fcurity, and rendered it very difficult to be explained. And in a place already cited he fays of the Ephefians, that they had (x) received the myfterie hid from ages: that is, they were initiated, or were partakers of the mysteries of the gofpel with Paul. And to the like purpose in several paffages, juft tranfcribed at the bottom of the page.

་

By all which, I think, it must appear very evident, that Ignatius fuppofed St. Paul's epiftle to the Ephefians to have been really writ to them. And his judgement is decifive. For he could not be mistaken. So fays the writer of the letter above mentioned. Whofe words are thefe "I have been the longer, fays he, upon thefe paffages of Ignatius, "by reason of the weight, his authority might juftly claim in this cafe, was it certain, that he had spoken of this epiftle of Paul, as written by "him to the Ephefians. For if this epiftle was writ in the ninth year of "Nero, and that of Ignatius in the tenth of Trajan, as Bp. Pearfon placeth "them, the distance of time will be but forty-five years. So that Igna"tius, being then far advanced in age, could not well be ignorant of the "truth of this matter. And befides, Onefimus was Bishop of Ephesus at "the time Ignatius wrote his epiftle to that church, is mentioned in it, and had lately made Ignatius a vifit. So that had there been any doubt "concerning this affair, he could easily have set him right."

It might have been added, that (y) Ignatius, at the time of his writing his epiftle to the Ephefians, had with him Burrhus, a Deacon of the church at Ephefus, and Crocus, Euphus, and Fronto, all members of the church at Ephefus, who were then with him at Smyrna. Who likewife, as may be fuppofed, afterwards carried his letter to Ephefus.

If therefore by what has been faid it appears evident, that Ignatius has fpoken of this epiftle of Paul, as writ to the Ephefians, (as I think he does,) we have made out what must be reckoned of great weight in this

matter.

However, it is not Ignatius's teftimonie only, that is decifive. There are many other ancient writers, whofe teftimonie alfo is fatisfactorie, and decifive.

For by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, writers of the fecond and third centuries, this epiftle is exprefsly quoted as writ by Paul to the Ephefians. They fo quote this epiftle, without hefitation, as freely, and plainly, as they do the epiftles to the Romans, the Galatians, the Corinthians, or any other of the acknowledged epiftles of St. Paul.

It is quoted in the like manner by all writers in general, of every age, Latins, Greeks, and Syrians. I would particularly obferve, that it is fo quoted by ferome, who alfo wrote a commentarie upon this epiftle, and had feen many ancient manuscripts and editions of the New Teftament. Who never exprefleth any doubt, whether this epiftle was writ to the Ephefians, nor takes notice of any various reading in the infeription of it. For which I refer to his chapter, in the tenth volume of this work. This epiftle is quoted in the like manner by Athanafius, Epiphanius, Gregorie

(x) Ephefii. . . facramentum quod a feculis abfconditum fuerat agnofcunt. Vid. fupr. p. 330. not. (1)

(y) Vid. ep. ad Eph. cap. ii.

3

CH. XIII. Gregorie Nazianzen, and all the writers of every age, and of different, and remote countreys.

We may also obferve here, that in the fifth centurie, there were fome Chriftians, who had a notion, that this epiftle was writ to the Ephefians, before the Apostle had feen them. It is likely, that this notion was founded upon Eph. i. 15. Nevertheless, they ftill thought the epiftle to have been writ to the Ephefians. Which is a proof, that they knew nothing to the contrarie, and had never heard of any various reading in the infcription of this epiftle. Among thefe is Euthalius, who (z) in his prologue to St. Paul's epiftles confiders the two epiftles to the Romans and Ephefians, as epiftles writ to Chriftians, whom the Apostle knew by report only. This is remarkable. It fhews, that he had no various reading in this place. If he had, he would have taken notice of it. Euthalius was a learned man. He put out an accurate edition of the Catholic epiftles, and of St. Paul's epiftles, with a general prologue to them. And (a) he had confulted, befide others, the manufcripts in the librarie at Cefarea in Palestine. Nevertheless he had not met with any various reading.

And in the Argument of the epiftle to the Ephefians, now placed in the edition of Euthalius, it is faid, that (b) the epiftle to the Ephesians was fent by Paul from Rome to them, when he had not yet feen them, and had only heard of them. I do not ascribe this argument to Euthalius. The reafons were affigned (c) formerly. Euthalius wrote a prologue to St. Paul's epiftles. But it does not appear, that he wrote arguments to each of his epiftles feverally. The fame thing is also faid of the epistle to the Ephefians in the (d) Synopfis of Scripture, afcribed to Athanafius. These I reckon one and the fame, but different from Euthalius.

And I may here take notice of a small inaccuracie in Mr. Wetstein, who (e) in his notes upon the begining of the epiftle to the Ephesians quotes both the prologue to St. Paul's epiftles, and the Argument of the epiftle to the Ephefians in particular, as Euthalius's: though in his Prolegomena, in his account of what Etuhalius had done, he had obferved, and rightly, that (f) thofe Arguments were not compofed by Euthalius, but by another.

