that Marcion had not two different Epiftles, the one to the Ephefians, the other to the Laodiceans, but only one, namely, that which is known at prefent by the former name that in the age in which Marcion lived, fome copies of this Epiftle were infcribed Epistle to the Ephefians', and others Epiftle to the Laodiceans :* that Marcion fometimes quoted it under one title, fometimés under the other, which led Epiphanius into error, and induced him to refer to two fuppofed different Epiftles what Marcion had quoted from only one. Of this the example juft quoted is a remarkable proof: fince a paffage which is really in our Epiftle to the Ephefians, ch. iv. 5. 6. is produced by Epiphanius, as being in the Epiftle called by Marcion the Epiftle to the Laodiceans.

If the preceding statement be admitted, the difficulties, in which this fubject is involved, will be removed. If it be rejected, the accounts of Tertullian and Epiphanius will ceafe to favour the opinion, that St. Paul ever wrote an Epistle, which was defigned for the ufe of the Laodiceans: in which cafe we fhall be deftitute of all historical evidence in fupport of this opinion. And, fince it appears from the firft fection of this chapter, that the Epiftle in queftion could not well have been written for the exclufive ufe of the Ephefians, it follows that, unless it were written for the use of other communities, its authenticity will be doubtful.

Ν

SEC T. IV.

Continuation of this Subject.

IN the preceding fection I have reprefented this fubject,

as to me it appears confiftent with the truth. But fince many eminent writers, who agree with me in the opinion itself, that this Epiftle was a circular Epiftle intended

intended for the joint ufe of the Ephefians, Laodiceans, and other Chriftian communities, yet differ in their mode of stating it, I ought not to pass over their fentiments in filence.

Some fuppofe that in the place, where we now read, τοις άγιοις τοις εσιν εν Εφέσω, St. Paul wrote τοις άγιοις τοις 201... g with a blank space after so, which was to be filled up in each copy by the name of the refpective communities, as foon as the copies arrived at their place of deftination. Now, though it is much more probable that St. Paul himfelf inferted each name, before he sent off the copies, yet there is a paffage in the works of Bafil the Great, which appears at firft fight to favour the opinion of a vacancy, and which the advocates for this opinion have accordingly quoted. The paffage is*: Αλλα και τοις Εφεσίοις επιτέλλων, ὡς γνησίως ηνωμενοις τῳ Οντι δι' επιγνώσεως, Όντας αυτους ιδιαζόντως ωνόμασεν, είπων, τοῖς άγιοις τοις Ουσι, και πίσοις εν Χρισῳ Ιησε. Ούτω γαρ οἱ προ ἡμων παραδεδώκασι, και ήμεις εν τοις παλαιοις των αντιγράφων ευρηκαμεν. And writing (namely St. Paul) to the Ephefians, as truly united through knowledge to him who is, he called them in a peculiar fenfe thofe who are, faying: To the faints who are, and the faithful in Chrift Jefus. For thus our ancestors have delivered it to us, and thus have we found it in ancient copies.'

Now before we attempt to judge of this paffage, we must recollect that the Greeks used the word u in avery emphatical fenfe, which we cannot eafily exprefs by any fingle word in modern languages. For inftance in examining the question, whether a fubftance, which is conftantly changing its particles of matter, ftill remains the fame individual fubftance, they called that, which constituted its identity, το Ον. The Deity, who is unchangeable, is called therefore by Platonic philofophers, especially by Philo, ; and in the Septuagint alfo this title is applied to the Deity, Exod, iii. 14. Now this very paffage of the Septuagint is applied by Bafil, to confuté

*Bafilii Magni, Op. Tom. I. p. 743. or Tom. I. p. 254. ed, Garnier.

confuté an error of Eunomius, and to prove that the Son of God exifted from all eternity. On this occafion he quotes feveral paffages, where Es, in his opinion, is ufed of the true God in this emphatic fenfe, in oppofi tion to the falfe Gods, who are called'un ovTÉS. Soon after he fays that the heathens, who did not acknowledge the true God, were called ra un ovra, Efther xiv, 11. and I Cor. i. 28.: but that the Chriftians, who worshipped the true God, were called of OUTES. Finding oi ούτες. therefore in the Epiftle to the Ephefians, ch. i. 1. the expreffion 7015 81, he takes it in the fame emphatical fenfe, and argues from it against the Eunomians, whom he refuses to call oi ovres as being heretics. We, who are accustomed to a more rational mode of interpreting scripture, must confider Bafil's mode of reasoning on the words Tois as very abfurd. But it is of no confequence to the prefent inquiry, whether he argued rationally or not. The only question is, whether he did argue thus, which I think no one can doubt, who reads. all his arguments in connexion. But if this be true, and the whole turns on the fuppofed emphatic fense of T015, the inference, which Ufher, Bengel, and feveral other eminent critics have drawn from this paffage, is without foundation..

