AD LAODICENSES.

Text of the epistle.

Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Ihesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. [²]Gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre et Domino Ihesu Christo.

[³]Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in diem iudicii. [⁴]Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur. [⁵]Et nunc faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae salutis vitae aeternae.

[⁶]Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus laetor et gaudeo. [⁷]Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam; quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem. [⁸]Est enim mihi vivere in Christo et mori gaudium. [⁹]Et id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes.

[¹⁰]Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: [¹¹]Est enim Deus qui operatur in vos. [¹²]Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.

#¹³al_13#Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo; et praecavete sordidos in lucro. [¹⁴]Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud Deum; et estote firmi in sensu Christi. [¹⁵]Et quae integra et vera et pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. [¹⁶]Et quae audistis et accepistis in corde retinete; et erit vobis pax.

[¹⁸]Salutant vos sancti.

[¹⁹]Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro.

[²⁰]Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.

Inc. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses P₂R) BDP₁P₂P₃CRH₂SV; Epistola ad laodicenses TM (if this heading be not due to the editors themselves); Incipit epistola pauli ad laodicenses GH₁; Incipit epistola beati pauli ad laodicenses X; Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat esse pauli A: no heading in L₁L₂H₂.

apostolus] om. TM. hominibus] homine G. ihesum christum] christum ihesum T. christum] add. ‘et deum patrem omnipotentem qui suscitavit eum a mortuis’ RX. fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt fratribus A. For fratribus B has fratres. laodiciae] laodicae T; ladoicie L; laudaciae A; laudiciae R; laodiceae B.

2. patre] et patre nostro L₁; patre nostro H₁H₂SM; nostro A. domino] add. nostro P₂P₃RGL₂.

3. christo] deo meo DP₁P₂P₃CL₁; deo meo et christo ihesu RX. meam] memoriam M. permanentes estis] estis permanentes AGR. in operibus eius] in operibus bonis H₁H₂S; om BDTP₁P₂P₃CM. promissum expectantes] promissa expectantes T; et promissum expectantes M; promissionem expectantes V; sperantes promissionem AG; sperantes promissum RX. diem] die BTDP₁P₃GCRH₁H₂SL₁VMX. iudicii] iudicationis GRX.

4. neque] add. enim R. destituant] distituant A; destituunt H₁; destituat M, Spec.; destituit DP₁P₃CM; distituit B; destitui P₂; disturbat T. vaniloquia] vaniloquentia BDTP₁P₂P₃GCVM; vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium] insinuantium se GM; insanientium H₁S; insimulantium T. ut] sed ut BA; sed peto ne R; seductorum ne X. vos] om. T. avertant] Spec.; evertant FML₂; evertent B. evangelii] aevanguelii A (and so below).

5. et nunc ... veritatis evangelii] om. L. faciet deus] deus faciet AG. ut] add. sint G. qui] que (altered from qui) P₃* (or P₃**). me] add. perveniant TM; add. proficiant V. ad profectum] imperfectum A; ad perfectum R; in profectum G. veritatis evangelii] evangelii veritatis V. deservientes] add. sint P₂**P₃**H₁H₂S. For deservientes RX have dei servientes. et facientes] repeated in L₁. For facientes benignitatem operum T has benignitatem operum facientes. operum] eorum RX; opera L₂. quae] om. M; add. sunt AP₂**GCRH₁H₂SVX. It is impossible to say in many cases whether a scribe intended operum quae or operumque. Ranke prints operumque in F. salutis] add. et L₁.

6. nunc] nō = non L₂. palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt (om. palam) A. Christo] add. Ihesu (iesu) DP₁P₂P₃CVX. quibus] in quibus TRMP₂. et] ut C.

7. mihi] michi H₁S (and so below); enim (for mihi) M. factum] fletum L₂M; factum est TP₃**H₁S. orationibus] operationibus B. vestris] meis DP₁. et] est M: om. TGRL₁X. administrante spiritu sancto] administrantem spiritum sanctum FBL₂; amministrante spiritum sanctum DCP₁P₂* (but there is an erasure in P₁). For administrante L₁X have amministrante; and for spiritu sancto G transposes and reads sancto spiritu. per mortem] mortem (om. per) H₁.