I therefore here fuppofe two, that is, Euthalius, and another, who wrote the Arguments of St. Paul's epiftles feverally. Who may be the fame that compofed the Synopfis afcribed to Athanafius.

However, befide these there may have been about this time fome others of the fame opinion. For Theodoret in his preface to the epiftle to

the

(α) Πέμπτη ἡ πρὸς ἐφεσίες κεῖται, πισὺς ἀνθρώπες, καὶ παραμένοντας, ἧς ἐν τῇ προγραφὴ τὸ μυςήριον ἐκτίθεται, παραπλησίως τῇ πρὸς ξωμαίες· ἀμφοτέροις δὲ ἐκ ἀκοῆς grupipors. Euthal. ap. Zacagn. p. 524•

(See Vol. xi. p. 206. and Vol. v. p. 334.

(6) Τάιτην ἐπιτέλλει ἀπὸ ῥώμης, ἔτω μὲν ἑωρακώς αυτές, ἀκέσας δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν Arg. ep. ad Eph. ib. p. 633.

(c) See Vol. xi. p. 207.

. 210.

(ε) Ταύτην ἐπιςέλλει ἀπὸ ῥώμης, ἔπω μὲν αὐτὸς ἑωρακώς, ακέσας δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν. Ap. Athan. T. 2. p. 194. ed. Bened.

(e) Vid. N. T. Vol. 2. p. 238.

f) Vid. ejufd. Prolegom. Vol. i. p. 75.

the Ephefians obferves, there (g) were fome, who faid, that Paul wrote to the Ephefians, before he had feen them. But he fhews it to be a falfe and abfurd opinion, and concludes, faying: "It (b) is manifeft therefore, that the Apostle had preached the gofpel to them, before he wrote to them."

This affords a good argument, that there was not in the fifth centurie, nor before, any notice, or apprehenfion of a various reading in the infcription of this epiftle. For if there had, none would have admitted fo abfurd a fuppofition, that Paul wrote from Rome an epiftle to the Ephefians, before he had feen them.

Another thing deferving notice here is, that before the end of the fourth centurie there was forged an epiftle to the Laodiceans, afcribed to Paul. For (i) it is exprefsly mentioned by Jerome in his book of Illuftrious Men, writ about 392. Which must induce us to think, that the epistle to the Ephefians was never called the epiftle to the Laodiceans. For then there could have been no pretence for forging another with that title, to verify a falfe interpretation of Col. iy. 16.

I should now proceed to another argument. But I must look back, to fecure this, taken from the teftimonie of ancient Christian writers. For it has been argued from a paffage of St. Bafil, in his books against Eunomius, that he had feen fome ancient manuscripts of this epiftle, in which these words, at Ephefus, were wanting. That paffage, as cited formerly, is thus: "And Paul writing to the Ephefians, as truly united "to him who is, through knowledge, called them in a peculiar fenfe "fuch who are, faying: To the faints who are, and [or even] the faithfull "in Chrift Fefus. For fo thofe before us have tranfmitted it, and we "have found it in ancient copies." This point having been already examined by us largely, I refer to what was then (k) faid. It was then argued by us, that St. Bafil does not here intimate, that the word, or words, at Ephefus, were wanting in any copies feen by him. And I would now obferve farther, that our account of this paffage is confirme ed by the works of other authors, both before, and after Bafil. There had lived many learned Christian writers before his time. There were many learned Chriftians contemporarie with him as his own brother, Gregorie Nyffen, Gregorie Nazianzen, Amphilochius, and others: and alfo foon after him, as Theodoret, and Euthalius: not now to mention erome, or other learned Latin authors. None of whom have said, that the words, at Ephefus, were wanting in any copies, which they had feen, The various reading therefore, intended by Bafil, muft have been fomewhat lefs, a small matter, not any thing like i ipiow, at Ephefus. For so remarkable a reading could not have been paffed by in filence, unobserved by all others. And every one may fee, that in this very place, as well

(3) . . τὸν δὲ θείατατον πᾶυλον μηδέπω τὲς ἐφισίες τε θεαμένον, τὴν δὲ ἐπιτολὴν πρὸς αὐτὲς γεγραφ ναι.

Theod. T. 3. p. 290.

(6) Δέδεικται άρα σαφῶς, ὡς προκηρύξας αὐτοῖς τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον ὅπως γέγραψε τὴν ἐπισολήν. Ib. p. 292.

(i). Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenfes. Sed ab omnibus exploditur. De V. I. Cap. v.

(k) See Vol. ix. p. 115.

well as elfewhere, Bafil cites this epiftle, as writ by Paul to the Ephefians. And they are the Chriftians, of whom Paul had faid, that through knowledge they were united to him who is.

In the place, to which I referred juft now, I gave an account of a Differtation of Lenfant, vindicating the common reading. Which was approved by Wolfius, and others. However, Mr. Kufter was not fatisfied. And in the preface to his edition of Mill's New Teftament, he fays, "That (/) the argument, or interpretation of Bafil, depends upon a fuppofition, that the words, at Ephefus, were wanting in the infcription of this epiftle. Otherwife the Chriftians, to whom that epiftle is fent, could not have been reckoned more especially united to him who is, or called fuch who are, rather than the Romans, or Philippians, or any other Chriftians, to whom Paul wrote."

