Further, as regards Tertullian, from the passages already quoted, it may be inferred with much probability that he, as well as Marcion, did not have ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his text. Por it is of the ¢itle that he speaks, and what he charges Marcion with falsifying is not the text itself but the title. If he had had the words ἐν ᾿εφέσῳ in the text he would surely have appealed to that in refuting Marcion. But instead of that he appeals to the veritas ecclesiae.
Then we have a statement of great importance made by Basil. It is as follows: τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων, ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοιῳ τῷ ὄντι δι᾿ ἐπιγνώσεως ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν (Adv. Eunom., ii., 19). Here Basil is obviously referring to the ἐν ᾿εφέσῳ ; not, as some painfully endeavour to make out, to the τοῖς or to the οὖσι. In doing so he gives us to understand that the local designation was absent, and his statement is the more important because he speaks not only of the ancient copies themselves, but also of the tradition of the men who were before him, and describes the clause as being in both cases simply τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ.
There are other witnesses that are considered to speak to the same effect. But they are less certain and at the best only of subordinate importance. There is astatement by Jerome to the following effect : Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum sit ‘‘ Haec dices filiis Israel: qui est misit me,” etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos. . . . Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos qui sint, sed ad eos qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint, scriptum arbitrantur (On Eph. i. 1; vol. vii., p. 545). In this Jerome seems to refer to Origen and his interpretation of τοῖς οὖσι, and to the peculiar reading. But it is at least possible, as Meyer takes it, that the words eos qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles may re- present τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ; or it may be, as others, ¢.g., Alford, think, that Jerome is dealing only with two pos- sible interpretations of τοῖς οὖσιν, without saying anything to imply that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from the inscription.
There is, however, something to notice in the case of certain Latin commentators. In some of these the inscription is dealt with in a way that suggests either that they had not the word Ephesi in the copies they followed, or that it occupied a different place. Thus Ambrosiater passes over the word Ephesi in his com- ment—non solum fidelibus scribit, sed et sanctis: ut tunc vere fideles sint, si fuerint sancti in Christo Jesu. Victorinus Afer’s statement points to a different arrangement of the words—sed haec