ler Epiftle to Philadelphia is certainly Spurious, and the Larger alone Genuine.

VIII. I fhall confider the Nature of the Smal ler Epiftles; fhall fhew, that they are Extracts or Abridgments of the Larger; that they are Orthodox Extracts, or made for the Ufes of Orthodoxy, after the fatal Alteration of the Faith was begun in the Fourth Century; and fhall enquire more exactly at what time, and by whom they were made.

IX. I fhall give my Reasons more diftinctly, why I efteem the Three Epiftles to Tarfus, to Antioch, and to Hero, to be Genuine alfo, as well as the other Seven.

I. I fhall offer fome General Arguments to prove,. that 'tis highly improbable that the Smaller.Epiftles fhould be the Genuine ones; which Arguments will alfo infer the great Probability that the Larger are fo. For,

(1.) The Larger Epiftles were generally own'd for the True ones, by those who believ'd any of his Epiftles to be fuch, till the Middle of the very laft Age; both the Greek and Latin MSS. generally containing no other; and no other being commonly known, or heard of, at the time when fuch old Books were first printed, but thofe. Nay, what is very remarkable, all those Three MSS. which had the Smaller, as to Six or Seven, had yet all the rest of these according to the Larger or Vulgar Copies: [For the Want of the End of the Epiftle to Tarfus, and the Want of the entire Epiftles to Antioch, and to Hero in the Medicean Copy, feems rather owing to the present known Deficiency of feveral Leaves at the End of it, than to any Original Defect;] there appearing indeed no other Edition of thofe Additional ones ever in the Church, than the Vulgar or Large one. So`

that

that thefe Larger Epiftles have plainly this Advantage from general Confent, till very lately, as well as from the greater Number of the MSS. both Greek and Latin; as indeed they still have in this last Respect even at this very Day. Only we muft note, that none of thofe Three MSS. contained the Epiftle to the Philippians; which feems to be Ancient, but has few or no Internal Characters, little or no External Evidence to fupport its Pretences to be really Genuine: Nay indeed, whofe very different Stile, and Genius, and Difagreement with Chronology, plainly betray its Spurious Original. Which is also still more notorious in thofe Two others from and to Maria Caffobolita. Now I defire to know, how thefe Facts could poffibly be fo, in Cafe thefe Larger Epiftles were only Spurious and Interpolated? Would the zealous Athanafians, during whose Management and Authority all our MSS. were written, encourage forg'd or corrupted Epiftles, fo very favourable to the Arians? and difcourage those which they knew to be the Genuine ones,fo much more favourable to themfelves? Would they ftill join Interpolated and Heretical Epiftles with the Genuine and Orthodox ones, had they had ground to believe that to have been the Truth of the Cafe? I cannot easily believe this.

(2.) The Nature of thefe Larger Epiftles is fuch, as will not admit of the Suppofition, that they are only the Smaller Interpolated. Several Infertions and Interpolations have been on Purpofe made in old Books, either from the Margin into the Text, for Illuftration and Explication; or from the Orthodox Opinions of the Corrupters or Tranfcribers, for Caution, or the like. But then those Infertions and Interpolations, efpecially till very late Ages, were ge B 3 nerally

1

nerally Small, and inconfiderable, in Comparifon of the entire Contents of thofe Books whereinto they were inferted: Nay, and even they are frequently fo little of a Piece or Coherence with, if not contrary to the Original Text it felf, as to be readily distinguish'd from the fame by Critical Readers. Which indeed

is very much the Cafe in thofe miferable Infer-
tions of this Nature in the Smaller Epiftles,
which are wanting in the Larger.] Whereas
this is not at all the Cafe in the prefent Larger
Epiftles. They are fometimes more than twice
as Large as the Smaller. The fuppos'd Additio-
nal Paffages are entire, and of a Piece one with
another, and with the Context. They are in-
deed the very Marrow, and nobleft Parts of the
fame; and commonly the moft undoubtedly O-
riginal Language of Chriftianity, and the moft
peculiarly fuitable to Ignatius of all the Cohe-
rence: Nay, are cited, alluded, and referr'd to
by all, but a few Athanafians, in all the firft Ages;
as will hereafter appear. And truly, I think there
is no Parallel Inftance of fuch a thing in all the
firft Times of the Church; that fuch Writings
as the Smaller Epiftles are have been fill'd up
in fuch a Manner as to become like the Larger:
Unless we except that equally ungrounded Fan-

