duction I endeavoured to give feveral answers 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 several other Chriftian communities. The objection may be divided into the following articles.

1. St. Paul mentions in this Epiftle no circumstance whatsoever peculiar to the city and Chriftian community of Ephefus, though in his other Epiftles he very frequently alludes to the particular fituation of the person or persons, 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 fhall hardly fuppofe that it was addreffed to those 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 had more intimate friends there, than in any other place, he falutes no perfon whatsoever, Lardner indeed contends,, that this argument is of no force, because 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 muft not argue in an inverted order, and conclude, that in a place, where

• Acts xx. 31.

Acts xx. 18-36.

St.

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 moft 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 Jefus, and love unto all the faints, ceafe 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 him Yelf had founded. If, in order to invalidate this argument, the words of St. Paul, axxoas Thy xal' iμas wish 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 cause, 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 persons, whom he himself had inftructed in the doctrines of Chriftianity, 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. I.

given him, that is, of his divine apoftleship, 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 these 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 Epifle was an Epiftle to the Laodiceans.

THE HE advocates for the opinion that the genuine. reading in Ephef. i. 1. is not roi 2010 EV EXECY, but reis priv en Aaoding, 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 Teftament, 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 Εφέσω to 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 witness. 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

its valuable libraries", took a journey in the earlier part of his life to Rome, and on this journey travelled perhaps through Laodicea or Ephefus. But even if he never vifited either of thefe places, and faw only in his native country, Pontus, copies of the Epiftle in queftion with Ev Aaodine, this reading acquires a very. ftrong fupport. It is to be lamented that we have not Marcion's own words, from which we might have learnt on what authorities, or on what manufcripts, he grounded this reading. Our knowledge on this fubject is derived merely from the two following paffages in Tertullian's fifth book againft Marcion. The one is c. xi. Prætereo hic et de alia epiftola, quam nos ad Ephefios perfcriptam habemus, hæretici vero ad Laodicenos: the other is c. xvii. Ecclefiæ quidem veritate Epiftolam iftam ad Ephefios habemus emiffam, non ad Laodicenos. Sed Marción et titulum aliquando interpolare geftiit, quafi et in illo diligentiffimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulo intereft, cum ad omnes Apoftolus fcripferit, dum ad fingulos. In thefe two paffages Tertullian, as ufual, appears merely as an advocate againft heretics, and not as a cool critic, or impartial inquirer into truth; for he accufes him at once of interpolation and corruption, without examining the ground of his opinion, which is fo far from meriting reprobation without inquiry, that it has been adopted in later ages by feveral writers of the moft eminent abilities. And this neglect of Tertullian is attended with great inconvenience in the prefent inquiry, be

caufe

w Mofes Chorenenfis relates in his Hiftory of Armenia, p. 101. that Africanus a writer of the third century, derived the greatest part of his materials relative to what concerned Armenia from manufcripts in the library of Edeffa, whither the treasures had been brought, which were contained in the libraries and archives at Nifibis and Sinope.

* Tertullian is here speaking of Ephef. ii. 12.

Here he is speaking of feveral paffages: ch. i. 10. 12. ii. 1, 2, 3. 10, 11. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20. iv. 11, 12,

caufe Epiphanius, in his forty-fecond Herefy, fpeaks of Marcion, as if he had an Epiftle to the Laodiceans different from that to the Ephefians. My fentiments on what Epiphanius fays on this fubject I fhall deliver in the following fection, where I fhall endeavour to fhew that Marcion's opinion agreed with the hypothefis, which I shall there attempt to fupport. In the mean time if the reader chufes to examine what other writers have faid, he may confult Hody and Lardner'. I must observe however at prefent, that the contradiction is only apparent; and that if Marcion's authority does not give fufficient fupport to the reading ev Azodineig, Ephef. i. 1. it must be afcribed merely to the imperfection of our accounts.

a

If it was the real opinion of Marcion, that the Epistle, which is called the Epiftle to the Ephefians, was addreffed to the Laodiceans, he deduced it from the circumftances and contents of the Epiftle itself. That St. Paul muft have written to the Laodiceans about the fame time that he wrote to the Coloffians, I have already obferved in the third fection of the preceding chapter. And the Epiftle, which is now the fubject of inquiry, has all the appearance of being that very Epiftle, which St. Paul defired the Coloffians to procure from Laodicea: for it affords the best explanation of the Epiftle to the Coloffians, the two Epiftles in fact illuftrating and completing each other.

On the other hand, if the Epiftle, which is called the Epiftle to the Ephefians, was in fact an Epistle to the Laodiceans, it may be objected, that St. Paul would' hardly have defired the Coloffians to greet in his name the Laodiceans, to whom he wrote, according to this hypothefis,

Pag. 309, 310. 318, 319,

• De textibus originalibus, p. 664.

Supplement, Vol. II. p. 462-468.

c Col. iv. 15. Nymphas also appears to have been a member of the Laodicean community. Why then did St. Paul falute Nymphas in the Epistle to the Coloffians, rather than in the Epistle to the Laodiceans?