and grammatical expositor, I entertain for him a very great respect. I have now only to commit my work to the reader with the humble prayer to Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, that it may receive a blessing from above, and, though feebly and imperfectly, may still be permitted to minister somewhat to the more accurate knowledge of His blessed Word and to the clearer perception of the outward forms and expressions of His everlasting Truth. Cambridge, June, 1855. C. J. ELLICOTT. THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. ! Apostolic address and salutation. II CHAPTER I. 1. ΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 1. év'Epéow] Tisch. has enclosed these words in brackets, scarcely with sufficient reason. Without entering into details, it may be sufficient to remark, that the facts about which all now seem agreed are as follows:-(1) As far as our present collations can be depended upon, all the MSS., mss., and Vv. are unanimous in favour of the insertion, except B, where the words are supplied on the margin by a second hand (Tisch.), and 67, where they appear in the text, but with diacritical marks indicative of suspicion:—(2) Basil of Cappad. certainly did not find the words ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν, Eunom. II. 19. Bp. Middleton supposes Basil only appeals to the ancient MSS. as containing Toîs ovσɩ év 'Ep., not simply roîs év 'Ep. ; comp. Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 423: this opinion, however, has no diplomatic support of any kind, and cannot fairly and logically be deduced from the words of Basil; see Meyer, Einleit. p. 2, note:-(3) Tertullian (Marc. v. 11, 17) possibly was not aware of their existence; it is uncritical to say more. His words, 'veritas Ecclesiæ,' do not necessarily imply an absence of diplomatic evidence, nor can 'interpolare' (comp. Marc. IV. I, V. 21) be pressed. The internal evidence, such as absence of greetings and personal notices, is of more importance. Still, both combined cannot be considered sufficient to overthrow the vast preponderance of diplomatic authority, and the appy. unanimous tradition of the early Church, that this Ep. was addressed to the Ephesians (Iren. Hær. v. 2, 3, Clem. Al. Strom. IV. 8, Tertull. 7. c., Origen, Cels. III. p. 458, ed. Ben.). We therefore retain the words as genuine, and ascribe their omission in B to an early exercise of criticism founded on supposed internal evidence, traces of which are found in Theodoret, Præf. in Eph. : comp. Wieseler, Chronol. p. 442 sq. The different theories and attempts to reconcile conflicting evidence will be found in Meyer, Einleit. § 1, and Wieseler, Chronol. p. 432 sq. Of the many hypotheses, that of Harless (Einleit., p. 57)—that the Ep. was designed not only for the Ephesians, but the Churches dependent on Ephesus, or the Christians who had already been converted there is perhaps the most plausible. 1. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ] The gen. appears not so much the gen. of ablation (the source from which his commission proceeded; comp. Stier in loc.), as the possessive gen. (the Master whose B οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς tion between these forms of the gen. (which Eadie appears not to have fully felt) is often faintly marked (compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 16, 17); still Harless seems quite correct in saying, that the idea of authorisation does not depend simply on the gen., but on the modal clauses which are commonly attached; so κατ' επιταγήν, I Tim. i. I; comp. Gal. i. 1, where the nature of the relations between the Apostle and his converts suggested language of unusual precision. διὰ θελήματος] These and the preceding words occur in the same order and connexion in 1 Cor. i. I (Kλnτós, though retained by Tisch., is doubtful), 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1. Though it is not possible to doubt that the Apostle, in addressing different Churches or individuals, designedly adopted the same or different modes of salutation, still it is not in all cases easy to trace, from external considerations, the reasons for the choice. Rückert, who has slightly touched on the subject, on Gal. i. 1, refers the Apostle's present specification of his authority, dià feλ. O., to the encyclical character of the Epistle. As this character is merely hypothetical, it will be safer, and perhaps more natural, to refer the clause to that thankful remembrance of God's power and grace, which any allusion to his ministerial office was sure to awaken in the Apostle's heart: comp. I Cor. xv. 10, Gal. i. 15. τοῖς ἁγίοις] Christians appear called ayco in the N. T. in three senses; (1) generally, as members of a visible (and local) community devoted to God's service (Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10, Rom. xv. 20), and, as such, united in a common outward profession of faith (1 Cor. i. 2; see Chrys. in Rom. i. 7); (2) more specifically, as members of a spiritual community (Col. iii. 12, I Pet. ii. 9); and (3) as also (ver. 4) in many cases having personal and individual sanctity; see Fell, in loc. The context will generally show which of these ideas predominate. In salutations like the present, ayos appears used in its most comprehensive sense, as involving the idea of a visible community (hence the local predicate), and also (as the complementary clause Kal TiσTOîs ev'I. X. suggests) that of a spiritual and holy community: see Col. i. 1, and esp. 1 Cor. i. 2, where defining clauses involving these different ideas are grouped round kλŋTois ȧylos: comp. Thorndike, Review, I. 33, Vol. I. p. 656 (Angl. Cath. Lib.) TɩOTOîs év X. 