6 every Epistle St. Paul did not fpeak of the Ephefians: confequently it must be tranflated in the whole Epiftle,' and Ignatius muft mean a fingle or particular Epiftle, which the Ephefians had received from St. Paul. The words μνημονεύει ύμων εν Χρισῳ Ιησε, which in themselves are fomewhat obfcure, receive great light from that very Epiftle, which we call the Epistle to the Ephefians. Throughout the whole of the Epistle St. Paul praises the community to which he is writing, without any intermixture of cenfure, and speaks of the great advantages, which they as Chriftians enjoy in Chrift Jefus : which words in Chrift Jefus,' through Chrift'in the beloved,' &c. occur inceffantly in this Epiftle, and in a manner not usual in St. Paul's other Epiftles, fo that they are in fome meafure the diftinguishing marks of this Epiftle. The examples are fo numerous, that it is unneceffary to quote them, which I rather omit for this reason, that the whole Epiftle fhould be read, in order that their full effect may be perceived. The advocates for the opinion that this Epiftle was addreffed to the Laodiceans, and not to the Ephefians, have no other method of avoiding the force of this argument, (unless they declare at once that the Epiftle of Ignatius is a forgery) than an alteration in the words of Ignatius, as well as in thofe of St. Paul, and the changing, for the fake of their hypothefis. VμOVEVEL, which applies to St. Paul, to nuoveva in the first perfon, in order to make it apply to Ignatius. But this alteration was not admitted by Wetstein, who candidly confeffes: Ignatius in Epiftola ad Ephefios non obfcure fignificat hanc Epiftolam a Paulo ad Ephefios fuiffe fcriptam; § 12. refpicit ad i. 16. et § 1. ad v. 2. The other expreffion of Ignatius, Пavλ ouμμμusai, implies that St. Paul had defcribed the Ephefians as his • This obfervation, which is of great confequence in explaining the words of Ignatius, efcaped the notice both of Pearfon in his Vindicia Epiftolarum Ignatii, P. II. c. 10. and of Lardner, p. 400, . his Symmyftæ, or as perfons initiated in the fame myfteries with himself. Now in the Epiftle, which we call the Epistle to the Ephefians, there is really a paffage, on which this expreffion of Ignatius appears to be grounded. For in ch. iii. 3, 4. he ufes the word Hernion, and then ver. 6. calls the perfons, to whom he is writing, συγκληρονόμοι, και συσσωμοι, και συμμετοχαίο It is true that neither the word ouuuusns itfelf, nor even sns occurs in this Epiftle: yet Palladius declares that St. Paul did call the Ephefians Murai. The paffage is quoted by Lardner from Palladius", as follows. Paul called the Cretans liars, Tit. i. 12. the Galatians stupid, Gal. iii. 1. and the Corinthians proud, 1 Cor. V. 2. On the other hand, he calls the Romans faithful, the Ephefians vrai, initiated, to whom alfo he writes in a fublime manner, and the Theffalonians lovers of the brotherhood.' It is therefore not impoffible, that St. Paul actually ufed the word oupusa in this Epiftle, and perhaps where we find at prefent couμeroXOI: but I mention this as a mere conjecture, on which I shall not infift. For Palladius might mean only, according to the fenfe, and not according to the terms, efpecially as he fays in this very paffage, that St. Paul called the Romans faithful,' and the Theffalonians lovers of the brotherhood,' though the term 1501 itself does not once occur in the Epistle to the Romans, nor piλading in either of the Epiftles to the Theffa ionians. Thus far in favour of the opinion, that the Epistle, called the Epiftle to the Ephefians, was really addreffed to the Ephefians. On the other hand, it cannot. be denied, that it contains many paffages, which we should hardly expect to find in an Epiftle addreffed to a community, where St. Paul himself had fpent three years, and where Timothy at his command had appointed bishops. In the third edition of this Introduction In the works of Chryfoftom, Vol. XIII. p. 71. E. duction I endeavoured to give feveral anfwers to this objection: but after a more mature confideration, I am perfuaded that they are not fatisfactory. The objection clearly proves, that the Epiftle was not addreffed to the Ephefians alone:- but it does not affect the opinion, that it was intended jointly for the Ephefians, Laodiceans, and feveral other Chriftian communities. The objection may be divided into the following articles: 1. St. Paul mentions in this Epistle no circumstance what foever peculiar to the city and Chriftian community of Ephefus, though in his other Epiftles he very frequently alludes to the particular fituation of the perfon or perfons, to whom he is writing, as indeed every one muft, who writes a letter. Yet St. Paul was thoroughly acquainted with the peculiar fituation of the Chriftian community at Ephefus: for he had paffed not less than three years there. Nor is there any allufion in this Epiftle to what St. Paul himself had fuffered at Ephefus, or even to his having refided there. Further, if we compare the contents of this Epiftle with St. Paul's farewell fpeech to the Ephefian elders', we shall hardly fuppofe that it was addreffed to thofe very perfons, from whom he had thus affectionately taken leave only fix years before... 