Timothy, Titus, and the Hebrews are also enumerated in his Apostolicon. This is a contradiction so manifest, that Epiphanius cannot possibly be supposed guilty of it, and seems only to have happened through the blunder of some careless transcriber, who, when he had wrote the first ten Epistles and that of the Laodiceans, added the others, as he thought, to make the catalogue of the apostle's Epistles complete. But to return, it is evident there was in the time of Marcion, or in the beginning of the second century, an Epistle under the name of Paul to the Laodiceans. I know indeed that there is in Tertullian an account of this matter very different from this of Epiphanius, viz. "That "Marcion and his followers called that the Epistle to the Lao"diceans, which was the Epistle to the Ephesians: that Epi"stle," says he, "we are assured, by the true testimony of the “church, was sent to the Ephesians, and not to the Laodi"ceans; though Marcion has taken upon him falsely to prefix "that title to it, pretending therein to have made some notable "discovery: and in the same book elsewhere. I shall say nothing now of that other Epistle, which we have inscribed to "the Ephesians, but the heretics entitle it to the Laodiceans." This, I say, is a very different account of the matter from that of Epiphanius: this supposes the Epistle to the Ephesians and Laodiceans to have been one and the same Epistle, only under different titles: the other supposes them to have been two different and distinct ones: several learned men have subscribed to the opinion of Tertullian. Grotius ", Dr. Hammond ×, and Dr. Whitby y, believe the present Epistle to the Ephesians was formerly entitled to the Laodiceans; and Dr. Mill would persuade us 2, that Paul himself directed it to the Laodiceans, and that the present title to the Ephesians is corrupt and false. This I shall have more occasion to examine hereafter: in the mean time shall only observe, that Epiphanius seems in this matter worthy of more credit than Tertullian, because it is cer tain Epiphanius saw and read the Apostolicon of Marcion; in which he says there were these two different Epistles; whereas it does not appear that Tertullian ever did, and therefore as it was easy for the latter to be imposed upon in this case, so it was impossible the former should. CHAP. VII. St. Paul wrote no Epistle to the Laodiceans. The occasion of the forgery taken from Col. iv. 16. Various opinions upon that text. The opinion of sir Norton Knatchbull, Le Clerc, and the popish writers, viz. That the words relate to some lost Epistle, refuted. The opinion of Grotius, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Whitby, and Dr. Mill, viz. that the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Ephesians was the same, refuted. II. ST. Paul did not write any Epistle to the Laodiceans; but that which gave occasion to the forgery of an Epistle under that title was these words of Paul, Col. iv. 16. And when this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea. The seeming ambiguity of the last words, xaì tùy éx Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea, has occasioned much controversy, and requires therefore a discussion here. For some therein have understood St. Paul, as speaking of an Epistle written by him to the church of Laodicea, which he advises the Colossians to procure from thence, and read publicly in their church, as well as to transmit the Epistle which he wrote to them, to be publicly read at Laodicea. That several of the ancients thus explained tv èx Aaodixeías is plain from Chrysostoma; and Theodoret b, who expressly writes against this exposition: "Some," says he, "imagine Paul to have wrote an Epistle to the Lao“diceans, and accordingly produce a certain forged Epistle [so "entitled]: but the holy apostle does not say Tv πpès Aaodiσε κέας, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, but τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, the Epistle from the Laodiceans;" for they had wrote to him on some occasion. The old Latin Vulgate translation is thought 66 a Homil. 12. in Epist. ad Coloss. apud Sim. Critic. Histor. N. T. par. 1. c. 15. p. 137. In loc. apud eund. by several to favour this interpretation, et ea, or (as it is in pope Clement the Eighth, and the Louvain edition c) eam quæ Laodicensium est. Thus the popish writers have generally understood this version, and concluded from hence, that St. Paul means here an Epistle which he sent to the Laodiceans. It is certain, says Bellarmined, from the New Testament, that Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans is now lost, for he mentions it Col. iv. 16. But it is not so strange that the popish writers should fall into this mistake, who take the corrupt translation of the Vulgate for their infallible guide; though indeed even that does not necessarily favour their interpretation, seeing we may render eam quæ Laodicensium est, the Epistle of the Laodiceans, meaning an Epistle written by them, as well or better than the Epistle to the Laodiceans. What seems more strange is, that some protestants, who regard the original Greek above any translation, should suppose the apostle in these words to have referred to any Epistle wrote by himself to the church of Laodicea, which yet I observe they have, though they do not agree as to the same Epistle; for, 66 1. Some have thought the apostle refers to some Epistle of his to