writer), τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ [Κυρίου] ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, xx. 28. In the sister Epistle, too, the term ἐκκλησία is used both of the local Church and of the universal (i. 18, 24, iv. 15, 16). But, apart from that, the unity is a spiritual unity, a oneness which consists in the union of individuals, the ἅγιοι, in faith—not the unity of a corporation or an organisation. There is nothing in this im- portant section of the teaching of the Epistle to make it necessary to suppose that it was written at a time when the multitude of separate local Churches were driven by the needs of defence to form themselves into one large, strong organisation.
In none of these particulars in which this Epistle is asserted to stand apart is there any essential difference between it and the acknowledged Pauline Epistles. There are differences, but they are differences which admit in each case of a natural explanation, and which in no case amount to anything that is incompatible with the recognised Pauline doctrine. On the other hand, as scholars like Jiilicher frankly admit, we find in this Epistle many distinctive Pauline ideas, turns of expression, and qualities of style—the use of characteristic terms not found elsewhere in the NT, of particles like διό, dpa οὖν, etc.; of ideas like that of the Divine riches, etc., as well as the broad lines of Pauline doctrine. Allowing all reasonable weight to the internal considerations, of which so much is made, they come far short of balancing the strong and consistent argument provided by the historical testimony to the Pauline authorship.
6. THE DESTINATION OF THE ΕΡΙΘΤΙΕ. The traditional view is that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesian Church—to that Church definitely and by itself. This view has still the support of some important authorities. In modern times, however, it has come to be largely held that the Epistle is an Encyclical letter, meant not for the Ephesian Church specifically, but for a number of Churches, or rather for the Christian people found in the Roman Province of Asia, or more particularly in the Phrygian territory. The question is—Which of these two views of the destination of the Epistle best satisfies the data at our disposal, internal and external ἢ
At first the case for the traditional view seems to be far stronger than the other, especially on the side of the historical testimony. Here much depends on how the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the inscription is regarded. The textual question is not by any means the only element in the case. But it is an important element, and the facts which come into view are of great interest. They are also plain and indis- putable. First there is the fact that all manuscripts, both uncial and cursive, with the exception of three, have the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in the