to thofe of Synods earlier than the Days of Ori-
gen, could Eufebius mean, but those of Clement,
Ignatius, and Polycarp in particular? which we
know were the Principal Epiftles of that early Hift.Eccl.
Age that he was acquainted with; and of fuch L. III. C.
36, 37. P.
a Nature as he mainly enquired for, and menti- 106,-110.
on'd in his History. If fo, he plainly intimates
to us, that thofe moft Ancient Epiftles which
he faw, were for the Doctrine of Origen and his
own, in Oppofition to that of Marcellus and A-
thanafius; which all the World owns to be the
diftinguishing Character of the Larger Epiftles
only. So that we have here from Eufebius at
once an Illuftrious Teftimony, that the Anci-
ent Fathers and Synods before Origen; a
vaft Number of whofe Writings Eufebius fays he
had feen, and does here Appeal to ; were on the
fide of Origen and his own, againft the Follow-
ers of Marcellus and Athanafius; and no obfcure
Intimation that among the reft the genuine E-
piftles of Ignatius were fo alfo: And by confe-
quence, we have here à noble Teftimony that
the Larger Epiftles of Ignatius, which alone an-
fwer Eufebius's Character, were alone in Eusebi-
us's Copy. Nay, indeed, I fhall not need to go
here by Probability only, but fhall put this
Matter past doubt, by the exprefs Words of the
fame Eufebius elsewhere: TV cixÓTOS Jovoμatos Hift.Eccl.
καφή μόνων ἢ μνήμην κατατεθείμεθα, ὧν ἔτι καὶ ναῦ εἰς L. III. C.
ὑμᾶς δι ̓ ὑπομνημάτων δ' ἀπολικῆς διδασκαλίας ή πράδο 37, 38. P,
στις φέρει, ώσσες [ εν ] ἀμέλει τὸ ἰγνατίς ἐν δις κατελέ 109, 110,
Early omsonals. So that as certainly as the Larger
Epistles, and they alone,contain thofe very Do-
atrines which Eufebius own'd to be the original
Doctrines of Chriftianity; thofe I mean which
contradicted Marcellus and Athanaftus ; which is
acknowledged by all; fo certainly do Eufebius's
Accounts and Defcriptions of thofe Epiftles
which

ἓν

which he faw, belong to thefe Larger Epiftles, and to these only. But of this Matter, more will be spoken hereafter.

III. I fhall fhew by Internal Arguments and Characters, that the Smaller Epiftles cannot be the Genuine Ones, nor fo early as the Days of Ig natius. This appears by the Obfervations following:

(1.) The Smaller Epiftles are plainly Unworthy of fo great a Man as Ignatius; and by no means agreeable to the Character we have of him in Eufebius, ferom, Chryfoftom, &c. and that mighty Truft which was repofed in him by the Apostles themselves, when they made him Bifhop or Patriarch of Antioch, one of the First and Principal of the Apoftolical Churches: Nor indeed at all correfpondent to the Writings of his Fellow Bishops, Clement and Polycarp. For truly, if we obferve that almoft all that is Va luable in thefe Smaller Epiftles is verbatim taken out of the Larger, at leaft is ftill contain'd in them; that when any Variation is here made 'tis ufually for the worfe; that these Epiftles feem afraid of fetting down the Directions for Practice, and of quoting not only the Apoftolical Conftitutions, but the known Books of the New Testament themselves; while the Contemporary Epistle of Polycarp, and the like Writings of Apoftolical Men, did then love to quote the fame perpetually; that their Style and Compofition, fo far as they are different from the Larger, is quite contrary to thofe of Clement and Polycarp, harfh, confufed, and ill digefted; fo as to be almoft unintelligible; that they contain many Paffages very remote from the old Chriftian Doctrine, and on purpose seem to avoid the usual and known Language of the firft

Wri

Writers about them; nay, to affect that which
came into the Church long after the Days of
Ignatius: When, I fay, we obferve these things,
as we fhall all along the reft of this Effay, we
fhall be difpos'd to think of fome other Perfon
for their Author than the Famous Ignatius him-h
felf. Efpecially if we come to Particulars, and cri
obferve,

