Matthew Poole and continuators on Colossians 4:16

16 And when this epistle is read amongst you , cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans : and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea .

The Apostle takes it for granted, that, when this Epistle came to their hands, 'twould be publickly read in a solemn Assembly of the Church, or Brethren convened to that purpose, as elsewhere usual: For indeed he doth strictly enjoin and adjure the Thessalonians, under the penalty of the Lord's displeasure, that the Epistle or Letter which he wrote unto them should be read unto all the Brethren, 1 Thess. 5.27. It being an indispensable duty of Christ's Disciples to search the Scripture[illegible: 1 letter], Ioh. 5.39. and there solemnly to read them in the Assembly for the edification of all Ministers and People, old and young, Deut. 17.19. Psal. 1.2. & 119. 9. Mark, 13.37. Act. 13.15. & 17.11, 12. & 18.26, 27, 28. Rom. 15.4. 1 Tim. 4.13, 15.

Hence (as it follows) the Apostle (who it's likely had not an opportunity at Rome, to have a Copy of it transcribed) chargeth them at Colosse, to see or take care after the reading of this same Epistle amongst themselves, that a Copy of it being prepared for that purpose, it might, as from him, be also solemnly read or rehearsed in a publick assembly of the Christians at Laodicea.

And he further chargeth those to whom he wrote at Colosse that they should take care, that the Epistle (as we rightly with the generality of Ancients and moderns render it) from Laodicea, be read amongst them. The Aethiopio version (as we have it thence in the Latin) reads send it to Laodicea, that the Laodiceans also may read it, in the House or Congregation of Christians there. The vulgar Latin, that ye likewise may read the Laodicean Epistle, or the Epistle of the Laodiceans. Whence some of old, and of late would have it thought, that St. Paul wrote a distinct Epistle to the Laodiceans. In favour of this opinion some bad man out of this Epistle to the Colossians and that to the Ephesians patch'd up and forg'd a short, but gross and trifling Epistle, and fathered it on the Apostle, though very dissonant from his Character and style, whereupon it hath been rejected as spurious and Apochryphal by the learned Fathers, and the second Council of Nice; and since by the learned on all hands; except some few of the Papists; and except Quakers, who printed a Translation of it, and plead for it. Some Papists urge this, to argue that the Church gives the Scripture Authority amongst Christians. But though she is bound to preserve the Books of divine Authority, it doth not belong to her, to Authenticate them, or prescribe them as the ru[illegible: 1 letter]e of Faith, that were no less than to outrage the Majesty of the Authour, others alledge it, as being lost, and thereupon would infer the Canon of holy scriptures to be defective. But supposing, yet not granting, that Paul had written an Epistle to the Laodiceans which had not come down to us, it were altogether inconsequent that the Canon of scriptures, we have, doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation. Some still harping on the vulgar Translation of the Laodicean Epistle (though that in common speech might argue they wrote it rather than received it) would fancy that 'twas the Epistle Paul wrote to the Ephesians; but Tertullian did brand the Impostour Marcian for changing the title of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Others conceit, it may be understood of Paul's Epistle to Philemon whom Paul calls his fellow-labourer▪ likely exercising his ministry in the neighbour City of Laodicea which was sent by Onesimus, for the sake of Onesimus (who was a Colossian) was to be read at Colosse, others because Luke is mentioned, v. 14. that it was an Epistle of his, to the Laodiceans, but of that there's no evidence. Neither is it probable that Paul would in this Epistle to the Colossians have saluted the Laodiceans, had he written a distinct Epistle to them. Wherefore 'tis most rational to understand it, not of an Epistle of Paul written to the Laodiceans, but as our Bibles, according to an Authentick Copy, have with the Greek Fathers, faithfully translated, and represented it, written from Laodicea. Some conjecture it to be the first Epistle of Iohn which they conceive was written from the City of Laodicea. Others think it was the first Epistle to Timothy, from the inscription or subscription of a long time put at the end of it, as if written from Laodicea. But against that it may be excepted; there is no mention of Pacatiana, in the writers of the first age: but onely in after times, dividing the Roman Empire into provinces, and some say this was first mentioned in the Ecclesiastical records in the V. Synod at Constantinople. Further there be several passages in the Epistle it self do intimate that it was written from some place in Macedonia, if we consult, c. 1.3. with 3.14. & 4.13. not from Laodicea. Some think it to be meant of the Epistle from Laodicea, wherein they would answer the Colossians, how probably I determine not. Wherefo[illegible: 1 letter]e 'tis most probable that the Epistle was written from Laodicea, to Paul at Rome; either by the Church there, or some of her Officers, which (likely he in straits of time enclosed and) he would have read, as helpfull to the Edification of the Colossians, for the better clearing of some passages in this Epistle to them, wherein he had obviated such errours as he might hear seducers were attempti[illegible: 1 letter]g to disseminate amongst them.