(2) (_a_) But even supposing, for argument’s sake, that S. Paul _did_ send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the principal Churches of Asia Minor,—why should he have left the salutation _blank_, (“carta bianca,” as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short of _this_ would account for the reading of Codd. B and א. (_b_) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A copy of what we call S. Paul’s “Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. “with the space after τοῖς οὔσιν 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 א. 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 א 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.