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 Teftament, and altered the Gospels and Epiftles of the New Teftament, and rejected both the epiftles to Timothie, and the epistle 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 Apoftle's, we fhould endeavour to make an anfwer, 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 fitly answered on the side of truth, in the same manner, that they affert falfhood."

Ánd Tertullian having fpoken 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 should reject two to Timothie, and

one to Titus, which treat of the government of the church. He had a "mind, I suppose, to alter also 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 these.

Indeed Tertullian fpeaking of Marcion's attempting, or defigning to alter the inscription of the epiftle to the Ephefians ufeth this expreffion: "as "if he had made more than common inquiries about it (z)." But I fuppofe Tertullian to speak 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.

) See Vol. ii. p. 596. See alfo bere, p. 350. not. (2).

(x) See below. note (b).

All this I have faid in the way of a general answer 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) pafs by another epiftle, fays he, which << we have infcribed 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 << 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 tranflated 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 epistle, 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 firft of these pallages Tertullian fays, that heretics called this the epiftle to the Laodiceans: by heretics meaning, as I suppose, Marcion, and his followers.

Thirdly, Tertullian fays, that once, or upon some 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 same title, or infcription with the Catholics, that is, to the Ephefians, or at Ephefus. Nor does Tertullian fay, 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 least, called this the epiftle to the Laodiceans, and perhaps quoted it by that title. But he had not in his copies any title, or infcription, different from that of the Catholics. Marcion gave out, that the epiftle, 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 epistle to the Ephefians. For he was persuaded, 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 seems 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 habemus, hæretici vero ad Laodicenos. Tertull. adv. Marcion. Î. 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.

I now proceed to Epiphanius, who fays, " that (c) Marcion received "only ten epiftles of Paul. They are thefe. The firft is that to the "Galatians, the fecond is the firft to the Corinthians, the third is the "fecond to the Corinthians, the fourth that to the Romans, the fifth is "the first to the Theffalonians, the fixth the second to the Theffalonians, "the seventh is that to the Ephefians, the eighth to the Coloffians, the "ninth to Philemon, the tenth to the Philippians. He has alfo fome parts of an epiftle to the Laodiceans." So Epiphanius.

It is well known, that Marcion had an Evangelicon, and an Apoftolicon, or a Gofpel and an Apoftle. In the former, as is generally faid, he had St. Luke's Gospel only. But concerning the truth of that account I make no inquiries now. Our concern at prefent is with St. Paul's epiftles only. And Epiphanius here exprefsly fays, that Marcion received ten, and placed them in the order, in which they are rehearsed above. He likewife fays, that Marcion had fome parts of an epiftle to the Laodiceans. And he quotes, as from him, those words, which are in Eph. iv. 5. 6. after this manner: One Lord, one faith, one baptifm, one Chrift, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all. Having fo done, he fays: "Nor (d) did the unhappy Marcion think fit to take that paffage from the epiftle to the Ephesians, but from the epiftle to the Laodiceans, which is not the Apostle's."

This account of Epiphanius led H. Hody to fay, that Marcion received eleven epiftles of St. Paul. James Bafnage was of the fame opinion. He fays: " It (e) has been conjectured by fome, that Marcion con"founded the epiftle to the Laodiceans with that to the Ephefians. . . "But that conjecture cannot be maintained. For he diftinguished two "epiftles of St. Paul, one to the Ephefians, and another to the Laodicc ceans. And Epiphanius reproacheth him, because he rather chose to "take his paffage from the epiftle to the Laodiceans, which was not "Paul's, than from the epiftle to the Ephefians, where are the same "words."

And indeed, I apprehend, that if we had Epiphanius only, many might be of the fame opinion. But comparing him and Tertullian, and examining carefully the whole article of Epiphanius, I think, it must appear

more

(c) Εχει δὲ καὶ ἐπιτολὰς παρ' αυτῷ τῷ ἁγίῳ ἀποςόλε δέκα, αις μόναις κέχρηται. . Αι δὲ ἐπιτολαι αι παρ' αυτῷ λεγόμεναι εἰσι πρώτη μὲν πρὸς γαλάτας. . . εβδόμη πρὸς ἐφεσίες, ὀγδοὴ πρὸς κολασσεῖς. . . . Εχει δὲ καὶ πρὸς λαοδικίας λεγομένης μign. Epiph. H. 42. num. ix. p. 310.

