ページの画像
PDF
ePub

But no one has faid fo much for it as the present Archbifhop of Canterbury, in his Preliminary Discourse to his Tranflation of the Apoftolick Fathers, Chap. IX. §. 12, 13, 14, 15. But that this opinion also is improbable, will presently appear from what follows; for,

[ocr errors]

1.) Had the Apostle intended here any Epiftle wrote to Laodicea, he could not, with any tolerable propriety of speech, have expreffed himself as he does; he muft, as the Greek Scholiafts fay, rather have wrote πρὸς Λαοδικέας, oι Λαοδικείαν, than in Aaodinsias, i. e. he would have faid, the Epiftle to Laodicea, and not the Epistle from the Laodiceans.

2.) Had he meant any Epiftle of his writing, it cannot be thought but he would have called it his Epiftle. How improbable is it, that when he was speaking of an Epiftle of his own writing to Laodicea, he should stile it that from Laodicea, and not rather fay, My Epiftle which I wrote to Laodicea? These two arguments hold equally against both the above-mentioned opinions; but befides

[ocr errors]

It argues against the first, viz. Sir Norton Knatchbull's and Le Clerc's, that Paul refers to fome Epiftle of his to Laodicea, now loft, that no one of the primitive Christians, befides Marcion, till the fourth century, has ever made the leaft mention of fuch Epiftle. None of the fuppofed Apoftolical writers, as Clemens, Hermas, &c. none of the Fathers of the firft, fecond, or third century, feem fo much as to have heard of fuch an Epiftle; the Syriack interpreter also knew nothing of it. Further, who, that has ever heard of the great zeal of the firft Chriftians, can imagine they would, through any careleffness, lose a treasure of so much value? Laying therefore all this together, with the general proof that no Canonical book is loft, Part II. Ch. III. and the oppofition that is in the conftruction of the Apoftle's words to this interpretation, I need fay no more to confute an opinion fo groundless and pre

carious.

The other of Grotius and his followers is indeed more confiderable; but against this I argue,

(r.) That the criticifms of Grotius, by which he supports it, viz. his reading τὴν Λαοδικείας for τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, i. e, the

Epiftle

Epifle of the Laodiceans, for the Epiftle from the Laodiceans, is precarious, and plainly formed to ferve a turn; it being contrary to all manuscripts that were ever yet feen, 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 Epiftle 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 conftrued 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 Epiftle 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 make any alterations in, the idiom of a language. Befides, what is a more common way of speech, than to say, That is the Epifile of fuch an one, when we mean, the person who wrote it? But I must not omit observing, that the main ftrength of this opinion lies in this, urged by Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, and after them by Dr. Mill, viz. that Marcion gave the title of The Epistle to the Laodiceans to that which is now called The Epistle to the Ephefiant: but neither is this of any weight; for

1.) Though Tertullian (as above) fays this of Marcion, yet I obferve, that in the fame place be reckons this an interpolation of Marcion's, and not true, Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare geftiit, viz. Marcion took upon him to give this falfe title to the Epiftle to the Ephefians; and if he by a falfe act did this, how could Paul do it? The authority they depend upon is directly against them; which I wonder these learned men did not observe. It is in vain therefore for Grotius to say, "Cur in eâ re mentiretur, &c." There was no reason for Marcion to lie or forge in this inftance; and no lefs vain for Dr. Mill to fay, Though Marcion was a Heretick, yet there was no herefy in this. It is enough that it is false, and Tertullian himself calls it a forgery.

a See Dr. Mill. Var. Lect. in loc.

2.) It

2.) It is very probable, Tertullian was mistaken in afferting this of Marcion, viz. that he changed the titles; because, as I have above fhewn, Epiphanius is more worthy of credit; seeing he faw and wrote a criticism upon Marcion's Apoftolicon, in which, he says, he reckoned the Epistle to the Ephesians, and that to the Laodiceans, as two diftinct and different Epiftles. There are indeed fome other things urged in favour of this opinion, as that of Grotius and Dr. Whitby, ver. 9. that there is a great resemblance between the Epiftle to the Coloffians, and that to the Ephefians, both in the doctrines and exhortations, and in the very expreffions; so that it is not to be wondered the Apostle would have that Epiftle alfo read to the Coloffians, to let them fee that he wrote the fame doctrine, and gave the fame inftruction to other Churches, and therefore this Epiftle here ftiled 'Ex Aaadineías, was the fame with that now intitled, To the Ephefians; but if this is an argument of any force, it will prove the very contrary to their purpose; for if the two Epiftles were fo exactly alike, there feems to be the lefs reafon for his orders to the Coloffians to procure it, and read it among them. The other arguments of the fame fort I may perhaps elsewhere confider, but shall omit now, judging what I have faid fufficient to prove, that St. Paul wrote no Epiftle to the Laodiceans, which is now loft; fo that the Epistle to the Ephefians did not formerly go under that denomination.

