μα αυτόν. (26.) A little lower we have these Words, Aa- Se&t. 17. βόντες Θεῖ γνῶσιν, ὅ ὅξιν Ιησές Χριςός. Accipientes Dei cognitionem, qui eft Jefus Chriftus. Which would appear a strange Expreffion, but that we have fo many of a like Nature in the fame Author. (27.) Who presently has this Phrafe: seinua Seat. 18. To qμor EvμA TO saug. Peripfima meus fpiritus crucis. The Tranflator did not, it feems, underftand these Words: Nor fhall I pretend to any greater Penetration in this Matter. (28.) Presently after we have this Reasoning: ὡς ἐγνήθη, καὶ ἐβαπλίπη, ἵνα τῇ πάθει τὸ ὕδωρ καθαείση. Ibid. Qui natus eft, & baptizatus eft, ut paffione Aquam purificaret. Theodorit quotes this Paffage otherwife: "Iva To Dentov nμev radandy. Yet do I pre- Dialog. L fer the Larger Copy here, as taken from the A-› P. 34. poftolical Conftitutions; Ἵνα τιςοποιήσηται ἢ διάταξιν ἢ ἐγχει ειπείν τω προφήτη. Se&t. 20. (29.) The next is the ftrangest Infertion of all:" Ἐάν με καταξιώση Ἰησᾶς Χeιςὶς ἐν τῇ προσάχῃ ὑμῶν, καὶ θέλημα ᾖ, ἐν τῷ δ' ετέρῳ βιβλιδίῳ, ὃ μέλλω γράφειν ὑμῖν, προσδηλώσω ὑμῖν ἧς ἀρξάμίω οικονομίας εἰς ἃ καινὸν ἄν θρωπον Ιησεν Χριςόν. κ. τ. λ. Si me dignificet Jefus Chriftus in oratione veftra,& voluntas fit, in fecundo libello quem fcripturus fum vobis, manifeftabo vobis quam inceperam difpenfationem in novum hominem Fe fum Chriftum. To fay nothing of this Authors ftiling Jefus Chrift the New Man; which it felf is a little ftrange: How can we believe that the true Ignatius, who was at the Mercy of his Band of Soldiers; and who therefore defir'd Polycarp Ad Polyto write to the reft of the Churches, because he carp. was not able to write to them all himself, fhould here, Sect. 8. as it were, promise the Ephefians, to whom he now nef. Sea. 3. now wrote the longest of all his Epiftles, a Se cond Epiftle, or Little Book. I rather fuppofe, that this counterfeit Ignatius intended to make way by this forged Claufe for fome other Heretical Book, to pafs under the fame Name of Ignatius: Efpecially when the Larger Copy has not a Syllable relating to any fuch Matter here or elsewhere. If the didaria 'lyvais, mentioned in later Ages, were a Book diftinct from his Epiftles, Genuine or Spurious, 'tis not impoffible but it might be that very little Book here hinted at by this Interpolator. But it being entirely loft to us, we can determine nothing in this Cafe. * (30.) In the Smaller Epiftle to the Magnesians Ad Mag. we have the Phrafes, y gäng Tŷ üdinių to monoT: Non couti ætate Epifcopi. Andangos φαινομβύην νεωτερικὴν τάξιν Non aumentes juniorem or dinem: For not defpifing the Bishop on Account of his Youth. These Phrafes I do not understand the Propriety of; especially in Comparifon of the proper Word in the Larger, ragever, which, as Bishop Pearfon here observes, is Paul's Tim.iv. own Word upon the like Occafion: And fo I fhould think most likely to be us'd by Paul's own Bifhop, Ignatius. 12. Ibid. Se&t. 9. (31.) Soon after we find God the Father stil'd the Univerfal Bishop: Tervonory. OmniAd Rom. um Epifcopo. Accordingly in the Smaller Epiftle to the Romans, we have the like Phrafe: *, fpeaking of the Church of Antioch, arr' qux whi's mad Oca 28. Que pro me Paftore Deo utitur. Yet do I not remember, that any other but Chrift, is ftil'd the Shepherd of the Church in all the Records of Primitive Chriftianity. As he is alfo by the Larger Copy in this later Place: and the Phrase excellently confirm'd by a Quotation out of the New Teftament: "Has dir que ποιμών ποιηθούν χρήν τῷ κυρίῳ, την εἰπόντι, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμίω ὁ λos. 