EXPLANATION OF COLOSSIANS, IV, 16.

165

mony of some of the most respectable and learned of the Fathers on the other side; and all those passages in the Epistle which seem inconsistent with its being addressed to the Ephesians, and neighbouring churches of Asia, can easily be explained. See Lardner and Macknight.

But there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, now extant, against which nothing can be said, except that almost every thing contained in it is taken out of Paul's other Epistles, so that if it should be received, we add nothing in reality to the Canon; and if it should be rejected, we lose nothing. The reader may find a translation of this Epistle inserted in the Notes at the end of the volume.

But what evidence is there that Paul ever wrote an Epistle to the Laodiceans? The text on which this opinion has been founded, in ancient and modern times, correctly interpreted, has no such import. The words in the original are, xai x Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea.* These words have been differently understood; for by them some understand, that an Epistle had been written by Paul to the Laodiceans, which he desired might be read in the church at Colosse. Chrysostom seems to have understood them thus; and the Romish writers, almost universally, have adopted this opinion. "Therefore," says Bellarmine, "it is certain that Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans is now lost." And their opinion is favoured by the Latin Vulgate, where we read, Eamque Laodicensium; that which is of the Laodiceans: but even these words admit of another construction.

Many learned Protestants, also, have embraced the same interpretation; while others suppose that Paul here refers to the Epistle to the Ephesians, which they think he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present inscription is spurious.

But that neither of these opinions is correct, may be rendered very probable. In regard to the latter, we have already said as much as is necessary; and that Paul could not intend, by the language used in the passage under consideration, an Epistle written by himself, will appear by the following arguments:

1. Paul could not, with any propriety of speech, have called an Epistle written by himself, and sent to the Laodiceans, an Epistle from Laodicea. He certainly would have said, "gos Anodizzav, or some such thing. Who ever heard of an Epistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an Epistle from them?*

2. If the Epistle referred to in this passage had been one written by Paul, it would have been most natural for him to call it his Epistle, and this would have rendered his meaning incapable of misconstruction.

3. All those best qualified to judge of the fact, and who were well acquainted with Paul's history and writings, never mention any such Epistle; neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac Interpreter, knew any thing of such an Epistle of Paul; and no one seems to have had knowledge of any such writing, except Marcion, who probably forged it to answer his own purposes. But whether Marcion did acknowledge an Epistle different from all that we have in the Canon, rests on the authority of Epiphanius, who wrote a criticism on the Apostolicon of Marcion; but, as we have seen, Tertullian tells us a different story. It is of little importance to decide which of these testimonies is most credible; for Marcion's authority, at best, is worthless, on such a subject.

But it may be asked, to what Epistle then does Paul refer? To this inquiry, various answers have been given, and perhaps nothing determinate can now be said. Theophylact was of opinion, that Paul's First Epistle to Timothy was here intended. But this is not probable. Dr Lightfoot conjectures, that it was the First Epistle of John, which he supposes was written from Laodicea. Others have thought that it was the Epistle of Paul to Philemon. But it seems safest, in such a ease, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and to believe that it was an Epistle written by the Laodiceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to the Colossians, together with his own Epistle, for their perusal.

That the Epistle which is now extant, is not the same as that which formerly existed, at least as early as the fourth century, is evident from the quotations from the ancient Epistle, by Epiphanius; for no such words as he cites are in the Epistle now extant. But candour requires that it be mentioned, that they are contained in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Let this weigh as much as it is worth, in favour of the opinion, that the Apostle, in the passage under consideration, refers to the Epistle to the Ephesians. This opinion, however, is perfectly consistent with our position, that no Canonical book of the New Testament has been lost.

This proposition, we hope, will now appear to the reader sufficiently established.

SECTION XIV.

RULES FOR DETERMINING WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL-SOME ACCOUNT OF THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH HAVE BEEN LOST-ALL OF THEM CONDEMNED BY THE FOREGOING RULES-REASON OF THE ABOUNDING OF SUCH BOOKS.

Or the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, the greater part have long since sunk into oblivion, but a few of them are still extant. All of them can be proved to be spurious, or, at least, not Canonical. Their claims have so little to support them, that they might be left to that oblivion into which they have so generally fallen, were it not that, from time to time, persons, unfriendly to our present Canon, bring forward these books, and pretend that some of them, at least, have as good claims to Canonical authority as those which are received. It will be satisfactory to the reader, therefore, to know the names of these books, and to understand the principles on which they have been uniformly rejected by the church.

