that, which I have defcribed in the Syntagma Commentationum, Tom. I. Num. 1. and in which this Epiftle is placed between the Epiftles to the Galatians and Ephefians. But it is manifeftly a mere rhapsody, collected from St. Paul's other Epiftles, and which no critic can receive as a genuine work of the Apoftle. It contains nothing, which it was neceffary for the Coloffians to know, nothing that is not ten times better and more fully explained in the Epiftle, which St. Paul fent to the Coloffians, in fhort nothing, which could be fuitable to St. Paul's defign. 2. As the Epiftle therefore, which now goes by the name of St. Paul's Epiftle to the Laodiceans, is a forgery, the Apoftle might mean an Epiftle, which he had fent to the Laodiceans, and which is now loft. An objection however to this opinion, (namely, that he had sent an Epistle to the Laodiceans in particular) may be made from Col. iv. 15. where St. Paul requests the Coloffians to falute Nymphas, who was a Laodicean. If he had written a particular Epiftle to the Laodiceans, he would have faluted Nymphas rather in this Epiftle, than in that to the Coloffians. 3. There remains a third explanation, which is not clogged with the preceding difficulty, namely that St. Paul meant an Epiftle, which he had written partly, but not folely for the ufe of the Laodiceans. This Epiftle may be that, which is called the Epiftle to the Ephefians, and of which I fhall treat in the following chapter CHAP. CHA P. XX. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. SECT. I. Examination of the question, whether the Epifle, which is called the Epistle to the Ephefians, was really addreffed to the Ephefians. NOT OT only the fuperfcription to this Epiftle is προς Εφεσίες επιστολή, which indeed is of no great authority, but St. Paul's own words, ch. i. 1. are rois άγιοις τοις εσιν εν Εφεσω. If therefore this reading be genuine, the question is at once decided. But there are several eminent critics, especially Mill, J. Peirce, Whiston, S. Crell, Wall, Benfon, the younger Vitringa, Venema, and Wetstein, who prefer the reading TO15 2014 EV Aαodixesα. Wetstein has placed it under his text as preferable to the common reading: and Bowyer, in his edition of the Greek Teftament, has taken it into the text itself. That men of fuch learning as thofe, whom I have juft quoted, efpecially Wetftein, who was not inclined to make alterations in the text of the Greek Teftament, not even where it fuited his own theological opinions, did not adopt this reading without ftrong grounds, may be eafily fuppofed, without my afferting it. But the queftion is, are thefe grounds fufficiently strong, to prove that the reading ev Eper is fpurious? This queftion has been very fully examined by LardnerTM, to whom I fhall frequently have recourfe, though I differ from him in feveral material points. か εν That Supplement to the Credibility of the Gospel Hiftory, Vol. II. Ch. 13. That the reading ev Epery is fpurious, is hardly credible. On the contrary, I have no doubt that it is genuine but I will not therefore affert, that it is the only genuine reading, any more than I would affert that, because I believe the religion, in which I have been educated, leads to falvation, it is therefore the only one, which does fo. That v Er is genuine, we must conclude from this circumstance, that it is confirmed by the authority of all the Greek manufcripts hitherto collated, of all the ancient verfions, and of the \ Greek Fathers, who, as Lardner has fhewn, are unanimous in their opinion, that the Epiftle was written to the Ephefians, and have quoted in no inftance ev Aaodixera in this paffage, inftead of Ev Eerw. Nor is any other reading quoted by the Manichæans, though they were in general difpofed to make alterations in the New Teftament, The The authority of the Greek Fathers is in the prefent inftance of much greater importance, than in most other critical questions: it is in fact decifive. teftimony of Ignatius alone is fufficient: for he not only lived at the fame time with St. Paul, but was particularly connected with the Ephefians, and wrote to them an Epiftle and moreover, when he wrote to them his Epiftle, feveral members of the Ephefian church were with him, namely Burrhus, who was deacon at Ephefus, Crocus, Euphus, and Fronto". Under these circumftances it is abfolutely impoffible, that Ignatius should not have known, whether the Epistle, which is called St. Paul's Epiftle to the Ephefians, was addressed to the Ephefians, or not. But it is a certain fact, that Ignatius confidered this Epiftle as one addreffed to the Ephefians. In the twelfth chapter of the Epistle, which he himself wrote to the Ephefians, he calls them Παυλο συμμύσαι τε ἡγιασμένο, and adds ός εν παση επιστολή, μνημονεύει ύμων εν Χρισῳ Ιησε. The expreffion εν πάση I cannot be tranflated in every Epiftle,' for in every VOL. IV. Lardner, p. 408. every Epistle St. Paul did not speak 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 Epiftle St. Paul praises the community to which he is writing, without any intermixture of cenfure, and fpeaks 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 ufual 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 reafon, 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 Epistle 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, μνημονεύει, which applies to St. Paul, το μνημονεύω in the firft 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, ausustas, implies that St. Paul had defcribed the Ephefians as his • This obfervation, which is of great confequence in explaining the words of Ignatius, escaped the notice both of Pearfon in his Vindicia Epiftolarum Ignatii, P. II. c. 1o, and of Lardner, p. 400, 401. his Symmyfte, or as perfons initiated in the fame myfteries with himself. Now in the Epistle, which we call the Epiftle 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 ngo, and then ver. 6. calls the perfons, to whom he is writing, συγκληρονομοι, και σύσσωμοι, και συμμέτοχοι. It is true that neither the word oupuuns itself, nor even vns occurs in this Epiftle: yet Palladius declares that St. Paul did call the Ephefians pura. The paffage is quoted by Lardner from Palladius", as follows. 'Paul called the Cretans liars, Tit. i. 12. the Galatians ftupid, Gal. iii. 1. and the Corinthians proud, 1 Cor. v. 2. On the other hand, he calls the Romans faithful, the Ephefians μura, initiated, to whom also 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 ouuuusa in this Epiftle, and perhaps where we find at prefent cumμeroxOI: but I mention this as a mere conjecture, on which I fhall not infist. 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 wis itfelf does not once occur in the Epiftle to the Romans, nor pixadexpo in either of the Epiftles to the TheffaΦιλαδέλφοι lonians." 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 fhould hardly expect to find in an Epiftle addreffed to a community, where St. Paul himself had spent three years, and where Timothy at his command had appointed bishops. In the third edition of this Introduction ་་་ ་་་ P In the works of Chryfoftom, Vol. XIII. p. 71. E. |