8. est enim] etenim T. mihi] om. M. vivere] vivere vita DTP₁P₂P₃CVH₁H₂S; vere vita FL₁RMX; vera vita B; vere (altered into vivere prima manu) vita L₂. gaudium] lucrum et gaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H₂P₂**; gaudium vel lucrum H₁S.

9. et] om. T; qui (om. et) V. id ipsum] in ipsum FBL₂; in idipsum L₁V; ipsum P₂GM; ipse TAH₁H₂SRX. in vobis] vobis P₂; in nobis H₂. misericordia sua] misericordiam suam FBDAP₁P₂P₃CH₁H₂RSVL₁XL₂ (but written misericordiā suā in several cases). et] om. L₁; ut V. unianimes] unanimes BDTP₁P₂P₃GCH₁RL₁L₂VMSX.

10. ergo] ego H₂. ut] et L₂. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP; praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P₃**; praesentiam mihi M; presenciam eius L₂; praesentiam dei A; præsentiam domini (dnī) P₂**H₁H₂S. ita] om. DP₁P₂**P₃CX. retinete] retinere A; sentite T. in] cum TM; om. B. timore] timorem AB. dei] domini H₁S. vita] pax et vita RX. in aeternum] in aeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PL₁.

11. Est enim ... vos] om. (?) T. enim] om. B. vos] vobis GAH₁H₂SRVP₂** (or P₂*) P₃**MX.

12. retractu] retractatu BP₂RL₂; retractatione AGV; tractu T; reatu H₁S. In P₂** ut peccato is added; in H₂ t peccato. quaecumque] quodcumque TM.

13. quod est reliquum] quod est FBTDP₁P₂*P₃*RCL₁L₂MX; quod est optimum GH₁H₂SV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum P₂**; quod bonum est P₃**: see p. [356]. dilectissimi] dilectissime B. christo] domino DP₁P₂P₃CX. sordidos] add. omnes P₂**H₁H₂S; add. homines A. in] ut L₁. lucro] lucrum RX.

14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (attached to the preceding sentence) TM. sint] omitted here and placed after palam H₁S. apud] aput F; ante AG. deum] dominum A. firmi in sensu christi] sensu firmi in christo ihesu R.

15. quae] add. sunt R. integra] intigra; add. sunt T. vera] add. sunt DP_1P_2P_3CVX. pudica et iusta] iusta et pudica R. iusta] iusta et casta AGV; casta et iusta P_2**H_1H_2S. amabilia] add. sunt TH_1H_2SM; add. et sancta RX.

16. audistis] add. et vidistis L_2. accepistis] accipistis A. pax] add. ver. 17, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos for fratres GV) in osculo sancto AGP_2**H_1H_2SRVX.

18. sancti] omnes sancti AGRH_1SVX; sancti omnes H_2; add. in christo ihesu RX.

19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ihesu (iesu) christi DTAP_1P_2P_3GCH_1H_2SVMRX.

20. et] add. hanc H_1H_2SP_2**. legi] add. epistolam L_1P_3** colosensibus et] om. FTDP_1P_2*P_3CVL_1L_2. They are also omitted in the La Cava MS; see above p. 348. colosensium] add. epistolam L_2. The words colosensibus, colosensium, are commonly written with a single s, more especially in the oldest MSS. In L_1 the form is cholosensium.

The last sentence et facite etc. is entirely omitted in M. In RX it is expanded into et facite legi colosensibus hanc epistolam et colosensium (colosensibus R) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est honor et gloria in secula seculorum. amen.

Subscriptions. Explicit P_2P_3H_1; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses R) DP_1GCH_2SRVX. There is no subscription in AL_1L_2, and none is given for TM.

