Dialog.

Annum

Pii.

Fame for Herefy; much less at Smyrna and Magnefia in Afia, where alone this Epistle of Ignatius was concern'd with him. Nay, it was in probability still somewhat longer e're his Fame was fpread 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 cum 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 10. Tra to Simon Magus himself, in thefe Words of his jan & 6. concerning Marcellus and his y, Kat duroy ni Antonin. νον ἢ ἀθέων αιρεσιωτῶν ἀρχηγόν, ὃς τὰ ἄθεα δογματίζων Pit ἀπεφαίνετο λέγων, ἦν Θεὸς καὶ σγή. But certainly this DeEcclef Theolog is a moft unfair Conftruction of Eufebius's Words, LII. C.g. to make him fpeak of Marcellus's ory, as deriv'd p. 114,. from a ay of Simon Magus; when neither he, nor any other of the Ancients ever tell us, that Simon Magus had any fuch Doctrine, when the ay of Valentinus (the Arch-heretick of the Second Century, as Simon Magus had been of the First,) was then alone every where fo Famous in the World; and when Acacius of Cæfarea, in Epiphati Epiphanius, directly affures us, that Marcellus Hæref. took his Notion from the Aons of Valentinus. LXXII. Sect. 7and I cannot but wonder, that any Impartial Man fhould explain Eufebius's Words of Simon Magus, and not of Valentinus. This Valentinus indeed took feveral particular Hints and Notions from the ancienter Hereticks; but that he took this ry, this Original Goddefs Silence, from any of them, does no way appear: Nay, the earliest and moft Authentick Account in Irenæus rather implies the contrary; that, himfelf brought this Matter into Form, and did himself frame his 30 B

Æons z

P. 839

Aons; one of the Original Pair of which was Iren. L. I. this ηγή, ὁ μέρος των προςτος ἀπὸ ε λεγομβύης γνωςικῆς αιρε

C. 5.

P. 49.

५

σεὼς τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείς μεθαρμότας, ὅπως ξηροφόρησεν. And that the Author of there Epistles of Ignatius, does here and elsewhere allude to the ay 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 Answers which fuppofe the contrary, will deferve to be esteem'd as of no Value at all. So that this Argument is decretory, and unanfwerable; and is it felf, fufficient to destroy 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 PerAdsmyra fons efteem'd by this Author as Hereticks: 'EuSect. 7. χαρισίας και προσευχῆς ἀπέχονθ, διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν ἢ ἐν χαρισίαν σάρκα της σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησί Kesi, ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθῶς, ἣν τῇ χρησότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν, Ab Euchariftia & Oratione recedunt, propter non confteri Euchariftiam Carnem effe Salvatoris noftri Jefu Chrifti, pro peccatis noftris palsam, quam benignitate Pater refufcitavit. Thefe Hereticks, it feems, whofoever they were, Abfented themselves from the Christian 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 afSee Hift. of ter his Days it muft be. Perhaps fome of the Montanifts in the Third and Fourth Centuries, Artic. 13. might pretend to a kind of Tranfubftantiation P. 163.

Monta

nifm.

in

in the Eucharift, and thereupon condemn the Catholicks, who would not communicate with them. But I shall not spend any time in this Enquiry, nor write a large Comment on a Text, which perhaps is of too little Authority to deferve it. I fuppofe it will eafily be granted, that the Fourth Century was nearer the first Preludes to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which thefe Words feem to hint at, than the Beginning of the Second; and that therefore the Fourth is the more proper Age for our Enquiries concerning thefe Hereticks before us than either the Firft or Second, Yet was it proper to fet down this Paffage here, to put Men upon the farther Enquiry after thefe hitherto unknown Hereticks; that fo, if they can be any where found, fome more Light may thereby be afforded to the Origin and Author of thefe Epiftles before us.

