Nor does the epistle itself offer anything to conflict with this decision. It is impossible to conceive of a composition more strongly marked within the same limits by those unstudied assonances of thought, senti- ment, and expression, which indicate an author's hand, than this short epistle as compared with Paul's other productions. Paley has adduced the undesigned coin- cidences between this epistle and that to the Colossi ans with great force, as evincing the authenticity of both (Horce Paulince, c. 14) ; and Eichhorn has ingeniously
shown how a person attempting, with the Epistle to the Colossians before him, to forge such an epistle as this in the name of Paul, would have been naturally led to a very different arrangement of the historical circum- stances and persons from what we find in the epistle which is extant (Kin/, it. ins X. T. iii, 302).
Baur (Pauhis, p. 475) would divest the epistle of its historical character, and make it the personified illus- tration from some later writer of the idea that Chris- tianity unites and equalizes in a higher sense those whom outward circumstances have separated. He does not impugn the external evidence. But, not to leave his theory wholly unsupported, he suggests some lin- guistic objections to Paul's authorship of the letter, which must be pronounced unfounded and frivolous. He finds, for example, certain words in the epistle which are alleged to be not Pauline ; but, to justify that assertion, he must denyr the genuineness of such other letters of Paul as happen to contain these words. He admits that the apostle could have said mrXdyxva twice, but thinks it suspicious that he should say it three times. A few terms he adduces which are not used elsewhere in the epistles ; but to argue from these that they disprove the apostolic origin of the epistle is to assume the absurd- principle that a writer, after having produced two or three compositions, must for the future confine himself to an unvarying circle of words, whatever may be the subject he discusses, or whatever the interval of time between his different writings. The arbitrary and purely subjective charac- ter of such criticisms can have no weight against the varied testimony admitted as decisive by Christian scholars for so many ages, upon which the canonical authority of the Epistle to Philemon is founded. They are worth repeating only as illustrating Bain's own re- mark that modern criticism in assailing this particular book runs a greater risk of exposing itself to the impu- tation of an excessive distrust, a morbid sensibility to doubt and denial, than in questioning the claims of any other epistle ascribed to Paul. Sec Pail.
II. Person Addressed. — The epistle is inscribed to Philemon; and with him are joined Apphia (probably his wife). Archippus (his son or brother), and the Church which is in their house, though throughout the epistle it is Philemon alone who is addressed. Philemon was a personal friend and apparently a convert of the apostle (ver. 13, 19) ; one who had exerted himself for the cause of the Gospel and the comfort of those who had em- braced it (ver. 2-7). His residence was probably at Co- lossi (comp. Col. iv, 9, 17); but whether he held any office in the Church there remains uncertain. In the Apostolical Constitutions (vii, 40) he is said to have been ordained bishop of the Church, but this is not sus- tained by any other testimony, and is expressly denied by the author of the commentary on St. Paul's epistles ascribed to Hilary. See Philemon.
Wieseler is of opinion that Philemon was a Laodi- cean ; and that this epistle is that mentioned (Col. iv, 16) as sent by the apostle to the Church in Laodicea. His ground for this is that the epistle is addressed to Archippus as well as Philemon, and he assumes that Archippus was bishop of the Church at Laodicea : partly on the authority of Theodoret, who says he resided at Laodicea; partly on that of the Apostolical Constitutions (vii, 40), which say he was bishop of the Church there ; and partly on the connection in which the reference to him in Col. iv, 17 stands with the reference to the Church at Laodicea, and the injunction given to the Colossians to convey a message to him concerning fidelity to his office, which it is argued would have been sent to him- self had he been at Colossae. But the authorities cited have no weight in a matter of this sort: nor can the mere juxtaposition of the reference to Archippus with the reference to the Church at Laodicea prove anything as to the residence of the former; and as for the injunc- tion to counsel Archippus, it is more likely that it would | be given by the apostle in a letter to the Church to
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO
64
which he belonged than to another Church. On the ' other hand, supposing Philemon to have been al Laodi- cea, ii is not credible that the apostle would have re- quested the Colossians to Bend to Laodicea for a letter addressed so exclusively to him personally, and relating to matters in which they bad no immediate interest, without al leasl giving Philemon some hinl that he intended the letter to be so used. The letter to the Church at Laodicea was doubtless one of inure general character and interest than this. See Laodickans, Epistli to.