was still designed for circulation in all the churches conterminous to or dependent on that city, and was thus left studiously general in form, and free from distinctive notices. Individual greetings and other messages of affection might well have been entrusted to a bearer who was specially commissioned to inform the receivers of the Epistle upon all points connected with the personal state of the Apostle (ch. vi. 21). The Epistle does not appear to have been called forth by any particular circumstances, nor to have involved any warning against the peculiarities of Jewish or Eastern Philosophy, but was designed to set forth the origin and development of the Church of Christ, and to display to the Christian dweller under the shadow of the great temple of Diana the unity and beauty of that transcendently more glorious spiritual temple (ch. ii. 20) of which Christ Himself was the chief corner stone, and the saints portions of the superstructure. That it should also contain many thoughts nearly identical with those expressed in the Epistle to the Colossians is readily accounted for by the fact that both were written nearly at the same time, and both addressed to Churches which were sufficiently near to each other to have had many things in common, especially in the relations of social and domestic life. The genuineness and authenticity admit of no reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the Early Church are unusually strong and persistent (see reff. above, and add Tertull. de Præscr. ch. xxxvi, Hippol. Refut. Hær. p. 193, ed. Oxf.), and have never been called in question till comparatively recent times. The objections are purely of a subjective character, being mainly founded on imaginary weaknesses in style or equally imaginary references to early Gnosticism, and have been so fairly and fully confuted that they can no longer be considered to deserve any serious attention: see esp. Meyer, Einleit. p. 19 sq., Davidson, Introd. Vol. II. p. 352 sq., Alford, Prolegom. p. 8. The arguments in favour of the Epistle having been written at Cæsarea will be found in Meyer, Einleit. § 2, but are far from convincing. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ. Apostolic address and salutation. II ΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰη- Ι. σοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις CHAP. I. I. dróσтoλos X. 'I.] 'an Apostle of Christ Jesus:' gen. not of ablation (the source from which his commission proceeded; comp. Stier in loc.), but simply of possession, in reference to the Master whose servant and minister he was; see Acts xxvii. 23, où elul; Rom. i. 1, doûλos 'I. X.: and comp. notes on Col. i. I. The distinction 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, as кaт' ÈTITayń, I Tim. i. 1, which are commonly attached: comp. Gal. i. 1, where the nature of the relations between the Apostle and his converts suggests language of unusual precision. διὰ θελήματος Ocov] by the will of God;' modal clause appended to the preceding words, not so much to enhance his apostolic authority (comp. Alf.), as in 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. These and the preceding words occur in the same order and connexion in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1; comp. 1 Cor. i. I. 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; comp. notes on Col. i. 1. 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, though probable (see crit. note), is merely hypothetical, it will be safer, and perhaps more natural, to adopt the more general explanation above alluded to; see Meyer on I Cor. i. I. Toîs dylous] 'to the Saints.' Christians are appy. called you in the N.T. in three senses: (a) generally, as members of a visible and local community devoted to God's service (Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10, Rom. xv. 25), and, as such, united in a common outward profession of faith (1 Cor. i. 2; see Chrys. on Rom. i. 7); (b) more specifically, as members of a spiritual community (Col. iii. 12, 1 Pet. ii. 9); and (c) as also in many cases having personal and individual sanctity; comp. ver. 4, see Fell in loc. The context will B τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 1. [èv 'Epéow] In consequence of the omission of these words in the newly discovered we are now perhaps at length justified in placing them in brackets. The facts of the case 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.), N, where the words are added by the fourth hand (Tischendorf's C), and 67, where they appear in the text, but with diacritical marks indicative of suspicion: (2) Basil, whom we have reasons for believing to have been careful as a critic (see Georg. Syncell. Chron. p. 203, ed. Paris, 1651), certainly did not find the words ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν· Eunom. II. 19. Bp Middleton supposes Basil only to appeal to the ancient MSS. as containing Toîs ûoɩv èv 'Ep., not simply Toîs év 'Ep.; comp. Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 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. II, 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: (4) Origen (Caten. Vol. II. p. 102) appears to have accepted the omission, as he comments on the peculiarity of the expression Toîs ȧylois Toîs ovow see Tisch. (ed. 7). The internal evidence, such as absence of greetings and personal notices, is of more importance. Still both combined do not as yet seem quite sufficient entirely to overthrow the preponderance of external 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. l. c.; Origen, Cels. III. p. 458, ed. Ben.). We therefore now place the words in brackets, but retain them in the text, feeling it still possible that their omission in B and may be due 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; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 432 sq.; and Davidson, Introd. Vol. II. p. 328 sq. Of the many hypotheses, that of Harless (Einleit. p. 57)—that the Ep. was designed not only for the Ephesians, but for the Churches dependent on Ephesus, or the Christians who had already been converted there is perhaps the most plausible. generally show which of these ideas predominates. In salutations like the present, ayos appears to be used in its most comprehensive sense, as involving the idea of a visible (hence the local predicate), and also (as the complementary clause καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χρ. I. suggests) that of a spiritual and holy community: see Col. i. 2, and esp. I Cor. i. 2, where defining clauses involving these different ideas are grouped round kλntoîs ȧylois: comp. Thorndike, Review, 1. 33, Vol. I. p. 656 (A.-C. Libr.), and Davenant on Col. i. 2. πιστοῖς ἐν Χρ. 'Ino.] 