To which I answer: That is faying all, and the only thing, that can be faid, in behalf of the fuppofition, that the words, at Ephejus, were wanting in fome copies, which Bafil had feen. But though this may feem fpecious and plaufible, it is not conclufive. We have perceived from Palladius, and Jerome lately alleged, that there were fome, who appropriated certain characters to divers churches. The Romans were efpecially called faithfull, the Ephefians initiated, and knowing, and the Theffalonians lovers of the brotherhood. But it cannot be thence concluded, that other Chriftians were not entitled to the fame characters: or that the fame things might not be alfo said of them. As may appear to any one, who does but look into St. Paul's epiftles. In which the faith of other churches is fpoken of, befide that of the Romans. And others, befide the Theffalonians, are fuppofed to have been lovers of the faints, or the brotherhood. Says the Apoftle 1 Theff. i. 3. Remembering without ceafing your work of faith, and labour of love. 2 Theff. i. 4 So that we ourselves glory in you, in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all your perfecutions. 2 Cor. viii. 7. As ye abound in every thing, in faith. Ephef. i. 1. To the faints which are at Ephefus, and to the faithfull in Chrift Jefus. ver. 15. Wherefore, . after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jefus, and love unto all the faints. Coloff. i. 2. To the faints, and faithfull brethren in Chrift, which are at Coloffe. Philem. ver. 5, Hearing of thy love, and faith, which thou haft toward the Lord Jefus, and toward all faints. And others, befide the Ephefians, were partakers of the mysteries of the gospel, with the Apoftle. See Rom. xi. 25. 1 Cor. ii. 6. 7. Col. i. 25. . . . 27. ii. 2. iv. 3.

...

That is the very obfervation of Palladius in the place above cited: that when the Apostle blames fome for certain vices, and commends others for certain virtues, he by no means intends to intimate, that those vices, or those virtues, were peculiar to the perfons blamed, or com mended by him.

The Romans were called by fome in ancient times in an especial manner faithfull, the Ephefians initiated, and the Theffalonians or Macedonians, lovers of the brotherhood. But they were not fo, exclufive of

others.

(1) Nec magis Córras Apoftolus Ephefios, ex fenfu Bafilii, vocaverit örras quam Romanos, Philippenfes,, etc. ad quos fcribens codem plane loquendi for mula utitur Kufter.

thers. For all the Churches, or Chriftians, to whom Paul wrote, were faithfull, and initiated, or partakers with him in the myfteries of the gofpel, and lovers of the faints, or brotherhood: though they might be reasonably exhorted to abound therein more and more. As are the Theffalonians themselves, 1 Ep. ch. iv. 10. See also iii. 12. deed, if fuch properties did not belong to them, they could not have been Chriftians. Nevertheless, when thefe feveral characters had been applied to fome, particularly, it is likely, that few would fcruple to follow the fame way of speaking, if there was occafion.

And in

So in the prefent cafe, that obfervation in Bafil having been applied to the Ephefians by fome men of no great judgement, it was left there, and not applied to any others. Indeed it is an impertinent obfervation, as Jerome (m) calls it. And, as it feems, was made ufe of by a few only. But it might have been as properly faid of other Chriftians, as of the Ephefians.

One thing more I add here. They who are for leaving out the words, at Ephefus, muft read the place in this manner: to fuch as are faints, and faithfull in Chrift Jefus. Then this fhould be a general epiftle, not directed to any one place, but to good Chriftians every where. But that it is not a general epiftle, is manifeft from Eph. vi. 21. 22. without infifting now on any other places. But that ye may also know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus a beloved brother, and faithful minifter in the Lord, fhall make known unto you all things. Whom I have fent unto you for the fame purpofe, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts. This plainly fhews, that the epiftle had not a general infcription, to faints and faithful men, but was infcribed to the faints of fome place. And who fhould they be, but the faints and faithfull at Ephefus to whom it is infcribed in all Greek manufcripts, and in all verfions, and in all catalogues of the books of the New Teftament, whether composed by Councils, or others? 4. Once more. St. Paul himfelf fays 2 Tim. iv. 12. And Tychiqus have I fent to Ephefus, very probably referring to this epiftle, as (n) was fhewn fome while ago. This is what Whitby intends at the begining of his preface to this epiftle, before tranfcribed. "That this epistle to the "Ephefians was indeed written by St. Paul, and directed to them, and "not to any other church, we cannot doubt, if we believe either the "epiftle, or St. Paul himself." By the teftimonie of the epistle he means the infcription at the begining, where is at Ephefus, in all manufcripts and verfions. By the teftimonie of St. Paul himself he means what is faid 2 Tim. iv. 12. quoted above.

Having finished the argument in favour of the genuinneffe of the common infcription of this epiftle, which to me appears fufficient, and fatisfactorie: I now propofe to confider objections, which have been railed by Mill, and others.

i Obj. "It is faid, that there are in this epiftle divers expreffions, not suited to the Chriftians at Ephefus, where Paul had been twice, and fpent