ποιηθει χρήση των κυρίῳ, τῇ εἰπόντι, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμίω ὁ

is. Nay, the Words following, both in the Larger and Smaller Copy, confirm this to be the Genuine Senfe of Ignatius. For fo the next Words are, even in the Smaller Copy, Már

τὴν Ἰησᾶς Xersὸς ἐπισκοπήσει, καὶ ἡ ὑμῶν ἀγάπη. Solus ipfe Jefus Chriftus vice Epifcopi fit, & veftra Charitas. So that here the Smaller Copy it felf, if it do not mean Chrift by God, contrary to the Language in fuch Cafes in the Days of Ignatius, is an Atteftation to the Larger,as containing the True and Genuine Reading in the present Cafe.

(32.) We have next this Period: Tò † TOLŠTOV & Ibid weis duszy o róz☺. Tale autem non ad carnem fermo: Which is a way of speaking Ignatius could not eafily fall into; if it be at all us'd in the Greek Language.

(33.) In the next Section but one we have Incoherence enough in this Sentence: 'Era v τέλΘ τα πράγματα έχει, καὶ ἐπίκεις τα δύο ὑμᾶς, ὅ, τε ποίο val ji (wi, xỳ éxas✪ eis + i♪zov TÓTOV μéne xwgeir. ὥσπερ γάρ όξιν νομίσματα δύο, κ. τ. λ. Quia igitur fi nem res habent, & proponuntur duo fimul, mors & vi & unufquifq; in proprium locum iturus eft. Quemadmodum enim funt numifmata duo, &c. Wherein neither the ine, nor the weg the quia, nor the quemadmodum, have any following Words to answer them at all. Sure Ignatius never wrote fo abfurdly.

tas

L

Se&t. Se

(34) Soon after we have this Phrase: 'A' Se&t. 6. ηνώθητε τῷ ἐπισκόπω, καὶ τοῖς προκαθημθόοις, εἰς τύπον κα Sidayn ap Dagotas. Sed uniamini epifcopo,& prefi dentibus, in typum & doctrinam incorruptionis. I believe Ignatius fcarce wrote thus.

(35) This that follows is worfe: Mnde wegáns Se&t. 7. ευλογόν τι φαίνεθς ἰδίᾳ ὑμῖν, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸ ἀυτό, κ. τ. λ. Neq; tentetis rationabile aliquid apparere proprie vobis,

fed

Se&. 8.

•Sed id ipfum, &c. This is not fo clear a Stile as that of Ignatius.

(36.) We have again, prefently a new-coin'd Greek Word, uvodu, in the Smaller Copy; to Tit. I. 14. the Exclufion of Paul's own Word, mu sais, in the Larger. Which is no mighty Sign that the Smaller was really written by Ignatius.

& alibi.

Sec. 10.

Ibid.

Seat.

14.

(37) This Author's Word draw, tho' no ill one, is yet probably but the Contraction of ἀναίθητοι val, which is in the Larger Copy.

(28.) Prefently we have this Sentence: dis ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα μὴ διαφθαρή τις ἐν ὑμῖν ἐπεὶ ἀπὸ ἢ ὁρμῆς ἐSalvificemini [falificemini] in ipfo: ut non corrumpatur aliquis in vobis: qui ab odore redarguemini. This feems more remotely Metaphorical, than we any where elfe find in Ignati

us.

(39) It follows foon after; E TO

In

ἐν συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίαν διὰ ἡ ἐκκλησίας ὑμῶν δροσιπῆναι. dignificari eam quæ in Syria Ecclefiam per ecclefiam veftram irrorari. This Metaphor is not to me fo likely to be written by Ignatius,as what theLarger Copy here affords us, διά τ' ευταξίας ὑμῶν ποιμανθῆναι. Se&t. 15. (40.) This Epiftle to the Magnefans concludes rhus ; ἔδωσε ἐν ὁμονοια Θεό, κεκτημβροι διάκριτον [Diáspora, os bay 'Inous Xelsis. Valete in concordia Dei, poffidentes infeparabilem fpiritum, qui eft Jefus Chriftus. This Language is hardly that of Ignatius.