2. In moft of his other Epiftles, he falutes the principal perfons of the community, to which he writes: but in the Epiftle in queftion, though, from his long refidence at. Ephefus, he must have hath more intimate friends there, than in any other place, le falutes no perfon whatsoever. Lardner indeed contends, that this argument is of no force, becaufe St. Paul in his Epiftle to the Romans falutes more perfons, than in any other of his Epiftles, though he himself had never been at Rome.. But this answer amounts to nothing. For though St. Paul might have many friends in a place where he had never been, yet we must not argue in an inverted order, and conclude, that in a place, where St. 9 Acts xx. 31. · Acts xx. 18—96. St. Paul had spent three years, he had no friend whatfoever, whom he thought worthy of a falutation. 3. When St. Paul fent this Epiftle, Timothy was with him for the Epiftle to the Coloffians, which was fent at the fame time', was written in the joint names of St. Paul and Timothy'. But Timothy was most intimately connected with the Chriftian community at Ephefus, and had both felected and appointed their elders and minifters. Yet St. Paul has neither annexed the name of Timothy to his own, though he did fo in the Epiftle to the Coloffians, which was written at the fame time, nor even fent a falutation from him. 4. St. Paul fays, ch. i. 15, 16. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the faints, cease not to give thanks for you.' The expreffion, after I heard of your faith,' is not very confiftent with the fuppofition that St. Paul was writing to the members of a church, which he himfelf had founded.. If, in order to invalidate this argument, the words of St. Paul, axxoas tày xat' ipas toisis be rendered otherwife, .and be made to fignify when, or as often as, I hear mention made of your faith,' ftill it will be difficult to find an answer to the following argument. 5. St. Paul fays, ch. iii. 1, 2. For this caufe, I Paul, the prifoner of Jefus Chrift for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the difpenfation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-ward.' In this manner he would furely not have written to perfons, whom he himself had inftructed in the doctrines of Christianity, and among whom he had refided three years: for of fuch perfons he could not poffibly have expreffed a doubt whether they had heard of the difpenfation given Tychicus was the bearer of both, as appears from Ephef. vi. 21, 22. Col. iv. 7, 8.: to fay nothing of their great fimilarity in expreffions, as well as in thoughts. • Col. i, given him, that is, of his divine apoftlefhip, or not. And if we fuppofe, that in the interval, which elapfed between St. Paul's departure from Ephefus, and the time of his writing this Epiftle, the Ephefian church had been augmented by the acceffion of feveral thousand members, it is improbable, that even among thefe new members there was any one, who had not been informed that St. Paul was an Apoftle. This argument therefore appears to me to be decifive. SECT. II. Whether this Epistle was an Epistle to the Laodiceans. THE HE advocates for the opinion that the genuine reading in Ephef. i. i. is not τοις εσιν εν Εφεσω, seus but τοις εσιν εν Λαοδίκεια, have no other authority than that of Marcion. It is true that Marcion was an heretic, and one who made very many alterations in the New Testament, in order to render it more fuitable to his own fyftem: but, as I have already observed", not all the deviations in Marcion's copy of the Greek Teftament are to be confidered as corruptions, and in the present inftance it is difficult to conceive what benefit could accrue to Marcion's theological opinions from an alteration of εν Εφεσω το εν Λαοδίκεια. The very early age therefore in which Marcion lived, the place of his birth, his travels, and his learning, render him in the prefent cafe, which has no concern with either orthodoxy or heterodoxy, a very important witnefs. He lived in the former part of the fecond century, was a native of Sinope, a city celebrated for Vol. I. Ch. VI. Sect. 12. its |