Abbildungen der Seite

Marcion's calling this the epistle to the Laodiceans, I mean Tertullian, does also let us know, that • Marcion rejected the epistles of Paul to Timothy, and Titus. And chargeth him with altering the text of scripture, openly employing a knife, not a stile. And speaks particularly of his leaving out texts in the epistle to the Romans. Will any say, that Marcion had good reason for so doing? or that all this was owing to his superior care and judgment above other Christians? For my own part, I think not. And if he said, that this epistle was written to the Laodiceans, not to the Ephesians, he was mistaken at least. He had not, and could not have any good reason for it.

Mille and other learned men after him, in defending their opinion concerning this epistle, magnify the care and exactness of Marcion. · He flourished, they say, in the beginning of the • second century, and lived at Sinope, in Paphlagonia, which was in Asia Minor, as well as Lao· dicea. And he affirmed, that the epistle called to the Ephesians was actually an epistle to the · Laodiceans. Most probably, he had heard so from such as knew the fact, and could inform • him: or rather, had seen some of the manuscripts, which gave it that title.'

But all this is said without any ground. Such suppositions are easily made. But there is no proof of the truth of them. If there be any credit to be given to what the ancients say of Marcion, he must have been a very rash, and arbitrary, and careless critic: provided he at all deserve the name of a critic. And if he thought this epistle to have been written to the Laodiceans ; it is likely, that he took up that opinion without much inquiry, or examination, and without sufficient reason, and perhaps without assigning any.

Jerom,' speaking of Marcion and Basilides, who, as he says, were not friendly to the Old Testament, and altered the gospels and epistles of the New Testament, and rejected both the epistles to Timothy, and the epistle to Titus, and that to the Hebrews, he adds : · And if they • assigned any reasons, why they did not reckon these epistles to be the apostle's, we should • endeavour to make an answer, and perhaps might say, what would be sufficient to satisfy the • reader. But now since with heretical authority they pronounce, and say, this epistle is Paul's, • and that not: they may be fitly answered on the side of truth, in the same manner that they . assert falsehood.'

And Tertullian having spoken of Marcion's admitting the genuineness of the epistle to Philemon, adds, • Nevertheless? I wonder, that when he receives an epistle to one man, he • should reject two to Timothy, 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 epistles :' that is, as he had done of the gospels: which passage, as the reader may remember, was quoted by us " formerly.

It hence appears, that Tertullian knew not why Marcion rejected the epistles to Timothy, and Titus. He knew that Marcion rejected those three epistles. But he was not aware of his having assigned any reasons for so doing : which shews, I think, that Marcion acted arbitrarily in such things as these.

Indeed Tertullian speaking of Marcion's attempting, or designing to alter the inscription of the epistle to the Ephesians useth this expression : • as if he had made more than common * Tertull. adv. Marc. I. 5. cap. xi.

Nunc vero cum Evangelia ejus Christi dissipaverint, et Aposb Miror tamen, quuni ad vnum hominem literas factas re- tolorum epistolas non Apostolorum Christi fecerint esse, sed ceperit, quid ad Timotheum duas, et unam ad Titum, de ec- proprias, miror, quomodo sibi Christianorum nomen audeant clesiastico statu compositas, recusaverit. Adv. Marcion. I. 5. vindicare. Ut enim de cæteris epistolis taceam, de quibus quidcap. ult. p. 615.

quid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, eraserunt, nonnullas ini Marcion enim exertâ et palam machærà, non stylo usus tegras repudiandas crediderunt; ad Timotheum videlicet utramest ; quoniam ad materiam suam cædem scripturarum confe- que, ad Hebræos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere. cit. Id. de Præsc. Hær. cap. 38.

Et si quidem redderent causas, cur eas Apostoli non putarent, 4 Quantas autem foveas in istâ vel maxime epistola Marcion tentaremus aliquid respondere, et forsitan satisfacere lectori. fecerit, auferendo quæ voluit, de nostri instrumenti integritate Nunc vero, quum hæreticà auctoritate pronuntient, et dicant: patebit. Adv. Marc. I. 5. cap. 13.