(2.) That thefe Smaller Epiftles are not of a due Bulk and Largenefs to be thofe very Genuine Epiftles which the Ancients defcribe, and which the very Paffages inferted still into all the Copies do imply alfo. Jerom, as we fhall fee prefently, fpeaks of this Ignatius as the first of thofe that did write plena fapientiæ volumina, Volumes full of Wisdom, against the Ancient Hereticks; and this upon occasion of a Quotation from them which is now only in our Larger Copies, of which hereafter. Thefe Words, plena fapientiæ volumis na, do much better agree to the Larger than to the Smaller Copies. And then in Three of the prefent Seven known Epiftles, we meet, in all the Copies great and fmall, with Words imply ing thofe Three to be comparatively of the Lef fer fort; which Circumftance is not true of the Smaller Copies, but exactly true of the Larger. Thus fays he to the Magnefians, Σωτόμως παρεκάλεσα ὑμᾶς. Το the Romans, Δὶ ἐλίγων χαμμάτων αλλά και ὑμᾶς. Το Polycarp, Δὶ ὀλίγων ὑμᾶς γραμμάτων παρε

sou. Whereas we have no fuch Intimations of Brevity in any of the reft. Now that the Reader may be the better able to judge of this Matter without Miftake, I fhall fet down the Number of Columns and Parts of a Column which every Epiftle takes up in Cotelerius's Edi tion of the old Latin Verfion, both in the Lar ger and Smaller Copies; and if the Original Greek be confulted it will exhibit in a manner the very fame Proportions alfo.

Το

1

Tips. Sect. 8.
Τίμαι ὑμᾶς.

-Δὶ ὀλίγων ὑμᾶς καμά
Twv magerdega. Sect. 7.

Now upon comparing the Length of the feveral Epiftles in both Editions, it will appear, as to the Larger Copies, that the Epiftle to Polycarp is by far the Smalleft; that that to the Romans is the next; that that to Smyrna is next; and then that to the Magnefians; and that of the other Three, wherein there are no fuch Expreffions of Brevity in any Copy, that to the Trallians is the leaft; yet is it Larger than any of those before-mention'd: That the Epiftle to the Philadelphians is ftill Larger; and that to the Ephe fians the Largest of all, in very good Agreement with the prefent Character. Nay, if Bishop Not. in Pearfon be in the right, when he thinks that the

Loc.

Note of Brevity, in the Epiftle to Polycarp, is to be extended to the Epistle to the Smyrnéans alfo, because of the Plural as there us'd, the Agreement will be still more exact: Every one of the Four Smaller Epiftles in that Edition being then fuppos'd to be fuch in all the Copies; and all the Three without Notes of Brevity, being exactly the Three Largeft of all. However, this Cha

racter

racter will in no Cafe agree to the Smaller Edi-
tion; fince it appears by the fame Table,that on-
ly Two of the Seven can be reconcil'd to it;
that to the Ephefians, which is ftill the Largeft;
and that to Polycarp, which is ftill the Smalleft of
all: Whilft all the other Five, whether with or
without Notes of Brevity, are much of the
fame Bulk. Only it falls out here somewhat
unluckily, that the Epiftle to the Magnefians,
which ought to be of the Smaller Sort, is fome-
what Larger than the reft: Which is the Cafe
of that to Smyrna alfo; and that to the Trallians,
which ought rather to be of the Larger Sort, is
fomewhat Smaller than the reft. But then we
muft note, that the Three Additional Epiftles
are not here concern'd; because we have neither
Notes of either Length or Shortness in any of
them; nor have we any other Copies to com-
pare with them. And they therefore feem to be
Smaller in Bulk, than most of their Fellows of
the Larger Edition, because of this Martyr's
Hafte in Writing them all at Philippi, before he
was hurried away thence by the Soldiers; which
even little Time he feems before not to have at Ad Polyc.
all expected: And becaufe Two of them were Sect. 8.
fent to Antioch, and the Third to Tarfus in its
Neighbourhood; fo that all of 'em might eafily
be seen in common, and needed not be every
one fo large, as otherwife perhaps they might
have been. Not to fay here, that 'tis not impof-
fible but these may be now fomewhat fhorter, Ap. Grab.
than they were at firft written. And indeed fince Spicileg.
Tom. II.
there are extant a few Ancient Citations from
Ignatius, and one at least probably from one of
thefe Epiftles, which no where now appear in
our prefentCopies; there feems to be fome Foun-
dation for fuch a Conjecture; tho' indeed I look
upon it as too weak to be much depended on.

How

P. 24, 25,

26.