The opinion that this epistle was a sort of cir cular letter was first broached by Archbishop Usher. His words are (Annal. Vet. et Nov. Test. p. 68o, Bremw, 1686), Notandum, in antiquis 13013111111iS codicibus (ut ex Basilii lib. 2, ado. Euno mium, et Hieronymi in hunc Apostoli locum com mentario apparet) generatirn inscriptam fuisse hanc epistolam Tois etylols ray act, Hai is dip.
vel (ut in literarum encyclicarum descriptione fieri solebat) sanctis qui runt et fidelibus in Christ° ; ac si Ephesum primo, ut prxci puam Asite metropolim, missa ea fuisset, trans mittenda inde ad reliquas (insertis singularum nominibus) ejusdem provincite ecclesias.' To this opinion the majority of critics have given their suffrage ; indeed, it may almost be regarded as the received opinion of Biblical scholars in the pre sent day. This may make it apparently presump tuous in us to call it in question ; and yet it seems to us so ill supported by positive evidence, and exposed to so many objections, that we cannot yield assent to it. In the first place it is to be observed that it is an hypothesis entirely of modern invention. No hint is furnished of any such notion having been entertained concerning the destination of this epistle by the early church. With the soli tary exception of Marcion, so far as we know, all parties were unanimous in assigning Ephesus as the place to which this epistle was sent, and Mar cion's view is as much opposed to the supposition of its being a circular letter as the other. As re spects the external evidence, therefore, this hypo thesis is purely destitute of support. 2. It is an hypothesis suggested for the purpose of accounting for certain alleged facts, some of which are, to say the least, doubtful, and others of which may be explained as well without it as with it. These facts are—I. The alleged omission of the name of any place at the commencement of the epistle ; 2. Marcion's assertion that this epistle was addressed to the Laodiceans, which, it is said, arose pro bably out of his having seen that copy of this cir cular epistle which had been sent to Laodicea ; 3. The want of any precise allusions to personal relations subsisting between the apostle and those to whom this epistle was addressed ; and 4.. The expressions of unacquaintedness with those to whom he wrote, which occur in this epistle, e. g., iii. 1-4. How these facts may be reconciled with the supposition that this epistle was addressed to the Ephesians will fall to be considered afterwards; at present the question is, How do they favour the hypothesis that this was a circular letter ? Now, supposing them to be unquestionable, and admitting that they are not irreconcilable with this hypothesis, it must yet appear to all that they go very little way towards affording primary evi dence in its support. It is not one which grows naturally out of these facts, or is suggested by them ; it is plainly of foreign birth, and suggested for them. But when it is remembered that the first of these alleged facts is (to say the least) very doubtful ; that the second is made to serve this hypothesis only by means of another as doubtful as itself, and that, were its services admitted, it would prove too much, for it would go to shew that, to the Laodiceans, the apostle not only sent a peculiar epistle, mentioned Col. iv. 16, but gave them a share also in this circular epistle written some time after their own ; and that the third and fourth are both either partially or wholly question able, it must be admitted that this hypothesis stands upon a basis which if little better than none. 3. Had the epistle been addressed to a particular circle of churches, some designation of these churches would have been given, by which it might have been known what churches they were to which this letter belonged. When it is argued that this must be a circular letter, because there is no church specified to which it is ad dressed, it seems to be forgotten that the designa tion of a particular set of churches is as necessary for a circular epistle as the designation of one church is for an epistle specially addressed to it. If we must leave out the words 1p 'EqVcry in ch. i. 1, what are we to put in their place ? for if we take the passage as it stands without them, it will follow that the epistle was addressed to all Chris tians everywhere, which is more than the advo cates of the hypothesis now under notice contend for. It will not much help them to say, with Usher, that the name of the place was left blank to be filled up ; for the question immediately arises, By whom was it to be filled up ? If by the church at Ephesus, to whom the epistle was first sent,. then it could not be a circular epistle,
but was a special epistle to the church at Ephesus, which they were left to communicate to as many or as few other churches as they pleased ; and this may be said, we suppose, of all Paul's Epistles ; nor is it at all improbable that this is exactly what the Ephesians would have done of their own ac cord, without any blank being left to give them the hint. If we say with Michaelis that the blank was left to be filled up by the Apostle himself, who had a number of copies written, which he thus addressed to particular churches, the ques tion occurs, How do we know in that case that there ever was a blank at all ? If every copy of this epistle that was sent by the Apostle had the name of a place written in it before it left him, there was, of course, no blank in any of them. The reasoning here, in fact, is a mere petitio princi If we ask, How is it known that this was a circular epistle ? the answer is, Because the name of the place was left blank to be filled in by the Apostle. If, now, we ask, How is it known that the place was left blank ? it is answered, Because this is a circular epistle, ut in literarum encyclica rum descriptione hoc lien solebat I' Besides, it seems hardly consistent with the Apostle's perfect integrity of character to suppose that he would in sert in the copy sent to each church the name of the place where that church was located, in such a way as to lead the members of that church to suppose that the epistle they received was specially addressed to them. As an apostolic letter was usually esteemed a treasure of no ordinary value by the church to which it was originally sent, we may easily suppose that it would occasion no small mortification to each of the churches round Ephe sus to find that what each had supposed to be a letter specially addressed to itself was in fact only a copy of what had been sent to many others. In fine, this suggestion of Michaelis renders it very difficult to account for the prevailing insertion of lw 'Eg5€cry in the text, as well as the universal tradi tion of the church, that such was the destination of this epistle. The solution proposed by Michaelis himself, viz., that when the several parts of the Greek Testament were collected into a volume, the copy inserted in this collection must have been procured from Ephesus,' besides being mere un supported supposition, proceeds on the assumption that the Canon of the N. T. was formed by autho rity, which is what cannot be proved [CANON]. Hug's opinion that ' the title Trpbs 'EOEcious was given to it, either because Ephesus was the most eminent of the Asiatic cities, or was the first which received it,' might account, perhaps, for a preponderance of testimony in favour of this title, but is certainly inadequate to account for the unani mity of testimony by which it is supported. On these grounds the suggestion of Michaelis appears to be inadmissible, and our objection to Usher's hypothesis remains in full force. 4. In ch. vi. 2 1, 22, Paul mentions that he had sent to those for whom this epistle was destined, Tychicus, who should make known to them all things, that they might know his affairs, and that he might comfort their hearts. From this it appears that Tychicus was not only the bearer of this letter, but that he was personally to visit, converse with, and com fort those to whom it was addressed. On the sup position that this was a circular letter, the follow ing questions are naturally raised by this statement of the Apostle : Was Tychicus to carry this letter from church to church ? or had he a distinct copy for each church in the circle ? If the former, it will follow that no church ever possessed this epistle, but that certain churches around Ephesus enjoyed the advantage of reading it or hearing it read, while the bearer of it stayed with them. If the latter, then it may be asked, Was Tychicus, as he carried round these copies to deliver them, bound to abide at each church, and to answer all the de mands and inquiries which the Apostle's declara tions in the passage quoted would prompt its mem bers to make ? To affirm of either of these sup positions that it is impossible, would be, perhaps, to go too far ; but it must be felt by every one, that, under all the circumstances of the case, neither of them is very probable.