Illa epistola Pauli est, hæc non est; eâ auctoritate refelli • Sed omnino verisimile est, Marcionem, qui Sinope ali- se pro veritate intelligani, quâ ipsi non erubescunt falsa quamdiu agebat, haud procul a Laodicea, sive ex popularium simulare. Hieron. Pr, in ep. ad Tit. T. IV. p. 407. suorum traditione, seu etiam auctoritate exemplarium quo- 8 Miror tamen, quum ad unum hominem literas factas rerumdani, hanc epistolam tamquam ad Laodicenses scriptam ceperit, quid ad Timotheum duas, et unam ad Tituin, de citâsse. Mill. Prol. num. 78.

ecclesiastico statu compositas, recusaverit. Adfectavit, opinor, I Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fece- etiam numerum epistolarum interpolare. Adv. Marcion.. runt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem, et omnes hæreticos, 5. cap. ult. p. 615. D. qui vetus laniant testamentum ; tamen eos aliqua ex parte fer- n See Vol. i. p. 424. See also here, note remus, si in novo continerent manus suas, et non au- i See below, note • derent Christivel evangelistas violare, vel Apostolos.



[ocr errors]

inquiries about it.' But I suppose Tertullian, to speak by way of irony, and sarcastically: not allowing Marcion uncommon diligence and exactness, but intimating, that a man, who acted thus, should be very careful to be rightly informed.

All this I have said in the way of a general answer to the argument taken from the supposed opinion of Marcion. I will now more particularly inquire what Marcion said and did, and what might be the ground and reason 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' pass by another

• I* pass by another epistle,' says he, which we have inscribed to ! the Ephesians, but heretics to the Laodiceans.'

Afterwards : • According to the true testimony of the church, we suppose that epistle to I have been sent to the Ephesians. But Marcion once had a mind to alter the title, as if he had * made a very diligent inquiry into that matter. But the title is of no importance, since the apostle wrote to all, when he wrote to some.'

I hope I have rightly translated the word "gestiit.' I think it meaneth, had a mind to,' was inclined,' or shewed an inclination so to do.

By these passages of Tertullian we are assured, first, that this epistle which was in the hands of catholic Christians, was, in all its copies, inscribed to the Ephesians. And Tertullian was persuaded, that it was the true testimony, or tradition of the church from the beginning. Secondly, in the first of these passages

Tertullian says, that heretics called this the epistle to the Laodiceans : by heretics meaning, as I suppose, Marcion and his followers.

Thirdly, Tertullian says, that once, or upon some occasion, Marcion had a mind to alter the title of this epistle.

Here it may be questioned, whether by title be meant what we call a running title, affixed to the epistle, or the inscription, which makes a part of the epistle, and is inserted at the beginning of it. I rather think this last to be intended. But take it either way, Tertullian supposed, that Marcion had in his copies the same title, or inscription with the catholics, that is, to the Ephesians, or at Ephesus. Nor does Tertullian say, that Marcion ever inserted the inscription to the Laodiceans, in any of his copies. It seems to me that he did not.

Consequently, what Tertullian says, is, that Marcion, and his followers, sometimes at least, called this the epistle 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 Ephesians, was written to the Laodiceans. He affirmed this to be right, and that the catholics were in the wrong in calling it an epistle to the Ephesians. For he was persuaded it was written to the Laodiceans.

I think this is the most that is said 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 said by him.

I now proceed to Epiphanius, who says, that` Marcion received only ten epistles of Paul. They are these. The first is that to the Galatians, the second is the first to the Corinthians, the third is the second to the Corinthians, the fourth that to the Romans, the fifth is the first to the • Thessalonians, the sixth the second to the Thessalonians, the seventh is that to the Ephesians, • the eighth to the Colossians, the ninth to Philemon, the tenth to the Philippians. He has also • some parts of an epistle to the Laodiceans.' So Epiphanius.

It is well known, that Marcion had an evangelicon, and an apostolicon, or a gospel and an apostle. In the former, as is generally said, he had St. Luke's gospel only. But concerning the truth of that account I make to inquiries now. Our concern at present is with St. Paul's epistles only. And Epiphanius here expressly says, that Marcion received ten, and placed them in the order in which they are rehearsed above. He likewise says, that Marcion had some parts of an epistle 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 baptism, one Christ, one God and Father of all,

[ocr errors]

p. 607.

* Prætereo hic et de aliâ epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios omnes Apostolus scripserit, dum ad singulos. Ib. cap. xvii. præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero ad Laodicenos. Tertull. adv. Marcion. I. 5. cap. xi.

“Εχει δε και επισολας σαρ' αυτω το αγια αποστολη δεκα, Β' Εcclesia quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesioς αις μοναις κέχρηται.

- Αι δε επιςολαι αι παρ' αυτώ λεγομεbabemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos. Sed Marcion ei titu- ναι εισι πρωτη μεν προς Γαλατας -- είδομη προς Εφεσιος, , lum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in illo diligentis- ογδοη προς Κολοσσαεις. "Έχει δε και προς Λαοδικεας λεγοsimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulo interest, cum ad

fesyn,5 MEDT. Epiph. H. 42, num. ix. p. 310.

who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Having so done, he says : Nor did the

unhappy Marcion think fit to take that passage from the epistle to the Ephesians, but from the • epistle to the Laodiceans, which is not the apostle's.'

