all the arguments advanced in the firft fection of this chapter against the opinion, that the Epiftle was written to the Ephefians, as well as thofe in the fecond section against the opinion, that it was written to the Laodiceans, fall at once to the ground. For a circular Epiftle intended for the ufe of feveral churches must contain nothing peculiar to any one of them: it must contain no falutation to any individual either of this or of that community, because the Epiftle was general: nor could the name of Timothy have been annexed with propriety to that of St. Paul at the beginning of the Epiftle, because Timothy, though intimately connected with the Ephefian church, was not fo with the other churches, for which the Epiftle was defigned. To the Coloffians St. Paul did not send a copy of this Epiftle, because he wrote to them feparately: but he defired them to fend for it from Laodicea.

If it be asked, from what caufe the name of Ephefus (EV Eper) became general in all the manufcripts of the Greek Teftament, and all the ancient verfions, to the exclufion of Laodicea, and other names, which the Apoftle might have written in the respective copies, I answer, that when the feveral parts of the Greek Testament were collected into a volume, the copy inferted in this collection muft have been procured from Ephefus : of which the neceffary confequence was, that in the subfequent tranfcripts of the Greek Teftament, which were made from this collection, the reading Eper became the invariable reading, though Aaoding was ftill to be found in feveral fingle copies of this Epiftle, which exifted in the fecond century.

It is probable that this hypothefis agrees alfo with what Marcion thought on this fubject. Tertullian, who was always more the advocate, than the critic, has not fufficiently explained Marcion's fentiments: but there is a paffage in Epiphanius, which, though rather obfcure, will enable us to form at leaft fome judgement of this matter. In his 42d Herefy, p. 309. of the Cologne edition printed in 1682, he fays Marcion admitted

6

admitted only ten Epiftles of St. Paul, in which he omitted fome things and altered others and in the following page he enumerates these ten Epiftles in the order in which they were placed by Marcion, namely, 1. the Epistle to the Galatians; 2. the first to the Corinthians; 3. the fecond to the Corinthians; 4. the Ep. to the Romans; 5. the first to the Theffalonians: 6. the fecond to the Theffalonians; 7. the Ep. to the Ephefians"; 8. to the Coloffians; 9. to Philemon; 10. to the Philippians. Epiphanius then immediately adds, Marcion has alfo feveral fragments of an Epiftle, which bears the name of an Epiftle to the Laodiceans. Here the queftion occurs: had Marcion really two different Epiftles, one called an Epiftle to the Ephefians, the other to the Laodiceans: or were they one and the fame Epiftle, with different titles, which Epiphanius, mistaking Marcion's meaning, represented as different Epiftles? Now Epiphanius, p. 319. under the following title, Προς Φιλήμονα Θ, παρ' ἡμιν δε ιγ' η και ιδ', προς Φιλιππησίες ί, παρ ̓ ἡμιν δες, προς Λαοδικεις ιά, quotes there words : Εἷς κύριος, μια πίσις, ἐν βαπτισμα, εις Θεος και πατηρ πάντων, ἐπὶ πάντων και δια παντων, και εν πασιν. These words are not in the fpurious Epiftle to the Laodiceans, but they are literally in our Epiftle to the Ephefians. Yet Epiphanius quotes them under the article of the Emisoλn gos Acodixes, which he calls a, or the eleventh Epistle, according to the arrangement in Marcion's Apoftolicon : and moreover p. 318. diftinguishes from it the Epiftle to the Ephefians, which he calls the feventh in Marcion's Apoftolicon, and quotes the following paffages, Ephef. 11. 11. 12. V. 14. 31. as they were worded in his Apoftolicon. This confufion and contradiction I am unable to remove in any other manner than by fuppofing,

that

8 Εχει δε και επισολας το άγιο αποτολα δέκα, τις μοναις κεχρηται, ο πασι δε τοις εν αυταίς γεγραμμένοις, αλλά τινα αυτών περιτεμνων, τινα δε αλλοίωσας κεφαλαία.

⚫ Marcion therefore did not reject that Epiftle, which is called the Epittle to the Ephefians, as one might conclude from the words of Tertullian above-quoted, unless we had this paffage of Epiphanius. * Έχει δε και της προς Λαοδίκεις λεγομενης μέρη,

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 Epiftle to the Ephefians,' and others Epiftle to the Laodiceans :' that Marcion fometimes quoted it under one title, fometimes 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. 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.

Of

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 Epipha-nius will cease to favour the opinion, that St. Paul ever wrote an Epiftle, which was defigned for the use of the Laodiceans: in which cafe we fhall be deftitute of all hiftorical evidence in fupport of this opinion. And, fince it appears from the first 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 ufe of other communities, its authenticity will be doubtful.

IN

SECT. IV.

Continuation of this Subject.

N 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

6

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

Some fuppofe that in the place where we now read, τοις άγιοις τοις ασιν εν Εφέσω, St. Paul wrote τοις άγιοις τοις wow . . . ., with a blank space after 8, which was to be filled up in each copy by the name of the respective communities, as foon as the copies arrived at their place of destination. Now, though it is much more probable that St. Paul himfelf inferted each name, before he fent off the copies, yet there is a paffage in the works of Bafil the Great, which appears at first 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 ἡνωμενοις τῳ Οντι δι' επιγνώσεως. Όντας αυτους ιδιαζόντως ωνόμασεν, ειπών, τοις άγιοις τοις Ουσι, και πίσοις εν Χρισῳ Ιησά. Ούτω γαρ οἱ προ ήμων παραδεδώκασι, και ημείς εν τοις παλαιοις των αντιγραφών εύρηκαμεν. 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 muft recollect that the Greeks ufed the word 2, in a very 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 conftituted its identity, To Ov. 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 confute ed.

Bafilii Magni. Op. Tom. I. p. 743. or Tom. I. p. 254. Garnier.

confute an error of Eunomius, and to prove that the Son of God exifted from all eternity. On this occafion he quotes feveral paffages, where Er, in his opinion, is ufed of the true God in this emphatic fenfe, in oppofition to the falle Gods, who are called un OUTES. Soon after he fays that the heathens, who did not acknowledge the true God, were called тa un orra, Efther xiv. II. and I Cor. i. 28.: but that the Chriftians, who worshipped the true God, were called of ovTES. Finding therefore in the Epiftle to the Ephefians, ch. i. 1. the expreffion т015 8, he takes it in the fame emphatical fenfe, and argues from it against the Eunomians, whom he refufes to call of ovTES as being heretics. We, who are accustomed to a more rational mode of interpreting fcripture, muft confider Bafil's mode of reafoning on the words Tsar 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 fenfe of TOIS 1, the inference, which Ufher, Bengel, and feveral other eminent critics have drawn from this paffage, is without foundation.

They argue, namely, thus. In our present text of the Epiftle to the Ephefians we find, ch. i. 1. Tos &ɣIOIS τοις εσιν εν Εφέσω, και πίσοις εν Χρισώ Ιησε : but the EV words which Bafil quotes from this place, as appears from the paflige juft alleged, are, τοις άγιοις τοις εσι, και πίσοις εν Χρισώ Ιησε, without εν Εφεσῳ. Hence it is inferred that in the Greek manufcript, from which Bafil quoted, Epery was omitted. But Bafil, at the very beginning of the paffage, calls the Epiftle, from which he quotes, an Epiftle to the Ephefians, and there.fore we muft fuppofe that Eper 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 manufcripts, which he himself had feen, faying: όντω και ήμεις εν τοις παλαιοις των αντιγράφων ευρηκαμε.