'faithful, sc. believing, in Christ Jesus.' IoTòs stands here not in its general and classical sense, 'qui fidem præstat' (Grot., Alf.), but in its particular and theological sense, 'qui fi χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου 2 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Blessed be God who has predestinated us to the Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ 3 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. dem habet' (comp. 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, 1 Tim. iv. 3 (not 1 Tim. i. 12, Eadie), Titus i. 6, &c. comp. Ecclus. i. 14, Psalm ci. 6, and see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. II. P. 741. ἐν Χριστῷ implies union, fellowship, with Christ (see notes on Gal. ii. 17), and qualifies only the more restricted term Tтós, not ayos (Phil. i. 1) and Toros (Harl., Meyer). The clause is not however, on the one hand, a mere epexegesis of ȧyíos (Beza), nor, on the other, a specification of another and separate class (Stier); but completes the description of the ayol, by the addition of a second and more distinctive predication: see Meyer in loc. Πιστὸς ἐν Xp. thus approximates in meaning to TOTEúWV els Xp. (Gal. ii. 16), except that the latter involves a closer connexion of the verb and the prep. (πιστ. εἰς.....Χρ.), and points rather to an act of the will, while the former involves a closer connexion of the prep. and the noun (πιστ....ἐν Χρ.), and marks a state and condition: see Fritz. Marc. p. 175, and Eadie in loc., where the full force of the preposition is eloquently expanded. racter of a definite expectation. The suggestion of Stier that xápis and elρήνη refer respectively to the ἅγιοι and TOTO does not seem tenable, as the formula is so common without any such antecedents (Rom. i. 7, I Cor. i. 3, 2 Cor. i. 2, al.); still they must not be diluted into mere equivalents of the ordinary forms of salutation (Fritz. Rom. i. 7, Vol. I. p. 23). Xápis expresses God's love toward man; iephun, the state of peace and blessedness which results from it; εἰρηνεύει γὰρ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὁ τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν ἀσπασάμενος πολιτείαν· Theod. on Rom. i. 8; see notes on Gal. i. 3. It may be observed that as this form is regularly maintained in all St Paul's Epp. to Churches (Philem. 3 is no exception, being addressed also τῇ κατ' οἶκον ἐκKλnoia), while in 1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4 (Rec., Lachm.), the more personal term Neos is added, the latter might seem the form addressed to individuals, the former to communities; comp. too Rev. i. 4, 2 John 3, but consider Jude 2, Gal. vi. 16, and observe that in Tit. l. c. χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη is the reading best supported. James alone adopts the usual formula, xalpew: in 3 John 1, 2, the salutation passes into a prayer. καὶ Κυρίου] Scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου, κ.τ.λ.: so expressly Syr., Arm., both of which repeat the preposition. The Socinian interpretation, καὶ (πατρὸς) Κυρ., is grammatically admissible, but in a high degree forced and improbable : see esp. Tit. i. 4, and compare 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess ii. 16. St 3. Evλoynτós] 'Blessed,' scil. eσTW Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ (2 Chron. ix. 8), or eln (Job i. 21, Psalm cxiii. 2): the verb is however commonly omitted in this and similar forms of doxology; comp. 2 Cor. i. 3. In this solemn ascription of praise εὐλογητός (ἐπαινεῖσθαι καὶ θαυμάζεσθαι ağtos Theod.-Mops.), as its position shows, has the principal emphasis, the rule of Fritz. (Rom. ix. 5, Vol. II. 274) being appy. reasonable, viz. that evλoγητὸς οι εὐλογημένος 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 l.c., which are thus more satisfactorily explained than by a supposed limitation of position in consequence of the inserted copula (Alf. on Rom. ix. 5). It has been remarked by Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 3 (comp. Harless), that in the N.T. εὐλογητὸς is only applied to God, εὐλοnuevos to man: it may be added that in the LXX the latter is occasionally applied to God, the former but seldom to man, appy. only in Gen. xxvi. 29 (Alex.), Deut. vii. 14, 1 Sam. xv. 13, XXV. 33. For a good analysis of the present paragraph, in which the relations of the Church to the three persons of the blessed Trinity are distinctly unfolded, see Alford in loc. Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ, κ.τ.λ.] God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' It is doubtful whether in this formula (which Rück. needlessly terms 'paulinisch,' see I Pet. i. 3) the gen. depends (a) on both (Theoph.), or (b) only on the latter (Syr., Æth., Theod.Mops. 1, Theodoret) of the two nominatives. Chrys. leaves it undecided. Grammatical considerations do not assist us; for, on the one hand, the position of the article before eòs rather than warhρ (Olsh.) does not invalidate the latter interpretation (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 3, p. 115 note), nor the omission of Te before κal (Harless) the former; the usual 'preparative' force of Te (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 98; Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 730) being here obviously out of place. To the former interpretation, Θεὸς μὲν ὡς σαρκωθέντος, πατὴρ δὲ ὡς Θεοῦ λόγου, there can be no doctrinal objections (see ver. 17, John xx. 17, and comp. Olsh. on Matth. xxi. 31, 32), but from the considerations suggested on Gal. i. 4, as well as from the fact that, except in ver. 17, St Paul has not elsewhere so designated the Father, the latter construction seems decidedly preferable. On the most suitable translation, see notes on Gal. i. 4 (Transl.). ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς] 'who blessed us;' 'antanaclasis; aliter nobis benedixit Deus, aliter nos benedicimus Illi;' Bengel. The aorist participle (where the aoristic force is always least obscure; Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383) refers to the counsels of the Father as graciously completed in the Redemption, and is thus neither used (a) for a pres. (Holzh.), an untenable position, except in a sense and under limitations (Scheuerl. Syntax, $ 32. 2, p. 331) which would here be doctrinally unsuitable; nor (b) as marking a customary or repeated act' (Eadie), a meaning which the aorist appears never to bear in the N. T.; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. I, p. 248. The reference of uas can scarcely be doubtful: it cannot refer to St Paul (Koppe), -for comp. kȧyw, ver. 15-but, as the inclusive nature of the context (ver. 4, 11, 12) distinctly implies, must be extended to Christians generally. No fixed rules can be laid down as to the |