Notes on the epistle.

The following notes are added for the sake of elucidating one or two points of difficulty in the text or interpretation of the epistle.

4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the Speculum § 50 published by Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. I. 2. p. 62 sq., ‘Item ad Laodicenses: Neque destituat vos quorundam vaneloquentia (sic) insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur’. We ought possibly to adopt the reading ‘destituat ... vaniloquentia’ of this and other old mss in preference to the ‘destituant ... vaniloquia’ of F. ‘Vaniloquium’ however is the rendering of ματαιολογία 1 Tim. i. 6, and is supported by such analogies as inaniloquium, maliloquium, multiloquium, stultiloquium, etc.; see Hagen Sprachl. Erörter. zur Vulgata p. 74, Roensch Das Neue Testament Tertullians p. 710.

destituant] Properly ‘leave in the lurch’ and so ‘cheat’, ‘beguile’, e.g. Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 40 ‘induxit, decepit, destituit, adversariis tradidit, omni fraude et perfidia fefellit.’ In Heb. ix. 26 εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας is translated ‘ad destitutionem peccati’. The original here may have been ἐξαπατήσωσιν or ἀθετήσωσιν. insinuantium] In late Latin this word means little more than ‘to communicate’, ‘to inculcate’, ‘to teach’: see the references in Roensch Itala u. Vulgata p. 387, Heumann Handlexicon des römischen Rechts s.v., Ducange Glossarium s.v. So too ‘insinuator’ Tertull. ad Nat. ii. 1, ‘insinuatrix’ August. Ep. 110 (II. p. 317). In Acts xvii. 3 it is the rendering of παρατιθέμενος.

5 ut qui sunt etc.] The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt; and a comparison with Phil. i. 12 τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ μᾶλλον εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν seems to reveal the nature of the corruption. (1) For ‘qui’ we should probably read ‘quæ’, which indeed is found in some late MSS of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the sentence, probably after ‘evangelii’. The original therefore would run in this form ‘ut quæ sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant] ... deservientes etc.,’ the participles belonging to a separate sentence of which the beginning is lost. The supplements ‘perveniant’, ‘proficiant’, found in some MSS give the right sense, though perhaps they are conjectural. The Vulgate of Phil. i. 12 is ‘quæ circa me sunt magis ad profectum venerunt evangelii’. In the latter part of the verse it is impossible in many cases to say whether a MS intends ‘operum quæ’ or ‘operumque’; but the former is probably correct, as representing ἐργων τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας: unless indeed this sentence also is corrupt or mutilated.

7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we may perhaps venture on the emendation ‘administratione spiritus sancti’, as this more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded, Phil. i. 19 διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος κ.τ.λ.

12 retractu] ‘wavering’, ‘hesitation’. For this sense of ‘retractare’, ‘to rehandle, discuss’, and so ‘to question, hesitate’, and even ‘to shirk, decline’, see Oehler Tertullian, index p. cxciii, Roensch N. T. Tertullian’s p. 669, Ducange Glossarium s.v.: comp. e.g. Iren. v. 11. 1 ‘ne relinqueretur quæstio his qui infideliter retractant de eo’. So ‘retractator’ is equivalent to ‘detractator’ in Tert. de Jejun. 15 ‘retractatores hujus officii’ (see Oehler’s note); and in 1 Sam. xiv. 39 ‘absque retractatione morietur’ is the rendering of ‘dying he shall die’, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖται. Here the expression probably represents χωρὶς ... διαλογισμῶν of Phil. ii. 14, which in the Old Latin is ‘sine ... detractionibus’. All three forms occur, retractus (Tert. Scorp. 1), retractatus (Tert. Apol. 4, adv. Marc. i. 1, v. 3, adv. Prax. 2, and frequently), retractatio (Cic. Tusc. v. 29, ‘sine retractatione’ and so frequently; 1 Sam. l. c). Here ‘retractus’ must be preferred, both as being the least common form and as having the highest MS authority. In Tert. Scorp. 1 however it is not used in this same sense.

