1. Grotius, reviving the opinion of the ancient her- etic Marcion, maintains that the part}' addressed in this epistle was the Cliurch at Laodicea, and that we have in this the epistle to that Church which is com- monly supposed to have been lost. The view of Gro- tius, which has been followed by some scholars of em- inent name, among whom are found Hammond, Mil), Venema, Wetstein, and Paley, rests chiefly on two grounds, viz. the testimony of IMarcion, and tlie close resemblance between this epistle and tliat to the Co- lossians, taken in connection with Coloss. iv, 16. With respect to the former of tliese grounds, it is alleged that, as iMarcion was under no temptation to utter a wilful falsehood in regard to the destination of tiiis epistle, he probably had the authority of tlie Church at Laodicea, and, it may be, the tradition of the church- es generally of Asia Minor, for the opinion wliicli he expresses (Grotius, Proleg. ad Ephes. ; IMill, Proleg. ad N. Test. p. 9, Oxon. 1707). But, without cliarging Marcion with dtsignedhj uttering ■what was false, we may suppose tliat, like some critics of recent times, this view was suggested to him by the apostle's allu- sion, in Col. iv, 16, to an epistle addressed by him to the Laodicoans. Nor is there the least ground for supposing that Marcion spoke in this instance on the authority of the Asiatic chui'ches ; on the contrary, there is every reason to believe the opposite; for not only do Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who were fully acquainted with the views of the Eastern church- es on such matters, give no hint of any such tradition being entertained by them, but Tertullian, to whom we are indebted for our information respecting the opinion of Marcioi!, expressly says that in that opin- ion he opposed the tradition of the orthodox churches, and imposed upon the epistle a false title, tlirough conceit of his own superior diligence in exploring such matters (culv. Marc, v, 17). With regard to the other argument by which this view is advocated, admitting the fact of a close resemblance between the epistle to the Colossians and that before ns, and the fact that Paul had, some time before sending the former epistle, written one to the Church at Laodicea, which lie ad- vises the Colossians to send for and read, how does it follow from all this that the epistle to the Laodiceans and that now under notice were one and the same ? It appears more probable that, seeing the two extant epistles bear so close a resemblance to each other, had the one now bearing the inscription "to the Ephe- sians" been really the one addressed to the Laodice- ans, the apostle would not have deemed it of so much importance that the cliurches of Colossa; and Laodicea should intercliauge epistles. Such being the chief ar- guments in favor of this hypothesis (for those wliich, in addition, AA'etstein alleges from a comparison of this epistle with that to the Church at Laodicea, in tlie Apocalypse, are not deserving of notice ; see IMichae- lis, Introd. iv, 137), we may venture to set it aside as without any adequate support. It may be observed, also, that it seems incompatible with what the apostle says, Col. iv, 1.5, where he enjoins the Church at Co- lossse to send his greetings to the brethren at Laodi- cea, etc. No one sends greetings by another except v.'hen it is impossilJe to express tliem one's self. But if Paul wrote to Laodicea at the same time as to Co- lossal, and sent both letters b}' the same bearer, T}-chi- cus, there was manifestly no occasion whatever for his
EPHESIANS
239
EPHESIANS
sending his salutations to the latter of these churches through the medium of the former ; it was obviously as eas}', and much more natural, to send his saluta- tions to the Church at Laodicea in the epistle address- ed to themselves. This seems to prove that the epis- tle to the Lnodiceans had lieen written some consider- able time before that to the Colossians, and therefore could not have been the same with that now under notice. See Laodiceaxs (Epistle to).
2. The opinion that this epistle was not specialh' ad- dressed to au}' one church, but was intended as a sort of circular letter for the use of several churches, was first broached by archbishop Usher (^Aimal. Vet. et Nov. Test. p. 680, Breniffi, IGSG). To this opinion the great niajoritj' of critics have given their suffrage ; indeed, it may be regarded as the received opinion of Biblical scholars in the pi'esent da}'. This ma}' make it ap- parently presumptuous in us to call it in question, and yet it seems to us so ill supported by positive evi- dence, and exposed to so manj' objections, that we can- not yield assent to it. (1.) In the Jirst place, it is to be observed tliat this is a hypothesis entirely of modern in- vention. No hint is furnished of any such ivotion having been entertained concerning the destination of this epistle by the earlj' Church. "With the solitary exception of Marcion, so far as we know, all parties were inianimous in assigning Ephesus as the place to which this epistle was sent, and ilarcion's view is as much opposed to the supposition of its being a circular letter as the other. As respects the external evidence, therefore, this hypothesis is purely destitute of sup- port. (2.) It is a hypothesis suggested for the purpose of accounting for certain alleged fticts, some of which are, to say the least, doubtful, and others of which may he explained as well without it as with it. These facts are, a. The alleged omission of the name of any place at the commencement of the epistle ; b. Mar- cion's assertion that this epistle was addressed to the Laodiceans, which, it is said, probably arose out of his having seen that copj' of this circular epistle which had i)een sent to Laodicea ; c. The want of any precise allusions to personal relations sul)sisting between the apostle and those to whom this epistle was addressed ; and (I. The expressions of unacquaintedness with those to whom he wrote, which occur in this epistle, e. g. iii, 1-4. How these facts may be reconciled with the sup- position that this epistle was addressed to the Ephc- sians will be considered afterwards ; at present the question is, How do they favor the hj'pothesis that this was a circular letter .' Now, supposing them to be unquestionable, and admitting that they are not ir- reconcilable with this hypothesis, it must yet appear to all that they go very little waj' towards affording primary evidence in its support. It is not one which grows naturally out of these facts, or is suggested hy them ; it is plainly of foreign birth, and suggested yb/' them. But when it is remembered that the first of these alleged facts is (to saj' the least) verj' doubtful ; that the second is made to serve this hypothesis only by means of another as doubtful as itself, and that, were its services admitted, it would prove too much, for it would go to show that, to the Laodiceans, the apostle not onl}' sent a peculiar epistle, mentioned Col. iv, IG, but gave tliem a share also in this circular epistle written some time after their own ; and that the third and fourth are botii either partially or wholly questionable, it must be admitted that this hypothesis stands upon a basis which is little better' than none. (.3.) Had tlie epij.tle been addressed to a particular cir- cle of churches, some designation of these churclies would have been given, by which it might have been known what churches they were to which this letter belonged. AVhen it is argued that this must be a circu- lar letter, because there is no cliurch specified to which it is addressed, it seems to be forgotten that the desig- nation of a particular set of churches is as necessary for a circular epistle as the designation of one church is for