The objections just stated seem to us to justify the rejection of Usher's hypothesis respecting the destination of this epistle ; we now turn to the consideration of the common, and, as we believe, the true view of this matter. Here it will be ne cessary to consider, in the first instance, the objec tions which have been offered to this view. These are borrowed from the epistle itself, in which, it is said, we not only miss those allusions to personal relations and intercourse which we should expect in an epistle from Paul to a church with which he had been so closely connected as with that at Ephesus, but we meet with statements which seem to imply that the parties to whom this epistle was written were, at the time, strangers to the Apostle. As respects the former of these objections, it must be admitted that the epistle contains no direct al lusions to previous intercourse between the writer and those whom he addresses ; but this may be partly accounted for by the circumstance that se veral years had now elapsed since that intercourse took place ; and probably, during the interval, mes sages had been sent by the Apostle to the Ephe• sians which rendered it unnecessary to allude to his earlier personal intercourse with them in this epistle. It is worthy of remark, on the other hand, that the tone and style of the epistle are such as of themselves to suggest the probability of previous intercourse between the parties ; such warmth of feeling and so much of a free outpour ing of thought not being customary in a letter addressed to strangers, however strong might be the writer's general interest in their welfare. The peculiar nature of the composition as a theological tractate must also be taken into account, as serving to explain the absence of personal allusions and greetings. With regard to the passages in which it is alleged that Paul writes as if the parties he ad dresses were personally unknown to him, they are all susceptible of a very different construction. When the Apostle says (i. 15), Wherefore also, having heard of your faith,' etc., he is not neces sarily to be understood as intimating that this knowledge had then for the first time been obtained by him through the report of others ; he rather means that, as some years had elapsed since he left them, he was rejoiced to hear that they were still steadfast in the faith. Again, when he says (iii. 2), If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,' etc., and (iv. 21), 'If so be that ye have heard him,' etc., the force of the particle €176 is not ad versative, but rather, according to its proper mean ing (comp. Hermann. ad Viger. sec. 512 ; Kith. ner's Gram. d. Gr. sp. sec. 7o4, I. 2), and the ordinary usage of the Apostle, concessive; it is thus equivalent to since, forasmuch as, and ex presses rather the confidence of knowledge than the uncertainty of ignorance. To these passages, then, no weight whatever deserves to be attached, as tending to shew the erroneousness of the ordi nary designation of this epistle. In favour of this designation, on the other hand, are to be urged the reading iv 'Ecblacv (i. 1), and the unanimous testimony of Christian antiquity. This reading is that supplied by all the MSS. except Codex B.'" and ancient versions. From a passage, however, in one of the writings of Basil (Adv. Ennomium, lib. ii.), it has been inferred that in his day some MSS. were extant in which these words were not found. In maintaining against Eunomius, that Jesus Christ may justly be styled Li do, Basil argues that this is the more proper from the circumstance that the Apostle, writing to the Ephesians, calls Christians &rag, absolutely and peculiarly, saying roie ivyfocy TO?S' 005C Kai 710'704 Ev Xp. and adds, for so those before us have handed down, and we have found it in old copies.' Now there can be no doubt that Basil here means to say that he had both traditional and documentary authority for reading Tole Oi."(11 absolutely without the addi tion of iv 'Eolo-c,o after these words, else his whole argument against Eunomius, based on this quota tion, must go for nothing. But in the first place, supposing that in these MSS. to which Basil re fers, the words iv 'Eq)iv-tp were not found at all in the address of the epistle, of what weight, in a critical point of view, is this fact ? Of the age, number, source, and general worth of these testi monies to which Basil appeals, we know nothing, and we must be jealous of taking a keen contro versialist's authority for the value of what serves his purpose against his antagonist. As the case stands, we have on the one side the unanimous testimony of all the extant witnesses in favour of iv ; we have against it only the assertion of a writer who, to support what he considers a good stroke at his adv&sary, assures us that he had heard a tradition that these words were to be omitted, and had seen some MSS. in which they