(7.) Thefe Smaller Epiftles cannot belong to Ignatius, because of thofe many later Expreffions, abfurd Reasonings, diforderly Periods, and that perplexed way of Writing, which is quite difagreeable to his own Stile, Character, and Time; and to the Stile, Language, and Genius of the Apoftles, and of the other Apoftolical Men in thofe early Ages. For notwithstanding the prefent Difpute about the Genuine Writings of Iguatius, we have two fure ways of judging, by the Stile and Contents of the feveral Copies, whether they belong really to this Father, or no The one is from the Stile, Language, and Genius of his Contemporaries and Fellow Bishops, fuch as Clement and Polycarp; with thofe of all the Sacred Books of our Religion befide; whence the first Christians fram'd their Notions and Expreffions about Sacred Things. The o ther is from fuch Parts as are common both to C 2 the

1

1

AdSmyrn
Sect. 1.

the Larger and Smaller Editions, especially the Epiftles to the Romans, and to Polycarp, which, as we fhall note hereafter, are almoft the fame in both, and fo afford us a true Tafte of his Stile and Language, and help us to a plain Method of Examination, whether the Parts peculiar to the Larger, or thofe peculiar to the Smalder Copies, do beft agree to the Stile and Genius of Ignatius. To which Tryals I do now appeal, and am willing to be determin'd by them in the present Argument: And do not fear to affirm, that, if these be allow'd fair Rules of Arbitration, the Smaller Epiftles must be certainly condemn'd, and the Larger alone must be own'd for Genuine. This I fhall prove by a large Induction of particular Examples or Paffages, taken out of thofe Parts of the Smaller Epiftles, which are peculiar to the fame; and fhall be fc fair as neither to infift on all that might be produc'd, for then I must have fer down almost every Expreffion that is peculiar to them; they being generally of a piece, awkward, confufed, and abfurd: Nor to fet down any Paffages from the Medicean Copy alone, where the Old Verfion of the fame gives any room for Excufe and Apology, as if they were not in the Greek Copy which that Translator made ufe of. Which Equity I am alfo willing to allow in this Cafe; fince 'tis plain that the Medicean Copy it felf is the worst in the World, and has great need of all the Advantages poffible.

(1.) In the Epiftle to Smyrna, we have this Expreffion in the Larger Copy concerning Chrift crucify'd, 'A' nus : Which is very clear Šenfe. But in the Smaller 'tis 'A' agri nueïs a cujus fructu nos: The Meaning of which Words are to me somewhat obfcure.

(z.) Soon

(2.) Soon after we have thefe Words in the Sect. 2: Smaller concerning the δοκηταΐ Και καθώς φρονώσιν καὶ συμβήσε) αυτοῖς, ἔσιν ἀσωμάτοις και δαιμονικοῖς. Ε quemadmodum fapiunt & accidet ipfis, exiftentibus int corporeis & damoniacis. Which I own I do not understand; unless they imply that these Hereticks, when once unbodied, fhould never rife again in their Bodies; contrary to the undoubted Chriftian Doctrine in that Matter.

(3.) Presently after follow thefe Words, Mndes πλανάθω καὶ τὰ ἐπερόνια, καὶ ἡ δόξα ἢ ἀγγέλων, καὶ δι ἄρχον τες,ἱρατοὶ καὶ ἀδρατοι ἐὰν με τις δωρου [ τις εσωσιν] εἰς τὸ αιμα Χeις κακείνοις κείσις ὅξιν, ὁ χωρῶν χωρείτω τόπος μηδένα queiro. Nullus erret: & fupercæleftia, & gloria angelorum, & principes vifibiles & invifibiles fi non credant in fanguinem Chrifti & illis judicium eft. Qui capit capiat; qualiter nullus infletur. Whether this Doctrine explain'd in this Manner be true, will it felf admit of great Difpute. However, I obferve the Coherence is here very poor, in Comparison of that in the Larger Copy; and that the Words run here, as if the invifible World were principally concern'd in the Death of Chrift: And yet the Conclufion is wholly turn'd to this visible World. So that the Larger Copy does certainly reafon beft, as its Doctrine is certainly true: Whereas the Reafoning of the Smaller is very obfcure; and its Doctrine not a little queftionable alfo.

Se&t. 6.

(4.) A little lower we have this Paffage, concerning probably thofe Hereticks which this Author fays abfented from the Christian Affemblies already mention d; Συνέφερεν * αὐτοῖς ἀγαπᾶν, Sea. 7. bany avaswar. Conferens autem effet ipfis diligere, ut refurgant. The Meaning of which Words I do not well understand, unless they intimate the fame Opinion which feems to be fuppos'd above, viz. That thefe Hereticks were to expect no Refur