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, Mór du τὴν Ἰησῆς Χρισὸς 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 prefent Cafe. (32.) We have next this Period: To mais ou e̟ve å λóz☺. Tale autem non ad carnem fermo. Which is a way of speaking Ignatius could not easily 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: 'Eve Ev τέλα τα πράγματα ἔχει, καὶ ἐπίκει9 τα δύο ὑμῖν, ὅ, τε θαυ καλΘ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ, καὶ ἕναςΘ εἰς ἢ ἴδιον τόπον μέλλει χωρεῖν. ὥσπερ γάρ όξιν νομίσματα δύο, κ. τ. λ. Quia igitur f nem res babent,& proponuntur duo fimul, mors & vis ta, & unufquifq; in proprium locum iturus eft. Quemadmodum enim funt numifmata duo, &c. Wherein neither the re, nor the is the quia, nor the quemadmodum, have any following Words to answer them at all. Sure Ignatius never wrote fo abfurály. (34) Soon after we have this Phrafe: 'A' Sect. 6. ἠνώθητε τῷ ἐπισκόπω, καὶ τοῖς προκαθημβροις, εἰς τύπον κ Nidagar apagdus. Sed uniamini epifcopo, & presi dentibus, in typum & doctrinam incorruption. I believe Ignatius fcarce wrote thus, (35) This that follows is worfe: Made wegs Sect. 7. ευλογόν τι φαίνεθς ἰδία ὑμῖν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τὸ αυτό. κ. τ. λ. Neq; tentetis rationabile aliquid apparere proprie vobis, fed Sect. 8. fed id ipfum, &c. This is not fo clear a Stile as that of Ignatius. (36.) We have again presently a new-coin'd Greek Word, μuld, in the Smaller Copy; to Tit. I. 14 the Exclufion of Paul's own Word, Sors, in the Larger. Which is no mighty Sign that the Smaller was really written by Ignatius. & alibi. Sect. 10. Ibid. (37) This Author's Word dvou, tho' no ill one, is yet probably but the Contraction of , which is in the Larger Copy. (28.) Prefently we have this Sentence: di ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα μὴ διαφθαρῇ τις ἐν ὑμῖν· ἐπεὶ ἀπὸ ἡ ὁρμῆς node. Salvificemini [falificemini] in ipfo: ut non corrumpatur aliquis in vobis: qui ab odore redarguemini. This feems more remotely Metaphorical, than we any where else find in Ignati us. (39.) It follows foon after; 'Es to ¿1⁄2iwñvou Sed.14. ἐν συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίαν διὰ ἡ ἐκκλησίας ὑμῶν δροσιπῆναι. Se&t. 15. Ad Phila. delph. Se&t. I. dignificari eam quæ in Syria Ecclefiam per ecclefiam veftram irrorari. This Metaphor is not to me fo likely to be written byIgnatius,as what the Larger Copy here affords us, διά τ' ευταξίας ὑμῶν ποιμανθῆναι. (40.) This Epiftle to the Magnesians concludes thus ; ἔῤῥωπε ἐν ὁμονοια Θεῖ, κεκτημβροι διάκριτον [αδιάκριτον ] πνεῦμα, ὅς όξιν Ιησές Χests. Valete in concordia Dei, poffidentes infeparabilem fpiritum, qui eft Jefus Chriftus. This Language is hardly that of Ignatius. (41.) The Smaller Epiftle to the Philadelphians begins thus ; Ὃν ἐπίσκοπον ἔγνων, κ. τ. 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; θεασάμιν Θ ὑμῶν ἢ ἐπίσκοπον, ἔγνων ὅπ, 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, aúxo1 ¿§ió71501, Lupi fide digni. An Epithet that Ignatius would fcarce have beftow'd upon them. The Words of the Larger, , is vaftly more agreeable. (43) It foon follows, na pir manonov Sect. 32.2 ἕυρον, ἀλλ ̓ ἀποδιυλισμάρον. Non quoniam apud vos partitionem inveni, fed abftractionem. This is fufficiently unintelligible to the Criticks themselves. (44) Then comes a Famous Paffage: Karol Set 9.. ὃν ἱερεῖς κρείασον ἢ ὁ ἀρχιερούς, ὁ πεπιςάμΘ τὰ ἅγια ἁγίων, ὃς μόνΘ πεπίςα) τὰ κρυλλὰ τὸ Θεῖ. αυτὸς ὢν sies Tomasis. n. T. λ. Boni & Sacerdotes: Melius autem Princeps Sacerdotum, cui credita funt fanita 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 Orthodoxy alfo. Where the Word ass is made to fignify, at the fame time, the Bishop and our Saviour; without any thing in the Coherence to justify fuch an Abfurdity: And where a moft eminent Paffage is omitted, that did not agree with the Abridger's Notions, tho' it is moft unqueftionably confonant to the Original Doctrine and Language of Christianity. (45.) In the Epiftle to the Trallians we have Ad Trall. a ftrange Context: "Or Aayilova xỳ to ddess in Sect. 3. πες, ἀγαπῶντας ὡς ἐς φείδομαι ἑαυτὸν πότερον δυνάμμα χάφειν νὰρ τότε, εἰς τότο ωήθην, ἵνα ὡς [ὢν ] κατάκρι 10, ὡς από λθ διατάσομαι. Suem exiftimo & im pios revereri, diligentes quod non parco ipfum aliqualem potens fcribere pro illo, in boc 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 |