13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 352, and shall have to speak of it again, p. 357. The oldest and most trustworthy MSS have simply ‘quod est’. The word ‘reliquum’ must be supplied, as Anger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. iii. 1 τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ. See the Vulgate translation of τὸ λοιπόν in 1 Cor. vii. 29. Later and less trustworthy authorities supply ‘optimum’ or ‘bonum’.

14 in sensu Christi] ‘in the mind of Christ’: for in 1 Cor. ii. 16 νοῦν Χριστοῦ is rendered ‘sensum Christi’.

20 facite legi etc.] Though the words ‘Colosensibus et’ are wanting in very many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I have felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies, because (1) The homœoteleuton would account for their omission even in very ancient MSS; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their insertion; (3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe, who would hardly have manipulated the sentence into a form which savours so strongly of a Greek original.

Theory of a Greek original discussed.

It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was altogether a forgery of the Western Church [^[628]]; and consequently that the Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves the earliest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained its widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think, strong reasons for dissenting from this opinion.

Frequent Grecisms in the epistle.

If we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the additions contributed by the later MSS, we are struck with its cramped style. Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we come to examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very largely to the fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus for instance we have ver. 5 ‘qui [or quæ] sunt ex me’, οἱ [or τὰ] ἐξ ἐμοῦ; operum quæ salutis, ἐργων τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας; ver. 6 palam vincula mea quæ patior, φανεροὶ οἱ δεσμοί μου ὃυς ὑπομένω; ver. 13 sordidos in lucro, αἰσχροκερδεῖς; ver. 20 et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis, καὶ ποιήσατε ἵνα τοῖς Κολασσαεῦσιν ἀναγνωσθῇ καὶ ἡ Κολασσαέων ἵνα [καὶ] ὑμῖν. It is quite possible indeed that parallels for some of these anomalies may be found in Latin writers. Thus Tert. c. Marc. i. 23 ‘redundantia justitiæ super scribarum et Pharisæorum’ is quoted to illustrate the genitive ‘Colossensium’ ver. 20.[^[629]] The Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions but extends to the whole letter.

It differs widely from the Old Latin and Vulgate Versions.

But a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. This epistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul. If it had been written originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages were taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the case. Thus compare ver. 6 ‘palam sunt vincula mea’ with Phil. i. 13 ‘ut vincula mea manifesta fierent’: ver. 7 ‘orationibus vestris et administrante spiritu sancto’ [administratione spiritus sancti’?] with Phil. i. 19 ‘per vestram obsecrationem (V. orationem) et subministrationem spiritus sancti’; ver. 9 ‘ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes’ with Phil. ii. 2 ‘eandem caritatem habentes, unanimes’; ver. 10 ‘ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis præsentia mei ... facite in timore’ with Phil. ii. 12 ‘Propter quod (V. Itaque) dilectissimi mihi (V. charissimi mei) sicut semper obaudistis (V. obedistis) ... præsentia (V. in præsentia) mei ... cum timore (V. metu) ... operamini’; ver. 11, 12 ‘Est enim Deus qui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine retractu quæcumque facitis’ with Phil. ii. 13, 14 Deus enim est qui operatur in vobis ... Omnia autem facite sine ... detractionibus (V. hæsitationibus)’; ver. 13 quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et præcavete’ with Phil. iii. 1, 2 ‘de cætero, fratres mei, gaudete in Domino ... Videte’; ib. ‘sordidos in lucro’ with the Latin renderings of αἰσχροκερδεῖς 1 Tim. iii. 8 ‘turpilucros’ (V. ‘turpe lucrum sectantes’), αἰσχροκερδῆ Tit. i. 7 turpilucrum (V. ‘turpis lucri cupidum’); ver. 14 ‘sint petitiones vestræ palam apud Deum’ with Phil. iv. 6 ‘postulationes (V. petitiones) vestræ innotescant apud Deum’; ver. 20 ‘facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis’ with Col. iv. 16 ‘facite ut et in Laodicensium ecclesia legatur et eam quæ Laodicensium (MSS Laodiciam) est ut (om. V.) vos legatis’. These examples tell their own tale. |Thus internal evidence favours a Greek original.|The occasional resemblances to the Latin Version are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this version would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The habitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis that the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament in Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek.

