Hereby, as is argued, must be intended the epiftle called to the Ephefians, but really fent to the Laodiceans. For fays Mill (f), and likewise others after him, this epiftle called to the Ephefians, and the epistle to the Coloffians, were both fent by the fame meffenger, and at the fame time."

may

To which I answer, that if the epiftle, called to the Ephefians, be the epistle intended by the Apostle, and fent at the fame time with that to the Coloffians; it is manifeft, that it was not fent to the Laodiceans. This be concluded from what is faid to the Coloffians, ch. iv. 15. Salute the brethren, which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his houfe. This plainly fhews, that there was not now any epiftle fent to the Laodiceans. If there had, there would have been no occafion for the Apostle to fend this order to the Coloffians. For it is impoffible to write a letter to any perfons, or focieties, without faluting them, or doing fomewhat that is equivalent. And it is manifeft, that in the epiftle infcribed to the Ephefians, the Chriftians, to whom it is fent, are faluted. Particularly ch. i. 1. 2. and vi. 21. 22. 23. This has appeared evident to learned men of the first rank, and different communions. So (g) Baronius, and Tillemont. This laft fays, "that (h) fince "St. Paul orders the Coloffians to falute thofe of Laodicea in his name; "it is a certain fign, that he did not write to them at that time." Du Pin fays: "If (i) St. Paul had writ at the fame time to the Laodiceans, "he would not have charged the Coloffians to falute them in his name.' And James Bafnage: "St. (k) Paul did not then write to the Laodiceans, "fince he falutes them in his letter to the church of Coloffe." The acute and honest Mr. Peirce, though much inclined to Mill's opinion concerning this epiftle, faw this difficulty, and owned it. "But I have one ob"jection, says he, which I cannot fo eafily get over. And were it not for "that, I might fully agree with him. My objection is, that it seems "highly improbable, that St. Paul should fend his falutations to the "Laodiceans, in the epiftle which he wrote to the Coloffians, in cafe he "had fent that epiftle to the Laodiceans by the fame meilenger."

I am

(f). Quidni igitur fcripta fuerit ad Laodicenfes ?... Sane per eundem nuncium mifla erat hæc epiftola, per quem delata erat epiftola ad Coloffenfes, Tychicum fcilicet, nec non eodem tempore. Mill. Prol. num. 74.

(g) Sane nullam eidem tabellario ad Laodicenfes fuiffe a Paulo datam epiftolam, fatis conftat: dum in ea, quam tum fcripfit ad Coloffenfes, falutari mandat cos, qui Laodiceæ effent fideles, fic dicens: Salutate fratres, qui funt Landicea.... Libentius igitur Chryfoftomo ac Theodoreto inhæremus, quam ceteris, ut nulla a Paulo fcripta fuerit epiftola ad Laodicenfes. Baron. ann. 60. num. xiii.

(h) Et puifque S. Paul ordonne aux Coloffiens de faluer de fa part ceux de Laodicée, c'eft un marque indubitable, qu'il ne leur écrivit point alors. S. Paul. note 69. Mem. Ec. Tom, i.

(i) En effet, fi faint Paul eut écrit en mefme temps aux Laodicéens, il n'eût pas chargé les Coloffiens, de les faluer de fa part. Diff. Prel. 1. 2. ch. 2. 2. §. viii.

(k) S. Paul n'écrivoit pas alors aux Laodicéens, puifqu'il leur fait une falutation dans la lettre à l'églife de Coloffe. Bafn. Hift. de l'Eglife. 1. 8, ch. 3. n. iii.

3

I am not unwilling to allow, that the epiftle spoken of in the later part of verse 16. of ch. iv. to the Coloffians, is our epiftie to the Ephefians: and that ye likewife read the epifle from Laodicea: that is the epiftle, that is to come to you from Laodicea. So the place is rendered in the French Teftament of Lenfant and Beaufobre: and (1) caufe likewife to be read among you that which the Laodiceans will fend to you. And their note is this: "that (m) from Laodicea: that is to fay, that which will come to you from "Laodicea. For the original has that fenfe."