This account of Epiphanius led H. Hody to say, that Marcion received eleven epistles of St. Paul. James Basnage was of the same opinion. He says: It has been conjectured by some,

that Marcion confounded the epistle to the Laodiceans with that to the Ephesians. But that conjecture cannot be maintained. For he distinguished two epistles of St. Paul, one to the

Ephesians, and another to the Laodiceans. And Epiphanius reproacheth him, because he 1 rather chose to take his passage from the epistle to the Laodiceans, which was not Paul's, than • from the epistle to the Ephesians, where are the same words.'

And indeed, I apprehend, that if we had Epiphanius only, many might be of the same opinion. But comparing him and Tertullian, and examining carefully the whole article of Epiphanius, I think it must appear more probable, that Marcion did sometimes quote the epistle to the Ephesians, as if it had been sent to the Laodiceans. Nor can I perceive any good reason to think, that any letter to the Laodiceans was forged so early as the time of Marcion.

And now I would observe, that Epiphanius seems to have been well acquainted with Marcion’s apostolicon. For he had his writings, and composed a treatise against him, called Scholion, or Scholia, which he inserted, somewhat altered, in his article of the Marcionites, in his large work, called the Panarium, which we have.

Having observed this, I say, that from Epiphanius it appears, that in Marcion's apostolicon the epistle to the Ephesians 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 sometimes quoted this epistle, as written to the Laodiceans. Epiphanius, who had seen Marcion's apostolicon, found therein ten epistles, all inscribed, as in the catholic copies. One of which, and the seventh in order, was that to the Ephesians. However, in one place of Marcion's works and a but one, he had seen a passage of the epistle to the Ephesians quoted, as from an epistle to the Laodiceans. Some such thing as this induced Tertullian, a man of a violent temper, to say;

«I ' another epistle, which we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but heretics to the Laodiceans. However, from Tertullian, as before shewn; it appears, that in Marcion's copies of this epistle it had the same title, as in the catholic copies, and that he never altered the inscription. And thus Tertullian and Epiphanius agree. For from this last likewise we plainly perceive, that in Marcion's apostolicon was the epistle to the Ephesians: but not exactly in the same order, as with the catholics.

And thus, if I mistake not, Marcion himself confirms the common reading at the beginning of this epistle. And this recompence we have of our diligent inquisition into this affair. So it. . often happens. Opposition made to truth is the means of establishing it.

This opinion of the case may be farther justified by two considerations, which perhaps deserye to be mentioned. One is, that there is no notice taken of this affair by any other writers, beside Tertullian and Epiphanius. Jerom, and many others, who often speak of Marcion and his principles, say nothing of it. It is therefore very probable, that his inscription of the epistle to the Ephesians was the same, 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 those, called heretics, so far as we know, had this epistle inscribed to the Ephesians. The Manichees agreed with Marcion in divers of his peculiarities. Nevertheless, in their copies this epistle was inscribed to the Ephesians. This has appeared from the quotations of it in the writings of Faustus, and Secundinus, formerly taken notice of.

pass by

* Ου γαρ εδοξε το ελεεινοτατω Μαρκιωνι απο της προς Paul, que de celle aux Ephésiens, dans laquelle on trouvoit les Εφεσιες ταυτην την μαρτυριαν λεγειν, αλλα της προς Λαοδι- mémes paroles. J. Basn. Hist. de l'Egl. I. 8. ch. 3. num. iii. κεας, της μη ασης εν τω αποσολω. Η. 42. p. 375. in. 6 Marcion l'a citée. Ii en tiroit même quelque preuve pour

Ελευσομαι δε εις τα υπ' αυτα γεγραμμενα. κ. λ. Η. 42.

cap. ix. p. 309. C. son hérésie. On a conjecturé, qu'il la confondoit avec celle Præter hanc tamen ad Ephesios epistolam, putat Epi-. des Ephésiens.-Mais cette conjecture ne peut se soutenir, phanius, recepta etiam esse a Marcione epistolæ ad Laodicene: parceque Marcion distinguoit deux lettres de S. Paul, l'une

ses fragmenta. Εχει δε και της προς Λαοδικεας μερη, inquit. aux Ephésiens, l'autre aux Laodicéens. Et S. Epiphane lui. E quibus tamen unicum illud 'a se productum reperit. Jac. fait une espèce de reproche, de ce qu'il a mieux aimé tirer son Usser. Diss. de Ep. ad Laod. passage de l'èpitre aux Laodicéens, qui n'étoit point de S. • See Vol. ii. p. 215, 217, 233.