Ad Phila delph. Sect. I.

(41:) The Smaller Epiftle to the Philadelphians begins thus; "Ov mozo ever, n. 7. λ. Quem Epifcopum cognovi, &c. without any proper Continuance of the Senfe afterward. I efteem this as a plain, but confufed Abridgment of the .: Larger θεασάμι Θ ὑμῶν ἢ ἐπίσκοπον, ἔγνων ὅτι, κ.τ.λ. Nor can any other Account, I think, be fairly given of this Matter.

(42.) We

(42.) We have prefently the old Hereticks Sect. 2. ftil'd, úr ómiso, Lupi fide digni. An Epithet that Ignatius would fearce have beftow'd upon them. The Words of the Larger, nofious hμques-> , is vastly more agreeable.

(43.) It foon follows, x' on me vir noor Sect 32.2 Êvegy, àm' amodïunioustov. Non quoniam apud vos partitionem inveni, fed abfbractionem. This is fufficiently unintelligible to the Criticks themselves.

(44.) Then comes a Famous Paffage: Kanod δι ἱερεῖς κρεΐατον ἢ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς, ὁ πεπιςάμ Θ τὰ ἅγια ἁγίων, ὃς μόνΘ πεπίςα τὰ κρυπλὰ τὰ Θεῖ. αυτὸς ὤν Due to mass. n. T. λ Boni & Sacerdotes: Melius autem Princeps Sacerdotum, cui credita funt fancta fanctorum, cui foli credita funt occulta Dei. Qui ipfe eft janua Patris, &c. If the Reader compare this with the Larger Copy here, it will, I think, moft fenfibly appear, that this is no other than an Abridgment thereof, and a bad one too: Nay, that it was made for the fake of Ortho doxy alfo. Where the Word dyes's is made to fignify, at the fame time, the Bishop and our Saviour; without any thing in the Coherence to juftify fuch an Abfurdity: And where a moft eminent Paffage is omitted, that did not agree with the Abridger's Notions, tho' it is most unquestionably confonant to the Original Doctrine and Language of Chriftianity.

2

Sect g

(45.) In the Epiftle to the Trallians we have Ad Trall. a ftrange Context: "Or nogía me didées čvrçá- Sect. 3. πεθς, ἀγαπῶντας ὡς ο φείδομαι ἑαυτὸν πότερον διωάμ Θ Hápa Cap Ters, eis auto wúdur, ive as [ en ] ratáxpit 10, ὡς ἀπό λθ διατάσομαι. Quem exiftimo & im pios revereri, diligentes quod non parco ipfum aliqua- .01 23 lem potens fcribere pro illo, in hoc exiftimer, ut exiftens condemnatus, velut apoftolus vobis præcipiam. So much Incoherence and Nonfenfe I have not often met with in fo few Words. The laft part is

alfo

Se&t. 4.

Sect. 5.

Sect. 6.

Se&. 8.

Ibid.

Se&t. 10.

alfo remote from this Bufinefs, and belongs to another Matter; as one may plainly fee in the Larger Epiftle. And indeed Ignatius ever refufes elsewhere, to Ordain like an Apostle, as here he is made to do.

(46.) Prefently Ignatius is brought in, faying, Οι λέγοντές μοι μαςιγκοί με. Dicentes mibi flagellant me. Sure no one can doubt, but imaveras in the Larger Copy, is the true Reading.

(47.) Soon after it follows: Tae fort si dù xy μαθητής είμι, πολλὰ γὰ ἡμῖν λείπει ἵνα Θεῖς μὴ λειπόμεθα Præter hoc jam & difcipulus fum, multa enim vobis deficiunt ut Deo non deficiamus. This is fcarcely the Language of Ignatius.