(α) Ου γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτω μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς ἐφεσίες ταυτην τὴν μας τυρίαν λέγειν, ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς λαοδικίας, τῆς μὴ ἔσης ἐν τῷ ἀποςόλῳ. Η. 42. ρ. 375. in.

(e) Marcion l'a citée. Il én tiroit même quelque preuve pour fon herefie. On a conjecturé, qu'il la confondoit avec celle des Ephefiens. Mais cette conjecture ne peut fe foutenir, parceque Marcion diftinguoit deux lettres de S. Paul, l'une aux Ephefiens, l'autre aux Laodicéens. Et S. Epiphane lui fait une espece de reproche, de ce qu'il a mieux aimé tirer fon paffage de l'epiftre aux Laodicéens, qui n'étoit point de S. Paul, que de celle aux Ephefiens, dans laquelle on trouvoit les mefmes paroles. J. Bafn. Hift. de l'Egl. 7. 8. ch. 3. num. iii.

VOL. II.

Ꮓ

more probable, that Marcion did fometimes quote the epiftle to the Ephefians, as if it had been sent to the Laodiceans. Nor can I perceive any good reafon to think, that any letter to the Laodiceans was forged fo early, as the time of Marcion.

And now I would obferve, that Epiphanius feems to have been well acquainted with Marcion's Apoftolicon. For he (ƒ) had read his writings, and compofed a treatise against him, called Scholion, or Scholia, which he inferted, fomewhat altered, in his article of the Marcionites, in his large work, called the Panarium, which we have.

Having obferved this, I fay, that from Epiphanius it appears, that in Marcion's Apoftolicon the epiftle to the Ephefians was entitled, and inscribed to them, as it was in the copies of the Catholics. And all the difference between the Catholics and him, upon this head, was, that he fometimes quoted this epiftle, as writ to the Laodiceans. Epiphanius, who had feen Marcion's Apoftolicon, found therein ten epiftles, all inscribed, as in the Catholic copies. One of which, and the seventh in order, was that to the Ephefians. However, in one place of Marcion's works, and (g) but one, he had seen a passage of the epiftle to the Ephefians quoted, as from an epiftle to the Laodiceans.

Some fuch thing, as this, induced Tertullian, a man of a violent temper, to fay: "I pafs by another epiftle, which we have infcribed to the "Ephefians, but heretics to the Laodiceans." However, from Tertullian, as before fhewn, it appears, that in Marcion's copies of this epiftle it had the fame title, as in the Catholic copies, and that he never altered the infcription. And thus Tertullian and Epiphanius agree. For from this last likewife we plainly perceive, that in Marcion's Apoftolicon was the epiftle to the Ephefians: but not exactly in the fame order, as with the Catholics.

And thus, if I mistake not, Marcion himself confirms the common reading at the begining of this epiftle. And this recompenfe we have of our diligent inquifition into this affair. So it often happens. Oppofition made to truth is the means of establishing it.

This opinion of the cafe may be farther juftified by two confiderations, which perhaps deferve to be mentioned. One is, that there is no notice taken of this affair by any other writers, befide Tertullian and Epiphanius. Jerome, and many others, who often speak of Marcion, and his principles, fay nothing of it. It is therefore very probable, that his infcription of the epiftle to the Ephefians was the fame, as in the Catholic copies. If not, his alteration here, as well as in other places, would have been observed. The other is, that all thofe, called heretics, fo far as we know, had this epiftle infcribed to the Ephefians. cheans agreed with Marcion in divers of his peculiarities. in their copies this epiftle was infcribed to the Ephefians.

The ManiNevertheless, This has appeared

(γ) Ελίυσομαι δὲ εἰς τὰ ὑπ' αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα. κ. λ. Η. 42. cap. ἐκ. τ. dè rà 309. C.

ix. p.

