Those, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic, should turn from the African Father,—(who after all does but say that Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul’s Epistle to the _Ephesians_, that it was addressed to the _Laodiceans_,)—and betake themselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a half later. This Father had for many years made Marcion’s work his special study,(156) and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with copious extracts from it.(157) And the account in Epiphanius proves that Tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English reader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his reputation if he had kept to the “ut videtur” with which (in his edition of 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no matter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the _Epistle to the Ephesians_ was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion _retained_. In his “Apostolicon,” or collection of the (mutilated) Apostolical Epistles, the “Epistle to the Ephesians,” (identified by the considerable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,(158)) stood (he says) _seventh_ in order; while the (so called) “Epistle to the Laodiceans,”—a distinct composition therefore,—had the _eleventh_, that is, the last place assigned to it.(159) That this latter Epistle contained a corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records the fact in two places.(160) But then it is to be borne in mind that he charges Marcion with having derived that quotation _from the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans_;(161) instead of taking it, as he ought to have done, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when faithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes the heretical tenet which the context of Marcion’s spurious epistle to the Laodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in its interpolated form, might seem to favour.(162)—I have entered into this whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf’s statement that “Marcion (A.D. 130-140) did not find the words ‘at Ephesus’ in his copy,”—is absolutely without foundation. It is even _contradicted_ by the known facts of the case. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it is quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.