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 visited either of thefe places, and faw only in his native country, Pontus, copies of the Epiftle in question with Axodiasia, this reading acquires la verji 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 against 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 Marcion et titulum aliquando inter-> polare 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. against 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-t chufe brzd 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. CHAP. XX. cause Epiphanius, in his forty-fecond Herefy, fpeaks of Marcion, as if he had an Epistle 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 fhall 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 Aodines, Ephef. i. 1. it must be afcribed merely to the imperfection of our accounts.. 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 circumstances and contents of the Epiftle itself. That St. Paul must 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 beft 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 Epistle to the Ephefians, was in fact an Epiftle 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, Col. iv. 15. Nymphas alfo appears to have been a member of the Laodicean community. Why then did St. Paul falute Nymphas in the Epiftle to the Coloffians, rather than in the Epistle to the Laodiceans? hypothefis, at the fame time. Mill indeed fuppofes, that St. Paul's defign in greeting the Laodiceans in his Epiftle to the Coloffians, was to make amends for having concluded the Epistle to the Laodiceans, not with the words Grace be with you,' but with "Grace be with all them, that love our Lord Jefus Chrift in fincerity. But, as this was equivalent to Grace be with you,' at least in refpect to all worthy members of the community, and might in fact be confidered as a mark of efteem, and as implying, that the perfons, to whom St. Paul was writing, really did love Chrift in fincerity, there was nothing in this conclufion, which required any reparation. Befides, the contents of the whole Epiftle are fuch, that the perfons, who received it, could entertain no doubt of their being refpected and loved by St. Paul. And at the beginning of it, as was usual in the Greek Epiftles, St. Paul had already given a formal falutation. The arguments, which Wetstein has produced to prove, that the Epiftle in question was written, not to the Ephefians, but to the Laodiceans, are very unfatiffactory. One of them is really a petitio principii. He fays, Si Ephefiis fcripta eft, cur a Laodicenfibus erat petenda:' but this is taking for granted the thing to be proved, namely, that the Epiftle, of which St. Paul fpeaks, Col, iv. 16. was that, which we call the Epiftle to the Ephefians. Another argument ufed by Weistein is grounded on the fuppofed fimilarity of this Epiftle, and of that to the Coloffians, to the Epiftle addreffed to the angel of the church of Laodicea in the Apocalypfe. Now if this fimilarity were real, which it certainly is not, ftill Wetftein's inference would be with ⚫ Ephef. vi. 24. out I will quote two of Wetstein's examples, and leave the reader to judge of the fimilarity. Apoc. iii. 18. Apoc. in. 18. Anoint thine eyes with eye-falve, that thou mayeft fee,' he compares with Ephef. i. 18. the eyes of your understanding being enlightened.' But the former paffage contains a fevere reproof, which cannot be faid of the latter. out foundation: for the fimilarity would confift, not in the fituation and circumftances of the churches, from which alone we could argue, but merely in the thoughts and expreffions. But we cannot fuppofe of an Epiftle written by St. Paul to the Laodiceans, and of the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the Apocalypse, that the one was an imitation of the other. And if we attend to the contents of thefe Epiftles, we shall find reafon to draw an inference directly oppofite to that, which was drawn by Wetstein. For no two Epiftles can in this refpect be more diffimilar: the one being replete with praise, the other with cenfure. Since therefore the Epiftle, which is called the Epiftle to the Ephefians, was addreffed to perfons, who enjoyed the eftecm of St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the Apocalypfe was addreffed to perfons, who, were objects of fevere reproof, we may rather conclude that they were not written to the fame church: unless the inference be evaded by the fuppofition that the conduct of the Laodiceans at one time merited commendation, at another time reproach, a fuppofition, which is not warranted by either of the Epiftles. In another example he compares Apoc. iii. 20. ' Behold, I ftand at the door, and knock,' with Col. iv. 3. that God would open to us a door of utterance, to fpeak the mystery of Chrift.' Here there is no other fimilarity than in the word door:' and an hundred other inftances from various parts of the Bible might be produced with qual cafe, by only having recourfe to a concordance. SECT. III. The Epifle, called the Epistle to the Ephefians, was probably confined to no Chriftian community in particular: but was a circular Epiftle intended for the ufe of the Ephefians, Laodiceans, and fome other churches of Afia Minor. FRO ROM the preceding doubts and contradictions we may be relieved by an hypothefis, at prefent very generally received, but hitherto not fupported by fufficient arguments, that the Epiftle in queftion was addreffed exclufively, neither to the Ephefians, nor to the Laodiceans; but that it was a circular Epiftle intended for their joint ufe, and the ufe of tome other churches in Asia Minor, which Tychicus the bearer of this Epiftle vifited on his journey, being commiffioned by St. Paul to inquire into the fituation of these feveral Chriftian communities. According to this hypothefis then, St. Paul had several copies taken of this Epiftle for the feveral communities, to which he intended it fhould be fent, and fubscribed with his own hand the words, ἡ χαρις μετα παντων των αγαπώντων τον Κύριον ήμων Ιησεν Χρισον εν αφθαρσία, ch. vi. 24. at the end of each copy. At the beginning of the Epiftle after the words τοις άγιοις τοις εσιν, he added the name of the church to which the copy was to be sent, fo that in the copy intended for the Ephefians he wrote τοις άγιοις τοις εσιν εν Εφεσῳ, in the copy intended for the Laodiceans, τοις άγιοις τοις ἔσιν εν Λαοδίκεια, and in like manner in the other copies. Marcion therefore might have seen either in Pontus, or at Laodicea, a copy with the infcription & Axodixera. If this hypothefis be adopted, all f Col. iv. 8. Ον επεμψα προς υμας εις αυτό τέτο, να γνω τα περι ύμων, και παρακαλέση τας καρδίας ύμων. Εphef. vi. 22. Οι επεμψα προς ύμας εις αυτο τοτο, ίνα γνώτε τα περί ήμων, και παρακαλέση τας καρ das pas. In both these paffages St. Paul certainly meant to fay the fame thing: and therefore in the latter, I would read yrg or gra те in two words, for γνωτε, and περι ύμων for σεξι ήμων. |