2. It is much more difficult to determine to whom this epistle was addressed. On this subject two hypotheses have been principally entertained, be sides the common opinion which, following the [disputed] reading in ch. i. ver. 1, regards the party to whom it was sent as the church at Ephe sus. Grotius, reviving the opinion of the ancient heretic Marcion, maintains that the party ad dressed in this epistle was the church at Laodicea, and that we have in this the epistle to that church which is commonly supposed to have been lost ; whilst others contend that this was addressed to no church in particular, but was a sort of circular letter, intended for the use of several churches, of which Ephesus may have been the first or centre.
The view of Grotius, which has been followed by some scholars of eminent name, among whom are found Hammond, Mill, Venema, Wetstein, and Paley, rests chiefly on two grounds ; viz., the testimony of Marcion, and the close resemblance between this epistle and that to the Colossians, taken in connection with Col. iv. 16. With respect to the former of these grounds, it is alleged that, as Marcion was under no temptation to utter a wilful falsehood in regard to the destination of this epistle, he probably had the authority of the church at Laodicea, and it may be the tradition of the churches generally of Asia Minor for the opinion which he expresses (Grotius, Proleg. ad .Ephes. ; Mill, Proleg. ad N. T. p. 9, Oxon. 1707). But, without charging Marcion with designedly uttering what was false, we may sup pose that, 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 Laodiceans. Nor is there the least ground for supposing that Marcion spoke in this instance on the authority of the Asiatic churches; 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 churches on such matters, give no hint of any such tradition being enter tained by them, but Tertullian, to whom we are indebted for our information respecting the opinion of Marcion,* expressly says that in that opinion he opposed the tradition of the orthodox churches, and imposed upon the epistle a false title, through conceit of his own superior diligence in exploring such matters (` Ecclesim quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi ct in isto diligentissimus explorator.'—Adv. Marc. v. 17). It is plain that
to a statement of such a nature no weight can be safely attached. With regard to the other argu ment by which this view is advocated, we cannot help expressing surprise that such men as Mill and Paley should have deemed it of so much import ance as to rest upon it the chief weight of their opinion. To us it appears to possess no force whatever in support of the view which they espouse. Admitting the fact of a close resemblance between the Epistle to the Colossians and that before us, and the fact that Paul had, some time before send ing the former epistle, written one to the church at Laodicea, which he advises 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? To us 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 Ephesians' been really the one addressed to the Laodiceans, the apostle would not have deemed it of so much importance that the churches of Colossw and Laodicea should interchange epistles. Such being the chief arguments in favour of this hypo thesis (for those which, in addition, Wetstein alleges from a comparison of this epistle with that to the church at Laodicea, in the Apocalypse, are not deserving of notice ; see Michaelis, Itatroa'. vol. iv. p. 137), we may venture to set it aside as with out any adequate support, It may be observed, also, that it seems incompatible with what the apostle says Col. iv. 15, where he enjoins the church at Colossie to send his greetings to the brethren at Laodicea, etc. Now one sends greet ings by another only when it is impossible to express them oneself. But if Paul wrote to Laodi cea at the same time as to Colossm, and sent both letters by the same bearer, Tychicus, there was manifestly no occasion whatever for his sending his salutations to the latter of these churches through the medium of the former; it was obvi ously as easy, and greatly more natural, to have sent his salutations to the church at Laodicea in the epistle addressed to themselves. This seems to prove that the epistle to the Laodiceans had been written some considerable time before that to the Colossians, and therefore could not have been the same with that now under notice.