction to the practice of occult arts was always general in the city. The Christian church which St. Paul planted was nurtured by St. John, and is great in Christian tradition as the nurse of saints and martyrs. It was, however, long before the spread of Christianity threatened the cultus of Artemis. The city was proud to be termed neocorus, or servant of the goddess. Roman emperors vied with wealthy natives in lavish gifts to her, one Vibius Salutaris among the latter presenting a quantity of gold and silver images to be carried annually in procession. Ephesus contested stoutly with Smyrna and Pergamus the honor of being called the first city of Asia; each city appealed to Rome, and we still possess rescripts in which the emperors endeavor to miti gate the bitterness of the rivalry. The Goths destroyed both city and temple in the year 262 A.D.; and although the city revived, it never recovered its former splendor. A general council of the church was held there in 431; but by the 15th century it had sunk into a wretched village, the name of which, Ayasaluk, is now known to be a corruption of the title of St. John, Hagios Theologos. The ruins of the temple, after serving as a quarry to the beautifiers of Constantinople, the Turkish conquerors, and the mediaval Italians, were finally covered deep with mud by the river Cayster, and its true site was unsuspected until the laborious excavations of Mr. Wood were rewarded with success in the year 1869. The organization of the temple hierarchy, and its customs and privileges, retained throughout an Oriental and somewhat ascetic tinge. The priestesses of the goddess, termed Melissa or bees, were virgins, and her priests were com pelled to celibacy. The chief among the latter, who bore the Persian name of Megabyzus and the Greek title Neocorus, was doubtless a power in the state as well as a digni tary of religion. Besides these, there was a vast throng of dependants who lived by the temple and its services,-theologi, who may have expounded sacred legends, hymnodi, who composed hymns in honor of the deity, and others, together with a great crowd of hierodula, who performed more menial offices. The making of shrines and images of the goddess occupied many hands. To support this greedy mob offerings were flowing in in a constant stream from votaries and from visitors, who contributed sometimes money and sometimes statues and works of art. These latter so accumulated that the temple became a rich museum, among the chief treasures of which were the figures of Amazons sculptured in competition by Phidias, Polycletus, Cresilas, and Phradmon, and the painting by Apelles of Alexander holding a thunderbolt. The temple was also richly endowed in lands, and possessed the fishery of the Selinusian lakes, with other large revenues. But perhaps the most important of all the privileges possessed by the eral magistrates in imperial times, but without exactly knowing their unctions. The tumult raised by Demetrius against Paul was quelled by the town-clerk or recorder (ypauuaтetc). Inscriptions mention archons, strategi, gymnasiarchs, pædonomi, and Asiarchs, besides the religious functionaries; but no doubt the chief power rested with the senate and the demos. The topography of Ephesus was but very imperfectly known until the excavations conducted by Mr. J. T. Wood on behalf of the trustees of the British Museum during the years 1863-74. He first explored the Odeum and the Great Theatre situate in the city itself, and in the latter place had the good fortune to find an inscription which indicated to him in what direction to search for the temple, for it stated that processions came to the city from the temple by the Magnesian gate, and returned by the Coressian. These two gates were next identified, and following up that road which issued from the Magnesian gate, Mr. Wood 80.10 23.1 Scheme of Temple of Artemis or Diana at Ephesus. goddess and her priests was that of asylum. Fugitives from justice or vengeance who reached her precincts were perfectly safe from all pursuit and arrest. The boundaries of the space possessing such virtue were from time to time enlarged. Mithridates extended them to a bow-shot from the temple in all directions, and Mark Antony imprudently allowed them to take in part of the city, which part thus became free of all law, and a haunt of thieves and villains. Augustus, while leaving the right of asylum untouched, diminished the space to which the privilege belonged, and built round it a wall, which still surrounds the ruins of the temple at the distance of about a quarter of a mile, bearing an inscription in Greek and Latin, which states that it was erected in the proconsulship of Asinius Gallus, out of the revenues of the temple. Besides being a place of worship, a museum, and a sanctuary, the Ephesian temple was a great bank. Nowhere in Asia could money be more safely bestowed than here; therefore both kings and private persons placed their treasures under the guardianship of the goddess. The government of the city is a matter of some obscurity. We know that for some time after its foundation it was ruled by kings of the race of Codrus, and afterwards by archons who belonged to the same stock. In the time of Lysander it was under an oligarchy; Alexander re-established the democracy. We have the titles of sev | PORTIOO lighted first on the tomb of Androclus, and afterwards on an angle of the peribolus wall of the time of Augustus. He next found and excavated the site of the temple of Artemis. He found remains of more than one temple; three separate floors being clearly distinguishable one above the other. Of these the lowest consisted of a layer of charcoal between two of putty. It is probable that this was the floor of the temple of Croesus's time, which Chersiphron was said to have made with charcoal and fleeces. Above this lowest floor were two others of marble, which would seem to have belonged, one to the temple burned by Herostratus, the other to that erected on its ruins immediately afterwards. Of this latter building the remains were sufficient to enable Mr. Wood to restore it with considerable accuracy. The dimensions of it, taken at the lowest step of the flight which led up to the peristyle on all sides, were 418 feet 1 inch by 239 feet 4 inches. The number of the external columns was 100, their height about 56 feet. It is observable that the dimensions given by Pliny seem to be in every case incorrect. The most remarkable fact about the columns is that many of them were sculptured with figures in high relief to a man's height above the ground; one was, we are told, chiselled by the sculptor Scopas, and certainly the existing fragments of 'sculptured columns now recovered and preserved in the British Museum are not the work of common hands. The fragments of sculptured frieze found in the excavations would seem to prove that the frieze was adorned with representations of Hercules, Theseus, and the Amazons. The cymatium was decorated with the conventional honeysuckle ornament, intercepted by fine lions' heads. The roof was covered with flat marble tiles. The whole edifice was octastyle, having eight columns at the ends, and dipteral, with two rows of columns all round. Frag ments were also found which appear to belong to the 6th century, B.C., and as some of these are parts of sculptured columns, it would seem that the temple of Chersiphron had set to the later building the example of cutting reliefs on the main pillars. Ernst Curtius, and J. T. Wood. The first of these writers has The best works on Ephesus are those of Guhl, Falkener, collected most of the ancient authorities; the last has been suecessful in topographical researches. The accompanying plans are from his book, and are inserted by his kind permission, and that of Messrs. Longmans & Co., publishers. The first gives the general plan of the city, and the road to the temple. The second gives the scheme of the temple, the fragments of walls and columns found by Mr. Wood in position being represented black. (P. G.) EPHORI. This name, which exactly corresponds with the Greek episkopos, meaning bishop or overseer, was given to certain magistrates in many Dorian cities of ancient Greece. But the most prominent are the ephors of Sparta, who, whatever may have been their origin, appear during the times for which we have historical knowledge as the supreme power in the state, controlling alike its civil and military administration. When in the 3d century B.C. the complete humiliation of Sparta led the kings Agis III. and Cleomenes III. to resolve on restoring what they supposed to be the ancient constitution, their first blow was directed at the ephors, whom they charged with deliberate usurpa tion. According to their version (Plut., Cleom. 10) the |