Strong as is the evidence arising from the combination of the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS., it would be difficult to resist the singular amount of authority opposed to them, were it not for passages from writers and fathers earlier than the earliest of our existing MSS., which show that the absence of the words was not only known to them, but was so far accepted, as at least probably correct, that they made it a ground of curious speculation with regard to the particular method of designating Christians then employed by the apostle. The earliest witness is Marcion, about the middle of the 2d century, although he deals only with the fact. We gather Marcion’s view from the language of Tertullian. In his treatise Contra Marcionem (v. 11, 17), the African father charges Marcion with having, contrary to the veritas ecclesioe, given a false title to the epistle, designating it as the epistle to the Laodiceans, quasi et in isto dilige nt issimus explorator. Had Marcion read “at Ephesus” in the first verse of the epistle, it would have been impossible for him to falsify the title, changing it into “the epistle to the Laodiceans.” The change would by St Paul to different members of the churches known to him. Such greetings are wanting also in the epistles to Thessalonica, although the apostle wrote to that city under circumstances peculiarly calling forth his affectionate remembrance of his converts there. It is otherwise with the indications contained in the epistle itself that its writer was personally unknown to those to whom he writes, and that they, on their part, knew of him and of his work rather by the information of others than by actual experience :—“If so be that ye heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given me to youward” (iii. 2), where the particles ei ye cannot be understood as stating only the ground, without the introduction of doubt, upon which the argument was proceeding (Alford), a use of «’ ye not allowed by grammarians (Moulton’s Winer, p. 561), and where the certainty wanting in the particle is not given by the context (as Meyer); “For this cause 1 also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is in yourselves, . . . cease not to give thanks for you ’’ (i. 15, 16), where the parallel passage in Colossians (i. 9 compared with i. 6), contrasting the day when the apostle first “heard ’’ of their knowledge of the grace of God in truth with that when they first “heard” of that grace, points out to us in a way not to be mistaken the sense in which the verb is to be understood (Lightfoot, On the Col., p. 28). But St Paul could not have used such language in reference to the Ephesians. He had laboured too long among them, had been too successful in his ministry, and had acquired too intimate a personal knowledge of their condition, to have permitted him to speak thus either of himself or them. Add to this the fact that in Eph. i. 1 the apostle does not associate Timothy with himself, although that disciple was well know n to the church at Ephesus, while he does mention him in the salutations of the epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon written at the same time, and the evidence is very strong that the epistle before us was not, in the first instance at least, addressed to the Ephesian church. (2.) Another theory, generally associated with the name of Archbishop Ussher, although hardly less connected with that of Beza, has in later years found such general acceptance that it may probably be regarded as at this moment the prevailing view,—that the epistle is a circular letter, designed, not for Ephesus alone, but for many churches of Asia or the Peloponnesus or still wider districts. The modifications of this theory have been extremely numerous, varying with the adoption or rejection of the reading “at Ephesus” in i. 1, as well as with the difficulties felt by those adopting it as to the manner in which the epistle was to be circulated. It is unnecessary to examine these theories separately. They are, as a group, exposed to objections which appear to be insuperable. 1. There is not the slightest trace of the existence of such a theory in Christian antiquity. 2. Had the apostle intended the epistle to be a circular one, nothing would have been easier for him than to say so. He does employ such a general designation in Gal. i. 2 and 2 Cor. i. 1. The expression “the churches of Asia” was familiar to him (1 Cor. xvi. 19, comp. Rev. i. 4). 3. No other name than Ephesus, except

Laodicea, appears to have been at any time connected with the epistle. Even this name, too, seems not to have been placed in the text. The statement of Marcion, our only authority for thus associating Laodicea and the epistle with one another refers not to the text, but to the title. 4. The epistle has distinct reference to particular persons (i. 15, 16, vi. 22). 5. The idea of a number of copies furnished to Tychicus with a space in blank for the name to be filled in is entirely at variance with the simplicity of the apostle and the character of the apostolic age. The circular hypothesis, in any of the forms thus proposed, may be abandoned with little hesitation. (3.) There remains a third theory w hich cannot be omitted. It adopts the circular idea, but at the same time identifies the epistle to the Ephesians with the epistle spoken of at Col. iv. 16 as “that from Laodicea.” This theory has beeen adopted by Canon Lightfoot in the following words :—

“The apostle wrote at this time a circular letter to the Asiatic churches, which got its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city, and is consequently known to us as the epistle to the Ephesians. It was the immediate object of Tychicus’s journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christianity in the district, and at the same time to communicate by word of mouth the apostle’s special messages to each (Eph. vi. 21, 22). Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colossae. But he was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossae itself, for this church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea; and, besides, he was the bearer of a special letter from the apostle to them. It was sufficient, therefore, to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circulated and read at Colossae.”