External testimony to the same effect.

And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle itself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony. There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date. |[Muratorian Fragment].|A mention of such an epistle occurs as early as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon (about A.D. 170), where the writer speaks of two letters, one to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, as circulated under the name of Paul [^[630]]. The bearing of the words however is uncertain. He may be referring to the Marcionite recension of the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians, which was entitled by that heretic an Epistle to the Laodiceans [^[631]]. Or, if this explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), still we should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the extant apocryphal epistle. Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle of this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The reference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and probably more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his hand at falsification [^[632]]. But, however this may be, it seems clear that before the close of the fourth century our epistle was largely circulated in the East and West alike. |Jerome.|‘Certain persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all [^[633]]’. No doubt is entertained, that this father refers to our epistle. |Theodore.|If then we find that about the same time Theodore of Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which he condemns as spurious [^[634]], it is a reasonable inference that the same writing is meant. |Theodoret.|In this he is followed by Theodoret [^[635]]; and indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers of this age were largely influenced as we have seen, by the presence of a spurious epistle which they were anxious to discredit [^[636]]. |2nd Council of Nicæa.|Even two or three centuries later the epistle seems to have been read in the East. At the Second Council of Nicæa (A.D. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against ‘a forged Epistle to the Laodiceans’ which was ‘circulated, having a place in some copies of the Apostle [^[637]].’

The Greek restored.

The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run somewhat as follows [^[638]]:

ΠΡΟΣ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΑΣ.

^a Gal. i. 1.

^aΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολοϲ οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου αλλὰ διὰ ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ, τοῖϲ ἀδελφοῖϲ τοῖϲ οὖϲιν εν λαοδικείᾳ. |^b Gal. i. 3.; Phil. i. 2.|²^bχάριϲ ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸϲ καὶ κυρίου ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ.

^c Phil. i. 3.

³^cΕὐχαριϲτῶ τῷ Χριϲτῷ ἐν πάϲῃ δεήϲει μου, ὅτι ἐϲτὲ εν αὐτῷ μένοντεϲ καὶ προϲκαρτεροῦντεϲ τοῖϲ ἐργοιϲ αὐτοῦ, |^d Gal. v. 5.|^dἀπεκδέχομενοι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν |^e 2 Pet. ii. 9; iii. 7; cf. Phil. ii. 16.|^eεἰϲ ἡμέραν κρίϲεωϲ.

^e Phil. iv. 22.

¹⁸^eἈϲπάζονται ὑμᾶϲ οἱ ἅγιοι.

^f Phil. iv. 23.

¹⁹^fἩ χάριϲ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰηϲοῦ Χριϲτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματοϲ ὑμῶν.

^g Col. iv. 16.

²⁰^gκαὶ ποιήϲατε ἵνα τοῖϲ Κολαϲϲαεῦϲιν αναγνωϲθῇ, καὶ η τῶν Κολαϲϲαέων ἵνα καὶ ὑμῖν.