If the epiftle to the Ephefians was fent away by the Apostle at the fame time with thofe to the Coloffians, and to Philemon: I fhould think, that Tychicus went first to Ephejus, and there left the epiftle to the Ephefians, with an order, that it fhould be forwarded to Laodicea, and fo to Coloffe. Tychicus having left that letter at Ephefus, went forward with Onefimus to Coloffe where they delivered the epiftles to Philemon, and the Coloffians. And then I fuppofe, that Tychicus's commiffion was at an end. He had no order to go to Laodicea. The Apoftle's falutations to the brethren at Laodicea were to be taken care of by the Coloffians.

year

But I rather think, as before fhewn, that the epiftle to the Ephefians was writ very foon after the Apostle's arrival at Rome, and then carried to Ephesus by Tychicus. And when Tychicus went now in the fecond of the Apostle's imprisonment, with thefe epiftles to the Coloffians, and Philemon; he came afhore at Ephefus, and there left exprefs orders, that the epiftle, formerly fent to them, fhould be foon forwarded by them to Laodicea, and fo to Coloffe. Having fo done, he went, as before said, with Onefimus to Coloffe: where they joyned in delivering the letters to Philemon, and the church at Coloffe. And now the commiffion of Tychi

cus was at an end.

8. Obj. Once more, it is obferved by learned men, "that Marcion "faid, this epiftle was writ to the Laodiceans, or called this the epiftle "to the Laodiceans."

To which I answer, firft, Humphrey Hody denied that (n) Marcion reckoned the epiftle called to the Ephefians to have been writ to the Laodiceans. And indeed this point feems to lye in great obfcurity. Nor is it faid by any one, befide Tertullian, that I know of.

Secondly,

(1) Et faites lire de même parmis vous celle que les Laodicéens vous

envoyeront.

(m) Gr. celle de Laodicée, c'est à dire, celle qui vous viendra de Laodicée. Car l'original a ce fens là.

() Decem tantum epiftolas Pauli, cum particulis quibufdam ex epiftola ad Laod. . . . recepit Marcion hæreticus, quas librum Apoftolicum infcripfit. De ceteris fcripturarum libris nullum agnovit, præter Evangelium Lucæ, illudque mutilatum. Epiftolas etiam, quas recepit Paulinas, mutilavit vitiavitque. . . . . Simonius in Hift. Crit. N. T. cap. 15. contendit, Marcionem nullam epift. ad Laod. recepiffe, fed epiftolam ad Ephefios, falfo infcripfiffe ad Laodicenos. Sed in hoc Epiphanius falli non potuit, qui in Apoftolico Marcionis recenfet epiftolam ad Ephefios loco 7.mo. et illam ad Laodicenos loco xi.mo, węós modixes ά. Ideo vero dicit Tertullianus contra Marc. 1. 5. cap. xi. Epiftolam quam nos ad Ephefios præfcriptam habemus, a Marcione ad Laodicenos inferiptam fuiffe, quoniam locus qui ex Epiftola ad Laodicenos a Marcione adductus eft, in epiftola ad Ephefios exitabat. Quod etiam obfervat Epiphanius. Hod, de Bibl, text, origin. p. 664...

Secondly, Suppofe Marcion to have affirmed this, what does it avail? Grotius fays, in his preface to this epiftle, “Marcion (0) called this the epiftle to the Laodiceans. Nor was there any reafon, why he fhould falfify in this matter." And to the like purpose others. To which I anfwer: Catholic writers of the fame time, and fince, call this the epiftle to the Ephefians. Nor is there any reafon, why they should falfify. Yea the fame is faid, not only by all Catholics, but likewife by all heretics in general. Let Marcion's credit be ever fo good, this is a fufficient anfwer. For what intereft had the Catholics to falfify here? If Marcion faid, this epistle was fent to the Laodiceans, he must have been mistaken. We are affured, that what he said is falfe, from the unanimous teftimonie of numerous men, who had no intereft to deceive, and could not be deceived. But Marcion's credit is very little in fuch an affair as this. The farme writer, who speaks of Marcion's (p) calling this the epiftle to the Laodiceans, I mean Tertullian, does alfo let us know, that (9) Marcion rejected the epiftles of Paul to Timothie, and Titus. And chargeth (r) him with altering the text of fcripture, openly employing a knife, not a ftile. And fpeaks particularly of his leaving out texts (s) in the epiftle to the Romans. Will any fay, that Marcion had good reafon for fo doing? or that all this was owing to his fuperior care and judgement above other Chriftians? For my own part, I think not. And if he said, that this epiftle was writ to the Laodiceans, not to the Ephefians, he was mistaken at least. He had not, and could not have any good reason for it.

