« EelmineJätka »
monly revisit the thoughts together. The epiftles under consideration furnish the two following remarkable instances of this species of agreement : Ephef. ch. iv. ver. 24. 66
. on the new man, which after God is cre“ ated in rightecusness and true holiness; “ wherefore, putting away lying, speak
every man truth with his neighbour, for
66 Lie not one to “ another; seeing that ye
off the “old man, with his deeds; and have put “on the new man, which is renewed in “ knowledge of."
The vice of “ lying," or a correction of that vice, does not seem to bear any nearer relation to the “putting on the new man, than a reformation in any other article of
Ephef.ch, iv. ver. 24, 25. Kar Evdus GOBXo Tor rasvov ανθρωπον, τον καλα Θεον κλισθενία εν δικαιοσυνη και οσιοτητα της αληθειας διο αποθεμενοι το ψευδος, λαλειτε αληθειων εγατG- μετα τα πλησιον αυτ8' οτι εσμεν αλληλων μελη.
+ Colof. ch. iii. ver. 9. My levdeo be evs anaridos, attendue σαμενοι του παλαιον ανθρωπον, συν ταις αραξεσιν αυτου, και ενδυσαμενοι τον νεον, τον ανακαι: έμενον εις επιγνωσιν
morals. Yet these two ideas, we fee, stand in both epistles in immediate connection.
Ephes. ch. v. ver. 20, 21. “ Giving “ thanks always for all things unto God and " the Father, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ; submitting yourselves one " to another, in the fear of God. Wives, “ submit yourselves unto your own huf" bands, as unto the Lord *." Colof. ch. iii. ver. 17.
6 Whatsoever ye “ do, in word or deed, do all in the name “ of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God " and the father by him. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as so it is fit in the Lord .
In both these passages, fubmiffion follows giving of thanks, without any
fimilitude in the ideas which should account for the transition.
* Ephes. ch. v. ver. 20-_22. Ev yagişerles cartole varep Φαντων, εν ονόματι το Κυρι8 ημών Ιησε Χρισέ, τω Θεω και σαθρο, υπόλασσομενοι αλληλους εν φοβω Θιε. . Αι γυναικες, τους ιδιους αιδρασιν υπoλασσισθε, ως τω Κυρίω.
+ Colof. ch. iii. ver. 17. Και σαν ο, τι αν ποιητή, εν λογω, η εν εργω, παντα εν ον ματι Κυριε Ιησε, ευχαρισουνλες τω Θεω κα, Фатр: di' Ar yurdXE'S.
υποτασσεσθε τους ιδιους αιδρασιν, ας ανηκεν εν Κυριά. .
It is not necessary to pursue the comparison between the two epistles farther. The argument which results from it stands thus: Notwoother epistles contain a circumstance which indicates that they were written at the same, or nearly at the same time. No two other epistles exhibit so many
marks of correspondency and resemblance. If the original which we ascribe to these two epistles be the true one, that is, if they were both really written by St. Paul, and both sent to their respective destination by the same messenger, the similitude is, in all points, what thould be expected to take place. If they were forgeries, then the mention of Tychicus in both epistles, and in a manner which shews that he either carried or accompanied both epistles, was inserted for the purpose of accounting for their similitude; or else the structure of the epistles was designedly adapted to that circustance; or, lastly, the conformity between the contents of the forgeries, and what is thus indirectly intimated concerning their date, was only a happy accident. Not one of these three suppositions will gain
credit with a reader who peruses the epistles with attention, and who reviews the several examples we have pointed out, and the observations with which they were accompanied
There is such a thing as a peculiar word or phrase cleaving, as it were, to the memory of a writer or speaker, and presenting itself to his utterance at every turn. When we observe this, we call it a cant word, or a cant phrase. It is a natural effect of habit; and would appear more frequently than it does, had not the rules of good writing taught the ear to be offended with the iteration of the same found, and oftentimes caused us to reject, on that account, the word which offered itself first to our recollection. With a writer who, like St. Paul, either knew not these rules, or disregarded them, such words will not be avoided. The truth is, an example of this kind runs through several of his epistles, and in the epistle before us abounds; and that is in the word riches (shoutos,) used metaphorically as an aug
ji. ver. 7;
mentative of the idea to which it happens to be subjoined. Thus, 16 the riches of his glory,” “ his riches in glory,” “riches of the glory of his inheritance,” “ riches of the glory of this mystery,” Rom. ch.ix. ver.23, Ephes. ch. iii. ver. 16, Ephef. ch. i. ver. 18, Colof. ch.i. ver. 27;
riches of his grace," twice in the Ephesians, ch. i. ver. 7, and ch.
66 riches of the full assurance of understanding,” Colof.ch. ii. ver. 2;“riches of his goodness," Rom. ch. ii. ver. 4; 6 riches of the wisdom of God," Rom. ch. xi. ver. 33;
"riches of Christ,” Ephef.ch. iii. ver. 8. In a like sense the adjective. Rom. ch. x. ver. 12, “ rich unto all that call upon him;" Ephes. ch. ii. ver. 4,
66 rich in mercy;" 1 Tim. ch. vi. ver. 18,“ rich in good works.” Also the adverb, Colof. ch. iii. ver. 16, “ let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.” This figurative use of the word, though so familiar to St. Paul, does not occur in any part of the New Testament, except once in the epistle of St. James, ch. ii.
“ Hath not God chosen the poor of “this world, rich in faith?” where it is manifestly suggested by the antithesis. I pro