ty; perhaps of all other Ancient Books whatfoever. But, (3.) This is the more unreasonable to be fuppos'd here, because the Reverfe is fo eafy and obvious; viz. that the Leffer Epiftles may, for the main, be an Extract from, or Epitome of the Larger: I mean with only fuch Smaller Additi ons, as fuited the Defigns of their Abridger. This Method of Abbreviating or Epitomizing larger Works, is and has been very common in the World, and is very agreeable to the Cir cumftances of this Cafe in particular; where we have no plain Characters of Interpolation in the Larger, but a vaft Number of Characters of Abridgment in the Smaller Epiftles; as will most plainly appear, if we think it worth our while to compare the feveral Copies all the way. But I fhall have Occafion to fpeak more diftinctly to this Matter hereafter. II. I fhall now fhew, that Eufebius's Defcriptis ons of the Epiftles which he faw, do better agree to the Larger, than they do to the Smaller Epiftles: Nay, that one of his Defcriptions entirely agrees with the Larger, and as entirely dif agrees with the Smaller Epiftles. . 36. 107. Eufebius's large and direct Account of these Epiftles, as they were in his Copy, is in thefe words : "0, τε ώρες πλείςοις εἰσέτι νῦν διαβόητος γνάπG, Hit Eccl. † κατ ̓ ἀντιόχειαν πέτρες διαδοχής δώτερΘ * ἐπισκοπὴν κι L.IT. κληρωμΘ. λόγΘ δ' ἔχει τότον ἀπὸ συρίας ἐπὶ τὰ ῥωμαίων C. πόλιν ἀναπεμφθέντα θηρίων γυέως βοράν, ε εἰς Χριστὸν μαρ- Ρ. 1ο6, τυρίας ἕνεκεν. Καὶ δὶ ἢ δ' ασίας ἀνακομιδὴν μετ' όπιμελες της φουρῶν φυλακῆς ποιέμθνΘ, τὰς και πόλιν τις επεδήμει παροικίας ἢ διὰ λόγων ὁμιλίαις * κ} προτροπαῖς ἐπιῤῥωνους, εν περάτοις μάλιςα προφυλάττες τας αιρέσεις ἄρτι τότε πρ τον ἀναφθείσας καὶ ἐπιπολαζέτας παρήνει προτρεπέτε ἀπριξ έχεις αποςόλων παραδόσεως ἣν ὑπὲς ἀσφαλείας καὶ ἐγε B 4 γράφως Contr. L. I. C. 4. γράφως ήδη μαρτυρόμενο διατυπνος ἀναγκαῖον ἡγεῖτο. Here these Epiftles of Ignatius, which Eufebius faw, feem,, in the main, to have been firft preach'd, or deliver'd in the way of Sacred Inftruction perfonally to the Churches; and then, as in a Cafe of fome Neceffity, written down by himfelf; They were principally and fully oppos'd to the Ancient Hereftes, either then newly arifen, or very prevalent in thofe Days: And they were principally fupported from the Traditionary Doctrine of the Apoftles, which condemned those Herefies, and Eftablifhed the contrary Chriftian Truths. Every Part of which Defcription is more agreeable to the Larger Epiftles, than to the Smaller. The Larger alone are like Sermons, Homilies, or Religious Difcourfes: They alone are fuch as contain many Paffages, not then ufually committed to Writing: They alone are moft fully, and by Name oppos'd to the Ancient Herefies and Hereticks: And they alone are directly enforc'd by many and pregnant Paffages out of the Sacred and Traditionary Conftitutions of the Apoftles: No one of these Characters well agreeing to the Smaller Epiftles. So that it hence feems plain to me, that Eufebius's Copy was that of the Larger, and not that of the Smaller Epiftles. And this will be the more evident, if we compare another Occafional Reference to these Epiftles elsewhere, by the fame Eufebius; where he speaks thus against Marcellus: Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ταύτην εἶπε μάρκελ G επινοεῖς νῦν ἄιρεσιν, δε κτέον [ ὡς ] τριών ὠριγες τὸ πάλαι γλυομβύς μέμνη), ὡς ὁμοδοξῶντος τοῖς νωωὶ πρὸς αυτό διαβαλλομένοις. ἐγὼ ἢ καὶ α ειλύες παλαιοτέρων ἀνδρῶν πλείςοις ὅσοις ἐκκλησιαςικοῖς συζ γάμμασι ἐντετύχινα, επισκόπων ἑ κὶ συνόδων ἐπιςυλαῖς δια φόροις πρόπαλαι γραφείσαις, δι ὧν