Mill (t) and other learned men after him, in defending their opinion concerning this epiftle, magnify the care and exactneffe of Marcian. "He flourished, they fay, in the begining of the fecond centurie, and "lived at Sinope, in Paphlagonia, which was in Afia Minor as well as "Laodicea. And he affirmed, that the epiftle called to the Ephefians was actually an epiftle to the Laodiceans. Moft probably, he had heard fo "from fuch as knew the fact, and could inform him or rather, had seen "fome of the manufcripts, which gave it that title.”

But all this is faid without any ground. Such fuppofitions are eafily made. But there is no proof of the truth of them. If there is any credit to be given to what the ancients fay of Marcion, he must have been a very rafh, and arbitrarie, and carelets critic: provided he at all deferved the name of a critic. And if he thought, this epiftle to have been writ

to

() Marcion hanc epiftolam vocat ad Laodicenfes, ex fide, ut credibile eft, ecclefiæ Laodicenfis. Nam cur in ea re mentiretur, nihil erat cauffæ. Grot. Pr. in ep. ad Eph.

(p) Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. 5. cap. xi.

(7) Miror tamen, quum ad unum hominem literas factas receperit, quid ad Timotheum duas, et unam ad Titum, de ecclefiaftico ftatu compofitas, recufaverit. Adv. Marcion. 1. 5. cap. ult. p. 615.

(r) Marcion enim ex certo et palam machara, non ftilo ufus eft: quoniam ad materiam fuam cædem fcripturarum confecit. Id. de Prafe. Har. cap. 38. (s) Quantas autem foveas in ifta vel maxime epiftola Marcion fecerit, auferendo quæ voluit, de noftri inftrumenti integritate patebit. Adv. Marc. 1. 5. cap. 13.

(t) Sed omnino verifimile eft, Marcionem, qui Sinope aliquamdiu agebat, haud procul a Laodicea, five ex popularium fuorum traditione, feu etiam auctoritate exemplarium quorundam, hanc epiftolam tanquam ad Laodicenfes fcriptam citaffe. Mill. Prol. num. 78.

to the Laodiceans; it is likely, he took up that opinion without much inquirie, or examination, and without fufficient reason, and, perhaps, without affigning any.

Jerome (u) fpeaking of Marcion and Bafilides, who, as he says, were not friendly to the Old Testament, and altered the Gofpels and Epiftles of the New Teftament, and rejected both the epiftles to Timothie, and the epiftle to Titus, and that to the Hebrews, he adds: "And if they affigned any reafons, why they did not reckon these epiftles to be the Apostle's, we fhould endeavour to make an answer, and perhaps might fay, what would be fufficient to fatisfy the reader. But now fince with heretical authority they pronounce, and fay, this epiftle is Paul's, and that not: they may be fly anfwered on the fide of truth, in the fame manner, that they affert falfehood."

And Tertullian having spoken of Marcion's admitting the genuinneffe of the epiftle to Philemon, adds: "Nevertheless (x) I wonder, that when he "receives an epiftle to one man, he fhould reject two to Timothie, and "one to Titus, which treat of the government of the church. He had a "mind, I suppose, to alter alfo the number of the epiftles :" that is, as he had done of the Gofpels. Which paffage, as the reader may remember, was quoted by us (y) formerly.

It hence appears, that Tertullian knew not, why Marcion rejected the epiftles to Timothie and Titus. He knew, that Marcion rejected those three epiftles. But he was not aware of his having affigned any reasons for fo doing. Which fhews, I think, that Marcion acted arbitrarily in fuch things, as thefe.

Indeed Tertullian speaking of Marcion's attempting, or defigning to alter the infcription of the epiftle to the Ephefians, ufeth this expreffion: "as "if he had made more than common enquiries about it (z)." But I fuppofe Tertullian to fpeak by way of ironie, and farcaftically: not allowing Marcion uncommon diligence and exactneffe, but intimating, that a man, who acted thus, fhould be very carefull to be rightly informed.

