thefe Epiftles: Efpecially when they are infcrib'd to fuch Places and Perfons as Ignatius was more unlikely to forget than most of thofe To whom he wrote his other Epiftles. This being premis'd, Pcome to my main Delign; and fhall comprehend what I have to lay upon this Subject under the following Heads. Ihall fhew by Internal Characters, that the fmaller Epiftles cannot be the genuine ones; nor fo early as the Days of Ignatiusthus of ou II. I fhall fhew by the like Internal Characters, that the larger Epiltles are the genuine ones, and agree exactly to the Days of Tonatius, s ai III. VI fhall fhew, that Eufebius's Deferiptions of the Epiftles which he faw, do better agree to the Larger than they do to the Smaller -Bpifties jotoion of grim & novom f ་ • IV. I shall offer fome General Arguments tỏ prove, that is highly improbable, that the fmalfet Epiftles Thould be the genuine ones: Which Arguments will alfo infer the great probability that the Larger are fo. V. I fhall fhew that all the ancient exprefs Citations out of thefe Epiftles, that are not equally in both Editions, for the first four Centuries, unless it be a very much fufpected' one of A thanafius, do better agree to the Larger Epiftles than to the Smaller: Nay, are fometimes only found in the Larger, and not in the Smaller. VI. I shall fhew that the ancient obfcurer References and Allufions to thefe Epiftles are ge nerally taken out of the fame Larger Epiftles only. Bull Dof fir Vic p.79 VII. I fhall confider the Nature of the Smaller Epiftles; fhall fhew that they are Extracts or Abridgments of the Larger; and fhall enquire at what Time, and for what Purposes they were made; and how they came to be fo much cited in and after the Fifth Century of the Church. I. I fhall fhew by Internal Characters that the Smaller Epiftles cannot be the Genuine Ones, nor fo early as the Days of Ignatius. This ap pears by the following Obfervations, (1.) In the Smaller Epiftle to the Ephefians, in all the Copies,our Saviour is exprefly affirmed to be aórn, ingenitus, Unbegotten; which is fo impoffible for Ignatius to fay, or any of his time, that no one, till the Days of Athanafius, ever durft mention a thing fo notoriously contrary to the Chriftian Religion. Nay, if we are willing to fuppofe all the MSS. Mistaken, and make it an, Unmade, yet will the Affirmation be still not much better: Since I believe no Chriftian till the Fourth Century, or the lat ter part of the Third at the higheft, ever durft Tay folconcerning our Saviour. This Language beft agrees to the Fourth or following Centuries of the Church. And Theodorit (the firft Author, who for certain cited the Smaller Edition, or one very like it, read here's dovre, according to the Senfe of the Larger. Edition. So that his Copy was not herein fo corrupt as the prefent Smaller Edition. Yet is Athanafius fuppos'd to quote this Smaller Edition, as to thefe very Words. But of that more prefently. (2.) In (2.) In this Smaller Edition, our Saviour is exprefly ftil'd, és ai, the Eternal Word: Ad MagWhich Epithet was never apply'd to him by any nef. Sect. Chriftian till the Fourth Century. And fince 8. p. 19. neither Athanafius himself, nor any others of the Orthodox ever then quoted this Text of Ignatius against the Arians; which yet would have been of greater Confequence than all that they faid in that Controverfy; 'tis highly probable that they never faw that Smaller Edition of thefe Epiftles; in which it is, even in all the Three Copies. This Language beft agrees to the Fourth or following Centuries, as well as the foregoing. (3.) In the fame Smaller Edition, in the very fame place, thefe Words are added in days er, that he is the Eternal Word not proceed ing from ory, Silence, that famous Valentinian Origin of things; or rather the ay of Marcellus, who had it from the Valentinians long afterwards, The Allufion here to the famous an of the Valentinians, or of Marcellus from them, is fo plain, that the greatest Patrons of these Smaller Epiftles