εἷς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ὁ πίςεως χα ρακτής Σποδείκνυ). WhatEpifles of very Ancient Bps. earlier than the Days of Origen; nay, perhaps prior ་ ΤΟ Hift.Eccl. L. III. 36, 37: P to thofe of Synods earlier than the Days of Origen, could Eufebius mean, but thofe of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp in particular? which we know were the Principal Epiftles of that early C. Age that he was acquainted with; and of fuch a Nature as he mainly enquired for, and menti- 106,-110, on'd in his Hiftory. If fo, he plainly intimates to us, that those moft Ancient Epiftles which he faw, were for the Doctrine of Origen and his own, in Oppofition to that of Marcellus and Athanafius; 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 Ancient Fathers and Synods before Origen; a. vaft Number of whofe Writings Eufebius fays he had seen, and does here Appeal to; were on the fide of Origen and his own, against the Followers of Marcellus and Athanafius; and no obfcure Intimation that among the reft the genuine Epistles of Ignatius were fo alfo: And by confequence, we have here a noble Teftimony that the Larger Epiftles of Ignatius, which alone anfwer Eufebius's Character, were alone in Eufebius's Copy. Nay, indeed, I fhall not need to go, here by Probability only, but fhall put this Matter paft doubt, by the exprefs Words of the fame Eufebius elfewhere: Τέτων εἰκότως ἐξ ὀνόματος Hift.Eccl. χαφῆ μόνων ἢ μνήμην κατατεθείμεθα, ὧν ἔτι καὶ ναῦ εἰς L. III. C. ἡμᾶς δι ̓ ὑπομνημάτων ἡ ἀποςλικῆς διδασκαλίας ή πράδο 37, 38. P, τις φέρε), ὥσπερ [ ν ] ἀμέλει τὸ ἰγνατίς ἐν ἅις κατελέ, 109, 110, Eau morais. So that as certainly as the Larger Epiftles, and they alone,contain those very Doarines which Eufebius own'd to be the original Doctrines of Chriftianity; thofe I mean which contradicted Marcellus and Athanafius; which is acknowledged by all; fo certainly do Eufebius's. Accounts and Defcriptions of those Epiftles 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 Ignatius. 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, Jerom, 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 almost all that is Valuable in these 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 worse; that these Epiftles feem afraid of fetting down the Directions for Praatice, 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, confused, 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 ufual and known Language of the first Writers about them; nay, to affect that which came into the Church long after the Days of Ignatius: When, I fay, we obferve thefe 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 himfelf. Efpecially if we come to Particulars, and obferve, (2.) That thefe Smaller Epiftles are not of a due Bulk and Largenefs to be those 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 those that did write plena fapientia volumina, Volumes full of Wisdom, against the Ancient Hereticks; and this upon occafion of a Quotation from them which is now only in our Larger Copies, of which hereafter. These Words, plena fapientiæ volumi na, do much better agree to the Larger than to the Smaller Copies. And then in Three of the present Seven known Epiftles, we meet, in all the Copies great and fmall, with Words implying those 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, Συντόμως παρεκάλεσα ὑμᾶς. Το the Romans, Δὶ ἐλίγων καμμάτων αιθίμαι ὑμᾶς. Το Polycarp, Δὶ ὀλίγων ὑμᾶς γραμμάτων παρε At 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 Mistake, 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 also. Το |