Having had here occafion thus to discuss these words of St. Paul, I fhall only fubjoin two or three more opinions concerning them, with that which feems to me moft probable upon the whole.

a

1. Theophylact fuppofes, Paul meant the first Epiftle which he wrote to Timothy, αὔτη γὰρ ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐγραφη, becaufe it was dated from Laodicea. But this is not probable;

(1.) Because the Epistle to Timothy was written after this to the Coloffians. Of which hereafter.

(2.) Because these subscriptions, or dates of the Canonical Epiftles are of very precarious and uncertain original, not

• In Col. iv. 16,

being affixed to them till a confiderable time after they were firft written.

(2.) Dr. Lightfoot proposes a like conjecture, viz. that if any one be not fatisfied with the explication of the words as spoke of an Epiftle fent by the Laodiceans to Paul, let him, fays he, rather understand them of the first Epistle of John, as written by him from Laodicea, than think it was an Epiftle written by Paul from Laodicea, which is loft. To which I anfwer;

1.) That it is not certain, whence this Epiftle was written.

2.) That it is probable, if Paul had meant John's Epiftle, he would have mentioned John's name.

3.) Others suppose it the fame as the Epistle to Philemon, " whom Paul calls his fellow-labourer, exercifing his ministry " in the neighbour city of Laodicea, which was fent by One"fimus, and for the fake of Onefimus, who was a Coloffian, "was to be read at Colofs ". But this is a conjecture fo entirely groundless, as to deserve no answer."

[ocr errors]

That upon the whole, which seems moft probable is, that Paul means fome Epiftle written by the Laodiceans, which perhaps he sent together with his own Epiftle to the Coloffians, as what might be useful to be read among them; and in this opinion I find feveral of thofe learned men, whom I have mentioned in the beginning of this difcourfe. However, it is very evident from the various interpretations of these words of St. Paul, what it was which firft gave occafion to the forgery of an Epifile under his name to the Laodiceans; and from what has been faid concerning them, that St. Paul wrote no fuch Epiftle.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

CHAP. VIII.

The prefent Epiftle to the Laodiceans is not the fame with the antient one under that Title in Marcion's Apoftolicon. It is Spurious and Apocryphal. It is compofed out of St. Paul's genuine Epiftles, especially that to the Philippians. Erafmus's Opinion of it. A Conjecture concerning its Original. III. THE prefent Epifle, under the name of Paul to the Laodiceans, is not the fame which was in Marcion's

Apoftolicon, and which was seen by Epiphanius.

1. I gather this from those words which Epiphanius produces out of that Epiftle to the Laodiceans, which was in Marcion's Apoftolicon, viz. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all a; but neither these words, nor any like them, are to be found in the prefent Epiftle; the old one therefore, and the prefent one, were not the fame. I muft indeed own, that these words are in the Epistle to the Ephefians (iv. 5, &c.), and this Epiphanius himself observes » ; but this cannot be any objection to the force of my argument, because that Father, who faw and read Marcion's Apoftolicon, not only mentions these as two diftinct Epiftles, but expressly in the three several places cited, blames Marcion for taking this paffage out of the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

2. I conclude the present one, and the antient Epistle to the Laodiceans, to be two different Epiftles, because that which we have now contains nothing in it, that is or can by any be thought erroneous, or heterodox; but the old one was, by reafon of the falfe doctrines it contained, rejected by the primitive Church. Thus Philaftrius informs us;

Hær. 42. tom. i. p. 319, 374,

b Ib. p. 374.

• Hæref. 78.

375.

« 前へ次へ »