Dr Lightfoot further expresses his belief that “educated opinion is tending, though slowly, in this direction,” and that “ultimately this view will be generally received” (Colossians, p. 347). In the absence of Dr Lightfoot’s as yet unpublished arguments in favour of the view thus taken by him, it is impossible to say whether he may be successful in establishing it or not. But, in the meantime, it seems liable, with the exception of that part which identifies the epistle to the Ephesians with the epistle “from Laodicea” of Col. iv. 16, to all the objections which we have urged against the circular hypothesis, together with the additional difficulty of supposing that Tychicus, starting with a number of copies of the letter in his hands, should either leave his last copy at Laodicea, or that, if any remained, the Colossian church, instead of getting one of them, should be instructed to procure its copy from Laodicea. If, on the other hand, it be said that the words “the epistle from Laodicea” are not a mere note of the place whence the epistle might be procured, but that, in one way or another, they point to a special connexion between the epistle and the city, it will follow that the former had a particular designation and was not circular.

The theories examined by us are all unsatisfactory. We have to ask whether there is any other way of meeting the difficulties of the case.

1. The first thing here arresting attention is, that wholly Gentile readers are presupposed in the epistle (ii, 11, 12; iιi. 1; iv. 17). Nor this alone. When St Paul speaks of his apostleship, he speaks of himself with much greater emphasis than usual as the apostle of the Gentiles (iii. 1—8). And, still further, in two highly important passages, the force of which is lost iu the Authorized Version, he shows that he has the Gentiles in view, not in what they become when they are brought to form part of the one holy temple, of the one redeemed family, of God, but in what they are when regarded as distinct and separate from the Jews:—“In whom every building fitly framed together groweth into a temple holy in the Lord” (ii. 21); “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (iii. 14, 15). It has been customary to say that in the church addressed the Gentile element prevailed, and that hence the wants of the Gentiles are mainly before the writer. But, in fact, there is no trace of Jewish readers in the epistle,·“not even in ii. 15,” and Dr Davidson, observing this, not unnaturally grounds upon it the argument that, addressed to the church at Ephesus, it must be later than St Paul’s time, because the apostle could not have left the Jewish Christians unnoticed (Intr., i. p. 379).

May not the true conclusion be one of an altogether different character ?—that our epistle to the Ephesians was not addressed to a church at all. There was probably no church at that time in Asia composed of Gentile converts alone. All of them were mixed communities. The tone of the epistle to the Colossians shows us that the errors prevailing in Colossae were of a Judaeo-Gnostic character, and that the most powerful element in that church was Jewish. It is not an unfair inference that this must also have been the case in the neighbouring churches of Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Ephesus. How then could St Paul, writing to any one of these churches, speak to it as if it were wholly Gentile, as if the Jewish element had no existence in it? The true explanation seems to be, that we have in the Ephesian epistle not an epistle to a church; that we have an appeal to Gentile Christians as such; that the apostle is thinking of his readers in that capacity, and not as a merely constituent part of any local church whatever.

2. A second point claiming consideration is, that we have no small reason to suppose that “the epistle from Laodicea” of Col. iv. 16 is that before us. The authority of distinguished critics can be quoted for this view (Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Mill, Canon Lightfoot, <fcc.); and it is not to be regarded as mere conjecture. We have seen that Marcion, as the result of diligent inquiry, had come to the conclusion that the epistle to the Ephesians ought to have borne the name of the epistle to the Laodiceans. We know also that a passage quoted by him from the latter is found in the former (see in Tischendorf’s New Te3t. Eph. i. 1), thus identifying the two epistles by their contents as well as by their titles. We must give some weight to the improbability that an epistle to which St Paul attached such importance that he directed it to be passed on from one church to another would be lost; and, when we put all these circumstances together, there seems every reason to think that “the epistle from Laodicea” is no other than our epistle to the Ephesians.

On these grounds, then, rests the suggestion which we offer. Adopting the idea that the epistle to the Ephesians is “the epistle from Laodicea” of Col. iv. 16, it seems to us that it was not intended to be an epistle to the church of the last-named city. It was an epistle to the Gentile converts, as such, in the first place of Laodicea, in the second place of Colossae.