They argue, namely, thus. In our prefent text of the Epiftle to the Ephefians we find, ch. i. I. Tois aɣ2015 τοις εσιν εν Εφέσω, και τις τοις εν Χρισῳ Ιησε: but the words which Bafil quotes from this place, as appears from the paffage juft alleged, are, τοις άγιοις τοις εσι, και τις τοις εν Χρισῳ Ιησε, without εν Εφεσω. Hence it is inferred that in the Greek manufcript, from which Bafil quoted, e EQery was omitted. εν Εφεσω But Bafil, at the

very beginning of the paffage, calls the Epiftle, from which he quotes, an Epiftle to the Ephefians, and therefore we must fuppofe that ev EQere was not wanting in his copy. In anfwer to this reply it is again faid, that Bafil, in fupport of the reading which he quotes, appeals to ancient manuscripts, which he himself had feen, faying: έντω α και ήμεις εν τοις παλαίοις των αντιγράφων Ευρηκαμεν.

1

župnaμv. He must have meant therefore, as is inferred, to diftinguish thofe manufcripts which had not Ev EO:σw, from those which had it, and to give the former the preference. But this inference is without foundation: for Bafil not only fays that this reading was in ancient manuscripts, but fays at the fame time, outw oi go μwr wagadedwxari: confequently he makes the common παραδεδωκασί: reading and the reading of these ancient manuscripts the fame. That Bafil therefore omitted v Eper by defign, and by authority, I do not believe. On the contrary, as his whole attention was directed to the word sσw, and his whole argument is built upon it, I would rather conclude, that Bafil's appeal to Greek manufcripts had reference only to 8, which to him was of fo much importance. For, it is not improbable, that, in the fame manner as we find in Col. i. 2. τοις εν Κολοσσαις ἅγιοις, without w, fome few copies alfo of the Epiftle to the Ephefians, in the time of Bafil, omitted the fignificant word, and had only τοις άγιοις εν Εφεσω.

σιν,

Dr. Koppe', if I understand him rightly, propofes to omit, both Ev EQεow, and is you, and to read Ephef. i. I. thus, τοις ἅγιοις και πιςοις εν Χριστώ Ιησύ. In fupport of this argument, he appeals to the words of Tertullian quoted in the fecond fection of this chapter: ecclefiæ veritate epiftolam iftam ad Ephefios habemus emiffam :' whence he concludes that, according to Tertullian, this Epiftle was confidered as having been sent to the Ephefians, merely on the authority, that is, as Dr. Koppe explains it, on the tradition of the church. But whoever is converfant with the writings of Tertullian, must admit, that it was the ufual cuftom of this Latin father to reprefent the church as the only depofitary of faithful manuscripts nor does the expreffion ecclefiæ veritas' neceffarily denote merely oral tradition. Further, he appeals to another expreffion of Tertullian in the fame paffage, Marcion et titulum aliquando interpolare geftiit and thinking only on the fuperfcription, gos Εφεσίες επιστολή Παυλο, he infers that in ch. i. r. no mention

1 Nov. Teft. cum perpetuâ annotatione, p. 287. 288. K

VOL. IV.

mention was made of Ephefus. But cannot the authentic fuperscription of an Epiftle, for inftance, Cicero S. D. Pompeio, or Trajanus Plinio, with equal reafon have the name of titulus? Befides, the authority of Tertullian, in whatever manner the paffage be explained, cannot be opposed to the united evidence of all the Greek manuscripts and all the ancient verfions. If we were warranted to draw any inference, the only one would be this, that there were Latin copies in Africa, where Tertullian lived, in which the name of Ephefus was omitted for as Tertullian was a Latin father, we cannot argue from what he fays to Greek manufcripts. But even this inference would be very precarious, because all the Latin manufcripts, of which we have any knowledge read qui funt Ephefi,' in Ephes. i. 1.

SECT. V.

Of the fituation of the Chriftian community at Ephefus: and the contents and ftyle of the circular Epiftle, which they received from St. Paul.

HE fituation of the Chriftian community at Ephefus

I

Ti have already defcribed in the fourteenth chapter", which relates to St. Paul's firft Epiftle to Timothy: to which place therefore I refer the reader, as containing all that is neceffary on this fubject", fince the Epiftle was not written folely to the Ephefians, but fent to them jointly with other Chriftian communities. On this account it contains nothing, which can diftinguish it as an Epiftle addreffed to the inhabitants of Ephefus, as the

Sect. 2. 3. 4.

two

"Whoever wishes for more information, on the city and church of Ephefus, may confult the Introduction to this Epiftle by Salomon van Til, and G. Gude De ecclefiæ Ephefinæ ftatu.