were omitted, thereby at the same time implicitly assuring us that in his day the received reading was the same as in ours. In such a case it is surely preposterous to attach any weight whatever to such a testimony. But, secondly, does Basil's ment necessarily deny the existence of the words iv 'Eq510-cv in any part of this verse ? Admitting that he did not read them after does it follow that he did not read them here at all? May not the passage have stood, in the authorities to which he appeals, thus—rolr iv 'EOio-y TOI,S leyiots Tat OiiiTL, K. T. X. ? the words having been trans posed by some transcriber whose blunder Basil, with the blind zeal of a controversialist, hailed as proving his argument ? This supposition has in its favour—t. that Basil, in the passage quoted, for mally states that Paul wrote thus in an epistle to the Ephesians ; 2. that this reading supports as well Basil's argument against Eunomius, as if iv 'Ecbiay had been entirely omitted ; and 3. that unless we insert those or similar words somewhere in the passage, the inscription of this epistle be comes so vague and indefinite as to be without meaning. Some confirmation of this suggestion may be drawn, perhaps, from the place in which Jerome alludes to the argument here urged by Basil from this passage. After stating the argu ment he adds, Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos qui stint, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sunt, scrip tum arbitrantur,' where he arranges the words in the same order, substantially, in which we have supposed them to have stood in Basil's MSS. If this suggestion, however, be deemed ungrounded or improbable, we have still the fact that Basil's evidence is unsupported, to fall back upon, in sup port of the received reading. Stress has also been laid by Hug and others upon the passage from Tertullian, already quoted, in which he charges Marcion with having altered the title of this epistle. Had the MSS., it is argued, in Tertullian's time, contained iv 'Ecpio-co, Marcion must have had to alter, not only the title of the epistle, but, to be consistent, the text also of the first verse ; and with this Tertullian does not charge him, though not accustomed,' as Hug reminds us, to overlook anything in him.' But this surely is, at best, very precarious reasoning. Tertullian may have not deemed it worth while to specify Marcion's altera tion of the text just because it was rendered so ob viously necessary by his alteration of the title, that in mentioning the latter (which was all his purpose required), he, by implication, also intimated the former.
From these considerations it appears that the received reading iv 'Erpicy is impregnable. As a necessary consequence it follows that the title 7rpas 'Ecpariour expresses the original and proper destina tion of this epistle.
The epistle is so much the utterance of a mind overflowing with thought and feeling, that it does not present any precisely marked divisions under which its different parts may be ranked. After the usual apostolic salutation Paul breaks forth into an expression of thanksgiving to God and Christ for the scheme of redemption (i. 3-10), from which he passes to speak of the privileges actually enjoyed by himself and those to whom he was writing, through Christ (i. 11-23). He then re minds the Ephesians of their former condition when they were without Christ, and of the great change which, through divine grace, they had experienced (ii. 1.-22). An allusion to himself, as enjoying by divine revelation the knowledge of the mystery of Christ, leads the Apostle to enlarge upon the dig nity of his office, and the blessed results that were destined to flow from the exercise of it to others (iii. 1-12). On this he grounds an exhortation to his brethren not to faint on account of his suffer ings for the gospel, and affectionately invokes on their behalf the divine blessing, concluding this, which may be called the more doctrinal part of his epistle, with a doxology to God (iii. 13-21). What follows is chiefly hortatory, and is directed partly to the inculcation of general consistency, steadfast ness in the faith, and propriety of deportment (iv. I ; v. 21), and partly to the enforcement of relative duties (v. 22 ; vi. 9). The epistle con cludes with an animated exhortation to fortitude, watchfulness, and prayer, followed by a reference to Tychicus as the bearer of the epistle, and by the usual apostolic benediction (vi. 10-24 This epistle was written during the earlier part of the Apostle's imprisonment at Rome, at the same time with that to the Colossians [CoLossIANs,