} left utterly void:" (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that
blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up
for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy
seen by Origen, and (5) Of the "old copies" seen by Basil; as well as (6)
Of Codd. B and {~HEBREW LETTER ALEF~}. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains
us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) _One other_ copy of this same
"Encyclical Epistle," filled up with the Ephesian address, became the
archetype of _every other copy of this Epistle in the world_.... But of
what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such
a marvellous structure of hypothesis,--of which the top story overhangs and
overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in
Codd. B and {~HEBREW LETTER ALEF~} is not that we find the name of _another City_ in the
salutation of S. Paul's "Epistle to the Ephesians," but that we find the
name of _no_ city at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.

(_c_) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to
different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as
of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious
documents left his hands,--then, doubtless, each several Church would have
received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if _this_ had
been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the
Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a
word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there
should nowhere exist traces of _conflicting testimony_ as to the Church to
which S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas _all_ the
most ancient writers, without exception,--(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)],
the "Muratorian" fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenaeus [A.D. 175],
Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian,
Eusebius,)--and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying,
unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. {~HEBREW LETTER ALEF~}, (and this is much to be
noted,) the _superscription_ of the Epistle attests that it was addressed
"to the Ephesians." Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in
inventing facts in the history of an Apostle's practice, in order to
account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his
text?(178)

(3)