Scanty circulation in the East,

But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek Christians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the latter part of the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Nicæa met, it had found its way into some copies of St Paul’s Epistles [^[639]]. But the denunciation of this Council seems to have been effective in securing its ultimate exclusion. We discover no traces of it in any extant Greek MS, with the very doubtful exception which has already been considered [^[640]]. |but wide diffusion in the West.|But in the Latin Church the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had pronounced very decidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not sufficient to stamp it out. At least as early as the sixth century it found a place in some copies of the Latin Bibles: and before the close of that century its genuineness was affirmed by perhaps the most influential theologian whom the Latin Church produced during the eleven centuries which elapsed between the age of Jerome and Augustine and the era of the Reformation. |Gregory the Great.|Gregory the Great did not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was attained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which combines the two [^[641]]. But at the same time he states that the Apostle wrote fifteen; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the Laodiceans by name, there can be little doubt that he intended to include this as his fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly understood by subsequent writers as affirming its Pauline authorship. The influence of this great name is perceptible in the statements of later writers. |Haymo of Halberstadt.|Haymo of Halberstadt, who died A.D. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle ‘enjoins the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use [^[642]]’.|Hervey of Dole.| And between two or three centuries later Hervey of Dole (c. A.D. 1130), if it be not Anselm of Laon [^[643]], commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth [^[644]], and it is established by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not reckon more than fourteen,’ and he proceeds to justify this limitation of the Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory [^[645]]. Others however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to the epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully distinguished between genuineness and canonicity; but this important distinction was not seldom disregarded by later writers. |English Church. Aelfric.|In the English Church more especially it was forgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the closing years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: ‘Fifteen epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the faith: which are large books in the Bible and make much for our amendment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles’. He then gives a list of the Apostle’s writings, which closes with ‘one to Philemon and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder to faithful people [^[646]]’. |John of Salisbury.|Again, nearly two centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise writing on the Canon, reckons ‘Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one volume, though it be the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that there are only fourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing that the one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles of Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface, where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not Paul’s. But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of the Laodiceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all, nevertheless was it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed on the conjecture of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostle himself: for he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words, When this epistle shall have been read among you, etc. (Col. iv. 16)[^[647]]’. Aelfric and John are the typical theologians of the Church in this country in their respective ages. The Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiastical and theological matters. The Old English Church was separated from the Anglo-Norman Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of discipline. Yet here we find the representative men of learning in both agreed on this one point—the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears that such was not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this point the instinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few. Nor indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this country during this interval. |The epistle repudiated by Lanfranc.|The first Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian by birth and education, explains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that otherwise ‘there would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul [^[648]]’. Thus he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly have been unacquainted.

Occurrence in MSS of all ages and countries.

Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion prevailed, is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth to the fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the Pauline Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respecting its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to the number of extant MSS in the earlier epoch than in the later [^[649]]. In one of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the Pauline Epistles it has a place [^[650]]. In one of the two most ancient copies of Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found [^[651]]. Among the first class MSS of this latter Version its insertion is almost as common as its omission. This phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one country. Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland—all the great nations of Latin Christendom—contribute examples of early manuscripts in which this epistle has a place [^[652]].

Versions.

And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. |Albigensian.|Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the thirteenth century [^[653]]. |Bohemian.|Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions [^[654]]. |German.|And again an old German translation is extant, which, judging from linguistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later date than about the fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than fourteen editions of the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, before Luther’s version appeared [^[655]]. |English.|In the early English Bibles too it has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and Purvey, yet it did not long remain untranslated and appears in two different and quite independent versions, in MSS written before the middle of the fifteenth century [^[656]]. The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the two forms runs as follows:

English prologue.

‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and oo peple in maners. These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, and disceyuede manye. Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of his conuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of oo wil. But this pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late translatid into Englisch tunge [^[657]].’

Two Versions of the epistle.

The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows [^[658]]. The version on the left hand is extant only in a single MS; the other, which occupies the right column, is comparatively common.

‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben of Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist bi al myn orisoun, that ȝe be dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi the biheest abidinge in the dai of doom. Ne he vnordeynede vs of sum veyn speche feynynge, that vs ouerturne fro the sothfastnesse of the gospel that of me is prechid. Also now schal God do hem leuynge, and doynge of blessdnesse of werkis, which heelthe of lyf is. And now openli ben my boondis, whiche I suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad and ioie. And that is to me heelthe euerlastynge, that that I dide with oure preieris, and mynystringe the Holy Spirit, bi lijf or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me lijf into Crist, and to die ioie withouten eende. In vs he schal do his merci, that ȝe haue the same louynge, and that ȝe be of o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as ȝe han herd in presence of me, hold ȝe, and do ȝe in drede of God; and it schal be to ȝou lijf withouten eend. It is forsothe God that worchith in vs. And do ȝe withouten ony withdrawinge, what soeuere ȝe doon. And that it is, derlyngis, ioie ȝe in Crist, and flee ȝe maad foul in clay. Alle ȝoure axingis ben open anentis God, and be ȝe fastned in the witt of Crist. And whiche been hool, and sooth, and chast, and rightwijs, and louable, do ȝe; and whiche herden and take in herte, hold ȝe; and it schal be to ȝou pees. Holi men greeten ȝou weel, in the grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist, with the Holi Goost. And do ȝe that pistil of Colosensis to be red to ȝou. Amen.

‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne by man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben at Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis to my God bi al my preier, that ȝe be dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding the biheest in the day of doom. For neithir the veyn spekyng of summe vnwise men hath lettide ȝou, the whiche wolden turne ȝou fro the treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid of me. And now hem that ben of me, to the profiȝt of truthe of the gospel, God schal make disseruyng, and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and helthe of euerlasting lijf. And now my boondis ben open, which Y suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and ioie. And that is to me to euerlastyng helthe, that this same thing be doon by ȝoure preiers, and mynystryng of the Holi Goost, either bi lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die ioie. And his mercy schal do in ȝou the same thing, that ȝe moun haue the same loue, and that ȝe be of oo will. Therfore, ȝe weel biloued britheren, holde ȝe, and do ȝe in the dreede of God, as ȝe han herde the presence of me; and lijf schal be to ȝou withouten eende. Sotheli it is God that worchith in ȝou. And, my weel biloued britheren, do ȝe without eny withdrawyng what euer thingis ȝe don. Joie ȝe in Crist, and eschewe ȝe men defoulid in lucre, either foul wynnyng. Be alle ȝoure askyngis open anentis God, and be ȝe stidefast in the witt of Crist. And do ȝe tho thingis that ben hool, and trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able to be loued; and kepe ȝe in herte tho thingis that ȝe haue herd and take; and pees schal be to ȝou. Alle holi men greten ȝou weel. The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with ȝoure spirit. And do ȝe that pistil of Colocensis to be red to ȝou.

Revival of learning and condemnation of the epistle.

Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about the doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death-blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. As a rule, Roman Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation of its worthlessness. The language of Erasmus more especially is worth quoting for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation:

Strictures of Erasmus.

‘Nihil habet Pauli præter voculas aliquot ex cæteris ejus epistolis mendicatas.... Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At hæc, præterquam quod brevissima est, quam friget, quam jacet!... Quanquam quid attinet argumentari? Legat, qui volet, epistolam.... Nullum argumentum efficacius persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid mihi naris est, ejusdem est opificis qui næniis suis omnium veterum theologorum omnia scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac præcipue ejus qui præ cæteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D. Hieronymi [^[659]]’.

Exceptions.

But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its genuineness. |Prætorius.|Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Prætorius prefaces his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with the statement that he ‘restores it to the Christian Church’; he gives his opinion that it was written ‘either by the Apostle himself or by some other Apostolic man’: he declares that to himself it is ‘redolent of the spirit and grace of the most divine Paul’; and he recommends younger teachers of the Gospel to ‘try their strength in explaining it’, that thus ‘accustoming themselves gradually to the Apostolic doctrine they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than ambrosia and nectar [^[660]].’ |Stapleton.|On the other hand the Jesuit Stapleton was not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To him its genuineness had a controversial value. Along with several other apocryphal writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important in his eyes as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even Apostolic writings from the Canon, if she judged fit [^[661]]. But such phenomena were quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had effectually scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may confidently hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered to haunt the mind of the Church.