Sect. 7.

However, as to the former Seven, 'tis plain that if these Notes of Brevity be of any Weight, they determine this Difpute on behalf of the Larger Epistles.

(3.) In the Smaller Epiftle to the Ephefians, in all our present Copies, our Saviour is exprefly affirm'd to be dóm, ingenitus, unbegotten. Now fince 'tis the known Fundamental Doctrine of Christianity, that the Father alone is anos, and the Son is, in this very Refpect, I mean as to the Original of his Divine Nature before the World, nos, & μovoyons, the begotten, and only begotten Son of the Father, 'tis impoffible that Ignatius fhould fay what is here afcribed to him: And yet we fhall fee we fhall fee anon, that this Doctrine runs through these Smaller Epiftles, that our Saviour was really fo much One with the Father, as to be truly unbegotten. Tho' indeed this was fo far from the Doctrine of Ignatius, or any Apoftolical Perfon, that it was part of the HereIren. L. I. tical Doctrine of Saturninus, oppos'd by Ignatius in these very Epiftles; and was afterward in part embrac'd by Tertullian, and entirely by Marcellus; De Carne and after a Sort by Athanafius alfo, as we shall fee 'hereafter; but otherwife rejected with Abhor

C. 22.

P. 97.
Tertul.

Chrift.

C. V.
P. 362.
Theod.
Hæret.

Fab. L.
C. 3.

P. 194.

Se&. 8.

rence by the whole Church; nay, at last by the Athanafians themselves. I Appeal here to the Confciences of all truly Learned Men, whether I. they can believe, that Ignatius could ftile our Saviour anos, or not. Yet is this fo furely an Original Text in these Smaller Copies, that 'tis quoted thence by Athanafius; and is indeed the only certain Quotation from them, till near the Middle of the Fifth Century of the Church; and must therefore ftand or fall with the fame Smaller Copy.

(4.) In the Smaller Epistle to the Magnesians, our Saviour is exprefly stil'd aï, or the xiy

Calcem

Os did, the Eternal Word of God; which Epi-
thet, how common foever of late, nay, and
even waiho alfo, was, I believe, in the Days
of Ignatius,not much less unknown and heretical
than the former. Clemens Alexandrinus indeed
ventures, in his Juvenile and Oratorical Wri-
tings, before he was fully inftructed in the Chri- Protrept.
ftian Doctrine by Pantanus, to call Chrift diC P: 74, 75;
ὗτος Ιησές and λόγω ἀέννας, αιων πλητος, φῶς Hymn. ad
div. But then this was long after the Days of Pædag,
Ignatius; this, if taken ftrictly, is contrary to
the known Doctrine of the fame Clement, after
he was better inftructed; and this is unfupported
by all truly Ancient Writers befides, that I know
of, till the Days of Marcellus and Athanafius,
who fpread fuch an Herefy in the Church in the
Fourth Century. I might here therefore, as
before, appeal to the Confciences of all truly
Learned Men, whether they can believe that
Ignatius could use fuch an Expreffion, as aóy
λόγο
De did, but that they have been fo long pof-
fefs'd with the common Doctrine of the proper
Eternity of our Saviour, that they have loft
their Ability of judging in fuch Matters: And
while they boggle at calling our Saviour on-
TO, unbegotten, they do not fcruple at this Title
of did, even in the ftricteft Senfe of Coeternal
with the Father. Whereas it appears in all the
first Books of our Religion, that our Saviour's
Original Generation before the World began was
meant in direct Opposition to his Coeternity with
his Father: That Modern, Unintelligible No-
tion of Eternal Generation being not then known
among Chriftians. So that Ignatius could not
much more ufe did, than he could ufe fúra-
TO, of the Son of God.

و

(5.) In the fame Smaller Epiftle to the Magnefians, in the very fame Place, thefe Words

are

C. 4, 5,

6.7.

are added; i mò ayns wegendŵr, non a filentio progrediens; that Chrift is the Eternal Word, not proceeding from by, that Famous Female Origin of Things, fo much alluded to by Marcellus, the Heretick of the Fourth Century; but taken at firft from the old Heretick Valentinus of the Second. This Allufion, at the highest, to the Va lentinian ay, is fó plain at the first Sight, that the greatest Patrons of thefe Smaller Epiftles are afham'd directly to deny it; tho' it be fo very strong, and indeed almoft an undeniable Argument against them. One cannot but pity the Mistakes and Prejudices of the greatest Men, when one fees no lefs a Man than Bishop Pearfon Vind. Ig- himself labouring, in Four several most Learned nat. L. II. Chapters, to affoil this grand Objection, and yet with fo little Succefs. For the only valuable Answer which he is able to betake himself to at the laft, is this, That the ayǹ of Valentinus might be known in the World before the Death of Ignatius. Whereas 'tis certain, that Hyginus, in whofe Pontificate Irenæus affures us Valentinus first came to Rome, began not till A. D. 126. Tén Years after the loweft Date for the Death of Ignatius; and 'tis almost equally certain from Tertullian, a contemporary Author, and very near DePræfc. the Place alfo, that Valentinus was alive, and at Rome, in the Pontificate of Eleutherus, or between A. D. 170. and 185. and fo could not be à noted Heretick before A. D. 116. Nay, the fame Tertullian elsewhere affures us, that Valenti nus was Marcion's Scholar for fome little time 3 which Marcion yet came not to Rome till A. Di 130. and then learned of Cerdon for fome time himself, before he fet up for a Master. So that Valentinus could not be a Famous Heretick at the fooneft, till about 20 Years after the Death of Ignatius ;' no, not even at Rome, the Seat of his

L. III.

C. 4.

P. 206.

Hæret.