But though the inscription of this epistle was the same in Marcion's, as in the catholic copies, he sometimes quoted it, as an epistle to the Laodiceans, and was of opinion, that it was written to them. We are therefore now to inquire into the ground and reason of this opinion.

Pamelius“ in his notes upon Tertullian, as cited by archbishop Usher, (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 says Estius.

It is very probable, that those words gave occasion to the forging an epistle to the Laodi. ceans. Theodoret, not far from the beginning of the fifth century, as formerly cited by us, says in his commentary upon that text: Some have hence imagined, that the apostle had also written

to the Laodiceans, and they have forged such an epistle. Nevertheless the apostle does not say " the epistle to the Laodiceans, but from Laodicea.

That is the unvaried reading of this text in all the copics of the New Testament, and in all ancient Greek writers. And I have suspected, that the epistle to the Laodiceans was forged by a Latin, and that the Latin version of that text gave occasion to it. Fabricius' in the introduction to his account of the epistle to the Laodiceans speaks to the same purpose.

In like manner I have for a good while been of opinion, that the Latin version of this text was the occasion of the mistaken notion of Marcion.

When I formerly gave an account of a Latin Commentary upon thirteen of St. Paul's epistles, written about 380, I took notice, that's the translation of Col. iv. 16. followed by that author, was “ that ye read the epistle of the Laodiceans.” Et vos ut eam, quæ est Laodicensium, legatis. The same translation is in the Commentary of Pelagius. Et ea, quæ Laodicensium est, vobis legatur. Which affords good proof, that this was the translation, which was in the Latin version, then in use.

I also observed in the same place, that this expression is ambiguous. It may import an epistle, written by the Laodiceans: or an epistle, which was their property, as having been written to them. I have since found the same observation in Estius. So Secundinus, the Manichee, in his letter to Augustine, by the epistle of the Ephesians plainly means the epistle to the Ephesians. For his words are these : · Against whom the apostle, in the epistle of the

Ephesians, says, “ he wrestled.” For he says: “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, and powers.” Eph. vi. 12.

It is not likely, that a good number of the Latins, by “ the epistle of the Laodiceans," in Col. iv. 16. understood an epistle written to the Laodiceans. And Marcion also, having before him the Latin version, and understanding the words in that sense, concluded, that St. Paul had written an epistle to the Laodiceans. At length he was brought to think, that the epistle, intended by St. Paul, was the epistle inscribed to the Ephesians. Accordingly, he sometimes quoted it with that title. This will be the more readily adınitted, when it is considered, that Marcion made use of the Latin versions of St. Paul's epistles. So say both * Mill, and' Wetstein.

a Jacobus Pamelius, Annot. 259. in lib. 5. Tertulliani adv. nium perhibere commentitiæ ad Laodicenses epistolze, tamen Marcionem. · Fortassis,' inquit, occasionem dedit Marcioni quia ex illo, "sive Latinâ potius ejus versione ambigua ansam hujus tituli huic epistolæ imponendi, quod legisset,' Col. iv. cepit quisquis illam supposuit, non fuit a me omittendus. • Salutate fratres,&c. Usser. Diss. de Ep. ad Laod.

Lectionis nulla est in codicibus Græcis differentia. Omnes b Sciendum præterea est, Marcionem, antiquum hæreti. enim, quantum scio, habent Tyy ex Aco.ixelas. Ita et Syrus, cum, occasione præsentis loci, epistolæ ad Ephesios scriptæ et Arabs, et interpretes Græci, Chrysostomus, Theodoritus, titulum mutasse, inscribendo eam ad Laodicenos, tamquam ea Theophylactos, decumenius. Neque Latinus aliter legisse non ad illos, sed ad hos scripta esset, &c. Est. ad Col. iv. 16. videtur, etsi vertit: 'Eam, quæ Laodicensium est.' Fabr.

