combinations of two or three dependent genitives, accumulated synonyms, numerous compound words. But these features may be partially paralleled in the earlier letters ; and where they cannot be we may rightly lay stress on the difference of Paul’s circumstances and the problems with which he had to deal. Letters written in the heat of conflict with Judaisers and impugners of his authority, written too when he was in full career as a missionary and had pressing on him the care of all the Churches, must in the nature of the case be very different from a letter written, not to fight for the very existence of the Gospel, but to warn a still loyal Church against a pernicious error, and written in enforced retirement, with ample time for meditation.
The Christology, it is true, presents an advance on what we find in the earlier Epistles. Not in the position it assigns to the Son as Creator, for that is found in 1 Cor. viii. 6, but in that it speaks of Him also as the goal of the universe. Elsewhere it is God who is thus spoken of (1 Cor. viii. 6, Rom. xi. 86). But this is less cogent than it appears at first sight. Paul teaches that all things have to become subject to the Son, that He may deliver the Kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). And it would be as warrantable to conclude that Romans and 1 Corinthians were by different authors, for in the passages already mentioned creation is said to have been effected, now through God (Rom. xi. 36), and now again through Christ (1 Cor. viii. 6). A doctrine of Christ quite as lofty is found in Philippians ; and the conclusive refutation of the false teaching was just this setting of the Son in His true position. The doctrine of Christ’s work is expressed in a thoroughly Pauline way, which bears all the marks of authenticity. It is not a slavish imitation, but a fresh and luminous presentation. And yet it is in such perfect harmony with Paul’s own doctrine that it seems improbable that it can be due to another hand; and more than improbable when we remember that no other early Christian writer known to us, with the partial exception of the author of 1 Peter, has been able to reproduce the Pauline doctrine, any more than Penelope’s wooers could bend Odysseus’ bow. The only point under this head which raises suspicion is the extension of the reconciliation to God effected by Christ to the angelic powers. What has been already said on this need not be repeated here.
Lastly, its relation to Ephesians has aroused suspicion. The problem thus presented is unique in the N.T., and has elicited numerous solutions. It has been pressed against the authenticity of Ephesians more generally than of Colossians ; though Mayerhoff