C. XXX,

P. 242.

De Carn.

Chrift.
C. I.

P. 358.

Fame

Fame for Heresy; much lefs at Smyrna and Magnefia in Afia, where alone this Epiftle of Ignatius was concern'd with him. Nay, it was in probability ftill fomewhat longer e're his Fame was spread Abroad, fince Justin Martyr, about 22 Years after the Death of Ignatius, does not Apol. 1. vouchsafe to name him among thofe noted He- Sect. 34 reticks which are enumerated by him, tho he 35: does it a few Years afterward. Some indeed are Dialog. ready to tell us, that Eufebius, who certainly Tryph. puts the Rife of Valentinus no less than 36 Years P. after his own placing the Death of Ignatius, does Chron. ad however afcribe the Origin of this Famous

this

cum

Annum

10. Tra

to Simon Magus himself, in these Words of his jan & 6. concerning Marcellus and his agn, KaT autor cne Antonio. τον “ ἀθέων αιρεσιωτῶν ἀρχηγόν, ὃς τὰ ἄθεα δογματίζων Pii. ἀπεφαίνετο λέγων, ἦν Θεὸς καὶ σιγή. But certainly De Ecclef, is a moft unfair Conftruction of Eufebius's Words, LII. C.g. Theolog. to make him speak of Marcellus's on, as deriv'd p. 114. from a y of Simon Magus; when neither he, nor any other of the Ancients ever tell us, that Simon Magus had any fuch Doctrine, when the ory of Valentinus (the Arch-heretick of the Sea cond Century, as Simon Magus had been of the Firft,) was then alone every where fo Famous in the World; and when Acacius of Cæfarea, in Epiphani Epiphanius, directly affures us, that Marcellus Hæref. took his Notion from the Eons of Valentinus. LXXII. and I cannot but wonder, that any Impartial Se&. 7. Man fhould explain Eufebius's Words of Simon P. 839 Magus, and not of Valentinus. This Valentinus indeed took several particular Hints and Notions from the ancienter Hereticks; but that he took this y, this Original Goddess Silence, from any of them, does no way appear: Nay, the earliest and moft Authentick Account in Irenæus rather implies the contrary; that himself brought this Matter into Form, and did himself frame his 30

Mons;

ons; one of the Original Pair of which was Iren. L. I. this σιγήν. ὁ μιας δε προς τις απὸ ε λεγομβύης γνωσικῆς αιρε

C. 5.

P. 49.

σεως τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείν μεθαρμόσεις, *Tws Jnegoognosv. And that the Author of thefe Epiftles of Ignatius, does here and elsewhere allude to the ayn of Valentinus, or rather of Marcellus himself, who had it originally from Valenti nus, will be fo plain from other parallel Paffages, which fhall be produc'd hereafter, that all thofe other Anfwers which fuppofe the contrary, will deferve to be efteem'd as of no Value at all. So that this Argument is decretory, and unanfwerable; and is it felf fufficient to deftroy the Reputation of thefe Smaller Epiftles, with all Men of Impartiality and Integrity.

(6.) In the Smaller Epiftle to Smyrna, we have this ftrange Paffage concerning certain PerAdSmyrn fons efteem'd by this Author as Hereticks: 'Eu Set. 7. xasius και προσευχῆς ἀπέχονθ, διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν ἢ ἐν χαρισίαν σάρκα ε τα σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησῖ Kest, ἢ ὑπέρ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθέε, ἣν τῇ χρησότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν. Ab Euchariftia & Oratione recedunt, propter non confiteri Euchariftiam Carnem effe Salvatoris noftri Fesu Chrifti, pro peccatis noftris paffam, quam benignitate Pater refufcitavit. Thefe Hereticks, it feems, whofoever they were, Abfented themselves from the Chriftian Affemblies, because they did not own the Eucharift to be that Flesh of Christ, which fuffered for them, and was raised again by the good Will of the Father. This is a ftrange Paffage indeed; and probably fo far from the Age of Ignatius, when Chriftians did not permit any Hereticks to communicate with them at all; and when indeed there are no Footsteps of any fuch thing as this in the World; that 'tis hard to fay how long af ter his Days it must be. Perhaps fome of the Montanists in the Third and Fourth Centuries, Artic. 13. might pretend to a kind of Tranfubftantiation P. 163.

See Hift. of

Monta

niẩm.

in