(48.) Yet is this which follows worfe: "Hns ὅξιν αίρεσις" οι και ροὶ παρεμπλέκεσιν Ιησεν Χριςόν, κατ ̓ ἀξίαν τις Νόμινοι ώσσες θανάσιμον φάρμακον διδόντες μετά οινο μέλιΘ, ὅπως ὁ ἀγνοῶν ἡδέως λαμβάνει ἐν ἡδονῇ, κακεῖ τὸ andavev. Quæ eft hærefis, quæ & implicatis impli cat Jefum Christum: quemadmodum mortiferum pharmacum dantes cum vino mellito, quod qui ignorat, delectabiliter accipit, & in delectatione mala mori.

(49.) Soon after this Author coins another new Word, and, instead of Paul's own Word eos in the Larger: Which I by no Means believe Ignatius would do.

(50.) A little after we have this Paffage: 'Arashσαπς ἑαυτὲς ἐν πίσει, ὃς δειν σάρξ τὸ κυρίω καὶ ἐν ἀγάπη, Bar Equa Inor Xes. Recreate vofmet-ipfos in fide, quod est caro Domini; & in Charitate, quod est fanguis Jefu Chrifti. This is like this Author's Language elsewhere; but not like the Language of Ignatius.

(51.) Soon after follows this Sentence: 'E ὥσπερ πνες ἄπεοι ὄντες, τετέςιν ἄπιςοι, λέγεσιν, το διά κεῖν πεπονθέναι ἀυτὸν, αυτοὶ ὄντες τὸ δοκεῖν· ἐγὼ τί δέδεμαι τί η ευχομαι θηριομαχήσαι; δωρεὰν ἐν ἀποθνήσκω ἄρα κα adidas Tomas. Si autem, quemadmodum quidam

;

fine Deo exiftentes, hoc eft infideles) dicunt, fecun dum videri paffum effe, ipfi exiftentes fecundum videris Ego quid vinctus fum? quid autem & oro cum beftiis pugnare? gratis igitur morior: ergo non reprchendor mendacii a Domino. This is a clear and noble Pe riod in the Larger Copy: But here'tis very dif ferent, and fufficiently perplex'd.inh mua vol (53) We have prefently this Paffage: To Sect. 11. ἕνωσιν ἐπαγγελλομβών, ὃς ἔστιν αυτές, Deo unionem repro mittente, quod eft ipfe. This is like the reft of this Abridger's peculiar unintelligible Language; but not like the eafy and natural Language of Ignat tius.

(54.) Afterwards thefe Words follow: 'Ayri Se&t. 13. LETE UMOV TO Bμdy mevua. Caftificate veftrum meum fpiritum. Which I own I do not understand. The Larger Copy has it thus ; Ασπάζει ὑμᾶς τὸ ἐμὸν

ding.

. Which was no doubt the Original Rea

5.) In the Smaller Epistle to the Romans we Ad Rom. have thefe Words: 0 Tori's peos ofiner 9. Ille lu Se&t. 6. crum mibi adjacet. What the Greek can fignify, or how it comes in here, I am utterly at a lofs.

(56.) Soon after in the fame Epiftle we have Se&t. 7. thefe Words: nỳ in priču quoi mûs pinóunov, üdwg 3 „Cân nỳ Áœaîu er imod dowɔév po, dijv. n. T. X. Et non eft in me ignis amans aliquam aquam: fed vivens & loquens est in me, intus me dicit,&c. This is a ftrange Period. See how clear and natural it is in the Larger Copy; in qube, Tug quay m. ὕδωρ ἢ τῶν ἀλλόμνον ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔσωθέν μοι λέγει, κ πολ Which therefore is alone worthy of Ignatius.

Upon the whole: Thefe numerous Internal Arguments feem to me fo plain and evident, and the general Character of the Larger Epiftles, appears fo waftly and indifputably better than that of the Smaller in all refpects; that I cannot but wonder and ftand amaz'd at the Judgment

D

of