« 'Et eam, quæ Laodicensium est, vos legatis.] Horum Cod. Apocr. N. T. tom. II. p. 853. verborum occasione abusus quispiam concinnavit, atque evul- & See Vol. ii. p. 521. gavit epistolam quamdam, velut a Paulo scriptam ad Laodi- ► Fefellit tamen hos omnes ambiguitas verborum hujus loci, Est. in Col, iv. 16.

prout Latine leguntur. Quod enim dicitur, earn quæ. LaoSee this Vol. p. 11:

dicensium est,' intelligi potest, vel ad quos, vel à quibus episo As some proof of this, I allege the note of Theophylactola scripta sit aut missa. Et quidem priori modo Latini fere izpon this verse. • Which is the epistle from Laodicea ? It is intellexerunt. Sed hanc ambiguitatem dissolvit Græca lectio, the first to Timothy. For that was written from Laodicea.

que sic habet :

Et eam quæ ex Laodiceå est, ut et vos leHowever sone say, it is an epistle, which the Laodiceans gatis.' Est. ad loc. • had sent to Paul. But what good the reading such an epistle i Contra quos se Apostolus in Ephesiorum epistolâ certa

could do them, I do not know.' Tus my n ex naosuxelas ; men subiisse fatetur. Dicit enim, se non contra carnem et η προς Τιμοθεον πρωτη. Αυτη γαρ εκ Λαοδικειας εγραφη. sanguinem habere certamen, sed adversus principes et potesΤινες δε φασιν, ότι ήν οι Λαοδικεις Παυλω επεςειλαν. Αλλ' Secundin. ep. ad Aug. sect. i. Ap. Aug. T. VIII. Bκ οιδα τι αν εκεινης εδει αυτοις προς βελτιωσιν. Τheoph. in k Vid. Mill. Proleg. nun 378. et Ô06. loc. tom. II. p. 676.

' Ac principio, quod a nemine adhuc animadversun puto, Quamquam hunc Pauli locum ncutiquam puto testimo- (nisi a J. Millio Prol. 378. suboluisse putemus) comperimuss





[ocr errors]

3 A

And now, I suppose, it may appear; what regard is due to the authority of Marcion in this matter.

Thus I have at large stated, and considered all the material objections against the common reading at the beginning of this epistle, the epistle to the Ephesians. And the solutions that have been offered, seem to me satisfactory. And from the universal agreement of all copies in that reading, and the unanimous testimony of all Christian writers for the first twelve centuries, it appears, that there is no more reason to doubt of the genuineness of the inscription of the epistle to the Ephesians, than of any other of the acknowledged epistles of St. Paul.

This disquisition has been of greater length than might have been wished. But if any things have been set in a truer light light than usual, it will be acceptable to some.


That the Churches of Colosse and Laodicea were planted by the apostle Paul.

It has been of late a prevailing opinion, that the Christians at Culosse and Laodicea were not converted by St. Paul. But to me it seems, that there is no good ground for it.

Says Theodoret, in his argument of the epistle to the Colossians, prefixed to his commentary, Some are of opinion, that when the divine apostle wrote this epistle, he had not seen the • Colossians. And they endeavour to support their opinion by these words, “ For I would that ‘ye should know, what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as

inany as have not seen my face in the flesh,” ch. ii. 1. But they should consider, that the meaning of these words is this, “ I have not only a concern for you, but I have also great con• cern for those that have not seen me." And if he be not so understood, he expresses no concern • for those who had seen him, and had been taught by him. Moreover the blessed Luke says in • the Acts, “ And after he had spent some tiine there, he departed, and went over all the country

of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order," ch. xviii. 23. Colosse is a city of Phrygia. And Laodicea, * the metropolis of the country, is not far from it. How was it possible for him to be in Phrygia, ' and not carry the gospel to those places? And in another place the blessed Luke says, “ Now . when they had gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.”) ch. xvi. 6.

Só says that very learned writer in the fifth century. And those observations have led me to divers considerations, inducing me to think, that the churches of Colosse and Loadicea had been planted by Paul, and that the Christians there were his converts.

1. The apostle was twice in Phrygia, in which were Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis. Says St. Luke, in the places already cited by Theodoret, Acts xvi, 6, “ Now when they had

gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.” And ch. xviii

. 23. “ And after he had spent some time there [at Antioch] he departed, and went over all the countries of Galatia and Phrygia, in order, strengthening the brethren." To which St. Luke refers again, ch. xix. 1. “ Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus.” St. Luke does not mention any cities by name. But there is no reason to say, that he was not at Colosse. It is much more reasonable to think, that in one, or rather in both those journies, Paul was at Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, chief cities of Phrygia. For, as Theodoret says, how was it possible, that he should be in that country, yea and go through it,” and “ all over it," and not be in the chief places of it ? St. Luke has not particularly named any places in Galatia, in which Paul was;. but he must have been in several towns and cities in that country, where he planted divers churches. Gal. i. 1, 2, So was he, in like manner, in several cities of Phrygia : where also, in all probability, he planted divers churches.

[ocr errors]

Marcionis codices N. T. non ex Græcis exemplaribus, sed ex versione Latina veteri sive Italicâ conflatos fuisse, &c. Wetsten). Prolegom. p. 79.

a Theod, tom. III. p. 342, 343.

« ZurückWeiter »