'I.] 'faithful, i. e. believing, in Jesus Christ.' IIoròs is not here in its general and classical sense, 'qui fidem præstat,' Grot., but its particular and theological sense, 'qui fidem habet' (Syr.), a meaning which it indisputably bears in several passages in the N. T.; e. g. John xx. 27, 2 Cor. vi. 15, Gal. iii. 9, 2 Tim. iv. 3 (not 1 Tim. i. 12, Eadie), Titus i. 6, &c.; comp. Wisdom i. 14, Psalm c. 6, and see Suicer, Thes. s. v. Vol. 11. P. 741. ἐν Χριστῷ implies union, fellowship, with Christ (see notes, Gal. ii. 17), and qualifies only. the more restricted term, TOTÓS, not äycos (Phil. i. 1), and wiσrós (Harless, Meier). The clause is not, however, on the one hand, a mere epexegesis of ȧylois (Beza), nor, on the other, a specification of another and separate class (Stier), but completes the description of the ayiot, by the addition of a second and more distinctive predication: see Meyer, in loc. ПILOTÒS èv Xp. is thus nearly synonymous with TιOTEÚWV els Xp., Gal. ii. 16, except 2 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Blessed be God who has predestinated us 3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ to the adoption of sons, redeemed us by Christ's blood, revealed to us His eternal purpose of uniting all in Him, and has commenced its fulfilment by sealing with His Spirit both Jew and Gentile. that the latter points rather to an act of the will, the former, to a state and condition: comp. Fritz. Marc. p. 175. Eadie has eloquently expanded the full force of the preposition. 2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη] scil. εἴη; not σT (Meier, Holzh.), which, though not untenable (Bernhardy, Synt. XI. 5, p. 392: comp. 2 Chron. ix. 8), is far less suitable and even less usual than the optative; see i Pet. i. 2, 2 Pet. i. 2, Jude 2. In 2 John 3, oral (omitted, however, by A and Syr. Philox.) gives the wish the character of a declaration. Xápis and elpývn do not appear to refer respectively to the ἅγιοι and πιστοί, as Stier suggests; still they must not be diluted into mere equivalents of the ordinary forms of salutation, as Fritz. Rom. i. 8, Vol. 1. p. 23. Xápis expresses God's love toward man; eipývŋ, the state of peace and blessedness which results from it, εἰρηνεύει γὰρ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὁ τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν ἀσπασάμενος πολιTelav, Theodoret, Rom. i. 8: see notes on Gal. i. 3. This form is regularly maintained in all St. Paul's Epp. to Churches, exclusive of the Ep. to Heb.: comp. also Rev. i. 4. In I and 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4, the significant and individualizing Xeos is added; so also 2 John 3. The latter might thus seem the form addressed to individuals (Philem. 3 is no exception, being addressed also τῇ κατ' οἶκον ἐκκλησίᾳ), the former to communities; but see Jude 2, Gal. vi. 16. St. James alone adopts the usual formula, xaípew; in 3 John 1 the salutation forms a wish. καὶ Κυρίου] scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου κ.τ.λ. 3. εὐλογητός] scil. ἔστω (2 Chron. ix. 8), or en (Job i. 21, Psalm cxii. 2); the verb is, however, commonly omitted in this and similar forms of doxology. Evλoy. is emphatic; and apart from the dogmatical considerations, which, on Rom. ix. 5, have been mixed up with it, the rule of Fritz. (Rom. 1. c. Vol. II. 274) appears reasonable that εὐλογητὸς or εὐλογη μévos will occupy the first or some succeeding place in the sentence, according as the emphasis rests on the predicate (as it commonly does), or on the substantive. Comp. 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. l. c., Job l. c., and esp. Psalm 1. c., which are thus more satisfactorily explained than by a supposed limitation of position in consequence of the inserted copula (Alford, on Rom. ix. 5). It has been remarked by Steiger, on 1 Pet. i. 3 (comp. Harless), that in the N. T. evλOYNTÒS is only applied to God, εὐλογημένος το man: in the LXX, the latter is occasionally applied to God, but never the former to man. τοῦ Κυρίου μov 'I. X.] It is doubtful whether in this formula (which Rück. needlessly terms 'paulinisch,' see I Pet. i. 3) the gen. depends on both (Theophyl.), or only on the latter (Syr., Theod. Mops., Theodoret) of the two nominatives. Chrys. leaves it undecided. Grammatical considerations do not assist us; for, on the one hand, |