cy
of one Learned Man, who fhall be nameless,
as to the Conftitutions of the Apostles themselves,
from which thefe Larger Epifles are in great
Measure deriv'd. When once fo ftrange an Hy-
pothefis can be fully prov'd of the One of these
Books, it will be time enough to think of vin-
dicating the Other. But till that is done, a wife
Man will be unwilling to believe, that Clement's
Conftitutions, and Ignatius's Epiftles, or either of
them, have had a quite different Fate from that
of all other Books of the firft Ages of Chriftiani-

ty;

ty; perhaps of all other Ancient Books whatfo ever. But,

T

(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 Circumftances of this Cafe lin 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 moft plainly appear, if we think it worth our while to compare the feveral Copies all the way. But I fhall have Occasion to speak more diftinctly co this Matter hereafter.nd ban

R

II. I fhall now fhew, that Eufebius's Defcripti 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 difagrees with the Smaller Epiftles.

Eufebius's large and direct Account of thefe Epiftles, as they were in his Cop, is in thefe

words : "Ο, τε ώραὶ πλείςοις εἰσέτι νῦν διαβόητος ἰγνάτιο, Hift.Eccl. ε κατ ̓ ἀντιόχειαν πέτρες διαδοχής δεύτερο ἢ ἐπισκοπων και L.IT. πληρωμή Θ. λόγΘ δ ̓ ἔχει τὸτον ἀπὸ συρίας ἐπὶ τὰ ρωμαίων C. 36. πόλιν ἀναπεμφθέντα θηρίων λυές βορον, δ εἰς Χριστὸν παρ. Ρ. 106, τυρίας ἕνεκεν. Καὶ δὴ ἢ δι ασία, ἀνακομιδὴν μετ' όπιμελες. 107. της φρερῶν φυλακῆς ποιέμμΘ, τὰς καὶ πόλιν ἅις ἐπιδήμει παροικίας ἢ διὰ λόγων ὁμιλίαις εκ προτροπαῖς ἐπιῤῥωννυς, ἐν πρώτοις μάλιςα προφυλάττες της αιρέσεις ἄρτι τότε προ τὸν ἀναφθείσας καὶ ἐπιπολαζέσας παρήνει προτρεπέπε ἀπρὶξ ἔχεις αποςόλων παραδόσεως ἣν ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας καὶ ἐγε γράφως

B 4

Contr. Marcell. L. I. C. 4. Ρ. 19, 20.

γράφως ήδη μαρτυρόμιμα διατυπως 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 himself: They were principally and fully oppos'd to the Ancient Herefies, 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 Established 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 Apostles: 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 compare another Occafional Reference to thefe Epiftlés elsewhere, by the fame Eufebius; where he speaks thus against Marcellus: Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ταύτην εἶπε μάρκελλG- επινοεῖς νῦν ἄιρεσιν, δει κτέον [ ώς ] προϊων ὠριγες τὸ πάλαι θρομβος μέμνη), ὡς ὁμοδοξώντος τοῖς νωμὶ πρὸς αυτό διαβαλλομένοις. ἐγὼ ἢ καὶ ετ ειλύες παλαιοτέρων ἀνδρῶν πλείςοις ὅσοις ἐκκλησιαςικοῖς συζ γάμμασι ἐντετύχηκα, επισκόπων † καὶ συνόδων ἐπιςολαῖς δια φόρους πρόπαλαι γραφείσαις, δὲ ὧν εἷς καὶ αυτὸς ὁ δὲ πίςεως χα exening Stad Ginvv). WhatEpiftles of very Ancient Bps. earlier than the Days of Origen; nay, perhaps prior

to