(g) Præter hanc tamen ad Ephefios epiftolam, putat Epiphanius, recepta etiam effe a Marcione epiftola ad Laodicenfes fragmenta. Έχει δὲ καὶ τῆς πρὸς aaodixés péen, inquit. E quibus tamen unicum illud a fe productum reperit, Fac. Uffer. Dif. de Ep. ad Laod.

peared from the quotations of it in the writings of Faustus, and Secundin, formerly (b) taken notice of

But though the infcription of this epiftle was the fame in Marcion's, as in the Catholic copies; he fometimes quoted it, as an epiftle to the Laodiceans, and was of opinion, that it was writ to them. We are therefore now to inquire into the ground and reafon of this opinion.

Pamelius (i) in his notes upon Tertullian, as cited by A. B. Ufher, (for I have not his edition at hand :) conjectured, that the words of Col. iv. 16. were the occasion of this opinion of Marcion. So likewise fays (k) Eftius.

It is very probable, that those words (7) gave occafion to the forging an epiftle to the Laodiceans. Theodoret, not far from the begining of the fifth centurie, as formerly (m) cited by us, says in his commentarie upon that text: "Some have hence imagined, that the Apostle had also writ "to the Laodiceans, and they have forged fuch an epiftle. Neverthe"lefs the Apostle does not fay, the epiftle to the Laodiceans, but from La“odicea.”

That is the unvaried reading of this text in all the copies of the New Teftament, and in all ancient Greek writers. And I have fufpected, that the epistle to the Laodiceans was forged by a Latin: and that the Latin verfion of that text gave occafion to it. Fabricius (n) in the introduction

(b) See vol. vi. p. 336. 343.409.

(1) Jacobus Pamelius, Annot. 259. in lib. 5. Tertulliani adv. Marcionem. Fortaffis, inquit, occafionem dedit Marcioni hujus tituli huic epiftolæ imponendi, quod legiffet, Col. iv. Šalutate fratres, &c. Uffer. Diff. de Ep. ad Laod.

(k) Sciendum præterea eft, Marcionem, antiquum hæreticum, occafione præfentis loci, epiftolæ ad Ephefios fcriptæ titulum mutaffe, infcribendo eam ad Laodicenos, tanquam ea non ad illos, fed ad hos scripta effet. &c. Eft. ad Col. iv. 16.

(1) Et eam, quæ Laodicenfium eft, vos legatis.] Horum verborum occafione abufus quifpiam concinnavit, atque evulgavit epistolam quandam velut a Faulo fcriptam ad Laodicenfes. Eft. in Col. iv. 16.

(m) See Vol. xi. p. 88.

• As fome proof of this, I allege the note of Theophylact upon this verfe. "Which is the epiftle from Laodicea? It is the first to Timothie. For that

my

was writ from Laodicea. However some say, it is an epistle, which the Laodiceans had fent to Paul. But what good the reading fuch an epiftle could do them, I do not know.” Τίς δὲ ἦν ἡ ἐκ λαοδικείας ; ἡ πρὸς τιμόθεον πρώτη. Αυτη γὰρ ἐκ λαοδικείας ἐγράφη. Τινὲς δέ φασιν, ὅτι ἣν ὁι λαοδικεῖς πάυλῳ ἐπέσειλαν. Αλλ ̓ ἐκ διδα τί ἂν ἐκείνης ἔδει αυτοῖς πρὸς βελτίωσιν. Theoph. in loc. Tom. 2. p. 676.

(x) Quanquam hunc Pauli locum neutiquam puto teftimonium perhibere commentitiæ ad Laodicenses epistolæ, tamen quia ex illo, five Latina potius ejus verfione ambigua anfam cepit quifquis illam fuppofuit, non fuit a me omittendus. Lectionis nulla eft in codicibus Græcis differentia. Omnes enim, quantum fcio, habent i λadiis. Ita et Syrus, et Arabs, et interpretes Græci, Chryfoftomus, Theodoritus, Theophylactas, Oecumenius. Neque Latinus aliter legiffe videtur, etfi vertit: Eam, quæ Laodicenfium eft. Fabr. Cod. Apocr. N. T. Tom. 2. p. 853.