The view now taken derives much confirmation from the light thrown by it upon some of the difficulties connected with the epistle which no theory yet proposed has succeeded in removing. (1.) It at once explains the want of those local references which we should naturally expect in a letter written to an organized community; while, at the same time, the persons for whom the letter is intended are a sufficiently limited class to justify the expressions of i. 15 and vi. 22. (2.) It explains the absence of any special designation in i. 1, and relieves us from the necessity of supposing that there was a blank space left in that verse. St Paul could hardly have inserted the name of a town without leading to the false impression that he was writing to its church. (3.) It explains the fact that the name of a place should have been permitted to find its way into i. 1, where no name originally stood. Had the epistle been intended for any church or churches, they, even though not inserting their own names, would not readily have permitted the insertion of another. They would have claimed their own epistle. General Gentile readers, as not organized, could not so easily do so. (4.) It explains the remarkable expression of Col. iv. 16, “the epistle from Laodicea.” We might have expected “the epistle to the Laodiceans.” But what had been written was not an epistle to the Laodiceans, and therefore it is not styled one. It was an epistle to a particular section of Christians both in Laodicea and Colossae, and only sent to Laodicea first. Hence the designation, “the epistle from Laodicea.” (5.) It explains what has been found so inexplicable (Davidson, Iηtr., i. p. 381; Harless, Ephes. Brief, p. 40), that, writing both to the Colossians and the Laodiceans by the same messenger, the apostle should include the brethren in Laodicea in a salutation of the epistle to Colossae, and should enjoin an epistle meant for the Colossians to be read to Laodiceans who had one of their own by the same hand. He was not writing to the church at Laodicea; therefore let the church there have both its letter and its salutations through the neighbouring church to which he was writing at the moment. (6.) It explains the absence from the epistle of all allusion to doctrinal error on the part of its recipients. We see from the Colossian epistle how deep was the hold of such errors at Colossae. In any circumstances it would hardly be possible to imagine that similar errors did not exist both at Laodicea and Ephesus; and this conclusion as to the first of these two cities is in the present instance confirmed by the fact that the epistle to the Colossians, filled with controversy as to doctrinal errors, was directed to be read there. Again, therefore, their being left unnoticed in our so-called epistle to the Ephesians seems to be a proof that St Paul is not writing to the church of the city addressed by him. Had he been doing so he would naturally have taken its whole condition into account; but he is dealing with one portion of its community alone, and with that portion mainly, if not only, upon one point of interest. (7 ) It explains even to some extent the difficult words of i. 1, toÎç άγιοι? roîç o*σιv και ∙πaττcn<s év Χριστιρ Ιησού. There appears to be but one meaning of which these words are susceptible, “To the saints existing and faithful in Christ Jesus.” All other renderings proposed either do injustice to the Greek, or make the apostle say what it is not possible he should have said in conformity with his general teaching. This, the rendering of Origen, is natural and idiomatic. Its peculiarity is of course that it makes the substantive verb of the original more than a simple copula. It makes it a distinct predicate, pointing out a characteristic of the condition of those addressed.

They have a being, a place, a name; they “are,” they are “existing,” in Christ Jesus. The expression is undoubtedly most peculiar, having probably no perfect parallel in the New Testament. Yet it is there, and no reading that we can adopt removes it. The view that we have taken of the destination of the epistle seems to some extent to offer an explanation. There was a special propriety in reminding the Gentile Christians that they existed, that they had a place, that they “were” in Christ Jesus. We see from the whole tone of the epistle that this was the very point on which they were perplexed. There was no doubt about the Jewish Christians. It is taken for granted by the apostle, and he repeats it more than once, that they were “near” (ii. 13, 17). What he had especially to enforce is that the Gentiles were “near” also. He did not require to say of the former what it was so needful to say of the latter. What he does say, indeed, might have been said equally of both. Both, when believing, “were in Christ Jesus.” But the words have a peculiar force when applied to Gentile Christians who had been “strangers to the covenant of the promise,” and who had to be encouraged to feel with greater depth and power than they yet experienced that they were partakers of the full privileges of those who were fellowcitizens with the saints and of the household of God. There is thus an emphasis on the τοίς oυσιv. The Gentile Christians are not merely in Christ, but in Him they “are.” In Him they too have a real and genuine existence, such as those only have who are in covenant with God.

II. Object of the Epistle.— This is much more definite than it is often thought to be. The apostle has something more precise in view than to set forth the glory of the redeemed and Christian standing of his readers (Meyer), or to describe the life by which the Christian community is marked (Schenkel), or to explain the ground, the coarse, and the end of the Christian church (Alford). It is not his purpose only to pour himself forth in adoring contemplation of the blessings received by us in Christ (Harless); and it is far too little to say that he desires to strengthen the faith and to encourage the hopes of those to whom he writes (Gloag). Even Canon Lightfoot seems hardly to give a special enough object to the epistle when he finds its principal theme in “the life and energy of the church as dependent on Christ” (On the Coloss., p. 329). These views may be all partially correct; but they are not enough. In this very setting forth of the greatness of the church, in this description of her life, in this presenting of her to us in all the ideal glory of her state as united to her Lord, the apostle has a further and immediately practical aim—to show us that this ideal glory contemplated from the first the union of both Jews and Gentiles in equal enjoyment of the privileges of God’s covenant, that to the completeness of the body of Christ the latter are as necessary as the former, and that it is only when both are together in Christ that His fulness is realized and manifested. It is God’s eternal plan that all things shall thus be restored and united in the Beloved; and, unless they are so, frankly, freely, and fully, that plan will be defeated. Hence it is that the apostle...