§ VI. The Genuineness of the Epistle.
1. The epistle announces itself as written by Paul the Apostle. 2. There is nothing in its contents inconsistent with the assumption of his being its author. 3. All the incidental references which it contains to the office, character and circum- stances of the writer, agree with what is known to be true con- cerning Paul. The writer was an apostle, an apostle of the Gentiles, a prisoner, one to whom Tychicus stood in the rela- tion of a companion and fellow-labourer. 4. The style, the doctrines, the sentiments, the spirit, the character revealed, are those of Paul. 5. The whole ancient church received it as genuine. As to this point the judgment of the early ages is unanimous, Even Marcion, though he dissented from the common opinion as to its destination, admitted its Pauline origin. 6. Finally and mainly, the epistle reveals itself as the work of the Holy Ghost, as clearly as the stars declare their maker tobe God. In no portion of the Sacred Scriptures are the self-evidencing light and power of divine truth more con- centrated than they are here. Had it been first discovered in the nineteenth century, in a forsaken monastery, it would com- mand the faith of the whole church.
The genuineness of this epistle, therefore, has never been doubted, except by a few modern critics to whom nothing is sacred. These critics object: 1. That Paul was familiarly acquainted with the Ephesians, whereas the writer of this epis- tle had only heard of their conversion and of their faith and love. This objection is fully met by showing that the ex- pressions referred to, may be understood of information received by Paul, during his long imprisonment, first at Czesarea, and afterwards at Rome; or, on the assumption that the epistle, though addressed to the Ephesians, was designed for a large class of readers, with many of whom Paul had no personal acquaintance. 2. They object that this epistle is merely a verbose imitation of the Epistle to the Colossians. Nothing can be more inconsistent with the fact. The relation between the two epistles, instead of being a ground of objection
a i αν,
EEE ϑϑασοι
xvl INTRODUCTION.
against either, is a strong proof of the genuineness of both. Of this any reader may satisfy himself by a careful compari- son of the two. 8. It is objected that the epistle contains no reference to the peculiar circumstances of the Ephesians, so that the address and contents are irreconcilable. This ab- sence of specific reference, as before remarked, is accounted for from the design of the epistle as addressed to Gentile believers, as Christians, not as Ephesians. Reuss remarks in reference to such objections, “If Paul wrote friendly letters, these critics say they are spurious, because they are not doctrinal; and if he wrote doctrinal epistles, they say they are spurious, because not friendly.” 4. It is objected that the style is not that of Paul. The very reverse, in the judgment of the vast majority of competent readers, is the fact. There is the same fervour and force of expression, the same length and complication in his sentences, clause linked with clause, till he is forced to stop, and begin the sentence anew. Idem in epistola, says Krasmus, Pauli fervor, eadem profunditas, idem omninoe spiritus ac pectus. Der Werte, the originator of these and similar ob- jections, admits that they do not justify the rejection of the epistle, which, he says, contains much that is worthy of the apostle, and which all antiquity acknowledged as genuine. Unfortunately, however, he afterwards retracted this admission. It is to the honour of the German critics, for whom in general, novelty is every thing, the last opinion always being the best, that with the exception of the destructive school of Tubingen, few, if any, of their number attach any weight to the arguments against the apostolic origin of this epistle. 5. The principal objection urged by Baur of Tubingen, in addition to those sug- gested by De Wette, is that the Epistle to the Ephesians con- tains allusions to Gnostic opinions, which did not prevail until after the apostolic age. But, in the first place, the great ma- jority of scholars deny that this epistle contains any reference to Gnostic sentiments; and, in the second place, even if it did, the Epistle to the Colossians affords abundant evidence that principles afterwards developed into Gnosticism, had manifest- ed themselves in the age of the apostles. If it be said that the