In the first place, then, I will mention the rules laid down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by which it may be determined that a book is Apocryphal; and then I will give some account of the books of this class, which have been lost; and, finally, consider the character of those which are still extant.

1. "That book is certainly Apocryphal, which contains manifest contradictions."

The reason of this rule is too evident to need any elucidation.

2. "That book is Apocryphal, which contains any doctrine, or history, plainly contrary to those which are certainly known to be true."

This rule, also, is too clear to require any thing to be said in confirmation of its propriety.

3. "That book is Apocryphal, which contains any thing ludicrous or trifling, or which abounds in silly and fabulous stories."

This rule is not only true, but of great importance in this inquiry; as, on examination, it will be found, that the largest

part of Apocryphal books may be detected by the application of this single rule.

4. "That book is Apocryphal, which mentions things of a date much later than the time in which the author, under whose name it goes, lived."

This rule does not apply to predictions of future events, which events occurred long after the death of the prophet; but to a reference to facts, or names of places, or persons, as existing when the book was written, which are known to have existed only at a period long since the time when the supposed author lived. The rule will be better understood if illustrated by particular examples. The book entitled, The Constitution of the Apostles, speaks of the controversy which arose in the third century, respecting the rebaptization of heretics; therefore, it is not the work of Clement of Rome, to whom it has been ascribed, nor was it written in his time, but long afterwards.

Again, the book under the name of HEGESIPPUS is not genuine, for it mentions Constantine and Constantinople, which had no existence until long after the death of HEGESIPPUS.

Moreover, in The Constitutions of the Apostles, there is mention of rites and ceremonies relative to baptism, fasting, celibacy, &c., which it is certain had no existence in the times of the Apostles; therefore, this book was not written by an apostolical man, nor in the days of the Apostles, but centuries afterwards.

5. "That book is Apocryphal, the style of which is entirely different from the known style of the author to whom it is ascribed."

It is easy to counterfeit an author's name, age, country, opinions, &c.; but it will be found almost impossible to imitate his style. An author, it is true, may vary his style to suit different subjects, but there is commonly some peculiarity by which he may be distinguished from all others." Jerome," says Sixtus," writes one way in his Epistles, another in his Controversies, a third in his Commentaries one way when young, another when old-yet he always so writes, that you may know him to be the same Jerome still, as a man knows his friend, under all the various casts and turns of his countenance." Thus Augustine says of Cyprian, "His style has a certain peculiar face, by which it may be known."

it

It should be remembered, however, that this rule, although may often furnish a certain detection of spurious writings, is one which requires much caution in the application. There is need of a long and intimate acquaintance with the style of

an author, before we are competent to determine whether a book could have been written by him; and the difference ought to be very distinctly marked, before we make it the ground of any important judgment, respecting the genuineness of a work ascribed to him, especially if there be external evidence in its favour. In fact, too free an application of this rule has led to many errors, both in ancient and modern times.

6. "That book is spurious and Apocryphal, whose idiom and dialect are different from those of the country to which the reputed author belonged."

The idiom and dialect of a language are very different from the style of an author. Every language is susceptible of every variety of style, but the idiom is the same, in all who use the language: it is the peculiarity, not of an individual, but of a whole country.

But as every writer has a style of his own, which cannot easily be imitated by another; so, every country has an idiom, which other nations, even if they learn the language, cannot, without great difficulty, acquire. And for the same reason that a writer cannot acquire the idiom of a foreign tongue, he cannot divest himsef of the peculiarities of his own.

An Englishman can scarcely write and speak the French language, so as not to discover, by his idiom, that it is not his vernacular tongue. Hence, also, a North Briton can be distinguished, not only from the peculiarity of his pronunciation, but by his idiom. And this is the reason that modern scholars never can write Latin in the manner of the classic authors.

This rule, therefore, is of great importance in detecting the spuriousness of a book, when the real author lived after the time of the person whose name is assumed, or in a country where a different language, or a different dialect, was in use. It will be found almost impossible to avoid phrases and modes of speech which were not in use in time of the person under whose name the work is edited; and the attempt at imitating an idiom, which is not perfectly familiar, leads to an affectation and stiffness of manner, which usually betrays the impostor.

The influence of native idiom appears no where more remarkably, than in the writings of the New Testament. These books, although written in the Greek tongue, contain an idiom so manifestly different from that of the language in common use at that time, that it cannot but be observed by all, who have even a superficial acquaintance with Grecian literature.

The fact is, as has often been observed, by learned men, that while the words of these books are Greek, the idiom is