are afham'd directly to deny it: Though it be so very ftrong and almost undeniable an Ar gument against them. For 'tis undoubted from Irenæus, that Valentinus himself was not publickly known as any Famous Heretick, nor came from Egypt to Rome, till the Pontificate of Hyginus; that is, not till between A. D. 126 Adv. Her and 139, or between 10 and 14 Years after the ref.L. III. Death of Ignatius. Nay, 'tis alfo plain from C4 P Tertullian, an almoft contemporary Writer, and very near the place alfo, that Valentinus was alive, and at Rome in the Pontificate of Eleuthe A 4 206, De Præ- rus afterward: that is, between A. D. 170 and fcript. Hæret. C. 185. So that those who make his ay Famous 36.p.242. at Antioch, or in Afia before A. D. 116, the La teft Year poffible for the Death of Ignatius, do meerly ferve an Hypothefis; and affert what is highly improbable, if not next to impoffible to be true; without, nay against all the Original Teftimonies thereto relating. Indeed the Learni ed are here driven to a great ftrait, and would fain affirm that fome of the other ancienter He, reticks had introduc'd the ay before Valentinus: But ftill without one fingle ancient Teftimony for fuch an Hypothefis. They tell us indeed, that Eufebius afcribes it to Simon Magus, in these De Eccl. Words; ir auto cherra rör 2 Dion depebeastāv d'egaD`Y, Theolog. ὃς τὰ ἄθεα δογματίζων απεραίνετο λέγων, ἦν Θεὸς καὶ αγ Whereas by this Ringleader of these forts of Hereticks, Eufebius plainly means Valentinus, and Epiphan. no other; as any one may learn from Epiphani And I wonder that any body fhould ex pound him otherwife. So that this Teftimony is fo far from a Confirmation, that 'tis rather a Confutation of the foregoing Evafion. We fhall feeianon that this Character will beft fuit the latter days of Marcellus and Athanafius Tong afterwards.de 111 L. II.C.9. P. 114. Hæref. Se&. 7. P. 839. ་ 74.) In the fame Smaller Epiftles, we have this Paffage of fome Hereticks then arifen in the Church, ευχαρισίας και προσοχής απέχονθ, διὰ τὸ μὴ seisus is ὁμολογεῖν ἢ ευχαρισίαν σάρκα εν τὰ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν εἰσε χεις 1) to 7 να ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθες ἐν τῇ χξηςότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν ThefeHereticks,it feems, abfented from theChriftian Affemblies, becaufe they did not own the Eucharift to be that Flesh of Christ which fuffered 1 for them, and was raised again by the good Will of the Father. This is a ftrange Paffage indeed and fo far from the Age of Ignatius, when Chris ftians did not permit any Hereticks to communicate with them and when there is no Foota fteps of any fuch Hereticks in the World that it could hardly be for early as the middle of the ; Fifth Century, when yet thefe Epiftles are cera tainly cited by Theodorit. Perhaps 'tis a ftill las ter Interpolation, even in the Smaller Copies § yet is it in all the MSS. both the Greek One a Florence, and the Two Latin Ones in England Thefe Four Internal Characters of Times later than the Death of Ignatius, fdem co me fo ftrong, that the Arguments for then Antiquity of the fame Epiftles ought to be next to Demontrafil on e're they can be compared to them. Wheret as there are properly no Arguments at all for the fame Antiquity goany farther than these Small Epiftles agree with, and are extracted from the true Original Large Epiftles them felves. But i fod gan fakt då ett and i 51: shona bismolib -II. I am now to fhew, by the like Internal Characters, that the larger Epiftlés ate the gel nuine ones, and agree exactly to the Days and Circumstances of Ignatius; it and blastophb For, (1.) The Stile of thefe larger Epiftles is most truly Primitive, and moft agreeable to that of the Apoftolical Age, and of Apos ftolical Men;particularly to that of Cle ment, and of Polycarp; yea, more like theirs than that of the fmaller Epiftles. Tis free, entirely free from the leaft Tincture of that Philofophy, which came in very foon afrek the |