the Laodiceans, which is now lost. Thus sir Norton Knatchbull; "The words mean," says he e, "an Epistle which "was written from the apostle to the Laodiceans, which, why "or how it is lost, as that other to the Corinthians, and another "to the Ephesians, as also other books of scripture, is known "to God alone: for the phrase is frequent, as, Tives TV Ex Ts σuvaywyns, some of the synagogue; oi ex nioτews, the faithσε ful; οἱ ἐκ τῆς Στοάς, the Stoics ; ἀνέμοι ἐκ νυκτῶν χαλεποί, the "night-winds are grievous." So Mr. Le Clerc in his French version and notes f τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, Celle qui doit venir de Laodicée; ce qui suppose que S. Paul avoit écrit à ceux de Laodicée, et leur avoit donné ordre de faire part de sa Lettre à ceux de Colosse; i. e. "The words suppose that St. Paul had " wrote to the church of Laodicea, and had given them orders "to communicate part of their Epistle to the Colossians." And • Vid. Jamesii Bellum Papale ad loc. p. 112. d Apud Whitaker. Controvers. de Script. 1. Quæst. 6. c. 9. scil. lib. 4. de Verb. Dei, c. 4. Vid. Walther. Offic. Biblic. §. 1402. e Annot. in loc. in another place 5, the same author, citing these words of the apostle's, adds, Videtur etiam Paulum Epistolam ad Laodicenses scripsisse, quæ interciderit, &c. i. e. "St. Paul seems "[by these words] to intimate, that he had wrote an Epistle to "the Laodiceans, which is now lost; and the loss of this gave "afterwards occasion of forging an Epistle under his name." But how improbable this is, I shall shew presently. 2. Others suppose the apostle to have referred, in these words, to an Epistle written by him, but not one that is lost, but one now extant; viz. the Epistle to the Ephesians. This opinion was first started by Grotiush, who, to support it, changes the true reading τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, and would have us read only tǹy Aaodixeías, i. e. not the Epistle from Laodicea, but the Epistle of the Laodiceans. The annotations of this learned critic are generally esteemed above all others by our English divines; and accordingly Dr. Hammond, who has transcribed or translated a great part of Grotius's notes into his Annotations on the New Testament, Dr. Whitby k, who has notoriously transcribed from both, and Dr. Mill1, have followed him in this opinion m. But no one has said so much for it as the present archbishop of Canterbury, in his Preliminary Discourse to his Translation of the Apostolic Fathers, Chap. IX. §. 12, 13, 14, 15. But that this opinion also is improbable will presently appear from what follows; for, 1.) Had the apostle intended here any Epistle wrote to Laodicea, he could not, with any tolerable propriety of speech, have expressed himself as he does; he must, as the Greek scholiasts say, rather have wrote πρὸς Λαοδικέας, or Λαοδικείαν, than ἐκ Λαodixsías, i. e. he would have said, the Epistle to Laodicea, and not the Epistle from the Laodiceans. 2.) Had he meant any Epistle of his writing, it cannot be thought but he would have called it his Epistle. How improbable is it, that when he was speaking of an Epistle of his own writing to Laodicea, he should style it that from Laodicea, and not rather say, My Epistle which I wrote to Laodicea? These two arguments hold equally against both the above-mentioned opinions; but besides, It argues against the first, viz. sir Norton Knatchbull's and Le Clerc's, that Paul refers to some Epistle of his to Laodicea, now lost, that no one of the primitive Christians, besides Marcion, till the fourth century, has ever made the least mention of such Epistle. None of the supposed apostolical writers, as Clemens, Hermas, &c. none of the fathers of the first, second, or third century, seem so much as to have heard of such an Epistle; the Syriac interpreter also knew nothing of it. Further, who, that has ever heard of the great zeal of the first Christians, can imagine they would, through any carelessness, lose a treasure of so much value? Laying therefore all this together, with the general proof that no canonical book is lost, Part II. Ch. III. and the opposition that is in the construction of the apostle's words to this interpretation, I need say no more to confute an opinion so groundless and pre carious. The other of Grotius and his followers is indeed more considerable; but against this I argue, (1.) That the criticisms of Grotius, by which he supports it, viz. his reading τὴν Λαοδικείας for τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, i. e. the Epistle of the Laodiceans, for the Epistle from the Laodiceans, is precarious, and plainly formed to serve a turn; it being contrary to all manuscripts that were ever yet seen 1, and all the versions, except the corrupt barbarous Vulgate, and all the citations of this place in the writings of the fathers. (2.) That if this reading were the true one, and Paul called it the Epistle of the Laodiceans, it does not follow that he meant an Epistle of his to them; but his words may with equal, and more propriety of speech, be construed of their writing it, than of their receiving it, and his writing it. Nor is that of any force which he urges out of the civil law, and Dr. Hammond after him, That an Epistle is his, to whose messenger it is delivered, especially when it is received by him; for the decrees of the law in after-times can be no proper explications of, or "See Dr. Mill. Var. Lect. in loc. |