All

(u) Licet non fint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Bafilidem, et omnes hæreticos, qui vetus laniant teftamentum : tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, fi faltem in novo continerent manus fuas, et non auderent Chrifti. vel Evangeliftas violare, vel Apoftolos. Nunc vero cum Evangelia ejus Chrifti diffipaverint, et Apoftolorum epiftolas non Apoftolorum Chrifti fecerunt effe, fed proprias, miror, quomodo fibi Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de ceteris epiftolis taceam, de quibus quicquid contrarium fuo dogmati viderant, eraferunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt: ad Timotheum videlicet_utramque, ad Hebræos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere. Et fi quidem redderent cauffas, cur eas Apoftoli non putarent, tentaremus aliquid refpondere, et forfitan fatisfacere lectori. Nunc vero quum hæretica auctoritate pronuncient, et dicant: Illa epiftola Pauli eft, hæc non eft; ea auctoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipfi non erubefcunt falfa fimulare. Hieron. Pr. Adv. in ep. ad Tit. T. 4. p. 407•

(x) Miror tamen, quum ad unum hominem literas factas receperit, quid ad Timotheum duas, at unam ad Titum, de ecclefiaftico ftatu compofitas, recufaverit. Adfectavit, opinor, etiam numerum epiftolarum interpolare. Marcion. 1. 5. cap. ult. p. 615. D.

(y) See Vol. i. p. 596. See alfo here, p. 350. not. (q).

(*) See below. note (b).

All this I have faid in the way of a general anfwer to the argument, taken from the fuppofed opinion of Marcion. I will now more particularly inquire, what Marcion faid, and did, and what might be the ground and reafon of his opinion, and conduct. And I think, there are but two writers, from whom we can receive any information, Tertullian, and Epiphanius.

The first is Tertullian. " I (a) pass by another epiftle, fays he, which we have inscribed to the Ephefians, but heretics to the Laodiceans." Afterwards: "According (b) to the true teftimonie of the church, we "suppose that epiftle to have been fent to the Ephefians. But Marcion cc once had a mind to alter the title, as if he had made a very diligent " inquirie into that matter. But the title is of no importance, fince the "Apostle wrote to all, when he wrote to fome."

I hope, I have rightly translated the word geftiit. I think it meaneth, had a mind to, or was inclined, or fhewed an inclination fo to do.

By thefe paffages of Tertullian we are affured, firft, that this epiftle, which was in the hands of Catholic Chriftians, was, in all it's copies, infcribed to the Ephefians. And Tertullian was perfuaded, that it was the true teftimonie, or tradition of the church from the begining.

Secondly, in the first of these paffages Tertullian fays, that heretics called this the epistle to the Laodiceans: by heretics meaning, as I fuppose, Marcion, and his followers.

Thirdly, Tertullian fays, that once, or upon fome occafion, Marcion had a mind to alter the title of this epiftle.

Here it may be queftioned, whether by title be meant what we call a running title, affixed to the epiftle, or the infcription, which makes a part of the epiftle, and is inferted at the begining of it. I rather think, this laft to be intended. But take it either way, Tertullian fuppofed, that Marcion had in his copies the fame title, or infcription with the Catholics, that is, to the Ephefians, or at Ephefus. Nor does Tertulliant Tay, that Marcion ever inferted the infcription, to the Laodiceans, in any of his copies. It seems to me, that he did not.

Confequently, what Tertullian fays, is, that Marcion, and his followers, fometimes at leaft, called this the epiftle to the Laodiceans, and perhaps quoted it by that title. But he had not in his copies any title, or inscription, different from that of the Catholics. Marcion gave out, that the epistle, called by the Catholics to the Ephefians, was writ to the Laodiceans. He affirmed this to be right, and that the Catholics were in the wrong in calling it an epiftle to the Ephefians. For he was perfuaded, it was writ to the Laodiceans.

I think, this is the moft, that is faid by Tertullian, or that can be collected from him. Yea, it feems to me, that I have in a strong manner represented the whole of what is faid by him.

I now

(a) Prætereo hic, et de alia epiftola, quam nos ad Ephefios præfcriptam has bemus, hæretici vero ad Laodicenos. Tertull. adv. Marcion. l. 5. cap. xi.

(b) Ecclefiæ quidem veritate epiftolam iftam ad Ephefios habemus emiffam, non ad Laodicenos. Sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare geftiit, quafi et in illo diligentiffimus exploratur. Nihil autem de titulo intereft, cum ad omnes Apoftolus fcripferit, dum ad fingulos. Ib. cap. xvii. p. 607.